Who is providing arms to Gaddafi.. er Kadhafi.. em Qaddafi..(whatever it is)..!!??

Who is providing arms to Libya's Gaddafi.

Here we will not discuss whether Gaddafi is right or wrong... correct or incorrect. already there is huge confusion about the right spell to his name...(pun intended)

We know that NATO and other western countries have been providing support to rebels in Libya (military and non-military).

The rebellion is on since February 15, 2011 with peaceful protests and then culminating into full fledged armed rebellion.

Libya - A small african country with population of around 6.4 Million, GDP of around $74 Billion with Per Capita Income of around $11k.

Libya has armed forces comprising of Libyan Army, Air Force and Libyan Navy.

The total armed forces are around 76,000. Around 50,000 Army, 22,000 Air Force and 8,000 Navy. Considering this, it seems the effective fighting personnel is not more than 70-75 thousand. lets not consider role of navy in the current conflict.

The wikipedia mentions that Libya had around 2000 tanks, 1200 armoured vehicles, 450 SP artillery pieces, 650 towed artillery pieces and 830 multiple rocket launchers. 500 mortars and 450 missiles.

Airforce consists of 450 combat aircrafts (which has been rendered almost useless by Coalition strikes) and 1650 Surface to air missiles. Most of the weaponry is quite old and questionable about its ability to be used in war.

The armed conflict has left air force decapitated that means around 20,000 forces are out. what remains is army of around 50,000 personnel. 2,000 tanks means atleast 5,000 forces used there. which means on ground fighting force is about 45,ooo. In this conflict Gaddafi has lost 2,000 personnel (including death, capture and defections).

Many of the tanks have been destroyed, multi rocket launchers destroyed. hundreds of armoured vehicles destroyed.

On February 26, UN security council imposed an arms embargo on Libya, travel bans and assets freeze on Gaddafi regime. UN on March 17, 2011 passed resolution for no-fly zone over libya to be implemented by France and UK. NATO started intervening militarily around end of March 2011.

Despite all this, War seems to be far from over. Gaddafi forces seem to be gaining ground. At one place rebels gain ground at another place, its the pro-Gaddafi forces gaining ground.

The moot question here is DOES GADDAFI HAVE THE RESOURCES TO ENGAGE CONFLICT FOR SO LONG?

where does this capacity come from? for this we have to look little backwards.

1) US had planned arms sale worth of $ 77 Million in 2010.

2) European nations had arms sale worth of $ 470 Million in 2009 alone.

3) In February 2010, Russia had entered into arms deal with Libya for Euro 1.3 Billion ($ 1.8 Billion).

4) The article here quotes various deals that libya was seeking. It also clearly mentions that in the event of civil war being dragged, do not surprised that these old deals will be revived and ways found to circumvent the arms embargo.

One of the NATO commander had clearly mentioned that they would not be targeting Gaddafi directly but would target the other related areas and personnel.

Does this means that these countries want the conflict to drag on so that their own agendas are fulfilled? Considering that libya having such a small force and conflict continuing for more than 4 months now, have these embargoes already breached? Can somebody confirm that?

India had a limited conflict with Pakistan in 1999 when pakistan intruded into Indian territory at kargil. The war that India waged did cost INR 15 Crore per day (i.e. around $ 4 million Per Day). The total cost of that war was INR 3,500 crores (i.e. around $ 800 Million). during that period around 500 soldiers dead and around 1300 wounded.

Considering these facts, does Gaddafi have the capability to engage a four month war across the country? or put otherwise, from where does the Gaddafi get the resources to continue this war?

New Start in Indian diplomacy

Last week India strongly criticized Canada regarding the behavior towards not granting Visa to personnel of Indian defence establishment. The Indian rebuke was strongly worded and called for apology and appropriate rectifying measures from the canadian end.

In rare display of anger by India, this has revealed the stronger side. Such reactions are called for frequently to assert the say of Indian in international interactions.

Indian Foreign Affairs Minister S M Krishna termed the denial of visa to Indian security men as "unacceptable". Further the minister did not rule out the retaliatory action by India. Canadians were expected to address the situation immediately.

Canada, fearing a major diplomatic fall out, said it regretted its immigration official's remarks. IT further has said that its policy for entry of foreigners is under review after series of such incidents.

The Indian gain is that it is now able to assert its views and force countries change their stance. Though it does not appear to be major victory or step, but definitely a step in the right direction of being able to make itself visible and make other take notice of the voices made by us.

India will gain major achievement in asserting itself, when it is able to rough talk with behemoths like UK and China and make them notice India.

Long has been UK changing its immigration policies towards Indians and china resorting to acceptance of stapled Visas.
Nevertheless, this step is in right direction...

Biggest international heist in Financial History

Consider This


## Sometime back ##




(a) US denies Dubai Port company to takeover Us Ports company citing security reasons.

(b) Similar voices are heard against chinese companies too (though no official comment on the same)




# Still Sometime Back #

(a) sub prime crisis surfaces.

(b) Lot of financial institutions on shaky ground

(c) Spate of write off follow

(d) Bear stearn crisis, bail out done..

(e) US financial institutions need huge capital to bolster balance sheets.

(f) Fed action follows, credit & liquidity infused. lot of US financial institutions take capital infusion from chinese, Japanese & gulf (basically dubai based) companies.

(though could not verify which gulf company has invested in US Financial institution)

(g) Dollar depreciates, oil rises, world crisis looming.




*** Now ***




(a) US institutions crash

(b) Freddie & Fannie (biggest home mortgage companies) bailed out...

(c) Lehman follows same path.. US refuses bail out

(d) same fate announced for meryll & AIG but bail out package made.

(e) Oil prices decreasing despite hurricanes & Opec announcing reduction in production

(f) Dollar continues to strengthen against currencies

(g) One analyst finds out that biggest unsecured creditors of lehman brothers are Asian institutions!!!!!! (read this article in "from all street journal" in financial daily "mint")



Why?



What is the best way rob anybody?



Borrow---> Spend---> declare bankruptcy----> lender is finished.



Who is better off?



The person on whom the money is spent.

The person who borrows has nothing to lose as he is where he was earlier



Lender is punished...



Did same thing not happen with US markets? Did US government pull out biggest heist in financial history? Who lost most money in this turmoil? borrowers from those insitutions (i.e. US public who may not pay now to the lehman bros) or the ones who had faith in these institutions and lent them huge monies( Asian & other financial institutions)?



Why is dollar appreciating in such situation?

Indo US Deal Loses its Sheen

The day the Nuclear Suppliers Group(NSG) granted unique waiver to India to trade in Nuclear related technology & fuel irrespective of its signing of NPT & CTBT, India has made its way to nuclear group through backdoor. India can be termed as only country which is recognised as nuclear weapon state, allowed to trade in nuclear material without signing NPT & CTBT. So technically India while can have all privileges of nuclear weapon state but is not bound by any law as other states are.

There is one more implication of the NSG waiver granted to India. India now does not NEED Indo-US civilian nuclear deal. The main objective of India entering into deal with India was

• Able to trade in nuclear material so that we can import uranium for our power plants and the same time divert own uranium for weapons program. ( I had discussed this earlier also)
• Able to import dual use technology for our own purpose military & civilian prupose.
• Our Military nuclear programme should be legitmised.
• Our chances of getting Permanent membership of security council is increased.

To get that we required two things to happen

1. Recognition of separate programme for civilian & military nuclear programme (approval from IAEA was required for it)
2. Trading in nuclear related material (NSG waiver did that for us)

Now once that is done, the question is does India need Indo-US deal. The answer to that is not so simple but we can live without it also. It was possible to live without all these steps also but after these steps the need of the deal is diminished though not demolished.

We shoulod realise that post NSG waiver, we can trade in nuclear related material with any country so now we are not dependent on US for nuclear supplies. The objective of US in this deal was multipronged:

1. It convinced its own public that they are doing this for non-proliferation.
2. A counter balance to China in Asia.
3. Creating business & jobs in their non-existent nuclear supplies companies in US.

Russia & France are ready to enter into such deal with India at any moment. We can even use our demand potential and NSG waiver as bargaining chip while entering into deals with lesser know countries for perpetual supply of nuke material. these would include counties like poland, angola.

But there lies some risks in not operationalising 123 deal viz.

1. US can exert pressure on smaller countries to not trade with India.
2. India's entry into exclusive security council will be in-ordinately delayed.
3. We can expect US to exert influence on all activities with India.
4. If it can extract waiver from NSG, then it can possibly get it reversed also.

In this situation what is the path that India should undertake.

If India enters into deal with US, the Hyde Act can create problems for us in the later years to come. As we tie up for fuel supplies with US, they can then easily exert influence us on any policy matter as our energy would be dependent on their supplies.

India is in such a situation where it does not need 123 deal but at the same time cannot deny to enter into deal.

The course of action should be as follows:

1. As elections are round the corner, delay the ratification of 123 deal. Let that ratification get spilled over to next coming government.
2. Advance talks with other countries for similar deals (maxim - "Do not put all your eggs in one basket")
3. After ratification, delay making policies for private participation in nuclear sector.
4. Allow immediately imports of dual use technology. (irrespective of any situation , the technology once acquired cannot be taken back, we can always copy it and make claims of being indigenous)
5. Allow dual use tech in renewable energy resources & other high tech areas. ( we should use that to develop technology to do nuclear testing simulations, so that we do not need to test other weapon ever again).

These are some of the steps that India can take.

Now it is upto our leadership to decide the path to undertake.

Crude Consumption.... An Mass Media Mis-Propaganda

Everytime, there is rise in the price of the crude oil, all the media rants about the increasing consumption of Oil by developing nations like India and China and their huge apetite for the hydrocarbons. The responsibility of price rise without any justification is put squarely on these countries without providing any facts or figures supporting for it.

First of all, we need to understand that while comparing between any two entities the parameters need to be selected very carefully. It is rightly said, "Statistics are like mini-skirts, which reveal too much while covering vital things" The parameters of statistics are of utmost importance. As when defining whether a country is developed, developing, under-developed or undeveloped, the criteria used is either PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) per capita GDP or even plain vanilla PCI(Per Capita Income) in a single currency, to get an proper comparative idea, the same technique needs to be used while determining the consumption of crude oil by various states.

The basic argument used by all media is that more than 30% of the increased consumption of oil is cornered by the countries like china and India. But is that info pr0per to confer that the consumption of these countries is very high? Is increase in consumption the only parameter to judge it? Absolutely not... The absolute consumption of the oil is also important as compared to the increased consumption. Then there is a question, the total till date consumption of oil by all the countries? These developed countries have been guzzling oil at an alarming rate for past few decades. Had they not consumed at such an alarming rate, we would not have faced crisis situation today. countries like US would always like to point a finger which is not directed towards them. Who is going question them?

What is the consumption of these so called oil guzzlers? How much oil do developing countries consume as compared to other western countries and US?Now to understand better lets look at some figures:

1. US was consuming 20.5 million barrels of oil per day in 2006. While India was consuming 2.5 million barrels of oil and China was consuming 7.2 million barrels per day.
2. The US consumption is more than 8 times of India. That means 1% increase in oil consumption is equivalent to 8.5% increase in consumption of India.
3. India's total consumption of oil is equal to US's 1 1/2 months oil consumption.
4. India's population is more than One Crore (i.e. one Billion) while US population barely exceeds 300 million that means India has three times more population to support than US while consumption is one-eigth.
5. If we convert those consumption figures to per capita, then we could say that India's per capita consumption is 4% as compared to that of US.
6. The Per Capita consumption of energy by US is 68.81 barrels per person per year while India's consumption is 2.18 barrels per person per year. that is more than 33 times!!!!!

Where are these facts when Fatih Birol, chief economist of the International Energy Agency talks bull shit whilst saying that "The rapidly growing appetite for fossil fuels in China and India is likely to help keep oil prices high for the foreseeable future - threatening a global economic slowdown,"

Have they ever gone through these figures? Do they know how much is one barrel of oil?

One barrel of oil is equivalent to around 160 litres. that means a US citizen consumes about 11,000 litres of oil and oil equivalent per day!!!??????? Consider the mind boggling figures when I say 300 million population of US means 3264,000,000 litres per day i.e. about 3.2 billion litres per day. That is 1,191,360 million litres per year !!!!!!

These figures are completely mind boggling. I personally feel that there is huge mass media mis-prpoganda being done about the oil consumption by countries like India. Completely irrelevant data (no false) is being fed to general public and then completely baseless inference is being drawn.

In this world where in a democracy, Media is considered to be fourth pillar of democracy, I feel the Indian media should vociferously try to present a correct picture to the Indians and the world. Mass Media was used as a weapon even in the days of second world war and later in the Cold War Era...

I warn all of you to not fall victims to this propoganda. Try to question the data and analyse it before drawing any conclusion from it. Even Indian leadership should take effort to present correct picture all the citizens. Complete facts should be presented and then the person should be allowed to draw the conclusion. Do not accept the conclusion drawn by others. (especially western media)

Though concerned about the Global climate change, the developed countries like US have outrightly refused to decrease the emission of GHGs (Green House Gases). They rant about developing countries food consumption has led to increase in food prices. Do they know how much they consume or how much food they waste? (that would be another post to discuss about)

Our Foreign Policy should include mass media propoganda as to increase awarness about the issues and mis-conception. They should take help of this powerful force which could help to change the opinion of the general public and allow to take the right decisions.

Defence Expo 2008.. Spawing MilBus in India...

The ongoing Fifth International Land & Naval Exhibition system, DEFEXPO 2008 at Pragati Maidan, New Delhi has generated lot of heat & flutter among the aspirant buyers & dealers of arms & armaments.

475 defence manufacturers, 30 countries, 32,000 square meters area, staggering launch of 91 new products ranging from radars, to communications systems, torpedoes, anti-mine vehicles and unmanned aerial vehicles is bound to turn lot of heads towards India. RIA Novosti reports that with India arms spending, around $30 billion on arms spend in 2007, has acquired global dimensions. Indian private sector is vying for atleast 30% of that pie which would amount to $10 billion which is India expects, the public sector won't be able to absorb. India's spend on arms will be around 2.5% of the GDP which is huge amount considering India being 4th largest economy in the world.

A great number of collaborations & negotiations between Indian companies & foreign defence equipment manufacturers have also been anounced. some of those notably are

1. TATA Advanced Systems (India) sign MOU with Israeli Aerospace Industries to manufacture and develop missiles, pilotless aircrafts, electronic warfare systems, radars and other security systems and defence equipments.
2. TATA has also tied up with European Defence and Aerospace Consortium for developing advanced tactical communications system project for Indian Army.
3. TATA also made a contract with US based Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation for manufacturing cabins for Sikorsky’s S-92 helicopters.
4. TATA also made a joint venture of the company with American aircraft major, Boeing, which is touted as the largest deal of the EXPO.
5. Mahindra Defence Systems (MDS), a part of the Mahindra & Mahindra Group, is in advanced negotiations for a strategic alliance with Whitehead Alenia Sistemi Subacquei (WASS). The proposed underwater defence JV with WASS will jointly address the Indian requirement for underwater defence bringing to the country's armed forces affordable world-class underwater defence systems.
6. European naval defence systems major DCNS Group announced that it would set up its Indian subsidiary to facilitate ongoing and future projects.
7. DCNS has recently signed agreements with Kirloskar Oil Engines for integrated platform management systems and with Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. propulsion system parts for the next generation ASW (anti-submarine warfare) corvettes being built for the Indian Navy.

There is still a day remaining & lot of exuberance is still being showcased. This binneial event is touted to be largest of its kind. China has remained away from the EXPO while Pakistan was invited to it.

This EXPO has created lot of exuberance in the Indian Private sector to grab a slice of the Indian Defence market. This will naturally aid to the MilBus(Military Business nexus) in India. Indian defence minister also announced that midllemen will be completely eliminated & has also trying to reduce lot of procedural hiccups while sourcing defence deals.

Indian Goverment does not place orders with the private sector company which does not have less than 26% equity owned by foreign collaborators. It is expected that this norm may be relaxed, which will definitely provide a huge boost to the industry here...

Twist to Tawang Saga...

India has atlast decided to offer some resistance to China's unchequered moves.... Beijing lodged a verbal protest over the Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh's description of Arunachal as "Our land of the rising sun". External affairs minister Pranab Mukherjee asserted that "Arunachal Pradesh is an integral part" of India, and that "the PM can visit any part of the country".

This sharp reaction was infact very necessary for a quite long time. India has not been reacting sharply to chinese overtures over the Tawang. In a sense, New Delhi has only itself to blame for looking over its shoulder every time it mentioned Arunachal, fearful of allowing the sino-Indian boundary question to overshadow the narrow meeting ground between the two countries on various confidence measures.

Although China has given up its territotiral claims over sikkim, it reluctance to do the same regarding the Arunachal Pradesh shows its stubborness & ununderstanding nature. The Chinese have not yet declared their version of maps delineating the border areas. This itself shows that China is reluctant to settle the border row in amicable way. The more we try to avoid the confrontation is to allow them to make more noise regarding their stance on the issue and beware the tin which makes more noise is always visible..

India needs to make more noise about its stand as CBMS are not gonna make any headstart towards amicable settlement..

TECSAR ..... Unvisible Eye in Sky

Amidst much secrecy, the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) agency has successfully launched the Israeli satellite TECSAR.The 350 kg satellite also referred to sometimes as Polaris is being launched from Sriharikota in Andhra Pradesh using the Indian workhorse rocket the Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV).

Considering the extreme geopolitical sensitivity of the launch, ISRO has made no formal announcement for this mission. This satellite is considered to be spy satellite of Israel.

TECSAR can take high resolution pictures even in clouded and foggy weather. It is most advanced satellite ever made by Israel. There are also rumours of India having entered into data sharing arrangement for the satellite launched from Indian shores.

Pakistan----Unstable Neighbourhood

The recent turmoil in our neighbourhood has left evrybody in an uneasy situation. Pervez Musharraf's recent actions seem to suggest a nation to be on brink of collapse, even though reconciliatory voices are being made by the President.

To end the crisis of leading the country on two fronts i.e. militarily & politically, the ongoing president sought a middle way out by having a US brokered deal with former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. Even after packing of Nawaz Sharif to Saudi, everybody was convinced that Musharraf wanted to step down as military ruler and take over the reins as the civilian President of the country.

Benazir Bhutto, former Prime Minister of Pakistan entered into deal with musharraf wherein she would be allowed to come back to Pakistan and take part in elections and Musharraf would step down as Military leader and assume the post of civilian President.

But even before drying the ink of the deal, the volte-de-face by Bhutto as to raving about actions of musharraf immediately on landing in pakistan sent a wrong note of her intentions. Bhutto instead of trying to have fair elections started ranting about musharraf and his cronies. This has lead to a peculiar situation, where though a military leader was ready to accede power to politician, the ramblings have lead a question mark on Bhutto's intentions.

Evrybody is trying to call Musharraf's actions as unwarranted, but has anybody thought what would happen, if a person like Benazir Bhutto comes to power? the lady who has been already facing charges for her role in rampant corruption in the state. the lady who immediately changed her tune once reaching pakistan. the lady who does not recognise the immediate situationin hand and instead goes on offensive against the person who brought her in pakistan back.

Musharraf is in a unique situation, where all his efforts to change pakistan have failed. Extremists have increased the hold over the state. Military itself has been echoing misgivings about their general. whatever little crackdown of militants has turned ISI against the government.

If there is no stable ruler (whether military or political) in pakistan, it will have grave consequences on India too. India at this juncture is having a party with its economy zooming, rising stock markets, burgeoning forex reserves, strong currency and buoyant growth in economic health. India cannot afford to have a failed state in the neighbourhood. It will bring the chaos of Afghanistan to our doorstep. It will unreasonably increasse our defence expenditure and bring an abrupt end to the party.

India needs to make sure (by hook or crook) that Pakistan does not end in civil war and become a headless chicken with no effective control over its defence & nuclear material. Our intelligence system needs to be bolstered at this moment to understand the exact temperature within the neighbouring state.

But alas our politicians are interested in their own (read political party) affairs than about our nations....

Israel's raid on Syria -- What is law?

Last Month, Israel carried out a surprise raid on Syria alleged Secret Nuclear Reactor. No explanations, no clarifications was given for the raid. After the raid, reports emerge of possible nuclear reactor being bombed out. Satellite images are circulated around the world wide web and quietly votes are garnered for the act.

Neither Israel not US (staunch ally of Israel) have made any comments on the raid carried out. The news is just buried out. While as any comments by the so called Axis of evil or an of the nation opposing US are widely discussed and explanations are sought, sanctions are planned, threats are issued. Why this double standards bu these nations.

Does Syria does not have any rights? Do all the survival rights reside with only Israel and those believing in Israel? & Why when Turkey wants to oust kurdish rebels, so much opposition is meted out, while an unauthorised, illegal, unwarranted raid is carried out on a nation, no single word is being uttered?

Everybody knows that US does not give a damn what happens to other countries till its interests are concerned. US while attacking Iraq did not care whether it had WMD or not. It does not care whether what happens to beacuse of global warming and does not sign kyoto protocol.

yeah, but it does care what statements did Ahmedijinad makes, what Turkey thinks about kurds?

It is glad to know that, though after a month, El- Baradei has lasheds out at Israel for its taking the law into their hands. Israel should be tried in international court of law for violating other countries airspace. It should be made to compensate Syria for the damage caused.

If countries like Israel & US will not follow International law, what could we expect from nations who are ruled by dictators & ruthless military regimes?

Pact with Singapore---Securing Boundaries

On 9th October, India and Singapore signed a long term defence agreement, wherein both the countries will conduct joint training and give fresh impetus to defense tis between both countries.
India will lease out military bases to Singapore for five years on payment bases. Kalaikunda base is being leased out where singapore will station most advanced F-16 fighter aircrafts. India will also get to learn a great deal about the advanced technologies used by that nation. singapore has one of the most advanced military forces in the world.

Singapore has one of the highest per capita expenditure on defence in the world. The armaments maintained by it one of the most sophisticated. The pact will give India a paak into the advanced technologies in the world of defence.

Singapore has simliar kind of pacts with nations like France, US, Australia and Taiwan.

India and singapore have been jointly patrolling in the Indian Ocean for security to the commercial vessels in malaicca straits.

The deal will also provide intelligence inputs to India on high seas.

Nuke Deal, 123 agreement, Does it really means more power or something else

Everybody is today talking about nuke deal with US. Almost all the people barring the leftist are arguing that 123 deal will help India jack up Power production, will help sagging Indian nuclear industry, allow state of technology to be imported. The moot question is this the objective of nuke deal? Do India really have huge shortage of uranium and its tech to process it? Is re-processing so important that without, we would not be able to prosper? Will backing of deal now mean loss of credibility for India on international fora?

Lets examine these issues one by one..

1) Does India really have shortage of nuclear fuel i.e. Uranium?

Ans: The question is bit wrong. first of all nuclear fuel does not mean only uranium. plutonium, thorium are also used as fuel in nuclear reactors. India has also been designing fast breeder reactors based on thorium as fuel requiring very less uranium as startup fuel. India has 0.8% of world uranium reserves i.e 78,000 tonnes of that metal. aren't these enough? yes, this much fuel is enough to generate electricity for India needs. A mix of AHWRS(Advanced Heaby Water Reactors) and FBRs(Fast Breeder Reactors) can fuel India's needs to produce 3,50,000 Mw of electricity in next half century. This prediction is based on current reserves. If we take into account the newly developed FTBR (Fast Thorium Breeder Reactor) , we can then work wonders. Although the new technology is still years away from actual implementation, it can reasonably assured that this tech can work. The way this reactor breeds Uranium and Plutonium, we can theoretically double capacity every 15-20 years. This all is based on current reserves of uranium think what will happen, if we are able to find more deposits of uranium?

2) Does India have shortage of uranium and its tech to reprocess?

Ans: The above questions answer comfortably answers even to the current question that we do have enough uranium and the related tech to reprocess it. India has built FBTR (Fast Breeder Test Reactor) "Kamini" to prove the same. we are also in the process to intall bigger breeder reactors. The development of FTBR, which not only breeds plutonium (which is also used as input) but also breeds uranium. It is also called twin core reactor for its unique design. These all inputs prove that yes, we have technology to process and reprocess the nuclear fuel.

3) Is re-processing so important that without, we would not be able to prosper?

Ans: The answer to this question is "YES", we need reprocessing of fuel to breed it and enhance our overall potential to generate power or electricity, whatever we use it for. All the above calculation of 3,50,000 Mwe of power is based on the fact that we are able to reprocess the spent fuel on AHWRs and breed them using FBRs. This was in fact India three step program to achieve independency in nuclear power. So reprocessing is absolutely essential for India.

4) Will backing of deal now mean loss of credibility for India on international fora?

Ans: No. backing out of this deal India would not lose credibility. India is already such a huge success story that none of the constituemts of world economy ignore India. Irrespective of what is happening to Nuke deal, we will keep contiuning our business with China and other nations. Nuclear deal has not yet been signed or ratified by either party. It needs to be endorsed by IAEA (International Atomic energy Agency) and NSG (Nuclear Suppliers Group) to be enforced. We are still at step two of long process. Actually killing deal at this point of time will not make big difference compared to India backing out after getting all the approvals.

5) The big question now is then what is the purpose of this Nuke Deal?

Ans: World today is not correct representation of its constituents. The NPT regime(Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) and CTBT (Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty) does not treats responsible countries with difference rather favours only specific countries and punishes responsible countries like India. No country can undo the process of NPT or CTBT but almost all the major powers realise that excluding an big country like India from the nuclear club cannot be in their interests. So to gain backdoor entry into nuclear club, this nuke deal is being done.

Being said this, I would further say this is not the only reason. This reason sounds acceptable from view of other countries. In case of India, it gives an opportunity to legitimise the nuclear weaponisation of the country. It provides an opportunity to override the international rules for non-nuclear country as per NPT.

India has its own nuclear weapons programme. Having earlier said that Uranium reserves are enough for power generation, these very same reserves also need to be utilised for weapons programme. If they are used for weapons, we will not be able to reprocess and increase it potentiality. we need separate reserves for our weapons programme too. If this deal goes through, we can use the indigenous nuclear fuel for our weapons programme and use imported fuel for our power generation.

In case of testing of nuclear weapon and sanctions by all countries(which will never happen), we can always back off from treaty and refuse to handover the used, processed and reprocessed fuel. No country can take military action for the same against us. Maximum harm that may happen is some countries will cease to have nuclear relations with us for some time. Then after that all relations will be re-established.

In this current world politics, we need to get out of the non-servient thinking and look beyond words. Our acts to strengthen our defence and economic power will be deterrent to other countries to snap ties with us. Though we honour all treaties and agreements, we should never let these things to come as hinderance to the progress of the country as whole. We need to diplomatically twist the situations to our needs and gian from them.....

Commercialization of Defence Industry.....key to have Global influence

India is setting up two new Defence production units, one for production of Bi-Modular Charge System (BMCS). It is an artillery charging device used for 155 mm Bofors Gun. Bofors Gun really proved useful in Kargil war. This indigenous production of parts will really help. AS we recall, India had lot of problems during Kargil war for sourcing of parts for armoury. The other will be producing new generation carbines.

India has also tested armed version of ALH (Advanced Light Helicopter) 'Dhruv'. It is fitted with indigenously developed "Shakti" engine. (the engine has been developed in collaboration with french major Turbomecca). Recently HAL (Hindustan Aeronauticals Limited) had bagged orders for civilian version of DHRUV. Military version was earlier very difficult to export as it had lot of imported content and was restricted for export to various countries.

Due to local content, we can now export these to more countries.

My Comments:

Every industry to survive needs lots of funds. But to innovate and develop new methods, technologies, it needs incentive. Indian defence industry is not devoid of money but of incentive to develop newer ideas and technologies. Commercialisation of Defence industry wil bring in additional revenue to the industry and make it less dependent on Government for its regular functioning. The government funding then can be utilised for only Research & Development purpose only. Introduction of Intellectual Property Rights for the technologies developed and transfering the benefit of the same to the concerned person/party/entity will be the right step to bring in more talent to this sector.

The other factor involving commercial aspect of defence is more leverage in international relations. Once India starts to ramp up its defence production and start exporting material, more and more countries would be dependent upon India for their defence needs. This situation can then be leverage to exert more influence in non-military aspects in international fora. The eco-political benefits of the same will take some time to be noticed, but then every step towards that is a help.

US trade deficit and its implications......

Does US trade deficit really matter or is it just notional in value?

quite some back, I had heard a theory saying that US does not pay anybody for buying goods from them rather prints money and buys more goods.

The logic behind that was very simple. "US imports more than it exports. All the foreign trade is primarily done in US Dollar, i.e. the currency of international trade. US when imports goods pays in dollars and when exports receives dollar. When in deficit, there is excess outflow of dollars. now, who owns dollar? who creates dollar? US itself owns dollars and creates dollars. So to pay for excess deficit, what it needs is just print more dollars and give to the exporters. Earlier when the whole monetary system was basedojn gold, this would not have worked but, after gold standard was abolished, Central banks of any country print as much currency they like without any backup for the same."

Though the above theory stands fine there are some comple issues involved with this like what will happen when money suppy increases witght the amount of dollars provided by the apex bank of US? will we have another run of hyperinflation? what if the US is unable to honour the rights of the holders of the US currency?

Even now, most of the US currency is held by the foreigners & not by the US nationals. Most of the forex assets amassed by large number of developing countries are in fact invested in US securities.almost 40-60% of the Chinese foreign exchange tranche of $1.2 trillion are invested in US state bonds and treasuries.

One study recently concluded that though US is having trade deficit, it has positive balance of payment situation, this is due to the fact that monies invested in US is in far excess of the trade deficit of US.

Now let us analyse the international relations in trade and effects in case of emergencies or crisis.

The world markets and its costituents are linked with each other in such a complicated manner, that it is very difficult to analyse the precise effects of any crisis. The latest meltdown of American subprime markets affecting a French giant, which triggers of stockmarket meltdown across the planet complexities of controlling or analysing the current markets.

Whenever a prominent country, exchange, institution has financial crisis, then all the other constituents try to make sure that its effects have minimalist affect on their operations.

What happens when two countries on tradable terms harbour animosity and cease to have operations with each other? What happens when they are at war with each other?

This results in each country describing the other part as enemy country. The first thing is all the contracts entered between own country and enemy country become void. None of the parties are liable to pay each other the debts owned by them. All the funds owned by them of the other party are taken over by the state.

suppose such situation arises between US and any one of the other countries, then all the debts owned by US will not be paid by them. All the forex invested by the other country in US securities will be rendered junk. no one will purchase them and US won't honour them. The external debt position of US will turn very favourable overnight. All the goods already imported by them will not be returnable and the debts incurred for the same will be non-payable. All the amounts invested by companies from other country will be taken over by the state. So all the capital invested by other country will be nationalised.

So though in theory large amount of external debt, huge trade deficit, they can always turn the tide by merely converting that country into enem,y state.

Maybe this was the reason though Iraq did not possess any Weapons of Mass Destruction, though no proof was available to US to prove the same, though cost of war on Iraq was in far excess of cost of oil available from Iraq, they went ahead. The reason was, at one point of time Iraq was one of the most modern states in the Gulf and it was exporting oil and importing finished goods, but it also had a thriving industrial base. this is what was feared by US. that monies spent by them was not utilised for importing goods but to strengthen themselves. Theoretically every oil rich country which will try to reduce external dependence will face the fate of Iraq.

And above analysis confirms that US being really militarily supreme can turn tide ot its side.

Pact without Bargain with Austalia----India's foolishness

Australian Defence Minister Brendan Nelson is on a visit to India to strengthen defence ties, particularly in the maritime survellance. It is being alleged by China that Australia, US, Japan & India (so called "axis of democracy") are seeking to "contain' China.

It is true to some extent that Australia and Japan have been wary to growing military might of China in the Asia Pacific region. Australia's Defence Minister before coming to India was in China and has tried to assure China that nobody is planning against China. even Indian Prime Minister has conveyed to Chinese Premier that they are not ganging up against China. In Short, everybody has tried to allay Chinese fears. But the situation on the ground remains different. US has still not made any comment on these developments or chinese allegations.

Brendan Nelson will sigining a pact with India for exchange of information. This will basically cover future defence deals, joint research projects and other co-operation where it is necessary for military of both countries to share classified information.

My Analysis & Recommendations:

Japan is an traditional nemesis of China and has always been wary of growing Chinese military might. Japan does not have armed forces of its own. Its military security is the responsibility of US and so japan has maintaining close ties with washington. Japan is concerned about China being militarily as well as economically growing at a fast pace. Until now, Japan was only the only economic super power in Asia Pacific region. It finds its position to be under threat now.

Australia has very close ties with US and has always supported US in all its deciions right from Iraq invasion to War against terrorism. Austalia being a island continent has being wary of chinese might in asia Pacific waters. it had recently also raised concerns about chinese A-sat (anti-Satellite) test and its repurcussions. It defintiely wants to curb the power5s of China.

US has not found enough ground in Asian region and has been trying to contain growing might of china. it has also being wary of China's attitude towards Taiwan and has also decided to extend missile sheild over Taiwan too.

India has own concerns and has always overlooked geo-political equations. India's approach towards international politics hasbeen pathetic with unable derive gains from its realtions with other countries. Even now when Australia, Japan and US are tyring to enlist India for conatinament of China, India should hard bargain and try to get maximum benefits from the same. India is rarely leveraging its influence on Indian Ocean Rim Association (formed by India with countries surrounding Indian Ocean). neither has India given thought to leverage this pact to get Australia moving on export of uranium to India, which is of prime importance to India.

India should try to persuade Australia to change its stance on export of fissile material to India, which it has stopped after "Pokhran 1998". It should also try to push nuclear pact with australia also on the same lines as with US. Indian navy should play a greater role in Asia Pacific region. Indian navy has always been on forefront to contain piracy onhigh seas and has always helped australia for that.

India should not fall prey to "democracy' plea of these countries and leave a chance which could benefit them. every pressure tactics have to be used to deieve maximum gains.

Lets hope India understands this......

Global Warming, India, China & West

U.S. rejects German proposal to cut carbon emissions Chron.com - Houston Chronicle: "Fueling hate against a country while not knowing the facts. US & western countries are primarily responsible for the conditions now about green hopuse gases. countries like India & china have now started to produce large amounts of GHG while western copuntries have been doing so for decades. they should only be to bear the costs & not all.."

Even while considering the current facts, the per capita emission of GHGs by USA is 121.3 metric tonnes while countries like India have 1.19 metric tonnes and china 3.2 metric tonnes. On the fact that developed countries have been spewing gases for many decades in the past. Now when they have come to a point where they have already matured their economies, they cannot ask other developing countries to sacrfice their economic growth for GHGs for which they are not at all responsible.

US has now come up with new plan saying all the top 15 countries should reduce emissions. china on the other hand has stated that they will not sacrifice growth for reduction in gases.

NASA has made some statements questioning the reason behind global warming. It reminds me of book "state of Fear" by micheal crichton which questions the logic behind global warming itself.

AGNI III & SUPERPOWER STATUS

After successful testing Agni III, it is tipped that India has the capability to produce true ICBM (Inter-Continental Ballistic missile) with the range of 5,500 km & more.

Alongwith that concerns are also being raised whether the India will continue its development of long range missiles in the face of Nuclear Pact with US in 2005. Former DRDO chief K. Santhanam says, India in its wildest dreams does not plan to be global superpower, but where regional superiority is concerned, they definitely would like to have effective deterrent against its backdrop of war history.

Is our former chief justified in saying that we do not aspire to be best or greatest in the world? are we really so afraid of other powers like US that we would do whatever pleases them and nothing beyond that? former chief's commenst reflect the thinking of the government when he was working for DRDO (Defence Research & Development Organisation). This necessarily does not mean our aspirations have not soared.

We need to give a serious thought to our status in global context....

Vladimir Putin Vs Pervez Musharraf

Nobody would dare to compare Russian Prez with that of Pakistan's prez. But some interesting facts,

Musharraf took over reins of Pakistan on October 12, 1999 and declared president of pakistan on June 20, 2001.

Vladimir Putin became acting president of Russia on December 31, 1999 and elected as president on May 07, 2000.

Both the presidents presided over their countries when their respective countries were in bad phase.

Both of them have military background. Putin is an ex-KGB man while musharraf is still chief of military forces.

Both of them wanted to reform their countries and bring prosperity.

Putin had two terms of his presidency to reform his country, which he tried to resurrect his nation using petro dollars.

Musharraf too wanted to reform,which he tried( to limited extent) by embracing war on terrorism.

For both the prez, time was insufficient to implement their policies and achieve their goals.

So what did they both do to retain their aims even after they relinquish their posts.

Vladimir Putin honouring his Duma will stepdown from his post and hand over the reins to the successor. But while doing this, he has implemented 3 year budgeting with focus on long term goals for 10-15 years so that even after he steps down his policies are implemented.

While Mr. (sarcasm) Pervez Musharraf has tried to play with judiciary so that he is able to retain his powers henceforth too. This action of his will lead to people losing faith in him and his policies,which could be disastrous.

The Russian prez policies can be read at timesonline or Times of India

Untangling Kashmir Mess

What appears to be is that the Kashmir entanglement holding up the potential gains of SAARC. The animosity between India & Pakistan has spilled over in SAARC which has led to its factional politics at SAARC. Trade within SAARC is 2% of their member GDP while that for South Asia is 20%. The official trade between India & Pakistan is of $ 400 Million, while the unofficial trade is in the range of $ 2-2.2 billion. The potential of trade between two countries is $ 6.6 billion. The hate-factor between two nations has cost the citizens of both countries very dearly.

The root of animosity lies in the Kashmir problem. In last 50 yrs both the countries have tried to achieve political gains for themselves in the regional & international arena by leveraging Kashmir problem. Resolution of this problem can lead very outstanding results for whole of Indian subcontinent. But with the current arguments, neither of countries, without budging, from their stands can resolve this issue.

Many people have in fact suggested and tried various solutions for this issue. None of which has made considerable progress from the fact that common borders have always led to increase of tensions rather decreasing it. To diffuse the tension between two countries, we need to create insulation between two countries, which not only discharges the tension but also allows them to reap benefits by contributing to that insulation.

My Recommendations:

Though I believe, Pakistan has forcefully occupied some part of Indian state Jammu & Kashmir and also handed over part of Kashmir (Aksai Chin) to China, taking back of that will involve huge losses to both the sides. We may even risk a nuclear war, which will lead to total annihilation of Pakistan and make India vulnerable to even states like Bangladesh & Sri lanka.

My seven point agenda is as follows:

• Let the Pakistan and India have their own territories now under their control. Let that be converted to International boundaries.
• The Pak Occupied Kashmir (also known as PoK) be declared as separate state with its own jurisdiction & be called as Azad Kashmir hence forth.
• India & Pakistan, both will not interfere in the functioning of Azad Kashmir.
• Azad Kashmir to be developed on the lines of Switzerland, which has no army of its own, free of all international laws.
• It will be responsibility of India and Pakistan to protect Azad Kashmir from any external aggression.
• Both India & Pakistan will get Azad Kashmir UN membership.
• A tripartite memorandum needs to be signed stating that anybody violating constitution, integrity & freedom of Azad Kashmir will be prosecuted by both countries jointly.
• Let Azad Kashmir be tax haven and all the trade between India & Pakistan be carried out through Azad Kashmir only. That can be the source of income for Azad Kashmir.
  

These measures may lead to Azad Kashmir acting as a buffer between two countries and also at the same time developing that into very powerful state, which in fact would be owned by both of them. Azad Kashmir will act as lubricant in the friction between India & Pakistan. No aggression pact will also carry credibility in international for and bring in moolah from the whole world itself. Developing on the lines of Swiss would make it financially secure.

There is a study group, which tries to look into the problems of Kashmir & possible solutions for it. More can be found about them at this website http://kashmirstudygroup.com/

The above idea is mere outline of my though process and can be more refined to suit the exact conditions there.

India & China's pollution affecting World

A recent study by an Texas A & M researcher Mr. Renyi zhang, with the funding from National Science Foundation & NASA has proved(?) that severe pollution from Far east is affecting the weather of the world.

More details of the same can be found here

My Assessment:

A lot is now-a-days being said about the global warming and many nations are also readying themselves to avoid the onslaught of the disastrous repurcussions expected to follow from it. This is precisely why Kyoto protocol came into existence. This protocol is designed to limit the gree house gases (GHG) emissions so as to limit their effect on the weather. About 169 countries and other governmental entities have signed this agreement.

But the very organisation and the country in which they are located i.e America is not the signatory to this protocol. It is an established fact that the very process of industralisation was not started by the developing countries like India and China but nations like Britain & America.

Now these very nations are opposed to emission controls and are also funding research which focus only on developing countries and their responsibilities.

Where were these emission controls when these countries polluted the most? Early industralisation was made on use of coal and diesel and that too when efficient means were not available to use them... At that time the emission was most severe and not now.

Even the studies of emissions and their effect on the weather is done now and all the data pertaining to previous periods is a suspect as reliable instruments were not available at that time.

So I feel that these studies are being funded to form a popular voice against the developing nations which are now posing a threat to developed nations and the focus is being diverted from the responsibilites of the developed nations who have been affecting the weather for not decades like developing nations but for centuries. Those century old emissions are having a cumulative effect now.

countries like USA are worried about the possible financial impact of emission control on their economies, so trying to hold India & China responsible for their own irresponsible behaviour in past..

To counter such subversive tactics, we also should be funding various studies & researches which would focus on the impact of emissions by western countries on the world weather.

Hope our national governments will look into covert warfare done by developed nations and take appropriate action to conter it.