FOIL expresses its concern over the tenor of the joint agreement signed between Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and US President George W. Bush on July 18, 2005. While there are some elements in it that appear to be beneficial to the people of both countries, the broad context of the agreement will be detrimental to peace and security in the South Asian subcontinent.

Mr. Singh comes to Washington within a month of his Defense Minister, who signed a 'framework' for the further inter-penetration of the Indian and US military establishments. The Bush administration has expressed the highest contempt for the views of the world's peoples, not only in its open disdain for the UN, but also in its rigidly Manichean world view (you are either with us or against us). The military link-up between the US and India and Mr. Singh's visit must be seen in this context. One cannot look at India's promissory note to dispatch its troops for US operations in a vacuum: as the Bush administration extends itself around the planet, it will rely upon these 'frameworks' to call upon assistance. Mr. Singh's government has gone against the will of Parliament and the wishes of the Indian people on this score. FOIL looks forward to this issue being raised in the Monsoon Session of the Lok Sabha. The most crucial development during the visit has been the de facto acknowledgement by the US of India as nuclear power, indeed 'as a responsible state with advanced nuclear technology.' The statement pledges that the US President would 'seek agreement from Congress to adjust US laws and policies, and the United States will work with friends and allies to adjust international regimes to enable full civil nuclear energy cooperation and trade with India.' While it is broadly a good idea for all civilian nuclear establishments to be under the regulation and inspection of the International Atomic Energy Agency, we question the timing of this development. This agreement on civilian nuclear energy and on 'energy security' obscures three important points: (1) The US government continues to play fast and loose with the planet's environmental and energy security (it refuses to abide by the Kyoto Protocols).

(2) The US government conceded to the nuclear energy question to continue its parochial policy to isolate Iran (the Indian Ministry of External Affairs, in its communiqué of March 26, 2005, noted, 'We have been informed that the US government is considering offering civilian nuclear energy and nuclear safety cooperation to India. These subjects were discussed during the visit of the Secretary of State on March 16, 2005. The decision by the US administration to move forward on nuclear energy cooperation is welcome and reflects an understanding of India's growing energy requirements.' This was discussed as an alternative to the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline). India has underscored the importance of the pipeline, but the US continues to insist that nuclear energy could be an alternative to that natural gas. The pipeline, it should be pointed out, is as much a confidence building measure between India and Pakistan as it is a means for the transmission of energy.

(3) The US government and the Manmohan Singh section of the Congress are eager to push for further liberalization of the 'energy market' within India, a project which can only undermine the energy security of the nation (this is the project of the US-India Energy Dialogue). What has the Indian government conceded for access to nuclear fuel? The statement is silent on the concessions, but in the silence this much is apparent: (1) Security Council seat: The US government is on record against the expansion of the UN Security Council, and it did not offer any reversal on this. India, therefore, is no closer to getting a permanent seat on the UNSC.

(2) Regional Cooperation: The UPA government has made some strides to create confidence with India's neighbors. This statement does not acknowledge the importance of regional cooperation, but on the contrary seems to exude the disdain for multi-polarity that is a hallmark of the Bush administration. The two leaders expressed 'satisfaction' at the new US-India Defense Relationship. While Singh met Bush, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice spoke with Pakistani Foreign Minister K. M. Kasuri to assure him that the US would remain responsive to Pakistan's security concerns. In other words, the Bush administration wants to arm both sides rather than help build the bridges of peace. Furthermore, while India and China have come close to finding a solution to the boundary dispute, this Defense Relationship, particularly in its emphasis on patrol of sea lanes crucial to China (the Straits of Malacca, for instance), seems designed to fulfill another Bush administration policy, the containment of China. FOIL is an international network of people with a connection to South Asia. We have come together to help create a just and equitable world. The direction of the Bush administration is contrary to that vision. The Indian government's association with this vision is a broad violation of the hopes and dreams of people both in India and the United States.