Latest news with #USCongress
Hindustan Times
a day ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
The Emergency and its external dimension
The pain inflicted by the 21-month Emergency rule in India on its body politic and its people continues to hurt even after 50 years. The domestic dimensions of the Emergency have been discussed at length. A recent study by Srinath Raghavan ably explores its structural dimensions – of the gradual evolution of a powerful executive, creeping encroachments on freedoms and rights and authoritarian tendencies of governance — that have been building for long. However, Indira Gandhi's oft repeated allegations about the role of 'foreign hand' (of the United States of America) in destabilising her government have often skipped rigorous scrutiny. Her political opponents, many media commentators, and even serious historians like Ramchandra Guha and Bipin Chandra have dismissed these allegations in want of hard, concrete evidence, as a pretext to justify her authoritarian streak. This was also the position of the various US official organs, as expected. The prevailing intellectual narrative clearly underlines that transformational changes in developing countries result from a conscious or coincidental coalition of domestic and external forces. Over the years, many new archives have opened and the present ruling dispensation in New Delhi has brought the issue back to the forefront of India's political dynamics. The narrative of the US pushing Indira Gandhi towards the Emergency decision and supporting the peoples' uprising against its repressive regime deserve a second dispassionate look. This may be done at three levels. First, regime change, through covert as well as overt means, against Communist/ socialist or Left-oriented governments in Latin America (Chile) and Asia (Iran) has been an integral part of the toolkit of US policy since the Cold War years. According to American scholar Lindsey O'Rourke, the US carried out 64 covert regime-change operations between 1947 and 1989. Another scholar, David S Levins (2020), claims that the US carried out the largest number of foreign electoral interventions during 1946-2000. The use of covert operations for regime change in developing countries brought about extensive criticism of the US's democratic credentials, forcing the US Congress to appoint The Church Committee to investigate the matter. In its report in 1976, this Committee came down heavily on CIA operations and blamed it for having a worldwide network of several hundred individuals to have access 'to a large number of news agencies, radio and television stations, commercial publishers and media outlets' for covert operations. Secondly, at the regional level in South Asia, the US National Security Council's policy document, NSC 98/1, was adopted by President Truman in January 1951. It asked US policy in the region to take 'more frequently accept calculated risks' in ensuring that the Communist (as also, socialist and Communist supported) governments did not remain in power. Only such governments were acceptable that 'would assist the United States and its allies to obtain the facilities desired in the time of peace or required in the event of war'. The Nixon (1969-1974)-Kissinger (1969-1977) team of the US had a strong focus on South Asian regimes in its endeavour to cultivate China and isolate the Soviet Union. Between 1975 and 1977, major developments took place in South Asia. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman (1975) in Bangladesh and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (1977) in Pakistan were deposed brutally by military regimes. Sheikh Mujib's Bangladesh in 1971 had emerged in strategic defiance of the US, and Bhutto had defied the US on the nuclear issue. Bhutto's daughter, Benazir, was reported to have disclosed Kissinger's threat in November 1976 to Bhutto to make a horrible example of him if he pursued the nuclear path. Nepal (Zone of Peace, 1975) and Sikkim (the American queen of the Chogyal sponsored independent status, 1974-75) had explicit support from the US so as to distance them from India. Lastly, at the bilateral level, Indira Gandhi's 'foreign hand' paranoia was a reflection of these regional developments. She had the worst of relations with the Nixon-Kissinger team both on the Bangladesh (1971) and the nuclear (implosion, 1974) issues. It was problematic for the US establishment that Indira Gandhi, whom the CIA supported in dethroning the Communist regime in Kerala in late 1950s, was during 1967-69, leaning on the Indian Communists in her struggle for power within her own party. The CIA activities during Indira Gandhi's regime had become so unacceptable even to the US embassy in New Delhi that ambassador Patrick Moynihan had to ask the state department to withdraw CIA operations. The imposition of Emergency was publicly disapproved by the US state department and American media. The US secretary of state Kissinger in his memo to President Ford in September 1975 said that the Emergency had discredited Indian democracy, adding, 'We should avoid any overt involvement that could confirm her allegations of foreign subversion'. Did this imply that covert operations to subvert the Emergency could go on? The post-Emergency regime was headed by Morarji Desai, who American journalist Seymour Hersh alleged was a CIA mole in Indira Gandhi's cabinet. Desai fought a libel case in the US against Hersh unsuccessfully. President Carter visited India in January 1978 to acclaim the post-Emergency regime, and asked Prime Minister Desai to desist from the nuclear path. Thus, there are ample leads at all the three levels to revisit the question of the 'foreign hand' and see if it had any links with the popular protests. British scholar Paul Garr in his study, Spying in South Asia (2024), says that Indira Gandhi's 'foreign hand' was an exaggeration sometimes, but her fears about the CIA were 'genuine' and valid. Our reliance only on the structural theories and Indira Gandhi's authoritarianism do not explain her decision to end the Emergency, as also how she managed to stage an impressive electoral comeback in less than three years. SD Muni is professor emeritus, JNU, former ambassador and special envoy, Government of India. The views expressed are personal.
Sky News AU
a day ago
- Business
- Sky News AU
US energy expert Robert Bryce warns Australia is ‘acting like an energy weakling' despite being a global powerhouse in resources
A leading American energy expert has delivered a scathing assessment of Australia's energy policies, accusing the country of recklessly undermining its own strengths in the global energy market. Robert Bryce, a veteran energy analyst and journalist who has testified before the US Congress and written for the Wall Street Journal, is currently touring Australia with the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA). During his visit, Mr Bryce did not mince words, branding Australia's approach to net zero as "madness" and "reckless". 'You're an energy superpower, and yet you act like an energy weakling. I just don't get it,' Mr Bryce said during an interview with Ben Fordham on Thursday morning, pointing to Australia's vast natural resources and puzzling refusal to fully utilise them. In particular, Mr Bryce was sharply critical of Australia's pledge to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. 'You're pledging to zero out your emissions by 2050 — that's next week, in terms of planning purposes,' he said. 'You export seven times more coal than you consume, and you're blowing up your coal plants.' Mr Bryce expressed disbelief at Australia's contradictory position on nuclear power, describing it as illogical to say 'yes to net zero and no to nuclear power' when the country holds nearly a third of the world's uranium reserves. 'You have almost a third of the world's uranium here, and you won't build a reactor,' he said. 'You export three times more natural gas in the form of LNG than you consume, and yet you won't drill for it onshore.' He went further in likening Australia's policy stance to Saudi Arabia in refusing to use its own oil. 'You're the Saudi Arabia of the Southern Hemisphere,' he said. 'But imagine the Saudis have all this oil and they're not going to use it themselves. 'Oh, we'll export it, but we don't want to use this terrible stuff ourselves'.' On the issue of emissions, Mr Bryce argued Australia's self-imposed sacrifices would do little to impact global climate trends. 'Australia's emissions have gone from about 1.5% to 1% of the global total, while China and India together have gone from about 18% to 40%, and that percentage is rising.' Calling for a return to common sense, Mr Bryce said the first step should be to 'stop doing stupid things' such as shutting down coal plants prematurely. He also warned of the consequences for working-class Australians, who are already facing rising electricity costs. 'Your power prices are skyrocketing and with no benefit to the poor and the working class,' he said, framing the issue as a key battleground for the opposition. On the broader question of climate resilience, Mr Bryce questioned the wisdom of making the grid dependent on weather. 'If the climate is becoming more extreme, it's the height of foolishness to make your most important energy network dependent on the weather,' he said. 'You should be making it weather-resilient, not weather-dependent.'
Economic Times
a day ago
- Business
- Economic Times
No new tariffs after Bilateral Trade Agreement: India wants US assurance
India seeks assurance from the US in the finalized bilateral trade agreement (BTA) to prevent additional tariffs by the Trump administration. India requests stability in tariffs, concessions for labor-intensive sectors, and a mechanism to address potential tariff increases. Both countries aim to finalize the BTA before the deadline, with India emphasizing the need for sustained trade advantages. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads India wants an assurance from the US that no additional tariffs will be imposed by the Donald Trump administration once the bilateral trade agreement (BTA) is finalised, said people familiar with the matter. The deal is in the final stages of negotiation and both sides are hopeful of reaching accord quickly. India has sought concessions for labour-intensive sectors such as leather and textiles. 'We have put everything on the table,' said one of the persons, adding that India wants stability in tariffs once a deal is rolled agreements typically include renegotiation clauses, or compensation from the partner effecting a tariff increase. India would like the pact to provide for such a mechanism. 'This would ensure the agreement is ring-fenced from prospective changes,' said another person. The US President on April 2 announced a reciprocal tariff of 26% on goods imports from India as part of its trade levies all over the tariffs were paused for 90 days until July 9. However, the baseline tariff of 10% remains in force. India and the US are looking to finalise the BTA ahead of the assurance from Washington is required to ensure tariffs negotiated within the framework of the trade deal remain ring-fenced from any changes effected later by the US, said a third official detailing India's concern. There is also Trump's mercurial experts are agreed on the need for such a clause. 'The BTA should be timebound and not in perpetuity,' said an expert on trade issues. 'India must insist on a clawback provision — that it will withdraw benefits if the US raises tariffs or goes back on any of its commitments.'Officials said Washington has to find a way to reduce tariffs as New Delhi has sought concessions for sectors such as textiles and leather, as mentioned above. The Trump administration currently requires approval from the US Congress to lower levy below most favoured nation (MFN) rates, but it does have the authority to scrap reciprocal tariffs.'We want preferential and sustained trade advantages and have left it to the US to decide the route it takes to reduce its tariff barriers—whether through the Trade Promotion Authority or by seeking Congressional approval,' said one of the officials cited earlier. The government is also monitoring the impact of the 50% tariffs on steel and aluminium and the 25% tariffs on auto. While the auto components sector doesn't expect a big dent for now, there may be an impact if the tariffs persist. According to the official quoted, India will pursue a concession, if others get sides have had several rounds of discussions on the proposed trade deal and are hopeful of concluding at least an early harvest deal. 'We are working on the early tranche, and there is a date (July 9), before which we would like to conclude this. The progress is good,' commerce secretary Sunil Barthwal said on Monday.A US trade team is in India last week to firm up the contours. India has made it clear that any meaningful expansion in bilateral trade will require a significant reduction in US tariffs. Both sides aim to more than double such trade to $500 billion by a Delhi-based trade expert cautioned, 'India should rethink its proposed BTA with the US. The US has a history of incomplete trade deals, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. It has retracted its WTO commitments also. Moreover, the future of the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity hangs in the balance with the US-China trade deal.'
South China Morning Post
2 days ago
- Politics
- South China Morning Post
How Israel-Iran conflict hardens North Korea's nuclear resolve
As missiles fly in the Middle East and the world's attention fixes on Israel vs Iran , the shock waves are being felt in Pyongyang – where North Korea 's leaders, ever watchful, see yet another reason to cling to their nuclear arsenal. Advertisement While views differ on precisely how Pyongyang is reading the escalating conflict, observers are united on one point: if there is ever to be a chance of drawing North Korea back to the table for denuclearisation talks, the diplomatic door must remain ajar. Since Israel launched its military campaign against Iran on June 13 , hardliners in the US Congress, Israeli officials and exiled Iranian dissidents have ramped up calls to topple Tehran's clerical leadership, arguing for the exploitation of internal unrest to unseat Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei 's regime. But in Pyongyang, observers say the lesson is viewed through a singular prism: survival. 'North Korea has always pointed to the fate of Libya's Muammar Gaddafi and Iraq's Saddam Hussein as justification for never giving up its nuclear weapons,' said Koh Yu-hwan, a professor of North Korean studies at Dongguk University. It has learned a lesson; if you want to hold on to power, you never give up your nuclear weapons Koh Yu-hwan, professor of North Korean studies 'It has learned a lesson; if you want to hold on to power, you never give up your nuclear weapons,' he warned.
South China Morning Post
2 days ago
- Politics
- South China Morning Post
How Middle East conflict hardens North Korea's nuclear resolve
As missiles fly in the Middle East and the world's attention fixes on Israel vs Iran , the shock waves are being felt in Pyongyang – where North Korea 's leaders, ever watchful, see yet another reason to cling to their nuclear arsenal. While views differ on precisely how Pyongyang is reading the escalating conflict, observers are united on one point: if there is ever to be a chance of drawing North Korea back to the table for denuclearisation talks, the diplomatic door must remain ajar. Since Israel launched its military campaign against Iran on June 13 , hardliners in the US Congress, Israeli officials and exiled Iranian dissidents have ramped up calls to topple Tehran's clerical leadership, arguing for the exploitation of internal unrest to unseat Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei 's regime. But in Pyongyang, observers say the lesson is viewed through a singular prism: survival. 'North Korea has always pointed to the fate of Libya's Muammar Gaddafi and Iraq's Saddam Hussein as justification for never giving up its nuclear weapons,' said Koh Yu-hwan, a professor of North Korean studies at Dongguk University. It has learned a lesson; if you want to hold on to power, you never give up your nuclear weapons Koh Yu-hwan, professor of North Korean studies 'It has learned a lesson; if you want to hold on to power, you never give up your nuclear weapons,' he warned.
