Much of the current debate on India’s decision to evolve a set of agreements with the United States and engage the international nuclear technology control regimes in order to promote civilian nuclear cooperation unfortunately has not focused on some of the key questions involved and the available options before the country. Clearly, the country needs to take decisions from a subset of options that are i) politically feasible and ii) most desirable/least undesirable from the viewpoint of national interests.

• G. Balachandran |
• October 2005 |
• Strategic Analysis

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to Moscow from December 4-6, 2005 highlights the continued importance of Indo-Russian cooperation in a changing geopolitical scenario. Beginning with President Vladimir Putin’s first visit to India in October 2000, bilateral summits between the Indian Prime Minister and the Russian President, alternatively in each other’s capital, have become an annual feature. In contrast, President Putin’s predecessor, President Boris Yeltsin visited India only once, in January 1993.

• Jyotsna Bakshi |
• October 2005 |
• Strategic Analysis

Nuclear transfers to a non-nuclear weapon state (NNWS) are conditioned on IAEA safeguards on all current and future peaceful nuclear activities, what are called the full-scope safeguards (FSS) or comprehensive safeguards. Since India is a NNWS according to the NPT definition, the NSG Guidelines as currently implemented would, therefore, invoke FSS if India seeks nuclear technology or nuclear power plants – even on a turnkey basis – or nuclear fuel from any NSG membercountry.

• R. Ramachandran |
• October 2005 |
• Strategic Analysis

Niall Ferguson, Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire (Penguin Books, New York, 2005), pp. 386.

• Deba R. Mohanty |
• October 2005 |
• Strategic Analysis

The 18 July Bush-Manmohan Agreement is currently being implemented, in bits and pieces. At the time of the signing of the agreement it was stated by different officials that both governments would proceed to unilaterally implement the provisions that pertained to them and there would be no expectations of reciprocity.

• Raja Menon |
• October 2005 |
• Strategic Analysis

Different views have been expressed by the American non-proliferation lobbyists on possible loss or gain from the Indo-US nuclear agreement. Would the agreement complicate global non-proliferation efforts as the critics argue or would it lead to a stronger front to deal with emerging non-proliferation challenges? To answer these questions it is necessary to examine the merits of the arguments put forward by the US non-proliferation lobby carefully.

• Rajesh Kumar Mishra |
• October 2005 |
• Strategic Analysis

The developments after 9/11 and the rise of neo-conservative thinking in United States accelerated a process that culminated in the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. The rapid collapse of Saddam Hussein’s regime marked a defining moment in international relations. ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’ and its aftermath created an entirely new geopolitical context not only in Iraq but also in the wider West Asia. Huge challenges have emerged as a result of the invasion of Iraq, regime change, and the political reconstruction in Iraq.

• Satyanarayan Pattanayak |
• October 2005 |
• Strategic Analysis

In India, the defence budgeting system is incremental and input-based. Yearly allocations of funds are made without reference to the defence plans. In effect, the budget does not get linked to any established goals or outputs. Resource planning beyond a one-year period is not carried out. Some have even called it an archaic system. The five-year defence plans have lost their utility for resource planning. This article brings out the shortcomings in the present budgeting system and recommends some options for a goal-oriented budgeting system.

• Pravin Joshi |
• October 2005 |
• Strategic Analysis

World over, differences exist about the impact of military expenditure. While development economists consider excessive military expenditure as wastage, many defence economists have a different view. With the defence versus1 development debate unending, China makes a unique contribution. While China’s defence expenditure is not well known, the hinese experience shows that investments in development do provide an expanded economic base subsequently, which will take care of defence needs.

• Bhartendu Kumar Singh |
• October 2005 |
• Strategic Analysis

There are embryonic signs that Washington is all set to turn the heat on Myanmar. In a marked departure, UN Security Council unanimously agreed on December 2, 2005 to a US request for a “one-off” briefing by Secretary-General on “the deteriorating situation” in Myanmar. The US request followed Tatmadow’s extension of Aung San Suu Kyi’s (ASSK) house arrest and General Assembly Committee’s recent approval of a resolution condemning human rights in Myanmar.

• P. Stobdan |
• October 2005 |
• Strategic Analysis