Archive

Posts Tagged ‘China’

NATO Expands Afghan War Into Pakistan

September 30, 2010 1 comment

On October 7 the United States and its North Atlantic Treaty Organization military allies will begin the tenth year of their war in Afghanistan, over 3,000 miles from NATO Headquarters in Brussels.

The following month midterm elections will be held in the U.S. and NATO will hold a two-day summit in Portugal. The American administration is eager to achieve, or appear to have achieved, a foreign policy triumph in an effort to retain Democratic Party control of the Congress and NATO something to show for the longest and largest military mission in its 61 years of existence.

President Barack Obama has tripled the amount of American combat troops in Afghanistan to 100,000 and along with forces from other NATO member states and partner nations there are now over 150,000 foreign troops in the nation, the most ever stationed in the war-wracked country. 120,000 of those soldiers are now under the command of NATO’s International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), the most ever serving in a North Atlantic Alliance-led military operation. NATO Kosovo Force at its peak had 50,000 troops, but they entered the Serbian province after an almost three-month air war had ended.

The 120,000 NATO forces currently in theater – from 50 nations already with more pegged to provide troops – are at the center of the world’s longest-lasting and increasingly deadly hot war. NATO’s first ground war, its first combat operations in Asia.

Last year was the most lethal for the U.S and NATO in what is now a nine-year conflict and this year has already proven even more costly in terms of combat deaths. And there are three more months to go.

Washington and Brussels could decide to save face and end the fighting through some combination of an internal political settlement and a true international peacekeeping arrangement – rather than the subversion of the International Security Assistance Force that was established by a United Nations mandate in December of 2001 but which is now the Pentagon’s and NATO’s vehicle for waging war in Afghanistan. And in neighboring Pakistan.

But the military metaphysic prevalent in Washington over the past 65 years will allow for nothing other than what is seen as victory, with a “Who lost Afghanistan?” legacy tarnishing the president who fails to secure it and the party to which he belongs being branded half-hearted and defeatist.

As for NATO, the Strategic Concept to be adopted in November is predicated upon the bloc’s expansion into a 21st century global expeditionary force for which Afghanistan is the test case. A NATO that loses Afghanistan, that loses in Afghanistan, will be viewed more critically by the populations of its European member states that have sacrificed their sons and daughters at the altar of NATO’s international ambitions. In the words of then-Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer six years ago: “What is NATO doing in Afghanistan? Defending values at the Hindu Kush in the present day international climate. We have to fight terrorism wherever it emerges. If we don’t do it at the Hindu Kush, it will end up at our doorstep. In other words, this perception gap [of the North Atlantic military alliance operating in South Asia] in the long run must be closed and must be healed – that is, for NATO’s future, of the utmost importance.” [1]

Not satisfied with the Vietnam that Afghanistan has become, NATO has now launched its Cambodian incursion. One with implications several orders of magnitude greater than with the prototype, though, into a nation of almost 170 million people, a nation wielding nuclear weapons. Pakistan.

As the U.S. delivered its 20th deadly drone missile attack of the month inside Pakistan on the 27th, five times the amount launched in August and the most in any month since they were started in 2004, NATO conducted a series of attacks with helicopter gunships in Northwest Pakistan. Claiming the “right of self-defense” and in “hot pursuit” of insurgents that had reportedly attacked a NATO camp, Combat Outpost Narizah, in Afghanistan’s Khost province near the Pakistani border, this past weekend NATO attack helicopters conducted two forays into the Federally Administered Tribal Areas where U.S. drone strikes have killed a record number of people this month.

Estimates of those killed, dutifully referred to in the Western press as insurgents, militants or terrorists, were 30, then 50, afterward 60, 70 and later “82 or higher.” [2]

The amount, like the identify, of the dead will never be definitively known.

Press reports stated the targets were members of the Haqqani network, founded by veteran Afghan Mujahedin leader Jalaluddin Haqqani, who when he led attacks from Pakistani soil against Afghan targets slightly over a generation ago was an American hero, one of Ronald Reagan’s “freedom fighters.” Two years ago the New York Times wrote: “In the 1980s, Jalaluddin Haqqani was cultivated as a ‘unilateral’ asset of the CIA and received tens of thousands of dollars in cash for his work in fighting the Soviet Army in Afghanistan, according to an account in ‘The Bin Ladens,’ a recent book by Steve Coll. At that time, Haqqani helped and protected Osama bin Laden, who was building his own militia to fight the Soviet forces, Coll wrote.” [3]

As to the regret that the otherwise praiseworthy Haqqani has of late allied himself with the Taliban, one voiced by among other people the late Charlie Wilson who once celebrated Haqqani as “goodness personified,” in an appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press last year Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari told his American audience that the Taliban “was part of your past and our past, and the ISI and the CIA created them together. And I can find you 10 books and 10 philosophers and 10 write-ups on that….” [4]

On September 27 two NATO helicopters attacked the Kurram agency in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas, killing six people and wounding eight. A local Pakistani government official described all the victims as civilians. According to Dawn News, “Nato has also shelled the area before.” [5] Three attacks in three days and as many as 100 deaths.

On the same day a U.S. drone-launched missile strike killed four people in the North Waziristan agency. “The identities of the four people killed in the attack were not known….” [6]

The above events occurred against the backdrop of the revelation in Bob Woodward’s new book Obama’s Wars that “a 3,000-strong secret army of Afghan paramilitary forces run by the Central Intelligence Agency had conducted cross-border raids into Pakistan.” [7]

After mounting in intensity for two years and consisting in part – helicopter gunship attacks and special forces assassination team raids – of covert operations, the U.S. and NATO war in Northwest Pakistan is now fully underway and can no longer be denied.

The Pentagon – the helicopters used in the attacks on September 25 and 26 were American Apaches and Kiowas – defended the strikes over the weekend as falling within its rules of engagement and Defense Department spokesman Colonel Dave Lapan said the U.S. had adhered to “appropriate protocol” and “Our forces have the right of self-defense.” [8]

A spokesmen for the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force initially denied that Alliance forces had launched any attacks inside Pakistani territory, although Afghan police officials had confirmed that they did. On September 27, however, the International Security Assistance Force verified that NATO forces had conducted the deadly strikes. As the third attack by NATO helicopters occurred on the same day, “Coalition officials said the cross-border attacks fell within its rules of engagement because the insurgents had attacked them from across the border.” [9]

A NATO official informed the press that “ISAF forces must and will retain the authority, within their mandate, to defend themselves in carrying out their mission.” [10]

Mehmood Shah, former top security official of the Pakistani government in the region where the helicopter gunship and drone strikes have killed over 200 people so far this month, said of the recent NATO attacks: “This should be considered a watershed event. They [Nato] must be warned: the next time you do this, it can lead to war. Our units should be deployed to fire upon them. This border has sanctity. Nato must realise they have a mandate to operate in Afghanistan, not in Pakistan.” [11]

On September 27 Interior Minister Rehman Malik denounced the NATO raids as a violation of Pakistani territorial integrity and national sovereignty and told the nation’s Senate that the Afghan ambassador to Islamabad would be summoned to explain the attacks. Malik and the Pakistani government as a whole know that the Hamid Karzai administration in Kabul has no control over what the U.S. and NATO do in its own country, much less in Pakistan. The interior minister’s comment were solely for internal consumption, for placating Pakistani popular outrage, but as Pakistan itself has become a NATO partner and U.S. surrogate [12] its officials, like those of Afghanistan, will not be notified of any future attacks.

Nevertheless domestic exigencies compelled Malik to denounce the strikes inside his country and assert “I take the drone attacks in Pakistani territory as an attack on the sovereignty of Pakistan.” A senator from the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz “asked the government to inform the parliament about any accord it had reached with the US under which drone attacks were being carried out.” [13]

At the same time Pakistani Foreign Office spokesman Abdul Basit went further and lodged what was described as a strong protest to NATO Headquarters in Brussels over the weekend’s air strikes, issuing a statement that said in part: “These incidents are a clear violation and breach of the UN mandate under which ISAF operates,” as its mandate “terminates/finishes” at the Afghan border.

“There are no agreed ‘hot pursuit’ rules. Any impression to the contrary is not factually correct. Such violations are unacceptable.” [14]

By the evening of September 27, after the Pakistani complaints were registered, NATO’s ISAF attempted to conduct damage control and reverted to the military bloc’s original position: That it has not launched attacks inside Pakistan at all. On that very day it had dispatched two more helicopter gunships for the third raid in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas.

NATO will continue to launch lethal attacks inside Pakistan against whichever targets it sees fit and will proffer neither warnings nor apologies. The U.S. will continue to escalate attacks with Hellfire missiles against whomever it chooses, however inaccurate, anecdotal and self-interested the reports upon which they are based prove to be.

The death toll in Pakistan this month is well over 200 and for this year to date over 2,000. The justification for this carnage offered by the U.S. and NATO is that it is intended to extend the policy of Barack Obama to “disrupt, dismantle and defeat” insurgent networks in Afghanistan into Pakistan, supposedly the sooner to end the war.

Forty years ago Obama’s predecessor Richard Nixon began his speech announcing the expansion of the Vietnam War into Cambodia with these words: “Good evening, my fellow Americans. Ten days ago, in my report to the nation on Vietnam, I announced the decision to withdraw an additional 150,000 Americans from Vietnam over the next year. I said then that I was making that decision despite our concern over increased enemy activity in Laos, in Cambodia, and in South Vietnam. And at that time I warned that if I concluded that increased enemy activity in any of these areas endangered the lives of Americans remaining in Vietnam, I would not hesitate to take strong and effective measures to deal with that situation.” [15]

He claimed that “enemy sanctuaries” in Cambodia “endanger the lives of Americans who are in Vietnam,” and “if this enemy effort succeeds, Cambodia would become a vast enemy staging area and a springboard for attacks on South Vietnam along 600 miles of frontier: a refuge where enemy troops could return from combat without fear of retaliation.”

The course he ordered was to “go to the heart of the trouble. And that means cleaning out major North Vietnamese and Vietcong occupied territories, these sanctuaries which serve as bases for attacks on both Cambodia and American and South Vietnamese forces in South Vietnam.”

The practical application of the policy was that “attacks are being launched this week to clean out major enemy sanctuaries on the Cambodian-Vietnam border.”

In language that has been heard again lately in Washington and Brussels – with nothing but the place names changed – Nixon claimed: “We take this action not for the purpose of expanding the war into Cambodia, but for the purpose of ending the war in Vietnam….”

Washington indeed expanded the Vietnam War into Cambodia, with what disastrous effects the world is fully aware, and soon thereafter departed Southeast Asia in defeat, leaving vast stretches of Vietnam and Cambodia in ruins.

Afghanistan and Pakistan will not fare any better.

Advertisements

India PM warns China wants foothold in South Asia

September 7, 2010 Leave a comment

NEW DELHI: China is seeking to expand its influence in South Asia at India’s expense, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh warned in rare public criticism of his country’s rival for regional resources and geopolitical clout.

Singh’s comments follow repeated diplomatic sparring between the two Asian powers in the last two years, reflecting growing friction over their disputed borders and roles as emerging global powers despite bilateral trade that has grown 30-fold since 2000.

“China would like to have a foothold in South Asia and we have to reflect on this reality,” Singh was quoted as saying by The Times of India on Tuesday. “We have to be aware of this.”

“There is a new assertiveness among the Chinese. It is difficult to tell which way it will go. So it’s important to be prepared.”

The newspaper also quoted Singh as saying that China could use India’s “soft underbelly” of Kashmir, a region disputed with Pakistan, “to keep India in low level equilibrium.”

But it also quoted Singh as saying he believed the world was large enough for India and China to “cooperate and compete”.

An official at the prime minister’s office, on condition of anonymity, said the newspaper quotes were correct. The Chinese foreign ministry had no immediate comment.

Analysts said that despite decades of mistrust, the current spat is unlikely to snowball if past diplomatic sparring is anything to go by. China is now India’s biggest trade partner.

“The reality is that there are problems between the two countries that have been left over from history, but these shouldn’t be a barrier to developing broader relations,” said Zhao Gancheng, an expert on Sino-Indian relations in Beijing.

“Mutual confidence between the countries is far from sufficient,” he added. “That problem is rising in importance.”

Simmering Tensions

China defeated India in a 1962 war, but they still spar over their disputed 3,500 km border and the presence of exiled Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, in India.

China’s support for India’s arch-enemy Pakistan, which backs separatists in disputed Kashmir and also claims the region in full, has not helped defuse tensions.

India holds 45 percent of the disputed Himalayan region while Pakistan controls a third. China holds the remainder of Kashmir, an icy desert plateau known as Aksai China. India and Pakistan, have fought two wars over Kashmir.

Singh’s comments may reflect government displeasure at China’s current stance on these issues.

“Singh’s understanding is China has crossed the red lines that affect India’s core sovereignty concerns,” said Srikanth Kondapalli, chairman of the Centre for East Asian Studies at New Delhi’s Jawaharlal Nehru University.”

“There are green lines such as trade but there are concerns there as well such as the (trade) imbalance and anti-dumping concerns. There is also a realisation in India that you have to make your displeasure more explicit to be taken seriously.”

Last month, India criticised China’s denial of a visa to an Indian army general who had operated in Kashmir. New Delhi later said it was worried by China’s growing influence in the Indian Ocean region.

China has invested in the ports in Pakistan and Sri Lanka, as well as the mining and energy sectors in Myanmar, irking India as it seeks to protect shipping lanes in a region that feeds 80 percent of China’s and 65 percent of India’s oil needs.

Last year, the Indian media reported on Chinese incursions along the border, incidents the India government shrugged off.

But Indian worries constantly surface, particularly over Chinese development projects in Pakistan-controlled Kashmir and near their disputed border.

Politics aside, the value of bilateral deals between China and India was expected to exceed $60 billion this year, a 30-fold increase since 2000, raising the stakes in maintaining peace.

However, India has imposed tougher security measures on some business with China, including telecommunications imports. —Reuters

India stand alone in opposing Pan-Afghan solution

July 12, 2010 1 comment

Bharat (aka India) stands alone in opposing the Pan-Afghan reconciliation solution in Afghanistan. It is trying to reverse the Afghan Jirga’s desire to make peace among Afghans. Delhi is also attempting to reverse the US and UK sponsored London conference which approved the recommendations of all the neighbors of Afghanistan (Istanbul Conference) for a move to reconcile all the diverse elements in Afghanistan. Earlier still Iran, and Pakistan had agreed to the Afghan proposal for reconciliation and peace.

Bharat today wants to bifurcate Afghanistan along ethnic lines because it thinks it has sway over Mr. Adbullah Abdullah a Tajik (though his mother was Pakhtun–he cannot speak proper Pushto or Darri). The Bharati plan is to stand in front of the steam roller and try to stop a train which has left the station. Delhi is attempting to thwart the peace plans because of it paranoia about Pakistan. Islamabad is simply facilitating the peace process that has been agreed upon by all the parties. Some recalcitrant opposition figures are smelling victory and may have to be brought to the table kicking and screaming. Others have to be cajoled. Some have to be dealt with. Pakistan is helping the US with a face saving exit. Delhi wants to colonize Afghanistan and thinks of Curzon and his policies as the natural boundary of Greater Bharat.

Sify News reports that Mr. Krishna is now attempting to reverse the tide of history and somehow put the genie back i the bottle. Bharat does not have a foreign policy, it has a plan to disrupt peace, partition Afghanistan and continue the war forever.

External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna will represent India at the July 20 conference of international donors in Kabul that will review reconciliation moves between the Hamid Karzai regime and the Taliban, a cause of anxiety for New Delhi.Krishna goes to Kabul shortly after his July 14-16 trip to Islamabad for the foreign ministers-level talks aimed at reviving dialogue between India and Pakistan.

The focus of the first Kabul-hosted international conference on Afghanistan will be on finding Afghan solutions to the dragging conflict against the Taliban, officials have said.

More than 70 countries are expected to send their representatives for the conference where the Karzai government will seek help to bolster governance and national stability.

The conference will also take up the contentious proposal of reconciliation and reintegration of the Taliban, a move backed by the earlier London conference and endorsed by the peace jirga.

India has reiterated its concerns many a time about the reintegration proposal as it fears it may end up propping up anti-India Taliban elements back in the saddle in a power-sharing arrangement in Kabul.

Pakistan’s intensified efforts to influence power-sharing negotiations in Afghanistan has added to New Delhi’s worries, specially in view of the July 2011 deadline for withdrawal of US forces from that country.

India has followed closely reports of a recent meeting between Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Al Qaeda-linked militant commander Sirajuddin Haqqani.

The meeting was allegedly arranged by Pakistan’s Army Chief Ashfaq Pervez Kayani.

According to a report by Al-Jazeera, Karzai met Haqqani along with Kayani and Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) chief Ahmad Shuja Pasha in Kabul for ‘face-to-face talks’. Both Kabul and Islamabad have denied these reports.

Kayani and Pasha, according to sources, tried to influence Karzai to accommodate the Pakistan-backed Haqqani network which has targeted Indian assets in Afghanistan.

India conveyed its unease about the Taliban power-sharing deal when Afghan Deputy Foreign Minister Eklil Ahmad Hamiki came to New Delhi this week. Amid Pakistani moves, Krishna to attend Kabul meet 2010-07-10 17:10:00

Delhi is well advised to take care of its problems in Kashmir, Assam, and 40% of the territory which is controlled by the Naxals. Its attempt to cross NATO, ISAF, the US, and the world will cost it dearly in terms of diplomatic jilting and scorn–already seen in Washington, London and Beijing.

China to invest in Solar, Wind Energy in Pakistan

China to invest in Solar, Wind Energy in Pakistan

SHANGHAI (China): President Asif Ali Zardari has called upon Chinese alternate energy entrepreneurs and manifold companies to make investment in Pakistan as it has a great economic potential and a future role in the world affairs.

He said: “When I draw the attention of the investors in the alternate and renewable energy, I ask for shifting from pollutant fossil fuel to clean sources of energy. We are impressed by the development made by the Chinese companies in the environment-friendly mixed hybrid fuel.”

He said Pakistan and China both had old friendship and cooperation. President Zardari invited Chinese energy firms to harness solar and wind power in Pakistan, saying that they are destined to find themselves in a win-win situation for both countries.

He said this while addressing Pak-China Alternate Energy Forum here on Saturday. He said that Pakistan needed power to meet its energy demands and the investors needed new markets where they were assured of steady and investor friendly state national policies.

“I have come to Shanghai to tell you that seldom before such a commonality of interest existed and seldom before such a great opportunity had come our way,” he said. He said Pakistan has tens of millions of rooftops waiting eagerly to be adorned with solar panels in same way as China had done.

Speaking on the occasion, Masood Khan, Ambassador of Pakistan to China, said Mr Zardari’s quest for energy security for Pakistan is the driving force behind the Pak-China Alternate Energy Forum. He thanked deputy mayor of Shanghai, Tang Dengjie for attending the conference.

Chief executives of SUNTECH, CEEG, Goldwind, Yinge Li Energy Group, Zhejiang Yuhui Solar and other companies engaged with alternate energy modes participated in the conference.

Arif Alauddin, Chief Executive Officer of Alternate Energy Development Board also spoke on the occasion. He invited to the Chinese entrepreneurs to make investment in alternate energy sector in Pakistan. He said: “My father-in-law, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, had sent his children to see and learn from the fast development of this country. My wife, who became Prime Minister of Pakistan in 1988, had also pursued the forward-looking policies of her father.”

He said it was his fifth visit to China as President of Pakistan and each time he had learnt from the rapid socio-economic development of the country. He said in today’s scenario China had the status of the growth engine of the world.

President Zardari said that he was the first businessman President of Pakistan and he wanted to see that his future generations should have a prosperous and clean world around them. He said it was an adequate and opportune time for the business people to invest in Pakistan. “I have brought my daughters with me so that they could see the development of China. My elder studying in Scotland will come to China for a year to learn Chinese language”, he added.

He said his martyred wife Benazir Bhutto had a vision to have a trade and economic connectivity with China. She wanted to see gas pipeline, railway tracks and highways running through both the countries, he said.

He said today name of the game was mixed fuel, to substitute fossil fuel with the mixed energy comprising solar, wind and ethanol to save the world future. He said: “When we talk about the alternate energy, it means we are working for the future generations.”

Earlier in his welcome remarks Pakistan’s Ambassador Masood Khan said President not only has the general overview of Pakistan’s energy requirements but he emphasized the exploration of full potential of renewable energy in Pakistan. Khan said Pakistan has a long coastal area in Sindh and Balochistan with a potential for wind power. Zardari Terms:China Growth Engine of the World, ‘Pakistan Times’ Special Correspondent

Sino-Pak N-deal meets int’l obligations: China

Chinese Embassy in Washington said Sunday, China believes that its agreement to install two new nuclear reactors in Pakistan does not violate international obligations, Geo news reported.

In a statement to the US media, the embassy’s spokesman Wang Baodong told the US media Beijing is convinced the reactor agreement “goes along well with the international obligations China and Pakistan carry in relation to the international nuclear non-proliferation regime”.

A US expert, Mark Hibbs of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, endorsed the Chinese position but urged Beijing to be careful.

“The US doesn’t really have any options…..the Nuclear Suppliers Group’s guidelines are voluntary. There is nothing the US can do to prevent China from going ahead with this deal,” he said.

“Unless Washington comes up with a very, very attractive offer, the history of Chinese-Pakistani relations is such that it is unlikely that this deal will not go through,” Heritage Foundation researcher Dean Cheng told the US media.

A State Department official disagreed with the suggestion but did so rather meekly.

The United States “suspects” that China would need a waiver from a nuclear export control group to move ahead with the sale of two atomic energy plants to Pakistan, a department official told the Washington Times.

Pak Army commandos leave for China for weeklong drills

July 1, 2010 1 comment

ISLAMABAD: A commando contingent of the Pak Army’s special force Thursday left for China from the PAF Base in Chaklala to participate in the third joint military and training exercises between the two countries.

The exercises, starting today, have been designed to benefit from the professional skills based on the mutual experiences of the two nations for anti-terrorism efforts.

According to a press release issued by Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR), the weeklong exercise will be conducted from July 1 to 7 at Qixtonxia, Yeuhuan, China.

Troops of the Special Services Group of both countries will participate in the drills.

It is aimed at practising counter terrorism mechanics and drills in mountains, while developing interpersonal rapport between participants of both sides.

Senior military leadership from both the countries will also attend the exercises.

Despite US Concerns China To Move Ahead On Pak Nuke Deal

China strongly defends Pakistan, likely to formally announce Pak-China Nuclear Deal in Nuclear Suppliers Group meet.

“We do not need an exemption from the NSG, as requested by the US, since the deal was reached before we (China) joined the group” Fan Jishe, a scholar of US studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences said. Jishe further added that the nature of the Sino-Pakistani deal is different from that of the US-India deal (ToI).

Beijing, June 23 (ANI): Despite the US voicing serious concerns over China’s offer to help Pakistan set up two nuclear reactors, Beijing is likely go ahead and finance the nuclear project.

Beijing is likely to formally announce its plans to build two 650 megawatts nuclear reactors in Punjab’s Chasma region during the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) meeting in New Zealand on June 24 (Thursday) amidst heavy lobbying from India against the project.

According to Chinese experts, one of the main concerns for the international community is that Bejing, like New Delhi, has not inked the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and technically it is not restricted to transfer nuclear technology to any other country.

They, however, also pointed out that it is not for the first time that China is helping Pakistan with its nuclear aspirations.

“This is not the first time China has helped Pakistan build nuclear reactors, and since it will be watched by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the deal is not going to have any problems,” The China Daily quoted Zhai Dequan, deputy secretary-general of the China Arms Control and Disarmament Association, as saying.

Zhai also highlighted that Washington would not pressurise Beijing to call-off its plans as it has struck a civil nuclear deal with New Delhi in 2008, which saw the NSG making exemptions for the deal.

“Pakistan is also fighting a war on terror for the US as well as for itself, and the country’s loss is greater than the US and the other 42 coalition nations combined. The economic aid it has received is too little compared to its loss. Pakistan has an urgent need for more civil energy and that need should be looked after,” he added.

The Sino-Pakistan nuclear deal is not likely to attract strong opposition, but NSG members still do not want to see the transaction go forward, said Mark Hibbs, nuclear policy expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Policy in Washington.

Hibbs believes that the US-India deal had set a precedent.

“There was no real agreement between the members about how to proceed,” he said. (ANI)

The Indian