US sanctions waiver intended to 'wean' countries like India off Russian equipment

Agencies
October 6, 2018

Washington, Oct 6: The US presidential waiver on weapons deal with sanctions-hit Russia is intended to "wean" countries like India off the Russian equipment, the White House has said as New Delhi inked a USD 5 billion deal to purchase S-400 Triumf air defence system from Moscow.

The mega deal was sealed in New Delhi on Friday during the visit of Russian President Vladimir Putin for the annual summit with Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

In a guarded reaction, the US said Friday its intent to slap sanctions against Russia was not aimed at imposing damage to the military capabilities of its "allies or partners," shortly after India concluded the deal for purchase of S-400 missiledefence system from Russia.

The S-400 missile defence system would give India's defence a cutting-edge security against any missile attack by its enemies.

"The (CAATSA presidential) waiver is narrow, intended to wean countries off Russian equipment and allow for things such as spare parts for previously-purchased equipment," a White House National Security Council Spokesperson told PTI hours after the conclusion of the S-400 contract.

The deal was concluded during the visit of Russian President Vladimir Putin for the annual summit with Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

President of US-India Strategic and Partnership Forum Mukesh Aghi said: "India lives in a very turbulent and nuclear-powered region. S-400 provides that assurance and is compatible with its current platform. Friends understand that these discussions with Russia started several years ago hence I do not believe US will impose sanction on India".

But for the presidential waiver, Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act or CAATSA sanctions kicks in in the event of a major purchase like S-400 missile defence system. Ahead of the deal, the US had urged India not to purchase S-400. It reiterated Friday.

"The Administration has indicated that a focus area for the implementation of CAATSA Section 231 is new or qualitative upgrades in capability “ including the S-400 air and missile defense system," the White House NSC Spokesperson said.

Last month, the US had imposed sanctions on China for the purchase of S-400 from Russia.

"Our recent action to sanction a Chinese government entity for an S-400 delivery underscores the seriousness of our resolve on this issue. The waiver authority is not country-specific. There are strict criteria for considering a waiver," said the spokesperson.

The State Department, which is tasked with reviewing the deal and initiated the process of sanctions or waiver under CAATSAA, and then recommend to the president, did not respond to the question on the time frame and the process.

However, an industry source said the law is ambiguous about "when a waiver is necessary so this can be avoided for years".

The National Defense Authorization ACT (NDDA) 2019 gives president the power to waive of the CAATSA sanctions if it is national security interest. It also lists out several other options for presidential waiver, prominent among which is the purchase country – India in this case – is taking or will take steps to reduce its inventory of major defense equipment and advanced conventional weapons produced by the defense sector of the Russian Federation as a share of its total inventory of major defense equipment and advanced conventional weapons over a specified period.

In fact, over the last more than a decade, India the top arms purchaser of the world, has gradually reduced its dependence on Russian arms. It now stands at about 60 per cent, which is much lower than it was a decade ago. The US has been a major beneficiary of this move.

As part of its diversification plan, India has increased its purchase of arms from the US from about zero to more than USD 18 billion. India is in the process of purchasing arms and equipment worth billions of dollars from the US in the coming years including armed and unarmed drones and fighter jets.

A presidential waiver can also be given if a country like India in this case is cooperating with the US government on other security matters critical to the US strategic interests. Experts believe that is exactly the case and one of the main reasons for US designating India as a 'Major Defence Partner'.

"I don't like to make predictions in today's Washington but sanctioning India, and surrendering the Indian defence market to Russia, would have exactly the opposite of the intended effect of CAATSA. No American interest group benefits from sanctioning India," Benjamin Schwartz from US India Business Council said.

He has previously served as the director for India in the US office of the secretary of defence.

Aparna Pande, from the Hudson Institute think-tank, said "I believe what is more likely is that even though India will sign the S-400 deal, it will delay payment, etc so that the sanctions don't come into effect.

"This way India maintains its strategic autonomy and historical ties with Russia and yet ensures its strategic relationship with the US is not impacted either," Pande said.

According to Rick Rossow, from the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank: "Congress widened the waiver criteria with India in mind, and the fact we had a robust '2+2 Dialogue' in Delhi a month back shows that the administration believes in the momentum".

The Russian Embassy in the US tweeted that that the delivery of S-400 will begin in October 2020.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
March 1,2020

Kolkata, Mar 1: The Calcutta High Court has ruled that it is not mandatory for foreigners to produce a valid passport and its particulars for processing of application for grant of Indian citizenship if he is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non-availability of the document.

Justice Sabysachi Bhattacharya passed the order while disposing off a petition by granting the petitioner liberty to file an application before the authority "as contemplated in Rule 11 of the Citizenship Rules 2009, upon furnishing explanation as to the non-availability of the passport".

Bismillah Khan had filed the petition saying he was being denied the citizenship of India because of his inability to file an application under Section 5 (1) (c) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, apparently due to the mandatory requirement of furnishing a copy of the passport for such application.

The petitioner's counsel submitted that Khan was a Pakhtoon citizen and due to political turmoil in the said state, which subsequently merged partially into Afghanistan and partially into Pakistan, he, as a five-year old, had to migrate to India with his father in 1973.

Under such circumstances, the petitioner could not have any opportunity of having a valid passport, since they were refugees under distress, the counsel said.

The petitioner had previously approached a coordinate Bench of the court, wherein a single judge, passed an order on July 25, 2018, directing him to comply with the formalities required, as communicated by the secretary to the Government of India to the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal (Home), vide a letter dated December 7, 2017.

The court had then also given liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh before the appropriate authority under Section 5(1)(c) of the 1955 Act, having complied with all the formalities.

The petitioner then moved Bhattacharya's court submitting that a complete application as directed by the Coordinate Bench cannot be possibly filed by his client due to the mandatory requirement of uploading a copy of his passport, which the petitioner does not have due to reasons beyond his control.

The counsel said Khan is married to an Indian citizen, has a daughter and living in India for close to half a century.

The counsel for the union of India submitted that in view of no application having been filed by the petitioner, there is no scope of granting such proposed application at the present juncture for the Union.

The counsel argued that it is mandatory to file an application in Form III for the application of the petitioner under Section 5(1)(c) of the Act to be considered at all.

In view of the petitioner not complying with the mandatory requirement of submitting a copy of his passport, the state government cannot, under the law, forward such application to the union government.

After hearing all sides, Justice Bhattacharya said although the rule "contemplates that an application shall not be entertained unless the application is made in Form III, such provision ipso facto does not make the availability of a passport a mandatory requirement".

"..the Form given with the Rules or the Rules themselves cannot override the provision of the statute itself, under which the said Rules are framed, which does not stipulate such a mandate on the applicants for citizenship under Section 5 (1)(c) of the 1955 Act mandatorily to carry a passport".

The court said although such provision is included in the Form, which has to be complied with by the applicant, "it is nowhere indicated in such Form that all the relevant particulars, including the particulars regarding passport of the petitioner have to be furnished mandatorily, along with a copy of a valid foreign passport, even in the event the petitioner, for valid reasons, is not in a position to produce such passport".

Justice Bhattacharya ruled that under such circumstances, it cannot be held that the provision of producing a passport and its particulars is mandatory in nature and there has to be a relaxation in such requirement "in case the petitioner is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non- availability of such passport".

"Unless such a leeway is given to the applicants, genuine persons who otherwise have all the formal documents indicating that they have been residing in India for a long time and have married a resident of India would also be unable to apply for Indian Citizenship despite having lived their entire lives and contributed to the economy and diverse culture of this country."

He said such a scenario would be contradictory to the spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

"In such view of the matter, the requirement of having a passport has to be read as optional in Form III of the Citizenship Rules, 2009 and the authorities are deemed to have the power to relax such 6 requirement in the event the applicant satisfied the authorities for genuine reasons why the applicant is not in a position to produce such passport," the February 24 order said.

The court ruled that despite the provision of making applications online, a provision has to be made for persons who do not have all the particulars of their passport, which is read as optional, to file applications manually, which are to be treated as valid applications under Rule 5 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009.

The court also ordered that alternatively the necessary software be amended so that the online applications can be presented with or without passports, in the latter case furnishing detailed reasons as to non-furnishing of passports.

"Sanctioning of such forms, however, will be conditional upon the satisfaction of the relevant authorities about the reasons for the applicant not being able to produce her/his passport," the order said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
June 5,2020

New Delhi, Jun 5: On World Environment Day, Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Friday urged citizens to ensure that the flora and fauna thrive and take a pledge to preserve our planet's rich biodiversity.

"On #WorldEnvironmentDay, we reiterate our pledge to preserve our planet's rich biodiversity. Let us collectively do whatever possible to ensure the flora and fauna with whom we share the Earth thrive. May we leave an even better planet for the coming generations," the Prime Minister tweeted.

He also shared a clip from his last 'Mann Ki Baat' programme where he mentioned about conservation of rainwater and protecting the rich diversity of nature.

"On June 5, the entire world will celebrate 'World Environment Day'. The theme for this year's 'World Environment Day' is bio-diversity. This theme is especially pertinent in the current circumstances. During lockdown in the last few weeks the pace of life may have slowed down a bit but it has also given us an opportunity to introspect upon the rich diversity of nature or biodiversity around us," the Prime Minister had said.

"Much of the avian fauna had sort of disappeared due to sound and air pollution, and now after years people can once again listen to their melodic chirping in their homes," he said.

The Prime Minister also said that water conservation, in particular the conservation of rainwater, is essential and exhorted everyone to strive for saving rainwater in the upcoming monsoons.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
February 5,2020

New Delhi, Feb 5: Delhi High Court on Wednesday stated that that death warrant of all convicts in the Nirbhaya gangrape and murder case should be executed together.

The Delhi prison rules do not state whether when the mercy petition of one convict is pending, the execution of the other convicts can take place and from the trial court to Supreme Court all convicts have been held by a common order and a common judgment, Justice Suresh Kumar Kait observed while passing the order.

High Court dismissed the Central government and Tihar Jail authorities plea challenging the Patiala House court's order, which stayed the execution of the four convicts in the case. It also observed that the convicts indulged in a heinous offence of a bone-chilling rape and murder of a girl and that criminal appeals by all convicts were dismissed by the courts.

Moreover, the court observed that the review petitions were filed after long wait and convicts are taking shelter of Article 21 which is available to them till their last breath.

A single-judge bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait had on Sunday kept the order reserved in the matter after special hearing of two days.

Earlier, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing on behalf of the Centre, alleged that the convicts were deliberately delaying the execution, adding that any delay in death sentence will have a dehumanising effect on the convicts.

A Delhi court last week stayed till further orders the execution of the four convicts -- Akshay Thakur, Mukesh Singh, Pawan Gupta, and Vinay Sharma -- which was earlier scheduled to take place on February 1.

The case pertains to the gang-rape and brutal murder of a 23-year-old paramedical student in a moving bus on the night of December 16, 2012, by six people, including a juvenile, in Delhi. The woman had died at a Singapore hospital a few days later.

One of the five adults accused, Ram Singh, had allegedly committed suicide in the Tihar Jail during the trial of the case.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.