For more than a year now, Parliament has remained on the margins as the nuclear deal with the United States has exercised the nation. Four things stand out starkly. First, what was claimed to be a balanced deal has turned into a continuing exercise involving the progressive addition of one-sided conditions on India. Secondly, the conditionalities have expanded even beyond the nuclear realm to potentially encroach on India’s foreign policy and strategic autonomy. Thirdly, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has been unable to honor his solemn assurances to Parliament. And fourthly, the balance of the Indo-U.S. agreement announced on July 18, 2005 started tilting against India in later closed-door negotiations between the two governments, but the U.S. legislative process has gone further and changed the basic terms of the Agreement

1. The last one year has not been good for India as far as the nuclear deal with the United States is concerned. Not only has deal resulted in India having to fulfill many other conditions, but also that the Prime Minister had to take back his words on the assurances he gave to the parliament.
2. Not only has India had to give more than what it got from the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal, but also the basic terms of the deal have been changed to suit the needs of the United States legislative process. The foreign policy as well as the autonomy of India too, have suffered.
3. The nuclear deal with United States has led to India giving more than what it can get. Even the basic terms of the deal have been changed to top it all: Prime Minister Manmohan Singh could not honor his solemn assurances to the parliament.
4. Although the basic terms of the agreement have been changed it should be kept in mind that United States is doing what it could to pass the deal in its parliament. Some compromises need to be made and so they are being made.

The passage of the Indian Right to Information Act. 2005 was hailed, almost universally, as a landmark piece of legislation that could change the relationship of the citizen with the state. It was considered one of the most progressive RTI laws in the world, with several provisions worthy of emulation. With widespread use, it had begun to be seen by citizen groups as a ray of hope to fight corruption, inefficiency, and the arbitrary use of power in an otherwise dark scenario. However, just six months after the Act has come into effect, the Union Cabinet has approved a set of amendments, some of which will crucially damage the scope and power of the Act. The most critical of these relate to barring the disclosure of “file notings.” Also Cabinet papers available currently after the decision is complete will now be barred from disclosure even after the decision is taken. As a result, the process of decision-making will be kept out of the public domain, making it far more difficult for citizens to participate in the process.

Kofi Annan finally made the headlines with his call on July21 for an immediate ceasefire in the Middle East crises. It was too little, too late. That the United Nations Secretary-General waited nine days before seriously speaking out has dealt a severe blow to the organization’s humanitarian image. That he twinned his criticism of Israel’s “excessive use of force” with repeated condemnations of Hizbollah again showed how deeply in thrall to the U.S. the world is. With Britain now firmly in the U.S. camp even on the Middle East conflict, the G8, the EU, and the U.N. Security Council are still not calling for a ceasefire. This international decision to sanction such atrocities is the most troubling dimension of the current war.

Nearly half a century after decolonization, there is still a tendency in the West to see the Third World as a bit of a white man’s burden, though, mercifully, not in the way that once prompted the dispatch of “civilizing” missions across the length and breadth of the Asian and African continents. Rather, the Third World is now seen to have mutated, as it were. into a “virus” that is threatening to “contaminate” the Western values of tolerance, good governance, and probity in public life. They call it the Third World “syndrome.” Last week, Mathew Parris, one of Britain’s more sober commentators, accused Prime Minister Tony Blain of bringing a “Third World flavor” to British politics.

Normally, when Iraqi leaders come to Britain they tend to ad-lib the script their hosts in Downing Street and the Foreign Office wish to hear –– or have written for them. Prime Minister Tony Blair, therefore, looked surprised and embarrassed when during a short visit to London this week his usually loyal guest –– Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki –– turned on him over his refusal to condemn the Israeli action in Lebanon and to intervene to half the violence. In a rare public display of disagreement and frustration with the British position, the soft-spoken Mr. al-Maliki exploded in anger after Mr. Blair, standing next to him at a joint press conference in Downing Street on Monday, echoed the American line that a ceasefire would not help until Hizbollah was first reined in.

1. Iraqi leaders, when they come to Britain merely read out the speeches written for them by their British counterparts. But Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki publicly embarrassed British Prime Minister Tony Blair when Mr. Blair refused to condemn Israel. He exploded in anger at a joint-press conference in Downing Street with Mr. Blair.
2. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki set a new tradition by going against the wishes to British Foreign Office and Prime Minister Tony Blair. He failed to follow suit when Mr. Blair condemned Israeli actions in Lebanon.
3. All Iraqi leaders are expected to echo the sentiments of the British government but Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki inhis recent visit to Britain refused flew into a rage when PM Tony Blair refused to denounce Israeli actions in Lebanon and to intervene to halt the violence. Mr. Blair had reiterated the American stance on the issue.
4. Prime Minister Tony Blair was surprised and embarrassed when is soft-spoken and loyal guest Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki flew into a rage in a joint press conference and condemned Israeli actions in Lebanon. He even indicted that Iraq would intervene to half the violence.