India- Portugal Relations, Guest Lecture by Professor Shiv Kumar Singh
21 Maio 2018, 16:00 • Shiv Kumar Singh
India- Portugal Relations, Guest Lecture by Professor Shiv Kumar Singh: Monday, May 21, 2018
Professor Singh began by saying that international relations were unpredictable and constantly changing. He gave the examples of the India- U.S. civil nuclear agreement, and Saudi Arabia allowing Air India flights to Israel through its airspace.
Turning to India- Portugal relations, he said that, as a non- controversial power and natural ally, Portugal can speak up and be counted for India.
He said that India is very diverse. In the last five years India’s influence has increased. In 1992 the economy was liberalised. This boosted economic diplomacy, and India’s marketing.
He said that Prime Minister Antonio Costa had received a “rock star” welcome in India, and the Pravasi Bharatiya Samman. Prime Minister Narendra Modi had paid a reciprocal visit within five months. This was unusual, because nations want existing initiatives to be implemented in full before another round of visits takes place. As evidence of chemistry between the two, Prime Minister Costa had seen off Prime Minister Modi at the airport.
Prime Minister Mario Soares had been the Chief Guest at India’s Republic Day in 1992, Professor Singh asserted. In 2000, Prime Minister Vajpayee had visited Portugal for the India- EU summit. The extradition of Abu Salem in 2005 had been an important development. Portugal supports India’s candidacy as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council.
He said that there had been visits by parliamentarians, ministers, and secretaries of state. A Portuguese minister had visited India for a study of Aadhar cards. An agreement of cooperation in outer space had been concluded. For the first time, India was the Guest Country in Science 2017. However, trade was small.
He said that the two countries needed to seize the moment. Ambassdor Jorge Oliveira had held a wine- tasting festival in India. Ambassador Jitendra Nath Misra had been instrumental in transforming the idea of the Centre for Indian Studies in the University of Lisbon to reality.
He said that the Indian Council for Cultural Relations provides scholarships for M.Phil. and Ph.D. scholars in India, and for Hindi language study. University of Lisbon had introduced Hindi language courses in 2008- 2009. The Portuguese Cultural Centre had opened in Delhi in 1991. Seven to eight Indian universities teach Portuguese. Goa University offers a Masters degree in Portuguese, and University of Delhi might possibly do so. University of Lisbon, University of Minho and ISCTE had concluded MoUs on co- operation with Indian universities. Ambassador Misra had negotiated with Portugal the conclusion of the Memorandum of Understanding on the Establishment of Nalanda University, and had signed the agreement on India’s behalf.
In the discussion, Beatriz Lopes noted that Portugal trades very little with India. To a question from Jose Pires on potential export items to India, Professor Singh replied that olive oil could be an item, but Portuguese olive oil is exported from Spain as a Spanish product. The instructor added that Portuguese businesses are daunted by India’s size and complexity. Esporao’s efforts to export wine had not succeeded because of high Indian import tariffs. It was noted that language was not a barrier to conducting trade, since the Portuguese have good English.
To a question from Jose Pires as to why Portugal has an agreement with India on co- operation in outer space, when it can rely upon the European Space Agency, Professor Singh said that the agreement with India is an example of bilateral co- operation. India’s relations with individual members of the European Union, such as France and Germany, are much stronger than its relations with the European Union.
Jose Pires said that the Indian diaspora is much bigger in the U.S. than in Portugal. The instructor clarified that the Indian diaspora in Portugal is the third largest in Europe, after the U.K. and the Netherlands.
The Causes and Consequences of India’s Nuclear Tests: Monday, May 21, 2018
In a presentation on The Causes and Consequences of India’s Nuclear Tests, Nino Machaidze said that India’s call for disarmament had been ignored. India wanted nuclear disarmament, or equal security for all. China had proliferated nuclear weapon technology. The Nuclear Non- proliferation Treaty had been extended in perpetuity. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty had an entry- into- force clause, meaning it could not come into force unless India acceded to the treaty. In conducting nuclear tests, India had not violated any treaty obligations.
She said that, after initial anger, the U.S. had entered into dialogue with India, with talks between Jaswant Singh and Strobe Talbott. Under the Civil Nuclear Agreement with the U.S., India had separated its civilian and military reactors, and put civilian reactors under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. The 123 Agreement had been concluded. The civil nuclear deal does not prevent future nuclear tests by India, although the agreement would collapse in such an eventuality.
The instructor said that Jawaharlal Nehru had developed nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, but India had never abandoned the weapons option, should a need arise. No security gurarantees were forthcoming after defeat to China in the 1962 war, and China’s nuclear test in 1964. India was not a status quo power on the nuclear issue. After agonizing over the issue, India conducted a nuclear test in 1974.
The extension of the NPT in perpetuity and the entry- into- force clause in the CTBT forced India’s hand. After the initial fury following India’s 1998 nuclear tests, the U.S. and India began a nuclear dialogue, culminating in the civil nuclear agreement with the U.S. The promise of civil nuclear co- operation did not materialize, owing to India’s Nuclear Liability Act and the Fukushima nuclear accident.
He said that India observes a voluntary moratorium on nuclear tests, but reserves the right to resume nuclear tests. There is nothing to the contrary in any written document.
In the discussion, Megi Jalagonia said that India, sandwiched between China and Pakistan, faces a tough security dilemma. Simona Juskaite, joined by Jose Pires, felt the reasons for the tests were unclear. Maria Beatriz Couto Lopes, supported by Andrea Kovacevic, felt nuclear weapons are a currency of power. To Jose Pires’ question on how nuclear weapons advance diplomatic interests, Beatriz Lopes said that a negotiation between a nuclear and a non- nuclear state is not equal.