Pawan Jury BhilwaraRj
superb information revealed by Rahul Arya Rrg .
Rahul Arya Ballari Karnataka:
For the past week or so, I've been reading extensively about the End Use Monitoring Agreement (EUMA) signed between the US and Indian govts in 2009; what it means for the future of Indian armed forces and more importantly, for India's sovereignty.
.
I started by looking into the Press Releases and Lok Sabha debates from July 20, 2009. I'd like to quote some of the relevant sections of the debates pertaining to the EUMA, the arguments of various MPs and the links to these debates.
.
1. Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna (Congress) on July 20, 2009: We have agreed on the end-use monitoring arrangements that will ensure their effort too in letters of acceptance for Indian procurement of U.S. defense technology can take effect.
.
2. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on July 20, 2009: We have shown progress already by finalizing important agreements today, including an end-use monitoring agreement that will pave the way for greater defense cooperation between our countries.
.
US Govt website Link: <https://2009-2017.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/rm/2009a/july/126259.htm>;
Indian Govt website Link: <https://mea.gov.in/outoging-visit-detail.htm?5212/Joint+Press+Interaction+by+EAM+and+US+Secretary+of+State>;
.
3. L.K. Advani (BJP) on July 21, 2009: But today we expected that the External Affairs Minister would come out with a clarification on this point where he has said that we have also agreed on the end-use monitoring arrangements that will henceforth be referred to in letters of acceptance for Indian procurement of US defence technology and equipment. Not only that. He goes on to say that this systematizes ad hoc arrangements for individual defence procurements from the USA entered into by previous Governments also so that it is in a way trying to have end-use arrangements made into a formal systematic arrangement even in respect of earlier matters. This is something very disturbing.
.
4. Basu Deb Acharia (CPI-M) on July 21, 2009: None of the questions that we raised today in the morning has been clarified by the Minister while making the statement. We did not want this statement. The points we raised were about why we wanted a statement. That is why we demanded a statement. We demanded a clarification from the Government. Why did the Government of India agree for end use monitoring by the United States of America? And they want to formalize the system! This is nothing but surrendering to the United States of America. So, none of the questions that had been raised by the entire Opposition has been clarified by the Minister of External Affairs.
.
5. Yashwant Sinha (BJP) on July 21, 2009: सारी सूचना अखबारों के माध्यम से हमें नहीं मिली। हमें कुछ-कुछ सूचना मिली कि एंड यूज मॉनीटरिंग एग्रीमैन्ट, एंड यूज वैरिफिकेशन एग्रीमैन्ट ऐसा कुछ भारत सरकार और अमेरिका के बीच में तय हुआ है। चूंकि इसके बारे में थोड़ी जानकारी हमें भी है, उस मंत्रालय में मैंने भी सर्व किया है, इसलिए मेरे मन में कई प्रकार की शंकाएं पैदा हुईं, जिन्हें मैंने यहां रखा। मैंने कहा कि जैसे स्पेसिफिकली जो थर्ड कंट्री इम्पोर्ट्स होते हैं, उसमें अगर अमेरिकन इक्युपमैन्ट लगा है, अमेरिकन टैक्नोलोजी का इस्तेमाल हुआ है तो उस पर भी यह लागू होगा। यह एक सवाल था, जो मैंने पूछा कि खास तौर पर सरकार की तरफ से बताया जाए कि अमेरिका से जो खरीदेंगे, उस पर तो लगेगा ही लगेगा, तीसरे मुल्क से जो खरीदेंगे, उस पर भी लगेगा और मैं जानता हूं कि इस प्रकार की बात है।
.
इसीलिए मैं इस सदन में जिम्मेदारी के साथ इस बात को उठा रहा हूं। इसके बाद मैंने कहा कि सरकार की तरफ से यह बयान दिया गया है कि जो चल है, चल मतलब अचल से भिन्न चल, जो मूवेबल है, उसे हम लोग दिखा देंगे। प्रधान मंत्री के लिए एयरक्राफ्ट है, एक हाई सिक्युरिटी एयरक्राफ्ट खरीदा जा रहा है, जिसमें कि बहुत विशेष तौर के रडार वगैरह लगाये जायेंगे, लिखा गया कि इसे हम किसी नॉन एयरफोर्स बेस पर लाकर दिखा देंगे। लेकिन मैंने सवाल किया जो अचल है, जो इम्मूवेबल है, उसमे वैरिफिकेशन कैसे होगा, उसे उठाकर कैसे लायेंगे? बंगलुरू में अगर कोई संयंत्र लगा, जिसमें इनकी टैक्नोलोजी या इनका इक्युपमैन्ट यूज किया गया तो उसे कैसे लायेंगे? इसलिए मुझे शक हुआ कि जनता को गुमराह करने के दृष्टिकोण से इस प्रकार का सलैक्टिवली मीडिया में किया जा रहा है, ताकि देश संतुष्ट रहे कि ऐसा कुछ नहीं है।
.
6. Sushma Swaraj (BJP) on July 21, 2009: महोदय, सबसे पहले मैं मंत्री महोदय को यह बताना चाहती हूं कि एंड यूज़ मॉनीटरिंग एग्रीमेंट का विरोध इस सदन में आज पहली बार नहीं हो रहा है। वर्ष 2008 में भी इसका विरोध इतने ही पुरजोर ढ़ंग से इसी सदन में हुआ था। यह अलग बात है कि विदेश मंत्री जी उस समय इस सदन के सदस्य नहीं थे, लेकिन सरकार एक निरन्तरता का नाम है और उन्हें यह बात जरूर बतायी जा चुकी होगी कि देश की संसद इसके विरोध में थी। मैं मंत्री महोदय से जानना चाहती हूं कि केवल सांसद ही नहीं आपके अपने ऑफिसियल स्टैब्लिशमेंट ने भी इसका विरोध किया है। ...* ने इस एग्रीमेंट को इन्ट्रयुसिव कहा है। उन्होंने कहा है कि जब हम कोई चीज खरीदते हैं तो हम पैसा दे देते हैं, हमने पैसा दे दिया, टैक्नोलॉजी खरीद ली, अब उसके मास्टर हम हैं और अब उस पर कोई इंस्पैक्शन नहीं कर सकता है।
.
इसके लिए उन्होंने इन्ट्रयुसिव शब्द का प्रयोग किया है। सीएजी की रिपोर्ट आयी है, इसमें भी विरोध किया गया है। मैं यह जानना चाहती हूं कि संसद के विरोध को, अपने ऑफिसियल स्टैब्लिशमेंट के विरोध को, सीएजी के विरोध को एक तरफ रखते हुए आपने इस तरह के समझौते पर हस्ताक्षर क्यों किये? महोदय, मेरा दूसरा सवाल है कि हम भी अमेरिका के साथ अच्छे रिश्तों के पक्षधर रहे हैं, लेकिन माननीय मंत्री जी हम दोस्ती के स्तर पर रिश्ता चाहते हैं, दासता के स्तर पर नहीं। आपका यह समझौता दासता का प्रदर्शन कर रहा है इसलिए हम इसका विरोध कर रहे हैं।
.
7. M. Thambidurai (AIADMK) on July 21, 2009: The Minister in his Statement has stated, “We have also agreed on the End-use Monitoring Agreement”. What does this mean? How can the USA come and monitor the whole thing here? We have to safeguard our sovereignty. As has been said by the other Member, when we are purchasing these equipment, we have every right to do whatever we want to do. Shrimati Sushma Swaraj just now said that a friendly relationship should be there and not the kind of relationship where they could dictate terms to us, that is why, we are worried. The Minister says, ‘we will continue discussion’. Now what are you going to discuss? Once you have signed the agreement, you have concluded everything. Therefore, what are you going to discuss? Are you going to withdraw the agreement? This is what we want to know. All the hon. Members’ serious concern is that we cannot pledge our sovereignty to any foreign country. Therefore, first of all, you withdraw this kind of agreement. This is our expectation from you.
.
Link: For point no.3 to 7 (i.e. July 21, 2009):
<http://164.100.47.194/Loksabha/Debates/Result15.aspx?dbsl=760>;
.
8. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh (Congress) on July 29, 2009: One (issue) relates to the end-use monitoring arrangement we have made with the United States for Defence purchases. All Governments, Madam, including our Government, are particular about end-uses to which exported Defence equipment and technologies are put to and for preventing them from falling into wrong hands. Since the late 1990s, the Governments of India and the United States have entered into end-use monitoring arrangement for the import of US high-technology Defence equipment and supplies. These were negotiated before this Agreement in each case by successive Governments of India. The Government has only accepted those arrangements which are fully in consonance with our sovereignty and dignity. What we have now agreed with the United States is a generic formulation which will apply to future such supplies that India chooses to undertake.
.
By agreeing to a generic formulation, we have introduced an element of predictability in what is otherwise an ad-hoc case by case negotiation. Government has taken all precautions to ensure an outcome that guarantees our sovereignty and national interest. Nothing in the text that has been agreed to compromises India’s sovereignty. There is no provision – I repeat, there is no provision – for any unilateral action by the United States side with regard to inspection or related matters. India has the sovereign right to jointly decide, including though joint consultations, the verification procedure. Any verification has to follow a request; it has to be on a mutually-acceptable date and at a mutually acceptable venue. There is no provision for on-site inspections or granting of access to any military site or sensitive areas. This is the position with regard to end-use monitoring.
.
Link: <http://164.100.47.194/Loksabha/Debates/Result15.aspx?dbsl=285>;
.
9. Basu Deb Acharia (CPI-M) on July 30, 2009: The Prime Minister said that this end use monitoring was in existence since 1990. Whatever equipment we have purchased from the USA, all of them are subject to end use monitoring by the USA. But it was on an ad hoc basis. There was no agreement with the USA; that has been stated by the Prime Minister, while intervening yesterday. When the agreement has been signed by India and the USA, what will happen? This is very important, but that question has not been addressed by the Prime Minister yesterday. The US will have the right to check whether India is using any purchased weapon for the purpose for which it was intended. This could mean a weapon system bought by India to bolster defence; say, for instance, against China or if India wants to use it against Pakistan, they will not be able to use it against Pakistan. EUMA restricts what purchasing country like India can do with US-origin defence equipment, even within its own border; you will not be able to do anything with the equipment which we purchase from the USA.
.
Under the terms of EUMA, India cannot modify the purchased defence article or system in any form. And, it also cannot prevent the buyer country from freeing itself from dependency on United States for maintenance. India would not be able to undertake maintenance of any of the equipment purchased from America. This is not so with the other countries. We have purchased a number of Defence equipment from Russia, erstwhile USSR but this end-use monitoring system was not there for the equipment purchased from other countries. This restricts India from getting ordinary US Defence equipment serviced by any other country without prior American permission.
.
The Prime Minister has stated that the inspection will be fixed on mutually agreed date and the inspector from America will inspect the equipment supplied by America. Those inspectors will not be allowed to visit any sensitive establishment in our country. If any equipment is installed in a sensitive establishment in our country, then that equipment has to be brought to other place for inspection. This is nothing but infringement on our sovereignty, our independence.
.
So, by signing the End-Use Monitoring Agreement with the United States of America, we have become different as with no other country this system is there. When there was an ad hoc arrangement, why did India sign the Agreement? Our C&AG and Air Chief has also criticised signing the Agreement with the United States of America in regard to the End-Use Monitoring. We think this is an infringement on our sovereignty. Our independence has been surrendered to the United States of America and we opposed this End-Use Monitoring Agreement which has been signed between the Government of India and the United States of America.
.
Link: <http://164.100.47.194/Loksabha/Debates/Result15.aspx?dbsl=625>;
.
10. Minister of State Maj Gen (Retd) VK Singh (BJP) on August 13, 2014: Since the late 1990s, the Governments of India and the United States have entered into end-use monitoring arrangements for the import of US high-technology defence equipment and supplies. Although a formal Agreement was not signed, a generic formulation was agreed in 2009 between India and the United States for such future supplies that India chooses to procure to give predictability in what was otherwise an ad-hoc case by case arrangement for procurement of defence technology and equipment from the US.
.
There is no provision in the 2009 End Use Monitoring formulation with the United States for any unilateral action by the United States with regard to inspection or related matters. It provides for joint consultations on modalities; in no way does it compromise our sovereignty, or limit our sovereign choice of whether, where and what we choose to buy for our national defence or scientific establishments. The arrangements to which we have agreed are fully in consonance with our sovereignty and national interest.
.
Link: <http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=108660>;
------------------------------------------------------------------
.
A few important observations:
.
a. Sushma Swaraj opposed the EUMA back in 2009 when she was in the opposition. Today, she's the Foreign Minister. Why doesn't she / her "nationalist" party abolish the EUMA? Doesn't this prove that there is no REAL difference between the Congress and the BJP?
.
b. It is interesting to note that both the then PM Manmohan Singh and the then Foreign Minister S.M Krishna use the term "arrangements" i.e. End-Use Monitoring arrangements; they don't use the word "Agreement". Does this mean that no agreement was signed? Well, when you go through Hillary Clinton's statement, which was made just a few minutes after S.M Krishna's statement, she uses the word "Agreement" !!
.
If there was no agreement signed, then what does the word "arrangements" mean? And how can any "arrangement" be binding on the new govt? Looks like the UPA govt was playing with words.
.
c. But then, 5 years later, Minister of state in the Ministry of External Affairs and Overseas Indian Affairs VK Singh ji also says that no agreement was signed !! So what was it? Was an agreement signed or was it an "arrangement"?
.
It is also very interesting to see that VK Singh ji's statement is almost an exact copy of Manmohan Singh's statement. Please compare the two statements (points no. 8 & 10) and you'll see how similar they are !!! Is this the party with a difference (BJP)??!! This is one reason why I always maintain that all parties are the same; the differences between them are superficial.