Friends in deed..

Barack Obama and Narendra Modi share a light moment at Hyderabad House in New Delhi. PTIBarack and I" has a brief history to it. At the G-20 Summit in Brisbane in November, Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott came up with the idea that all leaders should address each other by their first names. He made a short announcement urging his counterparts to try doing this while in Brisbane. He was also the first world leader to call Prime Minister Narendra Modi just 'Narendra'. As it turns out, the idea appealed to Modi and from then on, it has been Vladimir, David, Tony and apparently even Jinping for the Chinese president.
Clearly, Modi carried on with the practice during phone conversations that followed with US President Barack Obama. At one point, US officials quietly inquired with their Indian counterparts whether Modi would want to be addressed only as 'Narendra' because Obama could find it difficult getting the correct pronunciation. The consensus was that just 'Modi' would also do. With that started Obama's effort to get accustomed to Modi's style, his ways and a penchant to take the lead in every conversation.
This was, in many ways, a different Indian prime minister for Washington, certainly different from the erudite and soft-spoken Manmohan Singh or the statesman-like Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Unlike Singh, who rarely initiated a phone call with the US president, Modi made two on his own to Obama, besides the conversations in Brisbane and Nay Pyi Taw, to set up the visit and push for results. He also meticulously planned for the visit, from choosing the 'naari shakti' (women power) theme for the parade to having Obama on the 'Mann ki Baat' radio programme, Modi monitored it all from the PMO.

 

 

And if any more evidence was needed, it would be there to see in the form of deliverables at the end of Obama's 52 hours in New Delhi: the sixyear-old nuclear liability logjam was resolved, defence ties made more surefooted, the climate change hurdle skirted for now and significantly, a meeting of minds on the geostrategic vision for Asia. For those who thought the symbolism of a US president being the chief guest at the Republic Day parade was in itself a coup, Modi and Obama had a few surprises in store. The two leaders had scripted a dramatic turnaround in ties between their countries, one that promises to test the skills of both sides to deliver and, if successful, help Modi serve his domestic agenda.

The seeds of this transformation, however, were sown months earlier, in the immediate aftermath of Modi's victory when he warmed up to Washington and made an emphatic statement with his visit to New York and Washington. The US, on its part, sensed the opportunity to move on issues that had been held up and test Modi's promise to deliver. The first was to resolve the WTO impasse. Modi told Secretary of State John Kerry last July that if the US gave India some latitude on agriculture subsidies, he will not come in the way of the Trade Facilitation Agreement. That started a series of conversations leading to a deal acceptable to both sides.
Similarly, when Obama raised the nuclear liability issue and the slack in defence cooperation-specifically the Defence Trade and Technology Initiative- as priority items in their first conversation last September, Modi was again upfront with his bottom line. He told Obama that India wants to align itself to the best practices in each industry or sector and the same goes with atomic energy. But it would not be able to amend the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act (CLNDA), 2010. Beyond that, Modi made it clear that he was willing to find solutions to align India to the Vienna Convention on Supplementary Compensation (CSC) for nuclear damage, the global system that governs nuclear liability.
LIABILITY UNITED
Obama interacts with people at Siri Fort Auditorium in New Delhi on January 27. ReutersDealmaking, American-style, is an approach Modi appears very comfortable with, willing to go the extra mile as long as his preconditions are respected. That was also the source of frustration for Washington, which argued that the Manmohan Singh government continuously vacillated on key commitments, specially on the nuclear deal. So if India gave the operator the right to make a supplier liable in case of a nuclear disaster, Washington raised the demand for tracking US nuclear material in the Indian programme which amounted to bilateral safeguards that were not envisaged in the India-US agreement. To make it worse, as though on cue, Japan raised the same demand that stalled the possibility of stitching up an agreement ahead of Modi's visit to Tokyo last year.
It is in this backdrop that Modi and Obama set up a contact group under express instructions to find a solution at the earliest. The first call was to get all stakeholders into the contact group, which included representatives of the two American companies, GE and Westinghouse. From the Indian side, the law ministry, Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) and Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) officials were roped in along with foreign ministry officials. The group met thrice in Delhi, Vienna and London before reaching an agreement in the British capital after Modi and Obama instructed their officials not to walk away until they had thrashed out an understanding. Key details of the agreement have been accessed exclusively by INDIA TODAY:
Addressing supplier liability (Section 17B)
India came up with a risk management proposal based on a risk probability assessment prepared by the DAE and public sector insurance companies led by General Insurance Corporation. It was explained that at no stage can supplier liability exceed that of the operator, which the act itself puts at Rs.1,500 crore. India put together an insurance product for the total amount on the assumption that not more than one reactor will be involved in an accident at any given point in time. Two tiers were created, the first for the operator and second for the supplier. NPCIL as operator would pay the maximum premium, which amounts to about Rs.90 crore a year for the entire programme. For a reactor supplier such as GE or Westinghouse, this would work out to between Rs.1 crore and 3 crore in the second tier.

Definition of a supplier
It was agreed that a distinction would be drawn between a supplier and a fabricator. When an operator places an order specifying the design, material to be used and with all relevant technical specifications, the firm executing the order will not be considered a supplier but a fabricator. By definition, therefore, fabricators will not be liable under the law. Experts say most NPCIL contracts would fall in this category.

Prosecution under other laws (Section 46)
While this section specifically states the act does not prevent the operator from facing prosecution under any other law, US suppliers were worried that this could be interpreted as extending to the supplier as well. On this, evidence was produced that an amendment was moved in Parliament to include the world 'supplier' in the section but it was defeated, a fact that Indian courts take into account while interpreting any law.
However, there were questions from the US side on whether this would be enough to prevent litigation in the future as courts could interpret the law differently. The Indian delegation then produced two legal opinions of former attorney general Goolam Vahanvati, who had stated that the act envisages the operator to be responsible for liability. Yet, there were doubts because the US side wanted to be convinced that once their companies sign up to the insurance pool, their liability obligations are over. This is when the idea of a memorandum of assurance came in to capture Indian legal explanations in the form of a written understanding. The memorandum will make some basic assurances:
-The preamble of the act clearly states that the act seeks to establish a "no fault liability regime channeling liability to the operator". It does not mention supplier. The Indian law ministry produced case studies to show the sanctity the Supreme Court has given to the preamble of an act while interpreting the spirit behind any law, which is what would also help interpret Section 46 as not applying to the supplier. These cases and arguments would be one part of the memorandum.
-The second part of the memorandum is a compilation of case studies and orders, where the Supreme Court has ruled that in case there is a specific law dealing with a particular subject, then that would get precedence over any other broader or general law. This is aimed at addressing US concerns that in case of any dispute the CLNDA would get preference over any other law since it's specific to nuclear damage.
-The third assurance is also in the form of court orders and case studies that the law cannot be applied in retrospect if it harms any party's interest. This was done to address US concerns that the law could be invoked for any incident that may have happened in the past.
-This part also makes it clear that India is in conformity with the CSC as Article 12 of the Convention provides flexibility for national laws. Also, the preamble of the Indian act is in conformity with the CSC.
Government sources say these assurances have no legal sanctity in the form of any definitive interpretation of law but any company could produce this in court to strengthen its argument in the future. With this the US administration gave its nod and also eventually let off its insistence on the issue of tracking nuclear material, agreeing to obtain the data from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). However, while the governments have finally resolved the thorny problem, edgy American companies which will implement the deal also need to be convinced to buy into it and that is a bridge that remains to be crossed.
The resolution of the nuclear liability issue had its impact across the board with the US agreeing to speed up the process of securing India membership of the four technology control regimes -Nuclear Suppliers Group, Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), Wassenaar Arrangement and the Australia Group. It is learnt that India may be applying for MTCR membership in March itself.
BEYOND THE N-WORD
Obama with President Pranab Mukherjee and Narendra Modi AT Rashtrapati Bhavan. Photograph by Pankaj Nangia.While Modi's visit to the US last year seemed to hit all the right notes, Washington followed it up with one question: why had Modi not articulated a strategic vision, his take on the region, the Asia-Pacific and global security issues? Around this time, Australian Prime Minister Abbott also took up the issue synergising a common view on the Asia-Pacific, an idea Modi brought back with him and then sought to integrate into a policy form. This sowed the seed for a separate vision statement on East Asia.
Modi bought into the broader concept of the Indo-Pacific, as articulated by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, that seeks to put the Asia-Pacific and the Indian Ocean in one strategic frame. From here started discussions on integrating India into the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), a subject Obama brought up in his bilateral conversation with Modi and went on to commit the US to work towards securing India a membership into this powerful economic grouping.
The one serious question Obama had was on Pakistan. He told Modi that he wanted to understand his position during their 'Chai pe Charcha'. Just a month ago, Secretary of State Kerry had asked Modi on resuming talks with Pakistan when they met on the sidelines of the Vibrant Gujarat Summit. The Prime Minister, it's learnt, was a bit upset by the questioning and told Kerry that the two neighbours knew each other well enough to know what to do.
Obama, however, had put it across differently and the PM, on his part, is learnt to have told him that the US should not see this as an India-Pak issue. Pakistan, according to Modi, was the problem as he explained how he had sought to reach out to Islamabad after the Peshawar school attack and while there was an opportunity, it closed soon enough with the drama over giving bail to 26/11 mastermind Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi. Much of the discussion over tea was around Pakistan and dealing with the terror emanating from there.
In many ways, these were frank discussions with both sides keen to bridge gaps and resolve differences through candid conversations. And the spirit of that was kindled right at the start of the bilateral meeting when Modi thanked Obama for delaying his customary visit to various states back home after the State of the Union Address, just so that he could be here. As a politician, Modi told Obama, he understood what that meant.
Obama was quick to respond, saying that he appreciated Modi's decision to invite an American president for the first time as chief guest on Republic Day. And as a politician, Obama told Modi, he too understood the significance of that call. As a result, when the US president raised the freedom of religion issue in his last speech, hours before flying out of Delhi, there were no complaints in the Indian camp but surely questions about the distance that still needs to be covered. The good news, however, is the two are walking in step. And that is cause enough for optimism.

Read more at: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/obama-india-visit-modi-india-us-relations/1/415997.html