A group of unidentified gunmen opened fire on Turkish security guards outside the United States Consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, on Wednesday, the Turkish authorities said, and at least three police officers and three assailants were killed.
Skip to next paragraph
Related
Times Topics: TurkeyThe late-morning attack was the first on a diplomatic mission in the city since 2003 when 62 people were killed in assaults on the British consulate, a bank and two synagogues. While the motives behind this attack were not immediately clear, Turkish officials described the gunmen as terrorists.
In a televised news conference, Governor Muammer Guler said one of the policemen died at the scene after a nearly 10-minute gun battle and two others died of bullet wounds in a hospital. One of the officers was part of the consulate security detail, while the other two were traffic police. A policeman and a tow-truck driver were also injured.
‘’Three policemen were martyred and three attackers were killed,” Mr. Guler said. Ross Wilson, the the United States ambassador in Turkey, said that none of the dead or injured were Americans.
After the attack, crowds of onlookers and police milled around the 15-foot high walls sheltering the American compound and police cordoned off the area. A helicopter was seen hovering above. Television footage showed one body lying on the ground..
The consulate is a heavily fortified building with heavy security measures. Witnesses and news reports said that about 15 minutes before the attack, the three gunmen were seen sitting in a gray car with another man — apparently the driver — that was parked in a carwash shop near the consulate. At about 10:30 a.m., the three, who looked to be between 25 and 30 years old, hopped out of the vehicle, walked up to a police post at the main entrance of the consulate, and opened fire, taking the officers by surprise.
“One of them approached a policeman while hiding his gun and shot him in the head,” a witness, Yazuz Erket Yuksel, said in remarks reported by Reuters.
In the ensuing clash, two of the officers fired back, killing all three attackers, according to news reports. The authorities said the three men used handguns and a “pump action shotgun,” and that the fourth man escaped by car.
One witness, Huseyin Tuzemen, was across the street from the consulate when the gunfire erupted.
“I was sitting at the cafe and there were suddenly some gunshots,” he said. I lied on the ground. I didn’t see where the shots came from. I found myself in the fridge because of fear.”
Istanbul’s chief prosecutor, Aykut Cengiz Engin, told reporters at a televised news conference that the authorities ‘’consider the incident a terrorist act.”
Turkey’s president, Abdullah Gul, condemned the attack in a statement to reporters. “I strongly denounce such terror attacks,” he said. “Turkey struggles and will continue to struggle against the mentalities that organize and stand behind these attacks until the very end. Everyone, after all, has seen that nothing can be achieved through terror.”
From the police post, visitors to the consulate usually clamber up steps to the hilltop building which some people say resembles a fortress.
The consulate was for many years located in the center of the city in a bustling area near Taksim Square. But it was relocated five years ago to the Istinye area near the Bosphorous Straits to be better protected from terrorist attacks.
There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the attack, which took place on a quiet side street lined with apartment houses.
In a statement, the consulate said: “At approximately 11 a.m. at least one assailant opened fire near the Turkish post at the main entrance of the consulate. We have no reports that any American consulate employees were injured in the attack.”
Several consular officers were absent from the building at the time of the attack, attending a meeting hosted by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.
In a separate development in remote eastern Turkey, three German tourists on a climbing expedition to Mount Ararat were kidnapped by Kurdish separatists who seized their hostages as they camped at an altitude of 10,500 feet, the semiofficial Anatolian News Agency reported Wednesday.
Susanne Fowler contributed reporting from Paris, and Anahad O’Connor contributed from New York.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Reliance Comm shares jump after MTN deadline ends
Shares in India's Reliance Communications (RLCM.BO: Quote, Profile, Research) jumped as much as 7 percent on Wednesday with investors speculating a deal with South Africa's MTN Group (MTNJ.J: Quote, Profile, Research) had fallen through.
Reliance Communications and MTN had set themselves a July 8 deadline for exclusive talks on a business combination which might create a top-10 global telecoms firm but the deadline passed with no statement from either side.
"Investors are speculating that the deal is off," said Kevin Trindade, a telecom analyst at brokerage KR Choksey.
"Of course, the company could go back and talk some more to MTN, but at this point, an extension of the exclusivity period looks unlikely. So at least there's less uncertainty."
Shares in Reliance Communications, which had fallen 27 percent from the start of talks in late May, were up 5.3 percent at 437.30 rupees at 0509 GMT in a Mumbai market that was up 3.2 percent.
A source with knowledge of the matter had said on Tuesday the talks may continue but may not be exclusive any more. The market had expected Reliance Communications might issue a statement before trading started but Reliance officers were unavailable for comment.
Reliance Communications began exclusive talks with MTN on May 26, taking the place of larger rival Bharti Airtel Ltd (BRTI.BO: Quote, Profile, Research) who called off talks after failing to agree on a deal structure.
Media reports and a source had indicated the two firms were aiming at a reverse takeover, with a share swap that would give the Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group the largest shareholding in MTN and make Reliance Communications a subsidiary of MTN.
That triggered a claim of right of first refusal from Mukesh Ambani, the estranged older brother of Reliance Communications chairman Anil, and who runs Reliance Industries
Reliance Communications and MTN had set themselves a July 8 deadline for exclusive talks on a business combination which might create a top-10 global telecoms firm but the deadline passed with no statement from either side.
"Investors are speculating that the deal is off," said Kevin Trindade, a telecom analyst at brokerage KR Choksey.
"Of course, the company could go back and talk some more to MTN, but at this point, an extension of the exclusivity period looks unlikely. So at least there's less uncertainty."
Shares in Reliance Communications, which had fallen 27 percent from the start of talks in late May, were up 5.3 percent at 437.30 rupees at 0509 GMT in a Mumbai market that was up 3.2 percent.
A source with knowledge of the matter had said on Tuesday the talks may continue but may not be exclusive any more. The market had expected Reliance Communications might issue a statement before trading started but Reliance officers were unavailable for comment.
Reliance Communications began exclusive talks with MTN on May 26, taking the place of larger rival Bharti Airtel Ltd (BRTI.BO: Quote, Profile, Research) who called off talks after failing to agree on a deal structure.
Media reports and a source had indicated the two firms were aiming at a reverse takeover, with a share swap that would give the Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group the largest shareholding in MTN and make Reliance Communications a subsidiary of MTN.
That triggered a claim of right of first refusal from Mukesh Ambani, the estranged older brother of Reliance Communications chairman Anil, and who runs Reliance Industries
Google launches virtual experience web-site
Google Inc on Tuesday launched a three-dimensional virtual experience website to match popular virtual world Second Life.
The service, called "Lively," uses real-time virtual world characters known as avatars and three-dimensional graphics to congregate in virtual rooms.
Linden Lab's Second Life, launched five years ago, was the first online community with its own currency and a growing economy and avatars.
"If you enter a Lively room embedded on your favourite blog or website, you can immediately get a sense of the room creator's interests, just by looking at the furniture and environment they chose," Niniane Wang, engineering manager, who oversaw Lively's creation, said on Google's official blog.
Lively also allows for playing YouTube videos in virtual TVs and showing photos in virtual picture frames inside the rooms, Wang said.
Google worked closely with Arizona State University, while developing the webssite
The service, called "Lively," uses real-time virtual world characters known as avatars and three-dimensional graphics to congregate in virtual rooms.
Linden Lab's Second Life, launched five years ago, was the first online community with its own currency and a growing economy and avatars.
"If you enter a Lively room embedded on your favourite blog or website, you can immediately get a sense of the room creator's interests, just by looking at the furniture and environment they chose," Niniane Wang, engineering manager, who oversaw Lively's creation, said on Google's official blog.
Lively also allows for playing YouTube videos in virtual TVs and showing photos in virtual picture frames inside the rooms, Wang said.
Google worked closely with Arizona State University, while developing the webssite
Afghan Bombing Sends Stark Message to India
The suicide bombing on Monday outside the Indian Embassy in Kabul was the latest and most audacious attack in recent months on Indian interests in Afghanistan, where New Delhi, since helping to topple the Taliban in 2001, has staked its largest outside aid package ever.
Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image
Rapport, for The New York Times
The body of India’s defense attaché in Afghanistan, Brig. Ravi Datt Mehta, arrived in New Delhi on Tuesday. He was one of four Indians killed in Kabul on Monday.
Related
Suicide Car Blast Kills 41 in Afghan Capital (July 8, 2008)
Times Topics: IndiaIndia has poured unprecedented amounts of money and people into the reconstruction of Afghanistan, a vital passage into resource-rich Central Asia. It has spent more than $750 million, building a strategic road across the country’s southwest, training teachers and civil servants, and working on erecting a new seat of the national Parliament.
That engagement has come at a mounting cost to the 4,000 Indian citizens working in Afghanistan. In the last two and a half years, an Indian driver for the road reconstruction team was found decapitated, an engineer was abducted and killed, and seven members of the paramilitary force guarding Indian reconstruction crews were killed.
Last year alone, the Indian Border Roads Organization came under 30 rocket attacks as it built the 124-mile stretch of road across Nimroz Province that will ultimately link landlocked Afghanistan to a seaport in Iran.
The embassy bombing on Monday seems to have been the most effective strike: a bomber blew himself up as two Indian diplomats drove into the embassy early in the morning, reducing the compound to rubble and blood. Four Indians, including the two diplomats, were killed. The bulk of the 41 dead were Afghan civilians who had come for embassy services, like visas.
To much of the world, the bombing may have appeared to be another in a series of escalating attacks by militants looking to destabilize the American-backed administration of President Hamid Karzai.
Here in the Indian capital the message of the bombing was explicit: India, get out of Afghanistan.
“It is a notice saying you quit or we are going to hit you,” said Lalit Mansingh, a retired Indian diplomat who served in Kabul in the 1970s.
In condemning the attack, the Indian prime minister, Manmohan Singh, sent a plain message that his country would not quit, and that the Indian engagement in Afghanistan would “continue with renewed commitment.”
Not surprisingly, Pakistan was swiftly blamed for the bombing, and just as swiftly, denied having a hand in it.
But the attack also set off a lively policy debate, first over whether India should complement its reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan with military boots on the ground, and then whether Pakistan, and its backers in Washington, would allow India to play a more robust military role.
Pakistan has long been nervous about India’s penetration into Afghanistan, including its five consular missions there, along with an air base in Tajikistan, across Afghanistan’s northern border.
C. Raja Mohan, an Indian foreign policy analyst who teaches at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore, said the time had come for India and Pakistan to look beyond their traditional rivalries and fuse a joint strategy to confront extremists operating on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. Such an initiative, he argued, would be to both countries’ advantage.
“Whatever problems we had with Pakistan, Pakistan had been a buffer between India and the badlands,” he said. “Now the buffer is falling apart. Afghanistan needs to be stabilized. Pakistan needs to be stabilized. This requires more drastic remedies.”
The attack on the embassy in Kabul has also stirred a simmering debate about whether India, as a rising economic power in the world, ought to also flex its muscle in areas of strategic interest.
The United States, for instance, long ago leaned on India to send troops to Iraq and to use its influence on Myanmar to push for democracy. India refused both requests. Sri Lanka invited India to mediate in its long-running ethnic war, but India’s intervention there 20 years ago left the Indian military with a bloody nose, and it has since refused to meddle.
“I don’t know where is an example of India punching its weight,” said K. Subrahmanyam, a defense analyst. “It is India that is keeping a restrained posture. It goes back to how India became free and what kind of state India is.”
Indian newspaper editorials on Tuesday urged the government not to buckle under the new threats in Afghanistan. “As India mourns the murder of its two diplomats in Kabul, it must brace itself up to a new burden that comes with increasing global weight,” The Indian Express wrote. “New Delhi cannot continue to expand its economic and diplomatic activity in Afghanistan while avoiding a commensurate increase in its military presence there.”
Afghanistan is in some ways the test case of the extent to which India is willing to use its hard power to advance its strategic and commercial interests.
“As India’s influence grows it will become increasingly involved in the local politics of a foreign country,” said Rahul Roy-Chowdhury, a research fellow at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies. “It cannot afford to see itself as an innocent bystander anymore.”
Gurmeet Kanwal, head of the Center for Land Warfare Studies, said that Indian paramilitary troops were ill prepared to face the insurgents in Afghanistan, and that India’s development aid to that country needed to be secured by a military presence.
“I wouldn’t use the expression flex its muscles,” he said. “I would say the time has come to live up to our responsibility. If it involves military intervention, so be it.”
Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image
Rapport, for The New York Times
The body of India’s defense attaché in Afghanistan, Brig. Ravi Datt Mehta, arrived in New Delhi on Tuesday. He was one of four Indians killed in Kabul on Monday.
Related
Suicide Car Blast Kills 41 in Afghan Capital (July 8, 2008)
Times Topics: IndiaIndia has poured unprecedented amounts of money and people into the reconstruction of Afghanistan, a vital passage into resource-rich Central Asia. It has spent more than $750 million, building a strategic road across the country’s southwest, training teachers and civil servants, and working on erecting a new seat of the national Parliament.
That engagement has come at a mounting cost to the 4,000 Indian citizens working in Afghanistan. In the last two and a half years, an Indian driver for the road reconstruction team was found decapitated, an engineer was abducted and killed, and seven members of the paramilitary force guarding Indian reconstruction crews were killed.
Last year alone, the Indian Border Roads Organization came under 30 rocket attacks as it built the 124-mile stretch of road across Nimroz Province that will ultimately link landlocked Afghanistan to a seaport in Iran.
The embassy bombing on Monday seems to have been the most effective strike: a bomber blew himself up as two Indian diplomats drove into the embassy early in the morning, reducing the compound to rubble and blood. Four Indians, including the two diplomats, were killed. The bulk of the 41 dead were Afghan civilians who had come for embassy services, like visas.
To much of the world, the bombing may have appeared to be another in a series of escalating attacks by militants looking to destabilize the American-backed administration of President Hamid Karzai.
Here in the Indian capital the message of the bombing was explicit: India, get out of Afghanistan.
“It is a notice saying you quit or we are going to hit you,” said Lalit Mansingh, a retired Indian diplomat who served in Kabul in the 1970s.
In condemning the attack, the Indian prime minister, Manmohan Singh, sent a plain message that his country would not quit, and that the Indian engagement in Afghanistan would “continue with renewed commitment.”
Not surprisingly, Pakistan was swiftly blamed for the bombing, and just as swiftly, denied having a hand in it.
But the attack also set off a lively policy debate, first over whether India should complement its reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan with military boots on the ground, and then whether Pakistan, and its backers in Washington, would allow India to play a more robust military role.
Pakistan has long been nervous about India’s penetration into Afghanistan, including its five consular missions there, along with an air base in Tajikistan, across Afghanistan’s northern border.
C. Raja Mohan, an Indian foreign policy analyst who teaches at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore, said the time had come for India and Pakistan to look beyond their traditional rivalries and fuse a joint strategy to confront extremists operating on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. Such an initiative, he argued, would be to both countries’ advantage.
“Whatever problems we had with Pakistan, Pakistan had been a buffer between India and the badlands,” he said. “Now the buffer is falling apart. Afghanistan needs to be stabilized. Pakistan needs to be stabilized. This requires more drastic remedies.”
The attack on the embassy in Kabul has also stirred a simmering debate about whether India, as a rising economic power in the world, ought to also flex its muscle in areas of strategic interest.
The United States, for instance, long ago leaned on India to send troops to Iraq and to use its influence on Myanmar to push for democracy. India refused both requests. Sri Lanka invited India to mediate in its long-running ethnic war, but India’s intervention there 20 years ago left the Indian military with a bloody nose, and it has since refused to meddle.
“I don’t know where is an example of India punching its weight,” said K. Subrahmanyam, a defense analyst. “It is India that is keeping a restrained posture. It goes back to how India became free and what kind of state India is.”
Indian newspaper editorials on Tuesday urged the government not to buckle under the new threats in Afghanistan. “As India mourns the murder of its two diplomats in Kabul, it must brace itself up to a new burden that comes with increasing global weight,” The Indian Express wrote. “New Delhi cannot continue to expand its economic and diplomatic activity in Afghanistan while avoiding a commensurate increase in its military presence there.”
Afghanistan is in some ways the test case of the extent to which India is willing to use its hard power to advance its strategic and commercial interests.
“As India’s influence grows it will become increasingly involved in the local politics of a foreign country,” said Rahul Roy-Chowdhury, a research fellow at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies. “It cannot afford to see itself as an innocent bystander anymore.”
Gurmeet Kanwal, head of the Center for Land Warfare Studies, said that Indian paramilitary troops were ill prepared to face the insurgents in Afghanistan, and that India’s development aid to that country needed to be secured by a military presence.
“I wouldn’t use the expression flex its muscles,” he said. “I would say the time has come to live up to our responsibility. If it involves military intervention, so be it.”
PM talks nuclear with Bush who praises his "leadership"
Unfazed by the political turmoil in India, a confident Prime Minister Manmohan Singh today discussed "progress" on the Indo-US nuclear agreement with President George W Bush who said the deal is important for both the countries and heaped praise on the Indian leader "for his leadership at home".
The two leaders spoke in unison on strengthening the bilateral "strategic relationship" as Singh took a two-hour drive from Sapporo to meet Bush in hot springs resort of Hotel Windsor on Mt Poromoi on the sidelines of the G-8 summit, hours before the Left parties were to formally withdraw support to the UPA government on the nuclear deal.
"Our relationship with the United States has never been in such good shape as it is today.... And it is the intention of my government... Whether it is a question of climate change... Global economy, India and US must stand tall, stand shoulder to shoulder, and that's what is going to happen," Singh said after the 50-minute meeting that stretched beyond the scheduled time.
Both Singh and Bush expressed mutual admiration for each other and spoke of the need for closer relationship between the two countries.
"We talked about the India-US nuclear deal, and how important that is for our respective countries," Bush said as the two leaders appeared before the press in a relaxed mood and displayed a lot of personal warmth.
"I respect the Prime Minister a lot. I also respect India a lot, and I think it's very important that the United States continues to work with our friends to develop not only a new strategic relationship, but a relationship that addresses some of the world's problems," the President said
The two leaders spoke in unison on strengthening the bilateral "strategic relationship" as Singh took a two-hour drive from Sapporo to meet Bush in hot springs resort of Hotel Windsor on Mt Poromoi on the sidelines of the G-8 summit, hours before the Left parties were to formally withdraw support to the UPA government on the nuclear deal.
"Our relationship with the United States has never been in such good shape as it is today.... And it is the intention of my government... Whether it is a question of climate change... Global economy, India and US must stand tall, stand shoulder to shoulder, and that's what is going to happen," Singh said after the 50-minute meeting that stretched beyond the scheduled time.
Both Singh and Bush expressed mutual admiration for each other and spoke of the need for closer relationship between the two countries.
"We talked about the India-US nuclear deal, and how important that is for our respective countries," Bush said as the two leaders appeared before the press in a relaxed mood and displayed a lot of personal warmth.
"I respect the Prime Minister a lot. I also respect India a lot, and I think it's very important that the United States continues to work with our friends to develop not only a new strategic relationship, but a relationship that addresses some of the world's problems," the President said
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Singh to Seek IAEA Approval for U.S. Nuclear Accord
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said he'll seek approval from the International Atomic Energy Agency for the U.S. nuclear accord ``as soon as possible,'' after securing the political support needed to remain in power.
Singh, speaking hours after a key regional party backed the agreement, said the withdrawal earlier of his communist allies won't topple the coalition. The prime minister meets U.S. President George W. Bush tomorrow after pledging to move ahead on their 2005 deal that will allow India to import technology and fuel without joining the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
``I just learned it but I don't think it will affect the stability of our government,'' Singh said in Sapporo, Japan.
Singh's Congress Party has spent the past month securing backing from the rival Samajwadi Party so he can win a parliamentary vote on the government's survival. In return, Samajwadi has said it will pressure Singh to remove Finance Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram and Reserve Bank Governor Yaga Venugopal Reddy for their inability to contain inflation.
``Samajwadi will interfere big time in the government's functioning,'' said Chandra Prakash Bhambri, a professor of politics at the Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi. ``The Congress-Samajwadi deal is a classic example of political opportunism.''
Pulling Out
The Communist parties earlier said they will submit a letter to President Pratibha Patil tomorrow stating they will end their four-year backing for Singh's government. They had threatened to pull out if Singh pursued the agreement, saying the deal will hinder India's ability to pursue an independent foreign policy.
``That time has come,'' Prakash Karat, leader of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), said at a press conference in New Delhi today.
The ruling United Progressive Alliance has 225 seats and relied on the Communists' 59 lawmakers for a majority in the 545- member lower house of parliament. With Samajwadi's 39 lawmakers, it will still need support from another nine members to reach the majority 273 mark.
The benchmark Sensitive Index recouped most of its losses on expectations Singh's government will remain in power. The Sensex ended 1.3 percent lower after falling as much as 3.5 percent.
The government is stable and will survive any confidence motion in parliament, Congress spokesman Manish Tewari said in a televised conference today.
Samajwadi Conditions
The Congress party had snubbed Samajwadi after national elections in May 2004 when it wanted to join the alliance. The Samajwadi Party said it will seek the removal of Singh's two economic policy makers and Oil Minister Murli Deora.
``It's the prerogative of the prime minister to remove them because of their failure to check inflation,'' Samajwadi General Secretary Amar Singh told reporters on July 3.
After securing political support for the agreement in India, Prime Minister Singh needs the nod from the International Atomic Energy Agency and the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said today that time is running short for the agreement to reach the U.S. Congress for approval before Bush's term ends this year.
It could be that Singh is ``ready to move forward, but it also could just as likely be that they have a little bit more work to do,'' Perona said in Tokayo, Japan, where the leaders are attending the Group of Eight summit. ``We obviously recognize, as well, that we have a limited number of legislative days for our Congress to get a lot of work done.''
India needs the deal to increase nuclear generation almost 10-fold and end blackouts in the world's second-most populous country after China. Orders for reactors worth $14 billion are already in the pipeline from suppliers including General Electric Co. and Westinghouse Electric Co.
Power and other infrastructure shortages shave about 2 percentage points from India's economic growth rate annually, the finance ministry estimates. India's $912 billion economy has grown an average 8.9 percent a year since 2003.
Singh, speaking hours after a key regional party backed the agreement, said the withdrawal earlier of his communist allies won't topple the coalition. The prime minister meets U.S. President George W. Bush tomorrow after pledging to move ahead on their 2005 deal that will allow India to import technology and fuel without joining the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
``I just learned it but I don't think it will affect the stability of our government,'' Singh said in Sapporo, Japan.
Singh's Congress Party has spent the past month securing backing from the rival Samajwadi Party so he can win a parliamentary vote on the government's survival. In return, Samajwadi has said it will pressure Singh to remove Finance Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram and Reserve Bank Governor Yaga Venugopal Reddy for their inability to contain inflation.
``Samajwadi will interfere big time in the government's functioning,'' said Chandra Prakash Bhambri, a professor of politics at the Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi. ``The Congress-Samajwadi deal is a classic example of political opportunism.''
Pulling Out
The Communist parties earlier said they will submit a letter to President Pratibha Patil tomorrow stating they will end their four-year backing for Singh's government. They had threatened to pull out if Singh pursued the agreement, saying the deal will hinder India's ability to pursue an independent foreign policy.
``That time has come,'' Prakash Karat, leader of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), said at a press conference in New Delhi today.
The ruling United Progressive Alliance has 225 seats and relied on the Communists' 59 lawmakers for a majority in the 545- member lower house of parliament. With Samajwadi's 39 lawmakers, it will still need support from another nine members to reach the majority 273 mark.
The benchmark Sensitive Index recouped most of its losses on expectations Singh's government will remain in power. The Sensex ended 1.3 percent lower after falling as much as 3.5 percent.
The government is stable and will survive any confidence motion in parliament, Congress spokesman Manish Tewari said in a televised conference today.
Samajwadi Conditions
The Congress party had snubbed Samajwadi after national elections in May 2004 when it wanted to join the alliance. The Samajwadi Party said it will seek the removal of Singh's two economic policy makers and Oil Minister Murli Deora.
``It's the prerogative of the prime minister to remove them because of their failure to check inflation,'' Samajwadi General Secretary Amar Singh told reporters on July 3.
After securing political support for the agreement in India, Prime Minister Singh needs the nod from the International Atomic Energy Agency and the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said today that time is running short for the agreement to reach the U.S. Congress for approval before Bush's term ends this year.
It could be that Singh is ``ready to move forward, but it also could just as likely be that they have a little bit more work to do,'' Perona said in Tokayo, Japan, where the leaders are attending the Group of Eight summit. ``We obviously recognize, as well, that we have a limited number of legislative days for our Congress to get a lot of work done.''
India needs the deal to increase nuclear generation almost 10-fold and end blackouts in the world's second-most populous country after China. Orders for reactors worth $14 billion are already in the pipeline from suppliers including General Electric Co. and Westinghouse Electric Co.
Power and other infrastructure shortages shave about 2 percentage points from India's economic growth rate annually, the finance ministry estimates. India's $912 billion economy has grown an average 8.9 percent a year since 2003.
Commodities Slump as G-8 Says Oil, Food Prices Pose `Challenge'
Commodities tumbled for a third day, led by crude oil and corn, as Group of Eight leaders said rising energy and food costs pose a ``serious challenge'' to the global economy.
The UBS Bloomberg Constant Maturity Commodity Index has dropped 4.2 percent in three sessions, led by slumping agricultural prices. Corn has plunged as warm weather in the U.S. Midwest improved crop conditions following floods last month in states including Iowa and Indiana. Crude oil has slumped 6.1 percent in two days.
Commodities are falling after their best first half in 35 years. Record prices for fuel, soybeans, wheat, copper and other raw materials are leading oil explorers, metal producers and farmers to increase supplies. Oil has dropped 6.6 percent from its record, and corn has declined almost 10 percent from the all-time high.
``We have peaked for oil for now,'' Polar Pacific Capital Managing Director David Bensimon said yesterday in an interview in Singapore. ``With agricultural commodities facing their own vulnerability, all of this will take the shine off commodities.''
The weighted UBS Bloomberg index dropped 34.62, or 2.1 percent, to 1,641.62 at 10:22 a.m. New York time. Yesterday, the gauge, which measures 26 futures prices, fell 2.2 percent, the most since May 29.
The Reuters/Jefferies CRB Index of 19 raw materials fell 5.32, or 1.2 percent, to 453.72. Yesterday, the gauge tumbled 2.8 percent, the most since March.
Surging energy costs have rippled through the global economy by sapping household budgets and boosting production costs. The World Bank has warned that 33 countries from Mexico to Yemen faced social unrest, partly because of higher food prices.
`Risks Persist'
``We have strong concerns about the sharp rise in oil prices,'' the Group of Eight said in a statement today in Toyako, Japan, where the leaders are holding their annual summit. ``The world economy is now facing uncertainty and downside risks persist.''
Crude-oil futures for August delivery fell $5.12, or 3.6 percent, to $136.25 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Before today, the price almost doubled in the past 12 months, reaching a record $145.85 on July 3.
Corn futures for December delivery fell 27 cents, or 3.6 percent, to $7.20 a bushel overnight on the Chicago Board of Trade. The price still has doubled in the past 12 months, reaching a record $7.9925 on June 27.
``All the bad economic news is making people take a second look at commodities,'' said Michael Lynch, president of Strategic Energy & Economic Research in Winchester, Massachusetts. ``Commodities were purchased as a hedge against inflation. A global recession is looking more likely, and it's the greatest weapon in the fight against inflation
The UBS Bloomberg Constant Maturity Commodity Index has dropped 4.2 percent in three sessions, led by slumping agricultural prices. Corn has plunged as warm weather in the U.S. Midwest improved crop conditions following floods last month in states including Iowa and Indiana. Crude oil has slumped 6.1 percent in two days.
Commodities are falling after their best first half in 35 years. Record prices for fuel, soybeans, wheat, copper and other raw materials are leading oil explorers, metal producers and farmers to increase supplies. Oil has dropped 6.6 percent from its record, and corn has declined almost 10 percent from the all-time high.
``We have peaked for oil for now,'' Polar Pacific Capital Managing Director David Bensimon said yesterday in an interview in Singapore. ``With agricultural commodities facing their own vulnerability, all of this will take the shine off commodities.''
The weighted UBS Bloomberg index dropped 34.62, or 2.1 percent, to 1,641.62 at 10:22 a.m. New York time. Yesterday, the gauge, which measures 26 futures prices, fell 2.2 percent, the most since May 29.
The Reuters/Jefferies CRB Index of 19 raw materials fell 5.32, or 1.2 percent, to 453.72. Yesterday, the gauge tumbled 2.8 percent, the most since March.
Surging energy costs have rippled through the global economy by sapping household budgets and boosting production costs. The World Bank has warned that 33 countries from Mexico to Yemen faced social unrest, partly because of higher food prices.
`Risks Persist'
``We have strong concerns about the sharp rise in oil prices,'' the Group of Eight said in a statement today in Toyako, Japan, where the leaders are holding their annual summit. ``The world economy is now facing uncertainty and downside risks persist.''
Crude-oil futures for August delivery fell $5.12, or 3.6 percent, to $136.25 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Before today, the price almost doubled in the past 12 months, reaching a record $145.85 on July 3.
Corn futures for December delivery fell 27 cents, or 3.6 percent, to $7.20 a bushel overnight on the Chicago Board of Trade. The price still has doubled in the past 12 months, reaching a record $7.9925 on June 27.
``All the bad economic news is making people take a second look at commodities,'' said Michael Lynch, president of Strategic Energy & Economic Research in Winchester, Massachusetts. ``Commodities were purchased as a hedge against inflation. A global recession is looking more likely, and it's the greatest weapon in the fight against inflation
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)