Opposition to the Indo-US nuclear cooperation agreement

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7667
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 25 Oct 2005 02:02

India for a new global nuclear order
Saran said it would consequently be "logical" for India to put all its civilian nuclear facilities under safeguards. "It makes no sense for India to deliberately keep some of its civilian facilities out of its declaration for safeguards purposes, if it is really interested in obtaining international cooperation on as wide a scale as possible. This would be quite illogical."
But more realistic assessments by nuclear policy wallahs say that apart from the research reactors and a couple of reactors exclusively feeding the weapons programme, all others could easily be opened to the world. I

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3510
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Postby Rudradev » 25 Oct 2005 03:37

JCage wrote:What makes the Japanese wet themselves when it comes to India? Why the insistence on the second clause with the US?


I'm just taking a guess here, but who was it that dismantled the entire Japanese empire on the Southeast Asian mainland, brick by brick, during WW2?

One hears a lot about the Americans fighting the Japanese in Midway, Guadalcanal, Okinawa and other island sites in the Pacific ocean. There was another front in the war against Imperial Japan, which like Germany's Eastern Front in WW2 doesn't receive nearly as much popular attention.

It was the Indian army (albeit under British command) that stopped the Japanese advance dead at the Burmese border. It was the Indian army that beat them all the way back to the South China Sea. The Indian army was the first Asian power that managed to stop and reverse the series of victories Japan had enjoyed thus far. For all their affected contempt and superiority, they know and remember this well.

bala
BRFite
Posts: 639
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Postby bala » 25 Oct 2005 04:14

Dubya-Rice move to deep-six the current NPT agreement and reign in Axis of Evil nations like N. Korea, Iran (maybe TSP), Libya (done deal) is causing a lot of upset apple carts. Non-profutullahs who made a career out of NPT are left with nothing. China’s cozy arrangement of duplicitous proliferation to TSP and North Korea is under heavy scrutiny. Xerox Khan may have to answer the CIA and IAEA interrogators. The rest of the P5 are glad to co-opt India into the league. Japan is feeling left out since there is tacit understanding of India making it to the P6 now. Brazil may feel the same way. Further choreographed moves from GoTUS is keenly awaited by many.

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Postby Arun_S » 25 Oct 2005 05:32

Rudradev wrote:
JCage wrote:What makes the Japanese wet themselves when it comes to India? Why the insistence on the second clause with the US?


I'm just taking a guess here, but who was it that dismantled the entire Japanese empire on the Southeast Asian mainland, brick by brick, during WW2?

One hears a lot about the Americans fighting the Japanese in Midway, Guadalcanal, Okinawa and other island sites in the Pacific ocean. There was another front in the war against Imperial Japan, which like Germany's Eastern Front in WW2 doesn't receive nearly as much popular attention.

It was the Indian army (albeit under British command) that stopped the Japanese advance dead at the Burmese border. It was the Indian army that beat them all the way back to the South China Sea. The Indian army was the first Asian power that managed to stop and reverse the series of victories Japan had enjoyed thus far. For all their affected contempt and superiority, they know and remember this well.


Funny I recently recounted the same to some Americans (with blinkers) recently. :) and they were struggling hard with that part/aspect of history. Obviously what is not on History Channel is history too far :twisted:

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1505
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Postby Pulikeshi » 25 Oct 2005 05:33

[url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113010182444876942.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries[/url]The Nuclear Taboo - By THOMAS C. SCHELLING[/url]

The most spectacular event of the past half century is one that did not occur. We have enjoyed 60 years without nuclear weapons exploded in anger.

What a stunning achievement -- or, if not achievement, what stunning good fortune. In 1960, the British novelist C.P. Snow said on the front page of the New York Times that unless the nuclear powers drastically reduced their armaments, thermonuclear warfare within the decade was a "mathematical certainty." Nobody appeared to think Snow's statement extravagant.


After six decades, an immediate question is whether we can expect Indian and Pakistani leaders to be adequately in awe of the weapons they now both possess. There are two helpful possibilities. One is that they share the inhibition -- appreciate the taboo -- that I have been discussing. The other is that they will recognize, as the U.S. and the Soviet Union did, that the prospect of nuclear retaliation makes any initiation of nuclear war nearly unthinkable. The risk is that one or the other may confront the kind of military emergency that invites some limited experiment with the weapons. There is no history to tell us, or to tell them, what happens next.


I know of no argument in favor of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which the U.S. Senate rejected in 1999, more powerful than the potential of that treaty to enhance the nearly universal revulsion against nuclear weapons (or its rejection to waste the opportunity). The symbolic effect of some 170 nations ratifying the Treaty, which is nominally only about testing, should add to the convention that nuclear weapons are not to be used and that any nation that does use nuclear weapons will be judged the violator of a hard-earned tradition of non-use. When the Treaty is again before the Senate, as I hope it will be, this major benefit should not go unrecognized.


Clariphikason - what SeeTeeBeeTee coming back onlee?

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby svinayak » 25 Oct 2005 05:44

Rudradev wrote:
JCage wrote:What makes the Japanese wet themselves when it comes to India? Why the insistence on the second clause with the US?


I'm just taking a guess here, but who was it that dismantled the entire Japanese empire on the Southeast Asian mainland, brick by brick, during WW2?

One hears a lot about the Americans fighting the Japanese in Midway, Guadalcanal, Okinawa and other island sites in the Pacific ocean. There was another front in the war against Imperial Japan, which like Germany's Eastern Front in WW2 doesn't receive nearly as much popular attention.

It was the Indian army (albeit under British command) that stopped the Japanese advance dead at the Burmese border. It was the Indian army that beat them all the way back to the South China Sea. The Indian army was the first Asian power that managed to stop and reverse the series of victories Japan had enjoyed thus far. For all their affected contempt and superiority, they know and remember this well.


It is more than that. Japanese nationalism could only be subdued with a severe blow and a threat to the throne. That was the main intention of the US and the they wanted to end the war with total surrender so that the nationalism will never rise the same way again.

Defeating an army is one thing but total surrender of a nation is altogether another. It is for eternity.

How the war is ended is very important because it determines how the defeated nations future is developed. That is the difference between a superpower and an ordinary power.

Jaikissan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 41
Joined: 11 Jul 2005 00:03

Postby Jaikissan » 25 Oct 2005 06:45

bala wrote:Dubya-Rice move to deep-six the current NPT agreement and reign in Axis of Evil nations like N. Korea, Iran (maybe TSP), Libya (done deal) is causing a lot of upset apple carts. Non-profutullahs who made a career out of NPT are left with nothing. China’s cozy arrangement of duplicitous proliferation to TSP and North Korea is under heavy scrutiny. Xerox Khan may have to answer the CIA and IAEA interrogators. The rest of the P5 are glad to co-opt India into the league. Japan is feeling left out since there is tacit understanding of India making it to the P6 now. Brazil may feel the same way. Further choreographed moves from GoTUS is keenly awaited by many.


To me this makes more sense of Japs and Brazilian perfidy for now. Till Alok_N throws some insight to the potential commercial aspect of reprocessing N-Fuel market.

AJay
BRFite
Posts: 107
Joined: 09 Mar 2003 12:31
Location: USA

Postby AJay » 25 Oct 2005 07:01

Pulikeshi wrote:[url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113010182444876942.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries[/url]The Nuclear Taboo - By THOMAS C. SCHELLING[/url]

Pulikeshi

I presume you haven't missed that this is the game theory Schelling we were talking about on the previous Indo-US thread. Currently I am going through an assortment of game theory books. Will post a review/summary in due course - hopefully after.

Prateek
BRFite
Posts: 310
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31

Postby Prateek » 25 Oct 2005 07:06

bala wrote:Dubya-Rice move to deep-six the current NPT agreement and reign in Axis of Evil nations like N. Korea, Iran (maybe TSP), Libya (done deal) is causing a lot of upset apple carts. Non-profutullahs who made a career out of NPT are left with nothing. China’s cozy arrangement of duplicitous proliferation to TSP and North Korea is under heavy scrutiny. Xerox Khan may have to answer the CIA and IAEA interrogators. The rest of the P5 are glad to co-opt India into the league. Japan is feeling left out since there is tacit understanding of India making it to the P6 now. Brazil may feel the same way. Further choreographed moves from GoTUS is keenly awaited by many.


Actually I don't see the need for P5 expansion. Just a bit of re-org is sufficient.

For example:

How about either UK or France giving up P5 membership and allow EU to have one representing all of these EU nations. China is anyway not very responsible P5 state. This should help accomodate India and (Brazil/Japan).

I would recommend P5 composition as: US, EU, Russia, India and (Brazil/Japan).

Manu
BRFite
Posts: 765
Joined: 28 May 2003 11:31

Postby Manu » 25 Oct 2005 07:31

Rajeev Srinivasan in Rediff
That Obscure Object of Desire: Nuclear energy
Why exactly does India need to pursue a nuclear alliance with the US? There are two potential reasons, one is the parlous state of India's energy security; the second is legitimate defence purposes against nuclear-armed and dangerous neighbours in Asia.
Consider the second part first. Is the US inclined to help India with its nuclear ambitions, or even its minimum deterrent force just to protect its territorial integrity? The answer has to be a firm no. From the days of CENTO (Central Treaty Organisation) and SEATO (South East Asia Treaty Organisation), the US State Department has firmly viewed India as a nation that simply does not need or deserve to have nuclear weapons. Why this is so is an involved question, but this is a fact.

The US is in the process of slowly attenuating the nuclear programmes even of its friends like the UK, with some exceptions like Israel, of course. The US has a core belief that it is the only nation responsible enough to be trusted with weapons of mass destruction, and the corollary that it will take on the responsibility of providing a nuclear umbrella to those who might fear threats from other nuclear powers.

However, one could retort that it is an American vanity that they are a 'responsible' nuclear power, as they are the only nation to have ever used a nuclear weapon in anger. And that too, not once, but twice. I listened to a fascinating podcast from KQED San Francisco's Forum programme about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, around Hiroshima Day, August 6th.

The experts interviewed brought forth many excellent points, but as much as I tried, I could not understand the rationale for the second bomb, the one in Nagasaki. It really was dropped because the Americans could do it and get away with it. With a Japan prone after Hiroshima, the second bomb could surely have been dropped on an uninhabited area if the goal was only to demonstrate American resolve and not to terrorise civilians.

Therefore, the argument that America is a uniquely responsible power (shades of manifest destiny) that should be trusted with weapons of mass destruction is somewhat dubious.

Furthermore, despite all their professed concerns about proliferation, the Americans have winked at Israel's efforts at building a bomb: yes, there were extenuating circumstances. Far more egregiously, they have not even tried to stop large-scale Chinese proliferation to Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea. Worst of all, they have done nothing to even root out the effects of the AQ Khan nuclear Wal-mart, which makes one wonder if the Americans were actively colluding with the Pakistanis.

In addition, the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and all the other acronyms, an Indian observer might easily conclude, were principally meant to keep India a non-nuclear nation. Why do the P-5, especially a rogue like China and has-beens like the UK and France, get to keep nuclear weapons in perpetuity under the NPT? Is there some divine right involved? One is reminded of the Papal Bull that unilaterally divided the world into colonies for the Spanish and Portuguese.

Thus, it would be foolish to expect American help in India's nuclear weapons programmes. Further, even if America were to make India a major nuclear weapons ally, there is the issue of a dhritarashtra-alinganam: if India gets to be dependent on American nuclear weapons support, they can easily turn the tap off, as the British have discovered ("We are now a client state", Guardian. They have no sovereignty over the weapons they allegedly possess. The Americans control them.

India cannot afford to let its nuclear weapons be controlled by Americans, whose instinct is still to 'cap, rollback, and eliminate'. The State Department has never wavered from this obsolete, Cold War, monomaniacal mantra.

To be continued tomorrow

Jaikissan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 41
Joined: 11 Jul 2005 00:03

Postby Jaikissan » 25 Oct 2005 11:19

Prateek wrote:
bala wrote:Dubya-Rice move to deep-six the current NPT agreement and reign in Axis of Evil nations like N. Korea, Iran (maybe TSP), Libya (done deal) is causing a lot of upset apple carts. Non-profutullahs who made a career out of NPT are left with nothing. China’s cozy arrangement of duplicitous proliferation to TSP and North Korea is under heavy scrutiny. Xerox Khan may have to answer the CIA and IAEA interrogators. The rest of the P5 are glad to co-opt India into the league. Japan is feeling left out since there is tacit understanding of India making it to the P6 now. Brazil may feel the same way. Further choreographed moves from GoTUS is keenly awaited by many.


Actually I don't see the need for P5 expansion. Just a bit of re-org is sufficient.

For example:

How about either UK or France giving up P5 membership and allow EU to have one representing all of these EU nations. China is anyway not very responsible P5 state. This should help accomodate India and (Brazil/Japan).

I would recommend P5 composition as: US, EU, Russia, India and (Brazil/Japan).


Dreamer(like Jawaharlal Nehru, when asked about India being accomoted in UNSC permanent membership, forwarded PRC China, just go and check historical facts, before you come with any new dreams, about UK and France leaving their exalted status.

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1505
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Postby Pulikeshi » 25 Oct 2005 19:34

AJay wrote:
Pulikeshi wrote:[url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113010182444876942.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries[/url]The Nuclear Taboo - By THOMAS C. SCHELLING[/url]

Pulikeshi

I presume you haven't missed that this is the game theory Schelling we were talking about on the previous Indo-US thread. Currently I am going through an assortment of game theory books. Will post a review/summary in due course - hopefully after.


Hi Ajay,

I see where they are coming from and going to onlee!
Interested 400% in what the BRF jingo-log had to say about all this….
So why is Dr. Schelling game theorying us theoriticals onlee? What is his kwaliphicashion in nooklear issues? :shock:

Wonder if it would be fun to analyze the Indo-TSP conflict keeping in mind the "limiting ones options" strategy in mind. TSP for one has made this into an art form. I know that such a strategy is part of their contribution to game theory as well as the "infinite" prisoner’s dilemma among other things.

It would be very useful to analyze TSP and how they limit their options and thus come out on top (even after loosing the war!). Some may not like the way I worded that... but truth is a bitter pill to swallow.

Umrao
BRFite
Posts: 547
Joined: 30 May 2001 11:31

Postby Umrao » 25 Oct 2005 21:14

And that too, not once, but twice. I listened to a fascinating podcast from KQED San Francisco's Forum programme about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, around Hiroshima Day, August 6th.

The experts interviewed brought forth many excellent points, but as much as I tried, I could not understand the rationale for the second bomb, the one in Nagasaki. It really was dropped because the Americans could do it and get away with it. With a Japan prone after Hiroshima, the second bomb could surely have been dropped on an uninhabited area if the goal was only to demonstrate American resolve and not to terrorise civilians.

Therefore, the argument that America is a uniquely responsible power (shades of manifest destiny) that should be trusted with weapons of mass destruction is somewhat dubious.



For the answer to above why twice one does not have to exercise much.

The first one was U235 device It worked and data points in terms of death and destruction wasw gathered.


The second was Pu device and some more data points in terms of real death and destruction was accumulated.


It did not end there PU and other radio active material was injected inmto African American soldiers get even more data points to study the effects of radiation..

Read Richard Rhodes Book Dark Sun and The Making of the Atomic Bomb

Tuskegee experiments

Colonel E.E. Kirkpatrick of the U.S. Atomic Energy Comission issues a secret document (Document 07075001, January 8, 1947) stating that the agency will begin administering intravenous doses of radioactive substances to human subjects.

AJay
BRFite
Posts: 107
Joined: 09 Mar 2003 12:31
Location: USA

Postby AJay » 25 Oct 2005 22:32

Pulikeshi wrote:
AJay wrote:
Pulikeshi wrote:[url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113010182444876942.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries[/url]The Nuclear Taboo - By THOMAS C. SCHELLING[/url]

So why is Dr. Schelling game theorying us theoriticals onlee? What is his kwaliphicashion in nooklear issues? :shock:


Pulikekshi

Ones one gets a Nobel, then one has the kwlaliphication to talk about anything, I guess. :)

Seriously, there is an interview of Aumann in a book honoring Selten's work in Game Theory. In that Aumann talks about the conflict between Israel and Syria and Syria''s wanting to maintaining the status quo is consistent with his theory. Schelling, when he heard that he shared a Nobel with Aumann, said that
he is surpriused that he got a Nobel, because Aumann develops the theories and he uses them onlee. Any case, there are some historical notes in volume where Harsanyi talks about his first meeting with Selten when both were working at think tank that was dealing with non-proliferation. Were they the grand-dads - figuratively speaking, of course - of the current bunch of NPAs, I wonder.
Last edited by AJay on 27 Oct 2005 22:20, edited 1 time in total.

Tim
BRFite
Posts: 136
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: USA

Postby Tim » 26 Oct 2005 00:05

Umrao,

Other reasons for the second A-bomb (Nagasaki) -

1) Convince the Japanese that we could do this often, in an effort to get them to surrender (after all - months of firebombing, blockade, and carrier-based attacks on their home ports weren't working). This was a bluff, since the stockpile of bombs was limited. Remaining bombs, and any manufactured after August, were reserved for use in Operation Olympic (invasion of Kyush scheduled for November 1945).

2) Lack of response from Japan to the first attack - partly the result of a misjudgment on the US part (we thought their internal communications were better. They were only just beginning serious damage assessment by the 9th. US leadership assumed they'd respond earlier. When there were no contacts on the 7th and 8th, the US prepared another strike).

3) There was the Soviet factor, since the USSR invaded Manchuria right on time. This may be overplayed by revisionists, but somebody was surely thinking about it somewhere.

Tim

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3246
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Postby Kakkaji » 26 Oct 2005 01:09

Indo-US deal may die in Congress -- Rajeev Srinivasan

http://us.rediff.com/news/2005/oct/25ra ... &file=.htm

kgoan
BRFite
Posts: 264
Joined: 30 Jul 2001 11:31

Postby kgoan » 26 Oct 2005 01:29

umm, it's an emotive topic, but may I suggest that six odd decades later, if the Japanese have made their peace** with the US on that issue, *we* let it lie.

**No, I'm not saying they've forgoten it or they accept it or whatever. But Japan *is* one of the US' closest allies. Sure, we need to note US motivations and behaviour as in JUmrao's post for obvious reasons, but perhaps the utility of us raising passionate arguments about the whole thing is a tad limited?

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7667
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 26 Oct 2005 02:28

Asia Times has a resident nuclear "physician" - a proctologist to boot who pulls "facts" out his oiseaule...

A vote, a strike and a sleight of hand


In 1974, using enriched uranium secretly gleaned from a Canadian - and US - supplied civilian reactor, India set off an atomic bomb.
But the Bush administration realized that if it wanted India to play spear bearer for the US, the Indians would need to expand and modernize their nuclear weapons program, an almost impossible task if they couldn't purchase uranium supplies abroad. India produces about 300 tons of uranium a year, but the bulk of that goes to civilian power plants.

Those weapons, however, are fairly unsophisticated, and too big and clunky for long-range missiles. Nor are Indian missiles yet capable of reaching targets all over China , although the Agni III, with a range of 2,000, miles is getting close.

Prateek
BRFite
Posts: 310
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31

Postby Prateek » 26 Oct 2005 03:14

Jaikissan wrote:Dreamer(like Jawaharlal Nehru, when asked about India being accomoted in UNSC permanent membership, forwarded PRC China, just go and check historical facts, before you come with any new dreams, about UK and France leaving their exalted status.


I don't like the EU becoming a POLE in this century, in geopolitics. Just want to throw another wrench to further seperate the UK - France, so that EU becomes a dream, not a reality. China is a big thorn for India created by Nehru. And I don't think Russia would remain a mil / eco power by 2025 - 2030 or so.

Rangudu
BRFite
Posts: 1751
Joined: 03 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Postby Rangudu » 26 Oct 2005 18:47

Link

Above is a link to the webcast of today's hearing (at 10:30 AM EDT) by the House International Relations Committee on the India-US nuclear deal. All the 5 "experts" invited are very anti-India.

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3246
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Postby Kakkaji » 27 Oct 2005 01:38

Rangudu wrote:Link

Above is a link to the webcast of today's hearing (at 10:30 AM EDT) by the House International Relations Committee on the India-US nuclear deal. All the 5 "experts" invited are very anti-India.


R,

The problem may be that there are no pro-India "experts" in the U.S. :( Can you think of any?

Rangudu
BRFite
Posts: 1751
Joined: 03 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Postby Rangudu » 27 Oct 2005 01:40

RajeevT wrote:The problem may be that there are no pro-India "experts" in the U.S. :( Can you think of any?


Anupam Srivastava & Seema Gahlaut come to mind rightaway.

Omar
BRFite
Posts: 142
Joined: 30 Aug 2005 07:03
Location: cavernous sinus

Postby Omar » 27 Oct 2005 02:06

Nuclear Confusion

Oct 20th 2005 From The Economist print edition

An upgraded version of its Agni missile could deal with that threat. Indian officials have previously said the bigger missile's presumed targets would be in Europe and the United States.


Which official? Economist needs to get its reporting straight and we need to make it undeniably clear that our nuclear deterrents are meant at containing our near neighbours like Pak and China.

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3246
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Postby Kakkaji » 27 Oct 2005 02:08

Rangudu wrote:
RajeevT wrote:The problem may be that there are no pro-India "experts" in the U.S. :( Can you think of any?


Anupam Srivastava & Seema Gahlaut come to mind rightaway.


R,

At the risk of sounding racist, I don't think the opinions of these two, even if they are U.S. citizens, will count in the U.S. Congress on this matter. Any white guys that you can think of that can be called pro-India "experts"?

Or can you paint your skin white, dye your hair brown, change your accent, and testify? I am sure you can blow Cohen and all away. :wink:

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7667
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 27 Oct 2005 02:52

Indo-US nuke deal faces tough test
The experts called to testify include Robert J Einhorn, a former non-proliferation official now with the Centre for Strategic and International Studies; Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Non-proliferation Policy Education Centre; David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security; Neil Joeck of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and Leonard Spector of the Monterey Institute of International Studies.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7667
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 27 Oct 2005 03:54


Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7918
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Postby Mort Walker » 27 Oct 2005 06:19

Ok fine. Now get back to weapons testing and put all this silly stuff of Indo-US partnership behind.

Rangudu
BRFite
Posts: 1751
Joined: 03 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Postby Rangudu » 27 Oct 2005 06:31

It took the US some 13 years to clear LEGAL nuclear dealings with China. The India-US deal is not going to be cleared overnight. We will need patient and constant battle in the US.

What we CAN do is to keep the within US process moving along and work to get the NSG stuff taken care of. Once that is done, we have Russia, France and even Canada ready to sell to us. Koodankulam phase-2 can happen. A deal or two later, you will find GE and Westinghouse applying pressure on US Congress to speed up the American side of things. Unkil is as much a baniya as we are. That is the way to success. We do NOT need American stuff. We just need the Americans to stop others from selling to us.

Rangudu
BRFite
Posts: 1751
Joined: 03 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Postby Rangudu » 27 Oct 2005 06:51

^^ That said, the India lobby in the US has cut a sorry figure today. 5 experts and out of which we could only muster one guy, Neil Joeck, who is at best a government employee whose support of the deal was tepid at best. Even TSP-centric hearings get equal pro-TSP "expert" representation. The hearing was so bad that Spector and Albright started comparing India to North Korea and Iran :roll: and of all people Congressman Lantos had to step in to say that such comparisons are a joke. Pro-India congressmen, like Gary Ackerman and Joe Wilson had just 1 minute to speak while the Dana Rohrabachers blathered on and on. The India lobby in Capitol Hill looks like a joke when compared to the non-prolatullahs.

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3246
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Postby Kakkaji » 27 Oct 2005 07:26

Deal only if India caps: NPT lobby

http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=57352
Nevertheless, the new strategy from the opponents of the nuclear deal appears to seek ‘‘reasonable’’ changes rather than outrightly reject it holds the biggest threat to the drafting of a new Congressional legislation to favour civilian nuclear energy cooperation with India. This ‘‘yes, but’’ approach of the non-proliferation commmunity is likely to test all the resources and skills of the Indian lobbying effort in Washington to wrap up enough Congressional support in the next few months in favour of the nuclear pact.

With the setting up of a framework for ‘‘bargaining’’ between the Congress and the administration on the July pact, the opponents of the deal might be hoping to force India to walk away from the deal.

In the first set of hearings held by the House International Relations Committee last month, two top officials of the administration, Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns and his colleague Robert Joseph, faced tough questioning on India’s attitude towards the Iranian nuclear deal.

While the Iran issue has not lost all its political salience in the Congress after the Indian vote with the European resolution at the IAEA last month, the focus at the second set of hearings by the HIRC is on the nitty gritty of the nuclear deal itself.

Among the five experts invited to testify before the House International Relations Committee today was Robert Einhorn, who was actively involved in nuclear negotiations with India under the Clinton administration. Reflecting the strong sentiment in the non-proliferation community that the US gave away too much in return for too little from India, Einhorn called for a recasting of the July 18 agreement in order to transform it ‘‘from a net non-proliferation loss to a net non-proliferation gain’’.

The ‘‘damage’’ to the non-proliferation regime, according to Einhorn, can be minimized ‘‘if several improvements are made in the course of implementing’’ the July nuclear pact.

‘‘The most important improvement would be an Indian decision to stop producing fissile materials for nuclear weapons,’’ Einhorn told the Committee.

‘‘Without a moratorium on fissile material production, the US-India deal could actually facilitate the growth of India’s nuclear weapons capability,’’ he added. Under the current nuclear dispensation, India has to make a painful choice between using its scarce natural uranium resources for either peaceful or military purposes, he pointed out.

Under the n-pact with the Bush administration, Einhorn argued, ‘‘India could satisfy the needs of the civil programme through imports, freeing up domestic uranium supplies for the weapons programme and permitting, if the Indian government so decided, a continuing and even major increase in bomb-making material. A production moratorium would preclude such an increase’’. The other modifications he suggested include a ban on transfer of enrichment and reprocessing technologies to India, tighter safeguards on the civilian nuclear facilities Delhi plans to bring under international control, and the drafting of generic language for civilian nuclear energy cooperation rather than an India specific nuclear exemption.

India, which insists that it must be treated on par with other nuclear weapon powers, is unlikely to accept any of the proposed ‘‘improvements’’.

Ujjal
BRFite
Posts: 110
Joined: 16 Oct 2004 11:24

Postby Ujjal » 27 Oct 2005 07:54

Lawmakers Seek Info on India Nuclear Deal

By FOSTER KLUG
The Associated Press
Wednesday, October 26, 2005; 9:02 PM

WASHINGTON -- Congressional support of a landmark proposal to share civilian nuclear technology with India is not guaranteed, lawmakers are telling the Bush administration.

Members of the House International Relations Committee chided the State Department on Wednesday for providing sparse information about the July 18 agreement between President Bush and Indian Prime Minster Manmohan Singh.


Major lawmakers also have sent a letter asking Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to begin consultations quickly with Congress.

Congress must amend U.S. law before the deal can be completed, and some lawmakers' comments reflected frustration that their support was being taken for granted.

Rep. Henry Hyde of Illinois, the committee's Republican chairman, said, "The situation is both strange and unusual in that the Indian authorities know more about this important proposal than we in Congress."

Hyde said he was troubled by statements from Bush officials, referring in part to Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, who told Indian officials this month that he was convinced the pact would be approved in Congress.

"I do not know how these statements could be made with Congress having yet to be fully consulted," Hyde said.

At the State Department, spokesman Sean McCormack said he expects there will be intense consultations with India in coming months. Before any agreement can be presented to Congress, he said, India needs to take several steps, including separating its civilian and military nuclear programs.

"We are convinced that this is a good agreement for the United States and a good agreement for India and the world if India does take certain steps," McCormack said.

Lawmakers and analysts have expressed worry that the Bush plan might undermine the international Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and allow rogue nations to build nuclear weapons programs with imported civilian nuclear technology. India has never signed the treaty.

Supporters say the deal is crucial to energy-starved India, a U.S. ally that wants more nuclear plants to meet the needs of its more than 1 billion people but lacks the technology to build reactors( I've less knowledge in this field, but is'nt India self-sufficient in designing & constructing PHWR reactors? with AHWR fab still going on..) and the fuel to run them.

California Rep. Tom Lantos, top Democrat on the House International Relations Committee, said Congress should be better informed. At the same time, he praised the nuclear proposal, which would allow the United States to supply India with nuclear fuel, technology and equipment in return for India's strengthening nuclear safeguards and allowing international inspections.

"India has, in effect, agreed to an international commitment not to test (nuclear weapons) again," Lantos said. Such a precedent also could lead to a broader regional nuclear nonproliferation agreement, with Pakistan also stopping nuclear testing. "This is a very important development," he said.

India and Pakistan are nuclear rivals ................................................

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3246
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Postby Kakkaji » 27 Oct 2005 08:16

Outsource helps US lobbyist land India job

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1051027/a ... 403902.asp

Washington, Oct. 26: Pioneering effort by an American lobbying firm to outsource legal work to India helped Venable LLP to bag India’s second lobbying contract in the face of stiff competition from a sea of rivals with connections in the Democratic Party.

The contract, whose value will only be disclosed when Venable files the mandatory legal papers with the US department of justice, is the second lobbying firm to be hired by the Indian embassy here in the race to push through India’s nuclear deal with the Bush administration on Capitol Hill.

The firm is an undisputed leader in lobbying among Democrats, who are more vocal than Republicans in opposing the Indo-US nuclear deal announced by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and US President George W. Bush here on July 18.

The hiring of Venable is also reflection of a belated recognition by New Delhi that it probably made a mistake in September in hiring a lobbyist, the Republican leaning firm, Barbour, Griffith & Rogers.

This firm was hired at an annual fee of $700,000, primarily because Robert Blackwill, former US ambassador to India, is heading its international business, but New Delhi is finding out to its cost that Blackwill is among the most unpopular figures in the public arena in this city.


Several recent visitors from India to Washington, including leading political figures, have been dismayed by the negative reaction on Capitol Hill and in key branches of the Bush administration that the very mention of Blackwill’s name evokes here.

Prateek
BRFite
Posts: 310
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31

Postby Prateek » 27 Oct 2005 08:17

POLITICS:
India Abandons Global Nuclear Disarmament
Analysis by Praful Bidwai

NEW DELHI , Oct 26 (IPS) - Seven years after blasting its way into the world’s 'nuclear club', India has executed a major shift in its policy stance by jettisoning its long-standing advocacy of global nuclear disarmament in favour of nuclear non-proliferation.


http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=30776

Jaikissan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 41
Joined: 11 Jul 2005 00:03

Postby Jaikissan » 27 Oct 2005 08:58

Prateek wrote:POLITICS:
India Abandons Global Nuclear Disarmament
Analysis by Praful Bidwai

NEW DELHI , Oct 26 (IPS) - Seven years after blasting its way into the world’s 'nuclear club', India has executed a major shift in its policy stance by jettisoning its long-standing advocacy of global nuclear disarmament in favour of nuclear non-proliferation.


http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=30776


Pl. He is an old Pinko or commie.
Pl. do not quote him, before you do a 'google search' or other way to know his idealogy.

Jaikissan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 41
Joined: 11 Jul 2005 00:03

Postby Jaikissan » 27 Oct 2005 09:10

Ujjal wrote:
Lawmakers Seek Info on India Nuclear Deal

By FOSTER KLUG
The Associated Press
Wednesday, October 26, 2005; 9:02 PM

WASHINGTON -- Congressional support of a landmark proposal to share civilian nuclear technology with India is not guaranteed, lawmakers are telling the Bush administration.

Members of the House International Relations Committee chided the State Department on Wednesday for providing sparse information about the July 18 agreement between President Bush and Indian Prime Minster Manmohan Singh.


Major lawmakers also have sent a letter asking Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to begin consultations quickly with Congress.

Congress must amend U.S. law before the deal can be completed, and some lawmakers' comments reflected frustration that their support was being taken for granted.

Rep. Henry Hyde of Illinois, the committee's Republican chairman, said, "The situation is both strange and unusual in that the Indian authorities know more about this important proposal than we in Congress."

Hyde said he was troubled by statements from Bush officials, referring in part to Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, who told Indian officials this month that he was convinced the pact would be approved in Congress.

"I do not know how these statements could be made with Congress having yet to be fully consulted," Hyde said.


Congress will have full consultations, and hearings, but the changes in the law will be stuck to a broader budget bill, and the focus of the bill would be all the US domestic issue....that majority would not dare to disagree.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby svinayak » 27 Oct 2005 09:11

US bank wishes to invest in Himachal
Shimla, Oct. 27 (PTI): The Perseulle, a merchant bank of Washington, has evinced keen interest in investing Rs 1,000 in various projects in Himachal Pradesh, Chief Minister, V B Singh, on Wednesday said.

The bank has interest in hydro-power generation, silicon and water purification projects, he said.

The Chief Minister, who held a high-level meeting with a team of the bank headed by Frank H Pearl, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the bank, said that the state welcomed foreign investment in hydro power development and tourism sector.

He said that the government had decided to invite offers for harnessing hydel power generation in next four months and said over 11,000 mw power potential still remained untapped.

Mekala
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 14
Joined: 07 Feb 2005 10:13
Contact:

Postby Mekala » 28 Oct 2005 00:01

It is time, I feel, that we wired up all that is required for another explosion and kept our finger on the trigger. Just as soon as the congress rubbishes the agreement, press the trigger and say FYS. Second, we are not signatories to the NPT, so be ready to prolifirate and make some money out of it. After all when we are viewed in the same shade as North Korea and Iran, as a matter of prestige we should do better than those small countries, keeping our size, economy and stature in view. Some how I always preferred showing my middle finger up to Unkill. But, but, a BIG BUT, I dont think MMS has enough testosterone stored up in him even to think of that.

Srini-M

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36393
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 28 Oct 2005 00:26

http://deccanherald.com/deccanherald/oct272005/update6353920051027.asp Mr Hyde said ''It would be grossly irresponsible for this committee and for the Congress as a whole to act with unnecessary haste regarding a subject which can bear no false steps.''


are we ready to sign NPT and MTCR before US congress passes ok for indo-us nuclear cooperation.

this is like chicken and egg catch 22 situation. these lawmen wants us sign up before anything congress can do.

per hyde, the false step is to allow nuclear technology access to india while its not signatory to the nuclear treaty. < PERIOD >

it sure would be magic if bush would be able to get a nod. i am sure, he has no veto on such things, plus bush is not jackal for hyde.

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3246
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Postby Kakkaji » 28 Oct 2005 00:29

Ackerman takes on critics of Indo-US nuclear agreement 8)

http://us.rediff.com/news/2005/oct/27nu ... &file=.htm

Asserting that India is "not a proliferation risk", a leading Congressman has said that doubts expressed by critics of the Indo-US nuclear deal hold little ground as New Delhi had voluntarily adhered to international guidelines on the atomic programme.

"Over the last 30 years, India has demonstrated not only a successful mastery of a complicated technology, but the ability to ensure that such technology does not get transferred into the wrong hands. It is here where I think opponents of the announced agreement get it wrong," Gary Ackerman, a senior member of the House International Relations Committee, said in a statement at a hearing.

While the "opponents of the agreement suggest that the entire fabric of the global non-proliferation regime has been rendered with this single decision," Ackerman pointed out that Bush administration has won several concessions from India like separating its civil and military programmes, declaring its civilian programmes to the International Atomic Energy Agency, signing an additional protocol, and continuing its moratorium on nuclear testing.

"India is not a proliferation risk, in the sense that it would share its own or our technology with rogue states or with terrorists. Simply because India made the sovereign decision not to sign the Non Proliferation Treaty does not make it a proliferation risk," the lawmaker from New York, who is also the Democratic co-chair of the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian Americans, said.

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3246
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Postby Kakkaji » 28 Oct 2005 00:46

US asks India to separate civilian, military N-programmes

http://us.rediff.com/news/2005/oct/27nuke.htm

The Bush administration made it clear on Thursday that before any agreement on the nuclear deal with India is presented to Capitol Hill, New Delhi 'needs to take several steps, including the separation of their civilian and military nuclear programmes'.

The spokesman noted that the consultation process with Capitol Hill has not actually started. "If any agreement does, in fact, go forward, it would require action by the Congress. But before we actually present any agreement to Congress, India needs to take several steps, including the separation of their civilian and military nuclear programmes, so these are pre-conditions for us actually presenting this agreement to the Congress," he said.

"We are convinced that this is a good agreement for the United States, a good agreement for India and the world, if India does take certain steps," McCormack remarked.


This is a classic chicken and egg situation folks. Let's see who blinks first.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests