India-US Nuclear Deal continued

enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Postby enqyoobOLD » 22 Dec 2006 06:51

Mohan Raju:

Latest on POTUS Signing Statements: Pakin Harkin and Ed bin Malarkey remove all doubt about themselves and who has bought them.

Bush under attack for statement after signing nuke deal

PTI | December 21, 2006 | 23:04 IST

Senior Democrat lawmakers have described as outrageous and shameless United States President George W Bush's statement that he considered certain provisions in the new law Indo-US civil nuclear deal as mere advisory.

Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa, who was the author of the Harkin Amendment which said it shall be the policy of the US to secure India's full and active participation in efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring weapons of mass destruction, sharply criticised the president for his clarification, seen in many quarters as an attempt by the White House to allay concerns and apprehensions of India.

"I find it outrageous that the president has repeatedly stated the greatest threat to US national security is a nuclear Iran, yet explicitly rejects the Congress' declaration that it shall be the official policy of the US that India will not use its nuclear technology to help develop Iran's nuclear weapons arsenal," he said.

Harkin maintained that with his recent statement, issued after signing the deal, once again Bush has shown that he views Congress as a nuisance rather than an equal branch of government under the Constitution.

"India has a proven robust relationship with Iran and as the international community moves forward to deal with, contain -- and if necessary -- sanction Iran for the continuation of its nuclear activities, we will need greater support from a regional partner like India," he added.

"Congress and the administration agree it is imperative to our national security that we prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Yet the president shamelessly brushed aside concrete steps Congress approved to avert that exact scenario," he said.

Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons is not only one of the gravest dangers that the US faces but also has the potential to throw the Middle East into a dangerous nuclear arms race, only adding to regional and global instability, Harkin said.

The Iowa Democrat claimed that Bush signing statement was yet another example of the Administration's rhetoric "saying one thing and its actions doing another".

Yet another Congressional Democrat Ed Markey, the co-chair of the House Bipartisan Taskforce on Non-proliferation and a senior member of the House Homeland Security Committee, also sharply attacked the president for his signing statement.

"With yet another infamous signing statement, President Bush is declaring that he can ignore the will of Congress when it comes to ensuring India doesn't aid Iran's fledgling nuclear programme.

"These statements are an egregious abuse of the separation of powers, in which the Executive declares itself above and beyond any limitations or policies enacted by the Congress, even as he signs them into law," Markey said.

"Does the president mean that it could impair our foreign relations with India if Congress found out that India broke their agreement with us? Of course it's true that if India insists on defending Iran's nuclear programme, for example, reporting this publicly could impair the relations of our two nations," he said.

"But the president doesn't get to choose what the administration tells the Congress because he's bound by the statute he just signed into law," the Massachussetts Democrat maintained.

Markey also claimed that Bush wants to reserve the right to ignore is a requirement that the United States follow the expert guidelines of the Nuclear Suppliers Group when transferring nuclear technologies and materials to India.

This requirement is contained in section 104(d)(2) of the new law. "The United States created the Nuclear Suppliers Group in order to develop a system that could control nuclear transfers around the world and hopefully prevent nuclear weapons proliferation.

"The Congress recognised the fundamental importance of the NSG to international nonproliferation efforts, and required that the United States abide by its guidelines with our transfers to India.

"That's not a difficult requirement, because it is already US policy to follow NSG guidelines, and our government has strenuously objected to Russian attempts to bypass these international guidelines," Markey said.

"The president indicates in this signing statement that he reserves the right to ignore the Nuclear Suppliers Group. He is turning decades of US international policy on its head and thumbing his nose at Congress at the same time. Soon after signing the Henry J Hyde United States India Peaceful Atomic Energy Co-operation Act of 2006 Bush issued a statement pointing out that Section 103 of the Act purports to establish US policy with respect to various international affairs matters."

URL for this article:
http://www.rediff.com///news/2006/dec/21ndeal2.htm


After these statements by Harkin and Malarkey, all Bush has to say is:

Quaid-e-Duh!


The buggers insist that they should dictate Indian foreign policy, while Bush recognizes that any such attempt will simply induce India to say :P :P and really go support Iran. This is why the US Constitution places foreign policy in the hands of the administration.

As for the rants above, the point I made is that they've been ranting for 200+ years, and nothing much else is going to happen. Point is also that what is declared as "advisory" by the POTUS is NOT part of US law that GOTUS HAS to follow, so as far as effect on 123 agreement, it is as if these were just Amendments that were defeated. IOW, no negotiating value.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54822
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 22 Dec 2006 07:02

So of those countries in the IAEA governing board how many are NSG members that will benefit from India opening up?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 22 Dec 2006 07:09

Acharya wrote:We ought to draw up the tightest, all-weather nuke contract with the US, which is regime and president/ PM neutral. Yes, on this side and that.


Well - this is for people who "follow rules". For those who "make rules" no contract can be watertight.

Take the analogy of the "Geneva convention" (humane as it may be). The Geneva convention was a "convention" sought to be imposed on warring people at a time when it was convenient to do that by the dominant warriors of the day. When that convention becomes inconvenient to the most powerful warriors at a future date - it gets flouted.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5246
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 22 Dec 2006 07:35

shiv wrote:When that convention becomes inconvenient to the most powerful warriors at a future date - it gets flouted.
Was Geneva flouted? Did it apply?

Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Postby Alok_N » 22 Dec 2006 07:43

shiv wrote:Well - this is for people who "follow rules". For those who "make rules" no contract can be watertight.


what I can't figure out is why the jingoes are clamouring to be counted as the former ... where is the call to sit back, light that cigar and posture as the latter?

Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Postby Alok_N » 22 Dec 2006 07:49

Here is a good example of a wayward jingo (apologies, if I offend you) ...

ShauryaT wrote:Read the hyde act for exactly what it says. Nothing less, Nothing more. The winking and 420 business can be left to the snake oil salesmen and out of agreements between sovereign nations.


boss, all this "sovereign nation relations" stuff is for DDM and CNN types and makes for good copy in International Relations 101 in undergraduate studies ...

realpolitik has not advanced one iota since the day one caveman thumped another caveman and claimed the other guy's kill of meat as his own ...

you think cavemen worried about the fine print of Hyde the Salami Act?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54822
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 22 Dec 2006 08:12

The second caveman who thumped the first caveman was definitely not an Indic. Most likely the first one was. That is the worry.

In the civilized world it is better to have an airtight agreement so that everyone knows what they are in for.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 22 Dec 2006 08:12

Valkan wrote:If the US calls in Hyde Act to wiggle out, India can use its own domestic law to wiggle out as well.

Rye wrote:Valkan, Understood. Sounds like a plan. :)


mmm.. sounds like a plan, but not a sound one.

imagine, the deal breaks happen after 10 years of enjoying the nuke source.. lets say: 10 to 20 reactors' fuel supply is busted!.

can't wiggle out without the biggest pain on the planet!

Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Postby Alok_N » 22 Dec 2006 08:27

ramana wrote:The second caveman who thumped the first caveman was definitely not an Indic. Most likely the first one was. That is the worry.

In the civilized world it is better to have an airtight agreement so that everyone knows what they are in for.


right ... the Indic needs to be re-defined ... these MPs who don't think twice about having their opponents murdered need to take that attitude to the international regime ... what I see instead is that when it comes to intl. relations, they put on their Gandhi cap and pretend to be washed in milk ...

secondly, a "civilized word" is a phrase even I have used to get away from stickiness in debate ... however, the world has shown no signs of getting civilized ... all evidence points to the world losing even the tiny advances made in that direction over the last century ...

given that scenario, Indian politicos need to examine their souls to see if they have even a shred of responsibility embedded in there ... if it is all about making bribes and kissing a$s of "party supremo" then there is no doubt about where the failure of India foreign policy will lie ...

Neupane
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 15
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 10:46
Location: Kathmandu, Nepal

Postby Neupane » 22 Dec 2006 08:47

The U.S.-India Nuclear Deal:

[b]Taking Stock


[/b]http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2005_10/OCT-Cover.asp

Fred McGoldrick, Harold Bengelsdorf, and Lawrence Scheinman

[quote]In a July 18 joint declaration, the United States and India resolved to establish a global strategic partnership. The joint declaration was a bold and radical move that was clearly motivated by and reflects the mutual interests of both states in counterbalancing the rise of Chinese power.
It also promises other potential security benefits, notably enhancing U.S.-Indian counterterrorism cooperation. In these respects, the joint declaration has laid the foundation for promoting the long-term strategic interests of the United States.

One notable problem, however, is that, in signing on to the joint declaration, the Bush administration agreed to reverse a decades-old U.S. nonproliferation policy by removing obstacles to cooperation with India’s civil nuclear power program. Specifically, President George W. Bush referred to India’s strong commitment to preventing proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and stated that, “as a responsible state with advanced nuclear technology,â€

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5246
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 22 Dec 2006 08:52

Alok_N wrote:Here is a good example of a wayward jingo (apologies, if I offend you) ...
Alok: My understanding is you are a long term resident of the US, a country where there is a legally binding contract for every step you take. Tell me how many times have you wished, you read the fine print or even understood some bold letters of an agreement/contract you signed and wished you had taken cognizance of before signing. Not making this personal but am trying to make a point. Sign on the dotted line, only after fully reading and understanding the consequences of an agreement. That is all.

PNE was possible because India did not sign anything to prohibit it, POK II becuase India did not sign anything prohibiting it from doing so. We sign 123 with the US with the Hyde act governing it, it becomes a binding contract. As far as I know, India has not broken a contract, yet. You may call that 101 or whatever but that is how India works and dare I say the US too.

Diplomacy is nothing but a weapon of peace. The caveman's stone tools have been replaced by a nations' diplomats and executives. When a nation fields the wrong tools against a superior opponent, it looses. The art is in learning to use the right tools against your opponents.

Please go ahead and call me a way ward Jingo, I will proudly where it on my sleeve as the first neo con.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5246
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 22 Dec 2006 08:58

Alok_N wrote:given that scenario, Indian politicos need to examine their souls to see if they have even a shred of responsibility embedded in there ... if it is all about making bribes and kissing a$s of "party supremo" then there is no doubt about where the failure of India foreign policy will lie ...


You are right. Indian polity is deeply flawed. You are also right that the deal is understood only by a handful in the LS/RS. If those handful are making the right noises, they need to be heard, at least on BR and not equated to barking and pissing in the media.

Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Postby Alok_N » 22 Dec 2006 09:08

ShauryaT wrote:Alok: My understanding is you are a long term resident of the US, a country where there is a legally binding contract for every step you take. Tell me how many times have you wished, you read the fine print or even understood some bold letters of an agreement/contract you signed and wished you had taken cognizance of before signing. Not making this personal but am trying to make a point. Sign on the dotted line, only after fully reading and understanding the consequences of an agreement. That is all.


I'd be worried if and when you did make it personal ... :)

all this stuff is pointless ... since you made it obliquely personal, yes, I have spent many nights in American jails ... does that make me see the error of my ways? ... heck no!! ... it makes me realize how I effed up in dealing with the effing law ...

the lesson is to live one's life and avoid the law crap when it interferes with your existence ... 8)

Nagarajans
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 3
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 09:54
Location: USA

Postby Nagarajans » 22 Dec 2006 09:19

ShauryaT wrote:PNE was possible because India did not sign anything to prohibit it, POK II becuase India did not sign anything prohibiting it from doing so. We sign 123 with the US with the Hyde act governing it, it becomes a binding contract. As far as I know, India has not broken a contract, yet. You may call that 101 or whatever but that is how India works and dare I say the US too.


US has broken most of its agreements with other nations and this from the time it was created. India on the other hand broke a pledge not to use the reactor supplied by Canada for weapons use.

IMO, India was justified seeing the proliferation and hostility in its neighbourhood. India must not trust the US to do the right thing - we have nothing in common when it comes to security.

Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Postby Alok_N » 22 Dec 2006 09:34

Nagarajans wrote:US has broken most of its agreements with other nations and this from the time it was created. India on the other hand broke a pledge not to use the reactor supplied by Canada for weapons use.


please let me know where to mail the Medal of Compliance ...

IMO, India was justified seeing the proliferation and hostility in its neighbourhood. India must not trust the US to do the right thing - we have nothing in common when it comes to security.


now, you're talking ... given that there is nothing in common, why bleat like sheep to find common ground?

rocky
BRFite
Posts: 142
Joined: 08 Mar 2006 22:52

Postby rocky » 22 Dec 2006 10:01

Nagarajans wrote:India on the other hand broke a pledge not to use the reactor supplied by Canada for weapons use.
India never signed any pledge "not to use the reactor supplied by Canada for weapons use", so how did India break any pledge?

SK Mody
BRFite
Posts: 251
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Postby SK Mody » 22 Dec 2006 10:55

Alok_N wrote:
Nagarajans wrote:US has broken most of its agreements with other nations and this from the time it was created. India on the other hand broke a pledge not to use the reactor supplied by Canada for weapons use.


please let me know where to mail the Medal of Compliance ...


It's not a question of "medal of compliance". More a question of - in what international environment can India thrive - one governed predominantly by rules (to which it agrees) or one in which internal deals are made by power coteries? If one thinks it is the latter then he/she should be all for this deal.

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1513
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Postby Pulikeshi » 22 Dec 2006 11:59

If raw power is all that it takes, why even bother with a deal?
Tear the deal up and go bum happy! If on the other hand, international relationships are purely based on the rule of law, then do not sign anything until and unless it is in your interest.
Reality is somewhere inbetween!

Signing the deal is like buying an option. You don't know if you are going to be in the money years down the road. The question is what is this option worth? Does it warrant buying it, given the risky "asset"?

SK Mody
BRFite
Posts: 251
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Postby SK Mody » 22 Dec 2006 12:05


Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21038
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Postby Philip » 22 Dec 2006 15:49

If China says its OK,then it must be damaging to India!

http://week.manoramaonline.com/

Great con game - R. Prasannan

NUCLEAR DEAL

US does not want India to make bombs

The proof of the nuclear pudding will be in eating it. The pudding, according to the Manmohan Singh government, will come in the form of the 123 agreement. "We fully expect the July 18 statement and the March 2 separation plan to be reflected in the text of the 123 agreement," said External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee to pacify an opposition agitated over the text of the bill passed by the US Congress.
The final bill, reconciled between the bills passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate, is, as Mukherjee pointed out, "an enabling measure that will now allow US negotiators to discuss and conclude with India a bilateral cooperation agreement, which is popularly known as a 123 agreement". (The agreement is concluded invoking section 123 of the US Atomic Energy Act; hence the name.)
The concern in India is whether the bill is actually enabling the US administration or limiting its latitude. "Obviously the US administration is bound by the provisions of this Act while negotiating this agreement," said CPI(M) leader Prakash Karat. Despite the 'enablement' given to the President, the Congress has also expressed its displeasure over not having taken it into confidence before the July 18 Bush-Manmohan Singh statement was made. "Both committees (of the House and the Senate) were troubled by the lack of consultation by the Administration with Congress before the July 18, 2005, joint statement and the March 2006 US-India declaration," the explanatory statement to the bill observes.
US defenders of the bill, including Ambassador David Mulford and Deputy Secretary Nicholas Burns who parleyed with India's special representative Shyam Saran on the eve of the passage of the bill, have been pointing to the wide bipartisan support the bill attracted in both the House and the Senate. However, critics in India suspect a bipartisan consensus in the US to cap India's strategic programme.
For the time being, the Prime Minister has assured the scientific community by promising Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Dr Anil Kakodkar that nothing would be done behind his back. Pranab Mukherjee similarly assured the political opposition: "We will not allow external scrutiny of or interference with the strategic [meaning the bomb] programme."

But given the limited latitude that the Congress has given the US administration to hammer out a 123 agreement, it is going to be an uphill task for both Indian and US negotiators to fulfil the promises made in the July 18 statement which India swears by. Indian officials realise that the US administration is sympathetic, but it can't do much with an extremely restrictive law. In fact, Bush had tried to keep his July 18 word to Manmohan by pleading for a law that did not specify that his future 123 agreement would not have to go back to Congress. Both the House International Relations Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee rejected this on the ground that such a bill would have given the administration "excessive latitude in negotiating a nuclear cooperation agreement with India, leaving Congress with little ability to influence the terms of that agreement, regardless of any concerns it might have."
Thus the bill that has come out after reconciliation gives the Congress a permanent watchdog status over India's nuclear activities, unlike the agreements that the US has with the other four nuclear powers. As a member of the National Security Advisory Board pointed out, "this will have the effect of India having to engage diplomatically not just the US administration, but even the US Congress on a permanent basis". This is also likely to be interpreted in India as a go-back on the July 18 promise of parity with "other such states" which have advanced nuclear technology. The problem, therefore, is that the pudding will have to be cooked as per the restrictive recipe given by the Congress.
India had raised the parity issue after the House bill was passed which prescribed a fissile material cap on India. India also pointed out that neither China nor Pakistan would be bound by any such undertaking. The House bill would have had the effect of allowing China and Pakistan to manufacture as much fissile material as they could and make bombs, whereas India would have had no such luxury.
Now, the Congress demand to put a cap on the arsenal is likely to ignite a few rhetorical bombs in Indian Parliament. The bill states that it is in US interest to enter into an agreement with a non-NPT signatory country if, among other things, "such cooperation induces the country [India, in this case] to promulgate and implement substantially improved protections against the proliferation of technology related to nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, and to refrain from actions that would further the development of its nuclear weapons programme".
The bill's explanatory statement makes it clearer. One of the criteria listed for cooperation is that the country [India] would "refrain from actions that would further the development of its nuclear weapons programme." The reconciled bill also states that it will be US policy to "achieve, at the earliest possible date, a moratorium on the production of fissile material for nuclear explosive purposes by India, Pakistan and the People's Republic of China", and also to "achieve, at the earliest possible date, the conclusion and implementation of a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons to which both the United States and India become parties".
Only four of the five nuclear powers have agreed to halt their fissile material production, though the US and Russia have enough stockpile to build hundreds of bombs. So the conferees (those who sat to reconcile the bills passed by the House and the Senate) took a sympathetic view and stated: "The conferees understand that India cannot do this alone, and therefore urge the executive branch to pursue a joint moratorium by India, Pakistan and China, as well as a multilateral treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons." No one in India, except those who want a thousand bombs, would have any quarrel with that.

The major embarrassing point for Indian officials would be over assurance of fuel supply. The explanatory statement to the bill states: "Indian officials have publicly stated that under the US-India agreement, India will be able to produce as much fissile material for weapons purposes as it desires.... The conferees hope that India will demonstrate restraint and not increase significantly its production of fissile material. If civil nuclear commerce were to be seen, some years from now, as having in fact contributed to India's nuclear weapons program, there could be severe consequences for nuclear cooperation, for US-Indian relations, and for the worldwide nuclear nonproliferation regime."
Scientists critical of the bill are likely to latch on to this statement. Moreover, as Dr A. Gopalakrishnan, former head of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, pointed out, there is "no fuel supply assurances for the reactors we may import in future. The different options for the reliability of fuel supplies, agreed with the US administration and included in the Separation Plan are systematically denied by the US Congress in the final bill. The bill insists that the IAEA safeguards must be in perpetuity, the need for a one-yearly Presidential certification of India's good behaviour for permitting continuation of cooperation is also retained, and it is made explicit that if India ever conducts a nuclear test, the entire deal is off. In that case, the US government is also directed by Congress that they must insist that India must return all equipment and materials supplied over the years under the deal, including any plutonium we might have produced from such imported fuel".
This provision is also likely to be criticised by the strategic community. India has already declared a moratorium on further testing, but the cost of going back on the moratorium was zero. Once nuclear cooperation begins, under this provision, the cost of exploding a device would be prohibitive. All that India would have imported from the US till that date would have to be returned lock, stock and barrel-not just the fuel, but even reactors, if any.
The big disappointment for India is that it could not get parity with China on the issue of test moratorium. Indian diplomats had worked on leading pro-India thinktanks in the US to lobby for a clause that would state that if India tests a nuclear device in response to a Chinese or Pakistani test, there wouldn't be any deal-break. Such a clause could have had the added advantage of silencing the rightists and the BJP, too. However, the final bill has no such provision, and this future deal-break is likely to be dangled as a Damocles' sword above every PM's head.
The government has the option of importing only fuel and some reactor equipment from the US and building reactors on its own so that it would keep import dependence minimum. But then that defeats the whole purpose of the bill. Apart from selling uranium, the US also intends to get business for major nuclear companies like General Electric and Westinghouse in the Indian reactor market. In fact, this was the carrot that India has been dangling before the 'business-minded' Congress to snatch the deal from the teeth of the nonproliferation hawks.

According to the bill, the US president would have to report regularly on the civil and nuclear activities in India, but as external affairs ministry officials put it, "there is no way that we will accept any condition [in the 123 agreement] of having to report to the US president". In other words, the US president would have to depend on CIA snoops and satellites, which he was employing to snoop on old Soviet Union's arsenal, to gather information on what Kakodkar is doing.
Strangely, when this provision was there in the House bill the White House had protested, but is now silent after the final bill also contained the same. In fact the White House had considered such a condition-of having to report to the Congress periodically on India's nuclear activities as an infringement "upon the President's constitutional responsibility over the timing and contents of the disclosure of sensitive diplomatic information". The White House's silence on this after the final bill also contained this provision has led to doubts within India whether the earlier stand was taken merely to silence the critics in India.
Another issue that has rankled the scientists is section 109 which provides for establishing a cooperative nuclear nonproliferation programme to pursue common nonproliferation goals with an emphasis on nuclear safeguards. As Gopalakrishnan, a bitter critic of the final bill, pointed out, this "is a unilateral US attempt to thrust their National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) into a joint programme with the DAE on nonproliferation and safeguards". Kakodkar and the Indian government had rejected this clause when it appeared in the House bill.
The Congress demand on the US president to "seek to halt the increase of nuclear weapon arsenals in South Asia and to promote their reduction and eventual elimination" would also attract fire from the bomb lobby. The demand that the president should "encourage India not to increase its production of fissile material at unsafeguarded nuclear facilities" would also go badly down in India.
That the government also is not happy with the bill became clear when Mukherjee assured Parliament that "the government has taken note of certain extraneous and prescriptive provisions in the legislation". The test for the diplomats now is to ensure that such provisions do not get contained in the 123 agreement.







ADVERTISEMENTS

shyamd
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6898
Joined: 08 Aug 2006 18:43

Postby shyamd » 22 Dec 2006 16:20

Hyde And Seek
The Hyde Act, with its harsh provisions, will always remain a Damocles' sword over India's head. This does not mean we withdraw from the minuet and the next step of negotiating a formal bilateral agreement with the US.

B Raman

For the last one year, no other subject has received so many columns of attention in our print and online media as the Indo-US agreement of July, 2005, on civilian nuclear co-operation and the subsequent legislation (the Hyde Act) passed by the US Congress. The Act enables President George Bush to go to the next step in the nuclear minuet, namely, the finalisation of what is called the Section 123 Agreement with India to give a formal legal basis to this co-operation. Only when that agreement is signed with India, approved by the Congress and ratified, does it become a deal in the legal sense. Till then, it is less than a deal, but more than a mere statement of intention for the future.

A perusal of this debate through the columns of our print and online media shows so little understanding in India of the way US Presidents operate in giving effect to legislation on foreign policy matters passed by the Congress. When they feel the need to implement it, they do. When they feel that the importance of good relations with a country advocates against a strict implementation of a legislation, they are able to find ways of avoiding implementation, while making a pretence of implementing it.

Two examples can be given. In the late 1970s, the Congress passed an amendment to the legislation regarding foreign economic and military assistance to provide for automatic imposition of economic sanctions against countries which are designated by the US President as state-sponsors of international terrorism. There is a Congressional requirement that every year the President should submit to the Congress a report on the state of terrorism in the world, with a finding as to whether any state needs to be designated as a state-sponsor of international terrorism and whether any state, which had been declared in the past as a state-sponsor of international terrorism, needed to be removed from the list.

This Presidential finding or determination has always been political and not professional and depends on how the US President views the importance of the US relations with a particular country. Where the US' relations with a country are bad and it wants to punish it, US Presidents have not hesitated to make a determination that that country has been sponsoring international terrorism—even if there is no evidence as in the case of Cuba or on the basis of evidence, which is less than conclusive.

Where US Presidents consider the US' relations with a country as important, they have avoided giving effect to the Congressional requirement even if there is conclusive evidence against that country. A glaring example is Pakistan. Since 1981, it has been evident that Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) has been using terrorism against India and since 1994, it has been evident that the ISI was actively involved in supporting the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Official studies of the Pentagon and the report of the US National Commission, which enquired into the 9/11 terrorist strikes in the US, have brought this out very clearly.

And yet, no US President has ever made a formal determination as required under the law that Pakistan is a state-sponsor of international terrorism. All US Presidents have avoided making such a determination despite overwhelming evidence against Pakistan and the Congress has never questioned the reluctance of successive Presidents to make such a determination.

This is because there is a convergence of views between the Executive and the Congress that the relations with Pakistan are very important and, therefore, it is better not to act against Pakistan as required under the legislation.

The only occasion a US President threatened to use this provision against Pakistan was in 1993 when Mr Bill Clinton, the then President, placed Pakistan on a list of suspected state-sponsors of international terrorism and threatened to formally declare it as a state-sponsor of terrorism, if it did not stop using terrorism against India. The evidence on the basis of which he did so had always been there and had been ignored in the past. After coming to office in January 1993, Mr Clinton suddenly took cognisance of this evidence and threatened Pakistan with a stick not just because his heart started bleeding for the thousands of Indian civilians killed by Pakistan-sponsored terrorists, but because the US intelligence community and the State Department were annoyed by the lack of co-operation from the ISI in buying back the unused Stinger missiles from the Afghan Mujahideen. Once Mr Nawaz Sharif, the then Prime Minister, accepted the US demand for sacking Lt.Gen.Javed Nasir, the then Director-General of the ISI, and some other senior officers whom the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) did not like, President Clinton had no difficulty in giving another finding, within six months of the original finding, that on verification it was found that the evidence of Pakistani sponsorship of international terrorism was not that strong and conclusive as to warrant such a finding.

The second example relates to the Pressler Amendment, which calls for the automatic imposition of economic sanctions against any country if the President determines that it had acquired a military nuclear capability in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Throughout the 1980s, the US knew that Pakistan was clandestinely acquiring a military nuclear capability with Chinese collusion and with funds from Iran, Libya and Saudi Arabia, that it had agreed to make this technology available to Iran etc. By 1988, it was also evident that Pakistan had acquired a military nuclear capability. Despite this, the White House avoided having to invoke the Pressler Amendment against Pakistan by refraining from coming to a finding that Pakistan had acquired a military nuclear capability. This was because of the perceived importance of Pakistan in the proxy war against the Soviet troops in Afghanistan. Both the Executive and the Congress colluded with each other in avoiding the invoking of the Pressler Amendment despite strong evidence against Pakistan on the nuclear issue.

In 1990, President George Bush, father of the present President, invoked the Pressler Amendment against Pakistan not because suddenly the US had found a nuclear smoking gun, but because the importance of Pakistan had declined after the withdrawal of the Soviet troops from Afghanistan in 1988 and the US was annoyed with Pakistan over its perceived non-cooperation in buying back the unused Stinger missiles and in expelling from Pakistan nearly 6,000 Arab jihadis, including Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, who had participated in the jihad against the Soviets.

Ultimately, whether the admittedly harsh provisions of the Hyde Act are enforced against India or not would depend on the perceptions of the Executive and the Congress on the importance of the US relations with India. So long as they feel that the relations are important, they will keep the punitive provisions of the Act safely locked inside a cupboard in the State Department.If they come to a conclusion that any policy or action of India—not necessarily related to the nuclear issue—is seriously detrimental to US national interests, they would not hesitate to take them out and threaten to enforce them against us.

The Hyde Act, with its harsh provisions, will always remain a Damocles' sword over India's head. This does not mean we withdraw from the minuet and the next step of negotiating a formal bilateral agreement with the US. It will be unwise and counter-productive to do so—particularly keeping in view the improved state of relations with the US and the considerable goodwill for India, which is the flavour of the moment in the White House and the Congress. The time to have second thoughts, if any, will be after the negotiations on the bilateral pact and before we put our signature on it.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 22 Dec 2006 17:11

http://www.iaea.org/About/Policy/Board/

IAEA Board Members for 2006-2007

Member States represented on the IAEA Board for 2006-2007 are Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Croatia, Cuba, Egypt, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Republic of, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Morocco, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Slovenia, South Africa, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America.


http://www.nuclearsuppliersgroup.org/member.htm

Who are the current NSG participants?


The current Participating Governments are:

ARGENTINA, AUSTRALIA, AUSTRIA, BELARUS, BELGIUM, BRAZIL, BULGARIA, CANADA, CHINA, CROATIA, CYPRUS, CZECH REPUBLIC, DENMARK, ESTONIA, FINLAND, FRANCE, GERMANY, GREECE, HUNGARY, IRELAND, ITALY, JAPAN, KAZAKHSTAN, REPUBLIC OF KOREA, LATVIA, LITHUANIA, LUXEMBOURG, MALTA, NETHERLANDS, NEW ZEALAND, NORWAY, POLAND, PORTUGAL, ROMANIA, RUSSIAN FEDERATION, SLOVAKIA, SLOVENIA, SOUTH AFRICA, SPAIN, SWEDEN, SWITZERLAND, TURKEY, UKRAINE, UNITED KINGDOM, and UNITED STATES

Nagarajans
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 3
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 09:54
Location: USA

Bleating like a sheep

Postby Nagarajans » 22 Dec 2006 19:15

LOL!

Alok_N boss (very quaint way of addressing one another - does it mean respect or tolerance) one does not bleat when we see a wolf in sheep's clothing prowling in our neighbourhood - it is called raising the alarm.

The raising of the alarm is intended for unsuspecting grazers oblivious of their surroundings. I am sure many sheep had bleated when the east India company set foot on Indian soil. People who tend to forget history are doomed to repeat it - MMS is modern day Jehangir kowtowing to his Noor Jehan -sonia Gandhi.

S.Valkan
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 15 Mar 2006 01:29

Postby S.Valkan » 22 Dec 2006 20:35

ShauryaT wrote:India is certainly not free when guidelines are suggested. ... India is being specifically excluded from the loose and flexible guidelines reserved for NWS.


That's not a problem at all.

Since India is not going to be able to switch civilian and military plants, the question of "loose and flexible" guidelines is immaterial.

The model guideline is being suggested solely to ensure that India cannot cite national security reasons to pull civilian plants into military sphere in the future. Nothing more.

The fact that India can designate any future plant as military plant, outside the jurisdiction of IAEA safeguards, is loose and flexible enough for all practical purposes.

The question solely pertains to the conditions under which the "perpetuity" clause is retained.

Obviously, there is ALWAYS going to be an exit clause in any agreement.

Even NPT has one,- the "six months notice" clause.

This is where Indian freedom in negotiations come into picture.

You are simply incorrect to state that the UoM has the peoples manadate. Reality is party whips make it impossible to test the peoples mandate.


I think you are getting riled for no reason.

All I said is that - in a constitutional sense - there is no legal ground to ask for a separate peoples' mandate, given the fact that Executive is non-separate from the Legislature in Indian parliamentary democracy.

Of course, one can argue that - in an environment of corruption, horse trading, party whips etc - it is NEVER a true peoples' mandate.

That's a moral argument, and I choose not to enter the world of political muck raking.

I will bet my ass that will be the case and each and every one of the provisions of the Hyde act will apply to 123, ofcourse invoked at the discretion of the haired individual sitting in the white house.


You have hit the jackpot.

The operative clause is "at the discretion" of the US Executive.

That's the whole point,- it is not an automatic Pavlovian response, but just a lever to use against India if relations are tanking.

That would have been the case if J18 would have been copied into the Hyde act, nothing less and nothing more. The way the act is written now, accepts India as a state with nuclear weapons but does not provide India any PARITY of an NWS.


See the underlined part.

That's what is important for strategic purposes.

No need to be too much hung up on H&D ( honour and dignity ).

Time for that would come in the next 50 years, when Indian GDP exceeds Japan, and the Indian naval fleets are stationed from Aden to CapeTown to Auckland to defend Indian economic interests.

Even if India is expected to increase her arsenal, the qualitative development of this arsenal has been blocked, with the no test clause.


I have no intention of arguing on this point, as it has been flogged senseless in several passes, and the answer was unanimously in favour of India.

All I will say is

1) India is not restrained by the Hyde Act, or any other laws of any other nation, from conducting nuclear tests, if the need arises.

2) Application of the Hyde Act is a matter of discretion of the US Executive, and it is just a "what if" lever retained for unforeseen circumstances.

Is this deal worth it?


Depends on who you ask the question to.

To H&D folks, the answer is "no" as long as India is not the P-6 or UNSC-6 on paper.

To the realists, the answer is "yes", for obvious reasons.

Tilak
BRFite
Posts: 733
Joined: 31 Jul 2005 20:19
Location: Old Lal Masjid @BRFATA (*Renovation*)

Postby Tilak » 22 Dec 2006 21:20

S.Valkan wrote:1) India is not restrained by the Hyde Act, or any other laws of any other nation, from conducting nuclear tests, if the need arises.



If the need arises, we/(any other country) are not restrained by any laws.. not only the Hyde act. The thing that needs attention, is the consequence of such actions, in case we break out. Nobody is questioning the "right to test" here.. What about our investment ???, and more restrictive clauses for the waiver/resumption, in case of sanctions, when the janata starts to riot..

2) Application of the Hyde Act is a matter of discretion of the US Executive, and it is just a "what if" lever retained for unforeseen circumstances.


Yes, like the sanctioning of two Indian Scientists, as and when they choose. Shouldn't, we be also discussing scenarios in which "threat of application of sanctions" is greater that the "actual act" of imposing such.

PS: It's funny, to see Psy-Ops on this thread wherein "Supporter's = Realists" and "Nay Sayers = H&D Savers", "Scepticists = ??" . Pass me the flame please.. :P

S.Valkan
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 15 Mar 2006 01:29

Postby S.Valkan » 22 Dec 2006 23:00

Tilak wrote:The thing that needs attention, is the consequence of such actions, in case we break out. Nobody is questioning the "right to test" here.. What about our investment ???


Firstly, the hallmark of the powerful is that they shape the consequences.

Secondly, the inherent assumption that India will always be the whipping boy, rather than India being able to wield the whip as well( the way China already does with its cheap Walmart underwear economy ) is a fallacy in itself.

What consequences are you afraid of, other than the "fuel supply" ( which I am sure will be adequately addressed by the Babus ) ?

Now comes the question of investments.

It is conceivable that all domestic investment will only be made in "military" FBR and AHWR plants ( albeit for IPR reasons ), while GE, Toshiba/Westinghouse, Areva and RosAtom would be invited to be majority stakeholders in the imported LWR or pebble-bed "civilian" plants. They may even be given the role of generating and selling power to the Indian national grid.

In case of sanctions, it is those companies that will scream the loudest, if their operations are hindered, and their business margins are hurt.

Gone are the days of Carter, or even Clinton, when applying sanctions would hurt India.

Shouldn't, we be also discussing scenarios in which "threat of application of sanctions" is greater that the "actual act" of imposing such.


Please feel free to discuss them.

I am sure Babus at the South Block are burning midnight oil pondering and thrashing out the same issues.

PS: It's funny, to see Psy-Ops on this thread wherein "Supporter's = Realists" and "Nay Sayers = H&D Savers", "Scepticists = ??"


Analytical scepticism is one thing, and whining is another.

You can be a vigilant sceptic ( the role that BJP is playing as Opposition ), and that is truly in the national interest.

But, "naysayers" whining about unattained "parity" with NWS on paper ( saving H&D ) is not.

BTW, not all "supporters" are realists.

But most "realists" are vigilant, cautious supporters.

Please make that subtle distinction.

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3287
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Postby Kakkaji » 22 Dec 2006 23:07


Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Postby Rye » 23 Dec 2006 00:21

SaiK wrote:
imagine, the deal breaks happen after 10 years of enjoying the nuke source.. lets say: 10 to 20 reactors' fuel supply is busted!.

can't wiggle out without the biggest pain on the planet!


It is India's responsibility to continuously build our capabilities and consolidate power, instead of giving lectures on morality and goodness to the rest of the planet, while we wallow in the dirt with two-bit non entities like Sri Lanka and Bangladesh defying India at every turn. If we are only going to be "enjoying the power from the plants" without working non stop to ensure that it is not in anyone's interest to bust India's fuel supply, then why is it surprising that India will be screwed in the future? India's game becomes less complicated if there are multiple states vying for Indian money. Why can't we work on strategies to undercut any and all leverage that people are trying to acquire over India? Why follow the "rules" made by someone else to the letter, and then whine that the rules were unfair? Why not counter unfair rules with "unfair" behavior?


The people who complain about "parity" with NWS should realize how similar it sounds to paki whining about wanting "parity" with India -- when reality dictates that no such thing can happen unless Pakistan itself changes from the ground up and becomes a modern state with very capable citizens. Similarly, if all these power plants are just going to feed the kleptocracy and the aristocracy in New Delhi and elsewhere, and not improve the quality of life of Rural India by creating jobs and creating industries all over, then whose fault would it be if India is still weak after a decade?
Last edited by Rye on 23 Dec 2006 00:28, edited 1 time in total.

Tilak
BRFite
Posts: 733
Joined: 31 Jul 2005 20:19
Location: Old Lal Masjid @BRFATA (*Renovation*)

Postby Tilak » 23 Dec 2006 00:25

S.Valkan wrote:Firstly, the hallmark of the powerful is that they shape the consequences.

That applies when the party/parties involved have "atleast" an equal say/actions, on shaping the consequences. [ie. a non-controlled environment].

S.Valkan wrote:Secondly, the inherent assumption that India will always be the whipping boy, rather than India being able to wield the whip as well( the way China already does with its cheap Walmart underwear economy ) is a fallacy in itself.

That's your assumption that China has an equal say in "sphere's" of it's interest wrt. US[+allies], which in my view is not so. The hedging strategy is already taking shape.

S.Valkan wrote:In case of sanctions, it is those companies that will scream the loudest, if their operations are hindered, and their business margins are hurt.

Not exactly true, while we all love to "tout the clout" of multinationals, they'll set up shop whereever.. if shown the alternate sources of $$, by their senator's/congressman when the National security clause's/UNSC resolutions are invoked. So let's await the fate of Bushehr (Or) Military hardware sanctions on China.

S.Valkan wrote:Depends on who you ask the question to.

To H&D folks, the answer is "no" as long as India is not the P-6 or UNSC-6 on paper.

To the realists, the answer is "yes", for obvious reasons.


FYI. No body here was "whining" about "India is not the P-6 or UNSC-6 on paper", ie. on this thread.

Saar, Realism is based on "what is" and not "what might be". So unless the scientists concerns are addressed, can people be allowed their right to "whine"/"express scepticism".. :wink:

S.Valkan
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 15 Mar 2006 01:29

Postby S.Valkan » 23 Dec 2006 01:06

Tilak wrote:That applies when the party/parties involved have "atleast" an equal say/actions, on shaping the consequences. [ie. a non-controlled environment].


Not equal.

Just proportionate.

India's power and influence is waxing, not waning.

The proportion is on India's side.

That's your assumption that China has an equal say in "sphere's" of it's interest wrt. US[+allies], which in my view is not so. The hedging strategy is already taking shape.


Firstly, I made no such assumption.

The implicit argument was that China is capable of mellowing the consequences, thanks to its cheap Walmart underwears.

The same should hold for India in a matter of years.

As for the hedging strategy, it is simply to contain an overambitious China, not to gang up with other thugs and beat it senseless in a back alley.

Not exactly true, while we all love to "tout the clout" of multinationals, they'll set up shop whereever.. if shown the alternate sources of $$, by their senator's/congressman when the National security clause's/UNSC resolutions are invoked.


It's not exactly easy to lift a 1000MWt power plant and go elsewhere.

You think the Senators would like their taxpaying contituency to pay off GE with $100 billion simply because a controversial earthquake was reported in the Thar desert , in the immediate aftermath of another in the Taklamakan or Gobi desert ?

So let's await the fate of Bushehr (Or) Military hardware sanctions on China.


First of all, the Aug 31 deadline came and passed, and Ahmedinejad is still smirking.

So, let's not talk of Bushehr.

About China's military hardware sanctions, you can observe how painful it has become for the EU policymakers ( already the calls for lifting sanctions are gaining momentum ).

Why do you think that is ?

FYI. No body here was "whining" about "India is not the P-6 or UNSC-6 on paper", ie. on this thread.


Please read the exchange between Shaurya T and mine. It should refute your first claim.

Saar, Realism is "what is" and not "what might be".


Of course.

And what "is" is an explicit recognition by the "international community" that India's nuclear weapons are here to stay, and that "full-scope safeguards" is no more a restriction on nuclear/high-tech commerce with India.

What else would realists want ?

Tilak
BRFite
Posts: 733
Joined: 31 Jul 2005 20:19
Location: Old Lal Masjid @BRFATA (*Renovation*)

Postby Tilak » 23 Dec 2006 02:44

S.Valkan wrote:Just proportionate.

Thats a debatable point, about what India's "percieved proportion" should be vis.a.vis other powers and how much they are willing to oblige it this regard.

The same should hold for India in a matter of years.

As for the hedging strategy, it is simply to contain an overambitious China, not to gang up with other thugs and beat it senseless in a back alley.


If China's action are/being percieved to be detrimental in the larger context, doesn't mean others following it will be allowed/assured the same.

So do you mean to say India was "overambitious" all these years, and needed to be contained ??

It's not exactly easy to lift a 1000MWt power plant and go elsewhere.

You think the Senators would like their taxpaying contituency to pay off GE with $100 billion simply because a controversial earthquake was reported in the Thar desert , in the immediate aftermath of another in the Taklamakan or Gobi desert ?


Ouch!! another flamebait.. If the GOTUS can sell their taxpayers "Iraqi Freedom", do I need to say more...

WRT. Bushehr and China. As I said lets wait and see the results.. [Do you think Europe doesn't recognize China's threat, or mere leveraging.. ]


Please read the exchange between Shaurya T and mine. It should refute your first claim.


If you could kindly point me to that post, where the reference to UNSC was made..


And what "is" is an explicit recognition by the "international community" that India's nuclear weapons are here to stay, and that "full-scope safeguards" is no more a restriction on nuclear/high-tech commerce with India.

What else would realists want ?


The answer is here [ie. what the negotiators/scientists/people were told to realistically expect, don't know about India Inc. though.]

Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Postby Rye » 23 Dec 2006 02:54

Tilak wrote:

Thats a debatable point, about what India's "percieved proportion" should be vis.a.vis other powers and how much they are willing to oblige it this regard.


Sorry for butting in between your debate with Valkan, but there is no obligation for any state towards any other state. They will only oblige to the extent that it furthers their own interest, like the Hyde amendment does. No one hands over power voluntarily to anyone else, unless that entity is going to acquire that power in due course anyway.


Ouch!! another flamebait.. If the GOTUS can sell their taxpayers "Iraqi Freedom", do I need to say more...


I don't know if you followed the "North Korea constructs a dam in the mountains resulting in a 8-mile mushroom cloud from space" episode here on BRF a few years ago --- it was US SoS who came out in the open and excused North Korea and everyone in the west pretended it was "nothing to be concerned about"....why would they do such a thing? Because it is not in their interests to proclaim that NoKo defied them.

Or take for example, the Magnet Rings from China to Pakistan episode -- the US's response was to pretend it never happened because acknowledging that violation of the NPT by China would result in automatic sanctions against China....so why didn't the US place sanctions on China in this instance? Because China and the US had billions of dollars in mutual trade that would be affected -- it would hurt the US more than it would hurt China.....the GOTUS is a rational entity that will not do anything to make its job more difficult.

S.Valkan
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 15 Mar 2006 01:29

Postby S.Valkan » 23 Dec 2006 03:24

Tilak wrote:Thats a debatable point, about what India's "percieved proportion" should be vis.a.vis other powers and how much they are willing to oblige it this regard.


No power "obliges" another.

Powers create their own space.

So do you mean to say India was "overambitious" all these years, and needed to be contained ??


Quite the contrary.

The Hyde Act is simply a means of hedging the bets if - in the future - India does need to be discomforted.

If the GOTUS can sell their taxpayers "Iraqi Freedom", do I need to say more...


And what would they sell "compensation" to GE as ?

Earthquake relief ?

If you could kindly point me to that post, where the reference to UNSC was made..


The word "parity" says it all.

But, if you want to be very pedantic, let's just say the H&D folks only want a formal recognition as P-6 on paper ( no UNSC-6).

Happy ?

The answer is here [ie. what the negotiators/scientists/people were told to realistically expect, don't know about India Inc. though.]


Please enlighten me as to who confers a "right" to test ?

India is not a signatory of NPT or CTBT.

It has no restriction on such an inherent right.

All the Hyde Act says is that - in case India EXERCISES that inherent right - the US should end the current nuclear honeymoon. Period.

That's simply a matter of choice for India, not an usurpation of rights.

Be a realist and see it for what it "is", as you so eloquently stated a few posts back.
Last edited by S.Valkan on 23 Dec 2006 03:30, edited 1 time in total.

Tilak
BRFite
Posts: 733
Joined: 31 Jul 2005 20:19
Location: Old Lal Masjid @BRFATA (*Renovation*)

Postby Tilak » 23 Dec 2006 03:28

Rye wrote:Sorry for butting in between your debate with Valkan, but there is no obligation for any state towards any other state. They will only oblige to the extent that it furthers their own interest, like the Hyde amendment does. No one hands over power voluntarily to anyone else, unless that entity is going to acquire that power in due course anyway.


Precisely, as I have said its a "debatable" point and have no qualms about your take..

I don't know if you followed the "North Korea constructs a dam in the mountains resulting in a 8-mile mushroom cloud from space" episode here on BRF a few years ago --- it was US SoS who came out in the open and excused North Korea and everyone in the west pretended it was "nothing to be concerned about"....why would they do such a thing? Because it is not in their interests to proclaim that NoKo defied them.

Or take for example, the Magnet Rings from China to Pakistan episode -- the US's response was to pretend it never happened because acknowledging that violation of the NPT by China would result in automatic sanctions against China....so why didn't the US place sanctions on China in this instance? Because China and the US had billions of dollars in mutual trade that would be affected -- it would hurt the US more than it would hurt China.....the GOTUS is a rational entity that will not do anything to make its job more difficult.


Rye,

I understand your point, US. only makes tactical adjustments when such circumstances arise, and comes back to address them [keeping the power center's intact]. China enjoys a UNSC seat and lot of dirty work was done earlier. Eventhough it became irrelevant when it came to Iraq War.

So is it a right assumption to make, that India we will have it the same way as China, I have my doubts..

Tilak
BRFite
Posts: 733
Joined: 31 Jul 2005 20:19
Location: Old Lal Masjid @BRFATA (*Renovation*)

Postby Tilak » 23 Dec 2006 04:16

Tilak wrote:....oblige in this regard.


S.Valkan wrote:No power "obliges" another.

That would make a nice "Decal Sticker"..

Please read Rye's comments..

Quite the contrary.
:rotfl:

The Hyde Act is simply a means of hedging the bets if - in the future - India does need to be discomforted.


So Hedging is for China since its "overambitious" and Hyde Act to "Discomfort" India.. :lol:

If the GOTUS can sell their taxpayers "Iraqi Freedom", do I need to say more...


And what would they sell "compensation" to GE as ?


Walmart's Underwears..

The word "parity" says it all.

But, if you want to be very pedantic, let's just say the H&D folks only want a formal recognition as P-6 on paper ( no UNSC-6).

Happy ?


You assume too much ..

In fact, Very Happy...

Please enlighten me as to who confers a "right" to test ?

India is not a signatory of NPT or CTBT.

It has no restriction on such an inherent right.

All the Hyde Act says is that - in case India EXERCISES that inherent right - the US should end the current nuclear honeymoon. Period.

That's simply a matter of choice for India, not an usurpation of rights.


There are a list of issues mentioned in the above article, its very convenient to harp on "right to test" and make circular arguments.

Be a realist and see it for what it "is"


And the reason being "why we are, where we are" and the relevant history..

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21175
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Postby Prem » 23 Dec 2006 06:04

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1070104

US confident of NSG support for India nuke deal

"If we move fast at the beginning of 2007, I would hope we could do all that in six months. And this will represent a sea of change in the way the world works, in India's acceptance in the world," Burns said.

"It also, I think, in many ways speaks of the emergence of India as a global power, and the acceptance of India by the United States and the other powers in the world," he added.

Burns said he was confident about NSG arriving at a consensus on the issue with Russia, Germany, Britain, France, Japan and Australia having publicly announced their support.

"I do not believe the Chinese will block this. I think they will agree to consensus," he said. But there are some countries, Ireland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland, the Nordics, that have had some questions.But we're hopeful that they will join consensus," he said.

Burns would not agree that US intended the deal to be a counterweight to the relationship with China.

"We have some issues that separate us, but in general the direction is good there. And we don't have a policy that would build up a relationship with India to contain China. But it's also true that our strategic interests in South and East Asia dictate good relations with the major powers," he said.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 23 Dec 2006 06:10


shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 23 Dec 2006 07:56

Suddenly - I am having meta-thoughts about this business. (and that after reading only 26 of 190 pages :eek:)

Perhaps too much effort has been spent in looking at the minutae of a US law to govern the US's dealing with India. This would be vital if India dealt ONLY with the US and got itself into all the knots that people have referred to in these threads.

Looking at this in another way - exactly what has changed to make people refer to this as some kind of great breakthrough?

I think it could be as follows. Until now the US was saying "There are some nuclear pariah nations that we will not deal with no matter what"

Now the US is saying "OK - we will deal with India if they uphold our laws"

This sets a precedent for other nations to make their own laws that say that they will deal with India under certain conditions - perhaps if India upholds their laws.

Maybe you get a nation like Madmania that says that "Madmania will sell Uranium to India provided India supplies us with 20,000 coconuts a year"

Then India has a deal with Madmania where India has to bend over backwards and ensure that Madmania receives its 20,000 coconuts or India's energy security will be compromised. India needs to uphold laws that ensure Madmania's coconut security.

It is even possible that Madmania may have great relations with the US ensuring that US entities are making great money selling pickaxes and shovels that are used for shipping Madmania's exports.

So whether India does a deal with the US or not - India will have to do similar deals with a whole lot of nations, using this deal as a precedent. And while India is negotiating deals - nothing changes as far as India is concerned. It is business as usual.

What the deal has done is to force at least one "supplier nation" (The US) to set India specific conditions. Now the rest of the world has to be forced, individually, and country by country, to set India specific conditions that we can deal with. This has been avoided until now.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16829
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 23 Dec 2006 08:07

shyamd wrote:Hyde And Seek
The Hyde Act, with its harsh provisions, will always remain a Damocles' sword over India's head. This does not mean we withdraw from the minuet and the next step of negotiating a formal bilateral agreement with the US.

B Raman



I have two big issues with this article:

1) The examples he gives are US laws that the POTUS has to satisfy every year. The parties that are included in the reports (like Pakistan) has no say on the matter nor are they signatories in any shape or form. (India is a dedicated party to the 123 and is impacted by the Hyde Act directly and singly.)

2) India is at the mercy of the POTUS - per his example so are the other countries (he cites Pakistan). Then why would India sign any deal with the US, specially considering that it is a civilian nuclear deal that impacts the economy of the nation? Per his examples all the more reason why India should not sign - but go on her own and do as she pleases

What gives?

Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Postby Alok_N » 23 Dec 2006 08:14

NRao wrote: Per his examples all the more reason why India should not sign - but go on her own and do as she pleases

What gives?


what gives is that days of "island ecnomies" is over ... "as she pleases" may well turn into "as she weeps" ...


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests