India - Nuclear News and Discussion

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6849
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Postby Mort Walker » 17 Jul 2007 09:49

One last one ( this one may make you happy) and no more on this from me. Some of my friends (CEO's and likes in India) knew that MMS will be PM even before the elections and this was not based on astrology.


Great, I'm impressed with you and your CEO friends (who the **** are you trying to impress?). Then please hedge your bets and place them accordingly come 2009, perhaps madam Mayawati's dreams may come true. She'll sell India's Hyde for a low price and we'll all be happy that the crappy NDA didn't come back in. :roll:

Satya_anveshi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3528
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37

Postby Satya_anveshi » 17 Jul 2007 10:07

Sorry folks..I have deleted my posts, which cannot be substantiated and will certainly derail this thread. Carry on.

Vishy_mulay
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 09 Feb 2007 09:21
Location: Melbourne

Postby Vishy_mulay » 17 Jul 2007 10:07

The South Block, which houses External Affairs Ministry, is optimistic that by late July or August 2007, the 123-agreement could be formalised.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's expected visit to New Delhi in the next couple of months might finally see the culmination of the negotiations.


http://www.newkerala.com/july.php?actio ... s&id=46893

Vivek K
BRFite
Posts: 1877
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Postby Vivek K » 17 Jul 2007 10:08

Mort Walker wrote:
I said this once and here it is again. BJP would have sold out long before any congress govt would. The whole hindutva movement was a LOTUS revolution similar to Orange revolution of Ukrain and Cedar revolution of Lebanon. Guess who fed the Jan Sangh et el during Indira years and where will their loyalties be. We are in a difficult situation.


BS

Keep your unsubstantiated rumors to yourself. India is in its strategic position today because of the NDA and more specifically because of POK-II. No Kangressi blow-hards had the balls to do it. It took 6-years to begin clean up of the mess of 50+ years. And please don't get me started on who actually got the economy rolling on 8%+ points of GDP growth.


Here we go - corrupting the thread! Mort you're forgetting that ABV credited PVN with the groundwork (of course after the blasts) for POK-II. And for all her faults, IG had more b$lls than all the current BJP leadership put together! She actually did fight and win an Aar Par Ki ladai unlike the talk by ABV.

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

Postby svinayak » 17 Jul 2007 10:12

Mort Walker wrote:
I said this once and here it is again. BJP would have sold out long before any congress govt would. The whole hindutva movement was a LOTUS revolution similar to Orange revolution of Ukrain and Cedar revolution of Lebanon. Guess who fed the Jan Sangh et el during Indira years and where will their loyalties be. We are in a difficult situation.


BS

Keep your unsubstantiated rumors to yourself. India is in its strategic position today because of the NDA and more specifically because of POK-II. No Kangressi blow-hards had the balls to do it. It took 6-years to begin clean up of the mess of 50+ years. And please don't get me started on who actually got the economy rolling on 8%+ points of GDP growth.


This is the irony. A party which has been on the helm for 50 years has not been able to create the strategic environment for the country. Even some of the US senators- Sen Biden- have said that without the approval of the BJP this nuke deal will not go forward.
It was the fear of loss of prestige and power which made UPA to compromise in the Hyde act to work on the deal.

Vishy_mulay
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 09 Feb 2007 09:21
Location: Melbourne

Postby Vishy_mulay » 17 Jul 2007 10:19

Vivek by your own logic PVN was without balls since he buckled against US pressure to carry out the tests. There is a lot of information about PVN, the best non dynastic leader, Congress produced. How much congress cherished him was evident in his funeral. I am not saying ABV was perfect PM but given the climate in late 90s, we have to take in to account what ABV faced. Many of his government decision put India where it is today (including the nuclear talk). Lot of this nuclear gimmicks did start in ABVs turn but MMS just surrendered which was not the original plane.
Last edited by Vishy_mulay on 17 Jul 2007 10:23, edited 2 times in total.

UPrabhu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 98
Joined: 21 Sep 2004 11:51

Postby UPrabhu » 17 Jul 2007 10:20

Vivek K, IG had balls because IG had clear majority in the parliament and opposition party (read JS) willing to congratulate her on victory in 71, not opposition which opposed POK II for the sake of being anti-BJP.

Anyways, I believe if NDA was in power today, the approach would have been different. NDA govt. I am sure would have shown willingness to walk away, which would have made US congress think twice before passing anything like Hyde Act.

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

Postby Rye » 17 Jul 2007 10:24

The time between a politcal decision and its implementation on the ground is typically many years (or decades), and will involve changes in government given the time frame and thus involve all leaders and parties. All of them have to work withing certain boundaries, which they hopefully did. All politically-motivated spitting contests are pointless and uninformative at least as far as this thread is concerned.

Raju

Postby Raju » 17 Jul 2007 10:35

Mort Walker wrote:
One last one ( this one may make you happy) and no more on this from me. Some of my friends (CEO's and likes in India) knew that MMS will be PM even before the elections and this was not based on astrology.
....




As soon as the last general elections got over Anil Ambani went and congratulated Sonia Gandhi, the leader of UPA. This was before the two borthers had seperated and the company partitioned. They did not wait for the exit polls or results to be announced. The last elections were tilted in favor of UPA esp due to AP and TN where there was an anti-state govt wave. It was not that difficult to predict the results. But the results predicted by parties are confined to their internal discussions and closed group gossip circles.

As for NDA doing things differently regards the nuclear deal, whatever they might have done the end result would have been the same as we see now. In the geopolitical/strategic business one does not support any party or individual implicitly. There are too many variables that can corrupt institutions and people at play all the time.

Support is only on issues, and that too to the extent they are prepared to 'walk the talk' on those issues. Blind support for any group/person usually always leads to disastrous consequences.

p.s. when Reliance was a single company esp during times of Dhirubhai, their visits to political HQ's post elections was considered a better indicator of results than any exit poll.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50066
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 17 Jul 2007 10:46

vsudhir wrote:The sucess of the ABM, the unveiling of Sagarika, the impending launch of the ATV and the development of other weapon systems etc are all steps in an assertive direction for India.

India would get really 'recalcitrant' when its Agni3+/Surya morphs into an MIRVwith a 12k km range, capable of taking out, foolproof any city on Earth within an hour.

JMTs etc.


Those are all tools that carry flowers or something else.

None of the above will put in the recalcitrant league.

Vishy_mulay
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 09 Feb 2007 09:21
Location: Melbourne

Postby Vishy_mulay » 17 Jul 2007 10:50

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/post ... iling.html

Brahma Chellaneys view on Indo-US nuclear deal

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

Postby svinayak » 17 Jul 2007 11:50

Vishy_mulay wrote:http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/america/2007/06/usindia_nuclear_deal_failing.html

Brahma Chellaneys view on Indo-US nuclear deal


Kartik Bommakanti, Monterey California:

Hi I'm a graduate student from India at the Monterey Institute of International studies specializing in nonproliferation.

Brahma's arguments are misleading and essentially the fulminations of a well known Indian hawk. Let's remember the Bush Administation has had to reverse over 30 years of US nonproliferation policy vis-a-vis India. This longstanding policy signally failed to coerce and dissuade India from acquiring a nuclear capability. The US reversal was welcome because it confronted the reality that India would never surrender its nuclear capability. Have the likes of Brahma ever asked themselves the pressures both on the domestic and international fronts the Bush Administration has had to face in trying to consummate this technically complex agreement.

The deal does not in anyway directly impinge negatively on India's strategic program (India would never allow that) nor does it prevent India from building up its capabilities to match China's. If anything it gives India the option of ramping up production of fissile material by freeing up India's limited domestic uranium reserves. India has refused to accept any legally binding restraints on fissile material production for now, something Washington has accepted. Nor does the issue feature in the current 123 negotiations.

The deal is ultimately a civilian energy accord that is intended to redress India's growing energy needs and ends India's nuclear isolation by making it a legitimate stakeholder in upholding the nonproliferation regime. But the strategic import of the accord is undeniable and the foregoing only discredits Brahma's view that there is a hidden American agenda to deny India its rightful place among major powers. If anything it is intended to accomodate India's growing power and aspirations. President Bush has got many things wrong, but on this he is right. But Brahma is right in noting that India and America can never be allies. New Delhi is unlikely to subordinate its interests to the US or become Washington's junior partner. But will they become enemies and the answer is nope. The growing social and economic bonds between the two countries will forestall any adversarial relationship from developing. This is a partnership based on mutual interests and the evolving Indo-US strategic partnership is an effort to shape the geostrategic landscape in Asia.

Finally if the nuclear deal were to collapse it would be a devastating blow to the bilateral relationship and would play directly into the hands of hawks like Mr. Chellaney whose worldview is that of a frog in a well. This is a win-win deal for India, the US and for the longterm health of the global nonproliferation regime. Get well soon Amar!

Kartik,
Monterey


vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2904
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Postby vera_k » 17 Jul 2007 12:28

NRao wrote:IF Tellis could repharse his statement:

it is, formally speaking, a <strike>non-</strike>nuclear weapons state that <strike>happens</strike> needs to have nuclear weapons."


Or this:

it is, formally speaking, a nuclear weapons state not party to the NPT.

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6957
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby JE Menon » 17 Jul 2007 13:11

>>JEM,

>>Political capitaaaal.

>>This has been a huge headache.

Boss, this would have worked whether the NRIs were in the picture or not. Are you saying otherwise?

Signing a deal with Israel is not primarily and not even secondarily because of NRI political capital spent for Hyde. It is a nice timely PR touch and that's about it. The Israelis and the Jewish lobby in the US are not naive. They know, like we do, where our interests (even common interests) lie. And even the Jewish lobby is not monolithic on these and many other issue s.

My point continues to be, and will remain, that no amount of NRI "political capital" expended should be a rationale for GoI decisions. If the NRIs want to spend that political capital in India's interest fine. If not, that's fine too.

Now if the GoI was wrong in asking NRIs to lobby for Hyde that's a different issue altogether. If one is saying that the Hyde act, seemingly taken for granted on BRF as detrimental to India, was a stick we gave them to beat us with... only time will tell.

We need to consider why Hyde was lobbied for by GoI? Were they completely ignorant of its ramifications? Or is it because, as seems to be the preferred explanation, MMS, et al are traitors? Or could it be that we wanted the Hyde passed so we could chuck all the preceding anti-India legislation and focus on this little package? Who knows really...

And frankly, much of the reportage is speculative and as likely to be accurate as here on BRF... The fact of the matter is that we simply do not have enough info for anything more than that. And we will not get it.

Vishy_mulay
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 09 Feb 2007 09:21
Location: Melbourne

Postby Vishy_mulay » 17 Jul 2007 14:03

Michael Krepon, President Emeritus of the Washington based Henry L Stimson Center, said in an interview with Asian News International (ANI), that it would be next to impossible for the Bush Administration to agree with the demands being put forward by the Government of India vis-à-vis the 123 Agreement, the bilateral part of the Indo-US nuclear deal, that puts nuclear testing restrictions on New Delhi.



http://internationalreporter.com/News-2 ... ikely.html

Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3238
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

Postby Tanaji » 17 Jul 2007 15:03

What is sad and interesting is the whole reprocessing issue is being made to appear as if these are new "demands" from the Indian side, and that its the Indian side thats being made to appear as if its playing hard ball and being recalcitrant. The opposite is of course, true since all the Indians are demanding is that the parties stick to the original J18 document.

This is one of the failings of the Indian side, since perception seems to be reality these days. That, and of course, MMS being incredibly dense or naive after the Hyde act was passed.

As much as I dislike the Congress party, people singing praise for the NDA forget the strategic blunder made by NDA in the Kandahar case. The prostitution done by Jassoo in that case was reprehensible.

--------------------------------
Allakh Niranjan!

Manav
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 25
Joined: 11 Feb 2005 19:25

Postby Manav » 17 Jul 2007 16:08

Tanaji wrote:What is sad and interesting is the whole reprocessing issue is being made to appear as if these are new "demands" from the Indian side, and that its the Indian side thats being made to appear as if its playing hard ball and being recalcitrant. The opposite is of course, true since all the Indians are demanding is that the parties stick to the original J18 document.

This is one of the failings of the Indian side, since perception seems to be reality these days. That, and of course, MMS being incredibly dense or naive after the Hyde act was passed.

As much as I dislike the Congress party, people singing praise for the NDA forget the strategic blunder made by NDA in the Kandahar case. The prostitution done by Jassoo in that case was reprehensible.

--------------------------------
Allakh Niranjan!


From what I have been given to understand, there was an critical Indian intelligence asset on board that aircraft and this pre-empted the GOI's ability to interdict it. The apparent mix up in Amritsar is explained in this way - it was not a mix up but deliberate. It also explained why Mr. Singh went to Khandahar. It has been strongly suggested that the GOI could not afford to lose the asset they had on board that aircraft. Do bear in mind that this is what I have been told and I have no way to confirm or deny this. But on the face of it, it sounds a plausible story.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 17 Jul 2007 16:50

Leading US think tank says India-US nuke deal unlikely

MIL/ANI, Jul 17, 2007.

Washington, July 17, 2007 (Tuesday) - An expert attached with a leading American think tank has ruled out the possibility of India and the United States finalizing a significant bilateral nuclear deal, in spite of several rounds of negotiations since its signing on July 18, 2005.

Michael Krepon,{ :roll: }President Emeritus of the Washington based Henry L Stimson Center, said in an interview with Asian News International (ANI), that it would be next to impossible for the Bush Administration to agree with the demands being put forward by the Government of India vis-à-vis the 123 Agreement, the bilateral part of the Indo-US nuclear deal, that puts nuclear testing restrictions on New Delhi.

"We (the US) can't do the things that the Government of India wants, and even if we did, all the other people - the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) - they're not going to say yes either. And so, you know, I'm not sure," said Krepon.

Krepon's doomsday prediction comes even as senior Indian officials, comprising of National Security Adviser M K Narayanan, Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon and Chairman of Department of Atomic Energy, Anil Kakodkar are in Washington meeting with U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Nicholas Burns, and U.S. National Security Adviser, Stephen Hadley, with the objective of resolving the stalemate over the 123-agreement.

Krepon further claimed that the Bush Administration's hands are tied over the issue of giving India blanket permission for nuclear testing and supplying civilian nuclear fuel in perpetuity.

"The Government of India wants a free pass { :) }. If it decides to resume nuclear testing, it doesn't want to be penalized. And the legislation passed by the Congress penalizes India (should it decide to nuclear test), and the NSG would also penalize India if they resumed testing. So, that's a bone of contention (between the two sides), " Krepon told ANI.

New Delhi's desire for uninterrupted nuclear fuel supply was also a problem, as the Bush Administration "has signed a Congressional legislation that does not give India a huge reserve of fuel, because the (U.S.) Congress does not want to give the Government of India a free ride if it resumes testing. It (Congress) wants that to be a hard (to come by) decision.

Krepon's views notwithstanding, the Indian delegation is expected to put the onus on Washington to show some 'flexibility' to facilitate the conclusion of the 123 Agreement, negotiations which began in November 2006, but encountered a roadblock over the right to reprocess spent nuclear fuel.

Krepon also claimed that Washington has reached a compromise with New Delhi on the signing of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, but added that he did not see New Delhi becoming a signatory to the treaty anytime soon.

While the U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said over the weekend that Washington is ready to resolve the remaining outstanding issues on the 123 Agreement, Krepon said US policy objectives in South Asia go beyond the signing of the nuclear cooperation agreement.

"There are more important things going on in South Asia. Even if an agreement is reached between Washington and New Delhi this month, it will take a lot longer to implement the agreement, because there will be very hard negotiations in the NSG, there will be very hard negotiations with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The Government of India is not going to get the deal that it wants. This is domestically divisive in India. Even if all of this gets done, all of it, the Lok Sabha (Lower House of the Indian Parliament) is unlikely to pass legislation" committing the country in the event of an accident at a nuclear power plant constructed by a foreign company, or an MNC, "which means that at least in the US, nobody is going to build a nuclear power plant in India without a liability waiver," said Krepon.

He was also critical of Washington's latest geo-strategic initiatives, saying that the Bush Administration's penchant for undertaking such ventures have landed it in trouble.

"The Bush Administration gets into big trouble when it tries to do big geo-strategic things, like remaking Iraq and remaking the Middle East. The Bush Administration is trying another big geo-political ploy - trying to get India to be a partner against China. That's what this (nuclear) deal is really about. It's not about American firms building nuclear power plants in India. I doubt it seriously if that's ever going to happen. It's about China, and New Delhi is not going to do Washington's bidding on China. New Delhi has its own agenda, and is very capable of improving relations with China, as it has improved relations with the United States," opined Krepon.

He further claimed the existence of a triangular nuclear competition between China, India and Pakistan, which fell short of an arms race, "but it is heating up and cruise missiles are coming in, more and better ballistic missiles are coming in all three corners of this triangle."

He predicted that if there is a resumption of nuclear testing in the area, China, India and Pakistan would seek to improve their nuclear warheads.

It was all a question of calculations about nuclear weapons requirements for each country, and it was not coincidental that China is backing away from treaty negotiations to stop the production of fissile material for a (nuclear) bomb. He also said that it was no coincidence that Pakistan is building not one, but two new plutonium reactors.

He concluded by saying that there was a need for Washington to move on.

"We've got to be helping India with its energy needs, in clean energy, we ought to be helping India in so many different ways. But to make this (the nuclear deal) the number one priority, is a big mistake. We (the US) will be paying for it. India will be paying for it," Krepon said.

Already four rounds of formal negotiations and numerous meetings on the sidelines of multilateral fora have taken place on the 123-agreement since November 2006, but New Delhi is not keen to conclude the agreement in haste.

India had earlier stated that the US administration has assured it that there is nothing in the Henry Hyde Nuclear Cooperation Act that prevents them from implementing their obligations as laid in the July 18, 2005 and March 2, 2006 statements.

The Indian Government is optimistic that by late July or August 2007, the agreement could be formalized.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's expected visit to New Delhi in the next couple of months may finally see an end to the negotiations. (ANI)


One of the biggest Indian failures is that India with its dumb chai-biscut mentality - one of little strategic value - has never been able to put to bed such arguments (India should be penalised on testing. Never thinks about a test conducted by others, etc).

Where is Kartik when we need him?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 17 Jul 2007 17:08

JEM,

IMHO, IF GoI had "spent" that up front, then we could have got a much more watered down Hyde Act.

WRT NRIs, NRIs were very ignorant about the issues involved with DAE stand. So, they (from what I know that is) did not quite grasp the position this lobby took - at that time. The lobbies position was a great blow.

Anyways, it was to show what 'capital' means and works (all over the world).

Ramana,

Understood. However, intent was to get out of that loop. IF in 10 years we still have Kreepons of this world pontificating, clearly it would be India's fault (putting it mildly). (BTW, taking such pontiffs out of the loop can be done without touching them - just improve our lot.)

I just do not think that words like recalcitrant should be even thought of.

Produce and respect more AKs. Let BigBs slide. Watch MKs will reach their boiling points and evaporate.

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4278
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Postby abhischekcc » 17 Jul 2007 17:16

NRao wrote:Leading US think tank says India-US nuke deal unlikely



"The Bush Administration gets into big trouble when it tries to do big geo-strategic things, like remaking Iraq and remaking the Middle East. The Bush Administration is trying another big geo-political ploy - trying to get India to be a partner against China. That's what this (nuclear) deal is really about. It's not about American firms building nuclear power plants in India. I doubt it seriously if that's ever going to happen. It's about China, and New Delhi is not going to do Washington's bidding on China. New Delhi has its own agenda, and is very capable of improving relations with China, as it has improved relations with the United States," opined Krepon.


One of the biggest Indian failures is that India with its dumb chai-biscut mentality - one of little strategic value - has never been able to put to bed such arguments (India should be penalised on testing. Never thinks about a test conducted by others, etc).

Where is Kartik when we need him?


Oh, the smart fools that populate Washington!!!

Krepon conveniently forgets that the US strategy is not about getting an ally in India against China. But to prevent the ganging up of the three Asian giants into a geopolitical block.

India may or may not join US against China, but US wants to prevent India joining Russia+China combine. That's the deal all about.

That's why Mani Shankar Aiyar was eased out when, as 'Petroleum' Minister, he had started thinking of extending the IPI pipeline to China. The last Unkil wants is to be ejected out of Asia - the domino principle - the same thing that had led them to attack Vietnam over a generation ago.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 17 Jul 2007 17:25

Finally if the nuclear deal were to collapse it would be a devastating blow to the bilateral relationship ............................. This is a win-win deal for India, the US and for the longterm health of the global nonproliferation regime. Get well soon Amar!

Kartik,
Monterey


Why? Why would it be a blow? Is the US so cheap or shallow or immature?

Also, "win-win" is based only on if India ALSO gets what she wants. J18 did state equal status. Whatever the US is able to do, India should be able to do. IF they cannot grant India that status, they will have to in another 10 years or so.

Drevin
BRFite
Posts: 408
Joined: 21 Sep 2006 12:27

Postby Drevin » 17 Jul 2007 18:12

Just to pep up things ... even if the nuclear deal goes through ... i'd go for thr Rafale as MRCA :roll: and invest in the P8I joint development effort with Boeing. We already have given $10billion in business to Boeing through AirIndia and Jet Airways.
JMT

Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Postby Sanjay M » 17 Jul 2007 18:16

NRao wrote:Leading US think tank says India-US nuke deal unlikely

He was also critical of Washington's latest geo-strategic initiatives, saying that the Bush Administration's penchant for undertaking such ventures have landed it in trouble.

"The Bush Administration gets into big trouble when it tries to do big geo-strategic things, like remaking Iraq and remaking the Middle East. The Bush Administration is trying another big geo-political ploy - trying to get India to be a partner against China. That's what this (nuclear) deal is really about. It's not about American firms building nuclear power plants in India. I doubt it seriously if that's ever going to happen. It's about China, and New Delhi is not going to do Washington's bidding on China. New Delhi has its own agenda, and is very capable of improving relations with China, as it has improved relations with the United States," opined Krepon.


Okay, so how does this jive with what Perky said about India having been the initiator or undertaker for this N-Deal? They can't both be right.
Either India initiated the deal, or else US initiated it for containing China.
Really, it's important to know who the initiator was. I want to know who did the courting, and who's being courted. What kind of ping-pong diplomacy is this?


India had earlier stated that the US administration has assured it that there is nothing in the Henry Hyde Nuclear Cooperation Act that prevents them from implementing their obligations as laid in the July 18, 2005 and March 2, 2006 statements.


I find such "reassurance" from the Whitehouse to be a critical weak point in this deal. This sounds like Oslo Peace Process reassurances -- a bunch of BS.

Manav
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 25
Joined: 11 Feb 2005 19:25

Postby Manav » 17 Jul 2007 18:32

Sanjay M wrote:
NRao wrote:Leading US think tank says India-US nuke deal unlikely

He was also critical of Washington's latest geo-strategic initiatives, saying that the Bush Administration's penchant for undertaking such ventures have landed it in trouble.

"The Bush Administration gets into big trouble when it tries to do big geo-strategic things, like remaking Iraq and remaking the Middle East. The Bush Administration is trying another big geo-political ploy - trying to get India to be a partner against China. That's what this (nuclear) deal is really about. It's not about American firms building nuclear power plants in India. I doubt it seriously if that's ever going to happen. It's about China, and New Delhi is not going to do Washington's bidding on China. New Delhi has its own agenda, and is very capable of improving relations with China, as it has improved relations with the United States," opined Krepon.


Okay, so how does this jive with what Perky said about India having been the initiator or undertaker for this N-Deal? They can't both be right.
Either India initiated the deal, or else US initiated it for containing China.
Really, it's important to know who the initiator was. I want to know who did the courting, and who's being courted. What kind of ping-pong diplomacy is this?


India had earlier stated that the US administration has assured it that there is nothing in the Henry Hyde Nuclear Cooperation Act that prevents them from implementing their obligations as laid in the July 18, 2005 and March 2, 2006 statements.


I find such "reassurance" from the Whitehouse to be a critical weak point in this deal. This sounds like Oslo Peace Process reassurances -- a bunch of BS.


As far as I can see it was GWB who initiated this...

"In July 2005 President Bush of USA during a visit of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh initiated the Indo-USA nuclear
deal.
Under this, the broad understanding was that India will be allowed to keep its nuclear weapons deterrent developing capability but has to bring its civilian nuclear reactors under the nuclear safeguards and the flood gates of international co operation in the field of nuclear energy will be opened up."

Here is the link to the source:

http://www.patentmatics.org/pub2006/pub9e.pdf

Caveat: I have no idea as to the validity of this info or of the article in question.

But if the above is true, then Perkovich's comments are wrong - though he will take cover by saying that the discussions began with Blackwill and the NDA, though the scope may have been much lesser than what it is today.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5038
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Postby Surya » 17 Jul 2007 18:58

Tanaji

The problem is the media outlets are controlled by the west.

See the attacks on Putin - Newsweek especially has been gunning for him

calling him a tyrant etc.

The good thing is fewer and fewer people care a damn what Time and Newsweek think but there are still asses who like to get their name into those 2 rags

John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Postby John Snow » 17 Jul 2007 20:33

Long ago there used to be a BRF member called Prof Raghu, he used to think that US media is the most independent fair and accurate on most counts. Hope he is still reading the Media in US and BRF too.

Think of it Ropert Murdoch owning Wall street Journal....

Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3238
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

Postby Tanaji » 17 Jul 2007 20:40

Manav:

Thanks for the clarification, I was not aware of what you said. It sheds a different light, subject to it being true, and it probably never will be confirmed.

I better stop here about my views, since it is not germane to the nuke topic.

Manav
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 25
Joined: 11 Feb 2005 19:25

Postby Manav » 17 Jul 2007 20:47

Tanaji wrote:Manav:

Thanks for the clarification, I was not aware of what you said. It sheds a different light, subject to it being true, and it probably never will be confirmed.

I better stop here about my views, since it is not germane to the nuke topic.


Tanaji....

As you said...'it probably never will be confirmed'. And there is no way that I can confirm it...hell the GOI refuses to release info about Netaji...so we shouldn't be holding our breath for clarifications on subjects like this...and not least of all on the Indo-US nuke deal.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50066
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 17 Jul 2007 20:55

Manav wrote:
Tanaji wrote:Manav:

Thanks for the clarification, I was not aware of what you said. It sheds a different light, subject to it being true, and it probably never will be confirmed.

I better stop here about my views, since it is not germane to the nuke topic.


Tanaji....

As you said...'it probably never will be confirmed'. And there is no way that I can confirm it...hell the GOI refuses to release info about Netaji...so we shouldn't be holding our breath for clarifications on subjects like this...and not least of all on the Indo-US nuke deal.


Tanaji and Manav, The Telegraph of Kolkota had details of the passengers at that time. So there was confirmation at that time.

Second reason was that there was fear that Talban would let the returning plane be shot down in air with the hostages and wiht JS on board that would ihibit that move. Third reason did not materialize so no need to elaborate.

Anyway lets take it to another thread.

milindc
BRFite
Posts: 663
Joined: 11 Feb 2006 00:03

Postby milindc » 17 Jul 2007 21:02

NRao wrote:Leading US think tank says India-US nuke deal unlikely

MIL/ANI, Jul 17, 2007.

Washington, July 17, 2007 (Tuesday) - An expert attached with a leading American think tank has ruled out the possibility of India and the United States finalizing a significant bilateral nuclear deal, in spite of several rounds of negotiations since its signing on July 18, 2005.

Michael Krepon,{ :roll: }President Emeritus of the Washington based Henry L Stimson Center,


Wow.. Kathwari funded Center is leading think tank... :roll: :roll:

Manav
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 25
Joined: 11 Feb 2005 19:25

Postby Manav » 17 Jul 2007 21:13

ramana wrote:
Manav wrote:
Tanaji wrote:Manav:

Thanks for the clarification, I was not aware of what you said. It sheds a different light, subject to it being true, and it probably never will be confirmed.

I better stop here about my views, since it is not germane to the nuke topic.


Tanaji....

As you said...'it probably never will be confirmed'. And there is no way that I can confirm it...hell the GOI refuses to release info about Netaji...so we shouldn't be holding our breath for clarifications on subjects like this...and not least of all on the Indo-US nuke deal.


Tanaji and Manav, The Telegraph of Kolkota had details of the passengers at that time. So there was confirmation at that time.

Second reason was that there was fear that Talban would let the returning plane be shot down in air with the hostages and wiht JS on board that would ihibit that move. Third reason did not materialize so no need to elaborate.

Anyway lets take it to another thread.


Sure...only would like to mention that the details of...errr....never mind...in another thread

Amitabh
BRFite
Posts: 270
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby Amitabh » 17 Jul 2007 21:20

UPrabhu wrote:Anyways, I believe if NDA was in power today, the approach would have been different. NDA govt. I am sure would have shown willingness to walk away, which would have made US congress think twice before passing anything like Hyde Act.

I am sorry - and this is a purely political point - but please recall that the most enthu pro-US government was the NDA to the point that Messrs. Advani, Vajpayee and Singh were prepared to send a division to support the US occupation of Iraq before the opposition (read: Congress party) made it clear it would oppose any such thing. There is no doubt in my mind that ABV/JS/Brijesh Mishra would have gone for a similar nuclear deal, with LKA possibly standing on the sidelines acting disgruntled without actually doing anything about it. IMHO of course.

Can you imagine what situation we would have been in had an Indian division been deployed to Iraq? It would most likely have been in Mosul or the south, areas that were thought of as secure but as we now know, are not.

*Spiel over*

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6849
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Postby Mort Walker » 17 Jul 2007 21:30

This whole deal is about cheap electricity and nuclear energy is one component among hydroelectric, coal, gas, fuel-oils, wind and solar energy choices. The question is, how much do the powers that be value nuclear energy?

Right now in India, electricity is about Rs. 4.5 kw hr compared to $0.10 kw hr in the US. At current Dollar-Rupee conversion rate, this makes India's electricity cost $0.11 kw hr. To have really cheap electricity will fuel the manufacturing growth of the country and one day India could have a dozen or more metros looking brightly lit up like Tokyo with a $10 trillion GDP. To do this I would think the need would be to bring the cost of electricity down to Rs. 1 kw hr.

The 2020 plan is to have 20,000 MWe and at present India is roughly at 5,000 MWe by about the end of 2007. This means 15,000 MWe capacity has to be produced in the next 12 years. The current uranium requirement by DAE is 500 tonnes, and actual production is at 200 tonnes mined domestically. How much uranium will be needed for the 2020 plan? If its over 1000 tonnes, can domestic mining production meet the requirement? If not, then this Indo-US nuke deal, with all its warts may be worth it, but it will be at some strategic cost. However, if the promise is cheap electricity and a very high GDP, the strategic cost maybe offset in the long run by 2020.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5200
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 17 Jul 2007 21:34

Amitabh wrote:Can you imagine what situation we would have been in had an Indian division been deployed to Iraq? It would most likely have been in Mosul or the south, areas that were thought of as secure but as we now know, are not.

*Spiel over*
Energy, my friend was the trigger point of the BoP crisis of 1991. Energy is the reason for the nuclear deal. Energy is the reason the US screws itself in the ME and Energy is a good reason for India to put some risk on the table to secure the second largest proven reserves, a stone's throw away from Jamnagar.

Amitabh
BRFite
Posts: 270
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby Amitabh » 17 Jul 2007 21:53

By that logic, surely limiting the weapons programme in the short term by separating it from the civilian side is a worthy risk in the quest for energy. And less risky than involvement in the deadliest insurgency since WW2.

Added: Ramana, don't follow, pls explain!
Last edited by Amitabh on 17 Jul 2007 22:01, edited 1 time in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50066
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 17 Jul 2007 21:58

System bias ?

UPrabhu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 98
Joined: 21 Sep 2004 11:51

Postby UPrabhu » 17 Jul 2007 22:05

Amitabh, NDA was pro-India. And troops for Iraq were considered at the CCS but there was internal opposition and not just Congress. Anyways, I dont have problem if the negotiations on N-deal are pro-India and not pro-US (reprocessing rights and everything). Right now I have my doubts.


After weeks of dilemma, India on Monday turned down a US request for sending troops to war-ravaged Iraq, making it clear that such a step could be considered if there was an 'explicit' UN mandate.

The decision was taken at a meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) chaired by Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee that considered the issue with India's 'longer term national interest', concern for Iraqi people, long-standing ties with Gulf region as well as the growing dialogue and strengthened ties with the US as 'key elements'.

"Were there to be explicit UN mandate for the purpose, the Government of India could consider the deployment of our troops in Iraq," External Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha told reporters after the 90-minute meeting that was also attended among others by Deputy Prime Minister Lal Kishenchand Advani and Defence Minister George Fernandes.

National Security Adviser Brajesh Mishra, who was also present at the meeting, immediately conveyed New Delhi's decision to US Ambassador Robert Blackwill.

The rejection of the US request comes in the wake of stiff opposition from major political parties, including NDA constituent Samata Party and sections within the BJP(read: Opposition was expressed in National Executive of the BJP).


surinder
BRFite
Posts: 1421
Joined: 08 Apr 2005 06:57
Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein

Postby surinder » 17 Jul 2007 22:14

Sanjay M wrote:Okay, so how does this jive with what Perky said about India having been the initiator or undertaker for this N-Deal? They can't both be right. Either India initiated the deal, or else US initiated it for containing China. Really, it's important to know who the initiator was. I want to know who did the courting, and who's being courted. What kind of ping-pong diplomacy is this?


In "Engaging India", the book written by Strobe Talbott, there is an incident described where Jaswant Singh asks for a deal with the US, which Strobe dissmisses immediately. That looks like a lot like the nuclear-deal that is being debated now. After MMS and GWB started the ball rolling, JS claimed (perhaps rightly) that he is the one who initiated it.

S

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50066
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 17 Jul 2007 22:27

The deal that JS proposed is vastly different than the one proposed in J18 to the UPA. And also the one in the Hyde Act is again vastly different than the one proposed in J18.
Yes GoI did marshall its resources to support the Hyde Act but under the impression it was in conformity with the J18.

All this last minute antics are to square the circle between Hyde and J18.
Interesting that it boils down to Hyde and J(eckell) 18!

That will be the legacy of this deal.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5200
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 17 Jul 2007 22:30

Amitabh wrote:By that logic, surely limiting the weapons programme in the short term by separating it from the civilian side is a worthy risk in the quest for energy. And less risky than involvement in the deadliest insurgency since WW2.
If that is what it takes to secure energy, it is a worthwhile compromise. But, the issue is the compromise is getting coded through acts of agreements with multiple entities. The problem is the codification of the compromise, if a compromise of this nature is the only way - with a clear understanding that it is temporary - it may be worth it.

Some here are of the view that so what, let us sign a piece of paper now and destroy it 20 years down the line, unfortunately neither you nor I can see that far and tearing up that piece of paper after a long period of docile compliance to it, will come at costs. Costs, which I am not sure, we would want to bear.

It is not that a way out cannot be found but signing a piece paper of such a nature will go against the vary nature of Indian interests and our place in the world as propounded by some here and our leadership. Unfortunately, there is no consensus on that issue and hence the debate continues in thread number ....


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests