India - Nuclear News and Discussion

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

Postby Manav » 17 Jul 2007 22:50

ramana wrote: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.


Actually Ramana the point of which proposition was/ is different from which is probably less critical than knowing who took the first step. In that sense, if JS (i.e., the NDA) initiated talks on this account then it would be valid to say that India took the first step. This of course contradicts the info I posted earlier. Also, if this is indeed the case, then the question must be asked how this early tentative approach mushroomed into this complex situation of today and who (or what group) in the Indian camp is responsible for changes that have taken place that we know of today.

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

Postby NRao » 17 Jul 2007 22:58

"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.


At times I wonder if these yahoos are really speaking for "We (the US)".

If he is then why did Bush back J18? It should have been very clear to Bush, Rice, Burns and the yahoo group that they cannot deliver everything India wanted. And, since everything India wanted was a package, that India could not - for strategic reasons - split a J18. Anil Kakodkar was extremely clear way up front - "all or nothing" is what he stated. Where is the confusion in that statement for the Americans to pass a Hyde Act?

On the Indian side, MMS should have shot down any talk outside of J18. That we are where we are today could have been avoided.

Such situations only play into this yahoo group's hands. They thrive on you-said-i-said and pointing fingers to make themselves look good.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5220
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 17 Jul 2007 23:12

NRao wrote:At times I wonder if these yahoos are really speaking for "We (the US)".

If he is then why did Bush back J18? It should have been very clear to Bush, Rice, Burns and the yahoo group that they cannot deliver everything India wanted.
To kick the can further down the line, which is exactly, what they did. M2 in March and Hyde EOY 2006.

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7002
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Postby Mort Walker » 17 Jul 2007 23:21

Is the compromise worth it? That is the question and maybe some person(s) on BRF can make it clear. I really don't know, but what I do know is that cheap electricity at Rs. 1 kw hr is what is needed for high industrial growth.

Michael Krapon, Perky and others are NPAs who do not speak for the current USG. They might be speaking the Democratic party opinion. The Repubs are beholden to big corporates and defense contractors, and although they may dislike the SDRE people, they will follow the guidance of the corporates.

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

Postby Manav » 17 Jul 2007 23:23

About how this thing started....here is one perspective...

"With the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the chief opposition, it is more a matter of ownership problem. For it was the BJP-led NDA government that first initiated civil nuclear talks but had to give up after it was thrown out of power in the summer of 2004. Its leaders cannot stomach their principal rival claiming credit for this deal."

From an article in the ET
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/New ... 209958.cms

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5220
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 17 Jul 2007 23:24

Mort Walker wrote:Is the compromise worth it?
The answer will come quite easily, if one's sense of India's sense of her world views are clear.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5220
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 17 Jul 2007 23:26

Manav: You are covering a lot of old ground covered on this thread. There is a lot in the archives. Please check them out. Thanks.

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

Postby Manav » 17 Jul 2007 23:28

ShauryaT wrote:Manav: You are covering a lot of old ground covered on this thread. There is a lot in the archives. Please check them out. Thanks.


If yes, then my apologies...I was merely trying to work out who began this stuff...nevertheless, my apologies

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

Postby bala » 17 Jul 2007 23:28

First and foremost a snake oil salesman like Creeepyon does not deserve any bandwidth on this forum.

trying to get India to be a partner against China. That's what this (nuclear) deal is really about.


Finally the truth is emerging about objectives of the US-India Nuke Deal. Creeepyon's fear is that his favorite/pay master China is being targeted by the US. Oh, Creeepyon you are going to be jobless soon, try monster.com will you.

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."


This statement proves why the whore TSP is used by US and China - for triangular contests. Right. There are no three corners nitwit. It is China and TSP as a continuum with US wedged in to shore up anti-India campaign. Thus far it worked and the NPAyatollahs loved this checkmate philosophy against India. Now they are afraid that the 3 way contest is crumbling and the US is deciding to take sides and co-opt India against China. India will take this help gladly. Whether it wants to posture on the global arena in this manner is another matter. India wants to play ball on the global scene and any nuanced help will be gladly accepted, thank you, CreeepyOn.

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

Postby bala » 17 Jul 2007 23:35

Contrary to CreeepyOn's prediction, we have Brazil endorsing India.
I think the following nations will shoe us into NSG membership: USA, Russia, Britain, France, South Africa, Brazil, Japan, Kazhakstan. Only holdouts will be China and some small nations allied with it.

Brazil ready to support India's case at NSG

Brazil today expressed readiness to support India's case at the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) and have cooperation with New Delhi in the civilian nuclear field subject to proper safeguards.

"That is no problem," Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim told a select group of reporters here when asked whether his country will support India's case at the NSG. "We are open to cooperation with India in civilian nuclear energy. It is perfectly possible," said Amorim who earlier held talks with External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee and South African Foreign Minister Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma under India-Brazil-South Africa (IBSA) forum.

In the field of defence, he said there was big potential for cooperation between India and Brazil. Brazilian Defence Minister will visit India soon to explore possibilities of cooperation.

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

Postby Satya_anveshi » 18 Jul 2007 02:17

In continuation of the link that SRaj posted a couple days ago from NewsInsight.

End of the road? - 5

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

Postby svinayak » 18 Jul 2007 02:34

Satya_anveshi wrote:In continuation of the link that SRaj posted a couple days ago from NewsInsight.

End of the road? - 5


[quote]
And yet, US Presidents since Ronald Reagan have been supremely accommodative of China, enabling China to extract a very favourable nuclear agreement with America. Critics point to three major flaws in the China-US nuclear agreement. “Article 2, Section 1, which describes the scope of Sino-U.S. nuclear cooperation, includes a statement that was not contained in prior agreements,â€

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

Postby Sanjay M » 18 Jul 2007 03:34

Tanaji wrote: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.


If Congress had been in power during the Air India hijacking to Kandahar, then the capitulation and concession would have been far worse. There's no basis for a scheming dynastic graft-loving old-boys club o be firmer on national defense than a nationalist party.

sraj
BRFite
Posts: 255
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 07:04

Postby sraj » 18 Jul 2007 04:35

Uneasy tidings before N-marathon i.e. Good News....the deal might still die!!
KP Nayar
[quote]Washington, July 17: Even as India and the US today began “technicalâ€

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

Postby Vishy_mulay » 18 Jul 2007 06:14

[quote]
Members of the delegation, collectively and individually, will be meeting senior officials of the Bush administration on issues pertaining to the broader aspects of the bilateral relationship as well. “[b]There is more to India-United States relations than the civilian nuclear agreement,â€

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

Postby Vishy_mulay » 18 Jul 2007 06:23

Hyde Act is a charter of slavery
Section 123(a) (4) of the US Atomic Energy Act 1954 stipulates that the US shall have the right to require return of all nuclear materials and equipment if the cooperating party detonates a nuclear explosive device or terminates or abrogates an agreement providing for IAEA safeguards. Section 123(a) (7) and Section 127(5) prohibit reprocessing and enrichment of US-supplied materials and products thereof without prior approval of the USA. Section 129 stipulates that export of nuclear materials and equipment and sensitive nuclear technology to non-nuclear weapon state shall be automatically terminated if it detonated any nuclear explosive device.

These three are believed to be main hurdles in signing the 123 agreement with the USA. The point to be noted is that these hurdles are not created by the Hyde Act but were already there on US statute books before July 2005. In this background, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was misled by his myopic advisers to believe that President Bush with his declining influence at the Capitol Hill will be able to roll back these statutory limitations on US government to allow India in black and white to reprocess and to detonate without return of US nuclear supplies. Consequently, Dr Singh had to see dilution of commitments made by him to India in the famous Joint Statement of July 18, 2005 and in his statements before the Indian Parliament.


http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/module ... 193&page=2

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

Postby Vishy_mulay » 18 Jul 2007 06:29

Has this been posted before?

Indo-US Deal: Bridging the gap
Pallava Bagla
The passage of the enabling legislation, the Henry J Hyde US-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act last winter in the US Congress not only did not address some of India's concerns but went further and only complicated matters by bringing issues described by the Indians as 'extraneous' to the civil nuclear co-operation.


http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/sh ... 0070019137

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

Postby NRao » 18 Jul 2007 07:30

There is more to India-United States relations than the civilian nuclear agreement


All the more reason for the US to pass J18, I would think.

Today, India offers a lot, to everyone.

Why is the US being greedy and trying to negotiate something that favors the US (only)?

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

Postby Vishy_mulay » 18 Jul 2007 07:43

NRao, I think each country will try to get maximum out of international deal. That's what diplomats are suppose to do, extract maximum out of any treaty for the country they represent. I don't blame Americans for this mess. The problem is that some Indians don't understand or believe what India offers and how to use it to India's advantage. The white skin servitude is still percolating after 60 years of independence.


Alternatively this statement can be interpreted as a diplomatic way of saying the deal is off.
There is more to India-United States relations than the civilian nuclear agreement

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

Postby Sanjay M » 18 Jul 2007 07:53

So the thing is that we're just rather naively and mutely watching the Atlanticists pull shenanigans like the Hyde Act through Congress, which is their stopgap measure against us, given that they don't have any control over the Whitehouse and yet do still carry sufficient clout with Congress.

And all we can do is glumly comment that "such legislation doesn't address Indian concerns." Well DUHH -- why would an opponent be looking to address your concerns?!

This is why we have to improve our physics model, and account for the presence of such groups and their behaviour. It's only by doing this that we can come up with viable engineering solutions. Otherwise we're going to end up disappointed time and again, scratching our heads in puzzlement.

It looks like Bush initiated the N-Deal, and we eagerly ran to answer his call. But the Atlanticists were lurking in the background, and quickly moved to play the role of spoiler, using their congressional clout. Heh, sounds like the plot of a Bollywood romance movie. The Atlanticists want their precious European motherland to be America's only love-interest, and they know how to chase away any other rivals or spoil any courtships they find to be threatening.

The question is -- what do we do about such behaviour? How do we react?
Just walk numbly off into the sunset, like a loser? We have to do something.

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

Postby Vishy_mulay » 18 Jul 2007 08:23

Sanjay I dont think situation is hopeless. There is some spine left (I hope) in form of DAE scientists and AK. From Prithviraj Chavan time we have lost diplomatically. The problem is systematic and unless we start believing in innate strength of our civilization (ie to built NATIONAL PRIDE) there is no salvation. Having a PM who believes in perpetual servitude of Mai baap RAJ does complicate things but I have still not lost hope.

vsudhir
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2173
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 03:44
Location: Dark side of the moon

Postby vsudhir » 18 Jul 2007 08:28

I'll celebrate with beer if and when this 'deal' dies.

India's post '47 scientific record also shows that we've used adversity, tech denials, discrim regimes etc etc to our advantage in the longer term. Crises have spurred genuine achievements and capabilities.

Let another crisis beckon. Esp with Nuke power projected to take off only after the Th power cycle becomes reality, we have time and truth on our side.

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

Postby Vishy_mulay » 18 Jul 2007 08:32

I'll celebrate with beer if and when this 'deal' dies.


Amen brother! may god bless you with unlimited beer served by kingfisher swim suit beauties. :twisted: :twisted:

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

Postby Sanjay M » 18 Jul 2007 09:54

vsudhir wrote:I'll celebrate with beer if and when this 'deal' dies.

India's post '47 scientific record also shows that we've used adversity, tech denials, discrim regimes etc etc to our advantage in the longer term. Crises have spurred genuine achievements and capabilities.

Let another crisis beckon. Esp with Nuke power projected to take off only after the Th power cycle becomes reality, we have time and truth on our side.


But the thing is that if we go the independent route, then we ought to take our own compensation for it. By this, I mean that India's hard-earned indigenous N-program has maintained voluntary restraint on proliferation, despite the fact that we don't enjoy any benefits from the NPT.

I say "No Taxation Without Representation. No Obligation Without Representation."

If we're frozen out by the NPT, then we should be under no obligation to respect it. The whole point in not signing NPT was to avoid curtailment of our freedom, and yet if we voluntarily abide by NPT constraints anyway, despite not being a signatory to it, then we have the worst of both worlds. We have neither the benefits of being in NPT, nor do we enjoy the benefits of being outside the NPT.

So we need to proliferate, if push comes to shove. When Pak proliferated to Iran and NKorea, they got no penalty for it. Therefore if proliferation carries no penalty, and actually instead makes others kowtow to you even more profusely, then I think we should do it. Indeed, the NPAs argue that because of Pakistan's proliferative activities, it needs to be pampered even more, to avoid reoccurrence of such activities.


The NPAs (and Atlanticists) are gaining from India's voluntary self-restraint, because we are not imposing any cost on them for their stance against us. There needs to be a cost and a downside for freezing out India's interests, and that cost needs to be proliferation. We need to play hardball, as we did when we conducted Pokhran-II.

Fine, fine, if you guys wanna cash the IOUs first, and reprocess Tarapur immediately, then sure. And like I said, we should also approach the Russians for N-cooperation while they're being antagonized by the Missile Defense in Europe issue. But we still need to impose a cost on the Atlanticists and NPAs at some point, to chasten them and not lead them to interpret our self-restraint as weakness and passivity. Otherwise they'll keep picking on us.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50776
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 18 Jul 2007 10:06

SanjayM, I already told what has to be done if the deal is not to India's terms. And proliferation is not in India's interests.

Avarachan
BRFite
Posts: 522
Joined: 04 Jul 2006 21:06

Postby Avarachan » 18 Jul 2007 10:09

I'll celebrate with beer if and when this 'deal' dies.
India's post '47 scientific record also shows that we've used adversity, tech denials, discrim regimes etc etc to our advantage in the longer term. Crises have spurred genuine achievements and capabilities.


I completely agree. Jai Hind.

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

Postby Sanjay M » 18 Jul 2007 10:28

ramana wrote:SanjayM, I already told what has to be done if the deal is not to India's terms. And proliferation is not in India's interests.


Not in our interests to do it right away. But we need to either do it eventually, or else we have to find some other way to bring the NPT down, rather than letting it exist cost-free. The meek don't inherit the earth.

We should at the very least approach the Russians, who are simultaneously feeling the rejectionism from the West.

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

Postby svinayak » 18 Jul 2007 10:32

Sanjay M wrote:
ramana wrote:SanjayM, I already told what has to be done if the deal is not to India's terms. And proliferation is not in India's interests.


Not in our interests to do it right away. But we need to either do it eventually, or else we have to find some other way to bring the NPT down, rather than letting it exist cost-free. The meek don't inherit the earth.
.


50 new underground test

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

Postby bala » 18 Jul 2007 10:48

unlimited beer served by kingfisher swim suit beauties

screw the US-INDIA nuke deal I will take this offer anytime. :D

and let us have this as standard boilerplate template language for any future inter-national deals

The parties recognize, with respect to the observance of this agreement, the principle of international law that provides that a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.

Ananth
BRFite
Posts: 345
Joined: 16 Mar 2002 12:31

Postby Ananth » 18 Jul 2007 10:59

Acharya wrote:50 new underground test


In other words cut off one's nose to spite one's face. Why such knee-jerk response? If there is need to test, we will test it no doubt. NPT is inherently unbalanced treaty. Which means it requires an overwhelming involvement by someone to hold it together. The holder currently is US, and its capability to hold it will remain as long as it enjoys relative power differetial. NPT and all other such treaties will erode as that power differential erodes.

The focus of Indian leadership should always be to increase our energy options and sustaining a diverse portfolio.

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

Postby Satya_anveshi » 18 Jul 2007 11:46

IMHO, it is a foregone conclusion that there WILL be a deal. You have a powerful team of NSA, AK, a couple envoys etc negotiating on what was agreed by the President of US (never mind decency is not a virtue for his ilk). But sir...humiliation is not an option. How many times do you see nations getting humiliated and get away with it? We are talking about a nation of 1.2B people with long memories. What good such humiliation will do to US? At best, it will deny them whatever leverage offered to them by the likes of MMS et al (you know what I mean). Also, Indian nuclear independence will be institutionalized and will turn much more stubborn on other alphabet soup treaties.

A failure of this deal also (should) means a few swift resignations. It is a different matter that a few trials for treason also should be initiated and for those to whom trials do not apply, punishment be meted out. Has the nation being prepared for any of this eventuality? What are the changes of any resignations or any of the above happening? Zilch..nada..zip.

OTOH, I suspect that Pentagon visits by MKN means that MMS may doing the unthinkable...hint..hint..Iraq (and Iran). That is also why the reports are talking about wider things included in this deal.

I hope I am wrong and there is NO deal but..

Just a fart in the wind…

Sparsh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 78
Joined: 30 Jan 2007 12:57

Postby Sparsh » 18 Jul 2007 11:47

NRao,

This talk of there is more to Indo-US relations that the nuclear deal or that this deal is a minor affair in Indo-US relations is all hogwash.

The nuclear part of the nuclear deal happens to be incidental. This deal was an exercise in trust building, a confidence building measure of sorts. There exists a gigantic brick wall of mistrust in American intentions within the national security establishment in Delhi and this deal was a key step in trying to overcome this mistrust. It was a way for the Americans to demonstrate that they were serious when they talked about significantly improving their relations with us and that we could trust them on this. This was a way for the Americans to deposit political capital with us for when we worked with them on common interests as a part of the improved Indo-US relations that they wanted. I know I am bringing up the much maligned trust word again but believe me it is central to this whole exercise.

All the chutyagiri on display in Washington over the last year or so will only serve to reinforce much less overcome that brick wall of mistrust I just mentioned. The credibility and stock of those who advocated closer ties with the US will take a beating and a lot of "I told you so" conversations will happen privately in Delhi. The trust gap that the Americans will face in Delhi will only get wider than what it was before J18/M2 and as such there is no going back to square one on this issue. Don't get me wrong, on the surface Indo-US relations will remain cordial and people will continue to mouth platitudes but below the surface nothing much of substance will happen.

From this point of view, the deal died a long time ago. It was about the process and the end product, not just the end product. Even if the Americans acquiesce to our demand that they deliver what they agreed to in J18/M2, the deal is dead in spirit just because of the headache that we had to go through for what was supposed to be a relatively straightforward trust building exercise. If this is exactly the sort of headache and chutyagiri we will have to face every time we want to do business with the Americans, then is it worth expanding our business with them or paring it down to the bare minimum? You see, this is where that damned trust word comes in.

At this point in time I am not entirely averse to seeing a very public meltdown of the deal with a lot of egg on a lot of faces. What worries me most is the outcome in which the Americans come through and deliver on their promises. That would leave us in a conundrum. The deal is dead in spirit but not yet in flesh. If it stays alive in flesh then that is something the Americans will solely focus on, forget about the trust building aspect of it which was critically important to us, and then proceed to hold that apparent favour they just did over our heads.

As again, this is purely my view of things.

Sparsh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 78
Joined: 30 Jan 2007 12:57

Postby Sparsh » 18 Jul 2007 12:06

So are we back to calling people sellouts and traitors? That idiotic nautanki continues?

Satya:

The pentagon part of the pentagon visit is also incidental. Look at who is sitting at the top of the pentagon. Under whom did the effort to improve Indo-US relations originally begin all those years ago? And how is Gates related to him?

Boss, think about these things before you go farting away in the wind.

pradeepe
BRFite
Posts: 741
Joined: 27 Aug 2006 20:46
Location: Our culture is different and we cannot live together - who said that?

Postby pradeepe » 18 Jul 2007 12:12

N-deal: Hectic parleys on in make-or-break round

n what diplomatic observers have described as "a make-or-break" round of negotiations, senior US and Indian officials held several hours of intense discussions at the State Department on Tuesday in an attempt to seal the 123 Agreement that is vital to ultimately consummate the US-India civilian nuclear deal.

After the marathon session that was co-chaired by Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns -- the chief US interlocutor of the deal -- and India's Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon, the Indian side made its proposal to put forth a dedicated facility under safeguards as a means to alleviate some of Washington's concerns.

The US maintained that the 123 Agreement has to be hammered out within the parameters of the Hyde Act and that going back to Congress to make changes to this legislation would not be viable. Both sides adjourned after that and then resumed discussions over dinner hosted by Burns.

Joining the teams for dinner were the heavyweights in the Indian delegation, National Security Adviser M K Narayanan, who is fact leading the Indian mission and will meet with his US counterpart Stephen Hadley in the White House on Wednesday, and chairman of the Department of Atomic Energy Anil Kakodkar, whose seal of approval would be imperative to seal the agreement, and Indian Ambassador Ronen Sen.

Besides Menon, the Indian side comprised the Deputy Chief of Mission at the Indian embassy Raminder Jassal, India's High Commissioner to Singapore and the chief strategic and technical expert to the talks since its inception, S Jaishankar, joint secretary, Americas, Gaitri Kumar, and the Department of Atomic Energy representative R B Grover.

The US side led by Burns, also comprised Robert Stratford, director of the State Department's Office of Nuclear Security and Cooperation, who has been negotiating the 123 Agreement with Jaishankar and Kumar for several months, Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs Richard Boucher, and Ashley Tellis, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who has been associated with the talks since its inception as a strategic adviser-cum-consultant to Burns.

In an exclusive interview with rediff.com on the eve of the talks, Tellis acknowledged that "this is the last chance we'll have before we get into the problems with the (Congressional) calendar," and hence that "both sides are aware of the need to complete the agreement quickly."

"The fact that M K Narayanan himself is coming indicates a desire to reach agreement and move on to the next step," he said and noted, "there are still many things that need to be done before US-India nuclear cooperation actually materialises."

Officials remained tight-lipped and both teams, when not conferring with each other, were closeted in strategising and internal discussions on how far each side could be flexible to make the deal happen.

However, sources indicated that while the Indian side had held the goal-posts had been moved from the US-India Joint Statement of July 2005 and the separation agreement hammered out in the March 2006 agreement contained in the provisions of the Hyde Act with regard to reprocessing and testing, there had been agreement that trying to affect changes in the Hyde Act would be not only time-consuming and could necessitate new legislation that could result in the clock running out in the administration's effort to get the deal completed before President Bush leaves office.

According to the US, there was absolutely no possibility of the administration going back to Congress to affect changes in the Hyde Act and US officials had argued that it was quite possible to meet India's concerns within the parameters of the Hyde Act.

However, Indian officials had said their major concern at this time was an attempt to mandate prior consent by the US which could give Washington the prerogative to interrupt what India maintained under the Joint Statement would be a supply of uninterrupted supply of nuclear fuel.

Tellis in the interview before the talks had said there would be "no question of actually going back to Congress and asking for further amendments."

"What is more important, however, is that existing US law already gives the administration enough latitude to reach a satisfactory agreement with India, without the need for requesting Congress for further amendments," he had said.

Apparently, this was the same message Congressman Gary Ackerman, New York Democrat, and among the co-authors of the enabling legislation to facilitate the nuclear deal, had implied during a completely off-the-record roundtable on Monday with about 30 attendees, including himself hosted by Carnegie where Narayanan and Menon and the rest of the Indian team had engaged with some of the leading policy analysts and senior Congressional aides on a plethora of issues.

The issues included the US-India nuclear deal as well as issues of terrorism, Afghanistan, Pakistan, US-Pakistan relations, Bangladesh, internal security in India, and of course, the broader US-India relations, beyond the nuclear deal.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the talks were to "take stock of where we are negotiating the so-called 123 Agreement. This is a serious high-level delegation."

"It's really to try to make a push to get this agreement over the finish line," he said, and while acknowledging that "there are a couple of tough issues that we have left to resolve," predicted, "We believe that we can get a deal, we can get an agreement."

McCormack said, "I think it really comes down to a matter of timing: When is that going to get done? This meeting will provide us a good indicator as to the answer to that question: When can we get that deal done."

Meanwhile, both the US business and industry and the Indian-American community that had lobbied feverishly to get the enabling legislation approved in both the Senate and House and finally signed into law by Congress, were waiting with bated breath, hoping that this time around the 123 Agreement -- which has been in limbo -- would finally get done so that they can resume their activism to try and ultimately make the deal happen.

There have been fears both among the US industry and the community that the loss of momentum and the Congress heavily engaged in other issues like Iraq could shelve this deal if both sides don't move expeditiously to complete the 123 Agreement and send it up to Capitol Hill along with India's safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency and the consensus by the Nuclear Suppliers Group endorsing the exception offered to India -- a non-signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty -- by the Hyde Act.

Ron Somers, president of the US-India Business Council, told rediff.com that the USIBC and "the core committee of the Coalition for Partnership with India (which includes the USIBC and the US-India Friendship Council, under the aegis of the US Chamber of Commerce) is meeting on Thursday itself, and will be reviewing talking points that we will convey on Capitol Hill, fortifying the logic in support of civilian nuclear cooperation with India."

He noted that "the entire membership of the USIBC, backed by the 3 million strong US Chamber of Commerce are actively engaged in support of this initiative," and said that Tom Donohue, the president and CEO of the Chamber "is personally committed to ensuring a successful outcome."

But Somers acknowledged that all of this depended on the sealing of the 123 Agreement and said, "To miss this opportunity will forego a partnership that is logical, based on shared values, and which align two great democracies for the 21st century."

He said that "the American business community, joined with the Indian-American community, appreciate the extraordinary opportunity in the strategic partnership between our two countries," and warned that "for these groups, delay will cost generations on both sides, and is far too important to let slip away."

Somers argued that "there is no option but to ensure a successful conclusion to what Prime Minister (Manmohan) Singh and President Bush so proudly announced to the world two years ago."

"We must all join together now at this moment to move history," he said, and spoke of how "the US-India partnership -- as embodied in this civilian nuclear initiative -- stands to change the destiny of the 21st century."

Thus, Somers declared, "it is imperative that we must help make this happen."

Swadesh Chatterjee, a North Carolina entrepreneur and coordinator of the US-India Friendship Council, comprising Indian-American community activists, told rediff.com, "You bet, this is certainly the make or break round, and this time, they can't fail because if they do, that would be virtually the end of the deal."

He said, "We don't want to change the Hyde Act, and of course, doing that, is not only going to be difficult but time-consuming and could entail fresh legislation and we don't want that."

Chatterjee pointed out that "there is nothing is the Hyde Act about prior consent, so there is no reason the administration can't meet India's concerns on this issue about uninterrupted fuel supplies."

He said that on July 1, on his urging that it was important to brief the community on the status of the discussions on the 123 Agreement and the chances of its being approved expeditiously so that the community could once again be mobilized to lobby Congress, Sen had hosted a meeting at his residence and assured the community activists that India was committed to the deal.

Sources have said that it was on Sen's urging that Dr Singh had agreed to send a high-level delegation led by Narayanan, including Kakodkar to make clear to the US that India was dead serious about making this deal happen and as such it behooved the administration to meet its concerns and complete the deal in accordance with the Joint Statement and separation accord reached by both sides in July 2005 and March 2006.

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

Postby Arun_S » 18 Jul 2007 12:36

Vivek K wrote: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.

Gen Raghvan is on record (in a BR Bay Area meet ~1999) recalling Sonia Gandhi, MM Singh and few Kangresi calling him for a meeting to understand the nuke tests immediately after Pok-II.

Then a nobody Shri MM Singh was caught without any balls and quivering knees to imminent US embargo that will destroy Indian economy (If a person only has a hammer all problems look like nail). Of course Shri PVN was out of active politics by then. Similarly no point measuring Mrs.IG's balls for a scenario that was crossed well after her death.

I have high regard of IG, PVN Rao, ABV for being wise and strong statesmen (not necessarily politician though), they understood it and aptly used it.

Prabu
BRFite
Posts: 396
Joined: 22 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: In the middle of a Desert

Nuke scientsts, Objections to Reprocessing under safeguards

Postby Prabu » 18 Jul 2007 15:17

The hindu online edition has now flashed the following scorol news !

"Nuke scientists say re-processing under safeguards will affect N program"



They could be quite right ! , but why only now ?? GOI proposed this few weeks back. After all our team have left to US and probabily almost finished the deal ( read sell out !), now scientists are telling it will affect our N program!!?

some thing is fisshy ? .......................

Atleast I can not under stand ! can any one throw some light ??


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

Postby Amitabh » 18 Jul 2007 15:54

Sanjay M wrote:
Tanaji wrote: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.


If Congress had been in power during the Air India hijacking to Kandahar, then the capitulation and concession would have been far worse. There's no basis for a scheming dynastic graft-loving old-boys club o be firmer on national defense than a nationalist party.

Not sure if it was possible to have a worse capitulation. You might want to keep your political views from clouding your judgment and realise that in most previous cases of hijacking under the Congress, the answer has been a commando's bullet. Sure, Kandahar was a unique situation, but trying to defend the BJP's conduct by comparing it to some notional Congress surrender is ludicrous.

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

Postby UPrabhu » 18 Jul 2007 16:08

Amitabh wrote:
Sanjay M wrote:
Tanaji wrote: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.


If Congress had been in power during the Air India hijacking to Kandahar, then the capitulation and concession would have been far worse. There's no basis for a scheming dynastic graft-loving old-boys club o be firmer on national defense than a nationalist party.

Not sure if it was possible to have a worse capitulation. You might want to keep your political views from clouding your judgment :lol: and realise that in most previous cases of hijacking under the Congress, the answer has been a commando's bullet. Sure, Kandahar was a unique situation, but trying to defend the BJP's conduct by comparing it to some notional Congress surrender is ludicrous.

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

Postby NRao » 18 Jul 2007 17:48

So are we back to calling people sellouts and traitors?


From a strategic PoV, I feel it is a lot more clear, than ever before, that there is a sellout.

Reasons:
1) I see more NRIs, etc parroting what Burns, Inc has been saying
2) Nothing to directly address the Indian strategic position. Here two observations: Scicom is clearly STILL uncomfortable after two years, their position has not changed. Burns position (and now Tellis too) has not changed - these were the guys who authored the Hyde Act. But GoI position has changed to accommodate the US and the US has not budged so far
3) Everyone making the argument that time is running out is looking after their own $$ end. None of these guys care nor are able to appreciate the strategic position (I would love to see Bush, Burns, Rice, Tellis, US-India Business Council, Swadesh Chatterjee and the US Congress plunk down at least $ 100 Billion from their funds as a safeguard)

So, it simply boils down to implications for the strategic position.

IF India and MMS wants energy and a humming 10% economy then give up your strategic nuclear efforts - as the Hyde Act states, or else ....

I would like to hear what Tellis has to officially state on India's strategic matters. Does he have an open, on-the-recod, frank statement?

I just find all those that are proponents for this deal glossing over that aspect. Including, or should I say, specially, MMS.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest