India Nuclear News & Discussion - 10 Aug 2007

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

Post by svinayak »

[quote] Manmohan ignoring MPs’ opinion, says V.P. Singh

Sujay Mehdudia
http://www.hindu.com/2007/08/13/stories ... 001400.htm


V.P. Singh

NEW DELHI: Voicing his opposition against the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal, the former Prime Minister, V.P. Singh, on Sunday alleged that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was ignoring the opinion of the majority of Members of Parliament which meant ignoring the spirit of democracy.

In a statement here, Mr. Singh said the Prime Minister had said the deal cannot be “re-negotiated.â€
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Post by ldev »

abhicheckcc wrote:It is simply mistrust of the goras that is uniting the two groups
Earlier Calvin had also asked what is the real sub-text of the opposition to this deal. And as you have said, a week-end certainly brings about some clarity in the thought process :)

IMO, the real reason the BJP and its followers are against this deal is that they simply do not trust Sonia Gandhi, because according to them she is not Indian born and is a gora to boot and is therefore incapable of looking of safeguarding Indian interests. Maybe if she had been born overseas but as a person of Indian origin, maybe in Trinidad or South Africa, the BJP's criticism may not have been so strident. And they do not believe that MMS is anything other than her obedient tool. That is the bottom line. Ofcourse the BJP cannot come out openly and say this.

If the BJP on the other hand had negotiated the very same deal with the very same language, you can bet that they would have been all for it. After all given India's status as a complete outcast from the world of global nuclear commerce, it is incongruous to expect a 123 agreement with India to be on parity with China which is a NWS. The parity which the BJP keeps harping on is parity with China to be recognized as a NWS and its reflection in the wording of the Hyde Act. That is not going to happen unless India's power indices in all areas have surpassed all other nations other than the US and China. Or unless there is a global war and India joins in and emerges on the side of the victors and overcomes its reticence and fashions the world according to the victors.

As far as the left is concerned, they and their masters in Beijing have done some quick calculations in the last few days and weeks. Vote against this deal and conceivably bring the Government down and ofcourse commit Harakiri at the same time. Because if elections are held there is no guarantee that the Left will have the cat-bird's seat that they do right now in GOI. Or hang on within GOI after some blustering to save face and then continue to enjoy the perks of power and to be in a position to continue to advance China's strategy of obstructing closer relations between India and the US.. They have made their choice - to hang on and to fight another day. And ofcourse the BJP is aware of the opportunistic stance of the Left and their own helplessness in the face of this infuriates them even more.
Last edited by ldev on 13 Aug 2007 18:43, edited 3 times in total.
sivab
BRFite
Posts: 1075
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56

Post by sivab »

Was this posted before?

PM’s statement in the Lok Sabha on Civil Nuclear Energy Cooperation with the United States
[quote]
August 13, 2007
New Delhi

Excerpts of the Prime Minister's statement - this is a preliminary transcript that is yet to be corrected and matched with the official transcription from the Lok Sabha.


I rise to inform this august House that the Government of India has reached agreement with the Government of the United States of America on the text of the bilateral Agreement on Cooperation for Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy.


2. This Government has kept Parliament fully in the picture at various stages of our negotiations with the United States. We have never shied away from a full discussion in Parliament on this important issue. I have myself made statements on several previous occasions – on July 29, 2005 soon after my return from Washington; on February 27, 2006 during which I took Parliament into confidence regarding our ongoing discussions with the United States on the Separation Plan; and on March 7, 2006 following the visit of President Bush to India. I also made a detailed statement in the Rajya Sabha on August 17, 2006 conveying certain solemn commitments to which I shall return shortly.


Our Government has adhered scrupulously to Parliamentary traditions and practices. We have in fact gone far beyond any previous Government.


3. After the conclusion of the Agreement we have also briefed many of the parties represented in Parliament on the details of the Agreement.


4. The Agreement is about civil nuclear energy cooperation. It is an Agreement between two States possessing advanced nuclear technologies, both parties having the same benefits and advantages. The significance of the Agreement lies in the fact that when brought into effect, it will open the way for full civil nuclear energy cooperation between India and the United States. We have negotiated this Agreement as an equal partner, precisely because of the achievements of our scientists and technologists in overcoming the barriers placed around us in the past. This is an Agreement based on the principle of mutual benefit.


5. There has been considerable public debate and discussion on various aspects of the Agreement. On August 17, 2006, I had given a solemn commitment to Parliament and to the country regarding what we can agree and cannot agree with the United States to enable civil nuclear energy cooperation with India. I had stressed that it must be within specific parameters, which I had shared with Parliament. This was an unprecedented measure of transparency on our part even in the midst of complex negotiations.


6. I had given Parliament my assurance that the Government will make every effort so that the vision of the Joint Statements of July, 2005 and March, 2006 becomes a living reality. I believe that we have redeemed that pledge. In concluding this Agreement, we have ensured that the autonomy of our strategic programme is fully maintained, and that Dr. Homi Bhabha’s long-term vision remains our guiding principle.



7. With your permission, I wish to draw the attention of this august House to the main features of the Agreement in some detail. It would become evident that the commitments I had made to Parliament, including those on August 17, 2006, have been fully adhered to.


(i) Full Civil Nuclear Cooperation


Ø The concept of full civil nuclear cooperation has been clearly enshrined in this Agreement. The Agreement stipulates that uch cooperation will include nuclear reactors and aspects of the associated nuclear fuel cycle, including technology transfer on industrial or commercial scale. It would also include development of a strategic reserve of nuclear fuel to guard against any disruption of supply over the lifetime of our reactors.


Ø A significant aspect of the Agreement is our right to reprocess US origin spent fuel. This has been secured upfront. We view our right to reprocess as a key element of a closed fuel cycle, which will enable us to make full use in our national facilities of the energy potential of the nuclear fuel used in our reactors. This important yardstick has been met by the permanent consent for India to reprocess.


Ø India will establish a new national reprocessing facility dedicated to reprocessing foreign nuclear material under IAEA safeguards. India and the US will mutually agree on arrangements and procedures under which such reprocessing will take place in the new facility. Consultations on arrangements and procedures will begin within six months of a request by either party and will be concluded within one year. There is no ambiguity with regard to the commitments of both countries.


Ø Any special fissionable material that may be separated may be utilized in national facilities under IAEA safeguards. Thus the interests of our three stage nuclear programme have been protected.


Ø The United States has a longstanding policy of not supplying to any country enrichment, reprocessing and heavy water production facilities. This Agreement provides for such transfers to India only through an amendment. Forward- looking language has been included for dual use transfers of enrichment, reprocessing and heavy water production facilities. We hope transfers will become possible as cooperation develops and expands in the future. It is important to note that no prohibition that is specifically directed against India has been included in the Agreement.


(ii) The Principle of Reciprocity:


Ø The principle of reciprocity, which was integral to the July 2005 Statement, has been fully safeguarded in this Agreement. There is no change in our position that we would accept only IAEA safeguards on our civilian nuclear facilities. This would also be in a phased manner and as identified for that purpose in the Separation Plan, and only when all international restrictions on nuclear trade with India have been lifted. India will not take any irreversible steps with the IAEA prior to this.


(iii) Certification:


Ø This Agreement emphasizes the desire of both countries to cooperate extensively in the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes as a means of achieving energy security on a stable, reliable and predictable basis. This Agreement further confirms that US cooperation with India is a permanent one.

There is no provision that states that US cooperation with India will be subject to an annual certification process.


Ø Hon’ble Members may recall that the 18th July 2005 Joint Statement had acknowledged that India be regarded as a state with advanced nuclear technology enjoying the same advantages and benefits as other States with advanced nuclear technology, such as the US. This Agreement makes specific references to India and the United States as States possessing advanced nuclear technology, both parties having the same benefits and advantages, both committed to preventing WMD proliferation.


(iv) Safeguards:


Ø As agreed in the March Separation Plan, India has accepted only IAEA safeguards that will be reflected in an India-specific Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA.


We have not consented to any provision that mandates scrutiny of our nuclear weapons programme or any unsafeguarded nuclear facilities. There are explicit provisions in the Agreement that make it clear that this Agreement does not affect our unsafeguarded nuclear facilities and that it will not affect our right to use materials, equipment, information or technology acquired or developed independently. India and the United States have agreed that the implementation of the Agreement will not hinder or otherwise interfere with India’s nuclear activities including our military nuclear facilities. Nothing in the Agreement would impinge on our strategic programme, our three-stage nuclear power programme or our ability to conduct advanced R&D.


(v) Fuel Supply Assurances:


Ø I would like to reiterate that the March 2006 Separation Plan provided for an India-specific Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA, with assurances of uninterrupted supply of fuel to reactors that would be placed under IAEA safeguards together with India’s right to take corrective measures in the event fuel supplies are interrupted. An important assurance given is the commitment of support for India’s right to build up strategic reserves of nuclear fuel to meet the lifetime requirements of India’s reactors.


Ø This Agreement envisages, in consonance with the Separation Plan, US support for an Indian effort to develop a strategic reserve of nuclear fuel to guard against any disruption of supply for the lifetime of India’s reactors. The Agreement reiterates in toto the corresponding portions of the Separation Plan.


It has endorsed the right of India to take corrective measures to ensure uninterrupted operation of its civilian nuclear reactors in the event of disruption of foreign fuel supply.


Hon’ble Members will agree that these provisions will ensure that there is no repeat of our unfortunate experience with Tarapur.


(vi) Integrity and reliability of our strategic programme, autonomy of decision making and future scientific research and development:


Ø In my statements of March 7 and August 17, 2006, I had assured Parliament that the Separation Plan would not adversely affect our strategic programme, the integrity of the three-stage nuclear programme and the autonomy of our Research and Development activity.


Ø This Agreement does not in any way impact on India’s ability to produce and utilize fissile material for its current and future strategic needs.


Our right to use for our own purposes our independent and indigenously developed nuclear facilities has been fully preserved. The Agreement also provides for non-hindrance and non-interference in our activities involving use of nuclear material, non-nuclear material, equipment, components, information or technology and military nuclear facilities produced, acquired or developed independently for our own purposes.


(vii) Cessation of cooperation:


Ø An elaborate multi-layered consultation process has been included with regard to any future events that may be cited as a reason by either Party to seek cessation of cooperation or termination of the Agreement. Both Parties have agreed to take a number of factors into account in their consultations so that the scope for precipitate or unilateral action is reduced.


Cessation of cooperation can be sought by the US only if it is prepared to take the extreme step of termination of the Agreement. India’s right to take “corrective measuresâ€
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Post by Philip »

Parliamentry sound and fury,signifying an early arrival to Divali!

There is one forgotten aspect of this deal.What is claimed to be the underlying need of the hour is for India to accelerate its civilian nuclear power plants for generation of electricity,NOT nuclear weaponry.So where is the "white paper" on India's enenrgy requirements and how we are going to achieve it with this deal ? What %age of our total power requirement is going to come from new nuclear plants and how much from the rest? The paper should also give the costs of each option and with the case of nuclear plants,the "clean-up" factor too.We have huge reserves of coal and development of our offshore gas reserves and international arrangemnts with neighbouring nations like Bangladesh and Iran for the same are also "energy options".Then there arethe non-conventional "green" options to be also pursued,like renewable energy.Costs of storage of nuclear watse,etc.must be taken into account while we tout for nuclear power. Our nuclear weapons needs are a different issue altogether,as this deal at face value is all about power generation.Research plants for nuclear weapons to deter China and its allies are essential needs.

What we should therefore be debating in parliament is the cost of nuclear power,compared with other alternatives,its singular benefits,the speed with which these plants can be put up and the overall costs.Instead we are debating another issue of foreign policy and "nuclear sovereignity",as Iran is doing-the fundamental right to develop one's own technology,enrichment processes and the right to acquire and test nuclear weapons.As I mentioned before,once we sign the deal,the "hesitation factor" of not upsetting Uncle Sam immediately trips in,and we would then have crossed the "threshold" of joining the discriminatory policies of the nuclear "hypocrasies".Once we have been granted "affiliated membership" of the nuclear club (not full voting membership please note-only recirprocal rights of using nuclear facilities),we cannot protest on behalf of the nuclear have-nots,nor can we drum-beat our previously avowed international policy of nuclear disarmament.I don't think that there is any sane person advocating nuclear warfare here,we have been more worried about clandetsine nuclear proliferation permitted by the US in the case of Pak and China.This is the real global tragedy,that nuclear disarmamaent by the major nuclear powers is not being debated and new international disarmement agreements are nowhere on the horizon.Instead,a new Cold War has begun thanks to the US's attempted domination of Eastern Europe through manipulation through "Orange" elections and new military posturing over missile defence antagonising a genuinely threatened Russia .

There are huge commercial deals that will follow this deal,benefitting US companies first.Imagine the kickbacks in billlions! That too for decades! However,given the sound and fury being displayed by the combined opposition,the Tata 1 lakh car plant controversy and agitation will be a Sunday picnic when a US bought nuclear plant is sought to be built.The Left views the deal as the thick end of the wedge in a change in tack of our former independent foriegn policy and is determined to undermine any "tilt" by India into the US camp.The Congress is showing no shame at all in a stampede westward and the BJP is trying,like any good opposition,to pick any holes,microscopic in size even,and magnify their importance to defeat the govt.In this cacophany in the house of the people,the debate by the nuclear-scientific technocratic community,the most important of all, is being drowned out by what Bhutto called,the glue that binds India together,the "noise and chaos" of our democracy.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

ldev wrote:
If the BJP on the other hand had negotiated the very same deal with the very same language, you can bet that they would have been all for it.
When NDA started the peace process with Pakistan over Kashmir in 2003 Tapan Bose was quoted as saying NDA should not be doing the peace process. It should be leftist parties which should be doing the peace process. Implying that NDA was not fit for building rapprochement.

Similarly national security policy and nuke deals have certain credibility when done by a party which has kept that party policy for over 40 years (when not even forming the govt) unlike the parties which are negotiating the deal.
There is going to be doubt in the minds of the people and lawmakers when the deal has taken several turns like this one. It is the record of the parties for the last 40 years especially after 1962 which will determine the credibility of this deal.
abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Post by abhischekcc »

I still buy plane tickets because I haven't found a competitive alternative,
Ever heard of priceline? :P
I agree that both the Left and the BJP are playing on the natural distrust of the Americans/Oiropeans, which is based on clear past experience. Can either of them suggest better alternatives?
It is better to be safe than sorry.



Rye wrote:The commies are just being slimeballs as usual and want to "bet on the winning horse"
I think the commie gameplan is to bet on the losing horse. Thenm when that horse loses, allege match fixing, create a mob out of the losers (who are , naturally, more numerous than the winners), and force the users to give up their winnings.

Works every time.
:)
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

mm.. the fear on BRites about American business to capture is high.. and this highly understandable. If India does not play by "corruption" standards, we should be ok with 123. Sope, the fear of exposing our corruption culture is what the fear is, then so be it!. I am happy. /sorry.

Its insane to even think about the psy-ops that business cartels would seek obligatory deals chained with 123. Its all a "may be" deal, and we worry too much., and end up with narrowest of narrow thinking.

I am sure its the same thought process that runs in almost more than 3/4th billion desis. Its a problem that we need to fix before we sign this deal.

OTOH, these are expected from Govt. Increase budget and expense for desh plants and strategic fields, satisfying
- facility separation
- fuel separation
- new mil facilities
- new mil fuel facilities

And, GoI has to ensure that national power grid can be supported from existing, future, civilian and military plants. The whole national grid can source power supply from any type of installation.

Its a deal!, though initially very expensive on separation front.
sunilUpa
BRFite
Posts: 1795
Joined: 25 Sep 2006 04:16

Green light on uranium sale to India (misleading headline)

Post by sunilUpa »

AUSTRALIA is poised to take the landmark step of selling uranium to India, with the powerful national security committee of cabinet expected to consider the sensitive issue this afternoon.

The committee is due to consider a submission from Foreign Minister Alexander Downer recommending that Australia sell uranium to the subcontinent to provide fuel for India's expanding nuclear power industry
.

The expected green light would herald a radical shift in Australia's foreign policy, which prevents uranium sales to countries that have not signed the treaty on nuclear non-proliferation.

Prime Minister John Howard, who heads the committee, has said that he supports uranium sales to Delhi in order to enhance the relationship, despite India's failure to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

A recent nuclear co-operation agreement negotiated between the United States and India will bring some of India's nuclear plants under the international inspection regime for the first time.

The agreement allows the US to export uranium and nuclear technology to India — and other countries are expected to follow suit with their own bilateral agreements.

But reports from the subcontinent in recent days indicate that the India-US agreement is proving controversial, with left-wing parties in India's parliament strongly opposed to the agreement.

Senior figures in Canberra argue that the US deal is a landmark because it brings Indian nuclear plants under international inspections.

But this upbeat view is rejected by some experts on proliferation and by the Federal Opposition, which says it will not support uranium sales to countries outside the treaty.

The Australian resources sector has lobbied Canberra to open up lucrative new markets for yellowcake, including India and China.

Australia has already negotiated a nuclear safeguards agreement with China, and a similar safeguards agreement with India would follow the national security committee's approval for the policy shift.

One Government senator who has previously expressed concerns within the Coalition party room about uranium sales to India said last night that he remained uneasy about the idea.

But Liberal senator Russell Trood told The Age he had been reassured by the level of nuclear safeguards that the US had managed to negotiate with Delhi in its recent co-operation agreement.

"I'm uneasy about it, but it all depends on the agreement (we would reach with India)," Senator Trood said.

He said if Australia reached a similar deal on appropriate safeguards, such as the inspection of plants, then the agreement could be satisfactory.
Link
sunilUpa
BRFite
Posts: 1795
Joined: 25 Sep 2006 04:16

India's special envoy in Moscow for nuke talks

Post by sunilUpa »

India's special envoy on nuclear issue Shyam Saran is set to engage Russia in lifting the curbs on nuclear cooperation with New Delhi by the powerful 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group.

The Indian Prime Minister's special envoy is in Moscow on a two-day visit to discuss with Russia the lifting of NSG restrictions in dealing with India.

In Moscow, Saran is scheduled to call on Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to brief him on the recent 123 civil nuclear agreement with the US, which would facilitate lifting the NSG sanctions against India.

Russia is an important member of NSG, which controls the world's nuclear industry.

Indian ambassador Kanwal Sibal said on Monday that Russia is already building two atomic power units at Kudankulam in Tamil Nadu.

He added that under the memorandum of intent signed in January during President Vladimir Putin's New Delhi visit Russia will build four more nuclear reactors after the NSG lifts the ban on nuclear cooperation with India.
Link
Laks
BRFite
Posts: 192
Joined: 11 Jan 2005 20:47

Post by Laks »

Interesting one if true from KP Nayar. Could someone tell who are these BJP leaders?
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1070813/a ... 186131.asp

[quote]Opposition secret hand in nuke deal
K.P. NAYAR
Washington, Aug. 12: Goodbye consensus, welcome bipartisanship.

An untold story of the negotiations that led to the conclusion last month of a 123 Agreement to operationalise the Indo-US nuclear deal was the steady advice given to Indian negotiators by Opposition leaders with foreign policy experience who also have a good grasp of the issues involved in the deal.

Such behind-the-scenes bipartisanship in promoting “national interestâ€
Lkawamoto
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 49
Joined: 26 Oct 2006 09:56
Location: zz_ota-ku

Post by Lkawamoto »

Laks wrote:Interesting one if true from KP Nayar. Could someone tell who are these BJP leaders?
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1070813/a ... 186131.asp
brijesh mishra
sunilUpa
BRFite
Posts: 1795
Joined: 25 Sep 2006 04:16

Post by sunilUpa »

^^^ Hmmm Interesting.

[quote]BJP or Democrats, N-deal will operate: US Senator
Varghese K GeorgePosted online: Monday, August 13, 2007 at 0000 hrs Print Email

Lieberman meets Advani: Says BJP may oppose deal but takes pride in its role in improving the strategic partnership with US
NEW DELHI, AUGUST 12: The BJP may publicly oppose the nuclear deal with the US, but Leader of the Opposition L K Advani took pride “in the role that the BJP and the Vajpayee Government played in putting the two countries on the road to this better strategic partnershipâ€
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3800
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31

Post by Paul »

[quote]This NDA leader, who has an international profile because of his work for the environment and protection of water resources, said that if negotiators held inflexible positions, the talks were bound to fail. “Red lines are the same as surrender,â€
enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Post by enqyoobOLD »

Hi Acharya: Posting from these anti-Bharat sources again? :twisted:

HERE's the real scoop:
Liar, liar! PM's N-talk all white lies, claims BJP
ibnlive.com
BIG DEAL: The PM told Parliament on Monday that India has nothing to lose and only to gain from the nuclear deal.

New Delhi: Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Monday defended the Indo-US civil nuclear agreement with some strong words, asserting repeatedly that "India has nothing to lose" from it. But the BJP would take none of it.

Within minutes of the PM's detailed statement in Parliament, the party dismissed it as a 'bundle of the same untruths, half-truths and pure white lies'.

The party, which had shouted slogans and tried to disrupt the PM's speech in Parliament earlier in the day, said it would continue to oppose the deal in and outside Parliament.

The Prime Minister has reduced Parliament to a farce by stating that the deal is signed and sealed and could not be renegotiated, making a mockery of the debate on the issue, the party charged.

Never before had Parliament been treated in such a 'cavalier fashion', they alleged.

"If the deal is signed and sealed and etched in stone, why does he want Parliament to go through the charade of a debate on it?" former external affairs minister Yashwant Sinha and former Union minister Arun Shourie asked.

They pointed out that in his eight-page statement, the Prime Minister has conveniently ignored the sequence of legislative action in the United States and pretended as if the Hyde Act does not exist. "This is nothing but an ostrich-like attitude."

They also accused Dr Singh of 'clearly misleading the nation' by not revealing that the agreement was silent on issues like annual certification by the US President and that India's right to conduct nuclear tests would be governed by the provisions of the Hyde Act, passed by the US Congress in December 2006.

The BJP leaders reiterated that the placing of indigenous fast breeder reactors under the safeguards of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was an entirely 'unnecessary commitment' made by the UPA Government in the separation plan.

"Such a commitment will have an impact on India's three-stage nuclear programme as also on her research and development programme," they said.

Earlier addressing Parliament, the PM had claimed that India "has nothing to lose and only to gain from the 123 Agreement. Conducting nuclear tests in the future will be a sovereign decision, which rests with us," Singh said.

Meanwhile, in a bid to rally forces against the nuclear deal, BJP leader LK Advani spoke to CPI(M) leader Prakash Karat and sought his party's vote against the Indo-US deal in Parliament.

"Mr Advani has spoken to Mr Prakash Karat... we are in touch with leaders of the Left and the UNPA," .. Yashwant Sinha told reporters.

Advani and other NDA leaders have made a fresh request to the Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee to allow a discussion on the deal under Rule 184 that entails a vote.

A separate notice has also been sent to Rajya Sabha secretariat for a similar discussion. "We are in touch with the leaders of all political parties (opposed to the deal) for floor coordination," Sinha said.

He alleged that Dr Singh has been "dishing out lies day in and day out" on the nuclear deal.

(With agency reports)
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

Looks like the Liberman visit is to assure India that the deal has the backing of the Democrats too.

And that BRF is right in understanding the communications between Indian groups that US has on strategic and social engineering level. Read teh many versions of the Psy-ops and Indian interests threads.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Post by NRao »

N^^3,

I have not had the time, however, there is a big diff between economic and strategic benefits - I am sure everyone, including you, are aware of it. But, awareness of this diff is not enough. Strategic thinking needs what-if. Between what MMS has done, what AK has said and now what JoeL is stating, it is rather clear that for India it is an immediate economic deal, for the US it is an immediate strategic deal. Win-win for the time being.

Now, as time goes by, what happens in the "time being" - from a strat PoV - will change. IF the change starts going against the US and is beneficial India AND an opponent of India, the US cannot and will not hesitate to turn the economic screws.

BTW, most of your examples (Cola, plane tickets, etc) are very, very immature examples when it comes to strat thinking. They work with econ though.

More l8r.
bala
BRFite
Posts: 1975
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Post by bala »

Politics makes strange bedfellows and the BJP proves the dictum with horror or horrors Karat and Yechuri of the CPI&M

Advani calls up Karat, wants to nuke N-deal

To rally forces against the Indo-US nuclear deal, Bharatiya Janata Party leader LK Advani on Monday spoke to Communist Party of India (Marxist) leader Prakash Karat and sought his party's vote against the Indo-US deal in Parliament.

"Advani has spoken to Karat. We are in touch with leaders of the Left and the United National Progressive Alliance," party leader and former external affairs minister Yashwant Sinha told mediapersons.

He was replying to a query if the BJP was in touch with other parties opposed to the deal.

"We are in touch with leaders of all political parties (opposed to the deal) for floor coordination," Sinha said. He rejected Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's statement in Parliament on the deal as a "bundle of same untruths, half-truths and pure white lies".

Advani and other National Democratic Alliance leaders have made a fresh request to Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee to allow a discussion on the deal under Rule 184 that entails a vote. A separate notice has also been sent to the Rajya Sabha secretariat for a similar discussion.
enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Post by enqyoobOLD »

NRaoji:

Good, now we agree that it's win-win on the economics.

Actually for the US this is a major motivation, because the Indian market will provide the business case for BIG investment in nuke power for the US, and so India will help pay for the revival of the US nuke industry. There is a second aspect which is that there is a huge oversupply of nuclear fuel right now, courtesy of the dismantling of FSU nukes, where the US is buying up the enriched fuel, downblending it and using it in commercial power reactors. We are told that 50% of the light coming out of our lamps is Soviet nuclear weapons. This has a depressing effect on demand for US-produced uranium. So India will help here too.

Now for the Strategic aspect. I buy those plane tickets from the airline bozos precisely because I want to keep up contact with folks back in India, and that is the Strategic aspect. In the long term, I expect to be flying on Jet Air (or maybe even Air India). Or own my own supersonic jet. 8)

Hey, it's not my fault that you are not immature enough to see the relevance. :roll:

India will use this deal to get baseload power to its cities and industries. The industrial expansion will fund the development of alternative energy sources, and steadily reduce dependence on behemoth plants (Suzlon is already considered the worlds biggest producer and supplier of "cost-effective" wind power - according to the very highly respected T.Rowe Price investment newsletter).

With industrial expansion (and the expected 3-fold increase in wages in India in the next decade, per T. Rowe Price) Indians will be able to participate a heck of a lot more in the world. The dreams of the people will be turned into reality, because now capital and infrastructure and technology will be available.

And who knows what a billion ( I do hope they reduce that to, say, 600 million by slowing down the rate of production of babies, without a nuclear holocaust!) liberated minds can think up?

THAT is strategic thinking. You enable and empower, and provide a decent environment for civilization to prosper. And you keep the forces and weapons up-to-date to keep the Ghauris and Pervezes and Chen-geese out.
Last edited by enqyoobOLD on 13 Aug 2007 20:37, edited 1 time in total.
bala
BRFite
Posts: 1975
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Post by bala »

NRao wrote:India it is an immediate economic deal, for the US it is an immediate strategic deal
I completely disagree with this statement. Where is the proof that it is only strategic for the US and not India. The economic benefit is clearly tilted towards the US, their global companies stand to benefit the most. For India it is strategic more so than economic, it buys India time and acceptance amongst the P5 and could propel greater influence in the world. That is all strategy not economic.
CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6865
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54

Post by CRamS »

NRao:

When you say India benefits 'immediatly' from the deal, can you quantify it? Within how many days, weeks, months, years will people actually start to get bigli?
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Post by NRao »

Good, now we agree that it's win-win on the economics
I have not disagreed on that aspect. However, even on the econ front, what I am opposed to is India not having TOTAL control (posted DAE should rule over Tata, etc). I am not too happy with even 8/10. IMHO, India deserves far better - better than Japan, Euroatom, whatever.

Now, when and how to get that is the issue. Getting it is not.

BTW, note how Aussies have turned around - in what? Some month or two? The economics of this decision is open to all of us. We all have access to the equations and enough power to compute the end set.

That is where the total control comes in. For strategic reasons. IF not to oppose others, to defend India. Defend this deal among others.

Bala, et al,

Will respond. Have run out of time. Sorry.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

well.. BRosters here have given into Khan capitalists and well psy-oped to get India commit more dabolized investements in the civilian nuclear power sector aslooo.

its a squander, if GEs, westings get a big hand after 123. Corruption and scandal has begun. OTOH, they can't be ignored for not providing us better pricing and deals, that beats Areva and Ruskie designs. In addtion, they can't subdue BARC designs as well, since that is our bread and butter of the future.

Never felt BRos were so politico-centric!.. motivates many lurkers to take different view points elsewhere.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25085
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Post by SSridhar »

bala,
For India it is strategic more so than economic,
I think that for both the countries the deal is as much strategic as economic. The term 'economic' is not mutually exclusive with 'strategic'. For India, the economic impact comes from our necessity to ramp up electricity production which will translate into economic benefits.
sunilUpa
BRFite
Posts: 1795
Joined: 25 Sep 2006 04:16

Post by sunilUpa »

SaiK wrote:well.. BRosters here have given into Khan capitalists and well psy-oped to get India commit more dabolized investements in the civilian nuclear power sector aslooo.

its a squander, if GEs, westings get a big hand after 123. Corruption and scandal has begun. OTOH, they can't be ignored for not providing us better pricing and deals, that beats Areva and Ruskie designs. In addtion, they can't subdue BARC designs as well, since that is our bread and butter of the future.

Never felt BRos were so politico-centric!.. motivates many lurkers to take different view points elsewhere.
:shock: :shock: India already has a MOI with Russia to build 4 more reactors, pending NSG approval.
Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Post by Rye »

No amount of explaining and re-explaining the overall strategy that is being followed by the GoI seems to be able to stop all the whining and accusations of political partisanship.


No one is going to provide completely favourable terms at the outset --- India has given something and gained something...it is India's responsibility to ensure that what has been given amounts to nothing in the long run, and what has been gained is capitalized on ASAP.
joshvajohn
BRFite
Posts: 1516
Joined: 09 Nov 2006 03:27

Nuclear deal benefits both sides - pm

Post by joshvajohn »

I agree with Prime minister that it benefits bothsides and so it should go ahead. In a way it is not only opening a positive relationship with US but also with others who wish to supply the fuel to India and get money out of it including Aussies and Russians.

US is prepared to provide a sort of nuclear fuel tech too that will help India in many ways. This is good. India should ask for a technology of testing in a lab tech that would prevent india to waste a lot of energy in the desert to test huge bombs in the undergrounds.
sraj
BRFite
Posts: 260
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 07:04

Post by sraj »

enqyoob wrote:
The China Parity Argument is the first one I've seen that poses a real issue. Of course I will agree that there is no reason why India should have a worse deal than China with respect to international safeguards or fuel and technology access. Whether it is practical or in the national interest to hold out for such a deal, is a different matter.

But

1. where is the evidence that China actually gets anything like that? Can someone pls do a point-by-point comparison of the China 123 and the India 123?

2. Also, the interpretation that deals with China are not subject to US law, is quite flawed.
The China 123 has been posted before on several occasions. Here it is, one more time:China 123
Article 2.1 states, in part:
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.
bala
BRFite
Posts: 1975
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Post by bala »

SSridhar wrote: I think that for both the countries the deal is as much strategic as economic.
I have no quibble with this assessment. My point was exactly what you stated. It is economic/strategic for both countries - India and US. We can all argue as to how much and what ratio. But the fact of the matter is that both nations stand to gain much from this arrangement.

Only time will tell, whether India gains strategically from this deal and in some sense it all depends on India making the right moves.

Despite all the posturing and nay saying, the US has co-opted India in its plan to thwart China and for India this makes sense. The Russia, China, India (RCI) plan is fraught with major issues and I don't see any point for India to hobnob with such a plan. India already has friendly relationships with Russia. China is just a neighbor, but make no mistake it is a competitor and a long term adversary of India. There will be no tangible benefits with a China India alliance. The US will not be easily convinced by India making any noise on RCI since they know it is impractical and not meaningful. Meanwhile India needs to learn to juggle all the major players to its best advantage.

BJP is making noise for political reasons. They will symbolically vote this deal down and let the congress & left deal with the consequences. The left will come around to supporting the congress - they have no choice, no alternative.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

I think that UPA should put the deal up for discussion in Lok Sabha to ensure the deal survives it. It can be under some Rule or the other but to stall discussion in whatever form-JPA, Rule 184 etc is not going to be good for the deal.

VP Singh has better prospects if he can assure the Left of a suitable replacement in case the cookie crumbles.

KP Nayar's article seems to be tied to the politicial discussion in India and has nothing to do with Foreign Affairs in which he is an expert. Reminds the reader of The Telegraph owners(Amritha Bazaar Patrika) interests just in case one is carried away by KPN's objectivity.
bala
BRFite
Posts: 1975
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Post by bala »

It is ironic if the BJP votes the deal down, then they would have inadvertently aligned themselves as sympathizers with the China cause. The reason that the US bended quite bit, during negotiation with India was that they knew any failure would imply that China succeeded in the final analysis. This was repeated many times by spokespersons of the US that they were committed to making a success out of the deal. Even the democrats in the US Congress understand this subtlety, but as usual, Indian politicians miss the forest from the trees with their inane quibbling. A vote against the US-India Nuclear deal is a vote for China, plain and simple.
Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Post by Rye »

bala wrote:
A vote against the US-India Nuclear deal is a vote for China, plain and simple.

Given the way in which China is being portrayed by the GoI/MEA as a "friendly country" from India's POV, it is not surprising that a large part of the political spectrum sees China more as an oppurtunity than as a threat.

There is not much justification from the POV of an Indian on the ground in India to be inimical to china. China is seen as a competitor but is viewed far more benignly than the US.
sraj
BRFite
Posts: 260
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 07:04

Post by sraj »

ldev wrote:
After all given India's status as a complete outcast from the world of global nuclear commerce, it is incongruous to expect a 123 agreement with India to be on parity with China which is a NWS. The parity which the BJP keeps harping on is parity with China to be recognized as a NWS and its reflection in the wording of the Hyde Act. That is not going to happen unless India's power indices in all areas have surpassed all other nations other than the US and China. Or unless there is a global war and India joins in and emerges on the side of the victors and overcomes its reticence and fashions the world according to the victors.
The China 123 was signed on July 23, 1985 and approved by the US Congress on December 30, 1985. In 1985, China was a state with nuclear weapons which was not a party to NPT (exactly what India is today).

China did not accede to NPT until March 1992.

People who compare India's power indices unfavorably with China forget that in 1985 (remember: China's reforms had just started in 1978) the relative asymmetry between US power and China's power was much greater than that between US and India today. (pls don't take my word for it; a US Govt think tank makes that point -- the link has been posted here in the past).

When people talk about parity, they are really talking about whether India used its cards well enough (and one can have honest disagreements on that score). There is an entire US Govt study which details everything that China got during the 70s and 80s - link/extracts have been posted here before.
bala
BRFite
Posts: 1975
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Post by bala »

Rye wrote: There is not much justification from the POV of an Indian on the ground in India to be inimical to china. China is seen as a competitor but is viewed far more benignly than the US.
To borrow Archarya's paranoia, this is psych-ops 101. Indians are led to the belief that the chinaman is benign, one like us, from the days of Nehru. Even the Indian intellectuals/babus are led down this path. A lot of opposition to the US is expressed by the elitemen fed on this myth. In a south Indian movie a famous director proclaims that the US bombs and then says sorry, meaning they (US) have little regard for human life. What is not known about the Chinese is their brutal behind the scenes manipulation. Take TSP for example. We know that to a large extent TSP fluff is because of China, the US is behind TSP too but they are the overt face unlike the Chinese. Tibet is another example where Indians are now demonizing Dalai Lama instead of China, quite similar to HBad police filing a complaint against Taslima Nasreen of B'Desh, disturbing the peace of the community crap. The point is, China is the more insidious version of what a neighbor can do to quitely and systematically wreck a nation. India needs to realize this and the US-India Nuke deal is a vote against the sinister moves of China.
Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Post by Rye »

bala, I just mean that the GoI's own official stance on China undercuts public support for GoI taking an explicitly anti-China stance at this time.

GoI is seen in public as being pro-china, or neutral at worst, and submits to China's demands on the stances it expects from the GoI on chinese issues -- the latest kneebuckling on Tibetans holding a football match in New delhi is one such example.
enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Post by enqyoobOLD »

[quote]The China 123 has been posted before on several occasions. Here it is, one more time:China 123
Article 2.1 states, in part:
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.[/quote]

Thank you! That settles that. There is an ocean of difference between this clause and the India 123 with the Hyde Act preceding it.

The above says something obvious: That the agreement is one between international parties, and if one of them brings a new law AFTER this agreement, then that is no grounds for failure to observe.

Actually that is not worth the paper it's written on because no government can do something which its own laws prohibit. You can tell COTUS or Lok Sabha that the international agreement takes precedence, but you can't stop them from passing whatever they deem fit. And if China flouted it (as they probably do every day with their supply of US stuff to Pakistan and Iran and North Korea) then the US can't do anything about it, law or no law. Where are they going to take the case? To the UN? China will veto it. To the IAEA? China will refuse to let IAEA inspectors in. To the World Court? Hah!

In the case of the India 123, the "parties" got a lot smarter. They just laid out what happens if either party decides to pull out for whatever reason. So if the Lok Sabha or COTUS gets it into their heads to bring a law that is incompatible with the India 123 agreement, then the deal is just off, and compensation schemes are laid out.

So here again, the India-US 123 deal is just more sophisticated. To argue that this doesn't have "parity" with the China deal, is to demand that ur ticket be on a DC-3 or HS-748, since your neighbor's grandpa got to fly on those. [/i]
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

sunilUPA:-

the context to keep is after this deal.

If i could add alsooo a context here that could take advantage of likely business processing that leads to lesser corruption [remove middlemen, encourage gov-gov contacts and strengthen such programs]. This is where we need more emphasis by UPAvasis and encourage the decider folks more in favor of the deal rather averse with cold-waric psy op values.

I agree, with unkill there exists a double standards with regards to corruption, politics and democratic values that applies to them is different from that applies to others. If we can achieve a parity on all these, and get an level playing understanding, its going to be healthy long term perspectives.

Not just America, whole gamut of nations will throng towards us.. vision 2050.. we don't have villages, but farmers commuting to downtowns to work and trade their commodities, on a mag levitation trains.

We have no holistic sense, in approaching such deals, and taking partisan ways, and destroying the positives. e.g.:- the way MMS talks to left. bad! very bad. I'd not accept if I am a left.. take a human look at it first. Having a strong negative face and a strong look towards desis, and having a strong positive face and a weak look towards angrez is what that kills me from MMS gov.

these are all bad behaviors that exists due to inferiority complexion thats ingrained since angrez left us., and still continuing with especially gray haired men and women.

finally, they would end up in raasta roko, street fights, send chappals flying in parliament, and what not.. TN assembly could become higher standards very soon for these national parties.

the moment we have parties fighting, the very time it exposes our bad and fragile political structure., that is supposed to be seeking parities with P5 nations, and holding AirForce 1 integrated buttons to engage NuFuse doctrine.

And, if the finger print on those buttons are likes of babooze we hear and fight in the streets and assemblies, then its worthless proceeding for any deals. Lets do it at BARC pace rather.
Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Post by Gerard »

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

Post by Rye »

Jyoti Malhotra still seems to be outsourcing her thinking to the local village idiot -- the woman is an intolerable fool with no grasp of the subject she chooses to write about. She even botched up reportage of relatively straight forward events during her stint at Indian Express.

Jyoti seems to have come up with "facts" such as these by pulling them out of her nether end.
Perhaps, India does live in several centuries at the same time. Some years ago when an indigenously constructed rocket was placed on several bullock-carts and transported to the firing range in Sriharikota in the deep south, because it was the easiest way to get there, the image gave way to a collective mirth. It easily remains the most evocative symbol of the evolution of India.
Constructs a bogus event and then talks about it giving rise to "collective mirth".
Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Post by Gerard »

Confusing the APPLE satellite with a rocket...

Image

and for the Canadian audience...
Or the one that evokes stereotypical, but nevertheless too-true images of malnourished children with stomachs so bloated they could compare with large parts of sub-Saharan Africa?
Last edited by Gerard on 14 Aug 2007 00:18, edited 1 time in total.
Locked