India Nuclear News and Discussion - August 20, 2007

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

Postby enqyoobOLD » 21 Aug 2007 23:34

The sequence as written by the Hundi makes much more sense, but the question is whether the Hundi is being accurate.

Has the US agreed to put the 123 before the COTUS? Since it is a 123 (bilateral agreement), I don't see why other NSG types have any say in it for the US to agree, so it does make sense.

OTOH, the other NSG types have been sitting around saying wait for the US to agree, and the US position was that the US wasn't going to break the IAEAs' rules (ha Ha!) so it was the classic bureaucratic mess with an intricate time line and an uncertain COTUS outcome.

Now the monkey is on the WHOTUS' back, where it should be. Conclude the bilateral agreement - since the COTUS certainly does not claim to be bound by the NSG or IAEA or anyone else.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7812
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 22 Aug 2007 00:16

Kill the deal to help China

Ashok K Mehta

The Daily Pioneer
http://www.dailypioneer.com
2007/08/22
posted in full since site does not archive

Of the many things the Army teaches you, foremost is contingency planning, especially meeting the unforeseen. This axiom was apparently not factored into the run-up to the 123 Agreement with the US, singularly the most widely and hotly debated agreement in 60 years of India's foreign policy. Not only was there no fallback position, the political czars had also taken the Left opposition for granted. The Government expected future battles to be fought in the NSG, IAEA and US Congress, not on its own turf threatened by an unpredictable ally.

They were lulled into equanimity partly due to the fact that treaties and agreements in India do not require to be ratified by Parliament. In most countries you need a two-thirds parliamentary majority for the consummation of any agreement which impinges on national security. But in India national interest seldom figures prominently in any political calculus: Survival of the Government and electoral prospects determine the national agenda. Soldiers, on the other hand, fight for their regiment and their country. There is no other consideration except service before self.

Notwithstanding the current hiccups, it has to be acknowledged that the 123 Agreement with all its alleged imperfections and improprieties is a good deal, the result of skilful negotiations with experienced American interlocutors. With the deal, we are better off, not net losers, as the nay-sayers to the deal are claiming. The agreement has been politicised both in content and context. The opposition to the deal has come from the Left parties, historically antagonistic to the US. They support the UPA Government from the outside only to keep the 'bigger evil' - the BJP-led NDA - at bay.

Did the Government foresee the Left threat of withdrawal of support - "heavy political consequences" - if they went ahead with the agreement? The answer is probably is no, judging by the crisis that was generated over the spat between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and CPI(M) general secretary Prakash Karat, which the former passed on to a Kolkata daily in the citadel of the Left. The 'Breaking News' story catalysed the crisis.

Rumours about the aftermath to the crisis wafted across the central lawns of the Rashtrapati Bhawan on a hot and sticky Independence Day reception by President Pratibha Patil, where, for the first time, the ropes had been reconfigured to create a separate enclosure for Cabinet Ministers. It was conspicuously empty as Ministers chose to mingle with the aam admi. The Prime Minister, went the rumour, will have to go, as UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi was not kept on board about his 'Take-it-or-leave-it' challenge to Mr Karat. That this so-called non-Prime Minister had strategised his operational plan through the media showed the high value and credence he attaches to it.

It is strange that instead of lauding the Prime Minister for showing political spine in calling the Left's bluff over the 123 Agreement, Ms Gandhi chose discretion over valour and put the UPA on the defensive. She did not share the Prime Minister's new-found aggressiveness, ignoring a life-threat to the Government. One learns in the services the importance of the clarity in the chain of command and no premature deviations from a plan once it has been implemented. The dual command system followed in the Congress-led UPA Government is confusing as well as dangerous for scoring self-goals. Now everyone knows, if they did not earlier, that the UPA chairperson and not the Prime Minister has the last word. By retracting his challenge to Mr Karat, Mr Manmohan Singh had to eat crow.

Ms Gandhi may have saved the Government for some time and her electoral plans of the future, but her actions have severely undermined the office of the Prime Minister and the credibility of the Government at home and abroad. Gen KS Thimayya used to say, "Never make your subordinate lose face." By asking Mr Pranab Mukherjee to find a middle path, Ms Gandhi has let down her Prime Minister, the Government and the country in the larger interest of political survival. The lesson for the political class from this brief brush with brinkmanship is to be found in Sun Tzu's Falling off the Precipice. He offers a simple suggestion: "Be calm, firm and keep both feet on the ground."

The face-saving formula the media has described as deal-breather, not deal-breaker, was found in a meeting between non-Government actor No II and CPI(M) Politburo member Sitaram Yechury, sometimes the Government's special envoy to Nepal, and Mr Pranab Mukherjee. It is not clear who among the two re-discovered the evergreen committee formula, but it was Mr Yechury who announced that a panel would examine how the US Hyde Act will impinge on the 123 Agreement.

The Left is insisting that while this panel is in place, negotiations with the IAEA and the NSG should be put on hold, which effectively means the 123 Agreement is dead. A middle path to this would be for both to function in tandem, as time is at a premium due to the US election in 2008. US Under-secretary of State Nicholas Burns has said that India-related NSG and IAEA certifications have to be in before year-end for passage through Congress.

Over two-and-a-half years, the pros and cons of the 123 Agreement have been thrashed out in micro detail by all manner of experts. The debate has now turned into political theatre: India needs nuclear energy; no, it does not. India will join the nuclear club; no, it will freeze and roll back the nuclear programme. The US will help India in becoming a great power; no, it will make India subservient to the US... and so on.

Guess who's having the last laugh? The non-proliferation ayatollahs of the world, apart from China and Pakistan. Never reconciled with India's nuclear tests, which were attributed to China, Beijing has frequently criticised the 123 Agreement and, in fact, demanded India join the NPT as a non-nuclear state. Pakistan has said the 123 Agreement will disturb the strategic balance in South Asia and has asked Washington to do an equivalent agreement with Islamabad. Last year, President George W Bush told Gen Pervez Musharraf to his face, "India and Pakistan are two different countries with different histories." Consequently, the US will not apply the parity principle. Instead, all-weather ally China has agreed to oblige in case the 123 Agreement is done.

If this deal does not go through, China will rise as the dominant power in Asia, leaving India behind, tied down in the region countervailed by Pakistan. Blame it on the culture of coalition Governments, thanks to Mr VP Singh's Mandalisation of politics.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53995
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 22 Aug 2007 00:21

I think Mr. Mehta should read his fellow columnist Hari Shankar Vyas. Mrs G is fighting for survival of INC.
------------

Dont know how accurate but here is HS Vyas of Pioneer, 22 August 2007.

Some answers to preplexing questions.

Confidence gave PM teeth

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh threatening to resign and daring the Left to withdraw support was an unparallel happening. Singh showed guts by taking a stand on the 123 Agreement. But why do you think he challenged the Left? The reason lies in self-confidence. It was thought that Left would abandon its opposition in the face of such a massive stand-off. But Karat, instead of getting nervous, retaliated. Mulayam and VP Singh could not hide their glee. Mulayam said in Lucknow that the Left Front should not bark but bite. VP held talks with the Left and later held a Press conference demanding Singh's resignation and advising the Left to withdraw support.

In the coming week, discussions on the Agreement will take place in Parliament. But, the Left will not vote against the Government along with the BJP. CPM leaders Jyoti Basu and Buddhadeb Bhattacharya will not let the Government fall. The Prime Minister has full faith in West Bengal's Communist leaders. Most UPA allies are behind the Agreement. Simply put, much like the Left, the clouds will thunder but not burst.

Calculated challenge

But why did the Prime Minister suddenly challenge the Left? After all, there was nothing new in the Left stand. It is their oft-stated position that they will not support the Agreement and want a discussion in Parliament. No leader went beyond this. Nobody said they will vote against the Government in Parliament or withdraw support. The crisis was created by the PM himself. By daring to withdraw support, he forced Karat to retaliate. It was the PMO who briefed journalists about Singh's offer to quit and it was the PMO which called a particular journalist to give a political interview to a newspaper. Why did Singh do that? Leaders say it was a calculated challenge, discussed threadbare with Sonia.

Karat in kill mode?

Karat is targetting the Congress and if a senior leader is to be believed, the Left is aiming at finishing it off. By making the Agreement a big political issue, the CPM has put the Congress in a Catch 22 situation: America or Muslim votes? With all Muslims being against any Indo-US relationship, the Left is trying to show up the Congress as a villain. Last Sunday, Karat questioned the need for an Indo-US relationship. "We do not want friendship or defence co-operation with America," he said, pandering to the Muslim votebank. The stance is much like Mulayam and Naidu's political strategy.

Karat has been working for an alternative for the next General Election. He has hinted about a Third Front. And if that is to be a reality, the Left would have to work alongside Mulayam and Naidu. Karat, the leader insisted, considers Congress a liability which needs to be shed sooner than later. In this context, he opined, the Congress is on a suicidal path. "It is a mistake on the part of the PM and Sonia that without creating a conducive environment they are pushing for the Agreement.

Congmen wonder

There is widespread opinion within the Congress that the party should have created a favourable mood for the Agreement before going for it. In Indira Gandhi's time, the entire organisation used to be activated for important foreign policy matters, like it was done before the treaty with USSR. Not only the entire CWC but also the Congress Chief Ministers and office-bearers were told to create an awareness. Meetings were held and rallies taken out on the issue. Today, the party's general secretaries and even External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee avoid talking about the 123 Agreement. When the CWC endorsed its approval for the Agreement, Mukherjee was not even there. Instead of making the party understand the import of such a sensitive issue, he went on a foreign tour. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had to brief the CWC. Surprisingly, National Security Advisor M K Narayanan has been doing all the marketing among Congress leaders as well as the BJP and the media. This Monday, besides Narayanan, Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon also became active. He briefed the Congress MPs about the Agreement.

Support there

Do Congress leaders consider friendship with America in the interest of India? Most CWC members and AICC office-bearers say that the Agreement is good. In the CWC meeting three leaders raised the question about America's Hyde Act. Both Narayanan and the PM were quick to allay their fears. And, as a leader later said: "We were outcastes in the world community. With the Agreement, that untouchability will end. Nuclear techniques and supplies will be made available by the Nuclear Supply Group. We can fight the terrorists with US co-operation." But then why do these leaders shy away from saying such things publicly? The leader's reply was: "First the party organisation should decided how to propagate our stand."

Manmohan's twin strategy

Why did Prime Minister Manmohan Singh choose a Kolkata-based newspaper for his controversial interview in which he dared the Left to withdraw support to the Government over the 123 Agreement? Sources say, Singh did so because, as opposed to the Left leaders at the Centre, he felt the Bengal leadership was more practical. Also, Congress strategists felt there was resentment in the CPM over Karat's leadership. People like Jyoti Basu and Buddhadeb Bhattacharya are against 'hardliner' Karat. Already, within the politburo questions are simmering over his leadership. Besides, the decision on support withdrawal is not in Karat's hands. The politburo will not allow such a decision.



Interesting so its a game to the finish. MMS and SG wanted to split the CPIM and have moved with full force to corner Karat. And Karat wants to finish of the INC by removing its Muslim votebank. Then how is the INC different form the BJP? Are they secualr Hindus? Is there such a thing?

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36402
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 22 Aug 2007 00:26

while UPAvasis are racing to IAEA and NSG, sensing left divorce.. while the left say, they will stay outside and support.. this is ridiculous.. and face the music deal citizens.. face it for fracturing elected parties.

Now, I am serious that we need this deal... but it does not cause great harm by delaying till a majority govt is setup. less than 2 years, India is not going to get He3 from moon nor have installed 30GWe of nukes for civilian use.

This is hurry is indeed to be avoided. We need this deal.. but we don't need it by a minority govt, "thaaaat toooooo" supported by left (outside or inside).

The hurry definitely means UPAvasis are fearing they would not survive.. so make hay while sun shine.. not knowing that is a reflected shine.

I don't want a billion people later blame it was all because of "manio".. better act fast.. or get an issue based voting started in Indian democracy. Lets go for voting on the nuclear issue alone, to silence all politicians who are taking things into sad state of affairs, and finally dictators and commies keep laughing all over the neighborhood.

To save our fractured face, this nuke issue needs a public vote.

CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6644
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54
Contact:

Postby CRamS » 22 Aug 2007 00:27


With all Muslims being against any Indo-US relationship



This piece of 'wisdom' is invoked as a hard fact by many commentators inluding nut-case(Natwar)-singh. How much truth is there in this?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53995
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 22 Aug 2007 00:32

I dont know why this is being said. We havent seen any polling or writings except for op-eds by usual suspects. It could be the Asharaf types making big statements. Or common knowldege among the chatterati or Dilli billi types.

Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3555
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31
Contact:

Postby Paul » 22 Aug 2007 00:32

Interesting so its a game to the finish. MMS and SG wanted to split the CPIM and have moved with full force to corner Karat


If NDTV is supporting the agreement, then are not looking for Karat on the personal front as well. Looks like his samdhi has jumped ship as well. Jyoti basu may have to step to sort things out. Either way, whoever blink first is on his way out.

This is why I have argued from the beginning that we have to support MMS whther we like it or not. Even though he has not done a good job in taking the nation into confidence. Note that 2 key stakeholders in this deal, the sci. community and the bureaucracy are on board now.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21111
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Postby Prem » 22 Aug 2007 00:36

ramana wrote:I think Mr. Mehta should read his fellow columnist Hari Shankar Vyas. Mrs G is fighting for survival of INC.
------------

quote]
Confidence gave PM teeth

[b]of the INC by removing its Muslim votebank. Then how is the INC different form the BJP? Are they secualr Hindus? Is there such a thing?


This is a good development for Desh centric, issue based politics. Kangress is learning lessons from UP election while BJP wala are too busy doing nothing . :roll:

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53995
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 22 Aug 2007 00:36

I dont know why this is being said. We havent seen any polling or writings except for op-eds by usual suspects. It could be the Asharaf types making big statements. Or common knowldege among the chatterati or Dilli billi types.

BTW I was right in having misgivings about Ronen Sen mouthing off.

Pioneer which wants an equitable rapprochment with US editorializes
Voice of America?

The Pioneer Edit Desk

Ronen Sen forgets he is a bureaucrat

It was extremely irresponsible of India's Ambassador to the US, Mr Ronen Sen, to mock at the political establishment and rebuke those opposing the 123 Agreement in an interview to India Abroad that has also been put out by rediff.com, a popular news portal. Anybody who goes through the text of the interview will be struck by his choice of words and phrases while debunking the objections to the nuclear deal raised by the Left and the BJP. This is not the language of a bureaucrat and definitely not that of a diplomat. It is surprising that Mr Sen, who has spent decades as an IFS officer and has served in sensitive missions abroad with, it must be recorded, a certain amount of distinction, should have been so abrasive, if not abusive, while responding to criticism of the nuclear deal. By scoffing at legitimate political opposition to the text of the 123 Agreement - irrespective of the merit of the points raised by the Left and the BJP - as "little storms in a tea-cup", he has belittled his country's democratic process; worse, by heaping unqualified praise on the US Administration and the American President, neither of which is really germane to the debate - he has managed to sound like a spokesman of America rather than India's Ambassador to the US. Of course, within 24 hours of the interview's publication, he has had to offer an apology to Parliament, read out by Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee, but there is no reason to be persuaded that he is genuinely sorry for having, literally, flown off the handle. On the contrary, by trying to slyly fix the interviewer, a veteran Washington journalist - Mr Sen, like the politicians whom he so snootily sneers at, claims he has been misquoted, quoted out of context and that many of the things he said were off-the-record - he has neither owned up to his transgression nor indicated that he is feeling contrite for his abominable behaviour.

It is entirely possible that Mr Sen spoke out of frustration. After all, he has been a key negotiator and undoubtedly worked and lobbied hard to bring the agreement to near-fruition. He sees it as the crowning glory of his career as a diplomat; he also sees it as fulfilling the task set for him by his political masters in the Congress. But though Mr Sen is a political appointee - he has retired from the IFS - he cannot ignore the fact that he serves the Government of India and not the UPA or, for that matter, the Congress. This is not to deny him the right to voice his opinion and plead the case for the 123 Agreement. To exercise that right, however, he must first relinquish his office; he can't do it as an officer of the Government. The Opposition has demanded Mr Sen's recall. It is no doubt a harsh reaction to his intemperate commentary, but he must be made to pay for unabashedly playing a partisan role and thus flaunting his political bias. We need to hear the voice of India emanating from our mission in Washington, not the voice of America. More important, if Mr Sen is allowed to have his way, it will set a dangerous precedent: From now onward, bureaucrats will feel emboldened to publicly criticise either the ruling party or the Opposition, not because they feel strongly about an issue but to seek political patronage. Let the Government demonstrate that bureaucrats are not free to lampoon the political establishment - there's only one way it can do so and that's by naming a new Ambassador to the US.



ReDiff Interview wih Amb. Sen
Last edited by ramana on 22 Aug 2007 01:40, edited 1 time in total.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36402
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 22 Aug 2007 00:37

yes.. we need to support MMS on this issue, but not when he drives everyone else away, and thinks Congress and him (and her majesty services) are the only citizens of India to take this decision.

Something really really wrong in our democratic setup., don't you think? And, we claim we have a better democratic setup than USA!. Shame on us, to let this happen. Shame on MMS and Congress to have done this in an unilateral way rather a joint parliamentary setup to deal with UNKill.

It only takes one toss to decide where you want to go!~, the whole world knows the tamasha by MMS.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16509
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 22 Aug 2007 00:37

I think the comc will come around - pound of flesh.

China to will come along in NSG.

On a diff note, MMS can resign, Pranbda becomes PM and cleans INC?

kshirin
BRFite
Posts: 382
Joined: 18 Sep 2006 19:45

Postby kshirin » 22 Aug 2007 00:38

abhischekcc wrote:I had been wearing my over night thinking cap, and I beleive that the another unstated reason for the Commies doing halla against the deal is the visit of the Japanese PM to India, and the agrrements he will sign with us.

Some of these agreements/understandings are:
1. The signing of the comprehensive economic partnership agreement (CEPA).
2. The $90 billion Delhi Mumbai industrial corridor.
3. The expanding military ties.
4. The possible oil swap deals/energy security.

What is interesting is that except for #4, all other points hurt China. Let's take it point by point:

#1 & 2. The CEPA will ensure that India becomes the favoured manufacturing outsourcing country, DISPLACING China. This is the biggest body blow to the Chinese manufacturing juggernaut.

Remeber that 70% of China' exports are made by foreign companies. While I don't have the breakup countrywise, it is easy to surmise that Japan is one of the largest (if not the largest) investor in China's manufacturing secotr. Removal of the Japanese factories/investment from CHina, and its subsequent set up/investment India is thus a double blow to CHina's plans. Not only does it weaken China, it strengthens India - thus doubly weakening China.

No wonder the communists are desparately trying to protect their masters in the Forbidden City.


#3. Military ties have a two pronged approach. One is the protection of sea lanes - from both pirates and countries. The other is cooperation in fighting wars. Both are anti China.

Most pirates in the SEA region are either affiliated to China or N Korea. The chinese connections may be to officials or to the triads, which are themselves anyway linked to the Chinese government.


A :idea: flashed in my mind when I linked the Nuke deal with the other moves India is making - and analysed their implications on China.



Brilliant, yes, I agree. This is a turning poimt, when India can show some strategic backbone for once. Its not so much about the deal, it is about taking a clear stand on where we stand.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53995
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 22 Aug 2007 00:48

Recall I remarked in the Karat artcile that the debate is about engaging the USA.

A deeper analysis by Ashok Malik in Pioneer, 22 August 2007

Tomorrow never dies

Ashok Malik

The India-US civil nuclear cooperation agreement is just one element of a grand bargain that Japan and America are offering India. It is to the credit of the CPI(M) that only it has realised the implications

It is a strange week in Delhi. Communists don the garb of ultra-nationalists. India's formerly Right-wing party becomes an add-on of the Left Front. The accidental descent into an election that nobody - with the exception of Ms Mayawati and the BSP - is ready for is a clear and present danger.

In a week like this, only the big picture can provide reassurance. The small picture, alas, is simply too smudged.

While they are the villains of the day, Mr Prakash Karat and the CPI(M) need to be thanked for having brought into the open the philosophy behind the India-US nuclear deal. Yes, this deal is about energy security and containing greenhouse gas emissions from thermal fuel sources and such noble and good intentions. Yet, slipped into the 123 Agreement is the blueprint for 21st century security architecture.

By openly opposing the relationship with America - and by aligning their position with that of the Chinese Government - India's Communist parties have made a public debate on an overarching foreign policy decision simply unavoidable.

It is now becoming increasingly untenable to pretend that India's economic rise is simply a matter of higher GDP, better trade figures, more outsourcing contracts - and has no strategic implications. That may be the view preferred by the Indian ostrich, but the rest of the world is not looking at it that way. It is seeing India as a potential counterweight to China, at least as part of a mutually balancing concert of powers that would include, of course, both Asian giants and others such as the US and Russia.

In an extreme situation, India could have a role in a containment of China, though that eventuality seems far away. In any case, the very need to contain China would depend on how China and its polity evolve over the coming decade or two. To reflect on that right now would be to gaze into a crystal ball. For the moment, the world is only hedging its bets, which is why it is courting India.

The rise of China and what India should do vis-à-vis its northern neighbour are obviously exercising various groups of Indians. They are also the subject of cogitation in other countries. In offering India the civilian nuclear deal, the Republican Administration in the US has shown its cards.

In Australia, the degree of the national economy's dependence on China - Chinese factories are hungry for Australian commodities - has caused some disquiet.
There is a perception, particularly to the right of the political spectrum, that this will compromise Canberra's ability to maintain an independent foreign policy, free of Beijing's influence.

It is this sentiment that is driving strategic affairs pundits in Australia to advocate sale of uranium to India. The point was made, for instance, in Widening Horizons: Australia's New Relationship with India, a paper brought out by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute in May 2007.

In Japan - as the current visit of that country's Prime Minister, accompanied by 150 odd businessmen, makes clear - India is seen as the next Asian manufacturing hub. The 1,500 km long Delhi-Mumbai Industrial Corridor is, essentially, envisaged as a 10-year project for the transplanting of Japanese manufacturing facilities.

Japanese investment in India is the economic analogue of the nuclear deal or the American promise to provide India military hardware worthy of a future power. Why is Japan doing it? For one, it has a historically unsteady relationship with China. Second, Japan is an ageing society and moving its factories to India is part of an enormous retirement plan.

If it wants to retain the factories at home, Japan will have to open itself up to immigrant workers and managers - many of whom may be Chinese. It is looking at a more agreeable alternative - outsourcing manufacturing to India.

It is not television sets and mini-CD players that Japan wants to make in the DMIC. From high-end industrial electronics to elements of aerospace manufacture, very sophisticated technology transfer is on offer. The Japanese are also investing heavily in infrastructure.

There are no free lunches in economics, no free dinners in diplomacy. In return for Japanese investment, Australian uranium and American weaponry, India would not need to go to war with China - but it would need to make small, subtle and unavoidable choices. It is to the credit of the CPI(M) that it has understood the contours of the grand bargain and made its position clear.

In no country do complex foreign policy issues become the bread and butter of domestic, provincial politicians. India is not going to be an exception. As such, one cannot expect every member or party in Parliament to have an informed, enlightened view on the fork India finds itself at.

Yet, the role of the BJP in the entire discourse has been a trifle disappointing. As a nationalist party, which led a government that crafted the framework of 'modern diplomacy', surely it could do better than merely mimic Marxists and give them certificates of patriotism? Today, the credit for the deal lies with the Congress - even though it built on the gains of the NDA years - and the Opposition space lies with the Left. The BJP is everywhere - and nowhere.

Where will the Karat-Manmohan Singh brinkmanship on the nuclear deal lead to? In terms of ancillary negotiations and the wider foreign policy roadmap, it could delay matters rather than reverse the course. India's direction is inevitable; the Left is defending a lost cause.

Not that there isn't a precedent. Between the Spanish-American War and Pearl Harbour, 1898 and 1941, the US swung in and out of the international system. It saw intense internal debate over whether its economic muscle now obligated it to be a global power - or whether old-style isolationism was still feasible.

In 1919, at the end of World War I, President Woodrow Wilson helped frame the Treaty of Versailles, and helped found the League of Nations as part of 20th century security architecture. The US Senate, however, snubbed Wilson, rejected the treaty and kept America out of the League.

Wilson warned another war would engulf Europe within a generation. Provincial politicians, American exceptionalists and hyper-nationalists thought he was talking nonsense. Two decades later, Wilson was proved prescient. The US walked into World War II and recognised that this time there was no going back.

Do all aspirant powers go through such existential dilemmas? The big picture, remember, does look reassuring!



Very interesting that he had to open his mouth now. What was he doing all these days? Also note the ref to Woodrow Wilson by him and Notwar Singh. Maybe they all are attending 'education' seminars at IIHC!

kshirin
BRFite
Posts: 382
Joined: 18 Sep 2006 19:45

Postby kshirin » 22 Aug 2007 00:58

CRamS wrote:

With all Muslims being against any Indo-US relationship



This piece of 'wisdom' is invoked as a hard fact by many commentators inluding nut-case(Natwar)-singh. How much truth is there in this?


In my view this is a myth created to scare us into ducking under the covers sucking our thumbs and hping the ogre will go away. There's none. What happened when we recognised Israel? Did the Muslims protest/secede/revolt? Big Hauuua - we call it. Poor Muslims at least get unnecessrily bashed on this one.

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

Postby enqyoobOLD » 22 Aug 2007 01:00

The Pioneer pieces are all very touching, but one has to consider their own deep political bias.

It's not the INC that has been waffling on the issue, now saying that India does not need power (Dinesh Agarwal White Paper issued by the Overseas Friends of BJP, some months ago) or other nonsense. The govt has been consistent in claiming the J18 as benchmark, and they have stood their ground when Hyde, Jekyll etc. pulled all their stunts.

The Commie threat to derail the govt over this issue can backfire big-time, given elementary campaign propaganda skills from the INC.

The Islamic vote bank will vote Islamic, but the middle class and the city-dwellers and even the power-starved farmers are likely to come out and support INC en masse. So the BJP right now is shivering in their curly pointy maharajah shoes praying that there won't be an election for the next 2 years.

Best bet for BJP is to help this deal through, then attack the govt. on the slow progress of reactors, corruption in contracts, etc. etc. of which there will be no shortage. Also, call for debate on national energy policy and beat up the INC and the Commies.

My conclusion from those 2 pieces in Daily Pioneer is that there is desperate backpedalling under way at BJP HQ, seeing that they are in free slide towards the precipice. If there is a snap election, they are heading for a wipeout.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16509
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 22 Aug 2007 01:00

It is now becoming increasingly untenable to pretend that India's economic rise is simply a matter of higher GDP, better trade figures, more outsourcing contracts - and has no strategic implications.


Something I had said earlier. I still believe that the strategic implications are larger than the economic consequences and that India is not prepared for it.

However, THIS problem has been created by and is still fueled by MMS. For some reason he has not been able to articulate the deal very well.

kshirin
BRFite
Posts: 382
Joined: 18 Sep 2006 19:45

Postby kshirin » 22 Aug 2007 01:13

[quote="ramana"]Recall I remarked in the Karat artcile that the debate is about engaging the USA.

Question now is- will the Intelligent defeat the Great Unwashed? Will the Mayawatis profit from this and bring an end to political stability and fast economic growth? Remember the Janata Dal VP Singh years - they braked the momentum being built up by the first wave of reforms? It could happen again if we get a bunch of louts at the helm again. Lets not take this halcyon heady growth for granted. Do we have a strategy to counter that? Or am I hallucinating/ scare-mongering?

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

Postby enqyoobOLD » 22 Aug 2007 01:16

Lal Kile par Lal Nishaan

Maang Raha hai Hindustan


Its either that or the Green flag.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53995
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 22 Aug 2007 01:20

In 1970, Mrs G who was surviving on the Left support called for elections and won majority. I see no need for BJP to hang around if they cant face the public. Maybe their wipe out is a good thing for it will bring stability to Indian politics. And if they are wiped out the INC wont have to align with the left to keep them out of power. From HS Vyas article looks like MMS and SG staged a first strike on the Left and it got blunted when Karat fired back. Seeing that SG backpeddled (Ashok Mehta's artcile) and let MMS face the music as he was destined to be the PM. So he is as political as they come but with a Cambridge degree. So no tears for MMS.
For someone who is the epitomeof democracy he does not want to face the public and assure buy-in. He wants to fiat it in. Same with that 'headless chicken' Sen. Bureaucracy is not a substitiute for representative government. You cant have sub rosa in a democracy.

So let all of them face the public. The alignment with US has to have the public's buy-in. Cant claim to be a democracy and do things in the dark.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21111
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Postby Prem » 22 Aug 2007 01:21

NRao wrote:
It is now becoming increasingly untenable to pretend that India's economic rise is simply a matter of higher GDP, better trade figures, more outsourcing contracts - and has no strategic implications.


Something I had said earlier. I still believe that the strategic implications are larger than the economic consequences and that India is not prepared for it.

However, THIS problem has been created by and is still fueled by MMS. For some reason he has not been able to articulate the deal very well.


Its not that MMS cannot articulate, provoking the Karat and Company was deliberate. Leftist and Islamic lobby need to be discredited to strengthen Indian internal coheison. Internally weak India cannot compete with Dragon on equal footing. The issue need to be settled now as PRC have limited influence and their Dog Bakistan is in turmoil.
I think the visist of Saudi King should be also seen in this light as a carrot and assurance to Ashrafs of INC( soon to be extended to coward Baki Ashrafs who ran away in 47 )

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53995
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 22 Aug 2007 01:26

kshirin wrote:
ramana wrote:Recall I remarked in the Karat artcile that the debate is about engaging the USA.

Question now is- will the Intelligent defeat the Great Unwashed? Will the Mayawatis profit from this and bring an end to political stability and fast economic growth? Remember the Janata Dal VP Singh years - they braked the momentum being built up by the first wave of reforms? It could happen again if we get a bunch of louts at the helm again. Lets not take this halcyon heady growth for granted. Do we have a strategy to counter that? Or am I hallucinating/ scare-mongering?



Who knows the ways of the Providence? Only recall that the first great empire of historical India was not based on the Chatur Varna. Mayawati is bringing stability to UP. Mulayam (mis)rule was not good for the Indian heartland. It is the great unwashed that voted her in same folks voted out Mrs.G 's emergency grouping. I trust the rural India more than the elite. They have civilizational memory. And about growth maybe it needs a correction and shakeout?

Yes VP Singh brought in Mandalization chaos. But he also empowered the OBCs and the rise of BJP which led to the POKII tests and this deal. So just chill.

In the end everything will be all right. If its not right its not yet the end.

ShyamSP
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2462
Joined: 06 Mar 2002 12:31

Postby ShyamSP » 22 Aug 2007 01:44

enqyoob wrote:The govt has been consistent in claiming the J18 as benchmark, and they have stood their ground when Hyde, Jekyll etc. pulled all their stunts.
Ok. Why not let parliament decide by going for JPC kind of arrangement BJP requested. They may as well get the deal okay'ed without the drama that is goin on. More than BJP and commies it is Congress that is doing all the political drama. Others are responding their own way.

The Commie threat to derail the govt over this issue can backfire big-time, given elementary campaign propaganda skills from the INC.
Well commies have been waiting for a chance to pull the plug under INC. This came along. They are less likely to get impacted ( may lose a few seats) but can partner with better allies if Congress loses and BJP doesn't gain much. They are not impacted one way or the other.

The Islamic vote bank will vote Islamic, but the middle class and the city-dwellers and even the power-starved farmers are likely to come out and support INC en masse. So the BJP right now is shivering in their curly pointy maharajah shoes praying that there won't be an election for the next 2 years.

Quite contrary. Islamic vote bank is splintered. Middle class and city-dwellers - we know how they voted for BJP las time. Power-starved farmers are not going to fall for any promises by Congress - as that slogan was used last time.

Best bet for BJP is to help this deal through, then attack the govt. on the slow progress of reactors, corruption in contracts, etc. etc. of which there will be no shortage. Also, call for debate on national energy policy and beat up the INC and the Commies.

My conclusion from those 2 pieces in Daily Pioneer is that there is desperate backpedalling under way at BJP HQ, seeing that they are in free slide towards the precipice. If there is a snap election, they are heading for a wipeout.

BJP may not lose much at worst it may keep the number of seats it has depending on UP situation. Sore loser if there were elections today would be Congress. Major gainers would be Commies and UNPA. BSP would be determing factor on who comes to power. We would have much more fractured verdict.
Last edited by ShyamSP on 22 Aug 2007 01:54, edited 1 time in total.

Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3555
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31
Contact:

Postby Paul » 22 Aug 2007 01:45

Consider the following

1. Abe's visit to India.
2. Japanese turnaround on Indian nuclear ambitions.
3. Aussies coming around to sell Uranium to India.
4. Multi national naval execrcises being held on a regular basis with Western nations.
5. India on the verge of explosive economic growth.

If we put the dots together, it appears we are very close to breaking the Sino-US consensus on propping Pakistan. In a few years I expect India to start parleying with PRC on equal terms and start pressuring them to break their mountain tall ocean deep dosti with Pakiland.

Ramana wrote:Mayawati is bringing stability to UP. Mulayam (mis)rule was not good for the Indian heartland.


But again Mulayam does not have Mayawati's Chanakya Satish Chandra Mishra to do his bidding. He has pretty much done the same Job as Karl Rove did for Bush.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53995
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 22 Aug 2007 01:49

Paul, KS already did that in his 'at Sea' article posted in the China thread and the Naval discussion thread.

Maybe that prompted the hardline from Karat?

SwamyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16102
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 09:22

Postby SwamyG » 22 Aug 2007 01:52

As Japan and India Forge Economic Ties, a counterweight to China is seen
India, which desperately needs more power generation, could be a particularly fertile market for Toshiba, which bought the nuclear power plant manufacturer Westinghouse last year.

Any deals between India and Toshiba would be far in the future, though. India’s government is still deeply divided over a deal with the United States that allows India access to civilian nuclear technology, and Japan may not support the United States-India nuclear deal, given Tokyo’s aversion to nuclear proliferation.

AniB
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 34
Joined: 18 Sep 2004 00:34
Location: Rockies

Postby AniB » 22 Aug 2007 02:07

Press Statement issued by Shri Yashwant Sinha &
Shri Arun Shourie on Indo-US nuclear deal

Preliminary comments of the BJP on the Agreement between the Government of India and the Government of the USA concerning peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

1. The BJP has been expressing its reservations regarding the Indo-US nuclear deal from the very beginning. When the Joint Statement was issued at the end of the visit of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to Washington in July 2005, Shri Vajpayee issued a statement in which he expressed his reservations about the deal, specially with regard to its impact on our strategic nuclear programme. He had expressed his apprehension at the proposed separation plan of our nuclear facilities between civilian and military. Later, when the separation plan was presented to Parliament, we expressed our opposition to it. We warned the Government of India when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House International Relations Committee of the US Congress adopted the draft bills for enabling this cooperation between the two countries. We protested strongly when the Hyde Act was passed by the US Congress. We have consistently opposed the deal in Parliament whenever discussions on this deal have taken place.

None of our fears and apprehensions was ever given serious consideration by the Government of India. No effort was ever made by it to evolve a national consensus on this vital issue of national concern before making commitments to the US.

Everyone should try harder next time.


The text of the bilateral 123 Agreement has been made public on Friday, August 3, 2007. We have looked at the text and our preliminary comments are as follows:

(i) Each party is required to implement this Agreement in accordance with its national laws and regulations and its licence requirements. There is no doubt, therefore, that the implementation of this Agreement shall be governed by the provisions of the Hyde Act of 2006, the US Atomic Energy Act of 1954, which are its national laws on this subject, and its licensing requirements relating to the supply of nuclear materials to India {article 2(1)}. The confidence with which US officials have asserted that the Agreement is Hyde act bound flows from this provision. Which act will India enforce on the US?

India will try to enforce 123 and get fuel, milling machines, neutron detectors and glove boxes etc.

(ii) The Agreement is supposed to lead to full civil nuclear cooperation between the two countries yet article 2(2)(d) talks of cooperation relating to “aspects of the associated nuclear fuel cycleâ€

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16509
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 22 Aug 2007 02:27

Its not that MMS cannot articulate, provoking the Karat and Company was deliberate.


Too short a range.

Been complaining about his 'silence' since Hyde was out. His inability has nothing to do with recent events.

Besides Chicoms natak was predictable. MMS should give them a bone and approach NSG.

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4438
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Postby putnanja » 22 Aug 2007 02:51

The Hindu editorial board explains why they shifted positions on the nuclear deal, first endorsing it and then asking that it be put on hold

Perhaps they wrote the first editorial before they got orders from China? :twisted:

[quote]While several readers agree that the Indo-U.S. civilian nuclear cooperation deal should be put on hold under the present politically murky and changing circumstances, [b]some readers have raised questions about what they perceive to be changes and even a ‘contradiction’ in The Hindu’s editorial position on the deal. One reader has specifically asked: “What has changedâ€
Last edited by putnanja on 22 Aug 2007 03:20, edited 1 time in total.

CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6644
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54
Contact:

Postby CRamS » 22 Aug 2007 02:54

AniB:

Man I am confused with the details and the different interpretations and various possibilities that the wily Unkil might embark upon to make us nuke_nude through this deal. Lets all agree that whether or not he states that in bold, it is one his unabashed intentions apart from making some doe.

That said, I'd like to pose a challenge to YS/AS/BC/BK. What counter proposal would they make to US instead of the 123 that would be acceptable to them? And what US shows the middle finger as they are sure are prepared to do. Are these guys prepared for a no deal? At least BC/BK have said so.

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4438
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Postby putnanja » 22 Aug 2007 02:56


ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53995
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 22 Aug 2007 03:00

Last edited by ramana on 22 Aug 2007 03:31, edited 1 time in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53995
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 22 Aug 2007 03:07

CRS why dont you read Strobe Talbot's book and then Jaswant Singh to get an idea of what was already discussed and what was the outcome.

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4438
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Postby putnanja » 22 Aug 2007 03:22

ramana wrote:Ravi, Maybe Hindu changed its mind seeing the large amount of opposition.


Done, edited my post above.

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4438
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Postby putnanja » 22 Aug 2007 03:23


CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6644
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54
Contact:

Postby CRamS » 22 Aug 2007 03:48

RamanaGaru,

If you don't mind, please give me a few bullet points on what the BJP stalwarts can live with in the 123?

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

Postby Rye » 22 Aug 2007 04:15

link
[quote]
No question of government falling, says Biman Bose


Marcus Dam



Rules out possibility of mid-term elections

Discussions demanded under Rule 193


KOLKATA: [b]“Rule 193 [under which discussions on the India-U.S. civilian nuclear deal are expected to be held in Parliament] has no provision for voting; so the question of the United Progressive Alliance government falling does not arise,â€

Vinod Ji
BRFite
Posts: 117
Joined: 26 Oct 1999 11:31
Location: Dubai U.A.E.

Postby Vinod Ji » 22 Aug 2007 04:23



Somewhere I read on this forum (by one of the gurus explanation) that in order to produce more wepon grade material reactors are run at low load factor. If that is the case we have been producing a lot eh!? Arun please correct me if I am wrong please!

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4438
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Postby putnanja » 22 Aug 2007 04:37

What’s religion got to do with 123?

What’s religion got to do with 123?
Abusaleh Shariff


The current controversy between the ruling UPA coalition and the Left on the one hand, and the right on the other, is entirely a political confrontation. This unwarranted war of words and egos should never overshadow the very important accomplishments in the realm of research and technology but should be responsibly resolved within the political framework. The issue of nuclear energy at hand is not a laughing matter. Not only is it linked with the destiny of 1.2 billion Indians today, but it will be of remarkable consequence to innumerable billions in the generations that are to follow. What is at stake is not just the ‘present’ but the ‘future’ as well.

During debates and arguments it has come to the notice of intellectuals and concerned citizens such as this writer that the Muslim community in India as a whole is being seen to be opposing the current nuclear deal. This illusionary and concocted idea is presented before the people of India as the dominant opposition to the 123 agreement. Such allegations, with no evidence whatsoever, will throw the Muslim community in India into another confrontation with liberal and progressive-minded Indians in the future.

What is important for the world to know is that Indian Muslims, in their psyche, behaviour and views, are as progressive as, if not more than, other outwardly looking communities across India. The desires and aspirations of younger Indian Muslims are the same as those of Hindu and Christian communities in India. For example, one would find educated Muslim boys and girls lined up in as much number and in similar proportions as any other social group in front of diplomatic missions of countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada. The educated middle class amongst the Muslim community is no more inclined to be content with meagrely paid and often exploitative jobs in Saudi Arabia, Dubai and other countries in the Middle East. Above all, newly educated Muslims indeed have already become aware of the fact that future jobs and satisfying professional lives are to be found more in India than abroad.

Yes, Muslims of the older vintage do get sensitive at the utterance of the word ‘Israel’, but these are dying noises. What is common knowledge is that India has since long balanced foreign policy options with both the Palestinian cause — notwithstanding the great personal affinity with the late Yasser Arafat displayed by many of its leaders — and Israel. Who in India now does not know that Israel is one of the largest suppliers of defence equipment and ammunition to the country? It has partnered in a number of high technology agricultural projects. You will even find Israelis undertaking tulsi cultivation in some parts of Uttar Pradesh. One finds Israelis living in large numbers in many parts of the Himalayas, albeit as tourists. Even so, I have yet to come across any Muslim in these specific areas or elsewhere who is agitated over government policy.

It is, however, important to say that George W. Bush is not the United States and the United States is not Israel. The Muslims in India are now mature enough to know the difference and judge accordingly.

I am at pains as an Indian Muslim to understand as to how a highly respected and distinguished political party can use the Muslim community as a whole as canon fodder, so to speak, in order to make its own vulnerable position secure. It is also not uncommon to find heretic and self-centred and self-proclaimed leaders within the Muslim community. They are indeed far too great in number and we all know who they are and how much political and social support they actually claim from the larger community across India.

In this context it is important to highlight an important political reality: the Muslims in India are the most secular voters. I know of no political party in

India for which the Muslims have voluntarily not voted. As psephologists will confirm, when the BJP came to power, a good proportion of Muslims did indeed vote for that party. This is evidence good enough to make the point that it would be wrong on the part of any single party to say that they represent the whole of the Muslim community in India — or that any one single party can influence the community as a whole.

Political parties must not project the Muslim community as a whole as a political constituency. It is a sum of heterogeneous groups. In any case, now there is an educated class emerging within the Muslim community and no one can afford to ignore its point of view.

The writer is chief economist, NCAER, and was member-secretary of the Sachar Committee. Views are his own

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4438
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Postby putnanja » 22 Aug 2007 04:42

PEOPLE'S DEMOCRACY: VIEW FROM THE LEFT

[quote]Prakash Karat has written a strongly worded article in People’s Democracy titled ‘Left is Firm: No Passage for Nuclear Deal’. He urges the government to recognise the opposition to the 123 agreement. [b]“Till all the doubts are clarified and the implications of the Hyde Act evaluated, the government should not take the next steps with regard to negotiating the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguardsâ€

khan
BRFite
Posts: 561
Joined: 12 Feb 2003 12:31
Location: Tx

Postby khan » 22 Aug 2007 04:42

If this goes to an election, the Commies will get wiped out. The Congress will be able to run on this issue - and do very well. If this is what MMS or SG had planned, it is brilliant. They are making the Commies look anti-national and the at the same time eating into the BJPs middle class base.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests