India Nuclear News & Discussion - 31 Aug 2007

[NRao]

Testing is no longer an issue (I do not think it ever was from a strategic PoV), because:

The charge that India's foreign policy is subordinated to the US comes from those who do not have confidence in India's strength and potential

[Tilak]

Testing is no longer an issue (I do not think it ever was from a strategic PoV), because:

The charge that India's foreign policy is subordinated to the US comes from those who do not have confidence in India's strength and potential

Lets agree to disagree on this, if I am understanding you right. Achieving the "Right to Test" without any repercussions on Fuel Supply, is huge from a Strategic POV. My educated guess[+articles posted earlier] is that the talks with IAEA are deadlocked because of the above [ie. 123 doesn't mention anything about testing.. but IAEA negotiators are using the Hyde Act as a template]

JMT

[svinayak]

Target: caging the dragon

India should sign the 123 Agreement to avoid Chinese hegemony in Asia By K. Subrahmanyam

There are some Americans who want Chinese hegemony since it serves US interest better.

Why prioritizing China over India in military cooperation makes sense

By THOMAS P.M. BARNETT
Scripps Howard News Service
Friday, August 24, 2007

I've argued for years that America should seek military alliance with China, believing that such a strategic partnership in spreading and protecting globalization would serve each country's supreme national interest. Here's why:

For America to win a long war against radical extremism, we need to make globalization truly global by effectively integrating the one-third of humanity whose noses remain pressed to the glass, wondering when they'll be connected to the global economy. That's labor-intensive, whether it's post-conflict stabilization and reconstruction in failed states or infrastructure development and market creation in developing economies.

Americans price out far too high, whether we're talking the political costs of our soldiers or our workers' wages. Yes, we must be significantly involved, but it's not going to be Americans -- much less Europeans -- who do the heavy lifting.

No, it's going to be those longtime frontier laborers of the global economy -- the Chinese. Whether it was "coolies" building America's first transcontinental railroad in the 19th century or "overseas Chinese" helping birth the "Asian miracle" of the late 20th century, the highly networked Chinese have shown up like clockwork at every frontier globalization ever created. Currently, as many as 750,000 Chinese nationals have turned up in Africa alone, engaging in what I call "pre-emptive nation-building."

But China needs our help, too. As the Chinese become increasingly dependent on resources drawn from unstable regions, Beijing must continue leveraging U.S. military power. Otherwise, it'll be left unduly subsidizing weak or corrupt regimes, with China's economic connectivity put at risk by local warlords, chronic insurgencies and radical extremists bent on driving out globalization's networks.

If America can't afford to maintain global security on its own and China can't afford to replace our effort, then strategic alliance makes eminent sense. Put our two nations together and the global economy cannot be hijacked by shared enemies, but put them at odds and we could easily destroy globalization much like in the 1930s.

Still, here's the question I often face: Why doesn't America choose India over China for this alliance? India is already a democracy while China's expected to remain authoritarian for quite some time. Therefore, wouldn't it make more sense to hitch our wagon to Asia's other rising giant?

I certainly don't argue against strategic alliance with India. I'd like it as soon as possible, but I nonetheless prioritize China for several reasons.

First, a great portion of our national-security establishment wants desperately to cast China as our inevitable long-term threat. Why? It allows them to buy and maintain a huge, high-tech military force for large-scale wars.

The labor-intensive "long war" necessarily reduces funding for costly platforms (e.g., aircraft, ships, tanks, missile systems), something the Pentagon's "big war" crowd vociferously opposes, even though delaying that resource shift clearly endangers our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan today, but even more in the small wars that inevitably lie ahead. Naturally, congressional legislators whose districts are home to these defense jobs support this view.

Second, by keeping China our preferred threat, we deny ourselves access to its significant military manpower and growing budget. With Europe and Japan both aging dramatically and Beijing's strategic interests in unstable regions skyrocketing, this makes no sense.

Third, if we capture China in strategic alliance, we'll get India in the bargain. But if we try it the other way around, we'll likely ruin our chances with Beijing, whose leaders fear an encirclement strategy by Washington with India as its key western pillar. Better to lock in China as soon as possible as the land-power anchor of an East Asian NATO. The sooner we achieve that, along with Korea's reunification, the sooner we can draw down our military in the region and better employ them in hotter spots around the world.

What does a strategic alliance with China look like? It won't come as some "grand bargain" achieved in a single summit, but rather a long-term build-up of trust through joint operations. Asia is an obvious focal point for such cooperation, but a complex one.

Far better in the short run would be to create a strategic dialogue between America's nascent Africa Command and the Chinese military regarding joint peacekeeping and humanitarian operations on the continent. By focusing on that relatively clean slate, America and China could come together to explore fruitfully what our military alliance could ultimately entail.

[bala]

Is this guy THOMAS P.M. BARNETT, dreaming or just conducting yet another gedanken excercise. Oh let us be cool and think different. Why not cavort with the devil tis very convenient, i must say especially after this vignette of thought..

America and China could come together to explore fruitfully what our military alliance could ultimately entail.

All it takes is another mass murder like Henry Kissinger to rape and pillage a hapless nation with a pliant tyrant/dictator all in the name of opposing the Russians. How cool that would be, sure. Any more thought experiments Tommy Barnett, while we are at it, you could include Russia too in the grand alliance why stop with China, that would be so very cool, neat eh.

[Sanku]

ShauryaT has already given exteremly suitable answers to your points; but since some of them were to me; let me reply again:

Sanku, just curious though OT, r u anyway Saty-lite or Saty in new form ?

Huh!! Why? Nopes; I am a different beast.

On the same count I have not heard from anyone why we must sign the deal or die; for the price we pay!!

Have you lived in Indian village. Do you know what starving means. Have you subjected to that without food for say min 5 days. I know all these things with first hand experience.

So do I; I have some idea of rural life and poverty as well. In any case this is a strawman agrument; if you can demonstrate how the deal will lead to poverty allevation and why there are no other routes which are worthwhile towards the same target. I am all ears.

In any event at this point of time it is purely a strawman; or a disjointed agreement.

You have anything to say by yourself ?

Check the replies I gave to Amit; I already have been saying some things for ages.

This is a really disjointed, strawman argument.

That is because ABM == all world treaties it self is a complete strawman.

[Sanku]

ROFLMAO.. Riiiiight. Here comes every Tom Dick and Rama to re write the constitution!

And we need "Tom,Dick" and Manny ??, to show the light..

Please.. what has been posted is how democracy ~functions.. [this has nothing to with the deal..]. So please stop distorting things to suit your views ...

Thank you Tilak; Manny what in my post refered to "changes in the constitution"?? I was merely saying what is the correct political method to follow (admittedly IMVHO) based on what PVNR etc did in the past; in the current milieu?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now I know why Indians cant produce fast bowlers:
Because they are too busy spinning

Seriously folks; consider the amount of spin that has been given on various issues to support the deal; lot of spin but so little fact.

Shouldnt the YB dealites pause to think what they are doing here? At least they can look in the mirror and stop believing the hype that is spun.

[Sanku]

Yes I agree that nuke power is 3% and at best will give <10%. But the deal is needed to bring India from the 'doghouse' it was sent to since 1947.
Knwoing that the US policy is not allow any challenger ot develop India needs to chart a new course.

Ramana; this is the aspect I have the most serious disagreement with; I understand most people have come to accept fait accompli; the standard reasons for jingos like you accepting the compromise are also hinted in the post above.

However;
1) Is it worth getting out of the dog house into the prison house? Is that really better? Or worse?
2) Precisely because the US views are still the same (alluded to in your post) isnt it logical to accept that US will not give us a deal on a platter which is going to achieve the goal of blindsiding the US and growing as a challenger without US noticing? (Please note that the China deal and results were quite different) Is is not easier to accept that US will try and continue its agenda using the tool of this deal? We have to accept that and then move ahead.

[Sanku]

Target: caging the dragon

India should sign the 123 Agreement to avoid Chinese hegemony in Asia By K. Subrahmanyam

Shorn of the hype; what KS is advocating is we move into the US camp; to contain China (BTW this article has a new date but I remember having read the exact same piece before; it seems KS has nothing new to say)

The real reason for the govt. seems to be realignment rather than technical reasons of supporting Indian nuclear structure although it is being presented by GoI to parliament in that grab "out of doghouse"!! Pity.

[Philip]

I take issue with those who say that we are in an international "doghouse" at the moment and UNLESS we proceed with the nuclear deal we will remain in the international cesspool of ostracisednations.Well, if our economy is going at the rate of 9+% despite us being in the "doghouse",why not remain there instead of allowing strange curs,cats and all manner of intrusive species,snakes and scorpions into our "kennel"? With our economy moving along at a good gallop,there are more bones and tasty titbits for the pack as never before.True,those further down in the queue don't get the best morsels,but those in the middle these days,are definitely getting bigger bones and nicer cuts!

Now,if we sign this deal,our m-m-master says that thanks to his best friend Uncle Sam and his chief of the-latter-day Morons,the Rev.Dubya Bush,magically,all our kennels will get electricty and we shan't be in the dark at night anymore,unable to see the intruding cats.Some of us may even get American made air-conditioned kennels for summer comfort-ain't that worth a loud bark! However,those curs with left curling tails and strangely those with right curling tails too,say that there is a heavy price to pay for our American Air-con comfort.They say that our be-turbaned m-m-master will make all of us swallow a certain medicine made by Uncle Sam's vet and chemist Dr.Jekyll and Mr.Hyde.According to the loud leftists and rowdy rightists,this medicine will prevent us from ever barking at anything that enters into the farmyard.No cat,squirrel,pig,mongrel or anything that threatens us or threatens to invade our privacy can ever be barked at.Mr.Hyde says that if we ever bark or loudly fart again, we will lose our American air-con/central heating,which will be removed along with all other renovations made to our kennels,lights,tellys,etc.,even our imported grub-juicy Texan steaks and gourmet dog food promised to us by our m-m-master.We will also be subject to intrusive visits by international "barking inspectors",who will make surprise visits to check on our barking and farting.Worst of all,our special passes "third-row",to the annual international dog shows held by the "Famous Five Kennel Club" will be cancelled.What a horrible price to pay.Which classy bitch will every look in our direction if we cannot even whine at her behind?

Now our representative caravan hound in Washington,Rone-in-the-bone,says that those dogs back home who are protesting against the "deal-of-the-dog",are behaving like "headless chickens" and that there is no one so wonderful and generous with dispensing crumbs and scraps from his table than Uncle Sam's chief of the-latter-day Morons, the Rev.Dubya Bush. Our m-m-master has warned us that if we don't all come around and raise our paws in concert,we will "miss the bus"-and one supposes third-row seats to the international dog show run by the Famous Five Kennel Club,exclusive members being the Texan Gun-dog,British Bulldog,French Poodle,Siberian Husky and Chinese Chow-Chow.This has outraged the hungry hounds of the left and right,who say that they "we will never sacrifice our fundamental right to bark as long and as loud as we please and chase after any bitch that we fancy.The removal of a dogs' fundamental right to bark is tantamount to castration and we will become the laughing stock of all the other mongrels in the neighbourhood who are barking and farting at will in our direction.All this sacrificed for the sake of imported air-con dog kennels! "

The Left and right in our clan tell us that we do possess the knowhow to build air-con kennels ourselves,but wonder why our m-m-master, when he had the chance as chief chef years ago along with his sous-chef,Man-tick-wallah,never bothered about our kennel comforts then but is acting in indecent haste right now.They suspect that our m-m-master has made a secret deal with Rev.Bush to feed us only expensive inported American junk food and send us to fight in far-off lands,protecting the Rev.Bush's backside.The Left,guardians of our m-m-master's house,have gone so far at even barking at our m-m-master, warning him that if he puts his paw to this deal,they will bite him on his left backside,while the right will do likewise to his right,so that he will be unable to take his seat in the house ever again! Our m-m-master has dared them to do their worst,saying that he will call the clan to battle again,something that all dogs want to avoid for now and a licking of wounds to boot.Meanwhile the barking and farting goes on with greater intensity!

[Sanku]

Time to put some canards to rest

International Agreements and U.S. Law

s a matter of domestic law within the United States, Congress may override a pre-existing treaty or Congressional-Executive agreement of the United States. To do so, however, would place the United States in breach of the obligation owed under international law to its treaty partner(s) to honor the treaty or agreement in good faith. Consequently, courts in the United States are disinclined to find that Congress has actually intended to override a treaty or other internationally binding obligation. Instead, they struggle to interpret the Congressional act and/or the international instrument in such a way as to reconcile the two.

Provisions in treaties and other international agreements are given effect as law in domestic courts of the United States only if they are "self-executing" or if they have been implemented by an act (such as an act of Congress) having the effect of federal law. Courts in this country have been reluctant to find such provisions self-executing, but on several occasions they have found them so--sometimes simply by giving direct effect to the provisions without expressly saying that they are self-executing. There are varying formulations as to what tends to make a treaty provision self-executing or non-self-executing, but within constitutional constraints (such as the requirement that appropriations of money originate in the House of Representatives) the primary consideration is the intent--or lack thereof--that the provision become effective as judicially-enforceable domestic law without implementing legislation. For the most part, the more specific the provision is and the more it reads like an act of Congress, the more likely it is to be treated as self-executing. A provision in an international agreement may be self-executing in U. S. law even though it would not be so in the law of the other party or parties to the agreement. Moreover, some provisions in an agreement might be self-executing while others in the same agreement are not.

All treaties are the law of the land, but only a self-executing treaty would prevail in a domestic court over a prior, inconsistent act of Congress. A non-self-executing treaty could not supersede a prior inconsistent act of Congress in a U. S. court. A non-self-executing treaty nevertheless would be the supreme law of the land in the sense that--as long as the treaty is consistent with the Bill of Rights--the President could not constitutionally ignore or contravene it.

And 123 itself says that it will be under US laws and not superseceding it. Talk about lies; damn lies and statistics.

[Sanku]

I take issue with those who say that we are in an international "doghouse" at the moment and UNLESS we proceed with the nuclear deal we will remain in the international cesspool of failing/ failed nations..............

Bhow bhow bowww ooooooooooooooooo




Meanwhile the dogs on the left doing the what they know best; protest march

Left steps up attack, launches protest

[Sanku]

And left is taking the battle to UPA camp before UPA can try and think of making the deal a poll issue

New-clear fission: Left plays aam aadmi card

[quote]New Delhi: The CPI-M on Monday released pamphlets targetting the UPA Government and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in particular.

The CPI-M literature, which claims to demystify the 123 Agreement and the Indo-US nuclear deal, says that it’s not a handshake between equals.

Adding fuel to fire, Leftists ask the Prime Minister – how can the unfriendly US President George Bush, given his plummeting popularity ratings in America, suddenly become India's best friend?

The pamphlets translated in a number of languages and to be distributed during the Left’s jathas aims to do away with the technical jargon of the nuclear deal and speak the aam aadmi’s (common man’s) language.

Sample this: “Like a teacher reports whether a student has passed or failed, India's foreign policy will be assessed by the American President. An annual report card will be given to the US Parliament on whether India has passed the test of behaving as a good friend, if not India gets a black mark…â€

[sohamn]

A investigation needs to be done to find out whether China is using its influence and money to derail the Indo - US nuclear deal. As it was revealed that KGB had spies in the Congress and Left during 70's and 80's, it may be a strong possibility that the chinese has done the same in some indian political establishment.

[amit]

First of all apologies for a long post.

It seems that the arguments and counter arguments on this thread between those in favour of the deal and those against are going around in circles with the same points and counter points being articulated with a fair amount of EB and YB colour being added for fun.

However, if we stand back and have a look at what we have on the table now it would seem to me at least that some of the major objections to the deal are as follows:

1) Worry that it would open a Pandora’s box in terms of intrusive inspections, spying and efforts to steal our IP for the fast breeder programme.

2) Falling under US influence and having the Damocles Sword of Hyde Act hanging over our head and curtailing our independence in foreign policy.

3) Having an indirect cap on our right to test nuclear weapons in future.

4) Being willy-nilly into a grand anti China alliance.

I would think the deal's proponents feel the following:

1) This will end India's nuclear isolation and allow for much needed uranium feedstock and end the ban on dual use technology.

2) With George Bush desperate to have one lasting foreign policy legacy in the White House this is the best time to sign a deal.

3) India 10-20 years hence will be too powerful to be caged in if it decided to throw the deal into the dustbin and do as it pleases.

4) It's not a bad idea to needle China by weaning the US away from the Paki-IOC-China axis (as Ramana so perceptively pointed out).

I know there are a huge number of other points that have been raised in the various iterations of this thread but I think these are the four major ones from both sides.

If you will notice, each of the four points in both the anti and pro deal camps sort of correlate to each other.

For example for No1, while the fear of spying and efforts to steal IP is a real worry, the deal would be one way to end nuclear isolation. I'm sure our N-scientists are among the best in the world but science can never flourish in isolation and I think it would do a world of good if there is interaction while off course keeping the wall between the military and civilian areas. And spying? Does anyone seriously think that the US and other countries are/will not make efforts to spy and gain information on India's nuclear secrets?

For the No2, for all the talk about how Hyde Act is so bad for us we shouldn't forget that it's become a fait acompli as far as we are concerned and it is now the de facto template for US as far as India's nuclear ambitions are concerned. If say, we drop the deal now and wait for a better time to renegotiate, when we have a PM with majority in Parliament, can we realistically think that the then US President will be able to chuck the Hyde Act out of the window? Like it or not Hyde is the template with which we will have to work with whether it is now or in 10-15 years time. Add to that the fact that in Bush we probably have the most pro-India President we will be having in a long time.

The question for point No3 is really when we want to test in the future, assuming off course we need to test (a lot of senior members on this forum have given very conclusive arguments of why we don't need to test and personally I'm convinced). At the moment the geopolitical situation in India's neigbourhood really doesn't warrant a test. And I think any party in power in Delhi, whether the Congress or BJP will not want to test within the next 10-20 years unless in dire straits so as to not disturb the delicate position our economy is poised at now - let's face it guys, 9-10 percent economic growth over the next 10-15 years is better insurance than 100 nuclear bombs. If we cross the hump and become say a US$7 trillion economy by 2020 as a recent report suggests, who the hell is going to sanction us?

The final point off course is the Chinese perception that we are getting into bed with the US for a grand alliance against it. I think that's a wonderful idea – that is not alliance per say but the Chinese fear of it possibly happening. Anyone who's dealt with Mainland Chinese (and take it from me there's a world of difference from Chinese in other parts of the world and those on the Mainland) will know the only thing that they respect is strength and the ability to make them worry. So anything that makes them pause and think is great. Forget all the saber rattling about Arunachal etc - they know very well they can do diddly squat.

Despite all this off course if we can put pressure on the US and get a better deal or maybe if we can pass some local law etc then that would be great. But I feel the deal needs to go through.

However, here it is valid to accuse MMS and co of appearing, at least, of not taking the opposition into confidence. And the opposition on its part had at least initially shown a distinct lack of grace in public discourse on the deal.

For example Arun Shourie and co came up with blistering attacks on the deal. Why have they stopped? If the points were valid then they are valid now? Just because BJP has found itself lumped with the Leftist little Lenin wannabes of CPIM all the attacks have stopped?

Finally point: Going through this thread one can see that Amartya Sen's last book probably has the most apt title in the world: The Argumentative Indian!

Cheers!

[Sanku]

A investigation needs to be done to find out whether China is using its influence and money to derail the Indo - US nuclear deal. As it was revealed that KGB had spies in the Congress and Left during 70's and 80's, it may be a strong possibility that the chinese has done the same in some indian political establishment.

Should a witch hunt be also carried out to see if the folks who signed the deal did so under US money orders?


Can we leave aside the political aspects of our belief system and deal with the deal on its merits alone?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PS> I am sure their are spies and pressure groups belonging to all major world factions in the system in different places.

[Sanku]

......

A good long post; but if may say so; you fall in the same trap that most people who have managed to support the deal have; you have the same fait accompli mindset + you highlight the WRONG ISSUES in the ANTI-DEAL camp.

Allow me to go out once again; but before that: AS and other have fallen silent (INVHO) because they have made all the technical points that there are to be made. From now on what ever they will say will be beating the same drum; the baton has since then passed to Messers Advani et al who are using the AS and YS arguments to propose politcal action items (Jeykell act etc). This also allows BJP/NDA to coordinate their POV through a single spokesman. IMVHO a good move; and most political commentators feel the same; even those on the left spectrum.

+ They are sitting back and enjoying the show with popcorn; once in a while egging left on or needling UPA. For them to move before the chips all fall will be premature.

Now back to the objection points

First and foremost is a simple objection: What are we getting out of the nuclear deal in clear terms for the price we paid!! We were promised perpetual fuel with reprocessing right and technology etc in a clean sweep. Are we getting that?

AS's main point (as are mine) is the same; the promises to EVEN THE CIVILIAN SIDE remain unfulfiled; what to talk of test.

In the current form what is the benfeit in macro terms for the deal

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Secondly; saying the Hyde act is now fait accompli and we must accept it is to my mind a logic on the lines of (pardon my french) "Well we have been made Ch*****ya's by the Americans who played bait and switch, we lost game over lets give in now"

Passing of Hyde act is fait accompli but not our acceptance to it. This is like saying since Simon Comission is here we might as well cooperate with it.

No one said that Hyde act was fait accompli when we were negotiating the 123; for if it were that would be end of negotiation. No one; not even KS has the guts to say that 123+Hyde is a good deal; so they indulge in a bit of Yudhishter speak and speak the words H Y D E softly when the say the above while beating the drums to drown out that part. You are the first person who has said; well since Hyde act is here; let is live with it. What others are saying is Hyde act is not really applicable you know; and what we are saying is you are dead wrong.

The right way to change the fate is to ask for a 123 which is complete in iteself and let that get passed by COTUS/GOTUS. If it does not; it tells us something --- Dont work with the US at least now on this topic.

----------------------------------------------------------------

I can go on and on; please refer to MY SUMMARY OF ANTI_DEAL POSITION here No Kanson that is not the correct summary

[amit]

Secondly; saying the Hyde act is now fait accompli and we must accept it is to my mind a logic on the lines of (pardon my french) "Well we have been made Ch*****ya's by the Americans who played bait and switch, we lost game over lets give in now"

Passing of Hyde act is fait accompli but not our acceptance to it. This is like saying since Simon Comission is here we might as well cooperate with it.

No one said that Hyde act was fait accompli when we were negotiating the 123; for if it were that would be end of negotiation. No one; not even KS has the guts to say that 123+Hyde is a good deal; so they indulge in a bit of Yudhishter speak and speak the words H Y D E softly when the say the above while beating the drums to drown out that part. You are the first person who has said; well since Hyde act is here; let is live with it. What others are saying is Hyde act is not really applicable you know; and what we are saying is you are dead wrong.

The right way to change the fate is to ask for a 123 which is complete in iteself and let that get passed by COTUS/GOTUS. If it does not; it tells us something --- Dont work with the US at least now on this topic.

Sanku,

Your POV on what AS and BJP/NDA is doing is fair enough, it does make politcal sense, even though I think that viewpoint shows AS, BJP/NDA are more interested in their own H&D rather than being really concerned about India's H&D. The caveat off course is that you have read their actions correctly.

However, I'm a bit curious about your arugument of getting 123 which is complete. Can you elaborate on that please.

On the one hand we've had umpteenth number of posts berating the fact that Hyde Act, being domestic US law is paramount - you even posted a url on this. On the other hand we are talking about a 123 which is self contained.

I'm trying to understand how we can craft such a deal? Can you offer some ideas please? Please note I'm not challenging you're viewpoint or anything such, I'm trying to understand how this would be possible.

Cheers!

[Sanjay M]

Target: caging the dragon

India should sign the 123 Agreement to avoid Chinese hegemony in Asia By K. Subrahmanyam

Shorn of the hype; what KS is advocating is we move into the US camp; to contain China (BTW this article has a new date but I remember having read the exact same piece before; it seems KS has nothing new to say)

The real reason for the govt. seems to be realignment rather than technical reasons of supporting Indian nuclear structure although it is being presented by GoI to parliament in that grab "out of doghouse"!! Pity.

But who's going to protect us from China? The CPI-M? I don't think so.
You need to come up with an alternative defense against China, if you want India to be able to turn down offers like 123. Can you give your alternative, please?

[Sanku]

Amit; to do what you are asking me; I would need a lawyer on my team which I dont have (despite N^3 repeated assertion that I am BJPs spokesman here; hence have the Arun Jaitely with me or something )

I have already made a post with the ideas that I thought that J18 (by which I refer to Messer Bush's Old Fort ramble + Dr Singh speaking through his turban in the parliament + the offical communique) had and 123 does not and some above board and some underhand ways to achieve the same. Beyond which I just dont have the werewithal to craft an exact statement); remember you are asking me to do better than the team of a whole bunch of Babu's pending a year or two on the topic; for all my skills a very tough call. If some one else can; I would be happy.

However if you are asking for discussion on a broad level of what are the missing aspects in more detail; I am all for it.

For example if you read the link I posted; it says that if a foreign policy is an "executable deed" it can override the domestic law. In that link itself there are clues on how to frame 123. Perhaps one way will be to remove the clause "w.r.t domestic law" and insert "the action items herein will now override any previous treaties or laws regulating the matters pertaining to the current treaty"

The right way will be hire a couple of retired attorny generals on India Caucus or a similar body. NRao mentions GoI spent enough money getting Hyde act to pass; they can spend more money to get the Hyde-- to pass as well.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

PS> Also all my "opinions" as opposed to "facts that I can quote proofs for" always have the caveats that it is my reading alone and I may be wrong; I make no claims to infalliablity unlike senior members here. I am quite prepared to accept I can be wrong on why AS is quite.

[Sanku]

But who's going to protect us from China? The CPI-M? I don't think so.
You need to come up with an alternative defense against China, if you want India to be able to turn down offers like 123. Can you give your alternative, please?

**** Warning: I apologize for the graphic nature of the post this is a simily if you dont like it dont read *****

First and foremost; I am not saying that 123 + KS is drafting US in India's camp against China; I am saying it is drafting India in US camp against China. Please note the difference; it is not semantics.

(The argument of why that is so is obvious; 123 gives GOTUS all the pressure points; it gives us diddly squat in terms of pressure points)

Second; if your definition of US support is something like "let us become US mistress and sleep and GUBO as his beck and call so if a neihbour bully comes to mess with us; by BBB (big bully boyfriend) will come to my rescue" Assuming of course that he wants to ditch his wife; carrier and family for a keep.

As Philip pointed out with his great dog story; there is a caveat: This means we are quite ready to give up all claims on being even a "gaali a sher" with claims on neighbourhood bitches (this is not H&D this is pure spreading your gene imperative)

Even assuming that we want to go this way (which I more civily call the Japan way instead of the more colourful description above); at least it Behooves the GoI to say this openly to the country and not pass off becoming a concubine as "we will become top dogs since the deal improves our domestic nuclear structure by opening it". Let us have a clear debate on what we are really doing instead of spinning yarns.

However it is possible that I fail to see how this gets US in our camp instead of us getting in theirs; if which case do tell.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My alternative is stick to domestic: Increase the funding for DAE; ISRO; DRDO; Army carry out reforms in the system etc etc.

Nothing very glamourous; no catch pharses; jsut boring nose to the grind stone argument. Terribly sorry but no short cuts you see. This is however to sober and straightforward an approach in a world crazed with deal makings and short cuts and quick power grabs.

"Dheere dheere re mana dheere sab kuch hoye...."

[amit]

Amit; to do what you are asking me; I would need a lawyer on my team which I dont have (despite N^3 repeated assertion that I am BJPs spokesman here; hence have the Arun Jaitely with me or something )

Sanku,

Relax, I'm not asking for a legal document - then I'd have to be a lawyer too to understand it too!

What I want is a broad level discussion on how you think a 123 can be crafted that takes Hyde out of the way.

But before anything else, I think what's been happening on this discussion on the Indian nuclear deal is that people have become so impassioned with what they sincerely believe to be good for India that too much emotions have been raised with unfortunate results.

Come on guys all of you are jingos and want the best for India!

My limited understanding of the whole sequence from J18 to 123 with a stopover at Hyde Act is thus:

J18 was a kind of grand vision statement that leaders make to signal major changes in geopolitics. It was a broad expression of intent with offcourse give and take. 123 is what hard nosed negotiators from both sides crafted out of that broad vision statement.

The spanner in the works was the Hyde Act. I agree that there's a lot in Hyde which is against the spirit of J18. But we've got to understand that at the end of the day the US is as much a democracy as we are and they have their counterparts to our Little Lenins - the NP Ayatollahs. The result of pulls and pushes, we all remember the debate and voting on the Act, gave us Hyde.

Remember when 123 was being negotiated everyone, EB and YB included, were apprehensive of what the final document would look like. I think you will admit 123, though not ideal, is better than what we all expected given the gloom after Hyde.

You can say Hyde was a slip up on the part of the Indian government but now you can't wish it away can you?

Just suppose a scenario, this 123 doesn't get signed and in 2008 BJP/NDA comes to power with Advani as PM. In the meantime US gets a Democrat President, maybe Obama or Hillary.

Now do you think even if there was a will on the part of both US and India to renegotiate 123, the US President would be able to chuck Hyde out?

And the BJP/NDA, can they even start talking on the deal if the Hyde Act is still around?

So effectively if we don't get 123 now we don't get it anytime in the near future. And where does it leave our grand strategic partnership with the US, Japan and others?

I can predict deal or no deal this is going to go forward, that's the understanding that has been reached. It's not for no reason that the Japanese have suddenly decided to invest billions in India after more than a decade of reforms. So what's the problem one would ask?

It's just that the bait for India to join the grand alliance was investment plus the withdrawal of the high tech sanctions regime. And you've got to understand this sanctions regime is much bigger than just nuclear components. So we go into the alliance without our quid pro quo.

What KS and others are saying is simple, 123 is not just about nuclear power, it's about a major shift in global geopolitics and we need to be on the right side of this shift. Non aligned is not an option anymore as the enemy is on the border.

Cheers!

[Sanku]

To all those waiting to jump on my and pour vitroil and personal attacks instead of discussing points::

I am still waiting for someone to tell me how the deal helps us (pro-deal faction); in a macroscopic picture; quite willing to learn you see provided some one speaks politely. After a hunderd odd posts and 10 pages; no one has taken this up yet.

Also if some one can tell us how this is J18++ (which to my mind was complete NWS under a new name) I would be still happier.

[Sanku]

It's just that the bait for India to join the grand alliance was investment plus the withdrawal of the high tech sanctions regime. And you've got to understand this sanctions regime is much bigger than just nuclear components. So we go into the alliance without our quid pro quo.

What KS and others are saying is simple, 123 is not just about nuclear power, it's about a major shift in global geopolitics and we need to be on the right side of this shift. Non aligned is not an option anymore as the enemy is on the border.

Amit you seem to be one of the few sensible folks on the pro-deal camp anyway; back to basics ---

1) If you look at my post again; I edited it to include the possible legal paranphelia to skip Hyde. Basically get a new 123 deal cleared from COTUS which has what it has today but no reference to Hyde. Zimble onlee. Can it go through? My case is the deal is not worth it if it does not go through.

2) Joining the grand alliance: My take is that people will want us more and more in the Grand alliance anyway; and they should be ready to pay a greater price for our entry (I am not opposed to being in the alliance just the terms under which we are in) Currently we are drafted as a foot solider or a junior partner. I would like to be in as a full term partner. One with less % of share maybe but all the same rights.

For example; Even 123 does not allow us access to sensitive techonology yet (and what to say of Hyde which always lurks in the back ground)

Those are the thorns which need to be removed for us to move in. In fact I am quite okay with sending troops to Iran if need be (in principle I personally support that); just give a clean chit to do it IFF we want anbd on our terms rather than being sucked in through a back door.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

PS> The grand strategy will evolve 123 or no 123; since that will be the real politic need and not a ideological assertion; and we will be in it. And that is the sort we need a real politic entry and not a ideological assertion of beqeuathed Knighthood.

[Drevin]

Protection from China is being provided for by the Agni series and longer range Brahmos variants and the triad once it becomes operational. I think the 123 agreement in principle is good. But 123 should not imply 126. Transparency is critical.

Many people will be genuinely convinced if the rafale/typhoon is chosen over the superhornet.

[amit]

For example if you read the link I posted; it says that if a foreign policy is an "executable deed" it can override the domestic law. In that link itself there are clues on how to frame 123. Perhaps one way will be to remove the clause "w.r.t domestic law" and insert "the action items herein will now override any previous treaties or laws regulating the matters pertaining to the current treaty"

Sanku,

Do you think this can pass muster in the US Congress? I've been stressing in all my posts, what's practical and achievable is more important than what's ideal.

Diplomacy, as in politics, is the art of what's possible and feasible not what's ideal.

However, please note, if we could get what you've outlined I would be happiest person alive.

To your point about we getting stronger and then joining the alliance in better terms, that is also not really feasible. You've got to understand that international diplomacy and dynamics between different countries does not stand still for anyone.

Right now a great combination of factors, like Mid-east terrorism, US war fatigue, Russia flexing its muscles thanks to high oil prices and most important China still not strong enough to pose a threat to the West have combined to make it attactive to the US and others to align with India so as to be prepared for 10-20 years down the line when the dragon really roars.

Yes sure 10 years down the line India will have a bigger economy but by then the rules of the game may have changed. I'm sure you read the url posted by Acharya a few post ago - already there's a constituency in the US which is thinking in terms of coopting China instead of India - a kind of if you can't beat then then join them syndrome.

That's apt to get stronger as China grows and the arc of democracy, that US and Japan are trying to weave with India as a key player does not materialise.

Intenational relations and diplomacy wait for no one. You've got the seize the chance when it is presented to you. Remember Nehru's blunders just as reference on this one.

Also remember this alliance won't be a static one. As India grows stronger she will get a bigger share of the dividend, have no doubt about that.
Cheers!

[Sanku]

@Amit: since you wish to discuss the deal in the geo-pol sense rather than techincal points etc; I have two things to add to what I have said.

1) If this is geo-pol let GoI make that debate in the parliament currently the template of debate is based on what Dr Singh last promised in the same. Let the GoI be clear on all the technical and geo-pol ramifications of the deal; If the people agree well; if not; hey we have a democracy dont we? KS is not the same as GoI BTW.

2) W.r.t to KS; let us know why it is imperative to join the grand alliance at this price; what is the pressing problem and why are alternatives not worth it. Plus he has to demonstrate how the alliance does not happen without 123 in clear terms + explain how alliance gets US to fight for us instead of US using us only as a foot solider.

Abhishekcc is more interested in this sort of geo-pol discussion you may want to bounce these ideas of him as well. I personally want the old boring route and I think that will work for us

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PS> Yes forecasting the future is a dicey buisness specially in geo-pol; let me just say the fear for sign now or perish

comes from those who do not have confidence in India's strength and potential

with due respects to KS for filiching his line.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The grand alliance will come we just have to bargain harder for a good price now; the current entry points are too restrictive and Hyde act can only be used to push us down further despite growing economy.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PPS> W.r.t to practical vs. achievable; I dont see why we have to accept anything less than J18; and the need to have a iron clad deal is especially important if we think that next few GOTUS will not be as nice as Bush.

In fact that is the most compelling argument to not sign in the current form.

[SaiK]

I see discussions, deviate from the point of the deal itself.. where is in the 123 Indo-US "nuclear" deal, it says about geo-political or other relationships aspects, other than that is explicitly stated ones? [btw, did it refer China?].

What KS et al write has more political message rather. If we are to allow our foot soldiers to work for UNkill men, then it has to come under other xyz deals., and btw, this deal would be enough to say, how many lesser deals we may want.

Again, this 123 is an agreement that we keep saying "deal". No monies yet..and deals are made yet in the agreement. Perhaps our first yucca spent pluts arrive into safeguards or first Toshiba reactors gets coconut breakings, then we should be seeing deals.

imho

[NRao]

Lets agree to disagree on this, if I am understanding you right. Achieving the "Right to Test" without any repercussions on Fuel Supply, is huge from a Strategic POV. My educated guess[+articles posted earlier] is that the talks with IAEA are deadlocked because of the above [ie. 123 doesn't mention anything about testing.. but IAEA negotiators are using the Hyde Act as a template]

JMT

Last I heard about discussions with IAEA was prior to the Hyde Act (I mean serious talks between AK and IAEA). Perhaps I missed the articles you mention.

The reason for these talks coming to a halt, IIRC, were that AK wanted the US deal to be the template (NOT the Hyde Act)(my guess is that the stand AK took on the 123 was with IAEA in mind). IF as you state the IAEA has taken the Hyde Act as the template then India should stand up - the first test of KSs statement - this time it is this GoIs turn to support DAE/AK.

IF there is any entity that had a very good idea of where India stood, it is the IAEA (the US and NSG being the other two entities). DAE and AK has been schooling IAEA for quite some time now - including hosting "lecture demos" on safety issues.

SO, IF at all IAEA is playing hard ball, it is the US that is tightening the screws from the back. As you state, if the IAEA is using the Hyde Act as the template, then for sure it is a power play on the part of the US - how else can IAEA qualify using an "internal Law" as a template when an agreement between two governments exists?

IF IAEA using the HA as a template is true, then this is one more opp for MMS to reject it openly.

Tilak, any chance of sending the urls for these articles you mention to indicgroup at netscape dot net? TIA.

[Sanku]

@above; if we believe that US will let IAEA use 123 as template instead of Hyde act; what you are essentially saying is that the Bush GOTUS is deliberately cutting COTUS and US internal laws to size by turning a blind eye to the same. In doing so it is actually undercutting US authority in world affairs for the next set of US GOTUS.

I just dont think that even the Chenies would do something so preposterous and what I think is anti national (from US perspective) to humor India not to mention raise the partisan break up in US politics and rile dems. Much easier to deal with dems to get a self executable 123.

The above is just not possible.

That is another reason why I think we should shout now rather than wait till GoI completes the IAEA negotiations; because that will be too late and we would have given too much away.

@Tilak; can you please post the urls again if you have them.

[Sanku]

When the J18 etc started; all the Jingo's to a man were saying "This is shady, US never has clean intentions lets not go forward with this" I was the only one saying: No we have to dance with the devil; it will definetly try and mess around but we are smart and we will see and outwit it; in any case we cant hide in a bunker.

Now while dancing with the devil I say: "hey watch out folks; the devil is trying its tricks the same ones you warned about" and the same set of Jingo's tell me "WTF shut up and dont spoil my enjoyement of the nice music"

[Rye]

One must enormously thick to not grok that 123 is the end result of 2 years of negotiations after J18. If people are expecting others to dissect the difference between J18 and 123, they should probably do it themselves and post it on the forum. Repeating the same old vomit about why we are not signing the J18 instead of 123 borders on the moronic.

It is difficult for democracies to align themselves with each other precisely because of such opposition from sub-constituencies -- the USA has its NPAs and Sinophiles working against the deal....India has its NPAs, commies and islamists who are against the deal, so "re-negotiation" will be an utterly painful process seeing as to where we are currently, and there will be no guarantees that the results will be acceptable to the Indian and US opponents after all that. If India is to get consensus before signing up for 123, then there will no 123. This is a political decision in India as well as the US.

[Kanson]

Time to put some canards to rest

International Agreements and U.S. Law

s a matter of domestic law within the United States, Congress may override a pre-existing treaty or Congressional-Executive agreement of the United States. To do so, however, would place the United States in breach of the obligation owed under international law to its treaty partner(s) to honor the treaty or agreement in good faith. Consequently, courts in the United States are disinclined to find that Congress has actually intended to override a treaty or other internationally binding obligation. Instead, they struggle to interpret the Congressional act and/or the international instrument in such a way as to reconcile the two.

Provisions in treaties and other international agreements are given effect as law in domestic courts of the United States only if they are "self-executing" or if they have been implemented by an act (such as an act of Congress) having the effect of federal law. Courts in this country have been reluctant to find such provisions self-executing, but on several occasions they have found them so--sometimes simply by giving direct effect to the provisions without expressly saying that they are self-executing. There are varying formulations as to what tends to make a treaty provision self-executing or non-self-executing, but within constitutional constraints (such as the requirement that appropriations of money originate in the House of Representatives) the primary consideration is the intent--or lack thereof--that the provision become effective as judicially-enforceable domestic law without implementing legislation. For the most part, the more specific the provision is and the more it reads like an act of Congress, the more likely it is to be treated as self-executing. A provision in an international agreement may be self-executing in U. S. law even though it would not be so in the law of the other party or parties to the agreement. Moreover, some provisions in an agreement might be self-executing while others in the same agreement are not.

All treaties are the law of the land, but only a self-executing treaty would prevail in a domestic court over a prior, inconsistent act of Congress. A non-self-executing treaty could not supersede a prior inconsistent act of Congress in a U. S. court. A non-self-executing treaty nevertheless would be the supreme law of the land in the sense that--as long as the treaty is consistent with the Bill of Rights--the President could not constitutionally ignore or contravene it.

And 123 itself says that it will be under US laws and not superseceding it. Talk about lies; damn lies and statistics.

Sanku Sir, I think you are mistaken. Pls read the highlighted part. Pls note that 123 is not non-self-executing treaty. If you criticize everthing otherthan not in your taste as a spin, what is this, a googly?

And why dont you explain, as you been asked, difference between J18 and 123 and earnestly make us believe all the dooms day effect in that. Till then

[SaiK]

a weak physical or mental state can't term a stronger state a devil.. why dance if you just can't compare yourself on the dancing stage. if you are good at laughing or clapping be the spectator.

people are forgetting of rights, freedom and such thoughts and getting swayed away.. abstractness can be a method to hide specializations of an agreement, .. also, the most important aspects are the generalizations of such "devil in the details", that it covers.

we should see legal angles that it says it hides more than it generalizes. It is one of the reasons to support changes in Indian laws, that should help sustain the 123 deal., that ensures safety and security of special materials and processes to help the nature secure its strategic needs.

[Sanku]

Oiiiiiii

Karat ups ante ahead of IAEA talks

"If the government takes any follow-up action on the deal, all steps to stall it would be taken"

[Sanku]

Sanku Sir, I think you are mistaken. Pls read the highlighted part. Pls note that 123 is not non-self-executing treaty. If you criticize everthing otherthan not in your taste as a spin, what is this, a googly?

And why dont you explain, as you been asked, difference between J18 and 123 and earnestly make us believe all the dooms day effect in that. Till then

Kanson; please dont quote the entire post; most people on this board are capable of using pointers to posts.

Now; what are you saying about 123? My point is to show that only a self-executing treaty will supereced Hyde law. 123 refers to Hyde law so how can it supercede it? I dont follow you chain of logic at all what are you saying?

Secondly by J18 I refer to == Offical communique + Dr Singhs statement in the parliament + Mr Bush statement on old fort. I believe I have made the clarification earlier.

All the pieces have been posted before by N^3 and ShauryaT. I have posted my analysis of the gaps too. (page 5) Plus ShauryaT mentioned reading AS peice along with the above.

I absolutely dont understand how you still chose not to see; on the other hand please let us know how these gaps were all expected.

I have said all I had to say on these counts and if you still chose not to read; how can I help it?

[Kanson]

what is your option in breaking the cartel WRT India's position? Or, how will you do this without any compromise... there is nothing called free lunch...

It is unlikely that India will be able to break the cartel today or in the near future. The best thing to do here is to focus on other forms of energy. In the nuclear realm, focus on the 3 stage and take the indigeneous nuclear cycle to its logical conclusions, which is about 12,000 MW of power in the medium term.

The compromise on the nuclear front to deal with the cartel should have been done, once the AHWR was up and running.

This is what i written few posts back.

Coming to the timming or when to have the deal, better now or later. I think everyone agree to achieve something let say X+Y. Anti-* says we will get X+Y after sometime when we acquired necessary clout or when the time is ripe. What i understand from KS and similar minded people's articulation is that we too agree that it is possible to get more with greater clout. To achieve that clout you(anti-*) are saying we will go in our own pace but what we(pro-*) saying is we will get X now and achieve the clout as soon as possible with that and then we will think about getting Y with the achieved clout.

The problem i see from anti-*', here and elsewhere, in that thinking is that they are not believing in that. Bcoz, They say US is non-trustable. But what they mostly miss is that even with all necessary wordings & treaties, US if decided to renege, it can do if we dont have the necessary clout.

So to get that clout, what to do...go to starting point of the story...this what repeated everywhere again & again in different ways so far...so the saga will continue for ever like trying to get the answer to the question: which comes first, chicken or egg ?

So you agree that not in near future this is possible. Without liberalizing the economy and without foreign investments, do you think we could have achieved what we are now in the last 15 years. Do you know the kind of impact this have on rural villages. I dont want to flaunt like Amartya sen with numbers. And , similarly how you think the deal which helps to increase the infrastructure will not have any impact on rural life. Cell phone considered as an expensive commodity @ 2000/01 is now seen in the hands of a village girl managing her cattles. Otherwise, what could be the compensation for not giving the upliftment and improve in quality of life of your higher percentage of population which are residing in villages till we get a better deal.

[NRao]

@above; if we believe that US will let IAEA use 123 as template instead of Hyde act; what you are essentially saying is that the Bush GOTUS is deliberately cutting COTUS and US internal laws to size by turning a blind eye to the same. In doing so it is actually undercutting US authority in world affairs for the next set of US GOTUS.

So, is the Hyde Act an internal Law? One that does NOT apply outside of the United States of America? Or is the entire world a US playground?

Just seeking some wisdom here.

Whatever it is, IMVVVHO, MMS or GoI now has a nice opp to put it into place. The situation, I feel, presents itself very well for anyone to be proactive - instead of reactive. I think it can be done without ruffling any feathers.

[Sanku]

It is difficult for democracies to align themselves with each other precisely because of such opposition from sub-constituencies -- the USA has its NPAs and Sinophiles.....

Rye I have pointed the gap to what I see much before you started with your filthy language; please read my posts to see.

Secondly; NPA etc. is a fig leaf of an excuse; you had a battle with Valkan where you correctly pointed out how the entire NPA constituncy did whit when China proliferated; and NPA is their internal matter let US worry about it and let GoI worry about left. You are turning your own arguments on their head in your hurry to give a clean chit to the deal.

Thirdly I am still waiting for the answers to the other question I raised (not on J18 vs 123) what does the deal get us; really?

And please mind your language; we can all lower ourselfs to your level and indulge in ad hominem personal attacks; I dont think that is the right way to go.

[Kanson]

Kanson; please dont quote the entire post; most people on this board are capable of using pointers to posts.

Thanks for that. This is the way you are going to...., I think i better......

Now; what are you saying about 123? My point is to show that only a self-executing treaty will supereced Hyde law. 123 refers to Hyde law so how can it supercede it? I dont follow you chain of logic at all what are you saying?

Why dont you take help from your comrades.

Secondly by J18 I refer to == Offical communique + Dr Singhs statement in the parliament + Mr Bush statement on old fort. I believe I have made the clarification earlier.

All the pieces have been posted before by N^3 and ShauryaT. I have posted my analysis of the gaps too. (page 5) Plus ShauryaT mentioned reading AS peice along with the above.

I absolutely dont understand how you still chose not to see; on the other hand please let us know how these gaps were all expected.

I have said all I had to say on these counts and if you still chose not to read; how can I help it?

Yes, I have seen all those interesting, nerve-wrenching theories. Since your words are dipped in colours, probably i couldnt read much. thanks.

[Sanku]

So, is the Hyde Act an internal Law? One that does NOT apply outside of the United States of America? Or is the entire world a US playground?
.

Sir you are one of the wisest posters here; why do you embaress us poor folks by asking what I am sure you know?

IFF the Nuclear part of world at least was not America playground; whyfor would we need to have a 123 with them first before IAEA? What is IAEA but a instrument of GOTUS with allies included?