Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

nkumar
BRFite
Posts: 233
Joined: 06 Jul 2007 02:14

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby nkumar » 18 Jun 2008 03:26

BC article on Obama amendments to the deal.

Obama’s India-nuke legacy

Stagecraft & Statecraft / Brahma Chellaney

Barack Obama’s epochal political breakthrough in becoming the first black presidential candidate in history of either of the two main US political parties is a tribute to his stump skills and the popular hopes he inspires. In contrast to his ageing opponent John McCain, whose conservatism is anchored in the past, the 46-year-old Obama is the candidate for change, offering a distinctly different vision centred on charting a better future.

That is Obama’s real strength.

A first-term US senator, Obama has come up rapidly. But even as a rookie Senator, Obama left a distinct imprint in congressional deliberations. Take the US-Indian nuclear deal. The deal is currently in limbo. But if it ever takes effect, Obama’s contribution would have been no small in the constraints the US Congress has imposed on civil nuclear cooperation with India.

When the full Senate considered the deal, Obama criticised what he called the "blank cheque" offered to India through the official waiver legislation introduced by the Bush administration in March 2006.

Obama’s intervention is recorded in Congressional Record of November 16, 2006:

"Mr President, I rise today to express my support for the US-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act. I believe strengthening the relationship between our two nations is an important strategic goal and this legislation helps us take a dramatic step in this direction.

"However, I have concerns with potential non-proliferation consequences of this agreement. Much to my disappointment, the administration has done very little to address these concerns, instead, sending draft legislation to the Congress that was essentially a blank cheque.

"The managers of the Bill, Senators Lugar and Biden, have done a tremendous job taking the administration’s proposal and shaping it into meaningful, bipartisan legislation. The Bill now before the Senate helps move us closer to India while addressing some key non-proliferation issues.

"However, I remain concerned about the issue of nuclear testing. A decision by the Indian government to conduct such a test could trigger an arms race in South Asia that would be extremely dangerous and destabilising.

"The good news is that the joint statement between President Bush and Prime Minister Singh of July 18, 2005, declared that India’s unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing will continue. I take Prime Minister Singh at his word, but also believe in following President Reagan’s mantra of ‘trust but verify’."

Obama was not content that the official Bill actually attached a legally binding rider to the deal tantamount to dragging India through the backdoor into the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. While the CTBT grants its parties the right to withdraw by invoking supreme national interest, the official Bill put India under a permanent test ban by mandating re-imposition of civil nuclear sanctions in the event of a test.

To help further toughen the legislation, Obama introduced two amendments that reshaped the terms on which India is now being offered the deal.

The first amendment was an insertion that imposed fetters on India’s access to fuel, restricting such imports to "reasonable reactor operating requirements." Obama’s amendment not only undercut the stated raison d’être of the original deal — "full civil nuclear energy cooperation and trade with India" — but also busted Dr Manmohan Singh’s assurance to Parliament that New Delhi would secure the right to build lifetime fuel stocks to guard against supply disruption.

Obama’s Senate Amendment 5169, passed by a voice vote, stated: "It is the policy of the United States that any nuclear power reactor fuel reserve provided to the government of India for use in safeguarded civilian nuclear facilities should be commensurate with reasonable reactor operating requirements." His amendment, which became Section 114 of the Senate Bill, found its way into the final legislation as Section 103 (b) (10) of the Hyde Act.
The amendment’s avowed purpose was to "clarify US policy in order to deter nuclear testing."

Consider the following exchange in the Senate:

Obama: On a related note, is it the chairman’s interpretation of the legislation that, in the event of a future nuclear test by the government of India, nuclear power reactor fuel and equipment sales, and nuclear technology cooperation would terminate; other elements of the US-India nuclear agreement would likely terminate; and the US would have the right to demand the return of nuclear supplies?

Lugar: Yes, under our Bill, the only requirement which is waived is that in Section 123.a(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 — for full-scope safeguards. India’s 123 Agreement would still have to meet the requirement of Section 123.a(4), (Just goes to shows that 123 has to be in sync with the domestic laws as stated in article2(1) of 123: "Each Party shall implement this Agreement in accordance with its respective applicable treaties, national laws, regulations, and license requirements concerning the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.") which requires that in the event of a test by India of a nuclear-explosive device, the US shall have the right to request the return of supplies as you have stipulated.

Obama: I offered an amendment that the managers have already accepted pertaining to the supply of nuclear power reactor fuel in safeguarded civilian nuclear facilities. To further clarify this issue, is it the managers’ understanding that provision of fuel to the government of India should be sized in a way to maintain a deterrent to Indian nuclear testing, while also providing protections against short-term fluctuations in the supply of nuclear fuel? In other words, is it your understanding that providing a fuel reserve to India is not intended to facilitate resum-ption in nuclear testing?

Lugar: Yes, that is our understanding.

Obama: Does the chairman believe that, as this agreement moves forward to the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group, the US should work to ensure that other nations provide nuclear power reactor fuel in a similar fashion?

Lugar: Yes, I hope that would be the case.
(i.e. commensurate with reasonable reactor operating requirements and not for lifetime of fuel supply)

The "deterrent against Indian testing" Obama sought by keeping India on a tight fuel-access leash is a goal embraced by the full Congress in passing the Hyde Act. According to the Act’s accompanying explanatory statement, the fuel reserve provided to New Delhi should not be "of a size that would enable India to break its commitments, or end its moratorium on nuclear testing, and [still] maintain its civil nuclear energy production despite unilateral or international sanctions." It also records that US officials, contradicting Dr Singh’s lifetime-fuel claim in Parliament, had testified that America "does not intend to help India build a stockpile of nuclear fuel for the purpose of riding out any sanctions that might be imposed in response to Indian actions such as conducting a nuclear test."

To further crimp India’s fuel access, the Obama-authored stipulation allowing imports for only reasonable operating needs is coupled with the requirements of Hyde Act’s Section 104 (g) (2) (H) and Section 104 (g) (2) (J) that the President annually estimate the amount of uranium mined in India during the previous year and let Congress know whether the imported uranium had affected India’s rate of production of unsafeguarded fissile material.

Obama’s desire that any exemption for India from the rules of the 45-nation NSG similarly restrict Indian access to foreign fuel will be easy to realise, given that Washington has considerable leverage over the international firms that monopolise the reactor fuel business. To help maintain a tab on India’s nuclear activities, the Senate Bill’s Section 108 (a) stipulated that Congress be kept fully informed on India’s: (i) material non-compliance with any obligation; (ii) new nuclear facility construction; (iii) fissile-material production; and (iv) changes in the operational status of nuclear installations. That provision became the Hyde Act’s Section 104 (g) (1).

Obama helped insert another amendment to ensure that America did not facilitate civil nuclear exports to India by other states, if US exports to New Delhi were terminated. This effectively nullified Dr Singh’s commitment to Parliament that if fuel shipments were suspended, "the US and India would jointly convene a group of friendly supplier countries … to pursue such measures as would restore fuel supply to India." His amendment became Section 102 (6) in the Senate Bill and was incorporated in the Hyde Act as Section 102 (13).

To ensure that no firm in another NSG country exported to India on less-stringent terms, the Hyde Act’s Section 104 (g) (2) (C) is identical to the Senate Bill’s Section 108 (b) (3) in mandating that the President’s cyclic "Implementation and Compliance Report" to Congress provide a description of any significant commerce between India and other countries that either was inconsistent with NSG guidelines or would not meet standards applicable to US-origin material. The intent behind this provision is to use the threat of sanctions to block a proposed export by, say, a French or Russian firm on less-rigorous terms.

The point here is that Obama’s call for an effective "deterrent" against Indian testing is fully reflected in the final legislation. Also, as he desired, the legislation covers US policy and actions in the NSG.

Yet, despite this background, Dr Singh still pitches for the deal. And although a permanent test ban is built into the deal, a despairing Dr Singh recently made a curious policy pronouncement: "if the CTBT came into being, we will not sign it." That inexplicably reversed India’s stance that it won’t come in the way of the CTBT’s entry into force.

Whether Obama becomes President or not, his legacy helps constrict India’s access and options under the deal. Indeed, that legacy exposes a few myths:

l The deal offers to resolve India’s self-made uranium crunch by opening the path to unfettered access to foreign fuel;

l Unlike the US waiver, the NSG will grant India a "clean" exemption; and

l Once the deal with the US takes effect, New Delhi would gain access to civil nuclear items and materials from France and Russia on more-favourable political terms.


l Soaring oil prices justify greater emphasis on nuclear power.

There is little link between oil and nuclear energy, because oil is primarily used for transportation and the nuclear choice is for electricity generation.

Indeed, such myths show that if the deal traverses to the next stages, India will be in for nasty surprises.

But it is already clear that this deal cannot become a reality while George W. Bush is still President.

For example, to win congressional ratification, the agreement has to be submitted to Congress "for a period of 60 days of continuous session" before a joint resolution for approval can be taken up for consideration by the two legislative chambers. And despite the provision for a simple up-or-down vote the Hyde Act states that it will open to Congress to "pass a joint resolution of approval with conditions" by giving up the available "expedited procedures."

The blunt fact is that it will be an Obama or McCain administration — and a new government in New Delhi — that will have the final say on the deal. The cheerleaders of the deal who have been shouting themselves hoarse thus need to hold their fire.

An Obama triumph — good for America and good for the world — will help add momentum to the US-India relationship by freeing it of the albatross that the deal now represents.


Of course, the talk of this Hyde bound restrictions becomes a moot point if you believe that India is only bound by 123 and not by Hyde. But if history is any pointer, then we better believe the significance of US domestic laws on 123. If I am correct, the 1963 123 agreement did not have the domestic law thingy but still US wrote new US law in late 70's which retroactively bound 1963 123 agreement.

This article also shows why many folks (including me) have pointed out again and again that there has to be a iron-clad guarantee for fuel supplies irrespective of testing or no-testing. What I do not understand is how can this deal bring energy security. Instead this deal brings energy dependence, it would be like telling unkil to come and grab our balls and squeeze them whenever you feel like.

Another aspect of the debate on N-deal is very little emphasis on economics of nuclear enegy. Percentage of articles focussing on economics is very low. I am yet to see a rebuttal of an article in frontline published after 123 was made public. Also, in the Rajya Sabha debate someone (Arun Shourie?) talked about the subsidies given by the GoI on nuclear energy. Subsidies are huge, I think more than 100% (IIRC).

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55358
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby ramana » 18 Jun 2008 03:34

nkumar, Wonder by thunder, the same article is in Deccan Chronicle without the author's name on the op-ed page!

So the deal is inching forward.

nkumar
BRFite
Posts: 233
Joined: 06 Jul 2007 02:14

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby nkumar » 18 Jun 2008 04:15

ramana, what is surprising is that how come this article was allowed to be published by AA/DC. The owner of AA/DC, who is a Congress buddy threw out MJA and Seeema Mustafa, both Muslim incidently, (and Congress talks of giving minority the higher stakes and responsibility!) because of these kinda articles which took an anti-deal line.

My take is that there are 3 possibilities from here onwards:

1) Sign the deal now and call for general elections keeping in mind that the official inflation figures will cross 10% soon. Also if UPA loses Rajasthan and Chattisgarh in addition to Delhi in December, then there is no hope for UPA to comes again in power. Middle class is rooting for the deal, thanks for the good PR machinery cultivated by Congress. Once the deal is signed, just watch out for talk shows, op-eds and editorials tirelessly harping on spine shown by Congress in keeping national interest supreme. This strategy looks attractive in light of delimitation as well which has increased urban seats to 100. (In addition to this if they decide to hang Afzal, this will take out fizz out of BJP's campaign.)

2) Maintain the status quo for now and sign the deal after December assembly elections but this is risky if BJP wins Delhi & Rajasthan.

3) Don't sign the deal. Be in office for full duration. This gives them good time to focus on managing inflation. Also, they might need left again to get to 272 after general elections.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17088
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby NRao » 18 Jun 2008 05:44

Visits to WB? Henry and US Senators too. Heard that such visits ended with mild threats. Since then I have wondered what really interests the US in this deal.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17088
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby NRao » 18 Jun 2008 06:05

IMHO, Obama will deliver on nukes - kill them all if and when possible. I do not think his interventions were one way. Obama pledges to end war, nuclear weapons. India should revive her thinking to denuke ..... she will find a very willing partner in that respect.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby Gerard » 18 Jun 2008 06:19

Obama pledged to "seek" a world without nukes. He did not pledge a world without nukes. Visitors to the whorehouse may likewise seek a chaste virgin... they may seek for years but may never find one...

Rangudu
BRFite
Posts: 1751
Joined: 03 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby Rangudu » 18 Jun 2008 06:50

Wonder why US "pressure" gets all the attention but the Chinese pull in the form of their Left stooges gets little notice. To me one thing is clear, India and China have ZERO common interests in the nuclear arena. India and the US could have some overlap. The fact that the US is pushing so hard seems to annoy the superpatriots here but the fact that China is pushing much harder (and winning) against the deal seems to be okay with the same folks. If this things fails, as it looks like it will, then the only thing that would have been proven is that China has the ability to manipulate not just left leaning but also some right wing elements within India.

Ananth
BRFite
Posts: 346
Joined: 16 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby Ananth » 18 Jun 2008 09:15

R:

You know that mood on the forum started to tilt around the time of Hyde act passed, not after 123. It indicates that opposition is not particularly driven by Chinese manipulations but it so happened that positions on the surface look similar. You of all people know that reservations by EBs on this forum are for different reasons than those espoused by Left. However it is definitely interesting that Seema Mushraffa is has acquired quite a fan base on the forum.

My reservations with respect to 123 is that power differential between US and India is too high for India to do a Tarapur on US directly or indirectly. This does not mean that we need to wait on our behinds till the power differential reduces. But mechanisms have to be found to address the concerns especially costs associated with testing and implementing fuel supply guarantees to be brought politically palatable level.

My hypothesis is that MMS showed his political immaturity and let his political biases in his way of keeping BJP out of the loop. If that is wrong and MMS did keep BJP in loop then BJP is playing a cynical game and nothing prevents Congress (I) from calling their bluff and taking the matters to the people. However they wont do it since nuke deal cannot win votes even middle class ones.

Even now there is UPA left coordination meeting but no parliamentry meeting, and forget about between two principle parties. Economic reforms went through smoothly since PVN got Vajpayee on board. Then also BJP made noises, but many times they walked out of parliament, thereby leave the ground clear for PVN.

I am hopeful that President McCain and PM Antonia Maino :twisted: would work to resolve the differences.

Karan Dixit
BRFite
Posts: 1102
Joined: 23 Mar 2007 02:43
Location: Calcutta

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby Karan Dixit » 18 Jun 2008 09:18

Good point Ranagudu.

I am not qualified enough to make any comment on nuclear deal. But I think it is good for India.

Here is a list of my supporting arguments:
1. Commies are against it.
2. Brajesh Mishra has endorsed it.
3. Former President Kalam has endorsed it.
4. Current babus in Foreign Ministry are for it.

That is enough for me.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55358
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby ramana » 18 Jun 2008 10:04

2,3& 4 are all the lamented babus. So Indians have delegated all their thinking to the officialdom as the pols are out to lunch and the middle class is back to queues and business class is doing what it knows best?

The one to watch is that Swadesh Chatterjee the investor guy in Bengal. He is a Soros chela. And he is still hopeful.

nkumar
BRFite
Posts: 233
Joined: 06 Jul 2007 02:14

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby nkumar » 18 Jun 2008 10:22

N-deal: US gives India time till Jan 20 to decide

The Bush Administration has promised to make every effort possible to move the Indo-US civilian nuclear agreement through the US Congress if the Indian government approves it before January 20, the day new administration assumes office in the United States.

"The bottom line is, from now until January 20, we will continue to work to support this agreement. We will continue to encourage the Indian government to approve it. And if such time, it is approved, whether that is today, tomorrow, or January 19, we will make every effort to move it through Congress," State Department's Deputy Spokesman Tom Casey said on Tuesday.

"We would certainly hope that the next administration, whoever comes to office in January, would also see this agreement as something fundamentally in America's interest and want to move forward with it as well," he said.


"Fundamentally, we think that the India Civil Nuclear Agreement is something that's in the interests of both countries. But, you know, the obstacle has been that the Indian government has some internal political issues that it needs to resolve before it can move forward with it," the spokesman said.

Casey said, "I guess we could all get out our calendars and figure out how many more days Congress is actually in session between now and January 20, and how likely it would be that should an agreement be reached at a certain point, you could get it on the calendar and move it to vote and have those votes take place in time, and all that other great stuff."


I think this seals the deal. Now Congress show middle finger to left whenever it wants and go ahead and sign the deal.

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

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby svinayak » 18 Jun 2008 11:05

nkumar wrote:N-deal: US gives India time till Jan 20 to decide

I think this seals the deal. Now Congress show middle finger to left whenever it wants and go ahead and sign the deal.

Do you think this date is joint agreed date between the two administration.
The entire deal is an agreement between two groups and after that trying to get the entire Indian political system to agree to it.
This deal is finalised not after any negotiation between two countries

merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby merlin » 18 Jun 2008 12:12

Rangudu wrote:Wonder why US "pressure" gets all the attention but the Chinese pull in the form of their Left stooges gets little notice.


Perhaps because there are more anti-dealers than pro-dealers here?

Rangudu wrote:The fact that the US is pushing so hard seems to annoy the superpatriots here but the fact that China is pushing much harder (and winning) against the deal seems to be okay with the same folks.


Replace annoy with "arouse the intense curiosity of" and I would agree with you.

Rangudu wrote:If this things fails, as it looks like it will, then the only thing that would have been proven is that China has the ability to manipulate not just left leaning but also some right wing elements within India.


That makes precisely zero sense. If the deal fails it proves nothing. All you pro-dealers think that the anti-dealers are influenced by China? ROTFL :rotfl:

By the way, the deal is faaaaaaaaar from dead. IMO, INC will not let it die, it will push it through by any and all means. Even if the Left actually and formally withdraws support.

Sanatanan
BRFite
Posts: 482
Joined: 31 Dec 2006 09:29

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby Sanatanan » 18 Jun 2008 13:16

As per Editorial in The Hindu, 18 June 2008:

Make the IAEA agreement public

. . .

Non-consultation, non-transparency, and a secretive mindset characterised the handling of the nuclear deal from the time it was initiated in July 2005. The safeguards agreement negotiated with the IAEA secretariat must be placed before the UPA-Left coordination committee on Wednesday — and immediately thereafter made public.


As I type this comment, reports in TV say that the UPA-Left meeting has been postponed to June 25, 2008 {?}

Why wait till then? Why not inform Indian citizens about the details of the agreement reached with the IAEA, including conditions that have been agreed to be included in the Additional Protocol, even before the meet?

Raju

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby Raju » 18 Jun 2008 16:37

the govt has failed to show the India-specific agreement draft with IAEA to the left. Apparently the govt is extremely reluctant to show the draft agreement to the left parties. And as a result the left parties have called off talks with the govt, since they have refused to proceed without seeing the draft.

:Times

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17088
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby NRao » 18 Jun 2008 16:56

Obama pledged to "seek" a world without nukes. He did not pledge a world without nukes. Visitors to the whorehouse may likewise seek a chaste virgin... they may seek for years but may never find one...


The logic is rather simple, perhaps the implementation has more complications.

India could increase her fissile material to cope up with the 'hood, or her 'hood could decrease such material (thus India attains parity). With the decline of Pakistan (in the eyes of pretty much everyone) the idea that China should be persuaded to decrease her content is the most logical step. As Obama has stated he is not willing to decrease anything unilaterally. I am more than confident that with Obama India can make that argument and win. As we write Obama is expecting to win - based onhis argument that he will get everyone to chip in and thus reduce nuclear weapons worldwide.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17088
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby NRao » 18 Jun 2008 17:08

Wonder why US "pressure" gets all the attention but the Chinese pull in the form of their Left stooges gets little notice. To me one thing is clear, India and China have ZERO common interests in the nuclear arena. India and the US could have some overlap. The fact that the US is pushing so hard seems to annoy the superpatriots here but the fact that China is pushing much harder (and winning) against the deal seems to be okay with the same folks. If this things fails, as it looks like it will, then the only thing that would have been proven is that China has the ability to manipulate not just left leaning but also some right wing elements within India.



There are many reasons, not teh least of which is the total lack of transparency on the part of this GoI. Next IMHO woudl be the slide from J18 to the Hyde Act.....they are really no where close - IMHO of course.

You also bring up a very important point - "US is pushing so hard". Why is the US pushing at all? What is there for her in this deal from a Indian civilian PoV? None actually, not even funds that India could spend with the US - France and Russia are expected to get most of the $$.

Furthermore, why is that the US did not support the original J18 content? Which is what India wanted and needs.

Lastly relating superpatriots to China is new - at least to me. I first opposed the Hyde Act based on the fact that Mr. Hyde (my old Congressman) was lending his name to it - he can NEVER do any good for any Indian. Then the fact that this GoI actually allocated millions to support passing the Hyde Act (old news). China was never in the picture then, and, as far as I am concerned, it still is not.

And, if we can keep to the logic - even if we disagree with each other - that would help.

Rangudu
BRFite
Posts: 1751
Joined: 03 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby Rangudu » 18 Jun 2008 17:57

Occam's razor dictates that if this deal was really about trapping India into CTBT, FMCT etc. then the ONLY logical Chinese reaction should be to want India to sign this trap. There can be no other Chinese reaction. No amount of obfuscation or conspiracy theorizing can explain away this fact. The fact that China has so openly used its Left stooges to thwart this deal suggests that it believes that this deal would strengthen India vis-a-vis Beijing.

Anti-dealers should explain why China is so against this deal if it is indeed a trap as you guys theorize. What is the logic here?

rocky
BRFite
Posts: 142
Joined: 08 Mar 2006 22:52

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby rocky » 18 Jun 2008 18:14

That is an often abused argument, R. So far I haven't heard you come out with any argument other than that (unless I missed it). For a person like you to use an argument like "my biggest enemy is not in favor of me blowing down half my house, and hence I believe that is the right thing to do" - doesn't cut it.

What is it that you find is so great about this deal, and what do you have to say about the concerns posed by the ones that are against it?

Please note that there is nothing personal in my arguments, and I intend none. Let us just put away why China/TSP/JoeBloe should like this deal or not, and hear a real fundamental argument for once.

Rangudu
BRFite
Posts: 1751
Joined: 03 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby Rangudu » 18 Jun 2008 18:50

Read carefully. I'm not saying "Support this deal because China opposes it." Rather I'm pointing out the silliness of some of the deal opponents' arguments along the lines of "Daal mein kuch kaala hai" or "Unkil is pushing too hard, so it must be a conspiracy to de-nuke India"

This deal defies simplistic analyses along the lines of some of the recent postings here. But then again, I'm risking a gang attack by posters here who don't want to hear anything they don't like.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17088
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby NRao » 18 Jun 2008 18:56

Anti-dealers should explain why China is so against this deal if it is indeed a trap as you guys theorize. What is the logic here?


Since those on BR, who were/are against the deal, predates the position taken by China, I have to assume that China reads BR and came to the same conclusion.

The opposition on BR was just after the Hyde Act came out. I do not think even the Commies in India had taken their current position at that time.

R, on this point I do not think you have a standing.

This deal defies simplistic analyses along the lines of some of the recent postings here


I think you are right on this point.

However, I am dead sure, that IF the present GoI was a lot more transparent the arguments would have been more solid.

Currently both sides discussing this deal are only going on faith. Bottom line seems to be what do we do about the strategic issues. Those that oppose the deal make this a big issue, those that support the deal say it is not an issue. Only time will tell.

Rangudu
BRFite
Posts: 1751
Joined: 03 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby Rangudu » 18 Jun 2008 18:59

NRao,

You are one of the posters who has fueled the conspiracy stuff by highlighting which American visited which state etc. See posts above.

If you can use such logic, please explain why China opposes this deal. BTW, the commies had ALWAYS opposed this deal, period. China opposed it from July 19, 2005.

PS - No personal offence intended. Just pointing out that the conspiracy stuff distracts from serious arguments

Rangudu
BRFite
Posts: 1751
Joined: 03 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby Rangudu » 18 Jun 2008 19:17

rocky wrote:Let us just put away why China/TSP/JoeBloe should like this deal or not, and hear a real fundamental argument for once.


I agree and hope that deal opponents don't overdo this "Henry Kissinger shared a beedi with the Undersecretary for Chapppal Manufacturing so this must be a plan to de-nuke India" type arguments.

Rangudu
BRFite
Posts: 1751
Joined: 03 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby Rangudu » 18 Jun 2008 19:23

Ananth wrote:My hypothesis is that MMS showed his political immaturity and let his political biases in his way of keeping BJP out of the loop.

Agreed. This deal or any successor deal's fate is one thing. But the precedent that has been set is a bad one. MMS's secrecy and taking all credit was a stupid move but from now on the Executive Branch's power has been curtailed in India because we now have a precedent for parliamentary opposition being able to block specific executive branch actions without invoking their no-confidence powers.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55358
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby ramana » 18 Jun 2008 19:32

I agree PRC made its stance known later in the game. The US Congress also made its moves only much later when it took up Hyde Act which became Hydebound Act.

What was going on vis a vis US, PRC and TSP right around that period? For there is some black lentils between the three. And Cohen hints that TSP should get a deal now.

Maybe China realised in July 2005, that there were side agreements which will challenge its primacy in Asia and hence it opposes the deal? The side agreements are: Recognize India as a defacto legitimate nuke power and that has its own dynamic. And free up India's constraints in dealing with TSP as India is now a strategic partner. And who knows? Gosh I wish I knew Chinese so I could read literally the tea leaves or the beedi leaves!

Raju

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby Raju » 18 Jun 2008 19:38

After this deal is signed Indian companies will become the pre-eminent trading partners of blue-chip western corporations in Asia. India will replace Singapore but on a much bigger scale.

think along those lines.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17088
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby NRao » 18 Jun 2008 19:40

PS - No personal offence intended. Just pointing out that the conspiracy stuff distracts from serious arguments


And, none taken.

Will respond in a while, need to run for now. BUT, mine are not conspiracy points, they are based on logic. Will explain more l8r.

think along those lines.


Will respond to that too l8r. Wish the Indian leaders had done that too.

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

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby Rye » 18 Jun 2008 19:59

NRao wrote:
mine are not conspiracy points, they are based on logic


This is not aimed at you, but just a general observation seeing all the claims people make about being logical when they are not.

Logic by itself serves no purpose if the fundamental assumptions are bogus. Logically (and mathematically), a false statement or assumption can imply anything. So starting with a bogus assumption can lead one to any sort of conclusion with no basis in logic. It is annoying to see people claim that they are arguing logically, when they are not.

JMTs

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

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby svinayak » 18 Jun 2008 19:59

How many more conspiracy people in BRF. Please join the club

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

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby Rye » 18 Jun 2008 20:07

The conspiracy theorists have no notion of what is plausible and what isn't...all facts are equally important and of equal value. facts inconvenient to the analysis must be ignored. Unknown (or even known dubious personalities) people must be given infinite credibility and known public figures must be given zero credibility.

On the planet Conspiratoria, Ms. Seema Mustafa has greater credibility then Dr. Anil Kakodkar....one fails to see why this kind of "analysis" should be taken seriously.
Last edited by Rye on 18 Jun 2008 20:39, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby svinayak » 18 Jun 2008 20:08

Rangudu wrote:Occam's razor dictates that if this deal was really about trapping India into CTBT, FMCT etc. then the ONLY logical Chinese reaction should be to want India to sign this trap. There can be no other Chinese reaction.

China supported officially the UNSC expansion for India and others during the same period. But at the same time China was working behind the scene with Pakistan to stop the UNSC expansion. There are similar plays here in this nuke deal which started during the same period.

Rangudu
BRFite
Posts: 1751
Joined: 03 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby Rangudu » 18 Jun 2008 20:10

Rye,

You've hit it on the head!

If you start of with a fundamental assumption that US is out to "get" India, you read into every shadow a plan to de-nuke India. There are plenty of secrets or unanswered questions or "Why would Unkil do x" type questions, but if your belief is that Unkil is a bad actor, then nothing anyone says is going to convince you otherwise.

Ramana,

Cohen has about as much bearing on this deal as Bharat Karnad has influence on UPA policy. His views on nuclear deal for TSP are not taken seriously by anyone.

US Congress acted the way it did because Hyde was pissed at not being consulted and taken for granted by the surprise J18 declaration. Given that Bush's power was waning ever since the summer of 2005, NPAs and those genuinely peeved at Bush's usurping of Congressional privilege used all their powers to include annoying clauses in the act. Their main goals was just to annoy India with all the NPA language just out of spite. No one at that time could have even dreamed that those words could affect the Indian politics side of things. US Business is supporting this deal because of simple profit motive. They foresee increased US-India commerce should this deal go through and that's basically it. There's no grand conspiracy here IMHO.

Rangudu
BRFite
Posts: 1751
Joined: 03 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby Rangudu » 18 Jun 2008 20:11

Acharya wrote:China supported officially the UNSC expansion for India and others during the same period. But at the same time China was working behind the scene with Pakistan to stop the UNSC expansion. There are similar plays here in this nuke deal which started during the same period.

This argument actually works against you Acharya garu. China officially is neutral on the Indo-US nuclear deal. Their unofficial stances, through the various state media articles and their Left stooges is the real deal.

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

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby svinayak » 18 Jun 2008 20:13

Rangudu wrote: Their main goals was just to annoy India with all the NPA language just out of spite. No one at that time could have even dreamed that those words could affect the Indian politics side of things. US Business is supporting this deal because of simple profit motive.

So annoying India is considered a low key activity and routine.

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

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby svinayak » 18 Jun 2008 20:15

Rangudu wrote:
Acharya wrote:China supported officially the UNSC expansion for India and others during the same period. But at the same time China was working behind the scene with Pakistan to stop the UNSC expansion. There are similar plays here in this nuke deal which started during the same period.

This argument actually works against you Acharya garu. China officially is neutral on the Indo-US nuclear deal. Their unofficial stances, through the various state media articles and their Left stooges is the real deal.

They have a double language and your thesis that Reading China will help in deciding the support is unreliable

Rangudu
BRFite
Posts: 1751
Joined: 03 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby Rangudu » 18 Jun 2008 20:16

Acharya wrote: So annoying India is considered a low key activity and routine.


Yup. Just like in our parliament we have people who keep ranting against US policies or introduce silly resolutions condemning guantanamo etc.

That's what parliamentary bodies do. They give space for people of all opinions to say what they want.

America's official policy is to prefer India with no nukes. Just like India's official policy is global nuclear disarmament :rotfl:
Last edited by Rangudu on 18 Jun 2008 20:19, edited 1 time in total.

Rangudu
BRFite
Posts: 1751
Joined: 03 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby Rangudu » 18 Jun 2008 20:18

Acharya wrote:They have a double language and your thesis that Reading China will help in deciding the support is unreliable


Nope, it is just about as reliable as the conspiracy theorists who say Reading Unkil's real and perceived moves tell us what to do, to which you subscribe.

What's sauce for the goose ...

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

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby svinayak » 18 Jun 2008 20:19

Rangudu wrote: tell us what to do, to which you subscribe.

What do I subscribe?

Rangudu
BRFite
Posts: 1751
Joined: 03 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby Rangudu » 18 Jun 2008 20:20

Acharya wrote:What do I subscribe?


That Unkil is doing xxx so there must be a hidden meaning etc

I'm just extending that logic by pointing out that if China is doing yyy then there must be a hidden meaning.

Again, goose, sauce, gander etc.

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

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby svinayak » 18 Jun 2008 20:22

Rangudu wrote:
Acharya wrote:What do I subscribe?


That Unkil is doing xxx so there must be a hidden meaning etc

I'm just extending that logic by pointing out that if China is doing yyy then there must be a hidden meaning.

Again, goose, sauce, gander etc.


I dont believe in conspiracy theories.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests