Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Tilak
BRFite
Posts: 733
Joined: 31 Jul 2005 20:19
Location: Old Lal Masjid @BRFATA (*Renovation*)

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Tilak » 26 Jun 2008 17:50

amit wrote:
Tilak wrote: Can you point me to a link to such a statement, from the US govt spokesperson/senators/ambassador. TIA


That wasn't me saying it.

That's what Yashwant Sinha said during his interview with Karan Thapar. Please hear the audio once again. (And that's one reason, among several, which confuses me regarding what exactly is BJP's stance, other than a desire to be the one to sign the dotted line).

Personally I don't think there's any document (such as the Hyde Act, 123 etc) that can't be renegotiated given the right set of circumstances.

Creating those circumstances is another matter altogether.


I've listened to the interview, and haven't found what you said he did. Can you quote Yashwant Sinha's line in the interview/time which says "US has told us it will not renegotiate".

In this context let me point out that Yashwant's bombastic claim of BJP being the party which dared to do the bomb blasts and that automatically gives it the moral guardianship of India's deterrent is disingenous to say the least.

BJP got to press the button because of the good work which was started by Rajiv Gandhi and carried forward by PVNR despite the precarious situation of the Indian economy in the early 1990s. The nuclear deterent is not BJP's sole creation and they can hardly claim to be the sole guardians of it either. All this implication of I'm (BJP) more patriotic than you (Congress) doesn't wash.


They haven't said that they are the 'sole creation/more patriotic', it is you who is saying it. If "pressing the button" was so easy, why didn't PVN (RIP) do it ?. Isn't it because of US Gov's pressure(at least in part)?. People who had to be given credit, have been given. Please check out the news items/speeches (LKA and others), on the eve of 10th anniversary of Pokhran test, this year (which the current dispensation has merely shrugged off).

So the Congress might pass the buck to a new govt. with 11% inflation rate, then the party following it can do nothing, and claim "Congress" gave it to us ?. It's what you do with what is given and facing the repercussions. If one doesn't pass the baton, or drop's out.. none will end up achieving the goal. What washes, is taking the other stake holders (opposition+ it's own allies+people)into confidence, before proceeding with it.. as they are not the "sole arbiters" of Indian's interests.

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3286
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Kakkaji » 26 Jun 2008 18:59

Interesting take on the politics behind the current impasse, hence posting in full:

Sonia, Karat ready with exit plan

The United Progressive Alliance government is inching towards a premature demise. It is a matter of time before the Left parties severe its ties with the government or the government gears up for a confrontation with its Left supporters by going ahead with the India-US civilian nuclear agreement. Congress media manager M Veerappa Moily gave a hint of the latter possibility in interactions with news television channels on Wednesday night.
Communist Party of India-Marxist General Secretary Prakash Karat is itching for an exit from the four-year arrangement where 60 Left MPs support the UPA government from the outside, but wants to ensure that neither his party nor he become a hate figure for destabilising the government and forcing an early general election on the country.

The Left supported the UPA mainly to keep the Bharatiya Janata Party out of power and that purpose was well served for four years. Karat wants to convey to the nation that he is not a destabiliser and would like political chroniclers to believe that he will stand up for his Marxist convictions, no matter what the pressure on him to resile from his position.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh [Images] is more than a match for the stubborn Karat. He is impatient to get out of the UPA alliance with the Left parties even if his government loses power and the country heads for an election. He believes that American economic and technological assistance to India is good for the country's development. His team wants to make a beginning towards this objective through the nuclear deal.

With this belief in mind, Dr Singh cannot abide what the Left parties stand for. This modest man with his gentle looks is kind enough to not proclaim that the Left ideology is dangerous for India's growth. He has an ideological score to settle with Karat. He would like to call the Left parties's bluff by resigning as prime minister and earning the nation's respect for standing up for the issues he believes in.

On June 24, a former American advisor to US Ambassador to India David Mulford on the nuclear deal asked an Indian guest over lunch at an Asia Society seminar on Indian financial markets in New York, "Can you believe this deal is not done just because Karat doesn't like America? Can you believe this?" he asked with shock.

It would be wrong to say that Karat opposed the nuclear deal because his Marxist views are anti-American. No pro-China or anti-American lobby opposed Atal Bihari Vajpayee's National Democratic Alliance government to have discussions with then US deputy secretary of state Strobe Talbott on the NSSP (Next Steps in Strategic Partnership). The crisis is brewing not just because Karat is anti-American, but mainly because Left MPs keep the UPA government in power and can easily turn it into a minority.

This crucial factor was not factored in or ignored when Dr Singh met US President George W Bush at the White House on July 18, 2005.

The root of the current crisis is not just about Dr Singh's right-wing politics versus Karat's leftist ideology. The vigour for combat in the Left parties is due to its numbers in Parliament. This fact cannot be glossed over by branding the Left parties as Chinese agents or anti-American.

Surely, both Dr Singh and Karat's rigid ideological positions add fuel to the fire, but the roots of the current crisis lie in two errors of judgement.

One, the US State Department in Washington, DC made the Himalayan error in calculating that Prime Minister Singh could get convincing political support at home for the nuclear deal. Of course, that did not happen -- not from the Left parties nor the the BJP, which began the process for a better Indian relationship with the US. Without the Left votes in the Lok Sabha, Dr Singh's government is in a minority.

Second, minus the aura of a popular leader, the prime minister carried a higher risk in a battleground full of populist leaders. In his endeavour to take the nuclear deal to its logical conclusion Dr Singh needed to give a populist spin to his action, but this is not within his expertise.

The position of the political parties in the Lok Sabha on July 18, 2005 was clear enough to understand that the Left parties would have their say in any matter related to India-US strategic ties. Supporters of the deal underestimated the importance of the numbers game in Parliament. They also overlooked the Indian public's belief in the need for a nuclear arsenal for national security.

To the BJP's surprise, the State Department took the moral high ground on issuing a US visa to Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi. Though Modi is the right wing leader of a state with a people who frequently display pro-American sentiments, his party and he oppose the nuclear deal. When Modi was denied a US visa the BJP had one more reason to take a tough stand against US diplomacy in India. Dr Singh could not win the support of the BJP which would probably have ended up with a much weaker nuclear deal from the Americans during its tenure in power.

US diplomats in New Delhi recently met a senior BJP leader to garner the party's support for the deal. After hearing the Americans out, the BJP leader asked the Americans, "But what about the visa for our leader Modi? What do you want to say about that?" The Americans had no answer.

Dr Singh is not a practising politician and that made his position weaker with both the UPA allies, its supporters and the Opposition. The prime minister took a gamble thinking that legally and technically he did not need Parliament's support for ratifying the nuclear agreement since it is within the ambit of executive decisions. He tried to put up a remarkable fight within the government, national politics and the media over the issue. A diplomat, who was involved in scripting the nuclear deal, once told this correspondent that the prime minister does not waver in the pursuit of his goal.

Once Dr Singh decides that he wants to reach a certain destination he has the patience to reach the goal even if that means taking the longest possible route. He did that at many levels. The Prime Minister's Office managed the retired diplomat and scientific communities which were initially opposed to the agreement; it also convinced editors and other opinion-makers about the need for the deal.

To win over the Left parties he formed a coordination committee and asked External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee to keep the Communists in check.

UPA Chairperson Sonia Gandhi was not aware of the entire dimension of the nuclear deal when it was announced at the White House on July 18, 2005. Dr Singh and others -- including the lobby who would like to invest in the nuclear power industry which needs more than Rs 3 billion of fresh funds -- convinced her that the deal was appreciated by the middle class. The PMO is trying to convince her that there are international repercussions to the agreement and in reality the deal is a non-issue for the aam aadmi, but urban voters favour it.

Congress leaders have calculated that it is time for Karat to return to his loyal voter base. For the Left parties it is now time to oppose the UPA government seriously. The mock fights will end soon and the real opposition to the government's policies should begin. Last winter, Karat took the political decision to allow the government to go in for negotiations with the International Atomic Energy Agency. It suited him at that point of time because the CPI-M was seriously rattled by the violence in Nandigram, West Bengal, and the ensuing Panchayat election in the state.

It is now clear that Karat's gameplan to exit from the arrangement with the UPA is ready and he is all set to implement it
.

Dr Singh believes Sonia Gandhi has to strike before Karat makes his move to seize the political advantage. Sunday's CPI-M Politburo meeting will empower Karat to take a final decision on the timing of the rupture with the UPA. After keeping a safe distance from the politics of the deal Sonia Gandhi has been showing a recent inclination to support the agreement her government is itching to sign.

Sonia Gandhi and Karat will orchestrate an exit plan while the prime minister anxiously waits to know how well he has played his politics over the nuclear deal.

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3286
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Kakkaji » 26 Jun 2008 19:00

Signing N-deal will benefit India: Kalam

"We need a supply of uranium till our thorium reactors are ready," Kalam said on the sidelines of the International Conference on Aerospace Science and Technology, organised by the National Space Laboratories to mark the institute's golden jubilee celebration.

"The pact will help us," he said.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby NRao » 26 Jun 2008 20:49

Interesting take on the politics behind the current impasse, hence posting in full:


It also provides one or two solutions to some conspiracy theories too.

But, IMHO, given what MMS had in hand, he could have done far better.

What could be added to this picture is the seeming lack of confidence within the Congress party itself ..... that MMS had to ask for Anthony to be present at meeting with CPI!!

BTW, is there or could there be a time lag betwwen getting help via this deal vs. bring on-line local mines? Mines could take 6-8 years ....... the help from this deal should take that long too I would imagine.

And, with the price of Uranium climbing, local mines should become economically more viable.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby NRao » 26 Jun 2008 22:21

CPI-ML asks CPI, CPI-M to withdraw support to UPA


Press Trust Of India
Dehradun, June 26, 2008
First Published: 20:30 IST(26/6/2008)
Last Updated: 20:32 IST(26/6/2008)

CPI-ML on Thursday slammed the Indo-US nuclear deal and asked CPI-M and CPI to immediately withdraw support to the UPA government on the issue.

"The Left parties have no excuse for continuing to support the UPA government. The nuclear deal and rising prices are enough reason to immediately withdraw support to the government," its general secretary Dipankar Bhattacharya said.

In a statement, he said the deal has several "humiliating clauses that are shameful" for India.

"Experts have said that nuclear power generated through the deal can only serve a small part of India's power needs. So those who say that the deal will solve India's power problems are simply fooling the people," he said.

He alleged the real aim of the deal was to "shackle India to the strategic and military interests" of the US.

"The US would like India to be its loyal cop in the subcontinent. Worst of all, if we sign the deal, we will be signing away our right, as an independent nation, to have a foreign policy of our choice."

He claimed that owing to American pressure, the government was trying to scuttle the Iran-Pak-India gas pipeline which could solve India's power needs in a big way.

The party is holding its two-day central committee meeting in Nainital.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby NRao » 26 Jun 2008 22:27

Tightrope walk to G8 for PM on N-deal

From B S Arun, DH News Service, New Delhi:

Having staked his government's prestige on the nuclear deal, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is under pressure to take a message to the G8 Summit in Japan next month that the landmark agreement is intact...

The least that the PM has to show to US President George Bush is that India would be approaching the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Authority) for a safeguards agreement.

Dr Singh is likely to meet President Bush on the sidelines of the Summit, which will take place at Hokkaido in Japan from July 7 to 9. Unless he meet the outgoing President in New York in September (for the United Nations General Assembly), this would be the last time that they would see each other. The 35-member nations group will have to give exemption if the deal has to become operational.

While the IAEA should approve the safeguards agreement by July-end, whether the Left would allow the UPA government to proceed that far is doubtful. It is here that the PM would be hoping that the UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi and the allies put pressure on the Left to allow the government to pass the IAEA hurdle.

Left lurching

It was perhaps keeping this in mind, that the leaders of the UPA allies such as Sharad Pawar, M Karunanidhi and Lalu Prasad have impressed upon CPM general secretary Prakash Karat to allow the government to complete the IAEA agreement on the condition that the allies would ensure that the deal would not be operationalised. This would be a saving grace for the PM at the G8 Summit.

“The UPA government, specially the PM, have invested so much into the deal in the last four years that if the deal comes to a naught, then he may not have anything to show in terms of foreign policy measures.

Already no noticeable progress has taken place on the Pakistan or China front. If he draws a blank on the N-deal issue, it would be a huge embarrassment to him rather than to the UPA government as a whole,” argued an analyst.

Theoretically, if India hands the safeg uards text to the IAEA board next month, the global body may ratify it within a month.

The next hurdle will be to allow the nuclear trade with India and given the Left animosity, it seems a Herculean task.

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

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby pradeepe » 26 Jun 2008 22:31

Kakkaji wrote:Signing N-deal will benefit India: Kalam

"We need a supply of uranium till our thorium reactors are ready," Kalam said on the sidelines of the International Conference on Aerospace Science and Technology, organised by the National Space Laboratories to mark the institute's golden jubilee celebration.

"The pact will help us," he said.



The deal goes through, the chinese commies lose their shirts and deposits in the next election. What a beautiful day that would be.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby NRao » 26 Jun 2008 22:31

PM ready to face Parliament on N-deal: Congress leader

Onkar Singh in New Delhi | June 25, 2008 00:02 IST

Stressing that there is nothing secretive about the Indo-US nuclear deal, a senior Congress leader said the prime minister is ready to face Parliament before the deal is operationalised.

Asked about the Left's apprehensions, the top leader, seeking anonymity, told rediff.com, "There is no need to get apprehensive. No deal is made public before it is notified that the deal would come into effect from a particular date. Both the countries which sign the deal get something out of this. I think it has been wrongly called Indo-US deal. In fact it is a multi-lateral deal. Dr Singh is ready to take Parliament into confidence before it is opperationalised. Merely signing of the agreement does not mean that it becomes operational. It would have to be endorsed by the Cabinet before further action is taken."

Meanwhile, Moti Lal Vohra, senior leader, denied reports that Manmohan Singh [Images] had resigned to put pressure on the party to support his stand.

"Sonia Gandhi [Images] has already backed Dr Singh and there is no question of going back. As far as Dr Singh's trip to Japan [Images] is concerned, there time left. We know that the time is running out for both the governments, particularly United States. PM will meet President Bush in Japan in the first week of July," said a top party leader.

John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby John Snow » 26 Jun 2008 23:05

Stressing that there is nothing secretive about the Indo-US nuclear deal, a senior Congress leader said the prime minister is ready to face Parliament before the deal is operationalised.
Asked about the Left's apprehensions, the top leader, seeking anonymity, told rediff.com


:mrgreen: :wink:

RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby RamaY » 26 Jun 2008 23:12

What a life...

- PM: Doesn't want to talk to parliament. Falls ill whenever he doesn’t get what he wants. Cannot present the nation's mood in front of the world (read G8). Cannot use the opportunity to get a better deal.

- Economist dream team: Cannot understand the macro-economics. Cannot take corrective measures to relieve the population they represent and serve.

- Coalition Partners: Can blatantly claim that they oppose the deal because it helps country X or against country Y. Can tell others it would hurt them in getting M-vote bank.

- Main Opposition: Nobody wants to talk to them. And all the great leaders and five years of power couldn’t get them enough media coverage to present their alternate vision for this country.

P.S: I didn’t not mention Raj Mahal because they are beyond criticism. The family already made enough sacrifices (J&K, UNSC seat, Tibet, 1962, Aksai-Chin, Punjab terrorism, LTTE, A cancer called Bangladesh, and many others) to (on behalf of?) this country. Most recently the Raj Mata even denounced Simhasan to rub the great economic leader on our nation.

Is there an emotion for no emotion?
Last edited by RamaY on 26 Jun 2008 23:21, edited 2 times in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby ramana » 27 Jun 2008 00:10

Every op-ed writer of all shades is convinced that the Leftists are carrying the message of the PRC. And all uniformly decry the Leftists for thwarting the deal.

In all this unified opposition to the deal from the Commies and Leftists are we seeing a subtle message from the PRC that nuclear India is acceptable but not an India allied with the US even if its at whatever level?

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

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby nkumar » 27 Jun 2008 00:55

The article below presents a concise reiteration of broken promises of MMS, media mgmt, cirus issue, uranium shortage etc.

N-deal: Questions that baffle

Stagecraft & Statecraft / Brahma Chellaney


The civil nuclear deal with America, although steeped in growing partisan rancour, is hardly the weighty issue that should determine any government’s future. Indeed, it is an issue of little long-term import to India’s great-power ambitions or energy needs. For the US, the deal offers substantive benefits. But for India the benefits are largely symbolic.

Yet the costs the still-uncertain deal is exacting on India can be gauged from the self-induced federal paralysis, with a sulking Prime Minister withdrawing into a shell and senior ministers deferring important work. The defence minister, for instance, called off a trip to Japan intended to add strategic content to a bilateral relationship pivotal to power equilibrium in Asia. Such government disruption from the top has no parallel in the annals of independent India.

The ungainly political stagecraft on display raises several unanswered questions. The first relates to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s obsession with a deal that has begun to warp his priorities. Many are asking the same question: Why is he willing to stake his government’s future on a single issue of questionable long-term strategic weight? Can he fashion a legacy by choosing deal-making over deterrent-building?

What is mystifying is that Dr Singh has landed the country in a political logjam over a deal he knows cannot be completed during the remainder term of US President George W. Bush. Time has simply run out. Even in an overly optimistic scenario, the deal cannot be ratified by the present US Congress.

In addition to New Delhi’s insistence on taking its safeguards accord with the International Atomic Energy Agency to the latter’s governing board at this stage — an action that will gratuitously tie the country’s hands even before the final deal is clear — an extraordinary plenary meeting of the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group will need to be held to consider a rule-change by consensus. An NSG waiver will neither be easy nor swift, with the US itself seeking to attach conditions that mesh with its Hyde Act. In the last stage, the deal will come up for congressional ratification, but only after three documents — the so-called 123 agreement, a presidential determination that India has met all the stipulated preconditions, and a "Nuclear Proliferation Assessment Statement" — have been placed before the US Congress "for a period of 60 days of continuous session".

Given the limited number of days left in the present US legislative calendar to let a ratification process run its full course, why this tearing hurry on the part of India to take the safeguards accord to the IAEA board? Washington — whose almost-daily statements have sought to egg on New Delhi to play that very card, even if it led to the collapse of Dr Singh’s government — acknowledged this week that, "obviously, the next US government will have to look at this [deal] and make their own decisions on it". In fact, as early as last month, Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Joseph Biden had said the deal is unlikely to be approved in President Bush’s term.

Before knowing how the NSG will condition cooperation with India or the attitude of the next US. administration, why is New Delhi willing to part with its last remaining card by taking the safeguards accord to the IAEA board? That accord, at any rate, ought to be taken to the Board only after the contours of the Additional Protocol with the IAEA have been firmed up. Otherwise, a leverage-stripped India could face more-stringent and wider inspections when it returns for Additional Protocol negotiations.

Like the 123 agreement, India has already finalised and "frozen" the safeguards accord. But unlike the former, which was made public days after it was initialled, the latter text has not been shown even to coalition allies, underscoring the creeping official opacity.

There are other mysteries, too. One centres on Dr Singh’s metamorphosis from being anti-nuclear to becoming a fervent votary of commercial nuclear power. As finance minister in the first half of the 1990s, Dr Singh starved the nuclear programme of funds, disabling new projects and halting uranium exploration.

The uranium crunch India confronts today is rooted in the fact that the actions Dr Singh set in motion then were not reversed until several years after he left office. That Dr Singh’s newfound interest in nuclear power relates merely to reactor imports has been underscored by his recent action in cutting the Department of Atomic Energy’s 2008-09 budget by more than half a billion dollars.

Another unexplained action — one that demolishes the official contention that the deal has no bearing on the strategic programme — is the US-dictated decision to permanently shut down Cirus, one of India’s two bomb-grade plutonium-production reactors. As Paul Nelson, T.V.K. Woddi and William S. Charlton of the Texas A&M University point out in a US government-funded study, much of India’s cumulative historic production of weapons-grade plutonium has come from Cirus, operating since 1960.

As a completely refurbished reactor, Cirus is as Indian a facility as any. The Prime Minister’s baffling decision to shut down Cirus two years from now, without approving a replacement reactor, will leave a major production shortfall in military-grade plutonium.

No less troubling is the fact that solemn promises made in Parliament were not kept. After the US House of Representatives and Senate Foreign Relations Committee had approved separate versions of an India-specific Bill, the Prime Minister declared on August 17, 2006: "I had taken up with President Bush our concerns regarding provisions in the two Bills. It is clear if the final product is in its current form, India will have grave difficulties in accepting the Bills. The US has been left in no doubt as to our position". When Congress disregarded Dr Singh’s red lines and passed the Hyde Act by amalgamating the toughest elements from the Senate and House bills, the Prime Minister admitted on December 18, 2006, that "there are areas which continue to be a cause for concern".

Yet India negotiated a 123 agreement that complies with the Hyde Act, with the US stating publicly, "We have the Hyde Act, and we kept reminding the Indian side, and they were good enough to negotiate on this basis…" Of all the 123 agreements the US currently has with partner-states, the one with India stands out for conferring enforceable rights only on the supplier-state.

The Prime Minister’s assurances on "removal of restrictions on all aspects of cooperation", lifetime fuel stockpiles, linking perpetual international inspections with perpetual fuel supply through "India’s right to take corrective measures", securing an operational consent to reprocess spent fuel, etc. today lie in tatters.

The government’s secrecy on the safeguards accord springs from the fact that its text release will expose the manner it has yielded further ground. For example, the 123 agreement, instead of granting the right to take corrective measures, just records that India will seek such a right in the IAEA accord. But the IAEA accord, in its preamble, merely cites the 123 agreement’s reference to corrective measures.

It is manifest from this record that if the deal attracts more onerous conditions during the NSG and congressional approvals, the Prime Minister will go along, as he has in the past, after making some perfunctory noises. Indeed, it is this record that is likely to embolden NSG members and US lawmakers to tag on more conditions in the next stages to constrain India’s nuclear leeway.

As it nears its third anniversary, the deal has become an emblem of how not to conduct Indian diplomacy. The deal also symbolises the manner it has been sought to be thrust on the nation through media management, instead of by political co-option.

Public relations alone cannot sell an initiative. Can it be forgotten that the deal’s current cheerleaders were the drumbeaters to get India to send an army division into Iraq in 2003? How more vulnerable would India have been today had that campaign succeeded? Just as in 2003, today’s campaign is centred on overstatement — that the concerned issue holds the key to a strategic partnership with America. There is also gross exaggeration about the utility of high-priced, foreign fuel-dependent reactors from overseas.

The deal’s collapse will neither alter the direction of the US-Indian relationship, which is set toward closer strategic cooperation, nor affect the modest role nuclear power will play in India’s energy mix, with or without reactor imports. The deal, contrary to the propaganda, does not offer India unfettered access to uranium imports. India’s uranium crunch, in any event, is set to ease in two years’ time as new mines and mills open, according to nuclear chief Anil Kakodkar.

In that light, how justifiable is Dr Singh’s action in turning the conditions-laden deal into a make-or-break issue of personal prestige and upping the ante to the extent that the nation has been plunged into a political crisis? Instead of wanting to precipitously approach the IAEA board and step into a firestorm of national furore, shouldn’t the Prime Minister seek to achieve what he pledged in Parliament — "the broadest possible consensus within the country to enable the next steps to be taken"?

Once the IAEA board seals the safeguards accord, India will have little role to play in the next stages, other than as a bystander anxiously monitoring from afar what additional conditions the deal attracts in the NSG and congressional-ratification processes. So why throw nuclear caution to the winds and buoy up non-proliferation literalists in the NSG and Congress in their resolve to sculpt the final deal?

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

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Rangudu » 27 Jun 2008 01:00

ramana wrote:In all this unified opposition to the deal from the Commies and Leftists are we seeing a subtle message from the PRC that nuclear India is acceptable but not an India allied with the US even if its at whatever level?


Nope the message is more likely - "We can get our stooges in positions of power in your system and can cause national gridlock if we are unhappy with you."

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby ramana » 27 Jun 2008 01:22

Google cache of news on the deal

Looks like the ball is in Mulayam's court and thats why SP is getting flak from Left.

John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby John Snow » 27 Jun 2008 01:30

This indeed is a devilish agreement, with very strage way of dealing signing before selling.
The goverment is hotch poch, the power which this agreement is symbolically with PM but The Power is generated out side PMO and in single family. The conductors of Power are a poltical party who are outside of ruling coalition, whith alligience to a foreign enemy country.
The friendly and super duper power is sending its top notch 'Everybody who was ever anybody in spin city' to lobby for the deal and even more talk to major opposition party to whom the goverment doesnt talk to or the parliament!

Very very strange conduct of public policy in private, limited company!

Aryavarta
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 31
Joined: 01 Sep 2005 06:29

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Aryavarta » 27 Jun 2008 01:38

I believe we are stuck with conversations that focus on the actors, rather than the deal itself. To that context BC's article is a timely reminder. Some posts ago, we were arguing that US may not part with Reprocessing technology, but we are free to build one with our own tech. This defies one of the primary reasons given in support of the deal i.e. reverse the situation of tech denials since 1974. By refusing reprocessing rights and technology, the signal that I as an Indian citizen will get, is tech denials are here to stay. One may argue that it is not prudent to expect to get Reprocessing tech on platter, but that was the expectation set when the deal was announced.

July 18, 2005 had set boundaries, and if the subsequent negotiations meant both the parties to the deal (US and India) would gain some and lose some, that to my perception, would have been just negotiations. But July 18 apparently defines the maximum ceiling of what we could get (hoped to get, or were asking for), with one party (US) setting new lower limits, and subsequent negotiations deal with reaching for an agreement in between. In other words how much ever we gain, we would still have lost from the position on July 18. (I can think of generalization of this scenario, and although the two are incomparable issues, it gives an idea where we are stuck. Attempting a computer based GRE/GMAT exam, you start with a possibility of getting 800 out of 800 for GMAT, but do first 4 questions wrong, how ever good you do next -- in fact answer all the rest correctly -- your score will still hover around 400/500. Your best bet is to abandon the test and take another one later however expensive it maybe). What may have started out as a good framework on July 18, has reached such a stage. Though many would consider/argue it is still good enough.

Homework to do, would be what were the tangible gains promised July 18th? what are the gains now? IMVHO evaluating the actors is a fruitless exercise.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby ramana » 27 Jun 2008 01:49

Doesnt it look like a Noko deal? Why was the govt forced to such a situation? Almost every promise of J18 go watered down by the time we got to this stage.

John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby John Snow » 27 Jun 2008 02:01

I beg to differ.
The actors are very important, in a sense they are the satke holders for the desired out come of each actor. Therefore they will spin the gyroscope to new equilibrium, for which there will counter (actor) force which will try to undo the equilbrium shift.

Take for instance
Actor PM: Sincerely and firmly beleives that NUke deal will bring a lot of technology that currently we do not have, in the process even if we lose strategic goals set by his predecessors.

Actor Bush: wants India firmly entrenched in US orbit, through which he can extende US agenda for world even if it infriges on India's sovereign rights (like Iran relations to cite), what better way than to curb the strategic role and vision of Indians.

Actors are the agents of stimuli which then rolls the events in the direction of their agenda or oppose one such.

Aryavarta
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 31
Joined: 01 Sep 2005 06:29

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Aryavarta » 27 Jun 2008 02:13

Ramana, Wasn't the unilateral decisions taken by India that may have lead to this situation? We decide on separation first, seal the separation plan, and then US will try for a waiver. Whereas we are stuck with the plan, US had the advantage to maneuver. Why agree to shutdown Cirrus in 2010, and not 'X' years after the nuclear deal was finally signed? Why shutdown Cirrus in the first place without asking for compensation for the refurbishment cost? In fact even when it was built first I am sure it was Indian government that paid for it and it was not a Canadian gift. If we need to shutdown Cirrus to save somebody else's H & D, the least we could have done was to ask the latter to pay up the costs. I understand the best workable solution could have been to let Cirrus run until its natural end of life, and that could have happened if we had asked for compensation.

Same story with IAEA safeguards, we reach an agreement, and only then US will act in NSG. If NSG proposes several new conditions, can we go back to renegotiate with IAEA? Even if that were to be theoretically possible, what are the chances of that happening. One of the key approach, if and when the new government picks it up again, should be IMVHO of agreement in principal in advance if required, but all official signing will be done on the same day on the same table.

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7171
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Amber G. » 27 Jun 2008 02:46

Nope the message is more likely - "We can get our stooges in positions of power in your system and can cause national gridlock if we are unhappy with you."

R - Good Point.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5246
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby ShauryaT » 27 Jun 2008 03:12

ramana wrote:In all this unified opposition to the deal from the Commies and Leftists are we seeing a subtle message from the PRC that nuclear India is acceptable but not an India allied with the US even if its at whatever level?
That is what it seems to be and the fifth columnists are a pawn. Also, it fits another puzzle that is roaming around in my head. I am calling it "The Great Game - Part III". China clearly seems to have an inkling on, what is it going to be about. I want to write a long post on it but am pressed for time. Ramana: If you are getting my message then would love to know your perspective.

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

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby enqyoobOLD » 27 Jun 2008 03:56

So Dr. Abdul Kalaam has come out lobbying for this sha'eed-e-deal? Doesn't that make him a "yankee stooge (??) and representative of Big Business?

I am glad to see that the CPI (ML) has come out against the deal. So have Pervez Musharraf, Aiman Al-Zuwahiri, Henry Sokolski, Shrilleen Mazari... I hope such scientific experts as Arundhati Roy, the Magsaysay Award Winner Dr. Sandeep Pandey, are not far behind. They join B. Chellaney and the other ex-whatevers. Admiral Nadkarni is probably in favor of anything which ends up shutting down the LCA project and importing everything.

Overall, an amazing demonstration of the Power of The People(s Democract Republic).

I note that June 25 is over. So what has happened? The Left "reconsidered its support" for the GOI, and concluded that it will "reconsider its support" again next month?

Spinsterji, can you pls use AmberG's AntiMatter Formula and come up with the Gigatonnage equivalent of all the hot air and Big Ones let off by the various netas and babus in Dilli? I think this has demonstrated the Indian Nuclear Deterrence beyond any doubt.

John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby John Snow » 27 Jun 2008 05:39

Spinsterji, can you pls use AmberG's AntiMatter Formula and come up with the Gigatonnage equivalent of all the hot air and Big Ones let off by the various netas and babus in Dilli? I think this has demonstrated the Indian Nuclear Deterrence beyond any doubt



Enqyoob saar> Just finished my dinner, sorry to keep you waiting.

Saar lets start at the evry begining a very good way to start...

Like many a BRfites I was neither for the deal nor against the deal, :| was lost like Alice in wonderland
wondering who was who and giving confusing directions... :-?

Then vola! your logic deconstructing and errecting the use purpose of this agreement and uselessness( a little of Stephen Cobert) of the Mega Bums as chotus were very good or enough if we can do door to door delivery. I was sold and I am a beliver firmly in your camp like our PM. Besides now that I know there was family planning behind this saviour to be born (agreement) who needs bum? I ask in your vein.

Honestly if We had sufficient hot air, we would be running steam turbines with conventional heat exchangers. This is the reason our leadership is not showing everything to everybody because there will be heated exchanges instead of heat exchangers. no? :mrgreen:

Coming to Kalam saar , I have seen his humble ebode in KK. I think there is no body who is more commited to the country's cause save for few like you and me! (I mean this seriously, your valliant efforts during 199 Kargil crisis and other issues is worth emulating any time, as for me being in the right camp right behind you holding coat tails I am entitiled to be called a well wisher too). I have a lurking fear that he Kalam saar might not have been shown the document in entirity except the defferential equations and projected trajectory of this deal! Even now there is no comment from eminent lawyers like Ram jeeth malni is surprising to say the least, he would be the first to jump at this opportunity like this, barring bad knees or buckling at the knees. :((

Anyway very lucarative opportunities exist and will open to powerfull lawyers on both sides of the world greates and largest democracies.

Power to the people is truly taking hold in India, atlast Bin badal bijlee (meaning we dont have to depend on mansoons to get electric shocking bill.)

Power tends to erupt when absolute power is lined up!

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

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Rye » 27 Jun 2008 05:55

If the BJP thinks it can "renegotiate" the deal again, they are mistaken. They have a poor reading of the american political climate. This will be talked about as another example of how difficult it is for democracies to engage each other, but that would be a lie. This is a self-inflicted wound for India and a pyrrhic victory for the BJP. The only winners are China and the CPI(M).
Last edited by Rye on 27 Jun 2008 06:16, edited 2 times in total.

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

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Gerard » 27 Jun 2008 06:03

AoA

Scott Ritter tears David Albright a new musharraf...

The Nuclear Expert Who Never Was
By Scott Ritter
I am a former U.N. weapons inspector. I started my work with the United Nations in September 1991, and between that date and my resignation in August 1998, I participated in over 30 inspections, 14 as chief inspector.
I bring up this history because during the entire time of my intense, somewhat intimate cooperation with the IAEA Action Team, one name that never entered into the mix was David Albright.
I can’t say for certain when Albright became “Doctor” Albright. A self-described “physicist,” he allows the term to linger, as he does the title “former U.N. inspector,” in order to create the impression that he possesses a certain gravitas. David Albright holds a master of science degree in physics from Indiana University and a master of science in mathematics from Wright State University. I imagine that this résumé permits him to assign himself the title physicist, but not in the Robert Oppenheimer/Edward Teller sense of the word. Whatever physics work Albright may or may not have done in his life, one thing is certain: He has never worked as a nuclear physicist on any program dedicated to the design and/or manufacture of nuclear weapons. He has never designed nuclear weapons and never conducted mathematical calculations in support of testing nuclear weapons, nor has he ever worked in a facility or with an organization dedicated to either.

Eventually, one must begin to question the motives of Albright and ISIS. No self-respecting think tank would allow itself to be used in such an egregious manner. The fact that ISIS is a creation of Albright himself, and as such operates as a mirror image of its founder and president, only underscores the concerns raised when an individual lacking in any demonstrable foundation of expertise has installed himself into the mainstream media in a manner that corrupts the public discourse and debate by propagating factually incorrect, illogical and misleading information.
Albright, operating under the guise of his creation, ISIS, has a track record of inserting hype and speculation about matters of great sensitivity in a manner which skews the debate toward the worst-case scenario. Over time Albright often moderates his position, but the original sensationalism still remains, serving the purpose of imprinting a negative image in the psyche of public opinion. This must stop. It is high time the mainstream media began dealing with David Albright for what he is (a third-rate reporter and analyst), and what he isn’t (a former U.N. weapons inspector, doctor, nuclear physicist or nuclear expert). It is time for David Albright, the accidental inspector, to exit stage right. Issues pertaining to nuclear weapons and their potential proliferation are simply too serious to be handled by amateurs and dilettantes.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5246
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby ShauryaT » 27 Jun 2008 06:59

Rye wrote:If the BJP thinks it can "renegotiate" the deal again, they are mistaken. They have a poor reading of the american political climate. This will be talked about as another example of how difficult it is for democracies to engage each other, but that would be a lie. This is a self-inflicted wound for India and a pyrrhic victory for the BJP. The only winners are China and the CPI(M).

Rye - I do not think BJP has any realistic hopes of renegotiating the deal. Their stance on on it is diplomatic code word for abrogation. It is not the BJP that says "it is difficult for democracies to engate each other", but they recognize the inherent interests manifested as capabilities and instruments and the likely ways they can be used to gauge, if the price is worth it. It is their view that it is not and the Congress's view that it is.

From the BJP's stand point this very process has led to a shifting of goal posts, in American Football parlance, instead of a 50 yard run to a home run, the distance has been increased to 70 yards, if it is not signed and to 90 yards, if it is.

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

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Rye » 27 Jun 2008 07:12

BJP has no sense of pragmatism, and seems to be H&D oriented, which is a pity. If India gets the same deal 10 years down the line, that's 10 years wasted when we could have been building real capability that cannot be taken away from us once we acquire it. There is no real chance that the BJP will do a MT testing even if they come to power, and even if they can wangle some clause that says they can test on paper a few years down the line when there is another India-friendly president (but will be constrained from testing in reality anyway). And if they do test, then some other patriot will come down the line and proclaim it all a miserable failure....lather, rinse, repeat.
Last edited by Rye on 27 Jun 2008 07:13, edited 1 time in total.

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7171
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Amber G. » 27 Jun 2008 07:13

N^3ji -I think it is only fair to warn ... In case any one decides to use my formula and my gyan (obtained from the best of wikl sites/brf forums and watching D-T instability in Crab nebula) about things making anti-matter/matter Giga-Booms .. be warned that those 1.2 MeV photons would take one look at that highly non-linear curve, loose their nerve , and like sellout traitors will trun back into electorn/positron pair and not even leave any trace of tale-tell Tritium.

Anyway you do bring some sanity in this wonderland....! :D

John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby John Snow » 27 Jun 2008 07:25

Dr. Tim informed us that Scott Ritter has a Russian wife, hence his credibility is doubtful.

On this note I want say good bye (at least for a while, till I get to know how fast draw our new bradmins are on the ban button) by lurking.

Thanks to one and all ( I hear good riddence in the back ground from true friends, :mrgreen: and some sighs from non comitted friends :wink: )

Fade shot with the tune Dont cry for me..... (in the background)

Jai Hind

CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6865
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54
Contact:

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby CRamS » 27 Jun 2008 08:03

I am going to be a heretic of sorts. I think KalamJi is way too over-rated, and this has been my position, at least I have never sung paens in his favor. And to be honest, as much as I am a BJP supporter, a Muslim like him on the side of BJP/NDA gave him extra 'credibility' in the eyes of die-hard nationalists. Thus, just because he supports this so called 'deal', it doesn't count even for a gram of beans.
Mind Your Tone.
Rahul M

That said, BJP's opposition to the deal also doesn't jell with me. I mean they burst 5 nuke crackers and did nothing after that. Thus, its not as if they are going to test of they come to power or do anything untowardly aggressive visa vi India's nuke posture.

My position on the deal is based on extrapolation of MMS's actions and intentions. Its obvious that he cares two hoots for India's strategic posture, and hence with him or someone from his like-minded cabal in power, India signing the deal is essentially and wilfully and out of its volition signing away its nuclear posture, a.k.a. nuke nude. And once India signs, as Uneven suggested, TSP will be offered the same deal which Mush and ISI will sign in a heart beat. MMS will then offer Kashmir independence, and South Asia will be a garden of Eden thereafter with western back office and BPO jobs flooding in.

Second Line of above paragraph.
Does not constitute an official warning as of yet.
But tread carefully in the furure.
Rahul M
Last edited by Rahul M on 27 Jun 2008 08:39, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Inappropiate Language towards Public Figures.

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

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby nkumar » 27 Jun 2008 08:15

KP Nayar in Telegraph:
America set to seek its pound of flesh

Washington, June 26: The Indo-US nuclear deal will not have a free passage in the US Congress when it comes back here even if the UPA and the Left parties resolve their differences over the Hyde Act and the so-called 123 Agreement.

This became clear on Capitol Hill yesterday during a hearing on the “future of Indo-US relations” in the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Sub-Committee on the Middle East and South Asia.


Gary Ackerman, the chairman of the sub-committee, told the hearing that “I have a very difficult time understanding why the Government of India continues to pursue a pipeline with Iran and Pakistan at a time when other nations in the world are not just implementing UN approved sanctions, which is India’s historic position, but are going further by cutting off access to banking services and discouraging other economic interactions with Iran.”

In remarks clearly meant to be heard and noticed in New Delhi, Ackerman added: “I hope that India’s officials will hear and understand the US view of Iran: that Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and regional hegemony is a serious threat posed to international peace and stability in the Middle East and the vital national security interests of the US.”

That Ackerman has chosen to touch on Indo-Iranian ties, a politically volatile issue in UPA-Left relations, only a few days before he leaves for New Delhi is a clear signal that he intends to tell India’s leadership — behind closed doors, of course — that the Manmohan Singh government will have to pay a price if it returns to Capitol Hill for the next stage in the implementation of the nuclear deal.

Ackerman warned that “continued pursuit” of the India-Pakistan-Iran “pipeline or other investments in Iran’s energy sector as was hinted a few weeks ago by unnamed officials at India’s state-run Oil and Natural Gas Commission will halt and potentially even roll back the progress made in bilateral (Indo-US) relations over the last several years.”


Ackerman’s demand that India should show greater sensitivity towards Washington’s Iran policy is the strongest comment here on Indo-Iranian relations since Tom Lantos, the late chairman of what was then the House of Representatives International Relations Committee, launched a broadside in September 2005 against Natwar Singh, the then external affairs minister, by calling him “dense”.

Lantos said Natwar Singh’s visit to Iran then and his statements in Tehran were “literally sickening, this Stalinist rhetoric which we don’t accept from the Indian foreign minister”.

Ackerman’s warning yesterday was similar to a threat by Lantos in 2005 that Indo-US relations would “go down the tubes” if New Delhi did not change its Iran policy.

Ackerman is one of India’s long-standing and best friends in the US and he is a strong supporter of the nuclear deal.

When someone like him demands that India offer a quid pro quo on Iran or face a “cut off (in) our burgeoning (Indo-US) relationship”, it is an indication that ratification of the 123 Agreement will not be easy in the present US Congress and in the twilight months of the Bush administration.

India will have to have its answers on Iran ready for Ackerman when he arrives in New Delhi in a few days because what he said on Capitol Hill yesterday is only the tip of an iceberg.

Ackerman is a key sponsor of a new resolution in the House of Representatives, already co-sponsored by more than 200 Congressmen, which calls for what amounts to a virtual air, sea and naval blockade of Iran.

There is intense worry here that Ackerman’s resolution is a prelude to re-enacting a 2008 version of the Gulf of Tonkin incident, misrepresented by the US in 1964, for largescale military involvement in Vietnam.

That would enable elements in the Bush administration which want a military conflict with Iran this year and leave a fait accompli for the next US President.

What Ackerman is, in effect, asking India is whether the Manmohan Singh government is “with us or against us” on Iran, hinting clearly that the nuclear deal may be the prize of what India decides to do with Tehran in the coming months.

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

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Rye » 27 Jun 2008 08:22

CRamS wrote:
My position on the deal is based on extrapolation of MMS's actions and intentions. Its obvious that he cares two hoots for India's strategic posture, and hence with him or someone from his like-minded cabal in power, India signing the deal is essentially and wilfully and out of its volition signing away its nuclear posture, a.k.a. nuke nude.


This is just rhetoric. How is India going to be made nuke nude seriously? Please explain to me how the USA and others are going to cart away all the material in the non-civilian side, including the reactors out of the reach of the IAEA.


And once India signs, as Uneven suggested, TSP will be offered the same deal which Mush and ISI will sign in a heart beat.


For a guy who does not think much of Stephen Cohen's view, you certainly give his views a lot of credibility.
I am sure you have been following Pakistan like everyone else here on BR, and do you really think people are going to take you seriously with claims like the above? The US still has not recovered from its error of handing over all those stingers to the pakis, and you think they will be given a civilian nuclear deal with separation like India? Really?

MMS will then offer Kashmir independence, and South Asia will be a garden of Eden thereafter with western back office and BPO jobs flooding in.


Well, things are certainly getting interesting for India, if you read the J&K thread. But then other than all the whining and bitching about the PM, there is little that is said on these threads.

CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6865
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54
Contact:

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby CRamS » 27 Jun 2008 09:28

Rye:

You have seen the goodies TSP has acquired from USA, prior to 9/11 as well, but has a recahed a crescendo since then. Plus, lets not be naive here, but for USA looking askance wilfully, TSP would not have been a nuke power in the first place. And this was done in part so Unkil bahadur can box India with TSP in an equal equal framework. Thus, you think USA is not capable (with TSP RAPE connivance) of remote controlling TSP even while offering it a nuke deal so long as such a deal only serves to bolster USA's interests? USA's pragmatism in securing its interests always wins the day however absurd and incongrugious its actions might seem. And so yes, a nuke deal to TSP once India signs is very much on the cards. And finally, when it comes to 'South Asia', Uneven does have the right pulse, and most of what he has suggested and predicted has in fact been official US policy.

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

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby pradeepe » 27 Jun 2008 09:44

Gerard wrote:AoA

Scott Ritter tears David Albright a new musharraf...

The Nuclear Expert Who Never Was
By Scott Ritter
This must stop. It is high time the mainstream media began dealing with David Albright for what he is (a third-rate reporter and analyst), and what he isn’t (a former U.N. weapons inspector, doctor, nuclear physicist or nuclear expert). It is time for David Albright, the accidental inspector, to exit stage right. Issues pertaining to nuclear weapons and their potential proliferation are simply too serious to be handled by amateurs and dilettantes.


Ouch! Ouch!

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

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby pradeepe » 27 Jun 2008 09:48

Headlines - Deccan Chronicle. BJP ready to back the deal. I saw the print version. I cant access the online version for some reason. But it must be there.

Some powerhouse in MH has helped strike a compromise. All in all, a good outcome IMHO.

http://www.deccan.com/

Raju

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Raju » 27 Jun 2008 11:21

CRamS wrote:My position on the deal is based on extrapolation of MMS's actions and intentions. ...


read MJ Akbar's latest article .. on discussions in World Bank canteens ..

satyarthi
BRFite
Posts: 179
Joined: 21 Aug 2006 08:50

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby satyarthi » 27 Jun 2008 12:27

pradeepe wrote:Headlines - Deccan Chronicle. BJP ready to back the deal. I saw the print version. I cant access the online version for some reason. But it must be there.

Some powerhouse in MH has helped strike a compromise. All in all, a good outcome IMHO.

http://www.deccan.com/

Pradeepe,

It is a good idea to pasteurize DDMitis afflicted news articles before swallowing them.

The deccan chronicle article is filled with the reporter's extrapolations and wishes. In fact it is so lousily written that the reporter deserves to be give some sort of DDM medal, or promoted to work for BBC.

The MH powerhouse thing is about Shiv Sena, not BJP. Shiv Sena voted against BJP's presidential nominee Shekhawat, so they are not doing anything out of character here either.

In a nutshell, BJP hasn't changed its stated policy.

This is the actual quote:
BJP ready to back N-deal

New Delhi June 26: At a time when the Congress is groping for allies on the contentious nuclear issue, the Hindutva outfits could possibly come to its rescue in the event of a no-trust move against the UPA over the deal. The Shiv Sena has come out in support of the nuclear deal, by calling the Communists “red monkeys”, while senior BJP leaders, openly attacking the deal earlier, appear to have changed their stand, but still refuse to come clean. :roll:

According to a reliable source a powerful pro-Congress industrial house is said to be behind Mr Thackeray’s sudden support for the Congress stand. This group does not want the Congress to fall over the nuclear deal as it does not know what can be in store for its multi-billion dollar business if another government comes in. This business house has always had a good equation with Mr Thackeray who has helped them out in times of need.

Meanwhile, when asked whether the BJP will move a no-trust motion against the government or vote against it, the top BJP leader, Mr M. Venkaiah Naidu, said, “We are not going to disclose our options right now.”
He then added, “We are not here to bail out the government, but unlike the Left we are not blindly against the United States. We want a strategic relationship with the US.”


Sources disclosed that with CPI(M) politburo member M.K. Pandhe painting the deal as “anti-Muslim”, the right wing forces “might not want to be seen as forces opposing the nuclear power” . BJP incidentally keeps reminding the country of the Pokhran-II nuclear tests.

While Mr Naidu refused to reveal the party’s strategy on the floor of the House during the forthcoming Monsoon Session, sources disclosed that the BJP was weighing the options before taking a final call. It was learnt for certain that the BJP will not move a no-trust motion against the government on its own. However, if a no-trust motion is moved either by the Left or any other outfit, the BJP would look at two options. “Either we vote against or stage a walk-out and bring down the strength of the House. We are not bothered whether the government survives or falls,” a party functionary said. This particular move could send a signal to the US that BJP “was not taking steps to thwart the deal”.

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7049
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby JE Menon » 27 Jun 2008 13:01

I don't think the BJP will outright back the deal, and I don't think they should, politically speaking. They should not stand in its way, and should support from the backstage - no more. This would be the way from the responsible opposition perspective IMHO. Of course, no way they will lump their posture with the Karat gang. I am perplexed by Buddhadeb's silence. Maybe the time is not yet right :twisted: Sitting outside of the country, with info sources limited to online and no Bengalis in my neck of the woods, it is hard to assess.

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

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby pradeepe » 27 Jun 2008 13:24

Satyarthi, DDMitis or not, as noted by JEM, thats the most one can expect the BJP to say openly. Given that nothing official has changed either in the agreement or in the politics/strutting rights of who gets to add the deal feathers to their cap. If you were expecting the BJP to actually say, "Yes, we are supporting this deal initiated by the UPA". It aint gonna happen. They will look like fools if they actually said that, and will lose me as their supporter faster than the NLI skating down the slopes.

Here's a thought. We were always looking for a Jekyll to counter Uncles Hyde. Its been there all along, in Indias own way. Any guesses? The BJP as a responsible opposition and a party with greater than non-zero probablity of taking center stage, can turn Jekyll if things get sticky.

Tilak
BRFite
Posts: 733
Joined: 31 Jul 2005 20:19
Location: Old Lal Masjid @BRFATA (*Renovation*)

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Tilak » 27 Jun 2008 16:28

Tilak wrote:
amit wrote:
Tilak wrote: Can you point me to a link to such a statement, from the US govt spokesperson/senators/ambassador. TIA


That wasn't me saying it.

That's what Yashwant Sinha said during his interview with Karan Thapar. Please hear the audio once again.


I've listened to the interview, and haven't found what you said he did. Can you quote Yashwant Sinha's line in the interview/time which says "US has told us it will not renegotiate".


My mistake!, it's there in the second clip. :oops:.

But I am curious, why the US gov. has not said it publicly, when it was willing to say "We don't mind a minority Govt. signing up" :roll:


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests