India nuclear news and discussion

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 07 Oct 2008 15:38

NRao wrote:A Jekyll Act will ONLY amplify the deep mistrust. It would be better to place 123 in a deep freeze till Indian position is better and then provide the heat needed to thaw it.

Mean while the NSG "waiver" can be used to keep a truly civilian program running - the main purpose for India to venture to even talk about outside assistance. (This assumes that FR/RU will not write up another 123 equivalent. DO not know if that is possible.)

On another note, all this maneuvering seems that India expects to test in the next 10-20 years. And, IF that is true, has not the funding been reduced in these years when India is doing well economically? Also, has CAT in Indore been refocused?

NRao ji,
Jekyll will not amplify the mistrust.

Mistrust is amplified if we do not fulfill our promises made to USA, and signing off our Right to Test was not one of them. Mistrust is amplified if we do not sign the 123 Agreement, sealing India's strategic partnership with USA, albeit retaining our independence in foreign policy. USA expects at least that in nuclear context, India gives US companies orders for two nuclear reactors at least. Other commitments in the nuclear field are in the NSG Waiver, to which we agreed.

I certainly hope, India did not promise any Indian forces for Afghanistan, etc.

USA has had its bite at the Laws governing Indo-US nuclear commerce. India needs to have its bite also. You know how it is with the Bedouins. Sharing of food from the same Thali increases the level of trust.

. In fact, USA would even lose some respect it currently has for India and Indian Parliament, if we do not bring out our own Jekyll Act. That respect is needed if we do not want USA to start acting with us, as they act with Pakistan.

Just as all the US Legislation does not make Indians believe that USA does not want to on friendly terms with us, why should Indian Legislation make USA distrustful? Vagueness increases distrust. Noting down our take on the 123 Agreement reduces that vagueness.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 07 Oct 2008 15:41

Three GREAT posts up there; sorry for the one liner but I just HAD to say it.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 07 Oct 2008 16:38

Note on 'signing statement'

Even though a 'signing statement' does not change the legal provisions of a bill, as I understand it, it does give India a cover.

Should it ever come to a point, where there is a dispute between India and USA regarding the 123 Agreement, Bush 'signing statement' provides the context in which India signed the agreement, and thereby can act as a shield against all the accusations that are going to fly around. Also these 'signing statements' can provide the arguments that friends of India in the Administration and the US Congress may need to stave off negative consequences for bilateral relationship, or the collapse of the bilateral agreement.

As such, it was very wise for the GoI to not sign the 123 Agreement before the Context of that agreement is improved upon.

Raja Ram · Post by **Raja Ram** » 07 Oct 2008 17:12

Two leaders who have nothing to lose decided to cross the rubicon and make a deal. Well and good. They agreed on the broad parameters. Well and good. They also agreed on the modalities, rules of engagement and sequence of events. Well and good.

One side, India delivered as per plan. The other side, the USG could not deliver every step of the way. What was promised however, that in the end the deal will be as agreed. What is delivered now is far short of what was agreed.

The two leaders who have nothing to lose have decided that they need a deal at any cost for the sake of their legacies. This is the summary so far.

I think the time for debate has passed and we are going to have a deal in place that is far short of what was promised. The GOI has done partially well in getting this deal done. It could have been much better, if they had exhibited statesmanship, consensus building at home and being less flexible when the first signs of deviation from agreed steps came about. While the first two points were definitely a mistake the last one has to be appreciated in the context of things.

This deal was an important opportunity and a recognition of India. It was an opportunity to break out of apartheid. By being rigid or idealistic, we could have missed out as we have in the past. So there was a need for flexibility. But because of the lack of statesmanship on the part of the PM personally and lack of consensus building, in my opinion, the GOI has been more flexible than necessary.

Imagine, if a bipartisan committee of UPA and the principal opposition had been taken on board and a realistic consensus built, how well it would have helped India. If the parliament was taken into confidence as soon as the Hyde Act was passed to build a consensus on the deal with a strong disconnect from the intrusive Hyde Act provisions as a parliamentary consensus (along the lines of the unanimous resolution on J&K being integral and indivisible part of India) stopping short of an equalising Jekyl act, it would have strengthened GOI negotiating position.

I am sure we could have got a deal that was in line with J18 agreement. Not this "post dated cheque on a crashing bank" to borrow a famous line from Gandhiji.

My fellow gentle readers, I have been a votary for a deal, I have been a sceptic of the GOI, I have been seen as anti-deal at different times by different gurus here. I have always maintained a consistent nuanced support for this deal. What we have now is watered down version at best. I still feel that it is not as gloomy as a sell out. There are positives. A lot of geo-political positives. India has broken its way like Abhimanyu into the chakravyuh. Will be like that tragic hero, once inside or will we also master coming out of this unscathed?

That should be the question that we must engage with. What we have to do in some future point in time is clear. Our ability to do that hinges on what we do between now and then. That depends a lot on the vision, segacity, single-mindedness of purpose and taking some hard and important decisions along the way.

If there is a silver lining to this saga it is the fact that India will now be forced to fight its way out of the chakravyuh for there is no other option. That in itself, will provide the impeteus to all concerned, the scientists, the political leaders and the strategists to deliver us.

There are many important churnings that are happening within India, they cover all aspects of our society, our laws, our demography. Hard decisions await us in many spheres, the government has invested a lot of time on this deal and it needs to invest even more than that on some of these issues. For the currency of power stems from national strength. And there are many dimensions to national strength. Nuclear power is but one of them.

I would submit as a semi-informed not so humble commentator, the time has now come for us focus our debates and energies to see how we can make this break through work for us. Nothing is going to come about by debating the pros and cons of this deal further. There are definitely cons as there are pros. Perhaps more cons than pros, but we have a deal, we have arrived and broken the apartheid. The endeavour now must be to avoid the cons, and work on the pros going forward.

As usual a ramble. Take it for what it is worth

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 07 Oct 2008 17:20

This reminds me of what Gandhiji said about the about the promises of the British Raj,"...a post dated cheque on a failing bank"!

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 07 Oct 2008 17:26

Raja Ram Ji,

hats off to you. Your ramble is always a delight worth savoring.

Your example of Abhimanyu breaking into the chakravyu is very cogent. Breaking out of the chakravyu is the hard part and epitomizes the next phase of struggle for modern India.

p_saggu · Post by **p_saggu** » 07 Oct 2008 17:35

Can anyone tell me what use is the signing statement other than to provide MMS with ammo to repackage a sour deal into a glitzy gift for the indian parliament? It surely does not alter what is inside the bill. The next US president is surely not going to be bound by atmospherics that surrounded the intentions of the bill. It doesn't form a legal basis on which the provisions of the bill can be challenged in a court of law.

Unless, India wants there to be a provision there that India will conduct tests for stockpile stewardship, and that will not be construed as destabilizing, and impose automatic cutoff of the deal. Even then the next POTUSs are not bound by signing statements.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 07 Oct 2008 18:03

p_saggu Ji,

You are quite right it doesn't change the legal provisions as such. Those legal provisions would however be interpreted by subsequent administrations and legislatures, and there will always be those who would be baying for Indian blood, the puritans, the NPAs, the China-Lobby, and there will be those who would want to moderate US response to Indian testing. IMHO, there should be as much as possible in there to strengthen the pro-Indian lobby in US Govt.

Secondly, there are several statements of Policy and Intent in Hyde Act and the subsequent Bill. Those Policies can certainly be watered down, as these are not legal provisions. It is the President who sets policy and implements it and not the Congress. The Congress provides him with the Legal Framework to act on those policies.

You are right that it is a botched up deal, and does not come even close to what we wanted in J18. But now this is the deal we have and which we will be signing on October 13th. So might as well have a few more Christmas decorations on it.

For the USA, it is not the Nuclear Deal or the orders for a couple of nuclear reactors that matter (apart from the CRE enthusiasts there). They are interested in a Strategic Relationship, which is unhindered by nuclear matters. If they were interested only in CRE, my take is that they would have come down much harder on India.

For a strategic relationship, atmospherics do matter. How is USA going to proceed on a strategic relationship, when all around, there is going to be a stink that USA dragged us over the coals and double-crossed us. If the distrust is there, not even India, which also would have to have a closer relationship, can change the dynamic too much.

That said, you are right.

Others may have different opinions on this issue.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 07 Oct 2008 18:16

MMS will be remembered in future as the man who screwed up the Indo-US strategic relationship because of the double-speak of the deal.Future govts. in the US and in India will fight over the interpretation of Hyde and the 123,and the Indian parliament can be expected to provide us with some great entertainment! Why there could not be clarity in both and transparency from the deal makers beats me,unless there are still certain facts and "Understandings",backscratching,that have not been made public.If that is the case.then this deal will fail in the future.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 07 Oct 2008 18:34

The party which has something to lose, would tend to be circumspect in being transparent about all that it is giving up. Otherwise the political vultures would make short work of you, and those were Indian political realities.

This is however no excuse for not getting a better deal.

sraj · Post by **sraj** » 07 Oct 2008 19:44

There is nothing sacrosanct about a signing on Oct 13.

Even if Bush would like 123 to be signed before he leaves office, we have time until Jan 20, 2009.

A Jekyll Act can be introduced in the Lok Sabha as early as Oct 17 when it convenes for its-long delayed "monsoon" session.

The importance of an Indian Jekyll Act being in place before this 123 agreement is signed is that both parties will be signing with full awareness of each other's interpretations of key 123 provisions.

These interpretations would be as explicitly stated in the Hyde Act, HR7081 (the recent additional bill that came out of nowhere) and the 1954 Atomic Energy Act - with whatever cosmetic benefit the presidential signing statements provide added on - on the US side, and the Indian Jekyll Act.

Signing of the 123 agreement with these contradictory interpretations will ensure that the agreement largely remains a dead letter, unless and until amended at a future date.

The benefit of signing with relevant applicable national laws clearly available to both sides is that expectations on both sides will remain realistic with respect to India-US bilateral nuclear and high-tech (the one that Admiral Raja Menon was so looking forward to) trade. If the Indian Jekyll Act comes into existence after 123 is signed and is then used to support Indian interpretations of 123, the US can legitimately complain about Indian "underhand" tactics, just as we have complained about the numerous bait and switch tactics since J18.

This will ensure that any bitterness generated due to the unfulfilled promise of J18 is contained and does not spill over into the broader India-US relationship -- which is of immense importance to both sides.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 07 Oct 2008 19:54

sraj Ji,

That is indeed an excellent point. Signing 123 Agreement after a Jekyll Act in Indian Parliament, would of course, be beneficial for mutual trust, even though it would basically bring about a stale-mate with respect to nuclear commerce.

India would not be buying any nuclear reactors from USA, as that may go against the grain of the Jekyll Act, which could demand fuel-assurances from the nuclear-reactor supplier as well as from the government of the country. That would of course be a going against US expectations of two nuclear reactors for their companies. I do think, India would have to live up to that expectation, because it needs to keep those who lobbied for India in US happy. However anything over and above those two reactors, would have to completely comply with the conditions in the Jekyll Law.

With 123 Agreement in place, non-nuclear high-technology could of course be imported far more easily.

I do think, US Administration can be persuaded to show patience before the Jekyll Act is through. However I am not sure, whether GoI can muster sufficient support for the Jekyll Act in Parliament, considering that the marriage between UPA and Samajwadi Party is on the rocks. Manmohan Singh needs to take Advani into confidence and bring BJP and others on board on this. BJP's renegotiation bakwas has no feet. With Jekyll Act, the BJP can still play a constructive role.

Still, I am not sure that GoI would take this high road. Fear of the unknown! Fear to change the script!

For any Jekyll Act to be acceptable to the US (they have to sign 123 Agreement afterwards), it would have to have a provision for a waiver, either Parliamentary or by the Cabinet, to allow the purchase of nuclear reactors. Condi can then show this waiver as a means for doing business in a discriminatory environment (though one created by US Congress themselves).

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 07 Oct 2008 20:18

sraj wrote:

If the Indian Jekyll Act comes into existence after 123 is signed and is then used to support Indian interpretations of 123, the US can legitimately complain about Indian "underhand" tactics, just as we have complained about the numerous bait and switch tactics since J18.

Thanks. That is a very good point. Hope India does the Jekyl before signing -- these are the same folks that claimed India violated the NPT even though it was not a signatory. Better make sure that what is written down and agreed upon in the Jekyl Act clearly specifies the Indian interpretation of the 123 agreement before signing the dotted line on the 123. It will definitely be termed "underhanded" if India tries to do that after signing the 123 -- and India will be blamed for "untrustworthy behaviour".

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 07 Oct 2008 20:35

sraj, rakshaks,

I would be interested to know, what you believe should be a part of the Jekyll Act.

sraj · Post by **sraj** » 07 Oct 2008 21:14

RajeshA:

We need to wait until Bush signs HR 7081. I will post some suggestions on what should be in a Jekyll act after perusing whatever Bush has to say at the signing.

btw, US industry which lobbied for this deal can be rewarded in many different ways, not necessarily with 2 reactors. We need to remember that even two reactors operating under the threat of fuel disruptions, return of materials, US inspectors in addition to IAEA inspectors, no reprocessing consent, spent fuel piling up, etc. creates pressure points on GoI. GoI can do without additional pressure points; it already has to navigate through numerous competing and conflicting domestic and foreign interests whenever it has to make a decision.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 07 Oct 2008 21:26

http://www.outlookindia.com/pti_news.asp?id=617242

Pres. Bush to sign 123 tomorrow.

nkumar · Post by **nkumar** » 07 Oct 2008 21:32

sarj, thanks for saying it so clearly. This was exactly what I had in mind. I don't like to use the word trust in international relations. Two countries have entered into a contract keeping in mind that both will gain out if it. Otherwise there will be no contract. So, lets not use the word trust here. We should max our gains using every tool.

BTW, we are not going to put anything new in Jekyll, it will have everything, which Indian PM has assured to the Parliament. If Jekyll is brought up after 123 is signed, the US press will scream that India has betrayed US, India is not a reliable partner etc etc.

However, I am highly pessimistic whether MMS and his advisors in PMO will go for this option.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 07 Oct 2008 21:41

Bush would be signing the H R 7081, United States India Nuclear Cooperation Approval and Non-proliferation Enhancement Act tomorrow on 08.10.2008.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 07 Oct 2008 23:25

ramana wrote:Its not a matter of legs for govts or people but for the nation. That is how important it is. But then folks dont like my answers for they have to think it thru.

The signing statements will give India a clue of what the real US thinking is. And on that a lot depends.

What are Kimball et al fuliminating? And Perkovich?

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 07 Oct 2008 23:44

Realistically speaking, the USA will not be able to dictate terms in the future like it did in the past, given their decline in the both political and financial influence in that region. So while it is possible that this could be a stick to beat India with, India would also be in a position to counter such moves, if any such moves are made down the line. But that would depend on what the GoI does more than what the US does. This deal is definitely more than what the NPAs want to give away, that is for sure.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 08 Oct 2008 00:01

Rye, you got it. We want to ensure there is no stick. Its not enough that there are no intentions now, the capability should be removed. Signing statments will tip their hand.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 08 Oct 2008 00:19

India has surrendered right to nuclear deterrent: Rajnath

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 08 Oct 2008 00:21

India an exception when it comes to selling nuclear materials

sraj · Post by **sraj** » 08 Oct 2008 00:46

'US Domestic Laws Define The Boundaries Of The N-Deal'
Interview with Ashley Tellis

[Question:] But the Hyde Act is a big problem for India.

It's mainly a rhetorical problem because the Indian government has asserted that the Hyde Act and other US legislation do not bind India. That's both right and wrong.

It's right in that India is not party to the Hyde Act or the Atomic Energy Act but it is wrong in that these domestic laws define the boundaries within which the 123 Agreement has been negotiated

[Question:] Will Bush's commitment in his statement bind future presidents?

No signing statement issued by one president binds another. Ultimately, it all depends on what the policies of the day are but the policies towards India will only grow more liberal over time.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 08 Oct 2008 00:55

The good part is that these domestic laws only apply to the USA -- they do not bind the French or the Russian governments, and India plans to sign up with them too. It appears that the 123 with France has already agreed to more than what the US Congress is willing to part with.

IMO, the political climate in the USA is very anti-nuke/pro-environment and the advantages of the deal are not readily obvious to most of the public and their representatives, which is why the NPA clauses were added in. There is a lot of FUD about various earlier nuclear accidents (3-mile, chernobyl, etc.) that is not helping with public acceptance of nuclear power.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 08 Oct 2008 01:20

Well... India would be perfectly right to say, "sorry, that's not what the 123 agreement was supposed to be, and we will not be able to proceed with deals with US entities under the insulting provisions of the Hyde Act and the conditionalities attached to the latest GOTUS action. Until those are removed, we will only be able to deal with those nations that do not impose extraneous conditions beyond what we promised in J18 and the original intent of the 123. Pls let us know when your laws are suitably adjusted.

The China-US 123 took 7 years to sign.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 08 Oct 2008 01:29

Pls let us know when your laws are suitably adjusted.

A^4 Ji, Thats the tack in case the riders still stick.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 08 Oct 2008 01:33

N^3 That is the anxiety to see the signing statements. To see if they should continue or give them your message.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 08 Oct 2008 01:41

Of course, my take is that this is all irrelevant and India can just declare victory. Simply ensure that the babucracy does not sign off on any deals unless the supplier guarantees fuel under all circumstances etc. There is no reason for safeguarded civilian-sector supplies to know or depend on anything happening in India's strategic sector, so any foreigner who wants to stick their nose in there as condition for supplying anything, should be simply ignored.

After a couple of years it will become evident to the GOTUS that US businesses are getting nowhere, and then the US Trade Secretary will try showing her muscle and teeth to "break open the Indian nuclear market". There will be screams of how only 2% of nuclear industry imports into India are coming from US, and how that is so terribly unfair.

That is time enough to insist that every deal come with an ironclad "waiver", which the Commerce and State Depts will have to grant.

Eventually, under pressure from US businesses irritated by this red tape, they will have to wave the waivers into law, which will happen probably as an amendment tacked on to the Social Security Tax Increase Bill or something like that.

Look at what is happening with ITAR reform, where realization is slowly dawning that the US has basically stepped on Unkil Sam's Little Cheney with the obnoxious and completely wacko ITAR enforcement bullying. It will take time, but it will happen.

BUT.. no sense in not twisting the US langoti as much as possible right now...

awagaman · Post by **awagaman** » 08 Oct 2008 01:58

Bush signing statement - Don't hold your breath
http://svaradarajan.blogspot.com/2008/1 ... -your.html

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 08 Oct 2008 02:05

Lets look at the deal this way..GWB through this deal has helped India's strategic program in one sense. It's put in domestic laws in place to help India put a foot into the door where the big players have a field day controlling and using scarce resources around the world to their strategic interests.

It has also been helpless to a large extent in not accomodating India to the level of the NWS. The NPA lobby no one should think is weak in the US. It is extremely potent. To manage to tame them vis a vis India, is a really BIG achievement on the part of Condi and Bush.

This deal obviously had to have riders at the minimum in the US domestic circuit, that being the den of the NPA lobby. But the way the US pounced on the NSG pipsqueaks and China too to arm twist and get the job done, despite the most major financial crises in US history since 1929, displayed an amazingly brazen force of congruent interest to India. It also very obvious to GWB, downplayed US participation in the deal because of riders in Hyde and possible additional ones in the Congress and Senate.

Having got this. India need not even import reactors. India can sign for 7 coal based thermal plants, each of 1900 MW. And export it's 700 MW fast breeder reactors to the rest of the world.

It's how India plays it's cards in the future. If the riders in Hyde are unfit for domestic consumption or insulting, well India should either trade only with countries that offer us deals on our conditions, or wait to deal with the US till they change their laws in the future.

Leaving the door just even to get the foot in, India now must use muscle to wry open the door and enter the room. The NWS cannot and should not be allowed by India to do what they want.

BTW the biggest violators of the NPT (Article 6) are the NWS itself.

bala · Post by **bala** » 08 Oct 2008 03:31

The 123 deal is about Civilian Nuke and has nothing to do with the strategic nukes. If G.W. Bush makes a note of that observation in signing stmts that would be a first start.

India can always sign onto 123 but that does not translate to commerce with the US on nuke plants. We need Jekyll act that invalidates Hyde Act as far as strategic nukes go.

The US Nuke companies have the onus of pressuring the US congress to pass a suitable law to allow commerce with India. Until that happens they can say sayonara to any nuke civilian deal with India. I think with the US companies, India should insist on a 10yr supply of Uranium be placed upfront into escrow on Indian soil. This cannot be removed without Indian consent (Indian Jekyll Law/Act).

BTW the Hyde Act as it stands today is ridiculous in having foreign policy stmts like Iran. Why should a third country be involved in US-India nuclear deal. This is for the US Congress hotheads to ponder upon and fix the incredible stupid reference to Iran.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 08 Oct 2008 03:39

The GoI seems to have a better idea of hooking up with other suppliers not beholden to the NSG -- you get all the fuel you need and you do not have to answer to the NSG, since the agreements are bilateral. There was recent news about India acquiring mining rights around the globe after signing the 123 with France. There is also the 123 with Russia next month.

kshirin · Post by **kshirin** » 08 Oct 2008 03:42

Gee whiz! Samachar.com

China snaps diplomatic, military contacts with US
Tuesday, 07 October , 2008, 21:14

Beijing: Enraged by the USD 6.5 billion American arms sales package to Taiwan, China today cancelled its planned military and diplomatic contacts with the United States, accusing the Bush administration of "poisoning" the atmosphere which led to the latest stand-off. "The US side's act has seriously blocked bilateral exchanges and contacts in various fields, including high-level visits between the two armed forces. The US side should take full responsibility for the current situation of damaged military-to-military ties," Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said in a statement. Condemning the planned sale of weapons to Taiwan, an island which China claims is a rebel province, Qin said the American side should take full responsibility for the damage of ties between the two countries and their respective armed forces. He said China always valued the relations with the US armed forces, and had made active efforts to promote the Sino-US military exchanges.

The United States is Taiwan's most important ally and largest arms supplier. Taiwan, an island of some 23 million people, relies on sophisticated American weapons to keep pace with China's massive arms buildup across the Taiwan Strait. The US government, in spite of China's strong objection, on Friday notified the US Congress about its plan to sell arms to Taiwan, the state-run Xinhua news agency reported. The US arms package includes Patriot III anti-missile system, E-2T airborne early warning aircraft upgrade system, Apache helicopters, Javelin missiles, Harpoon submarine-launched missiles and some airplane accessory parts, it said.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 08 Oct 2008 04:17

U.S., India to sign civil nuclear deal on Friday by Arshad Mohammed: Reuters

No Jekyll Act before the signature on the 123 Agreement.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 08 Oct 2008 04:29

Thinking more about it, I don't think it matters. The kind of leverage we acquire via trade with multiple countries is more valuable from a realpolitilk standpoint, as it gives rise to a lot of new options to work with.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 08 Oct 2008 06:00

'US Domestic Laws Define The Boundaries Of The N-Deal': Interview with Ashley Tellis

American stand on nuclear testing (indirect admission).

The great thing about the deal ultimately—and this is George W.Bush's most magnificent bequest to India—is not simply the restoration of the US-Indian tie in regard to reopening civilian nuclear commerce but rather the integration of India into the global nuclear commerce regime. What Bush has effectively done is to provide India with multiple lifelines if for whatever reason the US is unable to deliver in the future.

The bill says that if the US terminates supplies, it should also block others from supplying India....

India can still go to other countries in such a contingency. Congress has expressed its intention but how that is implemented will depend on the executive and the circumstances. Moreover, the international community is under no obligation to comport with Congressional preferences.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 Oct 2008 06:01

Rye,

You are right. However, hopefully it is a planned effort, Indian politicians so far have not exhibited that side of their personality. And, very seriously, to start India should extract some tax from the P-6 starting with China and NZ. I would like to see India becoming a lot more serious - by pushing the limits - with China in specific. I think India have started that by opening air fields way up north. but, hopefully that is only a start. No matter what India needs a strategic group to formulate viable, executable strategies.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 08 Oct 2008 06:07

My interpretation of Ashley Tellis' statement is that the dam has cracked, the flow can only increase as time goes on.

Of course the "TestNow!" crowd, if they have their way, will set the clock back by 30 years, but that's hopefully not a very high probability item.

One killer would be if TSP decides to test. But why would they, and more to the point, WHAT would they test since they don't have anything? Would the Panda give a bum to TSP to test, just to mess up India, and will India be stupid enough to fall for that trick like TSP did in 1998?

The Taiwan tamasha seems to be Dubya's parting

at the Panda, for the Wrong-Way WongWei EP3 incident. Interesting turn of rhetoric there. Will the Chinese make the US economy crash? But won't that send the Chinese economy crashing even harder?

A lot of monsters waiting around the corners, but the Hyde garbage is the least relevant, IMO.

rajrang · Post by **rajrang** » 08 Oct 2008 07:05

ramana wrote:
rajrang wrote:rsingh and acharya,

Another reason for Japan's success is that Japan adopted capitalism while India chose socialism. With the possible exception of Sweden, most capitalist countries outperformed socialist countries economically - especially consumer goods etc. - during the post WWII period from about 1945 to the 1990s. Both China and later India are doing well economically because of capitalism, I believe. I think both of you have also alluded to other good reasons as well.

Again, there are intelligent people who support this deal and there are intelligent people who dread this deal. I doubt anyone can claim to have crystal ball on this. Only time will tell. I am personally uncomfortable with this deal.
Rajrang, Re Japan please do look up Morita's "A Japan that can say no". its 53 pages word document.

Thanks will do