India - Nuclear News and Discussion

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8337
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

India - Nuclear News and Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 14 Jul 2007 20:43


A Sharma
BRFite
Posts: 1142
Joined: 20 May 2003 11:31

Postby A Sharma » 14 Jul 2007 22:19

From WSJ
U.S.-India Talks On Nuclear Pact Enter Endgame
Congress Likely to Balk At New Delhi's Terms;
Businesses Want a Deal
By NEIL KING JR.
July 14, 2007; Page A1

President Bush has known for months that he would have to pay a price to solidify his long-touted partnership with India. He is about to find out how much.

After months of trying to resolve deep divisions, the nations are set to make a final push next week to seal a pact opening the door to deeper political, military and commercial ties between the U.S. and India, a nation with more than a billion people and a rapidly growing economy. At its heart lies a controversial proposal to provide New Delhi with nuclear fuel and technology, which critics say could undermine international efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.

Negotiations have dragged on, often acrimoniously, since it was announced on the South Lawn of the White House two years ago. National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley is scheduled to meet next week at the White House with his Indian counterpart, N.K. Narayanan, in what Indian diplomats said could be several days of tough negotiations. Leading the U.S. talks will be Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, the U.S. point man for the nuclear deal.

The question is whether the administration can hammer out a compromise on nuclear cooperation that doesn't undercut existing U.S. law or give India leeway to develop a new batch of atomic weapons on top of the ones it already has. India is demanding several painful concessions, U.S. officials and experts said, that are almost certain to anger key leaders in Congress from both parties.

Hanging in the balance in the nuclear-and-technology proposal are tens of billions of dollars in potential energy, aircraft and other deals, U.S. business executives said. India is looking to build dozens of new electricity plants and to drastically increase its military hardware over the next five years.

India's energy minister has been traveling the U.S. talking up $50 billion worth of energy deals India plans to award over this period, and another $200 billion of deals down the road. U.S. aircraft makers are lining up to vie for a 126-plane fighter-aircraft deal that could be worth up to $10 billion over the next several years.

India is also floating a potential $30 billion of nuclear-reactor sales over the next 20 years, piquing the attention of companies such as General Electric Co. and Westinghouse Electric Co.

"This deal is very very important to both countries," says Bill Begert, vice-president at Pratt & Whitney, a unit of United Technologies Co., which hopes to supply engines for the fighter-jet deal. "If this falls apart, it will have real near-term consequences for everyone in the defense industry."

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, as well as companies such as GE and Boeing Co., said they are ready to launch a big lobbying campaign to persuade Congress to bless the final deal, as soon as any compromise is nailed down. "All the right tom-toms are beating for a successful conclusion to this deal, which will be huge for U.S. companies," said Ron Somers, head of the U.S.-India Business Council within the U.S. Chamber.

The campaign could face stiff opposition from a number of lawmakers, including the Democratic and Republican leaders of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, who have raised an alarm over India's military and economic ties to Iran. New Delhi is cooperating with Tehran on a proposed natural-gas pipeline from Iran across Pakistan to India. But India has also supported efforts to keep Tehran from developing a nuclear weapon.

Pakistan, a longtime Indian rival with nuclear arms of its own, presents another foreign-policy wrinkle. The neighbors nearly went to war as recently as 2002, and any advances in India's nuclear capabilities could further unsettle the government of President Gen. Pervez Musharraf, currently beset by countrywide protests after he cracked down on the judiciary and ordered the siege of a fundamentalist, activist mosque in Islamabad.

Pakistan also has sought similar consideration from Washington, but was rebuffed because it has secretly provided nuclear technology to other nations.

Many U.S. lawmakers also have vowed to oppose any deal that loosens restrictions on how India can use U.S.-provided nuclear fuel.

The stakes are high for Mr. Bush's embattled foreign policy. Aides often cite the thawing of relations with India as a key accomplishment of his presidency at a time of deep frustration in the Middle East and rising tensions with powers such as Russia and China. The nuclear deal, they say, is key to cementing a partnership between the world's oldest democracy, the U.S., and its largest, India, after decades of chilliness.

For years, India was close to the Soviet Union and a leader of the anti-U.S. nonaligned movement. Until recently it was also openly hostile to outside investors.

The U.S. also hopes to nurture India as a bulwark against China's growing military and economic power in Asia. While U.S.-Indian political ties have lagged, bilateral economic and trade relations have grown rapidly in recent years -- albeit, not as fast as U.S.-China trade ties. India's huge infrastructure and procurement needs have been especially tantalizing to American companies. U.S. exports to India rose 25% last year, to $10 billion, from the previous year, while imports from India were up 16% to $21.8 billion.

Mr. Bush's efforts to support India's nuclear program have stirred huge controversy since he announced the proposed deal with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in 2005.

India has never signed the global pact for controlling the spread of nuclear technologies, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. New Delhi stunned the international community in 1998 when it conducted three underground nuclear tests in the deserts of Rajasthan state. The U.S. responded swiftly with economic sanctions.

Critics said that by embracing India's nuclear program, the U.S. is weakening international efforts to deter countries such as Iran from becoming nuclear states. The White House argued that India is an exception, as a democracy and as a country with no record of selling nuclear materials abroad.

In December, a wary Congress finally passed legislation that ratified nuclear cooperation with India. The Hyde Act, as it is called, imposed numerous restrictions on how India could utilize U.S. nuclear supplies. India has expressed particular distaste for provisions that seek to punish it if it conducts any future nuclear tests. If India does test, the Act requires Washington to demand that New Delhi return all nuclear material or equipment provided by U.S. suppliers.

India also wants to scrap language that prohibits it from reprocessing any fuel provided for power plants, which might then make it suitable for use in weapons. And India opposes a requirement that the U.S. president annually certify that it is complying with the rules; New Delhi says that provision would lead to constant meddling in its nuclear program.

Indian diplomats declined to discuss specifics of what they will push for next week, but said this round of talks could prove critical. "We don't want to prejudge the results, but we have been making steady progress," said Rahul Chhabra, a spokesman for India in Washington. "We look forward to sealing this at the earliest possible date."

A senior U.S. official involved in the talks said he is optimistic a deal would be completed -- "if not next week, then soon." He also said the U.S. would make no concessions that would run counter to the Hyde Act. "We will honor every aspect of the Hyde Act."

Other U.S. diplomats working on India put the chances for passage at not much better than 50-50. They said the process has increasingly been held hostage to political crosswinds in Congress and the Indian parliament. A collapse of the talks, said one U.S. official working on India affairs, "would seriously undercut our hopes for the relationship."

The fact that the talks are now being handled at the highest political levels, though, suggests to some that tough concessions may be coming.

"It's pretty clear that the whole point of India taking this to the White House is to try to get the president to bend the existing law," said George Perkovich, an expert on India's nuclear program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "There is an element of desperation to all this."

Some skeptics argue that the benefits of providing nuclear technology are overblown, since diplomatic relations have already have improved markedly and India's economy is steadily opening.

"All of the advantages of this agreement are already under way. They are already happening," said Henry Sokolski, head of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, a Washington-based policy organization.

Write to Neil King Jr. at neil.king@wsj.com

menon
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 50
Joined: 02 Dec 2005 09:23

Postby menon » 14 Jul 2007 22:22

look at the lineup yaar. M.K. Narayanan [Menon] Shiv shankar [Menon] and now defence secretary Gopal krishna [Pillai]. It is like good old days Menon gitis at the south block when related KSR [Menon] KMR [Menon] were in force. Whatever faults (I do not LOVE MKN but I would trust him) but do not expect Menons and malayalis to sell the Nation down the line. They are (mostly) honest.
So lets pray we do GUBO to Bush and we "shall overcome".

sraj
BRFite
Posts: 255
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 07:04

Postby sraj » 14 Jul 2007 23:39

Nuke deal: US 'ready' to resolve outstanding issues
"The United States stands ready to resolve the remaining outstanding issues on the 123 agreement. The United States understands the importance of the Agreement to our relationship and the benefits it will bring to both nations. We are confident that with continued hard work, flexibility, and good spirit, we will reach a final agreement," the State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said in a statement.

Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Postby Sanjay M » 14 Jul 2007 23:57

Well, then read what I said in this other post
here

because we now need to start looking at the post-game situation.

The Americans have clearly ripped us off by shifting the goalposts.

When Madeleine Albright changed the terms of the Oslo Peace Process in the end, Arafat stormed out of the meeting, and soon after there was Intifada-II. Likewise, the Israelis who'd been led up the garden path by her, also abandoned the Democrats and tilted towards the Republicans.

Likewise, the USA has shifted the goalposts on the N-Deal, so rather than walk out meekly and let bygones be bygones, we need our own Intifada-II, or our own shift in tilt.
It's time for us to demonstrate to the Americans why it's not in their interest to flimflam us, and what a loss of American credibility in India means.

If a loss of American credibility in India means nothing, and if we're just a meek punching bag that takes the blows and doesn't answer back, then we're only condemning ourselves to being treated like this for perpetuity -- not just by the Americans, but by anyone.

Any ideas or suggestions for this, anyone?

Satya_anveshi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3532
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37

Postby Satya_anveshi » 15 Jul 2007 00:05

Sanjay M wrote:You're missing my point. When you look at Reagan-Gorbachev negotiations on INF Treaty, or Carter-Brezhnev negotiations on SALT-II, etc, the political burden isn't put on the technical personnel, but rather borne by the politicians.

In India's "buck-stops-anywhere-but-with-me" style of leadership-from-the-back, the politicians want to hide behind their technocrats, experts and underlings.

Why should the politician place blame on the technical expert for pointing out the obvious shortcomings? It's like blaming your doctor for the cancer diagnosis - don't shoot the messenger.


You are right. But India is not fortunate enough to have politicians who can fiercely drive India towards its rightful destiny, which is consistent with its civilization, size, and resources. We should be glad that at least there are people who are trying their level best to drive sense into politicos at great personal risk. Normally, bureaucracy will stabilize these things to a certain level but in this particular case, it appears, things went too far unchecked.

If this deal were to fail, one thing that will be proved is that our scicom and those people who are fighting against this deal have delivered on their intellectual and thought leadership. It proves vibrancy in our public debate even at such odds. If it has to take a US president to be seen himself as dishonest and disgraceful, to get a clue about our program and its status, things were not as bad as one would have imagined.

NPA’s, who may think they have won this game will find themselves playing pocket billiards as you need two to play the real game. China, meanwhile, through its proxies will strip them naked in public breaking every rule that there is to.

The important question to contemplate is how should India retaliate to this kind of behavior from US? Carrots are fine (we have plenty) but denial of supermarket to US a right stick or is it sustainable? Not playing second fiddle to US against China is a different matter.

bala
BRFite
Posts: 639
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Postby bala » 15 Jul 2007 00:45

"It's pretty clear that the whole point of India taking this to the White House is to try to get the president to bend the existing law," said George Perkovich, an expert on India's nuclear program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "There is an element of desperation to all this."


Thanks for that psych ops Perky and you are no friend of India either. India is not trying to bend any existing laws, instead it is trying to write new one and BTW who is Hyde to lay the rules amongst nations.

"All of the advantages of this agreement are already under way. They are already happening," said Henry Sokolski, head of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center


Henry it is time for you to get another job, you position will be obsoleted soon.


India has to watch out for how the negotiations plays out on the media. Like Ramana said, India should not walk out of negotiations, since that would provide fodder for the blame game media. Instead it should, in good faith, stick to its position and continue the chatter. Make the other guy blink and paint him into a corner. Then India can say we reached out in good faith but the US was adamant/obstinate hiding behind Hyde and China gets the last laugh.
Last edited by bala on 15 Jul 2007 00:47, edited 1 time in total.

vnadendla
BRFite
Posts: 132
Joined: 09 Mar 2006 00:40
Location: USA

Palestine, Israel are not our role models

Postby vnadendla » 15 Jul 2007 00:47

Sanjay M wrote:Well, then read what I said in this other post
here

because we now need to start looking at the post-game situation.

The Americans have clearly ripped us off by shifting the goalposts.

When Madeleine Albright changed the terms of the Oslo Peace Process in the end, Arafat stormed out of the meeting, and soon after there was Intifada-II. Likewise, the Israelis who'd been led up the garden path by her, also abandoned the Democrats and tilted towards the Republicans.
Any ideas or suggestions for this, anyone?


If the deal fails what have we lost?
    A vote against Iran
    MMS Ego
    Some people's time
    Broken Dreams of NPT+1

What have we gained
    No more NPT crap. The goalpost changed to NPT+1 (This is how we ought to spin it and insist stubbornly)
    Fuel from Russia for Tarapur
    An IOU from US that we should cash by reprocessing tarapur spent fuel immediately and secretly
    Ability to drag FMCT on and on or stay out of it.


Me thinks we should negotiate more and keep on cashing IOUs.
Last edited by vnadendla on 15 Jul 2007 00:48, edited 1 time in total.

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

Postby NRao » 15 Jul 2007 00:48

X-posting another non-nuke article, but shows where all this Indo-US relationship is headed:

India, US close to inking military sharing pact

The one that got me was:

Under the Logistics Support Agreement (LSA) that is currently with the Cabinet Committee on Security, the two countries can also "borrow" military equipment wherever this is required instead of having to cart it all the way from home, Lt General Jeffrey Kohler, director of the US Defence Security Cooperation Agency, told reporters in the Capital.


F-18 are coming.

Perhaps India can borrow a nuclear aircraft carrier either near Japan or the Iran?

JK.

vinayak_d
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 66
Joined: 10 Mar 2007 03:33

Postby vinayak_d » 15 Jul 2007 01:00

No way no sewer hornet please. Whats to prevent US from demanding a few IN ships to patrol Persian gulf? The deal will mostly be only for relief and rescue.

vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3008
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Postby vera_k » 15 Jul 2007 01:37

Sanjay M wrote:If a loss of American credibility in India means nothing, and if we're just a meek punching bag that takes the blows and doesn't answer back, then we're only condemning ourselves to being treated like this for perpetuity -- not just by the Americans, but by anyone.

Any ideas or suggestions for this, anyone?


For starters, India should build the N-power station that Bangladesh is interested in. This would serve multiple purposes -

1. Establish India as a supplier.
2. Keep China out of BD.
3. Provide BD with political cover for supply of gas.
4. Possibly provide a means of breaking the NPT if at a later time we find sufficient uranium reserves in BD and BD agrees to withdraw from the NPT or
5. BD can export surplus N-power to India - all of which is generated by uranium BD imported by being part of the NPT.

Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Postby Sanjay M » 15 Jul 2007 01:46

Satya_anveshi wrote:NPA’s, who may think they have won this game will find themselves playing pocket billiards as you need two to play the real game. China, meanwhile, through its proxies will strip them naked in public breaking every rule that there is to.


Nah, real NPAs have little say, and current non-proliferation agitation is just a pretext/smokescreen for the Atlanticists. These same guys holler that India is proliferating to Iran, but meanwhile they give a clean chit to Pakistan which gave Iran the centrifuges, etc. They fiercely complain against the War on Terror, but at the same time demand full US support for Pakistan by claiming it is a "most allied ally" in this war.
So you can see that from an issues perspective, there is absolute contradiction and inconsistency. But from an ethnic/geo-political perspective, the Atlanticists are behaving with absolute coherence and precision consistency.


bala wrote:Thanks for that psych ops Perky and you are no friend of India either. India is not trying to bend any existing laws, instead it is trying to write new one and BTW who is Hyde to lay the rules amongst nations.
...
India has to watch out for how the negotiations plays out on the media. Like Ramana said, India should not walk out of negotiations, since that would provide fodder for the blame game media. Instead it should, in good faith, stick to its position and continue the chatter. Make the other guy blink and paint him into a corner. Then India can say we reached out in good faith but the US was adamant/obstinate hiding behind Hyde and China gets the last laugh.


Our Left-wing media follow the Red-Green rules, whereby anything anathema to the socialist or the muslim lobby will be praised. I don't think our Left-wing media will be able to comfortably position themselves by siding with the US view and blaming India for not knuckling under to US blackmail. The socialist parties and the muslims have taken the lead in criticizing any rapprochement with the Yanks. Can their leaders then credibly do a 180 and claim that India has let down the USA? Nope.

So that's where India can likewise play the game of GoodCop-BadCop against the USA, just as the US has been playing it against us.
Bush/Condi say to India, "Look, I'm not the obstacle in opening full nuclear ties, it's the mean old Congress with their Hyde Act who are the obstacle, so you'd better make more concessions to convince them"

Likewise, Indian negotiators can say, "Look George/Condi, we're not the obstacles in improving our bilateral relationship, but it's the darn socialists and muslim lobby who are the obstacle, so you've got to keep the deal sweet for us to sell it to our public"
We need to pitch our GoodCop-BadCop line.

The Atlanticists are of course perfectly gleeful to see any setback to Indo-US rapprochement, no matter what the cause, whether it's disagreement over nuclear issues(NPAs) or disagreement over US policies in the MidEast(Red-Green).


vnadendla wrote:What have we gained

No more NPT crap. The goalpost changed to NPT+1 (This is how we ought to spin it and insist stubbornly)
Fuel from Russia for Tarapur
An IOU from US that we should cash by reprocessing tarapur spent fuel immediately and secretly
Ability to drag FMCT on and on or stay out of it.

Me thinks we should negotiate more and keep on cashing IOUs.


Okay, some interesting points. But whatever space we've been given is very narrow, and we really need to widen it.
This NPT+1 stuff really seems to be only rhetoric and spin, and looks like it could be yanked away from us, with a change in the breeze or a change of admin in the Whitehouse.
Okay, even if Hyde Act were to prevent US from committing much of its own stuff to India, we need to see the Australians, Canadians inking supply deals with us. But in that case, I don't see that western firms should get any ironclad deals from us (rather only weak deals that expose them to higher risk if their govts break those deals afterwards)

I strongly agree with your point about reprocessing Tarapur immediately rather than later. IOUs have a habit of disappearing or losing their value, as circumstances change. Better to cash in any IOU right now, rather than risk seeing it go up in smoke later on.

Reprocess Tarapur right now, accelerate work on Kalpakkam right away, and use US-Russia tensions to get increased fuel supplies from Russia.
If they can pull out of CFE, they can darn well boost our fuel shipments.
If US arm-twists concessions from Russia on nuclear cooperation with Iran, then the Russians can make up for it by boosting N-cooperation with India.
Last edited by Sanjay M on 15 Jul 2007 02:05, edited 2 times in total.

Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Postby Sanjay M » 15 Jul 2007 01:55

vera_k wrote:
Sanjay M wrote:If a loss of American credibility in India means nothing, and if we're just a meek punching bag that takes the blows and doesn't answer back, then we're only condemning ourselves to being treated like this for perpetuity -- not just by the Americans, but by anyone.

Any ideas or suggestions for this, anyone?


For starters, India should build the N-power station that Bangladesh is interested in. This would serve multiple purposes -

1. Establish India as a supplier.
2. Keep China out of BD.
3. Provide BD with political cover for supply of gas.
4. Possibly provide a means of breaking the NPT if at a later time we find sufficient uranium reserves in BD and BD agrees to withdraw from the NPT or
5. BD can export surplus N-power to India - all of which is generated by uranium BD imported by being part of the NPT.


I dunno, I don't like the idea of chewing off our own arm just to keep somebody else from sawing it off.
I would prefer Cuban Missile Crisis brinksmanship with China, to keep them out of Bangladesh.

They nuclearize BD, we'll nuclearize Taiwan.

If their nuclear "assistance" to BD is being spun as friendly, then our reciprocal assistance to Taiwan is also similarly friendly.

China is the richer country -- they have more at risk than we do.
If they stay out of our sphere, we'll stay out of theirs. But if they don't, then we won't.

vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3008
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Postby vera_k » 15 Jul 2007 02:06

Sanjay M wrote:I dunno, I don't like the idea of chewing off our own arm just to keep somebody else from sawing it off.
I would prefer Cuban Missile Crisis brinksmanship with China, to keep them out of Bangladesh.


There's collateral benefit in reducing US influence there as well as getting some economic benefit from surplus power that is exported. BD also has the right type of manpower that can be exported to North American countries for a radicalization experiment.

Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Postby Sanjay M » 15 Jul 2007 02:13

vera_k wrote:There's collateral benefit in reducing US influence there as well as getting some economic benefit from surplus power that is exported.


Nuclear program in Bangla ("peaceful" blahblah)would only antagonize Burma, and possibly get them started down a nuclear track.

Hmm, maybe we could offer a nuclear program to both Burma and Bangla, together?

I admit, I'm not terribly worried that Bangla can immediately produce the AQ Khans necessary to nuclearize. But what about security? AlQaeda types could easily target Bangla to seize something at some point.

bala
BRFite
Posts: 639
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Postby bala » 15 Jul 2007 02:35

Hiding behind Hyde is becoming passé and boring. Deals amongst nations can be written afresh irrespective of Hyde and Jekyl. One possibility could be restriction for only US supplied Uranium/Equipment and does not apply to supplies from other nations. This would be great. India can use Russian or other supplies and equipments. The US companies get screwed in the bargain and they will make sure that the Congress does not pass such stuff and so India can blame the US for the failure. At no point in time should India acquiesce to no testing clause.

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

Postby NRao » 15 Jul 2007 02:55

India can use Russian or other supplies and equipments.


That could screw up GNEP. Russia seems to have signed up for GNEP IIRC.

Best is India dig out more Uranium.

Let us see. Two more days.

vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3008
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Postby vera_k » 15 Jul 2007 03:17

Sanjay M wrote:Nuclear program in Bangla ("peaceful" blahblah)would only antagonize Burma, and possibly get them started down a nuclear track.


Nothing wrong with that as long as Burma is in our camp. India should be able to assure Burmese security specially from someone like Bangladesh by other means though.

Sanjay M wrote: But what about security? AlQaeda types could easily target Bangla to seize something at some point.


AlQaeda is an American problem today. With BD in India's corner, it would be even more of an American problem as India would have legitimate claim to being a friend of Islam.

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

Postby CRamS » 15 Jul 2007 03:34

A Sharma wrote:From WSJ
U.S.-India Talks On Nuclear Pact Enter Endgame
Congress Likely to Balk At New Delhi's Terms;
Businesses Want a Deal
By NEIL KING JR.

....

"It's pretty clear that the whole point of India taking this to the White House is to try to get the president to bend the existing law," said George Perkovich, an expert on India's nuclear program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "There is an element of desperation to all this."



Way back it was George Perkovic said that it is India that wants this 'deal' badly, and the above prescient observation by him again proves just that: constable MMS can't wait to sell India down the river and claim his place in the hall mark of fame, tin pots from developing world who have fiathfully served western interests well.

Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Postby Sanjay M » 15 Jul 2007 04:38

NRao wrote:
India can use Russian or other supplies and equipments.


That could screw up GNEP. Russia seems to have signed up for GNEP IIRC.

Best is India dig out more Uranium.

Let us see. Two more days.


Yeah, well Russia has just now suspended a signed treaty called CFE, and is threatening to do the same on INF/START. But as you can see, the West aren't budging, even as they express their concern, because it doesn't have any immediate practical effect.

Rather than suspending those treaties, the Russians should suspend participation in GNEP, and renew N-sales to India. At least this kind of response from them would have some teeth.

Then the West can shrug at its own risk and peril.

Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Postby Sanjay M » 15 Jul 2007 07:07

ramana wrote:In strategic affairs one should let the other guy walk out. One should understand that the game is not just between the two but there is the audience too. By now its very clear that the US did do a bait and switch with the J18 and the Hyde Act. Only those who are wrapped up in their own hubris like Texmati wouldn't see it that way.

And how does one know if GOI isnt doing its best to shore up its cards in order to deliver the right message?
The mining has been pushed forward in Andhra Pradesh. The helicopter deal was squashed. The Bofors was de-selected. Next it will be the MRCA.


Let me respond by saying that in high stakes strategic negotiations, one doesn't muck around by radically shifting the goalposts, as has been done in this case. The fact that the US has done this, is itself a glaring indication that they are either not serious about their relations with us, or else have regressed into amateurish maverick shoot-from-the-hip behaviour (the fact that this same administration invaded Iraq might support this latter conclusion). Or some combination of the two.

Either way, this is a wakeup call to us, that we have to demonstrate that we are not lightweights to be toyed around with.

Fine, let's not walk out. But let's not let bygones be bygones. Let's make sure to respond in a way that teaches Washington a lesson. Otherwise, they may just repeat the same game with us again and again.

Doesn't anybody remember the 1985 Indo-US Accords, from Rajiv Gandhi's visit to the US? They played us back then too, smiling at our faces while arming Pakistan to twist the knife inside of us. The whole "Indo-US accord" ruse was just to "engage" us, so that we didn't do anything that might derail the Afghan War.

Likewise, this latest "Hindi-Yankee bhai-bhai" charade seems to have amounted to yet another repetition of the same. No small coincidence that it's the same political party in power in New Delhi. So not only do we need to wisen up, but we need to do something that will change the US impression of us as their suckers.


BJP seemed to have learned how to send the right signals on this, when they did Pokhran-II. Our resolve was communicated unmistakably, and in spite of whatever fuming the Americans/West did, they couldn't do a damn thing about it. They certainly couldn't re-work any international alignments over it. So we got the last word that time, and we benefited from it.

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

Postby NRao » 15 Jul 2007 07:38

Sify :: July 14, 2007 :: US ready to resolve outstanding issues in N-deal


Saturday, 14 July , 2007, 21:55

Washington: The United States on Saturday said it is "ready to resolve" the outstanding issues in the Indo-US nuclear deal in talks with top Indian officials next week and expressed confidence that a final agreement would be reached with "hard work and flexibility".

"The United States stands ready to resolve the remaining outstanding issues on the 123 agreement. The United States understands the importance of the Agreement to our relationship and the benefits it will bring to both nations. We are confident that with continued hard work, flexibility, and good spirit, we will reach a final agreement," the State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said in a statement.

He said the United States is looking forward to welcoming Indian National Security Advisor M K Narayanan, Department of Atomic Energy Chairman Anil Kakodkar and Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon to Washington between July 16-19.

The Indian officials would hold talks with Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs R Nicholas Burns, US National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley and other top officials on July 17 in hopes to firm up an agreement.

The American officials "will hold discussions with the Indian delegation regarding our broader bilateral relationship, and ways to work together to bring stability to the South Asia region," McCormack said.

India and the US have been discussing the fine print of the accord for two years following the accord between the two countries on the nuclear deal.

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

Postby John Snow » 15 Jul 2007 07:43

U.S. troops can leave 'anytime,' Iraqi P.M. says


Even a puppet like Maliki has some balls, I do not know about MMS.

Just say no!
To Hyde act or Switch and bait
Last edited by John Snow on 15 Jul 2007 09:39, edited 1 time in total.

vnadendla
BRFite
Posts: 132
Joined: 09 Mar 2006 00:40
Location: USA

Postby vnadendla » 15 Jul 2007 07:57

John Snow wrote:
U.S. troops can leave 'anytime,' Iraqi P.M. says


Even a puppet like Maliki has some balls, I dongt know about MMS.

Just say no!
To Hyde act or Switch and bait

Why should we say no? We should keep on negotiating and use the opportunity / Strategic space to reprocess Tarapur fuel secretly; maybe conduct sub critical tests too.

Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Postby Sanjay M » 15 Jul 2007 08:00

vnadendla wrote:Why should we say no? We should keep on negotiating and use the opportunity / Strategic space to reprocess Tarapur fuel secretly; maybe conduct sub critical tests too.


I'm thinking we could have done all that even before Indo-US negotiations.
As a matter of fact, doing some of those things before the negotiations might have made them more fruitful.

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

Postby nkumar » 15 Jul 2007 08:01

I have a feeling that US will agree to our demands but it will come at a cost. Cost being business favors, providing logistical support in Indian Ocean like patrolling, port calls, refueling etc.

Broader relationship refers to 'democratic alliance' of US, India, Japan, Australia and Singapore. Engaging India is even more important now since Russia has moved out of arms-control pact. Other reason being the perception in US of the failure of Bush's foreign policy in Iraq, Afghanistan. Stakes are high for US.

Coming years will see a bi-polar world once again.

Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Postby Sanjay M » 15 Jul 2007 08:07

India Seen as Sticking to Guns in Talks

While U.S. officials have said that they are bound by laws on some of those conditions, India says it will not accept any deviations from Washington's original commitments and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has promised parliament as much.

"Our positions on all the key issues are clearly laid out," said the Indian official. "They have to come up with answers to our problems. Whether they do it with, over, under, beside amending their law is not our problem."

Some Indian analysts and lobby groups said New Delhi may have painted itself into a corner through Singh's commitment in parliament, as opposition groups and communists who shore up his coalition were adamant that he stick by them.

But with time running out for the governments, it was essential for bureaucrats to "recognize that they do not have the luxury of an unending negotiation," said C. Raja Mohan, a professor at Singapore's Nanyang Technological University.

"It would be a pity if the two bureaucracies let down their political masters," he wrote in the Indian Express newspaper.

"Failure to bring the ... talks to a closure because of an obsession with technical and textual trivia would let the political clock kill the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal."

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

Postby NRao » 15 Jul 2007 08:22

IE :: July 13, 2007 :: C Raja Mohan :: As complicated as 1, 2, 3

[quote]
C Raja Mohan
Posted online: Friday, July 13, 2007 at 0000 hrs IST

Wednesday's brief telephonic conversation between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and US President George W. Bush was about reaffirming the political will in both capitals to bring the tortuous nuclear negotiations to a closure. It is now up to the two national security advisers, M.K. Narayanan and Stephen Hadley, to translate that political will into a mutually satisfactory “123 agreementâ€

sraj
BRFite
Posts: 255
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 07:04

Postby sraj » 15 Jul 2007 09:09

Don't believe these have been posted before.............
End of the road? - 1
[quote]7 July 2007: Despite knowing that only a plutonium economy can get India energy independence, the Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, has made a veiled attack on those who oppose the Indo-US nuclear deal because it denies India reprocessing rights and technologies, besides compromising its strategic programme ([size=150][b]also read, “India & Iran peril - I,â€

Satya_anveshi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3532
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37

Postby Satya_anveshi » 15 Jul 2007 10:51

SRaj,

Thanks a ton for posting this link. This removes even a shadow of doubt in those peoples minds that were thinking that the dispute in Indian camp was only good cop - bad cop routine.

Like I said in an earlier post, that failure of this deal does a whole lot good to us than otherwise. The opposing camp to this deal has demonstrated much better (actually amazing) thought leadership for which we should hand it to them to go from here.

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

Postby NRao » 15 Jul 2007 17:04

One has to wonder if DC will be India's next Tashkent.

I am not convinced, so far, that anyone in position has the best intentions for AKs presence on this trip.

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

Postby NRao » 15 Jul 2007 17:18

ToI :: July 15, 2007 :: US signals readiness to resolve nuke logjam

WASHINGTON: The United States has signalled its readiness to "resolve the remaining outstanding issues" on the India-US civil nuclear deal as a team of senior Indian officials headed to Washington for critical talks on the 123 agreement.

"The United States stands ready to resolve the remaining outstanding issues on the 123 agreement," State department Spokesman Sean McCormack stated ahead of the officials' four-day visit here starting Monday.

"The United States understands the importance of the Agreement to our relationship and the benefits it will bring to both nations. We are confident that with continued hard work, flexibility, and good spirit, we will reach a final agreement," he added.

The Indian team comprising Indian National Security Advisor M.K. Narayanan, Department of Atomic Energy Chairman Anil Kakodkar and Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon will participate in meetings with US National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley at the White House.

On July 17, Washington's key negotiator, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs R. Nicholas Burns, will host the Indian delegation for meetings and a dinner to discuss the US-India Civil Nuclear Cooperation Initiative, including the bilateral agreement for peaceful nuclear cooperation, also known as the 123 agreement.

In addition, Burns and Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asian Affairs Richard Boucher will hold discussions with the Indian delegation regarding Washington's broader bilateral relationship and ways to work together to bring stability to the South Asia region, the state department stated.

The crucial talks are seen as a last ditch effort by both sides to break an apparent impasse over key issues that stand in the way of a pact that would resume nuclear commerce between the two countries after a gap of more than 30 years.

These essentially boil down to India's insistence on its right to reprocess US supplied nuclear fuel, conduct a nuclear test and guarantees for continued supply of fuel for the 14 civil reactors it has agreed to place under international safeguards under a separation plan. Eight other reactors designated military would not be subject to inspections.

The state department statement Saturday is considered significant with the US so far unwilling or unable to sidestep restrictions placed on India by the Henry Hyde Act passed by the US Congress last December approving nuclear cooperation with India in principle.

The US Congress has to again approve the final 123 agreement in an up or down vote before the nuclear deal is implemented. Making any changes in the law now are considered an uphill task with the Democratic controlled Congress at loggerheads with President George Bush though the India deal has broad bipartisan support.

On the other hand, India is also unwilling to stray from the joint statements issued by Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Bush on July 18, 2005 and March 2, 2006 that set the ball rolling for the nuclear deal.

Both sides claim to "making steady progress" but an agreement has eluded them so far. Singh sought to give a political push to the long-stalled deal by speaking to Bush on Wednesday ahead of the talks. Bush is equally if not more keen on the deal that may go down as a major foreign policy success for the embattled president on par with Richard Nixon's opening up to China in 1972.

The two leaders also had a brief exchange on the sidelines of the G-8 summit in Germany where the Indian side came up with a proposal for setting up a stand-alone dedicated facility for reprocessing US-origin fuel as a way out of the impasse.

The composition of the Indian delegation, especially the inclusion of Kakodkar, indicates that this is New Delhi's most serious attempt yet to seal the deal by taking the nuclear establishment on board.

India's ambassador to the US, Ronen Sen and New Delhi's envoy to Singapore, S. Jaishankar, who have been closely involved in nuclear negotiations, are expected to join the Indian team in Washington for these crucial talks.

Riding on the nuclear-and-technology proposal are tens of billions of dollars in potential energy, aircraft and other deals for the American business.

While US power companies like General Electric Co. and Westinghouse Electric Co. are eyeing $30 billion of nuclear reactor sales over the next 20 years, US aircraft makers are vying for a 126-plane fighter-aircraft deal that could be worth up to $10 billion.

American companies are also lured by India's huge infrastructure and procurement needs. US exports to India rose 25 percent last year, to $10 billion, from the previous year, while imports from India were up 16 percent to $21.8 billion.

The US Chamber of Commerce, which claims to be the world's largest business federation representing more than three million businesses, and the US-India Business Council comprising 250 chamber members interested in improving trade ties with India, have been lobbying hard for the deal.

vnadendla
BRFite
Posts: 132
Joined: 09 Mar 2006 00:40
Location: USA

Postby vnadendla » 15 Jul 2007 17:36

Sanjay M wrote:
vnadendla wrote:Why should we say no? We should keep on negotiating and use the opportunity / Strategic space to reprocess Tarapur fuel secretly; maybe conduct sub critical tests too.


I'm thinking we could have done all that even before Indo-US negotiations.
As a matter of fact, doing some of those things before the negotiations might have made them more fruitful.

Before negotiations we don't have strategic space. Now we do. Possible failure of the deal gives us an IOU to cash. It works like this...

US failed India. India can raise hell, spoil relations or behave like a brat (Palestine & Paki strategy) OR do something that it wouldn't have done otherwise , secretly, so that US even if it knows is constrained to keep quiet.(Chanakyan Strategy). I am SURE India will do the latter. 20 years back India would have done the former.

Infact India should have done this even during CTBT negotiations.

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

Postby NRao » 15 Jul 2007 18:54

vnadendla,

You are assuming sincerity, logic, etc from the US side. Politics does not follow any of them. Besides that you are also assuming that India is negotiating as an equal.

Also, the bratish behaviour is something that the Western mind understands. Not that it leads to any meaningful end, but then that is a different story.

The point being that those that oppose these negotiations feel that it is one of non-equals - in every respect.

It is normal for politics heads to be nebulous about "deals" and let their side kicks work out the details (which is what the J18 was), but, in the case of THIS deal India took the J18 one way (where she felt that the US knew what hr sentiments were and was agreeing to them) and the US went the other way.

So, it is not a surprise that these negotiations (which India never thought were needed and since they are technical India is right in that respect) are where they are. And, from a pure political PoV, why can they not fail - plenty of political deals and negotiations fail - so what is new?

JMTs.

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

Postby Rye » 15 Jul 2007 19:58

All of the advantages of this agreement are already under way. They are already happening," said Henry Sokolski, head of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, a Washington-based policy organization.


If this NPA wanker Sokolski has a positive view of the "deal", then we can be assured that the deal is not worth signing from India's POV. Wonder which orifice of Henry Sokolski's has been exhibiting all the "advantages of the deal" for him to make such a statement. I guess being denied technology and getting Indians thrown in prison on wanton allegations of exporting dual-use tech are "advantages of the agreement" in Sokolski's view.
Last edited by Rye on 15 Jul 2007 20:18, edited 1 time in total.

vnadendla
BRFite
Posts: 132
Joined: 09 Mar 2006 00:40
Location: USA

Postby vnadendla » 15 Jul 2007 20:13

NRao wrote:vnadendla,

You are assuming sincerity, logic, etc from the US side. Politics does not follow any of them. Besides that you are also assuming that India is negotiating as an equal.

Also, the bratish behaviour is something that the Western mind understands. Not that it leads to any meaningful end, but then that is a different story.

The point being that those that oppose these negotiations feel that it is one of non-equals - in every respect.

It is normal for politics heads to be nebulous about "deals" and let their side kicks work out the details (which is what the J18 was), but, in the case of THIS deal India took the J18 one way (where she felt that the US knew what hr sentiments were and was agreeing to them) and the US went the other way.

So, it is not a surprise that these negotiations (which India never thought were needed and since they are technical India is right in that respect) are where they are. And, from a pure political PoV, why can they not fail - plenty of political deals and negotiations fail - so what is new?

JMTs.

Negotiations can fail. We have more to gain by maintaining a pretence that they are ongoing and using the time / strategic space to reprocess Tarapur fuel (which we can use for energy latter on). The idea is to do things in a way to preserve deniability.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7813
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 15 Jul 2007 20:33

Nuclear Friends In Need
By Teresita C. Schaffer

sraj
BRFite
Posts: 255
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 07:04

Postby sraj » 15 Jul 2007 20:46

On the FMCT implications of this nuke deal:
The Geneva conspiracy - 1
[quote]India’s strategic programme faces a new threat from the fissile material cut-off treaty (FMCT) negotiations at the Conference of Disarmament (CD) in Geneva. The United States has threatened to quit the CD if its proposal for an unverifiable moratorium on production of weapons’ grade uranium and plutonium is not accepted at the earliest. India opposes an unverifiable FMCT but has more immediately been disconcerted because it may not have produced enough fissile material to meet its strategic requirements. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh committed in his 18 July 2005 joint statement with US President George W.Bush to work “with the United States for the conclusion of a multilateral (FMCT)â€

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

Postby NRao » 15 Jul 2007 21:01

George P and Soko are in a self induced nidra. And, as we all know, in sleep we all dream.

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

Postby NRao » 15 Jul 2007 21:47

Negotiations can fail. We have more to gain by maintaining a pretence that they are ongoing and using the time / strategic space to reprocess Tarapur fuel (which we can use for energy latter on). The idea is to do things in a way to preserve deniability.


No two ways about that - from an Indian PoV - including things like what Raja Mohan stated, etc. All are just fine.

However, when your opponent (IF I can call the US that - since the US Amby has called India a "partner" - :shock: ) has the end already scripted (the Hyde Act), what you are suggesting is not just difficult by near impossible. So, what are you going to negotiate for (123 = Hyde Act, Rice has stated that)?

Matters get worse when the fracture is in-house.

Misconception in the West exist even today - check out the Schaffer article.

IMHO, India has not only diluted its political intellect, but at the same time has shelved those technicians that understand and can operate in the political environment.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests