India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 05 Sep 2008 15:31

I will be the happiest to see Russia /France etc breaking ranks supplying us nook stuff. Because the proliferators are anyway happily doing their trade under table and it is only the genuine ones that are wasting time on NSG nonsense.

On a separate note, all this talk of Russia/France getting deals - does that explain the reduced enthusiasm of Uncle Sam? May be we should have kept our mouths shut until deal was done and then talk of specific deals.

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 05 Sep 2008 15:36

Much though I dislike the dynasty and its chair-warmer for reducing the GOP to be a B-team of the mass murderers and traitors, the unilateral moratorium on testing was by ABV - primarily to reduce the noise coming from NPAs and west after Pokhran 98. It did put us back on good diplomatic track rightaway, though there were predictions of India paying heavy price, becoming pariah etc (remember what Clinton said soon after the blasts?). But if ABV had known it was this easy to get the west to accept reality may be he would have said we will not test for now,but shall do so again until we get it right. And then see what happens. May be it would have played out exactly same way...hindsight is always perfect.

ranganathan · Post by **ranganathan** » 05 Sep 2008 15:37

The first few deals are going to russia and france no doubt. Us will get its share but it will take time. Lots of liability laws, waivers etc etc and tie ups with indian companies to discuss.

kshirin · Post by **kshirin** » 05 Sep 2008 15:41

Good move, though belated, are we hinting that we can also act as spoiler by mentioning our interest in supplying materials, as in second last para? I owuld be really interested in views of members on this.

http://meaindia.nic.in/

Statement by External Affairs Minister of India Shri Pranab Mukherjee on the Civil Nuclear Initiative
05/09/2008

To reiterate India’s stand on disarmament and nonproliferation, EAM has made the following statement:

A Plenary meeting of the Nuclear Suppliers Group to consider an exception for India from its guidelines to allow for full civil nuclear cooperation with India is being held in Vienna from September 4 – 5, 2008.

India has a long-standing and steadfast commitment to universal, non-discriminatory and total elimination of nuclear weapons. The vision of a world free of nuclear weapons which Shri Rajiv Gandhi put before the UN in 1988 still has universal resonance.

We approach our dialogue with the Nuclear Suppliers Group and all its members in a spirit of cooperation that allows for an ongoing frank exchange of views on subjects of mutual interest and concern. Such a dialogue will strengthen our relationship in the years to come.

Our civil nuclear initiative will strengthen the international non-proliferation regime. India believes that the opening of full civil nuclear cooperation will be good for India and for the world. It will have a profound positive impact on global energy security and international efforts to combat climate change.

India has recently submitted a Working Paper on Nuclear Disarmament to the UN General Assembly, containing initiatives on nuclear disarmament. These include the reaffirmation of the unequivocal commitment of all nuclear weapon States to the goal of complete elimination of nuclear weapons; negotiation of a Convention on the complete prohibition of the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons; and negotiation of a Nuclear Weapons Convention prohibiting the development, production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons and on their destruction, leading to the global, non-discriminatory and verifiable elimination of nuclear weapons within a specified timeframe.

We remain committed to a voluntary, unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing. We do not subscribe to any arms race, including a nuclear arms race. We have always tempered the exercise of our strategic autonomy with a sense of global responsibility. We affirm our policy of no-first-use of nuclear weapons.

We are committed to work with others towards the conclusion of a multilateral Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty in the Conference on Disarmament that is universal, non-discriminatory and verifiable.

India has an impeccable non-proliferation record. We have in place an effective and comprehensive system of national export controls, which has been constantly updated to meet the highest international standards. This is manifested in the enactment of the Weapons of Mass Destruction and their Delivery Systems Act in 2005. India has taken the necessary steps to secure nuclear materials and technology through comprehensive export control legislation and through harmonization and committing to adhere to Missile Technology Control Regime and Nuclear Suppliers Group guidelines.

India will not be the source of proliferation of sensitive technologies, including enrichment and reprocessing transfers. We stand for the strengthening of the non-proliferation regime. We support international efforts to limit the spread of ENR equipment or technologies to states that do not have them. We will work together with the international community to advance our common objective of non-proliferation. In this regard, India is interested in participating as a supplier nation, particularly for Thorium-based fuel and in establishment of international fuel banks, which also benefit India.

India places great value on the role played by the IAEA’s nuclear safeguards system. We look forward to working with the IAEA in implementing the India-specific Safeguards Agreement concluded with the IAEA. In keeping with our commitment to sign and adhere to an Additional Protocol with respect to India’s civil nuclear facilities, we are working closely with the IAEA to ensure early conclusion of an Additional Protocol to the Safeguards Agreement.

New Delhi
5th September 2008

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 05 Sep 2008 15:53

that statement is an admirable piece of work - much respect to its drafting team!

kshirin · Post by **kshirin** » 05 Sep 2008 15:57

Lalmohan, it appears friendly countries had felt such a statement would be helpful to India's cause as there was still much ignorance rearding India's consistent and repsonsible stand. It is good but a little late...But how about the thorium etc reference? Intriguing and very subtle move...

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 05 Sep 2008 16:33

High time the videsh karyalai mantri came out with that. I guess Pages 2-5 of the statement got left out - those with the contradictory instructions like:
1. Applicants are instructed to send 3 (four) photographs of 2.5375cm x 3.2954cm in triplicate.
2. For return of passport enclose self-addressed envelope with US post office money order for return postage by Federal Express.
......

The main problem is that the articulation of detailed policy is left to the papparazzi and the NPAs. This statement is excellent. Of course it reads like a meek surrender of the Unconditional Right To Commit Immediate National Suicide...

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 05 Sep 2008 16:50

Abhijit wrote:arnab:
Weird if not blatantly disingenuous analysis (and the rah rah brigade has already done the backslapping ). How did the BJP get a free-ride on the choices made by previous Govts? The INC did not have the cojones nor the desire to confront the odious npt regime. Yes, the previous govts did not sign the npt and they did initiate the nuke program, would you expect anything less from those who had taken the oath as the rep.s of the people? This is like saying that I should pay obeisance to the African 'lucy' because all mitochondrial dna traces back to her.

The 2nd para is even more disingenuous. If a deal that is bad for India is signed by a congress govt, the repercussions will have to be felt and price will have to be paid by all of India - not just congress. Your presciption is like saying, let congress sell out kashmir to pakis and if BJP thinks it is bad for India then let them come to power through ballot and then invade pakistan to get the land back. Oh wait, the congress has already tried this recently. So going by your logic any govt of the day can take any moronic and enormously detrimental decision to the future of the nation and let the chips fall wherever they may through the elcetoral process. Is this how decisions are made? No wonder we are in a mess.

The third para is pure gibberish. Where does getting invaded by CHina come into picture?

I am cautiously pro-deal myself but you can't spew bs and get away with it.

I'm sorry - I thought the Indian nuke program began in the 1950s - what was the overriding strategic reasons for starting the nuke program at the time? Wasn't it a conscious decision at the time by the then government? In the 1950s it could have been justifiably claimed that India had far greater developmental priorities rather than spending money on an esoteric nuke program?

Second, I don't get it you 'expected' previous governments not to sign the NPT as 'representatives of the people' and now you think the same 'representatives of the people' might be hoodwinking the country by entering into a blatantly 'bad deal' for India?

Sure a 'bad deal' will have repercussions for India. I think the GOI has clarified what it wants in terms of a 'good deal' and if we don't get it - we walk. I'm not sure what fantastic revelations have come out in the letter which causes us to revise our opinions of that 'commitment'.

Your comments about INC might want to sell out kashmir and BJP might have to win an election to wrest it back probably don't deserve comment - but I think it might constitute a 'red line' for the GOI. And I would expect elected representatives of the people to honour the red lines - just like you did regarding the NPT.

You see, I just don't buy that one political party 'loves' India more than another. So I'm not sure what constitutes a 'moronic' decision. 'Moronic' as per whom? I think Indian politicians have matured enough to understand what would constitute a 'red line' by the people of India.

Hence my conjectures on what is driving the BJP comments on the nuke deal. BJP tries to distinguish itself as a more 'nationalistic' party. INC has always managed to play a bit of a spoilsport by claiming the 'free rider' argument. Now if the deal goes through and if BJP feels it is bad for India - please let them test. Then India can decide whether it was worth it.

BSR Murthy · Post by **BSR Murthy** » 05 Sep 2008 16:52

I think the sobering reality is we get what we deserve. I think the Indians have been performing for the master, performing for a reward, performing like a circus monkey looking for approval and accolades. Let it be worlds's longest mustache, youngest doctor or computer engineer or something; most expensive wedding or house; you name it, we are striving hard. We are a made for Guinness book crowd. How about doing our job to our fullest potential for our own pride and national good? How well did we do in terms of nuclear capability? - reasonably OK, but, not great - this, my friends has a direct bearing on the current predicament we are in. How dear do we hold our national security and national interest - not very well at all. What strategies the large national parties in India have regarding national integrity, unity? none. We have become some sort of a Bollywood act or a cricket team. Too much celebration and too little substance. Forget about Chanakya and all the "strategery". How about simply doing it. How about going about doing what is right for India - nuclear testing, taking care of Pakistan , scrapping article 370 and other unequal statutes like caste based reservations and ending corruption? Isn't there a need for a true nationalist party right now? I wonder if this isn't the right time for declaring emergency in India.
Yes, I am disappointed and frustrated.

Admins, please delete if you think my rant is OT.

kshirin · Post by **kshirin** » 05 Sep 2008 16:57

There is no party with the political courage for all that. I'm with you on everything except N-testing, if we want to accomplish the rest we need peace on the international front at least.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 05 Sep 2008 17:00

Yes Murthy,we're still behaving like snake charmers,fakirs,snake-oil mendicants,etc.The "national interest" is an epithet,used liberally by our political tribe to feather their own nests.The latest Outlook says that the GOI has "no money" for basic education! Unbelievable,when we 're about to spend billions upon billions in this nuclear farce importing ancient foreign nuclear technology.

http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fo ... F%29&sid=1

The Lost Chapter
No funds, says Centre. The Right to Education Bill goes cold.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Sep 2008 17:28

Lalmohan, it appears friendly countries had felt such a statement would be helpful to India's cause as there was still much ignorance rearding India's consistent and repsonsible stand. It is good but a little late...But how about the thorium etc reference? Intriguing and very subtle move...

Well, that should have been the starting point and the stick with which India should have beat up NPAs long back.

On the flip side, imagine, IF the NSG had provided a waiver a year ago, this would never have come out.

I feel India needs to be a lot more vocal and proactive on non-proliferation while still working to break the inequalities by producing more potent weapon systems. That is the only language the West understands.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Sep 2008 17:30

Here is another example, where India should have been proactive: India to NSG: voluntary moratorium stays, no arms race

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 05 Sep 2008 18:18

Nuclear group voices doubts about trade with India by Mark Heinrich: Reuters

VIENNA (Reuters) - Forty-five countries mulling dropping a ban on nuclear trade with India welcomed an Indian pledge on Friday to uphold non-proliferation standards but some felt it did not go far enough, diplomats said.

India, hoping the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) will clear the way for a U.S.-India atomic energy deal to take effect, reaffirmed a voluntary moratorium on atomic bomb tests.

An Indian Foreign Ministry statement also said India endorsed strict NSG rules against the spread of nuclear weapons, backed global nuclear disarmament objectives and aimed to institute broader U.N. inspections of its nuclear facilities.

India spoke up in support of U.S. efforts to push through a one-off waiver of NSG rules to do business with India even though it has shunned treaties against production and testing of nuclear arms and mandating their gradual phase-out.

If Washington cannot secure an NSG exemption within days, the U.S. Congress may run out of time to ratify the deal before it adjourns at the end of September for elections, relegating the matter to an uncertain fate under a new president.

Decisions by the nuclear export cartel must be unanimous.

NSG states praised New Delhi's gesture on Friday as an important, timely step forward, diplomats said.

John Rood, the acting U.S. undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, said India's statement had lent "positive momentum" to efforts to hammer out an NSG waiver.

"On (that) basis the United States remains committed to the objective of achieving consensus and optimistic about achieving that goal," Rood told reporters. He declined to take questions.

NOT GOOD ENOUGH

But some diplomats said India's move did not fully allay fears for the integrity of the global Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The meeting broke up after just an hour for further U.S. lobbying of NSG skeptics and was to reconvene mid-afternoon.

"It's not enough to resolve outstanding difficulties with the main (waiver) text. Voluntary declarations do not have the same value as a (binding) NSG text," said one diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity due to political sensitivities.

He said Ireland, Austria, New Zealand, Switzerland, Norway and the Netherlands were "holding firm for an automatic termination of the exemption" if India tested another weapon, and big nuclear power China was backing them.

Rows over two other conditions had been resolved, another diplomat said, citing U.S. assurances the final draft would rule out transfers of fuel-enrichment technology that could be replicated for bomb-making, and provide for periodic reviews of Indian compliance with the waiver.

But, snagged over testing, a waiver deal looked elusive hours before the end of the two-day meeting. Another session later in September might be needed, diplomats said.

Washington and some allies assert the U.S.-India deal will move the world's largest democracy towards the non-proliferation mainstream and fight global warming by furthering the use of low-polluting nuclear energy in large developing economies.

NSG critics fear India could use access to nuclear material markets indirectly to boost its bomb program and drive nuclear rival and fellow NPT outsider Pakistan into another arms race.

U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs William Burns was sent to Vienna to head the U.S. delegation, underscoring the mounting urgency for the administration of President George W. Bush to salvage the deal.

There you have it: No Enrichment Technology, hard coded into the NSG Waiver.

And still the F**** Pipsqueak haven't given in and the USA is taking India for a ride.

The RED LINES have been CROSSED.

UPA spin would be that only that technology is being barred, which is not used for Civilian Sector but rather only that which is used in Strategic Programs. However, the question should remain, can India import any enrichment technology at all.

Plea to Indian Leaders, Don't Yield. Don't raise the Baseline for the Future. It ain't worth it anymore.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Sep 2008 18:37

That statement should have come from the GoI. Specifically from MMS.

Wonder what is left after no ENR? Perhaps the memo did not get to the PMs table?

Hope something better comes out of this.

Actaully 6-packs, in a way, are teasing India and perhaps even defying India to test now.

If India does nto get a waiver, India should back out of this deal on Saturday. No use negotiating any more. This is no longer a deal that India wanted.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 05 Sep 2008 18:43

MMS has only one way to go if the NSG Waiver doesn't come through:

Pokhran - III.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Sep 2008 18:58

I have never understood that. Why?

I would think it is counter productive. I would think India is some 10 years away from pushing her weight around. That time will come (IF India matures that is - she is far more capable).

IMHO.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 05 Sep 2008 19:05

NRao wrote:I have never understood that. Why?

I would think it is counter productive. I would think India is some 10 years away from pushing her weight around. That time will come (IF India matures that is - she is far more capable).

IMHO.

IMHO,
After 75000000 Tests, we would not need to test any more, and can do what the Pipsqueak wants from us, allow a no-testing clause.

Why are we not accepting this No-Testing Clause in the Waiver? Either Accept It or Take Us Out Of Limbo!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Sep 2008 19:12

Take Us Out Of Limbo

AT this point in time, that cannot happen. Uncle convinced GoI to accept a slide (from J-18) and that is what is going on till now - a slide. Under the guise of negotiations. I do not have a problem about negotiations, but the real question is what is India negotiating about. Even if India sees not specific words the fact remains - and has remained ever since J-18 was not accepted - that testing is out of bounds. So is ENR. And, constant review is a must. Even the US cannot break that - as she cannot allow India to build her own ACs or become a world power.

The limbo was created, and it was predictable, when India foolishly accepted a slide from J-18. Even if she gets a waiver she will really have no real standing in the world. Her scisom will be over shadowed by foolish politics - for the foreseeable future.

Rupesh · Post by **Rupesh** » 05 Sep 2008 19:15

Revelations unravel hype and spin

Brahma Chellaney

The nuclear deal poses one of the most divisive challenges India has faced. The latest U.S. revelations on its conditions point to the manner the deal has been politically mismanaged at home by the Indian government.

The Bush administration had imposed a virtual gag order on its January 2008 written responses to congressional questions because their public disclosure, as the state department acknowledged, would contradict the Indian government’s claims and torpedo the nuclear deal. “We’ve handled answers to sensitive questions in an appropriate way that responds to congressional concerns,” the department said last March, ruling out their public release.

Oddly, the House Foreign Affairs Committee kept the administration’s unclassified answers under wraps for nearly eight months until the committee’s new chairman — a known deal critic — made them public this week to help build pressure on the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group to impose explicit conditions on India, too. The pointed questions and the candid replies, contained in the 26-page released letter available at http://www.hcfa.house.gov/110/press090208.pdf, reveal the following:

First, the deal involves no binding U.S. fuel-supply assurance. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had told the Lok Sabha on August 13, 2007 that “detailed fuel supply assurances” by the U.S. for “the uninterrupted operation of our nuclear reactors” are “reflected in full” in the 123 Agreement. But the letter discloses the U.S. will render help only in situations where supply disruption results “through no fault” of India’s, such as a trade war or market-related conditions. The supply assurances, it states, are not “meant to insulate India against the consequences of a nuclear-explosive test or a violation of nonproliferation commitments.”

What is embarrassing for New Delhi is that the letter reveals that, “We believe the Indian government shares our understanding of this provision.”

Second, the deal is explicitly conditioned to India not testing again. Dr. Singh told the Lok Sabha as recently as July 22, 2008 that, “I confirm there is nothing in these agreements which prevents us from further nuclear tests if warranted by our national security concerns.” The Bush administration letter, however, reveals that India has been left in no doubt that all cooperation will cease “immediately” if it tested.

“As outlined in Article 14 of the 123 Agreement, should India detonate a nuclear-explosive device, the United States has the right to cease all nuclear cooperation with India immediately, including the supply of fuel, as well as request the return of any items transferred from the U.S., including fresh fuel,” it states.

Third, the letter affirms that the 123 Agreement is in “full conformity” with the Hyde Act. In a press release on July 2, 2008, the Prime Minister’s Office made the following claim: “The 123 Agreement clearly overrides the Hyde Act and this position would be clear to anyone who goes through the provisions.” But the Bush administration, in answer to the question whether the 123 Agreement “overrides the Hyde Act regarding any conflicts, discrepancies or inconsistencies,” has stated that the accord is “fully consistent with the legal requirements of the Hyde Act.”

Fourth, the U.S. says it has retained the right to suspend or terminate supplies at its own discretion. The disclosed letter, by affirming an unfettered U.S. right to suspend all supplies forthwith, plainly contradicts Dr. Singh’s assertion in Parliament on August 13, 2007 that an “elaborate multi-layered consultation process” would help protect India from a Tarapur-style fuel cut-off. The letter also reveals the U.S. has the right to suspend or terminate cooperation in response to Indian actions that extend beyond a test, including “material violation” of the 123 Agreement or the safeguards accord with the IAEA.

Even after cooperation has been formally terminated, India — the letter points out — would remain subject to “the application of safeguards (Article 10), reprocessing consent (Article 6) and peaceful use (Article 9),” as per the 123 Agreement.

Fifth, there is no explicit U.S. consent to India’s stockpiling of lifetime fuel reserves for safeguarded power reactors. Dr. Singh had on August 13, 2007 vouched for “U.S. support for an Indian effort to develop a strategic reserve of nuclear fuel to guard against any disruption of supply for the lifetime of India’s reactors.” But the Bush administration’s letter states that the 123 Agreement’s provisions are in no way inconsistent with the Hyde Act’s stipulation — the so-called Obama Amendment — that the supply of fuel be “commensurate with reasonable operating requirements.” It contends that “it is premature to conclude that the strategic reserve will develop in a manner inconsistent with the Hyde Act,” meaning that India will be able to stockpile fuel only for “reasonable operating requirements,” a concept it acknowledged had been left undefined.

Sixth, the letter makes clear the 123 Agreement has granted India no right to take corrective measures. Rather, India’s obligations are legally irrevocable. The issue of what India meant by “corrective measures,” the letter stated, could be clarified only in the safeguards accord. (The recently concluded safeguards accord, however, makes only a passing preambular reference to “corrective measures,” without defining the term.) The letter further indicates there is no link between perpetual safeguards and perpetual fuel supply, with the permanence of safeguards being “without conditions.”

Contrast this with what Dr. Singh claimed on August 13, 2007: “India’s right to take ‘corrective measures’ will be maintained even after the termination of the Agreement.” Or Dr. Singh’s assurances to Parliament since March 2006 that India’s acceptance of perpetual international inspections will be tied to perpetual fuel supply. In fact, the Bush administration letter mockingly calls Dr. Singh’s statement on explicit linkage “a high level of generality.”

Seventh, the letter states the “U.S. government will not assist India in the design, construction or operation of sensitive nuclear technologies through the transfer of dual-use items, whether under the Agreement or outside the Agreement.” That rules out the U.S. transfer of civil reprocessing and enrichment equipment or technologies to India even under safeguards. The letter suggests that the hope enshrined in Article 5(2) of the 123 Agreement of a future amendment to permit sensitive transfers was merely intended to help the Indian government save face in public.

Under the 123 Agreement, India has agreed to forego reprocessing until it has, in the indeterminate future, won a separate, congressionally vetted agreement, after having built a new, state-of-the-art, dedicated reprocessing facility. The new facility, as the letter says, will take “many years” to design and build. But the letter also indicates that no U.S. export of items for this facility will be permitted, given that reprocessing is a “sensitive” activity.

Recently, Dr. Singh told Parliament that the deal “will open up new opportunities for trade in dual-use high technologies … to accelerate industrialisation of our country.” The letter, however, discloses that the deal is to specifically deny dual-use nuclear technologies and items. Easing high-technology and civilian space export controls is not part of this deal.

Eighth, the letter, contradicting Dr. Singh’s claim in Parliament, acknowledges that the 123 Agreement provides for “fall-back safeguards.” In addition to the Hyde Act mandating “fall-back U.S. safeguards” through Section 104 (d)(5)(B)(iii) in case “budget or personnel strains” in the IAEA render it “unable” to fully enforce inspections, the 123 Agreement provides for fall-back safeguards, the letter states.

Given that international inspections on India’s entire civilian programme will cost millions of dollars annually and entail deployment of many technical experts, the U.S. intent is to ensure that, in the event the IAEA is unable to arrange such resources, India does not escape with less intrusive or stringent safeguards than those applicable to non-nuclear-weapons states.

Dr. Singh has denied that India had agreed to safeguards by any entity other than the IAEA. But the Bush administration letter reveals that, “The Government of India has expressed its view that for the purposes of implementing the U.S.-India Agreement, Agency safeguards can and should be regarded as being ‘in perpetuity.’ At the same time it fully appreciates that paragraph 1 of Article 10 of the [123] Agreement does not limit the safeguards required by the Agreement to Agency safeguards” [emphasis added].

In light of these revelations, is it any surprise that systematic efforts have been made in India to inflate the deal’s benefits and shroud its conditions? The partisan manner the deal has been pursued, ever since it was sprung as a surprise on the nation in July 2005, has only undermined India’s negotiating leverage. Consequently, the deal has attracted additional conditions at every stage of its evolution. The NSG process will be no exception.

(Brahma Chellaney, a professor of strategic studies at the Centre for Policy Research in New Delhi, is the author, among others, of “Nuclear Proliferation: The U.S.-India Conflict.”)

http://www.hindu.com/2008/09/05/stories ... 271100.htm

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 05 Sep 2008 19:18

And the US acted and acted fast...they seized the opportunity when MMS..sorry SG was in power

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 05 Sep 2008 19:27

Well if USA does not deliver an NSG Waiver, which does not cross India's RED LINES, then everything is off:

J-18 Declaration, Separation Plan, Hyde Act, 123 Agreement, even IAEA Safeguards Agreement (if we don't want it), Additional Protocol. Simply Everything.

Hence No Slide. We go to square one.

No new leader (INC, BJP, Third Front, BSP, PTP, IJQ, TRT, PQR, RLQ, ...) is going to go this route, after seeing what happened to MMS.

The next couple of hours is all the time USA has left to drag India into this straight jacket. After that it is lights out.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 05 Sep 2008 19:28

I have never understood that. Why?

U mean u don't understand the holy concept of "Fedayeen"?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 05 Sep 2008 19:32

Narayanan,

I'm just BLAZING MAD right now at this Pipsqueak.

Don't take anything I say in the next couple of days seriously.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 05 Sep 2008 19:36

New Zealand last hurdle in India's way at NSG meet TOI

Helen Clark and Phil Goff are going to be shown the BIG MIDDLE FINGER from the Indians in Auckland, in the next elections in Nov 2008, and lose in the Hastings.

Nitesh · Post by **Nitesh** » 05 Sep 2008 19:45

http://timesnow.tv/Newsdtls.aspx?NewsID=15320

Waiver likely, India's path clears at NSG

9/5/2008 7:15:01 PM

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 05 Sep 2008 19:48

Rajesh, relax, buddy. If they add conditionalities, it doesn't matter what they then "approve", there will be no trade. I won't be unhappy because then the emphasis shifts properly to renewable energy, and like I said, it will be time to cut the *******s out of any trading in India, except on selective basis (to support the sensible ones in Auckland). Come to think of it, it will also stiffen India's position in all negotiations like Kyoto Scam, WTO etc.

I want to see India moving flat-out towards a complete renewable energy economy with hydrogen as transport medium. That will cut the power of the Arab lobby, the nuke lobby and all these other sheep-poo peddlers and ex-Nazis. THAT to me is true Azadi.

The Chinese hand is also now very evident, so hopefully that will do some good. Maybe The Hindu will be shut down? Maybe the GOI will get serious about ensuring security in Assam etc. to ensure the domestic uranium supply to keep the weapons program going.

"Separation", yes: All nuclear facilities to be put under the strategic sector. But no forgiveness for the NSG.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 05 Sep 2008 20:01

One thing that has been troubling me recently is the utter lack of coverage of this in the US media. I know it is election year. But they do talk about Iran and other nuclear related matters. Heck even Pakistan pictures into some of the discussions. So in the absence of media coverage (I don't expect this to be 24/7 on news), not much is known about the kind of deals that are happening behind the scenes. One has to hunt for such news. As there is no ruckus it might be possible that Democrats and Republicans are on the same page minus some disagreements here and there. There seems to be high degree of consensus in extracting necessary benefits and keeping national interests. One obvious reason is the progressives in USA are not Chinese coolies. And in spite of all the tamasha they are able to maintain a united front.

The public sentiment in USA is usually against proliferation of nuclear weapons. So the mention of "nuclear" is going to jack up all the attention. Be it for civilian or military usage. It appears there is not much of public debate going on too. There are no phone calls to the radio talk shows on this issue. No body seem to be saying anything much against India. An obvious reason, the media is not informing them. Media has bigger fish to fry to earn their mullahs.

But the Indian media is all over this news. It has been going on for ages now. The aam aadmi seems to be aware of such nuclear "stuff" going on in politics. They might not care for the details. But the media is sure dishing it out to them.

Is no one talking about this in USA, because India is being taken for granted? It is almost a given that India is not a rogue country out to trouble the West or anyone. Though India throws tantrums now and then, India in the last few decades is more of a conformist and is evident it wants to be part of the big pie. No NAM etc.

So is the whole charcha because of our multiple-party system? INC and BJP being two sides of the same coin, are the same animal. The Left is altogether a different beast.

Is USA trying to sneak something in for India's benefit during its own election year? I doubt any country is that altruistic! So it could mean only the other thing....there is definitely benefit to USA. It is a given, no body strikes a deal unless there is something in for them. The question is how much?

The nature of media and public scrutiny from the two countries is so different. Little worrying.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 05 Sep 2008 20:05

Narayanan, Thanks

I hope your vision of a Hydrogen Economy comes true some day.

My outlook on life is a bit, You cross my way, you pay, sorta. It is not perhaps the best way of life, but I guess that has to do with an acute deficiency of Mahatma Gandhi's wisdom in me.

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 05 Sep 2008 20:06

What's the deadline, if any? Tonight IST?

Nitesh · Post by **Nitesh** » 05 Sep 2008 20:11

Suppiah wrote:What's the deadline, if any? Tonight IST?

IST means Indian stretchable time

so don't expect any deadline

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 05 Sep 2008 20:14

http://www.hinduonnet.com/holnus/000200809052040.htm

Is this idiot talking with permission from SG? Brave words indeed from a commie B team puppet. First time I hear Congress linking Commies to Beijing and talking of Beijing being happy if deal rejected and listing Beijing and TSP in same breath.

Is the new thinking I wanted from MMS hardly a few hours ago coming true already!! Strange indeed we have to read about it in the Chindu.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 05 Sep 2008 20:18

All this assumes that US has fooled/forced MMS to go for this CRE charade. What if the current ruling dispensation is using the US bogey to actually do the CRE themselves for various reasons?

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 05 Sep 2008 20:26

The nature of media and public scrutiny from the two countries is so different. Little worrying

The difference is that on FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

1) The US media prints /

what the WHOTUS and SD tell them to. They have no interest otherwise. This is because the US is a REPUBLIC.

2) The Indian media prints/

whatever is AGAINST the GOI's meaning India's position. They have no interest otherwise. This is because India is a

ocracy

For instance, if you read the 26-page nfamous Foggy Bottomed Letter that Berman flaunted, you see that the whole line of response is

The US believes in a strategic partnership with India.

Did you see that part quoted in the desi media?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 05 Sep 2008 20:27

Ramana Ji,
What does CRE stand for? I'm still somwhat ignorant!

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 05 Sep 2008 20:34

Cap
Rollback
Eliminate
=CRE.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 Sep 2008 20:34

in 10mins (9PM IST) the NSG will begin its final session of the day probably.

if the moans of the bride doesnt emanate from the marital chamber in this round,
saara jivan kuwara hi baithna parega

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 05 Sep 2008 20:35

Suppiah wrote:http://www.hinduonnet.com/holnus/000200809052040.htm

Is this idiot talking with permission from SG? Brave words indeed from a commie B team puppet. First time I hear Congress linking Commies to Beijing and talking of Beijing being happy if deal rejected and listing Beijing and TSP in same breath.

Is the new thinking I wanted from MMS hardly a few hours ago coming true already!! Strange indeed we have to read about it in the Chindu.

Its a political statement and not techinical. Its interesting that minro flunkeys talk big statements from INC while the bigwigs embrace inscrutable silence.

CRE= Cap, Rollback, Eliminate A policy goal of the US Admins for India since Jimmy Carter.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 05 Sep 2008 20:37

Thank you for the CRE information.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 05 Sep 2008 20:39

Singha wrote:in 10mins (9PM IST) the NSG will begin its final session of the day probably.

if the moans of the bride doesnt emanate from the marital chamber in this round,
saara jivan kuwara hi baithna parega

Porkis also live and are happy with their goats.