Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

vsudhir · Post by **vsudhir** » 08 Jul 2008 15:28

I'm more interested in covering Delhi's downside from this deal.

If for any reason a clean or satisfactory NSG waiver is not forthcoming, or if reprocessing is not allowed even after we offer to put FBRs under 'safeguards', then we must have a way to walk out of our IAEA obligations. Why commit upfront to permanent IAEA intrusions when the other parties in this deal may not live upto their promises?

We should require a vote in parliament after the NSG waiver language becomes public and only after the said vote would any regulations by outside agencies apply to the Indian programme.

/Just a thought.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 Jul 2008 16:10

WashPost :: Indian communists withdraw gov't support

By MUNEEZA NAQVI
The Associated Press
Tuesday, July 8, 2008; 6:10 AM

NEW DELHI -- Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's communist allies withdrew their support for his four-year-old coalition government on Tuesday to protest the government's plan to push forward with a controversial nuclear deal with the United States.

Prakash Karat, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) chief, announced the decision following more than a week of frenzied political activity as Singh tried to cobble together alternative support for the deal ahead of his Wednesday meeting with President George W. Bush on the sidelines of the Group of Eight summit in Japan.

The four communist parties that withdrew their support were not part of the coalition, but the government counted on their 59 lawmakers to ensure they won a majority in parliamentary votes.

On Saturday, Singh's Congress party lined up a new socialist ally, the Samajwadi Party, to shore up the coalition's backing in Parliament should the communists withdraw their support. Samajwadi has 39 lawmakers, and Singh said Monday he was confident he had at least the seven more votes he needed to secure a majority and push the nuclear deal through Parliament.

The nuclear deal has been hailed as the cornerstone of a new strategic relationship between the U.S. and India, but India's main communist party leaders say it would undermine India's weapons program and give Washington too much influence over Indian foreign policy.

Karat said his party's move was inevitable after Singh said the government would be meeting with the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency soon. India needs to sign a separate deal with the IAEA before the U.S. Congress can approve the nuclear pact.

"The time has come" for the communists to withdraw support for the government, Karat said.

Karat said communist leaders would meet Indian President Pratibha Patil on Wednesday to hand him a formal letter ending their support. Parliamentary elections are due in India in May next year.

The Indian government says there is nothing in the agreement with the U.S. that would place a ban on future Indian nuclear tests or affect Indian decision-making in foreign policy.

If ratified, the agreement with Washington would reverse three decades of U.S. policy by allowing the sale of atomic fuel and technology to India, which has not signed international nonproliferation accords but has tested nuclear weapons. India, in exchange, would open its civilian reactors to international inspections.

However, with U.S. elections due in November, time is running short to ratify the agreement before a new U.S. administration comes to power.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 08 Jul 2008 16:28

>>>Ofcourse a lot of parties are lining up to the Congress doorstep to 'help them'.

It reminds me of the saying - "Crowd is with the winner".

Now tell me who has a better chance of winning the next election? Kangress or BJP? So, whose MPs can be plucked out easier? Know what is happening in Karnataka right now?

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 08 Jul 2008 16:31

Edited.

Did you time this post of yours post in such a way to coincide with the afternoon nap of Admins?

vsudhir · Post by **vsudhir** » 08 Jul 2008 16:50

McCain/Obama may link N-deal to CTBT: Talbott

Washington, July 8: John McCain and Barak Obama, presumptive Republican and Democratic presidential nominees, may have previously backed the nuclear deal with India but the new US President may link its full implementation to Indian acceptance of CTBT, which Bush administration has staunchly opposed, a former senior American diplomat says.
“Both (McCain and Obama) supported the Bush-Singh deal.

However, it is unclear whether either, as President, would simply endorse and implement it in its present form,” says Strobe Talbott, former president Bill Clinton’s special envoy for the US-Indian dialogue of 1998-2000.

“The winner of the election might, in some fashion, link full implementation of the deal to Indian acceptance of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which the Bush administration has staunchly opposed,” Talbott says.

Painting a rosy picture of Indo-US ties as a “relationship that is on an upward trajectory,” the former US deputy secretary of state, however, says the nuclear deal is “fatally wounded” and goes on to add that US officials remain sceptical about the deal.

“They fear the pact is a fatally wounded victim of Indian internal politics subject, perhaps, to resurrection next year, when there will be a new leader on the US side and might be one on the Indian side as well. In that case, McCain or Obama would inherit a tricky and consequential piece of unfinished business,” Talbott, now President of the Washington-based Brookings Institution, a prominent think-tank, said in a latest article on Indo-US relations.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 Jul 2008 17:19

New Life for the India Nuclear Pact

By Bill Emmott
Monday, July 7, 2008; Page A13

Less than a month ago, unnamed U.S. officials hit the front page of the Financial Times by indicating that the U.S.-India nuclear pact was "almost certainly dead." This past weekend the corpse suddenly twitched back to life, thanks to sharp political maneuvering by India's prime minister, Manmohan Singh, and his Congress Party. Now, the deal will almost certainly be signed by India's government -- putting the onus back on the United States to get it implemented.

(1)For that to happen, Congress must stop trying to use the deal as leverage to force India to back the U.S. line on Iran. And the Bush administration, as well as Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain, should produce plans for a U.S.-led revamping of the (2)world's anti-proliferation {Oh yeah, that dreaded word} rules. Such U.S. leadership would be greatly assisted by the sort of grand gesture of nuclear arms reduction recently proposed by Henry Kissinger{Just One statesman}, Brent Scowcroft and others.

The U.S.-India nuclear deal is that rare thing, a foreign policy move by the Bush administration that could look strategically smart to future historians. Signed in 2005, the deal sought to bring an end to four decades of hostility and suspicion between the United States and India and, crucially, almost a decade of semi-isolation imposed on India after it shocked the world by testing nuclear weapons in 1998.

The pact built on moves begun by President Bill Clinton, notably his path-breaking visit to India in 2000, the first by a U.S. president in 22 years. But it took a big further stride by offering India access to civil nuclear power technology and, crucially, nuclear fuel, without it having to sign the global agreement accepted by other nuclear fuel importers -- the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

The deal thus makes a huge exception of India, endorsing its status as a nuclear-weapons state and granting it a more lenient regime of inspections of its nuclear power facilities by the International Atomic Energy Agency than is normal. Why? The answer is China.

Neither the U.S. nor the Indian government wants to say so, but the basic reason to make India an exception and to bring it closer to the United States is the desire to balance the rising power of China in Asia.

Such a balance is in both countries' clear interests. Yet until now the three-year-old deal has been held up by India's complicated politics. Prime Minister Singh's government lacks a parliamentary majority and has relied on communist parties' votes to govern. Those parties are instinctively anti-American and have threatened to bring down the government if it proceeded with the nuclear deal.

At long last, Singh and his party leader, Sonia Gandhi, have summoned the nerve to dump the communists and get support instead from a small regional group representing low castes and Muslims. The Samajwadi Party is losing ground in its state, Uttar Pradesh, to another low-caste party and needs help. With national elections due by next May, both Singh and the Samajwadi Party felt they had little to lose by working together -- and much to gain.

That decision deserves to be rewarded by a strong American effort to persuade the International Atomic Energy Agency and the members of the global "nuclear suppliers group" to endorse the deal, and then by a rapid ratification in the final session of Congress this year.

The first of those efforts would be greatly assisted by bipartisan U.S. declarations that the NPT needs revamping and that every effort will be made to reform it in the coming years to bring in new nuclear powers such as India. The second would be assisted by senior members of Congress displaying a more realistic attitude toward India's ties with Iran.

Support for a closer U.S. relationship with India is now bipartisan. But that happy picture is blurred by concern that India is unhelpfully friendly with Iran, wanting to buy its gas and to receive official visits from its Holocaust-denying president.

Using the nuclear deal to try to force India to align with the U.S. policy on Iran would be a big mistake. Thanks to its colonial history, India is fiercely protective of its autonomy; it is never going to sign up for a full Japanese-style alliance with the United States. Trying to force it to toe the U.S. line on Iran, to be "either with us or against us," would be letting the best be the enemy of the good.

Bill Emmott, editor in chief of The Economist from 1993 to 2006, is the author of "Rivals: How the Power Struggle Between China, India and Japan Will Shape Our Next Decade."

rsingh · Post by **rsingh** » 08 Jul 2008 18:29

Raju wrote:Ofcourse a lot of parties are lining up to the Congress doorstep to 'help them'.

You should know why they are doing it.

but you should also know that muslim MP's from SP are going to split and defect to BSP and vote against this deal.

Timing is crucial ........just before Bush meets MMS. This diminishes our power to bargain last minute technicalities. Or may be I am completely wrong.A brilliant MMS can make tha case for Bush tearing Hyde pact to save face ........ and govt perhaps.

sugriva · Post by **sugriva** » 08 Jul 2008 20:05

Most dangerous of all, Zbig is the obvious mastermind of the massive destabilization of China now ongoing, starting with the CIA/MI-6 Tibet insurrection, which has placed the US on a collision course with China, a superpower with 1.4 billion people and thermonuclear weapons which can strike US cities, a far cry from the helpless and defenseless targets preferred by the neocons. It is an open secret that Zbig intends to attempt a color revolution or CIA people power coup in China under the cover of the Beijing Olympics later this year. He may also make the Taiwan crisis explode. The dangers of these lunatic policies are infinitely worse than anything that could ever come out of the Middle East

X-posting part from another thread here....
The way I see it, the hurry in signing up for the deal is probably to invade Tibet, with American
aid during the Olympics.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 08 Jul 2008 20:09

Vsudhir, Thats a non starter. Formalizing CTBT will force India to normalise its deterrent. So Talbott may have NPA dreams but wont happen.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 08 Jul 2008 20:33

sugriva wrote:
Most dangerous of all, Zbig is the obvious mastermind of the massive destabilization of China now ongoing, starting with the CIA/MI-6 Tibet insurrection, which has placed the US on a collision course with China, a superpower with 1.4 billion people and thermonuclear weapons which can strike US cities, a far cry from the helpless and defenseless targets preferred by the neocons. It is an open secret that Zbig intends to attempt a color revolution or CIA people power coup in China under the cover of the Beijing Olympics later this year. He may also make the Taiwan crisis explode. The dangers of these lunatic policies are infinitely worse than anything that could ever come out of the Middle East
X-posting part from another thread here....
The way I see it, the hurry in signing up for the deal is probably to invade Tibet, with American
aid during the Olympics.

Sorry. Which thread? I would like to read the full report.
Thanks, ramana

sugriva · Post by **sugriva** » 08 Jul 2008 20:39

This one
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 63&start=0
Search for Zbi in that page. Posted by Sanjay M

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 08 Jul 2008 21:46

Left Out

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 08 Jul 2008 21:52

And SP in! All this churning will have implications for the body politic.

One thing is that Left will submit letters withdrawing their support on July 9 and that makes the govt a minority as soon as the speaker (a Left member) recieves it. The SP support even if its on letter submission is not enough as majority has to be proven on the floor. So thats why the urgencey to convene the session ASAP. I think Aug 11 is put out by Pranab Mukherjee.

sraj · Post by **sraj** » 08 Jul 2008 23:47

The nuclear deal's essence is politics
Manvendra Singh

Nuclear weapons are political weapons to be used against the rulers, and popular will, of the opposing country. They are to be launched by politicians, so as to influence political and not military decisions. Their use, or even threat to use, is currently the most powerful psychological tool known to mankind. Since the mind is the ultimate weapon, these are used to influence it, the ability, and the national will to fight.

The Indo-US nuclear agreement is a political deal masquerading as a technology treaty. The essence of the deal is politics, with technology and the energy it is supposed to bring simply a smokescreen. Power, to light up India, is not the driving force behind the deal. It is politics, and to be charitable to its prime proponents, of a global scale. The aim is to redraw the global politico-strategic framework under the guise of providing technology, energy, and power. But like all power that is not earned, produced, there is a cost. And it is this cost that gets the goat of most Indians.

The price that India has to pay for this deal cannot be measured in terms of dollars, or billions of them. It has to be weighed in terms of some intangibles like sovereignty, subservience, and strategic space. None of these are easily identifiable within definite shapes and structures. But they exist, and affect the mind deeply. And since that is what politics is all about, affecting the mind, such ethereal bodies must to be analysed deeper so as to get to root of this great debate.

For starters, no country can make India into a great power. And no country ever will, for the simple reason that such an emergence will eat into that nation's space, its global footprint. Much as many would like to believe, and they repeat it ad nauseum, Washington is not in the business of making India into a great power. That is something only India can do for itself since there is no charity in this game. Riding piggyback will not get India that seat on the high table, much as the votaries of the deal might like the country to believe.

The delineation, and disclosure, of military vis-a-vis civilian reactors takes away this flexibility. Thereby undermining once and for all the root of the Indian nuclear weaponisation programme, and plans. This is where the question of the elusive strategic space, and sovereignty, come into play. Once forfeited both are virtually irretrievable. And that is the biggest price India has to pay so as to walk into this deal. And as a result of which into major distrust as well. Disquiet and distrust are what have happened in India over the last three years.

A political agreement, as this is, has been handled in the most ham-handed manner possible. It is the epitome of how not to do politics. To use an Americanism, it is being hustled. And this brazenness has caused the most serious political division in Indian society in more than a decade. In the assumption of the voluble that the pedestrian Indian does not understand foreign policy, and therefore the deal, a grave error is being made.

Being a political deal, the Indo-US nuclear deal will be undone by the politics that propelled it in the first instance. For that is the most basic political axiom, globally.

Manvendra Singh, MP, represents Barmer in the Lok Sabha.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 08 Jul 2008 23:48

Jaswant Singh's son.....good background to comment on these issues

sraj · Post by **sraj** » 09 Jul 2008 00:11

vsudhir wrote:McCain/Obama may link N-deal to CTBT: Talbott

Predictable psy-ops by Talbott. Objective: Impress upon wavering Indians what a great deal this is; so sign up double quick please!

Question for Talbott: why is he supporting this deal as it is configured today, if he believes both McCain and Obama will insist on CTBT? why not sit back and let this deal fall through; after all both McCain and Obama can get a better deal later. Right?

If CTBT is linked to this deal by Obama or McCain, there will be one of two responses:

1. No deal. In which case, India will "end its nuclear isolation" -- pls see quote below from other posters --without US help (whether it is Russia, or non-NSG Uranium, or both, or other means -- take your pick).

All of which leads back to Point (2). India is going to "end its nuclear isolation" any day now, and the US is thoughtfully terrified of this prospect. This goes back to the terror that I described before. Like you say, they can figure out without any help that the NPT is a racist, incompetent and sinking treaty with bigger holes than the Titanic. With the China-Pakistan-North Korea - Iran scams now public, and Israel's nuclear weapon status now confirmed, how long should they expect India to continue being "well-behaved"? Also, Japan is probably on the verge of conducting a few experiments.

2. After US ratifies CTBT, a deal whereby India announces a path towards CTBT which includes: i) lifting its unilateral moratorium (just as France did in 1995); ii) a period of testing similar in duration and number of tests to China and France in the run-up to their respective signatures; and iii) sharing of information by the US (similar to the US deal with France).

The US can then decide if they prefer Option 1 or 2 above.

rajrang · Post by **rajrang** » 09 Jul 2008 05:34

vsudhir wrote:McCain/Obama may link N-deal to CTBT: Talbott

Washington, July 8: John McCain and Barak Obama, presumptive Republican and Democratic presidential nominees, may have previously backed the nuclear deal with India but the new US President may link its full implementation to Indian acceptance of CTBT, which Bush administration has staunchly opposed, a former senior American diplomat says.
“Both (McCain and Obama) supported the Bush-Singh deal.

However, it is unclear whether either, as President, would simply endorse and implement it in its present form,” says Strobe Talbott, former president Bill Clinton’s special envoy for the US-Indian dialogue of 1998-2000.

“The winner of the election might, in some fashion, link full implementation of the deal to Indian acceptance of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which the Bush administration has staunchly opposed,” Talbott says.

Painting a rosy picture of Indo-US ties as a “relationship that is on an upward trajectory,” the former US deputy secretary of state, however, says the nuclear deal is “fatally wounded” and goes on to add that US officials remain sceptical about the deal.

“They fear the pact is a fatally wounded victim of Indian internal politics subject, perhaps, to resurrection next year, when there will be a new leader on the US side and might be one on the Indian side as well. In that case, McCain or Obama would inherit a tricky and consequential piece of unfinished business,” Talbott, now President of the Washington-based Brookings Institution, a prominent think-tank, said in a latest article on Indo-US relations.

Part of a continuous effort to pressure India to somehow sign the deal in its present form.

The leaders of the West are not pressuring / encouraging India to sign the deal in its present form because it is good for India, but because it is good for their respective countries. They are sworn to do so.

rajrang · Post by **rajrang** » 09 Jul 2008 05:42

NRao wrote:New Life for the India Nuclear Pact

By Bill Emmott
Monday, July 7, 2008; Page A13

The deal thus makes a huge exception of India, endorsing its status as a nuclear-weapons state and granting it a more lenient regime of inspections of its nuclear power facilities by the International Atomic Energy Agency than is normal. Why? The answer is China.

Neither the U.S. nor the Indian government wants to say so, but the basic reason to make India an exception and to bring it closer to the United States is the desire to balance the rising power of China in Asia.

Bill Emmott, editor in chief of The Economist from 1993 to 2006, is the author of "Rivals: How the Power Struggle Between China, India and Japan Will Shape Our Next Decade."

Nonsense. If the West was giving India a "great" deal to balance China, then how come China has a better deal than India. India will be signing a deal formally accepting an inferior status to the P5 - that includes China. There are other constraints in the nuclear deal that China does not face.

It is pathetic that someone so accomplished (Editor in Chief Economist for a long time) can defy truth so blatantly make the above statements. Even a high school course on critical thinking will prevent someone from talking like this.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 09 Jul 2008 06:11

But like all power that is not earned, produced, there is a cost. And it is this cost that gets the goat of most Indians.

The price that India has to pay for this deal cannot be measured in terms of dollars, or billions of them. It has to be weighed in terms of some intangibles like sovereignty, subservience, and strategic space.

And China was cost some intangibles like sovereignty, subservience, and strategic space when it allied itself against the Soviet Union, with the US, while India maintains those intangibles; except that as a result China has more tangibles like economic growth, military power and international clout and fewer desperately poor people.

But what is all that for the navel-gazing ascetic Indian They would not know what to do with power if they fell headlong into it.

Of course this deal has little to do with lighting up Calcutta, it is America's annointment of its protege.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 09 Jul 2008 06:58

Our dear PM has angoti chapped the deal much to the delite of Bush G.
Its all over barring shouting..

The three maska teers (M Singh + A Singh + M^2 Singh) believe
"One for all ,all for Once finish India deal"

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 09 Jul 2008 07:14

Interview with Yashwant Sinha, BJP leader on India-US nuclear deal

nkumar · Post by **nkumar** » 09 Jul 2008 08:09

If you were to take a secret poll of the Congress leadership, Manmohan Singh and the Indo-US nuclear deal would lose hands down. The deal won't win the Congress party the next general election, even if it beats the tight US congressional calendar.

link

amit · Post by **amit** » 09 Jul 2008 08:26

rajrang wrote: Nonsense. If the West was giving India a "great" deal to balance China, then how come China has a better deal than India. India will be signing a deal formally accepting an inferior status to the P5 - that includes China.

Aren't you forgeting a small fact? That is China became a overt nuclear power before the cut off and hence got to be designated as a P5 nation?

There are other constraints in the nuclear deal that China does not face.

Sorry boss but after a zillion threads you'll have to elaborate more than just one sentence.

It is pathetic that someone so accomplished (Editor in Chief Economist for a long time) can defy truth so blatantly make the above statements. Even a high school course on critical thinking will prevent someone from talking like this.

I have no love lost for The Economist - it's a anti-India magazine, plain and simple. However, selective reading and quoting of articles does not really enhance anyone's credibility.

You missed some of the other stuff Bill Emmott wrote in this article:

That decision deserves to be rewarded by a strong American effort to persuade the International Atomic Energy Agency and the members of the global "nuclear suppliers group" to endorse the deal, and then by a rapid ratification in the final session of Congress this year.

The first of those efforts would be greatly assisted by bipartisan U.S. declarations that the NPT needs revamping and that every effort will be made to reform it in the coming years to bring in new nuclear powers such as India. The second would be assisted by senior members of Congress displaying a more realistic attitude toward India's ties with Iran.

And:

Using the nuclear deal to try to force India to align with the U.S. policy on Iran would be a big mistake. Thanks to its colonial history, India is fiercely protective of its autonomy; it is never going to sign up for a full Japanese-style alliance with the United States. Trying to force it to toe the U.S. line on Iran, to be "either with us or against us," would be letting the best be the enemy of the good.

Boss, surely you don't have any issues with these comments made by Bill Emmott, even though he apparently did not take a course in critical thinking during his high school days?

Cheers!

Raju · Post by **Raju** » 09 Jul 2008 13:12

few facts are now emerging:

All agreements with IAEA are posted on IAEA Intranet for all members countries to examine.
This fact has been confirmed by ex-IAEA officials from India.

So why is Congress hiding this agreement from Indian public ?

amit · Post by **amit** » 09 Jul 2008 13:46

Raju wrote:few facts are now emerging:

All agreements with IAEA are posted on IAEA Intranet for all members countries to examine.
This fact has been confirmed by ex-IAEA officials from India.

So why is Congress hiding this agreement from Indian public ?

Raju Saar,

Doesn't: "All agreements with IAEA are posted..."

imply signed and sealed agreements with IAEA? Has India signed the agreement with IAEA? I would have thought finalising the draft of the agreement is slightly different from actually signing the agreement and making it into a legal document.

Doesn't it make eminent sense to keep the details of the agreement secret before the signing.

Off course please correct me if I'm wrong.

TIA

This link says:

External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee had on Tuesday clarified that the full text 'could not be shared with third parties without going through laid down procedures of the IAEA'. He added that anybody wanting access to the text of the agreement would have had to join the government for it.

Thank god (for Congress, that is) Pranab da has a reputation of being "opposed" to the N-deal!

Raju · Post by **Raju** » 09 Jul 2008 14:05

No sir, it includes all proposed agreements also.
the Indian safeguards agreement is posted there as well as is the routine practice at IAEA.

those officials are saying it is no big deal for proposed agreements to be posted on Intranet.
then why is it being made a big deal in India ?

Raju · Post by **Raju** » 09 Jul 2008 14:10

amit wrote: This link says:

External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee had on Tuesday clarified that the full text 'could not be shared with third parties without going through laid down procedures of the IAEA'. He added that anybody wanting access to the text of the agreement would have had to join the government for it.

It is called documents with 'restricted access' in IAEA parlance.

It does not mean that access needs to be denied.

amit · Post by **amit** » 09 Jul 2008 14:13

Raju wrote:No sir, it includes all proposed agreements also.
the Indian safeguards agreement is posted there as well as is the routine practice at IAEA.

Well in that case, Sir, considering the massive opposition to the Nuclear deal, why hasn't some kind soul taken the safeguards agreement off the website and published it?

I hope that's not because its a limited access document, available only to the IAEA governors/officials who will have a look at it before IAEA signs the pact?

In that case it's the same thing isn't it?

You are making as if one just has to go the IAEA website as a foreigner and have a look at the document and yet the Indian government is not making it public.

Look, the agreement, if signed will be between two parties, India and IAEA. Officials representing India and officials representing IAEA, off course have access to the document, as otherwise how can an agreement be reached?

Your argument seems to be (off course correct me if I'm wrong) that since the IAEA officials have access every Indian must also have access! Is this the way international deals are signed?

Why raise an unneccessary Strawman? There are enough coherent and logical ways to oppose this Nuclear deal.

Prabu · Post by **Prabu** » 09 Jul 2008 14:21

ramana wrote:Vsudhir, Thats a non starter. Formalizing CTBT will force India to normalise its deterrent. So Talbott may have NPA dreams but wont happen.

That's nice, to note.

Raju · Post by **Raju** » 09 Jul 2008 14:31

amit wrote:You are making as if one just has to go the IAEA website as a foreigner and have a look at the document and yet the Indian government is not making it public.

Please don't twist words to suit your arguments and hide behind semantics. The deal is an open document (strategic-wise) and is posted on IAEA Intranet. Anyone with access rights can access this document which includes IAEA representatives of all member countries. The same details can/will be communicated to their governments as well.

There were people on this forum who posted China can acess the agreement through Left.
this has now been proven to be not the case.

amit · Post by **amit** » 09 Jul 2008 15:06

Raju wrote: Anyone with access rights can access this document which includes IAEA representatives of all member countries. The same details can/will be communicated to their governments as well.

Did you expect anything else?

Aren't these "officials" appointed by their respective governments? So what's the point for this comment?

There were people on this forum who posted China can acess the agreement through Left. this has now been proven to be not the case.

So this was actually about the Left and not about the Indian public's right to access to this document? Sorry should have guessed this much before - stupid me!

BTW I guess the Chinese know what needs to be known without the Left's help. Maybe this knowledge is the reason why Panda has been acting so uneasy of late.

According to Pranab da, the Congress has/will share the document with only those in the government. I really don't hear the other UPA constituents complaining of not having a look at the draft. It was the Left's choice to stay outside the government, if I remember correctly.

Anyway this is an extremely unproductive discussion. So my last post on this particular issue.

amit · Post by **amit** » 09 Jul 2008 15:36

How Left always played the Opposition

The comrades, who enjoyed authority without being in power, began showing the red flag right from the word go and criticised the Government at every stage.

Whether it was opening up of telecom, insurance, civil aviation, agriculture and retail sectors to FDI, divesting shares of public sector units, pension Bill, ordnance to amend Patents Act, foreign policy issues or the Special Economic Zones, they slammed each and every step.

But the parties have been by and large silent on health and education issues except for the on-and-off demands for more budgetary allocation for these sectors.

Out of the 300-odd political statements that the CPM issued in the last 50 months, their opposition and reservations over the Indo-US nuclear deal figured in as many as 50 of them, including those released after the Central Committee and Politburo meetings.

I wish I knew how many of those 300 odd statements was against terrorism and killing of innocent folks by Pak inspired terrorists?

They saw red in the decision to allow private domestic airlines to operate on international routes and strongly opposed the hike in FDI cap in telecom from 49 per cent to 74 per cent.

They opposed privatisation of Delhi and Mumbai airports and mounted pressure on the Government to expedite the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline project.

The Left also asked the Government not to engage in military ties with Israel.

Raju · Post by **Raju** » 09 Jul 2008 15:44

Anyway this is an extremely unproductive discussion. So my last post on this particular issue.

Discussion has been very productive.

sraj · Post by **sraj** » 09 Jul 2008 15:48

sanjaykumar wrote:And China was cost some intangibles like sovereignty, subservience, and strategic space when it allied itself against the Soviet Union, with the US, while India maintains those intangibles; except that as a result China has more tangibles like economic growth, military power and international clout and fewer desperately poor people.

Could you kindly provide some examples of how China allowed its sovereignty or strategic space to be eroded as a result of its de-facto alliance with the US starting in 1971? Or how it accepted subservience as a result? In fact, they made the US break off relations with Taiwan and acknowledge their one-China formulation, in addition to getting a lot of other goodies, as a price for the de-facto alliance.

Could you also outline how this deal will result in increased "economic growth, military power and international clout and fewer desperately poor people" in India (over and above what has already been happening steadily over the past decade without this deal)?

The issue being debated here is a voluntary signing up to international regimes by India which would be irreversible and which could potentially result in its quantitative and qualitative capping vis-a-vis other powers, and the resulting security dependency that India will be forced into -- leading to the comments about sovereignty, strategic space, and subservience.

fyi, China did not sign up to NPT until 1992 even though it could have signed up as a full NWS in 1971. It did not become a member of NSG until 2004. Throughout the 1980s, it fiercely and successfully resisted US attempts to nibble away at some of its NWS rights (although, having not yet signed NPT, it was a "SNW not a State Party to NPT" at that time, just as India is today) during the negotiations on their bilateral 123 nuclear agreement. They understood the value of these NWS rights in terms of the freedom of action they provide.

Let's not compare apples and oranges!

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 09 Jul 2008 17:26

Amit:

Buried in the "E-con-omist" is what one would expect to find somewhere there:

every effort will be made to reform it in the coming years to bring in new nuclear powers such as India

That's why he's praising the deal.

sunilUpa · Post by **sunilUpa** » 09 Jul 2008 20:15

After NSG ok, India doesn't really need the US

Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh [Images] may have gone out on a limb, even risking his government's four-year long association with the Left parties, over the Indo-US nuclear deal, all because time was running out on the deal, but it seems that more than India, the clock is ticking for the Bush administration.

The Washington Post reports that while the deal may pass its hurdles in India but it won't be so lucky in US Congress. That is because the Hyde Act of 2006, which gave initial go-ahead to the nuclear deal, requires that US Congress sits in session for 30 continuous days to consider it.

The problem is that US Congress goes into recess in August, before finally adjourning on September 26. In effect, as of now it has less than 40 days left in the session.

For India, two important steps need to be completed. One, it needs to conclude its agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, which Dr Singh said will be done soon after his government wins the vote of confidence, and two, secure a nod from the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group which controls the trade in uranium and reactors. It is after these steps are done that the clock begins for India.

The problem is that the IAEA board of governors is expected to take up the matter only in August, while the NSG could take several months to reach a consensus, reports the Post, and quotes Lynne Weil, spokeswoman for the House Foreign Affairs Committee as saying, 'At this point, both [IAEA and NSG actions] have to take place in the next couple of weeks'.

A way out could be holding a lame duck Congress session after the Presidential elections in November, but House speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) has reiterated that there will not be one, especially if as expected the Democrats gain in the elections.

Given this, it seems likely that the US, and not India, may end up the loser. Once armed with the NSG approval, India can begin nuclear trade with other countries, US administration officials and congressional aides told the Post.

What it means is that countries like France [Images] and Russian can make nuclear sales to India while American companies continue to face restrictions since the congressional approval has not been forthcoming.

Sharon Squassoni, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, agrees as much to the Post. 'India doesn't need the US deal at all' after the NSG's approval, Squassoni told the newspaper. 'It was a fatal flaw in the logic of US Congress.'

The irony, in such a situation, is inescapable. The US will not benefit in terms of nuclear trade from the deal it set in motion in July 2005, other nations could. A State Department official admitted as much to the Post when he said, 'I don't believe there is anything to prevent them from doing that, if we don't ratify it.'
But since it involves US business, he was hopeful that US Congress will not prevent them from benefiting. 'It is the hidden force of this agreement. It is US business that sees an opportunity.'

Hmmmm interesting!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Jul 2008 20:25

From above post

A State Department official admitted as much to the Post when he said, 'I don't believe there is anything to prevent them from doing that, if we don't ratify it.'

I always was wary that the US plan was to exactly do this- not ratify it so hat India is in limbo land. I think that such a move would leave US in a fix for India would be free to do what it wants to do as Hyde will be self isolated and the whole defacto NPT and other four letter treaties would be also in abeyance! So even if they dont make money a bigger strategic goal/objective would be lost.

sunilUpa · Post by **sunilUpa** » 09 Jul 2008 20:31

ramana wrote:From above post

A State Department official admitted as much to the Post when he said, 'I don't believe there is anything to prevent them from doing that, if we don't ratify it.'
I always was wary that the US plan was to exactly do this- not ratify it so hat India is in limbo land. I think that such a move would leave US in a fix for India would be free to do what it wants to do as Hyde will be self isolated and the whole defacto NPT and other four letter treaties would be also in abeyance! So even if they dont make money a bigger strategic goal/objective would be lost.

That's what the article is portraying. However it is highly unlikely that US will get in to that position, where it will have no leverage what so ever with India post NSG approval! It may screw up NSG approval through proxies if Congress doesn't play ball!

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 09 Jul 2008 21:23

sraj, the post was meant in irony. If China could maintain its autonomy, why can't India?

China's de facto alliance with the US was key in obtaining American capital to kick start and transform its economy. If you think capital knows no politics, please examine the role of next door Cuba in attracting money to a third-world low wage communist economy.

fyi, China did not sign up to NPT until 1992 even though it could have signed up as a full NWS in 1971. It did not become a member of NSG until 2004. Throughout the 1980s, it fiercely and successfully resisted US attempts to nibble away at some of its NWS rights (although, having not yet signed NPT, it was a "SNW not a State Party to NPT" at that time, just as India is today) during the negotiations on their bilateral 123 nuclear agreement. They understood the value of these NWS rights in terms of the freedom of action they provide.

In fact, as of 1/1/1967 China was recognised as a P5. They did not ratify the NPT until 1992.

Throughout the 1980s, it fiercely and successfully resisted US attempts to nibble away at some of its NWS rights

I am not aware of any data on these US attempts. The US was fully aware of Chinese complicity in Pakistan's program and did nothing, indicating the opposite.

Tamang · Post by **Tamang** » 09 Jul 2008 22:33

Samajwadi MP says 7 will vote against UPA

Munawwar Hasan, the Samajwadi Party member of Parliament from Muzaffarnagar in Uttar Pradesh is among those from his party who refuse to toe the party line on backing the United Progressive Alliance government on the Indo-US nuclear deal.

He told rediff.com, "I am opposing the nuclear deal with the Americans. America is against the interests of Muslims. Muslims hate Americans. If this deal goes through, then Americans will make a lot of money.

"They will use the money to make bombs and then bomb Muslims with it. We are not going to let that happen. We are against the Americans. We are not interested in the power part of the deal, we are opposing the fact that it's a deal with the United States."

Muslim..muslim..muslim.