Why is Bush so Keen on a Nuke Deal ?
nabendu debsharma March 3, 2006
#91 Posted by mohar11 on March 6, 2006 2:48:14 pm
anyway - looks like a lot of people are opposed to this deal - so it may not get ratified in US Congress..... so take it easy....
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#90 Posted by mohar11 on March 6, 2006 2:40:18 pm
nasah mian
You are right - India has to build roads, ports, infrastructure, eliminate poverty - there is no two ways about it..... And this ``civilan`` nuke deal is supposed to help with that by providing ways to produce energy which is urgently needed for all the development work to go on.
This deal is not about nuke weapons - india is not seeking to produce more weapons - if that was the case, this deal wouldn`t go thru..... on the contrary, the deal is about ``civilian`` nuke tech to generate energy for the growing economy.... get it?
Now - as for the tourist road to agra [ as many other roads all over the country] - why do you think it`s bad shape? because your commie brothers who have controlled the country for decades have left it that way - they are more interested in foreign causes than their own country`s development.... if you haven`t noticed - the highway project started by our man vajpayee has slowed down after the commies have taken over.....
Being a commie sympathizer - do you have anything to say about that?.....
You are right - India has to build roads, ports, infrastructure, eliminate poverty - there is no two ways about it..... And this ``civilan`` nuke deal is supposed to help with that by providing ways to produce energy which is urgently needed for all the development work to go on.
This deal is not about nuke weapons - india is not seeking to produce more weapons - if that was the case, this deal wouldn`t go thru..... on the contrary, the deal is about ``civilian`` nuke tech to generate energy for the growing economy.... get it?
Now - as for the tourist road to agra [ as many other roads all over the country] - why do you think it`s bad shape? because your commie brothers who have controlled the country for decades have left it that way - they are more interested in foreign causes than their own country`s development.... if you haven`t noticed - the highway project started by our man vajpayee has slowed down after the commies have taken over.....
Being a commie sympathizer - do you have anything to say about that?.....
#89 Posted by arjun_m on March 6, 2006 12:35:37 pm
#87 by nasah on March 6, 2006 11:14am PT
primitive electricity
If we could harness YOUR hot air to generate electricity, India wouldn`t need nuclear energy......
In the meantime, some of us would like to know how a nuclear deal affects the state of the road from agra to jaipur...or how, if you want electricity, nuclear isn`t a good option..
primitive electricity
If we could harness YOUR hot air to generate electricity, India wouldn`t need nuclear energy......
In the meantime, some of us would like to know how a nuclear deal affects the state of the road from agra to jaipur...or how, if you want electricity, nuclear isn`t a good option..
#88 Posted by bongdongs on March 6, 2006 11:55:21 am
There is a lot that is wrong with the Indian nuclear program:
- The long delays in plant construction and low load factors causing low returns.
- The mindless pursuit of the thorium fuel cycle which still may be 50 years away.
- The interminiable delays in the ATV project.
All this and much more is true, but as long as all you say is in the form of polemics (that too not original, but borrowing from the polemics of non-proliferation wallah`s a most hypocitic breed), you are just venting!
come on, Hasan-saheb you are better than that!
- The long delays in plant construction and low load factors causing low returns.
- The mindless pursuit of the thorium fuel cycle which still may be 50 years away.
- The interminiable delays in the ATV project.
All this and much more is true, but as long as all you say is in the form of polemics (that too not original, but borrowing from the polemics of non-proliferation wallah`s a most hypocitic breed), you are just venting!
come on, Hasan-saheb you are better than that!
#87 Posted by nasah on March 6, 2006 11:14:03 am
the QUESTION is why suddenly the goddam Indians are craving the goddam Nuclear Weapons of Mass Destruction so badly -- what has changed -- what will they with do it -- attack someone -- or defend themselves -- from whom -- who is about to attack India --
with humongous ONE BILLION population suffering under the Himalayas of poverty and deprivation -- primitive roads -- primitive electricity -- primitive health care -- primitive social, cultural, religious norms -- why the Indians want to squander their meager resources on good for nothin exotic very expensive useless WHITE ELEPHANTS of zero return value -- except being the Finasncial Sinkholes for decades to come.....why?
with humongous ONE BILLION population suffering under the Himalayas of poverty and deprivation -- primitive roads -- primitive electricity -- primitive health care -- primitive social, cultural, religious norms -- why the Indians want to squander their meager resources on good for nothin exotic very expensive useless WHITE ELEPHANTS of zero return value -- except being the Finasncial Sinkholes for decades to come.....why?
#86 Posted by bongdongs on March 6, 2006 11:01:01 am
#85
Hasan-saheb I asked for your original thoughts, not those recycled from one Joseph Cirincione.
lets hear them!
Hasan-saheb I asked for your original thoughts, not those recycled from one Joseph Cirincione.
lets hear them!
#85 Posted by nasah on March 6, 2006 10:54:19 am
Dr Joseph Cirincione, Director for non-proliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, DC:
``The Indian leaders and press are crowing about their victory over the United States. For good reason: President Bush has done what Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and his own father refused to do - break US and international law to aid India`s nuclear-weapons program.
In 1974, India cheated on its agreements with the United States and other nations to do what Iran is accused of doing now: using a peaceful nuclear energy program to build a nuclear bomb. India used plutonium produced in a Canadian-supplied reactor to detonate a bomb it then called a ``peaceful nuclear device``.
In response, president Richard Nixon and Congress stiffened US laws and Nixon organized the Nuclear Suppliers Group to prevent any other nation from following India`s example.
Bush has now unilaterally shattered those guidelines, and his action would violate the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) proscription against aiding another nation`s nuclear-weapons program.
It would require the repeal or revision of several major US laws, including the US Nonproliferation Act. Nor has he won any significant concessions from India. India refuses to agree to end its production of nuclear-weapons material, something the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia and China have already done.
This is where Bush is likely to run into trouble. Republicans and Democrats in the US Congress are deeply concerned about the deal and the way it was crafted. Keeping with the Bush administration`s penchant for secrecy, the deal was cooked by a handful of senior officials (one of whom is now a lobbyist for the Indian government) and never reviewed by the departments of State, Defense or Energy before it was announced with a champagne toast by Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
Congress was never consulted. Republican committee staff say the first members heard about it was when the fax announcing the deal came into their offices. Worse, for the president, this appears to be another give away to a foreign government at the expense of US national-security interests.
Bad example
In addition to breaking US law and shattering long-standing barriers to proliferation, lawmakers are concerned about the example the nuclear-weapons deal sets for other nations.
The lesson Iran is likely to draw is simple: if you hold out long enough, the Americans will cave. All this talk about violating treaties, they will reason, is just smoke. When the Americans think you are important enough, they will break the rules to accommodate you.
Pakistani officials have already said they expect their country to receive a similar deal, and Israel is surely waiting in the wings.
Other nations may decide that they can break the rules, too, to grant special deals to their friends. China is already rumored to be seeking a deal to provide open nuclear assistance to Pakistan - a practice it stopped in the early 1990s after a successful diplomatic campaign by the United States to bring China into conformity with the NPT restrictions.
Will Russia decide that it can make an exception for Iran?
Lawmakers loyal to Bush are already signaling tough times ahead for this deal.
Republican Congressman Ed Royce, chairman of the Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation, offered the following statement after the deal was announced: ``There is enthusiastic support on Capitol Hill for growing US-India ties. owever, the US-India agreement on civil nuclear cooperation has implications beyond US-India relations.
In this process, the goal of curbing nuclear proliferation should be paramount. Congress will continue its careful consideration of this far-reaching agreement.`` Royce`s subcommittee has oversight and legislative responsibilities over non-proliferation matters.
Republican Senator Richard Lugar, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has made no secret of his concerns, as has Republican Congressman Henry Hyde, chairman of the House International Relations Committee.
Democratic Congressman Edward Markey says, ``America cannot credibly preach nuclear temperance from a barstool. We can`t tell Iran, a country that has signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, that they can`t have [uranium] enrichment technologies while simultaneously carving out a special exemption from nuclear-proliferation laws for India, a nation that has refused to sign the treaty.``
This looming congressional battle will pit the proliferation fighters against the nuclear lobby and the increasingly powerful India lobby.
Companies and countries (including France, Canada and Russia) are lining up to sell fuel and reactors to India. They will be joined by the US neo-conservatives who seek to construct an anti-China alliance.
For them, as one architect of the India deal reportedly said, ``The problem is not that India has too many nuclear weapons, it is that they do not have enough.``
If Bush were riding high in the polls and had a string of national-security victories behind him, this David-and-Goliath battle would be won by the nuclear giants. But with sagging popularity, deep concern over his leadership, and anger at his administration`s disregard for laws and consultation, lawmakers more concerned about proliferation than profits could block or amend this deal.
The president may have made a fatal error in putting nuclear weapons at the heart of improved US-India relations.
US lawmakers want the latter, but not at the price of the former. (Asia Times)
if the Neocon Mongoloids (who are about to be history anyway) think that India will fight a nuclear war on behalf of the US Raj with China in 2010 -- as the Indian gungadins used to do for the British Raj pre `47 -- they have started snorting cocaine once again...
.....WE did not liberate one India from one British Raj to become another Indian deadmeat for another American Raj.....
.....it will only happen over India`s dead body......period.
``The Indian leaders and press are crowing about their victory over the United States. For good reason: President Bush has done what Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and his own father refused to do - break US and international law to aid India`s nuclear-weapons program.
In 1974, India cheated on its agreements with the United States and other nations to do what Iran is accused of doing now: using a peaceful nuclear energy program to build a nuclear bomb. India used plutonium produced in a Canadian-supplied reactor to detonate a bomb it then called a ``peaceful nuclear device``.
In response, president Richard Nixon and Congress stiffened US laws and Nixon organized the Nuclear Suppliers Group to prevent any other nation from following India`s example.
Bush has now unilaterally shattered those guidelines, and his action would violate the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) proscription against aiding another nation`s nuclear-weapons program.
It would require the repeal or revision of several major US laws, including the US Nonproliferation Act. Nor has he won any significant concessions from India. India refuses to agree to end its production of nuclear-weapons material, something the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia and China have already done.
This is where Bush is likely to run into trouble. Republicans and Democrats in the US Congress are deeply concerned about the deal and the way it was crafted. Keeping with the Bush administration`s penchant for secrecy, the deal was cooked by a handful of senior officials (one of whom is now a lobbyist for the Indian government) and never reviewed by the departments of State, Defense or Energy before it was announced with a champagne toast by Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
Congress was never consulted. Republican committee staff say the first members heard about it was when the fax announcing the deal came into their offices. Worse, for the president, this appears to be another give away to a foreign government at the expense of US national-security interests.
Bad example
In addition to breaking US law and shattering long-standing barriers to proliferation, lawmakers are concerned about the example the nuclear-weapons deal sets for other nations.
The lesson Iran is likely to draw is simple: if you hold out long enough, the Americans will cave. All this talk about violating treaties, they will reason, is just smoke. When the Americans think you are important enough, they will break the rules to accommodate you.
Pakistani officials have already said they expect their country to receive a similar deal, and Israel is surely waiting in the wings.
Other nations may decide that they can break the rules, too, to grant special deals to their friends. China is already rumored to be seeking a deal to provide open nuclear assistance to Pakistan - a practice it stopped in the early 1990s after a successful diplomatic campaign by the United States to bring China into conformity with the NPT restrictions.
Will Russia decide that it can make an exception for Iran?
Lawmakers loyal to Bush are already signaling tough times ahead for this deal.
Republican Congressman Ed Royce, chairman of the Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation, offered the following statement after the deal was announced: ``There is enthusiastic support on Capitol Hill for growing US-India ties. owever, the US-India agreement on civil nuclear cooperation has implications beyond US-India relations.
In this process, the goal of curbing nuclear proliferation should be paramount. Congress will continue its careful consideration of this far-reaching agreement.`` Royce`s subcommittee has oversight and legislative responsibilities over non-proliferation matters.
Republican Senator Richard Lugar, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has made no secret of his concerns, as has Republican Congressman Henry Hyde, chairman of the House International Relations Committee.
Democratic Congressman Edward Markey says, ``America cannot credibly preach nuclear temperance from a barstool. We can`t tell Iran, a country that has signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, that they can`t have [uranium] enrichment technologies while simultaneously carving out a special exemption from nuclear-proliferation laws for India, a nation that has refused to sign the treaty.``
This looming congressional battle will pit the proliferation fighters against the nuclear lobby and the increasingly powerful India lobby.
Companies and countries (including France, Canada and Russia) are lining up to sell fuel and reactors to India. They will be joined by the US neo-conservatives who seek to construct an anti-China alliance.
For them, as one architect of the India deal reportedly said, ``The problem is not that India has too many nuclear weapons, it is that they do not have enough.``
If Bush were riding high in the polls and had a string of national-security victories behind him, this David-and-Goliath battle would be won by the nuclear giants. But with sagging popularity, deep concern over his leadership, and anger at his administration`s disregard for laws and consultation, lawmakers more concerned about proliferation than profits could block or amend this deal.
The president may have made a fatal error in putting nuclear weapons at the heart of improved US-India relations.
US lawmakers want the latter, but not at the price of the former. (Asia Times)
if the Neocon Mongoloids (who are about to be history anyway) think that India will fight a nuclear war on behalf of the US Raj with China in 2010 -- as the Indian gungadins used to do for the British Raj pre `47 -- they have started snorting cocaine once again...
.....WE did not liberate one India from one British Raj to become another Indian deadmeat for another American Raj.....
.....it will only happen over India`s dead body......period.
#84 Posted by arjun_m on March 6, 2006 10:06:42 am
#82 by nasah on March 6, 2006 8:40am PT
who the hell cares about that goddam ONE LANE tourist road between Agra and Jaipur that still remains unrepaired
And not signing the deal will do what to the state of this road?
who the hell cares about that goddam ONE LANE tourist road between Agra and Jaipur that still remains unrepaired
And not signing the deal will do what to the state of this road?
#83 Posted by bongdongs on March 6, 2006 9:35:18 am
#82
Hasan, how about a postive viewpoint?
What do you think is the right way forward, for instance lets say you feel:
1) India should join the NPT as a have-not state, sign CTBT, bring its fissile stockpile under safegaurds.
2) Feeze building all nuclear plants, leave the 1/2 built ones as they are. Cut down staff by 1/2 at BARC, this will open up housing at the staff quaters which can be given to people of ``Cheetah Camp``.
3) Issue a strong statemate in support of Iran. Send remaining 1/2 of BARC on deputation to Iran.
4)Organize a conference in Delhi which will have Fidel Castro, Mahmud Ahmedinijad, Hugo Chavez, Nilopant Basu, Arundhati Roy, Brinda and Prakash Karat share the same stage and plot the way forawrd for progressive forces to liberate the world from MNC domination?
what is the way forward Hasan-babu?
Hasan, how about a postive viewpoint?
What do you think is the right way forward, for instance lets say you feel:
1) India should join the NPT as a have-not state, sign CTBT, bring its fissile stockpile under safegaurds.
2) Feeze building all nuclear plants, leave the 1/2 built ones as they are. Cut down staff by 1/2 at BARC, this will open up housing at the staff quaters which can be given to people of ``Cheetah Camp``.
3) Issue a strong statemate in support of Iran. Send remaining 1/2 of BARC on deputation to Iran.
4)Organize a conference in Delhi which will have Fidel Castro, Mahmud Ahmedinijad, Hugo Chavez, Nilopant Basu, Arundhati Roy, Brinda and Prakash Karat share the same stage and plot the way forawrd for progressive forces to liberate the world from MNC domination?
what is the way forward Hasan-babu?
#82 Posted by nasah on March 6, 2006 8:40:45 am
F`cked up priorities -- for Dr. Strangelove (how I came to love the Bomb so late in the night) of Indian `Progressives` Alliance...
``The increase in electricity generation (less than 5%) is not keeping pace with overall economic growth, the oil import bill has gone up by nearly 50%, roads remain potholed and non-existent in many rural areas, ports and airports are jam packed and banks continue to prefer lending to the affluent elite.
During the first nine months of the current financial year that ends in March, the index of six core infrastructure industries (coal, electricity, crude oil, refined petroleum products, steel and cement) grew by 4.5%.
That is a good two percentage points lower than the growth rate in the corresponding period of the previous year.
The point is simply that it would be unrealistic to expect the Indian economy sustain a GDP growth rate of 8% with the infrastructure growing at less than 5%.
While the services sector and manufacturing industry have expanded rapidly, the growth rate of the agricultural sector has been tardy at less than 3%.
There have been reports of thousands of farmers committing suicide because of their inability to repay loans obtained from usurious moneylenders.
At the same time, affluent Indians living in urban areas cities flaunt lifestyles that are comparable to those of the rich in developed countries.
However, even in cities of concrete and steel that glitter on the surface, a third of the residents live in abject poverty, denied secure jobs, social security and access to basic sanitation facilities and clean drinking water.
The challenge to alleviate the lot of India`s poor remains unfulfilled. (BBC)
who the hell cares about that goddam ONE LANE tourist road between Agra and Jaipur that still remains unrepaired -- tough luck --
what really matters for the new India is that the Dr. Manmohan Singh will be rolling 50 progressive nuclear bombs a year from the eight military nuclear site untouched under the Nuclear Treaty negotiated by the `tough` Indian negotiators......
weird crazy Indians.....l
``The increase in electricity generation (less than 5%) is not keeping pace with overall economic growth, the oil import bill has gone up by nearly 50%, roads remain potholed and non-existent in many rural areas, ports and airports are jam packed and banks continue to prefer lending to the affluent elite.
During the first nine months of the current financial year that ends in March, the index of six core infrastructure industries (coal, electricity, crude oil, refined petroleum products, steel and cement) grew by 4.5%.
That is a good two percentage points lower than the growth rate in the corresponding period of the previous year.
The point is simply that it would be unrealistic to expect the Indian economy sustain a GDP growth rate of 8% with the infrastructure growing at less than 5%.
While the services sector and manufacturing industry have expanded rapidly, the growth rate of the agricultural sector has been tardy at less than 3%.
There have been reports of thousands of farmers committing suicide because of their inability to repay loans obtained from usurious moneylenders.
At the same time, affluent Indians living in urban areas cities flaunt lifestyles that are comparable to those of the rich in developed countries.
However, even in cities of concrete and steel that glitter on the surface, a third of the residents live in abject poverty, denied secure jobs, social security and access to basic sanitation facilities and clean drinking water.
The challenge to alleviate the lot of India`s poor remains unfulfilled. (BBC)
who the hell cares about that goddam ONE LANE tourist road between Agra and Jaipur that still remains unrepaired -- tough luck --
what really matters for the new India is that the Dr. Manmohan Singh will be rolling 50 progressive nuclear bombs a year from the eight military nuclear site untouched under the Nuclear Treaty negotiated by the `tough` Indian negotiators......
weird crazy Indians.....l
#81 Posted by arjun_m on March 6, 2006 7:49:36 am
Mushy says he wasn`t looking for a nuclear deal..and the fox said the grapes were sour and it wasn`t hungry anyway..
Musharraf says Kabul stirring trouble
By Anwar Iqbal
WASHINGTON, March 5: President Gen Pervez Musharraf on Sunday accused Afghanistan of stirring trouble in Pakistan and said that his country was not seeking N-cooperation from the US.
Pakistan not against deal, wants same ISLAMABAD: Pakistan said on Thursday it was not against a civilian nuclear deal between the United States and India and demanded the same facility for Pakistan. Information Minister Sheikh Rashid told Daily Times that President Musharraf would discuss the possibility of Pakistan-US cooperation in civilian nuclear technology with US President George Bush. “We hope that we will also get the same kind of cooperation,” Foreign Office spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam said.
Musharraf says Kabul stirring trouble
By Anwar Iqbal
WASHINGTON, March 5: President Gen Pervez Musharraf on Sunday accused Afghanistan of stirring trouble in Pakistan and said that his country was not seeking N-cooperation from the US.
Pakistan not against deal, wants same ISLAMABAD: Pakistan said on Thursday it was not against a civilian nuclear deal between the United States and India and demanded the same facility for Pakistan. Information Minister Sheikh Rashid told Daily Times that President Musharraf would discuss the possibility of Pakistan-US cooperation in civilian nuclear technology with US President George Bush. “We hope that we will also get the same kind of cooperation,” Foreign Office spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam said.
#80 Posted by harish_hyd on March 6, 2006 2:32:47 am
#76 by sanjay
[Prez. Bush`s statement is somewhat strange.]
Yaar, it is very simple. Bush knows that the issue is somewhat sensitive in both India and Pakistan and anyone opposed to it is generally seen to have sold out to the US. By not outrightly rejecting the IPI and yet not supporting it openly, Bush knows that the issue is effectively killed because without US blessings, the pipeline is a non-starter. An outrightly blunt statement would have raised hackles, especially among the Commies and the Islamists, and Bush knew there were huge demomstrations before and even during his visit in both India and Pakistan. We all know that when the US backs something, it does so with full force. His statement is the diplomatic equivalent of ``sweet nothings`` which means they have no real value.
[Prez. Bush`s statement is somewhat strange.]
Yaar, it is very simple. Bush knows that the issue is somewhat sensitive in both India and Pakistan and anyone opposed to it is generally seen to have sold out to the US. By not outrightly rejecting the IPI and yet not supporting it openly, Bush knows that the issue is effectively killed because without US blessings, the pipeline is a non-starter. An outrightly blunt statement would have raised hackles, especially among the Commies and the Islamists, and Bush knew there were huge demomstrations before and even during his visit in both India and Pakistan. We all know that when the US backs something, it does so with full force. His statement is the diplomatic equivalent of ``sweet nothings`` which means they have no real value.
#79 Posted by bbabu on March 5, 2006 4:19:04 pm
ranjit #72
`` I would say yes. This visit was a complete fiasco for Pakistan. It saw India being crowned the boss of South Asia by Bush. Bush articualted that India and Pakistan are different, Pakistan will not get the same treatment or same goodies like nuclear deal. Pakistan`s plans for major economic breakthrough did not occur either. Also Bush refused to mediate in Kashmir. So all in all, a complete failure for Pakistan. ``
I was never sure why Pakistan had to be hypenated with India in the first place.
`` At this point in time, it is only Musharraf, the corp commanders and a small coterie of people who support the US in Pakistan. I would not be surprised if a coup hapens pretty soon to get rid of Musharraf because most Pakistanis are not happy about the US or Musharraf`s behavior with the US. ``
Most Pakistanis would prefer a working relationship with USA and West. Market access for Pakistani textiles sounds reasonable. Military generals have used the bogey of Islamic extremism and outfits like Taliban/Al Qaeda to extract concessions from USA. Maybe the game is ending.
`` I would say yes. This visit was a complete fiasco for Pakistan. It saw India being crowned the boss of South Asia by Bush. Bush articualted that India and Pakistan are different, Pakistan will not get the same treatment or same goodies like nuclear deal. Pakistan`s plans for major economic breakthrough did not occur either. Also Bush refused to mediate in Kashmir. So all in all, a complete failure for Pakistan. ``
I was never sure why Pakistan had to be hypenated with India in the first place.
`` At this point in time, it is only Musharraf, the corp commanders and a small coterie of people who support the US in Pakistan. I would not be surprised if a coup hapens pretty soon to get rid of Musharraf because most Pakistanis are not happy about the US or Musharraf`s behavior with the US. ``
Most Pakistanis would prefer a working relationship with USA and West. Market access for Pakistani textiles sounds reasonable. Military generals have used the bogey of Islamic extremism and outfits like Taliban/Al Qaeda to extract concessions from USA. Maybe the game is ending.
#78 Posted by rsridhar on March 5, 2006 1:38:48 pm
re:#76 by sanjay
Pakistan is demanding a similar deal as India`s quoting its own energy needs (which are really modest in comparison). Bush is telling Pakis: you can have the pipeline if u want but u can`t have a similar deal.
The pipeline will make sense only if India is a party to it. If US tells India: don`t worry about the gas, i will see to it that u have enough from Saudi Arabia (its ally), then India may not be interested in the gas pipeline. Pak`s position is precarious.
Sridhar
Pakistan is demanding a similar deal as India`s quoting its own energy needs (which are really modest in comparison). Bush is telling Pakis: you can have the pipeline if u want but u can`t have a similar deal.
The pipeline will make sense only if India is a party to it. If US tells India: don`t worry about the gas, i will see to it that u have enough from Saudi Arabia (its ally), then India may not be interested in the gas pipeline. Pak`s position is precarious.
Sridhar
#77 Posted by rsridhar on March 5, 2006 1:35:42 pm
re:#73 by sanjay
(It was expected that a minimum :-
* Assurance that such a deal will be signed with Pakistan as and when time comes.
* Some words on Kashmir with advantage Pakistan.
* Some goodies, some words of laurels will be offered.)
As regards the first expectation, i have been saying in my posts that experts in US (on South Asia affairs) have been touting this deal as a ``one-time`` thing. That is, this is unique in many ways and may never happen again.
Reasons are many. Someone already pointed out India`s ability to recycle spent fuel, its ability to build experimental reactors from the scratch etc. There is also the strategic angle vis a vis China.
All in all, i think a masterstroke by Bush though many may not see it that way in the US Congress.
Sridhar
(It was expected that a minimum :-
* Assurance that such a deal will be signed with Pakistan as and when time comes.
* Some words on Kashmir with advantage Pakistan.
* Some goodies, some words of laurels will be offered.)
As regards the first expectation, i have been saying in my posts that experts in US (on South Asia affairs) have been touting this deal as a ``one-time`` thing. That is, this is unique in many ways and may never happen again.
Reasons are many. Someone already pointed out India`s ability to recycle spent fuel, its ability to build experimental reactors from the scratch etc. There is also the strategic angle vis a vis China.
All in all, i think a masterstroke by Bush though many may not see it that way in the US Congress.
Sridhar
#76 Posted by sanjay on March 5, 2006 2:49:46 am
#75
But why should he care about IPI Pipeline?? The US has already conveyed its displeasure to India over IPI Pipeline. Mani Shankar Ayer lost his job over it. PM is not at all keen about it particularly looking at the US response.
Prez. Bush`s statement is somewhat strange.
But why should he care about IPI Pipeline?? The US has already conveyed its displeasure to India over IPI Pipeline. Mani Shankar Ayer lost his job over it. PM is not at all keen about it particularly looking at the US response.
Prez. Bush`s statement is somewhat strange.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- KaalChakra: That is exactly right,... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- sadna: rahul_capri He might have felt... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- rahul_capri: sadna, humanitarian and political... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- sadna: kaalchakra Only Muslims get picked... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- KaalChakra: And here is my... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- marshakala: It's great to see... Three Cups of Tea
- Cobra: sharmeenqazi1, I'm not your... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- sadna: rahul_capri Since we don't know... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
