Truth Behind US-India Nuclear Deal
Shanay Khuda December 13, 2006
#17 Posted by bongdongs on December 13, 2006 11:10:37 pm
#4
``The principled opposition to the deal came from the non-proliferation lobby in the US``
Could you explain why you consider the opposition from the non-proliferation lobby as ``principled``?
as a corollary,
are you familiar with the work of people like David Albright, Jeffrey Lewis or George Perkovich?
#14
hasan, from past interactions I have learnt that you know nothing of nuclear issues and the opposition comes from somehwere deep within so I cannot presume to fight it with logic.
``The principled opposition to the deal came from the non-proliferation lobby in the US``
Could you explain why you consider the opposition from the non-proliferation lobby as ``principled``?
as a corollary,
are you familiar with the work of people like David Albright, Jeffrey Lewis or George Perkovich?
#14
hasan, from past interactions I have learnt that you know nothing of nuclear issues and the opposition comes from somehwere deep within so I cannot presume to fight it with logic.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#18 Posted by bongdongs on December 13, 2006 11:14:24 pm
and also for your kind information Mr D-M, read a recent interview by Ashley Tellis on how though the contours of the deal were proposed during the BJP administration they were unwilling to make some key concessions which Manmohan Singh eventually made.
#19 Posted by pundit on December 13, 2006 11:27:48 pm
Sounds like from almost a client state of the Soviet Union now we are headed towards becoming a client state of the US. Looking at the current International situation, it may not be a bad thing at all.
Have the Indian govt. responded to these observations yet?
One change that I know of is about the yearly audits. Though, the US president will have to yearly certify the compliance .
“The Committee of International Relations of the United States House of Representatives passed the United States and India Nuclear Cooperation and Promotion Act of 2006 (H.R. 5682 available in PDF). The Congressional document throws light on the proposed Nuclear Deal in a manner that New Delhi failed to do. The nuclear deal is intended to cap and roll back India’s nuclear weapons program under the garb of providing enriched fuel to purportedly run nuclear power plants in India. We refer to relevant clauses in the document Act itself.
Section 2 (6) (C) of the Act makes it clear that the proposed “cooperation induces the country … to refrain from actions that would further the development of its nuclear weapons program”. There is no reference what-so-ever to meeting India’s energy needs (as the July 18 agreement) of India. The emphasis throughout the text is on nuclear non-proliferation. The objective of the United States is strategic while the Manmohan Singh administration’s alleged goal is secure energy. Unfortunately, one can not substitute for the other.
Section 3 (B) (2) adds that the deal is intended to “achieve a moratorium on the production of fissile material for nuclear explosive purposes by India, Pakistan and the People’s Republic of China”. Further section 4 (D) “encourages India to identify and declare a date by which India would be willing to stop the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons unilaterally”. These clauses highlight the American objective to cap fissile material production in India despite significant American stockpiles of fissile material. India can not cap the production of fissile materials unless China and the United States roll-back their existing stockpiles of fissile material.
Section 3 (B) (4) reiterates that the deal would “secure India’s full and active participation in United States efforts to dissuade, isolate and if necessary sanction and contain Iran … ”. Iran is not an Indian priority. It is an American obsession. We do not believe that India should forego its foreign policy objectives with a petroleum rich regional influential to its west merely to accommodate United States strategic considerations. This is especially true when the United States has been unwilling to factor in Indian strategic considerations vis-à-vis Pakistan as evidenced by its high profile sale of F-16s to Islamabad
Manmohan Singh is transforming India into a client state of America.
Manmohan Singh is transforming India into a client state of America.
Section 3 (B) (5) states that the objective of the proposed deal is to “halt the increase of nuclear weapons arsenals in South Asia and to promote their reduction and eventual elimination”. This illustrates once again the American strategic goal in pushing the deal. It has little to do with nuclear energy. It is all about nuclear weapons. This is a flawed trade off. India can not eliminate its nuclear weapons arsenals unless and until China (and the rest of the P-5) is effectively denuclearized. This in turn will never happen though India has always strived for global disarmament. India will therefore need to retain the nuclear option. The foreign policy pundits of the current UPA administration are obviously not in tune with Indian strategic priorities being busy kowtowing to Washington.
.
Meanwhile, Section 4 (B) (4) reveals that India will work with the United States towards a multilateral Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty. Elsewhere in the text, India’s compliance with the Missile Technology Control Regime is sought through the energy deal. The objective is to roll back significant gains in Indian missile technology.
The United States is also going back on its earlier commitment to ensure steady fuel supplies by other states of the NSG in the event that it can not honor its obligations to India as revealed in Section 4 (D) (3) i.e., “If nuclear transfers to India are restricted pursuant to this Act … the President should seek to prevent the transfer to India of nuclear equipment, materials or technology from other participating governments in the NSG or from any other source” This is contrary to the agreement signed during President Bush’s visit which said “And as a final guarantee, there should be a document binding a group of “friendly countries” to ensure fuel supply in case the US is unable to meet its commitment. India has already obtained certain assurances on this score through separate negotiations with some key EU member-states and Russia.”
In addition to these conditions, the Crowley Amendment further ensures that there will now be an yearly audit where the President of the United States reports to the Congress on new Indian civil and military reactors which intrudes upon Indian sovereignty. The Senate resolution is an insult to injury since it is an ‘incentive’ against further testing to quote from the statement of SFRC Chairman Sen. Lugar.
The U.S. ambassador to India David “foot in mouth” Mulford further confirms that even a subcritical nuclear test would violate the treaty and thus invite Presidential sanctions.
K. Subrahmanyam chides that “Instead of being gratified at this development, a section of our elite are afraid of various contingencies in which the US will apply pressure on India using this enactment” . He further says that the US Congress has passed much stricter resolutions against China to no effect. Without elaborating, he then goes on with a wild rant against perceived Indian fear of Cold War and globalization.
But India is not China - our press is not government controlled - here we have someone like C Raja Mohan (shamefully called as the top foreign policy analyst) who openly advocated placing our breeder reactors under safeguards before Dr. Kakodkar blew the whistle on the strategic importance of the breeder reactors. Perhaps Shri Subrahmanyam should be told how special interests are buying up editorial space in the Indian media. In fact, top scientists PK Iyengar and AN Prasad have come out against it.
Further, should American firms supply arms to Pakistan, Indian law would make it imperative that such firms can not supply arms to India.``
#20 Posted by ahmedmadani on December 13, 2006 11:49:05 pm
Re: # 16
American production of nuclear fuel is not cheap and will not be purchased at higher rates. Good rates are charged by Australia, canada and south Africa and Russia. Mutual suspicious attitude of India and USA will exclude commercial trade, there may be token purchase, They may buy heavy water from usa or demand very cheap price, demand strapped reactor builders may sell reactors at cheap rate. That is difficult also average capacity of American reactor is 1000 MW while most Indian reactors are 100 to 200 MW. It is not clear what americans are getting in deal. Indians will definitely not allow themselves used as a cannon fodder against China as its not country of people of Martial Race and spirits and can not fight being lazy in Martial matters even for themselves, they are too lazy to fight for others but cunning talking people good for nothing. USA is making mistake if they feel they can make telephone and order as President Nixon said correctly about them as most cunning people and devious people while our people are good but simple people. Usa will regret in long terms and americans will be loosing jobs over long terms ( the kids from amerca donated used computers to poor indians and they repaid by ingratude and job losses due to indian coolies). Its nature of Indians to bite feeding hand and laugh and lecture.
American production of nuclear fuel is not cheap and will not be purchased at higher rates. Good rates are charged by Australia, canada and south Africa and Russia. Mutual suspicious attitude of India and USA will exclude commercial trade, there may be token purchase, They may buy heavy water from usa or demand very cheap price, demand strapped reactor builders may sell reactors at cheap rate. That is difficult also average capacity of American reactor is 1000 MW while most Indian reactors are 100 to 200 MW. It is not clear what americans are getting in deal. Indians will definitely not allow themselves used as a cannon fodder against China as its not country of people of Martial Race and spirits and can not fight being lazy in Martial matters even for themselves, they are too lazy to fight for others but cunning talking people good for nothing. USA is making mistake if they feel they can make telephone and order as President Nixon said correctly about them as most cunning people and devious people while our people are good but simple people. Usa will regret in long terms and americans will be loosing jobs over long terms ( the kids from amerca donated used computers to poor indians and they repaid by ingratude and job losses due to indian coolies). Its nature of Indians to bite feeding hand and laugh and lecture.
#21 Posted by harimau on December 14, 2006 2:41:11 am
Ref dost-mittar #13
[Bhaijaan, nuclearisation of India was started by Nehru and Homi Bhabha and the weaponisation by Indira Gandhi.]
So, when do you plan to start bhajan rounds in your neighborhood singing the praise of the Nehru-Gandhi clan?
I shall happily send you finger-cymbals for use in the bhajan.
[Bhaijaan, nuclearisation of India was started by Nehru and Homi Bhabha and the weaponisation by Indira Gandhi.]
So, when do you plan to start bhajan rounds in your neighborhood singing the praise of the Nehru-Gandhi clan?
I shall happily send you finger-cymbals for use in the bhajan.
#22 Posted by dost_mittar on December 14, 2006 6:29:21 am
bongdong#17
``Could you explain why you consider the opposition from the non-proliferation lobby as ``principled``?``
I thought that needed no explanation. The non-proliferation lobby includes people who are against all nuclear energy (Greens) because of the risk of radiation of leaks and the problems of disposal of nuclear waste; it includes a small minority (Chomsky types) who would like all countries, including the US, to reduce/eliminate nuclear weapons; and lastly those -the majority- who do not want to disturb the current apple-cart. I consider even theml to be ``principled`` as they are consistent and do not want to set a precedent which might haunt them in the future.
I am not familiar with the names you mentioned although they do ring a bell.
Ahmedmadani#15:
``( This is good time for buying natural gas producer stocks and same way coal As presently there is extreme over production of Natural gas world wide prices are down such fall in NG will not remain that way for long time. ``
Any recommendations?
harimou#21:
``So, when do you plan to start bhajan rounds in your neighborhood singing the praise of the Nehru-Gandhi clan?``
Not anytime soon:-).
[btw, bhaijaan is a term of endearment, not devotional singing]
``Could you explain why you consider the opposition from the non-proliferation lobby as ``principled``?``
I thought that needed no explanation. The non-proliferation lobby includes people who are against all nuclear energy (Greens) because of the risk of radiation of leaks and the problems of disposal of nuclear waste; it includes a small minority (Chomsky types) who would like all countries, including the US, to reduce/eliminate nuclear weapons; and lastly those -the majority- who do not want to disturb the current apple-cart. I consider even theml to be ``principled`` as they are consistent and do not want to set a precedent which might haunt them in the future.
I am not familiar with the names you mentioned although they do ring a bell.
Ahmedmadani#15:
``( This is good time for buying natural gas producer stocks and same way coal As presently there is extreme over production of Natural gas world wide prices are down such fall in NG will not remain that way for long time. ``
Any recommendations?
harimou#21:
``So, when do you plan to start bhajan rounds in your neighborhood singing the praise of the Nehru-Gandhi clan?``
Not anytime soon:-).
[btw, bhaijaan is a term of endearment, not devotional singing]
#23 Posted by nasah on December 14, 2006 7:34:08 am
``Indians will definitely not allow themselves used as a cannon fodder against China as its not country of people of Martial Race and spirits and can not fight being lazy in Martial matters even for themselves, they are too lazy to fight for others but cunning talking people good for nothing.
USA is making mistake if they feel they can make telephone and order as President Nixon said correctly about them as most cunning people and devious people while our people are good but simple people. Usa will regret in long terms and americans will be loosing jobs over long terms ( the kids from amerca donated used computers to poor indians and they repaid by ingratude and job losses due to indian coolies).
Its nature of Indians to bite feeding hand and laugh and lecture.``(Madani)
what a great compliment madani sahib you gave the Indians -- if you are sure about the ``nature of the Indians`` vs the Americans -- then the Indians are in no danger -- if the ``USA is making mistake`` with the Indians -- if the ``Indians will definitely not allow themselves used as a cannon fodder against China -- then even I may support the treaty.............:)
USA is making mistake if they feel they can make telephone and order as President Nixon said correctly about them as most cunning people and devious people while our people are good but simple people. Usa will regret in long terms and americans will be loosing jobs over long terms ( the kids from amerca donated used computers to poor indians and they repaid by ingratude and job losses due to indian coolies).
Its nature of Indians to bite feeding hand and laugh and lecture.``(Madani)
what a great compliment madani sahib you gave the Indians -- if you are sure about the ``nature of the Indians`` vs the Americans -- then the Indians are in no danger -- if the ``USA is making mistake`` with the Indians -- if the ``Indians will definitely not allow themselves used as a cannon fodder against China -- then even I may support the treaty.............:)
#24 Posted by nasah on December 14, 2006 7:39:15 am
Re: # 22
``harimou#21:
``So, when do you plan to start bhajan rounds in your neighborhood singing the praise of the Nehru-Gandhi clan?``
Not anytime soon:-).
[btw, bhaijaan is a term of endearment, not devotional singing]``(dost-mitter)
harimau -- there -- DM ji gotcha......means my dear brother in `Hindustani``....:)
``harimou#21:
``So, when do you plan to start bhajan rounds in your neighborhood singing the praise of the Nehru-Gandhi clan?``
Not anytime soon:-).
[btw, bhaijaan is a term of endearment, not devotional singing]``(dost-mitter)
harimau -- there -- DM ji gotcha......means my dear brother in `Hindustani``....:)
#25 Posted by arjun2 on December 14, 2006 8:16:39 am
#22 by dost-mittar on December 14, 2006 6:29am PT
The non-proliferation lobby includes people who are against all nuclear energy (Greens)
Does this include the co-founder of greenpeace?
The non-proliferation lobby includes people who are against all nuclear energy (Greens)
Does this include the co-founder of greenpeace?
Going Nuclear
A Green Makes the Case
By Patrick Moore
Sunday, April 16, 2006; Page B01
In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots. That`s the conviction that inspired Greenpeace`s first voyage up the spectacular rocky northwest coast to protest the testing of U.S. hydrogen bombs in Alaska`s Aleutian Islands. Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change.
Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, is chairman and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies Ltd. He and Christine Todd Whitman are co-chairs of a new industry-funded initiative, the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, which supports increased use of nuclear energy.
#26 Posted by arjun2 on December 14, 2006 8:24:42 am
#10 by asfand on December 13, 2006 4:38pm PT
You vastly overestimate the importance of India to Iranian oil sales and you are completely off the mark about why India is backing away from the pipeline(i.e. the terrorist state in the middle and, more importantly, the price just isn`t right..)..
in any case, this is just a stop gap until the FBTR comes online in a big way...
You vastly overestimate the importance of India to Iranian oil sales and you are completely off the mark about why India is backing away from the pipeline(i.e. the terrorist state in the middle and, more importantly, the price just isn`t right..)..
in any case, this is just a stop gap until the FBTR comes online in a big way...
#27 Posted by bongdongs on December 14, 2006 8:25:27 am
#22
d-m, the names I gave are some of the leading lights of the non-proliferation lobby, if you are just ``vaguely familiar`` with them i dont think there is anything more to discuss. As usual you are spouting off on the issue without having read anything of substance.
d-m, the names I gave are some of the leading lights of the non-proliferation lobby, if you are just ``vaguely familiar`` with them i dont think there is anything more to discuss. As usual you are spouting off on the issue without having read anything of substance.
#28 Posted by dost_mittar on December 14, 2006 8:34:45 am
arjun:
``He and Christine Todd Whitman are co-chairs of a new industry-funded initiative``.
I wonder if he has been bought over by the ``enemy``.
``He and Christine Todd Whitman are co-chairs of a new industry-funded initiative``.
I wonder if he has been bought over by the ``enemy``.
#29 Posted by bongdongs on December 14, 2006 8:38:41 am
to elaborate further, its as if d-m said: ``I think 20th century French philosophers have had the most unique insight into the human condition``
and on being asked about Sarte or Camus he replies ``yeah I am vaguely familiar with the names, who are they?``
and on being asked about Sarte or Camus he replies ``yeah I am vaguely familiar with the names, who are they?``
#30 Posted by arjun2 on December 14, 2006 8:41:27 am
#28 by dost-mittar on December 14, 2006 8:34am PT
So the fact that he`s` working with an industry group completely impeaches the points he makes about nuclear energy?
Do canuckistanis buy their energy from these evil power industries or do you run your own hot-air powered turbines?
So the fact that he`s` working with an industry group completely impeaches the points he makes about nuclear energy?
Do canuckistanis buy their energy from these evil power industries or do you run your own hot-air powered turbines?
#31 Posted by dost_mittar on December 14, 2006 8:44:16 am
bongdong#29:
Okay, now that you have proven my ignorance, could you also enlighten us as to how their opposition to the deal is not principled?
Okay, now that you have proven my ignorance, could you also enlighten us as to how their opposition to the deal is not principled?
#32 Posted by dost_mittar on December 14, 2006 8:48:46 am
arjun2#30:
``So the fact that he`s` working with an industry group completely impeaches the points he makes about nuclear energy?``
My assumption is that the industry group they are working for is set up by the nuclear industry, in which case it is similar to an anti-smoking advocate changing his tune after being employed by the tobacco industry.
But, hey, why are you arguing with me as if I am against nuclear energy? I am not. As far canucks, we wont mind selling a Candu or two of our own.:)
``So the fact that he`s` working with an industry group completely impeaches the points he makes about nuclear energy?``
My assumption is that the industry group they are working for is set up by the nuclear industry, in which case it is similar to an anti-smoking advocate changing his tune after being employed by the tobacco industry.
But, hey, why are you arguing with me as if I am against nuclear energy? I am not. As far canucks, we wont mind selling a Candu or two of our own.:)
