+- Forums (http://india-forum.com)
+-- Forum: Indian and International Forces (http://india-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Forum: Military Discussion (http://india-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=22)
+--- Thread: Nuclear Thread - 4 (/showthread.php?tid=295)
Nuclear Thread - 4 - ramana - 08-27-2008
Dr. M.R> Srinivasan weighs in
âUS may be pushing NSG members for draft waiver changeâ
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->âUS may be pushing NSG members for draft waiver changeâÂ
Mumbai, Aug 26: <b>Nuclear experts fear the US could be arm twisting India through backdoor by prodding smaller nations in the Nuclear Suppliers Group to bring amendments in the draft on providing waiver to India for nuclear commerce.</b>
<b>"It is quite likely the US could be arm twisting India through backdoor as if it gets a clean waiver, New Delhi might be having nuclear trade with 44 countries other than US in the NSG, especially France and Russia," Atomic Energy Commission member M R Srinivasan said.
"There is a possibility that Washington was putting pressure for conditionalities through some NSG members in an attempt to have the leverage over India in the purchase of reactor technology from the US," said some other experts who did not wish to be identified.</b>
India has been seeking a clean and unconditional waiver from NSG which controls the global nuclear trade. Last week's NSG meet on the key issue failed to work out a consensus on the issue after Austria, New Zealand, Switzerland and Ireland opposed unconditional waiver for India. The NSG is meeting next week again to deliberate on the issue.
India may have to wait for global civilian nuclear cooperation till the 45-member cartel take a "realistic" position on India-specific waiver, the experts said.
<b>"India may have to wait till such time when the Nuclear Suppliers Group takes a realistic position and works on ground realities instead of coming under pressure of certain powers," Srinivasan said.</b>
Srinivasan said <b>"in fact, NSG should be asking the P-5 countries (nuclear weapon states) and others on their non- proliferation record and details of their disarmament programme." </b>
He was replying to a question whether India will walk out of the nuclear deal with the US if NSG does not reach a consensus on giving the waiver during the group's next meet.
NSG should be more concerned with the growing number of weapons in those countries who have either signed NPT or CTBT, he said.
<b>Experts said that at no point India should allow the US to misuse its negotiating position with NSG. "The terms have to be fair and clean." </b>
India must get a level-playing field while shopping for nuclear technology, they noted. <b>"Otherwise, there was no point in investing time and resources if we are made to toe the US line as in the case of Tarapur (where America reneged on its commitment to provide reactor fuel)." </b>
US nuclear technology is not at par with others and the nuclear agreement would allow India to explore markets of other advanced technologies, the experts said.
<b>Even as the draft waiver is being re-visited, India clearly reserves the right to walk out if extraneous conditions are imposed. If so, the failure would not be on the part of India, Srinivasan asserted. </b>
Bureau Report
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Quite clear statement. There are two gropus of people here. Those who are named and are not afraid to be named. The anonymous experts are those in govt and cant talk for fear Official Secrets Act. And we have seen a vindictive PMO shows the Emergency is not to be forgotten- M.J. Akbar etc.
I am more worried about AK's health with all this travel and having to take the pressure instead of elected representatives who collect bank accounts and let him face the heat.
Nuclear Thread - 4 - ramana - 08-27-2008
A reality check is needed here. What happened in the NSG is a plain old sucker punch. For to those not familiar with the term its American street slang for being sandbagged or caught completely off guard. To recap the sequence was that J18 would be followed by M3 when the Indian separation plan comes is made public. Then a India-US 123 agreement would be negotiated. That agreement wont be ratified by US Congress till India gets the IAEA Safeguards agreement negotiated and then the obtain the NSG waiver. After that the Indo-US trade can take place.
After crossing all hurdles the NSG waiver is hung up due to objections from some of the members whose contribution to the NSG is negligible or dubious at best. The US has not done its part in obtaining the waiver on terms that are acceptable to India. When small things cast big shadows its time for sunset or manipulated lighting effects. It means either the US is surprised or they are allowing this to happen.
So why has this happened and what are the consequences?
The Russian move on Georgia is a significant move during this period. Maybe the US does not want the waiver to come through for it could mean providing an opening for other powers to get the Indian market. Yes they also wont get it but they donât hwave stuff to sell except as system integrators.
Then the paralysis is J&K can be seen. Curiously when TSP is facing a major civil war and a leadership crisis and are out of reckoning in Kashmir affairs except to provide ceasefire violations (31 to date), the APHC which is a US stooge makes a big play for another Partition of India and the Govt is paralyzed into inaction due to the outcome of the NSG Waiver. So what is going on? The delay increases the paralysis and provides facts on the ground for the Partition movement.
The US and the intl. community wants India to give more. Essentially give up nuclear weapons. Thatâs what all those four letter adherence means.
The main objections from the Commonwealth countries are quite hurtful especially as that body survives because of Indian membership.
The European Nordic countries are seeing the deal in race terms.
There is some thing clearly wrong in this picture.
Nuclear Thread - 4 - G.Subramaniam - 08-27-2008
India does not need any nuclear deal since it has enough IQ to develop technology and enough mines in meghalaya that should be opened
Nuclear Thread - 4 - G.Subramaniam - 08-27-2008
By 2050, US will no longer be a white majority country, will it give up its nukes like south africa did
By 2050, the stupid euros will be in islamic civil war and the muslims will be trying to get hold of french nukes
Nuclear Thread - 4 - Guest - 08-30-2008
<b>Sunk deal</b>â¦
<i>Unless the PM is prepared to sell-out on the Indian deterrent, says N.V.Subramanian.</i><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->. India was expecting China to object, but some of the closest allies of the United States, Japan, The Netherlands, Ireland, Norway and New Zealand, among twenty NSG states, have brought fifty-some unacceptable amendments and modifications in the waiver necessary to do nuclear commerce with India. Unless the Manmohan Singh government is planning a sell-out on India's military nuclear programme, it cannot accept the NSG conditions.
....
If so, the Manmohan Singh government is more incompetent than it appears, and is certainly not to be trusted with strategic negotiations and on foreign-policy matters. If the deal had gone through, the US would have been able to sell some reactors, but more crucial, India would have been brought into the non-proliferation regime though unconditional facility-specific safeguards, explosive testing would effectively have been banned forever, and this environment, plus the review and reporting processes, and the softening of successive Indian governments, would have eventually made it impossible to keep our deterrence. There's still an outside chance that the Manmohan Singh government will sell out to the NSG, and only effective opposition in and outside Parliament may stop the PM, although he wasn't stopped before.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nuclear Thread - 4 - Guest - 08-31-2008
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>No crossing red line: NSA </b>
Pioneer News Service | New Delhi
The Government will not accept a waiver from the Nuclear Suppliers Group's rules to formally conclude the India-US nuclear deal if the "red lines" set by India are crossed by the 45-nation grouping, National Security Adviser MK Narayanan said here on Saturday. He said no changes would be accepted even if they were "cosmetic" in nature.
Narayanan was speaking to Karan Thapar on his television programme, Devil's Advocate. His comments came ahead of the second meeting of the NSG in Geneva on September 4.
The first meeting was held on August21-22, when some NSG member-countries demanded strict non-proliferation conditions be imposed on India and moved 50 amendments to the draft waiver. If this were to happen, it would not be a 'clean and unconditional waiver', as had been promised by the US and committed by the Prime Minister
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nuclear Thread - 4 - acharya - 09-03-2008
<b>
Japanese civic groups oppose Indo-US N-deal</b>
Tokyo (PTI): A few surviving members of the Nagasaki atomic-bomb catastrophe plan to appeal to six Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) countries to oppose Indo-US nuclear deal.
The members who are party of five groups of survivors pointed out in a letter that if any favourable treatment for India is allowed, it would not only lead to the total collapse of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) structure but also provide excuses for countries like Iran and North Korea to engage in atomic development, the Kyodo was quoted as saying.
The groups also called on survivors' groups in Hiroshima to back their appeal.
The Nagasaki groups plan to fax their letters to the foreign ministers of the six countries -- Austria, home to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Switzerland, New Zealand, Norway, the Netherlands and Ireland tomorrow.
The six countries, among the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), have voiced some reservations on the issue of transferring nuclear technologies to India which is not a signatory to NPT.
"The Japanese government should object to it (the treaty) as Japan was a victim of the atomic bomb. It is pathetic that we have to ask other countries for help," Kyodo quoted Koichi Kawano, chairman of the Atomic-bomb Victims Liaison Council of Nagasaki Peace Action Center, as saying.
Japan, however, has decided not to oppose the Indo-US nuclear deal because the board of governors of the IAEA adopted a safeguard agreement for India last month and also because the government regards nuclear power generation as helping to curb global warming, government sources said.
Meanwhile, the NSG is due to meet on September 4-5 in Vienna to discuss a waiver to India to allow it to resume nuclear commerce with the international community after a gap of 34 years.
Nuclear Thread - 4 - Guest - 09-03-2008
Shame of India, Manmohan Singh is coming to US.
Nuclear Thread - 4 - Guest - 09-04-2008
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>US makes mockery of PM's claims </b>
Pioneer.com
Shobori Ganguli | New Delhi
The Bush Administration's well-kept secret of nine months is now in the public domain, reflecting how successfully President George Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh managed to hoodwink the Indian public into believing the India-US nuclear agreement was a dream deal.Â
<b>Chairman of the US House Foreign Affairs Committee Howard L Berman on Tuesday released a 26-page letter written by the Bush Administration in January 2008 that clearly establishes the fact that the US will not sell sensitive nuclear technologies to India and would instantly terminate nuclear trade if India lifted its self-imposed moratorium on nuclear testing</b>. Contrary to Singh's statements in Parliament, the letter also clarifies that while fuel supplies are not pledged in perpetuity, India has agreed that "safeguards can and should be regarded as being 'in perpetuity'."
The most damaging part of the letter, however, is the fact that it categorically states the Indian Government has all along been aware of these conditions attached to the deal. "This letter contains no new conditions and there is no data in this letter which has not already been shared in an open and transparent way with members of the Congress and with the Government of India," US Ambassador David C Mulford said. Many portions of the letter, however, fly in the face of Singh's assurances to Parliament.
Berman's disclosure comes at a time when India is desperately seeking the Nuclear Suppliers' Group's assent for a "clean and unconditional" waiver. The letter makes it apparent that the US has already placed the most stringent of conditions on India.
Reacting to the news, <b>the Ministry of External Affairs said, "We do not as a matter of policy, comment on internal correspondence between different branches of another Government." </b>Unwilling to be drawn into the issue of the US pulling out of the deal in case India tests a weapon, the Ministry said, "We have a unilateral moratorium on testing. This is reflected in the India-US Joint Statement of July 18, 2005."
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's assertion in Parliament last August that "detailed fuel supply assurances" by the US for "the uninterrupted operation of our nuclear reactors" are "reflected in full" in the 123 Agreement has been blatantly countered by the Bush Administration in the letter. It has said that the US will render help only in situations where "disruptions in supply to India...result through no fault of its own," such as a trade war or market disruptions. For the rest, it says, "The fuel supply assurances are not, however, meant to insulate India against the consequences of a nuclear explosive test or a violation of non-proliferation commitments."
In effect, while ostensibly urging the NSG to impose fewer conditions on India, the Bush Administration has unilaterally walked away from some key assurances that Singh said the 123 Agreement carried.
The Prime Minister had told Parliament that the Agreement envisages, "in consonance with the Separation Plan, US support for an Indian effort to develop a strategic reserve of nuclear fuel to guard against any disruption of supply for the lifetime of India's reactors." But the letter to the House Committee makes it evident that India will not be allowed to build such stocks that can undercut US leverage on imposing sanctions on India.
Clearly, the letter was kept a secret all these months because Manmohan Singh was already finding the deal too hot to handle in the domestic arena. However, the letter has now been made public because, if the NSG approval is granted, the US-India deal would be submitted to the Congress for final approval and "he (Berman) wants to assure that Congress has the relevant information," said Lynne Weil, Berman's spokesperson.
The letter exposes the Prime Minister's double speak in Parliament that, "there is nothing in these agreements which prevents us from further nuclear tests if warranted by our national security concerns. All that we are committed to is a voluntary moratorium on further testing." He had also assured Parliament that the Agreement would not "tie the hands of a future Government or legally constrain its options to protect India's security and defence needs." The House Committee letter says India has been categorically told that all cooperation will cease if it conducts a test.
It also states that the "<b>US Government will not assist India in the design, construction or operation of sensitive nuclear technologies," </b>even though the Hyde Act allows transfers of such technology under certain circumstances. Although the 123 Agreement had held out the hope that sensitive nuclear technologies "may be transferred under this Agreement pursuant to an amendment to this Agreement," the letter says the Bush Administration has no intention of seeking an amendment to the Agreement to allow sensitive transfers.
Contrast this with Singh's assertion that "We will not agree to any dilution that would prevent us from securing the benefits of full civil nuclear cooperation" as amplified in the 123 Agreement and that he had received "an explicit commitment from the United States that India should get the same benefits of civilian cooperation as (an) advanced country like the United States enjoys."
As for "explicit linkages and interlocking rights and commitments" Singh informed Parliament about, the letter says the "quoted statement is at a high level of generality."
Again, though Singh had told the country that, "An elaborate multi-layered consultation process has been included with regard to any future events that may be cited as a reason by either party to seek cessation of cooperation or termination of the Agreement," the letter says the US reserves the right to suspend all supplies forthwith. The PM had claimed in Parliament on August 13, 2007 that "India's right to take 'corrective measures' will be maintained even after the termination of the Agreement."
<b>The letter says India "has not provided the United States with a definition of 'corrective measures'." It also states that India "has not explained to the United States what it means by the term 'India-specific' safeguards agreement."</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Shame of India, Moron Singh lied and now coming to US to collect hafta for his service to his masters.
Nuclear Thread - 4 - Guest - 09-04-2008
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Opp outraged, seeks PM's scalp </b>
Pioneer.com
Pioneer News Service | New Delhi
The disclosure that the Bush Administration had conveyed to the US Congress that the India-US nuclear deal would be subjected to a set of stringent conditionalities imposed by Washington has created political upheaval in New Delhi. An outraged <b>BJP on Wednesday sought the resignation of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and the Left asked the Government to suspend further steps for operationalising the deal.</b>
With the Government not coming clean on the disclosure, which was kept under wraps for nine months and came just ahead of the crucial NSG meeting, the BJP said the Americans could not be blamed for misleading India since it was the Indian Government which "deliberately and knowingly" misled the people and the Parliament of India on the deal.
<b>"Whatever explanation the Government offers, it has now been exposed that it indulged in falsehood. The PM has no business to stay in office even for a single moment. He must resign," BJP vice-president and former External Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha told The Pioneer. </b>
With the Opposition baying for his blood, the Prime Minister held a late-night meeting with External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee and National Security Adviser M K Narayanan to discuss the issues.
But he may have a hard time silencing the Opposition. <b>In a statement issued late on Wednesday, Sinha and former Union Minister Arun Shourie said there was no doubt any more that the nuclear deal did not contain any binding commitment by the US and others regarding fuel supplies and on transfer of technology, which this Government had been falsely proclaiming for the last three years. Moreover, it was clear that the deal would be terminated and all supplies stopped the moment India went ahead with nuclear tests and all materials supplied to it would have to be returned.</b>
"These conditionalities have been staring us in the face all along. Only the Manmohan Singh Government has been concealing them. The PM has given assurances to Parliament, which he knew were false. His Ministers and officials have indulged in a farce, which is unparalleled in our diplomatic and parliamentary history. Such a Government, which has survived in office on purchased votes of MPs, has no business to continue in office even for a day," the BJP said.
In a separate statement, the CPM Politburo said, "The Left parties had warned the UPA Government about the provisions in the notes submitted to the UPA-Left Coordination Committee, which have now been vindicated by this disclosure. Each of the commitments made by the Prime Minister in Parliament has been violated."
CPM leader Brinda Karat accused the Government of telling "lies" to the country over the nuclear deal while D Raja of the CPI said the Government had misled Parliament and the people of India.
The CPM said proceeding with the nuclear deal would "mortgage" India's sovereignty and make the country's civilian nuclear programme "vulnerable to US blackmail for the next 40 years".
The CPM Politburo said the 26-page correspondence between the US State Department and members of the American Congress has revealed that the US gave no binding fuel supply assurance to India. The party also noted that there was no US consent to India's stockpiling of lifetime fuel reserves for safeguard power reactors.
"The Government of India is partner to this great deception of the Indian people, which the Bush Administration has engineered because it knew exactly what it was doing," Karat told reporters. Karat alleged the Government would have preferred that the disclosures remain secret.
The BJP clarified that its opposition to the deal was fundamentally different from that of the Left parties and asserted that the future of this deal should not be decided by a President in the US and a Prime Minister in India who may not return to office. "The deal should be left to be renegotiated by future Governments in both the countries," the BJP demanded.
Clearly on the backfoot, the Congress chose to play down the "disclosures" on the deal as "internal communication" between the US Administration and the legislature. "What the US Administration and/or the US President communicates with the US Congress or a member of the US Congress is entirely their problem," Congress spokesperson Manish Tiwari said.
He said India was bound only by the terms of the 123 Agreement, which did not prohibit the transfer of enrichment and reprocessing technology, which is integral to the civil nuclear cooperation. The Congress spokesperson pointed out that in case India conducted a nuclear test, the 123 Agreement had provision for initiating consultations before taking any action.
<b>PM in Parliament</b>
India wants removal of restrictions on all aspects of cooperation and technology transfers pertaining to civil nuclear energy, ranging from nuclear fuel, nuclear reactors, to reprocessing spent fuel. We will not agree to any dilution that would prevent us from securing the benefits of full civil nuclear cooperation.
<b>Bush Administration letter</b>
The United States rarely transfers dual-use items for sensitive nuclear activities to any cooperating party.
<b>PM in Parliament</b>
Detailed fuel supply assurances by the US for the uninterrupted operation of our nuclear reactors are reflected in full in the 123 Agreement.
<b>Bush Administration letter</b>
Should India detonate a nuclear explosive device, the United States has the right to cease all nuclear cooperation with India immediately, including the supply of fuel.
The fuel supply assurances are not...meant to insulate India against the consequences of a nuclear explosive test or a violation of non-proliferation commitments.
<b>PM in Parliament</b>
I confirm that there is nothing in these agreements which prevents us from further nuclear tests if warranted by our national security concerns. All that we are committed to is a voluntary moratorium on further testing.
There is nothing in the Agreement that would tie the hands of a future Government or legally constrain its options to protect India's security and defence needs.
An elaborate multi-layered consultation process has been included with regard to any future events that may be cited as a reason by either party to seek cessation of cooperation or termination of the 123 Agreement.
<b>Bush Administration letter</b>
Article 14 of the proposed US-India agreement for cooperation provides for a clear right for the US to terminate nuclear cooperation and a right to require the return of equipment and material subject to the agreement in all of the circumstances required under the Atomic Energy Act, including if India detonated a nuclear explosive device.
<b>PM in Parliament</b>
India's right to take 'corrective measures' will be maintained even after the termination of the Agreement.
<b>Bush Administration letter</b>
Until India has completed its safeguards agreement with the IAEA and the parameters of 'corrective measures' are known, we will not be in a position to speak definitively to the potential effect on other provisions of the proposed agreement.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now traitors who were promoting this deal are exposed now someone should follow money , How much money changed hands?
Nuclear Thread - 4 - Guest - 09-04-2008
came via email
Welcome to US
<img src='http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v130/indiaforum/singhsonia.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
Nuclear Thread - 4 - Guest - 09-05-2008
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>PM on shaky wicket as never before </b>
Pioneer.com
Navin Upadhyay | New Delhi
Nearly five years in office, and half of it in the thick of the dubious India-US nuclear agreement, saw many occasions when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was accused of playing into American hands. But never<b> before did his position look so untenable as now, when he battles vociferous demands for his resignation for misleading the nation, compromising its strategic interests and concealing the cost the country would have to pay for fulfilling his personal agenda on the nuclear deal with the US.</b>
During all these months of suspicion over the way the UPA Government carried out its nuclear engagement with the US, both the PMO and Congress waged a relentless war to influence public opinion. But this time round, the evidence of compromising the country's long-term strategic interests is so insurmountable that there would be few takers for the argument being advanced by the likes of Kapil Sibal and Anil Kakodkar.
External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee sounded equally hollow and unconvincing when he tried to assure that India would not accept any condition violating the spirit of the PM's assurance to Parliament. "There is no room for speculation," he told All India Radio, adding that the Government would have to wait for the outcome. "We cannot go beyond our commitment to Parliament, the commitment made by the Prime Minister and the commitment made by ourselves. Therefore, whatever we have committed, it will have to be achieved within that," he said.
It was the same Mukherjee who had told the nation that India would not approach the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) without Manmohan Singh winning the confidence vote in Parliament. How that assurance was violated is still fresh in the mind of the nation.
Similarly, Sibal and Kakodkar -- and the Prime Minister himself -- had on umpteen occasions told the nation that India would not agree to anything but "unconditional and clean waver". But the US State Department's reply to the Congress makes mockery of such claims and raises questions about the motive behind such misleading assurances.
But still, Sibal went on to say that New Delhi has the right to conduct nuclear tests.
<b>"The Prime Minister has said we are not going to diminish or dilute our sovereign right to nuclear tests," he </b>said. "The 123 Agreement does not in any way diminish India's sovereign right to test." Adopting a similarly brazen posture, AEC chairman Anil Kakodkar said the US disclosures on the nuclear deal did not take away anything India wanted and there was "adequate protection" for its strategic programme in the civil nuclear deal with Washington.
But the Opposition was less than amused by such exercise in semantics. Both the Right and Left camps sought the PM's resignation and demanded early convening of Parliament to discuss the nuclear deal in light of the fresh revelations.
<b>The Opposition accused the PM of turning the nation's foreign policy into a cloak-and-dagger game where Indians learn about the decision that would dominate their future and security of the country from US newspapers and websites.</b> They also accused him of deliberately deferring the monsoon session of Parliament to avoid any discussion on the deal.
Senior BJP leader Yashwant Sinha said the BJP would move a privilege motion against the Government and would not like to wait till October 17 when the Parliament is due to meet again. "The State Department disclosures have confirmed our worst fears... India cannot escape the rigours of the Hyde Act... It is now crystal clear that India will lose the right to conduct nuclear tests forever as a result of this agreement," Sinha said.
He claimed that the revelations in the US Administration's letter to the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee left no doubt that this deal did not contain any binding commitments by Americans and other regarding fuel supplies and on transfer of technology.
"The information given by the Indian Government and the American Administration is diametrically opposite to each other," Sinha claimed, adding that the UPA Government had been propagating falsehood on the issue. "It is gross breach of privilege of Parliament. The BJP demands that a session of Parliament be convened in the shortest possible time so that we cam move a breach of privilege motion against the Prime Minister," Sinha said.
Seeking to make a point-by-point rebuttal of the Prime Minister's statements in Parliament, senior BJP leader Arun Shourie said the Bush Administration has been maintaining that it would not transfer enrichment and reprocessing technologies while the UPA Government has been claiming that the cooperation would be "full", including such transfers.
Unleashing a similar attack, CPM general secretary Prakash Karat demanded a fresh session for moving a no-confidence motion against the Government. The party also accused the Government of "cheating" and "lying" over the deal. Even the Samajwadi Party, the new UPA ally, said it was in a "dilemma" over the disclosures, with its leader Mulayam Singh Yadav appearing to seek clarifications.
<b>"The Manmohan Singh Government has no business to continue in office and should leave immediately," Sinha told a Press conference. Backing Sinha, Karat said, "The only option left to them (the UPA) is that the Prime Minister should quit. But neither will they convene a Parliament session, nor will they quit... It is a shameless Government."</b>
<b>At the other end of the political spectrum, Mulayam Singh Yadav Said, "It (the disclosure) has some truth but (External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee) gave a different statement. So I am also in a dilemma. But I will study the news reports and decide whether the media or Pranab Mukherjee is correct."</b>
Kakodkar said India knew about the letter written by the US State
Department in January to Tom Lantos, the then Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, but was caught unawares by its release. "But now they have released the document.... A quick read tells me that it actually doesn't take away anything from whatever we have been saying here in India before," he said.
Asked about the right to conduct nuclear tests, he said, "In terms of consequence, of course, when we decide to do that, we need to factor in the possible consequences."
--See Opinion: - PM stands diminished
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In this forum we were saying, Shame of India, Moron Singh is lying to Indian Citizens. Where are those who were supporting Moron SIngh on n-deal?
Nuclear Thread - 4 - Guest - 09-05-2008
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>The PM stands diminished </b>
Pioneer.com
Kanchan Gupta
As Thursday's meeting of the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group in Vienna concluded without a 'consensus' on accepting the redrafted American proposal for waiving the rules that prohibit trade in nuclear technology and fuel with India, Mr William Burns, the US Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs, whose services have been requisitioned by Washington to convince recalcitrant countries that wisdom lies in enabling the formal conclusion of the 123 Agreement, put a risible spin on continuing objections voiced by Austria, Ireland, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland. "I believe we are making steady progress in this process and we will continue to make progress," he told mediapersons, among them gullible journalists representing Indian newspapers and television channels.
<b>It is anybody's guess as to whether the nay-sayers in the NSG will eventually accept the revised US draft and settle for the considerable concessions that have been made to appease non-proliferation hawks and curtail India's sovereign right to decide its nuclear policy, including its strategic deterrence component. Indeed, it would be a folly to under-estimate America's persuasive powers which are not necessarily linked to over-the-board, across-the-table diplomacy.</b>
Look at the way it has managed to foist on us a so-called 'civilian nuclear cooperation agreement' that will revive the moribund American nuclear power industry, create thousands of jobs (which will not be open to holders of H1B visa, so there's little reason for our middle-class to cheer the deal), give President George W Bush his only foreign policy 'success', and serve the purpose of forcing India into the non-proliferation regime without conceding its nuclear weapons capability. A full 10 years after being caught unawares as India conducted a series of five nuclear tests on May 11 and 13, 1998, the US is about to extract sweet revenge, if not retribution, for that act of stupendous defiance.
It would, however, be unfair to blame the US alone for India's straitjacketing in so crafty and sly a manner. Governments are meant to protect their national self-interest and further their national agenda: There is little or no space for morality and ethics in international affairs; ruthless geopolitics does not countenance timidity although the powerful nations are not averse to doing business with obsequious regimes because they can ride roughshod over them.
<b>If the US has succeeded in imposing upon us what Americans call a 'bum deal' or selling us what used car dealers in that country refer to as a 'lemon', it is because Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has willingly accepted it. In the process, he has not only compromised India's strategic interests but also wilfully misled a billion people. Not given to niceties, CPI(M) general secretary Prakash Karat has been less circumspect with his choice of words while accusing Mr Singh of "cheating" and "lying" over the nuclear deal. </b>
Nothing illustrates this point better than the Prime Minister's suppression of the real facts and full implications of the India-US civilian nuclear cooperation agreement, which have now been revealed with Mr Howard L Berman, chairman of the US House Foreign Affairs Committee, making public the 'confidential' letter that had been sent by the Bush Administration to his predecessor, the late Tom Lantos, on January 16, 2008. It explains in detail American 'commitments' and Indian 'concessions' while arguing the case for the 123 Agreement. It also exposes the gulf that separates the various 'commitments' made by the Prime Minister in Parliament from the facts as perceived by the Americans. In brief, it proves that Mr Singh has been economical with the truth.
The drumbeaters of the Government have responded predictably, seeking to put a spin -- no less risible than that of Mr Burns' -- on the disclosure and thus obfuscate its real meaning: That the Prime Minister did not tell all while presenting the deal as a 'boon' for India. The same arguments have been reiterated: "It is an internal document of the US Administration"; "We are guided by the 123 Agreement"; "There's nothing new about the conditions"; and, "We cannot go beyond our commitment to Parliament, commitment made by the Prime Minister and commitment made by ourselves". The last refers to External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee's robust defence of the nuclear deal on All India Radio. It is another matter that Mr Mukherjee's assurances have proved to be false in the past; there is no reason why he should be taken seriously now.
Little purpose will be served by repeating all the points on which Mr Singh has misled the nation even if space were to permit such listing. The salient points would suffice to demonstrate that the apprehensions of those who have been steadfastly opposed to the deal because of its flaws are not unfounded. For instance, the letter makes it abundantly clear that the US has not given any legally binding nuclear fuel-supply assurance to India, only "presidential commitments" subject to American law. Now contrast this with what Mr Singh said in the Lok Sabha on August 13, 2007. He stressed on "detailed fuel supply assurances" by the US for "the uninterrupted operation of our nuclear reactors". Mr Singh cannot claim ignorance of the American perception or understanding of the 123 Agreement because the letter clearly says, "We believe the Indian Government shares our understanding of this provision."
Recall also how the Prime Minister assured the Lok Sabha the same day that "this Agreement envisages, in consonance with the Separation Plan, US support for an Indian effort to develop a strategic reserve of nuclear fuel to guard against any disruption of supply for the lifetime of India's reactors". This is totally at variance with the Bush Administration's communication to the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which says India will not be allowed to stockpile such nuclear fuel stocks as to undercut American leverage to re-impose sanctions. To drive home this point, it says the 123 Agreement is not inconsistent with the Hyde Act's stipulation -- the little-known 'Barack Obama Amendment' -- that the supply of nuclear fuel should be "commensurate with reasonable operating requirements". The 'strategic reserve' that is crucial to India's nuclear programme is, therefore, a non-starter.
Last, but not least, recall the Prime Minister's declaration in the Lok Sabha on July 22, 2008: "I confirm that there is nothing in these agreements which prevents us from further nuclear tests if warranted by our national security concerns. All that we are committed to is a voluntary moratorium on further testing." And what does the Bush Administration's letter say? "As outlined in Article 14 of the 123 Agreement, should India detonate a nuclear-explosive device, the United States has the right to cease all nuclear cooperation with India immediately, including the supply of fuel, as well as request the return of any items transferred from the United States, including fresh fuel."
The India-US nuclear deal is no longer only about how it compromises India's sovereign rights and strategic interests. It is also about the integrity of those who have facilitated its imposition on India. Regrettably, the Prime Minister stands diminished with a questionable integrity quotient.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nuclear Thread - 4 - agnivayu - 09-05-2008
The nuclear deal is good for India. Once more Western Investments & capitalists are tied up in India, even if India tests a nuke they won't do anything to jeopardize their investments or the 401(k)'s of U.S. workers.
India needs a pool of technical expertise. India won't need to test nukes anyway, probably forever, but at least definitely not in the near term.
India's Industrialization is strengthening Hindu Nationalism. Hindu's are on the rise due to the economic growth of India. We must make sure we change the financial balance in the world, which is greatly in favor of Xtian and Islamic nuts now.
Nuclear Thread - 4 - Guest - 09-05-2008
Deal is important for Congress and Queen bank balance. They are in hurry to sign so that they can pocket all money.
They should have negotiate this deal with India interest first. Should have followed proper procedure by discussing it in Parliament, clearing all issue. Why and what they want to hide? Why they have to bribe ? Why Indians are hearing dotted lines from outside not from Shame of India aka PM of India.
Don't you think Indians deserve better. Why Babus and Shame of India Moron SIngh thinks if its right deal for India, India will reject. He is living in Race Course bunglow paid by Indian Tax money, all those Babus also get paid by Indian Tax-money, Why they think they are dictator? They should serve country who feed them.
Look what Congress had given to India, Kashmir Problem, They call Shimla agreement which was nothing, and nothing was on dotted line.
Nuclear Thread - 4 - acharya - 09-06-2008
<b>BJP and Left on 'unholy alliance': Congress
</b>
New Delhi (PTI): The Congress on Friday came out aggressively to defend the Indo-US nuclear deal saying if the deal doesn't go through, only Islamabad, Beijing and Nagpur (RSS headquarters) would be happy.
"It is an irony that in case the deal does not get through, the maximum applause would be in Islamabad, Beijing and Nagpur from where the BJP is remote controlled..," Congress spokesman Abhishek Singhvi told reporters here.
He said it was "amusing to find an unholy alliance between the Left and the BJP on the nuclear deal".
"While India is fighting potential international opposition, we have the gory spectacle of the Left and the BJP working in tandem to undermine the country's interest," Singhvi said.
He said, "L K Advani and Prakash Karat are on the same footing, hand in hand on the issue..."
Referring to the communique between two US departments stating that nuclear fuel supply will be stopped once India conducts a nuclear test, which led to the fresh row here, Singhvi said internal communication between two agencies of the US cannot change the 123 Treaty.
<b>
"USA can do this and that...(stop cooperation and fuel supply) only if India tests.. Where has the right to test compromised," the spokesman said.</b>
Singhvi said the UPA never said that India has the sovereign right to test but the US would continue to support.
The Congress emphasised that nuclear test in any case was not in the agenda at the NSG meeting in Vienna.<span style='color:red'>
"In 35 years, we felt the need to test only twice.
Testing is not an every day requirement," he said, adding, "in the next 15-20 years, there would be enough reserves and even if one country out of 45 stops cooperation (in the event of a nuclear test), the others would come forward".
</span>
Nuclear Thread - 4 - ramana - 09-06-2008
So he knows India has to test in 15-20 years! What is the logic of that?
Nuclear Thread - 4 - acharya - 09-06-2008
Nuclear deal
<b>The editorial âDevastating blow to nuclear dealâ (Sept. 5) has indeed hit the nail on the head. Why did the U.S. State Department keep the Bush administration letter of January 16, 2008, a secret even though it was not a classified document? Did the U.S. resort to the suppression of this important document with the knowledge and understanding of the Indian government or present the latter with a fait accompli? If the first is true, </b>the UPA governmentâs credibility becomes the casualty. If New Delhi was unaware of the spin, the claptrap of George Bush stands exposed. It appears that India has fallen into the U.S. trap and cannot come out unscathed.
Tarsem Singh,
New Delhi
* * *
<b>The editorial and the article âRevelations unravel hype and spinâ expose the UPA governmentâs dismal record in handling vital national issues. After the Shrine Board fiasco, we now have the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal. </b>The U.S. has been clear in its stand all along. It is our government that has been lax in its approach. Since the days of Homi Bhaba and Vikram Sarabhai, India has ploughed a lonely furrow and built considerable nuclear technology. Given the time and resources, it will develop enough technology to meet our needs.
H.N. Ramakrishna,
Bangalore
* * *
<b>The ârevelationsâ contained in the Bush administration letter are shocking and in total contradiction of Manmohan Singhâs assurances to Parliament. They expose Washingtonâs Machiavellian diplomacy and dual standards. Who is betraying whom? Did the U.S.</b> keep our government in the dark or was it our government which, despite knowing the truth, misled the country? Whatever the case, it is time India adopted a tough stand.
Rohit Gupta,
Shimla
* * *
<b>The recent development has proved that signing the nuclear deal would amount to surrendering to nuclear blackmail.</b> The deal is nothing but trickery to make us believe that the U.S. is doing us a favour. In view of the undue importance given to the 123 agreement by the UPA government, one is forced to believe that it has a hidden agenda in pursuing it.
R. Venkita Giri,
Thiruvananthapuram
* * *
<b>The suppression of the letter was doubtlessly done with the intent of aiding our government in misleading Parliament on the connection between the 123 agreement and the Hyde Act.</b> The Left relentlessly reiterated the inherent dangers in the deal, even at the risk of being accused of aiding the BJP. Yet the Prime Minister flaunted his notional honourable stature to buttress the unequal deal, consciously or naively, surrendering the non-aligned sovereign nature of our foreign policy drawn up by Nehru. Will Dr. Singh at least garner enough courage to abandon his attempts to defend the indefensible?
Kasim Sait,
Chennai
* * *
<b>What for is this ruthless agreement being thrust upon us? The UPA government, which survived the no-trust vote in Parliament,</b> has lost the trust of the people of India. Certainly, it has lost the moral ground to continue in office. The deal should be re-negotiated, without losing our sovereignty and self-respect, by a new government.
M.S.R.A. Srihari,
Khammam
* * *
<b>The cat is finally out of the bag â the editorial has used the correct expression to describe the crisis of development. </b>The Manmohan Singh government has tried its level best to make up and present attractively the nuclear deal to the common man. Whether or not the U.S. modifies the 123 agreement, India must reconsider the deal before proceeding to the next stage, at least for the sake of its people who still have faith in sovereignty.
S. Regis,
Chennai
* * *
<b>Why does the UPA government, which takes the credit for giving us the right to information, hide the details of the nuclear deal from the common man? Why does not the Prime Minister address the nation and clear the air?</b> While the government claims there is no restriction on India conducting further nuclear tests, the Bush administration letter says just the opposite. Suppose in future, there arises a strategic need for India to test, will it not be able to do so because fuel supply to the nuclear plants would be disrupted? The deal is nothing but CTBT in disguise.
Hemant Kumar Chauhan,
Rourkela
* * *
<b>Now that Dr. Singh is being accused of misleading the entire nation on the terms of the nuclear deal, he should, in the overall national interest, take Parliament into confidence and discuss the same.</b> He should not stand on prestige as the stakes involved are very high and long-lasting.
Seshagiri Row Karry,
Hyderabad
* * *
<b>The latest revelations regarding the nuclear deal have left us disappointed. The Prime Ministerâs claim on the U.S. promise of detailed fuel supply has been thoroughly exposed, although it would be interesting to see his stand when Parliament convenes. It is hurting to see democracy fall so blatantly, for it has now become obvious that the government under Dr. Singh has been promoting an unequal treaty with the U.S.</b> Neither has India been given the right to test a weapon, nor is there an assured supply of fuel from the U.S.
Nandhini Narayanan,
Chennai
* * *
This refers to Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Anil Kakodkarâs statement: âLet us finish the cooking process, taste it ... <b>If it is appetising, we will eat it.â I would like to point out that the U.S. is the birthplace of junk food which is very appetising but extremely unhealthy.</b>
C.G. Senthilkumar,
Sunnyvale
* * *
Speaker of the House of Representatives Tip OâNeill believed that all politics is local. The same is true of the State Department letter. Politicians have different obligations to their local constituents. <b>The compulsions are different at home and abroad. Nothing more should be read in the letter. The deal is in Indiaâs interest and it should avail itself of the opportunity</b>.
Tanvir Salim,
Canton, Massachusetts
* * *
The Hindu has done a creditable service by keeping the people better informed by presenting all sides to the issue, through articles over the last 18 months and more â right up to the September 5 editorial. It helped trigger discussion by getting people involved. <b>Otherwise, even the educated were being left out while the nation was planning a major step for the future.
</b>
Ramesh Krishnamurthy,
Secunderabad
Nuclear Thread - 4 - Guest - 09-06-2008
I am amazed Indians trust lowlife babus and now one is a Prime Minister of India, what a shame!
Indians are tuned to believe that newspapers or babus press release are honest and ultimate truth.
I hope with internet and alternative media, Indians can see otherside and alternate opinion. That is why it is important for us to educate them and expose low lives and provides nationalist Indians true and honest opinion.
Nuclear Thread - 4 - Guest - 09-06-2008
Shame of India ManMohan Singh falsehood is exposed'
Any idea, how many green sacks Moron Singh will fill here in US. How many babus and so-called Parmanu dalals are coming with him?
When he will return back to India Queen Sonia will be on Custom duty at the Airport. <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->