Country which have no facility/trauma center for common road accident, why to waste money on nuclear emergency?
It takes hours for ambulance to reach accident scene if someone lucky, forget about after nuclear attack.
I do not know of how much relevance this matter that I am about to write
is.
I saw this in ETV Telugu long back most possible during/before Iraq war.
A U.S warship stopped by to get fuel in Chennai.
However some/one of the helicoptors went on near to the Kalpakkam nuclear site without prior notice.I was pertified.
I saw on T.V, an official from the radar systems claim repeatedly that those coptors violated our airspace.
And the U.S officer in charge who spoke to the media persons did not deny the incident but was full of smiles and was just repeating the same thing that he was just executing orders.
Later MEA officials might have denied any happening.Hence I suggest that this info be not made public unless there is permission from above.
<!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo--> Deccan Herald » National » Detailed Story
<span style='font-family:Optima'> India might walk out on N-deal
Washington, pti:
Further delay in the congressional approval of a legislation to implement the Indo-US civilian nuclear deal could prompt New Delhi to walk out of the agreement, an American newspaper has warned...
Further delay in the congressional approval of a legislation to implement the Indo-US civilian nuclear deal could prompt New Delhi to walk out of the agreement, an American newspaper has warned.
âSome supporters of the US nuclear technology deal with India are cautioning that any more delays in the congressional approval of the White Houseâs agreement could prompt New Delhi to walk out of it,â The Hill, a newspaper which covers congressional affairs, said in a write-up.
âThe White House had pushed for a vote in the Senate on the legislation needed to start implementing the deal by the end of last week, but partisan squabbling delayed passage until after the midterm election,â it said.
âIf that is not done by the end of the year, legislation will have to be marked up again in a new Congress next year, perhaps controlled by the Democrats in either or both chambers,â it added.
âWe could have acted on this bill a long time ago, yet we were unable to do so because of serious objections from the Republican side of the aisle,â said Jim Manley, who is the chief of staff for Minority leader Harry Reid.</span>
The North Korean action of going ahead with a Nuclear Test will have profound impact not only in North Asia, but also in other areas of foreign relations. It is to be seen now, whether USA will take some action against Pakistan, which has reportedly helped North Korea with nuclear technology and equipment. On the face of it, the action of North Korea has been a direct challenge to the present US administrationâs policies. Now let us wait and watch if the West is really interested to do something or it is a matter of only temporary media attention.
<b>Nuke deal in present form may create problems: Shourie</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->He said the political fallout in India in the event of the deal not getting through Congress is that every political party will claim credit for it. The important aspect for India and the US to bear in mind is that while the contingencies of the other will have to be factored in, they should 'never' make any issue the test of bilateral ties.
"I think everybody on all sides of the Indian political spectrum will claim victory. The opposition will say that because of us something wrong was not done and the prime minister will say because 'I stood firm' the deal was not done," Shourie said.
<b>"If it goes through then the prime minister will try to persuade all of us that the clauses 'you are worried about' are non-binding, etc,"</b> Shourie said.
Commenting on the implications of the Democrats returning to Capitol Hill as victors in the November 7 Congressional elections, Shourie said <b>the 'rhetoric may change a little bit' but the Presidency may be bogged down to a situation in which Bush may not be able to 'deliver' the civilian nuclear agreement.</b>
"The major thing will come out on the nuclear deal. The House and the Senate bills are so far apart, I don't know how they will be reconciled. With the executive seen as being bogged down by other things, the delivery (of the deal) will be that much more difficult," he said.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
More to India-US relations than nuclear deal: Carter
[ 27 Oct, 2006 1845hrs ISTIANS ]
RSS Feeds| SMS NEWS to 8888 for latest updates
NEW DELHI: Good relations between India and the US will not be "adversely affected" if the India-US civil nuclear deal does not clear the US Congressional process, former US President Jimmy Carter said on Friday.
Carter, who returns to India after nearly three decades in his new avatar as a philanthropist building houses for the poor, however, said in the same breath, "I hope not."
Quoting Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's address to the Parliament early this year on the civil nuclear deal, he underlined that the July 18, 2005 understanding between India and the US on the nuclear deal remains the core of the civil nuclear deal between India and the US.
Carter will also meet Manmohan Singh and discuss a whole host of issues including Nepal, the Middle East peace process and his pet philanthropic project of building houses for the poor. He has written a book on the Middle East peace process, which will be published next month.
Hailing India's emergence as a "major economic power," Carter stressed that there was much more to the growing India-US relations than the civil nuclear deal.
"Two great democracies must search for every possible way to cooperate economically, politically and militarily," he said.
Carter, a Democrat, was confident that the Democrats will control the House of Representatives after the Congressional elections next month, but tactfully desisted comments on what impact it will have on the India-US nuclear deal.
The US Senate is expected to vote on the civil nuclear deal in its lame duck session next month, but if the deal fails to pass the Senate, then the entire Congressional process will have to start from a scratch.
Carter and his wife Rosalynn, co-founders of the Carter Centre, an NGO dedicated to promoting human rights and alleviating poverty worldwide, will travel to Lonavala in Maharashtra next week to build 100 houses for the poor there as part of Habitat for Humanity's annual Jimmy Carter Work Project. They plan to build 30,000 houses for the 11 countries hit by the December 26, 2004 tsunami.
"My idea is to promote the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and to discourage testing and development of nuclear weapons and the control of fissile material by the International Atomic Energy Agency," said Carter, who trained as a nuclear engineer and is known for its hawkish views on the NPT and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).
When he last visited India in 1978 as the US president, he tried hard to pressurise the then Prime Minister Moraraji Desai into signing the CTBT.
"My concerns are global. All major powers must comply with the NPT," he stressed.
Carter, however, added that he had no objection to India reducing its independence on fossil fuels and generating atomic power.
Asked whether he will discuss the civil nuclear deal with Manmohan Singh, he said, "I am not here to influence the policy of India on nuclear power. I am here as a private citizen. If the prime minister brings up the issue, we will discuss it."
He is upbeat about the role of India in the new world order. "There is no doubt that India is emerging as a major power economically. India has made remarkable progress," said Carter while rebutting speculation about the US using India as a counterweight to China.
Pioneer.com
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Problem with N-deal is in details, says Jaswant in US </b>
S Rajagopalan | Washington
<b>It's the details rather than the direction of the Indo-US nuclear deal that worries the BJP,</b> former External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh informed an American audience here on Wednesday.
Setting forth his party's objections during an interactive session at the Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies, Singh spoke of "<b>real difficulties" arising from the restraint that the deal places on further testing and fissile materials.</b>
"Mr Atal Bihari Vajpayee, the tallest political leader in the country and architect of Indo-US relations, has pointed out the pitfalls," <b>he said adding the Indian Government should pay special attention to those aspects</b>. It was a joint appearance by Singh and former Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, the two men who laid the foundations on behalf of their respective governments for the turnaround in Indo-US strategic ties after the 1998 tests.
Their elaborate groundwork was accomplished through a series of 14 meetings at 10 locations in seven countries, but on Wednesday both men voiced their opposition to the deal for altogether different reasons.
If Singh voiced his unease over restraints on testing and fissile materials, Talbott criticised the Bush administration's logic of granting India an exception under the NPT and termed it a move away from the rule-based system of controlling proliferation of dangerous technology.
Talbott, however, had no doubt about Congressional nod to the deal. "I still remain very confident that this deal is going to be the law of the land, very likely at some point during the lame duck session of the Congress. But that's not going to end the debate," he said.
Currently the president of Brookings Institution, Talbott, also hinted at the possibility of Chinese opposition in the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group on the question of making a country-specific exception for India.
Singh, during a subsequent impromptu chat with reporters, said New Delhi must pay attention to "what was hinted here" (about the possible Chinese move within NSG). As for fissile material restraint, he said this had to be global and verifiable.
<b>"I have no difficulty as long as the direction is correct. But because we did the hard work, I also know the pitfalls in the path," he said. For India, the nuclear deal is all about energy, but for the US, it's all about non-proliferation, Singh said</b>.
When asked why it can't be both, he commented: "Then the Prime Minister must say so in Parliament."
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>Senate endorses U.S.-India nuclear deal</b> <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> <b>The bill carves out an exemption in American law to allow U.S. civilian nuclear trade with India in exchange for Indian safeguards and inspections at its 14 civilian nuclear plants; eight military plants would be off-limits.</b>
Congressional action is necessary because U.S. law bars nuclear trade with countries that have not submitted to full international inspections. India built its nuclear weapons program outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which provides civil nuclear trade in exchange for a pledge from nations not to pursue nuclear weapons.
<b>There are other necessary steps before U.S.-Indian nuclear cooperation could begin. An exception for India must be made by the Nuclear Suppliers Group, an assembly of nations that export nuclear material. Indian officials also must negotiate a safeguard agreement with the U.N. nuclear watchdog</b>.
And once technical negotiations on an overall cooperation agreement are settled between India and the United States, the U.S. Congress would then hold another vote on the overall deal
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--emo&:eager--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/lmaosmiley.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='lmaosmiley.gif' /><!--endemo--> China may offer N-sops to India
SAIBAL DASGUPTA
TIMES NEWS NETWORK[ TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2006 01:22:37 AM]
BEIJING: Chinese president Hu Jintao is expected to make some serious gestures on the nuclear issue to ensure that India does not get inextricably close to the US, diplomatic sources said. He would also encourage India to settle the Kashmir dispute with Pakistan without promising to re-draw the Chinese map on this strategic location, sources added.
Officials of the two sides have already held some consultations on a possible understanding between the two neighbours on Indiaâs role as a nuclear power. China wants to quickly readjust its approach to Indiaâs role as a nuclear power following the recent decision of the US Senate as well as address Delhiâs concerns over its support to nuclear power plants in Pakistan, sources said. India needs Beijingâs support on its nuclear programme as China is an important member of the Nuclear Suppliersâ Group.
Beijing would prefer a non-aligned India instead of seeing it being used by the US as a counter-weight to Chinaâs growing influence in the international arena, sources said. Hu would persuade India to take a stand on multipolar world in order to counter the dominance of Washington on international matters, they said.
âChina will be more sensitive to Indiaâs concern over Sino-Pakistan relationship,â Ma Jiali, research professor at the official think-tank, Chinese Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, told TOI. âBut China is ready to promote relations between India and Pakistan,â he said.
âIndian leaders would be conscious of the fact that they would be dealing with him for six more years. Both sides would try their most to make this a milestone visit,â a Chinese observer, who wished to remain unnamed, said.
India and China might agree to greater exchanges among the military establishment of the two sides in order to reduce the prevailing atmosphere of distrust. They might also come up with a new and much larger target for bilateral trade as compared to the $20 billion target that is likely to be accomplished this year. Given an opportunity, China would be happy to play the middleman to settle the Indo-Pak disputes.
Although New Delhi is sensitive to any suggestion of this kind, Beijing would like to be consulted on any proposal for settling the Kashmir issue, sources said.
Both India and Pakistan have observer status in Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, which is Chinaâs forum to build its influence in the region. Islamabad has been clamouring for being made a full member of the SCO but India has not been very keen about it. The entire Kashmir including areas under Indian and Pakistani jurisdiction, are shown as disputed areas in the Chinese map. It is not possible for China to re-draw the map on the Kashmir side until India and Pakistan reach a settlement that is acceptable to Beijing as well, Ma Jiali said. The Chinese president was keen on enlisting Indiaâs support on the issue of multi-polar world in order to weaken the stranglehold of the US on international matters including the Iran nuclear issue.
The bill passed in the US Senate contains a clause that empowers the United States government to stop nuclear supplies to India if it did not back US policies on Iran, it is pointed out.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->===============================================
FORUM FOR SECULARISM & DEVELOPMENT (USA)
Subject: US Senate Bill on Nuclear Deal will make India subservient - India's sovereignty must not be surrendered or compromised in any sphere - nuclear, economic, national security or defense
Hon'ble Members of Parliament,
  Here are, for your information and action, two very recent and important analyses by India's two renowned experts on the Bill adopted by the US Senate relevant to the Indo-US Nuclear Deal. We strongly believe that the issues raised by these experts should receive very serious consideration by the Indian leadership particularly the Parliamentarians, as they deal with India's nuclear autonomy and sovereignty.Â
a) Strategic reduction of India
- By Bharat Karnad (attachment A)
b) Was government aware of section 115?Â
- By Dr A. Gopalakrishnan (attachment B)
  Given the serious nature of the nuclear issue and its profound impact upon India's national security, it will be crucially important that the Indian Parliamentarians deliver their patriotic responsibilities in assuring that:
a)Â the âIndo-US Nuclear Dealâ is fully scrutinized and not allowed to be formalized without full debate, discussion and inputs by the representative bodies, defense, nuclear, national security, diplomatic and judicial experts of the country;Â
b) the Deal is equitable;
c) it does not compromise India's sovereignty in any sphere - nuclear, economic, national security or defense, and,
d) the leadership takes serious note of the Section 115 of the US Senate Bill which besides vastly enlarging the vulnerability of India makes the Indian Republic liable to the bodies of the US laws and the UN Atomic Energy Agency including its non-proliferation regimes. There exists a high degree of apprehension about the intent, details and spirit of the cleverly designed new Section 115 of the Senate bill and if it was actually discussed by the two governments, without taking the Parliament and the public in to confidence. Even so, the Secretary, DAE should have been party to that decision.
      A strong note should also be taken of the fact that after the recent elections in the US the political sands have been speedily shifting and democrats, who did not have any role in negotiating the provisions of this Deal with New Delhi, are about to take charge of the both houses of the US Legislature. On the other hand, reading the writing on the wall, the operatives of the Bush administration who negotiated the Deal with the Indian representatives are jumping the ship one by one. Therefore, any verbal or personal assurances given by them, without making such assurances an integral part of the provisions of the Deal itself, must be considered inoperative and meaningless.
  In conclusion we would like to re-emphasize that the Parliament is the supreme sovereign body in India. And it falls within this body's jurisdiction to exercise its paramount authority in defending national sovereignty, if and when it is threatened, without any regard to what branch of national interest that threat may relate to.
Best wishes.
Dr. Jagan Kaul
Krishan Bhatnagar
Forum for Secularism and Development (USA)
December 06, 2006
=====================================================
<b>Attachment A</b>
Strategic reduction of India
Asian Age, Dec 07, 2006
By Bharat Karnad
The current Indian foreign policy is propelled mainly by Prime Minister Manmohan Singhâs conviction that becoming part of the "unipolar" international order presided over by the United States will benefit the country. Cooperation in the high-value nuclear technology field is seen as the cherry atop the new policy cake. <b>The PM has failed to see that Washington, for its part, is intent on using the nuclear deal to draw India into the 1967 Non-Proliferation Treaty net and to zero out the chances of Indiaâs ever acquiring a consequential nuclear deterrent â a recipe for the strategic reduction of India.</b>
Given the insularity of our rulers, the wonder is that, other than getting the economists-playing-deterrence strategists in Manmohan Singhâs inner circle into a huff and rousing the Opposition parties in Parliament into a state of wakefulness, such warnings compelled Manmohan Singh to define in Parliament the red lines the US should not cross. But, this is precisely what the US Congress has done with the reconciled bill likely to retain at least some of the offensive clauses, confident that the Congress Party-led government will compromise to protect its considerable investment of political capital in this deal. <b>The reason for this American confidence may be the approach of the PMâs special envoy, Shyam Saran which, according to Washington insiders, was to seek enough room for "interpretation" to steer a manifestly unacceptable "123" agreement past a confused and confusable Opposition at home.
Apparently the Manmohan Singh regimeâs tactics are to get the deal past Parliament by presenting it as a fait accompli.</b> Acting as if the nuclear deal was already a done thing, the minister of state in PMO Prithviraj Chavan claimed in Parliament that a new core was being fitted in the Apsara reactor in Trombay as part of what he called reciprocal actions required by the deal with the US. He also revealed that talks were underway with France, South Africa, etc., for civilian nuclear collaboration. Washington has also been promised that at least two reactors of the initial purchase of eight-light water reactors will be from American companies, leading to US nuclear industry representatives camping in the country, talking procedures and modalities with the Nuclear Power Corporation.
<b>The truth is, Saran was informed by the US under secretary of state Nicholas Burns of the offending Sections 105, 106, 107, 108, and 115 in the US Senate draft version of the bill before it was voted on, but other than pleading for a tempering of the language to provide Manmohan Singh the cover for accepting it, he raised no particular objection. This notwithstanding the fact that the aforementioned Sections, in breach of the understanding in the Joint Statement, have codified both Indiaâs status and treatment as a non-nuclear weapon state under the NPT and, more significantly, Indiaâs formal acceptance of such status and treatment by the US, the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), and the International Atomic Energy Agency, signalling acceptance by India of the NPT and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty norms and restrictions without its being a signatory to either</b>!
These Sections, among other things, mandate IAEA safeguards in perpetuity for the designated "civilian" nuclear reactors and facilities, intrusive policing and inspection by IAEA and, when thatâs not possible, by American personnel, monitoring of the activities relating to Indiaâs mining its indigenous uranium ore, and verifiable evidence on an ongoing basis of Indiaâs not encouraging proliferation by countries like Iran. Further, the stockpiling of uranium fuel for imported reactors will not be allowed â closing the option of stockpiling foreign low-enriched uranium or processed natural uranium far in excess of immediate needs in order to avoid the ill-effects of unexpected termination of fuel supply, and India will be unable to access the latest uranium enrichment, plutonium reprocessing and heavy water production technologies.
<b>Worse, the governmentâs original raison dâetre for the deal that imported reactors will make up the energy deficit in 20-25 years is patently false. Even with an additional 20 imported reactors, electricity from nuclear sources will still account for no more than 5%-6% of the total energy produced in the country in 2035 â not sufficient incentive, surely, to "freeze and cap" the Indian weapons programme. And should India test again which it will have to do, the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on imported reactors will have to be written off, the "nuclear cooperation" will, willy-nilly, end, and all the imported materials and plants and assemblies will have to be repatriated to the original supplier at Indiaâs cost. </b>
Considering that mostly adverse effects will follow from this deal, why is Manmohan Singh sticking to it, limpet-like, risking political rejection in Parliament and personal infamy for himself? Perhaps, because the PM is simply not clued into power politics. <b>How else to explain his acceptance, in the first place, of the Joint Statement predicating all civilian nuclear cooperation on Indiaâs never testing again â a prohibition guaranteed to prevent this country from acquiring a credible deterrent, leave alone newer, more sophisticated, nuclear armaments in the future?</b>
The PM and his benighted advisers may, therefore, gain from a simple six point-primer in international relations and nuclear security:
<b>1. International relations is jungle-raj and, like in the badlands of Uttar Pradesh, might is right.</b>
2. In this tussle, hard (thermonuclear military) power with reach matters the most, offering the country absolute security and immunity against pressure. It is decisive in the rank-ordering of countries; soft power only embroiders and augments this hard power of the state.
3. Powerful countries may humour weaker states but do not help them become strong, thereby adding to the competition.
<b>4. States generating cutting-edge technology do not sell or transfer it to any other country for any reason. Ask Americaâs closest ally, the United Kingdom about being denied the atom bomb in the Forties and, more recently, the set of critical Joint Strike Fighter technologies, both of which it helped finance and co-develop!
5. Indiaâs economic card has historically been trumped by the foreignerâs military card, meaning the decisive military technology and capability of the day. India lacked a meaningful navy in the 17th century. It did not help that the country was an economic superpower at the time. The military card that cannot be beaten today is the triad of frightening megaton thermonuclear weapons, intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear-powered submarines, which has to be secured on a war footing. It will provide the security overhang beneath which the Indian economy can grow rapidly, unmolested.</b>
<b>6. Resumption of open-ended testing is a technical imperative, necessary to obtain boosted-fission and fusion weapons that are safe, proven, and reliable â qualities, incidentally, missing in the existing Indian deterrent. Ties with the West disrupted by the Indian tests will quickly return to normal, because the advanced economies are hooked profitably into the comparatively advantaged techno-economic sphere in India, because of the lure of huge profits that make the Indian market irresistible to NSG states and render long term embargoes unsustainable and, because, pushed to the wall, India could turn into a mean trouble-maker â the sort of entity former US President Lyndon Johnson advised it was better to have inside the tent pissing out rather than having it outside pissing in.</b>
So, Mr Prime Minister, straighten up, inject some steel into your spine, behave as the leader of a great power on the rise, one willing to deal with fellow big powers only on equal terms. Continue speaking softly, Manmohan Singhji, but see how much more traction you get by carrying a megaton thermonuclear weapon-spiked stick in your hand. You have so far acted the leader of a feeble country â an India of the past. Re-tooling your mind is of the essence. Obtaining political leverage and the military wherewithal to service Indiaâs great power ambitions requires burying the nuclear deal.
Bharat Karnad is Professor at the Centre for Policy Research and author of Nuclear Weapons and Indian Security, now in its second edition
============================================
<b>Attachment B</b>
Was government aware of section 115?Â
- By Dr A. Gopalakrishnan
Asian Age, Nov 28. 2006
The recent Senate Bill on the Indo-US nuclear deal (HR-5682.EAS) includes the highly objectionable Section 115 which was introduced for the first time and passed on November 16, 2006 (See Bill paves way for covert US operations, The Op-Ed Page, November 21, 2006). Recently, the DAE Secretary, Dr Anil Kakodkar, has described the new Section as "a matter of additional concern" that "got introduced in the last discussion" (PTI, November 24). He added, "The US is talking about a programme to be piloted by the US National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and they call it a scientific threat-reduction programme, which has come as a surprise. We do not want to get into any activity that will be intrusive for our programme and that is why (we have) these concerns. The deal is for civil applications and it should not intrude into strategic areas." In spite of this, we are yet to get any reaction on this from government sources in Delhi.
The fact that Secretary, DAE was taken by surprise, could mean only one of two things. That Section 115 in the bill comes as a total surprise also to the Prime Minister and his advisers in Delhi. If so, why is there a delay in publicly rejecting this Section as unacceptable to India, without waiting for the reconciliation process? Or, is it that top echelons of the government â except the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) and its Secretary â were aware of this subject matter, and had deliberately kept the DAE Secretary in the dark? The more the government maintains its silence, the more this latter suspicion will take root in public mind.
Section 115 of the Senate bill relates to the imposition of joint R&D with Indian scientists under a "program to further common non-proliferation goals, including scientific research and developmental efforts related to nuclear non-proliferation, with an emphasis on nuclear safeguards." DAE had never asked for such a joint effort, it is not acceptable to them, and it is entirely outside the scope of the July 18, 2005 inter-governmental agreement.
To understand how this situation has developed, we need to examine three aspects: First, we should be aware of the antecedents and links of the NNSA which has been chosen by the Senate as the interacting partner from the US side. Second, we need to look at the nature of advice which the Senate and the House have been receiving over the last year from US non-proliferation lobbies and think-tanks who are bitterly opposed to this nuclear deal. And, lastly, we need to examine whether there were possible ongoing interactions between the officials of the Indian government (except DAE representatives) and the US administration, where the intent and spirit of Section 115 were indeed discussed, and perhaps mutually concurred.
The NNSA was formed in March 2000 by consolidating the defence, non-proliferation and national security, fissile materials disposition, and naval reactor-related activities of the US Department of Energy (DoE). The FY-2001 budget for NNSA was US $6.2 billion. In presenting the budget, the then Secretary (DoE) said, "A crucial component of our national security budget is our extensive non-proliferation work, which helps to ensure that Americans can enjoy a future that is safe and secure." The first head of NNSA was General John Gordon, who was earlier the deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Even today the NNSA shares its budget and programmes with other US entities like the CIA, the National Security Agency (NSA), and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), which are all primarily entrusted with national and international covert operations. NNSA, given these links, is certainly not a suitable organisation to be programmatically linked to the Indian nuclear activities or even to our non-nuclear security matters, such as counter-terrorism or border-security, though NNSA participation may well serve the US objectives.
The Senate action in imposing Section 115 on India can be best understood from a revealing article titled, Seizing the Moment: Using the US-Indian Nuclear Deal to Improve Fissile Material Security by Kenneth Luongo and Isabelle Williams (Arms Control Today, May 2006). Mr Luongo is an executive director of the Russian-American Nuclear Security Advisory Council (RANSAC), and was earlier the director of the Office of Arms Control and Non-Proliferation at the US DoE. Previous to that he had served as a staff member in the US Congress in different positions. Over the last year, Mr Luongo and his colleagues have been partly responsible for shaping the views of the US Congress on the Indo-US nuclear deal. I shall, therefore, quote extensively from this article to sharply bring forth the logic used by the US Senate in framing and including Section 115 in the Senate bill.
At the outset, Luongo advises the Congress that "â¦the ideal trade-off for Congressional approval (of the Indo-US deal) would be a complete cut-off of fissile material production in South Asia. However, there is robust opposition in India and Pakistan to a cut-off at this time. Therefore, a necessary and achievable alternative is to mandate that India engage in a serious dialogue about improving fissile material and facility security... (However,) requiring a discussion of security improvements and successfully implementing them would likely prove to be a touchy issue in New Delhi⦠Procedurally, such a nuclear security dialogue could be mandated by the attachment of a condition to any legislation approving the agreement⦠(If this is not done) it would amount to an enormous missed opportunity to improve global security."
On the subject of proliferation, he adds, "Concerns have also been raised about illicit nuclear equipment purchases, sensitive knowledge leakages, and lax export control implementation by India⦠Officials from each country (India and Pakistan) have stressed in public that necessary steps have been taken to strengthen security standards and that their nuclear programs are adequately secure ⦠(however) they have provided no concrete evidence to the international community to support claims that their programs are invulnerable⦠Because of the high international stakes involved if materials and expertise are not secured properly, more substantive cooperation is essential to ensure standards are as stringent as possible."
Regarding a framework for cooperation to be imposed on India, their advice is, "At the top governmental level in India and Pakistan, however, there are likely to be a number of obstacles to engaging in this very delicate dialogue, including political sensitivities, different threat perceptions, and bureaucracy. Future efforts will therefore need to be carefully packaged and executed and will require a higher priority on the political agenda⦠Both countries are reluctant to allow external access to their nuclear programs and are suspicious about intrusive cooperation⦠National sovereignty over nuclear programs is a high priority in both countries ⦠it is very unlikely that either India or Pakistan would allow US officials or laboratory specialists into its nuclear facilities to implement security upgrades (and) the media in each country has already accused their governments of âselling outâ the countryâs nuclear assets to the United States⦠(Therefore,) cooperation should focus on opening dialogue on a possible âmenuâ of low-intrusive tools that could be adopted and implemented unilaterally by either country at facilities across the board, both civilian and military."
The Luongo and Williams statements eloquently summarise the US perspective of the Indian situation and they reflect the collective views of various middle-of-the-road non-proliferationists in the US. No wonder the US Senate seems to have bought their viewpoint and structured Section 115 of the bill and approved it quietly, with no floor discussion, recognising the "need to carefully package and execute" it.
Finally, it should be noted that both the NDA and UPA governments have been conducting periodic bilateral discussions through an Indo-US Joint Working Group on Counter-terrorism, which has been functioning since January 2000. It is not known whether the Indian side headed by the MEA has a DAE representative or not. Other than the contents of the short press releases, nothing much is known about the groupâs activities. The January 22, 2002 press statement from New Delhi, issued after the fourth meeting of the group, states, "Counter-terrorism officials on the two sides reviewed the anti-terrorism training and capacity building programmes conducted by the United States. The Indian side welcomed the US offer to further expand the programme, covering preventive, protective and consequence management capabilities in both conventional and WMD terrorism. The Indian delegation also welcomed the US pilot project involving equipment and technology to strengthen border management and surveillance." A press release dated April 21, 2006 issued after the seventh meeting says, "The discussions advanced US-India cooperation in areas of common concern such as bio-terrorism ⦠WMD-terrorism⦠Both sides agreed to share information on a real time basis, respond to counterterrorism assistance requests expeditiously and collaborate to upgrade preparedness and capability to deal with acts of terrorism."
Given these ongoing interactions, there is concern whether the intent, details and spirit of the new Section 115 of the Senate bill were indeed discussed over some of these group meetings and mutually agreed on between the two governments, totally unknown to Parliament and the public. Even so, the Secretary, DAE should have been party to that decision. If he was not, and our government has taken a decision on matters like WMD terrorism without his knowledge, then there is something seriously wrong with the way this government is arriving at critical decisions. To say the least, all this calls for an urgent clarification to Parliament from the highest level of government to clear up the confusion.
Finally, we must keep in mind that India is also entitled to get assistance from the IAEA on nuclear facility and material security, under the International Physical Protection Advisory Service (IPPAS), even without signing the Indo-US deal or the NPT. Though the DAE has not so far sought any such help, if ever the country needs it, opting for such international assistance is any day safer than involving the US in a bilateral mode.
<i>Dr A. Gopalakrishnan is a former chairman of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, government of India. He can be reached at : </i>
agk37@hotmail.com<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It appears we have finally made it
Quote:
US House passes landmark Indian nuke deal
Washington, Dec. 9 (PTI): A legislation on the landmark Indo-US civilian nuclear deal inched closer to its implementation when the US House of Representatives today approved it by an overwhelming majority.
The Senate now has to approve the Bill, the last step before it is sent to President George W Bush to sign into a law, ending India's three decade-long nuclear isolation.
The House of Representatives voted in favour of the Bill by a margin of 330-59 votes after an hour-long debate with Chairman of the House International Relations Committee, Henry Hyde, and Ranking Member Tom Lantos backing it, while Massachussetts Democrat, Edward Markey, vehemently spoke against it.
The senate approval is likely to come either today or tomorrow and the President may sign the legislation into a law on Monday.
Introducing the reconciled version of the Bill, Henry J Hyde, argued that the Conference Report is a "judicious balance of competing priorities" and that the Conference had gone to "great lengths" to accommodate the concerns of the administration.
The end-product provides the President the authority he requires, protects Congressional prerogatives and strengthens the global non-proliferation regime, the Illinois Republican stressed.
An agreement to have the civilian nuclear deal was reached between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Bush here in July last year. The deal was finalised when Bush visited India in March this year.
The 'Henry J Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006' that would allow US civilian nuclear trade with India was finalised by lawmakers either removing or diluting the language of several provisions objected to by India.
The legisation once signed, would give exemption in American law to allow US civilian nuclear trade with India. The legislation was needed because US law prevents nuclear trade with countries like India that have not signed nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
There have been "substantial" changes in the language and in a manner that addressed many of the key concerns of India, but not all. A number of changes in the Conference Report take into account apprehensions of New Delhi on issues including End-Use Monitoring and Sequencing and Iran.
India now has to conclude a bilateral 123 agreement with the US, engage the IAEA, and seek changes to the rules of 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG).
During the debate, senior Democrat and incoming Chair of the House International Relations Committee, Tom Lantos, expressed strong support for the legislation and stressed that India is a pre-eminent state in South Asia and as such should be at the centre of America's foreign policy and attention.
"This expansion of peaceful nuclear trade with India will usher in a new partnership between India and the United States based on our shared objective of preventing the spread of dangerous nuclear technology to countries and groups that would use it for evil purposes," he added.
On Iran, while lawmakers have retained their concern and apprehensions, the language has been re-worked from that of the Senate version of November 16, 2006 that called for a Presidential determination that India is "fully and actively participating" in the US and international efforts to dissuade, sanction and contain Tehran for its nuclear programme consistent with UN Security Council Resolutions.
Analysts pointed that India's objections to the issue of sequencing has also been addressed. This had to do with a Determination in the Original Senate Bill that an agreement between India and the IAEA on the application of safeguards in perpetuity has entered into force.
The 74-page Bill says that for the Presidential determination to occur, "India and the IAEA have concluded all legal steps prior to signature by the parties of an agreement requiring the application of IAEA safeguards in perpetuity..."
Also on the issue of the Prohibition on Certain Exports and Re-Exports in the original Senate Version in Section 106, the Bill said the Nuclear Regulatory Commission may not authorise licences for the export or re-export to India of any equipments, materials or technology related to the enrichment of uranium, the re-processing of spent fuel or the production of heavy water.
Participating in the debate, Lantos said the current legislation strikes the right balance between giving the president the necessary flexibility to negotiate the best agreement possible with New Delhi, while at the same time preserving Congressional oversight and the right of consent to the resulting agreement.
"This is a historic day for this House and for the United States. I urge my colleagues to give their full support to this conference report and to help usher in a new day in US-India relations," Lantos said.
But Massachussetts Democrat Edward Markey, who had objected to the Conference Report during discussion and vote on Rules, repeated his sentiments terming the legislation a "historic mistake" which will send all the wrong signals to countries like Pakistan, Iran, North Korea and Egypt.
"The message that they are receiving is that there is going to be a double-standard," Markey said going on to make his argument once again that the civilian nuclear deal freeze up the domestic reserves of India for it to divert in expanding its nuclear arsenals.
"What we are doing here is pouring fuel on fire. We are turning a blind eye to what is happening in South Asia," Markey argued.
During the course of his remarks, the Massachussetts politician said that Bush has done a far better job with Congress in negotiating the agreement than he has done so with India.
The arguments in favour of the legislation from Congressmen Hyde and Lantos found strong support from lawmakers across the aisle.
The Florida Republican and incoming Ranking Member, Ilena Ros Lehtien, argued that the Conference Report assembled by the Conferees of the House and the Senate achives a "difficult balance" between United States' relations with India and its non-proliferation activities.
Democratic Congressman, Dennis Kucinich, said the United States "cannot speak out of one side of its mouth and tell Iran and North Korea don't you dare go in that direction" toward building a nuclear weapons programme, and "on the other hand, give a blessing to that same kind of arrangement" with a friendly India.
An ardent supporter of India and former Co-Chair of the Congressional India Caucus, Gary Ackerman, said that the Conference Report transformed the relations between India and the United States.
"If you liked this Bill in January, then you will love this Conference Report," the New York Democrat said, adding that the report sent a clear message to the nuclear rogue states.
"Let them understand the message 'Be responsible. Be a good international actor. Be like India. Be a real democracy'," Ackerman said.
Barbara Lee, Democrat from California, opposed the Conference Report saying it leads to problems by way of doing lasting damage to more than 30 years of non-proliferation policies, brought about double standards, and set in dangerous precedents.
"There is no need to rush this Conference Report on the last day of the 109th Congress. We need to go back to the drawing board," she said.
Expressing strong support to the Conference Report and the legislation another strong supporter of India on Capitol Hill, Joseph Crowley, of New York argued that this legislation is ending India's isolation and bringing it in the non-proliferation tent.
Washington stopped nuclear cooperation with India after it conducted its first nucelar test in 1974.
The original House version of the Bill, passed in July, included Section (4)(d)(4) which, although non-binding, urged the President to lobby other nations against supplying nuclear fuel to India if the United States terminated its nuclear cooperation with India. New Delhi called this a "deal killer".
This section has been dropped from the final draft. Instead, a Sense of the Congress Section 102(13) says that the US should not seek to facilitate or encourage the continuation of nuclear exports to India by any other country if the deal is terminated under US law.
The revised bill also excludes parts of Section 107(3) of the original Senate draft that mandated a specific course of action for fallback safeguards and end-use monitoring.
Congressman Jos Wilson, a former Co-Chair of the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian Americans, hailed the solid show of support for the Bill in the House of Representatives.
The landmark legislation cleared the House with 194 Republicans and 136 Democrats joining in a bipartisan show of support to the Bill.
"I am pleased we have taken the last step toward solidifying a civil nuclear agreement with India. This Bill is vital to continuing a prosperous relationship between our countries and moving our non-proliferation efforts forward," Wilson said in a statement.
Unquote
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->It appears we have finally made it<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not so soon. Have you meet used car salesmen of US? They will give same feeling and relief what you are expressing after buying a car. <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<b>Scientists plan nuke meet</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->New Delhi, Dec. 9: The chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, Dr Anil Kakodkar, has called a meeting of nuclear scientists, retired and serving, for a final opinion on the US legislation on the civilian nuclear energy agreement with India.
Sources said that Dr Kakodkar, who had earlier expressed his strong reservations about the inclusion of Section 115 in the Senate bill, is very worried about the impact the final legislation will have on Indiaâs sovereignty over her own nuclear programme.
Former Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee is also holding an informal meeting of senior party leaders who have been monitoring the progress of this legislation and have taken positions in and outside Parliament on this. <b>The US administration has targeted the BJP leaders, inviting them to Washington for consultations and holding meetings with key MPs in New Delhi on the India-US civilian nuclear energy agreement, with sources pointing out that this strategy has succeeded in creating "some divisions" within the party. Mr Vajpayeeâs meeting will be crucial in determining the strategy of the BJP in Parliament.</b>
Several former nuclear scientists have already expressed their opposition to the US legislation and will be attending next Fridayâs meeting in Mumbai to consolidate opinion against it. A former chairman of the Nuclear Power Corporation, Dr A.N. Prasad, has criticised the legislation as cleared by the conference committee of the US Congress, pointing out that it demonstrates that "US interests lie between cooperation on the one hand and non-proliferation and capping of our strategic capability on the other". Dr P.K. Iyengar, former Atomic Energy Commission chairman, and Dr A. Gopalakrishnan, former chairman of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, have expressed similar views with the latter insisting that Parliament should refuse to allow the government to go ahead with the 123 Agreement or clearances from the Nuclear Suppliers group.
<b>"The deal must be dropped" is the demand that will become more strident in the coming days with Dr Gopalakrishnan drawing attention to the fact that for the Americans it is this legislation that is binding, regardless of what might or might not be included in the 123 Agreement with India. The scientists have pointed out that there is little room now for euphoria and more for caution as the US legislators had "meddled" with the language to try and fool the Indian strategic establishment into thinking that the basic concerns had been addressed whereas this had not been done.</b>
Section 115, which is now included as Section 109 in the final legislation, had invited strong criticism from Dr Kakodkar, who had made it clear that this has come as a major surprise. Section 115 proposes joint research by the US National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and Indian agencies in non-proliferation and nuclear safety. Dr Kakodkar had told reporters, "We do not want to get into any joint activity that will become intrusive on our programme." Sources said he is now extremely worried about the legislation and will be consulting the scientists next week in what is going to be an extremely important meeting.
<b>Former external affairs minister Yashwant Sinha has found the legislation objectionable. BJP MP Arun Shourie is expected to raise the issue in Parliament, but what has to be finally determined by the party is whether the opposition to the legislation will lead to a clear-cut demand that it be rejected by the government</b>. Fireworks are expected in Parliament and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is expected to put up a strong defence, along the lines of arguments placed in a section of the media over the past two days, to insist that the basic concerns have been adequately addressed and the little that might remain will be dealt with in the 123 Agreement. The <b>Left parties have still to meet to discuss the bill although there is tremendous pressure from their larger constituency to reject the bill forthwith</b>.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>UNITED NATIONS â The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously Saturday to impose economic sanctions on Iran for refusing to end a uranium enrichment program that the United States says is aimed at building nuclear weapons. Iran immediately rejected the resolution.</b>
The result of two months of negotiation, the resolution orders all countries to stop supplying Iran with materials and technology that could contribute to its nuclear and missile programs. It also would freeze Iranian assets of key companies and individuals related to those programs.
If Iran refuses to comply, the resolution warns Iran that the council will adopt further non-military sanctions.
The Iranian government immediately rejected the resolution, vowing in a statement from Tehran to continue enriching uranium and saying it "has not delegated its destiny to the invalid decisions of the U.N. Security Council."
The Bush administration said it hopes the resolution will clear the way for tougher measures by individual countries, particularly Russia.
"We don't think this resolution is enough in itself," Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said. "We want to let the Iranians know that there is a big cost to them," he added, so they will return to talks.
The administration had pushed for tougher penalties. But Russia and China, which both have strong commercial ties to Tehran, and Qatar, across the Persian Gulf from Iran, balked. To get their votes, the resolution dropped penalties such as a ban on international travel by Iranian officials involved in nuclear and missile development.
The U.N. vote came just a day after talks with North Korea, already under U.N. sanctions, failed to halt that country's atomic program.
Israel, which considers Iran its single greatest threat, welcomed the resolution. Mark Regev, a Foreign Ministry spokesman, said the vote was "an important first step in preventing Iranian nuclear proliferation."
Iran's U.N. Ambassador Javad Zarif denounced the council for imposing sanctions on Iran, which opposes nuclear weapons and has its facilities under U.N. safeguards, while doing nothing about Israel, whose prime minister recently appeared to confirm long suspicions that it is a nuclear power.
"A nation is being punished for exercising its inalienable rights" to develop nuclear energy, primarily at the behest of the United States, Zarif said.
Ahead of the vote, Russian President Vladimir Putin called President Bush, agreeing on the need for a resolution, said Blain Rethmeier, a spokesman for Bush.
"We hope the Russian government is going to work with us in a very active way to send this message of unity to Iran and we hope Russia is going to take a very vigorous approach itself," Burns said after the vote.
Russia's U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said Moscow agreed to sanctions because it wanted Iran "to lift remaining concerns over its nuclear program."
He stressed that the goal must be to resume talks. If Iran suspends enrichment and reprocessing, the resolution calls for a suspension of sanctions "which would pave the way for a negotiated solution," Churkin said.
Acting U.S. Ambassador Alejandro Wolff said he hopes the sanctions "will convince Iran that the best way to ensure security it to abandon" nuclear enrichment.
Iran insists its nuclear program is intended to produce energy, but the Americans and Europeans suspect its ultimate goal is the production of weapons.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reiterated Tuesday that Security Council sanctions would not stop Iran from pursuing uranium enrichment, a technology that can be used to produce nuclear fuel for civilian purposes or fuel for a nuclear bomb.
The resolution authorizes action under Article 41 of Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter. It allows the Security Council to impose non-military sanctions such as severing diplomatic and economic relations, transportation and communications links.
If Iran fails to comply, the draft says the council will adopt "further appropriate measures" under Article 41.
The resolution calls on all states "to exercise vigilance" regarding the entry or transit through their territory of those on a U.N. list that names 12 top Iranians involved in the country's nuclear and missile programs. It asks the 191 other U.N. member states to notify a Security Council committee that will be created to monitor sanctions when those Iranians show up in their country.
The resolution also says the council will review Iran's actions in light of a report from the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, requested within 60 days, on whether Iran has suspended uranium enrichment and complied with other IAEA demands.
If the IAEA â the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog â verifies that Iran has suspended enrichment and reprocessing, the resolution says the sanctions will be suspended to allow for negotiations. It says sanctions will end as soon as the IAEA board confirms that Iran has complied with all its obligations.
Before the final text was circulated, Churkin pressed for amendments to ensure that Moscow can conduct legitimate nuclear activities in Iran â a point Churkin stressed Saturday.
Russia is building Iran's first atomic power plant at Bushehr, which is expected to go on line in late 2007. A reference to Bushehr in the original draft was removed earlier â as Russia demanded.
The six key parties trying to curb Iran's nuclear program â Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China and the United States â offered Tehran a package of economic incentives and political rewards in June if it agreed to consider a long-term moratorium on enrichment and committed itself to a freeze on uranium enrichment before talks on its nuclear program.
That package remains an option, but with Iran refusing to comply with an Aug. 31 council deadline to stop enrichment, Britain and France circulated a draft sanctions resolution in late October, which has been revised several times since then.
To meet concerns of Russia and China that the original resolution was too broad, it was changed to specify in greater detail exactly what materials and technology would be prohibited from being supplied to Iran and to name those individuals and companies that would be affected.
<b>For over 2 hrs, scientists tried to persuade me to go in for nuclear test, I said no: Deve Gowda</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->âThe issue (going in for a follow-up to the 1974 Pokharan test) came up before me sometime at the end of January or early February of 1997. Certain leading scientists, officials (he mentioned no names) came to me and tried to persuade me for two and a half hours on going in for a nuclear test,â Deve Gowda told The Financial Express. âBut my answer was no,â he said.
<b>âThe primary reason not to conduct another nuclear test was not the fear of American sanctions but because I didnât want relations in the sub-continent to be spoilt. We wanted to improve our relations with our neighbours,â</b> Deve Gowda said.
<b>He added that by then, dates had been fixed for holding bilateral talks with Pakistan and he did not want anything to disrupt the process</b>.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What a moron he was? He messed up Army and delayed nuclear test. Now completly messed up Karnataka.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Indo-US N-deal risks collapse, says daily </b>
Pioneer.com
S Rajagopalan | Washington
The landmark Indo-US civil nuclear deal risks collapse because New Delhi's list of demands, including the right to continue nuclear testing, <span style='color:red'>undermine Washington's rationale for seeking the deal,</span> says USA Today.
Citing two unnamed senior officials of the Bush administration, the newspaper said, "India's demands could torpedo an agreement." The reference is to the "123 agreement" that is still being negotiated for implementation of the deal.
It also quotes Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, the US's chief negotiator of the deal, as acknowledging that three rounds of talks with India have produced little on the 123 pact. The talks are slated to resume later this month.
"I don't question India's goodwill. But there is a fair degree of frustration in Washington that the Indian Government has not engaged seriously enough or quickly enough with both the United States and the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency)," Burns commented.Â
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All along we were saying they want to shut down India's nuke programme.
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo--> Deccan Herald » National » Detailed Story 
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
