• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Nuclear Thread - 4
<b>Naresh Ji</b>,

chIna-s are being ruled by those with excellent common-sense of polity, whereas bhArata-s by either those morons totally bereft of any sense, or more likely those who are thieves, thugs, and foreign-spies.

For what chIna-s are doing, consider what kauTilya says in the sixth book of arthashAstra: "<b>a wise king shall observe that policy which, in kauTilya's opinion, enables him to build forts, to construct buildings and commercial roads, to open new plantations and villages, to exploit mines and timber and elephant forests, and at the same time to harass similar works of his enemy. However, If he thinks himself to be growing in power more rapidly both in quality and quantity than his enemy, he should neglect his enemy's progress for the time being (to further grow the gap in strength without attracting a conflict)</b>."

on a different minor matter:

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> Chinese Navy would not be able to “Blow Up” the Oil Tankers for the simple reason that it would cause a Humongous Maine Pollution wherein the Oil Slicks would most probably land on Iranian and Pakistani Shores.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I wouldn't put it past chIna-s. Persian gulf and adjoining arabian sea is anyways the worst abused sea from intentional oil spillage since the days of Iran-Iraq war upto gulf-war and beyond. And its marine ecology - whatever is left of it - wouldn't bother chIna-s a bit.
The latest from Washington
Time short for US-India nuclear deal

The Associated Press
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
WASHINGTON: A U.S.-Indian civil nuclear cooperation accord, one of President Bush's top foreign policy initiatives, may finally have run out of time this year despite a crucial international endorsement secured during the weekend.

With Congress expected to stop work for the year late this month, lawmakers would have to rush to push through the deal. Some in Congress, however, are vowing a careful review of U.S.-Indian nuclear negotiations. That could leave it in the hands of a new Congress and new president come January, and it is unclear whether the proposed agreement would remain a priority.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's spokesman said Monday that the State Department is working hard to get the deal approved, reaching out to the Democratic chairmen of the foreign affairs committees of the House and Senate, Rep. Howard Berman and Sen. Joe Biden.

Biden, the Democratic vice presidential nominee, has favored the accord, which would reverse three decades of U.S. policy by shipping atomic fuel to India in return for international inspections of India's civilian reactors. Berman, who supports nuclear cooperation, is cautioning the Bush administration that Congress will take seriously its duty to study the accord.

Congress must wait 30 working days after receiving the deal before it could be ratified. Lawmakers, who returned Monday from their August recess, are scheduled to leave in about three weeks to campaign for the presidential and congressional elections in November.

To overcome the dwindling time, the Bush administration needs a supportive lawmaker to introduce legislation that would set aside the 30-day requirement. Barring passage of such legislation, Congress does not appear to have enough days left to ratify the deal.

Berman said if the administration wants to speed congressional consideration, it must deal first with addressing problems some lawmakers have, such as what an Indian nuclear test would mean for the deal.

"The burden of proof is on the Bush administration," Berman said.

India has refused to sign nonproliferation agreements and has faced a nuclear trade ban since its first atomic test in 1974. But on Saturday, the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group of nations that supply nuclear material and technology agreed to lift the ban on civilian nuclear trade with India after contentious talks and some concessions to countries fearful it could set a dangerous precedent.

Berman said Congress will study carefully the decision by the nuclear suppliers group, "along with any agreements that were made behind the scenes to bring it about."

Last month, Berman warned that the Bush administration risks the collapse of the deal if it should fail to push the suppliers group to accept conditions that would punish India for testing nuclear weapons.

U.S. officials have said that selling peaceful nuclear technology to India would bring the country's atomic program under closer scrutiny. Critics say it would ruin global efforts to stop the spread of atomic weapons and boost India's nuclear arsenal.

Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., a critic of the deal, said "no one should assume congressional approval will be automatic."

He said U.S.-Indian nuclear negotiations must not clash with the Hyde Act, a 2006 law that provisionally approved nuclear trade with India.

A new Congress could take up the deal in early January, before Bush leaves office at the end of that month. Both presidential contenders, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain, have indicated support for the accord, but it is not clear that either would give it the same attention that Bush has.

India nuclear deal will help limit Iran, says US

By Daniel Dombey in Washington

Published: September 10 2008 03:00 | Last updated: September 10 2008 03:00

The Bush administration is pushing for congressional approval for a high-profile deal with India by arguing that the agreement will help to rein in Iran's nuclear programme and bolster the international non-proliferation system.

In an interview with the Financial Times, John Rood, the top arms control official at the state department, rejected criticism that the accord undermined efforts to crack down on the spread of nuclear weapons.

"India is a growing power: they are going to play a bigger and bigger role on the world stage," said Mr Rood, acting undersecretary of state for arms control. "So, if you are dealing with the challenge of, for example, Iran or Syria, it's far better to have the strong support of countries like India."

He was speaking after helping spearhead the US's successful effort to persuade more than 40 countries to permit nuclear trade with Delhi even though it has not signed the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. The decision to grant India a special exemption came at a Vienna meeting of the nuclears supplier group, an international rule-setting body, at the weekend.

As a result of that breakthrough, US congressional approval is now the last significant hurdle before the US-Indian civil nuclear deal can become law. But with only a few weeks before Congress breaks for elections, the Bush administration has little time to convince legislators.

The State Department said the administration was doing "everything we possibly can" to pass the agreement into law and that it planned to submit the package to Congress within the next 24 to 48 hours.

US officials believe that congressional approval will eventually come, if only after Mr Bush leaves office. One reason is that last weekend's decision opens the way for France or Russia to export nuclear goods to India, but without congressional backing US companies will be unable to do so.

"No one is trying to rush anyone," said Mr Rood. But he argued that "it would be reasonable to encourage Congress to act with due deliberation" if Mr Bush formally determined that the deal met criteria set by Congress, such as furthering non-proliferation efforts.

"India's move strengthens the international nonproliferation regime," Mr Rood said, citing Delhi's efforts to improve its export control system.

But several prominent legislators argue that what they depict as a sweetheart deal for India will undermine attempts to convince Iran and North Korea to scale down their nuclear programmes. Some have also complained that the nuclear suppliers group was unduly generous to India.

While the meeting in Vienna set no explicit conditions on nuclear testing, the guiding US legislation on US-Indian nuclear co-operation states that if India carries out a nuclear test its special treatment shall cease. Mr Bush has said he regards parts of that legislation as merely "advisory".

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008

<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Sep 10 2008, 08:43 AM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Sep 10 2008, 08:43 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Naresh Ji</b>,

chIna-s are being ruled by those with excellent common-sense of polity, whereas bhArata-s by either those morons totally bereft of any sense, or more likely those who are thieves, thugs, and foreign-spies.

For what chIna-s are doing, consider what kauTilya says in the sixth book of arthashAstra: "<b>a wise king shall observe that policy which, in kauTilya's opinion, enables him to build forts, to construct buildings and commercial roads, to open new plantations and villages, to exploit mines and timber and elephant forests, and at the same time to harass similar works of his enemy. However, If he thinks himself to be growing in power more rapidly both in quality and quantity than his enemy, he should neglect his enemy's progress for the time being (to further grow the gap in strength without attracting a conflict)</b>."

<b>Bodhi Ji :</b>

<b>Please note that a Nation and its people get the Government they Deserve.</b>

Politics being the last resort of a Scoundrel I have even lost faith in the BJP when Advani last visited his part of the Family in Karachi which had converted to Islam - I think the family takes the name of Daudpota. To kiss the Pakistani Authorities’ rear Advani declared Jinnah to be Secular. This is beyond the comprehension of an ordinary Indian when in 1940 at the Aligarh Muslim University Jinnah declared to the effect : Democracy does not mean that a Muslim Minority has to live under the Rule of a non-Muslim Majority.

Thus rather than scream about the Morons and Incompetents Ruling India it would be better to do something concrete and take a Leadership post in India and Improve India as you think best.

<b>Screaming and using Derogatory Language for your Country’s Leaders is a sure sign of lack of any spine as those who can Do those who cant Preach and Pontificate.</b>

<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Sep 10 2008, 08:43 AM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Sep 10 2008, 08:43 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->on a different minor matter:

I wouldn't put it past chIna-s.  Persian gulf and adjoining arabian sea is anyways the worst abused sea from intentional oil spillage since the days of Iran-Iraq war upto gulf-war and beyond. And its marine ecology - whatever is left of it - wouldn't bother chIna-s a bit.

Yes indeed to the Chinese it wouldn’t matter, but, to the Iranians and Pakistanis as well as the Omanis and the other States in the Persian Gulf it would as Marine Pollution caused by Oil would destroy all Maine Life especially the Fish and other forms of Sea Life.

Today even the most minute forms of Marine Pollution lead to Heavy and Punitive Fines and as such you can take it from me that Chinese “Blowing Up” Oil Tankers is a Figment of someone’s Fertile Imagination.

With the Major Sections of the US Seventh(?) Fleet’s Components being stationed in the Gulf of Oman and the Persian Gulf China can only issue Verbal Diarrhoea into the wind.

So take it from me there is no danger of “Chinese” Naval Actions in respect of Oil Tankers as well as LNG Carriers carrying their cargoes from the Persian Gulf to wherever.

<b>You can take that to the Bank.</b>

Cheers <!--emo&:beer--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cheers.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='cheers.gif' /><!--endemo-->
The Hindu Reports

India has sovereign right to conduct nuclear tests: Mulford
New Delhi (PTI): India has the sovereign right to conduct nuclear test and that issue was never debated, the United States said on Wednesday.

"If you ask me can India conduct (nuclear) test, my answer is India has had and will always have the sovereign right to conduct a test. That has never been debated," US Ambassador to India David C Mulford told Karan Thapar on 'India Tonight' programme of CNBC-TV18.

India has got a "clean" waiver from the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) to participate in global nuclear trade, he said.

He said it was not a "correct interpretation" to say that there would be a periodic review of the NSG waiver.

"But it is very important and understandable that a group like this (NSG), when an exceptional decision is being made, then there will be a continuation of exchange of views between parties," Mulford said.

Asked whether India has given a commitment not to conduct tests, the Ambassador said "it does not have to."

On the time-table for wrapping up the Indo-US nuclear deal, he said the 123 agreement will be placed before the US Congress for final nod "today, tomorrow (or in a) few hours" as it was "virtually ready" to be put up before it.

However, Mulford said the US Congress does business according to its own timetable. "The administration is in touch with senior Congressmen," he added.

Noting that there are reasons to be "hopeful" about getting a clearance from the Congress soon, the US diplomat said many US lawmakers would like to see that the agreement is cleared during the time of Bush administration itself.

An interesting article from Economist London

Quantum politics
Sep 11th 2008 | DELHI
From The Economist print edition

Celebrating a diplomatic triumph

AT THE atomic level, the laws of classical physics bend in intriguing ways. On September 6th, the world’s nuclear rules proved equally pliable. The Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), a 45-nation cartel that limits trade in nuclear materials and technology, passed a “waiver”, allowing it to do business with India (see article). Only five other countries (America, Britain, China, France and Russia) both enjoy the privileges of nuclear commerce and have nuclear weapons. And unlike India, those other five have all signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty (although America and China have yet to ratify the latter).

The deal is still to be approved by America’s Congress. But the waiver will allow India to import uranium for its nuclear reactors, which will need roughly double the uranium its own mines can supply. This in turn will enable India to devote more of its domestic uranium to weapons-building. In addition, the deal should eventually let India buy “dual-use” technology, of use in the nuclear industry and beyond.

For India, this is all welcome. But what most impressed the country’s commentators is the deal’s symbolism, not its utility. The world’s nuclear club bent its rules to accommodate India. Much as this irks foreign critics of the deal, it delights many Indians, who see it as confirmation of the country’s new status in the world.

“If the Beijing Olympics was China’s coming-out party, the NSG waiver was India’s,” wrote the Times of India, the country’s best-selling English-language newspaper. America brought its diplomatic muscle to bear on India’s behalf, elbowing aside the “nuclear nobodies”, such as Austria, New Zealand and Ireland and a score of others who objected to the deal, and even overcoming China’s last-minute quibbles. This diplomatic coup was all the more notable because India is the reason the cartel exists. It was formed to prevent a repeat of India’s 1974 nuclear test, which exploited the civilian nuclear help India received under America’s “Atoms for Peace” initiative. This was, the Times said, a “delicious irony”. Tastier still was the distance the deal puts between India and its rival Pakistan. The deal has “de-hyphenated” the Indo-Pakistan nuclear conundrum, the newspaper said.

Amid the trumpets, some grace-notes of nostalgia could also be heard. For the past 50 years, India has harboured dreams of nuclear self-sufficiency. Short of uranium, it possesses about a third of the world’s known deposits of thorium, which can be turned into nuclear fuel if irradiated. In theory, according to Charles Ferguson of America’s Council on Foreign Relations, these deposits could yield 155,502 gigawatt-years of electrical energy, more than 14 times the wattage India could extract from its coal deposits.

Unfortunately, the dream remains distant. Before it can exploit its thorium, to name only one obstacle, India must first breed plutonium at a viable cost and scale. John Stephenson and Peter Tynan of Dalberg, an American consultancy, do not expect much from thorium before 2050 at best. In the meantime, India hopes its new licence to import uranium will allow it to quintuple its nuclear-generated electricity by 2020. But even that will meet only 5% of its projected demand, according to Mr Ferguson. India cannot fulfil its nuclear aspirations without foreign help, and its nuclear plans, even if realised, can meet only a fraction of its vast energy needs. Some constraints, sadly, do not yield to either diplomatic or atomic power.

<b>US can stop N-cooperation if India tests: Mulford</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The United States on Thursday said that if India conducts a nuclear test, Washington could stop civil nuclear co-operation with New Delhi [Images] but that can happen only after discussions are held to determine the justification for the test.

US Ambassador to India David Mulford said India as a sovereign nation can and will always have the right to go for a nuclear test. But if India does so, under US laws there could then be a cessation of civil nuclear relationship.

"There is a Hyde Act requirement. But in the 123 agreement, which was negotiated to effect that into reality, there is a set of procedures laid down. This involves first of all the president determining that we should enter into a dialogue to discuss why tests were conducted," said Mulford
Looks like Mulford ahs read the Mahabahrat vry well. He makes partial statements and completes them the next day or week. He was saying only yesterday that India has the right to conduct tests now today he says US will impose sanctions. Very Yudhistiresque.
Mulford must have worked in used car dealership. I am still waiting for bill, currently COngress is very busy in Paris Hilton energy bill.
<b>U.S. delivers 123 blow to India</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Siddharth Varadarajan
Fuel assurances not binding, says Bush
New Delhi: The United States has diluted the fuel supply assurances contained in the ‘123 agreement’ on nuclear cooperation with India, with President George W. Bush formally declaring, in his September 10 message to Congress, that all American commitments to the Indian side in this regard were not “legally binding.”

As part of the process of completing the U.S.-India civil nuclear cooperation initiative, Mr. Bush forwarded the text of the 123 agreement to Congress with a covering note and a separate memorandum containing seven ‘determinations’ that India had conformed to the non-proliferation commitments it had made in July 2005.

But the covering note had a sting in the tail on the question of fuel assurances, which India sees as an essential component of the interlocking set of commitments and obligations both sides have undertaken since 2005.

“In Article 5(6) the Agreement records certain political commitments concerning reliable supply of nuclear fuel given to India,” President Bush’s statement says. “[The] Agreement does not, however, transform these political commitments into legally binding commitments because the Agreement, like other U.S. agreements of its type, is intended as a framework agreement.”

This formulation, say Indian officials, is completely at odds with the understanding India has that the assurances are indeed meant to be legally binding. “After all, India has committed itself to binding commitments like safeguards,” said an official. Officials also reject the notion that the Indian 123 could be treated “like other U.S. agreements of its type” since fuel supply assurances figure only in the Indian agreement. And the need for legally binding fuel assurances arose because India — which is not obliged to place all its reactors under safeguards or withdraw them once placed, unlike other countries with which the U.S. has signed agreements — was voluntarily accepting IAEA supervision.

<!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo--> "And I hope that work can be done so that we can take it up. It does have support in the House," she added. The Congress, which opened Sept 8, will be in session till Sept 26. It is therefore being asked by Administration to do away with the mandatory 30-day period before it can take up the Agreement for a simple yes-no vote without a debate.

Pelosi, however, also stressed on the importance of principles contained in the Hyde legislation, so that "what we do in India... does not send a message that it's OK to proceed to a more nuclear state". Terming nonproliferation as a pillar of American foreign policy, the powerful lawmaker said the civilian nuclear deal between the two countries should not become a "precedent for saying many more countries will join the club".

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> <b>Won't sell sensitive technology to India </b>
S Rajagopalan | Washington
<b>NSG nations agreed secretly
Plan to 'tighten up' rules further</b>
For all the hoopla about the Nuclear Suppliers Group's waiver to India, the 45-nation body has "privately agreed" that "none of its members plans to sell sensitive technologies to India", the Washington Post reported on Friday.

Citing a senior US official, it said that during NSG discussions last weekend on how to handle enrichment and reprocessing, it was made clear that nobody had any plans to transfer such technologies to India in the foreseeable future.

While such statements may not be binding, the official spoke of the plans of NSG nations to "tighten up" the rules on such sales in the near future, thereby "allowing them to achieve the same restrictions on India later without causing a diplomatic rupture now".

It was this understanding that helped persuade several skeptical member-states to finally fall in line and support the waiver to India, the report said, adding that the NSG is "nearing consensus on a total ban on sensitive sales to countries like India that have not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty".

The NSG's purported private agreement would appear to be in tandem with the US's own position, set out in clear terms in President George W. Bush's communication on Wednesday to US Congress on the 123 agreement.

"Sensitive nuclear technology, heavy-water production technology and production facilities, sensitive nuclear facilities, and major critical components of such facilities may not be transferred under the Agreement, unless the Agreement is amended," Bush said in the communication.

The US official's disclosure has come amid India's worries on another critical aspect set out in Bush's submission to Congress: That the fuel supply assurances under the India-US deal are "not legally binding".

Said Bush in his communication: "In Article 5(6) the Agreement records certain political commitments concerning reliable supply of nuclear fuel given to India Agreement does not, however, transform these political commitments into legally binding commitments because the Agreement, like other US agreements of its type, is intended as a framework agreement."

While Bush's categorical assertion may have discomfited New Delhi, some observers believe this pronouncement as well as the official's talk of NSG's "private agreement" may actually help the administration win over naysayers in Congress and pave the way for the deal's final approval this month.

The Bush Administration has let it be known that it is racing to secure the ratification of the deal before Congress adjourns. In a measure of its confidence on this score, the administration has already announced that Bush will receive Prime Minister Manmohan Singh at the White House on September 25.

A word of cheer for them has since come with Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Joe Biden announcing that his panel will hold a hearing "as soon as next week". Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has already promised to find a way to push the deal forward.

On the House side, a mixed message emerged on the prospects of the deal's passage this month. While Speaker Nancy Pelosi expressed the hope that "work can be done" to bring it to a vote, House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Howard Berman said he "wants to study" the various documents submitted by the White House.

Pelosi also stressed that the final package on the deal, submitted by the administration, must "honour the principles of" the enabling legislation passed in December 2006, namely the Hyde Act. The administration has said the package does meet the Hyde Act terms.

"We have presented a very strong package fully consistent with the requirements that Congress set out," Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher said at a meeting organised by the US India Business Alliance on Capitol Hill.

Boucher said while the Congressional calendar is tight, the administration was hopeful that the legislation can be passed before Congress adjourns for the year.

"The president has notified Congress as required under the Hyde Act of 2006 that India has harmonised and has adhered to in accordance with the procedures of those regimes for unilateral adherence," the State Department said.

As for India's adherence to guidelines of NSG and the Missile Technology Control Regime, the department cited External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee's September 5 statement in which he reinforced India's commitments made in the July 2005 joint statement of Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

"We also understand that India has sent letters to the International Atomic Energy Agency director general and to the MTCR point of contact in Paris stating that it has adhered to the NSG and MTCR. We welcome these steps," the State Department said.
- See edit: A deceitful deal: Elaborate charade to trick India
Shame of India, Manmohan Singh ko jawab nahi.
Gandul, Romania

Iran: No, India: Yes

By Eliza Francu

Translated By Sonia Mladin

10 September 2008

Romania - Gandul - Original Article (Romanian)

Washington has found two very different solutions for the very similar nuclear aspirations of India and Iran. If the answer for Iran was "no" from the beginning, India is being helped every step of the way. It is only the U.S. Congress that now stands between India’s nuclear ambitions and American leader George Bush’s desire to see this chapter closed before he leaves the White House. Seeing as how even a Congress whose majority is democratic cannot risk losing a huge open market like India, the principle of "sole exception" will win once again.

Just as in the case of Kosovo, which became independent under pressure from the U.S., India is being supported, no matter the consequences, in order for it to secure modern nuclear technology. And if Kosovo’s reward to the U.S. was a statue of Bill Clinton in Pristina, India will be much more generous. It will open its vast market to American interests, allowing U.S. companies to sign deals that are worth billions of dollars. This is why, after India’s nuclear plans had been stalled for 34 years through an embargo, in his last moments of power, George W. Bush blackmailed the international community and U.S. Congress to accept the exchange.

The road is clear now for India after the 45 countries that export nuclear technology agreed - on the demand of the U.S - to sell their technology to a state that hadn’t even signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. They did, however, get in return from India a "promise" that it will not conduct military nuclear experiments (which is exactly the reason why the great powers imposed the embargo three decades ago). China agreed, Russia did too (it is most likely that India will buy nuclear fuel from Russia), and so did France (and now it finds a new set of buyers for the Areva Company’s products).

India says it doesn’t need nuclear technology to fuel its expanding economy, but still it refuses to sign the aforementioned treaty, which means that in the future it can escape any control from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and go back to conducting military nuclear experiments. More precisely, with blessings from the U.S. and the entire West, it can do everything that Iran has been denied. And even if it looks like a worthwhile effort for all of the parties involved, the long term consequences could be far worse than those set off by Kosovo.

Not only is India a democracy in the earliest stages of infancy, it also has problems on the border with Pakistan, and in the region of Kashmir; problems that have turned into military issues more than once. A possible nuclear arming of India would set off unprecedented tensions in the region: Pakistan will try to develop its own military capacities in order to protect Kashmir, whilst China will think the U.S., by helping arm India, is trying to hold back its ambitions.
Bush Administration reaches out to Indian Americans</b>

Washington (PTI): As it reaches out to the Indian American community leaders given their lobbying prowess, the Bush Administration is understood to have assured them that the recent Presidential submission on the 123 Agreement to the Congress had nothing that contravened what India and the US had agreed under the nuclear deal.

The administration is leaving no stone unturned as it races against time to have the US-India civilian nuclear agreement completed by the Congressional adjournment date of September 26 even if indications are there that the lawmakers may return for a Lame-Duck Session after the November 4 presidential elections.

It is learnt that the administration has stepped up efforts in getting the measure approved before Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's visit here on September 25 during which he will meet President George W Bush at the White House.

The White House has opened yet another channel in its lobbying efforts -- the Indian American community leaders who played a vital role in the passage of the Hyde Act in 2006 in the 109th Congress.

It is learnt that the administration reached out to a small group of powerful members of the Indian American community through a conference call, the primary objective of which was apparently to explain the significance of the Presidential submission to Congress and has assured them that there is nothing that contravenes what India and the US have agreed upon by way of the 123 Agreement.

Between The Lines
A victory of sorts</b>
Kuldip Nayar writes from New Delhi

IF one was not opposed to the nuclear device on the point of principle, as I am, one would applaud India for having forced its way through the 34-year-old nuclear isolation. From being a nuclear pariah, it has become a nuclear power, an official member of the exclusive club.

In other words, New Delhi can get nuclear technology, reactors, and fuel from anywhere in the world. The 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) has not only lifted the ban but has also allowed India to retain nuclear weapons without signing the non-proliferation treaty -- a right granted only to a five-member club, the US, the UK, Russia, France, and China.

Yet it has been a victory of sorts. But for Washington's full support all the way, New Delhi could not have obtained the waiver to test. Unfortunately, India's enunciations were not trusted but Uncle Sam's word was. This makes still clearer that America holds the key. In fact, Washington is the founder of the NSG.

However, the manner in which India went about getting the waiver made one feel small. Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee went on issuing one clarification after another and Indian top officials talking to the NSG members till early hours for three days at Vienna, assuring them India's old declaration of "no first use" amounted to the guarantee required.

New Delhi did not have to do all this. It amounted to cringing before even a chit of a country like New Zealand, China's pawn. India should have stood its ground and told the NSG that the unblemished record of non-proliferation was there for all to see. India's izzat (respect) was hawked when the draft was revised and re-revised half a dozen times to "accommodate" a petty member's petty objection. On the other hand, the big ones did not want a hick to sit at the same table.

The waiver was reworded to say: "In the event that one or more Participating Governments (PGs) consider that circumstances have arisen which require consultations, (PGs) will meet, and then act" to see whether the NSG guidelines had been followed. This change was made at the urging of the club members, which did not want to acknowledge India as a "partner" of the NSG.

It is not yet known what quid pro quo for the US support is. India's statement after getting the waiver was that it would wait till the US Congress ratified the Indo-US nuclear deal so that Washington was there in the field when the orders for reactors were placed.

It is strange that New Delhi should emphasise the immediate production of nuclear energy and, at the same time, Mukherjee should be assuring US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that India would wait till the US Congress cleared the deal. Suppose there is a delay, what happens to the reported offer by Russia to supply four reactors with 1000 KW capacity each even tomorrow?

In fact, America has made its position clear in a letter leaked by Howard L. Berman, chairman of House Foreign Affairs Committee. The deal would not mean transfer of any sensitive technology to India or uninterrupted fuel supply -- a contradiction of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's assurances to parliament which could encourage the NSG countries. The letter also states: "The US government will not assist India in the design, construction or operation of sensitive nuclear technologies." By insisting that the letter contains "nothing new," New Delhi has implied that it concurs with the damaging US interpretations.

Australia's post-waiver statement that it will not supply fuel to India indicates that America has many arrows in its quiver. If it is annoyed in any way with India, not necessarily over the nuclear deal, all facilities would come to an end. In fact, Washington's eyes are fixed on the strategic alliance with New Delhi. America's ambassador to India, David Mulford, has said even before the approval of the waiver that India and the US had already come close to each other in many strategic fields. Defence Minister A.K. Anthony's visit to America, timed after the waiver, is more than a visit. This is ominous because it tells upon India's non-alignment and the faith of many nations in New Delhi's independent policy.

China's second thoughts were a surprise because it had assured Manmohan Singh during his visit to Beijing that it had no objection to India getting the waiver. It was President Bush who rang up the Chinese president to withdraw the objection. America is not doing all this for selling reactors because after the NSG clearance India can purchase from any country it wishes. The reactors offered by Russia or France may prove to be better than the 10-year-old reactors which American businessmen have in their basement.

True, America wants to use India to counter China. But if Beijing continues to play a double game as it did at Vienna, New Delhi, by dint of circumstances, would be pushed to America's side. What does the refrain of Hindi-Chini-Bhai-Bhai mean when Beijing strikes against New Delhi whenever an opportunity arises?

It was natural for Beijing to encourage Islamabad to have a parallel treaty like the Indo-US deal. Therefore, President Asif Ali Zardari's statement that he is visiting China to have a nuclear deal does not come as a surprise. What one wishes is that New Delhi and Islamabad should be talking to each other on such and other problems because the two are natural allies.

The negotiations at Vienna should make India clear that China can never be a friend, much less an ally. Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru warned the country through a letter he wrote to chief ministers after China's attack on India in 1962: "We do not desire to dominate any country, and we are content to live peacefully with other countries provided they do not interfere with us or commit aggression. China, on the other hand, clearly did not like the idea of such peaceful existence and wants to have a dominating position in Asia. We do not want communism to come here and yet the essential conflict is more political and geographical than that of communism, although communism is an important factor in the background."

The BJP's criticism that the Manmohan Singh government has given a secret understanding not to hold the test at any time is not convincing. As former President Abdul Kalam has said, India will not honour any commitment if it goes against national interest. Presuming there is some understanding, I cannot imagine any government honouring any commitment if testing is required for the country's security. Not to be the first user, a welcome unilateral statement, was made by Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee after exploding the device. New Delhi should stick to it in letter and spirit.

<b>India Min: Now A Big World Player Thanks To Nuclear Agreement</b>
Dow Jones
September 15, 2008: 12:08 AM EST

DELHI (AFP)--The decision by nuclear supplier nations to end a decades-old ban on civilian nuclear trade with India has vaulted it into the ranks of the world's major global political powers, a key minister says.

The U.S. finally won approval in Vienna for the one-off waiver for India to take part in civilian atomic trade 10 days ago, a vital step to final approval by the U.S. Congress of a nuclear pact between the two countries.

The decision marked "India's arrival on the scene as a pre-eminent country in terms of technological, economic and strategic importance in a globalized world, " Minister of State for Industry and Commerce Ashwani Kumar told AFP in an interview.

The move by the Nuclear Suppliers' Group helps position "India strategically at the high table of global politics," Kumar added.

As for global nuclear energy companies, the decision opens the door to an atomic reactor market worth tens of billions of dollars.

A host of companies - from France's state-controlled Areva, Westinghouse Electric Co. and General Electric of the U.S. to Russia's atomic energy agency Rosatom - have been jockeying for a slice of India's lucrative civilian nuclear technology market.

India and France, linked since 1998 by a "strategic partnership," could sign a major nuclear trade pact at the end of this month but only once the landmark India-U.S. nuclear deal has been ratified by Congress, Kumar said.

The U.S. Congress said Thursday it would examine the 2005 agreement with India sent for approval by the White House.

Democratic vice-presidential candidate Joseph Biden, who heads the Senate foreign relations committee, said the panel "will act promptly to review the agreement in a hearing," possibly as soon as this week.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is expected to hold bilateral talks with French officials in Paris Sept. 29.

According to Kumar, the nuclear agreement has already been drawn up and the documents are ready for signatures.

"When it comes to bilateral agreement, I see no difficulty," he said.

"We hope it should be possible by the end of this month."

The details of the accord are believed to have been finalized in January when French President Nicolas Sarkozy visited India.

Kumar highlighted the potential for "large-scale" cooperation with France in the field of nuclear civilian energy and said French companies such as Areva were already in touch with Indian partners.

"Areva is in serious negotiations," the minister said.

India, where many areas endure regular blackouts, has been denied access to civilian nuclear technology since it tested an atomic weapon in 1974 and refused to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Kumar said the NSG waiver would benefit energy-hungry India as it seeks ways to broaden its fuel sources to feed its fast-growing economy and meet the challenges of global warming.

"This agreement will certainly further reinforce India's technological abilities and will tell the world it has unlimited possibilities to offer for a mutually beneficial economic partnership," he said.

"As a country of 1.1 billion people with an (annual average) growth rate of 8.5% there is no way its economic potential can be missed by any country," Kumar added.

Click here to go to Dow Jones NewsPlus, a web front page of today's most important business and market news, analysis and commentary: http:// www.djnewsplus.com/al?rnd=O1rkxyt00PT35iRvpuBpwQ%3D%3D. You can use this link on the day this article is published and the following day.

(END) Dow Jones Newswires
09-15-08 0008ET
Copyright © 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

Top of page
Good interview

US aims to make us strategically subservient: Shourie

from the above interview, Arun Shourie to Devil:

"You are just completely fabricating things which are not there in the guidelines at all. Where is this bit about unlimited supplies in the NSG guidelines?"

"You are completely lying through your teeth to your viewers."

"Karan this is your technique; you slip in your words and mislead the viewers. "

"Are you the only one who understands the middle class? Don’t we know about the middle class? It will have consequences for the next three decades and we believe that it does subordinate India in a strategic relationship which is just a first step."
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>'Friendly' nations fuel doubts over N-supply </b>
Shobori Ganguli | New Delhi
US has already washed hands of promise
<b>With the US having reneged on its promise of uninterrupted nuclear fuel supply to India in the event of any rupture in American supplies, it now remains to be seen whether "friendly countries" like France and Russia -- mentioned as alternative suppliers in the India-US 123 Agreement -- are able to go a step further than the US.  </b>

Conveying its "commitment to the reliable supply of fuel to India", the US states clearly in the 123 Agreement that if "a disruption of fuel supplies to India occurs, the United States and India would jointly convene a group of friendly supplier countries such as Russia, France and the United Kingdom to pursue such measures as would restore fuel supply to India".

<b>However, President George Bush in his letter to the US Congress has now made it clear that the US views this bilateral agreement as no more than "certain political commitments concerning reliable supply of nuclear fuel given to India", that it does not "transform these political commitments into legally binding commitments".</b>

This is the backdrop against which Prime Minister Manmohan Singh would be in Paris on September 30 on his way back from the US, a visit during which the India-French nuclear deal may be inked, subject of course to the passage of the deal in the US Congress.

Not surprisingly, the NSG waiver has got the French very enthusiastic about conducting nuclear business with India. French Ambassador to India Jerome Bonnafont says France particularly welcomes the NSG waiver since it was a crucial voice behind the long-drawn process that was first initiated in 1998 to make way for India's entry into the nuclear market. He feels that though India is not a signatory to the NPT, this "special mechanism" would now allow civilian nuclear cooperation "so that India's energy needs are better secured in keeping with global energy security norms".

To that end, the envoy said France had been in close touch with the dissenters at the NSG, "actively telling partners why this exemption was required", that the exemption decision was a "wise one" and that it respects the needs for non-proliferation, India's sovereignty and global nuclear cooperation.

The nuclear deal, which was initialed during President Nicolas Sarkozy's visit to India this January, is "technically complete", said Bonnafont, adding that only the signatures are now awaited. Unlike the US, in France there is no domestic process involved in finalising the deal, which would come up for detailed discussion during Singh's visit.

However, while countries like Russia are also eager to strike similar deals with India, western diplomats are not too sure that these "friendly countries" can isolate the fuel supply issue from any future decision by India to detonate a nuclear device.

<b>India's own commitment to "unilateral moratorium" at the NSG this month is now being dangled precariously in front of it by NSG members, clearly indicating that nuclear business with India would be strictly governed by the non-proliferation norms of the NPT. As a diplomat put it, "The logic of the system is that whenever you provide a plant, you ensure that the plant remains functional... you provide fuel for it." However, "it is difficult to say you will have the fuel under all the circumstances", he said.</b>

Admittedly, India would be given fuel assurances in consistence with the rules of the IAEA and NPT norms. Members of the NSG have made it clear that although India is not a signatory to the NPT, its independence to test in the future would certainly violate the spirit of the NPT which, although not a "universal" pact, is pretty much "widespread".

<b>America's rigid position on India testing in the future has duly cautioned other world capitals as well where careful noises -- like "in a multilateral system everyone has to be taken on board" -- are already audible. While most countries, including the US, have said they would thoroughly review the "context" and "circumstances" under which India does indeed test, if at all, most warn of "consequences" that would follow such an act</b>
The Hindu reports
India expects assured fuel supply from US: Srinivasan
Mumbai (PTI): India expects assured fuel supply for all its imported reactors from the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) including the US, although it has a choice of getting it separately from any of the suppliers after the waiver, a top nuclear power expert said on wednesday.

"We are sure of fuel (uranium) supply from Russia and France for the reactors to be supplied by them, and we expect similar assurances from the US, once the 123 agreement is operationalised," M R Srinivasan, Member Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) said at the 21st anniversary of the NPCIL formation day on wednesday.

The NSG approved waiver to India early this month.

"We expect the assurances on fuel supply from the potential US reactor vendors as per the 123 Agreement (a bilateral agreement between India and US) before they enter into a contract with Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL), Srinivasan, also a former Chairman of AEC, said.

"We also expect freedom to use fuel from other nuclear vendors and a commitment on the option," he added.

"It is upto the US to resolve its internal legal and political obligations, but India should be assured of continuous fuel supply."

India has now the choice to get fuel from any of the suppliers to use in any reactor which are under IAEA safeguards, he said.

"We want US to make it clear about the continuous supply of fuel as the Congressional voting is fast approaching," he said.

Addressing the (NPCIL) staff, Srinivasan said in the last 21 years, the Corporation has come a long way inspite of technology control regime and sanctions.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)