MyBB Internal: One or more warnings occurred. Please contact your administrator for assistance.
MyBB Internal: One or more warnings occurred. Please contact your administrator for assistance.
MyBB Internal: One or more warnings occurred. Please contact your administrator for assistance.
MyBB Internal: One or more warnings occurred. Please contact your administrator for assistance.
MyBB Internal: One or more warnings occurred. Please contact your administrator for assistance.
MyBB Internal: One or more warnings occurred. Please contact your administrator for assistance.
MyBB Internal: One or more warnings occurred. Please contact your administrator for assistance.
MyBB Internal: One or more warnings occurred. Please contact your administrator for assistance.
MyBB Internal: One or more warnings occurred. Please contact your administrator for assistance.
MyBB Internal: One or more warnings occurred. Please contact your administrator for assistance.
MyBB Internal: One or more warnings occurred. Please contact your administrator for assistance.
Nuclear Thread - 3

  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Nuclear Thread - 3
There is life beyond N-deal: US tells India
Thursday, June 26, 2008 11:05 [IST]

Washington: Leading US lawmakers and experts alike have expressed strong support for moving the stalled India-US civil nuclear deal forward, but all agree its collapse would not jeopardise the growing relationship in other areas.

"I strongly support the 123 agreement and I look forward to the Government of India completing its internal processes so that the US Congress can give final approval to this historic deal," said Gary L Ackerman, Democratic chairman of a House panel on Wednesday.

"However, there was much more to the July 2005 joint statement than civil nuclear cooperation and there is much more to US-India relations than just the 123 agreement," he said at hearing of the panel on 'More than just the 123 Agreement: The Future of US-India Relations'.

Describing the case for civil nuclear cooperation between the US and India as "clear and compelling," Ackerman said Republican President George Bush had come in for much criticism for his policies but "if there is one area ... where President Bush got the policy right, it is towards India."

Noting that it was former Democratic President Bill Clinton who had "moved from ostracising India after the 1998 nuclear tests to embracing India as an emerging global power," he said it underscored "the bipartisan recognition of India's importance in the 21st century".

"There has been tremendous progress in US-India relations over the last decade and particularly over the last three years," Ackerman said. "There is every opportunity and very good reasons to advance relations even further, and future generations will consider us fools if we squander them."

Senior Republican member Joe Wilson agreed. Hoping that the political difficulties that have stalled movement on the civil nuclear agreement can be overcome, he said, "The United States and India need to continue to be fair and willing partners on economic, energy, and national security issues."

Noting that "No relationship between any two nations will be without disagreements or competing interests at times," Wilson said, "It is vital that the US "continue to seek a fair and mutually respectful partnership with the people of India as evidenced by the tremendous progress in the last three years."

Stephen P Cohen, a South Asia expert at Brookings Institution, said as there was only a slim chance of the nuclear deal coming through in the face of communist opposition, the next US administration must see it through.

"When the political situation in India finally proves favourable to the deal 's consummation - be it this year, next year or the year after that - the next US president and Congress should expedite consummation," he said.

"While it will be imprudent to renegotiate the entire agreement, I do see the possibility of concessions on both sides that make the agreement more attractive," Cohen said.

He also suggested, "US should also translate the India agreement into a criteria-based format, potentially allowing Pakistan and even Israel to enter into a similar arrangement.

Completing the nuclear deal will facilitate addressing other matters that are potentially more deserving of attention, Cohen said suggesting cooperation in education, particularly higher education; agriculture and the looming environmental crisis in South Asia.

Describing the nuclear deal as "the most powerful tool the US and India have for putting our partnership on a strong footing," another expert Teresita C Schaffer.

Schaffer said, "common interests of the two countries will push us together regardless of the fate of the nuclear agreement" "India was the missing piece in a US Asia strategy for the 21stCentury. That piece is now being put in place," said Schaffer, Director, South Asia Programme, Centre for Strategic and International Studies.

"The next administration will inherit a lot of useful activities," She said. What it "needs to do is to strengthen the strategic context for all this activity, by focusing both governments on our common strategic interests and defining the areas where the United States and India can act in common."

Dr Walter K Andersen, Associate Director South Asia Studies, Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies said, "The relationship with India has advanced to the point that a collapse of the deal would not jeopardise the relationship and not stall moves to advance it in other areas."

"India is too large, too prosperous, and too strategically located for this to happen. Nonetheless, the lack of Indian action would likely make a future American administration cautious about expending political capital for something comparably innovative and far reaching as the proposed nuclear deal," he said.

Source : IANS

Indo-US nuclear deal <b>
Left to decide on modalities of withdrawing support</b>

Friday, 04 July , 2008, 09:40

New Delhi: The Left parties will meet here on Friday to decide on the modalities of withdrawing support from the UPA government even as the Third Front i.e. UNPA, led by the Samajwadi Party asserted its unity on Thursday after a crucial meeting.

Though the UNPA said that it was yet to decide whether to give support to the UPA or not, in political circles it is assumed that the SP leaders Mulayam Singh Yadav and Amar Singh would succeed in persuading other UNPA constituents, including the INLD, TDP, etc. in extending their support to the Congress-led UPA.

Special: Indo-US nuclear deal | Full coverage

Ahead of Friday’s meeting, the CPI leaders said that the Left parties would decide the modalities for further course of action on the issue of withdrawing support to the government.

Meanwhile, the UNPA leaders wanted a national debate on the nuclear issue. INLD chief Om Prakash Chautala on Thursday said: “On Indo-US civil nuclear deal many things have been said but our stand from day one has been same. For us, it's a matter of national concern, but Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh said that it's a matter of the cabinet. But people of the country are suspicious about the deal, as they fear it might compel them to live under the US domination. The government should explain the deal to the people. It should be made a matter of national debate.”

More news, analysis | More Science and Medicine news

If the Left parties withdraw their support, the government needs the support of the SP to avoid losing a vote of confidence in parliament and facing an early election.
Fearing that early elections could pave the way for the BJP to come to power, the SP has hinted it is willing to negotiate with the Congress-led government.</b>

The Indo-US nuclear deal, which gives India access to US nuclear fuel and technology, is potentially worth billions of dollars to US and European nuclear supplier companies and would give India more energy alternatives to drive a booming, trillion-dollar economy.

Indo-US nuclear deal PTI<b>
Reports on Speaker speculation: CPI-M</b>
Wednesday, 02 July , 2008, 23:03

New Delhi: The CPI(M) on Wednesday dismissed as "speculation", reports suggesting that the UPA-Left rift on the Indo-US nuclear deal has put a question mark on the continuation of Somnath Chatterjee as Lok Sabha Speaker.

Special: Indo-US nuclear deal | Full coverage | Also read: CPI-M to pull out Speaker

"The issue has not at all been discussed in the party. It is only a speculation being carried out in the media," Politburo member Sitaram Yechury told PTI here.

Yechury's comment came in the wake of reports that in the event of a break-up between the Left and the UPA, continuation of Chatterjee, the senior-most Marxist Member of Parliament, in the high constitutional post would be problematic.
<b>UNPA keeps Congress waiting over N-deal</b>
Thursday, 03 July , 2008, 18:41
Last Updated: Thursday, 03 July , 2008, 19:55

New Delhi: A coalition of regional parties including the Samajwadi Party on Thursday raised "doubts" on the India-US nuclear deal and sought a national debate on the issue, dealing a blow to the Congress-led government's bid to stay afloat in the wake of an imminent withdrawal of support by the Left.

After nearly four hours of animated discussions, leaders of the United National Progressive Alliance (UNPA) insisted that the persisting doubts about the viability of the controversial nuclear deal needed to be clarified by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

Also in the news: Bharat bandh: VHP activists go on rampage in Thane | Column: Defend the Thunder Dragon

Samajwadi Party General Secretary Amar Singh said there was need to look for an independent expert who could explain the nuances of the nuclear deal to the UNPA.

In remarks that made it clear that the UNPA was not satisfied with the briefing given by National Security Advisor M.K. Narayanan to Samajwadi Party leaders over the nuclear deal, Telugu Desam Party (TDP) chief and former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu said: "We have left it to the PM. We appeal to him for a national debate over it."

Before the UNPA meeting, Naidu had meetings with the Communist leaders Prakash Karat and A B Bardhan, who are resolutely opposed to the nuclear deal.

All UNPA leaders - Samajwadi Party's Mulayam Singh Yadav, Naidu and Indian National Lok Dal's (INLD) Om Prakash Chautala - repeatedly insisted that they were "united," pouring cold water on the Congress' attempts to wean away the Samajwadi Party to save its government and the nuclear deal.

UNPA leaders also said they remained opposed to the Congress-led government on several issues such as soaring food prices and agricultural policies. "Till July 6, we are not giving certificate to the government. There should be a national debate on the issue," former Haryana chief minister Chautala said after the meeting held at Amar Singh's residence.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh leaves around July 6 for Japan to attend the G8 summit where he is expected to meet US President George Bush.

Indo-US nuclear deal PTI<b>
Obama advisor calls nuclear deal dead</b>
Wednesday, 02 July , 2008, 20:39

Washington: A top foreign policy advisor to presumptive Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama feels that the Indo-US nuclear deal is "dead" in the wake of differences between the UPA government and its allies.
"I don't know how you resuscitate something that is dead there (in New Delhi), if it is in fact dead there," remarked Antony Lake, former National Security Advisor, in an interview to The Financial Times of London.</b>

His remarks came after the Left parties threatened to withdraw support to the UPA government if it went ahead with the nuclear deal with the US.

On Pakistan, Lake said Obama's statement last year about using force against al-Qaeda leaders in that country even without Islamabad's permission "is still relevant."

Indo-US nuclear deal PTI<b>
Cong dismisses BSP claim on N-deal</b>
Tuesday, 01 July , 2008, 23:35

New Delhi: The Congress on Tuesday dismissed BSP supremo Mayawati's contention that the Indo-US nuclear deal was against the Muslim community and accused her of communalising the issue.

Special: Indo-US nuclear deal | Full coverage

"The deal has nothing to do with any community. It is unfortunate that some parties were trying to communalise the issue for political benefits," party spokesman Shakeel Ahmed said.

He said that sometime back when CPI(M) leader M K Pandhe had made a similar statement, it was condemned by all Muslim religious leaders.

Read related stories: Left to decide strategy on July 4 | Left attacks PM again

"Muslims also need electricity. Nobody should try to communalise the issue. The deal is in national interest," he said.

Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati alleged at Lucknow that the deal, which was being widely opposed in the country, has angered the Muslims.

AICC Secretary Manish Tiwari underlined the importance of the deal, saying "Whichever party has the long term interests of India in mind, is supporting the deal."

Tiwari said the Congress was banking on the political parties of the country to take a decision which helps the country in the long run.

Posted by Sanjay Junam on Jul 04,2008 10:50 AM
Well they have learnt a lesson, UPA has finally become gutsy in showing these Chinese supporting hypocrite indians a way out.

Post your Reply | Forward | Report Abuse
Posted by ROBI SHOM on Jul 04,2008 10:49 AM
I am startled to the point of anger and annoyance as to how a political party/ group of politicians wait for a 'subh muhurat' for withdrawing from a government ! It explains the extreme frustration and loss of senses the Left have been suffering from. Especially when they are seeing that all the power that they have been enjoying so long though in a surreptitiouos way are soon going to be lost. It is said that when a danger manifests, normal senses suffer from utter confusions. The same has been the case of the Left conglomerate. With the passing days and gradually coming to feel the pulse of the common people (they lost 50% of seats in the municipal elections held recently in West bengal), the Left are at a loss totally. The sooner they withdraw, the better for the country.

Post your Reply | Forward | Report Abuse
Posted by DN Choubey on Jul 04,2008 10:01 AM
Its very strange that the party which has only 59 MP that has more national interest than a party (congress) has more MPs. We should realise who is fooling us. They should Thank god this is democratic country otherwise they would have thrown out of country

<b>Congress hopes of early SP support dashed</b>

Thu, Jul 3 06:56 PM

New Delhi, Jul 3 (PTI) Congress hopes of getting an early comitment of support from Samajwadi Party on the nuclear deal were dashed for the present as Left parties braced themselves up for deciding the modalities of withdrawal of support to the UPA Government. In the face of aggressive Congress efforts to woo one of its major constituents, the UNPA today managed to put up a united face by apparently persuading Samajwadi Party to hold its cards on the Indo-US nuclear deal.

"We are not going to give a certificate of support to the Prime Minister on the deal before July six," INLD leader Om Prakash Chautala told a press conference after a four-hour meeting of the UNPA that consists of SP, TDP, AGP, INLD and JVP. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh leaves for the G-8 summit in Japan on July seven which the Left parties feel is an indicator that the Government is going ahead with the deal. "We are all united.

We are one," said SP Chief Mulayam Singh Yadav. However, the Samajwadi Party, whose 39 MPs may be crucial to the UPA Government in the Lok Sabha if the Left parties withdraw support, again gave indications of tilting towards Congress when it said "communalism is a bigger danger than the nuclear deal".

"I said it yesterday. And I repeat it today," SP General Secretary, Amar Singh, who was briefed by National Security Advisor M K Narayanan on the deal yesterday, said in the presence of SP Chief Mulayam Singh Yadav, TDP leader N Chandrababu Naidu, INLD Chief O P Chautala, AGP chief Brindavan Goswami and Jharkhand Vikas Party leader Babulal Marandi.


Nuclear deal

It is unfortunate that the Prime Minister’s Office is still trying to convince the nation that the Indo-U.S. civil nuclear deal will not affect our strategic autonomy or interfere with the foreign policy. The Hyde Act and its implications on the deal have been widely debated and no amount of assertion by the government can change the reality. The 123 Agreement is strongly wedded to the Act.

The U.S. proved its intolerance earlier through its unilateral action when India conducted its nuclear tests. Its action under the Hyde Act, in the event of our conducting a test some time in future, will surely affect our strategic sovereignty.

Capt. T. Raju (retd.),


* * *

Going ahead with the controversial nuclear deal will spell disaster. India signed the WTO agreement in 1994, the result of which is evident today. Only a few sections have benefited from the government’s neo-liberal policies. The agriculture sector continues to be in distress and there is a real threat to food security. The present situation is the result of globalisation and liberalisation.

Under the circumstances, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s desperate hurry to conclude the nuclear deal is unwarranted and condemnable. It appears that the government is even prepared to mortgage our sovereignty to the U.S. This deal, if allowed to fructify, will place the nation at the mercy of America for decades.

V.V.K. Suresh,


* * *

No issue has evoked as much controversy in the past as the nuclear deal. The unfortunate part is the lack of transparency at all levels. Tempers are running high and politicians have another tool to whip up passions.

I am neither an advocate nor an opponent of the nuclear deal. But I have a right to know the deal in all its finer elements. Will the government enlighten the common man? He is a better judge.

T.N.R. Nair,


* * *

The elaborate discussions on and dissection of the nuclear issue in the media notwithstanding, it is not clear to the common man whether the deal is good for India or not. This being the case, Dr. Singh is obliged to explain to the electorate the basis of his conviction that the deal is beneficial. It would also be worthwhile to know what the U.S. will gain from the deal and whether the gains will deprive India of its legitimate rights.

N.S. Sankararaman,


* * *

The Congress should face election rather than take the Samajwadi Party’s support on the nuclear deal. Without having a majority of its own in Parliament, how can it take the nuclear deal forward?

D. Kishan Prasad Rao,


* * *

Politics indeed makes strange bedfellows. It is bargaining power that keeps one going in the political race.

And it is the people who get fooled and cheated. Their votes become a mockery in the hands of vicious politicians.

V. Vijayendra Rao,


* * *

While one can appreciate the consistent and principled stand of the Left parties on the nuclear deal, it is also true that they have been giving a long rope to the UPA government, to move inch by inch towards finalising the deal. Even now, they are dithering on withdrawing support to the government, allowing it time to work out new political alignments.

The government is bent on concluding the deal and will soon present a fait accompli to the nation. Of what use will be the withdrawal of support at that stage? It will be like locking the stable door after the horse has bolted.

P. Jothilingam,


* * *

Leadership is all about taking tough and timely decisions. The moment you dither, the people lose faith in you.

The Prime Minister, whatever his constraints, failed to strike the iron when it was hot.

But a good leader can always convert adversity into opportunity. Sonia Gandhi and Dr. Singh should do everything possible to return the Congress to power. The nuclear deal can follow.

Madhu R.D. Singh,


CPI(M) cautions UPA against BJP ‘designs’</b>

Special Correspondent

NEW DELHI: Cautioning the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) about an “emboldened” Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) nurturing hopes of returning to power, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) on Thursday regretted that the secular government at the Centre formed with the Left’s outside support “is providing grist to the mill of the communal forces due to its faulty policies.”

The CPI(M) asked the government to abide by the Common Minimum Programme (CMP).

In an editorial in the party organ People’s Democracy it told the government not to bank on its support if it violated the CMP.
“Adhere to CMP”

“It is high time that the UPA government scrupulously adhered to the Common Minimum Programme and worked for its implementation in right earnest, instead of passionately pursuing issues like the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal which do not figure in the CMP,” the editorial said.

Reminding the government that the Left parties extended outside support to it on the basis of the CMP, it said, “this support, therefore, cannot be taken for granted, if the CMP is violated.”
The BJP nurtured hopes of a return as the government had “largely squandered” opportunities to strengthen the secular democratic dispensation and to work for significant improvement in the people’s livelihood.</b>

Lamenting that many a promise in the CMP “remained on paper”, it said even those which were implemented, under pressure from the Left, “suffer from bureaucratic hurdles and corruption.”

The editorial warned the government that the RSS and the BJP were gearing up to unleash a fresh offensive of “communal polarisation” in the run-up to the general elections in the hope that the polls would come earlier than scheduled.
“The BJP’s prime ministerial candidate L.K. Advani has clearly spelt out that after the Ram Sethu controversy and the issue of the hanging of Afzal Guru, the Amarnath land row will be the third of their communal planks to be exploited for electoral gains,” it cautioned.</b>

Observing that the BJP had identified three ‘I’s — Inflation, Internal security and Incompetence of the UPA government — as its main mascots, the CPI(M) said that in the 1998 election campaign, they had projected three ‘B’s — ‘bhook, bhay, and bhrashtachar’ (hunger, fear and corruption) — promising to eliminate them.

However, in its six-year rule it only “compounded each of these issues,” the CPI(M) said.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> WTI are the core of the INC and used to shelter in the INC umbrella with the WMI holding it up. Now the price that SP is demanding could shake the whole umbrella structure for he wants national status. In the UNPA, CBN is shaken up with the adamant attitude of SP. For starters as to what can SP do, he has put Kalam saheb in the sectrain bucket and no one is protesting. One who was known as Kalam Iyer! Once again UP has become the key. The NRI groups are rallying to SP aid (thats what Amar singh was doing in US for three weeks) as they think its now or never. INC wanted SP support in case Left withdraws and the price is too steep for it might mean irrelevance in the long run.

I think what the congress is doing is absolutely right thing. I applaud Manmohan Singh for showing leadership on the Nuke Deal. This one is something that is so absolutely important to India's entire future, the Prime Minister clearly recognizes that this absolutely needs to be done and that it is his sacred duty to get it done, even if the govt falls in the bargain. Full marks to Sonia Gandhi on supporting him to the hilt and not wavering on this as well. It is far too easy to waver /compromise with supreme national interest for the fish and loaves of office and hope to save the govt. Sonia Gandhi hasn't done that and they are calling the left's bluff.

Also strategically, the Congress is doing the absolute right thing. The road to power in Delhi is via UP and Bihar. Congress has a strong alliance in Bihar with Lalu and it needs a similar alliance in UP. Lets face reality. Congress in UP has been reduced to a status like Cong in TN. A sizeable vote share , that could possibly swing the fortune in favor of someone, but never enough to win alone. BSP /Mayawati are mortal enemies of congress, just like Deve Gowda is in Karnataka. They are going for the same, social base and BSP's entire growth is at the expense of the Congress. BSP is a parasitic vine that drinks from sap of the Congress tree , continuously weakening it and eventually killing it. The only person Congress can ally with is Samajwadi Party, which gets it's vote from a social base which never voted for Congress in any case!.. Congress CANNOT ally with BSP, but is sure as hell can ally with the SP. In fact, I would go as far to say that SP and Congress are natural allies , not SP and BSP as the JNU "subaltern" studies wallahs would have you think. They both need each other. I am glad that this entire nuclear deal is leading to a realigning of India's politics.

I think it is a great think. If Congress comes back to power because of this, they will absolutely deserve it, because they will have proven that they think first and foremost about India's national interest and not about spiting GW Bush or about "Imperialism" or some woolly headed "ideology" / China, like the cretins in the left.

It will be great if Indian politics coalesce around two large "umberella" formations., one to the left and other to the right of center. That way tiny groups like JDS get massive leverage and do tremendous damage like what happened in the paralaysis in governance in Bangalore for the past 4 years or so. It is to the credit of the UPA, that despite having "supporters" like the left , they still managed to have some semblence of governance for the past 4 years , and not the Karnataka like situation.

If the 123 deal leads to Congress coming back in the next elections.. So be it. It will be well earned !


Don't be so euphoric my friend and praise MMS/Sonia to 5th heavens. We have debated endlessly, and this deal is at best dog bones from Bush and at worst India beomes nuke nude (more likely). Plus, once MMS signs, mark my word, TSP will get a deal of sorts, and with both South Asia boys nuke nude, Unkil will calibrate both so either doens't get uppity with an arms sale here and arms sale there to keep the balance which includes TSP keeping India in check with their LeT/Jaish boys. If Congress comes back to power, the same arguments will be given: "India will be a global superpower of the 21st century" to give Kashmir de-facto independence (notice how MMS supinely caved in to the TSP-inspired Kashmiri Muslim scum violently protesting a small piece of land allocated to assist Hindu pilgrims in their ardous journey to Amarnath cave). If MMS has his way through this deal and Congress continues its reigns, and everything goes along the best case rosy path through his deal, it will be case of no war, no peace for some time, giving enough room for TSP to recoup and be a royal pain in India's you know where. Forget about taking on China and beyond. In fact, I would argue that without a strong nuke-armed military and a nationalist ideology, "globalization" (pax Americana) may well turn India into a loose "South Asian" federation as many elites both in India and west want including MMS/Sonia. Some global power of the 21st century, my foot.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Folks, there is no doubt that India needs a "deal", she needs the Uranium, a few reactors, etc to tide her through. The discussions related to the "deal", rightly or wrongly, deal with what are the supporting clauses in the deal - are they worth it. That is an Indian view - the deal AND the supporting clauses. (Which is what ldev was explaining a few pages ago - and rightly so.)

There is an American view - just like the Indian view. The American view is about proliferation. They care to hoots about India and power or economy or what ever. Proliferation is what matters to them - and rightly so.

Thus this "deal" to them is a first step in the direction of total non-proliferation. The Henry K visit to India was not that of a Statesman. It was part of a multiple people visiting India and trying to twist arms and bribe and cajole - all part of the game, nothing wrong, all politicians do that. There were a team of NRIs who were part of this effort and they have produced a glossy too mark the event. Again, not a knock on them, they are part of the process.

This too is OK provided Chicom and TSP gets roped in. Which is where the challenge lies. India will gladly wrap up her strategic efforts IF the rest of them do so too - verifiably do so.

So, do not expect MMS to walk away, for he cannot. The noose of non-proliferation can only be tightened. Once tightened, it stays there until the next chance to tighten.

My read:

IAEA and NSG are only temporary acronyms to achieve this end. The haves within them are scared crap about nukes in bad guys hand (and rightly so) and others are interested in keeping their business going. So, IMHO, until Uranium is totally milked (much like oil) they will not go to Thorium (India has the 4th largest amount of Th). So, not just from a proliferation perspective, but from a business one too, India can expect the IAEA to be very intrusive, even with a separation plan. Then the issue becomes, IF India (or for that matter any other country) has a army and an air force.

Expect these acronyms to morph into others in the near future.



Firstly, India doesnt get nuke nude. I simply dont see how. The Indian arsenal and facilities are separated anyways from the deal. It doesnt stand to reason. We persisted with the option even when we were far weaker and endured sanctions on it for like 30 odd years. Now we are far stronger, and we voluntarily go nuke nude? .. No way. I think the India specific agreements recognize India's de facto nuclear status. They couldn't open the CTBT and let india in as a nuclear power. But this bypasses that. No wonder it got the NPA's goat. India cannot tie it's future to imported hydrocarbon.. The recent hike in oil prices is equivalent to the entire tax base of the Indian govt ..around 10% of the GDP. That is clearly unsustainable and we need to move to other energy options , including nuclear. In fact, France, South Korea , Japan, Denmark, Scandinavia and Germany should be the models for India's energy policy going forward. Coal and Oil must be out.

No one is going to sign any nuke deal with TSP , given how unstable it is . Heck.. Looks like Peshawar is in danger of falling to the Taliban! I am willing to bet that the Chinese wont do so either, going forward. They have been burned badly by the Xerox khan's nuclear walmart enterprise and it is the Chinese weapon design that keeps turning up in places like Iran to Libya like a bad nightmare. The world knows that. TSP's leverage was that it had fellow rogue states like North Korea and former rogues like China to trade with. Now North Korea is neutralized (the unspoken /unheralded triumph of GW Bush's nuclear policy..add Libya to that list, Iran is a work in progress that shows all sign of capitulating soon, despite all the bluster)..Now with fellow rogues knocked out and TSP/China nuke linkages cut off, TSP has no leverage.. it will be squeezed and contained.

If Congress comes back to power, the same arguments will be given: "India will be a global superpower of the 21st century" to give Kashmir de-facto independence (notice how MMS supinely caved in to the TSP-inspired Kashmiri Muslim scum violently protesting a small piece of land allocated to assist Hindu pilgrims in their ardous journey to Amarnath cave). If MMS has his way through this deal and Congress continues its reigns, and everything goes along the best case rosy path through his deal, it will be case of no war, no peace for some time, giving enough room for TSP to recoup and be a royal pain in India's you know where. Forget about taking on China and beyond. In fact, I would argue that without a strong nuke-armed military and a nationalist ideology, "globalization" (pax Americana) may well turn India into a loose "South Asian" federation as many elites both in India and west want including MMS/Sonia. Some global power of the 21st century, my foot.

The way Kashmir will get settled when the gap (economic, social, cultural, political and general well being) between India and TSP widen to such a level that even pretend equal-equal would be laughably silly. We are not there yet, but will be there in another 15 to 20 years. Eventually TSP elites and society (or if they have anything called that there) will realize that the atavistic conflict with India is neither necessary nor desirable and profitable, that is when there can be a settlement. India's primary job is simple . Keep growing strongly and strengthen society and get the health, education and wellness up, while maintaining a strong armed force that deters any misadventure from TSP and China or anyone else. Once we are in the USD 5000 /7000 percapita range and poverty is reduced to 5% or less (around today's Turkey's levels),. (Korea was there like 10 years ago.)..we would be over the "hump" and the most serious challenges to India would have been surmounted. That is the 2020 target..

Once that happens USD 5k to 7k range per captia and 5% poverty, the entire neighborhood will be different. Conflict with India will be idiotic for any of the smaller neighbors. Think of it.. You are sitting next to one of the largest most attractive markets in the world.. with decent technology and strong manufacturing and services base .. what would you rather do.. fight with it or trade with it , that too when India's defense forces are far stronger than your's ? The dynamic would be different.

Pax Americana is over / not the same anymore. We will be in a different kind of place in 25 years from now. It will be a mutli polar world where hopefully large emerging BRIC countries get absorbed into the international system without too much disrpution. There is no need to "take on" the Chinese without any good reason. China too will change and evolve and will face "encirclement" by Unkil, Taiwan, Japan , India and Asean if it is disruptive and threatening.

Hopefully, the next 50 years will be a year of peace and growth , and very different from the previous 50 years. for that you have to strike at the root of conflict... OIL.. Get away from the oil addiction and you will be fine. That is why the Nuke deal is so important and kudos to MMS and Sonia for realizing that and seeing it through.

US committed to getting India NSG nod: Menon

India has time till September to clear nuclear deal: US lawmaker

India likely to clinch IAEA pact by mid-July

Proliferation and the US-India Treaty

Are we wasting time on a dead nuke deal?

IAEA pact waiting for political call: Saran

No time-frame can be fixed for approaching IAEA: S S Menon

Printed from
Economic Times<i>
Too much hot air in nuke deal</b></i>
4 Jul, 2008, 0026 hrs IST, Brahma Chellaney ,
The partisan rancour over the Indo-US nuclear deal has helped obscure facts, allowing shibboleths and fantasies to substitute for an informed debate on a critical issue. Several myths continue to be repeated untiringly. The biggest of them draws a meretricious link between nuclear energy and soaring oil prices to justify the proposed import of high-priced, foreign fuel-dependent power reactors from overseas.

What does nuclear power have to do with the price or import requirements of any transportation fuel? Thanks to the oil price shocks in the 1970s and 1980s and the advent of new energy technologies, the share of global electricity produced from oil has shrunk from 25% in 1973 to barely 4%. The remaining oil-fired power plants - of which India has only a handful - will be phased out, or refitted to run on gas. Oil now is primarily used for transportation, while the reactor-import option is about electricity generation.

The link between nuclear power and oil is specious. In the years ahead, the world could move toward electric vehicles and even use grid power to make hydrogen for the fuel-cell vehicles of the future. In another futuristic scenario, nuclear energy may indirectly serve as a substitute to some oil use in the commercial and industrial sectors. But today, greater nuclear-generated electricity is not going to really reduce any country’s oil needs, certainly not India’s. In fact, with little overlap in the oil and nuclear global-market structures, nuclear power now competes principally against coal, natural gas and renewables.

If global oil demand is threatening to outstrip supply, so is the case with uranium. Current concerns associated with oil’s price volatility, supply security and geopolitical risks are no different than uranium’s. And if global oil reserves are finite, so are uranium resources, with proven uranium reserves likely to last barely 85 years, according to the Red Book published jointly by the OECD and IAEA.

In fact, in the past five years, the international spot price of uranium has risen faster than that of crude oil, with uranium today trading six times above its $10 a pound historical average. Oil and uranium prices are likely to stay volatile, but the long-term trend for both is surely up.

Just as cheap oil now seems fanciful, cheap nuclear power for long has been a mirage. More than half a century after the then US Atomic Energy Agency chairman Lewis Strauss claimed nuclear energy would become “too cheap to meter”, the nuclear power industry everywhere subsists on generous state subsidies, not reflected in the published costs of generation.

The current electricity-market liberalisation trends spell trouble for the global nuclear-power industry as they threaten the state support on which it survives. As a 2005 IAEA study by Ferenc Toth and Hans-Holger Rogner warns, “nuclear power’s market share might indeed follow a downward trajectory” if state subsidies abate and more cost-effective reactors are not designed.

Other international studies have shown that nuclear power, although a long-matured technology, has demonstrated the slowest rate of learning in comparison to other energy technologies, including newer sources like wind and combined-cycle gas turbines. Instead of the price declining with nuclear power’s maturation, the opposite has happened.

Power reactors also remain very capital-intensive, with high up-front capital costs, long lead times for construction and commissioning, and drawn-out amortisation periods that discourage private investors. In the US, two separate studies by the University of Chicago (2004) and MIT (2003) showed new nuclear power remaining comparatively more expensive.

That explains why the US industry has yet to receive its first domestic power reactor order in more than three decades, despite the Bush administration offering among the world’s most-attractive tax sops and other state incentives.

But in India there has been little debate on the nuclear deal’s premise - that the way to meet burgeoning energy demands is to import power reactors. While nuclear power certainly deserves a place in a diversified energy portfolio, reactor imports will be a path to external fuel dependency and exorbitant plant costs.

India ought not to confuse its electrical generation problem with transportation fuel problem. Also, India cannot correct its oil-import dependency on the Gulf region by fashioning a new dependency on a tiny nuclear-supply cartel made up of a few state-guided firms.

While oil is freely purchasable on world markets, the global nuclear reactor and fuel business is the most monopolised and politically regulated commerce in the world, with no sanctity of contract. Without having loosened its bondage to oil exporters, should India get yoked to the nuclear cartel?

With few reactors being built in the West or Russia, this cartel has aggressively sought export markets. In a bizarre spectacle, after having castigated Iran’s pursuit of civil nuclear technology as unsuited to its energy wealth, France and the US have competed to sign up reactor deals with oil-rich Arab countries.

Yet, even at the current slack rate of construction of reactors, bottlenecks are becoming a serious problem for key components. There are just a few manufacturers for many components. For example, at least nine reactor components, including giant pressure vessels and steam generators, are made only in one facility owned by Japan Steel Works. A recent study by the US-based Keystone Centre reported a six-year lead time for some parts.

The harsh truth is that reactor imports, far from cutting India’s oil imports, will increase the already wide price differential between nuclear energy and thermal power. While all the Indian power reactors built since the 1990s have priced their electricity at between 270 and 285 paise per KW hour or higher, the coal-fired Sason plant project has contracted to sell power at 119 paise per KWh.

Of the three countries lobbying to sell power reactors to India, the US has little record to show while France’s stands blemished by a two-year time overrun and $2.1 billion cost escalation in building Finland’s Olkiluoto-3 plant. The third, Russia, is struggling to complete its already-delayed twin reactors in Kundakulam. Wishful thinking ought not to cloud India’s options.

(The author is professor, Centre for Policy Research)
Pros and cons

It is almost certain now that the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal will be signed and implemented, ignoring the country’s conscience. <b>Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is a visionary and it was his dynamic policy as Finance Minister that brought about a magical growth in the Indian economy. But no Indian can forget the U.S.’ unfriendly attitude towards India since 1947. T</b>here is no point in analysing the subtle legalities of the 123 agreement or the Hyde Act because history has shown us that the U.S. always has its way.

P.U. Menon,


* * *

Even now it is not too late; Dr. Singh should give up his insistence on signing the deal and leave it to the future governments of India and the U.S. Let us start our pending hydel projects across the country and renovate existing power plants. Let us stop giving freebies and make everyone pay for using electricity. And let us curb pilferage and line losses which will result in a good amount of power generation.

M.M. Kale,


* * *

I appeal to our sagacious leaders to debate over the pros and cons of the nuclear deal in a healthy manner, maintaining transparency. The details of the issue should be disclosed to the people in a lucid manner so that their apprehensions are cleared. The hullabaloo over a matter of national importance has damaged the country’s image. The capricious attitude of different political parties towards the sensitive issue deserves strong condemnation.

Sachin Kumar Singh,


* * *

There is no doubt that the nuclear deal will benefit our country. But what is being overlooked is that the deal will give the U.S. a stranglehold on Indian foreign policy. This was clear when India voted against Iran in the U.N. Washington also pressured us not to pursue the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline which can provide us an alternative source of cheap energy when compared to nuclear energy.

Nuclear energy is clean only in the context of global warming and greenhouse gas emissions. What about the hazards of radiation due to the waste generated by nuclear power plants?

Jeet Kurian Mattam,


* * *

Congress leaders such as Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi laid a strong foundation for a socialist economic structure and sovereign foreign policy. Unfortunately, the present breed of Congress leaders is committed to reversing pro-people doctrines.

While globalisation is systematically dismantling the public sector undertakings, the 123 agreement will place our foreign policy perpetually in the hands of the U.S.

Syed Sultan Mohiddin,


* * *

I suggest that the Prime Minister initiate a national debate on the nuclear deal. The people of India should be made aware of the 123 agreement and the nuclear deal.

All newspapers should publish full page news on the agreement and call for suggestions from the public.

Only if a majority approves of the deal, should it be finalised.

P. Sankaranarayanan,


Shiv Sena has just announced that it will vote against the deal.

1st sign that the Sena has started thinking nationally instead of its favorite pastime of hurling allegations of Karkoon (clerk) at each other. Amd Balasaheb/Raj/Uddhav: there are much more effective ways of ensuring the flourishing of Marathi culture than the counter-productive persecution of non-marathis.



<b>What made the Left pull out?</b>

Rate the Story

NDTV Active
To read the biggest stories of the day on your mobile, type on your phone browser.

Press Trust of India
Tuesday, July 8, 2008 (New Delhi)
Following are the highlights of the Left's accusation against the UPA government on nuke deal.

# The text of the IAEA safeguards agreement needs to be made available to see whether any corrective action is possible on India's part, if the US discontinues the fuel supplies.

# It is well-known that the IAEA is not at all concerned with fuel supply but only with the imposition of safeguards on nuclear equipment and material. Therefore, it is important to know how the safeguards agreement provides for the fuel supply assurances in the case of India as claimed in the 123 agreement.

# Key concerns expressed by the Left parties regarding the IAEA Safeguards Agreement and ''which have not been addressed by the UPA are:

<1>In case the US or other countries in the NSG renege on fuel supply assurances for imported reactors, will we have the ability to withdraw these reactors from IAEA safeguards?

<2>If US/NSG countries renege on fuel supply assurances; can we withdraw our indigenous civilian reactors from IAEA Safeguards?

<3>If we have to bring nuclear fuel from the non-safeguarded part of our nuclear programme for these reactors in case of fuel supply assurances not being fulfilled, will we have the ability to take it back again?

<4>What are the corrective steps that India can take if fuel supplies are interrupted by the US/NSG countries?

<5>What are the conditions that India will have to fulfill if the corrective steps are to be put into operation?

<6>Once the text of the Safeguards Agreement is approved by the IAEA Board of Governors, which is what the UPA government seeks to do now, the subsequent steps require no participation at all by the Government of India.

<7>It is critical for the country that the IAEA Safeguards Agreement is discussed with full transparency and not kept secret.

<8>Why is the Manmohan Singh government keeping the draft of the IAEA Agreement secret from the people of India?

Don't teach us foreign policy: Antony to Left
<b>Don't teach us foreign policy: Antony to Left </b>

Indo-Asian News Service
Sunday, July 6, 2008 (Thiruvananthapuram)
Terming the India-US nuclear deal a ''must'' for the country, Defence Minister A K Antony on Sunday asked the Left parties to refrain from commenting on the importance of an independent foreign policy for India with regard to the deal.

''There is no scare for the UPA (United Progressive Alliance) government on the nuclear deal issue. India's independent foreign policy was framed by (former prime minister Jawaharlal) Nehru and the Indian National Congress. And even when the US and the erstwhile Soviet Union were different blocs and countries aligned with them, India maintained its strong foreign policy,'' Antony told reporters here.

''I do not want to say it in very harsh terms, but the Left need not teach us about independent foreign policy,'' he asserted.

Antony said the deal was a ''must'' for the country ''because we need to get nuclear energy for several nuclear stations in the country. The IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) has 45 countries and it includes China, Russia and several other countries and this is nothing which is India-specific''.

He, however, added that it would have been good if they had the support of the Left as well over the nuclear deal.

''The Left have the right to have their opinions and it is our wish that they too support this (deal),'' the minister added.

Antony was here to meet veteran Congress leader K. Karunakaran, who celebrated his 90th birthday Saturday.
<b>Full text of pact with IAEA could not be shared: Govt to Left</b>
what a crap they are telling !!!

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)