Government Wins Manmohan Singh Loses

Re: # 28 yes. But there is very little that can be done ...the safe guards are for the civilian reactors, and new uranium obtained from now on.

With old material, there is very little that can be done. Secondly, it is incumbent on all parties to adhere to agreements. If one party reserves the the right to abrogate international agreements (generally multilateral) then it is open season. So if the US tests, China tests, russia tests, India will test. but this is in the realms of castle in the air.

What is more important is "whether india has the taste for being a patrolling partner on the non-proliferation issue"? That is the real test. The rest as they say is just add-ons.

Dash#24:

The way I read the deal (and someone can correct me if I am misreading), one should separate the issue of adding to the nuclear stockpile and of doing new testing. As for as the former is concerned, the agreement with the US or IAEA does not put any restriction on India adding to its nuclear arsenal using material from reactors not specified by it as civilian. But conducting a new test, even with non-civilian reactors, could potentially trigger Hyde Amendment.

Re: # 26 Django, may you live a thousand years (or what ever is the saying), and I was reading the eConomist on this

http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displayStory.cfm?story_id=11779444&a mp;a mp;source=features_box3

and you are on the money (T) ;)

The outcome was a particular triumph for Mr Singh, who has waged a lonely campaign on behalf of the nuclear agreement. The indifference exhibited by many in Congress towards it has been almost as problematic as the Communists’ opposition. Free of these trials, the deal—or, more precisely, a safeguards agreement required by it—is now expected to go before the IAEA’s board of directors on August 1st. If the board approves, the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group will be asked to rewrite its rules to accommodate the deal. America’s Congress would then be asked to give a final blessing to the arrangement.

watch what ecomomist says..if it says its good then its pro-NATO.

we must thank the left and the BJP-SP for opposing the bill, this makes it more "valuable" to amrica/NATO. Also, this deal is good for getting better pricing from iran for IPI gas.

DM,
"There has never been a foreign policy issue which has divided India as much as the Indo-US nuclear deal. "

Hmmm, i do not think this is true. Overwhelming majority of people are for the deal. Except for Communists almost all the parties were ok with the deal. Two things,

First BJP simply didn't wanted Congress to have all the credit for the deal. They wud've passed the same deal if they were in power.

Second Communists wanted to topple the govt and BJP saw an opportunity for forcing elections and they tried maximum to oppose the deal.

Re: # 22 One the things people forget is that nuclear material is diferent from any other resource. Every gram of it has to be accounted for, and every gram of it can be traced. There are international agreements on this, and india has been (or has become) a signatory to these treaties, The Nuke deal adds to this.

thus if any material got under the deal goes missing (or is unaccounted for), india could be in the same situation as Iraq, saddam and the WMDs. in Iraq, this materail went mising, and no one believed Saddam when he said he did not have ...and this material is even now missing - where has it gone...your guess is as good as mine.

Thus it is important that India adheres to all such agreements and treaties. Even for weapons testing, it cannot use material got under this treaty....then India is in trouble (as DM says in #22). If India were to use its own material not obtained under the safe guards regime (the para quoted t DM some time back), or pre-existing material India can get away with it.

But what this agreement does is to make India a partner to the Non-proliferation deal, and make it a patrolling partner ...ala U.K. Whether this is India's cup of tea or not is something which time will tell.

Dont hold your breath regarding power/energy....this is not what the deal is about.....that is just the Indian Industrial houses wet dream (esp Ambani's). This deal is about non-proliferation, and making use of India for some future purpose.

India had a first test of its role as a responsible country (re:non-proloferation patrol partner) when it voted against iran at the IAEA. the next test is coming soon, when Iran comes up again....that is the real deal of this deal.

vengat:

Although the language is deliberately vague, the Hyde Amendment clearly warns of consequences if India does conduct another test or goes against the US interest.

But I do accept the argument that once the interests of the US companies are tied to India, it would be difficult for any US administration to take any steps that hurt those companies in a big way.

arjun#7:

The US could also terminate the agreement if India conducted another test, according to the Hyde Amendment or if it pursued policies inimical to the US.

And if we go back to what happened in 98, what do we gain, except being hostage to greater shortage of uranium, heavy water, etc. than now?

I wonder why no one seems to know the price of this deal - which is in the range of $150 billion over the next 15 years!

At thee prices, electricity would cost THREE TIMES as much as the alternatives.

Why is this important part being ignored by the Congressi types?

Dash#2:

I merely said that there have been reports. The sting operation by CNN-IBN shows that money indeed did change hands.

Ijaz#1:

Majumdar gave you the answer. Brajesh Mishra, Vajpayee's foreign policy advisor, has said that he would have accepted the deal. But the BJP has also lost an important constituency, the NRIs and the "India-Shining" types by its opposition to the deal.

I also believe that some BJP people genuinely feel that India has lost its ability to do further nuclear testing.

P.S. I sent you an email.

ekalavya, dont get me wrong....here...MMS has done something which is far more important and better than what BJP managed to do.....(all the while keeping the nuke deterent intact..there has been no capping of it...).and in this I agree with Sid Varadarajan when he says and I quote:

IN THE fullness of time, last week's nuclear agreement between India and the United States will be seen as one of those decisive moments in international politics when two powers who have been courting each other for some time decide finally to cross the point of no return. The U.S. and India have `come out', so to speak, and the world will never be the same again.

Every world order needs rules in order to sustain itself but sometimes the rules can become a hindrance to the hegemonic strength of the power that underpins that order. Following India's nuclear tests in 1998, the U.S. had two options: continuing to believe the Indian nuclear genie could be put back, or harnessing India's evident strategic weight for its own geopolitical aims before that power grows too immense or is harnessed by others like Europe or China. The U.S. has chosen the latter option, and the joint statement released by President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on July 18 is the most dramatic textual manifestation of what Washington is attempting to do.

India too, had a choice. It could use its nuclear weapons status as a lever to push for a multipolar world system as well as for global restraints on the development of weapons of mass destruction. Or it could use its status as an instrument to help perpetuate an order based on the production of insecurity and violence in which it eventually hoped to be accommodated as a junior partner. The erstwhile Vajpayee Government was never interested in the former option and longed desperately for the latter. The fact that Dr. Singh has managed this is the real source of the BJP's bitterness, not the fact that India's nuclear weapons capability is to be capped (which it is not).

Ref: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=VAR20050729& amp; amp;articleId=756

For those who believe that this ia capping of the Indian deterent should carry on reading the analysis, and it says

"By integrating India into the non-proliferation order at the cost of capping the size of its eventual nuclear deterrent," Ashley Tellis argued in a recent monograph, "[the U.S. would] threaten to place New Delhi at a severe disadvantage vis-à-vis Beijing, a situation that could not only undermine Indian security but also U.S. interests in Asia in the face of the prospective rise of Chinese power over the long term" (India as a New Global Power: An Action Agenda for the United States, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2005). This, then, is the real value of the deal in American eyes and the Indian public should be aware of it.


Sid my man, goes on to say Of all the misgivings present in the public mind, it is the fear of a quid pro quo on some other front that the Prime Minister most needs to dispel. It is this aspect of the deal which MMS has not been convincing enough. I do not see anything anywhere from the minister or the govt on this apsect. This is what is worrying, the blithe matter of fact manner in which the likes of Sibal et al are going about today (in fact the vote went through) makes me wonder.

The agreement would not prohibit India from testing a bomb. The advisory part of the agreement states India to abstain from testing, which does not make it incumbent on us. Like the Chinese agreement's advisory part asks them to end human righ violation in Tibet, allow people to practise religion etc...China went ahead and signed the agreement.

Re: # 14 Ekalavya, reading you reminded me of this song...sort like you singing it ;)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ljLg7Lw7hqs

Seriously, you heard Omar Abdullah's speech just before the division on the trust motion...."he said...it was about our land...."...and then today he announced he was going to Pakistan to plead with Pakistan to stop killing their people in kashmir....interesting and lovely...Pakistan wins friend..it is the unravelling of the united indian consensus on foreign policy! ;)

What's this news about Shiv Senaks barging into Taj Mahal to do puja? Have they made a new God/dess out of Shah Jehan/ Mumtaz Mahal now?

But what about passages from the Qur'an all over the walls?

Dash, Pakistan has every reason to vote against India at IAEA meeting or any other meeting of any importance. But how does India lose her voice?