What's new

India's Nuclear Agreement

See ..its like this, the white man has always held the sway in international trade. Asian, African & latin american countries though individually proficient have not been able to match / break the strangle hold Europeans & Americans ( add Aus, a later player simply by towing the US ) have held on world trade.Add to this the dimension that US controls oil thanks to KSA & other countries like Kuwait & Iraq. We all have been manipulated in some form or the other by them ( read white man).

Now, the Nuke deal is a part of this. Albeit it suits India at this point in time as its energy needs will hopefully be met in the days ahead. The bottom line is that the NSG will not find a better legitimate market to sell fuel than India.

If that be so, we all are aware this is is not happening out of love & affection. It simply is an arrangement that suits all parties. Whats the point of producing Nuc fuel if there is no one to sell it to ?

Add to all this is the Chinese dimension & the jockeying that is taking place / shall take place for greater control or presence in Asia which I feel is the continent that shall be the deciding continent at least for the 1st half of the 21st Century.
 
Last edited:
Most Pakistani and Chinese forum members who have posted on this thread have or seem to have missed asking why it is that the Indian has played this deal the way it has -- you will note that the deal is sold in the Indian media not on it's merits but by continuously invoking China and Pakistan as the bad guys of the piece -- Why is this necessary?? Magicians and tricksters on the street or theatres employ a technique known as "distraction" , could it be that a similar technique is being employed in way in which the Indian government is playing this deal??

It was clear that the deal faced political problems in India, yet by invoking nationalism and the "bad guys", what is it that Indian government through the Indian media seek to deflect attention from?? And how long will the nationalist "sentiment" last??
 
Most Pakistani and Chinese forum members who have posted on this thread have or seem to have missed asking why it is that the Indian has played this deal the way it has -- you will note that the deal is sold in the Indian media not on it's merits but by continuously invoking China and Pakistan as the bad guys of the piece -- Why is this necessary?? Magicians and tricksters on the street or theatres employ a technique known as "distraction" , could it be that a similar technique is being employed in way in which the Indian government is playing this deal??

It was clear that the deal faced political problems in India, yet by invoking nationalism and the "bad guys", what is it that Indian government through the Indian media seek to deflect attention from?? And how long will the nationalist "sentiment" last??

Quite obviously you haven't been reading the Indian media for a long time. The deal has been discussed continuously ever since it was first introduced.
 
Most Pakistani and Chinese forum members who have posted on this thread have or seem to have missed asking why it is that the Indian has played this deal the way it has -- you will note that the deal is sold in the Indian media not on it's merits but by continuously invoking China and Pakistan as the bad guys of the piece -- Why is this necessary?? Magicians and tricksters on the street or theatres employ a technique known as "distraction" , could it be that a similar technique is being employed in way in which the Indian government is playing this deal??

It was clear that the deal faced political problems in India, yet by invoking nationalism and the "bad guys", what is it that Indian government through the Indian media seek to deflect attention from?? And how long will the nationalist "sentiment" last??

Er! this has been in the news for quite sometime and China dint enter in to this topic seriously till 2 days ago! Are you sure you are uptodate with Indian News?
 
Time running short for Indo-US nuclear deal

Foster Klug, Associated Press
Washington, September 09, 2008
First Published: 08:43 IST(9/9/2008)
Last Updated: 11:00 IST(9/9/2008)

Print



A US-Indian civil nuclear cooperation accord, one of President George W 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 US-Indian nuclear negotiations, which could doom the plan's passage this year. That would leave it in the hands of a new Congress, which will take office in early January; and toward the end of that month, a new president. It is unclear whether the proposed agreement would remain a priority.

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

Biden, the Democrat's candidate for vice president, has favored the accord, which would reverse three decades of US 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 a long break, are scheduled to leave in about three weeks to campaign for November elections that will determine the next US president and the political future of many current members of Congress. 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 address 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 in a statement.

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 NSG decision, "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.

US 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. Democratic Rep Edward Markey, a critic of the deal, said in a weekend statement that "no one should assume congressional approval will be automatic." He said US-Indian nuclear negotiations must not clash with the Hyde Act, a 2006 law that provisionally approved nuclear trade with India; "the Hyde Act is the law of the land, and it cannot be dismissed for cynical political expediency," Markey said.

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.

Robert Hathaway, director of the Woodrow Wilson Center's Asia program, said lawmakers probably will not have "any powerful political compulsion" in coming weeks to move the Indian accord to the top of the congressional agenda.

Congressional leaders, Hathaway said, "will not want to give the impression that, in a very limited time, we're not focusing on energy, we're not focusing on housing crisis, we're not focusing on inflation and rising unemployment, we're focusing on what, for most Americans, is an esoteric treaty unrelated to their needs."

Time running short for Indo-US nuclear deal- Hindustan Times
 
Mdm,

Making my first post.India's anger with China is b'coz earlier on India was assured by China's President,Premier and Ambassador to India that China would play a constructive role at NSG but suddenly joined the opposing side during the crucial last days.As regards the other countries you mention,they never gave such fake assurances at the highest level.Cheers!

My dear NO indian anger is not formed out of China's decision.

Indo-Chines conflicts are there since decades, Chines growing economic power is cause for US, India concern.

If China wanted it could have blocked the deal. However Chines are realistic people they prefer not to take stupid fights and carry on with their economic development.

If it was only the opposition to the deal then why India is not showing her anger at other countries who also have opposed the deal.

Indeed after the deal India has to leaned over US instead of China.
 
Quite obviously you haven't been reading the Indian media for a long time. The deal has been discussed continuously ever since it was first introduced.

Er! this has been in the news for quite sometime and China dint enter in to this topic seriously till 2 days ago! Are you sure you are uptodate with Indian News?

I don't think he is saying that deal was not discussed continuously after it was first introduced. He is telling the manner in which this deal has been sold to indian media.
 
Most Pakistani and Chinese forum members who have posted on this thread have or seem to have missed asking why it is that the Indian has played this deal the way it has -- you will note that the deal is sold in the Indian media not on it's merits but by continuously invoking China and Pakistan as the bad guys of the piece -- Why is this necessary?? Magicians and tricksters on the street or theatres employ a technique known as "distraction" , could it be that a similar technique is being employed in way in which the Indian government is playing this deal??

It was clear that the deal faced political problems in India, yet by invoking nationalism and the "bad guys", what is it that Indian government through the Indian media seek to deflect attention from?? And how long will the nationalist "sentiment" last??

Well I think quite opposite to that, the deal was discussed in following points:

1. Is this deal is pointing towards India US strategic relationship?
2. Will india be able to pursue the same independent foreign policy as it continued till now?
3. What are the implications of this deal with respect to Indian strategic program and how it is going to help in economy.
 
Nitesh

I think there is some merit to the idea that to keep uncomfortable questions about the deal from coming to the surface, the Indian government has engaged in a hyper-nationalistic media exercise.

And this exercise will be difficult to maintain, sooner or later as political problems arise, these "uncomfortable" questions will be taken up by a sectio of the media and should they not be dealt with credibility, then the main corporate media will have little option but to join in the questioning.

It is true that Indians are a nationalistic peoples, however; I don't think this will prevent political problems from coming to the fore.

Additionally, you will note that the realiance on th US is not without it's difficulties, Mr. Bharadkumar, loyal Ambassador, points out that the Americans have a nasty habit of making public, even the most secret of assurances - these assurances will be the subject of much political examination in the coming days as the media hype of "awful neighbors" dies down not just in India but in other places as well.

Assasino

It's ofcourse subjective, but I keep up with some papersin india, particularly Hindu, on a near daily basis and it may well be that I am not as well informed - however; my contention is not that the deal has not been discussed enough, rather I am intrigued by the manner in which the Idian govt has chosen to present the finalised deal to the Indian people through the Indian media -- Again, the hyper nationalistic tone invoked by the identifcation of China and Pakistan as less than enthusiastic is telling.
 
Last edited:
Nitesh

I think there is some merit to the idea that to keep uncomfortable questions about the deal from coming to the surface, the Indian government has engaged in a hyper-nationalistic media exercise.

And this exercise will be difficult to maintain, sooner or later as political problems arise, these "uncomfortable" questions will be taken up by a sectio of the media and should they not be dealt with credibility, then the main corporate media will have little option but to join in the questioning.

It is true that Indians are a nationalistic peoples, however; I don't think this will prevent political problems from coming to the fore.

Additionally, you will note that the realiance on th US is not without it's difficulties, Mr. Bharadkumar, loyal Ambassador, points out that the Americans have a nasty habit of making public, even the most secret of assurances - these assurances will be the subject of much political examination in the coming days as the media hype of "awful neighbors" dies down not just in India but in other places as well.

No I think the deal is a great step forward just like in 1980's when the computer were introduced and communists were crying that this will take away lot of jobs, no every one knows the story. Then in 1991 when the economy was opened the cry that all Indian companies will vanish and all now everybody is seeing the results. So when such a drastic step has been taken there is a lot of discussion that are bound to happen.

But the major questions were raised are:

1. How it will effect the Indian strategic program:

check these two files, kinda old but still gives a lot of info:
http://www.fissilematerials.org/ipfm/site_down/ipfmresearchreport01.pdf
http://www.indiaresearch.org/Indo-USStrategicDeal.pdf

2. If we are not going to test how we ensure our nuke delivery capability:

check this:
http://www.barc.ernet.in/publications/nl/2007/200710-1.pdf

3. The economic benefit:

there are threads where these info are posted.

Obviously the china and pakistan were mentioned but that is part of it not the center stage
 
Nitesh

Please do allow for comprehension - the nuclear deal is certainly a great step ahead for both infrastructure and for security arrangements.

The idea I find interesting is to examine why the Indian government has presented the deal in such hyper nationalist terms and such anti-China and Pakistan terms ?

It remians to be seen if the concessions agreed to will indeed bring an end to testing and bring Indina into the CTBT and NPT.
 
Nitesh

Please do allow for comprehension - the nuclear deal is certainly a great step ahead for both infrastructure and for security arrangements.

The idea I find interesting is to examine why the Indian government has presented the deal in such hyper nationalist terms and such anti-China and Pakistan terms ?

It remians to be seen if the concessions agreed to will indeed bring an end to testing and bring Indina into the CTBT and NPT.

See you are not getting the point, the main opposition for deal was/is/will be that why we have given in on testing. How does it effect the nuclear deterrence. so obviously the neighbors name has to come in discussion that is why I posted some links that these things were answered already but they were conveniently ignored.
 
There is a global rule and world super powers and UN has acted like a dictator and humiliated the rest of the world.

Dear Batman,

Whats UN got to do with the NSG ? or maybe u meant the US ?

I agree with you that getting a clean waiver from the NSG is unfair advantage for India in the long term vis vis Pakistan's security and can be mis-used by the Indians. I think Pakistan Govt. should have used their lobby to scuttle the deal.

Regards
 
Nitesh

I apologise if I have made you think that I disregarded the links you included - it seems we are talking past each other; not my intent.

Yes, it may well be an element in the politicizing the debate, but nationalism is a two edged sword, and nationalism is not the exclusive domain of the present govt - you follow??

Again the deal is a huge plus but it is also a negative - and those negatives also include nationalistic sentiment of those not now in the government.
Will this then mean that the deal can be derailed? I don't see how, however; at least to my thinkiing, the debate and how to effect the deal, has a lot of life left in it.
 
Back
Top Bottom