India's Nuclear Agreement

[muse]

Some in Congress are vowing a careful and possibly time-consuming review of U.S.-Indian nuclear negotiations, which could doom the plan's passage this year.
That would leave it in the hands of a new Congress and president, and it is unclear whether it would remain a priority

It is a priority - this deal is a part of the larger strategic engagement and that is a priority regardless of who is elected president - further, their is broad bipartisan agreement on the general direction of the strategic engagement

 

[nitesh]

By Indo-Asian News Service on Thursday, September 11, 2008

India moving towards nuclear cooperation with France, Russia | Latest News


India Thursday said it would move towards finalising bilateral agreements on civil nuclear energy cooperation with countries like France and Russia, though the "actual cooperation" would begin only after the 123 agreement with the US came into force.


"Following the Nuclear Suppliers' Group statement which enables civil nuclear cooperation by NSG members with India, government is taking steps to realise commercial cooperation with foreign partners in the field," Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) spokesperson Navtej Sarna said in a statement.

"We have informed the USA about our intent to source state of the art nuclear technologies and facilities based on the provisions of the 123 Agreement from the US. Government is also moving towards finalising bilateral agreements with other friendly partner countries such as France and Russia," it added.

The MEA spokesperson added that while actual cooperation would commence after bilateral agreements like the 123 agreement come into force, "the Nuclear Power Cooperation of India has already commenced a preliminary dialogue with US companies in this regard".

The statement is an attempt to assure the US as well as the other countries that though India would wait till the 123 agreement is completed, it would not stop negotiations with others to widen its net for newer sources for cooperation on civil nuclear energy.

The statement also comes at a time when attempts are being made by the George W. Bush administration to push the India-US nuclear agreement through the US Congress.

Australian Foreign Minister Stephen Smith is in New Delhi for talks with Indian leaders; cooperation between the two sides on civil nuclear energy is one of the issues likely to come up during the discussions between the two sides.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is scheduled to travel to Paris at the end of the month. Among other things, the two sides will try and finalise their cooperation on civil nuclear energy. The Russians will make a similar attempt when their President Dmitry Medvedev visits New Delhi later this year for the annual summit between the two countries.

After the NSG waiver to India last weekend, reports have started appearing in sections of the Indian media on whether the government will put everything on hold till the 123 agreement with the US was completed.

Sources in New Delhi pointed out that while India is totally mindful of the role played by the US at the NSG to get the India-specific waiver, the US leadership, including both Republicans and Democrats, must also show some urgency to clear the last hurdle for the 123 agreement in the US Congress.

"We are willing to wait, but it cannot be an open-ended wait. This is something even the US leaders will have to realise," sources added.

 

[gpit]

I agree with you on this. The public in Asia is very emotional and if the debate did not centre around Pakistan or China the comman Indian man and the politicians will not understand it. I hope the US Congress does not ratify this unfair deal.

Regards

I think the likelihood of not signing it by US congress is extremely slim, as India can still make trade with the rest of NSG members. The US isn’t doing this for not profiting itself. If the congress does not sign this year, it’ll possibly be the next year.

 

[gpit]

Congress Has the Last Chance to Say No to the US-India Nuclear Proliferation Deal
By David Krieger

India never joined the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Instead, it developed and tested nuclear weapons. It is a known nuclear proliferator. India is now thought to have an arsenal of some 60 nuclear weapons, and India’s first nuclear test in 1974 led Pakistan to also develop and later test nuclear weapons. India’s 1974 nuclear test also led to the formation of a Nuclear Suppliers Group, a group of 45 countries that agreed to ban nuclear technology transfers that would make nuclear proliferation more likely, particularly to countries such as India and Pakistan that were outside the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Despite the obvious implications for nuclear proliferation, George W. Bush put forward a plan in 2005 to transfer nuclear technology and materials to India. For this plan, which is best characterized as the US-India Nuclear Proliferation Deal, a special waiver was needed from the Nuclear Suppliers Group, requiring the consent of all members. This deal ran into trouble when Austria, Ireland and New Zealand initially sought to uphold the obligations of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and held out for tighter proliferation controls, at a minimum a commitment by India that it would conduct no further nuclear tests. Although India would not make this commitment – only going so far as to say it would engage in a voluntary moratorium on testing – arm-twisting diplomatic pressure from the US caused these last hold-outs against proliferation to capitulate. The only barrier remaining to this Nuclear Proliferation Deal going through is the US Congress.

The Bush administration has given three justifications for pursuing this deal with India. First, it will forge a strategic partnership with the world’s largest democracy. Second, it will help India meet its increasing energy demand in an “environmentally friendly” way. Third, it will open a market for the sale of billions of dollars of nuclear technology to India.

Forging a strategic partnership with India is fine, but why do it on a foundation of nuclear weapons proliferation? Surely, other countries will be looking at this Nuclear Proliferation Deal as a model that will serve their own interests as well. If the US can do it with India, why not China with Pakistan? Or Russia with Iran? Or Pakistan with Syria? The possibilities for nuclear proliferation are endless, and this deal makes them more likely.

It is also fine for the US to help India to meet its growing energy demand in an environmentally friendly way, but it is absolute hypocrisy to classify nuclear energy “environmentally friendly.” No one knows what to do with the long-lived radioactive wastes from nuclear power plants – not the US, not anyone. And these wastes are truly long-lived. In the case of the highly toxic and leukemia causing by-product of nuclear power production, plutonium 239, the wastes will gradually decline in danger over a period of 240,000 years. Not the best gift to bestow on future generations.

There are other reasons as well to be skeptical of nuclear power plants. They are capital intensive, subject to accidents and tempting targets for terrorists. They also require large societal subsidies, such as the underwriting of liability insurance. The uranium used in these plants, if highly enriched, not a technologically difficult feat, provides the basic ingredients for nuclear weapons. The plutonium generated in these plants, if reprocessed, also not difficult technologically, provides another fissionable material for nuclear weapons. Why not support India to produce truly environmentally friendly energy sources, such as wind or solar energy?

The third reason for the US-India Nuclear Proliferation Deal sounds to me like the real one – that it will open a market to sell billions of dollars of nuclear technology to India. There will be a small number of corporations and their chief executives that will profit big-time from this deal, but they will be doing so at a heavy cost to the people of the world. This Nuclear Proliferation Deal has “double standards” written all over it. Can you imagine the US pushing the same deal with Iran, Iraq or North Korea? Of course not! This deal puts a hole the size of a nuclear explosion through the heart of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Very soon the US-India Nuclear Proliferation Deal will be back before the US Congress for a final vote. If the Congress approves the deal as it stands, it goes through. If Congress votes it down, it doesn’t go through. This deal, initiated and promoted heavily by the Bush administration, will undermine the security of the American people and people everywhere, if Congress allows it to go through.

The Bush administration was able to pressure the members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, but the American people should not allow Mr. Bush to proceed with this final cynical act to enrich the few at the expense of national and global security. If you care about the dangers of nuclear weapons proliferation, it’s time for action. Let your representative in Washington know that you expect a No vote on the US-India Nuclear Proliferation Deal.

Congress Has the Last Chance to Say No to the US-India Nuclear Proliferation Deal

 

[Neo]

A new Indian government in power which would terminate the 123 Agreement: Karat ​

Pijush Lodh

In the middle of initial joy by the proponents of the nuclear deal; and the recipients of the kickbacks from American corporations that will gain $100 billion in revenues, Indian Marxists declared their jihad against the international deal.

"Our political battle is here and not in Vienna or Washington. Earlier we withdrew support on this issue and we are now fighting against this ruling coalition. The struggle to rescind or reverse this deal is agreement is not over.

"After the next elections, our goal will be to see that the new government take step to terminate the 123 Agreement. We will work for this," CPI(M) General Secretary Prakash Karat told media reporters in New Delhi.

India would not get any better terms from any other country supplying nuclear fuel or reactors as all of them would now align with the 123 Agreement, Karat said.

Maintaining that the NSG waiver was "neither clean nor unconditional", Karat said it reflected the "continuous concessions" that India has made on the nuclear issue.

"Starting from the joint statement of July 18, 2005, India has given in steadily to US pressure, starting with the 123 Agreement, the IAEA Safeguard and now finally the NSG."

He said all these steps to get the waiver from an organization (NSG), set up by the US itself, were in conformity with the provisions of the Hyde Act.

It is time for Indian opposition parties to unite and scrap the deal with US and send a clear signal to those right wing US neo cons that are trying to enslave India into the next phase of strategic slavery.

 

[Neo]

Only thing that matter is the written documents.....treaty signed by the two govt......Future governments of respective countries are not going to refer to those oral assurances......

correct those "hidden assurances" will be of not testing and all, that does not matter.

Guys, the following report will be discussed during the Congressional debate before 123 can be fulle approved, it needs to be cleared what oral assurances actally mean and how the Hyde Act mechanism will apply incase India resumes testing.

India would be denied fuel supplies if it conducted a nuclear test – India’s nuclear freedom in jeopardy: secret US letter confirms ​

Balaji Reddy

In the middle of all hoopla on NSG waiver, Manmohan Singh finally realizes that Bush Administration’s real intension is to put the noose around India’s neck. New Delhi is taking up with the Bush Administration the State Department's controversial letter to US Congress which stated that it would be denied fuel supplies if it conducted a nuclear test.

The 26-page letter, released in Washington on the eve of the crucial NSG meeting in Vienna, created a furor in India.

The Congress Party and the UPA coalition under Sonia Gandhi knew this all along. PM Manmohan Singh did hide the facts from India’s common people and the opposition political parties.

In the controversial disclosures before the NSG meeting, the US had made it clear that it would stop fuel supplies and other nuclear cooperation if India conducted a nuclear test. The US position in the letter appeared at variance with New Delhi's interpretation of some key clauses of the Indo-US nuclear deal.

the letter released by a well-known opponent of the deal, Howard Berman, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, contained an assertion by the Bush Administration that its assurances of nuclear supplies to India were not meant to insulate it against the consequences of a nuclear test.

 

[muse]

India nuclear deal puts world at risk
By Jimmy Carter

Thursday, September 11, 2008

Knowing since 1974 of India's nuclear ambitions, other American presidents and I have maintained a consistent global policy: no sales of nuclear technology or uncontrolled fuel to any country that refuses to sign the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty, or NPT. To imbed this concept as official national policy, I worked closely with bipartisan leaders in the U.S. Congress to pass the Non-Proliferation Act of 1978.

More recently, in 2006, the Hyde Act was passed and signed by President George W. Bush to define appropriate terms of the proposed U.S.-India nuclear agreement. Both laws were designed to encourage universal compliance with basic terms of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which has been accepted by more than 180 nations. Only Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea are not participating, the first three having nuclear arsenals that are advanced, and the fourth's being embryonic. Today, these global restraints are in the process of being abandoned.

In recent years the U.S. government has not set a good example, having abandoned the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty; binding limitations on testing nuclear weapons and development of new ones; and a long-standing policy of foregoing threats of "first use" of nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states. These decisions have encouraged China, Russia and other nuclear powers to respond with similar retrogressive actions.

This has sent mixed signals to North Korea, Iran and other nations with the technical knowledge to create nuclear weapons. The currently proposed agreement with India compounds this challenge and further undermines the global pact for restraint represented by the nuclear nonproliferation regime. If India's unique demands are acceptable, why should other technologically advanced NPT signatories, such as Brazil, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Japan - to say nothing of less responsible nations - continue to restrain themselves?

I have no doubt that India's political leaders are just as responsible in handling their country's arsenal as leaders of the five original nuclear powers. But there is a significant difference: the original five have signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty and strive to stop producing fissile material for weapons.

The Nuclear Suppliers Group is a 45-nation body that - until now - has barred nuclear trade with any nation that refuses to accept international nuclear standards. Tremendous political pressure from the United States and India has recently induced the group's members to reverse their historic position; they even declined to clarify penalties in the event of a resumption of nuclear testing by India. No one knows what secret deals were made to gain the necessary votes. Specific information about all facets of the agreement needs to be shared with the U.S. Congress to assure full conformance of the U.S.-Indian agreement with the Hyde Act and other laws.

There is a farcical disparity between public and private claims being made to the U.S. Congress about imposed nuclear safeguards and those being made, at the same time to the Indian parliament that no such restraints will be acceptable. When Congress passed the Hyde Act endorsing the exception to Nuclear Suppliers Group guidelines for India, there were specific conditions, including clear penalties in the event of a resumption of Indian nuclear testing, constraints against selling equipment used to make bomb-grade material and limits on the refueling of Indian nuclear power plants. A key condition under the law is immediate termination of all nuclear commerce by the group's member states if India detonates a nuclear explosive device.

Indian officials publicly deny that they will accept these restraints. I have discussed these conflicting claims with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his response, with a smile, was that U.S. and Indian politics are different.

India's leaders' accepting the NPT and joining other nuclear powers in signing the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty would greatly strengthen the global effort to control proliferation. Instead, India insists on unrestricted access to international assistance in producing fissile material for as many as 50 weapons a year, perhaps doubling what is believed to be India's current capacity. Meanwhile, other major nuclear powers, including the United States, Russia, France and Britain, are moving to limit their production.

It would be advantageous to have improved diplomatic relations between the United States and India that could result from a clearly understood nuclear agreement, and I would fully support such a move. However, different interpretations of the same pact can lead only to harsh confrontations if future decisions are made in New Delhi that contravene what has been understood in our country. The time for the U.S. Congress to clarify these issues is now, before a tragic mistake is made.

Former President Jimmy Carter is founder of The Carter Center, which works to advance world peace and health.

 

[nitesh]

guys check this:

What Mr. Pranab has to say


India Today - India?s most widely read magazine.

Will start nuclear trade immediately: Pranab Mukherjee

September 11, 2008


A A AThirty-four years of India's nuclear apartheid, imposed after the 1974 test, effectively ended with the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group amending its rules to permit civilian nuclear trade with the country.

Days after India's success at Vienna, External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee, the chief interlocutor for India's civilian nuclear deal, spoke candidly to Managing Editor Raj Chengappa and Senior Editor Saurabh Shukla about India's nuclear future:

Q. How significant is the waiver by the Nuclear Suppliers Group?
A. It is the end of our nuclear isolation. After the 1974 test we faced severe restrictions. Our nuclear scientists were not even allowed to participate in international seminars. The NSG waiver has now given us the passport to do civilian nuclear trade with other countries. It is the recognition of India's special stature and India's impeccable record of non-proliferation. The international community is convinced that this civil nuclear co-operation is good for India and good for the world.

Q. Is the NSG waiver clean and unconditional?
A. Clean and unconditional are more or less the same. We have not accepted any unacceptable conditionalities and none of our red lines have been crossed. We have got a clean waiver. For instance, we did not want any condition imposed on us that we would not be permitted to conduct a test. We repeatedly pointed out that ours is a voluntary unilateral moratorium and we would not like to convert it into a treaty-bound obligation. Our position has been accepted by the NSG. They do not prohibit us from testing but that doesn't mean that we are permitted to do so by them. We have the right to act and they have the right to react. And if we act we have to face the consequences of all our actions.

Q. Were you disappointed by China's approach?
A. If China was not part of the consensus there would not have been a consensus at the NSG. It is as simple as that. Their actions before that and during the plenary is part of the normal decision making process.

Q. But the NSA did say it was upset?
A. There may have been statements. What I am saying is the policy of the government. I would like to go by what the Chinese foreign minister said which is that actions speak louder than words. And their action showed that they were part of the consensus.

Q. There is no domestic consensus as yet on the deal with both the BJP and the Left accusing you of selling India out?
A. I don't know how many times I have sold the country. In the eighties when as finance minister I borrowed money from IMF, the opposition said I had sold our economic sovereignty. They said the same when I signed the WTO agreement in the nineties. More recently when I was defence minister a similar accusation was made when I signed a framework agreement with the US. How many times can a thing be sold, resold and then resold.

Q. The BJP's point is that we have surrendered the right to test and our strategic options are being capped?
A. They owe the nation an explanation as to why did they say after 1998 that India does not need to test any more. Why? What prompted them to declare unilateral moratorium? My point is that if we had the right to test in 1998 then we still have it now. At that point of time by exercising our right we had to face some consequences. It may happen exactly the same way. There is not an alteration of the situation at all. What remained earlier remains now. Nothing has been conceded. Therefore these are absolutely ridiculous and baseless criticisms.
Q. The BJP said it would renegotiate the deal if it came to power?
A. I will be too happy if they can renegotiate and get a better condition for the country,

Q. The Left wants a special session of the Parliament and accuses the government of lying but after the leak of the Howard Berman letter are you worried about it?
A. Who is lying? If I knew something and I didn't tell the truth then I am lying. But in this case, how can I be privy to what transpired between the executive and the legislative wing of the US government? We are only concerned with what we are party to like the 123 agreement and others. What is the basis of this accusation?

Q What about the issue of fuel supply assurances that are being raised?
A. You have to judge it with what is mentioned in the123 agreement. As I said the waiver is just the passport. The visa will be the bilateral agreement that we will sign with individual NSG countries.

Q. You said India would wait till the US deal is done before you start nuclear trade with other countries?
A. No. What I said was different. I said that 123 agreement is not complete till it is ratified by US Congress so we have to wait till the whole process if finalised before we can do nuclear trade with the US. Theoretically, nothing prevents us from signing up with other countries.

Q. So we can do business with other countries like France and Russia?
A. Of course we can approach other countries to start business and we would like to do it as early as possible.

Q Will you be amending the domestic atomic energy act to allow private companies into nuclear trade?
A. It is too early to say it. The current thinking is the government will do the trade through the atomic energy commission. I can't comment what will happen after the general elections and when a new government is in place.

Q. What about our weapons programme? Would there be any changes?
A. The nuclear doctrine has been enumerated by the previous Vajpayee government and we are strictly adhering to it. We are not enhancing or reducing our programme. We must have a minimum credible nuclear deterrent, so that nobody will attack us with nuclear weapons because they know our retaliation would be unacceptable to them. We are not interested in stockpiling of nuclear weapons or a nuclear arms race. Our overall commitment to nuclear proliferation is there.

Q Were personally disappointed that you couldn't build a consensus on the nuclear deal and prevented the Left from walking away?
A: It was difficult. Their differences were ideological. They told us we can have the deal with France and Russia but not with the US. What could we do? I can't change their ideological perceptions. And with Russia and France it was not possible without NSG clearance.

Q. Who do you give the credit for the deal?
A. It was the strong determination of President Bush, and the firm commitment of the prime minister facilitated it. At IAEA we received massive support from our strategic allies Russia, France and UK. And at the NSG, apart from these three countries - Germany, South Africa, and Brazil - they all helped the deal. These countries have made very valuable contribution.

Q What about the issue of fuel supply assurances that are being raised?
A. You have to judge it with the India-specific agreement and the 123 agreement where it has been mentioned. This is just the passport. The visa will be the bilateral agreement that we will sign. With US it is the 123 agreement we have to sign. With other countries we would have to sign separate bilateral agreements. This is the framework. Details will come when we actually buy. Those contracts will be determined in this framework.

Q. Did you ever feel that the deal will not materialise and the waiver may not happen?
A. That fear and suspense was there all along, but we were confident when these people were expressing their concern that India will not contribute to non-proliferation. Then I thought that I must re-assert that this is my commitment. I made the September 6 statement to say that you don't hold the sole agency of non-proliferation. India is talking of non-proliferation all along. Even after 1998 we have not forgotten our commitment to non-proliferation. In the last UNGA session we moved a resolution. Recently we celebrated the 20th anniversary of Rajiv Gandhi's speech in the disarmament to reiterate our commitment to non proliferation.

Q. Has the nuclear deal boosted our chances of becoming the permanent member of the UN Security Council?
A. India always had a certain stature. All along India had stature but with our growing economy, technological competence besides prestige we have muscles. No doubt this enhanced stature will help, but India has its own claim to be the permanent member of the Security Council.

Q. Now even Pakistan wants a deal like this. What do you have to say?
A. Why should we object if others get it. It is for the international community to decide.

Q. Asif Zardari has taken over as the president. Will that help in creating better ties with Pakistan?
A. I would like to watch. Action is much more important than words. After the new government took over, I went to Pakistan. I had discussions with them and there was no dearth of words. After that, the ceasefire has been violated, infiltration has increased, the Kabul blasts occurred and the rhetoric has returned. We have sent them some concrete proposals on cross-border trade to start from October 1. If we get a positive response we will be too happy. Work is more important than words.

Q Nepal's prime minister Prachanda says he want to renegotiate the Indo-Nepal treat. Are you open to it?
A. Let us see what his proposal is. Why should we object? We have already told the earlier government that after they formulate such a proposal we can discuss it.

 

[SU 30 MKI]

I dont Understand out Communist Party, they are real Traitors of the country . They cant see India as par of China is world stage.


They should be Tried for Treason. They support China Invasion to India also.

Now US is going to Do the same what China dose to India, and India will grab this opportunity. So for Communist will never able to form govt.

India now will Rise with US help and US will help in becoming recognized Nuclear power which is next step.

 

[Marshal]

I dont Understand out Communist Party, they are real Traitors of the country . They cant see India as par of China is world stage.


They should be Tried for Treason. They support China Invasion to India also.

Now US is going to Do the same what China dose to India, and India will grab this opportunity. So for Communist will never able to form govt.

India now will Rise with US help and US will help in becoming recognized Nuclear power which is next step.

what do you mean by this???

 

[Zaheerkhan]

I dont Understand out Communist Party, they are real Traitors of the country . They cant see India as par of China is world stage.


They should be Tried for Treason. They support China Invasion to India also.

Now US is going to Do the same what China dose to India, and India will grab this opportunity. So for Communist will never able to form govt.

India now will Rise with US help and US will help in becoming recognized Nuclear power which is next step.

To understand the communists, you need to understand their ideology......they refuse to identify with the imperialists...yo understand them..you need to understand what imperialism means...just google it my friend......the communists cannot be called traitors...communism is in Indian blood...communism is almost an 'Indian' value..just like democracy.....they choose to run the nation in a communist ideology...if you like the communist ideology and like the nation to be run with the communist ideology..then vote for them, if you dont like the ideology, then dont vote for them..thats it...you cannot question a fellow Indian's patriotism....they are as Indian as you or me....India does not need the USof A's help to rise...India is rising and it will shine one day...it is only a matter of time.....we dont need any-body's help!!!..we are recieveing something than it is only because we deserve it..no-body is helping us...

 

[su-47]

To understand the communists, you need to understand their ideology......they refuse to identify with the imperialists...yo understand them..you need to understand what imperialism means...just google it my friend......the communists cannot be called traitors...communism is in Indian blood...communism is almost an 'Indian' value..just like democracy.....they choose to run the nation in a communist ideology...if you like the communist ideology and like the nation to be run with the communist ideology..then vote for them, if you dont like the ideology, then dont vote for them..thats it...you cannot question a fellow Indian's patriotism....they are as Indian as you or me....India does not need the USof A's help to rise...India is rising and it will shine one day...it is only a matter of time.....we dont need any-body's help!!!..we are recieveing something than it is only because we deserve it..no-body is helping us...

what is really annoying about the commies is the way they refuse progress of the nation. do u know that commies in kerala are against computerisation? how the hell do they expect the nation to progress without computers? all the commies ever do is block this and prevent that. have they ever pushed for modernistaion, or for economic growth. they try to make the poor stronger by giving them unrestricted freedom, rather than educating them or trying to better their economic status.

what i really detest about them is their support of china over india. manny commies boast of how they supported china over india in '62, and how 'thier team' won. when i hear that all i want to do is rip their liver out with my bare hands.

if the nuke deal was offered by china, they would give it a red carpet welcome.

 

[Spring Onion]

US Democrat lawmakers raise objection to N-deal
13 Sep 2008, 1106 hrs IST,PTI


WASHINGTON: With the Bush administration pushing hard for a quick Congressional nod for the landmark Indo-US civil nuclear deal, a small group of senior Democratic lawmakers have demanded the detailed examination of the pact.

The three-person group led by Massachussetts Congressman Edward Markey has said that there are many lingering questions about the deal that require further examination and hence Congress should rule out any rush for an expedited vote for its ratification.

The group's demand has come in the wake of the reports that the 30-day rule for the legislation to be considered will be waived to meet the September 26 deadline when the present session on the Congress is ending.

Markey, a senior member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, has been joined in the call by California Democrat Ellen O Tauscher, the Chair of the House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee and John Spratt, the chair of the House Budget Committee.

In a letter to the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee Howard Berman, the group has opposed any hurried action while accepting the agreement.

"As many questions whether or not the 123 Agreement, the India-IAEA Safeguards Agreement, the NSG waiver, and the Presidential certifications, meet the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act and the Hyde Act, are still remaining, we urge you to take all necessary time to carefully review the president's submission," the group said in the letter.

"The NSG waiver for India that was approved on September 6 clearly does not incorporate the restrictions and conditions on US nuclear trade mandated by the Hyde Act, such as the requirement that nuclear cooperation be immediately halted if India conducts a nuclear test," they added.

Opposing the "rushing consideration of the proposal to adhere to an imaginary clock," the group has demanded a full and complete review of the pact by the Congress, "even if that necessitates deferring any vote on the Agreement until the next Congress."

"President Bush is seeking hurried approval of this unprecedented proposal in the waning days of the 110th Congress despite the legal requirements of 30 days deliberation in a continuous session, and hearings by relevant committees, to pass any such agreement," they said.

Markey, a major dissenter of the deal with India right from its beginning, said, "The non-proliferation issues at stake in this deal are too important to be glossed over in a rush to beat the clock."
US Democrat lawmakers raise objection to N-deal-USA-World-The Times of India

 

[Spring Onion]

http://broadband.indiatimes.com/videoshow/3479056.cms

 

[Spring Onion]

US Democrats raise objection to N-deal-News-Broadband - Indiatimes.com