Indo-US Nuclear deal called Flawed and problematic

[RAPTOR]

Sunday, April 23, 2006javascript:; http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/print.asp?page=2006\04\23\story_23-4-2006_pg7_10
Indo-US nuclear deal called ‘flawed’ and problematic
By Khalid Hasan

WASHINGTON: David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), has described the Indo-US nuclear cooperation agreement, now before Congress, a “flawed deal with serious problems.”

Addressing a discussion organised by the US Institute of Peace on the nuclear agreement, Albright, a leading American expert on nuclear proliferation issues, said he simply cannot get “enthusiastic” over the agreement and urged that the administration not try to rush it through, since there are several aspects of it that need scrutiny and careful analysis, given their grave implications for non-proliferation. He feared that if the agreement goes in its present form, it would lead to an arms race involving India, China and Pakistan. He said the agreement severely weakens nuclear suppliers’ control over dual-use technology. He pointed out that the separation plan prepared by India was not satisfactory, slanted as it was in favour of New Delhi. He said there is no guarantee that India will not revert to nuclear testing. He stressed that India should provide a guarantee, to be built into the agreement, that it would not make illicit purchases of nuclear materials that it has been making through offshore companies. The split between India’s military and civilian facilities must be made more credible, he added. He said there are worries over retransfer of technology by India as well as reverse engineering. He described India’s export control system as inadequate and emphasised that a strengthened export control regime must be made a part of the agreement.

Dr Seema Gahlaut of the University of Georgia and Dr Anupam Srivastava from the same university defended the agreement, which they saw as posing no danger to non-proliferation efforts. Dr Gahlaut said that 28 years of US sanctions against India’s nuclear programme had yielded no results and the world had to find a place for India since without having signed the NPT it had done everything that is required of an NPT signatory. She said the deal between India and the US was much stronger than the one the US had signed with China. She also pointed out that there is no such thing as a “perfect” export control system, while lauding the one India has set in place.

Former Indian foreign secretary Salman Haider, now a fellow at the US Institute of Peace, pointed out that it is no longer possible to maintain a sanctions regime against India, which must be treated as a global partner. The statutory downgrading of India has to end. India must be recognised as a nuclear power. He rejected the view that the Indo-US agreement would lead to an arms race in South Asia, arguing that India and Pakistan are engaged in a peace process which is moving forward. He said China would carefully assess the deal, given the fact that is has always been reluctant to accept India as a global power, viewing it as a regional player. This thinking, he added, has to change. He did not think Pakistan feels threatened by the deal.

He stressed that India is not to be bracketed with Pakistan as it has pulled itself into a different orbit, which is why the US has dehyphenated its South Asia policy. India, he said, has wider horizons and is no longer a creature of South Asian power dynamics. A “relaxed” India, he added, would be a better neighbour to the countries it is surrounded by.

During a lively question-answer session, Albright pointed out that India’s ordering of 60 tons of fuel for its Tarapur nuclear facility from Russia was suspect since there was no emergency need for such a huge quantity. He called the Indo-US deal “bomb friendly.” He also pointed out that Canada maintains that India violated its treaty obligations when it used the Canadian-supplied CIRRUS reactor to produce material for its first nuclear weapon. He said the US must not make the same mistakes it has made in the past, but instead build in all necessary guarantees and commitments that India needs to furnish, in the agreement which is now before Congress. He also wanted to know why India wants 50 nuclear bombs a year, which it will have the capability of making once the agreement goes through. He also insisted that the US should not finalise the deal unless it becomes clear what kind of safeguards agreement India has concluded with the IAEA.

He said there is no cap in the agreement on weapon building or breeder reactors. One questioner, a former US foreign service officer, said he failed to see what there was for the United States in this agreement, though there was much in it for India.

Home | National​

 

[RAPTOR]

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

Dozen Indian Caucus members join ‘kill nuclear deal’ group

By Khalid Hasan
WASHINGTON: A dozen members of the India Caucus in Congress have become co-sponsors of a bipartisan bill that seeks to kill the US-India nuclear deal.
The bill, moved by Representatives Ed Markey of Massachusetts, a Democrat, and Fred Upon of Michigan, a Republican, is beginning to gather support as Congress reconvenes after the Easter break.
Congressman Frank Pallone, Democrat from New Jersey, the founder of the India Caucus, when asked by the journal India Abroad to explain the defections, replied, “The Caucus is not monolithic, it is not homogenous, you know that. You know there are members of the Caucus more supportive of India than the others. So you cannot assume that just because a congressman is part of the Caucus, he or she is gong to be automatically supportive of the deal.”
Asked whether such legislators should not withdraw from the Caucus, Pallone replied, “No, I don’t think so. It is not necessarily an anti-India stance; it is just that some people believe strongly about nuclear proliferation. There are people who are against civilian nuclear power even in the US, for instance, and that does not mean those people are against the US itself.”
To the question whether India-US relations would be adversely affected, were the deal to fall through, the congressman replied, “Yes, I believe so. If it is not passed, it does have the potential of putting a crimp on improving relations. I am not saying that they won’t continue to improve, but this is a very important part of the effort.”

Courtesy http://www.DailyTimes.com.pk

 

[RAPTOR]

Hi price of Nuclear Deal

- By S. Nihal Singh
It is time for India to summon the courage to say "no" to the Indo-US nuclear deal. As the July 18 agreement between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President George W. Bush has run through US congressional committees and American officials and legislators have had their say, it is becoming clear that the primary aim of the US administration is to cap and restrain India’s military deterrent and tie it down to permanent intrusive inspections that will stymie the country’s research potential.
The rewards offered at the end of the exercise are distant and costly, with the primary justification of receiving nuclear energy at least decades away and far more expensive than alternate energy sources and conventional solutions. If India agrees to all the conditions of the nuclear deal, the country’s energy needs two decades hence will be met by a paltry percentage increase in single digits at the outlay of billions of dollars.
As far as the deal is concerned, the devil is in the details of the Waiver Authority Bill introduced in the US Congress. Apart from the question of India specifically agreeing to a permanent moratorium on future tests India has said it would not accept, the benefits it would receive would be subject to the pleasure of the US President and Congress. And the kind of intrusive inspections by the international nuclear watchdog under the rubric of the Additional Protocol would be an albatross around India’s neck in conducting future cutting-edge research.
Ironically, the proposed nuclear deal would place India at a disadvantage vis-à-vis Pakistan and China, and strategic analysts have already highlighted the glaring disparities between the treatment meted out to New Delhi and Beijing. The essence of the testimonies of US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice and other officials is that India is being locked into a Washington-based strategic format with diminishing avenues of exercising autonomy in foreign policy-making.
There have been visiting American legislators’ insistent suggestions for India to lock itself into the mechanism of intrusive International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards before the US nears the passage of the India-specific waivers. The absurdity of this proposal hardly needs comment. Other demands are for India to define its minimum nuclear deterrent while neighbouring nuclear weapons states suffer no such disability. Indeed, the sequence of events, as delineated by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in Parliament, has been stood on its head. And American terms would make nonsense of India’s opposition to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the CTBT, Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
If India steps back from the nuclear deal, its task would be to separate the contentious treaty from the wider policy of seeking cordial relations with the world’s only superpower. There are good reasons to be friends with the US, given its economic, military and political power. And there are obvious areas of agreement between the two countries as there are areas of disagreement. It is the task of diplomacy to emphasise the former and minimise the latter, but surrendering Indian autonomy in policymaking cannot be part of the deal.
The Indian approach to Iran has proved so contentious in domestic politics because of the widespread perception, admittedly denied by the government, that New Delhi has been acting as it has to please the United States, rather than pursuing its national interests. If the American prize offered — the nuclear deal — is not worth the candle, there would be less incentive for the government to vote with Washington if indeed it were not to the country’s advantage. Nor can one automatically disregard quid pro quo

Click link for full article http://www.asianage.com/

 

[sword9]

A personal view of the former US ambassador to India - Robert Blackwill.

N-deal will be passed by June: Blackwill
NEW DELHI: Former US Ambassador to India Robert Blackwill on Wednesday expressed the hope that Indo-US nuclear deal would be approved by Congress by June but said it appeared to be a "very ambitious target".

"I am optimistic that a significant majority in both houses of the US Congress will vote for it. They will support it and vote for it when the voting happens in the present form as it is being formulated," Blackwill who is now President, Barbour Griffith and Rogers International said at a CII meet.

He, however, said that the timeframe would be crucial and the deal has to be got through by June though it looks like a "very ambitious target".

"It is very hard to do things rapidly in the US Congress. It will be a daunting task to get the agreement through before the Congress adjourns by end of June," Blackwill said, adding that the Congress would re-assemble in September and then it would be pre-occupied with election of representatives and such other work which would delay the deal indefinitely.

He clarified that the Congress would have no problem in clearing the nuclear deal and arguments like Pakistan too would like to have a similar deal, it would present India in bad light and accuse it of bad behaviour and that it would impact non-proliferation regime would not act as obstacles.

"They would approve it on the basis of strategic long term relation with India," he said.

Deliberating on the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism, Blackwill said India too should "think seriously about its Muslim population and the rising radical Islamic terrorism.

Can India remain completely immune to its Muslim population given the kind of Islamic terrorism that is rising in the Middle East?" he asked, adding that this would have implications in the Indian as well as global economy.

He said the George Bush administration could think of declaring an "American military attack" on Iran as it foresees a "gathering storm" in the Middle East, particularly Iran, and the next year or two would be "living dangerously in Middle East".

"It would be horrible to attack Iran but it is showing no signs of compromise on the nuclear issue," he said, adding that an attack on Iran would have a "volcanic response" in most of the Islamic world and would have significant impact on international oil prices and could also solidify the people of Iran behind the present political regime.

Stating that Indo-US interactions have improved during the Bush regime, Blackwill said diplomatic interaction between the two countries should be further intensified and there should be more exchange of intelligence information.

"We may be natural allies but we are not going to have an alliance," he said.

He said India should do more in affirming its position with regard to the Middle East while the US should take India's views more seriously.

Blackwill also said that the diplomatic dialogue should be kept out of the media.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1506034.cms

 

[Neo]

Imho, June is too optimistic, this deal could go on and on for quite some time.
There seem to be confusing reports even in the US media.

 

[RAPTOR]

Friday, April 28, 2006javascript:; http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/print.asp?page=2006\04\28\story_28-4-2006_pg7_38
US should reward Pakistan, not India: N-expert
By Khalid Hasan

WASHINGTON: A leading nuclear expert told the Senate this week that Pakistan was a closer ally of the United States than India, and yet it was Pakistan which had been discriminated against and even humiliated.

In his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Gary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, said, “Under any calculation of America’s strategic relations, Pakistan ranks higher than India. Pakistan is essential to our ongoing military and political efforts in Afghanistan. Pakistan is also essential to our campaign against Al Qaeda. Without the aid of General Musharraf, we would have a much harder time accomplishing our goals in either of these endeavours. Pakistan is also a leading power in the Muslim world, a world with which the United States needs better relations. Yet, our deal with India is a blow to General Musharraf’s prestige at best, and at worst a public humiliation. We should not give General Musharraf more trouble than he already has. Israel, of course, has always been a close US ally, and will continue to be. Israel would like to have US nuclear cooperation. In addition, Israel is located in a part of the world that is of the highest importance to US foreign policy interests. In any competition for strategic favour from the United States, India finishes a distant third.”

He said the United States acted unilaterally when it made its deal with India, as there was no reported notification or coordination with the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) or Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) before the deal was concluded. He told the committee during a hearing on the Indo-US nuclear deal that by violating the consensus norm of these regimes, the United States has invited other members to act the same way.

“If they do, they may make unilateral deals with Iran or Pakistan without informing the United States. This risk has been created by our own action, and certainly does not make us safer. The regimes also require enforcement. The member countries are required to investigate and shut down unauthorised exports by their own companies. Since the attacks on 9/11, we have been asking the other countries to do more of this. But can we really ask them to crack down on companies that are exporting the same kind of goods to Pakistan or Iran that we are exporting to India?” he asked

He said, “Even if we can convince the other supplier countries to give lip service to an exception for India, it is unrealistic to expect them to follow through with enforcement against their own companies. Once we start tinkering with the regimes, they could unravel quickly. As one expert in the Pentagon told me, they are like a spring-loaded box. If you raise the lid, you may never get it closed again. What he meant was that the United States has always set the standard for export controls, and other countries have often taken a long time to follow the US lead in strengthening them. But if the United States decides to loosen controls, it will take only an instant for other countries to follow. The lid will fly off, and we may never be able to get it back on.”

Milhollin said on a recent trip to Jordan, he was asked why the United States had decided to make nuclear exports to India, a question, he added, neither he nor any other American can answer. “India, Pakistan and Iran all decided to develop nuclear weapons under the guise of peaceful nuclear cooperation. From this standpoint, they are indistinguishable. Why punish Pakistan and Iran but not India? They are all guilty. There is no persuasive reason for treating them differently. India is no different today than it was in 1998, when it tested a nuclear weapon.”

He wondered what the grounds for this discrimination was. “None of us wants to think of the word religion, but it is a word that is in the mind of Muslim countries. If the United States is only against proliferation by countries it does not like, which now appears to be the case after the deal with India, why does it like some countries but not others?” he asked.

Milhollin told the committee that Congress should look deeply into these questions before approving the legislation. So far, he noted, it does not appear that this has been done, including by the administration. The administration’s plan was arrived at hastily, with no consultation with other regime members, and virtually none with Congress. There was even little consultation with arms control experts within the administration itself. The proponents of the deal have presented it as if it were simply a matter of trade and diplomacy. Congress should insist upon a full review of the strategic impact, he urged. From a strategic viewpoint, it should be asked why the US is helping India. Of the three countries that have refused to sign the NPT, India is the least important strategically. He wondered if India was considered important because it was to become a counterweight to China? However, the notion that India might assist the United States diplomatically or militarily in some future conflict was “pure speculation”. India’s long history as the leader of the “non-aligned” movement points in the opposite direction. India will follow its own interests as it always has. India shares a border with China, he pointed out, and is keen to have good relations with China, and does have good relations with China. It will not sour such relations simply from a vague desire to please the United States.

The nuclear expert asked why in that case had India been chosen for “preferential treatment”. He was of the view that India was being favoured because it is the biggest market.

It was India as a defence market that was really motivating the deal, he said. “India is shopping for billions of dollars worth of military aircraft, and the administration is hoping it will buy both the F-16 and the F-18 … Officials in the defence industry and the Pentagon are saying that the main effect of the nuclear deal will be to remove India from the ranks of violators of international norms. And once this change in India’s status occurs, there will be no impediment to arms exports … Boiled down to the essentials, the message is clear: export controls are less important to the United States than money. They are a messy hindrance, ready to be swept aside for trade. But, a decision to put money above export controls is precisely what we don’t want China and Russia to do when they sell to Iran … If they see that we are willing to put money above security, and willing to take the risk that dangerous exports won’t come back to bite us, they will do the same. Everyone’s security will diminish as a result. Thus, this legislation has clear costs to our security.”

Milhollin said the principal benefit cited by the administration is that India will place 14 of its 22 power reactors under inspection, but that leaves a great number of reactors off-limits. In fact, the reactors that are off-limits will be sufficient to produce enough plutonium for dozens of nuclear weapons per year. This is more than India will ever need. India is not restricting its nuclear weapon production in any way. Therefore, there is no “non-proliferation benefit” from such a step, he told the committee.

 

[sword9]

Black Caucus supports Indo-US N-deal

Sridhar Krishnaswami in Washington | April 27, 2006 16:22 IST


Giving a boost to the efforts to garner support for the Indo-US nuclear deal, lawmakers belonging to the African American Caucus in the US Congress have expressed support to the agreement and some of them may co-sponsor a legislation needed to implement it.

• Support the N-deal​

"I think that nuclear energy, nuclear power and the benefits of nuclear energy can play a great role in the continuing economic development of nations. Obviously all of us are concerned about the proliferation of nuclear weapons... and the further development of warfare and warfare like activity," Congressman in the Black Caucus Lanny Davis said.
"But for peaceful purposes and when agreements can be worked out and when understandings can be had then what we are talking about is economic development opportunities, peaceful and useful opportunities... then I think we are on the same page," he said at a reception attended by other members of the caucus, Indian Ambassador Ronen Sen and Chicago-based Indian American community.

• Indo-US nuke tango​

Davis said he supported India using nuclear energy for peaceful purposes including health, medicine, economic development and was in favour of the civilian nuclear agreement.
"The US and India have always had a certain level of relationship. We regard India as the largest democracy in the world as we become a global universe. So we are looking for ways to become more intricately related to the globalised world and we view India as a heavy link in that chain," he said.
There is also a possibility of a few co-sponsors to the civil nuclear energy agreement in the House of Representatives, lawmakers of the Black Caucus said.
The Congressional Black Caucus is a powerful political group on Capitol Hill and has 43 members, including one United States Senator.
Congressman Jesse Jackson argued that India should not be treated as second class world citizen.
"They are entitled to first class world status. The idea that we should somehow treat some allies with one nuclear standard and to treat India with a completely different nuclear standard, from my perspective, is unacceptable," Jackson said.
He said that the caucus will continue its work in Congress sensitising members of the extraordinary contribution of the people of India.
Indian Ambassador Sen pointed out that the relationship between India and the US was one between two countries that are multi-ethnic and multi-religious, which not only tolerate diversity but also respect diversity.
"It is a relationship in which one can reconcile practice and principle as also ideals and interests. Above all, it is a relationship between people," he said.
The top Indian diplomat told members of the caucus that the bilateral relationship is entering an exciting new chapter with a number of ventures being undertaken that were good for India, the US and the international community and one of these areas was in the realm of energy.
http://ia.rediff.com/news/2006/apr/27ndeal2.htm?q=tp&file=.htm

 

[RAPTOR]

wow !! sword does that mean the Nuclear deal will get passed now that the black caucus is suporting it? hurray!! happy kwanza!!

 

[RAPTOR]

Natwar: Nuke deal is unequal
- By Seema Mustafa

New Delhi, April 27: "I am all for a strategic partnership but I am not for subservience, relations between India and the United States have to be based on equality," former external affairs minister K. Natwar Singh said in an exclusive interview to this newspaper, in which he broke his long silence on the Volcker controversy and foreign policy matters. Mr Singh made it clear that he had serious differences with the government on the manner in which it was handling the civilian nuclear agreement with the US, as well as relations with Iran and Nepal.
Mr Natwar Singh said he had been "closely associated" with the July 18 statement from the very beginning as it was a welcome change and indicative of a marked shift in Indo-US relations. He said he continued to support the Manmohan Singh government and the Prime Minister’s subsequent statements on July 29, 2005, February 26, 2006 and again on March 7, 2006. He said that the debates in the US Senate and House of Representatives earlier this month had created "serious misgivings", because while the entire emphasis of the July 18 statement was on "reciprocity", the word was now missing from the US Congress hearings. "Reciprocity", he said, had not been used and went into details of the hearings to point out serious departures from the accepted principles that had characterised the first statement issued by Dr Manmohan Singh and US President George W. Bush. Reading out from highlighted sections of the debate, Mr Natwar Singh went on to point out that US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice had raised several new issues, to which India had not reacted. "Are we supporting all these changes, why have we not made our position clear," Mr Singh asked. He said that Ms Rice had referred to bringing India on board the Proliferation Security Initiative, but "this was not there at all in the July 18 statement, are we committed to it? ... So where has this come from?" He said that Ms Rice had used the word "unilateral" in connection with the steps India was required to take in the implementation of this nuclear agreement, pointing out that "this is a cause for concern." He said they spoke of FMCT, of the missile technology regime, and "now they have added a new thing, Proliferation Security Initiative."
Mr Natwar Singh quoted Ms Rice as having said that she had told the Indian foreign secretary "in no uncertain terms", wondering again at the language used. He said there will have to be a national debate in the country about the recent US references to India and the NPT. He said that it was imperative for the government to make its position clear and spell out its position on "reciprocity" when it came to the capping of the missile programme, and other such measures.
Mr Natwar Singh that he was not sure if this was the final policy of the US but it certainly is "disquieting." He said he was not going back on the initial agreement of July 18 by "even a comma", but the subsequent developments were a cause of worry. He said it was now obvious that even for a waiver "we have to go back to them (US) every time." He said President Bush had admittedly gone out of the way to improve relations with India, but the words being used by US Congressmen, and the responses of US administration officials, did create serious misgivings. The silence from the government, he said, added to it as "we have not clarified our position" on these crucial issues.
Mr Natwar Singh pointed out that Ms Rice had spoken of Iran "as the central banker of terrorism." He said he wanted to know if the government here "shares her views." He pointed out that India had had very good relations with Iran. Mr Singh read out extracts from US Congressmen speaking of their "substantive" discussions with India’s foreign secretary Shyam Saran, and that he had "assured us that India means well." Mr Singh expressed surprise at the language used by influential senators and US state department officials in referring to India, wondering why the government had not challenged or at least questioned the language and the arguments. He pointed out that the nuclear deal was about nuclear energy and not about arms control, but the original intention appeared to have been eclipsed by the subsequent statements from Washington.

 

[sword9]

wow !! sword does that mean the Nuclear deal will get passed now that the black caucus is suporting it? hurray!! happy kwanza!!

No I am not. I am pointing out that just as there is pessimism about the deal there also support for it. All these debates and lobbying are part of any strategic international deal, more so if its about nuclear co-operation.

Natwar Singh's comments are his view and are not necessarily acceptable to the general majority. He also commented in the past that he regretted the break-up of the Soviet Union and opposed the US action in Iraq. This does not mean that his views are acceptable to all or are logical.

On the personal front there is something evil about him and his family, several years ago his daughter committed suicide, shortly after his estranged Jordanian born daughter-in-law also killed herself.

So for me, his opinion is that of a man pushed on the sidelines, smarting from allegations of involvement in the oil-for-food scandal.

 

[RAPTOR]

No I am not. I am pointing out that just as there is pessimism about the deal there also support for it. All these debates and lobbying are part of any strategic international deal, more so if its about nuclear co-operation.

Natwar Singh's comments are his view and are not necessarily acceptable to the general majority. He also commented in the past that he regretted the break-up of the Soviet Union and opposed the US action in Iraq. This does not mean that his views are acceptable to all or are logical.

On the personal front there is something evil about him and his family, several years ago his daughter committed suicide, shortly after his estranged Jordanian born daughter-in-law also killed herself.

So for me, his opinion is that of a man pushed on the sidelines, smarting from allegations of involvement in the oil-for-food scandal.

I just think this whole idea was ill planned and problematic from the start. There is a lot of opposition to this deal and the Bush Admins is distancing itself from it. Also ...Robert Blackwill ..who is the father of this deal is known to be an absolute idiot with no sense of reality. Some say he is unbalanced, others say he has a brain tumour.

If you ask me...india will lose a lot more that what it will gain if it gets this Nuclear Deal. Pakistan can easily become an energy corridor for india since all the pipelines will have to pass through Pakistan.That is the MOST viable option for india. The only thing india needs to do is to...give the Kashmiris their freedom after 60 years of violence and genocide against the poor Kashmiri populace. That way india can access the energy bonanza waiting for it in central asia and iran.

 

[sword9]

I just think this whole idea was ill planned and problematic from the start. There is a lot of opposition to this deal and the Bush Admins is distancing itself from it. Also ...Robert Blackwill ..who is the father of this deal is known to be an absolute idiot with no sense of reality. Some say he is unbalanced, others say he has a brain tumour.

The Bush admin is not distancing itself from the deal. What is your assumption based on?

If you ask me...india will lose a lot more that what it will gain if it gets this Nuclear Deal. Pakistan can easily become an energy corridor for india since all the pipelines will have to pass through Pakistan.That is the MOST viable option for india.

Maybe, but the plan is not falling in line with Uncle Sams scheme. We will lay our bets on siding them for the moment, we have gained nothing by being against them all these years.

The only thing india needs todo is to...give the Kashmiris their freedom after 60 years of violence and genocide against the poor Kashmiri populace. That way india can access the energy bonanza waiting for it in central asia and iran.

We'll access it our way not on imposed conditions.

 

[RAPTOR]

The Bush admin is not distancing itself from the deal. What is your assumption based on?



i meant the President.

 

[RAPTOR]

We'll access it our way not on imposed conditions.

And what way is that?

 

[RAPTOR]

Maybe, but the plan is not falling in line with Uncle Sams scheme. We will lay our bets on siding them for the moment, we have gained nothing by being against them all these years.
Quote]


And what are you going to gain by being with them?