US threatens to scrap India N-deal

[joey]

Just PR shows.. they are bind by their laws we are by our laws, stalemate by lawmakers things like this was clear from before, anyways.

 

[Always Neutral]

I don't think the deal will go through. The Communist who support the Govt. will not allow it for ideological reasons and the BJP will not support it as they don't want the Govt. to claim it as their achievement. Such is democracy when it coalition politics. The deal will be good for India in the long run.

The winners if the deal does not go through are the Chinese and the loosers in the long run is India and in some ways Pakistan as it could have safely negotiated a similiar deal with China.

Regards

 

[Cheetah786]

Just PR shows.. they are bind by their laws we are by our laws, stalemate by lawmakers things like this was clear from before, anyways.

Plan to sell uranium to India, Russia sparks anger
Ross Peake


The Howard Government was strongly criticised yesterday for planning to sell uranium to two more nuclear weapon states, India and Russia, which have refused to disarm.
The Opposition said selling uranium to India would ramp up the regional arms race with Pakistan.

A Labor government would scrap the planned sales to India because the contracts would not be ready for signing before the election, Opposition foreign affairs spokesman Robert McClelland said.

"You have got to ask why isn't India a party to the nuclear non-proliferation regime and the answer is because it doesn't want to commit to disarm its nuclear weapons," he said.

Mr McClelland said the Labor Party was open to selling uranium to Russia because it was a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The Democrats and the Greens expressed outrage over both proposed deals.

India has not signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and refuses to become a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, aimed at ridding the globe of atomic weapons, because the treaty only recognises France, China, Russia, Britain and the United States as nuclear powers.

Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said on Thursday that Australia would not sell uranium to any country that conducted nuclear tests.

He said yesterday it was unrealistic to expect India to sign the non-proliferation treaty because that would mean abandoning its nuclear weapons.

"It is crazy to call India a rogue state ... in fact it has a very good proliferation record," he said.

Prime Minister John Howard insisted yesterday that strict safeguards on Australian uranium exports would prevent India using it in nuclear weapons.

The safeguards on the agreement would have the same effect as India signing the non-proliferation treaty, he said.

Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd has vowed to overturn the deal with India because it has refused to sign the treaty. Democrats leader Lyn Allison asked why Australia would sell uranium to Russia, a country responsible for the Chernobyl disaster. Greens Senator Christine Milne said the sale of Australian uranium to India and Russia would help Iran's nuclear ambitions.

canberra.yourguide.com.au

 

[joey]

Didnt quite get the reason you have quoted me cheetah, I'm the LEAST person to be concerned with the Aussie BS, They live in their own world. They sell or not.

Always Neutral my instinct says it will pass. but yes coalition politics.

 

[Bushroda]

If anything this is how democratic countries work. Nothing goes through without chaos & commotion. Australia cleared the uranium sale to India & now the labour party wants it to scraped. Similarly, India got the nuke deal mostly on its terms & the left front wants the govrnment not to go through with it. US Congress took its own sweet time to pass the deal & still there are voices of dissent being heard everyday in their daily newspapers. Guess, this is how democracy works in every country but most important is that in the end everything works out. The nuke deal is done & will prevail. Australia will supply uranium even if labour government has to come in power.

 

[Neo]

If anything this is how democratic countries work. Nothing goes through without chaos & commotion. Australia cleared the uranium sale to India & now the labour party wants it to scraped. Similarly, India got the nuke deal mostly on its terms & the left front wants the govrnment not to go through with it. US Congress took its own sweet time to pass the deal & still there are voices of dissent being heard everyday in their daily newspapers. Guess, this is how democracy works in every country but most important is that in the end everything works out. The nuke deal is done & will prevail. Australia will supply uranium even if labour government has to come in power.

Happy Feet,
This is quite contradictory with your own post. Deal can be brokered or blocked in a democracy, the Labor Party has clearly outlined its policy:

A Labor government would scrap the planned sales to India because the contracts would not be ready for signing before the election, Opposition foreign affairs spokesman Robert McClelland said.

"You have got to ask why isn't India a party to the nuclear non-proliferation regime and the answer is because it doesn't want to commit to disarm its nuclear weapons," he said.

Mr McClelland said the Labor Party was open to selling uranium to Russia because it was a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The Democrats and the Greens expressed outrage over both proposed deals.

India has not signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and refuses to become a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, aimed at ridding the globe of atomic weapons, because the treaty only recognises France, China, Russia, Britain and the United States as nuclear powers.

Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said on Thursday that Australia would not sell uranium to any country that conducted nuclear tests.

Things work clrealy diffrently in Australia compared to USA.

 

[Bushroda]

Happy Feet,
This is quite contradictory with your own post. Deal can be brokered or blocked in a democracy, the Labor Party has clearly outlined its policy:



Things work clrealy diffrently in Australia compared to USA.

Neo, policies are nothing more than rain drop bubbles. Just about 3 months back Australia had said in clear terms that it wouldn't sell uranium to India unless India isn't a member of NPT. Today they've agreed to sell uranium. So, I am doubtful if labour party is going to stay committed to their policy. If incase they do revert back on the deal with India then they would make Australia very unattractive to do business with. This is the reason why countries do not ofen revert back on International commitments. This is same reason why Manmohan Singh is willing to forego Left front support putting UPA government at risk.

 

[Neo]

Howard is a US puppet, Labor may not be as loyal to US as he is. Anything can happen, only future will tell.
To be honest, I want this deal to go thru, its the only way to show that NPT is not working and should open doors for others.

 

[Bushroda]

Howard is a US puppet, Labor may not be as loyal to US as he is. Anything can happen, only future will tell.

Whoever occupies Canberra would continue to play in the hands of US. Its very easy to make bold and provocative statements sitting from the fence. It would need balls of steel for labour government to change stance once it comes to power. It wouldn't just break an international commitment thereby discrediting its credibility but also it would lose out on a good amount of business with India when India is its the fourth largest and the fastest emerging trade partner. Soemhow, I feel that all this is being done to pressurize India into accepting the deal.

To be honest, I want this deal to go thru, its the only way to show that NPT is not working and should open doors for others.

It wouldn't make a grain of difference anywhere. The lines have been drawn and it has been clearly marked as to who is on the right side & who isn't.

 

[Neo]

It wouldn't make a grain of difference anywhere. The lines have been drawn and it has been clearly marked as to who is on the right side & who isn't.

Wait for China to offer same deal to Pakistan, it's in the pipelines already. It will make a dfference!

 

[Neo]

There's no right or wrong side when hypocracy rules.

 

[Bushroda]

Wait for China to offer same deal to Pakistan, it's in the pipelines already. It will make a dfference!

China has already been working with Pakistan in the nuclear field. So, there isn't anything new that China can offer Pakistan. The only thing new that China can offer Pak is pebble bed reactor technology which is still in its primitive phase. As a voluntary member of NSG China has no boundation on selling any nuke related technology to Pak. But, can it get other NSG members to deal with Pak? There is no way that it has an influence greater than US, Japan, Germany, France, UK.

 

[Bushroda]

There's no right or wrong side when hypocracy rules.

If only Pakistan hadn't gone around Robinhood style distributing looted goodies to every corner kid, maybe Pakistan wouldn't have had to cry about any hypocricy.

 

[Contrarian]

Wait for China to offer same deal to Pakistan, it's in the pipelines already. It will make a dfference!

Mate, China cannot offer or present a same kind of deal because China itself is in no position to do it.

Do you know that in the 123 agreement itself , what India is being offered is FAR greater than the deal that China has when it signed in 1998? Please read the following:

123 pact: India got better deal than China

NEW DELHI: Where does the Chinese 123 agreement fundamentally differ from the Indian one? A cursory reading of the agreement says that America's international obligations would score over its domestic laws in the observance of the agreement.

But testifying to the US Congress in 1985, the then ACDA chief, Ken Adelman explained, "The agreement is only an umbrella agreement. It permits, but does not require, the export of any nuclear items. Thus, if Chinese behaviour ever became inconsistent with our understanding, we would suspend the licensing of exports. The Chinese know that."
No international obligation can prevail in this understanding, the US side was clear.

None of these prescriptions apply to the Indian agreement. Very briefly, the differences between the two are this: India has a cooperation agreement that envisages fuel supplies.

The Chinese do not. The Chinese agreement was signed in 1985 but ratified by US Congress only in 1998. The Chinese don't have a fuel supply arrangement. India does. In fact, the Chinese agreements with US and Australia are complementary to the extent that it's with the Australians that they have a fuel supplies arrangement. China did not get reprocessing rights for spent fuel. India did.

China has accepted bilateral inspections by US and Australian inspectors. India has not.

The US has linked extraneous provisions like China's relations with Pakistan, its non-proliferation record and its record on Tibet to the agreement. India has successfully resisted such linkages. China has given Australia a role in its separation plan. India has insisted that it has the sole right to decide which of its reactors are civilian.

China has undertaken de facto permanent safeguards without permanent supplies.

They have one concession that India does not: that domestic law will not triumph over international obligations in the US' dealing with China. However, it was this clause that held up the implementation of the US-China nuclear cooperation agreement for years.

In fact, in 1990, the US passed yet another act called the Foreign Relations Authorisation Act 1990-91 which piled on an extra presidential determination that China had not aided proliferation activities of any non-nuclear weapons state, that it would undertake political reform throughout the country including Tibet, as well as assurances on export controls. China also accepted inspectors to check on the imported nuclear material.

Nevertheless, it wasn't until October 1997 that then US president Bill Clinton agreed to provide the certification to the Chinese agreement. He said, "It will allow our companies to apply for licences to sell equipment to Chinese nuclear power plants, subject to US monitoring." It was finally signed and sealed in January 1998. And the Pakistan nuclear tests happened in May, 1998.

Anyway, apart from that, China can in no way influence any other NSG member, it cannot do anything. There is no 'deal' being offered to Pakistan my friend, this is simply a wish for parity on your part.
The statements from every major country saying precicely that India is NOT Pakistan, it has not proliferated nuclear tech means exactly what it sounds like. That Pakistan is not going to get an exemption.

P.S: It appears that the deal might not go through after all, left is willing to nuke the govt over it. Sad really.

 

[Bushroda]

Malay,

China can help Pak with the indegineous technology it has but it cannot siphon the nuclear fuel or imported technology to Pak. In this perspective I doubt if China can help Pak far enough.

As for Indo-US nuke deal, left seems to be showing some desire to compromise. If the congress doesn't bulge then the commies cannot dare to push their luck any further. Midterm polls can be disastrous for them & not to mention Indian politics is bipolarized. They can align themselves either to Congress or BJP neither of them would want to touch them even a mile long pole.

CPI(M) opens window of opportunity, suggests mechanism

New Delhi, Aug. 19 (PTI): Opening a possible window of opportunity to end the stand-off on the nuclear issue, the CPI(M) today suggested a mechanism to examine the implications of the controversial Hyde Act as UPA allies favoured an immediate solution to ensure continuance of the UPA government.

The suggestion for setting up of a mechanism to allay fears of Left parties over the American law that can withdraw cooperation with India in case of testing came during a discussion CPI(M) Polit Bureau member Sitaram Yechury had with External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee.

"If they (government) want to set up a mechanism we are ready for that," Yechury said after a meeting with UPA's key negotiator Mukherjee who had called him to seek clarifications on yesterday's Polit Bureau resolution which had said that the deal should not be implemented "till all the objections considered and implications of the Hyde Act evaluated."

Meanwhile, CPI(M) General Secretary Prakash Karat, who had met Prime Minister Manmohan Singh yesterday to serve an ultimatum on the nuclear deal, and his CPI counterpart A B Bardhan made it clear that the bottomline was that the government should not proceed with operationalising the deal.

Ahead of the crucial meeting of the UPA, the government struck an optimistic note of resolving the crisis arising out of the Left's threat over the Indo-US nuclear deal, saying the allies feel that a way out is possible.