Full Version: India-United States nuclear deal
What do you think about it. Is it good for India or not so?
QUOTE(VAMAN @ Jul 28 2008, 11:32 PM) 
What do you think about it. Is it good for India or not so?
I don't know. So let me guess. India needs the energy provided under the agreement in order to maintain and even accelerate its rate of economic growth. This would clearly benefit many Indians. In some ways India's nuclear weapons program will benefit since nuclear fuel received from outside for nuclear energy generation will allow domestic nuclear fuel that would otherwise go to energy generation to be devoted to weapons instead. The agreement will break India's nuclear isolation. After the agreement becomes effective other nations will rush in to seek similar agreements of their own.
The main danger to India is that it will be seen as having cast its lot with the US. Whether that is good or bad depends on China's ultimate objectives in the Indian Ocean and South China Sea. Words are of little importance. Actions count. Time will tell. In any event India will probably start getting access to America's best weapons systems.
I perceive you as being very knowledgable on military matters and unremittingly hostile to America. So I ask that you give us your views on the subject. Thanks.
I don't think this treaty will make any difference about what weapons systems India can get from the US, India can already buy a lot of weapons from the US, those US won't sell will still remain so.
This treaty is about nuclear fuel, and about US controling India's nuclear secrets. As now it looks just a matter of time before India become another global contender , the US want to have some form of control and prevent India from getting too close to Russia in this area. The US also hope to create more nuclear tension between India and China in this way.
As for china, the nuclear threat from India is hardly feelable, China was under nuclear threat from USSR and US for many years, and recent years even more from the US, where the so-called 'preemptive strike' has been criculating among hard core neocon's. The danger of an US all out nuclear attack(when they believe that they can take out chinese nuclear capability completely) is endless greater than an unprovoked nuclear attack from India.
This treaty is about nuclear fuel, and about US controling India's nuclear secrets. As now it looks just a matter of time before India become another global contender , the US want to have some form of control and prevent India from getting too close to Russia in this area. The US also hope to create more nuclear tension between India and China in this way.
As for china, the nuclear threat from India is hardly feelable, China was under nuclear threat from USSR and US for many years, and recent years even more from the US, where the so-called 'preemptive strike' has been criculating among hard core neocon's. The danger of an US all out nuclear attack(when they believe that they can take out chinese nuclear capability completely) is endless greater than an unprovoked nuclear attack from India.
I think the nuclear deal is beneficial to India, but only if some discriminatory clauses are taken out. But it doesn't seen right when on one hand USA is skeptical about Iran and N. Korea getting nuclear, and on the other hand this nuclear deal with India. But who cares the main thing is, it should be beneficial to us.
Washington Post editorial
Washington Post editorial
QUOTE
India's Outstretched Hand
New Delhi does its part to salvage a nuclear pact; now it's Congress's turn.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
UNTIL RECENTLY, it seemed that an ambitious Bush administration bid to restore nuclear cooperation between the United States and India might be dead, a victim of domestic Indian politics. Anti-American communist parties that support Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's centrist government were blocking the deal. But Mr. Singh took a bold risk to salvage the pact, trading communist support for that of a smaller regional party in hopes of assembling a new majority. Yesterday the gamble paid off, as Mr. Singh's government survived a parliamentary no-confidence vote. Now, the question is whether the pact can survive the American political process.
There isn't much time; under U.S. law, Congress must be in session continuously for 30 days to consider the deal. Before that clock can start, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group must give India a green light. While those approvals are likely, they won't happen instantaneously. And because of the long August recess, there may not be more than 30 "legislative days" left before Congress adjourns on Sept. 26. The deal raises many legitimate questions. But, on balance, it is in the United States' interest, and Congress should find the time to say yes -- in a lame-duck session after the November election, if necessary.
U.S. nuclear cooperation with India ceased when India, which had refused to sign the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty, exploded a nuclear "device" in 1974. The sanctions were intended to show India, and the world, that there was a price to be paid for flouting the treaty. Times change, though, and the Bush administration's logic is that the benefits of a "strategic partnership" with India outweigh the risks of waiving the old rules. If booming India uses more nuclear energy, it will emit less in greenhouse gases. Unlike Pakistan, India has developed its nuclear arsenal without leaking materials or know-how to others. Perhaps the fact that India is a democracy that shares not only values but interests -- checking China, fighting Islamist terrorism -- with the United States matters more than its signature on a treaty. It's a bet worth making, especially since the agreement creates more international supervision of India's nuclear fuel cycle than there would be without it.
To be sure, it is a risk. The deal weakens the U.S. threat to cut off uranium if India conducts another nuclear test. India's economic ties and military-to-military contacts with Iran are worrisome, as is its stubborn habit of taking "nonaligned" stances against U.S. interests. But the fact that Mr. Singh successfully ditched the communists for the sake of closer ties with Washington is a hopeful sign that the agreement is already inducing moderation. At this point, if Congress rejects the deal, the likeliest outcome -- in addition to much ill will in New Delhi -- is that India, freshly approved as a customer for technology and fuel by the IAEA and the Suppliers Group, will simply buy its planned 25,000 megawatts of nuclear capacity from France or Russia. After much delay, Mr. Singh has done his part; now it's Congress's turn.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8072202656.html
New Delhi does its part to salvage a nuclear pact; now it's Congress's turn.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
UNTIL RECENTLY, it seemed that an ambitious Bush administration bid to restore nuclear cooperation between the United States and India might be dead, a victim of domestic Indian politics. Anti-American communist parties that support Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's centrist government were blocking the deal. But Mr. Singh took a bold risk to salvage the pact, trading communist support for that of a smaller regional party in hopes of assembling a new majority. Yesterday the gamble paid off, as Mr. Singh's government survived a parliamentary no-confidence vote. Now, the question is whether the pact can survive the American political process.
There isn't much time; under U.S. law, Congress must be in session continuously for 30 days to consider the deal. Before that clock can start, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group must give India a green light. While those approvals are likely, they won't happen instantaneously. And because of the long August recess, there may not be more than 30 "legislative days" left before Congress adjourns on Sept. 26. The deal raises many legitimate questions. But, on balance, it is in the United States' interest, and Congress should find the time to say yes -- in a lame-duck session after the November election, if necessary.
U.S. nuclear cooperation with India ceased when India, which had refused to sign the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty, exploded a nuclear "device" in 1974. The sanctions were intended to show India, and the world, that there was a price to be paid for flouting the treaty. Times change, though, and the Bush administration's logic is that the benefits of a "strategic partnership" with India outweigh the risks of waiving the old rules. If booming India uses more nuclear energy, it will emit less in greenhouse gases. Unlike Pakistan, India has developed its nuclear arsenal without leaking materials or know-how to others. Perhaps the fact that India is a democracy that shares not only values but interests -- checking China, fighting Islamist terrorism -- with the United States matters more than its signature on a treaty. It's a bet worth making, especially since the agreement creates more international supervision of India's nuclear fuel cycle than there would be without it.
To be sure, it is a risk. The deal weakens the U.S. threat to cut off uranium if India conducts another nuclear test. India's economic ties and military-to-military contacts with Iran are worrisome, as is its stubborn habit of taking "nonaligned" stances against U.S. interests. But the fact that Mr. Singh successfully ditched the communists for the sake of closer ties with Washington is a hopeful sign that the agreement is already inducing moderation. At this point, if Congress rejects the deal, the likeliest outcome -- in addition to much ill will in New Delhi -- is that India, freshly approved as a customer for technology and fuel by the IAEA and the Suppliers Group, will simply buy its planned 25,000 megawatts of nuclear capacity from France or Russia. After much delay, Mr. Singh has done his part; now it's Congress's turn.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8072202656.html
45-nation group OKs landmark US-India nuke deal
By WILLIAM J. KOLE -- Sep 6, 2008
VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- Nations that supply nuclear material and technology overcame fierce obstacles Saturday and approved a landmark U.S. plan to engage in atomic trade with India -- a deal that reverses more than three decades of American policy.
The Nuclear Suppliers Group, which governs the legal world trade in nuclear components and know-how, signed off on the deal after three days of contentious talks and some concessions to countries fearful it could set a dangerous precedent.
"Today we have reached a landmark decision to allow for civilian nuclear trade with India," John Rood, acting U.S. undersecretary of state for arms control issues, told reporters.
"This is a historical moment for the NSG, for India and for India's relations with the rest of the world," he said.
Austria, one of the holdouts along with Ireland and New Zealand, said it lifted its objections after India pledged on Friday not to touch off a new nuclear arms race or share sensitive nuclear technology with other countries.
In a statement, the Austrian government called that pledge "decisive," and Rood said it "played a major role" in removing obstacles to an agreement.
India has tested atomic weapons and refused to sign international nonproliferation treaties.
The U.S. needed approval from the nuclear group, which governs the legal trade in nuclear components and technology, and from the International Atomic Energy Agency, which signed off on the deal last month.
"We're very pleased that we were able to reach a compromise that everyone could live with," said the chief British envoy, Simon Smith.
But the plan still needs backing from U.S. Congress, and the Bush administration must now race to get approval before lawmakers recess for the rest of the year to devote time to their re-election campaigns.
Before the 45-nation nuclear group approved the deal, U.S. officials had contended that selling peaceful nuclear technology to India would bring the country's atomic program under closer scrutiny and boost -- not undermine -- international nonproliferation efforts.
Rood said it would help meet India's growing energy needs while helping the developing country -- a major polluter -- cut back on harmful emissions that experts warn are contributing to global warming.
The group was founded as a direct result of India's 1974 atomic test blasts. India tested nuclear weapons most recently in 1998, and opponents have expressed concerns that bending the rules to allow nuclear trade with New Delhi undermines the global effort to discourage the production of weapons of mass destruction.
Officials said Saturday's breakthrough came after U.S. President George W. Bush personally intervened to lobby allies at the nuclear group to approve the trade waiver.
"The U.S. government engaged in an intense diplomatic effort," Rood said.
Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Washington-based Arms Control Association, accused the U.S. delegation of resorting to "some nasty threats, misinformation about positions and intimidation to try to wear down" the three holdout countries. U.S. officials had no immediate comment.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jfsmyTI...w_mu_wD93176080
By WILLIAM J. KOLE -- Sep 6, 2008
VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- Nations that supply nuclear material and technology overcame fierce obstacles Saturday and approved a landmark U.S. plan to engage in atomic trade with India -- a deal that reverses more than three decades of American policy.
The Nuclear Suppliers Group, which governs the legal world trade in nuclear components and know-how, signed off on the deal after three days of contentious talks and some concessions to countries fearful it could set a dangerous precedent.
"Today we have reached a landmark decision to allow for civilian nuclear trade with India," John Rood, acting U.S. undersecretary of state for arms control issues, told reporters.
"This is a historical moment for the NSG, for India and for India's relations with the rest of the world," he said.
Austria, one of the holdouts along with Ireland and New Zealand, said it lifted its objections after India pledged on Friday not to touch off a new nuclear arms race or share sensitive nuclear technology with other countries.
In a statement, the Austrian government called that pledge "decisive," and Rood said it "played a major role" in removing obstacles to an agreement.
India has tested atomic weapons and refused to sign international nonproliferation treaties.
The U.S. needed approval from the nuclear group, which governs the legal trade in nuclear components and technology, and from the International Atomic Energy Agency, which signed off on the deal last month.
"We're very pleased that we were able to reach a compromise that everyone could live with," said the chief British envoy, Simon Smith.
But the plan still needs backing from U.S. Congress, and the Bush administration must now race to get approval before lawmakers recess for the rest of the year to devote time to their re-election campaigns.
Before the 45-nation nuclear group approved the deal, U.S. officials had contended that selling peaceful nuclear technology to India would bring the country's atomic program under closer scrutiny and boost -- not undermine -- international nonproliferation efforts.
Rood said it would help meet India's growing energy needs while helping the developing country -- a major polluter -- cut back on harmful emissions that experts warn are contributing to global warming.
The group was founded as a direct result of India's 1974 atomic test blasts. India tested nuclear weapons most recently in 1998, and opponents have expressed concerns that bending the rules to allow nuclear trade with New Delhi undermines the global effort to discourage the production of weapons of mass destruction.
Officials said Saturday's breakthrough came after U.S. President George W. Bush personally intervened to lobby allies at the nuclear group to approve the trade waiver.
"The U.S. government engaged in an intense diplomatic effort," Rood said.
Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Washington-based Arms Control Association, accused the U.S. delegation of resorting to "some nasty threats, misinformation about positions and intimidation to try to wear down" the three holdout countries. U.S. officials had no immediate comment.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jfsmyTI...w_mu_wD93176080
good for india. good for US. Bad for russia and china in general. BUt they cant openly denied the deal cuz they dont want to risk damaging relations with india.
I guess the final step is approval by the US Senate. Since the deal isn't controversial here approval is a foregone conclusion.
It is quite amusing that the very reason this so-called NSG group was created was to deny India its nuclear energy.
Regardless, once India achieves self-sufficiency (with thorium, we can't use uranium since we don't have significant reserves of it), we show just scrap this whole treaty! Make the world accept India as a full nuclear power rather than a defacto one.
Besides, they couldn't do anything in 1974, hell 1998 sanctions couldn't do anything, 5 years from now, they will just shut their stupid mouths and accept ground realities of India being a nuclear weapons state.
Regardless, once India achieves self-sufficiency (with thorium, we can't use uranium since we don't have significant reserves of it), we show just scrap this whole treaty! Make the world accept India as a full nuclear power rather than a defacto one.
Besides, they couldn't do anything in 1974, hell 1998 sanctions couldn't do anything, 5 years from now, they will just shut their stupid mouths and accept ground realities of India being a nuclear weapons state.
Very well stated @kkdkckrl. This is a very important happening for India, the U.S. and the whole world. India's nuclear isolation is over. But two things are bugging me - first India has given an assurance that it won't conduct a nuclear test it is a major drawback, second China had played the spoiler yet again on the last minute China tried to stall the nuclear waiver to India. Apparently China's president Hu Jintao had assured PM Manmohan Singh that China will play a constructive role. It reminds me of 1962 war at that time too Jawaharlal Nehru was convinced by the Chinese leadership that they have no issues with India and China and India are friends. Everyone knows what happened after that. It has been proved once again that China is a backstabber.
QUOTE(VAMAN @ Sep 6 2008, 10:35 PM)
Very well stated @kkdkckrl. This is a very important happening for India, the U.S. and the whole world. India's nuclear isolation is over. But two things are bugging me - first India has given an assurance that it won't conduct a nuclear test it is a major drawback, second China had played the spoiler yet again on the last minute China tried to stall the nuclear waiver to India. Apparently China's president Hu Jintao had assured PM Manmohan Singh that China will play a constructive role. It reminds me of 1962 war at that time too Jawaharlal Nehru was convinced by the Chinese leadership that they have no issues with India and China and India are friends. Everyone knows what happened after that. It has been proved once again that China is a backstabber.
Although India not being able to test is a negative, the fact remains that India isn't going to test nuclear weapons in the window of 15-20 years anyway, regardless of us voluntarily agreeing to not test them. I think Indian nuclear weapons need to be validated again (even though scientists have said enough data was obtained in Pokhran II tests), but our security interests are not so bad for us to test them. Our greatest threat of nuclear war would be with Pakistan, as it is a weaker country, and a nuclear war is a real possibility if war breaks out. While with China the nuclear threshold would never be reached, but we do need enough weapons to make China think thrice of any foolish adventure, and we are nowhere near that nuclear deterrence. I think India will reach a position that China is now in 10 years time (provided Indian Economy and Global economy doesn't falter), and at that point, there is really little the world could do.
Regarding the Chinese part, India has absolutely no strategy on how to deal with it. The way I see it, China will back stab (it has done again with NSG). NDA gov't didn't know how to deal with China, and neither does the UPA(UPA is even worse). India needs to formulate a proper strategy on how to deal with China, and hostility with China will neither serve us or the chinese(and neither will Hind-Chin Bhai Bhai). We should beware of the chinese and the same time not jump into US bandwagon. India should create its own pole, and not be under some other state.
QUOTE
Although India not being able to test is a negative, the fact remains that India isn't going to test nuclear weapons in the window of 15-20 years anyway, regardless of us voluntarily agreeing to not test them. I think Indian nuclear weapons need to be validated again (even though scientists have said enough data was obtained in Pokhran II tests), but our security interests are not so bad for us to test them. Our greatest threat of nuclear war would be with Pakistan, as it is a weaker country, and a nuclear war is a real possibility if war breaks out. While with China the nuclear threshold would never be reached, but we do need enough weapons to make China think thrice of any foolish adventure, and we are nowhere near that nuclear deterrence. I think India will reach a position that China is now in 10 years time (provided Indian Economy and Global economy doesn't falter), and at that point, there is really little the world could do.
Regarding the Chinese part, India has absolutely no strategy on how to deal with it. The way I see it, China will back stab (it has done again with NSG). NDA gov't didn't know how to deal with China, and neither does the UPA(UPA is even worse). India needs to formulate a proper strategy on how to deal with China, and hostility with China will neither serve us or the chinese(and neither will Hind-Chin Bhai Bhai). We should beware of the chinese and the same time not jump into US bandwagon. India should create its own pole, and not be under some other state.
Regarding the Chinese part, India has absolutely no strategy on how to deal with it. The way I see it, China will back stab (it has done again with NSG). NDA gov't didn't know how to deal with China, and neither does the UPA(UPA is even worse). India needs to formulate a proper strategy on how to deal with China, and hostility with China will neither serve us or the chinese(and neither will Hind-Chin Bhai Bhai). We should beware of the chinese and the same time not jump into US bandwagon. India should create its own pole, and not be under some other state.
China doesnt like india being drawn closer and closer to the US. BUt the thing is china doesnt want to be lobbying to hard against this deal. India in the gobal stage right now is a swing state. It hasnt pick a side between SCO and NATO. India to this day is still sitting on the fences refusing to pick a side. The chinese will not do anything that will push any more asian countries into joining the anti china alliances that already exsist today.
Regarding indiia catching to current china in 10 years....well....no comment.
QUOTE(kkdkckrl @ Sep 7 2008, 10:35 AM)
Although India not being able to test is a negative, the fact remains that India isn't going to test nuclear weapons in the window of 15-20 years anyway, regardless of us voluntarily agreeing to not test them. I think Indian nuclear weapons need to be validated again (even though scientists have said enough data was obtained in Pokhran II tests), but our security interests are not so bad for us to test them. Our greatest threat of nuclear war would be with Pakistan, as it is a weaker country, and a nuclear war is a real possibility if war breaks out. While with China the nuclear threshold would never be reached, but we do need enough weapons to make China think thrice of any foolish adventure, and we are nowhere near that nuclear deterrence. I think India will reach a position that China is now in 10 years time (provided Indian Economy and Global economy doesn't falter), and at that point, there is really little the world could do.
Nuclear technology development is an ongoing process. Indian scientists are trying to develop Thorium based reactors which is considered as more efficient and clean fuel than Uranium. But sadly this nuclear deal will stop the indigenous research work as research money will be diverted towards buying nuclear equipment from American companies. Lot of nuclear scientists in India were against this nuclear deal. But the present Congress government is very pro-U.S., they blindly follow everything U.S.A. do or say.
QUOTE(kkdkckrl @ Sep 7 2008, 10:35 AM)
Regarding the Chinese part, India has absolutely no strategy on how to deal with it. The way I see it, China will back stab (it has done again with NSG). NDA gov't didn't know how to deal with China, and neither does the UPA(UPA is even worse). India needs to formulate a proper strategy on how to deal with China, and hostility with China will neither serve us or the chinese(and neither will Hind-Chin Bhai Bhai). We should beware of the chinese and the same time not jump into US bandwagon. India should create its own pole, and not be under some other state.
I agree with you on this. India doesn't have any long term strategy regarding China. There is no synergy between successive governments and different political parties. It is a major disadvantage of India.
QUOTE(mkfk1 @ Sep 7 2008, 06:50 PM)
China doesnt like india being drawn closer and closer to the US. BUt the thing is china doesnt want to be lobbying to hard against this deal. India in the gobal stage right now is a swing state. It hasnt pick a side between SCO and NATO. India to this day is still sitting on the fences refusing to pick a side. The chinese will not do anything that will push any more asian countries into joining the anti china alliances that already exsist today.
Regarding indiia catching to current china in 10 years....well....no comment.
Regarding indiia catching to current china in 10 years....well....no comment.
During cold war era India chose not to choose sides either with the western or the eastern bloc countries. India was one of the founding members of the Non-Aligned Movement. The main problem started when U.S.A. started supporting and aiding successive Pakistani dictators against India. Soviet Union was of great help in those times, so India became more closer to the Soviet Union. Now too with changing global scenario after the demise of Soviet Union, India still doesn't want to choose sides. But due to past border disputes with China and warming of relations with U.S.A., India has tilted a bit towards U.S.A., but still India remains a very important ally of Russia.
QUOTE
India now a big world player thanks to nuclear nod: minister
http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=348771
"In this Asian century, this decade is for India."
http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=348771
"In this Asian century, this decade is for India."
Senate Approves Indian Nuclear Deal
By PETER BAKER
Published: October 1, 2008
WASHINGTON -- The United States opened a new chapter of cooperation with India on Wednesday night as Congress gave final approval to a breakthrough agreement permitting civilian nuclear trade between the two countries for the first time in three decades.
The Senate ratified the deal 86 to 13 a week after the House passed it, handing a rare foreign policy victory to President Bush in the twilight of his administration and culminating a three-year debate that raised alarms about a new arms race and nearly toppled the government of India.
The agreement, in the view of its authors, will redefine relations between two countries often at odds during the cold war and build up India as a friendly counterweight to a rising China. But critics complain that it effectively scraps longstanding policies designed to curb the spread of nuclear weapons and that it could encourage nations like Pakistan, Iran and North Korea to accelerate their own programs outside international legal structures.
Under the terms of the deal, the United States will now be able to sell nuclear fuel, technology and reactors to India for peaceful energy use despite the fact that New Delhi tested bombs in 1974 and 1998 and never signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. In exchange, India agreed to open up 14 civilian nuclear facilities to international inspection, but would continue to shield eight military reactors from outside scrutiny.
"The national security and economic future of the United States will be enhanced by a strong and enduring partnership with India," Senator Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, said in the Senate debate on Wednesday. "With a well-educated overall middle class that is larger than the entire United States population, India can be an anchor of stability in Asia and an engine of economic growth."
Senator Byron Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota, called the deal a “grievous mistake” that would reward rogue behavior. "We have said to India with this agreement: ‘You can misuse American nuclear technology and secretly develop nuclear weapons.' That's what they did. 'You can test these weapons.' That's what they did," Mr. Dorgan said.
He added: "And after testing, 10 years later, all will be forgiven."
Mr. Dorgan and Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico, tried to amend the agreement to explicitly require the United States to cut off nuclear trade if India conducted a new nuclear test. The agreement’s backers defeated the proposal, arguing that it was unnecessary and that nuclear trade would be halted in such a situation.
Mr. Bush has been pursuing the agreement since 2005 and his advisers have called closer relations between the United States and India a key part of his foreign policy legacy. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India, visiting Mr. Bush at the White House last week, endorsed that view. “When history is written,” he said, “I think it will be recorded that President George W. Bush made an historic goal in bringing our two democracies closer to each other.”
But the nuclear accord has proved even more controversial at home for Mr. Singh than for Mr. Bush. Opposition parties have tried to bring down Mr. Singh’s government and the Communist Party dropped out of his governing coalition in protest of the deal, but he survived a confidence vote. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice heads this week to New Delhi to mark the success of their nuclear negotiations.
For India, the pact signals the end of 34 years of isolation among nuclear powers — what the New Delhi government calls “nuclear apartheid.” The United States last month convinced the Nuclear Suppliers Group, a consortium of 45 nations that Washington formed in response to the Indian test in 1974, to lift longstanding restrictions on nuclear trade with India. France and Russia are eager to bid for India’s business.
The United States-India Business Council, which promoted the deal, estimates that India may spend as much as $175 billion over the next quarter century expanding its nuclear industry to cope with rising energy demands. Companies like General Electric, Westinghouse and Bechtel will now be able to compete for contracts.
“This is one of those historic, important, tectonic shifts in relations with another country,” said Ron Somers, the council’s president. “This is a country we need to be partnering with and I would argue will be shaping the destiny of the 21st century.” Michael Krepon, co-founder of the Henry L. Stimson Center, a research organization in Washington, called the promise of big dollars and American jobs “pure fantasy” and predicted that the United States would regret further opening the nuclear door.
“There will be a reckoning for this agreement,” he said. “You can argue till you’re blue in the face that India is a special case. But what happens in one country affects what happens in others.”
Source - http://www.nytimes.com/
By PETER BAKER
Published: October 1, 2008
WASHINGTON -- The United States opened a new chapter of cooperation with India on Wednesday night as Congress gave final approval to a breakthrough agreement permitting civilian nuclear trade between the two countries for the first time in three decades.
The Senate ratified the deal 86 to 13 a week after the House passed it, handing a rare foreign policy victory to President Bush in the twilight of his administration and culminating a three-year debate that raised alarms about a new arms race and nearly toppled the government of India.
The agreement, in the view of its authors, will redefine relations between two countries often at odds during the cold war and build up India as a friendly counterweight to a rising China. But critics complain that it effectively scraps longstanding policies designed to curb the spread of nuclear weapons and that it could encourage nations like Pakistan, Iran and North Korea to accelerate their own programs outside international legal structures.
Under the terms of the deal, the United States will now be able to sell nuclear fuel, technology and reactors to India for peaceful energy use despite the fact that New Delhi tested bombs in 1974 and 1998 and never signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. In exchange, India agreed to open up 14 civilian nuclear facilities to international inspection, but would continue to shield eight military reactors from outside scrutiny.
"The national security and economic future of the United States will be enhanced by a strong and enduring partnership with India," Senator Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, said in the Senate debate on Wednesday. "With a well-educated overall middle class that is larger than the entire United States population, India can be an anchor of stability in Asia and an engine of economic growth."
Senator Byron Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota, called the deal a “grievous mistake” that would reward rogue behavior. "We have said to India with this agreement: ‘You can misuse American nuclear technology and secretly develop nuclear weapons.' That's what they did. 'You can test these weapons.' That's what they did," Mr. Dorgan said.
He added: "And after testing, 10 years later, all will be forgiven."
Mr. Dorgan and Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico, tried to amend the agreement to explicitly require the United States to cut off nuclear trade if India conducted a new nuclear test. The agreement’s backers defeated the proposal, arguing that it was unnecessary and that nuclear trade would be halted in such a situation.
Mr. Bush has been pursuing the agreement since 2005 and his advisers have called closer relations between the United States and India a key part of his foreign policy legacy. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India, visiting Mr. Bush at the White House last week, endorsed that view. “When history is written,” he said, “I think it will be recorded that President George W. Bush made an historic goal in bringing our two democracies closer to each other.”
But the nuclear accord has proved even more controversial at home for Mr. Singh than for Mr. Bush. Opposition parties have tried to bring down Mr. Singh’s government and the Communist Party dropped out of his governing coalition in protest of the deal, but he survived a confidence vote. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice heads this week to New Delhi to mark the success of their nuclear negotiations.
For India, the pact signals the end of 34 years of isolation among nuclear powers — what the New Delhi government calls “nuclear apartheid.” The United States last month convinced the Nuclear Suppliers Group, a consortium of 45 nations that Washington formed in response to the Indian test in 1974, to lift longstanding restrictions on nuclear trade with India. France and Russia are eager to bid for India’s business.
The United States-India Business Council, which promoted the deal, estimates that India may spend as much as $175 billion over the next quarter century expanding its nuclear industry to cope with rising energy demands. Companies like General Electric, Westinghouse and Bechtel will now be able to compete for contracts.
“This is one of those historic, important, tectonic shifts in relations with another country,” said Ron Somers, the council’s president. “This is a country we need to be partnering with and I would argue will be shaping the destiny of the 21st century.” Michael Krepon, co-founder of the Henry L. Stimson Center, a research organization in Washington, called the promise of big dollars and American jobs “pure fantasy” and predicted that the United States would regret further opening the nuclear door.
“There will be a reckoning for this agreement,” he said. “You can argue till you’re blue in the face that India is a special case. But what happens in one country affects what happens in others.”
Source - http://www.nytimes.com/
It's in both countries' interest for China to become destabilized. It's time for the C.I.A. to flex it's muscle.
YOU HEAR THAT HIVE MIND?
YOUR WAY OF LIFE, YOUR SOVEREIGNTY, YOUR PRECIOUS CPC, WILL ALL GO THE WAY OF THE DODO.
God, Capitalism, and Democracy must and will triumph over the God-less Oriental Hordes.
YOU HEAR THAT HIVE MIND?
YOUR WAY OF LIFE, YOUR SOVEREIGNTY, YOUR PRECIOUS CPC, WILL ALL GO THE WAY OF THE DODO.
God, Capitalism, and Democracy must and will triumph over the God-less Oriental Hordes.
QUOTE
India has indicated it would not mind the United States entering a civil nuclear deal with Pakistan
http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/20169.asp
India has indicated it would not mind the United States entering a civil nuclear deal with Pakistan, saying it believed every country has the right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
"We will like to encourage civil nuclear cooperation for peaceful use of nuclear energy," External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee said at a press conference here Friday after signing the bilateral 123 agreement with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. "We believe every country has the right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes," he said when asked about Islamabad's demand for an India-like nuclear deal with the US.
In reply to another question about Pakistan's apprehensions about the nuclear deal, Mukherjee said India was determined to build good relations with Pakistan and was trying to resolve all outstanding issues between them through their composite dialogue process.
http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/20169.asp
India has indicated it would not mind the United States entering a civil nuclear deal with Pakistan, saying it believed every country has the right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
"We will like to encourage civil nuclear cooperation for peaceful use of nuclear energy," External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee said at a press conference here Friday after signing the bilateral 123 agreement with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. "We believe every country has the right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes," he said when asked about Islamabad's demand for an India-like nuclear deal with the US.
In reply to another question about Pakistan's apprehensions about the nuclear deal, Mukherjee said India was determined to build good relations with Pakistan and was trying to resolve all outstanding issues between them through their composite dialogue process.
Pakistani Hindi Bhai Bhai !!!
These nuclear deals effectively ties the hands of nations from producing, developing mass quantities (the numbers) of nuclear weopons in exchange for nuclear energy.
At the same the nuclear deals contradicts U.S. long time policy of nuclear proliferation. It contradicts its position on North Korea nuclear disarmament.
At the same the nuclear deals contradicts U.S. long time policy of nuclear proliferation. It contradicts its position on North Korea nuclear disarmament.
QUOTE(Henry123 @ Oct 14 2008, 07:34 AM)
At the same the nuclear deals contradicts U.S. long time policy of nuclear proliferation. It contradicts its position on North Korea nuclear disarmament.
yup
Typical of America to flout their own principle whenever it suits them.... 
If India can have nukes, why not Iran?
If India can have nukes, why not Iran?
Yup thats another contradiction.
QUOTE(tangawizi @ Oct 14 2008, 08:29 AM)
Typical of America to flout their own principle whenever it suits them....
If India can have nukes, why not Iran?
If India can have nukes, why not Iran?
Iran cannot have Nukes because Israel said so.
QUOTE(Henry123 @ Oct 14 2008, 04:34 AM)
These nuclear deals effectively ties the hands of nations from producing, developing mass quantities (the numbers) of nuclear weopons in exchange for nuclear energy.
At the same the nuclear deals contradicts U.S. long time policy of nuclear proliferation. It contradicts its position on North Korea nuclear disarmament.
At the same the nuclear deals contradicts U.S. long time policy of nuclear proliferation. It contradicts its position on North Korea nuclear disarmament.
I have to respectfully disagree with your post. Firstly, the nuclear deal doesn't (imo) prevent India from building more bombs. In fact, access to nuclear fuel from outside sources might allow India to divert domestically produced nuclear fuel from the civilian sector for military applications. India has no history of nuclear proliferation. That fact underlies the American calculation of the cost/benefit ratio in this matter.
Secondly, the ultimate policy of the American government is to ensure the physical safety of the American people in the American homeland. Nuclear nonproliferation policies are tactics designed to ensure the success of the ultimate policy. The nuclear nonproliferation regime was in the process of failing before the US/India nuclear deal. While ultimate objectives don't change tactics do as events unfold.
With respect to American nuclear nonproliferation policies toward India, Pakistan and Iran, one size does not fit all.
QUOTE(tangawizi @ Oct 14 2008, 05:29 AM)
Typical of America to flout their own principle whenever it suits them....
If India can have nukes, why not Iran?
If India can have nukes, why not Iran?
I'm surprised to see you posting on this thread. I thought you were busy campaigning for Obi Wan.
I mean no offense, but the first sentence of your post is pretty unsophisticated for a variety of reasons. Nothing more need be said.
You ask why India can have nukes, but not Iran. There are many answers to this question. Most of those answers depend on one's perspective. The Indian government is composed of rational decisionmakers. The Iranian government is on a mission from god, and rationality is irrelevant when one is waiting for the appearance of the 12th iman. India has not threatened the destruction of any country. Iran has.
Let's carry your logic to its ultimate conclusion. Why shouldn't Taiwan have nuclear weapons? Why shouldn't Georgia have nuclear weapons? Why shouldn't Somalia have nuclear weapons? Why shouldn't Japan have nuclear weapons? Why shouldn't Al Qaeda have nuclear weapons? Why shouldn't the Uigurs, Hutus or anyone else have nuclear weapons?
The nuclear nonproliferation regime is failing. Nuclear weapons and the technology to develop them will spread widely in this century. And humanity will enter a new era in history.
Now India should go for the UNSC Permanent seat. Of the five permanent members, France and Russia support India (at least outwardly), US does not support it, UK will go along with the US and China will never support any other Asian nation.
India should try to swing the US in our favor by offering to vote for a few resolutions along with them. UK will also come long leaving China isolated on this issue and therefore the deck stocked in India's favor.
India should try to swing the US in our favor by offering to vote for a few resolutions along with them. UK will also come long leaving China isolated on this issue and therefore the deck stocked in India's favor.
QUOTE(tangawizi @ Oct 14 2008, 08:29 AM)
Typical of America to flout their own principle whenever it suits them....
If India can have nukes, why not Iran?
If India can have nukes, why not Iran?
Tang, are you really that naive?
QUOTE(GoonerDP @ Oct 14 2008, 01:46 PM)
Now India should go for the UNSC Permanent seat. Of the five permanent members, France and Russia support India (at least outwardly), US does not support it, UK will go along with the US and China will never support any other Asian nation.
India should try to swing the US in our favor by offering to vote for a few resolutions along with them. UK will also come long leaving China isolated on this issue and therefore the deck stocked in India's favor.
India should try to swing the US in our favor by offering to vote for a few resolutions along with them. UK will also come long leaving China isolated on this issue and therefore the deck stocked in India's favor.
How is it possible for India to swing the US in India's favor ? Didn't you know the US is actively pitting India and China against each other ?
QUOTE(Hafiz @ Oct 22 2008, 08:50 AM)
....Didn't you know the US is actively pitting India and China against each other ?
America isn't trying to pit India and China against each other. America is openly siding with India.
QUOTE(baal @ Oct 22 2008, 07:31 PM)
America isn't trying to pit India and China against each other. America is openly siding with India.
That's what Uncle SAM wants people to think.
QUOTE(Henry123 @ Oct 14 2008, 06:34 AM)
These nuclear deals effectively ties the hands of nations from producing, developing mass quantities (the numbers) of nuclear weopons in exchange for nuclear energy.
At the same the nuclear deals contradicts U.S. long time policy of nuclear proliferation. It contradicts its position on North Korea nuclear disarmament.
At the same the nuclear deals contradicts U.S. long time policy of nuclear proliferation. It contradicts its position on North Korea nuclear disarmament.
It doesn't contradict anything. Please stop your hypocrisy. India tested its nuclear weapons in 1974. And since at that time, it was more closely aligned to USSR and China had recently come to the American side, the western powers (US, UK, France) arbitrarily drew the cut-off at 1967. Why 1967 and why not 1975? No logical reason.
India never signed the NPT. Despite never signing the NPT, it never proliferated nuclear tech. Unlike the recent darling of that time, China who sold nuclear tech to Pakistan, N Korea and Iran. So if you do want nuclear disarmament, then please start punishing China for its flouting of rules. But that is not going to happen.
China is helping Pakistan build nuclear plants. No need for an approval from anyone. No legal procedure followed. If China is a signatory of NPT so what? Punish China if you have the guts. I know you can't.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jb4knIrkSTiC6qdm1qhDpFK7Es8QD93SS5TO0
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jb4knIrkSTiC6qdm1qhDpFK7Es8QD93SS5TO0
QUOTE
China to help build 2 Pakistan nuclear plants
By MUNIR AHMAD – Oct 18, 2008
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) — Pakistan said Saturday that China will help it build two more nuclear power plants, offsetting Pakistani frustration over a recent nuclear deal between archrival India and the United States.
The agreement with China was among 12 accords signed during Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari's recent visit to Beijing, said Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi.
While Qureshi gave few details, the accord deepens Pakistan's long-standing ties with China at a time when its relations with Washington are strained over the dragging war against terrorism.
U.S. officials including Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher, who arrived in Islamabad on Saturday for talks, have rejected Pakistani calls for equal treatment with India on nuclear power.
Chinese leaders "do recognize Pakistan's need, and China is one country that at international forums has clearly spoken against the discriminatory nature of that understanding" between Washington and New Delhi, Qureshi said.
Zardari met with China's top leaders during his first official trip to Beijing since replacing stalwart U.S. ally Pervez Musharraf as president in September.
China, a major investor and arms supplier for Pakistan, has already helped it build a nuclear power plant at Chashma, about 125 miles southwest of the capital, Islamabad. Work on a second nuclear plant is in progress and is expected to be completed in 2011.
Qureshi said the Chashma III and Chashma IV reactors would provide Pakistan with an additional 680 megawatts of generating capacity.
He didn't say when they would be built or what assistance China would provide.
Nor did he discuss any measures to prevent nuclear materials from the new plants from being diverted to Pakistan's atomic weapons program. Pakistan has placed several other civilian reactors under International Atomic Energy Authority safeguards.
Pakistan's nuclear program remains a sore topic with Washington because of its past record of proliferation.
International sanctions were slapped on Pakistan after it detonated its first nuclear charges in 1998 in response to similar tests by India.
The sanctions were eased after Musharraf agreed to help Washington hunt down al-Qaida terrorists responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States.
But the revelation in 2004 that the architect of Islamabad's nuclear program, Abdul Qadeer Khan, had passed nuclear secrets to Iran, Libya and North Korea set back Pakistan's hopes of becoming a trusted member of the world's exclusive nuclear club.
The U.S.-India deal allows American businesses to sell nuclear fuel, technology and reactors to India in exchange for safeguards and U.N. inspections of India's civilian — but not military — nuclear plants.
Boucher told reporters earlier this month that the pact with India was "unique" and that a similar agreement with Pakistan was "just not on the table."
He said Washington would help Pakistan — where chronic power shortages are contributing to a gathering economic crisis — develop its huge coal reserves, expand hydroelectric power generation and build wind farms on its Arabian Sea coast.
Pakistan, the Islamic world's only known nuclear weapons state, began operating its first nuclear power station with Canadian assistance near the southern port city of Karachi in 1972.
By MUNIR AHMAD – Oct 18, 2008
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) — Pakistan said Saturday that China will help it build two more nuclear power plants, offsetting Pakistani frustration over a recent nuclear deal between archrival India and the United States.
The agreement with China was among 12 accords signed during Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari's recent visit to Beijing, said Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi.
While Qureshi gave few details, the accord deepens Pakistan's long-standing ties with China at a time when its relations with Washington are strained over the dragging war against terrorism.
U.S. officials including Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher, who arrived in Islamabad on Saturday for talks, have rejected Pakistani calls for equal treatment with India on nuclear power.
Chinese leaders "do recognize Pakistan's need, and China is one country that at international forums has clearly spoken against the discriminatory nature of that understanding" between Washington and New Delhi, Qureshi said.
Zardari met with China's top leaders during his first official trip to Beijing since replacing stalwart U.S. ally Pervez Musharraf as president in September.
China, a major investor and arms supplier for Pakistan, has already helped it build a nuclear power plant at Chashma, about 125 miles southwest of the capital, Islamabad. Work on a second nuclear plant is in progress and is expected to be completed in 2011.
Qureshi said the Chashma III and Chashma IV reactors would provide Pakistan with an additional 680 megawatts of generating capacity.
He didn't say when they would be built or what assistance China would provide.
Nor did he discuss any measures to prevent nuclear materials from the new plants from being diverted to Pakistan's atomic weapons program. Pakistan has placed several other civilian reactors under International Atomic Energy Authority safeguards.
Pakistan's nuclear program remains a sore topic with Washington because of its past record of proliferation.
International sanctions were slapped on Pakistan after it detonated its first nuclear charges in 1998 in response to similar tests by India.
The sanctions were eased after Musharraf agreed to help Washington hunt down al-Qaida terrorists responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States.
But the revelation in 2004 that the architect of Islamabad's nuclear program, Abdul Qadeer Khan, had passed nuclear secrets to Iran, Libya and North Korea set back Pakistan's hopes of becoming a trusted member of the world's exclusive nuclear club.
The U.S.-India deal allows American businesses to sell nuclear fuel, technology and reactors to India in exchange for safeguards and U.N. inspections of India's civilian — but not military — nuclear plants.
Boucher told reporters earlier this month that the pact with India was "unique" and that a similar agreement with Pakistan was "just not on the table."
He said Washington would help Pakistan — where chronic power shortages are contributing to a gathering economic crisis — develop its huge coal reserves, expand hydroelectric power generation and build wind farms on its Arabian Sea coast.
Pakistan, the Islamic world's only known nuclear weapons state, began operating its first nuclear power station with Canadian assistance near the southern port city of Karachi in 1972.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.