The 'on your face' American depravity in backtracking from the original agreement on 123 is not an isolated phenomenon. Just the other day you had a dubbed neocon, a leading exponent of 'Clash of Civilisation' who thought it was all about pillow fight. Then there is that 'slam dunk' man wh thinks intelli is about selling war to Americans. The guy does not even realise how close he comes to Kafkaisque scene. You had that 'war-hero' who not only 'found' WMD in Iraq but who also 'found' in a Junta the makings for an anti-terror front and a 'true'blue' 'XXXX' partner. You have the Sec who invokes 'hunter's right' in Iraq and a whole lot of 'interested' partisans who extend the rules of everything fair in love and war to making money by all means. From such motley crowd of opportunists, to expect wisdom and rule of law, and the ideals which ordinary Americans and ordinary Indians abide by, is not really fair either. Yet, we need to expect that somehow events will turn and the decency of 'real Americans', as we know of it, and as Faulkner had eternally hoped, shall prevail.
The U.S. is not willing to concede India's rights to reprocess spent fuel and procure equipment for reprocessing, enrichment and heavy water production. This falls short of its earlier commitment to "full nuclear co-operation". By contrast, other countries with advanced nuclear technology like France and Russia do not have any qualms about this. The Bush administration's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership proposes that India be relegated to a humiliating "recipient country" status and not engage in reprocessing or enrichment activity. This is a slap in the face for India which has long mastered the technology. Reprocessing is a key aspect of India's fast breeder program.
The United States failed to remove the contentious portions of its Atomic Energy Act that would automatically terminate co-operation in case of India testing a nuclear device. While India now has a self-imposed and informal unilateral moratorium, it should never sign a more formal "no test" clause that translates such commitment into a principle of international law. It should always retain the option to test at a future date.
In the event of a test, U.S. proposes to take back its material and nuclear fuel stockpile. Since this would put American companies at a disadvantage vis-%uFFFD-vis the French or the Russians, the U.S. now attempts to introduce a similar clause in the NSG guidelines that would govern India's relations with other member states. This would cripple nuclear commerce with them as well! This is a complete reversion of the March 2006 agreement where the Americans agreed to work with other fuel suppliers to ensure that the imported reactors would have a life-time's supply in return for perpetual safeguards.
The U.S. has long sought to dismantle Indian nuclear weapons program. After India's nuclear test in 1974, they enforced a tough sanction regime and stopped fuel supplies to the American-made Tarapur nuclear reactor. Despite hardships, successive Indian governments refused to concede India's strategic program. The U.S. now attempts to do so under the garb of so-called strategic partnership. The Sonia Gandhi-led administration opts to concede on national defense under the illusion of civilian nuclear cooperation. It appears to want India disrobed into perpetual nuclear nudity.
Excerpts from http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/newsrf.php?newsid=8599
Extrapolating from past years may be of no use in assessing the N-deal. Present times are not only post-Cold war, but also post 9/11. There is convergence in security interests and also proven success in economic complementary cooperation particularly in software and BPO. This domain may rapidly extend to manufacturing sector if Indian policies evolve on pragmatic lines per real needs. The N-deal is as much about creating a healthy psychological climate of mutual confidence and for long term commitment to economic investments. The political and social changes required of India are of very high order and the deal would certainly provide the extra impetus. The opportunity costs of not fulfilling the initially agreed commitment are much too high. US watchers are not seeing progress, perhaps because they do not factor the events which ought to be seen as real milestones here. The wisdom in concerning only with the economic and political aspect and leaving security matter untouched makes eminent sense in the context of the complexities involved. India can be only a factor of stability to all concerned, and this premise deserves acceptance of decision-makers.
The U.S. is not willing to concede India's rights to reprocess spent fuel and procure equipment for reprocessing, enrichment and heavy water production. This falls short of its earlier commitment to "full nuclear co-operation". By contrast, other countries with advanced nuclear technology like France and Russia do not have any qualms about this. The Bush administration's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership proposes that India be relegated to a humiliating "recipient country" status and not engage in reprocessing or enrichment activity. This is a slap in the face for India which has long mastered the technology. Reprocessing is a key aspect of India's fast breeder program.
The United States failed to remove the contentious portions of its Atomic Energy Act that would automatically terminate co-operation in case of India testing a nuclear device. While India now has a self-imposed and informal unilateral moratorium, it should never sign a more formal "no test" clause that translates such commitment into a principle of international law. It should always retain the option to test at a future date.
In the event of a test, U.S. proposes to take back its material and nuclear fuel stockpile. Since this would put American companies at a disadvantage vis-à-vis the French or the Russians, the U.S. now attempts to introduce a similar clause in the NSG guidelines that would govern India's relations with other member states. This would cripple nuclear commerce with them as well! This is a complete reversion of the March 2006 agreement where the Americans agreed to work with other fuel suppliers to ensure that the imported reactors would have a life-time's supply in return for perpetual safeguards.
The U.S. has long sought to dismantle Indian nuclear weapons program. After India's nuclear test in 1974, they enforced a tough sanction regime and stopped fuel supplies to the American-made Tarapur nuclear reactor. Despite hardships, successive Indian governments refused to concede India's strategic program. The U.S. now attempts to do so under the garb of so-called strategic partnership. The Sonia Gandhi-led administration opts to concede on national defense under the illusion of civilian nuclear cooperation. It appears to want India disrobed into perpetual nuclear nudity.
Excerpts from http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/newsrf.php?newsid=8599
In the interests of both India and USA, it is of utmost importance that a final agreement is signed upon as quiclkly as possible. Both the nations are standing on false prestige. They must have a give and take so that both feel they have gained. FOR india it is of tremendous importance as under this agreement USA will supply the fuel for generatio0n of electricity from atomic reactors. USA will get the support and frienship of a responsible nuclear power. Otherwise, people in both the counties will neglected by the to democracies together
The obstacle India faces in imlementing needed energy solution, nuclear or otherwise, has been consistent since the world discovered the secret genius potential of India. Exactly like King Kansa, afraid of the eight baby Krishna, NSG is doing it's best to prevent the Indian Republic from reaching maturity, by killing it in childhood and youth. India was the first to build nuclear reactor in Asia, and first genuine victim of NSG apartheid regime, despite India's impeccably clean and responsible history in military & security context. Let it be known, Kansa could not stop Krishna, and neither will the mainly anti-Indian-NSG with it's chief patron USA, be able to stop destiny taking its ienvitable course.
Post Second WW, US was able to throttle far superior Jet aviation technology in Germany and Japan. The rocket technology was also constricted. The pressures India has faced at each level be it hovercraft, or Agni Technology demonstrator, or NPE, are well known. Similarly US could well be seeking to nip Indian FBR in its bud with a calculation to dominate this arena for decades to come. Atleast, the likelihood of such an approach, needs to be factored in Indian negotiations.
Indian and US diplomats are struggling to strike a compromise over the so called landmark nuclear deal.
The controversial deal is in limbo due to what Washington says is New Delhi's refusal to accept conditions essential to clinch the deal.
The US Congress approved the deal in December 2006 but the countries have since struggled to negotiate a bilateral agreement that lays down the terms of nuclear trade.
Two key terms have held up signing of the agreement:
FIRST: It relates to Washington ending nuclear cooperation if New Delhi conducts another nuclear test. India has declared a unilateral moratorium on further tests after conducting underground explosions in 1998 but has refused to join the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Some Indian scientists say they would like New Delhi to have the freedom to test again, while agreeing to the condition would make the moratorium binding.
This is also a political landmine for Prime Minister Manmohan Singh as he is under strong pressure from Left allies and the Opposition BJP who don't want him to succumb to US pressure.
Already weakened by losses in local elections and facing flak for rising prices, Singh's ruling Congress is not in a mood to face charges of a sell-out to Washington.
SECOND: It is very important. It relates what some Indian experts say is a more important hurdle, is Washington's refusal to allow India to reprocess US-origin spent fuel.
India has negligible uranium of its own and the country's nuclear programme is pursuing an ambitious plan to eventually switch to using thorium--another nuclear fuel of which India has nearly a third of global reserves.
However, the thorium cycle needs to use small quantities of plutonium, extracted from reprocessing spent fuel rods. Plutonium can also be used to make bombs and Washington ostensibly doesn't want to allow that.
But with the potential of India's nuclear market seen at $100 billion, some Indian experts said they suspect Washington is more keen to ensure India does not become independent of US uranium supplies and technology.
The biggest challenge to the consummation of the agreement is from the economics of nuclear policies that India is pursuing. The government official said while New Delhi could agree to the clause on future tests if Singh could do some political tightrope walking, it was unlikely to compromise on reprocessing.
'The whole thing has begun to smack of atomic colonialism,' said R R Subramanian, an independent Indian nuclear expert.
'America wants India to be dedicated to its enriched uranium. They don't want India to become independent and lose business.'
India can trust a CHINESE dog...Never trust an AMERICAN horse....
