These questions merit answers, not just one, hundreds of experts need to answer these issue before right inferences can be fully discerned.
We need to begin with a premise that nuclear reactors are inherently unsafe and giving access to international experts to audit and advice could make them bit more safer.
We also need to appreciate that bilateral agreements, post NSG-inclusion could be more favourable.
Being aware of the NSG history, serious and authentic non-proliferation efforts by various nations and world bodies, understanding the grave risks involved, and the long wait period for India, it is evident that changeover for India can not be a straight forward process.
The Indian situation has been described as 'anamolous' and the legal remedies being put forth for India's behalf are done with serious positive intent.
The international climate after rapid and sustained expansion of China over last 2 decades, has altered considerably. India needs a coping response for its internal security. It is not wisdom anymore for developed West to put India in denial mode, in a situation of grave vulnerability while China has full access and is on fast forward mode in defence preparedness. This need has been leveraged by India to initiate change and build right kind of trust, well founded on our Constitutional value paradigm. It is not shared threat perceptions but common Constitutional values which shall help us traverse the extra mile.
10 years from now, we will renegotiate for a full acceptance as a nuclear weapon state and become the 6th recognised country.
If our friendship with the USA grows, it will not deny us. So we have to play the great international game.
Plus does anyone think that we could have had a better deal that this at the present level of India US frienship. What bargaining power do we have with the US if we constantly vote against their economic reforms.
The author is 100% correct. This PM has been hiding under the fake tags of 'honest' PM for too long. He is neither honest nor intelligent. Just delusional. He just wants to fool 1 billion people , who gave him the mandate ? In an earlier article,Mr Lavakare had mentioned about our constitution not requiring Parliament to ratify international treaties. I think this should be fixed in the Constitution, so some delusional PM does not take the whole nation for a ride (remember Nehru and UN episode)
MMSingh is a utterly inefficient politicians, we cannot expect him to win for india on international stage with seasoned politicians. It was expected that he will make blunders on the international political stage. The full impact might be felt in the future. He is an inept politicians who for lofty ideal will make the country a big looser, just like his predecessor Jawahar lal nehru. And this time the lose will be big may end in slavery, while with china it was only seceding of few lakh square kms. Congress is biggest antinational organisation in india. Alas they have been voted to power, alas countryman are uneducated.
I have not seen a more biased reporting all my life. The writer does a good job pointing out the potential fall outs and opposing views regarding this deal but does nothing to bring forward the positives in it. Nor does he quote or list any one from majority of the scientific community who are now in favour of this deal. This is the same scientists who opposed it initially but now accept it with the changes that were made later.
We do not need any answer to these questions. The fact is that the USA has asked us to be its partner in the dance. We should join immediately without any hesitation. If we become a close US ally then no law will be an impediment. All laws will become irrelevant. Japan is not a sovereign nation; it is a US client state. But who cares? US alliance has brought it unprecedented prosperity. Alliance with USA will take India to the mountaintop.
I am working with US government (US Department of Energy %u2013 Argonne National Lab) as an outside service provider for last 14 years. Many of the items in the contract thru which we work are purely speculative or hypothetical to cover their butt$. When a conflict arises, it gets addressed with diplomacy and negotiation. THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE CASE with me and many other individuals I know. I would believe that is how it works between governments of different countries.
I am not saying I am confident but I am inclined to believe Mr. Brahma has weighted clauses out of proportion. Thinking that, do we know what India is getting from the agreement is something we can achieve on our own in, lets say, 5 years from now? It makes sense to pursue the agreement if only thing that we have to loose is what Mr. Brahma is mentioned. All of them are clauses that can cover liability on Bushs part and help other approvers keep quiet.
I am not an expert but can someone elaborate on (1) what India looses if entire civil nuclear program is inspected? Remember it is Civil nuclear program. (2) what are the other means of getting what India is getting out of this agreement?
RE:Any Options Analysis?
by Srini Pamidimukkala on Aug 23, 2007 01:26 AM Permalink
See this below, (look at the phrase national laws - Hyde act is US national law)
ARTICLE 2 - SCOPE OF COOPERATION
1. The Parties shall cooperate in the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. Each Party shall implement this Agreement in accordance with its respective applicable treaties, national laws, regulations, and license requirements concerning the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
Section of Hyde Act that talks about termination, SEC. 106. INOPERABILITY OF DETERMINATION AND WAIVERS.
A determination and any waiver under section 104 shall cease to be effective if the President determines that India has detonated a nuclear explosive device after the date of the enactment of this title.
Read these two things together. When India and US are friends, these don't matter. What if US doen't like India sometime in future.
I fully agree with you. Most conflicts are resolved through diplomacy and negotiations and not through the support of contacts. Contracts are usually made for the purpose of keeping nay-sayers and pessimistics sensitivities in mind.
All the points raised by Arvind are worst case scenarios. One does not do business by only concentrating on the worst case scenarios.
I have often admired Arvind's articles. But this one seems entirely biased and motivated. I am truly disappointed, for I did not expect this from Arving.
Please before commenting read all articles by Arvind Lavakare. You would not feel like responding to him. Further if you want to know what's in the deal go to this site http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2007/aug/90050.htm
You can see that all the issues raised are purely speculative. In fact 123 agreement clearly states that in case of any issues it has to go through diplomatic channels. Also one should understand that no mention to Hyde act or any other internal law is made in the agreement. Apart from that there are enough Chinese and Pak influences in the Sennet in US who are trying to derail this process, the logic they are giving is same as Officials of China and Pakistan i.e it is going to shift the power balance in the sub continent.
Further I would say these are the people who has a problem to every solution but no solutions to a problem. With increasing prices of Oil and Natural Gas, and increasing demand of power are these people suggesting any viable solutions?
These are the same people who opposed the opening up of Indian Market and bringing in Computers in our day to day life
RE:The spokes person
by Srini Pamidimukkala on Aug 23, 2007 01:25 AM Permalink
See this below, (look at the phrase national laws - Hyde act is US national law)
ARTICLE 2 - SCOPE OF COOPERATION
1. The Parties shall cooperate in the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. Each Party shall implement this Agreement in accordance with its respective applicable treaties, national laws, regulations, and license requirements concerning the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
Section of Hyde Act that talks about termination, SEC. 106. INOPERABILITY OF DETERMINATION AND WAIVERS.
A determination and any waiver under section 104 shall cease to be effective if the President determines that India has detonated a nuclear explosive device after the date of the enactment of this title.
Read these two things together. When India and US are friends, these don't matter. What if US doen't like India sometime in future.
