It is time we put such agreements in time capsule and bury two copies -one in Delhi and other in Washington under the earth at a depth of 2000 KM And erect a monument to be funded by people of India.
RE:Put the agreement in Time Capsule
by alok Misra on Jul 14, 2008 07:40 PM Permalink
You bet!Guys will do just that! If they sign even then India will put it in Time capsule!! Reason:first dismantle- dismantle- dismante Paki reactors Secomd take control of all bombs with pakistan - take control of all bombs with pakistan- ---- Thirdly get Pak army and intelligence out of politics there lock stock and barrel- just out of the way All the pak nuclear efforts are not directed against India per se but to become leader of Islamic World one day!! Pakistan can never win a war against India - Today, Tomorrow or in Thousand years!! DISMANTLE THIS THREATR TO INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND PROSPERITY FROM A NATION WHICH ADVOCATES SECRETLY TERRORISM BUT PRETENDS TO CRUSH IT! dismantle - dISMANTLE- dISMANTLE!!!
During the last two days, some good points and counter points have been raised by different people on this forum. I only HOPE THAT GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND UPA MINISTERS READ THESE COMMENTS AND DO THE NEEDFUL.
RE:NSA & UPA to Thnik
by All Right on Jul 14, 2008 08:37 AM Permalink
Too much to expect...
Ones who don't listen to their own allies (taking opposition into confidence being something "super-human" to expect from them)in "during negotiation" phase will NEVER bother to revisit anything once they think their job is done...
:-)
Whereas contrary to popular belief, the fun is actually yet to begin when the agreements come into effect... ;-)
RE:NSA & UPA to Thnik
by AK on Jul 14, 2008 08:42 AM Permalink
The probel is that the discussions have been too long and too much on the 123 Agreement. The fear had been Hyde Act. But fears about both were ill founded. IAEA is the main issue since their reports and judgements will determine the future course.
India is too big and responsible in the world arena to worry about Sanctions and War.
RE:NSA & UPA to Thnik
by alok Misra on Jul 14, 2008 09:26 AM Permalink
Please do not fool yourself. Whatare these organizations and who runs them- USA/USA/USA/USA/USA ?USA etc
RE:NSA & UPA to Thnik
by AK on Jul 14, 2008 10:01 AM Permalink
Yes so what. At least USA stands for something and are you jealous of that. What do you stand for? What are your doubts other than just being anti-USA?
What matters here is the agreement India signs and accepts? It does not have to sign if it does not want to do business with USA or its allies.
Kakodkar dismissed India's non nuclear weapon status in the IAEA safeguards text by saying "We know we are a nuclear weapon state, and they know we are a nuclear weapon state, .. we should not worry about that..".. ;-)
Why enter into this whole rigmarole and word wrangling gymnastics, if US knew India is a nuclear weapon state, IAEA knew India is a nuclear weapon state, NSG knew India is a nuclear weapon state, and of course India knew it is a nuclear weapon state?...
Can anyone explain why no one was willing to give nuclear fuel to India? Coz India is a nuclear weapon state..... Now the way they are giving fuel is by reducing your status to a non nuclear weapon state.... AND you are fine with it?... :-)
Fair enough.... now we know how our sovereign interests are protected... "we know they need to be protected, and US knows they need to be protected, so we naturally assumed that they WILL be protected... why worry about that?"... :-)
RE:Sovereign interests protected
by AK on Jul 14, 2008 08:48 AM Permalink
I have read your comments on Articles in the IAEA agreement elsewhere. I am commenting here again.
Article 23(d), 26(d), 11(b,c,d,e,f) refer to materials that are part of the agreement to be safeguarded and to which India is a signatory.
RE:Sovereign interests protected
by alok Misra on Jul 14, 2008 09:34 AM Permalink
Can you explode an atomic bomb just after signing the agreement in celebration of this agreement! If so I will agree for any act and agreement! If not then take your loguic home - all discussions are not taking us anywhere? Can you be the chairman of dismantling committee for PAK Bombs and Reactors starting the day we sign the agreement? If so go ahead and sign it.
RE:Sovereign interests protected
by AK on Jul 14, 2008 09:56 AM Permalink
India could not even before but it did. The point is what will be the penalty if India did to which India is a signatory. That is the legal point. If India is not a signatory to any kind of agreement where it accepts penalty then it is the same status quo as before.
RE:Sovereign interests protected
by alok Misra on Jul 14, 2008 08:02 PM Permalink
How many paki Bombs dis any one dismantle like that of North Koreans! When were we accorded a decent place in the international arena when we cried about attacks on ourselfs thru Paki Terror Mechanism> When did Americans came and pulled up Pakis by the ear and told them that they will stop all aid if attacks on us will continue? When was it stopped when thousands of Indians were killed thru these proxy attacks? What kind of strategic partnership this means? Are Americans really serious about relationship with India. Every one knows that Americans claim a special relationship with Pak Army- an establishment that Pakistanis themselves think has not allowed democracy to function there. Why is that Americans who swear by democracy fail it in various parts of the world when it suits their interests? Why cant they see that China is a communist nation which hides its expansionist intentions behind a smiling mask? Why cant it tell chinese not to talk turkey with us when it comes to our border? Message is clear and Loud: All powers have temporary friends and enemies in the International Arena.Most of all AMERICA! We need to know that American policy or the British Policy or any EU policy is only directed to serve their interests.Today China and India collectively own a huge amount of Dollars in the form of treasury bills.If these nations just decide to go to Euro where will dollar go? So it is America also that needs us not we alone.We do not want security from America. Our security
I pity those who call Gandhi as an intellectual and visionary leader. He's nothing more than a common man and the main motivation for Gandhi to stand up against British is not his nationalism but the insults he got in South Africa and he wants to take revenge against goras some how. He couldn't take revenge against them in SA so he returned to India and he got wide support to take a sweet revenge
RE:Gandhi
by alok Misra on Jul 14, 2008 09:30 AM Permalink
Do not ook at histrorical figures with such prejudice! Gandhi was the last man to take revenge on any one.Besides how much you know about South African Gandhi? I have been there and met people from his Ashram. They worship him. All black and White!
I think I am writing he final on these discussions: First end to parity between India and Pakistan on Nuclear issues and dismantling of Pak reactors and Bombs Second Immediately after signing A nuclear explosion by India in celebration Will America Take it?
//The government also ruled out putting Fast Breeder Test Reactors under the IAEA safeguards // This is the UPA Govt's position on fast breeder reactors. However read the below from US Department of state website.
CRITICS: Only 14 of India's 22 nuclear power reactors will be safeguarded under its separation plan, and India's two developmental fast breeder reactors will remain unsafeguarded. With these facilities, India can produce enough nuclear weapons to significantly expand its current arsenal.
COUNTERPOINT: The understanding we have reached with India will significantly increase the number of Indian nuclear reactors under IAEA safeguards, as well as bring associated facilities under safeguards. At present, only four of India's nuclear power reactors are under safeguards. Under its civil-military separation plan, India has agreed to place the majority of its existing nuclear power reactors and those under construction under safeguards and to place the other associated upstream and downstream facilities that support those reactors under safeguards. Furthermore, India has committed to place all future civilian power and fast breeder reactors under safeguards.
It says India has committed to place all future civilian and fast breeder reactors under safeguards! So who is saying the truth?
//Asked whether India could withdraw from the agreement if supplies were disrupted to a particular facility, Narayanan said if such a situation arises, India would have the right to take c
RE:Clarification -
by Chandramouly V on Jul 13, 2008 07:23 PM Permalink
//Asked whether India could withdraw from the agreement if supplies were disrupted to a particular facility, Narayanan said if such a situation arises, India would have the right to take corrective steps. Kakodkar said the "corrective" measures will include legal steps. The corrective steps will depend on the threat of disruption to a nuclear facility. //
So according to this, India cannot withdraw from the agreement. That is very clear. What it can do is only "corrective" measures. What is that corrective measure mean?? nobody knows, not even the UPA govt. Because it knows that it cannot do anything. Also legal steps? what are the legal steps you can take??The 123 agreement is not even covered under International arbitration or International law (unlike the China 123 agreement). And hence India can also do a discussion, protracted discussion and arm twisting. Otherwise, it can only sit and watch if there is a fuel disruption!
//In this regard, he cited the provision for uninterrupted supplies and creation of strategic reserve for the lifetime of a reactor// Where is the uniterrupted supplies provision my dear?? //If there is disruption in supplies, India will report it to the IAEA, Kakodkar said. He, however, added that discontinuation will not happen suddenly as there is provision for discussions.// Exactly, that is what India can do. Just report to IAEA. IAEA being a monitoring entity cannot do anything but issue statement. End of the day you will only engage in discussion without any action. The truth is you cannot take any action. You can only appoint a committee and discuss. And we all know what will happen to these committees!
//"We are a nuclear weapon state. We know that and the world knows that. We should not worry about that," he said. He maintained that the definition of nuclear weapon state was derived from NPT, of which India is not a part. // Yes, we all know that India has nuclear weapons but that doesnt guarantee a recognition. Recognition is granted via the NPT. If you are recognised there are lot of benefits in safeguards agreement. Currently whatever China (being a Nuclear weapons state per NPT) will have favourable safeguards controls and conditions than what Iran is having (being a Non-nuclear weapons status country). That is one of the reason India refused to sign the NPT in the first place!!.
RE:RE:RE:Clarification -
by Chandramouly V on Jul 13, 2008 07:24 PM Permalink
//To press his point, he said the IAEA safeguards agreement recognises that India has a nuclear programme outside the civil nuclear programme.// Where does the safeguards agreement say Mr?? which clause pls?
RE:Clarification -
by AK on Jul 13, 2008 07:44 PM Permalink
This is what I have been saying under clause 10.
Since India is not a signatory to NPT & CTBT, it is not recognized as a nuclear weapon state. So we do not have any other rights but have obligations under International Laws.
RE:RE:RE:Clarification -
by Chandramouly V on Jul 14, 2008 10:19 AM Permalink
Signing NPT/CTBT also does not recognise you as a Nuke weapons state. You should have exploded your Nuke device prior to Oct 1 1967; This is the fundamental discrimination which India objected to and said we will not sign the NPT.
RE:Clarification -
by AK on Jul 14, 2008 11:02 AM Permalink
Stand corrected. Since India is not a recognized nuclear weapons state, we do not have any rights but MAY have obligations under other International Laws (NPT & CTBT).
RE:RE:Clarification -
by All Right on Jul 14, 2008 08:59 AM Permalink
Chandramouly V:
I agree to most of your points. In that regard we are thinking along similar lines. However, one small correction.
IAEA safeguards do recognise that India has a nuclear programme outside the civil nuclear programme. In fact this is what Kakodkar should have also brought up when asked about Nuclear weapon status.
This mention is made in the preamble of the document (page 3 of 29 in the PDF available on Rediff site):
Noting the relevance for this Agreement of the understandings between India and the United States of America expressed in the India-U.S. Joint Statement of 18 July 2005, in which India, inter alia, has stated its willingness: - To identify and separate its civilian and military nuclear facilities and programmes in a phased manner;
I understand your point that this is a very oblique reference quoting from a bilateral agreement signed 3 years ago between India and USA,... :-)
Nevertheless the mention about India's military programme is there -- for whatever it is worth.. ;-)
RE:Clarification -
by Chandramouly V on Jul 14, 2008 10:14 AM Permalink
Simply putting those statements in the preamble of the safeguards agreement does not recognise you as a Nuclear status. What does that benefit India by this statement in Preamble?? Does it provide them the same rights as a nuclear weapons state in the safeguards agreement with IAEA? No; Countries which are recognised as nuke state accept only "voluntary", "revocable" inspections, with just a total of 11 facilities in the U.S., China, Britain, France and Russia currently open to IAEA inspection. The IAEA conducts only token inspections on these facilities offered for safeguards. Moreover, these five nuclear powers have the sovereign right to terminate their safeguards agreement with the IAEA. This is precisely the reason India objected to and did not sign the NPT citing discrimination between Nuke have's and have nots (then). Whereas what India has come out with the IAEA is "Irrevocable" IAEA inspection and in addition to that US inspection as well. Also there is no right with India to voluntarily terminate the agreement and walk off. So what is the point in making a cursory mention in the preamble that we have a Nuke facility? It doesnt mean anything. The Govt knows this, the IAEA knows this, the NSG and the US knows this. This preamble is only to hogwash the Indian public.
RE:Clarification -
by AK on Jul 14, 2008 10:34 AM Permalink
Preamble is always an important part of any Agreement. It recognizes the presentr status and from which the two parties move forward. It is not a hogwash.
Agreement does not mention anything about IAEA's role in the separated military installations. So far so good.
The main problem is India accepts its obligations under International Laws, whether it is signatory or not (my opinion & concern that I am trying get addressed logically and legally).
The Left and the BSP have said that the deal is anti-muslim. I would have appreciated their stand if they had stated that it is anti-Indian even though I do not agree with that view. Why should we not consider both the Left and BSP communal, speaking the language of Jinnah? Any comments?
* Will Hyde act affect India in testing a Nuke - Yes * Do we care - No * Why? - There is no intension in exploding a bomb by India. We do not want another bunch of sanctions. Hyde or Not, India will Invite sanctions if we explode. * Is sanction okay/Can India survive one? - No Sanction is not okay now. We may survive, but at the cost of even higher inflation. * Does the deal allow us to continue with Strategic interest - Yes. India can still pursue its nuclear ambitions and nothing in the deal prevents us. * So what is the problem - Our scientific knowledge is right now shared between Civial and military scientists. Segregating our civil and mil. facility mean, our scientists cannot exchange information. * is that a problem? - Yes/No. Yes, Our military nuke tech will improve only slowly, albeit will improve. No, because more employment oppurtunity for new aspiring nuclear scientists. * Outcome of the deal - Our fuel starving existing nuclear reactors will get new life (Fuel), which will enable them to run at full capacity (Right now i hear they are running at 40 - 50%) This means, more electricity for consumers, less power shedding, good for industrialization, good for job market, good for youngters and unemployed. Which trnslates into growth in middle income group, and good for economy.
RE:Just to be clear for every one (Part - I)
by Suresh J on Jul 13, 2008 03:47 PM Permalink
(...Continued...) * Is this militarily good - Yes. by going for the deal, whatever uranium deposits we have in India can be now channelled only for military reactors and our stock piles are protected. NO IAEA inspection on military facilities. this is the reason, the opponents in US are worried about, that India can use all its Uranium for its weapons purpose, again strategic military interest protected. * Is there any downside - yes, before all the processed fuel was enriched and sent to weapons purpose, now since some of the reactors will be safegaurded by IAEA, only less reactors are available for fuel enrichment. * Is that a big problem - Not if India invests to process fuels outside the Safeguarded reactors. More military nuke reactors and enrichment facility needs to be build. I say that is good. * Side effect of going for Nuke energy - there has always been an issue with nuke waste disposal. But if pokram can be used for testing nuke, the same place can be used for waste dumping. I say dump it in the border between India and pakistan, so let the pakis die. but i love kashmir and so i would say NO to it. * Left? - They are worried because India will become powerful and that is a threat to their masters. people will become educated and will be competitive as against trying to live with govt subsidies. A threat to Commie ideaology (Keep then week, feed them until the institution fails) Commie are the people who do not want to come out of Stone age. For them, Food, cl
RE:Just to be clear for every one (Part - I)
by vishnu on Jul 13, 2008 04:43 PM Permalink
this shows indians are criminals and they get what they want all we can say is bush is stupid
BJP want to sing deal under their reign...dont forget this deal is initiated by BJP.....n LEFT only follows the advice of china n pakistan....shame on both these parties.....
RE:BJP n LEFT>>>>.
by All Right on Jul 14, 2008 06:44 AM Permalink
My dear Kabir:
Save your shame .... when you get hit by the IAEA / NSG truck...
THEN you will know who to call for ... ;-)
Do you think NDA (read correctly -- not BJP) did not sign the deal becoz it didn't want to? .. It wanted to -- but the right deal... not ANY deal.. and certainly not under pressure from Bush..
So learn how to apportion the shame blame objectively and correctly..
