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.
