• Saturday, December 7, 2019

India not a nuclear weapon state, says US

Discussion in 'Strategic & Foreign Affairs' started by Neo, Apr 24, 2006.

  1. Neo

    Neo RETIRED

    New Recruit

    Messages:
    18
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2005
    Ratings:
    +0 / 3,929 / -0
    New Delhi, Apr.24 (ANI): In what could prove to be a spanner in growing ties between India and United States, the U.S.Embassy in New Delhi today issued a statement on behalf of Washington that said that the UNited States has not recognised India as a nuclear weapons state, and had no intention of amending or renegotiating the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

    "We do not recognize India as a nuclear weapon state, and do not seek to amend or renegotiate the NPT. We understand, however, that India will not join the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state. As Under Secretary Burns has stated on numerous occasions, we understand that India will continue to
    maintain its strategic program, although we believe the majority of future growth will be on the civilian side," said the U.S.Embassy statement.

    Seeking to put the lid on concerns about the July 18, 2005 US-Indian civilian nuclear deal, the U.S.Embassy in Delhi said that the two joint statements issued by both governments between July 2005 and March 2006, clearly spelt out the objectives behind the landmark agreement.

    "The July 18, 2005 and March 2, 2006 Joint Statements recognize India's strong record regarding nuclear technology exports and its public commitments to work within the global nonproliferation regime to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and the technology that supports the development of those weapons," the Embassy said in a statement on Monday.
    The statements, it said also underscored India's real and growing energy needs and the prospective role of nuclear energy in this context. India is pursuing "economic growth at eight percent, nine percent, and it's going to need an energy supply and it needs to diversify its energy, too, to clean technologies like nuclear energy. We cannot begin to share those technologies with India without an agreement of this kind, it added.
    The effort by the U.S. to seek an exemption for India from the full-scope safeguards requirement of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) Guidelines and amend U.S. laws will, once successful, allow India to benefit from international cooperation in the civil nuclear sector, the statement said, adding that the separation of India's nuclear program, the declaration of its civilian facilities, and the placement of those facilities under IAEA safeguards will help ensure that nuclear material, equipment, and technologies supplied by NSG members are exclusively applied to the civil sector.

    This assurance is consistent with the obligations undertaken by states party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). All NSG members are parties to the NPT. (ANI)

    http://in.news.yahoo.com/060424/139/63rc6.html
     
  2. Neo

    Neo RETIRED

    New Recruit

    Messages:
    18
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2005
    Ratings:
    +0 / 3,929 / -0
    "Either Pakistan gets the same deal… or it does everything it can to ensure that the Bush administration's deal with India does not go through, or is at least amended by Congress in such a manner that India refuses to accept it."

    A leading daily in Pakistan had rightly analysed the implications of the Indo-US nuclear deal for Islamabad.

    That Pakistan is not happy with the deal is quite apparent and it is doing everything in its might to urge US Congress to call off the agreement.

    "We… take this opportunity to urge the United States…to analyse the Indian ambitions and understand the far-reaching implications of its civil nuclear deal with New Delhi," Pak Observer says in its editorial.

    According to Pak media, India is just using Uncle Sam to be a nuclear hegemon in [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]South [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Asia[/FONT][/FONT]. As it says, "India wants to fine tune its nuclear weapons technology by utilising the US nuclear expertise".

    India had recently rejected America's call to define its credible minimum deterrent and it also refused to make explicit commitment to the US not to conduct fresh nuclear tests.

    Also, in an interview to the Washington Post on Wednesday, PM Manmohan Singh categorically ruled out placing all of India's nuclear reactors under full scope safeguards.

    India's refusal to put its foot down has further given a chance to Pakistan to up the ante in its favour.
    "India's refusal to define its 'minimum credible nuclear deterrent' has substantiated the apprehensions prevailing in US and the world over that New Delhi may divert the facility and material provided by the US…for military purposes," the Pak Observer explains.

    Calling the agreement as a "deal concluded in haste" the paper says that Bush's administration has committed a blunder.

    In an apparent reference to India-Iran relations, the paper says: "Washington is betting on the wrong horse. If its past record is any clue then India will never wag its tail for US global strategy".

    India "has also developed huge nuclear network that includes its cooperation with Iran to help initiate its nuclear programme… It's, therefore, time that the US…should evaluate the Indian attitude objectively by rising above the China factor of its global agenda," the Observer says.

    Analysts world over believe that the US and India have joined hands to counter China. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has rubbished the belief saying that the [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]relationship[/FONT][/FONT] is not aimed at China.

    "...We are not developing our relationship with the US at the cost of our relationship with China, which is our neighbour and with which our trade is growing at a handsome rate... President Bush told me this is a sensible way to proceed, and that America will remain engaged with China, too," he said.
    China, like its close ally Pakistan, has condemned the Indo-US deal saying that New Delhi is not a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

    India has so far refrained from signing the treaty, which it says is 'discriminatory' in terms of setting different rights and obligations between the five nuclear 'haves' and 'have-nots'.

    Both Islamabad and Beijing believe that the deal can very well upset the balance of power in South Asia.

    "India's nuclear ambitions are motivated by its design to dominate the regional countries militarily that is bound to generate nuclear arms race in the region. And that will be a suicidal path for South Asia," the Observer explains.

    http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/7598_1679651,000500020009.htm
     
  3. Neo

    Neo RETIRED

    New Recruit

    Messages:
    18
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2005
    Ratings:
    +0 / 3,929 / -0
    I believe that GoP has adapted the same strategy India has been using against Pakistan over the decades.
    Although Indian lobby in Washington is believed to be quite strong, it seems Pakistan is not doing too bad. ;)
     
  4. Munir

    Munir PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST

    Messages:
    2,756
    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2006
    Ratings:
    +11 / 2,604 / -1
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Germany
    Neo,

    India will get nuclear technology cause US wants the oil. The Bush statement about reducing oil impact or looking for hydrogen fuel is bogus. Oil has more then only energy relationship. And why else is the best quality oil (KSA) flowing in double hull tankers towards USA while other nations have to do with lower grade and unsafe tankers? For the same reason US is disliking China and wants to reduce the flow of oil towards China. As a simple logic... Where the oil goes there will be economical growth. So China is trying to get flow from Russia (which it got last week) and India wants it transported through Pakistan. Both nations need huge quantities. China is financing Gadar for getting the flow. It will probably finance naval base and plants. China is get more and more angry towards Jpan which is arrogantly taking terrritory where there seems to be lots of oil. We will see more and more nations start fighting over it. So by giving India alternatives the US gains more oil for import and at the same time it can stop China.
     
  5. Neo

    Neo RETIRED

    New Recruit

    Messages:
    18
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2005
    Ratings:
    +0 / 3,929 / -0
    Good points Munir and I fully support Indo-US nuke deal, but I want parity.
    China's and India's thurst for oil has caused to current oil crisis, if alternatives are not provided we'll all suffer from this.

    I'm glad that Pakistan is finally going agressive on the deal, you can't expect us not to. Again its all about getting equal rights and securing our own future.

    Today, Pakistan cunsumes 365.000 barrels of crude oil per day and the need is growing by 10-12% p.a.
    We need to invest in alternative sources now!
     
  6. Munir

    Munir PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST

    Messages:
    2,756
    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2006
    Ratings:
    +11 / 2,604 / -1
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Germany
    intresting read...

    Bush all at sea over China, Iraq and Iran
    Apr. 23, 2006. 01:00 AM
    Haroon Siddiqui

    A confluence of events this past week provided further evidence of how enfeebled George W. Bush has become after five years of reckless domestic and international policies.

    It also showed how firmly Stephen Harper has hitched himself to the embattled Bush administration, even as the rest of the world runs away from it.

    In Washington, visiting Chinese President Hu Jintao rebuffed Bush on a range of issues, from the North Korean and Iranian nuclear programs to the ballooning Chinese trade surplus with the U.S.

    In Tehran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad kept up his swagger that Iran will continue enriching uranium.

    In Iraq, one small but significant event exposed the American political impotency.

    For weeks, the U.S. embassy in Baghdad had been trying to break the post-election impasse between the various Shiite factions. It took Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani one session with a United Nations envoy to settle the matter. He sent word that Ibrahim Jaafri should step aside as prime minister. He did.

    That Bush is playing a weak geopolitical hand became abundantly clear during Hu's visit.

    Having promoted oil consumption to record levels at home (20 million barrels a day by a population of 300 million), Bush was hardly in a position to tell China how to manage its energy needs (6.5 million barrels by a population of 1.3 billion).

    Beijing will make deals where it can, as its $70 billion oil development project in Iran shows.

    Nor did Hu give him any commitment over whether China would use what Bush pleadingly called its "considerable influence" on North Korea to restart the multilateral nuclear talks.

    Bush has few levers to use, given that Beijing is the major financier of the record $423 billion U.S. deficit he has racked up.

    On Iran, the U.S. policy has been irrational ever since the 1979 revolution. But Bush has divorced it from reality altogether. That Ahmadinejad calls the Holocaust a myth and wants to wipe Israel off the map does not sanctify Bush's vacuity.

    Iran, a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, has a right to enrich uranium. It has not violated the treaty. It lied to the International Atomic Energy Agency. But which nuclear power hasn't? India, Pakistan and Israel made their bombs on the sly — and are being rewarded by Bush. So when he keeps up his anti-Iran blitz, he is not credible to most of the world.

    His stance does not make practical sense, either.

    There's the record oil price, driven up in part by his adventure in Iraq and now his sabre-rattling with Iran. There's the stretched worldwide supply.

    Even Bush can see the folly of disrupting the flow of Iranian oil. Which is why when he calls for UN sanctions on Iran, he exempts its oil sector, thereby further exposing his hypocrisy.

    Most experts discount Iran's nuclear boasts. It is five to 10 years away from a bomb.

    It is also agreed that U.S. military options on Iran are limited.

    An invasion is unlikely, with 150,000 troops stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan. The kitty is empty, partly due to the $300 billion spent on Iraq and billions more on the failed war on terrorism.

    It is further agreed that bombing the widely dispersed Iranian nuclear facilities might take 600 to 1,100 strikes.

    That would be just a start.

    To neutralize retaliation by Tehran, Iranian air defences, missile batteries, air force, airfields, ports and naval bases would have to be hit as well.

    Besides killing civilians and causing worldwide uproar, such actions could not save the West from Iranian terrorism. In fact, they would guarantee it.

    The U.S.-Iran confrontation is serving Iran well. It has helped Ahmadinejad to consolidate his position, and the clerical regime to rally Iranians behind it.

    This is the exact opposite of the aims of an $85 million program approved by Congress to undermine the Iranian regime.

    None of this makes any sense — except that it lets Bush keep the fear factor high and keep attention off the debacle in Iraq.

    Yet Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay, on a visit to Washington, pledged Ottawa's support for possible economic sanctions on Iran: "It may not be the preferred option but there aren't a lot of other options right now."

    Yes, there are, starting with the simply proposition that the U.S. must engage Iran in a full range of negotiations. Many thoughtful Americans, such as Richard Haass, head of the Council on Foreign Relations, and Richard Armitage, Colin Powell's deputy secretary of state, advocate just such a course. Instead of utilizing this golden opportunity to mediate a dialogue, we have chosen to join the war party in Washington.


    Related link: Bush all at sea over China, Iraq and Iran
     
  7. RAPTOR

    RAPTOR FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    853
    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2006
    Ratings:
    +0 / 18 / -0

    Its a Dumb and Dumber deal. Dont think its going to get passed by Congress in its present form. india should be forced to give up its nukes and open all of its facilities to Nuclear inspections by Pakistan,China, IAEA and the US.
     
  8. RAPTOR

    RAPTOR FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    853
    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2006
    Ratings:
    +0 / 18 / -0
    India should be ready to accept amendments to nuke deal: RiceSRIDHAR KRISHNASWAMI WASHINGTON, MAY 3 (PTI)
    Supporting the early passage of the Indo-US nuclear deal in the Congress, the Bush Administration has said New Delhi must be prepared to accept "amendments" to the agreement which are within the "spirit" of the July 2005 accord signed between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and US President George W Bush.
    This was conveyed to a delelgation of visiting Indian Parliamentarians by US Secretary of State Condoleezze Rice during a 30-minute meeting at the state department here.
    "She did not say basic (changes to the framework) but that India should be prepared, should be ready for some amendments which will be within the framework...but it depends how Congress interprets," Rajya Sabha MP Shahid Siddique, who was a part of the delegation, said.
    "Our main concern was the amendments we are expecting and we are concerned about the amendments. She said...if the amendments are within the spirit of the July 18 agreement then we should be prepared for it. The message was that there are going to be amendments and we should be ready for it...." The Member of Parliament said it was generally recognised that time was of essence and that the civilian nuclear energy agreement should be formalised at the earliest.
    "She said what is important now is the sequence, that how fast you are able to engage IAEA... because if that is not clear then the Congress will ask what are we getting in to. That is the message from her," he added.

    "Our concern is that if it does not go through now, then it will be difficult to get it through after summer recess... we feel that it should be done before the summer recess," Siddique said.
    "We are a bit worried about the amendments which are being suggested. It is not very clear as to what the amendments are going to be ... getting us into the CTBT (Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty) through the backdoor is also of concern to us because it will not be acceptable to the Parliament in India, especially to the Left....," he said. On asked what transpired in the meeting between Rice and the visiting Parliamentary Delegation, a senior State Department official said," They discussed our strategic partnership--the US-India civil nuclear cooperation initiative, our economic and energy dialogue.
     
  9. Bull

    Bull ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    6,850
    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2006
    Ratings:
    +0 / 274 / -0
    As had been posted an inumerable times there are bews coming out from both camps.

    There could be or couldnt be changes in the nuke deal,but no one knows what that changes would be.

    Raptor if u didnt know,IAEA inspection is a condition for the nuke deal to be passed and India has agreed on it.
     
  10. Bull

    Bull ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    6,850
    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2006
    Ratings:
    +0 / 274 / -0
    There is nothing as equal deals...Pakistan and India cant be dealt in the same way,wes send more engineers aborad than your country,we have more US corporates in our economy, we have more oppurutnites for them.So its quite logical that we would be givena better deal.
     
  11. Neo

    Neo RETIRED

    New Recruit

    Messages:
    18
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2005
    Ratings:
    +0 / 3,929 / -0
    Size doesn't matter when it comes to ethics.
    Pakistan is a major US ally in WoT and enjoys MNNA status, it should be rewarded accordingly.
    Period!
     
  12. RAPTOR

    RAPTOR FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    853
    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2006
    Ratings:
    +0 / 18 / -0
    Indeed.!! Pakistan should be offered the same deal.
     
  13. Munir

    Munir PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST

    Messages:
    2,756
    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2006
    Ratings:
    +11 / 2,604 / -1
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Germany
    Yet you murdered more muslims. Yet you occupy Kashmir and terrorize Kashmiri. We know those fake encounters. Yet you needed nukes to show power. And it was India that used the Khan network to get stuff... Being bigger, achieved less and shouting loudest while hundred millions poor Indians need basic health or food... India is an example of a failed nation with bad attitude.
     
  14. Bull

    Bull ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    6,850
    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2006
    Ratings:
    +0 / 274 / -0

    You speak against India because we have killed muslims, but then why are u behind America for a equal deal and harping abt being a major ally of the very same country who have killed the maximum muslims.
     
  15. SMC

    SMC PDF VETERAN

    Messages:
    7,949
    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Ratings:
    +4 / 4,637 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Canada
    Buddy, a someone who has killed innocent people can't be considered a muslim. They just call themselves muslims but after killing people, they are not a muslim. I am no professional in Quran, but I know that what I said is stated clearly in Quran. You CAN'T BE a muslim if you kill people in the name of the religion. Therefore, Pakistan is army is not going after muslims in the tribal areas, but after savages.