India basks in a nuclear afterglow
- Thread starter A.Rahman
- Start date
- Status
A.Rahman
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2006
- Messages
- 4,727
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Destruction of Budda statues was done by talibans, and it has been condemed by scholars.
90% of the protest for cartoons were peaceful, and only included boycotting for danish product. I agre that the crowd was angry at some pleaces and did may things that Clerics didint told them to do.
You cant judge Religion according to few nutcases. You have to took at its teaching.
I mean we cant call christianity bad becasue of Hitler.
get my point?
A.Rahman
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2006
- Messages
- 4,727
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Prashant Dont take him seriously, I guess he was replying to Samudra's insult with an insult. Its not the fault of Samudra, he dosnt knows much about Islam except what he sees in FOX and CNN.
Please visit. www.islamicity.com/forum if you want to discuss Islam, Therer are many non-muslims on the forum too.
Bull
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2006
- Messages
- 6,850
- Reaction score
- 0
A.Rahman said:
We here, atleast me is not a relegious scholar.I dont study other relegion and i follow my traditions thats it.
I will but the point which Samudra said a religion is known or understood by/thru its followers.
Doesnt your paresnts ask you to behave properly so that yourfamilies esteem and pride is intact.Doesnt your teachers/lecturers tell u to behave properly bcoz the schools prestige and honour is at stake.
So Muslims also have to behave and act propelry so that the world develops a good feeling abt your relegion.
I agree with you, even our prophet told us to act right. The point of every religion is one thing that is to make people act right
Tuesday, April 04, 2006[URL="http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/images/email_this.gif"]http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/images/email_this.gif[/URL] http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/images/shim.gif [URL="http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/images/print_this.gif"]http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/images/print_this.gif[/URL]
Rice played godmother to nuclear deal between India and US
* Washington Post claims Rice went to India last year to set deal in motion
* Deal prompted by US bid to bring India into American camp against China
By Khalid Hasan
WASHINGTON: US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is the true architect of the Indo-US nuclear cooperation treaty, which, according to a detailed investigative report in the Washington Post on Monday, now faces a “hard sell” in Congress.
Rice is the one who convinced President Bush that India should be helped into becoming a major power in the 21st century as a counterpoise to China. Rice, whose academic work was confined to Warsaw Pact countries, the Soviet Union and the Cold War, has continued to maintain, what observers here see a “Cold War mindset”. Her influence on Bush is considerable. In personal terms, she remains his closest confidante. The nuclear deal was worked out in a highly secretive manner by American and Indian officials and no key congressional leader was taken into confidence, an omission that will come to haunt the agreement as it goes for approval on Capitol Hill. Even nuclear experts within the administration were kept at an arm’s length.
The Post report by Glenn Kessler says that it was Rice who flew into New Delhi a year ago and set in motion a revolution in US policy on nuclear weapons and relations with India.
“She didn’t tip her hand publicly during the brief stop, sticking to bland expressions of ‘a new relationship’ with ‘great potential’. The outlines of her plan were known by only a handful of people in the US government,” he adds. The agreement with India was described by one of Rice’s aides as the “big bang” designed to bring non-aligned India into the American camp. The deal, according to the report, has “spawned fierce controversy in Washington, in part because going forward would require Congress to change laws for the nuclear sales. Rice will defend the agreement in congressional testimony this week”.
The Post report, based on interviews with 20 people, both Americans and Indians, with knowledge of the negotiations, says the agreement with India is in trouble partly because there was little consultation with Congress or within the foreign-affairs bureaucracy before it was announced. Government nuclear experts were excluded because of their expected opposition. In 2000, Rice wrote in a magazine article, “India is not a great power yet, but it has the potential to emerge as one,” noting that “India is an element in China’s calculation, and it should be in America’s, too”. Robert Blackwill, former ambassador to India, was one of Rice’s closest aides at the National Security Council, and did the groundwork in Delhi. Also associated with the preparatory work was Indian-American Carnegie expert Ashly Tellis.
The Post report says that when the US decided to sell F-16s to Pakistan, Rice flew to New Delhi to break the news and “cushion the blow by offering India the prospect of a broader strategic relationship, including military, economic and even nuclear cooperation. Rice’s presentation, while still vague about the specifics, sent shockwaves through New Delhi”. A key designer of the new approach was Philip Zelikow, Rice’s counsellor and longtime colleague. Upon Rice’s return from Asia, Zelikow began exchanging memos with Tellis, resulting in a 50-page “action agenda” for US-Indian relations completed in mid-May. The paper promoted geo-strategic cooperation between the two countries rooted strongly in US defence and military sales to India as a way to counter China’s influence. Zelikow is quoted as having said that the new India policy’s “goal is to help India become a major world power in the 21st century. We understand fully the implications, including military implications, of that statement”. John R Bolton, the undersecretary of state for arms control, who would have been sceptical of the India deal, was got out of the way, obviously, by being nominated UN ambassador. The Pentagon, fully backed closer relations with India.
Another official associated with the deal was John D Rood at the National Security Council. The Post report goes on to disclose, “Leading the non-proliferation interests of the administration, Rood and Joseph envisioned a deal in which India would, among other things, agree to limit production of plutonium to a level that ensured the minimal deterrent capability it sought. The two nuclear experts also wanted India to place all of its electricity-producing reactors under permanent safeguards to be monitored by UN inspectors. Such an arrangement would ensure, in accordance with US law, that any American technology going to India would not be used for its weapons programme. But by the time US negotiators agreed on a number of requests - just days before Singh’s arrival on July 18 - many of the key items on the Joseph-Rood list had been taken off the table, said senior officials who were involved. ‘We never even got to the stage where we could negotiate them,’ one official said. The Indians had already made clear to (Nicholas) Burns in discussions weeks earlier that they were not interested in outside influence over their nuclear weapons programme”.
Few Indian officials expected a breakthrough during the Bush-Singh meeting in July, but Rice was determined to see the negotiations succeed. Bush had reached the conclusion that the nuclear concerns carried less weight than the enormous benefits that a broad partnership with a large and friendly democracy could bring. Burns, Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran and other officials conferred for nearly three days. From the start, the conversations were tense as it became clear that the US goals were not what India was hoping to hear. One by one, Indian negotiators balked at requests, indicating they would walk away before accepting conditions for inspections and other safeguards. Rice went to Saran’s suite in the Willard Hotel on Sunday, July 17, to provide a final push. At 6pm, she and Burns thought they had an agreement, but then Saran called Burns at 10:30pm, saying the deal was off - it was too much politically for the Indian government to swallow all at once. On Monday, July 18, the morning that Singh was to meet with Bush, Rice called Burns at 5:30am and said, “We’re not going to give up.” She met with Singh at 8am and persuaded him to let the negotiators try again.
A senior official told the Post, “They (the Indians) were really demanding that we recognise them as a weapons state. Thank God we said no to that, but they almost got it. The Indians were incredibly greedy that day. They were getting 99 percent of what they asked for and still they pushed for 100.” The report points out that although the Bush administration originally wanted a pact that would let India continue producing material for six to 10 weapons each year, the plan would allow it enough fissile material for as many as 50 annually. One US official involved in the negotiations said the failure to consult with Congress or to build support for the agreement within the bureaucracy has created lasting problems, “The way they jammed it through is going to haunt us”.
Rice played godmother to nuclear deal between India and US
* Washington Post claims Rice went to India last year to set deal in motion
* Deal prompted by US bid to bring India into American camp against China
By Khalid Hasan
WASHINGTON: US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is the true architect of the Indo-US nuclear cooperation treaty, which, according to a detailed investigative report in the Washington Post on Monday, now faces a “hard sell” in Congress.
Rice is the one who convinced President Bush that India should be helped into becoming a major power in the 21st century as a counterpoise to China. Rice, whose academic work was confined to Warsaw Pact countries, the Soviet Union and the Cold War, has continued to maintain, what observers here see a “Cold War mindset”. Her influence on Bush is considerable. In personal terms, she remains his closest confidante. The nuclear deal was worked out in a highly secretive manner by American and Indian officials and no key congressional leader was taken into confidence, an omission that will come to haunt the agreement as it goes for approval on Capitol Hill. Even nuclear experts within the administration were kept at an arm’s length.
The Post report by Glenn Kessler says that it was Rice who flew into New Delhi a year ago and set in motion a revolution in US policy on nuclear weapons and relations with India.
“She didn’t tip her hand publicly during the brief stop, sticking to bland expressions of ‘a new relationship’ with ‘great potential’. The outlines of her plan were known by only a handful of people in the US government,” he adds. The agreement with India was described by one of Rice’s aides as the “big bang” designed to bring non-aligned India into the American camp. The deal, according to the report, has “spawned fierce controversy in Washington, in part because going forward would require Congress to change laws for the nuclear sales. Rice will defend the agreement in congressional testimony this week”.
The Post report, based on interviews with 20 people, both Americans and Indians, with knowledge of the negotiations, says the agreement with India is in trouble partly because there was little consultation with Congress or within the foreign-affairs bureaucracy before it was announced. Government nuclear experts were excluded because of their expected opposition. In 2000, Rice wrote in a magazine article, “India is not a great power yet, but it has the potential to emerge as one,” noting that “India is an element in China’s calculation, and it should be in America’s, too”. Robert Blackwill, former ambassador to India, was one of Rice’s closest aides at the National Security Council, and did the groundwork in Delhi. Also associated with the preparatory work was Indian-American Carnegie expert Ashly Tellis.
The Post report says that when the US decided to sell F-16s to Pakistan, Rice flew to New Delhi to break the news and “cushion the blow by offering India the prospect of a broader strategic relationship, including military, economic and even nuclear cooperation. Rice’s presentation, while still vague about the specifics, sent shockwaves through New Delhi”. A key designer of the new approach was Philip Zelikow, Rice’s counsellor and longtime colleague. Upon Rice’s return from Asia, Zelikow began exchanging memos with Tellis, resulting in a 50-page “action agenda” for US-Indian relations completed in mid-May. The paper promoted geo-strategic cooperation between the two countries rooted strongly in US defence and military sales to India as a way to counter China’s influence. Zelikow is quoted as having said that the new India policy’s “goal is to help India become a major world power in the 21st century. We understand fully the implications, including military implications, of that statement”. John R Bolton, the undersecretary of state for arms control, who would have been sceptical of the India deal, was got out of the way, obviously, by being nominated UN ambassador. The Pentagon, fully backed closer relations with India.
Another official associated with the deal was John D Rood at the National Security Council. The Post report goes on to disclose, “Leading the non-proliferation interests of the administration, Rood and Joseph envisioned a deal in which India would, among other things, agree to limit production of plutonium to a level that ensured the minimal deterrent capability it sought. The two nuclear experts also wanted India to place all of its electricity-producing reactors under permanent safeguards to be monitored by UN inspectors. Such an arrangement would ensure, in accordance with US law, that any American technology going to India would not be used for its weapons programme. But by the time US negotiators agreed on a number of requests - just days before Singh’s arrival on July 18 - many of the key items on the Joseph-Rood list had been taken off the table, said senior officials who were involved. ‘We never even got to the stage where we could negotiate them,’ one official said. The Indians had already made clear to (Nicholas) Burns in discussions weeks earlier that they were not interested in outside influence over their nuclear weapons programme”.
Few Indian officials expected a breakthrough during the Bush-Singh meeting in July, but Rice was determined to see the negotiations succeed. Bush had reached the conclusion that the nuclear concerns carried less weight than the enormous benefits that a broad partnership with a large and friendly democracy could bring. Burns, Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran and other officials conferred for nearly three days. From the start, the conversations were tense as it became clear that the US goals were not what India was hoping to hear. One by one, Indian negotiators balked at requests, indicating they would walk away before accepting conditions for inspections and other safeguards. Rice went to Saran’s suite in the Willard Hotel on Sunday, July 17, to provide a final push. At 6pm, she and Burns thought they had an agreement, but then Saran called Burns at 10:30pm, saying the deal was off - it was too much politically for the Indian government to swallow all at once. On Monday, July 18, the morning that Singh was to meet with Bush, Rice called Burns at 5:30am and said, “We’re not going to give up.” She met with Singh at 8am and persuaded him to let the negotiators try again.
A senior official told the Post, “They (the Indians) were really demanding that we recognise them as a weapons state. Thank God we said no to that, but they almost got it. The Indians were incredibly greedy that day. They were getting 99 percent of what they asked for and still they pushed for 100.” The report points out that although the Bush administration originally wanted a pact that would let India continue producing material for six to 10 weapons each year, the plan would allow it enough fissile material for as many as 50 annually. One US official involved in the negotiations said the failure to consult with Congress or to build support for the agreement within the bureaucracy has created lasting problems, “The way they jammed it through is going to haunt us”.
A.Rahman,
Besides your argument that the anti-cartoon demonstrations were peaceful is ridicules - what about the anti-cartoon riots in Pakistan itself. Those idiotic rioters were destorying their own national property for no reason.
The scholars told them to protest peacefully, instead they went of burning buildings. Its their own fault.
There were peaceful protest in Canada, and other westren countries. If some people over come by emotions and burned something the whole collective shouldnt be blamed
Besides your argument that the anti-cartoon demonstrations were peaceful is ridicules - what about the anti-cartoon riots in Pakistan itself. Those idiotic rioters were destorying their own national property for no reason.
The scholars told them to protest peacefully, instead they went of burning buildings. Its their own fault.
There were peaceful protest in Canada, and other westren countries. If some people over come by emotions and burned something the whole collective shouldnt be blamed
Bull
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2006
- Messages
- 6,850
- Reaction score
- 0
WASHINGTON: Ahead of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's Congressional testimony on the Indo-US nuclear deal on Wednesday, top US business leaders have asked legislators to pass laws needed for atomic energy co-operation with India saying the "historic opportunity" must not be lost.
"We strongly believe Congress should enact the necessary legislation to enable civilian nuclear co-operation which will catalyse the synergies of our two democracies in the war against terrorism and will foster technological innovation and the creation of commercial opportunities bringing prosperity to millions," the CEOs of various companies said in a letter to Democrat and Republican Congressmen.
"In our collective view, this historic opportunity must not be lost," said the letter signed among others by William Harrison Jr, JP Morgan Chase Board Chairman and addressed to the Chair and ranking members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and House International relations Committee before which Rice is scheduled to testify.
"American business leaders are united in their belief that fundamentally upgrading the US-India relationship represents one of the most important strategic innovations in foreign policy since the end of the Cold War," they said.
"Such legislation will be viewed within India as a genuine manifestation of mutual trust and respect and will signal to the world the alignment of two great democracies with shared values for the 21st Century," the CEOs said.
The letter was co-signed by CEOs of AES Corporation, Dow Chemical Company, Honeywell Inc, McGraw-Hill Companies, Parsons Brinckeroff Inc and Xerox Inc.
"We strongly believe Congress should enact the necessary legislation to enable civilian nuclear co-operation which will catalyse the synergies of our two democracies in the war against terrorism and will foster technological innovation and the creation of commercial opportunities bringing prosperity to millions," the CEOs of various companies said in a letter to Democrat and Republican Congressmen.
"In our collective view, this historic opportunity must not be lost," said the letter signed among others by William Harrison Jr, JP Morgan Chase Board Chairman and addressed to the Chair and ranking members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and House International relations Committee before which Rice is scheduled to testify.
"American business leaders are united in their belief that fundamentally upgrading the US-India relationship represents one of the most important strategic innovations in foreign policy since the end of the Cold War," they said.
"Such legislation will be viewed within India as a genuine manifestation of mutual trust and respect and will signal to the world the alignment of two great democracies with shared values for the 21st Century," the CEOs said.
The letter was co-signed by CEOs of AES Corporation, Dow Chemical Company, Honeywell Inc, McGraw-Hill Companies, Parsons Brinckeroff Inc and Xerox Inc.
N-deal: 'You bet they are going to put conditions'
April 05, 2006
On the eve of United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations and the House International Relations Committees on the India-US civilian nuclear agreement and why it is imperative that the US Congress approve the deal, Congressman Gary Ackerman has lamented that the Bush administration's blitz may be a little too late.
In an exclusive interview with rediff India Abroad, Ackerman, a senior member of the House International Relations Committee, also predicted that Committee Chairman Congressman Henry Hyde would attach conditions to an independent piece of legislation that he would introduce, which could ultimately scuttle the deal.
Ackerman, the Democratic co-chair of the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian Americans, was the first lawmaker Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran met with on Capitol Hill during his whirlwind visit to Washington, DC last week to meet with senior Bush administration officials and lawmakers to push for the agreement to be passed by the US Congress. "The administration has not been fully engaged in this thing," Ackerman said, and criticised the White House for "not preparing the American people as to what this is all about."
"The American people don't have a clue as to what this is all about other than a country that hasn't signed (the nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty) is now going to be getting nuclear stuff," Ackerman said.
"It is left for the likes of a couple of people like us to keep trying to gather support and we need the complete and full engagement of the Indian embassy and the Indian-American community," he added.
Asked if the Bush administration is looking toward the India Caucus to deliver the deal, Ackerman said, "They haven't indicated that at all. But the India Caucus, I don't know who we have on the Republican side," who has supported the deal.
"I know Henry Hyde (who also met with Saran, but gave him no assurance of support for the legislation he introduced on behalf of the administration) is not in favour of the administration bill. He introduced the bill on their behalf, on their request, which means, 'I don't like it, (but) I'll put it in,'" Ackerman asserted.
"If truth be known, he is going to take a shot at writing his own bill, (and) it has nothing to do with the president's agreement with the prime minister (Manmohan Singh) during his visit," Ackerman said.
Asked if there is the possibility that Hyde in his legislation would attach some conditions to the deal, Ackerman replied: "It is not just possible, you can bet your sacred cow on it! You bet they are going to put conditions. They are not going to make it easy."
"Besides, these guys are going to condition it to death. I don't know what they have in mind, but since the administration didn't tell them (initially about the deal), they are not consulting the administration," he added.
"The embassy hasn't been around to make their case yet, (and) the Indian- American community has to get fully engaged -- there's isn't anyone else to do it. There ain't no one else," he complained.
Asked if he has any idea of how the votes in the committee would go if the legislation was voted on today, he said, "Nobody has polled anybody, nobody has asked. The very fact that only I endorsed (the deal), (Congressman Joe) Crowley endorsed, and except for (Republican Congressman) Joe Wilson, give me one other Republican who has endorsed it."
"Just three people and three people does not a deal make," he said.
He said Ros-Lehtinen "has not been heard from on this other than to say it is an important relationship -- what that means I don't know (in terms of support for the deal)."
"The support was deafening in that room," he disclosed. "You had 14 people in that room on the legislative side, Democrats and Republicans, Senators and House members, who were going to shake this thing and what you got was a bunch of abstentions there."
"Maybe I am a bit cynical, maybe, I am a bit sceptical, but maybe, it is what the administration wanted from the very beginning. They came up with a deal that looked good, and smells good and made a lot of sense and they said, 'We are not doing anything until the Indians show they can separate the civilian from the military side of the ledger and then figured that was not going to happen,'" Ackerman said.
"But the prime minister courageously stepped up to the plate and he and his team did a very effective job selling it domestically so that this could happen and made the White House look like a bunch of amateurs on our side. And, maybe, that was intelligent design," he added.
Asked if there is any chance of a critical mass forming in the House in support of the deal, Ackerman, known for his sense of humou, said, "Far from a critical mass, what we see is an anemic skeleton."
The portly lawmaker, added, "I am a big gut, but critical mass I am not."
April 05, 2006
On the eve of United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations and the House International Relations Committees on the India-US civilian nuclear agreement and why it is imperative that the US Congress approve the deal, Congressman Gary Ackerman has lamented that the Bush administration's blitz may be a little too late.
In an exclusive interview with rediff India Abroad, Ackerman, a senior member of the House International Relations Committee, also predicted that Committee Chairman Congressman Henry Hyde would attach conditions to an independent piece of legislation that he would introduce, which could ultimately scuttle the deal.
Ackerman, the Democratic co-chair of the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian Americans, was the first lawmaker Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran met with on Capitol Hill during his whirlwind visit to Washington, DC last week to meet with senior Bush administration officials and lawmakers to push for the agreement to be passed by the US Congress. "The administration has not been fully engaged in this thing," Ackerman said, and criticised the White House for "not preparing the American people as to what this is all about."
"The American people don't have a clue as to what this is all about other than a country that hasn't signed (the nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty) is now going to be getting nuclear stuff," Ackerman said.
"It is left for the likes of a couple of people like us to keep trying to gather support and we need the complete and full engagement of the Indian embassy and the Indian-American community," he added.
Asked if the Bush administration is looking toward the India Caucus to deliver the deal, Ackerman said, "They haven't indicated that at all. But the India Caucus, I don't know who we have on the Republican side," who has supported the deal.
"I know Henry Hyde (who also met with Saran, but gave him no assurance of support for the legislation he introduced on behalf of the administration) is not in favour of the administration bill. He introduced the bill on their behalf, on their request, which means, 'I don't like it, (but) I'll put it in,'" Ackerman asserted.
"If truth be known, he is going to take a shot at writing his own bill, (and) it has nothing to do with the president's agreement with the prime minister (Manmohan Singh) during his visit," Ackerman said.
Asked if there is the possibility that Hyde in his legislation would attach some conditions to the deal, Ackerman replied: "It is not just possible, you can bet your sacred cow on it! You bet they are going to put conditions. They are not going to make it easy."
"Besides, these guys are going to condition it to death. I don't know what they have in mind, but since the administration didn't tell them (initially about the deal), they are not consulting the administration," he added.
"The embassy hasn't been around to make their case yet, (and) the Indian- American community has to get fully engaged -- there's isn't anyone else to do it. There ain't no one else," he complained.
Asked if he has any idea of how the votes in the committee would go if the legislation was voted on today, he said, "Nobody has polled anybody, nobody has asked. The very fact that only I endorsed (the deal), (Congressman Joe) Crowley endorsed, and except for (Republican Congressman) Joe Wilson, give me one other Republican who has endorsed it."
"Just three people and three people does not a deal make," he said.
He said Ros-Lehtinen "has not been heard from on this other than to say it is an important relationship -- what that means I don't know (in terms of support for the deal)."
"The support was deafening in that room," he disclosed. "You had 14 people in that room on the legislative side, Democrats and Republicans, Senators and House members, who were going to shake this thing and what you got was a bunch of abstentions there."
"Maybe I am a bit cynical, maybe, I am a bit sceptical, but maybe, it is what the administration wanted from the very beginning. They came up with a deal that looked good, and smells good and made a lot of sense and they said, 'We are not doing anything until the Indians show they can separate the civilian from the military side of the ledger and then figured that was not going to happen,'" Ackerman said.
"But the prime minister courageously stepped up to the plate and he and his team did a very effective job selling it domestically so that this could happen and made the White House look like a bunch of amateurs on our side. And, maybe, that was intelligent design," he added.
Asked if there is any chance of a critical mass forming in the House in support of the deal, Ackerman, known for his sense of humou, said, "Far from a critical mass, what we see is an anemic skeleton."
The portly lawmaker, added, "I am a big gut, but critical mass I am not."
- Status
Similar threads
