India, U.S. agree to nuclear pact
- Thread starter Bull
- Start date
Awesome
RETIRED MOD
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2006
- Messages
- 22,023
- Reaction score
- 5
bye! You're a disgrace to the respectable Indian members over here.
when india takes a leak pakistan has floods....aap ki happiness lene ke liye itna sa kaam hi kaafi hai
hope no no offence:
Bull
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2006
- Messages
- 6,850
- Reaction score
- 0
RD 93 deal isnt thru yet.Nothing has come out of Russia exept for a few sadi quotes in a chineese media.
Bull
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2006
- Messages
- 6,850
- Reaction score
- 0
Contrarian
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2006
- Messages
- 11,571
- Reaction score
- 4
haha amen to that
anyway...India did not emphasize that Russia shud not sell the engines, true, it would have been happier if it had not gone thru...but now in the hindsight, it is good Russia is selling the engines...gives them more money and it does not hurt us.Had they NOT sold the engines, China would have waited and installed its own engines that are udner development and are considered very superior to the old RD engine.
Now, about the Nuclear deal, since the begining, US has said that the deal is not a stand alone thing...it is a relationship in which the nuclear deal is but ONE of the things. If it fails, they will try again next year and again, when a new president comes, he too will try to woo India. The important thing that came out of the attempt for the nuclear deal is:
The world now looks at us differently, every country has realised that U.S will not treat India as a pariah, and thus they should not also. Just the attempt for the nuclear deal has had sooooo many benifits, let me tell you:
The NSG now looks favourably upon India.
US had convinced Russia not to cooperate with us in Nuclear sector, no fuel, reactors, etc. Now just the attempt for the deal has made Russia automatically start offering stuff.
Australia and other nations talk avourably with India wrt nuclear technology
The WORLD NOW LOOKS AT US IN A DIFFERENT LIGHT, NUCLEAR ISSUES WITH INDIA ARE NO LONGER A TABBOO FOR THEM.
now do u see, the benifits we have already gained? The climate has changed, it has warmed up w.r.t to us. Now it is possible for future deals.It is the job of the opposition to go against any govt decision, same is the case in US, but when the democrats come in power next year in US, again their president will do the same thing.Not to mention that if Hillary clinton decides to join the presidential race, and she will prolly afrter the next term, she will win. We all know how she and her husband look upon India
Apart from the nuclear deal, US offer to sell all kinds of stuff to us, planes, machinery, civilian cooperation, cutting edge defence stuff, offer to view the JSF plane excercises. its all part of a gradual relationship. We are not dependent on US for our needs, the US knows this, thus they cannot kick us around, they cannot shun us.If they want to control China, India is the ONLY country in the world that can do it. If Russia wants to become a superpower with alliance.They need India. We are no longer in a buyer-seller relationship with Russia, its now joint development, we'r an ally. The world is chummying up to us, and we will respond in kind.Europe wants to increasae its relationship with us.
It is almost CERTAIN India will go for 2 planes for its MRCA deal. One from Russia and one from the west so as to keep both the parties happy
MiG 35 is almost certain from Russia, heavily modded like the MKI to make it a 4. gen airplane, and i think Rafale or F-18E/F from the west are certain.However time will tell..But 2 planes are sure. Every1's happy
The planes arent capable to nuclear weapons mate, white house succeded in selling planes cuz it has already sold them to Pakistan. Not to mention the strict terms in which it has come. And there is a strong reasson to believe that the planes have been sold to Pakistan to coerce India into buying the F-18 planes from US.
Oh and im totally excited for the P8 MMA customized to the needs of the Indian Navy, would certainly rock the boat in the Indian Ocean
btw about the 5th gen, India is not eyeing, it is certain, India will go for the 5th gen MiG plane jointly developed with India, and not the Su PAK-FA.PAK-FA can be bought by India at any stage
Now the rest of the planes ie the MRCA's are only 4.5 gen. US will prolly also offer India the JSF, if India goes for the light 5th gen MiG plane, it can go for the JSF as well...and slowly reduce its types to future aircrafts to 3 basic types: JSF, Mig, and hopfully Su
anyway...India did not emphasize that Russia shud not sell the engines, true, it would have been happier if it had not gone thru...but now in the hindsight, it is good Russia is selling the engines...gives them more money and it does not hurt us.Had they NOT sold the engines, China would have waited and installed its own engines that are udner development and are considered very superior to the old RD engine.
Now, about the Nuclear deal, since the begining, US has said that the deal is not a stand alone thing...it is a relationship in which the nuclear deal is but ONE of the things. If it fails, they will try again next year and again, when a new president comes, he too will try to woo India. The important thing that came out of the attempt for the nuclear deal is:
The world now looks at us differently, every country has realised that U.S will not treat India as a pariah, and thus they should not also. Just the attempt for the nuclear deal has had sooooo many benifits, let me tell you:
The NSG now looks favourably upon India.
US had convinced Russia not to cooperate with us in Nuclear sector, no fuel, reactors, etc. Now just the attempt for the deal has made Russia automatically start offering stuff.
Australia and other nations talk avourably with India wrt nuclear technology
The WORLD NOW LOOKS AT US IN A DIFFERENT LIGHT, NUCLEAR ISSUES WITH INDIA ARE NO LONGER A TABBOO FOR THEM.
now do u see, the benifits we have already gained? The climate has changed, it has warmed up w.r.t to us. Now it is possible for future deals.It is the job of the opposition to go against any govt decision, same is the case in US, but when the democrats come in power next year in US, again their president will do the same thing.Not to mention that if Hillary clinton decides to join the presidential race, and she will prolly afrter the next term, she will win. We all know how she and her husband look upon India
Apart from the nuclear deal, US offer to sell all kinds of stuff to us, planes, machinery, civilian cooperation, cutting edge defence stuff, offer to view the JSF plane excercises. its all part of a gradual relationship. We are not dependent on US for our needs, the US knows this, thus they cannot kick us around, they cannot shun us.If they want to control China, India is the ONLY country in the world that can do it. If Russia wants to become a superpower with alliance.They need India. We are no longer in a buyer-seller relationship with Russia, its now joint development, we'r an ally. The world is chummying up to us, and we will respond in kind.Europe wants to increasae its relationship with us.
It is almost CERTAIN India will go for 2 planes for its MRCA deal. One from Russia and one from the west so as to keep both the parties happy
MiG 35 is almost certain from Russia, heavily modded like the MKI to make it a 4. gen airplane, and i think Rafale or F-18E/F from the west are certain.However time will tell..But 2 planes are sure. Every1's happy
The planes arent capable to nuclear weapons mate, white house succeded in selling planes cuz it has already sold them to Pakistan. Not to mention the strict terms in which it has come. And there is a strong reasson to believe that the planes have been sold to Pakistan to coerce India into buying the F-18 planes from US.
Oh and im totally excited for the P8 MMA customized to the needs of the Indian Navy, would certainly rock the boat in the Indian Ocean
btw about the 5th gen, India is not eyeing, it is certain, India will go for the 5th gen MiG plane jointly developed with India, and not the Su PAK-FA.PAK-FA can be bought by India at any stage
Now the rest of the planes ie the MRCA's are only 4.5 gen. US will prolly also offer India the JSF, if India goes for the light 5th gen MiG plane, it can go for the JSF as well...and slowly reduce its types to future aircrafts to 3 basic types: JSF, Mig, and hopfully Su
Saturday, December 09, 2006
Indo-US N-deal clears final hurdle
* India says foreign policy wonââ¬â¢t be hijacked by pact
* Japan still mulling support for nuclear accord
By Khalid Hasan
WASHINGTON: The US-India nuclear cooperation agreement was at last cleared on Thursday evening by Congress after representatives from the two houses agreed on a final version of the bill which is expected to be signed into law by President Bush on Monday.
The agreed text that the Senate-House conference committee passed after a long debate was being voted upon in the House at the time of the filing of this report. After approval, it was to go to the Senate for similar clearance and put up to the president for his signatures, which would make it into law.
The agreement justifies the USââ¬â¢ decision to make an exception for India in the area of nuclear cooperation despite New Delhi not having signed the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) by claiming that it is in the interest of the United States to enter into such an agreement if ââ¬Åthe country has demonstrated responsible behaviour with respect to the nonproliferation of technology related to nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them; the country has a functioning and uninterrupted democratic system of government, has a foreign policy that is congruent to that of the United States, and is working with the United States on key foreign policy initiatives related to nonproliferation.ââ¬Â
The agreement goes on to say that if a country meets those criteria, that Washington believes India does, then ââ¬Åsuch cooperation induces the country to promulgate and implement substantially improved protections against the proliferation of technology related to nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, and to refrain from actions that would further the development of its nuclear weapons programme; and such cooperation will induce the country to give greater political and material support to the achievement of United States global and regional nonproliferation objectives, especially with respect to dissuading, isolating, and, if necessary, sanctioning and containing states that sponsor terrorism and terrorist groups that are seeking to acquire a nuclear weapons capability or other weapons of mass destruction capability and the means to deliver such weapons.ââ¬Â The United States should continue its policy of engagement, collaboration, and exchanges with and between India and Pakistan.
One sticking point in the agreement was Iran, but the agreed text whittled down the original reference which would have made it nearly obligatory for India to abide by US wishes. India has been chary of making any such commitment.
Iftikhar Gilani adds from New Delhi: Cautiously welcoming the compromise bill agreed by US lawmakers to allow civil nuclear energy cooperation with India, the External Affairs Ministry on Friday said Indiaââ¬â¢s foreign policy would not be bound by the deal.
Noting that the draft legislation still contained ââ¬Åcertain extraneous and prescriptive provisions,ââ¬Â the ministry said: ââ¬ÅAs the prime minister said in parliament that no legislation enacted in a foreign country can take away from us the sovereign right to conduct foreign policy determined solely by our national interests.ââ¬Â
AFP adds: Japan, a key civilian nuclear power, is considering supporting a landmark nuclear deal between India and the US ahead of a visit by the Indian premier next week, an official said on Friday.
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006\12\09\story_9-12-2006_pg7_30
Indo-US N-deal clears final hurdle
* India says foreign policy wonââ¬â¢t be hijacked by pact
* Japan still mulling support for nuclear accord
By Khalid Hasan
WASHINGTON: The US-India nuclear cooperation agreement was at last cleared on Thursday evening by Congress after representatives from the two houses agreed on a final version of the bill which is expected to be signed into law by President Bush on Monday.
The agreed text that the Senate-House conference committee passed after a long debate was being voted upon in the House at the time of the filing of this report. After approval, it was to go to the Senate for similar clearance and put up to the president for his signatures, which would make it into law.
The agreement justifies the USââ¬â¢ decision to make an exception for India in the area of nuclear cooperation despite New Delhi not having signed the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) by claiming that it is in the interest of the United States to enter into such an agreement if ââ¬Åthe country has demonstrated responsible behaviour with respect to the nonproliferation of technology related to nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them; the country has a functioning and uninterrupted democratic system of government, has a foreign policy that is congruent to that of the United States, and is working with the United States on key foreign policy initiatives related to nonproliferation.ââ¬Â
The agreement goes on to say that if a country meets those criteria, that Washington believes India does, then ââ¬Åsuch cooperation induces the country to promulgate and implement substantially improved protections against the proliferation of technology related to nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, and to refrain from actions that would further the development of its nuclear weapons programme; and such cooperation will induce the country to give greater political and material support to the achievement of United States global and regional nonproliferation objectives, especially with respect to dissuading, isolating, and, if necessary, sanctioning and containing states that sponsor terrorism and terrorist groups that are seeking to acquire a nuclear weapons capability or other weapons of mass destruction capability and the means to deliver such weapons.ââ¬Â The United States should continue its policy of engagement, collaboration, and exchanges with and between India and Pakistan.
One sticking point in the agreement was Iran, but the agreed text whittled down the original reference which would have made it nearly obligatory for India to abide by US wishes. India has been chary of making any such commitment.
Iftikhar Gilani adds from New Delhi: Cautiously welcoming the compromise bill agreed by US lawmakers to allow civil nuclear energy cooperation with India, the External Affairs Ministry on Friday said Indiaââ¬â¢s foreign policy would not be bound by the deal.
Noting that the draft legislation still contained ââ¬Åcertain extraneous and prescriptive provisions,ââ¬Â the ministry said: ââ¬ÅAs the prime minister said in parliament that no legislation enacted in a foreign country can take away from us the sovereign right to conduct foreign policy determined solely by our national interests.ââ¬Â
AFP adds: Japan, a key civilian nuclear power, is considering supporting a landmark nuclear deal between India and the US ahead of a visit by the Indian premier next week, an official said on Friday.
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006\12\09\story_9-12-2006_pg7_30
India did not get all it wanted
By Anwar Iqbal
WASHINGTON, Dec 10: India did not get all it wanted from the nuclear deal as the outgoing US Congress has retained some of the conditions New Delhi had described as ââ¬Ådeal-killers.ââ¬Â
On Saturday, the 109th Congress reconciled the House and Senate versions of the nuclear bill and approved the final version with an overwhelming margin of 330-59 votes. Before the reconciliation session, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice sent a letter to Senator Richard Lugar, the outgoing chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, conveying Indiaââ¬â¢s objections to both the House and Senate versions. Contents of the letter, published in the US media, show that she urged the lawmakers to remove objectionable conditions from the final version because India viewed them as ââ¬Ådeal-breakers.ââ¬Â
But a review of the Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006, as the final version is officially known, shows that some of the conditions that India found objectionable are still there. In New Delhi, opposition Bharatiya Janata Party, which ruled the country between 1998 and 2004, also noted these conditions and described them as ââ¬Åhumiliating.ââ¬Â
A BJP statement said the bill did not deliver full civil nuclear cooperation, imposed "rigorous" assessment obligations, failed to guarantee uninterrupted fuel supplies for civilian reactors and prevented India from reprocessing spent fuel. It also banned future nuclear tests and rendered the weaponsââ¬â¢ programme "subject to intrusive US scrutiny".
India was particularly upset about a provision urging the US president to lobby against nuclear fuel supplies to India if Washington terminates nuclear cooperation with New Delhi. Ms Rice suggested changing the wording to say that the United States "should not seek to facilitate or encourage the continuation of nuclear exports to India" by others if the US ends its exports.
The Congress rejected her suggestion. Statements of Policy, Section 103 (a) (6) states that the US shall "seek to prevent the transfer to a country of nuclear equipment, materials or technology from other participating governments in the Nuclear Suppliers Group or from any other source" if the US terminates its exports under the US-India Act or any other US law.
New Delhi also had objected to the bill's suggestion that India could not receive US assistance for enrichment, reprocessing and heavy water production.
The final version kept this restriction, although it replaced the word "prohibition" from the title of the relevant clause with "exports, re-exports, transfers and re-transfers to India related to enrichment." The final version re-framed the clause to highlight what is permissible rather than what is not. Thus, 104 (d)(4), like the earlier Senate Bill, allows the sale of such equipment only to multilateral or bilateral facilities on Indian soil intended to provide "alternatives to national fuel cycle capabilities" or a "proliferation resistant fuel cycle.ââ¬Â
India had also objected to the requirement that the Indian safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency should have already entered into force before the US lifts its restrictions on nuclear commerce with New Delhi.
Section 104 (b) (2) of the final version, however, stipulates that "all legal steps prior to signature" by India and the IAEA must have been completed, which means approval by the IAEA Board must have been secured. This obviously requires India to place the safeguards even before the US completes all its legal steps to allow nuclear commerce.
India had also objected to the provision that nuclear cooperation would be automatically terminated if the country violated the guidelines of the NSG or Missile Technology Control Regime. Ms Rice had urged lawmakers to modify it into a statement of policy or a reporting provision since India considered it a case of "moving the goalposts."
The final version, however, retains the US "determination" of Indian missile exports as a trigger for the termination of nuclear cooperation but incorporates an exception that would allow the cooperation to continue if the Indian government has had no role to play in the impugned export and is taking corrective legal action. This, however, means that India cannot export missiles with a range of more than 300 km to other countries ââ¬â including those which are MTCR adherents ââ¬â without triggering the end of nuclear cooperation.
http://www.dawn.com/2006/12/11/top9.htm
By Anwar Iqbal
WASHINGTON, Dec 10: India did not get all it wanted from the nuclear deal as the outgoing US Congress has retained some of the conditions New Delhi had described as ââ¬Ådeal-killers.ââ¬Â
On Saturday, the 109th Congress reconciled the House and Senate versions of the nuclear bill and approved the final version with an overwhelming margin of 330-59 votes. Before the reconciliation session, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice sent a letter to Senator Richard Lugar, the outgoing chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, conveying Indiaââ¬â¢s objections to both the House and Senate versions. Contents of the letter, published in the US media, show that she urged the lawmakers to remove objectionable conditions from the final version because India viewed them as ââ¬Ådeal-breakers.ââ¬Â
But a review of the Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006, as the final version is officially known, shows that some of the conditions that India found objectionable are still there. In New Delhi, opposition Bharatiya Janata Party, which ruled the country between 1998 and 2004, also noted these conditions and described them as ââ¬Åhumiliating.ââ¬Â
A BJP statement said the bill did not deliver full civil nuclear cooperation, imposed "rigorous" assessment obligations, failed to guarantee uninterrupted fuel supplies for civilian reactors and prevented India from reprocessing spent fuel. It also banned future nuclear tests and rendered the weaponsââ¬â¢ programme "subject to intrusive US scrutiny".
India was particularly upset about a provision urging the US president to lobby against nuclear fuel supplies to India if Washington terminates nuclear cooperation with New Delhi. Ms Rice suggested changing the wording to say that the United States "should not seek to facilitate or encourage the continuation of nuclear exports to India" by others if the US ends its exports.
The Congress rejected her suggestion. Statements of Policy, Section 103 (a) (6) states that the US shall "seek to prevent the transfer to a country of nuclear equipment, materials or technology from other participating governments in the Nuclear Suppliers Group or from any other source" if the US terminates its exports under the US-India Act or any other US law.
New Delhi also had objected to the bill's suggestion that India could not receive US assistance for enrichment, reprocessing and heavy water production.
The final version kept this restriction, although it replaced the word "prohibition" from the title of the relevant clause with "exports, re-exports, transfers and re-transfers to India related to enrichment." The final version re-framed the clause to highlight what is permissible rather than what is not. Thus, 104 (d)(4), like the earlier Senate Bill, allows the sale of such equipment only to multilateral or bilateral facilities on Indian soil intended to provide "alternatives to national fuel cycle capabilities" or a "proliferation resistant fuel cycle.ââ¬Â
India had also objected to the requirement that the Indian safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency should have already entered into force before the US lifts its restrictions on nuclear commerce with New Delhi.
Section 104 (b) (2) of the final version, however, stipulates that "all legal steps prior to signature" by India and the IAEA must have been completed, which means approval by the IAEA Board must have been secured. This obviously requires India to place the safeguards even before the US completes all its legal steps to allow nuclear commerce.
India had also objected to the provision that nuclear cooperation would be automatically terminated if the country violated the guidelines of the NSG or Missile Technology Control Regime. Ms Rice had urged lawmakers to modify it into a statement of policy or a reporting provision since India considered it a case of "moving the goalposts."
The final version, however, retains the US "determination" of Indian missile exports as a trigger for the termination of nuclear cooperation but incorporates an exception that would allow the cooperation to continue if the Indian government has had no role to play in the impugned export and is taking corrective legal action. This, however, means that India cannot export missiles with a range of more than 300 km to other countries ââ¬â including those which are MTCR adherents ââ¬â without triggering the end of nuclear cooperation.
http://www.dawn.com/2006/12/11/top9.htm
US-India deal humiliating: BJP
NEW DELHI, Dec 10: A bill that will allow the United States to sell nuclear technology to India compromises Indiaââ¬â¢s independence, its main opposition party said on Sunday, adding that the ââ¬Ëhumiliatingââ¬â¢ law should be rejected.
Legislation sailed through Congress early on Saturday, ending the isolation imposed after New Delhi developed nuclear weapons in contravention of international standards.
The deal, first agreed in July 2005, has caught the imagination of many in India and is seen as a major move towards becoming a regional power. But it has also attracted criticism after it was modified in the US legislature.
In a sign of the battle the government faces, the BJP in a statement said early fears that the United States was only interested in capping Indiaââ¬â¢s nuclear weapons programme ââ¬Åstood confirmedââ¬Â.
Indiaââ¬â¢s nuclear scientists have also expressed concern over a provision in the Act passed by the US Congress that seeks to cap Indiaââ¬â¢s right to conduct atomic tests.
The BJP statement said the bill did not deliver full civil nuclear cooperation, imposed ââ¬Årigorousââ¬Â assessment obligations, failed to guarantee uninterrupted fuel supplies for civilian reactors and prevented India from reprocessing spent fuel.It also banned future nuclear tests and rendered the weapons programme ââ¬Åsubject to intrusive US scrutinyââ¬Â.
Strategic analysts and members of the Indian nuclear establishment have cited similar concerns.They argued against inspections and said the deal would constrain Indiaââ¬â¢s military nuclear programme by separating it from the civilian side.
An earlier draft stated that cooperation would depend on Indiaââ¬â¢s support for international efforts to restrain Iranââ¬â¢s nuclear programme, rankling New Delhi.
That provision was watered down, but the US president will have to give yearly assessments.The BJP said: ââ¬ÅThe US Act seriously compromises the independence of our foreign policy.ââ¬Â ââ¬ÅIndia is not just to toe the line of the US in regard to Iran, it is being afforded this (deal) on the grounds ... that its foreign policy will be ââ¬Ëcongruentââ¬â¢ with that of the US.ââ¬Â ââ¬ÅThe Act aims at capping, rolling back and eventually eliminating Indiaââ¬â¢s nuclear weapons capability. By going in for agreement under this legislation, the government is binding Indiaââ¬â¢s future ââ¬â in security as well as technical advancement.ââ¬Â
Though Indian scientists too expressed concern over the bar on conducting nuclear tests, they were of the view that the current legislation was meant only for US lawmakers and bilateral cooperation on sharing civil nuclear technology would be governed by the 123 Agreement between the two countries.
ââ¬ÅIndia need not worry about the legislation passed by the US Congress as it is meant for the US lawmakers. India is obliged only to the bilateral agreement (123 Agreement),ââ¬Â former Atomic Energy Commission chairman M. R. Srinivasan told PTI. ââ¬âAgencies
http://www.dawn.com/2006/12/11/top10.htm
NEW DELHI, Dec 10: A bill that will allow the United States to sell nuclear technology to India compromises Indiaââ¬â¢s independence, its main opposition party said on Sunday, adding that the ââ¬Ëhumiliatingââ¬â¢ law should be rejected.
Legislation sailed through Congress early on Saturday, ending the isolation imposed after New Delhi developed nuclear weapons in contravention of international standards.
The deal, first agreed in July 2005, has caught the imagination of many in India and is seen as a major move towards becoming a regional power. But it has also attracted criticism after it was modified in the US legislature.
In a sign of the battle the government faces, the BJP in a statement said early fears that the United States was only interested in capping Indiaââ¬â¢s nuclear weapons programme ââ¬Åstood confirmedââ¬Â.
Indiaââ¬â¢s nuclear scientists have also expressed concern over a provision in the Act passed by the US Congress that seeks to cap Indiaââ¬â¢s right to conduct atomic tests.
The BJP statement said the bill did not deliver full civil nuclear cooperation, imposed ââ¬Årigorousââ¬Â assessment obligations, failed to guarantee uninterrupted fuel supplies for civilian reactors and prevented India from reprocessing spent fuel.It also banned future nuclear tests and rendered the weapons programme ââ¬Åsubject to intrusive US scrutinyââ¬Â.
Strategic analysts and members of the Indian nuclear establishment have cited similar concerns.They argued against inspections and said the deal would constrain Indiaââ¬â¢s military nuclear programme by separating it from the civilian side.
An earlier draft stated that cooperation would depend on Indiaââ¬â¢s support for international efforts to restrain Iranââ¬â¢s nuclear programme, rankling New Delhi.
That provision was watered down, but the US president will have to give yearly assessments.The BJP said: ââ¬ÅThe US Act seriously compromises the independence of our foreign policy.ââ¬Â ââ¬ÅIndia is not just to toe the line of the US in regard to Iran, it is being afforded this (deal) on the grounds ... that its foreign policy will be ââ¬Ëcongruentââ¬â¢ with that of the US.ââ¬Â ââ¬ÅThe Act aims at capping, rolling back and eventually eliminating Indiaââ¬â¢s nuclear weapons capability. By going in for agreement under this legislation, the government is binding Indiaââ¬â¢s future ââ¬â in security as well as technical advancement.ââ¬Â
Though Indian scientists too expressed concern over the bar on conducting nuclear tests, they were of the view that the current legislation was meant only for US lawmakers and bilateral cooperation on sharing civil nuclear technology would be governed by the 123 Agreement between the two countries.
ââ¬ÅIndia need not worry about the legislation passed by the US Congress as it is meant for the US lawmakers. India is obliged only to the bilateral agreement (123 Agreement),ââ¬Â former Atomic Energy Commission chairman M. R. Srinivasan told PTI. ââ¬âAgencies
http://www.dawn.com/2006/12/11/top10.htm
Ouch!.......
I'm surprised they accepted it but the deal is still good enough for India.
TomCat111
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2006
- Messages
- 527
- Reaction score
- 0
For some reason, Indians are still under a foolish illusion, that Americans will change their mind to please them. They donââ¬â¢t get it, that once Bush signs the proposed legislation it becomes the law. Not even Bush will be allowed to change it to meet Indian demands; unless, the law is amended by passing another legislation through the US Congress. 
Govt cool to Leftââ¬â¢s N-hit
Vinod Sharma
New Delhi, December 11, 2006
The Left on Monday joined the chorus against the law passed by the US Congress to facilitate the India-US nuclear deal. The government, however, did not seem to be unduly worried by its reaction.
CPI(M) general secretary Prakash Karat said the US law was ââ¬Åunacceptableââ¬Â as it sought to make Indiaââ¬â¢s foreign policy congruent with the USââ¬â¢s on Iran. He said the issue needed to be debated again in parliament, given Prime Minister Manmohan Singhââ¬â¢s August 17 assurances following the questions raised by his party.
A day earlier, the BJP too had urged the government to opt out of the deal. But sources in the government said the BJP and the Left parties should wait to see what India commits bilaterally in the 123 Agreement with the US. The agreement will be negotiated ââ¬Åwithin the parametersââ¬Â laid down by the July 18, 2005 and March 2, 2006 joint statements of the PM and President George Bush.
In fact, External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee was set to make a statement in both Houses on Monday. But the BJP did not let Parliament function over the PMââ¬â¢s remarks on preferential resource allocation for minorities. Mukherjee is likely to speak on Tuesday, sources said.
Before that, however, Congress president Sonia Gandhi will discuss the US law at a meeting with UPA allies. In the evening, the Congress Working Committee will discuss the issue again.
ââ¬ÅThe 123 Agreement is the crux,ââ¬Â said a senior MEA official. He said the ââ¬Åprescriptive and extraneousââ¬Â elements in the US law, such as the USââ¬â¢s expectation of New Delhiââ¬â¢s support against Iranââ¬â¢s nuclear programme, cannot be made binding on India.
ââ¬ÅAll political reactions to domestic US legislation are premature. What matters is the bilateral agreement,ââ¬Â a source in the PMO said.
Govt cool to Leftââ¬â¢s N-hit
Vinod Sharma
New Delhi, December 11, 2006
The Left on Monday joined the chorus against the law passed by the US Congress to facilitate the India-US nuclear deal. The government, however, did not seem to be unduly worried by its reaction.
CPI(M) general secretary Prakash Karat said the US law was ââ¬Åunacceptableââ¬Â as it sought to make Indiaââ¬â¢s foreign policy congruent with the USââ¬â¢s on Iran. He said the issue needed to be debated again in parliament, given Prime Minister Manmohan Singhââ¬â¢s August 17 assurances following the questions raised by his party.
A day earlier, the BJP too had urged the government to opt out of the deal. But sources in the government said the BJP and the Left parties should wait to see what India commits bilaterally in the 123 Agreement with the US. The agreement will be negotiated ââ¬Åwithin the parametersââ¬Â laid down by the July 18, 2005 and March 2, 2006 joint statements of the PM and President George Bush.
In fact, External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee was set to make a statement in both Houses on Monday. But the BJP did not let Parliament function over the PMââ¬â¢s remarks on preferential resource allocation for minorities. Mukherjee is likely to speak on Tuesday, sources said.
Before that, however, Congress president Sonia Gandhi will discuss the US law at a meeting with UPA allies. In the evening, the Congress Working Committee will discuss the issue again.
ââ¬ÅThe 123 Agreement is the crux,ââ¬Â said a senior MEA official. He said the ââ¬Åprescriptive and extraneousââ¬Â elements in the US law, such as the USââ¬â¢s expectation of New Delhiââ¬â¢s support against Iranââ¬â¢s nuclear programme, cannot be made binding on India.
ââ¬ÅAll political reactions to domestic US legislation are premature. What matters is the bilateral agreement,ââ¬Â a source in the PMO said.
Janbaz
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2006
- Messages
- 1,305
- Reaction score
- 0
I'm least concerened about whatever India is getting.
Actually we'll only benefit from all these bypasses US is applying to please India...its paving way for us to get the same in time...be it from USA or other sources.
Very well said Neo brother! They shall be eligible to recieve the deal when we get something of equal caliber!
Bull
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2006
- Messages
- 6,850
- Reaction score
- 0
Well one thing thats has to cleared over here is that the deal has not yet been ratified in India.Bush got permission from the US house to go ahead,now its upto India to take it or not.
So if India has found it objectionable and the US contiues to stick to it,the deal would be a non starter.
Well US was against India going nuclear all the time so nothing new.Its not US inspection but IAEA inspection.
Well whats new here, this has always been US pt of view.They had lobbied against nuke coperation with india after the Indian nuke tests and had imposed sanctions too.
ok fair enough,cant complain.
India is bound by the MTCR with or without this deal.So no new deal.
