Posted on: 23-08-08 12:41:01
Bc2on,
If you can bring the facts as to why you think this deal is not good it would be appreciated. Neither you or me can make or break this deal.
Bring the facts. The point is to discuss what we know about this deal.
I also agree this will be a never ending discussion as there are always two sides of a coin.
At this point I think this deal will bring political, technological and possibly economical benefit to India. More and more I read about this, i think this deal may not be perfect but has more postives than negatives.
I could be wrong after going into more detail reading
Quote:
Originally posted by rsbagwell
Bc2on,
If you can bring the facts as to why you think this deal is not good it would be appreciated. Neither you or me can make or break this deal.
Bring the facts. The point is to discuss what we know about this deal.
I also agree this will be a never ending discussion as there are always two sides of a coin.
At this point I think this deal will bring political, technological and possibly economical benefit to India. More and more I read about this, i think this deal may not be perfect but has more postives than negatives.
I could be wrong after going into more detail reading
India-IAEA Safeguards Agreement Fact Sheet
LET FACTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES by Brahma Chellaney
■ The accord largely resembles IAEA agreements with non-nuclear-weapons states and incorporates few India-specific features.
■ India will have none of the rights that the five established nuclear-weapons states have vis-à-vis the IAEA.
■ The accord carries a cosmetic reference to “corrective measures” in the preamble, but gives India no actual right to take corrective measures.
■ The accord provides for no guaranteed fuel supply and, contrary to the PM’s assurances in Parliament, has no link between perpetual IAEA inspections and perpetual fuel supply.
■ Preambular references confer no entitlement on India.
■ The safeguards accord, like the 123 agreement, is consistent with the provisions of the Hyde Act.
■ Even the accord’s termination and non-compliance provisions are identical to those for non-nuclear-weapons states, creating potential risks since India possesses a nuclear military programme.
■ A nuclear-armed India has agreed to be subject to intrusive “challenge” inspections of the type the IAEA is empowered to carry out in non-nuclear-weapons states. “Challenge” inspections are officially known as “special inspections” (as distinct from systematic or routine inspections).
■ In addition to special inspections, India has consented to another provision intended to preclude undeclared activity in a non-nuclear-weapons state — the early provision of design information.
■ India will not only open its entire civil programme to external safeguards, but also help pay for such inspections.
■ The key benchmarks enshrined in the original July 18, 2005, deal today stand jettisoned.
for full particulars , please refer thr link
http://chellaney.spaces.live.com/?_c11_BlogPart_BlogPart=blogview&_c=BlogPart&partqs=cat%3dU.S.-India%2bnuclear
The only piece of missing information is Swiss bank account # of Madmohan and Sonia Devi.
Only naive and/or seccular support this "sell out" deal which makes little political or economic sense.
Quote:
Originally posted by Nightmare
■ The accord largely resembles IAEA agreements with non-nuclear-weapons states and incorporates few India-specific features.
■ India will have none of the rights that the five established nuclear-weapons states have vis-à-vis the IAEA.
■ The accord provides for no guaranteed fuel supply and, contrary to the PM’s assurances in Parliament, has no link between perpetual IAEA inspections and perpetual fuel supply.
■ India will not only open its entire civil programme to external safeguards, but also help pay for such inspections.
Just a few points
1) India was not trying to get a status as the big five ....... so doesn't matter if it doesn't have the same connection with IAEA.
2)Again India was going to sign an agremeent with IAEA .... not as a nuclear wepons state .... but also not as a non- nulcear weapons state. Hence the reference to only our " civilian " nuclear facilities. Again it is mentioned that India has to identify and inform IAEA about which are civilian facilities. No other country has a similar agrement with IAEA.
3) IAEA does not gaurantee supply to fuel supply to any nations. But it has given a right to India for corrective measure to ensure its nuclear supply.
4) Last of all no it has been regularly stated that all civilian facilites will be open for inspection .... so why this statement. Regrading paying for inspections...... read what the agremeent says and decide for yourself
VII. FINANCE
101. India and the Agency shall each bear any expense incurred in the implementation of their
responsibilities under this Agreement. The Agency shall reimburse India for any special expenses,
including those referred to in paragraph 6 of the Inspectors Document, incurred by India or
persons under its jurisdiction at the written request of the Agency, if India notified the Agency
before the expense was incurred that reimbursement would be required. These provisions shall not
prejudice the allocation of expenses attributable to a failure by either India or the Agency to
comply with this Agreement.
102. India shall ensure that any protection against third party liability, including any insurance or
other financial security, in respect of a nuclear incident occurring in a facility under its
jurisdiction shall apply to the Agency and its inspectors when carrying out their functions under
this Agreement as that protection applies to nationals of India
full text ...... http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/photo.cms?msid=3217701
■ A nuclear-armed India has agreed to be subject to intrusive “challenge” inspections of the type the IAEA is empowered to carry out in non-nuclear-weapons states. “Challenge” inspections are officially known as “special inspections” (as distinct from systematic or routine inspections).
■ India will not only open its entire civil programme to external safeguards, but also help pay for such inspections.
Only naive and/or seccular support this "sell out" deal which makes little political or economic sense.
I wanted to anwer each point one by one. But I guess some of the points has been anwered in previous post
What's wrong in challenge inspection? India seems to confident that raw material or technology is not being used for defence purpose. By consenting this India is just assuring that fact. Those who think this is a problem are just being overprotective. Taking decisions emotionally and not practically
Our PM is renowned economist. I do not think paying for inspection is such a big deal. You cannot question this specially when you have Chidabram, Montek singh in this team as economist. This should be of least concern. I am sure math has been done.
I also want to you what doe you mean by Secular Support this sell out deal?
Left wings is secular? They were also opposing the deal.
Can you explain this?
Quote:
Originally posted by rsbagwell
■ A nuclear-armed India has agreed to be subject to intrusive “challenge” inspections of the type the IAEA is empowered to carry out in non-nuclear-weapons states. “Challenge” inspections are officially known as “special inspections” (as distinct from systematic or routine inspections).
■ India will not only open its entire civil programme to external safeguards, but also help pay for such inspections.
Only naive and/or seccular support this "sell out" deal which makes little political or economic sense.
I wanted to anwer each point one by one. But I guess some of the points has been anwered in previous post
What's wrong in challenge inspection? India seems to confident that raw material or technology is not being used for defence purpose. By consenting this India is just assuring that fact. Those who think this is a problem are just being overprotective. Taking decisions emotionally and not practically
Our PM is renowned economist. I do not think paying for inspection is such a big deal. You cannot question this specially when you have Chidabram, Montek singh in this team as economist. This should be of least concern. I am sure math has been done.
I also want to you what doe you mean by Secular Support this sell out deal?
Left wings is secular? They were also opposing the deal.
Can you explain this?
Well, none of us are participant in the deal and our opinions are based on how we reserched the debate and who we believe. There is such a huge amount of material available on the subject, in favor and against the deal. Ultimately, it boils down to who we believe. I, therefore, think that there is no point in extending debate on CD.
I would not respond any more. Other enthusiast may well carry on. I would conclude by pasting some of the observations by a prominent columnist.
“To give credit where it is due, Bush did make his intentions very clear at his Asia Society speech preceding his trip to India. He explicitly put India in the category of nuclear supplicant nations, while carefully explaining that they were second-class citizens compared to the nuclear 'haves'. The implication was clear, there is nuclear apartheid against India, and Bush intends to make it permanent.
Such a one-sided formulation reminds me of the mistake India made in Tibet: giving away major treaty rights in return for the empty siren-song of Third World fraternity. Now India is giving away its credible deterrent for no more than flattery about 'emerging global power'. As Yogi Berra would have it, déjà vu all over again. When nationalism is considered a sin in India, disaster is pre-ordained. Indians have an unenviable record of sacrificing national security for personal profit.”
“Like lemmings, Indians are heading for the cliff. It is the 'messiah syndrome' I have often noticed. Indians, for unknown reasons, are looking for a messiah or a Mahatma to come and save them. Alas, we are fresh out of messiahs, and in any case, George W Bush hardly fits the role.”
“Why on earth should anybody now believe the remarkable fiction that the P-5s, the nuclear 'haves', will protect them against any new nuclear powers, or indeed, that the P-5 intends to de-nuclearise?
After all, the P-5 have shown no signs of doing so in decades. In fact, Americans have been building new-generation bunker-busting nuclear warheads, far from reducing its arsenal. They just want others -- most notably India -- to practice nuclear abstinence, while the US -- which is, notably, the only power to have ever used nuclear weapons in anger -- merrily continues with new weapon development. And China, the other big nuclear hypocrite, proliferates merrily.”
‘The second notable feature of this alleged North Korean test is that there is no doubt whatsoever that this is a message from the Chinese. The Chinese have been proliferating quite happily to all its tactical allies, including Pakistan, Iran, Libya, Iraq, and now Bangladesh. You heard it here first, but the next entrant into the nuclear club will be India's poverty-stricken neighbor Bangladesh, using Chinese-supplied bombs.
After all, this is what Pakistan has done with its screwdriver-job Chinese-supplied bombs, which were no doubt shipped along the Karakoram Highway in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. Yet another reason why India's betrayal of Tibet has come back to haunt the nation: we should never have stood idly by and let the Chinese conquer Tibet, which accounts for fully one-third of Chinese-controlled territory now.
The timing of the North Korean test is quite instructive as to the point China wanted to convey. It is a fair bet that this is a signal for at least five nations, and for the world at large. The message to the world in general is that China has proliferated nukes, is proliferating, and will continue to proliferate as it pleases. Any questions? An in-your-face sort of emphatic assertion of intent.’
rsbagwell:
what are your facts? My dear there are no facts for the future only extrapolations and my extra polation is based on the examples I qouted in my original post. I am not saying it is bad for India or good. As long as India is fine US playing the big brother role, it is a great deal. I love US and am not against such thing. I believe US can play a great role in the entire world.
If it is about sale then yes India can afford buying volume but so does 10 small countries. Also China may have more power to buy as well as Iran. A Smaller Arab country can probably buy more plants than the entire India.
India economy is and purchase power remain to grow while others pockets are already full.
Bc2on
what are your facts?
Some of facts you can see here
http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers18%5Cpaper1740.html
In your previous post you were just apprehensive about the deal not knowing what is in it for India or USA (There is no Free Lunch!). At no point in you previous post you said whether you like the deal. Rather you were pointing towards negatives (wait and watch and I would love to see India getting into this deal so I can bring you al lback to this thread and remind you)
In statements below you are presenting contradicting statements. You like first and then again questioning if it is really a commercial benefit or any other agenda behing this deal (other countries can also afford to buy Statement)
My dear there are no facts for the future only extrapolations and my extra polation is based on the examples I qouted in my original post.
I am not saying it is bad for India or good. As long as India is fine US playing the big brother role, it is a great deal. I love US and am not against such thing. I believe US can play a great role in the entire world.
If it is about sale then yes India can afford buying volume but so does 10 small countries. Also China may have more power to buy as well as Iran. A Smaller Arab country can probably buy more plants than the entire India.
India economy is and purchase power remain to grow while others pockets are already full.
I am sorry but your statements so far are confusing. It does not give clear conclusion wheather you like or dislike the deal?
You like if this happens and you dislike it if that happens!
Nightmare,
Thanks for your input towards this discussion. I still need to go through Arun's articles.
Conclusion: I agree with you comments. It ultimately boils down to who you believe. This is a never ending discussion.
