US lawmaker urges India nuclear deal be delayed

[BanglaBhoot]

Thu, Aug 7th, 2008 11:08 am BdST
Washington, Aug 7 (bdnews24.com/Reuters) - The chairman of the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee has urged the Bush administration to shelve a nuclear trade deal with India unless it can guarantee compliance with a US law that would suspend trade if India tested a nuclear weapon again.

In a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, California Rep. Howard Berman, a Democrat, said it would be better to suspend congressional approval of the deal until the next Congress which convenes in January 2009.

"Given the lateness in the congressional session, it would be better to review these complex matters in the next Congress when they can receive a full and serious examination," Berman, a California Democrat said.

The Bush administration wants Congress to approve the agreement before it leaves office next January.

A State Department spokesman declined to comment.

The proposed accord aims to give India access to U.S. nuclear fuel and equipment, overturning a ban imposed after New Delhi, which has not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, conducted a nuclear test in 1974.

A major obstacle was cleared recently when the United Nations' nuclear watchdog approved an inspection plan for India's nuclear energy plants.

Now Washington and New Delhi hope to persuade the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group to grant India an unprecedented waiver allowing nuclear trade with a non-NPT state.

Once that happens, the administration plans to turn to Congress for its approval of the pact.

Berman warned that Congress would not act before its Sept. 26 target adjournment date unless the Bush administration pushed the NSG to attach conditions to its waiver copied from legislation Congress passed on the India deal in 2006.

The legislation said among other things that nuclear assistance to India would be suspended if it resumed nuclear testing.

Meanwhile other countries might rush in to take advantage of a more lenient NSG waiver and do business with India on their own terms, Berman warned.

"This would give other countries an unacceptable head-start in securing commercial nuclear contracts with the Indian Government, thus placing U.S. firms at a competitive disadvantage," Berman wrote to Rice.


bdnews24.com/amt/1105 hrs.

US lawmaker urges India nuclear deal be delayed :: :: bdnews24.com ::

 

[nitesh]

well, this is expected. There is a strong opposition inside US also. So let's wait and watch for NSG meeting and the US congress approval. Till that point deal is not done.

 

[Neo]

Termination of trade if Delhi tests a nuclear device: US lawmaker threatens to hold up India N-deal if provision excluded​

* Berman says waiver of this condition ‘inconsistent with US law’​

WASHINGTON: A key US lawmaker threatened Wednesday to hold up a landmark US-India nuclear agreement unless nuclear supplier states adopt a provision terminating the deal if India conducted a nuclear test explosion.

Howard Berman, chairman of the House of Representatives foreign affairs committee, said if the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) did not impose such a condition, the deal could not be approved before President George W Bush leaves office in January 2009. “Given the lateness in the Congressional session, it would be better to review these complex matters in the next Congress when they can receive a full and serious examination,” the Democratic legislator said in a letter Wednesday to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

The US House and Senate will adjourn in late September ahead of the presidential and congressional elections two months later. The Indian parliament endorsed the deal last month after a tense debate following which the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN’s nuclear watchdog agency, approved key safeguards for the agreement to be implemented.

The Bush administration later this month apparently intends to seek an exemption for India on nuclear commerce guidelines from the NSG with “few or none of the conditions” contained in a special US law governing the deal, Berman said. A key condition under the law - the Henry J Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006 - “is the immediate termination of all nuclear commerce by NSG member states if India detonates a nuclear explosive device,” he said.

Any exemption of this provision for India “would be inconsistent with US law, place American firms at a severe competitive disadvantage, and undermine critical US nonproliferation objectives,” he said. “It would also jeopardize congressional support for nuclear co-operation with India, this year and in the future,” he warned. Daryl Kimball, executive director of the US Arms Control Association, said Berman’s letter was “very useful and significant.

“It shows that Congress is concerned that the Bush administration may be seeking an exemption for India that would allow NSG trade to continue if India conducts a nuclear test explosion,” he said. Berman also indicated he was committed to a “full and serious examination” of the deal’s operational agreement adopted by India and the United States last year that raised various questions in Congress, Kimball said.

New Delhi says there is nothing in the operational pact - called the 123 agreement - which places an embargo on India’s right to carry out a nuclear test. It has asserted that it believes the Hyde Act to be irrelevant. Prime Minister Singh has also rejected claims by Indian opposition leaders that the deal would block the country from holding future tests.

Berman said even if NSC members achieved consensus and the Bush administration submitted full details of the deal to Congress immediately after it reconvened on September 8, there may not be sufficient time to fully consider all issues before the legislature’s adjournment on September 26.

“This would give other countries an unacceptable head-start in securing commercial nuclear contracts with the Indian Government, thus placing US firms at a competitive disadvantage,” he said. afp

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

 

[sunny_aus]

There was a time when US used to tell to Pakistan “you have to do more” and in response, Mr Musharraf used to organise military operations against militants to show Pakistan is doing more. And now the time has changed in the way that during the recent visit of Pakistani PM to United States, Pakistani diplomats responded that “we both should do more”.

Friday, August 01, 2008
Urges Washington for bilateral efforts to do more; terms US visit a success
By Muhammad Saleh Zaafir
ON BOARD PM SPECIAL PLANE:
Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani has said that all the issues with PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif would be sorted out, keeping in view the Charter of Democracy (CoD) which the latter had inked with late Benazir Bhutto in London.

He said that the issue of judges would be resolved by the leaders of the ruling coalition partners. “We will certainly find some solution to the issue,” he said. Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani said this while talking to newsmen onboard his special plane while returning home from his three-day US visit on Thursday.

He said that he had made it clear to the US that instead of pressing Pakistan to do more, it was better that both the US and Pakistan should do more in the war against militancy and extremism.

“We have made it clear to the United States that terrorism is a common problem and instead of entering into blame games, we must sort it out with unified efforts. Asking us to do more is no solution, but we both should do more,” Gilani said.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...gton-disappointed-new-face-pak-democracy.html

On one hand, continuous failure in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with poor economic performance of US, and on the other hand, growing strength of china and an excellent come back of Russia, has turned the superpower no more than a “major leading power” only. By having close friendship with India, US will be able to maintain feeling of being superpower for little longer.

Having closer friendship with India will not only give a strategic advantage to US but also US companies are set to win billion of dollars of high tech nuclear reactor contracts which only US can supply to India, that will generate 1000s of new jobs in United States. success of US-Indo nuke deal will make India and US closer than ever before and that will result in a more confident world structure.

The ruling congress party could gather only 253 votes during the recent confidence voting while the required number to win the trust vote was 273. It was because of absence of MPs of small parties which could help the congress to win the trust vote for US-Indo nuke deal. Few cross voting were done from the MPs of BJP also to help the ruling government. Leftist parties, backed by Muslim votes, want the India to sign IPI gas pipe line to fulfil the energy requirements. even BJP voted against the bill as they want to “re-negotiate” the nuke deal with US for better advantages.

Any Delay in US-Indo nuke deal will delay this deal for a longer .

 

[nitesh]

Guys even though hurdles are there before this deal is final, but companies are planning for business opportunities, until the final things are done keep the fingers crossed, check this out:

http://sify.com/finance/fullstory.php?id=14735656

New Delhi: Expecting the nuclear deal with US to go through, India's largest defence electronic company Bharat Electronic Ltd (BEL) is looking at tapping the lucrative business potential in the atomic energy sector.

The Navratna defence PSU said it was exploring opportunities at the instrumentation part of the nuclear technology as part of its diversification plans.

"BEL is looking at instrumentation part of the nuclear technology as one of our diversification areas," Chairman and Managing Director of the company VVR Sastry told PTI here.

He said the Indo-US nuclear deal will open up huge technological advantage and investment opportunities for Indian companies and that the BEL was working eagerly to tap the benefits.
"We are actively and eagerly working on this scenario and we want to take advantage out of it for our business diversification plans," Sastry said.

Asked whether the company would be interested in entering into any joint ventures with foreign companies, he said the company was looking at "all alternatives."

"We are looking at all options. We are exploring all alternatives as single approach is not good enough for our growth," he said.

Engineering major Larsen and Toubro (L&T), Anil Ambani's Reliance Power, Bharat Heavy Electricals, Infosys, Wipro and TCS and many other companies are also looking at opportunities to exploit the possible opportunities in the nuclear energy sector.

Asked how much money the company plans to pump in for diversification in the area, Sastry declined to divulge details.

 

[Neo]

Manmohan Singh’s legacy​

By A.B. Shahid

MANMOHAN Singh made his debut in the front line of Indian politics in the 1990s claiming the discovery of an alternative to Nehru’s socio-economic model, though it had more to do with the demise of the Soviet Union.

What he ‘discovered’ was a softer version of US capitalism that became harder over time.

His model caught on, and the rightist BJP adopted it willingly. Not surprisingly, however, the BJP later admitted that the model didn’t make India ‘shine’. Yet Singh yearns to pass on this model as his legacy even though it won’t make India ‘shine’. That’s what worries the Indians who nearly overthrew Singh’s government a fortnight ago.

Interestingly enough, the cornerstone of Singh’s model is the same as that of Nehru’s, i.e. self-sufficiency. This time round though the focus is on energy, and to that end Singh went overboard by indulging in highly questionable political manoeuvring that tarnished India’s democratic image.

The hurry for executing a nuclear deal with the US at the expense of risking his regime created doubts about the deal. Was Singh worried that with him out of the PM’s office (highly likely) after the scheduled May 2009 elections, the deal may be thrown off the table? Or was he told by President Bush that after his exit from the White House the deal may be set aside?

The worries of both these leaders suggest something fishy about the deal because neither wants the next regime to get a chance to examine it. Hopefully the deal won’t give rise to any questions about its soundness or the integrity of those who pursued it relentlessly, but some deals executed in this fashion did eventually reveal criminal intent.

In contrast to its foot-dragging on allowing NPT signatory Iran to use its nuclear facilities for power generation, the IAEA also hurriedly approved an inspection regime for nuclear power stations to be set up in India although New Delhi, with a record of nuclear tests, is yet to sign the NPT.

Interestingly, Austria, Brazil, Japan, Ireland and Switzerland also softened their initial dissent against the IAEA move.But the way the Congress (in fact, Singh) put India’s largely principled democratic traditions to shame for the sake of executing the nuclear deal was shocking. Never before in parliament had MPs waved bundles of cash given to them as a bribe to cast a confidence vote in favour of Singh’s government after its allies rebelled against the controversial deal.

The many MPs who voted against Singh’s government (just 19 short of the number needed to overthrow the regime) were worried about binding India to a relationship with the US that will weaken India’s loyalty to the Asian region. With India and China pitted against each other yet again, who other than the US stands to benefit, asked the dissenting MPs.

The India-US nuclear deal is an attempt to once again divide Asia that was showing signs of unity after the rapprochement between India and Pakistan, the two Koreas, China and Taiwan, and China and Japan. America’s Democratic Party, which may win the coming presidential election, will find this divisive design too troublesome for a war-weary US.

While a neocon-driven Bush regime would love to leave behind a legacy of divisive issues for the world to keep fighting over, one wonders why Singh wants to join its ranks. Can’t he see that Asia’s poor need a united Asia for themselves as well as for doing good for the poverty-stricken humanity in Africa, Middle East and Latin America?

The way Singh stalled India’s joining the IPI venture reflects the country’s priorities as does its lukewarm attitude to promoting trade within Saarc. What Saarc has achieved in the past 35 years in this context is unworthy of mention. Indian businesses (with government backing) are interested far more in investing in Europe and the US.

Even if for reasons he knows best he believes that India must depend on dangerous nuclear technology, why didn’t he opt for Japan as its supplier, or a European country without imperial ambitions? Again, for reasons he knows best, he is plunging India into a quagmire that becomes the destiny of US allies. His failure to see how Pakistan suffered as a US ally manifests total blindness.

Unless Singh is a visionary who can forecast miracles, he can’t dream of India dominating the globe. Going by the values that Indians (and Pakistanis who have shared those values for centuries) cherish, besides being ignoble this can’t be an Indian ambition. Worse still, pursuing it implies joining hands with the devil.

The recent attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul was aimed at convincing the doubting Indians to join hands with the devil although Indian troops joining Nato in Afghanistan would be a bad move. It would send the wrong signals to the Central Asian and Middle Eastern states because it isn’t difficult to see whose interests will be served by such a move.

Whatever the outcome, Singh has set a new tradition in Indian politics. Despite being the member of a minority community, he drove the entire Congress Party off the track and used the party’s (rather government’s) muscle to bribe MPs into voting for a regime that is forcing India into a relationship that will cost its people heavily.

Both Singh and Bush are deluding themselves. India is not a democracy where popular will can be throttled for long. The nuclear deal may be advertised by the Republican Party as a grand success to induce Americans into voting for McCain. But even if he makes it to the White House, the new regime in India after May 2009 could still quash the deal to preserve India’s coveted place in Asia.

Like many other developing countries that went headlong for copying the US free enterprise system, the Indian economy too is drifting. Investors were wrong to count on a 9-10 per cent annual growth, which could be sustained only with rapid economic reform that India’s mutinous democracy may no longer permit — a legacy that Singh won’t feel proud of.

DAWN - Editorial; August 09, 2008

 

[Flintlock]

^^^^This article is.....weird.....it seems to be trying too hard to predict doom for India's policies and messing up terribly in the process. Its also got some facts wrong.

 

[cactuslily58]

Why does this editorial from the Dawn smell of a case of " sour grapes" to me ?

The fact despite the hurry & urgency alluded to by the author, India still stood up to the US in the WTO is a good sign.

Indian Govts have a proven track record of keeping national interests above all ir respective of which party is in power. Most people have faith in the Govt on this issue.

 

[Vinod2070]

Yes, the deal is far from a done deal. There is a lot of work to be done.

Though obviously with the weight of the USA diplomacy is behind the treaty, the chances are good.

The nuclear Ayatollahs are more of a nuisance.

 

[sunny_aus]

Manmohan Singh’s legacy​

By A.B. Shahid

MANMOHAN Singh made his debut in the front line of Indian politics in the 1990s claiming the discovery of an alternative to Nehru’s socio-economic model, though it had more to do with the demise of the Soviet Union.

What he ‘discovered’ was a softer version of US capitalism that became harder over time.

His model caught on, and the rightist BJP adopted it willingly. Not surprisingly, however, the BJP later admitted that the model didn’t make India ‘shine’. Yet Singh yearns to pass on this model as his legacy even though it won’t make India ‘shine’. That’s what worries the Indians who nearly overthrew Singh’s government a fortnight ago.

Interestingly enough, the cornerstone of Singh’s model is the same as that of Nehru’s, i.e. self-sufficiency. This time round though the focus is on energy, and to that end Singh went overboard by indulging in highly questionable political manoeuvring that tarnished India’s democratic image.

The hurry for executing a nuclear deal with the US at the expense of risking his regime created doubts about the deal. Was Singh worried that with him out of the PM’s office (highly likely) after the scheduled May 2009 elections, the deal may be thrown off the table? Or was he told by President Bush that after his exit from the White House the deal may be set aside?

The worries of both these leaders suggest something fishy about the deal because neither wants the next regime to get a chance to examine it. Hopefully the deal won’t give rise to any questions about its soundness or the integrity of those who pursued it relentlessly, but some deals executed in this fashion did eventually reveal criminal intent.

In contrast to its foot-dragging on allowing NPT signatory Iran to use its nuclear facilities for power generation, the IAEA also hurriedly approved an inspection regime for nuclear power stations to be set up in India although New Delhi, with a record of nuclear tests, is yet to sign the NPT.

Interestingly, Austria, Brazil, Japan, Ireland and Switzerland also softened their initial dissent against the IAEA move.But the way the Congress (in fact, Singh) put India’s largely principled democratic traditions to shame for the sake of executing the nuclear deal was shocking. Never before in parliament had MPs waved bundles of cash given to them as a bribe to cast a confidence vote in favour of Singh’s government after its allies rebelled against the controversial deal.

The many MPs who voted against Singh’s government (just 19 short of the number needed to overthrow the regime) were worried about binding India to a relationship with the US that will weaken India’s loyalty to the Asian region. With India and China pitted against each other yet again, who other than the US stands to benefit, asked the dissenting MPs.

The India-US nuclear deal is an attempt to once again divide Asia that was showing signs of unity after the rapprochement between India and Pakistan, the two Koreas, China and Taiwan, and China and Japan. America’s Democratic Party, which may win the coming presidential election, will find this divisive design too troublesome for a war-weary US.

While a neocon-driven Bush regime would love to leave behind a legacy of divisive issues for the world to keep fighting over, one wonders why Singh wants to join its ranks. Can’t he see that Asia’s poor need a united Asia for themselves as well as for doing good for the poverty-stricken humanity in Africa, Middle East and Latin America?

The way Singh stalled India’s joining the IPI venture reflects the country’s priorities as does its lukewarm attitude to promoting trade within Saarc. What Saarc has achieved in the past 35 years in this context is unworthy of mention. Indian businesses (with government backing) are interested far more in investing in Europe and the US.

Even if for reasons he knows best he believes that India must depend on dangerous nuclear technology, why didn’t he opt for Japan as its supplier, or a European country without imperial ambitions? Again, for reasons he knows best, he is plunging India into a quagmire that becomes the destiny of US allies. His failure to see how Pakistan suffered as a US ally manifests total blindness.

Unless Singh is a visionary who can forecast miracles, he can’t dream of India dominating the globe. Going by the values that Indians (and Pakistanis who have shared those values for centuries) cherish, besides being ignoble this can’t be an Indian ambition. Worse still, pursuing it implies joining hands with the devil.

The recent attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul was aimed at convincing the doubting Indians to join hands with the devil although Indian troops joining Nato in Afghanistan would be a bad move. It would send the wrong signals to the Central Asian and Middle Eastern states because it isn’t difficult to see whose interests will be served by such a move.

Whatever the outcome, Singh has set a new tradition in Indian politics. Despite being the member of a minority community, he drove the entire Congress Party off the track and used the party’s (rather government’s) muscle to bribe MPs into voting for a regime that is forcing India into a relationship that will cost its people heavily.

Both Singh and Bush are deluding themselves. India is not a democracy where popular will can be throttled for long. The nuclear deal may be advertised by the Republican Party as a grand success to induce Americans into voting for McCain. But even if he makes it to the White House, the new regime in India after May 2009 could still quash the deal to preserve India’s coveted place in Asia.

Like many other developing countries that went headlong for copying the US free enterprise system, the Indian economy too is drifting. Investors were wrong to count on a 9-10 per cent annual growth, which could be sustained only with rapid economic reform that India’s mutinous democracy may no longer permit — a legacy that Singh won’t feel proud of.

DAWN - Editorial; August 09, 2008

The article is full of misleading informations.

There are two theories of the political parties of India who are opposing the nuke deal.

1st: Leftist parties want India to go for gas pipe lines. As not only IPI gas pipe lines but also gas pipe lines from Turkmenistan, Turkey and Qatar are also proposed as gas pipelines through the sea is very economical now. On the other hand gas production of India is set to be more than double by 2012. They say “A very close friendship with US will involve India in all the goods and bad of US.”
Natural gas production to jump two-fold by 2011-12- Oil & Gas-Energy-News By Industry-News-The Economic Times

2nd: BJP, the 2nd largest national party and having governments in many major states of India is arguing, neither India is as weak as it was in 1974 when it did first nuclear test nor United States is as powerful as it was during 90s. then why not to wait for few more years when there will be a better balance in the power structure of the world, because of a predicted weaker US economy and emerged BRIC economies. And a more powerful India, backed by high growth rates, will make India on a better position for bargaining.

Also, those who are opposing this deal highlight the risks related to nuclear reactors and argue why to go for any type of risk while we already have other gas pipelines options? Both the sides have one common question “why to hurry if we don’t have to?”

But here, Indo-US nuke deal is more about moving forward. Success of the deal will result in a more confident world structure. India and United States will come closer than ever before. an understanding will be build up between these two nations which will finally help to make a better world.

 

[Contrarian]

Very funny article.
Says Indians nearly overthrew the government! Or maybe it could have been said that Indians supported this government.

The article tries too hard to induce its own viewpoint onto others.