India: Against U.S. nuclear conditions

[Asim Aquil]

http://www.upi.com/InternationalInte...8-020938-5352r

NEW DELHI, April 18 (UPI) -- India has said it is against the inclusion of any provision in the Indo-U.S. civilian nuclear agreement that would prevent India from conducting nuclear tests.

The Hindu newspaper said Tuesday that India has told the United States it will not accept any provision stating that nuclear cooperation between the two countries would be discontinued if New Delhi were to conduct a nuclear test.

Responding to media reports, Indian foreign office spokesman Navtej Sarna confirmed that a draft agreement provided by the United States contained such a provision.

"In preliminary discussions on these elements, India has already conveyed to the United States that such a provision has no place in the bilateral agreement and that India is bound only by what is contained in the July 18, 2005 joint statement, that is, continuing its commitment to a unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing," Sarna said.

"India's position on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is well-known and continues to be valid," Sarna said. India has refused to sign the CBTB, which was crippled when the U.S. Senate failed to ratify it.

India's position is that it is bound only by its existing voluntary moratorium.

Some weeks ago, Sarna said, the United States showed India a preliminary draft agreement on Indo-U.S. civilian nuclear cooperation under Article 123 of the U.S. Atomic Energy Act.

Because of existing clauses in the U.S. Atomic Energy and Arms Export Acts, Washington inserted a clause in the draft that would end bilateral civilian nuclear cooperation if India were to detonate a nuclear explosive device, even in a controlled test scenario.

Does the US think that just because they're separating civillian nuclear program from the military one, they'd give up the military one altogether? When the US has asked India to separate the two programmes then why should it dictate on the military one?

India will continue to build nuclear weapons, perhaps it will have to test them too, so it won't sign it.

[Karthik]

Dude, there's already a thread about the civilian nuclear deal in the main forum ( i.e the parent of this forum). A discussion has been underwat there for a long time now. Post it there.

[highsea]

India has said it is against the inclusion of any provision in the Indo-U.S. civilian nuclear agreement that would prevent India from conducting nuclear tests.

...will not accept any provision stating that nuclear cooperation between the two countries would be discontinued if New Delhi were to conduct a nuclear test.

...India is bound only by what is contained in the July 18, 2005 joint statement, that is, continuing its commitment to a unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing.

...India's position is that it is bound only by its existing voluntary moratorium.

We call this talking out of both sides of your face.

"Voluntary moratorium". Lol.

It's time to scrap this deal.

[Asim Aquil]

How many deals can the US afford to scrap?

Do you seriously think anyone would listen to US desire when it comes to the defence of its own citizens? Nuclear tests are a part of that defence capability.

Btw, I'm interested to know the exact details of the 2005 joint statement.

[Officer of Engineers]

How many deals can the US afford to scrap?

Any and all that has the legal provision to do so. In this case, the US Senate has not ratified the deal ... and it looks it's not going to no matter what the Bush Administration says.

[Asim Aquil]

And lose Billions!? There will be a point where the US Senate would start feeling uncomfy after losing so much cash.

The proposed deal was on cash basis only. Now the US wants more out of it.

I know I'm a Pakistani but we're trying for the same goals that India has already started. So I ask you, do you think the US is RIGHT in making these demands?

Because of existing clauses in the U.S. Atomic Energy and Arms Export Acts, Washington inserted a clause in the draft that would end bilateral civilian nuclear cooperation if India were to detonate a nuclear explosive device, even in a controlled test scenario.

In that case the act needs some ratification.

[Officer of Engineers]

And lose Billions!?

It's billions$ that is a pie in the sky at the moment. India is not exactly shopping for nuclear reactors from anybody at the moment.

There will be a point where the US Senate would start feeling uncomfy after losing so much cash.

You mean like China? If the US is willing to turn its back on the China-Boeing deal, India and Pakistan don't rate a higher chance.

The proposed deal was on cash basis only. Now the US wants more out of it

I know I'm a Pakistani but we're trying for the same goals that India has already started. So I ask you, do you think the US is RIGHT in making these demands?

The deal was on shaky ground from the beginning since it clearly violates the NPT to which the US is an Author and it at least was its champion.

I have a question for you guys. Why do you think India and Pakistan deserve such a special treatment as to violate US Law? Even Canada, the US's biggest trading partner is being shafted for energy and natural resources trade. Do you think South Asia deserves any better treatment from the US than Canada?

[Blademaster]

For one thing, Canada doesn't have nuclear weapons. India and Pakistan do. Moreover, India represent the kind of threat to the stable oil prices that Canada cannot pose. Canada cannot match the kind of appetite for oil that India has.

Highsea,

It will be a cold day in hell before anyone can tell India what to do. If you don't like it, tough sh!t.

[Officer of Engineers]

For one thing, Canada doesn't have nuclear weapons. India and Pakistan do. Moreover, India represent the kind of threat to the stable oil prices that Canada cannot pose. Canada cannot match the kind of appetite for oil that India has.

When it comes to oil, Canada has alot more clout than both India and Pakistan combined.

[Jay]

Do you think South Asia deserves any better treatment from the US than Canada?

Sir,
May be its coz India and Pakistan both have nukes, fighting each other and has a greater risk of proliferation (especially for Pakistan) ??

[Blademaster]

When it comes to oil, Canada has alot more clout than both India and Pakistan combined.

Yes as a supplier, but not as a vorcerious consumer. USA is trying to relieve the demand for oil coming from China and India.

[Jay]

Also to think of it, what is the advantage that US is going to give us in the longer run which is worth risking our nukes? Nothing, nada, zilch.

Its us who fought 3 wars + 1 against Pakistan and 1 against China. Its us who are in this dangerous neighbourhood where 2 of its neighbours are nuclear armed and cares zilch officially about proliferating missiles and nukes to others.

We need nukes, we didnt come this far to loose it on a deal like this. You could offer it, if you agree our sentiments, if not, may be some other will.

We are not asking the US to break its laws for India, if the partnership is worth the trouble, go ahead and do it, else lets just leave as it is.

[Officer of Engineers]

I really don't know. A few like the Good Brigadier and the Good Captain usually ignore the rantings of the internet warriors. Maybe we're old dinosaurs who realized long ago is easier to go around the mountain than trying to move it (ie, the government).

However, I don't see this nuclear deal as the end-all, be-all of US-India relationship. Hell, the two countries almost went to war back when we were staring the nuclear gun barrel. Back then, China was our friend to no end, so much so that an implicit understanding that they came under our nuclear umbrella.

Whether we were the straw that broke the camel's back or our blatant lack of cooperation detered the Soviets from attacking a nuclear toothless China can be debated but nonetheless highlights that no one should expect any preferential treatment from the US.

The BEST reason any of the internet warriors have put forth is "We're an up and coming superpower India" even when us old dinosaurs cannot shove enough manure on that statement.

But once you've taken that away and look at the relationship from cold hard realpolitik glasses, then why shouldn't the US get as much out of India as possible? Why should the US kowtow to India's demands?

[Officer of Engineers]

We are not asking the US to break its laws for India, if the partnership is worth the trouble, go ahead and do it, else lets just leave as it is.

Reading India is alot different than reading China. Indian citizens have a voice. Chinese citizens do not. Hence, I can ignore what China's internet warriros say. Howvever, that is not the case with India. How much of an effect your or anyone's voices have is open to debate but it cannot be ignored.

This being said, both Executive branches of the two countries wanted this deal. The price, however, seems to be getting higher and higher for both sides. Is it now worth it for both Executive branch to pursue it?

[highsea]

Highsea,

It will be a cold day in hell before anyone can tell India what to do. If you don't like it, tough sh!t.

Hey chill out. Nobody is telling India what to do. The US is telling India what the terms of doing business with the US are.

Same as we do for everybody else.

If those terms are not acceptable to India, so be it.