N-deal: Anti-Islamic and now Anti-Sikh?

Some excerpts from one of the few balanced critiques on this topic:

Indo-US nuclear deal: There are weighty reasons not to accept 123

By Dr P.K. Iyengar (Former chairman of Atomic Energy Commission)

…
The problems with the nuclear deal commenced with the very next step—the Separation Plan. This document clearly spells out the guiding principles behind our approach to separation.

Finally, ‘losing face’ is an argument that may apply to individuals and human emotions. It is scarcely an adequate basis for conducting the foreign policy of a large nation.

The US is making strenuous efforts to get India to sign the Indo-US nuclear deal, essentially by threatening that it is ‘now or never’….But this begs the question whether the deal is desirable or not.

Obviously, it is desirable from the American perspective because it will, in essence, prevent any further nuclear tests, cap our strategic programme, and bring us into the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) through the back door.

But is it in our national interest? The lack of scientific debate in the media has led the Indian people to believe that we need the nuclear deal, and they are in broad support.

But the reality is that this deal, in the present form, is just another way of getting India to accept that it is not a nuclear power.

To understand this, we must go back to the beginning of the deal.

…
The Hyde Act states very clearly that: (1) nothing in this title constitutes authority for any action in violation of an obligation of the United States under the NPT; and (2) a determination and any waiver under section 104 shall cease to be effective if the President determines that India has detonated a nuclear explosive device.

These statements are not from the ‘advisory’ part of the Act, but from the prescriptive part. They make it explicit that the NPT will cast its shadow on the 123 Agreement, and therefore that India will not be treated as an equal of the other nuclear powers, in contradiction with the July 18, 2005 Joint Statement.

More dangerously, the moment India tests a nuclear device, the entire deal falls through.

In essence the Hyde Act, in one stroke, also terminates the development of India’s strategic programme. For many of us the Hyde Act made it decisively clear that the US had no intention of treating India as a de facto nuclear power, as the July 18, 2005 Joint Statement seemed to indicate.
…
We should be very clear in our minds that, in the real world, the Indo-US nuclear deal will strike deeply at our strategic programme. All talk of retaining our ‘sovereign right to test’ is just theoretical rhetoric.

The 123 Agreement
…
Further, the 123 Agreement also states that “… India will place its civilian nuclear facilities under India-specific safeguards in perpetuity and negotiate an appropriate safeguards agreement to this end with the IAEA.” (Emphasis added.) This is a seriously objectionable clause, especially when the 123 Agreement itself is valid only for forty years (after which it can, by mutual consent, be extended for ten years at a time).
It is completely unacceptable to place our nuclear facilities under safeguards in perpetuity.
…
End-game
The entire Indo-US nuclear deal started grandly, with the July 18, 2005 Joint Statement announcing that “as a responsible state with advanced nuclear technology, India should acquire the same benefits and advantages as other such states”. This had all the connotations of India being admitted to the nuclear club as a card-carrying member, in recognition of both, our achievements and our responsible behaviour.

In the three years since then, the arguments in favour of the deal have become weaker.

Today the proponents of the deal have two much narrower arguments to make. The first is technical: we are short of uranium and we need the deal to keep our reactors operational. The second is political: this is the best deal we can get, so let us grab it before it disappears. More recently a third has been added: if we don’t conclude the deal we will ‘lose face’.

Let me take first the uranium problem. For years we have claimed that we have enough uranium ore to support 10,000 MW of nuclear power for 30 years. We have not used up even major part of it, then why this sudden cry? Further, there has been no discussion regarding the economics of importing uranium or the legal issues (related to providing guarantees). The 123 Agreement does not guarantee free or cheap uranium to India. It only formalises the intent of the US government to allow trade in nuclear material and technology, which is presently forbidden. The actual sale of uranium will still be a commercial transaction, governed by market price of uranium, and by commercial terms and conditions, and will be subject to perpetual safeguards. The price of uranium has gone up four-fold in the last three years—from $20 to $85 a pound—and the price will shoot up even more with increasing demand. Therefore, the 123 Agreement is not a panacea for our uranium problems. A cheaper and faster solution would be to spend the money on uranium prospecting, and simultaneously to look towards non-NSG countries for importing uranium.

The second argument is that we should clinch the deal now; otherwise a new US administration may not offer a similar deal. This flies in the face of statements from the US Ambassador that a new administration may be able to negotiate a deal within a year of taking over. In the time-scales of nuclear power, this is not a very long time. In fact, the longer we wait, the stronger the country becomes economically, the better the deal we can negotiate.

Finally, ‘losing face’ is an argument that may apply to individuals and human emotions. It is scarcely an adequate basis for conducting the foreign policy of a large nation.

Conclusion

It is clear, from the texts of the various acts and agreements, which I have quoted above, that:

(1) the 123 Agreement will be circumscribed by the provisions of the Hyde Act;

(2) if India conducts a nuclear test, the 123 Agreement will be abrogated and we will have to return all nuclear material;

(3) consequently the nuclear deal, via the provisions of the Hyde Act, does, for all practical purposes, severely constrain our strategic programme;

(4) the 123 Agreement does not secure our national interests, does not give us a status equal to the US, and is therefore in direct contradiction with the July 18, 2005, Joint Statement and the assurances given by the Prime Minister to Parliament on July 29, 2005;

(5) The US has already, by not joining us in approaching the IAEA, not fulfilled its reciprocal obligations, again contradiction to the assurance given in Parliament;

(6) Given that the purchase of uranium and nuclear technology will be governed by market forces, and safeguarded in perpetuity, it has not been demonstrated that the nuclear deal will be cost-effective in its implementation.

These are weighty reasons why the nuclear deal is not in the national interest.
…

The above points by Dr Iyengar are all strawmen arguments and they are virtually copy-pasted from the communist’s playbook.

Let me prove this:

1. The Hyde Act is a piece of US legislation that sits supreme over all non-proliferation activities of the US. Until the Hyde Act is abrogated, this will always be the case and was known from Day 1. The key was whether we would be forced to sign the CTBT as part of the nuclear deal. This is not the case – this implies that we can detonate a nuclear device whenever we feel like it. This has implications, which I deal with below.

2. False. All reactors supplied to India remain the property of India. The important part of a nuclear test is whether we were going to be allowed to build a stockpile of nuclear material for our power plants or not – I DON’T KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE REALISE THIS BUT INDIA HAS THE RIGHT NOW TO BUILD A STOCKPILE FOR ONE YEAR FOR ITS CIVILIAN REACTORS. So, you build the stockpile, do the nuclear tests that may be required in the future and then go back and say okay, we are ready to now sign the CTBT. Which means that we will continue to receive fuel, after maybe a short gap or maybe not even that. This is REALPOLITIKS, folks – do not expect the US to allow India to just walk all over the NPT, in writing. You have to read between the lines, and I am surprised that Arun Shourie is not being able to do that.

3. False. This is so blatantly false that I don’t know why this keeps getting repeated. We can now use all our uranium reserves for building bombs and import the uranium we require for running nuclear power plants. This ENHANCES our strategic reserves, not diminishes them.

4. False. We move out of nuclear isolation that has been our lot since 1974, and especially since 1985. I do not understand what is “equal status to the US”?

5. False. The US has been pushing every lever it can to get the deal done at the IAEA and at the NSG. Read the FT and the Economist to find out all they have been doing – to the extent that many NPT people are now seriously pissed off at the US.

6. Irrelevant. This pact was never about getting subsidies – get real – why should France or Russia or the US subsidise our nuclear plants? It was about getting a seat at the global table and coming out of our nuclear isolation. Don’t buy their technology if it is not cost-efficient – you are not committed to buying anything, it is an OPTION.

I am really surprised at the complete lack of “weight” in Dr Iyenger’s article – it is a sham. But then, since the communists probably wrote it for him, why should I be surprised.

Dear Sir
Every technology has a price to be paid for. We Indians have always survived on subsidies and welcoming it. The great growth of the past 8 years has not been because of our R&D or our export of products but sheer slave labour.
All our political parties want to keep out India of the development and growth path as then their true shenanigans will be exposed.
Again even the western thought process has been to keep India under its thumb as they would like to maintain their high standards of living at the cost of the relatively slave labour level of wages in the developing countries.
After the war the Germans and the Japanese went into a long phase of depression and shame, but with the Marshall plan in place and also the severe restrictions placed on them by the allied powers they worked and slaved to make their nations proud.
The commies have always been hell bent on keeping the people poor and hungry and on the dole to survive.
Today, I am not an authority on nuclear energy or power; all i can state is that after the Three mile Island tragedy in the US and the contamination of soils in the US because of seeping nuclear waste and faulty disposal sites will a nation like ours with its corruption and lax dicipline be capable of handling the nuclear disposal of waste capably is a question that arises.
Our former president Shri. Kalam, has added that the vast resources of thorium in India can be better utilised to develop a nuclear power base rather than depending on imported uranium.
The ultimate call we have to take is that we use the nuclear arrangement to take us to the next level of development, swallowing our pride and letting go of our ego’s for the greater good of a nation.
May be after 50 years we can be a nation capable to challenge the economic might of other nations and thankfully we will see the demise and burial of the commies by that time.
If it can lead to the destruction of the ideology of the commie any effort can be taken and if this is one everybody should welcome it.
Regards,
vck

Very big article on Indo-US Unclear Nuclear Deal.

http://knol.google.com/k/india-us-unclear-deal#

Any Punjabi whether Sikh or not who votes or supports Congress, the party responsible for genocide of millions of Punjabis and Sikhs who led the fight of independence from front and took the burnt of british atrocities on chest is a traitor to nation, to self and to the community