Karat was against the pokhran test and now he wants India to keep the retesting option in the deal.Karat was against the nuclear deal but he wants Iran to become nuclear.
The Headline only shows that the commies are almost successful in scuttling the deal in its present form just as their master China would have wished. If the Centre had gone to the IAEA 10 months back there would have been enough time for the US Congress to consider the 123 agreement. Now it is really late..What is the point in almost losing the Govt. now ?
If the present US Govt. fails in its commitments to pass the deal, a new administration is likely to renegotiate and we may get lesser concessions which maybe even on par with China.
In any case India is far behind China in economic terms - the N-deal is unlikely to alter the scenario in any way in the immediate future. It looks like we are destined to live forever in China's shadow and seeks its consent also before signing any international agreements.
RE:Commies almost successful in scuttling deal
by Kris on Jul 09, 2008 11:08 AM
India had already made one attempt in 1993 (10 years after China started negotiations with the US) to get a nuclear deal but somehow it never got moving.
RE:Commies almost successful in scuttling deal
by Krishnan M on Jul 09, 2008 01:03 PM
Mr Kris, US need not pass or ok the deal, immediately. If IAEA and NSG approves it is sufficient for the purpose.
RE:Commies almost successful in scuttling deal
by vijay tiwari on Jul 09, 2008 01:06 PM
thanks Kris the text is informative,thats when i reconsider that these blogs are trifle Trivia
Stupid opinion!!! George Bush is the biggest politician in US OK? He can get the deal passed by a majority vote in congress..India has already started lobbying GE & Westinghouse with promise of contracts....wake up & smell the coffee.........
The time set to pass a deal is all manmade by the nations,and any reason for delay genuine or otherwise should not be a reason to cut short the time for processing the deal,as the relation between many nations can hinder then.Globalisation can take place only through understanding of each and every nations problems and acting as per benifit to them thus improving relationships between nations be it a democracy a communist,a monarcy a soviet etc.
6. Further, in case of disruption despite these measures, the US will assist India to obtain nuclear fuel from friendly countries (Article 5.6 b). Apparently India insisted on this provision because of its bad experience with the disruption of supplies for the Tarapore reactor when the US imposed sanctions on India in accordance with its domestic laws after India conducted its nuclear tests at Pokhran in May 1998. This concession goes well beyond the Hyde Act that had stipulated that the supply of fuel should be consistent with the requirement.
7. Even on the issue of the right to terminate the agreement, the 123 accord with India stands out as an agreement between co-equals while the 123 with China smacks of US dominance. Though consultations are mentioned, in the case of China the agreement states that if either party violates its terms, the other party shall have the right to cease further cooperation (Article 7.1). Such termination could be immediate. In the case of the 123 with India, besides mandatory consultations about violations, termination requires one year's written notice and the reasons for seeking such termination are to be spelt out (Article 14.1). Also, either party will consider whether expedient factors, particularly national security concerns, led to violation of the terms of the agreement (Article 14.2).
4. As regards the right to reprocess spent fuel, India's standpoint has been accepted and incorporated into the 123 agreement, with the proviso that India will establish a separate re-processing facility and that re-processing will be carried out under IAEA safeguards. However, a similar concession for China is tied up in so much red tape that it is unlikely to ever work out. The US has only "agreed to consider favorably" a Chinese request to be allowed to reprocess spent fuel. The agreement clearly states that the US retains the right to approve or disapprove such a request. Given the cumbersome procedures in the Department of State and the Department of Energy, the consideration of a Chinese request could take several years and the final decision may still not be favorable.
5. On fuel supply assurances as well there are glaring disparities between what has been agreed upon by the US with China and with India. In the case of China, the US has agreed to supply only as much fuel as is necessary "for the efficient and continuous operation of the reactors" (Article 4.3). In India's case, the US has gone far beyond such an arrangement and agreed to help India build a strategic fuel reserve to tide over the disruption, if any, of fuel supplies over the life cycle of the reactors (Article 2.2 e).
Article-by-article comparison of the 123 agreements signed by China and India clearly indicates greater US trust and a softer approach towards India.
1. Article 2.1 states that each party to the agreement shall implement it in accordance with its national laws. In terms of international law, the provisions of China's 123 agreement are rather intrusive. Article 2.1 states that China may not invoke the provisions of its internal laws to justify violation of the agreement and that Chinese exports pursuant to the agreement will be subject to the US laws that are prevalent at the time of such exports. There is no such provision in the case of the Indian 123 (Article 16.4). It simply states that the agreement will be implemented in good faith and in accordance with the principles of international law.
2.The 123 agreement that China signed has barred the export of nuclear material or technology to China unless the US president certified that China was not assisting a third country that had not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to acquire nuclear weapons technology. This ensured that no transfers would take place till the US administration and Congress were satisfied that China had begun to adhere to international non-proliferation norms. Then President Bill Clinton provided such a certificate to Congress in 1998 and the US Congress approved implementation of the 123 agreement with China shortly after that.
RE:China's 123 Agreement compared with India's
by Kris on Jul 09, 2008 10:45 AM
n India's case, both the president and Congress are satisfied that India strictly observes all the operative provisions of the NPT though it is not a signatory to the NPT and no such restrictive provision has been incorporated in the 123 agreement with India.
Discussions on a US-China nuclear deal began in 1981. An 'Agreement Between the United States and the People's Republic of China Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy' was signed on July 13, 1985. However, it was approved by the US Congress only on March 18, 1998, after almost 13 years of excruciating reviews and presidential waivers. In 2007, China placed its first orders for nuclear reactors consequent to its civil nuclear cooperation agreement.
So how does India dare to negotiate a even better deal with the US and that too in a shorter time period ? That is why China is very suspicious of US and Indian interests. And the Left parties are not acting in our national interests.
