Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Thu 07/26/2007 View Wed 07/25/2007 View Tue 07/24/2007 View Mon 07/23/2007 View Sun 07/22/2007 View Sat 07/21/2007 View Fri 07/20/2007
1
2007-07-26 India-Pakistan
India's nuclear deal
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by John Frum 2007-07-26 00:00|| || Front Page|| [7 views ]  Top

#1 A number of inaccuracies:

- the first overseas base is not the Madagascar listening post but rather Ayni airbase in Tajikistan (choppers and eventually MiGs)

- the first nuclear test was in 1974 and the majority of sanctions against India are from this time.

- IAEA inspections were not really an issue. India agreed to place its civil power reactors under safeguards. It kept its BARC weapons complex (and plutonium production reactor) as well as 8 other heavy water reactors (needed for Plutonium and Tritium production) along with its Uranium enrichment facilities on the military side.
Its enormous breeder reactors (each loaded with a core of tons of plutonium) are likewise off limits. ElBaradei's inspections will never enter these facilities.
Posted by John Frum 2007-07-26 07:05||   2007-07-26 07:05|| Front Page Top

#2 US lawmakers issue warning over N-deal

US lawmakers have warned the Bush administration of "inconsistencies" in the 123 Agreement after reports that Washington has agreed to allow India to reprocess spent nuclear fuel under the civilian nuclear deal with New Delhi.

The warning came after the agreement between the US and India was finalised in extended talks in Washington last week.

In a letter to President George W Bush, as many as 23 Congressmen-led by Democratic lawmaker Edward Markey expressed their concern that perhaps Washington may have "capitulated" to India's demands on the agreement.

The Congress passed the Hyde Act less than a year ago, settling minimum conditions that must be met for nuclear cooperation with India, as well as the non-negotiable restrictions on such cooperation, Markey said.

Stating that these conditions and restrictions were not optional or advisory, Markey warned, "If the 123 Agreement has been intentionally negotiated to side-step or bypass the law and the will of Congress, final approval for this deal will be jeopardised."

In the letter, the lawmakers stressed "the necessity of abiding by the legal boundaries set by Congress" for nuclear cooperation.

"The Agreement for Nuclear Cooperation is subject to the approval of Congress, and any inconsistencies between the Agreement and the relevant US laws will call Congressional approval deeply into doubt," lawmakers told the White House.

They also picked upon India's growing economic and military ties to Iran as a factor which could imperil Congressional approval of the deal.

Among the bipartisan cosigners were Howard Berman (Senior member of the Foreign Affairs Committee), Brad Sherman (chairman of the Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade Subcommittee), Dan Burton (Senior member of the Foreign Affairs Committee), Ellen Tauscher (chairwoman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee), Jeff Fortenberry, Henry Waxman and Republican Jane Harman (chairwoman of the Intelligence Subcommittee).

"The president cannot re-write laws during a closed-door negotiation session with a foreign government.

"Though some of us disagreed during last year's debate over nuclear cooperation with India, all of us are intent on defending the prerogatives of Congress and reinforcing that the law must be followed without exceptions," Markey said in a statement.

The Bush administration has to get Congressional approval on the bilateral deal before any nuclear cooperation can commence between the US and India.

The remaining steps include India negotiating a safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the US obtaining consensus agreement from the Nuclear Suppliers Group to change its guidelines to allow transfers to India.
Posted by John Frum 2007-07-26 08:09||   2007-07-26 08:09|| Front Page Top

23:57 newc
23:56 newc
23:55 newc
23:51 newc
23:48 Super Hose
23:48 newc
23:42 Super Hose
23:37 StumpRanchSteve
23:31 Super Hose
23:26 Super Hose
23:12 Super Hose
23:11 trailing wife
23:09 trailing wife
23:04 Pappy
22:58 crosspatch
22:43 Anonymoose
22:36 Pappy
22:29 3dc
22:29 anymouse
22:25 trailing wife
22:24 Pappy
22:10 Gary and the Samoyeds
22:10 trailing wife
22:08 Gerthudion Choper6698









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com