The Deal has been pushed forward in India in an anti-democratic manner without approval of the Parliament - in fact in the teeth of opposition by a large majority of parliamentarians. Power from nuclear energy is a failed project in developed countries and the eagerness of the Prime Minister to clinch the Deal fails to generate any enthusiasm among the common people of India. Neither is nuclear energy a solution to global warming as some experts make it out to be. On the contrary the entire nuclear fuel cycle is fraught with danger and exposes human beings to hazardous radiation. The world is yet to find a safe way for disposal of radioactive waste, a factor which is constraining the growth of nuclear power programmes in the developed countries.
The US, UK, Canada, Germany, France, Japan all seem to be reviewing their nuclear energy programmes and commissioning of new nuclear power plants in all these countries has almost come to a stand still. Australia, the biggest supplier of Uranium in the world, is yet to initiate a nuclear power programme. Everybody has realized there is no future in nuclear energy. Advanced countries are looking for alternatives. But because of the parochial vision of our government the ruling class of this country has become obsessed with the nuclear option without any clear understanding of its implications. There seems to be a superficial feeling that this Deal is somehow going to enhance the stature of India in the community of nations. Hence it is matter of vanity and false sense of pride with possibly no concrete benefits for the people of this country.
A Planning Commission study shows that even with the best possible estimates of capacity addition in power generation after the Deal is through, the country is not going to increase its share of electricity from nuclear energy from the present 3% to more than 7-9%. And this would come at a huge cost -- financially and politically. We would be required to bring our foreign policy in line with the US policy as has been already exhibited by India being forced to vote against Iran in the IAEA meeting.
The Indo-US Nuclear Deal is meant to serve the interests of the global nuclear power industry and is a ploy to keep India away from staking claims to shrinking fossil fuel reserves in proportion to its large population so that these reserves may last for some more time for the rich countries.
The undue importance given to the Indo-US Nuclear Deal as opposed to the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline, even though gas is predicted to be the major source of power globally for the next two to three decades, raises questions about the motives of the Indian government.
In the face of unprecedented pressure mounted by the US, the Left Front, a partner in the UPA alliance, must be congratulated for successfully stalling the Indo-US Nuclear Deal up till now. The Deal is now stuck at the stage of finalizing an India specific agreement with the IAEA. The Left party leaders have displayed foresight in foiling the US hegemonic designs in South Asia even though they have yet to take an ideological position against the nuclear power programme. It would make more political, economic and environmental sense for India to pursue a path of self reliant renewable energy programme for fulfilling its need rather than the elusive nuclear energy for which we'll always be at the mercy of external agencies. But then India will have to give up its own hegemonic designs of acting as a regional military super power.
Clean source of energy will have to be accompanied by clean politics. India will have to work on the agenda of regional peace, disarmament and stability rather than converting it into a region of warfare. If Manmohan Singh embarks on this twin objective programme, he would be remembered for his wisdom more than he would be if he were to finalize the Indo-US Nuclear Deal. He would favourably alter the course of history of not only this nation but also possibly the world towards a cleaner, safer and secure future.
Courtesy :Dr Sandeep Pandey.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
"Why do I Oppose Indo-U.S Nuclear Deal?"
I am apprehensive about this deal because of various other reasons as well. Let us consider any treaty or international law with regard to the “respect” the US has been “endowing” upon them!
They have signed CTBT, but not ratified it ,
They have not signed Kyoto protocol,
They don’t care at all about the Geneva Convention ( Check for Rumsfeld, with the torn Geneva Convention Papers, in his hands, in Google!).
They withdrew from the International Court of Justice in 1986,
They have Nelson Mandela listed in the “terrorist list” (After i came to know this, i just could not stop laughing for an hour so. Probably in the 50’s Gandhi, would have been featured in the list!)
They knew there was no WMD in Iraq, but went on to attack them on the basis of their own false allegations!
IAEA- to which India is planning to hold talks about the 123 agreement – have been constantly bringing out reports that Iran doesn’t have enough capabilities to make a nuclear bomb. US is not convinced about this either; with their sheer conviction based on some biblical blathering about Rapture, they are devising an attack on Iran.
It is dangerous. If the US is telling Iran or North Korea against developing nuclear weapons. Even George Bush has described as evil the weapons of mass destruction. So it is wrong for the US to help any other countryThere is an awful lot of noise in the media these days because the dogmatic left parties in India are opposing the Nuclear Deal, the 123 agreement with United States. Left, according to the media is retrograde; they are still stuck in the Soviet era, the cold war hangover. The “rising” India needs energy, which, according to the present Congress government can only be solved by nuclear energy. The left claims, it is more of a strategic deal, the Hyde Act passed by the US Congress will subvert the deal and so on…
So where do I stand on this? I will not get into the technical aspects of the deal, but, the fact is that I don’t really need to delve into technicalities to oppose this deal. I have enough and more reasons that will eclipse the “technical advantage” this deal may provide.
First of all, I would like to ask: Where is that gas pipeline from Iran which we planned for? It has been totally pushed to oblivion; the only minister in the Congress government who pushed this plan was the former (please note!) petroleum minister Mani Shankar Aiyar. He has been booted out of this portfolio a while ago and now, heads the sports ministry, and is in logger heads with all the sports bureaucrats in India. It is Congress’s internal issue that he was booted from the post. But, he actively campaigned for the Iran pipeline, and after he was made to leave, the petroleum ministry never uttered a word about this pipeline! Sources say: the American administration was not very happy with Mani; the self proclaimed leftist in the congress government. So that’s what he gets: a bloody boot! Having Mani as the petroleum minister who wanted to realize the pipeline would have irked the American administration as they are waiting for an opportunity to bring “Democracy in Iran” and make the government in Iran “accountable to the people”. As we all know, America is doing a tremendous job with Iraq! So we have been made to completely forget this pipeline by the media, as it is not acceptable to America and we still claim we have an independent foreign policy.
I am trying to dissect the sheer apprehension in me, about India signing a nuclear deal with them. Vikram Sood writes in The Hindu: “For the U.S., it was part of a larger game plan. The deal was a means to cap India’ s strategic programme, provide access to India’s growing defence market, and become a strategic partner in U.S. foreign policy initiatives globally. One of the abiding primary bipartisan U.S. objectives has been to restrict, roll back and cap the Indian strategic deterrent.”
I still believe that this more of a strategic partnership than it being a simple nuclear deal. Dogmatic, you would say. US, with a tie-up with General Musharaff has been meddling around with our neighbor for a long while, but has not gained anything in particular, other than some hostility from the ultra-right wing groups in the region. With Russia and China building up strategic partnership through Shanghai Cooperation Organisation , joined military exercises and forthright comments from the hard man Putin against the unipolar world, the leftover major player in this area is India, with a susceptible Prime Minister in Manmohan Singh. So, this deal is definitely more than a simple nuclear deal!
So what is wrong with having a nuclear deal which is not exactly a nuclear deal alone? Vikram Sood goes on writing in The Hindu: “The deal was supposed to give India several benefits but the pressure to sign the deal by a specific deadline mostly came from the Americans, almost as if India was being hustled into this. The old principle of never ever signing anything in a hurry was abandoned. The Japanese, for instance, spent seven years discussing the deal before signing it. The China-U.S. 123 agreement of 1985 specifically states that both sides would observe the principle of international law under which neither party could invoke a domestic law to justify failure to perform a treaty. The India-U.S. 123 agreement does not have this safeguard.” If Japan, an outright ally of US, could take seven years in studying and charting out the repercussions of such a deal, why are we especially Manmohan Singh in a hurry? Is it that US needs an ally in us when they attack Iran? Russia and China have big business interests in Iran, they would not come out in support for the attack. As India has been restricted in laying the gas pipeline, we are not at stake if they attack Iran and some coaxing/bullying will enable USA to get us on their side. Though it is unlikely that we will send any troops or ammunitions, but we keeping silent, when such a blatant aggression takes place is more than enough for us to be on their side. So, there is no wonder US is pushing for another deal, along with the Nuclear one called Access and Cross Servicing Agreement, which will inevitably provide logistical support for US from different locations in India. I am not confident enough to make a statement on the part of our people about their knowledge that Iran shares a boundary with Afghanistan, and a logistical base in India for the US of A will not be a bad idea for their future plans of offering a “shock and awe” treatment for Iran!
They have been blatantly attacking nations doting all over the globe! They also maintain around 700 military settlements across continents. Their view of the world has a more uni-polar nature, where they tend to boss around.
So, where is our assurance that the US of A will abide all those clauses in the 123 Agreement? Their credentials from the past does not assure me that they will.
It is ridiculous and callous that our media is trying to simplify the issue as a dogmatic subservience. It shows the struggle of Indian Left, which failed to carve an identity of their own in this country. So, the middle class in India, catered by columns from the ilk of Tavleen Singh, who came on an NDTV discussion, with her perky mannerisms said, “ the model of democracy which US brought about in Afghanistan is wonderful”, are misled.
Her claim almost put me in bouts of laughter, pushed me in to a sense of sympathy, which later, turned into rage. I wonder, if there is any difference between her and a US spokesperson. So, it is not surprising to see the Indian, angrezi-speaking, middle class, supporting the Congress in their act of signing the deal, and vilifying the Left. I believe that it is crass on the part of the Indian media, to reduce this issue as a mere dogmatic subservience. When media affirm this point time and again, they fail to consider the point the Left is trying to raise, and is restricting them from having a voice of their own. This voice raised by the Left is to be considered, when Russia and China hardly matters as sources of inspiration for them anymore.
To conclude, personally, I am reluctant to accept the “clauses” offered by an American system, which I know is totally flawed, corrupted, and brazen on all fronts!
http://tushizap.wordpress.com/2007/09/07/why-i-oppose-the-nulcear-deal/
They have signed CTBT, but not ratified it ,
They have not signed Kyoto protocol,
They don’t care at all about the Geneva Convention ( Check for Rumsfeld, with the torn Geneva Convention Papers, in his hands, in Google!).
They withdrew from the International Court of Justice in 1986,
They have Nelson Mandela listed in the “terrorist list” (After i came to know this, i just could not stop laughing for an hour so. Probably in the 50’s Gandhi, would have been featured in the list!)
They knew there was no WMD in Iraq, but went on to attack them on the basis of their own false allegations!
IAEA- to which India is planning to hold talks about the 123 agreement – have been constantly bringing out reports that Iran doesn’t have enough capabilities to make a nuclear bomb. US is not convinced about this either; with their sheer conviction based on some biblical blathering about Rapture, they are devising an attack on Iran.
It is dangerous. If the US is telling Iran or North Korea against developing nuclear weapons. Even George Bush has described as evil the weapons of mass destruction. So it is wrong for the US to help any other countryThere is an awful lot of noise in the media these days because the dogmatic left parties in India are opposing the Nuclear Deal, the 123 agreement with United States. Left, according to the media is retrograde; they are still stuck in the Soviet era, the cold war hangover. The “rising” India needs energy, which, according to the present Congress government can only be solved by nuclear energy. The left claims, it is more of a strategic deal, the Hyde Act passed by the US Congress will subvert the deal and so on…
So where do I stand on this? I will not get into the technical aspects of the deal, but, the fact is that I don’t really need to delve into technicalities to oppose this deal. I have enough and more reasons that will eclipse the “technical advantage” this deal may provide.
First of all, I would like to ask: Where is that gas pipeline from Iran which we planned for? It has been totally pushed to oblivion; the only minister in the Congress government who pushed this plan was the former (please note!) petroleum minister Mani Shankar Aiyar. He has been booted out of this portfolio a while ago and now, heads the sports ministry, and is in logger heads with all the sports bureaucrats in India. It is Congress’s internal issue that he was booted from the post. But, he actively campaigned for the Iran pipeline, and after he was made to leave, the petroleum ministry never uttered a word about this pipeline! Sources say: the American administration was not very happy with Mani; the self proclaimed leftist in the congress government. So that’s what he gets: a bloody boot! Having Mani as the petroleum minister who wanted to realize the pipeline would have irked the American administration as they are waiting for an opportunity to bring “Democracy in Iran” and make the government in Iran “accountable to the people”. As we all know, America is doing a tremendous job with Iraq! So we have been made to completely forget this pipeline by the media, as it is not acceptable to America and we still claim we have an independent foreign policy.
I am trying to dissect the sheer apprehension in me, about India signing a nuclear deal with them. Vikram Sood writes in The Hindu: “For the U.S., it was part of a larger game plan. The deal was a means to cap India’ s strategic programme, provide access to India’s growing defence market, and become a strategic partner in U.S. foreign policy initiatives globally. One of the abiding primary bipartisan U.S. objectives has been to restrict, roll back and cap the Indian strategic deterrent.”
I still believe that this more of a strategic partnership than it being a simple nuclear deal. Dogmatic, you would say. US, with a tie-up with General Musharaff has been meddling around with our neighbor for a long while, but has not gained anything in particular, other than some hostility from the ultra-right wing groups in the region. With Russia and China building up strategic partnership through Shanghai Cooperation Organisation , joined military exercises and forthright comments from the hard man Putin against the unipolar world, the leftover major player in this area is India, with a susceptible Prime Minister in Manmohan Singh. So, this deal is definitely more than a simple nuclear deal!
So what is wrong with having a nuclear deal which is not exactly a nuclear deal alone? Vikram Sood goes on writing in The Hindu: “The deal was supposed to give India several benefits but the pressure to sign the deal by a specific deadline mostly came from the Americans, almost as if India was being hustled into this. The old principle of never ever signing anything in a hurry was abandoned. The Japanese, for instance, spent seven years discussing the deal before signing it. The China-U.S. 123 agreement of 1985 specifically states that both sides would observe the principle of international law under which neither party could invoke a domestic law to justify failure to perform a treaty. The India-U.S. 123 agreement does not have this safeguard.” If Japan, an outright ally of US, could take seven years in studying and charting out the repercussions of such a deal, why are we especially Manmohan Singh in a hurry? Is it that US needs an ally in us when they attack Iran? Russia and China have big business interests in Iran, they would not come out in support for the attack. As India has been restricted in laying the gas pipeline, we are not at stake if they attack Iran and some coaxing/bullying will enable USA to get us on their side. Though it is unlikely that we will send any troops or ammunitions, but we keeping silent, when such a blatant aggression takes place is more than enough for us to be on their side. So, there is no wonder US is pushing for another deal, along with the Nuclear one called Access and Cross Servicing Agreement, which will inevitably provide logistical support for US from different locations in India. I am not confident enough to make a statement on the part of our people about their knowledge that Iran shares a boundary with Afghanistan, and a logistical base in India for the US of A will not be a bad idea for their future plans of offering a “shock and awe” treatment for Iran!
They have been blatantly attacking nations doting all over the globe! They also maintain around 700 military settlements across continents. Their view of the world has a more uni-polar nature, where they tend to boss around.
So, where is our assurance that the US of A will abide all those clauses in the 123 Agreement? Their credentials from the past does not assure me that they will.
It is ridiculous and callous that our media is trying to simplify the issue as a dogmatic subservience. It shows the struggle of Indian Left, which failed to carve an identity of their own in this country. So, the middle class in India, catered by columns from the ilk of Tavleen Singh, who came on an NDTV discussion, with her perky mannerisms said, “ the model of democracy which US brought about in Afghanistan is wonderful”, are misled.
Her claim almost put me in bouts of laughter, pushed me in to a sense of sympathy, which later, turned into rage. I wonder, if there is any difference between her and a US spokesperson. So, it is not surprising to see the Indian, angrezi-speaking, middle class, supporting the Congress in their act of signing the deal, and vilifying the Left. I believe that it is crass on the part of the Indian media, to reduce this issue as a mere dogmatic subservience. When media affirm this point time and again, they fail to consider the point the Left is trying to raise, and is restricting them from having a voice of their own. This voice raised by the Left is to be considered, when Russia and China hardly matters as sources of inspiration for them anymore.
To conclude, personally, I am reluctant to accept the “clauses” offered by an American system, which I know is totally flawed, corrupted, and brazen on all fronts!
http://tushizap.wordpress.com/2007/09/07/why-i-oppose-the-nulcear-deal/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)