|
India Thinkers Net Archives Index
|
Subscribe
|
|
| << March13, 2006 - [India Thinkers Net]Sunday updates |
March15, 2006 - [India Thinkers Net]WTO,Nuke updates etc >> |
|
----------------------------------- HAPPY HOLI TO ALL THINKERS the.moderator India Thinkers Net ----------------------------------- [1] From: Sukla Sen <suklasen@yahoo.com> Date: Mon Mar 13, 2006 Subject: India's non-proliferation record challenged <http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006\03\12\story_12-3-200\ 6_pg7_11> India's non-proliferation record challenged By Khalid Hasan ------------------- [2] From: Parvez Jamasji <parvez1942@yahoo.com> Date: Mon Mar 13, 2006 Subject: Re: [ZESTGlobal] Terrorist Explosions : Why to blame only Muslims : Dr. M. K. Sherwani No ! No ! No! Dr. There are netas behind them, the roll models that they are; what can be expected ? The propensity that WE Indians have for the unethical, unjust, unfair & plain simple crooked is obvious; is it not ? Little surprise then, if we have mayhem instigated by the netas & blamed on to others, in this case Muslims; or the culprits take advantage of this fissiparous situation & tendencies. But the sad part is, in the demonstrations in Lucknow, Delhi, Bombay, etc, there were placards & posters lionising Osama Bin Laden. Is he a national - Indian - Hero to counter Bush of USA ??????? Is he the chosen roll model by muslims, to mitigate all that ails them ??????????????????????? What kind of signal would I or you send out, if we went round with Osama's picture as if he was some kind of Prophet ????????????? Morden day Darth Vader, perhaps ? Do we then complain that we have a 'Right' to carry our hero's picture, but we should not be ignored nor shunned or DISCRIMINATED against ? You rightly question "" the presumption that it is Muslims and Muslims only who are indulging in such activities."" Why do you presume ""Three 'innocent' Muslims have been killed"" ??? netas like CSWs have no religion - only CSWs are better humans beings, in that they do an honest days work in trying circumstances to earn their livelihood; this cannot be said of netas. Thanks for your time Best Wishes Parvez Jamasji http://www.geocities.com/siafdu/vc81.html CONTACT Parvez / Zarin : E : parvez1942@yahoo.com : parvezjamasji@hotmail.com Tel : 91-22-2412 1656 > 9 am to 9 pm = GMT + 5 1/2 hrs. Mob : 91 - 98208 13951 \ 98201 88926 Dadar, Bombay - 400 014, India Sherwani Mustafa <sherwanimk@yahoo.com> wrote: While condemning the perpetrators of terrorist explosions and other similar crimes, I assail with equal force the fast growing tendency that it is only Muslims and Muslim groups behind them. ----------------- [3] From: rkurian@bgl.vsnl.net.in Date: Mon Mar 13, 2006 Subject: Hard Times for Soft Drinks... Hard Times for Soft Drinks By Michael Blanding, AlterNet Posted on March 13, 2006, Printed on March 13, 2006 http://www.alternet.org/story/33380/ ----------------------------- [4] From: Sukla Sen <suklasen@yahoo.com> Date: Mon Mar 13, 2006 Subject: Transmutation of Indo-Pak-US Triangle US ties with India and Pakistan on divergent paths Reuters Sunday, March 12, 2006 By Carol Giacomo, Diplomatic CorrespondentSun Mar 12, 12:11 PM ET President George W. Bush's visit to India and Pakistan this month underscored dramatically the increasingly divergent U.S. approaches to the South Asian nuclear rivals. India is the celebrated rising democratic power for whom Washington is willing to jettison 30 years of non-proliferation policy so New Delhi can buy U.S. nuclear energy technology. Pakistan, its future stability in question, gets nudged by Washington to do more to fight terrorism and to expand democratic freedoms. "If Pakistan is going to judge its relationship with the United States by how close the United States is to India, it's bound to be disappointed because the U.S.-India relationship is at a historic high-water point," said Teresita Schaffer of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. India, whose relations with the United States were long mired in Cold War politics, is now basking in the glow of the landmark nuclear energy deal and of being anointed by Bush as a global power central to U.S. geopolitical strategy. In Pakistan, by contrast, commentators expressed concern that President Pervez Musharraf had little to show for an alliance with Washington that has pitted its army against its own people in the post-September 11 hunt for al Qaeda militants on the Afghan border. Many Americans "aren't understanding the level of anxiety Pakistanis now feel and how Musharraf is seen as being pushed in a corner," said Alan Kronstadt, South Asia analyst for the Library of Congress's Congressional Research Service. This was underscored by Bush's unusually public rejection of Musharraf's request that Pakistan get a nuclear deal like India's, Kronstadt said. Beyond the visit itself, "there was really nothing given to Musharraf ... India got a huge gift in the nuclear deal and Pakistan got a pat on the back and advice to do more on terrorism and on democracy," Kronstadt told Reuters. DIFFERENT PATHS Richard Boucher, assistant secretary of state for South Asia and Central Asia, noted that Bush announced U.S.-Pakistani partnerships and dialogues on strategic issues, education, energy and economics. "We believe that these respond to Pakistan's needs as it develops a stable, modern, prosperous and democratic society ... (and) the real test is whether we are helping the Pakistani people move into a better future," he told Reuters. Pakistan, one of the largest U.S. aid recipients, remains a valued ally in the war on terrorism, but is not seen by Washington as measuring up to India as a democracy or a state willing to guard against weapons proliferation. Pakistan's former top nuclear scientist ran a black market that sold technology to Libya, North Korea and Iran. Pakistan's anxiety over its U.S. ties is long-standing. The two were allies in the 1980s struggle against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, but once the Soviets withdrew, relations cooled -- in large measure because of U.S. concern over Pakistan's nuclear-weapons program. Although Washington has worked to dispel this notion, "there is a common fear in Pakistan that the United States is going to wash its hands" of the relationship, Kronstadt said. Bush's visit was intended to underscore U.S. support and he "paid a lot of attention to Musharraf," said Schaffer. But she criticized the administration for focusing too much on personal ties with Musharraf and for not reaching out to political opposition and civil society groups crucial to Pakistan's democratic evolution. Some analysts worry the enthusiastic U.S. embrace of India -- especially the landmark nuclear deal -- is encouraging Pakistan to lean more heavily on its long-time ally China. "Pakistan feels endangered by the closer U.S.-India relationship (and) while the United States will try to keep relations with Musharraf strong, Musharraf will be able to play the two (U.S. and China) off against each other," said Daniel Blumenthal, a former Pentagon official. Reuters Limited. ---------------- [5] From: Sukla Sen <suklasen@yahoo.com> Date: Mon Mar 13, 2006 Subject: Canada: The True Mother of the Indian Bomb! I. Carnegie Issue Brief __13 March 2006 Vol. 9, No. 4 Oh Canada! By Joseph Cirincione U.S. President George Bush last week struck a deal with India that directly violates the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or NPT, as well as several major U.S. laws, setting off waves of criticism in the states and around the world. Canadian officials have not been part of that criticism. Instead, the nation that helped India build its first nuclear weapon may now help India build dozens more. The Bush deal would directly encourage and assist India's nuclear bomb program, in contradiction to Article 1 of the NPT that prohibits any signatory nation from helping another nation develop nuclear weapons. Fortunately, before President Bush can sell one gram of uranium to India, the U.S. Congress will have to approve changes to U.S. laws. Congress could block or amend the agreement. Senior members of both parties have indicated their deep concerns about the deal and the precedent it sets for other nations, including Iran. The reaction has been so negative that the Indian ambassador to the United States complained, "the nonproliferation ideologues have high jacked the debate." Still, other nations, including France, Russia and Canada, are tempted by the profits to be made in nuclear sales to the world's second most populous nation. The nuclear industries in these countries are salivating at the prospect of billions of dollars in trade and hoping that the construction of dozens of new reactors in India and China could restart their long-stalled industry, launching a new wave of nuclear power around the world. So-called "realists" in the foreign policy establishments dismiss proliferation concerns, focusing instead on the need to forge strong ties with India. Neoconservatives are eager to forge a grand alliance against China. For them, as one architect of the deal told my colleague, the problem is not that India has nuclear weapons; it is that it does not have enough nuclear weapons. Canada will play a key role in determining whether this deal lives or dies. Canada has a special responsibility in this matter. More than any Indian scientist, Canada can be called the true mother of the Indian nuclear bomb. Canada began its nuclear cooperation with India fifty years ago. In 1955, Canada agreed to build a 40MW research reactor for India, known as the CIRUS (Canada-India Reactor, US) reactor. India promised that both the reactor and the related fissile materials would only be used for peaceful purposes. Canada supplied half the initial uranium fuel for the reactor and the United States supplied the other half, plus heavy water to moderate the nuclear reactions. Canada signed two cooperation agreements that provided India with designs for the CANDU-type reactor. Many of India's nuclear reactors, both operational and planned, are based on CANDU technology and designs received from Canada. All were supposed to be exclusively for peaceful use. But in 1974, India cheated on its commitments. It took out fuel rods from the CIRUS reactor, extracted the plutonium from those rods and detonated its first nuclear test. India called it a "peaceful" nuclear explosion, but the country now admits it was a test of a weapon design. In response, Canada ceased all nuclear cooperation with India. Now, following the US lead, Canada has begun to revive that cooperation. In September 2005, Canadian Foreign Minister Pettigrew met with Indian External Affairs Minister Singh and agreed to forget this history and let bygones be bygones. Significantly, they agreed to develop a broad bilateral cooperation framework, possibly by mid-2006. Canada agreed to open the supply of nuclear technology to any Indian civilian nuclear facility. This means that Canada, too, will violate the NPT. It will break Canadian laws that now require that a nuclear cooperation agreement only be concluded with a state that has signed the NPT (which India refuses to do) or has accepted full-scope safeguards (which India has not). Full-scope safeguards means that a country agrees that all its nuclear facilities will be open to thorough inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency. These inspectors will make sure that no nuclear fuel is diverted to weapons purposes. But the Bush India deal exempts fully one-third of India's reactors from any inspections. It does not matter that inspectors will be allowed in to the others. If the deal stands, India will use foreign fuel for its power reactors, freeing up Indian uranium for its military reactors. India will be able to double or triple the number of weapons it can make annually. They could go from the 6-10 they could currently produce to 30 a year. The consequences could be severe. Regionally, it could ignite a new nuclear arms race. Pakistan will not stand idly by, nor will China. What will Japan do, a country that signed the NPT, but now sees India reaping the benefits of standing outside the treaty? Globally, the deal cripples the main diplomatic and legal barrier to the spread of nuclear weapons. The United States is now trying to restrain the Iranian program by relying on the very treaty it has just weakened with the India deal. There are ways to fix this deal to minimize the damage, including getting India to promise to cease all further production of nuclear bomb material (the way all other nuclear weapon states have, save Pakistan). Canadian officials can help. But they must now decide if they want to. A bit of reflection on their past history with India wouldn't hurt. II. http://nobmdeh.blogspot.com/2006/03/canada-true-mother-of-indian-bomb.html Saturday, March 11, 2006 Canada: 'True Mother of the Indian Bomb' A couple of days ago, I took a poke at the Globe & Mail for not devoting enough attention to the Canadian angle on the story about George Bush's plan to increase nuclear cooperation with non-NPT signatory India. To give credit where it's due, I thought I'd point out that the Globe today published a strong op-ed by Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for Peace entitled 'Let's not help India build more nuclear weapons.' Cirincione's 'more' of course, refers to Canada's own history of contributing to India's nuclear weapons program. As he points out, [Canada] has a special responsibility in this matter -- more than any Indian scientist, this country can be called the true mother of the Indian nuclear bomb. In 1955, Canada agreed to build a 40MW research reactor for India, known as the CIRUS (Canada-India-Reactor-United-States). India promised that both the reactor and related fissile materials would only be used for peaceful purposes. Canada supplied half the initial uranium fuel for the reactor; the U.S. supplied the other half, plus heavy water to moderate the nuclear reactions. Canada signed two co-operation agreements with India: Many of its nuclear reactors, both operational and planned, are based on CANDU technology and designs. All were supposed to be exclusively for peaceful use. But in 1974, India cheated on its commitments. It took fuel rods from the CIRUS reactor, extracted the plutonium and detonated its first nuclear test. India called it a "peaceful" nuclear explosion, but the country now admits it was a test of a weapon design. In response, Canada ceased all nuclear co-operation with India. Former foreign affairs minister Pierre Pettigrew announced Canada's about-face on the policy last fall, as some of this blog's readers may recall. Cirincione puts it this way: In September, then-foreign affairs minister Pierre Pettigrew met with his Indian counterpart, Natwar Singh, and agreed to let bygones be bygones. Significantly, they agreed to develop a broad bilateral co-operation framework, possibly by mid-2006. Canada agreed to open the supply of nuclear technology to any Indian civilian nuclear facility. In other words, Canada, too, will violate the NPT. It will break Canadian laws that now require that a nuclear co-operation agreement only be concluded with a state that has signed the NPT (which India refuses to do) or has accepted full-scope safeguards (which India has not). As I pointed out in my recent post, Pettigrew also made highly misleading comments when he announced our government's policy change, claiming last September that an Indian policy firmly separating military from civilian nuclear activity was already effectively in place, even though that claim was at odds with the facts then, as it is today. Like other critics of the recent shifts in nuclear cooperation policy by the US, Canada and France, Cirincione asks us to look beyond short-term political and economic gains and think about the bigger nuclear non-proliferation picture. It amounts to this: how can we be holding Iran to every jot and tittle of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT), while carving out exceptions for India that effectively ignore our own obligations under that same treaty? (Not that ignoring obligations is limited to this Indian deal, of course: in my view, all of the nuclear powers ought to be doing a lot more to fulfill their obligations under Article VI of the NPT to eliminate their nuclear weapons.) Taking a similar approach to Cirincione is Daryl Kimball of the Arms Control Association, who has recently offered a number of salient criticisms of the proposed deal on Indian nuclear cooperation. Here's one: The import of nuclear fuel from foreign suppliers also would free up India to use its limited domestic reserves of uranium for the sole purpose of building weapons. India previously had to choose between using this material for energy or bombs. So, will Canada's planned increase in nuclear cooperation with India come into play here? It seems likely, given that we're a major uranium exporter, and are now re-thinking our policy on nuclear cooperation with India. Kimball also points out that deals weakening the NPT by creating exceptions for India could set a dangerous precedent. Suppose China decides in a couple of years that it wants to establish an India-style deal with Pakistan, Kimball asks? The U.S.-India deal would create a precedent that other countries might attempt to exploit. The United States may not advocate a similar initiative for Pakistan, but China might. China and Pakistan have a history of nuclear cooperation and have reportedly discussed ways to expand this relationship. China is a member of the 45-member NSG [Nuclear Suppliers Group], which operates by consensus, and could tie its consent to the U.S.-India deal to a similar exception for Pakistan. Even though Pakistan is a known proliferator, it's not impossible that China, countering American efforts in the region, might decide to create its own 'nuclear side deal' with India's nuclear rival, Pakistan. The prospect is not comforting, to say the least. Now, Cirincione concludes his op-ed by saying that Canadian 'officials' face a crucial choice: will they help strengthen the international non-proliferation regime, or will they help weaken it by going along with Bush's policy on nuclear cooperation with India? Cirincione poses a good question, but I'd go one step farther and ask whether we, as citizens of Canada, are going to let our 'officials' make that choice without our input? Or might we e-mail them, for instance? In my view, given Canada's history as the 'true mother of the Indian bomb,' we shouldn't allow ourselves to become either mother or midwife to further nuclear weapons development on the Indian subcontinent. In fact, we have an obligation to make sure that doesn't happen. # posted by Stephen : 11:46 PM -------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
| << March13, 2006 - [India Thinkers Net]Sunday updates |
March15, 2006 - [India Thinkers Net]WTO,Nuke updates etc >> |
|
India Thinkers Net Archives Index
|
Subscribe
|
|
|
Archives powered by Zinester's Mailing List Service
Details on India Thinkers Net |
Browse for more newsletters at Zinester's Ezine Directory
Managed by Zinester's Mailing List Management |