"Clinical Discussions" and "Guarentees"
I see BC has come up with a "clinical discussion" of the MEA's statements.The US was not a signatory to the Non Proliferation Treaty in 1954, and the NPT is not specifically mentioned in the Atomic Energy Act - AEA (1954) . The NPT's impact on US laws was covered via a separate act - Nuclear Non Prol. Act, -- NNPA of 1978.
The AEA of 1954 was amended in 1978 to suit the conditions imposed in the NNPA of 1978.
Since the US concieved the "NPT" to keep other nations in check, the letters "NPT" find utterance in every US bureaucrat's statements about the nuclear affairs of India and other states.
In terms of US law, the provisions of the law in the letter are in completely consonance with the requirements of the NPT via the NNPA. For example, the US AEA (1954) frequently uses the words "non-nuclear-weapon state", a term only defined in the NPT and accepted by the US via the NNPA to address all issues related to transfers of nuclear technology.
The application of US law has also been in agreement with the NPT, until that is, President Bush went and signed a 123 agreement with us.
I can understand if the DCH are sufficiently clueless to grasp this, but one wonders if this subtlety really has to be explained to BC and if it does, what does that say about BC?
There are no guarentees with regards to the US not changing its laws - just as there are no guarentees to Russia changing its laws or France or UK or anyone else - lets face it folks - this is the real world - there are no guarentees!
Prafool Bidwai is celebrating the obstacles he thinks we have encountered at the IAEA. BC is celebrating how much smarter he thinks he is than the MEA mantri.
I am wondering how much longer will we continue to have career troublemakers provoke problems in parliament.
How much longer will be before sensible people realise what comes from allowing people like this to dictate your ideas of right and wrong?
Will the DCH and their pied pipers have to learn from the school of hard knocks?
posted by maverick @ 7:06 AM
8 Comments:
Dear Maverick
lets face it folks - this is the real world - there are no guarentees!
That, in essence, is the entire point!
Not just that, examining treaties, and worse Acts, with a legalistic mindset belies the psychology of a small, weak, powerless state.
In the real world, disputes over treaties and acts are ultimately *not* decided by the letter, but by power and interests.
The scholarly community would have performed monumental service to the nation if they had only used this opportunity to drive home this point to the public and the politicians. Instead we go on splitting hairs...
Quote
The US is not a signatory to the Non Proliferation Treaty
Unquote
This statement seems to be in error.
According to http://disarmament2.un.org/TreatyStatus.nsf, USA has signed the NPT on 1st July 1968 and entered into force on March 5, 1970.
I do not see that "BC" has made the quoted observation in his article.
On a related but slightly different issue: Is the "law" (International, or otherwise) on India's side with reference to the spent fuel issue of the Tarapur 123 Agreement?
If it is on India's side, then why have we been unable to get an acceptable resolution to the issue through legal means?
If it is not on India's side, then what is the use of an 123 agreement with a bully?
Hello Nitin,
Thank you for pointing out that typo. Please see the corrected text.
BC's claim is that the NPT is not mentioned in the US-AEA reflecting that there is nothing in the US-AEA that forbids trade with us.
This claim is bullshit.
Any power we had in this deal came from the leverage that the collapsing dollar economy offered. That power is dwindling a lot faster than people realise. The delay in the parliament has now completely killed the deal.
anonymous,
"If it is not on India's side, then what is the use of an 123 agreement with a bully?"
because bullies are the only ones worth making deals with ... would you rather make deals with Dhimmis?
and while we are within this terminology, do you mind explaining who is the "bully" in the Indo-Bangladesh relationship? ... is it possible to delienate such obvious characterization? ... if not, why not? Cheers,
Alok_N
Alokji,
A small opportunity has opened up in the aftermath of the Gujarat elections.
It remains to be seen if the opportunity will be exploited.
It appears Armscontrolwonk has appointed Prakash Karat the man of the year.
The wonders never cease.
Hi M,
1)Chill dude, this deal will reach the stage of NSG. Leftists however bad they may be, are after all Indian. After so much of effort by India's best & brightest you would like to think that they will allow this oppurtunity to pass by?
Kgoan,
I need to talk to you. That's why have pinged Maverick.
Hi Maverick,
"lets face it folks - this is the real world - there are no guarentees!"
1)Even I was thinking on such lines!
Worse come worse US of A will break this deal! We will be back to square one but if Chinese make a dash towards our territory in the N.E, will we be able to reclaim it in another 20 years time??? No. My point is if we compare the magnitude of loss arising out of US of A breaking its agreement to the loss suffered by us if China grabs our territory, then the loss suffered by us due to harm caused by China will be much greater. Land once lost can never be reclaimed. Aksai Chin,POK, Tibet is a testimony to that fact.
2) from (1) to -> G.P was mentioning on another article that it will be needless to seek outside help or remote help against China.
3) As Santhanam was suggesting, use this deal to move quickly towards thorium based reactors. Even APJ is of such view.
4) Use this deal effectively to increase our trade with various nations.
5)Lastly how best are we prepared to deal with the consequences arising out of the situation where US of A betrays us! We must be prepared for that . Instead of getting into the emotions of despondency or excitement, one must plan for the future at the same time cautiously engage US of A.
Finally I draw a bead on BC.
Ah... the amazing concern which BC displays for the fact that if we sign this deal we will have to risk penalties under the letter of the US law.
I also note BC's desire to build "a stout deterrent" which "however small" will "help deter an increasingly assertive China". And then he quotes Stratfor...
And the deep concern about the Tarapur plant and the disdainful comments about how India didn't just stick it to the Americans right there by cutting IAEA access to the plants etc...
I always had a feeling that our friend has been fishing with an American pole all this time.
Post a Comment
<< Home