the only thought that could have gone through the mind of,

Warren Anderson, former chairman and chief executive officer of Union Carbide as he was being saluted up the steps of a private jet and flown out by the Indian authorities to jump bail and never to return to the scene of his ‘crime’ to stand trial.

Cops saw off Warren with salutes: Pilot

RASHEED KIDWAI: The Telegraph India: Thursday , June 10 , 2010

Bhopal, June 9: Warren Anderson made his escape from Indian law in a hail of salutes from senior Bhopal police officers and fell into a peaceful slumber during his 90-minute flight to Delhi on a state aircraft.

One of the two pilots, Captain D.C. Sondhi, told The Telegraph the police officers repeatedly offered to carry the American’s hand luggage as they escorted him to the plane at Bhopal airport. “Memories of that scene still make me angry,” said Sondhi, 72. “Here was a man responsible for the death of thousands, and our government officials were saluting him!” He added: “The buzz among bureaucrats was that US President Ronald Reagan had spoken to someone important in India to get Anderson out quickly.” The Union Carbide chief was arrested at Bhopal airport when he arrived four days after the 1984 gas leak that killed at least 15,000, but was let off within hours after an unidentified top government leader in Delhi made a call to chief minister Arjun Singh.

Captain Sondhi, then director of aviation in Bhopal, received the call from Arjun Singh’s office at 2.30pm. “I was asked to get the state government plane, a B-200 Super King, ready. Soon, city superintendent Swaraj Puri arrived with Anderson,” Sondhi said. “Anderson was carrying a garment box (containing a business suit) and a briefcase. I remember police officers repeatedly requesting him to let them carry these pieces of luggage. Anderson said, ‘No, no, I will carry them myself.’ When the plane was about to take off, the officers saluted him and wished him good luck.”

The other pilot, Captain Syed Hasan Ali, remembers Anderson dozing off mid-flight. “He was calm but in a hurry to reach Delhi,” said Ali, whose father had become ill after the gas leak.

never has there been the greater arse-lickers* like us Indians.
gosh, this makes me hang my head in shame.

it is not known who Mr Ronald Reagan rang to get this individual to escape Indian Law. we can only guess;
on that day in December of 1984,
Mr Giani Zail Singh was the President of India
Mr Rajiv Gandhi was the Prime Minister of India
Mr Rajiv Gandhi was also the Foreign Minister of India
Mr Ram Niwas Mirdha was Minister of State, External Affairs

Just to refresh our memories:

The Bhopal Tragedy 1984

And justice will be done? – Greenpeace Feature story – August 1, 2003

On the night of the disaster, December 3, 1984, an explosion at Union Carbide’s pesticide plant caused 40 tonnes of lethal gas to seep into Bhopal. Six safety measures designed to prevent a gas leak had either malfunctioned, were turned off or were otherwise inadequate. In addition, the safety siren, intended to alert the community should an incident occur at the plant, was turned off.

As the Union Carbide boss, Anderson knew about a 1982 safety audit of the Bhopal plant, which identified 30 major hazards. Rather than fix them in Bhopal, only the company’s identical plant in the US was fixed. Neglecting these hazards in Bhopal caused the deadly explosion. Anderson flew to India after the disaster but to the company’s surprise, police investigating the disaster immediately arrested him. He subsequently jumped bail and was flow by private jet back to the US, never to return to India.

While fleeing the law in India his company abandoned the polluted factory site allowing it to poison Bhopal residents for 18 years. He did not disclose the composition of the poisonous gas (the company still claims this is a trade secret), thus preventing doctors from properly treating the 120,000 people who are still sick. Company lawyers ensured survivors only got between US$300-500 compensation each, if they were ‘lucky’, for their ruined lives. Dow Chemical took over Union Carbide in 2001 but it claims Union Carbide has ‘settled’ the issue of Bhopal.

*arse-licker:

Longman: Dictionary of Contemporary English
arse-licker – noun [countable] British English spoken not polite
someone who is always very nice to people in authority because he or she wants to be liked by them – used to show disapproval

BhopalUnion CarbideWarren Anderson

a Pakistani has been caught alive
like a rat he has been squealing his guts out,
giving his life’s details – confirmed by his father and corraborated by his villagers

yet pakistan refuses to believe, even after the truth has been made evident to them

Pak rejects proofs of 26/11 attacks shared by Britain, US

Published on Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 22:01
Islamabad: Pakistan has dismissed evidence on the Mumbai attacks shared by the US and Britain.

The evidence included information given by India and corroborated through other sources. It included Ajmal Kasab’s confession, transcripts of mobile telephone intercepts, and also the logs of recorded conversations.

The US and Britian have given to Pakistan “clinching evidence” of involvement ofelements within the country in the Mumbai terror attacks but has been dismayed over Pakistan’s pussyfooting and not doing enough. Intercepts of satellite and mobile conversations between the attackers in Mumbai and the Pakistan-based elements guiding them, were handed over to Islamabad by the two countries.

However, Islamabad says this will not stand up in court.

this is beyond what will stand up in court and what will not,
this is a clear proof of international terrorism originating from Pakistan

what do the leaders of the rich west do to show they are “fighting the causes of terror”?

Britain promises more anti-terror aid to Pakistan

Associated Press: Published on Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 10:23
Brown said Britain promised Pakistan counter-terrorism equipment for detecting bombs and explosives at airports. Britain also pledged $9 million to lure youths away from extremist activities by offering them educational materials and programs.

when will these oafs learn
that giving Pakistan more dollars will create more terror

one 7/7 in London
one 9/11 in New York were lesson not hard enough
every cent poured in will be used to create more terror on the non-muslim world
every cent poured into that cess-pit will come back as AK-47s, and bombs and death

GW Bush sunk $10 billion into Musharraf’s pakistan
now G Brown promises to put £9 million more into Zardari’s
there are millions of human individuals starving “peacefully” – who would benefit from it

the root cause of Islamic terror? it is NOT poverty idiots,
it is not poverty that “lures” these youths to become international criminals
for there are muslim youths of western origin who travel to pakistan to learn how to kill

the root cause of Islamic terror? it is the cause of Islam
it is the writings in Quran that is being preached in pakistan
it is the nations and its military’s obsession to possess Kashmir
it is the covert orders of their military presidents through the evil ISI that
encourages their mullahs and madrassas to preach spreading islam through terror

this frankenstein was created by Britain
and has been nurtured for their own nefarius needs by the CIA and US
the innocents of Mumbai and elsewhere on earth that are now suffering for it

the world cannot fight terror if at every opportunity countries like US and GB helps feed it

Pakistan is blackmailing the world with their N-weapons
nukes they could manufacture only by stealing, blackmarketing and illegal n-proliferation

confiscate their nukes,
stop pouring in the millions and billions -
let the “moderate” muslims really starve – only then they will stand up against their evil military

those who wants to live and kill for a stoneage religion
should also live in the stoneage

Quran directs jihad
against the rejecters of truth after it has become evident to them
Pakistan fits the description perfectly, it is time the long suffering world called for a
jihad against Pakistan

Pakistanislamterrorismjihad

2008 AD

the United States of America has elected a black president – their first ever black president.
It is an event I did not expect to see in my lifetime.

I am in disbelief.
Why?

There has been many notable first blacks in the country’s sad and often unpleasant history.

On a day when history is about to be re-written,
I can only think of
one person – Elizabeth Eckford
one school – Little Rock Central High School
and the one event – Little Rock Nine
that never failed to leave me in speechless anger,
everytime I remember
and for as long as I can remember.

Little Rock Nine

1957 AD
Nine students who had been chosen to attend Central High because of their excellent grades.
They were nine black students.
Central High was a racially segregated school.

September 4:
Segregationist “citizens’ councils” threatened to hold protests and physically block the black students from entering the school. The Governor Orval Faubus had deployed the Arkansas National Guard to support the segregationists.

On that first day of school, only one of the nine students – Elizabeth Eckford
showed up because she did not receive the phone call about the danger of going to school.

Elizabeth Eckford is depicted in this photograph taken by Will Counts in 1957

She was harassed by White Americans outside the school, and the police had to take her away in a patrol car to protect her.

September 24:
President Dwight Eisenhower sent in the 101st Airborne to escort nine students to school.

153rd Infantry, a Task Force had to hastily organized taking over the entire operation when the paratroopers left and remained on duty until the end of the school year.

October 3:
Georgia Dortch and Jane Emery,
editors of Central High’s student newspaper The Tiger, editorialize:

“Looking back on this year will probably be with regret that integration could not have been accomplished peacefully, without incident, without publicity.” The editors encourage “each individual to maintain a sensible, peaceful neutrality; to accept the situation without demonstration, no matter what personal views are entertained; and to make these, your years in Little Rock Central High School, the happiest and most fruitful of your academic education.”

How long will it take to finally erase all these memories?

How long does it take to right the wrongs?
Fifty years, it seems, hasn’t been long enough.

The Legacy of Little Rock

Juan Williams Thursday, Sep. 20, 2007

The 50th anniversary of the Little Rock school crisis is a powerful lesson in the complicated calculus of social change.

Earlier this year the U.S. Mint issued a silver dollar commemorating the event, and throughout the anniversary’s week there will be other observations marking this turning point in U.S. history. But the joy will be somewhat muted, for American schools are still nearly as segregated as they were 50 years ago.

Fifty years after U.S. troops had to escort nine black children to school in Little Rock, the issue is still how to take race out of the equation when it comes to educating every American child.

The students had written the editorial fifty years ago.
The observation in the Time US was made only a year ago – fifty years hence.

Equality is not confirmed overnight by the election of a president,
it will come only on the day every American child is truly considered as equals.

Its over to each one of you,
each american citizen …

Americaequality

India breathes a sigh of relief. Perhaps.
The controversial Indo-US 123 Agreement is kicking again.

The victims people of Nandigram, lost their own, to give it a new life.
On the day Mr Henry Hyde passed away, his legacy, the Hyde’s Act was reborn.

Nuke deal: BJP slams Left for ‘surrendering’ to Cong.

The Hindu News Update Service: November 29, 2007 : 1515 Hrs

Kolkata (PTI): Describing the Indo-US nuclear deal as unacceptable to the party, the BJP on Thursday slammed the CPI and CPI-M for ‘surrendering’ to Congress despite making ‘noises’ over it and said if voted back to power it would re-negotiate the deal and if it was not possible, cancel it.

“Congress has surrendered to the USA on the nuke deal and the Communist parties have surrendered to the Congress although they had made so much noises over the deal. It was a trade-off between Congress and Communists over Nandigram and nuke deal,” senior BJP leader M Venkaiah Naidu told reporters here.

Naidu said after Wednesday’s debate in Parliament on the nuclear deal, the ‘double standard’ of the Communist parties was exposed and now ‘they were confining themselves to giving sound bytes and not ready for a real fight’. “They (CPI-M and CPI) want the UPA government to continue even after saying that the nuke deal was a surrender to the USA. After all round condemnation of the CPI-M over its role in Nandigram and Singur, they have developed cold feet about going to the people,” he said.

“Indo-US nuclear deal is surrender to Washington, this is the considered opinion of the BJP. If returned to power, we will re-negotiate the deal and if it is not possible, we will cancel the deal,” Naidu said. The former BJP president said “Congress doesn’t know how to run the country and how to manage a coalition. Congress did not do any homework before negotiating the deal, neither it consulted its allies.

Of course.
It had to happen this way.
The Left Front, who stood up against their coalition partners now need the support of
the Indian Congress to make murder acceptable as a necessity in politics.

Sonia Gandhi comes out in support of N-deal

The Times of India: 17 Nov 2007, 1049 hrs IST, PTI

NEW DELHI: Congress President Sonia Gandhi on Saturday came out fully in support of the Indo-US nuclear deal saying it would have no impact on India’s atomic programme but enable the country acquire fuel and technology and help in getting the much-needed electricity for faster growth.

A day after the Left parties gave clearance to the government to approach the IAEA for working out India-specific safeguards agreement, she told the AICC meeting that there were differences with the outside allies but efforts were on to evolve a consensus through discussions.

Who then is Ms Sonia Gandhi?

Own Biography: Sonia Gandhi

Born into a family of modest means in an Italian village on the banks of a river 57 years ago, Sonia Maino, now Sonia Gandhi, has weaved a dramatic way to a place in history by becoming the President of India’s century-old Congress party. Being the third woman of foreign origin to hold the prestigious post after Annie Beasant and Nelli Sengupta.

Early life:

In 1964, (aged 18), she went to study English at The Bell Educational Trust‘s language school in the city of Cambridge. Being from a poor family she used to work in a restaurant as waitress for paying the tution fees. While doing this certificate course she met Rajiv Gandhi, who was enrolled at the time in Trinity College at the University of Cambridge.

Born to Stefano and Paola Maino in Lusiana, a little village 50 km from Vicenza, Italy, she spent her adolescence in Orbassano, a town near Turin being raised in a Roman Catholic family and attending a Catholic school. Her father, a building contractor, died in 1983. Her mother and two sisters still live around Orbassano.

How did she become so powerful in India?
Because it was us who gave her that power.
For in a country of 1.12 billions, we could not find one other person as capable.

In The TIME 100: By Suketu Mehta

Imagine if the U.S. were run by an Indian Hindu woman without a college degree. It’s tough: the U.S. has never elected anyone who’s not Christian, white and male—even as Vice President. But India, which is an even bigger democracy, is run in all but name by an Italian Catholic widow with a high school education. In the 16 years since the assassination of her husband Rajiv, Sonia Gandhi, née Maino, has become the face of the country’s most famous family. As leader of India’s Congress Party, she has also managed the largest political party in the country and steered it to power. And she has done all this wearing a sari.

Orbassano’s Mayor Graziano Dell’Acqua
to VAIJU NARAVANE: In Maino country

“Even so, I wonder if we in Italy would accept a foreigner, and a woman at that, to take over a party which has symbolised the country’s struggle against foreign rule and which continues to enjoy great, if diminished, support across the land.
That a certain section of Indians have trusted her with their destiny speaks volumes for the tolerance of India,” concludes Dell’Acqua.

Italy. Italian. Wasn’t there once before an Italian connection?

Wanted by Interpol: Ottavio Quattrocchi

He & his wife namely QUATTROCCHI Maria were involved in fraud & bribery committed in India between 1982-1987. A percentage of the money paid by the Indian Govt., was illegally transferred by the”AB Bofors” Company to bank accounts in Switzerland, to the benefit of certain Indian public servants and their nominees.

Just who is Ottavio Quattrocchi?

Rediff News: George Iype January 17, 2006

How is he linked to the Bofors guns scandal?

The scandal erupted in 1987 when Swedish radio revealed that Bofors facing stiff international competition had paid more than $50 million in bribes to secure a contract for the sale of field guns worth $1.4 billion to the Indian Army. Then prime minister Rajiv Gandhi was named one of the suspects in the scam.

How could an Italian businessman be the middleman
between the Indian Army and Bofors, which is a Swedish company?
The answer lies in Quattrocchi’s proximity to the Gandhi family. Quattrocchi shifted to India soon after Rajiv married Sonia.

If Quattrochi was in India, why wasn’t he arrested?
When the Swiss authorities formally communicated to the Indian government in 1993 that the kickbacks in the Bofors case were deposited in Quattrocchi’s accounts, a Congress government headed by P V Narasimha Rao was in power. The Opposition immediately wanted the government to impound Quattrocchi’s passport and arrest him. But that was not done, and he was allowed to leave the country. He left India for Malaysia on July 29, 1993. The CBI’s efforts to get Quattrocchi extradited to India have not yet succeeded.

Does the Manmhohan Singh government’s ‘clean chit’ to Quattrocchi absolve him of all charges?

Yes, in a way. Prime Minister Singh said the action of defreezing Quattrocchi’s London bank accounts was taken by the CBI in consultation with law officers.

What does the man himself have to say?
In a statement issued from Milan in Italy this week, Quattrocchi said:
‘I believe it would be in interest of justice and India’s reputation if this case against me is brought to an end.’

So when I read,

Sonia Gandhi raises disarmament issue at UN meet
2 Oct 2007, 2107 hrs IST, PTI

UNITED NATIONS: As the UN marked Mahatma Gandhi’s birthday as the first International Day of Non-violence, Congress president Sonia Gandhi on Tuesday spoke of the international community’s collective failure to move towards comprehensive universal disarmament.

it makes my hair stand on end.

Why her?
There must be many Indians still alive today, who had been with the Mahatma,
shared his vision of non-violence
shared his struggle for freedom,
who should have been representing his country at the UN. Not Ms Sonia Gandhi.
Are we selling off our country, only to perpetuate the Gandhi name?

IndiaAmericaSonia GandhiMarxistsNandigram

]]> http://littleindian.awmyth.net/2007/11/30/india-us-123-another-italian-job/feed/ 7 http://littleindian.awmyth.net/2007/11/07/india-us-123-keep-our-enemies-closer/ http://littleindian.awmyth.net/2007/11/07/india-us-123-keep-our-enemies-closer/#comments Wed, 07 Nov 2007 13:39:53 +0000 littleindian http://littleindian.awmyth.net/2007/11/07/india-us-123-keep-our-enemies-closer/ [digg=http://digg.com/political_opinion/India_US_123_keep_our_enemies_closer/blog]

but we first learn to differentiate between friend and foe.

In the present day world order, it is a dangerous game.
But there is one chilling underlying truth.
America is nobody’s friend.

If America extends hand in friendship, accept it today, pay with your lives tomorrow.

To many Indians,
who are itching to sign on the dotted line of the 123 Indo-US Agreement,
and blaming the communists for disrupting our chance at becoming America’s friend,

I say think again.

America is in debt, the Chinese are the loan sharks.
America needs to buy mercenaries to wage a war with China.
And who best than their age old enemy, the nuclear capable Indians.
Give them more nuclear fuel, let them destroy China
and themselves in the process.

With one signature, America will remove the threat of two emerging superpowers.
So sign today,
be prepared to fight America’s proxy war against the Chinese tomorrow.
But there is one certainty; for us, there will be no day after tomorrow.
Forget we will ever be one of the leading nations in future.

Melodrama? Look at Afghanistan.

On a day we see President Musharraff, “America’s ally” in their “War against Terror”,
fighting for his life, let us look at this document.
Who is responsible for this so called terror?

Title/Description: How Jimmy Carter and I Started the Mujahideen:

Interview with Zbginiew Brzezinksi
Author/Source:
Interview of Zbigniew Brzezinski Le Nouvel Observateur (France)
Date: Jan 15-21, 1998, p. 76*

This is a SHORT interview with Zbginiew Brzezinksi, Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor, in a French newspaper in 1998. Under Brzezniski and Carter, the US supported the covert funding of the mujahadeen, the Taliban’s precedessor, and also, to a lesser degree, Osama bin Laden.

Brzezinksi with Osama Bin Laden – Photograph: Geocities.com

Everyone now knows that — but what is amazing about this interview is that:

1) Brzezinski now admits that the US started funding the mujahadeen a full six months before the Soviets invaded Afghanistan (the previous justification for funding the mujahadeen was that it was to stop the Soviets AFTER they had invaded Afghanistan);

2) The explicit purpose of funding the mujahadeen was to draw the Soviets into Afghanistan so that they would get bogged down in a long, unwinnable war — “their Vietnam”;

3) Brzezinski believes that funding the mujahadeen — even at the price of unleashing Islamic fundamentalism (“some stirred-up Moslems”) as a force throughout the Middle East and Central Asia — was well worth the price of defeating the Soviet Union. Of course, he said all this a full three years before the World Trade Center attack.

Now, as we give $100 million to the Northern Alliance to topple the Taliban, we might want to think about who our new found friends are in the war against terrorism because they most assuredly will be our future enemies. All this makes George Orwell’s vision in 1984 look like a pleasant fantasy.

How Jimmy Carter and I Started the Mujahideen

Interview of Zbigniew Brzezinski Le Nouvel Observateur (France),

Jan 15-21, 1998, p. 76*

Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

Brzezinski: It isn’t quite that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn’t believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don’t regret anything today?

Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic [integrisme], having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

Brzezinski: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn’t a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

________________________________________________________

* There are at least two editions of this magazine; with the perhaps sole exception of the Library of Congress, the version sent to the United States is shorter than the French version, and the Brzezinski interview was not included in the shorter version.

The above has been translated from the French by Bill Blum author of the indispensible, “Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II” and
“Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower”
Portions of the books can be read at: http://members.aol.com/superogue/homepage.htm

When the nuclear dust settles be prepared to see the back of America, as
“without any regrets” they leave us to die in a radioactive India we help create.
The blood of our mutated future generations will be on our hands, so help me god.

Melodrama? Look at President Musharraff.

It has all happened before, so many have fallen for the American carrot
yet we are rushing forward, blind with our eyes wide open.

AmericaRussiaIndiaChina123AgreementHyde’s Act

[digg=http://digg.com/political_opinion/only_ifh/blog]

Ms Benazir Bhutto returns to her homeland to meet the powers of destruction.
In an interview with the BBC,

Ms Bhutto said she was lucky to be alive.
“I don’t believe the state or the government was involved in the attack on me at this stage,” she said. “But I do believe that the sympathisers of the militants had managed to infiltrate some of our agencies… to give covert support to the militants.” Ms Bhutto says she has sent President Musharraf the names of three former military officials she accuses of involvement in the attack.

Photo: Washington Post

The truck of Pakistan former prime minister Benazir Bhutto is parked after an explosion in Karachi, Pakistan on Thursday, Oct 18, 2007. Two explosions went off near the vehicle carrying former Pakistan premier Benazir Bhutto, killing or wounding dozens of people. Party workers and police said Bhutto was unhurt. (AP Photo/B.K.Bangash)

It must be painful to see one’s own homeland being destroyed from within.
To have to blame one’s own country’s people for the murder of one’s motherland.

Pakistan was “born” 60 years ago. It didn’t exist before then.
The founding fathers of Pakistan had a clean slate to write on.
The story of Pakistan shapes from that moment.
But somewhere it has all gone wrong.

I only see a series of wrong decisions.
I cannot call it mistakes,
for I am sure they were made convinced they had the best of Pakistan at heart.
But in 1947, no one could have envisaged what the world would be like 60 years on.
If in 1947 the world was in black and white, in the ensuing sixty years it has got all swirled up in shades of greys.
Today there are too many grey areas.

Just the division of the British India itself, was a tragedy.
It led to mass migration of millions, leaving them homeless and penniless.
Death estimated to be around more than half a million.

Both countries came to existence with million paupers born overnight
who needed to be accomodated and looked after.

1956: Pakistan decided to ditch secularity to become Islamic.
The very reason it was formed, to protect “a minority” was lost.
Instead of protecting “any minority”, it chose to make other religions feel alienated.
Every other religion in Pakistan perceived themselves as an unwanted community.
It only weakens the country if their own citizens feel they do not belong.

The letter K in paKistan represent Kashmir.
As early as 1933, the Muslim League created the name Pakistan on an acronym.

Mr Jinnah and his fellow founders, I believe, became obsessed with Kashmir.
They could not accept their new found country without having Kashmir.
The Kashmir conflict led to three wars, and two major confrontations with India.
No other issues. Just Kashmir. And that war never died out. It still goes on.

Whenever the Pakistani military has felt threatened in an internal power struggle,
Kashmir was an issue that could be relied on to stoke up public passion, public support.

Pakistan lost a bigger area of land in the East, but did it stop the country functioning.
It did not cause the country to disintegrate or collapse.
Yet Pakistan could not give up on a smaller piece of land, Kashmir.

Instead of building the infrastructure of their new homeland, improve law and order, health and education, she spent time efforts and more of all a fortune
to fight wars and to strengthen her Military.

This inevitably led to:
Shift of disproportionate power to the Military and not the State.
And in doing so, she lost her democracy.
Yes, some of their politicians were corrupt, and lined their own pockets, but the country had her voice. But they have also had military dictators, has one now, who may or maynot be honest we will never know, but the people of Pakistan have lost their voice.

The race for a nuclear bomb.
Pakistan’s military successfully convinced the government, that to counter India’s “aggression”, Pakistan needed a N-bomb to survive.
India has never showed any aggression towards Pakistan.
India’s N-programme was aimed against China’s N-arsenal against who we had fought a war over disputed territories.
India didn’t need N-deterrent against non-nuclear Pakistan, she needed against China.
No country develops N-bomb, to invade another country for occupation.
No life is known to survive in a radio-active wasteland.

What did it cost Pakistan. To become an ally of China.
1963, Pakistan signed over a tract of Kashmir to China “as a gesture of goodwill”.

A tract of land that did not belong to Pakistan to handover.
No plebiscite was held in that piece of land to determine what its people wanted.
Soon after, Pakistan had a N-programme with China’s help. And America’s knowledge.

Aligning themselves with any state that were India’s enemy, ie China and America.
Once aligned to dishonest superpowers, they were left at the mercy of these States.

If America wanted to fight “commies” in Afghanistan, they had Pakistan’s soil to form its base for a proxy war. Arms were flown in. The country became a military training ground; was flooded with foreign fighters and firearms.

Dollars and support to the Pakistan Military and America had everything they wanted.
The Pakistan military wanted money and weapons, they got what they needed.
Their Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) was entrusted to train mujahedins,
and support the Talibans to fight and kill the Soviets…only for being communists.
In turn, the ISI became intensely powerful, the islamic fanatics got arms and weapons.

The Americans turned a blind eye when Pakistan diverted some of that money and weapons to create training camps for militants, to fight their own proxy war in Kashmir.

America invaded a sovereign state to remove a “dictator” and introduce “democracy”. Two countries away, their “biggest ally” has a military dictator.
America has done nothing to bring democracy to Pakistan.

In 1933, when the concept of Pakistan was floated,
had the intelligent men behind it realised 60 years on she would be a military State.
Deeply indebted to China on one hand and America on the other.
Playing the dangerous game of playing one against the other.
Two superpowers, that has traditionally been enemies.

I try to imagine a situation where Kashmir had been allowed to choose for themselves.
No invasion by Pakistani army assisted tribals, no loots or rapes or plunders.
No need for signing an Accession, no need to ask India for military help.
I am certain, Kashmir would have gone for a secular democracy.
The third sibling of our independence.
And a painless birth.

I try and imagine Pakistan and India, instead of fighting wars over Kashmir, spending their resources to build; to give their citizens better life, better living.

I even try to imagine an undivided India.

The mind boggles with the hindsight, with only the ifs without any of the buts.

PakistanKashmirIndiahistorynewsdemocracy

Photographed in Iraq in 2004

General Sanchez is one of the major headlines tonight.
I found his full speech on the net.

MILITARY REPORTERS AND EDITORS LUNCHEON ADDRESS

[digg=http://digg.com/world_news/America_living_a_nightmare_with_no_end_in_sight/blog]

WASHINGTON D.C. 12 OCTOBER 2007
LTG (RET) RICARDO S. SANCHEZ

Good afternoon Ladies and Gentlemen

Some of you may not believe this but I am glad to be here. When Sig asked me if I would consider addressing you there was no doubt that I should come into the lion’s den. This was important because I have firmly believed since Desert Shield that it is necessary for the strength of our democracy that the military and the press corps maintain a strong, mutually respectful and enabling relationship. This continues to be problematic for our country, especially during times of war. One of the greatest military correspondents of our time, Joe Galloway, made me a believer when he joined the 24th Infantry Division during Desert Storm.

Today, I will attempt to do two things – first I will give you my assessment of the military and press relationship and then I will provide you some thoughts on the current state of our war effort.

As all of you know I have a wide range of relationships and experiences with our nations military writers and editors. There are some in your ranks who I consider to be the epitome of journalistic professionalism – Joe Galloway, Thom Shanker, Sig Christensen, and John Burns immediately come to mind. They exemplify what America should demand of our journalists – tough reporting that relies upon integrity, objectivity and fairness to give accurate and thorough accounts that strengthen our freedom of the press and in turn our democracy. On the other hand, unfortunately, I have issued ultimatums to some of you for unscrupulous reporting that was solely focused on supporting your agenda and preconcieved notions of what our military had done. I also refused to talk to the European stars and stripes for the last two years of my command in Germany for their extreme bias and single minded focus on Abu Gharaib.

Let me review some of the descriptive phrases that have been used by some of you that have made my personal interfaces with the press corps difficult:
“dictatorial and somewhat dense”,
“not a strategic thought”,
liar,
“does not get it” and
the most inexperienced LTG.

In some cases I have never even met you, yet you feel qualified to make character judgments that are communicated to the world. My experience is not unique and we can find other examples such as the treatment of Secretary Brown during Katrina. This is the worst display of journalism imaginable by those of us that are bound by a strict value system of selfless service, honor and integrity. Almost invariably, my perception is that the sensationalistic value of these assessments is what provided the edge that you seek for self agrandizement or to advance your individual quest for getting on the front page with your stories! As I understand it, your measure of worth is how many front page stories you have written and unfortunately some of you will compromise your integrity and display questionable ethics as you seek to keep America informed. This is much like the intelligence analysts whose effectiveness was measured by the number of intelligence reports he produced. For some, it seems that as long as you get a front page story there is little or no regard for the “collateral damage” you will cause. Personal reputations have no value and you report with total impunity and are rarely held accountable for unethical conduct.

Given the near instantaneous ability to report actions on the ground, the responsibility to accurately and truthfully report takes on an unprecedented importance. The speculative and often uninformed initial reporting that characterizes our media appears to be rapidly becoming the standard of the industry. An Arab proverb states – “four things come not back: the spoken word, the spent arrow, the past, the neglected opportunity.” once reported, your assessments become conventional wisdom and nearly impossible to change. Other major challenges are your willingness to be manipulated by “high level officials” who leak stories and by lawyers who use hyperbole to strenghten their arguments. Your unwillingness to accurately and prominently correct your mistakes and your agenda driven biases contribute to this corrosive environment. All of these challenges combined create a media environment that does a tremendous disservice to america. Over the course of this war tactically insignificant events have become strategic defeats for America because of the tremendous power and impact of the media and by extension you the journalist. In many cases the media has unjustly destroyed the individual reputations and careers of those involved. We realize that because of the near real time reporting environment that you face it is difficult to report accurately. In my business one of our fundamental truths is that “the first report is always wrong.” unfortunately, in your business “the first report” gives Americans who rely on the snippets of CNN, if you will, their “truths” and perspectives on an issue. As a corollary to this deadline driven need to publish “initial impressions or observations” versus objective facts there is an additional challenge for us who are the subject of your reporting. When you assume that you are correct and on the moral high ground on a story because we have not respond to questions you provided is the ultimate arrogance and distortion of ethics. One of your highly repected fellow journalists once told me that there are some amongst you who “feed from a pig’s trough.” if that is who I am dealing with then I will never respond otherwise we will both get dirty and the pig will love it. This does not mean that your story is accurate.

I do not believe that this is what our forefathers intended.
The code of ethics for the society of professional journalists states:

…public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist’s credibility

The basic ethics of a journalist that calls for:
1. Seeking truth,
2. Providing fair and comprehensive account of events and issues
3. Thoroughness and honesty

All are victims of the massive agenda driven competition for economic or political supremacy. The death knell of your ethics has been enabled by your parent organizations who have chosen to align themselves with political agendas. What is clear to me is that you are perpetuating the corrosive partisan politics that is destroying our country and killing our service members who are at war.

My assessment is that your profession, to some extent, has strayed from these ethical standards and allowed external agendas to manipulate what the american public sees on TV, what they read in our newspapers and what they see on the web. For some of you, just like some of our politicians, the truth is of little to no value if it does not fit your own preconcieved notions, biases and agendas.

It is astounding to me when I hear the vehement disagreement with the military’s forays into information operations that seek to disseminate the truth and inform the Iraqi people in order to counter our enemy’s blatant propaganda. As I assess various media entities, some are unquestionably engaged in political propaganda that is uncontrolled. There is no question in my mind that the strength our democracy and our freedoms remain linked to your ability to exercise freedom of the press – I adamantly support this basic foundation of our democracy and completely supported the embedding of media into our formations up until my last day in uniform. The issue is one of maintaining professional ethics and standards from within your institution. Military leaders must accept that these injustices will happen and whether they like what you print or not they must deal with you and enable you, if you are an ethical journalist.

Finally, I will leave this subject with a question that we must ask ourselves–who is responsible for maintaining the ethical standards of the profession in order to ensure that our democracy does not continue to be threatened by this dangerous shift away from your sacred duty of public enlightenment?

Let me now transition to our current national security condition.

As we all know war is an extension of politics and when a nation goes to war it must bring to bear all elements of power in order to win. Warfighting is not solely the responsibility of the military commander unless he has been given the responsibility and resources to synchronize the political, economic and informational power of the nation. So who is responsible for developing the grand strategy that will allow America to emerge victorious from this generational struggle against extremism?

After more than four years of fighting, America continues its desperate struggle in Iraq without any concerted effort to devise a strategy that will achieve “victory” in that war torn country or in the greater conflict against extremism. From a catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic war plan to the administration’s latest “surge” strategy, this administration has failed to employ and synchronize its political, economic and military power.

The latest “revised strategy” is a desperate attempt by an administration that has not accepted the political and economic realities of this war and they have definitely not communicated that reality to the American people. An even worse and more disturbing assessment is that America can not achieve the political consensus necessary to devise a grand strategy that will synchronize and commit our national power to achieve victory in Iraq. Some of you have heard me talk about our nations crisis in leadership. Let me elaborate.

While the politicians espouse their rhetoric designed to preserve their reputations and their political power -our soldiers die! Our national leadership ignored the lessons of WWII as we entered into this war and to this day continue to believe that victory can be achieved through the application of military power alone. Our forefathers understood that tremendous economic and political capacity had to be mobilized, synchronized and applied if we were to achieve victory in a global war. That has been and continues to be the key to victory in Iraq. Continued manipulations and adjustments to our military strategy will not achieve victory. The best we can do with this flawed approach is stave off defeat. The administration, congress and the entire interagency, especially the department of state, must shoulder the responsibility for this catastrophic failure and the american people must hold them accountable.

There has been a glaring, unfortunate, display of incompetent strategic leadership within our national leaders. As a Japanese proverb says, “action without vision is a nightmare.” there is no question that America is living a nightmare with no end in sight.

Since 2003, the politics of war have been characterized by partisanship as the Republican and Democratic parties struggled for power in Washington. National efforts to date have been corrupted by partisan politics that have prevented us from devising effective, executable, supportable solutions. At times, these partisan struggles have led to political decisions that endangered the lives of our sons and daughters on the battlefield. The unmistakable message was that political power had greater priority than our national security objectives. Overcoming this strategic failure is the first step toward achieving victory in Iraq – without bipartisan cooperation we are doomed to fail. There is nothing going on today in washington that would give us hope.

If we succeed in crafting a bipartisan strategy for victory, then America must hold all national agencies accountable for developing and executing the political and economic initiatives that will bring about stability, security, political and economic hope for all Iraqis. That has not been successful to date.

Congress must shoulder a significant responsibility for this failure since there has been no focused oversight of the nations political and economic initiatives in this war. Exhortations, encouragements, investigations, studies and discussions will not produce success -this appears to be the nation’s only alternative since the transfer of soveriegnty. Our continued neglect will only extend the conflict. America’s dilemma is that we no longer control the ability to directly influence the Iraqi institutions. The sovereign Iraqi government must be cooperative in these long term efforts. That is not likely at the levels necessary in the near term.

Our commanders on the ground will continue to make progress and provide time for the development of a grand strategy. That will be wasted effort as we have seen repeatedly since 2003. In the mean time our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines will continue to die.

Since the start of this war, America’s leadership has known that our military alone could not achieve victory in Iraq. Starting in July 2003, the message repeatedly communicated to Washington by military commanders on the ground was that the military alone could never achieve “victory” in Iraq. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines were destined to endure decades of fighting and killing people without the focused, synchronized application of all elements of national power. This was a necessary condition to stabilize Iraq. Any sequential solutions would lead to a prolonged conflict and increased resistance.

By neglect and incompetence at the National Security Council level, that is the path our political leaders chose and now America, more precisely the American military, finds itself in an intractable situation. Clearly, mistakes have been made by the American military in its application of power but even its greatest failures in this war can be linked to America’s lack of commitment, priority and moral courage in this war effort. Without the sacrifices of our magnificent young men and women in uniform, Iraq would be chaotic well beyond anything experienced to date.

What America must accept as a reality at this point in the war is that our army and marine corps are struggling with the deployment schedules. What is clear is that the deployment cycles of our formations has been totally disrupted, the resourcing and training challenges are significant and America’s ability to sustain a force level of 150,000(+) is nonexistent without drastic measures that have been politically unacceptable to date. The drawdown of the surge to presurge levels was never a question. America must understand that it will take the army at least a decade to fix the damage that has been done to its full spectrum readiness. The President’s recent statement to America that he will listen to military commanders is a matter of political expediency.

Our army and marine corps will execute as directed, perform magnificently and never complain-that is the ethic of our warriors and that is what america expects of them. They will not disappoint us. But America must know the pressures that are being placed on our military institutions as we fight this war. All Americans must demand that these deploying formations are properly resourced, properly trained and we must never allow America’s support for the soldier to falter. A critical, objective assessment of our nation’s ability to execute our national security strategy must be conducted. If we are objective and honest, the results will be surprising to all americans. There is unacceptable strategic risk.

America has no choice but to continue our efforts in Iraq. A precipitous withdrawal will unquestionably lead to chaos that would endanger the stability of the greater middle east. If this occurs it would have significant adverse effects on the international community. Coalition and American force presence will be required at some level for the foreseeable future. Given the lack of a grand strategy we must move rapidly to minimize that force presence and allow the iraqis maximum ability to exercise their soveriegnty in achieving a solution.

At no time in America’s history has there been a greater need for bipartisan cooperation. The threat of extremism is real and demands unified action at the same levels demonstrated by our forefathers during World War I and World War II. America has failed to date.

This endeavor has further been hampered by a coalition effort that can be characterized as hasty, un-resourced and often uncoordinated and unmanaged. Desperately needed, but essentially ignored, were the political and economic coalitions that were the key to victory and stability in the immediate aftermath of the conventional war. The military coalition which was hastily put together in the summer of 2003 was problematic given the multitude of national caveats, inadequate rules of engagement and other restrictions on the forces deployed. Even so, the military coalition was the most extensive, productive and effective deployment of forces in decades. Today, we continue our inept coalition management efforts and, in fact, we are facing ever decreasing troop commitments by our military coalition partners. America’s “revised” strategy does not address coalition initiatives and challenges. We cannot afford to continue this struggle without the support of our coalition partners across all elements of national power. Without the political and economic elements of power complementing the tremendous efforts of our military, america is assured of failure. We continue on that path. America’s political leadership must come together and develop a bipartisan grand strategy to achieve victory in this conflict. The simultaneous application of our political, economic, information and military elements of power is the only course of action that will provide a chance of success.

Achieving unity of effort in Iraq has been elusive to date primarily because there is no entity that has the authority to direct action by our interagency. Our National Security Council has been a catastrophic failure. Furthermore, America’s ability to hold the interagency accountable for their failures in this war is non-existent. This must change. As a nation we must recognize that the enemy we face is committed to destroying our way of life. This enemy is arguably more dangerous than any threat we faced in the twentieth century. Our political leaders must place national security objectives above partisan politics, demand interagency unity of effort, and never again commit america to war without a grand strategy that embraces the basic tenets of the Powell Doctrine.

It seems that congress recognizes that the military cannot achieve victory alone in this war. Yet they continue to demand victory from our military. Who will demand accountability for the failure of our national political leaders involved in the management this war? They have unquestionably been derelict in the performance of their duty. In my profession, these type of leaders would immediately be relieved or courtmartialed.

America has sent our soldiers off to war and they must be supported at all costs until we achieve victory or until our political leaders decide to bring them home. Our political and military leaders owe the soldier on the battlefield the strategy, the policies and the resources to win once committed to war. America has not been fully committed to win this war. As the military commanders on the ground have stated since the summer of 2003, the U.S. Military alone cannot win this war. America must mobilize the interagency and the political and economic elements of power, which have been abject failures to date, in order to achieve victory. Our nation has not focused on the greatest challenge of our lifetime. The political and economic elements of power must get beyond the politics to ensure the survival of america. Partisan politics have hindered this war effort and america should not accept this. America must demand a unified national strategy that goes well beyond partisan politics and places the common good above all else. Too often our politicians have chosen loyalty to their political party above loyalty to the constitution because of their lust for power. Our politicians must remember their oath of office and recommit themselves to serving our nation and not their own self-interests or political party. The security of America is at stake and we can accept nothing less. Anything short of this is unquestionably dereliction of duty.

These are fairly harsh assessments of the military and press relationship and the status of our war effort. I remain optimistic and committed to the enabling of media operations under the toughest of conditions in order to keep the world and the American people informed. Our military must embrace you for the sake our democracy but you owe them ethical journalism.

Thank you for this opportunity
May God bless you and may God bless America.
Praise be to the Lord my rock who trains my fingers for battle and my hands for war.

Thank you.

AmericaIraqwar

I was told.

We are by the day becoming a strategic partner with the United States which is helping both our countries. So we want India to be a “Developed” nation by 2020 it is important that we get over this persecution mentality, recognize our importance and strength, be cogent in our rationale and most importantly start thinking big picture.

Yes, of course the big picture.
Perhaps believing I was incapable of such higher functions.
But by then, I had already started to see a different picture.

Like Robert Dreyfuss in July/August 2006

The Geopolitics of Oil: Next We Take Iran

President Bush may or may not order a massive aerial bombardment of Iran later this year. Or he may wait until 2007. Or he may simply escalate a risky confrontation with Iran through covert action and economic sanctions. But whatever the next act in the crisis, don’t be fooled by the assertion that the problem is Iran’s pursuit of nuclear arms.

Iran is a decade away from gaining access to the bomb, according to the administration’s own National Intelligence Estimate, and despite all the talk about the ugliness of the theocratic regime in Tehran, the likely showdown is, at bottom, driven by the geopolitics of oil.

With one-tenth of the world’s petroleum reserves and one-sixth of its natural gas reserves, Iran sits in a strategic geographical position that makes it the cockpit for control of the entire Middle East.

 

It straddles the Persian Gulf’s choke points, including the Strait of Hormuz; it has important influence among Shiites throughout Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf states; and it borders highly contested real estate to the north, from the Caucasus to the Caspian Sea to Central Asia.

The logic of the Bush administration is inexorable. Its ironclad syllogism is this: The United States is and must remain the world’s preeminent power, if need be by using its superior military might. One of the two powers with the ability to emerge as a rival—China—depends vitally on the Persian Gulf and Central Asia for its future supply of oil; the other—Russia—is heavily engaged in Iran, Central Asia, and the Caucasus region. Therefore, if the United States can secure a dominant position in the Gulf, it will have an enormous advantage over its potential challengers. Call it zero-sum geopolitics: Their loss is our gain.

A SUCCESSION OF U.S. presidents, from Franklin Roosevelt to Dwight Eisenhower to Jimmy Carter to George H.W. Bush, literally and figuratively planted the American flag at the heart of the Persian Gulf…Carter, in 1980, restated the doctrine even more forcefully: “Let our position be absolutely clear. An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States.”

From the 1950s through the 1990s, the U.S. backed up those words with muscle. Iran, in particular, was always seen as the next step after Iraq. The original idea was that if the United States toppled Saddam Hussein and installed in Baghdad a regime dominated by Kurdish and Shiite puppets, Iran would be caught between U.S. forces to its west in Iraq and to its east in Afghanistan…

Not surprisingly, Russia and China have a different perspective. Moscow and Beijing, neither of which wants Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, nevertheless do not see Tehran as a threat. To them, the country’s vast reserves of oil and natural gas make it a natural ally. Both Russian and Chinese oil companies had enormous development and supply contracts with Baghdad under Saddam Hussein, deals that are worthless in an Iraq controlled by the United States. They might be forgiven for thinking that Iran, too, would be off-limits to them if Bush succeeds.

For China’s economic future, Iran and the region are essential. As recently as 1992, China was an oil-exporting country, but since then it has become a voracious importer of oil and gas…
In Iran, China has signed a series of gargantuan deals, including a 25-year contract reported to be worth $100 billion between Iran and the Chinese state-owned energy company Sinopec. China is also deeply engaged with Russia’s oil industry and with Central Asian oil exporters in constructing a web of gas and oil pipelines throughout the region.

President Vladimir Putin of Russia and President Hu Jintao of China have made energy the centerpiece of Russian-Chinese relations. Russia’s Rosneft oil company and China National Petroleum Co., two state-owned conglomerates, have negotiated plans for Russia to supply about 10 percent of China’s oil, and the Russian gas giant Gazprom is talking to China about building two huge new gas pipelines with a total capacity of 80 billion cubic meters a year. Last year, the Asia Times heralded the emergence of a strategic “new triangle comprised of China, Iran, and Russia.”

Since 2001, Russia and China have watched America’s heavy-handed push into the Middle East and Central Asia with suspicion and alarm.

Together, they and four Central Asian countries—Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan—have created the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), a regional security body that has emerged as a counterweight to U.S. influence in the region.

Last July, the organization issued a declaration demanding the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Central Asia; by the end of 2005, Uzbekistan had kicked the United States out of its Karshi-Khanabad air base, and soon Kyrgyzstan may evict the U.S. from its Manas air base, both head-on challenges to the administration in countries that Washington considers essential to its influence in Central Asia. This summer, the SCO may agree to extend a membership offer to Iran…

Flynt Leverett, who worked on Middle East policy for Bush’s National Security Council before resigning in disgust, told a political salon in Washington recently that the U.S.-Iran conflict could end up pushing Russia, China, and Iran closer together. “What I see as an emerging axis of oil between Russia and China will be greatly bolstered,” he said.

SERGEY LAVROV, Russia’s foreign minister, is Moscow’s point man for the U.N. talks about Iran. After a U.N. meeting in New York earlier this year, Lavrov said bluntly: “This looks like déjà vu.” Indeed, the parallels with the year before the invasion of Iraq are startling.
In addition to exaggerating the nuclear threat, the administration has been accusing Iran of harboring Al Qaeda fugitives and supporting bin Laden’s movement, though there is little or no evidence to support these claims.
As in Iraq, Washington is sinking millions of dollars into propaganda efforts and alliances with dubious exile groups; according to a recent State Department planning document, the United States is busily setting up Iran intelligence and mobilization centers in Dubai, Istanbul, Frankfurt, London, and Azerbaijan to work with “Iranian expatriate communities.”

Elizabeth Cheney, the daughter of the vice president and a top State Department official, is overseeing a program to spend $85 million on support for dissidents in Iran and to pay for anti-Iran propaganda. She has helped create a brand-new Office of Iranian Affairs at the State Department, and she reportedly supervises an office called the Iran-Syria Operations Group.

As with Iraq, U.S. officials—realizing that U.N. support for an attack on Iran is nil — are talking openly about bypassing the world body and forging yet another “coalition of the willing” to confront Iran.
And, of course, as with Iraq, there is the escalating rhetoric, the talk of “all options” being on the table, the news of Special Forces already operating in the country to foment civil conflict.

Tongue-dripping-with-anticipated-greed “willing”; for $$$ and resident status, perhaps?
The “willing”; like a “donkey” willing for the “carrot”.

As in The Henry Hyde’s Act,

SEC. 103. STATEMENTS OF POLICY. (b) WITH RESPECT TO SOUTH ASIA.—

(4) Secure India’s full and active participation in United States efforts to dissuade, isolate, and, if necessary, sanction and contain Iran for its efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, including a nuclear weapons capability and the capability to enrich uranium or reprocess nuclear fuel, and the means to deliver weapons of mass destruction.

The coalition of the “willing”, indeed.

On August 21 2007, a piece of document featured in small print in some webpages.

Understandings of The Islamic Republic of Iran and the IAEA
on the Modalities of Resolution of the Outstanding Issues Tehran –21 August 2007

IV General Consideraion:
4. The Agency has been able to verify the non-diversion of the declared nuclear materials at the enrichment facilities in Iran and has therefore concluded that it remains in peaceful use.

So Iran is not a nuclear threat after all.
Then should we still sign up to all the trash in the Hyde’s Act about Iran?

The media is starting to realise the picture is bigger and different after all.

And at last someone agrees, the 123 does not override the Hyde’s Act.
We have on September 5 2007,

The nuclear deal: the larger picture – Vikram Sood

…the official response to the various criticisms or doubts has been dismissive and disappointingly inadequate.
No one has bothered to sit down and explain that the various doubts and fears expressed were either incorrect or exaggerated. Instead, the response has been to depict criticism as a reflection of tunnel vision of cold war mindsets or nitpicking by ignoramuses.

In the midst of this emotional debate, it was forgotten that dissent is also a form of patriotism.

Protagonists of the deal have claimed that the 123 Agreement overrides the Hyde Act. This is incorrect because the 1954 Atomic Energy Act is the mother of all such Acts; the Hyde Act is a stringent enabling India-specific legislation for the 123 Agreement to be signed within the parameters of the Hyde Act…

As the U.S. readies for the battles of the 21st century, India must not ignore the resurgence of Russia, the rise of China and the relevance of Iran. It must manage its relations with all these powers. It needs to therefore pause and think about ways of smoothening the wrinkles in the nuclear deal.

If the sense of the House is that there are reservations about the deal then the party in power must address them adequately, in keeping with the convention that India’s foreign policy is pursued through consensus.

It should not be construed to be the handiwork of a tyranny of a minority in a minority.

In the meanwhile I can pray, can’t I?

AmericaIndiaIranShanghai Cooperation OrganisationHyde’s Act

Almost for the first time I read an article on the India-US 123 Agreement
that not only makes sense, but also has the logic that
can only come from being honest.

Being an ex-IFS Officer, an Ambassador and a Joint Secretary,
I have more faith in his statement than many politicians and armchair pundits
who are hellbent to sell away our country’s sovereign rights to become another of
America’s poodles.

Indo-US Nuclear Deal: A Curtain Raiser -III

Mr. Yogesh Tiwari is a retired IFS officer and has served as the Ambassador to Austria and Singapore besides handling various other important assignments in the MEA GoI.

Late Rajiv Gandhi had the vision to foresee the problem of scarcity of energy in India and under his leadership, the Ministry of External Affairs (I was the Joint Secretary dealing with the USSR) was able to achieve a strategic breakthrough in persuading the then USSR to put up 10 x 1000 Mw Nuclear Power Plants. Nuclear fuel was to be supplied by the USSR.

As we did not wish to have the spent fuel with its con-commitant safeguards and disposal problems, we persuaded the USSR to take it back.
The Soviet export of plant/machinery was on standard soft terms (48% – grant element), but it increased to 52% on my persuasion. Soviet Union also agreed to provide nuclear fuel on concessional terms.

There was no unilateral, bilateral or multilateral condition imposed by the USSR, except that these power plants would be under project specific safeguards and not full-scale safeguards of IAEA, which was entirely un-objectionable.

We have the agreement and the format for unlimited development of nuclear energy in cooperation with Russia. Why go for a deal, specially with the US, that it would come under severe, unreasonable, stringent and totally gratuitous conditions.

We declared a unilateral voluntary moratorium on nuclear explosions, meaning clearly that if our security & circumstances so demanded in future, we could & would undertake Nuclear Tests.

Being bound by the putative agreement with US, we would not be able to do so without violating the entire agreement. Our agreements with Nuclear Supplier Group et al and US would be revoked, even though the IAEA safeguards would continue.

We are not going to get any special treatment from IAEA for safeguards. IAEA has only two kinds of safeguards – one for non-nuclear NPT signatory states and the other for 5 NWS (Nuclear Weapon States – USA, USSR, China, UK, and France).

In fact, when we are a declared Nuclear Weapons Power, for us to sign safeguards akin to those applicable to non-nuclear weapon NPT countries would be politically humiliating and strategically disastrous, canceling in one swoop all our cumulative and hard fought gains over the past forty years in attacking the unjust and discriminatory NPT and our carving out a highly respectable place in the global nuclear community.

It reminded of this news article I had read a while back.
And things logically fall into place.

Russia, India Cement Nuclear Ties

By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV
The Associated Press, Thursday, January 25, 2007; 10:24 PM

NEW DELHI: Russian President Vladimir Putin offered Thursday to build four nuclear reactors for India and give it broader access to Moscow’s energy riches, as the old Cold War allies sought to reinvigorate their friendship.

Putin, who will be the guest of honor at India’s Republic Day celebrations on Friday during his two-day visit, met Thursday with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, and officials from the two nations signed several deals on energy, scientific and space cooperation. “Although there has been a sea change in the international situation during the last decade, Russia remains indispensable to India’s foreign policy interests,” Singh said afterward.

“We hope the high level of political trust should be converted into economic opportunity. We hope to harmonize the political and economic aspects of our relationship,” Putin said. Singh said energy cooperation was at the center of the new “strategic partnership.“

Russia has been eager to reassert its traditional role as the chief supplier of nuclear technology and know-how to India in the wake of a landmark civilian nuclear cooperation deal between New Delhi and Washington last year that opened the door to U.S. companies’ prospective expansion in India’s nuclear market.

Russia is building two 1,000-megawatt nuclear reactors in the southern town of Kudankulam, and a memorandum of understanding signed Thursday said that the four new reactors would be built, but did not outline a timetable or other specifics.

My comments and opinions have been criticised
by some who claim politics based on ideology is out dated.
But I cannot shrug aside feelings of loyalty, fairness or trust, even in politics.
Where would we stand in the world’s stage if we have lost our loyalty and honesty.

We had signed an 123 Agreement with the US before, for Tarapur.
Arun Shourie tells us how the US treated us.

The US signed that Agreement with us in 1963.
It was to be effective for 30 years, till 1993.

That Agreement provided that the US would give fuel for Tarapur as needed by India.
It provided that the US would have the first right to spent fuel in excess of India’s needs for peaceful nuclear energy. And even for this part, just the first right. If it did not take back the fuel, we would have the right to reprocess it. There were no conditions.

In testimony to the US Congress, US officials have themselves acknowledged that the US is not to this day sure that India violated any term of the 1963 Agreement.
Yet, the US terminated all fuel supplies in 1974, saying that India had violated domestic US laws. Pressed about the laws, the US maintained that India had violated the intent of US domestic laws! For decades, it has consistently refused to either take back spent fuel or let us reprocess it.

All this happened, even when there was no Hyde Act — no India-specific law — to govern that Agreement.

Last three decades, when we had China and Pakistan howling at our doors,
America was on Pakistan’s side, even let China help Pakistan to get their N-fuel.

So why are we selling the sovereign soul of our country?
To buy American uranium to create nuclear energy capacity
of 6 per cent of the total energy demand of India by the year 2035.
Those of us who believe, american uranium will solve all our energy problems,
dream your lovely dreams, to wake up to realise it has turned into an eternal nightmare.

Russia, India Cement Nuclear Ties - continued

In the past, Russia has stood by India, supplying it with reactors and fuel even as it was denied Western technology for its refusal to sign the international Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Putin also promised to give India a broader access to Russia’s vast hydrocarbon wealth.

On the sidelines of Putin’s visit, India’s state-owned Oil & Natural Gas Corp. signed a deal with Russia’ state-controlled OAO Rosneft to jointly bid for exploration and refining projects, ONCG said in a statement.

“We will strongly support that, as well as cooperation with other Russian oil companies,” Putin told a Russian-Indian business forum.

India is already a shareholder via the state-run ONGC Videsh Ltd. in the Sakhalin-1 oilfields, which have started production, and Putin said it could be offered a share in the prospective Sakhalin-3 project.

Energy cooperation is vital for India, which has struggled to supply adequate power to its burgeoning economy that has been growing at more than 8 percent in recent years. Despite India’s rapid recent development, power cuts remain frequent across the country.

“This has been a significant visit both for its symbolism and for its substantive content,” said C. Uday Bhaskar of the Institute for Defense and Strategic Analyses, a New Delhi-based think tank. “A resurgent Russia and a more confident India are reiterating their decades-old relationship.”

Our new “American masters” will like that.
Not.

AmericaRussiaIndiaHyde’s Act123 Agreement

The present Government of India is keen to sign an (123) Agreement
with the United States, for cooperation concerning uses of nuclear energy.

The United States own Federal law, the Section 123 of Atomic Energies Act 1954
prohibits the US government from signing a deal with a non – NNP signatory state.

The US Government, under George W Bush passed the Henry Hyde’s Act to exempt
the government from the mandatory requirements of the Atomic Energy Act 1954.

The original text of the deal, which has only recently (3 August) been disclosed
and the strict terms of the Henry Hyde’s Act has caused concerns
not only amongst politicians but also outside the Parliament,
notably amongst the nuclear scientists.

The much abused “Left” has raised the strongest objection.
The many voices that are raised in favour of this controversial deal.
wants to divert attention from what the “left” are saying about the deal,
to the “Left’s” ideology, or what decisions or steps they have taken in the past.
This is a deliberate attempt to divert focus from the concerns of the text of this deal.
I have not heard any of these voices discuss the history of America’s foreign policies.

They also try to imply that the “left front” only represents the state of West Bengal.
To be clear, the left front holds power in West Bengal and Kerela; they also have
support in Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Punjab and Tamil Nadu and Tripura.

This is how the “Left” have expressed their worries ,

This agreement covers political, economic, military, and nuclear cooperation. This alliance entails not just nuclear cooperation but talks of the two countries promoting global democracy, revamping the Indian economy to facilitate large scale investment by the United States, and a strategic military collaboration.

The Left parties have, after carefully assessing the implications of the 123 agreement, demanded that the government should not proceed further to operationalise the agreement. The objections to the deal have been spelt out in detail in the statement issued by the Left parties. The Left is clear that going ahead with the agreement will bind India to the United States in a manner that will seriously impair an independent foreign policy and our strategic autonomy.

Instead what they have asked is

The best course would be for the government not to proceed further with the operationalising of the agreement. Till all the doubts are clarified and the implications of the Hyde Act evaluated, the government should not take the next steps with regard to negotiating the IAEA safeguards, which are to be in perpetuity, and proceed to get the guidelines from the Nuclear Suppliers Group.

This is a fair and reasonable request.
As Dr Subroto Roy has written,

What the Manmohan-Montek Planning Commission needed to do first of all was a thorough cost-benefit analysis of India’s energy requirements but such elementary professionalism has been sorely lacking among our economists for decades.

The answer to our present conundrum must be patience and the fullest transparency. What is the rush?

If it is good or bad for us to buy six or eight new American reactors now, it will remain good or bad to do so a year or two from now after everyone has had a thorough think about everything that is involved.

Only those with any vested interest will be rushing to seal the deal.

And please don’t anyone say computer simulations have replaced nuclear testing.
They are just simulations of ‘abstract’ model of any particular system being tested.
Nothing more. And are only as good as the computer program written for it.
If ever required in future, every nuclear weapon state will have to and will
conduct underground tests to verify and validate important parameters.

I believe this deal if it goes through,
it will have adverse effects only on Indians living in India.
Not the Indians living permanently abroad or has foreign nationality.

For when things go wrong, they have the option to shrug their shoulders
and walk away unlike the people living in India who will be
entrapped in America’s strategic designs in South Asia.

In future, before these voices are raised in favour of the deal,
they should declare

where they reside,
what nationality they hold
if they have any plans to return to live in India
if they aspire to obtain unlimited resident status or the coveted green card.

I am an Indian living in UK for 18 years,
but I have not changed my Indian nationality for a foreign passport.
I have every intention to return back to India when my job here is done.

I do not want to return to a country entangled in US’s designs in South Asia.
I do not care who asks these questions, be they the Left, the Right or the Center,
I want the deal to be put on hold, while those who understands can study the deal.

I will say, if you are arguing for the signing of this deal
but now are an American national or an Indian hoping for a green card,
you may not have the best interests of the common Indian at heart,
this is not your concern, not your problem, not your debate,
so just stay out of it.

AmericaIndiaHyde’s Act123 Agreementfearmongering

An update: 08.09.2007
If you have linked here from mutiny.in
to read my views on 123 Agreement, to get my full perspective
you may need to read a few more, if you have the patience…
@ http://wordpress.com/tag/123-agreement/
…and I have not finished with it yet.

when apparently intelligent and educated communities
makes us believe they are experts on
matters as wide ranging as

Nuclear energy and weapons technology
International Nuclear Non-proliferation policy
United States Federal Law- Atomic Energy Act of 1954
United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006’’.
Every point discussed between the two countries in the last two years.
(123) Agreement for cooperation…concerning peaceful use of Nuclear Energy
America’s foreign policy in the middle east, Iraq war and now war with Iran
America’s dollar hegemony and Iran’s threat to petrodollar

and more qualified than the nuclear scientists and political analysts
in declaring to the nation that there is NOTHING TO FEAR in this Indo-US deal,

India is in deep deep trouble.

India’s “Left” had raised concerns regarding the discrepancies
between the discussions and the final version of the Hyde’s Act and
the lack of clarity or explanation in the final document of the agreement.

These intelligent people, as their main argument in response to the “Left’s” concerns,
convincingly says

How can a requirement between the US President and the US Congress be a part of an international deal between US and India?! The 123 agreement is between the US and India. It does not, and cannot, contain any clauses regarding what the US President needs to do for the US Congress. The 123 agreement has no such requirements.

They publish links to the 123 Agreement, but strangely not to the Hyde’s Act,

Even though the full title of the act states:
‘‘Henry J. Hyde United States- India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006’’
In my reckoning, the Act defines US’s expectations of India’s future “coopoeration”.

Click HERE to read the Hyde’s Act in full

They can also say

It is clear from these nine objections of the CPI(M), that either they’re misinformed about the 123 agreement (a fault of the Congress government) or they’re immune to the sensitivities involved in negotiating an international agreement.
Their scholarly stand of nitpicking over clauses of the 123 agreement, picking words and phrases out of context, and misrepresenting them towards irrational conclusions is just a political gimmick.

Should we then, accept that Hyde’s Law is irrelevant in this Indo-US nuclear agreement?

I can only presume the writers are experts in all matters of international agreements.
I make no such claims, so I will rely on documented statements and opinions
of those who I consider are the real experts and/or directly involved.

Let us look at what someone from US State department has to say.

Burns on Bringing India in from the Cold, and Isolating Iran

The Capital Interview: August 2, 2007

Interviewee: R. Nicholas Burns, Under Secretary of State, U.S. Department of State
Interviewer: Robert McMahon, Deputy Editor

Does the deal address U.S. concerns that India would support efforts to press Iran to abandon its suspected nuclear weapons program?

This is a technical agreement of the type that we’ve done with Japan, Russia, China, and the European Union in the past, so it doesn’t speak to political issues in the text of the agreement.

But apart from that, we have been very actively involved in counseling the Indian government that they should remain with the rest of the international community in arguing to the Iranians that they should not become a nuclear weapons power, number one.

And number two, we hope very much that India will not conclude any long-term oil and gas agreements with Iran.

The Indians, as you know, have voted with us at the International Atomic Energy Agency board of governors against Iran on two occasions.

And so I trust the Indians will maintain this policy of not in any way, shape, or form assisting the Iranian government in its nuclear plans, and in giving the right advice to the Iranian government that we would expect any democratic country to give.

And what the Indian nuclear scientists themselves say?

Why Hyde Act of America denies Indian nuclear sovereignty?

Indian Nuclear Scientists and Experts: Aug. 19, 2007

An in depth analysis of
Henry J. Hyde U.S.-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006
by Indian nuclear scientists and experts.

1) Full co-operation in civilian nuclear energy has been denied to India:

a) U.S. unwillingness to co-operate in the areas of spent-fuel reprocessing and uranium enrichment related to the full nuclear fuel cycle.
b) Denial of the nuclear fuel supply assurances and alternate supply arrangements mutually agreed upon earlier.
c) Limits co-operation in the GNEP programme. India will not be permitted to join as a technology developer but as a recipient state.

 

2) India asked to participate in the international effort on nuclear non-proliferation, with a policy congruent to that of United States.

The Hyde Act envisages (Section-109) India to jointly participate with the U.S. in a programme involving the U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration to further nuclear non-proliferation goals.
This goes much beyond the IAEA norms and has been unilaterally introduced apparently without the knowledge of the Indian government. In addition, the U.S. President is required to annually report to the congress whether India is fully and actively participating in U.S. and international efforts to dissuade, isolate and if necessary sanction and contain Iran for its pursuit of indigenous efforts to develop nuclear capabilities.
These stipulations in the Act and others pertaining to the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), the Wassenaar Arrangement, and the Australia Group etc. are totally outside the scope of the July 18th Agreement and they constitute intrusion into India’s independent decision making and policy matters. India’s adherence to MTCR is also unnecessarily brought in.

 

3) Impact on our Strategic Defense Programme

In responding to the concerns earlier expressed by us, the Prime Minister stated in the Rajya Sabha on August 17, 2006 “we are fully conscious of the changing complexity of the international political system. Nuclear weapons are an integral part of our national security and will remain so, pending the elimination of all nuclear weapons and universal non-discriminatory nuclear disarmament. Our freedom of action with regard to our strategic programmes remains unrestricted. The nuclear agreement will not be allowed to be used as a backdoor method of introducing NPT type restrictions on India.” And yet, this Act totally negates the above assurance of the PM.

In view of the uncertain strategic situation around the globe, we are of the view that India must not directly or indirectly concede our right to conduct future nuclear weapon tests, if these are found necessary to strengthen our minimum deterrence.

In this regard, the Act makes it explicit that if India conducts such tests, the nuclear cooperation will be terminated and we will be required to return all equipment and materials we might have received under this deal.

To avoid any abrupt stoppage of nuclear fuel for reactors, which we may import, India and the U.S. had mutually agreed to certain alternative fuel supply options, which this Act has totally eliminated out of consideration. Thus, any future nuclear test will automatically result in a heavy economic loss to the country because of the inability to continue the operation of all such imported reactors.

Furthermore, the PM had assured the nation that “India is willing to join any non-discriminatory, multilaterally negotiated and internationally verifiable Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT), as and when it is concluded in the Conference on Disarmament.”

But, the Act requires the U.S. to “encourage India to identify and declare a date by which India would be willing to stop production of fissile material for nuclear weapons unilaterally or pursuant to a multilateral moratorium or treaty.”

In his Rajya Sabha address, the PM had said, “Our commitment towards non-discriminatory global nuclear disarmament remains unwavering, in line with the Rajiv Gandhi Action Plan. There is no dilution on this count.”

Unfortunately, the Act is totally silent on the U.S. working with India to move towards universal nuclear disarmament, but it eloquently covers all aspects of non-proliferation controls of U.S. priority, into which they want to draw India into committing.

 

In summary, it is obvious that the Hyde Act still retains many of the objectionable clauses in the earlier House and Senate bills on which the Prime Minister had clearly put forth his objections and clarified the Indian position in both Houses of Parliament.

Once this Act is signed into law, all further bilateral agreements with the U.S. will be required to be consistent with this law.

As such, the Government of India may convey these views formally to the U.S. Administration and they should be reflected in the 123 Agreement.

Signatories:
Dr. A.N.Prasad, former Director, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre
Dr. H.N. Sethna, former Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission
Dr. M.R. Srinivasan, former Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission
Dr. P.K. Iyengar, former Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission
Dr. Placid Rodriguez, former Director, Indira Gandhi Center for Atomic Research
Dr. A. Gopalakrishnan, former Chairman, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board
Dr. Y.S.R. Prasad, former Chairman & Managing Director, Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited

Fellow Indians, do not trust anyone, please read the documents for yourselves, for
if you do not act now, you are as much to blame, when our sovereignty is sold away.

AmericaIndiaHyde’s Act123 Agreementfearmongering

If you can’t get what you want
use exaggerated fear on a constant basis, as a leverage till
you get the opinions and actions of others towards your desired end.
The American’s championed it during the Cold War against the “commies”.

We are suddenly witnessing the same in India,
the “Left” has dared to question the dream charity that America is giving us
and the pro-US Indians, probably with motives purely selfish, are out fear-mongering.

Before our government signs away 40 years of our future, everyone of us
have a right to know what and why, I do not care who asks and for what motives.

These are the queries (as quoted below) that has been raised, by the ridiculed “Left” .
Each of these are legitimate and relevant concerns that every intelligent Indian,
who cares about our country and our sovereign rights, should be now asking.

Let us do away with the hearsay about hearsays and interpretations of biased minds.

N-deal: Left has 9 queries

From Asian Age Archives: By Seema Mustafa : New Delhi, Aug. 6 2007

The nine objections raised by the CPI(M) against the India-US civilian nuclear energy agreement have not been addressed in the 123 agreement.

The Left leaders have been consulting scientists and strategic experts to reach a final position on the 123 agreement at a meeting scheduled to be held here on Tuesday.
Not a single objection raised by the Left has been met, according to strategic experts consulted by this newspaper.

The CPI(M) had issued a statement listing the “explicit departures in the Senate and Congress drafts from the original agreement” signed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and US President George W. Bush.

1. The CPI(M) was concerned that the deal required India to pursue a foreign policy congruent to that of the US; and to secure India’s full and active participation in US efforts to sanction and contain Iran.

Nothing has changed with the 123 agreement. This codifies technical rules of nuclear commerce. It does not supersede the Hyde Act but is a subsidiary arrangement under the Hyde Act read with the US Atomic Energy Act.

The Hyde Act is clear that Indian foreign policy has to remain congruent with the US, on Iran and all other vital issues.

US undersecretary of state for political affairs Nicholas Burns said as much when asked about Iran by the American media. He said the 123 agreement was a technical document, and that the US expected India to follow its policy on Iran.

He even said that he was hopeful that India would not enter into any long-term gas and energy cooperation with Iran, a reference to the gas pipeline.

Despite the 123 agreement, the US President has to annually certify to Congress that India is in full compliance with the congressionally imposed non-proliferation conditions.

The controversial provision for instituting a “cooperative threat reduction programme” remains.
It has just been re-named by the Hyde Act as “United States-India scientific cooperative nuclear non-proliferation programme”.

2. The deal would not allow full cooperation on civilian nuclear technology, denying India a complete fuel cycle.

India will continued to face an embargo on importing equipment and components related to enrichment, reprocessing and heavy water production, even when such activities are under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections and for peaceful purposes. Article 5(2) in the 123 agreement makes this very clear.

3. Steps to be taken by India would be conditional upon and contingent on action taken by the US.

It is clear from the 123 agreement itself that all restrictions are not being lifted. Embargoes are still in place, and the US President is still required to annually certify to the Congress that India is in “full compliance” with the congressionally imposed non-proliferation conditions.

4. The US will not take the necessary steps to change its laws or align the NSG rules to fulfil the terms of the India-US nuclear deal.

The 123 agreement does not change the requirement of the Hyde Act that the NSG exemption for India be “made by consensus” and be consistent with the rules being framed by the US. The legislation requires the administration to ensure that the NSG exemption for India is no less stringent than the US exemption.

5. The additional protocol referred to in the original agreement would be intrusive and not India-specific.

New Delhi’s agreement with the IAEA will be “India-specific” only in name and would contain only a cosmetic reference to India’s right to take undefined and unenforceable “corrective measures” in all other respects.

The 123 agreement, in its “definitions”, defines well understood terms but not corrective measures. The Hyde Act prescribes for India the highly invasive Model Additional Protocol applicable to non-nuclear weapons states.

One prerequisite to bring the deal into force is that India and the IAEA should have “concluded all legal steps required prior to signature” to enforce inspections “in perpetuity”.

A second prerequisite mentioned in the 123 agreement is for India to make “substantial progress” on concluding an additional protocol with the IAEA.

The Hyde Act defines additional protocol as the one set for non-nuclear states in the 1997 IAEA information circular.

At the press conference announcing the 123 agreement, national security adviser M.K. Narayanan and the Atomic Energy Commission chairman, Dr Anil Kakodkar, did not answer a question on the additional protocol, saying that this would be taken up later.

6. India is placing its facilities in perpetuity while the US President can prevent the transfer to India of equipment, materials or technology from other participating governments in the NSG, or from any other source.

The 123 agreement offers assured fuel supply only so long as India adheres to the US-prescribed non-proliferation conditions.

The assurances of uninterrupted fuel supply cover only disruption due to market failure, or technical, or logistical, difficulties, but not sanctions arising from India’s non-compliance with non-proliferation conditions.

Both the 123 agreement and the Hyde Act have explicitly stopped New Delhi from lifting safeguards even if the US were to deliberately terminate all supplies.

7. India’s fissile material stockpile will be restricted.

The 123 agreement has not changed this.

The Hyde Act lays emphasis on getting India to cease all fissile material production even before negotiations on an FMCT have begun in Geneva.

The act requires the US President to periodically inform Congress about “steps that the US has taken and will take to encourage India to identify and declare a date by which India would be willing to stop production of fissile material for nuclear weapons unilaterally or pursuant to a multilateral moratorium or treaty”.

8. The deal includes physical verification and suitable access to be provided by India to US inspectors, and not just IAEA safeguards.

US end-use monitoring is reflected in the 123 agreement’s Article 12 (3).

Also, the provision for US fallback safeguards in Article 10 (4) states, “If the IAEA decides that the application of IAEA safeguards is no longer possible, the supplier and recipient should consult and agree on appropriate verification measures.”

9. The military programme will also be subject to monitoring by the IAEA and the US.

The 123 agreement does not change that requirement in the Hyde Act.

The Hyde Act stipulates, “The President shall keep the appropriate congressional committees fully and currently informed of the fact and implications of any significant nuclear activities of India”, which includes the fissile material produced and the production of nuclear weapons by India.

It also demands annual estimates from the administration about the amount of uranium mined and milled in India, the amount of uranium used or allocated for the production of nuclear explosive devices, and the rate of production in India of both fissile material and nuclear explosive devices.

The legislation seeks to cap, roll back and eliminate India’s nuclear deterrent with the phrase “halt the increase of nuclear weapons arsenals in South Asia, and to promote their reduction and eventual elimination”.

And those of you, who wants us to believe US will protect us from the Chinese, dream on.

AmericaIndiaHyde’s Act123 Agreementfearmongering

It is true that India now suffers and will in future face a huge energy gap.
But it is NOT TRUE that India does not have the resources
to meet our evergrowing energy requirement.

We not only have enough resources for solar and wind generated power stations,
we also have nuclear. We are the world’s third largest reserve of Thorium.

We have it in abundance in the coastal sands of Orissa and Kerala.
It is believed we have 290 000 tonnes of economically extractable Thorium.

Why Thorium?
Thorium is much more abundant in nature than uranium.
U-233 bred from thorium is the best of the 3 nuclear fuels, U-235, Pu-239, U-233
It is more eco friendly producing less of long-lived radioactive waste.
Thorium and its compounds are very stable. Its oxide melts around 3300°C.
This stability allows high burn-ups and high temperatures; less chances of accidents.

Why not Thorium:
Thorium needs a “match” to kickstart, that can only be U-235 or plutonium.
[It is an advantage as is an excellent way to use up the excess plutonium stocks]
Reprocessing is an integral part of a sustainable thorium fuel cycle.
Presence of hard gamma emitters makes the manufacture U-233 based fuels in remote gamma-shielded environment mandatory, a very expensive technique.

With our huge Thorium reserves, our scientists haven’t been just sitting around,
they have made utilisation of thorium for large-scale energy production our major goal.

THE THREE-STAGE INDIAN NUCLEAR POWER PROGRAMME

Quoted from Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India document:

“Shaping the Third Stage of Indian Nuclear Power Programme”

The importance of nuclear energy, as a sustainable energy resource for our country, was recognised at the very inception of our atomic energy programme more than four decades ago.

A three-stage nuclear power programme, based on a closed nuclear fuel cycle, was then chalked out.

The three stages are:
1. Natural uranium fuelled Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors (PHWRs),
2. Fast Breeder Reactors (FBRs) utilising plutonium based fuel, and,
3. Advanced nuclear power systems for utilisation of thorium.

For carrying out an efficient production of plutonium, the fissile material needed to fuel further growth in nuclear power capacity, a natural uranium fuelled heavy water moderated reactor is the best option.

In the First Stage: we started the indigenous development of nuclear power plants based on uranium cycle in PHWRs. At present we have twelve such reactors under operation, four are under construction, and several others have been planned. We have become self sufficient in all aspects of the PHWR technology. The capacity factors of our operating PHWRs have been close to eighty percent during recent years, an excellent performance even with respect to international standards.

As a part of the Second Stage, we started the FBR programme with the Fast Breeder Test Reactor (FBTR), at IGCAR, Kalpakkam. This reactor, operating with indigenously developed mixed (U+Pu) carbide fuel, has already yielded a large volume of operating experience and a better understanding of the technologies involved. This has enabled us to design 500 MWe (prototype) FBR that will utilise plutonium and the depleted uranium from our PHWRs. Construction of this reactor is due to begin soon.

In preparation for the Third Stage, development of technologies pertaining to utilisation of thorium have been a part of our ongoing activities. Considerable thorium irradiation experience has been acquired in research reactors and we have introduced thorium in PHWRs in a limited way. With our sustained efforts over the past many years, we already have small-scale experience over the entire thorium fuel cycle.

An example is the KAMINI reactor, in IGCAR, the only currently operating reactor in the world, which uses 233U as fuel. This fuel was bred, processed and fabricated indigenously. Efforts are currently on to enlarge that experience to a bigger scale. We are now designing and developing advanced nuclear systems, which will utilise our precious plutonium resources in an optimum way to maximise conversion of thorium to 233U, extract power in-situ from the thorium fuel, and recycle the bred 233U in future reactors.

In India, both Kakrapar-1 and -2 units are loaded with 500 kg of thorium fuel in order to improve their operation when newly-started. Kakrapar-1 was the first reactor in the world to use thorium, rather than depleted uranium, to achieve power flattening across the reactor core.

In 1995, Kakrapar-1 achieved about 300 days of full power operation and Kakrapar-2 about 100 days utilising thorium fuel. The use of thorium-based fuel is planned in Kaiga-1 and -2 and Rajasthan-3 and -4 (Rawatbhata) reactors.

A paper was submitted by Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) to the International Conference on Emerging Nuclear Energy Systems (ICENES) held June 9-14 in Istanbul this year.

The BARC scientist have claimed that once the world’s uranium runs out, thorium - and the depleted uranium discharged by today’s power reactors – could form the ‘fertile base’ for nuclear power generation. And they are in the process of developing a Fast Thorium Breeder Reactor (FTBR) at the BARC in Mumbai.

They believe their FTBR is a ‘candidate’ reactor that can produce energy from these two fertile materials with some help from fissile plutonium as a ‘seed’ to start the fire. By using a mix of ‘seed’ plutonium and fertile zones inside the core, the scientists show theoretically that their design can breed not one but two nuclear fuels - U-233 from thorium and plutonium from depleted uranium – within the same reactor. This totally new concept of fertile-to-fissile conversion has prompted them to call it the Fast ‘Twin’ Breeder Reactor.

Their calculations show the sodium-cooled FTBR, while consuming 10.96 tonnes of plutonium to generate 1,000 MW of power, breeds 11.44 tonnes of plutonium and 0.88 tonnes of U-233 in a cycle length of two years.

BARC’s FTBR is claimed to be the first design that truly exploits the concept of ‘breeding’ in a reactor that uses thorium. The handful of fast breeder reactors (FBRs) in the world today – including the one India is building in Kalpakkam near Chennai – use plutonium as fuel. These breeders have to wait until enough plutonium is accumulated through reprocessing of spent fuel discharged by thermal power reactors that run on uranium.

The BARC scientists say that thorium should be inducted into power reactors when the uranium is still available, rather than after it is exhausted. The FTBR only needs an initial inventory of plutonium to kick-start the thorium cycle and eventually to generate electricity.

A blanket ban on India re-processing imported uranium – a condition for nuclear cooperation with the US – could make India’s thorium programme a non-starter.

Former BARC director P.K. Iyengar has one suggestion that he says must be acceptable to the US if it is serious about helping India to solve its energy problem. ‘The US and Russia have piles of plutonium from dismantled nuclear weapons,’ Iyengar said, adding: ‘They should allow us to borrow this plutonium needed to start our breeders. We can return the material after we breed enough.’

The Hyde Act and the 123 Agreement
with its strict restriction on reprocessing the purchased fuel
binds us in a deal to be a purchaser of Uranium and its processing technology.
Instead of breaking free from the NSG cartel, we become chained to it for 40 years.

We have are own N-fuel, we do not need Uranium, we need enriched Plutonium.
To finish our three stage Nuclear Programme and be energy independant for ever.

This Indo-US nuclear deal will KILL off OUR 50 YEARS of reasearch and hard work.

It is not us who will suffer, we will be dead and gone, it will be our future generations.
It is now time for all us Indians to ask questions, and to find the truth for ourselves.

AmericaIndiaHyde’s Act123 AgreementThorium

United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006 the “Hyde Act”
Agreement for cooperation between United States and India, the “123 Agreement”

Anyone who questions these are frowned upon and aligned with the “communist left”.
And we are advised to learn the “realism” of international affairs.

But what do our nuclear scientists themselves think of the new deal, those who have
struggled against the sanctions since 1974 to bring us to where we stand today?

[digg=http://digg.com/political_opinion/bushwhacked_india_s_nuclear_scientists/blog]

Who else is better to set us the benchmark for India’s future
not only as a nuclear power but also in our vision
of Universal Nuclear Disarmament?

THIS IS the text of an appeal issued by nine leading nuclear scientists
just over an year ago on 15.08.2006. I have quoted it just as I have found it.

Appeal to parliamentarians on nuclear deal

Senior nuclear scientists urge MPs to ensure that decisions taken today do not inhibit India’s future ability to develop and pursue nuclear technologies for the benefit of the nation.

“While the nation and Parliament discuss the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal from various angles, we feel it is our responsibility to place before the nation our well-considered views on the impact of this deal on the future of Indian nuclear science and technology, and its effects on the energy security of the nation. We have all worked in the field of atomic energy from the very early years after India’s independence. From very small beginnings, we have now reached a stage where we are in possession of all the technologies needed for the production of electricity from indigenous nuclear minerals, and have successfully applied these technologies in diverse sectors from health, agriculture and industry to national and energy security. All this has been possible with the support of the people represented in the government through Parliament, and the outstanding statesmen who have guided and supported our plans.

We therefore feel it is our obligation to make public our perceptions for the effective and continued nurturing and utilisation of this technology in the country.

Science is universal. Knowledge can be created in any part of the world, and technology comes with experimentation and the willingness to take risks. We have followed all these paths to reach the present stage of development. We are amongst the most advanced countries in the technology of fast-breeder reactors, which is crucial to the future of our energy security. Along the way we have derived benefits from international collaboration. At the same time, we have also shared some of our abilities in this field with the world. Indian scientists have been ambassadors, with knowledge and creativity as their tools. It is of prime importance to uphold these cherished traditions.

It is significant that the most advanced country in nuclear science and technology has come forward to accept us into the international nuclear community, by the historic document signed by our Prime Minister with President Bush on 18th July, 2005. The basic principles for cooperation were well laid out in this bilateral understanding and the Prime Minister has apprised our Parliament of this. No doubt it needs the concurrence of the other nations comprising the Nuclear Suppliers Group, and of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Based on this agreement, the U.S. lawmakers and the administration are in the process of re-framing their laws, which could change the nature of relations between the two countries. This is a most welcome initiative of the UPA government, and is a continuation of the process essentially begun during the previous NDA government. Thus, there is no question of any political partisanship on this matter.

However, the lawmakers of the U.S. Congress have modified, both in letter and spirit, the implementation of such an agreement. At this juncture, among other aspects, it is essential that we insist on the following four central themes:

1. India should continue to be able to hold on to her nuclear option as a strategic requirement in the real world that we live in, and in the ever-changing complexity of the international political system. This means that we cannot accede to any restraint in perpetuity on our freedom of action. We have not done this for the last forty years after the Non-Proliferation Treaty came into being, and there is no reason why we should succumb to this now. Universal nuclear disarmament must be our ultimate aim, and until we see the light at the end of the tunnel on this important issue, we cannot accept any agreement in perpetuity.

KAMINI: the first reactor in the world, designed specifically to use uranium-233 (from Thorium) fuel.

2. After 1974, when the major powers discontinued cooperation with us, we have built up our capability in many sensitive technological areas, which need not and should not now be subjected to external control. Safeguards are understandable where external assistance for nuclear materials or technologies are involved. We have agreed to this before, and we can continue to agree to this in the future too, but strictly restricted to those facilities and materials imported from external sources.

3. We find that the Indo-U.S. deal, in the form approved by the U.S. House of Representatives, infringes on our independence for carrying out indigenous research and development (R&D) in nuclear science and technology. Our R&D should not be hampered by external supervision or control, or by the need to satisfy any international body. Research and technology development are the sovereign rights of any nation. This is especially true when they concern strategic national defence and energy self-sufficiency.

4. While the sequence of actions to implement the cooperation could be left for discussion between the two governments, the basic principles on which such actions will rest is the right of Parliament and the people to decide. The Prime Minister has already taken up with President Bush the issue of the new clauses recommended by the U.S. House of Representatives. If the U.S. Congress, in its wisdom, passes the bill in its present form, the `product’ will become unacceptable to India, and, diplomatically, it will be very difficult to change it later. Hence it is important for our Parliament to work out, and insist on, the ground rules for the nuclear deal, at this stage itself.

We therefore request you, the Parliamentarians, to discuss this deal and arrive at a unanimous decision, recognising the fundamental facts of India’s indigenous nuclear science and technology achievements to date, the efforts made to overcome the unfair restrictions placed on us and the imaginative policies and planning enunciated and followed in the years after Independence. The nation, at this critical juncture, depends on its representatives in Parliament to ensure that decisions taken today do not inhibit our future ability to develop and pursue nuclear technologies for the benefit of the nation“.

The statement issued on Monday has been signed by:

1. Dr. H.N. Sethna, former Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission;
2. Dr. M.R. Srinivasan, former Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission;
3. Dr. P.K. Iyengar, former Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission;
4. Dr. A. Gopalakrishnan, former Chairman, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board;
5. Dr. S.L. Kati, former Managing Director, Nuclear Power Corporation;
6. Dr. A.N. Prasad, former Director, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre;
7. Dr. Y.S.R. Prasad, former Chairman & Managing Director, Nuclear Power Corporation;
8. Dr. Placid Rodriguez, former Director, Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research.

AmericaIndiaHyde’s Act123 Agreement

The next threat is Iran,
with promise of a new Oil Bourse and trading oil for Euros.
Iran too has to be destroyed, but needs to be first ISOLATED.

For Iran has strong supports.
Iran wishes to cooperate on security and trade with
China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
and along with Mongolia and Pakistan, has applied for a full membership of the…

Shanghai Cooperation Organisation

India too is a potential future member and holds an observer status since 2005.
In February 2007, Iran finalised a deal to supply natural gas to India and Pakistan.

America is desperate for an ally against this emerging group of tomorrow’s superpowers.
America need a “partner” in crime, against humanity and sovereign states.
America needs a donkey in south asia to do their unpleasant work.
The Hyde Act is about “strategic partnership”.

On September 03, 2005,
India had committed support for Iran’s peaceful nuclear programme

But twice since then India voted against Iran to support an International Atomic Energy Agency resolution on Iran’s domestic nuclear programme.

The reason being the carrot dangling and arm twisting over the “123 agreement”.
India’s anti-Iran votes were coerced, says former US official

Stephen G. Rademaker,
who quit his job as assistant secretary for non-proliferation and International Security at the US State Department last December, in a talk here on ‘Iran, North Korea and the future of the NPT’ at India’s Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses (IDSA)’ said the July 2005 nuclear agreement had helped bring about a big change in India’s attitude towards ‘non-proliferation’.

“The best illustration of this is the two votes India cast against Iran at the IAEA,” he said, adding: “I am the first person to admit that the votes were coerced.”

It is the same carrot and arm-twisting politics continuing with the “Henry Hyde’s Act”.
These are the four paragraphs that refers to Iran in this document.

‘‘Henry J. Hyde’s:

United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006’’.

“An Act to exempt from certain requirements of the (US) Atomic Energy Act of 1954
a proposed nuclear agreement for cooperation with India.”

SEC. 102. SENSE OF CONGRESS
It is the sense of Congress that—

(6) it is in the interest of the United States to enter into an agreement for nuclear cooperation arranged pursuant to section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2153) with a country that has never been a State Party to the NPT if—

(D) such cooperation will induce the country to give greater political and material support to the achievement of United States global and regional non-proliferation objectives, especially with respect to dissuading, isolating, and, if necessary, sanctioning and containing states that sponsor terrorism and terrorist groups that are seeking to acquire a nuclear weapons capability or other weapons of mass destruction capability and the means to deliver such weapons;

SEC. 103. STATEMENTS OF POLICY. (b) WITH RESPECT TO SOUTH ASIA.—

(4) Secure India’s full and active participation in United States efforts to dissuade, isolate, and, if necessary, sanction and contain Iran for its efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, including a nuclear weapons capability and the capability to enrich uranium or reprocess nuclear fuel, and the means to deliver weapons of mass destruction.

SEC. 104. WAIVER AUTHORITY AND CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL. (c) SUBMISSION TO CONGRESS.—

(2) INFORMATION TO BE INCLUDED.—
A description and assessment of the specific measures that India has taken to fully and actively participate in United States and international efforts to dissuade, isolate, and, if necessary, sanction and contain Iran for its efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, including a nuclear weapons capability and the capability to enrich uranium or reprocess nuclear fuel and the means to deliver weapons of mass destruction.

(g) REPORTING TO CONGRESS.—

(2) IMPLEMENTATION AND COMPLIANCE REPORT
(E)(i) an assessment of whether India is fully and actively participating in United States and international efforts to dissuade, isolate, and, if necessary, sanction and contain Iran for its efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, including a nuclear weapons capability (including the capability to enrich uranium or reprocess nuclear fuel), and the means to deliver weapons of mass destruction, including a description of the specific measures that India has taken in this regard; and

(ii) if India is not assessed to be fully and actively participating in such efforts, a description of—
(I) the measures the United States Government has taken to secure India’s full and active participation in such efforts;
(II) the responses of the Government of India to such measures; and
(III) the measures the United States Government plans to take in the coming year to secure India’s full and active participation;

This is the primary reason for this deal, groundwork towards invading Iran.
This is America’s politics of blatant double standards.

USA is already 6th August, dictating to India to diminish ties with Tehran, calling Iran
an NPT signatory, a “nuclear outlaw” and a “recalcitrant and difficult” country.

In their bid to prise India away from a probable alliance with Iran, China and Russia
and to force India to join in ‘isolating’ Iran or join hands in another illegal war,
they are tempting us with a pseudo status as a nuclear weapon state.

And nothing else.

I do not understand why there is a denial of this link between the Hyde’s Act and Iran. I wish our expert observers were brave (and honest) enough to acknowledge it.

There are some who wants Indians to blindly sign up to the deal, and are
conveniently using the “left”s’ ideologies to scare us with the threat of China.
To divert attention from the unpleasant issues by blaming it all on the “commies”.

This government did not refuse to form a coalition with the “Lefts” to get into power,
for the “left-haters” it is the time of reckoning, the time to pay the price
for politics of convenience.

Tough.

AmericaIndiaIranShanghai Cooperation OrganisationHyde’s Act

After 60 years of independance
and one border war with China (1962),
and after three wars (1947, 1965, 1971) with Pakistan
and two major incursion battles (Siachen 1984, Kargil 1991) later,

suddenly America is now India’s friend.

For America is bending rules to supply N-fuel to India.

Reading many articles and commenting on three blogs later,
Ambassador Ronnen Sen….
The Indo-US Nuclear Deal: criticism addressed
123 Nuclear Deal, the Left and yet another mess, I feel uneasy.

I accept, India needs “energy” and lots of it, to develop, but so does every nation.
I also accept Nuclear Energy is “green” leaving zero carbon footprints.

To decide if N-Energy is the best option for India’s future is for the experts.
But as citizens of a democratic country, we all have a say in how India proceeds.

India has two nuclear states as neighbours, with unresolved border issues and threats.
India, a sovereign state, has every right to defend her border in the best possible way.
Jawaharlal Nehru, is quoted to have said, in 1946,

As long as the world is constituted as it is, every country will have to devise and use the latest devices for its protection. I have no doubt India will develop her scientific researches and I hope Indian scientists will use the atomic force for constructive purposes. But if India is threatened, she will inevitably try to defend herself by all means at her disposal.

How can we have forgotten within forty years, that in the 1971 War,
Nixon sent military supplies to Pakistan through Jordan and Iran! in direct violation of the US Congress-imposed sanctions on Pakistan, and encouraged China to increase its arms supplies to Pakistan.

An aware America that stayed silent when China helped Pakistan to build N-weapons.

Without our own nuclear arsenal
I stay convinced the South Asian geography today would well have been very different.

I have so far learnt, this is the nuclear world order, as it stands today:

The Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)

was opened for signature in 1968, and has been in force since 1970.
A total of 190 parties have joined the Treaty so far, including the five nuclear-weapon States

Status: Entered into force on 5 March 1970. On 11 May 1995, it was decided that the Treaty should continue in force indefinitely.

It is a multilateral treaty with the objective to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to try to achieve nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament.

The (NPT) granted non-nuclear-weapon states access to nuclear materials and technology for peaceful purposes as long as they committed not to develop nuclear weapons.

The Treaty also represents the ONLY binding commitment by the nuclear-weapon States at the multilateral level to the goal of nuclear disarmament.

To ensure the goal of non-proliferation and to build confidence between States parties, the Treaty created a safeguards system under the responsibility of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The International Atomic Energy Agency.

was set up in 1957, the Agency works with its 144 Member States (03/2007) and multiple partners worldwide to promote safe, secure and peaceful nuclear technologies.
It is an independent international organization regulated by a special agreement by the UN. The IAEA reports annually to the UN General Assembly and, when appropriate, to the Security Council regarding all matters relating to international peace and security.

India has been a member since 1957.

The Nuclear Exporters Committee

Knowing that materials and technologies used in peaceful nuclear programs could also be used to develop weapons, several NPT tried to clarify in relation to the treaty under what conditions and what specific equipment and materials and could be shared with non-nuclear-weapon states.

They formed the Zangger Committee in 1971 to require states outside the NPT to institute IAEA safeguards before being allowed imports of certain items that could be directly used to pursue nuclear weapons. These items were collectively referred to as the “Trigger List.”

It was India’s explosion of a nuclear device in 1974, that reconfirmed the fact that nuclear materials and technologies acquired for peaceful purposes could be diverted to build weapons. In response to India’s action, several Zangger Committee members joined up with France to establish the NSG to further regulate nuclear-related exports.

The NSG added technologies for control to the original Zangger Committee’s “Trigger List.” This became Part I of the NSG Guidelines.

NSG members also agreed to apply their trade restrictions to all states, not just those outside the NPT.

The Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG)

The 45 nations of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) that have voluntarily agreed to coordinate their export controls governing transfers of civilian nuclear material and nuclear-related equipment and technology to non-nuclear-weapon states.

Members can be any state that conducts exports appearing on the Guidelines may apply for NSG membership.

They are evaluated on their proliferation record, and adherence to international nonproliferation treaties and agreements, and national export controls.

There are several countries with nuclear programs outside the NSG, most notably India, Israel, Pakistan, and North Korea.

The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)

was adopted on 10 September 1996 by the United Nations General Assembly and opened for signature on 24 September 1996.

Status: Not yet in force, it will enter into force after 44 States have ratified it.

This treaty would ban the signatory states
1. undertaking “any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion, and to prohibit and prevent any such nuclear explosion at any place under its jurisdiction or control” 2. to “refrain from causing, encouraging, or in any way participating in the carrying out of any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion”.

The US Atomic Energy Act of 1954

America’s export of nuclear material is governed by this US Federal law, of which the Section 123: Co-operation With Other Nations in its present form stops US from negotiating this trade deal with India.

The United States is now willing to provide India access to civilian nuclear technology through the United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act 2006.

This is despite India not being a signatory to either the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) or the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), this prohibits the sale of any form of nuclear material or know how to India by any country of the NSG.

So why should I welcome this new found friendship with open arms?

Is it ONLY in the name of improved trade
or continuous supply of cheap and or clean energy?
Surely that would be better served by signing upto the NPT. Trade with anyone.

If YES, then I ask are we still to continue our military nuclear programme?
And if YES are we promising never to divert even a ‘grain’ of material imported to it?

If NO, is America, a member of NPT, IAEA and NSG knowingly flounting all the rules.

My priorities can only lie in the best interests of
India
the present World order,
the earth and her environment, … but it should not be with America’s.

What is the motive? Where is the catch?
I ask why is America suddenly so friendly and generous? I still feel uneasy.

AmericaIndiaNuclear BombtradeNon N-proliferation

'Little Boy' had killed mercilessly, 'Fat Man' was patiently waiting in the wings.
6th August was Hiroshima, but
there had to be more,
so on the 9th it was
Nagasaki.

Nagasaki
was deeply unfortunate,
for it wasn't the primary target, it was Kokura
and 9th was not the day planned, it was to be 11th August.
Forecasts of bad weather, made the Americans preponed their second bomb run.

Japan was still in a shock at the devastation of Hiroshima, was just three days
adequate to judge the outcome of the first bombing? Why not two weeks?
The Allied invasion was not due for another three months, till November.
Japan didn't have any WMD that they could deploy in hours or days.
So what was the Americans' desperate hurry for the second bomb?
The only logical conclusion is the Russian invasion of Japan.

After Hiroshima, the Americans dropped warning leaflets.
These leaflets never reached Nagasaki before the bomb hit the unsuspecting victims.

[digg=http://digg.com/political_opinion/today_62_years_ago_Nagasaki]
On the morning of August 9, the U.S. B-29 Superfortress Bockscar
was given the license to kill, in their bomb bay, they carried Fat Man,
Kokura was their primary target not Nagasaki; it was the secondary target.

Fatman was even bigger and more powerful
4.6 tons in weight, packing the destruction power of 21 thousand tons of TNT.

On reaching Kokura, Bockscar found it obscured by clouds, after
three unsuccessful attempts on Kokura they conferred with weaponeer Cmdr Ashworth.
and agreed to strike the secondary target; from that moment,
Nagasaki was doomed to die.

Aiming through a brief cloud opening
the intended aiming point was missed by 3km (2 miles).
Nagasaki’s hilly terrain resulted in lower overall casualties than in flat Hiroshima.

This time the mushroom cloud reached 18km (11m).

The radius of total destruction was about 1.6 km (1 mile),
followed by fires across the northern portion of the city to 3.2 km (2 miles)
40,000 people were killed outright and about 25,000 were injured.
Thousands more were to die later from related injuries, and radiation sickness.

Some survivors from Hiroshima had gone to Nagasaki and got bombed again.

The myth about the Japanese Surrender

Many who argue in favour of the slaughter of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
will say that the bombings ended the war months sooner and saved many lives.
That there would have been casualties on both sides in the planned invasion of Japan.

The chronology of events: contradicts that argument.

July 17th: Potsdam Conference:
The mighty victors, USA, Britain and Russia met to carve the spoils.
To decide on a policy for the occupation of Germany and other countries after the war.

July 26th: Potsdam declaration:
United States, Britain and China: Set conditions on Japan for surrender.

“The might that now converges on Japan is immeasurably greater than that which, when applied to the resisting Nazis, necessarily laid waste to the lands, the industry and the method of life of the whole German people”

“We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.”

July 27th: the Japanese government considered how to respond to the Declaration…
the cabinet was persuaded not reject until (he) could get a reaction from the Soviets.

July 30th: Ambassador Sato wrote that Stalin was probably talking to the Western Allies about his dealings with Japan.

“There is no alternative but immediate unconditional surrender if we are to prevent Russia’s participation in the war. …

August 6th: Hiroshima destroyed.

(August 8th):
August 9th 0400 hrs Japan – Operation August Storm
Russia broke neutrality pact with Japan and declared war and invaded Manchuria.
1102 hrs – Nagasaki destroyed.

August 14th: Japan surrendered.

Bombings were unnecessary on military grounds:
General Dwight D. Eisenhower in his memoir The White House Years:

“In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.”

Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet

“The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.”

Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman

“The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.”

Japan’s decision to surrender was made after the scale of
the Soviet attack on Manchuria, Sakhalin, and the Kuril Islands was known.
Had the war continued, the Russians had plans to invade Hokkaidō
well before the (November) Allied invasion of Kyushu.

Kuznick and Mark Selden, from Cornell University New York, US
at a Greenpeace meeting in London on 6th August 2005:

New studies of the US, Japanese and Soviet diplomatic archives suggest that Truman’s main motive was to limit Soviet expansion in Asia,….
Japan surrendered because the Soviet Union began an invasion a few days after the Hiroshima bombing, not because of the atomic bombs themselves …
account by Walter Brown, assistant to then-US secretary of state James Byrnes, Truman agreed at a meeting three days before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima that Japan was “looking for peace”. Truman was told by his army generals, Douglas Macarthur and Dwight Eisenhower, and his naval chief of staff, William Leahy, that there was no military need to use the bomb…”Impressing Russia was more important than ending the war in Japan,” …
Truman was also worried that he would be accused of wasting money on the Manhattan Project to build the first nuclear bombs, if the bomb was not used,

62 years ago,
America wanted to occupy Japan, and not let the Russians go in there first.
And if they couldn’t, they would “utterly destruct” Japan, than let Russians take it.

They dropped weapons aimed at mass destructions, at least 200,000 civilians died.
That was not collateral damage, that was deliberately planned killing. 1st degree murder.

What America wants,
they will break all international laws and kill to occupy and plunder.
But in a true cowardly manner only against the weak, non nuclear states.
It threatens to blow any country that wants to develop N-weapons,
but turned a blind eye to their allies, Pakistan and Israel.

62 years after,
America wants to invade and occupy Iran
They want complete control over middle east,
they want to plunder oil and natural gas around the Persian gulf,
and they want to prevent Iran shifting to Euro as their petro currency.

History tells us what America is capable of, let us not get fooled again.

62 years later, I sincerely hope it is not Iran..

AmericaWWIIHistoryAtomic BombNagasakiWar crime

[continuing from - Hiroshima ...

At Hiroshima,
Japan had learnt of America's destructive powers.
A city with a third of its population had been vapourised,
while another third were injuried, burnt and were soon to die.

One Hiroshima was not going to win a War, if the sole aim of America
was to terrify the people of Japan, they had certainly achieved it.

Then why did they plan to drop further bombs?
Did they really believe that another Hiroshima was necessary?
And another, and another, and another, and another, and another...
till Japan surrendered or till Japan ceased to exist?

For there is documentary evidence that the intentions were
to drop more atomic bombs as soon as other bombs were made ready for use.

AFTER Hiroshima,
warning leaflets had been dropped
on cities in Japan warning civilians about further attacks with the atomic bomb.

These were the words on the leaflets dropped on August 6, 1945
Source: Harry S. Truman Library,
Miscellaneous historical document file, no. 258.

Leaflet No: 1

TO THE JAPANESE PEOPLE:

America asks that you take immediate heed of what we say on this leaflet.

We are in possession of the most destructive explosive ever devised by man. A single one of our newly developed atomic bombs is actually the equivalent in explosive power to what 2000 of our giant B-29s can carry on a single mission. This awful fact is one for you to ponder and we solemnly assure you it is grimly accurate.

We have just begun to use this weapon against your homeland. If you still have any doubt, make inquiry as to what happened to Hiroshima when just one atomic bomb fell on that city.

Before using this bomb to destroy every resource of the military by which they are prolonging this useless war, we ask that you now petition the Emperor to end the war. Our president has outlined for you the thirteen consequences of an honorable surrender. We urge that you accept these consequences and begin the work of building a new, better and peace-loving Japan.

You should take steps now to cease military resistance. Otherwise, we shall resolutely employ this bomb and all our other superior weapons to promptly and forcefully end the war.

EVACUATE YOUR CITIES.

These warnings never reached the people of Hiroshima, it was never intended to,
to cause maximum shock and awe America deliberately killed civilians without warning.

A new form of warfare, the likes of which were never seen before,
was being used to achieving rapid dominance.

Leaflet No: 2

ATTENTION JAPANESE PEOPLE - EVACUATE YOUR CITIES.

Because your military leaders have rejected the thirteen part surrender declaration, two momentous events have occurred in the last few days.

The Soviet Union, because of this rejection on the part of the military has notified your Ambassador Sato that it has declared war on your nation. Thus, all powerful countries of the world are now at war with you.

Also, because of your leaders' refusal to accept the surrender declaration that would enable Japan to honorably end this useless war, we have employed our atomic bomb.

A single one of our newly developed atomic bombs is actually the equivalent in explosive power to what 2000 of our giant B-29s could have carried on a single mission. Radio Tokyo has told you that with the first use of this weapon of total destruction, Hiroshima was virtually destroyed.

Before we use this bomb again and again to destroy every resource of the military by which they are prolonging this useless war, petition the emperor now to end the war. Our president has outlined for you the thirteen consequences of an honorable surrender. We urge that you accept these consequences and begin the work of building a new, better, and peace-loving Japan.

Act at once or we shall resolutely employ this bomb and all our other superior weapons to promptly and forcefully end the war.

EVACUATE YOUR CITIES.

Operation Downfall,
the allied invasion of Japan wasn't due till November 1945; yet,
after Hiroshima, the Japanese people had been given only two days
to force their rulers to surrender, or they faced certain death by incineration.

These were innocent civilians, being told of a certain and horrifying death,
if their leaders did not comply with the American wishes.
What was the rush to drop the second bomb?

Other than the military uniforms, where is the difference
between the American's terrorising actions on Japanese civilians of 1945
and the two fatwas of Mr Bin Laden of 1996 and 1998?

The United States has defined terrorism under the Federal Criminal Code.

Section 2331. Definitions:
As used in this chapter -
(1) the term "international terrorism" means activities that -
(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life ...;
(B) appear to be intended -
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

In 1945, whatever was the desired outcome,
whatever was the justifications for dropping these bombs,
America had terrorised and killed hundreds and thousands of innocent civilians.
America has done it all before.

Nagasaki

Did not receive any warnings,
Their death sentence had been signed,
62 years ago today, Nagasaki was already
a dead city.....living on borrowed time, borrowed until tomorrow...

AmericaWWIIHistoryAtomic BombHiroshimaWar crime

... continued as - Nagasaki]

[continuation of - today, 62 years ago ...

August 4

this building was a prefectural Industrial Promotion Hall.

Till...

August 5:

23:15:17 GMT; (08:15:17 JST, Hiroshima, Japan; August 6.)

A thumb of a man on an aircraft, well and safely hidden behind clouds
pressed on a button that opened a door to drop destruction; like never seen before.

In an instant
that was just 43 seconds,
a city was gone, totally destroyed; and our world had been changed.
The gates of hell had been opened on earth for us, for the rest of our living history.

That aircraft had dropped a bomb, mere 5 tons of weight,
but packing the devastating power of 15 thousand tons of TNT.
It had been intentionally, brutally set to detonate before hitting ground
for maximum effect, so that no one and nothing could escape in hollows or trenches.

It exploded 580 meters
above the dome of the Industrial Promotion Hall of Hiroshima, Japan.

Raising a mushroom cloud, 8 miles high,
visible to the tailgunner of Enola Gay, the fleeing aircraft from 350 miles away.

The building survived, just by being directly below the 'hypocenter' of the explosion.
But in that same instant, the rest of the city was reduced to rubble.

The radius of total destruction was about 1.6 km (1 mile),
with resulting fires across 11.4 km² (4.4 square miles).
Approximately 69% of the city's buildings were completely destroyed,
and 6.6 percent severely damaged.

It was estimated approximately 70,000 people
were instantaniously vapourised and another 70,000 were injured and burnt.

[an estimated 90,000 was dead within two months,
Unborn babies died or were born with deformities.
and more people continued to die from radiation related illnesses.]

August 6

15:15 GMT
President Truman in his address to his nation:

“Sixteen hours ago an American airplane dropped one bomb on Hiroshima, an important Japanese army base.
That bomb had more power than 20,000 tons of TNT.
… It is an atomic bomb. It is a harnessing of the basic power of the universe… What has been done is the greatest achievement of organized science in history. . . .”

Only a psychopathic murderer
could call such an act as the greatest achievement in the history of science.

While these were the unspoken thoughts of
J. Robert Oppenheimer, the ‘scientist’ who made the atomic bomb possible,

We knew the world would not be the same. A few people laughed, a few people cried, most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita. Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty and to impress him takes on his multi-armed form and says, ‘Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.‘ I suppose we all thought that one way or another.

After Hiroshima, President Truman promised more,

“If they do not now accept our terms,
they may expect a rain of ruin from the air
the likes of which has never been seen on this earth.”

That was just the “Little Boy“, the “Fat Man” was still waiting.
the $2 billion spent in their development had to be justified,
for President Truman, there had to be more,
Europe had inconveniently ended.
and 70,000 was never enough,
there had to be a Nagasaki…

That barbaric act of destruction of civilians of Hiroshima was accepted as legal,
just because the bomb was dropped from a military aircraft,
and by personnel in military uniforms.
Had it been civilian aircrafts
and by persons in civilian clothes,
it would have been “terrorism”, and not war, regardless of the desired outcome.

62 years ago, today, a new era of combat and warfare had been defined.

It was the birth of pre-emptive strikes on a a distant enemy to force a surrender.
America had to occupy Japan, before the Russians walked in, but were scared to invade.

No longer were wars going to be won by courage, bravery or hardships of
the soldiers living in muddy trenches or crawling through minefields,
or charging out in the face of enemy cannons and rifle fire.

Wars were now for cowards,
who have the money and resources to build
weapons that were capable of destroying masses in instants
and dropping them from the safety of distant missile launchers and stealth bombers.
Who promises to use the same bomb on anyone else who dares to develop their own.

The story ain’t over, there was, and is, more to come...

The Genbaku Dome has been preserved as the Hiroshima War Memorial

AmericaWWIIHistoryAtomic BombHiroshimaWar crime

… continued as – after Hiroshima]

August 4

this building was a prefectural Industrial Promotion Hall.

The main story is yet to be written…

… continued as – Hiroshima]