We need to be together in our fight against India's hegemonistic designs
Full Version: Why Isn't China Opposing The Indo-us Nuclear Deal?
The India specific safeguards agreement has been passed by the IAEA. China did not support Pakistan in blocking the Indo-US nuclear deal which grants undue rights to India. Why is China supporting India? Don't they realise that India might produce more nuclear weapons because of the NSG waiver. It is common sense that India's growing nuclear arsenal is aimed at countering China, not Pakistan. Why is China ignoring all this? Has China started to value it's new friendship with India more than it long time-tested friendship with Pakistan? China is said to emerge as India's largest trading partner by the next year. Is China ditching Pakistan coz it values trade with India more than the friendship with Pakistan? Why aren't our Chinese brothers vocal about this?
We need to be together in our fight against India's hegemonistic designs
We need to be together in our fight against India's hegemonistic designs
I get the impression that China wants to stay away from any tussles and rifts in the region until it is definitively the 1000 pound gorilla in this area.
Furthermore, China has more than a parity of nuclear weapons with India so it really isn't worried.
Furthermore, China has more than a parity of nuclear weapons with India so it really isn't worried.
QUOTE(Shoaib Pervez @ Aug 2 2008, 04:03 PM) 
The India specific safeguards agreement has been passed by the IAEA. China did not support Pakistan in blocking the Indo-US nuclear deal which grants undue rights to India. Why is China supporting India? Don't they realise that India might produce more nuclear weapons because of the NSG waiver. It is common sense that India's growing nuclear arsenal is aimed at countering China, not Pakistan. Why is China ignoring all this? Has China started to value it's new friendship with India more than it long time-tested friendship with Pakistan? China is said to emerge as India's largest trading partner by the next year. Is China ditching Pakistan coz it values trade with India more than the friendship with Pakistan? Why aren't our Chinese brothers vocal about this?
We need to be together in our fight against India's hegemonistic designs
We need to be together in our fight against India's hegemonistic designs
Did Pakistan try to block the deal ?
http://thenews.jang.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=16264
QUOTE
Pak N-diplomacy comes to a full stop
Monday, July 28, 2008
By Shireen M Mazari
ISLAMABAD: The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) has finally sprung into action to counter the Indian efforts to get a country-specific safeguards agreement from the IAEA and then move on to seeking similar concessions from the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group (NSG).
Pakistan has always supported a criteria-based principle for any exception to the nonproliferation norms to be made by the IAEA and the NSG. In this regard, Pakistan had already sent a letter to the IAEA Board of Governors (BoG), which will be taking up the Indian dictated IAEA draft in the coming days, asking for a vote in the BoG on this issue.
There were two reasons behind this move: One, to expose those member states that have been holding forth on nonproliferation but would go along with making an exception to India; and, two, to see how many of Pakistan’s Arab allies, who are presently members of the IAEA Board would vote. The US and India are seeking an agreement by consensus without putting the issue to vote.
In addition to a letter from Pakistan’s ambassador to Austria and the IAEA, as part of the MFA’s strategy on this issue, the foreign secretary also wanted to send a letter to the NSG states asking them to adopt a criteria-based approach for sensitive technology transfers rather than country-based exceptions.
The third leg of the MFA strategy was to send an envoy - preferably a seasoned diplomat - to our ally China to get them to lend support to the Pakistani approach vis-a-vis the IAEA and the NSG.
Unfortunately, as soon as the Pakistani letter was sent to the IAEA BoG, the US got moving and conveyed to Islamabad that Pakistan had already given a commitment, through a previous Foreign Secretary, that it will offer no opposition to the US pursuing India-specific exceptions at the IAEA and the NSG.
As a result the MFA was asked to stop all activities meant to counter India-US moves on safeguards and technology exports at the IAEA and the NSG respectively. The net result has been that all diplomatic efforts by Pakistan have come to a grinding halt and the special envoy’s mission had to be aborted midway.
This despite the fact that many Western IAEA and NSG members are firm adherents to the non-proliferation regime and are uncomfortable with the Indo-US nuclear deal - which is why the US and India do not want to put the safeguards agreement to vote in the IAEA BoG. Incidentally, the halting of the MFA’s diplomacy took place while the foreign secretary was in India for talks.
It is important to remember that Pakistan has been signing the normal non-NPT member states’ Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA, seeking no exit clauses or other exceptions. Interestingly, although the US has consistently and publicly stated that it will not sign a nuclear deal with Pakistan on similar lines to the Indo-US nuclear deal, Pakistan’s new de jure foreign minister has naively sought to declare, like his predecessors, that Pakistan will seek such a deal.
Some outsiders inducted in the Foreign service by the present government have been intervening in foreign policy decisions. At international moots, they check and rewrite all speeches prepared by the MFA. They allegedly informed the foreign secretary that the MAF should stop focusing on China as Pakistan’s major ally because now there was going to be a major reorientation towards the US and India. Perhaps that is why the prime minister has chosen to go to the US before visiting our ally in good times and bad, China. Could that also be the reason for negotiating with the Indian-owned Mittal for the exploitation of Thar coal rather than the Chinese companies with whom Pakistan had been negotiating for the last few years?
Monday, July 28, 2008
By Shireen M Mazari
ISLAMABAD: The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) has finally sprung into action to counter the Indian efforts to get a country-specific safeguards agreement from the IAEA and then move on to seeking similar concessions from the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group (NSG).
Pakistan has always supported a criteria-based principle for any exception to the nonproliferation norms to be made by the IAEA and the NSG. In this regard, Pakistan had already sent a letter to the IAEA Board of Governors (BoG), which will be taking up the Indian dictated IAEA draft in the coming days, asking for a vote in the BoG on this issue.
There were two reasons behind this move: One, to expose those member states that have been holding forth on nonproliferation but would go along with making an exception to India; and, two, to see how many of Pakistan’s Arab allies, who are presently members of the IAEA Board would vote. The US and India are seeking an agreement by consensus without putting the issue to vote.
In addition to a letter from Pakistan’s ambassador to Austria and the IAEA, as part of the MFA’s strategy on this issue, the foreign secretary also wanted to send a letter to the NSG states asking them to adopt a criteria-based approach for sensitive technology transfers rather than country-based exceptions.
The third leg of the MFA strategy was to send an envoy - preferably a seasoned diplomat - to our ally China to get them to lend support to the Pakistani approach vis-a-vis the IAEA and the NSG.
Unfortunately, as soon as the Pakistani letter was sent to the IAEA BoG, the US got moving and conveyed to Islamabad that Pakistan had already given a commitment, through a previous Foreign Secretary, that it will offer no opposition to the US pursuing India-specific exceptions at the IAEA and the NSG.
As a result the MFA was asked to stop all activities meant to counter India-US moves on safeguards and technology exports at the IAEA and the NSG respectively. The net result has been that all diplomatic efforts by Pakistan have come to a grinding halt and the special envoy’s mission had to be aborted midway.
This despite the fact that many Western IAEA and NSG members are firm adherents to the non-proliferation regime and are uncomfortable with the Indo-US nuclear deal - which is why the US and India do not want to put the safeguards agreement to vote in the IAEA BoG. Incidentally, the halting of the MFA’s diplomacy took place while the foreign secretary was in India for talks.
It is important to remember that Pakistan has been signing the normal non-NPT member states’ Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA, seeking no exit clauses or other exceptions. Interestingly, although the US has consistently and publicly stated that it will not sign a nuclear deal with Pakistan on similar lines to the Indo-US nuclear deal, Pakistan’s new de jure foreign minister has naively sought to declare, like his predecessors, that Pakistan will seek such a deal.
Some outsiders inducted in the Foreign service by the present government have been intervening in foreign policy decisions. At international moots, they check and rewrite all speeches prepared by the MFA. They allegedly informed the foreign secretary that the MAF should stop focusing on China as Pakistan’s major ally because now there was going to be a major reorientation towards the US and India. Perhaps that is why the prime minister has chosen to go to the US before visiting our ally in good times and bad, China. Could that also be the reason for negotiating with the Indian-owned Mittal for the exploitation of Thar coal rather than the Chinese companies with whom Pakistan had been negotiating for the last few years?
Why are you asking the world from China, when Pakistan did not block the deal?
Pakistan cannot block the deal. China can. As a member of NSG, which needs consensus, China can veto the deal or delay it for a long time.
india=rubish!!!too.
i dont like india very much.i wanar kill india.
India is an impudent and shameless country
i dont like india very much.i wanar kill india.
India is an impudent and shameless country
Economic potentiality decision words power , Not nuclear weapon
I'm a chinese boy,I study at Peiking University,let me tell you,my brother,why Isn't China Opposing The Indo-us Nuclear Deal?
1st--July 29 in terms of military conflict,India means say "warned Pakistan not to vote against"
2ed--If we are Opposition,India will be Completely antagonistic for us(china and pakistan)
3th--Pakistan today the situation remains unstable
4th--The implementation of the agreement need to complete the three steps:
A.India and the International Atomic Energy Agency nuclear safeguards agreement reached
B.India and nuclear materials Nuclear Suppliers Group identified the supply of raw materials
C.Agreement is approve by U.S. Congress
watching C,let's The decision-making power over to the U.S. decision to.It's a long long time........
china don't want to fall into the trap of the US,becase china need more time to do more important things.....
What is the important thing??????That is you need to imagine----my borther people of Pakistan!!!!
Like I said:
until the early morning failed to India and the United States on civilian nuclear energy cooperation agreement reached unanimously!!!
until the early morning failed to India and the United States on civilian nuclear energy cooperation agreement reached unanimously!!!
US-India deal hits resistance at nuclear supplier talks
VIENNA, Sept 6 (AFP) Sep 06, 2008
US efforts to lift a 34-year-old embargo on nuclear trade with India were adjourned early Saturday after no headway was achieved on nuclear testing, a diplomat said.
US President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice both telephoned counterparts to put pressure on for a deal, diplomats said.
But after nearly 17 hours of negotiations, the Nuclear Suppliers Group meeting broke up with New Zealand, Austria and Ireland holding out against the deal, a diplomat said.
The talks had been meant to last only two days, but secretive 45-member group, which controls the international nuclear trade, said it would hold a third day of talks from 11:00am (0900 GMT) on Saturday.
NSG rules ban nuclear trading with India because it refuses to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty, developed atomic bombs in secret and conducted its first nuclear test in 1974.
The United States wants a special waiver from NSG rules for India, so it can share civilian nuclear technology with India.
The United States argues the deal would bring India into the NPT fold and help combat global warming by allowing India to develop low-polluting nuclear energy.
Critics say the deal undermines international non-proliferation efforts and accuse the nuclear powers of pursuing commercial and political gains.
The main sticking point is possible nuclear testing by India, since New Delhi has not signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
India has said it "remains committed to a voluntary, unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing."
But New Zealand, Ireland and Austria form a hard core of sceptics demanding a stronger commitment, a diplomat said.
"So far, the draft text (of the agreement) is weak, with no real condition or consequence should India test," the diplomat told AFP, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Initially, the Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland had also expressed reservations.
But following intense US pressure, these three have all supported the deal, while Austria, Ireland and New Zealand want further amendments.
Talks were being conducted at presidential and ministerial level, one diplomat said. Another said President Bush and Secretary of State Rice had both been on the phone to the countries concerned, so much so that there was talk of the countries feeling "bullied".
Speaking to reporters after the adjournment, acting US Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security, John Rood, said he was "pleased with the significant progress that we've made throughout the day."
He said an Indian statement underlining its commitment to non-proliferation had "made a substantial impact on the governments of the Nuclear Suppliers Group and that sincerely facilitated the progress that we achieved today."
Rood said he felt "confident" an accord could be reached at the second meeting in two weeks to try to agree a change to its rules, which requires unanimous approval.
India issued a statement insisting it had "a long-standing and steadfast commitment to universal, non-discriminatory and total elimination of nuclear weapons."
"We remain committed to a voluntary, unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing. We do not subscribe to any arms race, including a nuclear arms race," the government statement said.
India had "an impeccable non-proliferation record," the statement said.
It "will not be the source of proliferation of sensitive technologies, including enrichment and reprocessing transfers. We stand for the strengthening of the non-proliferation regime," it added.
The International Atomic Energy Agency approved an India-specific safeguards agreement in August. The NSG represents the next obstacle before the deal can be finally approved by the US Congress.
VIENNA, Sept 6 (AFP) Sep 06, 2008
US efforts to lift a 34-year-old embargo on nuclear trade with India were adjourned early Saturday after no headway was achieved on nuclear testing, a diplomat said.
US President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice both telephoned counterparts to put pressure on for a deal, diplomats said.
But after nearly 17 hours of negotiations, the Nuclear Suppliers Group meeting broke up with New Zealand, Austria and Ireland holding out against the deal, a diplomat said.
The talks had been meant to last only two days, but secretive 45-member group, which controls the international nuclear trade, said it would hold a third day of talks from 11:00am (0900 GMT) on Saturday.
NSG rules ban nuclear trading with India because it refuses to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty, developed atomic bombs in secret and conducted its first nuclear test in 1974.
The United States wants a special waiver from NSG rules for India, so it can share civilian nuclear technology with India.
The United States argues the deal would bring India into the NPT fold and help combat global warming by allowing India to develop low-polluting nuclear energy.
Critics say the deal undermines international non-proliferation efforts and accuse the nuclear powers of pursuing commercial and political gains.
The main sticking point is possible nuclear testing by India, since New Delhi has not signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
India has said it "remains committed to a voluntary, unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing."
But New Zealand, Ireland and Austria form a hard core of sceptics demanding a stronger commitment, a diplomat said.
"So far, the draft text (of the agreement) is weak, with no real condition or consequence should India test," the diplomat told AFP, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Initially, the Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland had also expressed reservations.
But following intense US pressure, these three have all supported the deal, while Austria, Ireland and New Zealand want further amendments.
Talks were being conducted at presidential and ministerial level, one diplomat said. Another said President Bush and Secretary of State Rice had both been on the phone to the countries concerned, so much so that there was talk of the countries feeling "bullied".
Speaking to reporters after the adjournment, acting US Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security, John Rood, said he was "pleased with the significant progress that we've made throughout the day."
He said an Indian statement underlining its commitment to non-proliferation had "made a substantial impact on the governments of the Nuclear Suppliers Group and that sincerely facilitated the progress that we achieved today."
Rood said he felt "confident" an accord could be reached at the second meeting in two weeks to try to agree a change to its rules, which requires unanimous approval.
India issued a statement insisting it had "a long-standing and steadfast commitment to universal, non-discriminatory and total elimination of nuclear weapons."
"We remain committed to a voluntary, unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing. We do not subscribe to any arms race, including a nuclear arms race," the government statement said.
India had "an impeccable non-proliferation record," the statement said.
It "will not be the source of proliferation of sensitive technologies, including enrichment and reprocessing transfers. We stand for the strengthening of the non-proliferation regime," it added.
The International Atomic Energy Agency approved an India-specific safeguards agreement in August. The NSG represents the next obstacle before the deal can be finally approved by the US Congress.
China says it backs India’s nuclear ambitions
Nuclear supplier countries give green light to US-India deal
VIENNA (AFP) — Nuclear supplier nations adopted by consensus here Saturday a US initiative to lift a 34-year-old embargo on nuclear trade with India, the Austrian delegation said.
"After protracted negotiations, the Nuclear Suppliers Group today adopted an exemption for nuclear exports to India," the Austrian foreign ministry said in a statement.
The breakthrough came after around 90 minutes of additional talks on Saturday and was reached when Austria, which said it was one of the last of the 45 NSG member countries to hold out against the deal, secured a formal pledge by India to keep to its non-proliferation commitments and uphold a moratorium on nuclear bomb testing.
Discussions had been going on since Thursday and had broken up shortly before 2:00 am (0000 GMT) on Saturday after the Chinese delegation walked out in support of three countries -- Austria, Ireland and New Zealand -- holding out for a clear-cut commitment on India's part to refrain from nuclear bomb testing.
Washington was keen to get a deal through so that the US Congress could ratify it before it adjourned at the end of September for November elections.
The 2005 US-India deal is one of Bush's key foreign policy initiatives.
NSG rules ban nuclear trading with India because it refuses to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty, developed atomic bombs in secret and conducted its first nuclear test in 1974.
The United States wants a special waiver from NSG rules for India, so it can share civilian nuclear technology with New Delhi.
The United States argues the deal would bring India into the NPT fold and help combat global warming by allowing it to develop low-polluting nuclear energy.
Critics say the deal undermines international non-proliferation efforts and accuse the nuclear powers of pursuing commercial and political gains.
There had been three main sticking points: termination of trade if India tests, no transfer of enrichment and reprocessing technology and an annual review of the agreement.
But the crunch issue appeared to be nuclear testing, since New Delhi has not signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
India has said it "remains committed to a voluntary, unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing."
But New Zealand, Ireland and Austria had been holding out for a stronger commitment.
Nuclear supplier countries give green light to US-India deal
VIENNA (AFP) — Nuclear supplier nations adopted by consensus here Saturday a US initiative to lift a 34-year-old embargo on nuclear trade with India, the Austrian delegation said.
"After protracted negotiations, the Nuclear Suppliers Group today adopted an exemption for nuclear exports to India," the Austrian foreign ministry said in a statement.
The breakthrough came after around 90 minutes of additional talks on Saturday and was reached when Austria, which said it was one of the last of the 45 NSG member countries to hold out against the deal, secured a formal pledge by India to keep to its non-proliferation commitments and uphold a moratorium on nuclear bomb testing.
Discussions had been going on since Thursday and had broken up shortly before 2:00 am (0000 GMT) on Saturday after the Chinese delegation walked out in support of three countries -- Austria, Ireland and New Zealand -- holding out for a clear-cut commitment on India's part to refrain from nuclear bomb testing.
Washington was keen to get a deal through so that the US Congress could ratify it before it adjourned at the end of September for November elections.
The 2005 US-India deal is one of Bush's key foreign policy initiatives.
NSG rules ban nuclear trading with India because it refuses to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty, developed atomic bombs in secret and conducted its first nuclear test in 1974.
The United States wants a special waiver from NSG rules for India, so it can share civilian nuclear technology with New Delhi.
The United States argues the deal would bring India into the NPT fold and help combat global warming by allowing it to develop low-polluting nuclear energy.
Critics say the deal undermines international non-proliferation efforts and accuse the nuclear powers of pursuing commercial and political gains.
There had been three main sticking points: termination of trade if India tests, no transfer of enrichment and reprocessing technology and an annual review of the agreement.
But the crunch issue appeared to be nuclear testing, since New Delhi has not signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
India has said it "remains committed to a voluntary, unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing."
But New Zealand, Ireland and Austria had been holding out for a stronger commitment.
Thank you China for supporting India at this critical juncture. Next, India expects a similar support form China for a permanent seat at the Security Council.
Together we truly can make this an Asian century. 
Together we truly can make this an Asian century.
QUOTE(Zanskar @ Sep 6 2008, 07:58 PM)
China says it backs India’s nuclear ambitions
"China believes all countries have the rights to peaceful use of nuclear energy and conducting related international cooperation based on the precondition of honouring international nuclear non-proliferation obligations,"
"China believes all countries have the rights to peaceful use of nuclear energy and conducting related international cooperation based on the precondition of honouring international nuclear non-proliferation obligations,"
I suppose this also applies to Pakistan, Iran, North Korea and indeed all the nations that need secure, reliable and clean energy?
QUOTE(Zanskar @ Sep 6 2008, 07:26 AM)
Thank you China for supporting India at this critical juncture. Next, India expects a similar support form China for a permanent seat at the Security Council.
Together we truly can make this an Asian century.
Together we truly can make this an Asian century.
Dream on buddy it aint gonna happen.
QUOTE(Daredevil @ Sep 6 2008, 09:35 PM)
Dream on buddy it aint gonna happen.
Well isn't trade between the two countries like $60B a year? Much more than with Pakistan.
QUOTE(Kim Jong-il Hater @ Sep 6 2008, 10:29 PM)
Well isn't trade between the two countries like $60B a year? Much more than with Pakistan.
Yeah so ? This is an on going issue and India is not the only one who wants a permanent seat. Japan, Brazil, the Africans and a couple Europeans they want in too. The big 5 will continue to sweet talk them and give them sympathy but they are not going to share or dilute their own power.
Worse comes to worst the permanent five will weaken UN power as to make it meaningless before sharing it with others. But only as a very last measure after all else fails.
QUOTE(Zanskar @ Sep 6 2008, 06:26 AM)
Thank you China for supporting India at this critical juncture. Next, India expects a similar support form China for a permanent seat at the Security Council.
Together we truly can make this an Asian century.
Together we truly can make this an Asian century.
Honestly, I don't want to say anything about this, I hardly ever talk about India nowadays.
I am also a member of other Chinese forum. Yesterday as the deal went through, suddenly an Indian popped out from nowhere in our forum, and yet we did not even talk or discuss anything about the nuclear deal.
He said to us that China has smarten up not to oppose this deal otherwise India and the West would have granted Tibet independence, and to those puny little countries like switzerland that opposed will be dealt with harshly in the future. I was wtf.
I really want to quote it for you guys to see but the mods have deleted that thread to avoid confrontation.
I did not even bother to reply, I just simply laughed it off, sometimes I cannot really fathom the chest thumping attitude of the Indian netizens, can they just drop it once a while.
it comes down to a simple question.
do you believe that US really wants to see a strong India with the potential to challenge or live outside of American dominance?
many Chinese believe the answer is "no" and therefore don't think US ever planned on delivery on the nuclear deal.
if China negates the deal, as expected by the US, then US successfully cemented hostility between India and China.
if the deal goes through then US will delay its implementation with all kinds of red tape.
so, just enjoy the show, but nothing's gonna happen.
do you believe that US really wants to see a strong India with the potential to challenge or live outside of American dominance?
many Chinese believe the answer is "no" and therefore don't think US ever planned on delivery on the nuclear deal.
if China negates the deal, as expected by the US, then US successfully cemented hostility between India and China.
if the deal goes through then US will delay its implementation with all kinds of red tape.
so, just enjoy the show, but nothing's gonna happen.
QUOTE(harrypotter @ Sep 7 2008, 04:40 AM)
I really want to quote it for you guys to see but the mods have deleted that thread to avoid confrontation.
As usual Chinese are afraid of confrontation with people who have a different opinion. This way they will never learn to argue.
QUOTE(yuebaili3 @ Sep 7 2008, 08:52 PM)
As usual Chinese are afraid of confrontation with people who have a different opinion. This way they will never learn to argue.
Listen smart ass, you've got a lot to learn from the Chinese, not the other way round.
What has Da Liar Lama been teaching you lately?
QUOTE(Zanskar @ Sep 6 2008, 05:58 AM)
China says it backs India’s nuclear ambitions
Nuclear supplier countries give green light to US-India deal
VIENNA (AFP) — Nuclear supplier nations adopted by consensus here Saturday a US initiative to lift a 34-year-old embargo on nuclear trade with India, the Austrian delegation said.
"After protracted negotiations, the Nuclear Suppliers Group today adopted an exemption for nuclear exports to India," the Austrian foreign ministry said in a statement.
The breakthrough came after around 90 minutes of additional talks on Saturday and was reached when Austria, which said it was one of the last of the 45 NSG member countries to hold out against the deal, secured a formal pledge by India to keep to its non-proliferation commitments and uphold a moratorium on nuclear bomb testing.
Discussions had been going on since Thursday and had broken up shortly before 2:00 am (0000 GMT) on Saturday after the Chinese delegation walked out in support of three countries -- Austria, Ireland and New Zealand -- holding out for a clear-cut commitment on India's part to refrain from nuclear bomb testing.
Washington was keen to get a deal through so that the US Congress could ratify it before it adjourned at the end of September for November elections.
The 2005 US-India deal is one of Bush's key foreign policy initiatives.
NSG rules ban nuclear trading with India because it refuses to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty, developed atomic bombs in secret and conducted its first nuclear test in 1974.
The United States wants a special waiver from NSG rules for India, so it can share civilian nuclear technology with New Delhi.
The United States argues the deal would bring India into the NPT fold and help combat global warming by allowing it to develop low-polluting nuclear energy.
Critics say the deal undermines international non-proliferation efforts and accuse the nuclear powers of pursuing commercial and political gains.
There had been three main sticking points: termination of trade if India tests, no transfer of enrichment and reprocessing technology and an annual review of the agreement.
But the crunch issue appeared to be nuclear testing, since New Delhi has not signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
India has said it "remains committed to a voluntary, unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing."
But New Zealand, Ireland and Austria had been holding out for a stronger commitment.
Nuclear supplier countries give green light to US-India deal
VIENNA (AFP) — Nuclear supplier nations adopted by consensus here Saturday a US initiative to lift a 34-year-old embargo on nuclear trade with India, the Austrian delegation said.
"After protracted negotiations, the Nuclear Suppliers Group today adopted an exemption for nuclear exports to India," the Austrian foreign ministry said in a statement.
The breakthrough came after around 90 minutes of additional talks on Saturday and was reached when Austria, which said it was one of the last of the 45 NSG member countries to hold out against the deal, secured a formal pledge by India to keep to its non-proliferation commitments and uphold a moratorium on nuclear bomb testing.
Discussions had been going on since Thursday and had broken up shortly before 2:00 am (0000 GMT) on Saturday after the Chinese delegation walked out in support of three countries -- Austria, Ireland and New Zealand -- holding out for a clear-cut commitment on India's part to refrain from nuclear bomb testing.
Washington was keen to get a deal through so that the US Congress could ratify it before it adjourned at the end of September for November elections.
The 2005 US-India deal is one of Bush's key foreign policy initiatives.
NSG rules ban nuclear trading with India because it refuses to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty, developed atomic bombs in secret and conducted its first nuclear test in 1974.
The United States wants a special waiver from NSG rules for India, so it can share civilian nuclear technology with New Delhi.
The United States argues the deal would bring India into the NPT fold and help combat global warming by allowing it to develop low-polluting nuclear energy.
Critics say the deal undermines international non-proliferation efforts and accuse the nuclear powers of pursuing commercial and political gains.
There had been three main sticking points: termination of trade if India tests, no transfer of enrichment and reprocessing technology and an annual review of the agreement.
But the crunch issue appeared to be nuclear testing, since New Delhi has not signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
India has said it "remains committed to a voluntary, unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing."
But New Zealand, Ireland and Austria had been holding out for a stronger commitment.
Sorry to say this, but I suppose that the Indian media did mention something else on the front page news.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NSG_wai...how/3455968.cms
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/B...how/3453198.cms
QUOTE(Daredevil @ Sep 7 2008, 05:30 AM)
Yeah so ? This is an on going issue and India is not the only one who wants a permanent seat. Japan, Brazil, the Africans and a couple Europeans they want in too. The big 5 will continue to sweet talk them and give them sympathy but they are not going to share or dilute their own power.
Worse comes to worst the permanent five will weaken UN power as to make it meaningless before sharing it with others. But only as a very last measure after all else fails.
Worse comes to worst the permanent five will weaken UN power as to make it meaningless before sharing it with others. But only as a very last measure after all else fails.
The UN Security Council is the dumbest thing on the planet. No permanent members.
Pakistan's President-elect Asif Ali Zardari will arrive in China on 17th/Sep, it is said one topic is surely to be brought up on nuclear cooperation between the two countries. Pakistan faces critical power shortages and requests Chinese supply of nuclear fuels.
The US-India nuclear deal may pave the road for such cooperations, China can't keep away from helping a brotherly country for too long.
The US-India nuclear deal may pave the road for such cooperations, China can't keep away from helping a brotherly country for too long.
China is try to growing business. So maybe it is grow that first and help Paksitani also grow business. Nuclear is not need right now.
India miffed at China's dubious role in Vienna
China's apparent reluctance to facilitate an exemption for India at the NSG has ruffled feathers here with the Indian side making its displeasure known through a demarche.
According to sources, a senior government official spoke to the Chinese ambassador in India on Saturday to let the Chinese know that they had not kept their promise of playing a constructive role at the Nuclear Suppliers Group meeting. According to Indian officials, this was necessitated by the dubious role played by Chinese authorities in Vienna on Friday and Saturday.
The Indian side believes that China, in a very subtle manner, egged on smaller countries to sabotage the India-US nuclear deal. "There was a definite attempt to delay the proceedings to another round of talks with full knowledge that any such move would scuttle the deal," said an official.
Finally, as the smaller countries were weaned away one by one, China probably fell in line because it did not want to stand alone in denying India the waiver and also because of the pressure mounted by the US.
While it has been suggested that President George Bush called up his counterpart Hu Jintao, the western media reported that it was actually secretary of state Condoleezza Rice's conversation with Chinese foreign minister Yang Jiechi which did the trick. Jiechi is currently on a three-day visit to India.
Meanwhile, foreign minister Pranab Mukherjee on Sunday ducked queries about whether or not the Indian side would convey its displeasure to Jiechi on Monday. NSA M K Narayanan had said on Saturday that India would convey its displeasure to China.
"I would not like to comment on what role was played by which country. This is their internal matter. Every country has a right to express its sovereign will. So far as Yang's visit to India is concerned, he is our distinguished guest. I welcome him," said Mukherjee, who will have talks with his Chinese counterpart on Monday.
Reporting the NSG waiver, ‘People’s Daily’ said that Cheng Jingyem, head of the Chinese delegation, pointed out that it was Beijing’s hope that the decision made by the NSG would stand the test of time and contribute to the goal of nuclear non-proliferation and peaceful use of atomic power.
"It is also China's hope that NSG will equally address the aspirations of all parties for the peaceful use of nuclear power while adhering to the nuclear non-proliferation mechanism," the daily said, in what is a likely reference to Pakistan, which also has a nuclear weapons programme.
The reference is typical of Chinese positioning as it sees Pakistan as a counter to India and in talking of non-proliferation, blithely ignores its own record in supplying critical segments of Islamabad's programme and its hand in proliferating missile technology to the rogue state of North Korea.
China's apparent reluctance to facilitate an exemption for India at the NSG has ruffled feathers here with the Indian side making its displeasure known through a demarche.
According to sources, a senior government official spoke to the Chinese ambassador in India on Saturday to let the Chinese know that they had not kept their promise of playing a constructive role at the Nuclear Suppliers Group meeting. According to Indian officials, this was necessitated by the dubious role played by Chinese authorities in Vienna on Friday and Saturday.
The Indian side believes that China, in a very subtle manner, egged on smaller countries to sabotage the India-US nuclear deal. "There was a definite attempt to delay the proceedings to another round of talks with full knowledge that any such move would scuttle the deal," said an official.
Finally, as the smaller countries were weaned away one by one, China probably fell in line because it did not want to stand alone in denying India the waiver and also because of the pressure mounted by the US.
While it has been suggested that President George Bush called up his counterpart Hu Jintao, the western media reported that it was actually secretary of state Condoleezza Rice's conversation with Chinese foreign minister Yang Jiechi which did the trick. Jiechi is currently on a three-day visit to India.
Meanwhile, foreign minister Pranab Mukherjee on Sunday ducked queries about whether or not the Indian side would convey its displeasure to Jiechi on Monday. NSA M K Narayanan had said on Saturday that India would convey its displeasure to China.
"I would not like to comment on what role was played by which country. This is their internal matter. Every country has a right to express its sovereign will. So far as Yang's visit to India is concerned, he is our distinguished guest. I welcome him," said Mukherjee, who will have talks with his Chinese counterpart on Monday.
Reporting the NSG waiver, ‘People’s Daily’ said that Cheng Jingyem, head of the Chinese delegation, pointed out that it was Beijing’s hope that the decision made by the NSG would stand the test of time and contribute to the goal of nuclear non-proliferation and peaceful use of atomic power.
"It is also China's hope that NSG will equally address the aspirations of all parties for the peaceful use of nuclear power while adhering to the nuclear non-proliferation mechanism," the daily said, in what is a likely reference to Pakistan, which also has a nuclear weapons programme.
The reference is typical of Chinese positioning as it sees Pakistan as a counter to India and in talking of non-proliferation, blithely ignores its own record in supplying critical segments of Islamabad's programme and its hand in proliferating missile technology to the rogue state of North Korea.
There are few good reasons why China needed not to voice opposition:
(1) It’s a deal between US & India. China’s voice wouldn’t & couldn’t be any consideration of both nations involved, but it would only be a sign of concerned.
(2) The bottom line of this deal is to show off the alliance between US & India, a move to add some pressure on other nations, (not necessary China, also Russia, but definitely not indented for Pakistan). The deal contented not much of material benefit for India. The nature of US diplomacy towards India is very cautious, & to supplying an immature power with advance military nuclear technologies is just too risky. This deal is no big deal.
(3) This deal will damage India-Russia relationship, & it makes India an untrustworthy ally of Russia. China will benefit.
(4) The number one US concerned nation is Russia, Not China. US is using this useless deal to create friction between Russia & India. India is paying a high price for an unnecessary nuclear pack.
Now, I really don’t see any reasons for China to oppose this deal
(1) It’s a deal between US & India. China’s voice wouldn’t & couldn’t be any consideration of both nations involved, but it would only be a sign of concerned.
(2) The bottom line of this deal is to show off the alliance between US & India, a move to add some pressure on other nations, (not necessary China, also Russia, but definitely not indented for Pakistan). The deal contented not much of material benefit for India. The nature of US diplomacy towards India is very cautious, & to supplying an immature power with advance military nuclear technologies is just too risky. This deal is no big deal.
(3) This deal will damage India-Russia relationship, & it makes India an untrustworthy ally of Russia. China will benefit.
(4) The number one US concerned nation is Russia, Not China. US is using this useless deal to create friction between Russia & India. India is paying a high price for an unnecessary nuclear pack.
Now, I really don’t see any reasons for China to oppose this deal
QUOTE(wallsttrip @ Sep 9 2008, 01:26 PM)
There are few good reasons why China needed not to voice opposition:
(1) It’s a deal between US & India. China’s voice wouldn’t & couldn’t be any consideration of both nations involved, but it would only be a sign of concerned.
(2) The bottom line of this deal is to show off the alliance between US & India, a move to add some pressure on other nations, (not necessary China, also Russia, but definitely not indented for Pakistan). The deal contented not much of material benefit for India. The nature of US diplomacy towards India is very cautious, & to supplying an immature power with advance military nuclear technologies is just too risky. This deal is no big deal.
(3) This deal will damage India-Russia relationship, & it makes India an untrustworthy ally of Russia. China will benefit.
(4) The number one US concerned nation is Russia, Not China. US is using this useless deal to create friction between Russia & India. India is paying a high price for an unnecessary nuclear pack.
Now, I really don’t see any reasons for China to oppose this deal
(1) It’s a deal between US & India. China’s voice wouldn’t & couldn’t be any consideration of both nations involved, but it would only be a sign of concerned.
(2) The bottom line of this deal is to show off the alliance between US & India, a move to add some pressure on other nations, (not necessary China, also Russia, but definitely not indented for Pakistan). The deal contented not much of material benefit for India. The nature of US diplomacy towards India is very cautious, & to supplying an immature power with advance military nuclear technologies is just too risky. This deal is no big deal.
(3) This deal will damage India-Russia relationship, & it makes India an untrustworthy ally of Russia. China will benefit.
(4) The number one US concerned nation is Russia, Not China. US is using this useless deal to create friction between Russia & India. India is paying a high price for an unnecessary nuclear pack.
Now, I really don’t see any reasons for China to oppose this deal
Well said.
Now that all "roadblocks" appear to have been removed (except some European governments, Australia and the likes), there is no more excuse left for the US to delay any further the selling of nuke plants to its "friend" in south Asia. At the very least, blaming China as the spolier has became far more difficult.
So, time for the US to step up to the plate and perform its "duty and obligation" as promised. I hope Bhindians fare better with Uncle Sammy than Buddy Russkies.
Anyone in Delhi receive any phone call or IM from Westinghouse yet?
QUOTE(Zanskar @ Sep 6 2008, 05:26 PM)
Thank you China for supporting India at this critical juncture. Next, India expects a similar support form China for a permanent seat at the Security Council.
Together we truly can make this an Asian century.
Together we truly can make this an Asian century.
Keep dreaming bhangee
QUOTE(wallsttrip @ Sep 10 2008, 07:26 AM)
There are few good reasons why China needed not to voice opposition:
(1) It’s a deal between US & India. China’s voice wouldn’t & couldn’t be any consideration of both nations involved, but it would only be a sign of concerned.
(2) The bottom line of this deal is to show off the alliance between US & India, a move to add some pressure on other nations, (not necessary China, also Russia, but definitely not indented for Pakistan). The deal contented not much of material benefit for India. The nature of US diplomacy towards India is very cautious, & to supplying an immature power with advance military nuclear technologies is just too risky. This deal is no big deal.
(3) This deal will damage India-Russia relationship, & it makes India an untrustworthy ally of Russia. China will benefit.
(4) The number one US concerned nation is Russia, Not China. US is using this useless deal to create friction between Russia & India. India is paying a high price for an unnecessary nuclear pack.
Now, I really don’t see any reasons for China to oppose this deal
(1) It’s a deal between US & India. China’s voice wouldn’t & couldn’t be any consideration of both nations involved, but it would only be a sign of concerned.
(2) The bottom line of this deal is to show off the alliance between US & India, a move to add some pressure on other nations, (not necessary China, also Russia, but definitely not indented for Pakistan). The deal contented not much of material benefit for India. The nature of US diplomacy towards India is very cautious, & to supplying an immature power with advance military nuclear technologies is just too risky. This deal is no big deal.
(3) This deal will damage India-Russia relationship, & it makes India an untrustworthy ally of Russia. China will benefit.
(4) The number one US concerned nation is Russia, Not China. US is using this useless deal to create friction between Russia & India. India is paying a high price for an unnecessary nuclear pack.
Now, I really don’t see any reasons for China to oppose this deal
Do you know have any idea of the time frame how long this deal papers were sitting in Indian Parliament? It were not for day or months, it have taken years.
How much this deal has been debated by members of Parliament?
How many amendments have been done, since originally proposed?
How much and to what extend India has got its way?
Do you think India trust US?
Brother you have no idea of how this relationship between India and US seen by Indian, they are not walking blind, every step is measured and carefully studied, in this particular deal every comma and full stops are carefully understood and where not accepted India had opposed and US has amended.
And finally please don’t understand estimate Russian lobby in India.
QUOTE(Jag @ Sep 9 2008, 08:00 PM)
Do you know have any idea of the time frame how long this deal papers were sitting in Indian Parliament? It were not for day or months, it have taken years.
How much this deal has been debated by members of Parliament?
How many amendments have been done, since originally proposed?
How much and to what extend India has got its way?
Do you think India trust US?
Brother you have no idea of how this relationship between India and US seen by Indian, they are not walking blind, every step is measured and carefully studied, in this particular deal every comma and full stops are carefully understood and where not accepted India had opposed and US has amended.
And finally please don’t understand estimate Russian lobby in India.
How much this deal has been debated by members of Parliament?
How many amendments have been done, since originally proposed?
How much and to what extend India has got its way?
Do you think India trust US?
Brother you have no idea of how this relationship between India and US seen by Indian, they are not walking blind, every step is measured and carefully studied, in this particular deal every comma and full stops are carefully understood and where not accepted India had opposed and US has amended.
And finally please don’t understand estimate Russian lobby in India.
Dear Indian Friend, I don't know much about India and how it works. But if it takes 5 years to build a simple flyover then I can see how fast things work there.
QUOTE(rott @ Sep 13 2008, 06:58 AM)
Dear Indian Friend, I don't know much about India and how it works. But if it takes 5 years to build a simple flyover then I can see how fast things work there.
Yes I will agree, it takes ages, decisions are taken reasonably fast, but to action it, it can takes years.
In Demo-crazy things work very different, they have to take too many into confidence, people within there own party, oppositions, leader at other various level and then finally the people.
In China, Party decide and actions it, how much opposition they get? What is the people’s say? If you ask me, at times its really great, important things can be worked out faster.
QUOTE(Jag @ Sep 14 2008, 06:52 PM)
Yes I will agree, it takes ages, decisions are taken reasonably fast, but to action it, it can takes years.
In Demo-crazy things work very different, they have to take too many into confidence, people within there own party, oppositions, leader at other various level and then finally the people.
In China, Party decide and actions it, how much opposition they get? What is the people’s say? If you ask me, at times its really great, important things can be worked out faster.
In Demo-crazy things work very different, they have to take too many into confidence, people within there own party, oppositions, leader at other various level and then finally the people.
In China, Party decide and actions it, how much opposition they get? What is the people’s say? If you ask me, at times its really great, important things can be worked out faster.
Democracy in India is like the Afghan 'government' in Afghanistan. Just a facade.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.