House clears Nuclear Bill 359-68
- Thread starter kams
- Start date
Schumacher
New Member
We know what all these will lead to, don't we ? With this new bill, I think the US will have a tougher time asking Pakistan for restraint in its nuke programme.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/print?id=2230915
ABC News
Pakistan nuclear expansion raises US concerns
Reuters
WASHINGTON - Pakistan is building a new nuclear reactor that could produce enough plutonium for 40 to 50 nuclear weapons a year in what would be a major expansion of its nuclear program and could prompt an intensified arms race in South Asia, a report said Monday.
But U.S. officials and congressional aides, who confirmed the Pakistani plan, said it was unlikely to derail a nuclear cooperation accord with India or the sale of U.S.-made F-16 jets to Islamabad.
News of the planned new Pakistani facility was confirmed as the U.S. Congress faced targets for action this week on both an Indian cooperation accord and the F-16s deal.
"We have been aware of these plans, and we discourage any use of that facility for military purposes such as weapons development," White House spokesman Tony Snow told reporters.
He said the administration "discourage(s) expansion and modernization of nuclear weapons programs, both of India and Pakistan," nuclear rivals who refused to sign the nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.
While U.S. officials knew about the reactor project, congressional aides said Congress was largely unaware until a report in the Washington Post on Monday citing an analysis of satellite photos and other data by the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security.
The analysis concluded Pakistan was building a second larger heavy water reactor at its Khushab complex that could produce enough plutonium for 40 to 50 nuclear weapons a year.
Construction apparently began sometime after March 2000. But the analysis said Pakistan did not appear to be hastening completion, possibly due to shortages of reactor components or weapons production infrastructure.
The administration preferred to keep the project quiet because public disclosure "probably will aggravate concerns in India" as well as on Capitol Hill, one U.S. official said.
Congress this week faces a deadline for acting if it wants to block administration plans to sell Pakistan up to 36 F-16C/D Block 50/52 Falcon fighters built by Lockheed Martin Corp. in a deal potentially worth up to $5 billion.
Some lawmakers are concerned about Pakistan's past nuclear proliferation record and fear the warplane technology could be leaked to China, Pakistan's close ally.
Congress could block the sale by enacting a resolution of disapproval in both houses within 30 days of the June 28 notification date, but such action is rare.
But to survive a presidential veto, the legislation would have to pass both houses with a two-thirds majority.
"The reality ...is that it's very difficult to pass a resolution of disapproval," said Rachel Stohl of the Center for Defense Information.
Added a congressional aide: "There should be no effect on the sale of F-16s (because of the new reactor). So far there seem to be no major obstacles to the sale.
The U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday is to take the first of two key votes on the U.S.-India nuclear deal, which would permit sales of American nuclear fuel and reactors to New Delhi for the first time in 30 years. U.S. officials and congressional aides expect the deal to be approved.
However, Democratic Rep. Edward Markey, an administration critic, said: "The nuclear arms race in South Asia is about to ignite, and ... the Bush Administration is throwing fuel on the fire. If either India or Pakistan starts increasing its nuclear arsenal, the other side will respond in kind; and the Bush Administration's proposed nuclear deal with India is making that much more likely."
He and other lawmakers accused the State Department of withholding until after the vote an embarrassing report which will show Indian entities have sold or received weapons of mass destruction technology from Iran or Syria. A department spokesman said the report would be out "shortly."
(additional reporting by Steve Holland))
Copyright 2006 Reuters News Service. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Copyright © 2006 ABC News Internet Ventures
http://abcnews.go.com/US/print?id=2230915
ABC News
Pakistan nuclear expansion raises US concerns
Reuters
WASHINGTON - Pakistan is building a new nuclear reactor that could produce enough plutonium for 40 to 50 nuclear weapons a year in what would be a major expansion of its nuclear program and could prompt an intensified arms race in South Asia, a report said Monday.
But U.S. officials and congressional aides, who confirmed the Pakistani plan, said it was unlikely to derail a nuclear cooperation accord with India or the sale of U.S.-made F-16 jets to Islamabad.
News of the planned new Pakistani facility was confirmed as the U.S. Congress faced targets for action this week on both an Indian cooperation accord and the F-16s deal.
"We have been aware of these plans, and we discourage any use of that facility for military purposes such as weapons development," White House spokesman Tony Snow told reporters.
He said the administration "discourage(s) expansion and modernization of nuclear weapons programs, both of India and Pakistan," nuclear rivals who refused to sign the nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.
While U.S. officials knew about the reactor project, congressional aides said Congress was largely unaware until a report in the Washington Post on Monday citing an analysis of satellite photos and other data by the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security.
The analysis concluded Pakistan was building a second larger heavy water reactor at its Khushab complex that could produce enough plutonium for 40 to 50 nuclear weapons a year.
Construction apparently began sometime after March 2000. But the analysis said Pakistan did not appear to be hastening completion, possibly due to shortages of reactor components or weapons production infrastructure.
The administration preferred to keep the project quiet because public disclosure "probably will aggravate concerns in India" as well as on Capitol Hill, one U.S. official said.
Congress this week faces a deadline for acting if it wants to block administration plans to sell Pakistan up to 36 F-16C/D Block 50/52 Falcon fighters built by Lockheed Martin Corp. in a deal potentially worth up to $5 billion.
Some lawmakers are concerned about Pakistan's past nuclear proliferation record and fear the warplane technology could be leaked to China, Pakistan's close ally.
Congress could block the sale by enacting a resolution of disapproval in both houses within 30 days of the June 28 notification date, but such action is rare.
But to survive a presidential veto, the legislation would have to pass both houses with a two-thirds majority.
"The reality ...is that it's very difficult to pass a resolution of disapproval," said Rachel Stohl of the Center for Defense Information.
Added a congressional aide: "There should be no effect on the sale of F-16s (because of the new reactor). So far there seem to be no major obstacles to the sale.
The U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday is to take the first of two key votes on the U.S.-India nuclear deal, which would permit sales of American nuclear fuel and reactors to New Delhi for the first time in 30 years. U.S. officials and congressional aides expect the deal to be approved.
However, Democratic Rep. Edward Markey, an administration critic, said: "The nuclear arms race in South Asia is about to ignite, and ... the Bush Administration is throwing fuel on the fire. If either India or Pakistan starts increasing its nuclear arsenal, the other side will respond in kind; and the Bush Administration's proposed nuclear deal with India is making that much more likely."
He and other lawmakers accused the State Department of withholding until after the vote an embarrassing report which will show Indian entities have sold or received weapons of mass destruction technology from Iran or Syria. A department spokesman said the report would be out "shortly."
(additional reporting by Steve Holland))
Copyright 2006 Reuters News Service. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Copyright © 2006 ABC News Internet Ventures
Well though the US House has cleared the Bill, in India, there is much resistance in the Indian Parliament. This is evident from the extensive debate that is being held in the Parliament over the last two days. There are allegations of shifting of goal posts over the 18 July 2005 agreements. There needs to be I believe a meeting of minds of legislatures in democracies than just governments, this alone will bring about a smooth legislation both in US as well as in India. In fact while the US system incorporates the Congress in its deliberations, the Indian system is much more complicated and the government can enter into negotations as well as finalzie the agreement without any consensus in the house. This lacunae needs to be overcome by achieving greater consensus in the parliament in INdia. thanks. rahul b
radiosilence
jints
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/28/o...n/Editorials and Op-Ed/Editorials&oref=slogin
what a surprise congress sold out to lobbist again!
Editorial
Still a Bad Deal
Published: July 28, 2006
Many on Capitol Hill complained last year that the Bush administration got taken to the cleaners when it negotiated a nuclear cooperation deal with India. But with so much pro-India lobbying money sloshing around up there, hopes are fast fading that Congress will do anything to fix it.
The agreement will allow the United States to sell civilian nuclear technology and fuel to India for the first time since the mid-1970’s, when India diverted civil technology to a secret weapons program. Bringing the world’s most populous democracy — and 12th-largest economy — in from the nuclear cold isn’t necessarily a bad idea. The problem is that the United States got very little for it. No Indian promise to stop producing bomb-making material. No promise not to expand its arsenal. And no binding promise not to resume nuclear testing. (The White House won’t promise that either.)
This page has listed all the costs of turning the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty — which India has never joined — into Swiss cheese, including making it harder to restrain Iran and North Korea. But if that’s still too theoretical, consider this: an American think tank revealed this week that Pakistan, India’s neighbor and nuclear rival, has been building a new reactor that could produce enough plutonium for 40 to 50 weapons a year. The White House, which insists that the Indian deal won’t feed a new South Asian arms race, had to admit that it had known about the Pakistani reactor for “some time.”
An army of lobbyists earned their keep this week when the House overwhelmingly approved the Indian deal with minimal restrictions. Lawmakers insisted that they get to vote again after the administration gets a formal agreement. But that has more to do with political prerogatives than nonproliferation. And the outcome is likely to be the same.
The current Senate version, which probably won’t come up until September, is only slightly better. It prohibits the United States from selling India technology that can produce fuel for either a reactor or a nuclear weapon. That won’t stop India from producing more bomb-grade material, but at least Americans can be comforted that our equipment isn’t making it. Of course, the more American uranium India buys for its power reactors, the more Indian uranium it will have for its weapons program.
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India is getting beaten up at home at the slightest hint that Congress might constrain any part of India’s nuclear program. That suggests that Washington and New Delhi could have done far better building their new partnership on something other than a bad nuclear deal.
what a surprise congress sold out to lobbist again!
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #5
Schumacher,
The report you are refering to was released by David Albright. The reactor in question is being built from 1998, it's not a new reactor and US govt. was aware of this reactor all the time. This report was released on the eve of congress vote on Nuclear deal to give an impression that Pakistan is building this reactor to counter the nuclear deal. Looks like no body was fooled by it.
Schumacher, I notice that you pasted the whole story..please be carefull in doing so, as it is a violation of copy right laws. Instead you may provide a link to the story.
Rahulb, The Indian system (based on British sustem) and Amerian system are very different and both have their own positives and negatives. In any case there is more to the nuclear deal than mere presumption that it will lead to inflow of US technology and Nuclear fuel. On the contrary you may not find a single American company building a nuclear plant in India. However US companies may be involved in building associated infrastructure such as power turbines, transmission etc. Negotiations are on going already with Russian and French companies for building more reactors. If you need morw info. PM me, i will be happy to discuss this in detail.
The report you are refering to was released by David Albright. The reactor in question is being built from 1998, it's not a new reactor and US govt. was aware of this reactor all the time. This report was released on the eve of congress vote on Nuclear deal to give an impression that Pakistan is building this reactor to counter the nuclear deal. Looks like no body was fooled by it.
Schumacher, I notice that you pasted the whole story..please be carefull in doing so, as it is a violation of copy right laws. Instead you may provide a link to the story.
Rahulb, The Indian system (based on British sustem) and Amerian system are very different and both have their own positives and negatives. In any case there is more to the nuclear deal than mere presumption that it will lead to inflow of US technology and Nuclear fuel. On the contrary you may not find a single American company building a nuclear plant in India. However US companies may be involved in building associated infrastructure such as power turbines, transmission etc. Negotiations are on going already with Russian and French companies for building more reactors. If you need morw info. PM me, i will be happy to discuss this in detail.
Last edited:
radiosilence
jints
The article is relevant to the nature of which this deal approval was based on in the house. Maybe you don't like the content of the article!Radiosilence,
We discussed role of lobbying firms in US decision making in detail and got the thread locked/ or posts deleted for all the trouble. why are you trying to do the same to this thread??
As for lobbying goes, we all know how shady lobbying is.But with so much pro-India lobbying money sloshing around up there, hopes are fast fading that Congress will do anything to fix it
Last edited:
radiosilence
jints
kams said:True article is relevent, but there are other things in the article too..not only lobbying. Lobbying shady? lol Sour Grapes???:rolling ...ok man...have it you way..
sour grapes?
the point of the article was cold hard indian lobbying cash got the bill to pass. maybe you couldn't conprehend that. English might not be your primary language. lobbying is the most shady part of our political system, but then again you wouldn't understand....
shady- Of dubious character or honesty; questionable.
Abramoff scandal, might give you some insight on lobbying..
Last edited:
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #8
Ok you win ..it's all shady..and my English is no good, thanks for bringing it to my attention...My Apologies...:sleepy2...I have removed all references to lobbying in my reply.radiosilence said:sour grapes?
the point of the article was cold hard indian lobbying cash got the bill to pass. maybe you couldn't conprehend that. English might not be your primary language. lobbying is the most shady part of our political system, but then again you wouldn't understand....
shady- Of dubious character or honesty; questionable.
Abramoff scandal, might give you some insight on lobbying..
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #9
India, France "not very far" from nuclear pact
India, France "not very far" from nuclear pact
India, France "not very far" from nuclear pact
India, France "not very far" from nuclear pact
Amit Baruah
Paris wants to "ease the energy needs" of New Delhi
# "We are moving in the last phase of this process"
# Scorpene submarine deal to be reviewed
# France for promoting ceasefire in Lebanon
PARIS: France and India are "not very far" from reaching a broad agreement on civilian nuclear cooperation as envisaged in their February declaration on "development of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes," issued during President Jacques Chirac's visit to New Delhi.
"We are moving in the last phase of this process," French Defence Ministry spokesman Jean-Francois Bureau told visiting Indian presspersons at the Ecole Militaire (military school) on Monday.
The declaration and the impending agreement will give France a head start in its bid to enter the civilian nuclear energy market in India once the Nuclear Suppliers Group relaxes restrictions on New Delhi.
Study by French firm
Indian officials told this correspondent that French company Aveva had reportedly completed a feasibility study to set up six civilian nuclear plants in India.
According to them, each nuclear reactor would cost over one billion Euros.
Though Mr. Bureau said the question of civilian nuclear cooperation must be addressed to industry, he stressed that Paris wanted to "ease the energy needs" of India. However, this cooperation had to be compatible with global rules. Also, France did not want to give a "wrong signal" to other countries through civilian nuclear cooperation with India.
Mr. Bureau, who was speaking ahead of a meeting between visiting Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee and his French counterpart, Michele Alliot-Marie, pointed out that the level of "strategic partnership" with India was "good."
Besides reviewing the implementation of key defence contracts, including the Scorpene submarine deal, the two Ministers would discuss Lebanon, West Asia and Afghanistan.
Situation in Afghanistan
France, which has taken up the command of the International Security Assistance Force in Kabul, was very concerned about the security situation in Afghanistan.
On the French decision to bolster its troop strength in UNIFIL (United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon) under a renewed U.N. Security Council mandate, the spokesman was clear. "We can't have a new failure. This mission is very difficult."
According to him, the idea was to promote ceasefire in Lebanon as well as the cessation of hostilities.
"We want to help the Lebanon Army develop in the south [of Lebanon]," Mr. Bureau maintained.
Aware of the fact that India will not add to its troop strength in Lebanon due to problems with the new mandate, he said the new mandate, under Chapter VI of the U.N. Charter, did not give UNIFIL the power to disarm groups in southern Lebanon.
Interestingly, French troops would be armed with both tanks and 155-mm howitzers, General Philippe-Alexandre Ellenbogen, deputy spokesman of the Ministry, said in response to questions.
The objective of a refurbished UNIFIL, for which France will send 1,600 additional soldiers this week, is to provide the Hizbollah with an "impulse" to opt for dialogue, than armed actions.
Stating categorically that the French troops were not going to fight a war in Lebanon, Mr. Bureau said the idea was to ensure the sovereignty of Lebanon.
Asked about the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, he said, "We don't try to establish which of the two sides is responsible."
India's energy market
India is a million mega watt energy market over the next 25 years. Nuclear energy is likey to form at least 40,000 mega watts of this market. So it is no wonder that the country is inviting so much attention in the French, who have a large nuclear energy capability and are now seeing opportuniteis to capitalize on it. But so are other nations including the United States which is likely to get a major share once the NSG clears civil supplies to India. How muhc it will benefit the poor and hungry in INdia remains to be seen. thanks. rahulb
India is a million mega watt energy market over the next 25 years. Nuclear energy is likey to form at least 40,000 mega watts of this market. So it is no wonder that the country is inviting so much attention in the French, who have a large nuclear energy capability and are now seeing opportuniteis to capitalize on it. But so are other nations including the United States which is likely to get a major share once the NSG clears civil supplies to India. How muhc it will benefit the poor and hungry in INdia remains to be seen. thanks. rahulb
i believ india will acquire reactors from usa,france and russia besides indigenous ahwr(advanced heavy water reactors),and the nuclear fuel(uranium) will be acquired from russia and china.china has been a reliable supplier of nuclear fuel to india for quite sometime now for its reactors.