tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13437119.post2636832449343691777..comments2024-03-01T13:51:47.721+05:30Comments on Reality, one bite at a time: NSA interview: 'This is as good a text as one can possibly get'Siddharth Varadarajanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07721228307097170092noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13437119.post-2034951656941495022007-08-05T07:19:00.000+05:302007-08-05T07:19:00.000+05:30No, Mr NSA, it is NOT. The Chinese have got a much...No, Mr NSA, it is NOT. The Chinese have got a much much better deal. Mr NSA, you and your team were taken to the cleaners by savvy American negotiators whose only objective was to cap, reduce and rollback India's strategic capabilities. You lost, they won.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13437119.post-46717023783271177432007-07-29T01:27:00.000+05:302007-07-29T01:27:00.000+05:30The American interpretation and Indian interpretat...The American interpretation and Indian interpretation of 123 document seems to be different.<BR/><BR/>The Americans seems to thing that 123 document is not worth its paper. They think they are only guided by Hyde Act of December 2006.<BR/><BR/>[http://washingtontimes.com/article/20070727/FOREIGN/107270097/1001]<BR/><BR/>According Washington Times congressional aides said <BR/><BR/>1) Dedicated reprocessing facility which US wanted from day 1 [Changes to separation plan].<BR/><BR/>2) US is not obliged to provide fuel supply assurances except for normal fuel disruptions [No Fuel Supply Assurances].<BR/><BR/>3) American participation during reprocessing in yet to be built new safeguarded reprocessing facility [Third-Party Safeguards].<BR/><BR/>4) All future breeder reactors in civilian domain [changes to separation plan and India's right to determine if a facility is military or civilian].<BR/><BR/>5) Us retains right to return. According to them consultations mean nothing and congress will act demanding return of equipment and fuel and penalizing India.<BR/><BR/>6) We only got reprocessing right in name but, not in substance. What if we are not able to agree to their terms and conditions? We will have to break the agreement and the right to return clause will be invoked by US. This is a trap to steal Indian reprocessing technology.<BR/><BR/>It is India that caved in not US. US did not move an inch. While US worked with lawyers we believed them blindly even after incidents like tarapur. Either Narayanan is too naive and incompetent or we have some traitors in PMO and External Affairs Ministry.<BR/><BR/>All the language in the document and consultations are a face saving act for PMO. <BR/><BR/>Trust but, verify should be our policy. We should trust but we should have it legally written by lawyers so that other side is obliged as we are. THIS IS NOTHING SHORT OF A SELL OUT. This agreement is a sugar coated POISION PILL.<BR/><BR/>We are not cheaters at all but the Americans are. Do not expect NSG to give a waiver to India with out including caveat's like right to return, no testing, conditional reprocessing and conclusion of FMCT.Satishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02108660562691451740noreply@blogger.com