Talk:India–United States Civil Nuclear Agreement

I added the criticism section to this entry. I'm currently taking a class at the University of Washington wherein Thomas Graham Jr. is a part time instructor. I wasn't quite sure how to cite his argument from 11/16/06.

This does not contain how the nuclear fuel would be tranferred to India

Background

The first section in the background seems to repeat itself.

India[...] have not signed the NPT, arguing that instead of addressing the central objective of universal and comprehensive non-proliferation, the treaty creates a club of "nuclear haves" and a larger group of "nuclear have-nots" by restricting the legal possession of nuclear weapons to those states that tested them before 1967, who alone are free to possess and multiply their nuclear stockpiles. India eventually refused to sign the NPT [...]instead of addressing the central objective of universal and comprehensive non-proliferation, the treaty only legitimized the continuing possession and multiplication of nuclear stockpiles by those few states possessing them.

Seems a bit redundant to have basically the same information twice. AndySnow (talk) 09:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Please re-read to see its good now. should be though. Lihaas (talk) 15:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Operationalization difficulties

I added a section on the opposition from Left parties and their threat to withdraw support to the government unless operationalisation of the deal is halted. Will add sources soon. Amit@Talk 15:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

reference check

can someone please check the following claim:

Finally, in a detailed column dated July 31st in the Wall Street Journal, Bret Stephens detailed how the Indian government has been helping Iran's military and energy sector and how former Indian officials had been sanctioned by the U.S. Department of State for assisting Iran's nuclear and rocket programs. He also noted that increasing base-load generation with Coal or nuclear would only increase India's appetite for peak-load generation systems that are generally fired with gas or oil from the Persian Gulf and Iran.

thanks --Jeroje 08:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be removed unless sourced. 125.21.164.251 08:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC) (Amit)

I'm going to remove it for now until a reference is obtained Amit@Talk 06:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Indo-US nuclear deal

Someone had suggested a merge from the "Indo-US nuclear deal" article. I have done that (it was just a single line) and added a redirect there to this article. Amit@Talk 06:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It was me. Thanks. SDas 00:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Blog

Campaign Against the Agreement

A campaign has been started by the "Campaign for Sovereignty and Democracy". They have set up a websitewww.strugglesonline.org[24] for this purpose which is claimed to be a place for critical examination of the deal. The articles contained in it by and large expose the dangers with in the Agreement.

this looks trivial, there are many blogs which are doing the same, should there be a section for this ? Isnt it automatic that an issue of national importance will be picked up by many bloggers and open forums ? I already reverted an attempt to advertise the same website once. Jeroje 01:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree; this shouldn't be there int the article. Amit@Talk 09:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed it Amit@Talk 09:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

15th March

There is a crucial meeting coming up on 15th march, where I guess the stance of the left parties will be officially clear on 123 deal. Jeroje (talk) 00:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No major break throughs were achieved in the meeting,(unfortunately) == Hotsshot (talk) 14:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC) ==

Link added

Hi. I just added a link I found recently covering the latest view on the United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act. They're video interviews taken by students during the Non-Nuclear-Proliferation Treaty PrepCom 2008 (ended yesterday - Fri-09 May). Jossejonathan (talk) 08:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfounded allegations against CPI(M)

The CPI(M) is described as far-left. Indian Maoists better deserve this as they are engaged in an armed struggle. CPI(M) is also described as west-phobic too. Any references please?? The claim that CPI(M) is Trotskyist is also unfounded. And finally attributing CIA documents to claim that CPI(M) supports China is really lopsided. It should be noted that the Chinese Communist Party was bitterly opposed to CPI(M) policies and even supported the armed Naxalite movement.

Overall, the paragraph seems to be really biased and based on no valid references. I'm doing a cleanup.

Please add some worthy references if you want to put back these. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.224.113 (talk) 18:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm retaining most of the links though so that anyone can judge the worthiness of the material provided. Also I'd like to remove the word Anti-American, as Indian Left has never shown hostility towards the American people or a society, but rather to policies of American government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.224.113 (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Opposition in the US

This section seems very awkward and out of place. I'm sure there are more criticisms from the United States that deserve more coverage than this one thing listed there. The 'easy' dismissal that rests soley on one person's book seems to have too much weight there too

64.8.68.116 (talk) 23:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. The text in this section is presenting the views of Ashley Tellis, a leading proponent of the nuclear deal. It reads as a rebuttal of criticism, but the criticism itself is missing. The recent statement by the head of the Arms Control Association and the former UN Under Secretary General for Disarmament labeling the deal "A Nonproliferation Disaster" [1] should be featured, as should an earlier statement by many leading nonproliferation experts [2]. The section heading should be changed to reflect that the criticism is not limited to the United States [3].

The rebuttal by Tellis should be removed an perhaps put into a section on support for the agreement. But allowing Tellis to rebut a strawman violates Wikipedia standards for neutrality. NPguy (talk) 02:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

When you see completely unformatted unencyclopedic text like this, it's usually a hint that it could be a copyvio. In this case, the text was copied from this page. I removed it. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 11:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

language?

de-hyphenization? what the hell does that mean? what the hell is hyphenization? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.201.234 (talk) 18:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be better to say "de-hyphenation." The reference is to previous U.S. regional security and nonproliferation policy that treated India and Pakistan as inseparable policy issues. One could not address an issue related to India without also addressing the same issue as it related to Pakistan. This constant balancing of India-Pakistan policy was sometimes called a "hyphenated" policy. NPguy (talk) 03:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Title should be Indo-US nuclear deal

This article hardly talks about the Hyde Act, a US legislation, and is mainly centered on the details of the Indo-US agreement, its rational etc. Shouldn't the article title be the Indo-US nuclear deal or words to that effect. Hyde Act can redirect here.--Shahab (talk) 18:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I saw that a few days ago and thought the same thing. It might also be better to change the article title to treaty rather then act. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the name after waiting an appropriate amount of time for a negative comment.--Shahab (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but i think it should be treaty rather then deal. What do you think? --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 19:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I think "deal" is better. It captures the fact that that it is a package of inter-related elements, some of which are legally binding international instruments - "treaties" (the 123 agreement and the safeguards agreement) and some of which are non-binding political commitments (e.g., changes to NSG policy). NPguy (talk) 03:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I just feel that deal is too casual a word to be used for this. How about agreement? --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 04:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreement is OK too. However the word deal is being extensively used by the Indian media.--Shahab (talk) 06:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I did a quick search on nexis using India and nuclear as my based words and adding in either agreement or deal and the results are basically the same. Deal has about 20 more articles over the last month. Another word I noticed used today in an article is pact. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's wait for sometime before making the move to agreement for any other opinion.--Shahab (talk) 06:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, i see no reason why not. --Patrick (talk) 07:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Critical Analysis

I had a chance to go through this editorial by a Science advisor to Indira Gandhi. I dont know much of the person's credentials, but I had a feeling that he raises some important concerns. Any one of you think that any of his analysis is credible to be included here? Docku (talk) 03:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia's rules (WP:Bold) go ahead and add it where you thinks its fine (expecially after 2 months w/o a reply) and cite it accordingly, of course. Lihaas (talk) 23:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The Respect Developmental economic advising firm of Dalberg?

Could not find any reference to this firm or study :-( what is the source for this piece of information? Tellkarthik (talk) 09:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Dr. A P J Abdulkalam - a nuclear scientist?

He is NOT a nuclear scientist by profession --203.199.213.67 (talk) 10:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Jayanthi Natarajan Article

Congress MP Jayanthi Natarajan's article from Gulfnews.com is quoted in the lead section. As I understand, she has written an editorial column in a news website (Is it just website?). It is wrong to take her opinion out from the editorial and make it sound like that is the Government policy. Dock^Hi 23:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

If you put it in a kind of warning like we did in the text it's okay. Because she's a congress MP, especially when her words are published its not going against party order (unless there is disciplinary action, which in this case has not followed). It seems to be okay the way its phrased as in "congress's MP ... said."

ps- saw your commentary in the edit history. Didn't quite understand, we were both saying + supporting the same thing. Lihaas (talk) 00:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, mentioning that she is Congress MP is sufficient. It is presumptuous to misstate her opinion as Government's position(because she is Congress MP). It may very well be the case, but the reference doesnt support it. So, let us leave it the way it is. Dock^Hi 00:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

India's aspiration to be NPT Nuclear Weapon State

The article asserts that India aspires to be recognized as a NWS under the NPT. To supporrt this claim, it cites an article by Selig Harrison, but that article doesn't support the stated claim. I'm not questioning the claim, but it needs a citation that is (1) reliable and (2) supports the claim. That's why I've put in the notation [citation needed.] NPguy (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I was just trying to maintain some grammatical/POV equality between the original and the new edit. If you think its best to remove it or to get a new edit go ahead. Lihaas (talk) 04:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Article split proposal

This article is becoming longer with numerous details that I am starting to believe that it is deviating far from the crux of the issue which is the agreement itself. I propose to split the article into two.

Article 1: Dealing with the agreement itself including the background, explanation of agreement details and passage in various international bodies including Indian parliament, IAEA, NSG and US Congress.

Article 2: Political passage which involves the support and opposition in India, US and other countries. Dock^Hi 01:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's long enough just yet. I imagine more information will come out when it goes to the NSG, but till then it's not long enough. However, in anticipation of a lot more criticism/support (one can also include academic criticism, and their certainly is enough) I guess it makes sense. We can always undo it later if need be (I doubt it).

btw- you can ask the india politics workgroup, should be more people giving their 2 cents there. Lihaas (talk) 04:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

could u pls provide me the link. I tried searching? Dock^Hi 05:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't really think it's long enough for a split. Maybe later if more content is added. --Patrick (talk) 05:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. It is not so much about the length. It is more of a concern of how the nitty-gritty of the agreement details is pushed to the background due to large details of the political process. Dock^Hi 05:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The abundant details which describe the political process in India is quite distractive, which by itself could qualify to be a separate article. Dock^Hi 05:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I think people want the whole picture including the agreement details and the politcal process. Considering, I think this article does a fair job of representing both. I do think the opposition in India section could be trimmed a bit but Issues in the Indian parliament section is quite on target. --Patrick (talk) 05:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well, if you put it like that (Docku) then that's a valid point. Evn PatrickFlaherty thinks the details are necessary. But the worry is that once its split someone will ask for a merger of the two article, no?

btw- Was the link request for my article? I could go looking, but I don't have login access (I read it offline in class). Ill try and pull some up. Lihaas (talk) 06:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like status quo for now..could consider it later Cityvalyu (talk) 02:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

cityvalyu edits

govt. view

if a finance minister and a defence minister's view can't be taken as "official" / "govt. view" , then what else is? the most important point being missed is that these were not private opinions and were infact made on behalf of a govt. facing a trust vote on the floor of the parliament.Cityvalyu (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

ambiguity

if anyone finds a citation stating "ambiguity" on india's soverign decision making status being harmed, please feel free to quote..but inserting this personal PoV as a general observation without citation smacks of obsession with certain lies! (please see references to the contrary in the article and adequate explanations in edit history also) Cityvalyu (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

pariah

which classification system classifies "pariah" and "non pariah" status? is it official / UN mandated/ IAEA's view/ NSG view/ NPT signatories' view?? why cant some (i am desisting from naming the obvious editor) stop using derogatory comments unworthy of being mentioned in wiki? (do wikipedians and wiki project admin. favour violating sc/st atrocities act (in india) that prohibits the use of the word 'pariah' in a derogatory fashion?)..even if editors insist on reinserting, please enlighten us in talk page before using such "english" (copy paste plagiarism violation of someone's article available on net? or is it considered good "engish" by proponents of the same? )..Cityvalyu (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

hyde act --india's sovereign status and 123 agreement..(npguy's edit-discuss/revert)

np guy's edit in the present version(see time Cityvalyu (talk) 19:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)) incorporates "..except insofar as its requirements have been incorporated into the 123 agreement or provide the basis for interpreting the provisions of the 123 agreement"..

but, as far as the "123 agreement" draft that was released by both countries, there was no mention of iran or nuclear testing ban / prevention clauses (-the contentious provisions of hyde act) anywhere in it! so , it means that the contentious provisions that overreached its mandate and scope (and those that infringed on india's sovereignity) were CONSCIOUSLY OMITTED in the 123 agreement draft. so, not "all" of the hyde act's "requirements were incorporated"- only those that matched the 2005 joint statement were incorporated..please check the fine print to know what i am writing..

further the act per se has no mandate to prescribe USA / India on any preventive action on any issue icluding iran relations and nuclear testing..nevertheless its clauses can be construed as prescriptive for further "'reactions' from the US side" AND NOT ANYTHING MORE !

further, a domestic hyde act plays no role in "interpreting the provisions" of an international treaty..the act is an enabling guide for USA to drafting the treaty AND NOTHING MORE THAN THAT can be inferred (esp. on interpreting)!

i feel that the phrase lacks citation and does not represent the truth / clarity ..so, i am intending to either remove the quoted phrase or restore the previous version - after considering responses on this issue....Cityvalyu (talk) 19:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

since neither np guy nor others have opposed my arguments, i am hereby removing the non factual text and restoring earlier version that reflected the references quoted on hyde act and bush's statements on its contentious provisions..Cityvalyu (talk) 02:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been on vacation. I don't understand what the objection is to my clarifications on the relation between the Hyde Act and the 123 agreement:

" . . . except insofar as its requirements have been incorporated into the 123 agreement or provide the basis for interpreting the provisions of the 123 agreement . . .."

The first part says that if provisions of the Hyde Act have been incorporated into the 123 agreement, they are binding on India as well as the United States. That should be obvious and uncontroversial. It applies whether the provisions have been written into the 123 agreement directly or incorporated by reference, i.e. by a mention in the 123 agreement of the Hyde Act. The second is a standard principle of legal interpretation. Where the wording is unambiguous, interpretation is not an issue. However, most where the wording allows more than one interpretation, a new legal instrument should be interpreted in the context of other relevant legal instruments in place at the time. For example, the provisions in Article 14 of the 123 agreement for termination of the agreement and cessation of cooperation have to be understood in the light of relevant U.S. legal requirements. Similarly, the safeguards provisions of Article 10.4 of the 123 agreement should be read in light of the U.S. legal requirement for fallback safeguards regardless of whether the IAEA is applying those safeguards. NPguy (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

DOES NOT address the objections to the words used..please go through my previous arguments regarding applicability, interpretations and ambiguity so that you can counter my objections point by point..Cityvalyu (talk) 20:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I still don't understand the objection to what should be uncontroversial statements about international law and treaty interpretation. I did not say that the Hyde Act's provisions were incorporated into the 123 agreement. I said the provisions of the Hyde Act were binding under the 123 only to the extent that ("insofar as") they were incorporated into the 123 agreement.

Furthermore, nothing in the Hyde Act prohibits India from further nuclear tests. The Act aims to discourage India from testing by establishing consequences - a cutoff of cooperation. The 123 agreement allows the United States to cut off nuclear cooperation if India tests and therefore meets U.S. legal requirements.

As for your complaint that I did not wait for consensus before reverting, neither did you. You (Cityvalyu) seem to be the only editor who has objected to my edits, and the objections seem to be a misunderstanding. NPguy (talk) 02:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

As long it is not uncited analysis. You can say so verbatim by either citing another source or the text of the document you find relevant. That should be good, and fair. Lihaas (talk) 09:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "India's N-deal hurdle: Pak warns of arms race" :
  • {{cite news|url=http://www.ibnlive.com/news/indias-ndeal-hurdle-pak-warns-of-arms-race/69471-2.html?xml|title=India's N-deal hurdle: Pak warns of arms race|date=07/24/2008|publisher=CNN IBN|accessdate=2008-07-24}}
  • {{cite news|url=http://www.ibnlive.com/news/indias-ndeal-hurdle-pak-warns-of-arms-race/69471-2-p1.html|title=India's N-deal hurdle: Pak warns of arms race|date=07/24/2008|publisher=[[CNN IBN]]|accessdate=2008-07-24}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 06:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

which section?

The following is currently under the NSG waiver section, but i think it goes beyond this. I's analysis that is more suited to a 'controversy' section, if you must. Where would it be more appropriate?

"The wording of the US draft for carving out an exemption for India from the to the Nuclear Suppliers' Group's rules (called "guidelines") seeks to irrevocably tether New Delhi to the nuclear non-proliferation regime. India would be brought under a wider non-proliferation net, with the US draft tying it to compliance with the entire set of NSG rules. India is acquiescing to its unilateral test moratorium being turned into a multilateral legality. Instead of the "full" civil nuclear cooperation that the original July 18, 2005, deal promised, India's access to civil nuclear enrichment and reprocessing technologies will be restricted through the proposed NSG waiver." Lihaas (talk) 13:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

external links

The ASA links are not external links appropriate. They can be cited as analysis if the article is credible, but as an external links as per the rule #1 in Wikipedia's what to avoid link. The whitehouse link (much to my surprise too) is an analysis of the US exec's reading (and pushing) of the deal. It is not a an outside reference beyond citable material (as in official texts) the rest as good though. Lihaas (talk) 00:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I just saw this here or I wouldn't have reinsterted the links right away again. I believe you are referring to

Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article

as the reason for removing the links. The full text of Howard Berman's letter to Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and a recent draft of the NSG proposal both aren't being completely covered in the article and are from reliable sources. Multiple outside analyses from different perspectives would be appropriate for the external links section..

If I misunderstood you or you have more reasoning, it would be wonderful if you could elaborate more..--68.251.191.149 (talk) 02:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Rules $8 and #17 can also come in, but the real issue with this is that these could be used in the article and cited as references instead of external links. Granted the text is there, but considering the title "Indo-US civilian nuclear agreement" a letter doesn't quite follow as text in this regard. Am I making sense here? Im trying to put it into words. Even the draft, I don't think is equates with this, but as per other WP rules i can still see it fitting in. The letter is more ambigous as a link, though fair as a source. Lihaas (talk) 10:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I could see rule #8 applying towards the PDF. I still think outside analysis links from a few places would be useful, but the article looks complete as it is so I don't think the links are really that necessary anyways.--68.251.191.149 (talk) 14:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Outside analysis is always good no doubt, but more as sources to the article than 'external links.' anyway's we seems to have reached a conclusion. But there are a whole host of websites with lines of advertisements in this section ;) Lihaas (talk) 17:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I added the letter which is hosted by the U.S. House and the current U.S. draft waiver from the Carnegie Endowment because they both seem to be pertinent primary sources. It doesn't seem appropriate for the article to try and summarize the entire contents of both, and this is why a link to them would be useful. I'd politely request we seek the input of other editors if there is a disagreement.--68.251.191.149 (talk) 05:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)