No subject

haven't a clue about defending your country against
Imperialist designs, specifically on your energy. 
Doesn't surprise me.
Unquote

You've, for self-evident reasons, NOT addressed the
question of the Left and Right sharing the same
chauvinistic ground.
More importantly, It is not a question of defending
one's country against imperialist designs. It is the
case of one's country cozying up to the imperialists
and the imperialists granting grand concessions to
shore up their "designs" against others.
So it is not an issue of defence of "sovereignty", but
a fight against gross misuse of "sovereignty" in
league with the imperialists.

And if you do not have any sense of shame in sharing
the same position with the Indian Right, why I should
stop feeling proud when I do share same ground with
the international peace movement?

Sukla 


Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 10:44:24 -0700
From: David Walters <dave.walters at comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [Marxism] Indo-US Nuclear Deal: Sinking
Ship (?)
To: marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu
Message-ID: <47125578.8060107 at comcast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1;
format=flowed

Quote
 From my end, I had never suspected either you or the
Indian Left of having much of a clue.
Of course, I also do despise the obsession with
"national/nuclear sovereignty" which the Left very
much shares with the Right. This only means that India
must have the right operate as a rogue state outside
of any multilateral control whatever. One can hardly
tell the Left from the Right on this issue.

 From MY end it seems you prefer your NGO friends and
haven't a clue 
about defending your
country against Imperialist designs, specifically on
your energy. 
Doesn't surprise me.

Quote
The hard fact is that a grand and unique concession
was on offer in gross contravention of internationally
accepted norms. The concession that has been brusquely
refused to Pakistan. (I don't recall any of the
opponents of the deal on the ground of "national
sovereignty", whether from the Left or the Right, ever
attempting to address this point what would appear as
a riddle from their point of view.)

Let's just say few people on this list would agree
with you view of 
"international accepted norms". These same "norms" are
the same "norms"
 
that allowed the US to break up Yugoslavia, invade
Iraq, etc. You can't
 
pick and choose Sukla, the "norms" you like, which are
IMPERIALIST 
norms, not one made by a free association of peoples
and countries.
 Your 
view is the same as the Carnegie Endowment and all the
UN pushers
 around 
world.

Quote
And it is for you to explain, going beyond mere facile
and fanciful assertions, how the "*totality* of
India's nuclear program (would have become
subordinated) to the US"?

It the deal went through, all fuel supplies would have
to go through
 the 
NSG. India would NOT be allowed to produced it's only
nuclear fuel 
(uranium, plutonium OR thorium). Since reactor designs
would be then 
dependent on the US/Japanese/French/Canadian designs,
not Indian 
designs, the country would become *dependent* on the
technology from 
those countries and resources would no longer be
diverted to come up 
with Indian resources. This is why your own engineers
working at the 
thorium R&D facilities *opposed* the deal, they saw
what would happen. 
You are totally ignorant, Sukla on the purpose of the
GNEP and NSG 
*purpose*, and that is place energy resources under
the command of the 
US, to be used by the US for imperialist politics and
economics. You
 are 
naive to think that the NSG is some sort of neutral
organization than 
only wants to "help" countries go nuclear.

Quote
And on the fairy tales as
regards the potentials of thorium, now we'd have
enough opportunity to call the bluff.

Again, sheer ignorance on your part. Amazing. The
Russian's already
 have 
a commercial reactor running on Thorium (and BREEDING
fuel). Is it
 ready 
for prime-time? No, won't be for a few years. India,
China, Canada and 
even in the US have advancements in the use of
thorium. My view is that
 
scientists should always be looking forward, to new
technologies, 
cleaner ones, ones that offer the hope of expanded use
of energy to 
raise peoples standard of living. You offer
backwardness and despair. 
Thorium will be that solution if more resources are
devoted to using
 it. 
The institutional investments (engineering, financing,
politics) in 
uranium are what is holding up thorium.  It's already
been used, 
commercially and successfully, in the US at
Shippingport reactor. It's
 a 
question of designing the mass-production of
components that many don't
 
want to do for the above reasons. I think you'll see
in the next 5
 years 
a better application, even in India, using Canadian
CANDU reactors that
 
require little modifications to burn thorium. I'm
hopeful.

Quote:
The taste of the
pudding would be in its eating.
Moreover, it's precisely the paucity of domestically
available uranium that made the deal so crucial for
India's nuclear programme.
The greatest casualty of the collapse of the 'deal'
would be India's civilian nuclear programme.
Hope we would both be around to review the status
after a couple of years.

I agree here...one can look at the "positive" aspects
of the deal: 
instantaneous access to fuel and technology already
proven safe around 
the world. Known quantities so-to-speak. And, it would
allow India to 
"get nuclear" faster. No doubt about it. But that
requires India not to
 
develop it's own fuel processing infrastructure. So,
if India, 
internationally or domestically wanted to deviate from
Imperialist 
policy, say, nationalizing some local resources, or
conversely,
 refusing 
to privatize domestic State resources, then it's EASY
for the US to
 pull 
the plug under some  fake excuse. It's funny that the
Left in India 
understands this but you are totally blind to it.

David Walters


      ___________________________________________________________ 
Check out the All New Yahoo! Mail blog http://ymailuk.com/