By planting dezinformatsiya in the Boston Globe about China signing a nuclear deal with India similar to the U.S.-India ‘Nukes-for-Mangoes’ deal, Indian rulers hope to pressure American Law-makers

China is going to sign no such deal with India



Washington, D.C., Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - A classic case of Chanakyan dezinformatsia by Indian spin masters, via misinformation, planted in the Boston Globe (synchronized with Chinese President Hu Jintao's current 3-day visit to India) was exposed yesterday. According to a story planted by an Indian, with an English sounding name in the Boston Globe, claiming that, “China and India are poised to sign a civilian nuclear cooperation deal, similar to the recent agreement between the US and India.” Some lie!

All that the Chinese side has said, after refusing to comment on the U.S.-India nuclear deal, is ‘that every country has the right to develop energy in any form, including nuclear form, to meet its development needs as long as the objectives of non-proliferation are maintained and strengthened.’ Under this principle and guideline China has engaged in nuclear commerce with India in the past, notably in 1995 when Beijing supplied low-enriched uranium for the Tarapur reactor, as well as in the 1980s when India apparently sourced heavy water from China after the U.S./Canada banned nuclear related exports to India, after it pilfered the Tarapore reactor for its socalled ‘Sleeping Buddha’ 1974   ‘peaceful’ nuclear test.

Datelined Beijing, the Boston Globe planted  report quoting Indian officials who claimed that the Indo-Chinese nuclear deal, “would foster the exchange and purchase of nuclear technology between the two states and that Chinese nuclear specialists have been in India conducting meetings with Indian counterparts. While the exact terms of the potential China-India nuclear agreement have not been finalized, they are expected to be similar to the terms of the civilian nuclear agreement India concluded with the United States on July 18, 2005. And while that (U.S.-India) deal is likely to be amended in the coming months in ways that may not be acceptable to India, in China’s case no such hurdles should exist.” The Boston Globe report also quoted an Indian official as saying that, “While President Hu is also expected to sign nuclear agreements with Pakistan, ‘the Pakistanis will get much less than what they want.” On the Indian side, the report claims, the deal is said to have been brokered by Mayankote Kelath Narayanan, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s national security adviser.”  After reading the above the readers should remember the line from Adolf  Hitler’s  Mein Kampf autobiography (published 1924), spelling out Hitlerism, which says that, “The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one.” Unfortunately some gullible Pakistani newspapers carried this Indian dezinformatsiya published in the Boston Globe on their front page. See front page story in Lahore-based Daily Times, of November 21, 2006, headlined, “China to sign US-like N-deal with India,” by clicking at the following link:-> http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006\11\21\story_21-11-2006_pg1_1 <

Chinese President Hu Jintao's current 3-day visit to India is apparently aimed at improving his country's trade relations with New Delhi. However, there are still thorny obstacles to overcome for the betterment of political ties between the two countries. In addition to border disputes, regional roles and historical distrust, the two countries' bilateral ties are conditioned by the China-India-Pakistan and China-India-US triangular relationships and the presence of 150, 000 Tibetans allied to the Dalai Lama’s Tibetan government-in-exile in Dharamsala, Himachel Pradesh carrying out anti-China propaganda.  The recent remark by the Chinese ambassador to India asserting Beijing's claims to the entire Arunachal Pradesh state, in Eastern India has sent what the Indian media describe as “ripples of unease, and only highlights the intractable nature of the border disputes.” Clearly, final resolution of the issue requires not only political decisions at the highest level in both capitals but also the political skills to sell such a resolution to their respective domestic constituencies. Despite political irritants, India-China trade has grown rapidly in recent years and two-way trade is projected to reach $20 billion this year, up from almost nothing two decades ago – mostly raw iron exports from India and light manufactured goods from China. India Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is reported to have said that the two nations would work to raise bilateral trade to $40 billion by 2010 while the Chinese President Hu Jintao is reported to have said that, there was enough room for the emerging powers to develop simultaneously.

It is obvious that insecurities are forcing the Indians to resort to the above game playing, spinning and planting stories, as all is not well with the U.S.-India ‘Nukes-for-Mangoes’ deal. The respected editor-in-chief of New Delhi-based newspaper, Asian Age, hit the nail on the head in an article (> http://www.dawn.com/2006/11/23/ed.htm#4 <) headlined, ‘Political cost of the nuclear deal,’ when he wrote that, “I cannot see, for instance, India reading from the same page as America on Iran‘s nuclear program, or, more important, surrendering its independent right to test again. The rising star of the Democrats, Senator Obama, has lent his name to an amendment that prevents India from storing fuel for its imported reactors. Too much conciliation might be required in the next stage, when the bill will be “reconciled” between the Senate and House versions. Common sense suggests that reconciliation seeks to bridge the difference between what has been passed, rather than eliminate clauses wholesale. Come December, we shall see what we shall see. China has been swift to exploit emerging opportunity. It is strengthening Pakistan’s capability dramatically, and has just signed up to provide Egypt with a credible nuclear program. I presume no one with even marginal IQ indulges in the fiction that nuclear reactors are really meant for peaceful purposes. If Egypt needed them for peaceful purposes it would have invested in them at least a generation ago. Egypt knows that with Israel a nuclear power, and Iran on the verge of becoming one, it cannot be a regional player without similar capability.”    

On Thursday November 16, 2006, the US Senate discussed and modified its bill No. S-3709 on the Indo-US nuclear deal, which was forwarded to it by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC). After debating the SFRC bill the U.S. Senate, rejected some amendments, made some amendments and added a few new clauses, and this revised text was inserted as replacement text in the House bill No.HR-5682.PCS, received earlier from the House of Representatives, and gave it a new number, HR-5682.EAS. It is this new version which has now been forwarded by the Senate to the Conference Committee for preparing a unified text, after reconciling it with HR-5682.PCS. The reconciled version in the form of a single bill will then be debated sometime in December 2006 for approval in a joint sitting of the Senate and House. If approved there, this unified bill will go to the US President for his signature for transforming it into law. During the debate on November 16, amendments were approved in Section 105 and Section 108 of the original bill, and also two new sections (Sec. 114 and Sec. 115) were freshly inserted. Please read Khalistan Calling dated November 15, 2006, headlined, “Washington-based Khalistan Affairs Center launches advocacy campaign to advise and educate U.S. Law makers against  the US-India ‘Nukes-for-Mangoes’ deal,” as a backgrounder. (> http://khalistan-affairs.org/home/khalistancalling/2006/november15.aspx   <)

A sharply worded commentary published on October 30, 2006,  in the wake of the North Korean nuclear test, People's Daily, China’s leading newspaper spelled out China’s stand on the ‘Nukes-for-Mangoes’ U.S.-India deal and India’s nuclear program. The People’s Daily commentary said that, ‘national security,’ and not nuclear non-proliferation, was the ‘strategic objective’ of the U.S. "India established a nuclear program not to defend against or attack the U.S., Russia, Britain, China, France or even Pakistan. India has three to seven times the amount of conventional weapons that Pakistan has. It is Pakistan that needs nuclear weapons. ... After India tested nuclear weapons, the U.S. quickly realized that imposing sanctions was not the best direction to take. It chose instead to find ways to encourage India to be a responsible nuclear power and to help India develop into one of the economic superpowers of the 21st century. It even wanted to develop a civilian nuclear power program with India. This was in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. ... It is clear that the United States deliberate violation of the NPT is a move to contain other nations. U.S. assistance to India is a kind of nuclear proliferation, vertical proliferation." Beijing is opposed to Washington's ‘unilateralism’ in trying to rewrite the rules of the international non-proliferation regime for its own preferred friends and allies.”

In its interactions with Pakistani officials, the Bush administration has said, according to media reports, that while it did not consider Pakistan to be eligible for nuclear commerce, the question could be revisited at some point in the future. The U.S. deal with India would stand nullified if China seeks — and wins — Nuclear Supplier’s Group (NSG) clearance for its proposed cooperation with Pakistan. Of course, the 45-member Nuclear Supplier’s Group (NSG) operates by consensus, and the U.S. can always block a rule change for Pakistan as and when the issue comes up. This means, of course, that China can do the same to India if it wants to. A Chinese decision to do that in the 45 member Nuclear Supplier’s Group, where matters are decided by consensus, will mean the end of nuclear proliferation, under the U.S.-India ‘Nukes-for-Mangoes’ deal, which is what the 25 million Sikhs want for the survival of their Punjab Homeland sandwiched between two fledgling nuclear powers in South Asia.