India's response in case of an NSG Snub

What should India do if we are not given full NSG membership

  • Test a TN warhead and give them the bird

    Votes: 31 58.5%
  • Dont test and continue with diplomatic begging

    Votes: 5 9.4%
  • Dont test and use diplomatic clout in issues like Iran to defy the P5

    Votes: 17 32.1%

  • Total voters
    53

olivers

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
123
Likes
93
Illogical. No legal basis. You can reject it but provide legal basis for rejecting it? NSG rules apply to France, America and Russia. They will follow them. Their internal law will follow NSG. You will not follow NSG. They can't change their Internal law as it will break international law from 2005 as per America. Even if the international law is only changed in 2011. America, France and Russia can't now go and change their pre-existing internal law from before the Indo-US deal. They refused to change it for you in 2008 standing in New Delhi. Read the statements of French and Russian delegations on ENR. ENR is not part of deal. Why, Internal law. back in 2008. Now in 2011, it's also the international law. You can reject the general compartment or special compartment. The trains belong to NSG not to you. They will give you the reservation not India jumping up and down in parliament. You should run trains to get special compartment not ride in train owned by 44 countries including America, France and Russia.

In law dates matter. It's called interpretation of law. It's how lawyers work. Legal system works. It's not fuss. It's law. Sorry it's the way legal system work and dates are important. Words are important. Words which appear in 2005, 2008 and 2011 are important. Changes between them are important. What's followed by countries as norms is import. Lot's of things. I have shown you how the law works and how we got messed with. Take it or leave it.


general trumps for all the general categories and not for India category. India is not in the general class. that's what I'm trying to explain you. after 2008 India class is different, automatic superceding of clauses is not for India, but for general category.

again you making fuss about the date of the guideline amendment, I'm argiung about the context of the amendment.
India is not general category, after 2008 India specific guideline is still in place. you just thumping about superceding clauses, I again say that is not thecase for india. they tried to prohibit ENR sale to india in 2008 agreement, but India stuck to its point that nuclear co poration wouldbe for the full spectrum of the civilian nuclear domain. if they were so determined they would put the same restriction in 2008, for the better part would have kept mum on the ENR all together.

they specifically mentiond ENR in 2008 agreement. just because general guidelines has been passed post 2008 and it touch upon the same subject as that of the 2008 agreement, does not mean that it will automatically supercede the India clause. India text is not general text my dear sir. India is not in the general
compartment. for India there is seperate compartment. unless they nullify the 2008 ENR provision for india, 2011 ENR provision will not automatically supercdede India. this is exactly what SM krishna refered to in the parlimanet. you are just thiking that india specific 2008 guidelines are valid only in 2008 for india. after 2008 India automatically falls in to the general category. I'm sorry I completely reject that point of view. India is not general category.
 
Last edited:

sukhish

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2009
Messages
1,321
Likes
311
it is not breaking international law. India specific ENR agreement is still in place. there is no question of anybody breaking international law. ENR transfer as per 2008 will have no restrictions far as India's military nuclear programe . you are just confused between general category and india specific. you just ranting
on the general guidelines superceding india specific text. that is not the case here. paragraph 7) of 2011 is general and not india specific. if they have to change india specific, they will have to change the 2008 India text. it is a seperate text. please don't club general guidelines it with India specifc guidelines of 2008. they both are two different things. the reason these countries are dilly dallying are because they want more, and not because of blanket restrictions.

how come they did not put the restrictions in place for ENR in the 2008 text itself. why did NSG communicated to the IAEA in 2008 about the do and don't dos in case of india. ENR pressure was there on india right from the get go. but india sucessfully managed to include ENR provisions in 2008 text. and those provisions are not just valid for the year 2008, 2009 and 2010 only. they valid until that text is changed. as per my knowledge that text has not been touched. general guidelines are fine to follow for general people. India is not a general person. india is a special case for which there are special guidelines.

if you want to club 2008 guidelines with general guidelines then you will have club the full scope safe guard along with the pre 2008 full scope safe guard as well.
unless india specific document of 2008 is changed regarding 2008 ENR provisons, India won't be affected. you just jumpin g the gun to soon. these agreement take time. with japan we still do not even have the general agreement in place. japan always insist upon India joining NPT. see countries don't give ENR tech easily. they will give them slowly slowly.

like I said date of guidelines is not the matter, it is the context of the guidelines.
 
Last edited:

sukhish

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2009
Messages
1,321
Likes
311
Illogical. No legal basis. You can reject it but provide legal basis for rejecting it? NSG rules apply to France, America and Russia. They will follow them. Their internal law will follow NSG. You will not follow NSG. They can't change their Internal law as it will break international law from 2005 as per America. Even if the international law is only changed in 2011. America, France and Russia can't now go and change their pre-existing internal law from before the Indo-US deal. They refused to change it for you in 2008 standing in New Delhi. Read the statements of French and Russian delegations on ENR. ENR is not part of deal. Why, Internal law. back in 2008. Now in 2011, it's also the international law. You can reject the general compartment or special compartment. The trains belong to NSG not to you. They will give you the reservation not India jumping up and down in parliament. You should run trains to get special compartment not ride in train owned by 44 countries including America, France and Russia.
yes france , russia and america will follow NSG law. in the same NSG law india specific provisions are already in place. they won't be breaking NSG rule
by supply ENR as per paragraph 6) and 7) fo the 2008 text. how come they are not following the pre existing law about the full scope safe guards , isn't that a law also. why are they giving exemption to India from the full scope safe guard law. you just struck with date of the NSG amendment, I arguing about the context. india has not signed ENR with these countries yet, because ENR requires paragraph 6) and 7) of india. so it will take time.

as per your theory, for full scope safe guards india's 2008 text replaces the general guicelines, and for ENR, 2011 general guidelines replace the 2008 india ENR text provisons. nice analysis. what I'm trying to say is that this is a parallel arrangement you just clubbing everything into one test and reading it.
what I'am saying is that these are two different texts. Making eveything as one text , by replacing full scope safe guard with 2008 and then replacing 2008 ENR with the 2011 ENR is not that way of reading it correctly. I'm sorry I cannot disagree with you more on this.
 
Last edited:

olivers

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
123
Likes
93
What the hell do you mean by rant? You can't argue does not mean it's a rant. Please rebut all the above posts and arguments made. Or go on in circles. Good luck. Personal threats. P There is no inconsistency in 2008 text to IAEA. We went over this. Read post above for the arguments on why 2008 does not have ENR. Full circle again. Proviso interpretation in previous arguments which you have still not rebutted. Just making political statements is not argument.

You repeating stuff does not make you right. So you read above.
Read why even if you don't follow international law. France and America have 44 countries have to follow NSG rules. So now they have to break the rules.
You won't break them if that's your take on it. So be it. No one else will break them for you. Their law in 2008 was the same as the NSG rule change in 2011. So there will follow 2008 waiver also. It is also not contradictory to their 2008 law. which prohibits sensitive equipment transfer to non NPT signatories. What's the problem here? No problem. Just India's problem.


Blast a device and get out of this deal. This is all there is to it. Or be a second rate power. The choice is yours. Slowly slowing they will do nothing. They did nothing but curtail you in 1974. Now also it's the same. They don't want you to be strong. So sell out crowd was always there. It will always be there. The deal isn't good for us. It's horrible as I have pointed out legally. It's a mess. It's being used against you. It's a liability in the long run. The rules will keep changing and 44 countries will abide by them as they are creating it. So if you want to live in some heaven were one of the 44 will break it for you.

You have to sell your soul to get it. As I suggested earlier. Pay them 50 billion they might break the rules for you. Even then maybe. They didn't do it from 1974 until 2010. What makes you think they will not cap you further in the future? So for all further posts from you. Read previous posts of mine. All the explanations are there.
[/B]

it is not breaking international law. India specific ENR agreement is still in place. there is no question of anybody breaking international law. ENR transfer as per 2008 will have no restrictions far as India's military nuclear programe . you are just confused between general category and india specific. you just ranting
on the general guidelines superceding india specific text. that is not the case here. paragraph 7) of 2011 is general and not india specific. if they have to change india specific, they will have to change the 2008 India text. it is a seperate text. please don't club general guidelines it with India specifc guidelines of 2008. they both are two different things. the reason these countries are dilly dallying are because they want more, and not because of blanket restrictions.

how come they did not put the restrictions in place for ENR in the 2008 text itself. why did NSG communicated to the IAEA in 2008 about the do and don't dos in case of india. ENR pressure was there on india right from the get go. but india sucessfully managed to include ENR provisions in 2008 text. and those provisions are not just valid for the year 2008, 2009 and 2010 only. they valid until that text is changed. as per my knowledge that text has not been touched. general guidelines are fine to follow for general people. India is not a general person. india is a special case for which there are special guidelines.

if you want to club 2008 guidelines with general guidelines then you will have club the full scope safe guard along with the pre 2008 full scope safe guard as well.
unless india specific document of 2008 is changed regarding 2008 ENR provisons, India won't be affected. you just jumpin g the gun to soon. these agreement take time. with japan we still do not even have the general agreement in place. japan always insist upon India joining NPT. see countries don't give ENR tech easily. they will give them slowly slowly.

like I said date of guidelines is not the matter, it is the context of the guidelines.
 
Last edited:

sukhish

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2009
Messages
1,321
Likes
311
so India specific 2008 agreement is not a rule, only general guidelines are the rules. great analysis. you can keep that analysis with you.
according to general guidelines full scope safeguards should also apply to india. aren't these countries breaking the law by giving india fuel without full scope
safeguard agreement. for full scope safe guard pre 2008 general rule does apply, but the for ENR 2011 general rule supercede the 2008 ENR rule for india.

great in depth analysis. it is just that I don't read NSG text as one text, but cutting pasting according to one interpretation. India's 2008 text is seperate. unless they changes provisions in that rule regarding ENR the general compartment rule will not be applicable to india.
 

olivers

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
123
Likes
93
Don't makeup things which I did not state. India specific agreement is part of the body of NSG rules. Nothing special about it. It's amendable by NSG when they want. All rules are subject to amendments. Read up for the rest of the analysis.

A as amended by B as amended by C is the position now.

Even if A as amended by B is the position I have shown why it will not work. Even A as amended by B had no ENR.

Where A is general body. B is Indian amendments to general body. Which includes your full scope exceptions.

So you are stating something I have never stated. I have also shown why in both cases 2008 is also no ENR and 2011 is also not ENR. If you can't read and follow what I have stated and attribute something which I have not stated you are lost.

All the NSG rules prior to 2008 apply to India. Ask any lawyer. Only changes where made to it in 2008 which modified it with some exceptions on safeguards with restrictions on ENR. Even this modification does not provide ENR. I have proved why and how it will fail. Where the legal weakness.

If you say none of the pre 2008 rules of NSG apply. You are a don't know any law. Most of the 2008 rules apply except for the exceptions granted. So you have not made any arguments. You seems to imply I am making a mistake I have not. So I will end this with a note. Just read what's written above. It's comprehensive. It's the position of law. So yeah dream on.

There is no cut and paste separately, not 2008 alone at least. It's 2008 + pre-2008. Even here I have told you the trick played by France, Russia and America with their pre Indian nuclear bilateral agreement changes to their law. Bilateral means laws of both countries unless changed in the bilateral agreement. This was later made into International law in 2011. So French, Americans and Russians never agreed to ENR transfer with you. Even if we don't consider the events after 2008 as your cut and paste theory goes.

If we consider 2011 and events after that.It's clear they don't plan on giving ENR. So no need to impute things which I have not stated.

so India specific 2008 agreement is not a rule, only general guidelines are the rules. great analysis. you can keep that analysis with you.
for full scope safe guard pre 2008 general rule does apply, but the for ENR 2011 general rule supercede the 2008 ENR rule for india.

great in depth analysis. it is just that I don't read NSG text as one text, but cutting pasting according to one interpretation. India's 2008 text is seperate. unless they changes provisions in that rule regarding ENR the general compartment rule will not be applicable to india.
For full scope they changed it in 2008 for you with a restriction on sensitive technologies. So they are not breaking their national law on full cope technologies. They are not breaking their law on ENR also. So there is no problem. Their law says senitive technologies will not be transferred to non NPT non additional protocol states. Your bilateral agreement doesn't require them to transfer it so they did not change that part of their internal law. Read bout 2009 Presidential Putin declaration. They are fully compliant with their rules.

Also to take your logic forward. If India tests nukes they still have to stick to 2008? They can consult and change the rules.

In a separate instance they did that in 2011. They consulted and felt India should not get ENR. They changed it. It's there in your waiver only. Special compartment. Read the waiver. Then come back.

There is no inconsistency between the waiver and denial of ENR. Sensitive technology is restricted. They inserted that text. It's all water under the bride. This is how 44 countries are interpreting it like I said. Please read international interpretations of this issue. This is also btw an issue for Brazil and Argentina. So It's all there.

Rebutt the arguments instead of repeating it. Please go read slowly. The arguments are legal. Require time to digest.
To understand how International law is formed. Read on it. International law grows from National laws. Magna carta became international humanitarian law.

Hitler killed jews. There was no law against in in 1947. How were the nazi's tried. The law is said to exist even before the nunberg trials as national law which is accepted is part of International law. This is too complex for non lawyers. So it's like teaching someone to run a 100 meters race when he is a baby. And please talk to a lawyer if you have any friends who are lawyers don't just type for the sake of typing an argument.

New Global Rules for Sensitive Nuclear Trade - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
 
Last edited:

olivers

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
123
Likes
93
The part of the waiver which give them the right to change things. Lawyers language.

e. Participating Governments will maintain contact and consult through regular channels, including the Consultative Group and Plenary, for the purpose of considering matters connected with the implementation of all aspects of this Statement, taking into account relevant international commitments or bilateral agreements with India. In the event that one or more Participating Governments consider that circumstances have arisen which require consultations, Participating Governments will meet, and then act in accordance with Paragraph 16 of the Guidelines.

Guess what the international commitments are as per America, Russia and France. in 2004. NO ENR transfer without NPT. Which was also in their national laws before the Indian deals were signed. So there are multiple reasons why we messed up. Indian government was in too much of a hurry. They suspected the opposition is not in national interest. They wanted glory. They also wanted to prove they did something in five year. They messed up royally. Now we need to get out of this mess.

They will keep consulting on regular channels even if there is no Paragraph 16. They will also consult on howto implement it. They consulted on ENR and decided not to give it to India.

So there are multiple places where we slipped up not just one. I have listed a lot of arguments. All of these are legally valid arguments. It's how international law works. It's not going to happen again. I don't have time for this any more. Bye.
 
Last edited:

sukhish

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2009
Messages
1,321
Likes
311
yes NSG consulted India prior to the 2011 meeting, and they changed paragraph 7 in 2011. but at the same time they upheld the india's waiver as well.
that's why you have to read both of these in parallel . they did not mention that 2011 paragraph 7) will psupercede In case of India. each and every country
came out and upheld the the Indian waiver of 2008. you are again giving me some long list of POV's from organizations. I have also disscussed this with laywers.
if they wanted they would have changed the 2008 Indian waiver as well in 2011. but they never did that, instead along with the NON NPT paragraph 7 changes, they also upheld the Indian wiaver. indian waiver specifically nullified the full scope safe guards and provided ENR provision. if the provision has been changed in 2011 for general, it does not automatically nullify Indian ENR provisions. don't cut and paste general guidelines with indian waiver.
for india to have the 2011 paragraph 7 effect, they will have to specifically nullify the india ENR provisions, which they never did in 2011, but instead they upheld it.

the reason people are cutting and pasting is , because this kind waiver ( paralle ) never existed before. only in case of india they had to do it. all the FM said that Indian waiver is upheld. that is the reason when U.S secretary of state hillary clinton visited india after the 2011 NSG meeting, she said it is not even an issue. becuase indian specific waiver is being upheld along with the paragraph 7) changes of the 2011. both have to be read in parallel and not as one text.

when India got the waiver it specifically nullified the full scope safeguard, this amendment of 2011 did not specifically nullify the indian ENR clause. you are still giving a long list POV's. I just can't disagree more with you on this one.
 
Last edited:

sukhish

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2009
Messages
1,321
Likes
311
e. Participating Governments will maintain contact and consult through regular channels, including the Consultative Group and Plenary, for the purpose of considering matters connected with the implementation of all aspects of this Statement, taking into account relevant international commitments or bilateral agreements with India. In the event that one or more Participating Governments consider that circumstances have arisen which require consultations, Participating Governments will meet, and then act in accordance with Paragraph 16 of the Guidelines.

Guess what the international commitments are as per America, Russia and France. in 2004. NO ENR transfer without NPT. Which was also in their national laws before the Indian deals were signed


participating governments can change the criteria, but they have to change the indian 2008 waiver. they have the power to do it. but they never changed it in 2011.
 

sukhish

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2009
Messages
1,321
Likes
311
why do they keep emphazing on the India waiver uphold. because they read that waiver in parallel with the general guidelines. they can change guidelines pertaining to india if they want to. for that 2008 waiver have be specifically nullyfied. automactic nullyfication of indian waiver clauses , while uphelding the indian 2008 waiver doe not make sense at all. ENR will be provided to india. period.
 
Last edited:

sukhish

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2009
Messages
1,321
Likes
311
anyways I off of this thread. now you can keep pressing you arguments. but I'm not buying. because they don't make much sense to me.
automatic nullification of the 2008 waiver clause , while upholding the india waiver of 2008. both can't be true at the same time. it just does not make sense.
I won't be able to convience you , and neither you would be able to convience me on this one. so let's leave it to the GoI to implement the full waiver.
 

olivers

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
123
Likes
93
International lawyers are idiots so they will keep cutting and pasting. They spent years studying law to be idiots in 44 countries and some from India also. They should go get training on interpretation from Pranab Mukerjee cos he is only one who can say G8 is wrong NSG is wrong 44 countries are wrong. We will stick only to 2008. Only you are right. :taunt:When you conduct trade VAT applies only to shop keeper. So if it increases or decreases you will not pay. Just because a specific trade (photos maybe) got relief in 2008 and some of that relief was taken away in 2011 for the shop keepers only. You only like taking lots of photographs though. You will not pay the shopkeeper vat as you will still go by the law as it stood in 2008.

This is your interpretation. If the shopkeeper has to abide by the rules so will you indirectly. If the shopkeepers will have to pay you will also have to pay. Anil kakodkar also says btw that you will trade under the new rules.He must be a traitor na? He also said we have Thermonuclear bomb. So he is right there only. So do all lawyers. Must be congress brand of law.
 
Last edited:

olivers

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
123
Likes
93
And as proof, the Government's propagandists have been pointing to Article 5(2) of the 123 Agreement. This clause in fact is just a sleight of words. It says that these "sensitive technologies"¦ may be transferred to India under this agreement pursuant to an amendment to this agreement." Even then, the clause clearly records, the transfer "will be subject to the Parties' respective applicable laws, regulations and license policies." Hence, three conditions: (a) "may be"; (b) "pursuant to an amendment to this agreement"; and (c) "subject to the Parties' respective applicable laws, regulations and license policies." In spite of this, the Government's propagandists have kept repeating that India has won access to these sensitive technologies

In its answers to not one but six questions (Questions 4 to 9) from the US Congress, Bush's Administration says six times, that the sensitive technologies will not be transferred and that there is no proposal at all to amend the 123 Agreement!!

Someone else's take on it.
Shadow Warrior: arun shourie on the lies about the nuclear agreement
Nuclear deal � Arun Shouries Articles

No will grant you that amendment to give you sensitive technologies. Now that amendment is illegal without change to 123. The change will not happen to 123 without NSG change. But International lawyers are fools. They are idiots. They only don't know howto read it. Must go learn from congress howto read what we like instead of what is there in legislation
 
Last edited:

sukhish

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2009
Messages
1,321
Likes
311
also laywers have not said anything offcially ,they have all speculated at best. 123 is the Agreement between India and U.S. I'm talking about India and NSG. french foriegn minister, U.S assitant secratary of state, angela mrkel are also not fools, since they upheld the indian waiver despite 2011 ENR restrictions. which state offical has said ENR is denied to india because of non npt criteria. please give one example of a state official, which has said that India will lose ENR because 2011 paragraph 6 changes. they have all upheld 2008 waiver. I think you are throughly programmed into beliving that nuclear deal is the worst outcome.

123 is U.S india agreement. U.S has domestic compulsion of not supplying to any country. there was big uproar about ENR back in 2007, but they did allow in the NSG agreement, got it. 123 is not NSG agreement. I have already outlined NSG text waiver to you. make relevant points and not some international laywer whom nobody even knows domestically.


anways i'm not a big fan of arun shourie. he is modest at best to me. But I do believe in foriegn minister statements, assitant secretary of state statements and gernmen chancellor statements. you can tell your international laywer to talk to these folks and the get some answers.
 
Last edited:

sukhish

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2009
Messages
1,321
Likes
311
In its answers to not one but six questions (Questions 4 to 9) from the US Congress, Bush's Administration says six times, that the sensitive technologies will not be transferred and that there is no proposal at all to amend the 123 Agreement!!

yes it is true that U.S denies ENR tech to india. they don't even supply to france, china or russia , because of domestic law. but they allowed it in the NSG agreement. there is distinctions between NSG and 123.
 

olivers

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
123
Likes
93
In its answers to not one but six questions (Questions 4 to 9) from the US Congress, Bush's Administration says six times, that the sensitive technologies will not be transferred and that there is no proposal at all to amend the 123 Agreement!!

yes it is true that U.S denies ENR tech to india. they don't even supply to france, china or russia , because of domestic law. but they allowed it in the NSG agreement. there is distinctions between NSG and 123.
Read above. Ramayan started over again with rama as sita's uncle.
 

olivers

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
123
Likes
93
In its answers to not one but six questions (Questions 4 to 9) from the US Congress, Bush's Administration says six times, that the sensitive technologies will not be transferred and that there is no proposal at all to amend the 123 Agreement!!

yes it is true that U.S denies ENR tech to india. they don't even supply to france, china or russia , because of domestic law. but they allowed it in the NSG agreement. there is distinctions between NSG and 123.
US has supplied ENR to Japan. China and Russia are enemies of US. You are their enemy?
Read the rest of the why you are wrong above.
 
Last edited:

olivers

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
123
Likes
93
also laywers have not said anything offcially ,they have all speculated at best. 123 is the Agreement between India and U.S. I'm talking about India and NSG. french foriegn minister, U.S assitant secratary of state, angela mrkel are also not fools, since they upheld the indian waiver despite 2011 ENR restrictions. which state offical has said ENR is denied to india because of non npt criteria. please give one example of a state official, which has said that India will lose ENR because 2011 paragraph 6 changes. they have all upheld 2008 waiver. I think you are throughly programmed into beliving that nuclear deal is the worst outcome.

123 is U.S india agreement. U.S has domestic compulsion of not supplying to any country. there was big uproar about ENR back in 2007, but they did allow in the NSG agreement, got it. 123 is not NSG agreement. I have already outlined NSG text waiver to you. make relevant points and not some international laywer whom nobody even knows domestically.
anways i'm not a big fan of arun shourie. he is modest at best to me. But I do believe in foriegn minister statements, assitant secretary of state statements and gernmen chancellor statements. you can tell your international laywer to talk to these folks and the get some answers.
I suggest you goto law school for 5 years. Then read all the crap you wrote in the first year of Law school. You will know your arguments have no legal basis. Read above for a rebuttal of all your arguments. Taken to the cleaners.
 

sukhish

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2009
Messages
1,321
Likes
311
I think you need to take rest. I also know shyam saran negotiated on this point for months back in 2007. ENR was the main sticking point when NSG waiver
was being drafted. shyam saran ( the then foriegn secretary ) had to burn mignight oil just to make sure that U.S demestic law does not become a benchmark for the rest of the 44 contries in NSG. does you international laywer friend knew why it took almost two years to get the NSG draft agreement. 75% of time was used to negotiate ENR and reprocessing related technologies.

do you know who shyam saran is. did you read his article after 2011 NSG changes. they had the same discussions back in 2007 and 2008. this why they included ENR provisions in the NSG waiver. if they would not have included any ENR references in the 2008 agreement , then I would have agreed with your point. all these international laywers are not superior to the state offcials who actually draft these agreements.
 

olivers

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
123
Likes
93
I think you need to take rest. I also know shyam saran negotiated on this point for months back in 2007. ENR was the main sticking point when NSG waiver
was being drafted. shyam saran ( the then foriegn secretary ) had to burn mignight oil just to make sure that U.S demestic law does not become a benchmark for the rest of the 44 contries in NSG. does you international laywer friend knew why it took almost two years to get the NSG draft agreement. 75% of time was used to negotiate ENR and reprocessing related technologies.

do you know who shyam saran is. did you read his article after 2011 NSG changes. they had the same discussions back in 2007 and 2008. this why they included ENR provisions in the NSG waiver. if they would not have included any ENR references in the 2008 agreement , then I would have agreed with your point. all these international laywers are not superior to the state offcials who actually draft these agreements.
Read above all these points already discussed and taken to cleaners. Shyam saran is not better than Shourie, It does not matter who it is telling what. The legal interpretations given in this thread are mine. There is enough support for that. I don't have to fall back on someone else. I took all of your arguments to the cleaners right in this thread. Because y we negotiated for 75% of time so ENR is there. You negotiate with sabzi wala for an hour. Does not mean you got everything you asked for. All arguments taken to cleaners. Now all logical flaws will come in. Read earlier rebuttals. Answer the questions on all legal analogies before we go ahead. You won't pay vat?
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top