Over the last few weeks, I've been pre-occupied by an online debate over a crucial question, and its implications for online content and advertising: Is the Internet making us more stupid, or more intelligent?
On one side: Nicholas Carr. In an article for the Atlantic, Carr argued that "the Net... is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation". Because it encourages us to read shorter articles and flit between them via links, he says, our capacity for thought is becoming impaired. In support of Carr's view, writers are being taught to assume that readers have almost no attention span when reading on the Web.
On the other side: Scott Karp. Karp claims that our shift in reading behavior to shorter, hyperlinked articles on the Web is a more efficient way of gathering information, and that our mode of thinking may be changing for the better.
This debate has pre-occupied me because, after months of research and planning, we recently launched what we think is the best free financial news product on the Internet (Market Currents). And guess what? No coincidence: It consists of tiny bite-sized nuggets of information, with outbound links in almost every sentence. Perhaps we just contributed to the dumbing-down of humanity.
In pondering the question of whether the Internet is reducing our capacity for thought, I've come to the conclusion that the problem isn't what we read on the Web, but how we read on the Web. And this distinction provides the key to a question of huge economic importance to anyone involved in the Internet: Why aren't online ad rates higher? Let me explain.
Carr and Karp focus on the brevity of most articles on the 'Net and the existence of hyperlinks between them. For Carr, constant reading of short articles shrinks our attention spans, entailing the loss of our ability to read books and longer articles. For Karp, shorter, hyperlinked articles are a more efficient way of finding information, so he views them as an advantage, not a threat.
The real concentration problem
But as I examine my own online reading behavior, I find that my inability to focus isn't due to the length of Web articles, but how I'm reading them. Four factors reduce my concentration when reading articles on the Web:
1. When I'm reading an article on the Web, I often shouldn't be. A frequent scenario: I'm reading and responding to emails, and one of them contains a link to an article. So I click on it, and quickly skim the article. But really I intended to spend this time responding to emails, not reading articles. Another scenario: I'm working on something, but take frequent and short breaks to check the news. In both cases, I haven't intentionally allotted time to reading an article on the Web; I've been distracted into reading an article on the web. Contrast that with reading a newspaper: when I read a newspaper, I've consciously decided to allot time to that, so my concentration level is far higher.
2. When I'm reading an article on the Web, I'm often distracted by other activities. Once I do decide to read an article on the Web, I'm constantly distracted. Reading anything on a PC is hard, because PCs make it so easy to flit between tasks with a single click. Email, again, is the worst culprit: somehow its real time nature lures me into checking email frequently even when I'm doing something else. I let myself be pulled into answering emails as they enter my inbox, whatever else I'm doing.
3. Hyperlinks within articles themselves can be a distraction. Often I'll click a hyperlink to check it out, and that pulls me away from the article I'm reading. Prof. Michael Jackson says that hyperlinks are turning us into a race of mental grasshoppers. "Links help you to pick your own path through a complex mass of information," he says , "but they also distract you, tempt you into pointless digression, and break the coherence of your thought."
4. Reading is harder on a screen. I remember reading an article by Jacob Nielsen in which he estimated that it's 25% harder to read an article on a PC monitor than on a sheet of paper. (If you know the source, please leave a link below.)
The core problem, then, isn't that short articles are cutting my attention span, but that when I read articles on the Web my concentration is weak to start with. Put differently, when I read an article on the Web, I don't have strong enough intention and focus to do what I'm doing.
Do Bloggers have A.D.D.?
If correct, this analysis explains an unusual phenomenon we've seen at Seeking Alpha: Blogger A.D.D. Some background: each quarter, U.S. public companies issue their financial results and do a conference call with analysts to discuss their results. These calls are packed with valuable information about companies and industries. But the calls are hard to listen to -- they last an hour and often overlapy with each other. So professional investors read transcripts instead of listening to the calls themselves. We decided to make these transcripts available to everyone by publishing them for free every quarter, with powerful search tools.
But remarkably, bloggers, who are arguably the most Web savvy Internet users, hardly ever read the transcripts or link to them. Bloggers are writing regular commentary on Google, Apple, the newspaper industry and alternative energy, but are ignoring unquestionably the best source of information on these topics, which is now available for free. Moreover, the transcripts contain not only the best information about companies and industries, but also a ton of great quotes. The problem is that they're over 10 pages long (though you can view them on Seeking Alpha in a single page.) In contrast, Seeking Alpha's regular readers -- investors, who perhaps have longer attention spans as they research stocks -- are consuming over a million page views of transcripts in a typical month.
My guess is that bloggers, at the forefront of Internet usage, have lost the level of concentration required to skim a long document. How else to explain the fact that this earnings season, tens of bloggers will write about Google and Apple's results, but not one of them will read the transcripts of those companies' conference calls to find out what's really going on in their businesses?
Why banner ad prices are so cheap
Weak concentration when reading Web content also explains why the value of online banner ads is far lower than it could be. In theory, online ads should command higher rates due to three advantages they have over print or TV ads. First, online ads are usually contextually or behaviorally relevant. Second, they're clickable, so you can quickly execute a transaction or find more information about the advertiser. And third, their impact is measurable.
But the reality is that most online ads command far lower rates than print ads. Why? Because readers of online content are only "half there"; they often haven't intentionally allotted time and mental space to think and ponder when reading online. So they don't adequately consider ads, even when the ads are contextually relevant to what they're reading. In contrast, when I personally read a newspaper, I'm "fully there", and when I pause to think about an article, my eyes meander to the ads next to the article which I consider with more concentration than online ads.
Google's dominance of the online ad market
This also explains why Google (GOOG) dominates the online ad market. When I'm searching online, I'm doing something that requires intention -- I have to type in a search phrase, rather than just click a link. I'm interested in results related to my search, even if they are ads. In other words, I usually have far stronger intentionality when searching than when reading an article. As a result, Google's search ads have better performance than most banner ads. Combine that with the frequency with which Web users perform searches, and it's clear why Goolge dominates the online ad market.
Google's dominance of the online ad market will change if ads displayed next to content perform better. For that to happen, we need to stop ourselves becoming "mental grasshoppers".
How will we achieve that? The Internet and mobile devices have both given us great tools for instantaneous connectivity. Now we need to develop better tools to combat unimportant interruptions, and provide better prioritization and time management. Top of my list: stop using email as a de facto time manager, because what arrived most recently isn't necessarily the most important claim on your attention. Constantly checking email disrupts concentration on other, more important tasks.
If we can spend more time doing what we really intend to do when we intend to do it, the Internet will enhance our knowledge processing and analysis rather than curb it. Online disply ad rates will then rocket, to the benefit of publishers like the New York Times (NYT), Time Warner (TWX), News Corp (NWS), Pearson's FT.com (PSO), Yahoo! (YHOO) and TheStreet.com (TSCM). And Google's share of the overall ad market will decline.
Monday, July 14, 2008
U.S. stock futures stronger after government plan
U.S. stock futures pointed to opening gains after an extraordinary weekend in which the White House moved to rescue beleaguered mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and Anheuser-Busch recommended a $52 billion buyout offer.
S&P 500 futures rose 11.2 points to 1,251.00 and Nasdaq 100 futures rose 16.25 points to 1,836.50. Dow industrial futures rose 77 points.
U.S. stocks dropped on Friday on worries about the health of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, with the Dow industrials falling 128 points, the Nasdaq Composite losing 18 points and the S&P 500 dropping 13 points.
But the U.S. government announced a dramatic package over the weekend: the Federal Reserve will open up its emergency discount window to Fannie and Freddie - the pair own or guarantee $5.2 billion in U.S. home mortgages -- while Treasury said it will seek Congressional approval to buy stock and increase the government's credit line.
S&P 500 futures rose 11.2 points to 1,251.00 and Nasdaq 100 futures rose 16.25 points to 1,836.50. Dow industrial futures rose 77 points.
U.S. stocks dropped on Friday on worries about the health of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, with the Dow industrials falling 128 points, the Nasdaq Composite losing 18 points and the S&P 500 dropping 13 points.
But the U.S. government announced a dramatic package over the weekend: the Federal Reserve will open up its emergency discount window to Fannie and Freddie - the pair own or guarantee $5.2 billion in U.S. home mortgages -- while Treasury said it will seek Congressional approval to buy stock and increase the government's credit line.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Menon meets Karzai, discusses rooting out terrorism
With increased threat to Indian assets in Afghanistan causing concern, New Delhi and Kabul favoured targeting the bases of terrorist outfits and their financial links to root out the menace from the region.
Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon, who is in Kabul on a two-day visit to review security of the Indian missions and workers in the wake of the suicide attack on New Delhi's embassy, held talks with President Hamid Karzai.
During the 30-minute meeting, the two sides discussed the issue of security in the wake of the Monday suicide attack, which they felt was the handiwork of ''enemies'' of relations between the two countries.
Menon, who also met Foreign Minister Rangeen Dadfar Spanta, was assured that the Afghan government would do everything possible to protect Indian assets in this country.
The two sides agreed that ''terrorism is a threat to both the countries as well as stability and democracy of the region,'' Afghan Foreign Ministry spokesman Sultan Ahmad Baheen told a news agency.
Karzai and Menon were of the view that it is ''not enough to fight the symptom of terrorism'' that is visible in Afghanistan but the menace should be ''rooted out from the region by targeting bases, recruitment places and financial links,'' Baheen said.
Among the 58 dead in the Indian embassy attack, four were Indians, including a Brigadier-rank Defence Attache and a senior IFS officer
Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon, who is in Kabul on a two-day visit to review security of the Indian missions and workers in the wake of the suicide attack on New Delhi's embassy, held talks with President Hamid Karzai.
During the 30-minute meeting, the two sides discussed the issue of security in the wake of the Monday suicide attack, which they felt was the handiwork of ''enemies'' of relations between the two countries.
Menon, who also met Foreign Minister Rangeen Dadfar Spanta, was assured that the Afghan government would do everything possible to protect Indian assets in this country.
The two sides agreed that ''terrorism is a threat to both the countries as well as stability and democracy of the region,'' Afghan Foreign Ministry spokesman Sultan Ahmad Baheen told a news agency.
Karzai and Menon were of the view that it is ''not enough to fight the symptom of terrorism'' that is visible in Afghanistan but the menace should be ''rooted out from the region by targeting bases, recruitment places and financial links,'' Baheen said.
Among the 58 dead in the Indian embassy attack, four were Indians, including a Brigadier-rank Defence Attache and a senior IFS officer
Afghanistan: Nine US troops killed as Taliban attack remote base close to Pakistan border
The Nato-led effort to subdue the Taliban suffered one of its heaviest blows since the 2001 invasion yesterday when nine US soldiers were killed and 15 other Nato troops injured in a day-long battle in a region close to the Pakistan border.
The US troops died as their base came under attack in Kunar province, eastern Afghanistan. The news puts further pressure on Pakistan, where coalition forces believe many Taliban militants are based. It was among the biggest losses for the coalition since the start of the war.
The fighting was set off after a multi-pronged militant assault on a small, remote US base. Militants fired machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars from homes and a mosque in the village of Wanat, in Kunar, a mountainous region that borders Pakistan, Nato's International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) said.
The attack began at 4.30am and lasted throughout the day, claiming the lives of nine Americans and dozens of Taliban.
It was the deadliest incident for US troops in Afghanistan since June 2005, when 16 troops were killed when their helicopter was shot down by a rocket-propelled grenade.
A spokesman for Isaf in Kabul said last night: "We defended this base. There are still some operations on-going. The insurgents were repulsed and there is no fighting now but they might pop up again." There were "heavy casualties" among the Taliban, according to the coalition.
With 28 soldiers killed, June was the deadliest month for coalition forces since 2001. July is looking to be costly in military and civilian terms. Earlier this month, the bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul killed 41. The Afghan authorities accused Pakistan's ISI intelligence agency of orchestrating the bombing.
Earlier yesterday, a suicide bomber on a motorcycle killed 24 people, many of them children, in the southern province of Uruzgan. A gun battle in Helmand province, also in the south, killed more than 40 militants, the coalition said. Another attack in Helmand left an Isaf soldier dead - the nationality was not disclosed.
Elsewhere, Taliban militants killed two women in central Afghanistan after accusing them of working as prostitutes on a US base. The women, dressed in burkas, were shot and killed on Saturday just outside Ghazni city in central Afghanistan.
Taliban suicide bombs have killed more than 230 civilians and wounded nearly 500 this year. There are signs that Washington is losing patience with Pakistan for not stopping the use of its tribal area as a safe haven for Taliban and al-Qaida.
Worse, parts of Pakistan's security apparatus are suspected of secretly supporting the Taliban. There are fears in Pakistan that the US could attack militants based on Pakistan's side of the border, concern that will be heightened by the scale of the US casualties yesterday.
On Saturday, the head of the US military, Admiral Mike Mullen, made a surprise visit to Islamabad with a blunt message: cooperate in the "war on terror" or face unilateral US intervention.
Britain has already signalled that Afghanistan has become a higher priority than Iraq, as it draws down troops from Basra and steps up its involvement in Helmand. There were signs at the weekend that Washington may be considering a similar switch, as it emerged that George Bush is deliberating faster troop withdrawals from Iraq during his final months in the White House. The New York Times reported yesterday that as many as three of the 15 combat brigades in Iraq could be withdrawn by the time he leaves office.
The US troops died as their base came under attack in Kunar province, eastern Afghanistan. The news puts further pressure on Pakistan, where coalition forces believe many Taliban militants are based. It was among the biggest losses for the coalition since the start of the war.
The fighting was set off after a multi-pronged militant assault on a small, remote US base. Militants fired machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars from homes and a mosque in the village of Wanat, in Kunar, a mountainous region that borders Pakistan, Nato's International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) said.
The attack began at 4.30am and lasted throughout the day, claiming the lives of nine Americans and dozens of Taliban.
It was the deadliest incident for US troops in Afghanistan since June 2005, when 16 troops were killed when their helicopter was shot down by a rocket-propelled grenade.
A spokesman for Isaf in Kabul said last night: "We defended this base. There are still some operations on-going. The insurgents were repulsed and there is no fighting now but they might pop up again." There were "heavy casualties" among the Taliban, according to the coalition.
With 28 soldiers killed, June was the deadliest month for coalition forces since 2001. July is looking to be costly in military and civilian terms. Earlier this month, the bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul killed 41. The Afghan authorities accused Pakistan's ISI intelligence agency of orchestrating the bombing.
Earlier yesterday, a suicide bomber on a motorcycle killed 24 people, many of them children, in the southern province of Uruzgan. A gun battle in Helmand province, also in the south, killed more than 40 militants, the coalition said. Another attack in Helmand left an Isaf soldier dead - the nationality was not disclosed.
Elsewhere, Taliban militants killed two women in central Afghanistan after accusing them of working as prostitutes on a US base. The women, dressed in burkas, were shot and killed on Saturday just outside Ghazni city in central Afghanistan.
Taliban suicide bombs have killed more than 230 civilians and wounded nearly 500 this year. There are signs that Washington is losing patience with Pakistan for not stopping the use of its tribal area as a safe haven for Taliban and al-Qaida.
Worse, parts of Pakistan's security apparatus are suspected of secretly supporting the Taliban. There are fears in Pakistan that the US could attack militants based on Pakistan's side of the border, concern that will be heightened by the scale of the US casualties yesterday.
On Saturday, the head of the US military, Admiral Mike Mullen, made a surprise visit to Islamabad with a blunt message: cooperate in the "war on terror" or face unilateral US intervention.
Britain has already signalled that Afghanistan has become a higher priority than Iraq, as it draws down troops from Basra and steps up its involvement in Helmand. There were signs at the weekend that Washington may be considering a similar switch, as it emerged that George Bush is deliberating faster troop withdrawals from Iraq during his final months in the White House. The New York Times reported yesterday that as many as three of the 15 combat brigades in Iraq could be withdrawn by the time he leaves office.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Iran fires more missiles in war games
Iran test-fired more weapons on Thursday as it continued war games, ignoring global concern over its launch of a broadside of missiles in the midst of efforts to end the nuclear crisis.
The weapons fired in the Gulf by the naval section of the Revolutionary Guards included shore-to-sea, surface-to-surface and sea-to-air missiles, state television said. No details were given on the names of the missiles.
It said the war games also included the firing of the Hoot (Whale) torpedo that Iran unveiled in April 2006 and which it says is a super-fast weapon capable of hitting enemy submarines.
Iran on Wednesday test-fired its Shahab-3 longer range missile, whose range includes Israel and US bases in the Gulf, and eight other more medium range missiles.
The move sparked major concern in Western governments which say they fear Iran's nuclear drive is aimed at making atomic weapons, a charge that Tehran vehemently denies.
In a separate night-time land exercise late on Wednesday, the military also fired "longer and medium range missiles" state television said. Pictures broadcast showed several missiles being fired into the night sky.
Images were also broadcast of the naval manoeuvres, showing divers fixing mines to a pier, missiles fired from shore-based mobile launchers to the sea and the Hoot speeding towards a target.
The United States and its regional ally Israel has never ruled out military action against Iranian atomic facilities, while Tehran has warned of a fierce response if it is attacked.
After a warning from an aide to supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei that Iran would "set fire" to Israel and US ships in the Gulf if it was attacked, US Secretary Condoleezza Rice warned that the United States would defend itself.
"We will defend American interests and the interests of our allies. We take very strongly our obligation to defend our allies and we intend to do that," she told reporters in Tbilisi.
There has been concern an attack against Iran could be imminent after it emerged that Israel had carried out manoeuvres in Greece that were effectively dry runs for a potential strike against Iranian nuclear facilities.
But US Defence Secretary Robert Gates played down the risks of conflict. "The reality is there is a lot of signalling going on, but everybody recognises what the consequences of any kind of a conflict would be," he said.
The chief of French energy giant Total Christophe de Margerie said it was too politically risky to invest in Iran at present, as Western governments lean on firms to cut their ties with the Islamic republic.
His remarks appear to spell the end of Total's involvement in a deal to exploit the phase 11 of Iran's giant South Pars gas field to produce liquefied natural gas (LNG) for export and to build a liquefaction plant.
"Today we would be taking too much political risk to invest in Iran because people will say: 'Total will do anything for money'," de Margerie told the Financial Times.
The news is likely to be a major blow for Iran, which is in dire need of foreign investment to develop its largely untapped gas reserves and realise its ambition of becoming a major gas exporter.
The war games come in the midst of increased diplomatic efforts to end the five-year standoff over the Iranian nuclear drive.
Iran has responded to an offer from world powers to end the crisis, and diplomats are analysing what is said to be a complex answer from Tehran.
EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana is expected to hold talks with top Iranian nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili on the latest proposals by the end of the month, Solana's spokeswoman said.
The offer proposes that Iran suspend uranium enrichment -- the key sticking point in the crisis and the process which the West fears could be used to make a nuclear weapon -- in exchange for technological incentives.
However, France says Iran does not say in its response that it is prepared to suspend uranium enrichment.
The weapons fired in the Gulf by the naval section of the Revolutionary Guards included shore-to-sea, surface-to-surface and sea-to-air missiles, state television said. No details were given on the names of the missiles.
It said the war games also included the firing of the Hoot (Whale) torpedo that Iran unveiled in April 2006 and which it says is a super-fast weapon capable of hitting enemy submarines.
Iran on Wednesday test-fired its Shahab-3 longer range missile, whose range includes Israel and US bases in the Gulf, and eight other more medium range missiles.
The move sparked major concern in Western governments which say they fear Iran's nuclear drive is aimed at making atomic weapons, a charge that Tehran vehemently denies.
In a separate night-time land exercise late on Wednesday, the military also fired "longer and medium range missiles" state television said. Pictures broadcast showed several missiles being fired into the night sky.
Images were also broadcast of the naval manoeuvres, showing divers fixing mines to a pier, missiles fired from shore-based mobile launchers to the sea and the Hoot speeding towards a target.
The United States and its regional ally Israel has never ruled out military action against Iranian atomic facilities, while Tehran has warned of a fierce response if it is attacked.
After a warning from an aide to supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei that Iran would "set fire" to Israel and US ships in the Gulf if it was attacked, US Secretary Condoleezza Rice warned that the United States would defend itself.
"We will defend American interests and the interests of our allies. We take very strongly our obligation to defend our allies and we intend to do that," she told reporters in Tbilisi.
There has been concern an attack against Iran could be imminent after it emerged that Israel had carried out manoeuvres in Greece that were effectively dry runs for a potential strike against Iranian nuclear facilities.
But US Defence Secretary Robert Gates played down the risks of conflict. "The reality is there is a lot of signalling going on, but everybody recognises what the consequences of any kind of a conflict would be," he said.
The chief of French energy giant Total Christophe de Margerie said it was too politically risky to invest in Iran at present, as Western governments lean on firms to cut their ties with the Islamic republic.
His remarks appear to spell the end of Total's involvement in a deal to exploit the phase 11 of Iran's giant South Pars gas field to produce liquefied natural gas (LNG) for export and to build a liquefaction plant.
"Today we would be taking too much political risk to invest in Iran because people will say: 'Total will do anything for money'," de Margerie told the Financial Times.
The news is likely to be a major blow for Iran, which is in dire need of foreign investment to develop its largely untapped gas reserves and realise its ambition of becoming a major gas exporter.
The war games come in the midst of increased diplomatic efforts to end the five-year standoff over the Iranian nuclear drive.
Iran has responded to an offer from world powers to end the crisis, and diplomats are analysing what is said to be a complex answer from Tehran.
EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana is expected to hold talks with top Iranian nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili on the latest proposals by the end of the month, Solana's spokeswoman said.
The offer proposes that Iran suspend uranium enrichment -- the key sticking point in the crisis and the process which the West fears could be used to make a nuclear weapon -- in exchange for technological incentives.
However, France says Iran does not say in its response that it is prepared to suspend uranium enrichment.
Govt unveils text of safeguards pact
The IAEA is believed to be working on convening a Board meeting to approve the agreement, which is the next step in operationalisation of the Indo-US nuclear deal
The Government on Thursday released the controversial text of the India-specific safeguards agreement that has reportedly been sent to the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) for its ratification.
The draft safeguards agreement was circulated to the UN nuclear watchdog's Board of Governors yesterday, according to reports. The draft was circulated following a request from the Indian Government, the IAEA said.
"At the request of the Government of India, the IAEA Secretariat today circulated to members of the IAEA Board of Governors for their consideration, the draft of an agreement for the application of safeguards to civilian nuclear facilities," IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said in Vienna yesterday.
The IAEA is believed to be working on convening a meeting of its Board to approve the India-centric safeguards agreement, which is the next step in the operationalisation of the Indo-US civil nuclear deal.
Fleming said that the Board chairman will consult fellow IAEA members to fix a date to discuss the draft amid reports that a special governors meeting will be convened in Vienna on July 28 to discuss the safeguards text.
"The chairman of the IAEA Board is consulting with other members to agree on a date for a meeting when the agreement would be considered," she said.
Significantly, the move by the Indian Government comes in the wake of Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee's comments that the Centre will approach the IAEA only after seeking a trust vote in parliament.
Meanwhile, Congress spokesperson Veerappa Moily said that the Government is ready to seek a trust vote in parliament before the IAEA Board meeting. He said that the UPA had not reneged on its promise by circulating the safeguards draft.
The BJP, the main opposition party, had criticised the Government for deceiving the people of the country by going to the IAEA Board with a draft safeguards agreement without obtaining an approval from the parliament
The Government on Thursday released the controversial text of the India-specific safeguards agreement that has reportedly been sent to the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) for its ratification.
The draft safeguards agreement was circulated to the UN nuclear watchdog's Board of Governors yesterday, according to reports. The draft was circulated following a request from the Indian Government, the IAEA said.
"At the request of the Government of India, the IAEA Secretariat today circulated to members of the IAEA Board of Governors for their consideration, the draft of an agreement for the application of safeguards to civilian nuclear facilities," IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said in Vienna yesterday.
The IAEA is believed to be working on convening a meeting of its Board to approve the India-centric safeguards agreement, which is the next step in the operationalisation of the Indo-US civil nuclear deal.
Fleming said that the Board chairman will consult fellow IAEA members to fix a date to discuss the draft amid reports that a special governors meeting will be convened in Vienna on July 28 to discuss the safeguards text.
"The chairman of the IAEA Board is consulting with other members to agree on a date for a meeting when the agreement would be considered," she said.
Significantly, the move by the Indian Government comes in the wake of Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee's comments that the Centre will approach the IAEA only after seeking a trust vote in parliament.
Meanwhile, Congress spokesperson Veerappa Moily said that the Government is ready to seek a trust vote in parliament before the IAEA Board meeting. He said that the UPA had not reneged on its promise by circulating the safeguards draft.
The BJP, the main opposition party, had criticised the Government for deceiving the people of the country by going to the IAEA Board with a draft safeguards agreement without obtaining an approval from the parliament
India rejects reports of attack on consulate in Afghanistan
India today rubbished as "mischievous campaign" reports of attack on its consulate in Jalalabad in Afghanistan.
"There is no truth in the reports of a terrorist bomb attack on Indian consulate in Jalalabad, Afghanistan," official sources said here.
A section of the Pakistani press had reported that suspected Taliban elements had attacked the Indian consulate in Jalalabad and killed six persons, including two Indians.
"There was no such attack and these reports are part of a mischievous campaign," the sources said.
All Indian missions in Afghanistan have been on high security alert in the wake of the suicide attack on the Indian Embassy in Kabul on Monday that left 41 people dead.
Afghan authorities had hinted at possible involvement of a Pakistan-based terror outfit in the Kabul blasts.
The sources said that it was possible that these elements may be spreading news in the Pakistani media of an attack on Indian mission in Jalalabad. PTI
"There is no truth in the reports of a terrorist bomb attack on Indian consulate in Jalalabad, Afghanistan," official sources said here.
A section of the Pakistani press had reported that suspected Taliban elements had attacked the Indian consulate in Jalalabad and killed six persons, including two Indians.
"There was no such attack and these reports are part of a mischievous campaign," the sources said.
All Indian missions in Afghanistan have been on high security alert in the wake of the suicide attack on the Indian Embassy in Kabul on Monday that left 41 people dead.
Afghan authorities had hinted at possible involvement of a Pakistan-based terror outfit in the Kabul blasts.
The sources said that it was possible that these elements may be spreading news in the Pakistani media of an attack on Indian mission in Jalalabad. PTI
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)