India Nuclear News & Discussion - 10 Aug 2007

Locked
samuel
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52

Post by samuel »

Calvin wrote: Are we in agreement that the safeguards are only applicable for foreign-origin facilities that use foreign-fuel and when FBR becomes the norm, the safeguards go out the window. So, effectively what we have is a "non-perpetual safeguards" situation.
The FBRs on the civil list are under safeguards. Yes we get to decide which ones get put on the civil list. Going by pronouncements most of the future breeder (was it 90% or 95%) will end up in the civil list. Any reactor that uses foreign fuel or reprocessed spent fuel whose source is foreign fuel IS under safeguard. There is no way to run massive number of FBRs with our fuel. There is no way to run them on foreign fuel derived Pu outside of safeguards. What are you talking about?
Tilak
BRFite
Posts: 733
Joined: 31 Jul 2005 20:19
Location: Old Lal Masjid @BRFATA (*Renovation*)

Post by Tilak »

Sanjay M wrote:As you say, Hyde Act will not permit a broadening/loosening/renegotiation of this agreement down the road. But 123 deal permits all that consultation stuff for us to find other supplies later on, which is not part of Hyde Act. So really what we have to examine is how Hyde Act will permit the consultation stuff for getting India alternate supplies, when it comes time for India to terminate its participation.
India wary of U.S. goalpost shift on NSG clearance

Not according to the above, India is on its own... if the NSG members demand even more or equal [ie. not less than what Hyde permits] stricter controls in addition to what has been acceded, India will be put through the limbo..

Classic consolidation/ Backdoor move...

<2 cents>
On an different note, if Markey and Lantos can flash their "fatwas" and can work in tandem to get a deal in their US National Interest, do the Indian Parliamentarian's have to suck up ?, if it was for me, I would say let them play their game.. This is a larger PR game US is playing "see what we can do to the worlds largest" business, and the world is a witness.. So I'll settle for "H&D" when the other option is a "Ben Dover" movie..

This this deal is not only about "signing the dotted line", it is about implementation too.. A simple "warning to Private sector or Multi-Nationals" that the next government cannot "protect/review their investment" is enough to cut the "UPA's(minus the Commies) gunplay", are we there yet ? or) is the opposition "expecting something positive while the deal is still playing out, possibly offering the Govt. a face saver". I don't know. But going by the statements "warning shots have been fired"..

So i'll keep my peace and hope that NSG thing goes well.. I don't have my hopes too high... ( clocks for the Press Release were "synced" and not the "text" ):roll:
</ 2 cents>
samuel
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52

Post by samuel »

N-deal differences cannot be reconciled: Left

This was funny:
Concurring with Karat, Bardhan said that his party was for taking a "sense" of the House and not a vote as it would show which way the "wind is blowing" on the issue which has led to a Left-United Progressive Alliance standoff.
Calvin
BRFite
Posts: 623
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by Calvin »

Any reactor that uses foreign fuel or reprocessed spent fuel whose source is foreign fuel IS under safeguard. There is no way to run massive number of FBRs with our fuel.
It was my understanding that the FBRs would use Thorium as a blanket, which would then create U233. The U233 would then be used in the Third Stage and ATBR.

Am I missing something?
samuel
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52

Post by samuel »

Reprocessing unplugged:
reprocessing...
Don't know veracity of source, but says:
[quote]
“Also the US law states that while we can promise reprocessing consent rights, we have to negotiate a subsequent agreement. We will do that and Congress will have the right to review that agreementâ€
samuel
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52

Post by samuel »

Calvin wrote:
Any reactor that uses foreign fuel or reprocessed spent fuel whose source is foreign fuel IS under safeguard. There is no way to run massive number of FBRs with our fuel.
It was my understanding that the FBRs would use Thorium as a blanket, which would then create U233. The U233 would then be used in the Third Stage and ATBR.

Am I missing something?
Hi Calvin,

Yes, FBRs running of spent fuel that is foreign sourced is under safeguard. The U233 produced from (indian) Th irradiated in the civil FBR stays civil (safeguarded). Can't shift U233 out of safeguard, please see agreement and clarify. There may be a genuine misinterpretation on my part.

No way to insert "private" Th blanket in a "safeguarded" reactor and treat thorexed result as private.

If you look at the relevant clauses, they have been pretty careful at closing these gaps, I think.

In fact, anything civil that we want to do with the entire 3-stage, if foreign sourced in any part, is safeguard. This is the way when OUR 3-stage seeks to BENEFIT from foreign-sourced fuel, falls under safeguards.
Calvin
BRFite
Posts: 623
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by Calvin »

samuel:

You are correct. I had read the following sentence in the various clauses of Section 10-1 rather carelessly, imagining that it was going to be reproduced throughout the rest of the section:
SECTION 10-1: fissionable material used in or produced through the use of such nuclear materials and equipment
SECTION 10-2..: any nuclear material used in or produced through the use of nuclear material, non-nuclear material, equipment or components
Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Post by Sanjay M »

So how fast is a breeding cycle?
ie. how quickly could an unsafeguarded FBR with its fuel have been multiplied into more FBRs?

Like I said, if it takes until 2040 for a swadesi non-123 India to meet its nuclear power needs, then that's way too long to wait, and 123 is the better option.
Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Post by Katare »

What else can anyone expect BJP and Left to do? Welcome the deal and make MMS and congress a hero and loose next election? Aint gonna happen no matter whatever the deal is!
I agree the opposition in Indian will oppose, no matter, what. But, there has been a consistent line of questioning by the opposition. Instead of calling it whining, EB, etc, try to understand that and then make up your views. Folks, are missing the central point. The costs of this deal are political. A political decision needs to be made by, someone, who has political authority. Not by an appointed PM, unelected, in a minority government. Let there be a vote - without party whips, and see the results. Dal ka Dal aur Pani ka Pani, ho jayega na bhaiya!
I dont know why you are putting words like whining, EB(?) etc in my mouth I never wrote any of those words. In a democracy oppositions job is to pick holes in the govts doings so those holes can get plugged up. The opposition has done that job fairly well and it had paid rich dividends in final deal.

About the political authority etc- You and few other are confusing US congress as a counter part of Indian parliament, well its not. The difference is that PM always has majority support of Parliament while President of US may or may not. President doesn't derive his power from the US congress but PM of India does, he is PM only until majority of parliament supports him. So when PM takes a decision parliament (majority) is behind that decision both de-jure and de-facto as per our constitution, although without the benefit of the discussion on parliament floor.

Everything about unelected and appointed PM and things like that have little validity, you should know that getting elected from any seat in India for a sitting PM would be a no brainer. Constitution allows it (RS MP to be a PM) and he has support of the parliament and the support of the allied MP and the appointer. He is no different than AVP except that the AVP was the first choice of BJP and MMS was the best possible choice of Congress. Anyhow PM has no powers to approve any deals it’s the cabinet that approves deals which has direct backing of the majority in parliament and is represented by the political allies of the govt.
For MMS, this is an encore he has seen even more scathing attacks and ridicules from left, allies and BJP's swadeshi brigade in 1991. He came out victorious then and I have little doubt that 10 years later


Oh please...Reforming under the gun, is no visionary act. Similarly, achieving the "minimum" conditions set by the scientists, is no great feat. Surrendering, everything else to the diktats of US NPT goals is a .... ...
You have little understanding of the BoP problem of 1991 and how it was solved, many others also make the same mistake by calling it the only possible response to the crisis instead of a great vision for the future. BoP problem was solved with the exact same tools that were used for last several decades i.e. devaluing the Rupee several times with in a period of few months against all the major currencies. Which made imports too expensive and exports competitive but nation gave-up a lot of purchasing power. The genius of MMS/PVN comes from using that crisis to fix the long term structural problem of perennial shortage of foreign currency and many other financial issues which are not relevant to this discussion.

The man has incorruptible integrity and an impeccable record of life long public service.


Sorry, this is just not good enough for India. Our nation needs a man, who can do something about institutional corruption, an area, where MMS can take, little credit for. Indeed, if anything, he surrenders to these areas at the press of, remote control buttons.
In you view it may not be good enough but he is the choice of winnign coalition, PM of the nation and acceptable to the nation. I would much rather prefer him over an Indian counter part of Mushy or BD PM who started their career on the back of the jihad against corruption by creating elaborate accountability bureaus. No thanks! Corruption in developing countries has roots somewhere else and solution doesn’t lie in fighting it but in making it less compulsory which is a long drawn process. Again not relevant to this discussion.
National pride and self-dependence are important and rare virtues in India but the reality and benefits of hard macroeconomics and international cooperation cannot be overlooked for false sense of pride coming from reinventing the wheel.

No point in reinventing the wheel. Our political flexiblity and economic well being, both, could be better preserved, by a truly visionary, lean and mean statesman, given the current realities of India and its most likely future trajectory.
Amen to that brother!
We cannot afford to sit outside on our ivory tower as untouchables. We should plan to enter the era where we'll be able to threaten rogue countries with sanctions if our national interests are threatened.


Hmmm, there is one, sitting right next door and it has received to my knowledge about $10 billion of arms and armaments in the past 6 years, from guess, who? Let us start with doing someting about that first, shall we?
I am surprised that an Indian that to at BRF would suggest that India should follow Pakistan. I don't think MMS or far that matter any democratically elected PM of India would sign to do what Mushy has signed up for to earn few $$s. Anyhow he (mushy) is at present not sitting outside but right in the middle of it with all the spotlight and heat on him but only for the wrong reasons.
John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Post by John Snow »

The only circumstance where India contemplates using nukes is in the event of a first strike against India. With a million dead and dying in Indian cities, probably first in Delhi, what is there to fear, even for the cowardly MMS as per your model, in pressing the Big Blue Button (BBB)?
Fear is a state of mind ( Fear is the Key) MMS would never be fearless. if he a bean counter ( remember the panchatantra story Donkey with tiger Hyde could not resist braying) is at BBB then he will claculate that cutting losses is the best way and will sue for peace for sure.

(ha if my theory is hypothetical so is your contention that he would be fearless, He had even an iota of guts he would not be Rajya Sabha member but would have contested elections from UP or even Sikkim but then he fears losing the deposit)
vsudhir
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2173
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 03:44
Location: Dark side of the moon

Post by vsudhir »

Fear is a state of mind ( Fear is the Key) MMS would never be fearless. if he a bean counter ( remember the panchatantra story Donkey with tiger Hyde could not resist braying) is at BBB then he will claculate that cutting losses is the best way and will sue for peace for sure.

(ha if my theory is hypothetical so is your contention that he would be fearless, He had even an iota of guts he would not be Rajya Sabha member but would have contested elections from UP or even Sikkim but then he fears losing the deposit)
Apt.

And no, b4 a certain defender of the faith, jumps up and down declaring me an EB, partisan hack, whiner and all that, lemme clarify that I've no innate loathing for the INC. Give credit where due to leaders like PVN, Rajiv, IG. But to count SG, MMS and Rahul to come in that league is hackery.

Its not unreasonable for folk to mistrust MMS's mindset, instincts, will and vision. Its a democracy after all, no?

Anyway, its a worn out track I tread again. Whats the point.
/Tuning out.
Have a nice day, all.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Post by ShauryaT »

enqyoob wrote:The argument that there is not parity between the US and India on nuclear energy is of course valid, but that situation is not going to be remedied by just wishing for it.
No doubt and hence the test by the NDA government, for the offer of just two reactors - not accepted and all sides becoming quiet, until a change of government in India.

One does not wish for such things, you work it. What MMS has done here is "wished" for nuclear energy to be one of the dominant energy mixes in India, without working it, and hence the price being paid - is to forget all notions of parity, barring the essentials.


1.
In the energy field, we are going to be just closed in into dependence on imported reactors and imported fuel

Do the facts support this contention? What in the 123 agreement prevents India from building reactors using Indian technology for power plants? What in the 123 agreement prevents India from using Indian indigenous fuel (the only kind that is available WITHOUT this agreement) to power those plants for all time?


The answer is not to make nuclear the dominant means of energy, until the 3rd stage is more mature and the geo-political environment is more amenable. Something, which is not too far off.

2.
on the security field, we are going to become dependent on a nuclear umbrella of the US even to survive within our own region.
What facts justify that assertion? It could happen with a government that takes the Nadkarni Easy Street, and just decides to scrap all domestic defense development programs, and buys into the US "umbrella". But what about this government shows any such intention? What in the 123 agreement indicates such intentions from the GOI?
Admittedly, alarmist but not without some basis. Look at that statement again in context of American intentions as codified in Hyde, without contradiction in 123 or a corresponding Indian legislation. I do not believe, it will happen but it is one way to wake up some folks to American intentions - that we are indirectly signing on to.
Now the contention may be that we could have held out for a better deal. Do the deliberations of the COTUS indicate optimism in this regard?
No, not without working it. What MMS did here was assume as if COTUS does not matter - a fallacy in my view.
Do the statements of ANY US presidential candidates indicate optimism in this regard?
Too many mad and greedy people, who have occupied that office to comment on the above. I hope, we agree on this. But, I do not think, India has made herself, truly strategic yet, to warrant such optimism. Another, way is to squeeze their options. Neither is possible today. But, who knows, if a person such as Gingritch comes to occupy the WH, many new opportunities may open up. But, I am not saying, we need to bank on that possibility just that many possibilities exist.
Do the statements of any US military/ strategic analysts indicate optimism in this regard?
Same answer as above. Though, I will not count on US strategic analysts, advocating policy for Indian Interests!
What alternatives do Shourie & Co promise India?
Hydro, (especially from NE), Gas, Coal, Wind, more nuclear mines, acceleration of the 3rd stage. I think there are more ways than this deal to skin the cat. All pregnant with possibilities and fraught with risks.
enqyoob wrote:
I would be curious to hear what these stages might have been, because, try as I might, I cannot come up with any that look very promising. Let's see:
I do not think Shourie dwells into the stages concept and the theories are entirely mine. Apart from campaign specific safeguards, one way to go about it would be to get an exemption at the NSG, with the help of a cooperative US executive (does not require amendment to US law to vote in the NSG), without a “dealâ€
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25087
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Post by SSridhar »

Sanjay M wrote:So how fast is a breeding cycle?
ie. how quickly could an unsafeguarded FBR with its fuel have been multiplied into more FBRs?

Like I said, if it takes until 2040 for a swadesi non-123 India to meet its nuclear power needs, then that's way too long to wait, and 123 is the better option.
With oxide fuels, the breeding ratio is very low, apprx 1.1. With metallic fuels, it is apprx 1.4 to 1.5. This means that every 10 to 12 years, a new FBR can be started with the fuel used in the old FBR. That's why DAE is in a hurry to move to metallic fuels, but at the same time because of inexperience with metallic fuels (compared to oxide fuels), they are trying to strike a fine balance.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Post by ShauryaT »

Calvin wrote:
First, I do not think this is the right time for India to be asking for an all encompassing "full" civilian nuclear deal, at this time. The entire, thing should have been done in stages.
enqyoob has directly addressed this. What incentives does the US have to do this in stages?
Surely, it does not want to see, India becoming a member of the SCO?
Nevertheless, the principle one being, non-perpetual safeguards replaced by a long term safeguards agreement for a separate fuel cycle.
Are we in agreement that the safeguards are only applicable for foreign-origin facilities that use foreign-fuel and when FBR becomes the norm, the safeguards go out the window. So, effectively what we have is a "non-perpetual safeguards" situation.
Not at all. I particularly do not like the "civilian" designation for the condition for facilities to be in perpetual safeguards. Now, read that word again, in light of the US proposed FMCT - which India allowed to proceed - unopposed. The most likely realities are that 90-95% of all Indian facilities would be under perpetual safeguards - including the FBR. India will not be able to hide behind the lablel of "strategic" to mean more than military for too long. We have about 3-5 years more room to play with.
The safeguards agreement not modeled after circular 540 of the IAEA.

Specifically what clauses do you not want in any "safeguards agreement", and what leads you think that we have given in, on those clauses?
Not in a position to say the about the specific IAEA clauses but Hyde calls for the India specific safeguards to be modeled after NNWS states. The US congress will not vote on the deal, till they see a final IAEA agreement. So far, 123 has not contravened Hyde and it is unlikelyl, the IAEA agreement will becuase MMS has accepted Hyde as the price for the deal.
A US congress not in a state to attach extraneous issues to the India exemption.
How would you propose to address this, given the geopolitical power distribution in the world today?
Too broad a question. I do think it is a work in process and hence the stages approach. But, if i have to list down the general approaches, it would be:

- allignment of US interests with India's
- India committing some dollars, blood and sweat for these common interests
- A larger GDP along with a stronger military force
- Last but not the least, a certain level of retaliation, for acts against the Indian nation
Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Post by Sanjay M »

SSridhar wrote: With oxide fuels, the breeding ratio is very low, apprx 1.1. With metallic fuels, it is apprx 1.4 to 1.5. This means that every 10 to 12 years, a new FBR can be started with the fuel used in the old FBR. That's why DAE is in a hurry to move to metallic fuels, but at the same time because of inexperience with metallic fuels (compared to oxide fuels), they are trying to strike a fine balance.
I'm aware of the ratio issues, but not of how long a breeding cycle takes to transform an entire fuel load. I would say if the cycle is approx only a year long (implied by 1.1 = doubling time of 10 years) then the metallic fuel breeding ratio of 1.4 is acceptable for us, because it implies a doubling time of approx 2-3 years.

Anyway, if 123 deal allows us to move towards metallic fuel faster or at least tides us over until we reach it, then we should go that route, since once we get to 1.4 we're in the clear no matter what.

The question is, why is China comfortable with this? I know NYT isn't, which actually speaks rather well of the deal to me.
Last edited by Sanjay M on 13 Aug 2007 07:45, edited 2 times in total.
enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Post by enqyoobOLD »

Shaurya: You have not answered a single one of the points. Mr. Shourie (I hope the name similarity is a coincidence, but I don't believe in coincidences... ) made a long and grand speech, but sad to say, he said nothing. It was all gas. He made a summary, and none of his claims there is borne out by the arguments that he presented.

The fact is that a reasonable deal has been worked out with great care and effort, involving the babus, the scientists, the military and the diplomats, and even the diaspora.

When all is said and done, the international agreement that is published looks quite reasonable to me, and apparently no one sees any real roadblocks there to security, independence or anything else.

The objections raised are convoluted contortions of "what ifs" and "if we were to do this" types, none of which seem reasonable concerns, or reasonable projections.

Consider that one about wind, solar etc. saving India. Yes, I too would like to see that, but the calculation is pretty simple, to show that baseload power is not going to come from renewables at any affordable price in the next 20 years.

So, yes, I do think that without this deal, India will continue to wallow in a morass of darkness. No need to be "plunged into" darkness, India IS terribly short of light. When you fly into India, that is the first thing that one notices - the dim lights, the dingy smokestacks, the pollution. All stemming from the desperate shortage of energy.

People want a chance to break out of this, and Indians have concluded a deal with great effort. It's time to quite whining and move on. No, it wasn't done by the BJP. Sorry to see that the BJP is nothing more than BellyAching Jealosy and Pettiness.

The key point that has not been recognized is that there has been a slow but monotonic shift in US top-level thinking. The decision to share interests with India to some extent is deliberate and long-term. This does not mean some huge worship of DOOs. It means a recognition that there is commonality of interests, and a real commitment to democracy, so there is more to be gained by cooperation than by antagonism. This is not limited to Bush, or Clinton, but is a top level establishment change.

Those in India who are too hate-filled, petty or stupid to recognize this change and opportunity, are missing the train. Reading the 123 agreement, leaves one with the sense that it is first and foremost a document of COOPERATION and MUTUAL INTEREST, not a competitive "deal" to brag about.

If Indians feel that there is a "victory" here, that is not because of some cunning con that clinched a deal where the other side LOST. It is a deal where both sides decided to win, and do what would make the other side want to continue to support the long-term strategic partnership.

Funny thing is that all the hard work of changing the mindset was done between 1998 and 2003. But today the NDA is too stupid to take credit and be statesmanlike about it. Not surprising, because other than ABV and Jaswant Singh, they are all nothings.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Post by ShauryaT »

Katare wrote:I dont know why you are putting words like whining, EB(?) etc in my mouth I never wrote any of those words.
I apologize. I should have been more discriminating and careful.
About the political authority etc- You and few other are confusing US congress as a counter part of Indian parliament, well its not. The difference is that PM always has majority support of Parliament while President of US may or may not. President doesn't derive his power from the US congress but PM of India does, he is PM only until majority of parliament supports him. So when PM takes a decision parliament (majority) is behind that decision both de-jure and de-facto as per our constitution, although without the benefit of the discussion on parliament floor.
Trust me, I know the differences between our system and that of the US and how our system has been developed, since our constitutional father Morely Minto designed it. My call is to restore our constitutional democracy, made into an impotent assembly of yes men by RG, with party whips in place for the most trivial of things.
Everything about unelected and appointed PM and things like that have little validity,
If , to you, there is no difference between an appointed PM and and elected one, then tomorrow, you may also, say that let the British come and rule us, since they governed us better than the current morons.
The genius of MMS/PVN comes from using that crisis to fix the long term structural problem of perennial shortage of foreign currency and many other financial issues which are not relevant to this discussion.
They shall have credit for starting us on this route, regardless of compulsions. I wish, though, that those reforms, were to be continued with zeal after the assembly elections in 1994. Anyways not relevant, as you say.

I would much rather prefer him over an Indian counter part of Mushy or BD PM
OK, I say, his personal integrity alone is not good enough for governance and you say he is better than Mush or BD PM......I will not even respond.

Hmmm, there is one, sitting right next door and it has received to my knowledge about $10 billion of arms and armaments in the past 6 years, from guess, who? Let us start with doing someting about that first, shall we?
I am surprised that an Indian that to at BRF would suggest that India should follow Pakistan. I don't think MMS or far that matter any democratically elected PM of India would sign to do what Mushy has signed up for to earn few $$s. Anyhow he (mushy) is at present not sitting outside but right in the middle of it with all the spotlight and heat on him but only for the wrong reasons.
Where have I alluded to India following Pakistan!!! I think you are totally confused on what I am saying. Anyways, this is not germane and OT to the thread. Some other time. Got to go.
Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Post by Katare »

N^3,

A good post that summarizes the spirit of the whole thing! At times it becomes hard to look at the big picture when we get too deep in to the details!

Shaurya,

lets leave it at that!

To no one in specific,

Don't ignore that this deal is not only about nuclear issue in isolation but it takes out the last remaing wall between us and the rest of the free world.....the payback of this new era of cooperation and libralization would be huge in almost every field for almost every country that will get involved in this deal.
Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Post by Sanjay M »

Here's a link summarizing metallic uranium fuel challenges:

http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/in ... 47814.html
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

Congress seen backing India nuclear deal

By Y.P. Rajesh Sun Aug 12, 11:21 AM ET

NEW DELHI (Reuters) - A landmark civilian nuclear deal between India and the United States will face dissent in the U.S. Congress but will ultimately be approved, an influential senator said on Sunday.

The pact, finalised last month, will be closely scrutinised for allowing India to reprocess used nuclear fuel, for the impact of any future nuclear test by India on the deal and for New Delhi's relations with Iran, Senator Joe Lieberman said.

"There will be debate, there will be some dissent," Lieberman told reporters. "In the end, it will be accepted and endorsed by strong majority in both houses of Congress because it is so clearly in the interests of the United States.

"It's a good agreement, it's a honorable agreement," said the independent lawmaker from Connecticut, the 2000 Democratic vice-presidential nominee known to be close to the White House.

The nuclear deal aims to give India access to U.S. nuclear fuel and equipment for the first time in 30 years to help meet its soaring energy needs, even though it has stayed out of non-proliferation pacts and tested nuclear weapons.

First agreed in principle two years ago, it is seen as a symbol of the new strategic relationship between the once-estranged democracies.

The framework deal was approved by the U.S. Congress last December, but the detailed pact that governs nuclear trade between the two has to get Congress backing, and only after India secures other international nuclear approvals.

Lieberman, who is a senior member of several Congressional committees, said he expected the pact to come up for legislative approval before the end of 2007.

The deal has been opposed by critics in both countries who say their governments are making too many compromises in their eagerness to seal it.

India's communist parties, whose support is crucial for the survival of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's government, have rejected the deal, but Singh has said he will not go back on it and dared the leftist parties to withdraw support.

Singh is due to speak in parliament on the deal on Monday for the first time since the pact was finalised.

Although the pact does not mention India's relations with its old friend Iran, these would loom large over Congress due to the "fanaticism of the regime" in Tehran, its "direct threats" to Washington and its "support" for anti-American forces in Iraq, Lieberman said.

"No one can reasonably or fairly ask India to disengage from Iran, no matter how negatively we feel about the government, because some of our close allies in Europe and Asia, including Japan, have diplomatic relations with Iran," he said.

"But the question is ... to be certain that India, in its commercial relations with Iran, does not fall on the wrong side of any of the U.S. sanctions legislations against Iran."
Congress seen backing India nuclear deal

By Y.P. Rajesh Sun Aug 12, 11:21 AM ET

NEW DELHI (Reuters) - A landmark civilian nuclear deal between India and the United States will face dissent in the U.S. Congress but will ultimately be approved, an influential senator said on Sunday.
ADVERTISEMENT

The pact, finalised last month, will be closely scrutinised for allowing India to reprocess used nuclear fuel, for the impact of any future nuclear test by India on the deal and for New Delhi's relations with Iran, Senator Joe Lieberman said.

"There will be debate, there will be some dissent," Lieberman told reporters. "In the end, it will be accepted and endorsed by strong majority in both houses of Congress because it is so clearly in the interests of the United States.

"It's a good agreement, it's a honorable agreement," said the independent lawmaker from Connecticut, the 2000 Democratic vice-presidential nominee known to be close to the White House.

The nuclear deal aims to give India access to U.S. nuclear fuel and equipment for the first time in 30 years to help meet its soaring energy needs, even though it has stayed out of non-proliferation pacts and tested nuclear weapons.

First agreed in principle two years ago, it is seen as a symbol of the new strategic relationship between the once-estranged democracies.

The framework deal was approved by the U.S. Congress last December, but the detailed pact that governs nuclear trade between the two has to get Congress backing, and only after India secures other international nuclear approvals.

Lieberman, who is a senior member of several Congressional committees, said he expected the pact to come up for legislative approval before the end of 2007.

The deal has been opposed by critics in both countries who say their governments are making too many compromises in their eagerness to seal it.

India's communist parties, whose support is crucial for the survival of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's government, have rejected the deal, but Singh has said he will not go back on it and dared the leftist parties to withdraw support.

Singh is due to speak in parliament on the deal on Monday for the first time since the pact was finalised.


Although the pact does not mention India's relations with its old friend Iran, these would loom large over Congress due to the "fanaticism of the regime" in Tehran, its "direct threats" to Washington and its "support" for anti-American forces in Iraq, Lieberman said.

"No one can reasonably or fairly ask India to disengage from Iran, no matter how negatively we feel about the government, because some of our close allies in Europe and Asia, including Japan, have diplomatic relations with Iran," he said.

"But the question is ... to be certain that India, in its commercial relations with Iran, does not fall on the wrong side of any of the U.S. sanctions legislations against Iran."
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Post by ShauryaT »

enqyoob wrote:Shaurya: You have not answered a single one of the points.
Sorry, to disappoint you. Looks like the only answers you are looking for are already there for you in the 123. So, no other answer will suffice.
Mr. Shourie (I hope the name similarity is a coincidence, but I don't believe in coincidences... ) made a long and grand speech, but sad to say, he said nothing. It was all gas. He made a summary, and none of his claims there is borne out by the arguments that he presented.
I wish there was some planning behind the somewhat similar names/handles. If all you read, was his speech and none of the links, I am not surprised, if you did not get the whole picture.
The fact is that a reasonable deal has been worked out with great care and effort, involving the babus, the scientists, the military and the diplomats, and even the diaspora.
If all reason ends at minimums as defined by the scientific community then what is reasonable to one, may not be to the other. Did not know that the Military was significantly involved in this deal in any way.
When all is said and done, the international agreement that is published looks quite reasonable to me, and apparently no one sees any real roadblocks there to security, independence or anything else.
You say that in the context of Hyde and other TBD agreements such as the FMCT. I cannot say anything that will convince you. So, I will stop trying henceforth.
The objections raised are convoluted contortions of "what ifs" and "if we were to do this" types, none of which seem reasonable concerns, or reasonable projections.
So, why the great care to ensure that 123 complies with Hyde. You have taken 10 articles, written by the man on the issue and dismissed it in a single statement.
Consider that one about wind, solar etc. saving India. Yes, I too would like to see that, but the calculation is pretty simple, to show that baseload power is not going to come from renewables at any affordable price in the next 20 years.
I never said Solar or renewables will save India. The energy mix will not just come from renewables, the big ones are coal, Hydro and Gas.
So, yes, I do think that without this deal, India will continue to wallow in a morass of darkness. No need to be "plunged into" darkness, India IS terribly short of light. When you fly into India, that is the first thing that one notices - the dim lights, the dingy smokestacks, the pollution. All stemming from the desperate shortage of energy.
I see those lights, every 3 months and have been doing so for the past 12 years now. You are making this deal to be "the" difference in the energy production capabilities of India and firmly saying that no other credible options exist - without even trying. I would like your claims on these to be elaborated in either this or the energy thread.
People want a chance to break out of this, and Indians have concluded a deal with great effort. It's time to quite whining and move on. No, it wasn't done by the BJP. Sorry to see that the BJP is nothing more than BellyAching Jealosy and Pettiness.
I think you are confusing the pettiness you feel that the BJP is indulging in, about the SetuSamudra project, which clouds your judgment.
Those in India who are too hate-filled, petty or stupid to recognize this change and opportunity, are missing the train. Reading the 123 agreement, leaves one with the sense that it is first and foremost a document of COOPERATION and MUTUAL INTEREST, not a competitive "deal" to brag about.
Those nice words have to be always read along with Hyde, to get a complete picture. BTW: Do not hate MMS, just do not think, he is good enough.
Not surprising, because other than ABV and Jaswant Singh, they are all nothings.
Start with practicing what ABV said about this deal - Nothing less than what China was offered - and he was not talking about reprocessing rights. It was all about "parity"

N^3: With all due respect, I have said, what I wanted to. You may have the last word.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

Business
Indo-US nuke deal opens up investment possibility

Mumbai, Aug. 13 (PTI): The Indo-US civil nuclear deal has opened up the possibility of investments worth 40 billion dollars over the next 15 years to step up nuclear power generation, with leading firms like White Westinghouse, General Electric, Rosatom and Siemens unveiling plans to do business with the country.

After nearly 33 years of nuclear isolation, India's nuclear power generation capacity is expected to rise to 40,000 MW by 2025 with access to several 1,000 MW-plus advanced light water reactors and a committed fuel supply, and nuclear commerce is expected to go up to 40 billion dollars, Nuclear Power Corporation of India Chairman S K Jain told PTI in an interview.

"Once all the necessary steps are taken by India and the US and after getting a signal from the Nuclear Suppliers Group, India will get to do global nuclear commerce which will not only enhance the indigenous programme with imported fuel but also help accelerate nuclear power with imported power plants as an additionality," Jain said.

As a spin-off of the Indo-US deal, Indian companies participating in the nuclear power programme and new players in the field like the Tatas, Reliance Energy, Birlas and Vedanta will benefit immensely as it is estimated that 50 per cent of the total investments would benefit Indian industry, he said.

For new entrants like Tatas and Reliance, it may possibly take four to five years for them to participate fully once necessary amendments are made to the Atomic Energy Act, Jain said.

Imported plants using light water reactors are likely to come up at Jaitapur in Maharashtra, Kudankulam in Tamil Nadu and other coastal sites that are being identified in states like Gujarat, Orissa and Andhra Pradesh, he said.

Only the Nuclear Power Corporation will be authorised to construct plants using imported reactors till other state- owned power companies like the National Thermal Power Corporation get clearance from the Department of Atomic Energy in this regard, he said.

The deal with the US will be beneficial to Indian industries and the NSG, including the US, as it is planned that India will buy at least 20 or 25 reactors, each worth around two billion dollars, in the next 15 years. These reactors may need 800 tonnes of uranium worth two to three billion dollars while spare parts alone would be worth one billion dollars.

"In other words, there will be assured business for the next 60 years as the life span of each plant will be 40 years," Jain said.

He said there would be business orders for 100 reactors across the world in the next five to six years but the manufacturing capacity of NSG members is far short of the expected orders.

"The only choice for the nuclear community is to augment their manufacturing facilities. The NSG is also looking for various places where facilities can be augmented," Jain said.

"Indian industries which are participating in the country's nuclear power programme can make use of this opportunity to have tie-ups in technology transfer and upgrade technologies and thus make India a regional nuclear supply hub."

Indian industry will not only have enough orders to support the country's atomic programme but also offer components at competitive prices to become a global player, he pointed out.

Russia has drawn up a plan to build two reactors a year. China too is going ahead at the same rate and plans to generate 40,000 MW of nuclear power in 20 years. India is planning to create a similar capacity and the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission has already received applications for 30 reactors, he said.

Of the expected business worth 40 billion dollars, 50 per cent could go to Indian industries as all the foreign firms cannot provide certain equipment which will be made through Indian industries. "India's technical manpower and expertise is going to be another area of human resource which could be part of this large global business," he said.

Without any initial borrowings, the Nuclear Power Corporation is confident it can fund equity for up to 10,000 MW or 15,000 MW at the rate of two billion dollars for a 1,000 -MW reactor. "If our accruals increase, we can have more equity in the programme and by 2009-10 we can begin the new projects," he said.

The nuclear industry chief also said most vendors are experts in making fast deliveries -- White Westinghouse's gestation period for a plant is 36 months while it is 45 months for GE and 50 months for Areva.

‘Nuke deal completion to boost further Indo-US ties’



Mr Scott Carson

Ashwini Phadnis

Seattle, July 27

The successful completion of the nuclear deal with India is likely to give a further boost to the Indo-US relations, the President and Chief Executive Officer, Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Mr Scott Carson, has said.

“The normalisation of relations between India and the US will help in additional things that we have been talking about like the setting up of the maintenance, repair and overhaul facility and the flight training centre. If we normalise relations, it will open up opportunities in both commercial and other fields that may have otherwise been missed,â€
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

[quote]
Discussion unlikely under voting rule
http://www.hindu.com/2007/08/13/stories ... 830100.htm

Neena Vyas

Problem only with Hyde Act: Advani

NEW DELHI: A discussion in the Lok Sabha on the nuclear deal with the United States is unlikely to take place under Rule 184, which entails voting, despite a notice given by the Bharatiya Janata Party. The Left parties, it appears, want a discussion under Rule 193, under which there would be no voting.

It seems the words in the BJP’s notice are such that it is most likely to be rejected by the Speaker.

The party also seems to be aware of this. Its opposition is not to the 123 agreement as such. Its apprehensions arise out of the provisions in the Hyde Act.

Two days ago, U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman met Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha L.K. Advani.

Mr. Advani told The Hindu what he told the Senator: “The BJP’s problem was not with the 123 agreement itself, but with the provisions of the Hyde Act. How would you combat those provisions?â€
Last edited by svinayak on 13 Aug 2007 10:07, edited 1 time in total.
bala
BRFite
Posts: 1995
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Post by bala »

The BJP’s problem was not with the 123 agreement itself, but with the provisions of the Hyde Act.
This is moot. Hyde Act talks about the Strategic Program and the conditions applicable to those. The 123 Agreement very clearly states that the provisions are strictly civil nuclear agreement and peaceful purposes. BTW the term "peaceful purpose" excludes Strategic weapons programs including its detonation. The clause for Article 2 of scope of cooperation states national laws will govern only peaceful purposes. Ergo no strategic weapons. Article 16 force and duration only talks about international laws, no national laws.

How can BJP extrapolate 123 with Hyde Act for nuke weapons testing. This is logical flaw Advani needs to address rather than mouthing off opposition to 123.
Prabu
BRFite
Posts: 423
Joined: 22 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: In the middle of a Desert

Post by Prabu »

NRao wrote:
Protectionism in the nuclear industry
You miss the point.

This deal is being peddled as an economical one for India. But, $50 BILLION is nothing for the US. So, it is a strategic deal for the US and they do not love India THAT much to give India anything.

And, if one looks hard enough at it, this deal has the potential to touch India strategic decisions. IF India could not cross the border during Kargil, bet they will never use a nuke without getting an OK from DC. Even A3 MMS browned his pants. MMS had to be advised by his own CofArmyS that Siachen cannot be made into a peace mountain, now he is after LoC as peace line, etc.

And, of course MMS will never take Bush on his 'Hyde Act is not binding'. It took Tellis to remind India that it is binding!!!! That is why MMS cannot renegotiate this deal, not because of any principles.
I think,N_Rao is loud and clear !
ShyamSP
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2564
Joined: 06 Mar 2002 12:31

Post by ShyamSP »

Acharya wrote:
Discussion unlikely under voting rule
http://www.hindu.com/2007/08/13/stories ... 830100.htm

BJP sources said the notice seeks to direct the Government to seek parliamentary approval for the deal; and is, therefore, seen as unconstitutional as there is no provision in the Constitution for Parliament to ratify international treaties or agreements.
Does DDM read constitution before using the word unconstitutional. The article 253 does say about legislative power for giving effect to international agreements.

"Article 253 Legislation for giving effect to international agreements

Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, Parliament has power to make any law for the whole or any part of the territory of India for implementing any treaty, agreement or convention with any other country or countries or any decision made at any international conference, association or other body."
abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Post by abhischekcc »

enqyoob wrote:The objections raised are convoluted contortions of "what ifs" and "if we were to do this" types, none of which seem reasonable concerns, or reasonable projections.

This does not mean some huge worship of DOOs. It means a recognition that there is commonality of interests, and a real commitment to democracy, so there is more to be gained by cooperation than by antagonism. This is not limited to Bush, or Clinton, but is a top level establishment change.

Those in India who are too hate-filled, petty or stupid to recognize this change and opportunity, are missing the train. Reading the 123 agreement, leaves one with the sense that it is first and foremost a document of COOPERATION and MUTUAL INTEREST, not a competitive "deal" to brag about.

If Indians feel that there is a "victory" here, that is not because of some cunning con that clinched a deal where the other side LOST. It is a deal where both sides decided to win, and do what would make the other side want to continue to support the long-term strategic partnership.

Funny thing is that all the hard work of changing the mindset was done between 1998 and 2003. But today the NDA is too stupid to take credit and be statesmanlike about it. Not surprising, because other than ABV and Jaswant Singh, they are all nothings.
Sweet sweet N^3. Laws are not judged by their implications for the mean, but by their interpretation at the extremes. Any law has to take care of the exceptions as well. This so called deal is ambiguous on the extremes, hence the problems.
The key point that has not been recognized is that there has been a slow but monotonic shift in US top-level thinking. The decision to share interests with India to some extent is deliberate and long-term.
Finally, we have a point of agreement. But we will again differ on the reason for this change of heart on the part of the US. It has more to do with the formation of the Asian Entente (India, Russia, China and possibly Iran), than with energy politics.

In short, this deal will have a similar (not same) impact on Asia as the Kosovo war did on Europe. The Kosovo war was fought to 'keep Americans in, Germans down, and Russians out' of Europe. The real objective of the yanks is to use this deal as levelrage to break away India from the Asian Entente, and to 'keep yanks in, China down, and Russia out' of Asia. (Funny, how a weekend clears up the thinking :) ).

A question remains, when we Indians had so much leverage, of being able to decide Americas destiny in Asia, what the hell did we actually get in return? Half baked promises to 'help' out in the NSG,IAEA? 'Good Faith' promises? I remember the time when we had another good faith agreement with white men. That was the WTO agreement in which the west made a 'good faith' promise to reduce agri-subsidies, if the developing world opened up their markets to them. After we kept our promises to them - Europe promptly increased its agri - subsidies from the $15-20 billion region to $365 billion.

The Chinese were much smarter when they were dealing with Clinton. They did not ask for half baked promises, and 'good faith' bs. They simply asked for and got the design of the W-88.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25087
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Post by SSridhar »

Sanjay M,
I would say if the cycle is approx only a year long (implied by 1.1 = doubling time of 10 years) then the metallic fuel breeding ratio of 1.4 is acceptable for us, because it implies a doubling time of approx 2-3 years.
The 10 years doubling time is for metallic fuels, not for oxides.
Prabu
BRFite
Posts: 423
Joined: 22 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: In the middle of a Desert

Post by Prabu »

abhischekcc wrote:
enqyoob wrote:The objections raised are convoluted contortions of "what ifs" and "if we were to do this" types, none of which seem reasonable concerns, or reasonable projections.

This does not mean some huge worship of DOOs. It means a recognition that there is commonality of interests, and a real commitment to democracy, so there is more to be gained by cooperation than by antagonism. This is not limited to Bush, or Clinton, but is a top level establishment change.

Those in India who are too hate-filled, petty or stupid to recognize this change and opportunity, are missing the train. Reading the 123 agreement, leaves one with the sense that it is first and foremost a document of COOPERATION and MUTUAL INTEREST, not a competitive "deal" to brag about.

If Indians feel that there is a "victory" here, that is not because of some cunning con that clinched a deal where the other side LOST. It is a deal where both sides decided to win, and do what would make the other side want to continue to support the long-term strategic partnership.

Funny thing is that all the hard work of changing the mindset was done between 1998 and 2003. But today the NDA is too stupid to take credit and be statesmanlike about it. Not surprising, because other than ABV and Jaswant Singh, they are all nothings.
Sweet sweet N^3. Laws are not judged by their implications for the mean, but by their interpretation at the extremes. Any law has to take care of the exceptions as well. This so called deal is ambiguous on the extremes, hence the problems.
The key point that has not been recognized is that there has been a slow but monotonic shift in US top-level thinking. The decision to share interests with India to some extent is deliberate and long-term.
Finally, we have a point of agreement. But we will again differ on the reason for this change of heart on the part of the US. It has more to do with the formation of the Asian Entente (India, Russia, China and possibly Iran), than with energy politics.

In short, this deal will have a similar (not same) impact on Asia as the Kosovo war did on Europe. The Kosovo war was fought to 'keep Americans in, Germans down, and Russians out' of Europe. The real objective of the yanks is to use this deal as levelrage to break away India from the Asian Entente, and to 'keep yanks in, China down, and Russia out' of Asia. (Funny, how a weekend clears up the thinking :) ).

A question remains, when we Indians had so much leverage, of being able to decide Americas destiny in Asia, what the hell did we actually get in return? Half baked promises to 'help' out in the NSG,IAEA? 'Good Faith' promises? I remember the time when we had another good faith agreement with white men. That was the WTO agreement in which the west made a 'good faith' promise to reduce agri-subsidies, if the developing world opened up their markets to them. After we kept our promises to them - Europe promptly increased its agri - subsidies from the $15-20 billion region to $365 billion.

The Chinese were much smarter when they were dealing with Clinton. They did not ask for half baked promises, and 'good faith' bs. They simply asked for and got the design of the W-88.

Folks, In addition, to abhischekcc's post, (just adding a pinch of salt !)

1) China has put very few reactors(as NWS) as compared MMS 2/3rd reactors. That is why ABV offered only 2. Its this parity what Arun shorie and shouriya, NRao and many others (and of course me!)are talking about !!

2) A lot depends on NSG outcome, ( additional concessions, US diktats to theie allies to add googleys!) and follow a 123 model of (including return of material clause!) leaving our safegurads in perpetuity!

First of all, why did we accept safe guards alomost as NNMS ? when the JULY 18 clearly stipulates COUNTRIES WITH ADVANCED NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES, TO ENJOY THE SAME ADVANTAGES AND BENEFITS OF ADVANCED COUNTRIES SUCH AS THE UNITED STATES.(Hats off to Natwar Singh !)

So called India specific safguards might only be a gimic !! Not to talk of reprocessiong rights agreement spins and negotiations with USA all over again !!

3) Already US is trying to wash their hands saying it is up to India to go to NSG !!

BTW, PM's statement to parliment is out already !


India has nothing to lose only to gain from N-deal: PM


No comments, though !
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »


Lok Sabha adjourned after PM's statement on n-deal

By IANS
Monday August 13, 03:19 PM

New Delhi, Aug 13 (IANS) The Lok Sabha was adjourned for the third time Monday after Prime Minister Manmohan Singh made a statement on the India-US civilian nuclear deal with opposition members shouting slogans throughout his 28-minute address.

Opposition MPs advanced to the speaker's podium as soon as the house re-assembled after the lunch recess and shouted slogans demanding the cancellation of the nuclear deal.

Speaker Somnath Chatterjee initially ignored the ruckus and called on the prime minister to begin his address. MPs from the Samajwadi Party and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), however, refused to go back to their seats, prompting the speaker to remark that they should be 'ashamed' of themselves.

The slogan shouting continued even after the prime minister completed his address and left the house. In the midst of the din, Chatterjee called for papers to be laid on the table of the house.

Once this was over, the speaker called a discussion on the flood situation in Bihar. With the din refusing to die down, Chatterjee adjourned the house till 11 a.m. Tuesday.

Earlier, when the house met at 11 a.m., members of the opposition United National Progressive Alliance (UNPA) created a ruckus over the nuclear deal, calling for its repeal.

MPs of the Samajwadi Party advanced towards the speaker's podium shouting slogans like 'Nuclear deal should be dropped!' and 'Bush ki gulami nahin chalegi!' (Subservience to Bush will not be allowed).

Members from the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), a part of the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA), were also restive, wanting to speak on the deteriorating flood situation in Bihar.

BJP MPs sought to speak on the developments in Goa, where the Congress-led government won a controversial vote of confidence last month.

With his repeated pleas to restore order falling on deaf ears, Chatterjee adjourned the house at 11.05 a.m. till 11.30 a.m.

The uproar, however, continued when the house reassembled, prompting the speaker to adjourn it until after the lunch recess.

N-deal good for India, PM tells parliament amid din

By IANS
Monday August 13, 02:59 PM

New Delhi, Aug 13 (IANS) Amid strident cries of a sell out by a section of the opposition, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh Monday assured parliament that the India-US civil nuclear pact is a 'good deal for India and the world' and that it has not compromised India's strategic and national interests.

In callous disregard for parliamentary decorum, some opposition MPs kept chanting slogans calling the nuclear deal an attempt by the US to deceive India, right till the end of the prime minister's 25-minute address. The din made it impossible to hear exactly what the prime minister had to say.

'I had given parliament my assurance that the government will make every effort so that the vision of the Joint Statements of July, 2005 and March, 2006 becomes a living reality. I believe that we have redeemed that pledge,' Manmohan Singh told parliament in a suo motu statement.

'In concluding this agreement, we have ensured that the autonomy of our strategic programme is fully maintained, and that Dr. Homi Bhabha's long-term vision remains our guiding principle,' he said while stressing that the 123 bilateral pact does not cover India's nuclear weapon programme.

'I will let history judge; I will let posterity judge the value of what we have done through this agreement,' said Manmohan Singh, underscoring that the deal will open the doors of global nuclear commerce for India after a gap of three decades.

'Let me end by saying that we have achieved an agreement that is good for India, and good for the world,' he said.



Lok Sabha adjourned after PM's statement on n-deal

By IANS
Monday August 13, 03:19 PM

New Delhi, Aug 13 (IANS) The Lok Sabha was adjourned for the third time Monday after Prime Minister Manmohan Singh made a statement on the India-US civilian nuclear deal with opposition members shouting slogans throughout his 28-minute address.

Opposition MPs advanced to the speaker's podium as soon as the house re-assembled after the lunch recess and shouted slogans demanding the cancellation of the nuclear deal.

Speaker Somnath Chatterjee initially ignored the ruckus and called on the prime minister to begin his address. MPs from the Samajwadi Party and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), however, refused to go back to their seats, prompting the speaker to remark that they should be 'ashamed' of themselves.

The slogan shouting continued even after the prime minister completed his address and left the house. In the midst of the din, Chatterjee called for papers to be laid on the table of the house.

Once this was over, the speaker called a discussion on the flood situation in Bihar. With the din refusing to die down, Chatterjee adjourned the house till 11 a.m. Tuesday.

Earlier, when the house met at 11 a.m., members of the opposition United National Progressive Alliance (UNPA) created a ruckus over the nuclear deal, calling for its repeal.

MPs of the Samajwadi Party advanced towards the speaker's podium shouting slogans like 'Nuclear deal should be dropped!' and 'Bush ki gulami nahin chalegi!' (Subservience to Bush will not be allowed).

Members from the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), a part of the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA), were also restive, wanting to speak on the deteriorating flood situation in Bihar.

BJP MPs sought to speak on the developments in Goa, where the Congress-led government won a controversial vote of confidence last month.

With his repeated pleas to restore order falling on deaf ears, Chatterjee adjourned the house at 11.05 a.m. till 11.30 a.m.

The uproar, however, continued when the house reassembled, prompting the speaker to adjourn it until after the lunch recess.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

World news
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/ ... 48772.html

Aug. 13, 2007, 5:37AM
Indian PM defends nuclear deal with U.S.

By MATTHEW ROSENBERG Associated Press Writer
© 2007 The Associated Press
NEW DELHI — India is free to test nuclear weapons under a much-touted nuclear deal with the United States, the country's prime minister said Monday as lawmakers opposed to the pact noisily demanded the agreement be scrapped.

The civilian nuclear cooperation deal reverses three decades of American policy by allowing the U.S. to send nuclear fuel and technology to India, which has never signed major international nonproliferation accords and has tested atomic weapons in the past.

Since it was first announced in July 2005, it has been praised as a cornerstone of an emerging partnership between India and the United States after decades on opposite sides of the Cold War divide. But it has also drawn criticism in both countries.

In India, many critics simply oppose closer ties with the United States, and some argue the pact undermines the country's cherished nuclear weapons program.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh insisted that was not the case in a speech to lawmakers Monday.

"The agreement does not in any way affect India's right to undertake future nuclear tests if it is necessary in India's national interest," he said.

As he spoke, lawmakers from the Hindu nationalist opposition and from communist parties that support Singh but oppose the deal sought to drown out the prime minister, shouting, "cancel the nuclear deal!"

Similar protests by lawmakers earlier in the day had forced the house to adjourn until Singh spoke in the afternoon.

Singh's speech follows the sealing of a technical pact, known as the 1-2-3 agreement, which details how nuclear cooperation between New Delhi and Washington is to work.

India got nearly everything it wanted in the agreement, including the right to stockpile and reprocess atomic fuel.

The deal also does not contain a test ban, and some clauses have been interpreted to mean that an Indian test would not automatically scuttle the deal if the move followed tests by either Pakistan or China, India's major rivals.

But the U.S. Congress last year included a test ban when it created an exception for India to American laws that prohibit civilian nuclear cooperation with countries that have not signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

That law, which was needed before the technical agreement could be worked out, has been seized on by Indian opponents as evidence that the U.S. is seeking to constrain the South Asian country's long-standing weapons program.

Although the Hindu nationalists have no chance of the defeating the deal, which does not need to be approved by Parliament, Singh's coalition government needs the communists for its parliamentary majority.


Still, few people believed the communists would bring down the government over the matter.

American critics, meanwhile, worry the deal will stymie U.S. anti-proliferation efforts, especially in Iran, and some have pointed to a lack of a test ban to support their case.

Despite those concerns, Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., told reporters in New Delhi on Sunday that he was confident the pact would get the congressional approval it needs.

Lieberman, on a three-day visit to India, said he hoped the agreement would transform the U.S.-India relationship "into the most important bilateral relationship we have in the next century of our history."

Once U.S. lawmakers approve the deal, India needs to make separate agreements with the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the Nuclear Suppliers Group, an assembly of nations that export nuclear material.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

Deal becoming a hot potato?
BY PRAFUL BIDWAI

12 August 2007


SINCE this clumn discussed the India-United States "123 agreement" two weeks ago, its text has been released. What was earlier reported as a major "breakthrough" is suddenly becoming a hot potato.

The agreement, meant to translate the India-US nuclear deal of July 2005 into reality, has more critics than supporters in the Indian political class. India's Left parties now oppose the agreement. As do the Bharatiya Janata Party, its allies, and most regional parties. Virtually everyone barring the United Progressive Alliance seems to be against it.

The Left's rationale, stated in a five-page document, has to with the deal's links to a close "strategic partnership" with the US, as well as some differences between "123" and the Hyde Act passed by the US Congress. The Left opposes a strategic embrace of the US for internally consistent reasons. It also says the Hyde Act can be used arbitrarily to terminate nuclear cooperation.

The BJP, by contrast, has no principled objection to an intimate India-US alliance-indeed, it advocates it-, but opposes "123" to embarrass the UPA with crude national-chauvinist rhetoric. Most Centre-Right critics of the deal define sovereignty not in terms of independence in policy-making, but strictly in relation to the possession of mass-destruction weapons.

To its credit, the Left is worried at the likely impact of "123" on India's traditional advocacy of universal nuclear disarmament. It says that by getting "accommodated in a US-led unequal nuclear order", India's role in championing disarmament is "being given the go-by". The Right is altogether silent on this.

Many opponents of the deal make a fine-toothcomb comparison between the "123" text and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's past assurances of strict adherence to the original 2005 deal. They focus solely on a procedural issue: Singh must not deviate from what he told parliament.

But it's more relevant to recall another parliament speech by Singh, on May 28, 1998. Singh, then an MP, pilloried the Vajpayee government for Pokharan-II, and passionately pleaded for disarmament. He accused the government of violating India's three-pillared nuclear "consensus". The first pillar is that "nuclear weapons [are] weapons of mass destruction and their use [is] a crime against humanity".

So, said Singh, India should "work for a non-discriminatory, multilateral arrangement to have these weapons outlawed... [T]his consensus [is] sought to be disrupted".


Singh accused the government of reducing security to its "military dimension" alone, and launching an arms race with an "uncontrollable increase in expenditure on mass-destruction weapons". He warned of threats to "social cohesion" and insecurities arising from "ill-health, illiteracy, ignorance and disease. If we do not attend to these threats, you will have WMDs like the Soviet Union, ... but the Soviet Union still withered away. Therefore, ... think before you weaponise ..." Ironically, "123" formalises weaponisation and its acceptance by the US. Clearly, Singh has travelled a long way. What's the main content of "123"?.

The "123" agreement's Article 2.4 says its purpose is "not to affect ...or hinder ...unsafeguarded nuclear activities...". So "123" will help India expand its nuclear arsenal. India will only subject 14 of 22 operating/planned power reactors to inspections. The remaining eight can annually yield 1,250 kg of plutonium-enough for 250 bombs.

India can also stockpile as much weapons-grade material as it likes in its military-nuclear facilities, including the "Dhruva" reactor, and other unsafeguarded plants, including the under-construction Prototype Fast-Breeder Reactor.

All told, India can annually add 1,600 kg of plutonium to its existing 500-kg stockpile, itself enough for 100 bombs. This is way beyond the professed "minimum deterrent".

"123" gives "prior consent" to India's right to reprocess. Article 6(iii) is unambiguous on this. The right will come into effect when India builds a dedicated reprocessing facility.

Continuous fuel supply guarantees are also written into Articles 2.2(e), 4.1, 5.6, 14.5, etc. "123" recognises "the importance of uninterrupted operation of nuclear reactors" and of "corrective measurers" in case of disruption. The US also will help India develop a "strategic reserve" of fuel for the reactors' lifetime. If India tests, the US will terminate cooperation. But India has secured some cushions. Article 14.2 says the US will "take into account whether the circumstances [leading to the test] resulted from [India's] serious concern about "a changed security environment..." [e.g. a test by another country].

The US can then demand the return of exported equipment/material, but must give notice. Article 14.5 recognises that "exercising the right of return would have profound implications for their relations". "123" mandates obligatory multi-layered consultations, subject to continuity of supply guaranteed under Article 5.6.

Nuclear power is costly. A Massachusetts Institute of Technology study says its unit costs in the US are 40-60 per cent higher than for coal- or gas-based power. Power from new Indian nuclear plants will cost Rs3-plus. But the coal-based Sasan project will deliver power for only Re1.20. India would court serious trouble by developing nuclear power.

The deal will have major strategic-political consequences. India will abandon the fight for global nuclear disarmament. You don't get admitted to the Nuclear Club-and then demand its dissolution! India will also become more vulnerable to pressure to join U.S.-led security arrangements, and to dilute its policy independence. This will detract from a principled commitment to an equitable world free of the scourge of nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, India's Parliamentary debate is unlikely to advance principles. Rather, it's likely to be drowned in jingoistic sloganeering, which confuses sovereignty with the ability to cause mass destruction.
Praful Bidwai is a veteran Indian journalist and commentator. He can be reached at praful@bol.net.in
enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Post by enqyoobOLD »

Again, it is interesting to see that the credibility of perpetual India-baiters such as Seema Musharaffa Mustafa, Prafool Bidwai and Shrilleen has shot up at BRF.. :roll:

MMS while in opposition voiced his opinion that nuke weapons are bad. So what does that prove? MMS as PM has to consider the actual security situation. Would the NDA types like to have all their Pu propaganda and lies quoted back to them? What MMS said as an opposition member long ago, has no bearing on whether the 123 agreement is good or bad for India.

****************************************
The China Parity Argument is the first one I've seen that poses a real issue. Of course I will agree that there is no reason why India should have a worse deal than China with respect to international safeguards or fuel and technology access. Whether it is practical or in the national interest to hold out for such a deal, is a different matter.

But

1. where is the evidence that China actually gets anything like that? Can someone pls do a point-by-point comparison of the China 123 and the India 123?

2. Also, the interpretation that deals with China are not subject to US law, is quite flawed. There are plenty of people INSIDE Leavenworth etc (rather than the ones sitting around doing NPA studies in the front office) who may have believed that deals with China were not subject to US law.

3. There is no evidence that China simply "asked for and got" designs for the W88 weapon. Not through legitimate channels, anyway. For that matter, the US newspapers (USA 2-day) has been kicking up a storm of hate propaganda about Chinese espionage.

4. The next issue is, if China got such a free-run access to everything via the 123, then why is it that China has so few nuke plants, despite being a NWS since 1968? Why is China desperately cranking out coal and other polluting plants that will invite Kyoto-type cons? I mean they must have plenty of fuel on hand, and they have no shortage of construction expertise or infrastructure. So what is the hangup? If I were Li Peng Tian An Men TankTread, I would go all out and build nuke plants all over, and then demand that Indian products be banned by Oirope because they are made using Global Warming -aggravating coal plants.

The obvious answer to me is that China got nothing of the sort. Exports of nuclear/dual use technology to China are very very risky for any US entity, even with good-faith attempts to get permission. If you don't get very specific permission for each item, you are risking jail.

5. OTOH, the answer COULD be that:
So China got everything in the 123 agreement,, but nothing materialized in practice - meaning that India is heading for the same scam.


If so, let us dig out that evidence. Far too much of these China comparisons so far are based on imagination. Let's put some substance there.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25087
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Post by SSridhar »

The protest by the commies reflects their usual turn-coat tactic. When the Shakti series of tests was conducted, they were one of the staunchest and shrillest ridiculers of the BJP government for testing the weapons. Now, they are saying that our strategic programe is under threat ? How do they care ?
abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Post by abhischekcc »

N^3, either you pretend not to understand, or do you really not understand?

It is true that both left and right of India is against this deal, but for the diametrically opposite reasons. The left thinks it gives too much power to India (and too much power to US over India). The right thinks the deal gives too little power to India (and too much power to the US over India).

It is simply mistrust of the goras that is uniting the two groups.

For example, in the deal there are lotsa of refeneces to what all pain amerika will inflict on us if we do something they don't like. But there are no references to our rights of redressal if the yanks breach thier obligations, like tarapur. So, where is the parity inside the deal.

And please don't make the argument, that had we not had this deal, then what would have been India's options anyway, oh boo-hoo-hoo. :(
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

SSridhar wrote:The protest by the commies reflects their usual turn-coat tactic. When the Shakti series of tests was conducted, they were one of the staunchest and shrillest ridiculers of the BJP government for testing the weapons. Now, they are saying that our strategic programe is under threat ? How do they care ?
Not only that Commies are part of the govt which has finalised the 123 agreement. The govt is also going to sign it and they are party to that agreement.

This is the biggest psy ops.
Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Post by Rye »

The commies are just being slimeballs as usual and want to "bet on the winning horse"...whichever that is -- there is little indication that they are indulging in some joint psyops game with the congresswallahs.
But there are no references to our rights of redressal if the yanks breach thier obligations, like tarapur. So, where is the parity inside the deal.
If the US breaches the deal and Indians behave like dimwits and "adhere to the guiding principles of 123" instead of saying "we can't have your waste polluting our land, your waste can be picked up at your cost whenever you want, till then the waste will be reprocessed". Until they cough up the money to cart away all the waste (or do it at their own cost), India can just reprocess the waste instead of storing it...there is no 123 at this point, since the US has violated it in letter/spirit.

Whose fault is it if India falls in line by its own volition? If we have the waste under our possession and the US will not pay to cart it off, why can't that waste can be reprocessed since it will be in India's possession.

If the US can violate 123 now, then why can't they violate an agreement that has ALL the components of the deal that those who are against 123 are objecting to.

Or is is a foregone conclusion that India will stick to bilateral treaties even after other parties have reneged on it. Whose fault is it if India behaves like a moronic goody-two shoes even after its interests have been violated by third parties who renege on their end of an agreement?
Last edited by Rye on 13 Aug 2007 18:01, edited 1 time in total.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

NDA while in opposition voiced its opinion that nuke deal was bad. So what does that prove? What NDA does as an opposition party, has no bearing on whether the 123 agreement is good or bad for India. NDA has not negotiated the deal.
UPA has to convince the country that the deal is good for the country. The burden is on UPA govt.
enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Post by enqyoobOLD »

And please don't make the argument, that had we not had this deal, then what would have been India's options anyway, oh boo-hoo-hoo.
Why not? That IS the issue. So telling me to disregard that is like saying: "And please don't start bowling towards the stumps" 8)

When I buy a plane ticket, I find myself agreeing to all sorts of conditions, penalty clauses etc. But if they cancel the flight, or bounce me from it, about the most I can expect is a refund. All the troubles that I go through because my plans are disrupted, time is wasted, whatever, are all disregarded. WHERE'S THE PARITY? :(( :((

In fact I hate the twerps, esp. when I observe the price-fixing and schedule harassment for India trips.

I still buy plane tickets because I haven't found a competitive alternative, and need to get on with life instead of twiddling my thumbs waiting for Da Perfect Deal.

I agree that both the Left and the BJP are playing on the natural distrust of the Americans/Oiropeans, which is based on clear past experience. Can either of them suggest better alternatives?
Locked