Opposition to the Indo-US nuclear cooperation agreement

AJay
BRFite
Posts: 107
Joined: 09 Mar 2003 12:31
Location: USA

Postby AJay » 28 Oct 2005 01:02

Acharya wrote:US bank wishes to invest in Himachal
Shimla, Oct. 27 (PTI): The Perseulle, a merchant bank of Washington, has evinced keen interest in investing Rs 1,000 in various projects in Himachal Pradesh,


Whoa..big spenders. That would buy may be a bushel of first grade HP apples :)

Is it 1000 crores?

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3284
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Postby Kakkaji » 28 Oct 2005 01:43

We want better N-cooperation: India

http://us.rediff.com/news/2005/oct/27russia.htm

"It is India's expectations that regimes like the NSG would show a better appreciation of India's non-proliferation record and its genuine energy requirements," Singh said.

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3284
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Postby Kakkaji » 28 Oct 2005 01:44

We want better N-cooperation: India

http://us.rediff.com/news/2005/oct/27russia.htm

"It is India's expectations that regimes like the NSG would show a better appreciation of India's non-proliferation record and its genuine energy requirements," Singh said.

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3284
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Postby Kakkaji » 28 Oct 2005 08:26

N-deal: India vote against Iran begins to count in Hill debate

http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story ... t_id=80936

NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 27: US non-proliferation experts, as they suggested new ways to extract stricter compliance from New Delhi for the nuclear deal to go through, were snubbed at the Congressional hearing for adopting a ‘‘value blind approach’’. 8)

The most vocal support came from an unexpected quarter: Democrat Congressman Tom Lantos, who had lashed out at India over its stand on the Iran nuclear issue at the last hearing of the House International Relations Committee, did the batting for India this time.

As most experts voiced serious reservations about the nuclear deal in its current form, Lantos hit out during the Q&A session. He asked them to ‘answer in yes or no’ on whether imposing additional conditions could break the deal with India. None of the experts who professed the idea in the speeches could give a definite answer except for Henry Sokolski who said ‘‘yes’’. There was only one expert, Neil Joeck, who supported the deal.

Lantos, it’s learnt, told the experts that it would be unrealistic to apply uniform standards to all countries. He felt that one prescription cannot possibly fit all countries and India cannot be equated with countries like Iran and North Korea. This was earlier indicated by experts like David Albright and Robert J Einhorn.

To view the India-US nuclear deal in this manner, Lantos said, would be mean adopting a ‘‘value blind approach’’ which is not acceptable. His message was clear: the Congress would have to take a more realistic view and not get carried away by persuasive non-proliferation arguments.

Jaikissan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 41
Joined: 11 Jul 2005 00:03

Postby Jaikissan » 28 Oct 2005 09:38

Rangudu wrote:^^ That said, the India lobby in the US has cut a sorry figure today. 5 experts and out of which we could only muster one guy, Neil Joeck, who is at best a government employee whose support of the deal was tepid at best. Even TSP-centric hearings get equal pro-TSP "expert" representation. The hearing was so bad that Spector and Albright started comparing India to North Korea and Iran :roll: and of all people Congressman Lantos had to step in to say that such comparisons are a joke. Pro-India congressmen, like Gary Ackerman and Joe Wilson had just 1 minute to speak while the Dana Rohrabachers blathered on and on. The India lobby in Capitol Hill looks like a joke when compared to the non-prolatullahs.


Sorry, but our history teaches us. We are always argumentative, but never cohesive, or united.

Jaikissan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 41
Joined: 11 Jul 2005 00:03

Postby Jaikissan » 28 Oct 2005 09:45

Mekala wrote:It is time, I feel, that we wired up all that is required for another explosion and kept our finger on the trigger. Just as soon as the congress rubbishes the agreement, press the trigger and say FYS. Second, we are not signatories to the NPT, so be ready to prolifirate and make some money out of it. After all when we are viewed in the same shade as North Korea and Iran, as a matter of prestige we should do better than those small countries, keeping our size, economy and stature in view. Some how I always preferred showing my middle finger up to Unkill. But, but, a BIG BUT, I dont think MMS has enough testosterone stored up in him even to think of that.

Srini-M


And we lost a good client, Saddam. Who was willing to provide india's energy security needs, crazy, it may sound though.
Few of India's bums would have given him security for eternity, and his oil reserves, india's energy security for 20-30 yrs.

Mekala
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 14
Joined: 07 Feb 2005 10:13
Contact:

Postby Mekala » 28 Oct 2005 18:32

RajeevT wrote:US asks India to separate civilian, military N-programmes

http://us.rediff.com/news/2005/oct/27nuke.htm

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


This is a classic chicken and egg situation folks. Let's see who blinks first.


No need for the guessing game. Ofcourse, It is MMS & MEA combine who will blink first. I may say that the blink will be even made to look like the seductive wink of a hooker.

Srini-M

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3524
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Postby Rudradev » 28 Oct 2005 19:14

The most vocal support came from an unexpected quarter: Democrat Congressman Tom Lantos, who had lashed out at India over its stand on the Iran nuclear issue at the last hearing of the House International Relations Committee, did the batting for India this time.


I know bashing Lantos became the flavor of the month here for a while, and after his much-publicized Mushy handshake I wondered about him myself.

Notwithstanding, he has been for a long time what in the US qualifies as a "friend of India". I remember a C-SPAN hearing back in 1999 or 2000, long before September 11th, when he brought a motion in Congress to take action against Pakistan for its support of the Taliban. The specific occasion was the Taliban making it mandatory for Afghan Hindus and Sikhs to wear yellow scarves "for their own protection". This was back when the GOTUS was very "live and let live" w.r.t the Taliban, thinking about the TAP pipeline and so on.

Against quite some opposition, including Dana Rohrabacher, Tom Lantos passionately made the case against the Taliban, calling them a "genocidal regime" and comparing them to the Nazis who made Jews in occupied ghettoes wear yellow Stars of David.

So, Tom Lantos is a guy who has seen things our way-- to the extent it is possible for an American Congressman to see things our way-- even when it was less popular to do so. IIRC, he was also quite instrumental in forging the links between the NRI and Jewish American lobbies during the '90s.

Of course, he is a Hungarian Jew and his first love is Israel. So on the question of opposing India-Iran relations, he was obviously adding his weight to squeeze India. I wouldn't be surprised if his demonstration of palliness with Musharraf was part of this agenda.

bala
BRFite
Posts: 639
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Postby bala » 28 Oct 2005 23:00

Excellent points Rudradev.

It seems incongruous for the cognoscenti of America to use India as a favorite whipping boy for any conceived problems. Look at the panoply of educated US folks who jump up and down shouting and screaming about any problem be it oppression, floods, quakes, religion by constantly bashing India. This is where the stance of the educated influence peddlers of US comes into question. Congressman Tom Lantos probably understands the larger picture but is forced to join occasionally the bandwagon chorus. He engaged in rhetoric not commensurate with his status or prestige for which he was rightly criticized. I am sure he understands the reasons. India will note his contribution to the cause of Indian interest. On the other hand we have illustrious denizens of the US like Kissinger, Stephen Cohen, Albright and others who come up with ridiculous conclusions about India. India is the only nation in the region with a record of tolerance for centuries with a history of constant invasion by marauding thugs and religious extremists. Israel understands India, despite the bigoted bunch in the GOI who constantly support the Arabs, and magnanimously understood the undercurrents of diplomacy. The results are very clear from such a relationship. The US and the western media have indulged in ambiguity vis-à-vis India for a very long time. This must change.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 28 Oct 2005 23:24

jews palling with pakibans is the real lantosing stuff that needs to be highlighted. every honest jew would know if that is the correct thing to do or wrong thing to do. and you don't need to talk to a paki how he would vote for? iran or israel?.

if the sole purpose is to counter india, then these pak-palliness would utterly fail. we have much more votes for isreal and iran from india than pakistan. the only big thing pakis have is the american weapons.. and it ends there. nothing else, can p!ss us more than providing weapons to pakistan, especially the unkil kind.

let see if israel wants to provide weapons to pakistan, and lantos will jump screaming high and shut is gob!., to show his real jewishness. hey, if lantos needs a brush, he needs a brush. okay, he did something equally bashing pakistanis, does not qualify being a good guy for saying anything against us. lets put him in the right perspective, imho.

bottom line take analgy from: do we really care which religion the killer belonged too, who shot MG?.. it does not matter. this guy f-ed it up! thats it.

jrjrao
BRFite
Posts: 869
Joined: 01 Jul 2001 11:31

Postby jrjrao » 29 Oct 2005 00:43

The Canadians promptly chime in. They want the CIRIUS to be made/labelled a civilian dude.
link

Prateek
BRFite
Posts: 310
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31

Postby Prateek » 29 Oct 2005 01:07

What if the existing plants are used for both civilian and mil purposes? India should be very careful in seperating out its plants as civilian or mil. I prefer to keep IEAE inspections for only the future plants and all current plants remain as they are, away from any inspections, barring may be one or two.

Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Postby Rye » 29 Oct 2005 01:18

The US and canadians should realize that "past is past", as U.S State Dept's Colin Powell told us about Pakistani proliferation. This concerns a forward step for the future, not the past. "India decides which of its reactors are civilians and which ones are not", and the GoI intends to follow precisely that rule, I am sure. Besides, the possibility of eventually obliging the canadians and their agreement is still open, as long as we get to decide on the meaning of "eventually".
:P

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 29 Oct 2005 01:35

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/arti ... urpg-2.cms
it is clear of the moves now. US is waiting for our announcement of the civilian and nuclear site separation... besides surprizing lantos, it matters now to find more details about this agreement. as is perplexing to US congressment, so is to us (public).

why is the US govt feels its good for them to have this agreement signed, besides the business deals america can capture. its big money.

the only two proliferation concern would be:
- india signing up for the treaties
- india withdraws from making more weapons [else why would unkil feel good].

when we are separating mil and civlian sites separate, we should be careful about what we sign up to. in no way, there should be signatures against no more weaponizing or minitaurizing weapons, or any such military things., once separated.

we should also do this.. all future reactors will be civilian , and on a staged basis we can release one reactor by one reactor what we feel deem fit, as civilian. does not that give a straight jacket start for telling the americans.

everything now we have goes military.. and we will convert some of those as civilian in the future.. now the ball is in your court mr. un-kill!

:wink:

Jaikissan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 41
Joined: 11 Jul 2005 00:03

Postby Jaikissan » 29 Oct 2005 05:25

Rye wrote:The US and canadians should realize that "past is past", as U.S State Dept's Colin Powell told us about Pakistani proliferation. This concerns a forward step for the future, not the past. "India decides which of its reactors are civilians and which ones are not", and the GoI intends to follow precisely that rule, I am sure. Besides, the possibility of eventually obliging the canadians and their agreement is still open, as long as we get to decide on the meaning of "eventually".
:P


Mr Spector was quoted as saying that "India needs to consider its own apparent violations of international nuclear norms, specifically its use of the Canadian-supplied CIRUS reactor for its nuclear weapons programme, contrary to the items of the Indian-Canadian agreement under which it was supplied


This A$$hole Spector needs to stop twisting and equating , so called interpreted 'Violations' Indo-Canadian(CIRUS) or Indo-US(tarapur for that matter), amounting to proliferation.
The fact, that CIRUS was never under safeguards(IAEA). Its research by-products 'may/may not have been' used for peaceful nuclear explosion(PNE, POK-1).

Canadians infact Violated the agreement by not performing their part on the first CANDU power-plant at RAPP-1, an IAEA safeguarded facility. Left RAPP unfinished with huge problems.
It took 8 years before india could start building its 2nd CANDU plant on its own, at RAPP-II, but still kept it under IAEA voluntarily to honor the agreement.

Similarly US violated the international nuclear norms, by refusing to supply LEU, eventhough, it was under IAEA safeguards. India still continues to keep this facility and RAPP-1&2 under IAEA safeguards.
There has been not a single instance of violation(international nuclear norm or not) on the part of India. Its the otherway round.

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

Postby svinayak » 29 Oct 2005 06:18

http://www.hindu.com/2005/10/29/stories ... 391200.htm

India's foreign policy compromised: experts

Diplomatic Correspondent

New Delhi will be a "big loser" if steps are not taken to repair ties with Teheran, says former envoy Bhadrakumar

# Manmohan Singh Government should be made to return to NCMP which promises an independent foreign policy: N. Ram
# New Delhi's vote was unfair to Iran and should not have been cast: Satish Chandra



India's former Ambassador in Teheran, Akbar Khaleeli, argued that India would be an accomplice if "something" were to happen to Iran. New Delhi should retain its position and let the U.S. and Iran sort out their problems.


According to Dr. Gopalakrishnan, India might have to vote with the U.S. for the next 40 years to ensure that the Americans met their commitments to India on the nuclear front.

Hamid Ansari, former Indian Ambassador to the United Nations, said the U.S. did not really "need" India's vote at the IAEA, but wanted to demonstrate that it could make New Delhi do certain things. The objective of the vote was also to put a spanner in Indo-Iran relationship.

On the proposed Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline project, Mr. Ansari wondered why the U.S. had problems with this when there was no restriction on purchasing crude oil or liquefied natural gas (LNG) from Iran.


Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Postby Rye » 29 Oct 2005 20:37

Our Record Contrasts Favourably With NPT Members:Shri Shyam Saran


If you look at India’s recent actions against the backdrop of this approach, then a great deal of the apprehension and negative perception about India’s nuclear policy, would appear misplaced

* Firstly, there is a continuity and consistency in our approach that may sometimes be masked by the particularities of a specific decision;

* Secondly, what appears to some observers as inordinate external influence over our decision-making in sensitive areas is, in fact, rooted in our own well-considered and independent judgement of where our best interests lie. This is in keeping with our tradition of non-alignment;

* Thirdly, we must adjust to change, change inherent in our emergence as a Nuclear Weapon State, change inherent in the sustained dynamism and technological sophistication of the Indian economy, and, as a consequence, change in global expectations of India as an increasingly influential actor on the international stage.


(i) While India is a Nuclear Weapon State, it remains committed to the goal of complete elimination of nuclear weapons. The model that could be followed in this regard is the Chemical Weapons Convention, which is both multilateral as well as non-discriminatory in the rights enjoyed by, and obligations it imposes, on parties to the Convention. We continue to believe that the best and most effective nuclear non-proliferation measure would be a credible and time-bound commitment to eliminate nuclear weapons from existing arsenals, including India’s own nuclear weapons.



(iii) We believe that States (including USA and China) should adhere to the commitments that they have made under international treaties and instruments and must be transparent in fulfilling their commitments. We are unable to accept as legitimate the pursuit of clandestine activities in respect to WMD related technologies. Our own security interests have been seriously undermined by the clandestine nuclear weapons programmes in our neighbourhood aided and abetted, or at the least, selectively ignored by some NPT signatories themselves. In seeking clarity on such clandestine activities, the international community must focus not merely on recipient states but on supplier states as well; otherwise our global non-proliferation effort would be undermined by charges of motivated selectivity and discrimination. With respect to the Iran nuclear issue, we welcome Iran’s cooperation with the IAEA in accounting for previously undeclared activities, but it is important that remaining issues which involve the Pakistan-based A.Q. Khan network are satisfactorily clarified as well. We see no reason why there should be an insistence on personal interviews with Iranian scientists but an exception granted to a man who has been accused of running a global ‘nuclear Wal-Mart’. These aspects must surely be considered for an objective assessment on this question.



Unlike some other states who eventually joined the NPT, India did not undermine the NPT even though it differed with many of its premises. At no stage did we support irresponsible theories that projected nuclear proliferation as a new version of balance of power. India, in fact, scrupulously followed all the basic obligations of an NPT member, resisting suggestions for nuclear cooperation that could have had adverse implications for international security. Indeed, in the four decades since NPT, our record contrasts favourably with NPT members, even of the weapon state category, some of whom encouraged and abetted proliferation for political or commercial reasons.
Last edited by Rye on 29 Oct 2005 21:25, edited 5 times in total.

Calvin
BRFite
Posts: 623
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby Calvin » 29 Oct 2005 21:11

India's emergence as a Nuclear Weapon State


Interesting that he does not use the term "State witn Nuclear Weapon" that others might have preferred.

AJay
BRFite
Posts: 107
Joined: 09 Mar 2003 12:31
Location: USA

Postby AJay » 30 Oct 2005 23:39

Calvin wrote:Interesting that he does not use the term "State witn Nuclear Weapon" that others might have preferred.


Where did we see that term? Oh, yeah. Very close to the term "State with WMD" ala Iraq, Iran, and NK.

jrjrao
BRFite
Posts: 869
Joined: 01 Jul 2001 11:31

Postby jrjrao » 31 Oct 2005 15:02

The NY Times.


U.S. Nuclear Deal With India Criticized by G.O.P. in Congress
...administration officials acknowledge that they may face an uphill battle convincing Congress. If that proves true, India may find that it is the biggest loser in the debate over Iran's nuclear program.

Shortly after India voted in a Sept. 24 meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency in favor of referring Iran to the United Nations Security Council because of its nuclear program, Iranian officials announced that they would cancel a $21 billion deal to build a natural-gas pipeline to India. The Iranians have backed away from that in part, but a senior Indian official said the Iranians had made it clear that they would cancel the deal if India voted against Iran again when the issue comes up for a second vote before the nuclear agency in late November.

Indian and American officials say India's leaders have assured Washington they will in fact vote again to refer Iran to the Security Council, if Iran does not stop enriching uranium and return to negotiations over its nuclear program.

...doubts about India's abilities and intentions underlie much of the Congressional concern, despite India's relatively clean record in this area.

In testimony before Mr. Hyde's committee on Wednesday, David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, warned, "With a weak and poorly enforced export-control system, Indian companies could become major suppliers to the nuclear weapons programs of adversaries of the United States, in some cases using technology which the United States originally provided."


IOW, SelectiveProliferationMullahs like David Albright keep proving how they are not worthy or deserving of any respect.

John_Doe
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 24
Joined: 23 Nov 2002 12:31
Location: San Francisco, CA

Postby John_Doe » 31 Oct 2005 18:09

Can we buy Uranium from Iran?

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 01 Nov 2005 00:02

Iran does have signicant Uranium ore deposits

P Babu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 23
Joined: 24 Nov 1999 12:31
Location: USA

Postby P Babu » 01 Nov 2005 03:51

Gerard wrote:Iran does have signicant Uranium ore deposits

Iran is still signatory of NPT, they can't sell stuff to India..They can supply only if the agreement is predated to a date before NPT came into effect..

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 01 Nov 2005 03:55

I don't think NPT restricts nuclear commerce.

Iran may sell Uranium to India provided the material is safeguarded at all stages.

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

Postby svinayak » 01 Nov 2005 07:04

http://www.samachar.com/features/311005-features.html

Talks with US must clinch best possible deal

By Swapan Das Gupta
In an age when sound-bite politics was the exception rather than the rule, it was Margaret Thatcher who described the permanently aggrieved as “moaning minnies”. At a time when Britain was struggling to overcome its post-War legacy of pampered indolence, the description touched a chord. It certainly carried more credibility than the ebullient former US Vice President Spiro Agnew’s longhand for his liberal critics-the “nattering nabobs of negativism”.

Since Prime Minister Manmohan Singh negotiated the Indo-US nuclear understanding with President George W. Bush, the “moaning minnies” and the “nattering nabobs” have had a field day. It is, after all, so much easier to cry betrayal than explain the nuances of something that involves both give and take.

The July 18 understanding—it is still premature to call it a full-fledged agreement —have been flayed by all sorts of people, from the permanently aggrieved to retired diplomats, but two groups stand out among the dissenting voices.

First, there is the unabashedly pro-China lobby. It is impossible to describe it as anything else or use a more polite description. They comprise individuals and groups who were vehemently opposed to India assuming the role of a nuclear power after the Pokhran-II blasts in 1998.

You just have to peruse the archives to discover what Messrs Yechuri and Bardhan had to say about the Indian bomb. You may even be interested in recalling how the CPI gushed over the “worker’s bomb” of the Soviet Union and how the CPI(M) welcomed China’s entry into the nuclear bomb.

I have little doubt that their opposition to the Indian bomb was substantially dictated by the NDA Government’s recognition that our eastern neighbour was not a benign variant of Dalai Lama’s Tibet. Today, they have suddenly and inexplicably discovered the virtues of an “independent” nuclear capability, a realisation that coincides with Beijing’s determination to not have India recognised as a nuclear power at any cost.

You have to examine China’s spirited opposition in the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group to India being made the sixth member of the nuclear high table to realise that anti-Americanism has a collateral motive.

Second, there are those who are afflicted by an out-of-power syndrome. They are mostly dispossessed notables of an earlier administration. They are miffed that the present foreign policy establishment has accorded them absolutely no importance. They have neither been consulted, which, perhaps, they should have nor accommodated in some consultative committee or the other.

The exclusion from the new power elite has, consequently, bred a distressing degree of cussedness which is strikingly inconsistent with the positions they took when in power. The significant feature of the ongoing debate on the July 18 understanding is that these two opposite forces have, unfortunately, coalesced.

While the Government has been strangely mealymouthed in clarifying its strategic objectives, the Left has let loose its familiar invectives about India becoming an American poodle.

The Left wants the UPA Government to mirror the “anti-imperialism” of the new messiah in Venezuela, an objective for which they have struck up an alliance with the fossilised votaries of a mummified Non- Alignment.

More distressing, a section of the BJP hangerson have positively gloated at the tardiness of India securing a no-objection certificate from the Nuclear Suppliers Group. Is India, they ask, being taken for a ride by Washington? They want nothing to do with any American endorsement of India’s nuclear programme, quite forgetting their comfort level with the interminably long strategic dialogue Jaswant Singh had with Strobe Talbot in 1998 and 1999.

That dialogue was primarily meant to secure the West’s recognition of India’s Great Power status. Just because an understanding was reached by Manmohan Singh, it doesn’t make it incumbent on Atal Behari Vajpayee to oppose it. Had Vajpayee been in power, he would have travelled along the same road.

The possibility of the US Congress putting a spanner in the July 18 agreement should, of course, never be discounted. There are powerful interests, not least in the Democratic Party, who are unable to comprehend why India should be accommodated in the nuclear high table.

Against those at home who have accused the Prime Minister of making India a client state of the US, there are those on Capitol Hill who feel that the Bush Administration has unnecessarily given away too much to India. Since both can’t obviously be right, it wouldn’t be unrealistic to suggest that something right is happening somewhere.

In diplomacy, patience is a great virtue. The US has let it be known that it intends to use the runup to President Bush’s proposed India visit in February 2006 to work out all the details and the time-frame for converting the July 18 understanding into an agreement. It is only after there is an agreement on the fine print that President Bush can move Congress and pressure the NSG.

Prior to that it would be an exercise in irresponsible unilateralism and India would be right to reject it out of hand. Imagine the outcry there would have been if the US delegation at the NSG meeting provided the much-sought after details of Indo-US understanding, even before India had agreed to its terms.

The focus, therefore, should not be on the broad parameters of joint statement issued in Washington but on what transpires in the many rounds of negotiations between Indian and US officials in the next four months. Instead of writing premature obituaries of the emerging special relationship between India and the US, our policy wonks should concentrate on delineating the acceptable from the unacceptable.

It is important that the Indian side successfully conducts hard-headed negotiations and get the best possible deal for the country. Since any agreement would have a profound bearing on the future of India as a regional power, it is incumbent that both the Congress and the BJP should have a stake in it.

The Left, despite all the noises it is making at present, is not a factor because it will ultimately echo the national interests of China. We need to be clear about what is in India’s national interest.

Jaikissan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 41
Joined: 11 Jul 2005 00:03

Postby Jaikissan » 01 Nov 2005 10:36

Gerard wrote:I don't think NPT restricts nuclear commerce.

Iran may sell Uranium to India provided the material is safeguarded at all stages.


So does Namibia, and Uzbekistan.
(stop acting, a sceptic)

Jaikissan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 41
Joined: 11 Jul 2005 00:03

Postby Jaikissan » 01 Nov 2005 10:52

John_Doe wrote:Can we buy Uranium from Iran?

Yes we or any one can buy Uranium ore from whoever, never controlled by any restrictions under any treaty.
Check Namibia and Uzbekistan.
Indian Baboos, never are strategically focused to ask.

Jaikissan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 41
Joined: 11 Jul 2005 00:03

Postby Jaikissan » 01 Nov 2005 10:56

P Babu wrote:
Gerard wrote:Iran does have signicant Uranium ore deposits

Iran is still signatory of NPT, they can't sell stuff to India..They can supply only if the agreement is predated to a date before NPT came into effect..


Under NPT Uranium ore( a naturally occuring deposit) is never covered.

Jaikissan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 41
Joined: 11 Jul 2005 00:03

Postby Jaikissan » 01 Nov 2005 11:07

Folks slow @ uranium and its naturally occuring oxide deposits i mines( Yellow Cake).

Those yellow cakes are not covered by NPT.
That is the reason, Unkil floated the story, Saddam bought those Yellow Cake from Niger, and went on to invade Iraq.

Officially, yellow cake can be traded, wherever they can be. London Market or US market...spot prices.

India just dont buy it, cause, it does not have a state mechanism to buy it. The law requires, that only Indian Govt. or its subsidiary can buy sell or trade..
And india do not have any Subsidiary to buy or Import.

Manne
BRFite
Posts: 172
Joined: 26 Jul 2002 11:31
Location: Mumbai

Postby Manne » 01 Nov 2005 16:24

Jaikissan,

Would IRE not fit the bill?

Jaikissan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 41
Joined: 11 Jul 2005 00:03

Postby Jaikissan » 01 Nov 2005 20:03

Manne wrote:Jaikissan,

Would IRE not fit the bill?


IRE's and UCIL's charter is to explore, mine and refine, not import-export.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 01 Nov 2005 20:35

Niger's low security for uranium, radioactive materials under scrutiny

Its yellowcake "would require considerable conversion and processing to be usable for nuclear weapons," agency spokesman Mark Gwozdecky said. "We don't start tracking this stuff until it's in a form suitable for reactor fuel."

Instead, the Vienna, Austria-based IAEA relies on the governments of countries that import uranium shipments from Niger to report them as obligated under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Niger has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, but of the 22 countries that reported producing uranium in 2000, Niger and Kazakhstan are the only ones without a safeguards agreement.

Manne
BRFite
Posts: 172
Joined: 26 Jul 2002 11:31
Location: Mumbai

Postby Manne » 01 Nov 2005 20:39

Jaikissan,

Agreed but why can it not be expanded to import?

Rangudu
BRFite
Posts: 1751
Joined: 03 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Postby Rangudu » 02 Nov 2005 02:18

:!:

The Senate's holding a hearing on the Indo-US deal tomorrow.

http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/2005/hrg051102p.html

:!:

Tim
BRFite
Posts: 136
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: USA

Postby Tim » 02 Nov 2005 02:28

Rangudu,

Drop me an e-mail. I've lost yours.

Tim

Rangudu
BRFite
Posts: 1751
Joined: 03 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Postby Rangudu » 03 Nov 2005 01:20

:!: :!: :!:

Starting at 3 PM ET, the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee's hearing on the Indo-US nuclear deal can be heard live using RealPlayer. The URL is:

rtsp://video.c-span.org/encoder/dirksen419.rm

For details on the hearing and witness list, please see:

http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/2005/hrg051102p.html


:!: :!: :!:

Rangudu
BRFite
Posts: 1751
Joined: 03 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Postby Rangudu » 03 Nov 2005 01:58

According to Undersecretary of State Nick Burns, the Bush administration will not ask for laws to be changed before April or May 2006.

So any hopes of law change prior to Bush visit in Feb 2006 is toast. :shock:

But he added that the Bush admin wants the laws to be India specific and that it has NO intention of asking this deal for other nations.

AkshayM
BRFite
Posts: 146
Joined: 31 Aug 2001 11:31

Postby AkshayM » 03 Nov 2005 02:12

Won't Bush be well settled as lame duck by mid-2006?

Rangudu
BRFite
Posts: 1751
Joined: 03 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Postby Rangudu » 03 Nov 2005 02:13

Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security -- Robert Joseph has added some previously unmentioned requirements regarding the IAEA safeguards and identifying the civil/military nature of facilities.

But he made it clear - "Any additional conditions imposed by Congress such as fissile cutoff will be considered deal-breakers by India"

Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Postby Alok_N » 03 Nov 2005 02:30

Rangudu wrote:
For details on the hearing and witness list, please see:

http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/2005/hrg051102p.html



It is interesting to see Ron Lehman in the mix with Ashton Carter, Sokolski and the usual suspects ...

by the way, I am trying to locate "Countering Sokolski" by Ashtom Carter, a letter he wrote to Atomic Scientist ... google finds this:

http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/2001/ ... tters.html

but the link is broken ... if anyone has better luck, please post it.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest