India Nuclear News and Discussion - June 9th

vsudhir
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2173
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 03:44
Location: Dark side of the moon

Postby vsudhir » 10 Jun 2007 16:40

Since so much seems to hinge on our netas' reluctance to sing in public, the character and thinking of our institutions and key personalities etc and we're relying so much on nonverbal and small, seemingly offhand clues, here's something to consider:

Before he left for G8, PM asked is it worth it; on return, says it isn’t (IE)

So, is MMS weak willed, weak kneed, weak in the head etc? Maybe, maybe not. Is this article osy-ops designed for desi consumption to show he isn't? perhaps. But I desperately hope it's truth and not spin. Excerpts:

ON BOARD PM’S SPECIAL AIRCRAFT, JUNE 9:It may have been the high-table of the world’s most powerful, countries which account for over 60 per cent of the global economic trade, but none of that seems to have impressed Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. In fact, sources confirmed to The Sunday Express that the PM was reluctant to even attend the G8 Summit at Heiligendamm.


Not keen on sitting at the high table, eh? Where have I heard that before?

[quote] After spending three days in Germany, Singh still hadn’t changed his view. “We were not active participants in the G-8 process. In fact, the G-8 communique was issued before our meeting. We did make the point that, in future, if similar meetings have to take place, then we should get a chance to discuss our concerns so that our point of view is also reflected,â€

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7609
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 10 Jun 2007 16:43


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

Postby Calvin » 10 Jun 2007 17:05

Hindustan Times: Pranab speaks about the Nuclear Deal

Do not transfer your problems to us, India tells US

US has constraints on deal: Pranab - June 04, 2007

New Delhi, June 10, 2007
First Published: 10:19 IST(10/6/2007)
Last Updated: 13:01 IST(10/6/2007)

Amid concerns about the course of the India-US nuclear deal, External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee has said he is "hopeful" the deal will go through. But he added it was "absolutely necessary" for the US to give India the right to reprocess spent fuel before they seal a bilateral pact.

In an interview on Sunday, Mukherjee also sought immunity to the strategic fuel reserve India will build from the US proposed right-to-return clause in the 123 agreement that envisages New Delhi returning all nuclear equipment and fuel back to Washington if it tests a nuclear device.

Mukherjee also spelt out for the first time the contours of reprocessing right, which will be acceptable to India given its unique status as a de facto nuclear weapon country that has not signed the NPT.

"Reprocessing is absolutely necessary for us because we do not want to have a situation like the repetition of Tarapur," Mukherjee said, alluding to the problems of disruption of fuel and disposal of spent fuel India faced after the US unilaterally discontinued fuel supply to the Tarapur atomic power plant in 1980. American companies had built the plant.

"They say that they have some problems. We say, 'do not transfer your problems to us'," he said.

"What has been agreed in the joint statement of July 2005 and subsequently in March 2006 and what's in our commitment to parliament - they are already aware of it - therefore within these parameters the 123 agreement has to be signed," he said.

Asked if India would be prepared to accept reprocessing rights on the same terms and conditions as the US has granted to Japan, Switzerland and the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom), Mukherjee said, "We will have to examine that in the context of our commitment to the Indian parliament and the joint statement of July 2005 and the separation plan of 2006."

He, however, replied in negative when asked if India would be ready to designate specific plants for reprocessing and placing them under safeguards - a condition accepted by Japan, Switzerland and Euratom.

"There are certain issues which we shall have to keep in mind. For instance, India is a non-signatory to NPT. The other countries, which you have referred to (Japan, Switzerland and Euratom), are signatories to NPT. Therefore this arrangement will have to be India specific," the minister stressed.

Asked if India could accept reprocessing on the same terms and conditions as the US has granted to China, where if permission is not given within six months Beijing acquires an automatic interim right of reprocessing, the minister again indicated this would not be acceptable.

"You are making a comparison between the non-comparables. China is already declared a nuclear weapon state. I have already stated it will have to be India specific in the context (of the fact) that India is a non-signatory to NPT."

Mukherjee, however, expressed optimism that despite serious differences over reprocessing, the US and India will be able to "find some way out" as both countries are trying their best to seal a bilateral 123 pact that is expected to lead to the resumption of civilian nuclear cooperation between them.

The minister's remarks come after a crucial round of civil nuclear negotiations between Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon and US Undersecretary for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns over a week ago ended without a breakthrough on contentious issues like nuclear testing and reprocessing.

Mukherjee's emphasis on reprocessing right has underlined that India is not prepared to compromise on this front as it is directly linked with its indigenous three-point nuclear energy programme.

In a "pull aside" meeting between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and US President George W Bush on the sidelines of the G8 summit in Germany Friday, both leaders expressed their commitment to seeing the deal through and said that the deal was "doable".

National Security Adviser MK Narayanan and his US counterpart Steve Hadley discussed a new proposal by India to break the logjam over reprocessing that could involve New Delhi setting up a dedicated national facility for storage of nuclear fuel.

By setting up such a facility - reprocessing infrastructure is not currently listed on the civilian side in the March separation plan presented by India - New Delhi wants to find a middle way and to assure the US that such reprocessed fuel will not be diverted to its military facilities.

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

Postby Manne » 10 Jun 2007 17:44

Folks,

The agreement of views between DAE & GoI appears to be just as total this time as their disagreement few months ago. Yes, ANP & PKI will voice their fears and concerns and rightly so. That does not mean their concerns are not being factored in by GoI. This is not to say entire GoI web is on the right side but certainly the situation is not as bleak as it appears to some.

Also, notice the way MMS is bringing in 'announcements made in parliament' as an antidote to Hyde Act. And to think GoI is going under.

Note: A separate reproc setup was always possible but the massive cost was the main factor. If other i#s are dotted and t's crossed then this cost can be something we can live with.

More later.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23745
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Postby SSridhar » 10 Jun 2007 18:53

Manne,
Note: A separate reproc setup was always possible but the massive cost was the main factor.

I think the separate reprocessing facility for the imported fuel is not after all a bad idea. If we could build these facilities in the 60s and 70s, when we were much more impoverished and lacked access to technology, why can't we do it now ? I fail to understand the 'massive cost' involved here. In the end, India is not going to get everything it wants. There are some red lines for us which of course cannot be breached and there are others where we should be willing to go an extra mile or two. Reprocessing of spent fuel is a red line for us, but if it is to be done in a separate facility so be it.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53428
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 10 Jun 2007 21:54

GOI had certain expectations that were belied at the G-8 summit and MMS is saying that when he talks about 'supplicant' and 'consultations'. Need to bear this insults for some more time.
And now Pranab says his piece.
Also looks like the PRC card was played. However MMS at least got to square things with Hu.

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

Postby Calvin » 11 Jun 2007 03:55

Ramana: Good comment. Looks like Merkel was the one driving for a higher level contact with India and others, hence MMS' venting to her. It is interesting that "corporate social responsibility" is part of the agenda - wonder if MMS is a leader or follower on this.

See Merkel's comments below:

http://www.indianexpress.com/printerFriendly/33187.html

No membership yet for developing nations in elite G8

Heiligendamm, June 9

The eight most developed nations have decided to work with five leading developing countries, including India, for a joint response to major challenges facing the world economy. However, a move to grant them full membership to the elite club did not fructify.

In the run up to the summit, the Chancellor had spoken in favour of closely integrating the threshold nations into the G8 fold, but several other G8 members opposed a full membership preferring to preserve the exclusiveness of the rich nations' club. Merkel said expanding the G8 by admitting the major threshold nations as full members was not discussed at the summit because "there were different views on this".

In a joint declaration issued at the conclusion of their two-day annual summit in this Baltic Sea resort, the leaders of the G8 nations said they decided to launch a new form of specific cooperation with India, Brazil, China, Mexico and South Africa to initiate dialogue on key world economic issues with the aim of reaching concrete results within two years.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who hosted the summit attended by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, said it was important that for the first time a process for permanent contacts between the leading industrialised nations and the "threshold nations" has been established in Heiligendamm.

The G8 nations acknowledged that neither they themselves nor the major emerging nations alone will be able to cope with the major challenges that have arisen in the world economy.

"Therefore, they agreed on the need to develop common solutions by launching a new form of specific cooperation with the emerging nations," Merkel told a news conference after the summit.

The new initiative--Heiligendamm Process--was launched after the G8 leaders' discussions with Singh and the leaders of China, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa at a working session. The issues they agreed on addressing are enhancing freedom of investment and investment conditions, including corporate social responsibility, promotion and protection of innovation, defining common responsibilities for development and sharing knowledge for improving energy efficiency and technology cooperation with the aim of contributing to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

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

Postby Calvin » 11 Jun 2007 03:59

John Snow
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If any babu in the GOI thinks holding on to uncle's coat tails one can get super power dum is spuer dum.

The fact that Condi, Burns while Bush and Man mohan sizzle in media is only side tamasha.

SD has clear cut long term goals for India, that is 'C R E' period.

The day the SCOM of India said no in the current form, GOI should have walked away...

All this strategic partnership bull crap while arming TSP to the teeth and in this game Unkil is hand in glove with PRC

Remember Energy is it self a strategic commodity which uncle wants its monopoly preserved on, now add to that Nooklear Energy which is even more laced with 'strategery' (copy right Bush) so only an IFS fail grade will think Unkil will come to negotiating table with out ropes to tie up India
Nuke program.

one more data point is the recent embargo on material for space applications


vsudhir
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pulikesi, John Snow,

Its quite clear from various pronouncements our netas have made on the record that the yankee CRE dream will not come about in a direct way.

The concern of course is that it may come about unwittingly, as a misfortunate end product of the law of unintended consequences.

Fortunately for us, Babudom, rightly alerted to unkil wiles post-Tarapur, is going over every possible interpretation of draft text more carefully than usual.

Finally, for those NPAs seeking to take the alarmism route to CRE, AK has come out with this well-timed shootback.

Nuclear safety system is foolproof: Kakodkar (Pioneer)

Posting in full as won't be archived.

The Indian nuclear safety system is foolproof and had been acclaimed globally, Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Anil Kakodkar said today.

"This is because of the strength of the Indian scientific community, which the world considers the best as regards nuclear technology," he said while inaugurating the advanced Seismic Testing and Research Laboratory at CSIR's structural engineering research centre here.

The scientific community, he said, were responsible to society as the institutes in which scientists worked were built with taxpayers' money.

"You have to pay dividends for the investments made through taxpayers' money and the best for this is cooperation and collaboration between various scientific bodies," he said.

Collaborative working with a defined objective will pay maximum dividends for investments made from taxpayers' money, he said.

The Atomic Energy Commission wanted close coordination between SERC and AEC as the former's services are needed for the civil structure of nuclear reactors, he said.


Things are getting murky. Very little info and even little-er confidence in our netadom. Wait and hope is about all we can do now.

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

Postby Calvin » 11 Jun 2007 04:01


sivab
BRFite
Posts: 929
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56

Postby sivab » 11 Jun 2007 06:54

Transcript of complete interview with Pranab Mukherjee ...

US can't shift its problems on N-deal to us: Pranab

Karan Thapar: After the Burns-Menon’s meeting, where does the Indo-US nuclear deal stands—that’s one of the issues that I shall explore today with External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee.

Mr Mukherjee you have already said that the Indo-US nuclear deal hasn’t hit a roadblock. But are you disappointed with the outcome of the Menon-Burns talks?

Pranab Mukherjee: This is a negotiation which is going on for quite some time. There are certain issues, which are yet to be dissolved. So there is no question of disappointment. We are engaged in negotiations.

Karan Thapar: Let’s look at some of the issues which as you say still need to be resolved and start with the question of reprocessing. Nothing in US law and nothing in the hierarchy prohibits America granting India reprocessing rights. So what explanation have they given you for their reluctance to give us these rights?

Pranab Mukherjee: Look it’s not possible for us to explain in details what is their stand. We can only explain what is our expectation and to what extent we can go. Reprocessing is absolutely necessary for us because we do not want to have a situation like the repetition of Tarapur.

Karan Thapar: Quite right and have they explained why they are reluctant?

Pranab Mukherjee: They say that they have some problems. We said that you do not transfer your problems to us. What has been agreed in the joint statement of July 2005 and subsequently in March 2006 and what's in our commitment to Parliament - they are already aware of it - therefore within these two parameters, this 123 Agreement has to be signed.

Karan Thapar: When Mr Burn was here last week, did you point out to him that at his press conference in Hyderabad House in March 2, 2006, George Bush as good as committed himself to giving India reprocessing rights. He said and I quite[qoute?], “I don’t see how you can advocate nuclear power without advocating technological development of reprocessing.

Pranab Mukherjee: That’s why I am saying that it is for them to decide and to argue and carry on conviction to their people if they have any difficulty. What we required we made it quite clear to them.

Karan Thapar: America has granted reprocessing rights to three countries. It has given it in the past—to Switzerland, Japan and to Euratom. Would India be satisfied with reprocessing rights on the same terms and conditions?

Pranab Mukherjee: First of all we will be satisfied only, we will have to examine it in the context of our commitment to the Indian Parliament in the joint statement of July 2005 and the separation plan of 2006.

Karan Thapar: People say that there are two steps that India could consider taking, Which these three countries, which I have just named, have already taken, which would encourage America. They say that were you to identify the reprocessing plant where the reprocessing would happen, and were you to be more amenable and acceptable to fallback safeguards, this would encourage America. Are you prepared to take these steps?

Pranab Mukherjee: Look, there are certain issues, which we shall have to keep in mind. For instance, India is a non-signatory to NPT. The other countries which you have referred to all of them are signatories to NPT. Therefore this arrangement will have to be India-specific.


Karan Thapar: So, just because these three countries have taken certain steps, India cant necessarily follow the same way.

Pranab Mukherjee: India can follow what has been stated, as I mentioned in those two statements, and what is our commitment to the Indian Parliament.

Karan Thapar: Another way in fact the reprocessing rights could be granted to India is when America were to adopt what it did with China. In the case of 123 Agreement with China, America has committed itself to expeditiously and favourable considering any Chinese request for reprocessing within a limited time frame of just six months and if no decision is possible in that six months period then China automatically gets an interim right to reprocess. Would that be acceptable?


Pranab Mukherjee: I’m sorry Karan but you are making comparison between the incomparables. China is already a declared nuclear weapon state. I have already stated that it will have to be India-specific in the context as India is a non-signatory to NPT.

Karan Thapar: If none of the earlier examples or precedence are applicable to us as you pointed out, doesn’t that make you the granting of reprocessing even more difficult?

Pranab Mukherjee: I don’t think it will be more difficult. We will be able to find some way out. Though the negotiations have protracted, but in a complicated negotiation like this sometimes it happens. Both countries are trying their best. I don’t doubt their sincerity. Similarly we would also like to have it. Because the process began from July 2005 when Prime Minister visited.

Karan Thapar: Do you think that if both countries try their best, the outcome will be satisfactory to India, or is there a danger that the best may not be good enough.

Pranab Mukherjee: No that’s your value judgment. I’m not entering into any value judgment at this juncture. Let me first reach the breach and then I will think what to do next.

Karan Thapar: Very interesting. You are not wanting to express confidence. But you are leaving open the possibility that on reprocessing you might not get what would be satisfactory for India.

Pranab Mukherjee: No, I am saying that what will satisfy me—those parameters are in the knowledge of public domain. If it meets my requirements in the context of those documents, I will be satisfied.

Karan Thapar: A second sticking point according to the press is the issue of what America calls ‘right to return’. On that question of right to return, is India looking for an exemption from that law or is India looking for a way to cushioning the impact of the law so that it doesn’t have a deleterious, hurtful or harmful impact on India’s position. Which is that you are looking for?

Pranab Mukherjee: No. We would not like to have any impact on our indigenous nuclear programme. And also we would not like to affect our strategic programme to maintain the reserves for our strategic programme.

Karan Thapar: Very specifically on this question of right to return, I imagine your prime interest is to ensure that any strategic reserves of fuel which you build up are not covered by the right to return. But can America exempt India’s strategic reserves without making a mockery of its own law of right of return?

Pranab Mukherjee: What would be India specific? Otherwise where does the question comes about India-specific? It is known to everybody that India is not a signatory to NPT. India has its strategic programmes.

Karan Thapar: And therefore you are saying that anything that is India specific must take into consideration the fact that we have certain demands that are different to other counties and they must be met and catered.

Pranab Mukherjee: Exactly, because we would like to continue our existing position in respect of the other things.

Karan Thapar: How confident are you that at the end of this whole series of negotiations, you will have a satisfactory 123 which India can accept and sign?

Pranab Mukherjee: Unless it meets our requirement, it will be difficult for us to accept any proposition.

Karan Thapar: Are you optimistic or pessimistic about it?

Pranab Mukherjee: I am hopeful. The way you want to interpret…I’m hopeful that everything will fall in line.

Karan Thapar: But hopeful is not a very positive word. It’s a very neutral word.

Pranab Mukherjee: I do not know whether it is a positive word. I’m not a great linguist. So let’s leave it to the linguists.

Karan Thapar: If for some reason, after two years of negotiating, the Indo-US nuclear deal falls through, how much of a setback will it be to Indo-US relations?

Pranab Mukherjee: No, I do not think it will have any adverse impact on Indo-US relationship because the relationship is growing. These developments have taken place from the July 2005. It is an important landmark in our bilateral relationships no doubt but we do hope as I mentioned that we will be able to reach the successful conclusion of the present series of negotiations. Therefore I am not looking at that at all.

Karan Thapar: But you are also saying that if you don’t reach to a hopeful or a satisfactory conclusion it won’t have a major impact on the relationship.

Pranab Mukherjee: It should not have.

Karan Thapar: ‘It should not have’. ‘Should not’ means also hopefully it won’t have.

Pranab Mukherjee: Again you are just trying to twist the words. What is the fun in it?

Karan Thapar: Let’s come to your relationship with your Left allies. Three of the four Left parties have indicated that they either want to review or perhaps even reconsider support to the UPA Government and A B Bardhan of the CPI has gone on record to stay that he will strenuously push for this when the Left parties meet after the presidential election. So how long can you continue to rely on their support?

Pranab Mukherjee: As long as we enjoy their support it will continue.

Karan Thapar: But how long will it continue?

Pranab Mukherjee: It will continue till the end of the term.

Karan Thapar: Well that’s what you say but you see at the moment the only reason why the three parties, the CPI, the RSP and Forward Bloc are not withdrawing support is because the CP-M is putting pressure on them. But now the CP-M itself is wavering. Let me quote to you how the CP-M last week assessed three years of your Government. They say ‘The UPA was formed primarily to keep communal forces away from state power. However, UPA policies are benefiting the very same communal combine. And then they add unless this situation is immediately corrected the very raison d’etre of the UPA comes under a question mark.’ Clearly, even for the CP-M, the clock is ticking against you.

Pranab Mukherjee: I am not worried over this. These are there various political parties make assessment of the current situations and sometimes they criticise the economic policies sometimes they criticise the failure of the Government to contain the communal forces and that is the reason why they are outside the Government.

Karan Thapar: Are you saying that these criticisms are just hot air and nothing more?

Pranab Mukherjee: I am just saying that it is their assessment. But as long as they continue to support the Government, it will go on.

Karan Thapar: But the question is how long because you see it’s not just the UPA…

Pranab Mukherjee: I have given you the answer that till the end of the term of this Government.

Karan Thapar: But I am asking you on what basis you can sound so confident because its not just the UPA, they are criticizing the Prime Minister?

Pranab Mukherjee: Because I am dealing with them everyday. That's why I am confident and therefore even why they are talking of the Presidential election because they know that in the Presidential election they will have to oppose the NDA supported or NDA candidate.

Karan Thapar: But I am talking about what happen afterwards. Bardhan has gone on record to say, ‘This time I mean it, it’s not just a threat.’ Manoj Bhattacharjee of the RSP says, ‘It’s time we think for an alternative’.

Pranab Mukherjee: I think you leave that worry to me, not to you or your viewers. Let me manage that that is my job. Don’t take my job and just create panic amongst your viewers.

Karan Thapar: So you are supremely confident that despite the reiterate there is no danger of Left withdrawing the support.

Pranab Mukherjee: Let’s leave these superlative kind of adjectives. I am quite confident that the UPA Government will continue with the support of the Left till the end of the term.

Karan Thapar: What about the UPA-Left coordination committee? It hasn’t met since October, almost eight or nine months have passed and A B Bardhan has gone on record to question whether it is functioning. He says one reason why he doesn’t even want to attend the meetings because he doesn’t want to hear Chidambaram lecturing.

Pranab Mukherjee: No UPA coordination committee met several times as and when it is needed.

Karan Thapar: Not since October or November.

Pranab Mukherjee: I don’t think whether it has met after October or not but I think during the Budget sessions, after October there had been two sessions, and we met there are two types of coordination. One coordination meeting is taken by me. When the Parliament is in session it meets almost every week.

Karan Thapar: So you are saying system is working? Bardhan says it is not working, he has gone on record saying so.

Pranab Mukherjee: That is alright. You keep your records and you be satisfied with your records. But so far I am concerned as the leader of the Lok Sabha I am quite happy and satisfied with the coordination with the Left.

Karan Thapar: But this is one-sided satisfaction. You are satisfied, Bardhan is not satisfied, Abani Roy is not satisfied Manoj Bhattacharjee is not satisfied. What sort of satisfaction is this?

Pranab Mukherjee: That is my problem, not yours. I have no problem because with that I am carrying on the Government and the legislative business in the House.

Karan Thapar: But don’t you see the message you are sending out to the audience that you don’t care about Left criticism, their sensitivities. If you are satisfied, that’s good enough?

Pranab Mukherjee: No. I deal with them everyday but I don’t go by what they say to the media.

Karan Thapar: Are they two-faced? Are they saying different things to the media and different things to you?

Pranab Mukherjee: No, not at all. But when the issues come up, they give a general impression, analysing the situation. But when the individual issues on which their consent their affirmation is needed that is for me to decide and we get that.

Karan Thapar: Two very quick critical question: if at the end you achieve a satisfactory 123 agreement with the US on the Indo-US nuclear deal, can you get the Left to support it? Because on that issue, even Prakash Karat and the CP-M have publicly said that they don’t even want to negotiate the 123.

Pranab Mukherjee: That is totally a hypothetical question you have started by saying ‘if’.

Karan Thapar: Yes, but politics is hypothesis most of the time. What’s wrong with it?

Pranab Mukherjee: No, politics is not hypothetical. Therefore, this question does not arise at all. I’m not going to answer it because you are trying to bring it up cleverly.

Karan Thapar: I’m trying to bring up a danger on the road with your Left allies.

Pranab Mukherjee: This is not a danger on the road. In the spate of the foreign policy, they have a particular view and it is not unknown to us.

Karan Thapar: Can I quote to you an English phrase? They say ‘There is none so blind who willfully will not see’.

Pranab Mukherjee: I am not aware of the phrase. So I plead my ignorance. If you want to know something more, please ask me.

Karan Thapar: Let us come to the presidential elections. How confident are you that the UPA President whoever he or she might be can win if the opponent is Bhairon Singh Shekhawat?

Pranab Mukherjee: Arithmetic is clearly in favour of UPA and it's supporters.

Karan Thapar: So UPA will win?

Pranab Mukherjee: Of course.

Karan Thapar: Shekhawat does not worry you?

Pranab Mukherjee: As I told you, I go by arithmetic and facts not by psychology.

Karan Thapar: What about Mr Shekhawat's capacity to win support from all different parties, which he showed as Vice President - he could eat into your support.

Pranab Mukherjee: Taste of pudding is in the eating. We are going to face the elections if he wants to contest. And if he contests the results will be known.

Karan Thapar: In other words you will wait till the last moment to see whether he defeats you or not?

Pranab Mukherjee: No I am not going to discover anything because the arithmetic is clearly in the favour of the UPA and its supporters.

Karan Thapar: Has Mayawati assured the UPA that she will support your candidate, or does it depend upon who the candidate is?

Pranab Mukherjee: I am not going to disclose these things before the election thing is over.

Karan Thapar: But are you not disclosing it because she has not yet given the assurance?

Pranab Mukherjee: What transpires between political leaders, unless it is publicly announced, there is no reason to disclose it in a television interview with you.

Karan Thapar: Sitaram Yechury has said that if the UPA fails to get it’s candidate elected in the presidential elections, the UPA will lose its moral authority to continue in Government.

Pranab Mukherjee: I am not thinking of losing at all. It is also a very hypothetical question. If we lose at all then the question will come.

Karan Thapar: Not till then?

Pranab Mukherjee: Not till then.

Karan Thapar: I promised you at the beginning of the interview that I wouldn't bring up the question of your candidature, I am not going to break that promise, but since all the papers say that are vital to this Government, and that without you this Government would not be able to survive, don't you think that it is fitting and fair that you be made Deputy PM?

Pranab Mukherjee: These all things are totally irrelevant because who will be made Deputy PM or who will be made ministers of which ministry totally depends on the political establishment that runs the Government - that is the Prime Minister, and the President of the ruling party. No individual other than these two are concerned here.

Karan Thapar: That’s a very clear answer. Those who understand politics will understand. It was a pleasure speaking talking to you.

Pranab Mukherjee: Thank You.

Satya_anveshi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3532
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37

Postby Satya_anveshi » 11 Jun 2007 08:16

sivab wrote:Transcript of complete interview with Pranab Mukherjee ...

US can't shift its problems on N-deal to us: Pranab

Pranab Mukherjee: These all things are totally irrelevant because who will be made Deputy PM or who will be made ministers of which ministry totally depends on the political establishment that runs the Government - that is the Prime Minister, and the President of the ruling party. No individual other than these two are concerned here.
Karan Thapar: That’s a very clear answer. Those who understand politics will understand. It was a pleasure speaking talking to you.

Pranab Mukherjee: Thank You.


I don't claim to understand politics all the time but the way I understand this is that even top brass is extremely pissed at the decision making process. It hints at a very secretive form of management practiced by Manmohan-Sonia Maino combine. People in the know, know that P Chidambaram is part of the inner, with that I mean really inner circle. This interview cleared the air a little bit on the left's stand but still doubts remain that in the end they will just follow Congress.

I must say, overall, that the veteran leader handled the interview very well.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16391
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 11 Jun 2007 09:19

Not directly related to the topic of this thread, but helps understand a few strategic thoughts:

Carnegie Endowment :: May 5, 2007 :: Rise of Asia will be a challenge for policy-makers in India, U.S.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16391
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 11 Jun 2007 09:24

Slightly dated, however (64 pages):

Dr. A Tellis :: Carnegie :: 2006 :: Atoms for War? U.S.-Indian Civilian Nuclear Cooperation and India’s Nuclear Arsenal

Topics:

* Does India Seek the Largest Nuclear Arsenal possible?
* Is the Indian Nuclear Arsenal Stymied by a Shortage of Natural Uranium?
* Making Sense of U.S.-Indian Civilian Nuclear Cooperation
* Endnotes

Among the most serious criticisms leveled at the U.S.-Indian nuclear cooperation initiative agreed to by President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is that it would enable India to rapidly expand its nuclear arsenal. This criticism rests upon two crucial assumptions: that New Delhi in fact seeks the largest nuclear weapons inventory its capacity and resources permit; and, the Indian desire for a larger nuclear arsenal has been stymied thus far by a shortage of natural uranium.

Atoms for War? U.S.-Indian Civilian Nuclear Cooperation and India’s Nuclear Arsenal by Ashley J. Tellis, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, suggests that both these assumptions are deeply flawed. To begin with, the study concludes that India is currently separating about 24-40 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium annually, far less than it has the capability to produce. This evidence, which suggests that the Government of India is in no hurry to build the biggest nuclear stockpile it could construct based on material factors alone, undermines the assumption that India wishes to build the biggest nuclear arsenal it possibly can.

Further, India’s capacity to produce a huge nuclear arsenal is not affected by prospective U.S.-Indian civilian nuclear cooperation. A few facts underscore this conclusion clearly. India is widely acknowledged to possess reserves of 78,000 metric tons of uranium (MTU). The forthcoming Carnegie study concludes that the total inventory of natural uranium required to sustain all the reactors associated with the current power program (both those operational and those under construction) and the weapons program over the entire notional lifetime of these plants runs into some 14,640-14,790 MTU—or, in other words, requirements that are well within even the most conservative valuations of India’s reasonably assured uranium reserves. If the eight reactors that India has retained outside of safeguards were to allocate 1/4 of their cores for the production of weapons-grade materials—the most realistic possibility for the technical reasons discussed at length in the forthcoming report—the total amount of natural uranium required to run these facilities for the remaining duration of their notional lives would be somewhere between 19,965-29,124 MTU. If this total is added to the entire natural uranium fuel load required to run India’s two research reactors dedicated to the production of weapons-grade plutonium over their entire life cycle—some 938-1088 MTU—the total amount of natural uranium required by India’s dedicated weapons reactors and all its unsafeguarded PHWRs does not exceed 20,903-30,212 MTU over the remaining lifetime of these facilities. Operating India’s eight unsafeguarded PHWRs in this way would bequeath New Delhi with some 12,135-13,370 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium, which is sufficient to produce between 2,023-2,228 nuclear weapons over and above those already existing in the Indian arsenal.

The research in this report concludes that the total amount of natural uranium required to fuel all Indian reactors, on the assumption that eight of them would be used for producing weapons-grade materials in 1/4 of their cores, would be crudely speaking somewhere between 26,381 and 35,690 MTU over the remaining lives of all these facilities—a requirement that lies well within India’s assured uranium reserves howsoever these are disaggregated. In sum, India has the indigenous reserves of natural uranium necessary to undergird the largest possible nuclear arsenal it may desire and, consequently, the U.S.-Indian civilian nuclear cooperation initiative will not materially contribute towards New Delhi’s strategic capacities in any consequential way either directly or by freeing up its internal resources.

This conclusion notwithstanding, India does face a current shortage of natural uranium caused by constrictions in its mining and milling capacity. This deficit, however, represents a transient problem that is in the process of being redressed. It should be borne in mind that the U.S.-Indian nuclear cooperation agreement proposed by President Bush does not in any way affect the Government of India’s ability to upgrade its uranium mines and milling facilities—as it is currently doing. All this implies that the shortages of uranium fuel experienced by India presently are a near-term aberration, and not an enduring limitation resulting from the dearth of physical resources. As such, they do not offer a viable basis either for Congress to extort any concessions from India in regards to its weapons program or for supporting the petty canard that imported natural uranium will lead to a substantial increase in the size of India’s nuclear weapons program.

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

Postby svinayak » 11 Jun 2007 09:29


Raja Ram
BRFite
Posts: 586
Joined: 30 Mar 1999 12:31
Location: Chennai

Postby Raja Ram » 11 Jun 2007 10:36

The recent statements by MMS and Pranab both reiterate the long held position of yours truly. I had always held that it is for the USG to deliver on what has been agreed and GOI is not interested in the deal if they cannot.

Despite the Burns attempt to ratchet up the pressure, it does not seem that there is anything on the table from GOI side. The separate dedicated reprocessing facility with high level of safeguards thing is also not officially confirmed.

I am not sure how this offer will impact India. It looks like that this is still speculation. It might be one of the ideas thrown about as ways and means of getting through the logjam. Ultimately, for the deal to go through, it is for the USG to deliver and if their laws do not permit it, GOI is not going to bail them out.

The above statements of MMS and Pranab are the clearest indication yet that the GOI is not seeking to do this deal at all costs. So it seems there are still no buyers in Delhi the lemons that Washington wants to sell.

So the negotiations have to go on until it reaches its logical conclusion. Till then eternal vigil is required on the part of the GOI to protect itself from CRE attempts.

As usual just a ramble. Take it for what it is worth.

vsudhir
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2173
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 03:44
Location: Dark side of the moon

Postby vsudhir » 11 Jun 2007 17:32

Hearing on uranium mining gets into legal tangle (IE)

Huh?

True DDM reporting standards. No context, no annotation, no atempt at clarifying the storyline. Left me all confused about the cast, characters and plot of this story.

Could someone pls decipher?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16391
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 11 Jun 2007 18:07

Raja Ram,

What you say holds water.....only until we bump into the statements of Kakodkar and other scicoms. Your explanation does not solve the DAE/AK/scicom statements. The statements from them are not mild at all.

There is another trend. Pranabda has been stating the same thing - his position is constant, also, I wonder if his statements come out after a scicom has complained. There seems to be some friction out there, Pranabda's comments are not in a vacuum nor in concert with MMS. IMHO, they seem to be more in concert with scicoms.

Note also that GoI has been placing options on the table that scicom does not subscribe to. IF scicom had their way, they would have wound up and gone home - prior to the Hyde Act.

Even within "GoI" there appears to be fissures.

John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Postby John Snow » 11 Jun 2007 18:40

There seems to be an inner Caucus lead by
Caucasian that was ready to barter the strategic program for
expedient “Unlce Desiâ€

vnadendla
BRFite
Posts: 132
Joined: 09 Mar 2006 00:40
Location: USA

Very nice read. Same issues half generation back

Postby vnadendla » 11 Jun 2007 20:28

http://www.wisconsinproject.org/pubs/ar ... anbomb.htm

Please read the arguments carefully. What you will notice is the tendency of US (This is not US but an NPA who will advise Congress) to argue any ambiguity in its favor to the maximum (of the type where they ask for definition of word definition). They will then proceed to back that up using artificial NORMS, multilateral treaties, sanctions and what not. India needs to be careful
Last edited by vnadendla on 11 Jun 2007 23:17, edited 3 times in total.

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

Postby Rye » 11 Jun 2007 20:48

http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=87946

R.K. Pachauri on Hydrogen-based economy and the over-optimistic schedules set by the Indian govt...setting themselves up for failure...

What is the path that India should adopt for development and use of hydrogen energy?

The most important first step is to develop a set of scenarios of the future incorporating the role of hydrogen as part of India’s overall energy strategy. To look at hydrogen energy by itself would be a misplaced and misdirected approach. Secondly, major research and development should be taken in hand to make hydrogen production economically viable. For that purpose the target should include the use solely of non-fossil fuel sources of energy.

Once some clarity emerges on the most cost effective forms of production of hydrogen from renewable sources, the country has to evaluate distribution, storage and usage plans for hydrogen on a large scale. Safety would be a critical element of any such plan. It is only on the basis of detailed assessment that infrastructure and distribution facilities would need to be established. In our situation, there is a clear advantage in hydrogen being used for stationary applications, such as for fuel cells to produce electricity on a decentralised basis, rather than use for transportation only.

• Is there any purpose in targeting 1 million vehicles using hydrogen by 2020?

Such an approach would be totally ill-conceived and nowhere within the realm of economic viability. Nor does it seem part of an integrated energy strategy. Such a plan or strategy has all the elements of Muhammad bin Tughlak shifting his capital city.

Raju

Postby Raju » 11 Jun 2007 21:01

Today Lok Sabha TV aired an hour long solid discussion on the Nuclear deal and Nuclear affairs featuring Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, K. Subrahmanyam, Brahma Chellaney and Achin Vanaik (DU Prof). I guess it is the most authoritative discussion to be featured on Doordarshan on the Nuclear debate.

Brahma Chellaney was of the opinion that if GoI is careful then it might come 'alright' out of all this.

Couldn't listen to views of Achin Vanaik and K. Subrahmanyam sounded the vaguest and most unconvincing debator of the lot. He just kept putting forward the American POV and didn't seem comfortable or convinced about his arguments himself let along convincing the other three.

Satya_anveshi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3532
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37

Postby Satya_anveshi » 11 Jun 2007 23:22

http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/jun/11ndeal.htm

Task force set up to formulate uniform opinion on nuke issue

The three-member task force is headed by noted security expert K Subrahmanyam.

Shyam Saran, the Prime Minister's Special Envoy on nuclear issue, and Arundhati Ghose, former Indian ambassador to the Conference on Disarmament, are its members.

The task force will closely coordinate with the External Affairs Ministry and report to Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon. It will assess India's security interests and nuclear- related issues and work to formulate a uniform opinion.


None from DAE or any of the dissenters are made part of the team.
Doubting minds will think that from now there will be less space and bandwidth given to dissenters. They may as well have Nick Burns as one of the members.

vnadendla
BRFite
Posts: 132
Joined: 09 Mar 2006 00:40
Location: USA

Postby vnadendla » 11 Jun 2007 23:29

Satya_anveshi wrote:http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/jun/11ndeal.htm

Task force set up to formulate uniform opinion on nuke issue

The three-member task force is headed by noted security expert K Subrahmanyam.

Shyam Saran, the Prime Minister's Special Envoy on nuclear issue, and Arundhati Ghose, former Indian ambassador to the Conference on Disarmament, are its members.

The task force will closely coordinate with the External Affairs Ministry and report to Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon. It will assess India's security interests and nuclear- related issues and work to formulate a uniform opinion.


None from DAE or any of the dissenters are made part of the team.
Doubting minds will think that from now there will be less space and bandwidth given to dissenters. They may as well have Nick Burns as one of the members.


Sorry! Arundhati Ghose has my respect. Remember her words on shittybitty-(Pranab contribution to enlish litt) "India will not sign this unequal treaty not now not ever...."
Last edited by vnadendla on 12 Jun 2007 00:35, edited 1 time in total.

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

Postby Rye » 11 Jun 2007 23:29

Ms. Arundhati Ghose is not going to be conforming to the usual "sellout"/"traitor" whines on BR...esp. given her past record of defending India's position.

rocky
BRFite
Posts: 142
Joined: 08 Mar 2006 22:52

Postby rocky » 11 Jun 2007 23:30

Arundhati Ghose's presence is heartening news. Don't worry about DAE being locked out.

Shankar
BRFite
Posts: 1905
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: wai -maharastra

Postby Shankar » 11 Jun 2007 23:34

Not so simple .GOI is going both ways

-to start with it has not taken any DAE rep in the team
and then
the indo -pak-iran gas pipeline is expected to be finalized next month and signed before august this year .If this really happens then a clear message is being sent to US about our intention to maintain strategic independence in energy are irrespective of what may happen to nuke deal even if sam dont like it

But this may all mean that the deal is already dead??

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

Postby Rye » 11 Jun 2007 23:40

What if the IPI pipeline conveniently hits a road block and needs to be rescheduled for later? But Jan 20th 2009, India should be ready to
go forward full steam with the IPI, assuming the deal goes nowhere by then.

John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Postby John Snow » 12 Jun 2007 00:17

Shitty Bitty was pranab's contribution not Arundhati Gose.

She is the one who said 'Not Now and Never' on CTBT entry into clause etc..

She is well informed but was againts testing by India in 1998, but quickly ( the diplomat she is ) reconciled and gave her thoughts on moving forward..

( All from Memory)

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36388
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 12 Jun 2007 00:36

She said that 2 or 3 years back.. since then pakis are getting a free nuclear ride.. viz ctbt, npt, mtcr, etc.. apparently MMS team has J18ed the nuke deal to include reference to Iran, and failed terribly to keep pakistan on the list of top most country that needs irradiation treatment viz these treaties. we are not onlee allowing our balls get chewed, but also making our neighborhood to watch this show in their most funniest video programs in paki TV.

IPI is a waste of time and money. I-I is better. it could be expensive, or better still buy/build that much oil containers to do the bulk transport. India is wasting time.

ShyamSP
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2367
Joined: 06 Mar 2002 12:31

Postby ShyamSP » 12 Jun 2007 01:12

SaiK wrote:She said that 2 or 3 years back.. since then pakis are getting a free nuclear ride.. viz ctbt, npt, mtcr, etc.. apparently MMS team has J18ed the nuke deal to include reference to Iran, and failed terribly to keep pakistan on the list of top most country that needs irradiation treatment viz these treaties.


Good question to ponder. Why didn't India pursue reciprocation - Each time US brings Iran to discussion, India brings Pakistan. Was there an understanding between US and India with respect to Pakistan and hence its name didn't figure in the deal discussions. Or was it India's strategy/tactic to keep IPI deal open as a leverage and so it didn't want to piss off Pakistan.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36388
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 12 Jun 2007 02:09

huh~ pissing of americans i see a more valid point than the scums around us. imho, the ipi is a very very bad idea as a backup plan for nukes. lets say the amri-khans chew one ball, and we injured are wide open for the other ball get wacked from local neighborhood khans.

i am sorry. jee~ how in the world we can get constricted from pakis for vital civilian needs!. what a strategic policy is that from GoI??? double whammy! all by "laying bare"... :evil:

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

Postby Rye » 12 Jun 2007 02:52

The IPI should always be referred to in the future perfect tense -- it will be built in the future (date unspecified) and the conditions for the pipeline will be perfect when it is built. The freedom movements in Balochistan need the full support of democracies like India and the US, and India should do what it can to find potential sources for a future Independent Balochistan, when that happens.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36388
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 12 Jun 2007 03:04

sure.. when we are in a position to split pakis into 4 or 5 nations. i am not sure our current govt & present generation has such a bright think ahead minds. something for college graduates to get their thesis perhaps.

vsudhir
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2173
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 03:44
Location: Dark side of the moon

Postby vsudhir » 12 Jun 2007 03:38

'Nuke deal with US to deprive India of nuclear swaraj' (TOI)
MUMBAI: A former Supreme Court judge Justice V R Krishna Iyer has come out strongly against the Indo-US nuclear deal alleging it "is a dangerous treaty and deprives our nation of nuclear swaraj (independence)."

"Any such treaty with the US will result in American domination over India and introduce subordination in nuclear dimensions," 90-year-old Iyer alleged in a letter to M N Ramamurthy who filed the PIL in the Supreme Court last month praying that the Centre should refrain from hurriedly executing any agreement with the US.

Iyer wrote the letter to Ramamurthy, an engineering consultant from Mumbai, who had sought his blessing for his PIL which is coming up for hearing on October 10.

Iyer said that "in such matters, a national debate and parliamentary approval should be a condition of validity which will bind Bharat."

"After all, the executive cannot claim supremacy over Parliament or the final tribunal, namely the Supreme Court," he added.


Civil society seems to be coming out in force against the warped dheel. Let GOI know its shady dalali won't escape scrutiny and flak.

Brace up for leftist intellectuals (ineffectuals) accuse these honest folk of being fronts for some foreign hand (TSP/PRC etc) in opposing the deal. Truth can sometimes be stranger than fiction.

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

Postby Rye » 12 Jun 2007 03:44

SaiK wrote:
sure.. when we are in a position to split pakis into 4 or 5 nations. i am not sure our current govt & present generation has such a bright think ahead minds. something for college graduates to get their thesis perhaps.


Have no fear, the Pak army is here. They are doing a fine job without any outside help. :lol:

vsudhir
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2173
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 03:44
Location: Dark side of the moon

Postby vsudhir » 12 Jun 2007 04:13

IPI plan may be signed in July (financial express)

End-july? Timing here obviously ain't a co-incidence, now, eh?

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36388
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 12 Jun 2007 04:22

vsudhir wrote:'Nuke deal with US to deprive India of nuclear swaraj' (TOI)
MUMBAI: A former Supreme Court judge Justice V R Krishna Iyer has come out strongly against the Indo-US nuclear deal alleging it "is a dangerous treaty and deprives our nation of nuclear swaraj (independence)."....

great! thanks to my late grandma's cousin.


she is some positive looking lady..
http://ipcs.org/IPCS-IssueBrief-No47.pdf

her points are valid.. but, not for the strong strategists.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5228
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 12 Jun 2007 06:49

Raju wrote:Today Lok Sabha TV aired an hour long solid discussion on the Nuclear deal and Nuclear affairs featuring Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, K. Subrahmanyam, Brahma Chellaney and Achin Vanaik (DU Prof). I guess it is the most authoritative discussion to be featured on Doordarshan on the Nuclear debate.
Anyone with a video or audio recording of the above? If someone can post a link, it will be appreciated. Thanks.

menon
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 50
Joined: 02 Dec 2005 09:23

Postby menon » 12 Jun 2007 07:06

SaiK wrote:
vsudhir wrote:'Nuke deal with US to deprive India of nuclear swaraj' (TOI)
MUMBAI: A former Supreme Court judge Justice V R Krishna Iyer has come out strongly against the Indo-US nuclear deal alleging it "is a dangerous treaty and deprives our nation of nuclear swaraj (independence)."....

great! thanks to my late grandma's cousin.


Is he not the one who as Law minister of Kerala made all his properties into trust properties and THEN brought in Kerala Land Reforms Act (which excempted trust properties)? A Great Commie indeed.
If I remember right it was his action that led to emergency also.

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

Postby Calvin » 12 Jun 2007 08:25

The inimitable Cho once said that he opposed V R Krishna Iyer, not because he was left thinking, but because thinking had left him.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests