India Nuclear News and Discussion - June 9th

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 16 Jun 2007 08:35

vsudhir,

That is true of anything. Even AESA for the F-18E/F - software I mean.

All Indians have to do is behave well with each other and clean the streets.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 16 Jun 2007 08:46

Vivek_A wrote:
shiv wrote:
Vivek_A wrote:


Amazing



Shiv: Indian doesn't need endorsement of it's capability from anybody. Are we like pakis who will headline even a one line mention in goat mating illustrated?

The article was posted to give people information on the thorium thing.


Absolutely Vivek A. No question about what you say. But my comment is less relevant to this thread and more revelant across threads at the numbers of instances of "Western scholarship" that has historically failed to notice anything in India. It's not about the "noticing" but about gaps in gyan that reflect in Western policy and decisions that are completely flawed. I have made one reference to this in the book review folder.

With relevance to Thorium and nuke tech - I think if we've got it we need to flaunt it. The fact that it is not mentioned anywhere is related to the fact that we do not flaunt it. Is the lack of flaunting "modesty" or lack of capability? It can be interpreted both ways.

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

Postby vsudhir » 16 Jun 2007 10:02

With relevance to Thorium and nuke tech - I think if we've got it we need to flaunt it. The fact that it is not mentioned anywhere is related to the fact that we do not flaunt it. Is the lack of flaunting "modesty" or lack of capability? It can be interpreted both ways.


Excellent point with piskological roots.

SDRE culture subtly frowns on straight-faced credit-claiming as egoistic, usually exaggerated and unharmonious. Folk lookout for opportunities to snub those who are not modest abt their achievements, IMHO. E.g., when NDA lost, 'India shining' cam-pain was instinctively blamed.

Doesn't seem to have stopped our netas nor our advertisers from spinning loud yarns though. Time we exported that talent outside. Sala, there too the firnags and chinese money is hell-bent on pricking india's balloon with psy-ops and derision and what not. Won't work this time though, IMHO.

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2645
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Postby Victor » 16 Jun 2007 10:32

They suddenly woke up to the choke hold the scrawny SDRE Indians have on Th and just how far behind everyone else is in this CRITICAL nuke tech--the future of world energy security. They are desperate to get at it via 123/420 or at least scuttle it till they can catch up in a couple of decades. They are SO desperate that they are even f@rting about "their" research being done in white Russia! ("They" meaning massa CANZUUS).

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

Postby bala » 16 Jun 2007 11:06

Hashemi-Nezhad has been working on the ADS reactor concept with colleagues in Germany, Russia, India and Eastern Europe, and is enthusiastic about it. "The future of nuclear reactors is in ADS because it operates in a sub-critical condition. Only under this condition it is possible to transmute waste isotopes while gaining energy and producing fuel at low cost. And it's safe," he said.


Looks like Tim Dean the Aussie managed to sneek in the word India with his imported help scientist friend Hashemi-Nezhad.

If you type in "thorium research" in google the first few articles are :


E-LIS - Scientometric dimensions of thorium research in India

Scientometric Dimensions of Thorium Research in India

IngentaConnect World literature on thorium research:
Authors: Kademani, B. S.; Kumar, Vijai; Sagar, Anil; Kumar

Tim Dean must have downed quite a few Fosters Beer to come up with a poorly researched article on Thorium.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50400
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 16 Jun 2007 20:53

CRS so your dad worked on GMRT wow!!!

Shiv, The West was programmed to ignore India as they were assured that it wont last by the powers that be. However due to the complex society India survived and has managed to surprise each and everyone.

This shows up in places one doesn't expect. Bernard Lewis the great Western oracle on Islam has total blind spot for India, Hindus and Islam. It is Indian Islamist ideas melded with traditional Arab primacy that are running the roost. But he has no clue. Same with Esposito. Even when Indian origin Muslims are the largest block- IM, TSP & BD.

Even if the Thorium route is not optimum the intermediate step of MOX fuel will ensure autonomy in case of fuel cutoff for existing power plants.

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

Postby vsudhir » 17 Jun 2007 16:03

US must substantially alter N-deal: Scientists (Rediff)

Most of the senior scientists did not want to be quoted barring two former chairmen of the Atomic Energy Commission -- M R Srinivasan and P K Iyengar.


Asked about Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's [Images] recent suggestion on creating a national reprocessing facility for spent fuel as a civilian facility, he said "those issues can wait and they are matter of details. But what is important at this juncture is for the Americans to comply by the July 18, 2005 and March 2, 2006 joint statements and for India it is
the Prime Minister's promise on the floor of Parliament, he said.

"It takes years to understand the intricacies and nuances of nuclear policy and why should we get into the often
whimsical and partisan non-proliferation aspects as promoted by the US from time to time? It is quite clear that the US
under secretary Nicholas Burns, who claimed 90 percent completion of the bilateral 123 Agreement talks successfully,
seems to have burnt himself," he said.

Scientists and policy experts have noted with some amusement the predictable constitution of the "expert committee" intended to examine in detail issues governing non-proliferation, India's deterrent and other related subjects.

The very composition of this hand-picked group (a committee of three) and the fact that they have been asked to look into these issues in the few weeks leading up to the July visit to India by US Secretary of State Condolezza Rice, 'is
the only aspect of the entire saga that is patently transperant', a senior DAE scientist stated.

If indeed the Prime Minister intends to make good his numerous promises to Parliament, no choice remains but to
press for substantial changes in the Hyde Act.

Officials in the MEA examining the deal have commented in December 2006 that "the Hyde Act is law and supercedes any bi-lateral agreement. If anything within the 123 Agreement contradicts the Hyde Act, the act will supercede any and all terms of the agreement.

A known parallel in the case is of the Taiwan Relations Act which supercedes three previous joint communiques with
China
which is well aware that ultimately the US government will be bound by the terms of the Act, MEA officials had
pointed out.

"We have hurriedly suggested a national reprocessing facility under international safeguards in an attempt to win the 'up-down' vote and appease the US Congress," DAE officials said.

The very fact that the US has not responded to India's ffer only implies that it does not serve their purpose. Such
attempts at subterfuge only highlight that reprocessing is not a right the US wishes to allow India to retain and the Hyde
Act can be invoked at any time to override this 'concession', DAE officials added.

Following the footsteps of the latest offer, there is a real fear that bizarre 'concessions', including invoking US Presidential certifications for reprocessing Tarapur fuel (which India can do by right) may be proposed to push through
the 123 Agreement entirely on US terms, DAE officials said.

If such certifications are allowed, not only does it set a dangerous precedent for the Indian nuclear programme but it
puts India squarely in the path of future US Presidential retractions, they warn.

"Indian negotiators were attempting to convince us that the Hyde Act is an internal US legislation, not binding on India. Here is another example that the US remains bound by its terms and intends to invoke them to bludgeon India into agreeing (to their terms)," a few senior scientists said.

"Why is India running around trying to engage the IAEA and the NSG when the ball is squarely in the US court to
deliver as promised?" said a few veteran nuclear scientists.

Rather than deliver on their promises and to cover up the fact that they are already welshing, India is made to run around in futility even as the US goes about changing its mind with impugnity, DAE officials noted.


Wow.

So bloody heavily loaded with quotable quotes that I'm having a hard time deciding what to boldface.

Read it all folks, and don't miss a word. Worth it. Could've been penned by some of our N-gurus on this board...
:D

Here's the last word:

Iyengar said, "It is surprising that although the Prime Minister has said during his very brief meeting with Bush that
India will build a dedicated national facility, he never uttered a word about the Henry Hyde Act of December 2006 which is very much linked to 123 Agreement."


Bravo.

These retired and senior scientist folk have genuine courage. Standing up for the integrity of their life's work.

Just hope the GOI doesn't start messing with their pensions now. Or otherwise pressures them to put up and shut up. I wouldn't put such thuggishness beneath the powers-that-be in dilliland.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 17 Jun 2007 17:10

Officials in the MEA examining the deal have commented in December 2006 that "the Hyde Act is law and supercedes any bi-lateral agreement. If anything within the 123 Agreement contradicts the Hyde Act, the act will supercede any and all terms of the agreement.


Glad all this is coming out.

So much for an internal Act and a bi-lateral Act. It should now be clear that THIS 123 is meaningless - no matter how MMS spins it.

Also, time to tie MMS to 123. For better or worse.

A known parallel in the case is of the Taiwan Relations Act which supercedes three previous joint communiques with China which is well aware that ultimately the US government will be bound by the terms of the Act, MEA officials had pointed out.


A new hyphen? Keep hearing about China this ad China that. Is there a reluctance to ask for what India needs?

Sanatanan
BRFite
Posts: 477
Joined: 31 Dec 2006 09:29

Postby Sanatanan » 17 Jun 2007 19:06

Article from The Pioneerof 17th June 2007 posted below in full since Pioneer's archival policy is not known. I believe this has not been posted in BRF so far.

Govt reopening nuclear issues

Kanchan Gupta

On his way back from Heiligendamm, the Baltic Sea coast resort where the G-8 summit was held, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh issued an astounding statement, demanding that all "patriotic Indians" should support the India-US civilian nuclear deal. By implication, therefore, all those who do not support the deal in its present, hugely flawed form, are not patriotic Indians. On the other hand, those who support the deal despite, to quote Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon, the glaring "gaps" in it, whose consequences can only be disastrous for India's nuclear programme, are patriotic Indians. If the Prime Minister's convoluted logic is to be taken seriously, placing India's interests above those of a foreign country, in this case not surprisingly the US, is an utterly unpatriotic act and those who refuse to blindly support the nuclear deal should be shamed and shunned.

Hence, the strategic affairs specialists and commentators who have been seeking to caution the Government against allowing the Americans to set the terms of engagement, the parliamentarians who have been highlighting the manner in which the deal is being weighed against India despite the Prime Minister's repeated assurances that there shall be no digression from the July 18, 2005 joint statement, and the scientists who have been toiling for a pittance at our nuclear establishments and have refused to cravenly applaud the deal as it stands are an unpatriotic lot. These are sad times indeed if we have to learn patriotism and patriotic values from a person who crawls without being asked to bend both at home and abroad. It is equally sad and tragic that media should applaud such perverse notions of patriotism: For instance, a national daily has described the Prime Minister's statement as "remarkable not for its content as much as the new political spunk behind it".

But if Mr Singh's statement, made after his meeting with US President George Bush at Heiligendamm, was astounding, the subsequent action of his Government, such as it is, was astonishing. It has set up a task force, headed by Mr K Subrahmanyam, who is in the forefront of those pushing the nuclear deal at any cost and hence meets Mr Singh's criterion of a "patriotic Indian". The other two members of the task force are also overtly pro-deal - Ms Arundhati Ghose, India's former Ambassador to the disarmament conference, and Mr Shyam Saran, former Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister's 'Special Envoy' on the nuclear deal. Despite his designated role, Mr Sharan has been elbowed out of the 123 Agreement talks by Mr Menon; insiders say that till the new assignment came up, the Prime Minister's 'Special Envoy' was busy working on India's strategic fuel requirements. Such mighty preoccupation, for the moment, will have to take a backseat.

Officially, the task force has been given the responsibility of formulating the "correct position" on key disarmament related issues like nuclear non-proliferation and fissile material controls. Those who have interacted with the task force say that discussions are primarily focussed on Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty and connected issues that impinge on India's nuclear doctrine as well as posture. Understandably, the Ministry of External Affairs is miffed that such a task force should have been set up; after all, there is a disarmament division in the Ministry that has been dealing with CTBT and FMCT while sensitive issues related to India's nuclear doctrine and posture are long settled.

Two points have arisen from the interactions of the task force that merit the attention of Indians, especially those who are not "patriotic" enough to declare unconditional, unquestioning and unequivocal support for current form and content of the India-US nuclear deal. The first relates to the timing of setting up the task force and its agenda: Both coincide with the discussions on the text of the 123 Agreement entering a crucial phase. Do we really need to discuss disarmament related issues on a domestic forum at this point of time? And, to what purpose? The task force, more specifically Mr Subrahmanyam, is believed to have told security and strategic affairs specialists that India must revisit what are considered settled issues "in the light of new realities".

The second point relates to the "new realities", primarily obsessive American interest in controlling the future course of India's nuclear programme and thus influencing posture, apart from getting more than a toehold in India's nuclear establishments. Is an effort on to reorient standing policy on CTBT and FMCT? Till now, India's position, and this is the official line unless it is turned on its head after the task force is through with its exercise, has been that though we have co-sponsored both CTBT and FMCT, we are opposed to control regimes that are unfair, inequitable and lack effective international verification. The original purpose was to sign and join the high table; if there is no high table to join, then why should India agree to harsh control regimes? What is particularly obnoxious (for 'unpatriotic' Indians) is the US attempt to convert FMCT into an instrument of intrusive American verification from universally applicable effective international verification.

Alarmists, whose patriotic credentials I wouldn't dare question because they are unimpeachable, suggest that a surreptitious and sly effort is on, in keeping with the character of those who have arrogated to themselves the right to decide what is good for India although they lack the appropriate mandate to do so, to tamper with India's nuclear doctrine and posture. A task force member, during his interaction with a certain individual, insisted that neither nuclear doctrine nor posture has been codified as yet. Of course, that's bunkum, and he was politely told to refer to Government documents and a Press release issued on January 4, 2003 following a meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Security Affairs.

There is nothing innocently naïve about the task Mr Subrahmanyam has set for the team that is seeking to reopen closed issues in the "light of new realities". Just as there is nothing coincidental about the fact that he should head the task force set up at this juncture of discussions on the 123 Agreement, discussions in which India's Ambassador to Singapore, Mr S Jaishankar, an unabashed votary of the nuclear deal, routinely participates although he is accredited to a third Government. Mr Jaishankar happens to be Mr Subrahmanyam's son.

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

Postby vsudhir » 17 Jun 2007 19:49

Deleted (by self).

Read Ramana's post below to see why.
Last edited by vsudhir on 17 Jun 2007 20:37, edited 1 time in total.

CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6146
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54
Contact:

Postby CRamS » 17 Jun 2007 20:00

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't KS a super hawk once upon a time both on India's nuke issues, and also with respect to TSP? I started noticing these sell out tendencies in him after Kargil, and he was on the Kargil fact-finding committee. Since then I have noticed his 'suck up to USA' attitude, and also his 'South bhai bhai' crap camouflaged as some Chankian posture towards TSP. This change of heart could be due to him joining the US lifafa gang, or he is aware of some glaring deficiencies in India's ability to take on the US/TSP combine, not to mention the US/China/TSP triad arrayed against India.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 17 Jun 2007 20:15

The only 'glaring deficiencies' I can think of is hurting the economy. But with a middle-class critical mass that India has, it should tide India through such a threat. Besides, the US is very low on fuel WRT Pakistan and in fact the entire crescent till Israel - even with their own citizens running the show in some of these countries.

Assuming some 'glaring deficiencies' exist, why is it that they - MMS - do not want to discuss them within the country?

As an aside, note that the Bush backed immigration bill has been resurrected - with Billions of dollars exchanging within the Senate. This carrot cannot be ruled out along with a stick.

The trick would be to stymie efforts till Nov or so. There was a report that AK had told GoI that he would resign if this deal was signed.

vsunder
BRFite
Posts: 691
Joined: 06 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Ulan Bator, Mongolia

Postby vsunder » 17 Jun 2007 20:22

post deleted. The deal or no deal is bigger than me. If Bhabha or Raja Ramanna had been around they would have told MMS a serious opinion a long time ago.
Last edited by vsunder on 17 Jun 2007 22:14, edited 1 time in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50400
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 17 Jun 2007 20:27

CRamS wrote:Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't KS a super hawk once upon a time both on India's nuke issues, and also with respect to TSP? I started noticing these sell out tendencies in him after Kargil, and he was on the Kargil fact-finding committee. Since then I have noticed his 'suck up to USA' attitude, and also his 'South bhai bhai' crap camouflaged as some Chankian posture towards TSP. This change of heart could be due to him joining the US lifafa gang, or he is aware of some glaring deficiencies in India's ability to take on the US/TSP combine, not to mention the US/China/TSP triad arrayed against India.


Basically he wants to break the triad. He is still a hawk. The civilian agreement sows the first seeds of fissure(!) in the dyad. The South-South bhai-bahi also does the same.

The charge of nepotism is not right- the fruit does not fall too far from the tree. Its not his fault if his son is THE expert on nuke affairs and the US. Its GOI's fault for not developing expertise in depth.

I think he is re-examining the whole gamut of affairs as the time has come. OK this is what I think. The civilian deal cannot be understood unless the strategic program is understood as they are joined at the hip due to economy of resources alloacted and available.( MMS :( . Now understand the Jaswant Singh Mole story. Its not about the mole but the fact that MMS was at the helm of reducing budget alloacation in name of BOP crisis).

The strategic program has three aspects. Credibility of the deterrence-does India have to conduct tests again? This one got de-linked in the talks only after KS weighing in. US and India have agreed not to talk about the tests in a civilian agreement. Hyde Act stays as a Sword of Damocles. its for India to be nimble to avoid the falling sword or make it a brutus fulmen (useless thunderbolt).
Second aspect is how much is needed? That depends on who the targets are? And that depends on diplomacy.
The third aspect is there adequate stockpile to support the outcome of question two? If not when? Because FMCO is barreling down the road like an express truck.


So all these need to be re-calibrated. And Indian position is not in isolation or a vaccum. It is related and affects the strategic balance in the world.

And he does read the forum. Lets not disparage the sole figure who stood steadfast for Indian strategic interests.

Raju

Postby Raju » 17 Jun 2007 20:28

He AK thinks by doing nothing the problem will go away that is his style of functioning.


that's the philosophy of a lot of senior bureaucrats.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 17 Jun 2007 20:28

vsunder,

And the point is?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50400
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 17 Jun 2007 20:34

The point is there are no Snow Whites. We need to deal with the dwarfs- warts and all.

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

Postby svinayak » 17 Jun 2007 20:43

N-deal stuck on US obstinacy

[quote]ORGANISER, JUNE 17, 2007

N-deal stuck on US obstinacy
By M.D. Nalapat

Although India has six times more thorium reserves than uranium deposits, a succession of pusillanimous governments in New Delhi has prevented the needed exploitation of either resource.

Were the Government of India serious about meeting India’s energy needs, it would speed up the thorium-based programme and utilise more effectively the country’s stock of uranium as well as fuel feedstock, so as to enhance the country’s base inventory of plutonium.

The reality is that, given political will, India has all the elements in place to fast-track the indigenous thorium programme. Such a move would ensure that for generations to come the country does not fall prey to externally orchestrated sanctions.

With the price of uranium having gone up by about 300 per cent over the last three years, it makes no sense for India to give up a much more economically viable and proliferation-resistant technology that uses thorium, in favour of imported uranium.

After having promised India an equitable deal, the country is being pressured to settle for a killer agreement. With the Bush administration moving away from its initial position on the core issue of fuel supply and re-processing even before the 1-2-3 agreement is inked, clearly hoping for a dilution of the several killer conditions set by the Hyde Act would be foolish.

Among such conditions is the inspections regime mandated under the legislation. These would comprise of multiple agencies, the effect of which would be to uncover every key technology that has been indigenously developed. Thanks to the proposed nuclear deal, India may find its technology taken away by the US and sold back to it! With India taking the lead on global thorium technology, the inspections prescribed by the Hyde legislation and later by the IAEA would ensure that the country’s intellectual property would be taken away and even patented in other countries. This would happen as a result of the many “safeguardsâ€

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50400
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 17 Jun 2007 20:47

The MD Nalpat article was already posted in this thread.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 17 Jun 2007 21:00

ramana wrote:The point is there are no Snow Whites. We need to deal with the dwarfs- warts and all.


In politics there are no Snow Whites - anywhere.

Granted AK has no managerial skills, but then MMS has no back bone, Hyde has no liking for Indians, KS has no scruples, Saran cannot be trusted, Menon has no knowledge of nukes, Bush as no ...... Granted.

The point IS that this deal needs to be trashed.

What has AK's managerial skill sets or Snow White to do with this deal?

kgoan
BRFite
Posts: 260
Joined: 30 Jul 2001 11:31

Postby kgoan » 18 Jun 2007 10:27

Hullo folks got an email about the little kerfuffle here.

JUmraoji, just for the record: I don't post as much because my current job makes it impossible. This is not a time issue. You all know how the forum gets read by some strange people. Well, turns out that can bite you in the @ss when your current job involves the type of things we talk about on the forum.

(Matter of fact, I think I sent an email to both JEM and Shiv about this about a year or so ago, while discussing something else, as to why I don't post as much anymore. - So there is definitely no issue with admins!)

Re: The deal:

*Every* single issue on this deal is about constraining the growth in our *usable* power potential down the line.

EVERYTHING is about that.

How? They want us to be an obedient servant like Japan and Britain or a loud-mouthed "employee" type like France. No one serious in Dilli's terribly interested in that as far as I can tell. Not even those the forum likes to tar as "sell-outs".

Here's how this game works:

Think of the patent regime. How does the US get India to pass a patent law that benefits the west against our own interests?

Simple really, they *don't*. They get GoI to pass a patent law that benefits a few *Indian* companies - like say Dr Reddys. (Just anexample. I have no problem with the good Drs labs!)

The law says that Indian multinationals are protected. But in reality, given the power and size differential of Indian versus global companies in pharmeceuticals, the law actually acts to protect the wests monopoly far more than it protects India.

But it *does* protect the one or two Indian players in the game.

This is nothing more than sophisticated variation on the Bombay club rules of yesteryear. The variation says that these new laws will certainly protect the new Bombay Club members - but because of the effects of globalisation, they do *NOT* benefit the country. The Bombay Club does well. The Wests multinationals do better.

And the country pays for it because it constrains *our* power potential to a few "inner sanctum" types who're closely linked to the west. (Historical note: This is one of the reasons the Indira-ji finally smashed the Indian banking cartel and nationalised the lot).

That same scheme is back again.

Our counter *cannot* be nationalisation of course. That succeeded politically but failed economically. Our counter simply *must* do both - succeed both politically and economically.

That's what the nuke deal long term issues are about.

The arguments within GoI seem to me to center around this issue: Those who argue that the economics must predominate and those who argue for the political/military/tech side. GoI's job is to make sure one doesn't undermine the other.

Some people (within and outside GoI) are worried we'll repeat Indiraji's mistake but inverted - she succeeded politically but failed economically with the banking issue - the fear is that we'll succeed economically and find our selves constrained politically - which is what the US/West wants.

What BR *seriously* needs to watch for is which *Indian private companies" get into the nuclear act. i.e. Whether these will be formed into a Bombay Club cartel closely linked to the west. This is what the US is pushing for.

This is also one of those quiet unstated reasons why GoI has gone so slow on private players in the defence field. None of them are big enough or have the technological base to *maintain* independence from western corporations.

And that's the core issue with the US. The US wants to impose constraints that will act to ensure that our future tech and therefore our future energy independence is Western controlled - with a nice "Indian face" on it.

Examples:

1. Some sh!t kicking western company magically claims a patent on using Thorium for power and all of a sudden we're locked out unless we pay the West for the "privilege" of using our own tech.

2. Some environmental regulations on radiation hazards targeting our nuclear energy program unless we agree to certain "rules".

3. International insurance and financial rules on who pays in case of a nuclear accident where radioactivity crosses borders making our nuclear energy program prohibitively expensive - without Western support.

The idea is to hedge us with these rules and regulations. There are some who may say - agree to anything, and then break it whenever we need to and tell them to fuk off when we're strong enough.

KS *may* be one of those. But the problem with this is globalisation. i.e. That any agreement will automatically create a strong *economic* constituency *within* India whose interests make braeaking such an agreement politically impossible down the track.

Think Japan. Can they seriously even sneeze at the US when *all* their shining companies depend on the US? Conversely, how many US companies depend on their life, and therefore the US' economic strength, on the Japanese market?

Who therefore has the power dominance in the relationship? The US is total. Japan is zilch.

Japan demonstrates what it seems that GoI is trying to avoid. Economic success with political castration.

There is a lot to this nuke issue other than the nukes themselves.

The US is also gambling on our weakness in our high tech mass manufacturing base to try and push a whole lot of sh!te down our throats. It doesn't help that our IT-vity loudmouths have given the US the impression that we'll need them more they'll ever need us - as the Chinese and Japanese do.

The US is making a mistake. Like the blindspot in that Thorium article that Shiv pointed out - like the cluelessness that Ramana pointed out about India and Islam It maybe based on the usual Western racism.supriority complex, but they simply don't grok what's happening in India.

But if they keep this bullsh!te on this deal going on long enough - they're going to find out sooner rather than later.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50400
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 18 Jun 2007 11:02

Kgoan wrote
The idea is to hedge us with these rules and regulations. There are some who may say - agree to anything, and then break it whenever we need to and tell them to fuk off when we're strong enough.

KS *may* be one of those. But the problem with this is globalisation. i.e. That any agreement will automatically create a strong *economic* constituency *within* India whose interests make braeaking such an agreement politically impossible down the track.


In the old CASI Indo-US dialog on this point about bringing in so much synergy that India would feel compelled not to break-out is very clearly stated by one of the participants.

No comment about other bolded part. Will soon know once he is done with new task force.

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

Postby svinayak » 18 Jun 2007 11:20

ramana wrote:Kgoan wrote
The idea is to hedge us with these rules and regulations. There are some who may say - agree to anything, and then break it whenever we need to and tell them to fuk off when we're strong enough.

KS *may* be one of those. But the problem with this is globalisation. i.e. That any agreement will automatically create a strong *economic* constituency *within* India whose interests make braeaking such an agreement politically impossible down the track.


In the old CASI Indo-US dialog on this point about bringing in so much synergy that India would feel compelled not to break-out is very clearly stated by one of the participants.

No comment about other bolded part. Will soon know once he is done with new task force.


Globalization was pushed by the Clinton admin in the 1990s so much mainly to bring countries like India inside the trap.
Before the Indian conglomerates become dominant in the local market and have a strong presence outside they wanted to have the legal regulatoins which would protect the MNCs. The greatest effort will be made to protect IPs and tech. Some seepage is expected as part of the globalization. India has a large consuming market with higher sophistication than China.

There was only one catch. They did not expect Indian economy and the Indian companies to be competitive in the world market.

China was made to sweat it out before it was admitted inside WTO in 2000.

Raju

Postby Raju » 18 Jun 2007 11:37

Has this been posted before ?

India a naive participant in the great power game
By GWYNNE DYER



CHOICES usually involve a price, but people persist in believing that they can avoid paying it.

That’s what the Indian Government thought when it joined the American alliance system in Asia in 2005, but now the price is clear: China is claiming the whole Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, some 83,000sq km of mountainous territory in the eastern Himalayas containing over a million people.

China has claimed Arunachal Pradesh for a century: during the Sino-Indian border war of 1962 Chinese troops briefly occupied most of the state before withdrawing and inviting India to resume negotiations.

However, most Indians thought the dispute had been more or less ended during Chinese premier Wen Jiabao’s visit to New Delhi in April 2005, when the two sides agreed on “political parametersâ€

Prabu
BRFite
Posts: 396
Joined: 22 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: In the middle of a Desert

U.S. needs to make changes in deal: scientists

Postby Prabu » 18 Jun 2007 13:35

http://www.hindu.com/2007/06/18/stories/2007061801891300.htm

U.S. needs to make changes in deal: scientists

Here is the THE HINDU version of the objection of senior scientists - PRABU
"Tough conditions in Hyde Act and intent of the July 18, 2005 statement are at complete divergence"


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Hyde Act supercedes any bilateral agreement"
"U.S. goes about changing its mind with impunity"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





P.K. Iyengar
Mumbai: Senior nuclear scientists say unless the U.S. makes substantial changes in its civil nuclear deal with India, back and forth negotiations on the 123 agreement are meaningless.

The tough terms and conditions laid out in the Henry Hyde Act passed by the U.S. Congress in December 2006 and the intent of the July 18, 2005 statement are at divergence and so it is important to resolve it soon, they say.

Most of the senior scientists did not want to be quoted, barring two former chairmen of the Atomic Energy Commission, M.R. Srinivasan and P.K. Iyengar.

Dr. Srinivasan, Atomic Energy Commission member, said now "it is the U.S. which has to find a way to resolve the issue as the 123 agreement is only the operational arm of the Hyde Act."

Asked about Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's recent suggestion on creating a national reprocessing facility for spent fuel as a civilian facility, he said "those issues can wait and they are matter of details. But what is important at this juncture is for the Americans to comply with the July 18, 2005 and March 2, 2006 joint statements and for India it is the Prime Minister's promise on the floor of Parliament."

According to the agreement of March 2, 2006, the reprocessing of spent fuel from foreign plants and Indian plants was based on an "assay mode" or "double mode."

That is not possible without revisions in the Hyde Act, say some scientists of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE).





M.R. Srinivasan

Dr. Iyengar said: "Notwithstanding the fact that in the July 18, 2005 statement the U.S. had recognised India as a developed country with a strategic programme and that the U.S. had to come out with a separation plan for nuclear facilities in March 2006, the U.S. knew that India was very strong."

"Therefore, the negotiations that took place between March and November 2006 have evolved into a modification of the Atomic Energy Act of the U.S. which was not so rigid in November. However, the conciliation committee when making it final, made it very rigid in complete disregard to any of India's objection, which were on the table," Dr. Iyengar said.

"It takes years to understand the intricacies and nuances of nuclear policy and why should we get into the often whimsical and partisan non-proliferation aspects as promoted by the U.S. from time to time? It is quite clear that the U.S. Under Secretary Nicholas Burns, who claimed 90 per cent completion of the 123 agreement talks successfully, seems to have burnt himself," he said.

Setting up of panel


Scientists and policy experts have noted with some amusement the predictable constitution of the "expert committee" intended to examine in detail issues governing non-proliferation, India's deterrent and other related subjects.

The very composition of this hand-picked group (a committee of three) and the fact that they have been asked to look into these issues in the few weeks leading up to the July visit to India by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice "is the only aspect of the entire saga that is patently transparent," a senior DAE scientist stated.

If indeed the Prime Minister intends to make good his numerous promises to Parliament, no choice remains but to press for substantial changes in the Hyde Act.

Taiwan Act


Officials in the Ministry of External Affairs examining the deal have commented in December 2006 that "the Hyde Act is law and supercedes any bilateral agreement. If anything within the 123 agreement contradicts the Hyde Act, the Act will supercede any and all terms of the agreement."

A known parallel is of the Taiwan Relations Act, which supercedes three previous joint communiqués with China, which is well aware that ultimately the U.S. Government will be bound by the terms of the Act, MEA officials have pointed out.

"We have hurriedly suggested a national reprocessing facility under international safeguards in an attempt to win the `up-down' vote and appease the U.S. Congress," DAE officials said.

Overriding "concession"


The very fact that the U.S. has not responded to India's offer only implies that it does not serve their purpose. Such attempts at subterfuge only highlight that reprocessing is not a right the U.S. wishes to allow India to retain and the Hyde Act can be invoked at any time to override this "concession," say the DAE officials.

Following the latest offer, there is a real fear that bizarre "concessions," including invoking U.S. Presidential certifications for reprocessing the Tarapur fuel (which India can do by right), may be proposed to push through the 123 agreement entirely on U.S. terms, the DAE officials said.

If such certifications are allowed, not only does it set a dangerous precedent for the Indian nuclear programme but also puts India squarely in the path of future U.S. Presidential retractions, they warn.

"Indian negotiators were attempting to convince us that the Hyde Act is an internal U.S. legislation, not binding on India. Here is another example that the U.S. remains bound by its terms and intends to invoke them to bludgeon India into agreeing (to its terms)," a few senior scientists said.

"Why is India running around trying to engage the IAEA and the NSG when the ball is squarely in the U.S. court to deliver as promised," ask a few veteran nuclear scientists. — PTI

[url][/url]

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4278
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Postby abhischekcc » 18 Jun 2007 13:43

This Gwynne Dyer article deserves to be in the psy-ops thread as an example of the snobish attitude of the west.

The article posits India as Naive for thinking that China would remain calm if India signed a military alliance with US. What she forgets to mention is that China would have anyway claimed Arunachal later, if India had not signed the agreement with US.

IOW, India has pre-empted the Chinese threat by signing an agreement with US, and forced China to expose its hostility to Indian interests before the time was ripe.

By forcing China to expose its hostile side, by forcing them to take an extreme position, we have made their own negotiating position weaker.

A conflict, overt or covert, is inevitable between India and China.


India is not a naive player of the great game. India has its own set of interests, which is usually invisible to unconcious racists like Gwynne Dyer.

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Postby vina » 18 Jun 2007 15:00

kgoan wrote: You all know how the forum gets read by some strange people. Well, turns out that can bite you in the @ss when your current job involves the type of things we talk about on the forum.


Hmm.. Kgaonji? Are you sure about it ? I thought that it was just a bunch of pimply faced fan boys who do this to kill time.. Are you telling me that this entire forum thingy is taken seriously enough for big-big boys read and spend time on ?.. After all, our dear jarnailist Colonel thinks it is boyz with toyz onlee. It is just a bunch of kids ranting here.

This is nothing more than sophisticated variation on the Bombay club rules of yesteryear. The variation says that these new laws will certainly protect the new Bombay Club members - but because of the effects of globalisation, they do *NOT* benefit the country. The Bombay Club does well. The Wests multinationals do better.


Hmm.. You obviously are someone who would not agree with something on the lines of "What is good for General Motors is Good For the US" . I agree with much of what you said until now ..

And the country pays for it because it constrains *our* power potential to a few "inner sanctum" types who're closely linked to the west. (Historical note: This is one of the reasons the Indira-ji finally smashed the Indian banking cartel and nationalised the lot).

However , here I have to respectfully disagree.. Indiraji surely did not have motivation beyond getting her paws on the money bags and dole out patronage via "garibi hatao /loan melas" and as a means to exercise total control on all aspects of the country's life.. In one of Rajinikanth's movies there is a dialog along these lines "God does not give everything. If he does, we will forget him altogether. So, He always leaves something, even a trifle unfulfilled".. God.. Oops.. Indiraji ==Bharat Mata == India wanted to make sure that you never forgot her and kept voting for her.. That was all.

That said, I have to say that I agree totally with what Indiraji did wrt Pharma and Agriculture patents.. If she hadn't we would have continued paying the highest prices in the world for medicines and agricultural chemicals and not have the industrial base in this area that we currently do.

This is also one of those quiet unstated reasons why GoI has gone so slow on private players in the defence field. None of them are big enough or have the technological base to *maintain* independence from western corporations.


I am sure that you know the GOI far better than I do. .But me thinks that you are granting this big lizard (dinosaur) far more intelligence than it actually has. Sloth and analysis-paralysis is inherent.. Not something by design.

It doesn't help that our IT-vity loudmouths have given the US the impression that we'll need them more they'll ever need us -


Oh the IT-vity loudmouths do absolutely need Unkil. No doubts about it. But tell me. why does Unkil need us at all ?

For others there is a sort of "rationale". Pakis for "Geography" and to deal with Al_keeda tyes (if not the Pakis via support to terrorism will create that need).. Japan to keep down Chinis and Russis.. Chinese.. well to stitch Nike shoes and to stop being a nuisance elsewhere. Britainistani Poodle to serve as the "unsinkable" carrier.. etc.. etc.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 18 Jun 2007 17:29

What BR *seriously* needs to watch for is which *Indian private companies" get into the nuclear act. i.e. Whether these will be formed into a Bombay Club cartel closely linked to the west. This is what the US is pushing for.


Kakodkar has already stated (posted earlier) that DAE will have to rework their bylaws for this to happen - and that he is willing to do so. What he did NOT say was that all such companies would still be under DAE rule.

Besides, there has to be someone within India to support such efforts by the US - the US cannot make it just happen. And, given what AK has stated so far, such Indians have to run past AK to bat for the US.

It is one thing to bat openly, and totally different when one does not bat openly (specially on such matters), I would think.

Not even those the forum likes to tar as "sell-outs".


How does one explain the likes of PKI then, or arm-twisting by another Scicom as early as Feb of 2006? Do they have an agenda of their own? IF so, what could that be?

Also note that "sell-out" is relative. Indian thinking goes well beyond FBR, nukes, etc - it is equal status. The request is binary, why then are some Indians not recognizing this or failing to public debate it (for all I know the "sell-out-ers" do have a great idea)?

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4278
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Postby abhischekcc » 18 Jun 2007 17:34

NRao wrote:Also note that "sell-out" is relative. Indian thinking goes well beyond FBR, nukes, etc - it is equal status. The request is binary, why then are some Indians not recognizing this or failing to public debate it (for all I know the "sell-out-ers" do have a great idea)?


I think that this statement captures in a nutshell what the essential issue bedevilling the talks is.

India is essentially asking for equal rights at the nuclear table, and US is unwilling to provide that. And so the circus contiues.

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6975
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby JE Menon » 18 Jun 2007 17:54

vsunder,

Good to have you back dude. Dunno what you posted, but I can guess :twisted:

Anyway, the thread value from the perspective of meaningful discourse has deteriorated. What we clearly have however seems to be an accurate representation of public opinion on the subject. And that may not be a bad thing...for the time being.

Kgoan, great point below:

........*Every* single issue on this deal is about constraining the growth in our *usable* power potential down the line.

EVERYTHING is about that.

How? They want us to be an obedient servant like Japan and Britain or a loud-mouthed "employee" type like France. No one serious in Dilli's terribly interested in that as far as I can tell. Not even those the forum likes to tar as "sell-outs"......

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 18 Jun 2007 18:00

abhischekcc wrote:I think that this statement captures in a nutshell what the essential issue bedevilling the talks is.

India is essentially asking for equal rights at the nuclear table, and US is unwilling to provide that. And so the circus contiues.


Actually the "equal status" is not the issue from Indian PoV.

It is the answer - Yes or No.

Even the US answer of "May be" is OK.

What is not OK, is some Indians accepting this and going along. They forget that they need a Yes/No answer for one thing, then they totally loose sight of the equal status and think they are doing great because they have bargained for something they did not have.

We experience this when we go to buy a used car - the salesman makes us forget what we need to ask - sometimes even when we have written it on paper and taken that paper with us.

It is normal that this happens, but it is equally normal that there is an expectation that we get out of it.

Stick with J18 and get a binary answer.

Raju

Postby Raju » 18 Jun 2007 19:09

Just caught Vishal Thapar on IBN mumbling something about ICBM program being put on hold to placate 'western powers' esp US on Newclear Deal.

What's going on in this PMO to even talk about such concessions ? Seems to be staffed with the most vicious of anti-Indian elements ever to step foot in it.

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

Postby vnadendla » 18 Jun 2007 19:29

For others there is a sort of "rationale". Pakis for "Geography" and to deal with Al_keeda tyes (if not the Pakis via support to terrorism will create that need).. Japan to keep down Chinis and Russis.. Chinese.. well to stitch Nike shoes and to stop being a nuisance elsewhere. Britainistani Poodle to serve as the "unsinkable" carrier.. etc.. etc.


Sanctions work to an extent to keep a country down. But when sanctions result in a second independent body of knowledge then its scary. Countries of the world have NO idea what India is doing in nuclear / missile field leaving them with a real possibility of being leapfrogged. Indians used a cheap catalyst to produce tritium while the US built a 7 B $ accelerator. What else is possible? What else has already been done? India's capabilities cannot be factored in into any strategic plan. This is the reason beyond push to integrate India and kill sanctions. And lets call it Bollywood effect. Our half pirated half innovated masala movies are the most popular in half the world- hmmm scary isn't it?
The rationale is to keep tabs on India

Satya_anveshi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3528
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37

Re: U.S. needs to make changes in deal: scientists

Postby Satya_anveshi » 18 Jun 2007 20:58

Prabu wrote:http://www.hindu.com/2007/06/18/stories/2007061801891300.htm

U.S. needs to make changes in deal: scientists

P.K. Iyengar
"Why is India running around trying to engage the IAEA and the NSG when the ball is squarely in the U.S. court to deliver as promised," ask a few veteran nuclear scientists. — PTI

[url][/url]



Can it get any more blunt to express ones extreme displeasure and still be civil?

One may think political establishment may be able to negotiate better than a babu (yes, chankian and all that)..but what we have here is some basic negotiation lessons being taught publicly by former scientist (not even babus).

It does not appear the case that those who are negotiating know something that other don't.

Also the three member committee was not formed to study anything but to form uniform opinion (meaning supressing the dissenting voices and give one sided picture). We should look forward to articles of "India on the world stage" , "India the next super duper power" type very soon.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 18 Jun 2007 21:00

What's going on in this PMO to even talk about such concessions ?


As an observation, there is one common thread between the US and this GoI: join the main stream. What is this stream, who defines it, what benefits does India have, nothing seems to be discussed.

The old nara, of 'world power', is no longer in use.

Raju

Postby Raju » 18 Jun 2007 21:12

NRao, prepare for the shocker.

According to MR Srinivasan Retd Scientist, has said that this is probably to comply with the MTCR provisions of the Hyde Act.

Secondly there exists no serious Nuclear Weapons Power/State without an ICBM capability. So what this step makes us is a 'Ch****ya' nuclear power for which the Hyde Act was formulated.

CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6146
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54
Contact:

Postby CRamS » 18 Jun 2007 21:26

Guys: whats the next step to watch for on this 'deal' discussion between US and India? Are there any meetings planned, and if so when? Or have the discussions been relageted to the quiet mode, i.e., thrash out issues and only invoke media if and when there is a meeting of minds.

bhargava
BRFite
Posts: 272
Joined: 29 Dec 2005 12:27
Location: Nammooru

Postby bhargava » 18 Jun 2007 21:44


Satya_anveshi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3528
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37

Postby Satya_anveshi » 18 Jun 2007 21:55

bhargava wrote:From IBNLive: India toes US line, caps missile plan


One must wonder what is so "civilian" about Indo-US civil nuclear deal. Even that fig leaf of deniability for public cover did not hold longer.

I am sure someone (experts?) will spin this ICBM story and say that in the event US renegs on the deal, it is effectively OK'ing India to develop ICBM's targeting "western powers". How chankian?

ashkrishna
BRFite
Posts: 132
Joined: 03 Feb 2007 01:53
Contact:

Postby ashkrishna » 18 Jun 2007 21:58

vishal thapar and his glorious sources.....wasnt he the man who said that indian missiles are duds immediately after the A-III test... Now washington seems concerned about indias increasing reach. Two timing traitor this guy. I still remeber the report that he carried out ibnlive immediately after the A-III failure - does india even have a deterrent? If the programme was to have been put on hold it would have happened long ago. Did anyone even read what pranab mukherjee said after the failed A-3 test.....?


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests