Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - 25 Jul 2007

Locked
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Post by NRao »

CRS,

That is the US view.
ramana wrote: In the end NDA tested and UPA got the deal.
I doubt if the UPA would have got the deal without the current econ, etc env. Something that Burns mentioned is the rising power that India is.

On:
Narayanan said India would have liked to get reprocessing and enrichment technologies.
I was under the impression that India was considered a NWS now!!!!! Someone has been gloating without reason?
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

duh!..
Anil Kakodkar, who has been critical of the nuclear deal, said he was satisfied with the deal as the right to reprocess spent fuel and re-using it for other purposes had been agreed to in the deal.
:shock:
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

From MEA site
Opening statement by National Security Adviser at media briefing on 27 July 2007


27/07/2007


We are happy to inform you that the governments of India and the United States of America have finalized the text of the bilateral agreement for cooperation in peaceful uses of nuclear energy. India and the US are today issuing a Joint Statement on the conclusion of negotiations on this agreement.

The finalization of the text of this Agreement after five rounds of discussion is a significant milestone in the implementation of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Bush’s vision to transform the relationship between India and the United States, which was expressed in the Joint Statements of 18 July 2005 and 2 March 2006. The commitments expressed in the Joint Statements of 18 July 2005 and 2 March 2006 have been fully reflected in the final text of the bilateral cooperation agreement.

The purpose of the Agreement is to enable full civil nuclear energy cooperation between India and the United States covering nuclear reactors and aspects of the associated nuclear fuel cycle. The Agreement is between two States possessing advanced nuclear technologies, both parties having the same benefits and advantages. We are confident that the Agreement fulfills the terms outlined by the Prime Minister to Parliament on 17 August 2006.

The significance of the Agreement, which has become a touchstone of the transformed bilateral relationship between India and the United States, is that when brought into effect, it will open the way to bilateral cooperation between India and the United States in the area of civil nuclear energy.



The Agreement is also significant in opening the possibility of India cooperating with other countries in the world in civil nuclear energy. We look forward to this prospect. India regards international civil nuclear cooperation as potentially most important for energy security and for an environmentally sustainable pattern of development. India is ready to work with like-minded countries to fashion a new consensus on non-proliferation and realize the goal of a nuclear weapon-free world through universal nuclear disarmament.

In order to make cooperation in civil nuclear energy a reality, India will now negotiate an India-specific safeguards agreement with the IAEA. The India-US bilateral agreement also opens up the possibility of an unconditional exemption for India from the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) Guidelines, as foreseen in the July 18, 2005 Joint Statement.

The text of the Agreement will be made available to the public soon, at a time to be agreed by the two governments.
and
Joint Statement by Shri Pranab Mukherjee, Minister for External Affairs and Dr. Condoleezza Rice, US Secretary of State - India and United States Complete Civil Nuclear Negotiations


27/07/2007


The United States and India have reached a historic milestone in their strategic partnership by completing negotiations on the bilateral agreement for peaceful nuclear cooperation, also known as the “123 agreement.â€
Suraj
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15043
Joined: 20 Jan 2002 12:31

Post by Suraj »

Came across this while trawling Bloomberg for economic news. Posting in full:
Indian Pledge on Reprocessing Led to Breakthrough
India's pledge to set up a ``state- of-the-art'' reprocessing site for spent atomic fuel led to a breakthrough in stalled talks on a civilian nuclear energy agreement, first proposed two years ago, a top U.S. negotiator said.

The reprocessing will be subject to International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards, Nicholas Burns, the U.S. undersecretary for political affairs, told reporters in Washington today after a joint announcement that the two countries had completed the agreement. India proposed the reprocessing site, which was crucial to both sides concurring on terms, in early June when Burns was in New Delhi, he said.

Burns said that ``by removing the real barrier that has separated us for more than 30 years, we're about to liberate our two countries for a new engagement.''

The plan has further steps to clear. India, which hasn't signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has to reach an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations' nuclear watchdog for international inspections, on safeguards.

The Nuclear Suppliers Group, a 45-nation forum dedicated to limiting the spread of atomic weapons, must also approve the agreement. After that, the U.S. president will submit the text to Congress for approval, attempting to overcome concerns that India's nuclear weapons program would benefit.

`Strategic Partnership'

``I look forward to working with Congress to realize this important initiative,'' U.S. President George W. Bush said in a statement e-mailed to reporters. ``This marks another step in the continued progress that is deepening our strategic partnership with India, a vital world leader.''

The conclusion of negotiations on the so-called ``1-2-3 agreement'' paves the way for and other U.S. companies to participate in the South Asian nation's nuclear power program.

``It opens up support for India to pursue expansion in nuclear power because we were seriously running into a constraint as far as fuel supply is concerned,'' said R.K. Pachauri, director general of the Energy & Resources Institute, in a phone interview today.

Indian utilities, which are straining to supply power to industry, homes and farms, would be allowed to buy equipment, fuel and reactors from firms such as Fairfield, Connecticut- based General Electric Co. and Monroeville, Pennsylvania-based Westinghouse Electric Co. In exchange, the South Asian nation would open some of its plants to international inspections to ensure that the fuel isn't being diverted for weapons.

Energy Needs

India, the world's second-fastest-growing major economy, needs atomic power to supplement conventional energy resources. Atomic power now accounts for about 3 percent of the country's total electricity production.

The agreement is an important objective of Bush's foreign policy because it symbolizes deeper ties between the two most populous democracies amid China's economic and military surge. It was held up by differences over whether India would get a perennial supply of nuclear fuel, be allowed to reprocess spent fuel and have the right to conduct nuclear tests.

``It's going to certainly increase the Chinese perception that the deal is part of an attempt to contain China by improving relations with India,'' Adam Segal, who follows China for the Council on Foreign Relations, said.

The text of the agreement will ``soon'' be available, India's National security Adviser M.K. Narayanan told reporters in a televised news conference in New Delhi. ``We have got a very good deal,'' he said, referring to the terms of the accord.

Iran

The India accord is in the ``unquestioned'' interest of the U.S., and Iran can draw lessons from it, Burns said. The accord with India will open the way to wider defense cooperation and ``unlocks the promise'' of strategic ties, he said.

Indian Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon said there were no conditions attached to the accord.

``This agreement has a finalized text which meets the concerns of both sides and serves the interest of both sides,'' Menon said. ``There is no conditionality and we did not negotiate anything else.''

The U.S. is convinced that India will keep any nuclear fuel that's governed by the agreement from the arms program, Burns said. The U.S. believes that India is improving nuclear export controls, though some Indian companies have been sanctioned by the U.S. for nuclear proliferation, the official said.

India has the right to reuse the reprocessed spent fuel, said Anil Kakodkar, chairman of the country's Atomic Energy Commission. ``It allows us to derive the full benefit of the cooperation.''

`Fine Print'

U.S. lawmakers were consulted before the India accord was finished, first outlined by Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in July 2005, Burns said. The U.S. Congress will want to see the ``fine print'' of the agreement, he said, adding that any exceptions made for India won't be a precedent for other countries.

The agreement's safeguards should persuade the nuclear group, Burns said.

Narayanan said there is no reference to nuclear tests by India in the text of the agreement.

``We have not mortgaged any right. If anything, we have only enhanced our right.'' Narayanan said. ``This agreement is intended primarily for civil nuclear cooperation. We are not using it as an excuse to enhance our strategic capabilities.''

`Problematic' Concessions

Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Washington-based Arms Control Association, said he thinks the Bush administration made concessions to India in the agreement's language ``that are problematic'' and ``inconsistent'' with past U.S. policy and the intent of Congress.

``Other countries are going to look at this, like Pakistan, and either want the same treatment, or they're going to be less interested in working with the U.S. to enforce the same rules against countries that are seeking to challenge them,'' Kimball said.

On July 25, two Indian cabinet panels endorsed the draft of a nuclear cooperation agreement with the U.S. that had been stalled by differences over the supply and reuse of fuel, saying it ``adequately addressed'' the nation's concerns.

The U.S. Congress in December passed legislation to allow the agreement to go forward. The legislation reversed decades of U.S. policy that barred nuclear exports to India after the South Asian country tested an atomic bomb in 1974 without signing the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

To contact the reporter on this story: Ashok Bhattacharjee in New Delhi at ashokb@bloomberg.net .
sivab
BRFite
Posts: 1075
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56

Post by sivab »

BJP rejects report it "complimented" govt for n-deal
BJP spokesman Ravi Shankar Prasad told reporters that his party colleagues led by former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee had instead expressed apprehensions over the pact when they met Prime Minister Manmohan Singh yesterday.

"We reject this news report attributed to sources. It's sheer disinformation. Our concerns over the agreement remain in place. We have to first see the text before coming out with our views on the agreement," he said.

...
FWIW...
bala
BRFite
Posts: 1975
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Post by bala »

"Other countries are going to look at this, like Pakistan, and either want the same treatment, or they're going to be less interested in working with the U.S. to enforce the same rules against countries that are seeking to challenge them,'' Kimball said.
Braying Ayotallah Daryl Kimball, is trying to equate TSP with India and it is not going to work. Already the US has told TSP that it ain't getting any agreement on the Nuclear front and Poodle Australia has told TSP to stuff it as far as Uranium goes. TSP is in GUBO mode with the US. So who else is there besides Iran to challenge the US. N. Korea has been neutered. Russia is backing away from Iran on the nuclear front. Effectively, Kimball is clutching at straw man scenarios that are not going to happen. Good try fellow, Keep braying.
Last edited by bala on 27 Jul 2007 22:58, edited 1 time in total.
Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Post by Victor »

Since increased uranium mining is probably no longer critical for the country, I believe that the anti-mining (and anti-national) activists in places like Domiasiat, Meghalaya will change their stance. They will decide that economic development for those remote and dirt poor people is desirable after all and that the government can indeed be trusted to handle the environmental and health issues safely and responsibly. But do we even need these new mines any more?
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Post by ShauryaT »

Dr. Tellis is a very happy man today. All the 4 objectives that were set out to be attained from a US perspective, are well on its way to be attained with this agreement.

1. One way or the other to get India to abide by the NPT even if you cannot make it sign
2. India must be made to accept safeguards as a non-nuclear weapon State
3. India must abide by the CTBT conditions
4. To halt, to roll back, and eventually eliminate

Over to the next session now, to talk about India's date for volunatry end to fissile production and final adherence to the FMCT.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

``Other countries are going to look at this, like Pakistan, and either want the same treatment, or they're going to be less interested in working with the U.S. to enforce the same rules against countries that are seeking to challenge them,'' Kimball said.
is he saying pakis will now become more uncontrollable and will start proliferating more liberally and openly since they were not given same deal as India?

thats like a threatening statement to non-proliferation world!.. on the same argument will he say, if the deal does not happen this way, India will do the same?

jee.. people have to come to reality at some point in time.. some of these NPAs are really clueless as to how to sack India. They have to realize that paki condoms have leaks in them., and processed off their spent wazoo fuel, that even after repeated hitting the fan, they have to be quoted in the best interest of strongest al-lie against terrorism.
Last edited by SaiK on 27 Jul 2007 23:12, edited 1 time in total.
vsudhir
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2173
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 03:44
Location: Dark side of the moon

Post by vsudhir »

ShauryaT wrote:Dr. Tellis is a very happy man today. All the 4 objectives that were set out to be attained from a US perspective, are well on its way to be attained with this agreement.

1. One way or the other to get India to abide by the NPT even if you cannot make it sign
2. India must be made to accept safeguards as a non-nuclear weapon State
3. India must abide by the CTBT conditions
4. To halt, to roll back, and eventually eliminate

Over to the next session now, to talk about India's date for volunatry end to fissile production and final adherence to the FMCT.
Shaurya,

Your words reflect my concerns as well. I'd be happy with a situation where we sign away N-isolation for now but go slow w.r.t. imports of phoren reactors, tech etc. We could import Uranium and build our own reactors to run them for now, perhaps? But our reactors wouldn't have fuel supply assurances then?

The FMCO worry persists, no matter what. Its simply that I don't trust this govt enough to not buckle under inane India-specific rules designed to first curtail our freedom to produce as much fissile material as we want (surreptiously of course) and second, by constraining our ability to develop warhead/bomb designs (via a CTBT) - attempting to hem us in.

Seems like we'll have to engineer an N-crisis in TSP to be able to test again. Of course, any N-crisis in our 'south asia' neighbourhood carries its own risks (and opportunities for NPAs and their allies to attempt CRE on us).

IMVHOs, My 2 cents etc.
Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Post by Gerard »

Victor wrote: I believe that the anti-mining (and anti-national) activists in places like Domiasiat, Meghalaya will change their stance. They will decide that economic development for those remote and dirt poor people is desirable after all
Not at all. Anti-nuclear is an article of faith for these types. Try to explain to them that a coal fired plant produces far more radioactivity in the surrounding environment and they get glassy eyed.
Logic is no match for religious faith.

And the NGOs don't give a damn for poor people. Right now they want to prevent the cap on administrative expenses from foreign funding in the upcoming legislation.

They have a lifestyle to upkeep after all....
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

Cartoon from Tribune, 28 July 2007

Image
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

ShauryaT wrote:Dr. Tellis is a very happy man today. All the 4 objectives that were set out to be attained from a US perspective, are well on its way to be attained with this agreement.

1. One way or the other to get India to abide by the NPT even if you cannot make it sign
2. India must be made to accept safeguards as a non-nuclear weapon State
3. India must abide by the CTBT conditions
4. To halt, to roll back, and eventually eliminate

Over to the next session now, to talk about India's date for volunatry end to fissile production and final adherence to the FMCT.
ShaurayT, I want to say the following.
1. India was following the NPT norms vis a vis non-proliferation to other countries etc. This was not done by any of the P-5 NPT powers. As regards to its own weapons they are to assure its own security. Unlike the P-5 India is not part of any defacto or dejure alliance system and thus its creation of weapons does not violate the spirit of the NPT.
2. This is still not yet decided. The GOI has said it will seek India specific IAEA safeguards. Understanding the dejure status of NPT India will seek IAEA safeguards commensurate with its status a SNW but definitely not as non NWS.
3. India with its voluntary morotarium has abided by the CTBT same as the P-5. The option for the US to impose sanction is already there under the various three and four letter acts and treaties. Never understood why Hyde had to state that specifically except to remind the US admin from forgetting about those acts and treaties.
4. Actually the Indian MND has a finite need and is not based on infinite desires. From what I can see the Indian program will be there till there are no weapons with other nations.

The real benefit from Tellis pov is that he has contributed to squaring the circle with respect to NTP cut-off date and Indian nuke status. His greatest contribution was to state that US has no threat from Indian weapon status. From that flowed all these talks and deals and whatnots.
jarugn
BRFite
Posts: 106
Joined: 05 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Madison, Wisconsin, USA

Interesting Analysis from UPI

Post by jarugn »

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/indi ... 34768.php/
Outside_View_India`s_nuclear_deal

Outside View: India`s nuclear deal

By Martin Walker Jul 25, 2007, 17:26 GMT

MUNICH, Germany (UPI) -- It is a striking coincidence that the Indian and U.S. governments should have announced the successful conclusion of their long-stalled nuclear cooperation deal in the same week that India established its first overseas military base.

India`s new base, an electronic listening post and radar station on the island of Madagascar, is perfectly situated to monitor the international waterways around South Africa and the Indian Ocean with its oil tanker routes to Asia. India has also leased an atoll from Mauritius on which a similar facility is to be built. Its navy has secured berthing rights in Oman, and signed an agreement last year to patrol the Mozambique coast. In 2003, the Indian navy provided seaward protection for the African Union summit at Mozambique.

The Indian Ocean is increasingly under Indian management, led by a fast-growing navy that is buying advanced French-made Scorpene 'stealth' submarines and has just acquired its first ever U.S. warship, the former USS Trenton, a large amphibious transport and landing ship, along with U.S. UH-3H helicopters. Three months ago, India completed a $1.1 billion deal with the United States for Hercules military transport.

The United States sees India as a key strategic partner and as a potential balance against China`s potential dominance of Asia, and is prepared to equip India for the role. Already one of the world`s biggest customers for arms, spending over $10 billion in the last three years, India is now planning to buy 126 multi-role combat jets. The US F-16 and F/A-18 Super Hornet are seen as the main contenders in a deal that could be worth another $10 billion. A new study by India`s Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry, 'Private Sector Participation in Defense,' suggests that India`s imports of military hard and software should reach $30 billion by 2012.

This is the strategic context for the nuclear deal, which ends the isolation from the nuclear community that was imposed on India when it staged its first nuclear tests in 1998, and will allow India to import nuclear fuels and technology under the terms of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. This will be important for India`s civilian nuclear power program, but its main impact is symbolic in asserting the new closeness of the U.S. strategic partnership.

The deal has been stalled over some of the terms imposed by the U.S. Congress under the Hyde Act, which sought to impose certain restrictions on India. The first was to hold the deal hostage, allowing it to be suspended if India staged more nuclear tests. The second was to bring some, but not all, of India`s nuclear rectors under the intensive inspection regime of the NPT and the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The most authoritative opposition to the deal has come from Peter Iyengar, former chairman of India`s Atomic Energy Commission, who listed his concerns in an exclusive United Press International interview at his home in New Delhi with this reporter in February this year.

'As currently drafted, the agreement would force us to stop re-processing nuclear fuel, something we have been doing for thirty years,' Iyengar said. 'It would terminate our strategic program (India`s nuclear weapons program) by exposing us to sanctions if we conducted nuclear tests. And it puts impossible barriers in our path to ongoing and future research, including our well-developed programs for fast-breeder reactors and to use thorium rather than uranium as a nuclear fuel,' he added.

'By saying that India shall not re-process fuel and not develop the fast-breeder reactors, this deal undermines our ability to produce energy in the future when uranium runs out,' Dr Iyengar went on. 'This is a question of national sovereignty, of India`s right and ability to decide such things for ourselves.'

The Hyde Act was designed to be watertight, but somehow the Bush administration has managed to accommodate India`s concerns. This was done, to widespread surprise last week, when Vice President Dick Cheney took personal charge of the talks in Washington with India`s National Security adviser M.K. Narayanan, Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon and Anil Kakodkar, secretary of India`s Department of Atomic Energy

Menon was packed and about to check out from his hotel when Cheney intervened and brought Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice into the final phase of talks, which opened with Cheney saying, 'This deal must be done.' The White House national security adviser Steven Hadley was also brought into the talks to fine tune the text of a document called 'The 123 agreement' that spells out the details of the deal.

The precise terms have not yet been made public, and the final document is a frozen text, which means that it can now only be voted up or down, and not amended further. According to U.S. sources, it is based on Cheney`s traditionally robust view of the president`s prerogative over foreign policy and strategic issues, and allows George W. Bush or future presidents to give India a form of waiver under the terms of the Hyde Act when supreme U.S. national interests are deemed to be at stake.

The Democratic-controlled Congress may have doubts about this, but potential presidential candidates may see its usefulness. The increasingly conservative U.S. Supreme Court, with two new Bush-appointed justices, is likely to sympathize with Cheney`s view of the presidential prerogative.

The deal has been strongly backed by the wealthy and influential Indian community in the United States. Sanjay Puri, chairman of the U.S.-India Political Action Committee commented: 'The United States and India have achieved what everyone thought was impossible when President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh announced their plan for a civil nuclear agreement in July 2005. Exactly two years later, the two nations have not only reached an agreement, but created a lifelong partnership between two nations that are committed to democratic principles and the idea of energy independence.'

This also seals the presence on the world stage of India`s emergence as a regional superpower in Asia, while becoming a close U.S. ally and a major economic and technological force. Next month, India will launch its first dedicated military reconnaissance satellite, CARTOSAT 2A, on one of its own launch vehicles. Two more advanced imaging satellites with Israeli synthetic aperture radars are to be launched next year for all-weather monitoring of Asian airspace, including China

It may also not be a coincidence that these developments come as China is upgrading its ballistic missile facility at central-north Delingha, where launch pads for older Dong Feng-4 intercontinental ballistic missiles are being modernized for new DF-21 medium-range missiles. A report this month by the Nuclear Information Project for the Federation of American Scientists concluded that the DF-21s 'would be able to hold at risk all of northern India, including New Delhi.'
bala
BRFite
Posts: 1975
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Post by bala »

Cheney, Bush, Rice et al have effectively given the finger to the NPT. NPT as it stands today is history and the folks who champion NPT are going to be relics. US-India relationship has been cemented by the US-India Nuclear deal. A major tectonic shift is in the works. Bush will go down in history as the person who made the shift. The floodgates on the business side are going to be opened shortly with Boeing, GE, Westinghouse, Lockheed Martin waiting in the wings. On the defence front I would not be surprised if the US were to offer NATO like cooperation to India. There is already the deal to borrow and use defence equipment/supplies, maybe India gets to lease some of the fancy gear down the road. Watch for more closer sharing of assets and personnel.

Curiously, the big lizard has been keeping low thus far, no visible pronouncements yet. They are making overtures in other areas like congratulating and sending feelers to recently elected president of India (the perceived weak rubber stamp congress appointee). After the text of the US-India nuclear deal is made public they will make a move and start clamoring for their massage friend TSP. We are yet to see China drama scripts that will unfold at the NSG meetings and IAEA meetings.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

ramana wrote:
ShaurayT, I want to say the following.
1. India was following the NPT norms vis a vis non-proliferation to other countries etc. This was not done by any of the P-5 NPT powers. As regards to its own weapons they are to assure its own security. Unlike the P-5 India is not part of any defacto or dejure alliance system and thus its creation of weapons does not violate the spirit of the NPT.

2. This is still not yet decided. The GOI has said it will seek India specific IAEA safeguards. Understanding the dejure status of NPT India will seek IAEA safeguards commensurate with its status a SNW but definitely not as non NWS.
3. India with its voluntary morotarium has abided by the CTBT same as the P-5. The option for the US to impose sanction is already there under the various three and four letter acts and treaties. Never understood why Hyde had to state that specifically except to remind the US admin from forgetting about those acts and treaties.
4. Actually the Indian MND has a finite need and is not based on infinite desires. From what I can see the Indian program will be there till there are no weapons with other nations.

The real benefit from Tellis pov is that he has contributed to squaring the circle with respect to NTP cut-off date and Indian nuke status. His greatest contribution was to state that US has no threat from Indian weapon status. From that flowed all these talks and deals and whatnots.

They could have made this deal in 1968
ShibaPJ
BRFite
Posts: 146
Joined: 20 Oct 2005 21:21

Post by ShibaPJ »

ShauryaT:
4. To halt, to roll back, and eventually eliminate
Ramana:
3. India with its voluntary morotarium has abided by the CTBT same as the P-5. The option for the US to impose sanction is already there under the various three and four letter acts and treaties. Never understood why Hyde had to state that specifically except to remind the US admin from forgetting about those acts and treaties.
4. Actually the Indian MND has a finite need and is not based on infinite desires. From what I can see the Indian program will be there till there are no weapons with other nations.
I think, w.r.t. CRE, India wanted to remove any mention of testing from the bilateral treaty, as India would be legally bound to it, not HA. Unkil already has enough legislation in place for sanctions to kick in when India tests, HA does not plug in any loophole as such. I will wager that Unkil wanted to push India as much as possible, anything India capitulated on would have been a bonus.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Post by ShauryaT »

ramana wrote:ShaurayT, I want to say the following.
1. India was following the NPT norms vis a vis non-proliferation to other countries etc. This was not done by any of the P-5 NPT powers. As regards to its own weapons they are to assure its own security. Unlike the P-5 India is not part of any defacto or dejure alliance system and thus its creation of weapons does not violate the spirit of the NPT.
Agreed. India has been a terrific adherer to the spirit and laws of the NPT. The question always was will SNW look like an NWS or not.
2. This is still not yet decided. The GOI has said it will seek India specific IAEA safeguards. Understanding the dejure status of NPT India will seek IAEA safeguards commensurate with its status a SNW but definitely not as non NWS.
Agreed it cannot be as a non NWS but will be very close to that model as oppsosed to the minimum required for NWS.
3. India with its voluntary morotarium has abided by the CTBT same as the P-5. The option for the US to impose sanction is already there under the various three and four letter acts and treaties. Never understood why Hyde had to state that specifically except to remind the US admin from forgetting about those acts and treaties.


Agreed, although voluntary adherence to CTBT is different from a codified adherence, which sets an expectation that India is unlikely to test. It seems that we have locked the design of new nuclear weapons to the theoretical domain only.
4. Actually the Indian MND has a finite need and is not based on infinite desires. From what I can see the Indian program will be there till there are no weapons with other nations.
Instead of a finite need, I would say that the Indian CMND doctrine is a flexible doctrine. The doctrine may have finite needs today and those needs can drastically go up or down - not based on desires but based on our threat perceptions. We do not know all our future threats.
The real benefit from Tellis pov is that he has contributed to squaring the circle with respect to NTP cut-off date and Indian nuke status. His greatest contribution was to state that US has no threat from Indian weapon status. From that flowed all these talks and deals and whatnots.
Yes, indeed. I will add though, if we have a scale of 0 to 100, where 0 means NNWS and 100 means NWS - In the current scheme of things, this deal gets us to about 20, as opposed to an 80.

I have no fears or paranoia that we would be at 0 some day, we will not be but the codifications that this deal does to our status is, what my objection about. I think, we could have gotten a better deal by waiting for a few more years and playing some real politik with the US - for and against them in other areas of FP.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

I think this is our cultural mindset that we depict very candidly viz our constitution, the way we live, our society etc. We take the past and apply too much to the present. We have done it in terms of caste system, to nuclear doctrine.

While the unkil does not operate on that culture, we can't say, if we waited another x years of time, we could have gotten better deal. may be true. What we are trying to get the best while at the same time wanted to be NWS while missed the big boat for being NWS. I think, we deserve the pseudo NWS or pseudo NNWS status for the same thinking.

America definitely or any super power or P5 members want any NNWS to be testing while they keep quite with a MAD doctrine. If India is talking with any one of the P5 itself means, that we have to freeze on our slowly evolving mindset into a gear as set by the P5. That would mean, keeping it all in the software and semi hardware status, or a complete system state, but can never be tested, just for testing unless someone else tests in the neighborhood. Also, keep in mind that, what if Unkil himself tests.. since he is not in the neighborhood, we still can't test cause of such writings in the deal.
williams
BRFite
Posts: 874
Joined: 21 Jun 2006 20:55

Post by williams »

My thinking is testing is simply the matter of how much our power/muscle has grown in future. It does not matter who(country) tests or who does not. So not mentioning that in the 123 doc is good enough. All we need is decisive leadership. May be the next generation leaders will make India more assertive. Until all our grand pa leadership dies, we will have to live with it! That is more worrying than this 123 agreement.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

of course we do our very decisive leadership.. who says not? be it young or old, they are very clever. but most of it is in the timings (we have an history of ill timing).. the cause may be correct or a more natural thing to do (or ideal way to do is Indian way).. but who cares? P5 doesn't.. Any P# means, we are in the league. Better behave accordingly.

We have to get into more proactive mindset than reactive one. That will change a lot.
sivab
BRFite
Posts: 1075
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56

Post by sivab »

Nuclear deal is satisfactory: Kakodkar

Siddharth Varadarajan

EXPLAINING THE DEAL: (From left): National Security Adviser M.K. Narayanan, Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon, and chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission Anil Kakodkar addressing a press conference in New Delhi on Friday.

New Delhi: Fielding the Atomic Energy Commission Chairman, Anil Kakodkar, but not the text over which its negotiators had fought so hard last week, the Government on Friday officially announced that it had finalised the bilateral agreement for civil nuclear cooperation with the United States.

Addressing a joint press conference, National Security Adviser M.K. Narayanan, Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon and Dr. Kakodkar pronounced themselves satisfied with the final text of the agreement, also known as the 123 agreement, and said that it was fully consistent with the commitments undertaken by both countries in their joint statements of July 18, 2005 and March 2, 2006.

Joint statement

Also on Friday, External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice issued a joint statement announcing the completion of negotiations on the 123 agreement and calling this “a historic milestone in [the] strategic partnershipâ€
ramdas
BRFite
Posts: 585
Joined: 21 Mar 2006 02:18

Post by ramdas »

1. I think the euphoria about this deal not compromising our national interest is unwarranted. It is true that as far as nuclear testing is concerned, even the Hyde Act says nothing new - existing US laws would ensure that the US would terminate any civilian nuclear assistance in the event of a nuclear test by India. What this "deal" does is to open the opportunity to raise the economic cost of a nuclear test dramatically - as more and more US reactors are imported, the decision to test will have to take into account the possibility of the US asking for a return of material.

2. We should try to answer the following question. Assume that import + reprocessing imported fuel enables us to start an indigenous civilian AHWR. In the event of a nuclear test by India, would this deal enable the US to ask for return of AHWR fuel on the basis that it contains material reprocessed from US fuel ? If the answer to this question is yes, then it is very certainly a bad deal. If the answer to this question is no, then it is not too bad.

3. The deal can be there on paper, but be an empty matter in practise if we refrain from importing any uranium or reactors and continue with our programme as before - the damage, though severe , will be limited to spent fuel from 14 reactors being out of bounds for unsafeguarded reprocessing. More PHWRs upto 8000Mwe may then be built unsafeguarded for the second stage of the program. At the same time, the costs of a future nuclear test will be minimized - given the damage that has already been done.

4. However, business interests are bound to militate against a posture as outlined in 3. That this deal "liberalizes" the nuclear sector and paves the way for private entities to generate power directly will cause the formation of a business lobby that will attempt to block any future nuclear test - even if such a test is in the interests of national security.

It is by raising the barrier against the nuclear test in this way that this deal binds us to our "voluntary moratorium" - which was bad enough in the first place. Looks like we are doomed to continue in this mode - as a second rate nuclear weapons power rather than a full-fledged one. This lack of going after strategic power in the name of "restraint" is an unfortunate characteristic of our strategic thinking. Might take generations for this characteristic to change.
sivab
BRFite
Posts: 1075
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56

Post by sivab »

Kakodkar supports nuclear deal

[quote]Siddharth Varadarajan

“The agreement is consistent with national policyâ€
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

The dedicated ultra modern facility under IAEA could also house the strategic reserve storage area, completely designed & built by BARC. The times have come IAEA will start inspecting into BARC's methods and processes within such facilities.

I guess BARC does mock drills with IAEA starting now till a year to see anymore loopholes are there (proactive approach).
mandrake
BRFite
Posts: 279
Joined: 23 Sep 2006 02:23
Location: India

Post by mandrake »

Does N-deal really solve issues?

A N Prasad | July 27, 2007 | 23:05 IST

Instead of coming out clean on the text of the 123 agreement by making it public, both India and the United States in collusion have chosen to keep it under wraps and are selectively issuing rosy statements that all is well and all our concerns have been fully addressed.

While one wishes it is really satisfactory, it is unfortunate that the Cabinet committees, the political parties and the public are deprived of constructive analyses and unbiased expert opinions.

What we are fed up with is one-sided interpretation of the text by the official side though there is promise that the text will be made public soon in consultation with the US.
The article India has same rights as nuclear weapons States based on off the record briefings, which appeared on rediff.com makes one wonder how far the government is attempting to sugarcoat.

Some of the points made in this article do not need the full text to comment.

If the July 18, 2005 joint statement where India was lifted to the moral high ground is kept by the side of the Hyde Act, a legally binding document based on which the 123 Agreement will largely actually be implemented, it is not difficult to see to what extent India has been given the same rights and privileges of a Nuclear Weapons State.

As just one example, while a Nuclear Weapons State can voluntarily place under civilian list any of their nuclear facilities and exclude any facility as military facility and make changes at will, India was made to fight for every facility during the preparation of the separation plan.

Also, the safeguards' implementation as far as Nuclear Weapons States are concerned is hardly intensive and India can never hope to get that sort of parity judging by many of the stipulations in the Hyde Act.

It is to be expected that while negotiating a bilateral agreement there will always be constraints on both sides. However, in this case it is the US, by passing the Hyde Act disregarding the concerns expressed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his commitments to Parliament has left India to compromise.

More than the substance, the negotiators seem to have concentrated more on fixing the language to make the text look palatable on paper.

So far we have only the negotiators' interpretation of the deal without the access to how the various issues are actually worded. The government seems to be working on garnering support from various quarters to gain psychological advantage before releasing the text.

The reprocessing issue is still confusing.

Contrary to what is being told in the briefings there seems to be conditional clearance with actual bottlenecks still not being fully removed. This is where the text is important to really ascertain whether our interests are fully protected.

It is reported that the Japanese model is followed. If it is so, I can say with my experience it is not too pleasant in practice. They have in the past suffered under the US restrictions.

On the issue of the fate of the cooperation agreement in case of testing, there is no ambiguity as far as Hyde Act is concerned. What seems to have been achieved is language couching, vague complex wordings to circumvent and give an impression of having adequately addressed the issue.

This is nothing but absolute fooling!

When implemented in the present form, there is no doubt that in future any government in power will be constrained to decide in favour of testing having dug deep into foreign investments in nuclear power plants and pressures on the political and economic fronts among others.

The government during the negotiations may be under advice from certain influential quarters that actual testing could be replaced by computer simulation. This is a dangerous prospect indeed! On this issue there seems to be no escaping the Hyde Act and supreme national security concerns.

On the issue of full civilian nuclear cooperation it is amazing to see the new definition given by the spin-masters on both sides. What is simple and straight forward at least in definition is being made to look oversimplified. Part cannot be full as US wants to define.

If recognising our strategic programme, allowing us to import reactors and fuel and have the right to reprocess and enrich uranium and also export heavy water through our own efforts could constitute full civilian cooperation, what is the big deal?

It is being argued that we have the technology in the entire fuel cycle and why do we bother? If it is so, we have the technology for designing, building and operating reactors. Why are we going in for this technology import?

Are we getting over the embargoes on import of equipment and components and any other materials on all parts of the fuel cycle, specifically including enrichment, reprocessing and heavy water, flagged by the Hyde Act or restricted to only those parts of the fuel cycle like reactors which are of commercial interest to suppliers?

There seems to be a calculated move to denigrate critics who really care for long term interests in energy and national security of having defeatist mentality and paranoid about the deal.

They should bear in mind that some critics among former nuclear scientists have spent their professional careers in the nuclear establishment and helped build a strong foundation showing achievements as a consequence of which India has been able to stand up with its head high.

India could not have been discussing this deal without their contribution. They do not have any vested interests nor need for protecting the chair they once occupied. Their only interest is to see that the inherent strength of the country in the nuclear field is suitably harnessed to grow even stronger.

Weakness of Uranium shortage is a known factor and it has been factored into the Indian nuclear programme for more than five decades now. Long term energy independence cannot be driven by externally controlled imports. Thinking ahead and cautioning against hasty actions detrimental to national interests cannot be termed inferiority complex.

A deal, which can truly takes us out of the shell and allow us to interact as a global player on honourable terms, is always welcome. We should not be treated as receivers of technology but we are capable of offering a lot in the nuclear field.

Let us not consider ourselves as weak partners in this game and compromise. We should stand up fight for our rightful place.

Dr A N Prasad is a former director of the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre.
Satya_anveshi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3532
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37

Post by Satya_anveshi »

Deal silent on N-test::By Seema Mustafa
New Delhi, July 27: Two years and two days after negotiations with the United States on the civilian nuclear energy agreement and the 123 agreement, India has given up its right to test and has accepted safeguards in perpetuity. {wonder why she starts the article like this} Delhi has also placed an embargo on its reprocessing rights, which is to be worked out through "arrangements and procedures" with the US within a year, and which will then be sent again to the US Congress for approval.
Mr Burns also disclosed that "India has committed to safeguards in perpetuity and that all future breeder reactors will come under safeguards". This was a point missing entirely from the government briefing here. He did not mince words in recognising the overarching importance of the Hyde Act and made it clear that this was the guiding force in completing the 123 agreement for the US.
Mr Burns went on to speak of the "new strategic partnership" between India and the US from the agreement, which he said had "liberated"{what the f is this?} the two countries. He said he could visualise far greater defence cooperation, training, joint exercises, sale of defence technology and weapons to India. Secondly, both countries were "victims of terrorism" and "expanding cooperation against terrorism was very important. And third, Mr Burns visualised "global cooperation" between India and the US to cover East Asia and Africa with both "working together in a way we never have before". He said the two governments were at present cooperating in Sri Lanka, Nepal and Bangladesh, and he was optimistic that the agreement would extend to cover a relationship of global cooperation.
At the very least this report negates the assertion by MKN and others ( SSM, MMS, AK) that the deal was only about civil nuclear energy.
sivab
BRFite
Posts: 1075
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56

Post by sivab »

[url=http://www.hindu.com/2007/07/28/stories ... 121300.htm]“This is as good a text as one can possibly getâ€
Last edited by sivab on 28 Jul 2007 02:12, edited 2 times in total.
ShibaPJ
BRFite
Posts: 146
Joined: 20 Oct 2005 21:21

Post by ShibaPJ »

Deal silent on N-test::By Seema Mustafa

When statements are passed like this...
India has given up its right to test and has accepted safeguards in perpetuity..... all future breeder reactors will come under safeguards
Does not reflect too well on DDM. It is upto DAE/ GoI to decide if future FBRs would be civ/ mil, Scicoms won't accept blanket moving of FBRs to civ list.. Also the bilateral deal being silent on testing is what we needed, so why the spin?
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

dont worry have curry.. more doosras will come till the text is more visible.
Tilak
BRFite
Posts: 733
Joined: 31 Jul 2005 20:19
Location: Old Lal Masjid @BRFATA (*Renovation*)

Post by Tilak »

sivab,

In case you didn't know, ~everybody here follows a convention/"unwritten rule" to post with a single font size.

My request, stop doing what you are doing.. at the same time appreciating your effort wrt. highlighting the ~appropriate text.

I posted a similar request to joey, a few days back.. And I don't particularly don't enjoy doing the above, so please feel free to correct if you find me erring in any way..

Thanks...

:Up for self deletion:
Last edited by Tilak on 28 Jul 2007 02:35, edited 2 times in total.
CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6865
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54

Post by CRamS »

Hate to cast aspersions, but did AK switch sides in the last minute or what :-)?
Satya_anveshi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3532
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37

Post by Satya_anveshi »

[quote="ShibaPJDoes not reflect too well on DDM. It is upto DAE/ GoI to decide if future FBRs would be civ/ mil, Scicoms won't accept blanket moving of FBRs to civ list.. Also the bilateral deal being silent on testing is what we needed, so why the spin?[/quote]

On-The-Record Briefing on the Status of the U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Cooperation Initiative and the Text of the Bilateral Agreement for Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation (123 Agreement)

R. Nicholas Burns, Under Secretary for Political Affairs
Washington, DC
July 27, 2007
QUESTION: If I may just quickly follow up, these are -- these are not -- these kind of safeguards that they're agreeing to are through the agreement with you, but not -- they're not legally -- these are voluntary as -- according to the international nonproliferation regime.


UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: No, India has committed to safeguards in perpetuity; and India has committed that, at this point, 14 of its 22 nuclear power plants will come under international safeguards; and that all -- as we talked about a year and a half ago, all future breeder reactors will come under safeguards. And so these are IAEA safeguards, and when this new reprocessing facility is constructed, that will be under IAEA safeguards.
Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Post by Sanjay M »

Satya_anveshi wrote: On-The-Record Briefing on the Status of the U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Cooperation Initiative and the Text of the Bilateral Agreement for Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation (123 Agreement)

R. Nicholas Burns, Under Secretary for Political Affairs
Washington, DC
July 27, 2007

QUESTION: If I may just quickly follow up, these are -- these are not -- these kind of safeguards that they're agreeing to are through the agreement with you, but not -- they're not legally -- these are voluntary as -- according to the international nonproliferation regime.


UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: No, India has committed to safeguards in perpetuity; and India has committed that, at this point, 14 of its 22 nuclear power plants will come under international safeguards; and that all -- as we talked about a year and a half ago, all future breeder reactors will come under safeguards. And so these are IAEA safeguards, and when this new reprocessing facility is constructed, that will be under IAEA safeguards.
I don't think I like that part. It looks like they're trying to cap us. I don't think we should go for it, then.

On the other hand, how many breeders do we need to maintain military autonomy? Also, how fast is the doubling time of a breeder? I know we've achieved a breeding ratio of somewhere between 1.2 and 1.4 based on the mixed fuel, but relative to what timespan? What is the duration of a breeding cycle?
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Post by NRao »

Satya_anveshi wrote: R. Nicholas Burns, Under Secretary for Political Affairs
Washington, DC
July 27, 2007
all future breeder reactors will come under safeguards.
QUESTION: Just very quickly one more time. But what I'm saying is, I understand what you're saying about the separation that they can't use one for the other, but their military nuclear arsenal, or anything, is not under international safeguards.


UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: No, I didn't suggest that. There's a complete separation. We work with India on the civil side; that is safeguarded. What India does on the strategic side is India's business. This agreement doesn't aid that program and it doesn't have an effect because we've cleanly separated what we do to be only focused on the civilian side, not on the military side.
There is a clear separation. "future breeder" designated on as civilian will come under IAEA and teh fule from one will not be used on the other side of the fence.

What AK wanted was Indian say in switching - they did not get that it looks like.
Anurag
BRFite
Posts: 402
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by Anurag »

Well presented
Ramider Singh Jassal
rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/nuclear/nuc_wj121906_jassal.rm
Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Post by Sanjay M »

NRao wrote: There is a clear separation. "future breeder" designated on as civilian will come under IAEA and teh fule from one will not be used on the other side of the fence.

What AK wanted was Indian say in switching - they did not get that it looks like.
So we've been sold out. Congress has fulfilled their reputation in shafting the country. Rao failed to test immediately after the French did, and he was one of the better Congressmen.

This will deal will have to end up derailed, like Dhabol.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

give it little salt folks.. "all future breeder reactors" meaning all "civilian future breeder reactors". for documentation purposes, they have to ensure to put civilian word prefixed at places appropriate.
ShyamSP
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2564
Joined: 06 Mar 2002 12:31

Post by ShyamSP »

ShibaPJ wrote:It is upto DAE/ GoI to decide if future FBRs would be civ/ mil, Scicoms won't accept blanket moving of FBRs to civ list..
Leaving DDM aside, Burns in CSPAN said all future breeders will be in the safe-guarded list during Q&A. Obviously the final text will clarify all these.
Last edited by ShyamSP on 28 Jul 2007 03:01, edited 1 time in total.
Satya_anveshi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3532
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37

Post by Satya_anveshi »

NRao wrote:There is a clear separation. "future breeder" designated on as civilian will come under IAEA and teh fule from one will not be used on the other side of the fence.

What AK wanted was Indian say in switching - they did not get that it looks like.
That is what is a spin. I don't think the question or the answer was any confusing. His answer has 'perpetuity', 'and', and 'all' which were all used in the right context. I don't think there is any slippage or confusion there.

The implication of your interpretation being correct is that the Burns statement being a lie.
Last edited by Satya_anveshi on 28 Jul 2007 03:07, edited 1 time in total.
Locked