Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - 28 Jul 2007

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

Post by Rangudu »

The 123 agreement requires a straight up or down vote - no amendments, add ons, resolutions. Period.

Add to that 2007 is a key "collection" year. Hillary Clinton just raised a gazillion bucks from rich Indian American donors all to full fanfare. Virtually every Dem Senator and Congressman needs Indian American $$.

Net net, expect a lot of pontificating and a jarring hearing or two but no right thinking lawmaker would want to be part of the gang that got run over while standing in the way of a juggernaut.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Post by NRao »

Side track: Obama had a lot of NRI support on his journey from state to US environs. Then he got better funding from the one group that opposed this Indo-US deal. The relations with NRIs have soured pretty bad.

Let us see what Hillary can do - now that she has attracted the NRI attention.

This deal should pass the US Congress, this time around, with much more ease. It is, IMHO, a done deal. It is the interpretations that will knock it off course - if at all. Which interpretation will IAEA and NSG use?
Rangudu
BRFite
Posts: 1751
Joined: 03 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Post by Rangudu »

It is important to have the "prior consent" written into the 123. This is because the text of the 123 is likely going to be used as a template for the NSG India exception. We can be confident that Russia or France are not going to raise too many hackles as compared to American ayatollahs.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

wasu wrote:What do u expect narayanan to say?
He should have used the word bipartisan just as JS used when referring to Capitol Hill.
Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Post by Sanjay M »

Yes, but the Indian American cash cow stands in stark contrast to a hard-charging bull. Indian Americans just generally broadly donate to Democrats and their affirmative action quota liberalism. Oh, and of course to the ever-popular PHOTO-OP. Nothing gets the preening NRI contributor to open his fat wallet faster than the head-rush that comes from the photo-op. Just like Maharajas welcoming the East India Company. (If the British had come armed with cameras and paparazzi instead of muskets and redcoats, they could have colonized India a lot faster, and they'd still be in charge today.)

As far as Hillary is concerned, she's like VP Singh struggling not to be eclipsed by Lalu bhai with the charisma and the better ethnic credentials. And the Democratic Party is now at that turning point like the Janata Dal was in the early 90s, where those with raw ethnic appeal are now confidently overtaking those with ideological pretexts.
So Hillary is just struggling to stay relevant, and is thus forced to go with the flow on bashing the bogeymen like outsourcing, etc, in spite of any Indian campaign contributions.

Gingrich is predicting the likelihood of an Obama-Clinton ticket, which for India amounts to the worst of both worlds, and leaves me praying for a Republican victory. Someone commented that Mushy-Benazir coalition govt will be the most corrupt Pak govt ever. I think that they'll be outdistanced by the corruption of an Obama-Clinton administration, which will be doling out so many quotas, bribes and so much welfare state, that even Michael Moore will be left speechless.

And in order to finance this, the fiscally bankrupt federal govt will have to find some scapegoats to stick with the bill. And that scapegoat won't just be the American rich, it'll be the job-stealers of India, and the rest of the rising third world, with the convenient exception of Africa(ethnic credentials).

So I expect an Obama-Clinton admin to target India on anything and everything, whether over trade, over jobs, or over the nuclear deal. Unless of course some seminal international crisis distracts and overloads their incompetent hands (not hard for me to believe). But mainly I expect the Atlanticist coterie around a Democrat Oval Office to try and roll back any gains India has made during the Bush years.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

Another Psy ops

[quote]
Monday, July 30, 2007
Bush admin faulted for Indian nuclear deal

By Khalid Hasan

WASHINGTON: Michael Krepon, founder president of the Stimson Institute and a leading critic of the Indo-US nuclear cooperation agreement, has criticised the Bush administration for leaving an opening for India to conduct nuclear testing.

Krepon said in a statement, “At the very least, the Bush administration should not make it easier for New Delhi to resume nuclear testing and to produce fissile material for nuclear weapons. It appears that the 123 Agreement fails to meet these minimal standards as well as the clear requirements established in the Hyde Act.â€
Last edited by svinayak on 30 Jul 2007 08:45, edited 1 time in total.
rocky
BRFite
Posts: 142
Joined: 08 Mar 2006 22:52

Post by rocky »

Yashwant Sinha wrote:By perhaps incorporating a language in the agreement which will mean one thing to the US and another thing to India, we are opening the floodgates for future misunderstanding.
This trickery with language was going on even before this last round of negotiations. Note how everybody including the US babus parrot the line of "this deal has nothing to do with the strategic side", when two years ago it was "this deal has nothing to do with nuclear weapons".

Quietly India has slipped through "strategic program" into the negotiations but it has more than one meaning for India, but only one meaning for the US.
rocky
BRFite
Posts: 142
Joined: 08 Mar 2006 22:52

Post by rocky »

That MK Narayanan guy is seriously a waste of oxygen on this planet.
Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Post by Victor »

Word on the street among my redneck friends is that with Iraq and the mortgage crisis on the front burners, the American psyche just isn't ready for a woman president, let alone a black one. I tend to agree with them.

The NRI lobby is yet a blunt instrument and as someone said, too photo-op oriented.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

Victor wrote:Word on the street among my redneck friends is that with Iraq and the mortgage crisis on the front burners, the American psyche just isn't ready for a woman president, let alone a black one. I tend to agree with them.

The NRI lobby is yet a blunt instrument and as someone said, too photo-op oriented.
Liberal Catholic NE American with Irish Heritage has similar feelings.
Calvin
BRFite
Posts: 623
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by Calvin »

Talking to the "redneck" population is about as informative as talking to the "black" population - since they tend to vote as a bit of a bloc. Of course the "redneck" population thinks that the US is not ready for a woman or a black president.

The reality is that a black candidate (or running mate) in the Democratic party does nothing for it (90% of african americans vote democratic anyway), other than polarize some of the white or hispanic vote away from them. If Hillary can swing 2-3% more women towards her, without scaring away the white males that voted Democrat last time, she would have a chance to win. The unknown is how polarizing she can be in this regard. Perhaps a Hillary - Edwards candidacy, or even a Gore-Hillary candidacy may have interesting implications.

For the Republicans, I think Giuliani-Gingrich maybe able to win, if they win favor with the religious right.
Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Post by Sanjay M »

I don't think Republicans will be Giuliani-Gingrich, since Newt hasn't even thrown his hat into the ring. It looks more like Giuliani-Thompson have the best possible chance, since both have charisma and their voter bases are complementary to each other. McCain is gone, since he doesn't even know how to put together a strong conservative platform.

Democratic ticket will have to be Obama-Clinton (or less likely Clinton-Obama), because there's no way that AfAms will tolerate not seeing Obama at least picked as a running mate.

It's too late for this election, but for the future, Indian Americans and Asian Americans in general would be best off in courting hispanics, who are a rapidly-rising non-Atlanticist demographic force. They are already larger than the AfAm community. Even though they're already relevant, by the time of the next election, they will clearly be the much more dominant ethnic demographic out of the two. Besides, they are less inward-looking than the AfAm community, which has no foreign policy agenda other than opposing whatever Republicans do, which is why the Atlanticists are able to count on them as obedient epsilons easily bought with soma.

So Indian Americans should definitely brush up on their Spanish. Such an initiative would effectively blindside the lefty NRI types (SAJA, etc) who insist on putting the needs of other ethnic groups before our own.

India has pretty good relations with Latin American countries anyway,and things will only get better once Castro regime falls and Indian communists are forced to broaden their horizons beyond Cuba.
Calvin
BRFite
Posts: 623
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by Calvin »

Don't write Newt off yet. He has said for months that he will make a decision after Labor Day. September is not too late. There is no doubt that the Conservatives like Newt, and that Newt is smart. Parkalaam.
Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10032
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Post by Mort Walker »

If anything goods comes out of this deal, India will know which congressmen and senators in the US are truly anti-India. You have to give credit to the Bush administration making the agreement an up or down vote with no changes or amendments.

AI/IA is looking for 60 more jets at nearly $10 billion at list prices. The MMRCA contract is getting ready as well. A defeat of this agreement in the US Congress is a defeat for American businesses and right off the bat its $20 - $30 billion in loss.
arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Post by arun »

National Security Advisor M K Narayanan speaks to Karan Thapar on the 123 deal :


[quote]Published on Sunday , July 29, 2007 at 20:35 in Nation section

Just how good is the 123 agreement India negotiated in Washington D C last week? That’s the key issued explored in the first of the two-part series on Devil’s Advocate this week with National Security Advisor, M K Narayanan.

Karan Thapar: Let me start with a simple question. How pleased are you with the work you did in Washington last week?

M K Narayanan: I think the team that went to Washington is fairly satisfied with what we have achieved and I think when we came back and reported to our leaders they seem pretty satisfied.

Karan Thapar: Is this merely a good deal or is it the best you could have got?

M K Narayanan: There’s always scope for improvement I suppose but it was much better than what we anticipated so I presume it is somewhere between the best and good.

Karan Thapar: In August last year, the Prime Minister said in Parliament, “We seek the removal of restrictions on all aspects of co-operation and technology transfer pertaining to civil nuclear energy.â€
anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9203
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Post by anupmisra »

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00999.html

Bet on India

Sunday, July 29, 2007; Page B06

IN LARGE PART, modern U.S. nuclear nonproliferation policy began with India. India received U.S. aid under the "Atoms for Peace" program of the early Cold War era -- only to lose its U.S. fuel supply because India, which had refused to sign the 1968 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), exploded a nuclear "device" in 1974. Decades of U.S. noncooperation with India's civilian atomic energy program were intended to teach India, and the world, a lesson: You will not prosper if you go nuclear outside the system of international safeguards.

Friday marked another step toward the end of that policy -- also with India. The Bush administration and New Delhi announced the principles by which the United States will resume sales of civilian nuclear fuel and technology to India, as promised by President Bush in July 2005. The fine print of the agreement, which must still be approved by the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group and by Congress, has not yet been released. But the big picture is clear: The administration is betting that the benefits to the United States and the world of a "strategic partnership" with India outweigh the risks of a giant exception to the old rules of the nonproliferation game.

There are good reasons to make the bet. India is a booming democracy of more than 1 billion people, clearly destined to play a growing role on the world stage. It can help the United States as a trading partner and as a strategic counterweight to China and Islamic extremists. If India uses more nuclear energy, it will emit less greenhouse gas. Perhaps most important, India has developed its own nuclear arsenal without selling materials or know-how to other potentially dangerous states. This is more than can be said for Pakistan, home of the notorious A.Q. Khan nuclear network.

You can call this a double standard, as some of the agreement's critics do: one set of rules for countries we like, another for those we don't. Or you can call it realism: The agreement provides for more international supervision of India's nuclear fuel cycle than there would be without it. For example, it allows India to reprocess atomic fuel but at a new facility under International Atomic Energy Agency supervision, to protect against its diversion into weapons. The case for admitting India to the nuclear club is based on the plausible notion that the political character of a nuclear-armed state can be as important, or more important, than its signature on the NPT. North Korea, a Stalinist dictatorship, went nuclear while a member of the NPT; the Islamic Republic of Iran appears headed down the same road. Yet India's democratic system and its manifest interest in joining the global free-market economy suggest that it will behave responsibly.

Or so it must be hoped. The few details of the agreement released Friday suggest that it is very favorable to India indeed, while skating close to the edge of U.S. law. For example, the United States committed to helping India accumulate a nuclear fuel stockpile, thus insulating New Delhi against the threat, provided for by U.S. law, of a supply cutoff in the unlikely event that India resumes weapons testing. Congress is also asking appropriate questions about India's military-to-military contacts with Iran and about New Delhi's stubborn habit of attending meetings of "non-aligned" countries at which Cuba, Venezuela and others bash the United States. As Congress considers this deal, India might well focus on what it can do to show that it, too, thinks of the new strategic partnership with Washington as a two-way street.
enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Post by enqyoobOLD »

Gingrich is predicting the likelihood of an Obama-Clinton ticket


In fact this is very likely, because the Republicans will register as Democrats and come out in hordes of Lexuses and Mercedeses and Hummers and Chevy pickups with gun-racks, to vote for Clinton and Obama ----- until the Democrat Convention.

It's what the Republicans would like to describe as the "DDT": Democrat Dream Team. For Republicans.

Yes, even Newt could become President if all the other Republican candidates manage to get themselves indicted b4 the Republican Primary.

Which, incidentally, may not be a bad thing at all for India, because, if u remember, Newt Gingrich stood absolutely alone, but he stood up and supported India's nuclear tests in 1998, and pointed to the neighborhood in which India survives. The only American lawmaker ever to tell the truth on that.

NO ONE else, not Mrs. or Mr. Clinton, certainly not Barak HUSSEIN Obama with all his East Lansing / Stirling Enterprises (meaning ISI) funding, not McCain, and most certainly not the pompous Musharraf Biden, ever recognized this reality. No one LIKES Newt, but that was one time that he stood up for the truth.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Post by NRao »

July 30, 2007 :: US envoy accelerates job to make N-deal real

Build thorium reactors: Kalam

[quote]
Chennai, July 29: Former president A.P.J. Abdul Kalam on Sunday said he believes the country can be a world leader in nuclear fuels if it develops technology for thorium-based reactors. “We have vast resources of thorium and the moment we develop the technology for thorium-based reactors, we will be the world leader,â€
Calvin
BRFite
Posts: 623
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by Calvin »

enqyoob: Whats the local word - will Newt run?
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

Pranab M says deal would not interfere in weaponization... what a foolish statement is that? And who complained that the deal would interfere with weaponization?

If the govt signs a deal that would amount to stopping the civilian electricity power at a future date, without a backup plan right away would amount to holding us forever on testing as we would like our half of our country running without power.

The backup plans could be nuclear reserves, and other alternative energy sources.. but, having a condition that we have to return fuel amounts to the same as interfering indirectly with a clause not to go for the testing.

I'd say, MMS be gone, and we elect back a regime that believe more in our 3rd stage plan. Invest a lot into wind and solar, and hydoelectric power from the northeastearn regions and countries around us. We have a big coastline for gas hydrates hidden beneath the sea that is dangerous tech to chase keeping green.

Nothing is stopping the Sun. Lets do the "surya" namaskar from a civilian perspective and military perspective as well.
vsudhir
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2173
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 03:44
Location: Dark side of the moon

Post by vsudhir »

SaiK wrote:Pranab M says deal would not interfere in weaponization... what a foolish statement is that? And who complained that the deal would interfere with weaponization?

If the govt signs a deal that would amount to stopping the civilian electricity power at a future date, without a backup plan right away would amount to holding us forever on testing as we would like our half of our country running without power.

The backup plans could be nuclear reserves, and other alternative energy sources.. but, having a condition that we have to return fuel amounts to the same as interfering indirectly with a clause not to go for the testing.
Which brings me to the question, what if after we ratify the N-deal and all, we don't buy too many US reactors or fuel? (Even one US reactor is too many, IMVHO). We could just make do with some showpiece 1-2 reactors, no? That way we won't have to be hostage to the 'return US fuel and equipment logjam'.

But something tells me, off the record, GOI has already committed so many $$billions in US contracts as a quid pro quo for the deal. Not that we should expect a free ride but still, what is the $$price of the deal, the people want to know.....??
abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Post by abhischekcc »

I hope the next US administration is Republican. That party has always been good for India.

Well, all of them except Nixon. But he was influenced by the Democrat Kissinger anyway. :)

Not to mention, they may still attack Iran. And remove a budding Islamic nuclear power from India's periphery. I mean, once pakistan breaks up, it will be the India Army which will have to go in and protect the pakis from themselves. And then we will have common borders with Iran.

Think of the irony that would be - we would exchange our borders from a mad, nuclear armed Sunni state from those with a mad, nuclear armed Shia state. :P

Heck, for this act of secularism, I am even willing to support India giving logistics support to US forces (but not soldier power).
Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Post by Rye »

vsudhir wrote:
But something tells me, off the record, GOI has already committed so many $$billions in US contracts as a quid pro quo for the deal. Not that we should expect a free ride but still, what is the $$price of the deal, the people want to know.....??
I hope the GoI does not start to pay for these new plants from public funds.
Hopefully, the GoI is going to allow private companies (Indian MNCs) to purchase and operate US-built reactors (this was stated a few times by AK and others, IIRC) --- American willingness to be disruptive will reduce as the cost of disruption increases for the US, i.e., US economy will be affected by such disruption as much as the Indian economy if they feel India is not adhering to the letter of 123.

I think that is the reason for all the escape clauses in the agreement -- if India-US engagement falls apart for whatever reason, then we get to the boundary conditions of this agreement (the ones that seem to cause a lot of heartburn around here), and the current thinking on both sides seems to be that there should be no reason for such a thing to happen, esp. with more people-to-people engagement.
Manny
BRFite
Posts: 859
Joined: 07 Apr 2006 22:16
Location: Texas

Post by Manny »

abhischekcc wrote:I hope the next US administration is Republican. That party has always been good for India.

Well, all of them except Nixon. But he was influenced by the Democrat Kissinger anyway. :)

Not to mention, they may still attack Iran. And remove a budding Islamic nuclear power from India's periphery. I mean, once pakistan breaks up, it will be the India Army which will have to go in and protect the pakis from themselves. And then we will have common borders with Iran.

Think of the irony that would be - we would exchange our borders from a mad, nuclear armed Sunni state from those with a mad, nuclear armed Shia state. :P

Heck, for this act of secularism, I am even willing to support India giving logistics support to US forces (but not soldier power).

I agree with you vis a vis the republicans and let me add, If you have friends like the democrats.. you don't really need enemies.

As far as India managing Pakistan. whats up with that. Why do you want take in additional 200 million Muslims who have been outside the Indian ethos? What postive contribution would that make to India.

Pakistan and B'Desh parting away is the best thing that happened to India.



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

Post by ramana »

Lets not meander or get diverted to US politics in this thread. There are two other threads for this subject- Indo-US and US and the World.

Thanks, ramana
Ananth
BRFite
Posts: 346
Joined: 16 Mar 2002 12:31

Post by Ananth »

No, it is not that there are any conditions to prior consent. It is upfront, advanced consent. What we have offered the Americans is the fuel that they would supply as also the fuel we would get from other countries;we are willing to put it in a dedicated national facility, so as to remove any concerns they might have about the fuel going anywhere other than what they wish to send
That is a big giveaway, and I was afraid. Why should we agree to put conditions on the fuel obtained from other countries? The americans have no locus standi on the fuel from other countries, and by agreeing to it we are extending their authority on it, which might not be liked by some countries. As far as american fuel is concerned, it is ok to address their concerns. But why are we committing to fuel from other countries. What if some of the conditions under which we might negotiatiate with countries other than US went against reprocessing in that facility? Maybe I am reading too much into it. Since the text is not out, the definition of fuel itself is not clear.

This might be a good time to keep a ready list of questions once they release the text.
Last edited by Ananth on 30 Jul 2007 21:22, edited 1 time in total.
enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Post by enqyoobOLD »

Far from giving Americans authority over fuel from other countries, this is the solution that puts American-provided fuel on par with fuel from anywhere else.

The NSG is not going to sign off on anything less than what the Americans agreed on - no fuel provided by them is to be used in the military program. So this "Hotel International Phor Phyooyell Rodj" (HIPPR) is an essential and efficient solution - a one-stop shop to concentrate all the fuel that needs to be safeguarded, have nosy-parkers from the IAEA come count, etc. Think about it - how else would you have satisfied the American concern about accounting accurately for the fuel that they provided?

The other side is that in case the Americans want to make a withdrawal from this facility... just think of the standard desi guvrmand projess phor doing that (based on customer experiences with the Houston Indian Consulate, don't shoot me, my experience is that they are the most efficient and wonderful of Indian Consulates!!!) :eek: :eek: :
1) Apply in triplicate with signature attested by Gazetted Aphsar onlee..
2) No enquiries will be answered, although email and 5 phone lines are given.

3) Please enquire in person during working hours, viz, Tuesday through Thursday, 11AM to 11:13AM, 2pm - 2: 203PM.

4) If line is too long, then please come again next week.

5) Aphsar phor retarning phyooyell rodj has gone home phor the day onlee, saar, please try again next week.

6) Next week is Diwali and aphsar has gone to India phor marriage oph the friend of niece's daughter-in-law. Won't be back phor one month, two months... please try again tomorrow, saar.
The Americans will have nothing to complain about (not that this will stop them from :(( :(( )

It will still be light-speed compared to dealing with their CIS etc. :eek: :eek:
Ananth
BRFite
Posts: 346
Joined: 16 Mar 2002 12:31

Post by Ananth »

enqyoob wrote: The NSG is not going to sign off on anything less than what the Americans agreed on - no fuel provided by them is to be used in the military program. So this "Hotel International Phor Phyooyell Rodj" (HIPPR) is an essential and efficient solution - a one-stop shop to concentrate all the fuel that needs to be safeguarded, have nosy-parkers from the IAEA come count, etc. Think about it - how else would you have satisfied the American concern about accounting accurately for the fuel that they provided?
N^3 my assumptions are following:
1) The reprocessed fuel from safeguarded facility can only be used in civilian (safeguarded) plants.
2) That means if you want to use the spent fuel in your 3-stage program you got to put it in civilian category.

That is a constraint that will be very costly. Therefore I said, if amroos or any of their chelas want their fuels to be reprocessed only in safeguarded facility, then it is ok. But why extend that "courtesy" to other countries. What about the case where you want to get fuel especially for the 3-stage program and want to keep 3-stage off limits. How does allowing all fuel to be reprocessed at safeguarded facility help that cause? Can the reprocessed fuel from safeguarded processing plants be used to burn un-safeguarded reactors?
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

I don't think we can ask for a dual use of fuel, hence we have no option to choose to put our FBRs (future or as deemed fit) into civilian list. What we have to delete is this:-

1. No testing word in the documents
2. No sending back fuel in the documents
3. No restrictions and control measures on uses within civilian facilities

All of the above, and then allow IAEA and NSG to talk with us. Else, we can do some serious investment plants for alternative energy.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Post by NRao »

2) That means if you want to use the spent fuel in your 3-stage program you got to put it in civilian category.
Civilian vs. military FBRs. Civilian FBRs will need attention and luv in about 15-20+ years?

It is the infrastructure that will need a lot of attention. India will need plenty of glass to maintain the separation plan and yet make progress.

Does India have enough metallurgists?

IMHO, GNEP will be broken - along wiht NPT, CTBT, ABC and XYZ.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

Op-Ed Pioneer, 31 July 2007
Accepting US suzerainty

Satish Chandra

The 123 Agreement, along with the Hyde Act, will adversely affect the evolution of India's nuclear weapon capability. It is the precursor to several moves by the UPA Government that will enhance India's dependency on the US and take it into the American camp, making us a client state

While there can be no denying that in today's unipolar world India must try and cultivate close ties with the United States, equally, every patriotic Indian would expect that this endeavour should in no way jeopardise national interest or undermine national sovereignty.

With the nuclear deal on the verge of being concluded we are at a defining moment in India-US relations. The deal will not only cripple India's strategic deterrent and erode its sovereignty but will also reduce it to a client state of the US by providing the latter with requisite leverages to ensure that it never steps out of line.

No matter what gloss the UPA Government puts upon the 123 Agreement, the separation plan agreed to by it will adversely affect the evolution of India's nuclear weapon capability as will the Hyde Act which is the framework legislation under which the 123 Agreement is to be operated. The Hyde Act, moreover, without permitting India the benefit of full civil nuclear cooperation, as envisaged in the July 18, 2005 understanding, makes US cooperation conditional on many humiliating provisions restricting the independence of Indian foreign policy and requiring a rigorous oversight of its nuclear programme, both civilian and military. The Hyde Act also provides that India remains under constant threat of termination of cooperation if in the US assessment it has not lived up to its commitments.

Despite the groundswell of opposition to the nuclear deal in the country, the Government is clearly determined to go ahead with it. It is unfortunate that towards this end it has not hesitated to engage in an information war against its own citizens by keeping the text of the 123 Agreement secret while at the same time engaging in selective briefings designed to project it in a favourable light.

The 123 Agreement is the precursor to and, indeed, the fulcrum around which the Government is actively considering several moves that will enhance India's dependency on the US and take it irrevocably into the US camp. Some of these are an Acquisition and Cross Servicing Agreement (ACSA), more frequent exercises with the US and allied military forces, increased US arms purchase arrangements, participation in the US-sponsored Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), active support to a US-sponsored Fissile Material Cut Off Treaty (FMCT), etc.

In mid July Gen Kohler, Director of the US Defence Security Cooperation Agency, and Admiral Wieringa, while in India reportedly finalised the text of an ACSA which now awaits Cabinet Committee on Security approval. It has been argued that ACSA is merely an arrangement to facilitate mutual logistic support during military exercises. This is too simplistic a projection. The fact is that ACSA provides US combatant commanders the means to acquire logistic support from our armed forces during training, exercises and military operations.

The US has concluded nearly 80 such agreements mainly with NATO and allied countries. While such agreements do not theoretically commit the host country to military action the very act of concluding them makes such countries aligned to the US and a party to its actions. Thus, our hosting, the USS Nimitz at our ports in early July while in active operation in connection with the Iraq situation makes us a party to US actions in that country.

The underlying philosophy of these agreements is to enhance the rapid deployment capability of US forces into theatres far removed from their bases. It is relevant to recall that Mr Douglas Feith, the former US Under Secretary of Defence, publicly indicated in December 2003 that the rapid deployability of US forces required that they "must be able to move smoothly into, through, and out of host nations" and that for this purpose the US was inter alia "putting in place so-called cross servicing agreements so that we can rapidly reimburse countries for support they provide to our military operations."

India's signing of ACSA will, therefore, mark its formal entry into the US sphere of influence and signal its willingness to allow itself to be used to usher in the American century in Asia. It is ironical that this step would be undertaken by a leadership, tracing its roots to the Nehru-Gandhi family for which non-alignment was an article of faith, and by a Government relying for its survival on the Communists to whom the US is an anathema.

This craven alignment with the US even fails the test of realpolitik as the US has conferred no special benefits on India, befitting a country which it says it wants to help get great power status, such as support for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, recognition as a nuclear weapon state, or even an invitation to participate in the multi-nation naval anti terror task force in the Arabian Sea of which Pakistan has long been a member.

The conclusion of ACSA will inevitably lead to an increase, both quantitative and qualitative, in India's military exercises with the US which have for sometime been on an upward spiral. This, coupled with the alacrity with which we participated in trilateral exercises in April with the US and Japan, and have agreed to the US-Japan-Australia- Singapore-India exercises, taken together with our hesitation to participate in trilateral exercises with China and Russia and our lukewarm approach to the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, will fuel suspicions that we have opted to cast our lot with the US. There is nothing per se wrong with engaging in military exercises with the US but if the scale and nature of these exercises is out of all proportion with those conducted with other countries it will naturally place in doubt our bona fide as an independent player in the region.

The grease lubricating the nuclear deal is the prospect of multi-billion-dollar contracts not just for nuclear reactors but also for arms purchases. Some of the major deals being oriented towards the US are:

$ 10 billion contract for 126 multi role combat aircraft;

$ 900 million contract for 127 helicopters for the Army Aviation Corp;

Multi-billion dollar contracts for over 200 radars;

$ 2 billion to $ 3 billion contract for 8 to 16 long-range maritime reconnaissance aircraft;

$ 2 billion to $ 3 billion contract for equipment to promote network centricity in the Armed Forces; and,

$ 2 billion contract for 400 artillery guns.

In considering the US for such massive defence orders, the Government appears to have totally discounted factors of cost, compatibility and, most important, reliability of supplies. Indeed, the US proclivity to suspend supplies at the drop of a hat on the flimsiest of excuses should have made it a non-starter for consideration for such contracts. Moreover, diversion of such orders from our traditional supplier, namely Russia, will impinge adversely on our ties with it and prompt it to find a new market in Pakistan.

It is on the cards that India will, as required under the Hyde Act, join the PSI which it has long been averse to, as well as abide by the policies of the Australia Group and the Wassenar Arrangements without enjoying the benefits of membership. Similarly, though India traditionally only favours a FMCT with an international and effective verification mechanism, under the weight of the Hyde Act, which requires it to work "actively" with the US for early conclusion of this Treaty, it is moving towards modifying its position and going along with the US which is against the Indian position and favours verification through national technical means.

Acceptance of the US position is not in the national interest as it will deprive India of a place at the high table in operationalisation of the FMCT that would, for all practical purposes, be in the hands of the US as the country with the most advanced national technical means. An early conclusion of the FMCT would also not serve India's interest as it requires time to built up adequate stocks of fissile material for its strategic deterrent.

It would be evident from the foregoing that the 123 and associated agreements, which will entail the outgo of billions of dollars, far from promoting India's emergence as a great power, will see it relegated to the status of a subsidiary state under US suzerainty. While this, of course, constitutes the mother of all follies on the part of our leadership it is also a failure of the entire political class which should have done much more to avert it.
bala
BRFite
Posts: 1975
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Post by bala »

I think the other topics discussed during the US-India Nuke talks are the ones that involve further cooperation (read this as deals in the offing) between US and India. Since 9/11 the US economy has added $3 Trillion to its GDP. GE finance arm will probably end up financing a bunch of GE Nuclear Plants to be built in India. India has bought a substantial number of Boeing Aircraft for Air India (Indian Airlines went for Airbus) and now the combined entity Air India wants to add some more new planes in addition to the 111 confirmed order. Boeing has upped its sales forecast for India. I have a feeling the MRCA order will be handed to the US for the US-India nuke deal quid pro quo. Not a bad thing. On the other defence deals, the single act of signing up India and US on defence assets/consumables joint operation status would mean several other high ticket items would be bought by India.

My take on the nuclear fuel supply deal, over time, India would be operating in a mode that would not be under constant review by the NPT Ayatollahs. This would keep the focus of from this nosy bunch elsewhere which in turn means that India can operate pretty much in normal mode a la the big boys of P5. Perhaps the US-India Nuke deal would be forgotten and terms and conditions for a powerful India are on par with the P5. The lingo would change and any time nuke leadership is discussed, India is included. Maybe India is inducted into the Security Council very soon. Once you are in the inner circle the nuclear debate changes forever.
enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Post by enqyoobOLD »

Ananth: Just out of curiosity - since you consider the safeguarded fuel facility to be a bad idea, what would your solution have been, to the American concerns, and your take on the essentials of Indian national interest? I am interested in your perceptions of which other countries would have sold India "dual-use" nuclear fuel, and what would be your plan of working with that, after or instead of the deal with the US and the NSG.
enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Post by enqyoobOLD »

ndia would be operating in a mode that would not be under constant review by the NPT Ayatollahs


Given how everything else works, it will be like the ICC:

1. Swarms of desis hired as IAEA Inspectors, going around with notebooks and pencils.

2. Most foreign inspectors are laid-back in inspections in other countries, but nasty when they come to India.

3. The desis are laid-back in inspections in other countries, but uber-nasty in dealing with India.

4. Fortunately, many babus can be bought for a bottle of booze. Or maybe "CocaCola Zerrow" or Rooh-Afza with a shot of Zam-Zam-Cola.

Which reminds me: Anyone heard of our dear Peeloved Mullah Mahdi-e-Dra since the Zekret Politzei whisked him away?
sivab
BRFite
Posts: 1075
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56

Post by sivab »

Fuel from other countries won’t be hit, says Mulford

[quote]
Sandeep Dikshit

NEW DELHI: U.S. Ambassador to India David Mulford said India’s (proposed) strategic fuel reserves sourced from other countries would remain unaffected even if it was to conduct a nuclear test.

“The testing issue is not mentioned in the agreement. There is [also] no regulation over India’s strategic nuclear capability. India has accepted that U.S. laws on this matter [nuclear test] are not going to change but the right of return is a discretionary right by the U.S. President and it has been preserved,â€
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Post by ShauryaT »

Gerard wrote:Given that Shakti 4+5 were not detected, subcritical or even low yield (sub-kiloton) tests (with decoupling) should be no problem...

The US asserts that its subcritical tests are not a violation of the CTBT or the test moratorium, that they are not really nuclear tests. Can they attempt to penalize India while doing the same?
Hyde calls for it.
Ananth
BRFite
Posts: 346
Joined: 16 Mar 2002 12:31

Post by Ananth »

enqyoob wrote:Ananth: Just out of curiosity - since you consider the safeguarded fuel facility to be a bad idea, what would your solution have been, to the American concerns, and your take on the essentials of Indian national interest? I am interested in your perceptions of which other countries would have sold India "dual-use" nuclear fuel, and what would be your plan of working with that, after or instead of the deal with the US and the NSG.
My approach would be to have safeguarded facility to process fuel from any country that only wants to sell fuel (its definition is still not clear) for safeguarded facility. Shouldn't that have satisfied them? What is their fear about? If they are afraid that this will give a foothold to India in nuke commerce, which India might use to bypass current constraints, then why open the door in first place? If in future conditions materialize that some country (even those amroos) would have agreed to sell us fuel for 3-stage program, which will be unsafeguarded, we should be able to accept that fuel, burn in those reactors, process the fuel in our unsafeguarded plants to be reused in subsequent stages. My concerns are based on the assumption that fuel from safeguarded reproc facility can only be used in safeguarded reactors and not in unsafeguarded plants.

Look this condition (concession?) is in the same spirit of the statements made by one of the lawmakers in US during the Hyde act enactment, when one hand they were putting restrictions on American companies on what they can trade, and on the other they were asking US admin that they should ensure that those restrictions should not *unfairly disadvantage* american companies from the Indian market. In short, they want others to be also constrained by the similar conditions. By allowing this restriction India will be doing US' work. That might be acceptable today, even in the medium term, but giving such blanket assurance is unnecessarily constraining oneself.

Now if what MKN says is true, this means that somebody has to do creative interpretation of the clause in future.

On a related note, why were we fighting for reprocessing rights in the 123 agreement with US. Is it not the 123 agreement will be used as template with agreement with NSG/IAEA? Do we need to negotiate 123 equivalents with other countries with whom we may like to do business once IAEA/NSG is cleared.
rsingh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4451
Joined: 19 Jan 2005 01:05
Location: Pindi
Contact:

Post by rsingh »

There is so much confusion about what is allowed and what is not allowed...........best way to "dudh ka dudh, pani ka pani" is to test a nuclear device before Diwali :). One blast for every day of RamLila..........a ten day series. Last one named Ravana..............an integrated technology demonstrator "Implosion-Implosion" device which is to be set off by an powerful laser from Ayodhya, reflected by one of our remote sensing sat. NP Ayatullahs will be bleeding themselves on the first day.......but then they will be used to it and all the world will be waiting for final day.......Dushera. :idea:
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Post by ldev »

Ananth wrote:My concerns are based on the assumption that fuel from safeguarded reproc facility can only be used in safeguarded reactors and not in unsafeguarded plants.
Your assumption is wrong. In fact it is the exact opposite. If you also study as to what fuel is needed in what kind of nuclear plant i.e. PHWR, FBR, AHWR, LWR etc. and which component of that needs to be imported, you will realize the underlying logic of the 123 agreement.
vsudhir
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2173
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 03:44
Location: Dark side of the moon

Post by vsudhir »

Nuclear-power politics (Economist)

Subtle Anti-bharath psyops from the Economist
The most contentious issue in the negotiations was India's insistence on the right to test nuclear weapons in the future. India has observed a self-imposed moratorium since its last test, in 1998, which prompted a tit-for-tat response from Pakistan, escalated border tensions and triggered sanctions from the Clinton administration. However, citing the "imperative of its security environment"—diplomatic code for China and Pakistan—India has resisted making any commitment to forswear future nuclear sabre-rattling, claiming that external factors may compel it to carry out another test.
Yup, our testing == sabre-rattling, eh? PRC proliferation and TSP lunacy notwithstanding.
Locked