Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - 04 Aug 2007

enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - 04 Aug 2007

Postby enqyoobOLD » 04 Aug 2007 01:16

Starting a continuation thread
Previous discussion thread is here-Arun_S (admin hat on}

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

How did it fall short in relation to that goal? I'd much appreciate it, if only for my peace of mind.


I changed the goalposts. Now my criteria are:

1. Have 192 members of UN invited India to become 6th Permanent Member of UNSC with Veto?

2. Have P-5 sent invitation to India as Member of Nuclear Weapon Club?
3. Has US agreed carte blanche to "transfer" any and all technology like heavy water, light alcohol, high-rate enrichment technology and all dual-use technology like Box Cutters, Aerosol Can etc?
4. Has the Obama Amendment been retracted?
5. Have all objectionable items in the Hyde Act been unilaterally retracted?

Seems eminently reasonable to me, and AFAIK, NONE of these, NOT ONE, is met by this "123" agreement.

SELLOUT! The whole thing is a scam to steal our FBR and thorium technology.

samuel
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52

Postby samuel » 04 Aug 2007 01:18

Sparsh wrote:Samuel,

The size of the fuel reserve is implicit in the phrase "supply over the lifetime of India's reactors". Specifying the size of the reserve to be X tons would be a stupid thing to do.

And India's reactors includes foreign reactors that we buy. Once you buy a car, it becomes your car is no longer the dealership's car.


Does a reserve to you mean a constant supply, say just in time, or does it mean, access to a certain reserve that hedges interruptions or breaks? Why would you need to say guarantee fuel supply and then build a strategic reserve...see document.

See milind's points regarding what India's means. Yes, I say so I think that once we buy it, it should be ours...Its not clear to me we will be buying. What happens if we lease?

samuel
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52

Postby samuel » 04 Aug 2007 01:20

enqyoob wrote:
How did it fall short in relation to that goal? I'd much appreciate it, if only for my peace of mind.


I changed the goalposts. Now my criteria are:

1. Have 192 members of UN invited India to become 6th Permanent Member of UNSC with Veto?

2. Have P-5 sent invitation to India as Member of Nuclear Weapon Club?
3. Has US agreed carte blanche to "transfer" any and all technology like heavy water, light alcohol, high-rate enrichment technology and all dual-use technology like Box Cutters, Aerosol Can etc?
4. Has the Obama Amendment been retracted?
5. Have all objectionable items in the Hyde Act been unilaterally retracted?

Seems eminently reasonable to me, and AFAIK, NONE of these, NOT ONE, is met by this "123" agreement.

SELLOUT! The whole thing is a scam to steal our FBR and thorium technology.


Yeah, ok, we are on the same page now.

sunilUpa
BRFite
Posts: 1795
Joined: 25 Sep 2006 04:16

Postby sunilUpa » 04 Aug 2007 01:22

enqyoob wrote:
How did it fall short in relation to that goal? I'd much appreciate it, if only for my peace of mind.


I changed the goalposts. Now my criteria are:

1. Have 192 members of UN invited India to become 6th Permanent Member of UNSC with Veto?

2. Have P-5 sent invitation to India as Member of Nuclear Weapon Club?
3. Has US agreed carte blanche to "transfer" any and all technology like heavy water, light alcohol(Most important), high-rate enrichment technology and all dual-use technology like Box Cutters, Aerosol Can etc?
4. Has the Obama Amendment been retracted?
5. Have all objectionable items in the Hyde Act been unilaterally retracted?

Seems eminently reasonable to me, and AFAIK, NONE of these, NOT ONE, is met by this "123" agreement.

SELLOUT! The whole thing is a scam to steal our FBR and thorium technology.


:D :lol: :rotfl:

Err ooops wrong emoticons..this is supposed to be :(( :(( :eek: thread.

Hmmm Has Obama apologised for inserting those amendments in to Hyde act...

milindc
BRFite
Posts: 663
Joined: 11 Feb 2006 00:03

Postby milindc » 04 Aug 2007 01:24

Sparsh wrote:Samuel,

The size of the fuel reserve is implicit in the phrase "supply over the lifetime of India's reactors". Specifying the size of the reserve to be X tons would be a stupid thing to do.

And India's reactors includes foreign reactors that we buy. Once you buy a car, it becomes your car is no longer the dealership's car.


I tend to think the term 'India's reactors' is deliberately vague. What u state will be our interpretation. US might interpret it differently to be in line with Hyde act. Since it was reviewed by all the stake holders, I think it is deliberately vague. Instead of 'India's reactors' they could have used 'reactors on Indian soil'.

Even the fuel reserve is vague, since the building of fuel reserve stops with the termination and also it might be included in the 'return item list'.

Anyway, given the circumstances this is a very good agreement for us.

enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Postby enqyoobOLD » 04 Aug 2007 01:33

A point to ponder about.

How much would this deal help the civilian economy?


A couple of points about that graph. 1. Where did they get that figure for "renewables"? If you take out hydroelectric, I think what remained, in 2002, was about 0.1% of production, not 10 %. A small difference of a switching of digits and a decimal point, I know, but...

2. There is a good reason why ppl want nuclear to advance industry. It's called "power factor" - the % of rated capacity that is actually produced, averaged over a year. For wind, it's like 0.2 tp 0.3 for the top 10 sites in India. For hydro-electric, it may be 0.4 at best, because the water level goes way down in summer. Realistically, 0.1 for dams in Kerala when you include all the strikes and sabotage and the general productivity of the KSEB. For solar-thermal it may be about 0.2 (8 hours per day of sunlight, minus all the rainy days and partly cloudy days).

For nuclear it is 0.85 (for Indian nuke plants, most recent figures). Multiply by those factors, and things look very different, eh?

Now think ahead a bit. Suppose u want to bring a new automotive plant to Malgudi. They depend for profit on 24-hour continuous production. Do you think that 0.2-power factor dam will attract them? Or would they go where there is a 0.85-factor nuke plant?

THAT's where the impact of nuclear power plants on industry and economy out-do anything else by orders of magnitude. Makes ALL the difference between modern 24x7 high-tech plants, and Bronze Age cottage industry.

There is another issue. A nuclear plant is HORRIBLY expensive in capital. But once it actually opens and goes critical, and it doesn't burn its way to the Atlantic Ocean, it just keeps going and going. 30 years later, the debt is paid up, and you just need a few people to watch the dials, bring tea with Rooh Afza and ganja for the IAEA Clouseaux, and keep the Pakis out.

The $$ just rolls in, like the Energizer Bunny. This is the happy state of today's US nuke power industry, though you won't hear them crow about it. Electric power HAS become "too cheap to meter", except that the utilities see no reason to stop metering, after all the hassle that they have been put through.

This is why nuclear power is indispensable if you want to compete in tomorrow's world. Oh! and I forgot to mention the coming Kyoto Scam. The Oiropeans will slap all our products with 300% "Green" tariffs if they are produced using coal power. And the Narmada Bachhao Andolan will be right there in front, supporting them.

We really don't have a choice.

Now look again at that chart.

samuel
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52

Postby samuel » 04 Aug 2007 01:37

with headlines like these, this deal is a no-brainer :(
India gets to keep nukes, US will wink at new tests

enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Postby enqyoobOLD » 04 Aug 2007 01:37

Oh, and if the nuclear waste dumps get filled up and you run out of room, the solution is, "tres simple".

Inflate a Pu Bum. Deny everything and say it was a sudden vacuum, light bulbs short-circuiting.

Voila! The foreigners pull out all their "fuel", paying "fair compensation" for the Pu. Waste problem solved. :P 8)
(Added later: I hope OUTLOOK publishes an Investigative Report on the dumping of Highly Enriched Pu in the Cooum River.. that would get THAT cleaned up, with IAEA Clouseux wading neck deep in Pu)

In Utah, ppl are up in arms because Utah is the favorite nuke dump for the GOTUS. So at Kalpakkam and Trombay, it would be good to put stickers on the waste barrels saying:

From the ppl of India to the ppl of Utah, with glowing compliments
Last edited by enqyoobOLD on 04 Aug 2007 01:44, edited 1 time in total.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35889
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 04 Aug 2007 01:40

I think its time to shift the goal posts ourselves.. lets get france and russia sign up with us for a perennial supplies. I would want to see how ductile these supposedly friendly countries are.

It would be insane for this govt to give out our strategic interests by giving away the so called publicly view carrots - mrca contract and other defence purcahses. If it does, its an absolute scam. I say, start CBI investigations right way for the sin they are to commit pretty soon.

Another 2 years to plod with these govt.. and still we would haggling on these agreements with some other hillarious bushmen hyding behind obaminable characters.

:(( feast begins! hail manio mamus!

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

Postby Rye » 04 Aug 2007 01:50

As Gerard has been stating repeatedly, and enqyoob says above, returning of spent fuel etc. is not going to happen because no one wants nuke waste, and 123 specifies that the party that forces return of spent fuel is responsible for coughing up the money -- that is a rather large knife at the throat of anyone who wants US industry to suck up a few billion dollars in cost for implementing the Hyde act. If the US govt. recognizes that India has violated the Hyde act, the cost of implementation of the Hyde act, which the US would have to , if it overtly recognizes that India is in violation of the clauses in the Hyde act.

So the people here are claiming that the US will suck up that cost to implement the hyde act may be right (or not)...However, another view is that US could pretend there was no violation and do the old "we ignored it, so it never happened" trick.....I am sure this rings many bells to BRFites who pay attention.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7533
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 04 Aug 2007 01:50

From The Daily Pioneer
http://www.dailypioneer.com
2007/08/03
posted in full since site does not archive

Scientists have mixed reaction

Nuclear scientists and experts have expressed mixed reactions over the nuclear deal between India and the US.

Placcid Rodrigues, president, Indian Nuclear Society and former director of the Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research said that although the draft agreement meets almost all concerns, "In actual practice it is not full civilian nuclear cooperation, as enrichment, reprocessing and heavy water technology are excluded."

"The agreement refers to dual use items which only showed that embargo or the nuclear technology control regime will continue even if the ultimate use is non-nuclear. There is no positive statement that the conclusion will be favourable and that is a cause of concern," he said.

"From Washington, US Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns has pointed out that once India applies for consent ... the conclusion is possible only on Congressional approval and in the 123 agreement draft it is kept vague," Rodrigues added.

Upset about a clause for verification measures for atomic facilities in case of an IAEA decision on non-applicability of safeguards, Rodrigues said, "this is totally opposed to what Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said, that India will not allow American inspectors to roam around in India's reactor sites."

Appreciating the 123 draft agreement, S Thakur, Executive Director (Corporate Planning), Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited, said both US and Indian negotiating and drafting teams have shown high level of professionalism and long-term vision.

"The document is very good and all aspects are covered comprehensively and adequately," Thakur said, adding as a whole the agreement showed mutual respect and maintained the sovereignty of both nations.

Objections to N-deal serious, says SC

The Supreme Court on Friday noted that the objections to the Indo-US nuclear deal were "serious" but refused to interfere at this stage since the matter is to come up in Parliament next week.

The court was hearing a public interest litigation filed by Anil Chawla, who cited how the deal, which is based on the US Hyde Act, tends to weaken the country's sovereignty and legislative abilities.

Taking note of the concerns raised by the petition, the Bench headed by Chief Justice of India KG Balakrishnan said, "We don't say these (objections) are minor things. These are serious matters." Adopting a wait and watch policy, the court said, "You (petitioner) wait till the matter is placed before Parliament," and allowed the petition to be withdrawn at this stage.

Before the Bench arrived at this order the petitioner who was represented by senior advocate PS Mishra and advocate CD Singh argued on why the court's interference is called for at this stage.

The court formed the view that an order directing the deal to be placed before Parliament was not possible since it is a matter of Parliamentary proceeding which is to be regulated by the Minister for Parliamentary Affairs.

But the petitioner's counsel urged the court to consider the ramifications of such a deal which compromises India's sovereign interests to test its nuclear weapons, possess nuclear arsenal and to enter into foreign relations with Iran. "We are not aware of what is contained in the 123 Agreement. The nation is entitled to know the Act as the same is yet to be placed in public domain," Mishra said.

The criticism of the deal also emerges from the moratorium it seeks to declare on any further nuclear tests by India, the petitioner said. "We are not remotely suggesting the court to place the matter before Parliament, but judicial review can be called for if there is an attempt to surrender the law making powers of a country as sovereign and independent as India. The Hyde Act 2006 is such it will compromise India's law making power."

Finding strength in the petitioner's contentions the Bench said, "There are constitutional luminaries like the Minister for Parliamentary Affairs, the Prime Minister, the Speaker. It is for them to decide to place the matter in Parliament. they are ably advised by many scientists."

Mishra even viewed the issue at hand considering the scope of Article 73 which grants sweeping powers to the executive to enter into any treaty. In the light of a previous judgement of the Supreme Court any treaty which compromises the sovereignty of the country or violates the constitutional provisions is amenable to judicial review.

The Bench, though keen to examine the issue, expressed its helplessness to interfere at this stage. In the same breath, before parting with the matter it added, "We don't want to give an impression that the Supreme Court has considered and rejected the petition. You may wait till the mater is placed before Parliament."

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35889
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 04 Aug 2007 01:59

for american economic size, the cost of return of nu materials is peanuts. he he eh

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

Postby Rye » 04 Aug 2007 02:03

SaiK wrote:
for american economic size, the cost of return of nu materials is peanuts. he he eh


Huh? You think the US will pay for shipping nuclear waste into its own territory? Do you think that the way the US public views nuke waste will allow that?

http://www.electricityforum.com/news/ma ... blocks.htm

There are also non financial costs, like political costs. Where is the US going to ship all the tons of concrete and nuke waste within the US? Billions of dollars in not peanuts --- taxpayers in the US would be aghast at such spending to bring in nuclear waste into the US, unless US-India relations down the line resemble US-Iran relations rather than US-EU relations....in which case, 123 would be irrelevant as there would be larger problems.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7533
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 04 Aug 2007 02:07

They can afford it but it would be politically difficult... it would be seen as an outrageous waste of money... billions of taxpayer dollars for useless radioactive waste? From a foreign country? To be stored on American soil? To be offloaded by US port workers?

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3411
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Postby hnair » 04 Aug 2007 02:07

Gerard wrote:Objections to N-deal serious, says SC


Allrighty! Their Honours have spoken. Am waiting with bated breath at the "technical flaws resulting in loss of money caused by the deal" that the next CAG report will point out 8)

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35889
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 04 Aug 2007 02:12

well.. its zillion cheaper than iraq war. plus.. americans have the tacit things wud consider the IAEA site in India itself as some intl ctrl site. i think, they wud ship & handle it back.

how many american public opinion is heard for nu related stuff. most are nu illiterate generally speaking. the best of all, this wud happen and no one in the world wud know anything about it.

if americans can make their young buttoned up girls & mothers who are illiterate to push the buttons for manhattan project.. they woud this too.
/imho.
Last edited by SaiK on 04 Aug 2007 02:21, edited 2 times in total.

Sparsh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 78
Joined: 30 Jan 2007 12:57

Postby Sparsh » 04 Aug 2007 02:16

Samuel, Milind,

I think the language is not ambiguous. Look at the exact words: It says India's reactors, i.e. reactors belonging to India which is what foreign reactors become once we pay for them.

The language would be ambiguous if it said Indian reactors instead of India's reactors.

And as far as the fuel reserve goes, no power plant operates on the basis of a just in time fuel supply. The fuel from the supplier goes into a fuel reserve and fuel needed by the plant is drawn from that reserve. The size of the fuel reserve that needs to be built in this specific case should be enough to cover the lifetime of the reactor.

This is where the language is ambiguous. It does not specify how long that lifetime is. The Americans can get GE and Westinghouse to say that the lifetime is 20 years onlee as opposed to 40 years which is what it actually might be.

milindc
BRFite
Posts: 663
Joined: 11 Feb 2006 00:03

Postby milindc » 04 Aug 2007 02:18

Gerard wrote:They can afford it but it would be politically difficult... it would be seen as an outrageous waste of money... billions of taxpayer dollars for useless radioactive waste? From a foreign country? To be stored on American soil? To be offloaded by US port workers?


Why would they want the return of materials, the agreement only states that they could ask for return, the return is not mandatory. They stop the fuel supply for US based reactors and ask the poodles to stop as well.

If we don't have enough fuel reserves, that could be problem considering the amount invested in the reactor and potential stoppage of electric generation.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35889
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 04 Aug 2007 02:26

Most important point is it need not take a nu test by India to stop them agreeing into this deal. They need one year notice for any reason they find it per their laws. Our b@ll on the american political platter.. for every other business deal, they can invoke the dagger pointing at cutting the fuel supplies.

man!

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

Postby Rye » 04 Aug 2007 02:26

SaiK wrote:
well.. its zillion cheaper than iraq war. plus.. americans have the tacit things wud consider the IAEA site in India itself as some intl ctrl site. i think, they wud ship & handle it back.


Huh? Where does the Iraq war fit in? People in the US are very much in "Not in My Backyard" mode of thinking -- you think you would allow nuclear waste to be dumped around your environs? probably not.

how many american public opinion is heard for nu related stuff. most are nu illiterate generally speaking. the best of all, this wud happen and no one in the world wud know anything about it.


And how do you propose the US govt. is going to keep a lid on a few tons of nuclear waste that will be transported in accordance with Federal procedures (which include large Yellow "Nuke Hazard" signs)? Such things are simply not possible --- given all the b1tching and moaning now, do you think Indians will sit by silently while the US follows through by breaking up nuke plants and shipping the pieces out? And if Indians complain, you think the American public won't notice that the nuke waste has to go somewhere in the US (because the US would consider this a proliferation risk if dumped in the territory of a third country).
Last edited by Rye on 04 Aug 2007 02:28, edited 1 time in total.

Sparsh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 78
Joined: 30 Jan 2007 12:57

Postby Sparsh » 04 Aug 2007 02:28

Vsudhir,

As an aside, perhaps now you can understand why I got irritated at the FBR question.

I post crystal clear language from the DAE's website on how something is civilian or not is decided and yet a page or two of posts debating how something is civilian or not (including the FBRs) is decided.

Jeez ...

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35889
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 04 Aug 2007 02:31

yes.. it would be a big bold front line headings. as it is very clear the neighborhood or backyard logic is about 1000 miles in nevada., these things happen regularly.

people will whine from both the counties.. and it dies there like in any democracy after the flags and street shows.

samuel
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52

Postby samuel » 04 Aug 2007 02:31

are we talking about a box that can stock 20yrs worth of fuel or a box that will stock 20yrs worth of fuel. Is reserve the box or the fuel in the box? who would care about size of box? so, fuel-in-box then. Does the actual fuel in reserve cover the entire 20yrs in one go, or must it contain a proportion of rate of fuel consumption x some period, for the length of the lifetime of the reactor? Or is it simply a proportion of 20yrs worth of fuel consumption maintained for the lifetime.

admittedly i am confused. since we are dealing with quantifiable things can you say what reserve would amount to using rates, numbers, constants or variables, roughly or precisely?

S
Sparsh wrote:Samuel, Milind,

I think the language is not ambiguous. Look at the exact words: It says India's reactors, i.e. reactors belonging to India which is what foreign reactors become once we pay for them.

The language would be ambiguous if it said Indian reactors instead of India's reactors.

And as far as the fuel reserve goes, no power plant operates on the basis of a just in time fuel supply. The fuel from the supplier goes into a fuel reserve and fuel needed by the plant is drawn from that reserve. The size of the fuel reserve that needs to be built in this specific case should be enough to cover the lifetime of the reactor.

This is where the language is ambiguous. It does not specify how long that lifetime is. The Americans can get GE and Westinghouse to say that the lifetime is 20 years onlee as opposed to 40 years which is what it actually might be.
Last edited by samuel on 04 Aug 2007 02:45, edited 1 time in total.

nkumar
BRFite
Posts: 233
Joined: 06 Jul 2007 02:14

Postby nkumar » 04 Aug 2007 02:35

BC's analysis, posting in full, has lot of details. This is from Asian Age.

123: text and context

By Brahma Chellaney

New Delhi, Aug. 3: The released text of the 123 agreement on civil nuclear cooperation reveals that the United States, besides upholding the primacy of its laws, has gained two absolute rights — the right to unilaterally terminate cooperation with India at will (without arranging alternative suppliers), and the right to take back all supplied items and materials.

In withholding the text for two long weeks, the US and Indian governments sought to spin reality to suit political ends. Now the facts need to be separated not just from spin, but also from wishful thinking.

This proposed bilateral agreement has at least 12 important facets:

1. It confers on the US an unfettered and uninfringeable right to terminate cooperation with India at will. Article 14(2) states: "The party seeking termination has the right to cease further cooperation under this Agreement if it determines that a mutually acceptable resolution of outstanding issues has not been possible or cannot be achieved through consultations." That would put India at the mercy of the supplier, holding all the leverage.

Even though termination is to take effect at the end of a one-year notice period, the agreement explicitly empowers the US to forthwith suspend all cooperation without much ado. The only requirement is that a "party giving notice of termination shall provide the reasons for seeking such termination".

In light of the one-sided dependency the agreement would create, such a US right will not only help bind India to the non-proliferation conditions set by the US Congress through the Hyde Act, but it also goes against the purported assurances of uninterrupted supply of fuel and spare parts. Significantly, Article 14 on termination does not enjoin the withdrawing party to make alternate arrangements for supplies to the other side before it ceases all cooperation.

2. In a departure from a standard clause found in America’s 123 agreements with other states, this accord does not uphold a core principle of international law — that failure to perform a treaty or agreement cannot be justified by invoking the provisions of a domestic law. Rather, this agreement is unambiguously anchored in the supremacy of national laws and regulations (which means US laws like the Hyde Act, because there is no Indian law governing nuclear cooperation with the US or any other specific country).

Contrast this accord with the 1985 US-China 123 agreement, which in its Article 2 (1) states: "The parties shall cooperate in the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes in accordance with the provisions of this agreement. Each party shall implement this agreement in accordance with its respective applicable treaties, national laws, regulations and license requirements concerning the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. The parties recognise, with respect to the observance of this agreement, the principle of international law that provides that a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty."

The third sentence about the non-invocation of domestic laws is tellingly missing from this agreement, even as the first two sentences find mention. This omission is because of one simple fact: Never before in US legislative history has a law been enacted imposing such numerous and onerous conditions on an avowed strategic partner to permit cooperation in just one area as the Hyde Act does.

That is why even the agreement’s Article 15, titled "Settlement of Disputes", is toothless, making no reference to the applicability of the principles of international law. It reads: "Any dispute concerning the interpretation or implementation of the provisions of this agreement shall be promptly negotiated by the parties with a view to resolving that dispute." That means the recipient state will have to listen to the supplier.

Both the US and Indian sides have publicly acknowledged that the agreement is within the legal framework of the India-specific Hyde Act, which reigns supreme in this arrangement.


3. While there is no explicit reference to nuclear testing, a test prohibition against India has been unequivocally built into the agreement’s provisions through the incorporation of the US’ right to demand the return of all supplied materials and items. India’s unilateral moratorium is being stripped of its voluntary character and turned into a bilateral legality in this manner. Through the US "right of return", the 123 agreement explicitly hangs the Damocles’ sword over India’s head.

While the Hyde Act’s Section 106 openly bans Indian testing, the 123 agreement reinforces that test ban both by upholding the applicability of national laws to govern cooperation and by incorporating the US’ "right of return".

As part of the same design to enforce permanent Indian compliance with the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty — a pact the US Senate soundly rejected in 1999 — Washington has already recommended that the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group (NSG) link its proposed exemption for India to a similar test ban. The NSG exemption could even come with a "right of return" being conferred on all supplier states. In other words, the test ban under the 123 agreement is to be converted into a multilateral legality through the NSG.

4. The US has an unencumbered right under the 123 agreement to terminate cooperation not only in response to an Indian test but also if India, in Washington’s judgment, fell short of the "full compliance" required of it by the Hyde Act with regard to other prescribed non-proliferation conditions. The 123 agreement does not in any way rein in the US right to unilaterally terminate cooperation.

Implicit in this agreement is India’s readiness to honour the US-set non-proliferation conditions.

5. By conceding that the US has a right to unilaterally terminate cooperate and demand the return of all equipment and fuel supplied in the past, New Delhi has lent legitimacy to what is a dubious concept in international law — that the supplier is at liberty to terminate cooperation retroactively.

The agreement states that before invoking the right of return, the concerned party would "undertake consultations with the other party". But that is nothing but public relations because such consultations would be of no consequence. The supplier-state, however, would "compensate promptly that party for the fair market value" of the items and materials it takes back.

6. While the US has the right to terminate cooperation at will and withdraw from all obligations, India has been denied the right to withdraw from all its obligations, even if the agreement was terminated at America’s instance. The agreement more than once cites the permanent nature of India’s obligation to accept international inspections on its entire civil nuclear programme, including the indigenously built facilities it is voluntarily opening to external scrutiny.

In a hypothetical situation, if the US were to terminate all cooperation and suspend all fuel and equipment transfers, India would be stuck both with everlasting IAEA inspections on its entire civil programme and with lack of access to an alternate supplier.

7. The US has also reserved its right in the 123 agreement to unilaterally suspend the reprocessing-related "arrangements and procedures" it intends to work out with New Delhi in the years ahead, once India has built a new reprocessing facility under IAEA safeguards. National security adviser M.K. Narayanan has already warned that "spoilers" may nit-pick on the facility’s design and cause delays.

The text clearly shows that the US has granted India the right to reprocess only in principle. The grant of actual right would take many years, with the US retaining a veto on Indian reprocessing until then. It will take at least five years to build the new facility, after the construction of which, the agreement says, "the parties will agree on arrangements and procedures" for reprocessing "in this new facility". It goes on to say that consultations on such arrangements and procedures "will begin within six months of a request by either party and will be concluded within one year". Thereafter, the reprocessing agreement would go to the US Congress for vetting.

This entire process — from the start of work on the facility to congressional approval — would be a long haul. Yet, once in place, the US could terminate the reprocessing-related "arrangements and procedures" in yet-to-be-defined "exceptional circumstances".

8. The sugar-coated provisions in the agreement relating to "consultations" and uninterrupted fuel supply appear more to help India save face than to set out enforceable obligations. Although "consultations" are referred to repeatedly in the text, in no context does the agreement provide for consultations to achieve a mutually acceptable outcome. At best, it provides for consultations within a specified time frame in one context.

In all the specified circumstances, consultations are to be toothless and, in any event, subsidiary to the central requirement that the agreement be in accord with the provisions of national laws.
The agreement gives India little say.

9. The agreement plays cleverly on words to fashion an illusion at times. For example, Article 5(4) states: "The quantity of nuclear material transferred under this Agreement shall be consistent with any of the following purposes: use in reactor experiments or the loading of reactors, the efficient and continuous conduct of such reactor experiments or operation of reactors for their lifetime, use as samples, standards, detectors, and targets, and the accomplishment of other purposes as may be agreed by the parties."

Note this provision does not allow India to build up lifetime reserves, as the Prime Minister had pledged in Parliament. It only permits fuel supply consistent with the efficient and continuous operation of reactors for their lifetime. This is just one example of how an optical illusion is sought to be created.

In fact, nowhere does the agreement specifically permit India to accumulate lifetime fuel reserves. The agreement is so cleverly worded that it refers to strategic fuel reserves in its aims and objectives, and then in Article 5(6)(a) it states that "the United States is committed to seeking agreement from the US Congress to amend its domestic laws and to work with friends and allies to adjust the practices of the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group to create the necessary conditions for India to obtain full access to the international fuel market, including reliable, uninterrupted and continual access to fuel supplies from firms in several nations". In other words, the agreement admits that the US has yet to make the necessary adjustments in its laws that it promised in July 2005.

Then, in the very next subsection (b) of Article 5(6), it is stated as follows: "To further guard against any disruption of fuel supplies, the United States is prepared to take the following additional steps: i) The United States is willing to incorporate assurances regarding fuel supply in the bilateral US-India agreement on peaceful uses of nuclear energy under Section 123 of the US Atomic Energy Act, which would be submitted to the US Congress." But this is the agreement under Section 123, and there is no such ironclad assurance.

10. The agreement brings out starkly that India has accepted terms that fall short of the promised "full cooperation".

In keeping with the Hyde Act’s prohibition on transfers of equipment and technology in certain areas, the 123 agreement offers this palliative in Article 5(2): "Sensitive nuclear technology, heavy water production technology, sensitive nuclear facilities, heavy water production facilities and major critical components of such facilities may be transferred under this Agreement pursuant to an amendment to this Agreement. Transfers of dual-use items that could be used in enrichment, reprocessing or heavy water production facilities will be subject to the parties’ respective applicable laws, regulations and license policies."

11. In accepting this clause, India has not only acquiesced to restrictive cooperation, but also gone one step beyond its current policy to align with US policy on an important point — that any enrichment, reprocessing or heavy-water activity, even when occurring under stringent IAEA inspections, is "dual-use" in nature and thus liable to be restricted.

This is the very thrust of the US case against Iran, with Tehran being asked to forego all IAEA-safeguarded enrichment or reprocessing activity, despite Iran’s insistence that it is its lawful right to pursue such fuel cycle-related work under the provisions of the NPT. In seeking to forge an arbitrary new regime dividing the world into fuel-cycle possessors and fuel-cycle abstainers, the US has dubbed even IAEA-safeguarded enrichment and reprocessing activity as "dual use".

In addition to ensuring IAEA inspections on all aspects of India’s civilian nuclear programme, the US had staked an unparalleled double prerogative: the right to statutorily establish its own end-use monitoring, as called for in the Hyde Act Section 104(d)(5)(B)(i); and the right to institute "fallback safeguards" in case of "budget or personnel strains in the IAEA". The fallback option, stipulated in Hyde Act’s Section 104 (d)(5)(B)(iii), is to ensure that India is subject to intrusive, challenge inspections of the type the IAEA applies in non-nuclear states.

In the 123 agreement, the US has succeeded in subtly asserting its prerogatives on both fronts.

The provision for fallback safeguards finds mention in the agreement’s Article 10(4), which states, "If the IAEA decides that the application of IAEA safeguards is no longer possible, the supplier and recipient should consult and agree on appropriate verification measures." That complies with the Hyde Act stipulation.

End-use US monitoring (to which India is committed through an earlier bilateral agreement on high-tech imports) is reflected in the agreement’s Article 12(3): "When execution of an agreement or contract pursuant to this Agreement between Indian and United States organisations requires exchanges of experts, the parties shall facilitate entry of the experts to their territories and their stay therein consistent with national laws, regulations and practices. When other cooperation pursuant to this Agreement requires visits of experts, the parties shall facilitate entry of the experts to their territory and their stay therein consistent with national laws, regulations and practices".

12. While the US has managed to fully uphold all its laws, including the India-targeting Hyde Act, with New Delhi’s own admitted support, it is manifest from the released text that the Indian government has been unable to fully uphold even the Prime Minister’s solemn assurances to Parliament.

History is repeating itself. Ignoring the egregious way America cut off all fuel supply for Tarapur in the 1970s in material breach of the 123 agreement it signed in 1963, India is entering into new arrangements with its wings clipped (like on nuclear testing) as well as ambiguity or uncertainty on key issues. Even the actual grant of and continuation of the reprocessing right is to be contingent on India’s good behaviour.

Creating a US-monitored energy dependency through imported reactors dependent on imported fuel through a fresh 123 agreement loaded in favour of the supplier-state is to ask for trouble, especially when the new 123 accord is not half as protective of Indian interests as the 1963 agreement.

(Brahma Chellaney, a strategic-affairs expert, is the author of Nuclear Proliferation: The US-India Conflict.)

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

Postby NRao » 04 Aug 2007 02:36

Sparsh wrote:NRao,

Whats all this Indian text and American text that you keep talking about?

Its a bilateral agreement. There is just one text.


Sparshji,

All that I heard over the news waves.

I am did a visual and did not find much diff so far (there are superficial ones).

milindc
BRFite
Posts: 663
Joined: 11 Feb 2006 00:03

Postby milindc » 04 Aug 2007 02:43

SaiK wrote:Most important point is it need not take a nu test by India to stop them agreeing into this deal. They need one year notice for any reason they find it per their laws. Our b@ll on the american political platter.. for every other business deal, they can invoke the dagger pointing at cutting the fuel supplies.

man!


so what, we are back to original state.. this agreement is zillion times better than status quo.
btw, we are not obligated to back American reactors. We can always add clauses that make sure of adequate fuel reserve when we buy reactors. This also allows to negotiate with French and Russians on the terms.

samuel
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52

Postby samuel » 04 Aug 2007 02:47

milindc wrote:so what, we are back to original state.. this agreement is zillion times better than status quo.


This is really key for me to understand. What is the status quo, and why is this better than that. Milind can you please elaborate.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35889
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 04 Aug 2007 02:52

Sure.. just saying the caveats so that we import from third parties even though we might sign for a deal that will lets us be chewed later. good, that i triggered to focus on how we can do business with those friendly countries.

All I am saying is that they can chew us or in a dominant situation after signing this deal than now. They can't chew us by not ordering MRCA as of now. Say, we have 10 tonnes of american fuel at our facilities. Now, they can apply some laws, and then say: wait a minute, this we feel not acceptable, and thus can't use the safeguarde fuel.

the disputes will take 10 years or so or more.. fuel remains under safeguard unused by us.. chewed!.

there is a difference between now and in the future, when our situation would be that we 'd have heavily invested in those fuel.

though it appears zillion times better than nothing.. but that feeling wud change soon we enter into business and bed with them. we have been there.. done that. they are the very same fkers.

nkumar
BRFite
Posts: 233
Joined: 06 Jul 2007 02:14

Postby nkumar » 04 Aug 2007 02:59

Here is some more info, sorry if posted earlier.

[url=http://www.deccan.com/home/homedetails.asp#95%%20units%20%20to%20be%20in%20safeguard%20%20in%2025%20yrs]95% units to be in safeguard in 25 yrs[/url]
[quote]
New Delhi, Aug. 3: India has voluntarily agreed to place “90 to 95 per centâ€

milindc
BRFite
Posts: 663
Joined: 11 Feb 2006 00:03

Postby milindc » 04 Aug 2007 03:14

SaiK wrote:though it appears zillion times better than nothing.. but that feeling wud change soon we enter into business and bed with them. we have been there.. done that. they are the very same fkers.


well, if you want to lay the yankee blond, be prepared to be dumped a few times. :lol: This agreement is not about civilian nuclear energy, it's the marriage proposal between hot yankee blond and a desi neurosurgeon resident who has immense potential. Think about it....

She might dump the resident in future and the resident might dump her if he finds another one...

What we pre-1980 born Indians should do is to welcome the blue-eyed blond daughter-in-law with open mind.

samuel
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52

Postby samuel » 04 Aug 2007 03:30

milindc wrote:
SaiK wrote:though it appears zillion times better than nothing.. but that feeling wud change soon we enter into business and bed with them. we have been there.. done that. they are the very same fkers.


well, if you want to lay the yankee blond, be prepared to be dumped a few times. :lol: This agreement is not about civilian nuclear energy, it's the marriage proposal between hot yankee blond and a desi neurosurgeon resident who has immense potential. Think about it....

She might dump the resident in future and the resident might dump her if he finds another one...

What we pre-1980 born Indians should do is to welcome the blue-eyed blond daughter-in-law with open mind.


Funny you say that...though not blond...and though have not been dumped, my wife the lawyer-eyes looked this 123 over. Her words, paraphrased, looks like there are some commitment problems here. It wouldn't pass for a standard contract in her mind...This ain't a marraige proposal, its a sucker punch.

S

samuel
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52

Postby samuel » 04 Aug 2007 03:37

nkumar wrote:BC's analysis, posting in full, has lot of details. This is from Asian Age.


Here is the 123 with China for comparison:
China 123

milindc
BRFite
Posts: 663
Joined: 11 Feb 2006 00:03

Postby milindc » 04 Aug 2007 03:39

samuel wrote:
milindc wrote:
SaiK wrote:though it appears zillion times better than nothing.. but that feeling wud change soon we enter into business and bed with them. we have been there.. done that. they are the very same fkers.


well, if you want to lay the yankee blond, be prepared to be dumped a few times. :lol: This agreement is not about civilian nuclear energy, it's the marriage proposal between hot yankee blond and a desi neurosurgeon resident who has immense potential. Think about it....

She might dump the resident in future and the resident might dump her if he finds another one...

What we pre-1980 born Indians should do is to welcome the blue-eyed blond daughter-in-law with open mind.


Funny you say that...though not blond...and though have not been dumped, my wife the lawyer-eyes looked this 123 over. Her words, paraphrased, looks like there are some commitment problems here. It wouldn't pass for a standard contract in her mind...This ain't a marraige proposal, its a sucker punch.

S


Yes, the more u read it more it appears that it is deliberately vague. We leverage how it fits us and GOTUS sells it to COTUS claiming that it aligns with Hyde.
I believe that we are capable of leveraging the agreement to meet our needs. Think about why both govts were desperate to see this through. This definitely is quid pro for India's future help and alignment, I can't see this as anything else.
Please try to list out what we lose by signing this agreement. This will be a good exercise.

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

Postby CRamS » 04 Aug 2007 03:40

nkumar wrote:BC's analysis, posting in full, has lot of details. This is from Asian Age.

123: text and context

By Brahma Chellaney

In a departure from a standard clause found in America’s 123 agreements with other states, this accord does not uphold a core principle of international law — that failure to perform a treaty or agreement cannot be justified by invoking the provisions of a domestic law. Rather, this agreement is unambiguously anchored in the supremacy of national laws and regulations (which means US laws like the Hyde Act, because there is no Indian law governing nuclear cooperation with the US or any other specific country).



My reading of the 123 suggested it was a sort of draw. But as usual, my man BC dissects with precision. The above quote basically says US has all the cards, because India does not have any laws nor any leverage to deal with US's whims and hanky panky.

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

Postby bala » 04 Aug 2007 03:42

I have a disagreement with BC on his take on Hyde.

In this clause each party will adhere to its respective laws as far as scope of cooperation is concerned. My reading on this it is only a guideline so that they don't break any law of their own land. Hyde can state what if scenarios like Nuke Test but the President and Legal advisors will take into context the entirety and gravity of the situation when it comes to next course of action.

ARTICLE 2 - SCOPE OF COOPERATION
1. The Parties shall cooperate in the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. Each Party shall implement this Agreement in accordance with its respective applicable treaties, national laws, regulations, and license requirements concerning the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.


Now this articles states what is in Force and the Duration and it only talks about international law. No Hyde!

ARTICLE 16 - ENTRY INTO FORCE AND DURATION
4. This Agreement shall be implemented in good faith and in accordance with the principles of international law.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35889
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 04 Aug 2007 03:49

ooouch!.. nice catch bala.. that not only screws BC, but the agreement as well. oooooou.

milindc
BRFite
Posts: 663
Joined: 11 Feb 2006 00:03

Postby milindc » 04 Aug 2007 03:49

deleted...

samuel
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52

Postby samuel » 04 Aug 2007 04:12

milindc wrote:Yes, the more u read it more it appears that it is deliberately vague. We leverage how it fits us and GOTUS sells it to COTUS claiming that it aligns with Hyde.
I believe that we are capable of leveraging the agreement to meet our needs. Think about why both govts were desperate to see this through. This definitely is quid pro for India's future help and alignment, I can't see this as anything else.
Please try to list out what we lose by signing this agreement. This will be a good exercise.


Hi Milind,

I think we fundamentally need to separate this vague idea that GOTUS and GOI are somehow chums out to outsmart the COTUS and POI, respectively. That's really dangerous, they do not carry the sole moral authority for determining the best interests of the nation.

With regards to foreign policy and agreements between nations, the COTUS and GOTUS cannot be separated. It ain't like this is some kind of love quadrilateral between the four.

If an agreement is vague, the same GOTUS can screw us tomorrow, with exactly the same draft by calling on COTUS laws. You really think Bush and PM Singh have this love connection that must manifest itself a bit more sharply than the love the two countries ought to share?

This is supposed to last another 40 years, Bush is gone in one and this congress is not happy at all. At least they have that system of check and balance, albeit manipulated.

The PM of India's assurances today will come to zilch if future ones will not be able to protect the nation, say, if as a result of this agreement and some stupid babu-dom actions to follow, we end-up being Nucleared.

We are not ready for this deal. It is not in our interests, though your point about listing problems is really worth it. I will compile again from these pages and add some new material, to the best I can.
Last edited by samuel on 04 Aug 2007 06:35, edited 3 times in total.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7533
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 04 Aug 2007 04:13




Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests