Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - 04 Aug 2007

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

Post by nkumar »

123 agreement compromised India's case: Former BARC chief
Mumbai, Aug. 6 (PTI): The agreement to operationalize the Indo-US civil nuclear deal has "compromised India's case to a large extent and the United States could "remotely drive our atomic programmes in the long run," former Director of Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Dr A N Prasad, said here Sunday night.

He said the draft text of the 123 agreement, reached in Washington last month, clearly tried to accommodate diverging interests and constraints of both India and US by clever use of the language.

"We are now in effect reduced to a mere recipient state mandated by the Henry Hyde Act (passed by the US Congress) to carry out a set of do's and don'ts and strive to earn a good behavior report card to become eligible to continue receiving what they can offer," he said.

"In the process, slowly but surely, they (US) could gain control and remotely drive our nuclear programmes in the long run," Prasad said.

Prasad, who was active in IAEA inspections in Iraq, said "this deal, through the Hyde Act, gives far too many opportunities to penetrate deep into and interfere even in our 3-stage programme to slow down realization of our goal to harness our own vast resources of thorium for long-term energy security."

Prasad pointed to two points in support of his view: first revelation by Nicholas Burns, US Under Secretary of State, during his interview to the Council on Foreign Relations and secondly the duration of the 123 agreement coinciding with the time India intending to take thorium use to a commercial reality.

He pointed to Burns' remark that "it had been an easy 'strategic' choice for Washington when faced with the question - should we isolate India for the next 35 years or bring it in partially now (under safeguards inspection) and nearly totally in the future."

Secondly, Article 16.2 of the 123 text says the agreement shall remain in force for 40 years and at the end of this initial period each party may, terminate by giving 6 month's notice.

"There is no built-in provision for terminating before 40 years even if we were to suffer for any reason in the implementation of the deal. This is expected to cover the period by which we intend to take the thorium utilization to a commercial reality," he said, adding "what a coincidence?".

"Is it not obvious that their intention is to put hurdles on our thorium utilization programme right from the beginning? Prasad said.


Talking about some of the contentious issues like reprocessing of spent fuel issue which has been stated to be the most hotly debated issues, Prasad, considered the father of India's reprocessing technology, said "reprocessing is at the core of our 3-stage nuclear power programme.

"The irony is US, knowing fully well our four decades of experience in reprocessing and aware of its importance in our 3-stage programme, has sought to create impediments and make us cringe for reprocessing consent, that too after accepting us as strategic partner. Should we call this nuclear cooperation or non-cooperation?" he said.

He said it was naive to judge the merits of the civil nuclear deal purely based on the language of the draft of the text of the 123 agreement.

"The underlying under-currents and the intentions of the controlling party are important and cannot be wished away as hypothetical or as their internal matter and of no concern to us when they do actually have serious repercussions on our long-term interests," Prasad remarked.

He said there has been a careful balancing of US commercial interests with the goal of bringing India into the non-proliferation hold, an obsession they are pursuing for a long time ever since NPT came into existence in 1970.


"There have been overt suggestions in the Hyde Act to the US Administration for not only attempting to cap, but also try to eventually roll back our strategic programme and report to the Congress", Prasad said.

"Try they will, but whether we are smart enough to thwart their designs or they manage to succeed given the tremendous access they get through this deal, time will tell," he said.

Prasad said even though there is what is called a fast reactor nuclear fuel cycle, not a word is mentioned in the agreement on fast reactor cooperation while the text calls for all future fast breeder reactors to be put under civil list for applying safeguards in perpetuity just because plutonium extracted from imported uranium spent fuel is fed into these reactors.


Dr Prasad is such a senior guy that his views cant be discounted very easily. I am now getting more inclined to believe that this deal is less about cooperation but more about US attempt to gain control of our N-activities in the long run [Burns is on the record about strategic choice and bringing 90-95% of our reactors and facilities under IAEA]. I will be very relieved if this deal fails to pass thru Congress.
CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6865
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54

Post by CRamS »

nkumar wrote:123 agreement compromised India's case: Former BARC chief

He said there has been a careful balancing of US commercial interests with the goal of bringing India into the non-proliferation hold, an obsession they are pursuing for a long time ever since NPT came into existence in 1970.[/b]
This much even I, as a nuclear non-expert can confidently proclaim after reading the 123 text. But the rest of Dr. Prasad's concerns, I'll let the experts dissect.
enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Post by enqyoobOLD »

THAT sounds ominous. This is no lightweight half-wit party hack speaking (I mean Dr. Prasad, not moi).

But WHY do all desi top babus like him assume that India cannot protect the military/ strategic research program, by removing it from the facilities that are to be "safeguarded"? It does imply some serious investment in military/strategic protected facilities, but isn't that justified by the prospect of having a thriving commercial civilian operation, that is removed from the backs of the military program?

I have not understood that.

The complaint here seems to be that there is no overt promise of substantial, meaningful tech transfer on several things that India wants.

Frankly, from what I have heard, the NPT signatories don't get any of this either - the "cooperation" consists of them giving up nuke weapons, and the P-5 giving them zilch in return. As for cooperation BETWEEN the P-5, maybe Unkil gives stuff to Poodle, but the other 3 are totally independent, except that China gets W-88, and all other US military secrets ready-made and transferred to them.

So what these guys claim the US is not giving, may be something the US doesn't give anyone.
Calvin
BRFite
Posts: 623
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by Calvin »

Burns is on the record about strategic choice and bringing 90-95% of our reactors and facilities under IAEA
I don't understand why this (90 - 95%) is giving people heartburn.

Without this agreement, we will likely not be building new reactors. So if new reactors are built under safeguards, it is natural that more and more of them will be under IAEA. That is a "talking point" of no real value, because the real issue pertains to fuel supply, not reactor construction.
CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6865
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54

Post by CRamS »

I am also truly puzzled that someone as eminent as AK seems to have given the green signal despite prior reservations, and then we have Dr. Prasad who is contemptuous of this deal. What the hell is going on? Thats why we need a kind of fast forward simulation on this deal to test out all possible eventualities as accurately as is possible and then decide go or no go :-).
Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10032
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Post by Mort Walker »

Calvin wrote:
Burns is on the record about strategic choice and bringing 90-95% of our reactors and facilities under IAEA
I don't understand why this (90 - 95%) is giving people heartburn.

Without this agreement, we will likely not be building new reactors. So if new reactors are built under safeguards, it is natural that more and more of them will be under IAEA. That is a "talking point" of no real value, because the real issue pertains to fuel supply, not reactor construction.
This is not entirely accurate. The DAE does have plans for additional reactors. The real question is can India achieve the 2020 plan of 20,000 MWe of nuclear power without the US-India agreement? And equally important can nuclear power bring the cost of electricity down to Rs. 2 per Kilo-Watt Hour?

In the future, if eight reactors are outside of safeguards and they represent 5% of reactors & facilites, it would mean there would be 160 reactors & facilities in total. Again, the question would be when would this occur? In line with the 2020 plan or even further in the future?
geeth
BRFite
Posts: 1196
Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Location: India

Post by geeth »

>>>Without this agreement, we will likely not be building new reactors.

You mean all that they have announced will be nothing but concrete tents?
Calvin
BRFite
Posts: 623
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by Calvin »

This is not entirely accurate. The DAE does have plans for additional reactors. The real question is can India achieve the 2020 plan of 20,000 MWe of nuclear power without the US-India agreement?
You are correct that they have plans. The goal of 20000 MWe by 2020 is, what 20 - 30 past the initial goal that was set. The current output is < 5,000 MW. At this point, it may even be possible that the 20,000 MW wouldbe reached.

However, energy independence, without this agreement is so far out of reach that it is funny. Of course, even with this agreement, it is quite funny.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Post by Singha »

theres been plenty of pollination from unkil to UK , but less well known is Unkil shared simulation data and programs with France to enable them to stop their loud tests in south pacific...perhaps talks were on when the french set off the bums one a week and matched that to simulated values to verify that unkil wasnt selling them a donkey.
we all know how astonishingly fast PRC moved from 1st blast to thermo blast and the hand of Russi bear was certainly there.

one could say US, Russia and India are the three weapons programs that have independently grown fruit without 'pollination' and India under severe
sanctions and lacking much raw materials.

Israel probably received help in the early days and stole what it needed
later
Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Post by Sanjay M »

Nah, Klaus Fuchs and Oppenheimers certainly gave info to Moscow.

India too got early nuclear engineering training from US, didn't they?
nkumar
BRFite
Posts: 233
Joined: 06 Jul 2007 02:14

Post by nkumar »

Please pardon my ignorance but can some guru clear some doubts.

1) First, there is some confusion whether we place all or only civilian future breeders under safeguards? DAE says something and Burns says something else, GoI till now has not issued any clarification on this despite some news reports mentioning about Burns statement.

2) Assuming that only civilian future breeders to be put under safeguards, do we not have any IP issues by placing future civilian breeders under safeguards then?

3) If yes, then is it going to be negotiated with IAEA? .

4) There have been some reports about Thorium reactors coming in next 2-3 decades. If 3-stage fuel cycle is self-sustaining, then why do we need this deal? How is it going to be help us?
samuel
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52

Post by samuel »

Thank you Dr. Prasad for making the points made here on BRF on this thread not so long ago...

I just completed a wonderful experiment. My old mercedes diesel is now running on waste vegetable oil. Nice alternative to these expensive hybrids and range-starved electrics. As we were doing this, I kept thinking what a royal waste of time this 123 deal really is....not because the world's problems will be solved by grease, but because there is such a loss of trust in our ability to stand on our own two feet.

And so, from the top, we'll take each point of the 123 at the document level, and the larger questions at the strategic level as to why this is...
Will post again to make the points being made elsewhere that we've already made, just so they don't fade from the short-lived memory of the magic number 9 of this forum.

PM Singh, are you reading?
Last edited by samuel on 06 Aug 2007 10:00, edited 1 time in total.
Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Post by Sanjay M »

Because India doesn't seem to be moving fast enough on the Thorium cycle.

People don't want bijli-sadak-pani in 2050.

And that's where NDA + scicom + advisors need to come up with a more timely plan.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

yes.. regarding AK, I too suspect the same.. that is coming from a 800 pounder to actually a negative-voice (in the sense, accepted the stand without giving it a time to sleep with it ) in the media now.

was he treated by some CIA monoclonal antibodies that is fused with a psychological nebulizer?.. from the "ddm as view" perspective, he is a candid proof of a tamed gorilla or a turned gorilla that now completely accepts everything is great now.

now am i thinking (after the above thoughts), that he is speaking from onleee technical angle to satisfy civilian and military equations from the view of barc, and nothing more, i.e., he is not looking at this deal in a strategic angle (which is highly understandable from his point of position).

btw, he did not participate in real discussions for the final draft. i wish now, or should i ask now what was the text before "this new agreement" looked like, so that we can compare two texts of agreement and come up with some basis for his behavior@?
samuel
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52

Post by samuel »

It is very easy to squeeze a person with integrity into agreeing to the veracity of questions with narrow scope, and use that against him to make a larger claim...so far as conspiracy theories go.

I personally view his responses, to the degree they are available in the public record, as being straightjacketed. But what do I know.

Fine games people play..
S
SaiK wrote:yes.. regarding AK, I too suspect the same.. that is coming from a 800 pounder to actually a negative-voice (in the sense, accepted the stand without giving it a time to sleep with it ) in the media now.

was he treated by some CIA monoclonal antibodies that is fused with a psychological nebulizer?.. from the "ddm as view" perspective, he is a candid proof of a tamed gorilla or a turned gorilla that now completely accepts everything is great now.

now am i thinking (after the above thoughts), that he is speaking from onleee technical angle to satisfy civilian and military equations from the view of barc, and nothing more, i.e., he is not looking at this deal in a strategic angle (which is highly understandable from his point of position).

btw, he did not participate in real discussions for the final draft. i wish now, or should i ask now what was the text before "this new agreement" looked like, so that we can compare two texts of agreement and come up with some basis for his behavior@?
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

hey.. people of his stature glare in the public. my views are with respect for him.. in the sense, out of analytical sphere of reasoning.

take for example another AK (Abdul Kalam saab).. He knows very well that even if the antics played by jayalalita and her chelas jump from trees like monkeys to count mangoes, Kalam would not muster the numbers .. he could have emphatically said NOPE.. this does not work lady and your gang!.. get me the numbers, and then I shall say yes.

what does it say.. about human brain.. can be suddenly be accepting with consistent approach beating the bush and drumming the auditory canal. i am just looking a possibility, in a similar angle. sure, it does appear like a fine conspiracy.
Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Post by Sanjay M »

But really, suppose the deal falls through? There's still the significant likelihood that US Congress will derail it. What then?

What will India do with the nuclear program to deliver the goods to the people?
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

then the oil lobbyists (since they don't need nu butter to grease up) would start claiming those bunch of babooze, to surrender unto them.. and would in fact hike their investment with a bigger sized suitcase all checked in.

life goes on .. same barc speed!
samuel
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52

Post by samuel »

Sanjay M wrote:But really, suppose the deal falls through? There's still the significant likelihood that US Congress will derail it. What then?

What will India do with the nuclear program to deliver the goods to the people?
Hi Sanjay,

The point here is that we need to have a zeroth order analysis of the utility of this deal. That being, made a few posts earlier, but not sure that it has been answered yet:

1) How many years will it take to realize the 25% (or pick a number you can achieve and does not look bad!) goal of the proportion of nuclear power with indian effort. Some estimates are available, none earlier than 2037.

2) How many years will this deal cut that short?

Everything India is recognized for, it has earned for itself, really. In fact, the more potent we get in our abilities, the better the darn deals. We hear news of being at the cusp of realizing the 3-stage, we heard of new FBRs coming online and thorium reactors running on the grid by 2037.

Do we really need a grant of right to reprocess? Do we really need to make an additional agreement to reprocess after we've already agreed to do it under IAEA? Do we want to enter additional negotiations for deciding what our reserve should be? Do we want additional agreements for transfer of nuclear technology? Do we want our entire 3-stage exposed if we are going to reprocess this foreign fuel ourselves? Do we want to sabotage that by importing foreign reprocessing technology? Would you like to give nearly permanent safeguard for really ambiguous fuel-supply guarantees? Are you willing to call yourself a member of this exclusive club when their spokesman says this is the way we are getting indian in (into a nonproliferation regime). Are you going to live by a 123 agreement whose function is governed by Hyde, which is in contradiction to what our PM promised in parliament? There are other points, all of which we can come back to and say, ok, will work for dope, just as long as we understand what we can't do ourselves.

I am not an expert, but am trying to fetch whatever information I can. If there are experts here, and they appear to be, gee what are these numbers?

S
Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10032
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Post by Mort Walker »

Sanjay M wrote:But really, suppose the deal falls through? There's still the significant likelihood that US Congress will derail it. What then?
The US Congress won't derail it because like Indian politicians they know who butters their bread. In this case it would be Boeing and GE. Boeing has the MMRCA and 60 new commercial airplanes that AI/IA are now planning and they could lose $20 billion very quickly.

This deal has to be concluded by year end so that contracts can be put in place soon before the Bush administration leaves office in Jan 2009 and the MMS administration leaves before May 2009. Who knows who'll be PM by then? We could be looking at another third front like Mayawati as PM.
Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Post by Sanjay M »

To be honest, I don't want Mayawati in charge of nukes. Better a coup than that situation.
Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4852
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by Neshant »

while russia and china are developing ever more sophisticated n-capabilities, India has foreclosed its options based on one (questionable) Hbomb test.

Even with the 123 deal, India will be conned in the end anyway.

---

Russia plans new nuclear missile production

MOSCOW (AFP) - The Russian Navy announced Sunday it will produce a series of intercontinental missiles for its next generation of nuclear submarines.

"The last test trial of the Bulava-M at the end of June was very important ... After examining the results we decided to start work on these missiles for our new armament system," navy chief Admiral Vladimir Marossin told Russian news agencies.

The Bulava-M missile, with a range of more than 8,000 kilometres (4,970 miles) can hold up to 10 nuclear warheads.

"The success of the last test trial gave us the possibility to commission the production of a series of missiles," Marossin said.

The two Bulava-M missile tests were made in 2007 and the others would be made next year.

The Russian navy plans to finish all its tests of the new system in 2008. "We hope that during the testing we will decide to put the missile into service in 2008," said Marossin.

The first Bulava missile test was made in September 2005. Three Bulava-M trials in 2006 failed, but at least 10 more missile trials are scheduled for 2008.

Bulava-M, the sea version of the sophisticated surface-to-surface missile Topol-M, will be fitted for nuclear submarine launchers with engine type 955. Yuri Dolgorukii, the first example of this type of submarine was launched in April 2007.

Russia wants to make eight fleet ballistic missile submarines (SSBN) with Bulava technology between now and 2018. The two submarines of this generation, the Alexander Nevskii and the Vladimir Monomakh, which come after the Dolgorukii, should be up and running in 2009 and 20011, respectively.

In addition to the Bulava-M missile tests, Russia announced at the end of May that they successfully tested the RS-24, a new interncontinential missile with multiple warheads adopted by Topol-M, which was presented up to now as the first response to the American anti-missile shield project.

The Russians have condemned a US anti-missile shield planned for eastern Europe despite US assurances it is only intended to counter "rogue states" such as Iran.
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 »

enqyoob wrote:THAT sounds ominous. This is no lightweight half-wit party hack speaking (I mean Dr. Prasad, not moi).

But WHY do all desi top babus like him assume that India cannot protect the military/ strategic research program, by removing it from the facilities that are to be "safeguarded"? It does imply some serious investment in military/strategic protected facilities, but isn't that justified by the prospect of having a thriving commercial civilian operation, that is removed from the backs of the military program?

I have not understood that.

The complaint here seems to be that there is no overt promise of substantial, meaningful tech transfer on several things that India wants.

Frankly, from what I have heard, the NPT signatories don't get any of this either - the "cooperation" consists of them giving up nuke weapons, and the P-5 giving them zilch in return. As for cooperation BETWEEN the P-5, maybe Unkil gives stuff to Poodle, but the other 3 are totally independent, except that China gets W-88, and all other US military secrets ready-made and transferred to them.

So what these guys claim the US is not giving, may be something the US doesn't give anyone.
The professor puts it succinctly in this post. N^3, this post of your's puts in clear perspective all t he objective which the naysayers have been having about this deal.

Point wise:
1. >>But WHY do all desi top babus like him assume that India cannot protect the military/ strategic research program
The reason why people are pissed off with the intrusion is that we do not need that self satisfied sweeperpower to keep looking over our collective shoulder. The deal will add irritants to India's nuclear program (civilian, I might add) that are not needed.

2. >>the "cooperation" consists of them giving up nuke weapons, and the P-5 giving them zilch in return
Exactly. If the NPT did not help the NNWS, then this 'NPT-like' deal will also not help us either. And, so the question remains, why the hell did we do this deal?

3. >>So what these guys claim the US is not giving, may be something the US doesn't give anyone.
And, so the question remains, why the hell did we do this deal?


-----------------
The worry that I had is coming back. This deal is nothing but NPT is sheep's disguise. Our hard won nuclear/energy independance is about to be given away by the MMS team. This deal is still a sell out.

What the yanks could not force us to give up by becoming our enemies, they are now take away by pretending to be our friends.
ashkrishna
BRFite
Posts: 132
Joined: 03 Feb 2007 01:53
Contact:

Post by ashkrishna »

Manmohan declines Bush’s invitation

Sandeep Dikshit

Instead of visiting the Presidential ranch, he is likely to meet Bush in New York in September

NEW DELHI: After the successful wrapping up of the civil nuclear cooperation agreement with the U.S., Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has declined U.S. President George Bush’s invitation to visit his ranch later this month, said a senior U.S. diplomat who had earlier disclosed the invitation to The Hindu.

Instead, the Prime Minister was likely to meet Mr. Bush on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in September, he said.

“The invitation to the ranch is a sign of great affinity between the U.S. President and the head of state for the visiting country. But this is the kind of impression Dr. Singh wanted to avoid generating ahead of the mandatory visit to the U.S. for the U.N. General Assembly next month. He wouldn’t have wanted to go to the U.S. twice in as many months,â€
ashkrishna
BRFite
Posts: 132
Joined: 03 Feb 2007 01:53
Contact:

Post by ashkrishna »

“Nuclear deal does not hinder strategic programmeâ€
ashkrishna
BRFite
Posts: 132
Joined: 03 Feb 2007 01:53
Contact:

Post by ashkrishna »

Dr prasad's accusations lack substance. Just a few days before the agreement was reached, he seemed to be saying that the strategic programme is going to be affected, now he moves on to other things.....

The agreement clearly allows us to deal with russia, france et al. not merely USA.

Not saying that this the best deal, but to call it a sell out(abishekcc) is childish.
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 »

ashkrishna wrote:Not saying that this the best deal, but to call it a sell out(abishekcc) is childish.
Time will tell. I will be happy if proven wrong on just this one count.

The deal does not specifically hinder anything. It just says that if A happens, US is obliged to B things, and India to C things. The point is that this deal does not brings ANY issue to closure, but opens new areas of disagreement. As far as I can see, there are no long term benefits to India, excpet that PERHAPS, JUST PERHAPS, there will be a few more nuclear reactors for us. This is also doubtful.

Ok, let's just imagine that India tests after a few years. What are the options before the two sides then. It is quite possible for things to continue as if nothing happened, but it gives enormous leverage to POTUS to say 'GO/NO GO' on the deal.




Here's my problem in a nutshell- This deal effectively writes off our freedom to improve our nuclear arsenal, without comparable benefits on the (civil) energy front.

If that is not a sell out, I don't know what is.
ashkrishna
BRFite
Posts: 132
Joined: 03 Feb 2007 01:53
Contact:

Post by ashkrishna »

This deal effectively writes off our freedom to improve our nuclear arsenal, without comparable benefits on the (civil) energy front.
I beg to differ there, since the deal does not say a thing about testing, let us not extrapolate. Even if we do test , we may be in a bit of trouble, but....i believe that the effect will be minimal, as by your own logic we will be getting only a few reactors. In my view, India imposed a ban on itself with regards to testing and i it still holds. There have been compromises made on both sides.

As far as the civil nuclear energy thing goes, i believe we have to wait and watch. If AK is happy, i am happy.
ashkrishna
BRFite
Posts: 132
Joined: 03 Feb 2007 01:53
Contact:

Post by ashkrishna »

MK Narayanan heads for Tokyo for strategic talks

NEW DELHI: After breaking the deadlock over the 123 negotiations in Washington, National Security Advisor MK Narayanan is off this weekend for another high profile mission.

This time to Tokyo, where he will be talking to the Japanese government on deepening strategic ties ahead of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s first official visit to India, scheduled later this month.

Japan, a close ally of US, is looking at India as a potential big player in Asian security. Prime Minister Abe’s vision of an arc of democracy stretching through the Asia-Pacific, finds an echo in Delhi, which sees this as the perfect opportunity to be a part of the Asian security scene.

Earlier, while India enjoyed good relations with Japan, Tokyo never looked to India as a major force in Asia. But with New Delhi’s growing economic clout, the equations have changed.

Apart from being a democracy, which adds further credence to its role as a stabilising force, India is an excellent counter weight to China. Narayanan’s visit from August 21 to 23 is of great significance and much of the discussion will be on security issues.

Narayanan will also convince Japan’s leaders of the need to help India at the Nuclear Suppliers Group meet, which will have to give the go ahead for nuclear commerce with India, before the 123 agreement with the US can be implemented.

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1113803
ashkrishna
BRFite
Posts: 132
Joined: 03 Feb 2007 01:53
Contact:

Post by ashkrishna »

one more question, if we want to import a reactor from, say , russia, do we need US approval for that too?
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Post by NRao »

But WHY do all desi top babus like him assume that India cannot protect the military/ strategic research program, by removing it from the facilities that are to be "safeguarded"?
By separating civlian and strategic there are two things that happen:

1) The civilian side can never subsidize the strategic directly, and
2) The way it is set up, outsiders can more easily make the civilian side so cheap that the strategic side - over a long period of time - become prohibitively expensive

Dr, Prasad's article is not an isolated incidence. AK IIRC used the word "Satisfactory", when asked about this deal.

There has to be a huge gap between the Scicom and political wing - specially this govt.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Post by NRao »

ashkrishna wrote:one more question, if we want to import a reactor from, say , russia, do we need US approval for that too?
No.

But, both France and Russia, have set the stage in the past few months of directing India to the US.

Let there be no doubt who is in control.

IMHO, Russia also looses if FBR comes into play.

This is true in any sphere and therefore my arg that India needs to abandon here chai-biscut phil and get moving based on the size of her middle class. No one can take that away.
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 »

ashkrishna wrote:
This deal effectively writes off our freedom to improve our nuclear arsenal, without comparable benefits on the (civil) energy front.
I beg to differ there, since the deal does not say a thing about testing, let us not extrapolate. Even if we do test , we may be in a bit of trouble, but....i believe that the effect will be minimal, as by your own logic we will be getting only a few reactors. In my view, India imposed a ban on itself with regards to testing and i it still holds. There have been compromises made on both sides.

As far as the civil nuclear energy thing goes, i believe we have to wait and watch. If AK is happy, i am happy.
I beg to differ from your difference. :)

The deal upholds that the domestic laws of both countries will be supreme in matters of dispute, which means that India has effectively signed up for the Hyde Act.

I know, I know. There was a post some pages ago, that this deal is to be held under internatioanl law. Here's the quote from the (mis)agreement:
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.
Simply put when you juxtapose the two principles in the agrrement - 1. Supremacy of domestic laws, 2. Adherance to international law, the result is - Supremacy of domestic law.

Because nowhere in international law does it say that a country cannot negotiate away the right to be protected against the domestic laws of a foreign country. India GAVE away that right in this deal. You think Hyde is bad? What do you think the US will do once India has given a blank check to it to interfere in its nuclear program? They will pass even worse laws. And with the congenitally India hating Clintons set to retake the White house, its going to get much worse.


Is it too much any yea-sayer to see this simple fact?
Prabu
BRFite
Posts: 423
Joined: 22 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: In the middle of a Desert

Dr AN Prasad's views on the deal

Post by Prabu »

We can NOT ignore what Dr Prasad is trying to say. He is 100 % correct.

In fact he is very clear and saw the points which none of the experts here in BR (with due respect to them, though) or political opponents in India failed to see / highlight . What matters to USA is its own strategic interest, and nothing else. Their ultimate aim is to bring Indian in to their band wagon. Why did India did not take any legal experts along with the negotiationg team ? ( or did they include any ?) A company of 1000 employess in south India, (where i was a HOD) in a rural side has a policy of clearing any agreements with their appointed lawyer, even for a small service agreement of a machine. Such a big deal of national importance doest NOT require a legal clearance ??? (of course a lawyer with some nuke expertise) I hope it is done by GOI for this deal. If it is already done, then why our legal experts & babus have failed to see what Dr Prasad is highlighting?? Is it NOT obvious, that this raises suspisions about sell out ?


Some time back enqub suggested to make a draft legislation. I fully support that. India need national laws countering hydes and all similar acts and future hyde acts too. At the worst these national laws can be a very big negotiating points. Now GOI do NOT have any levarage on negotiations. Even to preserve our basic strategic goals, GOI needs scientific community as a scapegoat ( our scientists have to make BIG noise and after a high Drama GOI says, Look our scientists are against this, etc etc)


Time to re look the whole agreemnets and ask for a appropriate revision.
otherwise make our Indian HYDE in th ename on national laws and REJECT the deal up front. (Even if some in BR don't agree!) Remember strength respects strength. US need this deal more desparately than India. Who knows you may end up getting ALL we want, IF WE DEMAND FOR IT !!

Where is Alok _N ?? not to be seen now a days ??
ksmahesh
BRFite
Posts: 209
Joined: 10 Jan 2007 17:55
Location: Mt Everest - its the coolest one

Post by ksmahesh »

Alok_N was sadly banned by admins for protesting against arbitrary locking of the discussion on religion topic.

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

Post by ashkrishna »

They will pass even worse laws
Why cant we reciprocate?
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 »

ashkrishna wrote:
They will pass even worse laws
Why cant we reciprocate?
With what? What are we providing to them that we can ask back? We can, of course ban some American companies from investing in India. Who is the loser in that account?

The only thing that we could have done was to provide reprocessing services to the rest of the world, and that seems to have been clipped in this deal.

Looks like kgoan was right in saying that the deal was about India's reprocessing capabilities, not nukes.
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 »

ksmahesh wrote:Alok_N was sadly banned by admins for protesting against arbitrary locking of the discussion on religion topic.

:( :( :(
He wasn't merely protesting. He was being obnoxious and abusing everybody around. If you have read some of his posts, they are not really the wordsof a man who knows how to respect other people.

He helped himself out of the forum.
enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Post by enqyoobOLD »

Post moved further down..
Last edited by enqyoobOLD on 06 Aug 2007 18:43, edited 1 time in total.
ashkrishna
BRFite
Posts: 132
Joined: 03 Feb 2007 01:53
Contact:

Post by ashkrishna »

The only thing that we could have done was to provide reprocessing services to the rest of the world, and that seems to have been clipped in this deal.
I believe that there was no chance of that happening(reproc services)- deal or no deal.

With what? What are we providing to them that we can ask back? We can, of course ban some American companies from investing in India. Who is the loser in that account?


Considering the simple fact that by the time there are several foriegn reactors up and running in india, cutting off the power to india may backfire on them in more ways than one.

JMT's
Locked