India Nuclear News and Discussion 17 August 2007

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36388
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 19 Aug 2007 19:21

Indian Hyde Act eh~.... mmm,

1. Sanction USA for all its dealing with India, and other NAM nations.
2. Confiscate materials civilian and military resources
3. Work with all NAM and other friendly nations to put sanctions on American entities.
4. Stop people (nuclear techies and other NRIs) to work with American companies.
5. No military or civilian trade with USA.
6. Block oil supplies to USA.

...

what cr@p? do we or are we in a power equation to do a real counter hyde?

Sanatanan
BRFite
Posts: 481
Joined: 31 Dec 2006 09:29

Postby Sanatanan » 19 Aug 2007 19:29

SaiK wrote:
Sanatanan wrote:...When the sellout is "operationalised", they will ensure that none of the items for the non-civilian plants are allowed to be exported from their countries. DAE's npp Division would not be able to build any new PHWR without placing it under civilian category. ..


Lets discuss the 30% of those .. you are the best candidate to list top 5 or 10 non-indiginized import component?


I believe attempting to specifically identify items imported may not be in the best interests. (May be I am not the best candidate after all!)

However, it may be recalled that a few weeks / months ago there were media reports that the schedule for operation at power of one of the new reactors at Kaiga got delayed because of non-arrival of some imported equipment (reason given at the time for delay: frozen seas!)

Raju

Postby Raju » 19 Aug 2007 19:38

Ok a certain 'UPA resolution for left' has been finalized and details are available on certain media outlet.

key highlights

1. Govt open to forming core group (aforementioned committee of experts) including Left leaders.

2. Deal to be operationalised from Indian side only after US congress passes it.

3. To fully back PM on the nuclear deal while offering dialogue.

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7879
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Postby Mort Walker » 19 Aug 2007 19:46

China will give India, US a hard time at NSG
This is good news, now that we know the Chinese are opposed to the deal, everyone should support it.

India heading for mid-term polls: BJP
This is as I suspected about the BJP. There is nothing wrong in trying to sense for weakness in the current government. The danger is, we might end up with Mayawati and cronies at the center. The BJP should proceed with caution.

sraj
BRFite
Posts: 255
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 07:04

Postby sraj » 19 Aug 2007 19:56

Rangudu wrote:
Acharya wrote:Can some pro-deal poster explains all the 12 points pointed out by BC.
No simplistic answers please.

1. Strawman. This is a standard contractual clause and the US has it in any contract with any nation. The US China agreement states "(each) party shall have the rights to cease further cooperation under this agreement." You cannot write a legal contract wihtout such clauses. What does BC expect the 123 to say - "US will prostrate before India and do 9 pradakshanams before contract is void?"
...................

4,5. Same as point 1

The complete quote from the US-China agreement is provided below. As you will note, the "right to cease further cooperation" is available in the very limited situation where "either party at any time following entry into force of this agreement does not comply with the provisions of this agreement". BC is specifically talking about the India 123 providing the US with "an unfettered and uninfringeable right to terminate cooperation with India at will".
Perhaps you cannot grasp the difference. If there is really no difference, perhaps the India 123 could also use the same language as the China 123?
Article 7 Cessation of Cooperation

1. Each party shall endeavor to avoid taking any actions that affect cooperation under this agreement. If either party at any time following entry into force of this agreement does not comply with the provisions of this agreement, the parties shall promptly hold consultations on the problem, it being understood that the other party shall have the rights to cease further cooperation under this agreement.

Prabu
BRFite
Posts: 422
Joined: 22 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: In the middle of a Desert

Postby Prabu » 19 Aug 2007 20:15

Shankar wrote:CAPITAL COST PER KWH(US$)

NUCLEAR GAS COAL

2000 500 1300

CONSTRUCTION PERIOD (YRS)

5 2 4

ELECTRICITY PRICE MW

67 38 42

ELECTRICITY PRICE -- NUCLEAR =100

GAS =57
COAL =63



Some excellent posts being done by Shankar. Experts/ Admins please support him with some Validation of these data. It is becoming more clearer, day by day and confirm the suspicious GOI / USA nexus. Atleast I feel so ! Good work Shankar.
Last edited by Prabu on 19 Aug 2007 20:22, edited 1 time in total.

Prabu
BRFite
Posts: 422
Joined: 22 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: In the middle of a Desert

Postby Prabu » 19 Aug 2007 20:16

Self deleted as Duplication.
Last edited by Prabu on 19 Aug 2007 20:38, edited 1 time in total.

Sanatanan
BRFite
Posts: 481
Joined: 31 Dec 2006 09:29

Postby Sanatanan » 19 Aug 2007 20:23

enqyoob wrote:Finally a scenario that requires some thought.

. . .

Do you see India as being forever dependent on sneakily importing military-use goodies from the West, like Pakistan? No hope for indigenous initiative, ever? Not in 5 years, 10 years, 20 years?

. . .


My thesis is this: Particularly in high-tech areas, parallel operation of two streams, an indigenous development stream and the other, a route based on imports (usually justified as being adopted only for the interim until indigenisation is successful) does not work. This is because those who are answerable for the project always tend to see the import alternative as being easier and less risky. Hence unless there is a top-down policy decision (as was the case with Jawarhalal Nehru and Bhabha) for development of indigenous high technology, the "localisation" route is jinxed. I also believe that it is not a coincidence that much high-tech development in npps took place in India during the 'technology control regime' of the US / NSG. This is why US and NSG are attempting to change their strategy followed till now. The new strategy is: "Capture India into our fold!"

If the deal spells out US / NSG buying equal value of India-made civilian nuclear high-tech items, then we can buy from them items which are not made in India today. The present deal treats India only as a buyer with US NSG positioning themselves as "suppliers" and dictating terms impinging on India's self-respect.

India should further speed up development of indigenous technology, even if it means that the so-called energy security gets a bit delayed. The current pace of development can and will be increased if there is wholehearted support from the topmost echelons of our Government all the way down to the "foot soldiers".

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16391
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 19 Aug 2007 20:30

My thesis is this: Particularly in high-tech areas, parallel operation of two streams, an indigenous development stream and the other, a route based on imports (usually justified as being adopted only for the interim until indigenisation is successful) does not work.


Cosign.

However, IF India/Indians are the drivers we just may see the day light in this case.

I am concerned about dumping by the US and all. And, also, there is a good possibility that even Indian companies that go into partnerships would find it difficult to oppose outsiders if cost is a subtle factor.

IMHO, it is India that needs to set teh table.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2977
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Postby Kanson » 19 Aug 2007 20:33

Sanatanan wrote:My thesis is this: Particularly in high-tech areas, parallel operation of two streams, an indigenous development stream and the other, a route based on imports (usually justified as being adopted only for the interim until indigenisation is successful) does not work. This is because those who are answerable for the project always tend to see the import alternative as being easier and less risky. Hence unless there is a top-down policy decision (as was the case with Jawarhalal Nehru and Bhabha) for development of indigenous high technology, the "localisation" route is jinxed. I also believe that it is not a coincidence that much high-tech development in npps took place in India during the 'technology control regime' of the US / NSG. This is why US and NSG are attempting to change their strategy followed till now. The new strategy is: "Capture India into our fold!"


Its like saying, for me to work, i need a blow from my assistant every now & then.

If Sakthi engine can bring success and smiles why to wait for miles like in case of Kaveri engine. Why to burn the house for lighting a candle ?

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36388
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 19 Aug 2007 20:40

OK Sanatanan, tell me how you disprove the BARC's venn diagram, and you would have to substantiate in the best interest of keeping either left happy or not happy.

If you don't, then there is no credibility in your thesis or arguments. Of course, there is nothing strategic or defence related here, that you should be so scared to discuss. Furthermore, you still have not declared that you are part of the team which exploded the pok2 or you went with AK, RC, et al to lunch with on a frequent basis.

Hence, please explore your psy-oped un-needed tension and say it out.. give us those so called secret components that you think, we imported.

Sanatanan
BRFite
Posts: 481
Joined: 31 Dec 2006 09:29

Postby Sanatanan » 19 Aug 2007 20:56

SaiK wrote:OK Sanatanan, tell me how you disprove the BARC's venn diagram, and you would have to substantiate in the best interest of keeping either left happy or not happy.

Honestly, I do not know too much about BARC's venn diagram to prove or disporove it. I consider myself to be apolitical; I speak not for the Left or Right or Centre.

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Postby Arun_S » 19 Aug 2007 21:09

Shankar wrote:The power shortage we are bothered about is classic peak shortage scenario like between 8-11 am and 5-9pm mainly because of simultaneous peaking of domestic agricultural industrial load and as high as 25% in highly industrialized states like Maharashtra.This peak shortage situation can never be addressed by putting up 1000/2000MW reactor based power plants since no nuclear power plant can be started and stopped every 8 hrs or so .

Clearly you have not lived in Indian village to get an idea of how many hours the electricity is gone and at what hours. The above assessment is grossly wrong. The average electricity in villages is ~12 hrs and it is not inconvenience of 4 hrs in the morning & 4 in the evening. The gas fired peaking power stations will not cut it. At best they can only serve metro cities to avoid transmission loss and loading the grid.

And what industry in non-metro areas can be grow to battle the unpredictable power outage? industry need to battle competition not power outages, and we are talking of small/medium size industry, not those who can afford to install and operate a Rs 50 lakh captive DG set.

First of all Indian economic progress requires electricity, secondly for ordinary material comfort of having electricity in home and that means home located in Indian village.
Last edited by Arun_S on 19 Aug 2007 21:18, edited 3 times in total.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7557
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 19 Aug 2007 21:11


shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 19 Aug 2007 21:18

Shankar - you may have a point, but I don't think your points add up to what is relevant for India.

My views.

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7186
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Postby disha » 19 Aug 2007 21:19

shiv wrote:... This is what the 123 deal means to India, if you replace "Country X" with India and change the numbers....


Shivji, that is a very simplistic analysis. Where are your facts for base number load and peak generation and what about the percentages - where did we get that from? :-p

Sirjee, just do not take offence. I wanted to make a tongue-in-cheek remark to an assertion by another member about simplistic analysis. I do want to see that member have a go at your post now - otherwise, that member's echandee is up for grabs :wink: :rotfl:

Note: Added later. Apologies if I have hurt or ruffled any feathers. I just wanted to inject some jest in the debate. If it has fallen flat, very many apologies again. And no, nothing personal.

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Postby Arun_S » 19 Aug 2007 21:28

SaiK wrote:OK Sanatanan, tell me how you disprove the BARC's venn diagram, and you would have to substantiate in the best interest of keeping either left happy or not happy.


I was quite suprised in reading on web a foriegn document created well before 1998 (before RC showed his venn diagram) that was identical to what RC showed, including the shape and size of the circle. I took it to mean that RC did not create it but used the one already created and confirmed it.

I am scating my head on which doc was it. :roll:

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7186
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Postby disha » 19 Aug 2007 21:35

Arun_S wrote:...First of all Indian economic progress requires electricity, secondly for ordinary material comfort of having electricity in home and that means home located in Indian village...


Arun saar, that is a very very important point you are making which everybody in this debate needs to remember.

Regarding economic progress w.r.t electricity w.r.t villages, imagine the impact on infant mortality where every town and every village has access to the hospital where they can have a baby incubator. That is an electricity hog and requires other ancillary services which are also electricity hogs. Imagine the effect on preventable diseases where a cold chain can be maintained. Imagine the impact of bringing prosperity to the villages. You will not have overcrowded cities!

Yes, one needs to have strategic and tactical weapons to defend an economy, but if you do not have an economy you have nothing to defend! This may be heretic here - but Deng was right, It is glorious to be rich.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1657
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Postby ldev » 19 Aug 2007 21:44

sraj,

The fundamental difference in the US approach to its nuclear agreements with China and India is based on its NPT obligations. As a NWS under the NPT the US approach to China has been to prevent onward proliferation of US technology via China and hence its efforts to box China in via a NSG membership as detailed in the link in my last post. Once the US achieved that objective, it and its allies opened up to China i.e. new reactors, the Australia uranium supply agreement etc.

With India, the basic objective is to ensure that the US lives upto its NPT obligations in dealing with India a non NWS i.e. a continuing effort to deny India nuclear weapons and any effort that results in India improving the quality and quantity of its nuclear weapons. That resulted in the periodic information reviews required under the Hyde Act on India's fissile material status.

The effective impact of what you are asking for in terms of a once and for all certification of India is for the US to explicitly look the other way and not even go through the motions as required under its NPT obligations.
Last edited by ldev on 19 Aug 2007 22:00, edited 1 time in total.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7557
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 19 Aug 2007 21:49

This Venn Diagram?

Image

Figure 1: Venn diagram displaying the historical sharing of nuclear weapons knowledge among declared nuclear weapon states (solid circles), undeclared nuclear weapon states (dashed circles), and South Africa, a former undeclared nuclear weapon state. The number of explosive nuclear tests performed is given in parentheses. Area of overlap is not strictly proportional to the degree of knowledge sharing, as this is difficult to quantify


From

Does the U.S. Science-Based Stockpile Stewardship Program Pose a Proliferation Threat?
By Christopher E. Paine and Matthew G. McKinzie
Science and Global Security, 1998, Volume 7, pp. 151-193.
http://www.caep.cetin.net.cn/jk/pdf/7_2Paine.pdf

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2977
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Postby Kanson » 19 Aug 2007 21:59

One problem with this diagram is it doesnt show the flow or who shared/transfered/trespassed to whom. If one without knowing the history looks at the diagram, may have chance to conclude that there are so many JVs :)
Last edited by Kanson on 19 Aug 2007 22:05, edited 1 time in total.

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

Postby enqyoobOLD » 19 Aug 2007 22:02

My thesis is this: Particularly in high-tech areas, parallel operation of two streams, an indigenous development stream and the other, a route based on imports (usually justified as being adopted only for the interim until indigenisation is successful) does not work. This is because those who are answerable for the project always tend to see the import alternative as being easier and less risky. Hence unless there is a top-down policy decision (as was the case with Jawarhalal Nehru and Bhabha) for development of indigenous high technology, the "localisation" route is jinxed. I also believe that it is not a coincidence that much high-tech development in npps took place in India during the 'technology control regime' of the US / NSG. This is why US and NSG are attempting to change their strategy followed till now. The new strategy is: "Capture India into our fold!"

If the deal spells out US / NSG buying equal value of India-made civilian nuclear high-tech items, then we can buy from them items which are not made in India today. The present deal treats India only as a buyer with US NSG positioning themselves as "suppliers" and dictating terms impinging on India's self-respect.

India should further speed up development of indigenous technology, even if it means that the so-called energy security gets a bit delayed. The current pace of development can and will be increased if there is wholehearted support from the topmost echelons of our Government all the way down to the "foot soldiers".


Your thesis (I don't disagree up front) basically assumes that India has to be protected from its own leadership. Otherwise, there is nothing wrong with a parallel track, and it makes eminent sense.

Whenever India reaches a technical milestone, the "sanctions" on all the stuff behind that milestone are relaxed. You can trace this in the case of space launchers, even fighter planes. This is natural - from the POV of the sanctioning countries, there is no point in blockading the stable after the horse has bolted - one might as well sell horses to the stable, that are even better than the one reared there. The former "rogue" becomes a competitor, and the emphasis shifts to cut-throat competition. This will be quite refined - one offers a sale with substantial technology offsets, Global Maintenance, spare parts production... and slowly, interest in the indigenously developed system, with all its compromises and improvisations, wanes. The military wants the best - there is no hope in being second-best in war. The arms dealers want the profits.

This is where the leadership comes in. If they have a clear roadmap of technology development and capability expansion, they will use this situation to the fullest.

Same in the nuclear field.

But none of this is a reason to forego foreign collaboration. It is a fear-based hypothesis, and assumes that there is no intelligent and thoughtul leadership in India. If that were the case, India would have signed the NPT, CTBT, FMCT and all the other claptrap. India has not. The missile program has not been stopped, either. What has happened is that there seems to be good developing collaboration between the civilian and military sectors.

Shankar
BRFite
Posts: 1905
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: wai -maharastra

Postby Shankar » 19 Aug 2007 22:06

hankar - you may have a point, but I don't think your points add up to what is relevant for India.


shiv - with all due respect al the figures are India specific our power shortage and why and where we are getting whatever power we are getting today.Nuclear power even in the scale envisaged by the most optimist that is 40000 mw at a cost fo 100 billion in infrastructure investment is not likely to add more than 3% of of total power requirement of our nation in 2030 .It still leaves the question of fuel need for industry and locomotion/vehicle totally un
answered

Nuclear power is the most expensive mode of power generation and not at all environment friendly as touted by the govt and most of the media.Containing the radio active waste for thousands of years costs lot of money and still not full proof .Nuclear power is justifiable only when the spent fuel is reprocessed to meet the strategic need of a nation

The money for this will come from common man who will pay 10-15 rs per kwh in place of 5 rs they pay today . The resulting inflation may totally derail the present rate of economic growth

The same investment in alternate fuel which are truely non polluting like wind/solar and saving the rampant power theft and reducing inefficeancy of state electricity board with associated corruption will much better solve the power shortage situation that we face today

Add some of the money can also be diverted to safer alternate fuel potentials like coal bed methane deposits,ocean floor methane hydrate ,thorium based advanced reactor design and we dont need the imported fuel and the reactors

Clearly you have not lived in Indian village to get an idea of how many hours the electricity is gone and at what hours. The above assessment is grossly wrong. The average electricity in villages is ~12 hrs and it is not inconvenience of 4 hrs in the morning & 4 in the evening. The gas fired peaking power stations will not cut it. At best they can only serve metro cities to avoid transmission loss and loading the grid.

And what industry in non-metro areas can be grow to battle the unpredictable power outage? industry need to battle competition not power outages, and we are talking of small/medium size industry, not those who can afford to install and operate a Rs 50 lakh captive DG set.

First of all Indian economic progress requires electricity, secondly for ordinary material comfort of having electricity in home and that means home located in Indian village.


Arun
again with all due respect I stay in a remote western maharastra village Wai ,so I know what power shortage can do to my way of living and my production schedule in the factory -I guess this answers your basic objective assumption

The reason why such extensive power cuts are seen today in Maharashtra and to a lesser extent in rest of the country is uncontrolled growth of the cities ,multiplication of domestic and industrial demand and resultant askewed power demand profile . Like Mumbai and Pune accounts for more than 50% power load on local grid . Not a single MW was added to states power generation capability over last 5 yrs or so and Enron was sunk by rampant corruption at all level.

The situation is same more or less in all states like karnataka,gujrat and andhra pradesh .

Added to this the politicians like to keep the metros relatively free from power cuts so bulk of power shedding is in the villages .A more balanced approach and fair load shedding schedule based not on political compulsions would make life in villages much more bearable.

Sure Indian economy needs power sector growth at 15% or more to manage and sustain 10% overall growth rate but please so a small calculation how many thousand MW it means if the whole or bulk of it is to come from imported nuclear reactor and fuel . The figure is many times 20000 MW as envisaged .

And finally what you do with thosands of tons of spent fuel -how much you can reprocess and safely stack away in ss containers encased in concrete silos till end of earth maybe

And after all the investment comming from the common poor people of the country we decide to test just once as dictated by security scenario say in response to a direct military threat from china we just had it. The one time waiver by US president which forms the basis of 123 agreement
gets null and void and the american atomic enrgy act and hyde act kicks in. The US govt will be compelled not only to suspend all bi lateral cooperation ,recall all nuclear equipment and material but also co-ordinate with all NSG members to do the same

Instead of energy security we are buying into energy vulnerability -selling our sovereign right to carry out just another test in the bargain

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

Postby vsudhir » 19 Aug 2007 22:27

All those KG and kaveri basin gas finds and still no hint, no inkling of any gas turbine project anywhere. Why? Is the GOI keeping this option under wraps? Or worse, have they actively stymied it for reasons they alone know?

If all this much touted N-power won't come anywhere close to filling the gap, what are our options? And what were they before J18, 2005? Just wondering is all.

Chini unease at the 123 deal is mystifying, must add. Can't be all bad then.

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7879
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Postby Mort Walker » 19 Aug 2007 22:33

Shankar,

Nuclear along with coal, gas, other fuels and solar are simply one of the many ways to generate electricity. In all electricity generation, the state and central government do not need to be in the business of building and owning the power plants. These need to be in the hands of private industry. If building and operating the nuclear power plants are not economically viable, then let the markets and ecnomics determine that. No one in India should oppose this deal on such grounds and let the option of nuclear power, as one of many options, be marginalized. India is a leader in FBR technology and nuclear waste can be reduced to metals that are only highly radioactive for a couple of hundred years.

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

Postby enqyoobOLD » 19 Aug 2007 23:01

http://www.rediff.com///news/2007/aug/19guest.htm

REDIFF INDIA ABROAD

C Uday Bhaskar

N-deal enters choppy waters: the implications


August 19, 2007

Just when the historic India-US civil nuclear agreement of July 18, 2005, appeared poised for successful completion, with the consensus on the much contested text of the 123 Agreement having been arrived at in July, the situation looks very bleak in mid-August 2007.

The deal has become the proverbial red rag for the principal opposition parties and it now appears that the very survival of the United Progressive Alliance coalition led by Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh [Images] in its current form is at stake.

While there was an inherent inevitability about the breakdown between the Left parties and their UPA allies even at its very formation in 2004 when the National Democratic Alliance government was defeated, three determinants merit preliminary analysis at this stage.

What will be the implications of the current political impasse for India’s long term politico-diplomatic, strategic-security and trade-technology interests? The short answer is "adverse."

By distorting and deliberately altering the contours of the debate, the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Left parties are acting in a manner detrimental to India’s interests in the early part of the 21st century.

In preventing Dr Singh from realising what still is a very prudent agreement, which will enable India in a holistic manner, the opposition stance will ensure a Pyrrhic victory that will keep India in fetters and in the long run -- subaltern to China in the Asian geo-political context.

The manner in which the current political debate is being contested indicates that the techno-strategic detail of the 123 Agreement is really a red herring. What is being bitterly contested is the nature of India’s external orientation with the evolving strategic architecture of the 21st century -- and the relationship with the US in particular. The agreement has the potential to liberate India from the technology denial regimes and the politico-diplomatic ostracism that has been its cross to bear since May 1974 -- and in many ways admit India into the global ’panchayat’ as a credible member.

This admittance was being facilitated by US President George Bush [Images] and from inflexible ’estrangement’ over the nuclear nettle, the India-US bilateral relationship exuded signs of moving towards mutually beneficial engagement.

Clearly this policy shift is at complete variance with the ideological position of the Left parties for whom anti-Americanism is an article of faith.
In the case of the BJP, the picture is more complex.

The NDA government deserves credit for its May 1998 initiative and the manner in which it restored relations with the Washington Beltway culminating in Bill Clinton [Images];’s visit to Delhi in March 2000. Who could have accused the Indian Parliament of being anti-American when President Clinton received what must rank as the longest and most enthusiastic standing ovation when he addressed a joint session of Parliament at the time?

However, the BJP and the Left have now found common cause in stoking anti-Americanism in the Indian polity and while this is being interpreted as cynical pre-election posturing that is part of Indian politics, it is moot as to how much of this will translate into tangible electoral gains at the next general election -- even if it is held well before mid-2009.

Thus what we are now witnessing is a degree of manipulative racism ( :eek: ) and prickly nationalism in the domestic Indian political discourse. Hence engaging with the USA is deemed suspect and denounced as being inimical to India’s sovereignty -- even if the assertion is counter-factual. The sub-text of this articulation is that India is better off as part of an elusive Asian solidarity leading to global multi-polarity (to balance the USA) wherein China and perhaps Russia [Images] will play the lead role with India in a complementary role.

This is doubly ironic considering that over the last 50 years, China and the US have often acted in a manner that thwarted India’s security and strategic interests to advance their own agendas.
It merits recall that Beijing [Images] had little hesitation during the latter phase of the Cold War to tango with Washington against Moscow [Images].

But that is the stuff of realpolitik and this abiding tenet of international relations appears to have been lost sight of in the current emotive Indian debate. The current global strategic grid has three major nodes of relevance -- the US, Russia and China. (The EU and Japan [Images] are already part of the US framework.) India has the potential to be part of this grid and it was this deeper intent that impelled the July 18 agreement -- with tacit support from Moscow.

An enabled India, free of technology denial fetters and strategic outcaste status will be a swing-state of considerable relevance in the 21st century and this would have made for some degree of credible multi-polarity to emerge at the global level.

And this profile would have allowed India to deal more effectively with all the other principal players on the global stage without being subaltern to anyone -- be it Washington or Beijing.

To that extent the highly visible nuclear strand of the July 18 agreement was both symbolic and substantive -- the former to herald India’s strategic ’liberalisation’, and the latter to ensure tangible gains such as the import of nuclear fuel etc.

If the opposition parties have their way and the deal is either delayed or scuttled, then the world at large will come to an irrefutable conclusion. India’s political spectrum prefers to remain insular and a country of one billion people with multiple aspirations will not be part of the global management grid in a formal sense.

The Indian State will remain obsessed with more petty persuasions such as caste, reservations and communal issues.
( :eek: )The world will move on and the major players will set the agenda -- be it on politico-strategic issues or the regulation of trade and technology and pressing energy and environmental challenges.

Paradoxically, what the world is seeking from India -- access to its middle-class market and the new technology-savvy human resource -- will flourish.

The Indian public that can afford it will not be denied the latest mobile phone and education cum employment opportunities abroad. Thus with the obstruction to the nuclear deal, the net result will be a stunted Indian State fending off technology denial regimes and placed below the global management hierarchy as a permanent ’outsider’, while the Indian public will be increasingly drawn into the vortex of globalisation -- alas on unfavorable terms.

Some facts about India are inexorable -- as for instance its economic and technology potential.

The country is already a one trillion dollar economy and there is a sense that we do not need the nuclear deal.

This is misleading. India’s energy needs have not been met either by hydro-electric potential or coal for 50 years. Unless there is unfettered access to technology, investment, markets and higher education, much of India’s proven potential will be exploited at sub-optimal levels. The time-line for realising the various inter-locking procedures such as the IAEA protocol and NSG concurrence is very tight.

And above all, the concatenation of circumstances in the US is most favourable now. This may not be the case in early 2009 if there is a change of party in the White House.

On the occasion of the 60th anniversary of Indian independence, one truism about Indian politics is self-evident. The manner in which Dr Singh is being pilloried over the India-US deal proves the adage that honesty, personal integrity, merit and the larger national interest will always be trumped by narrow self-interest in the Indian political arena.

( :eek: )

Mera Bharat mahan.

The writer is a former head of the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses.

Shankar
BRFite
Posts: 1905
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: wai -maharastra

Postby Shankar » 19 Aug 2007 23:02

Shankar,

Nuclear along with coal, gas, other fuels and solar are simply one of the many ways to generate electricity. In all electricity generation, the state and central government do not need to be in the business of building and owning the power plants. These need to be in the hands of private industry. If building and operating the nuclear power plants are not economically viable, then let the markets and ecnomics determine that. No one in India should oppose this deal on such grounds and let the option of nuclear power, as one of many options, be marginalized. India is a leader in FBR technology and nuclear waste can be reduced to metals that are only highly radioactive for a couple of hundred years.


- That exactly the game plan of Indian and us private companies.But then the money does not come from the ambanis and tatas it comes from public who will invest in the equity issue and then pay higher power cost for the rest of their lives .

Fast breeder reactor there is only one as of today and fortunately it is not under the treaty .If we want to put up more to neutralize waste fuel from the light water reactors coming up then US gets into our fast breeder technology program me also knowing exactly how much excess plutonium we can produce by re processing the spent fuel of un safeguarded reactors and the inspection become deeper and more intrusive .Again fast breeders do not come cheap

sraj
BRFite
Posts: 255
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 07:04

Postby sraj » 19 Aug 2007 23:05

ldev wrote:sraj,

The fundamental difference in the US approach to its nuclear agreements with China and India is based on its NPT obligations. As a NWS under the NPT the US approach to China has been to prevent onward proliferation of US technology via China and hence its efforts to box China in via a NSG membership as detailed in the link in my last post. Once the US achieved that objective, it and its allies opened up to China i.e. new reactors, the Australia uranium supply agreement etc.

With India, the basic objective is to ensure that the US lives upto its NPT obligations in dealing with India a non NWS i.e. a continuing effort to deny India nuclear weapons and any effort that results in India improving the quality and quantity of its nuclear weapons. That resulted in the periodic information reviews required under the Hyde Act on India's fissile material status.

The effective impact of what you are asking for in terms of a once and for all certification of India is for the US to explicitly look the other way and not even go through the motions as required under its NPT obligations.

ldev,

I presume you are talking about Article I of NPT; pls let me know if that is not so. Article I of NPT is reproduced below (as you will note, the NWS/NNWS distinction is a red herring -- even if one could square it with the Party/non-Party distinction):
Article I

Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices.


India's possession of, and ability to "manufacture or otherwise acquire" nuclear weapons without needing anyone's assistance at this point in time is self-evident and not disputed by the US or anyone else; therefore the US cannot be accused by any action it takes of being in breach of its NPT obligations. There is no mention in Article I of anything relating to quality or quantity of nuclear weapons.

Question:
i) The US Admn. signed its agreement with China in 1985 knowing fully well that China was proliferating.
ii) The US Congress approved this agreement in 1985 knowing fully well that China was proliferating.
iii) The US Admn. certified (on a one-time basis; i.e. effectively guaranteeing no future Chinese proliferation for all time to come) to Congress in 1998 that Chinese non-proliferation policies and practices were acceptable, knowing fully well that they were not.
Was the US in breach of its NPT obligations as a result of the above three actions wrt China spread over two decades?

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7879
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Postby Mort Walker » 20 Aug 2007 00:46

Shankar wrote:- That exactly the game plan of Indian and us private companies.But then the money does not come from the ambanis and tatas it comes from public who will invest in the equity issue and then pay higher power cost for the rest of their lives .

Fast breeder reactor there is only one as of today and fortunately it is not under the treaty .If we want to put up more to neutralize waste fuel from the light water reactors coming up then US gets into our fast breeder technology program me also knowing exactly how much excess plutonium we can produce by re processing the spent fuel of un safeguarded reactors and the inspection become deeper and more intrusive .Again fast breeders do not come cheap


I think we're looking at this two different ways. Let me clarify. Power generation capability by 2020 or 2030 will be maximized where it makes the most economic sense. Nuclear power is just one of the ways to generate power. Coal, gas, hydro, solar and other fuels will also make up the total capability. Without nuclear power, India can not simply build more of the other types of power plants because of many different reasons and it can not also afford to put all of its eggs in the proverbial nuclear power basket as a panacea. However, without nuclear, there will be less overall power generation, and if the demand is the same, cost will be higher per kw hr. If there is more power, regardless of source, the overall cost per kw hr will be lower. Even today at Rs. 5 per kw hr, this is very expensive for a developing country like India. I'm inclined to accept DAE's estimates that the cost of nuclear power will be Rs. 2-3 per kw hr. To zoom the economy forward, power must be at Rs. 1 per kw hr and I don't see how this will be possible without nuclear.

India is at the beginning of building more FBRs and more than likely, if this deal goes through, future FBRs will probably be subject to intense inspection. Once IP issues are understood, I don't think anyone in India will object.

If India moves ahead rapidly with nuclear power, then India will build up domestic scientific and engineering expertise. This may come in very useful in the future when fusion power starts after 50-60 years.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53399
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 20 Aug 2007 02:10

Interesting Point of View from C Uday Bhaskar. A committed establishment article.

Vick
BRFite
Posts: 753
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Postby Vick » 20 Aug 2007 02:20

From DN
[quote]Posted 08/20/07 09:11
India Nuke Deal: A Reasonable Compromise
By DAVID SMITH

When the U.S.-India civil nuclear cooperation agreement comes before the U.S. Congress, probably in the spring, debate should center on its geopolitical significance for both countries and not on its apparent divergence from traditional nonproliferation policy. The agreement, said M.K. Narayanan, Indian national security adviser, is the “touchstone of a transformed bilateral relationship.â€

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1657
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Postby ldev » 20 Aug 2007 02:33

sraj,

A clandestine wink wink nod nod for a Chinese transfer of warheads/fissile material to Pakistan cannot be compared to an agreement being signed in the full glare of daylight with every comma examined and legal opinions sought on specific provisions including the potential if the US had given India what you are asking for that a possible legal interpretation of that one time waiver could be that the US had abrogated its obligations under the NPT.

Also, subsequent efforts to reign in Chinese proliferation were complicated by the very fact that China is a NWS under NPT. Hence the effort to bind China vis the NSG. And ensuring that although the agreement was signed and ratified by 1998 that it was not operationalized until China was bound via its NSG membership in 2004.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1657
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Postby ldev » 20 Aug 2007 02:41

C Uday Bhaskar has verbalized what is wrong with Indian polity. The inability to see the bigger picture for India as a whole has bedevilled Indian leaders for the last 1000 years. That pettiness and a desire to get a tactical advantage over a domestic rival ensures that India loses the strategic war, whether it be the Mughal invasion or the subsequent British rule. True to form, the BJP is behaving exactly like the maharajahs of old. Nothing different can be expected from the Left. They have no allegiance to India, in this case their only allegiance is to China.

Avarachan
BRFite
Posts: 539
Joined: 04 Jul 2006 21:06

Postby Avarachan » 20 Aug 2007 03:03

C Uday Bhaskar presents a false dichotomy: India has to submit to the "leadership" of the U.S., or China.

1) PM Singh wants India to follow the U.S., and thus supports this deal.
2) The Left wants India to follow China, and thus opposes this deal.
3) China wants India to follow its lead, and thus opposes this deal.
4) The BJP wants India to emerge as a leader with its own unique vision for the future, and thus opposes this deal.

(I know this is a simplication, but I believe it's generally accurate.)

So, the fact that groups #2, 3, and 4 share the same short-term objective with respect to this agreement does not mean that they all share the same long-term vision for India.

I will concede that even limited tactical cooperation between groups #2, 3, and 4 is a bit dangerous, but I feel that it's better than the alternative.

Read BC's analysis of this agreement to understand how deeply vulnerable it would make India to American pressure. If you want India to follow the U.S.'s lead, just think of America's ideas on the India-Pakistan "peace process" over the last few years. How well have they worked?

Scrapping this agreement will let the world know that India will not bow to any foreign master, and has decided to emerge on its own.

Avarachan
BRFite
Posts: 539
Joined: 04 Jul 2006 21:06

Postby Avarachan » 20 Aug 2007 03:13

The real question, for me, is whether India has the moxie to emerge on its own. If it's a question of submitting either to the U.S. or to China, I would obviously choose the U.S. But I believe there's a third way.

I look forward to the debate in the Lok Sabha.

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

Postby bala » 20 Aug 2007 03:23

The inability to see the bigger picture for India as a whole has bedevilled Indian leaders for the last 1000 years.


I wish everyone in India is shown the GDP graph of world trade that shows India's leadership for thousand of years across various empires. Today, India is yet to cross some feeble percentages of world trade, the task is monumental and requires sagacity and maturity to comprehend what India faces in the current world trade setup. Nuke trading has been restricted just like how the British restricted India trade and ground Indian trade from 20-25% to zilch when they left India. Only God can save us from these myopic politicians of the day. Wakeup you political bandicoots.

Avarachan
BRFite
Posts: 539
Joined: 04 Jul 2006 21:06

Postby Avarachan » 20 Aug 2007 03:40

bala wrote:
The inability to see the bigger picture for India as a whole has bedevilled Indian leaders for the last 1000 years.


I wish everyone in India is shown the GDP graph of world trade that shows India's leadership for thousand of years across various empires. Today, India is yet to cross some feeble percentages of world trade, the task is monumental and requires sagacity and maturity to comprehend what India faces in the current world trade setup. Nuke trading has been restricted just like how the British restricted India trade and ground Indian trade from 20-25% to zilch when they left India. Only God can save us from these myopic politicians of the day. Wakeup you political bandicoots.


Bala, I believe in India and India's potential for world leadership in trade, cultural activities, military strength, etc. The question is whether this agreement would help or hinder those aspirations. When American officials are gleefully telling American reporters that this agreement will limit India's capabilities, one should take note and respond accordingly.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7557
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 20 Aug 2007 03:50


NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16391
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 20 Aug 2007 04:15

And, the hyphen wakes up:

Pak in talks with China for N-deal

BEIJING: China is believed to have begun initial discussions with Pakistan for entering in to a nuclear deal that would give Islamabad the kind of advantages that India is expected to derive out of the Indo-US deal. This effectively means access to nuclear materials without the need for Pakistan to sign the non-proliferation treaty.

The move comes after renewed attempts by Islamabad to persuade China to give it access to higher levels of nuclear technology and material in order to counter the advantages that might accrue to India out of the 123 deal.

Beijing's immediate purpose seems to exert pressure on the United States to rescind its nuclear deal with India at a time when the deal is causing a political storm in New Delhi. But if China does go in for a nuclear agreement with Pakistan, it would cause a stir among nuclear powers as Pakistan has earlier been found to have proliferated nuclear technology by selling it to North Korea and possibly Iran, sources said.

The nuclear issue is expected to influence the planning for the planned visit of the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to Beijing by the end of the year.

China recently indicated that it would enhance its support to Pakistani efforts to build nuclear power stations. It has already helped Pakistan build one nuclear power station. Islamabad has sought refuge in Beijing's support on the nuclear issue after the United States signed the 123 deal with India, sources explained.

Beijing is also emerging as a strong diplomatic allay of Iran on the nuclear issue, which is also exerting pressure on the United States.

Observers feel that Beijing will have to think twice about actually giving special advantages to Pakistan because it will upset the whole non-proliferation process and cause major upheavals in international diplomacy. It would resort to such a move only if Chinese leaders see the Indo-US deal as a source of major threat to itself, sources said.



India's credibility will take big hit if deal is nuked

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

Postby Rangudu » 20 Aug 2007 04:50

sraj wrote:The complete quote from the US-China agreement is provided below. As you will note, the "right to cease further cooperation" is available in the very limited situation where "either party at any time following entry into force of this agreement does not comply with the provisions of this agreement". BC is specifically talking about the India 123 providing the US with "an unfettered and uninfringeable right to terminate cooperation with India at will".
Perhaps you cannot grasp the difference. If there is really no difference, perhaps the India 123 could also use the same language as the China 123?


So "if it determines that a mutually acceptable resolution of outstanding issues has not been possible or cannot be achieved through consultations" is unfettered but "either party at any time following entry into force of this agreement does not comply with the provisions of this agreement" is a very limited type situation? :shock:

For the US to break this deal, it will have to take the risk of damaging ties with a rising India for decades. To me that is not an "unfettered" right.

Try again please.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests