India Nuclear News & Discussion - 31 Aug 2007

sraj
BRFite
Posts: 256
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 07:04

India Nuclear News & Discussion - 31 Aug 2007

Postby sraj » 31 Aug 2007 05:07

Again a case in point - China under it's nuke import agreement had to sign up to similar intrusive inspections by IAEA. And they had to sign this agreement with Australia !!

Have you read the Australia China Agreement that you refer to?

Here it is: Australia-China Agreement for Transfer of Nuclear Material
The relevant extracts are provided below:
ARTICLE VI

1. Where nuclear material subject to this Agreement is within the territory of Australia, compliance with Article V of this Agreement shall be ensured by a system of safeguards in accordance with the Safeguards Agreement concluded on 10 July 1974 between Australia and the Agency in connection with the Treaty.

2. Where nuclear material subject to this Agreement is within the territory of China, compliance with Article V of this Agreement shall be ensured by a system of safeguards in accordance with the Safeguards Agreement concluded on 20 September 1988 between China and the Agency for the application of safeguards in China.

and
ARTICLE VII

If, notwithstanding the efforts of both Parties to support the Treaty and the Agency, the Agency, for whatever reason at any time, is not administering the safeguards referred to in Article VI of this Agreement in the territory of one or the other Party in which nuclear material subject to this Agreement is present, the Parties shall forthwith arrange for the application of safeguards satisfactory to both Parties which conform with Agency safeguards principles and procedures and which provide reassurance equivalent to that intended to be secured by the safeguards system they replace. The Parties shall consult and assist each other in the application of such a safeguards system.

Do you know that the 1988 China Safeguards agreement is the sham, NWS agreement which the P-5 have and which bears no resemblance to the NNWS safeguards they ask everyone else to take on?

Here is the China 1988 Safeguards Agreement with IAEA:
1988 China IAEA Safeguards Agreement
Relevant Extract:
Article 1

(a) China shall accept the application of safeguards by the Agency, in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, on all source or special fissionable material in peaceful nuclear facilities to be designated by China within its territory with a view to enabling the Agency to verify that such material is not withdrawn, except as provided for in this Agreement, from those facilities while such material is subject to safeguards under this Agreement.

(b) China shall, upon entry into force of this Agreement, provide the Agency with a List of the facilities referred to in paragraph (a) of this Article and may, in accordance with the procedures set forth in Part II of this Agreement, add facilities to or remove facilities from the List as it deems appropriate.

Did you know that China currently has only 2 reactors under these sham IAEA safeguards. Did you know that IAEA actually seldom conducts inspections on the handful (average of 2-3 each) of reactors that have been placed under these token safeguards by the 5 NWS? Did you know that China can withdraw these 2 reactors from even these token safeguards any time it wishes?

India currently has 6 reactors supplied by US (Tarapur-2), Canada (Rawatbhata-2), and Russia (Koodankulam-2 under construction) under more stringent safeguards than these, and no one has ever complained about them. No one would complain if all of India's future reactors receiving foreign fuel were under the most stringent IAEA safeguards designed to ensure that not a gram of sensitive material was unaccounted for. The complaints you hear are about reactors going under safeguards in 'perpetuity' when there is no explicit commitment for foreign fuel supplies in perpetuity.

Let me spell out the implications of this if you have not quite grasped them. In a future hypothetical situation where a reactor remains under safeguards, but foreign fuel supply is not forthcoming, India would need to make the hard choice between shutting down such reactor and adversely affecting its economy or diverting some of its scarce domestic fuel and adversely affecting its strategic programs or its thorium cycle related facilities (which it may want to keep out of safeguards for IPR related issues). Of course, these are exactly the kind of hard choices that our 'natural allies' would like us to make. It is not unreasonable for us to expect that MMS and today's GoI not voluntarily walk into something like this with open eyes thereby placing future GoIs in a difficult position.

This canard about what Australia and China have agreed to needs to be put to rest once and for all!

India would -- any day -- be very happy to agree with Australia on the application of an IAEA safeguards agreement that is more stringent than the 1988 China IAEA safeguards agreement.

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

Postby enqyoobOLD » 31 Aug 2007 05:17

Since Seema Mustafa is now considered a deep authority here... :roll: Here is an equally deep analysis:

BJP's rethinking on n-deal isolates the Left

Amulya Ganguli | August 30, 2007 | 19:07 IST

Perhaps realising that the Bharatiya Janata Party was unnecessarily alienating the middle class by opposing the nuclear deal, L K Advani has now decided to change tack. It's not full support to the measure yet. That would have been too much of a climbdown, which would have left Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie high and dry -- the fate of all those who try to be more loyal than the king. So, a few caveats have been entered, such as ensuring India's strategic independence and an assurance of uninterrupted fuel supply.

But, even then, there is enough of a turnaround to confirm that the BJP had initially opposed the pact without much thought. Evidently, it was something of a reflexive action common to virtually all Indian Opposition parties, which take their task of opposing the government far too literally. The BJP's earlier grouses against VAT are a case in point. In the present instance, the party practically joined hands with the Left to create the impression, which the comrades conveniently exploited, that a majority in the Lok Sabha was against the agreement.

The BJP might have taken this unwise step because it felt that if the government succeeded in pushing ahead with the deal without too much difficulty, it would run well ahead of its opponents by winning over nearly the entire middle and upper classes. It would thereby deprive the BJP of large segments of what it had come to regard as its natural constituency. It is a loss which the party cannot sustain, especially in its present state of disarray, where the old order comprising Atal Bihari Vajpayee and L K Advani, is refusing to fade away while the new order -- Rajnath Singh, Arun Jaitley, Venkaiah Naidu, Sushma Swaraj -- is yet to take its place. So, if it let the government clinch the deal, the BJP will have to say farewell to any hope of returning to power in the foreseeable future.

However, before it could inflict too much damage on itself, the BJP decided to change course by saying it was all right for India to be a strategic partner of the US. How far this latest stance will help it regain lost ground is difficult to say, but at least the party can no longer be accused of hypocrisy. If it had laid itself open to this charge, it was because of the fact that for long periods in its history, starting from the Jan Sangh days, it was regarded as pro-American.

Since its ascent to power at the Centre, it has, of course, matured considerably and can no longer be labelled so easily. After all, Pokhran II was in defiance of the US. It also resisted American attempts to persuade the Vajpayee government to send troops to Iraq. All the more reason, therefore, why its opposition to the nuclear deal caused surprise, especially because the agreement would mark the end of the sanctions imposed on India after Pokhran I and II.

One reason for the BJP's lapse, if it can be so described, was perhaps the search for an emotive issue prior to the next general election. Since the Ram temple issue is no longer expected to fetch too many votes, nor can the Ram Setu affair, the BJP has to look for another talking point. The party has also realised from its experience in the Uttar Pradesh elections, when it had to disown a controversial anti-Muslim compact disc, that its strident anti-minority postures, which were articulated by Kalyan Singh in UP, were no longer yielding political dividends.

Hence, perhaps, the decision to jump on to what it deemed a useful nationalist plank by accusing the government of a sell-out to America. In taking this line, the party may have been misled by people like Yashwant Sinha who entered the organisation not long ago from the socialist camp. The confusion within the party on the question of leadership also probably prevented a close examination of the subject. It is worth noting that Advani came out with his present distinctive line only after the RSS let it be known that it will distance itself from the BJP.

There is little doubt that the government will now breathe a huge sigh of relief not only because of the BJP's qualified approval of the deal, but also because this stance has coincided with the murmurs of disquiet in the Communist Party of India-Marxist over the hardline positions of its so-called rootless intellectuals in Delhi.

Reports from Kolkata that the Bengali comrades are comparing Prakash Karat and Co with the Taliban are not surprising because the party in the state is in no position to face the electorate in the context of Nandigram and Singur episodes.

It is the same in Kerala, where the V S Achuthanandan-P Vijayan confrontation is bound to undermine the CPI-M's position. If Karat and Co have turned a blind eye to these internal difficulties in their rush to uphold their longstanding pathological antipathy towards America, the reason is that these leaders ensconced in the party's Delhi headquarters have never fought and won an election outside of college campuses.

There are two reasons why the Left adopted such an inflexible stand, which has revived the old allegations against it of being unpatriotic because its scuttling of the deal will be appreciated in China and Pakistan. One reason is that the government's retreats on the economic front over disinvestments, insurance, banking, labour and pension fund reforms, airport privatisation, FDI in retail, etc, must have convinced the commissars that it will retreat on the nuclear deal also.

The other reason is that the Left had no alternative. For the first time, India is formally saying goodbye to its Cold War prejudices and forging a close partnership with America. Of course, it is too big to be a camp follower of any country and will have fruitful relations with others, too, notably Russia, Japan, Britain, France and the European Union. But it will not be a second Venezuela or Cuba as the comrades apparently want.

This proximity to the capitalist world is not something which the Left, especially the CPI-M, can digest. After years of revolutionary fulminations against market economy and its main champion, the US, the commissars -- at least the apparatchiki in Delhi -- apparently think that it will be highly embarrassing for them if they let the government enter into a strategic relationship with the US although they have the power to pull the rug.

Big Brother may have also been egged on by siblings like the CPI, the Forward Bloc and the Revolutionary Socialist Party, who have been more vociferous about pulling down the government than the Marxists. Their shrillness is not surprising. Usually, the smaller a party, the louder it tends to shout.

However, in their dogmatic arrogance, the rootless intellectuals apparently did not take one factor into account. It is the sense of disquiet among their comrades in Kolkata. The latter, led by Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, having replaced Marx with the market, are no longer as anti-American as when they coined their celebrated slogan: Amar nam, tomar nam, Vietnam, Vietnam.

Their unwillingness to face the elections was articulated by the nonagenarian patriarch Jyoti Basu when he asserted that there won't be a mid-term poll. They will be pleased, therefore, if the government avoids an early poll because of the BJP's indirect support to the deal. But it is something which will anger the Delhi apparatchiki all the more, for they will be quite isolated. They may even withdraw support to the government as a result, but the loss will be theirs, for the government won't fall while the commissars will lose their capacity to wield power without responsibility.

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

Postby shiv » 31 Aug 2007 05:20

muuna bhai wrote:


The name muuna bhai is not aceptable and I have changed it to kumarn

arnab
BRFite
Posts: 1136
Joined: 13 Dec 2005 09:08

Postby arnab » 31 Aug 2007 05:37

Have you read the Australia China Agreement that you refer to?

Here it is: Australia-China Agreement for Transfer of Nuclear Material
The relevant extracts are provided below:
ARTICLE VI



Thank You for those links. I'm curious to know why do you think an 'agreement in perpetuity' to supply fuel makes our position unassailable ? It's just a piece of paper. What is to prevent the US from writing a law in the future to provide us with soyabean instead of nuke fuel?

Keynes had said - 'In the long run we are all dead'. The current agreement is to bypass EXISTING laws and give India the opportunity to end it's nuke isolation. Once that's over - everything boils down to incentives and economic strength.

sraj
BRFite
Posts: 256
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 07:04

Postby sraj » 31 Aug 2007 05:41

Nobody doubts who wears the pants in the Aus-Sino relationship. John Howard nearly soiled his underwear at the thought of meeting the Dalai Lama for fear of offending the Chinese. Strangely they don't seem to carry this chip on their shoulders.

And who do you think would currently be "wearing the pants" (as you put it) in the India-US relationship?

Did you know that while the Chinese may have agreed to these token, sham measures with Australia, they adamantly refused to accept any safeguards in their agreement with the US in 1985? Ever wondered why?

It is not as if any one in India is running around complaining about the possibility of Bangladeshi inspectors roaming around our facilities?

arnab
BRFite
Posts: 1136
Joined: 13 Dec 2005 09:08

Postby arnab » 31 Aug 2007 05:50

sraj wrote:

Did you know that while the Chinese may have agreed to these token, sham measures with Australia, they adamantly refused to accept any safeguards in their agreement with the US in 1985? Ever wondered why?



Presumably because the Soviet Union collapsed in 1989 ?

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3282
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Postby Kakkaji » 31 Aug 2007 06:03


ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5245
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 31 Aug 2007 06:21

arnab wrote:why do you think an 'agreement in perpetuity' to supply fuel makes our position unassailable ? It's just a piece of paper.
Very True. That is what the PM promised. Perpetual supply for perpetual safeguards. It seems the 123 does have perpetual safeguards pretty iron clad, while perpetual supplies is camouflaged under 70,000 layers of "practical" procedures and consultations.

The simple fact is the safeguards will remain perpetual, regardless of perpetual supplies - on paper, that is.

Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Postby Sanjay M » 31 Aug 2007 06:25

ShauryaT wrote:The simple fact is the safeguards will remain perpetual, regardless of perpetual supplies - on paper, that is.


Safeguards will not be on everything. As long as we have enough set aside for our future weapons needs, why care about what else is safeguarded?

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5245
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 31 Aug 2007 06:28

Good work sraj: Now, add to this that Hyde calls for the "India" specific safeguards to be modeled after the ones as applied to NNWS.

What that effectively means is that the "civilian" parts of the fuel cycle will be completely under safeguards.

Add FMCT to the mix, the % under "civilian" goes upto 95+% - including all future FBR's -- leading to 100%, under safeguards in the future?

That is the US plan and they have gone a long way in being able to achieve that with the perpetual "civilian" designated safeguards plan.

We effectively have 2-5 years, before FMCT kicks in. Not withstanding, the high moral ground of international verification blah, blah - while giving a no objection certificate to the US in May 07 to proceed with its plan of self verification, of FMCT. India's approval is not even needed for FMCT to kick in. Just about shows, how much of a defacto NWS, India is considered to be. We will have the choice to stay out of this type of FMCT, as usual, but that choice will be exercised at a cost.

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

Postby bala » 31 Aug 2007 06:28

All these back and forth discussions reminds me of this story:

A game is created by two teams with pretty good rules. Both teams don't want to deal with dangerous stuff, explosives, knives, chains and assorted paraphernalia. They agree that one can provide material, equipment (bats, balls, T-shirts) except that these cannot be used to make dangerous stuff. They also agree that the game needs to get accreditation from the International Games Association (IGA) so that others can supply material and equipment. Now all that is asked of one of the teams is to play the game by the rules. On team one, there are two kinds of kids - fat kids, fit kids. The fat kids make all kinds of excuses not to play the game, they pick faults with the game. They want the rules to be changed or they fret that what if the team were to explode their favorite explosive in the neighborhood then they cannot play. They even come up with ridiculous scenarios that during game playing one team may start selling material and equipment for other games not relevant to the one being played. They also think up scenarios like what will the audience think of the game while it is being played. The fit kids are ready and rearing to go. Some kids are surly because there favorite pals did not draw up the rules, others fret that some of the pals are not even allowed to play the game.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5245
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 31 Aug 2007 06:44

Sanjay M wrote:
ShauryaT wrote:The simple fact is the safeguards will remain perpetual, regardless of perpetual supplies - on paper, that is.


Safeguards will not be on everything. As long as we have enough set aside for our future weapons needs, why care about what else is safeguarded?
Oh, just for the kicks of it. You know, H&D onlee. since the concept of Parity as a measure of political power is somewhat lost on this thread.

An interesting, somewhat parallel story, came to mind recently.

After WWII, America virtually wrote the Japanese constitutuion. In there, there is a clause that Japan will not export armaments. Recently, Japan is looking to replace their F4 fighter aircraft and Japan wishes for a Stealthy option.

The American F22 is one such expensive option, if America agrees.

The interesting observation is, Japan has it within its realm of capabilities to produce such an aircraft for itself. But the cost to do all the research and then produce such an aircraft is financially unviable as their constitution "a piece of paper" prohibits the export of such an aircraft.

Hence, the only viable option for Japan is to beg for such a capability from the Americans.

Maybe, India's case is not so drastic. But, the point, is what you sign today, will have a future impact. AK managed to save the 3 stage, How will these safeguards impact us tomorrow in the nuclear or other associated dual use high tech items is anyone's guess.

I can turn the question around. If we are a defacto NWS, then why this determination by the Americans to steer us towards its non-proliferation goals. What goes their father, if we have the capability to produce a 100 or 10,000 bombs?

PS: I know about their NPT obligations....I do not buy that.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5245
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 31 Aug 2007 06:54

bala wrote:All these back and forth discussions reminds me of this story:

One becomes fat, when one sits on their ass and type posts and surf :lol: 8)

Alhuwalia, the planning guy wishes for Nuclear power, MMS says, yes, it makes sense and wishes for the same with Dubya.

No effort was made to see, what alternatives exist. What is the price, we will pay? What do the scientists want? It was head along to fulfill his vision, until the scientists, reigned him in, somewhat.

Among the 3 pillars of power, economic, military and political, one does not need to be mortgaged for the benefits to the other, all 3 need to be worked upon, in parallel.

At the end of the day, the Indian nation should decide, what are its aspirations. What we should not have is a treaty, not in allignment, with our aspirations, with the idea that it is only a piece of paper. It is not.

sraj
BRFite
Posts: 256
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 07:04

Postby sraj » 31 Aug 2007 07:34

ShauryaT wrote:We effectively have 2-5 years, before FMCT kicks in. Not withstanding, the high moral ground of international verification blah, blah - while giving a no objection certificate to the US in May 07 to proceed with its plan of self verification, of FMCT. India's approval is not even needed for FMCT to kick in. Just about shows, how much of a defacto NWS, India is considered to be. We will have the choice to stay out of this type of FMCT, as usual, but that choice will be exercised at a cost.

Thanks. The cost you refer to is obvious: For this 123 to finally come into effect, Section 104(b)(4) of Hyde Act requires a Presidential Determination that "India is working actively with the United States for the early conclusion of a ......[FMCT]" -- no mention of it needing to be non-discriminatory or verifiable! Section 104(g)(1) and (2) will ensure that the threat of termination of this 123 will always be barely concealed if India decides not to sign an unacceptably worded FMCT. The 'verifiable' requirement has already been dropped at the CD in Geneva which is currently working on producing an acceptable draft before end-2007.

Wonder why China allowed the tight linkage between FMCT and PAROS (Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space) -- which it had always insisted on -- to be severed recently?

sraj
BRFite
Posts: 256
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 07:04

Postby sraj » 31 Aug 2007 08:12

I'm curious to know why do you think an 'agreement in perpetuity' to supply fuel makes our position unassailable ? It's just a piece of paper.

If the US writes on a "piece of paper" that it commits to supply fuel for the lifetime of India's reactors, it makes it that much more difficult (though not impossible) for it to pressure other countries also into not supplying fuel. (Perhaps you remember how Clinton pressured a weak Yeltsin to renege on a signed contract for supply of cryogenic engines to India in the mid-90s? and the resultant impact on India's GSLV program?).

It also reduces somewhat (though this is debatable) the impact of Hyde Act provisions which require the US Admn to seek to restrict access to fuel supplies to India from all countries under certain circumstances.

Most importantly, if safeguards are explicitly linked with fuel supplies, then -- if India has to remove a reactor from IAEA safeguards in order to keep it running with unsafeguarded domestic fuel that it does not wish to lose, say, for its thorium cycle unsafeguarded facilities (in the hypothetical situation I described in my earlier post), it will be perfectly legal and not cause an Iran type ruckus with the 'international community' getting exercised about violation of international treaties and referring cases to the Security Council etc. etc.

sraj
BRFite
Posts: 256
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 07:04

Postby sraj » 31 Aug 2007 08:53

Presumably because the Soviet Union collapsed in 1989 ?

No, it had nothing to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union in December 1991.

Bilateral treaties and political agreements between States cannot usually fall back on an independent mechanism for either interpretation or enforcement. Compare this to the role typically played by an independent judiciary or arbitration panel in the interpretation and enforcement of commercial contracts. As a result, the State Party with less power typically tries to reduce the potential pressure points which the stronger State Party can create through provisions in an agreement, because it knows that both interpretation and enforcement of these provisions will finally boil down to who has more power - in the broadest sense - at any point in time.

While negotiating the 123 agreement in 1985, China did not wish to give the US any excuse to be able to legally demand access to and information on its nuclear facilities. So it did not agree with the US to even the equivalent of the sham safeguards it agreed with Australia 20 years later.

For example, in an India-Bangladesh agreement, it will always be Bangladesh which will be more sensitive about the implications of each and every clause.

In the extreme, the impact of these power differentials in the international system are seen in a uni-polar world, when the prosecutor, the judge, and the enforcer all turn out to be one and the same.

sraj
BRFite
Posts: 256
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 07:04

Postby sraj » 31 Aug 2007 10:18

Sanjay M wrote:Safeguards will not be on everything. As long as we have enough set aside for our future weapons needs, why care about what else is safeguarded?

Is enough set aside to feed the unsafeguarded FBRs? (AK is on record recently saying the first 4 FBRs will not go under safeguards; after that we will see.)

1. Safeguarded fuel (domestic or foreign) cannot go into any unsafeguarded facilities.

2. Any domestic fuel that goes into a safeguarded reactor in order to keep it running (in the event of an unforeseen disruption of foreign fuel supplies) automatically becomes safeguarded (unless the safeguards on such reactor can be 'suspended' as part of the 'corrective measures' in such cases)!

3. Result: all of a sudden, your unsafeguarded fuel reserves have gone down. Does that force you to bring your FBRs under safeguard when you did not wish to do so, just to keep them running?

Plausible? Far-fetched? as they say, military planning is based on an evaluation of others' capabilities, not their intentions. that's why we need watertight fuel supply assurances (the 123 draft text has holes on this front) or a legal 'suspension' of IAEA safeguards in the event of fuel supply disruptions (we need to wait for the IAEA language on this one).

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 31 Aug 2007 10:19

ShauryaT; Manny; Sraj; and others excellent posts!!

Now that the camp with concern has clearly demonstrated the weak spots of the 123 deal; they YBs pro-dealites have nothing to say but the usual

1) Sanku is a agent of BJP; may be N^3 is agent of Congress; but I quite certainly bat for India and India alone. I think this will not be obvious to people with permanent political blinkers though.

2) Have extraordinarly inane agruments around "sign now forget later". Man talk of juvinile thinking.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 31 Aug 2007 11:26

Excellent editorials here:

Mr Advani, go for amendment

even the most casual scrutiny of what the BJP's key speakers, Mr Arun Shourie and Mr Yashwant Sinha (we need not be distracted by loudmouths and gadflies eager to comment on each and every issue in the hope of making it to prime time news) during parliamentary debates on the nuclear deal will show that nothing has been said which stems from visceral hatred of America. The BJP's criticism has been based on technicalities of the deal which the party believes are not in India's national interest.


A comparison of what the BJP and the Left have said between July 2005 and August 2007 will show that while the former has busied itself with the nuts and bolts and the fine print of the agreement without rubbishing it in principle, the latter has resisted it citing ideological opposition to supping with the Americans.


Despite this, if there is a perception, especially in the middle class which has come to define urban India's aspirations, that the BJP is seconding the Left's anti-Americanism, we can only blame it on either, or both, of two things: Sound byte journalism which is the staple of television news and newspapers aping the idiot box; and, the BJP's inability to effectively communicate, largely because of too many voices wanting to be heard, its distinctive position on the nuclear deal.

arnab
BRFite
Posts: 1136
Joined: 13 Dec 2005 09:08

Postby arnab » 31 Aug 2007 11:56

sraj wrote:
I'm curious to know why do you think an 'agreement in perpetuity' to supply fuel makes our position unassailable ? It's just a piece of paper.

If the US writes on a "piece of paper" that it commits to supply fuel for the lifetime of India's reactors, it makes it that much more difficult (though not impossible) for it to pressure other countries also into not supplying fuel. (Perhaps you remember how Clinton pressured a weak Yeltsin to renege on a signed contract for supply of cryogenic engines to India in the mid-90s? and the resultant impact on India's GSLV program?).



But this is precisely the point I'm making - the GSLV fiasco clearly showed the true worth of written contracts. At the time India was facing a BOP crisis recovery, a TSP sponsored terrorism movement in Kashmir, babri masjid related internal strife and the collapse of USSR. And Robin Raphael was questioning Kashmir's accession to India (another legal document).

So clearly - you can sign all the legal treatise you want, but they are not worth a flying fig when you do not have the economic clout to back it up.
India of 2007 is very different from the India of 1992-93. The focus has to be clearly incentive driven. The question we need to ask is - Does it increase the payoffs for the US to renege on it's promises to India ? if it does US will do so no matter how many pieces of paper you show.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 31 Aug 2007 12:17

arnab wrote:
So clearly - you can sign all the legal treatise you want, but they are not worth a flying fig when you do not have the economic clout to back it up.
.


You still dont understand anything do you; sigh...

Economic clout? Nopes; Japan has plenty of economic clout which unequal treaties has it backed out of?

Military clout as well? Perhaps getting closer.

Eco + Mil + strategic clout too? Yes now we are getting there; the sum of above three == balls.

What the deal attempts to do; as has been shown above; attempts to force FMCT by the back door before we have the combination of the above three; thus block parts of the strat. clout and cut off our balls before they get too big.

At the moment the deal is so unequal even on paper that US can back out of what it is supposed to give us and they dont even have to renege on the deal to back out. That is what people have been clearly pointing out.

That is where Dr Singhs statement to parilament on assurance of deliverables in perpetuity have fallen hollow.

Basic questions

If we have not been able to secure a good deal even on paper; how do you imagine we will secure a good deal in practice?


Can you answer why exactly we need the deal? What does it give us?

In any case I have seen your previous post which is nothing but ad naseuam repeat of personal attacks and very shallow on points. You keep ascribing statements to me which I do not make and create strawmans to know them down. I dont expect any further maturity in this post either.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 31 Aug 2007 12:27

arnab wrote:But this is precisely the point I'm making - the GSLV fiasco clearly showed the true worth of written contracts. At the time India was facing a BOP crisis recovery, a TSP sponsored terrorism movement in Kashmir, babri masjid related internal strife and the collapse of USSR. And Robin Raphael was questioning Kashmir's accession to India (another legal document).


Your point clearly also makes the value of cast iron deals important.

In the scenario you point out; also look at what would happen if the Kashmir agreement was written and not cast iron; another easy fig leaf for folks to attack!!

To look at the GSLV deal

Qualification of ISRO cryogenic engine complete

In 1993 the US leaned on Russia to cancel its contract with ISRO and stop any transfer of technology for developing cryogenic engines, citing violation of the MTCR regime. Indeed, the US imposed sanctions on both Glavkosmos as well as ISRO for the violation. The then Russian president, Boris Yelstin, yielded to American pressure and directed Glavkosmos to renegotiate its contract with ISRO to exclude transfer of technology. The renegotaited contract provisioned only for outright sale of two KVD-1 engines. Satisfied, the Americans lifted sanctions on Glavkosmos and ISRO.


Can you see the MTCR in there???

Still going to make the outrageous claims that contracts dont matter a whit?

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

In any case what is your agrument? That how deals are written do not matter? In which case can you please explain why do we need to write any deal for any international transaction anyway and which case why was so much effort put into by the US Govt on the wording of the deal; they are pretty strong right? Let India put any words it wants they call the shots anyway?

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

Yes; the geo-pol situation is primarily run by balance of power; however treaties are tools of geo-pols as much as armies or economic power is. The side which know to better draft and leverage these tools come out ahead. It would be foolish to throw away tools on the ground that "to weild tools you need power"; of course you do; and when you are power ful do you use tools or run into a street fight with bare fists?

Thats the difference between a lumpen street fight and a internation contest of power:: use of tools of great sophistaction.

If you cant understand that; that all right; the part of India I live in; the majority of Jat-Gujjar popluation lives by; "fight with bare kuncles" rule.
You are in good company

mandrake
BRFite
Posts: 279
Joined: 23 Sep 2006 02:23
Location: India

Postby mandrake » 31 Aug 2007 12:39

sraj wrote:
Sanjay M wrote:Safeguards will not be on everything. As long as we have enough set aside for our future weapons needs, why care about what else is safeguarded?

Is enough set aside to feed the unsafeguarded FBRs? (AK is on record recently saying the first 4 FBRs will not go under safeguards; after that we will see.)

He has also categorically mentioned later it is we who will go for what is civilian and what is mililtary.

1. Safeguarded fuel (domestic or foreign) cannot go into any unsafeguarded facilities.

correct, But dont see the problem here.

2. Any domestic fuel that goes into a safeguarded reactor in order to keep it running (in the event of an unforeseen disruption of foreign fuel supplies) automatically becomes safeguarded (unless the safeguards on such reactor can be 'suspended' as part of the 'corrective measures' in such cases)!


Incorrect, There will be strategic reserve of fuel so any unforseen foreign disruption wont stop our reactors i.e. LWR's from working.

3. Result: all of a sudden, your unsafeguarded fuel reserves have gone down. Does that force you to bring your FBRs under safeguard when you did not wish to do so, just to keep them running?

Plausible? Far-fetched? as they say, military planning is based on an evaluation of others' capabilities, not their intentions. that's why we need watertight fuel supply assurances (the 123 draft text has holes on this front) or a legal 'suspension' of IAEA safeguards in the event of fuel supply disruptions (we need to wait for the IAEA language on this one).


did not quote got you........

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 31 Aug 2007 12:46

Joey you didnt understand sraj's post:: what he is saying is lack of perpetual supply of fuel may easily create conditions where

a) we have to divert strategic assests to safeguarded civilian side thus depriving the strat program.

or

b) we have to put strat reactors under safegaurds because the stockpile falls suddenly (US/Chicom funded NGO swarming our mines for example; just like Medha P in Narmada case)

What he is saying is "PM did not say we can seperate because we have enough with or without perpetual fuel supply" what was said and agreed by Sci Com was "seperation OK given perpetual fuel supply"

Given the Hyde act and other various holes; the 123 deal is open to the threat of nuclear material drying up quite easily quoting one of the numerous gaps.

That is the concern; breaking of basic promise "perpetual supply of fuel"

Tilak
BRFite
Posts: 733
Joined: 31 Jul 2005 20:19
Location: Old Lal Masjid @BRFATA (*Renovation*)

Postby Tilak » 31 Aug 2007 16:59

Singh Says U.S. Nuclear Accord Is Vital for India
By Kartik Goyal and Archana Chaudhary

Aug. 31 (Bloomberg) -- Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said India needs to seek international backing for its nuclear agreement with the U.S. to acquire atomic reactors and material needed to sustain record economic growth.

``The sustainability of our long-term economic growth is critically dependent on our ability to meet our energy requirements of the future,'' Singh said in an e-mailed statement of a speech delivered today in Tarapur, near Mumbai. ``India is now too important a country to remain outside the international mainstream in this critical area.''

India needs to secure approval from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the global nuclear-power watchdog, on safeguards for reprocessing spent fuel. Clearance by the IAEA and the Nuclear Suppliers Group will clear the way for the accord, a key element of U.S. President George W. Bush's foreign policy, to be approved by the U.S. Congress.

Singh is pushing ahead with the agreement so India can acquire reactors from Areva SA, the world's largest maker of nuclear power stations, and General Electric Co. to plug an energy shortfall. Singh's ruling coalition yesterday said it will set up a panel to examine the implications of the U.S. to pacify the communists and stave off a threat to his government.

Singh's Congress Party-led coalition government relies on communist support to retain its majority in parliament.

Economic Growth

India's economic growth unexpectedly quickened last quarter, exceeding analysts' expectations, the Central Statistical Organisation said in New Delhi today. South Asia's largest economy expanded 9.3 percent in the three months to June 30 from a year earlier, compared with a gain of 1.8 percent in the U.S., 2.5 percent in countries sharing the euro and 2.3 percent in Japan. China's economy grew 11.9 percent.

``When a country of the size of India begins to grow at the rate of 9 percent per annum, with the prospect of even higher rates of growth, energy becomes a critical issue,'' Singh said, a day after his coalition and communists came together to hammer out a probable compromise on the bilateral accord that has driven a wedge between the allies.

Singh plans to build 40,000 megawatts of nuclear capacity by 2020, equivalent to a third of current generation. India needs to add to the 3 percent of electricity that comes from Russian-designed reactors to meet soaring energy needs and reduce its reliance on coal-fired power plants.

Bitter Rivals

The communist parties and the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party, usually bitter rivals, both want a review of the accord, which seeks to end three decades of India's nuclear isolation and give power plants in the energy-starved country access to U.S. technology and equipment.

The agreement legitimizes India's status as a nuclear power, while opening up the market for suppliers of fissile material, technology and equipment. Areva and General Electric are among four companies poised to share $14 billion of orders from India as nations led by the U.S. prepare to lift a 33-year ban.

Toshiba Corp.'s Westinghouse Electric Co. and Russia's atomic energy agency Rosatom may also vie for contracts to build two 1,000-megawatt reactors, Nuclear Power Corp. of India Chairman S.K. Jain has said.

``The unshackling of technology and the embargo regime that has operated around us for decades is a welcome opportunity which we should be able to exploit without any adverse impact on our domestic research and development of nuclear program,'' Anil Kakodar, Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, told a conference in Tarapur.


Nuke deal diplomacy: How it works
2007-08-31 09:39:32
Source : Moneycontrol.com

The door has now been left ajar. Diplomats pursuing the 123 Agreement feel that there is lot of leeway to manouver. Though, how the government will quietly follow its own nuclear course, is something that needs to be watched, reports CNBC-TV18.

Pranab Mukherjee, External Affairs Minister, said, "The operationalisation of the deal will take into account only the committee's findings."

The Left wanted the government to hit the pause button, but the government will go slow for now . All thanks to crafty use of language. As in the case of Strategic Analyst, K Subrahmanyam, "Operationalisation of the deal will happen only when the two foreign ministers sign the deal. All the steps before that, are leading to the operationalisation of the deal."

Bottomline? The government will consult with the Left through the newly formed high powered committee. Simultaneously, it will lay the ground for a safeguards agreement with the IAEA.

Special Envoy Shyam Saran will continue his lobbying missions with nuclear supplier countries. When the panel gives its report and if the

Left agrees:

The government will look to formalise safeguards with the IAEA by the November 22.

Government will seek a formal NSG clearance by December and the Congress vote early next year.


But what if the Left disagrees with the findings of the committee? The government can still technically look to formalise safeguards and seek NSG clearance, because it can argue it is not bound by the findings of the panel.

And what if the Left chooses to pull the plug?

Says Subrahmanyam, "By that time, it is possible that you have the IAEA/NSG process completed by then. Here is a deal more or less :rotfl: seen through by an elected government, when it had the full authority to do it and I don't think it wil be hampered in the worst case scenario."

Which means, if only a US Congress vote is left, a minority UPA government or even a caretaker government will want to push that through. But Manmohan Singh will hope it doesn't come to that.

So finally, it's a truce, which both sides claim as victory. That's thanks :idea: to a craftily worded joint statement. The Foreign Minister's diplomatic skills have been put to use - this time at home.

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

Postby enqyoobOLD » 31 Aug 2007 17:01

At the time India was facing a BOP crisis recovery, a TSP sponsored terrorism movement in Kashmir, babri masjid related internal strife and the collapse of USSR. And Robin Raphael was questioning Kashmir's accession to India (another legal document).

So clearly - you can sign all the legal treatise you want, but they are not worth a flying fig when you do not have the economic clout to back it up.
India of 2007 is very different from the India of 1992-93.


Interesting thought:

Today India is facing a BPO crisis (costs are rising, and compeition is rising, and the customers' stock prices are in a downhill skiiing mode. So is the Indian stock market.

TSP sponsored terrorism is alive and well in Kashmir, and has now spread to Bangalore, Mumbai, Hyderabad, and the Northeast is basically in the final stages preceding genocide.

Robin Rapahel is still Paki (her hubby became shaheed on the plane that Zi took to Houristan). She has been joined by Pamela con Stable. Madelyn Halfbright hasn't got any brighter, in fact now sounds TenthBright.

And instead of Babri Masjid, we now have the Agra Truck to send the IM hordes into their standard frenzy, and they are still burning everything in sight in North India. Except now their birathers in Hyderabad etc. have also joined the festivities.

The more things change....

Kati
BRFite
Posts: 1392
Joined: 27 Jun 1999 11:31
Location: The planet Earth

Postby Kati » 31 Aug 2007 19:22

Scientists claim Ladakh is rich in uranium

Kavita Suri, The Statesman, Kolkata, August 31, 2007

JAMMU, Aug 30: Even as political India goes into spasms over the civilian nuclear deal with the USA and New Delhi waits to enter into negotiations with the Nuclear Suppliers Group for its fix of uranium, there’s news that the icy barrenness of Ladakh may have more than just lamas to offer.
That, at least, is the claim by an Indo-German team of scientists which has found uranium with 5.36 concentration in the mountains (as compared to the national average of 0.01) of this Himalayan region.
A team of geologists from Germany’s Tobezan University and Bangalore’s Kumayu University worked in areas such as Saser, Qizil Jigla, Qizil Dawan and Batholikh and discovered a layer called Isotop beneath the mountains in the Batholikh area. It was, however, later proved that the layer contains high quality uranium after several tests.
The credit for the finding goes to Professor Alexander Wan of Germany and Professor Rajiv Upadhaya of Bangalore University who worked for more than three months in the region.
Prof Upadhaya confirmed the findings and said the samples have been sent to Germany for more vital tests. “Yes, it is the high quality uranium,â€

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8534
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Postby Mort Walker » 31 Aug 2007 19:38

And instead of Babri Masjid, we now have the Agra Truck to send the IM hordes into their standard frenzy, and they are still burning everything in sight in North India. Except now their birathers in Hyderabad etc. have also joined the festivities.


N^3,

This is off topic, but Agra is an isolated instance as is the rioting in Delhi due to the school sex scandal. Linking Agra hooligans to terrorist activity in Hyderabad is a mistake. What we have is a law and order problem.

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:

Postby abhischekcc » 31 Aug 2007 19:42

Right.

And we just had the kavarias riot some time back when a truck mowed down some of their people.

Nobody claimed that the kavaria 'direct action' was due to 'Hindoo terrorism'. Not even Teesta Setalvad.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 24010
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Postby SSridhar » 31 Aug 2007 21:35

Top nuclear scientists take a dig at the Left
Taking a dig at the Left Front on its stand on the Indo-US nuclear deal, country's top nuclear scientists today posed a question as to who they were "trying to please." Terming the Left Parties as "unreliable," Dr Homi N Sethna, former chairman of Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), said "Left is always disruptive and whom are they trying to please?"
:twisted:

Left Parties have certain stakes both within the country and outside, he told PTI on the sidelines of Bhabha Atomic Research Centre's training school's 50th graduation function today.

Ridiculing the formation of a committee to discuss the 123 agreement in relation to America's Henry Hyde Act, Dr K Iyengar, also a former Chairman, AEC said "political committee of this kind can not come to any conclusion as they do not know the nuances of the deal." "I wonder why a parliamentary debate was not held on the issue and instead a committee is set up to please the Left Front by the UPA government?," he quipped.

Meanwhile, former Chairman AEC and a member of National Security Council M R Srinivasan said "the Left Front does not seem to realise larger impact of the Indo-US deal."

The Left should realise that it's an opportunity for India to have collaboration with other countries besides the US, Srinivasan said, adding if they (Left Front) were really interested in high GDP, they should allow the increase in the prospects for nuclear energy.

"The Left seems to think that India is trying to be close to the US while they should know even China and Vietnam are coming close to the US," he said. "So long as India is strong and the relations are maintained for mutual benefit," he said, adding "this is the best agreement both US and India could arrive at and even US wanted a better deal." "But it is time for us to move forward," Srinivasan added.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36415
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 31 Aug 2007 21:41

If proven, that left has interest outside India, then its time to ban left from India. Hey, if there was a right ban, why not a left ban? Traitors needs only chance to show themselves, and once they are seen, can't keep them at govt level.

Again.. blame it on MMS's bed...err, those who did not vote at all in the previous elections for no reason.

Raju

Postby Raju » 31 Aug 2007 21:42

Scientists say, with such a concentration value, India could become the world’s largest uranium-producing country


From ridiculous we are now forced to become sublime.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36415
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 31 Aug 2007 21:53

+subliminally. :wink:

Raju

Postby Raju » 31 Aug 2007 22:04

In between there have been a few developments with Kakodkar in the centre:

Kakodkar does not rule out safeguards talks with IAEA
31 Aug, 2007, 2030 hrs IST, PTI

MUMBAI: Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Anil Kakodkar today kept the option open on discussing the safeguards agreement with IAEA during his upcoming visit to Vienna, saying a decision on it will be taken two days ahead of his meeting with the UN nuclear watchdog.
"I will be definitely going to attend the 51st General Meeting of the IAEA in Vienna," he told a select group of reporters here.
"Things are changing every day ... but I will be taking the call two days before the General meeting which starts from September 17," Kakodkar said when asked whether he will be discussing the safeguards agreement.
His comments assume significance as Left parties, which are providing crucial support to the UPA government, have demanded that Kakodkar should not discuss the safeguards agreement with IAEA when he travels to Vienna next month.
The Left parties view the discussions on safeguards agreement as operationalisation of the Indo-US nuclear deal, which they are opposed to.
The government, however, is keen to go ahead with the deal and insists that negotiations with IAEA do not construe operationalisation of the agreement.
Kakodkar admitted that there were "some constraints" related to the talks on the India-specific safeguards agreement with the IAEA and the Nuclear Suppliers Group.
Asked whether the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) was satisfied with the deal, he said "if we were not satisfied we would not have agreed for the deal."

link

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

Postby Shankar » 31 Aug 2007 22:09

with all due respect to all of Indias top nuclear scientists who till a year back was so mcuh against the deal have sudden;ly turned around and now support the deal -why?
why are they talking politics more than saying technically and scientifically
how on past and present statistics and track record additional 20000 MW of imported reactor and fuel is going to make any significant difference to a nation with a booming economy and a projected energy need to double from present 125000MW to may be 250000MW in next 6-7 yrs

How are they justifying cutting off 70% of our potential fissile material production capability weapons grade

How are they justifying cutting off about 2/3 rd of our experienced and technical manpower pool which once the deal is operationalized will not be available for unsafe guarded reactors

why they are justifying enormous investment in imported reactor not likely to meet more than a few percent of our total power need and even a smaller percentage of total energy need (fuel) when they never raised the same collective voice to develop new technologies to develop alternate fules like coal bed methane and ocean bed methane hydrate and wind power
all the investment in alternate fuel which is operating today are courtesy private sector investment with some govt subsidy thats all

To start with all the wind power is in private sector about 2500MW more or less same as in nuclear reactors

Use of LNG also have started with private sector subscribing to the virtual pipeline concept with road tankers .The role of Indian oil and Petronet limited to provide the supplies and tankers .Why is govt sector not using aggressively the alternate fuel in furnaces,in vehicles and in locomotives

The development of coal bed methane and its liquification into transportable LNG is also initiated by a private sector industry in Bengal -no govt involvement so far

Why even before LNG which is a far cleaner fuel than coal and furnace oil not being promoted aggressively and why not much effort is there to assure its supply from countries like Iran which is sitting on one of the biggest natural gas fields in the world

how do they explain first cutting funds to domestic nuclear industry and then hyping it to unheard of level today

why we are dumping the Iran lng deal on price issue where as ready to mortgage our security policy to get imported uranium for the same energy and having less application range .

There can be only one answer -either the nation is not being told the entire truth
or
the deal is not based on stated objective of energy security

In both cases -it is best dumped

If necessary lets have a mid term election and the let our poor illeterate countrymen decide whether we have been lied enough or not

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36415
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 31 Aug 2007 22:20

Har Har Shankar.. Jai Jai Shankar.. between many truth values (subsurface, surface, 30kft and atmosphere), the world is not empty (its maya). One has to experience the "maya filter" to get to taste each truth value. Hence, don't left around things to get stuck for only certain truth values that has more benefits for our friendly neighborhood banks.

Manny
BRFite
Posts: 850
Joined: 07 Apr 2006 22:16
Location: Texas

Postby Manny » 31 Aug 2007 22:24

[quote="Kati"]Scientists claim Ladakh is rich in uranium

Kavita Suri, The Statesman, Kolkata, August 31, 2007

JAMMU, Aug 30: Even as political India goes into spasms over the civilian nuclear deal with the USA and New Delhi waits to enter into negotiations with the Nuclear Suppliers Group for its fix of uranium, there’s news that the icy barrenness of Ladakh may have more than just lamas to offer.
That, at least, is the claim by an Indo-German team of scientists which has found uranium with 5.36 concentration in the mountains (as compared to the national average of 0.01) of this Himalayan region.
A team of geologists from Germany’s Tobezan University and Bangalore’s Kumayu University worked in areas such as Saser, Qizil Jigla, Qizil Dawan and Batholikh and discovered a layer called Isotop beneath the mountains in the Batholikh area. It was, however, later proved that the layer contains high quality uranium after several tests.
The credit for the finding goes to Professor Alexander Wan of Germany and Professor Rajiv Upadhaya of Bangalore University who worked for more than three months in the region.
Prof Upadhaya confirmed the findings and said the samples have been sent to Germany for more vital tests. “Yes, it is the high quality uranium,â€

Tilak
BRFite
Posts: 733
Joined: 31 Jul 2005 20:19
Location: Old Lal Masjid @BRFATA (*Renovation*)

Postby Tilak » 31 Aug 2007 22:27

Nuclear deal negotiations not on hold, says government
August 31, 2007 19:49 IST

Even as Prime Minister Manmohan Singh [Images] came out in strong defence of the Indo-US nuclear deal, the government today said that negotiations on the agreement have not been put on hold and it was free to pursue them.

A day after agreeing to set up a committee to address the Left parties' concerns on the deal, the government noted that there was nothing in the United Progressive Alliance-Left statement that prevented it from pursuing the negotiations with the International Atomic Energy Agency or the Nuclear Suppliers Group to implement the agreement.

"Negotiations on the Indo-US nuclear deal are not put on hold," Parliamentary Affairs Minister P R Dasmunsi told a press conference when asked whether yesterday's decision meant that the agreement has been put on hold.

He said no date has been fixed for negotiations with IAEA. "How can I say it has been put on hold?"

At the same time, Dasmunsi said before the negotiations, "We shall have to complete the process which we shall have to keep in mind".

The prime minister made a strong defence of the nuclear deal in Mumbai, saying India could not afford to "miss the bus" of nuclear renaissance.

Government sources said operationalisation of the deal means a stage when the nuclear deal is implemented on the ground and foreign fuel and technology starts arriving. :rotfl:

This is in contrast to the perception of the Left parties, which say that operationalisation will mean even holding of negotiations with IAEA for a safeguards agreement.

Seeking to allay any impression that the government was not bothered about the views of the allies, Dasmunsi said, "The Left concerns and our concerns should be addressed in the committee. It does not mean one is letting down the other."

The committee will be finalised very soon and it would go into all aspects. The outcome of the committee recommendations will strengthen the hands of the government, he said.

Dasmunsi's comments came as the prime minister underlined that a strong nuclear energy programme was in the country's "vital" interest.

Dedicating two high-efficiency Tarapur nuclear reactors to the nation, he emphasised the need for paving the way for the country to benefit from "nuclear commerce without restrictions" with international cooperation.

"I am absolutely clear our government will complete the obligations to the people and fulfill all commitments in the Common Minimum Programme. The government will complete its full term," Dasmunsi said.

Suggesting that the Bharatiya Janata Party should not try to take advantage of the circumstances, the parliamentary affairs minister said, "Under no circumstances, communal forces would be allowed to exploit the situation." 8)

Ruling out formation of a Joint Parliamentary Committee to go into the nuclear deal, Dasmunsi said a discussion in Parliament on the agreement has been tentatively fixed for September 10 and 11.

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8534
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Postby Mort Walker » 31 Aug 2007 23:04

Suggesting that the Bharatiya Janata Party should not try to take advantage of the circumstances, the parliamentary affairs minister said, "Under no circumstances, communal forces would be allowed to exploit the situation."


I wish these Kangress mofos quit calling the BJP as "communal forces". Its so damn irritating.

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

Postby Shankar » 31 Aug 2007 23:14

slowly it is appearing even the opposition to the deal is stage manged

The left opposed just for the sake of of opposing and milking any political millage it can get out of the deal .Then they will sit down "discuss" some cosmetic change and the deal is through

The BJP is quite since it can neither oppose or support and will take advantage when it runs into some rough weather

The left is just playing the opposition role -the government knows it and so no hold on the deal

the question is what we are gaining from this exorbitant priced deal and who is gaining?

and who is going to raise the basic questions in parliament>

No one I guess


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests