Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

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

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby enqyoobOLD » 14 Jun 2008 16:45

ShauryaT pots:
I say FMCT, you say "scared", "global trade", F18. Why should I respond?


Dear ShauryaT, my post said a lot more than "scary" (not "scared"), and yes, I did point to other aspects where India is going ahead with international agreements that involve risks much greater than that of being arm-twisted into signing FMCT before we are ready.

I agree that you should not respond unless you have counter-arguments that induce some thinking. It may not be possible always to think up counter-arguments, in which case the right course is to NOT post at all, IMHO.
Last edited by enqyoobOLD on 14 Jun 2008 16:53, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby sunilUpa » 14 Jun 2008 16:50

Cohen said the US should go beyond encouraging better safeguards when it comes to nuclear security, and consider a criteria-based nuclear “deal” with Pakistan as a way of encouraging it to limit and secure its existing nuclear weapons, and that Pakistan could receive support for its civilian nuclear programme in exchange for greater assurances regarding the security of its nuclear assets and technology, and transparency regarding past leakages.


cohen uvacha

:shock: :shock: What's up with this dude? Has he gone off his rockers or is it pressure tactics against GoI to sign up fast...otherwise....?

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

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby enqyoobOLD » 14 Jun 2008 17:06

This is Entrapment! If we say what drives Cohen, we will get the 1CBT! :(( :((

Pls see The Monkey Trap


Harish
BRFite
Posts: 140
Joined: 27 Dec 2004 10:30
Location: Bharat

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby Harish » 14 Jun 2008 17:51

Cohen said the US should go beyond encouraging better safeguards when it comes to nuclear security, and consider a criteria-based nuclear “deal” with Pakistan as a way of encouraging it to limit and secure its existing nuclear weapons, and that Pakistan could receive support for its civilian nuclear programme in exchange for greater assurances regarding the security of its nuclear assets and technology, and transparency regarding past leakages.

What's with mentioning nuclear weapons and the deal in the same sentence? The deal negotiated with India concerns itself solely with civilian uses - that is energy. And that alone. India will not limit its military nuclear options and that has been drilled into the head of every two-bit US official of any importance.

Is Uneven blurting out what has long been in unkil's mind with regard to the deal - to slowly and steadily acquire influence and say over how India deals with the military nuclear program? And that in the case of Pakistan those objectives acquire prime importance than in the case of India, where it will happen more slowly and over a longer time.

And how will the Paki deal limit their nuclear ambitions or even make them slightly more reponsible with their existing nuts? None of the objectives uneven mentions have a chance in hell of happening with Pakis being who they are and if their history is any indication.

Uuneven claims that unkil will poke his nose into the military domain once the deal is in place and India dependent on imported nuclear poo, is a warning shot that will confirm the worst fears some of us have expressed as to unkil's real intentions.

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

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby shiv » 14 Jun 2008 18:15

**deleted - will cross post in bum thread**

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby NRao » 14 Jun 2008 19:17

ramana wrote:The problem is like this. India interprets proliferation as transferring stuff to other countries and entities. The West especially US interprets proliferation as even India acquiring the stuff and let alone transferring stuff. One needs to look at all these four letter treaties from that view point. In all honesty India agrees to those in principle as non transfer and the other countries see it as India not acquiring or developing that stuff. So talking past each other is involved.



So true.

I have said this before, it really does not matter what treaty/deal India negotiates or signs. ALL that matters is whenever the time comes is she willing and capable to bail out of such agreements without looking back?

Furthermore, it is not just a matter of current interpretations, it is also a matter of twisting the very current interpretations (moving the goal postS) in the future.

The Hyde Act covers everything ..... IF it did not cover everything, then there would be no need for such an Act. Condi has stated that the Hyde Act is the basis for everything (IAEA, NSG, and 123 I would translate that into). IF Bush takes it one way a future US Prez could take it another. Are Indians ready for that ..... at $100 billion that too? I do not think politicians like the current set will do that. They will pay the $100 billion and denuke India. The lack of transparency on the part of MMS in particular is a determining factor.

Yet, India does need to import Uranium, for we all know that these are noble men.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby NRao » 14 Jun 2008 19:27

Cohen said the US should go beyond encouraging better safeguards when it comes to nuclear security, and consider a criteria-based nuclear “deal” with Pakistan as a way of encouraging it to limit and secure its existing nuclear weapons, and that Pakistan could receive support for its civilian nuclear programme in exchange for greater assurances regarding the security of its nuclear assets and technology, and transparency regarding past leakages.


So, the US is willing to think about paying for crime!!!!! And, if one is not criminal they toss the Hyde Act at them. Of course that makes a lot of sense. Why seek "transparency" and "encouraging" them, etc when they can toss the Hyde Act and get more?

MMS had the right idea on J18 - to seek equal status - it should have meant that either they elevate that of India or demote the US in particular. This Act nor the 123 achieves either!!

satyarthi
BRFite
Posts: 179
Joined: 21 Aug 2006 08:50

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby satyarthi » 14 Jun 2008 19:36

Sanjay M wrote:It is only due to the slow formation time of the muonic D-T molecule (5 nanoseconds) which seems to be limiting the muon from catalyzing more fusions. If only some way could be found to speed up the formation of D-μ-T, then perhaps the process could exceed breakeven. Perhaps the buckyball might help in this regard, by squeezing the hydrogens closely enough that their separation distances are closer to that of the muonic bonding orbital distance, so as to make the formation of that muonic bonding orbital easier.

Taking first orbital of the hydrogen atom:
electron-proton bond energy= 13.6 eV
muon-proton bond energy = 206.8 * 13.6 = 2817 eV
Carbon-Carbon bond energy = 3.6eV (single bonds) to 8.7 eV (triple bonds)

So, the strength of the carbon-carbon bonds is at least two orders of magnitude smaller than the muon-proton bonds. I don't see how a cage made of carbon atoms can compress hydrogen atom (electron-proton pair) to anything approaching proton-muon kind of size.

So based on your quick calculation, there would be 720 hydrogens inside a C60 buckyball (60C*12H/1C=720H). The muon must be able to catalyze at least 600 fusions in order to achieve breakeven, which means we need at least 1200 atoms inside there.
That means we need to go to the next larger size of buckyball, C240, which should be able to contain at least the same 8% H by weight, if not more.
So 240C*12H/1C=2880H which is more than enough for possible achievement of breakeven.

I think there is a misunderstanding here. I said approx one hydrogen atom per carbon atom. This can be seen by assuming that there are n hydrogen atoms for each carbon atom in the buckyball. Then assuming the the fraction by weight to be 8%:
n*1/(n*1 +1*12) = 8/100
This gives n = 1.06, so the buckyball holds only one hydrogen for each carbon. So, with the 8% fraction by weight number, C60 holds only 60 H atoms.
In my mind, if the buckyball's compression can achieve metallic DT having interatomic distances closer to the muonic molecular bonding orbital length, then this would facilitate/accelerate the D-μ-T formation. If this can appreciably lower the 5nanosecond bottleneck in the fusion-catalysis process, then it could be well worth it.

As mentioned earlier, I don't think carbon-carbon bonds in buckyballs are strong enough to effect that kind of compression.

P.S. I think we are getting seriosly OT here. Please continue in Nukkad thread if you prefer.

Sanatanan
BRFite
Posts: 482
Joined: 31 Dec 2006 09:29

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby Sanatanan » 14 Jun 2008 20:51

NRao wrote:ALL that matters is whenever the time comes is she willing and capable to bail out of such agreements without looking back?


Sir,

Before trusting the US with the present Hydebound 123 Agreement, how about verifying the question you have asked as above, in the case of Tarapur 1&2 spent fuel? Should we not (unilaterally, if required) decide to reprocess it, even if the Pu, U238 and remaining U235 from it are to be used only in safeguarded reactors such as Taraput 1 & 2 and Rajasthan 2, may be even in Kudankulam at a later date? The Tarapur 123 Agreement has come to an end long ago. So, will we be violating any International law if we go ahead and reprocess it? (I think not.)

As you have rhetorically observed, since US is seen as a super power, India does not seem to have the stomach "to bail out of such (disagreeable) agreements without looking back."

--------------
Admins:
In the new User Interface (which is very good), I do not see the "Edit" button which used to be available in the earlier version. Can it be reinstated, please? Alternatively, kindly let me know how I can edit my posts with the new UI. TIA.

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

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby shiv » 14 Jun 2008 21:02

Sanatanan wrote:Should we not (unilaterally, if required) decide to reprocess it, even if the Pu, U238 and remaining U235 from it are to be used only in safeguarded reactors such as Taraput 1 & 2 and Rajasthan 2, may be even in Kudankulam at a later date? .


We should not and will not do this because we are good boys and we want to impress teacher unkil.

Look for edit button on bottom right along with quote button.

Jagan
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3032
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Earth @ Google.com
Contact:

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby Jagan » 14 Jun 2008 22:09

The edit button dissappears after 6 hours. Beyond which, if you need a post to be edited, report it to the moderators.

Prabu
BRFite
Posts: 423
Joined: 22 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: In the middle of a Desert

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby Prabu » 14 Jun 2008 23:09

shiv wrote:
Prabu wrote:If all these points out to the In- efficeincy of GOI or DAE or any Govt body, NO NEED for some admins TO BECOEME SO DEFENSIVE !! after all its not against admins ! As BR members our job is to give our view points and discuss based on facts


You seem to know your job as forum member. I will do my job as admin. I believe I have a responsibility to BR.

If it is necessary to call people idiots and traitors while questioning or decrying their action I am sure it will be possible to find other blogs and forums on the internet to do that. But it will not be allowed on BR as far as I can ensure that Your idea of what is fair may not coincide with mine - but I refuse to allow the idea that personal slurs are needed against people. Sorry if you don't like that - but that is how it is going to be. And admins are going to have to respect this too. I think we have consensus on that.


OK Shiv ji, Thanks, Let the fact and data speak for itself !

Sanatanan
BRFite
Posts: 482
Joined: 31 Dec 2006 09:29

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby Sanatanan » 15 Jun 2008 00:00

shiv wrote:Look for edit button on bottom right along with quote button.


Thank you. I got it now.

Funny, I had kept the "Text size" in my IE browser to "Large" for easy reading. With this, the rendering of the HTML by the browser (at least in my machine) was such as to "swallow" the "Edit" button, for some reason not understandable by me. After reading your post, I tried text size "Normal", and bingo, the button reappeared. Well, I guess I have to put up with a bit of inconvenience when editing my post; that is OK for I do not think I will need it too often!

Thanks once again.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby NRao » 15 Jun 2008 05:27

Before trusting the US with the present Hydebound 123 Agreement


I like "Hydebound".

Anyhow, India tends to act rationally on the international scene and very irrationally within the country!

sraj
BRFite
Posts: 260
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 07:04

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby sraj » 15 Jun 2008 23:02

Rye wrote:What is the logic behind wanting to sell dangerous missiles to other countries? It is one thing if India needs it for its defense. So if the US considers India a violator of MTCR, Putin must plotting how to cheat the americans and not follow american law passed by the american congress -- after all, once americans pass a law in their books, all countries are bound to it, if we go by all the analysis in this thread.

Rye: pls see link with relevant extract below:
In October 1994, in order to make the enforcement of MTCR Guidelines more uniform, the member states established a “no undercut” policy, meaning if one member denies the sale of some technology to another country, then all members must adhere.

btw, the key point is that this deal (as presently structured) takes away India's testing option, and circumscribes the future development of delivery mechanisms, and therefore compromises Indian security. Even for the 'butter is more important than guns' folks, it is a bad deal because it pays a heavy, disproportionate price to increase our energy supply by 3-5% (best case scenario), especially since GoI does not appear to have thoroughly investigated the "non-NSG Uranium + 700 MW PHWRs" option to meet its energy needs.

One does not need to take any particular position on the 'test now vs test later' and '45KT vs 200KT vs 1MT' debates in order to conclude the above.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby NRao » 15 Jun 2008 23:21

btw, the key point is that this deal (as presently structured) takes away India's testing option, and circumscribes the future development of delivery mechanisms, and therefore compromises Indian security.


"this deal" = 123. (Right? Just confirming.)

Even for the 'butter is more important than guns' folks, it is a bad deal because it pays a heavy, disproportionate price to increase our energy supply by 3-5% (best case scenario), especially since GoI does not appear to have thoroughly investigated the "non-NSG Uranium + 700 MW PHWRs" option to meet its energy needs.


But, butterwale say that alternatives are equally expensive. That oil importation will cost as much, etc. So, I do not think that the cost is a topic of discussion with them. The issue has to be debated with Total Cost (civil and strategic) in mind. The butterwale talk of civilian side of the equation, but kick-the-can on the strategic side.

Also note that the Hyde/123 has two categories: one where they will sell a ton of stuff, and, second where they propose things that will be determined down the line (reprocessing, etc). And, of course, the deal really does not open all nuclear technologies to India. Here too the butterwales (seem?) to agree that India will get better techs than what she has today - in India, but as AK himself said, India cannot hope for the leading edge stuff - even if India is willing to pay for it.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby NRao » 15 Jun 2008 23:27

This article is not really related to the nuclear issue, but provides a good insight into the thinking of the US:

India said mulling missile-shield work with U.S.

Nicholas Burns, the No. 3 U.S. State Department official, wrote in the November/December issue of the journal Foreign Affairs that that in reaching out to India, the United States was betting on democracy and market economics rather than "despotism and state planning," an apparent swipe at communist-ruled China.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby svinayak » 16 Jun 2008 00:08

US china dialogue is another reason for US to push for the India nuke deal in 2005.
US was not able to persuade the Chinese to give concessions to US on trade.
But in Dec 2006 Chinese agreed for economic summit.

US could change the nuke deal to include the non-proliferation clauses in dec 2006
to spike the deal since it no longer had any need for the deal and its objective was met.

Thursday, 14 December 2006, 07:03 GMT

China-US economic summit begins
US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson (L) and Chinese Vice Premier Wu Yi (R)
Mr Paulson and Ms Wu both made critical opening remarks
Two days of high-level economic talks between the US and China have opened in Beijing, with criticism on both sides.

Chinese Vice-Premier Wu Yi said in her opening remarks that the US was failing to fully understand China.

US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson accused China of holding down the value of its currency to boost exports, and urged "tangible results" in the talks.

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4506
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby putnanja » 16 Jun 2008 00:55

Private players may be roped in to speed up uranium mining

New Delhi, June 15 Bolstered by several new uranium findings across the country, and with a worsening fuel crunch badly affecting nuclear plant operations, the Government is looking at the option of opening uranium mining to the private sector.

Plans by the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) to commercialise exploratory uranium mines in order to speed up domestic mining efforts come in the wake of a widening gap between fuel requirement and availability for nuclear power plants.

Under the proposal, private players may be allowed to invest in designated mines and extract uranium, with State-owned companies such as Uranium Corporation of India Ltd subsequently buying the mined mineral, Government officials said.

Mines that have been discovered and explored so far by the Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration and Research — which carries out the initial exploration of nuclear minerals in the country — are likely to be commercialised, officials said.

New finds


This move comes in the wake of around 190 tonnes of additional uranium resources being established recently in Sikar district of Rajasthan and Lostoin and Wahkyn in Meghalaya, officials said. Significant mineralised bands have also been identified in Belgaum and Gulbarga districts in Karnataka; Nalgonda, Guntur and Kadapa districts in Andhra Pradesh; Mahendragarh district in Haryana; Durg district in Chhattisgarh; and Jajpur district in Orissa.

“Reconnaissance survey has resulted in discovering promising uranium anomalies in new sites. The department will be doing exploratory mining of 1.4 lakh sq metres across the country for uranium during the current Five-Year Plan and involving private partners can definitely speed up the process,” a Government official said.

Total uranium resources established in the country so far amount to 94,000 tonnes, most of which are located in three main provinces — Singhbhum, Mahadek and Cuddapah. Currently all deposits at Singhbhum province in the east are being exploited, including Jaduguda, Narwapahar, Turamdih, and Bagjata.

The Mahadek uranium province in Meghalaya contains the largest and richest sandstone-hosted uranium deposit in the country in the West Khasi Hills district. Another deposit of similar nature is at Wahkyn, where exploration activities are in progress. The Cuddapah uranium province includes the Tummalapalle deposits in Andhra Pradesh.

Fuel shortage


With progress on the Indo-US civilian nuclear deal on the backburner, nuclear fuel imports in the near future have been ruled out for now, officials said. The total capacity of the 17 nuclear reactors in the country is 4,120 MWe (mega watt electrical).

Existing nuclear stations recorded a PLF (plant load factor) of 46.4 per cent in March, as fuel shortages affected generation. State-owned Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) had been running these plants at 95 per capacity since the late 1990s.

NPCIL’s new units — RAPS 5 and 6 (in Rajasthan), and Kaiga 4 (in Karnataka) — are facing delays beyond their June 2008 commissioning schedule due to lack of uranium. These new units cumulatively add up to 440 MWe of fresh power capacity.

Nuclear energy contributes less than three per cent of the country’s installed generation capacity. The country is not well endowed with uranium ore and the shortage of fuel is becoming a stumbling block for the expansion of nuclear power.


NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby NRao » 16 Jun 2008 01:54

As the price of Uranium increases, on the world markets, more finds will become economically feasible.

However, how long does it typically take to operationalize a mine - ground up? 5-10 years?

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

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby Tilak » 16 Jun 2008 07:09

N-deal: 'The clock has virtually run out'
Aziz Haniffa in Washington, DC | June 12, 2008 10:25 IST

While scrupulously eschewing acknowledging publicly that the US-India civilian nuclear deal that lies comatose due to domestic politics in India is all but dead, senior Administration officials have privately said, "The clock has virtually run out," and it's "highly unlikely" that the US Congress will be able to act on it now, thus leaving President Bush sans one major positive foreign policy legacy he was so much hoping for.

Congressional sources echoed similar pessimism and told rediff.com that even if the Manmohan Singh government decides to go ahead despite the vehement opposition of its Leftist coalition partners, completes the safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency and sends the deal back to the US in the next few weeks, it still doesn't give the administration sufficient time to convince the Nuclear Suppliers Group to endorse the agreement and then prevail on the US Congress to quickly approve it before it adjourns.

Two senior sources who are staffers on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee told rediff.com that even though it is going to be an up or down vote, the problem is getting it scheduled on the Congressional calendar for action, considering all of the other stuff that has to be completed -- and that is taking for granted that there is indeed overwhelming support to get it slotted as there was for the earlier enabling legislation that was adopted in 2006.

They said even that is in doubt, because there are several senior lawmakers, including the likes of Foreign Affairs Committee Congressman Howard Berman and the Ranking Republican on the panel, Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who still had questions they believed had not been answered completely by the administration regarding the 123 Agreement that "could put a hold on the agreement being scheduled for a vote until their questions are answered to their satisfaction."

"And, mind you, all this is the best case scenario in the event that the Indians get their act together and complete all that has to be done at their end and get it back over here in the next couple of weeks and the administration simultaneously gets the support of the NSG," one source said.

At the State Department Wednesday, Gonzalo Galegos, director of press relations who conducted the daily briefing, asked about reports that had begun to appear that the deal was dead and the administration had resigned itself to this, said, "This administration has been firm in its support for the deal. It continues to be so."

"Right now, we are at a situation where this is with the Indian government and literally with the Indian people. This is a matter for them to decide and then follow through with," he said.

Galegos pointed out that "we've consistently stated that we stand behind this, that we continue to support it, and that we would like to move apace in terms of proceeding with it."

"However," he acknowledged, "there is, you know, the bottom line is, there's a reality of the Congressional calendar that has to be dealt with. We do hope that we can continue and possibly conclude this in the near future."

When pressed if the administration is hopeful it can be completed in its waning days and before the end of the Bush term, Galegos said, "I would be the last one -- if my boss and my boss's boss are loathe to commit to dates, I'm -- I fear it even more than they do."

Ashley J Tellis, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who was intimately involved in the negotiation of the deal -- assisting the chief US interlocutor, then under secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns -- said that while technically the deal may not be dead, nuclear cooperation could not begin with India before the US Congress approves the 123 Agreement.

In an interview with rediff.com, Tellis, who is a strategic affairs adviser to Senator John McCain [Images], the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, asked if the current Congress would be able to complete approval of the deal before the end of the Bush term, said, "I don't think anyone knows the answer to that question at this point."

"Obviously, it would depend greatly on how quickly the government of India were to move in securing IAEA Board approval of the 123 Agreement," he said. "But, I would caution against presuming to know the mind of Congress or prematurely drawing any conclusions with respect to how and when it would exercise its right to review and approve the agreement."

Tellis argued that when pundits and commentators in Washington and New Delhi declare that the 'deal is dead,' they are being "quite presumptuous" in terms of "implying that they know either Congress' eventual judgment about the 123 or how it will manage the review and approval process."

However, he acknowledged, "I would be the first to admit that even if the Indian government were suddenly to turn around and get IAEA approval of the 123 today, it would be an uphill battle to complete everything during the current Congressional term."

But he argued that this "presumes that the US Congress is unaware of the significance of this initiative and its importance for the bilateral relationship," and added, "In fact, everything the Congress has done so far demonstrates exactly the opposition -- it has moved quickly and responsibly precisely because it appreciates the stakes. :rotfl: "

"My hopefulness may therefore border on optimism, but it is not unfounded," he said.

But Tellis warned against the contention by some Indian commentators who have argued that there is nothing to lose if India waits and concludes the deal after President Bush leaves office because the integral elements of the agreement have already been concluded, particularly the amending of US law to permit the resumption of civilian nuclear cooperation with India -- an exclusive exemption -- as contained in the enabling legislation known as the Hyde Act.

He said that besides the "personal stakes" of President Bush and Dr Singh in this agreement "because it is uniquely their own," there was a sense of momentum right now. "The IAEA, the US Congress and the NSG are prepared to act."

Tellis said, "It is simply impossible to foresee what the political circumstances both domestically and internationally may be a year or so from now and whether the current favourable circumstances will continue to hold indefinitely."

He also said that a change in administration, both in the US and India, "will mean new people coming on board," and consequently "this loss of institutional memory will increase the burdens of getting this done cleanly and expeditiously."

Tellis added, "A Democratic administration in the United States -- something which must be reckoned a possibility come this November, could choose to renegotiate or alter the current deal. That would likely not find favor in India and could in fact kill it, because the current deal is truly the best agreement that both sides could come up with. :roll: "

Thus, he said, "Excuses for delay are dangerous and actually counterproductive."

Tellis asserted, "Senator McCain has wholeheartedly endorsed the deal," and that "if elected he will endeavor to complete it, if it is still hanging out there by the time he assumes office."

But he reiterated that "there is no telling whether the environment in which a President McCain finds himself will be favourable to easy consummation. I don't think the problem will be a Democratic Congress per se -- most Democrats in Congress supported the Hyde Act by a large margin. My biggest fear is that the currently favorable political environment may disappear for a variety of reasons, none related to India," and thus the deal could "become a victim to extraneous circumstances."

Meanwhile, the Indian-American community that mobilised like it had never before in its history to pull out all the stops and lobby to approve the enabling legislation, had also all but thrown in the towel.

Swadesh Chatterjee, coordinator of the US-India Friendship Council, an umbrella organisation incorporating all of the Indian-American community, political and professional organisation, that was formed in 2005 solely to push through the deal, acknowledged that while personally he had not thrown in the towel, the majority in the community had.

He said "there was so much disappointment in the community that it will be extremely difficult to mobilise again like we did the first time around and bring the kind of critical mass we did to push it through Congress."

Chatterjee said, "It is very unfortunate that politics in India has taken over this deal and it has nothing to do with the country's interests. They are not looking at what is good for India. They are only looking at what is good for their party. This is so very, very sad."

He said, "Members of the community are feeling so deflated and so let down after all that they did -- spending their own time, money, putting their careers and families on hold for months on end :roll: -- and now have no incentive to do that again, particularly when the politicians over there don't even seem to have a fraction of the commitment and dedication we have for this deal."

"It seems like Dr Singh is a lone voice for this deal and many in the Congress Party are also not for it," Chatterjee added.

Sources said that the US business lobby, under the aegis of the US-India Business Council, which had also been in the forefront of pushing for the deal, also felt badly let down and was on the verge of discontinuing the services of top notch Washington lobbying firms like Patton Boggs that it had hired to work for the consummation of the accord in Congress.

When External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee visited Washington a little over two months ago, Ron Somers, president of the USIBC, reflecting the angst of the American business and industry, asked him bluntly at a meeting at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace -- that was closed to the media -- whether US business should "fold our tent and go home," who which Mukherjee implored, "please keep up the momentum." :roll:

But many business leaders and the members of the community believed that Mukherjee's exhortations rang hollow and in a tangible manifestation of the deal being in the doldrums, former ambassador to India Robert Blackwill, who was anointed president of another leading lobbying firm in Washington -- Barbour Griffiths and Rogers -- purely on the strength of securing the government of India lobbying contract to help bring the deal to fruition, "folded his tent," and left the firm for academia in California.



Nice to see, Ashley Tellis playing the "Good Cop, Bad Cop" routine, for a change.


Sonia ties nuke deal to price rise
June 15 , 2008

New Delhi, June 14: Sonia Gandhi has argued that nuclear energy is key to fighting price rise, signalling her support to the Indo-US agreement after months of silence.

Nuclear energy has gained much importance in view of steep crude oil prices in the world,” the Congress president told a rally in Guwahati yesterday, less than a week before the UPA-Left panel meets to discuss the deal on Wednesday.

“The biggest challenge before the country today is escalating prices that are the fallout of the steep increase in crude oil prices. The prices of petroleum and diesel in our country are still much cheaper than that in our neighbouring countries and many other parts of the world. The government is facing tremendous pressure in its efforts to shield people from the real impact of the global crude oil price rise,” Sonia said.

The Left, which has been crying itself hoarse on price rise, is blocking the nuclear deal.

External affairs minister Pranab Mukherjee echoed his party chief in Calcutta today. “We are not going for nuclear power for fun,” he told a Merchants’ Chamber of Commerce meeting. Mukherjee stressed the need for nuclear power to achieve energy security as global crude oil prices touch record highs.

The nuclear deal is needed to make power available at an affordable price and to maintain growth at 9 per cent, he said.

In August, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had dared the Left to withdraw support if it did not accept the nuclear agreement. In the following months, the Congress lost its moorings. The government still had a year to complete its term and Sonia appeared reluctant to forfeit power over an issue that was seen as an electoral dud. In a coalition, she said, the views of each constituent mattered.

Although Singh often stressed he still hoped the deal would go through — the last time was on Wednesday — his party appeared uncertain. Sonia’s statement yesterday is the first indication in a while that the Congress, too, has not given up.

The government hopes to get the Left’s go-ahead to complete the India-specific safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency and seek the waiver from Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) countries. These two steps are needed to operationalise the deal.

“We hope that the Left leaders will appreciate the government’s position. They cannot have it both ways: they can’t insist that there should be no fuel price hike and simultaneously block the nuclear energy option :roll: ,” a Congress source said.

Commerce minister Kamal Nath said yesterday the government was still working to evolve domestic political consensus on the deal.

As if on cue, the US, too, raised the energy issue. Commerce secretary Carlos Gutierrez said at a US-India Business Council meet in Washington: “Rising demand for energy is an issue that our countries can’t ignore. We believe it’s essential to quickly implement that landmark civilian nuclear agreement and bring India into the international nuclear non-proliferation mainstream.”

The US is “committed to being India’s partner in providing clean, sustainable energy”, he added.

CPI opposes deal

CPI general secretary A.B. Bardhan iterated the party’s opposition to the deal. “The US is adopting various means to draw the country into a strategic partnership. They have a purpose, an aim. It wants India to act as its outpost in the region to counter-balance China,” he said. “We want India and China to stay together.”


Congress has decided to go for the deal, its just a matter of time. Now all thats required is a mere signature on the dotted line to bring down the prices, according the spinmeisters. :lol:

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54825
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby ramana » 16 Jun 2008 10:27

maybe the loans and grants are being called in. Hence the sudden linkage of crude oil price and nuke deal!


Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby Gerard » 17 Jun 2008 08:43

Australia won't sell uranium to India
"If India were to commit to a ban on nuclear testing and the production of weapons-grade material, this could open the way for it to join a restructured NPT,"

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby Gerard » 17 Jun 2008 08:44

Nuke deal will help India: Chidambaram
"I support the deal. Many countries are interested in working with India in various areas of nuclear technology. It will be possible once the deal is done," Chidambaram, now chairman of the Union Cabinet's Scientific Advisory Committee, told newsmen after delivering the Raja Ramanna Memorial lecture at the Variable Energy Cyclotron Centre here.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby Gerard » 17 Jun 2008 08:57

Simpsonville man sentenced for violating nuclear non-proliferation controls
A Simpsonville businessman was sentenced to 35 months in federal prison Monday for violating U.S. arms export laws by shipping restricted military technology to India.

Sanatanan
BRFite
Posts: 482
Joined: 31 Dec 2006 09:29

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby Sanatanan » 17 Jun 2008 09:00

Main Article from Editorial Section of Deccan Herald of Tuesday, June 17, 2008 (Web Edition); quoting in full. Curiously, while the author's affiliation has been indicated, his name is not.

Indo-US nuclear pact: Whats behind the deal? {should perhaps have been What's}

India can go ahead developing both nuclear weapons and nuclear energy using offshore nuclear plants offered by Russia.

Although the Indian media and the government wants to promote the Indo-US nuclear deal in terms of power generation, the deal has very little to do with power generation. Nuclear power contributes about 2 per cent of the current electricity generation in India.

At present, India is producing 3,300 MW. In 2020, the production would be 7,000 MW. According to the Planning Commission and the Prime Minister, the capacity of nuclear power would be 20,000 MW in 2020. In order to get there India will buy second-hand reactors {this one is new for me} from the US to produce 13,000 MW of nuclear power. India will have to spend about Rs 2 lakh crore for reactors and another Rs 8 lakh crore to set them up with fuel facilities to achieve that goal. The Indian budget is only Rs 6.5 lakh crore per year.

Thus, India will spend two times more than the country’s annual budget on setting up these vintage reactors only. Even if India were to achieve a 50 per cent increase in nuclear power generation (which is unlikely) such a step would only increase India’s overall electricity output by one per cent at most, and would only increase India’s overall energy output by a fraction of one per cent.

The reason, the US is pushing so hard that India should accept the deal, is, that this deal is nothing but Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) in a different name. India so far has refused to sign the NPT as it would not allow India to develop or keep nuclear weapons but allow India to import civilian nuclear reactors, which would be under the safeguards of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Authority).

India is not a “pariah” in the world regarding nuclear energy. Since 1974, despite of the western sanction, India has received every nuclear technology, and materials including nuclear power plants, fast breeder reactors, reprocessing and enrichment plants and heavy water plants from the Soviet Union and later Russia. As a result, India is self-sufficient in nuclear technology and can produce nuclear weapons despite all the efforts of the US to stop it.

Only for the last two years, because of its membership of the NSG (Nuclear Suppliers Group), Russia now wants to supply nuclear power plants with safeguard; so that the plants cannot be used to produce any nuclear weapons. However, at the same time, it has offered offshore nuclear plants to India, which would be without any restrictions. India can have both or either of the on-shore or offshore nuclear power plants from Russia even without 123 Treaty with the US.

Already the US senate has imposed a new clause in the Hyde Act that in future US organisations would make sure India will not be able to gain any advantage to use its nuclear facilities to create nuclear weapons. Section 104(d) (2) of the Hyde Act stipulates that transfers to India cannot begin without these suitable changes in NSG guidelines.

Also there are provisions in the legislation, which would put a cap on fissile material production. The US will not give India the right to reprocess spent fuel. About 90 per cent of all nuclear facilities, including the Russian built fast breeder reactors, which can also produce plutonium for both its fuel and nuclear weapons, will be included in the civilian sector.

India for the military part of the nuclear sector will not be able to import technology or materials from any of the countries of the NSG, including Russia. Thus, India’s nuclear weapons programme will disappear. This is the real aim of the Indo-US treaty.

India decided on a three-stage nuclear programme back in the 50’s, when the nuclear power generation programme was set up. In the final stage, the Fast Breeder Reactors (FBR) will use thorium and produce uranium-233 for use in the third stage of these reactors.

FBRs can produce enough plutonium to be used as fuel in subsequent stages so as to make themselves self-sufficient. India began the construction of the Advanced Heavy Water Reactor (AHWR) in 2005 with help from Russia. Russian built FBRs will be ready by 2009.

India has a large estimated thorium reserves of some 290,000 tonnes, it ranks second only to Australia. This would help India to bring independence from overseas uranium sources and India would be at liberty to produce as many nuclear weapons as it likes. However, according to the Indo-US Deal, India’s fast breeder reactors, which can utilise thorium to produce plutonium, would be under the control of the IAEA and the US authority and will not be allowed to produce plutonium.

Without the nuclear deal India can go ahead developing both nuclear weapons and nuclear energy using offshore nuclear plants offered by Russia. Russian atomic concern Rosenergoatom is constructing the world’s first floating nuclear station (PATES). This is based on the reactors that had been for decades used in Russian nuclear submarines and icebreakers. KLT-40C (the reactor of PATES) with 70 Mega Watt power is sufficient for supplying energy to a town with the population of 50 000 people.

India can certainly take advantage of this new technology, as the offshore nuclear plants in international water along India’s coastline would be outside the jurisdiction of either Nuclear Suppliers Group or the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. This is exactly what President Putin earlier has suggested but India was not interested.

In the case of nuclear deal with the US also, India just like in 1991 and 1995 is accepting a subordinate position in relation to the US and the Western countries. The result will make Pakistan much stronger than India in the very near future. That serves the geo-political interest of the United States with Pakistan as the bridge to the Islamic world. The unfolding scenario will ruin India in the process when India will be forced to surrender also to the demands of Pakistan, a NATO ally of the US, and China, the most important business partner of the US corporations and on whom the fate of the US Dollar depends. This is the real issue, which Indian political establishment is ignoring.

(The writer is professor in international economics, Nagasaki University, Japan.)

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4850
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby Neshant » 17 Jun 2008 11:15

What the heck is a 'second hand reactor'?

Sounds like another union carbide is about to decend on India.

By the way, US wants India to sign some protocol that absolves the US of any legalities if a nuke reactor turns into a chernobyl. They can walk away from that free and clear.

I hope this nuclear deal sinks beneath the waves and is never seen again.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby Gerard » 17 Jun 2008 15:42

There is no such thing as a second hand reactor. The author is also quite confused regarding safeguards. The previously supplied Russian reactors are all under IAEA safeguards as will any future ones. Russia will also not sell any new reactors without NSG clearance. The idea that the proposed floating reactors would somehow be outside the NSG or NPT is ludicrous.

The NSG rule change to require full scope safeguards was not aimed at the 189 signatories of the NPT. The NNWS members are already under full scope and the NWS members are exempt.

When Russia agreed to impose full scope, it was agreeing to halt any reactor sales to India until it agreed to full scope (basically terminating any weapons work). Israel is no market for Russian reactors and Pakistan has no money so the Russians were well aware that they were providing an extra pair of hands to squeeze India's cojones. The purpose of that NSG rule change was CRE (and not implied CRE, or domestic legislation CRE but international agreement-let's gang up on India CRE) of the Indian arsenal.

That same Russia is now somehow an alternate supplier of Nuclear reactors, free from NSG constraints?

BS

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54825
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby ramana » 17 Jun 2008 20:49

From Hindu:
Left not to allow even India-specific accord with IAEA

Left not to allow even India-specific accord with IAEA
New Delhi (PTI): Brushing aside the government's last-ditch efforts at persuasion ahead of Wednesday's meeting, the Left parties on Tuesday maintained that they continued to oppose the Indo-US nuclear deal, including the India-specific safeguards agreement with IAEA.

The Left's stand was once again conveyed to the government when CPI(M) General Secretary Prakash Karat met External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee here on Monday night.

Mukherjee, who heads the UPA-Left Committee on the nuclear deal, is understood to have urged the Left parties to allow the government seal the India-specific safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, a plea that was rejected by the Left leader.

The safeguards agreement with the IAEA is a step towards implementing the deal.

"I cannot say anything now", Mukherjee said in Dehradun on Tuesday when asked by reporters to comment on what transpired at his meeting with Karat on Monday night.

In Delhi, Karat had an hour-long meeting with his CPI counterpart A B Bardhan on Tuesday, though the latter maintained that the nuclear issue did not come up for discussion.

"You know what our stand is. There is no change as far as that is concerned. We will take that stand tommorrow also," Bardhan said after the meeting.

Asked whether Mukherjee made any proposal at his meeting with Karat, the CPI leader said "there are so many proposals. We are not in favour of operationalising the deal."

To a question whether the Left would allow government to finalise a safeguards agreement if the US deal was delinked from it, he said "they have not told us anything of that sort. ... We are not against nuclear energy.

"If they are so concerned about energy security, what about the (Iran-Pakistan-India) gas pipeline. Why are you (government) dragging your feet? If you are really keen on energy security, you should be keen on the gas pipeline also," Bardhan said.

Asked about Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's remark that the deal would help India come out of the nuclear aparthied, Bardhan said "there is no question of us getting out of this apartheid, unless America, which has created this apartheid, gets us out of it."

To a question whether tomorrow's meeting, the ninth round since the UPA-Left committee was formed, would be the last one, Bardhan said "I don't know. There is no such thing that this is the last meeting."

Noting that the UPA-Left committee was yet to finalise its findings on the deal, he said "we have discussed various aspects of the deal, the Hyde Act, its foreign policy implications, the question of its (the deal's) impact on our sovereignty and what sort of safeguards are required."

Bardhan also rejected suggestions that the committee had lost its relevance.

The Left posturing came in the backdrop of the Prime Minister making a strong pitch for the nuclear deal, saying it would protect India's strategic interests and hoped progress will be made in the months ahead on the agreement which has "run into some difficulties".

The CPI(M) had last week said it was not opposed to a safeguards agreement with IAEA but maintained its objections to the nuclear deal with the US.

"Our objection is not to agreement with IAEA. Our objection is with the 123 agreement which, according to us, is very deeply anchored in the Hyde Act (of the US)," CPI(M) Polit Bureau member Sitaram Yechury said.

In a hard-hitting editorial in its party mouthpiece, he had questioned whether the government was pursuing the agreement to "bolster" the American economy.

As far as getting the IAEA board of governors to approve the India-specific safeguards agreement, the Left parties have maintained that this was not acceptable as it was being negotiated in the context of the Indo-US nuclear deal.

The Left parties have been saying that going to the IAEA now would only be the next step to operationalise the agreement, which they cannot allow.

So far as nuclear trade with Russia and France is concerned, there was no urgency to go the IAEA now as these two countries have not even signed bilateral nuclear agreements with India.

The signing of such an agreement with Russia was deferred during Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's last visit to Moscow.

Besides the safeguards agreement with IAEA, India has to seek waiver from the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group from its guidelines to participate in international atomic trade to operationalise the nuclear deal.


Things are moving to a head. The Left thinks the IAEA deal itself is the precursor to the US 123. Need to see what happens next.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4850
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby Neshant » 17 Jun 2008 23:01

For once, the left is doing the right thing.

All these agreements are just a stepping stone to putting a web of restrictions. If India has declared itself a nuclear power, there is no need to accept 2nd rate status to countries far smaller like France and Britain.

krithivas
BRFite
Posts: 438
Joined: 20 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Offline

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby krithivas » 17 Jun 2008 23:36

India's Left is doing China's bidding. These Indian traitors have not changed.

During Congress's rule, India has increasingly become the play ground of every power on earth - From Jehadis to Christian Evangelists to Chinese. The chaos level within the nation from Gujjars to Gorkhaland strife has only increased as Congress holds on to the last shreds of power under any cost to the nation.

For once, Congress did something that was right in the nations interest - the nuke agreement with USA. That is becoming a no-op.

R. Krithivas

paramu
BRFite
Posts: 669
Joined: 20 May 2008 11:38

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby paramu » 18 Jun 2008 00:18

krithivas wrote:India's Left is doing China's bidding. These Indian traitors have not changed.

Fortunately, in this narrow context, India's and China's interests overlapped.

rocky
BRFite
Posts: 142
Joined: 08 Mar 2006 22:52

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby rocky » 18 Jun 2008 01:17

Canada is building two new Candu plants in Darlington: http://www.thestar.com/News/Ontario/article/444474
Canada's first new reactors in two decades are expected to generate up to 3,200 megawatts of power. That is almost enough to power all homes and businesses in Toronto and nearly doubles Darlington's current capacity.

Energy Minister Gerry Phillips said construction should begin at the existing station in 2012 with electricity being generated by July 1, 2018. Phillips declined to give a price tag for the Darlington project other than to say it would fit within the province's $26.3 billion plan to upgrade its nuclear capacity over the next 20 years.
The exact price is unknown, since it includes refurbishment expenses for the other reactors that can cost upto a billion each. But that means 3200MW of power is being installed at close to $20B over a six-year period, in an optimistic scenario.
Experts say new nuclear plants can cost $8 billion to $15 billion.
Just a post putting in perspective the amount of money India may need for building nuclear power plants locally.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54825
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby ramana » 18 Jun 2008 02:18

Looks like there is another mtg on Wednesday and the pressure builds up before it.

Let's stick to N-panel report: Karat

Santanu Banerjee | New Delhi

As a last ditch effort to win Left's approval for the India-US civil nuclear deal, External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee met CPI(M) General Secretary Prakash Karat late on Monday evening.

Karat is understood to have told Mukherjee that that the Left's position remains unchanged and they would rather stick to the finding of the Nuclear committee consisting of UPA and Left leaders.

The meeting assumed importance in the context of the 8th round of meeting of the Left-UPA Nuclear Committee on Wednesday.

According to sources, Karat had conveyed the feelings of other Left parties that "the Left cannot stretch itself further on this issue". Mukherjee, who happens to be the convener of the committee, reportedly urged Karat to allow the Government proceed with the safe-guard agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency on grounds that it would help India to carry out similar agreements with countries like Russia or France. But Karat is understood to have told Mukherjee that when India went to IAEA, UPA did not have either Russia or France in mind.

Interestingly, CPI general secretary AB Bardhan indicated that in case the Government raised the issue of energy deficiency as a strong ground for the Government deciding in favour of operationalising the deal, we will tell them to go ahead with the India-Iran gas-pipeline project on which the Govt has not acted as yet.

The talks had broken down in the last meeting on the issue of nuclear fuel and the shortage that India is facing. Still, the Congress wants to push ahead with the same agenda. Said a senior leader: "We have to apprise the Left on how our plants are running under capacity due to shortage of nuclear fuel. We cannot even use our thorium reserves because we do not have uranium resources required to enrich thorium." :roll:


putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4506
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby putnanja » 18 Jun 2008 02:53

India should sign n-deal soon: Russian envoy

NEW DELHI, JUNE 17: A day before the crucial UPA-Left committee meeting on the Indo-US nuclear deal, the Russian Ambassador to India, Vyacheslav Trubnikov, came out in strong support of the agreement.

“In my personal assessment, in principle, the Indo-US nuclear deal is useful for India,” he told reporters at the opening of the Russian news agency Ria Novosti’s multimedia centre here on Tuesday, adding that the deal should be signed “sooner than later.” He stated that the agreement would allow New Delhi to cooperate more with other countries in the field. Adding a word of caution, however, he said that it was for India to decide “the price at which it should strike the deal”.

Trubnikov’s comments come amid the Government’s efforts to finalise the conditions under which it should sign the stalled nuclear deal, especially in the face of stiff resistance from the Left allies.

Just last week, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh pitched for the deal on the rationale that it would open doors for deals with France and Russia among other countries.

Asked about the expansion of Indo-Russian civil nuclear cooperation, Trubnikov maintained that Moscow was bound by international obligations and would like India to conclude the safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and to get a waiver from the guidelines of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) to participate in nuclear trade. “We cannot violate international obligations as an NSG member. This is (why) the draft agreement between India and Russia has been initialled but not signed,” he said, making it explicit that Russia was also bound by “internal laws” that could not be overstepped.

Trubnikov said once India signed the safeguards agreement with the IAEA and met the NSG guidelines to participate in nuclear commerce, Russia would also be able to go ahead with its cooperation with India in the sector.

“Russia is the only country with a presence in India that shares its views on the peaceful use of nuclear energy, with the exception of France which also has a similar agreement ready,” he said.

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4506
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby putnanja » 18 Jun 2008 03:03

PM and Sonia should tell Left why they are so committed to nuclear deal, or just junk it

In the first fallout of the Congress’s failure to return to power in Karnataka last month, a scheduled meeting of the UPA-Left coordination committee on the government’s civil nuclear initiative was postponed to June 18. The decision was wise. Carrying through the initiative is a political exercise for the Congress-led UPA. And at such a crucial juncture in India’s negotiations on a safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, a government perceived to be politically weak could not have pulled off its case. But three weeks later, as the day of reckoning approaches, has the government done its political groundwork? Because the intellectual argument for the nuclear initiative was won a long time ago. What remains in doubt is the government’s ability to win the case politically.

As our columnist today points out, there is no equivalence here between the government and its political opponents, or even political allies like the Left opposed from the start to the Indo-US nuclear deal. Political parties can get away, howsoever pathetically, by allowing political expediency decide their positions on issues of national interest. Governments cannot. In the past few days, both Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Congress President and UPA Chairperson Sonia Gandhi have underlined the importance of the civil nuclear initiative for India’s national interest. And that national interest is significant. The deal doesn’t just allow India to access technology that will diversify its energy basket. It legitimises India as a nuclear weapons power as well, thereby removing the pariah tag from a country that has always honoured international rules on non-proliferation. In essence, it takes this country out of rather dubious company.

To get this far, India has undertaken extraordinarily nimble diplomatic initiatives. In the current nuclear nonproliferation regime, it is no mean feat to get the international community on board for a one-time exception. How then did India lose the case internally that it has won so conclusively externally? The time is now past for the government to win incremental concession from the Left. Even in its own political interest, the Congress should consider what exactly it is buying by living from one UPA-Left coordination committee meeting to the next. A few more months in power? With the next general election due less than a year from now, that’s a very paltry extension in office, especially if it would mean sacrificing an initiative which the prime minister has let us know once again is so crucial to India’s legitimate aspirations.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54825
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby ramana » 18 Jun 2008 03:08

The pressure is mounting on UPA before its mtg date. Now I.E. is advising the govt to go ahead and not be bound or cling to power for the next few months! The Russian amabassador is also advising the deal. Most likely the govt will go ahead with the IAEA right now. Dont know if Left will withdraw support or not.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby svinayak » 18 Jun 2008 03:12

ramana wrote:The pressure is mounting on UPA before its mtg date. Now I.E. is advising the govt to go ahead and not be bound or cling to power for the next few months! The Russian amabassador is also advising the deal. Most likely the govt will go ahead with the IAEA right now. Dont know if Left will withdraw support or not.

Left and WB had lot of visits to Kolkatta in the last 18mths from industrialists such as Swaraj Paul, Tata and Infosys. All these companies have put money in the lobby to get the deal passed along with the US companies in the Chambers of commerce. Only thing is that they failed to look at the fine print regarding testing and future path of the strategic program for the country. How did this happen. Was there nobody to look at this fine print or was it a tacit agreement.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests