India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby nkumar » 05 Sep 2008 03:58

KS in Tribune:

NEWS ANALYSIS
By K. Subrahmanyam
India can meet all challenges of 123 pact

Congressman Howard Berman, a known opponent of Indo-US nuclear deal and Chairman of the House of Representatives Foreign Relations Committee has released the answers furnished by the State Department to his predecessor Tom Lantos on the questionnaire Lantos had sent to the State Department.

The reply was sent in January 2008. Though it was not a classified document, the recipient was asked to keep it confidential in view of the sensitive nature of the replies. Obviously, this was a reference to the debate in India on the Indo-US nuclear deal and the strong emotions it had generated.

Now Berman has deliberately released it in the hope it will complicate the issue at the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) meeting in Vienna on September 4 and 5.

As expected by the opponents of the deal in the US, the release of the letter has generated the expected reactions in India from the BJP leadership and the Left. Demands have been made for a special session of Parliament and even for the resignation of the government on moral grounds.

The charge is that the government, particularly the Prime Minister, misled the House. But for an impartial and apolitical observer, such a charge appears totally untenable.

It is said that the State Department document makes it clear that in case of India conducting a test, the US will cease all nuclear cooperation and demand to take back its equipment and fuel. This is held as inhibiting India's right to test. No. It does not take away India's right to test which is inherent in India's sovereignty.

But there will be consequences if India conducts a test as there were in 1998. Any future Prime Minister who wants to test will take into account all possible consequences before ordering it.

Neither the Indo-US deal nor the proposed NSG waiver binds India in a multilateral commitment not to test. India will continue to have its sovereign right to test.

Article 14 of the 123 Agreement lays down the procedure for cessation of cooperation in case India carries out a test. It will not be automatic but will involve consultations and consideration whether the Indian test was due to changed security environment or similar action by other powers.

Therefore, there is an implied acceptance that there may be circumstances in which India may be justified to test. This is the only international treaty that recognises contingent possibilities of India testing.

The US document makes it clear that the US will cease all supply of fuel in case of a test. The opponents to the deal point out that this will come in the way of India having assured fuel supplies. Surely, India will not think of testing without building up a strategic fuel reserve.

The strategic fuel reserve will not necessarily be built on US supplies only. Once the NSG waiver is obtained, India will be in a position to enter into commerce with other countries which are in a position to supply fuel.

It is highlighted that the State Department document points out that the US administration is bound by the Hyde Act. It will be bound by the Hyde Act till the Congress approves the 123 Agreement which will supercede the provisions of the Act as it is an international treaty and also it is passed later.

The US Supreme court has held that international treaties override local laws. It is also a well known principle in law that if there is a contradiction between an earlier and later laws, the later law will prevail. So when the US Congress passes the 123 Agreement that will supercede the Hyde Act

The third issue is the assertion in the State Department replies that the US has no plans to transfer to India sophisticated enrichment and reprocessing technologies. The US does not transfer such technologies to any country in the world, including its closest allies.

But the 123 Agreement leaves a possibility of a future amendment for the purpose. However, India hopes that with the NSG waiver, the country will be able to get such technologies from other nuclear powers.

The US, Russia and the UK are the framers of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and founders of the London Suppliers Club, the predecessor of the NSG. Today those powers are moving to incorporate India in the non-proliferation regime to make it near universal leaving only Pakistan out of it.

All but three nations of the world are members of the NPT. The three stay-outs are Israel, India and Pakistan. Israel is not interested in civil nuclear commerce. Pakistan, as President Gerorge W. Bush pointed out, has a different history as a proliferator.

India is a country with advanced nuclear technology and has an impeccable non-proliferation record. Therefore, the major nuclear powers are interested in making India a stakeholder in the near universal non-proliferation regime, though they cannot admit India as a weapon power in the NPT without amending the Treaty. They are afraid of amending the Treaty lest the whole treaty should unravel. Therefore, this device of unique waiver for India!

The Left as well as those still conditioned by the Cold War are unable to come to terms with the radical changes in the international system. They are still looking upon India as a victim of US pressure and strategic manipulation.

In today's world, India has considerable leverage and it is respected in the international community.


Kanchan Gupta in Pioneer:

The PM stands diminished

As Thursday's meeting of the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group in Vienna concluded without a 'consensus' on accepting the redrafted American proposal for waiving the rules that prohibit trade in nuclear technology and fuel with India, Mr William Burns, the US Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs, whose services have been requisitioned by Washington to convince recalcitrant countries that wisdom lies in enabling the formal conclusion of the 123 Agreement, put a risible spin on continuing objections voiced by Austria, Ireland, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland. "I believe we are making steady progress in this process and we will continue to make progress," he told mediapersons, among them gullible journalists representing Indian newspapers and television channels.

It is anybody's guess as to whether the nay-sayers in the NSG will eventually accept the revised US draft and settle for the considerable concessions that have been made to appease non-proliferation hawks and curtail India's sovereign right to decide its nuclear policy, including its strategic deterrence component. Indeed, it would be a folly to under-estimate America's persuasive powers which are not necessarily linked to over-the-board, across-the-table diplomacy.

Look at the way it has managed to foist on us a so-called 'civilian nuclear cooperation agreement' that will revive the moribund American nuclear power industry, create thousands of jobs (which will not be open to holders of H1B visa, so there's little reason for our middle-class to cheer the deal), give President George W Bush his only foreign policy 'success', and serve the purpose of forcing India into the non-proliferation regime without conceding its nuclear weapons capability. A full 10 years after being caught unawares as India conducted a series of five nuclear tests on May 11 and 13, 1998, the US is about to extract sweet revenge, if not retribution, for that act of stupendous defiance.

It would, however, be unfair to blame the US alone for India's straitjacketing in so crafty and sly a manner. Governments are meant to protect their national self-interest and further their national agenda: There is little or no space for morality and ethics in international affairs; ruthless geopolitics does not countenance timidity although the powerful nations are not averse to doing business with obsequious regimes because they can ride roughshod over them.

If the US has succeeded in imposing upon us what Americans call a 'bum deal' or selling us what used car dealers in that country refer to as a 'lemon', it is because Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has willingly accepted it. In the process, he has not only compromised India's strategic interests but also wilfully misled a billion people. Not given to niceties, CPI(M) general secretary Prakash Karat has been less circumspect with his choice of words while accusing Mr Singh of "cheating" and "lying" over the nuclear deal.

Nothing illustrates this point better than the Prime Minister's suppression of the real facts and full implications of the India-US civilian nuclear cooperation agreement, which have now been revealed with Mr Howard L Berman, chairman of the US House Foreign Affairs Committee, making public the 'confidential' letter that had been sent by the Bush Administration to his predecessor, the late Tom Lantos, on January 16, 2008. It explains in detail American 'commitments' and Indian 'concessions' while arguing the case for the 123 Agreement. It also exposes the gulf that separates the various 'commitments' made by the Prime Minister in Parliament from the facts as perceived by the Americans. In brief, it proves that Mr Singh has been economical with the truth.

The drumbeaters of the Government have responded predictably, seeking to put a spin -- no less risible than that of Mr Burns' -- on the disclosure and thus obfuscate its real meaning: That the Prime Minister did not tell all while presenting the deal as a 'boon' for India. The same arguments have been reiterated: "It is an internal document of the US Administration"; "We are guided by the 123 Agreement"; "There's nothing new about the conditions"; and, "We cannot go beyond our commitment to Parliament, commitment made by the Prime Minister and commitment made by ourselves". The last refers to External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee's robust defence of the nuclear deal on All India Radio. It is another matter that Mr Mukherjee's assurances have proved to be false in the past; there is no reason why he should be taken seriously now.

Little purpose will be served by repeating all the points on which Mr Singh has misled the nation even if space were to permit such listing. The salient points would suffice to demonstrate that the apprehensions of those who have been steadfastly opposed to the deal because of its flaws are not unfounded. For instance, the letter makes it abundantly clear that the US has not given any legally binding nuclear fuel-supply assurance to India, only "presidential commitments" subject to American law. Now contrast this with what Mr Singh said in the Lok Sabha on August 13, 2007. He stressed on "detailed fuel supply assurances" by the US for "the uninterrupted operation of our nuclear reactors". Mr Singh cannot claim ignorance of the American perception or understanding of the 123 Agreement because the letter clearly says, "We believe the Indian Government shares our understanding of this provision."

Recall also how the Prime Minister assured the Lok Sabha the same day that "this Agreement envisages, in consonance with the Separation Plan, US support for an Indian effort to develop a strategic reserve of nuclear fuel to guard against any disruption of supply for the lifetime of India's reactors". This is totally at variance with the Bush Administration's communication to the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which says India will not be allowed to stockpile such nuclear fuel stocks as to undercut American leverage to re-impose sanctions. To drive home this point, it says the 123 Agreement is not inconsistent with the Hyde Act's stipulation -- the little-known 'Barack Obama Amendment' -- that the supply of nuclear fuel should be "commensurate with reasonable operating requirements". The 'strategic reserve' that is crucial to India's nuclear programme is, therefore, a non-starter.

Last, but not least, recall the Prime Minister's declaration in the Lok Sabha on July 22, 2008: "I confirm that there is nothing in these agreements which prevents us from further nuclear tests if warranted by our national security concerns. All that we are committed to is a voluntary moratorium on further testing." And what does the Bush Administration's letter say? "As outlined in Article 14 of the 123 Agreement, should India detonate a nuclear-explosive device, the United States has the right to cease all nuclear cooperation with India immediately, including the supply of fuel, as well as request the return of any items transferred from the United States, including fresh fuel."

The India-US nuclear deal is no longer only about how it compromises India's sovereign rights and strategic interests. It is also about the integrity of those who have facilitated its imposition on India. Regrettably, the Prime Minister stands diminished with a questionable integrity quotient.

Sean
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 45
Joined: 24 Aug 2008 01:58

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby Sean » 05 Sep 2008 04:01

awagaman wrote:From SV blog:-http://svaradarajan.blogspot.com/2008/09/bush-berman-bombshell-and-ghosts-of.html

The only insurance still left in India's hand if the Americans push ahead with their interpretation on fuel supply assurances is to build a strategic reserve (of non-American fuel) to guard against supply disruptions caused by U.S.-led sanctions. Even if the NSG were to approve a waiver for India in a form the country finds acceptable, it is clear that the bilateral aspect of the U.S.-India nuclear agreement is more or less dead. Pouring billions of dollars into American reactors whose fuel supply may be uncertain and whose spent fuel India may find itself eventually barred from reprocessing would be folly of the highest magnitude.

US companies can still get some business through the India-France bilateral agreement/contracts, and that may be all the US expects. As Ramana indicated, from the US perspective this deal is not about nuclear commerce.

India should engage in bilaterals only with countries who are able/willing to provide substantial amount of reserve fuel directly, or through third parties. Furthermore, ENR has to be part of the deal which would help FTBR/Thorium reactor program move further along.

Under the NSG agreement, is India allowed to import Pu from a willing supplier for its FTBR/Thorium reactor program? Anyone?

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby RajeshA » 05 Sep 2008 04:07

PM Manmohan Singh would have to stand in Parliament and ...

1. Thank USA who managed to get a NSG Waiver without letting anybody cross India's red lines.

2. State that there are indeed differences between Indian and US interpretations of the deal, and there would be a need for further dialogue with USA to narrow the gap on those interpretations.

3. Clarify , that these interpretations relate not to the question of Nuclear Testing, but rather to the issue of assurances of fuel supply.

Other than that, Manmohan Singh should let the next Indian Govt proceed with straightening out Hyde Act and 123 Agreement with the USA.
Last edited by RajeshA on 05 Sep 2008 04:09, edited 1 time in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54179
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby ramana » 05 Sep 2008 04:09

While agree with Madam Ambassador Ghosh that the letter's contents are not that new to those who followed the debate they are at varaince with the honble PM's statments in the Lok Sabha and the subsequent statements by Mr Mulford and Sri Kakodkar that they are aware of the contents of the letter make it look quite unpleasant for the Honble PM. And thats the issue.

RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby RamaY » 05 Sep 2008 04:10

Prophetic words indeed… Peace be upon me… :twisted:

Posted: 19 Jun 2008
Is it end-deal?

Lefties do not want GOI to go to NSG because, it would force China to show its card at NSG... which is, AGAINST India centric exemption... so they are using their proxy to do their work.. and china looks good...


Posted: 10 Jul 2008
China is playing the game well, so far:

1. Its first tool was NPAs and Pakistan - Asking == deal for Pakistan&C >> This didnt work
2. Second Step is commies >> They delayed the process by atleast 1 year. Nuke-deal apart, this put india's other plans (whatever techno-business deals, including MRCA contract) 1 year behind. If this impacted our GDP-growth (wholistically) by 1%, then we lost $100B productivity in real terms. We could have used this money to develop the all the easteren states (seven sisters) to China levels (if this is the yardstick)
3. Third Step is IAEA >> We will see the game in next 20-30 days.
4. The fourth Step is NSG >> In the meantime China can decide whether it want to vote it down or play along, for the time being.
5. The final step will be the UNSC expansion - IMHO, this is what China is trying to stop.

China doesn't want to come overt with its intentions, yet. It is currently playing the soft game using the above mentioned strategies to contain India. The hard option would be to see if it can do another 1962, which would put down India's aspirations for good.

Per my analysis, if India doesn't get its act right by 2025, it will have very slim chance to counter China's influence in political/economic/military spheres for the rest of the century. It will have to settle to defencive strategies to secure its borders only.


Posted: 12 Jul 2008
My gut feel is that IAEA and NSG drafts will be clean and it is US-123/Hyde that will hold GOI's ball$ (for lack of better analogy)...

Why would US want and GOI would allow every tom/D/H decide what India can/should do? There won’t be any additional leverage for US in that scenario...

The immediate question would be, how about India get a clean IAEA/NSG exemption and trade with JP/France/Russia/Aus?

US made sure that this wouldn’t happen by influencing/controlling Indian politicians and businesses… so everyone looks good...


Posted: 23 Aug 2008
call me paranoid or fortune teller...

The China card is at play... I do not think unkil would play this trick at this point of the process and current geopolitical scenarios...

If anyone thinks Aussi's are against Uraniam Ore exports on just ideological grounds, it is sheer ignorance at best... all the western policies are driven by materialistic motivs... there are no morals or ideals.... it's just geopolitics and self interests...

As I mentioned in my earlier posts...

- Paki's are the first card (demand for equal equal deal, propaganda on six chinese reactors for pak etc)
- NPA is the second card (Under the table deals IMO, and keeping quite on the deal)
- CPI/M are third card (No internal consensus, stop going to IAEA, bringdown the govt if needed)
- NSG (use unkil's own chamchaas)

If unkil persists, I can gaurantee one or two senior EU members will opposse the deal on one or other pretext...

Sun Tzu at play...

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby RajeshA » 05 Sep 2008 04:17

RamaY Ji,

Seems you do work at the Dept of Prophecies, Ministry of Magic. :)

China would feel awkward as the last man standing before Consensus. So it could even be fruitful for USA to get the Pipsqueak to sit down and shut up and let China be the lone voice of protest. Would change the whole issue from Non-Proliferation to Big Power Play in Asia.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby RajeshA » 05 Sep 2008 04:21

Austria not satisfied with revised NSG draft by Sachin Parashar: TOI

Austria, along with New Zealand, has proved to be the most difficult country to convince for the US and India. Both of them have insisted on conditions like termination on testing and ban on ENR technology to be incorporated in the draft.


Some of my prophecies coming true as well. :)

Chellaram
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 25
Joined: 21 May 2007 18:42
Location: Houston, Tx

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby Chellaram » 05 Sep 2008 04:22

awagaman wrote:From SV blog:-http://svaradarajan.blogspot.com/2008/09/bush-berman-bombshell-and-ghosts-of.html

Taken together, it is clear that while India is seeking to establish clear rights and legally binding obligations as far as future fuel supplies are concerned, the U.S. emphasises the political contingency of the arrangement. Indeed, in its answer to Question 17, it says the fuel commitments are not legally binding but based on the U.S.-India initiative’s “political underpinnings”.

Far from slaying the ghosts of Tarapur, the spectre of fuel denial and arbitrary abrogation of commitments has already raised its ugly head. This time around, the situation is potentially far worse because India is thinking of importing billions of dollars worth of equipment and the conditions under which the U.S. can terminate the agreement are totally open-ended. In one stroke, the U.S. is seeking to slash away all the layers of fuel protection India has built and reduce it to just one: the strategic reserve. And even on that, one feels one has yet to hear the final word.

As for that other ghost of Tarapur – denial of reprocessing and the accumulation of toxic spent fuel – the State Department’s letter warns that the reprocessing consent rights contained in the 123 will not be “permanent” and can also be terminated by the U.S. It asserts that a provision to this effect will be incorporated in the yet-to-be negotiated “arrangements and procedures”. Leaving aside the fact that Article 14(9) requires both parties to define the “exceptional circumstances” under which consent rights can be suspended, and this has not yet been done, the answer is another warning that India needs to take seriously.


for a second i thought i was reading Brahma Chellaney's blog, because this sounds a lot like what he's been saying since the beginning...

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54179
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby ramana » 05 Sep 2008 04:25

Lets see if PRC is left alone or they will join the consensus. The PRC Foreign ministry folks were claiming they have no objections.
-
Looks like the magic and astrology thread was closed too soon.

But seriously kudos to both of you for being able to read the tea leaves and predict stances.

Challaram, Many people who were earlydisparagd are turning out to be right afterall. And experts are addressing strawman issues of testing etc.

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby nkumar » 05 Sep 2008 04:27

Pioneer Editorial:

Negative charge

The Pioneer Edit Desk

An opaque N-deal, negotiated opaquely

When Senator John Kerry visited New Delhi earlier this year as part of a Congressional delegation, he is supposed to have asked Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, "What is this deal about?" "First and foremost," the Indian Prime Minister is reputed to have said, "it is about mutual trust". It is a bit ironical then that the India-United States civil nuclear agreement, supposed to redefine the strategic synergy between the world's largest democracies and form the fulcrum of India's attempt to engage the world in nuclear commerce, has today fallen victim to a complete lack of trust. As the letters exchanged between the Administration in Washington, DC, and the chairman of the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee now make clear, the American interpretation of the nuclear deal and the Prime Minister's spin to it are remarkably different. It is possible, of course, that Governments seek to sell the same diplomatic initiative differently to their respective domestic constituencies. Yet, what has happened here is something far more than that. The Prime Minister has given assurances on the right to a nuclear test and discounted any talk of punitive action or interruption of nuclear supplies under the 123 Agreement. The United States Administration has emphasised that its domestic laws, and the Hyde Act -- the enabling legislation for the 123 Agreement -- remain supreme. If India tests, the letter states baldly, it will have to live with the consequences.

There are two issues here. The first contains the technical details of the 123 Agreement and the discrepancies between words, deeds, interpretations and the text of the so-called "secret letter" in Washington. The second is far more damaging. It concerns the opacity with which the Prime Minister and his advisers operated while negotiating and explaining this nuclear deal, the almost conspiratorial silence of Mr Singh and the senior political leadership on key aspects, the unwillingness to share papers that were available on the Internet with Members of Parliament. This unnecessarily muddied the waters and created an environment of distrust. The Prime Minister spoke through leaks from his office, through background briefings by select senior diplomats, and refused to discuss and argue his case as would befit an open democracy.

This political failure is far more serious than the relative merits or demerits of the deal. If the Prime Minister had been upfront in saying, for instance, that this was a 'good offer', but India would be required to pay a heavy price, perhaps make its testing moratorium more or less permanent, the country could have debated the issue and arrived at a conclusion. Yet, in resorting to cloak-and-dagger negotiations and insisting that all was well when it patently was not, the Prime Minister soured the mood, discredited the deal, and proved that apprehensions were not without reason. Even if the Nuclear Suppliers Group gives India a conditional clearance in the next few days, the UPA Government's ability, if not right, to sign an agreement with the Group or, indeed, to sign the 123 Agreement with the United States, is now questionable. It may command a dubiously arranged parliamentary majority, but the people have lost faith in the Government that rules in their name. It would be best if a review of, and final decision on, the nuclear deal was now left to a new Government, following the general election.


A good editorial but of course, folks who are 'solely batting for India' will not agree.

Bharati
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 49
Joined: 07 Aug 2008 00:10

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby Bharati » 05 Sep 2008 04:29

Say all the NSG members agree for a clean waiver, what are the chances that China would oppose?
What would be the consequences in either case(China goes along or opposes wrt China)?

PRC has no objections as long as some other countries have objections.

Sumeet
BRFite
Posts: 1497
Joined: 22 May 2002 11:31

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby Sumeet » 05 Sep 2008 04:37

Barkha Dutt conducts an interactive session with Abhishek Singhvi, Stephen Cohen, D Raja, Arun Shourie.

http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/vi ... x?id=37698

In the beginning Karat says yeh tuu besharam hai, this govt is shameless.

abhishek singhvi makes a point that if the business with US stops, then we can continue with france and russia etc.. but the letter clearly says that US intends to make other countries to end business with India in case it stops it from its side.


I am glad Arun Shourie has asked Barkha to read the document itself and not just keep running her show by saying this guy says that, that guy says this........

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby RajeshA » 05 Sep 2008 04:48

I wonder what the Articles will be saying in another few hours, after the NSG Waiver comes through! :P

Some time during the day, Netherlands, Switzerland, Norway and Ireland will concede their acceptance for the NSG Waiver. Later on New Zealand will also have to concede, not because Helen Clark and Phil Goff are in love with George W. Bush or they get carried away by Condi's smile, but because they have elections to win and the nationalistic Indians back home in Auckland can make a difference. Austria on the other hand will be the last one to keep showing the middle finger, with China still whispering devilish things into their ears. Then there will be a role call, and everybody would say yes.

Perhaps the major powers can just mention to Austria, that they could consider moving the IAEA to somewhere else, may be Czech Republic, because as newly liberated, Eastern Europe also needs some Institutions. :twisted:

The Chinese will then quickly hide their knives and start smiling the Hindi-Chini Bhai-Bhai Smile again, when they see nobody protesting anymore.

************

We keep on harping here about all those countries who have been opposing India, but there are several countries who have been vigorously supporting India, some countries about which we will never learn about. I read somewhere that two other countries provided enthusiastic support to India:

Spain and the Czech Republic.

Who would have thought of that!!! :D

RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby RamaY » 05 Sep 2008 05:00

Bharati wrote:Say all the NSG members agree for a clean waiver, what are the chances that China would oppose?
What would be the consequences in either case(China goes along or opposes wrt China)?

PRC has no objections as long as some other countries have objections.


Couldn't find another one of my posts... Had to search thru 100s of pages to find the above... phew... :wink:

People are under-estimating China's geo-political influence at this point in history.

- Since that nation has no spiritual base, it is able to align with the western EJ base by allowing Free Church so to speak… this brings friends from unforeseen corners to PRC’s rescue…

- China has already won lots of friends in EU. To the point that these confused nations don’t mind playing PRC fiddle when it comes to managing the third-world, as long as it doesn’t hurt West directly.

- China’s willingness to be the dirty hand of the Christendom’s (EU again) new colonial rule. Think about inhumane/eco-damaging industrial policies of PRC and its willingness to work with so-called untouchable regimes in sub-Saharan Africa and you will get the answer.

And what is west losing in this deal? If EU has to chose between China and India who will they prefer? It will be deja'vu all over again aka India-Afghanistan-Pakistan... let me do your dirty work as long as you play by my rules...

RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby RamaY » 05 Sep 2008 05:08

I wonder what the Articles will be saying in another few hours, after the NSG Waiver comes through! :P


I supported the nuke deal all along with an understatement that it is in India's interests to join hands with US at this point to force China to show its cards...

But that doesn't mean that India should accept an NSG deal that is not clean and unconditional...

My biggest nightmare is MMS/Rajmata... not PRC... we can face any external threat in time... but "Inti donganu Eeswarud kooda pattaledu" (even god cannot find the internal thief... or something like that)

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby RajeshA » 05 Sep 2008 05:11

It is to be noted, that 123 Agreement (when read alone, without the baggage of the Hyde Act) is a relatively well produced document. The Letter to the House Foreign Affairs Committee by the State Dept. was one, the American, interpretation of it. This interpretation actually runs contrary to the 123 Agreement as pointed out by Siddhartha Vardarajan.

To be remembered:
1. Should India conduct a nuclear test, the interpretation would be done by the then US Administration and not this one, and not in answer to the Congress.
2. Secondly the consequences will depend on the relations between India and USA.
3. Thirdly and most importantly it will depend on India's national power at the time.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby RajeshA » 05 Sep 2008 05:15

RamaY wrote:
I wonder what the Articles will be saying in another few hours, after the NSG Waiver comes through! :P


I supported the nuke deal all along with an understatement that it is in India's interests to join hands with US at this point to force China to show its cards...

But that doesn't mean that India should accept an NSG deal that is not clean and unconditional...

My biggest nightmare is MMS/Rajmata... not PRC... we can face any external threat in time... but "Inti donganu Eeswarud kooda pattaledu" (even god cannot find the internal thief... or something like that)


I too supported the deal all along. Now I only support the NSG Waiver without India's red lines being crossed, but not the 123 Agreement after the disclosure of the letter.

The Waiver will not place sanctions on India automatically after nuclear testing, ENR would also be allowed. The Problem is of assured fuel supplies, especially from USA dominated Uranium Supply (Canada and Australia).

Bharati
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 49
Joined: 07 Aug 2008 00:10

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby Bharati » 05 Sep 2008 05:17

Under the current circumstances, how long will it be before India sees the need to test again (assuming pakis and chinis do not test)?

Bharati
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 49
Joined: 07 Aug 2008 00:10

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby Bharati » 05 Sep 2008 05:21

Is it possible that after the clean waiver comes through, India can deal only with countries that do not insist on a ban on testing (with this being part of the bilateral agreements)?
123 can hit the red tape and remain stuck there forever.

Sean
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 45
Joined: 24 Aug 2008 01:58

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby Sean » 05 Sep 2008 05:27

RajeshA wrote:To be remembered:
1. Should India conduct a nuclear test, the interpretation would be done by the then US Administration and not this one, and not in answer to the Congress.
2. Secondly the consequences will depend on the relations between India and USA.
3. Thirdly and most importantly it will depend on India's national power at the time.

The above matters only if India were to buy any nuclear reactors directly from US.

If India does engage in nuclear commerce with US, then the right time to test may be after India has a much larger GDP, has built enough fuel reserves, and acquired advanced ENR technologies from other countries.

India could be in a position, say in 15-20 years, to process enough spent fuel to supply the seed fuel for many Thorium reactors.

archan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6821
Joined: 03 Aug 2007 21:30
Contact:

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby archan » 05 Sep 2008 05:30

Bharati wrote:Under the current circumstances, how long will it be before India sees the need to test again (assuming pakis and chinis do not test)?

From what I see, the whole point is it is not clear to anyone here and possibly even in the GoI that when, if ever, will India need to test again. Further it is not clear that the current N-deterrent is enough or not? I have tried to read this and earlier thread on the subject as much as I can but you can only have opinions and counter opinions on a forum like this. Further, even if the pukes and dragons test, does that automatically make us need to test? No one is expected to be privy to this kind of information and share it on an open forum. I know, this makes a lot of discussions fruitless. :mrgreen:

Sean
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 45
Joined: 24 Aug 2008 01:58

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby Sean » 05 Sep 2008 05:36

Bharati wrote:Under the current circumstances, how long will it be before India sees the need to test again (assuming pakis and chinis do not test)?

IMO, additional tests that lead to miniaturization of weapons will lead to greater range for Agni missiles. However, India can develop longer range missiles to deter China if the cost due to future testing will be very high.

Bharati
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 49
Joined: 07 Aug 2008 00:10

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby Bharati » 05 Sep 2008 05:41

archan wrote:
Bharati wrote:Under the current circumstances, how long will it be before India sees the need to test again (assuming pakis and chinis do not test)?

From what I see, the whole point is it is not clear to anyone here and possibly even in the GoI that when, if ever, will India need to test again. Further it is not clear that the current N-deterrent is enough or not? I have tried to read this and earlier thread on the subject as much as I can but you can only have opinions and counter opinions on a forum like this. Further, even if the pukes and dragons test, does that automatically make us need to test? No one is expected to be privy to this kind of information and share it on an open forum. I know, this makes a lot of discussions fruitless. :mrgreen:


http://www.atomicarchive.com/Almanac/TestingChronology.shtml
United States

First nuclear test: 1945
Most recent nuclear test: 1992
Total tests: 1,030 (815 underground)

Russia

First nuclear test: 1949
Most recent nuclear test: 1990
Total tests: 715 (496 underground)

United Kingdom

First nuclear test: 1952
Most recent nuclear test: 1991
Total tests: 45 (24 underground)


France

First nuclear test: 1960
Most recent nuclear test: 1996
Total tests: 210 (160 underground)


China

First nuclear test: 1964
Most recent nuclear test: 1996
Total tests: 43 (22 underground)

India

First nuclear test: 1974
Most recent nuclear test: 1998
Total tests: 7

Pakistan

First nuclear test: 1998
Most recent nuclear test: 1998
Total tests: 6



If 7 tests were sufficient, why did the other countries do so many tests? US in particular, they tested more than a 1000 times. What perfection did they achieve with this? Is it precision, controlled explosions etc?

enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby enqyoob » 05 Sep 2008 05:49

This is a very wonderful question, no one has thought of this before. Thanks so much for posting that data. 8)

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5241
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby ShauryaT » 05 Sep 2008 06:05

ramana wrote:And what will remove that fear?
First, to understand who we are and second to understand the REAL interests of other powers.

Sorry for the one liners, it is OT anyways.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21126
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby Prem » 05 Sep 2008 06:47

Sean wrote:
RajeshA wrote:To be remembered:
1.
If India does engage in nuclear commerce with US, then the right time to test may be after India has a much larger GDP, has built enough fuel reserves, and acquired advanced ENR technologies from other countries.

India could be in a position, say in 15-20 years, to process enough spent fuel to supply the seed fuel for many Thorium reactors.


Common sense calls for all the aboves .
Make move when sure to destroy the antagonistic institutions.
But first lets wait to see if Uncle Hu does PU outside Loo in Vien or Uncle Sam wipe the floor with him.
Watch and enjoy the play.

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby vsudhir » 05 Sep 2008 06:51

But first lets wait to see if Uncle Hu does PU outside Loo in Vien or Uncle Sam wipe the floor with him.
Watch and enjoy the play.

:rotfl:
A fu more hrs, and brahma-gyanam shall stand revealed :mrgreen: ensoi onlee

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7904
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby Gerard » 05 Sep 2008 07:02

U.S. Letter Incites Push to Oust India Leader
It may be a decade or more before India needs to test another nuclear weapon, several Congress Party officials said Thursday evening during separate appearances on television news shows.

enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby enqyoob » 05 Sep 2008 07:20

See, Gerard, that's exactly the statement that GOI netas were forced into making by the t-cup tsunamists. And it gives so much ammo to the NPAs, right when they need it the most. This is what I find completely unforgiveable.

The real content of the Letter is the clear thread throughout that lays out the basis for the US-India agreement: that it is part of a long-term US-India Strategic Partnership, based on coincident national interests and views on many large issues. So the thread running through the entire letter is one saying: "Look, we think India has no intention of abusing our trust, but if they do then all bets are off". The whole basis of J18 was that there is a coincidence of national interests.

Instead, the t-cup tsunamists twist that to say:
"Aha! Look! They plan to stop the deal (if we cheat them)"

What nation would go out and participate in a deal where they EXPECT to get cheated? (I mean, not just contingency, but if the 99.99% expectation is to get cheated?)

I need to remind myself NEVER to get suckered into signing any agreement with the types of ppl I see here arguing that India should test as soon as India gets the stuff imported. The whole rationale for the NSG to approve a waiver in the case of India is precisely that India is NOT ruled, nor going to be ruled, by such people.

If the NSG's anti-India lobby win tonight, it will be on the heads of the BJP and its honchos. And I don't think the Indian people, stumbling around in flickering lights, will forgive them for it.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21126
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby Prem » 05 Sep 2008 07:29

narayanan wrote:Instead, the t-cup tsunamists twist that to say:
"Aha! Look! They plan to stop the deal (if we cheat them)"

What nation would go out and participate in a deal where they EXPECT to get cheated? (I mean, not just contingency, but if the 99.99% expectation is to get cheated?)

I need to remind myself NEVER to get suckered into signing any agreement with the types of ppl I see here arguing that India should test as soon as India gets the stuff imported. The whole rationale for the NSG to approve a waiver in the case of India is precisely that India is NOT ruled, nor going to be ruled, by such people.

If the NSG's anti-India lobby win tonight, it will be on the heads of the BJP and its honchos.


While i dont favour testing but the the taste of anti-India lobby is flavored with both uncles and not the fault of Indian players. The waiver will come or India walks out and no reward for big honchos. NSG is like Bakri who habitually must do/ throw "mengna" ( little poop beads) at the time of milking.

enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby enqyoob » 05 Sep 2008 07:42

IMO, the NSG needs to be destroyed completely. But that can only be done by getting India into the world civilian nuke business. Once that happens, India can send Arundhati Ghose as Indian rep to the NSG etc. and teach them a few things about reality. But right now those buggers hold the keys.

Sean
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 45
Joined: 24 Aug 2008 01:58

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby Sean » 05 Sep 2008 07:58

narayanan wrote:IMO, the NSG needs to be destroyed completely.

Wouldn't that help Pakistan though?

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby samuel » 05 Sep 2008 08:01

IMO NSG is finished, faster if India walks away. Indeed if India walks for the right reason, the US will be left with the option of breaking the nsg or squeezing india and rallying nsg. if it does neither, nsg is over. nsg's only hope for survival is to rope India in, but that can't work for too long either. NSG will go, imo etc. and whatever replaces it will have to have india, in a better position than this nightmare now.

enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby enqyoob » 05 Sep 2008 08:06

I don't see why destroying NSG will help TSP except that it removes the competition to the Xerox Khan Enterprise, which is anyway a parallel market. NSG was basically set up to harass India. This is why if India is accepted as NWS, NSG is kaput.

Then deals with Russia and France will render the Austrias and NZs completely irrelevant.

Once India gets in, the idea is that there can be movement towards a replacement for NPT that actually has a hope of working. But after seeing the gimmicks of the Six-Pack I am not hopeful of any consensus developing on anything meaningful.

Kati
BRFite
Posts: 1325
Joined: 27 Jun 1999 11:31
Location: The planet Earth

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby Kati » 05 Sep 2008 08:10

Editorial, The Statesman, Kolkata, Sept 5, 2008

Edits

No moral high ground

Dr Singh is guilty as charged by Opposition

To begin at the end, the disclosures about the US end of the Indo-US nuclear treaty made dramatically through the Press on the eve of the meeting of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) to decide on a special waiver for India are damaging to the ruling alliance, especially Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The disclosure that Washington had reserved the right to terminate all commitments to New Delhi, including supply of nuclear fuel, if India ever conducts a nuclear test and that it never intended to supply sensitive technology to India in the first place may be old hat, as some experts are arguing. In other words, the Prime Minister never indicated otherwise in any of his pronouncements. This position is not entirely tenable. The blunt point is that when the Opposition, especially the Left, argued that the 123 agreement was circumscribed by the Hyde Act and that the deal was being made on Washington’s terms (and would compromise India’s sovereignty) the Prime Minister never made the details about the deal and its small print clear. In other words, while he did not tell untruths he was guilty of misleading the public by acts of prevarication, from which he must have got a lot of help from his colleagues in the Cabinet and the Congress party.
In other words, though the caveats listed in the letter written by the Bush Administration to Congress may have been fully understood on the Indian side and may not materially alter the implications of the treaty for India as outlined by Dr Singh, by not coming entirely clean he can be said to be guilty as charged by the Opposition. A man like Dr Singh must not only be above reproach, he must be seen to be entirely above reproach. By not so being, he has revealed himself to be an ordinary politician, with a considerable amount of the cunning the breed possesses, rather than the reluctant outsider ~ Dr Singh’s moral high ground has slipped from under his feet. The only way he can retrieve it, even if partially, is by making fuller disclosures both inside and outside Parliament to make the decision-making process, especially in such contentious cases, more transparent and above board. He doesn’t have much time.
The merits of the deal and the impact of these disclosures on the NSG meeting lie, of course, in another domain.

Sean
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 45
Joined: 24 Aug 2008 01:58

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby Sean » 05 Sep 2008 08:24

Kati wrote:Editorial, The Statesman, Kolkata, Sept 5, 2008

Edits

The blunt point is that when the Opposition, especially the Left, argued that the 123 agreement was circumscribed by the Hyde Act and that the deal was being made on Washington’s terms (and would compromise India’s sovereignty) the Prime Minister never made the details about the deal and its small print clear. In other words, while he did not tell untruths he was guilty of misleading the public by acts of prevarication, from which he must have got a lot of help from his colleagues in the Cabinet and the Congress party.

In other words, though the caveats listed in the letter written by the Bush Administration to Congress may have been fully understood on the Indian side and may not materially alter the implications of the treaty for India as outlined by Dr Singh, by not coming entirely clean he can be said to be guilty as charged by the Opposition.

The merits of the deal and the impact of these disclosures on the NSG meeting lie, of course, in another domain.[/b]

Perhaps US and India both understood all along that the deal is not about Indo-US nuclear commerce. It really doesn't matter what the letter states as long as NSG waiver is relatively clean. All India needs is few willing suppliers.

As for MMS/Congress party, people will have a chance to decide in the next election.

John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby John Snow » 05 Sep 2008 08:37

Understatement of the year! :rotfl:

He never had Moral high ground,.
He should have gotten elected to Loksabha with six months like other PMs did.

If required he could have contested from Andaman and nicobar Islands at least (populated areas of India).
Even there he might have hard time convincing to get elected....

123 ka mole itna jada nahi hai

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5241
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby ShauryaT » 05 Sep 2008 08:55

Are there people here, who still believe MMS was misled?

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby arnab » 05 Sep 2008 08:58

So far as I have read, the ‘deal’ has always underscored the premise that – ‘we can test and they can react’. So in my opinion, what is causing all this angst is that now politicians will actually have to choose in a ‘guns versus butter’ framework.

Note that I hold the deal world to be superior to a ‘no-deal’ world because it increases our choices of energy mix if the status quo is preserved. However, if you ‘test’ tomorrow, at best – we are back to where we are today, even if ignore all the hoo-hah of sanctions etc which will wash away overtime. Thus what I would call - a pareto superior position.

However, for political parties it is a difficult ballgame. So far the generally accepted premise has been – BJP is nationalistic, it would put India’s ‘sovereignty’ at the fore-front. So, the logic goes that in the BJP would want to test in the supreme national interest which the INC would not.

The BJP has so far chosen to free-ride on choices made by previous governments (the nuke programme, non-signing of NPT etc). They have also been able to show that a nuke establishment which punishes good behaviour (not allowing nuke-trade with India despite self imposed non-proliferation standards), does so at its own peril, which the INC did not and hence the ‘nationalistic’ credentials of BJP.

Now if the deal does go through then future governments have to recognise a new reality of a break from the past and react accordingly. No more free rides. This I believe scares the hell out of BJP. Theoretically, if they believe that the deal is not in the ‘national interest’ and MMS sold us out to the US, all they have to do if they come to power next (and there appears to be a good chance that it might) is to test mega bombs or boosted fission devices or whatever, and we are back again to square one.

However, whatever they do, will be on their heads entirely. It is possible that Indians might applaud their move and return them to power the next time. It is also entirely possible that the ‘tests’ pi$$ the Indian polity off. They feel it is unnecessary, they are not security minded, they don’t care being invaded by China – whatever be the reason, the choice is theirs.

The same holds for the INC. If India is unable to react to a nuke test by pakis (since they have nothing to lose. Personally, I do not think India should test in response to a paki test, however I do not see that to be a credible response if the INC is in power. BJP would milk it as proof that MMS sold out. So either India tests in response or the world gives remarkable concessions to India), because they are paralysed by the fact that MMS / Sonia has actually sold out to the US – the consequences shall again be played out in elections.

What fun. Power with Responsibility. Finally.

I think at present what would satisfy a lot of folks here is MMS saying –

Doodh maango ge to Kheer denge;
No-testing commitment maango ge to cheer denge.
:)

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby amit » 05 Sep 2008 09:22

Are there people here, who still believe MMS was misled?


My quota of one-liners:

It's interesting how the argument was and is always about MMS and not so much about the India-US Civilian Nuclear Deal!


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest