India nuclear news and discussion

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Gerard » 11 Sep 2008 06:02

They repeat this blatant lie over and over again...

Bush's Nuclear Deal with India Is a Disaster for World Safety and the Environment
The result is an unprecedented change in international law allowing a non-NPT signatory state to purchase uranium and high-end reactor technology on the world market.


And Grand Ayatollah Sokolski is on form...
Henry Sokolski, a member of the congressional commission on proliferation and terrorism, goes further, calling the deal "Non-proliferation's 9/11."
Last edited by Gerard on 11 Sep 2008 06:05, edited 1 time in total.

Suppiah
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2569
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: -
Contact:

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Suppiah » 11 Sep 2008 06:04

http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/sep/10inter.htm

Exactly as I posted a couple of days back - it is only MKN talking about China, even FM not willing to show backbone. Now let us all believe Chindu and sing Kumbhaya and forget about China.

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby svinayak » 11 Sep 2008 06:09

Gerard wrote:They repeat this blatant lie over and over again...

Bush's Nuclear Deal with India Is a Disaster for World Safety and the Environment
The result is an unprecedented change in international law allowing a non-NPT signatory state to purchase uranium and high-end reactor technology on the world market.

This is the way they had put India in the dog house for 30 years.

rajrang
BRFite
Posts: 415
Joined: 24 Jul 2006 08:08

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby rajrang » 11 Sep 2008 06:28

Suppiah wrote:http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/sep/10inter.htm

Exactly as I posted a couple of days back - it is only MKN talking about China, even FM not willing to show backbone. Now let us all believe Chindu and sing Kumbhaya and forget about China.



quoting India's Foreign Minister from the above link:

Sincerely and honestly, I want to believe the commitment which was made by the Chinese foreign minister yesterday.

end of quote

Sounds pathetic. How about believing the sources who conveyed to India about China's negative role during the NSG deliberations?

India's experiences with China during the last 50 years have been one of continuous deception and back stabbing. Some of the serious ones include the 1962 invasion and arming PAK with nuclear weapons.

India dare not try to do to China what China has done to India. If India dares to give nuclear technology/weapons to Taiwan or Vietnam - expect severe retribution.

Now India's FM wants to take China at face value. No guts - and in this case no moral fiber.

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Gerard » 11 Sep 2008 06:31

Equipment purchase will be linked to guarantee of lifetime fuel supply
Either the vendor company would supply the fuel or it could help us get uranium assets abroad. We have also told them that we would want upfront rights for reprocessing the fuel. - DR S. K. JAIN, CMD, NPCIL

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Sanjay M » 11 Sep 2008 06:37

Gerard wrote:They repeat this blatant lie over and over again...

Bush's Nuclear Deal with India Is a Disaster for World Safety and the Environment
The result is an unprecedented change in international law allowing a non-NPT signatory state to purchase uranium and high-end reactor technology on the world market.


And Grand Ayatollah Sokolski is on form...
Henry Sokolski, a member of the congressional commission on proliferation and terrorism, goes further, calling the deal "Non-proliferation's 9/11."


Yeah, I'd read that column some hours ago.
What a bunch of crap. I posted my replies underneath it:


NONSENSE! BE FAIR!

The USA, Russia, UK, France and China are all allowed to buy nuclear fuel from the international market despite their weapons programs. Why should India be subjected to a harsher standard? India deserves the same rights as these countries, especially when China is pointing nuclear weapons at India from the other side of a disputed border. Why does the NPT give China a free pass for having nuclear weapons and pointing them at India, but the same NPT shakes a fist at India for aiming its nuclear weapons right back at China as deterrence? Why is China more legitimate than India? China has proliferated nuclear weapons to Pakistan and to North Korea. Pakistan has in turn proliferated nuclear weapons to Iran. But India has proliferated nuclear weapons to nobody. Why doesn't the NPT hold China accountable for its nuclear weapons proliferation? Article 1 of the NPT states that no country possessing nuclear weapons shall help a country without them to acquire them. But China has done these very things! Meanwhile India, which is not even a signatory to the NPT or its obligations, has met those same requirements from outside the treaty, by never proliferating anything. India has fulfilled the obligations of an NPT Nuclear Weapons State without even being a member of the treaty or recieving the privileges of such a state. This treaty has rewarded wrongdoers like China, while punishing innocent countries like India to make nice guys finish last. That's why there needs to be a waiver.




TELL THE TRUTH!

Neither the US nor this waiver is helping India's nuclear weapons program. The foreign-imported fuel will be subject to international safeguards and inspection, which would prevent their diversion for nuclear weapons purposes. Such safeguarded fuel would only be used for civilian power generation. For those who argue that foreign-imported nuclear fuel will free up India's domestic uranium for weapons purposes, I would point out that any type of fuel - whether oil, or coal, etc - would potentially free up India's domestic uranium. So why should safeguarded uranium be treated any different from any other type of imported fuel?

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Gerard » 11 Sep 2008 06:54

You should point out that the NPT actually does not prohibit nuclear trade with India or any other non-signatory.
That is an erroneous claim made by the non proliferation ayatollahs who read into their sacred text what they wish it said (full scope) rather than what it actually says.
Condi Rice dismissed this argument in her Senate testimony. She also pointed out that the US was not in violation of its NPT commitments by selling Uranium. By the logic of the ayatollahs, selling coal or wind turbines to India would also free up Uranium for weapons. She dismissed this claim.

sanjaykumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4473
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby sanjaykumar » 11 Sep 2008 06:55

Sincerely and honestly, I want to believe the commitment which was made by the Chinese foreign minister yesterday.


Relax, English does have its nuances-this sentence means "They are telling a bald-faced lie". Kudos to the Indian FM for saying it.

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 - 6 sep 2008

Postby amit » 11 Sep 2008 07:34

sanjaykumar wrote:Sincerely and honestly, I want to believe the commitment which was made by the Chinese foreign minister yesterday.


Relax, English does have its nuances-this sentence means "They are telling a bald-faced lie". Kudos to the Indian FM for saying it.



I'm not sure what exactly folks here expected the Indian Foreign Minister to do in formal talks with his Chinese counterpart.

It should be obvious in direct talks between Ministers there is no harsh language exchanged. The displeasure or message conveying is done through other channels. The post of National Security Adviser is one such conduit for such message sending - remember even the Chinese used its conduit an editorial in People's Daily to convey it's stand on the issue as the first warning shot across the NSG bow.

Surely the premise is not that NSA was speaking on his own without the FM and PM's clearance?

Besides there's lots of reports of the Indian demarche to the Chinese. For a change India really showed it's displeasure to the Chinese who hate losing face. The Chinese FM's request for a meeting with SG was denied, after he was made to wait for a few hours to find out if it would be granted. India has publicly conveyed to the world the fact that the words of the Chinese top leadership has no face value - that they tell lies with impunity. This is another staggering loss of face for the Chinese. I'm sure a lot of rare Ming era vases must have been smashed in anger in the Forbidden City after that remark. :D

Short of physically roughing up the Chinese FM or expelling him, I fail to see how else India could have showed its displeasure.

Instead of celebrating the newfound assertiveness of the Indian polity - as Nihal Singh points out - we are still clutching to the time tested formula: Indian politicians, especially the "non-nationalistic" type (as defined by a section of BRF) lack spine unless proved otherwise!

Suppiah
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2569
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: -
Contact:

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Suppiah » 11 Sep 2008 07:43

We dont expect the FM to rough up the Chinese FM either in private or in public. One hopes in private he has been strong and firm in conveying India's displeasure. But his public statements dont give that comfort.

In public, he could have simply said yes, we had some concerns and these concerns have been shared with Chinese FM and leave it there. What he is conveying is the impression of being s..t scared even to talk of disagreement. He is also pretty much disowning what MKN said, making him look like a maverick loudmouth of the George Fernandes kind. Is this how China would react/do if we were to tread on their toes re Tibet or Taiwan?

pradeepe
BRFite
Posts: 741
Joined: 27 Aug 2006 20:46
Location: Our culture is different and we cannot live together - who said that?

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby pradeepe » 11 Sep 2008 07:46

One only need to study local businessmen to get a feel for how hardnosed, capitalistic and ruthless they can be.

But, I wouldn't completely discredit the socialistic policies at that time. Post independence India had to compete with the world a tad low on self-esteem, thanks to poodledom the masters at breaking people from outside and within, and a non-existant industrial base. Hoping for the Indian businessmen to succeed and thrive in such a situation would have been challenging if not suicidal.

== added==

I apologize. I wanted to comment on a few older posts about India and socialism. I didnt realize there was another page. OT anyway.

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 - 6 sep 2008

Postby amit » 11 Sep 2008 08:06

Suppiah wrote:We dont expect the FM to rough up the Chinese FM either in private or in public. One hopes in private he has been strong and firm in conveying India's displeasure. But his public statements dont give that comfort.

In public, he could have simply said yes, we had some concerns and these concerns have been shared with Chinese FM and leave it there. What he is conveying is the impression of being s..t scared even to talk of disagreement. He is also pretty much disowning what MKN said, making him look like a maverick loudmouth of the George Fernandes kind. Is this how China would react/do if we were to tread on their toes re Tibet or Taiwan?


Different countries have different ways of doing international diplomacy. I think it should be obvious that the Chinese way is not the Indian way which has always been nuanced and subtle. Given that context, I would say the current response and the orchestrated reporting in the media (our equivalent for People's Daily-type articles) is virtual shouting by India.

And really I fail to see how Pranab not being shrill amounts to disowning MKN? Even though the NSA has a very high post and is equivalent of Cabinet rank he's at the end of the day a civil servant and not a politician like Fernandes. Anything he says or does is action of the Indian govt.

One more point. Things like showing displeasure while not escalating it to a major international diplomatic row with a country spoiling for a fight has to be done in a very nuanced manner. As it is the FT article on the last page of this thread already shows that China apologists are getting ready to fudge the issue both in the international as well as domestic press.

No point in making the Indian displeasure so loud that that becomes the issue instead of the Chinese perfidy at the NSG.

And surely the Tibet and Taiwan comparison is not exactly in the same league as the NSG waiver, important as it is for us? Kashmir is and India has always been very fast off the handle to show it's displeasure at any comment about it, hasn't it?

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Sanjay M » 11 Sep 2008 08:57

B Raman's analysis of the Vienna negotiations with NSG:

http://ramanstrategicanalysis.blogspot. ... after.html

and my reply:

Mr Raman, I agree that India will be forced to give preference to US suppliers, however the Indian energy market is big enough that it can accommodate all willing vendors, particularly also the Russians and French.

I certainly feel that we should be wary of the Americans, who can be "Indian givers," taking away what they have offered. But I would also caution you to remember the example of the Gorshkov aircraft carrier, and understand that the Russians we are dealing with today are not quite as magnanimous as their Soviet antecedents. Putin & Co are shrewd Russian nationalists, and as such they too may become "Indian givers", taking away things previously offered, as their agendas and priorities are different from the Soviets, so we should not be overly blinded by past friendships.

India's traditional support of multipolarity reinforces the idea that it should open up trade with as many available partners as possible, and the 123 deal is consistent with this. While 123 may influence the apportionment of contracts, it still opens up trade avenues that were previously closed. The question of apportionment of contracts allows India a little more room to maneuver, than does a totally hands-off attitude towards the West. With the waiver, we are keeping more options open for ourselves.

Meanwhile, I hope we will continue to develop the thorium breeder technology, for eventual self-sufficiency.

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Sanjay M » 11 Sep 2008 09:21

Bush sends US-India nuclear deal to Congress
By FOSTER KLUG – 1 hour ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush rushed a U.S.-India civilian nuclear cooperation deal to Congress late Wednesday with hopes that lawmakers will expedite passage of one of his top foreign policy initiatives.
There is little time left on the congressional calendar to pass the accord, which would reverse three decades of U.S. policy by shipping atomic fuel to India in return for international inspections of India's civilian reactors.
With only about three weeks remaining before Congress recesses for the year, the Bush administration needs lawmakers' help to overcome a law that says Congress may not ratify the accord for 30 working days after receiving it. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met Wednesday with India's defense minister and continued a push to persuade senior Democratic lawmakers to allow quick passage of the deal.
Democrats control the House and the Senate, and Rice has been appealing to crucial lawmakers to discuss the accord, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Lawmakers are scheduled to leave Washington at the end of the month to campaign for the November elections. Barring passage of legislation to scrap the 30-day waiting period, Congress does not appear to have enough days left to ratify the deal.
Indian Defense Minister A.K. Antony and Rice met privately to discuss the nuclear deal and U.S.-Indian military cooperation. Antony did not respond to reporters' questions before or after his meeting with Rice.
Some in Congress are vowing a careful and possibly time-consuming review of U.S.-Indian nuclear negotiations, which could doom the plan's passage this year.
That would leave it in the hands of a new Congress and president, and it is unclear whether it would remain a priority. However, both presidential contenders, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain, have expressed support for the accord, and it has enjoyed backing among senior lawmakers from both parties.
Berman, who supports nuclear cooperation, has said that if the administration wants to speed congressional consideration, it must first deal with qualms some lawmakers have, such as what impact another Indian nuclear test might have on the agreement.
India has refused to sign nonproliferation agreements and has faced a nuclear trade ban since its first atomic test in 1974. But on Saturday, the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group of countries that supply nuclear material and technology agreed to lift the ban on civilian nuclear trade with India after contentious talks and some concessions to countries fearful it could set a dangerous precedent.
U.S. officials have said that selling peaceful nuclear technology to India would bring the country's atomic program under closer scrutiny. Critics say it would ruin global efforts to stop the spread of atomic weapons and boost India's nuclear arsenal.
Associated Press writers Ben Feller and Matthew Lee contributed to this report.

Suppiah
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2569
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: -
Contact:

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Suppiah » 11 Sep 2008 09:22

Amit, I agree NSG is not as big as Taiwan/Tibet but Sardesai would not have pursued it as much as he did if Pranab had simply said there were some concerns that were discussed with China and he (Pranab) was satisfied with Chinese response. This would have backed up MKN and yet not escalated issue too much.

That's all one is looking for, not the kind of confrontation that you seem to be assuming. Anyway there is no point us arguing about it.

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5816
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Dileep » 11 Sep 2008 12:36

sanjaykumar wrote:Sincerely and honestly, I want to believe the commitment which was made by the Chinese foreign minister yesterday.
Relax, English does have its nuances-this sentence means "They are telling a bald-faced lie". Kudos to the Indian FM for saying it.

Precisely.! This sentence is the diplomatese equivalent of a "slap on the face with an old broom dipped in dung" as the saying goes in mallu. Great job!!

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 - 6 sep 2008

Postby amit » 11 Sep 2008 12:47

Dileep wrote:
sanjaykumar wrote:Sincerely and honestly, I want to believe the commitment which was made by the Chinese foreign minister yesterday.
Relax, English does have its nuances-this sentence means "They are telling a bald-faced lie". Kudos to the Indian FM for saying it.

Precisely.! This sentence is the diplomatese equivalent of a "slap on the face with an old broom dipped in dung" as the saying goes in mallu. Great job!!


Dileep,

Just to add to your point lets see exactly what Rajdeep Sardesai (it's interesting to see this bloke getting some good press on BRF for a change :D) asked and what Pranab Da replied:

Question: You want to live with it? So did you send a tough message to the Chinese as some believe you did or did you simply reiterate your concerns and are you fully satisfied?

Pranab: Whatever was necessary to convey to him, I did exactly that, but I do not describe my conversations with the adjective which you are (using) whether it is tough, whether it is soft.


So it all boils down to a disagreement with which adjective to use to describe the talks. Do folks seriously expect the Indian Foreign Minister to say during a TV interview that he gave a dressing down and spoke tough language to the Chinese Foreign Minister? Why even Bush used to treat Musharaff with respect on TV, even after a Gubo session! :eek:

It's a pity that Pranab's response is again being construed as not being tough enough and of having disowned the NSA's remark. I want to reiterate again: What the NSA can say or not say is decided by the GoI. And this is understood very well by everyone, including the Chinese, just as we understand that an editorial in People's Daily is the same thing as a Chinese expression of their POV on a particular issue.

Anyway I think we need to give the matter a rest and concentrate on the next stage of the N-deal saga that is to be played out in the US Congress.

PS: One needs to understand that Pranab Da's English is very typical of the way Bengalis, who've learnt the English language at a later age, talk. He literally translates the Bengali response and then says it in English. So it sounds kind of vague and roundabout. Not all Bengalis can write and talk in English as well a Amitav Ghosh or Amartya Sen. :D

Suppiah
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2569
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: -
Contact:

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Suppiah » 11 Sep 2008 14:11

Let us give the benefit of doubt to Pranab-da. I think we can safely say Congress has learned this lesson. Look like every generation of the dynasty has to dance this bhai-bhai dance, be double-crossed by China and learn the hard way.

Interestingly, he has not condemned Ireland or NZ and we did not expect him to. That is because things where somewhat (by diplomatic standards) out in the open. Just that when it comes to China there is a huge trust deficit, there is this snake-ish behaviour form that side and this (seeming) cowering in fear on our side that is inexplicable. Wonder why we can't be more forthright as we do with, say, Australia (re. Haneef affair) or even US sometimes. We dont seem to rely on subtle messages, semantics and such. Perhaps because China comes down like a ton of bricks if it gets slighted so we have to walk on egg shells..

If Pranab-da's English is not of the Amartya Sen variety, then we cannot also place any clever interpretation on his 'want to believe' statement. It just probably means he believes it.

raj_singh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 31
Joined: 05 Sep 2008 19:18

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby raj_singh » 11 Sep 2008 15:40

Suraj

The so called 'thundering silence' is part of how they play their game. It is a mistake to judge them by the lack of a known initial position.


Given the history between India and China and the unease in the relationship, even IF China was all for India becoming part of NSG, China could not have rooted for India overtly. It would have been almost impossible.

Since assurances had been given to India in private on more than one occassion, and India had been hinting about it (there have been stories in the media to the effect that China is on board), China had to remain silent. Its silence in public should not come as surprise. Different matter that China played the role of a spoiler in NSG meeting but prior to that saying anything publicily for or against India would not have served any purpose.

Suppiah
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2569
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: -
Contact:

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Suppiah » 11 Sep 2008 15:53

Raman is exactly saying the same thing Chindu said in its editorial - that India should only wait for September and no further to start dealing with France and Russia. Sanjya's reply is valid.

People are forgetting that even Soviet Union participated in the first NSG meeting (which was triggered by India) and was party to all decisions since then - in 1992 Russia could have sabotaged the tightening of rules if it wanted to. It is not as if it does not like to use veto power. So yes, we should deal and be friendly with all including the Russians, but let us forget this bhai-bhai story of special friendship. Putin can show his other face just as easily if we don't dance to his tunes. No different from Uncle. If we have to dance anyway, let us dance on the laps of the richest goonda. :wink:

renukb
BRFite
Posts: 675
Joined: 18 Aug 2008 12:18

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby renukb » 11 Sep 2008 16:02

Raman is exactly saying the same thing Chindu said in its editorial - that India should only wait for September and no further to start dealing with France and Russia. Sanjya's reply is valid.


I totally agree with the bold part. Both Russia and france have been supportive of India's positions since long time... USA is a new beau.

raj_singh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 31
Joined: 05 Sep 2008 19:18

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby raj_singh » 11 Sep 2008 16:09

Suppiah

Exactly as I posted a couple of days back - it is only MKN talking about China, even FM not willing to show backbone. Now let us all believe Chindu and sing Kumbhaya and forget about China.


MKN cannot say what he has said about China without having clearance from PM/PMO. China knows it, world knows it. Desired message has been conveyed. So FM does not have to add to what MKN has said and unnecessarily create more unpleasantness.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20704
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Philip » 11 Sep 2008 16:22

While Russia ceratinly can play hardabll,as we've seen over the Gorshkov deal-which was dut to faults on both sides,it is wrong to compare them with the Chinese who have been/done the greatest damage to India than any other nation inour independent history.I say this because China has been using Pakistan as the "knife tip" with which it has repeatedly stabbed India in the front,sides and back.After the disaster of '62,China found that many western nations,especially the US,were assisting India.Our covert ops with the US monitoring Chinese nuclear tests ,etc.,and supply of some miliatry eqpt. like Packet aircraft saw China embark upon a most successful "grand strategy" against India.This was to avoid direct confrontation with India,which was the key nation in the Non-Aligned nation and needed to be kept there,but use India's mortal enemy Pak as its proxy.
Well realising the military rulers of Pak's hatred of India and their close links with the western bloc,CENTO,etc.,China gifted Pak at "friednship" prices military hardware,which Pak eagerly snapped up as China had been to war with India."My enemy's enemy is my friend".The words of Mao worked well for both China and Pak.

China has for the last 40+ decades been nurturing the hatred of India in the minds of the Pak military (no difficult task indeed!) ,while continuing to keep the border issue lukewarm,neither hot or cold,but rlentlessly questioning Indian sovereignity over key parts of land that belongs to India.In this insidious way and through a strategy of grand deception ,China has made most Indian leaders drop their military guard.Simultaneously,China has built up its infrastructure in Tibet,none more dramatic that the railway to Lhasa,which took decades to build at great human cost.Suddenly,the gameplan of China has been made visible and the recent crackdown on Tibetans only highlighted the mentality of the Midddle Kingdom.

The proxy war being waged in J&K over the last two decades,while beign executed by Pak has a Chinese patron behind it and we all know where pak has acquired its nuclear and missile arsenal from! There is no question that India has to plan to fight for a scenario where both China and Pak act in concert.A failure to plan for that eventuality will result in a catastrophe far greater than that of '62.That is why the open-ended nature of our strategic deterrent and nuclear industry is so vital and any deal with the west cannot and should not in any way imperil it.

kshirin
BRFite
Posts: 382
Joined: 18 Sep 2006 19:45

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby kshirin » 11 Sep 2008 18:22

What Pranab-da seems to be saying is this: "I really want to believe, please dear Lord, make me believe (cos I know they are lying), I really do, I really, really do..."

It is very very clear he does not. I thnk the occasion was taken by both him and MKN to convey India's displeasure at this and China's agitating our other sore points because of its anger over Tibet. If you need further proof as to who is behind all this, here it is. Look at this:

Maoists to move into J&K? By Sanjay Basak
New Delhi

Sept. 1: India's Maoists have decided to actively support the separatists' "azadi" campaign in Jammu and Kashmir. The banned CPI (Maoist) organisation, in a document released on Monday, exhorted its fighters of the "People's Liberation Guerrilla Army" (PLGA) to move towards the Valley to join the "movement."

The document, a copy of which is in the possession of this newspaper, states: "The central committee of the CPI (Maoist) calls upon party members and PLGA fighters to mobilise in support of the Kashmiri people's struggle for azadi." The Maoists, who now virtually control large tracts of territory across remote parts of Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Orissa, have been looking for opportunities to make inroads in other parts of the country.

The Maoists (also called Naxalites) had earlier moved into Nandigram in West Bengal and extended support to the violent agitation spearheaded by Trinamul Congress leader Mamata Banerjee. When the state's ruling Marxists "recaptured" control of that area, the Maoists beat a retreat. The Maoists have been targeting the rough terrain of Uttarkahand for quite some time. In the past they have expressed readiness to the insurgent movements in the Northeast.

In Kashmir, they are trying to adopt a slightly different line. The document reads: "The people of Kashmir should come up with the slogan: 'Neither India nor Pakistan, but a sovereign, independent Kashmir'." Sources, however, said that this was just an "ideological stance", and the primary motive was to make inroads in the Kashmir Valley.

It may be recalled that back in the mid-1960s, the Naxalites led by Charu Majumdar had supported the Bangladeshi guerrillas during the 1971 war against the Pakistan Army.

The CPI (Maoist) document said people should be wary of the "conspiracy of reactionary rulers (read India) to bring in the ghost of Pakistan to justify the brutal repression of the Kashmiri people's struggle ... and their sinister design to whip up anti-Pakistani hysteria and even a war with Pakistan in order to divert the people from the issue of azadi."

achy
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 37
Joined: 26 Jan 2008 00:36

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby achy » 11 Sep 2008 19:18

OT, but one of the interesting outcome of china's "perfidy" is the reaction of Indian media. By their reaction, you can easliy gauge which one is "influenced" by unkil or china. You can also as well find out which ones are neither. Their agenda's are out in open.

BTW, I like the way Indian diplomacy handled this whole china affair. They sent out the requisite message thru NSA and then applied some "tiger balm" through Pranabda. This shows that Indian diplomacy has always been ready to play the big league, if the political muscle is there.

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby sunilUpa » 11 Sep 2008 19:22

Pranab Da interview with Raj Chengappa

Posting in full...

Will start nuclear trade immediately: Pranab Mukherjee

September 11, 2008


A A AThirty-four years of India's nuclear apartheid, imposed after the 1974 test, effectively ended with the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group amending its rules to permit civilian nuclear trade with the country.

Days after India's success at Vienna, External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee, the chief interlocutor for India's civilian nuclear deal, spoke candidly to Managing Editor Raj Chengappa and Senior Editor Saurabh Shukla about India's nuclear future:

Q. How significant is the waiver by the Nuclear Suppliers Group?
A. It is the end of our nuclear isolation. After the 1974 test we faced severe restrictions. Our nuclear scientists were not even allowed to participate in international seminars. The NSG waiver has now given us the passport to do civilian nuclear trade with other countries. It is the recognition of India's special stature and India's impeccable record of non-proliferation. The international community is convinced that this civil nuclear co-operation is good for India and good for the world.

Q. Is the NSG waiver clean and unconditional?
A. Clean and unconditional are more or less the same. We have not accepted any unacceptable conditionalities and none of our red lines have been crossed. We have got a clean waiver. For instance, we did not want any condition imposed on us that we would not be permitted to conduct a test. We repeatedly pointed out that ours is a voluntary unilateral moratorium and we would not like to convert it into a treaty-bound obligation. Our position has been accepted by the NSG. They do not prohibit us from testing but that doesn't mean that we are permitted to do so by them. We have the right to act and they have the right to react. And if we act we have to face the consequences of all our actions.


Q. Were you disappointed by China's approach?
A. If China was not part of the consensus there would not have been a consensus at the NSG. It is as simple as that. Their actions before that and during the plenary is part of the normal decision making process.

Q. But the NSA did say it was upset?
A. There may have been statements. What I am saying is the policy of the government. I would like to go by what the Chinese foreign minister said which is that actions speak louder than words. And their action showed that they were part of the consensus.

Q. There is no domestic consensus as yet on the deal with both the BJP and the Left accusing you of selling India out?
A. I don't know how many times I have sold the country. In the eighties when as finance minister I borrowed money from IMF, the opposition said I had sold our economic sovereignty. They said the same when I signed the WTO agreement in the nineties. More recently when I was defence minister a similar accusation was made when I signed a framework agreement with the US. How many times can a thing be sold, resold and then resold. :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: that's a good one!

Q. The BJP's point is that we have surrendered the right to test and our strategic options are being capped?
A. They owe the nation an explanation as to why did they say after 1998 that India does not need to test any more. Why? What prompted them to declare unilateral moratorium? My point is that if we had the right to test in 1998 then we still have it now. At that point of time by exercising our right we had to face some consequences. It may happen exactly the same way. There is not an alteration of the situation at all. What remained earlier remains now. Nothing has been conceded. Therefore these are absolutely ridiculous and baseless criticisms.
Q. The BJP said it would renegotiate the deal if it came to power?
A. I will be too happy if they can renegotiate and get a better condition for the country,

Q. The Left wants a special session of the Parliament and accuses the government of lying but after the leak of the Howard Berman letter are you worried about it?
A. Who is lying? If I knew something and I didn't tell the truth then I am lying. But in this case, how can I be privy to what transpired between the executive and the legislative wing of the US government? We are only concerned with what we are party to like the 123 agreement and others. What is the basis of this accusation?

Q What about the issue of fuel supply assurances that are being raised?
A. You have to judge it with what is mentioned in the123 agreement. As I said the waiver is just the passport. The visa will be the bilateral agreement that we will sign with individual NSG countries.

Q. You said India would wait till the US deal is done before you start nuclear trade with other countries?
A. No. What I said was different. I said that 123 agreement is not complete till it is ratified by US Congress so we have to wait till the whole process if finalised before we can do nuclear trade with the US. Theoretically, nothing prevents us from signing up with other countries.

Q. So we can do business with other countries like France and Russia?
A. Of course we can approach other countries to start business and we would like to do it as early as possible.

Q Will you be amending the domestic atomic energy act to allow private companies into nuclear trade?
A. It is too early to say it. The current thinking is the government will do the trade through the atomic energy commission. I can't comment what will happen after the general elections and when a new government is in place.

Q. What about our weapons programme? Would there be any changes?
A. The nuclear doctrine has been enumerated by the previous Vajpayee government and we are strictly adhering to it. We are not enhancing or reducing our programme. We must have a minimum credible nuclear deterrent, so that nobody will attack us with nuclear weapons because they know our retaliation would be unacceptable to them. We are not interested in stockpiling of nuclear weapons or a nuclear arms race. Our overall commitment to nuclear proliferation is there.

Q Were personally disappointed that you couldn't build a consensus on the nuclear deal and prevented the Left from walking away?
A: It was difficult. Their differences were ideological. They told us we can have the deal with France and Russia but not with the US. What could we do? I can't change their ideological perceptions. And with Russia and France it was not possible without NSG clearance.

Q. Who do you give the credit for the deal?
A. It was the strong determination of President Bush, and the firm commitment of the prime minister facilitated it. At IAEA we received massive support from our strategic allies Russia, France and UK. And at the NSG, apart from these three countries - Germany, South Africa, and Brazil - they all helped the deal. These countries have made very valuable contribution.

Q What about the issue of fuel supply assurances that are being raised?
A. You have to judge it with the India-specific agreement and the 123 agreement where it has been mentioned. This is just the passport. The visa will be the bilateral agreement that we will sign. With US it is the 123 agreement we have to sign. With other countries we would have to sign separate bilateral agreements. This is the framework. Details will come when we actually buy. Those contracts will be determined in this framework.

Q. Did you ever feel that the deal will not materialise and the waiver may not happen?
A. That fear and suspense was there all along, but we were confident when these people were expressing their concern that India will not contribute to non-proliferation. Then I thought that I must re-assert that this is my commitment. I made the September 6 statement to say that you don't hold the sole agency of non-proliferation. India is talking of non-proliferation all along. Even after 1998 we have not forgotten our commitment to non-proliferation. In the last UNGA session we moved a resolution. Recently we celebrated the 20th anniversary of Rajiv Gandhi's speech in the disarmament to reiterate our commitment to non proliferation.

Q. Has the nuclear deal boosted our chances of becoming the permanent member of the UN Security Council?
A. India always had a certain stature. All along India had stature but with our growing economy, technological competence besides prestige we have muscles. No doubt this enhanced stature will help, but India has its own claim to be the permanent member of the Security Council.

Q. Now even Pakistan wants a deal like this. What do you have to say?
A. Why should we object if others get it. It is for the international community to decide.

Q. Asif Zardari has taken over as the president. Will that help in creating better ties with Pakistan?
A. I would like to watch. Action is much more important than words. After the new government took over, I went to Pakistan. I had discussions with them and there was no dearth of words. After that, the ceasefire has been violated, infiltration has increased, the Kabul blasts occurred and the rhetoric has returned. We have sent them some concrete proposals on cross-border trade to start from October 1. If we get a positive response we will be too happy. Work is more important than words.

Q Nepal's prime minister Prachanda says he want to renegotiate the Indo-Nepal treat. Are you open to it?
A. Let us see what his proposal is. Why should we object? We have already told the earlier government that after they formulate such a proposal we can discuss it.

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby vsudhir » 11 Sep 2008 19:39

Excellent interview given by Pranab da. My respect for the man has gone up a few notches.
Last edited by vsudhir on 11 Sep 2008 20:01, edited 1 time in total.

Suppiah
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2569
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: -
Contact:

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Suppiah » 11 Sep 2008 19:43

Pranab's comment about re-selling is a classic. He is a nice man.

Let us accept that MKN was asked to be the bad cop and he is playing good cop. Let us also accept that this is part of usual diplomatic dance.

The worrying part though is when it comes to China, much of what is agreed by China is based on rumours / unofficial stuff. It is never in writing at least in public. Example - the so-called settlement of Sikkim issue, so-called agreement on Arunachal. This gives them the room for wriggling out of commitments and keeps us on the hook all the time. Whereas we, when it comes to our commitments (Example: Tibet, Taiwan), not only make it official but recite it forwards and backwards with head bowed and arms crossed on all possible occasions.

I dont blame Pranab here, it is a common malaise, even NDA was not immune to it.

raj_singh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 31
Joined: 05 Sep 2008 19:18

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby raj_singh » 11 Sep 2008 20:00

Suppiah

Whereas we, when it comes to our commitments (Example: Tibet, Taiwan), not only make it official but recite it forwards and backwards with head bowed and arms crossed on all possible occasions.

I dont blame Pranab here, it is a common malaise, even NDA was not immune to it.


It is not about a particular political party or all Indian political parties/govts bowing to China but it is more about India knowing its own weakness and at the same time aware of what China can get away with. It makes India more practical and pragmatic and not weak at all.

Some months ago, JCage had written an excellent post on this subject on military board. That post should have been a sticky on this forum. For, that post very clearly and eloquently expresses India's position vis a vis China.

Suppiah
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2569
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: -
Contact:

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Suppiah » 11 Sep 2008 20:01

http://svaradarajan.blogspot.com/2008/0 ... seven.html

What's up? Some rift in the family? Will Chindu dare to publish this story which, intentionally or otherwise, pretty much paints a picture of China being a snake and coward not willing to stand up but hide behind petty coats of much smaller states?
Last edited by Suppiah on 11 Sep 2008 20:14, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Sanatanan » 11 Sep 2008 20:09

Quoting in full from Xinhua, China


U.S.-Indian high-level meeting eyes unpredictable nuclear deal

http://www.chinaview.cn 2008-09-11 14:32:31
By Zhao Yi

WASHINGTON, Sept. 10 (Xinhua) -- U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met with Indian Defense Minister A. K. Antony on Wednesday, with their talks focused on the U.S.-India civilian nuclear deal and bilateral military operation.

IMPORTANT TALKS

Although U.S. and Indian officials did not elaborate about the details of the meeting, it was believed that the meeting was of great importance to bilateral ties, especially in military cooperation in the coming years.

Antony's visit to Washington, the first since he took the portfolio in 2005, followed a visit by his American counterpart Robert Gates to India late February, which witnessed U.S. efforts to promote Indian oppositions' support for the civilian nuclear deal between the two countries.

The top Indian military official arrived at a time when the U.S.-India civilian nuclear agreement is facing its last challenge-- the approval of the U.S. Congress after the "landmark deal" was given a green light by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG).

The United States and India reached an agreement on civil nuclear cooperation in March 2006, under which India will get access to U.S. civil nuclear technology on condition that India is to separate nuclear facilities for civilian and military use and open its nuclear facilities for inspection.

The nuclear deal, considered a key part of U.S. President George W. Bush's foreign policy legacy, is designed to solidify Washington's relationship with a fast-emerging economic power. However, the nuclear deal has met strong opposition in both India and the United States.

On Aug. 1, the IAEA oked an inspection plan for India's declared civilian nuclear energy plants -- 14 of 22 existing or planned reactors. Following the U.N. nuclear watchdog's action, the NSG, which controls the export and sale of nuclear technology worldwide, on Saturday approved a U.S. proposal to lift its 34-year-old nuclear trade embargo on India.

GLARING CONTRADICTIONS

The Bush administration has been doing its utmost to realize the controversial U.S.-India civilian nuclear deal. It argued that India is an important democracy and dismissed warnings that breaking the rules would ruin global efforts to stop the spread of atomic weapons and boost India's nuclear arsenal.

Under U.S. laws, Congress must be in a session of 30 full days to consider the U.S.-India nuclear deal. However, U.S. lawmakers are scheduled to leave Washington at the end of the month to campaign for November elections that will determine Bush's successor and the political future of many current Congress members.

Rice, who is both hatcher and executor of President Bush's foreign policies, began to make an all-out effort to persuade Congress to approve the U.S.-India nuclear deal.

It was reported that soon after the NSG oked the U.S. plan to engage in atomic trade with India, Rice paid a relatively rare visit to Capitol Hill to call on House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman, a California Democrat, and discuss how to win Congress' blessing before President Bush leaves office on Jan. 20. For the same purpose, Rice also met on Tuesday with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

While legislators in Congress are pledging a careful review of the U.S.-Indian nuclear deal, there is also a public voice against the pact. In its editorial entitled "A bad deal" on Tuesday, the leading U.S. newspaper New York Times is opposed to the decision by the NSG to lift a nuclear trade embargo on India.

"The nuclear agreement was a bad idea from the start. Mr. Bush and his team were so eager for a foreign policy success that they gave away the store. They extracted no promise from India to stop producing bomb making material. No promise not to expand its arsenal. And no promise not to resume nuclear testing," said the editorial.

The U.S. State Department said Rice hoped to formally send Congress the deal at the end of the day. However, with the opposition Democrats in control of both the Senate and the House of Representatives, it is predicted that Congress may not have enough days left to ratify the deal.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54384
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby ramana » 11 Sep 2008 20:17

Dont know how many recall and might want to ask Arundhati Ghose, it was PRC that insisted on putting India's name in the list of 44 countries that have to sign the CTBT in the entry into force section in 1996. So they have this kife out for India since a long time. yet Indian elite wants to pander to them . Look at the comments in Vardarajan's blog.

One thing I dont understand is Bhaskar Roy's statement that it was with PRC's role in mind that only one sentence of Pranab Mukherjee's statement was acceptable to be put in the NSG waiver instead of the whole statement. What does he mean?

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Sanatanan » 11 Sep 2008 20:20

President Jimmy Carter's Opinion article in International Herald Tribune. Quoting in Full.

NUCLEAR ARMS
India nuclear deal puts world at risk
By Jimmy Carter
Published: September 11, 2008

Knowing since 1974 of India's nuclear ambitions, other American presidents and I have maintained a consistent global policy: no sales of nuclear technology or uncontrolled fuel to any country that refuses to sign the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty, or NPT. To imbed this concept as official national policy, I worked closely with bipartisan leaders in the U.S. Congress to pass the Non-Proliferation Act of 1978.

More recently, in 2006, the Hyde Act was passed and signed by President George W. Bush to define appropriate terms of the proposed U.S.-India nuclear agreement. Both laws were designed to encourage universal compliance with basic terms of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which has been accepted by more than 180 nations. Only Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea are not participating, the first three having nuclear arsenals that are advanced, and the fourth's being embryonic. Today, these global restraints are in the process of being abandoned.

In recent years the U.S. government has not set a good example, having abandoned the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty; binding limitations on testing nuclear weapons and development of new ones; and a long-standing policy of foregoing threats of "first use" of nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states. These decisions have encouraged China, Russia and other nuclear powers to respond with similar retrogressive actions.

This has sent mixed signals to North Korea, Iran and other nations with the technical knowledge to create nuclear weapons. The currently proposed agreement with India compounds this challenge and further undermines the global pact for restraint represented by the nuclear nonproliferation regime. If India's unique demands are acceptable, why should other technologically advanced NPT signatories, such as Brazil, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Japan - to say nothing of less responsible nations - continue to restrain themselves?

I have no doubt that India's political leaders are just as responsible in handling their country's arsenal as leaders of the five original nuclear powers. But there is a significant difference: the original five have signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty and strive to stop producing fissile material for weapons.

The Nuclear Suppliers Group is a 45-nation body that - until now - has barred nuclear trade with any nation that refuses to accept international nuclear standards. Tremendous political pressure from the United States and India has recently induced the group's members to reverse their historic position; they even declined to clarify penalties in the event of a resumption of nuclear testing by India. No one knows what secret deals were made to gain the necessary votes. Specific information about all facets of the agreement needs to be shared with the U.S. Congress to assure full conformance of the U.S.-Indian agreement with the Hyde Act and other laws.

There is a farcical disparity between public and private claims being made to the U.S. Congress about imposed nuclear safeguards and those being made, at the same time to the Indian parliament that no such restraints will be acceptable. When Congress passed the Hyde Act endorsing the exception to Nuclear Suppliers Group guidelines for India, there were specific conditions, including clear penalties in the event of a resumption of Indian nuclear testing, constraints against selling equipment used to make bomb-grade material and limits on the refueling of Indian nuclear power plants. A key condition under the law is immediate termination of all nuclear commerce by the group's member states if India detonates a nuclear explosive device.

Indian officials publicly deny that they will accept these restraints. I have discussed these conflicting claims with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his response, with a smile, was that U.S. and Indian politics are different.

India's leaders' accepting the NPT and joining other nuclear powers in signing the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty would greatly strengthen the global effort to control proliferation. Instead, India insists on unrestricted access to international assistance in producing fissile material for as many as 50 weapons a year, perhaps doubling what is believed to be India's current capacity. Meanwhile, other major nuclear powers, including the United States, Russia, France and Britain, are moving to limit their production.

It would be advantageous to have improved diplomatic relations between the United States and India that could result from a clearly understood nuclear agreement, and I would fully support such a move. However, different interpretations of the same pact can lead only to harsh confrontations if future decisions are made in New Delhi that contravene what has been understood in our country. The time for the U.S. Congress to clarify these issues is now, before a tragic mistake is made.

Former President Jimmy Carter is founder of The Carter Center, which works to advance world peace and health.

Manny
BRFite
Posts: 846
Joined: 07 Apr 2006 22:16
Location: Texas

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Manny » 11 Sep 2008 20:36

These days Jimmy Carter's opinion and 50 cents can get you a cup of joe!

:rotfl:

He has become a public nuisance and a joke!

renukb
BRFite
Posts: 675
Joined: 18 Aug 2008 12:18

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby renukb » 11 Sep 2008 22:30

India nears nuclear pacts with France, Russia: govt

6 hours ago

NEW DELHI (AFP) — India is finalising bilateral pacts with countries including France and Russia for the import of civilian atomic power plants and technology, a foreign ministry spokesman said Thursday.

The announcement comes days after the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), which controls the export and sale of nuclear technology worldwide, amended its rules to allow India to buy equipment and expertise to fuel its booming economy.

New Delhi is also in talks with US companies, foreign ministry spokesman Navtej Sarna said.

"Following the NSG statement which enables civil nuclear cooperation by NSG members with India, the government is taking steps to realise commercial cooperation with foreign partners," Sarna said.

New Delhi is moving towards bilateral agreements with "friendly partner countries such as France and Russia," he said.

The agreements with both Russia and France are ready for signing, officials have said.

The NSG approval followed the United States leaning on several countries opposed to the India-specific amendment in Vienna last weekend.

It was a pact agreed with the United States in 2006 that opened the possibility of India buying nuclear plants and related technology.

The pact with the US offers India an end to its three-decades old nuclear pariah status, as long as New Delhi allows UN nuclear inspections of some of its nuclear facilities.

Despite the NSG go-ahead, New Delhi and Washington are awaiting approval of their bilateral pact that the White House sent to the Congress on Thursday.

"While actual cooperation will commence after bilateral agreements like the (India-US) agreement come into force, the Nuclear Power Cooperation of India has already commenced preliminary dialogue with US companies," the foreign ministry spokesman added.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54384
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby ramana » 11 Sep 2008 22:32

Good move as incentive for the US Congress to get on with its approval.

Carter's article is to pressure the US Congress and wont work as there arent many in the US Congress who subscribe to his irrelevant views or Presidency.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby NRao » 11 Sep 2008 22:45

Carter is sounding like someone who keeps repeating "I will veto a bill that comes across my table ............" and "And, I said, thanks but no thanks for that bridge to nowhere ...................".

Perhaps the US should hand over the plans to miniaturize a tested nuke and be done with this silliness. He would have been better of to cut Bush's phone lines about a month ago.

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby svinayak » 11 Sep 2008 22:48

Another article which dismisses the deal and is opposite to what Carter is alluding to.
But the mockery of the Indians for what the Indian media is crowing about is very interesting.
Indians with hard facts know what the deal is about. But the media spin about the glory of the deal
is being used to mock Indians when the same people control the Indian media. This is total control
on the image of Indians within India and outside India

http://www.economist.com/world/asia/dis ... d=12209404

India’s nuclear deal with America
Quantum politics

Sep 11th 2008 | DELHI
From The Economist print edition
Celebrating a diplomatic triumph


AT THE atomic level, the laws of classical physics bend in intriguing ways. On September 6th, the world’s nuclear rules proved equally pliable. The Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), a 45-nation cartel that limits trade in nuclear materials and technology, passed a “waiver”, allowing it to do business with India (see article). Only five other countries (America, Britain, China, France and Russia) both enjoy the privileges of nuclear commerce and have nuclear weapons. And unlike India, those other five have all signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty (although America and China have yet to ratify the latter).

The deal is still to be approved by America’s Congress. But the waiver will allow India to import uranium for its nuclear reactors, which will need roughly double the uranium its own mines can supply. This in turn will enable India to devote more of its domestic uranium to weapons-building. In addition, the deal should eventually let India buy “dual-use” technology, of use in the nuclear industry and beyond.

For India, this is all welcome. But what most impressed the country’s commentators is the deal’s symbolism, not its utility. The world’s nuclear club bent its rules to accommodate India. Much as this irks foreign critics of the deal, it delights many Indians, who see it as confirmation of the country’s new status in the world.


“If the Beijing Olympics was China’s coming-out party, the NSG waiver was India’s,” wrote the Times of India, the country’s best-selling English-language newspaper. America brought its diplomatic muscle to bear on India’s behalf, elbowing aside the “nuclear nobodies”, such as Austria, New Zealand and Ireland and a score of others who objected to the deal, and even overcoming China’s last-minute quibbles. This diplomatic coup was all the more notable because India is the reason the cartel exists. It was formed to prevent a repeat of India’s 1974 nuclear test, which exploited the civilian nuclear help India received under America’s “Atoms for Peace” initiative. This was, the Times said, a “delicious irony”. Tastier still was the distance the deal puts between India and its rival Pakistan. The deal has “de-hyphenated” the Indo-Pakistan nuclear conundrum, the newspaper said.

Amid the trumpets, some grace-notes of nostalgia could also be heard. For the past 50 years, India has harboured dreams of nuclear self-sufficiency. Short of uranium, it possesses about a third of the world’s known deposits of thorium, which can be turned into nuclear fuel if irradiated. In theory, according to Charles Ferguson of America’s Council on Foreign Relations, these deposits could yield 155,502 gigawatt-years of electrical energy, more than 14 times the wattage India could extract from its coal deposits.

Unfortunately, the dream remains distant. Before it can exploit its thorium, to name only one obstacle, India must first breed plutonium at a viable cost and scale. John Stephenson and Peter Tynan of Dalberg, an American consultancy, do not expect much from thorium before 2050 at best.
In the meantime, India hopes its new licence to import uranium will allow it to quintuple its nuclear-generated electricity by 2020. But even that will meet only 5% of its projected demand, according to Mr Ferguson. India cannot fulfil its nuclear aspirations without foreign help, and its nuclear plans, even if realised, can meet only a fraction of its vast energy needs. Some constraints, sadly, do not yield to either diplomatic or atomic power.


ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54384
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby ramana » 11 Sep 2008 22:54

The Indian media can be excused for their celebration as they are used to India snatching defeat from jaws of victory time and again. And they are surprised at the outcome of this waiver.

No need for Economist to gloat at them when it itself was expecting no waiver a few days back and hence posted its non support editorial.

A point to note. There is no need for the deal to be approved by US Congress its the Waiver that is important. And thats done.

Its only Indian reasonableness that prevents them from executing other agreements for commerce till the US Congress also agrees so that there is level playing field for the US businesses. This should not be misunderstood for deferrence.

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Raj Malhotra » 11 Sep 2008 22:56

I think that we should quickly enter into bi-lateral deals for nuke reactors so that they can come on stream between 2014-17,lets say:-

4x1000 Russians
3x1000 GE from USA\
3x1650 France


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest