India nuclear news and discussion

[enqyoob]

OK, so Berman managed to get in something that says the US should help other NSGangsters stop fuel, etc. BUT.... still subject to the POTUSian determination that India has done something bad. No change at all there. The deal has always been very simple: if time comes that India has to test, NSG wants to "understand" why. And make sure their hearts and minds are won. Because their golas are glowing in India.

The basic premise in J18 is Strategic Cooperation, which is why The Chindu is so dead against it. An India-US relationship tied with large mutual resources, not counting just working people, and not just based on "shared democratic ideals, traditions" etc., means that Chindu's sponsors see their huge investments in the US becoming more shaky.

Anyway, nothing has changed, except that the House did their job with amazing speed. Remember, the point of this exercise is:

Whereas the IAEA and NSG have approved the proposed US-India 123, does COTUS authorize POTUS to put the ophishial seal of the Yoonited Ishtates on the US-India 123?

They can take 50,0000 pages to say it, but in the end, it's still "Yes" or "No". And at this stage anything less than a "Yes" hurts the US much more.

[Sanjay M]

Well, the issue of strategic cooperation will at least ensure that Congress will be kept estranged from its erstwhile votebanks and Leftist partners.

NDA will be the beneficiary of this.

[V_Raman]

our existing weapons capability has been acknowledged and we are keeping it. that itself is a big win. 50/100 - fission/fusion - modern/old --- does not matter. it will still explode. that, IMHO, is the most important thing. this forum itself has agreed that the next 25 years is the most important period -- we should keep our existing capability intact, advance our designs (theory/fabrication), develop our economy -- the world needs us more now than ever before, and then handle things later.

i am in chennai on vacation and it is very sad state of affairs w.r.t infra/power -- we have grown to the extent possibe with the existing state and we are bursting at the seams -- time to act quickly and seize the economic opportunity before us. it is now or never IMVHO

[ldev]

Once the Congress govt is thrown out, NDA would have all the support from all corners of the political spectrum to make Congress miserable over this deal. There'll be no lack of cooperation on this issue, which is the one thing that can unite all parties.

Sanjay M,

I dont want to bet. But I am fairly certain that no future GOI of whatever political stripe will change one iota of the 123 agreement, zilch ,nada... At best a future NDA government will pass a version of the Jekyll Act in the Indian Parliament. Nothing else will happen. Just as the NDA government did not test again after its May 1998 unilateral moratorium, no future NDA government will test either. So the whole issue is moot.

The basic issue at stake here is that this agreement does two things:

1. Allows the import of uranium and nuclear power reactors.

2. Builds up a strategic partnership with the US.

What the first point does is makes it feasible for the entry of the private sector into nuclear power generation in India and then the ramp up of installed capacity will be exponential.

Once India reaches a critical economic size in the global economy the intricacies of mutual interdependency ensure that India will get the strategic space that it needs.... if a future GOI has the wits to seek it....

And the deal supporters are still out there. But when everything is done and sealed, bar the shouting...

[Neshant]

India has a good record of being duped.

From Russians low balling arms costs and then jacking prices up after the initial installments of $ are handed over to Enron style deals where gas costs 3X market price.

I don't trust the Indian govt to be able to defend national interests in any deal.

[Arun_S]

Please read Hyed Act and the 123. It expressly prohibits that.

This has nothing to do with the Hyde act or the 123.

With due respect, Hyde act does expressly prohibit that.

[Gerard]

The Hyde act could expressly permit that. It would be just as irrelevant. As would any Indian law.

No domestic US legislation can change the fact that India cannot use safeguarded spent fuel in the manner suggested without violating the safeguards agreements it has signed with the IAEA and violating the NPT itself (under which the supplier nation provided such fuel).

The US is in need of heavy water for its Y-12 plant. It has no heavy water plants left in operation. It is unable to import heavy water to make Lithium Deuteride because that would violate the NPT obligations of potential suppliers. The same NPT article that prohibits certain Indian actions also prohibits the USA.

[Arun_S]

So are you clearly stating that we have enough domestic supply of natural uranium that we can sustain both our weapons program needs and a robust civilian energy program?

All that I am saying is that the amount of N Uranium needed for Indian weapons program is so minuscule part of the Indian reserve that imported or indigenous N fuel has no impact on that. Just do the numbers and it will speak truth.

As for why Indian N power plants are running at half capacity, that is due to dereliction of duty at DAE/BARC in not re-opening the Uranium mines (that were closed in ~1992 due to inventory glut by Shri MM Singh) in time to safely meet the fuel requirement in view of additional rectors coming on line and the excess inventory dewinding due to minimum mines operating. Had it been any other GoI department been so derelict the minister and the civil services head would have been forced to resign. In this case the Atomic Energy ministery is under PM MMSingh and the civil services head is the top echelon of DAE including the honerable Anil Kakodkar who has been presiding BARC and DAE for many years since R.Chidambram was moved upstairs.

It if it was not dereliction of duty then IMO it only means it was intentionality orchestrated fuel scarcity created to hurd the national opinion to sign the Nuclear Deal with Unkill in whichever form. In the land of the brave some call it: "Arsonist Firefighter".

[Gerard]

CPI(M) to oppose Indo-US nuclear deal in Parliament

[Gerard]

Atoms for War? U.S.-Indian Civilian Nuclear Cooperation and India's Nuclear Arsenal
By Ashley J. Tellis
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/ ... final4.pdf

Among the most serious criticisms leveled at the U.S.-Indian nuclear cooperation initiative agreed to by President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is that it would enable India to rapidly expand its nuclear arsenal. This criticism rests upon two crucial assumptions:

* that New Delhi in fact seeks the largest nuclear weapons inventory its capacity and resources permit; and,
* the Indian desire for a larger nuclear arsenal has been stymied thus far by a shortage of natural uranium.

Atoms for War? US-Indian Civilian Nuclear Cooperation and India's Nuclear Arsenal by Ashley J. Tellis, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, suggests both these assumptions are deeply flawed. The study concludes that:

* India is currently separating far less weapons grade plutonium annually than it has the capability to produce. The evidence, which suggests that the Government of India is in no hurry to build the biggest nuclear stockpile it could construct based on material factors alone, undermines the assumption that India wishes to build the biggest nuclear arsenal it possibly can;
* Further, India's capacity to produce a huge nuclear arsenal is not affected by prospective U.S.-Indian civilian nuclear cooperation. The research in this report concludes that: India already has the indigenous reserves of natural uranium necessary to undergird the largest possible nuclear arsenal it may desire and, consequently, the U.S.-Indian civilian nuclear cooperation initiative will not materially contribute towards New Delhi's strategic capacities in any consequential way either directly or by freeing up its internal resources; that the current shortage of natural uranium in India caused by constrictions in its mining and milling capacity is a transient problem that is in the process of being redressed. The U.S.-Indian nuclear cooperation agreement proposed by President Bush does not in any way affect the Government of India's ability to upgrade its uranium mines and milling facilities—as it is currently doing. As such, the short-term shortage does not offer a viable basis either for Congress to extort any concessions from India in regards to its weapons program or for supporting the petty canard that imported natural uranium will lead to a substantial increase in the size of India's nuclear weapons program.

[Gerard]

Fatwa from Mullah Krepon
Dealing with India's nuclear weapons ambitions

[Gerard]

Flawed India-pact opposition

[Gerard]

Teresita Schaffer
Dealing with India's nuclear weapons ambitions

[Gerard]

Text of PM Manmohan Singh's address at 63rd session of UN General Assembly

I reiterate India's proposal for a Nuclear Weapons Convention prohibiting the development, production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons and providing for their complete elimination within a specified time frame.

[ramana]

Lets not get into a BR slug fest. Its time to savor getting out of the doghouse. What we do after that is India's choice and leadership. The current deal keeps what india has but not anymore. The key is to grow the Indian economy equitablly and reduce chances of underperformance and takleef/grievance. Nuke power will be costly to lose to transmission losses.

[Sean]

In the house, not a single vote against the deal came from Florida and Virginia. Most of the Democrats from California against the deal, including my own representative. She has lost four votes from my household for the upcoming election. However, she is expected to win handily.

Sean
Who will that be..?

One of the Sanchez sisters.

[Raja Ram]

Of Shifting Sands and Changing Goalposts

The J18 agreement was path breaking, it still was a compromise. The assidously and painstakingly built Indian strategic independence and the firm as rock refusal to bend and submit to unfair treaties and ostracizing cabals were testimony to that commitment.

So too was the "dare to dream" by Homi Bhaba and his successors that responded to the call of the nation and made sure that despite all odds, India not only guarded zealously its options but actually provided this nation those options. In this we have to acknowledge the unswerving support that was provided by generations of political leadership across parties and ideologies. As ABV said post Shakti tests, our nuclear weapon status is not something that needs to be gifted or accorded by others, but is a rightful legacy of our Indian Scientists and engineers. We need no one's certificate to be recognised as a nuclear power. We are one today.

Yes, the J18 agreement was path breaking from both sides. The US was willing to really break out from their cold war straitjacket mindset with regard to India, be realistic in recognising the role India is likely to play and make an attempt to ensure that the estranged democracies do not miss the boat of being engaged as partners yet again. India too was presented with an opportunity to break out of international isolation - but that is only one part - the larger gain was that with this move India would sieze an historic opportunity to stake its claim in the leadership table in world affairs. Something that India had missed out on earlier occassions in the past.

The agreement represented a realistic compromise and it was genuinely a win-win agreement. There was also an acknowledgement on the rules of engagement and the sequence for materialising this deal. Till this point both parties were on the ball and got it right.

Then started the slide and the game of sifting sands. A real battle was on. There were various lobbies at work and there were all for derailing the deal. But for different reasons. The NPA lobby was of course one, there were others too. India's adversary China was definitely not going to let this happen without a fight, nor was their faithful ally and invaluable asset in countering India, Pakistan. There were also the lobbies of western supremacists of various hues who were having conflicting convulsions. Sometimes supporting this as this will check the rise of China and sometimes opposing it because this would mean accepting a "lowly" India as an equal of sorts. They of course wanted to bring in conditions that would tie up India as a subservient ally neutered from acting on its own from a political and military perspective. Much like the other major Asian power Japan.

What we witnessed was a well caliberated and organized counter attack in both India and the US. Many of these actors collaborated and achieved some success. The first signs of the shifting sands were when the USG started to deviate from the rules of engagement and agreed sequence. The GOI did not make an issue out of it as it was not prepared to miss this historic opportunity as long as it saw that the general direction and final deal was something that delivered on the J18 promise.

The GOI also deviated from its long standing policy of ensuring unanility of views across political, scientific and military stake holders. This spelt trouble. There was a section of the political class probably led by the PM that held the view that we could accept a certain level of cap on the strategic autonomy in exchange for much needed energy security and economic gains. This was a major deviation. Even people in the establishment had to come out and speak against a deal at all costs approach and steam rolling intent. There was ungainly grandstanding and browbeating by sections of the government and sadly by members in the PMO itself.

It is my speculation that this stemmed not from an intent of selling out the country but of having a different vision of India. The vision of India being a major player when it came to economic strength, of trying to bring a quick change in economic performance so that poverty is reduced and we have the requisite strength to match the Chinese. Of what use is this nuclear weapons capability, if we cannot access uranium for power plants, if we cannot get access to global technologies. It is true indeed that the road to hell is paved with the best of intentions.

Coupled to this was the intense desire to take all political credit. A strong pathalogical hatred for the main opposition party that was not in the interest of larger cause of the nation ensured that what should have been a strong and united negotation position was weakened from within. The ally within the government was a trojan horse that was answering to a different call of another nation's interest. The main opposition too did not make an ernest attempt to build the national consensus by reaching out constructively.

In contrast to this was the US political establishment that by and large were quick to build a consensus to strengthen USG in the negotiations, and helped squeeze every concession on the rules of the engagement, agreed sequence of events and the deal itself. While the Indian political establishment was working at cross purposes, the seemingly differing arms of USG was working towards getting the best possible deal for the US.

Every US act since, has been a way of diluting what was agreed on J18. Every single step there was a change and shift, while the GOI was adhering to and delivering what was agreed scruplously.

The Hyde Act was a clear warning, our PM assured the country through the parliament that what will bind is the 123 agreement and we would have a certain set of redlines that shall not be compromised. The specific provisions in the 123 waiver that sought a role for the provisions of the HYde Act were explained away. The argument was to wait for the IAEA specific safeguards agreement. What was promised was a trishanku swarga. What was delivered was something close to that but not quite. It was again explained away that it does not matter as it does not impinge on our strategic programme and it ensures non intrusive inspections that too to only civilian side. What was promised was that a realistic appreciation of India as a SNW if not NWS, but what was delivered was an exemption that was for a NNWS with some special features.

The GOI was clear that this was sufficient and said "wait for the NSG, once we get a clean and unconditional waiver, we can conclude deals with others as well and the 123 agreement with US will be of limitied relevance, we will have choices."

The NSG waiver was clean but not unconditional and it has linked a "wholly civilian deal" to a strategic programme of India. Not only that it has further demanded that the cabal that is the NSG must act together if India does test. It was nevertheless a hard fought victory for India that it was able to stare down every threat and the last minute antics of China. It was also a demonstration of the global power and reach of the USG.

The USG had said that once the original IAEA and NSG agreements were in place the congress would approve the 123 waiver bill unchanged. Once again they have reneged. What we now have is a very very watered down deal. The price for this from our side has not been corresspondingly watered down. The Indian consensus is in tatters and it has become a desperate need for the Indian government and the personal ambition of the Indian PM to do this deal at whatever cost.

If the original J18 was a worthy compromise, this deal is not a reflection of the compromise. At best it can be seen as a diluted version and at worst it can be seen as a neutering of India to be a purely economic power that will be forced to play a subservient me-too ally to the West.

Is all lost then? The answer to that lies in what actions that we as a country take. If we are able to use this deal constructively and take hard decisions that come our way in the future, we may yet be able to salvage the strategic independence and national consensus on the same in the years to come. It will be a functional of deliberate and resolute action in completing our national nuclear programme and the political will by the political establishment to assert Indian independence of thought and action whenever there is a need for it.

For starters, at least there should be a clear and unambigous acknowledgment that what we have got is not what was promised followed by a quick succession of practical steps to speed up both the indegenous civilian and strategic programmes in the nuclear field. Are we upto it? Only time and events will tell us that.

Just my usual ramble.

[RajeshA]

Fatwa from Henry Sokolski

Go Slow On The Indian Nuclear Deal by Henry Sokolski: Forbes

What's to be gained by Congress punting until early next year? Plenty: There's good reason to believe that the U.S. and all other nuclear supplier states will formally agree to ban such transfers to any state that has not yet ratified the NPT (i.e., India, Pakistan and Israel). If Congress finalizes the deal now, however, much of the political pressure on Russia and France to adopt this rule (which is derived from India's informal pledge not to seal nuclear deals with Moscow or Paris until the U.S. deal is finalized) will dissipate.

The NPAs are now strategizing on the basis India's stupidity. That is how far they have fallen!

[Philip]

The contrast in treatment between India and Pak by the US is a study in itself.India's good Dr.Singh gets lunch,lectures,warnings and a deal full of "dos and donts",while Pak gets a bag full of high-tech weaponry from Uncle Sam,and a wink,nudge,nudge and the whisper-"Get China to supply you with all your nuclear needs,we can't do a sh*t about it and our very best salaams to the good Dr.AQ Khan-tell him to still keep his gob shut!"

[Raj Malhotra]

I think USA wants to set up India against China and our MMS most cleverly wants to be set up "as an industrial" competitor rather than military antoganist.

[sraj]

The US is in need of heavy water for its Y-12 plant. It has no heavy water plants left in operation. It is unable to import heavy water to make Lithium Deuteride because that would violate the NPT obligations of potential suppliers. The same NPT article that prohibits certain Indian actions also prohibits the USA.

So India (as a State not Party to NPT) could legally supply heavy water to the US Y-12 plant without forcing the plant to go under safeguards? Is that where the recent supply of Indian heavy water go?

But doesn't the US, as one of the 5 NWS under NPT, have the ability to move its facilities in and out of safeguards at will?

[RajeshA]

Tomorrow the Indo-French Nuclear Cooperation Agreement is going to be signed. And nobody here on BRF or the Indian media has got a clue what the contents are. The contrast with the very public publication and debate of 123 Agreement is puzzling. Are the French and the Russians untouchable or what?

[RajeshA]

Considering all the discussions that have taken place on the question of fuel assurances, would it not be prudent for the Indian Parliament to simply pass legislation, that any foreign supplier of nuclear reactors, will have to give in writing,

1. a commitment that they will provide the fuel for the life-time of the reactors, and

2. a certification from their governments, that the government will not do anything which will obstruct them from fulfilling their commitment to supply fuel.

[John Snow]

It started as
Indo US cilian deal then
It became
Indo World deal then
It became
Indo US CRE deal
Time to close this thread and
Start the thread
Indo Nuclear Instructions treattease

[renukb]

'India values its nuclear partnership with France, Russia'

After meeting President George W Bush [Images] in Washington, DC, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh [Images] flew to Marseille, France [Images], for the yearly European Union-India Summit. Dr Singh will then arrive in Paris where he is expected to sign an agreement in the field of civil nuclear cooperation with French President Nicolas Sarkozy.
Senior rediff.com Contributor Claude Arpi spoke to Ranjan Mathai, India's ambassador to France, to discuss not only the nuclear deal which will soon be operational and will have no other conditionality than the ones imposed by the Nuclear Suppliers Group waiver in Vienna [Images], but also all other aspects of the Indo-French relations, ten years after the signature of a privileged strategic partnership with France in January 1998.

Let us first take the bilateral relations between France and India. 10 years ago, a strategic partnership agreement was signed between the two nations. It was one of the first to be signed. What is your assessment of this partnership today?

Indeed, it is a partnership which has grown in strength and maturity. We are today moving into concrete steps in all strategic fields.

Take first the field of space. We are increasing collaboration and have reached the stage where India's launch capacities will be used by France and its European partners. Then take defence -- we have a number of ongoing projects which are important to both sides.

Of course, there is the well-known Scorpene submarine project. Then there is the upgrade (you call it 'retrofitting') of the Mirage (fighter aircraft) which is crucial for our air force. There is also some ongoing discussion on a collaboration on missiles.

With MBDA (a subsidiary of EADS of France and BAE of UK)?

Yes, between MBDA and its Indian counterpart. In the months to come, we are hoping for some substantial progress in all this.

What about the 126 fighter planes for which bidding is opened?

It is an international tender opened to the major manufacturers. We understand that Dassault of France is one of the bidders. Though (in this case) evaluation and discussions have just started.

One issue which has been at the centre of the political stage in India is the nuclear deal. The media and the politicians have projected the deal as a US nuclear deal, though other players, mainly France and Russia [Images], have been involved from the start. Do you see it as a US nuclear deal only?

Let me put it this way. I don't know what the media is saying, but we, the Government of India, have always valued the potential of its partnership in the field of civil nuclear energy with both France and Russia.

Specifically for France, we expect that the bilateral agreement which was prepared earlier (and initialed) during the visit of President Sarkozy to India (in January 2008) will be signed during the prime minister's visit to France.

I must say that we appreciate very much the role of France during the talks with the NSG and the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency).

Has France been very supportive?

France has indeed been very active and supportive of India, not only during bilateral negotiations but also with other European partners and other members of these fora, particularly during the NSG negotiations. I have formally conveyed India's appreciation to the French government.

Reprocessing is not mentioned in the agreement previously initialed. Will you discuss this point during the bilateral talks?

I don't want to comment on the details. All matters related to civil nuclear cooperation will be discussed between both parties and the implementation will be made by the designated agencies of the two sides.

Both France and India have been facing attacks in Afghanistan in recent months. The French public is seriously concerned after the killing of 10 French soldiers and the Indian embassy was bombed in Kabul. Is there any collaboration between the two sides? Are you satisfied with the strategic dialogue on terrorism?



These are two different questions; though there are inter-relationships. One is in the general field of counter-terrorism or joint action against terrorism. We are at the stage of exchanging information.

We have a strategic dialogue (held twice a year between the Indian national security advisor and his French counterpart). The fight against terrorism is an important part of this dialogue. As the result of these regular meetings, the coordination (in the fight) against terrorism and the flow of information is improving. We hope that it will even become more effective in the coming years.

With regard to Afghanistan, we have always been in favour of international efforts for the stabilisation and reconstruction of the country. We ourselves have been involved in the field of economic reconstruction. We have taken up several projects (roads, etc) and we are training the Afghan forces.

The Afghan government has the Afghan National Development Strategy Plan which embodies the strategic priorities and aspirations of the Afghan government and people. We are supporting it, not only bilaterally (between India and Afghanistan) but also internationally. The national security of Afghanistan is part of the development strategy.

In June we participated in the international conference convened by the government of France and held in Paris. We then reiterated our support for the reconstruction and development activities of the Karzai government. We welcomed the role of France in bringing all concerned countries together.

The loss suffered by the French troops was a shock not only for France, but also for India. In fact our defence minister (A K Antony) has written to (Herve Morin) his French counterpart expressing India's shock and has presented our condolences for the French losses.

One of the criticisms against NATO is that it is not doing enough for the reconstruction like India is doing. Being geographically, historically and culturally closer to Afghanistan, could India advice NATO and France in this matter?

I don't think we would like to advise anybody, certainly not any international organisation, but in all our statements, in all our dialogues, we have repeatedly said that the Afghans themselves have devised as a consensus what they call their national development strategy, which includes security and reconstruction. Anything fitting into this is conducive for international cooperation.

About economic relations, President Sarkozy spoke of doubling the bilateral trade with India (to 12 billion euros) by 2012. Is it achievable? In which field do you see the most scope of growth?

It is important to remember that the 6 or 6.5 billon euros bilateral trade is very small considering the size of our two economies and the large size of our foreign trade. It is certainly not enough. In 2007, foreign trade grew at 26 per cent. If we are able to maintain this pace, the 12 billion euros target should be achievable even before 2012.

We are looking at an increased French investment in India (and a significant Indian investment in France). Investment-led trade could be a major factor in the years to come, particularly in infrastructure and high technologies.

What about nuclear cooperation?

Once the agreement gets off the ground and when groups like Areva come (to India), there will be a major increase in trade. Even now, if you look at trends in infrastructure, cement, railways, autos, etc. there is a great potential.

Claude Arpi's fascinating interview with Ambassador Mathai continues tomorrow.

[NRao]

Just a pass time, tracking bait and switch items:

France has indeed been very active and supportive of India, not only during bilateral negotiations but also with other European partners and other members of these fora, particularly during the NSG negotiations. I have formally conveyed India's appreciation to the French government.

Reprocessing is not mentioned in the agreement previously initialed. Will you discuss this point during the bilateral talks?

I don't want to comment on the details. All matters related to civil nuclear cooperation will be discussed between both parties and the implementation will be made by the designated agencies of the two sides.

Spet 19, 2008 :: ToI :: Enrichment, reprocessing tech not part of Indo-French deal

French ambassador to India Jerome Bonnafont told a TV channel that the India-French nuclear agreement was ready for signing. Like the 123 agreement, the French agreement too gives India the right to negotiate a separate reprocessing agreement with them. Meanwhile, again like the US, France would allow India to reprocess spent fuel, provided it is under IAEA safeguards in the dedicated reprocessing facility that India has committed to build.

[VikramS]

I think USA wants to set up India against China and our MMS most cleverly wants to be set up "as an industrial" competitor rather than military antoganist.

The difference between an industrial and a military competitor is rather small.
You can not have one without the other.

What is important is to have a regional counterweight to China.

[SGupta]

Nicely written Article on Nuclear Power in India and other countries. Discusses the Thorium Cycle and more. Enjoy.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf53.html

[NRao]

PM's clear message: India won't allow a nuclear Iran

Marseilles: Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has made it clear that India does not want another nuclear weapons state in its neighbourhood and will under no circumstance support Iran's nuclear weapons programme.

"We don't support a nuclear weapon state emerging in our region. So there is no question of supporting nuclear weapon ambitions of Iran," Manmohan Singh said in Marseilles on Monday.

Manmohan also said he discussed the issue of Iran's nuclear programme with French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

"I have said earlier and I repeat that Iran is a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty and is entitled to all that is needed for development of its civil nuclear programme. And as a member of NPT, it has also to undertake all obligations of the NPT," he said.

He also said that India will sign a bilateral nuclear cooperation agreement with France during a meeting with Sarkozy in Paris on Tuesday.

We look forward to working with France as with other countries. Tomorrow we have a bilateral summit with France and this matter will come up and I hope some good results will emerge out of that meeting," Manmohan said after meeting Sarkozy in Marseilles on Monday.

Manmohan said India is seeking cooperation with all like-minded countries in matters relating to promotion of civil nuclear energy.

"US Congress is engaged in the process of passing a legislation which would promote bilateral cooperation between US and India. Sometime ago, the Nuclear Suppliers Group adjusted its guidelines in the matter of civil nuclear cooperation with India. We look forward to working with France and other countries in this area. We are having a summit tomorrow (with France), I hope some results will come out of this summit," Manmohan said.

Sarkozy added that nuclear energy is the cleanest form of energy at a time when the entire world was talking about climate change.

He also added that he would discuss with the Indian Prime Minister the issue of nuclear cooperation and take a decision on Tuesday.

France is offering India its First Generation European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) and about 35 French companies have begun talks with their Indian counterparts for setting up joint ventures.

The Prime Minister also condemned attacks on churches in India.

"We are a secular state, multi-religious and multi-cultural nation," Manmohan said.

Manmohan also discussed terrorism and the financial crisis with EU leaders in the French coastal town of Marseilles at the annual India-EU summit.

The Prime Minister is on a 10-day visit to the US and France.

[ramana]

I think USA wants to set up India against China and our MMS most cleverly wants to be set up "as an industrial" competitor rather than military antoganist.

The Hydebound provisions and the riders to the 123 show that they want a subaltern status for India in this so called competitor game. Having ensured that PRC has better technology (wen ho lee case) its difficult to see how they expect India to be a competitor to PRC. The riders are a clear case of that not being the case.

[ramana]

Nrao, The radio had Dave Gilbert of ABC News who spoke of Ehud Olmert being a non entity now and that he (Gilbert) is coming to believe that Iran is half way out of the barn. He thinks that Sunni Arabs have more to fear than Israel about an Iranian breakout. So lets see.

I odnt understand how MMS hopes to stop Iran when local powers and US seem to have given up. Is he flailing a lost cause?

[RajeshA]

India, France set to sign nuclear deal: PTI

Sources said three French nuclear equipment suppliers, Areva, Alstom and EDF, were interested in exploring business opportunities in India.

The presence of Atomic Energy Commission chief Anil Kakodkar also indicated the possibility of the nuclear pact being inked.

Considering that India's signing of the civilian nuclear agreement with France, is the one, which will bring us the best reactors with the least conditionalities, perhaps 30th September should be considered the big Nuclear Freedom Day! for India.

[ramana]

Op-Ed in Deccan Chronicle, 30 Spet 2008

Warning for Delhi: CTBT has entered via backdoor
Harsh V. Pant & Bharath Gopalaswamy

It was 12 years ago on September 24, 1996, that the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) was opened for signature, some 42 years after the first international proposal for a complete ban on testing nuclear weapons was put forward by India. In its preamble, the CTBT argues “that cessation of all nuclear weapons test explosions and all other nuclear explosions… constitutes an effective measure of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation in all its aspects…”

It also underlines that “the most effective way to achieve an end to nuclear testing is through the conclusion of a universal and internationally and effectively verifiable comprehensive nuclear test-ban treaty.” As of 2008, 178 states have signed it; 144, including Russia, have ratified it; and of the 44 that must ratify the treaty for it to enter into force, 41 have signed and 35 have ratified it.

Achieving a CTBT has long been a goal of the international community since the 1950s. Though some states viewed it as a means of ending the nuclear arms race and facilitating nuclear disarmament, a test ban was seen by the Nuclear Weapon States (NWS) — US, Russia, UK, Britain and France — mainly as a non-proliferation measure. The consensus to ban testing became possible only after the development of simulation technologies to allow for limited development and maintenance of weapons without actual nuclear tests and all five NWS came on board only after France and China had conducted a series of tests and were satisfied about the status of their nuclear capabilities.

Weapons testing are an integral part of a successful development and deployment of nuclear weapons. From a maintenance point of view, testing is also very important in order to keep the weapons in good working order. The central premise behind the CTBT then, is that a ban on nuclear testing effectively ends the ability of any country to develop and deploy nuclear weapons.

This means, the CTBT would be most effective in decapitating “threshold states” like India from being able to develop their nuclear option. It is clear that countries like India can develop U-235 gun-type and simple plutonium or U-235 implosion weapons, on which they could have reasonable confidence with no testing at all. However, without testing, it would not be possible to improve upon low material-utilisation efficiency and poor yield-to-weight ratios of these first generation weapons, something that can be eased by technology transfer from the NWS. However, for the recipient to have reasonable confidence in the performance or even the workability of its weapons, tests are ultimately essential.

When the drafting of the CTBT was coming to an end in 1995, concerns were rising in India that accession to the CTBT would impinge negatively on the credibility of the Indian nuclear deterrent. The US pressure on India for the signing of the CTBT generated strong reaction in the Indian body politic and prevented India from succumbing to external pressure.

The CTBT came back into the picture during the Jaswant Singh-Strobe Talbott arms control negotiations after the Indian nuclear tests of 1998. The US laid down five benchmarks that it wanted India to abide by: signing the CTBT, accepting a freeze on the production of nuclear material, strengthening export controls, restraining its nuclear weapons posture, and jump-starting peace process with Pakistan. India’s signature on the CTBT was the single most important demand of Washington if the economic sanctions imposed on India after Pokharan II had to go. Though Jaswant Singh promised his US interlocutors that India would sign the CTBT, domestic political divide was beyond his or his government’s ability to bridge. It was the failure of the US Senate to ratify the CTBT that buried the treaty, at least for the time being, thereby easing pressure on India.

While the Clinton Administration had continued to insist on India’s accession to the CTBT if US-India were to realise their full potential, the Bush Administration came to office with a radically different approach to the global arms control framework. It saw little utility in maintaining the global nuclear arms control architecture as in its view it was incapable of addressing the most pressing challenges. It had no enthusiasm for the CTBT and this helped India in building a new relationship with the US.

The CTBT, however, has entered the discourse recently via the backdoor. Many members of the US Congress and later the Nuclear Suppliers Group have insisted on stronger arms control commitments from India and India’s signature on the CTBT is on the agenda as is the condition that in the event of future nuclear tests, civilian nuclear co-operation with India would cease. India continues to maintain its unilateral moratorium on testing, a declaration it made after Pokharan II.

It is important for India to keep its nuclear weapons programme open-ended. As China joins the ranks of major global powers, it will be tempted to move beyond its minimum nuclear deterrent posture. India should be well prepared to counter that challenge. Global balance of power is in flux at the moment. The US and India are both trying to adjust to the emerging strategic realities and the civilian nuclear deal is merely an attempt to craft a partnership that can serve the interests of both states in the coming years.

If one goes by this logic, then surely it will be the strategic geopolitical realities that will determine the future trajectory of the US-India nuclear engagement. Neither the Hyde Act nor the current version of the 123 Agreement will be able to constrain the policy options for India and the US. India’s nuclear trajectory will be determined by the China’s nuclear posture and there is every reason to expect the US to be supportive of India’s emergence as a counterweight to China in the Asia-Pacific. {I agree with first part. I dont know if it will find suppor from US unless there is more meltdown.}

There is little incentive for the US to try to cap the Indian nuclear arsenal and circumscribe Indian technology development, as some in India have alleged. The US national security strategy makes it plain that it will not allow any other power to challenge American preponderance in the international system. China’s strategy of challenging US primacy in the Asia-Pacific is equally clear. India has emerged as a balancer in the region and it is this that will dictate India’s nuclear priorities, not any arms control framework.

Harsh V. Pant teaches at King’s College London and Bharath Gopalaswamy is a Fellow at Cornell University

[RajeshA]

There has been a tidal movement in USA's perception of India lately. One gets a sense of that, when one sees all US Congress leaders approve of a closer relationship. This approval will increase over the years. The financial crisis, social woes, joblessness, recession, military setbacks, increased Russian and Chinese resurgence, terrorism, global Islamist movements, resource crunch, etc. will all lead to a loss in America's confidence and America will start looking for strength in numbers. USA would be giving India a carte-blanche within the next 10 years.

[NRao]

ramana,

MMS is making the right noise. I recall reading some weeks ago that Israel knows that it is too late to put Iran back in the bottle. So, MMS, due his lack of transparency, just makes everything difficult (and his sidekicks do not help out either). I pray that MMS has really done something good for India - total good, not just getting electricity to all villages in India and no blackouts or brownouts - as good as that is.

However, I still have some confidence on AK and see his presence in France as a +ve.

BTW, on a lot more important topic, if there is no ENR what happens to the "waste" still remains an issue. It certainly cannot be left in silos within India. How often do these ractors need to be resupplied?

[ramana]

RajeshA, Thats the thinking in perpective circles. Lets see how the future holds out.Right now India is out of the corral yet there is a lot of mostly donts that dog us. Its upt us as to what we make of it and free the gates. It has to be such that its in the interests of these folks that they get rid of the donts.

NRao, Even that can be circled if thought through but not immediately.

Dave Gilbert was shocked at his realization that there isnt any single airstrike coming that would put them back behind. So he was saying that its a bigger problem than just jewish Israel's. Its Sunni Arab and Western problem first.

[Nitesh]

Senate likely to clear N-deal tomorrow-USA-World-The Times of India



Senate likely to clear N-deal tomorrow
30 Sep 2008, 1047 hrs IST,PTI


WASHINGTON: The Bush administration is confident that the approval legislation on the US-India civilian nuclear deal will be cleared by the Senate "most likely" on Wednesday.
The message is said to have been conveyed to a small group of top Indian American community leaders yesterday by senior White House officials, a source privy to the goings said.

"We are confident that just like last time, the Bill will be passed by substantial majority. With that a new era will begin for India’s nuclear programme," the officials were quoted by the source as saying.

Unlike the House of Representatives which needed a two-thirds majority, the Senate requires only a simple majority to approve the legislation.

The Senate was expected to convene a session today in spite of a Jewish holiday to take up the Bill along with other legislations.

But before the House rejected the USD700 billion financial bailout package to rescue bankrupt financial institutions, Senate Majority leader Reid said on Monday that the "India nuclear agreement" will be coming up for a vote only on Wednesday when the Senate reconvenes after the holiday.

"In the meantime we're working to see if we can complete an agreement to move and complete the Indian nuclear treaty also on the same day, that would be Wednesday," he said.

"And that would allow all afternoon today, all day on Tuesday, and Wednesday to work on those two items," the Nevada Democrat said, referring to the emergency economic bailout package as also the approval legislation to the nuclear deal with India.

[Stan_Savljevic]

Dave Gilbert was shocked at his realization that there isnt any single airstrike coming that would put them back behind. So he was saying that its a bigger problem than just jewish Israel's. Its Sunni Arab and Western problem first.

Whats the worst that could happen to India if Iran goes nuclear? Considering the worst-case scenario that this might happen in the next five years (Murphy's laws), what should we do to minimize damage to us and redirect all the much back at where it is deserved?

[RajeshA]

Dave Gilbert was shocked at his realization that there isnt any single airstrike coming that would put them back behind. So he was saying that its a bigger problem than just jewish Israel's. Its Sunni Arab and Western problem first.

Whats the worst that could happen to India if Iran goes nuclear? Considering the worst-case scenario that this might happen in the next five years (Murphy's laws), what should we do to minimize damage to us and redirect all the much back at where it is deserved?

Because of India having moved towards the American and Israeli camp in the last few years, it becomes difficult for India to retain its relative closeness to Iran, however I don't see a reason, why Iran would necessarily pose a threat to India, unless Iran wants to get rid of Pakistan, and anonymously creates a nuclear incident in India, provoking an Indian retaliation strike at Pakistan. All very out of the blue!
The regional situation however turns to India's detriment. Because of USA and Israel, India keeps Iran at arm's distance, so Iran gets cozy with China and Russia, and our access to Central Asia is lost. Secondly Pakistan, being the Sunni nuclear power, gets far more support from the Arabs, financially and diplomatically, which Pakistan can divert towards undermining India's role in the region. Thirdly, Iranian and Sunni pogrom games move to India, and there is large scale unrest and instability in India. Iran could also improve on its influence in Afghanistan in the Tajik and Shiite regions of Afghanistan at the cost of India's influence there. Should it become a Hindu-Muslim issue in India, then India would have to confront several nuclear-armed Muslim countries. Doesn't feel right!

[Philip]

From all the available information about Iran and Iranian leaders,they see the US as the primary threat to their Islamic revolution founded by Ayatollah Khomeini.This is because ever since the fall of the hated Shah,who was installed after the CIA inspired assasination of Mossadegh,the loss of influence in Iran and the Gulf was a disaster that the CIA have tried to redress by supporting opposition covertly,as has been done in Europe in former Soviet Bloc nations and by infiltrating agents from Paki teritory,with the objective of establishing a pro-western govt. that will nullify the influence of the Ayatollahs.Before Ahmedinejad was elected,their hopes were upon Rafsanjani,who represented business interests and who the west wanted to win.Therefore,possession of a few nuclear weapons is seen as a form of insurance against first the US and secondly Israel,who have a huge arsenal according to experts.That Israel feels insecure against Iran,a nation with whom it has had long ties of friendship,is because of the utterance of Iran's leaders both political and religious,from time to time,who breathe fire and thunder against Israel,threatening to throw it into the sea.Such talk increases Israel's paranoia,especially as Iran has a huge influence upon the Hiz in Lebanon.

If the US and the international community are unable to stop Iran from is "legitimate" pursuit of nuclear technology,then MMS's statements sound as absurd as those of Pres.Ahmedinejad about Israel's fate!He is sounding like an orifice of Dubya Bush,endangering India's age old ties with Iran,our Shiite ally against Sunni Pak,with whom we have no axe to grind at all barring Iran's antagonism of Israel.Pres.Ahmedinejad has been trying to subtly woo the US/Israel in recent interviews as he also knows that even if Israel/US attacks and a lot of his N-infratsructure underground survives,the above ground battering that the nation's industrial infrastructure will take will set it back economically for about 25 years.Iran like Libya,wants sanctions of the west to be lifted for economic progress and should be seen as an ally in the war aganist the Taliban in Afghanistan.MMS should also not ignore N.Korea's nuclear proliferation as it directly impinges itself upon danger to us through its secret relationship with Pak.He really is talking through his turban!