India nuclear news and discussion

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16954
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby NRao » 18 Sep 2008 17:06

"The NSG verdict represents the end of the old order and the emergence of a new order. The Chinese leadership has always adhered to the principal of watching the situation carefully before taking a stand on a changing situation like this one," a Chinese expert on Asian affairs told this reporter. "So, it is no surprise that our representatives behaved in the manner they did. It was a responsible stance on their part, and India should have appreciated it," he said.

The expert also complained that the "sense of hysteria" in the Indian media about China's role at the NSG would have a negative impact on the relationship among the two countries. "The Indian mass media has been very negative on China. Even the reports about incursions by the Chinese military into Indian territory are false and very negative. This is going to be a big hurdle in the relationship between the two countries," he said.


The Chinese are very good at turning the tables. This yahoo has managed to take the focus off from the unreliable Chinese behavour at the NSG and refocus it on the Indian media and their reporting on China.

The threat in the last sentence is a fake one.

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby enqyoob » 18 Sep 2008 17:08

Proves Scott Ritter's article saying that David Albright is a fraud and an idiot with no competence on anything related to nyookulear anything. Why would anyone BUY drawings for $0.01, let alone $10, when you can find actual parts photos of Dubya holding centrifuge parts on the US State Department website?

Or on the web at ISIS.org?

NOTE THE DATE OF THAT ARTICLE: MARCH 1, 2004. Authors:

Libya's Gas Centrifuge Procurement: Much Remains Undiscovered
By David Albright and Corey Hinderstein
March 1, 2004


So if these oiseules posted drawings on the web in March 2004, why is it wrong for ANYONE to pass around drawings in 2006?

Added later: The caption of the centrifuge drawing says it is from an article BY ALBRIGHT DATED 1992.

Someone should give this fraud and lie the publicity it deserves.

Albright gives idiots a bad name. Of course I may get banned if the Pakistan Institute of Idiots complains again to the Bradmins. :eek: :shock:

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55198
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby ramana » 18 Sep 2008 18:22

kumarn wrote:India engaged in illicit nuclear trade: US report
Sensitive drawings depicting the inner workings of a centrifuge, used to enrich uranium for nuclear bombs, were being sold by an Indian government agency for as little as $10 (about Rs 450) in 2006, the Washington Post reported on Monday.

The paper quoted David Albright, a former UN weapons inspector, who said he acquired the drawings to prove a point.

"We got them for about $10," Albright told the Post and called the incident a "serious leak of sensitive nuclear information."
:rotfl:



Shouldn't he be arrested for self admitting to be part of proliferation chain and receiving unauthorized material? Am sure he isnt cleared to recive such material. And obtaining data on false pretenses.

HariC
BRFite
Posts: 358
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby HariC » 18 Sep 2008 18:29

It looks like he paid a bank challan and got Pre-bid documents to participate in a tender.. and making a hue and cry about it.

awagaman
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 37
Joined: 13 Aug 2008 16:27

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby awagaman » 18 Sep 2008 18:39

Albright's press release

Code: Select all

September 18, 2008

Indian Nuclear Export Controls and Information Security: Important Questions Remain

Are Indian export controls and information security congruent with the promises and cheerleading?

David Albright and Paul Brannan

View the full report with imagery at: http://www.isis-online.org/publications/southasia/India_18September2008.pdf

The Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) released a statement on September 6, 2008 outlining its conditions for allowing the transfer of nuclear technology to India for use in IAEA safeguarded facilities. According to the statement, the NSG "note(d) steps that India has voluntarily taken" to institute "a national export control system capable of effectively controlling transfers of multilaterally controlled...nuclear-related material, equipment and technology."

ISIS believes that important questions remain about the adequacy and implementation of India's export control and nuclear classification procedures. In addition, India's illicit procurement of dual-use nuclear-related items for its unsafeguarded nuclear program belies its commitment to the NSG.

In assessing India's nuclear procurement practices, ISIS found several incidents where India conducted illicit nuclear trade and leaked sensitive nuclear information.(1) Questions about past and current practices must be clarified as the U.S. Congress considers final approval of U.S.-India nuclear cooperation. The two following examples provide a basis to explore if India still leaks sensitive centrifuge information, engages in illicit nuclear trade and whether it will act in accordance with its promises to the NSG.

Leaks of Sensitive Centrifuge Component Design Drawings and Inadequate Information Security

India Rare Earths (IRE), a sub-entity of India's Department of Atomic Energy, procures sensitive materials and technology for a secret gas centrifuge uranium enrichment plant codenamed "Rare Materials Project" (RMP) outside Mysore, India. IRE uses popular technology procurement websites and newspapers to solicit interested firms to purchase bid documents. These documents can be purchased for approximately ten dollars and some of them contained detailed drawings and manufacturing instructions for direct-use centrifuge components and other sensitive centrifuge-related items. In 2007, ISIS was easily able to attain component design drawings for the manufacture of sensitive centrifuge components. Figures 1, 2 and 3 show drawings for the manufacture of bellows in a supercritical centrifuge rotor made from maraging steel. The thin-walled rotor and bellows is considered one of the most sensitive centrifuge parts. ISIS removed specific dimensions and tolerances from the drawings, but otherwise did not change them. These drawings were in documents that also provide more details on the part's manufacture. Aside from loosely worded propriety language stamped on some of the designs, there isn't any notation prohibiting their export, nor any notation indicating that they are sensitive.

The level of detail in the documents is sufficient that they would be considered classified in supplier countries and not distributed without careful controls over their use and requirements for their protection. India may be releasing sensitive know-how to firms that may not intend to bid, may have forged their identity, or may be seeking centrifuge design information for secret nuclear programs. Another concern is that a winning bidder may be willing to manufacture and sell the same items to other, unknown clients. Other than the loosely worded propriety stamp on some of the drawings, any actual controls in place to stop such additional sales could not be discerned.

Illicit Procurement of Tributyl Phosphate in India

Before April 2003, India procured from China large quantities of tributyl phosphate (TBP), a dual-use chemical that is used in nuclear programs to separate plutonium. China enacted new end-user requirements after a 2002 sale of TBP to North Korea was criticized by the U.S. government. India's subsequent attempts to procure TBP from China were unsuccessful, according to an Indian knowledgeable about India's procurement of TBP. India was forced to look elsewhere for a reliable supply of TBP and utilized an array of Indian trading companies to procure TBP secretly from suppliers in Germany and Russia according to information provided by this Indian source. The Nuclear Fuel Complex (NFC) in Hyderabad, India put forward tenders for buying TBP. Indian trading companies, some of which were liaison offices for European companies, successfully bid on these tenders and ordered the TBP from German and Russian suppliers (see figure 4). One order for 160 metric tonnes of TBP passed through multiple trading companies in India and Europe. In each case, the TBP was then shipped to India with the Indian trading companies, and not the NFC, listed as the recipient. The trading companies then turned over the TBP to the NFC. In each instance, the Nuclear Fuel Complex hid behind trading companies and procured TBP without the suppliers knowing that the materials were for the unsafeguarded nuclear program.

(1)

http://isis-online.org/publications/southasia/indianprocurement.pdf

http://isis-online.org/publications/southasia/indiacritique.pdf

http://www.isis-online.org/publications/southasia/indiagrowingcapacity.pdf

View the full report with imagery at: http://www.isis-online.org/publications/southasia/India_18September2008.pdf

For more information contact ISIS at 202-547-3633 with any comments or questions.

harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby harbans » 18 Sep 2008 18:50

IRE uses popular technology procurement websites and newspapers to solicit interested firms to purchase bid documents. These documents can be purchased for approximately ten dollars and some of them contained detailed drawings and manufacturing instructions for direct-use centrifuge components and other sensitive centrifuge-related items. In 2007, ISIS was easily able to attain component design drawings for the manufacture of sensitive centrifuge components


He is referring to public tenders issued by the rare materials lab for procuring or manufacture of some components that allegedly are a part of the centrifuges.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16954
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby NRao » 18 Sep 2008 19:26

IF the US Congress ratifies the 123 agreement, DAs life is over. Else his half life starts.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 24236
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby SSridhar » 18 Sep 2008 19:40

Regarding TBP, here is a press release

Solvent Development Section (SDS) of Uranium Extraction Division, Materials Group, has developed the technology for the synthesis of nuclear grade Tri-n-butyl phosphate (TBP), a vital solvent commonly used in nuclear chemical processing of Uranium and Plutonium. The technology transfer document was handed over on November 11, 1999, by Dr Anil Kakodkar, Director, BARC to Mr H.S. Kamath, Chief Executive, HWB, in presence of Dr C.K. Gupta, Director, Materials Group, Dr D.K. Bose, Head, Uranium Extraction Division, Mr U.R. Marwah, Head, solvent Development Section, and Mr S.C. Hiremath, (ED)(O), Mr A.K. Wechelekar, Director, PED, and Mr S.K. Nayak (SO/F) of Heavy Water Board. Earlier through the joint efforts of BARC and Heavy Water Board, a pilot plant for the production of di2ethyl hexyl phosphoric acid (D2EPHA) was set up at Heavy Water Plant, Talcher, Orissa. This Destablished facility was inaugurated by Dr R. Chidambaram, Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission and Secretary to the Govt. of India, on September 3, 1999. The present work on TBP is the second exercise in the sequence. A few more extractants of immediate interest are due to follow soon.

The raw materials in this technology are available indigenously at reasonable price. The complete process is only of four steps, namely esterification, neutralization of esterification product, recovery, partial and final purification of TBP. The excess butanol, used during
esterification, is efficiently recovered, purified and reused. The total loss of butanol in this process is about 5%. The yield and purity obtained are >92.0% and >99.8% respectively which are significantly higher than the reported values. TBP synthesized by this process
does not suffer from commonly known drawbacks like phase disengagement and sedimentation on long storage owing to which the selectivity and extractability are increased in the solvent extraction process. In addition to this, it has been found that the TBP obtained with this
technology does show better radiolytical stability and thus gives significant advantage to the purex process in radionuclide separations. Further, unlike commercially available TBP, this does
not need any pretreatment before using in the solvent extraction process. All these advantages coupled with high yield speaks highly of the economic viability of the process.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17064
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Rahul M » 18 Sep 2008 22:39

narayanan wrote:AoA!

Two small steps for Adminullahs, Two Giant Leaps for PC-ness.
Jagan wrote:
Rangudu wrote:
Was posting on handheld from airport, so had to be curt. .


Rangudu, you need to go into BRF rehab... seriously

he is actually on a self-imposed moratorium from BRF ! :mrgreen:


Let's see - the provocation here is that Rangudu voluntarily explained to a worthy (im)postor (whom another adminullah describes as being, well, a few cards short of a pack) that it was because he was posting from his phone gadget at the airport that he was, maybe, a little CURT??? :roll: :roll:

I think I need to develop Aunto Abida's BRFee Etiquette on Responding to Idiotic Posts (ERIP). 8)

aha, just noticed this now ! :)

boss, don't look for snakes among Image

I know of rangudu ji's self imposed moratorium from an off-board communication and it has nothing to do with his replies to whoever you are talking about as a pack of cards or something. (is that nonPC or what !) :wink:

anyway, as admins we are justifiably concerned about a member's well being. :)
just think of the bad effects of BR addiction : restlessness, lack of sleep, waking up in the middle of night to press the F5 button, preparing for another showdown with XYZ and being happy about it :eek: , murmuring 'cognitive dissonance' whenever someone is unable to understand your point :twisted: , feeling suspicious whenever somebody says 'hug' :mrgreen: , smiling enigmatically on hearing the word 'goats' and so on.

the grave dangers emanating from being absorbed in an a intense argument using a handheld device is similarly innumerable.
you can collide with all kinds of people from
the air hostess (not too bad :P ), a PYT with lots of hand baggage (I can see n number of b-grade bollywood movies with this one as inspiration :eek: ), the 50 year old lady who looks like 60 but is convinced she looks like 35 (prepare to be thrown out for ungentlemanly behaviour or by the verbal artillery or both :( ) and of course the friendly paki with his designer suicide vest and last hugs. :((

so, please understand that those comments were out of genuine concern for a revered BRFite ! :D

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby enqyoob » 19 Sep 2008 07:29

Rahul: Here is a reason for MUCH greater concern

I am sorry I said many of the newer BRF postors appeared to have been dropped on their heads as babies. It's the "cellphone generation". No fault of their own. :oops:

awagaman
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 37
Joined: 13 Aug 2008 16:27

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby awagaman » 19 Sep 2008 15:02

From SV blog:
http://svaradarajan.blogspot.com/2008/0 ... ement.html


Senate 'testimoney' on the 123 Agreement

Siddharth Varadarajan

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee on September 18 held a hearing on the 'Agreement for Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation with India', a.k.a. the 123 Agreement.

So far, the "money quote" from these hearings is, quite literally, this statement by Under Secretary for Political Affairs William Burns:

"The Indian government has provided the United States with a strong Letter of Intent, stating its intention to purchase reactors with at least 10,000 Mega Watts (MWe) worth of new power generation capacity from U.S. firms. India has committed to devote at least two sites to U.S. firms."


This is indeed quite hefty bait, something GoI has never spoken about.

Also, Senator Richard Lugar warned of the possibility of amendments:

Given the need to waive most of the 30-day consultation period, a simple, privileged resolution is unavailable to us. Amendments will be in order, and there is no guarantee of a vote on final passage.


I'll post again later on the Q & A when it becomes available, though a wire service report tells us:
On the question of fuel assurances, Burns, making a distinction between ‘political commitment’ and ‘legally binding’, said the implementing 123 agreement provided a legal framework for it, but does not compel the US to do that.

‘It’s not an enabling legislation as we could not compel US firms,’ he said. Another reason for making the distinction was that the president of the day would have to look at the circumstances and take a decision keeping US interests in mind.

‘What we have agreed to do is to help should there be a market disruption or other reasons beyond India’s control,’ said Rood.

But would the US still be compelled to get India fuel from other countries in case the president determines that India’s actions warrant a termination of the deal, persisted Dodd.

‘It would be inconsistent to terminate and then arrange alternative fuel supplies,’ said Rood.


There'll be more, but in the mean time, the prepared remarks of Lugar, Burns and Acting Under Secretary for Nonproliferation John Rood give some indication of the issues coming up ...

The hearing was chaired by Senator Chris Dodd in Joseph Biden's absence. Lugar made an opening statement, raising four questions:

First, Indian leaders claim that the United States has agreed that India can test its nuclear weapons and obtain stocks of nuclear fuel to guard against sanctions... The President’s Message to the Congress transmitting the proposed agreement states that any provisions in the agreement are political commitments and not legally binding. Which explanation is factual, and how do these conflicting statements effect the operation and implementation of the agreement?

Second, is the agreement fully consistent with U.S. laws that would require termination of the proposed agreement and cessation of nuclear exports to India if it detonates a nuclear explosive device or proliferates nuclear technology?

Third, are the terms of the proposed agreement regarding fuel supply from the United States to India, or supply of fuel from third countries to India, or the creation of a strategic reserve of such fuel in India consistent with the intent of the Hyde Act? How would the agreement work in cases in which the United States decides to terminate fuel supply to India or demands the return of nuclear material and equipment to the United States in response to an Indian violation of the 123 agreement or its new safeguards agreement with the IAEA?

Fourth, to what extent has the United States created a new kind of 123 agreement and model for international nuclear cooperation that may benefit additional countries that have not accepted the NPT and that do not have a comprehensive safeguards agreement with the IAEA?


In their testimony, neither Burns nor Rood tried directly to answer these questions.

Rood's statement was remarkably opaque and non-informative, merely repeating what the administration has been saying for the past two years and taking care to say nothing that could provoke either India or the nonproliferation lobby.

He made one substantive point, however. The NSG waiver was "fully consistent" with the Hyde Act. How so? Because:

The same Indian nonproliferation commitments made in the July 2005 Joint Statement between President Bush and Prime Minister Singh, which were also incorporated in the Hyde Act, are included in the NSG statement. In fact, the NSG explicitly granted the exception based on these commitments and actions by India.


This is a correct and clever answer. India has no problems with those parts of Hyde which draw on its July 2005 commitments. [Hyde, in fact, went a bit further in some respects (eg. it asked the President to determine that India was supporting international efforts to limit the spread of ENR technology to states "which do not already have full-scale, functioning plants"; India's commitment in July 2005 did not include this specific reference to full-scale, functioning plants, something that might rule out future Indian cooperation with countries like South Africa, Brazil, Argentina and Canada which have ENR technology but no operational plants (although Brazil has Resende). Accordingly, the NSG waiver makes no such demand.] But India has a problem with other provisions of Hyde, none of which made it in to the NSG waiver such as restrictions on the quantum of fuel supply, ban on ENR, automatic termination of supply in case of a nuclear test.

As for termination of supply at the NSG level, Rood argues that

India’s voluntary, unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing is important. We have been very clear on this subject with the Indian Government. Just as India has maintained its sovereign right to conduct a test, so too have we maintained our right to take action in response. As Secretary Rice said before this committee in April 2006, “We've been very clear with the Indians…should India test, as it has agreed not to do, or should India in any way violate the IAEA safeguards agreements to which it would be adhering, the deal, from our point of view, would at that point be off.” In the 123 Agreement, for example, either Party has the right to terminate the agreement and seek the return of any transferred materials and technology if it determines that circumstances demand such action. Likewise, the NSG exception permits any Participating Government, including the United States, to request a meeting of the Group to consider actions if “circumstances have arisen which require consultations.” (emphasis added)


Again, technically correct, except there is no automaticity. A fresh meeting, and fresh consensus on termination would be needed. The U.S. could and would try and ram things through again. But other powers like Russia would have a veto.

Burns's statement was interesting for putting MW numbers on to the Indo-U.S. nuclear agreement for the first time, 10,000 of them. He also said another thing the Indians have tended to remain silent about:

India also has committed to adhere to the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage. Adherence to this international liability regime by the Indian government is an important step in ensuring U.S. nuclear firms are competing on a level playing field with other international competitors.


This has been a bugbear for GE and Westinghouse because, as private (i.e. nonstate) entities unlike Rosatom or Areva, they are leery of building new reactors anywhere in the world without their future liabilities from any accident being limited in advance (What this will do for public opinion in the "two sites" the GoI has promised American nuclear companies is another matter...)

The bottom line from Burns is that any delay in approving the 123 Agreement will only hurt the United States:

Without approval and implementation of the 123 Agreement, however, U.S. nuclear firms will be precluded from competing in this important new global market. Reflective of our new relationship with India, the Indian government has publicly stated its intention to work with U.S. nuclear firms. But international competition will, inevitably, be intense and we want to avoid exposing U.S. firms to any unnecessary delays.


And, he says, don't forget the other payoffs:

Mr. Chairman, we believe that moving forward on the U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Cooperation Initiative also will help advance other areas in the U.S.-India relationship. It will facilitate and expand on-going cooperation in agriculture, science and technology, defense, and joint democracy endeavors.


I'm sure many in India will not like the sound of that, especially the last two of these "endeavors".

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby enqyoob » 19 Sep 2008 17:28

"joint democracy" means reconstructing Pakistan. "joint" refers to hashish. 8)

The new market upheavals make swift approval less likely on the one hand, and then again, COTUS may get into such a lovefest of self- and mutual admiration for Saving the Economy that they may just roll on and Save the Energy Industry by approving the deal.

Let's see..

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5247
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby ShauryaT » 19 Sep 2008 20:07

Realpolitik, not woolly policy

Bharat Karnad

Now, why is it not surprising — the news of President George W. Bush’s declaration to the US Congress that he considers provisions in the 123 Agreement, such as Article 5(6) on reliable fuel supply for reactors sold to India, not “legally binding”, constituting merely “political commitments”? Because some of us (alas, too few to make a difference) have been saying exactly this over the last three-odd years, ever since Prime Minister Manmohan Singh returned from Washington in July 2005 wholly pleased with himself for obtaining what he considered a breakthrough accord. Despite the evidence of the primacy of its domestic laws in the shaping of America’s foreign policy, the Indian government clings to the belief that the 123 Agreement is decisive and the 2006 Hyde Act is of little account. The irony, of course, is that having invested so much of his personal credibility (for he has no political capital worth speaking of) in this horribly naïve and half-cocked venture, Singh finds it impossible to back out of the nuclear deal. Sonia Gandhi, Singh’s principal support in the Congress party and the government, can end this dangerous fandango but, instead, has jumped onto the bandwagon.

Let us be very clear that ending the nuclear deal will have no repercussion whatsoever (except on the “commission agents” in the ruling coalition and in trade and industry, who will be denied the huge payoffs from the purchase of exorbitantly priced foreign reactors). Close military links and strategic cooperation between the two countries will in no way be affected by the ditching of this misbegotten nuclear deal. It may be recalled that the then defence The US and China treat international agreements as pieces of paper, to be violated in national interest minister Pranab Mukherjee’s signing the defense cooperation framework agreement on 28 June 2005 preceded the joint statement initiating the nuclear deal. With his misplaced sense of priorities and a singularly fanciful take on imported reactors as the panacea for the energy ills of the country, Singh proceeded, in effect, to try and leverage Pentagon’s yearning for the mutual logistics support agreement and the communications interoperability and security memorandum of agreement with India to get the best possible nuclear deal. In this, he was unsuccessful, the Indian negotiating team failing to blunt the nonproliferation thrust of the US policy geared to keeping India below the credible thermonuclear weapons threshold by insisting on the non-testing clause.

New Delhi now hopes to exploit the US’ fear of losing reactor sales by hinting at “first-mover advantage” deals with France and Russia. This is, however, to presume that when (not if) New Delhi tests, Paris and Moscow will maintain fuel supply for its reactors in the face of US pressure to cease and desist. But on fuel supply for Tarapur, for instance, France and Russia ultimately toed the US line.

Notwithstanding these negatives, if power plants are imported, then reliable fuel supply will be hostage to India’s “good behaviour”, which will be ensured by the economic necessity to keep these inordinately expensive reactors from becoming “non-performing” assets. In the event, the best thing that can happen for India is for the US Congress to put off approving the deal. The change of governments in both the capitals in the new year will mean a whole new ball game and a chance for the restoration of the status quo ante.

The consequences of even a bad treaty would be manageable if the ministry of external affairs (MEA) treated the international agreements it signs as the US state department and the Chinese zhongnanhai (foreign office) do — as mere pieces of paper, to be violated just so national interest is served. Whence, despite their nonproliferation obligations, the US winked at Pakistan’s clandestine nuclear weaponization and Beijing transferred nuclear weapon designs, material and expertise to Islamabad and continues with its military nuclear links.

It is hard realpolitik-driven foreign-military policy India should emulate.
Alas, MEA’s approach is best reflected in the advice to the critics by a stalwart diplomat, Arundhati Ghose, to look at the “spirit”, and not the “letter”, of the nuclear agreement with the US when, in fact, Washington respects neither the spirit nor the letter of any accord unless it suits its immediate purpose. It reinforces the view of Indian foreign-military policy and diplomacy being of the suckers, by the suckers, for the saps!

The larger issue is the urgent need for a constitutional amendment with retroactive effect, requiring the executive to bring any treaty it signs before the Lok Sabha for ratification by a two-thirds vote. The freedom enjoyed by a prime minister in the Westminster system to commit to treaties derives from the “royal prerogative” of an absolute monarch. The Indian prime minister is not a sovereign who is free to exercise his whim, push through a deal injurious of the national interest, drum up a simple majority in Parliament through devious means as was done on 22 July and then, in cahoots with a complicit media, claim popular support for it.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5247
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby ShauryaT » 19 Sep 2008 20:10

Stretching the truth

As if the corrosion of its State institutions was not enough, India is being pummelled by an officially-scripted onslaught of half-truths and outright deception over the vaunted Indo-US nuclear deal. Phoney claims are being repeated even after they stand publicly discredited by President George W. Bush’s latest ‘Hyde Package’ to Congress and his administration’s earlier leaked letter to a congressional panel. It is as if truth no longer matters.

Can the obsessive deal-peddling take precedence over everything? Has no thought been given to the lasting damage that an unabashedly partisan approach relying on politicised bureaucrats and spin doctors would wreak? If the refusal to hold the traditional monsoon session of Parliament is unprecedented — setting a precedent toxic for the future of democracy — no less ominous is the deliberate spread of a slew of distortions to push the deal-making, without the consensus-building Prime minister Manmohan Singh had promised. Making false claims without any qualms, especially to cover up broken promises to Parliament, is no mean matter.

The US says loudly the deal is fully governable by its Hyde Act, an India-specific NPT. But New Delhi still markets the loosely-worded 123 agreement as the only binding document — an accord that actually arms the US with a unilateral right to suspend cooperation ‘immediately’. Bush publicly asserts that the 123 agreement’s fuzzy fuel-supply assurances do not “transform these political commitments into legally- binding commitments”. Recipient India responds by trying to give international-law lessons to supplier America.

The leaked letter embarrassingly discloses that “the Indian government shares our understanding” that fuel-supply assurances are not “meant to insulate India against the consequences of a nuclear-explosive test or a violation of non-proliferation commitments”. The letter derides as “a high-level of generality” the PM’s claim in Parliament about the linkage between ‘lifetime’ fuel supply and perpetual international inspections.

The PM tells Parliament that India has “secured upfront” a “permanent consent” to reprocess spent fuel. Bush publicly contradicts him by saying this right “will not come into effect until India establishes a new national reprocessing facility” and agrees to special “arrangements and procedures” with the US in the years ahead. And Bush’s ‘Nuclear Proliferation Assessment Statement’ attests that the reprocessing consent, once granted, can be withdrawn. However, inadvertently, Washington has helped bust several other Indian claims, including that New Delhi has accepted inspections only by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Yet, deal-aggrandising distortions continue to swirl at such a pace that they get picked up and recycled as facts by a pliable media before anyone can controvert them. Flogging fabrications indeed has proven so useful in shaping public perceptions that claims are becoming more brazen. Take the claim that the deal marks the end of the technology-control regime against India.

Easing high-technology and civilian-space export controls is not even part of this deal. What the deal seeks to open are lucrative exports for ‘IAEA-safeguarded’ Indian facilities while specifically denying dual-use technologies. In return for being allowed to import commercial power reactors and fuel under tight safeguards, India has been made to accept conditions that no nuclear-weapons State will countenance.

Bush’s ‘Hyde Package’ makes clear the US has no intent to allow any sensitive transfers, including of civil enrichment and reprocessing technology. The Nuclear Suppliers’ Group waiver, similarly, is based on an understanding not to export sensitive items to India. This understanding, reflected in the various national statements, part of the negotiating record, should be seen against the Hyde Act’s open call to “further restrict the transfers of such equipment and technologies”.

Indeed, Section 3(a) of the NSG waiver explicitly ties exports to India to the NSG Guidelines’ Paragraphs 6 and 7, which incorporate a presumption of denial of sensitive items. This restriction is reinforced by the Guidelines’ Part 2, Paragraph 4. With the NSG nearing consensus to impose an overt ban on sensitive sales to a non-NPT State like India, what is now implicit will become explicit. As for dual-use technologies, the NSG Guidelines already annex an exhaustive list of such items barred for export.

Contrast this with the PM’s July 22 contention in Parliament that the deal frees “trade in dual-use high technologies” and his September 6 claim that the NSG waiver “marks the end… of the technology-denial regime”. All technology controls against India ought to go. But even after the deal takes effect, India will still face barriers to high-technology flow, including the US Commerce Department’s dual-use export controls. The US Congress, for instance, has cross-linked civil nuclear cooperation to the continuance of US export controls against New Delhi in an unrelated area, with the Hyde Act stipulating that the US missile sanctions law (which prohibits dual-use space exports) will still apply to India even after it “unilaterally adheres” (as it quietly did last week) to the Missile Technology Control Regime.

If high-technology and civilian-space trade is to be opened fully, it will require New Delhi to do more than pull the wool on public eyes at home — persuade Washington to apply to India the same standards it does to another non-NPT State, Israel. The partisan rancour springing from the deal’s political mismanagement has done India a great disservice. The truth-stretching threatens to do worse.


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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby rajrang » 19 Sep 2008 21:17

ShauryaT wrote:Stretching the truth

As if the corrosion of its State institutions was not enough, India is being pummelled by an officially-scripted onslaught of half-truths and outright deception over the vaunted Indo-US nuclear deal. Phoney claims are being repeated even after they stand publicly discredited by President George W. Bush’s latest ‘Hyde Package’ to Congress and his administration’s earlier leaked letter to a congressional panel. It is as if truth no longer matters.

Can the obsessive deal-peddling take precedence over everything? Has no thought been given to the lasting damage that an unabashedly partisan approach relying on politicised bureaucrats and spin doctors would wreak? If the refusal to hold the traditional monsoon session of Parliament is unprecedented — setting a precedent toxic for the future of democracy — no less ominous is the deliberate spread of a slew of distortions to push the deal-making, without the consensus-building Prime minister Manmohan Singh had promised. Making false claims without any qualms, especially to cover up broken promises to Parliament, is no mean matter.

The US says loudly the deal is fully governable by its Hyde Act, an India-specific NPT. But New Delhi still markets the loosely-worded 123 agreement as the only binding document — an accord that actually arms the US with a unilateral right to suspend cooperation ‘immediately’. Bush publicly asserts that the 123 agreement’s fuzzy fuel-supply assurances do not “transform these political commitments into legally- binding commitments”. Recipient India responds by trying to give international-law lessons to supplier America.

The leaked letter embarrassingly discloses that “the Indian government shares our understanding” that fuel-supply assurances are not “meant to insulate India against the consequences of a nuclear-explosive test or a violation of non-proliferation commitments”. The letter derides as “a high-level of generality” the PM’s claim in Parliament about the linkage between ‘lifetime’ fuel supply and perpetual international inspections.

The PM tells Parliament that India has “secured upfront” a “permanent consent” to reprocess spent fuel. Bush publicly contradicts him by saying this right “will not come into effect until India establishes a new national reprocessing facility” and agrees to special “arrangements and procedures” with the US in the years ahead. And Bush’s ‘Nuclear Proliferation Assessment Statement’ attests that the reprocessing consent, once granted, can be withdrawn. However, inadvertently, Washington has helped bust several other Indian claims, including that New Delhi has accepted inspections only by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Yet, deal-aggrandising distortions continue to swirl at such a pace that they get picked up and recycled as facts by a pliable media before anyone can controvert them. Flogging fabrications indeed has proven so useful in shaping public perceptions that claims are becoming more brazen. Take the claim that the deal marks the end of the technology-control regime against India.

Easing high-technology and civilian-space export controls is not even part of this deal. What the deal seeks to open are lucrative exports for ‘IAEA-safeguarded’ Indian facilities while specifically denying dual-use technologies. In return for being allowed to import commercial power reactors and fuel under tight safeguards, India has been made to accept conditions that no nuclear-weapons State will countenance.

Bush’s ‘Hyde Package’ makes clear the US has no intent to allow any sensitive transfers, including of civil enrichment and reprocessing technology. The Nuclear Suppliers’ Group waiver, similarly, is based on an understanding not to export sensitive items to India. This understanding, reflected in the various national statements, part of the negotiating record, should be seen against the Hyde Act’s open call to “further restrict the transfers of such equipment and technologies”.

Indeed, Section 3(a) of the NSG waiver explicitly ties exports to India to the NSG Guidelines’ Paragraphs 6 and 7, which incorporate a presumption of denial of sensitive items. This restriction is reinforced by the Guidelines’ Part 2, Paragraph 4. With the NSG nearing consensus to impose an overt ban on sensitive sales to a non-NPT State like India, what is now implicit will become explicit. As for dual-use technologies, the NSG Guidelines already annex an exhaustive list of such items barred for export.

Contrast this with the PM’s July 22 contention in Parliament that the deal frees “trade in dual-use high technologies” and his September 6 claim that the NSG waiver “marks the end… of the technology-denial regime”. All technology controls against India ought to go. But even after the deal takes effect, India will still face barriers to high-technology flow, including the US Commerce Department’s dual-use export controls. The US Congress, for instance, has cross-linked civil nuclear cooperation to the continuance of US export controls against New Delhi in an unrelated area, with the Hyde Act stipulating that the US missile sanctions law (which prohibits dual-use space exports) will still apply to India even after it “unilaterally adheres” (as it quietly did last week) to the Missile Technology Control Regime.

If high-technology and civilian-space trade is to be opened fully, it will require New Delhi to do more than pull the wool on public eyes at home — persuade Washington to apply to India the same standards it does to another non-NPT State, Israel. The partisan rancour springing from the deal’s political mismanagement has done India a great disservice. The truth-stretching threatens to do worse.





There is a good chance that the US will have India by the b-lls. Periodically, the US president will have to give a "good behavior" certificate for India.

Shame on Western democracies led by the US for having treated India (one of their own - the world's largest democracy) as a pariah with regards to nuclear technology and trade for 4 decades and now they should warmly welcome India into their fold and instead of "compensating" India are now trying to tie India into knots.

Wonder if skin color is the issue.

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Arun_S » 19 Sep 2008 21:20

Can someone deny the validity of very specific articles quoted here?

ShauryaT wrote:Stretching the truth
    As if the corrosion of its State institutions was not enough, India is being pummelled by an officially-scripted onslaught of half-truths and outright deception over the vaunted Indo-US nuclear deal. Phoney claims are being repeated even after they stand publicly discredited by President George W. Bush’s latest ‘Hyde Package’ to Congress and his administration’s earlier leaked letter to a congressional panel. It is as if truth no longer matters.

    Can the obsessive deal-peddling take precedence over everything? Has no thought been given to the lasting damage that an unabashedly partisan approach relying on politicised bureaucrats and spin doctors would wreak? If the refusal to hold the traditional monsoon session of Parliament is unprecedented — setting a precedent toxic for the future of democracy — no less ominous is the deliberate spread of a slew of distortions to push the deal-making, without the consensus-building Prime minister Manmohan Singh had promised. Making false claims without any qualms, especially to cover up broken promises to Parliament, is no mean matter.

    The US says loudly the deal is fully governable by its Hyde Act, an India-specific NPT. But New Delhi still markets the loosely-worded 123 agreement as the only binding document — an accord that actually arms the US with a unilateral right to suspend cooperation ‘immediately’. Bush publicly asserts that the 123 agreement’s fuzzy fuel-supply assurances do not “transform these political commitments into legally- binding commitments”. Recipient India responds by trying to give international-law lessons to supplier America.

    The leaked letter embarrassingly discloses that “the Indian government shares our understanding” that fuel-supply assurances are not “meant to insulate India against the consequences of a nuclear-explosive test or a violation of non-proliferation commitments”. The letter derides as “a high-level of generality” the PM’s claim in Parliament about the linkage between ‘lifetime’ fuel supply and perpetual international inspections.

    The PM tells Parliament that India has “secured upfront” a “permanent consent” to reprocess spent fuel. Bush publicly contradicts him by saying this right “will not come into effect until India establishes a new national reprocessing facility” and agrees to special “arrangements and procedures” with the US in the years ahead. And Bush’s ‘Nuclear Proliferation Assessment Statement’ attests that the reprocessing consent, once granted, can be withdrawn. However, inadvertently, Washington has helped bust several other Indian claims, including that New Delhi has accepted inspections only by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

    Yet, deal-aggrandising distortions continue to swirl at such a pace that they get picked up and recycled as facts by a pliable media before anyone can controvert them. Flogging fabrications indeed has proven so useful in shaping public perceptions that claims are becoming more brazen. Take the claim that the deal marks the end of the technology-control regime against India.

    Easing high-technology and civilian-space export controls is not even part of this deal. What the deal seeks to open are lucrative exports for ‘IAEA-safeguarded’ Indian facilities while specifically denying dual-use technologies. In return for being allowed to import commercial power reactors and fuel under tight safeguards, India has been made to accept conditions that no nuclear-weapons State will countenance.

    Bush’s ‘Hyde Package’ makes clear the US has no intent to allow any sensitive transfers, including of civil enrichment and reprocessing technology. The Nuclear Suppliers’ Group waiver, similarly, is based on an understanding not to export sensitive items to India. This understanding, reflected in the various national statements, part of the negotiating record, should be seen against the Hyde Act’s open call to “further restrict the transfers of such equipment and technologies”.

    Indeed, Section 3(a) of the NSG waiver explicitly ties exports to India to the NSG Guidelines’ Paragraphs 6 and 7, which incorporate a presumption of denial of sensitive items. This restriction is reinforced by the Guidelines’ Part 2, Paragraph 4. With the NSG nearing consensus to impose an overt ban on sensitive sales to a non-NPT State like India, what is now implicit will become explicit. As for dual-use technologies, the NSG Guidelines already annex an exhaustive list of such items barred for export.

    Contrast this with the PM’s July 22 contention in Parliament that the deal frees “trade in dual-use high technologies” and his September 6 claim that the NSG waiver “marks the end… of the technology-denial regime”. All technology controls against India ought to go. But even after the deal takes effect, India will still face barriers to high-technology flow, including the US Commerce Department’s dual-use export controls. The US Congress, for instance, has cross-linked civil nuclear cooperation to the continuance of US export controls against New Delhi in an unrelated area, with the Hyde Act stipulating that the US missile sanctions law (which prohibits dual-use space exports) will still apply to India even after it “unilaterally adheres” (as it quietly did last week) to the Missile Technology Control Regime.

    If high-technology and civilian-space trade is to be opened fully, it will require New Delhi to do more than pull the wool on public eyes at home — persuade Washington to apply to India the same standards it does to another non-NPT State, Israel. The partisan rancour springing from the deal’s political mismanagement has done India a great disservice. The truth-stretching threatens to do worse.

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Arun_S » 19 Sep 2008 21:35

US firms can't be compelled to sell fuel to India: Bush govt. - The HINDU

Washington (PTI): America's nuclear fuel supply assurances to India are a "political commitment" and the government cannot "legally compel" US firms to sell a "given product" to New Delhi, top officials told a Congressional panel as the administration worked hard to push the Indo-US deal through the Congress before September 26.

On a day of intense grilling at an extended hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the administration also said the US has the "same right to respond" as India had "the sovereign right to test".

"The commitments that the President (George W Bush) made that are recorded in the 123 agreement are firm, solemn commitments... the President made clear in the transmittal letter, they're political commitments," Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs William Burns replied when asked if the fuel supply assurances have no "legal effect".

There was a furore in India after President George W Bush wrote to Congress that fuel supply was not legally binding.

"They're political commitments ... in the sense that we are determined to help India to try to ensure a reasonable steady supply of fuel and should disruptions arise, for example, trade disputes, a commercial firm fails to meet its requirements, then we are firmly determined to do everything we can to help in that instance," Burns said when asked if the commitments are binding on the next administration.

Acting Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security John Rood maintained that the 123 agreement provides a legal framework. "The agreement, as a legal matter, is, as I say, only an enabling piece of legislation," he said.

"It's not a government activity to produce nuclear fuel, it's a commercial activity in the US, and we in the US government would -- could not legally compel American firms to provide fuel to India if they did not wish to do so," he said. {Arun_S: He leave unstated that US Govt can compel American firms NOT to provide fuel to India if GoTUS did not wish to do so via Presidential determination }

The agreement does not compel US firms "to sell a given product to India," Rood said in reply to queries on legal implications of the deal.

"With regard to their understanding that our actions are going to be guided by US law and will be consistent with US law, I believe the Indians do understand that," he said.

Burns said the US would keep in mind the Indian "sensitivities" on the issue of supply.

"What is very clear is that we will do everything we can to ensure that steady supply, except in extreme circumstances. And in those extreme circumstances, whether it's a test or an abrogation of a safeguards agreement, then our actions will be bound by US law. And I guess that's the clearest way that I can put it," the senior State Department official added.

On another contentious issue of India's right to test, Burns said, "Just as how India had the sovereign right to test, the United States enjoyed the same right to respond".

"We believe the Indian government intends to uphold the continuation of the test moratorium it committed to in 2005 and reiterated in its September 5 statement," Burns said.

Asked why the US did not support an automatic termination provision in the NSG, he said, "We could not support proposals to automatically terminate the exception if India tests, because the Atomic Energy Act gives the US President the statutory authority to waive restrictions if terminating cooperation would be seriously prejudicing to achievement of US non-proliferation objectives or otherwise jeopardise the common defence and security.

"To do so would have tied the hands of this and every president to exercise their authority under that," he said. {Arun_S: By Ishwar's Krapa that is indeed the saving grace and the last thread that is holding this deal afloat, yet.}

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55198
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby ramana » 19 Sep 2008 21:36

My current thinking is that after the NSG waiver, with whatever caveats in the intorductory parts is there, India is free to do what it wants. However its desirable that th US Congress gives assent to the 123 agreement for it was their NNPA act of 1978 that set the ball rolling with regard to the doghouse treatment of India. Pass they must for they are stuck with Hyde Act and it shows that US lawmakers are irrelevant for passing a law thats useless. Hence all this rigmarole of hearings and determinations and testimonies which are a charade. In their wisdom and dogma they might add even more conditions to the waiver to show their NPA and motherhood credentials.

The geopolitical situation is such that any new US President will be briefed to make the political determination to support India and make it defacto and eventually dejure.

Arun_S, Like everything else the article has truth to it but there are mitigating circumustances to it. The bottomline is the world situation is not such that India can assert itself better nor India is strong as it could be due to pusslimanity on part of her leadership and duplicity on part of DC.

Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3620
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31
Contact:

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Paul » 19 Sep 2008 21:48

Would the outcome of the NSG meeting in Vienna have been any different had the cthe present financial crisis in wall street happened before the vote?

Now that PRC will be underwriting a part of the rescue plan, maybe they can lean on the US to add more clauses to the IUCNA agreement.

Secondly, with this crisis overshadowing everything, will congress have the time to debate and pass the 123 agreemen by December?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55198
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby ramana » 19 Sep 2008 21:52

They have to pass something in this admin or else India is free to buy elsewhere. The show stopper is the pretentious stance of the US Congress whre they hide their arms control agenda behind the NPA. So they need to reconcile this hypocracy or they wont get funds for next elections.

$10B creates quite a few jobs in this shaky economy..

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby kshirin » 19 Sep 2008 22:02

ramana wrote:They have to pass something in this admin or else India is free to buy elsewhere. The show stopper is the pretentious stance of the US Congress whre they hide their arms control agenda behind the NPA. So they need to reconcile this hypocracy or they wont get funds for next elections.

$10B creates quite a few jobs in this shaky economy..


Hope we are not planing to splurge 10 billion solely on hyper expensive US equipment. A token splurge for the sake of the strategic alliance would be more than enough. And we need to keep other allies on board, there are worrying signs of Russia's displeasure and even envy of India's newly acquired de facto NWS status.

Regarding Rajrang's comment on skin colour, it is only part of the issue, but also the same NSG passed the China-Pakistan nuke cooperation without a protest, so much so that no one even knows that they did this.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55198
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby ramana » 19 Sep 2008 22:06

kshirin wrote:the same NSG passed the China-Pakistan nuke cooperation without a protest, so much so that no one even knows that they did this.


Any pointers on this?

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Arun_S » 19 Sep 2008 22:15

Rice makes 'full-court press' to win US approval of nuke deal
    by Staff Writers
    Washington (AFP) Sept 9, 2008
    US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has launched a "full-court press" to win passage in Congress of a landmark US-India civilian nuclear cooperation deal before January, her spokesman said Tuesday.

    In a flurry of contacts members of the US Congress, Rice is speaking to key lawmakers by telephone and meeting others in person, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters.

    "From her perspective, this is a full court press, working with the Congress," McCormack said, using a basketball analogy for an all-out effort to win passage of the deal before President George W. Bush's term ends in January.

    "She has made a lot of calls. She does have a lot of meetings coming up," McCormack said.

    US lawmakers returned to work Monday after their August recess -- and are expected to leave Washington again in late September to campaign ahead of the November 4 elections, leaving little time for action on the agreement.

    US congressional approval is the final hurdle for the 2005 agreement, which offers India access to Western technology and cheap atomic energy as long as it allows UN nuclear inspections of some of its nuclear facilities.

    The United States won approval in Vienna on Saturday for the one-off waiver for India by the Nuclear Suppliers Group, which controls the export and sale of nuclear technology.

    The Group was founded to stop other countries emulating India's example in using imported technology to make an atomic bomb.

    McCormack said Rice has spoken to House Minority leader John Boehner and Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell as well as to Joseph Biden, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

    She also intends to meet Howard Berman, the Democratic chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, he said.

    "She also intends to try to touch base with all the leadership on the House as well as the Senate side," he said.

    "She also intends to reach out to a number of other representatives and senators, including those who originally opposed the deal when it first came up for consideration," McCormack said.

    "So we are reaching out to everybody, supporters as well as those who may be on the fence, those who oppose.

    "So we're going to do everything we possibly can to move -- to move the deal forward with Congress," he said.

    White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said Monday that the Bush administration "will work with Congress to get this agreement approved. We're hopeful."

    The landmark deal signed by Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in July 2005 has stirred huge controversy in India.

    Both the main opposition Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party and the communists slammed the deal, saying it would curb India's military options and bring the country's foreign policy too much under US influence.

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby svinayak » 19 Sep 2008 22:26

rajrang wrote:

Shame on Western democracies led by the US for having treated India (one of their own - the world's largest democracy) as a pariah with regards to nuclear technology and trade for 4 decades and now they should warmly welcome India into their fold and instead of "compensating" India are now trying to tie India into knots.

Wonder if skin color is the issue.

Is this a surprise?

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21189
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Prem » 19 Sep 2008 22:38

Acharya ji,
Then why are we spening 100s of Billions on wrong product. The solution to the problem lies in Indian made Fair and Lovely plus this will make majority Indians happy.....not married as it has to be one or other.

If Congress sit on the 123 then one way to move forward is to sign few deals with GE etc pending Congressional approval and operationalize the active co-operation with French and Russians. This way we honor our words without hurting their H&D.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55198
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby ramana » 19 Sep 2008 22:43

Prem they will do that but first the US Congress has to be made to honor their bargain. Cant have it like the CTBT where the US executive branch negotiated the test ban and the US Congress didnt ratify it. So that others are tied up while they have flexibility.

The US Congress has to be made to approve the 123 for if they dont there will be stick for future beating up. Off-course ther Yiddiss saying foes" If you want to bea the dog you will find it!" The idea is to remove this stick. And also will make them reveal their mind more clearly.

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby kshirin » 19 Sep 2008 22:44

ramana wrote:
kshirin wrote:the same NSG passed the China-Pakistan nuke cooperation without a protest, so much so that no one even knows that they did this.


Any pointers on this?


Please see China's admission into NSG - not a word on Pakistan:
http://www.nuclearsuppliersgroup.org/PR ... teborg.pdf

Please also see -they did not ask any questions and simply admitted China in 2004:

May 26, 2004
http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm ... .cfm#_edn8

...Chinese nuclear transfers to Pakistan would stand a strong chance of violating most of the above requirements.[8] However, in terms of the safeguards requirement, NSG rules permit the fulfillment of preexisting contracts (i.e., agreed prior to NSG membership) with recipient states that lack full-scope safeguards;[9] this loophole would permit China to pursue work on Pakistan’s Chasma-2 reactor project without violating the latter NSG guideline. The fact that China signed the contracts with Pakistan for Chasma-2 just prior to its prospective membership in the NSG only reiterates the need for vigilance regarding China’s nonproliferation intentions.
In light of recent revelations about an extensive network of illicit international nuclear trade operating out of Pakistan, NSG members should demand to know the specific details of China-Pakistan nuclear cooperation, and should require demonstrable guarantees that Chinese civilian nuclear assistance to Pakistan will neither contribute to Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program nor support the illicit proliferation of nuclear technology, including materials, equipment and know-how. China might also prove its nonproliferation good faith by using the influence of its supply relationship with Pakistan to press the government of President Pervez Musharraf to enforce more robust export controls and safeguards on military and dual-use technology.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21189
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Prem » 19 Sep 2008 22:50

Ramana,
I was thinking about US Congress sitting on it for few years as they are known to play destructive/interuptive politics. Lets hope they do in this session or early next year. Congressional blessing will also expedite licence approvals for many high tech items. Chinese will fight this in their own covert way .

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55198
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby ramana » 19 Sep 2008 22:54

Prem, One of Chanakya's maxims is the folk should be made to make a choice. Kickinghte can down stream leads to latter dhokas. They should be made to make up their mind now not later. Later the economy might be different but now $10 B is 100,000 jobs or some such thing.

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby kshirin » 20 Sep 2008 00:11

Continuing the full knowledge in the US and NSG of china's N coop with Pak, there was a wealth of evidence before the US Congress, I think sparked by the Cox Committee inquiry in the late 90s, which should have prevented China from getting NSG membership while it continued to grandfather the Pak nuclear programme. Posting some links:

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congres ... 6796_0.htm
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congres ... 970716.htm
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congres ... 1007os.htm
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/crs/crs92056.htm
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congres ... 30-prc.htm

Congressional record on CHINA'S NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION POLICY -- (BY EDWARD J. MARKEY, BENJAMIN A. GILMAN AND CHRISTOPHER COX) October 30, 1997)

Mr. STARK. The Central Intelligence Agency released its biannual report to Congress this past summer and listed China as one of the two biggest nations to export nuclear materials to Iran and Pakistan.

If China can break its pledge made in an international treaty, it certainly has the capability of breaking its pledge made to the Clinton administration. What evidence does the United States have that China will keep its promise to curb sales of nuclear materials to its largest consumers?

None.

China's Government has denied accusations of selling nuclear technology and material to rogue nations. It has been barred from receiving United States technology for over 10 years for these transactions and now we're supposed to believe that China will reverse its current policy. I hope the Clinton administration doesn't expect Congress to buy this bogus change of heart.

The administration has delinked human rights from trade and now it wants to ignore its own intelligence reports on nuclear proliferation. If the United States agrees to sell nuclear technology to China, it will open up the nuclear arms market to Iran and Pakistan. This is irresponsible, unacceptable, and goes beyond a policy of engagement.

China has not given any substantive signs of changing its current nuclear sales to Iran, yet the administration acquiesces on all requests for cooperation. China's leader, Jiang Zemin, insisted upon a fanfare welcome from the United States and his request was granted. However, compliance of the warm welcome should not set the tone for the upcoming discussions between the two leaders. President Clinton must send a clear, firm message regarding U.S. nuclear nonproliferation policy. The United States must lead by example and show China--and the world--that we are not open to sending nuclear technology to Iran via China.


The following article appeared in today's Washington Post:
(BY EDWARD J. MARKEY, BENJAMIN A. GILMAN AND CHRISTOPHER COX)

During Chinese President Jiang Zemin's visit this week, President Clinton is expected to activate a 1985 Nuclear Cooperation Agreement with China. American companies would then be authorized to start selling nuclear reactors and fuel to a country that has been identified by the CIA as `a key supplier of most destructive arms technology' to rogue regimes such as Iran's. We believe that providing access to American technologies that could end up assisting Iran's nuclear weapons programs would constitute an intolerable risk to U.S. national security.

When the Nuclear Cooperation Agreement was finalized in 1985, Congress placed conditions on the resolution approving it that required the president to certify that China had become a responsible member of the international nonproliferation community before the agreement could go into effect. No U.S. president, not Regan, not Bush and until now not Clinton, has made such a certification. A glance at the record quickly shows why.

Communist China's nuclear, chemical, biological and missile proliferation has made it the Wal-Mart of international nuclear commerce. Consider the following list of only the worst and most recent of China's nonproliferation violations:

In February 1996 the People's Republic of China was discovered to have sold 5,000 ring magnets to Pakistan for use in Pakistan's secret uranium enrichment facility, though it publicly denied doing so.

In May 1997 the State Department cited seven Chinese entities for exporting chemical weapons technology to Iran.

In June 1997 Time magazine reported that China had not only transferred nuclear-capable missiles to Pakistan but was also helping Pakistan build missiles of its own.

In July 1997 the CIA identified China as being `the most significant supplier of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)-related goods and technology to foreign countries.'
In August 1997 Israeli intelligence reports confirmed that China is supplying long-range nuclear missile technologies to Iran.
In September 1997 the U.S. Navy reported that China is the most active supplier of Iran's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs.
This record speaks for itself. China has continually assure the United States that it would stop providing technologies for weapons of mass destruction to countries such as Iran and Pakistan. China has continually failed to live up to its promises. Before implementing the 1985 agreement, we need to be certain that this time the promises are for real.
The 1985 agreement requires the president to certify that China has made sufficient progress in halting proliferation. President Clinton, however, seems to believe that China's past proliferation record is irrelevant, and that we should blindly trust the vague and untested promises China has made to implement its own export controls and regulations. China has yet to make a tangible demonstration of its commitment to cease its sales of WMD technologies. Implementation of the Nuclear Cooperation Agreement is profoundly ill advised, at least until the following criteria are met:
(1) China must join the Nuclear Suppliers' Group (NSG). The NSG members have agreed not to sell nuclear technologies to any country that does not allow international inspections of all of its nuclear facilities all of the time, a criterion known as `full-scope safeguards.' A 1993 statement by then Secretary of State Warren Christopher calls the NSG `a fundamental component of the international nonproliferation regime,' and says that `the United States has been a strong proponent of requiring full-scope International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards as a condition for significant new nuclear supply commitments.' Christopher's first statement remains true, but the Clinton administration is considering reversing itself on the second. Why should countries such as Canada and Switzerland, both NSG members, be held to a higher nonproliferation standard than Communist China? ....

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4523
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby putnanja » 20 Sep 2008 02:25

Letter to US congress, in IE.

‘Seize the moment’

We are writing to urge you to pass, as quickly as possible, the Congressional resolution of approval that will permit final implementation of the US-India agreement on civil nuclear cooperation (“123 Agreement”) that President Bush has sent to Congress. Allthe signatories of this letter are long-time South Asia specialists; many of them have held senior positions in the US Government in the past.

No issue is more vital to the future of the US-India partnership than this legislation. The Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006 passed both houses of Congress with large bipartisan majorities and was signed into law by President Bush on December 18, 2006. In 2007, we negotiated the bilateral cooperation agreement. In July 2008, the Indian government put its existence on the line and obtained parliamentary support for the agreement. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group have taken the steps needed to implement the agreement, fulfilling the conditions stipulated in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the Hyde Act.

India, like us, faces national elections soon — no later than May 2009. Now that the hard work of negotiating has been done, both bilaterally and internationally, it is essential to seize the moment and pass the implementing legislation. A failure by Congress to take the final action implementing this agreement would be a severe setback to the strategic gains both the US and India hope to gain from their partnership. It would also put US industry at a deep disadvantage, now that other states can freely participate in civil nuclear cooperation with India.

Common strategic interests: In proposing the agreement, the Bush administration stressed three factors: the geo-strategic significance of our emerging relationship with India; India’s excellent record in safeguarding nuclear technology; and India’s massive future energy needs. All three arguments are as powerful as ever. With its growing economy and powerful military position, India has become a global partner for the United States and is shaping the future of Asia. There is a striking convergence of interests between India and the US on issues vital to us. India has taken a strong stand against international terrorism. It is one of the largest economic contributors to reconstruction in Afghanistan. It is the primary resident naval force in the Indian Ocean, and works with us to maintain the security of the sea-lanes through which most of the worlds Oil trade travels. These common interests provide a solid foundation for a long-term partnership based on both democratic values and geopolitical interests. A strong relationship with India is critical to US security and economic interests in Asia.

India’s nonproliferation record: When the Congress passed the Hyde Act, it recognized India’s steadfast refusal to transfer nuclear technology to others. These unique circumstances make this change in US nonproliferation policy possible. We are now poised to reap the nonproliferation benefits of ending India’s nuclear isolation. Eligibility for civilian nuclear cooperation is an essential first step toward bringing India fully into the global effort to prevent onward transmission of nuclear weapons knowhow. India’s formal statement to the NSG on September 5 reiterates India’s commitment to a voluntary, unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing. It pledges to strengthen the international nonproliferation regime, and undertakes to work toward a multilateral Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty. Implementing this agreement will give new energy to these critical nonproliferation efforts.

Energy and the environment: India’s energy demand is expected to grow 4.6 per cent per year for the next two decades. The whole world has an interest helping India deal with this relentless expansion. Nuclear energy currently makes up only about 3 per cent of India’s overall power supply. But with an economy growing at 7-9 per cent per year, every potential source of power is crucial. India has ambitious plans to expand civil nuclear power. Every nuclear power plant it introduces will take some pressure off the financial and environmental costs of conventional generation. We need this agreement, for our sake and for the sake of the planet.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh bet his government on this agreement, and won a vote of confidence on July 22. The government’s communist allies opposed the implied strategic relationship with the US. Their view lost, and when they tried to bring down the government, they failed. On India’s political spectrum, everyone except the leftist parties, which represent about 12 per cent of the seats in parliament, supports a strong relationship with the United States. This does not mean that partnership with India will always work seamlessly. Like any two large countries with diverse interests, we have our disagreements, and India has a strong commitment to maintaining independence — and the appearance of independence — in its foreign policy. But India’s basic hopes for the future are in line with ours. It is this convergence of interests that will strengthen our future partnership.

Now that the IAEA and the NSG have acted, we urge you to move ahead. The negotiations that produced the agreement were long and complex, and both sides have accepted provisions they might have preferred to write differently. In light of the long and difficult negotiations, we would respectfully ask that no further attempts be made to change the substance of the agreement. The benefit of forging a real strategic partnership with India is huge, and if we move ahead now, we should be able to strengthen global cooperation against onward proliferation of nuclear weapons. This is the time to move forward, decisively and fast.

This agreement is too important to be defeated by letting the clock run out.

Sincerely yours,

• WALTER ANDERSEN

Associate Director, South Asia Studies

School of Advanced International Studies

Johns Hopkins University

• MARSHALL BOUTON

President, Chicago Council on

Global Affairs

• RICHARD CELESTE

Former US Ambassador to India

• STEPHEN P. COHEN

Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Studies

The Brookings Institution

• AINSLEE EMBREE

Professor Emeritus of History

Columbia University

• SELIG HARRISON

Director, Asia Program

Center for International Policy

• ROBERT M. HATHAWAY

Director, Asia Program, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

• KARL F. INDERFURTH

Director, International Affairs

Program Elliott School of International Affairs George Washington University

• ROBERT KAGAN

Senior Associate, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

• DENNIS KUX

Senior Policy Scholar, Woodrow Wilson Center

• JOHN B. RITCH

Director General, World Nuclear Association

• LLOYD RUDOLPH

Professor of Political Science Emeritus

University of Chicago

• TERESITA C.SCHAFFER

Director, South Asia Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies

• ASHLEY J. TELLIS

Senior Associate, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

• FRANK WISNER

Former US Ambassador to India

• HAROLD GOULD

Visiting Scholar, Center for South Asian Studies, University of Virginia

• DANIEL MARKEY

Senior Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations

• THOMAS R. PICKERING

Former US Ambassador to India

• SUSANNE RUDOLPH

Professor of Political Science Emerita

University of Chicago

• HOWARD B. SCHAFFER

Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs

• RAY VICKERY

Stonebridge International

Former Assistant Secretary, Department of

Commerce

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby enqyoob » 20 Sep 2008 05:01

kshirin:
Given that CIA assessment, it is clear that many "experts" must have lobbied COTUS and WHOTUS to wink at China-Paki proliferation.

I know that with the Pressler Amendment (?) each year, the Administration had to stand up b4 COTUS and CERTIFY that TSP had no nuke weapon development program.

Can u pls search for the persons who gave this testimony or wrote "expert opinions" asking COTUS/POTUS to support TSP and China?

I want to correlate that with today's NPAs. Thanks!

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Gerard » 20 Sep 2008 05:13


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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby rajrang » 20 Sep 2008 07:29

Arun_S wrote:US firms can't be compelled to sell fuel to India: Bush govt. - The HINDU

Washington (PTI): America's nuclear fuel supply assurances to India are a "political commitment" and the government cannot "legally compel" US firms to sell a "given product" to New Delhi, top officials told a Congressional panel as the administration worked hard to push the Indo-US deal through the Congress before September 26.

On a day of intense grilling at an extended hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the administration also said the US has the "same right to respond" as India had "the sovereign right to test".

"The commitments that the President (George W Bush) made that are recorded in the 123 agreement are firm, solemn commitments... the President made clear in the transmittal letter, they're political commitments," Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs William Burns replied when asked if the fuel supply assurances have no "legal effect".

There was a furore in India after President George W Bush wrote to Congress that fuel supply was not legally binding.

"They're political commitments ... in the sense that we are determined to help India to try to ensure a reasonable steady supply of fuel and should disruptions arise, for example, trade disputes, a commercial firm fails to meet its requirements, then we are firmly determined to do everything we can to help in that instance," Burns said when asked if the commitments are binding on the next administration.

Acting Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security John Rood maintained that the 123 agreement provides a legal framework. "The agreement, as a legal matter, is, as I say, only an enabling piece of legislation," he said.

"It's not a government activity to produce nuclear fuel, it's a commercial activity in the US, and we in the US government would -- could not legally compel American firms to provide fuel to India if they did not wish to do so," he said. {Arun_S: He leave unstated that US Govt can compel American firms NOT to provide fuel to India if GoTUS did not wish to do so via Presidential determination }

The agreement does not compel US firms "to sell a given product to India," Rood said in reply to queries on legal implications of the deal.

"With regard to their understanding that our actions are going to be guided by US law and will be consistent with US law, I believe the Indians do understand that," he said.

Burns said the US would keep in mind the Indian "sensitivities" on the issue of supply.

"What is very clear is that we will do everything we can to ensure that steady supply, except in extreme circumstances. And in those extreme circumstances, whether it's a test or an abrogation of a safeguards agreement, then our actions will be bound by US law. And I guess that's the clearest way that I can put it," the senior State Department official added.

On another contentious issue of India's right to test, Burns said, "Just as how India had the sovereign right to test, the United States enjoyed the same right to respond".

"We believe the Indian government intends to uphold the continuation of the test moratorium it committed to in 2005 and reiterated in its September 5 statement," Burns said.

Asked why the US did not support an automatic termination provision in the NSG, he said, "We could not support proposals to automatically terminate the exception if India tests, because the Atomic Energy Act gives the US President the statutory authority to waive restrictions if terminating cooperation would be seriously prejudicing to achievement of US non-proliferation objectives or otherwise jeopardise the common defence and security.

"To do so would have tied the hands of this and every president to exercise their authority under that," he said. {Arun_S: By Ishwar's Krapa that is indeed the saving grace and the last thread that is holding this deal afloat, yet.}



If the US Government cannot legally compel US businesses to sell nuclear fuel to India, then how can the Indian Government compel Indian businesses to buy 10,000 MW of US reactors?

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby rajrang » 20 Sep 2008 07:33

ramana wrote:The geopolitical situation is such that any new US President will be briefed to make the political determination to support India and make it defacto and eventually dejure.




We can only hope that your predictions are correct and will hold for many decades.

In the near future China will be the most powerful country on Earth (that is a relatively easy prediction) and will have the economic power to even influence US political processes including the election of Presidents (legally). Then they can lean on the US to squeeze India.

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 » 20 Sep 2008 08:51

rajrang wrote: We can only hope that your predictions are correct and will hold for many decades.

In the near future China will be the most powerful country on Earth (that is a relatively easy prediction) and will have the economic power to even influence US political processes including the election of Presidents (legally). Then they can lean on the US to squeeze India.


Rajrang,

I get a sense from your comments on China from time to time that you are somewhat in awe of that nation (of course I could be wrong).

May I point out that to be the ''the most powerful'' country in the world, a nation needs more than a huge forex surplus and being the factory of the world.

There are various soft factors which are as important as the hard ones like a trillion dollar + forex reserve and high GDP growth. Until and unless China solves its internal contradictions it's in no position to be a ''great'' power let alone the ''most powerful'' nation.

And yes the one child policy will ensure that China becomes an aging society before it becomes a high income one. In short there's a lot of problems which the CPC will have to tackle which can't be solved with $$ and dictatorship.

So even as we admire the Olympics infra, the rebuilding of Shanghai and the fact that China has become the factory of the world - and even try to learn from their feats - there's no reason to wring our hands in despair. Let's not fall for Chinese psy-ops.

JMT

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 24236
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby SSridhar » 20 Sep 2008 08:55


chalam
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 8
Joined: 03 Aug 2008 03:27

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby chalam » 20 Sep 2008 09:01

rajrang wrote:In the near future China will be the most powerful country on Earth (that is a relatively easy prediction) and will have the economic power to even influence US political processes including the election of Presidents (legally). Then they can lean on the US to squeeze India.


If China becomes more powerful than the US, why would they need US to squeeze India? :mrgreen:

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby kshirin » 20 Sep 2008 13:47

narayanan wrote:kshirin:
Given that CIA assessment, it is clear that many "experts" must have lobbied COTUS and WHOTUS to wink at China-Paki proliferation.

I know that with the Pressler Amendment (?) each year, the Administration had to stand up b4 COTUS and CERTIFY that TSP had no nuke weapon development program.

Can u pls search for the persons who gave this testimony or wrote "expert opinions" asking COTUS/POTUS to support TSP and China?

I want to correlate that with today's NPAs. Thanks!


I am trying, as the same thought had struck me. Since the amendment was adopted in 1985, I am unable to access the records and hearings via the Internet. I’ll need access to their library and I do not live in US. Will have to continue trying as didn't come up with much success.
From the Book “Deception…”, the following Senators supported Pressler Amendment - Charles Percy and Charles Mathias. Alan Cranston, John Glenn (disappointingly) also supported. What is depressing is the vast array of US government officials from the Secretary of Defence downwards who argued Pakistan's case, repeatedly lying before Congress in order to get the amendment passed, and that includes the Clinton Administration. The arguments are surreal which shows where there is a will there is a way.

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby kshirin » 20 Sep 2008 13:48

In terms of experts Teresita Schaffer was very useful in bolstering the Administration's case with "expert" opinion.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest