Opposition to the Indo-US nuclear cooperation agreement

Gus · Post by **Gus** » 21 Oct 2005 00:29

A day after the Indo-US deal was signed in Washington, Mr Burns had briefed media about the agreement. He had said that the Bush Administration would present Congress with a detailed plan of action when it reconvenes after the August break.

No such plan has been put up as yet, though the House International Relations Committee has already taken up the issue for discussion.

During the London meeting, the US representative, according to a senior European diplomat, "merely proposed three vague ideas". They were, in order of sequence: Preparing a set of criteria or standards; amending existing NSG rules to accommodate India; and, making an exception for India by waiving the NSG guidelines.

While the US did not push for any one of those three ideas, its representative is said to have indicated that Washington favoured the third option of exempting India from the purview of the stringent NSG rules.

A second G-8 meeting, this time involving senior level participants, was held on October 12. During the discussions on India's nuclear programme, US Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Robert Joseph is said to have waffled without going into the specifics of how Washington intends to implement its part of the bargain with New Delhi.

Curiously, at the consultative meeting of the Nuclear Suppliers' Group in Vienna on Wednesday to discuss India's nuclear programme and the scope of international cooperation, the American representative moved away from the position taken in London.

Instead of seeking an exemption to NSG guidelines for India, the US strongly suggested the "setting up of agreed-upon standards" that "countries like India can meet". Security experts in New Delhi interpret this to mean a possible attempt to placate Pakistan by offering it a "set of criteria" that it could strive to meet and stake claim to nuclear supplies.

More importantly, the diplomat said, the NSG meeting also brought to the fore the divisions within the member-countries about resuming nuclear supplies to India. China, Brazil, Italy, Sweden, Austria, the Netherlands, South Korea and Ireland, among others, openly opposed any nuclear supplies to or nuclear cooperation with India. [Other than China, what's with these countries ? Why are they opposing?]
..
Nuclear experts point out that the status of the India-US deal, as of today, is hardly encouraging for India. "The Americans are in no hurry. They want to milk the deal for whatever they can get, and thus intend to play out the deal as long as they can to keep India on good behaviour," said one senior analyst in New Delhi.

The intention, according to another security expert, is to force India to put most of its nuclear sites, including its fast-breeder programme and reprocessing facilities, under international inspections and monitoring. "If you strip the deal of its PR, it is clear that the Americans want to get inside India's nuclear programme and contain it from within," he explained.

A section of officials in New Delhi is concerned over the obvious "lack of hurry in Washington to implement any of its commitments". They point out that the US Congress has never before changed any of its laws to benefit just one single country.

"Here we are looking at not just one law but at two important Acts of Congress which will need to be amended," one of them pointed out. In fact, one of these laws, the 1978 NNPA, was promulgated in response to India's 1974 nuclear test.

A very real fear that is now being voiced in official circles and by security strategists is that the US may pressure India to identify as "civilian" all nuclear facilities other than the research reactors and other sites at BAARC.

In addition, the old instruments to cap India's nuclear programme-the CTBT and the FMCT-are again being discussed (as at the NSG and G-8 meetings) as a way to freeze India's weapons capability. Pressure is being mounted on India to unilaterally halt all further fissile-material production.

Once that happens and India has carried out civil-military separation, it will be as good as putting an effective cap on India's nuclear programme and accepting intrusive international inspections and control regimes.

India's hopes

Simultaneous progress on implementing N-deal

Quick movement on Capitol HillUS will lobby with NSG countries for an exception

Special deal only for Delhi

US games

Action only after India complies to separation and IAEA safeguards

Administration yet to give detailed plan to Congress

US wants NSG to " set standards" for countries like India

Islamabad may yet be accommodated; get reactors and fuel

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 21 Oct 2005 00:43

Islamabad may yet be accommodated; get reactors and fuel

sheesh!!.. and baksheesh for these pakis every time something we have yearned..

how about this?

we can install NSG supplied nuclear power plants along the borders of India, and we can supply to pakistan at an agreed rate. that way, its safer and with better proliferation controls.

we can help them, but we can't make them more mass destruction terrorists.

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 21 Oct 2005 00:43

DATE: Wednesday, October 26, 2005

TIME: 10:30 a.m.

SUBJECT: The U.S.-India ‘Global Partnership’: The Impact on Nonproliferation

WITNESSES: The Honorable Robert J. Einhorn
International Security Program
Center for Strategic and International Studies

Neil Joeck, Ph.D.
Senior Fellow
Center for Global Security Research
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Mr. Henry Sokolski
Executive Director
Nonproliferation Policy Education Center

Mr. Leonard Spector
Deputy Director
Monterey Institute of International Studies
Center for Nonproliferation Studies

Mr. David Albright
President
Institute for Science and International Security

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 21 Oct 2005 01:02

http://us.rediff.com/news/2005/oct/20pm ... &file=.htm
Consult with us on US-India nuke deal, Congressional leaders tell Rice

Congressman Jim Leach, Iowa Republican and chair of the House International Relations' Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, pilloried Burns saying, "You chose to make this initiative without, to my knowledge, any serious prior consultation with Congress."

"It is hard," Leach pointed out, "to cement any relations with any country based on promises that may not be deliverable."

bala · Post by **bala** » 21 Oct 2005 01:22

Looks like the US Babu has upstaged the congress. There is angst in the congressman for not consulting with them prior to deal making. Hopefully, US GotUS has done the math right and the US Babu his Chanakian calculations. I cannot believe the opposition of countries like Brazil, South Korea, Sweden, Italy to NSG moves. Chaebols, Embraers, Volvo, Fiat must be put on hold till the opposition vanishes. Looks like Madam Sonia is not popular with them NSG Italians.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 21 Oct 2005 03:59

India, US ready to play nuke hardball

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 21 Oct 2005 04:12

Consult with us on US-India nuke deal, Congressional leaders tell Rice

Burns, who was clearly on the defensive at the hearing, that was permeated by an attack by Lantos on India's relations with Iran and a threat that India would have to make a choice between the US and Iran otherwise the US-India relationship would "go down the tubes", kept saying,"We hear the message."

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 21 Oct 2005 05:48

From the HT article:

The Indian side is determined to resist the pressure and is expected to neatly push the ball back to the Americans. It will stick to its stand that the US must commit on how and when the civilian nuclear agreement signed between the countries will be passed by the US Congress. New Delhi will abide by its commitment, but America "must help India help itself," is the reply Burns will get, highly-placed sources said. Burns and foreign secretary Shyam Saran will start discussions on Friday.

SureshP · Post by **SureshP** » 21 Oct 2005 07:07

No action on US-India deal by Nuclear Suppliers Group

* Britain, France and Canada supportive of deal, Sweden and Japan cautious
* Approval process to be worked out before Bush’s 2006 visit to New Delhi

WASHINGTON: Key nuclear-supplier nations have put off action on a US proposal to lift restraints on transferring nuclear technology to India, US officials said on Wednesday.

The proposal is a key element of a US-India nuclear cooperation deal that the two countries are trying to complete by early next year - an ambitious timetable in view of the international and US legislative approvals needed to implement the agreement.

The Bush administration this week asked the 44-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) to give India a permanent exception to international rules barring nuclear cooperation.

There was positive feedback to the proposal at the group’s meeting, but a “decision was deferred until the future,” a senior US official said. Washington went into the meeting expecting a consultation, but not action, he said.

At the meeting, Britain, France, and Canada were generally supportive, but Sweden asked ‘hard questions’ and Japan seemed wary of the India deal, officials said. For nearly 30 years the United States led the global fight to deny India access to nuclear technology because the South Asian nation has developed nuclear weapons and tested them.

But President George W Bush jettisoned this approach with a July 18 agreement that would permit nuclear cooperation between the two democracies.

He is seeking changes in US law and international regulations to let India obtain restricted items, including nuclear fuel. This would effectively recognise India as the sixth nuclear-weapons state, along with the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China.

US officials say the broad aim is to complete the approval process before Bush visits New Delhi for a summit in early 2006.

However, there are doubts about whether the US Congress - where members of both parties have expressed skepticism - will act by then. In addition, the next scheduled NSG session is in May, so getting that group to approve the rules change before Bush’s visit to India would require a special meeting, officials said.

“I don’t think it’s going to be able to be done by the summit. It’s much too difficult and sensitive an issue,” a second senior US official said. Several factors are at play in the timetable for the deal, which Washington views as key to closer relations with a rising global power and democratic ally.

The second official said it is important for Congress to act before the nuclear-suppliers group, so other nations could not beat American companies to the lucrative Indian market.

US officials want to ensure India soon implements its part of the nuclear deal, including separating military and civilian nuclear programmes, to help ease doubts in the US Congress.

Also, Washington wants India to keep supporting US and European efforts to force Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions. A delay by the suppliers group could hold out a carrot for India to stay in line over Iran. Undersecretary of State R Nicholas Burns has expressed confidence the US Congress will approve the deal.

But many members of Bush’s Republican party, which controls Congress, and many Democrats fear the agreement excessively benefits India and undermines efforts to halt proliferation.

Congressional leaders crucial to the fate of the deal are pressing Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to consult them before proposing legislation to implement the agreement. reuters

Daily Times

The Swedes who have signed a billion dollar deal with a military dictator in charge of illegaly gained nuclear weapons and the largest concentration of terrorists asked "hard questions" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bheem · Post by **Bheem** » 21 Oct 2005 09:55

Japan was asking hard questions which saved Pakistan during its Kargil adventure.

I think all these Uncle friends are being used by Uncle to play out this Nuke deal for pretty long and then it will fall through.

I think India should not expect anything out of it. IF we get something well and good but should not build any longterm policy around it.

Let us test our Agni-3

Rien · Post by **Rien** » 21 Oct 2005 11:57

Alok_N wrote:
Rien wrote: It is fact that the USA is lagging behind in energy research. Does the US have a thorium breeder program?
1. do you know who pioneered the Thorium breeding idea?
2. do you know how much weapons grade Pu the US possesses?

Do you know Nixon passed a law banning the reprocessing of fuel rods? The USA cannot use breeder reactors legally. So what? Just because some country pioneered something decades ago doesn't mean it is on the leading edge now. No new reactors (electricity generation) have been built in the USA for 20 years. Actually it may be even longer now. I last saw the cite for that 4 years ago.

What does the stockpile matter if it cannot use it?

Alok_N wrote: but, don't confuse lack of subsidies with lack of R&D ... the US is a juggernaut ... the day Uncle decided that he needs hybrids, he'll make sure there are two hybrids parked in front of every house

Any proof of this statement?

Alok_N wrote: are you claiming that the US can not produce these cells?

I am saying it does not produce those cells. I don't care about theoretical capacity but hard deliverables.

http://www.ecomall.com/greenshopping/japansolar04.htm

Recently, a 1.7 x 0.3 meter module produced about 150 watts of output with a 28.1% rating. Jointly developed by the New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO), Sharp Corporation and Daido Metal Co, the new system is expected to be commercialized in 2005. The developers also hope to achieve a 40% rating and a module costing 100,000 yen per kw within the same year.

Alok_N wrote: the only thing that is possibly wrong is that it misleads some folks into saying stuff like "Japan leaves US in the dust" ...

Do you have any system like that available from any US manufacturor? 40% is incredible by any standard for an actual working commerical system. Do you know of any US manufactor selling such a system? It has to be made in the USA. No joint or made in China efforts please.

Alok_N wrote:[
we are talking about R&D efforts ... and CA leads in the US ...

Strip away California and what does the entire rest of the US do? I seriously suggest you look at the numbers . Good job by California does not mean other states are doing the same! You are subtly misleading people by trying to imply that California is a normal American state. It is not.

Kumar · Post by **Kumar** » 21 Oct 2005 12:11

Regarding US research capabilities, US has been the Guru of the world during the last century and still is. Mere absence of certain programs could be related to policy decisions, but doesn't reflect on the capability.

Despite all the brouhaha about Japan, asian Tigers, China and now India, Innovation still flows one way, from US to the rest of the world.

P.S. Unkil has many aspects, some benign and some not so, but there is one undisputed aspect, that of "Jagadguru-Unkilacharya".

arun · Post by **arun** » 21 Oct 2005 15:57

SureshP wrote:
No action on US-India deal by Nuclear Suppliers Group

Daily Times

The Swedes who have signed a billion dollar deal with a military dictator in charge of illegaly gained nuclear weapons and the largest concentration of terrorists asked "hard questions" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But the deal is to the Swedes is not military

Purely benign civilian stuff.

An "emergency land surveillance system". Any one who says the Erieye is an AEW system is drunk

:

Saab and Ericsson Pakistan Contract

Sweden’s Saab and Ericsson have signed a contract with Pakistan for an emergency land surveillance system.

It comes after the earthquake in Kashmir earlier this month which left over 47,000 people dead and 67,000 injured.

In a statement Saab says the system could help search and rescue operations in the aftermath of a severe earthquake and be used together with ground-based radars ”to provide a more detailed picture” to assist rescue efforts and help Pakistan face ”different threats to the country”.

Rien · Post by **Rien** » 21 Oct 2005 16:34

Kumar wrote:Regarding US research capabilities, US has been the Guru of the world during the last century and still is. Mere absence of certain programs could be related to policy decisions, but doesn't reflect on the capability.

If the USA hasn't built a reactor in 20 years, how good are their designs going to be? If they don't build hybrids, how good will their first hybrid be?
I'm not denying if you want a big SUV you go to America. I just don't see how that is going to meet India's needs for energy.

Kumar wrote: Despite all the brouhaha about Japan, asian Tigers, China and now India, Innovation still flows one way, from US to the rest of the world.

P.S. Unkil has many aspects, some benign and some not so, but there is one undisputed aspect, that of "Jagadguru-Unkilacharya".

I find that kind of annoying that BR doesn't support posting in Hindi. I only understood what you were saying after I pronounced it out loud. Am I the only one who finds reading English Hindi hard? I find it much easier to read Hindi when you use Hindi.

Well Unkil doesn't have oil in his hat. I'm afraid mirrors aren't going to cut it either. PS: The Enron power plant was a non nuclear power plant. How successful have Indo-US power projects been? How successful are they going to be when every NGO like Greenpeace is going to declare Jihad against India for oh my god *NUKULAR* power. If they couldn't even get a normal power plant working I don't see much chance for nuclear.

Alok_N · Post by **Alok_N** » 21 Oct 2005 18:28

Rien, It is difficult for me to pursue this with you ... so I'll just join you.

Rien wrote: It has to be made in the USA. No joint or made in China efforts please.

yes, yes, absolutely ...

In fact, India has left US in the dust when it comes to the technology of answering telephone calls ...

please, don't give me theoretical capacity kind of junk ... americans just can't answer phone calls ... american calls are being answered in India now

Jaikissan · Post by **Jaikissan** » 21 Oct 2005 22:22

Or for that matter, India has more experience in "'Gober-Gas, environment-friendly electricity production from cow-dung" than Unkil or Japan, EU. We are the best in this tech of 22nd Century.
Rien, pl., Exceptions are not rules.

Vriksh · Post by **Vriksh** » 22 Oct 2005 01:15

Jaikissan wrote:Or for that matter, India has more experience in "'Gober-Gas, environment-friendly electricity production from cow-dung" than Unkil or Japan, EU. We are the best in this tech of 22nd Century.
Rien, pl., Exceptions are not rules.

Gobar gas has been a singular failure for providing energy... The massive amounts of water required to make it work makes it economically and ecologically unviable as a source of energy for most indian communities.

Laks · Post by **Laks** » 22 Oct 2005 01:58

Economist gives a unfavorable opinion to the deal, it speaks up for the usual suspects NPAs, does an equal-equal with TSP with no mention of Xerox Khan/PRC proliferation, unfairly accuses the Agni program.
The Economist: Nuclear confusion

America also proposes to assist India's space programme. Nothing wrong in that, you might say, but plans for India's first inter-continental ballistic missile depend heavily on the technology developed for its space-launch vehicle.
...
An upgraded version of its Agni missile could deal with that threat. Indian officials have previously said the bigger missile's presumed targets would be in Europe and the United States.
...
In any case, suggests George Perkovich of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a think-tank, India's importance should not be subordinated to a strategy of containing China.
...
Bending the rules for India makes it harder to uphold them elsewhere. Why not also bend them for Pakistan and Israel?

RanjanRoy · Post by **RanjanRoy** » 22 Oct 2005 03:41

Two Fighter Choices for Indian Contract?

Boeing hopes to fulfill the Indian air force's requirement for 126 multi-role combat fighters with the F/A-18E/F (shown), but faces competition from Dassault's Mirage 2000-5. India could split the order.

Aviation Week & Space Technology 10/17/2005

As the field narrows for multi-role fighter bids, U.S. companies strive for partnerships in India

India may select two aircraft types to fulfill its requirement for 126 multirole fighters in a competition pitting the U.S. against France.

The likely candidates are the Dassault Mirage 2000-5 and Boeing F/A-18E/F--nods to longtime supporter France and India's new partner in the worldwide fight against terrorism, the U.S. Dassault and Boeing are considered the frontrunners in the request for proposals phase.

Air Chief Marshal Shashindra Pal Tyagi is adamant that there will be no political connection to the Indian air force's drive to replace its aging MiG-21 fleet. "There has never been any pressure on the Indian armed forces to buy anything," he says.

But he's also sanguine about the possibility India will field two replacement fighters. "The Indian air force is so used to operating different types of machines," he says. "If another type comes, we will have to learn to live with it."

As if on cue, a Boeing Integrated Defense Systems team was in India last week to hold a second round of discussions with the defense ministry and air force about the F/A-18. IDS CEO Jim Albaugh says Boeing is interested "not just in sales, but a partnership" that the company and its subsidiaries could build on. "Over the next 10 years, there could be a $15-billion market in India," he said at a press conference.

ONE TOPIC under discussion is outsourcing to Indian companies.The IDS team was headed for meetings with the Indian Defense Research and Development Organization, Indian Space Research Organization and private firms, including Larsen and Toubro, an engineering company with interests in manufacturing, services and information technology. A plan for cooperation is expected by year's end.

India has had a revolving door of high-level delegations, including the French

All this activity is underway as South Asia's geopolitical environment is changing. India recently voted with Britain, the U.S. and others in favor of a resolution urging the International Atomic Energy Agency to get tougher on Iran's nuclear development program by referring the matter to the United Nations' Security Council. The IAEA, honored last week with the Nobel Peace Prize, has urged a go-slow response out of concern its inspectors might be expelled from Iran if the nation is pressed.

India, once subject to U.S. sanctions over its own nuclear program, has been gaining in stature. John Reid, the U.K. defense secretary, reiterated his country's support for India to gain a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council, and praised its civilian nuclear program and its "responsible" role in world affairs.

{Yindoos know that to the British hear Money loud and clear! He hee India has to use the stick wisely }

.... The RFIs were followed two months ago by requests for proposals. The downselect process is ongoing but Indian officials have indicated that their greatest interest is in the Mirage 2000-5 and the F/A-18E/F.

Jaikissan · Post by **Jaikissan** » 22 Oct 2005 07:56

Expediency to sign the nuclear deal in Feb-Mar '06, means it will be attached to some (Katrina or other)budgetary supplements, as Ackerman(pl. read his interview with Rediff) and Hyde( during 1st testimony) suspected.

Though Dubya's admin. will be answering the questions through hearings of all kinds(Dr. Rice included, demanded and assured), without presenting any draft legislation for the Hill to debate or amend.

No fat NPT-ayatollah, Clintonian-Carter guys testifying or creating fuss, or Lantos and his buddies,would be able to do much except create unexpected hurdles for media's imagination and consumption.

Dubya style is simple, not answerable to International(UN, UNSC, NPT, IAEA, CTBT, MTCR, FMCT or NSG) debate, rightly or not.

Dubya has least respect for all those treaties.
If UNSC votes or not, he sure will be in Iraq, Iran or Syria.

Does anyone seriously believe Dubya has respect, patience and time to understand all the complicated chapters and policies under NPT, FMCT, MTCR, CTBT, NSG(Guidelines), NSSP or IAEA rules and how India should fit into?
He was pissed, as such, when he made a rare exception, to throw a late night party for Dr. MMS, and he could not get any joint statement from his admin. and negotiators.

More pissed were, congressmens( not consulted), NPT-pseudo-Scholars, cause Indians( Dr. MMS and team) extracted what amounts to their unemployment (what they grew up to defend a carrier, a livelihood, since Carter days, when NPT was created).

That sure pisses deliberative Congress, lots of Dems, and few Republicans.

Like Pinkos and chincoms (traitors Karat, CPI(M) comrades, their followers, their unguided/misguided & orphaned-by their fellow intellectual voters, and cohorts) questioning and pressing the GOI, which way to vote in an international fora, as if we have to put it in an election manifesto(CMP) or referendum for the whole nation.
A choice, whether, Iran's nuclear policy( as if Iran is facing energy crisis, and need clandestine, covert nuclear ambitions)) or India's (upfront, defiant for 30 years, legally correct, nuclear security doctrine) peacefull civilian energy needs?

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 22 Oct 2005 12:14

Bending the rules for India makes it harder to uphold them elsewhere. Why not also bend them for Pakistan and Israel?

Because there is already quite a bit of bending going on in those cases - if you get my drift

Perhaps the Economist should stick to economy more and politics less - they do not seem to have gotten the message that they are good at one and not the other!

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 22 Oct 2005 18:56

The Japanese Crying Foul

The Japanese are most strange. During Kargil 1999 they didn't support India. Today at the NSG they don't support India and now they seem to be working at the behest of the Chinese or Pakis. Japan and the Japanese are a strange bunch of people.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 23 Oct 2005 00:01

N-deal talks begin, next steps on table

Sunil · Post by **Sunil** » 23 Oct 2005 02:50

The Japs ended up locking up the bulk of their designers of their fast breeder program after an accident. Now they are worried India is going to forge ahead without their cooperation. Don't worry Japan.. we are not out to f*ck you over.

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 23 Oct 2005 02:52

When Japan signed the NPT, they got two under the table understandings from the US. The first is that the US will allow Japan to stockpile reprocessed plutonium. Second is that India will not be recognized as a nuclear state.

JCage · Post by **JCage** » 23 Oct 2005 03:09

Rangudu,

What makes the Japanese wet themselves when it comes to India? Why the insistence on the second clause with the US?

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 23 Oct 2005 03:17

JCage wrote:Rangudu,

What makes the Japanese wet themselves when it comes to India? Why the insistence on the second clause with the US?

Well, they knew at the time of their signing that India will refuse to do so. They feel that they are a better world power than India. Just plain pen1s envy.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 23 Oct 2005 03:41

Do they have one? I have always thought MacArthur permanently neutered them

Jaikissan · Post by **Jaikissan** » 23 Oct 2005 03:47

Seems, India's MEA mandarins did not consult Japan or Brazil before NSG.
Though the chincoms supported India's UNSC membership, they wanted India to break-away from G-4(meaning exclude Japan).
We showed our loyalty to the other 3, meaning Japan, Brazil and Germany, by sticking with them.
Despite all that camaraderie, Brazil and Japan are willing to let us down in an international fora, is appalling on the part of MEAs coordination.
No more brotherhood with this UNSC wannabes, if they are not willing to support India's peaceful rise.

Alok_N,
You probably can decipher some linkage of Japs opposition to India in relation to the prospective future international competition in spent-fuel reprocessing market. Estimated to be $200 bil.
They(Japs) just decided to go ahead with their $ 30 bil. reprocessing plant at Rokkasho-mura. Leaving just India and Japan in the league, after the scheduled closure of French and British plants.
Similarly and uniquely in the world it leaves us and them with ongoing Breeder program.
Japs are most prohibitive and restrictive on visiting Indian scientist compared to Europeans and Unkil.
Any possible shrewd thinking on the part of Japs?

Laks · Post by **Laks** » 23 Oct 2005 03:59

Maybe it is something to do with having to sit on top of world's largest plutonium and unprocessed spent fuel and cannot build a bum.
Japan's plutonium stockpile tops 43 tons
I am hearing about Japan's fast breeder program for the first time. I know the French are also marginally interested in that.

Jaikissan · Post by **Jaikissan** » 23 Oct 2005 05:24

Laks wrote: I am hearing about Japan's fast breeder program for the first time. I know the French are also marginally interested in that.

Japanese Have MONJU FBR.
French had 1200 MW SuperPhenix, with Collaboration of Germany and Italy, but shutdown.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 23 Oct 2005 08:05

US keeps nuclear deal with India burning

Saturday, October 22, 2005 01:11:30 amTIMES NEWS NETWORK ]
NEW DELHI: Brushing aside continuing opposition in its backyard to the nuclear deal with India, the US has renewed its pledge to implement the bilateral agreement by the time US President George Bush arrives in India early 2006.

Addressing a press conference with foreign secretary Shyam Saran on Friday, US undersecretary Nicholas Burns said the US would call for a meeting of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) before it is scheduled to work out a relaxation of global nuclear curbs against India.

The assurance takes on significance and may allay any concern in India that the Bush administration, because of the erosion of its political capital in the wake of botched Katrina relief efforts, continuing losses in Iraq and disillusionment of its supporters among Christian conservatives, may prefer to dodge a confrontation with the non-proliferation purists in Washington.

The US signalled its intent to stay the course also by committing an additional $500,000 for earthquake relief in India, and by inviting India to nominate astronauts to travel on the US space shuttle.

India was moving in tandem, amid indications that it may make a major statement on non-proliferation which can be leveraged by the Bush administration to counter resistance from lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

The focus is now clearly shifting to Bush’s visit here in February, because the nuclear deal promises to be the centrepiece of that visit.

Through the day, Indian and US officials worked on the most important part of the July 18 agreement — the roadmap for implementation. In other words, who will do what, when. Does India fulfil its side of the bargain first or does it wait for the US and NSG to take the first step?

India has to announce the separation of its civil and military N-facilities, start work on an additional protocol and put civilian reactors under IAEA safeguards. Saran said India had already harmonised its export laws with NSG standards.

The US official said Washington would follow through with its obligations — ie piloting a legislation to relax nuclear curbs on India through US Congress, which would effectively reverse decades old nuclear non-proliferation laws targeting India; and second, working with international groups like the NSG to include India into the global nuclear regime.

He even sought to underplay the opposition to the deal in the US Congress, stressing that there was a broad-spectrum support.

The other issue dominating the discussions on Friday was the nature of the legislation the US would introduce. Ideally India would like US to amend its Non-Proliferation Act to treat India as a legitimate nuclear power, even if it retains the non-proliferation edifice. A tough call because of resistance in the US.

Internationally, however, the Bush administration was building a case for treating India as an exceptional case. Friday’s discussions were preceded by Burns laying out the premise of the India-US deal in Europe.

In Paris, the US undersecretary said, "This cooperation that we’re extending to India is unique to India. It is not going to be replicated to other countries. If you look at India’s record, actually it’s the reverse of Iran’s record. India has been a responsible country in safeguarding its nuclear technology over the past 30 years,"he said.

The US undersecretary went on to say that, "While we have a relationship with Pakistan, it doesn’t extend to the kind of civil nuclear energy cooperation we intend to have with India."

Saran focused the discussions extensively on the energy sector. Working overtime to secure and diversify energy sources, Saran said five working groups set up under the energy dialogue, would concentrate on India getting clean coal technology and gasification technology from the US. The importance of this is far greater than its low-key nature warrants — India has one of the largest coal reserves in the world.

With better LNG technology that India has asked for from the US, India’s focus would shift from gas pipelines through unstable countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh to making LNG cheaper and safer way of accessing gas.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 23 Oct 2005 08:16

The US signalled its intent to stay the course also by committing an additional $500,000 for earthquake relief in India, and by inviting India to nominate astronauts to travel on the US space shuttle.

The US space shuttle has a 1 in 60 chance of exploding or disintegrating upon re-entry. There is no reason to put an Indonaut on one these.

Perhaps the discussion with Burns should have revolved around transfer of rocket designs from Project Orion.

dwaipayan · Post by **dwaipayan** » 23 Oct 2005 12:22

Congressmen press Rice on US-India nuclear deal

Oct 19, 2005 — By Carol Giacomo

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Congressional leaders crucial to the fate of a controversial U.S.-India nuclear deal are pressing Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to consult them before proposing legislation to implement the agreement.

The leaders make their case in a letter which congressional aides said reflects deep unease about the deal's consequences and the way the administration secretly negotiated it, without input from lawmakers who must approve it.

"We firmly believe that such consultations will be crucial to the successful consideration of the final agreement or agreements by our committees and the Congress as a whole," they wrote in the letter, which was obtained by Reuters.

Many members of Bush's Republican party, which controls Congress, and also many Democrats fear the deal excessively benefits India and undermines international efforts to halt the spread of nuclear weapons.

The letter was signed by Republican Rep. Henry Hyde of Illinois, chairman of the House International Relations Committee; Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; and the panels' top Democrats, Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware and Rep. Tom Lantos of California.

For nearly 30 years the United States led the global fight to deny India access to nuclear technology because it has developed nuclear weapons and tested them.

But President George W. Bush jettisoned this approach with a July 18 agreement that would permit nuclear cooperation between the two democracies. He is seeking changes in U.S. law and international regulations to allow India to obtain restricted items, including nuclear fuel.

Undersecretary of State R. Nicholas Burns, in a telephone interview with Reuters on Tuesday before flying to Paris and New Delhi, said Rice intends to privately brief lawmakers on South Asia policy, including India, later this month.

The administration hopes to propose legislation to implement the nuclear deal early in 2006, after India drafts a plan for separating its civilian and military nuclear facilities, he said.

dwaipayan · Post by **dwaipayan** » 23 Oct 2005 12:27

Japan voices concern to U.S. over nuclear cooperation with India :

http://asia.news.yahoo.com/051022/kyodo/d8dd2g3o0.html

(Kyodo) _ Japan expressed concern to the United States last month over an agreement Washington reached with New Delhi to help promote civilian nuclear power in India, Japanese government sources said Saturday.

At bilateral talks on disarmament and nonproliferation in Washington in September, Japanese officials told the United States that offering nuclear technical assistance to India, which is not a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, could "send the wrong message to North Korea and Iran," the sources said.

Japanese officials told their U.S. counterparts that the move could "adversely affect the NPT framework," apparently in view of nuclear-related problems involving countries such as North Korea and Iran.

North Korea has pulled out from the NPT and claims to have developed nuclear weapons, while Iran is suspected of trying to make a nuclear arsenal although it remains under the treaty.

U.S. President George W. Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh agreed in Washington in July that the United States will work to achieve full civil nuclear energy cooperation with India.

During last month's talks with Japan, the United States dismissed the Japanese concern, saying the accord does not mean the United States has recognized India as a nuclear power under the NPT, the sources said.

The U.S. officials asserted India should be drawn into the mainstream of the nuclear nonproliferation framework as it actually possesses a nuclear arsenal and defended the agreement, saying India is the world's largest democracy and is not involved in the nuclear black market, the sources said.

India, which conducted nuclear tests in 1998, has refrained from joining the NPT, saying the treaty is unfair as it grants only five countries, including the United States, the right to possess nuclear weapons.

Due to this situation, the United States had provided no nuclear-related technology to India.

Following the U.S. shift in position toward India, British Prime Minister Tony Blair offered nuclear technology cooperation for civilian use during a meeting with Singh last month.

dwaipayan · Post by **dwaipayan** » 23 Oct 2005 12:36

N-ties with India unique to us: America :

http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=56932

Paris, October 20: Washington's moves to cooperate with India, in developing nuclear energy, is a one-off situation based on India's "responsible" track record, which sets it apart from other aspiring nuclear powers, US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns has said.

"This cooperation that we're extending to India is unique to India. It is not going to be replicated to other countries," Burns said in Paris on Wednesday on the eve of a trip to India.

He said that India differed markedly from Iran or Pakistan, as it has not been a source of nuclear proliferation and had been "transparent" about its programme. He denied that Washington was employing double standards by opposing Iran's nuclear activities, while offering to help India with its own.

"If you look at India's record, actually it's the reverse of Iran's record. India has been a responsible country in safeguarding its nuclear technology over the past 30 years," he said at the US embassy in Paris.

Burns added, even though India was not a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, a deal to promote India's civil nuclear energy programme, would bring the country "into effective compliance with all the international norms" of non-proliferation.

Pakistan - though "an important country in the war against al-Qaeda" – was "a country that has proliferated in the past to a major degree", he said.

He added that "we have a relationship with Pakistan, but it doesn't extend to the kind of civil nuclear energy cooperation we intend to have with India."

Manne · Post by **Manne** » 24 Oct 2005 23:01

In case of Japan, it is a matter of "how dare you defy us" to a significant extent IMO. Everytime they have tried to pressurise India they have got the finger. In case of automobiles as well, they were not hot on India - Maruti not withstanding - and the Koreans rubbed it in. Their thinking appears to be "I give money, you listen to me". It may also have something to do with them perceiving Indians as "cheap-cheap-cheap" and lazy labour.

The re-processing market angle is new to me but that may well be a factor.

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 25 Oct 2005 00:01

That Obscure Object of Desire: Nuclear energy -- Rajeev Srinivasan

http://us.rediff.com/news/2005/oct/24ra ... &file=.htm

One of the biggest issues is lack of transparency, and conflicting statements. The Indian side has harangued critics, but hasn't come out with straight answers regarding the unseemly haste with which they are railroading the deal through the Indian Parliament, and how they appear to have been browbeaten by the Americans.

Manmohan Singh has issued anodyne statements assuring Indians that not all of India's civilian facilities will be turned over to the IAEA's intrusive inspections. However, that's not what the IAEA's ElBaradei thinks; and this is not what Nicholas Burns himself thinks. These two worthies, and George Perkovich (Vice President for Studies, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace), have gone on record saying that all of India's civilian facilities will be opened up under this deal. So who's dissimulating?

Let us note that the P-5 open up a grand total of a paltry 11 facilities to the IAEA for full inspection out of a total of 911 such facilities worldwide; yet India is being asked to open kimono. More apartheid, anyone?

Om_shiv · Post by **Om_shiv** » 25 Oct 2005 00:14

When talking about noseless creatures, one also have to realize that on their list of ugliest thing Indians probably come on top.

If you talk to any *nese, you would notice that they would again and again insult indians and indian civilization.

bala · Post by **bala** » 25 Oct 2005 01:54

India wants Pakistan under IAEA scanner

October 24, 2005

India Monday asked the Western world to take a view on the 'A Q Khan nuclear network' in Pakistan also while deciding on a position on the Iranian nuclear issue.

Ahead of the crucial second vote at the International Atomic Energy Agency on Iran in November, India said the nuclear watchdog should investigate the role of nuclear suppliers as well as recipients in nuclear proliferation.

Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran said in an address to experts at a seminar in New Delhi that it was important that remaining issues which involve Pakistan-based A Q Khan network, are satisfactorily clarified as well. He welcomed Iran's cooperation with the IAEA in accounting for previously undeclared activities.

'Our security interests have been seriously undermined by the clandestine nuclear weapons programme in our neighbourhood, aided and abetted, or at the least, selectively ignored by some NPT signatories. In seeking clarity on such clandestine activities, the international community must focus not merely on recipient states but on supplier states as well,'' he said.

Saran said it was neither in the interests of Iran or of the international community to have a confrontation on the issue. Efforts should be made to resume discussions and find a way out within the IAEA.

He reiterated that by voting against Iran at the first vote India had achieved the twin objective of avoiding a reference to the United Nations Security Council and also enable more time for discussions.

Bharat Rakshak

Opposition to the Indo-US nuclear cooperation agreement

Maya

Congressmen press Rice on US-India nuclear deal

N-ties with India unique to us: America :