India Nuclear News and Discussion - June 26-2007

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 13 Jul 2007 12:19

[quote]But the Americans have not even looked at this offer,â€

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 13 Jul 2007 22:04

I think its part hope and part wishful thinking.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 Jul 2007 22:15

[quote="ramdas"][quote]But the Americans have not even looked at this offer,â€

Ananth · Post by **Ananth** » 13 Jul 2007 22:50

Somebody is setting up AK as a fall guy. When will they learn??

Anyway, what is meant by the following term:

US Origin Spent Fuel

Suppose there is nut in a machine that is made totally in India, except for the nut, for reprossing the spent fuel which itself was imported from, lets say China. Now will that spent fuel be considered US origin. Where does one draw the line? Obviously if the U was imported from US it will be considered US origin. I am interested in how liberal US will be in interpreting the term "US origin spent fuel".

Now India by proposing a separate repro-facility for US origin is assuming that, there will be alternate sources for the fuel. What if that turns to be practically unfeasible?? Suppose a deal among P5 grants US the sole marketing rights for indian territory? What is the breakout option in such a scenario?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Jul 2007 23:14

I think the key is the counter/corresponding-key for NPA. What would you call a group of desi NPA (dNPA) that the dNPA's agenda is and only for desh specific, or its policy specific.

We can have hyde and what not congress? why not dNPA?

bala · Post by **bala** » 13 Jul 2007 23:30

Folks a note of caution on such psych ops articles. Why is it always some internal conflict between personalities on the Indian Side. Pitting Anil vs Narayan or some other. The Indian team has thus far stood by their stated stance quite well and I don't see that crumbling.

What about the US? Is everyone there on the same page as Nick Burns who actually tried burning the candle. Clearly now it is up to the US politicians and Rice to salvage what little there is in the US-India deal. Remember if the US fails at this endeavor the consequences are enormous. Firstly China would open gloat and become more defiant. Second the whole edifice of US-India relationship would fall apart and the US would turn a friendly India into adversary. The entire non-proliferation effort would fall apart without India's cooperation. Dealing with TSP would become another nightmare. At this stage I don't see the US succumbing to failure, instead it needs to go back to its original commitment and honor the terms and conditions of J18. That is the only way forward. Everyone understands this. How they accomplish this goal is up to the US not India.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 14 Jul 2007 00:49

At this stage I don't see the US succumbing to failure, instead it needs to go back to its original commitment and honor the terms and conditions of J18. That is the only way forward.

I don't believe that is the US view of the current state of affairs.
The US has already decided to push forward all its weapons and nuclear programs, and is concurrently trying to rollback programs of potential competitors like India. Like their recent renewal of the RRW program and the tentative striking down of projects to create more advanced nukes -- the project surely just went underground in the DoD rather than being canned. Secondly, the US is not about to grant reprocessing rights to India at this time -- guaranteed. The democrats control the senate and expecting them to allow reprocessing is pretty unrealistic, since when they hear the word "reprocessing", their brains translates that to "unlimited WGPu", and this attitude is not about to change.

The US is prepared to knife this deal right now, but the GoI seems to have wishful thinking on its part, which is why it is forwarding "new proposals" that are being studiously ignored by the US --- one would think Indian diplomats would have the intuition to see where their proposals are going end up given the US's cold shoulder to it.

The problem in India seems to be that the congresswallahs (including the PM) look at the deal as some sort of political legacy of the good sort, and more likely various Indian business interests have coughed up some electoral campaign funds to the UPA/Congress party with the expectation of pushing this deal through. This is probably why the Indian side is insisting on finding "alternate approaches" to push the deal through, while the US has decided to walk away from the "deal" unless India signs up for the NPT+CTBT+FMCT etc.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 14 Jul 2007 01:17

Rye wrote:[

The problem in India seems to be that the congresswallahs (including the PM) look at the deal as some sort of political legacy of the good sort, and more likely various Indian business interests have coughed up some electoral campaign funds to the UPA/Congress party with the expectation of pushing this deal through. This is probably why the Indian side is insisting on finding "alternate approaches" to push the deal through, while the US has decided to walk away from the "deal" unless India signs up for the NPT+CTBT+FMCT etc.

I mostly agree with you, but don't you think one of the reasons why US is interested in this bogus 'deal' is for business reasons? So US businesses also have a stake in this. But if Bush is able to forgoe business inteersts in favor of supreme national interests, i.e., India sign NPT+CTBT+FMCT etc or no deal, it is indeed commendable, something the Indian side ought to emulate.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 14 Jul 2007 01:46

CRamS wrote:

I mostly agree with you, but don't you think one of the reasons why US is interested in this bogus 'deal' is for business reasons?

There is nothing wrong with that, and such an agreement based on economic cooperation would have been a good thing. I use the word "bogus" to describe this "deal" only because the advertisement (J18) does not match the final product (Hyde Act).

So US businesses also have a stake in this. But if Bush is able to forgoe business inteersts in favor of supreme national interests, i.e., India sign NPT+CTBT+FMCT etc or no deal, it is indeed commendable, something the Indian side ought to emulate.

Both sides have made it pretty clear where their red lines are citing national interests on both sides, and the US has additionally made it clear that its redline as enacted by the Hyde Act is not going to be moved. This behaviour of the GOTUS actually makes some sense if there was any truth to the rumour that it was the UPA that approached the GOTUS for this deal.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 14 Jul 2007 01:47

bala wrote:Folks a note of caution on such psych ops articles. Why is it always some internal conflict between personalities on the Indian Side. Pitting Anil vs Narayan or some other. The Indian team has thus far stood by their stated stance quite well and I don't see that crumbling.

What about the US? Is everyone there on the same page as Nick Burns who actually tried burning the candle. Clearly now it is up to the US politicians and Rice to salvage what little there is in the US-India deal. Remember if the US fails at this endeavor the consequences are enormous. Firstly China would open gloat and become more defiant. Second the whole edifice of US-India relationship would fall apart and the US would turn a friendly India into adversary. The entire non-proliferation effort would fall apart without India's cooperation. Dealing with TSP would become another nightmare. At this stage I don't see the US succumbing to failure, instead it needs to go back to its original commitment and honor the terms and conditions of J18. That is the only way forward. Everyone understands this. How they accomplish this goal is up to the US not India.

The key consequence of the bolded sentence is the message that US couldnot/wouldnot find someone to counter PRC. The onus is on the US.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Jul 2007 02:00

Folks a note of caution on such psych ops articles. Why is it always some internal conflict between personalities on the Indian Side. Pitting Anil vs Narayan or some other.

PMO is pitting. Besides there has been a trend. All anyone is doing is to read that trend. It goes back to at least Feb of 2006.

What about the US? Is everyone there on the same page as Nick Burns who actually tried burning the candle.

Yes they are.

Clearly now it is up to the US politicians and Rice to salvage what little there is in the US-India deal. Remember if the US fails at this endeavor the consequences are enormous. Firstly China would open gloat and become more defiant. Second the whole edifice of US-India relationship would fall apart and the US would turn a friendly India into adversary.

Why?

The entire non-proliferation effort would fall apart without India's cooperation. Dealing with TSP would become another nightmare. At this stage I don't see the US succumbing to failure,

I do not see the US succumbing to failure, However, I can see India succumbing to US pressures.

instead it needs to go back to its original commitment and honor the terms and conditions of J18.

That is what Anil has been saying from the start.

THE problem is that MMS did not and is not.

That is the only way forward. Everyone understands this. How they accomplish this goal is up to the US not India.

That is what most said when the Hyde Act was passed. You are still saying that. Rice has said to the contrary.

Ob proliferation, follow AK: Uranium = proliferation, thorium = non-proliferation.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 14 Jul 2007 02:19

Well chinks in the gloat becomes a workable psy-op for "us" to be tamed could not be the message, be it the onus on any one of "US"(us). I think, India endangering our surroundings is out of question even if say, we can handle all P5 major cities with one launch window. I doubt pretty much, if we keep our tabs on our economy correct, then chinks get better armor.

I think I'd agree to a psy-op agenda that is dNPA centric, and we could channelize and institutionalize our thoughts thru these chain-of-gurus. Ideal websites and public discussion forums and especially from the mil junta, could nominate ranks for such dNPA members, that guide us thru to a level playing field. It is important to have premium psy-op-ers, +ve and -ve thinkers that enable us to see thru what we intend to see down the future.

One little sensation from BARC, could turn everything here entirely reverse, and "they" would become seekers. Thats more powerful than anything else, even "they" have.

bala · Post by **bala** » 14 Jul 2007 02:48

Despite all the nuances I believe India is prepared to walk away from the deal if reprocessing and testing are not included. Maybe this outcome will happen.

The jockeying in press and elsewhere is for the blame game and people are protecting self. The US will blame India for the failure. Indian politicians, not wanting to be seen as the cause for the failure and being the usual scumbags, are setting up scapegoats. If the deal fails then IMO the US is completely to be blamed. If they were never serious in the first place then going through all this chai biskoot sessions is a bloody waste and the aftermath is going to even more bitter. My 2 cents.

nkumar · Post by **nkumar** » 14 Jul 2007 02:59

Bala, I tend to agree with you. Indian politicians are taking AK to US to hedge their bets against the failure of the deal. This theory is further corroborated by the test of Sagarika and the announcement to increase the range of Agni to 6000 kms. Basically, MMS and congresswallas are covering their ass now.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Jul 2007 03:03

Despite all the nuances I believe India is prepared to walk away from the deal if reprocessing and testing are not included. Maybe this outcome will happen.

The point is not India walking or not walking.

Why is that the GoI allowed something like the Hyde Act to happen in the first place? And, if the argument is that India had no control, then why did she not shoot it down in Dec of 2006?

Walking away now - when the US has not budged even a wee bit since the Hyde Act - should be a given. India should have walked away then - when they knew that the Hyde Act did not meet J18.

So, who in India decided to negotiate with the Hyde Act? Certainly not the scicoms.

In fact, based on the noise the scicoms made and are making it leads one to believe that there were parties within GoI that were willing to sign off on some portions, if not all, of the Hyde Act.

That is the point.

vsudhir · Post by **vsudhir** » 14 Jul 2007 03:08

nkumar wrote:Bala, I tend to agree with you. Indian politicians are taking AK to US to hedge their bets against the failure of the deal. This theory is further corroborated by the test of Sagarika and the announcement to increase the range of Agni to 6000 kms. Basically, MMS and congresswallas are covering their ass now.

Paradoxically, history suggests that such adversity and crises (tech denials, snubs, exclusions etc) have spurred indigenous capabilities by essentially opening up political will, generous funding and an establishment consensus around indigenous capabilities.

For good or ill, our mahaan desh is destined to climb the stair of progress one crisis at a time.....

Jai Maharashtr

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 14 Jul 2007 03:10

I suggest folks trawl the net and post the stories here as the story is moving fast.

Deccan Chronicle, 14 July 2007

Nuke dealâ€™s fate to be determined

New Delhi, July 13: The next week will determine the fate of the civilian nuclear energy agreement with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and US President George W. Bush together giving it one last push by arranging for consultations between the top officials of both governments. Sources said that if the discussions were unable to overcome the remaining hurdles and report substantive progress in finalising the 123 agreement, it was "highly unlikely that the deal would be realised within the tenure of the Bush administration".

The composition of the Indian team â€” national security adviser M.K. Narayanan, foreign secretary Shiv Shankar Menon and Department of Atomic Energy chief Anil Kakodkar â€” is in itself an indication of the seriousness with which the government views the Washington talks next week. The Indian team leaves for the US on Sunday.

Prime Minister Singh is in complete charge and, by his own admission, has cleared the delegation that does not include his special envoy for the nuclear deal, Mr Shyam Saran, who is now reportedly no longer involved in the nuclear parleys. External affairs minister Pranab Mukherjee has also chosen to maintain a stoic silence on the nuclear agreement after his last statement where he shifted the deadline to a possible "early next year".

Dr Kakodkar is a late addition as Dr Singh had spoken to reporters recently about sending only Mr Narayanan and Mr Menon. This inclusion has sparked off speculation in strategic circles that the government is close to a resolution and wants the atomic energy chief to be on board at this stage itself. A meeting convened by the government recently of serving nuclear scientists made it very clear that there was no acceptability for a nuclear agreement that cut into the sovereign Indian nuclear programme.

A couple of retired nuclear scientists who were invited, including Dr P.K. Iyengar and Dr H.N. Sethna, were unable to attend. It was made clear at the meeting, however, that the objections to the nuclear deal and the Hyde Act were wide-ranging and no one present was in a mood to endorse a compromise.

The former Atomic Energy Commission chief, Dr Iyengar, told this correspondent from Mumbai that the government should be aware of the nationâ€™s point of view and not take any steps to dilute Indian sovereignty.

He said it appeared that the external affairs ministry had stopped adhering even to stipulated government of India functioning as either minutes of meetings with a foreign government were not kept or were not being followed in this case. Referring to former foreign secretary Shyam Saranâ€™s assertion that Indiaâ€™s position would be as good as a nuclear weapons state, Dr Iyengar said that if this was based on the minutes of the meetings between the two sides, then there should have been no problem in ensuring this by now. He said the same differences were noticeable in the separation plan and it seemed as if all discussions were being carried out in an ad hoc manner.

Both Prime Minister Singh and President Bush have made it clear that the political will to finalise the nuclear deal is strong, and the necessary instructions have been issued to the officials to find a way out of the hurdles, imposed by Parliament and the United States Congress respectively, by presenting an effective compromise.

The CPI(M) has reiterated its position that the Hyde Act should be amended before the deal can be discussed further. The BJP and the Left have made it particularly clear that Parliament must be kept in the loop.

Looks like MEA agreed to Chatham House rules of Track II diplomacy while conducting Track I diplomacy. Maybe they did this to be nice guys but were surprized at the Hyde (Bound) Act. and uncle is now saying show us the notes. No wonder Saran has been switched.

PKI is a scientist but is also a former bureaucrat who ran the AEC so he knows what he is talking about.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Jul 2007 03:29

Two serious issues that add to the fractures within GoI:

It was made clear at the meeting, however, that the objections to the nuclear deal and the Hyde Act were wide-ranging and no one present was in a mood to endorse a compromise.

So, Scicom is still not onboard.

and

He said it appeared that the external affairs ministry had stopped adhering even to stipulated government of India functioning as either minutes of meetings with a foreign government were not kept or were not being followed in this case.

This will allow the PMO to escape any fallout.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 14 Jul 2007 03:41

I wanted to write this earlier when kakkaji said AK is in the delegation.

Some how I suspect if he goes there to spin city he will develop
"myocardial infarction" with fatal results.

I hope he drops out of going to spin city.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 14 Jul 2007 04:03

Satya_anveshi wrote:No. He is representing DAE and I also assume he has PK Iyengar, Sethna and Sreenivasan's (three former chairmen of DAE), entire scientific community and few of India's well wishers support behind him.

You're missing my point. When you look at Reagan-Gorbachev negotiations on INF Treaty, or Carter-Brezhnev negotiations on SALT-II, etc, the political burden isn't put on the technical personnel, but rather borne by the politicians.

In India's "buck-stops-anywhere-but-with-me" style of leadership-from-the-back, the politicians want to hide behind their technocrats, experts and underlings.

Why should the politician place blame on the technical expert for pointing out the obvious shortcomings? It's like blaming your doctor for the cancer diagnosis - don't shoot the messenger.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Jul 2007 06:18

Sorry if this is a duplicate post:

May 4, 2007 :: Special feature, BARC at 50

* Robust Centre
* Total Self-Sufficiency in PHWR Programme
* Fountainhead of Research
* Burning Bacteria
* Innovative Reactor

vsudhir · Post by **vsudhir** » 14 Jul 2007 06:49

The N-deal is dead. Hiding behind straight shooting techies says as much.

Why? Because washing hands off a bad deal using the techie as shield phir bhi carries muster where the neta's POV is concerned.

But facing loud allegations of sellout and treason at home come poll season by pushing through a bad deal by fooling the techie won't fly very far.

JMTs of course.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 14 Jul 2007 06:52

Its not dead until its dead. Is this the avuncular AK visit that the US lobbyist wanted?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Jul 2007 07:13

AKs role has not been defined for this trip. Moreover, he has standing with IAEA. Ramana, what you say did cross my mind. It is actually possible, based on what PKI stated, the Congressional exchange has not even started. So possibly there is value to be added on that leg?

But, what is intriguing is that Dr. Grover was supposed to come and someone suggested AK instead. It probably means what the other report suggested: it is dead IF they cannot agree to something on this trip. AK can add on-the-spot value and IF it does not work out, no use putting any more effort into it.

But given that the US is obstinate about its position, and that India has been through all possible gyrations it will be difficult to come to an agreement. Realise that what India has proposed - a US specific recycling effort - goes against the Hyde Act.

The Hyde Act is so iron clad that either the US has hamstrung itself out of a great possible future relationship or India has to join the main stream and give up her efforts to be independent and thorium based.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 14 Jul 2007 07:16

Nrao, parkalam. Lets see. US might go back to the agreement if they want the deal.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Jul 2007 07:31

US, blinks? Sole super power blinks? That is admitting that the Hyde Act was poorly formulated. Bush could be leaning that way, but does not have enough power to do that right now. Even Repubs are leaning on him on Iraq.

But then you may know something I do not. Hope so.

nkumar · Post by **nkumar** » 14 Jul 2007 07:34

Pardon my ignorance, I have a question:

Does the J18 agreement addresses all our concerns as far as reprocessing, testing, CTBT, FMCT, NPT, MTCR ?

What do we lose if we sign the agreement according to J18 statement?

Enlightenment needed.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Jul 2007 07:40

nkumar wrote:Pardon my ignorance, I have a question:

Does the J18 agreement addresses all our concerns as far as reprocessing, testing, CTBT, FMCT, NPT, MTCR ?

What do we lose if we sign the agreement according to J18 statement?

Enlightenment needed.

If you ask me - yes. That was India's expectations.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 14 Jul 2007 09:30

Nk what is being offered is the Hyde based agreement. J18 is not on the table from US side. Hyde was enacted to augment the J18 lacunae.

Sanatanan · Post by **Sanatanan** » 14 Jul 2007 10:00

NRao wrote:

May 4, 2007 :: Special feature, BARC at 50

* Robust Centre
* Total Self-Sufficiency in PHWR Programme
* Fountainhead of Research
* Burning Bacteria
* Innovative Reactor

Author (T.S. Subramanian) of the article ("Special feature, BARC at 50" - ebfl20070504part5.pdf) cited by NRao, has titled it "Total self-sufficiency in PHWR programme" - Interview with Dr Srikumar Banerjee, Director BARC. Nevertheless, reeading the article further one finds that what Dr Banerjee has actually said is:

In the nuclear power area, the three-stage programme was outlined only in the late 1960's. At that time, India's capability of being totally self-sufficient in the PHWR programme was not established. A major thing that has happened from the early 1970's until today has been achieving self-sufficiency in the total technology development of the PHWR.

thereby seeming to indicate that the indigenisation process is still on-going. Hence one may be in error in concluding that total self-sufficiency has already been achieved.

Although I am not immediately able to get references in the Internet to it, I recollect that DAE (and its power projects wings) used to claim that PHWRs being built in India are about 85% indigenous. I would assume that this figure is based merely on the cost of Indian and imported items, directly procured by DAE, and does not include the import component of the items supplied by Indian contractors; neither does it factor the importance of the imported item. While there might be a strong tradition in BARC for indigenisation, the same is perhaps not true of DAE's PSUs which place a greater emphasis on completing a project at the earliest, and not on indigenisation. With more and more systems and items being 'contracted out', the level of imports are at best likely to remain at 15%, if not actually greater. If the importance to the project of the imported items is taken into account, the actual 'weighted-value' is likely to be much greater than 15%. Recently there were reports in the news media that the latest Kaiga reactors had got delayed as a result of non-supply of some equipment that had been ordered abroad.

Why is this aspect important? It is important because, the very fact that these (15%) items have not been indigenised so far indicates that they are quite technology-intensive and require a higher level of R&D as well as investment than what private entrepreneurs in India would be willing to deploy. On account of possible failures before success is achieved, investment in indigenisation is generally perceived to be risky by the private sector in India.

My suspicion is that it is this facet that is the driving force for the Deal. It is entirely possible that some people would prefer to follow a shortsighted policy and accept a deal with all kinds of demeaning conditions rather than work harder towards reducing the import content. We now know that "unavailability" of Nat U in our country to fuel PHWRs was only a contrived excuse. My credo is that an item should be imported only if it is definitely cheaper to buy from abroad, and not just because it cannot currently be made in India.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 14 Jul 2007 10:01

VP Singh Wants Requirement for Parliamentary Approval on N-Deal:

link

That makes sense to me. Too bad it took a duffer like VP Singh to say it.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 14 Jul 2007 10:01

Hyde was enacted to augment the J18 lacunae.

What lacunae? That India be treated as a partner and not targetted. All Hyde does is target India.

I'm of the opinion that the US is not budging from Hyde and in principle India cannot abide by Hyde. It might be otherwise in practice (from India's side). Everything I have read points to India compromising its position because I have not seen ONE SINGLE SIGN of the US budging whereas I have seen plenty of India whining and trying to please the US by coming up with one suggestion after another which the US promptly shoots down.

J18 or bust should be the Indian position (except that unfortunately MMS is in charge). Hyde or bust is the US position.

There can be no meeting ground.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 14 Jul 2007 10:18

What's the point in letting negotiations drag on -- it only makes us look weak, like beggars.

Why didn't we just bite the bullet and walk out of the talks? Or -- wait -- were we waiting for an ECOSYSTEM of understanding to develop? Pfft.

I think the best way to press our case is to push ahead with our indigenous program. That way the Americans will see that the clock is ticking, with time on our side, not theirs.

How much would it take to built another Kalpakkam? Why can't we start work on 3 more Kalpakkams right now?

sunilUpa · Post by **sunilUpa** » 14 Jul 2007 10:23

Neil King reports on WSJ. Posting in full.

President Bush has known for months that he would have to pay a price to solidify his long-touted partnership with India. He is about to find out how much.

After months of trying to resolve deep divisions, the nations are set to make a final push next week to seal a pact opening the door to deeper political, military and commercial ties between the U.S. and India, a nation with more than a billion people and a rapidly growing economy. At its heart lies a controversial proposal to provide New Delhi with nuclear fuel and technology, which critics say could undermine international efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.

Negotiations have dragged on, often acrimoniously, since it was announced on the South Lawn of the White House two years ago. National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley is scheduled to meet next week at the White House with his Indian counterpart, N.K. Narayanan, in what Indian diplomats said could be several days of tough negotiations. Leading the U.S. talks will be Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, the U.S. point man for the nuclear deal.

The question is whether the administration can hammer out a compromise on nuclear cooperation that doesn't undercut existing U.S. law or give India leeway to develop a new batch of atomic weapons on top of the ones it already has. India is demanding several painful concessions, U.S. officials and experts said, that are almost certain to anger key leaders in Congress from both parties.

Hanging in the balance in the nuclear-and-technology proposal are tens of billions of dollars in potential energy, aircraft and other deals, U.S. business executives said. India is looking to build dozens of new electricity plants and to drastically increase its military hardware over the next five years.

India's energy minister has been traveling the U.S. talking up $50 billion worth of energy deals India plans to award over this period, and another $200 billion of deals down the road. U.S. aircraft makers are lining up to vie for a 126-plane fighter-aircraft deal that could be worth up to $10 billion over the next several years.

India is also floating a potential $30 billion of nuclear-reactor sales over the next 20 years, piquing the attention of companies such as General Electric Co. and Westinghouse Electric Co.

"This deal is very very important to both countries," says Bill Begert, vice-president at Pratt & Whitney, a unit of United Technologies Co., which hopes to supply engines for the fighter-jet deal. "If this falls apart, it will have real near-term consequences for everyone in the defense industry."

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, as well as companies such as GE and Boeing Co., said they are ready to launch a big lobbying campaign to persuade Congress to bless the final deal, as soon as any compromise is nailed down. "All the right tom-toms are beating for a successful conclusion to this deal, which will be huge for U.S. companies," said Ron Somers, head of the U.S.-India Business Council within the U.S. Chamber.

The campaign could face stiff opposition from a number of lawmakers, including the Democratic and Republican leaders of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, who have raised an alarm over India's military and economic ties to Iran. New Delhi is cooperating with Tehran on a proposed natural-gas pipeline from Iran across Pakistan to India. But India has also supported efforts to keep Tehran from developing a nuclear weapon.

Pakistan, a longtime Indian rival with nuclear arms of its own, presents another foreign-policy wrinkle. The neighbors nearly went to war as recently as 2002, and any advances in India's nuclear capabilities could further unsettle the government of President Gen. Pervez Musharraf, currently beset by countrywide protests after he cracked down on the judiciary and ordered the siege of a fundamentalist, activist mosque in Islamabad.

Pakistan also has sought similar consideration from Washington, but was rebuffed because it has secretly provided nuclear technology to other nations.

Many U.S. lawmakers also have vowed to oppose any deal that loosens restrictions on how India can use U.S.-provided nuclear fuel.

The stakes are high for Mr. Bush's embattled foreign policy. Aides often cite the thawing of relations with India as a key accomplishment of his presidency at a time of deep frustration in the Middle East and rising tensions with powers such as Russia and China. The nuclear deal, they say, is key to cementing a partnership between the world's oldest democracy, the U.S., and its largest, India, after decades of chilliness.

For years, India was close to the Soviet Union and a leader of the anti-U.S. nonaligned movement. Until recently it was also openly hostile to outside investors.

The U.S. also hopes to nurture India as a bulwark against China's growing military and economic power in Asia. While U.S.-Indian political ties have lagged, bilateral economic and trade relations have grown rapidly in recent years -- albeit, not as fast as U.S.-China trade ties. India's huge infrastructure and procurement needs have been especially tantalizing to American companies. U.S. exports to India rose 25% last year, to $10 billion, from the previous year, while imports from India were up 16% to $21.8 billion.

Mr. Bush's efforts to support India's nuclear program have stirred huge controversy since he announced the proposed deal with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in 2005.

India has never signed the global pact for controlling the spread of nuclear technologies, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. New Delhi stunned the international community in 1998 when it conducted three underground nuclear tests in the deserts of Rajasthan state. The U.S. responded swiftly with economic sanctions.

Critics said that by embracing India's nuclear program, the U.S. is weakening international efforts to deter countries such as Iran from becoming nuclear states. The White House argued that India is an exception, as a democracy and as a country with no record of selling nuclear materials abroad.

In December, a wary Congress finally passed legislation that ratified nuclear cooperation with India. The Hyde Act, as it is called, imposed numerous restrictions on how India could utilize U.S. nuclear supplies. India has expressed particular distaste for provisions that seek to punish it if it conducts any future nuclear tests. If India does test, the Act requires Washington to demand that New Delhi return all nuclear material or equipment provided by U.S. suppliers.

India also wants to scrap language that prohibits it from reprocessing any fuel provided for power plants, which might then make it suitable for use in weapons. And India opposes a requirement that the U.S. president annually certify that it is complying with the rules; New Delhi says that provision would lead to constant meddling in its nuclear program.

Indian diplomats declined to discuss specifics of what they will push for next week, but said this round of talks could prove critical. "We don't want to prejudge the results, but we have been making steady progress," said Rahul Chhabra, a spokesman for India in Washington. "We look forward to sealing this at the earliest possible date."

A senior U.S. official involved in the talks said he is optimistic a deal would be completed -- "if not next week, then soon." He also said the U.S. would make no concessions that would run counter to the Hyde Act. "We will honor every aspect of the Hyde Act."

Other U.S. diplomats working on India put the chances for passage at not much better than 50-50. They said the process has increasingly been held hostage to political crosswinds in Congress and the Indian parliament. A collapse of the talks, said one U.S. official working on India affairs, "would seriously undercut our hopes for the relationship."

The fact that the talks are now being handled at the highest political levels, though, suggests to some that tough concessions may be coming.

"It's pretty clear that the whole point of India taking this to the White House is to try to get the president to bend the existing law," said George Perkovich, an expert on India's nuclear program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "There is an element of desperation to all this."

Some skeptics argue that the benefits of providing nuclear technology are overblown, since diplomatic relations have already have improved markedly and India's economy is steadily opening.

"All of the advantages of this agreement are already under way. They are already happening," said Henry Sokolski, head of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, a Washington-based policy organization.

Highly unlikely that negotiations will drag on much further.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 14 Jul 2007 11:05

Tell me, what is the progress on India's other innovative nuclear research project -- the SST-1 superconductive tokamak?

These days, experimental tokamak fusion reactors have come very close to breakeven, but clearly aren't ready to generate commercial levels of power.

However, they do nevertheless generate lots and lots of neutrons.

Couldn't a breakeven tokamak be used as a neutron source on a thorium blanket, for breeder purposes?

If nothing else, we can at least build up our U233 supply.

Any idea what the numbers would look like, in terms of rates of fissile material gains?

Manne · Post by **Manne** » 14 Jul 2007 13:31

Folks,

Please understand - with scicom standing solidly united and the likes of MRS, PKI and ANP - not to mention AK himself - having written such crystal clear articles for such a long period of time, it will be next to impossible for anyone in GoI to invite AK and then sideline him. There will be consequences to such an action and it would be difficult to imagine MKN not being aware of this. Also, if Grover was a thorn in London, what is to say AK is going to be easier? He is known to be a no-nonsense person who always gets his point across no matter how less he speaks. If he is sidelined, scicom and the media will come to know without any ambiguity. If at all, it is the americans who need to be wary. Not us. You see, otherwise GoI could and would have kept entire AEC/DAE lineup outside of the talks.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Jul 2007 17:19

thereby seeming to indicate that the indigenisation process is still on-going. Hence one may be in error in concluding that total self-sufficiency has already been achieved

In thorium as a core fuel, who is ahead? Indian scicom claims are in proportion to what they have done so far and what they propose to do.

it will be next to impossible for anyone in GoI to invite AK and then sideline him

It is what they have DONE so far that prompts some of us to make some of these comments.

That the GoI failed so far is due to the tenacity of the Scicom and God's Grace, IMHO.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 14 Jul 2007 17:49

Not sure if you notice that latest DAE Annual Report 06-07 is out:

DAE Annual Report 2006 - 07

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Jul 2007 18:15

This has nothing to do with the nuke deal, but IMHO could and should impact India's position. Finally we are seeing what we should have seen long ago - water finding it's own level: US and UK 'no longer inseparable' and Russia suspends arms control pact

World re-order. Negotiate this deal with that in mind. US Congress cannot set that agenda (anymore?). NPAs ki bat chod-hi doo.

Manav · Post by **Manav** » 14 Jul 2007 19:04

In a previous post sivab put up an article by M. V. Srinivasan in which the author stated:

"The Hyde Act suggests that India work with the U.S. on the early conclusion of a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty. India has in the past favoured an FMCT that is universal, non-discriminatory, and verifiable. The U.S. is objecting to international verification and is insisting on its national verification measures as being the final arbiter. What the U.S. wishes to do is to be an umpire in addition to being a player, which is simply illogical. Whenever an FMCT comes into effect, India must ensure the fissile material in the spent fuel storages is kept outside the treaty and only prospective production is included."

What the U.S. wishes to do is to be an umpire in addition to being a player, which is simply illogical..?

Not quite.

There is another way of looking at this. The US and India are not playing the same game. In other words, the deals means different things for the two parties involved.

For the US game is 'umpiring' - not playing an umpired game. In fact, the US wants to decide who can play the nuclear game in the first place. India, on the other hand, wants to be a player in the international civilian/ military nuclear field - with others and (aside from the military applications) welcomes international cooperation. Maybe this is the reason why Srinivasan thinks it looks 'illogical'. Regardless, the basic wrangle is about that. Under no circumstances does the US want anyone else playing the umpiring game and that includes India (which despite the recent warmup of relations is not really trusted by the US - who does the US trust anyway).

As for the outcome of the latest round of negotiations, it is in America's interest to get the deal through. India can (like its past history demonstrates) pull through (albeit at a high cost), but what options do the Americans have? Label India as a rogue state? Highly unlikely. Sanction India? (No reason to and in today's business climate (especially in the US) it very very unlikely!)

As nrao puts it above: A re-ordering of the world is underway!

Bharat Rakshak

India Nuclear News and Discussion - June 26-2007

U.S.-India Talks On Nuclear Pact Enter Endgame