Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 25 Jun 2008 04:24

Here is the cutie pie

The PFBR Saftey Vessel (Admins: I dont know how to post this image... this is from a telugu news paper)

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 25 Jun 2008 04:35

USofA would have a right to take back spent/reprocessed fuel back from India if the deal is terminated.

Of course, no community in the USA would agree to store this. Does the US even have port facilities equipped to handle spent fuel?
They would probably have to use the UK Sellafield facilities....

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Jun 2008 05:36

Once again we have on this thread a couple of people who have started joking about the PM. We have been down that path once before in this discussion.

No more.

Both the user who made the comment and his cheerleaders supporter who added comments have been warned privately and the posts deleted.

Please think before you post.

sunilUpa · Post by **sunilUpa** » 25 Jun 2008 06:57

Sleeping With The Enemy, by K Subrahmanyam

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Jun 2008 06:59

Prabu wrote:
ramdas wrote:Dr. P. K. Iyengar, Dr. A. N. Prasad and Dr. A Gopalakrishnan, all of whom were very senior DAE authorities, have opposed the deal. That alone should be enough reason to stop this deal from proceeding further. The commies have so far been doing the nation a great service on this issue. Hope they succeed in scuttling the deal completely.

This should be the last nail in the coffin !

Well the first nail was Bhishma Pitamah himself - who is strongly against the deal. That should have been enough.

amit · Post by **amit** » 25 Jun 2008 07:01

ramdas wrote: The commies have so far been doing the nation a great service on this issue. Hope they succeed in scuttling the deal completely.

Please see the Muslim reaction to the CPI(M) comment on Muslims being opposed to the deal

Noomani acknowledged that there are questions about the deal. “It’s true that there are many in the community who are suspicious about the American involvement in the deal but in every community there will be those who oppose it and who support it. The issue is not whether the deal is good or bad. The issue is why has the CPM singled out Muslims? It’s high time the CPM realizes that national interest is more important than ideological interest. They can go on supporting China but don’t use the Muslim community to make their case,” he said.

And:

The Jamaat-e-Islami, which has been opposing the deal right from the beginning, is also angry at Pandhe’s remarks. “We oppose the deal because we feel it is not in the national interest. But it’s wrong of the CPM to club the nuclear deal with the Muslim community. It only communalises the issue,” said S Q R Illyasi, spokesperson of Jamaat-e-Islami.

“Left parties are using the shoulders of the Muslims to pursue their own agenda. The deal is strictly a political and diplomatic issue between two sovereign governments so how can it be linked to Islam or any other religion?’” said Maulana Khalid Rashid, Naib imam of the Idgah Lucknow.

It seems that Uncle Jiang has raised his left eyebrow and the Commies are quaking in their pyjamas or dhotis, depending on which part of India they come from, and hence they bring out their Ace from their jholas - the Muslim card - like true champions of Mother India.

Maulana Khalid Rashid and Moulana Abdul Hameed Noomani are more patriotic Indians than... Oh never mind. The same post praising the communists will appear in the next page of this thread.

Another question, three former scientists are opposed to the deal. How is it that their opinion carries more value than others like Kalam who have supported the deal?

Is this case one of seeing what you want to see and closing your eyes on what you don't want to see?

vsudhir · Post by **vsudhir** » 25 Jun 2008 07:22

I think Delhi should sign the deal.

Let LKA declare the BJP will abstain in any left initiated confidence vote in parliament. In return, would be nice if MMS could declare that the final deal will come to the LS for a vote.

Both the NDA and the INC have a common interest in disempowering the communists. Time they made common cause, perhaps.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Jun 2008 07:36

vsudhir wrote: Let LKA declare the BJP will abstain in any left initiated confidence vote in parliament. In return, would be nice if MMS could declare that the final deal will come to the LS for a vote.

Why say anything. Keep everyone in suspense and let people beg.

Just see how things work. It was the left that boldly said that they would bring the govt down and a few days later the left, led by Bhishma Pitamah himself were sitting like good boys in front of M. Karunanidhi asking for his support.

Tilak · Post by **Tilak** » 25 Jun 2008 08:20

Bhailog

Listen to the following audio, as to where India might be heading..

Nuclear Disarmament
George Schultz and Hans Blix

Topics : FMCT - CTBT - Nuclear Weapon Reliability - Laser Ignition Facilities - KASHMIR - IRAN - **THORIUM CYCLE**
World Affairs Council
April 4th 2008
File Format : mp3
Site : FileFront

amit · Post by **amit** » 25 Jun 2008 08:25

Would it be too much of conspiracy theory mongering to find eerie similarity between M K Pandhe's Muslim card and what seft declared spokespersons for the average Abdul Mian - like Seema Mustafa - have been selling as snake oil? To wit that all Indian Muslims are against the US of A and hence against the N-deal.

And so for the sake of communal harmony (the politically correct name for minoritism) India should not touch the N-deal with a bargepole. QED.

I know politics makes for strange bed fellows but BJP must be wondering what they did to be seen on the same side of the fence as these fellows!

Vsudhir, I agree with you. It's time the BJP and Congress put aside petty differences and do something for the good of the country.

To paraphrase N^3 famous slogan for TSP: Save India, defeat the Communists!

Tilak · Post by **Tilak** » 25 Jun 2008 08:45

amit wrote:I know politics makes for strange bed fellows but BJP must be wondering what they did to be seen on the same side of the fence as these fellows!

Talking of "Bedfellows", I thought Mr. Abhishek Manu was the one who who was hollering that their relationship with Left was "Pati Patni aur Woh(BJP)" and that "honeymoon" would go on, to keep out "communalist forces/brigades" and "maut ke saudagars"

MF Hussain and Teesta get National Awards.., Tasleema got the boot. Singur got buried all the while "Ram didn't exist".

:AOT:

amit · Post by **amit** » 25 Jun 2008 09:02

Tilak wrote:Talking of "Bedfellows", I thought Mr. Abhishek Manu was the one who who was hollering that their relationship with Left was "Pati Patni aur Woh(BJP)" and that "honeymoon" would go on, to keep out "communalist forces/brigades" and "maut ke saudagars"

MF Hussain and Teesta get National Awards.., Tasleema got the boot. Singur got buried all the while "Ram didn't exist".

:AOT:

Tilak,

If you read my post to being a sort of indirect plug for the Congress, then I'm afraid you were off the mark.

I hold no beef for the Congress and I think the biggest mistake they did was to think they could run a government with the Communists supporting them from outside. I personally would have held more hope of finding life Mars rather than that experiment being successful.

However, while the BJP has every right to oppose the Nuclear deal if they think it's against (what they percieve) National interest, they have done very little to differenciate their opposition to the deal from the CPI(M)'s opposition.

Finally, as a Bengali I hang my head in shame to see how Tasleema has been treated. She's a very so, so author but hat's off to her bravery and shame on Buddhadev Bhattacharya, the grandson of one of Bengal's famous poets and a person who considers himself to be part of the Intellectual mileu.

Raju · Post by **Raju** » 25 Jun 2008 09:02

John Snow wrote:"uncle said dot tell anyone in your country ". Uncle says, Anyway I will tell my congress about this agreement as they have to know otherwise they will Hyde me alive. People of India who are interested can then google and find out anyway. no?

...

ha..we are also supposing that none from the US Congress side is capable of informing the Chinese, isn't it.

the area of concern is that India is not really an overt nuclear power that has its as public knowledge the size and extent of its arsenal. Just like that wasn't explained to the public in our greater interest (what else?). It needn't be explained to the public how we are going to be disarmed too.

secret nukes .. secret de-nuking.
public does not need to know anything.
We will take care of everything saar.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 25 Jun 2008 09:12

Gerard wrote:
USofA would have a right to take back spent/reprocessed fuel back from India if the deal is terminated.
Of course, no community in the USA would agree to store this. Does the US even have port facilities equipped to handle spent fuel?
They would probably have to use the UK Sellafield facilities....

You are right it would be practically impossible and way too expansive for USofA to take back any of the equipments or material.

Tilak · Post by **Tilak** » 25 Jun 2008 09:33

amit wrote:I hold no beef for the Congress and I think the biggest mistake they did was to think they could run a government with the Communists supporting them from outside. I personally would have held more hope of finding life Mars rather than that experiment being successful.

You call it a 'mistake', I call it a conscious choice. Even now, the deal is not going ahead, as the Congress doesn't want to loose a post-poll partner in the Left. Talk about aligning with a "traitorous" party as some would say and by implication sharing that 'ideal' ?.

Then the 'stand-in' saviour of the UPA, if the left pulls the plug.

After UPA, Amar Singh takes on Left
Barkha Dutt

...
In a statement given to NDTV over the telephone from the United States, Amar Singh said, ''It is very unfortunate that a member of the CPM has issued a statement regarding minority vote bank of SP, in case of SP-Congress bonhomie.''

''While SP-Cong bonhomie is a matter of kite-flying, as yet his own party and the entire Left, including his own party, the CPM is solely and actively responsible for the formation and the very existence of the UPA government, he added.

The SP leader said that the UPA-Left Co-ordination Committee might have become defunct but a formal link and association between the two setups was very much alive.

Singh said: Even during the crisis, Prakash Karat had said that the government would last its full term. Does that mean that the minority vote bank of the Left has totally vanished? I don't think so.

The veteran leader said that his party had always fought with communal forces in the communal courtyard of aggressive Hindutva in Uttar Pradesh. The Left does not have such serious political threat from the Saffron brigade {Well, its Barkha what else would one expect.. } in their respective states like Kerala, Bengal and Tripura.

So, I can appreciate the lack of knowledge of Pandhe regarding our secular credentials. Actions speak louder than words. We will be happy if we get certificate from Left, but will not be shattered if it is not forthcoming,'' Amar Singh added.
......

However, while the BJP has every right to oppose the Nuclear deal if they think it's against (what they percieve) National interest, they have done very little to differenciate their opposition to the deal from the CPI(M)'s opposition.

It's a matter of perception, they said what they had to say and are continuing to say it. So I will leave it at that.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 25 Jun 2008 09:42

vsudhir wrote:I think Delhi should sign the deal.

Let LKA declare the BJP will abstain in any left initiated confidence vote in parliament. In return, would be nice if MMS could declare that the final deal will come to the LS for a vote.

Both the NDA and the INC have a common interest in disempowering the communists. Time they made common cause, perhaps.

Our political system works little differently, govt brings an act to parliament only for discussion and to incorporate some of the changes suggested by opposition MPs. There are no provisions for cross-voting or bipartisan voting in our system (whips) so voting is just a formality. To do what you and some others are proposing we would first have to reform our political set-up and fundamentally change our constitution. A vote like in US congress has no value (or provision) in our parliamentary systems since govt always enjoys majority and govt/cabinet represents that majority. While in USA govt is independent of congress and senate so all actions of govt needs to be authorized/legalized by acts of congress/senate (hence Hyde act but no jackal act).

A unique situation exists with this govt because left is not part of the govt/cabinet so govt's (or cabinet's) actions doesn't have parliament’s majority directly. This effectively ensures that ethically current govt can’t sign this deal without left’s explicit consent although it still has constitutional authority/legality to do it. By staying outside of the govt, left switches between being a supporter of govt and opposition. Left's personal interests lies in ensuring that this govt ends of being an utter failure since congress is the primary opposition in left ruled states.

sraj · Post by **sraj** » 25 Jun 2008 09:48

U.S.-India Nuclear Energy Deal: Status and Update
Here is an NPA conceding the feasibility of India sourcing non-NSG Uranium:

India has also approached non-Nuclear Suppliers Group countries, including Namibia and possibly Niger, about the possibility of importing uranium. This option could allow India to circumvent international NSG rules against the transfer of uranium to non-NPT signatory countries.

GoI needs to look at the "non-NSG Uranium + indigenous 700 MW PHWRs under facility specific safeguards" option before signing up to any multilateral legal rigmarole in search of illusory benefits.

sraj · Post by **sraj** » 25 Jun 2008 09:52

In the fine tradition of conspiracy theories

:
Heard on the street

FIIs going radio active?

Yet another conspiracy theory was heard doing the rounds on Tuesday. This one was about foreign institutional investors and their activity in the futures segment. That FIIs have been going short on the Nifty due to various global and domestic reasons is well known.

However, a large section of the market players added a new twist to the whole tale. According to the market buzz, many US-based FIIs have been going short on Nifty futures in a ‘planned attempt’ to put pressure on the Indian government to sign the nuclear deal.

Market ‘experts’ were heard saying that the market would rebound the day the government ‘bows’ to US ‘pressure’ and signs the deal. The June series Nifty Future is trading at a discount of nearly 20 points to the spot. Similarly, the July and August series is trading at a discount of 50.85 points and 51.80 points, respectively.

Raju · Post by **Raju** » 25 Jun 2008 10:13

sraj wrote: However, a large section of the market players added a new twist to the whole tale. According to the market buzz, many US-based FIIs have been going short on Nifty futures in a ‘planned attempt’ to put pressure on the Indian government to sign the nuclear deal.

Market ‘experts’ were heard saying that the market would rebound the day the government ‘bows’ to US ‘pressure’ and signs the deal. The June series Nifty Future is trading at a discount of nearly 20 points to the spot. Similarly, the July and August series is trading at a discount of 50.85 points and 51.80 points, respectively.

Exactly six months ago such a situation developing and being used as leverage for blackmail was foreseen and discussed on the Indian Economy thread.

amit · Post by **amit** » 25 Jun 2008 10:33

sraj wrote:In the fine tradition of conspiracy theories :
Heard on the street
FIIs going radio active?

Yet another conspiracy theory was heard doing the rounds on Tuesday. This one was about foreign institutional investors and their activity in the futures segment. That FIIs have been going short on the Nifty due to various global and domestic reasons is well known.

However, a large section of the market players added a new twist to the whole tale. According to the market buzz, many US-based FIIs have been going short on Nifty futures in a ‘planned attempt’ to put pressure on the Indian government to sign the nuclear deal.

Market ‘experts’ were heard saying that the market would rebound the day the government ‘bows’ to US ‘pressure’ and signs the deal. The June series Nifty Future is trading at a discount of nearly 20 points to the spot. Similarly, the July and August series is trading at a discount of 50.85 points and 51.80 points, respectively.

If the US-based FIIs are going short on the Nifty to just put pressure on the govt to sign the deal, why then I would - as one very senior BRFite said a very long time ago on a previous avatar of this thread - sleep easy at night (knowing it's only a short term problem).

What, at the moment, keeps me (and a lot of other's I'm sure) awake is the spectre of a lethal cocktail of 11 per cent inflation and elections causing RBI to go ballastic and raising interest rates to the point where all Capex is put on hold and the economy falls into stagflation.

I would have thought such a prospect would spook the evil US-based FII. But nah, as this conspiracy theory says it's just plain old fashioned armtwisting. Goodnight everyone, finally going to sleep!

amit · Post by **amit** » 25 Jun 2008 10:37

Tilak wrote: It's a matter of perception, they said what they had to say and are continuing to say it. So I will leave it at that.

Tilak,

Fair enough.

However, I would have expected the BJP to articulate in a more coherent manner how they would go about renegotiating the deal.

Do you think they have set out a clear roadmap for all of us to see what they would do or not do regarding the deal once they come to power?

Prabu · Post by **Prabu** » 25 Jun 2008 14:12

sraj wrote:In the fine tradition of conspiracy theories :
Heard on the street
FIIs going radio active?

Yet another conspiracy theory was heard doing the rounds on Tuesday. This one was about foreign institutional investors and their activity in the futures segment. That FIIs have been going short on the Nifty due to various global and domestic reasons is well known.

However, a large section of the market players added a new twist to the whole tale. According to the market buzz, many US-based FIIs have been going short on Nifty futures in a ‘planned attempt’ to put pressure on the Indian government to sign the nuclear deal.

Market ‘experts’ were heard saying that the market would rebound the day the government ‘bows’ to US ‘pressure’ and signs the deal. The June series Nifty Future is trading at a discount of nearly 20 points to the spot. Similarly, the July and August series is trading at a discount of 50.85 points and 51.80 points, respectively.

I heard a tea boy telling this ;

If this is the level of Black mailing well before signing the deal, imagine what would be the levels of Black mail after signing and surrendering the soveriegnity ?!

amit · Post by **amit** » 25 Jun 2008 15:13

Prabu wrote: I heard a tea boy telling this ;

If this is the level of Black mailing well before signing the deal, imagine what would be the levels of Black mail after signing and surrendering the soveriegnity ?!

And I suppose oil northwards of $130, inflation at 11 per cent, worldwide food shortage, low US dollar and recession like conditions in the world's biggest market are all part of the strategy to browbeat India to sign away her soverignity?

Heck if a US$1 trillion economy can be manipulated by US FIIs by just being short on the Nifty futures market we're screwed anyway!

So let's sign the deal and get screwed instead of getting screwed just for nothing.

Scaremongering is a fine art and it helps to be a bit more creative!

Prabu · Post by **Prabu** » 25 Jun 2008 16:54

amit wrote:
Prabu wrote: I heard a tea boy telling this ;

If this is the level of Black mailing well before signing the deal, imagine what would be the levels of Black mail after signing and surrendering the soveriegnity ?!

And I suppose oil northwards of $130, inflation at 11 per cent, worldwide food shortage, low US dollar and recession like conditions in the world's biggest market are all part of the strategy to browbeat India to sign away her soverignity?

Heck if a US$1 trillion economy can be manipulated by US FIIs by just being short on the Nifty futures market we're screwed anyway!

So let's sign the deal and get screwed instead of getting screwed just for nothing.

Scaremongering is a fine art and it helps to be a bit more creative!

If we dicide to fall in to the well, with open eyes, who can save us ?

Raju · Post by **Raju** » 25 Jun 2008 17:19

Prabu wrote:If this is the level of Black mailing well before signing the deal, imagine what would be the levels of Black mail after signing and surrendering the soveriegnity ?!

the deal is to our benefit. So they are trying to economically blackmail us to help us benefit from the deal.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Jun 2008 17:48

Article 6.iii of 123 agreement

Will respond in a while ..................... been too busy.

USofA would have a right to take back spent/reprocessed fuel back from India if the deal is terminated. USA will have to compansate India for the cost of material, residual value of plant and handling/transporting cost.

I was not talking of when the deal fails. I was talking of waste during normal dealings/ops. So, let us assume India consumes 100 tons per year and it generates say 90 tons of waste. The question is where does this waste go? Note that McCain has already stated that there is a good possibility that Yucca Mountain may not be an issue (in the US). So, the US may provide Uranium, but once used the US will not take back what remains.

With THAT in mind, I very much doubt they will take back anything if the deal is terminated......nothing. They will let all stuff remain where it is and make sure that India does not use anything.

In fact, this impacts the Article 6 you quote.

_______________________________________________

As a FYI, leaning on the 123 document will not get India anywhere. Adm G was an inkling in this respect. I would prefer to support Dr. K - who said that strength respects strength.

And, GNEP is the Gold standard. It is here. And, IMVVVHO, Indian scicom is trying to MKI GNEP!!!!! It is a given that AK was talking of that with IAEA even prior to J18.

I just cannot see the US letting anyone out of GNEP ...... after Bhopali Keeda and accounting for atoms.

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 25 Jun 2008 18:38

Konphooshon onlee:

I thought 'Bhishma Pitamah' meant K Subramanyam, but it seems Shiv means Prakash Karat holds this title.

Which is it?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Jun 2008 19:20

Kakkaji wrote:Konphooshon onlee:

I thought 'Bhishma Pitamah' meant K Subramanyam, but it seems Shiv means Prakash Karat holds this title.

Which is it?

Who is doing good for the country? Whose leadership is providing unflinching guidance for the country?

I think Prakash Karat deserves the title.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Jun 2008 19:46

Since I have never followed this topic, is this FII stuff for real? IF true, then India can be held for ransom - in addition to (US)SDTAs (travel advisories).

And, how would MMS resignation (per his own will) impact this FII thinking?

jash_p · Post by **jash_p** » 25 Jun 2008 19:47

'Failure of N-deal will create doubts in next administration'
Washington, (PTI): With uncertainties on the Indo-US nuclear deal continuing, an influential newspaper in Washington has warned that the failure of India to seal the accord will force the next administration to "think twice before trying anything like it." In its editorial, "Can India say Yes?: New Delhi Comes to a Cross Roads over Nuclear Cooperation with the United States", The Washington Post has praised India's "vibrant democracy where the people's elected representatives across the spectrum have a right to be heard and to influence policy."

"But if New Delhi's politicians cannot find a way to say 'yes' to such a clearly advantageous agreement with a natural ally, the next US administration, no doubt, will think twice before trying anything like it," the leading US daily warned.

pressure on India is mounting, spin doctors are trying to arm twist India. After seeing this post I am convinced that N-dal is bad for India on long run, otherwise far left leaning paper like Wpost don't support republican deals.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 Jun 2008 20:19

I humbly request not to add to the confusion by switching ephithets.Only KS is Bishma Pitamanha.

All others are Shakunis!

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 25 Jun 2008 20:46

beginning to wonder if this guy is an agent for a foreign govt.

Total nuclear disarmament of India is the aim: Pranab

http://www.hindu.com/2008/06/25/stories ... 801200.htm

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 25 Jun 2008 20:55

The article says nothing of the sort implied by the headline.

On the nuclear issue as it figured in his talks with Australian leaders, Mr. Mukherjee said: “Prime Minister [Rudd] explained his scheme of a nuclear-weapons-free world. And, it was a happy coincidence that 20 years ago Rajiv Gandhi gave his plan for creating a nuclear-weapons-free world. But, to us [Indians], mere disarmament is not the ultimate objective. The ultimate objective is, as Rajiv Gandhi pointed out in his Action Plan: over a specific timeframe, there must be the elimination of all nuclear weapons and a prevention of both horizontal and vertical proliferations. And, these obligations lie particularly with the nuclear-weapon states.”

pradeepe · Post by **pradeepe** » 25 Jun 2008 20:56

Oh well - [sd]

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 25 Jun 2008 21:02

“Do not rush safeguards accord without debate”

Extreme secrecy, media hype, parochial interests have put the country on dangerous path: nuclear scientists

http://www.hindu.com/2008/06/25/stories ... 821200.htm

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 25 Jun 2008 21:06

Neshant wrote:beginning to wonder if this guy is an agent for a foreign govt.

Total nuclear disarmament of India is the aim: Pranab

http://www.hindu.com/2008/06/25/stories ... 801200.htm

This has been India's stated policy and goal since forever. This is the logic that we have used as a shield to deflect all pressure on signing CTBT, NPT etc. The Indian argument or proposal is an alternative/counter to CTBT/NPT which addresses the unfair treatment mated out to non-P5 countries. What he is stating in that article or headline has been repeated by all govts and PM's of India for decades.

Calling a federal minister a foreign paid agent, without even reading the posted article or understanding it, is unfair and uncalled for IMVHO.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Jun 2008 21:09

I do not know if this has any value any more, however ...................

Reprocessing: Genesis of,

Joint Statement Between President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh (AKA J18):

The Prime Minister conveyed that for his part, India would reciprocally agree that it would be ready to assume the same responsibilities and practices and acquire the same benefits and advantages as other leading countries with advanced nuclear technology, such as the United States. These responsibilities and practices consist of …….. refraining from transfer of enrichment and reprocessing technologies to states that do not have them ……………….

Clearly MMS in J18 was expecting NWS status, and, reprocessing techs to go along with it. Nothing new there.

However, in U.S. Nuclear Cooperation With India: Issues for (US) Congress, the following

….. the State Department asserted in responses to questions for the record from Senator Lugar that the United States will not engage in reprocessing or enrichment technology cooperation with India.35

(35 “Questions for the Record Submitted to Under Secretaries Nicholas Burns and Robert
Joseph by Chairman Richard G. Lugar (#6), Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
November 2, 2005.”)

The above was from Nov 22, 2006.

Very interestingly I had saved, to my hard drive, an earlier version of the same document dated Jan 22, 2006, which stated:

U.S. officials reportedly have said the United States will not engage in reprocessing or enrichment technology cooperation with India.

So, by Jan of 2006, barely six months after MMS said “equal” status – including reprocessing, the US had made up their minds – no reprocessing. To put this into perspective, AK has always said reprocessing is a must with ALL Indian reactors in mind – separation under Indian will.

The thorny issue of reprocessing was tossed around with India insisting on reprocessing and the US disapproving of it. All the way to the day before agreeing on the content of the 123 Deal, embedded in Article 6.

However, the issue related to Article 6 has come up ever since 123 came out.

Both India and the US had “fact sheet”s the day after 123 and it started from there. June 29, 2007 :: Same facts, two fact-sheets:

On the scope of cooperation, India highlighted the inclusion of “cooperation in fuel cycle activities,” a reference the U.S. avoided. But it is in the U.S. and Indian descriptions of what the 123 agreement says about India’s right to reprocess U.S.-origin spent fuel that the differences are perhaps most consequential. India has highlighted the granting of “prior consent to reprocess nuclear material” and noted that to “bring this into effect” a national safeguarded reprocessing facility will be established and “the parties will agree on arrangements and procedures within one year.” The U.S. fact-sheet repeats this formulation without using the word “prior,” and also chooses not to highlight the fact that the 123 stipulates a concrete time frame for these arrangements to be worked out.

(I would place a lot of emphasis on these fact sheets, since they provide a better picture of the position/s held by both the parties. Also, it is common knowledge that 123 was written to satisfy two governments that had very little agreement on major issues, so 123 is too broad and open for interpretation. Which is why I had stated long back .... hope India has a leader with solid backbone.)

Then on Aug 3, 2007, in Disturbing implications of 123 Agreement:

Reprocessing: Article 6 (iii) does talk of "consent to reprocess." However, it kicks in only after India has set up a dedicated reprocessing facility and the two sides have agreed on arrangements and procedures.

There is silence on what would happen if the two sides do not reach agreement on these arrangements and procedures. All that is envisaged is that consultations will begin within 6 months and conclude within one year. It is not clear whether this one-year period is from the time of the request being made, or from the beginning of consultations.

So the US has at least one year, if not eighteen months, to delay reprocessing permission, during which multiple pressures would be applied on India not to go ahead with it.

But even then, there is no guarantee that reprocessing rights will in fact be given. The language does not permit India to go ahead without an agreement on the US side. On the other hand, the US has retained the right to withhold permission.

Thus, Article 14.9 provides that under "exceptional circumstances" (which have not been defined) the US can suspend the arrangements and procedures agreed upon. This is very disturbing, since it gives a virtual veto to the US on reprocessing.

Then the kicker, ‘No possibility of any interruption.’, AK himself:

Dr. Kakodkar, who is also Secretary, Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), explained why he found the agreement satisfactory. “There is an upfront reprocessing consent right. There is an assurance of uninterrupted operation of reactors. In terms of tests, the unilateral voluntary moratorium we have remains as such. There is no conversion of that into a bilateral legality. So I think it is satisfactory.”

He said the agreement provided for “a possibility” of transfer of reprocessing, enrichment and heavy water production technologies to India, but it would require an amendment to this agreement.

Dr. Kakodkar elaborated: “With regard to reprocessing, enrichment and heavy water technologies, the U.S. has not transferred these technologies to any country so far. So this agreement provides for a possibility of such transfers but that will require an amendment to this agreement. That possibility has been kept open.”

So, essentially, the US has agreed that India can build a large building, place a board stating it is a Reprocessing Center, etc, etc, etc….. address on it, phone numbers perhaps, name and title of the head of the processing department, but nothing else is guaranteed.

Finally, it was impression that this was common knowledge based on discussions just after 123 came out. (Which is why I did not provide URLs.)

BTW, I have not even touched the Hyde Act in all this.

And, perhaps all of us need a reminder ....... 123 still has to go back to the US Congress for ratification. This is not a done deal from their side.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 25 Jun 2008 21:55

NRao wrote:I do not know if this has any value any more, however ...................

Reprocessing: Genesis of,

Joint Statement Between President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh (AKA J18):

The Prime Minister conveyed that for his part, India would reciprocally agree that it would be ready to assume the same responsibilities and practices and acquire the same benefits and advantages as other leading countries with advanced nuclear technology, such as the United States. These responsibilities and practices consist of …….. refraining from transfer of enrichment and reprocessing technologies to states that do not have them ……………….
Clearly MMS in J18 was expecting NWS status, and, reprocessing techs to go along with it. Nothing new there.

However, in U.S. Nuclear Cooperation With India: Issues for (US) Congress, the following

….. the State Department asserted in responses to questions for the record from Senator Lugar that the United States will not engage in reprocessing or enrichment technology cooperation with India.35
(35 “Questions for the Record Submitted to Under Secretaries Nicholas Burns and Robert
Joseph by Chairman Richard G. Lugar (#6), Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
November 2, 2005.”)

The above was from Nov 22, 2006.

Very interestingly I had saved, to my hard drive, an earlier version of the same document dated Jan 22, 2006, which stated:

U.S. officials reportedly have said the United States will not engage in reprocessing or enrichment technology cooperation with India.
So, by Jan of 2006, barely six months after MMS said “equal” status – including reprocessing, the US had made up their minds – no reprocessing. To put this into perspective, AK has always said reprocessing is a must with ALL Indian reactors in mind – separation under Indian will.

The thorny issue of reprocessing was tossed around with India insisting on reprocessing and the US disapproving of it. All the way to the day before agreeing on the content of the 123 Deal, embedded in Article 6.

However, the issue related to Article 6 has come up ever since 123 came out.

Both India and the US had “fact sheet”s the day after 123 and it started from there. June 29, 2007 :: Same facts, two fact-sheets:

On the scope of cooperation, India highlighted the inclusion of “cooperation in fuel cycle activities,” a reference the U.S. avoided. But it is in the U.S. and Indian descriptions of what the 123 agreement says about India’s right to reprocess U.S.-origin spent fuel that the differences are perhaps most consequential. India has highlighted the granting of “prior consent to reprocess nuclear material” and noted that to “bring this into effect” a national safeguarded reprocessing facility will be established and “the parties will agree on arrangements and procedures within one year.” The U.S. fact-sheet repeats this formulation without using the word “prior,” and also chooses not to highlight the fact that the 123 stipulates a concrete time frame for these arrangements to be worked out.
(I would place a lot of emphasis on these fact sheets, since they provide a better picture of the position/s held by both the parties. Also, it is common knowledge that 123 was written to satisfy two governments that had very little agreement on major issues, so 123 is too broad and open for interpretation. Which is why I had stated long back .... hope India has a leader with solid backbone.)

Then on Aug 3, 2007, in Disturbing implications of 123 Agreement:

Reprocessing: Article 6 (iii) does talk of "consent to reprocess." However, it kicks in only after India has set up a dedicated reprocessing facility and the two sides have agreed on arrangements and procedures.

There is silence on what would happen if the two sides do not reach agreement on these arrangements and procedures. All that is envisaged is that consultations will begin within 6 months and conclude within one year. It is not clear whether this one-year period is from the time of the request being made, or from the beginning of consultations.

So the US has at least one year, if not eighteen months, to delay reprocessing permission, during which multiple pressures would be applied on India not to go ahead with it.

But even then, there is no guarantee that reprocessing rights will in fact be given. The language does not permit India to go ahead without an agreement on the US side. On the other hand, the US has retained the right to withhold permission.

Thus, Article 14.9 provides that under "exceptional circumstances" (which have not been defined) the US can suspend the arrangements and procedures agreed upon. This is very disturbing, since it gives a virtual veto to the US on reprocessing.
Then the kicker, ‘No possibility of any interruption.’, AK himself:

Dr. Kakodkar, who is also Secretary, Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), explained why he found the agreement satisfactory. “There is an upfront reprocessing consent right. There is an assurance of uninterrupted operation of reactors. In terms of tests, the unilateral voluntary moratorium we have remains as such. There is no conversion of that into a bilateral legality. So I think it is satisfactory.”

He said the agreement provided for “a possibility” of transfer of reprocessing, enrichment and heavy water production technologies to India, but it would require an amendment to this agreement.

Dr. Kakodkar elaborated: “With regard to reprocessing, enrichment and heavy water technologies, the U.S. has not transferred these technologies to any country so far. So this agreement provides for a possibility of such transfers but that will require an amendment to this agreement. That possibility has been kept open.”
So, essentially, the US has agreed that India can build a large building, place a board stating it is a Reprocessing Center, etc, etc, etc….. address on it, phone numbers perhaps, name and title of the head of the processing department, but nothing else is guaranteed.

Finally, it was impression that this was common knowledge based on discussions just after 123 came out. (Which is why I did not provide URLs.)

BTW, I have not even touched the Hyde Act in all this.

And, perhaps all of us need a reminder ....... 123 still has to go back to the US Congress for ratification. This is not a done deal from their side.

NRao,

There are two things -

Right of India to reprocess foreign fuel
Transfer of reprocessing technologies from US to India

The first one is assured explicitly, Kakodkar is referring to the second which is also a possibility but since it is a dual use nuclear technology and never been done before needs a framework.

There are two options available to India for reprocessing -

Reprocess it in a new facility which would remain under IAEA safeguards in perpetuity
Reprocess in existing facilities and bring them under IAEA Safeguards

No wonder we chose the first option.

Some of the articles and references to congress/senate etc that you have quoted are from the era when negotiations were going on and information was leaking out in bits and pieces. What we should look at is the final agreed upon documents that we'll sign.

In another note -

Most people evaluate Indo-US nuclear deal as if it is a ceasefire treaty, in all that prejudice we loose the main focus that above all it is a deal struck for cooperation, partnership and mutual benefits. If you don’t believe in the spirit of the deal than no amount of argument or any written document would suffice.

No deal or treaty survives, regardless of how well is it written, unless there is mutual trust and benefits. There is no court that can enforce such issues on either nation if it gets in the way of their national security or national interests.

sugriva · Post by **sugriva** » 25 Jun 2008 22:52

http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/jun/25ndeal12.htm

Looks like the Left was provided a copy of draft IAEA agreement.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Jun 2008 22:58

A deal that is written to placate two governments, who agree on nothing, is bound to have plenty of verbiage that is open to interpretation. I fully expect a lot of agree-to-disagree in the future.

I gave the various URLs only to establish a time line and the sequence of thoughts. In this case to establish that the US never intended India to acquire reprocessing techs. Since India insisted on "reprocessing" it got that para. Which, IMHO, is still open to interpretation ....... not much of a deal on a very important point. And, when J18 is taken into account it is a ................

And, IMHO, India will not get those techs unless ...............

Just one clarification...."never done before" - has the US never allowed another nation to import US reproc techs or is it the US has never allowed what India is requesting?