Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 09 Jul 2008 22:49

For Deal to pass, UPA needs to first undertake a vote of confidence in the Parliament. The numbers seem as follows:

ASSURED
--------
153 - Indian National Congress
33 - Samajwadi Party (Loyalists)

3-4 - Samajwadi Party (Rebels)
YES - Beni Prasad Verma - Already was hobnobbing with Congress.
YES - Ateeq Ahmed - Murderer (BSP MLA) in Jail. Verma is handler.
YES - Raj Babbar - Already was hobnobbing with Congress. Wants Fatehpur Sikri Loksabha Seat.
??? - Afzal Ansari - Murderer (BJP MLA) in Jail. Susceptible to BSP charm. Unclear
NO - Munawwar Hasan - Gone over to BSP
NO - Jai Prakash Rawat - Gone over to BSP

24 - Rashtriya Janta Dal
16 - Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
11 - Nationalist Congress Party
6 - Pattali Makkal Katchi
5 - Jharkhand Mukti Morcha
4 - Lok Jan Shakti Party
1 - Jammu & Kashmir People's Democratic Party - Mehbooba Mufti has already pledged despite J&K Fiasco
1 - Republican Party of India - Part of UPA
1 - National Loktantrik Party - Baleshwar Yadav has already attached himself to SP.

TOTAL ASSURED - ~259

VERY LIKELY
3 - Rashtriya Lok Dal - Ajit Singh has already said yes but wants some seat arrangements in Western UP.
2 - Janta Dal (Secular) - Devegowda still has to commit, but has no other choice. Rebel Veerendra Kumar from Kerala is Left's pet, so only 2 from 3 assured.
2 - Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Rebels will vote for UPA i.e. 2 out of 4.
1 - All India Majlis-E-Ittehadul Muslimmeen (Hyderabad) - Part of UPA but party unsure because anti-Muslim connotations of the nuclear deal
1 - All India Muslim League (Kerala State Committee) - Part of UPA. E. Ahmed - MP Minister of State for External Affairs, but deal to be discussed in Party meeting
1 - Sikkim Democratic Front - Part of UPA. Still non-committal.
1 - Mizo National Front - Ruling Party in Mizoram. MP in favor of nuclear deal. Awaits decision of Party Meeting.
1 - Mani Charenamai (Independent from Manipur) In favor of deal but not committed as yet.
1 - Sansuma Khunggur Bwiswmuthiary (Independent from Assam, Bodo) In favor of deal but not committed as yet.
1 - Thupstan Chhewang (Independent from J&K, Leh) In favor of deal but has grudges against state Congress.
1 - Harish Nagpal (Independent from UP, Amroha) Reports of in favor.

TOTAL VERY LIKELY - 15

DEALABLE
3 - Telangana Rashtra Samithi - Only if one promises them Telangana
1 - All India Trinamool Congress - Mamata Banerjee wants Congress to dance to her tunes in West Bengal. Could vote with UPA just to spite Left but can also be persuaded by former allies in NDA to vote against.

TOTAL DEALABLE - 4

STEALABLE
2 - Jammu & Kashmir National Conference - Positive signals from Omar Abdullah. Looking forward to alignments at state level after Assembly elections.
8 - Shiromani Akali Dal - Has a few grounds to vote in favor of UPA even though in opposition to Congress in Punjab.
a. Bringing down of first Sikh Prime Minister of India would not look good for a party, claiming to represent Sikhs everywhere.
b. Want to have nuclear power plants in the state (Punjab) for development.
c. Supported by expatriate Punjabis (incl. Sikhs), especially in USA, who have helped on this deal
d. Always got a fair deal from Dr. Manmohan Singh for Punjab.
e. May wish to show independence of policy from BJP.
f. Would want to emulate Shiv Sena's attitude of supporting a fellow Marathi for President.

TOTAL STEALABLE - 10

ABSTAINABLE
12 - Shiv Sena - They are pissed off at Left and may not like to vote with them. Bal Thakaray supports the deal. Son wants to stick to NDA whip.

Total with UPA -
Minimum - 272
Maximum - 288

UPA will survive the confidence motion and nuclear deal can go forward.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 09 Jul 2008 22:54

Tamang wrote:Samajwadi MP says 7 will vote against UPA

Munawwar Hasan, the Samajwadi Party member of Parliament from Muzaffarnagar in Uttar Pradesh is among those from his party who refuse to toe the party line on backing the United Progressive Alliance government on the Indo-US nuclear deal.

He told rediff.com, "I am opposing the nuclear deal with the Americans. America is against the interests of Muslims. Muslims hate Americans. If this deal goes through, then Americans will make a lot of money.

"They will use the money to make bombs and then bomb Muslims with it. We are not going to let that happen. We are against the Americans. We are not interested in the power part of the deal, we are opposing the fact that it's a deal with the United States."
Muslim..muslim..muslim.

hmm...

somebody was saying Mulayam, Laloo, and Mayavathi represent the oppressed sections of society and bring lots of value to the nation. And since they are regional parties, we need not worry about their impact on national interests

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 09 Jul 2008 23:03

what will be the constitutional/legal validity of the deal if the people in govt signs it before govt going down under its own weight? Will India be obliged to honour the deal if signed by a govt that loses the trust vote but is not dismissed (etc.)?

With the Left withdrawing support to the Congress-led UPA Government, legal experts believe it is time for the Opposition to bring a no-confidence motion against the Government as it is under no obligation to seek a trust vote.
"Confidence motion is moved in Parliament in case of newly formed Government. It is for the Opposition to do so and not the President," senior advocate and former Law Minister Shanti Bhushan said.

http://www.indiareacts.com/archivedebat ... recno=1678

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Jul 2008 23:10

what will be the constitutional/legal validity of the deal if the people in govt signs it before govt going down under its own weight? Will India be obliged to honour the deal if signed by a govt that loses the trust vote but is not dismissed (etc.)?

Yes. Thats the Westminister way. When the founding fathers adopted the system they did not know that their own flock some of whom are educated in Oxofrd and Cambridge would make a mockery of the system.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 09 Jul 2008 23:11

Acharya wrote:what will be the constitutional/legal validity of the deal if the people in govt signs it before govt going down under its own weight? Will India be obliged to honour the deal if signed by a govt that loses the trust vote but is not dismissed (etc.)?

Most international organizations don't really give a fig about what kind of government they are dealing with, as long as their representative is accredited. So no problem from IAEA, whether the government is minority or caretaker.

Once it is signed, the country has to uphold the agreement, regardless of what shade of legitimacy a government had, which signed it.

The parties in India, are all of the opinion, that if the government lacks a majority support in Loksabha, it cannot sign such a major agreement, especially one to which other parties have reservations. The ruling coalition is also of the same view, and Pranab Mukherjee has already announced, that they will approach IAEA only after winning a vote of confidence by the Loksabha.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 09 Jul 2008 23:15

SAD dilemma — to support or...

There seems to be confusion in the Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) regarding stand on the nuclear deal at the national level and also in Parliament.

On one hand Punjab Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal said he and his party would stand by the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) on the deal.

Quoting Badal on the issue, party spokesman Dr Daljit Singh Cheema said “We would swim or sink with the NDA on this issue”. However, on the other hand, the party said it would decide its stand on the issue at the meeting of its core committee to be held after the return of Sukhbir Singh Badal, president of the SAD, from abroad.

As Sukhbir is to return on July 13, the meeting of the core committee, having senior leaders on it , will be held at 6 pm on July 15, it is learnt. The NDA will be informed regarding the decision taken by the core committee of the SAD.

From the fixing of meeting on July 15, it is clear the SAD has not taken any decision on the deal. In fact, the SAD leadership, which is in favour of installing nuclear power plants in the state, has remained silent for a long time on the deal,that has been discussed in the country.

Sources said there were senior SAD leaders who were in favour of the deal thinking it was good for the country. In private talk they support the deal and say Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, architect of the deal, should be supported on the issue in Parliament. However, because of political compulsions and alliance with the NDA, they have not made their views public on the issue.

However, the biggest political question the SAD leadership facing at the moment is should it become party to the removal of Manmohan Singh from the office of the Prime Minister. “ Will it be proper for us to see the fall of Dr Manmohan Singh as Prime Minister of the country by voting against him in Parliament?” said a senior Akali leader.

“ That is our biggest dilemma at the moment”, he added.Though people will forget sooner or later but history will certainly record it the SAD, that claims to be a representative party of the Sikhs all over the world, had voted against first Sikh Prime Minister to remove him from the PM’s office, he said adding if the SAD MPs voted against the UPA government in Parliament. He said even the Shiv Sena, an ally of the BJP, supported the UPA’s candidate for presidentship because she was from Maharashtra. “ As Manmohan Singh is a Sikh, similar issue will have to be faced by us”, he added.

Abstaining from Parliament would be the best option. Moreover, abstaining would also silence those, who often accuse us of becoming blind followers of the BJP, other Panthic parties and establish that our leadership was is capable of taking decisions independently, he said.

A group of intellectuals, considered close to the SAD, has already started building pressure on senior Akali leaders to support Dr Manmohan Singh in Parliament on the deal. On the condition of anonymity, one of the members of the group, said it was not politically mandatory for the SAD leadership to follow the BJP on the issue of the deal that is purely an issue of foreign policy on which the SAD should adopt an independent line because its interests are quite at variance with the BJP on this issue.

The SAD should never give the impression that it was against America in any manner. The Leftist have problems with America but not the SAD. As Punjabis are settled in America in big numbers and have played significant role in getting the deal signed, the SAD leadership should keep this factor in mind. More over, the PM has always remained fair to the Badal government.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 09 Jul 2008 23:18

RajeshA wrote:

Most international organizations don't really give a fig about what kind of government they are dealing with, as long as their representative is accredited. So no problem from IAEA, whether the government is minority or caretaker.

Once it is signed, the country has to uphold the agreement, regardless of what shade of legitimacy a government had, which signed it.

It is for the future generation of Indians to figure out if this present bunch are accredited representative. If they dont win the confidence vote in LS how can they be accredited representative. One can keep spinning but not at the national/international level.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 09 Jul 2008 23:31

Acharya wrote:
RajeshA wrote:

Most international organizations don't really give a fig about what kind of government they are dealing with, as long as their representative is accredited. So no problem from IAEA, whether the government is minority or caretaker.

Once it is signed, the country has to uphold the agreement, regardless of what shade of legitimacy a government had, which signed it.
It is for the future generation of Indians to figure out if this present bunch are accredited representative. If they dont win the confidence vote in LS how can they be accredited representative. One can keep spinning but not at the national/international level.

Well there are many many political systems in the countries of the world, countries which are recognized by the United Nations, and IAEA, being an organ of United Nations, recognizes all countries, recognized by UN. An ambassador to UN, or a representative to IAEA, usually presents his/her credentials to the president, before being considered official representative. When a new political system takes over in a country, then it is the responsibility of the new political system to recall/change their representative in case they do not approve of him/her. Until the time, the representative is recalled, he/she continues to enjoy the privileges and recognition.

Even if a government is in a minority, it is still the duly constituted government of the country. Even a caretaker government is a constitutional government. So the government can keep its representative at the IAEA. IAEA would only listen only to the "representative" in order to understand, how the particular country looks at an issue. They will not look at newspapers or try to read tea leaves to know, what the political system of a country requires.

Otherwise there can be no agreements between any international organization and some country unless the country fulfills the highest standards of democracy, nobody has as yet set in stone.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 09 Jul 2008 23:34

We dont have to quote other system. We have to look at our own system and if it does not comply with constitutional standards what will the current and future generation derive the message.
It is not about the other party but internal compliance within India.The current situation itself is valid reason for abrogation of the constitution.

Since even educated Indians do not understand the significance of the situation this spinning in the media is going on.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 09 Jul 2008 23:48

Its a very simple matter.

The UPA government will prove before it approaches the IAEA that it commands a majority in the Lok Sabha via a vote. All MPs recognize that this vote has become necessary due to the Left withdrawing support which is directly as a result of the 123 initiative taken by the Government. This vote is therefore in a sense the vote of ratification that people here have been clamouring for the last 2-3 years. If the UPA gets a majority it is a properly constituted government that has entered into this agreement. If it does not, I dont think the government will approach the IAEA and the 123 process will die for now.

So hold onto your horses.....

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 09 Jul 2008 23:50

Acharya wrote:We dont have to quote other system. We have to look at our own system and if it does not comply with constitutional standards what will the current and future generation derive the message.
It is not about the other party but internal compliance within India.The current situation itself is valid reason for abrogation of the constitution.

Since even educated Indians do not understand the significance of the situation this spinning in the media is going on.

I believe all political forces in India agree, that a government with no majority support in Indian Parliament, cannot and would not sign any major international agreement, especially one, which is under dispute.

Pranab Mukherjee has often reiterated this viewpoint of UPA.

Of course there are some people discussing about the hypotheticals, but they are doing so, from the viewpoint of the international community and not from the PoV of domestic politics or constitutional provisions.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 09 Jul 2008 23:53

ldev wrote:Its a very simple matter.

The UPA government will prove before it approaches the IAEA that it commands a majority in the Lok Sabha via a vote. All MPs recognize that this vote has become necessary due to the Left withdrawing support which is directly as a result of the 123 initiative taken by the Government. This vote is therefore in a sense the vote of ratification that people here have been clamouring for the last 2-3 years. If the UPA gets a majority it is a properly constituted government that has entered into this agreement. If it does not, I dont think the government will approach the IAEA and the 123 process will die for now.

So hold onto your horses.....

Well actually UPA Government has already "approached" IAEA regarding the safeguards agreement, even without the confidence vote.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Indi ... 215970.cms

However they have not signed on anything, unless one considers the government initializing the agreement with the IAEA staff as signing

ManishC · Post by **ManishC** » 09 Jul 2008 23:57

ramana wrote:
what will be the constitutional/legal validity of the deal if the people in govt signs it before govt going down under its own weight? Will India be obliged to honour the deal if signed by a govt that loses the trust vote but is not dismissed (etc.)?
Yes. Thats the Westminister way. When the founding fathers adopted the system they did not know that their own flock some of whom are educated in Oxofrd and Cambridge would make a mockery of the system.

The Westminster system functions well in a two party setup, UK has Labor and Tories with a dash of Greens. We on the other hand Sir have a khichdi, with predictable results.

joshvajohn · Post by **joshvajohn** » 10 Jul 2008 00:05

Communis act like Red army's secret agents. They have become senseless not even listening to Jyothi Basu or even veterans in their own party.
BJP/NDA acts as if they against all Indian interests in US and elsewhere - Modi force seems to drive BJP to corners again! When BJP comes back after election I think they will fall at the feet of US new president and will accept whatever is given even with stricter deal than this. NDA is altogether seems not at all sensible in this way. Their leaders will isolate themselves from everyone. None of them seems to understand the importance of the deal in terms of relationship with others. It is not congress that wins but Indians and secondly not US that gains but we gain. It is pathetic on BJP's part.

Even the small parties that have understood this the opposite parties just for coming to power do not understand this issue at all. Also if the government is defeated then any other comes to power they will have to face a greater isolation in the international era. I think it is better to make the government to go forward in this regard, support the nuclear policy and by the end of this year there may be elections and then whoever comes will follow it up rather than pulling this apart at this stage.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 10 Jul 2008 00:10

India submits draft safeguards pact to IAEA

LONDON: The draft India-specific nuclear safeguards accord with the International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA) was on Wednesday circulated to the nuclear watchdog's Board of Governors for approval.

The draft was circulated following a "request" from the Indian government.

The safeguards pact, which is the next step in the operationalisation of the Indo-US civil nuclear deal, was sent to the 35-nation Board on a day when the Left parties formally withdrew support from the UPA government following a bitter feud over the deal which has remained stalled for several months.

"At the request of the Government of India, the IAEA Secretariat today circulated to members of the IAEA board of governors for their consideration the draft of an 'Agreement with the Government of India for the Application of Safeguards to Civilian Nuclear Facilities'," IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said in a press statement issued at the Agency headquarters in Vienna.

Fleming said the Board Chairman will consult members to fix a date to discuss the draft amid reports that a special governors meeting will be convened in Vienna on July 28 to discuss the safeguards text.

"The chairman of the board is consulting with board members to agree on a date for a board meeting when the agreement would be considered," she said.

The move significantly comes in the backdrop of Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee saying that India will approach the IAEA only after seeking a trust vote.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 10 Jul 2008 00:15

Nuclear deal: UPA could have handled it better

Nuclear deal: UPA could have handled it better

By far the entity most responsible for all the confusion is the UPA by refusing to share with the Left parties the full text of the scheme for India-specific safeguards; this should be reason enough for tension. It should not be surprising if keeping up appearances of total support for the nuclear deal is causing uneasiness within the UPA itself.

B. S. Raghavan

The falling out of erstwhile friends and allies, especially the high-decibel sparring between the Congress and the Left, is threatening to assume unseemly dimensions. Apparently, the course of events of the last few days has contributed to fraying of nerves on all sides.

Just as morning shows the day, the highly-strung behaviour of the squabbling disputants presages an election campaign that will be marked by vehement, and even virulent, trading by the parties constituting the ruling coalition and the opposition of ugly charges extending far beyond the ambit of the nuclear deal.

Understandably enough, the causes of tension prevailing in the various camps are not the same. The Left parties must be feeling tense over its haste in pushing things to a point of no return, with ultimatums and the like, instead of keeping the doors open whatever the provocation.

There can be no prospect more mortifying to the Left than that of voting shoulder-to-shoulder with the BJP in a confidence motion.

By making an issue of the Prime Minister’s observation, in answer to a reporter’s question, and not on his own, as a policy pronouncement, about going to the IAEA and by seeming to destabilise the Government on an issue not of any vital concern for the large mass of people grovelling under the burden of rising prices, it has willy-nilly spoilt its chances of influencing the complexion of the deal.

As for the NDA, especially the BJP, it must be finding it galling to become a victim of political exigencies and seem like going back on its own major initiative of forging a strategic partnership with the US whom its own leader, Mr Atal Bihari Vajpayee, described as a ‘natural ally’.

It must also be ruing its decision to oppose the deal on the ground of the implied ban on any further nuclear test, thereby flying in the face of Mr Vajpayee’s declaration in the UN abjuring any more tests on India’s part.

Suppressio veri, suggestio falsi

By far the entity most responsible for all the confusion is the UPA and this should be reason enough for tension. Additionally, the UPA camp is not free from self-doubt. Not all forming part of the coalition, not all within the Congress party itself, and certainly not all in the scientific community, are equally convinced of the merits of the deal, other than going by the say-so of the Prime Minister and his close advisers. It should not be surprising if keeping up appearances of total support for the deal is causing acute uneasiness within the UPA itself.

Further, those in the Congress who still retain some degree of objectivity and familiarity with inter-governmental dealings must be gnawed by a feeling that the complacent stand taken by the Government on the implications of the Hyde Act and the 123 Agreement in relation to it does not hold water and, in fact, it falls within the category of suppression veri and suggestio falsi.

For instance, it is hard to imagine that two astute and legally savvy persons than Messrs, Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Singhvi, would have allowed themselves, as government and party spokespersons, to assert repeatedly, one can be sure, to their painful discomfort, that the Hyde Act is a domestic legislation of the US with no application to India and that nothing in the 123 Agreement stops India from conducting a nuclear test.

Both statements are only superficially correct. The Hyde Act is a US domestic legislation no doubt, but it is binding on the organs of the US Government.

It requires the US Administration to enforce, with regular reports from the President to the Congress, the following conditions:

a) Any nuclear power reactor fuel reserve provided to the Government of India for use in safeguarded civilian nuclear facilities should be commensurate with reasonable reactor operating requirements;

b) India must fully and actively participate in US’ and international efforts to dissuade, isolate, and, if necessary, sanction and contain Iran for its efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, including a nuclear weapons capability and the capability to enrich uranium or reprocess nuclear fuel and the means to deliver weapons of mass destruction;

c) If India is not assessed to be fully and actively participating in such efforts, the President must submit to the Congress a description of:

the measures the US Government has taken to secure India’s full and active participation in such efforts;

the responses of the Government of India to such measures; and

the measures the US Government plans to take in the coming year to secure India’s full and active participation. (Arm twisting is another name for this)

(d) India must make available to the US full and complete information on its nuclear-elated activities, including such nitty-gritty as an estimate of the amount of uranium mined and milled in India during the previous year; the amount of such uranium that has likely been used or allocated for the production of nuclear explosive devices; and the rate of production in India of fissile material for nuclear explosive devices; an estimate of the amount of electricity India’s nuclear reactors produced for civil purposes during the previous year and the proportion of such production that can be attributed to India’s declared civil reactors; and an analysis as to whether imported uranium has affected the rate of production in India of nuclear explosive devices.

If, after signing the deal, India is pressed for these details by the US from time to time, can it refuse saying that the Hyde Act is the domestic legislation of the US?

Section 106 of the Hyde Act is also categorical that all exemptions and waivers granted under the Act shall cease to be effective if India is found to have detonated a nuclear explosive device after the date of the enactment. If the President does not act on this requirement, he will be liable to impeachment for breach of law.

And if all further flow of fuel, technology and equipment ceases and those already supplied are recalled, can India plead that the Hyde Act is a domestic legislation?
Specious argument

True, the 123 Agreement nowhere says, as has been pointed out by Mr Pranab Mukherjee, that India cannot explode a nuclear device. But it does say that both the US and India shall implement the Agreement in accordance with its ‘respective applicable’ national laws.

The Hyde Act being a US national law, the US is duty-bound to hold India accountable for adhering to its prescriptions. Which means that India can only explode a nuclear device on pain of being subjected to the sanctions under the Act. Yes, India can explode, but in the process, the US-India relations also will explode!

Apart from the above, the Congress and the Government have also, in another sense, been instrumental in breaking the UPA-Left alliance by refusing to share with the latter the full text of the scheme for India-specific safeguards worked out with the IAEA secretariat on the plea that it is a ‘privileged document’. This is an untenable, and indeed, specious, argument.

The scheme is, in any case, soon going to be, and is indeed meant to be, shared with the 35 members of the IAEA Governing Board representing different countries and their bureaucracies are going to be examining it.

It is preposterous to argue that a document that is going to be freely circulating among a thousand functionaries belonging to diverse nationalities round the globe cannot be made available to one’s own patriotic countrymen.

A similar absurdity was resorted to by the Government, when it commandeered its Foreign Secretary, no less, to fly to the US to tremulously hand over to the US Administration, like a schoolboy to the headmaster, full particulars of the atomic energy department’s assets of every description which were kept top secret from its own citizens, subjecting them to all the rigours of the Official Secrets Act.

Heavens would not have fallen if the UPA had taken the Left into confidence on the contents of the safeguards scheme proposed to be taken to the IAEA and let it be discussed at the meeting already fixed for July 10.

On the contrary, a patient and considerate approach would have helped the Government to focus unrelentingly on the real problems of economic management, without the distraction of all the frenetic politicking that is currently going on.

Regrettably, the whole drama has been played out by the political class as if the people did not exist.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 10 Jul 2008 00:32

Sharing these documents with the Left would have brought nothing, rather it would have furnished the Left with still more ammunition to keep on bombarding the government.

Why should the UPA government provide Left with ammunition against itself? Left's position is not based on technicalities but rather as they have often said, it is based on the context of Indo-US strategic alliance.

So it is the right thing, that the Government did not disclose the contents of the safeguards to the Left.

However I solemnly protest. The Government should have at least posted the contents of the safeguard agreement here on BRF. We could have dissected here the pros and cons and had a good discussion in the name of national interests and the best part is, it would not have bothered the government the least.

Wicked Government!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Jul 2008 00:44

Is B.S. Raghavan the former Cabinet Secy?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Jul 2008 00:49

Also was Pranab Mukherjee out of the loop when he assured seeking a vote prior to approaching the IAEA?
---------
From Hindu, 9 July 2008

Revealing IAEA pact can expose N-reactors to threat: Cong

Revealing IAEA pact can expose N-reactors to threat: Cong
New Delhi (PTI): In a new twist to its refusal to share with Left parties the full text of safeguards agreement reached with IAEA, the Congress on Wednesday said divulging such a "confidential" information with the communist parties could expose the country's nuclear reactors to terror threat.

"At a time when international terrorism is at its height, documents containing clauses of confidentiality cannot be divulged," Congress spokesman Manish Tiwari told reporters here when asked why the government was not accepting the Left's demand for sharing the text of the agreement with them.

"Why doesn't the Left understand that in days of terrorism, possibility of nuclear terrorism make the country vulnerable? Left should understand why the government is reluctant and cannot share the entire information with them," he added.

Arguing further, the Congress spokesman said, "How can a sovereign government divulge that information to people who are not part of it?"

His comments came in response to questions by the Left parties as to why the government was keeping the text of the agreement reached with IAEA secret.

To a question, Tiwari said Article 15 of the IAEA agreement makes it a confidential one and bars the government from putting it in the public domain.

I guess its safe with all the IAEA members and the US has all the info normally subject to OAS handed over by the MEA secy! Total defeat without fighting a war. Atleast Saddam was defeated in war.
What about any leaks to jihadis from this group?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 10 Jul 2008 00:58

ramana wrote:Also was Pranab Mukherjee out of the loop when he assured seeking a vote prior to approaching the IAEA?

It does look funny indeed! However wouldn't the Foreign Minister be responsible for doing the approaching, or would DAE, which is under PM directly, be responsible for that?

This action is going to cause a lot of consternation somewhere, including in the Government!

Of course, I expect Advaniji to lose his scalp and Karat to lose his perfect white hair! He must have lost much of it already, yesterday and today, with the insetting depression, etc...

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 10 Jul 2008 01:10

India sends safeguards agreement to IAEA Board

India sends safeguards agreement to IAEA Board

Siddharth Varadarajan

The agency did not restrict India from circulating the text

New Delhi: Contrary to External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee’s assurance that the process of finalising India’s safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency would begin only after the United Progressive Alliance won a vote of confidence in Parliament, the government has given the go-ahead for the draft text to be forwarded to the Agency’s Board of Governors.

In a statement issued on Wednesday evening, the IAEA Secretariat said that “at the request of the government of India,” the draft safeguards agreement had been circulated to the 35-nation Board “for its consideration.”

It added that the Chairman of the Board “is consulting with Board members to agree on a date for a Board meeting when the Agreement would be considered” and that the text of the draft was not public.

At a press conference on Tuesday, Mr. Mukherjee was asked when the government intended to send the agreement to the IAEA Board. He replied this would be done only after the government demonstrated it had majority support in the Lok Sabha.

IAEA sources in Vienna told The Hindu that although safeguards agreements normally circulated for 45 days before being taken up by the Board for approval, the Chairman — currently Chilean Ambassador Milenko E. Skoknic — was consulting with member- states to see if this process could be accelerated. “Because both the U.S. and India are pushing, this can be speeded up. But at the same time, there is concern that the agreement not be rammed down the throat of states which have reservations,” the sources said.

The IAEA sources also refuted Mr. Mukherjee’s claim that Agency rules prevented India from sharing its draft safeguards agreement with anybody it wants.

The Secretariat is obliged to follow a certain procedure for circulating documents such as a safeguards agreement to the Board of Governors, the sources said, but these procedures do not apply to the member state which is party to that agreement.

Asked pointedly whether Mr. Mukherjee was correct in saying India could not circulate the safeguards text to “third parties without going through laid down procedures of the IAEA,” a senior IAEA official said, “I don’t think this is something we could restrict India from doing.”

“As far as the Secretariat is concerned, we are not in the position of making safeguards agreements available for public distribution. We only put them up to the Board members. What each member does with them is up to it,” the official said, adding, “I don’t think India is bound by this procedure.”

In their statement announcing withdrawal of support to the United Progressive Alliance, the Left parties had cited the refusal of the government to share the safeguards text with them as a major breach of understanding.

Replying to them on Tuesday, Mr. Mukherjee had referred to the safeguards text as a “privileged document held in confidence between GOI and the IAEA Secretariat.” If the Left leaders wanted the full text, they “would have to join the government in order to access [it],” he said. In a press conference the same day, he described the safeguards agreement as a “confidential document” and claimed the IAEA’s rules stipulated that “until the text was shown to the Board of Governors it can’t be shown to others.”

The IAEA official said the rule cited by the Minister was correct. But it applied only to the IAEA Secretariat and not to India.

The IAEA Statute contains no reference to tying a member state to a set procedure for the circulation of documents. The only reference to confidentiality of information is in Article VII, which deals with the obligations of the IAEA staff. In all other documents such as safeguards agreements and Additional Protocols, the obligation to maintain confidentiality applies to the IAEA and not to the signatory state.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Jul 2008 01:16

So there was gross misperception of the IAEA rules on the part of Mr Mukerjee regarding the secrecy of the IAEA requirements or there was a severe desire not to let any one in India see the agreement before it gets approved.

The sad story is the INC leaders do one thing and are more often than not found not telling the truth.

Meanwhile this was missed, from the Telegraph, 9 July 2008
Five answers the doubters did not get

I think Mr Mukerjee's reluctance comes from those five answers. Essentially do nothing.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 10 Jul 2008 01:20

Left queries on safeguards thrust spotlight on ‘corrective measures’

Left queries on safeguards thrust spotlight on ‘corrective measures’

Siddharth Varadarajan

The government feels vagueness keeps international critics at bay.

Following the formal withdrawal of Left support to the United Progressive Alliance, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and its three partners have issued a statement challenging the government’s decision to keep the text of the safeguards agreement negotiated with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) a “secret.”

Fearing a disconnect between the government’s assurances and the actual text, the Left said it had five pointed concerns about the agreement that the UPA had not addressed. These were: (1) In case the U.S. or other countries in the NSG renege on fuel supply assurances for imported reactors, will we have the ability to withdraw these reactors from IAEA safeguards? (2) If U.S./NSG countries renege on fuel supply assurances, can we withdraw our indigenous civilian reactors from IAEA safeguards? (3) If we have to bring nuclear fuel from the non-safeguarded part of our nuclear programme for these reactors in case of fuel supply assurances not being fulfilled, will we have the ability to take (the spent fuel) back again? (4) What are the corrective steps that India can take if fuel supplies are interrupted by the U.S./NSG countries? (5) What are the conditions that India will have to fulfil if the corrective steps are to be put into operation?

Though the Left has raised five separate queries, they all revolve around the one big imponderable that has animated both the United States government and the nuclear deal’s non-proliferation critics internationally ever since India came up with its separation plan on March 2, 2006: Just what exactly is meant by the phrase “corrective measures”? These are the measures India says it may take “to ensure uninterrupted operation of its civilian nuclear reactors in the event of disruption of foreign fuel supplies.” The phrase, which appears in paragaraph 15(c) of the Separation Plan, was a condition the Indian negotiators tagged on to the list of fuel supply assurances they said India needed in order to accept the American demand to “place its civilian nuclear facilities under India-specific safeguards in perpetuity and negotiate an appropriate safeguards agreement to this end with the IAEA.”

Both during the hard-fought talks on March 1 and 2, 2006, and subsequently, in the negotiations the two sides held on the 123 agreement, the Indian team constantly parried all American attempts to spell out or define just what was meant by “corrective measures.” Egged on by the American non-proliferation lobby, U.S. officials wanted to know, for example, whether corrective measures would include the withdrawal of a civilian facility from safeguards. Indian officials stonewalled, pointing out that since the eventuality of corrective measures could only arise if the continuous operation of India’s civilian nuclear reactors was interrupted, it was essential that fuel arrangements be as foolproof and watertight as possible.

When, during the 123 negotiations, the Indian team found the U.S. side backsliding on the commitments contained in paragraph 15 of the Separation Plan, a major fight ensued. The result was that the entire paragraph was incorporated into the 123 agreement by ‘cut and paste.’

Though declining to provide details, sources familiar with the draft safeguards agreement said the compromise package contained in paragraph 15 of the Separation Plan had been “fully protected” in the text India has negotiated with the IAEA secretariat and that the country had a range of rights it could invoke should the need arise.

The truth of this assertion can only be established once the safeguards agreement is made public but even then, it is unlikely that the text will shed any fresh light on the Left’s specific questions. Nor is the UPA likely to be more forthcoming than it has been so far.

For the government, the dilemma is a difficult one. The vagueness of language has helped India keep the nuclear deal’s critics abroad guessing, thereby blunting one of their main allegations that the nuclear agreement represents a “proliferation risk.” Critics overseas are arguing that “corrective measures” means India reserves the right to withdraw safeguarded facilities from international inspection at some point in the future and may indeed do so once it has imported enough nuclear fuel to make up its domestic shortfall.

But in the politically charged domestic arena, where the government finds itself accused of compromising the national interest, the same opaqueness of phraseology is now inviting further suspicion. Were the Prime Minister to fend off his domestic critics by providing the assurances they seek, chances are the level of international opposition to the nuclear agreement would increase dramatically. Silence, however, is not an option either, especially since the government has not been entirely convincing in its arguments with the Left and other critics on other aspects of the nuclear deal such as the impact it might have and has already had on the conduct of the country’s foreign and defence policy.

By citing the precedent of Tarapur, which was left in the lurch after the Americans cut off fuel, the CPI(M) and its allies have pointed to a potential vulnerability that the Department of Atomic Energy and government insist they have sought to protect the country from. Imported reactors without the fuel to run them would be little more than (radioactive) white elephants. But whichever way one defines “corrective measures,” it is hard to see how these would lead to the flow of fuel for a safeguarded reactor whose supplies have been cut off.

Fuel supplies may be withheld if India were to test another nuclear weapon, especially if the present international moratorium on testing continues to hold or actually gets converted into all the major nuclear weapon states signing and ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Under such a situation, the only insurance India can hope to rely on would be the strategic stockpile of fuel that it would presumably have built up prior to any resumption of testing.

Of course, fuel can be cut off for other reasons too. Again, a general stockpile would provide some comfort, though the inventory carrying cost and safety implications of holding nuclear fuel reserves would need to be taken into account. At the same time, the best guarantee for the uninterrupted running of safeguarded reactors would be the emergence of an international political environment in which India, as an important power, could have full confidence. This, in turn, would mean pursuing a foreign policy that privileges polycentrism rather than unipolarity, a point the government’s critics accuse it of forgetting. ‘Corrective’ measures, in the final analysis, are less important than ‘pre-emptive’ ones. Somewhere in the debate over text, the wider context of politics should not be lost sight of.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 10 Jul 2008 01:26

'Nuclear energy inevitable for India's rapid growth'

'Nuclear energy inevitable for India's rapid growth'
Wednesday July 9 2008 20:43 IST

IANS

Get a 30% discount on Calls to India.

BANGALORE: India has to tap nuclear energy if it wants rapid growth, according to R Chidambaram, principal scientific advisor to the government.

"If you have to grow big, you have to go thermal, nuclear or hydro. That's why nuclear becomes an inevitable option to satisfy the future needs of India," Chidambaram said here late on Tuesday.

"If one has to grow to a quality of life anywhere near that is prevailing in the developed world, one has to go nuclear in a big way," he said at a China-India-US science, technology and innovation workshop.

India can produce up to 200,000 MW nuclear power by 2050 but much would depend on clearing misconceptions over proliferation, Chidambaram said.

India's nuclear energy producing capacity is expected to go up to 20,000 MW by 2020. "Thereafter, it would grow very rapidly with more and more fast-breeder reactors being introduced in the system. It can grow to as much as 200,000 MW by the year 2050," he said.

But "it will depend upon how the international situation changes."

"It depends on how quickly proliferation misconceptions are removed from the system," he said.

Chidambaram did not refer to the much debated India-US nuclear deal in his talk though he said, without elaborating, that India needs the US in the short-term while the US needs India in the long-term.

"There is not enough fossil fuel in the world. Its depletion is reflected in the ridiculous prices of crude partly fuelled by speculation. In this context, nuclear energy becomes an inevitable option," he said.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Jul 2008 01:34

Its all a matter of trust which is based on perception which is in turn based on prior record.

I am glad that the phrase supreme national interests was used in the remarks to Amar Singh. I want to hear that in the Lok Sabha.

I agree that corrective measures should not be spelled out as they reveal the hand a priori.

Lets hope its all for the best and navigate through the choppy seas past the minefields.

What if MMS precisely built up this scared image all along to get to this position and did what the office requires onvce he got there? I mean this kind of deal wont come to any strongman leader of India where he gets away without spelling what the corrective measures are that are acceptable to the Intl community. and throws in language used by P-5 to support their stature.

paramu · Post by **paramu** » 10 Jul 2008 01:49

I could not ignore this confident post...

ldev wrote:Its a very simple matter.

The UPA government will prove before it approaches the IAEA that it commands a majority in the Lok Sabha via a vote. All MPs recognize that this vote has become necessary due to the Left withdrawing support which is directly as a result of the 123 initiative taken by the Government. This vote is therefore in a sense the vote of ratification that people here have been clamouring for the last 2-3 years. If the UPA gets a majority it is a properly constituted government that has entered into this agreement. If it does not, I dont think the government will approach the IAEA and the 123 process will die for now.

So hold onto your horses.....

Do we still need to hold our horses with the latest revelations?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Jul 2008 01:56

Facts speak for themselves. No need to rotfl.

Meanwhile GP in Pioneer, 10 July 2008

The myth of disarmament
G Parthasarathy

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh addressed a Conference on Disarmament in New Delhi on June 9 to mark the 20th anniversary of Prime Minster Rajiv Gandhi's address to the UN Special Session on Disarmament. Rajiv Gandhi had then presented an Action Plan calling on the international community to negotiate a binding agreement on general and complete disarmament leading to the elimination of all nuclear weapons by 2010.

Twenty years later, according to the Bulletin of American scientists, the US has a stockpile of 4,075 active nuclear warheads. Russia, France and the UK have 5,830, 200 and 350 warheads respectively. India, Pakistan and Israel are respectively said to possess 100 to 140, between 60 and 100, and 200 active warheads each. North Korea reportedly possesses four to 10 nuclear warheads. When Rajiv Gandhi presented his Action Plan in 1988, Pakistan had, thanks to liberal Chinese assistance and American acquiescence, already acquired a nuclear arsenal, prompting him to direct his scientists, Mr PK Iyengar and Mr VS Arunachalam, to proceed with the assembly of an Indian nuclear arsenal.

Even as Rajiv Gandhi was calling for the establishment of a "nonviolent and nuclear weapons free world order" duly backed by Mr Mikhail Gorbachev, the nuclear weapons powers were moving to secure an indefinite extension of the nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, which was concluded on July 1, 1968. With 189 countries now having acceded to the NPT and only four -- India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea -- living outside its provisions, the NPT can be said, as Western experts aver, to have prevented the emergence of around 20 nuclear weapons states, as was feared in 1968.

Thus, while India can legitimately claim that the Treaty is unequal and discriminatory, it will remain the target of signatories to the Treaty, including amongst its non-aligned partners, like Iran and Egypt. Such attitudes are partially motivated by envy, apart from concerns arising out of the possession of nuclear weapons by Israel. Countries like Iran demand a "complete prohibition" of nuclear cooperation with countries which have not signed the NPT.

The July 9 New Delhi Conference was called following an appeal issued jointly by Senator Sam Nunn, former Secretaries of State George Shultz and Henry Kissinger, and former US Defence Secretary William Perry, calling for the elimination of nuclear weapons. The American establishment is nowhere near accepting these recommendations, with the authors themselves now becoming quiet. None these four new found champions of disarmament, who were invited to the June 9 conference, chose to attend the event. Even Mr Gorbachev, that ardent one time champion of a "nonviolent and nuclear weapons free world," chose not to attend the conference, even though invited. The reality is that while world statesmen may pay lip service to disarmament, they are uneasy at associating themselves with India, because it is a non-signatory to the NPT.

The NPT was founded on the "three pillars" of non-proliferation, disarmament and cooperation in peaceful uses of nuclear energy. While its proponents draw a measure of satisfaction from the fact that the number of countries possessing nuclear weapons today has not reached double digits, there is a powerful lobby, particularly in the US and in the European Union, which demands "universalisation" the NPT and measures to pressurise non-signatories like India to accede to the NPT. China, which has a notorious record of violating the NPT by transfers of nuclear weapons designs and technology to Pakistan, adopts a holier than thou attitude, demanding that India should give up its nuclear weapons and accede to the NPT.

India unfortunately shows a lack of spine by refusing to allude publicly to these Chinese transgressions of the NPT. Similarly, India has been less than forthright in joining others to point out that NATO nuclear sharing agreements which have led to Belgium, Italy, Netherlands and Turkey currently receiving nuclear weapons, which Canada continued to receive till 1984 and Greece until 2001, grossly violate NPT obligations.

Finally, the second "pillar" of the NPT which requires nuclear weapons states to pursue negotiations leading to a "treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control" has become meaningless, because of the reluctance of nuclear weapons powers to either give up nuclear weapons, or even agree to refrain from the use or threat of use of these weapons.

India has now to prepare for the likelihood of the finalisation of two treaties -- a Treaty on a Comprehensive Test Ban and a Fissile Material Cut off Treaty -- in the not too distant future, especially if Mr Barack Obama is elected as the next US President. As our former Ambassador to the UN Arundhati Ghosh recently noted, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee has already committed in the UN in 1998 that apart from observing its unilateral moratorium on testing, India will, in addition bring its discussions with the US "to a successful conclusion", so that "the entry into force of the CTBT is not delayed". Thus, despite protestations to the contrary, both Mr Vajpayee and then Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh have committed India to acceding to the CTBT, once countries like China and the US ratify it.

The real challenges that India is going to face will arise when negotiations commence to conclude a FMCT, which will ultimately lead to an end to production of fissile material for nuclear weapons. The conclusion of a FMCT will be a high priority in the event of an Obama Presidency in the US. It is here that India should stand firm, holding that it will accede to such a treaty only if it is non-discriminatory and internationally verifiable. Any loophole that permits China to either build up its arsenal while India is prohibited from doing so, or permits China to clandestinely transfer know-how and fissile material to Pakistan, should be categorically rejected.

It would be worthwhile to convey this unambiguously to key partners like the US, the UK, France, Russia, other members of the G 8 and to friendly countries like South Africa and Brazil. India should reaffirm that while it will never be the first to use nuclear weapons, it will also resist attempts to pressurise it to accept treaties that will undermine the efficacy of its nuclear deterrent. We will also have to recognise that while global nuclear disarmament is desirable, the prospects for nuclear disarmament in the foreseeable future are virtually non-existent.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 10 Jul 2008 02:06

Left should have let Yechury take oath to see draft: Amar

New Delhi, July 9: Responding to the Left’s complaint that it was never shown the text of the draft safeguards agreement with the US, Samajwadi Party General Secretary Amar Singh said today that a way out of the stalemate could have been if one of the Left leaders had been sworn to secrecy and shown the draft agreement by the government.

Speaking to The Indian Express Editor-in-Chief Shekhar Gupta on NDTV’s Walk the Talk programme to be broadcast on Saturday, Amar Singh said: “I think the Left should have sent someone articulate like Sitaram Yechury — not to join the ministry — but as a representative of the Left Front...either Yechury or Bardhan or anyone else could have taken an oath of secrecy and seen the documents.”

Amar Singh said the matter could have been resolved in an amicable manner by resorting to a practice in the US Congress where Senators are often shown sensitive documents after being sworn to secrecy. He said even NDA ‘Let Yechury be sworn in...’

leaders could have been shown the documents in this manner. “In fact, one prominent person from every party could have been sworn to secrecy and shown the documents. And we would not have gone and told Pakistan or China about it,” he said.

He said the parting of ways between the UPA and Left parties had happened because “the two principal characters — Dr Manmohan Singh and Comrade (Prakash) Karat — were equally and absolutely rigid” on their respective stands. “Comrade Karat was rigid to oppose the nuclear deal He was not willing to look at it from another point of view. Dr Singh was also very rigid,” he said.

Amar Singh said he missed the presence of veteran CPM leader Harkishen Singh Surjeet who would have handled this crisis in a “better” manner. “Surjeet had an element of grassroots connectivity and a better knowledge of human nature. He was not a pure ideologue,” he said.

An official in IAEA, when asked by The Indian Express today whether the Indian government can disclose the draft agreement to people outside the government, said, “We have our own confidentiality rules. We will not circulate the document till member states ask us to do so. We can’t make a judgment on member-states.”

The BJP slammed the CPM’s demand. “The CPM enjoyed power without any accountability during the UPA government regime. Why didn’t they join the government?” asked BJP spokesperson Ravi Shankar Prasad on the CPM’s demand.

As PM, Atal Bihari Vajpayee had administered an oath of secrecy to Pramod Mahajan whom he appointed as political advisor in the PMO in 1998. The oath was administered at a ceremony at Vajpayee’s residence after it was said that Mahajan would have access to official documents and government secrets “without any legitimate status”

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 10 Jul 2008 02:07

Akalis break their silence: We back deal, no call on vote yet

New Delhi, July 9: The Shiromani Akali Dal (Badal), which has eight MPs in the Lok Sabha, is yet to formally announce its stand on whether it will oppose or support the government on the nuclear deal. However, SAD (B) secretary general and former Union minister Sukhdev Singh Dhindsa told NDA leaders at a meeting today that “there was division within the party” on the issue and a final decision would be taken on July 15.

Dhindsa told The Indian Express, after the meeting held at BJP leader L K Advani’s house, that he gave no “categorical assurance” to the NDA leadership on the issue of support in case of a trust vote against the UPA government. But he told NDA leaders that the party was in support of the deal. “We support the deal. But we will take a final decision on the vote on the Manmohan Singh government on July 15,” Dhindsa said.

He said the party might even decide to abstain from voting. “If the Shiv Sena can refuse to toe the NDA line in supporting Pratibha Patil for President only because she is a Maharashtrian, we can also decide on similar lines. Abstaining is also one of the options,” Dhindsa said.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Jul 2008 02:13

SAD should have argued for their decision on its own merits and not seek a clutch from paraochial regional leaders.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 10 Jul 2008 02:14

Nuclear deal crucial to meet India’s energy needs: Kakodkar

Nuclear deal crucial to meet India’s energy needs: Kakodkar
Y P Rajesh
Posted online: Thursday, July 10, 2008 at 2341 hrs Print Email

Mumbai, July 9: Mounting possibly his strongest defence yet of the Indo-US nuclear co-operation agreement, Atomic Energy Commission chairman Anil Kakodkar on Wednesday said India was negotiating the pact from a position of strength and called attempts to isolate the country’s nuclear programme from the world “foolish”.

Armed with a brief powerpoint presentation for a panel discussion, Kakodkar said he wanted to put the controversial deal in “proper perspective”. While India’s indigenous programme had achieved much both in the civilian and military sectors, global co-operation was needed now to meet the country’s soaring energy needs and bridge the supply gap, he said.

“Let there be no fear that we are attempting civil nuclear co-operation from a position of weakness or from a donor-recipient position,” the AEC chairman said. “We are talking of engaging the world from a strong business position, from a position of India’s power requirements both in the short-term and the long-term. So that we can bridge the energy security gap that we foresee.”

Meticulously explaining the charts in his presentation, Kakodkar said India’s power requirement is forecast at 1,300 Gigawatts by 2050 and there would be a shortage of about 400 Gigawatts without the nuclear deal. A 10-year delay in operationalising the deal would lead to a shortfall of about 180 Gigawatts, he added.

India’s three-stage nuclear programme would not need international help in perpetuity, Kakodkar said, attempting to allay fears of some sections that New Delhi would be bound to global powers forever under the deal. “If civil nuclear co-operation opens up and we are able to import 40 Gigawatts of nuclear power production capability between 2012 and 2020, the deficit projected in 2050 will practically be wiped out,” he said.

“Some people might say what is the big deal in an additional 40 Gigawatts but 40 Gigawatts is 40 Gigawatts,” he said and added that fuel imported and used during this period could be recycled for the future while the fast-breeder reactors would also pitch in.

He said he was not opposed to the deal in the initial stages as perceived but admitted that he had reservations about some negotiation positions involving securing reprocessing rights and not placing the fast-breeder reactors under safeguards and those had been taken care of. “There were issues that had to be insisted,” he said.

Asked about the opposition to the deal by some Indian nuclear scientists who had been his colleagues, Kakodkar replied: “I have heard various viewpoints but on the question whether the country needs power or not, I have not heard a second view.”

The debate over India’s nuclear programme brought to mind “our own development as men and women”, Kakodkar said. “When you are a small baby, you have all the protection from external influences. But once you grow into an adult it would be foolish to stay protected. If a growing adult is prevented from interacting with the world, he will become lame.”

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Jul 2008 02:22

Obviously logic wasnt his strong point.

Anyone care to see how his statemetns fit the standard model for logic?

LinkLogical Fallacy

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 10 Jul 2008 02:47

5-plus-1 tag in nuke draft- Delhi dashes to Vienna with pact

5-plus-1 tag in nuke draft
Delhi dashes to Vienna with pact
K.P. NAYAR
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh with US President George W Bush in Hokkaido on Wednesday. (PTI)

Washington, July 9: A 20-page text of the nuclear safeguards agreement circulated in Vienna today places India in the global non-proliferation regime a notch above Pakistan and North Korea.

But it leaves New Delhi in a category below the five nuclear weapons states — Russia, China, France, Britain and the US — that are recognised under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), according to diplomats who formally received the agreement from the secretariat of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) this afternoon.

The text is titled ‘Agreement with the Government of India for the Application of Safeguards to Civilian Nuclear Facilities’.

India, Pakistan and North Korea are the only three countries outside the NPT regime that have tested nuclear weapons. Israel is well-known to have the bomb, but it refuses to acknowledge that it has even mastered the scientific cycles that precede the production of atom bombs.

Diplomats in Vienna are already referring to India and the five recognised nuclear weapons states collectively following the circulation of the agreement as “five plus one”.

This means India will be in a special category within the global non-proliferation regime if the IAEA’s board of governors approve the safeguards agreement at its yet to be scheduled meeting.

IAEA spokesperson Melissa Fleming emphasised that “the text of the draft agreement is not public” and that the agency’s officials have been told not to give any interviews to the media on the subject “at this time”.

But the Vienna International Centre on the banks of the Danube, the IAEA property leased from the Austrian government for 99 years, leaks like a sieve: it is, therefore possible to construct an idea of what India can expect from the safeguards pact from diplomats who are willing to talk about it on background.

Diplomats who have perused today’s text said it has many structural similarities with the Hyde Act approved by the US Congress to facilitate the Indo-US nuclear deal.

Like the Hyde Act, the IAEA’s agreement with India is long on preamble which sums up the reasons for bringing India into a special category in the current global nuclear non-proliferation regime.

Like the Hyde Act, whose preamble and non-operative parts were necessary to satisfy the diverse lobbies and constituencies in the US Congress, the one in the Vienna document was also necessary to bring round those members of the IAEA board who have reservations about a safeguards agreement that overlooks New Delhi’s refusal to sign the NPT.

It was not immediately clear if today’s document satisfactorily answers the five questions raised by Left parties in their joint statement about the UPA government's negotiations with the IAEA.

But diplomats said the safeguards agreement will “definitely not” permit spare parts or fuel — even in the event of any shortage — to be transferred between nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards and those outside it as part of India’s weapons programme.

Fleming said the chairman of the board, Milenko Skoknic of Chile, had already begun consultations with fellow governors to fix a date for convening a board meeting to approve the agreement.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 10 Jul 2008 02:48

After NSG, the heat is on US

After NSG, the heat is on US
MANINI CHATTERJEE

Toyako, July 9: Beneath the gush-gush, the meeting between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President George W. Bush covered crucial ground that could ensure the ratification of the 123 Agreement regardless of whether the Indian or the American leader is in office.

The Prime Minister, it is learnt, informed Bush that he had delivered on his promise. Singh had overcome domestic compulsions and was taking the safeguards agreement to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

In exchange, Singh sought and received an assurance from Bush that the US would use all its influence to get India a “clean waiver” at the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG).

The personal rapport between Singh and Bush gave the meeting the “necessary political push” at the highest level, officials said.

Once India gets past the NSG, it will be imperative for the US to ratify the 123 Agreement and gain “first-mover” advantage in the lucrative nuclear commerce sector that will open up in India, the officials added.

If the US Congress fails to ratify the deal after the NSG waiver, it will leave the door open for Russia, France and other players to enter the field and snap up orders at the cost of American business.

That is why even if a “lame-duck” session of Congress fails to pass the agreement, the next US dispensation — be it Democratic or Republican — will push it through, Indian officials hope.

Soon after the meeting between Bush and Manmohan, the G8 nations decided to adopt a “more robust” approach to civil nuclear cooperation with India.

“We look forward to working with India, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Nuclear Suppliers Group and other partners to advance India’s non-proliferation commitments and progress so as to facilitate a more robust approach to civil nuclear co-operation with India to help it meet its growing energy needs in a manner that enhances and reinforces the global non-proliferation regime,” the Chair’s summary released at the end of the summit said.

The G8 is made of the US, the UK, France, Russia, Japan, Canada, Germany and Italy — all members of the NSG as well.

The spiralling oil price and the growing concern over carbon emissions, reflected in all the meetings at the G8 summit here, also helped the Indians push the case for the nuclear deal which is expected to help generate “clean energy”.

If nuclear commerce holds the bait to lure France and Russia, “the clean energy” argument at a time India is under pressure to cut greenhouse gas emission has been used to persuade sceptics (such as Japan and Australia) that the civil nuclear agreement was not just good for India “but also good for the world”, the officials said.

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 10 Jul 2008 02:55

HERE'S a copy of the safeguards agreement. Top Secret? I think not!

The NPAs seem to hate it!

Two quick points:

1. No mention of "in perpetuity" - meaning that India can reclassify a reactor for military use after all imported fuel has been passed through the system

2. No physical separation required

Both are IDENTICAL to the NPT NWS rights.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 10 Jul 2008 02:57

Rangudu wrote:HERE'S a copy of the safeguards agreement. Top Secret? I think not!

The NPAs seem to hate it!

Thanks Rangudu! If only the so called journalists of DDM were as resourceful!!

paramu · Post by **paramu** » 10 Jul 2008 03:49

Somebody should email this to Yechuri and Karat.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Jul 2008 03:49

Have you read and understood it first? There is another threadonthe draft agreement.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 10 Jul 2008 04:44

China, Germany, France among supporters of India on N energy
V S Chandrasekar
China, Germany, France among supporting India on nuke energy
Sopporo (Japan), July 9 (PTI) Amidst domestic political divide on the nuclear deal with the US, India today received support from China, Germany, Canada, Japan and UK among others, for use of nuclear power as a clean source of energy.

Leaders of 17 major economies met on the sidelines of the G-8 meeting and adopted a declaration which affirmed the critical role of technology in meeting the global challenges of energy security and climate change.

"We will promote the uptake and use of such technologies, including renewables, cleaner and low-carbon technologies and for those of us interested, nuclear power," the declaration said.

Leaders of the European Union, France, Italy, South Korea, Russia, Indonesia, South Africa and Mexico also attended the meeting before adopting the declaration on 'Energy Security and Climate Change'.

As Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's Government is expected to move fast on the nuclear agreement with the US, with the support of the Samajwadi Party in Parliament, cooperation of several of these countries is crucial for approval of the deal from the Nuclear Suppliers' Group.

The declaration listed technology cooperation with developing countries as vital for capacity building for reducing carbon emissions.

"Mindful of the other role of a range of alternative energy technologies, we recognise, in particular, the need for research, development ...On carbon capture and storage. We also note the value of technology roadmaps as tools to promote continuous investment and cooperation in clean energy research..", it said. PTI

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 10 Jul 2008 04:51

Rangudu wrote:HERE'S a copy of the safeguards agreement.

God bless you Rangudu-ji... you saved commis from committing suicide... I was worried they will die before seeing this agreement, because Pranabda wouldn't show them...

32. Safeguards shall be terminated on a facility listed in the Annex after India and the Agency have
jointly determined that the facility is no longer usable for any nuclear activity relevant from the
point of view of safeguards. Safeguards on non-nuclear material, equipment and components
subject to this Agreement may be terminated as and when the non-nuclear material, equipment or
components have been returned to the supplier or arrangements have been made by the Agency to
safeguard the non-nuclear material, equipment or components in the State to which it is being
transferred, or when India and the Agency have jointly determined that the non-nuclear material,
equipment or component in question has been consumed, is no longer usable for any nuclear
activity relevant from the point of view of safeguards or has become practicably irrecoverable.
Safeguards may be terminated on heavy water upon India’s placing under safeguards as substitute
the same amount of heavy water of equivalent or better heavy water concentration.

Inferring...
1. GOI puts one of its existing 15 reactors under safeguards in say 2009. And runs it using imported raw-material (Say from Aussis) for 10 years... and decides to move it back to un-safeguard mode. Then all we have to do is return the imported raw-material (or equivalent amount) to Aussis... and get back our reactor...

2. If this is the case, GOI can put some of its reactors and use the remaining reactors to run at full capacity to meet its strategic needs.

3. As and when the FBRs design proved and come online, we can put them under safeguards to run them at full capacity... and use the output to build new FBRs (under safeguards) to move the third-stage (Thorium based) at the earliest.

So the key is to

A. Ensure GOI builds the reactors in-house. Then we are not losing the reactors/components to external suppliers. Once we move to the third-stage we can start using internal Thorium resources and slowly return the U/Pu materials... if that is how it works...

B. Run a parallel chain of 1st/2nd/3rd stage program to meet strategic needs and research needs....

Piece of (yellow)cake