India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

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

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Post by Gerard »

. In the event that NSG sets 'difficult' conditions, India walks out of the NSG negotiations.
India is not a member of the NSG and will not be present. There will be no negotiations with the NSG. Theirs will be a private meeting at whcih the NSG members thrash out things among themselves.
It is also possible that the NSG exempts India from signing the NPT and/or CTBT, but insists that it sign the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT).
What FMCT? The US has submitted one version to the conference on disarmament. It has not yet been accepted. Suppose India submits its own FMCT draft that includes verification and a 10 year grace period after signing?
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19333
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Post by NRao »

The US is going for a clean and implied conditions (123, Hyde Act, US Prez perview, etc).

Both FR and RU have bought into the concept as of now.

The question will remain if FR and RU will follow US instructions in the future and what will be the implications for India in any such negotiations.
Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1513
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Post by Pulikeshi »

NRao,

Care to explain the reason for your conclusion in sentence one?

My two naya paisa on this:
So is this the pushing of the envelope that India is willing to agree upon?

"Any condition other than NSG waiver being conditional to U.S. COTUS voting up for deal would be unacceptable to India"

Also, anyone know the sequencing of NSG waiver and COTUS vote?
Most in the media have assumed one after the other... but what happens if there is consensus in NSG?
Can the COTUS vote still go through?
Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Post by Katare »

NRao wrote:The US is going for a clean and implied conditions (123, Hyde Act, US Prez perview, etc).

Both FR and RU have bought into the concept as of now.

The question will remain if FR and RU will follow US instructions in the future and what will be the implications for India in any such negotiations.
That's your feeling not the facts. Why can't you wait for few more days for the final draft.
Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Post by Gerard »

Latest fatwa from Ayatollahs Daryl Kimball, Fred McGoldrick, and Lawrence Scheinman

IAEA-Indian Nuclear Safeguards Agreement: A Critical Analysis
Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Post by Gerard »

link
They also highlight paragraph 13 - which also has been under considerable debate. The IAEA's Ollie Heinonen had reportedly been discussing this with India's Anil Kakodkar at length back in February/March this year. The IAEA had been pushing for the rapid inclusion of Indian reprocessing facilities, but the Indians had refused.
And at the moment, it seems like the resistance of skeptical states is very fragile. The speculation from the capital of the nuclear world yesterday was that no-one seemed willing to call a vote they were sure to publicly lose, instead preferring to fight on inside the comfortable opacity of the NSG.
Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Post by Gerard »

link
The de-jure nuclear weapon states have Voluntary Offer Agreements (VOA) with the Agency. Their Additional Protocols essentially allows the state to exclude any verification activity directly accessing activities significant for that states national security (i.e. all locations and activities related to the military fuel cycle). For these states, the Agency are usually concluding that, 'nuclear material to which safeguards had been applied in selected facilities remained in peaceful activities or was withdrawn as provided for in the agreements'. But could a India-specific AP be different? Some seems to fear that it just might be.
They can rest easy. My guess would be that India's Additional Protocol will be modelled on a Nuclear-Weapon State 'Voluntary Offer Agreement' (VOA).
This means that the main financial burden of safeguarding India will not be carried by India herself (which in 2008 was assessed to pay € 822.511 and US$ 194.730) but rather by wealthier states. Granted, of those the United States pays a huge portion of the Agency budget, and a large amount in extra-budgetary contributions.
Virupaksha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 3110
Joined: 28 Jun 2007 06:36

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Post by Virupaksha »

From the fatwa post by Gerard, two posts above - the much "secret" restricted document -gov 1621 is given.

http://armscontrol.org/system/files/GOV1621.pdf

has this document already been discussed?
Sanatanan
BRFite
Posts: 490
Joined: 31 Dec 2006 09:29

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Post by Sanatanan »

Suraj wrote: ....
What precedent exists at all for one country to be adjunct to another's laws ?
Perhaps the following may be cited as an example:

Much after the 123 Agreement for Tarapur 1&2 was signed and implemented, US amended its national laws to prohibit fuel reprocessing. It used this amended (its national) law to prevent India from reprocessing and recovering U, Pu and other valuable byproducts. It has even refused to take back the spent fuel. Fearful of the unacceptable consequences of unilateral action to reprocess the fuel regardless of US objections, even as of now, much after the life of the Agreement is well past, India has not been able to overcome this issue.
Suraj
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15178
Joined: 20 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Post by Suraj »

Sanatanan: Do you have a link to the prior TAPS 1&2 related 123 Agreement for reference ?

Added later: The reason why I ask is that it merits an effort to see what kind of language (or any at all) existed in the earlier TAPS 1&2 123 Agreement regarding scope of US actions. These actions were not in vacuum, but followed the 1974 test. For the current 123, the debate was underscored by the question of 'what to do if India tests', and the language negotiated is based on that.

It would be very helpful to know to what extent there was a similar effort to accomodate Indian testing in the old TAPS 123. At the time the original 123 was signed, the NPT did not exist, and 'atoms for peace' was the phrase in vogue. Clearly India became the target of the newfound emphasis on 'non-proliferation' (the quotes being to underline what a scam it is), later and the efforts to address this concern in prior agreements and uranium sale systems.

While I accept the question of 'what do we do if the other party unilaterally abrogates an agreement' as very much valid, just saying 'they did it in the past' doesn't quite address the very different circumstances under which the two 123s came about. At the very least, the first one was abrogated due to nuclear tests, while the second followed another round of tests. The old 123 was a victim of US highhandedness due to their newfound interest in non-proliferation, with India being the primary concern. But the new 123 happened at a time where concerns about proliferation relate to unstable states, with the emphasis on India being driven largely by the NPAs.

Essentially, my view is that it helps to understand how evolving nonproliferations made India a victim then, and how the current and evolving geopolitical concerns affect how the US or anyone else may respond, rather than simply equate the potential for consequences then and now.
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Post by Arun_S »

Quoting in full so it can be compared.
NEW DELHI: Minister of State for Power Jairam Ramesh said here on Wednesday that nuclear energy was crucial, along with other sources of energy, and that once the India-U.S. nuclear deal got through, the country would be able to produce 20,000 MW of nuclear power by 2020.

“At present the nuclear plants are operating at 48 per cent of their capacity due to shortage of uranium. This is telling on the performance of these utilities and has also impacted the availability of power in the country. Nuclear energy is the need of the hour and we must tap it along with thermal, hydro and non-renewable sources,” he said while announcing that a branch office of the Damodar Valley Corporation would be opened soon in Ranchi.

Mr. Ramesh said the DVC decided to set up two units at its Chandrapura power plant in Jharkhand that would produce 500 mw by 2009. The project would cost Rs. 2,000 crore. The Minister said he reviewed the work at the 2x250 MW Chandrapura project. The project was delayed by over 15 months and commercial operation for the first unit was scheduled to begin by February 2009.

He said the DVC would set up an ITI at its 2x500 MW Koderma project site, also in Jharkhand. In the next four years the DVC would commission a number of projects in Jharkhand, including the 2x250 MW units in Chandrapura, the 2x525 MW units at Maithon in a joint venture with Tata Power, the 2x500 MW units at Koderma, 2x500 MW units at Bokharo and 2x250 MW units at the Bokharo steel plant complex.
Now what Honerable Minister of State for Power Jairam Ramesh, responsible for power is saying is in direct contradiction with the Power Point Presentation prepared by expert DAE scientists and presented by Honerable Shri Anil Kakodkar at IISc, by several hundred percentage points (250% onlee! The charts show 50,000 MWe nuclear power production by 2020). And this no ordinary people speaking. One of them is seriously out of touch with reality.

http://www.dae.gov.in/lecture.htm

What gives?
Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4856
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Post by Neshant »

The numbers are meaningless until one asks what are the overt and hidden costs.

One could say we can generate 20,000MW with fossil fuels imported from saudi arabia by 2020 without specifying the cost either.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Post by Philip »

"..if it goes through"!

Nuclear deal in choppy waters?

There is cloud over the expectation that with the Government's successful squelching of the Left's opposition through the confidence vote in the Lok Sabha and completion of the negotiation on the safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the nuclear agreement with the US will have a smooth passage.

It had so far been assumed on the Indian side that the 123 Agreement and the IAEA Safeguards Agreement already sewn up, all that remained was securing the approval of the Nuclear Suppliers' Group (NSG) to the entire arrangement, enabling India to acquire the fuel, equipment and technology needed for augmenting the generation of atomic power in line with its master plan.

Indeed, some analysts in India were even jubilant that once the NSG okays the deal, it was immaterial whether or not the US Congress ratified the 123 Agreement, and India can straightaway begin dealing with suppliers other than the US in the NSG.

It now transpires that the deal's passage is not going to be that easy. To head off the possibility of India dealing with preferred members of the NSG without reference to the US, there is apparently a move either to time the IAEA Safeguards Agreement, the NSG decision and the US Congressional ratification of the123 Agreement to take place simultaneously, or even to make the US Congressional ratification of the 123 Agreement precede the other two processes so that the US is able to retain its hold on the subsequent operations under the deal. By way of double precaution, the US has reportedly secured a `political understanding' from Russia and France that they would not rush to conclude export deals with India following the NSG waiver but wait until the US Congress ratifies the 123 Agreement.

A more disturbing connotation has been put on the US perspective by the statement of the US Ambassador, Mr David C. Mulford, at a media meet on July 23, that the NSG waiver is bound to take into account not only the prescriptions in the IAEA safeguards and the 123 Agreement but also `the determinations' the President has to make under the Hyde Act.

PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATIONS

The determinations the President has to make and apprise the Congress impinge on the activities of almost the entire Department of Atomic Energy, bringing within their purview nuclear facilities within as well as outside the safeguards scheme, that is, meant for both strategic and non-strategic purposes.

For example, the Congress has demanded to know from the President every year the quantity of uranium mined, milled, processed and utilised by India, especially for production of nuclear explosives devices, the rate of production in India of fissile material for nuclear explosive devices; the amount of electricity India's nuclear reactors produced for civil purposes 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.

The President has also to report to the Congress how well India has cooperated with the US in its efforts "to dissuade, isolate, and, if necessary, sanction and contain Iran" to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons capability.

There is besides Section 106 of the Hyde Act which is 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.

The deal is as good as sunk if there is any attempt on the NSG's part to make its decision contingent on India's compliance with the `determinations' of the Hyde Act.

B. S. RAGHAVAN

PS:With the US carrot,as usual comes the "stick"!
Sanatanan
BRFite
Posts: 490
Joined: 31 Dec 2006 09:29

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Post by Sanatanan »

Suraj wrote: Sanatanan: Do you have a link to the prior TAPS 1&2 related 123 Agreement for reference ?
Here is the document titled "GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ON THE CIVIL USES OF ATOMIC ENERGY" signed in Washington, on 8 August 1963.

I am not sure whether any revisions or addenda exist for this document (I think not).

Added later:
The old 123 was a victim of US highhandedness {font highlight, mine} due to their newfound interest in non-proliferation, with India being the primary concern. But the new 123 happened at a time where concerns about proliferation relate to unstable states, with the emphasis on India being driven largely by the NPAs.
"Once bitten, (at least) twice shy" should be the dictum, for me. Also, I think, the US has a history of reneging agreements in the past with various parties starting from the original inhabitants of the American Continent. This "deal" is to run for 40 years during which time a maximum of 10 and a minimum of 5 US Presidents may come and go. So I am not convinced that another US President may not adopt similar antagonistic postures in the future.

In any event, I firmly believe that this "deal" will weaken India's ability to innovate and develop internal technological strength, by diverting precious resources - money and knowledge people - through the easier import path (short circuiting, as it were).
harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Post by harbans »

It's only after Suraj Ji got out the 'unconditiional' and 'clean' demarcation i just wondered why treaties and agreements are penned down. The very fact that there is a written agreement implies conditions of some kind. There cannot be an 'unconditional' agreement possible. Even marriages are conditional. What sort of 'unconditional' agreement is implied by the GOI or members here? I am unclear. Suraj Ji is right in asking clarification on these terms as they are being loosely used. IMO come what may, no one is going to tell India 'please test' we'll give you fuel irrespective. That will come only IF India posseses the political will to test and put pressure on one or more supplier country to supply fuel even if others desist. The US or China for example could openly test tomorrow and not be hit by sanctions of any kind. Their economies are too large for other countries to be sanctimonious about imposing conditions. Our aim should be to be that. Large and influential enough to be able to break/ make laws or treaties when our interests are at stake. We have some time and maturity still left to get there.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19333
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Post by NRao »

Katare wrote: That's your feeling not the facts. Why can't you wait for few more days for the final draft.
Because I am a tea leaf reader. I do not, actually cannot, make statements without reading something somewhere. And, there can be no tea leaf reading if the final draft comes out!!!

IF it is my "feeling" I will post as such, or as "IMHO"

You see I used to bang heads with people in the US Congress loooong back...as part of my job.... which is where I got my tea leaf reading stuff from....and today's tertiary contacts. Anyways......................
Care to explain the reason for your conclusion in sentence one?
Sure, my problem seems to be that I expect others to read important articles - specially those posted on BR. Sorry:
To a follow-up question what sort of conditions the U.S. expected the NSG to impose if the waiver were not unconditional, the Ambassador backtracked somewhat. “Let me go back to this question ‘unconditional waiver’. All I said there was I didn’t think that was the right word. I didn’t say there were going to be conditions,” he clarified. “By referring to it as a clean exemption, what we mean there is [the NSG will] decide to go ahead and agree to support the various pieces that have been put together — the 123 Agreement, the IAEA safeguards … and also the review made by Congress and the presidential determinations which go with that. We hope every country will then say we think this does cover all the issues we have on our mind and that they come out with a consensus for a movement forward which does not have conditions attached to it by the NSG. That’s basically the situation.”
That is my "implied conditions". He does not want the NSG to place any conditions because the it has been done via the Hyde Act, 123, and the IAEA.

And an article that is re-posted by Philip a few posts above"
............A more disturbing connotation has been put on the US perspective by the statement of the US Ambassador, Mr David C. Mulford, at a media meet on July 23, that the NSG waiver is bound to take into account not only the prescriptions in the IAEA safeguards and the 123 Agreement but also `the determinations' the President has to make under the Hyde Act.

PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATIONS

.........................

- B . S. RAGHAVAN
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19333
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Post by NRao »

It's only after Suraj Ji got out the 'unconditiional' and 'clean' demarcation i just wondered why treaties and agreements are penned down. The very fact that there is a written agreement implies conditions of some kind. There cannot be an 'unconditional' agreement possible. Even marriages are conditional.
Since India is not a part or member of the NSG, the NSG members can place conditions among themselves - as to how each of them can interact with India.

What Kakodkar meant by "clean, unconditional" is that as far as India should be concerned NSG does not exist. Simple as that.

And, those two words were targeted at the members of the NSG and certainly NPAs that - at that time -could influence the entire effort of getting outside reactors/fuel.

We may not understand it (NOT a knock on anyone) or could mumble and fumble defining it, but as long as those in the game understood it THEN it served its purpose.
mayurav
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 96
Joined: 15 Apr 2006 06:47
Location: Banavasi

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Post by mayurav »

Sanatanan wrote:
Suraj wrote: ....
What precedent exists at all for one country to be adjunct to another's laws ?
Perhaps the following may be cited as an example:

Much after the 123 Agreement for Tarapur 1&2 was signed and implemented, US amended its national laws to prohibit fuel reprocessing. It used this amended (its national) law to prevent India from reprocessing and recovering U, Pu and other valuable byproducts. It has even refused to take back the spent fuel. Fearful of the unacceptable consequences of unilateral action to reprocess the fuel regardless of US objections, even as of now, much after the life of the Agreement is well past, India has not been able to overcome this issue.
When will India overcome this fear? When we have ICBMs capable of reaching US? There is nothing preventing Saudi/OPEC from passing national laws saying they will not provide India oil if we conduct a nuke test.

Ultimately it is the relative military/economic power that matters not national laws, international treaties etc.
Sanatanan
BRFite
Posts: 490
Joined: 31 Dec 2006 09:29

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Post by Sanatanan »

mayurav wrote:
Ultimately it is the relative military/economic power that matters not national laws, international treaties etc.
As they say, might is (always?) right!
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Post by RajeshA »

US can terminate N-deal if India conducts tests: Nicholas Burns

I don't know, why Nick Burns keeps on parroting this. Is he just pitching it for US Congress, so that they don't doubt, that 123 Agreement is in conformance with Hyde Act, or does he really mean it, because otherwise Nick Burns and Manmohan Singh are saying two different things.

Even if USA is bound by Law to terminate civilian nuclear cooperation with India in case of nuclear testing by India, it should be clear that the provision would not be forming any part of the "clean and unconditional" exemption by NSG, and other countries like France and Russia need not be bound by any such constraints.

At least for me, it is not clear, which documents make up the context for NSG exemption. Is Hyde Act one of them? Or is it just 123 Agreement? Or is it just the IAEA safeguards document?

IMO, it sounds weird, that NSG which is a grouping of 45 sovereign countries doing nuclear commerce would accept internal US Laws as a basis of doing commerce with India.

It may be fine for USA to ask France and Russia in an informal way to hold back on nuclear cooperation with India until the Congress gives its go to 123 Agreement, and that too for a limited time, say 60 days or so, but any such encoding into the NSG Note for Consideration or NSG Rules, would probably not be acceptable as a "condition" to which Mulford implied. He is saying NSG would have to take into consideration US Congress's Review of 123 Agreement as well as US President's Determinations based on the Hyde Act.

Another thing that bothers me is, would US really allow other countries to conduct nuclear commerce with India when US companies would face a lower level of preference in the Indian market, considering that in a post-Smiling Buddha II scenario, American companies may have to leave, while French and Russian companies can conduct business without any qualms. There could be insurance issues involved here and odds would be stacked against them from word go.
BSR Murthy
BRFite
Posts: 187
Joined: 02 Apr 2003 12:31
Location: Texas

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Post by BSR Murthy »

It seems fair to conclude that the US would like the NSG to formulate the waiver to India on the lines of Hyde Act. This accomplishes a couple of things: 1. The non-proliferation ayatollahs are mollified 2. US companies would not be at a disadvantage relative to other nuke tech suppliers like Russia and France. 3. Future nuclear testing is essentially ruled out.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19333
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Post by NRao »

What really will matter is the B in FBR. If the ratio is greater than 1 (and by how much) then India can sleep easy. If it is less than 1, then it is a matter of greater time.

On NSG, given that they have never had to deal with a situation like this, under normal circumstances there would have been a whole lot of debate, etc. Perhaps even a split. To circumvent that entire process I feel that the US is providing an assurance that a framework exists - albeit outside the NSG, and that if they look across the big pond they can see it and therefore there is really no need to come up with any new verbiage........ that India be granted a waiver under NSG rules so that its members can deal with India without being concerned about proliferation.

Clearly, the US wants to drive!

I wonder how many of these NSG members have an internal Act of their own (to lean on).
Suraj
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15178
Joined: 20 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Post by Suraj »

Sanatanan: Thank you for the link to the old 123 agreement.

The problem with the 'once bitten twice shy' argument is that it is simplistic, and precludes any effort to understand what drove the creation of the nonproliferation regime, and for the US to act in a certain manner in 1974, and what their compulsions are today and in future.

The 'US could do anything' position is so generic that it can be applied to almost anything. For example, it could be argued that the US could confiscate the IAF's Su-30MKIs from the ongoing Red Flag exercise and keep it for themselves. That is why I suggest comparing the 123 agreements, and analyzing the milieu then that led to the nonproliferation controls, and what their compulsions are going forward.
Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Post by Katare »

PC Chidambram, one of the best legal minds in UPA, gave a very good speech during confidence vote. He mentioned couple things from legal point of view which may be useful for discussion here -

First thing he said about the sequence of agreements, it seems that the sequence of agreements (J18, Hyde, 123, IAEA, NSG and Up/Down vote in Congress on 123) are by design in India’s favor-

US congress will vote (up/down vote) last on the final agreement (i.e. 123 deal), as per basic principles of law the "last expression of legislative" takes president over all previous legislative acts of the body. So once US congress passes the final agreement between India and USA, Hyde act becomes subservient to the 123 deal under US laws. In other words 123-deal would over rule hyde acts since it is the last legislative expression of congress on the matter.

Also he quoted from US constitution that "any treaty signed by govt of united state becomes the supreme law of the land".

He also quoted Vienna convention in reference to 123 deal's mention of principles of international law which reads 'a party can not invoke a domestic law to amend or abrogate an international treaty".
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19333
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Post by NRao »

K,

Nice. Helps a ton. Thx.
Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Post by Katare »

Arun_S wrote:
Quoting in full so it can be compared.
NEW DELHI: Minister of State for Power Jairam Ramesh said here on Wednesday that nuclear energy was crucial, along with other sources of energy, and that once the India-U.S. nuclear deal got through, the country would be able to produce 20,000 MW of nuclear power by 2020.

“At present the nuclear plants are operating at 48 per cent of their capacity due to shortage of uranium. This is telling on the performance of these utilities and has also impacted the availability of power in the country. Nuclear energy is the need of the hour and we must tap it along with thermal, hydro and non-renewable sources,” he said while announcing that a branch office of the Damodar Valley Corporation would be opened soon in Ranchi.

Mr. Ramesh said the DVC decided to set up two units at its Chandrapura power plant in Jharkhand that would produce 500 mw by 2009. The project would cost Rs. 2,000 crore. The Minister said he reviewed the work at the 2x250 MW Chandrapura project. The project was delayed by over 15 months and commercial operation for the first unit was scheduled to begin by February 2009.

He said the DVC would set up an ITI at its 2x500 MW Koderma project site, also in Jharkhand. In the next four years the DVC would commission a number of projects in Jharkhand, including the 2x250 MW units in Chandrapura, the 2x525 MW units at Maithon in a joint venture with Tata Power, the 2x500 MW units at Koderma, 2x500 MW units at Bokharo and 2x250 MW units at the Bokharo steel plant complex.
Now what Honerable Minister of State for Power Jairam Ramesh, responsible for power is saying is in direct contradiction with the Power Point Presentation prepared by expert DAE scientists and presented by Honerable Shri Anil Kakodkar at IISc, by several hundred percentage points (250% onlee! The charts show 50,000 MWe nuclear power production by 2020). And this no ordinary people speaking. One of them is seriously out of touch with reality.

http://www.dae.gov.in/lecture.htm

What gives?
Arun,

Kakodkar sketched a few potential scenarios to show how different number of imported LWR would impact 3-satge program. His presentation is not sanctioned program of india but just an academic exercise for scientific audience at IISc. We haven't signed the deal so there is no question of having a sanctioned plan to pursue 40GWe import. Once deal is signed, DAE will send a detailed program/vision to Ministry of power which will make a detailed project report with inputs from different ministries like finance, science etc and they'll send it to planning commission which will approve it than it'll go back to the power ministry which will send it to "cabinet committee on economic affairs". Once it is approved by the cabinet it becomes a sanctioned program to be pursued by all.

What Jairam Ramesh is talking is the already sanctioned program to generate 20GWe of nuclear power by 2020. There were clear indications that like all previous goals this goal was also too ambitious for resources available/provided to DAE. If the deal goes through, DAE will get a helping hand in achieving that goal.

P.S.
I own you an apology for alleging that you didn't share the details on your calculations about the cost of NU required for 50GWe capacity. You did provide a very detailed break-up, sorry that 37 page thread was moving too fast and was not archived but was left lingering at the bottom of the page and I couldn't find it.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Post by RajeshA »

Katare wrote:He also quoted Vienna convention in reference to 123 deal's mention of principles of international law which reads 'a party can not invoke a domestic law to amend or abrogate an international treaty".
The problem in 123 Agreement is that it is not based on international laws, but rather states that it would comply with the national laws of the two parties.

However Chidambaram is also correct, because it is up to each party to ensure that the treaty/agreement complies with their own national laws. The other party is not responsible for this.
pradeepe
BRFite
Posts: 741
Joined: 27 Aug 2006 20:46
Location: Our culture is different and we cannot live together - who said that?

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Post by pradeepe »

India can terminate the nuclear deal if the POTUS ever uses the loo between 9AM and 5PM on Sundays.
Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Post by Katare »

Suraj wrote:Sanatanan: Thank you for the link to the old 123 agreement.

The problem with the 'once bitten twice shy' argument is that it is simplistic, and precludes any effort to understand what drove the creation of the nonproliferation regime, and for the US to act in a certain manner in 1974, and what their compulsions are today and in future.

The 'US could do anything' position is so generic that it can be applied to almost anything. For example, it could be argued that the US could confiscate the IAF's Su-30MKIs from the ongoing Red Flag exercise and keep it for themselves. That is why I suggest comparing the 123 agreements, and analyzing the milieu then that led to the nonproliferation controls, and what their compulsions are going forward.
Suraj,

I think it hasn't fully sunk in to members that it is not a deal between India and US this time. The deal between India and USA is just an opening window for us. Once all is done and US pulls back it'll not be an end to the nuclear trade for India. It is a multilateral deal between India and many nations of the world. This subtle difference must be kept in mind while evaluating effects of Hyde act, previous 123 deals or unkil's antics later on.
Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Post by Katare »

RajeshA wrote:
Katare wrote:He also quoted Vienna convention in reference to 123 deal's mention of principles of international law which reads 'a party can not invoke a domestic law to amend or abrogate an international treaty".
The problem in 123 Agreement is that it is not based on international laws, but rather states that it would comply with the national laws of the two parties.

However Chidambaram is also correct, because it is up to each party to ensure that the treaty/agreement complies with their own national laws. The other party is not responsible for this.
Rajesh,

There is a reference to international laws in the 123 deal.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Post by RajeshA »

123 Agreement consistent with Hyde Act: Burns

How difficult is it for Communists to understand, that it is up to the US to ensure that 123 Agreement is consistent with Hyde Act. However once it has been reviewed to be consistent and approved by the US Congress, it is 123 Agreement that becomes the binding agreement between US and India. 123 Agreement's consistency with Hyde Act is an American issue as Hyde Act is an US Act.
For India only 123 Agreement counts. Both parties have a right to withdraw from the agreement, and if and when India conducts a nuclear test, US would be bound to consider withdrawal. That is OK for India, because what counts for India is only the costs of America's possible withdrawal w.r.t Nuclear Testing, and Indian negotiators have seen to it, that it is US that pays the cost of abiding by their laws and withdrawing, as US would have to reimburse India in full for its reactors and fuel, which they withdraw. India will not bear any costs.
So the question is why do the Communists want to fudge the issue.
1. If India tests, US may withdraw according to their laws, but need not do so.
2. If US withdraws, US picks the bill.
3. India bears minimal costs.
4. Russia and France can do business as usual with India.
5. After a while, US reengages with India again.
putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4727
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Post by putnanja »

Indian negotiators work out 'details' of IAEA safeguards accord
VIENNA: Indian negotiators remained locked till late Thursday night over an India specific additional protocol to be presented to the IAEA Board of Governors meeting on Friday.

Fleeing from the busy corridors of the IAEA offices at the Vienna International Centre, the Indian negotiators locked themselves in the privacy of a hotel room here.

The Friday meeting is expected to "unanimously" approve India's safeguards agreement with the IAEA together with an additional protocol, which is unique to India.

Together with Ravi B Grover and Gitesh Sarma from the Department of Atomic Energy, Anil Kakodkar, Indian Atomic Energy Commission chief, burnt the proverbial midnight oil here to ready “details" of an additional protocol before the Friday meeting.

In the past, the IAEA has worked with two templates of additional protocol - one for nuclear weapons countries and the other for non-nuclear weapon countries.

This India specific additional protocol template is perhaps the first international document that mentions India as a nuclear weapon state, although indirectly.

The approval of the safeguards agreement will allow the agency access to India's civilian nuclear programme.

India's nuclear deal will be tabled before the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) soon after the Friday meeting. The NSG, which has no permanent office, is expected to meet in Vienna later in August.

The 45-nation NSG will have to unanimously agree to make an exception in allowing nuclear sales to a country like India that is not a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty (NPT) and not subject to a nuclear embargo by the NSG for having tested nuclear device.

Once the technical requirements like the India specific additional protocol and the safeguards agreement are approved by the IAEA, lobbying will begin once again to get an unanimous approval from the NSG.

The US Congress will review and approve India's nuclear deal with America, before it becomes operational.
putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4727
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Post by putnanja »

IAEA to back India, but with ‘mixed feelings’
IAEA to back India, but with ‘mixed feelings’

Siddharth Varadarajan

Countries still have concerns about Indian weapons programme

Only Mexico has gone on record about reservations

It is working on a statement reflecting its concerns

Vienna: The Indian safeguards agreement, which the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is set to approve on Friday, will mark the first time a United Nations body recognises the reality, if not the legitimacy, of India possessing nuclear weapons.

But even as they join the consensus that has built up in Vienna, many of the 35 countries who sit on the IAEA board harbour misgivings about the agreement. They will make declarations during the August 1 meeting to clarify that they remain committed to the goal of getting India to give up its nuclear weapons.

In meetings and interviews with several members of the Board, none except Mexico was prepared to go on record about their reservations. “We will support India but we have mixed feelings,” Ambassador Alejandro Diaz of Mexico told The Hindu on Thursday.

“Of course, we are happy that India is coming forward and offering some of its nuclear facilities for safeguards by the Agency,” he said. “But at the same time, we feel the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty is not being taken into account.”

Mr. Diaz said that Mexico, as one of the earliest supporters of the NPT, would prefer India coming inside the treaty rather than remaining outside. “I know India is not happy at the fact that we are giving only half-way support for this initiative,” he said. “But this is the case with most members [of the IAEA Board],” he added. “At the end, everyone will welcome India coming into the Agency’s arms as it were, but most will be unhappy about the fact that it will now continue to remain outside the NPT.”

The Mexican envoy said his delegation was working on a statement reflecting its national concerns and would likely read it out in the board meeting.

“I think you will see at least 30 statements on Friday,” he predicted. “It is true that that the IAEA is not the place to talk about India and the NPT but it provides the occasion. So I have told the Indian ambassador, ‘Please don’t be angry with me for saying India should follow the peaceful path and join the NPT’.”
putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4727
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Post by putnanja »

Most IAEA members worried about precedent being set for Pakistan

Siddharth Varadarajan

Some Western members are unhappy at the lack of automaticity in the agreement

“We see India as a unique case,” says one Western member

Not enough time to study Indian draft, feel some members

Vienna: The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) secretariat may have deflected Pakistan’s criticisms of the Indian safeguards agreement last week by suggesting Islamabad could follow a similar approach but most members of the IAEA Board say their biggest worry in approving India’s draft would be the danger of setting a precedent for its neighbour.

These fears have been amplified by the recent remarks made by Pakistan Prime Minister, Yusuf Raza Gilani, when he said “there should be no discrimination” and that “if [the IAEA wants] to give such nuclear status to India, we expect the same for Pakistan.”

“This is a safeguards agreement for India,” said a Board member from a Western country when asked about Pakistan, “and we are backing it because we see India as a unique case.” The board member said Pakistan would benefit from the Indian agreement not by seeking to copy it but because it would lead to the safeguarding of nuclear facilities that are currently beyond international scrutiny.

“As this agreement gets implemented, I think you will see plenty more Indian facilities coming under safeguards and this is good for the non-proliferation regime and good for Pakistan.”

But others are less sanguine about the Indian draft not setting a precedent.

“If you ask me, the one big thing which worries everyone is that this could be a precedent for other countries to come some day before the IAEA and ask for a similar agreement, including your neighbour,” Mexican Ambassador Alejandro Diaz told The Hindu. “I think Pakistan will argue that the Secretariat should include similar provisions in any safeguards agreement it negotiates with them.”

Though the July 25 briefing held by the IAEA secretariat’s experts for IAEA members helped turn the small tide that could have built up against the Indian deal in the wake of Pakistan’s opposition, some Board members continue to have doubts about the nature of the “corrective measures” mentioned in the preamble.

A few Western members are also unhappy at the lack of automaticity in the agreement in terms of facilities coming under safeguards. “India may argue that the conditions for placing an indigenous nuclear reactor under IAEA inspections have never arrived and none of its own facilities may then come under safeguards for years,” one Western diplomat said.

In briefings the U.S. has conducted, American officials say the voluntary principle has been enshrined in the safeguards agreement as far as homegrown facilities are concerned but “India is offering its facilities for safeguards and the decision is its own.” But will have no choice about accepting safeguards on imported facilities. But some Western critics say they had been led to believe since July 2005 that India had committed to place its civilian reactors under safeguards. “I am not saying the Indians are going back on that offer. But then why have a safeguards agreement which is structured in such a way as to give them a way to back out should they so desire,” a Western diplomat said.

Every board member is aware of the fact that the safeguards agreement is being rushed through in order to meet the requirements of the American domestic political clock but few share Pakistan’s initial concern about there not being enough time to study the Indian draft. “Look, when you want to block something, you can always raise a procedural objection,” said Mr. Diaz. “May be, it would have been better to have had another 15-20 days but I think we’ve all had enough time.” He said the problem with the draft was not its technical complexity but the fact that “some of the shades of the agreement are not so nice” because India was being accorded a status not in keeping with the strict categorisations of the NPT.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Post by RajeshA »

U.S. and India Release Text of 123 Agreement

There you have it. Now go get the microscopes! :)
vishwakarmaa
BRFite
Posts: 385
Joined: 19 Jun 2008 08:47

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Post by vishwakarmaa »

Katare wrote:PC Chidambram, one of the best legal minds in UPA, gave a very good speech during confidence vote. He mentioned couple things from legal point of view which may be useful for discussion here -

Also he quoted from US constitution that "any treaty signed by govt of united state becomes the supreme law of the land".
Everyone in the world knows that this is false. US is master at breaking international laws for its selfish reasons.

In this case, he quoted that line from US constitution but he forgot to elaborate that US always prefers domestic laws over international laws, for its self-interests.
Last edited by vishwakarmaa on 01 Aug 2008 03:29, edited 1 time in total.
enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Post by enqyoob »

Any BRfees in Atlanta may be interested: IIRC, the organizers (see at bottom) are filling the void left when the "yindoo nationalist" types abdicated their positions supporting the deal. Until recently same entities were seen pushing resolutions to put sanctions against India, echoing calls from comie-paki "South asia" groups. c'est la vie , Bhavitavyam Bhavedeva etc.
U.S.-India nuclear cooperation agreement
Business and Strategic Implications

An Executive seminar and discussion

Title: US-India nuclear cooperation agreement
Date/Time: Thursday, August 7, 2008, 6:00 - 8.00 pm
Venue: Room 221, College of Management, Technology Square Georgia Institute of Technology, 800 W. Peachtree St., N.E., Atlanta, GA, 30308-0520 USA


Park on street, or at Georgia Tech hotel corner of Spring and Fifth Streets. Enter through rear entrance on Spring Street next to Barnes & Nobles Bookstore. Elevator to second floor).


Organizers:
U.S. India Business & Research Center (USIBRC)
Georgia Tech Center for International Business Education & Research (CIBER)
Asia Program, Center for Int'l Trade & Security, University of Georgia

Sponsored by:
U.S. India Business & Research Center (USIBRC)
Georgia Tech Center for International Business Education & Research (CIBER)

Objectives:
The U.S.-India civil nuclear cooperation agreement will enable international participation in India's safeguarded civilian nuclear complex, advance global non-proliferation, help combat international climate change efforts, and facilitate technology-embedded strategic partnership between the United States and India.

The proposed pact will permit member states of the Nuclear Suppliers Group to build reactors and to supply fuel under safeguards to India. This will help New Delhi meet its target of generating about 20,000mW electricity from nuclear sources by 2030, and proportionately reduce its oil and natural gas imports as well as its total carbon emissions. In addition to bringing India into the global non-proliferation mainstream, the deal will indirectly assist in removing international technology restrictions that were imposed after India conducted its first nuclear weapons test in 1974 and have stymied New Delhi's developmental efforts. India has the world's second largest population, eighth largest economy, and is the sixth largest energy consumer. Clearly, the stakes are high for India, but so are they for the international community, not to mention the considerable financial and business implications from the successful passage of this deal.

Speakers:

Dr. Geoffrey G. Eichholz, Emeritus Regents Professor of Nuclear Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology
Dr. Anupam Srivastava - Director, Asia Program, at the Center for International Trade & Security, University of Georgia (UGA).
Dr. Seema Gahlaut - Director, Training & Outreach, at the Center for International Trade & Security, University of Georgia, USA.
Moderator - Prof. John McIntyre, Prof. of Intl. Business and Exe. Director, GT CIBER

Structure: After a brief welcome a moderated panel of notable experts will focus on specific sectors, outline opportunities and strategies for capitalizing on the business possibilities arising from the U.S.-India nuclear deal.

Registration Cost: $30 per person ($20 for students/faculty). Pls. send check by mail or pay at the door.

Dr. Geoffrey G. Eichholz is Emeritus Regents Professor of Nuclear Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia. PhD., D.Sc., University of Leeds. Author of over 100 technical publications. Fellow, Health Physics Society, Fellow, American Nuclear Society; past regional advisor to the International Atomic Energy Agency; former chair of divisions of the American Nuclear Society; recipient of the Robley Evans Memorial Medal, Health Physics Society, 2004.
Dr. Seema Gahlaut is the Director, Training & Outreach, at the Center for International Trade & Security, University of Georgia, USA. She is also adjunct faculty at UGA's School of Public & International Affairs. CITS offers training courses and outreach workshops on strategic trade and export controls to government officials and hi-tech industry from over 20 countries including India, China, Pakistan, South Korea and United States. Dr. Gahlaut oversees and participates in these programs.

Dr. Anupam Srivastava is the Director, Asia Program, at the Center for International Trade & Security, University of Georgia, USA. CITS Asia program conducts public policy research on bilateral and multilateral economic and security issues among major Asian powers (Russia, Japan, China, and India) and their relations with the United States. Dr. Srivastava works with both US and Indian officials on export control training and outreach, and has closely followed the nuclear negotiation. He is a frequent commentator on US-Asian security issues for BBC, CNBC, CNN, VOA, and various frontline newspapers in Asia and Europe.

Professor John R. McIntyre is the director of the federally funded Georgia Tech program CIBER with joint appointments in Georgia Tech's College of Management and Sam Nunn School of International Affairs. Dr. McIntyre received his graduate education at McGill, Strasbourg and Northeastern Universities, obtaining his PhD at the University of Georgia. Prior to joining Georgia Tech in September l98l, he was Research Associate for International Management at the Dean Rusk Center of the University of Georgia Law School.
Please make checks to USIBRC and send it to the address below. For event information, sponsorship opportunities and registration please contact:

Ani Agnihotri, US India Business and Research Center (USIBRC)
415 Lakehill Court, Alpharetta, GA 30022
Phone: 404-394-6678 E-mail: [email protected]
Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Post by Gerard »

Locked