India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Manny
BRFite
Posts: 846
Joined: 07 Apr 2006 22:16
Location: Texas

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Postby Manny » 23 Aug 2008 23:56

Since India is not part of any Anti Nuclear Cartel, What is the implication of trading nuke technology with countries that can supply fossil fuel? I don't mean trading with countries like N.Korea. But other responsble countries like Brazil or Jordon or Egypt etc?

Anyone?

Manny

sraj
BRFite
Posts: 255
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 07:04

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Postby sraj » 24 Aug 2008 00:34

Manny wrote:Since India is not part of any Anti Nuclear Cartel, What is the implication of trading nuke technology with countries that can supply fossil fuel? I don't mean trading with countries like N.Korea. But other responsble countries like Brazil or Jordon or Egypt etc?

Currently, it is perfectly legal, under international law, for India to supply nuclear reactors and/or enrichment and reprocessing (ENR) technology to other countries.

sraj
BRFite
Posts: 255
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 07:04

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Postby sraj » 24 Aug 2008 00:40

U.S. draft is another surrender: CPI (M)
The party said the draft suggested the imposition of several implicit conditions on India. These included the extension of the voluntary moratorium on nuclear tests to a multilateral undertaking, the acceptance of any future changes in NSG guidelines without having any say at the NSG, agreeing to Additional Protocols in the IAEA, embedding the 123 and other agreements in the waiver. It also seeks to put constraints on enrichment and reprocessing as well as other dual use technologies by referring to various sections of the guidelines.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Postby RajeshA » 24 Aug 2008 00:48

Rahul M wrote:
........Total = 65.2 M
and that is more than the whole Population of India. So don't try to fudge the facts, OK! :D

RajeshA, are you serious or having an early 1st april moment at our expense ?


Sorry Rahul Saar,
Not serious. No April stuff. Just a little bit of sarcasm to emphasize Pulikeshi's argument.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Postby RajeshA » 24 Aug 2008 01:13

sraj wrote:btw, if in 30 years' time, the North Island were to want to declare independence, India may have some views on the matter. It all depends. Right? :)


sraj,
I have had some (limited) exposure to Maori life and culture in North Island, Aotearoa and from my personal experience and discussions with others there, I wouldn't quite say that the Maori's were in the same mood as the Palestinians. Dole is a difficult addiction to get over. Ask the Porkis? :)

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Postby NRao » 24 Aug 2008 01:15

Manny wrote:Since India is not part of any Anti Nuclear Cartel, What is the implication of trading nuke technology with countries that can supply fossil fuel? I don't mean trading with countries like N.Korea. But other responsble countries like Brazil or Jordon or Egypt etc?

Anyone?

Manny


No need for such tactics, all nuclear powers are behind India (Chicom does not count). It is a few non-nukes that are creating discomfort for the rest.

Besides, India should already have collaborations with most countries in the nuclear field (she has had, for instance, with Israel for decades).

I am not sure if Indian companies have put pressure on companies from these countries to change the political stands of their respective countries. IF they have not, they have two weeks to do so.

vsudhir
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2173
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 03:44
Location: Dark side of the moon

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Postby vsudhir » 24 Aug 2008 01:30

NRao wrote:No need for such tactics, all nuclear powers are behind India (Chicom does not count). It is a few non-nukes that are creating discomfort for the rest.


IOW, the implicit assumption is that the moralistic minnows are genuinely acting n their own and aren't merely acting the paw for some big cats in the background.

Besides, India should already have collaborations with most countries in the nuclear field (she has had, for instance, with Israel for decades).

I am not sure if Indian companies have put pressure on companies from these countries to change the political stands of their respective countries. IF they have not, they have two weeks to do so.


Desi strength was mobilized and utilized lobbying for Hyde's passage- everyone - corporations, civil society, intellectuals, lobbying and money power were on clearly and vocally n display. Thats because India acted as an almost direct party in Hyde's passing (pun not intended). At the NSG, it is US and not India that has locus standi. Still, pressure must be leaking through less visible channels at these worthies.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Postby NRao » 24 Aug 2008 01:41

IOW, the implicit assumption is that the moralistic minnows are genuinely acting n their own and aren't merely acting the paw for some big cats in the background.


Understand the frustration. However, two things, whatever the background politics it is too late to do something that is evenly remotely viewed as a retaliation within the nuclear field - even with a clean NP past India is having problems, if she actually is viewed as proliferating - even openly - then the game is up. IMHO, it is not worth it.

IF this is background interference, than shame on India to not counter act that in 60 years. In short India does have a responsibility to throw her weight around at times and does not seem to have done so until the 11th hour.

Desi strength was mobilized and utilized lobbying for Hyde's passage- everyone - corporations, civil society, intellectuals, lobbying and money power were on clearly and vocally n display. Thats because India acted as an almost direct party in Hyde's passing (pun not intended). At the NSG, it is US and not India that has locus standi. Still, pressure must be leaking through less visible channels at these worthies.


India should have acted to get a better Hyde Act - something I said from day one (I still feel it is a hopeless Act from Indian PoV). IMHO, the Hyde Act was massive waste of energy.

NSG, it really depends on if India wants it or not. India can help the US get it. However, I do subscribe to the theory that the US has not pushed it as promised. A Bush failure I would say.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Postby NRao » 24 Aug 2008 01:47

Posting this WSJ article only because this may have some impact on post-NSG situation:

Russian Nuclear Pact Stalls

(Please remember that this deal is partially blocked by Joe Biden - potentially the next VP of the US.)

Tensions Prompt U.S. to Reconsider Proliferation Agreement
By JAY SOLOMON
August 23, 2008; Page A1

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration's landmark nuclear-cooperation agreement with Russia is unlikely to gain passage before President George W. Bush leaves office, the latest sign of how Russia's offensive in Georgia has roiled the international scene.

The accord, which Mr. Bush and Russia's then-President Vladimir Putin signed in 2007, would allow for greater U.S.-Russian cooperation in developing proliferation-resistant reactors and nuclear fuel banks. The White House saw the pact as enhancing post-Cold War strategic cooperation between Washington and Moscow on issues ranging from weapons proliferation to alternative energy supplies.

The Bush administration initially presented a bill to Congress in May in the hope it could be passed into law by September.

An administration official familiar with National Security Council deliberations said Friday the White House is now "reviewing all options regarding Russia," as a result of the Georgia conflict, including its support for the nuclear-cooperation initiative. "It's no longer business as usual," the official said.

In addition, leading congressional officials said there's little chance of the nuclear pact being approved by Congress before the current session ends, a result of rising opposition to the bill among key lawmakers in the House of Representatives and Senate.

Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said this week he's no longer going to push the bill during the current session, after concluding a fact-finding trip to Georgia. The Democrat, who has been mentioned as a possible vice presidential candidate, said he'd initially been inclined to favor the pact.

"Russia's actions have already erased the possibility of advancing legislative efforts to promote U.S.-Russian partnership...including an agreement to allow for increased collaboration with Russia on nuclear energy production," Sen. Biden said in a written statement.

The deal's uncertain future is the latest example of how the Russian-Georgian conflict has changed the international landscape. Earlier this month, the Bush administration and Poland reached an agreement to base part of a planned U.S. missile shield on Polish soil, a move long in the works that sped up as a result of the conflict.

The delay also represents a blow to the Bush administration's anti-proliferation efforts, which are a cornerstone of its attempt to better secure the international supply of nuclear materials. At the same time, the White House is struggling to complete a similar deal with India.

Earlier this month, a long-simmering conflict between Russia and Georgia over two Georgian provinces burst into open conflict, in which Russian forces battered their opponents before agreeing to a ceasefire. Western governments, who to varying degrees decried Moscow's actions, have since complained that the Russians aren't abiding by the terms of the agreement, but have few options to address the situation.

To be sure, current and former U.S. officials say that cooperation between Washington and Moscow on issues ranging from weapons proliferation and energy security could still move ahead, once the conflict in Georgia is resolved. Indeed, they say the Bush administration's nuclear-cooperation pact could be picked up by a successive administration. And some are even calling for an enhanced U.S.-Russia dialogue over key national-security issues, once the Georgia crisis subsides.

"We need to develop a solid framework" for a renewed dialogue with Russia, said Thomas Pickering, a former U.S. ambassador to Moscow, at a conference this week. As a model, he cited the Bush administration's current high-level strategic dialogue with China, headed by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.

Even before Russia's battles with Georgia, the nuclear-cooperation agreement had sparked a sharp debate inside Washington over the future path of U.S.-Russian relations.

The Bush administration and other supporters of the accord viewed its implementation as essential to nurturing Moscow as the West's partner on key strategic issues, such as denying Iran nuclear weapons. They also believed U.S.-Russian nuclear cooperation could serve as the cornerstone of a new international nonproliferation regime.

The White House has sought to persuade developing nations against mastering a nuclear-fuel cycle in their pursuit of alternative energy sources due to related risk of weapons proliferation. The U.S. sought instead to develop an international nuclear fuel bank these nations could draw upon. And Russia, with among the world's most advanced nuclear-energy industries, was seen as potentially hosting the fuel bank. Fuel banks store the processed nuclear fuels that can be used in electricity-generating power plants.

Russia also had high hopes for the accord and the impact it could have on its nuclear industry, which had been one of the most advanced under the Soviet system but later found itself short of funding and orders.

In recent years, the Kremlin has set up a new state-run company to expand the nuclear industry, seeking out contracts to build and service plants outside Russia, as well as making a major new investment in Russia's own civilian-nuclear program. The industry is one of several the Russian authorities are promoting in an effort to wean the economy away from its dependence on oil and gas.

Opponents of the nuclear accord have argued Russia can't be trusted as a partner, citing Moscow's strategic ties to rogue states such as Iran and Syria. Moscow is currently assisting Tehran in building a light-water nuclear reactor in the Iranian city of Bushehr and has also supplied Iran with conventional weapons systems in recent years.

These critics say Moscow's actions in Georgia clearly undercut the arguments of some U.S. strategists who've sought to define the new Russian government as a potentially benign player on the international stage.

"As goes the nuclear deal, as goes U.S.-Russia relations," said Henry Sokolski of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, a Washington think tank that opposes the Russia agreement. "By walking away from the agreement, the administration will be less willing to make excuses for Moscow."

Still, many U.S. national security strategists say any U.S. effort to engage in a new Cold War with Russia risks further destabilizing a global order already facing rising threats from conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and the wider Middle East. They note the Kremlin could seek to further undercut U.S. efforts to promote peace agreements in the Middle East and to end the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea.

In a troubling sign, U.S. officials point to Syria's call this week for enhanced military cooperation with Russia. President Bashar Assad met with his Russian counterpart, Dmitry Medvedev, in Moscow and praised the Kremlin's actions in Georgia as a strike against Western hegemony. The Russians, in turn, said they were prepared to provide new weapons systems to Damascus.

"We have always said to the Russians that these sales should not go forward, that they don't contribute to regional stability," State Department spokesman Robert Wood said Friday. "I urge them not to go through with these sales."

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Postby RajeshA » 24 Aug 2008 01:58

NRao wrote:India should have acted to get a better Hyde Act - something I said from day one (I still feel it is a hopeless Act from Indian PoV). IMHO, the Hyde Act was massive waste of energy.


The problem with the campaign for Hyde Act, was that everybody in the lobby business was campaigning to get some enabling law passed, and nobody really put any pressure on his Senator what the terms should be for the Act. MMS and Co. had a few talks with Nick Burns and thought that would be sufficient. There was limited effort by Bush and Co. to define the red lines on Capitol Hill. At home, MMS kept on telling people, "Aw don't worry, everythin' is gonna turn out awright!" And then the Act was passed, and everybody in Delhi said, "Aw ShiD"!

Sean
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 45
Joined: 24 Aug 2008 01:58

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Postby Sean » 24 Aug 2008 02:11

RajeshA wrote:Perhaps one should keep in mind, there are other Uranium producing countries outside of NSG, namely
a) Namibia (7.5%)
b) Niger (7.4%)
c) Uzbekistan (5.5%)

Now that India has a Safeguards Agreement with IAEA, it should be less of a problem, importing Uranium from these countries.

Instead of throwing away our money at the NSG countries, we can invest that money
a) in R&D for enrichment, LWR Technology, etc.
b) courting Namibia, Niger and Uzbekistan big time

as well as earning money by selling our reactors and technology to all, who are willing to buy, of course with Safeguards, and so ...

How about starting by selling to that country, with which we have civilizational ties. :twisted:

WE HAVE OTHER OPTIONS.

How difficult will it be to source from these countries? Does India need to offer above market prices to entice these nations to do a deal? Which of the countries named above is most likely to do a deal with India at the right price? Anyone?

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Postby svinayak » 24 Aug 2008 02:28

RajeshA wrote:
Acharya wrote:So do you think since SG is catholic they will pass this deal. Their view of India has been formed over many centuries during the colonization period.


Acharya Ji,
that was only tongue-in-cheek Saar!

However, the fact that SG is Catholic and the leader of the majority party of the governing coalition and the heir to the rich Congress legacy, should at least allay their apprehensions, that India is overtly hostile to Vatican or Catholicism. Of course, I agree, that depending on their animosity towards Hinduism, that may still be wishful thinking.

In my defense, I would say, that the SG comment was in response to your theory, and I did not try to claim that SG's religion would have any positive influence to the passage of the deal.

The reality is different. The Congress party is no longer the same party of those stalwart leaders and the western countries know it.

It is not about being overt hostile to those western powers but they dont want power to be given to any other nations with this recognition. It is about us vs them.

There is another aspect. There are plans for evangelical liberation movement which they want to sponsor. They dont want to recognize until that is done.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Postby svinayak » 24 Aug 2008 02:31

RajeshA wrote:
Acharya wrote:
RajeshA wrote:
In my defense, I would say, that the SG comment was in response to your theory, and I did not try to claim that SG's religion would have any positive influence to the passage of the deal.


It is not a theory but a reality that these countries look at other nations based on religion. Christian and Catholic supremacy is still sought after.


There could be some fear in them, that with the emergence of a confident Indian middle class, a crystallization of an Indian elite and through rapid growth and the ebbing away of poverty, there may not be sufficient incentive for the non-Christian Indian to convert to Christianity, espl. as Hinduism provides all elements of spiritual fulfillment.

In China, rapid growth has meant more access to Christianity as the country had been kept on a Godless diet for a long time and the prevalent spirituality in China did not have a strong edifice. In India, rapid growth means just the opposite.

That much to my thinking on the subject and that too in the wrong thread. I am skeptical however, how much influence the Christian lobby would have had on the Indian nuclear deal and how vicious the opposition would have been.

A certain racism could surely have played a part in any eager acceptance of India as a major player and power. In USA, where Indians have a different image, it was hardly an issue. However in old British outposts like Australia, NZ, Canada, Ireland, etc. as well as in Europe where India may still be a snake-charmer in the subconsciousness, the opposition has been stronger. I guess, many countries are still rubbing their eyes, not quite believing them, that USA is willing to give India a promotion and is being asked to sup on the same table as them.

Indian middle class is what they have seen recently but until now they looked at India as not one nation.

Chinese revolution was really a chrsitian liberation revolution against the imperial class.

sraj
BRFite
Posts: 255
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 07:04

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Postby sraj » 24 Aug 2008 02:46

NRao wrote:
Manny wrote:Since India is not part of any Anti Nuclear Cartel, What is the implication of trading nuke technology with countries that can supply fossil fuel? I don't mean trading with countries like N.Korea. But other responsble countries like Brazil or Jordon or Egypt etc?

Anyone?

Manny


No need for such tactics, all nuclear powers are behind India (Chicom does not count). It is a few non-nukes that are creating discomfort for the rest.

The fact remains that India's legal ability to export i) reactors; ii) ENR technology; and iii) missiles; to any country in the world are 3 very valuable cards in India's possession. They should not be traded cheaply. Admittedly with the benefit of hindsight, it is clear that the least that MMS/GoI should have ensured was explicit in J18 was that India's commitment on all three fronts was contingent on India being accepted as a full partner by MTCR and NSG, and the US including ENR in the "full civil nuclear cooperation" promised by it in J18.

Let me clarify that I am not suggesting that India should turn around tomorrow and start exporting sensitive technologies left, right, and center. All I am saying is that just having the ability is valuable ("capabilities count, not intentions"), and if it is given up, should not be given up cheaply. Every degree of freedom counts if India is to participate, going forward, in balance of power politics in a way that counts. Isn't this what KS keeps on talking about?

If this J18 lapses, we need to remember lessons learned for the next time.

Manny
BRFite
Posts: 846
Joined: 07 Apr 2006 22:16
Location: Texas

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Postby Manny » 24 Aug 2008 04:35

I agree with sraj.

India should put the feeler around to help Indonesia and maybe even Fiji (NZ neighborhood) or Malaysia or Egypt to assist and in return to use them to get gas from the ME . A convenient leak (with deniability of course) would underline what India has NOT DONE so far.

:lol:

Manny

enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Postby enqyoob » 24 Aug 2008 05:15

underline what India has NOT DONE so far.


It is already well-known that most of the top Indian nuclear people received overtures, with excellent offers, from Muammar Gaddafi etc., and turned them down flat. Libya went to the Xerox Khan Enterprise much later.

enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Postby enqyoob » 24 Aug 2008 05:22

Adminullahs:
Posted here because that's the only way to communicate with someone who MUST see this.

KGOAN, where R u?
Synchronized swimmer faints, rescued during competition

BEIJING (AP) -- A member of Japan's synchronized swimming team had to be helped out of the pool during Saturday's final after she apparently fainted.

Hiromi Kobayashi, a 23-year-old from Osaka competing in her first Olympics, was taken off the deck on a stretcher after hyperventilating as the routine ended.

Two (chivalrous) men in swimsuits (including one resembling a famous BRF postor) jumped into the pool to assist the team, which was helping Kobayashi to the side. The other team members climbed out to await their scores, while the ailing woman clung to the pool's edge.

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1506
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Postby Pulikeshi » 24 Aug 2008 05:26

The school boy (India) is getting a bloody nose -
instead of whining and going down the blackmail route - like the pissant TSP nation to support lunatics:

Where are India's chamchas in the NSG?
For that matter - for a nation that has made sycophancy into a science -
Where are our sycophants in the comity of world nations?

Manny
BRFite
Posts: 846
Joined: 07 Apr 2006 22:16
Location: Texas

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Postby Manny » 24 Aug 2008 05:54

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10528616

We need help Fiji and other small Island nation from Helen Clark and her NZ tyrants!

John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Postby John Snow » 24 Aug 2008 05:58

There is a great barrier reef now between BRF and Kgoan garu, the relief would come once the barrier banter mavericks get lost in cyberspace.

In anycase I stand up for goan and reply to narayanan that this is a case of a_synchronous team mate who was out of key elements. :mrgreen:

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Postby NRao » 24 Aug 2008 06:24

The problem with the campaign for Hyde Act, was that everybody in the lobby business was campaigning to get some enabling law passed, and nobody really put any pressure on his Senator what the terms should be for the Act. MMS and Co. had a few talks with Nick Burns and thought that would be sufficient.


You will have to visit old threads, but MMS did allocate millionS of USD to push the Hyde Act. In fact , the lobbyists took (blind) direction from the GoI.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54168
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Postby ramana » 24 Aug 2008 06:29

Yes. The big move was to get the US from its NNPA to something and that became the Hyde Act. If the NSG waiver doesn't come thru, then the US will have to unHyde the act or is stuck in diplomatic limbo for its in variance with its commitments to NPT!.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Postby NRao » 24 Aug 2008 06:31

The fact remains that India's legal ability to export i) reactors; ii) ENR technology; and iii) missiles; to any country in the world are 3 very valuable cards in India's possession. They should not be traded cheaply.


That is very, very true. However, the question is if these valuable cards should be used to teach these countries, who are opposing the draft NSG waiver, a lesson.

India is the class of the P-5, so, why go down to the level of these 8 yahoos?

((BTW, nuclear techs of each vendor is very diff (I am told by nuke scicom that one cannot mix-match reactors/fuel/reproc_techs/etc). India does have some of the best techs, and, I would safely assume the cheapest. ))

You want to get at NZ - do not buy products from them, stop exchange of cricket teams, etc.

Admittedly with the benefit of hindsight, it is clear that the least that MMS/GoI should have ensured was explicit in J18 was that India's commitment on all three fronts was contingent on India being accepted as a full partner by MTCR and NSG, and the US including ENR in the "full civil nuclear cooperation" promised by it in J18.


I have said that from day one. And, I still believe that IF India had backed out when the Hyde Act was first discussed - as a diluted form of J18 - India would have got what she wanted. I still think that GoI did not bargain hard enough and have been back peddling since. IMHO, of course.

John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Postby John Snow » 24 Aug 2008 06:47

Oh by the RR has announced its entry in Civil Nuclear business in abig way.

Rolls-Royce sets up new unit to address civil nuclear market
17 July 2008
Rolls-Royce today announced that it is establishing a new business unit to address the global market for civil nuclear power. The company estimates that this worldwide market could be worth £50 billion a year in 15 years time.

Rolls-Royce currently has the largest nuclear skills base of any UK company, with around 2,000 specialist nuclear-focused employees in the UK, France and the US. It also has the UK’s most substantial nuclear supply chain, comprising around 260 proven suppliers.

The company’s strength in nuclear power originates from its involvement in the development and support of the nuclear steam raising plant for the Royal Navy’s nuclear submarine programme. In addition it established Data Systems & Solutions (DS&S) in 1999. DS&S provides safety critical instrumentation and control for civil nuclear reactors in Europe, including France’s 58 reactors, the US and other markets such as China.

Rolls-Royce has now established a single focus for its global civil nuclear activity. The work that Rolls-Royce currently undertakes for the Royal Navy’s submarine programme will be unaffected by the changes.

Sir John Rose, Chief Executive, said: “Rolls-Royce has been involved in the UK’s nuclear industry for over 50 years. Our experience is directly applicable to all phases of new build programmes that are planned in the UK and globally, and also to the upgrade of existing plants. Our capability is unique in the UK and matched by only a handful of companies worldwide.

“The expansion of the civil nuclear market represents an exciting opportunity which builds on our extensive nuclear capabilities.”

The new unit will provide a service that can support a number of the phases of a civil nuclear programme, including providing advice to governments and operators, technical engineering support and safety assessments, manufacturing, procurement and through life support.

The company estimates that by 2023 the global civil nuclear market, currently worth around £30 billion a year, will be worth approximately £50 billion a year, with £13 billion in support to existing nuclear plant, £20 billion in new build and £17 billion in support for new reactors.


sraj
BRFite
Posts: 255
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 07:04

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Postby sraj » 24 Aug 2008 07:45

India is the class of the P-5, so, why go down to the level of these 8 yahoos?

You want to get at NZ - do not buy products from them, stop exchange of cricket teams, etc.

NRao: my post is not about getting back at NZ -- they are insignificant, and in any case are playing the US game.

It is about realizing the value of these three cards and not trading them cheaply when the new J18 is negotiated in 5-10 years. These cards hold the most value for the P-5, not the 8 yahoos (who are under one umbrella or the other, directly or indirectly, anyway).

This J18 should lapse, and India should learn from the experience of the last three years.

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Postby Arun_S » 24 Aug 2008 11:41

RajeshA wrote:Perhaps one should keep in mind, there are other Uranium producing countries outside of NSG, namely
a) Namibia (7.5%)
b) Niger (7.4%)
c) Uzbekistan (5.5%)

Now that India has a Safeguards Agreement with IAEA, it should be less of a problem, importing Uranium from these countries.

Instead of throwing away our money at the NSG countries, we can invest that money
a) in R&D for enrichment, LWR Technology, etc.
b) courting Namibia, Niger and Uzbekistan big time

as well as earning money by selling our reactors and technology to all, who are willing to buy, of course with Safeguards, and so ...

How about starting by selling to that country, with which we have civilizational ties. :twisted:

WE HAVE OTHER OPTIONS.

In the first place there was no legal compulsion in trading with these countries even before the recent Indian additional safeguard agreement w/IAEA? These countries who themselves are signatories to IAEA charter and NPT, but thanks to Dr.Homi Bhabha stature and leadership at IAEA in 1950 and 60's, the NPT & IAEA did not prevent these countries from exporting uranium to India as long as the power reactors using it was in facility specific safeguard , just like many indigenously built PHWR and the Russian Kudankulam nuclear power plant.

Why do "mujra" when there was nothing preventing going to the water-hole in the first place?

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Postby RajeshA » 24 Aug 2008 12:10

NRao wrote:You want to get at NZ - do not buy products from them, stop exchange of cricket teams, etc.

I have said that from day one. And, I still believe that IF India had backed out when the Hyde Act was first discussed - as a diluted form of J18 - India would have got what she wanted. I still think that GoI did not bargain hard enough and have been back peddling since. IMHO, of course.


I fully agree with the fact, that we did not bargain hard enough with before the Hyde Act. It is one thing to have a lobby firm in Washington, and a different thing to have a score of Congressmen on Capitol Hill who know about India's red lines and work forcefully to convince others of those lines as well. The lobbying did not reach enough Congressmen.

As for getting back at NZ, there are several ways, some more effective. The ethnic Indians need to raise their voice against Labour Govt.'s policy of winning brownie points on non-proliferation at the cost of Indian development and India's national interests. There are around 115,000 Indians in NZ. About 2/3 living in Auckland. It may be possible to mobilize them. Here from an earlier post.
There are several Indian Association in NZ:
i. Auckland Indian Association
ii. New Zealand Sikh Society, Wellington
iii. New Zealand Sikh Society, Auckland
iv. New Zealand Indian Central Association

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Postby RajeshA » 24 Aug 2008 12:13

Arun_S wrote:In the first place there was no legal compulsion in trading with these countries even before the recent Indian additional safeguard agreement w/IAEA? These countries who themselves are signatories to IAEA charter and NPT, but thanks to Dr.Homi Bhabha stature and leadership at IAEA in 1950 and 60's, the NPT & IAEA did not prevent these countries from exporting uranium to India as long as the power reactors using it was in facility specific safeguard , just like many indigenously built PHWR and the Russian Kudankulam nuclear power plant.

Why do "mujra" when there was nothing preventing going to the water-hole in the first place?


Arun S ji,
Is there a reason, why India chose not to approach these countries earlier? Has it anything to do with India's enrichment capacity?

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Postby Raj Malhotra » 24 Aug 2008 12:14

Inncrease customs duty on New Zealand wool

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11643
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Postby Aditya_V » 24 Aug 2008 12:26

Or better, Charge Rs 1 lac per Indian citizen travelling to New Zealand. Indian travellers have a pretty big impact on New Zealand's tourist industry

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Postby Arun_S » 24 Aug 2008 13:26

RajeshA wrote:
Arun_S wrote:In the first place there was no legal compulsion in trading with these countries even before the recent Indian additional safeguard agreement w/IAEA? These countries who themselves are signatories to IAEA charter and NPT, but thanks to Dr.Homi Bhabha stature and leadership at IAEA in 1950 and 60's, the NPT & IAEA did not prevent these countries from exporting uranium to India as long as the power reactors using it was in facility specific safeguard , just like many indigenously built PHWR and the Russian Kudankulam nuclear power plant.

Why do "mujra" when there was nothing preventing going to the water-hole in the first place?


Arun S ji,
Is there a reason, why India chose not to approach these countries earlier? Has it anything to do with India's enrichment capacity?

RajeshA ji,
Nothing to do with enrichment capability.

Its because unlike proven data and countless DAE's submissions to Indian people and parliament for the last 50 years, need for imported fuel is an artificially created desire by vested interests propounding that India is short of indigineous Uranium and that import is necessary. Or Shri MMS touting nuclear power to alleviate Indian electricity (nay total energy) shortage. { I say fat chance}.

Time and again DAE scientists have shown that indigenous 70,000 tonne of natural uranium is enough to transition to FBR/AHWR based thorium fuel cycle. And the MMS Govt hid the news of discovery of 100% more indigenous Uranium from Indian people till after the Nuclear deal driven no-confidence motion in parliament and IAEA negotiations .

Hay but $100Bn of imported LWR contract and $300Bn of imported Uranium business on public fund/public guaranteed loan, creates lots of opportunities and vested interest. Like selling snake oil to a snake charmer who already has enough oil for his needs.

As in MahaBharat Bhishma said laying on the bed of arrows: "Power Corrupts". And more recently some western philosopher in 19th century said "Power corrupts, Absolute power corrupts Absolutely".

This deal in reality has little to do with Indian nuclear energy needs, it is about creating a rightful space for India commensurate with its innate potential and aspirations/destiny. Its about earning and flouting that black belt, knowing which no one messes with it. Alas the black belt is moth eaten and instead a tool to twist and tie for ever Indian credible nuclear deterrence.

As my village friends would say: "Dhobi Ka Kutta, Na Ghar Ka, Na Ghat Kaa" I.e. Neither protecting Indian interests this way, nor that way.

JMT.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Postby RajeshA » 24 Aug 2008 13:49

Arun_S ji,

Thank you for your very enlightening response. Availability of sufficient Uranium is reassuring. Black Belt is of course desirable, the moths would of course have to be stopped here and now.

Perhaps some day India could show a lot more punch in the arena, comparable to the strongest out there, than what one would expect from a holder of a moth-eaten black-belt.

Rishirishi
BRFite
Posts: 1164
Joined: 12 Mar 2005 02:30

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Postby Rishirishi » 24 Aug 2008 16:56

Arun_S wrote:
RajeshA wrote:
Arun_S wrote:In the first place there was no legal compulsion in trading with these countries even before the recent Indian additional safeguard agreement w/IAEA? These countries who themselves are signatories to IAEA charter and NPT, but thanks to Dr.Homi Bhabha stature and leadership at IAEA in 1950 and 60's, the NPT & IAEA did not prevent these countries from exporting uranium to India as long as the power reactors using it was in facility specific safeguard , just like many indigenously built PHWR and the Russian Kudankulam nuclear power plant.

Why do "mujra" when there was nothing preventing going to the water-hole in the first place?


Arun S ji,
Is there a reason, why India chose not to approach these countries earlier? Has it anything to do with India's enrichment capacity?

RajeshA ji,
Nothing to do with enrichment capability.

Its because unlike proven data and countless DAE's submissions to Indian people and parliament for the last 50 years, need for imported fuel is an artificially created desire by vested interests propounding that India is short of indigineous Uranium and that import is necessary. Or Shri MMS touting nuclear power to alleviate Indian electricity (nay total energy) shortage. { I say fat chance}.

Time and again DAE scientists have shown that indigenous 70,000 tonne of natural uranium is enough to transition to FBR/AHWR based thorium fuel cycle. And the MMS Govt hid the news of discovery of 100% more indigenous Uranium from Indian people till after the Nuclear deal driven no-confidence motion in parliament and IAEA negotiations .

Hay but $100Bn of imported LWR contract and $300Bn of imported Uranium business on public fund/public guaranteed loan, creates lots of opportunities and vested interest. Like selling snake oil to a snake charmer who already has enough oil for his needs.

As in MahaBharat Bhishma said laying on the bed of arrows: "Power Corrupts". And more recently some western philosopher in 19th century said "Power corrupts, Absolute power corrupts Absolutely".

This deal in reality has little to do with Indian nuclear energy needs, it is about creating a rightful space for India commensurate with its innate potential and aspirations/destiny. Its about earning and flouting that black belt, knowing which no one messes with it. Alas the black belt is moth eaten and instead a tool to twist and tie for ever Indian credible nuclear deterrence.

As my village friends would say: "Dhobi Ka Kutta, Na Ghar Ka, Na Ghat Kaa" I.e. Neither protecting Indian interests this way, nor that way.

JMT.


But can the uranium be extracted economically? and can India build Uranium based power plants economically?

The use of Thorium is of course a attractive solution. But agian, my understanding is that Uranium based power production is cheaper.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7879
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Postby Gerard » 24 Aug 2008 18:45

Nuclear deal fate ‘uncertain’
But privately, Indian officials say there is litte chance of India being able to accept changes in the American draft waiver that are anything other than cosmetic.

The question, they say, boils down to whether those NSG members who spoke out against the current proposal were merely letting out steam or fully intended to follow through with the suggestions they made. “If it is the latter, and the Americans are not able to convince them otherwise, then the deal looks very difficult from now on,” one official told The Hindu.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Postby NRao » 24 Aug 2008 19:05

N-deal: NSG 'failure' may cost govt dear

NEW DELHI: The high political costs of accepting new conditions on sensitive issues like testing and curbs on enrichment and reprocessing have thrown the India-US nuclear deal into fresh turbulence.

With the Manmohan Singh government battling charges of having limited India's strategic options through a pact which makes conducting a nuclear test more difficult, accepting new multilateral commitments might be a bridge too far. The government might find it increasingly difficult to sell such a deal at home.

The first official indication about how the Indian government views the developments in Vienna was provided by foreign minister Pranab Mukherjee who said on Saturday that New Delhi won’t accept any "prescriptive conditionalities" imposed by the select nuclear commerce club in the exemption that India is seeking.

Referring to the draft waiver — which if adopted will allow NSG members to open nuclear trade with India — Mukherjee said the government would have to examine what its altered text read like. But his comments made it evident that there was not much that India could "give" as all the areas which were red flagged at Vienna are extremely contentious from India’s point of view.

Government sources said that India has conveyed to the US that it will resist any move to rephrase the draft and that the minister indicated this. "We have to see what are the amendments proposed. We can talk only after that but we will not accept any prescriptive amendment," stated Mukherjee, while accompanying President Pratibha Patil on a visit to Kolkata.

Even before the NSG conclave, Indian negotiators had told the US that the "political situation" in India made more concessions quite impossible. As it is India was not overly pleased with the commitments contained in the July 18, 2005, Manmohan Singh-George Bush joint statement being brought into the waiver. These included India’s unilateral moratorium, export contral laws, and separation of civil and military facilities.

The obstacles in government now considering fresh amendments were made evident with both the Left and BJP launching sharp attacks on the "failure" at Vienna. The BJP said the setback was due to shoddy homework over the past three years as the government had completely failed to read the mood at the NSG.

The CPM also warned that the government was attempting to manipulate the draft of the waiver in a manner so as to claim that the exemption was "clean" but was, in actual fact, accepting the tough conditionalities contained in the US Hyde Act which facilitates a 123 agreement with India. The government was binding India into an unequal pact, loaded against India’s interests.

Government sources told TOI that the range of objections raised at the NSG meet would alter the current draft quite substantially. Some conditions like adherence to NPT and CTBT were ruled out but others like agreeing to any kind of leverage on testing would be politically difficult while also raising the ire of India nuclear community. Accepting the terms of the Bush-Manmohan Singh joint statement was about how far India could travel.

It was also pointed out that if the September 4 deadline for NSG consultations was also missed, the passage of the 123 pact in the US Congress would become almost an impossibility. It could then increasingly drop of the priority in Washington, and become dependent on a lame duck session of the Congress after the November elections. In other words, the odds would lengthen dauntingly.

Officials explained that the "prescriptive conditions" which Mukherjee spoke of certainly include the Hyde Act, according to which, the deal expires the moment India goes for another nuclear test. This is in keeping with US law. "There is an attempt by Ireland, New Zealand and a few other countries to incorporate the Hyde Act conditions in the NSG draft but our stand remains the same," said a source. He, however, admitted that India was committed to signing an IAEA additional protocol but the modalities had to be worked out.

Sources said that New Zealand was one country which insisted on India signing both CTBT and NPT before beginning nuclear commerce during the NSG discussions. This was apart from asking for a denial of enrichment and reprocessing technology which was promised to India in the July 2005 Indo-US joint statement.

New Zealand minister for arms control, Phil Goff, had earlier specified all these conditions in an interview to TOI earlier this week. New Zealand being a key stumbling blocks was evident again when US on Friday despatched a principal deputy assistant secretary of state, Glen Davies, to Wellington.

In what is being looked on as an attempt to "persuade" New Zealand into supporting India, the official conveyed to the New Zealand government that it is important to bring India into the nuclear fold given the size of its economy and nuclear infrastructure.

Foreign secretary Shiv Shankar Menon will on Monday visit Washington where he is expected to discuss the next round of NSG parleys. Menon is expected to rework the draft with his US counterpart, under secretary of state William Burns, but it remains to be seen how much leeway the two countries enjoy. "Our position has not changed at all. It’s up to them to execute the draft which had been agreed upon," said sources.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Postby NRao » 24 Aug 2008 19:13

Indian negotiators had told the US that the "political situation" in India made more concessions quite impossible


That is very odd. Actually, it should "strategic situation". Political implies that the current GoI would give in, but others are not willing to give in.

Sanatanan
BRFite
Posts: 481
Joined: 31 Dec 2006 09:29

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Postby Sanatanan » 24 Aug 2008 19:56

Interesting blog article dated 24 August 2008 by Siddharth Varadarajan. Quoting in full.


Looking beyond the NSG debacle


Image

America’s inability – or unwillingness - to pilot through the Nuclear Suppliers Group the waiver India needs to allow full civil nuclear cooperation undermines the basis of the July 2005 agreement. If the U.S. is not interested in honouring its commitment, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh must walk away...

A preview of my column which will appear in The Hindu on Monday:


Looking beyond the NSG debacle

America’s inability – or unwillingness - to pilot through the Nuclear Suppliers Group the waiver India needs to allow full civil nuclear cooperation undermines the basis of the July 2005 agreement. If the U.S. is not interested in honouring its commitment, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh must walk away.
Siddharth Varadarajan

A central premise of the civil nuclear energy cooperation initiative between New Delhi and Washington has been the assumption that the United States is the only major power with both the ability and the motivation to force a change in the discriminatory international rules governing nuclear commerce with India. Earlier Indian approaches to both France and Russia in 2003 and 2004 found the two countries eager to cooperate but unwilling to take the lead. Brajesh Mishra, who was the National Security Adviser at the time, was politely but firmly told to speak to Washington since it was the U.S. that held the keys to any relaxation of the Nuclear Suppliers Group rules prohibiting sales to India.

Mr. Mishra immediately broached the idea of an agreement with the U.S. but it was not until March 2005 that Washington reverted to New Delhi with a proposal that would eventually be signed by the two countries on July 18, 2005. It has not exactly been smooth sailing since then, but as an American-prepared draft seeking a waiver to the NSG guidelines for India ran aground at a special meeting of the 45-nation cartel on Friday, it is worth asking whether the U.S. over-reached itself three years ago in making a commitment to “adjust international regimes to enable full civil nuclear cooperation and trade” with the country. Or whether President George W. Bush has pulled a fast one on New Delhi, misleading Prime Minister Manmohan Singh with a false promise then and doing his utmost at the NSG to ensure that what prevails is not the solemn commitment contained in the July 2005 agreement but the extraneous non-proliferation agenda of the Hyde Act.

These are, broadly speaking, the only two ways of analyzing the implications of last week’s debacle in Vienna. While each scenario needs to be carefully analysed, the implications for what strategy India must adopt from now on are the same.

But first the facts. The U.S. and India spent three weeks negotiating the text of the draft waiver granting India an exemption from the NSG’s export rules. The draft took note of all the commitments India had made in July 2005 and stated that in the light of these, the full-scope safeguards requirement was being waived. To protect the concerns of those NSG countries doubting India’s willingness to abide by its commitments in the future, the waiver provided for members to “maintain contact and consult through regular channels on matters connected with the implementation of the Guidelines, taking into account relevant international commitments and bilateral agreements with India”. In other words, any purported violation by India could occasion the convening of a plenary meeting where a decision on how to react could always be taken by consensus.

In Vienna, this reasonable draft came under sustained attack from a small group of states. These included New Zealand, Ireland, Austria, Finland, Denmark, Switzerland, Sweden and the Netherlands, all of whom demanded substantive amendments. And then there was a second tier of countries who waded into what became a free for all with suggestions and changes of their own. Bilateral consultations the U.S. delegation held with officials from these countries on the morning of August 22 led not to the latter backing off but to the former agreeing to strive for an amended waiver that would take their misplaced demands on board and push for India’s concurrence with these. If accounts provided to me by European diplomats who were present in the last session of the NSG plenary are correct, the entire draft will now be reworked. On the menu are both ‘prescriptive’ suggestions on the desirability of India eventually acceding to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and, more dangerously, ‘post-conditions’. The latter category consist of ‘periodic review’ and a list of actions by India which might trigger the immediate and automatic termination of nuclear supplies, thereby jeopardising the billions of dollars of investment New Delhi might already have made. There will be no need to meet again and go through the tiresome process of evolving a consensus on whether to end cooperation with India or not, a process which a major nuclear vendor like Russia could well block. In addition, an attempt will be made to limit the scope of cooperation with India to only certain aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle and exclude enrichment and reprocessing (ENR) altogether.

Some or all of these changes reflect the unilateral conditions and prescriptions of the Hyde Act, something the Indian negotiating team fought hard to keep out of the bilateral nuclear cooperation agreement (the ‘123 agreement’) finalized last July. India was also able to build in to its safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency the tight linkage between continuity of fuel supplies and continuity of safeguards which was a cornerstone of the March 2006 separation plan and which Hyde sought to undo. Hawks like Congressman Howard Berman and officials from the State Department’s Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation (ISN) were never very pleased with what they saw as an Indian attempt to do an end run around the requirements of Hyde and saw the NSG as the battleground where the issue had to be settled once and for all. Mr. Berman introduced a resolution in Congress last fall calling for conditionalities in the proposed NSG waiver. Written assurances to this effect were sought from the State Department and provided to the House Foreign Relations Committee in classified form. When the draft waiver text became known, Richard Stratford of the ISN told a seminar in D.C. that the language had been deliberately kept weak so that tougher provisions could be grafted on in consultation with U.S. allies. And Mr. Berman was reassured that all his concerns would be taken care of at Vienna.

There were three other bad omens which augured badly for India’s chances at the NSG. First, in the run-up to the Vienna meeting, it had become apparent that Washington had done little or no lobbying on behalf of the “clean and unconditional” waiver that New Delhi sought. Where India, which is not even an NSG member, had sent multiple delegations to all NSG capitals led, in each case, by officials of at least Secretary rank, the U.S. deployed officers of such low pay grade as to be almost inconsequential. When an envoy was sent at all, he or she invariably tended to be someone as low down the Foggy Bottom food chain as a principal deputy assistant secretary of state. Second, India’s principal ‘ally’ in the NSG game, U.S. ambassador David Mulford, kept encouraging the NSG naysayers by stating it was unwise for Indians to expect an unconditional waiver. Third, the fact that the U.S. deployed John D. Rood, acting under secretary at the ISN, and a known activist on the nonproliferation front, was the final indication that the meeting in Vienna was not going to go India’s way. Many of the Hyde Act’s provisions began life as declarations of intent in the testimonies to Congress of Robert Joseph, Mr. Rood’s predecessor at ISN. It was only to be expected, therefore, that the Bureau would launch a rearguard action at the NSG in defence of those provisions given half a chance.

While it is true that the U.S. simply lacks the power and authority to push through changes in the international system by itself, a closer examination of these failures suggests America tends to be most unsuccessful where one or more world powers dig their heels in and refuse to go along with Washington’s agenda. At the NSG, however, all world powers were active supporters of the India initiative (Russia, France, Britain), passive supporters (Japan, Germany and Canada) or neutral (China). With this degree of policy coherence at the great power level, there was no way a since American effort to deliver a clean and unconditional waiver for India would have run aground. What happened at Vienna, however, was a coordinated attack in which the smaller states were encouraged to do Washington’s business for it.
The Bush administration’s calculation is that with the vote of confidence behind him, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is now so politically committed to seeing the nuclear deal through that he will find it impossible to acknowledge that the Americans have double-crossed him. Indeed, a situation has now arisen where the U.S. may go ahead with the September 4-5 NSG meeting and press the adoption of a diluted, conditional waiver despite Indian pposition in the hope that Dr. Singh will have no option but to submit to this fait accompli.

Thanks to a number of strategic blunders he has made over the past three years – including abandoning the pan-Asian energy grid idea of Mani Shankar Aiyar, going slow on the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline project and bowing to U.S. sensitivities in not inking the inter-governmental agreement on Koodankoolam for four additional reactors from Russia – the Prime Minister does not have a very strong hand from which to stare down the U.S. But stare he must. As soon as the Americans come to Delhi with new draft language, he must pick up the telephone and tell President Bush that if he cannot uphold his part of the July 2005 agreement, the deal is over. He must also tell Mr. Bush that on the eve of the next NSG meeting he will make a televised address to the nation explaining the betrayal of trust which has led to the collapse of the deal. If the U.S. ignores his appeal, so be it. No government or leader in India will ever be able to justify entering into any agreement with Washington for the foreseeable future. And that will be America’s loss, not India’s.

Labels: Nuclear Issues
posted by Siddharth Varadarajan at 6:58 PM
Last edited by Sanatanan on 24 Aug 2008 20:31, edited 1 time in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Postby NRao » 24 Aug 2008 20:11

SV may follow Akbar and Mustafa?

Thanks to a number of strategic blunders he has made over the past three years – including abandoning the pan-Asian energy grid idea of Mani Shankar Aiyar, going slow on the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline project and bowing to U.S. sensitivities in not inking the inter-governmental agreement on Koodankoolam for four additional reactors from Russia – the Prime Minister does not have a very strong hand from which to stare down the U.S. But stare he must. As soon as the Americans come to Delhi with new draft language, he must pick up the telephone and tell President Bush that if he cannot uphold his part of the July 2005 agreement, the deal is over. He must also tell Mr. Bush that on the eve of the next NSG meeting he will make a televised address to the nation explaining the betrayal of trust which has led to the collapse of the deal. If the U.S. ignores his appeal, so be it. No government or leader in India will ever be able to justify entering into any agreement with Washington for the foreseeable future. And that will be America’s loss, not India’s.


Not PC to say the obvious.

I just cannot see MMS making a call.

Does that mean that IF the NSG stuff falls through India can sign with RU? (That is IF RU wants to sign now.)

(Also, hope the Su-30 MKIs come home before Sept. :) Do not want to see a new embargo go on-line before that - the likes of the LCA. JK.)

enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Postby enqyoob » 24 Aug 2008 20:18

If what SV says is true, obviously India should walk out, sign on for Russian cooperation, and invite other countries to collaborate.

The NSG is not the UN, and has no legitimacy other than being a US/UK-led ripoff cartel invented to hurt India. Maybe it's time for the other powers to destroy the NSG.

Then again, Siddharth Varadarajan may be, and probably is, full of himself. Not signing on to the Iran-Pakistan pipeline is one of the smartest things MMS has done - can you imagine Gujarat industry being dependent on a pipeline carrying combustible stuff through Taliban-stan?

The Russian willingness to provide uranium and reactors may be sharply higher today than it was a month ago. I would think that the Russians will be happy to find alternative markets for their downblended, or not-so-downblended, uranium from their START-ed warheads. Right now, about 50% of US nuclear-generated electricity is supposedly coming from this source. Withdrawing that would have interesting consequences to the cost of electricity.

How long will Putin want to tag along as an obedient NSG COW?

Then again, SV probably underestimates by 99% the Indian willingness and effectiveness in stopping all the machinations of the rat-pack Coalition of the Whining (as distinct from the poodle-pack which is acting all goody-goody.)

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54168
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008

Postby ramana » 24 Aug 2008 20:44

I have to admit that mainstream centrist news reporters and opinion editors have given the MMS/UPA govt all the space it needs, often hitting back at the rightist point of view. They have given them the fighting chance and given them the benefit of doubt. But this not hedging for NSG dhoka has made them wary. On the other hand "Sarkar is and will be right" crowd is quite mum. Maybe cognitive dissoance.

Is this same as 1962 debacle?

SV might not get the boot since N Ram is anti govt. And might let him take back Hindu!

naray9, Its not as easy as that for the govt to turn on a dime. When you are knee deep in the mud its difficult to discern its a sinkhole. They should have gone back to Delhi and not to DC. DC can convince them its cosmetic changes but they have to be far reaching if the NSG guys find them acceptable. Heavens wont fall down if the US comes to Delhi with the new language. By going to DC they have short circuited the process and show they are eager to go to the slaughterhouse.

I dont know. It might need a new govt. to carry on. MMS has given its the good college try. He should know when to fold from rolling the loaded dice. it will result in ruin only.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests