India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54159
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby ramana » 04 Sep 2008 00:02

From above post by NRao

The State Department's letter to Lantos gives a different story. It says the United States would help India deal only with "disruptions in supply to India that may result through no fault of its own," such as a trade war or market disruptions. "The fuel supply assurances are not, however, meant to insulate India against the consequences of a nuclear explosive test or a violation of nonproliferation commitments," the letter said.

The letter makes clear that terminating cooperation could be immediate and was within U.S. discretion, and that the supply assurances made by the United States are not legally binding but simply a commitment made by President Bush.

The letter also stated that the "U.S. government will not assist India in the design, construction or operation of sensitive nuclear technologies," even though the Hyde Act allowed transfers of such technology under certain circumstances. The U.S. government had no plans to seek to amend the deal to allow sensitive transfers, the letter said.


The bolded parts will be difficult to sell in India. Now Mulford says these are known to MMS govt. Yet contrast these to his public statements.

I too thought this letter release was to assuage the reluctant six. It looks more like an incentive to them to ask for such measures in the NSG waiver as GOI has already apparently agreed to them.

I had once said that Mulford was the most undiplomatic Ambassador. Its possible that the US wants India to walk away. The lack of enthusiasm to plug for the wiaver and now this leak seem to be a two step tango.

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby Arun_S » 04 Sep 2008 00:26

NRao wrote:I am not sure what is new in this "secret" stuff, or what is surprising, but here is the Wash Post article:

In Secret Letter, Tough U.S. Line on India Nuclear Deal


The surprise is in finding written proof that is contrary to the placating arguments made by GOI to say that there is enough ambiguity written in the terms of agreement and we have the backing of US Govt that in the case of a Indian Nuclear test, US law may be invoked to prevent and recall nuclear supplies to India but an implied understanding that US will NOT prevent other NSG countries from continuing to supply India with N fuel and material. That 'snake oil' has evaporated with this written response to written question.

The people selling the deal to Indian population were touting "that" as an opening designed in the US_India N deal that will allow Indian elephant to walk out unmolested in the event of Indian N test.

Now this written response clarifies the intent and purpose saying that US will go to other NSG countries to end their cooperation too. Thus pulling the rug on the key argument used by people that say that the deal does not support nor hinder future Indian N test.
Compare this:
In India, Singh and his aides have insisted that the deal would not constrain the country's right to nuclear tests and would provide an uninterrupted supply of fuel to India's nuclear reactors. In August 2007, Singh told Parliament, "The agreement does not in any way affect India's right to undertake future nuclear tests, if it is necessary."

with:
2. The U.S. will not work with friends and allies to make good any shortfall of fuel which results from US termination of cooperation following a test and actually intends to get all NSG states to end their cooperation as well.

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby enqyoob » 04 Sep 2008 00:28

My prediction remains unchanged. Of course I may change it tomorrow after the actual NSG wording comes out, according to the famous Predictor-Corrector Algorithm. 8)

So the prediction is that it will be clean waiver, since the NSG is happy that the US has thought of all "eventualities" and feels comfortable enough that Indian intentions are accurately reflected by the majority opinion on BRF, meaning the only opinion that counts. :P

Bottom line concern of all countries that know anything about WMD stuff is the same as the warning posted on beds in many college dormitories:

Do not smoke in bed. The ashes falling on the floor may be your own


So they don't want to be trading such stuff to anyone who is likely to use it to explode stuff.

Now they are willing to go far enough that India can stop worrying about the "bijli vs. bum" choice of where to use domestic uranium, which is a huge breakthrough. But they are NOT going to agree to sell stuff that will go directly into the bum program.

This is understandable, and I believe that India can live with this. NO GOI in the foreseeable future (specifically, no NDA GOI) is going to conduct any more nuke explosions, so India loses nothing, and gains an immense amount.

We (meaning the majority opinion on BRF) have argued (and won) previously on why no more supercritical nuclear tests are needed to ensure a deterrent of unlimited power. No sense in repeating that.

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby NRao » 04 Sep 2008 00:29

For the sake of all that energy which has been poured into negotiating the 123 Agreement, which is an excellent one, it is still hoped we get that waiver.


However, all this is (I suspect) a big drama. This leak is to tell NSG what the conditions are. The 6-pack howls are not to study the NSG Waiver, but to study the Hyde Act and the 123 with India. For once they all sign off on the waiver it really does not matter what is in the HAct and 123.

finding written proof that is contrary to the placating arguments made by GOI to say that there is enough ambiguity written in the terms of agreement


That is not surprising. We knew that all along, and, there are statements from both sides that have contradicted each other before!

How can anyone expect two sides that are headed in opposite directions to come to an agreement that they are going in the same direction? 123 was ambiguous. It had to be.

I had said that this thing would fall apart starting about 4/5 years from now. That has been preponed.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54159
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby ramana » 04 Sep 2008 00:38

Good PRC tactics. Declare victory and move on!

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54159
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby ramana » 04 Sep 2008 00:55

NRao, Kshirin found it and posted two pages before this. I posted the link in response to N^3's question.

I would rather you spend time in analysis than looking for info.

Ask and ye shall receive!

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby NRao » 04 Sep 2008 01:13

Sorry missed that. Not in the habit of posting dups.

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby enqyoob » 04 Sep 2008 01:36

NRaoji

Pls consider ur answer to my pooch: How many tests does India need, where "one test" is defined as all tests done within a 2-week period (It takes that long for the NSG to decide what bans to impose).

I would be interested to hear your estimate of that, since it decides with what frequency the Indian economy etc. are anticipated to fluctuate in the "test now" lobby's models (no implication that u r in any such lobby..)

Virupaksha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 3110
Joined: 28 Jun 2007 06:36

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby Virupaksha » 04 Sep 2008 02:03

Arun_S wrote:The surprise is in finding written proof that is contrary to the placating arguments made by GOI to say that there is enough ambiguity written in the terms of agreement and we have the backing of US Govt that in the case of a Indian Nuclear test, US law may be invoked to prevent and recall nuclear supplies to India but an implied understanding that US will NOT prevent other NSG countries from continuing to supply India with N fuel and material. That 'snake oil' has evaporated with this written response to written question.

The people selling the deal to Indian population were touting "that" as an opening designed in the US_India N deal that will allow Indian elephant to walk out unmolested in the event of Indian N test.

Anyone who had taken the trouble of going through the 4 page 123 agreement, will know that the US_India N deal was a misnomer. When you are putting billions of money in investments, which can last only 1 year (the notice period), that line was a red herring. That line was definitely read by me as stating, no US tech after 1 year of bum. Everything to be shipped back.

It was an opening, the opening was not for US-India N deal, but for NSG-India N deal. yes, there was enough ambiguity, but ambiguity over what is the question? If we remember, when the Hact was passed, the response from our MMS was it was an internal US matter. That should have been the biggest alarm, if ever there was a need.

Now regarding the implied understanding,
from the agreement itself
Before this Agreement is terminated pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Article, the Parties shall consider the relevant circumstances and promptly hold consultations, as provided in Article 13, to address the reasons cited by the Party seeking termination. The Party seeking termination has the right to cease further cooperation under this Agreement if it determines that a mutually acceptable resolution of outstanding issues has not been possible or cannot be achieved through consultations. The Parties agree to consider carefully the circumstances that may lead to termination or cessation of cooperation. They further agree to take into account whether the circumstances that may lead to termination or cessation resulted from a Party's serious concern about a changed security environment or as a response to similar actions by other States which could impact national security.

iii) The United States will support an Indian effort to develop a strategic reserve of nuclear fuel to guard against any disruption of supply over the lifetime of India's reactors.

iv) If despite these arrangements, a disruption of fuel supplies to India occurs, the United States and India would jointly convene a group of friendly supplier countries to include countries such as Russia, France and the United Kingdom to pursue such measures as would restore fuel supply to India.



The first line, if China/Pak/ anyone tests, the implied understanding is its game. However if India does it unilaterally, the max US will have to do is "jointly convene", why cant we do that ourselves?


Now this written response clarifies the intent and purpose saying that US will go to other NSG countries to end their cooperation too. Thus pulling the rug on the key argument used by people that say that the deal does not support nor hinder future Indian N test.
Compare this:
In India, Singh and his aides have insisted that the deal would not constrain the country's right to nuclear tests and would provide an uninterrupted supply of fuel to India's nuclear reactors. In August 2007, Singh told Parliament, "The agreement does not in any way affect India's right to undertake future nuclear tests, if it is necessary."

with:
2. The U.S. will not work with friends and allies to make good any shortfall of fuel which results from US termination of cooperation following a test and actually intends to get all NSG states to end their cooperation as well.


This writing was clear on the wall, long long ago. That was why all this 123 etc etc is humbug. Get the NSG clean, its done. Remember NSG is based on consensus and it cuts both ways. Once we get the consensus on clean, if we test, this time it will be their duty to get consensus :)

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby Arun_S » 04 Sep 2008 02:18

This Jan 11, 2008 letter from US Dept of State to US Congress Chairman Lantos

http://www.hcfa.house.gov/110/press090208.pdf

Question #18 and its response bye US Administration on page 11 and 12, is important and I transcribe it from the pdf file for worthy BRF members:

Question 18:
    How is this fuel supply assurance consistent with Section 103(a)(6) of the Hyde Act which states that it is US policy to :"Seek to prevent the transfer to any country of nuclear equipment, material, or technology from other participating governments in the Nuclear Suppliers Group or from any other source if nuclear transfer to that country are suspended or terminated pursuant to this title, the Atomic Energy Act, or any other Unites States law"?

Answer:
    There is no inconsistency between the fuel supply assurances contained in Article 5 of the US-India Agreement and section 103(a)(6) of the Hyde Act. Paragraph 6 of Article 5 of the US-India Agreement records assurances given by the Unites States to India in march 2006. In particular, the United states conveyed its commitment "... to work with friends and allies to adjust the practices of the Nuclear Suppliers group to create the necessary conditions for India to obtain full access to the international fuel market, including reliable, uninterrupted and continual access to fuel supplies from firms in several nations," and "[i]f despite these arrangements a disruption of fuel supplies to India occurs, the Unites States and India would jointly convene a group of friendly countries ... to pursue such measures as would restore fuel supply to India."

    These fuel supply assurances are intended to guard against disruption of fuel supply to India that might occur through no fault of India's own. Instances of such a disruption might include, for example, a trade war resulting in the cut-off of supply, market disruptions in the global supply of fuel, or the failure of a company to fulfill a fuel supply contract it may have signed with India. In such circumstances the United States would be prepared to encourage transfer of nuclear fuel to India by other Nuclear Suppliers Group members.

    The fuel supply assurances are not, however, meant to insulate India against the consequences of a nuclear explosive test or a violation of nonproliferation commitments. The language of Article 5.6(b), particularly in the context of Article 14, does not provide for any such insulation.

Bharati
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 49
Joined: 07 Aug 2008 00:10

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby Bharati » 04 Sep 2008 02:29

http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/
The answers to questions from 35 to 39, the letter uses only Article 14 of the agreement to explain how and when the agreement can be terminated.
It mentions these
1. The termination can occur after a written notice when a 'the resolution to a problem created by India's action cannot be achieved through consultations'
2. Prior to the actual removal, the parties would engage in consultations regarding compensations due, quantity of items to be returned etc.

Is GOI interpretation of Article 14 the same?
The agreement is very ambiguous and either party could use it to suit its need. Since the agreement does not explicitly mention the nuke test as a reason to terminate the agreement, it is not clear if US would do so. Probably the testing could be timed such that US is forced not to invoke the termination clause. Having said that, the US can terminate the deal anytime citing any reason.
But, prior to removal of equipment and fuel, both parties have to engage in discussions to agree on the compensation and what is to be removed and how.

The deal is good for us if India goes on to become a powerful state and the world is multi-polar in the least. But under the current circumstances with US being the sole superpower and arm-twisting (all) nations, its a huge risk. US can forever blackmail India (also through NSG) if we become very much dependent on the nuclear reactors.

Of course, the deal does not prevent us from testing. But the deal does not guarantee that there won't be a disruption in fuel supply if we tested. Worse, we could lose all that the deal got us.

We should have had something in the agreement regarding the compensation part. If US pulls out, India is screwed badly. If India pulls out, what is US going to lose?
Do we have a contingency?

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby NRao » 04 Sep 2008 02:56


harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby harbans » 04 Sep 2008 03:04

I'm perfectly in synch with Narayan Ji..but even i am geting frustrated stating the obvious that even Narayan Ji does'nt address too..no one does. India is inconsequential to stated US official aims on non proliferation, the aims immediately are these: 1. Eliminating Porki Nukes 2. Eliminating Iranian nuke capabilities. Can none on BRF SEE that? The US has come around 180 degrees more than the 720 degrees circle or it's multiples it's been doing all these years.

The noise on Iranian nukes and hyper being built up is genuine and false all on the same breath. The obvious aim is Porki nukes. Despite conspiracy theorists and all US post 911 has not taken away any Porki nuke capability. The lessons post 911 learnt by US are simple. It's known that Porki's are cheats. Liars. ISI is compromised. PA is compromised. That the Taliban and AQ are indeed populat in every section of Porkistan. That it's a matter of time that Porki nukes are inducted into non state actors to detonate in Denver or New Delhi or London or Israel. The Porki nuke threat is more real than the Iranian.

Yet they are building up pressure on Iran through press leaks. Deflecting pressure fro the Pakis. Good tactics. 2 birds in sight and only a stone in hand unless India cooperates. Taking Irans nukes out is not a problem. 2 reactors and they are through. But even that is not possible without India being on board. Imagine the repurcussions in IMs at US bombing of Iran..But imagine bombing Pakistan to denuke them. Not an easy task. Difficult to accomplish it through F 15s based on carriers. More so if India is not involved. It's a continous bombing campaign that will be required for a motnh..why? Porki's have openly stated that if anyone attacks their nuclear facitlites they will nuke India. Moreover US cannot do it without Indian help. It's so easy to see that they need India for it.

Lets come to the nuclear deal..it changes world opinion tremendously for the Indians. US knows the 6 pack pipsqueak think of India in terms of poverty, caste, elephants and cows. They are changing their thinking as fast as possible at the rate with which India is reforming. They are being physically arm twisted to confirm.

Uncle wants this deal more bad than India. They know India is a soft and idealistic state prone to weakness. They've read that. Bush would've been prepared to give India UNSC, P5, NWS, XYZ status to get this deal and India inside the tent. Only he can't. After years of NPA domination and brainwashing he can't get through the COTUS and NSG without some offerings. That is the reality of what is being relieved.

Neither MMS lied, nor Bush is cheating. The deal is about denuking Porkistan and Iran. India gets clean energy, reduces green house gases, good contracts etc for business.

Can anyone tell me what the US hoped to achieve with this? I hope I am wrong, but I never stopped wondering why the US reconciled itself to the very obvious possibility that India could buy from others - why were they going through all this trouble so that others could benefit


Now do you understand why the US administration is prepared to risk US companies to no benefits by passing Hyde act and literally saying deal with Russia /France or proxy US companies..they want to desperately clean out Islamic nukes. This is the deal. India is getting something it's not even imagining in it's favor.
Last edited by harbans on 04 Sep 2008 03:13, edited 1 time in total.

ranganathan
BRFite
Posts: 277
Joined: 06 Feb 2008 23:14

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby ranganathan » 04 Sep 2008 03:13

Harbans I have no clue hat you are talking about. The nuke deal seems all about killing indian nuke capabilities. Iranian nukes will be taken out with israels help while porki nukes are already under their control thanks to mushy. India is being sold out by MMS and his coterie and need to be stopped.

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby NRao » 04 Sep 2008 03:15

narayanan wrote:NRaoji

Pls consider ur answer to my pooch: How many tests does India need, where "one test" is defined as all tests done within a 2-week period (It takes that long for the NSG to decide what bans to impose).

I would be interested to hear your estimate of that, since it decides with what frequency the Indian economy etc. are anticipated to fluctuate in the "test now" lobby's models (no implication that u r in any such lobby..)



Sorry I missed your earlier pooch (what is a pooch?).

I do not think testing is an issue. ENR I feel is a greater issue.

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby Arun_S » 04 Sep 2008 03:17

Either GoI demand apology from US Ambassador David C. Mulford for lying, or if indeed that is not possible because that is the real truth then PM MM Singh is in serious contempt of Indian Parliament in issuing statement on floor of the house that were untruthful. "The agreement does not in any way affect India's right to undertake future nuclear tests, if it is necessary". From PMO's website: PDF document: India US Nuclear Energy Programme and the 123 agreement.pdf

Nothing new in letter; we kept India informed: US Ambassador David C. Mulford
3 Sep 2008, 2010 hrs IST,PTI
NEW DELHI: The US on Wednesday down play the disclosures made in the US State Department document which triggered a controversy here and said there was nothing new in it which has not been shared with India or the US Congress. ( Watch )

"This letter contains no new conditions and there is no data in this letter which has not already been shared in an open and transparent way with members of the Congress and with the Government of India," US Ambassador David C. Mulford said in a statement.

In controversial disclosures on the eve of the meeting of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) in Vienna, the US has made it clear that it will stop fuel supplies and other nuclear cooperation if India conducts a nuclear test.

The US position, which appears at variance with New Delhi's interpretation of some key clauses of Indo-US nuclear deal, was made public just before the two-day meeting of the 45-nation NSG which will consider a waiver that will enable India do nuclear commerce.

A 26-page document released by a well-known opponent of the deal, Howard Berman, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, contains an assertion by the Bush Administration that its assurances of nuclear supplies to India are not meant to insulate it against the consequences of a nuclear test.

Bharati
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 49
Joined: 07 Aug 2008 00:10

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby Bharati » 04 Sep 2008 03:23

we have the right to test, US has the right to react

This is what MMS is saying today.

Whether the US wants the waiver to go through or not, we will know when the NSG announces the result.

harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby harbans » 04 Sep 2008 03:25

Harbans I have no clue hat you are talking about. The nuke deal seems all about killing indian nuke capabilities. Iranian nukes will be taken out with israels help while porki nukes are already under their control thanks to mushy


Ranga Ji i am stating the truth. This is it. Pakistan with advanced nuclear cpability is being taken over this minute by AQ and Taliban. The US have witnessed the perfidy themselves 7 years. This is crap that US have control over Paki nukes. They can't deliver a fat Turbine to a region in Afghanistan and call that delivery as the BIGGEST an RISKIEST British military operation post WW2. Just a road and just a delivery. Pathetic.

There's nothing to understand. This deal is about denuking Pakistan and Iran next. All the other advantages/ disadvantages to go along are secondary. US has realized India is key..think a little if you were in Bush's shoes and in charge of world events. What would you do as a superpower. And you have your brainwashed NPA community, also in NZ and NSG that constrains you..

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7870
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby Gerard » 04 Sep 2008 03:30


harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby harbans » 04 Sep 2008 03:31

PM MM Singh is in serious contempt of Indian Parliament in issuing statement on floor of the house that were untruthful. "The agreement does not in any way affect India's right to undertake future nuclear tests, if it is necessary".


MMS is not lying one bit..India's right to test is what India determines. Sanctions or no sanctions. India has'nt signed one bit of paper that says India cannot test. India may sign bits of paper that say there are consequenses. But our right to test will remain. But even the consequences part India is putting up a good fight. US admin has it's limitations..

Jagan
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3032
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Earth @ Google.com
Contact:

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby Jagan » 04 Sep 2008 03:32

At the begining of the thread shiv said:

No whines or celebratory lungi dances
Please stop insulting each other.
Wonleee nook noos pliss.


All creative writing posts can go here

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby Manny » 04 Sep 2008 04:07

The important thing right now is to see if we can get a clean NSG waver. IF we don't then this is moot

But, if we do get a clean waver, how is that worse than not getting one at all? Do whatever conditions that we need as part of the commercial deal. The ones that would be most favorable gets the business. France? Russ? what?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54159
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby ramana » 04 Sep 2008 04:14

manny you are right. Clean waiver is important. All those Hydebound conditions and assurances US can have. I suspect the leak was to ensure that the reluctant ones will try to impose the same. Anyway we will know in two days. However Dubya might have thought he has India on his side but he has nullified it by his letter to the Congress.

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby RajeshA » 04 Sep 2008 04:15

There is nothing in 123 Agreement, which says, India will never carry out another test.

MMS has not failed in getting India the right to retain the option of testing. He has said that India can test, America can react.

So if USA terminates the deal if India tests, big deal! USA has not created the best sales pitch to sell us nuclear reactors with all the restrictions on technology and termination clauses. There will be no loss, if they walk away.

So basically MMS is saying, he is not bothered with USA terminating the deal, as long as he has an NSG Waiver in hand, and can trade with Russia and France, and also test if he must.

What bothers me is the disruption in supply for the safeguarded civilian nuclear reactors. Strategic Fuel Reserve is not going to fly much if USA sees to it, that India cannot build a satisfactory reserve of Uranium to tough it out during any sanctions. Australia and Canada, the two biggest producers of Uranium, will do US bidding, and would highly unlikely agree to a bilateral agreement with no termination clause similar to the one in Hyde Act, including right of return of unused fuel. India still can have access to Kazakh and Uzbek uranium but that limits India's options.

The whole idea of civilian nuclear industry hinges on assured supply of fuel and USA controls the world markets in Uranium. USA would have control over our Energy Supply not through its nuclear reactors but through the fuel.

We are getting into a fix here. If we want to use a nuclear energy for providing power, we have to connect it to the national power grid. If we want to do that, we have to declare the reactor as civil. If we do that, the reactor would come under perpetual IAEA safeguards. On the other hand, there is no assurance of nuclear fuel for these reactors, because in spite of his efforts, MMS could not ensure a feasible Strategic Reserve. So we might have to feed these reactors with Indian uranium, and we are not allowed to withdraw these reactors from the safeguards, even if these are locally built. but we cannot use the fuel cycle for our strategic program at the same time, even though it from domestic supply.

Worst of all, all FBRs and all the Thorium based Reactors that we use for generating power for India, would have to placed under safeguards, even though everything that may go in would be of Indian origin.

I have been always for this deal, but now I starting to see the America's bad faith and Indian gullibility. We need to rework on the definition of what is civilian and what is not, and we need to work on better ways of assuring a strategic fuel reserve.

Civilian nuclear reactors should be only those, which are imported, or which use foreign fuel, or which use foreign components. It should be decoupled from attachment to the national power grid.

Even a clean and unconditional waiver cannot solve this problem.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7870
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby Gerard » 04 Sep 2008 04:27

Academic storm in nuke cup
A political storm has broken in India but much of the discussion is academic. With or without the Hyde Act, with or without the nuclear deal, US laws that pre-date its new friendship with India require instant and automatic sanctions if New Delhi conducts another test.

These laws universally apply to any country — other than the five recognised nuclear powers under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty — that tests a bomb. The tough sanctions imposed on India in 1998 after Pokhran II were the result of such legislation, still on US statutes. Besides, by most accounts, India does not need to carry out another test in the foreseeable future, which pre-empts the need for violating the agreement.

Chellaram
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 25
Joined: 21 May 2007 18:42
Location: Houston, Tx

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby Chellaram » 04 Sep 2008 04:34

RajeshA wrote:Worst of all, all FBRs and all the Thorium based Reactors that we use for generating power for India, would have to placed under safeguards, even though everything that may go in would be of Indian origin.


i'm not sure i understand this part. why would FBRs and thorium based reactors using Indian uranium have to be placed under safeguards?

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby RajeshA » 04 Sep 2008 04:39

Chellaram wrote:
RajeshA wrote:Worst of all, all FBRs and all the Thorium based Reactors that we use for generating power for India, would have to placed under safeguards, even though everything that may go in would be of Indian origin.


i'm not sure i understand this part. why would FBRs and thorium based reactors using Indian uranium have to be placed under safeguards?


If they are connected to the national power grid, then they would be civilian, and hence would have to be under IAEA safeguards. That is how civilian nuclear facility has been defined.

sivab
BRFite
Posts: 960
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby sivab » 04 Sep 2008 04:48

RajeshA wrote:If they are connected to the national power grid, then they would be civilian, and hence would have to be under IAEA safeguards. That is how civilian nuclear facility has been defined.


By whom? NPA's tried that trick but didn't succeed.

Civilian reactors are those that are designated as such by GoI under its sole discretion. This true for now and future. Even in current separation plan all MAPS, TAPS 3/4 etc are miltary but will be connected to grid. So will PFBR and AHWR when they come online.
Last edited by sivab on 04 Sep 2008 04:51, edited 1 time in total.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7870
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby Gerard » 04 Sep 2008 04:51

defined where?

sivab
BRFite
Posts: 960
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby sivab » 04 Sep 2008 04:56

RajeshA wrote:Civilian nuclear reactors should be only those, which are imported, or which use foreign fuel, or which use foreign components.


That is how it is. See IAEA document. Indian reactors will be placed under safeguards only if and when they get foreign fuel.

sanjeevjain
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 6
Joined: 09 Dec 2007 01:50

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby sanjeevjain » 04 Sep 2008 04:57

RajeshA wrote:So basically MMS is saying, he is not bothered with USA terminating the deal, as long as he has an NSG Waiver in hand, and can trade with Russia and France, and also test if he must.


Many people have been parroting this theory, but I don't buy it for a second. Why is US putting so much efforts in this deal when it can be easily scuttled afterwards? Going by the current theme, I think it will be a huge mistake to assume such naiive outcomes.

I believe if the deal goes through, US will use the threat of revoking this treaty and return of supply as a baraining chip at every juncture to bend India's Goverment to its will. Same threat will be used to force Indian Government to award large contracts to US Companies, so that profit stays within US. It is an open secret that US Businesses are expecting to have revenues north of $100 Billion from this deal!

Also, now who is going to fund all the expansion of Nuclear Energy in India? India doesn't have 100s of Billions of Dollars to buy reactor and fuel. This money will be of course provided by US Government/Businesses through IMF and World Bank to buy US Goods itself. This debt from IMF/World Bank will continue to pile on because Electricity Distribution is a loss making enterprise in India. Talk about US Leverage on India!

This is a prepetual circle of hell :) created by US Government/Businesses. This game has been going on for over 3 decades. Read the Confessions of an Economic Hitman to understand how this game has been repeated over and over again throughout South America and South East Asia by US to gain strategic foothold on countries and their governemts.

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4438
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby putnanja » 04 Sep 2008 04:58

RajeshA wrote:
So basically MMS is saying, he is not bothered with USA terminating the deal, as long as he has an NSG Waiver in hand, and can trade with Russia and France, and also test if he must.



This is the key point. That is why India is against NSG draft having any mention of punitive actions in case India tests. India wants to deal with NSG countries independently and not be tied down by NSG conditions.

RajeshA wrote:If they are connected to the national power grid, then they would be civilian, and hence would have to be under IAEA safeguards. That is how civilian nuclear facility has been defined.


Nope. India gets to decide which are civilian and which are military reactors.

The U.S.-India Nuclear Deal: Taking Stock

In any event, it is at least questionable whether this pledge to separate civil and military nuclear facilities is a major concession on the Indians’ part because it is unlikely to limit Indian production of fissile materials for military purposes. The decision about which facilities to declare civilian rests with India.

sivab
BRFite
Posts: 960
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby sivab » 04 Sep 2008 05:28

Revised NSG draft for Sept. 4/5

http://www.armscontrol.org/system/files ... -5+Mtg.pdf

NPA's don't like it. Hence letter leak by Berman.

sivab
BRFite
Posts: 960
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby sivab » 04 Sep 2008 05:33

http://www.armscontrol.org/node/3331

The Revised Proposal Is Irresponsible and Should Be Rejected
The revised U.S. proposal does not incorporate any meaningful adjustments or concessions and is essentially the same as the earlier draft proposal.

Apparently, New Delhi and Washington expect that the 15 plus states who are seeking meaningful restrictions and conditions and a regular review mechanism on nuclear trade with India to be satisfied with a “statement from the chair” to substitute for a rationale NSG policy on key issues. The revised proposal also contains the following two cosmetic adjustments:

a new paragraph that says all governments participating in the NSG shall inform each other on what bilateral cooperation they are pursuing with India after the exemption is approved. This is being presented as an alternative to several proposals from NSG states for a regular review mechanism for nuclear trade with India. This would be mildly useful ahead of an NSG decision, but adds nothing to what the NSG is already authorized to do and would do nothing to help hold India accountable to nonproliferation and disarmament commitments.

a paragraph that says participating governments can call an extraordinary consultation within the NSG “if circumstances have arisen which require consultations.” This is being pitched as a response to a possible Indian nuclear test. But in reality, this doesn’t do anything more than what is already in the NSG guidelines (paragraph 16) that allow for a special meeting of NSG states in the event of extraordinary events, including a nuclear test.

sivab
BRFite
Posts: 960
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby sivab » 04 Sep 2008 05:38

Draft is essentially the same with the addition of two new para's that does not change anything. No wonder about NPA's and Berman's takleef ... :mrgreen:

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5241
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby ShauryaT » 04 Sep 2008 05:46

Gerard wrote:defined where?
Separation agreement directly and indirectly in the IAEA approved draft. I am sure you have both. :)

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5241
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby ShauryaT » 04 Sep 2008 05:47

sivab wrote:Draft is essentially the same with the addition of two new para's that does not change anything. No wonder about NPA's and Berman's takleef ... :mrgreen:

:eek: :-o :shock: :x :oops: :cry: :evil: :evil: :evil:

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby Katare » 04 Sep 2008 06:04

ramana wrote:From above post by NRao

The State Department's letter to Lantos gives a different story. It says the United States would help India deal only with "disruptions in supply to India that may result through no fault of its own," such as a trade war or market disruptions. "The fuel supply assurances are not, however, meant to insulate India against the consequences of a nuclear explosive test or a violation of nonproliferation commitments," the letter said.

The letter makes clear that terminating cooperation could be immediate and was within U.S. discretion, and that the supply assurances made by the United States are not legally binding but simply a commitment made by President Bush.

The letter also stated that the "U.S. government will not assist India in the design, construction or operation of sensitive nuclear technologies," even though the Hyde Act allowed transfers of such technology under certain circumstances. The U.S. government had no plans to seek to amend the deal to allow sensitive transfers, the letter said.


The bolded parts will be difficult to sell in India. Now Mulford says these are known to MMS govt. Yet contrast these to his public statements.

I too thought this letter release was to assuage the reluctant six. It looks more like an incentive to them to ask for such measures in the NSG waiver as GOI has already apparently agreed to them.

I had once said that Mulford was the most undiplomatic Ambassador. Its possible that the US wants India to walk away. The lack of enthusiasm to plug for the wiaver and now this leak seem to be a two step tango.


Ramana,

Why would it be hard to sell, it was well understood and known since 123 agreement was first revealed. USofA has never exported any sensitive dual use technologies (read reprocessing technologies) to any country and it'll not export those technologies to India either. IMO India would not like to import reprocessing technologies and hardware from USA either for obvious reasons.

Now the question comes than why did they not exclude those technologies explicitly from the 123 agreement?

The answer IMO is it would have set the president for NSG to exclude the same in the waiver and whole thing would have become another denial regime for India defeating the whole purpose. So like bush said the agreement allows the trade in reprocessing tech/hardware it does not compel USA to export them either. After this deal there would not be any India specific law in USA banning reprocessing tech export to India. India will have same legal status as any other country for American companies.

Same thing applies with the testing, the 123 agreement neither explicitly revokes nuclear trade in case of testing nor it explicitly says that testing would not affect trade. 123 has inbuilt treaty revocation clause for these events and they were discussed here in details. The 123 also has safeguard inbuilt for India to shield some of the consequences like strategic reserve, no multilateral obligation on NSG countries to stop trade with India and cost reimbursement clause on whoever pulls out etc. If anyone in Indian camp was expecting that the agreement guarantees that nuclear-trade would continue even after India explodes nuclear device as 'matter of routine' is asking that india should be put above P5 status which isn’t going to happen.

The bottom-line is if we test and America stops the trade so be it we’ll have options to continue trading with other countries. No other country has Hyde/123 obligations. As long as these things do not show up in NSG waiver we have escape routes. If NSG waiver uses word testing or trade termination clause, India should let go the whole thing.
Last edited by Katare on 04 Sep 2008 06:17, edited 1 time in total.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby Katare » 04 Sep 2008 06:16

sivab wrote:Revised NSG draft for Sept. 4/5

http://www.armscontrol.org/system/files ... -5+Mtg.pdf

NPA's don't like it. Hence letter leak by Berman.


Sivab,

That document is typed in old typewriter than photcopied in an old machine and than scaned with hand written date which means it came from the Indian babudom not from US babuland.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7870
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 1 sep 2008

Postby Gerard » 04 Sep 2008 06:37

Separation agreement directly and indirectly in the IAEA approved draft.


There is nothing there about grid connectivity defining what is military.
As sivab has already pointed out, reactors such as MAPS 1-4 and TAPS 3+4 which are connected to the grid have been classified as military.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest