India nuclear news and discussion

[Raja Ram]

There are a few tea leaves that need to be read and a few indications that needs to be extended in the post deal scenario. But first, gentle readers, let us take time to recognise and acknowledge a major win in the new great game. I am referring to how the inheritors of Kautilya school have outwitted the Sun Tzu heirs.

Right from the outset, it was clear pointed out that the opposition to this deal will be mostly from China. True to form, they used three major tracks and one minor one to derail this deal. It is important, my gentle jingo friends to understand this as they are harbingers of things to come.

What did China do to derail?

Track 1 - Used their influence and clout in the US system to derail the initiative - the lobbying was in the Congress as well as in the US media, using every possible lever available, old cold war warriors and their distrust of India, Non Proliferation Lobby, China lobby, etc.- they idea was to make it difficult for the US to do a deal and/or make the terms so high that it would be unacceptable for India.

Track 2 - Used their positions in some of the international P5 arrangements to sow discord in the western led alliance that was willing to the deal - went after the weak or sensitive members of the coalation, such as Japan, Australia, and some of the minor European and Latin american states - the idea was to make conditions that would make it difficult for the US to cut a deal - also used black mail of encouraging North Korea getting out of NPT and Iran stepping up its defiance, and thereby threatening to dismantle the NPT structure in which the US has a vested interest.

Track 3- Take steps in the region itself by making Pakistan first protest and then demand a similiar kind of deal and giving them encouragement that China would back it and internally inside India use its sleeper assets the Left parties, assets in the media and the assorted left wing intellectuals, even tried to get the communal angle going by making a case through these assets for India to take actions against the US by supporting Iran.

Minor track - By trying to engage India in a panda hug - the sugar and spice approach of talking positively, increased visits, trying to cultivate Sonia Gandhi as a power center and making bridges with the Congress. To try and see if India can be weaned away from the path to great power status. From a Chinese perspective, India is keen to be a global "hegemon" a great power that will compete with China. They want India not to be a global power in all dimensions. They would prefer India to follow the Japan model. In their assessment there is a constituency in the Indian elite, especially in the congress party, that wants to follow only the Japan model. This is the position that China is currently willing to cede to India, not as a major global power that can rival them in the long term.

Towards this China was willing to make some concessions, some symbolic gestures, and some real deals of curtaling the support to Pakistan viz-aviz Kashmir and working with India on some of regional and global issues where there is genuine synergy - climate and global trade.

The grand game of China was effectively countered by the much reviled GOI babudom and neta log. For this they deserve kudos and acknowledgement. In every single track we have outwitted them patiently and deligently. It is a victory.

This is what I have been alluding to in my recent posts. That India has learnt pretty quickly on how to sieze opportunites realistically. They have not lost out on the strategic goals yet willing to make tactical compromises without constraining future abilities. There is a growing assertiveness that is likely to become more pronounced in the days to come. The 60 year old young nation state is behaving like the millenial ancient civilization.

The other geo political gain is the body blows to the discriminatory arrangements of control. They are not dead yet but mortally wounded, what we do in the next ten years can make them irrelevant and a few more years after that they will be dead. Newer arrangements will have to be made and India will have to be accorded its due status. In other words, this trishanku swarga is temporary, the rightful ascent of India as Yudishtra to swarga will happen.

So what could have been the deals within this deal? Let us try and speculate here. Some here have interpreted pranab's comment that we are freezing the capability and quantity at post NDA levels. That means what was being built has been stopped. Is this the C in our acronym CRE as some of us apprehend? Or is it different? Not a perpetual cap but a freeze, which can be lifted if India feels the need for it. Is this nuance possible? From a geo political sense yes, but from a technical sense? Arun_S comments seems that it is fraught with danger but it is possible to keep it from deep freeze with some thaw elements - and that it comes with costs, risks and needs political will. Are we upto it? One thing for sure, if there is some such deal, there are other things to be delivered to India and the US is also willing to live with it. This is the positive reading.

An equally valid but negative interpretation would be that India has agreed to Cap and not a temprorary freeze. Especially possible if the Indian ruling elite are ascribing to the "Japan model" of future power status of India. Would the scientific establishment and the main opposition which does not clearly share this vision agree to this and acquiese? Would the Congress party ascribe to some views? Bear in mind that this rather much reviled party has also been a party that has ensured that India never surrenders aspect of its soverign decision making in this area by a series of steps and institutional checks. So even if the present controllers of the party decide to accept such a circumscribed status, there will be opposition to this inside the party itself.

What the interview also reveals is that India has been parallely and quitely progressed all potential bilateral agreements and can quickly conclude them. They have sequenced it in a way that recognises that the US one is the key. A clear recognition of real politiks and dealing with it instead of refusing to play the game. It means that India is now ready to take hard decisions. The next part of the learning curve is to make this a consistent habit. And to build consensus around this in a more robust way.

What is likely to happen? Going forward, it is not only the Chinese but the Australians and other fossils of the world who will learn that they can never take India for granted and those who choose to come in the way of our push to make the tryst with destiny will be dealt with. They will have to pay a price for their efforts. Despite some of apprehensions of my gentle friends here of many years, this aspect is not lost on the countries of Asia. The message to them is unequivocal and clear, India has to be taken into consideration as a power that is here and will not hestitate to use it. It means two things. No need to be susbservient to China and there is an alternative model available for Asian nations that is based on a far more inclusive and equitable society and international community that is based on equity and fairness.

Getting to something more practical, yes we all expect major defence deals happening, but I do not see a shift or a move that will make the US as the number one defence partner, it will be more broad based. India will look for building relationships beyond buyer and seller ones here. The model of deals will be like the Brahmos or Sukhoi MKI model. There will be joint development and ownership. Countries that are willing to do that with India will get more of the pie. The Russians are willing to do that, the French seems to be making that shift and so is the UK. The US may be therefore forced to do that should they want to a greated share of the pie. Now two things stand in the way of this. One, the US insistence on intrusive end-user certification of systems sourced from them. Second, propensity of suspension of supply at times of need due to their domestic circles. They have to address these issues if they want a bigger pie. From the Indian perspective, there is a trust deficit when it comes to US from legacy thinking and the extremely convluted procurement process.

Since there is work to be done by both sides and there are constraints that seem to be permanent, the relationship on defence trade will be more circumspect. The relationship on an operational scale perspective will go up by leaps and bounds across the board. This will include other powers in the region and beyond.

As usual a long ramble. Please take it for what it is worth.

[ramdas]

Chandan Mitra's article in the Pioneer is something to be thought about. The risk of ending up like a japan is indeed there with this deal. In that case, we will end up under TSPs hegemony. If the govt has decided to freeze the arsenal at puny post NDA levels, it is a shame. What do Bhishma Pitamaha and other such "moderates" have to say about this ?

[Philip]

The cruel fact is that without being asked to do so,we have put on the line and at great risk our entire nuclear strategy,both for civilian and military purposes,so assidously and carefully built up and nurtured by Indira Gandhi,Rajiv and ABV.The rogue states of Pak and N.Korea need to make no concessions to continue their clandestine programmes,and are in the case of Pak rewarded by the US with gifts of billions of dollars,military equipment,etc.,etc.We will now be subjected to humiliating inspections and harrassment at any time of day or night,much in similar fashion as Iraq under Saddam was ,if we even dare to break wind in the presence of Uncle Sam.

[Sanjay M]

Chandan Mitra's article in the Pioneer is something to be thought about. The risk of ending up like a japan is indeed there with this deal. In that case, we will end up under TSPs hegemony. If the govt has decided to freeze the arsenal at puny post NDA levels, it is a shame. What do Bhishma Pitamaha and other such "moderates" have to say about this ?

For better or for worse, India's politic dynamics are not at all like Japan's, and it's hard to see how they could be made that way. Of all the vote banks, none would require much persuasion to tilt against USA. It's only the business lobby that is strongly pro-US, and thusfar they've not been known to win elections (eg. "India Shining")

Even though I think that on the whole the deal is good for us, I still want to see the Congress govt fall and see the NDA return to power, as they'll then be more vigilant on seeing that no more extra little spoilers are added onto this deal.

Manmohan has basically alienated every vote bank his party has, in order to make his legacy.
Congress could now easily suffer an "India Shining" type of electoral defeat in the wake of this deal, and that's fine by me.

[munna]

Sanjay M a better example than India Shining campaign would be Gujarat where a CM is ably backed by business interests even in face of US opposition. NDA lost all urban centres in 2004 despite doing the most for them, NDA did not lose in rural areas. A lot of myths have been created around our polity. The key point in this deal is that we have created new pressure points for US a la liberalization of media ownership carried out by ABV. The consequences of the deal are yet to be known, let us all hold our horses and work hard.

[shyamd]

Received by email.

China 'overestimated' the strength of India's critics at NSG

'Procedural procrastination' was Chinese strategy to delay India waiver, NSG diplomats say

New Delhi: Disputing official Chinese accounts of Beijing having played a "constructive" role in last week's Nuclear Suppliers Group meeting on India, diplomats from several NSG states say China stood by the handful of countries resisting approval of the India waiver and only backed off when it saw the opposition melt away on the morning of September 6. At the same time, some diplomats questioned the suggestion that China was out to block the deal, with one European envoy who took part in the three day meeting describing the Chinese interventions in the plenary as "careful and moderate".

In multiple interviews conducted by this reporter with a number of diplomats who took part in the NSG's deliberations, the picture which emerges is one of a cautious Chinese strategy of remaining in the shadows going awry and eventually running aground on the second day of the three-day plenary meeting of the nuclear cartel. If China overestimated the capacity of the six-likeminded countries and Japan -- described pejoratively by one European country as the 'seven dwarfs' -- to resist the juggernaut of U.S. pressure in the eleventh hour, Beijing, say the diplomats, also erred in underestimating India's ability to hold firm to its demand for an unconditional waiver.
The accounts given by the participants provide a fascinating, if sometimes contradictory, ringside view of Chinese attitudes and actions at the NSG that the diplomats said were driven as much by a desire to condition or even block the India waiver as by resentment at Washington's attempt to change the rules of the international system without due consultation with Beijing.

In the early hours of September 6, India issued a demarche - diplomatese for a formal representation - asking China to back the consensus. The message was delivered by telephone to the Chinese ambassador to India. And after the waiver came through, the Indian government made its displeasure at Beijing's role publicly known as well.
In remarks at a public function in New Delhi on Tuesday, China's foreign minister, Yang Jiechi, said he was "shocked" at reports that his country had stood in the way of the NSG's decision. "Our policy was set from a long time", he said. "I can tell you that we conveyed to India in a certain way our support for the decision, period, before consensus was reached within the NSG".

Mr. Yang's statement was factually correct, in that consensus was established at 11:56 am, Central European Time, and China had already informed India that it was going to approve the waiver as finally tabled at the NSG plenary. But the Chinese decision only came at 1 p.m. China Standard Time, barely four hours before the final bell was sounded on the 45-nation supplier group's extraordinary proceedings.
Earlier on Friday, the unity of the Group of Six spearheading the opposition to the American proposal to allow nuclear commerce with India crumbled when Netherlands and Norway backed off following the incorporation of a reference to the Indian foreign minister's statement on nonproliferation in the waiver text. Switzerland, too, conveyed its assent to the U.S. by 1 a.m. on Saturday. But when the NSG adjourned for the night soon after, Austria, China, Ireland, Japan and New Zealand were still holding out. Tokyo was the first to come on board, followed by Beijing, and then the last three. The fact that the Chinese decision was so late coming is at variance with the idea that its policy had been set "from a long time". Unless, say diplomats, its policy itself was to play for time in the hope that the seven countries would do the heavy lifting. And face the maximum flak, in case the waiver was successfully blocked.
"It is my view that China was hoping the exemption would be delayed to such an extent that India might walk away", a diplomat from one of the G-6 countries told me in an email message. "They did not wish China to be blamed for doing this but hoped the group of six would do it for them. Ultimately, when it became clear that [we] would not block consensus on the exemption, they also made sure that they would not be blamed in any way for holding up progress". The diplomat, who represented his country in last week's NSG meeting, added: "Our group was always wary of China's role, knowing that their interests were very different to ours".
But if the G-6 was "wary" of China, diplomats from other countries say the group actively sought Beijing's help when it became clear on September 4 that the mood within the NSG was largely in favour of granting India the waiver. "The six approached a number of bigger countries", said one diplomat. And though Australia, Canada and Germany refused to be dragged in, China did step forward.

According to the diplomats, China acted in two distinct ways, though at least one of this reporter's sources admitted it was "hard to say what exactly China's strategy was". "The Chinese did maneuvers in a procedural way in order to support the six. But they didn't want to come out in the open. They wanted to remain in the bushes rather than come on to the battlefield", said one diplomat from a European country that backed the waiver with reservations. A G-6 diplomat described this phase as one where the Chinese "offered quiet but clear support for a number of proposals put forward by the like-minded group of six". This support, he said, continued "right up to the last moment". But when it seemed to China that the G-6 was standing resolute, the Chinese delegates also began putting forward amendments and sentences of their own. "They suggested a lot of minor changes to the text during last Friday, seemingly with the intention of delaying progress", the diplomat said.
Though these changes were more often than not unacceptable to India, the diplomats said the Chinese suggestion to include language which might open a door for "other states" (i.e. Pakistan) to seek a similar waiver met with stiff resistance by virtually all NSG members, including the G-6. This idea was a complete non-starter, said one diplomat. Another described it as part of a tactic of "procedural procrastination".
As the evening wore on Friday, the Chinese, by all accounts, grew increasingly impatient. The U.S. was running multiple consultations in parallel steering groups, which were yielding incremental changes in the draft language. After going through an Indian filter, these changes were then taken to the plenary and incorporated into the main text. Either irritated by the slow pace or by the fact that the redrafting process was making serious headway, the Chinese delegation began calling for an adjournment. "During the day, everyone's assessment was that we were going to be deadlocked", said an East European diplomat. "By the time it was apparent that there would be no deadlock, the Chinese started saying they had to wait for instructions from Beijing".
It was at this point, said many diplomats, that the U.S. started paying attention to the Chinese stand. The two countries went into consultation and remained closeted for a long time. One European diplomat recalled a conversation he had with another colleague that night when he was wondering whether he had time to slip outside for dinner. "Oh yes, he said, you have plenty of time. The Chinese are meeting with the Americans, mad that they were not consulted by them earlier and determined to let the U.S. pay the price - it will take at least two hours. We went down to eat, and he was right that several hours passed". It was this diplomat's assessment that the reason China held out for so long was because the U.S had not bothered consulting with it earlier in the day. And that the reason the U.S. delayed doing so was precisely because the Chinese had struck a more moderate tone throughout the day compared to the G-6.

Though the Chinese eventually yielded on the drafting language, they continued to hold out for more time. Most delegates did not find the Chinese plea for an adjournment to be credible. "When we broke at 2 a.m., it was already 8 in the morning in Beijing. There would have been no problem getting the requisite authorization", said a diplomat. Matters were further complicated by a semi-'walk-out' by the Chinese at midnight on September 5. Though some Chinese officials remained in the small consultations run by the U.S. till 01:30 am, its two senior diplomats in the plenary left the main room leaving behind only "a rather junior" official "presumably to pick up the final draft".
"Many delegates felt there was a certain gesture", a west European diplomat said. "It was not clear that it was a walkout, for that would have meant the NSG might have adopted the waiver without their presence. But it was more of a signal that we can't take this for much longer".
Seventy-two hours later, participants remain divided about what exactly China was trying to achieve. If the G-6 diplomats were clear the Chinese were firing from their shoulders, others without a dog in the fight tended not to see China as a country that was blocking consensus. "My sense is that they were balanced, and not in the limelight", said a diplomat from the former Soviet bloc.

"We believe China did not try to block the deal and never wanted to block it alone, although the opposition from the six and others may have suited them well… Certainly it would have been very late in the day for them to block the deal at the last minute given their earlier moderate posture", said a European diplomat who undertook to discuss this reporter's questions with his colleagues in order to get a more accurate assessment. "But that is speculation. We are pretty certain, though, that the Chinese were dissatisfied with the way the issue was handled at the meeting and made it clear in their own way to the U.S… Perhaps they just cooked the U.S. a little to teach them not to neglect China".
Asked whether he agreed with this assessment, one of the G-6 diplomats said no. "It is hard to decipher China's attitude at times, but I would be very certain that their behaviour was based on more than simply a desire to teach the U.S. a lesson not to neglect them," he said.
Either way,Indian officials feel it is significant that when China eventually came on board, it communicated its decision not to the United States but directly to India. The Manmohan Singh government's handling of an awkward situation was correct but firm. But having issued a demarche and secured the NSG waiver, it is important for the country to move on. Beijing -- and New Delhi -- are sure to have come away from this entire episode the wiser, and in diplomacy, that is ultimately what counts.

[shetty]

MMS must be calling Bush and singing...

"Accha sila diya tune mere pyaar ka, yaar ne hi loot liya ghar yaar ka"

Bush says N-supply not legally binding; India worried

NSG not to sell sensitive technologies to India: Report

[munna]

Its becoming clearer that the Nuke deal is not an acknowledgement of India as a NWS rather its a temporary arrangement in which depending how the strategic community of the country plays its cards we might end up as a NWS + a veto weilding member of UNSC or we might end up as a denuked defanged Japan sort of nation. No need for just be cautious and keep the govermand and its spin doctors in control.

[Gerard]

We will now be subjected to humiliating inspections and harrassment at any time of day or night,much in similar fashion as Iraq under Saddam was ,if we even dare to break wind in the presence of Uncle Sam.

(a) Only designated facilities are under safeguards (unlike a NNWS like Iraq).
(b) India has had IAEA inspections for decades. The BWRs, PHWRs and now VVERS are all under safeguards now. The reprocessing plants have even been under campaign safeguards. India is no stranger to all this.

[Gerard]

end up as a denuked defanged Japan

When Japan makes a political decision to go nuclear, it will, in a matter of months, have a formidable arsenal of TN weapons and the heavy ICBMs to deliver them. There will be no attempts at sanctions or other foolishness. The world will have to shout Banzai and welcome Japan into the club. It would take them no more than a few years to build a superpower sized arsenal.
As for being defanged, the Japanese conventional forces are quite formidable.

[munna]

Gerard that is the difference between capability and action. Yes, Japan is by no means a weak nation but the will and indeed if I may say the mojo of the nation has been sapped. Despite humiliating US army presence and repeated put downs by China, Japan has no option but to continue doing business as usual. Japan may have the muscles but the fist is missing! We should be pragmatic yet wary.

[V_Raman]

remember that we are just 60 yrs removed from arguably the worst war in human history where japan was by no means benign. it is still paying the price. for such a nation, they have built impressive capability.

as mentioned couple of posts above, their capability is nothing to laugh at.

they came close to amending the constitution once. they could do it any time they want.

[achy]

This deal is so borderline in terms of cost to benefit and has so many ifs and buts, that I always end up with this conflicting thought:

Na Khuda (Bum) hi mila na bisale sanam ( Bizli),
Na idhar ke rahe na udhar ke.

But at the same time it is contrasted with,

Girte hai shah sawaar hi, maidane jung main
Wo tilf kya girenge jo ghutno ke bal chale

[munna]

Good one! My only concern is that we should not drop the guard and be led down a garden path. We should engage with the world but not be led by them. JMT, IMVHO etc etc. Deal is there, how to use it is completely in our hands!

[ramana]

Ramdas and Philip, Its not the same as Japan. And to be honset some sort of accomodation with US had to be made. The only issues iwhat is the price? NDA had a higher price but might not be realistic. UPA due to their own thinking had a lower price than what was achieved because of vehment opposition.

I say NDA price was unrealistic for the folowing factors:
POKII was ambigous in that the NPT was not clearly blown apart for whatever reasons.
TSP status was not settled leading to preserving PRC options. Op Parakram should have been gone forward to clear out J&K. TSP by the attack on Lok Sabha through terrorists had given due cause and there is the unsettled matter of Pak Occupeid Kashmir and Northern Areas.

So one cant expect status wthout creating ground truths.

I agree with Munna (how did he getaway with that handle? I thought TSP was the only MNNA!), there are two choices for future generatrions as always depending on the idea of India that is embraced.

[ramdas]

When Japan makes a political decision to go nuclear, it will, in a matter of months, have a formidable arsenal of TN weapons and the heavy ICBMs to deliver them. There will be no attempts at sanctions or other foolishness. The world will have to shout Banzai and welcome Japan into the club. It would take them no more than a few years to build a superpower sized arsenal.
As for being defanged, the Japanese conventional forces are quite formidable.

Japan has lost its national spirit to such an extent that they will never go nuclear whatever their capabilities might be. They have accepted their loss of sovereignity. As for conventional strength, it is only an adjunct to strategic and tactical nuclear strength. A nuclear weapons power with a 1950's -60's vintage conventional arsenal is miltarily vastly superior to a Japan like entity. More so because Japan's armed forces does not have "mass". Also, a rich , decadent , pacifist society addicted to material luxury cannot produce hardened soldiers - the Japanese "self defence" forces are more like a police force than real armed forces. The US, though rich , has a military culture that has been nurtured. In Japan's case, the whole nation is soft, decadent and docile. We should avoid that fate at all costs.

the best thing to do would be to wait for Agni III and Agni V to go operational in reasonable numbers and then test no matter what the consequences are. The deal for now takes us back to the pre 1992 situation, a test will autonatically undo the deal and put us back to 1998. Of course, some business interests would have had their fingers burnt, but that will actually serve them right.

Regarding Pranab Mukherjee's statement : I first read it as saying that whatever plans the Vajpayee GOI had are still being followed - without any dramatic scale up or wind down - I took this to mean that whatever rate we were producing weapons, that was continuing , together with the development of Agni III and Agni V missiles, which shall eventually enter service along with some sea launched capability. This is as per the "draft nuclear doctrine" which Pranab Mukherjee claimed is still being strictly followed by the present regime. Basically it means that the increase in our arsenal will be very slow. What do you think , Ramanaji ?

[fanne]

Raja Ram,
Welcome back. At one point I thought we have lost you. Please, in the future, do not leave because a member or moderator could not understand your worth. Also I would not take offence because people who have some authority here would slight you, many are not ready to wake up and smell the coffee. The 1000 years of slavery and dhimmitude has shackled many a soul, if you have seen the movie Matrix, they are like Cypher (the guy who betrays Keanu Reeves and others and had proclaimed - Ignorance is bliss). They are not comfortable with the truth....Anyways
The forum has liked your commentary. You do bring a commentary that logically tries to explain the reasons and consequences of all the geo strategic moves around. We may or may not agree with all of it. A comment on your last commentary - I do not think (based on many evidences), this congress is same as congress that got us independence. The congress changed drastically through time, JLN made it more attuned to western philosophy than Indian, Indira made it more inclusive and nepotistic, Rajeev diminished it as an election fighting party and with PVR end, it lost its last vintage of nationalism. The current congress is a coloured revolution that we see in former Soviet Union, only that an old and dead party has been hijacked for that cause. I do not know how that changes your analysis, but please keep these points in mind.
rgds,
fanne

[Prem]

http://www.business-standard.com/india/ ... ono=334187
NEWSMAKER: ShivShankar Menon
Few know that the US didn’t know China was going to support the deal until India told it. “Are you sure?” the Americans asked incredulously until India showed their team the messages from Beijing. Reports about US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice speaking to Chinese leaders Hu Jin Tao and Wen Jia Bao and making them change their mind into securing their support is not an accurate recollection of the events, foreign office sources said.

In dealing with politicians, he has shown he is clever as well as wise. When Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee was in Colombo for the recent Saarc meeting, in the absence of a routine briefing, reporters were anxious to hear what his Pakistani counterpart had to say and Mukherjee saw no harm in sharing the information. But this didn’t particularly suit the foreign office and the minister had to listen to his secretary: “Sir, I’m sure they would rather be at the bar”. “Yes, I forgot,” said Mukherjee jovially. There was no unscheduled briefing by the minister that day. The foreign secretary made no friends among reporters that day.

When the NSG meeting was concluded, the MLA from Palakkad – who happens to be from the CPI(M) — called Menon. “You’ve done Palakkad proud” he said, oblivious to any irony

[Rishirishi]

India believes fuel assurances are binding
Siddharth Varadarajan

Bush message makes it clear that the U.S. is not legally bound even after the 123 agreement is approved

When the State Department’s answers were made public last week, senior officials warned the government of the urgent need to contest its most damaging interpretations. However, India kept its own counsel because it did not wish to do anything to compromise the campaign for the NSG waiver, which the U.S. was leading. But with the White House now literally rushing to secure legislative approval for the agreement before September 26, the Indian side is discovering that the time for it to press its case might already have run out.

The price of NSG waiver is purchase of 2 reactors from US at a cost of say $6-10 billion. In the event of a test, and subsequent cut-off in fuel supply, India ends up losing that investment if it is unable to line up alternative sources of fuel. It is not a bad bargain as long as India uses the next 10 years to stockpile natural uranium for its PHWR plants, current and future. The domestic natural uranium can then be used for the FTBR/thorium reactors and the weapons program.

Shouldn't India in its deals with France and Russia insist on ENR technology/equipment to enrich natural uranium? Why not set up a dedicated plant with Russian collobaration to produce enriched uranium for all imported Indian LWR plants?

6-10 billion dollars is a joke for US and they would never have used all that pull for so little. There is much much more to it then that. Both for India and US.
We have to be careful but below is a list of simmilarities.

Both have been British colonies
Both share the same leagal principlas (common law)
English language
Both are culturally diverse
Both are democracies (ok, this one is a cliche)
Both are feel threatned by islamic extreemism
Both fear the uncheked rise of China
Both share some of the basic principlas of libralism and freedom
Both are very large countries in population and size.
Neither of them feel directly threatned by each other.
Both see Pakistan and China as their main security challenges

Americans have view the Indias as intelligent, the Chinease as cheap and Pakistanis as dangerous.
Indians hold the second most positive view on US in the world (i cant remember who the first ones were).

This does not make India and US "all weather friends". India has to look out for its interests and US will naturally do what is best for them. The approach to US must be balanced, and India must learn to capitalise on US relations. The deal shows who actually call the shots in the global arena.

[Suraj]

After four years of discussion, there appears to be little or no evolution in thought in some ways.

There were dire warnings prior to the IAEA settlement, which were largely unfounded

There were more dire warnings prior to the NSG waiver, which were again largely unfounded

Several members, even those who have been around for long, trashed our political and bureaucratic establishment. It is appalling when old time members repeatedly call the leader of our nation 'snake oil Singh', despite formal warnings.

There often seems little inclination in reviewing their past claims and owning up to misjudged statements and ad hominem attacks, instead at most claiming something like 'I'm glad this has now been clarified'.

Some even refused to accede to admin requests to heed thread guidelines when the forum atmosphere was at its worst, and instead walk off in a huff, or got themselves banned. At least they are mostly back. Hopefully they will keep themselves in check now.

The tone and tenor of discussions leading to major milestones in this deal diverged significantly from the actual outcomes of the milestone, whether positively (IAEA/NSG) or negatively (Hyde).

Rather than be a platform to analyze and different scenarios at each step, this thread frequently becomes a venue for various posters to vent, because there are many who simply are not comfortable with this deal, period. Reading some of the recent posts, a person would be led to think the posts were from 2006 and that nothing has happened since, because they rehash claims from 3-4 years ago.

[samuel]

The amazing thing however is that after each stage there is no clarity: neither the fears dissipate away nor do they immediately come true. Similarly, optimism doesn't get full justice as each step progresses and its long term future remains, well, optimistic for the optimistic! This deal will continue to be negotiated long after the signatures are put on paper, for every item we thought we were getting but did not and every other we thought we were not but have got.

There are a few things that have come out, however. 1) The Prime Minister is a fighter. 2) Not many people care about the Indian 3-stage, 3) The gloves don't quite come off the opposition, and 4) India has a no first test policy in-place now. What is unsure is how many reactors will be built and how much money exchanges hands and how the Indian industry ramps around this deal.

[Prem]

Argumentative Indian is reality.
Argumentative Indians and Indians bargaining for pennies, these 2 identities of Indians need urgent supression by POTA type law.
Sometimes i Wonder how much help the argumentative Indians provided to foreigners in conquring India by weakning Her by creating unecessary frictions and tension among various sections of society.

[Sean]

The cruel fact is that without being asked to do so,we have put on the line and at great risk our entire nuclear strategy,both for civilian and military purposes,so assidously and carefully built up and nurtured by Indira Gandhi,Rajiv and ABV.

I do expect BJP to be in power within the next 10 years, and since there is no mandated cap, BJP is likely to ramp up the number of nuclear weapons to 400-500 as there is/will be more than enough WgPu available.

[Sean]

'NSG not to sell sensitive technologies to India'
http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news ... ia/360621/

The 45-nation NSG privately agreed in Vienna not to sell sensitive technologies to India in the ‘foreseeable future’, said a media report that could stir up more controversy in the ongoing political debate on the Indo-US civil nuclear deal in New Delhi.

The Washington Post citing unnamed sources familiar with the negotiation last weekend said that this previously undisclosed understanding within the NSG helped persuade several skeptical member states to support a waiver authorising nuclear trade with India.

"In the discussions about how to handle enrichment and reprocessing, it was made clear that nobody had any plans to transfer such technologies to India in the foreseeable future," a senior US official, speaking on the condition of anonymity as he was describing private diplomatic exchanges, told The Post.

The comments came close on the heels of President George Bush's statement that American commitments to the Indian side under the agreement were not ‘legally binding’.

The media report goes on to make the point that the NSG is separately nearing consensus on a total ban on sensitive sales to countries such as India that have not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty -- a move that would put such trade even further out of New Delhi's reach.

It suggested that though the NSG discussion has received little public attention, it was another factor in persuading countries such as Ireland, New Zealand and Austria to end their effort to write such trade restrictions into the waiver for India.

The official said that while such statements were not binding, the NSG countries recognised that they were planning to ‘tighten up’ the rules on such sales in the near future, allowing them to achieve the same restrictions on India later without causing a diplomatic rupture now.

[awagaman]

Latest from SV blog:

http://svaradarajan.blogspot.com/2008/0 ... t-nsg.html

WaPo's non-news on ENR at the NSG

Glenn Kessler in today's Washington Post has a "sensational" story about how the Nuclear Suppliers Group last week reached a gentleman's understanding about not supplying India with sensitive nuclear technology. Two things here. First, this is not news. I reported this in The Hindu on September 7:

http://svaradarajan.blogspot.com/2008/0 ... ables.html

Asked for his assessment of the waiver, a diplomat from a European country which initially wanted much stronger conditional language said his government had joined the consensus "very reluctantly". "I wouldn't say we're happy", he said, adding that his country and several others had been "leaned on at the highest levels".

The diplomat said the final form of the waiver was an improvement over the previous draft, especially the chapeau of paragraph 3 which established what he described as a "strong link" between commitment and action. Nevertheless, his country agreed to sign on mainly because it had received two key assurances during consultations within the various steering committees. First, that no participating government (PG) currently intended to transfer ENR equipment to India, and second, that PGs would take India's compliance with its commitments into account before agreeing to any nuclear transfers. The diplomat added that his government, and many others, had reiterated these assurances in their national statements before adoption of the waiver decision. Though there was no separate chairman's statement elaborating these assurances, the diplomat said the national statements now formed part of the NSG's internal records and could always be referred to in the future.

Second, this was not an 'agreement' within the NSG plenary but an informal assurance provided by some supplier countries, in an ad hoc steering committee, that they had no "current" intentions of transferring ENR items to India...

But Kessler is right (or rather the non-pro U.S. officials who gave him this story are right) that the NSG will likely adopt future guidelines formally restricting access to ENR. These guidelines could involve NPT membership, non-replicability, adherence to the Additional Protocol and tighter safeguards measures. Consensus on all of these won't be easy, except for NPT membership. Ensuring new guidelines that block access are not adopted will be tomorrow's major challenge for Indian diplomacy.

[Sean]

But Kessler is right (or rather the non-pro U.S. officials who gave him this story are right) that the NSG will likely adopt future guidelines formally restricting access to ENR. These guidelines could involve NPT membership, non-replicability, adherence to the Additional Protocol and tighter safeguards measures. Consensus on all of these won't be easy, except for NPT membership. Ensuring new guidelines that block access are not adopted will be tomorrow's major challenge for Indian diplomacy.

All the more reason to work on a deal with Russia that includes ENR, and possibly Pu fuel for FTBR/thorium program. It is best to offer enough money as part of nuclear deal, or other defence deals to acquire both ENR and Pu fuel. I hope GOI is not penny wise and pound foolish when it comes to a deal with Russia. Russia is India's best bet to get the most out of the NSG waiver, before things get better between Russians and Americans over Georgia.

[putnanja]

India contests Bush’s stand on fuel supply

India contests Bush’s stand on fuel supply

Sandeep Dikshit

Insists assurances in 123 pact legally binding

Rights and obligations clearly spelt out in 123 Agreement

Government will ensure that India’s rights are fully protected

NEW DELHI: India on Friday contested U.S. President George Bush’s statement that the American commitment on reliable supply of nuclear fuel was not legally binding.

Pointing out that the rights and obligations of both countries are clearly spelt out in the 123 Agreement, India maintained that once this Inter-Governmental pact entered into force, it would become a legal document in accordance with well-recognised principles of international law and the Law of Treaties. This implied that New Delhi believed that the political commitment for uninterrupted supply of fuel would then get translated into a legally binding commitment.

“In Article 5 (6), the Agreement records certain political commitments concerning reliable supply of nuclear fuel given to India.. [the] Agreement does not, however, transform these political commitments into legal binding commitments because the agreement, like other U.S. agreements of this type, is intended as a framework agreement,” said Mr. Bush’s statement.

The Foreign Office here said that in working with the U.S. in civilian nuclear cooperation India would be guided by the 123 Agreement alone in which it was given to understand that once inked by the leaders of two countries it would become a legal document.

“The text of the India-U.S. 123 Agreement has been agreed upon by the Governments of India and the United States. It is a public document. The rights and obligations of both India and the U.S. are clearly spelt out in the terms and provisions of the 123 Agreement. India-US civil nuclear cooperation will be carried out on the basis of the respective rights and obligations of the two sides as contained in the Agreement. By doing so, the Government will ensure that India’s rights are fully protected,” said the Foreign Office statement.

“The Government of India does not comment on domestic political processes in the U.S. or other countries,” it added.

The government’s reaction came after The Hindu reported that the U.S. had diluted the fuel supply assurances contained in the 123 Agreement when Mr. Bush forwarded the text of the pact to the Congress.

India’s objection is to the covering note to the Agreement on the issue of fuel supply assurances. India feels that this issue is one of the crucial components of the commitments and obligations undertaken by both sides as part of the nuclear deal.

Foreign Office officials here believe that Mr. Bush’s observation in the covering letter is at variance with their understanding during the negotiations in the run-up to the safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency and the exemption by the Nuclear Suppliers Group. They point out that on its part India committed itself to binding agreements like the safeguards. They also dispute the American understanding that the 123 Agreement should be treated as any other U.S. pact with other countries because it is only the Indian pact which contains references to fuel supply assurances.

Mr. Bush has invited Prime Minster Manmohan Singh to Washington on September 25 when both sides hope to sign the 123 Agreement, provided it has been approved by the U.S. Congress.

Our reactors will come with fuel and reprocessing rights, says France

Our reactors will come with fuel and reprocessing rights, says France

Special Correspondent

Ready for “comprehensive nuclear cooperation” with India: Ambassador

“We believe India has the capability and the right to reprocess spent fuel”

France developing a new generation of nuclear reactors

New Delhi: Even as controversy continues to bedevil the terms of India’s proposed bilateral nuclear commerce with the United States, France stepped forward Friday to declare it was ready and open to engage in “comprehensive nuclear cooperation” with the Indian side.

Unlike the U.S., which does not wish to make binding commitments on fuel supply or grant irrevocable reprocessing rights to India, France has made it clear that the provision of fuel for any reactors it sells as well as reprocessing are not issues. “We believe India has the capability and the right to reprocess spent fuel,” French Ambassador Jerome Bonnafont told reporters here.

But in line with the apparent political commitment India has made to not ink deals with other suppliers until the ‘123 agreement’ with the U.S. passes through Congress, the ambassador was unwilling to say when the framework agreement for bilateral nuclear cooperation initialled during the visit to Delhi by President Nikolas Sarkozy this January would finally be signed. “We have to complete some procedures for it to be signed and we are presently discussing with India this issue in terms of timing.”

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will be in Marseilles on September 29 for the India-European Union summit and in Paris on September 30 for a bilateral summit with Mr. Sarkozy. But it is far from clear whether India will be ready to sign its agreement by then.

Asked what these “procedures” — whose completion was holding up the actual signing — were, Mr. Bonnafont gave, as an example, the preparation of “an official Hindi translation” of the Indo-French draft agreement. He refused to comment when asked whether a delay in Congressional approval of the 123 agreement might lead to a delay in the ‘Hindi translation.’

The ambassador said the passage of the Indian waiver at the Nuclear Suppliers Group last week marked the culmination of a process that “[France] had initiated in a way” when Jacques Chirac, who was the French President at the time, came to India in 1998 and suggested “a special status needed to be created” for India to enable it to access nuclear supplies from abroad.

France has a “specificity in the world” as far as the capability of its nuclear industry was concerned, he said, and its national company, Areva, was currently developing a new generation of nuclear reactors - the EPR.

“This new generation will be proposed to India”, he said, adding that France envisaged cooperation in four distinct areas: scientific collaboration and research, training, safety and industrial collaboration.

Including Areva, there were 35 French companies which were looking to get involved in different aspects of the nuclear power generation sector in India, the ambassador said.

France currently has 58 nuclear power plants in operation which collectively generate 80 per cent of the country’s electricity production.

[Sanjay M]

end up as a denuked defanged Japan

When Japan makes a political decision to go nuclear, it will, in a matter of months, have a formidable arsenal of TN weapons and the heavy ICBMs to deliver them. There will be no attempts at sanctions or other foolishness. The world will have to shout Banzai and welcome Japan into the club. It would take them no more than a few years to build a superpower sized arsenal.
As for being defanged, the Japanese conventional forces are quite formidable.

Japan is an export-dependent nation, and is a captive to the US market. They know that they cannot go it alone in their region, and require a far emperor ally. They certainly don't want to be stuck dealing with China on their own.

But the rise of India will offer Japan a new alternative, to give it more latitude in its relations with the US and China.

[John Snow]

The truth of the matter is this agreement in way is far from the way India ever conducted its strategic treaty(ies) in its 60 plus years of Independence.

When the nation did not ( as people debate) what Chaha Nehru was doing with PRC and everybody believed that he is the epitome of wisdom in Foreign affairs the legacy he left is still haunting us, about TSP dealings I do not have metion...

When polity does not forth come in the august fora with complete deatils but fudges facts, and the nation comes to know details in trickle through leaks or revelations, the people have every right to suspect the leadership and may even be sympathiesed for calling names ( if they dont do then all decency to them calling them so is a natural venting aka unraveling of Indian psyche or piskology as Shiv ji proposes).

Why is this variance and gulf between two democratic United Progressive Alliance of India and US? I fondly ask!

[munna]

Let me try to put in some clarifying thoughts:

1) There is nothing like pro deal or anti deal lobby in India. All of us want the deal but the terms of deal upon which we might agree differ by a wide latitude.
2) The NSG waiver is a a piece of rope that the P5 have given to us Indians, now in this tug of war of geopolitics it is our brief to pull them over to our side rather than being pulled over to their side on their terms.
3) Unlike as many believe and allege NDA is not Paki or Chini supporter, they were the strongest bargaining tool for our negotiators. If nobody believes me then ask someone high up and they will tell how effective the BJP bogey was a tool of negotiation.
4) I think there is a section of Indian elite which might be happy to have butter rather than guns but dear Rakshaks India was always a rich country which got poor due to lack of guns to protect it against successive invaders. I would like to quote Sanskrit thought that goes as
Shastren Rakshitey Pradeshe
Shastra Charcha Pravartate
Loosely translated it means that you can have pursuit of knowledge and wisdom in a state only if it is well protected by weapons. Take your pick Guns Vs Butter, well I think you cannot protect your butter without guns.
5) The so called abuse of adarniya and mahamahim PM ji is a case of being to touchy about a leader. Let people call him whatever as long as it is not a downright gaali. Democracy should allow for name calling but certainly not gaali galauj (street abuses.)
JMT etc.

Ramanji: You see the Munnas have a tendency to get away with a lot of things just look at our neighbour

[fanne]

I am not an unreasonable person, I am not getting a brand new BMW from any of my American friend to be pro-NSG and I am not running for political office, I have no motive to be untruthful, I doubt this deal is bad, I have my reasons, I hope BR has not changed it rule that ones reasons have to be vetted by someone and then only one can post. I do not follow who wrote what 4 years ago (I have a job for a living, I doubt anyone knows what were ones position 4 years ago), and even if one knew, does one has to have it stands sufficiently progressed, and does that also have to be vetted by someone? Also does the opinion has to only progress in the direction of that of the vetting authority? If it somehow contradicts the opinion, faith and conviction of that said authority will the member be banned? Or his opinion sufficiently edited?

Please, I have been very respectful; I could be more borish and say please get off your high horse and stop thought policing. In my opinion, the second way of saying is more precise, articulate and efficient. So on that note let me come back to the newclear deal.

The deal give aways are either in the fine prints that we dont have access to or in understandings that do not form part of this deal (like what Pranab da is saying, we have agreed to cap our program). I do not trust a person that was forced on the nation when it was in dire straits and had few weeks of foreign exchange. One of the conditions imposed by the west was to make a certain MMS the finance minister (that itself is a big red flag for me). This person has been head of financing our newclear project and he had consistently starved it of funds. He had plans to shift to Cananda and live his retirement life until greatness was thrust upon him. I do not trust for one minute the person who went to his alma mater and said that British rule was a God's gift to India. TSP also had a bad time and it had similar ex IMF wallah imposed as the executive head of the country. There it was more brazen, it was an American citizen (TSP had dual citizenship so that person was also TSP citizen). So yes, I am constantly looking for what have we been sold for. If someone does not like it, tough luck !!

rgds,
fanne

[putnanja]

Bush N-punch worries Delhi

Bush N-punch worries Delhi
OUR SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT
Bush: Fuel flutter

New Delhi, Sept. 12: Senior government officials today expressed concern at the US President’s statement that fuel supply assurances to India were “not legally binding”, and said Delhi would ask Washington to clarify the matter.

President George W. Bush had yesterday told the US Congress that the fuel assurances were only “political commitments” that would not become “legally binding commitments” if Congress ratified the nuclear deal.

According to Indian officials, Bush’s observations indicate he was interpreting the 123 Agreement “differently” while presenting it to the US Congress. They said the agreement clearly spelt out America’s responsibility to ensure uninterrupted fuel supply.

Officials here said the agreement obliged the US to supply fuel and to work with “friends and allies” to enable India to obtain “full access to the international fuel market, including reliable, uninterrupted and continual access to fuel supplies from firms in several nations”.

Bush’s statement, however, was in keeping with a secret US state department letter leaked a few days ago, which said Washington would stop nuclear co-operation if Delhi conducted a test, triggering a furore in India.

By terming the assurances “political commitments”, Bush appears to have left it to the next President and his successors to decide if they want to stick to those commitments.

CPM jab

The CPM today said Bush’s statement had proved “once more” that the UPA government had “consistently misled” the country on the nuclear deal. It said his words “contradict” Delhi’s claim that it had received guarantees for uninterrupted fuel supplies and perpetual safeguards.

“(Bush’s) note… states there are no legally binding assurances on the US for fuel supplies. It also makes clear that the IAEA safeguards are in perpetuity and not as Indian officials claimed. Thus, while the US does not guarantee assured nuclear fuel supplies, India has accepted its safeguards in perpetuity,” a politburo statement said.

The CPM argued that Bush’s observation was of a piece with foreign minister Pranab Mukherjee’s statement on September 5 that India would join international efforts to stop the spread of enrichment and reprocessing technologies.

“(This is) an obvious reference to Iran.… Clearly India has succumbed to US pressure to deny Iran the rights as it was a signatory of the NPT. On all these issues, it is the Hyde Act which has prevailed. This is precisely what the Left parties have been saying,” the politburo statement said.

[munna]

Agreed Fanne there are issues with him and unlike many others who believe him to be squeaky clean even I have my own doubts. My only request to you and everybody else no matter who calls you what (I was alleged to be a Paki or Chini or even both and if not the two then I was proclaimed to be a front of anti nationals) do not give up the critique of the deal as this helps us to keep the weak links in the chain in check if any.

[Suraj]

Fanne, your claims of 'thought policing' are not credible. There are thread guidelines for the nuclear thread, and when thread atmosphere is poor, admins will underline explicitly that they will address violations more strictly. The thread discourse at the time has unraveled to such an extent that the only recourse to bring up signal/noise ratio is strict application of the 'no politics, no whines/lungi dances' requirement, and asking people to explain their stand, rather than start another imaginary "we're doomed, xyz has sold us down the river" whine. I stand by that action; it certainly did help bring about some sanity, after several prominent posters on both sides of the debate were caught in the crossfire, and some of them have thankfully started posting regularly again.

Being a long time poster, having an old boys network, or having a certain 'posting style' does not exclude anyone from the guidelines. If anything, the old timers deserve greater opprobrium if they are compulsive violators, because they ought to know better. To put it as bluntly as you, if you're still hung up on 'thought policing', it's your own opinion and you are welcome to believe what you want.

[Abhijit N]

There is some interesting stuff about our nuclear program and why Homi Jehangir Bhaba initiated it, towards the end:-

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2006/3 ... drift.html

Perhaps its time to look back at the vision of this great man and reconsider.

username changed. please read the forum guidelines.
Rahul.

[Sanjay M]

MSN:

Friday, September 12, 2008
France offers India EPR N-reactor

French ambassador Jerome Bonnafont says his country has prepared an agreement in this regard and it is up to India to sign it or not during Manmohan Singh's visit to Paris this month


New Delhi: With an India-France civilian nuclear agreement "technically ready", Paris is offering this country its "first generation" EPR nuclear reactors, even as some 35 French companies have begun talks with their Indian counterparts for setting up joint ventures in the field.

"An agreement has been initiated and technically it is ready, but some procedures will have to be completed," French ambassador Jerome Bonnafont told reporters on Friday.

Whether it will be signed during Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's visit to Paris later this month is something the French government has left to India, the envoy said, adding: "We are discussing with India on what will be best time to sign it."

One of the things that France is offering India is the "first generation" EPR nuclear reactor, two of which are now being built by the French company Areva - one each in Finland and France. Two more may be built in China next year.

"EPR is a first generation reactor that is now under construction. It will be proposed to India," Bonnafont said.

Manmohan Singh will travel to France to attend the India-European Union Summit in Marseilles on September 29 and then travel to Paris the next day for a bilateral summit with French President Nicolas Sarkozy. This will be their second meeting this year after their talks in New Delhi in January.

"The question of nuclear cooperation between the two countries will be at the centre of the discussions when the two leaders meet," the French ambassador said.

He pointed out that talks between the two sides were not only going at the government level but also among French and Indian companies.

"Nearly 35 French companies that are in the field of civil nuclear energy have been engaged with Indian companies since last year," Bonnafont said.

While, Areva is one of the biggest and best known French companies in the field, there are several others specializing in different areas of nuclear technology offering expertise in turbines, distribution and technical support and training that are keen to do business with India, the envoy said.

"It is a huge subject. A lot will depend on how quickly India wants it," Bonnafont maintained.

Source: Indo-Asian News Service

[Sanjay M]

Btw, what exactly does "first generation" EPR reactor mean, anyway?

[ramana]

The French dont want India to go under any more regimes. They have seen the folly of it. same with Canada. They lost a lot of goodwill and more than that synergy by being sanctimonius about 1974. I think the Russians will offer same as french.

EPR is a pressurized water reactor.

[Singha]

imo Japan is keeping mum on PRC for now due to their investments on the mainland. but they
are are aerospace power of considerable ability. even the Koreans are working on a SLCM
because US refused to sell them Thawk for the KDX3.

I hope both Soko and Japan go overtly nuclear soon. east asian stability needs it. and
panda will have no more bragging rights about being the onl dog with fangs in that yard.

[Suppiah]

Btw, what exactly does "first generation" EPR reactor mean, anyway?

It is not first gen, it is actually the Areva's so-called third generation reactor - each one is 1600MW, longer life and uses lesser uranium supposedly. You can see it on their website. Incidentally China is building one with Areva. The french guy may have used the word first gen to mean latest generation or it could be a translation bungling.

I am not sure if we can trust the Japs to work together with us on any kind of over or covert anti-China agenda. History is in favor of us, but current realities are not. Their economy is increasingly tied in to the Chinese and like the Russians, they too face a gradual demographic invasion and takeover by Chinese they can't do much about. Already is there is lot of talk of allowing increased immigration into Japan, to offset the population decline and keep economic growth going. When Japs say allow immigration that means allow only those with same color, eye shape,cultural background etc. That means the Chinese.

The Koreans are a bit different in that they don't have any anti-China instincts of the Japan kind.