India nuclear news and discussion

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Sep 2008 14:12

Senior senator wants quick vote on US-India pact by Foster Klug: AP

Despite passage in the House, at least one senator, acting anonymously, has used the Senate's rules to block the accord from coming to a vote in the Senate. Lawmakers are trying to deal with a financial crisis before they leave for the year to campaign for the November elections, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is suggesting that he might call senators back to work in about two weeks for a vote on the accord if objections are not cleared up soon.

Harry Reid is telling the others, that in case they are thinking of making the clock run out as a way to stop the deal, it is not going to work, and those opposing would come under peer-pressure to get it over with. The House was the hard part, where a two thirds majority was needed to overcome the 30-day waiting period. In Senate it is far easier to get it done. This just shows that NPAs did not have a good hand for stopping the deal. Their strategy was overly dependent on procedural matters.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Sep 2008 14:26

N-deal rejuvenates India's power generation: Mangalorean

BANGALORE: SEPTEMBER 29: Even as the communists opposed the Indo-US nuclear deal in total, the scientists feel that the deal will rejuvenate India's nuclear power generation.

"The deal is good for India that we are planning the use of atomic energy as well as atomic programme in other fields, scientist K. Kasturirangan, said.

The agreement passed the House of Representatives by a margin of 298-117. The Democrats who control the Senate hope to vote in favour of the deal.

Former head of the Atomic Energy Commission M R Srinivasan has said that the scenario of the deal being scrapped in the wake of India testing a nuclear device is a hypothetical situation given that the two major parties in India, the Congress and the BJP have committed the country to a voluntary moratorium.

"So, both the major political parties of India have accepted to honour the voluntary moratorium. Now, there is no legal ban on test, but at the same time it is a fact that as a practical preposition. I consider a very low probability situation. Therefore, this ought not to burden our thinking too much," he said.

Indian Communists, who withdrew support to the Congress-led coalition over the deal, said Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh had betrayed the country. The Government had survived following the support by Samjwadi Party of Mulayam Sing Yadav. The SP voted in favour of the deal in the Lok Sabha.

Sitaram Yechuri, a senior leader of Communist Party of India (Marxist) opined that the deal has been possible because India has surrendered its sovereignty to the US. As of now not a single one out of nine assurances that the Prime Minister has given in the Parliament remains, the assurances are valid. On all counts there has been a negation. India has willingly surrendered itself to this American pressure."

The BJP, communists and Janata Dal (S) held protests all over the country opposing the nuclear deal. They alleged that the UPA Government led by Manmohan Singh has least bothered to deal with issued concerned to common man such as price rice, inflation, unemployment, poverty, terrorism etc.

Nitesh · Post by **Nitesh** » 30 Sep 2008 14:49

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Indi ... 544285.cms

India, France finalise nuclear cooperation pact
30 Sep 2008, 1330 hrs IST,PTI

PARIS: India and France on Tuesday finalised a landmark agreement on civil nuclear cooperation that covered supply of reactors and atomic fuel in the first concrete step to bring New Delhi back into the nuclear mainstream ending 34 years of nuclear isolation.

The agreement to be initialled later in the day after summit talks between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and French President Nicolas Sarkozy will form the basis of wide ranging bilateral cooperation from basic and applied research to full civil nuclear cooperation including reactors and fuel supplies, nuclear safety, radiation and environment protection and nuclear fuel cycle management.

The atomic pact comes three weeks after India got the crucial NSG waiver that cleared the decks for New Delhi's global nuclear trade.

The atomic pact is one of the three agreements to be signed during Singh's two-day visit to Paris. The other two relates to social security matters which will benefit Indian and French nationals staying in each others countries on short duration up to five years.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Sep 2008 17:47

CONGRATULATIONS INDIA!

THE Nuclear Deal has been signed with the French. It's Done!!!!

No Reprocessing technology part of the Indo-French Civilian Nuclear Agreement. Enrichment Technology Transfer is unclear at the moment.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Sep 2008 18:18

France, India sign major nuclear deal: AFP

PARIS (AFP) — France and India on Tuesday signed a landmark nuclear cooperation pact which opens the way for the sale of French nuclear reactors to New Delhi.

"India and France welcome the signature of a bilateral accord for civil nuclear cooperation which will form the basis of enlarged bilateral cooperation in the fields of energy and research," a French presidency statement said.

The accord was signed following talks between President Nicolas Sarkozy and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who travelled to France after a US trip that also saw the House of Representatives back a US atomic pact with India.

The French-Indian pact marks a key step in India's bid to secure a new position as a nuclear power as the country faces a critical shortage of energy to fuel its booming economy.

It effectively ends a ban on civilian nuclear trade with New Delhi imposed in 1974 when India used its civilian nuclear programme to produce and successfully test an atomic bomb.

The Vienna-based Nuclear Suppliers Group lifted the ban in early September after hard lobbying by Washington.

India, which currently has 22 nuclear reactors, is seeking to expand its nuclear energy sector, opening up a market estimated at 100 billion euros (145 billion dollars) over 15 years.

French nuclear giant Areva said Monday it hoped to negotiate the delivery to India of two third-generation European Pressurized Reactors (EPRs), as well as nuclear fuel.

The world's second producer of nuclear energy after the United States, France is vying to lead a worldwide revival of the industry, fuelled by worries about global warming and rising energy prices.

Since Sarkozy's election last year, France has signed nuclear power deals with half a dozen developing nations in the Middle East and north Africa.

India, France ink historic civil nuke cooperation pact by Naveen Kapoor: ANI

Paris, Sept.30 (ANI): Indias re-entry into the global nuclear trade market after 34 years was achieved today with the historical signing of a bilateral agreement for civil nuclear cooperation with France.
French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner and the chief of the Department of Atomic Energy signed the agreement in the French Presidents office in the Champs Elysee here in the presence of President Nicholas Sarkozy and Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh. A joint statement issued after a Summit-level meeting between visiting Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh and French President Nicholas Sarkozy here said that the agreement would form the basis of the wide-ranging bilateral collaborations in energy and research.
It was also stated that both countries recognize the need to promote the development of stable sustainable, efficient and affordable energy sources, including nuclear energy.
In this context, they welcomed the agreements adjusting the international civil nuclear cooperation framework to enable collaborations with India.
The statement also said that Singh and Sarkozy reaffirmed the importance attached by their respective countries to their strategic partnership and their commitment to further strengthening bilateral cooperation in a wide range of areas.
It stated that both countries are committed to international peace and security, nuclear non-proliferation, the fight against terrorism and the need to ensure food security and energy for all countries.
The Indian delegation also appreciated French support for permanent membership of India in the UN Security Council, and reiterated that along with other developing countries, it is committed to continue dialogue and collaboration with the Group of Eight developed countries.
On its part, France said that it believed the G-8 needed to be expanded over time to a G-13 that includes India.
Both countries also agreed on the need for improved global economic governance to ensure that globalization and interdependence work for the benefit of all.
They expressed full commitment to consolidating their relationship in the field of defence by increasing the range, level and frequency of their military exchanges, joint exercises, joint program and prospects in the fields of defence industry, research and technology.
It was agreed that the possibility of joint development of Short Range Surface-to-Air Missiles (SRSAM) and of the Kaveri engine for Light Combat Aircraft, besides the upgrading of the Mirage-2000 aircraft, would be accelerated.
On the issue of space cooperation, both governments welcomed the signature of a bilateral framework agreement on cooperation in the peaceful uses of outer space.
India described France as an important partner in this field for four decades.
The statement said that the commercial agreement for the use of Indias PSLV for the launch of European satellites marked a new milestone in Indo-French ties.
It said that ISRO and CNES are also working as equal partners in Megha Tropiques Joint Satellite Mission which is progressing well along with SARAL (Satellite for Argos and Altika), slated to be launched in 2009-2010 and which will contribute to better scientific understanding of weather and climate related issues. ]
The two countries also agreed to promote institutional linkages in the space sector, and welcomed the signing of an agreement on training of personnel from the Indian Institute of Space Technology (IIST) and Ecole Polytechnique.
Both countries agreed to a revised bilateral trade target of 12 billion Euros by 2012.
It was agreed that small, medium and micro enterprises of both countries would be further encouraged to increase their cooperation.
The two sides also agreed to further liberalise their visa regime to facilitate issuance of visas for business purposes, particularly concerning students and young people working as trainee or as volunteer in French companies and for people-to-people contacts.
An agreement on Social Security for the benefit of business enterprises and professionals of the two countries was also concluded to facilitate two-way investments.
The two sides also welcomed the creation of the High Level CEOs Forum that would have its first meeting by the end of the year.
It was also agreed to hold dialogue on environmental issues and have set up a joint working group on climate change and technology transfers and their financing. The group should hold its first meeting by the end of the year.
Both sides welcome the signature of the MoU between the Agence Francaise de Developpement (AFD - French Development Agency) and the Department for Economic Affairs of the Indian Ministry of Finance which will allow the AFD to start its operations in India.
India and France also underlined the vitality of Indo-French scientific, technical and educational cooperation.
It was agreed that the Indo-French Consortium of Universities will facilitate the organization of courses of mutual interest at Masters degree and Ph.D levels by Indian and French universities, increase the number of academic institutional tie-ups, scholarships, joint projects, seminars and novel collaborative schemes including substantive contribution of French higher educational institutions to the creation of one of the eight new Indian Institutes of Technology.
The Indo-French Consortium would also facilitate the mutual recognition of degrees, encourage student/faculty mobility and intellectual exchanges.
Both sides reiterated their commitment to intensify cooperation in the field of culture, tourism and to foster people-to-people contacts.
A political commitment to establish an Indian Cultural Centre in Paris at the earliest was also agreed upon.
It was agreed to work towards concluding a visa free agreement for diplomatic and official passport holders.(ANI)

awagaman · Post by **awagaman** » 30 Sep 2008 18:32

From S Varadarajan blog:

http://svaradarajan.blogspot.com/2008/0 ... y-and.html

Time for a debate on liability and damages

Paul Kerr of the Congressional Research Service runs a quiet but useful blog on arms control issues. Thanks to him, we have the on-the-record answers provided to questions submitted in writing by Senator Robert P. Casey Jr. on September 18 to Under Secretary William F. Burns and Acting Under Secretary John D. Rood.

There's nothing really very new or dramatic in the exchange, though a 'completist' like me still found the document useful. However, I was struck by one of the questions -- on India's commitment to accede to the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC) -- and the answer provided by Burns and Rood.

Question: Press reports indicate that the Indian government has provided an oral assurance to senior U.S. officials that, regardless of the exemption authorized by the NSG, India will not commence civilian nuclear trade with any NSG member until the Congress approves the Article 123 agreement, thereby authorizing U.S. civilian nuclear trade with India in a manner consistent with the NSG exemption and the terms of the Hyde Act.

The September 10, 2008 letter from Indian Foreign Minister S. Menon to Undersecretary of State William Burns states, “it is the intention of the Indian Government to take all steps to adhere to the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage prior to the commencement of international civil nuclear cooperation under the Agreement.”

Does that mean that India has pledged to hold off on all civil nuclear trade with all NSG members, as authorized by the NSG exemption, until this Convention enters into force for India?

Answer: India has pledged to take the steps necessary to adhere to the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC), and we expect it to do so soon. This senior-level Indian commitment to become a party to this international liability regime as soon as possible is an important step in ensuring that U.S. nuclear firms can compete on a level playing field with other international competitors who have other liability protections afforded to them by their governments. Because of these differing circumstances, Indian ratification of the CSC has not been a determining issue for nuclear industries in a number of other countries. It is also worth noting that the CSC still has not entered into force and, even with India’s ratification, will not do so until the ninetieth day following the date on which at least five States with a minimum of 400,000 units of “installed nuclear capacity” have ratified the Convention.

OK, now we know that India made a commitment on the CSC from Burns's on-the-record statement during the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing of September 18. So that's not news. But the Q&A tells us the pledge was formally communicated in a letter by the Foreign Secretary, Shiv Shankar Menon on September 10, 2008.

Here is yet another example of important policy matters with legislative implications being stealthily discussed with a foreign power by the Manmohan Singh government even as the Indian parliament and public are kept completely in the dark about this.

So what is this CSC? And why has the US nuclear industry been insisting that Indian accession is a precondition for nuclear sales to the country when no such insistence has been made for China? Indeed, the fact that most countries with a major nuclear power industry have not signed on is a little odd, to say the least, even though several of them are parties to the 1963 Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage and the OECD's Paris and Brussels Conventions. I should think a vigorous debate on the pros and cons of the CSC is needed in India, and needed urgently.

Within America, the Price-Anderson Act has been used to subsidise liability protection for nuclear operators. The U.S. ratified the CSC in May this year after a sustained campaign by US nuclear operators and vendors concerned about liability for accidents involving U.S. reactors abroad. The State Department has an article-by-article analysis of the Convention here.

Last year, Jack Spencer of the Heritage Foundation laid out the reasons why the CSC was important to the U.S. in an article entitled 'Congress Must Implement CSC Treaty to Reinvigorate U.S. Nuclear Industry':

The existing U.S. liability system for nuclear operations only covers activities inside the United States and does not apply to international commerce. As a result, competing for projects abroad exposes U.S. companies to unlimited liability in U.S. courts. In cases where U.S. firms do compete abroad, they do so with increased risk or within the context of additional regulation, adding cost and undermining competitiveness.

In contrast, many foreign countries provide liability coverage for their nuclear firms or cap their liability exposure. This enables foreign companies to operate freely in the United States (or elsewhere), because they do not risk their entire business by participating in a specific project. The protection offered by other nations puts U.S. companies at a disadvantage in the global marketplace.

The CSC would fix this problem. It establishes an international liability regime that creates common, international standards for handling nuclear facility accident claims. In addition to providing supplemental international funds to pay victims, the treaty would keep liability in the country where the accident occurs. This would help protect U.S. companies from frivolous lawsuits. Under the current system, when a U.S. company engages in international commerce, it potentially risks the entire company. (emphasis added)

Why should India sign the CSC? The CSC creates a contributory compensation fund, limits liability, channels law suits through specific courts and also has a mechanism for dealing with cross-border liability stemming from a nuclear accident. Are these good enough reasons? And if France and Russia are not bothered by the CSC, should we sign on just because one supplier nation, the U.S., wants us to?

I have been told by sources in the GOI that even without the Indo-US agreement, India was looking at the CSC because of the proximity of Koodankulam to Sri Lanka.

I hope that makes the Lankans feel all warm and glowy inside!

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Sep 2008 18:44

France Embraces Nuclear Cooperation With India: Deutsche Welle

The European Union and India ended their summit with the EU agreeing to offer a tentative deal on nuclear energy cooperation. France, however, was less cautious, vowing to help India with a new nuclear trade pact.

The meeting between India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and European Union leaders in the French port of Marseille ended Monday, Sept. 29, with an agreement to explore "the possibility of EU-India cooperation in civil nuclear research and development," However, differences remained over the limits which should be placed on such cooperation.

A draft prepared by the EU called for cooperation "in a manner consistent with the international non-proliferation regime."

But India, which has not signed the UN's non-proliferation treaty (NPT) and is wary of signing any declaration which appears to commit to it, insisted that the more general phrase "consistent with their respective international commitments" be used.

France, India to do more nuclear business

Sarkozy also concluded some domestic business on the sidelines of the EU-India summit when he and Singh vowed to boost nuclear energy cooperation.

"France, which has great trust in India and its prime minister, has worked hard so that India can have access to civilian nuclear energy," said Sarkozy.

He made the comment at a press conference with Singh, who arrived in France from the US, where he took India a major step closer to rejoining global nuclear commerce after 30 years in the cold.

Singh was to meet with French political leaders and nuclear energy executives in Paris Tuesday and was expected to sign a major nuclear trade pact.

French energy firm Areva said Monday it hopes to profit from the nuclear pact by supplying the Asian giant with two of the latest design of reactors.

A spokeswoman said Areva planned to ship two third-generation European pressurized reactors and a supply of nuclear fuel to India, which could lead to a bigger contract to supply a series of power plants.

On Saturday, the head of the Indian chamber of commerce said his country's nuclear market could be worth up 20 billion euros ($29 billion) to Areva and other French firms such as Alstom over the next 15 years.

Ban lifted to allow booming India access to energy

India was banned from nuclear trade 30 years ago after its first nuclear test and refusal to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty, but the Vienna-based Nuclear Suppliers Group lifted the ban this month after lobbying by Washington.

The US House of Representatives passed a major atomic energy pact, which, if it gets Senate approval, will allow India to buy nuclear power plants, fuel and technology, provided it allows UN inspections of some of its facilities.

New Delhi, which is critically short of energy to fuel its booming economy, is looking at investments worth billions of dollars in its power sector.

The world's second producer of nuclear energy after the United States, France is vying to lead a worldwide revival of the industry, fuelled by worries about global warming and rising energy prices.

Since Sarkozy's election last year, France has signed nuclear power deals with half a dozen developing nations in the Middle East and North Africa.

Nitesh · Post by **Nitesh** » 30 Sep 2008 18:46

guys I am not a big guru here but a question according to link posted by sgupta in last page
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf53.html

this link says that we have some reactors having "item specific safeguards" does this item means fuel? If yes, then can't we use the fuel spent from other reactors and use the plutonium in our FBR's which are under item specific safeguards?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 Sep 2008 19:09

CONGRATULATIONS INDIA!

THE Nuclear Deal has been signed with the French. It's Done!!!!

No Reprocessing technology part of the Indo-French Civilian Nuclear Agreement. Enrichment Technology Transfer is unclear at the moment.

FYI on enrichment, etc:

Sept 18, 2008 :: ‘Buy a French reactor and get lifetime fuel’

Thursday, 18 September , 2008, 19:54

New Delhi: With competition hotting up for India's $100 billion nuclear pie, French ambassador Jeremy Bonnafonte on Thursday assured New Delhi fuel supplies for the full life of a nuclear reactor it buys from his country.

The French envoy, however, clarified that the sale of enrichment and reprocessing technologies was not covered by the Indo-French Nuclear Framework Agreement which is awaiting signature. The two countries may have to sign another agreement for this purpose, he added.

“France is open to such sales but they will depend upon any worldwide consensus the NSG reaches on the issue,” he said. {SO much for a clean waiver from the NSG}

“If India buys a reactor from France India can obtain nuclear fuel for the full life of such a reactor, that is, 40 or 50 years,” Bonnafonte told Karan Thapar in an interview to be broadcast on India Tonight programme of CNBC-TV18.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 Sep 2008 19:28

“If India buys a reactor from France India can obtain nuclear fuel for the full life of such a reactor, that is, 40 or 50 years,” Bonnafonte told Karan Thapar in an interview to be broadcast on India Tonight programme of CNBC-TV18.

Who is responsible for the waste in the original agreement for the reactors? Karanji never asked that question I guess.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Sep 2008 19:30

The last man standing

Editorial: A Bad India Deal: New York Times

The House of Representatives approved President Bush’s ill-conceived nuclear agreement with India last week, shrugging off concerns that the deal could make it even harder to rein in Iran’s (and others’) nuclear ambitions. We hope the Senate shows better judgment.

For 30 years, ever since India used its civilian nuclear program to produce a bomb, the world has been barred from selling any nuclear technology to India. The deal — pressed hard by American business and India’s lobbyists — would allow the United States to break that ban and open the way for the rest of the world to sell reactors and fuel to India as well.

President Bush and his aides were so eager for a foreign-policy success that they didn’t even try to get India to limit its weapons program in return. They got no promise from India to stop producing bombing-making material, no promise not to expand its arsenal and no promise not to resume nuclear testing.

The House Foreign Affairs Committee abdicated its oversight responsibilities. It held no public hearings and sent the deal straight to the floor without even a committee vote. We are befuddled as to how the committee’s chairman, Representative Howard Berman, could say he has “concerns about ambiguities in the agreement” and still vote for it.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has done only slightly more work. It held one hearing at which administration cheerleaders were asked to testify.

India is a democracy, a rising power that has sent many thousands of talented people to live and work in the United States. Mr. Bush has correctly chosen to build a new relationship with India.

But he erred in making the nuclear deal the centerpiece of that relationship. And he erred in assuming that he could selectively break the nuclear rules for India and still argue that other countries had to do a lot more to rein in Iran. The deal approved by the House fails to meet legal requirements set previously by Congress.

For example, it is not accompanied by a commitment by countries engaged in nuclear trade to ban transfers to India of enrichment and reprocessing equipment that is essential to weapons production. Also, it does not include a credible plan by the Indians for separating their military and civilian nuclear programs. The Senate should postpone action until the next Congress can figure out how to limit the damage from this deal.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Sep 2008 19:39

NRao Ji,

As I mentioned earlier, France would be hard-pressed to give us ENR. If at all, Russia is the only one, which can break the international consensus in our favor.

If Russia, is willing to give us ENR, France too would follow suit due to commercial reasons, but not beforehand. India needs to do some serious lobbying with Russia. I don't think Bush would mind too much, now that he has a green-light from the US Congress (well almost).

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 Sep 2008 19:41

ANALYSIS: EU, India explore the limits of the possible

By Ben Nimmo Sep 29, 2008, 14:31 GMT

Marseille, France - When India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh met European Union leaders in the French port of Marseille on Monday, the things they did not say were as important as the things they did.

Drafts of the summit declaration and the accompanying action plan seen by Deutsche Presse-Agentur dpa made several statements which were watered down in the final texts presented to the public, in a sign of where the main disagreements between the sides still lie.

While the summit did end with an agreement to explore 'the possibility of EU-India cooperation in civil nuclear research and development,' differences remained over the limits which should be placed on such cooperation.

A draft prepared by the EU called for cooperation 'in a manner consistent with the international non-proliferation regime.'

But India, which has not signed the UN's non-proliferation treaty (NPT) and is wary of signing any declaration which appears to commit to it, insisted that the more general phrase 'consistent with their respective international commitments' be used.

Disagreements also remained on how far each side should commit to fighting climate change. The EU has long urged all nations to sign up to binding emissions cuts, while India says that the rich Western nations who emit the most carbon dioxide should do so first.

Ahead of the summit, EU diplomats had pushed for a declaration saying that the leaders 'agreed on the need to reduce global emissions by at least 50 per cent by 2050.' India replied by calling for 'long-term cooperative action' with 'equitable burden-sharing.'

Their declaration simply skirted the issue, talking of an unspecified 'long-term global goal' based on the UN's standard compromise formula of 'common but differentiated responsibilities.'

The two sides also came to only limited agreement on regional security issues, such as Iran's controversial nuclear programme.

The EU has long pushed for Iran to stop uranium enrichment in line with UN Security Council resolutions, and initially called for a summit statement urging Tehran to 'respect relevant UN resolutions and take the necessary steps to create international confidence.'

But India, which sees Iran as a key regional player and energy supplier, called for a text stressing the need for a 'central role' for the UN's nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, and for 'strengthening diplomatic efforts to find a satisfactory solution.'

The final text again issued a cautious compromise, calling on Iran to take unspecified 'steps to re-establish confidence' and expressing the two sides' 'support for current diplomatic efforts.'

The EU also pushed for strong language on the military regime in Myanmar, whose attitude Sarkozy described as 'intolerable.'

The EU's draft called for a 'peaceful transition towards a legitimate civilian government' in Myanmar.

India, which sees Myanmar as another regional partner and an access route for its north-eastern states, favoured a much less pointed call for a 'political and economic reform process.'

The final text balanced those demands by reaffirming 'the need for an inclusive dialogue ... to progress towards democracy.'

Finally, it struck a similar balance on Pakistan, where the EU had stressed its 'readiness to work with' the government and India had demanded 'sustained action' from Islamabad on security issues.

The compromise text set aside both drafts, simply saying that the security situation 'required sustained action' by unnamed actors and that the EU and India 'noted the new commitments of the government of Pakistan to address regional and international concerns.'

On Monday, Sarkozy congratulated Singh on a summit which 'showed how strategic our relationship is.'

Judging by the changes made to the final outcomes of the summit, there are still clear limits to what that relationship can achieve.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 Sep 2008 19:46

I, frankly, do not think RU will provide that kind of help. They cannot.

On the flip side, IF France were to follow RU, then they would never bring in EU/NSG/world standards into the picture.

In the past page or two I have posted what RU expects to contributes towards world nukes env.

I would not expect RU or any one to help India on ENR.

My current read is that India gets reactors to solve Indian energy needs - no two ways about that. But, forget strategic issues, they will not allow Indian 3-phase to proper IF they can help it. FR + RU included.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Sep 2008 19:55

As I understand, in the sensitive technologies like reprocessing, heavy-water production India is more than self-sufficient, however we would not have minded studying any technologies from abroad. In enrichment India still has some way to go.

Guess, we will have to do it the hard and most enjoying way, ourselves.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 Sep 2008 20:26

India is very good at some things, ............................... BUT, it is in very small volumes.

Aug 4, 2007 :: 123 agreement a satisfactory arrangement, says Kakodkar

rather dated, but still relevant:

“This agreement will give us that opportunity,” he said.

Even then it was not a sure shot that India would get what ALL she wanted.

Asked about the provision in the agreement that “transfers of dual-use items that could be used in enrichment, reprocessing or heavy water production facilities will be subject to the Parties’ respective applicable laws, regulations and licence policies” and whether this meant that transfer of these technologies to India would be subject to a review by the U.S. Congress, Dr. Srinivasan said the U.S. Atomic Energy Act of 1954 stood in the way of the U.S. supplying these technologies to other countries.

So the Americans found it difficult to accommodate India’s request at this point of time for the transfer of reprocessing, enrichment and heavy water production technologies to India.

Even NSG is reluctant to provide ENR. The US so far is a big no go.

The kicker:

“It is our hope that changes will be made and arrangements will come about for other nuclear suppliers [to provide these technologies to India]. We already have these technologies. But when we take up these technologies for larger industrial use [that is, massive generation of nuclear power], we would like to have international equipment and processes. That way, we can look to the future. We have to break the logjam,” the AEC member said.

"larger industrial use". India does NOT have the techs for supporting what India is planning on importing (WRT reactors).

These deals do provide some relief, but Not as much as the J-18 had expected - even on the civilian front. Forget strategic stuff - which is internal to India.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 Sep 2008 20:31

Two more points of interest:

1) AK stated that even IF India gets ENR, that she shoudl NOT expect latest and greatest from anyone
2) There are a LOT of benefits beyond nuclear reactors that these deals bring to teh table - in the fields of medicine, space, engineering, etc - that is normally not counted in the ROI equation. So, as much as these deals do not conform to J-18 they will bring in a lot of techs that are not on anyones radar today. These should benefit India.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Sep 2008 20:34

How far is it possible to hire nuclear engineers from abroad, who may have worked in enrichment and reprocessing installations? Does the Nuclear Deal touches on this? Haven't read much on that.

harik · Post by **harik** » 30 Sep 2008 21:33

RajeshA wrote:How far is it possible to hire nuclear engineers from abroad, who may have worked in enrichment and reprocessing installations? Does the Nuclear Deal touches on this? Haven't read much on that.

Despite that You used all that Bolds! what was that CIGRATTESS all abt!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Sep 2008 21:37

RajeshA wrote:As I understand, in the sensitive technologies like reprocessing, heavy-water production India is more than self-sufficient, however we would not have minded studying any technologies from abroad. In enrichment India still has some way to go.

Guess, we will have to do it the hard and most enjoying way, ourselves.

The Indian quest for ENR etc is to establish the rights of NWS and not really for lack of knowledge. The other reason is scaling to industrial size. Anyway MMS had agreed to put build a new safeguarded reprocessing facility as a deal enabler in March 2006. So need to wait a few years when the fissile stockpile is sufficient and then those non-civlian plants can be transferred to the other side.

I wish S Valkan were here as he best described the process as salami slicing.

I dont understand Vardarajna's angst. With out limiting liability no one will build power plants where there i srisk of monetary liability.

And if its not there it will be come like Union Carbide/Bhopal gas leak where the govt of the day made a deal and is till to pay the victims.

Yes the assurance on 9/10 was underhanded and should have informed the country. But then there would be shrill shrieks.

harik · Post by **harik** » 30 Sep 2008 22:09

The Indian quest for ENR etc is to establish the rights of NWS and not really for lack of knowledge

Sir,

Can you please explain that , if you , so desire.

I am all for what you stand for, need to add, its not be vice-versa.
Having said that , Please do qualify your statemet above.

Regards

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Sep 2008 22:37

harik wrote:
RajeshA wrote:How far is it possible to hire nuclear engineers from abroad, who may have worked in enrichment and reprocessing installations? Does the Nuclear Deal touches on this? Haven't read much on that.
Despite that You used all that Bolds! what was that CIGRATTESS all abt!

Harik,
I would request you not to address me any further. Your language, meaning, motives, context is beyond my grasp. Try to just ignore me. Thank you!

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Sep 2008 22:55

ramana wrote: I dont understand Vardarajna's angst. With out limiting liability no one will build power plants where there i srisk of monetary liability.

And if its not there it will be come like Union Carbide/Bhopal gas leak where the govt of the day made a deal and is till to pay the victims.

Yes the assurance on 9/10 was underhanded and should have informed the country. But then there would be shrill shrieks.

Ramana Ji,

I believe Varadarajan describes himself as a completist. He is a reporter and wants to collect the knowledge of all the concessions, benefits and politics from, for and of the Indian side and its negotiating partners and spread them in front of him like a stamp collection and marvel. I admire that, to know all angles of the story. It was him, who brought China's double-faced behavior to light, otherwise GoI would not have bothered about taking a public stand on it. It has less to do with angst and more to do with the wish, that the issue should be dealt with publicly and the Indian public should make its opinion on it.

The process has been degrading for the Indian democracy. On the one hand, the Opposition has played a less than constructive role (even though it helped in the end

), and on the other hand the GoI has not taken the Parliament into confidence and tried to build a consensus on the issue. They could have brought in BJP much earlier into the process.

harik · Post by **harik** » 30 Sep 2008 23:08

RajeshA wrote:
ramana wrote: I dont understand Vardarajna's angst. With out limiting liability no one will build power plants where there i srisk of monetary liability.

And if its not there it will be come like Union Carbide/Bhopal gas leak where the govt of the day made a deal and is till to pay the victims.

Yes the assurance on 9/10 was underhanded and should have informed the country. But then there would be shrill shrieks.
Ramana Ji,

I believe Varadarajan describes himself as a completist. He is a reporter and wants to collect the knowledge of all the concessions, benefits and politics from, for and of the Indian side and its negotiating partners and spread them in front of him like a stamp collection and marvel. I admire that, to know all angles of the story. It was him, who brought China's double-faced behavior to light, otherwise GoI would not have bothered about taking a public stand on it. It has less to do with angst and more to do with the wish, that the issue should be dealt with publicly and the Indian public should make its opinion on it.

The process has been degrading for the Indian democracy. On the one hand, the Opposition has played a less than constructive role (even though it helped in the end ), and on the other hand the GoI has not taken the Parliament into confidence and tried to build a consensus on the issue. They could have brought in BJP much earlier into the process.

I have a finger in all the plates... right ..

While you do balle balle for *any* treaty signed .. you question the person who makes a living out of it.
What did You put at stake ?

Stan_Savljevic · Post by **Stan_Savljevic** » 01 Oct 2008 00:10

Elections in Austria was said to be the reason behind its belligerent stance at the NSG meeting. Now that the elections are over, guess it is a good idea to note and REMEMBER that the Greens have lost their way. As can be seen, immigration was the plank that decided this election in contrast to what the pipsqueak ambassadors claimed.

Austria’s future direction lay in doubt on Monday after two far-right, anti-immigration parties made big gains in national elections while the governing coalition lost seats in Parliament. The Greens also lost ground, winning 19 seats compared with 21 previously after winning 9.79 percent of Sunday’s vote, according to preliminary results.

http://thenews.jang.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=138710

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 01 Oct 2008 02:38

Lt Gen Nagal is new Strategic Forces commander

30 Sep, 2008, 2227 hrs IST, PTI
NEW DELHI: Lieutenant General B S Nagal will be the new Commander of India's Strategic Forces beginning on Wednesday.

Gen Nagal will take over command of the most crucial formation of India's defence forces from Vice Admiral Vijay Shankar, who will take over as the new Commander-in-Chief of the Andaman-based Tri-Services Command, Defence Ministry sources said.

Air Marshal S C Mukul, who was the chief of the IAF's Allahabad-based Central Air Command, has been appointed as the new Chief of the Integrated Defence Staff headquarters here, in place of Lt Gen Hardev Singh Lidder, who retired today.

Air Marshal Radhakrishnan will replace Mukul as the new Central Air Commander.

Commanders-in-Chief of Army's South Western Command Lt Gen P K Singh and Central Command Lt Gen H S Panag also retired today, but announcement regarding their successors was yet to be made till late in this evening.

Lt Gen R K Karwal will take over as new Director General of the National Cadet Corps from Lt Gen P S Chaudhary, sources added.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Oct 2008 06:29

op-ed...

FROM DNA MUMBAI
SEPTEMBER 30, 2008
LEAD ARTICLE
EDIT PAGE

Cautious celebrations

by C Uday Bhaskar

Though India's nuke dream will soon be reality, there are still some
hurdles to cross

The much debated and deeply contested July 18, 2005 (J 1805) civilian
nuclear cooperation agreement between India and the USA crossed a
major hurdle with the satisfactory legislative completion on September
28, 2008 when the US House of Representatives approved the Berman
Bill listed as HR 7081. A degree of semantic irony is inherent given
that Congressman Howard Berman is one of the staunchest opponents of J
1805 and at one stage last week it seemed as if he would
single-handedly deny US President George W Bush the one major foreign
policy triumph that a beleaguered White House was determined to wrest
from a virulently anti-Bush Congress. Now it's for the US Senate to
accord its approval before Bush puts his signature to the final
document.

However the vote in the House of Representatives is instructive about
the complexities that lie ahead for India and the US in the nuclear
commerce domain. It was only after much persuasion and some
potentially disturbing (from the Indian perspective) personal
commitments made by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, that the
Berman Bill received the approval of the House of Representatives late
Saturday night.

The final tally read as 298 for, 117 against and one abstention in a
total of 416 in a House of 435 members. The fact that the Hyde Bill
was passed in late 2006 with a 359-58 margin in the same forum is
indicative of the increasing opposition to J 1805 among US legislators
and this may be reflected in the Senate as well.

Be that as it may, at the time of writing, it is expected that the
Senate will also accord its approval and the 19 to 2 verdict in favour
of the Berman Bill at the committee stage is a hopeful pointer. Using
a little invoked procedure, some anonymous senators have sought to
'hold' the Bill for the mandatory waiting period — and this is being
attributed to both the influence of the non-proliferation lobby in the
US and the visceral anti-Bush mood among the Democrats. One has been
cautiously optimistic since July 2005 that despite the innumerable
hurdles and banana peels in both countries and beyond, that this
radical Bush-Manmohan Singh agreement will finally reach fruition.
This assessment is still valid.

In the course of the next few days the last lap will be run and Rice
and Union External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee will move
India-US relations from 34 years of bitter estrangement over the
nettlesome nuclear issue to one of tentative engagement.Hopefully the
ghost of Tarapur will be finally laid to rest. Yet there are a few
areas that merit scrutiny in the days ahead. Part of the give and take
to navigate the Berman Bill through the US Congress warranted
commitments by the Bush-Rice team that the US would reiterate some of
its abiding non-proliferation commitments and one of them was that the
US would seek to prevail upon other NSG members to conform to US norms
in the event of any cessation of nuclear cooperation.

While this and other references may be clarified to India's
satisfaction and the spirit of J 1805 in the final presidential
signing statement, it would be prudent to wait for this to emerge
before declaring success or giving vent to jubilation.

In any event, India has already obtained a very significant gain with
the NSG waiver of September 6 when the major powers led by the US
agreed to lift the nuclear commerce sanctions and high technology
denial regimes that had been put in place against India since 1975.

India is no longer the nuclear pariah it was made out to be — and this
is a vindication of the AB Vajpayee-Manmohan Singh continuum which
ensured that India's core strategic interests remain inviolable, even
as New Delhi embarked upon a rapprochement with the world at large
over the nuclear issue.

Thus as of now the balance sheet for India apropos J 1805 is in
keeping with the central commitments made by the PM — contrary to what
the Opposition in India is asserting.
India remains a non-signatory to the NPT but will retain its nuclear
weapons for purposes of credible minimum deterrence and retain the
sovereign right to test — should the need arise while being cognisant
of the fact that the US has the right to respond as per its existing
laws.

Simultaneously India will progressively place 14 of its nuclear
facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards as part
of its separation plan and thereby receive access to the global
nuclear fuel market. This one facilitation will have enormously
beneficial impact for the entire spectrum of India's peaceful nuclear
and enable the realisation of Homi Bhabha's vision of a three-stage
nuclear programme that can harness India's vast thorium reserves.

The last run is yet to be scored in this nuclear T 20 engagement but
Singh has emerged as a quiet but perspicacious and determined King!

( The writer is a political commentator. )

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Oct 2008 10:35

I just had a thought. What the J18 & M3 and now the US 123 have done is to put the onus of good behavior vis a vis India on PRC.

For the US and West preserving the NPT structure is a supreme interest. The only way it can broken is with a large yield test by any non -NPT power. What India has done is assured them that it wont breakout unless its supreme national interests are threatened. And those can be affected only by PRC with its agressive behavior on borders or further proliferation to TSP or BD. So now its a national interest for the rest of the P-5 to ensure that this doesnt translate into reality to preserve their power structure.

ramana

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 01 Oct 2008 11:53

Senate to vote on “very, very high priority” n-deal Wednesday: IANS

Washington, Oct 1 (IANS) The India-US civil nuclear deal is expected to clear its last legislative hurdle Wednesday with the Senators agreeing to vote on the accord that’s a “very, very high priority” for President George Bush.The Senate would take up Wednesday morning the bill approved by the House of Representatives Saturday by a margin of 298-17 along with a couple of amendments relating to US reaction in the event of another nuclear test by India, Senate majority leader Harry Reid announced.

But a vote on the approval bill would come only Wednesday “evening after sundown”, (early hours of Thursday India time) as no roll call votes are planned until then “in honour of the Rosh Hashanah (Jewish) holiday”, Reid said Tuesday.

Unlike the House that needed a two-thirds majority for passage under suspension of rules, the 100-member Senate requires only 60 votes to approve the legislation after three and a half hours of debate.

Reid’s announcement Tuesday evening indicated that lawmakers had settled the differences that had stalled the measure in the upper chamber, where at least one senator, acting anonymously, had used the Senate’s rules to block the bill with a “hold”.

That behind-the-scenes efforts were on to win over the opposition was indicated by Reid’s earlier remarks at the start of the day’s proceedings. “We’re still working on agreement to consider the US-India nuclear agreement. I’m quite sure we can finalise that so there can be a vote on that tomorrow (Wednesday),” he said.

The two amendments reflect an attempt to make sure US nuclear exports do not help boost India’s nuclear weapons programme, according to media reports.

One of the draft Senate amendments would require the US president, should India detonate a nuclear weapon, to certify that no American technology or material supplied under the accord was used in the explosion. Another draft amendment would stop US nuclear trade if India should detonate a nuclear device.

Earlier, the White House said the Indian nuclear deal awaiting Senate’s approval is on Bush administration’s “very, very high priority” and it wants to see this agreement getting accomplished.

Asked whether Bush has spoken to senators about it, deputy spokesman Tony Fratto said top administration officials have been in touch with key lawmakers.

“Secretary (of State Condoleezza) Rice and others have been in contact with the Senate… it’s a very, very high priority for us. We want to see it get accomplished. And Senator Reid does, as well,” Fratto said.

“We have been in very close contact with Majority Leader (Harry) Reid, who has committed to getting that agreement passed in the Senate. I don’t know if the president and Majority Leader Reid have specifically spoken about it recently, but I know our staff has,” he said.

Rice too said she hoped to get the deal settled. “I certainly hope that it can get done,” she told reporters at the State Department at the start of a meeting with Hungarian Foreign Minister Kinga Goncz.

“It would be a way to solidify what has been an extraordinary period in which US-Indian relations have reached the kind of deepening that is really appropriate for two of the world’s largest and great democracies,”

Rice also praised the efforts of Reid and other senior lawmakers including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House Foreign Affairs committee chairman Howard Berman and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Joe Biden and its top Republican member Richard Luger.

“We certainly hope that we’ll be able to have this agreement,” State Department Deputy Spokesman Robert Wood said of the Senate vote. “And it’s (an) important agreement for the US and India. It’s got strong bipartisan support, so we hope to see it happen.”

President Bush is keen to secure an agreement at the earliest and the State Department has mounted an all-out effort, including phone calls and visits to Capitol Hill by Rice, to win passage.

These are funny amendments in case both are accepted. If it is just the case that the POTUS has to certify, that nothing American went into the testing, that is OK if the the agreement remains, however what is the need of this certification if the Agreement has to be terminated anyway.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 01 Oct 2008 13:47

Nothing in N-deal to hurt national interests: PM: IANS

"I still have not given up hope to carry conviction with them that what we have done the nuclear deal to protect all the essential interests of our country," he told reporters while returning from a 10-day trip to US and France.

"It protects our strategic programme, it opens up new options for India to manage its energy situation and it is part of our policy which would widen our development options.

"So I sincerely believe that whether it is the BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party) or the Left if they look objectively there is nothing in the nuclear deal which will hurt the interests of the country," the prime minister said, indicating that the government would pitch the nuclear deal to the electorate in the next elections, likely in another six months.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 01 Oct 2008 16:35

French Foreign Affairs Minister Bernard Kouchner (right) and chairman of India's Atomic Energy Commission Anil Kakodkar shake hands after signing a cooperation agreement, "Co-operation agreement Between the Government of the Republic of India and the Government of the French Republic on the Development of Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy" in Paris on Tuesday, on the 30th September, 2008, as Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh and French President Nicholas Sarkozy look on.

Nitesh · Post by **Nitesh** » 01 Oct 2008 17:37

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/US_S ... 547838.cms

US Senate to take up N-deal vote on Wednesday
1 Oct 2008, 1102 hrs IST, CHIDANAND RAJGHATTA,TNN

WASHINGTON: With no hint of irony, the United States Senate will vote on legislation consecrating the US-India civilian nuclear agreement on Gandhi Jayanti day in India. ( Watch ) The Senate has scheduled the legislation for a 10 am (7.30 pm IST) consideration on Wednesday, October 1, but voting will take place only after sundown (which will be October 2 in India) because of the Jewish festival of Rosh Hoshanna, Congressional sources said.

The Senate is expected to approve the agreement despite lingering reservation from some lawmakers still being primed by the non-proliferation lobby which has made killing the deal the focal point of its existence for the past three years.

But in a measure of how much the Bush administration prizes the deal as the centerpiece of Washington’s strategic ties with New Delhi, senior administration officials have persuaded the Senate to take up the vote alongside the financial bail-out debate and vote taking place on the same day.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reportedly pleaded with Senate stalwarts to give final approval for the deal before her scheduled visit to New Delhi on October 3. US and Indian industry and business leaders and Indian-American community veterans also pitched in to coax the Senate -- where an overwhelming majority supports the deal -- to take up the matter.

On Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader, Democrat Harry Reid, relented, announcing that the chamber would take up the US-India nuclear agreement legislation, including two amendments -- dealing with US responses to an Indian nuclear test -- aimed at mollifying opponents to the deal.

At least one Senator had threatened to block the vote if a punitive US response was not reiterated in the legislation.

According to the Associated Press, one of the amendments enjoin that in the event of an Indian nuclear test, the US president has to certify that no American technology or material supplied under the accord was used in the explosion. Another draft amendment would stop U.S. nuclear trade if India tests.

At first sight, neither amendment appears to be a radically change the strictures contained in the Hyde Act or the 123 agreement, which also offers the caveat of mitigating circumstances and a window of consultancy before punitive action is imposed -- if India should test.

Besides the Rice visit to India, the US industry and its patrons in the establishment were also galvanized to work for closure on the deal by the quick developments in France during Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit there over the weekend, when the business-hungry French enterprises pushed ahead with seeking early entry into India in the nuclear sector. Their American counterparts have been impressing on US lawmakers that any delay in Congress giving final approval to the deal will only hurt US businesses.

But Indian critics say the final legislation, if and when approved, will be far removed from the content and intent of the July 18, 2005 statement signed between President Bush and Prime Minister Singh. That statement said, ''India would reciprocally agree that it would be ready to assume the same responsibilities and practices and acquire the same benefits and advantages as other leading countries with advanced nuclear technology, such as the United States.''

US lawmakers have tried to contain or deny many of the benefits and advantages New Delhi anticipated through the deal, but Indian officials have said they are bound only by the joint statement and the 123 agreement and domestic US law is not relevant in bilateral relations.

But even the final mangled deal is something the Bush administration will cherish in its final weeks in office because it counts developing close strategic ties with India, backed by bipartisan support, as one of its signal foreign policy successes.

''It would be a way to solidify what has been an extraordinary period in which US-Indian relations have reached the kind of deepening that is really appropriate for two of the world's largest and great democracies,'' Rice told reporters at the State Department on Tuesday.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Oct 2008 18:56

One of two rather interesting articles:

'French firms may have to wait for N-trade with India'

G Sudhakar Nair
Paris, Sep 30 (PTI) India today indicated it may take some time before French companies can actually start nuclear trade to get a slice of its USD 100 billion nuclear pie.

Shortly after a bilateral pact on nuclear cooperation was inked in presence of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Atomic Energy Commission chief Anil Kakodkar said the cost factor will determine whether India will go for Pressurised Water Reactors (PWR) or the EPR, which are third-generation PWRs, for its atomic power programme.

Asked how soon can French nuclear companies expect to win contracts, Kakodkar said there were some parallel processes which needed to be followed like having additional protocols in India-specific IAEA safeguards.

French nuclear giants like Areva, Alstorm and EDF appear keen to do business with India in this field.

To a question, Kakodkar said civil nuclear cooperation can be carried out with other countries without having to amend the country's Atomic Energy Act.

The issue of fuel reprocessing and enrichment will be within the parameters of nuclear fuel cycle management envisaged under the agreement, he said, adding indigenous technologies were available for reprocessing spent fuel.

Kakodkar was evasive when asked whether India and Russia would sign a nuclear pact on the lines of the Indo-French inter-governmental agreement during the planned visit of Russian Premier Dmitry Medvedev to India towards the end of this year. "We cannot fix a time-line," he said. PTI

That seems to partially solve the issue of "ENR", and, I stand corrected.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Oct 2008 19:03

Two of two rather interesting artciles:

India, France ink nuclear deal, first after NSG waiver

Paris, September 30 India on Tuesday emerged out of a 34-year-old nuclear isolation and signed a historic agreement for civil nuclear cooperation with France. With this pact, France became the first country to enter into a formal understanding with India after the Nuclear Suppliers Group exempted India from its guidelines earlier this month.
The agreement, which was finalised in January when French President Nicholas Sarkozy visited India as chief guest for the Republic Day, was signed this afternoon by French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner and Department of Atomic Energy head Anil Kakodkar on the Indian side.

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

Currently, the agreement recognises India’s right to reprocess spent fuel but does not allow France to sell enrichment and reprocessing technology. When asked whether he was disappointed by this, Kakodkar said: “I would always like more technology. But we must remember that our priority now is to generate electricity and develop the right techno-economic configuration to get the cheapest possible electricity for our consumers.”

The Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd, Kakodkar said, is already in talks with Areva, a leading French nuclear reactor company, for exploring the possibility of manufacturing third generation 1600 MW European Pressurised Reactors in India. Areva has already reached an understanding with China to build two such reactors there and NPCIL would be keen on similar arrangement as that would give impetus to local manufacturers in India.

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

SureshP · Post by **SureshP** » 01 Oct 2008 20:48

At least now WE KNOW the names of the 2 senators who voted against the bill

Senator Byron Dorgan (D-North Dakota)
Senator Jeff Bingaman (D- New Mexico )

Watch CSPAN-2
http://wwitv.com/portal.htm?http://wwit ... els/83.htm

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 02 Oct 2008 01:06

Few more hours to wait for the vote, but looks like it will pass in senate.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Oct 2008 01:09

Few more hours to wait for the vote, but looks like it will pass in senate.

Yes but with what new surprises like the House bill! the whole process was supposed to be an up or down vote and none of these riders and conditionalities.

Pioneer report, 1 Oct 2008

Deal set to be cleared with tougher conditions

S Rajagopalan | Washington

The stage was set on Wednesday for the final Congressional vote on the India-US civil nuclear deal with the Senate concluding a debate on the pact and scheduling the vote late in the evening (Thursday morning India time).

Given the broad bipartisan support, the deal was expected to sail through, bringing to an end the three-year saga dotted with an endless series of hiccups and a near-death earlier this year as the political showdown in India reached its climax.

Even so, in one last push to upstage the deal, Democratic Senators Byron Dorgan and Jeff Bingaman proposed amendments - one for scrapping the deal if India tests again and another requiring a presidential certification that no US technology or material has been used for such a test, if conducted.

The amendments, finally combined into one by the two Senators, were also slated to be voted upon in the evening, just before the final vote on the deal.

Leading the push for passage, Democratic Senator Chris Dodd and Republican Senator Richard Lugar termed it a historic pact that will enable the United States and India to chart a new course in their relations.

Dodd dwelt on the strategic importance of the relationship for the US "in a very fragile part of the world". He also highlighted the "compelling geopolitical reasons" to conclude the pact, putting up a map highlighting India's long border with China.

Both Dodd and Lugar highlighted India's declaration to continue its unilateral moratorium on testing and spoke about New Delhi's negotiations with the International Atomic Energy Agency to conclude an Additional Protocol.

Dorgan, while moving the amendment, asserted that the Bush administration was making "a very, very serious mistake" by pushing this deal, which, he argued, would enable India to misuse American nuclear technology and materials to make more weapons.

Dodd, in his response, said the amendments were unnecessary, citing Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's categorical statements before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the deal is off, if India were to test again. He told the Senators moving the amendment that it would be "very harmful to single out India, a great democracy in Asia".

The US-India agreement was comprehensive, though not perfect. Five major hearings have been held to go into all aspects, he said and rejected Dorgan's contention that it was being passed in a hurry. He also felt that India does not have unlimited amount of nuclear materials to pursue the sort of weapons programme that Dorgan spoke of.

With the House of Representatives having approved the measure last Saturday, the Senate's passage will clear the decks for lifting a 34-year ban on export of US nuclear technology, materials and equipment to India that began with the Pokhran-I test in 1974.

The Senate took up the debate, after overcoming procedural objections with some Senators placing a hold on the deal's consideration, apparently to forestall any bid to rush it through by the "Unanimous Consent" route without debate or vote.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced a limited 60-minute debate on a day when the Senators were also slated to debate and vote on the bailout package. The time was split equally between supporters and opponents of the deal.

Dorgan's amendment said: "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the US may not export, transfer, or re-transfer any nuclear technology, material, equipment, or facility under the Agreement if the Government of India detonates a nuclear explosive device after the date of the enactment of this Act."

Bingaman's amendment noted that if India detonated a nuclear device after the date of the enactment of the Act, the US President would have to certify to Congress that no American technology, material, equipment or facility supplied to India under the deal assisted the effort. The two amendments were finally rolled into one.

N-test by India will have 'serious consequences': Rice

Washington: Faced with killer amendments tabled by two Democrats in the Senate, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Wednesday said that a nuclear test by India would result in "most serious consequences", including automatic cut-off of US cooperation as well as a number of other sanctions. Rice, who was slated to arrive here on Thursday to sign the 123 agreement, has rescheduled her visit and is now expected on Saturday.

Quite a tamasha and quite a reluctance to give approval. Are those senators driven by race considerations?

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 02 Oct 2008 01:34

NUCLEAR agreement has morphed by kicking and trashing roundly in every session of the congress into a ISOMER called UNCLEAR agreement ( the first two alphabets got juxtoposed)

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Oct 2008 01:41

NYTimes :: Senate Nears Vote on Indian Nuclear Deal

By PETER BAKER
Published: October 1, 2008

WASHINGTON — Congress was poised Wednesday to give final approval to an agreement opening civilian nuclear trade with India, reversing a three-decade-old ban and potentially redefining American relations with the world’s largest democracy.

The Senate opened debate and appeared set to approve the deal, one of President Bush’s highest foreign-policy priorities during his remaining time in office. The House passed it last week and, assuming the Senate concurs, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice plans to travel to New Delhi this month to formally sign the agreement.

The agreement would allow the United States to sell nuclear fuel and technology to India for peaceful energy use, even though the country, which tested bombs in 1974 and 1998, never signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. To secure the deal, India agreed to open up its civilian nuclear facilities to international inspection, but will continue to shield eight military nuclear reactors from any outside scrutiny.

In the view of its advocates, the agreement would usher in a new era of cooperation between two countries that were often at odds through the cold war and help build India up as a friendly counterweight to a rising China. But critics warned that it could also encourage a regional arms race and prompt other nations, like Pakistan, Iran and North Korea, to accelerate their own nuclear programs outside international legal structures.

As debate opened on the Senate floor on Wednesday, supporters cast the agreement in geopolitical terms, portraying it as the foundation for closer ties with New Delhi.

“The national security and economic future of the United States would be enhanced by a strong and enduring partnership with India,” said Senator Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee. “With a well-educated overall middle class that is larger than the entire United States population, India can be an anchor of stability in Asia and an engine of economic growth.”

Senator Byron Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota, called the deal a “grievous mistake” that would reward rogue behavior. “We have said to India with this agreement: ‘You can misuse American nuclear technology and secretly develop nuclear weapons.’ That’s what they did. ‘You can test these weapons.’ That’s what they did.”

He added: “And after testing, 10 years later, all will be forgiven.”

Mr. Dorgan and Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico, tried to amend the agreement by explicitly requiring the United States to cut off nuclear trade if India ever conducted a new nuclear test. Backers of the agreement argued that such a move was unnecessary and that nuclear trade would certainly be halted in such a circumstance.

Mr. Bush has been pursuing the agreement for three years, and advisers have said closer American-Indian relations would prove to be a key part of his foreign policy legacy. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India visited Mr. Bush at the White House just last week in hopes of pushing the matter to finality before the president leaves office.

Sitting next to Mr. Bush in the Oval Office last Thursday, Mr. Singh hailed what he called the “massive transformation of India-United States relations” in recent years. “When history is written,” he added, “I think it will be recorded that President George W. Bush made an historic goal in bringing our two democracies closer to each other.”

But the nuclear accord has proven even more controversial at home for Mr. Singh than for Mr. Bush. Opposition parties have tried to topple Mr. Singh’s government and the Communist Party dropped out of his governing coalition in protest of the deal, but the prime minister survived a confidence vote.

The dispute was worsened again last month by a State Department letter to Congress saying the United States could immediately halt nuclear sales to India in case of any new nuclear tests, triggering accusations that Mr. Singh had lied about the deal.

Foreign Secretary Shivshanker Menon told reporters last week that “we have the right to test and they have the right to react.”

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Oct 2008 02:04

Foreign Secretary Shivshanker Menon told reporters last week that “we have the right to test and they have the right to react.”

There is a degree in reaction to tests by P-5 and India. The perception was that after J18 was that India would have same rights as a nuke power. Looks like it was a misperception.