India nuclear news and discussion

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 03 Oct 2008 12:41

Indo-US Nuclear Deal:

India has the sovereign right to test, USA has the sovereign right to react.

Pakistan-US Nuclear Deal:

Pakistan has the sovereign right to demand, USA has the sovereign right to show the middle finger.

amit · Post by **amit** » 03 Oct 2008 13:14

Acharya wrote:Dont bring partisan politics here. BR knows that there are still problems with Hyde act and testing. Even BJP is not totally asking for a fool proof P-5 status.

Acharya ji,

Can you please help me to understand why you consider it "partisan politics"?

I'm only pointing out that claims being made by BJP spokesmen about renegotiation could come back to haunt them later when they come to power.

Where does fool proof P-5 status come into this?

I hope you are not scrutinizing every post here with the prism of "partisan politics".

For what's its worth, I think BJP's strident criticism of the UPA's handling of the whole negotiation process during the lead up was extremely helpful in clearly defining the red lines and also in keeping the UPA interlocutors on their toes so that they took no shortcuts. But once the deal has been done it's usefulness diminishes.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 03 Oct 2008 13:17

Pak has already through the AQK smuggling and racketeering agency gained significant N-technology itself,apart from Chinese largesse,funded by siphoning off money given to fight first the Soviets in Afghanistan and through the last decade to fight the farcial "war on terror".It is now trying to have both the clandestinely obtained recipe for its nuclear "cake" and future cakes supllied too.China will give it whatever is possible and further bond and bind the sordid relationship.

Now that MMS has "wedded" us to this "hijra" of a deal,The Hindu's call NOT to implement/operationalise the deal has much merit.What India should do since there are several ambiguities,or in truth clarities-that the US can punish us with sanctions ,etc. if we test,is to proceed extremely slowly on keeping our side of the bargain.We should "demilitarise" our specified reactors for civilian purposes solely,"in the fullness of time",IST as we know it well! Allowing inspectors inton these establishments must go through our renowned red tape.If the N,.Koreans can do it so should we.The French and the Russians are frothing at the mouth to get off the block and so they should,with lucrative orders.It is only when these supplies of plant and their fuel are over,should we begin to do what we promised,that too very slowly! This will gvie us enough time to build new ,independent "free" reactors and other related nuclear establishments for producing and safeguarding our strategic deterrent totally outside the insidious hijra contract,stockpile decades of N-fuel as reserves and test when we should,as it appears will be inevitable.That too after perfecting our ICBM delivery systems,land and sub-launched version.

As for whatever foeign policy promises that MMS was bold enough to make,warning Iran of all nations-such a courageous spin-doctor what;making another Islamic enemy on our western borders,the most powerful Shiite state in the world to add to the Sunni state that Pak is,is I suppose it is a wonderful desi way to commit harakiri!

Meanwhile here is Iran's demand in contrast to our style of grovelling.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... ramme.html

Iran demands nuclear fuel supplies before giving up weapons programme
Iran has demanded the establishment of a copper-bottomed international supply of nuclear fuel before it gives up its illegal pursuit of bombs grade material.

By Damien McElroy, Foreign Affairs Correspondent
Last Updated: 11:16PM BST 02 Oct 2008

Ali Asghar Soltanieh gestures while addressing the European Policy Center Photo: AP But Tehran's statements reversed the requirements of United Nations sanctions that it suspend its nuclear programme before it can gain the benefits of international assistance.

Guarantees of enriched uranium supplies, modern atomic technology and security assurances have been repeatedly extended to Iran by world powers but Tehran has spurned deals and fulminated against negotiating under threat.

Ali Asghar Soltanieh, the country's ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency, said Iran would also demand stockpiles of nuclear fuel to guarantee its energy independence. "This is a first step," he said. "Then the next step is to see it really implemented. The situation would be different, we would have to see. Plus every country has to be cautious, to have as a contingency plan a fuel reserve in case of interruption."

Iran has defied non-proliferation rules at a series of nuclear facilities where research and refinement of material has crossed the boundaries between civilian and military use.

Iran's erratic foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki took a harder line during a visit to New York, warning that it would not tolerate being dragged down an "unending road" in negotiations over its nuclear interests.

Separately, Israeli officials were reported to have warned that Syria had resumed attempts to acquire a nuclear programme. A year after Tel Aviv's defence forces bombed a suspected Syrian reactor, Damascus was said to be determined to emulate Iran's covert efforts to produce fissile material.

Damascus has been emboldened by Iran's defiance of international sanctions in pursuit of a nuclear weapon. The Israelis also linked the murder in early August of a senior Syrian intelligence official, Brigadier Muhammad Suleiman with a dispute over the future of the programme.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 03 Oct 2008 15:33

Indian PM to visit Japan for nuclear talks: official: AFP

TOKYO (AFP) — Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will visit Japan this month for talks on nuclear energy cooperation and a free-trade deal as the two countries expand ties, officials said Friday.

Singh will meet with his Japanese counterpart Taro Aso and have an audience with Emperor Akihito during his October 21-23 visit, a Japanese foreign ministry statement said.

Aso, a former foreign minister who became Prime Minister last week, is a strong supporter of cementing Japan's relationship with fellow democracy India, partly to balance Tokyo's often uneasy ties with China.

Singh is expected to discuss nuclear energy issues in Japan, which reluctantly backed a nuclear technology deal between India and the United States despite New Delhi's refusal to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Japan has a major nuclear power industry but strongly opposes nuclear weapons - a legacy of falling victim to the world's only atomic attacks.

Singh and Aso are also set to discuss efforts to forge a free-trade deal. Tokyo announced that Japanese and Indian negotiators would hold a 10th round of talks starting Monday in the capital.

The two countries missed a deadline to reach an outline of the deal by mid-2008 as they struggled to reach an agreement on tariff reductions and investment goals.

Singh also travelled this week to France to sign another atomic energy deal, part of India's efforts to make up for a critical power shortage holding back its booming economy.

Manmohan Singh is striking while the iron is hot. Taro Aso has just been appointed Prime Minister, so he has the popularity to take bold actions, i.e. before even his popularity goes down-hill as is the rule in Japan.

However, PM should take care, that Indo-US Nuclear Deal and its accompanying conditionalities should become the exception rather than the norm. With other countries, India should have clear and non-conditional deals with no return of materials BS or that the agreement will be terminated on India conducting nuclear tests. One would not be able to avoid clauses pertaining to "subject to NSG Waiver" etc, but please no conditions related to nuclear tests directly.

With USA, we had to succumb to Hyde, simply because USA was doing the heavy international lifting, but no reason to accede to Japan.

I guess, the PM would be meeting Lavrov before he leaves for Japan.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 03 Oct 2008 15:45

From all discussions here in this thread and its previous avatars, some things that I was able to gather regarding possibly testing, etc. are:

1. India would be free to test in 20 years time, when our 3-Phase Program comes on line. {as per Arun_S }

2. India would be able to test, whenever PRC or Pakistan tests, because then the others would look away.

3. India could test if there is a serious conflagration of a border conflict with PRC.

4. India could test if there is a serious terrorism attack on the West, something on the order of 9/11 and maybe some terrorist attack on India in the same time period.

5. India could test, as soon as India feels that the West is supportive of India and/or the West has lost the lid to keep India down because of economic dependence or cross-dependence on India.

6. India could test as soon as a jingo gourmand comes to power in India.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 03 Oct 2008 16:38

Amit:

It's much simpler than that.

India can test as long as the guvrmand is not BJP. Then it is just the sell-out nature of the guvrmand that prevents it from testing.

India cannot test if a BJP guvrmand comes to power, because then they will be busy "renegotiating the 123" and otherwise dictating to all the powers of the world why India is a "responsible" nuclear power that shows "great restraint" in the face of terrorism, and puts "Insaniyat" above "InsaniTest". In this case we will have Voluntary Moratorium on Testing and Thinking, expecting Nothing in Return, since this is true Dharma.

The Award for the Biggest One of the Week goes to Acharya, with his

Do not bring partisan politics into this

Time to give it a rest, maybe? Take a TeerthaYatra?

amit · Post by **amit** » 03 Oct 2008 16:55

^^^^^^^^

N^3,

Now I'm a dove. I ain't about to support any test unless it's a Gobar Gas test to find the amount being produced by our politicos everytime they issue gigaboom political statements!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Oct 2008 17:30

Mort Walker wrote: I was referring to the spat that Arun_S had with Sunil, albeit offline with some name calling going on, and I'm referring to the complete access ban on Alok_N imposed by Jagan.
No swipe against all admins.

Thank you. Recall also that the spat was of a nature that means that neither owes the other an apology - I think you are forgetting certain nasty threats of breaking knees that were made.

As for the reference to Jagan and access control - that was a private mail from me explaining what happened to Alok N. You should not have known about an email that I sent to Mani Tripathi/Alok N shortly after he was banned an explanatory email that I sent to him in confidence - since Jagan is a friend of mine. He revealed the contents of that email online (which is how you know about it and are revealing it on BRF for the first time unless I am mistaken) after which I did an equal equal and revealed private email details that I thought were appropriate to release. Needless to say I have a series of emails from various people who put up brave dramas online. Enough said.

I think you really should not be bringing up things that you do not know about in full. I am asking you to drop the subject or take it up on offline email with Arun if you feel you have anything to discuss.

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 03 Oct 2008 18:10

"Renegotiating" the deal is the biggest joke in the history of mankind.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 03 Oct 2008 18:12

Break knees?

Clearly I am guilty of not reading my email carefully, because I missed that gem.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 03 Oct 2008 21:21

US Secretary of State Rice leaves for India: PTI

Washington, Oct 3 (PTI) Buoyed by Congressional nod to the Indo-US nuclear deal, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice today left for India to possibly sign the landmark accord that would further boost the bilateral strategic ties and leave a major foreign policy legacy for the Bush Administration.
Rice, who had launched an all-out effort for the 123 Agreement's passage in the House of Representatives and the Senate, will meet Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee, BJP leader L K Advani and other Indian leaders when she arrives in New Delhi tomorrow.

The two sides will discuss a wide range of issues, including the US-India Civil Nuclear Cooperation Initiative, trade, counter-terrorism, human rights, religious freedom and education, the State Department said today.

From India, Rice would head to Kazakhstan as part of her two-nation trip ending on October five, it said.

Ahead of her visit, Rice said the Indo-US ties were on a "very firm footing" and added that the nuclear deal was part of a broader framework for a more "enduring" friendship with India.

"...It is indeed a historic agreement. It is an agreement that cements an effort that we have been making for some time to bring together the world's largest democracy with the world's oldest continuous democracy," Rice said at a reception organised by the State Department to thank all those responsible for getting the legislation through Congress.

Rice said she was looking forward to her visit to New Delhi.

General Warning! Please keep on the lookout for Shortcut Aziz, hiding behind any bushes!

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 03 Oct 2008 21:27

Barack Obama's letter to Dr Singh

US Democratic presidential nominee Senator Barack Obama [Images], while regretting that he could not meet with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh [Images] during his recent visit to the United States, has said he very much looks forward "to doing so in the near future," and has expressed his "great admiration for the courage you showed in shepherding the civil nuclear cooperation agreement through your Parliament, the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Nuclear Suppliers Group."

In a missive to Dr Singh dated September 23 on the day of the prime minister's arrival in New York, and made available to rediff.com, Obama said at the outset, "I am very pleased that your visit provides us with the opportunity to strengthen the US-India relationship: deepening and broadening the friendship between our countries will be a first-order priority for me in the coming years. I am sorry that I was unable to meet with you on this trip, but very much look forward to doing so in the near future."

Before getting on to policy matters, Obama first offered his condolences to Dr Singh "on the painful losses your citizens have suffered in the recent string of terrorist assaults."

"As I have said publicly, I deplore and condemn the vicious attacks perpetrated in New Delhi [Images] earlier this month, and on the Indian embassy in Kabul on July 7. The death and destruction is reprehensible, and you and your nation have my deepest sympathy. These cowardly acts of mass murder are a stark reminder that India suffers from the scourge of terrorism on a scale few other nations can imagine."

"I will continue to urge all countries to cooperate with Indian authorities in tracking down the perpetrators of these atrocities. My thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families," Obama pledged.

"I also want to take this opportunity to express my great admiration for the courage you showed in shepherding the civil nuclear cooperation agreement through your Parliament, the IAEA, and the NSG," he wrote, and pointed out, "I was pleased to vote by proxy for the agreement in (Senate Foreign Relations) Committee today, and I very much hope we can vote on this agreement before the US Congress goes out of session (the Senate voted overwhelming in favour of the deal on October 1 with Obama casting an aye vote)."

"As you know, there are some procedural obstacles that may prevent a vote this year," but he promised, "when it does come up for a vote, however, I will of course vote in favour. If time should run out in the current Congress, I will resubmit the agreement next year as president," Obama said.

"I strongly support civil nuclear cooperation, because I believe it will enhance our partnership and deepen our cooperation on a whole range of matters. Importantly, it will help India to meet its growing electricity demands while aiding in the important effort to combat global warming. But I see this agreement only as a beginning of a much closer relationship between our two great countries. I would like to see US-India relations grow across the board to reflect our shared interests, shared values, shared sense of threats, and ever burgeoning ties between our two economies and societies," he informed Dr Singh.

Obama then laid out his vision for US-India relations going forward by suggesting that "as a starting point, our common strategic interests call for redoubling US-Indian military, intelligence, and law enforcement cooperation."

"The recent bombings remind us that we are both victims of terrorist attacks on our soil, and we share a common goal of defeating these forces of extremism," he pointed out.

Thus, Obama called for New Delhi and Washington to be in sync in terms of working together "to promote our democratic values and strengthen legal institutions in South Asia and beyond."

"We should also be working hand-in-hand to tap into the creativity and dynamism of our entrepreneurs, engineers, and scientists to promote development of alternative sources of clean energy," he said.

"Imagine our two democracies in action: Indian laboratories and industry collaborating with American laboratories and industry to discover innovative solutions to today's energy problems. That the kind of new partnership I would like to build with India as president," he wrote.

Obama also expressed the hope "that a civil nuclear cooperation agreement can open the door to greater collaboration with India on non-proliferation issues," and informed Dr Singh that "this subject will be one of my highest priorities as president. I am committed to the goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and will make this a central element of US nuclear weapons policy."

"I will work with the US Senate to secure ratification of the international treaty banning nuclear weapons testing at the earliest practical day, and then launch a major diplomatic initiative to ensure its entry into force," he said.

The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was envisaged to be one of the major foreign policy successes of the Clinton administration, and president Clinton was on the verge of pressing India and Pakistan too into signing this treaty, but all of his plans were thwarted when the then Republican-controlled US Senate dumped this agreement and refused to endorse it, much to the embarrassment of Clinton and his administration.

In fact, at the time it was rumored that the Clinton administration was holding out India and Pakistan's acquiescence to signing the CTBT as a quid pro quo to the lifting of the punitive sanctions imposed against both New Delhi and Islamabad [Images] after their tit-for-tat nuclear tests in May of 1998.

In his letter to Dr Singh, Obama vowed to "also pursue negotiation on a verifiable, multilateral treaty to end production of fissile material for nuclear weapons," known as the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty.

Obama said in conclusion that he very much hoped "and expect India will cooperate closely with the United States in these multilateral efforts," and argued that "with the benefits of nuclear cooperation come real responsibilities--and that should include steps to restrain nuclear weapons programs and pursuing effective disarmament when others do so."

"I greatly look forward to working with you on these and other issues in the future," he told Dr Singh.

Any red flags going up?! This guy is really dangerous.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 03 Oct 2008 21:35

narayanan wrote:Break knees?

Clearly I am guilty of not reading my email carefully, because I missed that gem.

Ahh N guru now I know what knee Jerk reaction means, could be called in fusion reaction?

Also I think acharya ji forgot to add

"..dont inject partisan politicks into this Now ON"

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 03 Oct 2008 21:49

Watching CNN-IBN: Nuclear Deal in Trouble!

The Indian Team is insisting that President George Bush add 'signing statements' to the Law, strengthening fuel supply assurances, especially in case, India conducts nuclear testing.

The Americans are calling it blackmail. They say, such a 'signing statement' has got them into trouble earlier, so they would not want to add any 'signing statement' at all.

Bush has not signed the Bill into Law as yet. He may be waiting for Congress to pass the $700 billion bailout package first, before going out on a leg.

Considering that this issue is getting publicized, it may be difficult for India to retreat.

Ab Mazaa ayega! Kya timing hai, Manmohan Sahib!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 03 Oct 2008 22:03

Iamge from The Telegraph, Kolkota, 3 Oct., 2008

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 03 Oct 2008 22:15

narayanan wrote:Break knees?

Clearly I am guilty of not reading my email carefully, because I missed that gem.

narayanan: No saar, you r guilty of not reading the blog where threats are issued. Not that it is worth visiting even for one second. I stopped many months ago.

.
My last post on this matter.

p_saggu · Post by **p_saggu** » 03 Oct 2008 22:16

If Barak Obama wins in November, within a couple of years, we will be hounded into the situation of a decade back with immense pressure to sign and ratify CTBT. The window to test is closing it seems.

Till the last frigging end, our team is ABSOLUTELY INSISTING on GWB to put in 'signing statements' of the 123, the assuarance of fuel supplies in the event of a nuclear test.

Now even I am getting suspicious.

Is India Planning a Megaton sized Diwali Pathaka this year or anytime soon?
[Although I personally believe that the only bomb we are going to test now will be Hydrogen (Sulphide) Bombs]

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 03 Oct 2008 22:34

amit wrote:
For what's its worth, I think BJP's strident criticism of the UPA's handling of the whole negotiation process during the lead up was extremely helpful in clearly defining the red lines and also in keeping the UPA interlocutors on their toes so that they took no shortcuts. But once the deal has been done it's usefulness diminishes.

This is a good start. This is the balance which I was expecting here in the posts. Now for Indian national security the deal is never done. There is miles to go before India gets a position of P-5. Somebody talked about salami slicing in BRF. India has to work to undermine Hyde Act which will probably take another decade.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 03 Oct 2008 22:36

narayanan wrote:
The Award for the Biggest One of the Week goes to Acharya, with his
Do not bring partisan politics into this

Time to give it a rest, maybe? Take a TeerthaYatra?

Why are YOU interjecting when I am having a decent conversation with somebody here in BRF. It will spoil the whole thing.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 03 Oct 2008 22:37

p_saggu, in the gita there is a word "stitha pragna" i.e. is unmoved by events due to confidence. Let Obama do his thing its for the best na?

And dont see more than required. The GOI needs those signing statements and Bush has to make them for thats the bargain. Cant renege now after allowing the US legislature to vent their bile on India. He has to undo that or it wont move forward. The last minute is someone being too clever.

Megatons are always in the background. Now try to understand Gandhiji's confidence. He always could step aside and let the revolutionaries come center stage.
.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 03 Oct 2008 22:46

John Snow wrote:
Also I think acharya ji forgot to add
"..dont inject partisan politicks into this Now ON"

Spinster, I wanted to see if they could figure that out themselves.

kshirin · Post by **kshirin** » 03 Oct 2008 22:58

I agree with the view by Philip above about eternal vigilance on implementation, I did not know about this Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage for example, something keeps popping up. We have to ensure OUR interests are best protected, OK, so we have broken out of N isolation - which is why we all supported the deal, but now is the time to bargain hard so that we do not bargain away our national security. Has this been posted BTW:

"01 October 2008
Dear Bill... the Foreign Secretary's letter about 10,000 MW
On September 10, Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon sent a letter to U.S. Under Secretary William Burns.

I have enclosed a scan of the letter below, courtesy Daryl Kimball of the Arms Control Association.

The letter -- which was apparently requested by the U.S. as part of the package the White House was preparing for Congressional approval of the 123 Agreement -- outlines India's intention to do four things and is quite cleverly worded so as to not prejudice the country's future position:

1. Make sure the 123 Agreement enters into force "on the basis of the relevant bilateral understandings and agreement" -- i.e. as long as "the rights and obligations of both parties to the agreement" are not affected, India will not run away now that the NSG has opened the door for commerce from elsewhere.

2. Place nuclear reactor orders for at least 10,000 MWe of power capacity from US firms "on the basis of mutually acceptable technical and commercial terms and conditions that enable a viable tariff regime for electricity generated" and in a manner that "takes into account affordability, sustainability of nuclear fuel resources and credibility of nuclear waste management". -- i.e. if you offer the right terms, we'll buy not two but 10 reactors from you. But if not, then sorry.

3. Ensure nuclear equipment and fuel bought from the U.S. will remain under IAEA safeguards in accordance with the India-specific Safeguards Agreement approved by the IAEA Board of Governors on August 1, 2008. -- i.e. 'IAEA safeguards' rather than 'safeguards'.

4. 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.-- The 'agreement', as the opening para of the letter emphasises, is the 123 Agreement, and since any reference to international civil nuclear cooperation under the agreement can only mean trade with the U.S. and not France, Russia and others, it is clear that there is no commitment from the Indian side to ratify the CSC, let alone wait for it to enter into force before buying stuff from Russia and France...

The actual text of the letter casts the Manmohan Singh government in better light than the impression created by Bill Burns's bald assertions on September 18. Yet another example of how the GOI's obsession with stealth and secrecy is actually counter-productive..."

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 03 Oct 2008 23:17

Now that the $700 Bailout Law is out of the way, and the US Congress goes into recess, and George Bush is probably never going to need them again, he can move forward on putting in those necessary 'signing statement' on the Nuclear Deal Bill. All he has jot down is:

It is US Policy to stand by its commitments made to India in the Separation Plan, which preceded all US legislation on the matter, on assurances of nuclear fuel and hold this commitment just as sacred as India's commitments to safeguards on the safeguarded nuclear facilities.

... and I'll be

.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 03 Oct 2008 23:23

immense pressure to sign and ratify CTBT.

That may provide the political space for a final series of tests (including full yield proof tests) followed by CTBT signing. There would be criticism from the usual quarters but it should be relatively muted since India would be "joining the non-proliferation mainstream" etc

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 03 Oct 2008 23:32

Rajesh A ji>>

It is US Policy to stand by its commitments made to India in the Separation Plan, which preceded all US legislation on the matter, on assurances of nuclear fuel and hold this commitment just as sacred as India's commitments to safeguards on the safeguarded nuclear facilities.....

you forgot to add
"From Here to Eternity"

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 03 Oct 2008 23:51

I frankly don't see why India should not sign the friggin' CTBT at this point (after extracting due price etc), once Unkil signs and ratifies it. Explain that in India there is no separate Ratification since the rats are all in the Executive Branch already, no need to go to the Parliament.

There is no difference between "Break Voluntary Moratorium Because of Supreme National Interest" and "Exercise Supreme National Interest Clause in CTBT".

NPT is out of the question because it's simply a discriminatory piece of trash, as any American student will tell you. India is on very firm ground there.

But CTBT? What the heck? Extract the right price from Obama (a clear statement that testing under SNI will not bring any US "reaction") and then sign it with all fanfare. The Chinese did, after all....

Just say that 1MT and 1TT tests will be done when BJP guvrmand comes to power and they renegotiate the 123.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 04 Oct 2008 01:15

We will look back at this deal as the turning point for modern India. Many doors will open up for us now that will fast track our development and and the little imperfections in the deal will be reduced to irrelevance. I am glad we were ushered in and not required to kick the doors open. Congrats to MMS and his team of babus who we can proudly refer to as "The Wall". Now the only thing that remains is to execute--we need to urgently pull our people up into the developed world while we speak softly and carry a big stick.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Oct 2008 01:17

The CTBT recognizes the supreme national interests clause only for the P-5. Please do read the treaty.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 04 Oct 2008 01:21

so not only emails, even treaties have to be read carefuly?

skbanner · Post by **skbanner** » 04 Oct 2008 01:56

ramana wrote:The CTBT recognizes the supreme national interests clause only for the P-5. Please do read the treaty.

Article 9 allows anyone to withdraw invoking the "Supreme National Interest" clause:

Article 9 stipulates that the treaty is of unlimited duration. However, consistent with most arms control treaties, it also provides that a State Party retains the right to withdraw on six months’ notice if it decides that “extraordinary events related to the subject matter of the treaty have jeopardized its supreme interests.” There is also a provision [Article 8] for a review of the treaty 10 years after entry into force to determine whether its objectives and purposes are being met, and to take into account any relevant new scientific and technological developments

From NTI's website.

In fact one of the NPA objections was "why shouldn't India just sign the CTBT instead of a voluntary moratorium, when CTBT allows for the SNI clause anyway" etc.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 04 Oct 2008 02:25

ramana, I realize that the CTBT drafted in 1996 would say that. But things have changed - that CTBT is dead unless revived by US AND INDIA.

India should sign the CTBT under the new realities - with a Signing Statement that says clearly:

Whereas India is a nation with a strategic nuclear arsenal, and whereas the existence of this arsenal is well known and accepted by the world community through the deliberations of the IAEA and the NSG,

now therefore, India signs the CTBT as a nuclear weapon state, with all the rights and special considerations applying to such nations. While India will make every effort to support global nuclear arms elimination, India's Supreme National Interest will supersede any and all such treaties.

The days are over when India should choose between 'signing on the dotted line' some snake oil treaty written up by used-car salesmen and sokoloskis, and walking away in a huff.

The grown-up thing to do is to cross out the unacceptable stuff, or even better, ignore and supersede it with a cool Signing Statement.

If ALL signatories don't have the same right to Supreme National Interest, then the CTBT is as discriminatory as the NPT, so its upto the CTBT proponents to decide if they want to continue being stupid, or accept that India will only sign as a P-6 state. I strongly believe that Obama will go with this, if it gets him his little victory in pushing CTBT through.

Look at it from the rational NonProllotullahs' pov: North Korea is practically a NWS, TSP already ha(d) it, Iran is getting there, Brazil, Japan, South Korea and maybe a dozen others are chomping at the bit. Israel has it, and India has now officially slipped out and become part of the Inside Gang. Time is running out, and very soon the NPT and CTBT and NSG face extinction.

I bet they will take a good deal like getting India in on India's terms. Look how China did it's IAEA agreement - basically saying that they would let inspectors in when China chose, were China chose, etc. etc.

From India's pov, once India can say "India has signed the CTBT", the NPAs become even more toothless. The NPT becomes more dead.

The hurry to do this is to seal the CTBT b4 it becomes P7 etc. Let the Pakis rant from the outside for a change, with India on the inside.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 04 Oct 2008 03:04

quid pro quo?

Rice seeks regional help for Afghanistan

RAMSTEIN AIR BASE, Germany (Reuters) - Stabilizing Afghanistan will require regional help with political and economic support from countries like India, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Friday.
ADVERTISEMENT

U.S. ties with India should flourish now a nuclear pact between the two countries has been approved, Rice said, adding that Afghanistan, where violence has risen over the past two years, was one of the areas where cooperation could expand.

"Afghanistan in the future is going to have to be regionally integrated in order to be successful economically," Rice said, speaking to reporters on her plane before it stopped to refuel in Germany on the way to New Delhi to mark the clinching of the nuclear trade deal.

India already had significant investments in Afghanistan and was contributing to its stability, she said.

...

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 04 Oct 2008 03:11

Sure, lay the corridor through the Lahore Ruins and the Islamabad Crater Parking Lot and across the Indus, and Indian aid can flow into Afghanistan.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 04 Oct 2008 04:54

All NWS have (a) proof tested their last designs at full yield (b) invested in computer simulation and ICF facilities before signing the CTBT.

India could sign the CTBT without proof tests if it still had a recessed, undeployed deterrent.
However, like the NWS, Indian weapons will now be in operational deployment (on ATV, Agni TELs etc). Prudence suggests that full yield proof tests be carried out before foreclosing that option by treaty. This is what motivated French President Chirac to order the proof testing of the warheads on the not yet deployed M-51 SLBM prior to French CTBT signature.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 04 Oct 2008 05:01

Yeah, but what is the point of sitting around for that when it's clear that there will be no live testing except in Supreme National Interest situations?

I still say what I've maintaned since the beginning of this tamasha: The moment ABV announced the Voluntary Moratorium, he foreclosed the option of further live tests barring some extraordinary event. NO WAY is India going to test saying: "Oh, we needed to validate some predictions".

I am saying that we might as well drop the pretence and sign the CTBT now, AS A NWS.

I think if that offer is made, it will be accepted.

The consequences of breaking CTBT and the civilian nuke deal are the same, so why not combine the benefits?

All this stuff about proof-testing at full-yield etc. is pie in the sky (or hole in the ground?) There are other far more important things than blowing nuke bums.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Oct 2008 06:42

Narayanan, is this a new crusade?

Santosh · Post by **Santosh** » 04 Oct 2008 06:56

RajeshA wrote:3. India could test if there is a serious conflagration of a border conflict with PRC.

So the nuclear deal can act as an insurance of sorts for the present and future neta-babu inaction vis-a-vis China. Hail chai-biskoot.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 04 Oct 2008 07:07

ramana, do u have any better use for this thread any more?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Oct 2008 07:08

Yes. Waiting for the signing statements for the deal.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 04 Oct 2008 07:21

I think that's going to be a let-down. Better close down the thread b4 the

starts.

Waiting like Fifi at the dinner table for the Great Massa to scrawl in some Signing Statement is a no-win humiliation. And we know India is not going to walk away at this stage.

It's up to the Indian Parliament to put in the Lalu-Advani Bill imposing the Indian conditions on companies based in nations that have intrusive restrictions on civilian nuclear cooperation.

We've always known that this is as far as it gets under the best scenario. For the NSG nations that want to do business, the road is clear, they don't have to agree with diktats from the COTUS. That means that US companies are going to be screaming at COTUS.

The antiquated US Atomic Energy Act is heading for a collapse, along with ITAR, when faced with destruction of the industry that provides the US with its only consistent trading surplus - high tech/aerospace/defence/nuke.

If Dubya sees fit to do one last

at Congressional intereference in foreign policy, well... that's fine. But I don't see any need for India to be hung-up about it.

From this point on, the restrictions can only crumble, they can never go back with any credibility. So time is on India's side, and I think India should move right on and knock down the remaining walls - like CTBT. Sign it, and be done with it, then do what India wants.