India nuclear news and discussion

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Post by Arun_S »

ramana wrote:Its fitting that Rice travels to India to deliver the deal. It was she as the NSA who started the Rand reports etc and envisoned a new direction for US Foreign Policy.
Condi Rice while serving US interest certainly had the fortitude and conviction to apply force on the US rudder to change US Foreign Policy direction that is congurent to the hard reality.

IMHO the reality of US vulnerability is now being realized by a larger group of people in US and world. And the false sheen of "US is the world" is also now eroding. The thousands of cuts on US body in geo-politic, diplomacy, military, economic and technology domain can't be hidden anymore. Not changing the direction w.r.t. India will catalyze that even further, while using India to further US interest will stabilize US enough to let the big ship float much longer.

Condi Rich deserve due credit in serving US interest and in the process taking action that is aligned with Indian interests. Condi is the next Kissinger, albeit much cleaner and straight shooting kind.

The biggest losers who failed to see the oncoming train wreck were Non-Proliferation Ayatollah's.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14222
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Post by svinayak »

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/ ... geNumber=2
ANALYSTS VIEW: U.S.-India nuclear deal
Wed Oct 1, 2008 11:49pm EDT

Email | Print |
Share
| Reprints | Single Page | Recommend (-)
[-] Text [+]

SINGAPORE (Reuters) - The U.S. Congress on Wednesday approved a deal ending a three-decade ban on U.S. nuclear trade with India, unleashing billions of dollars of investment and drawing the world's second most populous country closer to the West.

The Bush administration says the pact will secure a strategic partnership with the world's largest democracy, help India meet its rising energy demand and open up a market worth billions.

But critics say the deal does grave damage to global efforts to contain the spread of nuclear weapons, by letting India import nuclear fuel and technology even though it has tested nuclear weapons and never signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

COMMENTS:

C. RAJA MOHAN, SINGAPORE-BASED SECURITY ANALYST

"The deal gives a kind of parity between India and China in terms of geopolitical and strategic importance in Asia.

"Before the deal, India was not part of the international calculus in Asia. Now it is."

MOHAN MALIK, PROFESSOR AT THE ASIA PACIFIC Center FOR SECURITY STUDIES, HONOLULU

"In terms of India-United States, it will be a boost for business ties. It's not just about nuclear technology but the transfer of high technology to India. Continued...
With business, the major beneficiaries will be the United States, France and Russis, in that order. In security and geopolitical terms, it de-hyphenates India and Pakistan, and re-hyphenates India and China in terms of a competitive strategic relationship.

It brings about a shift in the balance of power in South Asia. It will not please Pakistan and China but it remains to be seen whether it will damage the Non-Proliferation Treaty."

DARYL KIMBALL, HEAD OF THE ARMS CONTROL ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON

"The U.S.-Indian Agreement for Nuclear Cooperation is ... a non-proliferation disaster. Contrary to the counterfactual claims of proponents and apologists, it does not bring India into the "non-proliferation mainstream."

CHANG YOUNG HO, NUCLEAR ENERGY EXPERT FROM THE ECONOMICS DIVISION OF S. RAJARATNAM SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, SINGAPORE

"... it is significant because the deal is aiming for civilian use, it could set a good precedent for cooperative competition. It's a good example in terms of the U.S. and India on how big countries can collaborate, increase the pie and increase the field and compete in it."

(Reporting by Alistair Scrutton in Delhi, Melanie Lee in Singapore; Editing by Valerie Lee)

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10371
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Post by Mort Walker »

shiv wrote:
Mort Walker wrote:N^3,

I was hoping all of the EBs would chime in this thread toward the end, but somehow they are now gyab. :)

Do you think the BRF admins now owe an apology to Sunil Sanis and Alok_N?
What you mean BRF admins? Could you explain what you are talking about? Are you trying to take a swipe at someone specific and hiding your jibe behind the hijab of the phrase "BRF admins"

Why not come clean and say what you want to say and why anyone should apologise to anyone else?
Shivji,

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Post by enqyoob »

Condi is the next Kissinger,
Sheeesh! Have some sense of decency, yaar! How can anyone mention that oiseule war criminal Kissmyassinger in the context of any human leaders?

For the life of me I cannot understand Indians even acknowledging the existence of this creep who should have been tried and hanged 30 years ago, much less entertaining him as if he were human.

Yesterday's vote hopefully kicked the coffin shut on the Kissinger "Indians are ********" racist sewage. Kissinger denoted all that was wrong with American foreign policy, and will go down in history as the piece of human waste that he was all his life. Unfortunately, 4 to 5 million innocents died for his testosternone-pumped cranial cavity.

I hope that Up There in Hourstan they have some very special, 20,000 year "treatments" waiting for Kissmyassinger.

No forgiveness. No mercy.
enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Post by enqyoob »

AoA, MW, moi is 400% NoComment on above spat. Great spectator sport, no doubt.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14222
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Post by svinayak »

'BJP will renegotiate n-deal'

New Delhi (PTI): Describing the Indo-US nuclear deal as a "blind trap" and tantamount to acceding to the NPT regime, BJP on Thursday said once it comes to power it would renegotiate the deal and even keep open the right to conduct a nuclear test if need arises.

"This deal has many shortcomings. When the BJP comes to power it will re-think and renegotiate the deal. If need be we will keep open the right to conduct nuclear tests," BJP spokesperson Rajiv Pratap Rudy said here.

Rudy accused Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of "denying" the basic facts of the deal including the provision stating that the deal would be annulled if India conducted nuclear tests.

"The unambiguous and conclusive remarks by the US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice that any nuclear test by India will have serious consequences including the automatic termination of all co-operation....vindicates the BJP stand that India has abrogated all its rights to conduct nuclear tests forever," he said.

The saffron party leader said the government may "tom-tom its psuedo-achievement" but the deal has been done at the cost of India's sovereignty and was a "colossal loss" for the country.

"Indian government has gone for a blind trap knowingly and can't get out of it. We have acceded to the nuclear non-proliferation regime by the Indo-US nuclear deal," Rudy said.
Now India has to work to get the Hyde act diluted and also have similar rights to test as P-5
Until then India will still be a side show
CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6865
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Post by CRamS »

Thus spake Brahma Chellaney

http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/oct/02guest.htm

Amazing that one set of erudite folks celebrate this deal as propelling India to superpowerdom, while yet another set of equally erudite folks suggest just the stark opposite.
CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6865
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Post by CRamS »

Acharya wrote:
'BJP will renegotiate n-deal'
And I will take ownership of the San Fransisco bay bridge. BJP will be lucky, that should they ever get elected to power, USA won't pull of a Modi on them and make them an international pariah with the help of 5th columnist Indian elite. Re-negotiate the deal, my foot.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60233
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Post by ramana »

CRamS wrote:Thus spake Brahma Chellaney

http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/oct/02guest.htm

Amazing that one set of erudite folks celebrate this deal as propelling India to superpowerdom, while yet another set of equally erudite folks suggest just the stark opposite.
That tells you the reality is somewhere in between and its up to Indians if they want to make lemonade with the lemon or crib about klack of oranges.
Its clear that in 2008 India is better off NSG wise than it was in earlier years. If anyone thinks otherwise then they are not realistic.
fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4580
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Post by fanne »

Well we are discussing what have we given up wrt to the future, i.e. what are the capabilities that will be constrained. No one is talking about what are we giving up now - peek into some labs and reactors that was unpeekable before, also what happenned to unprocessed fissile material in these reactors, do they become off limit to India strategic force?
Any idea?
rgds,
fanne
A shayari from me on this - Kuch log khus ho rahe the sare sahar ke jalne par, unhe chand rato ko thaand se chutkara to mila
Last edited by fanne on 02 Oct 2008 23:23, edited 1 time in total.
Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17167
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Post by Rahul M »

Mort Walker wrote: Shivji,

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.
mort ji, must say this expectation is ridiculous.

Arun_S may have been 400% right or woefully wrong with his predictions about this deal.
I fail to understand how that translates into some kind of requirement on Arun ji to individually respond to one person ?
Was there some personal insult that was directed at sunil ji by Arun_S ?
I don't think so.
And even if there was that has nothing to do with BRF. This is not the place for forging personal reconciliations among people, even if they are admin.
whatever happened at maverick's blog should be solved there only and not brought over to BRF.

Regarding Alok_N, that incident has absolutely no relation to the nuclear debate. I am mystified as to why you think passing of the deal in the senate calls for admin apology for a totally unrelated incident.
regards.

/sorry for the OT post.
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Post by Arun_S »

fanne wrote:Well we are discussing what have we given up wrt to the future, i.e. what are the capabilities that will be constrained. No one is talking about what are we giving up now - peak into some labs and reactors that was unpeakable before, also what happenned to unprocessed fissile material in these reactors, do they become off limit to India strategic force?
Any idea?
rgds,
fanne
If in above I read "Peak" as "Peek", that is very correct and important issue.

Indian govt must state that publicly (now that speaking on the floor of parliament by Indian PM has no credibility anyway) before this agreement comes in force that:

1.) Unprocessed fissile material from current non-IAEA reactors will remain in non safeguarded stockpile for research and military purposes.

2) All spent fuel will be re-processed without delay. {to avert any latent pressure later when FMCO is pushed by the faithfuls like Newzeland, Autis-tria, Ireland, Germany etc.}

2) Labs and reactors that was un-peekable before, but serving dual purpose will not be moved into safeguarded facility, if required the civilian aspect of the dual purpose labs wil be moved into a new separate facility, and continuing to keep the old facility out of bounds for who need not need to know.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60233
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Post by ramana »

About safeguarding the reactors, Sibal clarified that they will be put on civilian side only after assurance of uninterrupted fuel.
And the sep plan was very clear about what is peekable and unpeekable. Eventually 14 preactors and future power palnts construction will be in civilian side gradually.

Expect to ramp up nuke engineering & Physics majors at IIT and other quality institutes as a first step with DAE help to tide over the expected personnel shortage.

Next onslaught/campaign will be the FMCO for next US administration.

The NPA have completed their job and their time is over.

Need to understand Boxer type NPAJihadi's angst- is it beef(complaint) or pork(fronting for others)?
hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4654
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Post by hnair »

fanne wrote:Well we are discussing what have we given up wrt to the future, i.e. what are the capabilities that will be constrained. No one is talking about what are we giving up now - peak into some labs and reactors that was unpeakable before, also what happenned to unprocessed fissile material in these reactors, do they become off limit to India strategic force?
Any idea?
rgds,
fanne
A shayari from me on this - Kuch log khus ho rahe the sare sahar ke jalne par, unhe chand rato ko thaand se chutkara to mila
On the whole lemonade mode (I agree with ramana - drink this lemonade and get to work on the next phase), with a "Kim Il Jong twist":
1) we gave up our right to be secretive. Now we can dig large diameter wells in public view. Particularly if a PIO/Indian gets arrested for selling elderly chips to Indian govt entities/businesses. And yes, we lost our right to dig in the dark, which is good.
2) We shutdown older gen "glowing-thingy production" reactors. And we can open brand new ones.
3) we peek into other people's gleaming, white painted reactors, while we let others peak into *some* of our brown (due to rust) reactors.
4) we stop procuring stuff from sleazy private oiropean firms and instead buy stuff from sleazy oiropean gubmends. Yeah, a lot of rich oiropeans are going to cry themselves to sleep over the loss of our money into their own gubmind's maws.

"Remember The Kims" should be our moto in this case :twisted: Yes, we have Indus water treaty to point at our unwarranted decency towards treaties but then we can purr in a contentented fashion at Paki's recent tribulations with water shortages. for without the IWT, we cannot shaft them in a legal fashion.

A treaty is an instrument to be used and no treaty says you should not overuse it. It is upto us now.

About Alok_N's ban, was as brilliant as banning Rushdie's book by GoI. Wish there is a 123 type agreement to bring in people back into tents, for the tent is getting really monotonous...... But totally OT.
joshvajohn
BRFite
Posts: 1516
Joined: 09 Nov 2006 03:27

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Post by joshvajohn »

India should also make a statement that India reserves right to protect against all odds from all directions. It is surrounded by terrors on the one hand religious terror and on the other ideological terror. If US or any other country wants India not to test any nuclear crackers then they should provide a full Nuclear shield to the country against terrors and neighbour countries. It is clear that China will supply all powerful nuclear arms to keep India on the check. With all its courage Pakistan will continue to all terrors to operate within their country against India. It is time that US will make sure that Chinese are held in their place by making India reasonably powerful in this region. India should also play a positive role in this region both diplomatically and also by other means to keep China away from Pakistan. US should also keep China away from Pakistan. Other Pakistnis will use such weapons against first Afgans, then India, then US, then China itself.
India should make clear that they do not plan to encroach anyone's land but at the same time their self defence is the first priority. If pakistanis think sensibly by containing terror within their soil and then make development together with India, then I think many of these could turn into a mere energy for our industries.
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Post by Arun_S »

fanne wrote:A shayari from me on this - Kuch log khus ho rahe the sare sahar ke jalne par, unhe chand rato ko thaand se chutkara to mila
Wah .. Brilliant ! And if I may add "aur fir us garmee mai firangi saudaagar nay "kulfee" beytch kar kangaal kiya, Ab sard sehar main rajaee kharidnaa to door kee baat hai".
Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Post by Katare »

Arun_S wrote:
fanne wrote:Well we are discussing what have we given up wrt to the future, i.e. what are the capabilities that will be constrained. No one is talking about what are we giving up now - peak into some labs and reactors that was unpeakable before, also what happenned to unprocessed fissile material in these reactors, do they become off limit to India strategic force?
Any idea?
rgds,
fanne
If in above I read "Peak" as "Peek", that is very correct and important issue.

Indian govt must state that publicly (now that speaking on the floor of parliament by Indian PM has no credibility anyway) before this agreement comes in force that:

1.) Unprocessed fissile material from current non-IAEA reactors will remain in non safeguarded stockpile for research and military purposes.

2) All spent fuel will be re-processed without delay. {to avert any latent pressure later when FMCO is pushed by the faithfuls like Newzeland, Autis-tria, Ireland, Germany etc.}

2) Labs and reactors that was un-peekable before, but serving dual purpose will not be moved into safeguarded facility, if required the civilian aspect of the dual purpose labs wil be moved into a new separate facility, and continuing to keep the old facility out of bounds for who need not need to know.
Question of doing this doesn't even arrise. These are sovereign rights of India and were never up for negotiations.
Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Post by Gerard »

India nuclear deal: big step on long road
"This deal has everything to do with being able to say we changed relations with India and with building good relations with the Brahmin elite of that country, but it has nothing to do with nonproliferation and will only set it back," says Henry Sokolski
enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Post by enqyoob »

with building good relations with the Brahmin elite of that country, but it has nothing to do with nonproliferation and will only set it back," says Henry Sokolski


OK, this bast@rd is showing his fangs truly now. All pretences of objective scholarly analysis are shed, its plain racist, conversionist Paki hatred that is driving him.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60233
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Post by ramana »

I dont know if I should be :x / :evil: or :rotfl:

The guy has shown his utter uselessness! And to think he was govt official in the Ffrst Bush Admin!

But on other hand we are all brahmin now
Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Post by Gerard »

France plans to sell large 1,600 MW reactor to India
And it is not just nuclear power plants that France hopes to sell. With uranium mining interests in many parts of the world, Areva could also be there bidding to sell natural uranium to power India’s home-made reactors which are currently low on fuel and, therefore, operating far below their capacity.
Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Post by Gerard »

My other brother Daryl speaks....
link
The U.S.-Indian Agreement for Nuclear Cooperation is, nonetheless, a nonproliferation disaster. Contrary to the counterfactual claims of proponents and apologists, it does not bring India into the “nonproliferation mainstream” and India’s so-called separation plan is not credible from a nonproliferation perspective:

- U.S. and foreign nuclear fuel supplies to India’s civil nuclear sector would free up scarce domestic supplies for exclusive use for weapons production. This could allow India to increase its bomb production rate and accelerate Pakistan’s bomb production;
- The agreement fails to prohibit India from extracting tritium (a radioactive gas used to boost the explosive power of nuclear bombs) for weapons from its “safeguarded” power reactors;
- As reported in the Sept. 18 edition of The Washington Post, India’s nuclear technology procurement practices do not conform with those of responsible nuclear suppliers and they risk the leakage of sensitive information;
- India's civil-military separation plan would allow the free flow of personnel and information between safeguarded and unsafeguarded faciliites;
- Unlike the United States and other nuclear weapon-states, India has refused to sign the CTBT and halt the production of nuclear bomb material. The opposition BJP may not respect the current Indian government’s nuclear test moratorium pledge.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36427
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Post by SaiK »

we must ignore Oz.. they 'll open their gob 2 our favor only then.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Post by RajeshA »

Manmohan Singh has given hints, that after his discussions with President George W. Bush, the President may mitigate some of the unpleasant aspects of the United States-India Nuclear Cooperation Approval and Non-proliferation Enhancement Act, by using "signing statements". That means, the Law is not in its final form just as yet.

It would be interesting to know, whether Dubya strikes down any of the provisions. He may be hesitant to do that, because he wouldn't really want to anger the House by any defiance, as he sorely wants the Bailout Plan to pass. The House is still deliberating on it. The question is, whether the the way would be free by the time Condoleeza Rice lands in New Delhi on Saturday.

And then you have the Foreign Minister, the Honorable Pranab Mukherjee spending some time in the USA. Is Pranab there to sit down with the State Dept to sort out, what signing statements, would be desired by India, and if they can be made?

I think, there is still some midnight haggling going on, or Pranab da has gone over there to say to Condi, "how gorgeous you are. Now I know why the whole of India is so crazy about you. India deeply loves you." I bet it is the midnight haggling.
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Post by Arun_S »

Katare wrote:
Arun_S wrote: If in above I read "Peak" as "Peek", that is very correct and important issue.

Indian govt must state that publicly (now that speaking on the floor of parliament by Indian PM has no credibility anyway) before this agreement comes in force that:

1.) Unprocessed fissile material from current non-IAEA reactors will remain in non safeguarded stockpile for research and military purposes.

2) All spent fuel will be re-processed without delay. {to avert any latent pressure later when FMCO is pushed by the faithfuls like Newzeland, Autis-tria, Ireland, Germany etc.}

2) Labs and reactors that was un-peekable before, but serving dual purpose will not be moved into safeguarded facility, if required the civilian aspect of the dual purpose labs wil be moved into a new separate facility, and continuing to keep the old facility out of bounds for who need not need to know.
Question of doing this doesn't even arrise. These are sovereign rights of India and were never up for negotiations.
In the post where the question of GoI having a sovereign right or not ?
I am talking of administrative policy action that is essential to so that Indian people are reassured that its vital interests in an important matter is protected.
Unless one considers Govt is sovereign over its people, as opposed to the Government that represents (aka serves) sovereign people of Indian republic.
enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Post by enqyoob »

Pranab da must have gone there to ogle Palin up close at the debates, now that Das Perjent Zardari has drooled all over. :mrgreen:

Sober assessment by Ambassador T.P. Sreenivasan
http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/oct/02tps.htm

REDIFF INDIA ABROAD

T P Sreenivasan

N-deal: A dream come true

October 02, 2008

The US Senators, who sat through the night to vote on the Bill to clear the 123 agreement till the dawn of October 2 in India, must have been unaware that they were linking the new dawn in Indo-US relations to Mahatma Gandhi. The proverbial Gandhi magic may have played a role in persuading the reluctant Senators to remove the last hurdle in India’s 34-year-old struggle to end India’s nuclear isolation.

This is not the first time that Mahatma Gandhi and Indian nuclear policy got linked in the US Congress. In 1998, we were in the final stages of securing Congressional approval for setting up a Gandhi statue on Federal land outside the Indian Embassy on Massachusetts Avenue in Washington. A Congressional hearing on the setting up of the statue was scheduled on May 13, 1998. After the Indian nuclear tests two days earlier, we were quite nervous about the statue proposal moving forward in the new atmosphere in Indo-US relations. In fact, the second series of tests took place on the same day as the Congress panel met. At best, we were expecting a postponement of the decision.

The panel, however, saw the situation differently. Member after member spoke in condemnation of the tests, but took the line that Mahatma Gandhi and his teachings should constantly remind India about the values it stood for in the past. The setting up of the statue in Washington, they argued, would be a tribute to the old, non-violent India, a model for the world. They expressed the hope that India would one day return to the path of Mahatma Gandhi. As we came out of the meeting, heaving a sigh of relief, Ambassador Naresh Chandra said, "the Gandhi magic was at work again".

The deal is a dream come true not only for Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, but also for all those who have worked, since 1974, to end India’s nuclear isolation without signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Successive Prime Ministers of India made various proposals in this direction. Indira Gandhi sent special envoys to Washington and Moscow to seek nuclear guarantees in the event of India signing the NPT, Morarji Deasai proposed to Jimmy Carter a scientific study on NPT implications, Rajiv Gandhi put forward a comprehensive Action Plan for a nuclear weapon free world, Narasimha Rao extracted a promise from Bill Clinton that the US would move towards nuclear disarmament and Atal Behari Vajpayee conceded three of the four conditions put forward by Bill Clinton. But it was only after the advent of the Bush Presidency that the world conceded that India could retain its nuclear weapons and still engage in nuclear trade with the world.

For those of us, who have witnessed the way the moves of the earlier Prime Ministers were received by the world, it is nothing short of a miracle that the US not only accepted the Manmohan Singh proposals, but also sold them to the rest of the world with messianic zeal.

Of course, the deal is not without conditions and riders. It has been established time and again that the deal is as much about non-proliferation as about civilian nuclear co-operation.

The co-operation will definitely cease if India conducts a nuclear weapons test. But even these conditions do not detract from the essential value of the deal, which is historic and path breaking. The signature on an agreement with France [Images] and expected cooperation with Russia prove the universal value of the deal with the US.

The supporters of the deal have been fighting shy of admitting that the deal is not unconditional on non-proliferation and moratorium. Much of the argument with the opposition has centered on the sovereignty question. The masterly aphorism, "we have the right to test, they have the right to react" is nothing but an affirmation of the truth that the deal cannot survive a weapons test. The NSG also is of the same opinion. Secretary Rice went beyond the provisions of the 123 agreement to say to the Senate majority leader that the termination of cooperation will be "automatic" if India tested. Since our moratorium is in place and our scientists are of the view that we do not need tests, the truth must be accepted, rather than go around it with spins. It may be beneficial to call a spade a spade.

The debate on the sovereignty question will not cease even if the test issue is clearly understood. India’s foreign policy moves will be under a microscope in future. The Iran vote at the IAEA was seen in this light even though it was in keeping with our policy ever since the issue came to the IAEA.

In the Senate, it was pointed out that India had voted with the US only 14% of the time in the United Nations. This cannot change as a majority of the resolutions in question are on Palestine and economic issues. The US will complain about this and the Indian opposition will look for any sign of change. The governments of the future will have to strike a balance between the two even though termination of the nuclear agreement is not likely on account of foreign policy differences. India did not go overboard to support the US on Georgia and no one seemed to bother.

The energy- environment debate must get greater attention in the context of the deal. Much misunderstanding has been caused by arguments about thorium and self-reliance. If the picture was indeed that it would be possible for us to make up for the deficiency by other means, India would not have been so desperate to have a nuclear deal. Moreover, the pressure on India to reduce greenhouse gases has not been exposed to the public. Climate change mitigation is a responsibility that we cannot take lightly, though we have managed not to have binding commitments for reduction of emissions.

The increasing awareness of nuclear energy as the cleanest form of energy should get India credit for diversifying our energy sources. The Indian public needs to know more about the realities of our energy needs. The secrecy surrounding our nuclear programme should be relaxed, once the civilian programme is separated from the military programme.

The fact that the deal will also enable us to export our nuclear technology to others should not be forgotten. We have accepted the stringent export policies of the NSG, but we have a splendid opportunity now to sell our indigenous 220 MWe Pressurized Heavy Water Reactors (PHWRs) to developing countries. Nearly forty countries have approached the IAEA to seek assistance to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Dr.Anil Kakodkar lost no time in making the offer to the General Conference of the IAEA on October 1, 2008. We should benefit from the nuclear renaissance under way in the world.

The work ahead is as hazardous as the path we have traversed. India will now be bombarded with offers of various kinds and much discretion is needed to choose the technology, which is most relevant to us. Legal obstacles to private enterprise in the nuclear field will have to be progressively removed. Hopefully, some scientists and others, who have been opposing the deal will fall in line and concentrate more on benefits rather than imaginary dangers. Like China, which has maximized its advantages in dealing with the US without surrendering any of its interests, India should be able to put the nuclear agreement to good use.
bala
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2982
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Post by bala »

US President, George W. Bush and US Secretary of State Condi Rice need to be congratulated on sticking through thick and thin, making sure that the NPT is dead in its current form. MMS needs praise in his tremendous fortitude to stick to the promise, despite the Left and other nay sayers. George W. Bush will go down in history as the US president who changed the dynamics of US-India relationships in very meaningful terms. China lost in the US-India nuke deal, big time. The NPTollahs are effectively without a job, good riddance. Boo to Barbara Boxer of California. CPI&M are irrelevant, they will be barking dogs with nothing to show, just look at Tata NANO fiasco in WB.

Now that the deal is done, India must chalk out a bold plan to induct Nuclear Energy. There are three main players: the French with 1600MW Areva plants, the US, GE, Westinghouse/Toshiba plants, the Russians with already 1000MW LW in KudanKulam. India should come up with a plan of 4x plant per major state (10 at least) in the next decade, with the US plants they should insist on 10yr supply of Uranium upfront which cannot be removed from Indian soil in case of weapons test. The plan should work out an equity stake and offset collaboration in plant construction. The financial plan should be such that the private guys come up with suitable major loans from their respective countries. The private guys should recoup the costs by energy supply over the years.

I think over time Hyde Act will look ridiculous (references to Iran and foreign policy), the US Congress will amend the noxious stuff from the Act. India could sign NPT if they amend NPT to include India as NWS member (requires a mere change of the Year to 1974). This could open the possibility of India as Security Council Veto Member. All the contradictions and volumes of scholarly analysis/paralysis would disappear instantly. Go India.
harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Post by harbans »

I've been pro-deal all throughout. But i'm sorta anti-nuclear. :mrgreen:

Well after the 123 is signed, this (after GWB) seems the best time to sign on 5, 2000 MW coal based plants. :mrgreen:

We should be exporting nuclear plants and technology as a primary result of this deal. And importantly ONLY importing nuclear fuel for our present civilian reactors , to augment capacity.

Let this happen after GWB till a year (2009 end). It's gonna shock a lot of people. Then tell them to change Hyde, and give us status to NW5 full on. Else under IAEA keep exporting 300- 500 MW reactors to Peru, Chile, Venezuala, Thailand, Vietnam.

Why use this deal with Hyde clauses to hinder ones strategic energy programme? Export the damned stuff and use coal! This deal achieves that strategic breakthrough for us. Testing ceases our imports of fuel/ reactors etc. It never says it ceases our exports. And exports don't put our energy security in jeopardy.

So COAL is the WAY TO GO!!!!

Nuclear is the way to EXPORT!

Fuel ONLY for present reactors!
Last edited by harbans on 03 Oct 2008 05:02, edited 1 time in total.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60233
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Post by ramana »

Two articles from Telegraph, Kolkota 3 oct., 2008
Senate loves India
- Nuclear deal sails through, opponents fail to find speakers
K.P. NAYAR

Washington, Oct. 2: The US Senate yesterday voted for the nuclear agreement with India 86-13 with an hour to spare and without enough speakers in opposition, leaving it now for President George W. Bush only to put his signature.

The debate and the subsequent vote was unique. But in the excitement of the deal entering its final lap here, it is easy to miss this historic nature of the Senate vote approving a change in the way America deals with India.

Politicians everywhere are known to speak more than they need to. Never less. But yesterday in the Senate they spoke for one hour less than the time allotted to them.

When the debate for approving the deal package began in the morning, three-and-a-half hours were allotted for the legislation: one hour for general debate, 15 minutes each for the movers of two amendments and one hour each for discussing the amendments.

But the debate ended one hour ahead of schedule, almost unheard of in the history of legislatures, even such rubber stamp legislatures as the Supreme Soviet of the USSR or the National People’s Congress of China.

The reason: opponents of the deal could not find enough people in the Senate to speak against extending America’s nuclear co-operation to cover India.

Some of those who voted against the deal because of their long-standing commitment to non-proliferation were only willing to cast their “nay” vote, but they did not want to take the floor and say anything against India. They argued in the corridors of the Capitol that they were not against India, but only against some provisions in the deal.

When the nuclear deal package was taken up on the floor at 10am, Senate aides were predicting a vote of 75 for the deal and 24 against in the 100-member chamber. Senator Edward Kennedy, who is recovering from surgery for a brain tumour, is not attending the session.

But as the debate advanced, they revised their prediction to 80 for and 19 against. Many believed that the tally would be lower for the deal than the 85 to 12 vote for the Hyde Act that enabled the nuclear deal to proceed in 2006. Two years ago, three senators were present, but did not cast their votes.

When the final figures were announced last night, it was 86 for the deal and 13 against. “You see, 86 per cent of the Senate voted for nuclear co-operation with India,” pointed out one Senate aide.

So the next time Manmohan Singh tells Bush, “India loves you”, the American can at least reply, “The Senate loves India.”

Indian diplomats noted that all three senators vying for the top political jobs in the US voted for the deal. They are Democratic presidential aspirant Barack Obama and his vice-presidential running mate Joseph Biden as well as the Republican nominee for the White House, John McCain.

“Their bipartisan vote is an indication of where America’s relations with India are headed, no matter who becomes President,” exulted an Indian diplomat.

A turning point in the debate came when the movers of two amendments designed to kill the deal joined forces and combined their amendments.

They put on a brave front and claimed that the bunching of the amendments was a way of joining forces on the floor. In fact, the amendments were combined because there would have been no speakers to use the allotted time of one hour each in support of two different amendments.

At that point it was clear that for the opponents of the deal the battle was lost. When the amendment was ballotted, it was rejected by a voice vote.

Its movers did not ask for a roll call for fear that their abysmal numbers would be exposed and that the game would be up for them without having to wait for the final vote on the nuclear package.

Obama, McCain and Biden cut short their election campaign to go to Capitol Hill to vote the economic rescue package of $700 billion. While they did not remain on the floor to vote for some other bills yesterday, all three men made it a point to come into the chamber and cast their votes for the India deal.

On the Indian side, the official who had the most satisfaction yesterday was Raminder S. Jassal, the deputy chief of mission at the Indian embassy here.

He is the only official in the original “negotiating team” in 2005 — either on the US side or the Indian side — who is still on the job of steering the nuclear deal.

With the deal is expected to be operationalised by this weekend during US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice’s visit to New Delhi, Jassal will leave his job on Tuesday and move to Ankara as India’s new ambassador there.

At the time of writing, the nuclear package had not yet been transmitted to the White House for presidential assent because of the huge volume of work cleared by the Senate yesterday and by the House of Representatives the previous day that has to be “processed”.

This is expected to be done later today so that Bush can sign the deal on Friday in time for Rice’s departure for New Delhi.

Rice kept up the celebratory mood here today by organising a function to thank state department employees and others for their efforts to see the nuclear deal through.

K.P. Nayar also kept the torch for India at different papers like Indian Epxress and now Telegraph.


and
AGREE TO DISAGREE
Malvika Singh
The nuclear deal has been ratified by the American Senate that voted with an overwhelming mandate. India has thus moved away from its third world status, and will now be able to share and participate in the areas of technology and scientific expertise, in the realm of ideas and alternatives that had so long been confined to the wealthier countries of the world. India will now be in a position to use the changing methodologies that will make life far more livable for many in a shrinking world. Finally, we will now be in a position to assert ourselves in the debate over various issues that plague the world and even influence the process of decision-making if we choose to be proactive on the high table. Isolation is a thing of the past. This does not mean that we will have to abdicate our intellectual positions but that we will be able to argue and when necessary, agree to disagree. We are no longer on the list of ‘failed’ nations.

Strangely, the opposition parties are threatening to raise black flags and take to the streets because the United Progressive Alliance government and Manmohan Singh, with his committed team, have been successful in crossing the tough hurdles that were placed in their path by internal spoilers, parties and organizations that are comfortable working in the closed system, with hardly any accountability or transparency. Exposure and aspiration for a better future will give a great boost to India and will help put the country in the place where it should have been decades ago. The Left is angry because it has been ‘left’ behind! The Right is vitriolic and vocal because it was not in the seat of power when the deal and the recent ‘opening up’ of a vibrant, energetic and intellectually dynamic India took place. Manmohan Singh has made an indelible impact on the subcontinent with this deal.


Another chance

Those who damn development by shouting hoarse that we have become a stooge of the United States of America have got the wrong end of the stick that they are using to beat the government. India has the resilience, the checks and balances of a joint economy, and the cultural tradition, values, mores and ethics to enable it to adjust with the changes that could affect our economy. We will be able to stem the decline and balance ourselves at a sane point on the scale. In some ways, the bubble of the apparent boom we saw over the last few years has been deflated and India will now settle and calm down. The ridiculous rise in land prices that created a social discord of huge magnitude with rural landowners selling off their lands for big bucks and then joining the ranks of the well-to-do unemployed, has created havoc in the social space.

India will not sink if the bail-out is rejected. America will. Looking at the international scene and at the US, a nation that till very recently was deemed to be invincible and dominating, it becomes clear that the country was mis-governed, had an arrogant and intellectually limited leadership, which was unable to recognize diversity. This had resulted in wrong invasions into other cultures that had only shown that the US was unable to comprehend more complex civilizations that may have been economically poor but are culturally rich. Today, America is a nation in decline, its political and economic policies having hit bad times with no immediate solution of any permanence on the horizon. In the process that will evolve through America’s new partnerships with other nations, the country may have to shift gear and reach out to emerging societies and to Europe and the middle East, to the rest of the world, for a clearer comprehension of our planet and for comradeship and future growth. The order has begun to shift and fresh realities will pose new challenges. Democracy, equality and fraternity may well have another chance!
Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Post by Sanjay M »

RajeshA wrote:Manmohan Singh has given hints, that after his discussions with President George W. Bush, the President may mitigate some of the unpleasant aspects of the United States-India Nuclear Cooperation Approval and Non-proliferation Enhancement Act, by using "signing statements". That means, the Law is not in its final form just as yet.

It would be interesting to know, whether Dubya strikes down any of the provisions. He may be hesitant to do that, because he wouldn't really want to anger the House by any defiance,
as he sorely wants the Bailout Plan to pass. The House is still deliberating on it. The question is, whether the the way would be free by the time Condoleeza Rice lands in New Delhi on Saturday.

And then you have the Foreign Minister, the Honorable Pranab Mukherjee spending some time in the USA. Is Pranab there to sit down with the State Dept to sort out, what signing statements, would be desired by India, and if they can be made?

I think, there is still some midnight haggling going on, or Pranab da has gone over there to say to Condi, "how gorgeous you are. Now I know why the whole of India is so crazy about you. India deeply loves you." I bet it is the midnight haggling.
Don't be ridiculous -- signing statements have no legal weight whatsoever.
The law is the law, and the President has no power to reinterpret it. He could easily be challenged in court, which is the only place where law can be interpreted.

The signing statement is just to make Manmohan look/feel good. It's totally worthless.
Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Post by Sanjay M »

pradeepe
BRFite
Posts: 741
Joined: 27 Aug 2006 20:46
Location: Our culture is different and we cannot live together - who said that?

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Post by pradeepe »

Sanjay M wrote:India-Pakistan De-hyphenated (TIME)
Yet the significance of the deal, known as the 123 Agreement, cannot be overestimated. In addition to reversing 34 years of U.S. policy opposing nuclear cooperation with India — a nuclear weapons state that continues to refuse to sign the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty — the deal wins acceptance for India's de facto nuclear weapons state status at the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the international cartel that controls trade in nuclear weapons, fuel and technology.
Cannot be clearer than that.
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Post by amit »

In all walks of life but especially in politics one needs to know when to stop. Because otherwise what is welcomed as constructive opposition quickly turns into what Malavika Singh wrote in that article posted by Ramana ji
The Right is vitriolic and vocal because it was not in the seat of power when the deal and the recent ‘opening up’ of a vibrant, energetic and intellectually dynamic India took place. Manmohan Singh has made an indelible impact on the subcontinent with this deal.
Does Rajiv Pratap Rudy ji realise that when he makes a comment like this:
There are certain clauses in the 123 Agreement which we do not agree upon. If we come to power, we would renegotiate on those points
there will be certain people with long memories who will hold the BJP to this point?

If the BJP tries to renegotiate this deal then I'm in the market for buying the Second Hooghly Bridge in Kolkata - I always really liked that structure. Any sellers please contact me the moment BJP cowers Uncle Sam into changing the 123. I'm sure it will as simple as counting 1+2+3.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Post by RajeshA »

Sanjay M wrote:
RajeshA wrote:Manmohan Singh has given hints, that after his discussions with President George W. Bush, the President may mitigate some of the unpleasant aspects of the United States-India Nuclear Cooperation Approval and Non-proliferation Enhancement Act, by using "signing statements". That means, the Law is not in its final form just as yet.

It would be interesting to know, whether Dubya strikes down any of the provisions. He may be hesitant to do that, because he wouldn't really want to anger the House by any defiance,
as he sorely wants the Bailout Plan to pass. The House is still deliberating on it. The question is, whether the the way would be free by the time Condoleeza Rice lands in New Delhi on Saturday.

And then you have the Foreign Minister, the Honorable Pranab Mukherjee spending some time in the USA. Is Pranab there to sit down with the State Dept to sort out, what signing statements, would be desired by India, and if they can be made?

I think, there is still some midnight haggling going on, or Pranab da has gone over there to say to Condi, "how gorgeous you are. Now I know why the whole of India is so crazy about you. India deeply loves you." I bet it is the midnight haggling.
Don't be ridiculous -- signing statements have no legal weight whatsoever.
The law is the law, and the President has no power to reinterpret it. He could easily be challenged in court, which is the only place where law can be interpreted.

The signing statement is just to make Manmohan look/feel good. It's totally worthless.
Sanjay M,
I am walking here on thin ice, so I wouldn't be refuting you per se.

But a Law is a law, once it has been signed into Law, by the President, and from my understanding of it, before that, he has some wiggle room to make little changes. Of course, I don't believe he can change $700 billion into $1,700 billion.

As per my understanding of it, which is not water-tight, I would expect the President to make some signing statement w.r.t. to the terms of Policy, in Section 102.
SEC. 102. DECLARATIONS OF POLICY; CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT; RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

......(a) Declarations of Policy Relating to Meaning and Legal Effect of Agreement- Congress declares that it is the understanding of the United States that the provisions of the United States-India Agreement for Cooperation on Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy have the meanings conveyed in the authoritative representations provided by the President and his representatives to the Congress and its committees prior to September 20, 2008, regarding the meaning and legal effect of the Agreement.
......(b) Declarations of Policy Relating to Transfer of Nuclear Equipment, Materials, and Technology to India- Congress makes the following declarations of policy:
............(1) Pursuant to section 103(a)(6) of the Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006 (22 U.S.C. 8002(a)(6)), in the event that nuclear transfers to India are suspended or terminated pursuant to title I of such Act (22 U.S.C. 8001 et seq.), the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), or any other United States law, it is the policy of the United States to seek to prevent the transfer to India of nuclear equipment, materials, or technology from other participating governments in the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) or from any other source.
............(2) Pursuant to section 103(b)(10) of the Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006 (22 U.S.C. 8002(b)(10)), any nuclear power reactor fuel reserve provided to the Government of India for use in safeguarded civilian nuclear facilities should be commensurate with reasonable reactor operating requirements.
......(c) Certification Requirement- Before exchanging diplomatic notes pursuant to Article 16(1) of the Agreement, the President shall certify to Congress that entry into force and implementation of the Agreement pursuant to its terms is consistent with the obligation of the United States under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, done at Washington, London, and Moscow July 1, 1968, and entered into force March 5, 1970 (commonly known as the ‘Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty’), not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce India to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.
......(d) Rule of Construction- Nothing in the Agreement shall be construed to supersede the legal requirements of the Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006 or the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
I do not know, whether George W. Bush can in the final analysis waive any requirement or statement of policy by using a "signing statement", but IMO, GoI is expecting him to jot down a few, to take out the bite out of some the provisions. Policy Area seems to be the right place to start. Isn't policy as such an executive privilege?

Notes:
In Sec. 102(b)(1) - The word "prevent" really rankles here. It should be changed back to "discourage". On second reading it says "seek to prevent" which sounds almost like "discourage".

In Sec. 102(b)(2) - There is nothing, which says, that India cannot have a strategic fuel reserve, as far as that fuel is sourced from other countries. It relates to only those reactors provided by US companies. Also it is only a statement of policy as was the case in the Hyde Act, and not a legal requirement. That is something to be decided between the GoI and the nuclear reactor suppliers.

Sec. 102(d) is the part, which the so called political spin-masters in GoI like P. Chidambaram got terribly wrong. 123 does not supersede Hyde.

Just my ramble.
awagaman
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 37
Joined: 13 Aug 2008 16:27

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Post by awagaman »

Hindu leader
http://www.hindu.com/2008/10/03/stories ... 401000.htm

Do not operationalise 123


Given the riders that accompanied the passage of the U.S.-India Nuclear Cooperation Agreement through Capitol Hill, there is no reason for the United Progressive Alliance government to feel euphoric about Wednesday evening’s 86-13 vote in the Senate. The 123 Agreement was always going to be subordinate to the Hyde Act and it was disingenuous of the government to argue the contrary. What made the text somewhat defensible was the balance of rights and obligations it co uld claim to strike within. That balance has been fatally disturbed by the White House and Congress entering reservations derogating from a number of its provisions. Those who argue that the bilateral deal is unaffected and that India cannot be bound by anything it does not sign miss the fundamental point: the U.S. has posted advance notice of its refusal to be bound by what it is about to sign. This means India must carry the burden of its obligations while being denied the clear rights the agreement gives it with respect to fuel supply commitments and the permanence of reprocessing consent rights. Implementation of the 123 was always going to be difficult given differing interpretations of the provisions on the termination of nuclear cooperation and implementation of ‘the right of return.’ But with the new issues opened up first by the Bush administration and then by Congress, it will be irresponsible on the part of the Indian government to operationalise the agreement — and use it as the basis to import 10,000 MWe worth of nuclear reactors from the U.S.

No doubt President George Bush will attempt to assuage Indian concerns by making a signing statement setting aside some of Congress’s riders. But the bare essence of what the American legislature has done is to incorporate what Mr. Bush conveyed to it last month. Will it be proper for New Delhi to sign an agreement whose basic provisions Washington says it has no intention of treating as a legal commitment? Even if the Indian government places on record its disagreement with the U.S. position, the 123 is destined to remain a dead letter for the foreseeable future. Satisfactory fuel supply arrangements can conceivably be struck with other countries but no U.S. reactor can be bought without permanent arrangements for reprocessing its spent fuel firmly in place. For India, the Nuclear Suppliers Group waiver seemed the high point of the drama because, in principle, it opened the doors of the world to it. But like a deviant son who appears in the closing stages to claim his inheritance, the 123 has become the plot spoiler. The UPA government must urgently take Parliament into confidence on what has happened. It must make it clear to the people of India and to the U.S. that bilateral nuclear commerce will not be possible given the refusal of Washington to accept the binding nature of the commitments it is entering into.
awagaman
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 37
Joined: 13 Aug 2008 16:27

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Post by awagaman »

Varadaraja blog:
http://svaradarajan.blogspot.com/2008/1 ... llany.html

123 miscellany

Now that the 123 has been approved, John McCain takes a pot shot at Barack Obama and claims his spot on the winning side:

During the Senate's previous consideration of this important legislation, Senator Obama supported efforts that would have killed this accord. His own running mate, Senator Joe Biden, described one of the provisions Senator Obama voted for as a 'deal breaker.' We took a different approach: I wanted to make the deal, not break it, and I have supported the US-India Civil Nuclear Accord from the beginning.

***

The official summary of HR 7081 has just been put out. It's interesting to see Congress's authoritative explanation of the new Act's provisions:

1. It makes clear that all aspects of the Atomic Energy Act and the Hyde Act other than those relating to how the agreement is approved will continue to apply to the U.S.-India agreement.

2. It reaffirms that approval of the agreement is based on U.S. interpretations of its terms. This relates to several issues, including the U.S. view that fuel assurances provided by President Bush are a political, rather than legally binding, commitment.

3. It requires the President to certify that approving the agreement is consistent with the U.S. obligation under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty not to assist or encourage India to produce nuclear weapons.

4. Before any licenses can be issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under the agreement, the bill requires that India’s safeguards agreement with the IAEA enter into force, and that India file a declaration of civilian nuclear facilities under the safeguards agreement that is not “materially inconsistent” with the separation plan that India issued in 2006.

5. The bill requires prompt notification to Congress if India diverges from its separation plan in implementing its safeguards agreement.

6. The bill establishes a procedure for congressional review of any subsequent arrangement under the agreement that would allow India to reprocess spent nuclear fuel that was derived from U.S.-supplied reactor fuel or produced with U.S.-supplied equipment. Under current law (Section 131 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954), such arrangements take effect 15 days after notice thereof is published in the Federal Register.

7. The bill enhances general oversight of nuclear cooperation agreements by requiring that the President keep the Foreign Relations Committee “fully and currently informed” of any initiative or negotiations on new or amended civilian nuclear cooperation agreements.

8. The bill requires the President to certify that it is U.S. policy to work in the Nuclear Suppliers Group to achieve further restrictions on transfers of enrichment and reprocessing equipment or technology.

9. The bill also directs the President to seek international agreement on procedures to guard against the diversion of heavy water from civilian to military programs, and requires the President to keep Congress regularly apprised of how that effort is proceeding. (emphasis added)
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14222
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Post by svinayak »

amit wrote:
In all walks of life but especially in politics one needs to know when to stop. Because otherwise what is welcomed as constructive opposition quickly turns into what Malavika Singh wrote in that article posted by Ramana ji
The Right is vitriolic and vocal because it was not in the seat of power when the deal and the recent ‘opening up’ of a vibrant, energetic and intellectually dynamic India took place. Manmohan Singh has made an indelible impact on the subcontinent with this deal.
Does Rajiv Pratap Rudy ji realise that when he makes a comment like this:
There are certain clauses in the 123 Agreement which we do not agree upon. If we come to power, we would renegotiate on those points
there will be certain people with long memories who will hold the BJP to this point?

If the BJP tries to renegotiate this deal then I'm in the market for buying the Second Hooghly Bridge in Kolkata - I always really liked that structure. Any sellers please contact me the moment BJP cowers Uncle Sam into changing the 123. I'm sure it will as simple as counting 1+2+3.
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.
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Post by Arun_S »

Pakistan demands US nuclear deal
Pakistan has said that India's civilian nuclear trade agreement with the US should open the way for a similar deal with Islamabad.

Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani told reporters that Washington should not discriminate between South Asia's two nuclear armed nations.

Pakistan has long opposed efforts by the US administration to push through the deal with India.

Critics warned that approving it could lead to a regional nuclear arms race.

The US deal with India, which was approved by the US on Thursday, allows Delhi access to US civilian nuclear technology and fuel in return for inspections of its civilian, but not military, nuclear facilities.

Nuclear threat

"Now Pakistan also has the right to demand a civilian nuclear agreement with America," Mr Gilani said. {Arun_S: Ya right!. Pakistan has the right to demand, US has right to respond with a kick between the legs and open more Guantanamo bio-energy plants made from Green human material :twisted: }

"We want there to be no discrimination. Pakistan will also strive for a nuclear deal and we think they will have to accommodate us."

Pakistan developed its atomic weapons programme to counter the alleged nuclear threat from India, its regional rival.

The BBC's Barbara Plett in Islamabad says Pakistan has been very concerned by US support for India's civilian nuclear programme.

Now that the deal has been passed, Mr Gilani told reporters that Pakistan would be justified to ask for a similar agreement.

However, Washington has already indicated that Pakistan's track record of nuclear proliferation disqualifies it from such an arrangement.

In 2004, the top Pakistani nuclear scientist AQ Khan admitted to passing on nuclear secrets to Libya, Iran and North Korea. He retracted his confession in 2008.

Newspaper reports have suggested that Pakistan's leaders might now turn to China for help with civilian nuclear technology.

Pakistan became a nuclear power in 1998 after testing devices in response to underground tests done by India.
Locked