India nuclear news and discussion

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 06 Oct 2008 12:57

rajrang wrote:
RajeshA wrote: What would be worrying, would be if the NSG would terminate the Waiver. However, that would mean big losses for Russia and France, and maybe Japan, Australia, Canada and many others. Would all of the NSG members fall in line. US influence over the NSG club would decrease with time, just as US power decreases. Secondly one should keep in mind, that the last time US moved the NSG Club, the main opponents of the US were the Pipsqueak. On the question of termination, the opponents could be the major powers. Not that easy!
Recently we saw the global clout of the US when the US forced the NSG to go along with the waiver for India. Why would any of the countries on the NSG become more powerful in future in order to take on the US? The major powers of W Europe and Russia will always be relatively weaker than the US in the forceable future, just as they are today. This is because they are also advanced countries already just like the US. On the other hand, China which is growing much faster, and also has the potential for growth because it is still backward relative to the US and 4 times the population, is likely to become more powerful than even the US. But, I believe that China will be the first to "punish" India should India test. Please clarify why the pipsqueaks of today will become major powers, powerful enough to oppose the US (together with China).

When I speak of Pipsqueak, I mean countries like New Zealand, Ireland, Austria, Switzerland, Netherlands, Norway, etc. They were the ones opposing a consensus at the NSG. As was seen, the US was able to move them to loosen the NPT. In case of tightening the NPT (terminating the Waiver), the US would have to deal with Russia, France and other countries doing nuclear business with India. That would be against their business interests. Why should they fall in line with the US and lose business? In the NSG, China is a weakling, and cannot determine the course.

rajrang, where have I said, that the Pipsqueak will become major powers? You should read more carefully.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 06 Oct 2008 13:29

Sell n-reactors to India, apex body tells Canada: IANS

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 06 Oct 2008 13:35

I think this has not been posted before --
(site does not archive)

N-Deal still a killer

Those "killer amendments" may have been rejected outright by the US Senate when it voted on the Indo-US nuclear deal this week, but the reasons offered for that rejection are no less chilling for India.

Much has been made of the "killer amendments" introduced by the Democratic Senators Byron Dorgan and Jeff Bingaman. Indeed, their language was harsh.

"By modifying our nonproliferation laws for India... and in a circumstance where India has not signed the nonproliferation treaty, not only are we sending a wrong signal to Iran... but we are also sending the wrong signal to North Korea, to Pakistan, and to Israel," they said.

But they had no cause for worry, assured Senator Richard Lugar. "If India tests a nuclear weapon, the 123 Agreement is over," he simply remarked. The screws were further tightened when Lugar mocked the Indian leadership's claim, "that they retain the right to test." He said: "This is true. They are a sovereign nation. However, India has been warned repeatedly that consequences of another nuclear test would be dire."

Challenging the very sovereignty the US claims India has been granted through the deal, Lugar said: "One of the primary purposes of this agreement is to deter India from testing nuclear weapons. New Delhi has more to gain from peaceful nuclear cooperation through this agreement than in testing."

While advocates of the deal here wax eloquent about the wonders the deal will do to India's nuclear energy future, the Americans have made it clear that this assurance is on a quid pro quo basis. If India detonates a nuclear weapon, never mind the threat perceptions in the region, it will do so at the cost of fuel supply cessation.

"One of the arguments," said sitting Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Christopher Dodd, "people need to understand is that India does not have unlimited supply of materials by which to create nuclear weapons. They will be faced, without outside sources of supply, to make a clear choice between nuclear weapons or the commercial powerplants."

And that is a sword that hangs heavily on India's head. "Is it going to be about energy or security? That is a difficult choice," Dodd said, adding: "That is a choice with which India may well be confronted without additional sources of energy here or supplies that would allow them to promote the more commercial use of this power."

Lugar further threatened that "these steps (of cessation) can occur as a response to any nuclear test, including instances in which India describes its actions as being for peaceful purposes."

He went on to say: "In sum, the US-India peaceful nuclear cooperation agreement ceases if India tests. This conclusion is consistent with any reasonable interpretation of the Atomic Energy Act, the Hyde Act and Article 14 of this Agreement."

Rather patronisingly, Lugar said: "The benefits of this pact are designed to be a lasting incentive for India to abstain from further nuclear tests and working closely with the US in stopping proliferation."

The Senate has also been told that the deal is of key strategic interest to the US as well. Given "the tremendous importance of India's location in Asia," -- with Pakistan, China and Afghanistan as its neighbours -- the deal has "strategic importance" for the US, the Senate was told.

In short, a great window of opportunity for not merely a strategic toehold in but a stranglehold on South Asia.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 06 Oct 2008 13:40

>>>One is Pokharn II and for its "voluntary moratorium". The later has tied us up in knots, it's only fair that they untie the knots themselves.

Okay, before this voluntary moratorium, which allegedly tied us in knots, why was Narasimha Rao not allowed to test the bum by this same Unkeel?

As I understand it, moratorium means a temporary stop..and even Kangress agrees we cannot change it. Where is the alleged knot?

Do you mean if BJP had not announced "Voluntary moratorium", Unkeel would not have insisted on test clauses?

amit · Post by **amit** » 06 Oct 2008 15:14

geeth wrote:>>>One is Pokharn II and for its "voluntary moratorium". The later has tied us up in knots, it's only fair that they untie the knots themselves.

Okay, before this voluntary moratorium, which allegedly tied us in knots, why was Narasimha Rao not allowed to test the bum by this same Unkeel?

As I understand it, moratorium means a temporary stop..and even Kangress agrees we cannot change it. Where is the alleged knot?

Do you mean if BJP had not announced "Voluntary moratorium", Unkeel would not have insisted on test clauses?

Err,

What exactly does Uncle allegedly not allowing PVNR to test got to do with BJP's voluntary moratorium can you explain to me please? Are you trying to say two "wrongs" make one "right" by bringing in a totally extraneous argument into the discussion?

Look pal, I suggest you look at the trail of posts that I was/am exchanging with Acharya to understand what I'm trying to say. Don't take my remarks out of context and then put your spin on them.

For your benefit, let me explain, Acharya said: "Testing itself is a part of the renegotiation (of the deal)".

To which I said first BJP is remembered for Pokharan II (maybe you didn't notice, it but that was meant as praise for BJP) and, it is also remembered for its "voluntary moratorium".

I'm no Nuclear expert but going by what some gurus here have said on this forum, there was some serious design issues coming out of Pokharan II and that the sci-fi community had rectified designs by 2003 (again quoting the experts here). Despite that BJP stuck to the voluntary moratorium.

Now if I say since Pokharan II happened during BJP stewardship and if we assume the tests did not validate the designs to the satisfaction of everyone including the military, then why this takleef if I suggest that the BJP should abrogate its own voluntary moratorium and put the doubt (about our bomb capability) to rest?

And also a lot of folks here think that only a "nationalist" government with BJP in charge will have the conjones to test and not a "wimp" govt led by UPA. So I'm just taking that line of thinking to its logical conclusion. And, as Acharya says, it will be a good way to start renegotiating the nuclear deal with the US.

Afterall if Pokaran II met all desired expectations then why this rush and need for a test immediately? Why this ronna dhona about this deal taking away our right to test for ever?

20 years for now do you think India will give a damn about what anyone says if it needs to test? Do you think anyone can do anything if the US of A or even China tests? The same will apply to India circa 2028.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 06 Oct 2008 16:45

amit wrote:In politics and international relations timing is everything - more important than the action is exactly when the action is taken.

If MMS did what was done with Rice with the Hyde Act, then all the carefully orchestrated moves since 2005 could very well have collapsed. And I'm sure a person like you, who's misgiving about the deal is so balanced and nuanced (please note this is a genuine compliment and I've learnt a lot from your posts) would note that the NSG waiver is a net plus for India.

There are always two sides to a coin.

Perhaps you have not been long enough to recall that I have always, and still feel, that the US needs India a lot more than India needs the US. (More on that l8r if you want, perhaps in another thread.)

It is my sincere opinion that IF MMS walked away after the first time he heard about the Hyde Act, that he would have got a lot more.

As a FYI only, there has been a constant slide since J18. Also note that the US Amby is making noises after this well timed send off. The point being, no matter what happens there is bound to be a lot of friction here on out based on these deals. Which is not what India needs out of it. That is the way politicians live, not scicoms. And, the US has plenty of funds to toss out, not India.

So, you are right about it from a Indian PoV, but if one takes the US PoV (how much they NEED India, specially WRT others in the region), then I think I have a good point to make - the talks would NOT have collapsed, on the contrary India would have got a LOT more out of this deal. Fully expect the US to make noises for Indian troops in A'stan, etc.

Even IF the talks have collapsed, why the fear?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 06 Oct 2008 18:12

India may sign 123 Agreement on October 10

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 06 Oct 2008 18:19

>>>What exactly does Uncle allegedly not allowing PVNR to test got to do with BJP's voluntary moratorium can you explain to me please? Are you trying to say two "wrongs" make one "right" by bringing in a totally extraneous argument into the discussion?

No need to write a 1000 word essay to put across simple things. Your earlier post implies that we are in a knotty position because of the BJP's voluntary moratorium - I just countered it - you can see there is nothing extraneous in my argument if you read my post carefully.

>>>To which I said first BJP is remembered for Pokharan II (maybe you didn't notice, it but that was meant as praise for BJP) and, it is also remembered for its "voluntary moratorium".

So kind of you!

>>>I'm no Nuclear expert but going by what some gurus here have said on this forum, there was some serious design issues coming out of Pokharan II and that the sci-fi community had rectified designs by 2003 (again quoting the experts here). Despite that BJP stuck to the voluntary moratorium.

>>>Now if I say since Pokharan II happened during BJP stewardship and if we assume the tests did not validate the designs to the satisfaction of everyone including the military, then why this takleef if I suggest that the BJP should abrogate its own voluntary moratorium and put the doubt (about our bomb capability) to rest?

The takleef is in your assumptions and beliefs that the so called Gurus know it better than the BJP stewardship at that time...Again, there is takleef when you first accuse the BJP of tying 'us' in a knot and then suggest that the BJP abrogate its own voluntary moratorium a.k.a 'knot' and say later it ia compliment to them.

>>>And also a lot of folks here think that only a "nationalist" government with BJP in charge will have the conjones to test and not a "wimp" govt led by UPA. So I'm just taking that line of thinking to its logical conclusion. And, as Acharya says, it will be a good way to start renegotiating the nuclear deal with the US.

In a way, you agree with the line of thinking of many folks here, even if it is a bit nau(kno)tty..

>>>Afterall if Pokaran II met all desired expectations then why this rush and need for a test immediately? Why this ronna dhona about this deal taking away our right to test for ever?

May be you haven't understood what the folks here are talking about. Yes, we are talking about the RIGHT to test and 'right to test' has no time frame.

>>>20 years for now do you think India will give a damn about what anyone says if it needs to test? Do you think anyone can do anything if the US of A or even China tests? The same will apply to India circa 2028.

I only hope your prediction come true...

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 06 Oct 2008 19:34

20 years for now do you think India will give a damn about what anyone says if it needs to test? Do you think anyone can do anything if the US of A or even China tests? The same will apply to India circa 2028

This is 'incorrect' for a number of reasons:

Testing by an India that has demonstrated its 'responsibility' be can be done with impunity. If India were to commit troops to Afghanistan today (regardless of Pakistani sensibilities, the would be welcomed), India can test freely.

As power hierachies undergo their flux, a chastened US and a stronger China would change the reception of a test in as short as 3-5 years.

Senator Luger can threaten dire consequences, but he is ipso facto living in a world that has almost gone by.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 06 Oct 2008 19:48

Soooo many postors here see the Nuclear Test as the Ultimate Nirvana for India. What will you

about the day after the Test?

We need you on the Khabar thread with that explosive mentality. Could u pls send your pictures?

satya · Post by **satya** » 06 Oct 2008 19:55

Soooo many postors here see the Nuclear Test as the Ultimate Nirvana for India. What will you about the day after the Test?

Narayananjee

Shhhhhhh, pls dont let others know our own hidden house of cards .

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 06 Oct 2008 19:57

SK,

Unfortunately Indian leaders tend to think within compartments. However, you are right.

Also, Luger (in specific) could be talking to NPAs. That is my read. I do not think he means what he said. However, having said that it is a good talking point to put pressure on Indian leaders.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 06 Oct 2008 21:08

The TestNow! uproar reminds me of Kalidasa's kind friends urging him on from a safe distance to cut that branch faster.

Bharatiya Patriot Law of Nuclear Test Urgency

Urgency in percentage U = k*exp(1/T) for T >0

U= 0 for T<0 if BJP wins
U= infinity if BJP loses.

where k = 100 and T is the time left before the elections in days.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 06 Oct 2008 21:13

geeth wrote:
>>>And also a lot of folks here think that only a "nationalist" government with BJP in charge will have the conjones to test and not a "wimp" govt led by UPA. So I'm just taking that line of thinking to its logical conclusion. And, as Acharya says, it will be a good way to start renegotiating the nuclear deal with the US.

In a way, you agree with the line of thinking of many folks here, even if it is a bit nau(kno)tty..

I wanted him to come to the conclusion himself.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 06 Oct 2008 22:08

Arun_S how about outlining the present and future of India on Nuclear options in the face of the deal? How would we be going forward? What are the options for a Nationalistic government from this point on? Whats the likely outcome (assuming we would not have a nationalistic govt all the time?) from now on?

I reiterate the request since the first got lost in the prior pages etc...

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 06 Oct 2008 22:13

This would make a good article for SRR. Seriously. To counter the rah-rah pro-Deal, anti-Test articles that the stupid Editors may be planning.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 06 Oct 2008 22:39

Thorium Power Ltd announces US Senate's approval for US-India civilian nuclear cooperation agreement

Oct 06, 2008 (M2 EQUITYBITES via COMTEX) -- THPW | Quote | Chart | News | PowerRating -- Thorium Power Ltd (OTC BB: THPW), a nuclear energy company, declared on 3 October that the US Senate has approved the US-India Civilian Nuclear Cooperation Agreement and that Senators Hatch and Reid introduced the Thorium Energy Independence and Security Act of 2008.

The first agreement will allow US companies to seek opportunities in India's USD150bn nuclear market. The second agreement will pave the way for thorium-fuelled nuclear reactors in the US, allocating USD250m over five years for thorium fuel research at the US Department of Energy. Secretary Rice is reportedly expected to sign the 123 Agreement which will operationalise the deal during her visit to New Delhi this weekend. The Senate is expected to continue procedural deliberations on the Thorium Energy Independence and Security Act of 2008.

Comments on this story may be sent to [email protected]

Perhaps India can sell $400 Billion worth of reactors to the US?

More on this new "agreement" in the international nuclear thread

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 06 Oct 2008 23:10

ET :: Oct 3, 2008 :: Concern over reprocessing, supplies remain

3 Oct, 2008, 0440 hrs IST,Nirmala Ganapathy, ET Bureau

NEW DELHI: Even though proposed killer amendments were struck down in the US Senate and the House of Representatives, there are several provisions i
n the current legislation that are still of serious concern for India. While fuel supply guarantees are not forthcoming, reprocessing technology and reprocessing spent fuel remains encumbered under Congressional procedures. The bill mandates the US to ensure a return to the technology denial regime if India tests a nuclear weapon.

According to the legislation (US-India Nuclear Cooperation Approval and Nonproliferation Enhancement Act), fuel supply guarantees now translate into ‘reasonable reactor operating requirements.’ This clearly means that India will not be able to create a stockpile of fuel for every reactor so that a Tarapur-like experience can be avoided.

Section 102(b)(2) of this Act says ‘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.’

This provision combined with US President George Bush’s declaration to the US Congress, which is also included in the legislation, that fuel supply guarantees are not legally binding on India completely rubbishes claims made by the Manmohan Singh government that India has fuel supply guarantees and the freedom to create a fuel stockpile.

``India has no assured fuel-supply guarantee. The United States-India Nuclear Cooperation Approval and Nonproliferation Enhancement Act reaffirms that the fuel-supply assurances in the 123 agreement are ‘political commitments,’ not legal assurances, as the US President himself has attested,’’ said Brahma Chellaney, a professor of strategic studies at the Centre for Policy Research.

Similarly another area of concern is reprocessing technology and fuel, which is now subject to the vagaries of the US Congress. The Congress now has the powers to deny any arrangement by the US government to grant India the right to reprocess spent fuel.

At the same time, the US President now has to certify that the US `will pursue efforts’ to make sure that other countries that gives reprocessing technology or allows India to reprocess nuclear will do so under the `similar arrangements or procedures’ as the US.

This is clearly aimed at ensuring that the US is not disadvantaged in the area. For example, France is open to providing reprocessing technology to India. But the US will, as per this legislation, ensure that US-like procedures are followed.

These are all matters of great concern to the Indian establishment which has not yet broken out in celebration over the passing of the deal through the US Congress. US ambassador to India David C Mulford, however, maintained that there were no unresolved issues between India and the US.

Mr Mulford maintained that the 123 agreement has not been altered and that the 123 agreement would be the basis of the cooperation between India and the US. ``I would like to remind that the context of the 123 agreement has been preserved. It was an up or down vote with no amendments,’’ he said. On reprocessing technology, he merely said that there were US laws banning ENR technology. But he acknowledged that the US is in the forefront of a movement to ban ENR technology supply. {Read GNEP}

``India doesn’t needs it at this point It is a moot concern. We would not supply that to anybody. There is move (within the NSG) that been going on to make prohibition worldwide at the moment consensus is not complete,’’ he said. He further said that the 123 agreement grants India the right to reprocess.

But under the 123 agreement, India has agreed to negotiate a separate Section 131 agreement on reprocessing. But this will again need to pass through the US Congress. According to experts, US gave Japan and Euratom right to reprocess in their 123 agreements.

``In fact, New Delhi has gratuitously agreed to route all “foreign nuclear material” through a new reprocessing facility. Now, the US Congress is seeking to ensure that other supplier-states like France and Russia do not grant India a reprocessing right on terms less stringent than the US’’ said Mr Chellany.

And if India does test a nuclear weapon, the consequences are now more stringent. If the US decides to suspend or terminate nuclear cooperation with India then, ``it is the policy of the United States’’ to ensure no other country continues nuclear cooperation with India. Under the legislation, the US will use its world power status to ensure that the privileges of international nuclear commerce is denied to India all over again.

And finally, rubbishing the Indian government’s claim on the 123 agreement superseding domestic laws. The legislation now puts it down in black and white that the 123 agreement is `subservient’ to the Hyde Act and the Atomic Energy Act of 1954”.

All these provisions are in contrast to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh assurance to Parliament on removing restrictions ``on all aspects of cooperation and technology transfers pertaining to civil nuclear energy, ranging from nuclear fuel, nuclear reactors, to reprocessing spent fuel.”

“We will not agree to any dilution that would prevent us from securing the benefits of full civil nuclear cooperation as amplified above,” he had said.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 06 Oct 2008 23:24

Pranab, Rice may sign N-deal on Oct 13

BS Reporter / New Delhi October 6, 2008, 0:04 IST

The Indo-US civilian nuclear deal may be signed on October 13 in Washington. It was expected to be signed during the New Delhi visit of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday. This did not happen as US President George Bush could not give his stamp of approval to the deal in time for Rice’s visit.

Although there will be a new venue and schedule, the signatories will be the same: External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee will travel to Washington and sign the agreement there with Rice.

The deal was not signed during Rice’s visit as the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government wanted to see the final shape of the legislation after Bush signs it into a law. He is expected to do shortly.

External affairs ministry sources explained that the Senate, which passed the Indo-US civilian nuclear agreement last week, added a supplementary resolution. The resolution says Washington will seek to prevent transfer of nuclear equipment or technology to India from other governments in the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group (NSG) or from any other source if nuclear transfer to India is suspended or terminated by the US.

Questions have also been raised over the Hyde Act, the US domestic law that modified the requirements of Section 123 of the US Atomic Energy Act to permit nuclear cooperation with India, which is not a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Provisions of the Hyde Act state that the US will work with NSG member countries to call off fuel supplies if India tests. There is another provision that seeks India’s support for action against Iran. The UPA government has maintained that these are US’ internal laws and not binding on India.

India, therefore, wants to see the areas Bush highlights in his notification.

South Block expects the occasion will clear certain misgivings. At her joint press conference with Mukherjee on Saturday, Rice maintained: “The Hyde Act is completely consistent with the 123 Agreement....The 123 Agreement is consistent with the Hyde Act. The US will keep its commitments to both.”

Rice said Bush’s signing of the legislation into law was delayed for “administrative” reasons and there were “no open issues” involved.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 07 Oct 2008 00:08

Earlier the US got 'trapped' with the passage of hyde Act. Now its stuck with the Congress version of 123.

There is a logic to why India is refusing to sign the international agreeement prior to it being acepted by US. By signing before the assent , India would be agreeing ot all that US Congress bile in the agreement. I dont understand why Rice rushed to Delhi without the US signature.

Either wasn't clear or was pulling a fast one.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 07 Oct 2008 00:17

ramana wrote:Earlier the US got 'trapped' with the passage of hyde Act. Now its stuck with the Congress version of 123.

There is a logic to why India is refusing to sign the international agreeement prior to it being acepted by US. By signing before the assent , India would be agreeing ot all that US Congress bile in the agreement. I dont understand why Rice rushed to Delhi without the US signature.

Either wasn't clear or was pulling a fast one.

My take is: the GoI is probably placing a higher value on the Presidential signing statements than Rice.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Oct 2008 00:42

The GoI is expecting an antacid from Bush.

More confusion in the future.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 07 Oct 2008 00:46

I think a fast one was being pulled and GOI balked.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Oct 2008 01:11

These strategic partners will first check out documents before they act to support each other!!

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 07 Oct 2008 01:40

It was an up or down vote with no amendments,’’

Is this statement true?

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 07 Oct 2008 01:45

Gerard wrote:
We need something to the north of 300 KT in MIRV configurations of about 4-6, against hardened targets and to beat missile defenses.

I agree that for hardened targets and premptive strikes against missile defense sites, >300kt would be ideal.
But is that Indian deterrent strategy? That is not credible minimum deterrent. That is not countervalue. This type of counterforce targeting would require far greater numbers of warheads.
Unless there is a massive increase in the Chinese arsenal, I don't see India going down this road.

IMHO the pressing need is for a deployed, survivable deterrent. Not bunker busters. How many railcar TELs have been built? How many Agni-1 and 2 regiments are deployed? When will we see the ATV at sea with its nukes? What about air-launched cruise missiles?

A lot of good questions. With the CMD in place, only a survivable counter force capability will deter, in the first place. Ideally each war head needs to be tested 4-6 times, so testing is needed for our MIRV's, SLBM's, and Air launched weapons.

We do not have to match China's deployments one:one or any such ratio, but at a minimum have assured capabilities to do so. My ideal rule of thumb for India is to match China:India, 1:2 to factor in the Pakistani arsenal and losses due to first strike.

The cost of not doing so, will result in status quo on the borders at best and encroachments either physical or virtual. All these situations favor China and TSP.

There is another route, but that will require being under the chatra chaya of a trusted ally. Is this the new strategy? Or is it what I fear? Status quo on the geo-political front is the cost to integrate the Indian economy with the world, is the view of the GoI? Geo-political goals will have to take a back seat. Who in their sane minds would want a total war in today's age? Eat curry, be happy? I hope it lasts, for when it does not, I know, who will be at the receiving end - it is the nation least prepared. There is a problem with being the only sane head in a mad house. All the mad men will gang up on the sane one, who is the weakest.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 07 Oct 2008 01:46

N^#, that was the earlier understanding until the Congress came up with all those riders etc.

Meanwhile Economic Times, Mumbai reports,

After the drama surrounding the non signing of the 123 Agreement , US president George W Bush will now sign the nuclear deal legislation into law on
October 8.

US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice left India early on Sunday morning without signing the 123 agreement after India had refused to sign the 123 Agreement till Mr Bush took care of India’s concerns on certain inconsistencies and riders attached to the legislation that was passed by the US Congress.

Even assurances from Ms Rice, who has been at the forefront of pushing the deal in the US Congress, failed to sway the Indian establishment.

Mr Bush will now sign HR 7081, United States India Nuclear Co-operation Approval and Non-proliferation Enhancement Act, into law and attach a signing statement that will hopefully take care of the concerns raised by India. This will pave the way for the signing of the 123 Agreement . External affairs minister Pranab Mukherjee is expected to travel to the US soon.

The US, which wanted the 123 Agreement signed on Saturday, may not have been amused by the distrust exhibited by the Indian establishment but Ms Rice betrayed no signs and attributed the delay in the presidential signing to `administrative delays.’

Both she and external affairs minister Pranab Mukherjee had hoped that the 123 Agreement, which will govern bilateral nuclear cooperation between India and the US, would be signed `soon.’ Ms Rice sought to dispel any notions that there were any `` open issues’ between India and the US.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who is accused of ‘failing to keep his assurances’ to Parliament , is keen to convince the domestic constituents that he is safeguarding India’s interests and has got firm commitments from the US.

Mr Singh wants Mr Bush to remove inconsistencies and state the legal position of the 123 Agreement, be forthcoming on fuel supply guarantees and water down prescriptive clauses that include one that seeks to prevent other NSG countries from continuing nuclear co-operation if India tests a weapon.

There is also the question of keeping fuel reserves for each reactor that is placed on the civilian side and under safeguards. This is not the first time that Mr Bush will use the signing statement to take the edge out of a Congress approved legislation.

Mr Bush had in a similar fashion diluted certain provisions of the Hyde Act including one provision that sought India’s help in curtailing and containing Iran. But it remains to be seen if all of India’s concerns are addressed in the signing statement.

From all thsi its MMS who is lastman standing. Wonder what was Pranab doing in all this misperception on the US side which is being fed to the press.

kshirin · Post by **kshirin** » 07 Oct 2008 01:58

narayanan wrote:The TestNow! uproar reminds me of Kalidasa's kind friends urging him on from a safe distance to cut that branch faster.

Bharatiya Patriot Law of Nuclear Test Urgency

Urgency in percentage U = k*exp(1/T) for T >0

U= 0 for T<0 if BJP wins
U= infinity if BJP loses.

where k = 100 and T is the time left before the elections in days.

Gee you are an institution that you are.

Does anyone wonder what they would do without BRF?

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 07 Oct 2008 02:19

Sanku wrote:Arun_S how about outlining the present and future of India on Nuclear options in the face of the deal? How would we be going forward? What are the options for a Nationalistic government from this point on? Whats the likely outcome (assuming we would not have a nationalistic govt all the time?) from now on?

I reiterate the request since the first got lost in the prior pages etc...

Sanku saar: I have 2 month target to write an article for publishing on the same topic, and that can then be submitted for consideration to SRR editor "To counter the rah-rah pro-Deal, anti-Test articles that the stupid Editors may be planning". I am running lean on time for even that deadline. So please bear with me.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 07 Oct 2008 02:28

Arun,
I would hope that you would have some answers to the questions that Sanku poses. At least I would be eagerly awaiting that kind of article.
Thanks,
fanne

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 07 Oct 2008 03:20

Fanne saar: Yes of course, it will address that and more.

nkumar · Post by **nkumar** » 07 Oct 2008 03:40

My take on Bush signing statement is that it will provide some kinda leg to the GoI to stand on while facing the Parliament on Oct 17(date?). If there were to be no Parliament session in 10 days or so, situation would have been different. (Opposition will anyway be targeting GoI on internal security and inflation. They need something to blunt the opposition attack.) Bush's statement will be used as a marketing tool, thats it. What matters is the US's interpretation of 123 as codified into a law now, which is much different from GoI's interpretation. This is a sure recipe for creating a lot of frictions later on.

Before signing 123, India needs to pass the Jekyll act which would have Indian interpretations as has been maintained by GoI, which will also contain the assurances of MMS given to the parliament on fuel supply guarantees, strategic reserve reprocessing etc. Singing 123 without Indian interpretations codified into a law is tantamount to accepting the US's interpretation and negation of MMS's assurances to the Parliament. This would set a dangerous precedent and must be avoided.

All the prospective parties which want to sell reactors to India, will have to conform to all the applicable Indian laws, which would include the Jekyll act.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 07 Oct 2008 03:45

Its not a matter of legs for govts or people but for the nation. That is how important it is. But then folks dont like my answers for they have to think it thru.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Oct 2008 06:47

Bush has run out of MMS life lines. MMS is trying to use his last one.

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 07 Oct 2008 07:11

I do not think MMS has any last one. I feel like this is just a drag.

In spite of buying MPs using tons of money, there is a serious threat of MMS losing vote in LS if it convenes. The session is delayed to complete the deal in all aspects. Forget the consensus, GOI does not even possess technical majority if the Anti Defection law is applied to the farce that happened during the previous vote.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 07 Oct 2008 12:34

The Jekyll Act can be enacted even after the signing of 123 Agreement. Our whole framework of Laws on nuclear issues needs to be revamped, so everything can be done in one go.

In the USA the Laws needed change, so as to enable nuclear commerce with India and because the legislators determined such as the sequencing, however in India, there is no compulsion of having all the Laws beforehand.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 07 Oct 2008 13:54

“Changes in 123 agreement nullify Manmohan’s promises” by T.S. Subramanian: Hindu

CHENNAI: The former Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), P.K. Iyengar, has said the latest modifications made in the 123 agreement by the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate nullified the promises made by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on the nuclear agreement between India and the U.S.

These modifications have also neutralised the demands/observations of AEC Chairman Anil Kakodkar that India had been assured of uninterrupted fuel supply in the 123 agreement, that India had a right to find alternative suppliers in case the supply was disrupted and that the Nuclear Suppliers Group waiver to India should be clean and unconditional, Dr. Iyengar said in an interview here last Saturday.

“The entire 123 agreement is orchestrated to bind India to a status of a non-nuclear weapon country and surrendering its right to reprocess [the spent fuel] even under the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) safeguards,” he said.

Dr. Singh, the former AEC Chairman said, promised the nation the following: that India would not compromise on uninterrupted nuclear fuel supply to its imported reactors, it would be allowed to build a stockpile of fuel, it could take corrective measures in case of fuel supply disruption and that India’s sovereign right to conduct a nuclear test would not be taken away by the agreement.

However, the recent legislation passed by the U.S. House and the Senate did not accept the 123 agreement in toto, Dr. Iyengar said. The Bill titled “United States-India Nuclear Cooperation Approval and Non-Proliferation Enhancement Act” had a new provision that the U.S. President should write to the Senate, saying that he would influence the NSG countries to apply the same restrictions as the U.S. would in the transfer of enrichment and reprocessing technologies to India.

Another modification entailed that in the case of disruption of fuel supply to India (if India tested a nuclear device), the U.S. President would ensure that no country came to the rescue of India.

“Why is the Government of India silent on this new provision,” Dr. Iyengar asked. “According to the new Act, the U.S. President has to certify that he has made all efforts and made the NSG agree that they will not contravene the U.S. if the U.S. refuses to supply fuel to India. It means that India will be under the U.S. control all the time,” he asserted. This provision violated the 123 agreement which said other countries would be called into play if fuel supply to India was disrupted. Besides, President George W. Bush had said there was “no legal binding” on the U.S. assurance of uninterrupted fuel supply to India.

The U.S. insisted that India would have to approach Congress every time it wanted to reprocess the spent fuel and that the U.S. could deny the right to India to reprocess. “This means there will be an uncertainty after we build a dedicated facility for reprocessing,” Dr. Iyengar said. If the U.S. did not like the design of this facility, India would be stuck.
Damage insurance

On top of all these, the U.S. industries had now revealed that the new rules of that country’s Nuclear Regulatory Commission demanded that any industry which built a nuclear plant should have a damage insurance guaranteed by the U.S. government and that the government of India should give a similar guarantee if the plant were to be built in India.

This insurance would make the tariff from a nuclear power plant built by a U.S. company in India costlier besides subsidising the U.S. company’s investment in India, Dr. Iyengar said.

George W. Bush may find it hard, putting in 'signing statements' in the Bill, which will undo the 'legislative requirements' of the Law, including that Hyde Act and Atomic Energy Act take precedence over 123 Agreement, but what George W. Bush can do, is undo the Statements on U.S. Policy in the Bill , e.g.

1. in case of test, US would seek to prevent other countries from doing business with India. => in case of test, US would consult with other members of NSG on appropriate measures

2. US understands and supports India's requirement to have a strategic fuel reserve.

In terms of measures, US can support India,

3. by letting the ENR-related NSG Plenary Meeting in November 2008 fail, and still fulfill its legislative requirements. Russia too can support India on this.

4. by nudging Canada, Japan, and perhaps Australia (though I do not see much hope here) to conclude civilian nuclear cooperation bilateral agreements with India without any nuclear testing and ensuing return of materials BS in them.

That would go some way in making up for the slide from J18 by George W. Bush.

amit · Post by **amit** » 07 Oct 2008 15:11

geeth wrote:The takleef is in your assumptions and beliefs that the so called Gurus know it better than the BJP stewardship at that time...Again, there is takleef when you first accuse the BJP of tying 'us' in a knot and then suggest that the BJP abrogate its own voluntary moratorium a.k.a 'knot' and say later it ia compliment to them.

I'm glad you brought this point up (the one in bold). If you ask me I personally think that the BJP leadership would/will look after India's interests just as much as I think the UPA leadership would/is looking after the interests of the nation.

And since the BJP continued with its moratorium post Pokharan II I would assume that the leadership was reasonably confident of the maal that we go as a result of the tests. That would explain Yashwant Sinha's statement: "We will test if the need arises".

And what can be the need? Possibly some major event that results in our supreme national interests being compromised and we test.

Now my question is how is Yashwant Sinha's "if the need arises" comment different from the UPA government's comment: "India is free test, US is free to react?"

Different polemics but isn't the central point the same? That is India can and will test if the need arises and the US can react as much as it wants in that case? It's also useful to remember that the US would have reacted even if we did not have this deal.

May be you haven't understood what the folks here are talking about. Yes, we are talking about the RIGHT to test and 'right to test' has no time frame.

You are absolutely right I really haven't understood how we are losing the RIGHT to test? Are we signing CTBT or some such moniker treaty? Is 123 equivalent to the CTBT.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Oct 2008 15:17

A Jekyll Act will ONLY amplifies the deep mistrust. It would be better to place 123 in a deep freeze till Indian position is better and then provide the heat needed to thaw it.

Mean while the NSG "waiver" can be used to keep a truly civilian program running - the main purpose for India to venture to even talk about outside assistance. (This assumes that FR/RU will not write up another 123 equivalent. DO not know if that is possible.)

On another note, all this maneuvering seems that India expects to test in the next 10-20 years. And, IF that is true, has not the funding been reduced in these years when India is doing well economically? Also, has CAT in Indore been refocused?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 07 Oct 2008 15:24

Here is my advice to Bush (assuming that the probability of his reading this is higher than 0.0000001%):

Dubya, let us talk about legacy. I mean positive legacy, I don't mean the legacy that you oversaw the collapse of the financial sector and economic strength of America, or that you messed up in Iraq, and that too real bad, or that you didn't catch the man Osama in all your years in White House, or that you left Afghanistan on the precipice of defeat, or that you allowed China to rise unchallenged, or that you left another nuclear-armed ally Pakistan on the verge of being run-over by the Mullahs, or that you proved a disaster for all efforts to contain Global Warming, or so many other things. But we don't want to talk about that.

Let us talk about your one great deed for mankind, Yankeekind and the Indiankind, the Indo-US Strategic Partnership. That is your one and only legacy, about which people after many years would talk about and think fondly of you. No don't get me wrong, your people will never think fondly of you. After you are gone, even the Republicans will try to wipe out all memory and burn all records of America's 43rd President.

So the only survival of your legacy rests on how the people of a far distant land of snake-charmers think of you. Their Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh has maybe already pledged his deep love for you on behalf of all of India, but you know a thing or two about love yourself, right. It needs to be nurtured especially when it is still a sapling.

Pardon me, if I bring you back to earth, but what you have given the Indians up till now, is food for the hungry but it is not really very appetizing, and it is hardly an unforgettable delicious meal. So Dubya, do something. Your legacy depends on how well you can save your cooking, after all those ba$tards in the Congress pissed in the pan. You just need to prove to the Indians, that you did all you could.

Your ratings in USA cannot go further down, than they already are. So even if you do more naughty stuff with the Congress Bills, what do you have to lose - nothing. But if you put in some really good savory spices into the Bill using your 'signing statements', you just might save the dish, in which case you have much to win, not in USA, but in India.

Indians will remember you for your efforts, and maybe when India is herself a world power of consequence, when Americans read Indian history, they will be reminded of who their 43rd President was, and that he saved America by helping India.

So Dubya, it is your legacy to save.