Bharat Rakshak

China to back Pak demand for N-deal with US:
ISLAMABAD: China will back Pakistan at a key nuclear summit in Washington next week on several issues, including its demand for a civil nuclear deal similar to the one India inked with the US and its efforts to improve atomic capabilities for peaceful purposes, a media report said here. The issue of China's support for Pakistan on these issues was discussed in yesterday's meeting of the parliamentary committee on national security chaired by Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, the 'Daily Times' newspaper quoted sources privy to the meeting as saying. Significantly, Pakistan's Ambassador to China Masood Khan also participated in the meeting that discussed the country's preparations for the April 12-13 nuclear summit. The parliamentary committee was assured that Pakistan will actively pursue its case for a civil nuclear deal with the US during Gilani's upcoming visit to Washington. In his address at the meeting, Gilani made a push for Pakistan to be given a civil nuclear deal similar to the one inked by India and the US. He said Pakistan "fully qualifies" for equal participation in civil nuclear cooperation as it has put in place effective security and non-proliferation measures.

Mr Netanyahu made the decision after learning that Egypt and Turkey intended to raise the issue of Israel's presumed nuclear arsenal, media reports said.

Israeli officials said Benjamin Netanyahu decided to send a minister in his place after reports that Muslim nations in the Middle East would single out Israel's undeclared nuclear programme for criticism.

The White House tried to downplay the cancellation, but will be privately furious at a very public snub by Mr Netanyahu, who may have been looking for such an opportunity after a recent tete-a-tete with Mr Obama behind closed doors in Washington.

Mr Netanyahu returned home from those talks to a tide of derision in the Israeli press, with a showdown over Jewish settlement construction in East Jerusalem unresolved and relations between the two allies descending into open hostility.

Mike Hammer, the White House National Security Council spokesman, simply said the Israeli government "has informed us" of the decision to send Dan Meridor, a deputy prime minister and the intelligence and atomic energy minister, to the nuclear security summit of 47 nations convened by Mr Obama.

Some are impressed. Now that the new treaty is signed, it will be against the law for a president to deploy 1,600 warheads -- unless he first withdraws from the treaty.

But a new "counting rule" undercuts the significance of Obama and Medvedev's achievement. Each bomber counts as only one warhead, even though each might be able to carry as many as 20 warheads. { } {Obamaese}

America's premiere independent expert on the American nuclear arsenal, Hans Kristensen, of the Federation of Atomic Scientists, said "The paradox is that with the "fake" bomber counting rule, the United States and Russia could, if they chose, deploy more strategic warheads under the New START Treaty by 2017 than would have been allowed by the Moscow Treaty by 2012."

The new models are more advanced than the P1 centrifuge - adapted from a 1970s design, reportedly acquired by Iran on the black market in the 1980s, and prone to breakdowns

But in the latest issue of Strategic Studies Quarterly, three Air Force thinkers offer a surprising estimate. James Wood Forsyth Jr., Col. B. Chance Saltzman (chief of the Air Force Strategic Plans and Policy Division) and Gary Schaub Jr. conclude that "America's security can rest easily" on a comparatively small nuclear force.

The United States, they write, could "draw down its nuclear arsenal to a relatively small number of survivable, reliable weapons dispersed among missile silos, submarines, and airplanes." They said such a force might number only 311 nuclear weapons. They point out that China has already moved to a minimum deterrence strategy with an estimated 400 warheads, and 200 deployed.

Bikini atoll residents denied compensation for nuclear tests

In August of 2008, the United States Court of Federal Claims, dismissed the suit saying that the Bikinis had missed the 6-year statute of limitations

Article 8

1. The right of compensation under this Convention shall be extinguished if an action is not brought within ten years from the date of the nuclear incident. National legislation may, however, establish a period longer than ten years if measures have been taken by the Contracting Party in whose territory the nuclear installation of the operator liable is situated to cover the liability of that operator in respect of any actions for compensation begun after the expiry of the period of ten years and during such longer period: provided that such extension of the extinction period shall in no case affect the right of compensation under this Convention of any person who has brought an action in respect of loss of life or personal injury against the operator before the expiry of the period of ten years.

2. In the case of damage caused by a nuclear incident involving nuclear fuel or radioactive products or waste which, at the time of the incident have been stolen, lost, jettisoned or abandoned and have not yet been recovered, the period established pursuant to paragraph (a) of this Article shall be computed from the date of that nuclear incident, but the period shall in no case exceed twenty years from the date of the theft, loss, jettison or abandonment.

3. National legislation may establish a period of not less than two years for the extinction of the right or as a period of limitation either from the date at which the person suffering damage has knowledge or from the date at which he ought reasonably to have known of both the damage and the operator liable: provided that the period established pursuant to paragraphs (a) and (b) of this Article shall not be exceeded.

4. Where the provisions of Article 13(c)(ii) are applicable, the right of compensation shall not, however, be extinguished if, within the time provided for in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of this Article,

1. prior to the determination by the Tribunal referred to in Article 17, an action has been brought before any of the courts from which the Tribunal can choose; if the Tribunal determines that the competent court is a court other than that before which such action has already been brought, it may fix a date by which such action has to be brought before the competent court so determined; or

2. a request has been made to a Contracting Party concerned to initiate a determination by the Tribunal of the competent court pursuant to Article 13(c)(ii) and an action is brought subsequent to such determination within such time as may be fixed by the Tribunal.

5. Unless national law provides to the contrary, any person suffering damage caused by a nuclear incident who has brought an action for compensation within the period provided for in this Article may amend his claim in respect of any aggravation of the damage after the expiry of such period provided that final judgment has not been entered by the competent court.

The main point of the exercise however is to get leaders from over 40 countries together to focus on an issue that is normally paid lip-service to. It sets a benchmark for good global citizenship, and more importantly a new benchmark for getting along well with Washington.

To that end, the world leaders have all been asked to bring something to the party, and that is where the real meat of the summit will be found. Chile shipped its HEU to the US last month, just in time for the summit. Other states, probably including Ukraine and Canada, will promise to convert HEU reactors to more proliferation-proof LEU. And the US and Russia will sign a deal on Monday to each dispose of 34 metric tons of plutonium removed from weapons by using it to generate nuclear power.

The invited leaders will also be feel some pressure to come up with some concrete achievement to bring back in 2012, and so orders will be given and officials chivvied to do something. It is the art of leveraging political capital, and there is no question Obama is putting a lot of capital, time and energy, into what is arguably the world's most serious but neglected security problem.

President Barack Obama said on Sunday that efforts by al Qaeda to acquire atomic weapons posed the biggest threat to global security, and world leaders meeting this week must act with urgency to combat this danger.

WASHINGTON — Three months ago, American intelligence officials examining satellite photographs of Pakistani nuclear facilities saw the first wisps of steam from the cooling towers of a new nuclear reactor. It was one of three plants being constructed to make fuel for a second generation of nuclear arms.

President Obama held a meeting with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India at the Blair House in Washington on Sunday.
The message of those photos was clear: While Pakistan struggles to make sure its weapons and nuclear labs are not vulnerable to attack by Al Qaeda, the country is getting ready to greatly expand its production of weapons-grade fuel.

The Pakistanis insist that they have no choice. A nuclear deal that India signed with the United States during the Bush administration ended a long moratorium on providing India with the fuel and technology for desperately needed nuclear power plants.

Now, as critics of the arrangement point out, the agreement frees up older facilities that India can devote to making its own new generation of weapons, escalating one arms race even as President Obama and President Dmitri A. Medvedev of Russia sign accords to shrink arsenals built during the cold war.

Mr. Obama met with the leaders of India and Pakistan on Sunday, a day ahead of a two-day Washington gathering with 47 nations devoted to the question of how to keep nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorists

Taking up the Pakistan-India arms race at the summit meeting, administration officials say, would be “too politically divisive.”

The next phase in Mr. Obama’s arms-control plan is to get countries to agree to a treaty that would end the production of new bomb fuel. Pakistan has led the opposition, and it is building two new reactors for making weapons-grade plutonium, and one plant for salvaging plutonium from old reactor fuel.

Last month, the Institute for Science and International Security, a private group in Washington, reported that the first reactor was emitting steam. That suggests, said Paul Brannan, a senior institute analyst, that the “reactor is at least at some state of initial operation.”

Asked about the production, Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States, Husain Haqqani, said, “Pakistan looks forward to working with the international community to find the balance between our national security and our contributions to international nonproliferation efforts.”

In private, Pakistani officials insist that the new plants are needed because India has the power to mount a lightning invasion with conventional forces.

India, too, is making new weapons-grade plutonium, in plants exempted under the agreement with the Bush administration from inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency. (Neither Pakistan nor India has signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.)

The Obama administration has endorsed the Bush-era agreement. Last month, the White House took the next step, approving an accord that allows India to build two new reprocessing plants. While that fuel is for civilian use, critics say it frees older plants to make weapons fuel.

“The Indian relationship is a very important one,” said Mr. Nunn, who influenced Mr. Obama’s decision to endorse a goal of ridding the world of nuclear weapons. But he said that during the Bush years, “I would have insisted that we negotiate to stop their production of weapons fuel. Sometimes in Washington, we have a hard time distinguishing between the important and the vital.”

Mr. Obama also held separate sessions at Blair House, the official guesthouse, with the prime ministers of India and Pakistan, which have taken a different path — nuclear buildup. White House officials would not disclose many details of the meeting with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who upon leaving India talked about the country’s “impeccable” record of nuclear security.

Later in the day, meeting with Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani of Pakistan, Mr. Obama was described by aides as expressing “disappointment” that Pakistan was blocking negotiations over a multination treaty to halt the production of new weapons-grade nuclear material. Mr. Gilani, who under recent changes in Pakistan now has authority over its nuclear arsenal, heard Mr. Obama out, officials said, but did not change his position.

When he speaks at the plenary session on Tuesday Manmohan will announce a major Indian initiative to fund and set up a Global Centre for Nuclear Energy Partnership in the country. It will have various schools that would focus on nuclear security, advanced nuclear energy systems, application of radioisotopes for medicine and radiological studies. The Centre would offer formal training and education for all interested countries. India plans to project the Centre as a showcase of its “cradle to grave” nuclear expertise that it has built over six decades and also demonstrate the country’s commitment and expertise towards enhancing global nuclear safety, security and energy related issues.

Neshant wrote:Its an unsustainable position to talk about keeping nukes while claiming others should not be having them.

Everyone should give up nukes simultaneously. That's the only way.

------------

French president: will not give up nuclear weapons

Article VI

Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

Brad Goodman wrote:I had asked this question earlier too and would like to ask it again. If porkies are operationalizing more nuke plants the question is where are they getting the uranium required?

Anujan dada isn't that Article VI as vague and abstract as one can get ?

Announcing the setting up of the Global Centre for Nuclear Energy Partnership in India, Manmohan Singh stressed that "the world community should join hands to eliminate the risk of sensitive and valuable materials and technologies falling into hands of terrorists and illicit traffickers".

President Barack Obama, Excellencies, Distinguished Heads of Delegations,

Nuclear security is one of the foremost challenges we face today. I therefore wish to commend President Barack Obama for his initiative in convening this Summit on Nuclear Security. We would like the Summit to lead to concrete outcomes which help make our world a safer place.

The developmental applications of nuclear science in areas such as medicine, agriculture, food preservation and availability of fresh water are by now well established. Today, nuclear energy has emerged as a viable source of energy to meet the growing needs of the world in a manner that is environmentally sustainable. There is a real prospect for nuclear technology to address the developmental challenges of our times.

In India we have ambitious plans for using nuclear energy to meet our growing energy needs. Our target is to increase our installed capacity more than seven fold to 35000 MWe by the year 2022, and to 60,000 MWe by 2032.

The nuclear industry’s safety record over the last few years has been encouraging. It has helped to restore public faith in nuclear power. Safety alone, however, is not enough. The challenge we face today is that of ensuring nuclear security.

The danger of nuclear explosives or fissile material and technical know-how falling in to the hands of non-state actors continues to haunt our world. India is deeply concerned about the danger it faces, as do other States, from this threat.

Since 2002, we have piloted a resolution at the United Nations General Assembly on measures to deny terrorists access to Weapons of Mass Destruction. We fully support the implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540 and the United Nations Global Counter Terrorism Strategy.

The primary responsibility for ensuring nuclear security rests at the national level, but national responsibility must be accompanied by responsible behaviour by States. If not, it remains an empty slogan. All States should scrupulously abide by their international obligations. It is a matter of deep regret that the global non-proliferation regime has failed to prevent nuclear proliferation. Clandestine proliferation networks have flourished and led to insecurity for all, including and especially for India. We must learn from past mistakes and institute effective measures to prevent their recurrence.

The world community should join hands to eliminate the risk of sensitive and valuable materials and technologies falling into hands of terrorists and illicit traffickers. There should be zero tolerance for individuals and groups which engage in illegal trafficking in nuclear items.

Global non-proliferation, to be successful, should be universal, comprehensive and non-discriminatory and linked to the goal of complete nuclear disarmament.

We welcome the fact that the world is veering around to our view that the best guarantor of nuclear security is a world free from nuclear weapons.

Starting with Jawaharlal Nehru over five decades ago, India has been in the forefront of the call for global and complete nuclear disarmament. In 2006 India proposed the negotiation of a Nuclear Weapons Convention. We have also expressed our readiness to participate in the negotiation of an internationally verifiable Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty in the Conference on Disarmament.

Former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi had put forward a concrete Action Plan in 1988 for the universal and non-discriminatory elimination of nuclear weapons leading to global nuclear disarmament in a time-bound framework.

Today, I once again reiterate India’s call to the world community to work towards the realisation of this vision.

We welcome the agreement between the United States and Russia to cut their nuclear arsenals as a step in the right direction. I call upon all states with substantial nuclear arsenals to further accelerate this process by making deeper cuts that will lead to meaningful disarmament.

We are encouraged by the Nuclear Posture Review announced by President Obama. India supports the universalisation of the policy of No First Use. The salience of nuclear weapons in national defence and security doctrines must be reduced as a matter of priority.

The dangers of nuclear terrorism make the early elimination of nuclear weapons a matter of even greater urgency.

The Indian Atomic Energy Act provides the legal framework for securing nuclear materials and facilities, and the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board ensures independent oversight of nuclear safety and security. We are party to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and its 2005 amendment.

India’s three stage nuclear power programme which began sixty years ago is based on a closed nuclear fuel cycle. A direct benefit of this is that it ensures control over nuclear material that is generated as spent fuel. At the same time, we are continually upgrading technology to develop nuclear systems that are intrinsically safe, secure and proliferation resistant. We have recently developed an Advanced Heavy Water Reactor based on Low Enriched Uranium and thorium with new safety and proliferation-resistant features.

India has maintained an impeccable non-proliferation record, of which we are proud of. As a responsible nuclear power, India has and will not be the source of proliferation of sensitive technologies. We have a well-established and effective export control system which has worked without fail for over six decades. We have strengthened this system by harmonisation of our guidelines and lists with those of the Nuclear Suppliers Group and the Missile Technology Control Regime. Our commitment to not transfer nuclear weapons or related materials and technologies to non-nuclear weapon states or non-state actors is enshrined in domestic law through the enactment of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Act. We stand committed not to transfer reprocessing and enrichment technologies and equipment to countries that do not possess them.

As a founder member of the International Atomic Energy Agency, we have consistently supported the central role of the IAEA in facilitating national efforts to strengthen nuclear security and in fostering effective international cooperation. We have so far conducted nine Regional Training Courses on Nuclear Security in cooperation with the IAEA. We have entered into a Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA in 2008, and have decided to place all future civilian thermal power reactors and civilian breeder reactors under IAEA safeguards.

We will continue to work with the IAEA and our partners in the United Nations as well as other forums such as the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism to upgrade standards, share experiences and ensure effective implementation of international benchmarks on nuclear security.

I am happy to announce on this occasion that we have decided to set up a “Global Centre for Nuclear Energy Partnership” in India. We visualize this to be a state of the art facility based on international participation from the IAEA and other interested foreign partners. The Centre will consist of four Schools dealing with Advanced Nuclear Energy System Studies, Nuclear Security, Radiation Safety, and the application of Radioisotopes and Radiation Technology in the areas of healthcare, agriculture and food. The Centre will conduct research and development of design systems that are intrinsically safe, secure, proliferation resistant and sustainable. We would welcome participation in this venture by your countries, the IAEA and the world to make this Centre’s work a success.

I thank you.