My comments were only to the previous comment on testingamit wrote:
Would be grateful on some clarification on this.
India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008
Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008
-
- 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 23 July 2008
Acharya wrote:My comments were only to the previous comment on testingamit wrote:
Would be grateful on some clarification on this.
Boss wasn't seeking any specific clarification from you.

I just want to understand what's being said here as regards 2g and why it's being as a red flag.
Actually I was wanting to use Arnab's previous comment as the quote with which to introduce my post. I hit on your comment accidentally.
Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008
Another realistic scenario:RajeshA wrote:As long as the NSG Plenary Meetings decide issues on the basis of consensus, a majority would not mean acceptance, it would be called a split decision and as such null and void, status quo.Gerard wrote:U.S. proposes India nuclear waiver, approval in doubt
I suspect the first majority vote in NSG history may be in the offering....
Of course, that would be a major slap on US's face, not being able to convince a bunch of non-countries. The possibilities are:
1) The Non-Proliferation Activist States do not budge, and will vote in favor only if their conditions are met. USA yields. India walks away.
2) The NPASs do not budge. USA doesn't budge. India doesn't budge. There is no Waiver. India and USA go home, and deal dies.
3) The NPASs do not budge. USA pushes them out of NSG. Deal goes through.
4) The NPASs do not budge. The NSG Rules are changed to majority voting. Deal goes through.
5) The NPASs budge. Deal goes through.
The Non-Proliferation Activist States do not budge. USA wrings its hands. GoI talks semantics for local consumption and signs, wherever asked to, on the dotted line. After all this (talking semantics) has been well practiced during the "hide the Hyde" act!
-
- 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 23 July 2008
After the fiasco of the trust vote, the situation in J&K and inflation, MMS/Sonia Gandhi do not have enough political capital to do such a thing. It will be equivalent to political harakiri.Sanatanan wrote: Another realistic scenario:
The Non-Proliferation Activist States do not budge. USA wrings its hands. GoI talks semantics for local consumption and signs, wherever asked to, on the dotted line. After all this (talking semantics) has been well practiced during the "hide the Hyde" act!
Don't count on Congress to commit politcal suicide, IMO.
Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008
Was it KS or Dr. S Jaishankar (KS's son?)ramana wrote:The unilateral morotarium is only in GOI's PMO press release. KS fought hard to get it out of the 123. {Emphasis, mine}
Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008
A NSG Waiver is not an Agreement between India and the NSG. India does not give the NSG anything in writing. There are no commitments from India. In fact, India is not even a de-jure party to the process.
NSG makes cognizance of the reality and acts accordingly. The AS FAVORABLE ACKNOWLEDGED REALITY forms Part 2 of the Waiver.
a) Commitments concerning SYNCHRONIZATION OF LAWS (Indian Export Control Laws) can be made easily through comparison.
b) Commitments concerning NON-VIOLATION OF COMMITMENTS TO THIRD PARTIES (India-IAEA Safeguards Agreement, Additional Protocol) is determined through verification mechanisms of third parties.
c) Digression from Acceptable Behavior is determined either through UNMISTAKABLE ACTIONS OF CONCERNED PARTY (nuclear tests by India) or through COLLECTIVE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF A DETERMINATION BY MEMBER PARTIES (violation of bilateral treaties, non-adherence to export controls).
Analysis of the Comprehensiveness of the Waiver:
1) PRESCRIPTIONS FOR AN IDEAL REALITY have been minimally defined.
2) AS FAVORABLE ACKNOWLEDGED REALITY gives a hint as to what are ACCEPTABLE PARAMETERS but they have not been defined as yet conclusively.
3) EFFECTS ON AMENDED RULES OF OPERATION as a consequence of DETERMINATION OF OBSERVED CURRENT REALITY TO BE OUTSIDE ACCEPTABLE PARAMETERS have not been defined at all.
Conclusions:
1) India's Moratorium on Nuclear Testing should not become part of the ACCEPTABLE PARAMETERS at NSG Level, only at Member State Level if necessary (e.g. Hyde Act)
2) It is best if PRESCRIPTIONS FOR IDEAL REALITY portion is not further elaborated. Red Herring for the Opposition in India.
3) It is best if EFFECTS ON AMENDED RULES OF OPERATION portion remains undefined or fudgy, or at least is not a function of ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR, and does not include return of fuel, etc.
ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR and EFFECTS ON AMENDED RULES OF OPERATION portions of the NSG Waiver will form the Template for the MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR and MINIMUM EFFECTS ON AMENDED RULES OF OPERATION of the bilateral treaties respectively.
So extremely important, no condition of nuclear testing moratorium and no return of fuel in NSG Waiver. These must be India's red lines.
NSG makes cognizance of the reality and acts accordingly. The AS FAVORABLE ACKNOWLEDGED REALITY forms Part 2 of the Waiver.
NSG deliberations could still include another part on PRESCRIPTIONS FOR IDEAL REALITY.2. In this respect, Participating Governments have taken note of steps that India has taken voluntarily as a contributing partner in the non-proliferation regime and they welcome India's efforts with respect to the following non-proliferation commitments and actions:
... declaring its readiness to work with others towards conclusion of a multilateral Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty.
On the basis of this AS FAVORABLE ACKNOWLEDGED REALITY NSG amends its RULES OF OPERATION.No NPT, CTBT, etc. mention yet
Reality is however in flux and it needs to be constantly observed and a DETERMINATION OF OBSERVED CURRENT REALITY TO BE WITHIN ACCEPTABLE PARAMETERS needs to be made.3. In view of the above, Participating Governments have adopted the following policy on civilian nuclear cooperation with the IAEA-safeguarded Indian civilian nuclear program
DETERMINATION ... can be made in the following way.3 c. Participating Governments shall maintain contact and consult through regular channels on matters connected with the implementation of the Guidelines, taking into account relevant international commitments and bilateral agreements with India.
a) Commitments concerning SYNCHRONIZATION OF LAWS (Indian Export Control Laws) can be made easily through comparison.
b) Commitments concerning NON-VIOLATION OF COMMITMENTS TO THIRD PARTIES (India-IAEA Safeguards Agreement, Additional Protocol) is determined through verification mechanisms of third parties.
c) Digression from Acceptable Behavior is determined either through UNMISTAKABLE ACTIONS OF CONCERNED PARTY (nuclear tests by India) or through COLLECTIVE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF A DETERMINATION BY MEMBER PARTIES (violation of bilateral treaties, non-adherence to export controls).
Analysis of the Comprehensiveness of the Waiver:
1) PRESCRIPTIONS FOR AN IDEAL REALITY have been minimally defined.
2) AS FAVORABLE ACKNOWLEDGED REALITY gives a hint as to what are ACCEPTABLE PARAMETERS but they have not been defined as yet conclusively.
3) EFFECTS ON AMENDED RULES OF OPERATION as a consequence of DETERMINATION OF OBSERVED CURRENT REALITY TO BE OUTSIDE ACCEPTABLE PARAMETERS have not been defined at all.
Conclusions:
1) India's Moratorium on Nuclear Testing should not become part of the ACCEPTABLE PARAMETERS at NSG Level, only at Member State Level if necessary (e.g. Hyde Act)
2) It is best if PRESCRIPTIONS FOR IDEAL REALITY portion is not further elaborated. Red Herring for the Opposition in India.
3) It is best if EFFECTS ON AMENDED RULES OF OPERATION portion remains undefined or fudgy, or at least is not a function of ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR, and does not include return of fuel, etc.
ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR and EFFECTS ON AMENDED RULES OF OPERATION portions of the NSG Waiver will form the Template for the MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR and MINIMUM EFFECTS ON AMENDED RULES OF OPERATION of the bilateral treaties respectively.
So extremely important, no condition of nuclear testing moratorium and no return of fuel in NSG Waiver. These must be India's red lines.
-
- 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 23 July 2008
I'm sure folks have seen this on ACW here. Nevertheless an interesting comment:

And it does seem that folks who read ACW also read BRF. Look at this:When push comes to shove, there is no way the U.S. Congress will allow French and Russian companies to get all the contracts--and the Bush administration knows it. That is why the administration could care less about working the Hyde Act conditions into the exemption.
By getting the NSG to approve an exemption devoid of conditions, the administration sets up the Congress as the obstacle standing before American industry doing business with India while the French and the Russian nuclear industries go on a feeding frenzy there. The nuclear industry’s lobbyists, and perhaps organized labor, will descend on Congress asking why it is fair that French and Russian companies get all the fruits of our diplomatic heavy-lifting, while American industry gets nothing.
This is a very shrewd, clever political gambit on the part of the administration, and I would put my money on the lobbyists: under such pressure, Congress would probably repeal the restrictions in the Hyde Act.
If I am right, the last best chance advocates against the deal have to kill it is to prevent the Bush administration's draft from carrying the day.
— Andy Grotto · Aug 13, 10:05 AM ·
Also, the economic kick-backs associated with the US-India nuclear deal extend beyond the US nuclear industry. It’s widely supposed that, for Indian policymakers, the nuclear deal is linked to the Indian Air Force’s massive, as-yet-undecided fighter jet contract. Completion of the nuclear deal would benefit the American firms that are competing for the jet contract. The US’ “leg work” on the nuclear deal thus could yield benefits to US industry even if the Hyde Act prevented American companies from getting a piece of the nuclear energy action. (Which is not to say that the agreement is a good idea).
— Max Postman · Aug 14, 11:54 AM ·

-
- 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 23 July 2008
Two views on 2g
Interestingly, the same report quotes Kimball as saying this about section 2 (a-g):
I think the views of these two nuclear salwarts mirror the two interpretations that are being made on BRF about 2g."[It implies] our unilateral moratorium is being made binding on us," protested Dr AN Prasad, a former director of the Mumbai-based BARC. "There is no way we can carry out tests and still keep the waiver ... to suggest otherwise is humbug". He contended the waiver will be subject to review and it could be amended in the future. The 123 Agreement and the NSG draft are so "loosely worded" that there can be more than one interpretation, which will affect arbitration, he added. A former AEC chairman, Dr MR Srinivasan, shrugged off concerns about testing by saying "moratorium is at our own instance" and it is not a mandatory obligation. India cannot accept any more obligations beyond what is spelt out in the July 18, 2005 India-US joint statement, he iterated, adding it will be up to each individual NSG participant to determine the level of engagement with India and to decide the nature and extent of bilateral nuclear trade. He also said the objections by countries like Austria and certain other NSG members, who do not believe in nuclear energy, are misplaced
Interestingly, the same report quotes Kimball as saying this about section 2 (a-g):
The point to note is that maximalists in both camps have problems with the provisions of Section 2. This probably implies that's where the hard negotiations went into to make it acceptable for all parties."... one of the most notable and troublesome features is the weak and very ambiguous language in section 2, which is ostensibly meant to outline what India has done that qualifies it for a special exemption from NSG guidelines. The proposal would simply "recognise" India’s commitments and actions that were outlined in the July 2005 joint statement", he added.
Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008
The Waiver cannot be amended subsequently. Several countries will be entering into bilateral civilian nuclear cooperation agreements with India. The other countries would also have to include all the conditions included in the NSG Waiver. If the conditions in NSG Waiver are not explicitly stated, then these could be interpreted by the countries and justifiably so, as not requiring a termination of bilateral agreement upon nuclear testing by India. Once the bilateral agreements are signed, NSG cannot require its members to review their bilateral agreements with India, as these are international treaties.amit wrote:Two views on 2g
"[It implies] our unilateral moratorium is being made binding on us," protested Dr AN Prasad, a former director of the Mumbai-based BARC. "There is no way we can carry out tests and still keep the waiver ... to suggest otherwise is humbug". He contended the waiver will be subject to review and it could be amended in the future.
Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008
India-U.S. Nuclear Accord Would Be `Disaster,' Arms Group Says
India continues to produce fissile material and expand its nuclear arsenal, academics, former diplomats and non-governmental organizations said in a letter today to member countries.
http://www.armscontrol.org/system/files ... yAug15.pdfThe letter is signed by the mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, former U.S., Canadian and Australian ambassadors and NGOs from more than 20 countries, according to the Arms Control Association, which organized the letter with the Tokyo-based Citizens' Nuclear Information Center.
Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008
An interesting collection of signatures on that letter...
Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008
My surmise is that NZ may be considering itself to be a "wronged party" on account of the irresponsible atmospheric testing of atom bombs carried out by some of the P5 in the Pacific, their neighbourhood.SSridhar wrote: True. That's why countries like Austria & NZ whose nuclear commerce is a pittance can afford to take a moral high-ground, out of tune with reality, while those countries with potential for significant nuclear commerce will take a more realistic stand taking into account India's consistent stand, its laws, its achievements scientifically, industrially & technologically, its indigenous programmes, and its overall approach to nuclear weapons and nuclear energy.
For example:
There may also be a political climate existing in some of the smaller countries ruled by populations of Caucasian descent against the perceived "big brother" attitude of the USA in dealings with them. So, when a chance arises, they may make it a point to show defiance. I think that even in Canada, there may be persons who resent the evolution of US policies which prevent (or at least make it extremely difficult for) CANDUs from being eligible to be licensed in the US.
NZ Prime Minister's Address at Parliamentary Network for Nuclear Disarmament Forum
. . . .
New Zealand's advocacy for nuclear disarmament dates back many years.
During the height of the Cold War, in 1958, Prime Minister, Rt Hon Walter Nash, in his statement to the United Nations in New York, called for the negotiation of a multilateral treaty to ban nuclear testing. In 1959, New Zealand stood apart from its ANZUS partners to support UN resolutions calling for a treaty banning nuclear tests. New Zealand was among the first signatories of the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty concluded in 1963.
Our stance on nuclear disarmament became synonymous with New Zealand's forging of an independent foreign policy {Emphasis, mine. Sounds familiar?}. A new direction developed, placing issues like disarmament, human rights, and engagement in peace-keeping at the forefront of foreign policy, rather than as an afterthought. New Zealanders overall have taken pride in seeing their country's foreign policy express their values and our country's pride in its independence of mind.
The key part nuclear disarmament plays in New Zealand's foreign policy is consistent with our wider commitment to multilateral diplomacy, from our early involvement in the establishment of the United Nations, to our continuing support for a rules-based international order.
New Zealand is also part of the Asia-Pacific; the region which has experienced the only use of nuclear weapons in war, 59 years ago in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and which has been a nuclear weapons test zone for major powers. At the United Nations in 1963, the New Zealand representative Alistair McIntosh spoke eloquently on behalf of the region as "we who have seen the awesome glow in the sky", expressing once again the region's intense opposition to nuclear tests.
In 2001, I visited Hiroshima in Japan for the first time. After laying a wreath in the peace park, I visited the museum. Like everyone interested in nuclear issues I knew a great deal about what had transpired in Hiroshima in 1945. But that could not prevent the shock I felt from seeing the exhibits – the charred bicycle of a child, the fragments of a sandal found by a mother, and those terrible photos. As I left, I wrote in the visitors' book, "this must never happen again".
During the 1960s, New Zealand civil society's concern about the nuclear testing in the Pacific became more evident. By the 1970s New Zealand was moved to speak out strongly against nuclear testing in the Pacific. A Royal New Zealand Navy vessel was sent to the vicinity of the test zone in French Polynesia in 1973, and again in 1995 when testing resumed after a lull of some years.
. . . .
Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008
The whole point of the cartel, is to act as a group under common guidelines. If individual members start to do their own thing in violation of the Cartel's guidelines, then the Cartel breaks down.RajeshA wrote:The Waiver cannot be amended subsequently. Several countries will be entering into bilateral civilian nuclear cooperation agreements with India. The other countries would also have to include all the conditions included in the NSG Waiver. If the conditions in NSG Waiver are not explicitly stated, then these could be interpreted by the countries and justifiably so, as not requiring a termination of bilateral agreement upon nuclear testing by India. Once the bilateral agreements are signed, NSG cannot require its members to review their bilateral agreements with India, as these are international treaties.amit wrote:Two views on 2g
The entire purpose of the NSG IS to prohibit individual members to NOT negotiate agreements in violation of NSG guidelines.
Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008
There is one more factor. NZ and Aus are the center for Christian evangelical groups focused on Asia Pacific regions. They have teamed up with arms control and Non proliferation groups to keep the region out of the weapons program. This is a big factor in their foreign policy which is really not discussed.Sanatanan wrote:
There may also be a political climate existing in some of the smaller countries ruled by populations of Caucasian descent against the perceived "big brother" attitude of the USA in dealings with them. So, when a chance arises, they may make it a point to show defiance. I think that even in Canada, there may be persons who resent the evolution of US policies which prevent (or at least make it extremely difficult for) CANDUs from being eligible to be licensed in the US.
They have accepted China as the only nuclear power in the region and do not want any others. India has been a target of these evangelical groups for the last several decades and consider India under their sphere of influence. But they are also being given incentive such as more access inside India if the nuclear deal is supported which might change their stance.
Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008
A cartel is also supposed to be exclusive. The NSG has members that don't supply anything. That is like a group of diamond merchants inviting the local paan-wallah to their meetings.The whole point of the cartel, is to act as a group under common guidelines.
I can't see the actual suppliers letting the likes of NZ, Ireland etc have their way.
Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008
Do you mean, that if in the future NSG adds further conditions to the India-specific waiver in a subsequent amendment, all cooperation partners of India (e.g. France, Russia, ...) would have to open up their existing bilateral agreements and renegotiate the termination conditions? The export items can vary, but not termination conditions of agreements!ShauryaT wrote:The whole point of the cartel, is to act as a group under common guidelines. If individual members start to do their own thing in violation of the Cartel's guidelines, then the Cartel breaks down.RajeshA wrote:
The Waiver cannot be amended subsequently. Several countries will be entering into bilateral civilian nuclear cooperation agreements with India. The other countries would also have to include all the conditions included in the NSG Waiver. If the conditions in NSG Waiver are not explicitly stated, then these could be interpreted by the countries and justifiably so, as not requiring a termination of bilateral agreement upon nuclear testing by India. Once the bilateral agreements are signed, NSG cannot require its members to review their bilateral agreements with India, as these are international treaties.
The entire purpose of the NSG IS to prohibit individual members to NOT negotiate agreements in violation of NSG guidelines.
Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008
I agree. The US has these poodles in there to bolster its own influence and continue its special status, under the guise of moralising spokesmen from the poodles. Only 3 of them matter.Gerard wrote:A cartel is also supposed to be exclusive. The NSG has members that don't supply anything. That is like a group of diamond merchants inviting the local paan-wallah to their meetings.The whole point of the cartel, is to act as a group under common guidelines.
I can't see the actual suppliers letting the likes of NZ, Ireland etc have their way.
Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008
What do you mean by "Only 3 of them matter"?ShauryaT wrote:I agree. The US has these poodles in there to bolster its own influence and continue its special status, under the guise of moralising spokesmen from the poodles. Only 3 of them matter.
Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008
The members are part of the Cartel with a vote. If they agree to the new conditions in the Cartel, they will have no choice but to conduct their bilateral agreements as per the decisions agreed to in the Cartel. The members of the Cartel are "free" (in theory) to block the decisions of the Cartel.RajeshA wrote:Do you mean, that if in the future NSG adds further conditions to the India-specific waiver in a subsequent amendment, all cooperation partners of India (e.g. France, Russia, ...) would have to open up their existing bilateral agreements and renegotiate the termination conditions? The export items can vary, but not termination conditions of agreements!
Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008
The US, China and Russia.RajeshA wrote:What do you mean by "Only 3 of them matter"?ShauryaT wrote:I agree. The US has these poodles in there to bolster its own influence and continue its special status, under the guise of moralising spokesmen from the poodles. Only 3 of them matter.
Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008
True again. NZ may have its own reasons now though it took US's nuclear umbrella until circa 1985. India was more consistent in its opposition until it felt that its concerns were not being addressed and the P5 were just perpetuating their stranglehold and in fact showing no signs of their promise to reduce their arsenal. I don't know if NZ did anything worthwhile to put pressure on the P5.Sanatanan wrote:My surmise is that NZ may be considering itself to be a "wronged party" on account of the irresponsible atmospheric testing of atom bombs carried out by some of the P5 in the Pacific, their neighbourhood. .SSridhar wrote: True. That's why countries like Austria & NZ whose nuclear commerce is a pittance can afford to take a moral high-ground, out of tune with reality, while those countries with potential for significant nuclear commerce will take a more realistic stand taking into account India's consistent stand, its laws, its achievements scientifically, industrially & technologically, its indigenous programmes, and its overall approach to nuclear weapons and nuclear energy.
Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008
We should emphasise how close we are to the non proliferation regime anyway with our excellent record and self restraint. What are the bets this issue will be settled in August itself?
http://svaradarajan.blogspot.com/2008/0 ... -left.html
August 2008
NSG exemption: ‘No more flexibility left in India’s position’
Manmohan to convey message to Bush on eve of NSG meeting
As opposition to the proposed waiver for India from the Nuclear Suppliers Group guidelines builds up from three quarters, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will tell President George W. Bush India cannot make any more concessions.
15 August 2008
The Hindu
New Delhi: With ‘non-proliferationists’ in the United States and beyond sharpening their blue pencils in preparation for the August 21 meeting of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, India will emphasise to the U.S. “at the highest level” that the current draft waiver from the cartel’s export rules represents the “outer limit” of its flexibility and that the imposition of any extraneous conditions will be tantamount to derailing the deal.
Given the role U.S. President George W. Bush played in resolving difficult issues during the earlier stages of the nuclear dialogue, officials here say Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is likely to convey this message by telephone to the American leader over the next few days.
The draft waiver finalised last week by the U.S. in consultation with India more or less meets the benchmark of being “clean and unconditional” say officials. If approved by the 45-nation club of nuclear exporters, the waiver would allow member states to export nuclear material to India under international safeguards. But any dilution of its provisions, they say, would be fatal.
As it stands, the draft is under attack from three quarters. First, within the U.S. establishment itself, there are those who advocate the qualification of the waiver to bring it in line with the more stringent conditions for nuclear commerce envisaged by the Hyde Act and the 123 agreement. Second, are NSG members like New Zealand, Ireland and Austria, who still harbour deep misgivings about allowing nuclear commerce with India so long as New Delhi refuses to give up its nuclear weapons. And third are non-proliferation activists, who have finally woken up to the fact that the sequencing built into the Hyde Act makes the veto power of the U.S. Congress irrelevant since the 123 Agreement will come before it after India has already won NSG approval.
Although many NSG members aired their concerns at the International Atomic Energy Agency on August 1, New Zealand is the first to have gone public with a specific check-list of issues it intends to raise at the NSG meeting on August 21.
The New Zealand Herald of August 14 quotes Phil Goff, the country’s Minister for Disarmament, as saying Wellington was coordinating its stand with “like-minded countries” like Austria, Sweden, Netherlands and Ireland and that if its concerns were addressed, it could be persuaded to support the deal.
Among the questions Mr. Goff said he would like the NSG to take up next week were (1) Whether conditions could be built into the exemption which would terminate the waiver if India were to test a nuclear weapon, as was already the case under the Hyde Act; (2) Whether India would sign the IAEA’s Additional Protocol; (3) How to prevent transfer of enrichment and reprocessing (ENR) technology; (4) What would happen if the IAEA safeguards agreement India had entered into were to be terminated.
Indian officials say some of these questions have already been settled, such as India’s acceptance of an Additional Protocol. As for termination of safeguards, since the IAEA agreement itself provides for this, it is meaningless for the NSG to make it an issue. On testing, India says it is committed to its unilateral moratorium and cannot go beyond this. Some NSG members have their own laws on this but India also has agreements with NSG states that do not call for termination of exports in the event of a test.
On ENR, India says that although it has no need for technology from other states, it should not be denied the right to buy equipment and components for use under safeguards.
The Herald quoted Mr. Goff as acknowledging that the safeguarding of additional Indian reactors was a plus. “We acknowledged that there were some positive things about India’s track record — though we didn’t agree with either their testing or their possession of nuclear weapons,” he was quoted as saying.
On August 5, an influential Congressman, Howard Berman, who heads the powerful Foreign Relations Committee of the House of Representatives, wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reminding her of the assurance she gave Congress in February that the NSG decision would have to be “completely consistent with the obligations of the Hyde Act.” He then emphasised four conditions which must be included: immediate termination of all nuclear commerce by NSG states if India detonates a nuclear device, “perpetuity” safeguards for Indian civil nuclear facilities, a ban on the transfer of enrichment and reprocessing technology by NSG states, and a requirement that any spent fuel originating from NSG supplied fuel be reprocessed only in a facility subject to “permanent and unconditional safeguards.”
The Bush administration is understood to have told Mr. Berman that his conditions would be taken care of once the NSG plenary meets on August 21.
But since the U.S. is at least formally committed to defending the waiver as it stands now, this means American officials are likely to fire from the shoulders of other NSG member states.
It is largely in order to pre-empt such a strategy that officials here believe Dr. Singh needs to emphasise to President Bush that his government has no room to manoeuvre. Among the additional conditions non-proliferation activists like Daryl Kimball of the Arms Control Association are seeking are the mandatory return of imported nuclear fuel to NSG members in the event that New Delhi were to test a nuclear weapon.
http://svaradarajan.blogspot.com/2008/0 ... -left.html
August 2008
NSG exemption: ‘No more flexibility left in India’s position’
Manmohan to convey message to Bush on eve of NSG meeting
As opposition to the proposed waiver for India from the Nuclear Suppliers Group guidelines builds up from three quarters, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will tell President George W. Bush India cannot make any more concessions.
15 August 2008
The Hindu
New Delhi: With ‘non-proliferationists’ in the United States and beyond sharpening their blue pencils in preparation for the August 21 meeting of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, India will emphasise to the U.S. “at the highest level” that the current draft waiver from the cartel’s export rules represents the “outer limit” of its flexibility and that the imposition of any extraneous conditions will be tantamount to derailing the deal.
Given the role U.S. President George W. Bush played in resolving difficult issues during the earlier stages of the nuclear dialogue, officials here say Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is likely to convey this message by telephone to the American leader over the next few days.
The draft waiver finalised last week by the U.S. in consultation with India more or less meets the benchmark of being “clean and unconditional” say officials. If approved by the 45-nation club of nuclear exporters, the waiver would allow member states to export nuclear material to India under international safeguards. But any dilution of its provisions, they say, would be fatal.
As it stands, the draft is under attack from three quarters. First, within the U.S. establishment itself, there are those who advocate the qualification of the waiver to bring it in line with the more stringent conditions for nuclear commerce envisaged by the Hyde Act and the 123 agreement. Second, are NSG members like New Zealand, Ireland and Austria, who still harbour deep misgivings about allowing nuclear commerce with India so long as New Delhi refuses to give up its nuclear weapons. And third are non-proliferation activists, who have finally woken up to the fact that the sequencing built into the Hyde Act makes the veto power of the U.S. Congress irrelevant since the 123 Agreement will come before it after India has already won NSG approval.
Although many NSG members aired their concerns at the International Atomic Energy Agency on August 1, New Zealand is the first to have gone public with a specific check-list of issues it intends to raise at the NSG meeting on August 21.
The New Zealand Herald of August 14 quotes Phil Goff, the country’s Minister for Disarmament, as saying Wellington was coordinating its stand with “like-minded countries” like Austria, Sweden, Netherlands and Ireland and that if its concerns were addressed, it could be persuaded to support the deal.
Among the questions Mr. Goff said he would like the NSG to take up next week were (1) Whether conditions could be built into the exemption which would terminate the waiver if India were to test a nuclear weapon, as was already the case under the Hyde Act; (2) Whether India would sign the IAEA’s Additional Protocol; (3) How to prevent transfer of enrichment and reprocessing (ENR) technology; (4) What would happen if the IAEA safeguards agreement India had entered into were to be terminated.
Indian officials say some of these questions have already been settled, such as India’s acceptance of an Additional Protocol. As for termination of safeguards, since the IAEA agreement itself provides for this, it is meaningless for the NSG to make it an issue. On testing, India says it is committed to its unilateral moratorium and cannot go beyond this. Some NSG members have their own laws on this but India also has agreements with NSG states that do not call for termination of exports in the event of a test.
On ENR, India says that although it has no need for technology from other states, it should not be denied the right to buy equipment and components for use under safeguards.
The Herald quoted Mr. Goff as acknowledging that the safeguarding of additional Indian reactors was a plus. “We acknowledged that there were some positive things about India’s track record — though we didn’t agree with either their testing or their possession of nuclear weapons,” he was quoted as saying.
On August 5, an influential Congressman, Howard Berman, who heads the powerful Foreign Relations Committee of the House of Representatives, wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reminding her of the assurance she gave Congress in February that the NSG decision would have to be “completely consistent with the obligations of the Hyde Act.” He then emphasised four conditions which must be included: immediate termination of all nuclear commerce by NSG states if India detonates a nuclear device, “perpetuity” safeguards for Indian civil nuclear facilities, a ban on the transfer of enrichment and reprocessing technology by NSG states, and a requirement that any spent fuel originating from NSG supplied fuel be reprocessed only in a facility subject to “permanent and unconditional safeguards.”
The Bush administration is understood to have told Mr. Berman that his conditions would be taken care of once the NSG plenary meets on August 21.
But since the U.S. is at least formally committed to defending the waiver as it stands now, this means American officials are likely to fire from the shoulders of other NSG member states.
It is largely in order to pre-empt such a strategy that officials here believe Dr. Singh needs to emphasise to President Bush that his government has no room to manoeuvre. Among the additional conditions non-proliferation activists like Daryl Kimball of the Arms Control Association are seeking are the mandatory return of imported nuclear fuel to NSG members in the event that New Delhi were to test a nuclear weapon.
Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008
Japan pressured to oppose US-India nuclear deal
Interesting. The NPAs may suspect that the minnows will be brushed aside. They are focusing on the whales.A loose coalition including activists and scholars focused efforts on Japan, which has been non-committal on the deal that would give India access to nuclear technology without signing the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008
US proposes India nuclear waiver, approval in doubt
(Whatever happened to US walking out of NSG threat?)
(Whatever happened to US walking out of NSG threat?)
(Recasts with diplomats' comments)
By Boris Groendahl
VIENNA, Aug 14 (Reuters) - The United States has proposed to waive a ban on nuclear trade with India without conditions such as compliance with a nuclear test ban or U.N. inspections, but diplomats said on Thursday the draft was unlikely to pass.
The draft, circulated among members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) and unveiled late on Wednesday by an arms control advocacy, will be discussed by the NSG next week in Vienna.
A green light by the 45-nation NSG, which operates by consensus, is necessary for the 2005 U.S.-India deal on nuclear trade to proceed to U.S. Congress for final ratification.
It would lift a 34-year embargo on nuclear trade for civilian purposes with the Asian atomic power, which has not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty and has tested atomic bombs.
But diplomats from several NSG member states said the draft fell behind earlier U.S. proposals, had unacceptable clauses and omissions, and went against existing U.S. laws on the deal.
"I would be very surprised if that would happen," said a diplomat, who like the others, spoke on condition of anonymity.
"There are no conditions. Obviously what is missing is that (the waiver) is void if there is another atomic test."
A second diplomat said: "I think a majority of countries feel that the current draft is very weak and there is no conditionality at all... I don't really think that the U.S. expect that they are able to pass this draft."
If the waiver does not get NSG approval next week or at a second meeting likely early next month, it may not get ratified by the end of September, when U.S. Congress adjourns for November elections, and could face indefinite limbo.
The draft was published by the U.S.-based Arms Control Association (www.armscontrol.org) late on Wednesday. A spokeswoman for the U.S. mission in Vienna declined to comment.
A senior Indian foreign ministry official said they were happy with the draft. "We are hopeful the deal will make it to U.S. Congress by Sept. 8," the official said.
CONDITIONS REQUIRED
Several NSG nations are unlikely to approve an exemption unless it makes clear certain events -- such as India testing a nuclear bomb or not allowing inspections at its nuclear facilities -- would trigger a review.
Such demands are also stipulated in U.S. legislation regarding the U.S.-India deal -- known as the Hyde Act -- which requires permanent, unconditional inspections in India and says trade must stop if it tests another atom bomb.
A powerful congressional leader wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice last week saying if the waiver does not spell out such minimum conditions, the Bush administration should not bother seeking NSG approval before it leaves office in January.
But the draft states only that NSG members "have taken note of steps that India has taken voluntarily," including its unilateral moratorium on nuclear tests and its commitment to allow inspections by the U.N. nuclear watchdog. It mentions no consequences in case India does not adhere to the measures.
Indian media reported last week that Washington, under pressure from India, had removed a paragraph from an earlier draft that would have given NSG member states a right to suspend the deal if they felt India had reneged on its promises.
Diplomats said the overall weakness of the draft might be a tactical U.S. move to overcome India's aim to win a "clean and unconditional" waiver by prompting resistance from NSG states.
India's government almost collapsed last month when the Communists left the coalition, saying the nuclear deal would make India dependent on the United States.
"The Indian left is opposed to any demands coming from the Americans, but if they come from other countries, that may go down better domestically," a third diplomat said. (Additional reporting by Krittivas Mukherjee in New Delhi) (Reporting by Boris Groendahl; Editing by Michael Winfrey)
Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008
I did not see the Aug 15th letter posted: The Letter
Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008
India agrees to US draft on NSG waiver with strings
Times of India wrote: India agrees to US draft on NSG waiver with strings
16 Aug 2008, 0419 hrs IST, Rajeev Deshpande,TNN
NEW DELHI: India would have preferred a "simpler" waiver from the Nuclear Suppliers Group than the one under discussion, but has decided to go along with the US draft which could mean accepting certain commitments on non-proliferation and testing contained in the India-US July 18, 2005, joint statement.
The view in government, as India's negotiators prepare for the August 21-22 meeting of the NSG in Vienna, is that while the waiver could be "cleaner", it could still be acceptable if it is within the ambit of the "responsibilities and practices" agreed to by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
The focus is on ensuring that the waiver is not loaded with conditionalities beyond the commitments in the 2005 statement. The statement refers to separating civilian and military facilities, submitting a list of "civilian" sites to IAEA, continuing the unilateral moratorium, backing the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty, securing N-tech and materials through export control legislation and "harmonization and adherence" to missile technology control regime and NSG guidelines.
Indian negotiators have explained to supporters of the nuclear deal in NSG that given the political factors "back home", there was only so much they could give on the waiver. India is keen that specific terms be negotiated bilaterally on a one-to-one basis, but some commitments are likely to be reflected in the waiver.
India has made it clear that guidelines for non-nuclear weapons states like signing the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty are unacceptable as also signing CTBT. It has argued that the waiver would strengthen non-proliferation and this needed NSG to grant India a "clean" exemption for engaging in full civil nuclear cooperation with the group. If this comes through, India would get the recognition it desires as a nuclear weapons state, it is felt.
It is not clear just which, or all, of the joint statement commitments will be finally reflected in the waiver. But India is ready for some of these being there including the unilateral moratorium. The argument offered is that these are commitments India has voluntarily agreed to and do not amount to a bilateral commitment being given a multi-lateral form. There is no reference requiring India to work towards full-scope safeguards.
Aware that critics will be on the lookout to claim that the waiver was not "unconditional", the negotiators have ruled out the waiver being front-loaded with conditions like the right of return of nuclear materials. The obvious situation where such a prospect arises is if India decides to conduct a nuclear test.
It is felt that a second meeting of the NSG might be needed even though an Indian team will be in Vienna to brief the group's members without being part of the meeting itself. This would mean that India's work will be cut out in persuading NSG doubters not to oppose the waiver even though the overall atmospherics seem quite "positive". Some members may well have to return to their national capitals to whet the waiver.
The NSG waiver, hard as it will be to come by, may not necessarily mean that the path thereafter is smooth. If a second meeting of NSG, in the first half of September, is required, then it will be tight race to get the deal through the US Congress. Even though the Bush administration will push the 123 agreement, the Congress will have other legislations to consider.
On the issue of future changes in NSG guidelines, India expects the waiver to allow it to be consulted. There are no plans to push for a seat at the NSG itself, with sources pointing out that there was a fair distance to travel on operationalizing the deal.
Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008
From the ToI article:
How can this be considered an "argument"? What is going on?!Times of India wrote: India agrees to US draft on NSG waiver with strings
But India is ready for some of these being there including the unilateral moratorium. The argument offered is that these are commitments India has voluntarily agreed to and do not amount to a bilateral commitment being given a multi-lateral form.
Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008
NRao wrote:I did not see the Aug 15th letter posted: The Letter
The names of these signatories deserve to be highlighted for everyone's knowledge (in addition, of course, to the Praful Bidwais and Achin Vanaiks of this world):
South Asia-NGOs
India
Sujay Basu
Director
Centre of Energy and Environment Management (Kolkata)
Santanu Chacraverti
Secretary
Society for Direct Initiative for Social and Health Action
Anil K. Chaudhary
Popular Education and Action Centre (New Delhi)
Sajaya Kakarla
Caring Citizens Collective (Hyderabad)
Saraswati Kavula and Dr. Satya Lakshmi Komarraju
Movement Against Uranium Projects (Hyderabad)
N. Ramesh
Organiser
Journalists Against Nuclear Weapons, Thanjavur Chapter
Captain J. Rama Rao and Dr. K. Babu Rao
Forum for Sustainable Development (Hyderabad)
Sukla Sen
EKTA (Committee for Communal Amity) (Mumbai)
S. P. Udayakumar
Coordinator
People's Movement Against Nuclear Energy (Nagercoil, Tamil Nadu)
South Asian Diaspora
Harsh Kapoor
South Asians Against Nukes (France)
Hari Sharma
President
South Asian Network for Secularism and Democracy (Vancouver, Canada)
Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008
The expected behaviour (of GoI) is starting to show up, I suppose:amit wrote:After the fiasco of the trust vote, the situation in J&K and inflation, MMS/Sonia Gandhi do not have enough political capital to do such a thing. It will be equivalent to political harakiri.Sanatanan wrote: Another realistic scenario:
The Non-Proliferation Activist States do not budge. USA wrings its hands. GoI talks semantics for local consumption and signs, wherever asked to, on the dotted line. After all this (talking semantics) has been well practiced during the "hide the Hyde" act!
Don't count on Congress to commit politcal suicide, IMO.
[/size]
India agrees to US draft on NSG waiver with strings (Article in TOI, 16 Aug, 2008). Note word substitution "strings" in place of "unconditional" and "clean".
-
- 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 23 July 2008
Sanatanan,Sanatanan wrote: The expected behaviour (of GoI) is starting to show up, I suppose:
India agrees to US draft on NSG waiver with strings (Article in TOI, 16 Aug, 2008). Note word substitution "strings" in place of "unconditional" and "clean".
It sometimes helps if personal prejudices are put aside when trying to understand something as complex as the nuclear deal.
I do hope you realise that a headline or story on TOI is not the same thing as a press release from the press information bureau of India.
What's new - and damnning - in the TOI report that we don't already know?
It's amusing how TOI alternates from being the Times of Islamabad and the fountainhead of truth and objectivity depending on the story it publishes!

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008
I can't see the actual suppliers letting the likes of NZ, Ireland etc have their way.
Pls don't diss New Zealand. They have the largest collection of methane in the Solar System outside of the moon Europa, and the largest collection of Go-Pu.

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008
Just a quote for some of the NSG:
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong." -- Thomas Sowell
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong." -- Thomas Sowell
Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008
Also applies to some decison makers in India.
Amit, Sanatan is not expressing is personal opinion. Please let him say his stuff. Dont shut him up with you eloquence. He has as much right as you have.
From the TOI piece GOI has agreed to commit the voluntary moratarium to a multilateral scrutiny. That is as conditional as it gets.
Amit, Sanatan is not expressing is personal opinion. Please let him say his stuff. Dont shut him up with you eloquence. He has as much right as you have.
From the TOI piece GOI has agreed to commit the voluntary moratarium to a multilateral scrutiny. That is as conditional as it gets.
-
- 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 23 July 2008
Gerard wrote:Serious implications for India in NSG draft proposal
I really can't understand how BC thinks the word voluntary has not meaing or application when he writes this:
I must be missing something here.2. India is acquiescing to its unilateral test moratorium being turned into a multilateral legality. The draft US proposal, in Section 2, first lists India's commitments, including to "continuing its unilateral moratorium to nuclear tests". Then, in Section 3, it recommends permitting exports to India for peaceful purposes for use in safeguarded civilian nuclear facilities, "provided that the transfer satisfies all other provisions" of Part 1 & 2 of the NSG Guidelines.

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 23 July 2008
Read the message and not the messenger. By putting things on paper the voluntary part is being negated. You cant say later it was voluntary. Right here its being said on paper. its not verbal anymore. Its being cast in stone. And its being done by GOI.
-
- 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 23 July 2008
ramana wrote:Also applies to some decison makers in India.
Amit, Sanatan is not expressing is personal opinion. Please let him say his stuff. Dont shut him up with you eloquence. He has as much right as you have.
From the TOI piece GOI has agreed to commit the voluntary moratarium to a multilateral scrutiny. That is as conditional as it gets.
Ramana sorry but I don't see how by interjecting on a point made by Sanatanan amounts to shutting him up?
The above is not a personal opinion? I didn't find that comment in the TOI article, maybe I missed it.The expected behaviour (of GoI) is starting to show up, I suppose
Anyway I'll refrain from trying to shut anyone up. My apologies!