G8 blocks ‘full’ nuclear trade with India

[rubyjackass]

democrats : lol i was laughing when indian media and people were abusing BUSH and saying good about OBAMA. now may be we undertsand - of course it would not have made no diffrence in us polls, but we sure made a fool out of our selves.

LOOOOL - it was bound to come - democrats dont support indian policy much. but it has to have a big hand from -g8 countries such as : OBAMA'S america, aussie ,china and italy. but it will not make much of diffrence to indian nuclear programme.

The effect of this G8, I think is being overrated.

But I always feel Obama is only worse than Bush for India. I did not get why, whether people really did it or not, TOI made so much exciting news saying Indians are celebrating Obama's election, like picturing some people in Chennai it said were joyously celebrating the election.
Tell me one good thing that came about for India. At another point of time, he would have been the same for Pakistan too. THe only things that keep him from that are the operation and his attempt to suck up to Muslims(they say 'get closer to Muslims' in a respectable manner. I use the word not as an insult but as a kind of TOI masala statement).

 

[Mig-29]

American foreign policy is not going to change it was and it will always be influenced by CIA, obama speeches and promises were just election gimmick nothing else and don't forget there was a temporary ban recently for the supply of maritime GE engines for the indian navy,so in near future it is highly probable that they can arm twist any time they want, as per the nuclear deal India already has the technology , remember how Americans raised hue and cry over the cryogenic engines.

 

[SSGPA1]

i think we are done with america

easier said than done ... US is the biggest sales man in the world, I wish you good luck saving India's assets.

 

[EjazR]

I don't see why people think that the G8 statement applies to India. It was a general statement. GoI has confirmed that the "block" does not apply to India even though India has not signed the NPT.

And please, there is no way Bush could have been good to India in the long term. A President who was the epitome of incomptence who could not maintain proper relations with its long term allies (NATO) would have treated India more as a colony than an equal partner which you can expect from Obama.

Source:
We have clean waiver on nuclear trade: Pranab
India not concerned over G-8 declaration on N-issue: Pranab

 

[RPK]

I think this is to put more pressure on North Korea to restict its Nuclear weapon development. Nothing to do with india

 

[Atheist]

Yup Agreed with Praveen

 

[shravan]

I think this is to put more pressure on North Korea to restict its Nuclear weapon development. Nothing to do with india

Can you explain the above sentence ?

 

[maverick2009]

No Member will do anything unilaterally or collectively to harm future trade relations with india.

In 10 Year time india will have a bigger GDP than nearly all the G8 countries bar say the Top 3 USA Japan & Germany.

India will yeild alot of influence with the G8 nations.

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

The nuclear games begin

Pratap Bhanu Mehta
Tags : nuclear deal, 123 agreement
Posted: Monday , Jul 13, 2009 at 1306 hrs
New Delhi:


As many skeptics had suspected, the 123 Agreement was not going to be the end of India's quest for recognition in the global order. Indeed, it was very clear to many, from the start, that the 123 Agreement was part of an attempt to bring India into the non-proliferation tent. Thanks to the diligent efforts of Siddharth Vardarajan (who alone superbly uncovered goings on at the G-8) it has now become clear that India's quest for nuclear recognition is far from over. The recently concluded G-8 statement on non-proliferation opens up the possibility that India will be denied crucial enrichment and processing items. To be sure, it cannot be categorically concluded that India will be denied ENR. The relationship between the G-8 declaration and NSG still has to be worked out. But certainly the developments at the G-8 are worrying for India. If followed through the G-8 will make mockery of that rather simple phrase "full civilian and nuclear cooperation."


There is no doubt that there is great pressure to strengthen the non-proliferation regime. India will be under great pressure not just to sign the CTBT, but the NPT and FMCT as well. But the simple fact is that while non-proliferation and even possible disarmament is gaining greater ideological legitimacy, there is still no sign that the existing nuclear powers are willing to give up their special privileges and perpetuate a nuclear order that is patently discriminatory. While the US and Russia have been talking about significant reduction in their arsenals, the simple fact is that the great powers are still a long way off from delegitimising nuclear weapons as part of their strategic doctrines. None of them will be willing to go by the International Court of Justice's suggestion that the mere threat of nuclear weapons be regarded as a crime against humanity. And Britain and France, let alone China are still modernising their arsenals. It is very difficult not to shake of the view that all the current talk of non-proliferation and disarmament will do nothing to alter the structure of discrimination in the international order that led to proliferation in the first place.
To be very honest, India does need a far reaching domestic debate on its nuclear programme: both the civilian and military aspects. As often happens in our discourse, we convert a means into an end. The 123 Agreement was supposed to be an instrument that enabled our nuclear programme to be recognised and for it to flourish. But we have to be very clear about what our own expectations from our nuclear programme are, and the sort of resources we are willing to commit to it. Is the civilian programme merely about energy or is it also about potentially being a technological leader? If so, what impact does the G-8 position on ENR have on our research ambitions? On the military side, we need clarity over the conditions under which signing the CTBT or FMCT will have little or no impact on our deterrence capabilities.


The only circumstances under which it makes sense for India to sign these treaties is if there is a clear path to global disarmament. In fact, that could be made more than a mere promissory note. The validity of these treaties could be made conditional on concrete steps towards disarmament. If those steps are not met, the treaties become null and void. The possibility of this happening is remote. But it will at least call the bluff of major powers who still want to use the nuclear issue to maintain a hierarchical and discriminatory world order.


The nuclear games begin

 

[harun786]

One thing is loud and clear about US , it cannot be trusted

H

 

[RPK]

Can you explain the above sentence ?

All the G8 countries fedup with the recent nuclear test done by north korea. To show oppostion they came up with this idea since north korea is a non-signatory of NPT

 

[Mig-29]

NEW DELHI: As Prime Minister Manmohan Singh heads to France
, a key element in India's civil nuclear agreement with that country should give thegovernment comfort when he sits down for talks on nuclear trade with President Nicholas Sarkozy. The agreement permits India to reprocess French-origin nuclear fuel on its own. France will offer to reprocess only if India asks it to.

Russia is also learnt to have agreed to let India reprocess fuel that it may supply.

The understanding with the two nuclear suppliers is one of the reasons why India is not overly concerned about the recent G-8 statement on non-proliferation where the grouping apparently raised the bar on transfer of enrichment and reprocessing technologies (ENR) to countries that don't have it. At this point, India is only looking to be able to reprocess foreign-origin fuel, which in principle has been granted by France and Russia in their civil nuclear agreements which are yet to be made public. The other reason for its being reassured is that since India already possesses ENR technology, it can argue that this does not apply to it.

As a matter of fact, India will start talks before August 2 on a reprocessing agreement with the US to "operationalise" the nuclear deal, even though the Obama administration, which played a leading role in crafting new rules to prevent transfer of ENR technologies to non-NPT signatories, has been rather activist about non-proliferation issues.

It is also pertinent that there is no "ban" on ENR technologies to India or any non-NPT country yet.

India will come under pressure on several nuclear issues, like CTBT and FMCT. But on ENR transfers, it is likely, sources in the government feel, to get a pass for a whole host of reasons.

The G-8 statement is clear that there is no consensus in the 45-member NSG on tightening controls of ENR technologies to the have-nots. The NSG in its May 2008 plenary meeting started a debate on a draft text of a stronger set of guidelines to govern the transfer of ENR technologies but there was no agreement, primarily because countries like Canada, South Africa, Australia and Korea all wanted to get into commercial enrichment.

However, it's true the US has been shifting goalposts on the issue. First, it said there should be "criteria-based" approach for ENR exports for countries that don't have it. Then it agreed to an approach that would decide on a case-by-case basis on the credentials of the country that applied. But this "subjective" argument was dismissed by Brazil and Argentina, as was the argument that the IAEA additional protocol should be made a supply condition.

At a November 2008 meeting of the NSG, there were more countries willing to accept the US proposal of using "black-box" technologies for ENR exports to have-not countries -- this means only the supplier would have access to the technology, not the user. While there are more countries willing to accept this provision, there is no consensus on this either.

The G-8 exhortation for countries to implement this last text on a "national basis", that is, on sovereign interpretation is an American insertion, said diplomats. The G-8 text says, "While noting that the NSG has not yet reached consensus on this issue, we agree that the NSG discussions have yielded useful and constructive proposals contained in the NSG's clean text developed at the November 20, 2008 consultative group meeting. Pending completion of work in the NSG, we agree to implement this text on a national basis in the next year."

There are two bottomlines that have to be remembered. First, India has a huge ace -- that climate change negotiations cannot go anywhere unless India has a viable alternative to hydrocarbon use, and that is nuclear. This is an argument that will trump many others in the current race for a climate change deal.

Second, the real target of the G-8, or NSG, is not India, which is not a proliferation threat, but Iran, which is. If ENR technology was to be denied to non-NPT countries, it would leave Iran within the tent and keep India out. However much the world may dislike the Indian nuclear deal, that is really not anyone's intention