What's new

Indian Civil Nuclear News & Discussions.

Sure, go ahead and ask US for Pakistan specific IAEA safeguards and Nuke deal.....What happened when the last time you asked?? ....the Indo-US nuke deal is unique and India is a special case with a very clean nuclear record.

Pakistan doesn't beg for material, we have interest in accquiring technology rather than being used for other means, I am sure the sooner this accord happens the sooner the Chinnese feel more should be done to deliver to Pakistan, if a country like Iran is disallowed to have civilian Nuclear technology, than it give the picture of how this deal, will turn in favor to the geopolitical atmosphere in South Asia, no one gets a bargain there are strings tied to it, what US offered to India is what US wanted from India in return.
 
Sure, go ahead and ask US for Pakistan specific IAEA safeguards and Nuke deal.....What happened when the last time you asked?? ....the Indo-US nuke deal is unique and India is a special case with a very clean nuclear record.

We'll strike a similar deal with China when the time is ready, era of US dominance of Pakistan is coming to an end already, thank God! :cheers:

A US panel recently suggested to the Senate that US should offer a nuke deal to Pakistan.
Why now?
Gradually Pakistan is slipping away from the States and manifesting herself as a major Chinese Ally in the region enroute to self sufficiency.
We don't need a US nuclear deal now. :pakistan::china:

US should offer N-deal to Pakistan, Senate panel told

WASHINGTON, June 13: The United States should offer Pakistan a nuclear deal to make Islamabad accept the obligations that come with being a state with atomic weapons, a US Senate panel was told.

Stephen Cohen, an expert of South Asian affairs at Washing-ton’s Brookings Institution, said the nuclear deal the United States had offered to India should have been based on criteria instead of being country-specific.

“A similar deal could have been offered to states like Pakistan and Israel,” he told a Senate Homeland Security subcommittee, “countries that have not signed the non-proliferation treaty but have nuclear weapons.”

Soon after the United States announced its intention to offer a nuclear deal to India in July 2005, Pakistan urged Washington not to make it India-specific and allow other countries to benefit from this arrangement as well.

But the Bush administration made it obvious that it was making only a one-time exception for India and had no intention of offering a similar deal to Pakistan.

Mr Cohen, however, said that the United States could offer a similar deal to Pakistan, patterning it on the EU offer to Turkey which requires Turkey to meet certain criteria for joining the European community.

“In the case of Pakistan you can establish criteria, such as a safe and secure nuclear programme, commitment to nuclear non-proliferation and arms control,” he said. “These are same as the NPT obligations.”

If Pakistan accepts these obligations, “it would be certainly eligible” for a nuclear deal with the United States.

Mr Cohen noted that China was already helping Pakistan with its nuclear programme but such assistance did not “quite legitimise” the Pakistani programme.

As part of the process of legitimisation, Pakistan will have to accept the obligations of the NPT signatories and will have to share all of its knowledge about past proliferation activities.

Lisa Curtis, a South Asia expert at Washington’s Heritage Foundation, recalled that when the US cut off assistance to Pakistan in the early 1990s, there was debate within the Pakistani security establishment over how to protect Pakistani security interests without backing from the US.

“Subsequently Pakistan began engaging in risky activities such as proliferating nuclear technology and know-how to North Korea in exchange for missiles it deemed necessary to meet the threat from India,” she said while urging Washington to stay engaged with Islamabad.

Michael Krepon, a co-founder of the Henry L. Stimson Centre, told the committee that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons were the nation’s most closely guarded man-made objects, its ‘crown jewels.’ “I do not place much credence in scenarios that project a takeover of the Pakistani government or army leadership by extremists.”

He noted that there was “very great suspicion” in Pakistan about US intentions.

US should offer N-deal to Pakistan, Senate panel told -DAWN - Top Stories; June 14, 2008
 
Pakistan doesn't beg for material, we have interest in accquiring technology rather than being used for other means, I am sure the sooner this accord happens the sooner the Chinnese feel more should be done to deliver to Pakistan, if a country like Iran is disallowed to have civilian Nuclear technology, than it give the picture of how this deal, will turn in favor to the geopolitical atmosphere in South Asia, no one gets a bargain there are strings tied to it, what US offered to India is what US wanted from India in return.

The part of the nuclear deal is to get IAEA approval for India allowing India to buy nuclear fuel & technology from any of the NSG members. Something China cannot offer. As a voluntary member of NSG China is allowed to transfer any nuclear material or technology that it hasn't borrowed from any other member & that too only aslong as no other NSG member riases any objection (though I believe that no one would). Any borrowed technology or fuel that China possesses it wouldn't be allowed to pass it on to any third party.
 
The part of the nuclear deal is to get IAEA approval for India allowing India to buy nuclear fuel & technology from any of the NSG members. Something China cannot offer. As a voluntary member of NSG China is allowed to transfer any nuclear material or technology that it hasn't borrowed from any other member & that too only aslong as no other NSG member riases any objection (though I believe that no one would). Any borrowed technology or fuel that China possesses it wouldn't be allowed to pass it on to any third party.

Exactly, a nuclear deal with China simply means more money for China, on the other hand the nuclear deal with the Us, enables the transfer of technology not only from US, but also from other NPT members, without having to sign the NPT.
 
I don't think there is a slightest relation between our issues with US Nucler pact and that with a french.



Oh really, then tell me in a lucid manner how does non- compliance of terms would give India a international creadibility to sign a deal with france?

Morever, India do have some discontent with the pact but there level of coverage is not enough to overshadow India's ambition to sign nucler deal. Morever I haven't seen anything wrong with those rules and hence where India had some problem with some special aspects of hyde act, India accordingly redress all those issues with impunity. It is only some allies like Left creating some trouble but ruling govenrment has already taken due precautions to handle them.



Oh does it sounds you a joke? Tell me how did you concluded it. Morever if you ever realizes the benefits of this deal in the form its various spin off like access of US advanced Military and space technologies with the signage of this very deal then you may never here concluded it as a joke.



It is one among several sources that we are discovering and hence we don’t attach special importance to apart from improving strategic and bilateral ties with US.

WHOA WHOA Which side of the bed did you get out of Jeff. You have a funny way of turning protagonists into antagonists.
the post was complimentary so go and read it again. What I meant was that India has quite cleverly utilized its new found credibitlity to reach out to the West for more contracts. I am very well aware of what the contract entails, but it is obvious to you and to me that certain terms of it are not to indias liking.
The joke is not Indiia s acquisition but the hypocrisy of the Big Powers in denying developing countries access to technology for alleviating their genuine energy needs without being country centric. i wish India all the best in its access to American and international technoolgy.
i am aware of India's emergence as an economic power house and the reasons the west courts India. However this has to be admitted that the nuclear field has been closed to India except for Russia, and the American deal will open the doors for them to achieve their aims.
There you are. Is it LUCID enough?
You know something Itook a lot of time thinking about how to respond to you as I did not want to start a flame war or shut you up. One of the good things about this forum is the fact that people remain calm and mostly lucid:lol: when impartially discussing various issues. As an older member to a younger one, take your coloured glasses off and think impartially and you will gain alot more. This is truely sincere advice.
Regards
Araz
 
We'll strike a similar deal with China when the time is ready, era of US dominance of Pakistan is coming to an end already, thank God! :cheers:
:

Dear Neo,

Chinese N technology is very poor. They themselves have a pact with USA simliar to the proposed Indian one.

1985 US-China Nuclear Cooperation Agreement

Please see some of the clauses China has agreed to

1) effective verification measures to ensure that U.S. exports are used only for peaceful purposes.

2) that the conditions of the joint approval resolution (P.L. 99-183--above) are satisfied.

So end of the day US will still pull the strings. The only one immune to US pressure is Russia with whom Pakistan has no relations at the moment.

Regards
 
AN,

I agree that China has a lot to catch up but in our case whatever is available is more than sufficient for the time being.

A nuclear deal with China would be symbolic and serve higher goals than only power generation.
Its about getting parity and rising to a NSG member instead of being a nuclear pariah.

Russian nuclear programme was inferior to USA when it started but look how far they've come. The way China is developping she'll be able to bridge the gap within two decades.
Chinese nuclear technology is simple and affordable for small countries like Pakistan and most important its available. We can only gain from this deal.
 
I was a very big supporter of Indo US nuclear deal.. until i came across this column!! now i dunno if its good for India or not. What do u guys think?


Is the nuke noose a retribution for the PM?


To be, or not to be, that is the Question:
Whether 'tis Nobler in the minde to suffer
The Slings and Arrowes of outragious Fortune,
Or to take Armes against a Sea of troubles


The above dilemma of Shakespeare’s Hamlet sits perfectly on Prime Minister Manmohan Singh as the noose of his nuclear deal with the US confronts him too close for comfort. Either he listens to Uncle Sam and signs the safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and risks losing his government because of the absence of majority support in Parliament, or he says “Sorry” to his favourite uncle and hangs on to power till the general elections next summer cast their vote on his future once and for all.

The Prime Minister’s predicament is his own making.

When he signed the joint statement on the nuclear deal with President Bush on July 18, 2005, our PM literally sprung a complex path-breaking deal on the nation, consenting to a framework that was ambiguous and loaded with uncertainties regarding details and fine print. No PM of a democracy of a million people and more had the moral right to put his signature on a paper that even his foreign minister had not seen.

Since that time, our PM let the deal to be moulded by US law makers who are experts at weaving a legislative web, promising the carrot but concealing the stick in clauses and sub-clauses, text and sub-text, references and cross-references. When, towards the end of nearly two years of such cunning drafting and open debates in both houses of the US Congress, the Americans gave us the 123 Agreement on what was meant to be a pact to give us civil nuclear energy. Our PM and his select men signed their ok on it without first releasing it to those in our country who were intelligent and patriotic enough to appraise all its implications and ramifications.

As a matter of fact, the text of the 123 Agreement was withheld from the nation for two long weeks. Why? What game did the PM want to play? Whatever it was, it was just not cricket --- the sport that the PM admits he doesn’t like.

By the same author: UPA employs life support for nuclear deal | Uncle Sam's nuclear hardsell

And when he addressed the Lok Sabha on August 13, 2007, he distorted the picture, morphed the reality, of the Agreement. Based on the online release from the Prime Minister’s Office on that speech, below are three instances of such a spin.

The PM’s statement: “The concept of full civil nuclear co-operation has been clearly enshrined in this Agreement.”

Reality: Article 5(2) of the Agreement lays down that sensitive nuclear technology, heavy water production technology, sensitive nuclear facilities, heavy water production facilities, and major critical components of such facilities may be transferred under this Agreement pursuant to an amendment to this Agreement.” (emphasis supplied). “Maybe transferred… pursuant to an amendment” says the original 123, and our PM tells the Lok Sabha that “full civilian nuclear co-operation is fully enshrined” in it.

The PM’s statement: “It (the Agreement) would also include development of strategic reserve of nuclear fuel to guard against any disruption of supply over the lifetime of our reactors.”

Reality: Section 103(b) (10) of the Hyde Act lays down that “It is the policy of the United States that 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.” In short, no lifetime reserves but only for hand-to-mouth needs.

The PM’s statement: “A significant aspect of the Agreement is our right to reprocess US origin spent fuel. This has been secured upfront.”

Reality: The right is only in principle, without details spelt out in the 123 Agreement. What is stated there is that once India has built a new reprocessing facility (estimated to take five years from scratch) under IAEA safeguards “the arrangements and procedures” will be agreed upon by both the parties to the Agreement and the reprocessing agreement will thereafter go to the US Congress for vetting. If that is “upfront”, I am 17 years old.

The PM’s statement: “We would accept only IAEA safeguards on our civilian nuclear facilities…and only when all international restrictions on nuclear trade with India have been lifted. India will not take any irreversible steps with the IAEA prior to this.”

Reality: Even without securing the sought-after exemption on fuel and technology exports from the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group, our PM is itching to fly his men to Vienna to sign the IAEA agreement that has reportedly been sewn up but, in another show of secretiveness, is not being shown to this democratic nation of one billion.

Read all Lavakare columns

It’s truly amazing why a large section of our English language media has been carpet bombing thousands of words in support of the nuclear deal without questioning our PM on its surreal picture he has painted in the sacred House of the People of our democracy.

What is equally amazing is that neither our PM nor his several supporters in the media have totally refrained from discussing the costs of nuclear energy. All that our PM has said on that aspect seems to be what he said in the Rajya Sabha on August 17, 2006 when he pitched for nuclear energy “if the economic calculus demands that this is the most cost effective means.”

Special: Indo-US nuclear deal | Full coverage

Is nuclear energy indeed “the most cost effective”?

The Delhi Science Forum’s Prabir Purkayasta, an energy expert, estimates that nuclear energy would be at least 30 per cent more expensive than energy generated from other domestic sources. Thus, coal-fired plants produce electricity at about Rs 2.50 per unit whereas domestic nuclear reactors produce electricity at Rs.3.90 per unit while imported reactors would generate electricity at Rs 5.50 per unit.

Brahma Chellaney, a strategic affairs analyst, who has done remarkable fine-comb study of our 123 Agreement, writes that though studies in the US backed by the local powerful nuclear-power industry invariably present nuclear energy in favourable light, the reality is that “bad economics has led to more than 100 planned power reactors being cancelled in the US since 1970.”

Statistics are not always reliable. But that should not have prevented our PM from telling the nation the following simple facts:

1. Prevailing price of imported uranium fuel for nuclear plants and the quantities of it required for our nuclear plans till 2020 when 20,000 MW is the desired target

2. Is the estimated cost of the six nuclear reactors our Department of Atomic Energy wishes to import to meet the above target roughly $7.2 billion as Chellaney says?

3. Cost of separating our present civilian and nuclear facilities as required by the 123 Agreement and the cost of establishing a separate reprocessing facility mandated by it.

4. Cost of setting up large strategic of spare parts and fuel.

But, as has been is his entire approach to the nuclear deal all along, our PM has chosen to be self-righteous and all-knowing, almost contemptuous of the need to secure the consent of those who represent the nation’s most objective and best brains.

If, consequently, the nuclear noose is now lying close to our PM, is it anything else but retribution?

link: Is the nuke noose a retribution for the PM? - Sify.com
 
Obama will not change nuclear deal with India: report

4 hours ago

NEW DELHI (AFP) — US Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said he would not seek changes in a controversial nuclear deal with India and hoped it would be finalised by year-end, a magazine reported Saturday.

"The existing agreement effectively balanced a range of important issues -- from our strategic relationship with India to our non-proliferation concerns to India's energy needs," Obama was quoted as saying by the weekly Outlook news magazine.

"I am therefore reluctant to seek changes," he said in the interview.

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and US President George W. Bush had in 2005 unveiled the agreement which if finalised will allow India in to the fold of global nuclear commerce after having been shut out for decades.

Singh argues the pact is crucial for India's energy security and continued strong economic growth.

But the Indian government's left-wing allies who are staunchly opposed to the agreement last week withdrew their support over the issue.

The government will now face a confidence vote on July 22.

Despite the political opposition, Singh's government moved forward on an agreement subjecting the country's civilian nuclear sites to international controls for the first time.

An approval by the UN atomic agency International Atomic Energy (IAEA) of the draft agreement is one of the several conditions India must fulfil to clinch the accord, apart from getting the nod from the Nuclear Suppliers Group.

"A final judgement on the deal negotiated by the Indian and US governments ... must await the IAEA's approval of a safeguards agreement with India and changes to be agreed by the Nuclear Suppliers Group," Obama was quoted as saying.

"At that point, the US Congress will decide whether to approve the agreement. I continue to hope this process can be concluded before the end of the year," Obama said.

Analysts have previously said that the agreement may face hurdles in finalising the agreement once Bush's administration ends in January.
 
Russia and India agree on more nuclear reactors

Russia and India have finalized negotiations on an agreement for Russia to construct four additional nuclear power reactors at Kudankulam, Tamil Nadu. The construction of two Russian units there is progressing.

On 11 February, on the eve of a two-day visit to India by Russian Prime Minister Victor Zubkov, an intergovernmental agreement for the joint construction of four additional units at Kudankulam and for cooperation at other sites was initialled by the deputy head of the Russia's Federal Atomic Energy Agency (Rosatom), Nikolai Spassky, and the head of Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL), S K Jain.

India's Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, announced on 12 February that India and Russia had "finalized negotiation in regard to reaching agreement on building additional nuclear power plants in India."

Russia is already constructing two 1000 MWe light water reactors at Kudankulam under the terms of an agreement reached in June 1998. The units are scheduled to begin commercial operation in December 2008 and June 2009.

In January 2007, an agreement in principle for four further nuclear reactors at Kudankulam was signed during a visit to India by President Vladimir Putin. However, the deal cannot be finalized because of restrictions on India imposed by the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) and the limits are unlikely to be lifted until India completes a safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). This will enable the US-India deal on civil nuclear cooperation to be ratified. The two Russian reactors currently being constructed at Kudankulam were contracted before Russia joined the NSG.

Russia and India agree on more nuclear reactors | Spero News


Russia urges India to sign nuclear deal

Supporting Indo-US civil nuclear deal, Russia has urged upon New Delhi to expedite the signing of the agreement.

Talking to the media ahead of the UPA-Left coordination panel meeting on Wednesday, Vyacheslav I Trubnikov, Russian ambassador to India, observed that opposition to it was ‘‘a matter of internal policy rather than external policy.’’

The Russian envoy said, ‘‘India should sign the nuclear deal sooner than later. The sooner it signs the deal is better than later.’’ Adding the agreement would open doors for New Delhi for expanded co-operation in the field. He, however, said it was for India to decide ‘‘at what price it has to strike the deal’’.

Russia urges India to sign nuclear deal - The Financial Express


VIENNA, August 1 (RIA Novosti) - The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) approved on Friday an agreement with India on safeguards regarding civilian nuclear facilities.

The agreement with the Government of India for the Application of Safeguards to Civilian Nuclear Facilities will subject Indian nuclear facilities to UN nuclear watchdog IAEA supervision and will allow New Delhi and the United States to begin the implementation of a civilian nuclear power cooperation treaty.

A draft nuclear cooperation pact between New Delhi and Washington was coordinated last July allowing India to buy nuclear fuel from the U.S. The sale of nuclear fuel to India is still forbidden by international regulations because New Delhi has not signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT).

The implementation of this deal is the only way for India to facilitate cooperation with nuclear powers without signing the NPT. India refuses to join the NPT, saying that it discriminates against countries that tested nuclear weapons after 1967.

India tested a nuclear weapon in 1974, and the multinational Nuclear Suppliers Group was subsequently founded in 1975 to control nuclear materials proliferation.

However, New Delhi has agreed to divide its nuclear program into military and civilian parts and let the international community monitor the civilian part without it signing the NPT. This is the basis for the deal that has finally been concluded.

Russia welcomed on Friday the signing of the safeguards agreement between India and the IAEA. 14 of India's 22 reactors are expected to come under IAEA supervision by 2014.

"We welcome the decision of the country [India] to put nuclear fuel and nuclear facilities in the civilian nuclear sector under IAEA supervision and safeguards," Alexander Zmeyevsky, the head of the Russian permanent mission at international organizations in Vienna, said at a meeting of the IAEA's board of governors.

RIA Novosti - World - IAEA approves nuclear safeguards agreement with India
 
Last edited:
Russia is emerging as the main player of Indo-US nuclear deal. The friendship between India and Russia is more than just a business. Because of 50 years of Time Tested friendship, India is very likely to transfer the most of the benefits of Indo-US nuke deal to Russia.
 
The French are likely to be the major player in the Indian nuclear reactor market.

They have standardized their reactor designs and can build them within the cost and schedule.

Most others suffer from time and cost overruns. They also plan on using India as a manufacturing base in a big way.
 
Practically if nuclear energy has to make a bigger dent in the Indian energy market, the reactors should be around 1000MW ,not the 100-300MW standard like they are now, otherwise it would take a long long time before Nuclear energy becomes the main source of our energy production.
 
I would like to hold my breath till NSG (the main hurdle it it stops here there is no point) and US congress approves the deal. But as above said most of the profit will go to russian and french.
 
Depends what deal does get approved at the NSG. Read today's Hindu, has Anil Kakodkar's interview. The draft agreed in the NSG has to be precisely what we want, else there's no point, and we would truely be sacrificing our nuclear program. All depends on the NSG meet and the draft US gives.
 

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom