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 Shakespeares 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 Ministers 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 doesnt 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 Ministers Office on that speech, below are three instances of such a spin.
The PMs 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 PMs 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 PMs 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 PMs 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
Its 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 Forums 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 nations 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
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.
