N-deal with Pak could hit ties, India cautions China

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Ho hum.

Canada shamelessly reneged on its agreement, the high priests formed their exclusive club & overhauled NPT requirements(only in response to Indian nuclear test), used strong arm bullying tactics to ostracize India.So?

None of the above proves that '(t)he material was 'stolen' from its original purpose (civilian use) to construct a nuclear bomb.'

In any case, nothing in the agreement contained any restriction on usage of Uranium. Canadian and US interpretation was arbitrary and ridiculously self-serving.

Whether you agree with the interpretation or not, the fact is that Canada and the US provided the technology and a lot of components for the Indian reactors, for peaceful use, and made clear what they considered to be 'peaceful use'. India refused to abide with that.

 

[toxic_pus]

Whether you agree with the interpretation or not, the fact is that Canada and the US provided the technology and a lot of components for the Indian reactors, for peaceful use, and made clear what they considered to be 'peaceful use'. India refused to abide with that.

Whether or not I agree with Candain/US interpretation is irrelevant here. My argument was against your assertion that 'material' was 'stolen'. Thats all.

In any case, here is what US thought about the agreement.

 

[schneider]

Whether you agree with the interpretation or not, the fact is that Canada and the US provided the technology and a lot of components for the Indian reactors, for peaceful use, and made clear what they considered to be 'peaceful use'. India refused to abide with that.

where does it describe that Bharat 'stole' the Material, or the technology, or the Blue Prints for the Device???

Instead, only the reactor was provided, the Plutonium enrichment and device building was done at home.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

^^

They can be used to produce weapon grade material to inscrease the arsenal.

How, when they are light water NPP's and therefore do not produce Plutonium as a byproduct, nor are they breeder reactors (such as the ones India is researching) that would produce U-233?

In fact, Pakistan has to enrich the Uranium it uses to fuel those reactors, and the same enrichment process (which has nothing to do with the reactors) is used to produce Highly Enriched Uranium for Nuclear Weapons.

So again, how will these Light Water NPP's produce fuel for Nuclear Weapons?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Whether or not I agree with Candain/US interpretation is irrelevant here. My argument was against your assertion that 'material' was 'stolen'. Thats all.

In any case, here is what US thought about the agreement.

What the US stated is clear from the declassified documents I linked to earlier:

We believe the Government of Indian is aware of the American Interpretation of agreements under which the United States has assisted India's development in the field of atomic energy. However, we would like to reiterate the American view in the interest of clarity and to obviate any misunderstanding.

The American position, reflected in the Non-Proliferation Treaty, is that the technology of nuclear explosives for peaceful uses is indistinguishable from that of nuclear weapons, and that any nuclear explosive device, though it be intended for benign economic purposes, could also be used for destructive purposes. The development of such explosives, therefore , is tantamount to the development of nuclear weapons. Any other position would be inconsistent with United States obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the United States Atomic Energy Act.

Consequently, the United States would consider it incompatible with existing United States-Indian agreements for American nuclear assistance to be employed in the development of peaceful nuclear explosive devices. Specifically, for example, the use, for the development of peaceful nuclear explosive devices of plutonium produced therefrom, would be considered by the United States a contravention of the terms under which the American materials were made available.

The United States interprets the safeguards and guarantees provisions of the Tarapur agreement as prohibiting the use of American materials and equipment, or materials produced from such materials and equipment, for research on or development of any nuclear explosive devices, regardless of stated applications.

-- The contract of March 16, 1960, under which the United States sold Heavy water to India for the CIRUS Reactor States: "The heavy Water sold hereunder shall be for use only in India by the Government in connection with research into and the use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes ..." The United States would not consider the use of Plutonium produced in CIRUS for peaceful nuclear explosives intended for any purpose to be 'research into and use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes."

http://www.armscontrol.org/pdf/19701116_US_Aide_Memoire_Indian_AEC.pdf

This position was conveyed clearly to India, and as a client of these foreign suppliers of equipment and technology, India should have abided by the agreement as interpreted by the suppliers, or sought to find an arbiter to clarify the conflict in interpretation. Instead, India chose to apply her own interpretation and ignore the suppliers, and conducted a nuclear explosion.

Hence, at the least, this was 'misuse and redirection' of materials meant for 'peaceful nuclear research' into India's nuclear weapons program.

 

[karan.1970]

If it is a 'subjective, once case decision' then it is arbitrary. If it was a decision based on the 'facts presented to the NSG and a certain set of criteria being met' then that criteria and conditions should have been made part of the NSG rules and charter. Without making those 'facts and criteria' a part of the NSG rules and 'constitution' governing exemptions, the NSG just violated one of its basic principles of not authorizing nuclear trade with non-NPT signatories - i.e there was no 'constitutional amendment' to bring the decision to give India an NSG exemption in consonance with a basic principle of the NSG.

Hence not only is the decision discriminatory and practices double standards, but I would argue it is a violation of the NSG's own charter.

All decisions in this world can not be objective. If they were, Machines could run the world and books from Issac Asimov wouldnt be found under the science fiction section in Barne's and Nobel. As a matter of fact, most critical decisions are subjective in nature, however, if you can explain the reasoning behind them (irrespective of the fact whether everybody agrees to that reasoning or not), they are not arbitrary.. And that is the part of your statement I disagree with.

NSG's mandate is to non proliferation. It has a set of rules that dis allow trading with non NPT Signatories. It also has a provision for exception based on consensus for any special case. And thats what they did. Hence not arbitrary.

Loosly speaking, you can say that they discriminated against Pakistan based on its proliferation history. However then every person with a bad credit history in the USA can claim a similar discrimination by the Banks based on their credit scores

Pakistan obviously finds this discriminatory since NSG will never make that exception for Pakistan. Ask a Pakistani and he will call it discriminatory. Ask NSG and they will say its a decision based on the facts of Pakistan's proliferation history.

So as far as NSG is concerned, its exemption for india is niether discriminatory nor in violation of its charter. Pakistan obviously doesnt believe that, but it really has no say here since its niether a member of NSG nor is in a situation where a waiver has been asked for and rejected by NSG...
At the end of it, this comes back to the same arguement of One man's terrorist is other man's freedom fighter. Substitute Terrorist and FF with discretion and discrimiation and we have a new one.

 

[karan.1970]

China-Pak nuclear deal: ‘India opened a Pandora’s box’​

Indrani Bagchi, TNN, Jun 22, 2010, 02.39am IST

NEW DELHI: The proposed China-Pakistan nuclear deal could spell trouble for India's own membership of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, severely upsetting the calculations of the government here.

India had hoped that the New Zealand plenary meeting scheduled for later this week might move the process along for India to be eventually recognized as a formal member of the group.

India had told the NSG that following the Indo-US nuclear deal, its laws and regulations had been harmonized with the global body, and that it was ready to be a member of the group. This was emphasized by the government in its last meeting with the NSG troika earlier this year.

Instead, there is a growing anger, albeit impotent, within the 45-member group as they confront a virtual fait accompli by China "informing" them of its decision to build two new nuclear reactors for Pakistan, a proliferation rogue. But such is the growing clout of China internationally that, Indian officials say, there is a lot of grumbling, but little outright opposition. The US so far is the only country to openly oppose the proposed arrangement, but that too happened after the Iran sanctions vote in the UN Security Council, where China's cooperation was crucial. France, sources said, is likely to raise its own objections at the NSG meeting later this week.

China is unlikely to ask for a full waiver for Pakistan from the NSG, along the lines of the India deal. That would require a huge amount of political investment of the kind the US made for India. Instead, China is likely to push these two reactors through under a kind of diplomatic amnesia because there is a paper trail that says only two reactors in Pakistan had been "grandfathered" by China. With China becoming more muscular in international politics, this kind of a "thin-end-of-the-wedge" kind of deal might just go through.

Of course, the Indian government is readying its own diplomatic initiative against the proposed deal -- but quietly, mainly working with "friends" in Europe, many of whom batted for India during its own deal. Openly, India has not yet revealed its hand, and is still squeamish about coming out against the deal, given it is not a member of the NSG and its own deal is virtually hot off the press. Therefore, India will wait for the NSG to take a view this week.

During the recent visit of President Pratibha Patil to China, the Indians used the formal banquet to tell Chinese foreign minister Yang Jiechi that the deal would be a very bad idea. Yang's response was textbook -- the Pakistan deal was peaceful and under IAEA safeguards. India has desisted from a formal objection to the Pak deal.

A lot of the anger of countries like Austria, Ireland and the Scandinavian countries against the China-Pakistan deal is directed against India. "You opened a Pandora's box," many countries have said accusingly. India received a country-specific waiver from the NSG in 2008 for nuclear commerce, but it was a bitter pill for many countries for whom the existing non-proliferation regime is a national mantra, including, ironically New Zealand, where the China-Pak deal is likely to be discussed.

But there is little appreciation for India's line that its nuclear deal was a reward for an unblemished record in non-proliferation, and that India was a class apart from Pakistan.

China-Pak nuclear deal: ?India opened a Pandora?s box? - India - The Times of India

I though reports from Indian media are not considered credible on this forum. Or is it only when they dont back a particula POV

 

[karan.1970]

BTW, in the context of this thread, still no credible justification provided by the Indians on Indian opposition to the proposed sale of two reactors to Pakistan by China.

Is there a formal opposition/protest lodged by GoI on this on the lines of Pakistan's letter of protest to IAEA?

 

[SpArK]

China-Pakistan N-deal: Why India is worried
​

China-Pakistan N-deal: Why India is worried


New Delhi: India is watching anxiously as the 46 countries of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) meet in New Zealand on June 24, where they may discuss China-Pakistan nuclear deal.

Beijing has proposed to build two nuclear power reactors in Pakistan. NDTV has learnt that a worried India is planning to take up the issue with China at a high level, very soon.

Why is India so worried about two nuclear reactors for Pakistan?

Government sources say they are concerned that this will free up Pakistan's resources for two plutonium reactors they have built at Khusab in Punjab. Plutonium is what is to used to make bombs. Infact, even the Americans have serious concerns that the technology could be diverted for weapons, given Islamabad's poor proliferation record.



China has argued that the proposal pre-dates their entry to the NSG in 2004, something they have conveyed to India in the past. But officials here are not convinced. So, with one eye on the NSG, the government sources say they will raise the issue with China at a high level very soon.

India has also sounded out various NSG members on its concerns. It's not clear what the NSG will do. India is hoping that they don't buckle under the pressure of Beijing's clout.

 

[RescueRanger]

Funny, india is worried and is making the whole world aware of it! But have they considered why we need this tech?

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Indian govt is just wacked up... we need energy for our shortages and they r thinkin of weapons? well when they were getting a deal frm US we didnt cry like them? Hamari Bari mout ajati hai?

They can cry rivers we dont give a dousche...
Even now we have more Nukes then them... insecure people.

 

[RescueRanger]

You know as i sit there with my cup of tea in my hand, i really cannot understand why certain members of the community just cannot stomach Pakistan has needs just like any other nation.

If you don't understand it or can't come to terms with it, perhaps a reasonable discourse would be justified, 27 pages later and we still have accounts with 2 posts passing their "expert" opinion on what we do and don't need.

If you can't stand the heat, leave the kitchen. And if all you want to do is incite flamers, as in your earlier hijack of a thread... Please return to the nasty depths of BRF or wherever people like you congregate.

 

[Creder]

^^^
Mr Gilanahi today said that it would endorse US sanctions on Iran therby joepardising so called friendship pipeline which was meant to relieve pressure on energy scarcity in pak. So if its really the energy that you people really care about then why such kinds of foolish self suicidal gesturing in policy?

Besides electricity cannot only be produced by nuclear means. Is is that hard to figure out??

Hope it helps improve your mental state

http://www.defence.pk/forums/948168-post208.html

 

[RescueRanger]

Ok, so your post count began with 13,855 on the forum I guess. Am I right??

Lets stick to the topic and not target any individuals.

Dear, i tracked both your posts and the tone in the first one was enough for me to know which way you are swinging... First Impressions!

If you wanted to hold a civil discussion, perhaps you should have chosen your words carefully! And btw, you should be glad that our fourm admin are liberal enough to allow indian IPs on this fourm.

We know the policy BRF has adopted... So no need to play the righteous with me.

 

[karan.1970]

Does not mean nations at the receiving end of the stick don't have the right and means to bypass the 'discrimination' and 'raise the issue', as Pakistan has done and is doing.

Absolutely does not mean that..

- Means to bypass.. Yes sure..
- Rights to bypass... not as long as they accept those rules in public. -- Raise the issue.. by all means..

In my opinion, either reject the rules and make your own like India and Pakistan did in 1990's. Or stick by them till the time you can get them changed..