Re: India still N-pariah


Mortayee wrote:
Marcus Aurelius wrote:

harmony wrote:
let's look at this way:
india goes ahead and does what it wants as per its own understanding of its
responsibilities and interpretation of the deal signed with bush, regardless
of this bill.
what is the worst case scenario when conflict of viewpoints does arise 5
years down the line?
if india is buying fisile materials from france, can usa then stop france?
i think india will run into problem if it buys things from usa which might
get stopped.
i think the treaty does not bind india to buy anything from usa.
at the very worst, we will be back to where we are today, no? is that bad if
the world bank finances the project and some u.s. insurance company insures
the project against supply interrurptions which are not acts of war?

what am i missing?


I suppose that if India buys reactors and fuel from non-US sources
(hehe, I don't yet know if there are clauses in the deal that american
businesses have to profit), the harm from this deal can be managed
somehow. This will hurt the US businesses, and they in turn will press
US congress to listen to India's concerns.


US has right to halt fuel supply, so the reactors without fuel will be
dangerous white elephants; dangerous because in the absence of uraniusm
critical electricty supply from these reactors will be open halted.
India eventually want to have thorium reactors for her long term energy
need, these require some plutonium and that is the reason for India
wants uranium. US wants to control all the plutonium produced by the
reactors. So, its not simple.

How would the US exert control over fuel gotten from Russia?
I am suggesting that India use this deal, not to go through with its
provisions, but to prod other suppliers to loosen their controls.

If the US objects to others supplying reactors and fuels to India, they
can always retort that the USA was willing to do it, so it can't object
to others doing it.


Still, never underestimate the american instinct to gain control over
the lives of all people, and the evil extents to which they will go to
gain it.

In international arena and affairs of states use of such adjectives as
'evil' and 'good' seem to be wholely inappropriate. US is just looking
after her national interest, and one expects India will do likewise.

"good" and "evil" are VERY useful terms, especially in international
affairs. These terms were used to end colonialism, apartheid, racial
discrimination etc. They can be used to end the nuclear apartheid
against India. It just might take some time.


Adi Anant



Adi Anant

"Mortayee" <mortayee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1165699900.623282.188500@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Now this is from a man who is one of the ardent supporter of the
Indo-US nuke deal!



From K Subrahmanya DH News Service New Delhi:

India may not get the same status as other states with advanced nuclear
technology as envisaged under the India-specific waiver bill just
adopted by the US Congress to facilitate civil nuclear energy
cooperation between the two countries and with other others.

India may not get the same status as other states with advanced nuclear
technology as envisaged under the India-specific waiver bill just
adopted by the US Congress to facilitate civil nuclear energy
cooperation between the two countries and with other others.

Certain key provisions in the waiver bill, expected to become law next
week with President George W Bush's expected signature on it on
Monday, runs counter to the understandings reached between the American
President and Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh in their July 18, 2005
joint statement that set the framework of cooperation.

Alarm bells

Expectedly, critics of the Prime Minister's initiative with the
United States, in particular leading nuclear scientists in the country,
have raised alarm over the apparent points of departure in the bill
from the assurances contained in the July 18 statement. The July 18 had
envisaged a "full" civil nuclear cooperation arrangement between
the countries as equal partners. Consider the following provisions in
the July 18 statement:

1 "President Bush... stated that as a responsible state with advanced
nuclear technology, India should acquire the same benefits and
advantages as other such states."

2 "The President would also seek agreement from Congress to adjust US
laws and policies, and the United States will work with friends and
allies to adjust international regimes to enable full civil nuclear
energy cooperation and trade with India..."

3 "The Prime Minister conveyed that for his part, India would...
acquire the same benefits and advantages as other leading countries
with advanced nuclear technology, such as the United States."

The departure

Yet, India is virtually relegated to the position as a second grade
partner for the proposed cooperation as per the Congressional bill that
will become law next week. And more significantly, the partnership will
be virtually confined to nuclear trade and not much of cooperation.

Notwithstanding the declared objective of allowing India to have full
civil nuclear energy cooperation with the US and other members of the
Nuclear Suppliers Group, the bill makes it very clear that the country
will continue to be subject to a regime of nuclear denial.

In para 5 of Section 103 under the statements of policies in the bill
that underlines objective behind the move to amend the US Atomic Energy
Act of 1954 for nuclear cooperation with India, it is categorically
stated that neither the US nor other NSG countries should supply India
with "sensitive" nuclear technology or material.

"Given the special sensitivity of equipment and technologies related
to the enrichment of uranium, the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel,
and the production of heavy water, (the US will) work with members of
the NSG, individually and collectively, to further restrict the
transfer of such equipment and technologies, including to India."

Perhaps, all that the bill envisages is the supply of nuclear reactors
and fuel to India, which essentially would mean nuclear business.
Leading former nuclear scientists like P K Iyengar and A N Prasad have
also raised serious concern over lack of definitive commitment in the
bill about reliability of American nuclear fuel supply.

While the Prime Minister had assured that India would secure commitment
of assured fuel supply for the life-span of the reactors that would be
built with US assistance, the bill makes no such commitment.

On the contrary, in the event the US suspends or terminates cooperation
with India for whatever reasons, the bill requires the US
Administration to take back all the equipment and materials transferred
to India under the cooperation framework and also seek other countries
to do the same.

The Manmohan Singh government can, therefore, be expected face
uncomfortable questions in Parliament on not just the so-called Iran
clause but also these key issues when External Affairs Minister Pranab
Mukherjee makes a statement on the issue.

With the leading nuclear scientists already raising the alarm, Atomic
Energy Commission chairman Anil Kakodkar has called them for a meeting
on December 15. The scientists have been keeping quiet following their
meeting with the Prime Minister three months ago.


.