For first time, India agrees to put all its n-reactors under safeguard

[ajtr]

Only on paper but for first time, India agrees to put all its n-reactors under safeguards​

Marking a significant shift, India for the first time voted today in favour of a proposal at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board to create a fuel bank that has an eligibility condition so far associated only with signatories of the Non-Proliferation Treaty — comprehensive safeguards regime.
This, essentially, means that a country eligible to access the IAEA’s fuel bank, a US-backed proposal with support from EU and other NPT countries, will have to place all its nuclear reactors under safeguards.

India does not qualify for this because it has a military nuclear programme as also agreed under the separation plan following the Indo-US nuclear deal. Yet, India voted in favour of the proposal that provides for nuclear fuel in case of emergency conditions but with pre-requisites which India has always opposed.

In all, 28 countries voted in favour while six chose to abstain. Pakistan was the only country that was absent from the vote in the Board.


Sources said the advice to India was to abstain from the vote since it did not fully concern India but the political decision in New Delhi was to cast the vote in favour of the proposal.

Sources said India gave a detailed explanation of its vote where it made it clear that it did not intend to subscribe to this arrangement. Further, India made it known that the eligibility condition of having comprehensive safeguards was “discriminatory” because not all countries in the IAEA board were signatories to the NPT.

Despite these clarifications, India surprised the board by voting in favour of resolution. This, sources said, was prompted by the assessment that India is not going to access this fuel bank. This bank, according to New Delhi, is “very small” and currently pledges only about $50 million which is of little practical value to the Indian nuclear programme. However, under the n-deal, India can enter into arrangements for storing lifetime supply of fuel for its nuclear reactors.

 

[Hindutvadi]

I cant understand all the strings attached to the deals. Can somebody clear the air?
1) Can India have saperate reactors which are not under IAEA safeguards?
2) If we want can we test a nuclear bomb again?
3) Will there be any reactors specifically for military purposes?
4) Does this mean we must inform IAEA about our nuclear arsenal?
5) What about the war heads we already have?

 

[Indiarox]

I cant understand all the strings attached to the deals. Can somebody clear the air?

Until we have all the info its hard to interpret all this....

1) Can India have saperate reactors which are not under IAEA safeguards?

Yes!!!
We decide which reactors IAEA has access to and which they don't we and only we make that decision no one else can make it for us..........

2) If we want can we test a nuclear bomb again?

Yes we can!! there is a factor called "supreme national interest" in other words if the situation demands it no matter what the rules or regulations we can do it , if we need to.I doubt we will or have the need to do it, two things are certain if we do we will surely face sanctions and we will do a lot better with these sanctions in place as compared to how we did the las time around.......

3) Will there be any reactors specifically for military purposes?

Yes!!
We can build as many of those as we can there will be negative comments on it but it can't stop us if we need to build those , most importantly they will be of the IAEA surveillance list

4) Does this mean we must inform IAEA about our nuclear arsenal?

Nope!!!!!!
they will never know the actual number nor will the rest of the world......

5) What about the war heads we already have?

SFCommand will command them and the P.M will push the button if needed the IAEA will not & can not involve it self in this matter........

 

[Paan Singh]

are they nuts??

 

[Hindutvadi]

Until we have all the info its hard to interpret all this....



Yes!!!
We decide which reactors IAEA has access to and which they don\'t we and only we make that decision no one else can make it for us..........



Yes we can!! there is a factor called \"supreme national interest\" in other words if the situation demands it no matter what the rules or regulations we can do it , if we need to.I doubt we will or have the need to do it, two things are certain if we do we will surely face sanctions and we will do a lot better with these sanctions in place as compared to how we did the las time around.......



Yes!!
We can build as many of those as we can there will be negative comments on it but it can\'t stop us if we need to build those , [SIZE=\"3\"]most importantly they will be of the IAEA surveillance list[/SIZE]



Nope!!!!!!
they will never know the actual number nor will the rest of the world......



SFCommand will command them and the P.M will push the button if needed the IAEA will not & can not involve it self in this matter........

Thanx dude...
One more question. Can we thank multiple no: of times

 

[prototype]

I cant understand all the strings attached to the deals. Can somebody clear the air?
1) Can India have saperate reactors which are not under IAEA safeguards?

Yes,and we already have

2) If we want can we test a nuclear bomb again?

Again yes,but that will affect our commercial nuke business as many of the deal India signed will b called of by the respective nation's

3) Will there be any reactors specifically for military purposes?

Again we already have,especially i think the fast breeder reactors

4) Does this mean we must inform IAEA about our nuclear arsenal?

Not necessary,its our choice,we r not even a declared nuclear power

5) What about the war heads we already have?

they will stay,not only that we can even increase the number as IAEA have no control over our military programe

 

[Hindutvadi]

Not necessary,its our choice,we r not even a declared nuclear power

Err..i guess Vajpayee ji has declared India as a nuclear power. I\'ll be happy if i\'m wrong.

 

[gowthamraj]

So no more we able to produce fuel for nuclear weapon

 

[MST]

Only on paper but for first time, India agrees to put all its n-reactors under safeguards​

Marking a significant shift, India for the first time voted today in favour of a proposal at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board to create a fuel bank that has an eligibility condition so far associated only with signatories of the Non-Proliferation Treaty — comprehensive safeguards regime.
This, essentially, means that a country eligible to access the IAEA’s fuel bank, a US-backed proposal with support from EU and other NPT countries, will have to place all its nuclear reactors under safeguards.

India does not qualify for this because it has a military nuclear programme as also agreed under the separation plan following the Indo-US nuclear deal. Yet, India voted in favour of the proposal that provides for nuclear fuel in case of emergency conditions but with pre-requisites which India has always opposed.

In all, 28 countries voted in favour while six chose to abstain. Pakistan was the only country that was absent from the vote in the Board.


Sources said the advice to India was to abstain from the vote since it did not fully concern India but the political decision in New Delhi was to cast the vote in favour of the proposal.

Sources said India gave a detailed explanation of its vote where it made it clear that it did not intend to subscribe to this arrangement. Further, India made it known that the eligibility condition of having comprehensive safeguards was “discriminatory” because not all countries in the IAEA board were signatories to the NPT.

Despite these clarifications, India surprised the board by voting in favour of resolution. This, sources said, was prompted by the assessment that India is not going to access this fuel bank. This bank, according to New Delhi, is “very small” and currently pledges only about $50 million which is of little practical value to the Indian nuclear programme. However, under the n-deal, India can enter into arrangements for storing lifetime supply of fuel for its nuclear reactors.

This is further indication I feel that India is on track of getting Nuclear Weapons State Status. First full support for entry to the NSG without signing the NPT/CTBT and now this. Seems there is a lot going on under the table with the Americans.

At the same time India is queering the pitch for Pakistan.

Surrender of all our Nuclear Reactors to IAEA is not going to happen.

 

[Mughal-Prince]

Eager to look into detail ...

 

[sensenreason]

This is further indication I feel that India is on track of getting Nuclear Weapons State Status. First full support for entry to the NSG without signing the NPT/CTBT and now this. Seems there is a lot going on under the table with the Americans.

At the same time India is queering the pitch for Pakistan.

Surrender of all our Nuclear Reactors to IAEA is not going to happen.

Getting the Indian Nuclear establishment under IAEA aegis is the main objective of US.While it sounds good on paper, I dont trust our top bureaucrats and cabinet and they could do an anti-national deal with no regard to sovereignity.

 

[prototype]

Err..i guess Vajpayee ji has declared India as a nuclear power. I\'ll be happy if i\'m wrong.

their is a difference between a premier of a nation declaring its nuclear capability and NPT agreeing a nation as a nuclear power,so far NPT had accepted only 5 members as nuclear weapon state who r signatory of NPT

Read it

http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons

 

[Choppers]

U.S. support for India UNSC seat

NARAYAN LAKSHMAN
WASHINGTON, December 4, 2010

The United States’ support for India’s candidacy for a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council is consistent with U.S. interest in seeing India sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) according to a State Department spokesman.

In response to a question on how the U.S. could reconcile its position on India signing the NPT with its support for India’s UNSC seat, Philip Crowley, Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, said, “We do not see those (goals) as being at odds.”

When asked whether India’s candidacy should be looked at equally with countries such as Japan, which has forsworn nuclear weapons entirely, or South Africa, which has given up nuclear weapons, Mr. Crowley said that India had shown itself to be a “responsible global stakeholder”.

He added that President Barack Obama had announced the U.S. position on the matter during his recent visit to the country, however emphasising that U.S. support for India on this issue was “not exclusive of our support for other countries” as well.

On the questions of non-proliferation and disarmament, Mr. Crowley reiterated that there had been no change in the U.S. position. “President Obama’s April 2009 speech in Prague envisioned a world without nuclear weapons,” he said, and given that the U.S. and India shared this vision, the two countries would continue to work together toward that goal.

“There is absolutely no contradiction between that recognition and U.S. commitment to the NPT,” Mr. Crowley noted, adding also that the U.S. was supportive of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty as well, even if India had reached an agreement with the Nuclear Suppliers Group for the transfer of civilian nuclear technology.

In the context of non-proliferation treaties, Mr. Crowley also pointed out that the State Department had been encouraging Pakistan to sign on to the Fissile Material Cut-off regime.

 

[KS]

Totally misleading title (maybe in the Paper itself)

No where it is said that India has agreed to keep all its reactors under safeguards.

Yet, India voted in favour of the proposal that provides for nuclear fuel in case of emergency conditions but with pre-requisites which India has always opposed.

 

[MST]

Getting the Indian Nuclear establishment under IAEA aegis is the main objective of US.While it sounds good on paper, I dont trust our top bureaucrats and cabinet and they could do an anti-national deal with no regard to sovereignity.

If ithis was the aim then then it would have happened during the Civil Nuclear Deal or before openly giving support to India's UNSC membership.

Though there was lot of pressure put on India on this during the signing of Civil Nuclear Deal, thanks to Pres. Bush India was allowed to keep many Reactors for military use as well as build more just we won't get fuel for it from outside.

And remember these were the same bureaucrats and government even then. So I don't think anything has changed as far as India's stand is concerned.

And yes the headline is very wrong and misleading. Is Indian Express going the TOI way????