Spring Onion
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2006
- Messages
- 41,403
- Reaction score
- 19
- Country
- Location
India's Nuclear Agreement
- Thread starter nitesh
- Start date
Contrarian
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2006
- Messages
- 11,571
- Reaction score
- 4
Our reactors will come with fuel and reprocessing rights, says France
Special Correspondent
Ready for “comprehensive nuclear cooperation” with India: Ambassador
“We believe India has the capability and the right to reprocess spent fuel”
France developing a new generation of nuclear reactors
New Delhi: Even as controversy continues to bedevil the terms of India’s proposed bilateral nuclear commerce with the United States, France stepped forward Friday to declare it was ready and open to engage in “comprehensive nuclear cooperation” with the Indian side.
Unlike the U.S., which does not wish to make binding commitments on fuel supply or grant irrevocable reprocessing rights to India, France has made it clear that the provision of fuel for any reactors it sells as well as reprocessing are not issues. “We believe India has the capability and the right to reprocess spent fuel,” French Ambassador Jerome Bonnafont told reporters here.
But in line with the apparent political commitment India has made to not ink deals with other suppliers until the ‘123 agreement’ with the U.S. passes through Congress, the ambassador was unwilling to say when the framework agreement for bilateral nuclear cooperation initialled during the visit to Delhi by President Nikolas Sarkozy this January would finally be signed. “We have to complete some procedures for it to be signed and we are presently discussing with India this issue in terms of timing.”
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will be in Marseilles on September 29 for the India-European Union summit and in Paris on September 30 for a bilateral summit with Mr. Sarkozy. But it is far from clear whether India will be ready to sign its agreement by then.
Asked what these “procedures” — whose completion was holding up the actual signing — were, Mr. Bonnafont gave, as an example, the preparation of “an official Hindi translation” of the Indo-French draft agreement. (Indian officials say a Hindi translation is needed because the English original has also been translated into French. A second procedure to be completed, they say, involves France securing clearance for the agreement from Euratom).
The ambassador said the passage of the Indian waiver at the Nuclear Suppliers Group last week marked the culmination of a process that “[France] had initiated in a way” when Jacques Chirac, who was the French President at the time, came to India in 1998 and suggested “a special status needed to be created” for India to enable it to access nuclear supplies from abroad.
France has a “specificity in the world” as far as the capability of its nuclear industry was concerned, he said, and its national company, Areva, was currently developing a new generation of nuclear reactors - the EPR.
“This new generation will be proposed to India”, he said, adding that France envisaged cooperation in four distinct areas: scientific collaboration and research, training, safety and industrial collaboration.
Including Areva, there were 35 French companies which were looking to get involved in different aspects of the nuclear power generation sector in India, the ambassador said.
France currently has 58 nuclear power plants in operation which collectively generate 80 per cent of the country’s electricity production.
The Hindu : Front Page : Our reactors will come with fuel and reprocessing rights, says France
Special Correspondent
Ready for “comprehensive nuclear cooperation” with India: Ambassador
“We believe India has the capability and the right to reprocess spent fuel”
France developing a new generation of nuclear reactors
New Delhi: Even as controversy continues to bedevil the terms of India’s proposed bilateral nuclear commerce with the United States, France stepped forward Friday to declare it was ready and open to engage in “comprehensive nuclear cooperation” with the Indian side.
Unlike the U.S., which does not wish to make binding commitments on fuel supply or grant irrevocable reprocessing rights to India, France has made it clear that the provision of fuel for any reactors it sells as well as reprocessing are not issues. “We believe India has the capability and the right to reprocess spent fuel,” French Ambassador Jerome Bonnafont told reporters here.
But in line with the apparent political commitment India has made to not ink deals with other suppliers until the ‘123 agreement’ with the U.S. passes through Congress, the ambassador was unwilling to say when the framework agreement for bilateral nuclear cooperation initialled during the visit to Delhi by President Nikolas Sarkozy this January would finally be signed. “We have to complete some procedures for it to be signed and we are presently discussing with India this issue in terms of timing.”
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will be in Marseilles on September 29 for the India-European Union summit and in Paris on September 30 for a bilateral summit with Mr. Sarkozy. But it is far from clear whether India will be ready to sign its agreement by then.
Asked what these “procedures” — whose completion was holding up the actual signing — were, Mr. Bonnafont gave, as an example, the preparation of “an official Hindi translation” of the Indo-French draft agreement. (Indian officials say a Hindi translation is needed because the English original has also been translated into French. A second procedure to be completed, they say, involves France securing clearance for the agreement from Euratom).
The ambassador said the passage of the Indian waiver at the Nuclear Suppliers Group last week marked the culmination of a process that “[France] had initiated in a way” when Jacques Chirac, who was the French President at the time, came to India in 1998 and suggested “a special status needed to be created” for India to enable it to access nuclear supplies from abroad.
France has a “specificity in the world” as far as the capability of its nuclear industry was concerned, he said, and its national company, Areva, was currently developing a new generation of nuclear reactors - the EPR.
“This new generation will be proposed to India”, he said, adding that France envisaged cooperation in four distinct areas: scientific collaboration and research, training, safety and industrial collaboration.
Including Areva, there were 35 French companies which were looking to get involved in different aspects of the nuclear power generation sector in India, the ambassador said.
France currently has 58 nuclear power plants in operation which collectively generate 80 per cent of the country’s electricity production.
The Hindu : Front Page : Our reactors will come with fuel and reprocessing rights, says France
Sep. 13, 2008
"The BJP is for strategic partnership with the US but not for strategic subservience which is what the deal is about," the political resolution adopted by the party here on the second day of the National Executive meet said.
"The text of the nuclear agreement and the statements of the Bush administration establish that the UPA government has perpetrated a mega fraud on both Parliament and the people of the country," it said, adding, "none of the assurances that were given to Parliament have been kept."
All assurances about "assured fuel supply, transfer of technology are patently misleading" and underscored that any compromise on "India's right to nuclear test is wholly unacceptable". The waiver granted by the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) "only worsens India's strategic interests" and the party's stand that the deal in the present form seriously compromises India's strategic sovereignty and the right of nuclear test has been "completely vindicated after the recent revelations", party general secretary H N Ananth Kumar told reporters.
Sep. 13, 2008
India faces humiliation in many aspects. Kashmir is in real trouble. PM Manmohan Singh now realizes the blunder he and his party have committed in Kashmir. It is back to the shoulders of Indian Army to tackle and straighten the mistakes of USP coalition Government.
He also failed to protect Indian nuclear independence. Americans arm-twisted Indian into nuclear submission. India will never be able to test nukes. Indian nationalism is declining with power of money eroding patriotism. People are hungry for American dreams while their country is suffering in many fields.
According to media reports, several slogan-shouting protesters took out a procession from Maisuma locality in the city on Saturday. The protesters were intercepted by CRPF personnel who used batons to disperse them, triggering intense clashes as the agitators indulged in stone pelting, official sources said.
So far, there were no report of any injury in the clashes but paramilitary forces beat up several persons. The situation was put under control after the intervention of police, the sources said.
Agitators said they took out the rally in protest against the use of "brute force" during peaceful protests on Friday in which two persons were killed and more than 130 including JKLF chief, Mohammad Yasin Malik, was injured in police action.
Shops and business establishments opened as usual in the morning but after clashes broke out between protestors and CRPF personnel, a spontaneous strike was observed, the sources said.
Spring Onion
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2006
- Messages
- 41,403
- Reaction score
- 19
- Country
- Location
India won’t wait for 123 to sign deals with France, Russia
Siddharth Varadarajan
Riders, amendments will jeopardise nuclear agreement with U.S.
New Delhi: Despite Washington’s expectation that India will wait for Congressional approval of the ‘123 agreement’ on bilateral nuclear cooperation before concluding deals with other suppliers, the government has decided to sign a landmark nuclear framework agreement with France during Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to Paris later this month.
Following last week’s waiver for India from the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the Bush administration is now trying to complete the U.S. domestic approval process for the 123 by September 26, when Congress formally adjourns, so that the issue does not require the convening of a special ‘lame duck’ session in December.
But regardless of the fate of the 123, India appears finally to have made up its mind to clinch its deals with France and Russia on a priority basis. “We will go ahead and sign with the French in Paris this month and with the Russians when [President] Medvedev comes to Delhi on December 4,” said an official source on condition of anonymity. The NSG had opened the door and India intended to go through it. Confirming that U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had asked India to wait till the 123 was passed so that American companies were not disadvantaged, the sources said India had made no commitment to the U.S. “We have never said we will wait,” the source said, noting that External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee had immediately clarified this issue when his remarks earlier in the week were taken as suggesting otherwise. “As for disadvantaging U.S. firms, the question does not arise because we are talking of a free market and competition,” the source added.
Hitting out at U.S. attempts to revise key provisions of the 123 agreement, the sources said that if President Bush and the State Department did not believe the text’s provisions were legally binding, “why did they put us through seven months of negotiations?” India, the source said, was now waiting to see how the U.S. domestic process got completed. “Let him complete his internal process and then come to us. [But] if the 123 comes with changes or conditions, we’ll see [our options].” Asked whether India might even refuse to sign the agreement if it came with riders that negated its key provisions, the source said, “Let us see. Until we actually sign, nothing is over.”
Washington’s approach, the sources stressed, was making it harder and harder for India to buy American material as and when the 123 was approved. “I think his own companies will now have to deal with him,” the source added.
India, he said, had taken up with the U.S. the contents of Mr. Bush’s September 10 letter to Congress as well as the State Department’s controversial replies to a set of questions raised by the House Foreign Relations Committee on the 123 agreement.
The Hindu : Front Page : India won’t wait for 123 to sign deals with France, Russia
Siddharth Varadarajan
Riders, amendments will jeopardise nuclear agreement with U.S.
New Delhi: Despite Washington’s expectation that India will wait for Congressional approval of the ‘123 agreement’ on bilateral nuclear cooperation before concluding deals with other suppliers, the government has decided to sign a landmark nuclear framework agreement with France during Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to Paris later this month.
Following last week’s waiver for India from the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the Bush administration is now trying to complete the U.S. domestic approval process for the 123 by September 26, when Congress formally adjourns, so that the issue does not require the convening of a special ‘lame duck’ session in December.
But regardless of the fate of the 123, India appears finally to have made up its mind to clinch its deals with France and Russia on a priority basis. “We will go ahead and sign with the French in Paris this month and with the Russians when [President] Medvedev comes to Delhi on December 4,” said an official source on condition of anonymity. The NSG had opened the door and India intended to go through it. Confirming that U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had asked India to wait till the 123 was passed so that American companies were not disadvantaged, the sources said India had made no commitment to the U.S. “We have never said we will wait,” the source said, noting that External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee had immediately clarified this issue when his remarks earlier in the week were taken as suggesting otherwise. “As for disadvantaging U.S. firms, the question does not arise because we are talking of a free market and competition,” the source added.
Hitting out at U.S. attempts to revise key provisions of the 123 agreement, the sources said that if President Bush and the State Department did not believe the text’s provisions were legally binding, “why did they put us through seven months of negotiations?” India, the source said, was now waiting to see how the U.S. domestic process got completed. “Let him complete his internal process and then come to us. [But] if the 123 comes with changes or conditions, we’ll see [our options].” Asked whether India might even refuse to sign the agreement if it came with riders that negated its key provisions, the source said, “Let us see. Until we actually sign, nothing is over.”
Washington’s approach, the sources stressed, was making it harder and harder for India to buy American material as and when the 123 was approved. “I think his own companies will now have to deal with him,” the source added.
India, he said, had taken up with the U.S. the contents of Mr. Bush’s September 10 letter to Congress as well as the State Department’s controversial replies to a set of questions raised by the House Foreign Relations Committee on the 123 agreement.
The Hindu : Front Page : India won’t wait for 123 to sign deals with France, Russia
Spring Onion
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2006
- Messages
- 41,403
- Reaction score
- 19
- Country
- Location
“India cannot import reactors without fuel supply assurance”
T.S. Subramanian
CHENNAI: M.R. Srinivasan, the former Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), asserted on Saturday that unless India had assurances from the United States on the nuclear fuel supply as contained in the 123 agreement, “I cannot see how we can have any nuclear commerce for the import of reactors from the U.S.”
Dr. Srinivasan, who is now a member of the AEC, referred to U.S. President George W. Bush’s message to the Congress that American commitment on the uninterrupted supply of nuclear fuel to India was not legally binding.
India’s understanding was that the U.S.’ assurances on the fuel supply under the 123 agreement were obligatory. India could not understand the differentiation between the legal obligations and the political obligations.
“Unfortunately, this is almost reminiscent of the Tarapur arrangement where an international agreement was not fulfilled by the U.S. on the ground that it was prevented from doing so under its domestic laws. Our friends in the U.S. must understand that India cannot import reactors without satisfactory assurance of fuel supply.”
The Hindu : National : “India cannot import reactors without fuel supply assurance”
T.S. Subramanian
CHENNAI: M.R. Srinivasan, the former Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), asserted on Saturday that unless India had assurances from the United States on the nuclear fuel supply as contained in the 123 agreement, “I cannot see how we can have any nuclear commerce for the import of reactors from the U.S.”
Dr. Srinivasan, who is now a member of the AEC, referred to U.S. President George W. Bush’s message to the Congress that American commitment on the uninterrupted supply of nuclear fuel to India was not legally binding.
India’s understanding was that the U.S.’ assurances on the fuel supply under the 123 agreement were obligatory. India could not understand the differentiation between the legal obligations and the political obligations.
“Unfortunately, this is almost reminiscent of the Tarapur arrangement where an international agreement was not fulfilled by the U.S. on the ground that it was prevented from doing so under its domestic laws. Our friends in the U.S. must understand that India cannot import reactors without satisfactory assurance of fuel supply.”
The Hindu : National : “India cannot import reactors without fuel supply assurance”
Contrarian
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2006
- Messages
- 11,571
- Reaction score
- 4
Neo, the last article you posted is absolute BS-No substance, only hot air.
I got it from Indiadaily.com, I think the site is supported by the leftists.
There's a series of negative articles and editorials about the 123 agreement.
Contrarian
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2006
- Messages
- 11,571
- Reaction score
- 4
Indiadaily is indeed a trash site. It has no article of any value.
nitesh
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 8, 2008
- Messages
- 3,261
- Reaction score
- 0
The Hindu : National : Bush report says India complying with Hyde Act on Iran
Bush report says India complying with Hyde Act on Iran
Siddharth Varadarajan
Agrees that Indian ‘Additional Protocol’ will not be same as for non-nuclear weapon states
New Delhi: In a report to Congress that forms part of the ‘123 Agreement package’, the Bush administration has cited India’s votes against Iran at the International Atomic Energy Agency as part of “several steps” New Delhi has taken “to support the U.S.” in its efforts to “dissuade, isolate, and, if necessary, sanction and contain Iran.”
The report also gives more information about the steps India has taken to fulfil the commitments made to the United States in July 2005 than the United Progressive Alliance government has provided so far.
It reveals, for example, that India has formally committed its adherence to the guidelines of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) and Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) in separate letters dated September 8 and September 9, 2008, an announcement the Ministry of External Affairs has yet to make. The report also cites, as evidence of the steps India has taken to prevent the spread of enrichment and reprocessing technology, a letter sent to the International Atomic Energy Agency by Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Anil Kakodkar on August 18, 2008 in which he indicates India’s interest in participating as a supplier nation in the IAEA’s efforts to establish an international fuel bank. None of this is controversial, though the government’s failure to make this information public is likely to provide ammunition to the Opposition.
Submitted pursuant to Section 104(c) of the Hyde Act, the report is meant to detail the basis for President Bush’s determinations that India has fulfilled its “non-proliferation commitments” to the U.S. and is thus eligible for a waiver from America’s domestic restrictions on nuclear exports to the country.
Section 104(c)(2) outlines 10 subjects where the administration is required to provide Congress with the fullest possible information. Part (G) asks for a description and assessment of the specific measures “India has taken to fully and actively participate in” U.S. and international efforts against Iran “for its efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver WMD.”
The report submitted to Congress on Friday says the “Government of India has taken several steps to support the U.S. in this regard and to bring Iran back into compliance with its international obligations, particularly those pertaining to its nuclear weapons programme.” Apart from the IAEA votes, it cites India’s compliance with U.N. Security Council resolutions and its “strong public line of support for P5+1 and U.S. diplomatic efforts to resolve international concerns with Iran’s nuclear program.”
In its summary of the 123 Agreement, the report repeats President Bush’s September 10 formulation that the fuel supply assurances contained within are not legally binding.
In a separate Nuclear Proliferation Assessment (NPA) statement submitted to Congress last Friday, as part of the Hyde Act’s requirements, the Bush administration for the first time acknowledges that the Additional Protocol India will negotiate and sign with the IAEA will be different from what non-nuclear weapon states sign. “Because India will obviously have undeclared activities that are outside the scope of the safeguards agreement, the primary function of its Additional Protocol will not in general be the same as that of the Model Additional Protocol (that of detecting undeclared nuclear activities).” The assessment concludes that India’s AP “will probably provide some additional information or access to the facilities declared as civil, enhancing somewhat the effectiveness of the safeguards” there.
Seeking to allay fears about nuclear cooperation with the safeguarded Indian nuclear sector somehow giving a boost to its weapons programme, the NPA also notes that since “India’s non-civil facilities already include every capability likely to exist among the facilities declared as civil ... India thus would have no apparent incentive to divert material, equipment, or technology from its declared civil sector to military uses.” It adds that India’s non-civil sector already possesses the necessary capabilities “and a diversion would risk a strong reaction from the U.S. and other nuclear cooperation partners.”
On the safeguards agreement, the NPA asserts that although the text “includes preambular language noting India’s ability to take ‘corrective measures’ to ensure uninterrupted operation of India’s reactors, both the U.S. and the IAEA have concluded that the preambular language establishes the historical context of the agreement and does not affect the obligations [on termination of safeguards] which are contained in the agreement’s operational provisions.”
The NPA disputes claims by some critics of the nuclear deal that it would free up India’s own uranium for weapons use. The amount of fissile material available for potential weapons use is a function of not just the amount of natural uranium available, but also of factors such as overall fuel cycle capabilities such as the production of plutonium in reactors and reprocessing, it notes. “In this regard, [under the agreement], several indigenous Indian reactors which in theory have been available to support military programs, will be placed under safeguards and no longer be available for this purpose,” it says.
Finally, the NPA also acknowledges the ongoing dispute between India and the U.S. over the American claim to having certain “vested rights” over the Tarapur reactors despite the expiration of the 1963 bilateral agreement.
Bush report says India complying with Hyde Act on Iran
Siddharth Varadarajan
Agrees that Indian ‘Additional Protocol’ will not be same as for non-nuclear weapon states
New Delhi: In a report to Congress that forms part of the ‘123 Agreement package’, the Bush administration has cited India’s votes against Iran at the International Atomic Energy Agency as part of “several steps” New Delhi has taken “to support the U.S.” in its efforts to “dissuade, isolate, and, if necessary, sanction and contain Iran.”
The report also gives more information about the steps India has taken to fulfil the commitments made to the United States in July 2005 than the United Progressive Alliance government has provided so far.
It reveals, for example, that India has formally committed its adherence to the guidelines of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) and Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) in separate letters dated September 8 and September 9, 2008, an announcement the Ministry of External Affairs has yet to make. The report also cites, as evidence of the steps India has taken to prevent the spread of enrichment and reprocessing technology, a letter sent to the International Atomic Energy Agency by Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Anil Kakodkar on August 18, 2008 in which he indicates India’s interest in participating as a supplier nation in the IAEA’s efforts to establish an international fuel bank. None of this is controversial, though the government’s failure to make this information public is likely to provide ammunition to the Opposition.
Submitted pursuant to Section 104(c) of the Hyde Act, the report is meant to detail the basis for President Bush’s determinations that India has fulfilled its “non-proliferation commitments” to the U.S. and is thus eligible for a waiver from America’s domestic restrictions on nuclear exports to the country.
Section 104(c)(2) outlines 10 subjects where the administration is required to provide Congress with the fullest possible information. Part (G) asks for a description and assessment of the specific measures “India has taken to fully and actively participate in” U.S. and international efforts against Iran “for its efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver WMD.”
The report submitted to Congress on Friday says the “Government of India has taken several steps to support the U.S. in this regard and to bring Iran back into compliance with its international obligations, particularly those pertaining to its nuclear weapons programme.” Apart from the IAEA votes, it cites India’s compliance with U.N. Security Council resolutions and its “strong public line of support for P5+1 and U.S. diplomatic efforts to resolve international concerns with Iran’s nuclear program.”
In its summary of the 123 Agreement, the report repeats President Bush’s September 10 formulation that the fuel supply assurances contained within are not legally binding.
In a separate Nuclear Proliferation Assessment (NPA) statement submitted to Congress last Friday, as part of the Hyde Act’s requirements, the Bush administration for the first time acknowledges that the Additional Protocol India will negotiate and sign with the IAEA will be different from what non-nuclear weapon states sign. “Because India will obviously have undeclared activities that are outside the scope of the safeguards agreement, the primary function of its Additional Protocol will not in general be the same as that of the Model Additional Protocol (that of detecting undeclared nuclear activities).” The assessment concludes that India’s AP “will probably provide some additional information or access to the facilities declared as civil, enhancing somewhat the effectiveness of the safeguards” there.
Seeking to allay fears about nuclear cooperation with the safeguarded Indian nuclear sector somehow giving a boost to its weapons programme, the NPA also notes that since “India’s non-civil facilities already include every capability likely to exist among the facilities declared as civil ... India thus would have no apparent incentive to divert material, equipment, or technology from its declared civil sector to military uses.” It adds that India’s non-civil sector already possesses the necessary capabilities “and a diversion would risk a strong reaction from the U.S. and other nuclear cooperation partners.”
On the safeguards agreement, the NPA asserts that although the text “includes preambular language noting India’s ability to take ‘corrective measures’ to ensure uninterrupted operation of India’s reactors, both the U.S. and the IAEA have concluded that the preambular language establishes the historical context of the agreement and does not affect the obligations [on termination of safeguards] which are contained in the agreement’s operational provisions.”
The NPA disputes claims by some critics of the nuclear deal that it would free up India’s own uranium for weapons use. The amount of fissile material available for potential weapons use is a function of not just the amount of natural uranium available, but also of factors such as overall fuel cycle capabilities such as the production of plutonium in reactors and reprocessing, it notes. “In this regard, [under the agreement], several indigenous Indian reactors which in theory have been available to support military programs, will be placed under safeguards and no longer be available for this purpose,” it says.
Finally, the NPA also acknowledges the ongoing dispute between India and the U.S. over the American claim to having certain “vested rights” over the Tarapur reactors despite the expiration of the 1963 bilateral agreement.
Come on guys, this is not fair. Why is it so hard to accept critic? Any writer or website being critical of Indian affairs get refuted or killed as biased or commie.
Please name one (critial) site that is acceptable to you.
Contrarian
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2006
- Messages
- 11,571
- Reaction score
- 4
Neo, i would have no arguments against the article if it substantiated its claims. But it doesnt, all it does is say this or that without any proof when we know better to the contrary.
