<b>Govt has no more authority to go ahead with nuclear deal: BJP
</b>
New Delhi (PTI): Opposition BJP on Tuesday said the government has lost its moral and political authority to go ahead with the Indo-US nuclear after the Left's decision to withdraw support to the UPA.
<b>
"The BJP believes that a minority government does not have either the political or moral legitimacy to go ahead with a major international agreement," party spokesperson Ravi Shanker Prasad told reporters here.</b>
The BJP has taken note of the Prime Minister's statement on Monday that he would follow all parliamentary norms. This enjoins upon him the obligation not to go ahead with the next steps to conclude the Indo-US nuclear deal, he added.
The party also demanded that the government convene an emergency session of Parliament to seek a vote of confidence.
"The BJP demands that an emergency session of Parliament be convened immediately. The question whether the government enjoys majority support must be ascertained on the floor of the House, and in no other manner," Prasad said in a statement.
The office-bearers of the BJP who held a meeting here led by party chief Rajnath Singh in the residence of senior party leader L K Advani sought to allege the UPA government of "failing miserably" in governance.
<b>
"The UPA has failed miserably to provide the governance and stability that the country needs. No government has undermined institutions and norms, no government has bent to foreign powers as has this government," the release added.
</b>
07-09-2008, 09:53 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-09-2008, 11:23 PM by acharya.)
<b> The sell-out
</b><i>An elected PM would not have accepted the Indo-US nuclear deal as Manmohan Singh has, argues N.V.Subramanian.</i>
After Manmohan Singh, most intellectually honest people would say no to a technocratic prime minister. Is the fall back to an elected PM not only inescapable but desirable? Very probably yes. If you were to take a secret poll of the Congress leadership, Manmohan Singh and the Indo-US nuclear deal would lose hands down. The deal won't win the Congress party the next general election, even if it beats the tight US congressional calendar. It is not even about winning polls. The deal sells out India's military nuclear programme by prohibiting testing. Without explosive testing, weapons, especially thermo-nuclear weapons, but most of all, warheads on medium- and long-range missiles, cannot be perfected.
The Samajwadi Party has trudged up the former President, Abdul Kalam, to certify the worthiness of the deal. With due respect to Kalam, he is a technologist, not a scientist, far less an atomic scientist, and not at all the cream of that company, a weapon's designer. And what should and does frighten the Indian military is that the lone thermonuclear weapon in the May 1998 test did not produce the intended bang. The point is, most Indian strategic writers know this and more. Anyone with any legal comprehension who has read the entire (available) documentation on the deal also knows that an explosive test will kill the unique exemption for India provided by the Henry Hyde Act.
Whether or not it is feasible to evacuate all or a majority of the reactors facilitated by the deal in the event India tests, the fuel cut off that is bound to follow (like the Tarapur crisis) will paralyze all the connected commerce and industry. That unstated but ever-present risk to growth will baulk India from ever testing, and an untested, obsolescing deterrent is worse in some ways than no deterrence. The pro-dealers say that that risk is always there. True. But that produces a self-imposed moratorium, as now. The deal binds India, hands and feet, to never testing. The deal only assures fuel for normal reactor operation, no reserve. The IAEA won't go beyond this, nor will the NSG. Indeed, the NSG sanction for nuclear commerce with India has to mirror the US deal. The fuel will be low enriched uranium for the common commercial light water reactors that will be imported under the deal, thirty-some reactors costing about $1000 billion. By the DEA's own estimate, uranium reserves worldwide won't last sixty years. That estimate was made some years ago before China became hungry for nuclear power. A US study lasted the reserves longer, but only if the reactor numbers did not dramatically increase. With conditions for peak oil rapidly approaching, environmental concerns growing, and commodities inflation taking firm roots, the shift to nuclear power is being strenuously campaigned for by the US.
Already commanding a high price because of Chinese hoarding, uranium is going to get more expensive to import (making uranium power uneconomic), and the five NPT-recognized nuclear powers and industrial giants like Japan will stake â and get â the first claim on dwindling uranium reserves. Even without explosive testing, our enormous investments in LWRs would have been criminally liquidated. That is not all. Russia, the US, Japan and certain European countries have recognized the benefits of the plutonium economy. The US certainly is headed to produce reactors that deplete plutonium to produce power. India has made tremendous advances in breeding plutonium to make energy and to fire the thorium economy. The investments in LWRs mandated by the deal, because it assists the non-proliferation regime, will not only turn to dud, but will kill India's pioneering efforts in plutonium and thorium economies brilliantly envisioned by Homi Bhabha. And when India is down on this, the US and Western advances in them will force a second cycle of dependence.
That Manmohan Singh is a slave of the West is no secret. Not only leaders in the BJP and CPI-M, but many in the Congress party say so. The PM's own utterances betray him. He does not believe India has the inherent capability to become a great power. An elected prime minister in Manmohan Singh's place would never have been so pusillanimous. Mrs Indira Gandhi faced a revolt in the party, a sinking economy and a hostile United States when she determined to partition Pakistan. It is no surprise that she was the first PM to conduct the nuclear test, and A.B.Vajpayee, a supremely brave man, and another elected prime minister, who authorized the second test.
On the other hand, Manmohan Singh choked India's military and civilian nuclear programmes as finance minister, and opposed the May 1998 nuclear test. Is it any surprise that he has brought the Congress party to such straits that it could well loss the general elections just so to get the US deal? N.V.Subramanian is Editor, NewsInsight.net.
G-8 backs Indo-US civil nuclear deal
July 09, 2008 17:07 IST
In a major breakthrough for the troubled Indo-US nuclear deal, the powerful group of eight (G-8) industrialised countries on Wednesday decided to adopt a 'more robust' approach to civil nuclear cooperation with India to help meet its growing energy needs.
N-deal important for both India, US: Bush
<b>
"We look forward to working with India, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Nuclear Suppliers Group and other partners to advance India's non-proliferation commitments and progress so as to facilitate a more robust approach to civil nuclear cooperation with India to help it meet its growing energy needs in a manner that enhances and reinforces the global non-proliferation regime," the Chair's Summary released at the end of the G-8 summit said in Toyako.</b>
Australia unlikely to oppose N-deal at NSG
The statement came hours after US President George W Bush [Images] met Prime Minister Manmohan Singh [Images] on the sidelines of the G-8 summit.
The G-8 is made up of Britain, Canada [Images], France [Images], Germany [Images], Italy [Images], Japan [Images], Russia [Images] and the United States.
X-posted from BRF
<!--QuoteBegin-"Rangudu"+-->QUOTE("Rangudu")<!--QuoteEBegin--><b> HERE'S a copy of the safeguards agreement</b>. Top Secret? I think not!
The NPAs seem to hate it!
Two quick points:
1. No mention of "in perpetuity" - meaning that India can reclassify a reactor for military use after all imported fuel has been passed through the system
2. No physical separation required
Both are IDENTICAL to the NPT NWS rights.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Spread the file around so others can read too!
<b>Draft nuke safeguards accord circulated to Board of Governors</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The draft India-specific nuclear safeguards accord with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was on Wednesday circulated to the nuclear watchdog's board of governors for approval following a "request" from the Indian government.
The safeguards pact, which is the next step in the operationalisation of the Indo-US civil nuclear deal, was sent to the 35-nation Board on a day when the Left parties formally withdrew support from the UPA government following a bitter feud over the deal which has remained stalled for several months.
"At the request of the Government of India, the IAEA Secretariat on Wednesday circulated to members of the IAEA board of governors for their consideration the draft of an 'Agreement with the Government of India for the Application of Safeguards to Civilian Nuclear Facilities'," IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said in a press statement issued at the Agency headquarters in Vienna.
Fleming said the Board chairman will consult members to fix a date to discuss the draft amid reports that a special governors meeting will be convened in Vienna on July 28 to discuss the safeguards text.
"The chairman of the board is consulting with board members to agree on a date for a board meeting when the agreement would be considered," she said.
The move significantly comes in the backdrop of Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee saying that India will approach the IAEA only after seeking a trust vote
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Congress say something do differently.
What is with Thorium?
Whole thing looks like a complete lock. where is annex etc ?
We have to find out how bribe was distributed, Is it based on easy step or already paid full amount?
<b>
Set parameters for ratifying treaties: BJP</b>
Special Correspondent
CHENNAI: The Bharatiya Janata Party on Wednesday demanded that the Union government pass a law that would set parameters for ratifying treaties such as the India-U.S. nuclear deal.
Addressing a press conference at the party headquarters here, the former BJP president, Murli Manohar Joshi, said the law should lay down conditions and procedures for signing the treaties which had influence on areas such as foreign policy, defence, economy and energy.
Noting that several countries had such laws, Dr. Joshi said even if the United Progressive Alliance government won a vote of confidence in Parliament, this would not give a âdemocratic rightâ to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to bind the entire country for 40 years, the period of validity mentioned in the nuclear deal.
He wondered how such a deal could be allowed without having any popular support or Parliament ratification. He had already tabled a private memberâs Bill in the Rajya Sabha in this regard.
Urging President Pratibha Patil to ask Dr. Singh to seek a vote of confidence immediately, the BJP leader said the chances of early elections could not be ruled out.
Asked whether his party and the Left would come together in opposing the deal in the event of the government going ahead, he said the reasons for the BJPâs opposition were not the same as those of the Left.
On the contention in certain quarters that the deal was âanti-Muslim,â Dr. Joshi ridiculed it and said if the deal was good or bad for the country, it would be so for people of any religion.
Dr. Joshi criticised the Union government for its âcomplete ignoranceâ of the designs of separatists and terrorists in Kashmir. He asked how any demographic change could occur through temporary shelter arrangements for Amarnath pilgrims.
07-10-2008, 08:45 AM
(This post was last modified: 07-10-2008, 08:54 AM by dhu.)
Indian clown PM is attending disarmament conference at this juncture. Sonia's first act as UPA chairperson was to declare unilateral ban on all further testing.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>The myth of disarmament
</b>
G Parthasarathy
<b>Prime Minister Manmohan Singh addressed a Conference on Disarmament in New Delhi on June 9 to mark the 20th anniversary of Prime Minster Rajiv Gandhi's address to the UN Special Session on Disarmament. </b>Rajiv Gandhi had then presented an Action Plan calling on the international community to negotiate a binding agreement on general and complete disarmament leading to the elimination of all nuclear weapons by 2010.
Twenty years later, according to the Bulletin of American scientists, the US has a stockpile of 4,075 active nuclear warheads. Russia, France and the UK have 5,830, 200 and 350 warheads respectively. India, Pakistan and Israel are respectively said to possess 100 to 140, between 60 and 100, and 200 active warheads each. North Korea reportedly possesses four to 10 nuclear warheads. When Rajiv Gandhi presented his Action Plan in 1988, Pakistan had, thanks to liberal Chinese assistance and American acquiescence, already acquired a nuclear arsenal, prompting him to direct his scientists, Mr PK Iyengar and Mr VS Arunachalam, to proceed with the assembly of an Indian nuclear arsenal.
Even as Rajiv Gandhi was calling for the establishment of a "nonviolent and nuclear weapons free world order" duly backed by Mr Mikhail Gorbachev, the nuclear weapons powers were moving to secure an indefinite extension of the nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, which was concluded on July 1, 1968. With 189 countries now having acceded to the NPT and only four -- India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea -- living outside its provisions, the NPT can be said, as Western experts aver, to have prevented the emergence of around 20 nuclear weapons states, as was feared in 1968.
Thus, while India can legitimately claim that the Treaty is unequal and discriminatory, it will remain the target of signatories to the Treaty, including amongst its non-aligned partners, like Iran and Egypt. Such attitudes are partially motivated by envy, apart from concerns arising out of the possession of nuclear weapons by Israel. Countries like Iran demand a "complete prohibition" of nuclear cooperation with countries which have not signed the NPT.
<b>The July 9 New Delhi Conference was called following an appeal issued jointly by Senator Sam Nunn, former Secretaries of State George Shultz and Henry Kissinger, and former US Defence Secretary William Perry, calling for the elimination of nuclear weapons. </b>The American establishment is nowhere near accepting these recommendations, with the authors themselves now becoming quiet. None these four new found champions of disarmament, who were invited to the June 9 conference, chose to attend the event. Even Mr Gorbachev, that ardent one time champion of a "nonviolent and nuclear weapons free world," chose not to attend the conference, even though invited. The reality is that while world statesmen may pay lip service to disarmament, they are uneasy at associating themselves with India, because it is a non-signatory to the NPT.
The NPT was founded on the "three pillars" of non-proliferation, disarmament and cooperation in peaceful uses of nuclear energy. While its proponents draw a measure of satisfaction from the fact that the number of countries possessing nuclear weapons today has not reached double digits, there is a powerful lobby, particularly in the US and in the European Union, which demands "universalisation" the NPT and measures to pressurise non-signatories like India to accede to the NPT. China, which has a notorious record of violating the NPT by transfers of nuclear weapons designs and technology to Pakistan, adopts a holier than thou attitude, demanding that India should give up its nuclear weapons and accede to the NPT.
India unfortunately shows a lack of spine by refusing to allude publicly to these Chinese transgressions of the NPT. Similarly, India has been less than forthright in joining others to point out that NATO nuclear sharing agreements which have led to Belgium, Italy, Netherlands and Turkey currently receiving nuclear weapons, which Canada continued to receive till 1984 and Greece until 2001, grossly violate NPT obligations.
Finally, the second "pillar" of the NPT which requires nuclear weapons states to pursue negotiations leading to a "treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control" has become meaningless, because of the reluctance of nuclear weapons powers to either give up nuclear weapons, or even agree to refrain from the use or threat of use of these weapons.
India has now to prepare for the likelihood of the finalisation of two treaties -- a Treaty on a Comprehensive Test Ban and a Fissile Material Cut off Treaty -- in the not too distant future, especially if Mr Barack Obama is elected as the next US President. As our former Ambassador to the UN Arundhati Ghosh recently noted, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee has already committed in the UN in 1998 that apart from observing its unilateral moratorium on testing, India will, in addition bring its discussions with the US "to a successful conclusion", so that "the entry into force of the CTBT is not delayed". Thus, despite protestations to the contrary, both Mr Vajpayee and then Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh have committed India to acceding to the CTBT, once countries like China and the US ratify it.
The real challenges that India is going to face will arise when negotiations commence to conclude a FMCT, which will ultimately lead to an end to production of fissile material for nuclear weapons. The conclusion of a FMCT will be a high priority in the event of an Obama Presidency in the US. It is here that India should stand firm, holding that it will accede to such a treaty only if it is non-discriminatory and internationally verifiable. Any loophole that permits China to either build up its arsenal while India is prohibited from doing so, or permits China to clandestinely transfer know-how and fissile material to Pakistan, should be categorically rejected.
It would be worthwhile to convey this unambiguously to key partners like the US, the UK, France, Russia, other members of the G 8 and to friendly countries like South Africa and Brazil. India should reaffirm that while it will never be the first to use nuclear weapons, it will also resist attempts to pressurise it to accept treaties that will undermine the efficacy of its nuclear deterrent. We will also have to recognise that while global nuclear disarmament is desirable, the prospects for nuclear disarmament in the foreseeable future are virtually non-existent.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b> India renews call for time-bound nuclear disarmament</b> (manmohan, mani shankar aiyer, richard butler..)
<b>
India's fight over 'national interest'</b>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7489160.stm
By Soutik Biswas
BBC News, Delhi
George W Bush and Manmohan Singh
The leaders say the deal is historic
What constitutes the national interest in India, a country trying to reconcile economic growth and inequality at home and pining to claim its place in the world at the same time?
Is it a landmark nuclear deal with the United States under which India will get access to US civilian nuclear technology and fuel?
An agreement which the government says will help meet some of oil-scarce India's spiralling energy demands. One, which it insists, will deepen strategic relations with a country with whom India had a near-hostile relationship during the Cold War.
Or does the national interest lie in taming runaway double-digit inflation - the highest in over a decade - that is choking growth and showing no signs of abating?
Or does it lie in tackling a stubborn unemployment problem that persists despite a recent economic boom?
The failure to come to a bipartisan answer to this tricky question - why can't a government carry off a nuclear deal and tackle poverty at the same time? - has plunged India into a bout of fresh political uncertainty.
Undue influence
Communist allies of India's Congress party-led governing coalition have withdrawn support after it decided to move ahead with the nuclear deal.
India's dour communists hate anything to do with the US - they argue that the deal would give the Americans undue influence over India's foreign and nuclear policy.
Wrong, says the government.
In the words of the architect of the deal, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, the agreement is historic and does India good. It is "an offer you cannot refuse".
Prakash Karat
Communist leader Prakash Karat has led the opposition to the deal
After nearly a year of sniping with the government over the fine print of the deal, the communist allies, who command 59 seats in India's 542-seat parliament, have decided that enough is enough.
Meanwhile, faced with the ignominy of becoming a lame duck government or possible early elections triggered by the nuclear row, India's Grand Old Party has been stitching up deals with a regional party and independents that would compensate for the loss of communist support in parliament.
Many analysts see this as a sorry tale.
They say the passage of a truly significant agreement which could change India's relations with the US and the world has had to rely finally on political horse trading, again exposing the murky underbelly of Indian politics.
"The Congress had dug itself into an impossible situation. If they didn't back the deal, everyone would have said, justifiably, that they let the communists walk all over them," says political commentator Pratap Bhanu Mehta.
"The puzzle is how did the party ever commit to this deal without doing the preparatory political work early on."
Down to the wire
The showdown over the deal between the communists and the Congress began nearly a year ago. The communists' historical anti-American ideology was well known to all.
So the way the battle over the deal went down the wire has baffled observers.
Most say Congress's tardy political management skills and a curious ruling diarchy - the technocrat Manmohan Singh as prime minister and party chief Sonia Gandhi as the political decision maker - are to blame for the crisis.
Sonia Gandhi
Critics have questioned Sonia Gandhi's political management
When the Congress, a dynastic party, won an unexpected victory at the general elections in 2004, the Italian-born Sonia Gandhi was the natural choice to become prime minister.
But after the defeated Hindu nationalist BJP party kicked up a storm over her nationality, she passed on the prime ministerial baton to the able, honest, unassuming and largely apolitical economist-bureaucrat Manmohan Singh.
Mr Singh, as federal finance minister, was responsible for opening up the Indian economy in 1991.
But he has never won a popular election and, as one analyst says, is a "prime minister who does not derive his power from the people".
So even as he agreed the deal with US President George W Bush, his party failed to sell it to its key communist allies.
"The problem is that a prime minister without political reflexes and a base cannot deliver even on foreign policy or economic issues," says analyst Mahesh Rangarajan.
Mr Singh has tried to make the nuclear deal the showpiece achievement of his tenure, and his legacy to the nation.
But critics say key economic, labour and farm reforms have remained stillborn because of resistance from within the party and its allies. And the jury is still out on the government's grandiose $2bn "back-to-work" scheme.
Rising woes
Mr Singh spoke eloquently of reforming public and educational institutions when he took office. Most of his efforts were stymied by obdurate allies, and a number of senior ministers.
Mulayam Singh Yadav
Congress is wooing Samajwadi leader Mulayam Singh Yadav
"A prime minister of India must have the ability to stand on his own political feet. I cannot think of any major issues except this nuclear deal when the PM has had his way," says Pratap Bhanu Mehta.
That also has come at a cost - making an ally out of a former political foe to take the nuclear deal forward.
To add to the government's woes, the allies' pullout comes at a time when inflation and high interest rates are hurting the poor and the middle classes respectively.
So even if the governing coalition manages to save the deal and staves off early elections, its political fortunes look dim.
Even the government admits that inflation, fuelled by steep oil prices, is here to stay for a while.
And a nuclear deal cannot win votes in a country where many people still worry about their roti, kapda and makan (bread, clothes and home).
At the end of the day, the Congress still runs the danger of losing it all in the "national interest".
"Imagine," says an analyst, "that the deal hits more bumps in the completion stage and gets stuck."
Only the future will tell whether the deal finally served the national interest or sundry "self interests" - the Congress and its new-found allies.
It is possibly the biggest gamble by India's Grand Old Party in its chequered history.
<b>Ambiguity in India IAEA nuclear text raises concern</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The draft nuclear safeguards pact India submitted to the International Atomic Energy Agency on Wednesday contains ambiguities that must be clarified before the U.N. watchdog approves the deal, a leading expert said.
The IAEA said the safeguards text, which India hammered out with IAEA inspectors early this year and is a key element in a landmark 2005 U.S.-Indian nuclear cooperation deal, had been sent to the agency's 35-nation board in Vienna after the New Delhi government gave the green light.
The draft, which was circulated by Washington-based think tanks, contained several points that "raise questions that board members need to get clarity on" because they would restrict international monitoring of India's atomic programs, said Daryl Kimball of the Arms Control Association.
He said a key red flag is raised by a clause in the draft that says India "may take corrective measures to ensure uninterrupted operation of its civilian nuclear reactors in the event of disruption of foreign fuel supplies."
Disruption of fuel supplies would happen only if India were to resume testing of nuclear weapons and that loophole would blunt any IAEA effort to keep that country's civil nuclear power program from being used to augment its atomic arsenal.
<b>"Does that mean that India intends to withdraw from what are supposed to be permanent safeguards if it tests and other states decide to terminate fuel supplies?" </b>asked Kimball.
"<b>If so, that is a big problem and the Indian government has not clarified what that means,"</b> he said.
"<b>ABNORMAL" OMISSION</b>
India -- one of just three nations outside the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) -- developed atomic bombs in secret and conducted a nuclear test in 1974, prompting the United States to ban sales of U.S. nuclear fuel and reactor technology.
The draft, which in many respects resembles IAEA agreements with other countries, also omits a list of nuclear facilities that India has voluntarily agreed to place under IAEA safeguards, said Kimball, calling that "abnormal".
India's motives were not clear, he said, but added that it appeared "they're trying to preserve their options to put some reactors in or take some out" from IAEA scrutiny, depending on future bilateral nuclear cooperation agreements.
In addition to getting IAEA governors' approval, India must also obtain a waiver for the nuclear deal from the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group, where some members may resist the deal because NSG regulations ban trade with non-NPT states.
Proponents of the U.S.-India accord say it will move the Asian giant's trade and diplomatic relations closer to the West and more broadly promote an alternative to high-polluting and expensive oil and gas energy in developing nations.
Critics say it will encourage nuclear proliferators and weaken the Western case against the nuclear ambitions of Iran or North Korea.
Ashley Tellis of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a former Bush administration official and proponent of the deal, said fears of another Indian nuclear weapons test were theoretical and India had too much to risk by testing.
"With the investments that they have made in this deal, the incentives not to test actually grow," he said.
<b>"If India tests in the future, it will not be the first to test. It will test most likely in response to somebody else testing,"</b> added Tellis.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now why Moron Singh refused to show it to other MP when rest world can see it. What a Moron he is. Just stupidity, after all he is .....
<b>BJP charges UPA Govt with 'complete disconnect'</b>
New Delhi (PTI): The BJP on Thursday charged the UPA government with suffering from "complete disconnect" and making a "mockery" of the country.
"The act of the government of sending the draft to the IAEA is yet another proof of the government suffering from complete disconnect. There is confusion of what is being said, done and planned," party spokesperson Rajiv Pratap Rudy told reporters here.
He said the government was accountable for making a "mockery" of the country and the Constitution. "The government must answer why it makes a mockery of the country and the Constitution. What right does it have to push a document for international treaty without legal sanctity," he said.
The country would like to know how the document, which was confidential till Thursday morning, was made available on the official website.
The government should answer the disconnect between the promise of senior most minister and the PM's action. "Doesn't the left arm of the government know what the right arm does?" he asked.
External Affairs Minister had in a recent press conference announced that the government will go ahead with the nuclear deal only after Parliament approval. But the draft for the India-specific safeguards agreement was sent to the IAEA last night.
Meanwhile, the NDA led by BJP will meet here this evening to decide upon its future course of action.
As per sources, the opposition alliance was contemplating to take the issue to President Pratibha Patil, alleging that the minority Manmohan Singh government was taking the international treaty without people's mandate.
# Draft Safeguards Agreement with IAEA - Full Text
# Text of Left parties' statement on withdrawal of support to UPA Govt
# Deal important for both India and US: Bush
# India hopeful of Chinaâs support
# Left: why keep draft text of IAEA Safeguards Agreement secret?
# Itâs a privileged document, says Congress
Its a mystery why the document wasnt shown to the Left and why the EAM was not informed of the schedule with the draft thus cutting a sorry figure. The saying goes"An ambassador is a person who lies abroad for his country" Looks like its opposite for the EAM.
It looks like a coordinated move to bring in a color revolution and the Left fell for it. And they deserve it.
Bigger question is how did the PRC agree to the clean draft of the IAEA safeguards? And the other NP icons like the Scandinavians and Ozzies etc. It means that TSP and other ummah borthers have to worry as to what next.
Pioneer, 11 July 2008
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Russia stocks up on uranium
Tatyana Sinitsyna on Moscow's rush to beat others in the queue
<b>Russia has overtaken Niger to become the world's fourth largest uranium producer, after Canada, Australia and Kazakhstan. Russia received its new rating in 2007, when it produced 3,527 tonnes of uranium.</b> It has ambitious plans to mover even further up the league, based on promising deposits in eastern Siberia and other regions, and opportunities for mutually advantageous cooperation with countries rich in uranium ore.
<b>Today, the uranium market is characterised by a high level of monopolisation -- three-fourths of all uranium is produced by five countries. Having placed its stake on nuclear energy, Russia has no choice but to replenish its uranium reserves. In 2006, Russia launched cooperation with Kazakhstan. It owns 49 per cent shares in the Zarechnoye joint venture which is in charge of a 19,000-tonne uranium deposit.</b> Last year, Russia signed a <b>bilateral agreement with Australia, which will supply it with $ 1 million worth of uranium for civilian purposes every year.</b>
<b>Russia has also set up joint ventures with Canada's Cameco Corporation to undertake uranium prospecting and extraction in both countries. Potential for uranium production has also been assessed in Armenia; and Russia and Armenia have signed an agreement on uranium prospecting and production.</b> Mongolia may also occupy a major place in the global nuclear industry. In theory, its untapped uranium resources are the largest in the world.
Meanwhile, Russia has to supply uranium to nuclear power plants that were built abroad in Soviet times, and it also has to execute contracts for uranium enrichment and processing. <b>If we take into account all these factors, the gap between demand and supply adds up to 6,000 tonnes a year. Russia currently makes up for the shortfall with uranium from 'secondary reserves' -- depots of fissionable material, converted nuclear weapons, and so-called 'depleted uranium tails' (uranium ore used twice). But these secondary reserves, which every nuclear power has stockpiled since the start of the nuclear era, will last no more than 15 years.</b>
The world is not short of uranium. On the contrary, nature has preordained a future atomic renaissance. Experts believe that there are billions of tonnes of uranium ore in the entrails of the earth -- much more than silver or mercury.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>IAEA Move: PM accused of lying</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Outraged by the "deceitful and duplicitous action" of the "minority" UPA regime in approaching the IAEA for formalising the IAEA safeguards text without establishing its majority in Parliament, the NDA has said the UPA Government had "lost its credibility by its actions and its words cannot be believed". Â
"If the solemn declaration of the senior-most Minister (Pranab Mukherjee) about seeking a trust vote before going to IAEA can be summarily overturned, how can the Prime Minister be trusted with anything? It is capable of going back on assurances even before the ink is dry," Leader of the Opposition LK Advani told newspersons here after a meeting of the NDA to take stock of the current political situation.
Advani pointed out that barely two days back, Mukherjee had categorically declared that the Government would approach IAEA only after seeking a trust vote in the Lok Sabha and insisted that he was giving this assurance only after consulting Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who was abroad. "But surreptitiously, even before Singh returned to Delhi from the G8 summit in Japan, his Government has approached IAEA and the draft safeguards agreement has been circulated among 25 members of the IAEA board," Advani said
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Earlier, former Union Minister Arun Shourie briefed the NDA leaders about the highlights of the safeguards agreement between India and the IAEA. <span style='color:red'>Shourie pointed out that India had been treated as a non-nuclear weapon State and its reactors would come in for stringent and frequent inspections, which would be at the discretion of the US</span>.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>Safeguards text has nothing India-specific</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->While supporters of the deal have looked for "concessions" in the draft, the fine print reveals that the Agreement will pin India to a strict non-proliferation regime with stringent action in case of default. Additionally, while the text is specific about IAEA safeguards in perpetuity, it holds little assurance for India on fuel supply in perpetuity.
Unlike the impression created in July 2005 -- that the IAEA would accord special status to India with India-specific safeguards -- the Agreement in its current form strongly resembles all such accords with non-nuclear weapons states, not acknowledging India as a nuclear power.
As for the "corrective measures" India can take in the event of disruption of foreign fuel supplies, those against the deal in the US and those for it in India have interpreted this phrase as granting India de facto right to block some of its civilian nuclear facilities from IAEA oversight in order to employ the same for fissile weapons material manufacture. The IAEA text does not provide such licence
...........
Contesting this belief, Brahma Chellaney, Professor of Strategic Studies at the Centre for Policy Research says, "corrective measures" is merely a "cosmetic reference" in the preamble of the Agreement, which in fact denies India the right to take any such measures. Pointing to the 123 agreement with the US which instead of granting
India the right to take corrective measures in the event of fuel supply disruption, merely said New Delhi should seek such a right with the IAEA, Chellaney says "no such right has been secured in definable terms" in the agreement.
The preamble says<b>, "India may take corrective measures to ensure uninterrupted operation of its civilian nuclear reactors in the event of disruption of foreign fuel supplies." Asserting it is a question of "may" and not "shall",</b> Chellaney says India has no "legal entitlement."
<b>Indeed, while the text dwells at length on the make-up of the safeguards regime complete with IAEA inspections and reports, it does not elaborate on India's rights in case of fuel disruption</b>. What is apparent instead is that under the safeguards agreement India will find it difficult, if not impossible, to walk away from its non-proliferation commitments
.........
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>At a whopping cost of 1.2 million euro annually for each facility -- India will open up 14 facilities -- India has committed a high price, albeit to be shared by the IAEA. </span>
In effect, Chellaney feels "India has agreed to be subject to rigorous safeguards, not the token inspections the IAEA carries out in nuclear weapon states."
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Moron Singh really sold India.
07-11-2008, 04:56 AM
(This post was last modified: 07-11-2008, 04:58 AM by dhu.)
<b> NDA to UPA: Prove majority in a week</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The NDA constituents led by BJP met at party leader L K Advani's residence on Wednesday evening to decide its future course of action.
Following the meeting, the NDA demanded that the government should be asked to prove its majority within a week. It also decided to approach President Pratibha Patil in case the trust vote doesn't take place soon.
It also demanded that a special session of Parliament be convened at the earliest.
<b>Earlier, the BJP alleged the timing of Left parties' withdrawal of support to the government was "suspicious" as they waited till the Congress clinched a deal with the Samajwadi Party to save the ruling dispensation. </b>
<b>"The timing is suspicious. Were they waiting for the Samajwadi Party to cosy up with the Congress? One thing is sure that the Left were waiting for an opportune time, so that the government does not fall," </b>BJP spokesperson Rajeev Pratap Rudy told reporters here.
The saffron party alleged a "private deal" between the SP and the Congress, which the Left has "facilitated".
"The private deal between the SP and the Congress needs to be made clear by the govt. It is managed more or less by the Left parties who are the patrons of UNPA.
Nothing have changed since middle of 2007 then the Left's opposition to the deal begun. It was all a ploy to ensure the government sails through. The nation knows that the government's tenure has virtually ended. The country is waiting for a change," he added.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>
India-specific safeguards agreement is unique: Scientist</b>
Mumbai (PTI): The Safeguards Agreement between India and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is a unique document, and fears related to it are grossly exaggerated, a top nuclear scientist of the country has said.
"The IAEA agreement released on Thursday by the government is a unique document of the IAEA in which an NPT country is conceded virtually the weapon status. It has provisions to the extent possible for the continued supply of nuclear fuel. It also meets all expectations of the country," Chairman, Accelerator Safety Committee of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, M R Iyer, said on Friday.
Iyer, who was the former head of BARC's Radiation Safety Systems Division and former Instrument Specialist and Inspector of IAEA's Safeguards, also said, "We should not miss this opportunity to open up our nuclear industry to the global mainstream.
"This is the first time that in any international document that India is conceded a position as a nuclear-weapon state albeit indirectly. There is also a clause for India to take corrective measures to ensure uninterrupted operation of its civilian nuclear reactors in the event of disruption of foreign fuel supplies."
"Nowhere it mentions any bar on setting up facilities outside the safeguards using local non-safeguarded resources. No mention of the extended Safeguards Protocols as in the case of NPT states finds a mention," Iyer said adding that fears expressed about the agreement are grossly exaggerated.
The agreement was framed on the pattern of the Infcirc-66 which India signed for reactors of the Tarapur Atomic Power Station (TAPS) and Rajasthan Atomic Power Station (RAPS) in 1965 "except for the first few pages", he said.
In the introductory part, the agreement concedes the existence of non safeguarded weapon-making facilities in India, Iyer added.
<b>
Smaller parties decide to mount pressure on Govt.</b>
New Delhi (PTI): Realising that votes of their 14 MPs are crucial for the UPA government's survival, the four smaller parties on Thursday decided to mount pressure on the government by having a joint position on the issue.
The parties -- Janata Dal (S), Rashtriya Lok Dal (RLD), Telugu Desam Party (TDP) and Telangana Rashtra Samiti (TRS) -- on Thursday held separate strategy sessions with former Prime Minister and JD(S) chief H D Deve Gowda, but did not spell out their stand.
"All the parties held separate meetings with Deve Gowda at his residence to decide upon the future course of action. All of us have decided to come together and take a joint decision on the future," JD(S) spokesperson Danish Ali said.
RLD chief Ajit Singh when contacted, refused to divulge anything. "Why are you asking smaller parties about driving a hard bargain... The bigger parties, what bargain have they driven?" he asked reporters.
<b>The Indo-US nuclear deal explained</b>
July 11, 2008
With the government readying to operationalise the Indo-US nuclear deal, Aditi Phadnis juxtaposes the common Left arguments with the official position.
A. The nuclear cooperation agreement should not be seen in isolation from the overall strategic tie-up with the United States -- the Logistics Support Agreement, the steadily escalating joint exercises and the inevitable demand that India purchase expensive weaponry from the United States ties India to the US.
Government: India has its own sovereign tendering and purchase systems. Interoperability of defence services -- which is what the Logistics Support Agreement is all about -- is the requirement of the day and boosts the ability of the armed forces to deal with common threats.
B. The bilateral agreement is bound by the Hyde Act. The Hyde Act is a "national law" which is there, at present, and will be there, in the future.
Government: The US has its national laws, as does India. This does not make Indian laws applicable to the US, or vice versa.
C. Serious concern about various conditions of the Hyde Act. These issues are:
(i) Annual certification and reporting to the US Congress by the President on a variety of foreign policy issues such as India's foreign policy being "congruent to that of the United States" and more specifically India joining US efforts in isolating and even sanctioning Iran [Section 104g(2) E(i)].
Government: India has its own independent foreign policy. Reporting by US President to his Congress is the US system of checks and balances.
(ii) Indian participation and formal declaration of support for the US's highly controversial Proliferation Security Initiative including the illegal policy of interdiction of vessels in international waters [Section 104g(2) K]
Government: India is yet to formulate a view on the Proliferation Security Initiative. The government will do nothing that is not consistent with international law.
(iii) India will have to conform to various bilateral/multilateral agreements to which it is not currently a signatory such as the US Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), the Australia Group, etc [Section 104C, E,F,G]
<b>
Government: MTCR is still under discussion. (iv) The provisions of the Hyde Act could be used to terminate the 123 Agreement not only in the eventuality of a nuclear test but also for India not conforming to US foreign policy. India would be back to complete nuclear isolation, while accepting IAEA safeguards in perpetuity.</b>
Government: The Hyde Act is a domestic law and has no bearing on India�s foreign policy.
D. The US is curbing India's sovereign right to further nuclear testing. The direction in the Hyde Act with regard to the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) is unacceptable.
Government: As the separation plan given by the Government of India between military and civil installations has been accepted, what India does in its military installations is nobody else�s business.
E. India's leading role in advocating nuclear disarmament as a major country of the non-aligned community is being given the go-by.
Government: On the contrary, it is being strengthened. It is India and India alone which has refused to sign the discriminatory NPT and is yet being treated as a nuclear state with weapons.
F. The proposed 123 Agreement while superficially using the original wording of the Joint Statement of 2005 -- "full civilian nuclear co-operation" -- denies co-operation or access in any form whatsoever to fuel enrichment, reprocessing and heavy water production technologies. This denial (made explicit in Art 5.2 of the proposed agreement) also extends to transfers of dual-use items that could be used in enrichment, reprocessing or heavy water production facilities.
Government: This nuclear apartheid is precisely what India is trying to overcome through a civilian nuclear agreement.
G. The fast breeder reactors under this agreement would be treated as a part of the fuel cycle and any technology required for this would also come under the dual use technology sanctions. This would be true even if future Fast Breeder Reactors were put in the civilian sector and under safeguards.
Government: Till India's indigenous Thorium-power nuclear programme can be fully rolled out, we will need sanctions on dual use technology to be lifted. This is what the nuclear agreement will do.
H. The assurance that the United States would enable India to build a strategic fuel reserve to guard against disruption of supplies for a duration covering the lifetime of the nuclear reactors in operation appears to have been accepted in the agreement. The agreement also assures that in the event of termination of co-operation with the United States, compensation would be paid for the return of nuclear materials and related equipment. However, whether the fuel supply will continue even after cessation or termination of the agreement depends solely on the US Congress.
Government: The US Administration is bound under domestic laws, to speak to other nuclear powers to guard against disruption of nuclear material supply.
I. The Indian 123 Agreement does not contain a sentence found in Article 2.1 of China's 123 agreement with the US, namely that "the parties recognise, with respect to the observance of this agreement, the principle of international law that provides that a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty." Thus, the US administration can always claim the Hyde Act's restrictions trump the 123 Agreement commitments.
Government: India had an identical line in all the drafts and tried till the end to incorporate it in the final agreed text. But the US remained unyielding, claiming that Congress would shoot it down. But the Indian side did manage to push through another article, 16.4, that the agreement "shall be implemented in good faith and in accordance with the principles of international law."
The phrase "principles of international law" is a clear reference to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Article 27 of the Convention, which, as a part of customary international law, does not have to be cited to be applicable, states: "A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty."
<b>
Sonia all praise for Left</b>
July 11, 2008 14:52 IST
Congress chief Sonia Gandhi [Images] on Friday regretted the Left parties' dissociation with the ruling United Progressive Alliance and put on record her appreciation for them.
"Without their support, the UPA could not have been formed and a good deal of what we have achieved would not have been possible," Sonia said in her opening remarks at a meeting of the UPA coordination committee in Delhi.
Thanking the Left parties "who have been with us during these last four years," she said, "unfortunately, we could not carry them with us on the nuclear agreement despite our best efforts. While we regret their withdrawal of support, it is now time to look ahead."
Her appreciation came even though the Left has been spewing venom on the government for its "obsession" with the nuclear deal.
The Left parties ended their over four-year sweet and sour relationship with the UPA after its efforts to dissuade the government from the Indo-US nuclear deal failed.
<b>
N-deal: US welcomes India's step forward</b>
Sridhar Krishnaswami in Washington | July 11, 2008 03:27 IST
The United States on Thursday welcomed India's decision to get the safeguards agreement circulated among the International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors as a 'significant step' and said Washington was 'fully committed' to do everything it can to move the pact forward to its conclusion.
Coverage: Indo-US Nuclear Deal
"This is a very significant step forward for India in terms of its development of civilian nuclear power but also it is a very important step for the international non proliferation regime," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.
McCormack said the US was looking forward to take up the issues related to the nuclear deal with the IAEA and the Nuclear Suppliers Group.
Special: The Indo-US nuclear deal explained
"So we very much welcome India's step and look forward to talking about the issues not directly under our control; i.e., what we are going to do with the Congress -- but in the Nuclear Suppliers Group as well as the IAEA," he added.
"As a member of the Board of Governors, we are going to have an opportunity to talk about these issues. But the United States is fully committed to doing everything it can to move this agreement forward to its conclusion," McCormack said.
After securing IAEA approval, India must also get the clearance of the NSG, a group of 45 states that export nuclear fuel and technology and from the US Congress.
Asked about whether the United States was privy to the draft text before it was presented to the IAEA McCormack pleaded ignorance.
"To tell you the truth, I don't know. We look forward to discussing the issue at the IAEA Board of Governors meeting," he said.
McCormack said India's decision to seek the nuclear watchdog's approval of its draft safeguards pact signals that India intends to move forward with this significant strategic step.
"This is really a signal that India intends to move forward with this significant strategic step in terms of not only a different kind of relationship, but a different kind of relationship with some of these international organisations that are involved in civilian nuclear power," McCormack said.
"Certainly, you should know and the Indian people should know that our commitment to moving forward with the agreement is a sign of the fact that this agreement is in our national interest. It also demonstrates the great respect that we have for India, the Indian people, and the kind of relationship that we want to have with India in the future," he said, replying to a question.
McCormack was asked if Washington has seen anything that might be objectionable as far as the text of the draft is concerned.
"To tell you the truth, I don't -- I'm not briefed up on the details. I can't tell you the extent to which we as the US government are briefed up on the details. I know that this was an effort that the Indian government was working with the IAEA directly," he responded.
Asked whether the Bush administration could give assurance that the deal would be passed in this Congress to the Indian government which will face a trust vote in the Parliament, McCormack evaded a direct reply
"We certainly -- via our ambassador and our embassy in Delhi -- have been following the issue quite closely, but the deliberations that were taking place were entirely within the Indian political system. And the decisions which the government of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh [Images] arrived were fully, solely the decisions of the Indian government," McCormack replied.
"Of course we are interested in seeing this agreement move forward, but we also made clear that there were certain decisions that the Indian government needed to make. They have apparently made those decisions. And we, as a result, are fully committed to doing everything that we can to fulfil our end of this agreement," he said.
McCormack said the administration was in constant touch with the Congress on the issue.
"I don't have a particular timeline for you. A lot of that is under the control of the Congress, the House and the Senate. But I know we have been in contact, really regular contact over the past several months with the Congress on the issue.
"And I know that we have also more recently been in contact with the Hill regarding moving this process forward so that we can fully implement the agreement," McCormack said in response to a question.
|
