05-03-2012, 05:59 AM
Further links:
Please notice the change of our position on ENR from US, France and Russia.
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes....clear-pact
"The civil nuclear deal with the US says that ENR transfer would be subject to an amendment. It is important to remember though that the US has not ruled it out," said highly placed government officials, adding that the NSG issue would be taken up in the crucial India-US strategic dialogue scheduled for July 19.
However, until now what India has is only a verbal assurance from France for ENR transfer. With Russia, negotiations are still on for ENR transfer even though Moscow does seem favourably inclined to such a transfer, as its officials in Delhi told TOI after the NSG turnaround.
In the case of the civil nuclear deal with the US, the agreement states that sensitive technologies and their components may not be "transmitted" unless the agreement is amended. In fact, right from the inception of the civil nuclear agreement in 2005, the US has maintained that it is not going to supply ENR technology to India, or for that matter any other country, as this was not essential for generating peaceful nuclear energy. In the case of India though, it does refer to an amendment in the event of any decision to facilitate ENR transfer.
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes....g-decision
Foreign secretary Nirupama Rao has dropped hints that India may not buy nuclear reactors from countries which refuse to sell enrichment and reprocessing (ENR) technology to it.
Rao said the sanctity of the clean exemption that India was granted in the September 2008 NSG decision and full bilateral civil nuclear cooperation commitments that have been effected between India and its various partners were of utmost importance to India. "And both these points, let me mention, have been recognized by our chief partners in this regard -- by the United States, by France, by Russia," she said.
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes....g-decision
Krishna also clarified that India possessed ENR technology of its own, but needed international transfers to accelerate the scale of the Indian programme. "India has full mastery of the entire nuclear fuel cycle, and this includes enrichment and reprocessing technology... Government is committed to taking forward our domestic three-stage nuclear power programme. India is among the handful of countries that has developed fast breeder technology. Access to enrichment and reprocessing technology from abroad, as part of international civil nuclear cooperation, is only an additionality to accelerate our three-stage programme," Krishna said.
It's a concern in the beginning, then a direct link was established between nuclear commerce and ENR and now the statement that we are self sufficient. There is also a statement of hope that France and Russia will abide by it's commitments. The US has already given us an explicit NO. It's clear from the articulation. What gives? Is there too much elbow grease for the politicians to push the deal at all costs and pressure on the DAE to dilute it's position? It worries me. The self sufficiency and reconciliation statement in the last article scares me the most.
The hindu article was spot on:
French president signs "bilateral agreement"/"intergovernmental agreement" + makes a pledge that we will get ENR which is not in the agreement.
In 2011, NSG adopts a measure that all NSG countries will not supply ENR technologies to countries which have not signed the NPT. The only non NPT signatories who are allowed to trade in nuclear materials are Indians. The other countries are Israel, Pakistan and now NK which has withdrawn from the NPT.
It applies to these other countries which can't at all trade in any nuclear materials let alone ENR technologies. So the only country to whom it applies is India. After the NSG rule change.
The french ambassador states. We will abide by the bilateral agreement. The presidential pledge is forgotten. It's just words. Omission conveying what will not happen in diplomatic language.
Anil Kakodkar the chief negotiator has already stated this is betrayal unless there are secret agreements which are in place which are not part of the bilateral agreement which he was involved in.
The atomic energy commission chairman of France repeats the same statement of his Ambassador with the same omission.
Now, we also know there were oblique references in the French and Russian bilateral agreements. It remains to be seen if these oblique references are still valid or as the last posted article suggests there is only Indian hope that French and Russians will give us ENR. I don't know too much about diplomacy. However providing India ENR will make India energy sufficient without having to import reactors from anyone in a decade or two. I am not sure any country wants that. I still remember the statement energy security is also strategic security. It's really ironic,I fear we will lose energy security too without ENR imports and only fuel dependent foreign reactors.
Please notice the change of our position on ENR from US, France and Russia.
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes....clear-pact
"The civil nuclear deal with the US says that ENR transfer would be subject to an amendment. It is important to remember though that the US has not ruled it out," said highly placed government officials, adding that the NSG issue would be taken up in the crucial India-US strategic dialogue scheduled for July 19.
However, until now what India has is only a verbal assurance from France for ENR transfer. With Russia, negotiations are still on for ENR transfer even though Moscow does seem favourably inclined to such a transfer, as its officials in Delhi told TOI after the NSG turnaround.
In the case of the civil nuclear deal with the US, the agreement states that sensitive technologies and their components may not be "transmitted" unless the agreement is amended. In fact, right from the inception of the civil nuclear agreement in 2005, the US has maintained that it is not going to supply ENR technology to India, or for that matter any other country, as this was not essential for generating peaceful nuclear energy. In the case of India though, it does refer to an amendment in the event of any decision to facilitate ENR transfer.
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes....g-decision
Foreign secretary Nirupama Rao has dropped hints that India may not buy nuclear reactors from countries which refuse to sell enrichment and reprocessing (ENR) technology to it.
Rao said the sanctity of the clean exemption that India was granted in the September 2008 NSG decision and full bilateral civil nuclear cooperation commitments that have been effected between India and its various partners were of utmost importance to India. "And both these points, let me mention, have been recognized by our chief partners in this regard -- by the United States, by France, by Russia," she said.
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes....g-decision
Krishna also clarified that India possessed ENR technology of its own, but needed international transfers to accelerate the scale of the Indian programme. "India has full mastery of the entire nuclear fuel cycle, and this includes enrichment and reprocessing technology... Government is committed to taking forward our domestic three-stage nuclear power programme. India is among the handful of countries that has developed fast breeder technology. Access to enrichment and reprocessing technology from abroad, as part of international civil nuclear cooperation, is only an additionality to accelerate our three-stage programme," Krishna said.
It's a concern in the beginning, then a direct link was established between nuclear commerce and ENR and now the statement that we are self sufficient. There is also a statement of hope that France and Russia will abide by it's commitments. The US has already given us an explicit NO. It's clear from the articulation. What gives? Is there too much elbow grease for the politicians to push the deal at all costs and pressure on the DAE to dilute it's position? It worries me. The self sufficiency and reconciliation statement in the last article scares me the most.
The hindu article was spot on:
French president signs "bilateral agreement"/"intergovernmental agreement" + makes a pledge that we will get ENR which is not in the agreement.
In 2011, NSG adopts a measure that all NSG countries will not supply ENR technologies to countries which have not signed the NPT. The only non NPT signatories who are allowed to trade in nuclear materials are Indians. The other countries are Israel, Pakistan and now NK which has withdrawn from the NPT.
It applies to these other countries which can't at all trade in any nuclear materials let alone ENR technologies. So the only country to whom it applies is India. After the NSG rule change.
The french ambassador states. We will abide by the bilateral agreement. The presidential pledge is forgotten. It's just words. Omission conveying what will not happen in diplomatic language.
Anil Kakodkar the chief negotiator has already stated this is betrayal unless there are secret agreements which are in place which are not part of the bilateral agreement which he was involved in.
The atomic energy commission chairman of France repeats the same statement of his Ambassador with the same omission.
Now, we also know there were oblique references in the French and Russian bilateral agreements. It remains to be seen if these oblique references are still valid or as the last posted article suggests there is only Indian hope that French and Russians will give us ENR. I don't know too much about diplomacy. However providing India ENR will make India energy sufficient without having to import reactors from anyone in a decade or two. I am not sure any country wants that. I still remember the statement energy security is also strategic security. It's really ironic,I fear we will lose energy security too without ENR imports and only fuel dependent foreign reactors.