Indo-US Nuclear Deal

[priti]

This has been the highlight of Indian politics lately. Can anyone help me understand why the Left is opposed to the nuclear deal?

Dont know about the fine details of what the deal will entail for both countries, but future energy security is the USP of the government in securing this deal. Thats totally understandable and actually a very good thing to happen if true. Unlike a lot of hypocrisy surrounding nuclear, I feel its the way to go as far as energy needs go- clean and unlimited. 80% of France's energy comes from nuclear. So in principle its a sound move by the government. But what does it offer...will it provide access to enriched uranium or will it give access to technology...and what does India have to do to return the favor...etc...are my questions...any input would be much appreciated.

[dahiyars]

Indo US Nuclear Deal – More than Just a Deal
Making India a Jubior Partner of the United States

India as a Pawn in America’s Strategic Vision
The deal should be seen in historical context of US defence relationship new frame work and why Hyde Act in Indian case only.
The Nuclear Deal is a part of a larger vision which seeks to subordinate India to the US’s strategic vision. For the last two years, the Government has been taking a number of steps that align India to the US’s strategic interests. It is known that the US strategic thinking calls for dominance in all possible theatres. In Asia, the US has been handicapped that it has only one major base – Okinawa, Japan -- in East, Southeast and South Asia. The only other base it has in this region is in the Indian Ocean in Diego Garcia. That is why the US’s interest in making India as a junior partner in Asia.

One of the major steps was signing of the New Framework for India-US Defence Relationship in Washington on June 28, 2005, just prior to Bush Manmohan Singh Agreement of July 18, 2005. In the Agreement, it is stated, “U.S.-India defence relationship derives from a common belief in freedom, democracy, and the rule of law, and seeks to advance shared security interests”. Considering that the Iraq invasion was justified by the US as “bringing democracy to West Asia”, a reference to a shared belief in “democracy and rule of law” cannot be acceptable to the Indian people. The Defence Framework Agreement is also sweeping in its scope; it envisages a host of strategic and military relations -- joint exercises, joint planning, joint operations, and defence procurement.

The Manmohan Singh Bush agreement was followed immediately by India’s vote against Iran in the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA). Senator Lugar in his opening remarks in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee had noted, approvingly, “We have already seen strategic benefits from our improving relationship with India. India’s votes at the IAEA on the Iran issue last September and this past February demonstrate that New Delhi is able and willing to adjust its traditional foreign policies and play a constructive role on international issues.” Manmohan Singh’s oft-repeated claims that India’s foreign policy would not change due to this Deal, is not borne out by his Governments’ record, especially when the US officials are busy selling the agreement to the US Congress on the strategic value of India aligning with the US as a consequence of this agreement.

Currently, the Manmohan Singh Government is negotiating a Logistics and Service Agreement. This would virtually reduce India to an American ally in Asia. It essentially allows refuelling and complete access to Indian facilities for all US ships and aircraft. The US navy can bomb Iraq and Iran and then come to India’s ports for rest, recreation and refuelling, before going back for another round of hostilities. Step by step, from a vote against Iran, we are now to become hosts to the US navy in its military misadventures in West Asia and elsewhere. India has also joined in with the US, Japan and Australia (or what is called the trilateral nations) for naval exercises in the Bay of Bengal.

The Logistics and Service Agreement as well as the Defence Framework Agreement have also requirements of “interoperability”. This calls for both sides to have the same equipment so that military personnel of both sides can use each other’s equipment and operate better together. This also means spares can be shared by the two sides. That is why such agreements invariably lead to buying of US arms, particularly expensive aircraft and missiles. Billions of dollars of aircraft and missile sales is now in the offing – F16 Aircraft, missile systems and ships.

Contd

[rameshlakra]

I dont agree with Ranbir bhai's totally left based view and here is the logic i offer for his unfounded fears. It is true that it is US startegic need to have India on its side, and that is fair enough and dont have to be looked with suspicion. As long as country is getting benefitted, what we need to look is that how best we bargain in order to get "energy security" and thus an accelerated development to the country. There will be quantum jump in energy security if we have access to the fuel and technology. So it is in our interest and there's too and afterall no deal is done without mutual interest.

Supplying fuel and food to there fleet here is toatlly delinked from Nuclear deal and that has not been negotiated. May be they expect this in future and it could be reconsider after all in "nation's interests there is no permanent foe or friend". Yearly Naval exercise with US navy and other navies of the world have been going on since more that 5 years now and they have a totally different purpose, and infact our Navy need it more that they do.

[vivek]

India will have tremendous energy needs as it grows. So will China. There is only finite oil in this world, and there are already wars to secure a free flow of oil through muslim lands. The idea of bringing democracy to Iraq was just rhetoric. The Iraq war is actually about ensuring free flow of oil through the gulf. So if india does not get its energy from Nuclear option, where will it get it energy from. Would it make its lifeline vulnerable through a pipeline through Pakistan? How shortsighted is that?

I am increasingly suspicious of CPM being a pawn of China and its policies. What exactly is the reason that CPM in Calcutta celebrated the anniversary of Tibet's annexation by China? This has been the tragedy of India throughout history...Selfish people with shortsighted motives.

[kabir]

This has been the highlight of Indian politics lately. Can anyone help me understand why the Left is opposed to the nuclear deal?


Sorry, Priti. I am afraid, this question will continue to haunt you. For, I bet, even the Left doesn't know why it is against the N-deal.

The only possible explanation I could come up with is: the real problem lies in the N-deal's prefix which says "Indo-US". Had it been "Iran" or for that matter "China" better still "Cuba" or "Venezuela" instead of the US, we, I am sure, wouldn't have been discussing the issue.

Now that I've, or so I believe, answered your query, can you or any one else help me understand why the BJP is opposed to the deal?

[ssindhu]

Sorry, Priti. I am afraid, this question will continue to haunt you. For, I bet, even the Left doesn't know why it is against the N-deal.

The only possible explanation I could come up with is: the real problem lies in the N-deal's prefix which says "Indo-US". Had it been "Iran" or for that matter "China" better still "Cuba" or "Venezuela" instead of the US, we, I am sure, wouldn't have been discussing the issue.

Now that I've, or so I believe, answered your query, can you or any one else help me understand why the BJP is opposed to the deal?
well BJP is opposed to the deal because it is in opposition.

Priti Left is opposed to the deal because it is in the habit of being 'left' and they are never 'right' on it. And probably it's not the Left who is against it, it is China. Well to validate it, we need to ask sitaram and karat. lol

Bloody pigs want to starve india as west bengal.

[trueblueindian]

well BJP is opposed to the deal because it is in opposition.

Priti Left is opposed to the deal because it is in the habit of being 'left' and they are never 'right' on it. And probably it's not the Left who is against it, it is China. Well to validate it, we need to ask sitaram and karat. lol

Bloody pigs want to starve india as west bengal.

agreee in totto and especiall to this ---- Bloody pigs

[devdahiya]

What options we have? No option.......Sign it or perish.

[rajpawariya]

Dear RS Dahiya, you have written well researched article but only keeping anti US agenda in mind. Pl be concerned about what benefits India will have, not what harm China or other Red Pigs will suffer? All communist parties are working like agents of communist china after fall of USSR. I dont know when conscience will prevail upon RED and they will Think about India and only India.

[desijat]

well BJP is opposed to the deal because it is in opposition.
.

Interestingly this deal was started by BJP and congress took it forward from just initial phases and still BJP is against it... Ironic that you are hating your own baby...

[rkumar]

Lobbying has become a well established business these days. Americans are the one who started this in their own country. Almost all countries engage lobbying firms to get favourable deals from US congress. These loby firms don't care even if it hurts american interests. Same is happening now in other countries. CPM is nothing but a lobbying firm of Chinese. CPM is well known to support Chinese interests in India and one can google for recent Budhadeb Bhattacharya's interview on this in his own words;

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Bengal_urgently_needs_industry/rssarticleshow/2415133.cms

One can see for himself/ herself that to CPM the 1962 China war was a border dispute and not a war. WE have Chinese loby, western Loby, every one's loby but not the India loby...so sadddddddd... How amny Indians come in streets to support Indian cause when these traiters hold the nation to ransom?

RK^s

[priti]

Thank you for the responses. I heard some news yesterday that the PM indicated to Bush that they are having some operational difficulties in implementing the agreement. So I guess its delayed further. What exactly those operational difficulties are, is anybody's guess.

I like the notion that there are some checks and balances in the current government. And its not the opposition to the deal that is bothersome. What is toubling is total silence from the leaders from both sides on what this deal will actually mean for India. All I see is newsbytes in which the netas just repeat their opposition or support...nowhere do they say that we have problems because of this, this, this...or maybe I'm missing some discourse.

So far, main reason I gather from this thread is that left considers this deal equivalent to becoming another watchdog for the US in this region...that might well be true but what it offers in return (a steady fuel supply and technology transfer) will be very beneficial for India's future.

Internationally, this deal might not be taken in the right spirit...India being considered a nuclear rogue nation (i.e. not a supporter or signatory of the Non-proliferation Treaty)...and US move to provide India with fuel and technology interpreted to be flouting NPT. It might open a can of worms where other countries will feel free to provide fuel/technology to others (such as pakistan/iran/korea etc.) on the rationale that when US can do it, so can they. Not that they wouldn't do it otherwise but this just gives them a justification. Although aimed for civilian purposes, enriched uranium may well be used for military purposes.

I think this whole process should be much more engaging, transparent internationally and domestically to strike the right cords. This deal has the potential to disturb the region but it also has the potential to fulfil the energy needs. But do we know anything about it...no...we know only the US side (the governemtn has smartly put the act that was passed in the senate on the internet)...but nothing from the Indian side...what are they going to gain out of it..and what are they going to do to return the favour...

[dahiyars]

Dear All

Thanks for your comments in your own way.

Sorry for certain comments. I am putting the things the way I think and not the way a particular political party thinks.

We have a network of various Science Organisations known to be All India People's Science Network. Whatever I have gathered is from that position.

Here the question of development of Nuclear Energy Resources for civilian purpose is different than th e Nuclear Deal under discussion.

I am for developing our Nucear resources for Energy in self reliant way. The concerned scientists feel that we can have Nuclear Energy by using Thorium available in plenty in India as raw material. the technology is almost developed in this area.

Second point is that the electricity produced will be much costlier.

False Promise of Increased Power Generation:
The PM has suddenly started talking of an accelerated nuclear energy program, reaching 40,000 MW by 2020. No attempts to justify such a large investment in nuclear power have been ever been put forward by the Government. The Planning Commission’s most optimistic scenario talks of reaching 15,000 MW by 2016 and 29,000 MW by 2021. This includes 8,000 MW of imported reactors.

If we take Planning Commission’s projections into account, it will become clear that nuclear power can at best meet 5-7% of our requirements by 2020. This is without taking into account the techno-economics of nuclear power. If we take the cost of nuclear power, calculations show that this is currently the most expensive source of power. Considering that future nuclear plants will be built through some equity and large amounts of borrowings, the same way that other power plants are built, calculations show that the capital cost of indigenous nuclear plants will be about twice that of coal fired plants. The case for imported nuclear plants is even worse: the plants would cost more than 3 times that of coal-fired plants. They would cost more than Rs. 12 crore per MW as against less than Rs. 4 crore per MW for coal-fired plants. At these capital costs, the imported nuclear plants would produce electricity at Rs. 5.50 per unit as against the cost per unit from coal-fired plants of about Rs. 2.50. At these costs, large investments in nuclear power can only come from denying other sectors of investments. For a Government perennially short of funds when it comes to investments in public sphere, that it promises to put in such investments in nuclear power seems a justification for the nuclear deal rather than a genuine belief in nuclear energy.

Electricity is only a part of our total energy needs. We need fuel for transport and also for manufacturing fertilisers and petrochemicals. The requirements of primary fuels would of course also depend partially on what kind of fuel we use for electricity generation. If we take nuclear energy as a fraction of the total primary energy needs of the country, we find that this is not more than 3%-5% of our total primary energy basket (the 5% to 9% of the electrical energy translates to 3%-5% in primary energy terms). If we look at oil and gas, even with an ambitious nuclear energy program, they will constitute more than 30% and 10% respectively, and together more than 40% of our future energy needs.

The overwhelming bulk of our energy needs then is going to be fossil, with oil and gas meeting more than 40% of our primary fuel needs by 2015-2020. In such a scenario, India needs to plan its energy security and consider alternate sources as well as access to oil and gas fields. As India’s major supplies are from West Asia, peace and stability there, is of prime importance. The Iran pipeline option was an initiative, which was well thought out and would have made an important contribution to India’s energy basket and energy security. The US had made clear in no uncertain terms that they would not look kindly at the Iran pipeline. Sacrificing this option for an ambitious nuclear program with imported reactors and nuclear fuel seems particularly foolish.

For those who might remember the Enron case, there is a sense of history of repeating itself. At that time India was pushed to accept a hydrocarbon route (naphtha as fuel) only to help Enron. Now also, a nuclear energy route based on imported reactors is being foisted on the country without taking into account either the needs of the sector or its techno-economics. If a 2,000 MW Enron plant sank the largest State Electricity Board in the country – the Maharashtra State Electricity Board – the impact of pushing a high cost 40,000 MW of nuclear energy in the country may well be imagined.

R.S.Dahiya

[rkumar]

Dear All

Thanks for your comments in your own way.
...................
........ without taking into account either the needs of the sector or its techno-economics. If a 2,000 MW Enron plant sank the largest State Electricity Board in the country – the Maharashtra State Electricity Board – the impact of pushing a high cost 40,000 MW of nuclear energy in the country may well be imagined.

R.S.Dahiya

1. First of all let me clarify that the nuclear deal with usa does not amount to buying american nuclear reactors. India is free to buy them from any country.

2. Even if India decides to construct all its reactors locally, she needs a variety of components which are not available locally and need to be imported. NSG countries have put a ban on all such components.

3. India is free to develop its own nuclear reactors even after the nuclear deal. Its upto India to buy or not to buy imported reactors.

4. There are many duel use technologies to which India has no acceewss presently. Theoritically we can develop them but in the process we will slip behind by many decades to our competitors like China. Don't ask us to reinvent the wheel.

Its is proved beyond any doubt that left is working for China and intellectuals like you can not comprehend the entire picture. Left is helping China to keep India busy with such irritants while China is doing everything she can to encircle India.

RK^2

[priti]

India's Singh Tells Bush of Nuclear `Difficulties' (Update4)

By Kartik Goyal
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/data?pid=avimage&iid=ii8Ikp5ZfELw
http://images.bloomberg.com/r06/news/enlarge_details.gif (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=photos&sid=agxBrFoBl5jc)

Oct. 16 (Bloomberg) -- India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh told U.S. President George W. Bush for the first time that the 2005 civilian nuclear energy agreement between the two countries may founder because of domestic opposition.
Singh ``explained to President Bush that certain difficulties have arisen with respect to the operationalization of the India-U.S. civil nuclear cooperation agreement,'' the prime minister's office said in a statement last night.
Backtracking by Singh may stall his plan to buy reactors from General Electric Co. and Westinghouse Electric Co. that the country needs to help build 40,000 megawatts of nuclear capacity by 2020, equivalent to a third of current generation. Singh indicated this week that he's prepared to forego cooperation with the U.S. to prevent the collapse of his government.
``Reneging on the deal may mean India missing an opportunity to be in the big league'' and will ``deal a blow'' to efforts to meet energy needs, N. Bhaskara Rao, chairman of the Centre for Media Studies, a policy research group, said in a telephone interview in New Delhi.
The completion of the agreement would mark the end of a 33- year period during which India was unable to get fuel and technology from overseas.
Nuclear sanctions were imposed against India after it tested atomic bombs in 1974. Under the current accord, the U.S. would accept that India, which exploded nuclear devices again in 1998, operates its civilian and military programs outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
U.S. Role
The U.S. embassy spokeswoman in New Delhi was unavailable for comment today. The U.S. has said it has no role to play in the discussions that the Indian government has internally.
``In terms of the timing and the discussions internally within the Indian political system, I'll leave that to them,'' Tom Casey, deputy spokesman at the U.S. State Department, said yesterday, according to the text of remarks posted on the Web site. ``I'm not going to try and tell the Indians how to manage their own internal process on this.''
The prime minister indicated to Bush in the same telephone conversation last night that it was prepared to relax its stand on some aspects of the Doha round of trade talks.
```India can by and large live with what is on the table and has concerns only on agriculture,'' Singh told Bush. ``We will try to help in reaching a compromise.''
Technology Sale
The nuclear energy agreement process began when Bush and Singh agreed in July 2005 that U.S. companies would sell nuclear technology, opening a market for equipment, fuel and reactors from Fairfield, Connecticut-based General Electric and Monroeville, Pennsylvania-based Westinghouse Electric, a unit of Toshiba Corp. of Japan.
The U.S. Congress in December passed legislation allowing the accord to proceed, reversing decades of policy that barred nuclear exports to India after the South Asian country tested the atomic bomb without signing the Non- Proliferation Treaty.
The plan has to clear further measures before becoming operational. India has to reach a safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, for international inspections. The Nuclear Suppliers Group, a 45-nation forum dedicated to limiting the spread of atomic weapons, has to also approve the accord. The agreement then needs to be ratified by the U.S. Congress.
``We certainly think this is again an arrangement that's positive for both countries and the broader international community and we'd like to see it done as soon as possible, but that's within the context of what each country has to do and has to accomplish,'' the State Department's Casey said yesterday.
Not `End of Life'
Prime Minister Singh said last week that there were other issues that the government wanted to tackle in the remainder of its five-year term that ends May 2009.
``The nuclear deal with the U.S. is a good deal but failure on the deal won't be the end of life,'' Singh said on Oct. 12, in his first public admission that he may prefer compromise with his Communist allies. ``We are not a one-issue government.''
The prime minister's comments signaled he's prepared to delay the agreement, the key element of renewed ties between the U.S. and India. That may deny India access to the nuclear fuel and technology needed to upgrade reactors and step up electricity production in a country that faces a 13 percent shortage of power during peak hours.
Singh's Communist allies oppose the nuclear accord on the grounds that it will weaken the nation's ability to follow an independent foreign policy and compromise the country's own scientific capability.
The Communists want the agreement to be delayed until it's debated in parliament. They've asked the government not to discuss safeguards for power plants with the IAEA. The ruling coalition has formed a panel with the leftist parties to discuss the agreement.
Prime Minister Singh said on Oct. 12 that ``elections are still far away.''

[devdahiya]

As the drama is unfolding now,i am sure that Communists and Congress are hand in glow.Every thing seems well planned and enacted to keep people guessing...else why should our VADDA SARDAR makes a statement in a jiffy.May be India wants more concessions out of this deal........By telling US that Allies are dead against it and US knows these allies very well.Some more drama will unfold in days and months to come.

[dahiyars]

October 14th, 2007 04:36 PM
dahiyars Indo US Nuclear Deal – More than Just a Deal
Making India a Jubior Partner of the United States
In continuity of the prvious post please
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nuclear Deal – Always Shrouded in Secrecy
The Nuclear Deal started with the Bush Manmohan Singh joint statement of July 18, 2005. The premise of the Deal was that as an “advanced nuclear technology power”, India would be allowed to come out of nuclear isolation that had followed the 1974 Pokhran I and 1998 Pokhran II blasts. This lead to two bills being drafted in the two houses of the US Congress, which were merged together to form what is known as the Hyde Act. The Hyde Act was passed by the US Congress in December, 2006.
The PM had made two statements to the Indian Parliament – one soon after the Bush Manmohan Singh joint statement and one when the two bills were under consideration in the Congress. Some of these key issues on which the PM had assured the House were the following:
1. Access to full civilian nuclear technology and lifting of all technology sanctions
2. There would be no annual certificate of good conduct by the US President as was being proposed in the Bills
3. That if the US Congress linked the nuclear deal with foreign policy, this would not be acceptable to India.
4. Assurance of life time supply of nuclear fuel
5. No surrender unilaterally to the US on issues such as Test Ban and Fissile Material Cut-off
6. Participation on Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) for illegal search and seizure operations in high seas as demanded by the Congress would not be acceptable to India

The Hyde Act is an enabling legislation that allows the US Congress to consider an agreement for civilian nuclear co-operation under the section 123 of the US Atomic Energy Act – therefore the name 123 Agreement. The Hyde Act made clear that the PM’s assurances were either not going to be met or was going to be severely restricted. It said very clearly that India’s foreign policy needed to be congruent to the US; it had to work in tandem with the US on isolating Iran. It demanded that India join the illegal PSI regime. It also restricted India’s access to technology to fuel and import of reactors. It denied access to technology for the fuel cycle – enrichment or reprocessing – and also for heavy water. It also made clear that in the event the Deal was cancelled, the fuel supplies from the US would not only stop but the US would work with other suppliers to stop their supplies to India too. This is a major issue as earlier also, the US had stopped supplies to Tarapur reactors. If we put in a substantial nuclear program using imported reactors, this would mean our power program could be held hostage to the US’s continued goodwill.

The Hyde Act therefore contained a number of provisions that were not in conformity with what the PM had said in Parliament. Major political parties in the Parliament including the Left who provide critical support to the Manmohan Singh Government had stated that unless these issues are resolved, the Indian Government should not go in for a 123 Agreement negotiations. Even though the Government does not have the majority in the Parliament on this issue, it decided to go ahead with its agenda on the nuclear deal.
The negotiations for the 123 Agreement were conducted in great secrecy and only once the final text was agreed on both sides, it was released to the public. The PM also stated that this was the final text and no scope for any change now existed in the Deal. Those who did not agree with the Deal were therefore told that irrespective of their views, the Government would go ahead. The problem with this position is that while the Parliament does not approve treaties and agreements, a minority government cannot go ahead with such a divisive agreement without the support of the Parliament.

The PM has conceded that on dual use technology, what has been secured is “forward looking language”. According to the PM, India has now a fuel security clause built into the agreement and claims that the clause which states that the US will help India get over disruption of supplies from other parties gives a guarantee of life time fuel supply. Others have pointed out that this clause is applicable only when the disruption is for other reasons and when the agreement has not been terminated, but will not operate if the agreement itself is terminated. Once the agreement is terminated, the Hyde Act provision that the US will work with others to deny India fuel would become applicable.

The Government has also been curiously silent on the provisions of the termination clause. Instead, they have focussed on the consultations that will precede termination. If we go through the consultations clause, it simply lays down a procedure for consultation which may or may not be followed: the termination clause makes clear that if either party feels consultation will serve no purpose, they can cease further co-operation. The consultations clause is therefore largely cosmetic and will not help if the US decides to terminate the agreement. And as per Hyde Act, the termination clause can come into effect on a broad range of issues including India’s continued links with Iran.

Once the Agreement is terminated, it is difficult how the clauses regarding disruption of supplies will continue to operate. Under the 123 Agreement also, once the agreement is terminated, this will lead to return of materials and equipment. The US is will pay compensation for this, but India will face a huge dislocation, as its power program would suddenly lose some of the installed capacity. And the omnibus nature of the termination clause allows the US to use the Congress or the Presidential annual certification to threaten India’s nuclear energy program. The deeper the investment in nuclear energy based on imported fuel and reactors, the bigger the threat.

The 123 Agreement has given the right to reprocess spent US fuel. However, at the moment, this is only a notional right at present and subject to conditions that may emerge in the future.

The Government believes that the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) would give India better terms and unrestricted right to nuclear fuel and technology. If this happens, the US suppliers of reactors and equipment would find themselves at a disadvantage in the Indian market. As the NSG works by consensus and the US is supposed to steer our case there, adapting the NSG guidelines to the detriment of US’s commercial interests defies belief.

The issue of denial of dual use technology is not a minor one. One of the key elements in the civilian energy program is the Fast Breeder Reactors (FBR). Since India does not have sufficient uranium, we have adopted the FBR route, which allows the uranium fuel to be used much more effectively. Using the FBR route, the same fuel produces 50 times more energy than “burning” it in a Light Water Reactor (LWR) or Pressurised Water Reactor (PWR). The three-phase fuel cycle envisages the use of enriched uranium in Pressurised Water Reactors (PWR), then using reprocessed plutonium of the PWR’s along with a thorium blanket in FBR’s, and finally plutonium and thorium mix in Advanced Heavy Water Reactors (AHWR). This would allow the much more extensive thorium reserves in the country to be used. However, under the current agreement, the FBRs are considered as fuel enrichment or reprocessing facilities and therefore will be under technology sanctions even if they are put in the civilian sector and under safeguards. Therefore, the mainstay of our future nuclear energy program will continue under technology sanctions.

The next steps in the sequence of events would be discussions on India specific IAEA safeguards for civilian reactors and facilities, the discussions with the Nuclear Suppliers Group and finally the passing of the 123 Agreement in the US Congress. However, if we need to take stock of the 123 Agreement, we need to do it at this stage when we have negotiated with only one country. If we go into negotiations with multilateral bodies such as IAEA and NSG, it would be impossible for India to change those agreements. Therefore, any re-consideration of the 123 Agreement and the impact of the Hyde Act on the civilian co-operation program with the US must be done before we go into negotiations with IAEA and NSG. That is why the Left has asked the Government to discuss the issues flowing from the Hyde Act and the 123 Agreement with the Parliament before proceeding further with IAEA and NSG.

[devdahiya]

Things seem perfectly stage manged at this point of time....Deal will go through is my belief....INDIA CAN ILL AFFORD TO go back on the deal......Communists also know that..........Buying time in a well planned manner.

[priti]

Mr. Dahiya's input is invaluable here. It details things quite a bit. I particularly like the focus on discussing whether nuclear is the answer for India's energy needs...usually as is the case with most developed countries..it is a mix of different sources of energy.

For those interested in the 123 agreement, the following link has the text:

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2007/aug/90050.htm

Need some more time to read other material, will get back if I find anything else of interest.

Thanks!

[vivek]

Left is using the good old strategy about if you cannot persuade them with reason, confuse them with bullshit. I am certain that 99.9% of the Indian legislative people have no idea what nuclear technology is about and if what Mr. Dahiya cut and pasted makes sense from a scientific point of view or not. Similarly I suspect that people agreeing with Mr. Dahiya cut and paste(including Mr. Dahiya) have no idea if these concerns are valid or not because they are not nuclear scientist. Its amusing to see people agree with an argument that they have no idea is valid or not. Same thing goes with the legislative body...they will pretend to understand the objections for the fear of sounding ignorant.

Lets look at some of the tidbits.... The link below says that India is seeking to buy that technology from US.

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL3045358520070330

Another link below tells us that this is really environmentally friendly and does not produce the deadly nuclear waste.

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/348

So if we are to believe the left, we should not sign the deal with the US, because they will not let us use a more environmentally friendly technology that they would sell to us. I read the 123 Agreement and I am no lawyer, but I did not see any prohibitive use of thorium. There is a long complicated paragraph objection by Left about dual use, and using thorium as part of the old style plutonium technology......why would you not phase that out as it produces the dreaded highly radioactive waste? Wouldn't most of the thorium be used in thorium based plants rather than these 'jerry rigged' hybrid plants?


What I do understand is that Iran and Pakistan would like nothing better than for India to be dependent on that pipeline for their energy needs, so they can blackmail India whenever they feel like it. I also understand is that demand for oil is increasing exponentially, and supply is finite. I also understand that Left has a reason to come up with objections...and they were opposed to it even before the deal was inked.

[dndeswal]

.
Some facts about nuclear energy:

Independent studies carried in various parts of globe indicate that despite tall claims of nuclear energy industry and its strong lobby, this energy is much costlier compared to other traditional sources, including coal and gas based. During the last 20 years, the costs of coal have fallen gradually whereas after 2004, cost of uranium has increased four-fold !
Australia has vast resources of uranium whereas it does not have a single nuclear reactor.
After 1970, not a single nuclear reactor has been raised in USA.
Oil and gas can be bought easily in international market whereas nuclear reactors and nuclear fuel business is badly in political grip. In this business, there is no purity of bilateral deals. India need not forget how Washington had stopped nuclear fuel to Tarapur reactor in 1978.
So far as nuclear research itself is concerned, France has surpassed USA in this field.
USA has become habitual of kicking international agreements and protocols by presenting its own arguments and definitions, ignoring international opinion - its words are no longer trustworthy.
Apart from nuclear proliferation regime, US interest now is to give life to its ailing nuclear energy industry by selling nuclear reactors to India.
India should utilize its own resources of thorium (India has reportedly 31 per cent of thorium available on earth) in producing nuclear energy.
India should also invest in solar energy research and wind-power, which provide carbon-emission free, pure energy. .

[rkumar]

.
Some facts about nuclear energy:

Independent studies carried in various parts of globe indicate that despite tall claims of nuclear energy industry and its strong lobby, this energy is much costlier compared to other traditional sources, including coal and gas based. During the last 20 years, the costs of coal have fallen gradually whereas after 2004, cost of uranium has increased four-fold !
Australia has vast resources of uranium whereas it does not have a single nuclear reactor.
After 1970, not a single nuclear reactor has been raised in USA.
Oil and gas can be bought easily in international market whereas nuclear reactors and nuclear fuel business is badly in political grip. In this business, there is no purity of bilateral deals. India need not forget how Washington had stopped nuclear fuel to Tarapur reactor in 1978.
So far as nuclear research itself is concerned, France has surpassed USA in this field.
USA has become habitual of kicking international agreements and protocols by presenting its own arguments and definitions, ignoring international opinion - its words are no longer trustworthy.
Apart from nuclear proliferation regime, US interest now is to give life to its ailing nuclear energy industry by selling nuclear reactors to India.
India should utilize its own resources of thorium (India has reportedly 31 per cent of thorium available on earth) in producing nuclear energy.
India should also invest in solar energy research and wind-power, which provide carbon-emission free, pure energy. .

Deswal Sahab,

Most of these studies have a motive well before they are initiated. I would counter most of these conclusions;

1. Coal is cheaper beacuse its a source of green house gases. Let us look at the increase in demand of coal if it has increased world over significantly over the years.

2. Price of oil has gone up almost 5 folds during last 5 years. We don't know how much further it would increase.

3. Agreed, USA did not make any new Nuclear Reactor since 1970. Does it prove that Nuclear power is not safe or the power of future ? By this logic USAtopped all its moon missions also and most of the world thought that they are all useless. However, we know how many countries are falling over each other to land on Moon.

4. Cost is always high in the begining. Just to inform that in 8th centuary the cost of sugar was so high that only the very high ups could afford in in Europe. Today anyone can afford sugar. I am sure same is true with almost any technology and Nuclear power is no different. Computers used to cost fortune 20 years back and now one can get them in a month's salary even in India.

5. Nuclear deal should not be seen just as a electricity generation. Its much more than that. This deal would have given India access to all sorts of technologies which are denied at present. Our competitors are having edge over us. We have to break these shakles of technology denial.

RK^2

[crsnadar]

Indo-Us deal ka to jo hoga wo hoga...

...but i think if someone has to prepare a seminar on Indo-US deal he don't need to look out for google or other searching tools...
...as on our JatLand we have got ample amount of valuable contents.

We feel proud to be within an INTELLIGENTIA

[priti]

The reason for appreciating Mr. Dahiya's input was that he brought some valid points to the discussion. Usually, there are no simple and clear cut answers to big questions like energy security. The beauty of this nuclear deal is that it makes the government confront their positions on a lot of policies- Energy, foreign policy, Climate change, Defense. Now, none of us are the experts of All these fields (that would awesome though!) but would like to increase our knowledge through each others respective inputs. Thats the point here, right?

Not nuclear scientist but how hard is it to understand that the following questions are pretty basic to the debate (taken from Mr. Dahiya's post or cut and paste- kindly confirm if these are your own views or somebody else's, one would assume they are the person's own views if no source is cited)-
- how much nuclear can contribute to India's future energy basket?
- what would it cost?
- what are other alternatives that might be more effective within the same cost?

Coal and nuclear both have immense weaknesses as their technologies stand now. Both also present great opportunities (clean coal technologies that are not yet commercially viable might provide some answers to energy problems in future...coal being most abundant and without the deadly radioactive properties of nuclear waste). It would be great to know what better technologies are available for disposing nuclear waste (that can remain radioactive for centuries) than dumping it under water or concretized landfill (Vivek, your link tp cosmos magazine doesn't work properly). At present, I can tell you that much that natural gas is cleaner, safer, cheaper and abundant. We are not talking about oil here...oil is a much much smaller part of electricity generation worldwide. What are the sources of natural gas near India- Iran and Russia.

I think the deal should go through on its merit of opening the channels of fuel and technology supply, agreeing with RKji that there is no need to reinvent the wheel. But the government should keep their channels open for other sources of energy.

History tells us that US has used its agreements as arm twisters...US has produced the Saddams and Osamas in the world, US has messed up Iraq. Any agreement with US should be carefully considered. Their motives should always be suspect. The 123 agreement is pretty clear...mentions non-interference in each others affairs...but what has the Bush government promised the US senate, please check the following link that provides the Act that was passed by the US Senate- clearly identifies this move as another tool for Alienation of Iran:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h5682enr.txt.pdf

A sample paragraph from the Act:

(G) A description and assessment of the specific measures
that India has taken to fully and actively participate
in United States and international efforts to dissuade, isolate,
and, if necessary, sanction and contain Iran for its
efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, including
a nuclear weapons capability and the capability to enrich
uranium or reprocess nuclear fuel and the means to deliver
weapons of mass destruction.



Left is using the good old strategy about if you cannot persuade them with reason, confuse them with bullshit. I am certain that 99.9% of the Indian legislative people have no idea what nuclear technology is about and if what Mr. Dahiya cut and pasted makes sense from a scientific point of view or not. Similarly I suspect that people agreeing with Mr. Dahiya cut and paste(including Mr. Dahiya) have no idea if these concerns are valid or not because they are not nuclear scientist. Its amusing to see people agree with an argument that they have no idea is valid or not. Same thing goes with the legislative body...they will pretend to understand the objections for the fear of sounding ignorant.

Lets look at some of the tidbits.... The link below says that India is seeking to buy that technology from US.

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL3045358520070330

Another link below tells us that this is really environmentally friendly and does not produce the deadly nuclear waste.

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/348

So if we are to believe the left, we should not sign the deal with the US, because they will not let us use a more environmentally friendly technology that they would sell to us. I read the 123 Agreement and I am no lawyer, but I did not see any prohibitive use of thorium. There is a long complicated paragraph objection by Left about dual use, and using thorium as part of the old style plutonium technology......why would you not phase that out as it produces the dreaded highly radioactive waste? Wouldn't most of the thorium be used in thorium based plants rather than these 'jerry rigged' hybrid plants?


What I do understand is that Iran and Pakistan would like nothing better than for India to be dependent on that pipeline for their energy needs, so they can blackmail India whenever they feel like it. I also understand is that demand for oil is increasing exponentially, and supply is finite. I also understand that Left has a reason to come up with objections...and they were opposed to it even before the deal was inked.

[dahiyars]

Dear All

we had a seminar on Indo nuclear Deal about 20 days back from the plateform of Haryana Vigyan Manch. lot of dliberations were there . Whatever I could gather there I have put it up. We may not agree or we may agree . there is always a language of civic society debate.

Some more arguments are given in this article

http://www.countercurrents.org/chomsky081007.htm

R.S.Dahiya

[priti]

Continues to haunt me :)...

Seema's aptly answered your question about the BJP's 'opposition'

I do believe though that parties in opposition are much more true to their ideologies (at the time)....as mentioned by a friend of mine...political power and ideologies do not mix well together...especially in a democratic setup.


Sorry, Priti. I am afraid, this question will continue to haunt you. For, I bet, even the Left doesn't know why it is against the N-deal.

The only possible explanation I could come up with is: the real problem lies in the N-deal's prefix which says "Indo-US". Had it been "Iran" or for that matter "China" better still "Cuba" or "Venezuela" instead of the US, we, I am sure, wouldn't have been discussing the issue.

Now that I've, or so I believe, answered your query, can you or any one else help me understand why the BJP is opposed to the deal?

[priti]

So true! I have an answer here...but the devil is in details..

It is true that it is US startegic need to have India on its side, and that is fair enough and dont have to be looked with suspicion. As long as country is getting benefitted, what we need to look is that how best we bargain in order to get "energy security" and thus an accelerated development to the country. There will be quantum jump in energy security if we have access to the fuel and technology. So it is in our interest and there's too and afterall no deal is done without mutual interest.

[priti]

A good synopsis of Nuclear Power in India is provided here:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf53.html

The US-Indo deal presented as a positive development :-)

[vivek]

Priti

You asked three valid questions
-how much nuclear can contribute to India's future energy basket?
- what would it cost?
- what are other alternatives that might be more effective within the same cost

To the first question, France gets over 75% of its energy from Nuclear Fuel. Theirs was a decision to go nuclear in order to be self reliant, and not be affected by Geo-Political situations. Here's a link that is informative about the French alternative. I am not sure what the barriers are for India to not achieve the same in long term. Sure, the initial thrust of the program is going to be small, but as we learn from it, it can be expanded.

http://www.uic.com.au/nip28.htm

The current cost that the French Nuclear power produces is about 3 cents per Kilowatt. I am sure this can be achieved in light of improved technology. I am not sure what the cost would be, but fossil fuel based cost is only going to get higher, and the opportunity cost for converting into a Nuclear based energy is also going to get higher.

Here's an interesting article on Thorium based nuclear plants.

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/348

India has abundant supply of Thorium. The intruiging part about this is that Thorium isn't vulnerable to out of control chain reaction, and the waste produced is much safer....enough for it to be called 'green.'

I am all for coal based power plants, but your global warming crowd is against it. You cannot get away from Carbon Di-Oxide as an end product.

You mentioned Natural gas Pipeline. I wouldn't build any infrastructure around any pipeline through Pakistan, and I also tend to be suspicious of Iran. Just like a drug dealer, they will try to get India dependent on their product, and then once dependent, ask exhorbitant prices, or try to do extracct other costs..

Self Reliance is the way to go as far as energy goes. Its a given that Fuel prices are going to go up exponentially if recent past is any indication. It does everyone good, if everyone consumes less fuel, as all petroleum products are ultimately derieved from crude oil....not to mention that transportation cost are hidden in every product we consume.

[vivek]

Dear All

we had a seminar on Indo nuclear Deal about 20 days back from the plateform of Haryana Vigyan Manch. lot of dliberations were there . Whatever I could gather there I have put it up. We may not agree or we may agree . there is always a language of civic society debate.

Some more arguments are given in this article

http://www.countercurrents.org/chomsky081007.htm

R.S.Dahiya

I wouldn't waste my time reading from Chomsky. He a strict devotee of socialism, and virulently anticapitalistic to the point of becoming a loon.

[priti]

Nice Vivek, you seem to know quite a bit about this stuff...thanks for the writeup. France is definitely much ahead of everyone in exploiting nuclear energy. They seem to have a good hold of the waste recovery/disposal methods for the future too. Wonder why India cant collaborate with them too!

I know, those global warming freaks ;), never seem to consider whats practical...oops, i said it...look at the biofuel issue...rocketing the food prices high...these kind of things really make me think that there are no straightforward solutions as are presented in the public sphere...I dont particularly like the discussions terming something good or bad...its really what is being done to improve it that is more interesting...coal is a case in point...i dont consider it completely bad...some coal companies, governments are working towards clean coal technologies (capturing carbon...liquidifying coal etc.) but its a work in progress...these technologies are said not to be commercially feasible till 2020...some demos are going on but no electric utility company has been able to adopt these yet...As compared to nuclear..these are more costly in process but less in capital input...but no use talking about these at this point...

self-reliance is the way to go...nice to know interesting qualities of Thorium.

you're bang on target about the transportation costs...might be a surprise to many but sometimes upto thirty percent of cost of metals is transportation (ofcourse, depending on the geography, fuel prices, fleet efficiency etc.)

Good discussion. Thanks!

Priti

You asked three valid questions
-how much nuclear can contribute to India's future energy basket?
- what would it cost?
- what are other alternatives that might be more effective within the same cost

To the first question, France gets over 75% of its energy from Nuclear Fuel. Theirs was a decision to go nuclear in order to be self reliant, and not be affected by Geo-Political situations. Here's a link that is informative about the French alternative. I am not sure what the barriers are for India to not achieve the same in long term. Sure, the initial thrust of the program is going to be small, but as we learn from it, it can be expanded.

http://www.uic.com.au/nip28.htm

The current cost that the French Nuclear power produces is about 3 cents per Kilowatt. I am sure this can be achieved in light of improved technology. I am not sure what the cost would be, but fossil fuel based cost is only going to get higher, and the opportunity cost for converting into a Nuclear based energy is also going to get higher.

Here's an interesting article on Thorium based nuclear plants.

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/348

India has abundant supply of Thorium. The intruiging part about this is that Thorium isn't vulnerable to out of control chain reaction, and the waste produced is much safer....enough for it to be called 'green.'

I am all for coal based power plants, but your global warming crowd is against it. You cannot get away from Carbon Di-Oxide as an end product.

You mentioned Natural gas Pipeline. I wouldn't build any infrastructure around any pipeline through Pakistan, and I also tend to be suspicious of Iran. Just like a drug dealer, they will try to get India dependent on their product, and then once dependent, ask exhorbitant prices, or try to do extracct other costs..

Self Reliance is the way to go as far as energy goes. Its a given that Fuel prices are going to go up exponentially if recent past is any indication. It does everyone good, if everyone consumes less fuel, as all petroleum products are ultimately derieved from crude oil....not to mention that transportation cost are hidden in every product we consume.