[Sreekar]

Bush govt ready to work on N-deal till Jan 20
(source:www.TimesofIndia.com)

Ahead of the UPA-Left meeting to resolve differences over the Indo-US civilian nuclear deal, Washington has said it would make every effort to get the pact through Congress by January 20 next year when the new President assumes office.

"From now until January 20th, we'll continue to work to support this agreement. We'll continue to encourage the Indian government to approve it. And if in such time it is approved, we will make every effort to move it through Congress," the State Department Deputy Spokesman Tom Casey said.

"And we certainly hope that the next administration, whoever comes to office in January, would also see this agreement as something fundamentally in America's interest and want to move forward with it as well," the top official said.

"... fundamentally, we think the India civil nuclear agreement is something that's in the interest of both countries. The obstacle has been that the Indian government has some internal political issues it needs to resolve before it can move forward with it," Casey said.

The Deputy Spokesman was asked whether it is unlikely for the nuclear deal to move forward.

"I would say that it's less -- we have fewer days now to do it than we did yesterday, and fewer days now than we did two days before it," Casey replied.

The UPA-Left committee will meet on Monday to discuss whether the government should go ahead with signing of the safe guards agreement with IAEA, a step required to operationalise the nuclear deal.

-Thanks much,
Sreekar
www.BanChildLabour.com

[Sreekar]

Indian Government Survives Confidence Vote
(source:The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia)

The Indian government survived a confidence vote in Parliament on Tuesday evening, paving the way for India to seal a landmark nuclear agreement with the United States. But the entire parliamentary process was tainted by allegations of bribery made on the floor of the house.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who initiated the confidence motion, won 275 votes, while his opponents secured 256 votes, and 11 members abstained. It was a wider margin of victory than politics watchers had predicted, and it came on the heels of two days of acrimonious debate and constant heckling, some of it directed at Mr. Singh, who was unable to finish his closing speech to the legislature.

The significance of the vote goes well beyond the survival of Mr. Singh’s administration, or even the fate of the one policy issue on which he has staked his legacy: an agreement initiated by the Bush administration more than two years ago to allow India access to nuclear fuel and technology on the world market.

After the confidence vote, which Mr. Singh called “a convincing victory,” he told reporters that he hoped it would signal to the world that “India is prepared to take its rightful place in the comity of nations.”
Mr. Singh pushed the deal as vital to India’s acceptance as a nuclear power and essential for the country to meet the energy needs of a growing economy, which has been hampered by dire power shortages.
Not least, the nuclear deal was hailed by his government and the Bush administration as a centerpiece of an effort to deepen a partnership; Mr. Singh’s former supporters in the Communist parties deeply opposed the accord for precisely that reason.

The accord now depends on the approval of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Nuclear Suppliers Group, and would then go before the United States Congress for a final vote. It has been divisive in Congress as well as an exception to American policies against the spread of nuclear materials.

“We think that we can move forward with this,” Dana M. Perino, the White House press secretary, said, but “there aren’t that many days left where Congress is going to be in session.”

Even after the tortuous road to the nuclear agreement, India’s strategic relationship with the United States remains troubled by several major disagreements, including Indian policy on Iran and Myanmar.

“India may be ‘emerging,’ but it will be a very high-maintenance friend when it comes to any strategic partnership,” Stephen P. Cohen, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington, said by e-mail.

In this country, the real impact of Tuesday’s vote will be felt in the coming months, as major and minor parties in India’s deeply fractured political system prepare for the next national elections, which must be held by May. The confidence vote has significantly rearranged old political alliances, sharpened the divide between political adversaries and threatened to intensify public cynicism toward elected leaders.

“The polite veils that are thrown over the workings of democracy have been lifted,” said the political analyst and president of the nonpartisan Center for Policy Research, Pratap Bhanu Mehta. “Politics is going to get really, really ugly.”

The two-day debate in Parliament was at its most rambunctious late Tuesday afternoon. Three lawmakers with the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party, or B.J.P., accused Mr. Singh’s new allies, with a North Indian regional party called Samajwadi, of offering them roughly $750,000 each in exchange for abstaining from the confidence vote.

The allegation was made barely two hours before the scheduled vote. B.J.P. lawmakers stormed the well of Parliament, waving wads of cash and forcing Parliament to adjourn. B.J.P. leaders soon appeared before television cameras to detail the bribery allegations, and Samajwadi leaders went on air to deny the accusations and accuse senior B.J.P. leaders of bribery attempts.

A private television news station, CNN-IBN, said it had acquired what it called a “cash for vote” tape in the course of an investigation into bribery allegations. The station did not broadcast the tape, but said it had handed it over to the speaker of Parliament, Somnath Chatterjee.
Whether any Money changed hands, how, and between whom, is not likely to be resolved soon.

Tuesday’s victory in Parliament could allow Mr. Singh’s government to remain in power until next May, when its five-year term expires, but not without serious challenges to its credibility and its political future.
After losing the support of the Communists, the government secured the backing of the Samajwadi Party, an archrival that until recently had been among the loudest anti-American voices in Parliament. It also won support from several smaller parties.

The Communists linked arms with a party they had frequently criticized, led by the most prominent politician from the so-called low-caste Dalits, Kumari Mayawati. Together with the B.J.P., they sought to bring down Mr. Singh’s government.

Mohammed Salim of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) accused the government on Monday of betraying its allies at home for the sake of a partnership with the United States.

The finance minister, Palaniappan Chidambaram, jabbed at the Communists on Tuesday without naming them, suggesting that “some people” supported China’s advance while holding India back. “I want India to become an economic power,” he told Parliament, “an economic superpower.” His comments were met with angry gibes and arm-waving from the Communists.

-Thanks much,
Sreekar
BanChildLabour

[Sreekar]

US hopes to wrap up N-deal
(source:Welcome to Rediff.com India)

As the UPA government won the confidence motion, the United States on Tuesday said governments of the two countries would be able to wrap up the civil nuclear pact before the time runs out.

"We think we can move forward with this. If their legislature lets it move forward then we can do the same and then we'll be able to get this wrapped up," White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said.

She said, "There aren't that many days left where Congress is going to be in session and enough US lawmakers backed the agreement to secure its ratification."
She said the US-India civil nuclear arrangement is a good one for everybody.

"It's good for India because it would help provide them a source for energy that they need, one that is non-polluting and one that doesn't emit greenhouse gas emissions," she added.

Perino said she does not know whether President George W Bush needs to place a call to the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in view of the vote of confidence victory given that the two leaders had met recently in Japan.

"I don't know if he needs to make a call, since they just spoke about two weeks ago when they were at the G-8 meeting and they had a very good bilateral meeting and meetings on the side as well, during the outreach meetings that the G-8 held," Perino said.

National Security Council spokesperson Gordon Johndroe said that the US looked forward to continuing to work with India on the civil nuclear deal and further strengthening the strategic partnership.

-Thanks much,
Sreekar
www.banchildlabour.com

[Sreekar]

Is the N-deal good? Debate rages
(source:Welcome to rediff.com)

As the crisis triggered by the government's move to go ahead with the nuclear deal has reached a flash point with the ruling party being forced to seek a trust vote in Parliament, there is a renewed interest nationwide in the debate over the merits and demerits of the proposed civil nuclear energy pact with the US.


Speaking to UNI, several eminent experts have questioned the need for the deal at all to meet the country's civil energy requirements, arguing for diverting the huge amount involved in it to tapping the renewable and other sources of energy.

Some have opposed the proposed pact on the ground that it will put many constraints on the country to pursue its independent foreign policy, whereas others have described it as a 'fair deal'' and a great opportunity for the country to restart its nuclear reactors to meet the growing energy needs.

Dr A Gopalakrishnan, former chairman Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, Ashok Parasarthy, former scientific adviser to prime minister Indira Gandhi, and Prabir Purkaystha of the Delhi Science Forum have come out with very strong views against the deal, while Dr Rajesh Rajgopalan of JNU and defence expert Brigadier Gurmeet Kanwal find the deal as a great opportunity for the country to operationalise its defunct nuclear reactors and get the ones based on latest technology to produce 40,000 MW of energy badly needed to drive the country's economic growth.


Dr Purkaystha says the cost of the per KW nuclear energy at present was $4000, a cost at which a thermal power plant based on solar energy would produce the same amount of power, minus the hazards of the nuclear radiation and the fear of stoppage of supplies of fuel by the US and other suppliers in future.

These calculations, he says have not been done in the abstract but based on the actual costs that have come for a 1600 MW nuclear power plant installed by a French company in Finland. When the agreement was signed the cost was $2650, but now there has been a 25 per cent escalation in the cost which has come to $4000 per KW.

''The figures are there on all international websites, and could be checked by anyone interested,'' he said.

Even if the nuclear energy is taken as the most suitable option for the country, there were so many difficulties with the 123 Agreement that the deal could not be given a clean chit he says.

He said it would be a wishful thinking that if the US stopped supplies of nuclear fuel, India would get it from other members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group. ''One should not forget that the US was behind the formation of the NSG after India carried out nuclear tests in Pokhran,'' he said.

Even before the agreement was finalised, India was forced to vote against Iran at the IAEA under US pressure despite the fact that Iran had not violated any of the international rules, he said.

The former chairman Atomic Energy Regulatory Board has also attacked the deal and the safeguards agreement. The government contention that under the agreement, it was free to take ''corrective measures', has been hotly contested by him.

He says the phrase was very vague and was found only in the preamble to the Draft agreement, because of which it had no legal binding.

Moreover, the corrective measures are to be taken to keep the nuclear reactors operational, and if the Nuclear Suppliers Group stopped supply of uranium, there was no scope for any meaningful corrective steps, he said.

Dr Gopalakrishnan also said the government was befooling the people by saying that the Hyde Act of the US government would not override the 123 agreement.

''In fact the Hyde Act is a domestic law and the 123 agreement has to work within its confines, and this has been made amply clear by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in her February 18 statement to the US Congress,'' he said.

Moreover, the nuclear energy would come at a much higher cost per unit of electricity compared to conventional coal or hydro power, which the country can generate without any foreign imports.

However, experts like Prof Rajesh Rajgopalan of JNU strongly favour the deal. He says the fear of India's strategic programme being disturbed in case the deal fell apart was baseless as the country had enough of reserve uranium to carry on with its strategic programme outside the safeguarded facilities.

Without the deal with the US, India could not get any material for operating its nuclear power plants from anywhere without putting its entire nuclear industry under safeguards, he says.

The rules were changed after the Iraq war, after it was found that the country even after having signed the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, had diverted some of the nuclear material to non-civil use.

India wanted to go back to the previous situation in which it would put only imported material under the safeguards instead of the whole industry, he said.

After the agreement, only 14 reactors for which India would be importing the uranium would be open to international inspection.

Regarding the rest of the reactors in which the indigenous uranium would be used, there will be no need of putting them under international inspection, he said.

Replying to the criticism of the safeguards agreement over the phrase ''corrective measure'' which India can take in case of disruption of supplies, he said it was in fact good to keep it vague as it gave the country more scope and more choice to act if any contingency arrived.

He also rubbished the criticism that the Hyde Act would override the provisions of the 123 Agreement. In fact the Hyde Act removes the bar put by the US Atomic Energy Act on the US Administration to cooperate with India as it was not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

However, Parasarthy, strongly disputes those who say that the 123 Agreement was delinked from the Hyde Act.

The Act, he maintained, clearly said the deal would come to an end the moment India carried out any nuclear test, and it required that even if the country built up a reserve of fuel, the US would ensure that it was not large enough to enable it to keep its reactors operational if the supply was cut off following any civil nuclear sanctions that the US Congress might impose in the event of the country carrying out any nuclear tests.

Moreover, Parasarthy said, under the Hyde Act, the US Administration was required to get an undertaking from the India that it would not produce weapon grade plutonium even from its own unsafeguarded reactors after a specific future date, which would greatly hit the country's weapons programme. The Act also required India to adopt a foreign policy in concord with that of the US government, he said.

Besides, the 123 did not cover US supply of technology and technical facilities relating to uranium enrichment and heavy water production, and for reprocessing too, there would be no supply of technology and facilities, said Mr Parasarthy, adding that the only thing India was allowed to do was to reprocess the spent fuel using its own technology and technical facilities.

On the other hand, Japan and Korea have been provided US technology and facilities under their 123 agreements, he sought to point out.

Dr Parasarthy also criticises the 123 agreement for its ''silence'' on arbitration.

''The act merely says that if any disagreement between the Parties arises, it will be negotiated and settled, but what would happen if they fail to resolve the agreement through negotiations,'' said Parasarthy, adding that the country might have to pay a very heavy price for it.

Under the Agreement, the parties can terminate the treaty if they decide that a mutually acceptable resolution of its reasons for seeking termination has not been possible, and that it cannot be achieved through consultations. But then question arises that if things cannot be resolved through negotiations. Then they should be taken to arbitration, but the 123 is silent on that, he said.

However, according to another expert Brig Gurmeet Kanwal, India has in a nutshell got a ''fair deal''.

Article-by-article comparison of the 123 agreements signed by China and India clearly shows that India has got a better deal, he said.

He sought to point out that Article 2.1 states that each party to the agreement shall implement it in accordance with its national laws. The opposition parties have complained that the provisions of the Hyde Act will override the provisions of the 123 Agreement, but they do not explain how US domestic laws can compel the Indian government into accepting conditions that are not in the national interest, he argues.

If one sees in terms of international law, the provisions of China's 123 agreement are quite objectionable by Indian standards.

According to Article 2.1, China may not invoke the provisions of its internal laws to justify violation of the agreement and that Chinese exports pursuant to the agreement will be subject to the US laws prevailing at the time.

"There is no such provision in the 123 (Article 16.4) relating to India. It simply states that the agreement will be implemented in good faith and in accordance with the principles of international law,'' he said.

As far as the right to reprocess spent fuel was concerned, India's standpoint has been accepted and it is allowed to establish a separate re-processing facility and that re-processing will be carried out under IAEA safeguards.

Brig Kanwal also says that the uranium reserves India has were sufficient for its strategic programme. However, India has already committed itself for a credible minimum deterrence, he sought to point out.

He said the nuclear reactors of the country were operating at 50 per cent of their capacity and in a period of 10 to 15 years, they would come to a grinding halt.

Moreover, without the deal, India would not get the latest reactor technology which Russia and France can now supply.

Harinder Sikhon, a researcher, says the nuclear deal was the only opportunity for India to get fuel supplies for its reactors, as a new administration may be very conservative about non-proliferation and so may not be so much in favour of the deal.

She said those who were talking about the restrictions against India to test nuclear weapon should remember that even without the deal, sanctions could be imposed on India if it carried out any nuclear test.

-Thanks much,
Sreekar
www.banchildlabour.com

[Sreekar]

[top]45-nation group OKs landmark US-India nuke deal

(source:Yahoo!)


Nations that supply nuclear material and technology overcame fierce obstacles Saturday and approved a landmark U.S. plan to engage in atomic trade with India — a deal that reverses more than three decades of American policy.

The Nuclear Suppliers Group, which governs the legal world trade in nuclear components and know-how, signed off on the deal after three days of contentious talks and some concessions to countries fearful it could set a dangerous precedent.


"Today we have reached a landmark decision to allow for civilian nuclear trade with India," John Rood, acting U.S. undersecretary of state for arms control issues, told reporters.


"This is a historical moment for the NSG, for India and for India's relations with the rest of the world," he said.


Austria, one of the holdouts along with Ireland and New Zealand, said it lifted its objections after India pledged on Friday not to touch off a new nuclear arms race or share sensitive nuclear technology with other countries.


In a statement, the Austrian government called that pledge "decisive," and Rood said it "played a major role" in removing obstacles to an agreement.
India has tested atomic weapons and refused to sign international nonproliferation treaties.


The U.S. needed approval from the nuclear group, which governs the legal trade in nuclear components and technology, and from the International Atomic Energy Agency, which signed off on the deal last month.
"We're very pleased that we were able to reach a compromise that everyone could live with," said the chief British envoy, Simon Smith.
But the plan still needs backing from U.S. Congress, and the Bush administration must now race to get approval before lawmakers recess for the rest of the year to devote time to their re-election campaigns.


Before the 45-nation nuclear group approved the deal, U.S. officials had contended that selling peaceful nuclear technology to India would bring the country's atomic program under closer scrutiny and boost — not undermine — international nonproliferation efforts.


Rood said it would help meet India's growing energy needs while helping the developing country — a major polluter — cut back on harmful emissions that experts warn are contributing to global warming.


The group was founded as a direct result of India's 1974 atomic test blasts. India tested nuclear weapons most recently in 1998, and opponents have expressed concerns that bending the rules to allow nuclear trade with New Delhi undermines the global effort to discourage the production of weapons of mass destruction.


Officials said Saturday's breakthrough came after U.S. President George W. Bush personally intervened to lobby allies at the nuclear group to approve the trade waiver.


"The U.S. government engaged in an intense diplomatic effort," Rood said.
Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Washington-based Arms Control Association, accused the U.S. delegation of resorting to "some nasty threats, misinformation about positions and intimidation to try to wear down" the three holdout countries. U.S. officials had no immediate comment.


-Thanks much,
Sreekar
BanChildLabour

[Sreekar]

The steps after NSG waiver...

- The US Congress is likely to take up the 123 India-US bilateral civil nuclear cooperation pact when it convenes on September 8. The Congress has to approve the pact by an up and down vote before the congressional session ends on September 26.

- The Bush administration will ask Congress not to insist on the mandatory 30-day session period required to present a pact for its approval. As this will technically allow senators to move amendments, the Bush administration has to ensure that the Congress approves the text of the 123 pact without a re-look.

- The two countries are expected to formally sign the bilateral pact, likely when Manmohan Singh goes to Washington towards the end of September, the last step that will restore nuclear trade with the US after a gap of 34 years.

- India will sign similar pacts soon with nuclear suppliers like Russia, France and others in its quest for energy security in the coming decades.


Following is the chronology of some key developments related to the landmark Indo-US nuclear deal:


1968: India refuses to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) on the grounds that it is discriminatory.

May 18, 1974: India conducts its first nuclear test.

March 10, 1978: US President Jimmy Carter signs the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act, following which US ceases exporting nuclear assistance to India.

May 11-13, 1998: India tests five underground nuclear tests.

July 18, 2005: US President George W Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh first announce their intention to enter into a nuclear agreement in Washington.

March 1, 2006: Bush visits India for the first time. March 3, 2006: Bush and Singh issue a joint statement on their growing strategic partnership, emphasising their agreement on civil nuclear cooperation.

July 26, 2006: The US House of Representatives passes the 'Henry J Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006,' which stipulates that Washington will cooperate with New Delhi on nuclear issues and exempt it from signing the Nonproliferation Treaty.

July 28, 2006: The Left parties demand threadbare discussion on the issue in Parliament.

November 16, 2006: The passes the 'United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation and US Additional Protocol Implementation Act' to "exempt from certain requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 United States exports of nuclear materials, equipment, and technology to India."

December 18, 2006: President Bush signs into law legislation on Indian atomic energy.

July 27, 2007: Negotiations on a bilateral agreement between the United States and India conclude.

Aug 3, 2007: The text of the 'Agreement for Cooperation between the of the United States of America and the Government of India concerning peaceful uses of nuclear energy' (123 Agreement) is released by both governments.

Aug 13, 2007: Prime Minister Manmohan Singh makes a suo motu statement on the deal in Parliament.

Aug 17, 2007: CPI(M) General Secretary Prakash Karat says the 'honeymoon (with government) may be over but the marriage can go on'.

Sept 4, 2007: UPA-Left committee to discuss nuclear deal set up.

Feb 25, 2008: Left parties say the UPA would have to choose between the deal and its government's stability.

March 3, 2008: Left parties warn of 'serious consequences' if the nuclear deal is operationalised.

March 6, 2008: Left parties set a deadline asking the government to make it clear by March 15 whether it intended to proceed with the nuclear deal or drop it.

March 7, 2008: CPI writes to the Prime Minister, warns of withdrawal of support if government goes ahead with the deal.

March 14, 2008: CPI(M) says the Left parties will not be responsible if the government falls over the nuclear deal.
April 23, 2008: Government says it will seek the sense of the House on the 123 Agreement before it is taken up for ratification by the American Congress.

June 17, 2008: External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee meets Prakash Karat, asks the Left to allow the government to go ahead with IAEA safeguards agreement.

June 30, 2008: Prime Minister says his government prepared to face Parliament before operationalising the deal.

July 8, 2008: Left parties withdraw support to government.

July 9, 2008: The draft India-specific safeguards accord with the IAEA circulated to IAEA's Board of Governors for approval.

July 10, 2008: Prime Minister calls for a vote of confidence in Parliament.

July 14, 2008: The IAEA says it will meet on August 1 to consider the India-specific safeguards agreement.

July 18, 2008: Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon briefs the IAEA Board of Governors and some NSG countries in Vienna on the safeguards agreement.

July 22, 2008: Government is willing to look at "possible amendments" to the Atomic Energy Act to ensure that the country's strategic autonomy will never be compromised, says Prime Minister Singh.

July 22, 2008: UPA government wins trust vote in the Lok Sabha.

July 24, 2008: India dismisses warning by Pakistan that the deal will accelerate an atomic arms race in the sub-continent.

July 24, 2008: India launches full blast lobbying among the 45-nation NSG for an exemption for nuclear commerce.

July 25, 2008: IAEA secretariat briefs member states on India-specific safeguards agreement.

Aug 1, 2008: IAEA Board of Governors adopts India-specific safeguards agreement unanimously.

Aug 21-22, 2008: The NSG meet to consider an India waiver ends inconclusively amid reservations by some countries.

Sep 4-6, 2008: The NSG meets for the second time on the issue after the US comes up with a revised draft and grants waiver to India after marathon parleys.

-Thanks much,
Sreekar
BanChildLabour

[Sreekar]

NSG waiver for India -- Reactions
(source:zeenews.com)

Following are the reactions to NSG’s granting of waiver to India to carry our nuclear trade:

M K Narayanan, NSA advisor to PM

“We have realised this (clean waiver from NSG) from the very beginning. For this we have to put forth our record of non-proliferation and cleared India’s stand in this regard properly in front of the world community.”

“We hope that we never have to conduct a nuclear test. But if the necessity arises we will conduct a test and we are prepared to do that. We have never compromised on our strategic interest.”

Commenting on China, the NSA advisor said: “We are disappointed with China. I think in the last 48 to 72 hours the Chinese have sided with the sceptics despite our interactions at the very higher level.”

Brajesh Mishra, former NSA and advisor to ex-PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee

“It’s a good deal. I hope that the 123 agreement will also be passed by the US Congress in couple of weeks,” said a jubilant Brajesh Mishra when asked about his reaction on the NSG waiver.

“We have not compromised anything through this deal. In fact, we have got more than what we want,” he further added.

Anil Kakodkar, AEC chief

Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Anil Kakodkar, who played a crucial role in getting the NSG waiver, said: “It’s an important breakthrough for our nation’s development. It is a fully acceptable document and meets the conditions of the Department of Atomic Energy.”

“There was no mention of testing in the draft,” Kakodkar clarified. “In short term it will be an ‘additional’ to domestic nuclear programme, and in the long run this waiver will widen the energy prospects,” he added.

The AEC chairman further clarified: “There are certain provisions in the NSG guideline which will be also applicable to India.”

US Ambassador to India, David Mulford

“It is a triumphant day for India and the waiver will strengthen global non-proliferation efforts. We will now move forward to accomplish the final step with our Congress,” Mulford said.

Amar Singh, Samajwadi Party leader

Samajwadi Party general secretary Amar Singh said: "I heartily congratulate Pranab Mukherjee, Soniaji and Manmohan Singhji. I am very elated.”

"For the last two-three days all political leaders were busy attacking the Samajwadi Party and me. But after the government's success it is now beyond any doubt that our stand was correct. This is a befitting reply to the trio of Comrade Karat, Mayawati and Advanji. We have come out with flying colours."

Yaswant Sinha, senior BJP leader

BJP reacted sharply to the development, claiming that the country has fallen into the nuclear non-proliferation trap.

"India has forever lost the right to conduct nuclear tests. The NSG waiver has come after so many deliberations... obviously there have been give aways by India," former External Affairs Minister and senior party leader Yashwant Sinha told reporters.

He said the electricity that would be provided in India during the post-deal era, would be quite costly.

CPI leader D Raja

D Raja, senior CPI leader, whose party withdrew support to the UPA government on the nuke deal issue, said: “This is indeed a bad day for India. There was lot of pressure on India to give concessions in the draft. I think to get the waiver India has conceded a lot in the process. Through this the US will bring India into its global strategy.”

“We will continue to oppose the 123 agreement in the future too,” he added.

CPI-M central committee member and chief whip in the Rajya Sabha A Vijayaraghavan said: "This is an injustice done to the generation next to come. The Manmohan Singh government has taken an unfortunate decision by submitting our authority before the United States."

-Thanks much,
Sreekar

[Sreekar]

Nations eye India's vast nuclear market

The US Senate passed a deal Wednesday to let America join Russia and France in supplying India's huge energy needs.

(source: csmonitor.com)

With an emphatic vote Wednesday, the US Senate assured that America will take part in India's $100 billion nuclear-energy sweepstakes.

The 86-to-13 vote to resume civilian nuclear trade with India for the first time since 1974 is a signature diplomatic achievement for the Bush administration, cementing ties with a nation seen as a counterweight to China.



But it is also a major piece of business. In 20 years, India aims to increase its nuclear power 10-fold, and will rely on international businesses to do it.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh struck a deal Tuesday to open nuclear trade with France – a deal the Indian Chamber of Commerce estimates to be worth $29 billion. Russia is already helping India build two reactors.
Before Wednesday, US business leaders were worried about being left behind. They estimate that the deal could create 200,000 jobs in the US and revive an industry that has not built a new plant in the US for a decade.



India's plans involve "a huge amount of money," says Ted Jones of the US-India Business Council. "Even a modest slice of it is huge."



President Bush is expected to sign the bill into law. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will visit Delhi this weekend to mark the finalization of the deal, which was first proposed in 2005.



Since then, the US and India have had to convince the world that India is a trustworthy nuclear steward. Until last month, countries that sold civilian nuclear technology to India were subject to sanctions as India hadn't signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.



But with the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) last month lifting the ban on civilian nuclear trade with India, other nations have begun to move in. France was first, with its deal Tuesday. The same day, Mr. Singh told a gathering of European business leaders that he hoped to conclude similar deals across the continent.



Russia is already working in India after signing a deal before Russia joined the NSG. Ministers in both nations have already discussed substantially increasing Russia's input in India's nuclear industry.
The opportunities presented by India are alluring. Currently, nuclear reactors in India produce about 3,500 megawatts of electricity – 3 percent of the country's total power output. But on average, India's energy demands exceed its supply by about 12 percent, making power outages ubiquitous and threatening economic growth. Nuclear power is seen as a key part of the solution. By the mid-2020s, India wants 30,000 to 60,000 megawatts of nuclear power.



India will have to look abroad to meet these goals, says Sudhinder Thakur, director of corporate planning for the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd., a state-owned business that runs India's nuclear power plants. The best Indian reactor currently under design can produce 700 megawatts. The top international reactor produces more than 1,600 megawatts.


The list of businesses capable of building nuclear reactors is short. It includes French company Areva, Russian state-owned enterprises, and two US-based operations: General Electric and Westinghouse.



-Thanks much,
Sreekar
BanChildLabour

[Sreekar]

Basic facts about Indo-US nuclear deal
(source:timesofIndia.com)

The U.S. Senate voted on Wednesday to approve a deal that would end a three-decade ban on U.S. civil nuclear trade with India.

Overturning a 34-year-old ban, it allows India access to US civil nuclear fuel and technology although it has never signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, conducted nuclear tests in 1974 and 1998, and has not ruled out doing more.

India must separate its civil and military nuclear facilities, and submit civil facilities to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency. * The agreement means other countries can sell India nuclear technology and fuel. France signed such a deal this week.

Why is it controversial?

Critics say it undermines the NPT, membership of which has long been the guideline for the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) export cartel to provide civilian nuclear assistance.

Critics also say it undercuts Washington's efforts to curtail Iran's nuclear programme and opens the way for a potential arms race in South Asia between India and Pakistan.

India says 14 of its 22 nuclear facilities are civilian. The pact could make bomb-making easier at the other eight, as civilian nuclear fuel needs will be met by the United States.

Who will benefit?

US and European companies that supply nuclear technology and help build reactors. The deal could open up around $27 billion in investment in 18-20 nuclear plants over the next 15 years, according to Confederation of Indian Industry.

By 2030, the economic benefits that will accrue to India's economy as a result of nuclear trade could touch $500 billion, says Imagindia Institute, an Indian lobby group.

India. It becomes a de facto nuclear power. New Delhi even says it still can test nuclear weapons if it needs to, although a waiver of NSG rules adopted to allow trade with India indicates this would be cut off if India tested again.

India's economy. It relies on imported oil for some 70 per cent of its energy needs and the government says nuclear power will help feed its rapidly expanding economy.

Washington. The deal will mean deeper ties between Washington and Delhi just as India starts to embrace the West. It is not just about friendship -- the United States, for example, may now have a better chance of winning a $10 billion fighter deal from India, the world's biggest arms contract.

Who won't benefit?

Pakistan , India's nuclear rival, has sought a similar deal with Washington but was refused because of a poor non-proliferation record. As a result, Islamabad has talked of expanding nuclear cooperation with China. Pakistan has not signed the NPT.

China. Some analysts see the India deal as part of attempts by the United States to counterbalance China's influence in Asia.

The environment. The deal will still have a minimal impact on India's power industry. Dirty coal-fired power stations and hydroelectric dams will continue to account for the lion's share of its power generation.

Is the deal popular in India?

Polls show most Indians are far more worried about the economy and inflation than some abstract nuclear deal.

The powerful communists withdrew their support for the Congress-led government over the deal, saying it made India a pawn of Washington. Hindu nationalists also oppose the deal, saying it limits India's ability to test nuclear weapons.

Nevertheless, the deal is seen as one of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's biggest achievements in four years in power.

-Thanks much,
Sreekar
BanChildLabour