tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32317349.post954388410218504590..comments2024-01-06T03:07:18.023-08:00Comments on The Chindu: The Letter Controversy: Allegations and RealityHindu Fundamentalisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15731102238577129533noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32317349.post-83134671168333787382008-09-05T14:46:00.000-07:002008-09-05T14:46:00.000-07:00DD,You are correct. Once the NSG approves the draf...DD,<BR/><BR/>You are correct. Once the NSG approves the draft, I do not thing that anything should stand in the way of India being able to buy from the markets. Congressional approval is required for the US-India civil nuclear cooperation initiative but I do not see that as a requirement for us to buy anything from other countries. <EM>The Hindu </EM>however <A HREF="http://www.thehindu.com/2008/07/29/stories/2008072957840100.htm" REL="nofollow">reported</A> that for this reason, the US, in order to avoid losing out on lucrative deals, has secured an understanding with the other big powers to delay concluding any deals with India before Congressional ratification. <BR/><BR/>HF,<BR/><BR/>You are entitled to that view. But it is important to remember that firstly, given our situation, it is extremely unlikely that we are going to get a better deal; secondly, the trade-off here is a reasonable one; thirdly, the objections have either been adequately addressed or are expected to be addressed in future; fourthly, without US help, we will almost certainly never be able to secure an NSG waiver on our own - with less preconditions than there are currently, we can practically forget about it. Unless we are planning to conduct nuclear tests in the future, these aspects would make a strong argument in its favor. There is no doubt that minus this deal, our nuclear energy development will be set back. The only alternative is to give up on nuclear energy and seek other sources of power - coal, wind, solar, etc. Some like Sitaram Yechury and R.Ramachandran have made that argument. I have not seen any answer from the government's side to this suggestion. Nor have I have analyzed it in sufficient detail to be able to comment on the merits of this proposal.<BR/><BR/>My understanding is that the sort of nuclear power plants India is looking for are not unlike those already built such as at Kudankulam. If not the US, other countries will be willing to build it for us. Art. 5(2) essentially signals that transfer of sensitive technology to India is not something the US views as objectionable. The idea here seems to be to not try to go too far at one go - pushing for providing sensitive technology will inflame the non-proliferation lobby even further which can put a spanner in the works at this stage.<BR/><BR/>On the safeguards issue again, the issue of how India's prerogative to take corrective measures in the absence of fuel delivery is reconciled with the American interest in maintaining perpetual IAEA safeguards will probably get clarified further when the facility-wise agreements are concluded.cbcnn_Pilidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07404596183953851196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32317349.post-37283962027192175162008-09-05T12:49:00.000-07:002008-09-05T12:49:00.000-07:00pilid,i would like to make distinction here betwee...pilid,<BR/><BR/>i would like to make distinction here between the politics surrounding the deal and the benefits coming out of the deal. undue attention is paid to the politics part.<BR/><BR/>if the pm indeed not make such assurances, then we should never have approached the iaea in the first place. the objections raised by the opposition all along are valid. the reasons have already been listed quite elaborately by brahma chellany in his earlier articles. for example,<BR/>there is no technology transfer<BR/>the iaea inspections are perpetual<BR/>nuclear cooperation is conditional<BR/>fuel supply is not conditional<BR/>india makes firm commitments in return for america's vague assurances<BR/>america's benefits out the deal are clear and tangible<BR/>india's benefits from the deal and contingent and restrictive<BR/>nsg is no more accomodative than usa<BR/>...<BR/><BR/>all the u.s. lobbying reminds me of the enron scandal.<BR/>http://www.dupagepeacethroughjustice.org/enron.html<BR/><BR/>the stakes are probably high for u.s but not so much for india. u.s is already into recession. failed deal will have a severe overall impact. i suspect, the strong dollar and weakening rupee equation might change if the deal falls through.<BR/><BR/>india needs nuclear energy but not a bad deal. we can afford to wait until we get a good one. in the meantime, we should renew our efforts on alternative sources. bottomline is we dont need to rush into this deal.Hindu Fundamentalisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15731102238577129533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32317349.post-41856454718147588892008-09-05T12:10:00.000-07:002008-09-05T12:10:00.000-07:00Pilid,I've not read the letter and following analy...Pilid,<BR/>I've not read the letter and following analysis in detail, but despite the US Govt.'s covert statements, once the NSG approves shouldn't India get the material it needs from the market. then its just a matter of forging the accounts.<BR/>just my 2 cents.Dirt Diggerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01135391085865919386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32317349.post-79985338317628894882008-09-05T09:15:00.000-07:002008-09-05T09:15:00.000-07:00r,Your point is well taken - since neither of the ...r,<BR/><BR/>Your point is well taken - since neither of the two terms have been defined, the PM's assurance, especially that the Tarapur experience would not be repeated is dubious. At best, one could say that it is premature.<BR/><BR/>But this agreement will only start to bear fruit and have consequences once the agreements with respect to individual facilities are concluded. It is possible that the US has given some assurances that are not acknowledged in this letter about the scope of a strategic reserve. We will know for sure only at that time what the scope of these fuel supply assurances are. It is worthwhile to wait until then.cbcnn_Pilidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07404596183953851196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32317349.post-56740187493220320432008-09-05T08:27:00.000-07:002008-09-05T08:27:00.000-07:00Pilid,The phrase 'reasonable operating requirement...Pilid,<BR/><I>The phrase 'reasonable operating requirements' can be defined as extending to the lifetime of the reactor.</I><BR/><BR/>According to this new secret letter, this term "'reasonable operating requirements" is not yet defined. So it can be defined either way depending on what the US administration thinks (the supplier). Now, no prize in guessing how Obama will define it. His amendment to the Hyde act opposed giving India the right to build strategic fuel reserves! So we all know how it will turn out!<BR/><BR/>Pushing all these facts under the carpet PM claimed the US support for an Indian effort to develop a strategic reserve of nuclear fuel to guard against any disruption of supply for the lifetime of India's reactors.<BR/><BR/>My point is: you can't make claims over things that are not even defined! That's what we call misleading!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32317349.post-40930211833323103172008-09-05T06:25:00.000-07:002008-09-05T06:25:00.000-07:00HF,Strictly speaking, the PM has not lied to the c...HF,<BR/><BR/>Strictly speaking, the PM has not lied to the country (you can read Kakodkar's statement yesterday in <I>The Hindu</I> which reflects the correct position with respect to testing). However, if India intends to actually conduct a nuclear test in the future, one could make a plausible case that this is a bad deal - in any case, it is doubtful that India will be able to shield itself from the consequences of such testing. There is a good possibility that should we test, we will find ourselves not only in the same predicament we were in following Tarapur but worse now that we are expected to have far more reactors than at that time.<BR/><BR/>The calculation of the Indian government appears to be that we are not going to test in the future (again that is contigent upon our neighbors not doing so; Pakistan will not test again unless India does and China is probably not going to either because of the wide ramifications of violating the moratorium that all countries have agreed upon). The Vajpayee government repeatedly said that we would voluntarily adhere to the moratorium and it appears that the current government is therefore willing to build further upon that premise.<BR/><BR/>Those who believe that India should retain the relatively unfettered right to test again would therefore be justified in opposing the deal.<BR/><BR/>r,<BR/><BR/>The phrase 'reasonable operating requirements' can be defined as extending to the lifetime of the reactor. Doing that would enable building a strategic reserve without violating the terms of the Hyde Act. Whether that is how it will eventually come to be defined still remains to be seen.<BR/><BR/>Anon,<BR/><BR/>I watched the NDTV program anchored by Barkha Dutt. I recall two points that he made: (1) this agreement does not override the Hyde Act and (2) the letter is not of much consequence. I agree on (1). On (2), he is right of course but that does not mean that the letter is erroneous in any way. I believe that the letter's contents represent standing US policy.cbcnn_Pilidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07404596183953851196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32317349.post-2264972000282478162008-09-05T03:44:00.000-07:002008-09-05T03:44:00.000-07:00The above link on NDTV program with Arun Shourie m...The above link on NDTV program with Arun Shourie may not be the right link. There was a program by Barkha dutt with title: <B>"Is UPA guilty of lack of transparency"</B>. I am not able to get the right link for that (please try googling with the title, you might get it)<BR/><BR/>And it was an interesting program, related to N-deal, where Shourie makes many interesting points; he also tells Barkha that what she does is "shouting" and not journalism and advises her what a serious journalist should do!<BR/>And I loved seeing her funny face when she was corneredAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32317349.post-86490879080556474822008-09-05T02:59:00.000-07:002008-09-05T02:59:00.000-07:00Pilid, you said:"The US has not said that it will ...Pilid, you said:<BR/><BR/><I>"The US has not said that it will not allow India to build a strategic reserve"</I><BR/><BR/>The hyde act clearly says the following: <BR/><BR/><B>"Any nuclear power reactor fuel reserve provided to the Government of India for use in safe guarded civilian nuclear facilities should be commensurate with reasonable reactor operating requirements."</B><BR/><BR/>What does that mean ? It simply means that we will not get anymore fuel than what we need for our "reasonable reactor operating requirements". Note the word used is "commensurate" -- which, according to M-W dictionary, means: "equal in measure or extent".<BR/><BR/>So they are very clear. They will not give us fuel to build strategic reserve. <BR/><BR/>So wasn't PM misleading the parliament there ?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32317349.post-5022561983817330632008-09-05T01:25:00.000-07:002008-09-05T01:25:00.000-07:00See this NDTV program and listen to Arun ShourieHe...See <A HREF="http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/videopod/default.aspx?id=37697" REL="nofollow">this NDTV program and listen to Arun Shourie</A><BR/><BR/>He makes some important points.<BR/><BR/>And of course he teaches Barkha Dutt what is journalism :-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32317349.post-58645847161527427432008-09-04T18:34:00.000-07:002008-09-04T18:34:00.000-07:00pilid,i might have read the text differently but i...pilid,<BR/>i might have read the text differently but i see the pm has repeatedly lied to the country on issues of nuclear testing. the nsg cartel is also pretty much agreeing to stop an nuclear trade if india tests.<BR/>and there is no tangible technology transfer.<BR/>i have my reservations on the nuclear deal in its present form.Hindu Fundamentalisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15731102238577129533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32317349.post-18731816587726713372008-09-04T07:50:00.000-07:002008-09-04T07:50:00.000-07:00Gandaragolaka,Even some other analysts seem to hav...Gandaragolaka,<BR/><BR/>Even some other analysts seem to have turned deeply skeptical about it. See Siddharth Varadarajan's <A HREF="http://svaradarajan.blogspot.com/2008/09/bush-berman-bombshell-and-ghosts-of.html" REL="nofollow">piece</A> on his blog today. Also R.Ramachandran has been gradually leaning more and more against it. This is apart from the party spokesmen like Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie (Sinha's point <A HREF="http://www.ibnlive.com/news/bjp-slams-pm-on-ndeal-plans-privilege-motion/72822-3.html" REL="nofollow">repeated</A> <EM>ad nauseum</EM> about the 123 agreement overriding the Hyde Act is correct of course). So I do think that Chellaney is not alone in this. He definitely has company.cbcnn_Pilidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07404596183953851196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32317349.post-36487527525199433272008-09-03T20:32:00.000-07:002008-09-03T20:32:00.000-07:00I have been following Chellaney's articles since t...I have been following Chellaney's articles since the past few months and it seems he is the only strategic analyst who is against this deal. Its not like he doesnt understand how to read the language of the draft of a deal to be siged between two countries.<BR/><BR/>Wonder what "bad" he sees in this deal...Gandaragolakahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02364773312144169635noreply@blogger.com