Maddss
Just now I read your article on nuclear deal. In fact, Sonal one of my friend asked me about it and I had come to your blog to see whether you have written anything about it .
But the blog was dated 27 th September ,07
So many months have gone in between. I was reading Tunnel vision’s blog too. But could not follow it.
So once again I am requesting you to explain these queries in layman’s language
- What nuclear deal is exactly?
- Every deal has good and bad points--- what advantage and what limitation it imposes on us?
- Is it necessary to for India to sign NPT as a condition?
- What is Hyde act?
- Lots of discussion now about Amar singh supporting the Nuclear deal. But is it of any use? Can US govt pass the deal now? Is the time not over for Bush administration for passing it?
- Why China is against it?
- What is Russia’s stand on this?
- People say US will fix the price of the fuel as per its wish?( excuse my ignornace)
is there a possibility of this?
Maddss's answers
The Nuclear Deal called 123 agreements would enable India to look for technology, raw material for setting up of nuclear power plants from the Nuclear Supply Group. After 1974 there is a ban on India for export of nuclear technology, fuel etc from several countries, we indigenously developed some reactors based on the design given to us by Canada in early 50’s
The 123 agreement would enable American corporations to deal with India in building civilian nuclear reactors for power generation , but such facilities would be strictly under IAEA inspection ,to ensure we do not divert the fissile material for other purposes.
The proposed deal would end the apartheid in this field, the deal ensures we separate the military related nuclear facilities like BARC & Kalpakam etc to be away from IAEA inspection, only those facilities which are purely in power generation needs to be put up for inspection.
We are starved of power, Energy security is far bigger issue then some sentiments people keep expressing about .
Americans are making an exceptions to us, despite we being Nuclear weapon state, this is a departure from NTP regime, the reason sited is, India is a responsible power and it is rapidly developing economy therefore its energy needs are to be met.
The US has a far tougher law on Proliferation of nuclear material ,especially if they believe if its meant for weaponisation purposes, called Hyde act, it prohibits enrichment of fuel through recycling of Nuclear spent fuel.
The issue is all about provisioning this recycling facility in India , which they have agreed under strict control.
You know the state of power supply, imagine what are we doing for the generations to come if we eat up coal and petroleum fuel, even imagine our own state in a decade or so, the nuclear power can be a safe bet to build energy security for generations to come.
France produces 75% of electricity through Nuclear power. That should indicate the potential we are talking about.
Every deal has good and bad points--- what advantage and what limitation it imposes on us?
The good point is, we would get uranium from several countries, which we are badly in need of. Even for running the existing plants.
Capital would flow in for construction, many lending agencies would come in to pitch in
Secondly, technology for new plants would come in from countries such as USA, France, Japan, Russia, Canada…etc
We would have multiple options to choose from unlike the present state of affairs
Our dependency on traditional source of power generation can be reduced, if we use more electricity generated from Nuclear plants, the dependency on Petroleum fuel would reduce considerably.
The Bad points are:-
US may blackmail us in supply of fuel if we don’t agree to them
Indirectly they may ask us to close our weapons program
US may expect us to be her ally
We are not allowed to test further our nuclear weapons
The bad points have been tackled in the last two years of negotiations,
We are permitted to recycle the fuel under strict regime; Two life cycles of fuel would always be available as strategic reserve.
It would be open to receive fuel from other sources
US understands our Nuclear program, it has told us it will keep the supply lines open if we test our nuclear weapons as an answer to China or Pakistan.
Is it necessary to for India to sign NPT as a condition?
No, we will be treated as a separate category , based on our record in nonproliferation
What is Hyde act?
It’s an act signed by the US in 2006, called Henry Hyde act 2006 which enables it to enter into an agreement with India on civilian nuclear agreement under 123 agreement
Jimmy carter regime was the one to stop recycling fuel altogether to dissociate from building military grade fissile material as an standing example, Us assumed the role as an active dissociate of countries proliferating nuclear weapons ,America does not recycle spent fuel since 1977, its all stored in safe houses. The spent fuel contains high level of fissile material.
This act recognizes India as a responsible power and it enable USA to deal with india, without recognizing it as a nuclear weapon state.
The act does not in anyway blink away from the stated policy of non proliferation.
Lots of discussion now about Amar singh supporting the Nuclear deal. But is it of any use? Can US govt pass the deal now? Is the time not over for Bush administration for passing it?
US informal agreement is in place with IAEA, it needs to be officially sealed, then the 45 members NSG should unanimously agree to supply nuclear related supplies to India, if all goes well then before the Bush regime closes shop ,the both houses in US should clear, preferabily before Presidential elections.
Both parties in US want the deal, they want it as early as possible under Bush regime only, as Democrats as a policy may act bit different …they want to avoid doing then what can be done now.
Why China is against it?
China fears along with the act, the strategic relationship with US would mean checkmate to it in Asia.
It is not going to oppose the deal officially as they have been promised by Indian establishment that they will not be sidelined for contracts for building nuclear power plants, especially for its construction companies. They expect that they would also benefit.
The real problem is with our street dogs(communists), they believe that by opposing US, they are doing a right thing for Communist unity, these jokers don’t understand that in China its capitalism that’s ruling China in the garb of Communism, communism is long dead in China
Our Dogs can only bark and who care for them? See in the next elections their fate would be sealed. They are not against nuclear deal but they are opposed to USA. Why dint they oppose when we went in for additional nuclear power plants from Russia?
What is Russia’s stand on this?
They want the deal as soon as possible, they have enough business lined up in India if the law is passed
. People say US will fix the price of the fuel as per its wish?( excuse my ignornace)
is there a possibility of this?
Initially may be yes, but once the 45 members NSG group agrees to supply things would be very different, secondly we will also of recycling facility too.
Kindly read my blogs stated above for more details
Close
Thank you.
Sauravis wonderful writer. Please check his other posts too.
Regards
Reply | | Report Abuse
Sreenivasarao
Thanks for the link. I have read and liked the article
Regards
Bijaya
Reply | | Report Abuse
Sreenivasarao
Thanks the link. I have read and liked the article
Bijaya
Reply | | Report Abuse
Thanks Maddss
For the clarifications.
It seems the only the negative point of the deal now is high investment and a bit of of insecurity about the fuel price.
Then, all systems has its negative side.
That day I read in newspaper, that three power plants in WB given to Chinese contractors is having operation problems-- and supplying load-shedding.
So a bit of rsk is inevitable in every deal
Reply | | Report Abuse
Please also see Saurav Basu's post
http://saurav-basu.sulekha.com/blog/post/2008/07/signing-nuclear-deal-why-not-sell-india-itself.htm
Regards
Reply | | Report Abuse
Dear Bijaya
Uranium mines are in few places such as Jaduguda, the ore has been found in Meghalaya and in Cuddapah district of AP but people are against its mining, we surely have very little production of Uranium.
Solar energy is unviable due to very high input cost, thats why its not so much popular, once we establish nuclear plant the power generation cost would be hardly anything, in 10 to 15 years the cost further reduces if the cost of the plant is payed off.
Yes it requires long term investment and big money is needed.
Congress never anticipated that the deal could generate so much of rucus,only after big noise, we have got the best possible deal.
Thanks & Regards
Reply | | Report Abuse
Maddss
Thanks a ton for the answers. You have presented it clearly and concisely-- well within the attention of a person who wants to know but is blocked by the complicated legal
and political jargon.
It is not that I hadn’t read any article so far.
But the issue has so many parameters that it is difficult to understand if one is not a regular reader of current affairs. I missed the initial part of nuclear deal.
So pieces written about Hyde act or US politics ( I know very little of that) and the double meaning words of all types of politicians kept me confused and lost interest.
So when a friend wanted to know about it I had to ask you.
Will read ur blogs and I think now I will be able to understand the significance of each factor.
There is lot of hot discussion but I think not even 5% people understands what support or oppose. Your clarifications will help such people develop an opinion backed by logic
One more question
"It appears lots of money will be involved in this. With that amount can’t we develop solar power?"
Today somebody told me " India has enough uranium. Why cant they process it?
and some oppose the deal because of Secrecy.
I also wonder "why congress was so secretive about it ? did they compromise something big?”
Thanks once again for taking the trouble of typing all those lines
Regards
Bijaya
Reply | | Report Abuse
I have written five blogs on the subject, they are:-
http://maddss123.sulekha.com/blog/post/2007/08/will-karat-pull-the-plug-for-whose-cause.htm
http://maddss123.sulekha.com/blog/post/2007/07/a-tale-of-two-nuclear-deals.htm
http://maddss123.sulekha.com/blog/post/2006/12/indo-us-nuclear-deal-part-iii.htm
http://maddss123.sulekha.com/blog/post/2006/09/indo-us-nuclear-deal-a-reality-check-part-ii.htm
http://maddss123.sulekha.com/blog/post/2006/09/indo-us-nuclear-deal-a-reality-check-part-i.htm
If you read from Part I upwards you would find answers, but let me give fresh answers
What nuclear deal is exactly?
The 123 agreement would enable American corporations to deal with India in building civilian nuclear reactors for power generation , but such facilities would be strictly under IAEA inspection ,to ensure we do not divert the fissile material for other purposes.
The proposed deal would end the apartheid in this field, the deal ensures we separate the military related nuclear facilities like BARC & Kalpakam etc to be away from IAEA inspection, only those facilities which are purely in power generation needs to be put up for inspection.
What is Hyde act?
is there a possibility of this?
Reply | | Report Abuse
" you certainly do not need to apologize."
Thanks bilingual for not minding.
I was rather apprehensive of my excessive frankness. We do pretend at every sphere of life. Face to face, we feel rather awkward to say such things
But on net I atleast try to be honest.
so thanks a lot for being so understanding.
Bijaya
Reply | | Report Abuse
Bijaya...:-) believe me I agree. I am appalled at the USA choosing Paki help over India it was another HUGE blundrer of Bush's. one that is less talked about here yet as stupid as Iraq. ... you certainly do not need to apologize.
Reply | | Report Abuse
- 1
- 2
- 3
Displaying 1 - 10 of 24 Blog Comments