Some of the features of the Indo – US nuke deal -
1.The Nuclear Suppliers' Group (NSG) has to change rules to accommodate India, and for this the Hyde's act asks for a permanent ban on nuclear tests.
2.Access to uranium would be tightly regulated (by whom, we know).
3.All civil nuclear fuel-cycle technologies would be prohibited (including spent fuel reprocessing. Reprocessed fuel may be used in weapons - as suggested by the Bush administration in the Iran imbroglio).
4.The NSG has the right to demand the return of transferred items and material (including fuel, which the deal promises India to have).
5.Forced shutdown of Cirus, one of the two research reactors in India, producing weapons grade plutonium.
6.India is to be barred from ever halting international inspection of its entire civil nuclear program, even if the US unilaterally terminated cooperation.
My hugely pessimistic views on these clauses -
1.Being opposed to having and developing nuclear arms, I would not mind India stopping the development of nuclear weapons. But that decision should be taken by India alone and not be imposed by any other nation in the world. It is easy for one to ask the other to stop smoking, when the first one himself has a cigar between his lips.
2.This looks like a way through which the countries (read the US) can pull the strings on India's foreign policy. We saw India vote against Iran in the IAEA just as the deal was being discussed. What would be the scene once the deal is operational?
3.One of the reasons environment groups like the Greenpeace opposed nuclear energy is the matter of spent fuel. No full proof method is available to dispose spent fuel. People may say they have methods, but can they say this with complete conviction? Fuel reprocessing is one way by which we could reduce the harms of the spent fuel. In the sense, the spent fuel after one cycle of energy generation may be reprocessed, and used again as fuel for energy generation. This would mean that the final spent fuel, is much less radioactive when compared to the spent fuel after the first stage of generation. By imposing a ban on fuel reprocessing we have a question to answer – what to do with the spent fuel? Can we just send the spent fuel to these developing countries who themselves are worried about the amounts of spent fuel being generated in their own lands?
* The six points of the deal have been taken from the article Emulate America's bipartisan handling, written by Brahma Chellaney, published as the leader page article in the Hindu dated 28 June 2008.
Read the article here - http://www.hindu.com/2008/06/28/stories/2008062853981000.htm
1.The Nuclear Suppliers' Group (NSG) has to change rules to accommodate India, and for this the Hyde's act asks for a permanent ban on nuclear tests.
2.Access to uranium would be tightly regulated (by whom, we know).
3.All civil nuclear fuel-cycle technologies would be prohibited (including spent fuel reprocessing. Reprocessed fuel may be used in weapons - as suggested by the Bush administration in the Iran imbroglio).
4.The NSG has the right to demand the return of transferred items and material (including fuel, which the deal promises India to have).
5.Forced shutdown of Cirus, one of the two research reactors in India, producing weapons grade plutonium.
6.India is to be barred from ever halting international inspection of its entire civil nuclear program, even if the US unilaterally terminated cooperation.
My hugely pessimistic views on these clauses -
1.Being opposed to having and developing nuclear arms, I would not mind India stopping the development of nuclear weapons. But that decision should be taken by India alone and not be imposed by any other nation in the world. It is easy for one to ask the other to stop smoking, when the first one himself has a cigar between his lips.
2.This looks like a way through which the countries (read the US) can pull the strings on India's foreign policy. We saw India vote against Iran in the IAEA just as the deal was being discussed. What would be the scene once the deal is operational?
3.One of the reasons environment groups like the Greenpeace opposed nuclear energy is the matter of spent fuel. No full proof method is available to dispose spent fuel. People may say they have methods, but can they say this with complete conviction? Fuel reprocessing is one way by which we could reduce the harms of the spent fuel. In the sense, the spent fuel after one cycle of energy generation may be reprocessed, and used again as fuel for energy generation. This would mean that the final spent fuel, is much less radioactive when compared to the spent fuel after the first stage of generation. By imposing a ban on fuel reprocessing we have a question to answer – what to do with the spent fuel? Can we just send the spent fuel to these developing countries who themselves are worried about the amounts of spent fuel being generated in their own lands?
* The six points of the deal have been taken from the article Emulate America's bipartisan handling, written by Brahma Chellaney, published as the leader page article in the Hindu dated 28 June 2008.
Read the article here - http://www.hindu.com/2008/06/28/stories/2008062853981000.htm
3 comments:
I'm sure your views echo throughout the rest of the nation except the Congress Party, which fortunately does not look likely to hold on to its position for long.
In a sense, the inclusion of the unfavourable (to India) provisions in the Hyde Act was to be expected. To ask the NSG to modify their provisions exclusively for India thereby granting us privileged status would naturally induce the powers that be to demand their pound of flesh.
Bottom-line is: Having nuclear arms gives a country leverage on the International stage, especially a country not in the Security Council. Giving up that leverage is not an option.
Allowing us access to nuclear technology and raw-materials is theirs to give not ours to demand.
Should the deal become operational we would be giving up that leverage in exchange for nuclear goodies. Should the goodies then be snatched away, we would not be able to regain the position we enjoy today on the International stage.
It is saddening to watch an erudite man as Dr. Manmohan Singh become blind-sided by political or other forces.
what I have been trying to figure out for many months now is, "why is Dr. Singh so much for this deal? Do they ( being in the govt. ) know more than what the general public is privy to, currently? There has to be some reason.... there has to be....hmmmmm.... do you have your thoughts on this?
lik anup said..i probably was assumin dr.singh was acting on wat the congress want to be done..but for a person,who we have considered to be not politically baised in his ideas like Dr.A.P.J.Abdul Kalam to also say that it is good for the country.
and therefore again the question, do the higher ups know more about this deal, than what meets the public eye..??
Post a Comment