Mr. raghvan, the author of this article says, India can withdraw any facility out of safeguards merely after a notification to IAEA, but the clause 32 clearly states that will happen only after a joint determination by IAEA and india(it's basically a determination by IAEA!) that the facility has become useless for any purpose. So the safeguards are for perpetuity! I understand India can develop an entirely indigenous civilian facilty which will not be placed on safeguards, am I right? For that matter, can india develop new military facilities in future? Do correct me if u anybody thinks i am wrong as I don't have the holier than thou attictude of congressmen.
RE:Safeguards agreement good, but analysis flawed
by All Right on Jul 11, 2008 01:25 PM Permalink
Joint determination is joint determination.
So what if safeguards are for perpetuity. No reactor is for perpetuity. They have a productive life and most of the reactors we put under the deal has 10-15 years life left.
Our militrary facilities are out of the deal, whether present or future.
It is up to us to put any future civilian facilities under IAEA inspection regime
RE:Safeguards agreement good, but analysis flawed
by Aditya Sinha on Jul 11, 2008 08:41 PM Permalink
'Joint determination is joint determination.' So if IAEA says a particular reactor is no longer of any use and need not be under any safeguards, India can independently evaluate and say that the reactor is of use and should still be safeguarded. 'Aa bail mujhe maar'.
RE:Safeguards agreement good, but analysis flawed
by critic on Jul 11, 2008 12:21 PM Permalink
Mr Raghawan is also misinterpreting the whole issue! Where is the official draft ISSUED BY the UPA GOVT. Anyone has got a clue? SORRY IT IS A SORDID STINKING AFFAIR!
RE:Safeguards agreement good, but analysis flawed
by Sahadevan KK on Jul 11, 2008 04:47 PM Permalink
All clauses have faults. The deal made to become FAULTS. It is anti-national. Full of lies around it. LEFT PARTIES ARE PATRIOTS. BJP AND CONGRESS ARE ANTI-NATIONALS.
