//The government also ruled out putting Fast Breeder Test Reactors under the IAEA safeguards // This is the UPA Govt's position on fast breeder reactors. However read the below from US Department of state website.
CRITICS: Only 14 of India's 22 nuclear power reactors will be safeguarded under its separation plan, and India's two developmental fast breeder reactors will remain unsafeguarded. With these facilities, India can produce enough nuclear weapons to significantly expand its current arsenal.
COUNTERPOINT: The understanding we have reached with India will significantly increase the number of Indian nuclear reactors under IAEA safeguards, as well as bring associated facilities under safeguards. At present, only four of India's nuclear power reactors are under safeguards. Under its civil-military separation plan, India has agreed to place the majority of its existing nuclear power reactors and those under construction under safeguards and to place the other associated upstream and downstream facilities that support those reactors under safeguards. Furthermore, India has committed to place all future civilian power and fast breeder reactors under safeguards.
It says India has committed to place all future civilian and fast breeder reactors under safeguards! So who is saying the truth?
//Asked whether India could withdraw from the agreement if supplies were disrupted to a particular facility, Narayanan said if such a situation arises, India would have the right to take c
RE:Clarification -
by Chandramouly V on Jul 13, 2008 07:23 PM Permalink
//Asked whether India could withdraw from the agreement if supplies were disrupted to a particular facility, Narayanan said if such a situation arises, India would have the right to take corrective steps. Kakodkar said the "corrective" measures will include legal steps. The corrective steps will depend on the threat of disruption to a nuclear facility. //
So according to this, India cannot withdraw from the agreement. That is very clear. What it can do is only "corrective" measures. What is that corrective measure mean?? nobody knows, not even the UPA govt. Because it knows that it cannot do anything. Also legal steps? what are the legal steps you can take??The 123 agreement is not even covered under International arbitration or International law (unlike the China 123 agreement). And hence India can also do a discussion, protracted discussion and arm twisting. Otherwise, it can only sit and watch if there is a fuel disruption!
//In this regard, he cited the provision for uninterrupted supplies and creation of strategic reserve for the lifetime of a reactor// Where is the uniterrupted supplies provision my dear?? //If there is disruption in supplies, India will report it to the IAEA, Kakodkar said. He, however, added that discontinuation will not happen suddenly as there is provision for discussions.// Exactly, that is what India can do. Just report to IAEA. IAEA being a monitoring entity cannot do anything but issue statement. End of the day you will only engage in discussion without any action. The truth is you cannot take any action. You can only appoint a committee and discuss. And we all know what will happen to these committees!
//"We are a nuclear weapon state. We know that and the world knows that. We should not worry about that," he said. He maintained that the definition of nuclear weapon state was derived from NPT, of which India is not a part. // Yes, we all know that India has nuclear weapons but that doesnt guarantee a recognition. Recognition is granted via the NPT. If you are recognised there are lot of benefits in safeguards agreement. Currently whatever China (being a Nuclear weapons state per NPT) will have favourable safeguards controls and conditions than what Iran is having (being a Non-nuclear weapons status country). That is one of the reason India refused to sign the NPT in the first place!!.
RE:RE:RE:Clarification -
by Chandramouly V on Jul 13, 2008 07:24 PM Permalink
//To press his point, he said the IAEA safeguards agreement recognises that India has a nuclear programme outside the civil nuclear programme.// Where does the safeguards agreement say Mr?? which clause pls?
RE:Clarification -
by AK on Jul 13, 2008 07:44 PM Permalink
This is what I have been saying under clause 10.
Since India is not a signatory to NPT & CTBT, it is not recognized as a nuclear weapon state. So we do not have any other rights but have obligations under International Laws.
RE:RE:RE:Clarification -
by Chandramouly V on Jul 14, 2008 10:19 AM Permalink
Signing NPT/CTBT also does not recognise you as a Nuke weapons state. You should have exploded your Nuke device prior to Oct 1 1967; This is the fundamental discrimination which India objected to and said we will not sign the NPT.
RE:Clarification -
by AK on Jul 14, 2008 11:02 AM Permalink
Stand corrected. Since India is not a recognized nuclear weapons state, we do not have any rights but MAY have obligations under other International Laws (NPT & CTBT).
RE:RE:Clarification -
by All Right on Jul 14, 2008 08:59 AM Permalink
Chandramouly V:
I agree to most of your points. In that regard we are thinking along similar lines. However, one small correction.
IAEA safeguards do recognise that India has a nuclear programme outside the civil nuclear programme. In fact this is what Kakodkar should have also brought up when asked about Nuclear weapon status.
This mention is made in the preamble of the document (page 3 of 29 in the PDF available on Rediff site):
Noting the relevance for this Agreement of the understandings between India and the United States of America expressed in the India-U.S. Joint Statement of 18 July 2005, in which India, inter alia, has stated its willingness: - To identify and separate its civilian and military nuclear facilities and programmes in a phased manner;
I understand your point that this is a very oblique reference quoting from a bilateral agreement signed 3 years ago between India and USA,... :-)
Nevertheless the mention about India's military programme is there -- for whatever it is worth.. ;-)
RE:Clarification -
by Chandramouly V on Jul 14, 2008 10:14 AM Permalink
Simply putting those statements in the preamble of the safeguards agreement does not recognise you as a Nuclear status. What does that benefit India by this statement in Preamble?? Does it provide them the same rights as a nuclear weapons state in the safeguards agreement with IAEA? No; Countries which are recognised as nuke state accept only "voluntary", "revocable" inspections, with just a total of 11 facilities in the U.S., China, Britain, France and Russia currently open to IAEA inspection. The IAEA conducts only token inspections on these facilities offered for safeguards. Moreover, these five nuclear powers have the sovereign right to terminate their safeguards agreement with the IAEA. This is precisely the reason India objected to and did not sign the NPT citing discrimination between Nuke have's and have nots (then). Whereas what India has come out with the IAEA is "Irrevocable" IAEA inspection and in addition to that US inspection as well. Also there is no right with India to voluntarily terminate the agreement and walk off. So what is the point in making a cursory mention in the preamble that we have a Nuke facility? It doesnt mean anything. The Govt knows this, the IAEA knows this, the NSG and the US knows this. This preamble is only to hogwash the Indian public.
RE:Clarification -
by AK on Jul 14, 2008 10:34 AM Permalink
Preamble is always an important part of any Agreement. It recognizes the presentr status and from which the two parties move forward. It is not a hogwash.
Agreement does not mention anything about IAEA's role in the separated military installations. So far so good.
The main problem is India accepts its obligations under International Laws, whether it is signatory or not (my opinion & concern that I am trying get addressed logically and legally).
