Masthead graphic based on a painting by Gudrun Thriemer.

Showing posts with label nuclear suppliers group. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nuclear suppliers group. Show all posts

Sunday, September 07, 2008

"NPT RIP and reflections on consensus," September 6, 2008.

"...for the first time in my experience of international diplomatic negotiations, a consensus decision was followed by complete silence in the room. No clapping, nothing. It showed a lot of us felt pressured...


VIENNA, Sept 6 (Reuters) - Forty-five nations approved a U.S. proposal on Saturday to lift a global ban on nuclear trade with India in a breakthrough towards sealing a U.S.-Indian atomic energy deal.

One hurdle remained before the U.S.-India deal can take force -- ratification by the U.S. Congress. It must act before adjourning in late September for elections or the deal could be left to an uncertain fate under a new U.S. administration.

The U.S.-India deal raised international misgivings since India has shunned the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) meant to stop the spread and production of nuclear weapons and mandate gradual disarmament, and a companion test ban pact.

Washington says the fuel and technology deal would forge a strategic partnership with the world's largest democracy, help India meet rising energy demand in an environmentally sound way and open a nuclear market worth billions of dollars.

Read the rest here =>
Recommend this Post


More =>

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, September 03, 2008

A Siddique, "The NSG's sobering message," The Daily Mail, September 3, 2008.

[This report from Pakistan mentions some details about the Canadian negotiating position. -jlt]

Canada, Japan and Australia want inclusion of tighter exemption notes in the NSG waiver insisting upon the denial of enrichment and reprocessing technologies that would facilitate India to quantitatively upgrade her nuclear weapons program. Some countries, including Canada have also recommended institutionalization of a monitoring or review mechanism to ensure that India, which has primarily rested her case for the Indo – US Nuclear Deal on acquisition of nuclear based energy, should not misuse the technology for advancing her nuclear weapons program.

THE 45 member NSG plenary meeting, held in Vienna from 21 – 22 August, to clear the way for the highly paradoxical Indo US Nuclear Deal, has come about as a major disappointment to India as well as US. Not unexpectedly, many areas of discord emerged making the session inconclusive and the forum dispersed to meet again on Sep 5-6 in Vienna. A hint of disappointment, even frustration was in the air; not that the resistance was unexpected. This was made obvious by the emergence of an unmistakable edge to the tone of Indian officials and the hint of self righteous, even overbearing Indian rhetoric, directed at the countries who called into question the rationale of the waiver recommended by US to bring India into mainstream of nuclear trade. Some emerging deadlines, too, imparted a touch of make or break urgency to the ambience. With the approaching US elections scheduled in November this year as well as the convening of the Congress session due for 8 September and lasting till 26, the clock is beginning to tick for the deal. Bush Administration is keen to wrap it up as a major foreign policy feather in the cap before the President turns into a lame duck and the matter is referred to the new administration for consideration.

It is ironic that the NSG which controls the sale of nuclear technology world wide, and is now deliberating the modalities of opening its doors to India, came into being specifically in response to the nuclear detonations by India in 1974. There was a wide spread indignation then that India had grossly misused the nuclear reactor provided by US and Canada for civilian nuclear research to purloin plutonium that was used for developing a nuclear device. It speaks of the change in the global imperatives that NSG was meeting now in Vienna to debate the proposed draft US waiver that would open for India the route to trade in nuclear technology and materials without signing the NPT.

Read the rest here =>
Recommend this Post


More =>

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, August 06, 2008

Explain again how India's nukes are unique. Canada decides not to "step up."

According to Anil Kakodkar, the Chairman of India's Atomic Energy Commission, his country has already harmonized its export control requirements with that of Nuclear Suppliers Group. All India wants now is a clean and unconditional waiver. Out of the penalty box indeed.

"NSG guidelines require comprehensive safeguards applicable only to NPT countries and since India has both civil and military programmes [and has not signed the NPT and doesn't propose to], we have a unique position.

"Therefore, such comprehensive safeguards are not relevant to India. Therefore clean exemption is what we are seeking," Kakodkar said, adding, "NSG should exempt India from the requirement of comprehensive safeguards and add no other conditions."

A special meeting of the NSG is scheduled for August 21.

The International Atomic Energy Agency's Board of Governors has already cut a special set of rules that applies only to India.

"Conditions will only take away from one hand what has been given from the other," he said.

Indian columnist Shobori Ganguli argues that

"India has already committed itself to the non-proliferation regime de facto through the 123 Agreement which is bound by the Hyde Act and the IAEA safeguards bound by the Additional Protocol. Both these documents are clear that nuclear cooperation would cease between India and the US as also with other countries if non-proliferation norms are violated."


India's Economic Times sees a "gang" of countries standing between India and a "clean" NSG waiver and describes this opposition as "temper tantrums" by the countries involved.

Japan, for instance, may insist on India acceding to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, steps also proposed by Ernie Regehr at the Canadian NGO Project Ploughshares though NGOs are no part of the Nuclear Supplier Group. Indications from the earlier negotiations at the IAEA are that Ireland and Austria want similar commitments to the NPT and the CTBT.

According to Ganguli, "New Delhi is comfortable as long as this remains a "request". Were it to become a "condition" for an NSG waiver, the Manmohan Singh Government could well face some discomfort." She believes that Japan will ultimately agree, having as big an economic interest in nuclear trade with India as anyone else.

Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Washington, DC-based Arms Control Association, told India Abroad that India's desire for a "clear waiver" was "a fantasy." Kimball believes that "the NSG countries are going to insist upon some commonsense restrictions on nuclear trade with India and conditions that are roughly similar to the major requirements set forth in the Hyde Act."

Kimball names Austria, New Zealand, Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland among those who have "qualms." Canada is not on that list.

Last November a Canadian Foreign Affairs Departmental Performance report said, "If the Nuclear Suppliers Group agrees to exempt India from it's guidelines, Canada will pursue nuclear co-operation with India, which would provide substantial commercial opportunities for Canada." (Embassy Aug 6 08)

Kam Rathee, president and executive director of Canada-India Business Council, finds the fault with Canada, not India. Referring to the Harper government's secrecy about its position, Rathee says if Canada does vote against the lifting of nuclear exemptions, relations with India will be irrevocably damaged.

"It's like an engagement which will not turn into marriage if we don't work with India on this one. We need to show our good faith in this," he said


However, Kimball finds the Indian press "very accommodating to the official stand of the government." He explains in some detail why the NSG is unlikely to come to a final decision in time for the US Congress to act before elections in November. Read the whole interview here =>

Ironically, the Nuclear Suppliers Group was established in 1974 following India's surprise detonation of a nuclear explosive on May 18 as part of the Atoms for Peace program. The test gave the lie to the illusion long held by and actively promoted by many in the nuclear establishment that that nuclear technology transferred for peaceful purposes could not be used for warlike purposes.

It is believed that India began work on a thermonuclear device in the 1980s and after not testing for 24 years, resumed tests of devices including thermonuclear devices in April 1998, after Pakistan's test-firing of its Ghauri missile.

What makes India unique is the particular style of sophistry that has been used to cover for its nuclear program. What is not unique is the opportunity that one and all see as just about the only salvation for the failing global economy. Like the arms trade, nuclear traffic occurs between states and large corporations well beyond the influence of normal market forces or democratic processes. Recommend this Post


More =>

Sphere: Related Content

Friday, July 25, 2008

B.Raman, "Nuclear Trade With India : China’s Role in NSG," Chennai Centre for China Studies, July 24, 2008.

[This paper from India raises the possibility, perhaps unintentionally, that approval of nuclear trade between Indian and the US will open the door to a permanent seat for India on the UN Security Council because

Pakistan has suggested to China that the two should co-ordinate their positions at Vienna just as they had co-ordinated their positions on the issue of permanent membership of the UN Security Council for India.

The next three steps in India’s quest for civilian nuclear energy would be the approval of the draft of the India-specific safeguards agreement jointly prepared by officials of the Government of India and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) by the Board of Governors of the IAEA before it is formally signed by India and the IAEA, a consensus in the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group (NSG) on the removal of the restrictions on nuclear trade with India and the approval of the agreement (known as the 123 agreement) reached by the officials of the US and India by the US Congress.


2. While the decisions of the IAEA and the NSG would determine the conditions under which the member-countries of the IAEA and the NSG would trade with India in civilian nuclear matters, the US Congress would decide the conditions under which the US would trade with India in the nuclear field.

Read the rest, including the annexed earlier paper, here =>
Recommend this Post


More =>

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, May 07, 2008

Wade Boese, "US Joins Others Seeking Nuclear Export Criteria," Arms Control Today, May 08.

The United States recently gave up its campaign to convince other nuclear suppliers to prohibit certain sensitive nuclear exports. It has now joined an alternative effort to adopt criteria to strictly limit such transactions, although Canada and a few other countries have objected to some aspects of the initiative.

A week after the Feb. 4, 2004, revelation of the Abdul Qadeer Khan nuclear black-market network, President George W. Bush proposed several initiatives to curb the spread of nuclear material and technology. (See ACT, March 2004.) One of those proposals urged suppliers not to transfer uranium-enrichment and plutonium reprocessing technologies to states without existing facilities for those purposes. Both capabilities can be used to produce nuclear fuel as well as nuclear weapons, but Bush argued that “enrichment and reprocessing are not necessary for nations seeking to harness nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.”

Although not all of them are currently operating, enrichment and/or reprocessing facilities exist in 15 countries: Argentina, Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, Iran, Israel, Japan, the Netherlands, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Of those states, Argentina, Brazil, Germany, Japan, and the Netherlands have not developed nuclear weapons or are not under suspicion of covertly pursuing such arms.

[...]

Canada, as well as South Africa reportedly to a lesser extent, have objected to the black box approach, arguing that it conflicts with an NPT provision allowing countries to acquire and develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. Both countries have significant uranium deposits and are eyeing the option of trying to profit more from developing the capacity to enrich the uranium for sale as nuclear fuel rather than simply exporting uranium.

...Canada’s well-known opposition to the US black box approach casts doubt on whether it will again support extending the moratorium [by the G8 on enrichment and reprocessing technology transfer.]

Read the whole article =>
Recommend this Post


More =>

Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, April 19, 2008

Neil King Jr, "US ends effort to ban sale of enrichment technology," Wall Street Journal, April 19,2008.

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration has given up its push for an international ban on sales of uranium-enrichment technology to nonnuclear states, a move that will complicate its nuclear diplomacy toward both Iran and India, and could open the way for a wave of new entrants into the enrichment club.

The concession was made under heavy pressure from Canada, which wants the right to build uranium-enrichment plants to export the lucrative enriched fuel for nuclear-power plants. It marks an about-face for President Bush, who called in February 2004 for a ban on new countries becoming enrichment powers. The U.S. then persuaded Canada and other reluctant members of the Group of Eight top industrialized countries to agree to a nuclear-sales moratorium, a ban the group has renewed every year since....

The policy shift within the administration comes after lengthy debate between the White House and the State Department over how to accommodate Canada's quest to become an enrichment state. Canada produces, and then exports in raw form, more than a quarter of the world's uranium....

To read the whole =>
Recommend this Post


More =>

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

S Rajagopalan, "23 US organisations launch coalition to block N-deal," NewIndPress.com, January 17, 2008.

These reasons to feel uplifted must be balanced against other reasons to believe that parallel civil society organizations in India and Pakistan have been marginalized. More on that later.

Jim

=====

WASHINGTON: In a new move aimed at blocking the Indo-US civil nuclear deal, 23 different American organisations have got together and launched a coalition to work with the US Congress and groups in 24 countries on this issue.


Announcing its “Campaign for Responsibility in Nuclear Trade”, the coalition claimed that the Indo-US pact would “dangerously weaken” non-proliferation efforts, embolden Iran and North Korea to develop nuclear weapons and “further destabilise” South Asia, particularly Pakistan.

Read the rest of this article.Recommend this Post


More =>

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, January 09, 2008

"Critics try to sway debate on US-India nuclear deal," Reuters.

Nearly 100 nongovernmental organizations and 25 individuals made their case in a letter to the 45 nations of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, which governs international nuclear trade, and to some board members of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog.

[The letter calls on the IAEA and the NSG to ensure that the deal does not jeopardize the international nonproliferation regime. It calls on India to stop producing fissile material for atomic bombs and to permanently end nuclear testing.In India, the deal is criticized by the Communist coalition members of the ruling Congress Party, who believe it would infringe on Indian sovereignty. -jlt]


Creative Commons License


This article is published by James Terral under a Creative Commons licence. You may republish it free of charge, wholly or in part, with attribution and for non-commercial purposes following these guidelines. Commercial media must contact World Report worldreport (at) cjly dot net for permission and fees. Some postings on this site are published under different terms.


For example, this site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. World Report makes this material available in order to advance understanding of the issues by reporting, reviewing, and criticizing relevant public statements.

Canada's Copyright Act specifies in sections 29.1-29.3 that “fair dealing for the purpose of criticism, review, or news reporting does not infringe copyright if the following are mentioned:
(a) the source; and
(b) if given in the source, the name of the
(i) author, in the case of a work,
(ii) performer, in the case of a performer's performance,
(iii) maker, in the case of a sound recording, or
(iv)broadcaster, in the case of a communication signal.
Recommend this Post


More =>

Sphere: Related Content