India's response in case of an NSG Snub

The simple and elegant legal argument of US, Russia and all 44 NSG is this: This amendment is a mere codification of the existing internal law of US, France and Russia in from 2008, which was soft international law. This soft international law was expressed and explicitly stated by the US diplomats and politicians in the congress when such questions on ENR were raised in 2007, by the french ambassador before India signed the agreement in 2008 and by Russian diplomats in 2008 before the bilateral agreement was signed . All of these are assertions of customary international law and such statements carry the force of International law. They re-affirmed the position at the G8 summit preventing ENR to all non NPT countries. In 2011 they codified soft international law into hard law. International Law 101. So nothing has changed. So really the exemption is the same. Legally this is their position. It's consistent. If nothing changed in 2008 is the same as 2011 agreements. There is a waiver to India on intrusive inspections for further nuclear co-operation. There is something called explicit expression of intent to change. So whatever is explicitly changed remains changed. So the 2008 change was explicit on no intrusive inspections in India. This is explicit. There is no explicit obligation on not changing any NSG rules which will apply to India henceforth on nuclear transactions. You did not get that obligation and you will never get such a blanket statement from 45 countries. Just like you can't say I am not in UN security council and so the resolutions will not apply on me.

The U.S. official said that NSG members had begun discussing a list of criteria for enrichment- and reprocessing-related exports in 2004 and, by the end of the year, had agreed that NPT membership should be a criterion. The plans for U.S.-Indian nuclear cooperation were announced in July 2005. (See ACT, September 2005.)

The official also noted that the text of the 2008 NSG decision exempts India only from the section of the NSG guidelines dealing with the requirement for full-scope safeguards and specifically says that “transfers of sensitive exports remain subject to paragraphs 6 and 7.”

In a June 30 interview, a European diplomat agreed that, under the guidelines, India could not receive enrichment and reprocessing technology. India’s Ministry of External Affairs and its embassy in Washington did not respond to requests for comment.

Now please don't go around in circles. I have rebutted all your arguments line by line. I have given legal reasons why they are not applicable.

Also in one of your statements which I did not notice earlier you stated no country has transferred ENR to anyone else. A lot of them have. US transferred such technology to Japan in 1990s. Russia transferred such technology to China. UK transferred such technology to Europe and urenco. There are multiple examples. So that is also factually incorrect.

yes you are right they begain discussing it in 2004, but theydid not put this ban on ENR on India in the 2008 agreement.

in 2008 waiver they removed the full scope safe guards, because it was there is pre 2008 NSG guidelines, and also referend to paragraph 6) and paragraph 7) relating to ENR transfers

paragraphs 6) and 7) of 2008 are


Suppliers should exercise restraint in the transfer of sensitive facilities, technology and material usable for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. If enrichment or reprocessing facilities, equipment or technology are to be transferred, suppliers should encourage recipients to accept, as an alternative to national plants, supplier involvement and/or other appropriate multinational participation in resulting facilities. Suppliers should also promote international (including IAEA) activities concerned with multinational regional fuel cycle centres.

Similarly, the unamended paragraph 7 noted:


For a transfer of an enrichment facility, or technology therefor, the recipient nation should agree that neither the transferred facility, nor any facility based on such technology, will be designed or operated for the production of greater than 20% enriched uranium without the consent of the supplier nation, of which the IAEA should be advised.

there is no ban of ENR on India.
also 2011 NSG statement of clearly underlined that the NSG would implement the India-specific exemptions fully.
which means India specific guidelines passed in 2008 full apply to India. the 2011 guidelines are also applicable to everbody, but not to India, because
2008 guidlines were not nullified. you are presuming that 2011 guidelines automatically supersecde 2008 guidelines, I completely diasagree with this point of view. if India would got waiver in 2012 with exact same text as that of 2008, then the ENR ban would have been also applicable to India. but India's waiver document of 2008 has not been touched by NSG in 2011 paragraph 7) guidelines. there is no automatic replacement of paragraph 7) of 2011 with paragraph 7) of 2008 agreement, because of the fact they touched upon the same issue. German chancellar angela merkel specifically stated ( officialy ) that India specific guidelines were still fully in place along with the 2011 guidelines. 2008 india specific guidelines has the full ENR provision in them . that is the reason
in 2008 when it came to ENR provisions, there were long negotitations. even though G-8 countries were plannning to put these provisions long back in india's waiver, they did do it in the India text. India NSG text is different text then the rest of the guildlines.

pre 2008 guidelines regarding full scope safeguards are in place, 2011 NON-NPT paragraph 7 is also true, but also true is the 2008 full scope waiver for India, along with the ENR guidelines of paragraph 6) and 7) of 2008. all these three things are still valid.

Like i told you just because the guildeline have been adopted in 2011 do not automatically supercede in India's case. India's document is still valid as it was in 2008, however full scope safe guards ( pre 2008 ) and NON NPT pragraph 7) of 2011 are also valid, but india's waiver is also equally valid. you are not able to conmprehend that the Indian waiver stands in parallel to all other NSG guidelines. nobody has touched upon the India waiver in the 2011 NSG meeting, all countries after 2011 guidelines said offcially that India waiver stand valid as it was in 2008. and 2008 waiver clearly has ENR provisions according to paragraph 6) and paragraph 7) of the NSG.

so again to make my point little more clear :

1) full scope safeguard agreement of pre 2008 is also in place, it is still an NSG guideline
2) 2011 NON - NPT paragraph 7) is also in place. it is still valid
3) India specific 2008 waiver from full scope safeguard is also valid.
4) India specific ENR provisions of 2008 according to the paragraph 6) and 7) of 2008 are also valid.

all the the four point are valid. it is just that in India's case India goes by the 2008 case and not by other general guidelines.
since 2008 India specific guildlines are fully in place. unless they specifically nullify them that docuement is fully in place.
along with the other general guidelines.

don't get confused with automatic superceding wht india case. India document is still very much in place in the same wat as it was in 2008, I repeat 2011 paragraph 7) does not supercede paragraph 7) of 2008 when it comes to India.

also pre 2008 full scope safe guards are no applicable to india, but they are still valid to other countries. India NSG agreement if different.

just the way they had to specifically issue seperate guidelines for India , in 2008 they will have specifically nullify those guilelines, for the general guidelines to supercede. they did not not do it in 2011. they just passed general guideline in 2011 and did not touch 2008 NSG guideline.

I feel sorry that you cannot comprehend the fact that India waiver is a seperate text than the other guidelines.
what india do and can't do in documented in 2008 document. pre 2008 full scope guidelines and post 2011 paragraph 7) are general guidelines and are in no way superceding or preceding 2008 india text.

We are back full circle. My first post discussed this exact point where I pasted the proviso. The interpretation of the proviso. Arun Shorie said this in 2009 and gave the exact same interpretation. Lots of legal commentators have said the same in 2009. I have posted an argument why 2011 rules apply in my previous post read it. It's the way law and legal systems work. There is nothing special about 2008 being unnameable. The 2008 agreement itself says it's amendable by NSG. So your insistance that 2008 apply and not 2011 applies does not hold water. Even if we apply 2008 only look at the American logic given above it addresses that also. You will not read the American explanation. You will go back to something else. Then come back to 2008. It's circular. So I will start with 2008 only.

Let's give you this assumption only for the sake of argumentation. We have to follow only 2008. Agreement: Look at the American position.

The U.S. official said that NSG members had begun discussing a list of criteria for enrichment- and reprocessing-related exports in 2004 and, by the end of the year, had agreed that NPT membership should be a criterion. The plans for U.S.-Indian nuclear cooperation were announced in July 2005. (See ACT, September 2005.)

The official also noted that the text of the 2008 NSG decision exempts India only from the section of the NSG guidelines dealing with the requirement for full-scope safeguards and specifically says that “transfers of sensitive exports remain subject to paragraphs 6 and 7.”

From your logic:

paragraphs 6) and 7) of 2008 are


Suppliers should exercise restraint in the transfer of sensitive facilities, technology and material usable for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. If enrichment or reprocessing facilities, equipment or technology are to be transferred, suppliers should encourage recipients to accept, as an alternative to national plants, supplier involvement and/or other appropriate multinational participation in resulting facilities. Suppliers should also promote international (including IAEA) activities concerned with multinational regional fuel cycle centres.

Similarly, the unamended paragraph 7 noted:


For a transfer of an enrichment facility, or technology therefor, the recipient nation should agree that neither the transferred facility, nor any facility based on such technology, will be designed or operated for the production of greater than 20% enriched uranium without the consent of the supplier nation, of which the IAEA should be advised


Suppliers should exercise restraint in the transfer of sensitive facilities, technology and material usable for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. The national law of France, Russia and America from before the bilateral agreement prohibit transferring ENR to non NPT countries. This is the exercise restraint they were doing for 30 years. Presidential declaration of Putin in 2009 and French internal law dealing with ENR. (The U.S. official said that NSG members had begun discussing a list of criteria for enrichment- and reprocessing-related exports in 2004 and, by the end of the year, had agreed that NPT membership should be a criterion. The plans for U.S.-Indian nuclear cooperation were announced in July 2005. (See ACT, September 2005.)) This 2005 International agreement was codified by France, Russia and America into their internal law before they signed nuclear agreement with India. Read the amendments. Read the previous 5 pages on multiple statements to this effect. All of these were in place before they signed the agreements with India. America had this in place since 2005. So the 2008 text did not say 20/20 vision. It said people should not be blind. It said so in a different place. So even under the 2008 agreement the French ambassador refused to give ENR in the bilateral treaty. So ENR was not part of the civil deal with any country. All countries agreed to discuss ENR at a later date. That's all nothing more. Show me one legal agreement or bilateral agreement in 2008 where anyone promises to transfer ENR. Transfer ENR is not the same as discuss the possibility of ENR transfer in a later agreement.
By possibility of transfer of ENR they might mean in return for the later agreement you will give up all your weapons. Otherwise I will not give you ENR. This not a promise to transfer. This is a promise to discuss if what I get from you later is good. It also does not mean I will not abide by NSG rules which are changed. This agreement to agree could be anything under the sun or nothing at all. So no ENR transfer was promised by any of the 44 countries. You did not tell them they cannot impose these conditions on you. It's like a proposal to marry you can change your mind at any time.

Every diplomat before signing the agreement in 2008 says ENR is not part of this bilateral agreement. France, Russia and America. Only a nuclear scientist from Russia who is not part of Russian government said we will place ENR in India. No legal standing for him as he was not even part of the governmental program. So they all got together and did you know what to you. Soft state. No one gave you ENR in 2008 and no one promised to give you ENR in 2008. They only said we will discuss. Like proposal to marry. Withdrawn now I got all I wanted from you.

So even here your argument fails.

All the statement after 2008 state, nothing has changed since 2008. It's called hyperbole. Read what it means. No one has stated after that that ENR transfer is part of 2008 agreement. You can interpret it to include ENR. None of the 44 countries have interpreted it this way. Only India has in it's assertions in Parliament. It never was part of it. So No ENR. Now it has become harder. Not only does 2008 apply 2011 also applies. When changes are being made in G8 you say, we are not bound by it. G8 is nobody. When it got to NSG, we are not bound by it. You are bound by it. Not legal view points. You can keep parroting it. Circular motion starts here.

Now go back and read why specific trumps General and why later general trumps specific if passed at a later date. Also certain part of specific can survive the later general if such parts of specific are not amended by later general.

Please provide legal basis for your arguments. They have none under International law. I have pointed to you everything with legal principles. I have rebutted all your arguments over and over and over again. You keep going in circles. You don't have any new arguments here or rebuttals for my previous arguments. Given you will repeat things I will end the discussion here. You can continue your circular journey. Just read what I have written all the answers to your questions are there. Most of your further objections will also have answers in my previous posts. You are going round and round the merry go around.

general trumps for all the general categories and not for India category. India is not in the general class. that's what I'm trying to explain you. after 2008 India class is different, automatic superceding of clauses is not for India, but for general category.

again you making fuss about the date of the guideline amendment, I'm argiung about the context of the amendment.
India is not general category, after 2008 India specific guideline is still in place. you just thumping about superceding clauses, I again say that is not thecase for india. they tried to prohibit ENR sale to india in 2008 agreement, but India stuck to its point that nuclear co poration wouldbe for the full spectrum of the civilian nuclear domain. if they were so determined they would put the same restriction in 2008, for the better part would have kept mum on the ENR all together.

they specifically mentiond ENR in 2008 agreement. just because general guidelines has been passed post 2008 and it touch upon the same subject as that of the 2008 agreement, does not mean that it will automatically supercede the India clause. India text is not general text my dear sir. India is not in the general
compartment. for India there is seperate compartment. unless they nullify the 2008 ENR provision for india, 2011 ENR provision will not automatically supercdede India. this is exactly what SM krishna refered to in the parlimanet. you are just thiking that india specific 2008 guidelines are valid only in 2008 for india. after 2008 India automatically falls in to the general category. I'm sorry I completely reject that point of view. India is not general category.

By possibility of transfer of ENR they might mean in return for the later agreement you will give up all your weapons. Otherwise I will not give you ENR. This not a promise to transfer. This is a promise to discuss if what I get from you later is good. It also does not mean I will not abide by NSG rules which are changed. This agreement to agree could be anything under the sun or nothing at all. So no ENR transfer was promised by any of the 44 countries. You did not tell them they cannot impose these conditions on you. It's like a proposal to marry you can change your mind at any time. This also does not mean they will not respect their Internal law on NPT which they passed prior to signing deals with India. This internal law of America, Russia, France was also re-affirmed in 2011 in NSG.

This is how international lawyers of America mess with you. They will destroy you. It's legal. It's all there in bilateral agreements. Bilateral agreements are subject to national laws unless you specifically point out the areas which do not apply in your international agreement. Otherwise any non-explicit statement is assumed to be subjugated to National law. Get it? Legal 101.
Eg: The Putin presidential declaration on ENR+NPT is not challenged by Russia India nuclear deal. The deal is subject to national laws of Russia. Now the national law of Russia is also the NSG rule. So Russia has to break NSG rules to change the national law of Russia. Good luck getting Russia, America and France to break International law and national law after 2011. In 2008 they only had to change their internal law which they did not and refused to do so standing in India, giving that declaration that ENR is not part of the deal. The deal is subject to French law.

In 2008 it was difficult, In 2011 you have to get someone to break International law to do this. No only 2008 applies to me. Ok 2011 applies to France, Russia and USA so they can't change their pre-Indian nuclear deal internal laws without breaking International law and NSG rules.

So you understand the legal mess and trishanku swarga? This is it.

Illogical. No legal basis. You can reject it but provide legal basis for rejecting it? NSG rules apply to France, America and Russia. They will follow them. Their internal law will follow NSG. You will not follow NSG. They can't change their Internal law as it will break international law from 2005 as per America. Even if the international law is only changed in 2011. America, France and Russia can't now go and change their pre-existing internal law from before the Indo-US deal. They refused to change it for you in 2008 standing in New Delhi. Read the statements of French and Russian delegations on ENR. ENR is not part of deal. Why, Internal law. back in 2008. Now in 2011, it's also the international law. You can reject the general compartment or special compartment. The trains belong to NSG not to you. They will give you the reservation not India jumping up and down in parliament. You should run trains to get special compartment not ride in train owned by 44 countries including America, France and Russia.

In law dates matter. It's called interpretation of law. It's how lawyers work. Legal system works. It's not fuss. It's law. Sorry it's the way legal system work and dates are important. Words are important. Words which appear in 2005, 2008 and 2011 are important. Changes between them are important. What's followed by countries as norms is import. Lot's of things. I have shown you how the law works and how we got messed with. Take it or leave it.

it is not breaking international law. India specific ENR agreement is still in place. there is no question of anybody breaking international law. ENR transfer as per 2008 will have no restrictions far as India's military nuclear programe . you are just confused between general category and india specific. you just ranting
on the general guidelines superceding india specific text. that is not the case here. paragraph 7) of 2011 is general and not india specific. if they have to change india specific, they will have to change the 2008 India text. it is a seperate text. please don't club general guidelines it with India specifc guidelines of 2008. they both are two different things. the reason these countries are dilly dallying are because they want more, and not because of blanket restrictions.

how come they did not put the restrictions in place for ENR in the 2008 text itself. why did NSG communicated to the IAEA in 2008 about the do and don't dos in case of india. ENR pressure was there on india right from the get go. but india sucessfully managed to include ENR provisions in 2008 text. and those provisions are not just valid for the year 2008, 2009 and 2010 only. they valid until that text is changed. as per my knowledge that text has not been touched. general guidelines are fine to follow for general people. India is not a general person. india is a special case for which there are special guidelines.

if you want to club 2008 guidelines with general guidelines then you will have club the full scope safe guard along with the pre 2008 full scope safe guard as well.
unless india specific document of 2008 is changed regarding 2008 ENR provisons, India won't be affected. you just jumpin g the gun to soon. these agreement take time. with japan we still do not even have the general agreement in place. japan always insist upon India joining NPT. see countries don't give ENR tech easily. they will give them slowly slowly.

like I said date of guidelines is not the matter, it is the context of the guidelines.

yes france , russia and america will follow NSG law. in the same NSG law india specific provisions are already in place. they won't be breaking NSG rule
by supply ENR as per paragraph 6) and 7) fo the 2008 text. how come they are not following the pre existing law about the full scope safe guards , isn't that a law also. why are they giving exemption to India from the full scope safe guard law. you just struck with date of the NSG amendment, I arguing about the context. india has not signed ENR with these countries yet, because ENR requires paragraph 6) and 7) of india. so it will take time.

as per your theory, for full scope safe guards india's 2008 text replaces the general guicelines, and for ENR, 2011 general guidelines replace the 2008 india ENR text provisons. nice analysis. what I'm trying to say is that this is a parallel arrangement you just clubbing everything into one test and reading it.
what I'am saying is that these are two different texts. Making eveything as one text , by replacing full scope safe guard with 2008 and then replacing 2008 ENR with the 2011 ENR is not that way of reading it correctly. I'm sorry I cannot disagree with you more on this.

What the hell do you mean by rant? You can't argue does not mean it's a rant. Please rebut all the above posts and arguments made. Or go on in circles. Good luck. Personal threats. P There is no inconsistency in 2008 text to IAEA. We went over this. Read post above for the arguments on why 2008 does not have ENR. Full circle again. Proviso interpretation in previous arguments which you have still not rebutted. Just making political statements is not argument.

You repeating stuff does not make you right. So you read above.
Read why even if you don't follow international law. France and America have 44 countries have to follow NSG rules. So now they have to break the rules.
You won't break them if that's your take on it. So be it. No one else will break them for you. Their law in 2008 was the same as the NSG rule change in 2011. So there will follow 2008 waiver also. It is also not contradictory to their 2008 law. which prohibits sensitive equipment transfer to non NPT signatories. What's the problem here? No problem. Just India's problem.

Blast a device and get out of this deal. This is all there is to it. Or be a second rate power. The choice is yours. Slowly slowing they will do nothing. They did nothing but curtail you in 1974. Now also it's the same. They don't want you to be strong. So sell out crowd was always there. It will always be there. The deal isn't good for us. It's horrible as I have pointed out legally. It's a mess. It's being used against you. It's a liability in the long run. The rules will keep changing and 44 countries will abide by them as they are creating it. So if you want to live in some heaven were one of the 44 will break it for you.

You have to sell your soul to get it. As I suggested earlier. Pay them 50 billion they might break the rules for you. Even then maybe. They didn't do it from 1974 until 2010. What makes you think they will not cap you further in the future? So for all further posts from you. Read previous posts of mine. All the explanations are there.
[/B]

so India specific 2008 agreement is not a rule, only general guidelines are the rules. great analysis. you can keep that analysis with you.
according to general guidelines full scope safeguards should also apply to india. aren't these countries breaking the law by giving india fuel without full scope
safeguard agreement. for full scope safe guard pre 2008 general rule does apply, but the for ENR 2011 general rule supercede the 2008 ENR rule for india.

great in depth analysis. it is just that I don't read NSG text as one text, but cutting pasting according to one interpretation. India's 2008 text is seperate. unless they changes provisions in that rule regarding ENR the general compartment rule will not be applicable to india.

Don't makeup things which I did not state. India specific agreement is part of the body of NSG rules. Nothing special about it. It's amendable by NSG when they want. All rules are subject to amendments. Read up for the rest of the analysis.

A as amended by B as amended by C is the position now.

Even if A as amended by B is the position I have shown why it will not work. Even A as amended by B had no ENR.

Where A is general body. B is Indian amendments to general body. Which includes your full scope exceptions.

So you are stating something I have never stated. I have also shown why in both cases 2008 is also no ENR and 2011 is also not ENR. If you can't read and follow what I have stated and attribute something which I have not stated you are lost.

All the NSG rules prior to 2008 apply to India. Ask any lawyer. Only changes where made to it in 2008 which modified it with some exceptions on safeguards with restrictions on ENR. Even this modification does not provide ENR. I have proved why and how it will fail. Where the legal weakness.

If you say none of the pre 2008 rules of NSG apply. You are a don't know any law. Most of the 2008 rules apply except for the exceptions granted. So you have not made any arguments. You seems to imply I am making a mistake I have not. So I will end this with a note. Just read what's written above. It's comprehensive. It's the position of law. So yeah dream on.

There is no cut and paste separately, not 2008 alone at least. It's 2008 + pre-2008. Even here I have told you the trick played by France, Russia and America with their pre Indian nuclear bilateral agreement changes to their law. Bilateral means laws of both countries unless changed in the bilateral agreement. This was later made into International law in 2011. So French, Americans and Russians never agreed to ENR transfer with you. Even if we don't consider the events after 2008 as your cut and paste theory goes.

If we consider 2011 and events after that.It's clear they don't plan on giving ENR. So no need to impute things which I have not stated.

For full scope they changed it in 2008 for you with a restriction on sensitive technologies. So they are not breaking their national law on full cope technologies. They are not breaking their law on ENR also. So there is no problem. Their law says senitive technologies will not be transferred to non NPT non additional protocol states. Your bilateral agreement doesn't require them to transfer it so they did not change that part of their internal law. Read bout 2009 Presidential Putin declaration. They are fully compliant with their rules.

Also to take your logic forward. If India tests nukes they still have to stick to 2008? They can consult and change the rules.

In a separate instance they did that in 2011. They consulted and felt India should not get ENR. They changed it. It's there in your waiver only. Special compartment. Read the waiver. Then come back.

There is no inconsistency between the waiver and denial of ENR. Sensitive technology is restricted. They inserted that text. It's all water under the bride. This is how 44 countries are interpreting it like I said. Please read international interpretations of this issue. This is also btw an issue for Brazil and Argentina. So It's all there.

Rebutt the arguments instead of repeating it. Please go read slowly. The arguments are legal. Require time to digest.
To understand how International law is formed. Read on it. International law grows from National laws. Magna carta became international humanitarian law.

Hitler killed jews. There was no law against in in 1947. How were the nazi's tried. The law is said to exist even before the nunberg trials as national law which is accepted is part of International law. This is too complex for non lawyers. So it's like teaching someone to run a 100 meters race when he is a baby. And please talk to a lawyer if you have any friends who are lawyers don't just type for the sake of typing an argument.

New Global Rules for Sensitive Nuclear Trade - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

The part of the waiver which give them the right to change things. Lawyers language.

e. Participating Governments will maintain contact and consult through regular channels, including the Consultative Group and Plenary, for the purpose of considering matters connected with the implementation of all aspects of this Statement, taking into account relevant international commitments or bilateral agreements with India. In the event that one or more Participating Governments consider that circumstances have arisen which require consultations, Participating Governments will meet, and then act in accordance with Paragraph 16 of the Guidelines.

Guess what the international commitments are as per America, Russia and France. in 2004. NO ENR transfer without NPT. Which was also in their national laws before the Indian deals were signed. So there are multiple reasons why we messed up. Indian government was in too much of a hurry. They suspected the opposition is not in national interest. They wanted glory. They also wanted to prove they did something in five year. They messed up royally. Now we need to get out of this mess.

They will keep consulting on regular channels even if there is no Paragraph 16. They will also consult on howto implement it. They consulted on ENR and decided not to give it to India.

So there are multiple places where we slipped up not just one. I have listed a lot of arguments. All of these are legally valid arguments. It's how international law works. It's not going to happen again. I don't have time for this any more. Bye.

yes NSG consulted India prior to the 2011 meeting, and they changed paragraph 7 in 2011. but at the same time they upheld the india's waiver as well.
that's why you have to read both of these in parallel . they did not mention that 2011 paragraph 7) will psupercede In case of India. each and every country
came out and upheld the the Indian waiver of 2008. you are again giving me some long list of POV's from organizations. I have also disscussed this with laywers.
if they wanted they would have changed the 2008 Indian waiver as well in 2011. but they never did that, instead along with the NON NPT paragraph 7 changes, they also upheld the Indian wiaver. indian waiver specifically nullified the full scope safe guards and provided ENR provision. if the provision has been changed in 2011 for general, it does not automatically nullify Indian ENR provisions. don't cut and paste general guidelines with indian waiver.
for india to have the 2011 paragraph 7 effect, they will have to specifically nullify the india ENR provisions, which they never did in 2011, but instead they upheld it.

the reason people are cutting and pasting is , because this kind waiver ( paralle ) never existed before. only in case of india they had to do it. all the FM said that Indian waiver is upheld. that is the reason when U.S secretary of state hillary clinton visited india after the 2011 NSG meeting, she said it is not even an issue. becuase indian specific waiver is being upheld along with the paragraph 7) changes of the 2011. both have to be read in parallel and not as one text.

when India got the waiver it specifically nullified the full scope safeguard, this amendment of 2011 did not specifically nullify the indian ENR clause. you are still giving a long list POV's. I just can't disagree more with you on this one.

e. Participating Governments will maintain contact and consult through regular channels, including the Consultative Group and Plenary, for the purpose of considering matters connected with the implementation of all aspects of this Statement, taking into account relevant international commitments or bilateral agreements with India. In the event that one or more Participating Governments consider that circumstances have arisen which require consultations, Participating Governments will meet, and then act in accordance with Paragraph 16 of the Guidelines.

Guess what the international commitments are as per America, Russia and France. in 2004. NO ENR transfer without NPT. Which was also in their national laws before the Indian deals were signed

participating governments can change the criteria, but they have to change the indian 2008 waiver. they have the power to do it. but they never changed it in 2011.

why do they keep emphazing on the India waiver uphold. because they read that waiver in parallel with the general guidelines. they can change guidelines pertaining to india if they want to. for that 2008 waiver have be specifically nullyfied. automactic nullyfication of indian waiver clauses , while uphelding the indian 2008 waiver doe not make sense at all. ENR will be provided to india. period.