For the first time, Japan may allow India to reprocess spent nuclear fuel from Japanese-made reactor

Discussion in 'Foreign Relations' started by Rowdy, Jun 19, 2015.

  1. Rowdy

    Rowdy Co ja kurwa czytam! Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    3,256
    Likes Received:
    2,959
    Location:
    Milky Bar
    For the first time, Japan may allow India to reprocess spent nuclear fuel from Japanese-made reactors
    NEW DELHI: In a significant development that could have positive bearing on proposed Indo-Japan civil nuclear deal, Tokyo is likely to change its policy to allow reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel from Japanese-made reactors.

    In what could be a major shift in Japan's nuclear non-proliferation strategy, Tokyo for the first time has approved reprocessing of nuclear fuel by a country using Japanese-made reactors, official sources said from Tokyo.

    Since the 2011 Fukushima tragedy, Japan had concluded civil pacts with six countries including Jordan, Russia, Turkey and Vietnam, but has not approved reprocessing of spent fuel generated by Japanese-made nuclear reactors. Indo-Japan civil nuclear deal has remained elusive despite several rounds of negotiations since 2010 and Narendra Modi's maiden trip to Japan as PM last year and his personal chemistry with his counterpart Shinzo Abe.

    [​IMG]
    Bilateral negotiations, re-launched post Fukushima last September, got momentum after Modi became the PM with Japan as one of his foreign policy priorities. Japan has been consistent on its position on India's non-NPT status and tougher safeguards on reprocessing of spent fuel supplied to Indian reactors. Indian position has also been clear as it considers NPT as discriminatory, official sources said, adding India has signed nuclear deals with NPT signatories like USA, Canada and Australia.

    http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...panese-made-reactors/articleshow/47727332.cms
    @Mad Indian @Sakal Gharelu Ustad @OneGrimPilgrim @Khagesh @ezsasa @Yusuf and others...
    Things are falling in place
     
  2.  
  3. sukhish

    sukhish Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2009
    Messages:
    1,091
    Likes Received:
    262
    but it will for all countries who use japanease nuclear reactors and not india specific
     
  4. Mad Indian

    Mad Indian Proud Bigot Veteran Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2012
    Messages:
    12,830
    Likes Received:
    7,524
    Location:
    Podigai Hills.
    The significance is that India is not a signatory of NPT.
     
    Rowdy likes this.
  5. ezsasa

    ezsasa Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2014
    Messages:
    3,532
    Likes Received:
    3,053
    Location:
    Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India
    If Japan is OK with india sharing nuclear material , Australia will have lesser opposition if any. If Australia is OK with it, Canada will have lesser opposition.

    Australia follows Japan because of Pacific co-operation, Canada follows Australia because of the common-wealth co-operation.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  6. Hari Sud

    Hari Sud Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2012
    Messages:
    1,054
    Likes Received:
    862
    Location:
    Ontario
    It is further untangling of the Civil Indo-US Nuclear deal.

    Bravo Modi!

    The same could have been done by Manmohan Singh, but he was not innovative enough, also he was being managed by another political power - Sonia Gandhi, who in last five years of UPA did not want to take any new initiative.
     
    OneGrimPilgrim, LETHALFORCE and Rowdy like this.
  7. Compersion

    Compersion Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2013
    Messages:
    1,848
    Likes Received:
    454
    Location:
    India
    If deal of this nature with Japan was done on April 2004 - 2009 - Mr Manmohan Singh would be credited.

    If deal of this nature with Japan was done between April 2009 - 2014 Mr Manmohan Singh would not be credited.

    If deal of this nature with Japan is done after April 2014 - Mr Manmohan Singh would be given credit by Mr Narendra Modi.

    also

    Why it is Five nuclear-weapon states under the NPT (+ India like a special case). It ought to be Six nuclear-weapon states under the NPT. Sure i know it has to do with timing and history. But making India like a special case it has to be given exactly the same status like the Five current nuclear weapon states (eventually).

    How India gets there and why can be put in stone for the others who also want to try and do it. Because for India to get into the situation like "Five nuclear-weapon states under the NPT (+ India like a special case)" it has done much more and appropriation compared to even the original five. We will need to set the same approach for UNSC permanent seat.

    We also need to set the standard in place for people like the Pakis and North Koreans. I feel the Israelis are smarter compared to the former but have different calculations that measure the others.
     
  8. Rowdy

    Rowdy Co ja kurwa czytam! Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    3,256
    Likes Received:
    2,959
    Location:
    Milky Bar
    NPT says test before 67 = keep weapons ...
    so we will need a time machine bro. ... current situation suits us. We are a recognized state without signing..... We have all the privilages of a regular Nuke bearing state... none of the disadvantages of not signing.
     
  9. Compersion

    Compersion Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2013
    Messages:
    1,848
    Likes Received:
    454
    Location:
    India
    (Apologies for the long reply. I appreciate the response and i agree with what you say which is the current situation. I only add my thoughts but they do not supersede what you say).

    The treat came to place on 1970 and we smiled for the first time in 1974 and again in 1998. Would we tested earlier probably yes (reminds me of the 2G case where it was told that only those who were in the office by a certain time). We had the capability before 1970. If the world told everyone in 1950 that only states who test by 1968 would be declared and allowed to have nukes. I am sure India would have tested much before and probably before some of the current permanent five. Please do not underestimate our capabilities. We did not suddenly develop the capability after 6 March 1970. We tested late. We had circumstances. We would have test earlier any-case if we knew about language of NPT and knew the others did not share the same view that we did on nuke use and having refused nuclear umbrella protection. If the treaty was done in 1975 it would be Six. If the UNSC permanent seat table changes was made in 1975 and not earlier it would have India on it. The question is would NPT be having beyond 6. That is where the standards and conditions come into place and we are doing it not for us but for others who try and follow us. We are using the system to make it better. The NPT needs to make it difficult and with a certain high standard to have a country be officially declared a nuclear weapon state. We are doing this for the world and the region.

    What I am saying is that the NPT is evolutionary and what makes it say that it is stationary and cannot be changed forever. You see states like North Korea what they did in 2003. Sure there is a provision for exit. But why there is no explicit provision for amending and adding to the Five Nuclear Weapon States. Having no provision does not mean it is not possible. Having a exit clause implies the treaty is ever-changing. One can create rules and custom by developing actions and reactions in the space available. One can create law. There was even a provision that said that NPT would be renewed for the every five years. But in 1995 it was changed to say that NPT would continue indefinitely. That implies the treaty can be changed. The indefinite provision recognizes the importance and status of the reality.

    One can become a special case "Five nuclear-weapon states under the NPT (+ India like a special case)" for a [X] Number of years and after this be declared a Sixth Nuclear Weapon states under NPT. I will not advise and affirm that what India gets in the status outside the NPT is final. I will advise that we get into NPT and be official nuclear weapon state. I understand it is difficult and much needs to be done. I respect and admire what we have done and it is smart and proper. Not many and anyone would be able to have done what we did. We have had carry on for many years and with much difficulty and others who followed us who had no clue what they were doing.

    Also

    Do we need approval from all NPT states. Can one disapprove and rest approve and we get it. There is previous examples. What do we need to make it that the NPT reads Six Nuclear Weapon States. Is NPT impossible to change. We can say difficulty. Sure we can say at this moment but not forever. Is UNSC impossible to change from 5 permanent seats. If UNSC have permanent members that are non-nuclear that needs to be confirmed (but i feel that would be wrong). Can a non-NPT state say no. Israel would support us but not Pakis and North Koreans. But they are out of the NPT system but does not mean they can do anything they want. What is the standard and rules that apply outside the NPT nuclear weapon state status. One can watch how North Koreans will be dealt with to see because the outcome of that will have a much bigger and important role to India one can imagine it is hugely significant. And we need to make sure Japan understands that.

    Do we need to set standards in place to make sure it is put in stone for the others who also want to try and do it. What i say is "Five nuclear-weapon states under the NPT (+ India like a special case)" and "Five Permanent United Nations Security Council Members (+ India like a special case)" is the first stage to Six Nuclear and Six UNSC permanent member states. What India gets by being outside the permanent five is not the final documents India will accept. It has to be officially on any international document that India is a nuclear weapon state. And this is why UNSC reform goes hand in hand with NPT. This is why UNSC permanent seat is not a small matter. It is a complete entire aggregation of policy and approach and when Japan announces that it will do Nuclear trade with India we are stepping closer to the reality where India needs to places its will power into turbo and go for the UNSC on its own. We need to ask the world is UNSC permanent membership with Nuclear Weapons. In any case the NPT would needs to be amended.

    What we have done up to now is not a small matter. But it is not the best we can do and it is not final. It is not the best we can do. We will get more I know it. We have taken big steps. There are much bigger steps we need to take. We will have to do it on our own. But we are discovering that it does not matter if one does not agree with us. We still have much more support compared to the single one who refuses to accept our status.

    We will set the standards for whoever follows us. We will do it right for the world and the region.

    ******

    For the Nuclear Trade deal i am wishing the more common sense prevails and that it is not Japan asking for UNSC permanent membership and India approval but it is Japan asking India help to deal with North Korea. Japan must be explained kindly that offering nuclear fuel to India does not mean UNSC membership to Japan but making the system stronger to prevent North Koreas happening again.
     

Share This Page