Nuclear Weapons Proliferation and the NPT

[I-G]

UAE to adhere to nuclear safety
WAM
Published: July 31, 2009, 23:40


Vienna: The Permanent mission of the UAE to the International Atomic Energy Agency has communicated on Friday that the UAE Government's decision to join a number of additional international conventions related to Nuclear Safety and Security.

The UAE's decision was communicated by Ambassador Hamad Al Kaabi, UAE Permanent Representative to the IAEA, who delivered the related accession letters from Shaikh Abdulla Bin Zayed Al Nahyan, UAE Foreign Minister, to the IAEA Director general.

Specifically, the UAE communicated its decision to join the IAEA Convention on Nuclear Safety, the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management.

The UAE further communicated its acceptance of the amendment to the Convention on Physical Protection, bringing the latter closer to the requisite number of signatories needed to bring it into force.

"The UAE decision to Join these international instruments is consistent with UAE commitment to maintain the highest standards of safety, security and non-proliferation in its efforts to evaluate and develop a peaceful nuclear energy program," Al Kaabi Said.

"This is a major milestone for the UAE and represents the fulfillment of all commitments made by the UAE related to the latter's accession to various international instruments during its evaluation of a peaceful nuclear energy program"

The commitments to join these conventions were originally outlined in UAE policy of April,2008, and obligations stemming from these conventions have already been reflected in UAE nuclear energy development plans, strategies and domestic legislation.

The Convention on physical protection obligates parties to make specific arrangements and meet defined standards of physical protection for international shipments of nuclear materials and obligates parties to receive determined assurances and protection before they allow export, import or transit of nuclear materials . It also facilitates cooperation in the recovery and protection of nuclear material and criminalizes specific unauthorized possession or misuse of nuclear materials.

The amendment to the convention accepted by the UAE better addresses issues of combating nuclear terrorism, smuggling and sabotage. It legally binds states to the protection of nuclear facilities and materials, storage, and transport. It also provides for enhanced cooperation between states regarding the rapid location and recovery of stolen or smuggled nuclear materials.

The IAEA convention on Nuclear safety commits participating States to maintain a high level of safety by meeting international benchmarks. The obligations of the Parties are based on the principles contained in the IAEA Safety Fundamentals for Nuclear Installations. These obligations cover activities including sitting, design, construction, operation, the availability of adequate financial and human resources, the assessment and verification of safety, quality assurance and emergency preparedness. The Convention is based on parties common interest to achieve higher levels of safety which will be developed and promoted through regular meetings of the Parties and by the involvement in regulator peer reviews .

The Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management is the first legal instrument to directly address these issues on a global scale. It applies to spent fuel and radioactive waste resulting from civilian nuclear reactors and peaceful applications. The Convention calls for review meetings of Contracting Parties where each Party is required to submit a national report to each review meeting that addresses measures taken to implement obligations of the Convention.

Each of these conventions are fully consistent with the core principles enunciated by the UAE within its policy, including: 1) complete operational transparency, 2) working directly with IAEA, 3) cooperating with responsible nations, 4) maintaining highest standards of safety, security and non proliferation, and 5) ensuring long term sustainability.

The conclusion of the additional international IAEA instruments follows numerous other steps taken by the UAE Government, including the conclusion of multiple bilateral nuclear cooperation agreements, multiple support activities with the IAEA and the recent signing of the Additional Protocol to the UAE's Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement.

Gulfnews: UAE to adhere to nuclear safety

 

[Officer of Engineers]

I have to laugh at the amatuerish comments here about the NPT. None of you see this and none of you can imagine the implications.

The FACT is that both that Washinglton and Moscow used the NPT as justification for war. In Moscow's case, against China and Israel and in Washnington's case, against Iran and North Korea.

The ONLY country that has yet to be targetted by the legal usage of the NPT is India BUT be that as it may, if we follow all the legal wranglings of the two superpowers, then India is an illegal nuclear weapons state.

The fact that no power has called on India's nuclear status as an illegal NPT weapons state does not mean that no power will do so in the future. After all, witness the time differnece between Israel's assumed nuclear status and Russian MiG-25s overflying Israeli nuclear suspected launch and storage ... and manufacturing plants.

At the very least, your lawyers got their work cut out in front of them.

 

[hit&run]

I have to laugh at the amatuerish comments here about the NPT. None of you see this and none of you can imagine the implications.

The FACT is that both that Washinglton and Moscow used the NPT as justification for war. In Moscow's case, against China and Israel and in Washnington's case, against Iran and North Korea.

The ONLY country that has yet to be targetted by the legal usage of the NPT is India BUT be that as it may, if we follow all the legal wranglings of the two superpowers, then India is an illegal nuclear weapons state.

The fact that no power has called on India's nuclear status as an illegal NPT weapons state does not mean that no power will do so in the future. After all, witness the time differnece between Israel's assumed nuclear status and Russian MiG-25s overflying Israeli nuclear suspected launch and storage ... and manufacturing plants.

At the very least, your lawyers got their work cut out in front of them.

No worries sir, Indians knows the history, when the time will come for these so called super powers to outlaw indian nuclear capacities; we be far beyond their capacity to feel rational. We are better swing state then any other nation on this planet.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

Think you better do some reading on your own nuclear doctrines ... and I'm not talking NFU.

 

[youngindian]

Won't sign NPT, asserts India

September 24, 2009

India has refused to abide by the United Nations Security Council resolution asking all non-Non Proliferation Treaty nations to sign the pact, saying it cannot accept the "externally prescribed norms or standards" on issues that are contrary to its national interests or infringe on its sovereignty. India maintained that it cannot join the NPT as a non-weapon country even as it reiterated its commitment to no testing and no-first-use besides non-discriminatory universal non-proliferation. In a letter to UN Security Council President Susan E Rice, India's Permament Representative to the UN, Hardeep Singh Puri has said "India cannot accept calls for universalization of the NPT."

The development came as the UN Security Council unanimously passed a resolution asking all countries which have not signed the Non Proliferation Treaty to sign the agreement.

Citing Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's [ Images ] statement in Parliament on July 29, Puri said "there is no question of India joining the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state. Nuclear weapons are an integral part of India's national security and will remain so, pending non-discriminatory and global nuclear disarmament."

Puri said India "cannot accept externally prescribed norms or standards on matters within the jurisdiction of its Parliament or which are not consistent with India's constitutional provisions and procedures, or are contrary to India's national interests or infringe on its sovereignty." Puri contended India cannot comply with non-proliferation obligations to which it has not provided its consent.

Won't sign NPT, asserts India: Rediff.com news

 

[RPK]

The Hindu : News / National : India has taken a principled stand on CTBT: Krishna

External Affairs Minister SM Krishna has said that the country has taken a “principled” stand on the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and there is no scope for change in its position unless a number of other “developments” take place to address the concerns.

This comes after a high-level conference on disarmament here on Thursday, addressed by UN General Secretary Ban Ki Moon, asked India and eight other countries to ratify the agreement so that it comes into force.

“India has taken a position and we don’t see any reason for changing our stand, Krishna told journalists.

“We have taken a principled stand and so the question of India revising it stand depends on a number of other developments that would address our concerns,” he added.

Earlier, Mr. Moon said that “the CTBT is a fundamental building block for a free world of nuclear weapons“.

“By establishing a global norm against testing, the CTBT has made a significant contribution to the world community’s efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and to promote nuclear disarmament,” he added.

But Mr. Krishna responded by saying, “India’s stand remains unchanged. We have spelt out why we our unable to sign the pact as it is”.

During the occasion, the Moroccan Foreign Minister and chair of the conference Taib Fassi—Fihri said, “We will continue to work with very hard to convince others to join us“.

Without directly referring to India and Pakistan, he noted, “I am sure that some countries living in some specific areas with some political problems will join us and we will ask them to join us because it is important for peace and security.”

In a meeting chaired by US President Barack Obama, the Security Council has unanimously passed a nuclear non proliferation resolution.

It also calls upon all states to “refrain from conducting a nuclear test explosion and to sign and ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) to bring it into force early.”

Russia and the United States have also committed to a new agreement to reduce nuclear war heads and launchers

 

[RPK]

The Hindu : News / National : Don’t tell us to sign NPT, India tells U.S.

India’s response to the U.S.-sponsored resolution on non-proliferation may be worded diplomatically but there is no disguising the sharp differences between Washington and New Delhi that have opened up on a host of nuclear issues. These range from the role of the Security Council and the right of countries not to sign treaties to the emphasis on non-proliferation at the expense of disarmament.

At the heart of the Indian stance is a zealous attempt to guard the gains from last year’s granting of special status by the Nuclear Suppliers Group and International Atomic Energy Agency, something the Obama resolution is totally silent about.

The UNSC resolution --- passed at a Summit level meeting convened by President Barack Obama on September 24 --- calling for tightening international controls on the proliferation of nuclear weapons, including universalizing membership of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the immediate adherence to its norms by non-parties. The principal target of the resolution may be Iran, North Korea and those non-nuclear weapon states opposed to greater policing of their activities. But the resolution also effectively calls on India to place all its nuclear facilities under international safeguards, a demand that flies in the face of its de facto nuclear weapons status. A last minute U.S. addition also reaffirms the outcomes of the 1995 and 2000 NPT review conferences which, inter alia, sought to introduce comprehensive safeguards as a condition for nuclear supply, the very requirement the NSG waived for India last September.

In a letter to the President of the Council on September 23, India’s Permanent Representative, Hardeep Puri, said that while New Delhi welcomed the U.S. initiative to convene a summit to consider matters relating to non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament, it believes “an excessive focus on non-proliferation does a disservice to the essential principle of the mutually reinforcing linkage between disarmament and non-proliferation”.

U.S. ambassador Susan Rice currently holds the rotating UNSC presidency.

The letter says global efforts preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery were in India's interest “as the infirmities of the non-proliferation regime have had an adverse impact on our security”. After outlining Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s 2008 proposal for a ban on such weapons, the Indian letter calls for intermediate steps like a Global No First Use Agreement and negotiation of a Convention on the Prohibition of the use of Nuclear weapons. It also reiterates India’s moratorium on nuclear testing and its own unilateral no first use commitment.

In a direct answer to the resolution’s call to sign the nonproliferation treaty, the letter says, “[There] is no question of India joining the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state. Nuclear weapons are an integral part of India's national security and will remain so, pending non-discriminatory and global nuclear disarmament”.

The other highlights of the letter: Since non-proliferation obligations arise from treaties to which states are parties, non-compliance should be addressed in accordance with those treaties or agreements and not by the Security Council arrogating a new mandate for itself; India cannot accept obligations stemming from the NPT or agreements it has not signed or externally prescribed norms that infringe its sovereignty, national interest and constitution; The IAEA’s authority to apply safeguards or verify undeclared nuclear activity is not open ended but “is derived from specific safeguards agreements it enters into with member states”, the letter states, noting in this context that India had concluded a number of agreements and reciprocal commitments as part of its civil nuclear initiative.

Taken together, the Indian stand represents not just a defence of the country’s hard won status as an exception to the NPT regime but a reversion to its traditional arguments on disarmament. New Delhi had tended not to emphasise these over the past few years, perhaps in keeping with Washington’s approach during the Bush administration. But with Mr. Obama’s team harking back to the non-proliferation agenda of the previous decade, India now feels more comfortable returning to its long-held positions

 

[RPK]

UNSC resolution makes it difficult for NPT signatories to quit- Hindustan Times

The new UN Security Council resolution on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament makes it difficult for the NPT signatory countries to withdraw from this regime and calls upon nations to enter into safeguard agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

"These steps are important in helping address situations where a country uses access to the civilian nuclear benefits of the NPT to cloak a nascent nuclear weapons program and then withdraws from the NPT once it has acquired sufficient technical expertise for its weapons program," the White House said in a fact sheet.

Unanimously approved by the Security Council, the Resolution includes new provisions to deter withdrawal from the NPT and to ensure that nuclear energy is used in a framework that reduces proliferation dangers and adheres to high standards for security, the White House said.

The Council committed to address without delay any state's notification of withdrawal from the NPT and affirmed that states will be held responsible for any violations of the NPT committed prior to their withdrawal from the Treaty, it said.

 

[Yusuf]

UN resolution on NPT not directed against India: US

PITTSBURGH/NEW YORK: The US on Saturday assured India that the UN Security Council resolution on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty (NPT) issue is not directed against it and will not affect the Indo-US nuclear deal.

"We have been assured (by the US) that this is not a resolution directed against India and that the US commitment to carry out its obligations under the civil nuclear agreement, which we have signed with the United States, remains undiluted," Singh, who interacted twice with President Barack Obama during the G-20 Summit, told reporters.

"That (commitment on the nuclear deal) we have been assured officially by the US Government," Singh said wrapping up his two-day visit.

He was replying to a question about the UNSC resolution asking all non-NPT states, including India, to sign the NPT.

"Last night I met him (Obama) and today I was seated to his right during lunch. I discussed some important issues with him," Singh said on being asked whether he had any bilateral meetings with the US President. Singh said because of paucity of time, Obama did not have bilateral meetings with any leaders.

In New York, after a meeting between external affairs minister S M Krishna and secretary of state Hillary Clinton, a senior US official said India's position on NPT and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) will not impact the nuclear deal.

UN resolution on NPT not directed against India: US - US - World - NEWS - The Times of India

The US has to work really hard to get the relations with India back to what is was during the honeymoon days in Bush Jrs term. Things have been looking down for sometimes. The US by giving out mixed signals will hurt itself more and undo all the hard work that has gone on for the last eight years.
India goes on the defensive very quickly in its foreign policy deals. That is how we sided with the USSR in those days. We like to be cuddled up. Carrot and stick policy doesnt work in Indias case. We need all the carrots to be assured of our safety. Any stick drives us away.

 

[ajay_ijn]

UN resolution on NPT not directed against India: US - US - World - NEWS - The Times of India
The US has to work really hard to get the relations with India back to what is was during the honeymoon days in Bush Jrs term. Things have been looking down for sometimes. The US by giving out mixed signals will hurt itself more and undo all the hard work that has gone on for the last eight years.
India goes on the defensive very quickly in its foreign policy deals. That is how we sided with the USSR in those days. We like to be cuddled up. Carrot and stick policy doesnt work in Indias case. We need all the carrots to be assured of our safety. Any stick drives us away.

when everyone last year said deal would not be completed if NSG waiver got delayed and if bush regime was over, i thought it they were simply saying that to speed up things, now its looking like true, we may not get a president like Bush again for long time. Obama isn't looking anywhere closer to him.

We are dealing with same old US of 90s, It was only the Bush regime that was different for India.

 

[Yusuf]

No wonder our PM too put his job on the line to get the deal sewn up.

That india has nuke weapons is a fact. No one can deny it. That Pakistan too has it is also a fact. The only way out is to expand the NPT to include both these countries in the NPT as nuke haves. At least that will bind Pakistan to commit to non proliferation and not give countries like Iran access to nukes.

 

[RPK]

PM: First N-disarmament, then NPT - India - NEWS - The Times of India

NEW DELHI: In a clear manifestation of India's frustration, as also its unwavering stand, in the face of renewed attempts by the Obama
administration to prop up Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which New Delhi considers discriminatory, PM Manmohan Singh on Tuesday stated that for any non-proliferation attempt to be successful it was important to link it with complete nuclear disarmament.

Clearly preparing the ground for India to handle any international pressure, Singh asserted that the global non-proliferation regime had failed to prevent nuclear proliferation and that this had adversely affected India's security. Singh made the remarks while inaugurating an international conference on peaceful uses of atomic energy organised by DAE, IAEA and Indian Nuclear Society to commemorate the birth centenary of Homi Bhabha.

"It is a matter of regret that the global non-proliferation regime has not succeeded in preventing nuclear proliferation. Its deficiencies in fact have had an adverse impact on our security. Global non-proliferation, to be successful, should be universal, comprehensive and non-discriminatory and linked to the goal of complete nuclear disarmament," said Singh.

"The specter of nuclear terrorism is a formidable challenge facing the entire global community. At the UN General Assembly India has been sponsoring a resolution calling for measures to address this threat," he added.

While Singh said that India supported Obama's "timely initiative" to convene a global summit on nuclear security in 2010, his strongly-worded remarks coming so close after the US sponsored UNSC resolution on non-proliferation passed recently are being seen as India's warning against any attempt to, as a participant in the conference put it, shove NPT down its throat.

Singh further said that India remained committed to its voluntary, unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing and that it was proud of its non-proliferation record. "India is proud of its non-proliferation record and is committed to global efforts for preventing the proliferation of all weapons of mass destruction. As a nuclear weapon state and a responsible member of the international community we will participate constructively in the negotiations of FMCT in the Conference on Disarmament," said Singh, adding that India was committed to not transferring sensitive technologies and equipment to other countries that do not possess them.

He lamented the fact that Jawaharlal Nehru's call for abandoning weapons of mass destruction went unheeded in 1950s.

Singh also said that the Indian nuclear industry was in for a major expansion and that it could yield 4,70,000 MW power by the year 2050. "If we can manage our programme well, our three-stage strategy could yield potentially 470,000 MW of power by the year 2050. This will sharply reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and will be a major contribution to global efforts to combat climate change," he said.

On the civil nuclear initiative, Singh said a number of agreements and reciprocal commitments were concluded to allow the resumption of full civil nuclear cooperation between India and the international community.

"We look forward to their full and effective implementation in the coming months and years," he said, adding that the return of India to the international nuclear global mainstream is of high significance not only for India but for global energy security as well.

The PM said such harnessing of nuclear energy will sharply reduce the country's dependence on fossil fuels and make a major contribution to global efforts to combat climate change.

India was ready to contribute to global research and development into new proliferation-resistant fuel cycles, Singh said, noting that as a supplier nation it would support efforts to set up an international fuel bank.

 

[RPK]

?NSG`s India exception can weaken NPT?

New Delhi: The exception that the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) has made for India in allowing global nuclear trade and fuel commerce with it can weaken the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), says the International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament (ICNND).

"There is a thinking that the India-US (civil nuclear cooperation) agreement would jeopardise the position of NPT," Yoriko Kawaguchi, co-chair of International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament and former Japanese foreign minister, told reporters here Sunday.


ICNND is a 'track two' initiative of Australia and Japan to redirect the global debate on disarmament and non-proliferation. It held a two-day South Asia regional meeting here, which was attended by experts from all the South Asian countries and abroad.

Gareth Evans, a former foreign minister of Australia and ICNND co-chair, pointed out that the India-US nuclear agreement, in the context of which the NSG last year granted an exception to the NPT non-signatory India, "did not necessarily fill our heart with joy".

"India got the best deal. That's true. But, not sure, if it was the best deal for the rest of us," he said.

He felt that the deal was "too soft" as there wasn't enough "quid pro quo by India" and conditions like signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) could have been imposed on New Delhi.

He felt that if there was a criteria-based approach to allowing nations to trade in nuclear technology, there would have been greater acceptance.

Evans, however, admitted: "India has an excellent non-proliferation record."

On a query about the controversy in India about the success of the 1998 thermonuclear testing, Evans said the commission's view was that "there should not be any more testing".

"There is no need to increase size (of the bomb). There is enough deterrence in the world," he said

 

[anoop_mig25]

nuke deal

i have read lot of post in this secition and now i am having mix reaction about the indo-us nuclear deal.whether it would be implemented in full sprit as it was decided by Bush gov.or obama would try to impress those who were against indo-us nuclear deal(his ratings are very low this days):thumbs_thmbdn:.And recently our PM is going to USA and i read discussion will carried out for the transfere of reprocessing technologies and for that a special factility is being set up what will happen to that if NSG on the behest of america restricts there members to sell any of reprocessing tecnologies to non ntp members like india who is having clean wavier from it(remember recent g8 summit ):thumbs_thmbdn:.Second thing i want to know when he is going to submit CTBT for rectifications in american congrees or this CTBT rant is for others to force the and sign it.

 

[ppgj]

www.outlookindia.com | Nuking The Treaties

Nuking The Treaties

Pakistan and Israel are too dependent on the US not to be manageable. But a non-compliant India outside the NPT-CTBT net, by its example, has the potential for wrecking the decrepit non-proliferation system.

Bharat Karnad


PHILADELPHIA

US President Barack Obama won this year’s Nobel Peace Prize; now he has to prove he deserved it. Obtaining a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) as a prelude to the nuclear disarmament he promised to move toward in his widely acclaimed speech in Prague earlier this year may be his ticket. The other grand objectives such as Arab-Israeli rapprochement, peace with the Islamic world, quelling international terrorism, or pacifying the Afghanistan-Pakistan region seem more difficult to achieve.

There are serious obstacles, alas, to realizing a CTBT. As a follow-up to the 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty that banned nuclear tests in the atmosphere, underwater, and in outer space, this treaty prohibits underground testing, thereby preventing aspirant states from crossing the weapon threshold. Almost all the signatories to the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) have signed the CTBT, but India, Pakistan and Israel have refused to do so. The problem for the US lies in trying to convince important signatory states, such as China, to ratify this accord rather than make US ratification a pre-condition for doing so. Many in the US senate, liberals and conservatives alike, however, are expected to insist that India, Pakistan and Israel get on board before they approve the treaty, which highlights the clashing national interests that make securing CTBT immensely difficult.

India is the pivotal state for advancing the US non-proliferation agenda. During her July visit to Delhi, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton indicated that CTBT was the Administration’s priority and urged the Indian government to fall in line. With Obama chairing the special September 24 meeting of the UN Security Council, his agenda was articulated with the near unanimous passage of Resolution 1887 demanding all the countries that have not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to do so as “non-nuclear weapons states” and to agree to the CTBT as well. Though possessing nuclear arsenals, India, Pakistan and Israel are not considered nuclear weapon states – a privilege enjoyed only by the five Permanent Members of the UN Security Council. Predictably, India rejected the resolution outright.

However, by turning the non-proliferation clock back to 1968 when the NPT came into being, what was ignored, firstly, was the emergence on the scene of a clutch of new nuclear weapon states despite the most determined efforts at prevention and technology denial. And, secondly, there are the realpolitik considerations that led certain NPT-recognized weapon powers to either transfer nuclear weapon technologies to client states (China to Pakistan, US and France to Israel) or to turn a blind eye to this proliferation activity (US, UK, France vis-à-vis the China-Pakistan nuclear nexus). Such trends have made it easier for many countries to resist both this treaty and the CTBT as hypocritical and irrelevant.

The threat of American military intervention, moreover, has incentivised the spread of the bomb. Targeted states labelled rogue and deemed worthy of democratisation experienced a forcible make-over (Iraq), succumbed to inducements (Libya), or responded by surreptitiously building up basic nuclear weapon capabilities, tapping the black market when necessary. Feelings of insecurity and marginalisation are leading a number of aspirant states (Saudi Arabia, Brazil) and the countries directly in the Western crosshairs to look upon fission devices as diplomatic leverage and as a means to deter military aggression and pre-empt big power interference in their affairs. But such developments only reflect a break down of the extant nuclear order.

The consensus for a new non-proliferation system, however, is not in sight because, in pursuit of genuine disarmament, the principal beneficiaries of the status quo appear unwilling to go beyond arms control or to accept the need for overhauling the non-proliferation regime. With the US and Russia, in particular, reluctant to eliminate their weapons inventories in a time-bound fashion, lesser states facing dire threats to their security can muster more credible reasons for owning similar weapons.

India has always been cautious about acceding to inequitable non-proliferation/disarmament agreements. The Indian view is that what such schemes end up doing is “disarming the unarmed,” as K.C. Pant, a former Indian Defence Minister, put it. There are two main reasons why even so US friendly a government as Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s will not commit to the CTBT. Recently, K. Santhanam, coordinator of the 1998 test series, publicly revealed the thermonuclear device tested to be a dud. Coming a decade after the tests, this disclosure was meant to pre-empt the Indian government’s signing the treaty. It has succeeded in firming up public opinion behind the country’s obtaining safe and reliable thermonuclear armaments, reducing the issue to not whether India will resume testing, but when and under what conditions. Manmohan Singh may not order new tests during his tenure. But Singh is unlikely to close the testing option either, as the ruling Congress Party is loath to alienate its coalition partners who are against compromising on nuclear security.

The other reason is China. Its nuclear forces, boasting proven megaton thermonuclear warheads in launch-ready state, outmatch the Indian deterrent with only the 20 kiloton weapon as its tested mainstay. China’s conventional military is both larger in size and, quality-wise, equipped with better bulk weapons. This military imbalance may be spurring China’s growing bellicosity towards India. It is massively arming Pakistan and, to compound its original proliferation sins, is reportedly transferring “boosted fission” weapon-related materials (tritium) and technology to the country. And, most worryingly, it has initiated a project to divert the Yarlung-Tsangpo River in Tibet northwards to meet the water needs of its arid interior. The Yarlung-Tsangpo becomes the Brahmaputra River as it crosses into India and is the lifeline for the Indian states in the east and north-east, and Bangladesh, and its diversion would be a casus belli. At a minimum, it will compel Manmohan Singh to ramp up India’s military wherewithal and force him to do a rethink about having insufficiently tested fusion weapons compared to the proven, large yield, thermonuclear armaments in Chinese employ. He would not want India to be in a situation where it finds itself strategically and psychologically overwhelmed by China.

The Indian government’s stance on CTBT has led to talk of the US possibly sharing its thermonuclear explosion physics data with Indian weapon designers and permitting the latter the use of the giant inertial confinement fusion facility in Livermore to obviate further testing by India. The paucity of indigenous test data, however, will make it nearly impossible for Indian scientists to take advantage of this offer. It will, moreover, still leave unaddressed the matter of selling a treaty to the Indian people that permanently seals the country’s nuclear testing option, freezes its thermonuclear weapon technology at a fairly basic level, increases reliance on the US, and hurts India’s strategic autonomy.

Pakistan and Israel are too dependent on the US not to be manageable. But a non-compliant India outside the NPT-CTBT net, by its example, has the potential for wrecking the decrepit non-proliferation system. It shows up the self-interest fuelled drive – the ecological reasons for a ban on testing, for instance, do not apply because unvented underground tests pose no environmental hazard – by the five NPT-favored nuclear weapon states to retain a flawed but advantageous global nuclear order, and entices more states to become nuclear capable and self-reliant in security.

Bharat Karnad is professor at the Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi, and author, most recently, of India’s Nuclear Policy (Praeger, 2008). Presently he is a Visiting Scholar jointly at Princeton University and the University of Pennsylvania. Rights:Copyright © 2009 Yale Center for the Study of Globalization. YaleGlobal Online

 

[Quickgun Murugan]

domain-b.com : Indo-US civil nuclear deal: Tripping on the NPT agenda again


Washington: It now appears that along with his travel clothes the Indian prime minister, Manmohan Singh, will also have to pack a few ''assurances'' on the Indo-US nuclear deal when he arrives in Washington on a state visit on 24 November. Should both sides fail to resolve a bureaucratic issue thrown up by the Obama administration, very intent on its NPT agenda, the 'signal honour' granted to Manmohan Singh - as the first foreign dignitary invited for a state visit to the United States - may shed some shine before the trip is over.

It now turns out the Obama administration, under the aegis of the US department of energy, has sought an "assurance" from India on nuclear non-proliferation under provisions of its Code of Federal Regulations Part 810 (pronounced Part Eight Ten) before it should be able to provide clearances to American companies for Indo-US civil nuclear trade.

In the absence of such an "assurance," India has been told, the US department of energy would not be able to issue the mandatory license permitting nuclear trade.

Under the section 57.b of the US Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, only the secretary of energy is authorised to give permission, directly or indirectly, to persons or companies in the production of special nuclear material outside the US.

The provision applies to technology transfers and technical assistance to all activities of the nuclear fuel-cycle, including non-power reactors.

Assurance is the word

It is now being given to understand that when the Indian side sought to activate the ''arrangements and procedures'' provisions of the 123 agreement in February, soon after the Obama administration was sworn in, it received a letter from Washington seeking 'assurances,' under which American spent fuel would be reprocessed in India.

This matter has been carefully kept under wraps since February 2009 and may now have popped out in the open since no resolution appears to be in sight.

The letter from the Obama administration asked India to furnish another document in which it would 'assure' the US that technology transfer and technical assistance to India by the US companies under the 123 agreement would meet its nuclear non-proliferation standards.

Taken aback, the Indian side queried the need for such a letter when all non-proliferation concerns had already been addressed as part of the intense negotiations of which the Indo-US civil nuclear treaty itself was the result.

The issue came up once again in the course of a July visit by secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, to India. As a result, teams involved in discussions on ''arrangements and procedures'' part of the 123 agreement, are now discussing the 'assurances' imbroglio as well.

As part of its attempt to justify the need for 'assurances,' the US side has apparently furnished copies of similar assurances from other countries, including China and Germany, to India.

The Indian side will obviously be treading warily on the matter as the Indo-US civil agreement is essentially the result of a delicately wrought understanding of mutual positions that compels both nations to jettison hardline positions and accept a compromise that results in a larger good.

'Assurances' under Part eight ten may impact some of these understandings - if not remove the ground from underneath the Indo-US civil nuclear agreement altogether.

The main factors considered in Part 810 review are technical, political, economic, proliferation, and national security significance of proposed assistance; agreement for Nuclear Cooperation (123 Agreement); IAEA full scope safeguards/additional protocol (or equivalent) and other non-proliferation controls and conditions which includes government assurances and reporting requirements.

A reading of the 57.b of the US Atomic Energy Act of 1954 may also be instructive in this regard.

Section 57b of the Atomic Energy Act in pertinent part provides that:

''It shall be unlawful for any person to directly or indirectly engage in the production of any special nuclear material outside of the United States except (1) as specifically authorized under an agreement for cooperation made pursuant to section 123, including a specific authorization in a subsequent arrangement under section 131 of this Act, or (2) upon authorization by the Secretary of Energy after a determination that such activity will not be inimical to the interest of the United States: Provided, That any such determination by the Secretary of Energy shall be made only with the concurrence of the Department of State and after consultation with the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Department of Commerce, and the Department of Defense.''

Since the secretary of energy cannot provide ''authorisation'' unless he receives clearance from all the departments and agencies listed under section two of the above provision, it stands to reason that he is seeking an ''assurance'' from India on behalf of one or all these departments and agencies.

Since all these are administrative departments of the Obama administration, surely the department heads can come together and sort out who requires an assurance and for what reason?

Surely Barack Obama can sort out matters that seem to have hit some kind of a bureaucratic wall.

Surely, the departments of state, defense, commerce and the NRC and the ACDA are working together to further the great ''strategic'' partnership the United States has promised to promote with India.

Or is one, or all, of these departments more divine in its approach to non-proliferation issues than the others – for that matter, more divine in its approach than the Oval Office itself?