The final NSG condition
The signing of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty at one go, albeit by a different name, has been hailed by the media as “India’s Nuclear isolation ends” and “India’s victory in Vienna”. This landmark incident will go down in history as ‘The termination of India’s Nuclear-weapons research’; or even as “India’s surrender to the USA hegemony after 60 years of resistance”
Be that as it may, it has been proved beyond any doubt that our government had all along been hoodwinking the Indian public by saying that the Hyde Act was a domestic Act of the USA and India was not bound by that Act. Some spokespersons also said that even if, in the event of a Nuclear Test by India, the USA stops N-fuel supply, we can get it from the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group (NSG). Now, in the final ‘trump card’ of the USA-NSG group, the condition that NSG will also stop the supply of N-fuel to India in such an event has been incorporated in the ‘conditions’, as amended by the USA. So now, how is this short of a total surrender to the USA and its orbit of nations? To top this up, we now will have the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) breathing down our neck all the time. The IAEA will be free to come and inspect all our nuclear establishments and be the watchful hawk-eye of the Big Brother.
I wonder why we are not a member of the NSG. We have an enviable deposit of Thorium which we are capable of converting to Plutonium in our existing nuclear plants, which then can be used as fuel for nuclear reactors. Of course, for that matter, one may ask why aren’t we member of, for example, the ASEAN. That, again, is another story.
Be that as it may, it has been proved beyond any doubt that our government had all along been hoodwinking the Indian public by saying that the Hyde Act was a domestic Act of the USA and India was not bound by that Act. Some spokespersons also said that even if, in the event of a Nuclear Test by India, the USA stops N-fuel supply, we can get it from the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group (NSG). Now, in the final ‘trump card’ of the USA-NSG group, the condition that NSG will also stop the supply of N-fuel to India in such an event has been incorporated in the ‘conditions’, as amended by the USA. So now, how is this short of a total surrender to the USA and its orbit of nations? To top this up, we now will have the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) breathing down our neck all the time. The IAEA will be free to come and inspect all our nuclear establishments and be the watchful hawk-eye of the Big Brother.
I wonder why we are not a member of the NSG. We have an enviable deposit of Thorium which we are capable of converting to Plutonium in our existing nuclear plants, which then can be used as fuel for nuclear reactors. Of course, for that matter, one may ask why aren’t we member of, for example, the ASEAN. That, again, is another story.
posted by SENsible at 12:22 pm
3 Comments:
My understanding of the enrichment process suggests that India still does not have the technology to convert thorium -- and in fact the 123 agreement will allow india to begin understanding the technical process with benefits for power production.
Also Bush's lies notwithstanding India is a de facto member of the NPT process (does not believe in non proliferation) and the CTBT process (does not believe in more testing). Between Pokhran I and II India has enough test data. Current Indian strategic interests dictate a focus on delivery systems and power diversification. Both are possible under the 123 regime.
At a different level the so called independence question as it relates to nuclear testing really is moot. India lacks true independence at a level far beyond mere nuclear testing -- it is subject to corrupt government institutions that sustain poverty. To that extent the the issue of the 123 and national independence is of a miniscule third or fourth order importance -- if at all relevant. On the other hand the current ability to have more power options is critical to any Indian who wants to be better off. Ultimately the issue is one of trade-offs in an imperfect world -- the right choice is imperative for survival.
Agreed in principle. But that there will be an increse in energy-availa-bility of 5 per cent in another decade will mean that insiad of a power of 2 hours each day, we will have it six minutes less !!!!!!!!!!
Sorry, a typing mistake on my part: I meant that in ten years time instead of a powercut of two hours we will have power cuts of six minutes less. That is what the energy enhancement through the nuclear deal means.
Post a Comment
<< Home