Hey Indians, want some no questions asked yellowcake?

[Double Edge]

That goes counter to your argument actually. The Indian deal was done in the open with very specific legal language (and not so open back door deals, India to this date has not asked for enrichment technologies, not even asked to be grandfathered) that does not aide, in fact, hindered Indian nuclear weapons development.

Recall you saying this in the China-Pak nuke reactor thread and wondered why you phrased it as 'India has not asked'.

India cannot ask for ENR because the NSG in the middle of this year passed guidelines that NSG members not allow trade in ENR with parties that have not signed the NPT. But what the nuke deal did was allow agreements to be hashed out on a bilateral basis between India and other countries.

‘France not bound by new NSG restriction on nuclear sales to India’ | The Hindu | October 24, 2011

The French do not see any problems with ENR as their FM Juppe recently mentioned.

The Nuclear Suppliers Group adopted new export rules for so-called sensitive nuclear technology earlier this year. How does France propose to fulfil its promise of full civil nuclear cooperation with India given the NSG's new ban on the sale of enrichment and reprocessing technology [to countries that have not signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty]?

Juppe: Our interpretation is that the agreement of 2008 [when the NSG made an exception for India] is still in vigour and we have no intention to change our relations with India on this point. And we support the membership of India to the NSG.

So if France were to decide on the basis of its national policy, and on the basis of an agreement with India, that it wants to export some component or aspect of enrichment and reprocessing technology to India, then the NSG rules as they stand as per the last meeting, will not come in the way. Is that correct?

Juppe:Yes.

There will be no prohibition on France to sell these items to India?

Juppe: We think the procurements decided in 2008 are enough to regulate those relations.

You mean the decisions of 2008?

Juppe : Yes. And also based on our bilateral agreements.

In other words, the contours are set by bilateral agreement and by French national policy, and there is no prohibition at the NSG level on France as far as you see it?

Juppe: No.

An article in a magazine indicates that it will begin soon.

France will provide sensitive enrichment and reprocessing (ENR) technologies to India despite recent guidelines of the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group (NSG) stipulating that only those nations which are signatories to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) can obtain this technology.

This assurance came from none other than the chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission of France, Bernard Bigot, during a media session on Monday evening.

India and Russia to discuss comprehensive economic pact | The Hindu | Dec 16 2011
Russians offered to host the plant on their soil

A joint statement to be issued after the summit meeting is slated to take the civil nuclear partnership between the two countries a step forward. On the Russian offer to host an Indian enrichment and reprocessing (ENR) plant on its soil and offer shares to New Delhi does not seem to have found favour as yet with South Block.

Caught between the need to honour their commitment to India and the need to comply with the decision taken by the civil nuclear cartel, Moscow sought to find a middle path by suggesting that the plant be set up in Russia. “We are still talking. We haven't reached closure. Russia has international obligations to which they would be sensitive. We already have the full fuel cycle [and are in no hurry]. So let us see how to cooperate,'' said the government sources.

U.S. Nuclear Cooperation with India: Issues for Congress | FAS | July 21 2011

Enrichment tech won't be possible with the Americans as they won't allow it..

“as a matter of policy, the United States does not transfer dual-use items for use in sensitive nuclear facilities” and “will not assist India in the design, construction, or operation of sensitive nuclear technologies through the transfer of dual-use items, whether under the [nuclear cooperation] Agreement or outside the Agreement,” according to the State Department.

However reprocessing tech should be possible according to a supplementary arrangement signed between the US & India in July 2010.

[Double Edge]

However, india does have a huge thorium reserve. All it needs is some cash to splash.

Third cycle for thorium requires ENR tech which the NSG is not in favour of selling us because they fear we will be able to learn from it and use it in non-civilian reactors.

The cash comes in handy as a bargaining tool. There is loads of money to make in selling civilian reactors to India and those that give us an equitable deal get to share in the bounty. There is still negotiating work to be done, laws to be changed in various NSG countries. It will take time.

If the NSG was formed because of India with the explicit purpose of restricting civilian nuclear trade then what should be the appropriate conclusion ?

[Double Edge]

heck, it's 2011 and i see indian politicians throwing out sovereignty arguments when talking about retail sector reform.

Or how a lobby of 40 million traders can hold the middle class (300 million) + farmers (500 million?) hostage in the name of sovereignty. The traders main beef is they will be rendered unemployed in a country that has no social welfare and will be unable to find alternative employment. So they evoke the bogey of a latter day east india company. The bill is actually quite restricitve eg, can only open in cities with a million plus population and states have the say in whether to allow it or not. Still not enough. Anyway, this is on hold for now.

lord knows what the charges would be like when there is actual sovereignty loss being discussed...and this back in the 50s...that's why i think the whole idea of NAM did not really come from a rational analysis but more of an emotional decision. that has not served india well, i think.

i believe india as a whole is slowly coming to this realization, but even today i think the pace of integration is still too slow.

Absolutely, and as Fareed opined in his last GPS show that if we did not get our act together within the next ten years the 'I' in BRIC will stand for Indonesia.

Reforms stalled because nobody wanted to mess with a high growth rate. Now that its dipped under 7% maybe there will be more courage. Realise that we had to go bankrupt in the early 90s before it was acceptable to talk about opening out the country.

What you said was mentioned to me by an elder a couple of weeks back. He felt had we been more open to the US rather than Russia things could have been different. I found this quite striking as he's usually centre left on a lot of issues, always pro-people.

But i wonder how a country with so many poor just after independence could have avoided a socialist path. That too when it was all the rage. We adopted the ideas that were in vogue at the LSE & Cambridge in the 40s. The Brits did the same and by the late seventies were reeling and required a Maggie to sort them out. We faced the same problem a decade later.

It was the cold war that queered things for everybody, there was no choice here either with us or against us so NAM was seen as a safe middle path.

[Yusuf]

Astralis,

Surrendering a bit of sovereignty was not an option for India with the wounds of the Raj fresh back then. It would have looked like inviting another Raj. Even today India will not allow any foreign country a base. India would not have allowed even the Soviets.

What India is looking for today is partnership, and it is slowly going to get that. Indians move cautiously. What is ideal for India is to share a bit of what the US is doing in the region as it builds it's capacity. No base for anyone, we will step into the boots. A small step in that direction is the joint patrol of sea lanes leading up to the Malaccas.

How can FDI we a surrender of sovereignty I don't understand. It sounds like what the crooked politicians say over here.

[lemontree]

Captain,

Good to hear from you. We're going to have to share stories soon about our daughters going out with boys.

Sir,...I still have a little time left. My girl is 11 and a half. She is a big fan of ManU, and has joined the girls soccer team as of now.

[astralis]

DE,

What you said was mentioned to me by an elder a couple of weeks back. He felt had we been more open to the US rather than Russia things could have been different. I found this quite striking as he's usually centre left on a lot of issues, always pro-people.

But i wonder how a country with so many poor just after independence could have avoided a socialist path. That too when it was all the rage. We adopted the ideas that were in vogue at the LSE & Cambridge in the 40s. The Brits did the same and by the late seventies were reeling and required a Maggie to sort them out. We faced the same problem a decade later.

It was the cold war that queered things for everybody, there was no choice here either with us or against us so NAM was seen as a safe middle path.

the solution was fairly simple; work with the West but keep the socialist system, a la Great Britain.

it -still- wouldn't have been ideal, but it would have opened the gates to quite a bit of investment and foreign aid anyways-- see what the US was doing in afghanistan in the 50s.

what was hobbling india was the singular focus on sovereignty as well as a rather, shall we say idealistic foreign policy by nehru and gandhi. chindi hindi bhai bhai, anyone.

[astralis]

yusuf,

Surrendering a bit of sovereignty was not an option for India with the wounds of the Raj fresh back then. It would have looked like inviting another Raj. Even today India will not allow any foreign country a base. India would not have allowed even the Soviets.

i think it would have been possible with the right leadership and the right mindset. as with many "revolutionary" countries, unfortunately the revolutionary just wasn't as good when they were actually in power.

a smaller version of china's issue with mao.

unfortunately i believe the wrong tendencies were promoted and india is still haunted by the sovereignty ghost today, despite being an up and coming power.

[Yusuf]

yusuf,



i think it would have been possible with the right leadership and the right mindset. as with many "revolutionary" countries, unfortunately the revolutionary just wasn't as good when they were actually in power.

a smaller version of china's issue with mao.

unfortunately i believe the wrong tendencies were promoted and india is still haunted by the sovereignty ghost today, despite being an up and coming power.

I don't blame the policy makers for being cautious and protective about sovereignty especially when we had to open up to GE very west that enslaved us. That is why I said if the US was a bit sensitive and sympathetic an tried to work with India, it would have worked out. The problem was either you are with us or against us mindset. The thinking in India was that the US was lookin for a vassal or lackey state.

Anyways those are things of the past and we have to look forward. Things were good under Bush but not good under Obama. According to India the WoT was not fought in the right country after OBL and fled Astan. The US continued to pamper Pakistan. What India has been fearing and telling all along about Pak duplicity is now visible to all. If the US had changed policy wrt to Pak 3-4 years ago, WoT would have been a success.

[Officer of Engineers]

Recall you saying this in the China-Pak nuke reactor thread and wondered why you phrased it as 'India has not asked'.

India cannot ask for ENR because the NSG in the middle of this year passed guidelines that NSG members not allow trade in ENR with parties that have not signed the NPT. But what the nuke deal did was allow agreements to be hashed out on a bilateral basis between India and other countries.

The backroom deal is still happening. Recall that the NSG mess was that both France and Russia explicitly stated that they had no plans to offer ENR to India.

After that, India to this date still has refused to sign ENR rights to grandfather their blanket free pass from the NSG.

Now, that the NSG has passed their new guidelines, India is not the one going shopping but salesmen coming to India's door.

However, there is a new development that would reduce the NSG fears of siphoning off the technology to weapons development.

India's commitement to the FMCT indicates that she is reaching her desired quota for weapons grade materials.

[Yusuf]

Colonel, David Albright four or five years ago in his assessment gave enough weapons and reactor grade fissile material to make over 2000 bombs.

[Officer of Engineers]

Not all of it is destined for military purposes. And the FMCT defines military grade materials wheras it still allows civilian materials to go through. Whatever the case, it would indicate that India would have no more need for any further weapons grade materials.

[Yusuf]

Not all of it is destined for military purposes. And the FMCT defines military grade materials wheras it still allows civilian materials to go through. Whatever the case, it would indicate that India would have no more need for any further weapons grade materials.

Sir, don't know what has happened since 2006. The nuke deal did free up some fissile material to be used for weapons. One of the reasons why Pakistan opposed the deal and also asked one for itself. How India decided its military and weapons program when all the while it was all mixed up? I think India used the deal to its advantage as far as weapons program goes and that's why we don't have a problem with FMCT. Funny how the very system designed to restrict India has been manipulated for Indias advantage. And the bloody commies opposed this deal!!!

[payeng]

DE,



the solution was fairly simple; work with the West but keep the socialist system, a la Great Britain.

it -still- wouldn't have been ideal, but it would have opened the gates to quite a bit of investment and foreign aid anyways-- see what the US was doing in afghanistan in the 50s.

what was hobbling india was the singular focus on sovereignty as well as a rather, shall we say idealistic foreign policy by nehru and gandhi. chindi hindi bhai bhai, anyone.

As per the struggle of Independence the main objective was 'purna-swaraj' meaning complete independence from foreign rule. And when it was achieved how come a freedom fighter who fought for independence compromise on the objectives which they have set while fighting for freedom? Remember more then just a former Prime Minister Nehru was also a freedom fighter who fought for independence. Maybe before any idea of possibly laying down to the US would strike in mind, India would have agreed a deal with Great Britain for limited sovereignty much before 1947.

Nehru was a Pacifist and I feel like supporting his Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai efforts as per historical efforts to design a national policy although another failure like the cold war but he was not politically wrong to perceive and wish for a peaceful neighbour then an opportunistic step to counter it by aligning with the distant west. Remember India had no issue with PRC other then supporting the Tibetan refugee. Without an aggressive policy towards PRC. As even for today the effort is in confidence building measures rather then being an enemy, If India goes West to counter a Chinese threat then it will not be a peace effort but a war effort, but in the mean time I think India should keep options for a worst case scenario.

But I still don't understand why India should preferably lessen her sovereignty when she can live without such a preference?

Opportunity? I think India would not prefer a sovereignty-to-trade deal as per her experience while dealing with East India Co. Merchants.

Another fact strikes in mind why the West would ask to compromise a bit of sovereignty for a trade?
Why no trade without condition, Why India have to join an alliance?

[astralis]

payeng,

And when it was achieved how come a freedom fighter who fought for independence compromise on the objectives which they have set while fighting for freedom?

there is a world of difference between being forced to have no sovereignty and an independent nation deciding to lessen her complete freedom of action somewhat in return for a very tangible benefit.

we're not talking India even being a Dominion, we're talking India working within the western framework.

Nehru was a Pacifist and I feel like supporting his Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai efforts as per historical efforts to design a national policy although another failure like the cold war but he was not politically wrong to perceive and wish for a peaceful neighbour then an opportunistic step to counter it by aligning with the distant west. Remember India had no issue with PRC other then supporting the Tibetan refugee.

worked out real well for India, didn't it. that should show you that Nehru's theories on international relations was, shall we say, problematic.

But I still don't understand why India should preferably lessen her sovereignty when she can live without such a preference?

oh, india COULD live without it-- she DID. the question is if this was preferable.

in regards to your question, i'm not even stating that india should be outright allied to the US, but simply have accepted the US-created western system following WWII. this would mean a more complete acceptance of things such as Bretton Woods-- a commitment, for instance, to open markets. heck, there was even an indian representative at Bretton Woods, CD Desmukh.

india tried to create an alternative to either the dictatorial communist countries or the democratic capitalist ones; this experiment just did not succeed well.

[payeng]

payeng,



there is a world of difference between being forced to have no sovereignty and an independent nation deciding to lessen her complete freedom of action somewhat in return for a very tangible benefit.

we're not talking India even being a Dominion, we're talking India working within the western framework.

May I know what type of western framework do you advocate for India?

worked out real well for India, didn't it. that should show you that Nehru's theories on international relations was, shall we say, problematic.

Few thinks like you said, but I disagree, as for a few Money is not the ultimate goal in life, 62 war had united India as never before.

oh, india COULD live without it-- she DID. the question is if this was preferable.

in regards to your question, i'm not even stating that india should be outright allied to the US, but simply have accepted the US-created western system following WWII. this would mean a more complete acceptance of things such as Bretton Woods-- a commitment, for instance, to open markets. heck, there was even an indian representative at Bretton Woods, CD Desmukh.

india tried to create an alternative to either the dictatorial communist countries or the democratic capitalist ones; this experiment just did not succeed well.

Maybe I am not the best person around to do a debate on economy, but if you are talking about the political structure of India, I would say the current political structure is the best possible structure applicable for India, that's how I suppose. If you have any alternative idea, I would be interested to go for a debate.