• Indo-Russian Koodankulam agreement fails to materialise; Left allows government to talk to IAEA; PM, Sonia bat for nuclear deal at AICC meeting
The much expected Indo-Russian agreement for the construction of four additional reactors at the Koodankulam site failed to materialize during Prime Minster Manmohan Singh’s recent visit to Moscow. No reasons were assigned for the agreement not being signed.23 Some reports suggested that the decision could be due to the domestic problems that the government was facing with operationalising the nuclear deal.[1]
In other developments, Dr. Singh reiterated during a meeting of the All India Congress Committee that Indo-US nuclear agreement concerned only the civil side of the nuclear programme and would have no bearing on India’s strategic programme. Congress President Sonia Gandhi also affirmed that the deal would facilitate India’s access to fuel and new technologies to fulfil its requirements in the energy sector.[2]
The much expected Indo-Russian agreement for the construction of four additional reactors at the Koodankulam site failed to materialize during Prime Minster Manmohan Singh’s recent visit to Moscow. No reasons were assigned for the agreement not being signed.23 Some reports suggested that the decision could be due to the domestic problems that the government was facing with operationalising the nuclear deal.[1]
In other developments, Dr. Singh reiterated during a meeting of the All India Congress Committee that Indo-US nuclear agreement concerned only the civil side of the nuclear programme and would have no bearing on India’s strategic programme. Congress President Sonia Gandhi also affirmed that the deal would facilitate India’s access to fuel and new technologies to fulfil its requirements in the energy sector.[2]
Meanwhile, the Left parties granted their consent to the government to go ahead and talk to the IAEA on the India-specific safeguards. However, they reiterated that the government could not sign any agreement until the UPA-Left joint committee was informed of the safeguards negotiations and the draft safeguards agreement.[3]
• Pyongyang
Reports indicated that North Korea was providing evidence to the United States which tries to prove that Pyongyang never intended to produce highly enriched uranium (HEU). If true, it would undermine a key US intelligence contention regarding the same.
The U.S. charges of a large-scale uranium program led to the collapse of the 1994 Agreed Framework that had frozen a North Korean reactor that produced a different nuclear substance -- plutonium. The AF collapse freed Pyongyang to pursue the plutonium route toward making nuclear weapon material. Experts estimate that North Korea’s plutonium stockpile could yield about 8-10 weapons.[4]
The U.S. charges of a large-scale uranium program led to the collapse of the 1994 Agreed Framework that had frozen a North Korean reactor that produced a different nuclear substance -- plutonium. The AF collapse freed Pyongyang to pursue the plutonium route toward making nuclear weapon material. Experts estimate that North Korea’s plutonium stockpile could yield about 8-10 weapons.[4]
• IAEA releases report on Road Map
The IAEA released its much anticipated report on the Iran-IAEA Road map, which was generally favourable to Iran. It noted that while Tehran was truthful about certain key aspects of its nuclear history, it added that in the absence of an Additional Protocol, the agency’s knowledge about Iran’s current activities was limited.[5]
• Questions about the safety of Pakistani nuclear weapons - Pak Foreign Office says everything fine; New York Times: Bush administration spent close to $100 million on securing Pak nuclear weapons and laboratories.
Questions continued to be raised in the international media about the safety of Pakistan’s strategic assets.29 The spokesperson of the Foreign Office, noting that the highest level of institutionalised protection was accorded to Pakistan’s strategic assets, emphasized that they were “as safe as that of any other nuclear weapons state.”[6]
Meanwhile, The New York Times in a report stated the Bush administration had spent almost $100 million on a highly-classified program to help Pakistan secure its nuclear weapons over the past 6 years. The report added that helicopters, night-vision goggles, nuclear-detection equipment among other equipment had been supplied to Pakistan towards this end.[7]
Meanwhile, The New York Times in a report stated the Bush administration had spent almost $100 million on a highly-classified program to help Pakistan secure its nuclear weapons over the past 6 years. The report added that helicopters, night-vision goggles, nuclear-detection equipment among other equipment had been supplied to Pakistan towards this end.[7]
[1] Vladimir Radyuhin, “India 13 November 2007 , at http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/thscrip/print.pl?file=2007111368671000.htm&date=2007/11/13 /&prd=th&
[2] Gargi Parsai, “Deal won’t hurt strategic programme: Manmohan,” The Hindu, 18 November 2007 , at http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/thscrip/print.pl?file=2007111861950100.htm&date=2007/11/18
/&prd=th&
[3] Vinay Kumar, “No change in Left stand,” The Hindu, 18 November 2007 , at http://www.hindu.com/2007/11/18/stories/2007111861990100.htm
[4] Kessler, “N. Korea Offers Evidence to Rebut Uranium Claims,” The Washington 10 November 2007 , at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/
content/article/2007/11/09/AR2007110902364.html?hpid=moreheadlines
[5] “IAEA: Iran 15 November 2007 , at http://news.aol.com/story/_a/iaea-iran-generally-truthful-on-nukes/n20071115133409990026
[6] “Transcript of Press Briefing on 12 November, 2007 ,” Pakistan
November 2007, at http://www.mofa.gov.pk/Spokesperson/2007/Nov/Spokes_12_11_07.htm
[7] David E. Sanger and William J. Broad, “U.S. Secretly Aids Pakistan in Guarding Nuclear Arms,” The New York Times, 18 November 2007 , at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/washington/18nuke.html?_r=2&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1195394583-NwjhFBckXOI0XWaP/6+YRA
0 comments:
Post a Comment