The NPT is discriminatory because the P5, at least for a while, get to have nuclear weapons and no other countries do.
Allowing one – and only one – more country to have nuclear weapons somehow solves this problem, especially when that country has no Article VI obligations and (unlike the P5) hasn’t signed the CTBT.
Personally, I cannot think of a reason why India was not made a nuclear-weapon state in the “NPT.”:http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/npt2.htm
Well, except for this:
bq. For the purposes of this Treaty, a nuclear-weapon State is one which has manufactured and exploded a nuclear weapon or other nuclear explosive device prior to January 1, 1967.
Indira Gandhi “didn’t argue”:http://www.indianembassy.org/policy/Disarmament/disarm10.htm at the time that India even _wanted_ nuclear weapons:
bq. we have stated that the Government of India does not propose to manufacture nuclear weapons. This is a decision taken many years ago and is unrelated to the treaty on nonProliferation of nuclear weapons. We shall continue our efforts for nuclear disarmament because it is only through nuclear disarmament that discrimination would be eliminated and equality between nations reestablished.
Details…
The NPT is unfair and unworkable, which is why only three countries in the world haven’t signed it.
OK, so the Russians are not “waiting till December”:http://www.totalwonkerr.net/1684/tw-india-weekend-special-the-russia-edition to talk NPPs in India. (_But of course they wouldn’t… Would you?_)
The “statement released by Rosatom”:http://www.rosatom.com/en/news/11715_09.09.2008 is quite priceless…
bq. “It was *an absolutely right decision* and Russia was one of its initiators,” Kiriyenko said. He pointed out that the United States was of the same opinion. “This is *an example of mutual understanding between Russian and American nuclear power engineers*.”
As an aside, this is sort of the same point on U.S.-Russian “nuclear cooperation” on India that was made in a great “op-ed in _The Hindu_”:http://cns.miis.edu/other/potter080909.htm by CNS’s William Potter. *NOT*.
Anyway, Atomstroyexport head Leonid Reznikov is scheduled to visit India in *late October* to discuss the 4 new Kudankulam units. (According to Interfax, Atomstroyexport is also interested in cooperation with the Indian steel industry.)
Indian officials “reportedly expect”:http://www.rosatom.com/en/news/11702_09.09.2008 construction at Kudankulam to commence this year or in 2009. And they’re apparently ready.
bq. *In the last months NPCIL has actively worked to prepare area for the new reactors*: it has been building infrastructure: roads, power networks, houses for constructors. The next stage is digging the foundation pit.
I should note that I learned something else today. Apparently, the units at Kudankulam are “*protected from possible earthquakes, hurricanes, _air crashes_*.” Moreover, “*The two existing units*, located on the Indian Ocean coast, *have already survived a tsunami — the wave was stopped by _a special wave cutter_*.”
_Ooh… A special wave cutter… I want “one”:http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wave%20cutter too._
Dan Yurman has it over at “Idaho Samizadat”:http://djysrv.blogspot.com/ – a blog I’m sorry I didn’t know about until now.
Sean-Paul Kelley was kind enough to “link”:http://agonist.org/sean_paul_kelley/20080906/india_pakistan_and_nukes to “this post”:http://www.totalwonkerr.net/1703/unsc-on-india-and-pakistan about UNSCR 1172.
One of his readers wrote in to say:
bq. “Sean-Paul, just fyi, I think that that comment you referred to by Paul misunderstands what the UNSC resolution in question in fact does (even for the UN the text is clear enough). It calls on India and Pakistan to become signatories to the NPT. If they were to have done so, then they would not be allowed to have weapons. They didn’t sign up, however, nor could that particular UNSC resolution or any other force them to do so.”
I’m honestly not sure what this person thinks I got wrong. Article 25 says what it says, but it is true that the council took no action to try and force India and Pakistan to accede to the NPT.
The NSG waiver is a pleasant surprise that comes before Dmitriy Medvedev’s “December visit ^rus^”:http://www.scrf.gov.ru/news/343.html to New Delhi. As a reminder, Atomstroyexport has been building 2 units at Kudankulam since 2002. In January 2007, Rosatom and India’s Department of Atomic Energy signed a “memorandum of understanding on nuclear cooperation”:http://www.rosatom.com/en/news/3588_25.01.2007, which articulated future plans.
When the MoU was signed, there was “a firm agreement”:http://www.rosatom.com/en/news/3590_25.01.2007 on the construction of *4 additional units at Kudankulam* (which would bring the total number of units up to 6 at the site, all VVER-1000, constructed by Atomstroyexport). However, for over a year and a half now, *the Russians have patiently held off on consummating this agreement until the NSG waiver was in place*. The wait is now seemingly over.
As I “wrote here”:http://www.wmdinsights.com/I22/I22_RU3_EagerToIncrease.htm, some say the Russian nuclear industry “expect[s] to *gain 25-30%* of the Indian nuclear energy market” and *build up to 10* reactors. But *we shall see whether additional projects for Atomstroyexport will be firmed up during the December Russo-Indian summit*…
By the way, construction of the two grandfathered units at Kudankulam is moving forward. In late June, Atomstroyexport “completed shipments of fuel assemblies”:http://www.rosatom.com/en/news/10697_26.06.2008 to the site (as has been “noted elsewhere”:http://russianforces.org/nuclear/2008/06/kudankulam-fuel-shipments-comp.shtml). In July, the “progress of physical construction”:http://www.npcil.nic.in/kapp.asp of the units was at *86.9%* and *76.4%*. The Joint Coordinating Committee on Construction of Kudankulam has also “just finished meeting in Moscow”:http://www.rosatom.com/en/press-releases/11604_02.09.2008.
Finally, here’s “a link ^rus^”:http://www.atomstroyexport.ru/about/vacancy/ if you are interested in finding a job with Atomstroyexport. (Though they are picky in terms of who they hire, as “I previously noted”:http://www.totalwonkerr.net/1611/wanna-work-at-bushehr-now-you-can.)
ACA has “it.”:http://www.armscontrol.org/system/files/Final+Version+of+Statement.pdf
I am still thinking about it, but Daryl has some “action.”:http://www.armscontrol.org/node/3340/print This part jumped out at me:
The text of the NSG’s Sept. 6 statement on India — along with the national statements issued today by Austria, China, Germany, Ireland, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, and others — indicates that even if the NSG guidelines are not as clear as they should be or fail to include key provisions to reduce the adverse nonproliferation consequences, for all practical purposes:
– NSG states should not and will not likely engage in “full” nuclear trade with India;
– NSG states should and very likely would terminate nuclear trade with India if it resumes testing; and
– India’s compliance with it pre-2005 nonproliferation commitments and the implementation of bilateral trade with India will be reviewed on a regular (probably annual) basis by the NSG.
The rules are gone. Now what?
Don’t act so surprised.