Bush Scales Back Goal of a Nuclear Agreement During India Trip

[shugah]

Bush Scales Back Goal of a Nuclear Agreement During India Trip

Feb. 28 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush is scaling back his expectations for signing a nuclear-technology accord with India this week that would cement U.S. relations with a rising global power and ease pressure on world energy supplies.

Bush last week expressed hope of completing the agreement, which would give India access to nuclear material and equipment for civilian power plants, after arriving in India tomorrow. Administration officials now say the deal will happen soon, if not this week.

``Whether it gets done during the trip or not, we'll see, but it will get done,'' White House spokesman Scott McClellan said yesterday.

The administration has been seeking the agreement as part of a strategy to encourage India's rise as a global power and a partner in fighting terrorism. The nation's independent nuclear program, which primarily centers on weapons, is a point of national pride that Indians view as evidence of their emergence as a world power, said Esther Pan of the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington.

~snip~

Singh told parliament yesterday that he won't give up India's nuclear goals to achieve a pact. ``No part of this process would affect or compromise the strategic program,'' he said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=axE.0Z1CdfFo&refer=us

[Teaser]

1. Shorter Headline:Bush fails again!

Really, that could be the headline almost everday.

[BlueManDude]

2. He'll settle for a good plate of curry. n/t

[displacedtexan]

3. The evolution of a headline

1. Bush will go to India to sign nuclear-technology accord

2. Bush will go to India, hoping for nuclear-technology accord

3. Bush will go to India

[rodeodance]

4. setting expectations low.

[MrPrax]

5. Why is Bush going then?

Usually leaders go to 'sign' agreements, not help negotiate them--so either this report is slapping lipstick on a pig or helping to cover the real intent of the trip.

[Copperred]

6. Bush Admin is trying to trap India.

Pure & Simple....

-----------

According to Indian officials, the nuclear agreement breaches three red lines for Indian national security.

First, it would limit India's future ability to produce fissile material for the development and expansion of India's nuclear arsenal. India currently has some 70 nuclear warheads, and senior security officials have told UPI that the country needs "at least 300 warheads" to guarantee its future deterrence against Pakistan and China, its two nuclear-armed neighbors.

The current agreement would include India's next generation of fast-breeder nuclear reactors, which are said to be essential to the future production of fissile material. If they are brought within the IAEA system, this could limit India's capability to produce a larger arsenal. The Bush administration has agreed to leave outside the IAEA control system India's existing reactors that produce fissile material for military use. But these reactors are almost at the end of their working life and can produce enough fissile materials for only 20-30 more nuclear weapons.

Second, the agreement would bring Indian nuclear research laboratories under the IAEA's inspection and control regime. This has produced a revolt among India's nuclear scientists. They are prepared to allow IAEA controls over those parts of India's nuclear program that depend on international cooperation, but insist that India's homegrown nuclear research programs have to remain outside the IAEA system.

They fear in particular that India's pioneering and top-secret work on thorium as a nuclear fuel would be compromised under the IAEA regime, and that their researches would become available to potentially hostile countries. They claim they are close to a breakthrough on thorium technology which would make India independent of uranium supplies, and suspect that the U.S. draft of the agreement is really designed to block India's lead in this new area of nuclear technology.

Third, they oppose the U.S. insistence that the nuclear agreement be binding "in perpetuity."

"In a democracy, no government can be bound in perpetuity by decisions of its predecessors," one senior security official told UPI. "Everybody knows this. So there is a suspicion that this clause has been inserted to provide a justification for sanctions if a future Indian government decides to scrap the agreement. It looks like a trap."

http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20060223-064857-9002r