India's Partnership with France

Salman Khurshid and Laurent Fabius

After meeting his French counterpart, Laurent Fabius in Paris, the Indian External Affairs Minister, Mr Salman Khurshid admitted that: "Economic and commercial relations between India and France had been affected by the economic slowdown."
In an official visit to France, the minister however said that the bilateral relations were "again growing steadily and there is considerable untapped potential for further growth."
During his intervention, at a  joint press conference after the meeting in Paris, Khurshid invited "French investments in infrastructure, food processing industries, hi-tech and green technologies," adding that India and France shared the same values of liberty, equality and fraternity.
Though he did not attribute the famous triple-mantra to the French Revolution, it was symbolic that, while in Paris, he reiterated India's attachment to these universal values.
Both sides agree that the relations between India and France have always been based on trust.
Khurshid listed various fields such as trade, investment, defence, security, counter-terrorism, space, nuclear energy, education, culture, science & technology and people to people contacts where India and France work closely together.
Regarding civil nuclear co-operation, the Indian minister reaffirmed that India was committed to the Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project; further both sides are deeply committed to ensure the safety of the project.
Though no date was announced for the visit of President Hollande in India, Khurshid said that India was looking forward to welcoming President Hollande in the near future (hopefully sometime in February).
The Foreign Minister stated that the meeting with Laurent Fabius was "cordial, comprehensive and fruitful"; he took the opportunity to mention the close collaboration in the field of space.
He particularly pointed to the successful launch of the joint scientific satellite, Megha-Tropiques, in October 2011.
The launch of satellite for ARGOS and ALTIKA (SARAL) should happen during the first quarter of 2013, he said.

To give an idea of the 'trusted' relation between India and France, I re-post here my interview with Mr. Ranjan Mathai, then Indian Ambassador to France (today, India's Foreign Secretary) conducted for Rediff.com in 2008.

September 29, 2008
After meeting President George W Bush in Washington, DC, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh flew to Marseille, France, for the yearly European Union-India Summit. Dr Singh will then arrive in Paris where he is expected to sign an agreement in the field of civil nuclear cooperation with French President Nicolas Sarkozy.
Senior rediff.com Contributor Claude Arpi spoke to Ranjan Mathai, India's ambassador to France, to discuss not only the nuclear deal which will soon be operational and will have no other conditionality than the ones imposed by the Nuclear Suppliers Group waiver in Vienna, but also all other aspects of the Indo-French relations, ten years after the signature of a privileged strategic partnership with France in January 1998.

Let us first take the bilateral relations between France and India. 10 years ago, a strategic partnership agreement was signed between the two nations. It was one of the first to be signed. What is your assessment of this partnership today?
Indeed, it is a partnership which has grown in strength and maturity. We are today moving into concrete steps in all strategic fields.

Take first the field of space. We are increasing collaboration and have reached the stage where India's launch capacities will be used by France and its European partners. Then take defence -- we have a number of ongoing projects which are important to both sides.

Of course, there is the well-known Scorpene submarine project. Then there is the upgrade (you call it 'retrofitting') of the Mirage (fighter aircraft) which is crucial for our air force. There is also some ongoing discussion on a collaboration on missiles.

With MBDA (a subsidiary of EADS of France and BAE of UK)?

Yes, between MBDA and its Indian counterpart. In the months to come, we are hoping for some substantial progress in all this.

What about the 126 fighter planes for which bidding is opened?

It is an international tender opened to the major manufacturers. We understand that Dassault of France is one of the bidders. Though (in this case) evaluation and discussions have just started.
One issue which has been at the centre of the political stage in India is the nuclear deal. The media and the politicians have projected the deal as a US nuclear deal, though other players, mainly France and Russia [ Images ], have been involved from the start. Do you see it as a US nuclear deal only?
Let me put it this way. I don't know what the media is saying, but we, the Government of India, have always valued the potential of its partnership in the field of civil nuclear energy with both France and Russia.
Specifically for France, we expect that the bilateral agreement which was prepared earlier (and initialed) during the visit of President Sarkozy to India (in January 2008) will be signed during the prime minister's visit to France.
I must say that we appreciate very much the role of France during the talks with the NSG and the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency).

Has France been very supportive?

France has indeed been very active and supportive of India, not only during bilateral negotiations but also with other European partners and other members of these fora, particularly during the NSG negotiations. I have formally conveyed India's appreciation to the French government.

Reprocessing is not mentioned in the agreement previously initialed. Will you discuss this point during the bilateral talks?

I don't want to comment on the details. All matters related to civil nuclear cooperation will be discussed between both parties and the implementation will be made by the designated agencies of the two sides.

Both France and India have been facing attacks in Afghanistan in recent months. The French public is seriously concerned after the killing of 10 French soldiers and the Indian embassy was bombed in Kabul. Is there any collaboration between the two sides? Are you satisfied with the strategic dialogue on terrorism?

These are two different questions; though there are inter-relationships. One is in the general field of counter-terrorism or joint action against terrorism. We are at the stage of exchanging information.
We have a strategic dialogue (held twice a year between the Indian national security advisor and his French counterpart). The fight against terrorism is an important part of this dialogue. As the result of these regular meetings, the coordination (in the fight) against terrorism and the flow of information is improving. We hope that it will even become more effective in the coming years.
With regard to Afghanistan, we have always been in favour of international efforts for the stabilisation and reconstruction of the country. We ourselves have been involved in the field of economic reconstruction. We have taken up several projects (roads, etc) and we are training the Afghan forces.
The Afghan government has the Afghan National Development Strategy Plan which embodies the strategic priorities and aspirations of the Afghan government and people. We are supporting it, not only bilaterally (between India and Afghanistan) but also internationally. The national security of Afghanistan is part of the development strategy.
In June we participated in the international conference convened by the government of France and held in Paris. We then reiterated our support for the reconstruction and development activities of the Karzai government. We welcomed the role of France in bringing all concerned countries together.
The loss suffered by the French troops was a shock not only for France, but also for India. In fact our defence minister (A K Antony) has written to (Herve Morin) his French counterpart expressing India's shock and has presented our condolences for the French losses.

One of the criticisms against NATO is that it is not doing enough for the reconstruction like India is doing. Being geographically, historically and culturally closer to Afghanistan, could India advice NATO and France in this matter?

I don't think we would like to advise anybody, certainly not any international organisation, but in all our statements, in all our dialogues, we have repeatedly said that the Afghans themselves have devised as a consensus what they call their national development strategy, which includes security and reconstruction. Anything fitting into this is conducive for international cooperation.

About economic relations, President Sarkozy spoke of doubling the bilateral trade with India (to 12 billion euros) by 2012. Is it achievable? In which field do you see the most scope of growth?

It is important to remember that the 6 or 6.5 billon euros bilateral trade is very small considering the size of our two economies and the large size of our foreign trade. It is certainly not enough. In 2007, foreign trade grew at 26 per cent. If we are able to maintain this pace, the 12 billion euros target should be achievable even before 2012.
We are looking at an increased French investment in India (and a significant Indian investment in France). Investment-led trade could be a major factor in the years to come, particularly in infrastructure and high technologies.

What about nuclear cooperation?

Once the agreement gets off the ground and when groups like Areva come (to India), there will be a major increase in trade. Even now, if you look at trends in infrastructure, cement, railways, autos, etc. there is a great potential.

Part II
In the first part of the interview with senior rediff.com contributor Claude Arpi, India's Ambassador to France Ranjan Mathai discussed Indo-French nuclear cooperation.
In this concluding segment of an exclusive interview, the ambassador highlights India's expectations for the strengthening of the political dialogue between the two sides and stresses India's global role in tackling climate change issue.

The prime minister will meet MEDEF (Mouvement des Entreprises de France or French CEO's Union). There is a feeling that what is needed is facilitation for the small and medium-scale industries to invest in India or vice-versa. In a way, it seems easier for large companies to come to India.

The prime minister will address the India-EU business summit which is held in Paris. He will be accompanied by Mr Kamal Nath. There will be a very large number of French companies involved. I have seen the initial list of some 120 companies which will be participating; the MEDEF told us that they expect around 200 companies. This includes a large number of companies listed in the CAC 40 (the French Sensex), but also several small and medium-scale industries.
The day after the summit, FICCI will have an India-France business forum with French small business groups. Mr Kamal Nath will participate in this as well as in two other sessions, one being a meeting between the Committee Colbert and its Indian counterpart in the field of luxury goods.

A few words about educational exchanges. One critique is that there are very few Indian students in France. Perhaps the language is a problem, but 1,300 students is really a small number. How are you planning to improve this situation?

If you compare the numbers with Indian students in the US, one factor is definitively the language; another factor is that one generation having gone there (to the US), the next generation tends to follow. Linkages have been created between universities and individual academics, and these have not grown to the same extent with France.
US universities also offer financial assistance to Indian students. (About the number of students] Mrs Valerie Pecresse (the French minister for higher education and research) has also quoted this low figure of students when she visited India last November. Since then, many new exchanges have taken place. A Consortium of Indo-French Universities (CIFU) has been recently set up; its first meeting will be held in the next few months. They are working on mutual recognition of degrees, mobility of students, sharing of semesters, and other very innovative projects.
In the fields of sciences and engineering, a number of scholarships have been created. French companies have decided to sponsor some of them. In sciences and engineering, we expect a large increase of the number of students in the months and years to come.

Some institutions like the IITs already have their own tie-ups with some Grandes Ecoles (French prestigious schools of higher learning].

The IIMs and other business schools have started this, they have signed their own agreements with French business schools. This is complementary to the efforts of the consortium which is led by the Consortium of Indian Universities. This is a good project.

In France and Europe, the public and the governments are deeply concerned about environment and climate change. France and Europe would like India to be more active in the fight against global warming. What is the Indian government's response to this? Do you agree that India (and China) are more interested by growth than environment?

No, I don't agree. In fact we have always been interested by environment. In Stockholm, during the first UN Conference on Environment, one of the few world leaders who participated (apart from the host country), was Mrs Indira Gandhi [ Images ]. That was in 1972. The interest level of the other nations was not high at that time.
Of course, things have evolved; today it is a matter of global concern. The prime minister has announced a national action plan for adaptation. We are doing what we can in the field of renewable energies. We even created a ministry for renewable energy more than 20 years ago. We are one of the largest producers of wind power. We have also heavily invested in solar energy. We are now working on energy efficiency.
You must also remember that on a per capita basis, the CO2 emission is 1/5 of the European level and nearly 1/15 of the US. In India, CO2 emission is 1.6 tonnes per capita, in the EU it is 8 and the US, 19. France is slightly lower than the EU average because of its heavy investment in nuclear energy for electricity. Our prime minister has said that India will ensure that India's per capita emission will never exceed the levels of developed nations.

The planet would face a catastrophic scenario, if it did.

You have to take to account that we are human beings. We are all equal, and entitled to the same amount of atmospheric space. When you say the per capita argument is catastrophic, it appears to us that we have not the same rights than others. Every human being should be treated on the same basis.
We have been at the forefront of asking for a global cooperation to tackle this issue through three aspects. First, we need a transition to a new energy era, then we need more open trade in lower carbon technology for industrial processes, finally we need to look at lifestyles.
The latter is a matter of education, recycling, organising society to reduce waste, etc. But for the first two which are crucial for the economic suitability, we have to look at enough financial flows into these new technologies into the developing world. Then, when you have these new technologies, like clean coal, there is the cost element because of patents.
To give you the example of the HIV/AIDS campaign; the global community took a conscious decision, that if a company can produce at a lower price drugs which can help dealing with global calamity, then the drug is made available. The crisis had to be overcome by ending the monopoly of a few companies.
In the same way, if a breakthrough is made in new technologies, it should spread through the world. We should agree that it a global issue, not a commercial issue.
India and France have set up a joint working group for the purpose. We will meet very soon. We will look at technologies, finances and what can be done to support sustainable development.

Another summit will be held -- the EU-India summit. What are your expectations for this summit?

Let me clarify that the main interlocutor to the European Union is my colleague in Brussels.
As you know France is holding the presidency of the EU and we have been in dialogue. We are therefore looking forward to this summit to be held in Marseille [ Images ]. It will be a privileged dialogue between the top leaders of the European Union and the prime minister of India.
We hope that during the talks, some progress will be made on the path towards a broad based trade and investment agreement.
Then we expect a strengthening of the political dialogue between the two sides. We also hope to achieve some progress on other items related to education and culture. We finally understand that there will be a joint work program on energy issues and climate change which is a crucial issue.

Brussels seems indeed to be very keen on a dialogue on environment with India.

We have a Joint Action Plan. It defines the joint executive programme in different fields. On the occasion of the summit, the entire JAP is going to be reviewed. We are hoping for progress in all fields.

Hollande and Indo-French Relations

With nearly 52% of the votes, François Hollande, the Socialist candidate defeated Nicolas Sarkozy, the ‘hyper’ outgoing President in the French presidential elections.
One of the main characteristics of this campaign was the total lack of interest in foreign affairs; perhaps because both candidates are not too apart as far as France’s foreign relations are concerned.
Take Afghanistan, both Hollande and Sarkozy agreed to withdraw the French troops. The difference was just a question of timing; Hollande promised the departure of the French forces before the end of current year, while Sarkozy preferred to wait one more year.
There are also some divergences on the integration of the French Army in NATO. The main difference remains Paris’ position vis-vis Berlin. Some adjustment will have to be made by both ‘partners’ if the French-German ‘couple’ is to continue to give a lead to Europe.
Let us remember that the President of the French Republic is the elected Head of State with extended powers in the fields of defence and foreign affairs and some control over a Prime Minister nonetheless answerable to the Parliament.
In the field of foreign affairs, a turning point occurred just a week before the first round, when Sarkozy fired his last ammunitions at a large meeting attended by 100,000 participants (according to the organizers) on the Concorde Square in Paris (some observers counted only 25,000 people). The ‘news’ was Sarkozy’s attack on European Central Bank (ECB); he asserted that the ECB should do more to revive the European economic growth: “On the question of the ECB’s role in boosting growth, we French are going to open the debate.”
He affirmed that there should be ‘no taboos’ in discussing the rules of the Eurozone, including a more growth-oriented role for the ECB.
The mention of the ECB was a U-turn on the President’s previous policy. There were reasons for this: his main opponent Francois Hollande was addressing another rally of sympathizers (guess how many, also 1,00,000) from the large esplanade of the Chateau de Vincennes, the royal castle in Paris, which was razed during the French Revolution. Hollande said he could feel the country was on the brink of change: “I feel a great hope mounting from the depths of our country. A calm, firm, lucid hope of a change for the better."
After Sunday’s election of François Hollande, the relations with Germany and the European Union are bound to change.
The Socialist candidate has often repeated that when he becomes President, he would put an end to “austerity everywhere, austerity that brought desperation to people throughout Europe".

Relations with India
Many in India ask the question: will the election of Francois Hollande as President of the French Republic change Indo-French relations?
The answer is, probably not.
The word ‘India’ did not appear a single time during the entire campaign.
But to understand Hollande’s probable position, it is worth quoting an article published in Le Monde on May 22, 1981 titled: “India chooses the Mirage 2000 to modernize its Air Force”.
A day earlier, Francois Mitterrand had become the first elected Socialist President of the 5th Republic. At that time, Pakistan was trying hard to acquire F-16 fighter planes from the US; India’s purchase of 150 Mirage 2000 from France on this historic day had a symbolic implication.
In April 1982, a few months before President Mitterrand’s first State visit to India, the final agreement was signed. Though eventually all the Mirages were not delivered, the collaboration between Dassault Aviation and India has continued till date and during his last visit to India in December 2010, President Sarkozy signed an agreement for the ‘refitting’ of some 52 Mirages for about 2 billion dollars.
Before President Mitterrand’s second visit to India in February 1989, France concluded a contract for the feasibility study of the construction of an aircraft-carrier in the dockyards of Cochin for the Indian Navy; this project never fructified, but the intention was good.
One can expect President Hollande to follow in the footsteps of his political guru (Mitterrand) and ensure that the contract for the 126 medium multirole combat aircraft (MMRCA) will be concluded at the earliest. It is in the interest of both France and India.
The selection of the Rafales (meaning a 'gust of wind') and their induction in the IAF will certainly mark a new beginning in the long and trusted partnership, started in the 1950's, between France and India.
While President Mitterrand laid the foundation of a solid friendship; the regular dialogue was institutionalized during President Chirac’s visit in 1998 through a ‘strategic’ partnership. Practically, it meant:

•  A Strategic Dialogue at the level of National Security Advisors (Sherpa) providing both sides an opportunity to review the evolution of the overall global security situation and emerging challenges in various parts of the world.
•  A High Level Committee for Defence at the level of Defence Secretaries, works through its three specialized sub-committees, dealing with issues related to defence cooperation.
•  A Joint Working Group on Terrorism has been established to cooperate in the fight against terrorism
•  Annual consultations between the two foreign ministries are held at the level of Foreign Secretaries.
•  A Joint Committee for Economic and Technical Cooperation at the level of Ministers of Commerce
•  Joint Naval Exercises
•  Aerial Exercises
•  Joint Research and Development

Whoever becomes President Hollande’s Sherpa (equivalent to the Indian NSA), these institutionalized mechanisms will remain in place.

Civil Nuclear Cooperation
In September 2008, France was the first country to sign a civilian nuclear deal with India.
In December 2010, President Sarkozy visited India for a second time. The main feature of his visit was the decision of Delhi and Paris to build two European Pressurized Reactors (also known as Evolutionary Power Reactor or EPR) of 1650 MW each for an estimated cost of about 9.5 billion dollars. A ‘framework agreement’ was signed. Due to the complexity of the project between Areva and the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL), it will take some more time for the project to reach its final conclusion.
The Jaitapur site in Maharashtra will ultimately have six reactors and produce 10,000 MW of power, a boon for ‘developing’ India. The Joint Declaration rightly says that “the signing of the General Framework Agreement between NPCIL and Areva represents a significant milestone.”
Will President Hollande honour these agreements?
Let us have a look at Candidate Hollande’s electoral promises in the nuclear field? There are 3:

• To reduce the share of the nuclear in electricity production from 75% to 50% by year 2025.
• To close down the Fessenheim, the first French nuclear plant dating from the 1950’s
• To pursue the construction of the EPR in Flamanville

No doubt that President Hollande will vigorously pursue the Indo-French collaboration in Jaitapur by giving all necessary assurances to the Indian authorities and public about the safety of the ‘evolutionary’ plants.

Education
One domain where a lot needs to be done is the field of educational exchange.
Mrs. Valerie Pécresse, a former French Minister for Higher Education had announced in 2007 a target of 4000 Indian students going to France for higher studies. Two years later, when President Sarkozy visited India, the objective had not been reached.
At that time, collaboration between IIT Jodhpur and France was started with much fanfare. The scheme is today progressing at a slow pace. According to The Indian Express: “France has termed the IIT Jodhpur academic environment and faculty rather unimpressive and the IIT in turn has said what the French are offering them is far too little for an institute of its stature.”
There is a lot to be done in this field, which could a crucial element to lay a more sustainable foundation for the partnership.
Let us not forget that during the past 5 years, a large number of French companies such Michelin, Renault, Alstom, etc. have put up factories in India and they need to employ French-speaking Indian graduates.
President Hollande or his Education Minister will have to work hard on the issue.
As for cultural relations, they will go on regardless of who is at the helm of India or France.
There is however no doubt that a solid political relation with France could balance India’s foreign relations which have often tilted towards the United States or Russia.

Beware the Pakistani Cloud

China does not care for international agreements. This is not new. 
While India had to struggle for three years to get an exemption from the Nuclear Suppliers Group to be able to sign civilian nuclear agreements (with France, US and Russia amongst others), China 'offers' nuclear technology to Pakistan without going through any of these legal niceties.
At the same time, the US and France have decided to close their eyes on the Sino-Pakistani deal.
President Sarkozy on a visit in Beijing lobbied for more nuclear 'cooperation' between China and France; they have decided to 'save' nuclear technology as Le Monde wrote.
Xinhua reminded us of last year memorable visit of President Hu to France, "During the meeting, Hu said China and France should expand cooperation in burgeoning industries such as new energy, recycling and nuclear safety while deepening cooperation in traditional fields such as trade and economics."
There is however a problem. Beijing is selling outdated technology to Pakistan and if something happens to the reactors (earthquake, floods or terrorist attacks), India will be the first country to get the fumes.
Why is the Indian anti-nuclear lobby so silent on this?
They probably believe that the cloud will stop on the LoC!

China to Sell Outdated Nuclear Reactors to Pakistan
Voice of America
Stephanie Ho
Beijing
March 24, 2011
China is pressing ahead with nuclear energy cooperation with Pakistan, despite concerns that it is shipping decades-old technology to its South Asian neighbor. This comes as China suspended approvals for new nuclear power plants within China to review safety standards following the recent earthquake/tsunami disaster in Japan.
Chinese authorities have already suspended approvals of new nuclear plants within the country because of safety concerns sparked by the disasters in Japan.
But when Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu was asked Thursday about whether Beijing is similarly concerned about exporting outdated nuclear technology to Pakistan, she dismissed it as unrelated.
Jiang says there are no direct links to the two issues.  She says the Chinese government wants to see "orderly and reasonable"  nuclear development in China, and is especially concerned about safety.
As for Pakistan, though, she said only that China and Pakistan’s nuclear cooperation has been under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
China has provided two reactors to Pakistan’s Chasma nuclear power plant, with a deal that it provide two more. American officials have not expressed outright opposition, but have said if China goes ahead with Chasma 3 and 4, these actions would be "inconsistent" with commitments it made when it joined the Nuclear Suppliers Group in 2004.
Meanwhile, reports on Chinese nuclear websites show work on Chasma is continuing, even after the nuclear crisis in Japan.
Mark Hibbs, an atomic energy expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, has closely followed the Chinese-Pakistani nuclear cooperation. He says China has been developing its own nuclear technology, but that it is outdated.
"So far most of the reactors that the Chinese themselves have built on the basis of their own know-how reflects a technology which was available in the West and in advanced nuclear countries outside of China about 30 years ago," he said. "The Chinese are exporting this equipment - this is the technology which China has been exporting to Pakistan. I don’t believe right now that there is a major world market outside of Pakistan which is very interested in this technology."
Hibbs says France, Japan, and the United States provide the world’s most advanced nuclear technology, so he sees China as having commercial reasons for wanting to catch up. He says China also has geopolitical concerns for wanting to help Pakistan.
"What is important for China is that this deal cements and underpins China’s strategic partnership with Pakistan in the political and military area," said Hibbs. "But it also provides a workplace for China’s nuclear industry to gain experience in building nuclear power plants abroad, an endeavor that the Chinese in the future very much want to do."
Earlier this month, in another sign that the Chasma project is moving forward, the International Atomic Energy Agency agreed to Pakistan’s request to safeguard the two new planned reactors there, to ensure that the nuclear material from the reactors is not diverted to make nuclear weapons.
In 2008, the United States won a waiver from the Nuclear Suppliers Group before it could go ahead with a controversial nuclear power deal with India. The cartel is made up of countries that work to ensure that civilian nuclear exports are not used to make weapons.
China-Pakistan nuclear cooperation is expected to come up at the group’s annual meeting later this year, although the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Thursday did not indicate whether China would be seeking a similar waiver.

Earthquakes, Nuclear plants and Dams

As the Nippon tragedy unfolds, I happen to be visiting France, the land of nuclear energy. Do you know that since the end of the 1970s, France has built 58 reactors which produce 63 GW, a staggering 78% of the total electricity required by the country?
Even as the news of Fukushima flashed in the media, a debate had begun: could such a disaster happen in France? Is it not a pointer to abandon the nuclear for ‘cleaner’ energies such as wind and solar?
While in Japan many believe that the tragedy could send the world's third largest economy back into recession, in France, the ‘Greens’ led by Daniel Cohn-Bendit, the former leader of the 1968 student revolution and now European MP, demanded a referendum on nuclear energy. ‘Green ideology’ is one thing, running an industrialised country is another. We can however see some advantages in a serious debate: it can only help to clarify several points about the safety of the plants.
One could regret the absence of Areva in the French debate. The French company perhaps believes that the question is far too serious to be discussed by ‘lay, ignorant’ people, but unless and until the true risks are explained to the ‘common man’ in a way he can understand, the discussion will (and should) go on.
This comes soon after the Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL) and Areva signed a framework agreement for the construction of two Evolutionary Power Reactors (EPRs), to be followed by four more, at Jaitapur in Maharashtra (with a capacity of 1650 MW each). The accident in Japan might be ‘a big dampener’ on India’s program which plans to spend $ 175 billion on nuclear energy by 2030. However nuclear energy is still considered as the cleanest energy to sustain a 9% to 10% economic growth.
The economic media Bloomberg believes that Manmohan’s nuclear dream might be threatened: “Manmohan Singh who risked his premiership to secure India’s access to atomic reactors and supplies, faces opposition to his $175 billion investment plan.”
The problem for India may not be earthquakes, as no seism of this amplitude has ever been recorded in Western India, but terrorism. Suppose a jihadist group hijacks a plane after take-off from Mumbai and manages to crash with full tanks in Jaitapur, will the structure resist such an impact?
A top-secret document prepared by Electricity de France (EDF) in 2003 stated that the EPR plant could withstand the crash of a plane. The calculations were based on the fall of fighter plane with an extrapolation for a civil plane such an Airbus; however, many were not convinced.
Interestingly, the disaster in Japan as well as the crisis in the Middle East are centred on one subject: energy supply. George Friedman wrote in Stratfor: “Over the past week, everything seemed to converge on energy. The unrest in the Persian Gulf raised the specter of the disruption of oil supplies to the rest of the world, and an earthquake in Japan knocked out a string of nuclear reactors with potentially devastating effect. Japan depends on nuclear energy and it depends on the Persian Gulf, which is where it gets most of its oil.”
Analysts have failed to note a third event linked to energy: it is the ratification of the 12th Five-Year Plan by China. The Middle Kingdom’s booming economy is the greediest ogre needing endless energy. One of the solutions proposed by Beijing is to build dams on rivers originating in Tibet.
China has already built more dams than any other country on the planet. Chinese know-how is even exported: Chinese banks and dam companies are involved in the construction of some 269 dams in 67 different countries, particularly in Africa and Southeast Asia …and PoK (legally an Indian territory).
India of course does not want to be left behind, the business is too lucrative. A recent BJP report on the functioning of the Congress governments in the Northeast has equated the ‘hydropower project scams’ in Arunachal Pradesh with the 2G scandal.
The Report alleges that since the Congress government came to power in 2004, some 137 MoUs were signed and awarded ‘to dubious companies’: “The hydropower scam in Arunachal Pradesh is one of the biggest scams of the region... The MoUs have been signed flouting all procedures and norms set by the Union power ministry,” says the Report, adding that “hydro power projects totalling 70,000 MW and worth Rs 400,000 crore were signed in a short period.” Same thing in China.
An article published in the ‘official’ Global Times shows the dam lobby in China have been able to change the decision taken by Premier Wen Jiabao in April 2004. Wen had then given an assurance that the large hydropower plants (on the Salween to start with) would be “seriously reviewed and decided scientifically.”
The South China Morning Post (SCMP) noted the ‘scientific’ change of wind: “analysts say mainland authorities have clearly pinned their hopes on renewable energy such as wind, solar and hydropower, to help reduce the mainland's reliance on coal amid mounting concern over the country's environmental woes and huge carbon emissions”
Today, in the name of global warming and environment protection, the powerful development lobbies are back with a vengeance. Wang Jian, a river specialist from Beijing who visited sections of the major rivers in December told the Global Times that smaller projects, which do not need Central Government approval, have burgeoned, "They are as dense as the stars in the sky", he said.
The building of dams on the Salween, Mekong or Brahmaputra also has strategic consequences. Everybody seems to have forgotten that on August 15, 1950, one of the most powerful earthquakes of the 20th century, with a magnitude of 8.7, occurred in Tibet.
The young Dalai Lama who was then in Lhasa wrote in his biography: "It was like an artillery barrage – which is what we assumed to be the cause of both the tremors and the noise: a test of some sorts being carried out by the Tibetan army…"
Another witness was Robert Ford, the British wireless operator working for the Tibetan government in Eastern Tibet. He remembered: "This was no ordinary earthquake; it felt like the end of the world. Mountains and valleys exchanged places in an instant, hundreds of villages were swallowed up, the Brahmaputra River was completely rerouted and for hours afterwards, the sky over the south-eastern Tibet glowed with an infernal red light, diffused with the pungent scent of sulphur."
Now the governments of China and India are planning mega-dams in the same area. Beijing even speaks of cascades of hydropower stations.
The situation is extremely worrisome especially after 87,000 died in the earthquake in Sichuan in 2008 (the Chinese geologists now admit that it was due to the weight of the reservoir of nearby Zipingpu dam). An earthquake on the Brahmaputra or one of its tributaries could destroy any of these dams. As the result, millions would be washed away in Arunachal, Assam and Bangladesh.
While the earthquake and tsunami in Japan will hopefully trigger more research and inject some new 'thinking' in the brains of the 'deciders', nobody is thinking of the consequences of a seism in Tibet.

The US Double Standards

While the US Administration once again shows double standards in terms of nuclear proliferation and supports rogue States such Pakistan, the Chairman and Managing Director S K Jain State-owned NPCIL told reporters at Kalpakkam Atomic Power station that "NPCIL is under no compulsion that just because you have entered into a governmental agreement, you have to sign an agreement with Areva. I will buy the reactor at my terms which are very clear and that are technically acceptable to me."
Does it mean that NPCIL does not care for the two agreements signed by the Governments of India and France in December 2010 — general framework agreement and an early works agreement — for construction of two of Areva's Evolutionary Power Reactors of 1,650 megawatts each in Maharashtra.
It is also surprising to hear a Government servant declaring "I will buy". The agreements are between two sovereign nations, not individuals. 
Of course, it does not mean that both parties are exempted to negotiate a detailed contract involving all parties including contractors and sub-contractors (keeping in mind the recent nuclear accident in Japan and the Nuclear Liabilities Bill).
The framework agreements signed  in December cover supply of nuclear fuel for 25 years at Jaitapur site for two 1,650 MW reactors (and eventually for six).
Jain added: "I cannot purchase that costly power otherwise the company would become bankrupt."
Fixing the price of the energy is one of the many objectives of the negotiations; nobody has asked Mr Jain to go bankrupt. NPCIL has quite a childish Chairman. It is not of good omen for the future collaboration between India and France in Maharashtra.
In the meantime, Pakistan is going ahead with Chinese technology.


China a pass on NSG commitments for Pakistan nuclear deal
Ananth Krishnan
Not to oppose China's building of two nuclear reactors in Pakistan
The United States has indicated it will not oppose China's building of two nuclear reactors in Pakistan, and will give Beijing a pass on its non-proliferation commitments by allowing the deal to go ahead in spite of concerns that it will violate international guidelines governing nuclear trade.
Last week, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) gave its approval to a safeguards agreement for two new reactors that China is building at Chashma. The deal, many countries say, goes against China's commitments as a member of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), which bans the sale or transfer of technology to countries that have not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
U.S. Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asian Affairs Robert Blake told journalists here he did not bring up the deal during talks with Chinese officials this week on South and Central Asia. While he reiterated the U.S. view that the deal was “inconsistent” with China's NSG commitments, he also mounted a defence of the need for the deal in a briefing with reporters, linking it to an energy crisis and instability in Pakistan.

“Considerable challenge”
“What I'd like to emphasise is that it's very important that, on the one hand, China observe its NSG obligations, but on the other hand, the international community do as much as possible to help Pakistan to meet its energy needs,” Mr. Blake said. “Pakistan is facing quite severe energy shortages in many parts of the country. So the United States has been, I think, in the lead in many cases in trying to help Pakistan to deal with those challenges, and to not only refurbish some of its existing capacity...but to look at new ways to help meet those energy challenges. But those remain a very considerable challenge in Pakistan, and that will be one of our highest priorities, going forward.”
While the American position was that the construction of the two new reactors, Chashma 3 and 4, would be “inconsistent” with China's NSG commitments, the U.S. had “also been very clear on the need to support Pakistan's energy development,” he said. Mr. Blake's comments mark a shift in the U.S. position over the deal, suggesting that the U.S. will neither oppose the deal nor question China over its NSG commitments.
Only last year, during a visit to Beijing in May, Mr. Blake stressed “it would be important that China seek the exception from the NSG,” just as the U.S. did for its deal with India. The NSG granted an exemption for India's civilian nuclear cooperation with the U.S. to go ahead in 2008, but only after more than three years of difficult negotiations and after India took on a range of commitments. But in recent months, the U.S. has appeared to shift its stand, amid pressure from Pakistan for a similar civilian nuclear deal and a move to bring back on track its ties with China. Following a strained year, the U.S. has been working to mend fences, also seeking Chinese support on North Korea and Iran.
Mr. Blake said on Friday the U.S. would also seek to work closely with China on South Asia. The U.S. believed that “coordinating our efforts in the region with major actors like China” was “very much in our own interest,” he said, adding that he welcomed China playing “an important role” in the region.
Mr. Blake acknowledged that India had expressed concerns about the deal, and “to hold China to its NSG commitments.” However, he said the Indian side also understood “that Pakistan has severe energy needs and that this affects internal stability.”
Asked about perceptions here that the India-U.S. relationship was aimed at China, he said the U.S. had “reassured our friends in China that growing relations between India and the U.S. will not come at China's expense.”
“We want to see the growth of our relations with India, our relations with China, and India's relations with China,” he said.

Nuclear uncertainties

With the Nippon tragedy rapidly unfolding, Naoto Kan, the Prime Minister of the Land of the Rising Sun, announced that the levels of radioactivity have again risen in the Fukushima nuclear power plant. The population has now been evacuated from a zone of 30 km around the nuclear facilities.
In an address to the nation, Naoto Kan declared:"We are making every effort to prevent the leak from spreading. I know that people are very worried, but I would like to ask you to act calmly."
Luckily, the Japanese are among the most composed and disciplined people on the planet.
Authorities admitted that four explosions have already occurred at the plant since the massive earthquake (followed by a tsunami) struck the Japanese coast last week.
The plant’s operator Tokyo Electric Power Co announced that the Fukushima reactor No.2 has become the main concern for the engineers, while the fuel rods of reactor No.1 and No.3 reactors have partially melted.
For Kan, Japan faces its worst crisis since WW II. Many believe that the tragedy could send the world's third-biggest economy back into recession. As a result of the catastrophe, Japanese stocks have plunged to their lowest level in nearly two years ($500 billion loss for the market).
 I happen to be in France, the land of nuclear energy, when the tragedy has occurred. Since the end of the 1970’s, France has built 59 reactors producing 63 GW, a staggering 78% of the total electricity required by the country. Soon after the news of Fukushima started flashing on our TV sets, a hot debate began on French national media: can such a disaster happen in France? Is it not time to abandon the nuclear for ‘cleaner’ energies such as wind and solar?
The ‘Greens’ led by Daniel Cohn-Bendit, the former leader of the 1968 student revolution and now European MP, demanded a referendum on nuclear energy. ‘Green ideology’ is one thing, running an industrialised country is another; we can however see many advantages in a serious debate: it can only help to clarify several points about the safety of the plants, though the seismicity level in France is not the same as Japan’s and the third generation reactors are far safer than the ones in use in Japan.
One could regret the absence of Areva in the French debate. The French company perhaps believes that the question is far too serious to be discussed by ‘lay ignorant’ people, but unless and until the true risks are explained to the ‘common man’ in a way he can understand, the discussion will (and should) go on. Another issue is that Anne Lavergeon, the Chairperson of Areva is due for reappointment by President Sarkozy as her term finishes in June; to engage in such slippery discussions may be risky for her future career.
This comes soon after the Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL) and Areva signed a framework agreement for the construction of two Evolutionary Power Reactors (EPRs), to be followed by four more, at Jaitapur in Maharashtra (with a capacity of 1650 MW each). Shreyans Kumar Jain, chairman of the NPCIL immediately admitted that the potential meltdown in Japan might be ‘a big dampener’ on India’s program which plans to spend $ 175 billion on nuclear energy by 2030. The accident has also become a major factor for China; both nations consider that nuclear energy is still the cleanest energy to sustain a 9% to 10% economic growth.
The economic media Bloomberg believes that Manmohan’s nuclear dream might be threatened: “Manmohan Singh who risked his premiership to secure India’s access to atomic reactors and supplies, faces opposition to his $175 billion investment plan after Japan’s strongest earthquake triggered a nuclear accident.”
The problem for India may not be earthquakes, as no seism of this amplitude has ever been recorded in Western India (it is not the case in Arunachal Pradesh where the government is planning mega-dams), but terrorism. Suppose a jihadist group hijacks a plane after take-off from Mumbai and manages to crash with full tanks in Jaitapur, will the structure resist such an impact?
It depends of course on the design provided by Areva, but also on the construction of the concrete slabs and walls monitored by NPCIL. One can only hope that no ‘CWG techniques’ will be used for the construction.
In the meantime, Germany and Switzerland have declared a moratorium on new nuclear plants. Can India afford it?
One thing India can do is to invest heavily in research on thorium technology; it might be a safer solution.