Tuesday, May 4, 2010

The Indo - US Nuclear Civilian Deal: Dictate Or Deal?

http://newsx.com/files/images/Indo_US%20Flag.jpg

The United States of America hailed the Nuclear Civilian Deal Agreement terming it historic. President Bush said "I am pleased that our two countries will soon have increased opportunities to work together to meet our energy needs in a manner that does not increase air-pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, promotes clean development, supports non-proliferation, and advances our trade interests."

The Indian Prime Minister said in parliament on similar lines on march 7th 2006, "The resumption of civilian nuclear energy cooperation would demonstrate that we have entered a new and more positive phase of our ties, so that we can finally put behind us years of troubled relations in the nuclear field".

The country's top nuclear scientists have expressed concern over the passing of the recent Indo-US nuclear civilian deal by the American Congress .The concerns are quite legitimate. The scientists have pointed out the provision of the deal seeks to cap India's right to conduct atomic tests. The former Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) Chairman M R Srinivasan now a Member of the AEC, expressed concern over the provision in the "Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006 which states that the US would terminate civilian nuclear cooperation if India were to conduct a nuclear test". This is something which no government of a sovereign nation can take as it clearly dictates in which a country's foreign policy should move.

"It is impossible to have a minimum credible deterrent without conducting nuclear tests. But the bill indicates that the cooperation will be terminated if this is done," former Atomic Energy Commission Chairman P K Iyengar said. For the Indian nuclear program to continue in a peaceful manner future test for having a minimum deterrent would be required. On top of that United States should not dictate us as to what we should do with our peaceful nuclear program.

The Indian External Affairs minister says, "India need not worry about the legislation passed by the US Congress as it is meant for the US lawmakers. India is obliged only to the bilateral agreement (123 Agreement),"He further stated in the parliament, "I would like to inform the House that the US Administration has categorically assured us that this legislation enables the United States to fulfill all of the commitments it made to India in the July 18 and March 2 Joint Statements and that this legislation explicitly authorises civil nuclear cooperation with India in a manner fully consistent with those two Statements. We fully expect the July 18 Statement and the March 2 Separation Plan to be reflected in the text of the 123 Agreement".

However question arises which both the CPI (M) and the BJP has pointed out rightly that there cannot be sea changes in the 123 agreement from what has been passed by the American Congress.

The Bharatiya Janata Party has demanded that the Government reject the "Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006," passed by the U.S. Congress instead of "accepting the humiliating conditionalities contained in it." The former Union Minister, Yashwant Sinha said, "final product is now before us and it does not look good. The Act passed by the U.S. legislature leaves us in no doubt that the purpose of the deal is to bilaterally impose on India conditionalities which are worse than those in the NPT [Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty] and the CTBT [Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty]. This is why a slim four-page bill is now a 41-page document,"

The Communist Party of India (Marxist) has said that the United States' legislation on the nuclear deal was "not acceptable," and asked the Manmohan Singh Government to discontinue talks with the George Bush administration, as the law contradicted most significant assurances given by the Prime Minister to Parliament. The statement of the Polit Bureau said, "Obviously, the U.S. administration is bound by the provisions of its Act while negotiating this agreement. This cannot be accepted by India, as it negates the most significant, if not all, assurances given by the Prime Minister to Parliament. Thus, further negotiations on this score must not proceed.''

The agreement will place a cap on India's nuclear program and will compromise not just India's weapons program but also the country's foreign policy. The goalposts which the Indian Prime Minister had spoken off in the Indian Parliament have shifted and the nuclear bill barters away India's right to explode a nuclear bomb. Another major concern which the Indian scientists have is that inspectors from the US will have access to India's nuclear facilities. This could be very dangerous for your strategic concerns as there is every chance of our nuclear secrets getting out and falling into the hands of the American establishment and this can be very dangerous for us in the long run. The very existence of our independent nuclear program would come under question. India cannot afford to have its nuclear program controlled by the Americans like that of Pakistan's

Another major concern is the fear that highly radioactive spent fuel will pile up if India is not allowed to recycle. On this issue the CPI (M) had to say this. "A major issue is that the civilian nuclear cooperation entails the right of India to sale of enriched fuel and reprocessing technique. The law provides for imposing restrictions and trade regimes, barring access to dual use nuclear technology. Thus India will be denied its full nuclear cycle." The BJP held the opinion that "the Act militated against full civil nuclear cooperation with India, the certification and reporting requirements continued to be rigorous and there was no assurance of uninterrupted fuel supplies for the civilian reactors. In fact, India could not reprocess the used fuel nor could it ship it back to the U.S. unless its Congress approved the reshipment".

This clause of the act is a major irritant for total cooperation in the nuclear field between the two countries as it negates the issue of equal parity. If accepted by India our nuclear program would get dependant of the supply of nuclear fuel by the United States .As the supply of nuclear fuel would depend on the whims and fancies of the US administration. The CPI (M) pointed this out in very clear terms when it said, "on the annual good conduct certification by the U.S. President the agreement would be in perpetuity, there was a possibility of the screws being tightened, if a Democrat, having different views on nuclear non-proliferation, came to power"

On a similar note the BJP pointed out "the certification and reporting requirements continued to be rigorous and there was no assurance of uninterrupted fuel supplies for the civilian reactors. India was forbidden from nuclear testing, even of the kind permitted by the CTBT, and the weapons program would be subjected to intrusive U.S. scrutiny. "The deal is more unequal than ever before. The principle of parity, on which the Prime Minister had placed so much emphasis, stands abandoned". The nuclear scientists of India have also pointed out that in this Indo- US deal, India will only get a limited supply of nuclear fuel and not a lifetime supply.

With objections being raised from all quarters the government of India should do a serious rethink on the whole deal itself. It should make the stand of India very clear to President Bush. The government of India argues that the agreement between India and the USA would be based on the "123 agreement" as such we should not be bothered about their internal legislation. The other four more agreements to follow were the Indian Safeguard Agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the "123 Agreement" for bilateral cooperation with the U.S., the new guidelines of the Nuclear Suppliers Group and the Additional Protocol, also with the IAEA. As the BJP and the CPI (M) have rightly pointed out the other four agreements will flow from this Act.

The clause in relation to Iran is also a direct interference in our foreign policy. The CPI (M) has rightly pointed out "The agreement is between India and the United States and not for Iran. Even the preamble goes beyond nuclear cooperation and there is an attempt to bind India to U.S. strategic interests in the name of partnership."

The looking into the overall pact as of now it seems to be highly insulting for India to accept it in its present form. It would be prudent enough for the Indian Government to tell the Bush administration a point or two. To accept the deal in its present form would be suicidal for India She cannot afford to do this, as this would be at the expense of our age-old independent foreign policy. We cannot accept such dictation from Uncle Sam and company .Let us be clear on this once for all.

No comments:

Post a Comment