Nukes for India

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Monday conceded that certain aspects of US legislation expected to clear the way for a nuclear deal with India are cause for concern, and promised not to sign any pact which curbs not just the weapons programme but also the nuclear energy sector and R&D as a whole.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...caps_arms_programme_PM/articleshow/843225.cms

her comments to House international relations committee, US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice made it clear that the deal would not restrict India's strategic programme while it would, in fact, enhance capacity to build weapons. "India has, by most estimates, 50,000 tons of uranium in its reserves," she said.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/N-deal_will_help_India_build_weapons_Rice/articleshow/843271.cms

Well Rice has answered Singh already and i think this deal is going to go ahead.

There has been a lot said abt the cap placed on N test,well even without this treaty India would have been forced to face a sanction if it does a N test.

 

President Bush waived all problematic sections as advisory and not binding on india..So Hyde Act in its enterity is not binding on India. The Trick will be Indian Agreements with the other countries like France,Russia and China.

 

Will definitly look for link , saw it on TV
We define what is problematic for us.
India has checks and balances, We are not run on one man's whimps and whams

 

Well Bush has singned the deal, Singh has said India will retain the right to do N tests, Rice has said this deal would help in Nuke weaponisation.

Now where is the discord?

 

Indian nuclear market is worth $ 100 bn ,with this deal US companies are going to have a market share of 40% ie $40 bn, which justifies the deal.

 

Yes. You're right. The maximum anxiety about the Pakistani nuclear program is in India. Personally I feel the Pakistani program is fine enough. Nobody in Pakistan is fool enough to launch nukes without sanction. Nuclear tech. isn't going anywhere after the A.Q. Khan saga and Unkil having a say.

 

Thursday, December 21, 2006

Indo-US N-deal faces criticism from left and right

By Matthew Rosenberg

Some say the US-India deal attempts to undermine India’s cherished atomic weapons programme. Others have suggested Washington wants to dictate New Delhi’s foreign policy

A nuclear cooperation pact touted as the cornerstone of an emerging India-US partnership has faced pointed criticism from India’s political left and right, underscoring how far the countries have to go as they try to overcome decades of mistrust.

Some have called it an American attempt to undermine India’s cherished atomic weapons program. Others have suggested Washington wants to dictate New Delhi’s foreign policy.

The criticism has intensified since US President George W Bush on Monday signed a law allowing Washington to ship nuclear fuel and technology to New Delhi. The new law, which reverses 30 years of US atomic policy, was a key step toward implementing the deal. The pact is firmly supported by India’s government and is unlikely to be rejected by New Delhi.

What the rancor here illustrates are the shared democratic values that are bringing India and the United States together and similar independent streaks, which could present the biggest obstacles to a closer partnership on the world stage, in many ways the ultimate goal of the deal.

“When it comes to foreign policy, like America, the record says India has always pursued its own interests, acting unilaterally if necessary,” said C. Uday Bhaskar, a senior analyst at the Institute for Defence Studies in New Delhi.

And therein lies the problem — New Delhi’s and Washington’s foreign policy goals are often not in sync, as evidenced by a nonbinding clause in the new US legislation directing the president to determine whether India is cooperating with American efforts to confront Iran about its nuclear program.

Many here are rankled by suggestions from Washington that New Delhi should support American policy, be it on Iran, a longtime ally, or China, with whom India is also seeking closer ties.

“Our foreign policy must remain independent,” said Basudeb Acharia of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), which supports India’s governing coalition.

“If they don’t agree to remove these conditions then we will have no choice but to put pressure on the government not to sign.”

On the other side of the political spectrum, the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), a Hindu nationalist party, is criticising the deal as an American plan to undermine India’s nuclear weapons program.

That’s no small charge here _ many Indians see nuclear weapons as key to country’s international standing, and nearly everyone agrees they are a needed deterrent against neighboring archrival Pakistan, also nuclear-armed.

“The objective of Washington’s policy is to halt, rollback and eliminate” India’s nuclear capability, said a BJP lawmaker, Arun Shourie, during a debate in the upper house of India’s Parliament on Tuesday.

In exchange for nuclear fuel and technology, India has agreed to place 14 civilian nuclear plants under international inspections. Eight military plants would remain off-limits.

The deal, if finalised, would open the international nuclear market to India, from which it had been shut out by its long-standing refusal to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

That has in turn limited the country’s atomic program, and New Delhi clearly hopes it will soon be able to get the fuel and know-how it so desperately needs to build new reactors and help it overcome a chronic energy crunch, which analysts say could limit economic growth.

Critics of the plan in America say it could boost India’s nuclear arsenal and spark a nuclear arms race with Pakistan.

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Monday defended the deal as good for the country, and said any concerns New Delhi has would be dealt with during technical negotiations in the coming year.

He didn’t elaborate on India’s concerns, but some of India’s top nuclear scientists have voiced fears the deal could limit New Delhi’s right to reprocess spent atomic fuel and employ other sensitive nuclear technologies. “We have possessed these technologies for years, we’ve been able to reprocess since 1965,” said M. R. Srinivasan, a member of the Indian government’s Atomic Energy Commission. “So this law is obviously a concern.” “And what of a future weapons test” – an act that could nullify the deal _ “a test by Pakistan could provoke a legitimate Indian reaction,” he said.

Pakistan and India have fought three wars since their independence from Britain in 1947, but are engaged in a fitful peace process that has eased tensions considerably.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006\12\21\story_21-12-2006_pg4_22

 

Bush seeks to allay India's concerns

Siddharth Varadarajan

President issues three caveats to construe policy statements as advisory





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Will not be bound by some of the law's provisions: Bush
India wants 123 pact to incorporate all U.S. commitments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


New Delhi: In an effort to allay official Indian concerns about several aspects of the nuclear cooperation legislation passed by the U.S. Congress earlier this month, President George W. Bush declared on Monday that he would not be bound by some of the law's provisions.

In a formal statement issued shortly after signing into law the Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006, Mr. Bush introduced three specific caveats based on the executive's constitutional prerogative to conduct foreign policy.

"Not foreign policy"


Noting that Section 103 of the Act "purports to establish U.S. policy with respect to various international affairs matters," he said his approval of the Act "does not constitute my adoption of the statements of policy as U.S. foreign policy." Among the clauses in this section that Indian officials found particularly objectionable were directions to limit the amount of nuclear fuel India could store, and to "seek to prevent the transfer" to India of nuclear material by other countries in the event that the U.S. cuts off supplies.

"Given the Constitution's commitment to the presidency of the authority to conduct the Nation's foreign affairs," Mr. Bush's statement notes, "the executive branch shall construe such policy statements as advisory."

The second caveat attempts to undo the presumption of denial of enrichment and reprocessing-related equipment to India, built into Section 104(d)(2) of the Act. India objected to this clause because it tended to rule out the resumption of "full" nuclear cooperation as promised by the July 2005 agreement.

In his statement, Mr. Bush noted that this restriction could give rise to a potential conflict between U.S. domestic law and Nuclear Suppliers' Group guidelines, and raise "a constitutional question." Thus, in order to avoid such an eventuality, "the executive branch shall construe Section 104(d)(2) as advisory."

Finally, Mr. Bush's statement said he would "construe provisions of the Act that mandate, regulate, or prohibit submission of information to the Congress, an international organisation, or the public" in a manner that would be consistent with his "constitutional authority to protect and control information that could impair foreign relations."

In this regard, he specifically mentioned Sections 104 and 109 of the Act, which deal, inter alia, with reports on whether India is in compliance with its obligations, as well as on the establishment of a "joint scientific cooperative nuclear non-proliferation programme," and which mandate close scrutiny of India's strategic programme.

Reporting requirements


Prime Minister Manmohan Singh noted last August that some of the annual reporting requirements, even if non-binding, introduced an element of uncertainty and should be done away with. Though the Hyde Act tempered these requirements somewhat, New Delhi was not fully satisfied with the outcome, and wanted the White House to clear the air on these.

Officials said though Mr. Bush's caveats allayed some of the major concerns India had about attempts to shift the goalposts of the July 2005 agreement, New Delhi's aim was to ensure that the bilateral "123 agreement" fully incorporates all U.S. commitments, including those implied by the latest statement. This is considered crucial since Presidential statements and clarifications can always be reversed depending on changed political circumstances.








Related Stories:
Options open on nuclear tests, says Pranab


Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

http://www.hindu.com/2006/12/20/stories/2006122012390100.htm

 

India fears US nuclear trap
BANGALORE - Even as US President George W Bush signed into law a bill that Congress passed last week allowing Washington to conduct nuclear trade with India, sections in India are wondering whether this country can trust Bush to deliver on his promises.

They point out that the US law enabling nuclear trade with India deviates significantly from commitments that were made by the

Bush administration to the Indian leadership over the past year.

The Henry J Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006 reverses 30 years of US policy that prevented nuclear cooperation with India, a non-signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that carried out its first nuclear test in 1974.

The Hyde Act removes an important hurdle in the way of India purchasing long-denied nuclear fuel from the US. It also paves the way for the US and India to move to the next step on their way to civilian nuclear cooperation - that of negotiating and finalizing the bilateral 123 Agreement (123 refers to the relevant section of the US Atomic Energy Act of 1954).

While New Delhi and Washington are hailing the US legislation as marking a new era in India-US relations, some scientists and analysts in India are calling on the government to proceed with caution. They argue that the US legislation, which provides clear pointers to what the US will insist on in the 123 Agreement, will not culminate in a deal that is in India's national interest.

India's nuclear scientists have come out in sharp criticism of the legislation, claiming that an agreement that conforms to it is not in India's interests. A N Prasad, former director of the Bhabha Atomic Research Center (BARC), has argued that the US legislation "is more about non-proliferation aspects stipulating what India should do and not do to keep it in line with US interests, objectives and policies".

Prasad has said the legislation "talks about congruence [of India's policy] with US policy on Iran". Although the legislation does not use the term "rollback" on the nuclear program, it expects India to accept a "permanent moratorium on nuclear tests, stop production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons, cap production of weapons and eventually eliminate them".

It expects "India to join R&D [research and development] with the US on non-proliferation issues along with various agencies and departments of the US government totally extraneous to the civil nuclear-cooperation deal. If this is the intention with which the deal will be steered, if not immediately, in course of time India will lose control of its nuclear future."

Last week, former scientists associated with India's nuclear program met with Atomic Energy Commission chairman Anil Kakodkar to express their misgivings about the deal. The government has now promised to involve them in an advisory role during the negotiations of the 123 Agreement.

Critics of the way the nuclear deal is moving point to the many ways in which the US goalposts with regard to civilian nuclear cooperation with India have shifted. The US legislation is significantly different from the commitments Bush made to the Indian government in a joint statement on July 18 last year and the March 7 Separation Plan.

For instance, while these two commitments speak of full civil nuclear-energy cooperation, the US legislation bars India from access to uranium enrichment, spent-fuel reprocessing and heavy-water technologies. India will have access to nuclear fuel and reactors, but not technology and sensitive material.

Also, while the two statements envisaged a one-time waiver of US law to facilitate nuclear cooperation and were silent on India's nuclear-weapons program, the US legislation says cooperation is subject to annual review and renewal, and links this to India's strategic-military sector. India is not assured of an uninterrupted supply of fuel for the lifetime of the reactors in the safeguarded category.

On August 17, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh assured the Upper House of Parliament that India would "not agree to any dilution [of the agreements reached earlier] that would prevent us from securing the benefits of full civil nuclear cooperation ... We seek the removal of restrictions on all aspects of cooperation and technology transfers pertaining to civil nuclear energy - ranging from nuclear fuel [and] nuclear reactors to reprocessing spent fuel, ie, all aspects of a complete fuel cycle." He clarified that an annual certification requirement "would introduce an element of uncertainty regarding future cooperation and is not acceptable" to India.

In his statement, Manmohan put his foot down on the issue of India's policy on Iran taking into account US concerns. "No legislation enacted in a foreign country can take away from us [our sovereign right] ... there is no question of India being bound by a law passed by a foreign legislature," he said.

The Indian premier clearly said that any shift from the agreements reached in July 2005 and March this year was not acceptable. "I had personally spoken to President Bush in St Petersburg last month [July] ... and conveyed to him that the proposed US legislation must conform strictly to the parameters of the July 18, 2005, statement and the March 2, 2006, separation plan," Manmohan said. "This alone would be an acceptable basis for nuclear cooperation between India and the United States."

He has repeatedly stated that a shifting of goalposts by the US



would not be acceptable. Yet that is what the legislation has done.

On Monday, the nuclear deal came under fierce attack in Parliament, with the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the left, crucial allies of the coalition government, leading the charge. While the BJP accused the government of pushing the country "into a dangerous trap of self-enslavement", and drew attention to the danger of India becoming a "client state" of the US, the left warned that the deal was not in India's national interests.

Responding to the accusations, Manmohan said the government "would not agree to anything that is not consistent with our vital national interests, including protecting the autonomy of the strategic program, maintaining integrity of the three-stage power program and safeguarding indigenous R&D, including our fast-breeder program". He reiterated that he remained committed to his statement of August, where he had clarified that no deviation from the July 2005 statement and March 2006 separation plan would be accepted.

While the debate on the nuclear deal in both houses of Parliament has put pressure on the government - it has forced the prime minister to reiterate promises made in the past with regard to protecting India's interests - this is not something over which the government need spend sleepless nights. The issue will not be put to vote in Parliament.

Besides, for all their criticism of the nuclear deal, neither the left nor the BJP is expected to take their opposition further. The left will not withdraw support to the government on the issue.

If Manmohan stands by the letter and spirit of his statement to the Upper House in August, then an agreement that conforms to the US legislation will not be acceptable to India. This means that the US would have to ensure that the 123 Agreement conforms to promises that were made in July 2005 and last March.

The Indian government is now saying that it should be judged not on the basis of the content of the US legislation but on the provisions of the 123 Agreement. But with the Hyde Act being the overarching law that will dictate how and what the US will agree to with India, it is hard to see how the final agreement will address Indian concerns.

On Monday, while signing the Hyde Act at a special ceremony in the White House, Bush said he viewed Manmohan as "a trustworthy man and a friend". Manmohan Singh has stuck his neck out on the nuclear deal. He has repeatedly defended it, with the argument that Bush has assured him that the final agreement will conform to commitments made earlier.

It remains to be seen whether the Indian prime minister can in the coming months describe Bush as a trustworthy man and a friend.

Sudha Ramachandran is an independent journalist/researcher based in Bangalore.

(Copyright 2006 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HL20Df02.html