India-US nuclear pact
Deal or diktat?

By recently putting the imprimatur on the Nuclear Civilian Deal Agreement passed by US Congress, is Prime Minister Manmohan Singh signing away India’s historic and fiercely-preserved sovereignty in matters of nuclear and foreign policy?

By Suvrokamal Dutta

The US called the Nuclear Civilian Deal Agreement between it and India historic. President George W 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.”

On March 7, 2006, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said in Parliament, “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.”

India’s top nuclear scientists have, however, expressed legitimate concern over the passing of the deal by US Congress. Former Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) chairperson and now AEC member, M R Srinivasan, 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 that no government of a sovereign nation can accept as it clearly dictates the direction in which its foreign policy should move.

Former AEC chairperson P K Iyengar said, “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.” Paradoxical as it might sound, for the Indian nuclear programme to continue in a peaceful manner, future tests to ensure a minimum deterrent standard would be required. On top of this, of course, the US should not dictate to us what we should do with our peaceful nuclear programme.

Somewhat disingenuously, the external affairs minister said, “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 added in Parliament, “I would like to inform the House that the US Administration has categorically assured us that this legislation enables the United States to fulfil 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, the fact of the matter—that both the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) have pointed out—is that there cannot be radical changes in the 123 Agreement from that which has been passed by US Congress. The BJP has demanded that the government reject the deal instead of “accepting the humiliating conditionalities contained in it”. Former Union minister Yashwant Sinha said, “The final product is now before us and it does not look good. The Act passed by the US 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 CPI (M) has said that the US legislation was “not acceptable”, and asked the Manmohan Singh government to discontinue talks with the Bush Administration, as the law contradicted most significant assurances given by the prime minister to Parliament. The politburo’s statement said, “Obviously, the US 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 programme, compromising not just India’s weapons programme but also the country’s foreign policy. Another major concern that the Indian scientists have is that US inspectors will have access to India’s nuclear facilities. This could be very dangerous for our strategic concerns, as there is every chance of our nuclear secrets falling into the hands of the American establishment. Unlike that of Pakistan, India cannot afford to have its nuclear programme controlled by the US.

Another major concern is that highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel will pile up if India is not allowed to recycle. The CPI (M) said, “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 holds 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 US unless its Congress approved the reshipment.”

This clause in question negates the issue of equal parity. It makes India dependent on the US for its supply of nuclear fuel. The CPI (M) pointed this out in very clear terms when it said, “On the annual good conduct certification by the US president, the agreement would be in perpetuity. There is a possibility of the screws being tightened if a Democrat, having different views on nuclear non-proliferation, comes to power.”

The BJP pointed out, “The certification and reporting requirements continue to be rigorous and there is no assurance of uninterrupted fuel supplies for the civilian reactors. India is forbidden from nuclear testing, even of the kind permitted by the CTBT, and the weapons programme could be subjected to intrusive US 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.” India’s nuclear scientists also point out that India will only receive a limited supply of nuclear fuel, not the lifetime supply for any given nuclear reactor.

Four other agreements will flow from this Act: the Indian Safeguard Agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the 123 Agreement for bilateral cooperation with the US, the new guidelines of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, and the Additional Protocol, also with the IAEA. The clause in the Act that relates to Iran is also a direct interference in India’s foreign policy. The CPI (M) said, “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 US strategic interests in the name of partnership.”

The deal in its present form is suicidal for India.

(The writer is a foreign affairs and economics expert)