IndoUS Nuke Deal

The UPA keeps telling they have able to achieve which no previous Indian Government has been able to do: Nuclear cooperation with the Great Uncle SAM!!! To be true, I am a naïve to comment on this issue which typically requires knowledge in various spheres like strategy, international relation, politics, energy need, defence etc. But as per my understanding, this nuclear deal deals with two main points: Indian Energy Requirements and Indian Nuclear Capablities. On the one hand it can 'possibly' help India meet its growing Energy needs but on the other hand it can, rather will, adversely effect India's future nuclear programs, its security, minimum Credible Deterrence, etc. etc. Now it depends on the people of India and hence, unfortunately, on the politicians to decide will it really serve the Indian interests. Will this deal really help us meet our Energy Needs or will it just act as a check on Indian nuclear capability...???

A Good Read From IBNLive

External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee's categorical statement in Parliament on Tuesday that the US Act on the Indo-US nuclear deal makes 'no external interference' on India's strategic programme has cut no ice with the critics and opponents of the nuclear deal.

On Wednesday, even as reports pour in from Washington that US President George W Bush will sign the Bill on December 18, Indian nuclear experts and scientists are still telling the Government either to renegotiate the deal or tell the US to forget about it.

The Department of Atomic Energy has invited senior nuclear scientists to discuss the Bill with AEC Chairman Anil Kakodkar on December 15.

PK Iyengar, former chairman of India's Atomic Energy Commission, is among leading voices from among the scientific community who have been opposing the deal tooth and nail. "This Bill makes India party to the NPT, the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)," he claims. Iyengar is particularly annoyed by the suggestion that Washington terminate civilian cooperation if India conducts a nuclear test. "It is impossible to have a minimum credible deterrent without conducting nuclear tests," he says.

Retired atomic energy chief Homi Sethna has also slammed the deal. "The nuke deal is not in India's interest. It favours USA and it can walk out of the deal any time. We should explore other sources of energy," said Sethna.

Other experts in the field also say that the Bill will restrain India's further progress on the nuclear weapons front as it completely bars further nuclear tests. So, what are the various flaws in the Bill as pointed out by the scientific community as well as political parties?

Here is a lowdown:-

> Termination Clause: The Bill indicates that the cooperation will be terminated if India conducts any nuclear test. Experts say it will be impossible for India to have a minimum credible deterrent without conducting nuclear tests. It's seen as a willful attempt to curb and contain India's nuclear research programme. The Prime Minister has been on record, saying India would make its own assessment of its nuclear weapons programme in this 'uncertain and unpredictable world'.

> Gag Measures: Indian experts are upset about a provision urging the US President to lobby against nuclear fuel supplies to India if Washington terminates nuclear cooperation with New Delhi. Statements of Policy, Section 103 (a) (6) states that the US shall 'seek to prevent the transfer to a country of nuclear equipment, materials or technology from other participating governments in the Nuclear Suppliers Group or from any other source" if the US terminates its exports under the US-India Act or any other US law.

> Technology Denial: New Delhi had objected to the Senate Bill's suggestion that India could not receive US assistance for enrichment, reprocessing and heavy water production. Yet the final version of the Bill retained this restriction, but re-framed the clause to highlight what is permissible rather than what is not. Section 104 (d)(4) allows the sale of such equipment only to multilateral or bilateral facilities on Indian soil intended to provide 'alternatives to national fuel cycle capabilities' or a 'proliferation-resistant fuel cycle'.

> NPT By Proxy? Experts like PK Iyengar says the Bill, by proxy, makes India party to the NPT, the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), that too as a non-nuclear weapons state. India has steadfastly refused to join the NPT as a non-nuclear weapons state. Others, however, say India has been clubbed in this bracket as "a state with nuclear weapons".

> Fuel Supply Chain: The Bill says US will decide on the supply of nuclear fuel from members of Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), while India had claimed the right to stockpile nuclear fuel for a period of 40 years (the life of a reactor). Scientists at Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) say India will have a very limited advantage in purchasing American reactors without any assured fuel supply.

> IAEA Norms: India had objected to the requirement that the Indian safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency should have already entered into force before the US lifts its restrictions on nuclear commerce with New Delhi. Section 104 (b) (2) of the final version still stipulates that "all legal steps prior to signature" by India and the IAEA must have been completed, which means approval by the IAEA Board must have been secured. This now requires India to place the safeguards even before the US completes all its legal steps to allow nuclear commerce.

> Spent Fuel Clause: On the reprocessing of spent fuel too, the bill goes against India's interest, experts point out. Even after four decades, the US has the right not to allow India to reprocess spent fuel from the American supplied atomic power plant at Tarapur (units 1 and 2). While the US does not reprocess its own spent fuel, from the energy point of view, India needs to do that as its entire fast-breeder reactor programme depends on reprocessed fuel.

> Tech Transfer: India had also objected to the provision that nuclear cooperation would be automatically terminated if the country violated the guidelines of the NSG or Missile Technology Control Regime. The final version, however, retains the US 'determination' of Indian missile exports as a trigger for the termination of nuclear cooperation but incorporates an exception that would allow the cooperation to continue if the Indian Government has had no role to play in the impugned export and is taking corrective legal action. This means that India cannot export missiles with a range of more than 300 km to other countries — including those which are MTCR adherents — without triggering the end of nuclear cooperation.

> Export Clause: On the termination of nuclear transfers, the Bill also says: "exports of any nuclear and nuclear-related material to India shall be terminated if there is any materially significant transfer by an Indian person of technology or equipment." This provision holds the government responsible for the act of a single person, which is not acceptable, the scientists say.

> Too Conditional: The BJP says the deal is to bilaterally impose on India conditionalties which are worse than those in the (nuclear non-proliferation treaty) and the (Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty). This is why a slim four-page bill is now a 41-page document. They claim that the main purpose of the deal was to limit India's nuclear weapons programme by subjecting it to highly intrusive inspections.

All these now raise the prospect of rejection of the Bill by the Indian Parliament. However, if this happens, it is likely to come as a surprise for the Bush administration and the US Congress, where most of the Opposition to the deal claimed that India was being given too easy a path back to respectability within the NPT system, and that the concessions being made to India created a precedent that further weakened the NPT.