What's new

India's Nuclear Agreement


Hindustan Times | 4 Sep 2008

Charging Prime Minister Manmohan Singh with "lying to people and Parliament" on Indo-US nuclear deal, the CPI(M) on Thursday asked him to quit and said it would join hands with other parties to demand an immediate convening of Parliament.

"The only option left to them (UPA) is that the Prime Minister should quit. But neither will they convene Parliament session nor will they quit... It is a shameless government," party General Secretary Prakash Karat told reporters in New Delhi.

He alleged the government has been "lying" to Parliament and the people on the nature of the bilateral agreement reached with the US for civilian nuclear cooperation.

"It is evident that the Indian government was fully aware that the fuel supply assurances did not cover termination of the 123 agreement and they have deliberately misled the country," he said.

The Left parties, BSP, TDP, JD(S) and parties which opposed the deal would jointly meet President Pratibha Patil in the next couple of days to demand immediate convening of a session of Parliament.

"Why are they afraid of Parliament? Why are they running away. When a serious situation had developed in Jammu and Kashmir, a session should have been convened. But by not convening the session, the government has shown complete disregard and contempt for Parliament," he said.

"They are trying to even change the seasons of the country. Have you heard of monsoon in October?" he said referring to the government's decision to convene the next session from October 17.

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

Can someone please explain what will be the future of this deal (when took place) if GOI changes. May be not soon but what if left wing parties get majority and form govt after next elections in center?
 
Only in recent times on account of the economic buildup has the situation changed; otherwise it was India who was generally getting the short end of the stick.

I would argue that it was not just India getting the 'short end of the stick', but pretty much any developing country with an insignificant economy or resources to offer.
 
Can someone please explain what will be the future of this deal (when took place) if GOI changes. May be not soon but what if left wing parties get majority and form govt after next elections in center?

I believe that the talks on the nuclear agreement were initiated under the BJP government led by Vajpayee.

I doubt that the BJP would necessarily back out of negotiations on the deal if they come back to power - though they would perhaps be far less flexible on the restrictions the deal might impose. I don't think the left has a chance of actually leading a coalition government - though if they participate in a coalition led by the BJP, you might see inflexibility on restrictions (which would coincide with the BJP position).
 
Can someone please explain what will be the future of this deal (when took place) if GOI changes. May be not soon but what if left wing parties get majority and form govt after next elections in center?
I'm not nearly as knowledgeable as some of the other posters here in regards to the details of the nuclear deal. However based on my limited reading, it seems that contention is not really whether the deal should or should not be done, but rather who gets the credit for getting it done. The potential economic benefits sells the plan itself.

If this deal goes through in Manmohan Singh's tenure, then the Congress party will be the beneficiaries of long term bragging rights; which something the BJP will find very difficult to stomach. They have tried their best to put as many roadblocks up as possible by using fringe parties so that the whole issue is postponed until they come back into office. If MMS's government had fallen and a new BJP dominated one had come in it's place, I guarantee you they'd be pushing for the nuclear deal the next day.

The left-wing nutjobs (with Prakash Karat in the lead) ostensibly do not seem to have a concrete plan. All they want to do is negate USA's supposed influence, even if it means undermining their own national economic outlook. After all, the communist doctrine relies upon large impoverished masses who have nobody but the government to look up to. However they are merely a tool usually used by the more influential congress and BJP parties to further their own objectives, as the communist party's influence is only limited to a couple of states. Also, Karat has tried his best to bring the house down, and he lost; it really would be far better if he'd just gracefully admit his defeat... but that would be asking too much from any Indian politician.

The testing issue is actually a tangent used by opposition parties to stall the deal. The age of nuclear testing for the sake of showing force is pretty much over, and the 98 tests by both India and Pakistan show that there are far more disadvantages to nuclear testing than advantages. Also, the military's nuclear capabilities seem to be fairly solid as is. As of now, there really would be no practical reason to conduct any more explosions. However, opposition politicians have turned this into an ego issue. What the public fails to realize is that the nature of Indian economics has changed so drastically over the past decade, that isolation of any kind now would be cataclysmic (granted, the west and China can't really afford to have an isolated India either). Nonetheless, the point is that even if there were no nuclear deal, India couldn't test, because nobody can afford this act of stupidity.

At the end of the day, this nuclear deal is for the sake of economics, which in all honesty is the only thing driving the west; and no Indian politician in power is going to refuse a tool to further the economy, its only a matter of who takes the credit for it.
 
I would argue that it was not just India getting the 'short end of the stick', but pretty much any developing country with an insignificant economy or resources to offer.
India's NAM stance hurt it a lot more than anyone who joined up with NATO. They eventually aligned themselves to the Soviet Union, but could never be involved in a major transnational pact, mostly because India was never going to adopt the ideology. However looking back, this was a blessing in disguise.
 
India's NAM stance hurt it a lot more than anyone who joined up with NATO. They eventually aligned themselves to the Soviet Union, but could never be involved in a major transnational pact, mostly because India was never going to adopt the ideology. However looking back, this was a blessing in disguise.

I am not convinced that Pakistan, for example, was at a far more advantageous position with respect to support from the US, than India was in terms of support from the Soviet Union, though she projected herself as 'non aligned'.
 
I am not convinced that Pakistan, for example, was at a far more advantageous position with respect to support from the US, than India was in terms of support from the Soviet Union, though she projected herself as 'non aligned'.
The Soviet alliance only came about in full flow by the early 70s during Indira Gandhi's tenure mostly to counter China's threat, and on account of US's hostility. Unfortunately the Soviet assistance wasn't nearly as expansive as what the west could provide; after all Migs and T72 can only help the nation progress so much. The greatest benefit to arise from the Soviets was heavy industrial knock down kits, albeit extremely outdated and an ameliorative loan scheme to pay it all off. The United States, with its ability to pour in capital into a nation and give its fledgling cash starved private sector a boost, and open its own markets up to trade would have done India far, far better (I had recently made another post regarding this topic recently along with sources, I'll try and link it here).
The wrath from the USA I assure you was pretty solid, especially during the droughts of the late 60s when even food aid was stalled at the US's behest. Although, this did have a side benefit of giving India's agriculture and dairy industry a second wind after the initial euphoria of the 5 year plans during Nehru's tenure wore off.

Pakistan in the 50s and early 60s certainly benefited from being signatory members of CENTO and SEATO. From what I understand, during this time it was considered as a model state of economic progress for the developing world to follow. It was bad leadership, poor policy and misplaced national priorities that derailed this progress, but potentially Pakistan could very well have gone on to become a regional economic powerhouse by the 80s perhaps on the lines of what South Korea achieved.

Also, it is a misnomer that India's current progress is some sort of a miracle (probably appears so on account of its short duration). The benefits being reaped now can be traced to sensible policy making in the late 40s early 50s. In fact, India's greatest resource, its vast number of highly qualified professionals started leaving India in droves during mid-late 60s; an alliance with the west in the 50s would have actually resulted in a vastly different India today.

It was only the lessons from the dark ages (mid 60s- 91) that made it clear that establishing comprehensive economic importance (which for most states can only be achieved through constructive policy making, prolonged stability and economic reform) will make anyone take notice, especially now that the cold war is over. As I've said before, this may be unfair, but it is how the world works.
 
I am not convinced that Pakistan, for example, was at a far more advantageous position with respect to support from the US, than India was in terms of support from the Soviet Union, though she projected herself as 'non aligned'.

True, India gained a lot and without strings attached from the Sovjets than we ever did from the Americans. SEATO and CENTO were all designed to serve US' interests in the region, not ours which we clearly demonstrated in both '65 and '71 Indo-Pak wars when US imposed embargo on an ally!!!
 

5 Sep 2008, 0042 hrs IST, Indrani Bagchi,TNN

VIENNA: The Nuclear Suppliers Group is beginning to tire under the relentless pressure to take a decision on the N-deal. As the 45-country nuclear cartel sat down this morning to consider the new US draft text for the India waiver, the debate had narrowed down to the infamous ''testing'' clause.

By the close, though diplomats remained tight-lipped, it appeared a deal may have been struck. A possible compromise on Friday could be that concerns of those who objected will be included in a tough-sounding chairman's statement, which will be attached to the waiver.

The new draft is not substantially different from the old one. Last time, consensus broke down on three main points - what happens if India tests another nuclear device, whether India should get enrichment and reprocessing technology and whether India should come under some kind of a review programme.

The first is the hardest and is the subject of heated debate. The new draft says, ''in the event that one or more participating governments consider that circumstances have arisen which require consultations, participating governments will act according to paragraph 16 of the guidelines''. (Article 16 says if there is a ''violation of supplier/recipient understanding... particularly in the case of an explosion of a nuclear device, or illegal termination or violation of IAEA safeguards by a recipient, suppliers should consult promptly through diplomatic channels... Upon the findings of such consultations, the suppliers, bearing in mind Article XII of the IAEA Statute, should agree on an appropriate response and possible action, which could include the termination of nuclear transfers'').

Many countries feel the language is too weak. When the Austrians were shown the draft, their officials boiled over. "You think we should go house to house to explain that this actually means a nuclear test?'' :lol: Certainly, this debate has got a new lease of life after Howard Berman released the State Department letter on Wednesday in Washington.

A number of countries in the 'holdout pen' are asking for similar language from the NSG that the US is asking for bilaterally. The debate continues. A diplomat said, "We're stuck on the testing clause''.

The transfers of ENR are not even mentioned in the waiver. This happened under severe Indian pressure, which said that since ENR was not in the NSG guidelines, it should not show up for India.

The concession by India is on the "review" demand. The new draft asks NSG members to tell each other about their N-dealings with India. The NSG chair will also have to "confer and consult" with India under the rubric of "greater partnership" and discuss any changes in the guidelines with India before execution - this gives India a handle on the future.

I still consider the deal to be dead but we'll know it tomorrow after the final statement.
Curious about the aftermath and how GoI will handle the situation. :what:
 
Lawmaker's Disclosure May Torpedo India-US Nuke Deal

By Praful Bidwai

04 September, 2008
Inter Press Service

NEW DELHI, Sep 4 (IPS) - Chances of the United States-India nuclear deal being completed have greatly receded with the release by a key U.S. lawmaker of a so-far-secret Bush administration document which says Washington will not sell sensitive nuclear technologies to India and will terminate nuclear commerce with it if India conducts a test.

The disclosures by Congressman Howard L. Berman, who is a Democrat from California and chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee (HFAC), have rattled the Indian government and precipitated a major domestic political crisis.

The document, a 26-page response by the U.S. to 45 questions raised last October by Berman's predecessor on the HFAC, the late Tom Lantos, dates back to this past January. It was made public just two days before the Nuclear Suppliers' Group began its meeting Thursday in Vienna to consider granting a special exemption to India from its nuclear trade rules.

The NSG, a private arrangement created soon after India's first nuclear test in 1974, is badly divided on the waiver, and failed to clear at its first meeting on the India issue two weeks ago.

"It would be a miracle if the NSG now grants India the 'clean and unconditional' exemption that New Delhi insists on," says Sukla Sen, a peace activist and a member of the national coordination committee of the Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace, a conglomerate of more than 250 Indian peace groups, which opposes the deal on the ground that itgoes against the objective of nuclear disarmament and preventing the spread of nuclear wepaons.

Sen added that the ‘’hands of the dissenters in the Group have been greatly strengthened by the disclosure that the U.S. is only willing to grant India a conditional waiver from its own domestic laws, but is pressing the NSG to adopt a wholly different standard’’.

At the August 21-22 meeting of the NSG, more than 20 of its 45 member-countries moved more than 50 amendments to a U.S.-drafted waiver resolution.

Led by Austria, New Zealand, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland, a number of NSG states are expected to raise objections and amendments to a slightly revised U.S. draft resolution now before the Group for discussion.

"It is clear that the package which is before us (NSG) still needs some work to achieve the outcome which can be the net gain to the quality of international security architecture," an official of one of the dissenting countries told the Indian news agency, Press Trust of India, ahead of the Group's meeting. "A number of measures have to be added to the current package before it can be considered to be a net gain for the world."

Signalling major difficulties for the passage of the draft proposal, the dissenting countries yesterday held a strategy session in Vienna to discuss how to approach the meeting.

The disclosures in the U.S. administration's letter make it clear that Washington interprets the bilateral "123 agreement" signed with India last year radically differently from the way New Delhi does.

The U.S. interpretation requires India to be in conformity with a special legislation passed by the U.S. Congress in December 2006 called the Henry J. Hyde Act. But India says the 123 agreement must prevail over the Hyde Act

India argues that that the U.S. has guaranteed uninterrupted fuel supplies to India, and that nothing in the 123 agreement prevents India from conducting further nuclear tests. But the Hyde Act stipulates that nuclear cooperation with India would cease in the event of a nuclear test.

The administration's position upholds the stipulation, and says that the U.S. has a clear right to terminate nuclear cooperation immediately and requires the return of equipment and materials in the event of an Indian nuclear test.

It explicitly states that the fuel supply assurances are "not meant to insulate India against the consequences of a nuclear explosive test or violation of non-proliferation commitments’’. They are only meant to cover " disruptions in supply to India that may result through no fault of its own", such as a trade war, contract failure or market upheavals.

India asserts that it has a right to take "corrective measures" in case of supply interruptions and to build a "strategic fuel reserve". But the administration's letter says that "there is neither a minimum or maximum quantity of nuclear material in India's reserve".

It also says "the U.S. government will not assist India in the design, construction or operation of sensitive nuclear technologies." But the 123 agreement had left the window open for such transfers in the future.

The Indian government reacted extremely defensively to these disclosures, saying: "We do not as a matter of policy comment on internal correspondence with the different branches of another government... We have a unilateral moratorium on testing. This is reflected in the India-U.S. joint statement of July 18, 2005 [which initiated the deal in the first place]..."

However, its panic was evident in an emergency high-powered government meeting last night, attended by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Congress president Sonia Gandhi and India’s Atomic Energy Commission chairman Anil Kakodkar.

The entire opposition, from the Left to the Right, has pounced on the government and accused it of having betrayed the assurances it gave to India's Parliament.

The Left parties argue that their opposition to the deal stands vindicated. And the right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party has charged the government with "deliberately and knowingly" misleading the people and Parliament.

Domestic political opposition to the deal is likely to mount by the hour even as it faces rough weather at the NSG meeting in Vienna. With this, the chances of the deal going through during the term of President George W. Bush appear slim.

For this to happen, the NSG must grant India a special waiver, and the U.S. Congress must ratify the 123 agreement during its forthcoming session, from September 8 to 26. In the present circumstances, Congress is unlikely to approve the agreement with just an "up and down" or yes or no vote. A debate is likely to lead to amendments.

Meanwhile, the Arms Control Association (U.S.), which has been leading a campaign against the deal, has termed the revised U.S. resolution in the NSG as "irresponsible". Its executive director Darryl F. Kimball says it "does not incorporate any meaningful adjustments or concessions and is essentially the same as the earlier draft proposal", which failed to win a consensus.

Kimball argues that the revised proposal contains only "two cosmetic adjustments", one of which calls for extraordinary consultation within the NSG "if circumstances have arisen which require consultations." But this is already contained in the NSG guidelines (paragraph 16) that allow for a special meeting in the event of extraordinary events, including a nuclear test.

The deal now appears set to run into serious trouble both at the NSG and within India.

Lawmaker's Disclosure May Torpedo India-US Nuke Deal By Praful Bidwai
 
This is interesting statement made, does NSG is going to brake?

IndianExpress.com :: US should jettison consensus if NSG stops deal: Blackwill

“Most of these NSG countries now are not nuclear suppliers. Niether they have any trade in nuclear technology nor do they have any faintest connection with India. But, in the current NSG, a country X in Europe can oppose the deal and go back to its 5 million people, even as they deprive India’s billion people of nuclear energy.”
 
As expected, china is playing the cards now:

IndianExpress.com :: Beijing says why the hurry as Vienna moves closer to a deal

However, China seemed to play the spoiler arguing that there was no compulsion to push for a decision at this meeting and if there were still reservations, more time should be given to address concerns related to the “global non-proliferation architecture.” Clearly, this was not acceptable to the US because it would jeopardize the entire nuclear deal going by the tough timeline that lies ahead on Capitol Hill.

But the Chinese position added weight to the hold-out countries which agreed with Beijing. Yet, by evening, indications were that a decision was likely by tomorrow. In fact, US Under Secretary of State for Arms Control John Rood slated a meeting in the International Atomic Energy Agency tomorrow afternoon fuelling speculation that the NSG meet may conclude earlier than expected.

It’s learnt that the US has, in the past two days, sent a “strong political message” to the six countries, asking them to consider that burdening the draft with any condition unacceptable to India will only make New Delhi walk away from the initiative which would be a “net loss” for non-proliferation.
 

I wouldn't blame China too much - all that it is asking for, in the face of what is essentially US arm twisting of the countries with concerns, is that the agreement not be rushed through on the US's timetable, and that too this particular US administration's timetable.

The argument that the next administration may not be as receptive to the deal is a hollow one, because if the deal has merit, the next adminsitration will probably support it as well. We aren't looking at decades lost if this administration does not manage to get the deal passed, just months.
 
guys have a look in these also

The Hindu : Front Page : As NSG members take ‘political’ call, differences narrow

initial accounts from the first day’s discussions suggest a weakening of the hand of the six nations — Austria, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, New Zealand and Switzerland — most firmly opposed to granting India a clean and unconditional waiver from the NSG’s export rules. “It certainly seems like nobody really wants to be seen as blocking the consensus this time,” one diplomat told The Hindu. According to a Reuters report quoting diplomats, Japan and Canada have detached themselves from the Group of Six and are now in favour of the emerging consensus.
Diplomats from countries broadly supportive of India’s position say they will press for adoption of the waiver the way it stands, or at best with minor changes. “Everyone knows what India cannot accept so it is pointless to try and reach a consensus that India cannot support,” said a diplomat from a former Soviet Bloc state.
The new draft adds more explicit language on consultations, including a reference to “acting in accordance with Paragraph 16 of the NSG guidelines” if one or more members “consider that circumstances have arisen which require consultations.”

But critics within the NSG are not satisfied. “Proposing more consultations is not enough. Because of the requirement of consensus, there is every likelihood of lack of action in the event of [a test by India] happening,” said one diplomat. “So we feel the waiver should clarify that there will be disincentives for India to testing. The consequences should be clear and upfront.”
‘Compromise’ formula

The critics are also not very pleased with the ‘compromise’ formula in which their concerns will be reflected in a chairman’s statement. “There was a version of a chairman’s statement that was circulating when it was pulled at the request of the Government of India,” one diplomat said. “But from our point of view, this is not a runner. We want an unambiguous, clear waiver in one text.”
 
I wouldn't blame China too much - all that it is asking for, in the face of what is essentially US arm twisting of the countries with concerns, is that the agreement not be rushed through on the US's timetable, and that too this particular US administration's timetable.

The argument that the next administration may not be as receptive to the deal is a hollow one, because if the deal has merit, the next adminsitration will probably support it as well. We aren't looking at decades lost if this administration does not manage to get the deal passed, just months.

AM, as you rightly said every country has it's view but the point here is why to keep delaying the things if you want the things to happen, every body knows that if there is some condition introduced that harms Indian sovereign interest India will walk away, so better so it now or forget about it. Of course, until you don't want india to have the deal. Every deal has merits but it is not like that if the deal does not happen india is going to become a very big looser. It's ok, if deal is there good only if not we still progressed and will continue to do so.
 
Back
Top Bottom