Ahmad Abdullah Ravian
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2011
- Messages
- 370
- Reaction score
- 0
US-India nuclear deal drifts dangerously: Report
Hailed as the centerpiece of a new partnership between the worlds two most populous democracies, the U.S.-India nuclear deal has drifted dangerously since it was signed in 2008, analysts and former negotiators from both countries say.
The risk now is that other countries, particularly Russia and France, might benefit from all the hard work that the United States put into the deal.
The landmark agreement was supposed to allow the sale of nuclear reactors and fuel to India, even though the country has nuclear weapons but has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Its advocates said it would bring tens of billions in business to the United States and create thousands of jobs, while also cementing a new partnership between the two nations to counter Chinas rise.
American companies have not yet sold any reactors or equipment to India. American nuclear fuel firms, which face no legal or policy hurdles, have also not begun selling to India, Washington Post reported on Saturday.
Indias enthusiasm for nuclear power has been dented by the Fukushima accident, and by problems in finding available land to build reactors. Meanwhile, onerous conditions imposed by Indias parliament on suppliers of nuclear equipment have tilted the playing field away from private-sector American companies in favor of state-owned companies from Russia and France, analysts say.
You can see a possible outcome where the U.S. has expended most of the diplomatic capital, but companies in other countries are the main beneficiaries, said Richard Fontaine of the Center for a New American Security in Washington.
As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton prepares to visit India this week, the deals supporters hope she can reignite Indias enthusiasm to clear the remaining hurdles.
The Obama administration has done everything it can to implement the agreement, said Ambassador Nicholas Burns, an undersecretary of state in the Bush administration who spent three years negotiating the agreement. The problem from my perspective is on the Indian side. We havent seen the same degree of political commitment to follow it through.
Hailed as the centerpiece of a new partnership between the worlds two most populous democracies, the U.S.-India nuclear deal has drifted dangerously since it was signed in 2008, analysts and former negotiators from both countries say.
The risk now is that other countries, particularly Russia and France, might benefit from all the hard work that the United States put into the deal.
The landmark agreement was supposed to allow the sale of nuclear reactors and fuel to India, even though the country has nuclear weapons but has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Its advocates said it would bring tens of billions in business to the United States and create thousands of jobs, while also cementing a new partnership between the two nations to counter Chinas rise.
American companies have not yet sold any reactors or equipment to India. American nuclear fuel firms, which face no legal or policy hurdles, have also not begun selling to India, Washington Post reported on Saturday.
Indias enthusiasm for nuclear power has been dented by the Fukushima accident, and by problems in finding available land to build reactors. Meanwhile, onerous conditions imposed by Indias parliament on suppliers of nuclear equipment have tilted the playing field away from private-sector American companies in favor of state-owned companies from Russia and France, analysts say.
You can see a possible outcome where the U.S. has expended most of the diplomatic capital, but companies in other countries are the main beneficiaries, said Richard Fontaine of the Center for a New American Security in Washington.
As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton prepares to visit India this week, the deals supporters hope she can reignite Indias enthusiasm to clear the remaining hurdles.
The Obama administration has done everything it can to implement the agreement, said Ambassador Nicholas Burns, an undersecretary of state in the Bush administration who spent three years negotiating the agreement. The problem from my perspective is on the Indian side. We havent seen the same degree of political commitment to follow it through.
