US threatens to scrap India N-deal

[HAIDER]

WASHINGTON, Aug 15: The United States is threatening to scrap its nuclear cooperation deal with India if New Delhi conducts a nuclear weapons test.

The US State Department and India have given different interpretations of the operating portion of the deal, known as the 123 agreement after a US law with the same title.

A US State Department spokesman told reporters in Washington that all cooperation would be terminated if a test took place.

“The proposed 123 agreement has provisions in it that in an event of a nuclear test by India, then all nuclear cooperation is terminated,” State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.

There is also a “provision for return of all materials, including reprocessed material covered by the agreement,” he said.

His comments came a day after Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh told parliament that the agreement would not affect India’s military programme or any plans to test nuclear weapons.

“The agreement does not in any way affect India’s right to undertake future nuclear tests, if it is necessary,” Mr Singh said.

“There is no question that we will ever compromise, in any manner, our independent foreign policy. We shall retain our strategic autonomy,” he added.


http://dawn.com/2007/08/16/top17.htm

 

[Bull]

Why is the US threatening to scrap and not say that in affirmitive? Its been widely reported that US has agreed to finding out new suppliers from the NSG group if India conducts the weapons test. That clearly means US wouldnt supply and i dont have any qualms over Dawn saying its a threatening.

 

[Bull]

Some excerpts from the media reports..

"The Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) plans to add 30,000 MW of power based on imported nuclear fuel in the near future" - Mumbai, Aug. 15

About Securing Supplies

Therefore, NPCIL and DAE are considering of having stakes in uranium mines overseas, either through joint venture or independent investment, he added.

“New and emerging Uranium mines in Nigeria, Mozambique, Mongolia and Kazakhstan could be considered for this venture,” he said. Thailand and Cambodia have held preliminary talks with NPCIL for reactors as they are satisfied with NPCIL’s safety and operational capabilities, he said' - Mumbai, Aug. 15

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2007/08/16/stories/2007081651740100.htm

 

[Bull]

Directly linked to what would happen if India conducts N-test,read below

- If India resorts to a nuclear test, the agreement does include a clause for termination on one year’s written notice and giving reasons for seeking such termination.

But before the termination of the agreement, the two countries would consider the relevant circumstances and promptly hold consultations to address the reasons cited by the country seeking termination.

As per the agreed text, the “parties (India and the US) agree to consider carefully the circumstances that may lead to termination or cessation of cooperation. They further agree to take into account whether the circumstances that may lead to termination or cessation resulted from a party’s serious concern about a changed security environment or as a response to similar action by other states which could impact national security.” -

 

[Bull]

And with what the spokesperson said, DAWN understandably quoted the releavnt part and ignored the whole text..read below.

'Following the cessation of co-operation under the agreement, the US would have the right to seek return of any nuclear material, equipment, non-nuclear material or components transferred under the agreement and any special fissionable material produced through their use.

If either country exercises the right of return, it would compensate the other for fair market value and for costs incurred as a consequence of such removal.

The agreement is to remain in force for 40 years and would continue in force thereafter for additional periods of 10 years each.'

 

[Neo]

Congress asked to watch Indian nuclear behaviour​

By Khalid Hasan

WASHINGTON: Beyond merely ensuring that nuclear fuel is not used for weapons development, Congress will have to take care that less obvious violations of the spirit of the India-US nuclear agreement do not occur, including application of US technology to any other facility, whether civilian or military, according to a commentary on the agreement.

Lisa Curtis and Baker Spring of the Heritage Foundation are of the view that the text of the 123 Agreement, as it has come to be known, carefully ensures that the US stays in line with its Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) obligations and with the requirements of the Hyde Act, while addressing key Indian concerns that threatened to derail the initiative altogether. The Hyde amendment to existing US law exempted India from certain requirements of the US Atomic Energy Act of 1954.

Throughout the negotiations, India consistently defended its right to reprocess nuclear fuel under this agreement. The administration ultimately accepted Indian demands regarding this right but distinguished between the right and an entitlement to US assistance in the pursuit of reprocessing activities. In fact, any action on reprocessing will depend on the conclusion of a subsequent agreement, as required by Section 131 of the US Atomic Energy Act of 1954.

The two experts point out that India for its part, committed to stand up a dedicated, safeguarded reprocessing facility to ensure that US-origin nuclear fuel is not diverted to its weapons programme. Members of Congress who were adamant about denying India reprocessing rights may be reluctant to accept the compromise, though there are reasons for them not to do so.

Congress will need to bear in mind that after the 123 Agreement is passed, it can guide the subsequent negotiations on the arrangements for reprocessing. US congressional monitoring of the construction and implementation of the new dedicated reprocessing facility will be necessary to ensure that India cuts no corners. “If India goes against the spirit of the 123 Agreement, Washington will have the right to demand back the plutonium that is stripped out through reprocessing. This is a critical element of the agreement to ensure that the US cannot be accused of violating its NPT obligations,” the two authors stress.

Curtis and Bright note that India has been assured “full access” to the international fuel market. Already, Australia has offered to sell fuel to India. They point out that the 123 Agreement, however, does not resolve a fundamental disagreement between the United States and India. The US continues to support the objectives of the NPT and to adhere to its requirements. India does not support the NPT and seeks to be recognised as a de jure nuclear weapons state.

“If, however, India chooses to behave in a way that can raise legitimate questions regarding whether US civil nuclear cooperation with India is inconsistent with US NPT obligations, India will risk jeopardising its broader relationship with the US. The view of the international community will become clearer once the Nuclear Suppliers Group meets this autumn.”

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007\08\16\story_16-8-2007_pg7_58

 

[Cheetah786]

The Indian parliament has been thrown into turmoil over a reported US statement that the nuclear deal would be ended if India tested another bomb.
Politicians from the opposition BJP party and the government's Left allies repeatedly disrupted proceedings.

They alleged that PM Manmohan Singh had misled the house on Monday when he said the deal would not undermine India's nuclear weapons programme.

The house has seen heated exchanges over the issue in the past few days.

Indian newspapers on Thursday reported the US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack as saying that the US reserved the right to cancel the deal if India carried out a nuclear test.

'Save India'

Both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha - the two houses of parliament - witnessed angry protests by members of the opposition parties.

"Stop speaking lies. Stop selling the country and save India," the opposition members chanted.

The Communist allies of the Congress Party-led governing alliance also raised questions about the deal.

The protesting MPs demanded that the Prime Minister explain the situation in Parliament.

After repeated disturbances, both the houses were adjourned until Friday.

Under the deal, India gets access to civilian nuclear technology and fuel.

'Historic agreement'

The opposition and the government's Communist allies say the deal could compromise foreign policy.

The Prime Minister had said on Monday that the agreement was "historic" and would open new doors to India across the world.

He said the deal would not in any way affect India's right to carry out nuclear tests in the future or inhibit the country's nuclear weapons programme.

Under the agreement, India is allowed to reprocess spent nuclear fuel - something that is seen as a major concession and opposed by some members of the US Congress.

The government's Communist allies have described the deal as an unequal one and said it would give the US leverage over India's foreign policy.

The prime minister has refused to back down, even challenging the Communists to withdraw their support for his government.

The deal reverses three decades of US anti-proliferation policy and formalises a warmer relationship between India and the US who endured difficult ties during the Cold War.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6949365.stm

 

[Neo]

These reports are quite contradictory compared to the official text of the agreement.
Earlier it was stated that US would continue to supply fuel by third parties, i.e. NSG members.

BJP will definately use the issue for banking votes.

 

[bhangra12345]

These reports are quite contradictory compared to the official text of the agreement.
Earlier it was stated that US would continue to supply fuel by third parties, i.e. NSG members.

BJP will definately use the issue for banking votes.

Unfortunately, 99.9% of India doesnt care about what happens to this treaty.

You will have to link this issue to something else and milk it out. Presently communists are on top of this game.

 

[Neo]

Unfortunately, 99.9% of India doesnt care about what happens to this treaty.

99.9% of India or less would't make any difference, the truth is that India needs this deal to through. This is the first stept towards being recognised as a nuclear power, you can't afford to mess it up.
Despite haveing 50-150 nuclear warheads neither India or Pakistan are recognised as nuclear powers, both will remain declared nuclear states untill N5 recognises them.

 

[bhangra12345]

99.9% of India or less would't make any difference, the truth is that India needs this deal to through. This is the first stept towards being recognised as a nuclear power, you can't afford to mess it up.
Despite haveing 50-150 nuclear warheads neither India or Pakistan are recognised as nuclear powers, both will remain declared nuclear states untill N5 recognises them.

Frankly India never cared about "recognition"- a metaphorical thing. Whether the P5 recognised us as nuclear power or not - we were a nuclear power from 1974.

This present move of so called "recognition" as "country with high nuclear tech"/whatever instead of "NWS" is only because we would like access the uranium/some specific techs available outside. Give us access to that and you can call us whatever you like.

I used that 99% of India because you told that BJP was about to use it. Unfortunately it is the communists who are the thread movers right now.

 

[Neo]

Imho the 123 agreement will not be reversed even if BJP gets elected, India has more to gain from its than USA. NSG is using the agreement to supply fuel and technology to India, the whole thing will collapse if the deal fails....even BJP realises that.

 

[Bushroda]

Neo, Left's apathy towards the nuke deal is that Congress alone wants to hog the limelight by keeping others in the shadow. The deal would stay intact even if communists were to come to power tomorrow. Thats the best thing about India's foreign policy. It remains constant no matter which government is in power.

 

[BATMAN]

Uranium deal with India hits hurdles
Craig Skehan and Anne Davies in Washington
August 17, 2007
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/uranium-deal-with-india-hits-hurdles/2007/08/16/1186857683428.html#

PLANS to sell Australian uranium to India for power generation are in doubt, with controversy on three continents and an apparent unwillingness by India to agree not to conduct future nuclear weapons tests.

The Prime Minister, John Howard, last night announced a series of strict conditions on any uranium sales after a telephone conversation with his Indian counterpart, Manmohan Singh.

Mr Howard said a nuclear agreement between India and the United States would have to be ratified by Congress, and New Delhi would have to agree to International Atomic Energy Agency inspections.

"We want to be satisfied that the uranium will only be used for peaceful purposes," he said.

The possibility of uranium sales to Russia was also floated last night, but Mr Howard's office told the Herald it was unaware of any agreement. However, sources said there had been discussions about transferring Australian nuclear-related technology to Russia.

Diplomatic sensitivities over the Indian deal were underscored when the Pakistani high commission in Canberra issued a statement yesterday criticising the Government for seeking the uranium deal with India.

It said that in the interests of non-proliferation and "strategic stability in South Asia" there should instead be a "package approach" where Australia supplied both India and Pakistan.

There were warnings yesterday that undermining the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which neither country had signed, could have wider implications for a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

The Federal Government conceded there were hurdles to overcome before any sales to India could take place.

It was unclear last night whether Australia would require a watertight commitment from India that it would never conduct further nuclear weapons tests, or merely warn that sales would be suspended if such tests occurred.

The former foreign minister Gareth Evans, now president of the International Crisis Group, said it was likely the Government had not imposed suitably strict conditions on India.

With Australia having 40 per cent of the world's known uranium reserves, Mr Evans believes the Government should use this advantage to strike a better deal.

"The real leverage we have is that because of [India's] hunger to acquire these stocks you can in fact impose some [stricter] conditions."

An international nuclear non-proliferation research and advocacy group, the Arms Control Association, accused Australia of "flagrantly contradicting" its stand on nuclear non-proliferation.

"The decision severely tarnishes Australia's otherwise good reputation as a leader in support of nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament by all states," said the association's executive director, Daryl Kimball.

"Australia has had an international treaty obligation not to transfer uranium to India."

Mr Howard said India would need an additional protocol on strengthened safeguards.

Uranium exports to India would create jobs in Australia, he said.

 

[BATMAN]

Nuclear deal will be scrapped if India conducts atomic test: US
http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.shtml?187023

Washington: The United States has made it clear that the civilian nuclear deal with India will be "terminated" in the event of an atomic test by New Delhi.

"The proposed 123 agreement has provisions in it that in an event of a nuclear test by India, then all nuclear cooperation is terminated," US State Department Spokesman Sean McCormack said

The spokesman also said there is "provision for return of all materials, including reprocessed material covered by the agreement." India has been maintaining that the 123 agreement is silent on the issue of testing.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh told Parliament on Monday that the agreement to operationalise the civilian nuclear deal would not affect India`s right to undertake future nuclear tests.

"Let me hence reiterate once again that a decision to undertake future nuclear test would be our sovereign decision, one that rests solely with the government," he said.