India fears US nuclear trap
BANGALORE - Even as US President George W Bush signed into law a bill that Congress passed last week allowing Washington to conduct nuclear trade with India, sections in India are wondering whether this country can trust Bush to deliver on his promises.
They point out that the US law enabling nuclear trade with India deviates significantly from commitments that were made by the
Bush administration to the Indian leadership over the past year.
The Henry J Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006 reverses 30 years of US policy that prevented nuclear cooperation with India, a non-signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that carried out its first nuclear test in 1974.
The Hyde Act removes an important hurdle in the way of India purchasing long-denied nuclear fuel from the US. It also paves the way for the US and India to move to the next step on their way to civilian nuclear cooperation - that of negotiating and finalizing the bilateral 123 Agreement (123 refers to the relevant section of the US Atomic Energy Act of 1954).
While New Delhi and Washington are hailing the US legislation as marking a new era in India-US relations, some scientists and analysts in India are calling on the government to proceed with caution. They argue that the US legislation, which provides clear pointers to what the US will insist on in the 123 Agreement, will not culminate in a deal that is in India's national interest.
India's nuclear scientists have come out in sharp criticism of the legislation, claiming that an agreement that conforms to it is not in India's interests. A N Prasad, former director of the Bhabha Atomic Research Center (BARC), has argued that the US legislation "is more about non-proliferation aspects stipulating what India should do and not do to keep it in line with US interests, objectives and policies".
Prasad has said the legislation "talks about congruence [of India's policy] with US policy on Iran". Although the legislation does not use the term "rollback" on the nuclear program, it expects India to accept a "permanent moratorium on nuclear tests, stop production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons, cap production of weapons and eventually eliminate them".
It expects "India to join R&D [research and development] with the US on non-proliferation issues along with various agencies and departments of the US government totally extraneous to the civil nuclear-cooperation deal. If this is the intention with which the deal will be steered, if not immediately, in course of time India will lose control of its nuclear future."
Last week, former scientists associated with India's nuclear program met with Atomic Energy Commission chairman Anil Kakodkar to express their misgivings about the deal. The government has now promised to involve them in an advisory role during the negotiations of the 123 Agreement.
Critics of the way the nuclear deal is moving point to the many ways in which the US goalposts with regard to civilian nuclear cooperation with India have shifted. The US legislation is significantly different from the commitments Bush made to the Indian government in a joint statement on July 18 last year and the March 7 Separation Plan.
For instance, while these two commitments speak of full civil nuclear-energy cooperation, the US legislation bars India from access to uranium enrichment, spent-fuel reprocessing and heavy-water technologies. India will have access to nuclear fuel and reactors, but not technology and sensitive material.
Also, while the two statements envisaged a one-time waiver of US law to facilitate nuclear cooperation and were silent on India's nuclear-weapons program, the US legislation says cooperation is subject to annual review and renewal, and links this to India's strategic-military sector. India is not assured of an uninterrupted supply of fuel for the lifetime of the reactors in the safeguarded category.
On August 17, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh assured the Upper House of Parliament that India would "not agree to any dilution [of the agreements reached earlier] that would prevent us from securing the benefits of full civil nuclear cooperation ... We seek the removal of restrictions on all aspects of cooperation and technology transfers pertaining to civil nuclear energy - ranging from nuclear fuel [and] nuclear reactors to reprocessing spent fuel, ie, all aspects of a complete fuel cycle." He clarified that an annual certification requirement "would introduce an element of uncertainty regarding future cooperation and is not acceptable" to India.
In his statement, Manmohan put his foot down on the issue of India's policy on Iran taking into account US concerns. "No legislation enacted in a foreign country can take away from us [our sovereign right] ... there is no question of India being bound by a law passed by a foreign legislature," he said.
The Indian premier clearly said that any shift from the agreements reached in July 2005 and March this year was not acceptable. "I had personally spoken to President Bush in St Petersburg last month [July] ... and conveyed to him that the proposed US legislation must conform strictly to the parameters of the July 18, 2005, statement and the March 2, 2006, separation plan," Manmohan said. "This alone would be an acceptable basis for nuclear cooperation between India and the United States."
He has repeatedly stated that a shifting of goalposts by the US
would not be acceptable. Yet that is what the legislation has done.
On Monday, the nuclear deal came under fierce attack in Parliament, with the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the left, crucial allies of the coalition government, leading the charge. While the BJP accused the government of pushing the country "into a dangerous trap of self-enslavement", and drew attention to the danger of India becoming a "client state" of the US, the left warned that the deal was not in India's national interests.
Responding to the accusations, Manmohan said the government "would not agree to anything that is not consistent with our vital national interests, including protecting the autonomy of the strategic program, maintaining integrity of the three-stage power program and safeguarding indigenous R&D, including our fast-breeder program". He reiterated that he remained committed to his statement of August, where he had clarified that no deviation from the July 2005 statement and March 2006 separation plan would be accepted.
While the debate on the nuclear deal in both houses of Parliament has put pressure on the government - it has forced the prime minister to reiterate promises made in the past with regard to protecting India's interests - this is not something over which the government need spend sleepless nights. The issue will not be put to vote in Parliament.
Besides, for all their criticism of the nuclear deal, neither the left nor the BJP is expected to take their opposition further. The left will not withdraw support to the government on the issue.
If Manmohan stands by the letter and spirit of his statement to the Upper House in August, then an agreement that conforms to the US legislation will not be acceptable to India. This means that the US would have to ensure that the 123 Agreement conforms to promises that were made in July 2005 and last March.
The Indian government is now saying that it should be judged not on the basis of the content of the US legislation but on the provisions of the 123 Agreement. But with the Hyde Act being the overarching law that will dictate how and what the US will agree to with India, it is hard to see how the final agreement will address Indian concerns.
On Monday, while signing the Hyde Act at a special ceremony in the White House, Bush said he viewed Manmohan as "a trustworthy man and a friend". Manmohan Singh has stuck his neck out on the nuclear deal. He has repeatedly defended it, with the argument that Bush has assured him that the final agreement will conform to commitments made earlier.
It remains to be seen whether the Indian prime minister can in the coming months describe Bush as a trustworthy man and a friend.
Sudha Ramachandran is an independent journalist/researcher based in Bangalore.
(Copyright 2006 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HL20Df02.html
