New Delhi
4 August 2007
The text of the 123 Agreement does not refer to nuclear test or testing
but it does not define the word "action" either, leading to consternation among certain
analysts and diplomats that India may have given the United States carte blanche to
interpret the word anywhich way it likes.
Article 1 of the text deals with the definitions of key words and phrases but it omits to
define the "action" that could lead to termination and cessation of cooperation. The US
could choose to insist that the word means anything that it perceives as not being in its
national interest, including India's ties with Iran, and not just the act of detonating a
nuclear device. This, they felt, could undermine India's independent foreign policy and
reduce strategic manoeuvrability.
The word finds a mention in Article 13 (2), which dwells on consultations. It reads: "Each
party shall endeavour to avoid taking any action that adversely affects cooperation
envisaged under Article 2 of this Agreement."
Senior BJP leader and former minister of finance and external affairs Yashwant Sinha
articulated some those fears when he said on Saturday that a careful reading of the text
of the 123 Agreement would suggest that the US could choose to terminate the
cooperation if it felt India was pursuing a policy that was not congruent with that of the
US. This, he said, will narrow the foreign policy options before New Delhi. "Today it is
Iran, tomorrow it could be something else ... the sword of Damocles will hang over India
forever." Former Atomic Energy Regulatory Board Chairman Dr A Gopalakrishnan and
former Secretary (East) in the Ministry of External Affairs Rajiv Sikri have aired similar
views.
US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns's remarks have
strengthened some of those suspicions. He said in Washington that a nuclear test is
only one of five or six reasons, including political and environmental, that could cause a
disruption in fuel supply. He went on to suggest: "[Our] advice to all our friends as well
as India is that they should diminish economic relations with Iran and not conclude any
long-term oil and gas agreements with it." Iran, he continued in the same vein, needs to
be shown that if it seeks to acquire nuclear weapons, the world will deal with it
differently. He added for good measure that he hoped India will continue to participate in
international efforts to prevent Tehran from becoming a nuclear weapons power.
Moreover, Article 14 (9), which dwells on termination and cessation of cooperation,
suggests that the advance consent rights for reprocessing can be suspended
independent of the bilateral nuclear cooperation. Another collateral damage could be that
the safeguards in perpetuity on Indian facilities will remain if the US unilaterally
terminates the agreement.
No comments:
Post a Comment