New Delhi
7 August 2007
The Left parties on Tuesday conveyed to Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh that his assurance to Parliament, that the proposed India-United States civilian
nuclear cooperation agreement will cover the entire nuclear fuel cycle, will be violated
under the terms set by the Hyde Act. They also said that a careful study of the 123
Agreement suggested that the Prime Minister's other assurances on India getting full
civilian nuclear cooperation including, but not limited to, sensitive nuclear technology,
dual-use items or uninterrupted fuel supply, were not likely to be met either.
The statement issued on Tuesday by the Left parties read: "While the 123 Agreement is
being presented as a victory for India's positions and conforming to the Prime Minister's
assurances in Parliament, we find that there are a number of issues on which it falls
short of what the Prime Minister had assured Parliament. While the Indian commitments
are binding and in perpetuity, some of the commitments that the US has made are either
quite ambiguous or are ones that can be terminated at a future date."
CPI(M) General Secretary Prakash Karat, who was joined by D Raja (CPI), Abani Roy
(RSP) and Devarajan (AIFB) for the news conference, said that under the terms set by the
Hyde Act, it was clear that one of the key assurances given by Prime Minister to
Parliament on August 17, 2006 -- that India-US nuclear cooperation would cover the entire
nuclear fuel cycle -- would be violated.
He said: "The proposed 123 Agreement while superficially using the original wording of
the joint statement of 2005, full civilian nuclear cooperation, denies cooperation or
access in any form whatsoever to fuel enrichment, reprocessing and heavy water
production technologies. The statement of intent in the agreement that a suitable
amendment to enable this access may be considered in the future has little or no
operative value."
Mr Karat said that despite some "skillful drafting" of the 123 Agreement, its text did not
reflect the Prime Minister's assurances. He said that it was certain that successive
presidents of the US and the US Congress will be bound by the Hyde Act and this had
implications for future.
The Left parties were categorical that the direction in the Hyde Act with regard to the
Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) was unacceptable. They went on to reiterate that
the denial of technology extended to transfers of dual-use items that could be used in
enrichment, reprocessing or heavy water production facilities, which are again a
stipulation of the Hyde Act.
Their statement said: "Under these terms, a wide range of sanctions on a host of
technologies would continue, falling well short of full civilian nuclear cooperation. Even
in the new facilities built for reprocessing the spent fuel under safeguards, the onerous
technological sanctions implied by the dual-use label will apply. This is certainly a major
departure from what the Prime Minister had assured the House that this deal recognises
India as an advanced nuclear power and will allow access to full civilian technologies".
Mr Karat said that a number of conditions inserted into the Hyde Act pertained to areas
outside nuclear cooperation and are attempts to coerce India to accept the strategic
goals of the US. He listed three specific issues:
* One, annual certification and reporting to the US Congress by the American President
on a variety of issues such as India's foreign policy being "congruent to that of the US"
and more specifically India joining US efforts in isolating and even sanctioning Iran,
which is dealt with under Section 104 g (2) E (i) rpt 104 g (2) E (i) of the Hyde Act.
* Two, Indian participation and formal declaration of support for the US's highly
controversial Proliferation Security Initiative including the "illegal" policy of interdiction
of vessels in international waters, as per Section 104 g (2) K rpt 104 g (2) K.
* Three, India conforming to various bilateral and/or multilateral agreements to which
India is not currently a signatory such as the US's Missile Technology Control Regime
(MTCR), the Australia Group, etc, as suggested under Section 104 c E, F, G rpt 104 c E, F,
G.
Mr Karat added: "All of these are a part of the Hyde Act [and the] termination clause is
wide-ranging and does not limit itself to only violation of the agreement as a basis for
cessation or termination of the contract."
No comments:
Post a Comment