New Delhi
3 December 2007
The CPI(M) on Monday said that its opposition to the text and the
context of the India-United States nuclear deal remains.
The text of the 123 Agreement falls short of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's
assurances to Parliament on at least three counts, CPI(M) Politburo member Sitaram
Yechury said on the eve of debate on the nuclear deal in the Rajya Sabha.
That, taken together with the context of the not-so-subtle attempts made by the United
States to influence India's foreign policy, reinforces why India must not enter into the
deal, he told reporters.
Mr Yechury maintained that the text of the 123 Agreement does not guarantee
uninterrupted fuel supply. It also does not ensure full civil nuclear cooperation. "India
will not be given technology [for] heavy water, enrichment and reprocessing," he said.
The text does not uphold reciprocity either. He pointed out that a US President can
terminate the bilateral pact anytime in accordance with the Hyde Act but India will be
expected to place a certain number of entities under IAEA (International Atomic Energy
Agency) safeguards in perpetuity.
"Why should India [be burdened] with this obligation in perpetuity?" he wanted to know.
All this suggests that the 123 text "falls short of the Prime Minister's own assurances to
Parliament," he said.
Questioning the UPA Government's assertion, that the Hyde Act will not be binding on
India, Mr Yechury said that the "US has officially made it clear that that the 123
Agreement is is conformity with the Hyde Act" and that the 123 text is "firmly anchored in
the Hyde Act." The 123 text, he added, suggests that disputes will be settled on the
basis of "national laws," which includes the Hyde Act.
The CPI(M) member of the Rajya Sabha went on to suggest that there is more to the
nuclear deal than merely civil nuclear energy cooperation. "There is a much larger
agenda of seeking to convert India into a subordinate ally of the United States in South
Asia," he asserted.
Mr Yechury recounted "three new developments" since India's vote against Iran in the
IAEA, which demonstrated that New Delhi is "clearly succumbing to US pressure." One,
India's reluctance to go ahead with the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline. Incidentally, a
parliamentary committee's report tabled in Parliament on Monday asked the government
to apprise it of the final outcome of the discussion on the Iran pipeline project.
Augmenting the share of natural gas in India's energy mix is important for energy
security and there is an imperative need of bringing natural gas by transnational
pipelines, the report said.
Two, State Bank of India has stopped honouring letters of credit from Iranian companies
when, according to Mr Yechury, there is no legal requirement for India to compy with
unilateral US sanctions.
Three, Indian company Essar has been "armtwisted" by the Americans to shelve a joint
venture project in Iran.
"There are ominous developments ... dangerous, with far-reaching implications for
India," he said, adding that allowing the UPA Government to hold talks with the IAEA did
not suggest dilution of its stand.
He explained that the government will not even initialise the safeguards agreement.
"Nobody can take that draft to the Nuclear Suppliers Group" without coming back to the
UPA-Left committee.
No comments:
Post a Comment