Left says 123 pact falls short of PM promises

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."

BJP rejects N-deal, demands parliamentary review

New Delhi

4 August 2007

The civilian nuclear cooperation agreement with the United States

may not be a done deal just yet. A combative BJP on Saturday said that the 123

Agreement compromised India's nuclear weapons programme and demanded that the

government put the next steps of the nuclear pact on hold. It sought to remind Prime

Minister Manmohan Singh of the dictum "trust but verify" and suggested that a vital

issue of national concern could not be acceptable until due diligence is conducted by a

joint parliamentary committee.

"The BJP is of the clear view that this agreement is an assault on our nuclear

sovereignty and our foreign policy options. We are, therefore, unable to accept this

agreement as finalised," senior BJP leader and former minister of finance and external

affairs Yashwant Sinha said, reading from the text of the "preliminary comments"

released by the party on Saturday.

The statement read: "We demand that a Joint Parliamentary Committee be set up to

examine the text in detail; that, after it has submitted its report, parliamentary approval

be secured before this deal is signed; and that all further action on it should be

suspended until this sequence is completed."

Mr Sinha, who was joined by former Union minister Arun Shourie for the news conference

at the party headquarters, said that no effort was made by the UPA to evolve a national

consensus on this vital issue of national concern before making commitments to the US.

The BJP has therefore demanded that appropriate amendments be made in the

Constitution and laws to ensure that all agreements which affect the country's

sovereignty, territorial integrity and national security are ratified by Parliament.

The formal response came after the BJP top brass met on Friday evening at former

prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee's residence. Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha

LK Advani, Leader of Opposition in the Rajya Sabha Jaswant Singh and Mr Yashwant

Sinha attended that meeting, besides Mr Vajpayee.

Mr Sinha reiterated his party's "serious reservation" that the nuclear pact with the US

would adversely affect India's nuclear weapons programme. He said: "In the separation

plan prepared under the surveillance of the US, two-thirds of our reactors will be put in

the civilian category under safeguards. The recently refurbished CIRUS reactor will be

shut down. In course of time, 90 per cent of our reactors will be in the civilian category.

In the ongoing negotiations in the Committee of Disarmament in Geneva, we have

agreed to work together with the US for the early conclusion of the FMCT (Fissile Material

Cut-off Treaty). We appear to have given up our insistence on international verification

and all countries complying. All these, along with the intrusive provisions of the Hyde Act

are bound to have a stultifying effect on our strategic nuclear programme."

Can't India overcome some of those concerns by setting up more military reactors? a

reporter wanted to know. To which he said that India can set up more military nuclear

facilities if she wants to but the BJP has "serious differences" with the UPA over

adequacy of fissile material, especially after the Manmohan Singh Government's

decision to shut down the CIRUS reactor, which in his estimation produced about half of

the fissile material. He was not particularly happy with Article 10 (6), which suggested

that the "status of all inventories of material subject to this agreement" will be reported

to the US. "Even the uranium mined in India will be accounted for," he feared.

Mr Sinha asserted that the size of India's nuclear deterrent will change from time to time

on the basis of threat perception and that judgment could not be surrendered to anyone

else. Also, the credible minimum deterrent depended on what India's neighbours were

doing. "You give me the threat perception in 2020 and I will give you the number of

bombs needed," a combative Mr Sinha told the reporter who wanted to know how many

bombs would satisfy the BJP. "[The 123 Agreement would suggest that] threat perception

is dependent on the determination by the US President whereas it is the government of

the day, here in India, that must make that determination," he said.

He reminded the UPA that the 123 Agreement is bound by the Hyde Act and there is no

escaping it. "The fact remains that the US retains the right to recall all the supplies that it

has made to India under this agreement. What is worse is that under Article 16 (3)

despite the termination of this agreement, the safeguards in perpetuity will continue to

apply so long as any material or equipment or any of the byproducts thereof remain on

Indian soil," he pointed out. "Are the safeguards coterminus with the agreement? Where

is it defined?" he wondered aloud.

Mr Sinha chided the Manmohan Singh Government for believing that no reference to

testing in the text of the 123 Agreement is a matter of great comfort for India. "Does the

UPA expect the country to adopt an ostrich-like attitude in the face of gathering storm in

our neighbourhood?" he wanted to know. "This view is entirely untenable," he continued

in the same vein. "When national laws apply, which includes the Nuclear Non-

Proliferation Treaty, the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the Hyde Act of

2006 which specifically forbid nuclear tests, where is the question of India having the

freedom to test once we enter into this agreement? In other words, we are being forced to

accept a bilateral CTBT (Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty) with more stringent provisions

than the multilateral CTBT." He said that the government has been "spreading canards"

that the deal recognises India as a de-facto nuclear power. "Nothing," he said, "could be

further from the truth."

Mr Arun Shourie, in turn, said: "The inspections that India would be subject to would be

equivalent to that applicable to the non-nuclear weapons states." He also said that the

commitments of the US on fuel supplies were vague and futuristic. "The agreement is

supposed to lead to full civil nuclear cooperation between the two countries yet Article 2

(2) (d) talks of cooperation relating to aspects of the associated nuclear fuel cycle.

Aspects mean parts and hence all aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle are not covered

under this agreement," he said. He sought to dismiss the argument that insofar as

energy security is concerned, nuclear energy is better than oil supplies. "Nuclear

supplies are controlled by an even tighter cartel than the oil supplies," Shourie

countered. He felt that the harnessing of thorium as part of India's three-stage

programme offered real promise of energy security. "That would make the country

completely self-sufficient in nuclear fuel and there will be no need to look for even an

ounce of uranium," he said.

Both Shourie and Sinha added that the American assurances on transfer of sensitive

nuclear technology were prospective in nature and they cautioned that the US will retain

the right of end-use verification of all its supplies. Mr Sinha said: "This will ensure that

American inspectors will roam around our nuclear installations, a fear which was

completely discounted by the Prime Minister while replying to the Rajya Sabha debate

on August 17 last year."

Mr Sinha went on to suggest that the agreement did not refer to the spent fuel from the

Tarapur reactor which has been accumulated over the last 33 years. Asked whether the

BJP would join hands with the Left in opposing the deal, he said: "We have made valid

demands. If the Left and the UNPA back us we have no problems." He took a dig at the

Left parties saying "we would like a partner that would back us the whole hog and not

leave midway". "We had demanded a sense of Parliament on the nuclear deal

but the Left backed out," he elaborated.