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.
