India-US 123: The Lefts have 9 queries
If you can’t get what you want
use exaggerated fear on a constant basis, as a leverage till
you get the opinions and actions of others towards your desired end.
The American’s championed it during the Cold War against the “commies”.
We are suddenly witnessing the same in India,
the “Left” has dared to question the dream charity that America is giving us
and the pro-US Indians, probably with motives purely selfish, are out fear-mongering.
Before our government signs away 40 years of our future, everyone of us
have a right to know what and why, I do not care who asks and for what motives.
These are the queries (as quoted below) that has been raised, by the ridiculed “Left” .
Each of these are legitimate and relevant concerns that every intelligent Indian,
who cares about our country and our sovereign rights, should be now asking.
Let us do away with the hearsay about hearsays and interpretations of biased minds.
N-deal: Left has 9 queries
From Asian Age Archives: By Seema Mustafa : New Delhi, Aug. 6 2007
The nine objections raised by the CPI(M) against the India-US civilian nuclear energy agreement have not been addressed in the 123 agreement.
The Left leaders have been consulting scientists and strategic experts to reach a final position on the 123 agreement at a meeting scheduled to be held here on Tuesday.
Not a single objection raised by the Left has been met, according to strategic experts consulted by this newspaper.
The CPI(M) had issued a statement listing the “explicit departures in the Senate and Congress drafts from the original agreement” signed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and US President George W. Bush.
1. The CPI(M) was concerned that the deal required India to pursue a foreign policy congruent to that of the US; and to secure India’s full and active participation in US efforts to sanction and contain Iran.
Nothing has changed with the 123 agreement. This codifies technical rules of nuclear commerce. It does not supersede the Hyde Act but is a subsidiary arrangement under the Hyde Act read with the US Atomic Energy Act.
The Hyde Act is clear that Indian foreign policy has to remain congruent with the US, on Iran and all other vital issues.
US undersecretary of state for political affairs Nicholas Burns said as much when asked about Iran by the American media. He said the 123 agreement was a technical document, and that the US expected India to follow its policy on Iran.
He even said that he was hopeful that India would not enter into any long-term gas and energy cooperation with Iran, a reference to the gas pipeline.
Despite the 123 agreement, the US President has to annually certify to Congress that India is in full compliance with the congressionally imposed non-proliferation conditions.
The controversial provision for instituting a “cooperative threat reduction programme” remains.
It has just been re-named by the Hyde Act as “United States-India scientific cooperative nuclear non-proliferation programme”.
2. The deal would not allow full cooperation on civilian nuclear technology, denying India a complete fuel cycle.
India will continued to face an embargo on importing equipment and components related to enrichment, reprocessing and heavy water production, even when such activities are under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections and for peaceful purposes. Article 5(2) in the 123 agreement makes this very clear.
3. Steps to be taken by India would be conditional upon and contingent on action taken by the US.
It is clear from the 123 agreement itself that all restrictions are not being lifted. Embargoes are still in place, and the US President is still required to annually certify to the Congress that India is in “full compliance” with the congressionally imposed non-proliferation conditions.
4. The US will not take the necessary steps to change its laws or align the NSG rules to fulfil the terms of the India-US nuclear deal.
The 123 agreement does not change the requirement of the Hyde Act that the NSG exemption for India be “made by consensus” and be consistent with the rules being framed by the US. The legislation requires the administration to ensure that the NSG exemption for India is no less stringent than the US exemption.
5. The additional protocol referred to in the original agreement would be intrusive and not India-specific.
New Delhi’s agreement with the IAEA will be “India-specific” only in name and would contain only a cosmetic reference to India’s right to take undefined and unenforceable “corrective measures” in all other respects.
The 123 agreement, in its “definitions”, defines well understood terms but not corrective measures. The Hyde Act prescribes for India the highly invasive Model Additional Protocol applicable to non-nuclear weapons states.
One prerequisite to bring the deal into force is that India and the IAEA should have “concluded all legal steps required prior to signature” to enforce inspections “in perpetuity”.
A second prerequisite mentioned in the 123 agreement is for India to make “substantial progress” on concluding an additional protocol with the IAEA.
The Hyde Act defines additional protocol as the one set for non-nuclear states in the 1997 IAEA information circular.
At the press conference announcing the 123 agreement, national security adviser M.K. Narayanan and the Atomic Energy Commission chairman, Dr Anil Kakodkar, did not answer a question on the additional protocol, saying that this would be taken up later.
6. India is placing its facilities in perpetuity while the US President can prevent the transfer to India of equipment, materials or technology from other participating governments in the NSG, or from any other source.
The 123 agreement offers assured fuel supply only so long as India adheres to the US-prescribed non-proliferation conditions.
The assurances of uninterrupted fuel supply cover only disruption due to market failure, or technical, or logistical, difficulties, but not sanctions arising from India’s non-compliance with non-proliferation conditions.
Both the 123 agreement and the Hyde Act have explicitly stopped New Delhi from lifting safeguards even if the US were to deliberately terminate all supplies.
7. India’s fissile material stockpile will be restricted.
The 123 agreement has not changed this.
The Hyde Act lays emphasis on getting India to cease all fissile material production even before negotiations on an FMCT have begun in Geneva.
The act requires the US President to periodically inform Congress about “steps that the US has taken and will take to encourage India to identify and declare a date by which India would be willing to stop production of fissile material for nuclear weapons unilaterally or pursuant to a multilateral moratorium or treaty”.
8. The deal includes physical verification and suitable access to be provided by India to US inspectors, and not just IAEA safeguards.
US end-use monitoring is reflected in the 123 agreement’s Article 12 (3).
Also, the provision for US fallback safeguards in Article 10 (4) states, “If the IAEA decides that the application of IAEA safeguards is no longer possible, the supplier and recipient should consult and agree on appropriate verification measures.”
9. The military programme will also be subject to monitoring by the IAEA and the US.
The 123 agreement does not change that requirement in the Hyde Act.
The Hyde Act stipulates, “The President shall keep the appropriate congressional committees fully and currently informed of the fact and implications of any significant nuclear activities of India”, which includes the fissile material produced and the production of nuclear weapons by India.
It also demands annual estimates from the administration about the amount of uranium mined and milled in India, the amount of uranium used or allocated for the production of nuclear explosive devices, and the rate of production in India of both fissile material and nuclear explosive devices.
The legislation seeks to cap, roll back and eliminate India’s nuclear deterrent with the phrase “halt the increase of nuclear weapons arsenals in South Asia, and to promote their reduction and eventual elimination”.
And those of you, who wants us to believe US will protect us from the Chinese, dream on.
America
India
Hyde’s Act
123 Agreement
fearmongering
earthpal said this on August 31st, 2007 at 17:47
Good work Little Indian.
The first of the nine points – the concern that America always has an hidden agenda (compliance with its foreign policy) when it offers to help a country – I’m in no doubt about that. That is the way Ameirca has worked throughout its recent history. The timeline of atrocities committed by the CIA in order to get other countries to comply is extremely disturbing.
They are fairweather friends at best.
little indian said this on August 31st, 2007 at 18:07
I agree earthPal,
we were blissfully happy being America’s enemy for so long.
Not too long ago, the 1971 War, America had sided against India and had encouraged China to help Pakistan against us
we had their warships muscleflexing in the Bay of Bengal.
There evil foreign policy wants to destroy us. And they will get their way.
My country is bursting full of hypocrites, who will sell their country to be able to become “American”. If you read carefully the blogs that are pro-Americans, it is invariably by an Indian in USA.
Read the questions I have quoted from the two original documents, none of these bloggers will answer the questions, they sidetrack with ridicule and pure rhetorics.
drsubrotoroy said this on September 1st, 2007 at 02:46
Hello, You may find this of interest at http://www.independentindian.com, first published in The Sunday Statesman a couple of weeks ago:
Need for Clarity
A poorly drafted treaty driven by business motives is a recipe for international misunderstanding
First published in The Sunday Statesman, August 19 2007, http://www.thestatesman.net
By SUBROTO ROY
Confusion prevails over the Indo-US Nuclear Deal. Businessmen, bureaucrats, politicians, diplomats, scientists and now the public at large have all joined in the cacophony in the last two years. On Wednesday August 15, America’s foreign ministry made the clearest most unequivocal statement possible as to the official American Government interpretation of the Indo-US nuclear deal: “The proposed 123 agreement has provisions in it that in an event of a nuclear test by India, then all nuclear co-operation is terminated, as well as there is provision for return of all materials, including reprocessed material covered by the agreement” (Sean McCormack). Yet our Prime Minister had told Parliament two days earlier: “The agreement does not in any way affect India’s right to undertake future nuclear tests, if it is necessary”. What is going on? Our politics are in uproar, and it has been suggested in these pages that the country go to a General Election to allow the people to speak on the matter. Clearly, we need some clarity…
Click Here for the full text.
…The answer to our present conundrum must be patience and the fullest transparency. What is the rush? If it is good or bad for us to buy six or eight new American reactors now, it will remain good or bad to do so a year or two from now after everyone has had a thorough think about everything that is involved. What the Manmohan-Montek Planning Commission needed to do first of all was a thorough cost-benefit analysis of India’s energy requirements but such elementary professionalism has been sorely lacking among our economists for decades.
(The author is Contributing Editor, The Statesman)
Posted in Dabhol/Enron fiasco, India-US Nuclear Deal, India’s Lok Sabha, Economics and Energy, India’s Democracy, India-United States business, India’s Energy, International Law, Manmohan Singh, India’s Polity, India’s Foreign Policy, War.
little indian said this on September 1st, 2007 at 09:50
Thanks Dr Roy,
just to keep the comment short, I have posted the link to your blogsite instead.
I have read this (your) article and infact I have it bookmarked, waiting to be worked into a new blog. I totally agree with your point of view. The public have the right to know, what is the best for their country.
Hiding the clauses, in Hyde Act and the Agreement that are not in the best interests of India, with rhetorics is criminal.
We elect politicians to office to do a job FOR us, not for any foreign power.
Thanks for stopping by to share your thoughts.
AKASH said this on September 2nd, 2007 at 10:24
the nuke deal sucksss..i knew it from the beginning…US wants INDIAN support to take on its rivals like china and also our close friend RUSSIA
little indian said this on September 2nd, 2007 at 10:50
Thanks Akash, for stopping by.
Isn’t it strange, so much is being written by the pundits, but hardly any mention in the press of what the nuclear scientists themselves think? After all it is something they have to struggle with for the next 40 years.
After Pokhran, America tried to shackle us with sanctions and went back on the 1963 agreement.
But our scientist have been brilliant to carry on with exploding success.
So now they are trying to tie our hands again with temptations.
Allwarisbad said this on September 3rd, 2007 at 04:22
I am an Indian living in the US and am thoroughly aghast at our leaders sucking up to the Bush Administration. In fact, as you have mentioned, using fear mongering as a tool is typical of what is going on here regarding Iraq and now Iran. I hope this treaty fails and India will be much better for it or else we know what happens to other countries “US has helped” in the past …
Jai Hind! Let us keep our independence.
little indian said this on September 3rd, 2007 at 10:23
Thanks Allwarisbad,
I totally agree.
We call ourselves independant, but we are over eager welcome to American imperialism. It is sickening.
I do not think, even a fraction of these pro-US people know about US’s past track record. They have destroyed countries and government at will that have stood in their way.
But thanks for visiting and your comment.
Ajay said this on September 3rd, 2007 at 17:03
1. Irrelevant quotes taken from 1 US senator, that two totally out of context. Also shouldn’t India be happy that the US is working to limit proliferation in India’s own backyard? There are many cases where US and Indian interests will align, in which case we should absolutely work with the US. For example, the overthrow of the ISI supported Taliban (i.e. the regime that blew up Buddhist statues, forced non-muslims to wear identifying marks etc.) is a good thing for India.
2. I fail to see why this is significant. US maintains restrictions to sell certain technologies to events its very close allies: UK, Japan, Israel. Surely India will also not be willing to sell it’s missle and nuclear technology to any country even if they are friendly ones.
3. This is the same point as #2.
4. US has promised to work with the NSG to meet it’s obligations under the 123 agreement. Considering that the US has so far delivered on everything it’s promised (the Hyde act passed congress by a HUGE margin), there is no reason to suspect that the US will not continue to do so. The US is the dominant force in the NSG. All nations in the NSG except for China will follow the US lead.
5. Inspections in perpetuity are only for the new plants supplied by the US (and NSG countries). India can still pursue its current and future military program. Since the new plants are only to be civilian plants, I don’t see the harm in having inspections.
6. Only the new reactors supplies by the US will have safeguards. I fail to see how this is any worse then the present situation. Also, the text says nothing about the US stopping supplies from other NSG members. Again a very misleading heading, which has nothing to do with the text underneath.
7. NO it wont. India has always refused to sign the FMCT, and she will continue to do so. Nothing in this agreement is contingent on that. The quote you have given is taken completely out of context. It only says that the US will ask India to work towards a FMCT. This is the same as India requesting that the US should eliminate it’s nuclear stockpile. It’s all very nice rhetoric, but not of this is binding in any way.
8. Very misleading heading. The text only calls for US inspections if the IAEA decides that it is unable to do it’s job for some hypothetical reason. This is a very unlikely scenario, since the IAEA manages to do its job just fine in every other country on the planet.
9. The heading is completely misleading. Nowhere in the subtext is there any mention of IAEA inspections on India’s military nuclear facilities. Also, see my response to #8. Every nation argues that other nations should reduce their nuclear arsenals. If it is not binding then it is meaningless talk.
little indian said this on September 3rd, 2007 at 17:44
@ Ajay, thanks for commenting.
Your very first argument is wrong.
It is not quotes of an individual senetor,
it is clearly ststed in the Henry Hyde’s Act.
It is obvious you have not read the original text of the Hyde’s Act,
neither are you aware of our own nuclear technology programme.
In fact, it is possible you have not read any documents at all.
You probably haven’t got a clue how the Taliban came to power, have you?
It is obvious your knowledge about the rise of Talibans, ISI, Pakistan, or America’s foreign policies, why they are meddling with middle east, why Iran …is an absolute ZERO.
Hence I do not see any point in replying to any comments you have made.
Your comment proves what I have been saying, anybody and everybody is an expert and believes they are right.
Before I sell off my country to the Americans, I would rather believe the opinions of our own nuclear scientists.
Please peddle your garbage elsewhere where they will be accepted without questions.