India-US 123: we can run but can we ‘Hyde’?
An update: 08.09.2007
If you have linked here from mutiny.in
to read my views on 123 Agreement, to get my full perspective
you may need to read a few more, if you have the patience…
@ http://wordpress.com/tag/123-agreement/
…and I have not finished with it yet.
when apparently intelligent and educated communities
makes us believe they are experts on
matters as wide ranging as
Nuclear energy and weapons technology
International Nuclear Non-proliferation policy
United States Federal Law- Atomic Energy Act of 1954
United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006’’.
Every point discussed between the two countries in the last two years.
(123) Agreement for cooperation…concerning peaceful use of Nuclear Energy
America’s foreign policy in the middle east, Iraq war and now war with Iran
America’s dollar hegemony and Iran’s threat to petrodollar
and more qualified than the nuclear scientists and political analysts
in declaring to the nation that there is NOTHING TO FEAR in this Indo-US deal,
India is in deep deep trouble.
India’s “Left” had raised concerns regarding the discrepancies
between the discussions and the final version of the Hyde’s Act and
the lack of clarity or explanation in the final document of the agreement.
These intelligent people, as their main argument in response to the “Left’s” concerns,
convincingly says
How can a requirement between the US President and the US Congress be a part of an international deal between US and India?! The 123 agreement is between the US and India. It does not, and cannot, contain any clauses regarding what the US President needs to do for the US Congress. The 123 agreement has no such requirements.
They publish links to the 123 Agreement, but strangely not to the Hyde’s Act,
Even though the full title of the act states:
‘‘Henry J. Hyde United States- India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006’’
In my reckoning, the Act defines US’s expectations of India’s future “coopoeration”.
Click HERE to read the Hyde’s Act in full
They can also say
It is clear from these nine objections of the CPI(M), that either they’re misinformed about the 123 agreement (a fault of the Congress government) or they’re immune to the sensitivities involved in negotiating an international agreement.
Their scholarly stand of nitpicking over clauses of the 123 agreement, picking words and phrases out of context, and misrepresenting them towards irrational conclusions is just a political gimmick.
Should we then, accept that Hyde’s Law is irrelevant in this Indo-US nuclear agreement?
I can only presume the writers are experts in all matters of international agreements.
I make no such claims, so I will rely on documented statements and opinions
of those who I consider are the real experts and/or directly involved.
Let us look at what someone from US State department has to say.
Burns on Bringing India in from the Cold, and Isolating Iran
The Capital Interview: August 2, 2007
Interviewee: R. Nicholas Burns, Under Secretary of State, U.S. Department of State
Interviewer: Robert McMahon, Deputy Editor
Does the deal address U.S. concerns that India would support efforts to press Iran to abandon its suspected nuclear weapons program?
This is a technical agreement of the type that we’ve done with Japan, Russia, China, and the European Union in the past, so it doesn’t speak to political issues in the text of the agreement.
But apart from that, we have been very actively involved in counseling the Indian government that they should remain with the rest of the international community in arguing to the Iranians that they should not become a nuclear weapons power, number one.
And number two, we hope very much that India will not conclude any long-term oil and gas agreements with Iran.
The Indians, as you know, have voted with us at the International Atomic Energy Agency board of governors against Iran on two occasions.
And so I trust the Indians will maintain this policy of not in any way, shape, or form assisting the Iranian government in its nuclear plans, and in giving the right advice to the Iranian government that we would expect any democratic country to give.
And what the Indian nuclear scientists themselves say?
Why Hyde Act of America denies Indian nuclear sovereignty?
Indian Nuclear Scientists and Experts: Aug. 19, 2007
An in depth analysis of
Henry J. Hyde U.S.-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006
by Indian nuclear scientists and experts.
1) Full co-operation in civilian nuclear energy has been denied to India:
a) U.S. unwillingness to co-operate in the areas of spent-fuel reprocessing and uranium enrichment related to the full nuclear fuel cycle.
b) Denial of the nuclear fuel supply assurances and alternate supply arrangements mutually agreed upon earlier.
c) Limits co-operation in the GNEP programme. India will not be permitted to join as a technology developer but as a recipient state.
2) India asked to participate in the international effort on nuclear non-proliferation, with a policy congruent to that of United States.
The Hyde Act envisages (Section-109) India to jointly participate with the U.S. in a programme involving the U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration to further nuclear non-proliferation goals.
This goes much beyond the IAEA norms and has been unilaterally introduced apparently without the knowledge of the Indian government. In addition, the U.S. President is required to annually report to the congress whether India is fully and actively participating in U.S. and international efforts to dissuade, isolate and if necessary sanction and contain Iran for its pursuit of indigenous efforts to develop nuclear capabilities.
These stipulations in the Act and others pertaining to the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), the Wassenaar Arrangement, and the Australia Group etc. are totally outside the scope of the July 18th Agreement and they constitute intrusion into India’s independent decision making and policy matters. India’s adherence to MTCR is also unnecessarily brought in.
3) Impact on our Strategic Defense Programme
In responding to the concerns earlier expressed by us, the Prime Minister stated in the Rajya Sabha on August 17, 2006 “we are fully conscious of the changing complexity of the international political system. Nuclear weapons are an integral part of our national security and will remain so, pending the elimination of all nuclear weapons and universal non-discriminatory nuclear disarmament. Our freedom of action with regard to our strategic programmes remains unrestricted. The nuclear agreement will not be allowed to be used as a backdoor method of introducing NPT type restrictions on India.” And yet, this Act totally negates the above assurance of the PM.
In view of the uncertain strategic situation around the globe, we are of the view that India must not directly or indirectly concede our right to conduct future nuclear weapon tests, if these are found necessary to strengthen our minimum deterrence.
In this regard, the Act makes it explicit that if India conducts such tests, the nuclear cooperation will be terminated and we will be required to return all equipment and materials we might have received under this deal.
To avoid any abrupt stoppage of nuclear fuel for reactors, which we may import, India and the U.S. had mutually agreed to certain alternative fuel supply options, which this Act has totally eliminated out of consideration. Thus, any future nuclear test will automatically result in a heavy economic loss to the country because of the inability to continue the operation of all such imported reactors.
Furthermore, the PM had assured the nation that “India is willing to join any non-discriminatory, multilaterally negotiated and internationally verifiable Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT), as and when it is concluded in the Conference on Disarmament.”
But, the Act requires the U.S. 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.”
In his Rajya Sabha address, the PM had said, “Our commitment towards non-discriminatory global nuclear disarmament remains unwavering, in line with the Rajiv Gandhi Action Plan. There is no dilution on this count.”
Unfortunately, the Act is totally silent on the U.S. working with India to move towards universal nuclear disarmament, but it eloquently covers all aspects of non-proliferation controls of U.S. priority, into which they want to draw India into committing.
In summary, it is obvious that the Hyde Act still retains many of the objectionable clauses in the earlier House and Senate bills on which the Prime Minister had clearly put forth his objections and clarified the Indian position in both Houses of Parliament.
Once this Act is signed into law, all further bilateral agreements with the U.S. will be required to be consistent with this law.
As such, the Government of India may convey these views formally to the U.S. Administration and they should be reflected in the 123 Agreement.
Signatories:
Dr. A.N.Prasad, former Director, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre
Dr. H.N. Sethna, former Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission
Dr. M.R. Srinivasan, former Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission
Dr. P.K. Iyengar, former Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission
Dr. Placid Rodriguez, former Director, Indira Gandhi Center for Atomic Research
Dr. A. Gopalakrishnan, former Chairman, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board
Dr. Y.S.R. Prasad, former Chairman & Managing Director, Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited
Fellow Indians, do not trust anyone, please read the documents for yourselves, for
if you do not act now, you are as much to blame, when our sovereignty is sold away.
America
India
Hyde’s Act
123 Agreement
fearmongering
Woke said this on September 2nd, 2007 at 18:07
Lets take this scenario where this deal goes through and then India conducts a nuclear test, say 2 years from now.
In your opinion what are the adverse consequences as far as India is concerned?
little indian said this on September 2nd, 2007 at 18:43
Thanks Woke for stopping by.
Shall we consider the worse possible scenario?
I am not looking at the deal in isolation, but on the background of America’s dollar hegemony and their seriously flawed foreign policy. And not forgeting their blatant double standards.
I have been reading and writing about this for a while now.
America has to destroy Iran, either through isolation or with Nukes, to PRESERVE THE DOLLAR as petrocurrency. They need allies.
It is not a matter of IF, but WHEN. For them it is a matter of life or death, dollar survives as the (petro) fiat currency or USA becomes a very poor nation.
IRAQ was with british help, they need to drag in someone for targeting IRAN. They cannot rely on Pakistan on this.
We are the donkeys, the deal is the carrot for now.
The President every year will decideand report to the Congress if we have been compliant with America’s double standards policies of N- Non Proliferation (read Iran).
If we do not, the deal will be terminated, and we will be asked to return materials and technology. That is almost impossible.
Can fully functioning reactors (is it 16 or 20) be shut down, and every ounce of reprocessed radioactive material be transported and returned in safety, avoiding human and environmental disasters?
And if India does test and are unable to return the technology and fuel, our N-reactor sites will become LEGITIMATE targets, and gets bombed, killing hundreds and thousands of civilions; ie collateral damage. The American’s will find excuses to make us look like a rogue state. Maybe threatening their ally Pakistan.
Remeber IRAN’S NUCLEAR PROGRAMME was started in 1953, after the CIA-supported coup deposed democratically-elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh. It was the Americans who put Shah (King) Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in power. By 1957, the West judged the regime sufficiently stable and friendly that nuclear proliferation would not become a threat.
Many years and governments later, Iran is facing a genuine attack by US-nukes. Not because they want to develop nuclear bombs. For no other reason than breaking away from the ‘petro dollar’ and starting the Iranian Oil Bourse to sell gas and oil in euros. “An unforeseen circumstance” if there is any?
Remember Saddam Hussain, the American friend in their ‘war’ against Iran? Then Saddam invaded Kuwait and eventually chose to sell Oil for Euros. He was invaded without UN sanction, captured and hanged.
What Iraq has gone through, what Iran is facing today for not toeing American line, India will face tomorrow. And there is no going back, no-one to turn to for help.
Can the American really nuke a country? You bet. They are the only one’s with the experience. This is not fiction, it is very much possible. America has DONE IT ALL BEFORE.
Anyone who looks at the Hyde’s Act and the 123 Agreement in isolation is missing the point.
Anyone who looks at the 123 Agreement alone is either criminally selfish, or an absolute idiot.
granderbharata said this on September 3rd, 2007 at 08:13
(a) dude, no way are we going to Iran
Any government which sends our troops to iran will fall!!
Its political suicide. No indian politicain is dumb enough(politically) to do that.
If a congress goverment sends troops to iran they loose their muslim vote bank to the likes of lalu mayawati etc
If the BJP sends troops, they will be slated by the indian people. Their allies like jayalalitha wont allow it.
Forget the left.They hate america.
So America may want us to send troops.The indian politicians will cover their own seats first rather than please america.
(b) If suppose america did somehow decide to attack India without india helping them invade any country.Tell me who is willing to step up for india. Russia maybe?? but only through moral support.
(c) return of fuel “lol” little indian we already did not return the fuel once in the 1960s (General electic plant Kanpur i think, not sure)
the best america did then is sanctions. Face it then the indian military was nothing as compared to what it is now.We can a GLSV laucher from our space program. What makes you think that we are not capable to reponding with an ICBM of our own??(wont be as devastating as a US one but still)
little indian said this on September 3rd, 2007 at 10:16
Thanks granderbharata,
I have been speculating on what the worst scenario will be. What may happen if we sign the contract. You are speculating on what we MAY GET AWAY with if we sign up and then “default”.
The choice for us is to decide what is the safe option. When first given the nuclear technology, did Iran ever think their nuclear reactors would ever get bombed? They have broken no treatie or policies. Do you believe the Americans are incapable of ever bombing us?
Say Pakistan, like the Israelies, keeps shouting we will nuke them, or say we have another war over Kashmir, that takes us to another nuclear confrontation. What steps are the American’s taking to control Pakistan’s nuclear proliferation?
NONE. Why? They are free to do whatever they wish.
granderbharata said this on September 4th, 2007 at 13:50
well, Iran did sign the CTBT all three of india pakistan and israel have no, thats the biggest difference. So yes they probably were aware that if they start producing nuclear weapons their targets will be bombed.Thats why they built them largely underground which makes them hard to hit.
Its true america can get away with most things.But bombing india is one thing they cannot without retrobution.I find ur concentrating too much on iran. I dont care what iran and usa do to each other.India should trade with both america and iran and maximise its benefits.
America cant doo much about Pakistan.the pakistani nuclear arms are being spread through china. The only thing Ameria can do is keep the regime friendly.
I read today china is passing lot of weapons to the taliban.I feel china is agitating india by putting the left china leaning parties into full swing.I find the communists a curse to the nation.
Also another thing,
suppose iran does get nuclear weapons.What would you prefer Little Indian, a neighbourhood with Pakistan and Iran both having nuclear weapons with means to deliver to india??? Or only india and Pakistan having nuclear weapons?
little indian said this on September 4th, 2007 at 15:03
Thanks Granderbharat,
can I just verify, are you saying any country that has signed the NPT (the CTBT is still being ratified and not been enforced) and manufactures n-bomb(s) is a “legitimate target for bombing”?
Does that include the five “nuclear weapon state”?
No country that manufactures N-bomb can ever be a legitimate target if they have not used it against anyone. To possess a N-bomb is the biggest deterrent to being run over by bullies like USA.
IAEA has clearly stated that Iran does not have any nuclear bombs, neither will they have enough reprocessed material to have a bomb within 1-2 years. So America’s allegations are again a dodgy “Iran has WMD” deception.
What steps have America taken to make safe the Pakistani N-bomb, that is touted as the “Islamic” bomb. Why can Pakistan have a N-bomb, but not Iran. By your logic, US should be immediately bombing Pakistan?
Musharraff has thumbed his nose at America, given refuge to alQaeda, maintained friendship with China, has manufactured and has held on to a nuclear bomb, passed on N-technology and parts to Libya and Iran, and America can’t do much!! about Pakistan except keeping them friends. What is a “friend” by your definition? Someone who will not shoot you from the front but stab you in the back? And you will trust America when they continue to call Pakistan an ally and give them billions every year??
So what they cannot do to Pakistan, they can do it to Iran? Unprovoked and pre-emptive strike, maybe nuclear another Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That is double standards.
The Taliban is America’s creation, and now their enemy. If China is helping to arm the Taliban it is obviously going through pakistan, and if the American soldiers die because of it, America has no one else to blame.
I am happy for Iran to have a N-bomb. If having a n-bomb is the best option to deter unilateral attacks on sovereign states, then let every country have one. That will stop the bullies sitting in their armchairs and killing civilians thousands of miles away.
America has created a monster next door to us, they better control it asap. If America is not careful, that Pakistani “Islamic” bomb will be deployed against them. Know what? it is not a case of if, but when.
Sorry GranderBharat, I cannot buy into your logic.
Any friend and mentor of Pakistan, is a two faced reptile.
dhillon said this on December 4th, 2007 at 20:07
what about Russias clonialism after the 2nd world war and invasion on AFGHANISTAN/
littleindian said this on December 5th, 2007 at 19:05
@ dhillon,
I presume by Russia’s colonialism after WWII, you refer to the “Yalta betrayal”?
Where Roosevelt asked for Soviet support in the U.S. Pacific War against Japan, specifically invading Japan proper in return for which he gave in to Stalin’s demand for a Russian sphere of political influence in Eastern Europe as essential to the USSR’s national security.
That is a proof of America’s betrayal of their allies just after the War in Europe. Thanks for bringing it here, it just confirms my point.
The Invasion of Afghanistan?
1979, the Afghan government had themselves requested the introduction of Soviet forces in Afghanistan. They requested Soviet troops to provide security and to assist in the fight against the Mujahideen rebels.
1978, Moscow and Kabul had signed a bilateral treaty of friendship and cooperation that permitted Soviet deployment in case of an Afghan request.
The mujahideens were created by the Americans. And now the Americans have themselves “Invaded Afghanistan” to fight them.
I would suggest you get the historical facts correct and support your comments on my site with some reference or evidence. And please read India-US 123: keep our enemies closer and the links for there on to learn for your self the truth about the Soviets in Afghanistan.