India–United States Civil Nuclear Agreement: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
changed lead
(No difference)

Revision as of 15:25, 23 July 2008

File:BushandSingh02Mar2006.jpg
US President George W. Bush and India's Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh exchange handshakes in New Delhi on March 2, 2006

The Indo-US civilian nuclear agreement also known as the nuclear deal is the name commonly attributed to a bilateral agreement between the United States of America and the Republic of India under which the United States will provide India access to civilian nuclear technology and fuel in exchange for IAEA-safeguards on India's civilian nuclear reactors.

The Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006, also known as the Hyde Act, is the enabling legal framework for the United States for drafting a 123 agreement to operationalise the agreement [1]. However the Hyde act is not binding on India [2]. The 123 agreement requires a separate approval of the United States Congress and Indian cabinet ministers of the exact terms and conditions for bilateral civilian nuclear cooperation. According to the Nuclear Power Corporation of India, the agreement will help India meet its goal of adding 25,000 MW of nuclear power capacity through imports of nuclear reactors and fuel by 2020.[1]

After the terms of the deal were concluded on July 27,2007,[2] it ran into trouble because of stiff opposition in India from the Communist allies of the ruling United Progressive Alliance.[3] They alleged that the deal would undermine the sovereignty of India's foreign policy and also claimed that the Indian government was hiding certain clauses of the deal, which would harm India's indigenous nuclear program, from the media.[4] On July 9, 2008, the Left Front withdrew support to the government reducing its strength to 276 in the Lok Sabha[3] (The lower house of the parliament).[5] The government survived a confidence vote in the parliament on the 22nd of July by 275-256 votes in the backdrop of defections from both camps to the opposite camps.[6]

Background

Signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) are granted access to civilian nuclear technology from each other as well as nuclear fuel via the Nuclear Suppliers Group in exchange for International Atomic Energy Agency-verified compliance of the NPT tenets. India, Israel, and Pakistan, however, have not signed the NPT, arguing that instead of addressing the central objective of universal and comprehensive non-proliferation, the treaty creates a club of "nuclear haves" and a larger group of "nuclear have-nots" by restricting the legal possession of nuclear weapons to those states that tested them before 1967, who alone are free to possess and multiply their nuclear stockpiles. The treaty neither explains on what ethical grounds such a distinction is valid nor does it justify why the arbitrarily fixed 1967 cut off date cant be postponed (postponed to 1975 to accomodate India).[7] India insists on a comprehensive action plan for a nuclear-free world within a specific time-frame and has also adopted a voluntary "no first use policy".

In response to a growing Chinese nuclear arsenal, India conducted a nuclear test in 1974 (called "peaceful nuclear explosion" and explicitly not for "offensive" first strike military purposes but which could be used as a "peaceful deterrence"). Led by the US, other nations set up an informal group, the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), to control exports of nuclear materials, equipment and technology.[8] As a result, India was relegated to a pariah status within the international nuclear order. India conducted 5 more nuclear tests in May, 1998 at Pokhran.

Rationale behind the agreement

The growing energy demands of the Indian and Chinese economies have raised questions on the impact of global energy availability. Further India still harbours aspirations of being recognised as a nuclear power before considering signing the NPT as a nuclear weapons state, which is possible only if the present arbitrary fixed 1967 cut off definition of "nuclear power state" is pushed to 1975. The proposed civil nuclear agreement recognises india's "de facto" status while explicitly not mentioning it anywhere. The Bush Administration has concluded that an Indian shift toward nuclear energy is in the best interest for America to secure its energy needs of coal, crude oil, and natural gas. Moreover, the Bush administration insists that India's strong non-proliferation record and stable democracy further helped justify a nuclear pact with India while not providing Pakistan or others the same. Finally, the U.S. also expects that such a deal could spur India's economic growth and bring in $150 billion in the next decade for nuclear power plants, of which the US wants a share.[9] It is India's stated objective to increase the production of nuclear power generation from its present capacity of 4,000 MWe to 20,000 MWe in the next decade.

Indian and American critics along with nuclear industry representatives and developmental economists have questioned each of the administration's claims. They have noted that U.S. nuclear vendors cannot sell any reactors to India unless and until India caps third party liabilities and or establishes a credible liability pool to protect U.S. firms from being sued in the case of an accident or a terrorist act of sabotage against nuclear plants.

The Respect Developmental economic advising firm of Dalberg, which advises the IMF and the World Bank, moreover, has done its own analysis of the economic value of investing in nuclear power development in India. Their conclusion is that for the next 20 years such investments are likely to be far less valuable economically or environmentally than a variety of other measures to increase and economize electricity production in India. and also to stop or reduce the pollution by traditional usage of natural resources

Since the end of the Cold War, The Pentagon, along with certain U.S. ambassadors such as Robert Blackwill, have requested increased strategic ties with India and a de-hyphenization of Pakistan with India.

Mohammed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which would be in charge of inspecting India's civilian reactors has praised the deal as "it would also bring India closer as an important partner in the nonproliferation regime".[10] However, members of the IAEA safeguards staff have made it clear that Indian demands that New Delhi be allowed to determine when Indian reactors might be inspected could undermine the IAEA safeguards system.

While India is self-sufficient in thorium, possessing 25% of the world's known and economically available thorium,[11] it possesses a meagre 1% of the similarly calculated global uranium reserves.[12] Indian support for cooperation with the U.S. centers around the issue of obtaining a steady supply of sufficient energy for the economy to grow.

Indian opposition to the pact centers around the concessions that would need to be made, as well as the likely de-prioritization of research into a thorium fuel-cycle if uranium becomes highly available given the well understood utilization of uranium in a nuclear fuel cycle.

Agreement

On March 2,2006 in New Delhi, George W. Bush and Manmohan Singh signed a Civil Nuclear Cooperation Agreement, following an initiation during the July 2005 summit in Washington between the two leaders over civilian nuclear cooperation.[13]

Heavily endorsed by the White House, the agreement is thought to be a major victory to George W. Bush's foreign policy initiative and was described by many lawmakers as a cornerstone of the new strategic partnership between the two countries.[14] The agreement is widely considered to help India fulfill its soaring energy demands and enter the U.S. and India into a strategic partnership. The Pentagon speculates this will help ease global demand for crude oil and natural gas.

On August 3, 2007, both the countries released the full text of the 123 agreement.[15]

Current Status

Following the passing of the Act, negotiations on implementing the cooperation through a 'Section 123 Agreement' were concluded on July 27, 2007.[16] For this agreement to be sent to the U.S. Congress, India must have negotiated a safeguards agreement with the IAEA and the Nuclear Suppliers Group must have agreed to modify its export control standards to permit nuclear cooperation with India.[16]

On June 19, 2008, news media reported that Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh threatened to resign his position if the Communists in India continue to oppose the nuclear deal, an opposition that Singh declares as irrational and reactionary.[17]

On July 08, 2008, Prakash Karat announced that the Left Front is withdrawing its support to the government over the decision by the government to go ahead on the United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act. The left front had been a staunch advocate of not proceeding with this deal citing national interests.[18]

On July 9, 2008, India formally submitted the safeguards agreement to the IAEA.[19] This development comes after the Prime Minister of India Manmohan Singh returned from the 34th G8 summit meeting in Tokyo where he met with U.S. President George W. Bush.[20] Other world leaders of G8 have also endorsed the agreement, suggesting that it is likely to gain support from the IAEA & NSG.[21] India has also already secured the approval from China which it thought might hold some reservations against the deal.[22] Australia which is a key exporter of Uranium for India after the deal becomes active has also suggested its approval.[23] According to The Hindu sources, External Affairs Minister's Pranab Mukherjee’s earlier statement said “I cannot bind the government if we lose our majority,” [24] implying that United Progressive Alliance government would not put its signature on any deal with IAEA if it lost the majority in either a 'opposition-initiated no-confidence motion' or if failing to muster a vote of confidence in Indian Parliament after being told to prove its majority by the president. Left Front withdrew support to UPA government on same day. The IAEA Board of Governors must now approve the safeguards agreement, and the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group must approve a policy allowing nuclear cooperation with India before President Bush can make the necessary certifications and seek final approval by the U.S. Congress.[25]

On the 22nd of July, the ruling UPA coalition government won the trust vote in the parliament primarily with the help of the support of Samajwadi party a few independents and some cross voters to make up the gap created by the Left's exit. The deal may well be on its way smoothly now, atleast from India's side for the time being.[26]

Passage in the U.S.

On December 18th, President George W. Bush signed the Act into law. The Act was passed by an overwhelming 359-68 in the United States House of Representatives on July 26th and by 85-12 in the United States Senate on Nov 16th in a strong show of bipartisan support.[27][28][29]

The House version (H.R. 5682) and Senate version (S. 3709) of the bill differed due to amendments each had added before approving, but the versions were reconciled with a House vote of 330-59 on Dec 8th and a Senate voice-vote on Dec 9th before being passed on to President G.W. Bush for final approval.[30][31] The White House had urged Congress to expedite the reconciliation process during the current lame duck session, and recommended removing certain amendments which would be deemed deal-killers by India.[32] Nonetheless, while softened, several clauses restricting India's strategic nuclear program and conditions on having India align with U.S. views over Iran were incorporated with the civilian nuclear agreement.

In response to the language Congress used in the Act to define U.S. policy toward India, President Bush, stated "Given the Constitution's commitment to the authority of the presidency to conduct the nation's foreign affairs, the executive branch shall construe such policy statements as advisory," going on to cite sections 103 and 104 (d) (2) of the bill. To assure Congress that its work would not be totally discarded, Bush continued by saying that the executive would give "the due weight that comity between the legislative and executive branches should require, to the extent consistent with U.S. foreign policy."[33]

Opposition in India

Detailed timeline

Although many mainstream political parties including the Indian National Congress support the deal along with regional parties like Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and Rashtriya Janata Dal its realisation has ran into difficulties in the face of stiff political opposition in India. Also, in November 2007, former Indian Military chiefs, bureaucrats and scientists drafted a letter to Members of Parliament expressing their support for the deal.[35] However, opposition and criticism continued at political levels.The Samajwadi Party (SP) which was with the left front in opposing the deal changed its stand after discussing with ex-president of India and nuclear scientist Dr A P J Kalam. Now SP is in support of the government and the deal. Indian Government survived a vote of confidence by 275-256 after communists withdrew their support to the government over this dispute.[36]

Bharatiya Janata Party

The main opposition party BJP which laid the groundwork for the deal criticized the deal saying that the deal in its present form was unacceptable to BJP and wanted the deal renegotiated. The BJP the current main opposition party in the Indian parliament has asked the government not to accept the deal without a vote in the legislature. However, the government remained steadfast on its commitment to the deal and has refused to back down on the agreement, leading to the possibility of mid-term elections in India. 81 year old veteran BJP leader Lal Krishna Advani, in a statement to the Indian Express newspaper, seemed to indicate willingness to support the government provided some legislative measures.[37] However his party refused to follow that line and stuck to its earlier stand.[38]

Left Front

The primary opposition to the Nuclear deal in India, however, comes from the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and its parliamentary allies (CPI, RSP, AIFB)[39][40] November 17 the left parties had provisionally agreed to let the government initiate talks with the IAEA for India specific safeguards which indicated that they may support.[41] The CPI(M), an external parliamentary supporter of government as it stipulates conditions that in some areas are more severe than the clauses in either the NPT or the CTBT.[42][43][44] The left front formally removed the support to UPA-led government on July 8.

Others

In 2006, some indian nuclear ex-scientists had written an appeal to Indian Members of Parliament to ensure that "decisions taken today do not inhibit India's future ability to develop and pursue nuclear technologies for the benefit of the nation".[45]

Vote of Confidence

The UPA faced it's first confidence vote in the Lok Sabha on 22 July, 2008 after the Communist Party of India (Marxist) led Left Front withdrew support over India approaching the IAEA for Indo-US nuclear deal. President of India had asked Prime Minister of India Manmohan Singh to prove the majority.[46] UPA won the trust vote with 275-256.[47] In the 541 member lower house UPA needed 272 votes for the government to enjoy a simple majority. With 226 member of parliaments in the UPA this left a deficit of 46. Samajwadi Party with 39 members had pledged support earlier. Ten MPs did not record their vote taking the total figure down to 531. Seven Bhartiya Janata Party MPs, two from the Telugu Desam Party and one from the Biju Janata Dal voted for the Government motion.[46] UPA won the trust vote with 275-256.[48]

International support

Besides the United States, the deal has got widespread support from several nations including United Kingdom,[49] France,[50] Japan,[51] Russia,[52] and Germany.[53][54] There are also reports of Australia,[55] China,[56] and Canada[57][58] supporting the deal when India asks Nuclear Suppliers Group to exempt it from NPT guidelines. Canada is ready to enter into lucrative deals to export nuclear technology to India, and is awaiting the ratification of the US-India nuclear deal.[59] The international support for the deal is seen as a tacit recognition of India as a nuclear weapon state.[60] Despite heavy protest from the Left Front, the Indian government has approached the IAEA Board of Governors to ratify the deal and the board is scheduled to vote on the matter in August 2008.[61] The deal is expected to be ratified by both IAEA and Nuclear Suppliers Group.[62] Even if the US Congress is not able to pass the deal before presidential elections, observers noted that India can commence nuclear trade with other nations such as France and Russia once it gets the approval from Nuclear Suppliers Group.[63]

See also

Template:EnergyPortal

External links

References

  1. ^ "At G-8, Singh, Bush reaffirm commitment to nuclear deal - Economy and Politics - livemint.com". Retrieved 2008-07-11.
  2. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6919552.stm
  3. ^ http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jul2008/indi-j03.shtml
  4. ^ http://www.ibnlive.com/news/cong-nukes-rivals-says-sovereignty-not-at-stake/68665-3.html
  5. ^ http://www.gulfnews.com/world/India/10227287.html
  6. ^ Indian government survives vote
  7. ^ "Embassy of India: Nuclear Non-proliferation". Retrieved 2006-06-01.
  8. ^ "Nuclear Suppliers Group".
  9. ^ "Bush Officials Defend India Nuclear Deal". Retrieved 2005-07-20.
  10. ^ "U.S., India Reach Deal On Nuclear Cooperation". Retrieved 2006-03-03.
  11. ^ "Information and Issue Briefs - Thorium". World Nuclear Association. Retrieved 2006-06-01.
  12. ^ "UIC Nuclear Issues Briefing Paper #75 - Supply of Uranium". Uranium Information Center. Retrieved 2006-06-01.
  13. ^ "Bush, India's Singh Sign Civil Nuclear Cooperation Agreement". USINFO - International Information Programs. Retrieved 2006-03-02.
  14. ^ "U.S. House votes for nuclear deal". The Hindu. Retrieved 2006-07-29.
  15. ^ "U.S. and India Release Text of 123 Agreement". Retrieved 2008-07-11.
  16. ^ a b India and US confirm nuclear pact, BBC, published 2007-07-27, accessed 2007-07-31
  17. ^ "PM wants to quit over nuclear deal". Retrieved 2008-07-11.
  18. ^ "The Hindu News Update Service". Retrieved 2008-07-11.
  19. ^ Text of India-IAEA Safeguards Agreement
  20. ^ "India submits draft safeguards pact to IAEA". PTI. timesofindia.indiatimes.com. 2008-07-09. Retrieved 2008-07-08.
  21. ^ "G8 says to work with India, IAEA on non-proliferation". in.reuters.com. July 9, 2008. Retrieved 2008-07-10. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  22. ^ "PM counts on China, USA on India". www.thestatesman.net. 2008-07-09. Retrieved 2008-07-10.
  23. ^ "Australia may support n-deal". www.thaindian.com. 2008-07-10. Retrieved 2008-07-10.
  24. ^ Varadarajan, Siddharth (2008-07-09). "India sends safeguards agreement to IAEA Board". www.thehindu.com. Retrieved 2008-07-08.
  25. ^ "IAEA board gets India's safeguards agreement". www.rediff.com. 2008-07-09. Retrieved 2008-07-08.
  26. ^ "UPA scores big win in confidence vote". www.dnaindia.com. 2008-07-22. Retrieved 2008-07-22.
  27. ^ "Bush Welcomes Senate Approval of U.S.-India Nuclear Agreement". USINFO - International Information Programs. Retrieved 2006-11-17.
  28. ^ "H.R. 5682: House Vote 411: Jul 26, 2006 (109th Congress)". GovTrack. Retrieved 2006-07-26. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  29. ^ "H.R. 5682: Senate Vote 270: Nov 16, 2006 (109th Congress)". GovTrack. Retrieved 2006-11-16.
  30. ^ "Congress Passes U.S.-India Civilian Nuclear Cooperation Bill". USINFO - International Information Programs. Retrieved 2006-12-09.
  31. ^ "H.R. 5682: House Vote 541: Dec 8, 2006 (109th Congress)". GovTrack. Retrieved 2006-12-08.
  32. ^ "Nuclear deal with US made easier for India to digest". Hindustan Times. Retrieved 2006-11-09.
  33. ^ "Hyde Act not binding, says Bush". CNN-IBN. Retrieved 2006-12-19.
  34. ^ http://www.ibnlive.com/news/the-math-behind-upas-survival-in-parliament/68531-3-p1.html Left-UPA problems
  35. ^ "IndianExpress.com :: ‘The question is can we get a better n-deal? No&#x2019". Retrieved 2008-07-11.
  36. ^ Indian government survives vote
  37. ^ "IndianExpress.com :: Advani’s yes to n-deal forces BJP on mid-course correction". Retrieved 2008-07-11.
  38. ^ "IndianExpress.com :: Renegotiate 123: Advani gives in to pressure from party". Retrieved 2008-07-11.
  39. ^ "CPI(M) against nuclear deal with the US - Newindpress.com". Retrieved 2008-07-11.
  40. ^ "No Passage For Nuclear Deal". Retrieved 2008-07-11.
  41. ^ "Indian-Americans encouraged by ‘progress’ on N-deal - ExpressIndia.Com". Retrieved 2008-07-11.
  42. ^ "'Provision on nuclear test a matter of concern'". The Hindu. Retrieved 2006-12-10.
  43. ^ "'Reject U.S. Act on nuclear deal': BJP". The Hindu. Retrieved 2006-12-11.
  44. ^ Dr Suvrokamal Dutta. "The Indo-US Nuclear Civilian Deal: Dictate Or Deal?". INDOLink - News & Analysis.
  45. ^ "'Appeal to Indian parliamentarians on Nuclear Deal by Indian Nuclear Scientists'". The Hindu. Retrieved 2006-08-15.
  46. ^ a b "SINGH IS KING: UPA WINS TRUST VOTE". CNN IBN. 22 July 2008. Retrieved 2008-07-22.
  47. ^ UPA WINS TRUST VOTE: 275-256
  48. ^ UPA WINS TRUST VOTE: 275-256
  49. ^ http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23093209-2703,00.html
  50. ^ http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/France_to_back_India_at_IAEA_meet/articleshow/3233901.cms
  51. ^ http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/PoliticsNation/Japan_to_recognise_India_as_nuclear_state_report/articleshow/1116314.cms
  52. ^ http://www.moscowtimes.ru/article/1009/42/302215.htm
  53. ^ http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/10/30/asia/AS-GEN-India-Germany-Nuclear.php
  54. ^ http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/001200710232068.htm
  55. ^ http://www.rttnews.com/Content/PoliticalNews.aspx?Node=B1&Id=651846
  56. ^ http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/india-is-hungry-for-our-uranium/810448.aspx
  57. ^ http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-33141207_ITM
  58. ^ http://www.ptinews.com/pti%5Cptisite.nsf/0/F8321DC4F9992D48652574810036BBF5?OpenDocument
  59. ^ http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Canada-India-may-ink-nuclear-agreement/226782/
  60. ^ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/21/AR2006042101627.html
  61. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7506708.stm
  62. ^ http://www.khaleejtimes.com/darticlen.asp?xfile=data/subcontinent/2008/July/subcontinent_July403.xml&section=subcontinent&col=
  63. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7500212.stm
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=India–United_States_Civil_Nuclear_Agreement&oldid=227428765"