Over the last year or so the Indian communist parties (Marxist and otherwise) have made a valiant attempt to block the US-India nuclear deal. I don’t think the Communists and I agree on why the US-India deal is a Bad Thing but I’ve been cheering their efforts nonetheless.
The communist parties hold 59 seats within a governing coalition led by the Congress Party that has a majority of 44. They have been threatening to withdraw their support from the coalition, thereby forcing early elections, if India signs a safeguards agreement with the IAEA.
After months of wooing the communists, the Congress party has now changed tack and secured the support of the socialist Samajwadi Party, which holds 39 seats. It seems confident it can pick up another 5 seats from somewhere.
Before the US-India deal is complete, three things need to happen. First, the IAEA Board of Governors needs to approve the India safeguards agreement. Second, the Nuclear Suppliers Group must approve an exemption to its rules. Finally, the US Congress must give its blessing.
It’ll be very, very tight to get this completed before the US election. The Board of Governors is going to consider the safeguards agreement at its meeting on 28 July. The next NSG meeting is apparently in September.
If the US Congress doesn’t get around to considering the matter before silly season takes over, what happens then?
Conventional wisdom (which is probably correct) is that McCain is in favour of the deal, whereas Obama is “highly ambivalent“.
Indeed, this morning, I came across the following. At an Arms Control Association event on 16 June this year, John Holum, speaking on behalf of the Obama campaign said this:
Senator Obama, as you indicated, did support the authorizing negotiations of the peaceful nuclear cooperation arrangement with India, in significant part because he believes we need a broad strategic relationship with a fellow democracy that has not been a disseminator of nuclear technology and materials elsewhere in the world…At the same time, he supported that authorization after his amendments were adopted to make sure that fuel supplies were limited to what would reasonably be used in civilian nuclear power reactors and connecting the agreement to a continued testing moratorium. He also supported other amendments that strengthened the nonproliferation aspects of the agreement. He hasn’t yet made a judgment on the deal… [My italics]
Intriguing. However, his life would have been made much easier had it been Indian domestic politics that scuppered the deal.
ataune | July 8, 2008
Some in India, and not only communists, have a different strategy in mind when it comes to geo-political alignements. Pretty much like, lets say Ahmadinejad or Badavi (or maybe the D8) They mostly think that the US cannot go further up and the time is for the rise of the Eastern nations. They believe they won’t need the approval stamp of a fading superpower. And for the specific case of India, they believe that the US’s quid-pro-quo promesses, distance yourself from Iran and we will facilitate your access to the UNSC inner circle, are not worthed consideration.
Lao Tao Ren | July 9, 2008
A note from India for Mr. Hyde… 123 Trumps Hyde Act.
New Delhi, July 02, 2008
First Published: 22:11 IST
Last Updated: 22:46 IST
Nuclear deal does not undermine India’s nuclear sovereignty: PMO
Apparently heeding to Samajwadi party’s plea for a public statement to assuage its concerns on the Indo-US nuclear deal, the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) on Wednesday night said there was nothing in the agreement that compromised the country’s strategic programme or its right to conduct a nuclear test.
The PMO issued a press release virtually repeating its earlier assurances that the deal did not undermine India’s nuclear sovereignty or did any harm to the country’s interest.
The release came shortly after SP leader Amar Singh, whose party is being wooed by the UPA for support in Parliament if the Left parties withdraw their backing, met National Security Advisor MK Narayanan and conveyed the party’s misgivings on the deal.
At a press conference later, Singh said the prime minister should come out with a public statement either in Parliament or outside assuaging their concerns as they were not in a position to support the deal as of now.
Narayanan explained to the SP team that the 123 agreement “clearly overrides” the Hyde Act.
“A careful reading of the provisions of the 123 agreement would make it clear that substantive rights and obligations under the agreement are not affected by the national laws of the parties,” the PMO statement said.
Asked by Amar Singh whether the deal would impinge on India’s relations with Iran, the PMO said the bilateral ties were “time-honoured and civilisational in nature and no outside influence or pressure could force India to deviate from this path.”
On Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline, Narayanan told the SP team that it “epitomises” the nature and importance of the relationship. This was strongly reinforced during the visit of Iranian President Ahmedinejad to India in April this year. “India is not under any pressure, nor can it be pressurised to follow a course of action that is not dictated by our enlightened self-interest,” it said.
On apprehensions that the nuclear deal would undermine the country’s nuclear sovereignty, the PMO clarified that the deal would not in any way impinge on its strategic programme.
Narayanan made it clear that the 123 agreement contains specific mention that it would not affect activities involving India’s strategic programme which were not under safeguards.
The NSA emphasised that there was nothing in the agreement which places an embargo on India’s right to carry out a nuclear test if it thinks this is necessary in the country’s supreme national interest.
To meet the contingency raised by the Hyde Act that the US might terminate its cooperation with India if it carried out a nuclear test, a very elaborate consultation process has been included in the agreement, he said.
On the agreement between India and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for the application of safeguards to civilian nuclear facilities, the NSA said the salient features of the draft which were yet to be finalised reflected the key understandings in crucial areas.
This relate to fuel supply assurances, strategic fuel resserves and corrective measures. Provisions have also been included which make it clear that India is offering its civilian nuclear facilities voluntarily for safeguards, he said.
Thus India would retain the right “till the very end” before putting any of its reactors under safeguards, he said.
He told the SP team that a major principle underlined in the agreement with the IAEA was that the global nuclear watchdog shall implement safeguards in a manner that do not hinder or interfere with any activity the use by India of nuclear material or technology developed by the country.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/Print.aspx?Id=ce75996b-d404-40ac-b899-314ed37cfe5b
———————-
Indo-US N-Deal
India not bound by Hyde Act: Govt
Agencies
Posted online: Thursday, August 16, 2007 at 1546 hours IST
Updated: Thursday, August 16, 2007 at 1556 hours IST
Indo-US N-Deal New Delhi, August 16: Government on Thursday sought to allay Left concerns on the Indo-US nuclear deal, saying India was not bound by the Hyde Act, which is unacceptable as it contains certain “extraneous and prescriptive” provisions.
External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee also said the Left has assured the government of a meeting after the CPI‘s two-day Polit buro beginning on Friday.
“Whatever stated in Hyde Act is not binding on us. How they (US) deal with it is their problem,” Mukherjee told reporters in Parliament minutes after he made a statement in Lok Sabha.
India has the sovereign right to test and would do so if it is necessary in the national interest, he said in the statement.
http://www.expressindia.com/news/fullstory.php?newsid=90910
vas-sav | July 9, 2008
Dear RT. Scrapping the deal will have no cost in India-US relations. You know why? It’s no big deal. A mere trade agreement on the nuclear sector that gets all this publicity and attention because of it’s side-effects and ramifications on the real deal, the NPT. The NPT and the regime built around it is the big deal and it’s not dead. It’s just cronically ill. It’s continuing relevance and importance shows even in one of the arguments of the US-India deal’s apologetics: “India has not contributed to proliferation”
Mike F | July 9, 2008
For you experts out there – what are the ramifications if the deal does NOT go through? I get it, from reading Dr. Lewis’ works and others, that most in the Arms Control Establishment will count it as a victory for the NPT if the deal is scuppered. But would it be, really?
If this deal does not occur, it is not like India is going to give up her nuclear arms. There is no rational need for her to do so, from a national security point of view. All India has to do is point to the fact that the US-USSR standoff was kept cold through MAD (valid argument or not) and also point out that there has been no major conflict (yet) with Pakistan since both acquired nuclear arms. And then we are back to the tired old arguments that the NPT discriminates unfairly and that weapons states have not pursued disarmament.
While I agree with the comments above that NPT is relevant – that is not the same thing as being robust enough to handle a multi-polar world where civilian nuclear power looks like it may play a significant role in the future.
A country of India’s size and talented population will find a way to obtain the equipment and raw materials needed for a nuclear power program, especially as she watches China leap ahead (for instance, with the recent announcement that China wants Westinghouse to build up to 100 AP1000s). That process can be slowed. I am not sure it can be halted.
The NPT can flex or it can break. This agreement seems to be the perfect opportunity to flex – the beginnings of safeguards activities in India, controls over the materials in question, confidence building measures, etc. Isn’t this preferable to India finding a way to get a bi-lateral for fuel and plants deal done with a country that wouldn’t care what the world community thinks, such as Russia?
What key things am I missing here? Isn’t a formal agreement a better way to transition India into the NPT eventually than to continue to adhere to policies that were stale in the 1990’s? Where’s the policy creativity that is so vital in times of change like we are experiencing?
mj | July 9, 2008
The nuclear deal is not about India and the USA, but the entire global nuclear establishment,that is why Russia, France, UK support the deal strongly and the entire NSG will be asked to give it an okay. It is as Mike suggests, a means to square the circle of the fact that India has nuclear weapons and it is not a signatory to the NPT. It is not a perfect solution, but it is the best that there is.
Because it represents larger geopolitical forces, the deal will go through sometime or the other. Obama may have taken a certain position when he was not a presidential candidate, but once he is in the hot seat, he has to view things in a political framework, not a technical one that his advisors look at.
Ak Malten | July 9, 2008
Date: 07/08/2008 Title: US-India Nuclear Agreement – Still a Bad Deal: Global Network of NGOs Urge International Community to Oppose
The US-India Deal Working Group of Abolition 2000:
“Media Release
July 8, 2008
US-India Nuclear Agreement – Still a Bad Deal:
Global Network of NGOs Urge International Community to Oppose
The US-India Deal Working Group of Abolition 2000, a global network of over 2000 organizations in more than 90 countries working for a global treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons, says that pressure to rush a decision on the US-India Nuclear Agreement must be resisted.
The organizations are calling upon key governments “to play an active role in supporting measures that would ensure this controversial proposal does not: further undermine the nuclear safeguards system and efforts to prevent the proliferation of technologies that may be used to produce nuclear bomb material,” or “in any way contribute to the expansion of India’s nuclear arsenal.”….”
http://www.cornnet.nl/~akmalten/USIndiaPR7July08-f.doc
AG | July 10, 2008
I am confused…I thought China was USA’s real enemy. But they already have access to world fuel and nuclear technology. I don’t see any hue or cry about Chinese nuclear technology. Then why so much talk about a side show.