Nuke Deal Decoded

Nuke Deal Decoded Cover
“For 34 years, India has suffered from a nuclear apartheid. We have not been able to trade in nuclear material, nuclear reactors, and nuclear raw materials. And when this restrictive regime ends, I think a great deal of credit will go to President Bush. And, for this I am very grateful to you, Mr. President,” exclaimed the Prime Minister of India in Washington, September 25 2008. “People of India deeply love you” – he added, his voice choking with emotion. And this just after the US kicked his country in the belly once again by adding further punitive conditions in the shape of bills passed in the Senate and House of Representatives.

Simply put, these bills establish the explicit supremacy of the Hyde Act and other US laws over the 123 Agreement, directly contradicting the Prime Minister’s assertion that it was bound only by the 123 Agreement. Particularly irritating is the tougher language used in subsection (b) of Section 102 of the Senate bill:

” Pursuant to section 103(a)(6) of the Henry J Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006, in the event that nuclear transfers to India are suspended or terminated pursuant to title I of such Act, the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, or any other United States law, it is the policy of the United States to seek to prevent [this word replaces an earlier “discourage”; emphasis added] the transfer to India of nuclear equipment, materials, or technology from other participating governments in the Nuclear Suppliers Group or from any other source.”

It is further abundantly clear that, contrary to Manmohan Singh’s explicit assurances on the floor of Parliament, the Deal does not deliver assured fuel supply for India; neither any assurance regarding building a strategic fuel reserve for the life time of the reactor; nor any ‘corrective measures’ or right to remove reactors from safeguards in case of fuel supply failure.

… …

Back-to-previous-article
Top