Discordant voices on Indo US nuclear deal

The Indian and US governments have each their own spin on the Indo-US deal.The question is: who is closer to the truth? Is the Indian government right in claiming that the strategic weapons program is unencumbered? Are the pronouncements of US spokesmen meant only to preempt opposition from the non-proliferation hawks in the US? Hard to say, really.

M J Akbar is among the sceptical voices in the media. In his column in Asian Age, he writes:

The 123 Agreement was announced on Friday 27 July. On 2 August, just six days later, Nicholas Burns, undersecretary of state and chief American negotiator was asked by a journalist, Robert McMahon, in a recorded interview, "Some say that under the deal, if India holds a nuclear weapons test, the US would delay its own nuclear fuel supplies to India but the US would help India find other sources of fuel, which violates the spirit of the Hyde Act. What do you say to those concerns?"

Burns replied: "That’s absolutely false. I negotiated the agreement and we preserved intact the responsibility of the President (of the United States) under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 that if India or any other country conducts a nuclear test, the President — he or she at that time in the future — will have the right to ask for the return of the nuclear fuel or nuclear technologies that have been transferred by American firms. We’re releasing the agreement on our website on Friday afternoon (3 August 2007) and people will see that when they cite the text."

The answer could not be more categorical: "absolutely false". That is the American position, and it is being enunciated for the record, without any ambiguity. The message is clear, and it is loud. America will demand fuel and technology back, and probably not return the still-uncounted billions of dollars we paid for it either

I haven't gone through the text myself but I read in newspaper reports that the 123 agreement does provide for the US president to take into account the circumstances surrounding a particular test. It is also said to mention compensation to India for return of US materials and fuel. So, I am not sure that Akbar's doubts on this score are justified.

Another discordant voice is that of former PM VP Singh. Asian Age reports:

Mr Singh said the draft agreement to operationalise the deal does not grant India reprocessing, enrichment and heavy water technologies and allows the US to terminate the pact with a year’s notice. He said the deal does not grant India the status of a nuclear weapons state and binds it to the national laws of the US, such as the Hyde Act. "It is ironical that a similar agreement with China grants supremacy to international laws while we are bound by the Hyde Act," Mr Singh said.

He demanded that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh explain to the nation the agreement in detail and seek Parliament’s approval before signing it. "Friendship with the US is okay, but we should not accept slavery," Mr Singh said, adding that he will go to the states and meet people to make them aware of the nuclear deal that India is about to sign.

The UPA government has thus far taken the position that it is under no obligation to consult parliament in the matter of signing the deal with the US. That may be the constitutional position but PM Manmohan Singh would be wise to have a thorough discussion in parliament or in one of the parliamentary committees.