Some clarity at last on the nuclear deal

Many people just can't figure out the opposition to the Indo-US nuclear deal from across the political spectrum (and not just the left). The general impression among the intellegentsia is that the deal will propel India into the big league with US help and that we should just go for it.

I guess part of the problem is that US and Indian spokesmen have been putting a very different spins on the deal. India says there is no real bar on nuclear testing. A spokesman in the US promptly clarifies that if India should ever test, the deal is off. India claims that the deal will not encumber India's strategic weapons programme; US spokesmen assure Congress that the deal will cap and roll back India's nuclear capabilities and so on. In other words, the interpretation of the deal seems to be quite different in the two countries. While it is conceivable that some of it is meant for domestic lobbies, there is always the danger that the difference in interpretation is very real as well.

There's a timely story in Rediff.com that makes exactly this point and also warns that the nuclear deal could end up straining ties between India and the US instead of strengthening these.

"The governments of Manmohan Singh [Images] and George W Bush [Images] appear to be interpreting key provisions of the agreement very differently, which can only cause more headaches in future," said Michael Krepon and Alex Stolar of the Washington DC-based Stimson Centre.

One area of the potential dispute relates to the consequences of the resumption of nuclear testing by India, they said.

"The US public law is clear in this regard, but the India finds solace in pledges that the Bush administration has given to cushion the potential blow. One provision in the 123 Agreement pledges to provide India, one way or another, with an ample fuel bank to guard against disruption caused by nuclear testing," they said. However, the legislative intent of the Hyde Act "places clear constraints on fuel supplies", the scholars said.

The scholars said that using the nuclear deal to break the decades of mistrust between the two countries was an odd and unfortunate choice.

................If India decided to operationalise the deal, they said, the next stage would be to negotiate a safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

"New Delhi has insisted that the agreement be India-specific, implying that if fuel is disrupted, safeguards can be dispensed with. In this regard, the 123 Agreement makes reference to India's right to corrective measures if fuel supplies are interrupted," they said.

"It also includes a clause that the US will assist India in its dealings with the IAEA," they said.

However, they contend that that it is very likely, that the IAEA will insist on safeguards in perpetuity, without conditions or reference to disrupted fuel supply.

"These and other implementation provisions are bound to cause greater difficulties in India and further fray relations with the US once it becomes evident that the 123 Agreement has papered over differences in interpretation, while disregarding congressional intent to reduce the deal's negative proliferation consequences," they said

These comments make a lot of sense. It would be unwise to paper over the implications of the deal for India. It is also important for both India and the US to realise that the potential for a strong relationship exists without the nuclear deal. The suggestion that if the deal is not clinched here and now, India and the US lose the chances of upgrading their relationship must be rejected in the most emphatic terms. The opposition to the deal from the Left does give all concerned a chance to reflect more carefully on the deal.