The Hindu : Front Page : Karat warns Centre on foreign policy

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Monday, Jul 24, 2006

Front Page

Front Page

Karat warns Centre on foreign policy

Special Correspondent

"Departures in Senate draft from original deal"

NEW DELHI: The Communist Party of India (Marxist) on Sunday cautioned the United Progressive Alliance Government that changes being made by the American lawmakers in the India-U.S. nuclear agreement could make India's independent foreign policy permanent hostage to the United States. He reiterated that Parliament should set parameters for the deal.

"The monsoon session is the right time for Parliament to discuss the deal and the Government would have to make its stand clear on each of the changes being suggested on reciprocity, sequencing and other areas. The Government would have to take the sense of the House... Parliament must set the parameters and define the limit to which it can proceed in this regard," general secretary Prakash Karat said here.

He cited instances of sending troops to Iraq and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty on which the Government of the day had to bow to the sense of Parliament.

"Not a party issue"

Mr. Karat released a copy — circulated to various political parties — explaining the party's stand. "We do not see this [nuclear deal] as a party issue. It is a national issue and Parliament should discuss since it is being used [by the U.S.] for a wider strategic alliance. This has been confirmed during the negotiations," he said.

There were "explicit departures in the Senate and Congress drafts from the original agreement in areas such as India's strategic interests, full cooperation on civilian nuclear technology and complete fuel cycle, fuel supply guarantees and altering the sequencing of the agreement among others."

For instance, India is to sign an additional protocol with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for civilian nuclear installations after the final agreement. But now, the amendments seek to permanently lock India's foreign policy to U.S. requirements and subject its scientific research and development capabilities to intrusive inspections by the IAEA and even American inspectors.

In this context, Mr. Karat drew attention to the remarks of Senator Richard G. Lugar in the Foreign Relations Committee, who approvingly noted that the U.S. had already seen strategic benefits of improving relations with India with the way it voted at the IAEA on the Iran issue. "[It] demonstrates that New Delhi is able and willing to adjust its foreign policies and play a constructive role on international issues."

According to the CPI(M), though Dr. Singh promised that full civilian nuclear cooperation would be available, alterations being suggested showed that the U.S., in not talking of allowing India full cycle, could not only stop supply of fuel but also influence other nuclear suppliers group. "India will not have access to full range of technologies — both nuclear and other dual use technologies."

Two clauses

There were two clauses in the two Bills [as drafted by the U.S. Senate Committee and the House of Representatives Committees] regarding India agreeing to ban future nuclear weapons tests and capping its fissile material stockpile. "Both these measures would go against India's long held positions that any treaty on nuclear issues should not be discriminatory and impose restrictions on some countries while allowing others untrammelled right to nuclear weapons."

It noted that India would lose the leverage of linking agreement on Fissile Material Control Treaty with a timetable for disarmament by nuclear weapon states.

Another looming danger was in the form of certification by the U.S. President every year to the Congress on moratorium, fissile material and stockpiles. For instance, the U.S. might disagree with any move by India to do uranium mining. Mr. Karat disagreed with the Government's interpretation that the clauses were "non-binding" in nature. He said: "We all know how the U.S. exerts pressure in other areas, like in the case of the India-Iran-Pakistan pipeline... "

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Front Page