The Hindu : Front Page : 123 agreement an assault on nuclear sovereignty: BJP

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Sunday, Aug 05, 2007
ePaper

Front Page

Front Page

123 agreement an assault on nuclear sovereignty: BJP

Neena Vyas

‘To seek review of the agreement when it comes to power’

Demands setting up of joint parliamentary committee to examine text in detail
‘Centre made no effort to evolve national consensus on the issue’

NEW DELHI: The Bharatiya Janata Party was “unable to accept” the 123 agreement on Indo-United States civil nuclear cooperation as finalised and would “definitely seek a review of the agreement when it comes to power” as it was of the view that it constituted an “assault on our nuclear sovereignty and foreign policy.”

Former Ministers in the Vajpayee government, Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie, jointly released here on Saturday an eight-page statement demanding that a joint parliamentary committee be set up to examine the text of the agreement in detail.

Parliamentary approval

After the report of the JPC is submitted, the Government should seek parliamentary approval for the agreement, the party statement said.

While acknowledging that under India’s Constitution the agreement could be brought into effect after Cabinet approval – parliamentary approval is not needed – Mr. Sinha went on to say the BJP would like the Constitution to be amended to bind all future governments and ensure that all agreements that affect the country’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, and national security shall be ratified by Parliament.

Depending on what the stance of the Left parties was, Mr. Sinha said the BJP would be willing to cooperate with them and with the parties of the United National Progressive Alliance on this issue in Parliament. He said he feared the Left would find “some Hegelian dialectic to support the deal.”

“Preliminary” reaction

At the very outset of a press conference where the statement was released, Mr. Sinha said that the text of the agreement was discussed in detail at a meeting at the residence of former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee on Friday evening. Even so, the present response of the party was its “preliminary” reaction as it would continue to study the text word by word, clause by clause.

Consistent opposition

He made the point that the BJP had consistently opposed the deal since the July 18, 2005 joint statement of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President George Bush issued in Washington.

The party was concerned about its implications for India’s strategic nuclear programme and independent foreign policy. Those concerns remain. The BJP’s charge was that no effort to evolve a national consensus on this issue was made by the Manmohan Singh government.

Objections

The BJP’s objections are: one, the implementation of the agreement will be governed by national laws of the two countries, hence the provisions of the Hyde Act of 2006 apply; two, the reference to “aspects of the associated nuclear cycle” implies that the agreement does not cover the full nuclear cycle; provisions for transfer of sensitive nuclear technology, heavy water production technology, and major critical components should have been covered by the agreement but have not been covered; the U.S. right of end-use verification could mean American inspectors freely roaming India’s nuclear installations (a fear that was discounted by the Prime Minister in Parliament on August 17, 2006); fuel supply assurances were vague and futuristic; there would be safeguards in perpetuity even after the termination of the agreement as long as any imported material, equipment or its by-product remains on Indian soil; and finally, India was being forced to accept what was essentially a “bilateral CTBT [Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty].”

“Minimum deterrent”

In response to a question on how many nuclear bombs India needed, Mr. Shourie said it would depend on what our neighbours were doing, while Mr. Sinha said that the BJP was for a “minimum credible deterrent.”

Mr. Sinha clarified that when Mr. Vajpayee, speaking at the United Nations General Assembly 1998, offered to sign a legally binding ‘no further test’ agreement, his offer was on condition that all other nuclear weapon states also signed a similar agreement.

Ensuring supplies

Mr. Sinha did agree that with India working on ways to use thorium as a nuclear fuel, India’s dependence on imported uranium was for the comparatively short-term, and the agreement could ensure those supplies.

Mr. Shourie called attention to the cost of separation of military and civilian nuclear facilities, the cost of nuclear power generation, the cost of the entire nuclear project, including the International Atomic Energy Association inspections that would follow.

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

Front Page