The Hindu : Front Page : No deviation from agreed text in implementing 123, says India

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Sunday, Oct 12, 2008
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version

Front Page

Front Page

No deviation from agreed text in implementing 123, says India

Siddharth Varadarajan

Pranab, signing statement, links commercial deals to implementation of text

— Photo: PTI

External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Indian Ambassador to the U.S. Ronen Sen and Tata Group chairman Ratan Tata at the signing ceremony of the Indo-U.S. civil nuclear co-operation deal in Washington on Friday.

New York: The most important part of the External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee’s statements in Washington DC on the occasion of the signing of the 123 Agreement on Friday was the paragraph on the legally binding nature of the agreed text and the link drawn there between its implementation and the “commercial steps that will follow.”

This formulation, which took the final shape after days of intense debate involving the Ministry of External Affairs, the Prime Minister’s Office and the Indian Embassy in Washington, is intended to clarify four fundamental points considered important by the Indian side.

First, India’s obligations under the 123 Agreement could not be separated from its rights and that the text itself reflected a “careful balance” between the two which was not to be disturbed. Mr. Mukherjee amplified on this point when he told a news conference later that the text of the agreement “has entrusted responsibilities and obligations on both sides — I have pointed out there is a balance between the obligations and the rights, which we will comply with.” This linking of India’s compliance with its obligations under the agreement — for example safeguards in perpetuity — to the “responsibilities” of the other side (to deliver on fuel) is precisely the balance India has emphasised since the March 2006 separation plan.

The second point that Mr. Mukherjee’s statement sought to make was that India did not accept that the U.S. legislature had entered any reservations to the agreement. This did not mean Congress had not attached riders in passing H.R. 7081 — the law which approved the 123 Agreement — but merely that India did not believe these allowed for any derogation of American commitments contained in the 123 text.

The third point was that India regarded the 123 Agreement’s provisions as legally binding on both itself and the U.S., regardless of President Bush’s assertion in his letter to Congress on September 10 that the fuel assurances were only a political and not a legal commitment.

Fourthly, the Minister’s statement dropped a broad hint that any commercial contracts with American companies would be possible only once the agreement is implemented, obviously as per its legally binding provisions.

Taken together with the Minister’s statement that India expects the U.S. to implement the 123 Agreement in accordance with the principles of international law, New Delhi essentially sought to serve notice that American nuclear vendors cannot hope to do business in India unless the reactors they propose to sell come with legally binding fuel contracts as well as reprocessing consent.

India is likely to repeat these key formulations in the diplomatic note it will exchange with the U.S. at the time of the 123 Agreement entering into force.

Before the agreement can enter into force, however, H.R. 7081 requires the President to certify that “it is the policy of the United States to work with members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) to further restrict transfers of equipment and technology related to uranium enrichment and reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel (ENR).”

Though this restriction is not explicitly scripted to be India-specific, the U.S. has been pressing, inter alia, for a special ban on ENR equipment and technology to countries which are not signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. India is one of only three states who fall under that category. The NSG will meet again in November and it is understood that Washington will try and push for consensus on new rules, something it has not managed to do so far.

Even though such a policy runs counter to the U.S. promise of full civil nuclear cooperation with India and is seen by New Delhi as a breach of trust, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice painted a rosy picture of a “vast potential partnership” between the two countries that could now “be fully realised.” In her remarks at the signing ceremony, she said that “what is most valuable about this agreement is how it unlocks a new and far broader world of potential for our strategic partnership in the 21st century, not just on nuclear cooperation but on every area of national endeavour.”

Mr. Mukherjee echoed the same theme of cooperation in diverse areas such as defence and agriculture “gaining momentum” as a result of the signing of the nuclear agreement.

In his news conference, he parried a question on whether India had given the U.S. assurances about giving its companies a certain share of the commercial nuclear contracts to be awarded. “We are entering into commercial nuclear cooperation with the U.S., France, Russia. And these are essentially the commercial contracts and surely the commercial aspect will be taken into account.” “But,” he added, “we are aware of our expanding relationship with U.S.”

Asked again whether there would be preference given to U.S. vendors, Mr. Mukherjee replied: “I have not used the word preferential treatment. These are commercial transactions and as and when these commercial transactions take place, they can be commented like that.” He also declined to comment on estimates of the value of future business the U.S. might garner in India.

Last month, India gave the U.S. a Letter of Intent promising to purchase up to 10,000 MW of nuclear power generating capacity provided the per unit cost of electricity involved was competitive. “In terms of value, other ingredients,” said the Minister on Friday, “it is too early... These are all estimates and as and when it materialises, then we will see.”

CCPA gives the go-ahead

Nuclear pact not signed but no open issues, says Rice

Nuclear deal to be inked during Condoleezza Rice’s visit

U.S. Senate clears nuclear deal

Rice seeks to reassure opponents of nuclear deal

US House approves nuclear deal; Senate vote likely on Monday

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

Front Page