Sunday, April 23, 2006
Indo-US nuclear deal called âflawedâ and problematic
By Khalid Hasan
WASHINGTON: David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), has described the Indo-US nuclear cooperation agreement, now before Congress, a âflawed deal with serious problems.â
Addressing a discussion organised by the US Institute of Peace on the nuclear agreement, Albright, a leading American expert on nuclear proliferation issues, said he simply cannot get âenthusiasticâ over the agreement and urged that the administration not try to rush it through, since there are several aspects of it that need scrutiny and careful analysis, given their grave implications for non-proliferation. He feared that if the agreement goes in its present form, it would lead to an arms race involving India, China and Pakistan. He said the agreement severely weakens nuclear suppliersâ control over dual-use technology. He pointed out that the separation plan prepared by India was not satisfactory, slanted as it was in favour of New Delhi. He said there is no guarantee that India will not revert to nuclear testing. He stressed that India should provide a guarantee, to be built into the agreement, that it would not make illicit purchases of nuclear materials that it has been making through offshore companies. The split between Indiaâs military and civilian facilities must be made more credible, he added. He said there are worries over retransfer of technology by India as well as reverse engineering. He described Indiaâs export control system as inadequate and emphasised that a strengthened export control regime must be made a part of the agreement.
Dr Seema Gahlaut of the University of Georgia and Dr Anupam Srivastava from the same university defended the agreement, which they saw as posing no danger to non-proliferation efforts. Dr Gahlaut said that 28 years of US sanctions against Indiaâs nuclear programme had yielded no results and the world had to find a place for India since without having signed the NPT it had done everything that is required of an NPT signatory. She said the deal between India and the US was much stronger than the one the US had signed with China. She also pointed out that there is no such thing as a âperfectâ export control system, while lauding the one India has set in place.
Former Indian foreign secretary Salman Haider, now a fellow at the US Institute of Peace, pointed out that it is no longer possible to maintain a sanctions regime against India, which must be treated as a global partner. <span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'><span style='color:red'>The statutory downgrading of India has to end. India must be recognised as a nuclear power.</span> He rejected the view that the Indo-US agreement would lead to an arms race in South Asia, arguing that India and Pakistan are engaged in a peace process which is moving forward. He said China would carefully assess the deal, given the fact that is has always been reluctant to accept India as a global power, viewing it as a regional player.</span> This thinking, he added, has to change. He did not think Pakistan feels threatened by the deal.
<span style='color:blue'>
He stressed that India is not to be bracketed with Pakistan as it has pulled itself into a different orbit, which is why the US has dehyphenated its South Asia policy. India, he said, has wider horizons and is no longer a creature of South Asian power dynamics. A ârelaxedâ India, he added, would be a better neighbour to the countries it is surrounded by.</span>
During a lively question-answer session, Albright pointed out that Indiaâs ordering of 60 tons of fuel for its Tarapur nuclear facility from Russia was suspect since there was no emergency need for such a huge quantity. He called the Indo-US deal âbomb friendly.â He also pointed out that Canada maintains that India violated its treaty obligations when it used the Canadian-supplied CIRRUS reactor to produce material for its first nuclear weapon. He said the US must not make the same mistakes it has made in the past, but instead build in all necessary guarantees and commitments that India needs to furnish, in the agreement which is now before Congress. He also wanted to know why India wants 50 nuclear bombs a year, which it will have the capability of making once the agreement goes through. He also insisted that the US should not finalise the deal unless it becomes clear what kind of safeguards agreement India has concluded with the IAEA.
He said there is no cap in the agreement on weapon building or breeder reactors. One questioner, a former US foreign service officer, said he failed to see what there was for the United States in this agreement, though there was much in it for India.
Indo-US nuclear deal called âflawedâ and problematic
By Khalid Hasan
WASHINGTON: David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), has described the Indo-US nuclear cooperation agreement, now before Congress, a âflawed deal with serious problems.â
Addressing a discussion organised by the US Institute of Peace on the nuclear agreement, Albright, a leading American expert on nuclear proliferation issues, said he simply cannot get âenthusiasticâ over the agreement and urged that the administration not try to rush it through, since there are several aspects of it that need scrutiny and careful analysis, given their grave implications for non-proliferation. He feared that if the agreement goes in its present form, it would lead to an arms race involving India, China and Pakistan. He said the agreement severely weakens nuclear suppliersâ control over dual-use technology. He pointed out that the separation plan prepared by India was not satisfactory, slanted as it was in favour of New Delhi. He said there is no guarantee that India will not revert to nuclear testing. He stressed that India should provide a guarantee, to be built into the agreement, that it would not make illicit purchases of nuclear materials that it has been making through offshore companies. The split between Indiaâs military and civilian facilities must be made more credible, he added. He said there are worries over retransfer of technology by India as well as reverse engineering. He described Indiaâs export control system as inadequate and emphasised that a strengthened export control regime must be made a part of the agreement.
Dr Seema Gahlaut of the University of Georgia and Dr Anupam Srivastava from the same university defended the agreement, which they saw as posing no danger to non-proliferation efforts. Dr Gahlaut said that 28 years of US sanctions against Indiaâs nuclear programme had yielded no results and the world had to find a place for India since without having signed the NPT it had done everything that is required of an NPT signatory. She said the deal between India and the US was much stronger than the one the US had signed with China. She also pointed out that there is no such thing as a âperfectâ export control system, while lauding the one India has set in place.
Former Indian foreign secretary Salman Haider, now a fellow at the US Institute of Peace, pointed out that it is no longer possible to maintain a sanctions regime against India, which must be treated as a global partner. <span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'><span style='color:red'>The statutory downgrading of India has to end. India must be recognised as a nuclear power.</span> He rejected the view that the Indo-US agreement would lead to an arms race in South Asia, arguing that India and Pakistan are engaged in a peace process which is moving forward. He said China would carefully assess the deal, given the fact that is has always been reluctant to accept India as a global power, viewing it as a regional player.</span> This thinking, he added, has to change. He did not think Pakistan feels threatened by the deal.
<span style='color:blue'>
He stressed that India is not to be bracketed with Pakistan as it has pulled itself into a different orbit, which is why the US has dehyphenated its South Asia policy. India, he said, has wider horizons and is no longer a creature of South Asian power dynamics. A ârelaxedâ India, he added, would be a better neighbour to the countries it is surrounded by.</span>
During a lively question-answer session, Albright pointed out that Indiaâs ordering of 60 tons of fuel for its Tarapur nuclear facility from Russia was suspect since there was no emergency need for such a huge quantity. He called the Indo-US deal âbomb friendly.â He also pointed out that Canada maintains that India violated its treaty obligations when it used the Canadian-supplied CIRRUS reactor to produce material for its first nuclear weapon. He said the US must not make the same mistakes it has made in the past, but instead build in all necessary guarantees and commitments that India needs to furnish, in the agreement which is now before Congress. He also wanted to know why India wants 50 nuclear bombs a year, which it will have the capability of making once the agreement goes through. He also insisted that the US should not finalise the deal unless it becomes clear what kind of safeguards agreement India has concluded with the IAEA.
He said there is no cap in the agreement on weapon building or breeder reactors. One questioner, a former US foreign service officer, said he failed to see what there was for the United States in this agreement, though there was much in it for India.