Nuclear Thread - 2

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>95% units to be in safeguard in 25 yrs </b>
  From Deccan Chronicle

New Delhi, Aug. 3: <b>India has voluntarily agreed to place “90 to 95 per cent” of its nuclear establishment under safeguards within 25 years if the civilian nuclear energy agreement comes into effect</b>. US undersecretary of state for political affairs Nicholas Burns, the American pointperson for the nuclear deal, in a revealing interview to the Council on Foreign Relations, said that it had been an easy “strategic” choice for Washington when faced with the question: should we isolate India for the next 35 years or bring it in partially now and nearly totally in the future.

The text of the 123 agreement released on Friday bears this out, <b>making it apparent that India had lost its right to conduct nuclear tests as any such move would allow the US to terminate the agreement</b>. A question on whether the US would help India find other sources of fuel while delaying its own nuclear supplies was countered by Mr Burns with a categorical: “<b>That’s absolutely false. I negotiated the agreement and we preserved intact the responsibility of the President under the Atomic Energy Act 1954 that if India or any other country conducts a nuclear test, the President will have the right to ask for the return of nuclear fuel or nuclear technologies that have been transferred by American firms.</b>

That right is preserved wholly in the agreement.” Significantly, Mr Burns also pinned the government down on Iran. When asked specifically whether the deal addressed US concerns that India would support efforts to pressure Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons programme, he said while this was not mentioned in the “technical” 123 agreement, “we have been very actively involved in counselling the Indian government that they should remain with the rest of the international community in arguing to the Iranians that they should not become a nuclear weapons power.” He made it apparent that Iran was not an extraneous issue, and <b>“we hope very much that India will not conclude any long-term oil and gas agreements with Iran.” This was a direct reference to the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline, which will clearly have to go into cold storage now if the government wants the 123 agreement to go through the US Congress.</b>

Mr Burns pointed out that India had voted with the US at the IAEA board of governors against Iran on two occasions. “And so I trust the Indians will maintain this policy of not in any way, shape, or form assisting the Iranian government in its nuclear plans, and in giving the right advice to the Iranian government that we would expect any democratic country to give.” The Hyde Act has set out the bottomline on Iran, with several US congressmen and senators subsequently following up on this specific issue through strongly-worded letters, of which at least one was directly addressed to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, warning him against any cooperation with Iran.

Iran is the big issue in the US, with Washington determined to use all the influence it has globally and through the UN Security Council to, as Mr Burns put it, “to drive up the cost to Iran of its current intransigence.” He said he was currently working with the Russians, the Chinese and the Europeans on a draft Security Council resolution against Iran.

He spoke of the “broad international coalition”, including India, “where countries are sanctioning Iran and speaking out against its nuclear programme ... and against what Mr Burns described as the “motley gang of four” (Cuba, Venezuela, Syria and Belarus) supporting Iran. India is now expected to support what he said would be a “trend of increasingly tough international action against Iran, because they refuse to negotiate and they refuse to slow down their nuclear efforts.”<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->