09-12-2008, 03:53 PM
<b>U.S. delivers 123 blow to India</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Siddharth Varadarajan
Fuel assurances not binding, says Bush
New Delhi: The United States has diluted the fuel supply assurances contained in the â123 agreementâ on nuclear cooperation with India, with President George W. Bush formally declaring, in his September 10 message to Congress, that all American commitments to the Indian side in this regard were not âlegally binding.â
As part of the process of completing the U.S.-India civil nuclear cooperation initiative, Mr. Bush forwarded the text of the 123 agreement to Congress with a covering note and a separate memorandum containing seven âdeterminationsâ that India had conformed to the non-proliferation commitments it had made in July 2005.
But the covering note had a sting in the tail on the question of fuel assurances, which India sees as an essential component of the interlocking set of commitments and obligations both sides have undertaken since 2005.
âIn Article 5(6) the Agreement records certain political commitments concerning reliable supply of nuclear fuel given to India,â President Bushâs statement says. â[The] Agreement does not, however, transform these political commitments into legally binding commitments because the Agreement, like other U.S. agreements of its type, is intended as a framework agreement.â
This formulation, say Indian officials, is completely at odds with the understanding India has that the assurances are indeed meant to be legally binding. âAfter all, India has committed itself to binding commitments like safeguards,â said an official. Officials also reject the notion that the Indian 123 could be treated âlike other U.S. agreements of its typeâ since fuel supply assurances figure only in the Indian agreement. And the need for legally binding fuel assurances arose because India â which is not obliged to place all its reactors under safeguards or withdraw them once placed, unlike other countries with which the U.S. has signed agreements â was voluntarily accepting IAEA supervision.
.........
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Siddharth Varadarajan
Fuel assurances not binding, says Bush
New Delhi: The United States has diluted the fuel supply assurances contained in the â123 agreementâ on nuclear cooperation with India, with President George W. Bush formally declaring, in his September 10 message to Congress, that all American commitments to the Indian side in this regard were not âlegally binding.â
As part of the process of completing the U.S.-India civil nuclear cooperation initiative, Mr. Bush forwarded the text of the 123 agreement to Congress with a covering note and a separate memorandum containing seven âdeterminationsâ that India had conformed to the non-proliferation commitments it had made in July 2005.
But the covering note had a sting in the tail on the question of fuel assurances, which India sees as an essential component of the interlocking set of commitments and obligations both sides have undertaken since 2005.
âIn Article 5(6) the Agreement records certain political commitments concerning reliable supply of nuclear fuel given to India,â President Bushâs statement says. â[The] Agreement does not, however, transform these political commitments into legally binding commitments because the Agreement, like other U.S. agreements of its type, is intended as a framework agreement.â
This formulation, say Indian officials, is completely at odds with the understanding India has that the assurances are indeed meant to be legally binding. âAfter all, India has committed itself to binding commitments like safeguards,â said an official. Officials also reject the notion that the Indian 123 could be treated âlike other U.S. agreements of its typeâ since fuel supply assurances figure only in the Indian agreement. And the need for legally binding fuel assurances arose because India â which is not obliged to place all its reactors under safeguards or withdraw them once placed, unlike other countries with which the U.S. has signed agreements â was voluntarily accepting IAEA supervision.
.........
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->