09-16-2008, 02:42 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>'Friendly' nations fuel doubts over N-supply </b>
Pioneer.com
Shobori Ganguli | New Delhi
US has already washed hands of promise
<b>With the US having reneged on its promise of uninterrupted nuclear fuel supply to India in the event of any rupture in American supplies, it now remains to be seen whether "friendly countries" like France and Russia -- mentioned as alternative suppliers in the India-US 123 Agreement -- are able to go a step further than the US. </b>
Conveying its "commitment to the reliable supply of fuel to India", the US states clearly in the 123 Agreement that if "a disruption of fuel supplies to India occurs, the United States and India would jointly convene a group of friendly supplier countries such as Russia, France and the United Kingdom to pursue such measures as would restore fuel supply to India".
<b>However, President George Bush in his letter to the US Congress has now made it clear that the US views this bilateral agreement as no more than "certain political commitments concerning reliable supply of nuclear fuel given to India", that it does not "transform these political commitments into legally binding commitments".</b>
This is the backdrop against which Prime Minister Manmohan Singh would be in Paris on September 30 on his way back from the US, a visit during which the India-French nuclear deal may be inked, subject of course to the passage of the deal in the US Congress.
Not surprisingly, the NSG waiver has got the French very enthusiastic about conducting nuclear business with India. French Ambassador to India Jerome Bonnafont says France particularly welcomes the NSG waiver since it was a crucial voice behind the long-drawn process that was first initiated in 1998 to make way for India's entry into the nuclear market. He feels that though India is not a signatory to the NPT, this "special mechanism" would now allow civilian nuclear cooperation "so that India's energy needs are better secured in keeping with global energy security norms".
To that end, the envoy said France had been in close touch with the dissenters at the NSG, "actively telling partners why this exemption was required", that the exemption decision was a "wise one" and that it respects the needs for non-proliferation, India's sovereignty and global nuclear cooperation.
The nuclear deal, which was initialed during President Nicolas Sarkozy's visit to India this January, is "technically complete", said Bonnafont, adding that only the signatures are now awaited. Unlike the US, in France there is no domestic process involved in finalising the deal, which would come up for detailed discussion during Singh's visit.
However, while countries like Russia are also eager to strike similar deals with India, western diplomats are not too sure that these "friendly countries" can isolate the fuel supply issue from any future decision by India to detonate a nuclear device.
<b>India's own commitment to "unilateral moratorium" at the NSG this month is now being dangled precariously in front of it by NSG members, clearly indicating that nuclear business with India would be strictly governed by the non-proliferation norms of the NPT. As a diplomat put it, "The logic of the system is that whenever you provide a plant, you ensure that the plant remains functional... you provide fuel for it." However, "it is difficult to say you will have the fuel under all the circumstances", he said.</b>
Admittedly, India would be given fuel assurances in consistence with the rules of the IAEA and NPT norms. Members of the NSG have made it clear that although India is not a signatory to the NPT, its independence to test in the future would certainly violate the spirit of the NPT which, although not a "universal" pact, is pretty much "widespread".
<b>America's rigid position on India testing in the future has duly cautioned other world capitals as well where careful noises -- like "in a multilateral system everyone has to be taken on board" -- are already audible. While most countries, including the US, have said they would thoroughly review the "context" and "circumstances" under which India does indeed test, if at all, most warn of "consequences" that would follow such an act</b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pioneer.com
Shobori Ganguli | New Delhi
US has already washed hands of promise
<b>With the US having reneged on its promise of uninterrupted nuclear fuel supply to India in the event of any rupture in American supplies, it now remains to be seen whether "friendly countries" like France and Russia -- mentioned as alternative suppliers in the India-US 123 Agreement -- are able to go a step further than the US. </b>
Conveying its "commitment to the reliable supply of fuel to India", the US states clearly in the 123 Agreement that if "a disruption of fuel supplies to India occurs, the United States and India would jointly convene a group of friendly supplier countries such as Russia, France and the United Kingdom to pursue such measures as would restore fuel supply to India".
<b>However, President George Bush in his letter to the US Congress has now made it clear that the US views this bilateral agreement as no more than "certain political commitments concerning reliable supply of nuclear fuel given to India", that it does not "transform these political commitments into legally binding commitments".</b>
This is the backdrop against which Prime Minister Manmohan Singh would be in Paris on September 30 on his way back from the US, a visit during which the India-French nuclear deal may be inked, subject of course to the passage of the deal in the US Congress.
Not surprisingly, the NSG waiver has got the French very enthusiastic about conducting nuclear business with India. French Ambassador to India Jerome Bonnafont says France particularly welcomes the NSG waiver since it was a crucial voice behind the long-drawn process that was first initiated in 1998 to make way for India's entry into the nuclear market. He feels that though India is not a signatory to the NPT, this "special mechanism" would now allow civilian nuclear cooperation "so that India's energy needs are better secured in keeping with global energy security norms".
To that end, the envoy said France had been in close touch with the dissenters at the NSG, "actively telling partners why this exemption was required", that the exemption decision was a "wise one" and that it respects the needs for non-proliferation, India's sovereignty and global nuclear cooperation.
The nuclear deal, which was initialed during President Nicolas Sarkozy's visit to India this January, is "technically complete", said Bonnafont, adding that only the signatures are now awaited. Unlike the US, in France there is no domestic process involved in finalising the deal, which would come up for detailed discussion during Singh's visit.
However, while countries like Russia are also eager to strike similar deals with India, western diplomats are not too sure that these "friendly countries" can isolate the fuel supply issue from any future decision by India to detonate a nuclear device.
<b>India's own commitment to "unilateral moratorium" at the NSG this month is now being dangled precariously in front of it by NSG members, clearly indicating that nuclear business with India would be strictly governed by the non-proliferation norms of the NPT. As a diplomat put it, "The logic of the system is that whenever you provide a plant, you ensure that the plant remains functional... you provide fuel for it." However, "it is difficult to say you will have the fuel under all the circumstances", he said.</b>
Admittedly, India would be given fuel assurances in consistence with the rules of the IAEA and NPT norms. Members of the NSG have made it clear that although India is not a signatory to the NPT, its independence to test in the future would certainly violate the spirit of the NPT which, although not a "universal" pact, is pretty much "widespread".
<b>America's rigid position on India testing in the future has duly cautioned other world capitals as well where careful noises -- like "in a multilateral system everyone has to be taken on board" -- are already audible. While most countries, including the US, have said they would thoroughly review the "context" and "circumstances" under which India does indeed test, if at all, most warn of "consequences" that would follow such an act</b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->