|
|
POLITICS-INDIA: Nuke Deal With US Draws Domestic Opposition
Analysis by Praful Bidwai
NEW DELHI, Aug 13, 2007 (IPS) - The "breakthrough" United States-India nuclear cooperation agreement finalised three weeks ago in Washington has run into serious all-round opposition in India and put Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in a piquant situation
Under the Indian constitution, the legislature does not need to ratify an external agreement or international treaty for it to take effect - the cabinet's approval is enough. But in the present case, such approval may not ensure the full implementation of the agreement at an early date.
Both the left and right ends of the political spectrum, as well as India’s regional parties, have decided to oppose the agreement, called "123 agreement" because it is meant to amend that Section of the U.S. Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act in order to permit civilian nuclear trade with India. (Under the existing Act, nuclear commerce is prohibited with countries which have conducted nuclear explosions and not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1970.)
The most significant and best-informed opposition to the "123 agreement" comes from the Left, comprised primarily of the Communist parties, whose support to the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government led by Singh is crucial to its survival.
The right, led by the national-chauvinist, and traditionally pro-U.S., Bharatiya Janata Party, has also assailed the agreement from the terrain of nuclear nationalism, contending that it will promote external interference in India's nuclear programme and eventually cap its nuclear weapons arsenal.
For the BJP, India's nuclear weapons programme is not only pivotally important to security; it is vital to the nation's self-esteem, prestige and pride.
A newly formed grouping of eight regional parties, called the United National Progressive Alliance (UNPA), also opposes the agreement on similar grounds, and holds that the "123 agreement" is a charter of "nuclear slavery".
Reinforcing their arguments is a lobby of retired nuclear engineers and scientists. But this lobby has shrunk in size, with a majority falling in line with Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) chairman Anil Kakodkar, who now approves the deal.
The left’s opposition to the agreement has reportedly left Manmohan Singh utterly dispirited; and several Indian newspapers reported that he at one stage considered resigning from the Prime Minister's position on this issue.
The main rationale of the communists’ opposition, stated in a considered five-page document, is twofold. First, the "123 agreement" is inseparable from efforts to forge a close U.S.-India "strategic partnership" or alliance.
The left says the agreement "must be seen as a crucial step to lock in India into the U.S. global strategic designs" outlined in the Defence Framework Agreement the two countries signed in June 2005, and other agreed measures or moves for closer military collaboration, including joint exercises and promotion of "inter-operability" between their military services and manoeuvres.
India’s communists have always opposed India’s strategic embrace of the U.S.. It believes that the U.S. is a hegemonic, deeply destabilising power and India cannot become a close ally of Washington without sacrificing or compromising its policy independence and narrowing its room for manoeuvre in world affairs.
Second, the left argues that the text of the "123 agreement" differs significantly from the statements that Singh made in Parliament, promising that it would address all of India's concerns about full civilian nuclear cooperation with the U.S. and autonomy for the Indian nuclear programme.
The left says there are specific differences between the agreement and a law passed last December in the U.S. Congress as a prelude to "123", called the Henry J Hyde Act. The act mandates annual certification by the U.S. President that India is behaving in conformity with American foreign policy objectives, and also imposes a few other conditions that India said were not acceptable to it.
According to the left, the Hyde Act will prevail over the "123" agreement and can be used arbitrarily to terminate nuclear cooperation with India.
The act, it says, falls short of guaranteeing full-scale nuclear commerce with India, which was promised when Singh and President George W Bush inked the deal in July 2005. For instance, the U.S. will not export uranium enrichment or fuel reprocessing technologies to India.
The act, argue the communists, will erode India's sovereign decision-making in respect of its nuclear programme. Since the "123 agreement" essentially derives from the Act, it must be opposed .
In addition, the left is concerned at the likely impact of "123" on India’s traditional advocacy of universal nuclear disarmament. It says that by getting "accommodated in a U.S.-led unequal nuclear order", India’s leading role in championing nuclear disarmament "as a major country of the non-aligned community" will be given "the go-by".
The left also says that it is "debatable" whether nuclear power, which would be promoted under the U.S.-India deal, is a sustainable solution to India's energy problem.
"The bulk of the left’s current opposition to the agreement derives from procedural arguments (about Singh’s assurances to Parliament), and from differences between its text and what was promised in July 2005, and again in March and August last year," says M.V. Ramana, a physicist and energy expert attached to the Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies in Environment and Development, Bangalore told IPS.
The present position of the left parties significantly differs from its original stand on the U.S.-India nuclear deal two years ago, which emphasised its negative consequences for India's advocacy of global nuclear disarmament.
For decades, said the left parties in July 2005, India "was …committed to nuclear disarmament… The BJP-led government had begun the journey of accepting a junior partnership of the U.S. in return for a de facto recognition as a nuclear weapon-state… The current agreement marks an end to India’s nuclear disarmament policy".
Nevertheless, the communists have decided not to press for a vote on the "123 agreement" under Parliament's rules of procedure, unlike most of the non-UPA parties. A negative vote could lead to the fall of the Manmohan Singh government.
"The left is loath to topple the UPA government because it fears that that will pave the way for a return of the BJP," says Achin Vanaik, a professor of international relations and global politics at Delhi university.
However, Vanaik holds the left’s viewpoint as valid. ‘’Logically, the left should have stuck to its original arguments about the consequences of the deal for the global nuclear disarmament agenda, and for a close strategic relationship between India and the U.S. Unfortunately, it tailed the lobby of nuclear scientists and engineers who were exclusively concerned about the agreement’s consequences for India's autonomy in running its nuclear programme."
In contrast to the all-round political opposition to the agreement, the Singh government also faces intense lobbying pressure from the global nuclear power industry and giant U.S. corporations which are eyeing huge contracts, potentially worth 150 billion dollars.
If the U.S.-India nuclear deal is approved by the U.S. Congress, and also by the International Atomic Energy Agency and the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers’ Group, these corporations stand to make windfall gains from an expansion of India's nuclear power programme based on imported reactors, fuel and other equipment.
Already, Areva from France, General Electric from the U.S., Japan’s Toshiba (which now owns Westinghouse), and Russia's atomic energy agency Rosatom, are exploring possibilities of winning contracts from India's Nuclear Power Corporation for the first phase of expansion of nuclear power generation at four new sites. At immediate stake is business worth 14-16 billion dollars for eight reactors of 1,000 Mw each.
"However it's not clear," says Ramana, "if the government will brazen out the opposition and push ahead with the implementation of the deal, or go slow while trying to persuade the opposition. It probably has only a narrow window of opportunity before the U.S. Congress takes up the deal for ratification."
India's Parliament is scheduled to discuss the "123 agreement" this week beginning with a formal statement by Singh.
(END)
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
What is RSS?
