एग्रीमेंट 123 - भारत की गले की फाँस
(यूएन महासभा में निरस्त्रीकरण पर जारी बहस में भारत का पक्ष रखते हुए भारत के प्रतिनिधि अमनदीप सिंह गिल ने कहा कि भारत परमाणु-हथियार-संपन्न राष्ट्र का दर्जा मिले बग़ैर एनपीटी का हिस्सा नहीं बनेगा। परंतु अमेरिका के साथ एग्रीमेंट 123 पर तथा उसके अंतर्गत आईएईए के साथ प्रोटोकॉल पर हस्ताक्षर करने और उस पर जुलाई 2008 में पार्लियामेंट की स्वीकृति मिलने के साथ ही भारत गैर-परमाणु-हथियार-संपन्न राष्ट्र के रूप में सुरक्षा परिषद के पांच स्थायी सदस्यों की तुलना में अपना दोयम राष्ट्र का दर्जा स्वीकार कर चुका है। अब जनता की आँखों में धूल किस लिए झोंकी जा रही है।
इसमें कोई आश्चर्य नहीं कि, नवंबर 2001 में अटल बिहारी वाजपेयी के नेतृत्व में एनडीए की सरकार द्वारा अमरीका के साथ रणनीतिक गठबंधन की पहल से लेकर जुलाई 2008 में मनमोहन सिंह के नेतृत्व में यूपीए की सरकार द्वारा पार्लियामेंट में एग्रीमेंट 123 के अनुमोदन के प्रबंधन तक की पूरी क़वायद में, भाजपा तथा कांग्रेस बराबर की भागीदार रही हैं। ताज्जुब की बात तो यह है कि एग्रीमेंट 123 के अनुमोदन को रोकने की स्थिति में होने के बावजूद वाम मोर्चा अपना ऐतिहासिक दायित्व निभाने में एक बार फिर विफल रहा था।
अगस्त 2007 में एग्रीमेंट 123 की घोषणा के बाद मैंने अंग्रेज़ी तथा हिंदी दोनों में एक पर्चा लिखा था जिसे कॉन्फ्लुएंस इंटरनेशनल ने छापा था जिसमें मैंने आगाह किया था कि, भारत को चाहिए कि आईएईए के साथ प्रोटोकॉल के उस प्रारूप पर हस्ताक्षर करे जिस पर अन्य पाँच परमाणु-हथियार-संपन्न राष्ट्रों ने किये हैं, न कि उस प्रारूप पर जिस पर अनेकों गैर-परमाणु-हथियार-संपन्न राष्ट्रों को हस्ताक्षर करने के लिए मजबूर किया गया है। मैंने इस पर्चे की कॉपी व्यक्तिगत तौर पर प्रकाश करात, सीताराम येचुरी तथा ए.बी. बर्धन को भी दी थी। फ़रवरी-मार्च 2008 में जब भारत सरकार आईएईए के साथ प्रारूप पर चर्चा करने की तैयारी कर रही थी और कांग्रेस तथा वाममोर्चे की कोऑर्डीनेशन कमेटी, जिसके प्रमुख प्रणव मुखर्जी थे और जिसमें सीताराम येचुरी वाममोर्चे की ओर से शामिल थे, शर्तों पर चर्चा कर रही थी तब भी मैंने प्रकाश करात को पत्र लिख कर और व्यक्तिगत तौर पर मिल कर आगाह किया था कि प्रारूप को देखे बिना सरकार को, आईएईए के साथ प्रारूप पर हस्ताक्षर की अनुमति न दें। वाम मोर्चे ने कांग्रेस को पूरा मौक़ा दिया कि वह प्रारूप पर अमेरिका की शर्तों के अनुरूप सारी कार्यवाही पूरी कर ले और उसके लिए लोकसभा का अनुमोदन प्राप्त कर ले। उसके बाद ही वाम मोर्चे ने यूपीए सरकार से समर्थन वापस लिया था।
प्रणव मुखर्जी की पुस्तक के विमोचन के अवसर पर, सीताराम येचुरी का वक्तव्य, 2019 के आसन्न चुनाव में, वाममोर्चे द्वारा अपनाई जाने वाली रणनीति की तैयारी का आभास देता है। ऐसे में 2007 में लिखा पर्चा दस साल बाद आज भी उतना ही प्रासंगिक हो जाता है जितना उस समय था, इसलिए उसे ब्लॉग के जरिए फिर पाठकों के सामने रखा जा रहा है।
सुरेश श्रीवास्तव
15 अक्टूबर, 2017)
————————-
In this year of 150the Anniversary of 1857 uprising, I got to read and learn a lot which I did not know earlier. In last few months wisdom dawned on me that in history there are moments when one can not just sit outside and keep applauding the big players in the arena of history. Such are the moments when one must jump into the arena and play whatever bit of role the circumstances may provide.
Brutal exploitation and annihilation of Indian people might not have occurred if 250 years ago at Palassey some of our forefathers would not have been on the British side of the battle line or if 150 years ago many of them would have shed their complacency.
In last one month a lot has been said for and against the Agreement 123 and strategic alliance with US. I tried to study and understand the whole issue and feel that majority of the people are taking one stand or the other with very superficial knowledge of the issue.
I have tried to play my bit of role by trying to show the pitfalls in proceeding with the agreement and hope this will compel the supporters of the agreement to review their stand.
Suresh Srivastava
(The author has graduate and post graduate degrees from IIT Delhi and is president of ‘Society for SCIENCE)
AGREEMENT 123 – INDIA IN CATCH 22
Opinions, regarding the benefits of US-India Civil Nuclear Cooperation Initiative a.k.a. Agreement 123, being in the larger economic interest of India or against the larger economic, political and sovereign interests of India, are apparently irreconcilably divided for and against the agreement. Unfortunately opinions here also, as normally happens, are formed on the basis of scant or incomplete information or disinformation about the whole issue and also in isolation from other vital issues. Left is demanding,not to proceed on implementation of the agreement without assessing the affect of the agreement on India’s foreign policy in the light of Hyde Act, while the government is saying that the agreement is final and the government is obliged to take the next step as required by the agreement.
The contention of the supporters of the Agreement that there is nothing objectionable in Agreement 123 and Hyde Act is not binding on India, prima facie, may appear to be valid. But with careful reading of the text of Agreement 123, one can identify, within the innocuous language, words and phrases which act as a trap to suck India into a vortex of bilateral and multilateral treaties, leaving India completely at the mercy of US Administration and policy makers. Hype about energy needs, world opinion, investment climate etc. is being created to divert attention from the crucial issues and facilitate coming into force of the agreement .
Before deciding what could be the best course to get out of the impasse, following important questions have to be addressed.
? Is the agreement on equal terms or has US more advantage serving its national and international interests at the cost of India’s sovereignty?
? Does the agreement put India in a corner where its independence in the international arena is compromised?
? Are the apprehensions expressed by Left, that India is being unwittingly sucked into American economic, political and military strategic alliance in the region, hypothetical or real?
? To meet its needs for nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, could India not approach NSG and IAEA without Indo-US agreement?
? What is the trade off, for India, between the availability of nuclear fuel and non-aligned status?
? What are the options for India?
To find the correct answer to these questions, a whole gamut of different bilateral and multilateral treaties, which are woven into a web and are relevant to the present issue, needs to be kept in mind as their cross references affect each other and their integral effect will determine the answer to above questions. At some places the language written may be ambiguous. To understand correct import of such texts it will be relevant to refer some of the past experiences and statements of the key people who are deeply involved in the whole process of bringing the Indian government around to enter into different bilateral alliances with US.
Before addressing the above questions let us understand how America uses and manipulates agreements under Section 123 and various other treaties to bring a country in its control to serve American strategy of world hegemony. The whole sequence of signing and making agreements under 123 operative is as follows.
• US isolates a country, in the name of non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), from using nuclear energy, by using its influence in various multilateral forums.
• US projects to the isolated country that, to meet the nuclear energy needs of the country, US government is willing to get, from its Congress and Senate, waiver under Section 54, Section 64, Section 82 and 144 of the The Atomic Energy Act Of 1954 provided the country signs an agreement under Section 123 as stipulated in the Act.
• A draft of Agreement under Section 123, in consultation with the client country is prepared and the draft is sent to the American Congress and the Senate for approval. The draft contains certain innocuous conditions that are loaded against the client country. Some of these conditions ask the client country to enter into agreement with certain multilateral agencies where covertly America calls the shots.
• Signing of perpetual agreements with IAEA and other multilateral agencies is made mandatory for Agreement 123 to come into force.
• The client country signs perpetual agreements with IAEA and other multilateral agencies with conditions that make the client country indirectly subservient to America.
• After the agreements with IAEA and multilateral agencies are signed and the client is completely in the clutches of America, the Agreement 123 is sent for the final acceptance to the Congress and the Senate.
• The client country being completely at the mercy of America, America can make, if felt necessary, further amendments to the Agreement to complete its strangle hold, before making the Agreement operative for America. Now completely caught in the web and paralyzed, the prey can be devoured at will by the spider.
In case of India’s requirement of nuclear fuel for energy, whole sequence of events is being orchestrated in the above manner.
After the collapse of Soviet Union, US has assumed the role of world policeman and to ensure its world hegemony, has been developing, through bilateral and multilateral alliances, economic, political and military strategic alliances with different countries on one hand, and on the other making it difficult for neighbouring countries to enter into mutually beneficial cooperation. In view of the historical developments in last fifteen years India has become a potential and valuable ally to be won over in this region. This could be seen in the shift of US policy in the region from pro-Pakistan to India-Pakistan neutral. With the support of corporate world and ex and serving World Bank employees, USA was able to put India on the path of globalization, as first step to its strategy. The globalization has helped in developing a strong pro-US lobby among the policy makers, bureaucracy and upper middle class.
Though there was no exigency to go for a nuclear test, yet BJP government under Atal Bihari Vajpayee went in for nuclear test which resulted in strict sanctions. While funds were flowing in and hard currency reserves were consistently increasing, yet opinion was created that India’s energy needs require huge investments in nuclear power generation and the investment in the sector could come only when India submits to US and IAEA terms (diktats). BJP government under Vajpayee launched, in November 2001, initiative for Strategic Partnership with USA and completion of its next step coincided with the Indo-US Joint Statement of 18 July 2005, precursor to the Agreement 123.
After reaching the goal post of making Agreement 123 final and in-force, for India the next goal is to enter into India-specific safeguards agreements with IAEA and NSG. Here now Indian government is in a fix to proceed or not.
Let us get down to the Agreement 123 and study carefully language of various clauses that contain harmless looking traps and how, through these trapdoors, other agreements and treaties will come into play to bind India.
❖ In the preamble it is ‘affirmed’ that both parties have same benefits and advantages. This is not correct as India is a non-nuclear weapon state while America is a nuclear weapon state and IAEA or NSG will have different guidelines for them.
❖ In the preamble the India-US Joint Statement of July 18, 2005 has been ‘noted’ and contents of the Joint Statement will have bearing on this agreement. Here the significant parts are ‘signing and adhering to an Additional Protocol with respect to civilian nuclear facilities’ and ‘continuing India’s unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing’.
❖ Through preamble, support of both the parties is ‘affirmed’ for the objectives of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and its safeguards system, as applicable to India and the United States of America. The fact is that the safeguards system for India will not be same as that for USA.
❖ In the preamble the ‘desire’ of strengthening the strategic partnership between the two is confirmed. And for America strategic partnership means; economic, political and military alliances to ensure American hegemony around the globe.
❖ Article 5 cl 2 in the first part indicates that sensitive nuclear technology may be transferred but in the second part subjects it to the Parties’ respective applicable laws. And the applicable law, Hyde Act categorically restricts transfer of such equipment and technologies to any non-nuclear weapon state including India.
❖ Article 5, cl 6(a) notes that as part of its implementation of the July 18, 2005, Joint Statement the U.S. is committed to seeking agreement from the U.S. Congress to amend its domestic laws. Needless to say that such amended laws (Hyde Act) will be binding as part of this agreement.
❖ Article 5, cl 6 (b) (i) stipulates that assurances regarding fuel supply will be incorporated in ‘the bilateral US-India agreement under section 123 of the U.S. Atomic Energy Act, which will be submitted to the US Congress. This clause brings this agreement completely under U.S. Atomic Energy Act, implicitly giving right to the Congress to make any amendments to the Agreement.
❖ Article 5 cl. 6 (c) stipulates that India will place its civilian nuclear facilities under India-specific safeguards in perpetuity. This implies that India agrees to abandon its stand that it should be treated at par with other nuclear weapon states and accepts its status as non-nuclear weapon state for ever.
❖ As per Article 10, cl 2 India agrees to safeguards in perpetuity in accordance with the India-specific Safeguards Agreement between India and the IAEA and an Additional Protocol. The Additional Protocol requires that India will have to declare each and everything related to its research and development in nuclear field, to mining and processing of nuclear material and to processing facilities.( Art 2(a)(i) and Art 2(a)(v) of Model Protocol) The Protocol also substantially expands the IAEA’s ability to check for any nuclear facilities – mining, processing and research - by providing the agency with authority to visit any facility ─declared or not─ and to investigate questions or inconsistencies in a State’s nuclear declarations.(Article 1 to 7 of Model Protocol, INFCIRC/540)
Thus the innocuous looking Agreement 123 covertly binds India to -
1. India-US Joint Statement of July 18, 2005
2. IAEA and NSG guidelines
3. IAEA through India-specific safeguards agreement and Additional Protocol in perpetuity which will keep an eye on all nuclear related activities, whether civilian or military.
4. Strategic partnership with USA – economic, political and military.
5. ‘‘Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006’’.
6. Transfer, according to Article 7 cl 2, the control to America of any value added through own resources, to any of the supplies made under this agreement. This is the mechanism through which America controls the supply made by NSG countries among each other.
7. Submit to American control, according to Article 2 cl 3, all its nuclear trade with any of the countries under US influence.
8. Abandon its independent nuclear policy for defense. Part of the Article 14 Cl. 2. states ‘The Party seeking termination has the right to cease further cooperation under this Agreement if it determines that a mutually acceptable resolution of outstanding issues has not been possible or cannot be achieved through consultations.’ India’s option for independent nuclear policy for defense will obviously be one such issue unless India agrees to forgo its option.
We also have to keep in mind some of the statements made during the Joint Press Conference by National Security Advisor, Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission and Foreign Secretary (27 July, 2007) and their veracity.
• The National Security Advisor in his press statement said that ‘The India-US bilateral agreement also opens up the possibility of an unconditional exemption for India from the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) Guidelines, as foreseen in the July 18, 2005 Joint Statement.’ The fact is that the Prime Minister assured of ‘adherence to Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) and Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) guidelines’.
• The Foreign Secretary in reply to the question from Mathew Rosenberg of AP said, ‘This is an agreement for cooperation in civil nuclear energy. It is not about the balance of power in the region.’ The truth is that the India-US Joint Statement of July 18, 2005 clearly says Strategic Partnership.
• In reply to the question of Mr Manish Chand of IANS, the Chairman AEC answered, ‘With regard to the domestic three-stage nuclear power programme, I think that is independent. That will be pursued in accordance with our own national programme and there is no interference of one into another.’ The National Security Advisor intervened, ‘I might just add, I presume that the question was whether the fast breeder programme would be interfered with. As the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission has just stated very explicitly, the fast breeder programme at the moment is not under any kind of international obligations.’ The intervention shows that the National Security Advisor was aware that in near future the fast breeder programme will also be under some kind of international obligations otherwise he would not have used the words ‘at the moment’ .
• In reply to the question from Rajeev Sharma of the Tribune, NSA replied, “This deal deals primarily with the civil nuclear cooperation. There is no reference here to detonation or to any test.” The fact is that Hyde Act Sec. 103 (b)(9) makes it binding to comply with Section 123 (a)(4) of Atomic Energy Act of 1954 which stipulates return of any nuclear materials and equipments if the cooperating party detonates a nuclear explosive device.
After understanding how India will be obliged to abide by the provisions of ‘India-US Joint Statement of July 18, 2005’, ‘Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006’, ‘IAEA and NSG guidelines’, ‘India-specific safeguards agreement and Additional Protocol in perpetuity with IAEA’ and ‘The Atomic Energy Act Of 1954’, let us understand, in detail, how cross references of various acts will bind India into a kind of economic, political and military slavery and will compel India to follow a foreign policy congruent to that of America. .
India-US Joint Statement of July 18, 2005’
The statement calls for very pleasant sounding ‘promotion of democratic values and democratic practices’. But everyone knows that American definition of democracy keeps varying as it suits to American strategy in a particular region. Recent examples are, establishing democracy in Iraq by invading and devastating Iraq, supporting democracy in Pakistan under Musharraf, establishing democracy in Vietnam through carpet bombing for 20 years, assassination of Salvador Allende in Chile to establish democracy and innumerable other examples. Unfortunately with this Strategic Partnership India will have to support the kind of American democracy which it had been opposing for last 60 years under its independent foreign policy.
‘New Framework for the U.S.-India Relationship as a basis for future cooperation’ means nothing but presence of US forces in and around India as they are in Japan, Germany, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Afganistan and every other country that has fallen into American trap.
For India, ‘signing and adhering to an Additional Protocol with respect to civilian nuclear facilities’ means, opening to IAEA inspection, all defense related nuclear activities and ‘continuing India’s unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing’ means, forgoing the option of nuclear testing, an option which all nuclear weapon states have.
‘Adherence to Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) and Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) guidelines’ means India will have to depend completely on US for its defense policy.
(Complete text of the Joint Statement is given at the end of the book.)
Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act
The Agreement 123 is based on the sense of Congress that the country [here India]; has ‘a foreign policy that is congruent to that of the United States, and is working with the United States on key foreign policy initiatives related to nonproliferation’ (Section 102 (6)(B)), refrains ‘from actions that would further the development of its nuclear weapons program’ (Section 102(6)(C)) and gives ‘greater political and material support to the achievement of United States global and regional nonproliferation objectives, especially with respect to dissuading, isolating, and, if necessary, sanctioning and containing states that sponsor terrorism and terrorist groups that are seeking to acquire a nuclear weapons capability or other weapons of mass destruction capability and the means to deliver such weapons’ (section 102(6)(D)). Here the stress on words ‘sanction and containing’ has significance and in American terms it means unilateral military intervention and invasion as can be seen from action in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq. It could well be Iran also if American forces were not engaged in two regions. According to American military strength it can manage simultaneous wars in three regions and strategically it would not be wise to stretch itself to full limit.
As per Section 103 (a)(1) policy of United States shall be to ‘Oppose the development of a capability to produce nuclear weapons by any non-nuclear weapon state, within or outside of the NPT’ and ‘Given the special sensitivity of equipment and technologies related to the enrichment of uranium, the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, and the production of heavy water, work with members of the NSG, individually and collectively, to further restrict the transfers of such equipment and technologies, including to India’ (Section 103 (a)(5)).
As enumerated in Section 103 (a)(6), policy of the US is to ‘seek to prevent the transfer to a country of nuclear equipment, materials, or technology from other participating governments in the NSG or from any other source if nuclear transfers to that country are suspended or terminated pursuant to this title, the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), or any other United States law. Since US has agreements under Section 123 with every individual country, it is able to arm-twist each one of them to fall in line to support US action. After signing Agreement 123 India will also become an American stooge in coercing other countries.
As per Section 103 (b)(2) it is also part of US policy to ‘achieve, at the earliest possible date, the conclusion and implementation of a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons to which both the United States and India become parties.’ This means India will not be able to use its own mines and fissile material for nuclear weapons which will mean complete ban on its nuclear programme for defense and complete dependence on US.
A significant part of American policy is to ‘secure India’s full and active participation in United States efforts to dissuade, isolate, and, if necessary, sanction and contain Iran for its efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, including a nuclear weapons capability and the capability to enrich uranium or reprocess nuclear fuel, and the means to deliver weapons of mass destruction.’ (Section 103 (b)(4)). As indicated earlier the use of words ‘sanction and contain’ in this clause is very dangerous. Even before coming into force of this agreement, India has already shown inclination of siding with America by voting against Iran in IAEA which was a death knell for Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline, a loss which has already occurred will offset any future benefit of nuclear energy with this agreement.
Thus the policy statement of Hyde Act itself is so damaging to Indian interests that any apparent benefit becomes insignificant. Not only this but Section 103 (b) (9) lays down the policy to decide the content of the text of Agreement 123 and its implementation which will bind India to section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 of America and particularly to subsection a(5) of the act into a kind of slavery for any thing related to nuclear energy and its development.
Waiver authority under section 104 is solely the discretion of the President of US and the Congress and gives no power to India. On the other hand it makes it obligatory on the part of India to sign a perpetual agreement and Additional Protocol with IAEA and to show specific measures taken to support American efforts to sanction and contain Iran before India could even request America for any crumbs under Agreement 123. Certainly cancellation of Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipe line will be considered as first step in this direction.
Section 104 (c) (2) (H) even binds India and NSG to enter into an agreement which will be consistent with the decision, practices, and policies of the NSG (read America). America has bound all non-nuclear weapon states into similar agreements under 123 before making them member of NSG and that is how America keeps member countries into perpetual bondage and controls the decision, practices, and policies of the NSG.
Now we can address the questions raised earlier and find out best options for India.
▪ The agreement is not between equal partners but is between regulator and regulated. America as nuclear weapon state and permanent member of SC enjoys a privileged status in NSG and IAEA while India is just like any other underprivileged nation. By controlling nuclear policy of majority of countries, through individual agreements under section 123, America is able to call the shots in NSG and IAEA in all decision makings and can interpret any text to suit its desire. Thus this agreement on the one hand serves America’s national and international interests to establish and perpetuate its hegemony, and on the other hand erodes India’s independent status in world arena and capabilities to negotiate and develop policies of mutual interest with its neighbours and other countries.
▪ America is known as a bully in the international arena and is detested by peace and freedom loving people all over the globe. By putting all its nuclear resources and technology under America’s disposal and control through this agreement, Indian image is being projected as that of an American cohort. And by proceeding to bring this agreement into force India will be losing its clout to forge bilateral alliances independently.
▪ The apprehensions of the Left are real based on the existence of various articles in the Agreement. Article 10 (2) puts all nuclear resources – supplied by any other country or developed by India – under the control of IAEA for perpetuity. Needless to say that investment of billions of dollars will be linked to American strategy via IAEA and NSG and to meet any nuclear threat to its defense India will have to depend on US. Through Article 5 (6)(a) in the name of commitment for implementation of the July 18, 2005, Joint Statement, this agreement is linked to the Hyde Act where various sections are linked to economic, political and military strategy of US in the name of containing states that in US perception may be threat to US and its people’s security. With this conspicuous linking of Indian domestic and foreign policy to economic, political and military strategy of US, the apprehension of the Left is real and not hypothetical.
▪ The Agreement 123 comes into force after India has entered into agreement with NSG and IAEA and this has been reported to the US Congress. Technically this will mean that India could approach NSG and IAEA without Agreement 123. But the effort will be futile because these organizations have majority of the countries which are committed to US through individual agreements under Section 123 and, without clearance from US, NSG and IAEA will not enter into any kind of agreement with India. But India could approach individually to countries which are not completely under US control, particularly nuclear weapon states like Russia, France and China for individual agreement for nuclear supply for peaceful purposes.
▪ With the Agreement 123, as it is, India loses its independent and non-aligned status for getting the nuclear fuel. By becoming a junior partner of US in economic, political and military strategic alliance, India will lose its clout in bilateral negotiations with different nations which it would have enjoyed as independent and non-aligned nation. May be the loss of natural gas from Iran alone will offset the advantage of available nuclear fuel.
▪ India has many options to meet its energy needs.
i Work out alliances with China, Iran, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar and Sri Lanka for use of natural gas and a comprehensive energy policy for the region.
ii Talk to countries individually for supply of nuclear fuel. Technically India is capable of setting up nuclear power plants without Agreement 123. Recent Tarapore AEP is an example. In his address on 31 August the Prime Ministers said, ‘Starting from humble beginnings in the 1960s, the country today has seventeen power reactors, largely Pressurized Heavy Water Reactor plants. Those that we have developed are state-of-the-art facilities. As we move forward on development of fast breeder reactors and thorium reactors, I have no doubt that we would in the future exercise global leadership in these technologies. There can be no greater tribute to our capabilities than the fact that Units 3 and 4 of TAPS have been commissioned ahead of schedule and well within the sanctioned cost.’
iii Work out cooperation with all the neighbours to enter into peace and friendship alliance to reduce tension in the region. This will reduce burden on economy by reducing military expenditure. Additional resources may be used for alternate energy sources.
iiii Plan for extra-high voltage transmission of power between neighbouring countries.
Best option for India is not to proceed with Agreement 123 in its present form. Though the Agreement has already come into force on 1st August 2007 as per Article 16 (1) of the agreement yet the agreement itself provides India an escape route. Article 16 (5) provides for amendments and India must carefully work out amendments, particularly non-applicability of section 104 (b) of Hyde Act and waivers in absolute terms, that will ensure India’s independence in all matters. India must insist that India will enter into an agreement with NSG and IAEA exactly on the same lines as US or other nuclear weapon states have entered into. This is the safest way to get out of the catch 22 and Agreement 123.
*****************
Endnotes
Agreement 123 – India in Catch 22 /
