New Delhi9 April 2008
The India-United States nuclear deal has neither been put in cold storage nor indefinitely deferred, according to Mr Shyam Saran, Prime Minister's Special Envoy for the India-United States Nuclear Deal and Climate Change.
"The Government remains committed t
o the civil nuclear cooperation agreement and will make every effort to bring about its early conclusion," he said in an exclusive interview
Mr Saran said there is a more positive sentiment in the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) today for adjusting its guidelines to allow India access to nuclear technology and materials and to engage in the global nuclear commerce.
to this newspaper.
"There's been a change in mood for the better. There is a more positive sentiment in
the NSG today with regard to giving India this exemption than was the case say about a year ago," he said.
Mr Saran iterated political uncertainty will increase as the operationalisation of the deal gets delayed but he would not hazard a guess on how early the domestic political process on the nuclear deal will be concluded.
All he would say is nothing precludes successor governments in India and the US from
continuing to pursue the nuclear deal to its logical conclusion, if it is not clinched by the
current dispensations in New Delhi and Washington.
"The legislation in the US has been amended, and the 123 agreement ha
s been
finalised. The safeguards agreement, too, may soon be concluded. Therefore, successor
governments in both countries could take the next steps if they so decide," he said.
Mr Saran said the Government has not given much thought to a suggestion by the
Leader of the Opposition, Mr LK Advani, of enacting a countervailing legislation to
overcome some of the negative aspects of the Hyde Act.
"We have not looked at this possibility. It remains the Government's position that it is
the bilateral 123 agreement that would govern civil nuclear cooperation between India
and the US," he said in the interview.
He asserted India's strategic programme will remain unaffected. "Those who allege that
the proposed agreement may compromise our strategic programme have not spelt out
why they have this apprehension," he observed.
On the issue of nuclear test, Mr Saran said it is unrealistic to expect the NSG not to want
to impose any consequences for India if she decides to test. India, he clarified, has and
will retain her right to conduct a nuclear test in the future.Mr Saran, a former foreign secretary, said the Government has shared the elements of
the safeguards agreement with the Left parties. The draft agreement fully
reflects the fuel supply assurances contained in the 123 agreement, he added.He acknowledged the Hyde Act contains extraneous elements which the Government
does not like, and it has been made very clear to the US that it is something that India
don't agree with, but the Act's primary objective is to give an exemption to India.
Excerpts from the interview of Mr Shyam Saran, Prime Minister's Special Envoy for the
India-United States nuclear deal and Climate Change:
New Delhi
9 April 2008
Is the India-United States nuclear deal dead? Or is it comatose, still-born..? What is its
status today?
No ... none of these adjectives apply. It is not true that it has been put into cold storage
or indefinitely deferred. The Government remains committed to the civil nuclear
cooperation agreement and will make every effort to bring about its early conclusion. We
believe that it is in the best interest of the country. However, it is important that in taking
this forward there should be a political consensus and that is what the Government is
engaged in trying to bring about. How long this process may take is not for us to predict,
but the Government remains fully engaged in the process of evolving a political
consensus on taking the next steps. The UPA-Left committee is currently looking at the
elements of the India-IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) safeguards agreement
and one meeting has already been held of the committee. The elements of the India-IAEA
safeguards agreement have been shared with the UPA-Left committee. Some
clarifications have been sought and some queries have been raised to which the
Government is confident it can respond positively and satisfy any concerns.
Looking ahead, what are the possible scenarios? If the deal is alive, how soon can it be
operationalised and is it going to happen in the life of the governments here and in
Washington?
We are conscious of the time-lines. It is obvious that the level of political uncertainty will
increase as time goes on. However, there is a domestic political process that has to be
gone through and we cannot say when that process, which is aimed at evolving a
political consensus on taking the next steps, will be concluded. We are confident that we
can convince both political opinion as well as public opinion in this country. Now it is a
question of how best we can now take this forward through the next steps. The next
steps are already known. We have to conclude the IAEA agreement, we have to obtain
the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) exemption and also the final vote in the US
Congress. Even after the safeguards agreement has been concluded, there will still be
challenges ahead at the NSG and at the US Congress which will have to vote to approve
the 123 agreement. There will be uncertainties at each of these stages. So it is not that
this is something which is going to be a very simple, straight and forward process but by
taking one step at a time, we have managed to negotiate a safeguards agreement with
the IAEA, that is a very important step forward. We have been working on the NSG
countries. In the US Congress, too, we expect that the bipartisan consensus that was
evident when the Hyde Act was passed, would continue to operate when the 123
agreement is put to vote.
Is the survival of the nuclear deal linked to the life of the governments here or in
Washington?
Agreements are of course negotiated by governments but these are agreements between
countries, so a certain agreement has been arrived at between India and the US. Even if
the initiative does not go through during the life of the current US Administration and/or
the current Government in India, nothing precludes successor governments in both
countries from continuing to pursue it to its logical conclusion. The legislation in the US
has been amended, and the 123 agreement has been finalised. The safeguards
agreement, too, may soon be concluded. Therefore, successor governments in both
countries could take the next steps if they so decide. It is not possible to predict whether
there may be demands in either or both countries for revisions. Even concluded
agreements are sometimes amended. We should not prejudge or speculate on what
could happen.
Critics of the nuclear deal say if it is indeed good, it should survive changes in
government here and in Washington. So why rush with this deal?
Nobody is rushing with the deal. I don't know why there should be an impression that we
are rushing through with the deal. We have in fact been taking one step at a time, making
certain that each step that we take is very much in consonance with India's national
interest. So there has been no rush at all but as I said the longer this process takes, the
level of political uncertainty obviously will increase. In the NSG itself time is not going to
stand still. There are political changes taking place in NSG counties as well, so this is a
dynamic situation. That is why we say other things being equal, the sooner we can
conclude these processes, the better it would be but having said that, we know there is
no alternative to being able to get that political consensus behind taking the next steps.
Do we have a draft of IAEA agreement and if so, why is it not being made public?
The main parameters of the India-IAEA safeguards agreement have been finalised, but
the agreement has not yet been concluded.
Does the text meet or satisfy our conditions or demands of assured fuel supply,
strategic fuel reserve, and corrective measures in the event of disruption of supply?
The elements of the agreement fully reflect the fuel supply assurances that are
contained in the 123 agreement. The question of IAEA itself guaranteeing fuel supplies
does not arise, since the agency does not supply fuel.
What is the mood or overwhelming sentiment in the NSG?
After interacting with a number of NSG countries over the past year, our assessment is
that opinion has moved in favour of India being given an exemption. We have conveyed
that such exemption must be a clear one, without conditionalities or even expectations
concerning India's future actions. We have been working with the members of the NSG,
explaining to them why it is legitimate for us to expect that a similar exemption should
be made for India as has been made by the US. While it would be difficult to really
predict which country will do what but overall I can say that over the past year or so,
thanks to the kind of diplomatic effort which has been put in by us with various NSG
countries, definitely there's been a change in mood for the better. There is a more
positive sentiment in the NSG today with regard to giving India this exemption than was
the case say about a year ago.
Are you personally interacting with the NSG countries even today?
Our working together with the NSG is not merely my going and visiting NSG countries.
Whenever we have interaction at the official level or at the level of our ministers or at the
level of heads of state or government, whenever there is on occasion for this matter to
be discussed we have put forward India's case and that continues.
Do you intend to visit any of the NSG countries?
Not in the foreseeable future.
What will be the status of the MoUs with Russia and France?
It is clear that such cooperation cannot become a reality unless NSG guidelines are
adjusted.
Will an IAEA safeguards agreement be enough for operationalising those MoUs? For
instance, we have finalised negotiations with Russia for building four new nuclear power
stations.
No. If the Russians are willing to say that, we would very much welcome that, but that's
not the case. If you look at the MoU it is very clear that this is conditional upon the NSG
guidelines. Whatever is there in the MoU can actually be operationalised only after the
NSG guidelines have been adjusted.
What about the 123 agreement with the US? Is that a precondition to operationalising the
MoUs with Russia or France?
That (123 agreement) is for the United States of America ...
So the 123 agreement is not a must for the other countries?
For Russia and France, because they are members of the NSG, what is important is that
the NSG guidelines, by consensus, which includes the United States of America, must be
adjusted.
Doesn't the Hyde Act pose problems for India?
What is important for us is that in terms of a bilateral agreement between India and the
US, the manner in which we cooperate with the US will be governed as far as we are
concerned by whatever we have committed ourselves to legally in the 123 agreement.
So there are of course elements which we have said in the Hyde Act which we do not
agree with. But it is important to also appreciate that the most important objective of the
Hyde Act was to give that exemption to India. So the Act has a certain significance in that
respect. But yes, it contains various extraneous elements which we don't like and which
we made it very clear that it is something that we don't agree with. If the 123 agreement
goes before the US Congress and if the Congress says this 123 agreement is not in
consonance with what we think the Hyde Act says, that is the end of the matter. If
however the 123 agreement is passed by the US Congress, then as far as we are
concerned, the Congress has endorsed that this is, as far as they are concerned, not
violative of their understanding of the Hyde Act. That is how we should look at it.
The BJP has talked of a domestic law to prevail over the Hyde Act. Is that a viable
alternative?
It has been proposed that we could try and overcome some of the negative aspects of
the Hyde Act, by adopting some countervailing legislation on our side. It is not possible
to comment on this unless one knows what kind of legislative provisions are being
proposed and what their legal implication would be. We have not looked at this
possibility. It remains the Government's position that it is the bilateral 123 agreement
that would govern civil nuclear cooperation between India and the US.
So it is not something on the horizon for the Government at this point in time?
No, as far as I understand we have not been going in that direction.
Does the Government appreciate the concern that the deal would hurt our strategic
programme and nuclear deterrent?
Those who allege that the proposed agreement may compromise our strategic
programme have not spelt out why they have this apprehension. If anybody feels that
our deterrence is being compromised perhaps they could tell us why, in what way? As
far as testing is concerned, we have ensured that our commitment is only to continuing
our voluntary moratorium. If in the light of changes in our security environment, our
political leadership decides to undertake further tests, we will not be violating any
international commitment or legal undertaking. There will perhaps be consequences just
as there were after the May 1998 tests. It should also be noted that 43 of the 45
members of the NSG have signed and ratified the CTBT. Two - China and the US - have
signed but not ratified it. While the NSG may not impose adherence to the CTBT as a
conditionality in giving us exemption, it is unrealistic to expect the group to convey any
assurance that there will be no consequences for India if it decides to test. Having given
up their own right to test, how can they be expected to give India that right in any explicit
manner?
Why has the Government decided to decommission CIRUS reactor?
That is something you must ask the Department of Atomic Energy. We have only
indicated in the separation plan that we intend to decommission CIRUS reactor in about
10 years' time. This is an old reactor. Perhaps the time has come for it to be
decommissioned in any case and be replaced perhaps by a new reactor. It has nothing
to do with any other considerations.
Was the Department of Atomic Energy on board when the July 18, 2005 India-US joint
statement was adopted?
Everybody ... at no stage was anybody not on board. Obviously in any government there
will be internal discussions, there will be different viewpoints, different perspectives,
which will be presented by different agencies of the Government but whatever positions
are taken are those of the Government of India. At each stage all those who are
stakeholders have been fully on board.
Why doesn't the Government explore the possibility of accessing uranium from non-NSG
countries?
There may be supplies which may be available for example in some African countries
but in many cases those supplies are in fact either being mined or traded by in fact
Western companies. So merely the fact that some uranium supplies may be available in
this or that country does not necessarily mean even if that country is not member of the
NSG that therefore it is available to you. Our experience indicates that these countries,
while not being NSG members, are reluctant to go outside those norms, set by an
influential group of countries.
Recently you were appointed Prime Minister's Special Envoy for Climate Change. Does
it mean you would be focussing more of your energies on tackling climate change issues
than the nuclear deal?
I have been appointed Prime Minister's Special Envoy for Climate Change in addition to
my continuing responsibilities concerning nuclear issues. These additional duties do not
in any way detract from my original responsibilities nor do they imply a downgrading of
the nuclear agreement in Government's priorities.
What is your mandate as Prime Minister's Special Envoy for Climate Change?
My new responsibilities will involve contributing to the formulation of an effective
negotiating strategy for the very intensive multilateral negotiations that are envisaged
on climate change, especially in the next two years. Parallelly, we are also working on a
National Action Plan on Climate Change, which will be announced in June this year.
No comments:
Post a Comment