If the devil lies in detail, a revealing comment by the Bush administration to
US Congress shows Washington does not expect the “worst-case” clauses of the
Indo-US nuclear deal to be tested as it simply does not think India will test a
nuclear device any time soon.
The 26-page response to questions raised by the Congress, now posted on the US
foreign affairs committee website, present a stark picture of the likely
consequences if India conducts a nuclear test. But even as it outlines the
possibility of the nuclear deal being called off, it provides a hint as to why
this may not happen.
On whether US was bound to assist India in sourcing fuel even if the pact is
terminated, the state department has explained how and why commitments on
supplies will operate. It has said ceasing cooperation would be a “serious
step” needing consideration of circumstances which include a nuclear
“detonation” or violation of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
safeguards.
It then points to why US feels such a situation would be a remote possibility
with the state department noting, “Moreover, such circumstances (testing) would
likely be inconsistent with the political underpinnings of the US-India
initiative upon which the commitments (on fuel guarantees) in article 5.6 were
based.”
The reference to “political underpinnings” clearly reflects the US assessment
that the Manmohan Singh government was unlikely to test. Further, it indicates
that this is the impression that US negotiators walked away with after
discussions with Indian emissaries when the 123 pact was finalised. The
expectation is that the serious reason for “disruption” in supplies — a nuclear
test — was not very likely.
The government defence rests on the argument that fuel assurances were never
intended to cover the eventuality of testing. A senior pro-deal minister said
fuel assurances were clearly defined. “No one will give a green signal to
testing,” he said, arguing that the 123 provisions do not guillotine US-India
cooperation. There was a year-long window for negotiation over why the deal had
to be called off.
Pointing out concessions were made for India despite it not being an NPT or
CTBT signatory, the minister said the 123 pact included references to a
“changed security environment” which would also be considered when termination
of the agreement. This is seen to refer to the possibility of either China or
Pakistan conducting a nuclear test in the future. Apart from this, US had not
promised transfer of dual use items, reprocessing and enrichment technology at
any stage.
The defence of the deal lies in the argument that it has always been known that
cooperation can end if India tests. But it is also now clear that the several
paragraphs in article 14 of the 123 agreement which include both nations taking
into account “potential negative consequences of termination of ongoing
contracts and projects” do not protect India from the deal being called off
immediately. In the light of US “perspective” on the deal, several references
in the 123 pact seem aimed at allowing India to claim it has retained the right
to test.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Cambodia Discussion (CAMDISC) - www.cambodia.org" group.
This is an unmoderated forum. Please refrain from using foul language.
Thank you for your understanding. Peace among us and in Cambodia.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/camdisc
Learn more - http://www.cambodia.org
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
