The Hindu Business Line : <I>Nuclear deal on the rocks?</I>

On all accounts, the talks held out of sight of the people of the US and India in far away South Africa to sew up the agreement under Section 123 of the US Atomic Energy Act as the final act in setting the civilian nuclear cooperation in motion have been bumpy, leading to `frustration' on both sides. This is hardly surprising.

It was evident to dispassionate observers right from the time the deal was mooted during the Prime Minister's summit with the US President in July 2005 that this was going to be a case of revelling in haste and repenting at leisure. This is borne out by the fact that India's seven foremost scientists, comprising former Chairmen of the Atomic Energy Commission, the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, and the Nuclear Power Corporation and Directors of Bhabha Atomic Research Centre and Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research had to take the unprecedented step of issuing a public statement cautioning the Government from proceeding with the deal.

For one thing, if only they had been consulted, they would have advised that there was no need for any such deal in the first place. Even assuming maximum possible benefits, it would not have made any material difference to the nuclear component of India's energy scenario: At the most, it could have raised it from around 3,310 MW (or 2.5 per cent) at present to about 20,000 MW (or 8 per cent) in the next 20 years, provided there was no interruption in the flow of nuclear fuel, technology and equipment from the US or the Nuclear Supply Group (NSG).

What makes the courting by the Government of all the controversies and hassles all the more irksome, is that the Indian scientists are already on the threshold of the final of the three stages of the thorium cycle capable of burning U-233 bred from stage 3; with India's reserve of 290,000 tonnes of thorium, one-fourth of the world's total, it could have easily avoided any kind of an arrangement that made it dependent on the US or the NSG.

Insuperable obstacles

The Indian side is reportedly confronting two insuperable obstacles: First, the threat contained in the Henry J. Hyde US-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act, 2006, of taking back the fuel, technology and equipment already supplied and cancelling India's entitlement to future supply, in case India carried out any nuclear test; and second, the barring of reprocessing and enrichment of spent fuel by India.

Since these two stipulations are part and parcel of what may be called the (Jekyll and) Hyde Act as also Section 123 of the US Atomic Energy Act, the negotiators on the US side will face Congressional stricture if they leave them out of the agreement. It is clear that India cannot agree to conditions that will preclude all future tests regardless of the prevailing security environment and, thus, mortgage national security to the American whims, and force it to return the fuel and equipment resulting in millions of rupees spent on new projects going down the drain.

There is a third stumbling block as well, although not explicitly brought out in the public domain. Under its charter, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has the power to subject to its inspection all nuclear materials — both those which are weapons-usable and those which need further processing to become weapons-usable. The so-called India-specific safeguards worked out with the Agency will not absolve India of its obligation on this count. In the circumstances, India should not succumb to any pressure that compromises its national interest, even if such a stand leads to the breakdown of the negotiations.

B. S. RAGHAVAN

More Stories on : Power | Foreign Relations | Science & Technology | Offhand

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
End the price fixation

Onus is on politicians

Save plant wealth for country's health

Nuclear deal on the rocks?

Making education inclusive

The Wolfowitz muddle

Moving forward on forex