Indo-US Civil Nuclear Cooperation: Elusive And Struggling
Since July 2005, a great deal of debate on the Indo-US nuclear cooperation has been focused on the separation of Indian civil and military facilities, especially fast breeder reactors (FBR). The rationale of New Delhi’s quest for energy security compromising its strategic interests has been widely questioned within political circles, among scientists and activists. While New Delhi considers FBRs as part of it’s power generation programme, international community see it as an integral part of India’s nuclear weapon programme, as FBRs help India produce enough weapons-grade plutonium for the bomb.
The crux is that a successful deal would come when US lawmakers would see India’s reactors under IAEA safeguards, to make sure that India does not misuse the deal to expand its nuclear weapons arsenal. While the debate refuses to die down, the government at helm riding on relentless domestic criticism is pinning hopes on President Bush’s India sojourn which could facilitate much needed domestic consensus, US pressure to compromise strategic interests notwithstanding.
The elusive nuclear deal which was embedded in the joint statement issued by Manmohan Singh and George W. Bush in Washington on 18 July 2005 has received more brickbats than bouquets. For many, the success of the deal will lead the recognition of India as a nuclear weapons-state. Critiques argue that India’s principal national interest and strategic concern should be the development of indigenous technological capability aimed at extracting energy from India’s vast reserves of thorium fuel, rather succumb to the US ‘now carrot’ and ‘then stick policies.’
At least 15 nuclear power reactors are operational in India and among them 4 are under UN nuclear watchdog, IAEA safeguards. The remaining 11 are out of any international safeguards. There are 8 more power reactors under construction, among which two Russian units at Koodankulam are earmarked under safeguards. Rest 5 reactors including the prototype FBR are currently out of safeguards.
Domestically, the opposition stands on the assumption that the deal is prejudicial to ‘national interests’ and designed to weaken India’s nuclear options by making the country dependent on the US for all initiatives in application of nuclear energy. On the issue of Iran’s referral to the UN, the government has faced vehement criticism from Left parties, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Samajwadi Party (SP), who had viewed India’s decision on the Iran’s referral as a direct corollary to the US pressure tactics on the nuclear deal. The Left parties, who have major stakes in the present United Progressive Alliance (UPA) front led government have demanded discussions on the Iran vote in the IAEA, while the SP has even threatened to move a no-confidence motion against the government.
Senior leaders of BJP believe that the deal is inherently tilted against India and the US is now using only ‘carrots’ comprising modern nuclear technology for civilian power projects and then would use pressure on India to accept obligations and restrictions imposed under the IAEA safeguards. Earlier the party had slammed the government’s ineptitude in handling the Iran issue, especially the way the government has been pressurized into voting against Iran and blamed the government not being vigorous in pointing the Pakistan connection in Iran's nuclear profile. However, unlike the Left, BJP has not been fundamentally against the nuclear deal, as per the sources, and the party still wants the Congress led government to raise the Pakistan’s clandestine technology (centrifuge and fissile material) transfer to Iran and other countries.
The elusive deal has found a hostile scientific community too back in India. The present Atomic Energy Commission chief Anil Kakodkar has aired his reservation against the move to place FBRs under IAEA safeguards and accused the US for ‘shifting goalposts’. At the same time, Kakodkar cautioned against India’s continuing dependence on foreign technology which could jeopardize the prospects to become a global technology leader. Leading atomic scientist, P K Iyengar, questioned the hierocracies involved in the deal and Indiangovernment’s intention and submissiveness to the US on the decision to decide which reactors to put under IAEA safeguards. According to him, even in the US, the separation of civilian and military programmes is not very distinct. According to him both Bhaba Atomic Research center (BARC) and Kalpakkam facilities should be completely out of safeguards. The majority of scientists emphasized on the onus to decide the priorities lies on India alone as a responsible nuclear weapon state (NWS) and a non-signatory to nuclear nonproliferation regime (NPT).
The scientific community of India found an ardent supporter in former Prime Minister V.P. Singh who urged the government to consult the nuclear establishment and find pathways how to keep FBRs from the purview of the Indo-US nuclear deal. “If this deal is going to compromise our technological self-reliance and security interest, it should be straightaway scrapped, ” V P Singh said, raising concern over the contradictions and communication gap between the Centre and the nuclear establishment.
Political and scientific opposition notwithstanding, civil society groups, including environment and anti war groups in India have been supporting the separation of civilian and military facilities and urging for full transparency and public oversight of all civilian installations. One leading member of the conglomeration of anti-nuclear groups, Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace (CNDP) Laxminarayan Ramdas sees the nuclear deal as part of US strategy to make India support its big power interests. At the same time highlighting the dearth of domestic uranium and conventional fuel like petroleum, Ramdas added ''the country should have spent money on tapping wind and solar energies for power production.''
However, the Indo-US pact has been drawing international support. China expressed support for the deal and appreciates New Delhi’s energy needs, but still cautious to support it in the Nuclear Supply Group which ultimately facilitate India’s nuclear trading with other countries. France on the other hand, supporting the Indo-US deal, urged India to generate electricity using nuclear energy and extended all sort of support to achieve this goal.
Deba R Mohanty, visiting senior fellow at the Department of Peace Studies at the University of Bradford has pointed out that “there is a fear in Washington that the Indo-US civilian-nuclear deal will lead to New Delhi expanding its weapons production with regional implications, especially on neighboring China and Pakistan.”
According to him, if India expands its arsenal base, it will lead Pakistan to involve in similar expansion plan and China, to enhance its modernization efforts.
In this scenario, “Indian policy makers should take this concern into account and make effort to instill confidence within Washington administration that it does not have any ulterior motives” he said.
Charles Ferguson of the Council on Foreign Relations, Washington DC is of the view that “if the Indo-U.S. deal were truly to advance nonproliferation goals, the respective governments should come to agreement on New Delhi limiting its ability to stockpile vast amounts of fissile materials” He further stated that “perhaps India can serve as a model to show how proliferation-resistant technologies can be applied.”
The political atmosphere is charged ahead of Bush visit in early March and Indian authorities have been trying hard to iron out a compromise formula to douse the hue and cry over FBR safeguards, the main stumbling block in deal. New Delhi administration in connivance with department of atomic energy put forward a proposal to the US on the phased implementation of the separation plan and to keep FBRs out of the purview of international safeguards till 2010 only when the FBRs would be operational.
Whether for that time, the Washington administration is going to overlook the matter for smooth implementation of the deal is doubtful. However, all hopes are now on the ‘last mile push’ during Bush-Singh meet.
Animesh Roul is Research Fellow at the New Delhi based Society for the Study of Peace and Conflict (SSPC).
The article was originally published in the "GREEN CROSS OPTIMIST", Number 8, Spring, 2006).http://web.archive.org/web/20070513044557/http://www.optimistmag.org/gb…