The Hindu : Tamil Nadu News : Indo-U.S. deal good under present circumstances: M.R. Srinivasan

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Sep 12, 2007
ePaper

Tamil Nadu

Tamil Nadu

Indo-U.S. deal good under present circumstances: M.R. Srinivasan

Special Correspondent

“It facilitates nuclear trade with not only America but also other countries”

“End of international isolation of India in nuclear technology”
Agreement signed between two unequal parties: Placid Rodriquez

— Photo: S. R. Raghunathan

ANALYSING the DEAL: (From left) S. Janakarajan, Professor, MIDS; M.R.Srinivasan, former Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission; Swapna Sundar, research scholar, MIDS, and Placid Rodriquez, former Director, Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research, Kalpakkam, during a discussion in Chennai on Tuesday.

CHENNAI: The India-United States nuclear agreement may lead to nuclear trade and commerce not only with the U.S. but also with other countries such as Russia and France, the former Atomic Energy Commission Chairman M.R. Srinivasan said on Tuesday.

Noting that the deal would facilitate the end of international isolation of India in nuclear technology, Dr. Srinivasan said at a discussion on the agreement organised by the Madras Institute of Development Studies that the deal would not reduce India to becoming a dumping ground for reactors from other countries.

India would continue with its indigenous programme and go ahead with building pressurised heavy water reactors, fast breeder reactors and thorium fuel reactors. It would take 25 years to build thorium fuel reactors and the country could not wait that long but had to go in for additional nuclear power generation by importing reactors.

He said if the agreement came through, the country could expect to add 40,000 MWe of nuclear power between 2010 and 2030.

Responding to questions raised by members of the audience, the former AEC chief said it was for the country to make a rational analysis of fruits of the agreement and come to a conclusion. There was nothing called “a perfect agreement.”

But, given the present circumstances, the Indo-U.S. agreement was a “good deal.”

On the private sector’s entry into nuclear energy, he said that it would not happen immediately and the private sector had not even built major plants in the conventional power sector.

Unequal parties

Placid Rodriquez, president, Indian Nuclear Society and former Director of the Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research, said that the agreement was not signed between two equals but between two unequal parties. Contrary to claims, the 123 agreement did not comply with many of the assurances given by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to the Rajya Sabha in August 2006. It did not provide the country full nuclear civil cooperation.

Comparison with China

Comparing the 123 agreement between India and the U.S. with that of the U.S. and China, he said in the case of the latter, international laws were applicable whereas the former would be subject to national laws in both the countries, which meant that the Hyde Act of the U.S. would apply.

He wondered why India did not ask for a similar clause that China had obtained.

On the shortage of uranium, Dr. Rodriquez said it arose because of the steep increase in the generating capacity of reactors from 60 per cent to 90 per cent and the reduction in the construction period of reactors from 10 years to 4 years.

‘A divisive issue’

N. Ram, Editor-in-Chief of The Hindu, said the nuclear agreement had become a highly divisive issue in the political and public space.

There had to be balance between the nation’s sovereign right not to surrender to discriminatory nuclear bargain and self-imposed restraints which were good for the country and the whole region.

He criticised the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance Government and the United Progressive Alliance Government for abandoning the goal of universal global disarmament. He said the issue of the future of safeguards in perpetuity had to be addressed more transparently and authoritatively.

There was no clear answer in the Indo-U.S. agreement on whether India would be obliged to keep safeguards in perpetuity, if there was no guarantee with regard to fuel supply and supplies of sensitive equipment and technology.

It was unclear whether the 123 agreement was in consonance with the Congressional intent and other provisions of domestic laws of the U.S.

He wondered why the UPA Government was in a hurry to push ahead and incur the huge risk of falling, taking the nuclear deal along with it.

Mr. Ram, who recently toured China as part of a quasi-official group, said it was extremely unlikely that China and Japan would oppose the deal.

Padmini Swaminathan, director, MIDS, S Janakarajan, professor in MIDS and Swapna Sundar, researcher in international law, were among those who took part in the discussion.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail