To enter the international mainstream civil nuclear commerce, a top U.S. official has said, India should consult the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on its nuclear liability law as a means to ensure the objective.
“While we understand that India’s law is currently being examined by the courts, we believe that consultations with the IAEA would be useful as a means to ensure that the liability law accomplishes our shared objective of moving India into the international mainstream of civil nuclear commerce,” Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs Geoffrey Pyatt has said.
In his remarks to the Pillsbury NEI Nuclear Export Controls Seminar in Washington, Mr. Pyatt identified the nuclear liability law as a major challenge in implementing the historic India-U.S. civilian nuclear deal.
A copy of his remarks was released by the State Department on Friday.
“India’s nuclear liability law is not in line with the international nuclear liability principles reflected in the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage,” he said.
“Current liability law and regulations impose the risk of a heavy financial burden on equipment suppliers seeking to enter the Indian market and expose such companies to the risk of significant financial penalty in the event of a nuclear accident, neither of which is consistent with international standards,” Mr. Pyatt observed.
“Without a law consistent with this Convention in place, companies from the United States as well as other nations will find it difficult to participate in India’s nuclear power expansion plans,” he said.
Mr. Pyatt said the U.S. wants to ensure equal opportunities for American companies to conduct nuclear commerce in India and preserve safety standards.
The cooperation between India and the U.S. in the civilian nuclear energy field, he noted, is not only about powering factories and schools or computers and cell phones.
“It is about transforming the strategic relationship between our two countries by working together to forge the ‘indispensable partnership’ that President Obama reaffirmed during his watershed visit to India in November 2010,” he said.
“The vision for civil-nuclear cooperation was founded not only on the desire to move our strategic partnership to a new level, but on the premise that India largely shares our non-proliferation goals and requires nuclear power to sustain its growing economy in a safe, clean, and cost-effective manner,” he said.
“Given its plans to expand nuclear power production, we want to partner with India to build and safely maintain modern, efficient and, let me underscore the point, American reactors and infrastructure,” Mr. Pyatt said.
“Nuclear power is essential to meeting India’s extensive energy requirements and alleviating its heavy dependence on imported energy inputs. The enduring commitment of our two countries to the use of nuclear energy to power our cities and our economies makes us natural partners for commercial and scientific cooperation,” he said.
Keywords: India-U.S. nuclear deal, N-deal, nuclear liability law, International Atomic Energy Agency, civil nuclear commerce
Well, India should retort that the international norms are not in line
with basic principles of justice.
In response, why doesn't India start lobbying to incorporate the
liability law in all so-and-so international agreements ?
International law is not a law in the strict sense of the term.The
United States of America is dictating terms to India to tow its line
citing international law.Is that country honor every international law
in letter and spirit ?India should not be cowed down by the US to fall
in line to suit its political and economic interests.
We are demanding something that even our NPCIL will not agree.
It is far fetched to expect technology, equipment, know how at a our
price & terms. That's never going to happen. It can only happen if we
agree a) to pay high cost of electricity which the company will use to
pay high insurance premiums to cover liability or b) balance power
purchase with reasonable cost & risk. Knowing our political class
neither will happen & we can keep debating this for few more years
after which either of which happens a) We agree to original condition
b) Citizens continue to suffer power cuts since we don't have plan B
other than nuclear (even if we have, that will surely be stuck up in
another "issue" c) The international companies & Govt agrees to
concede ground and arrive at mutual agreement after some give and
take. Again please do not hold your breathe for a quick resolution.
Every land's laws have evolved in accordance with the beliefs and values of the people living in that land. For example US laws permits unrestricted Guns to every citizen, which most of the rest of the world disagree. Another example, US executes 50 to 100 convicted criminals ever year. India executes death sentence only in extreme rare occasions. Just two in last decade.
US justice system are based on capitalist thinking.
Indian justice (similarly other Asian countries) is based on a different set of values or references.
US companies will fall in line slowly. They are behind profits. And there are only a very few countries where they can do business this decade.
Let's face a hard reality----they'rein a sellers' mkt., and we weren't able (capable?) of developing theplants needed for 'safe' civilian use of atomic energy.
Considering the lacs of crores 'available forspending', and India's 'repution for probity etc..' the USA KNOWS India will blink first: so, they're playing hardball!
For genuine safety, the plants will have to be operated by an'international staff'-----otherwise,like the Naxals getting Indian guns with impunity, Indian spent fuel will end up in'dangerous hands'.
I wonder then how come there is a rule going up penalising of
outsourcing to India in the US does that meet international convetion of
free trade!! Pls if you want to make money you also have to bear the
stick when things go wrong.
So, let me get this straight: You want me to give you money so you can build nuclear reactors for me; but if your reactors blow up, you don't want to be held accountable.
Let me reiterate that: You don't want to be held accountable when a nuclear reactor you built blows up.
That hardly inspires confidence.
Please Email the Editor