Delhi risks a stumble at the finish line
By Sudha Ramachandran
BANGALORE - The India-United States civilian nuclear agreement passed its first
international hurdle on Friday, when the 35-member governing board of the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) unanimously approved the
India-specific safeguards agreement.
Under the safeguards agreement, India will open 14 of the 22 existing and
planned civilian nuclear reactors for IAEA inspections. Of the 14, six are
already subject to inspections. The agreement provides for uninterrupted fuel
supplies for the lifetime of safeguarded reactors and acknowledges India's
right to build a
strategic reserve of fuel and to take corrective action in the event of
disruption of foreign-sourced fuel and technologies.
With the nod from the IAEA, India has moved another step closer towards
accessing nuclear fuel and technologies. But two important hurdles remain in
the marathon run to end India's 34 years of nuclear isolation. It will have to
first get the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) to waive restrictions on
nuclear trade with India, then the agreement will have to be ratified by the US
Congress.
India was expected to get IAEA approval. If it hadn't been approved by
consensus, it would have been put to vote, where all it needed was a simple
majority. The international mood indicated that it would get that backing in
the United Nations' nuclear watchdog agency.
India, however, was keen that the safeguards agreement be approved by a
consensus rather than by vote. For one, most IAEA decisions, especially those
concerning safeguards agreements, have usually been taken by consensus and it
is only controversial issues, such as Iran's nuclear program, that have been
voted on. India was anxious that the message the IAEA sent out on the
India-specific safeguards agreement be one of global consensus, rather than
signaling controversy.
Besides, India was worried that if any of the 19 members of the IAEA board that
are also in the NSG opposed the safeguards agreement in the event of a vote at
the IAEA, there was every chance of them carrying this opposition to the NSG,
which is expected to meet on August 21.
In the run-up to the IAEA meeting, India had some anxious moments as it did
seem that Pakistan would press for a vote. However, US pressure on Pakistan is
said to have stayed Islamabad's hand. In the end, the hard negotiations that
Indian and American diplomats engaged in with the IAEA board's members and the
strong endorsement that IAEA director general Mohamed ElBaradei extended to the
safeguards agreement ensured that the agreement sailed through without a vote.
With the IAEA nod, India and the US will now shift their attention to the NSG,
the 45-member cartel that oversees nuclear trade. Diplomats from both countries
have been criss-crossing world capitals in the past year lobbying NSG members.
India is not a member of the NSG and will have to depend on the US to argue its
case. The US will ask the NSG members to waive restrictions on nuclear trade
with India, a nuclear weapon power that has not signed the nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Unlike the IAEA, where there is provision for a vote in the event of the
absence of consensus, NSG decisions are by consensus only. Even one dissenting
voice against India at the NSG will kill the deal. Delhi and Washington will
therefore have to win over every NSG member.
This is not expected to be easy. As Pallava Bagla reported from Vienna for
NDTV, "If getting a nod from the world's nuclear watchdog [the IAEA] is like
climbing a mountain, the next stride of getting a 'yes' from the global cartel
that controls nuclear commerce [the NSG] will be like climbing a vertical
cliff."
The NSG, originally called the London Suppliers Group, was set up in response
to the Indian nuclear test in May 1974. But none of the seven countries - the
US, Russia, Britain, France, Japan, Canada and Germany - that founded the NSG
will oppose waiving restrictions on India. At the recent Group of Eight
(G-8)summit at Hokkaido, Japan, these countries, as members of the G-8,
endorsed the India-US agreement and the inclusion of India in the global
non-proliferation regime by waiving NSG restrictions. Once at the forefront to
contain India's nuclear program, these countries will now be out batting for
India.
Opposition to waiving nuclear trade restrictions on India is likely to come
from smaller countries, those that have little stake in India or in nuclear
trade with India and which have strong non-proliferation positions. These
include the Scandinavian countries, Austria, Ireland, Switzerland and New
Zealand.
Pointers from the IAEA meeting provide reason for India to worry. Ireland put
forward strong reservations at the IAEA meeting. Its ambassador at the IAEA is
reported to have said that if the matter had been put to vote he would have
been forced to abstain. As for Austria, "even hardened veterans of the nuclear
watchdog's politics were taken aback by the vehemence with which Austria railed
against the draft", observed The Hindu, an influential English daily. Both
Ireland and Austria are members of the NSG. They, as well as Japan and Brazil,
have said that their going along with the IAEA consensus should not be taken to
mean that they will not object in the NSG. Their support cannot be taken for
granted.
And then there is China, which went along with the consensus at the IAEA but is
yet to reveal its position at the NSG. China has not said it will support
India's case, but Chinese President Hu Jintao has conveyed to Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh that it will not create problems. It seems Beijing might not be
the spoiler at the NSG, but it will not be unhappy if New Zealand or Ireland
opposes India's case.
The questions raised at the IAEA do not necessarily spell bad news for India.
When the nuclear deal went through US congressional committees, it came up
against strong criticism from legislators who raised questions on individual
clauses and railed that the NPT regime was being weakened. Still, the agreement
passed both committees, the House of Representatives and the Senate, with
strong support. At the IAEA, too, questions were raised not over India's record
as a responsible nuclear power but over whether the agreement would set a
precedent that would open the doors to less responsible powers. So as in the US
Congress and the IAEA, in the NSG members will put India through a wringer, but
eventually will come around to supporting it, say optimists.
Several NSG members are expected to attach conditions to their support, such as
insistence that India sign the NPT and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the
exemption provides for periodic review, reimposition of the ban on trade if
India tests again and so on.
But India has repeatedly said it wants a "clean, clear and unconditional
exemption" from the NSG. Experts warn against this unreasonable and inflexible
position.
"Our repeated demand that there should be a 'clean and unconditional' exemption
from NSG guidelines cannot but prejudice the minds of the NSG members and even
of the US," points out T P Srinivasan, a former ambassador to the United
Nations at Vienna and a former governor for India at the IAEA.
"The whole exercise of exemption is based on certain conditions, which did not
exist before, like the 123 agreement and the IAEA safeguards agreement. Is it
realistic to expect that the NSG would grant the exemption without reference to
any of these documents? Would such references be considered conditional or not?
The whole exercise of the deal is based on certain conditions that India put
forward in the joint statement of 2005. How can the NSG not take note of those
conditions?" Srinivasan asks.
By taking a forceful position that no conditions will be acceptable, India is
boxing itself in a corner, with little wriggle room. "If India takes the
position that no conditions will be acceptable, a situation may arise when
India will have to walk away from the deal at that stage," warns Srinivasan.
"Hopefully, India has its own understanding as to what unconditional exemption
means. A certain flexibility in this position is essential to carry the deal
through."
After running a successful marathon to bring itself out of its nuclear
isolation, India would be foolish to shoot itself in the foot as it approaches
the finish line.
The victory at the IAEA is reason for quiet satisfaction. But India will have
to wait a while before it can pop the champagne corks.
Sudha Ramachandran is an independent journalist/researcher based in
Bangalore.
(Copyright 2008 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us about
sales, syndication and
republishing.)
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
