Let me first start with the decision of Australia to sell Uranium to India. Its a landmark decision and the next logical deal would be France setting up nuclear reactors and power plants in India.
Brahma Chellaney, as prax had pointed out, raised a lot of questions about the deal..
Since I strongly support this deal… let me answer them one by one:
* US gains right to unilaterally terminate cooperation at will.
What is India giving up? The facilities are still its.. and USA is only providing the much needed technology and fuel to help us progress… since India is not paying or doing any irreversible damage… what does India lose if USA terminates the contract?
* No provision for instituting alternate suppliers before terminating cooperation.
Australia has already agreed to supply fuel (it has 40% of the known reserves and does more than half of the legal Uranium exports)
Russia did supply us some fuel immediately after the first draft of the deal was hinted.
so I do not think it is a pressing concern.
* India concedes to US unfettered “right of return”.
The USA can take back the equipment and fuel (which it supplied and not the other countries supplied) after it pays a fair market price for them and compensates us for the loss… I think it is a fair deal.. after all suppose in near future, if India turns rogue.. them USA won’t want India to be using US supplied equipment and fuel to start a nuclear war.
* Agreement upholds supremacy of US law.
Again… lets assume 2 scenarios…
1) India does not sign the deal.
2) India signs the deal and after 10 years the deal is canceled.
in which of the 2 scenarios do u think India would have benefited more?
* India given reprocessing right only in principle. Actual right uncertain.
Firstly.. its their fuel.. and they have full right to dictate its full use… India has imported it for generating power.. when the fuel is depleted they want it back so that we do not use it to make warheads.. after all till date almost all the reprocessing is for the warheads and there r little if any civilian uses of it.
* Fuel-supply assurance subject to US right to terminate.
India plans to use USA’a approval as an endorsement of our nuclear programme and use USA’a political clout to get more and more alternative suppliers ASAP. So that we won’t be left high and dry.
* No full cooperation.
This deal does not stop the countries to go sign a second deal 5-10 year ahead when both parties trust each other. Instead of hoping for a quantum leap.. lets take 2-3 small steps.
* India accepts IAEA-safeguarded enrichment or reprocessing is “dual-use” activity.
The only reason why this deal is happening is because USA is agreeing to provide technology and fuel for IAEA supervised facilities… now if India takes fuel away from IAEA jurisdiction.. then how can the world be assured that there is no pilferage?
* Accord provides for fallback safeguards.
Safeguards a good… Put urself in USA’s shoes.. do u think without safeguards they will hand us the fuel and technology and equipment in a silver platter?
* Agreement turns unilateral test ban into bilateral legality.
thats a misinformation… I was reading Pranab’s interpretation.. and it looks ok. Plus nowhere India has signed a pledge that India won’t be doing any more tests… All the deal says is that the moment india does the tests the deal is off… and under no circumstances it will be considered as breaking a pledge… Please read the lines in bold once more.