Statement issued by Leader of Opposition Rajya Sabha Shri Jaswant Singh

On March 2, 2006 President George Bush and Dr. Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister, issued a Joint Statement announcing that "the United States and India have made (great progress) in advancing (their) strategic partnership;" that discussions on India's separation plan successfully completed the two now "looked forward to the full implementation of the commitments" of the "July 18, 2005 Joint Statement on nuclear cooperation".

There are other important aspects too, of this statement covering issues of economic prosperity; trade; innovation and knowledge economy; global safety and security; democracy and international challenges.

The BJP, as the initiator of this process of strategic cooperation with the United States of America, whom the then Prime Minister A.B. Vajpayee had termed as India's "natural ally", is gratified by this development. This Joint Statement is an explicit confirmation, by the present UPA Government, of the continuing validity of BJP-NDA Government's strategic initiative of deepening, broadening and strengthening relations with the United States of America. This announcement by President Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is of significance. This is the direction in which the BJP-NDA Government had set the entire policy; the joint announcement of 2 Mar reaffirms the centrality of that policy.

The only yardstick of objectively assessing, evaluating and commenting on this important announcement is India's national interest. Based on this, it is our view that the Government has surrendered on two important counts:

   1.Out of the total 22 nuclear power plants, in existence or under construction less than 1/3rd i.e., 6 are currently placed under safeguards. The separation plan, reportedly drawn up by the Government will result in 2/3rds of the nuclear power plants being placed under IAEA safeguards. Clearly, this will result in a gap on the fissile material available for weapons purposes.

   2. Post 18 July 2005: the Government has consistently propagated that India has since been recognized as a nuclear weapons state. The reported agreement of the Government to put civilian nuclear reactors under IAEA safeguards, "in perpetuity", clearly contradicts this propaganda.

The BJP holds that the template for evaluating such announcements (July 18 Agreement of Washington, the announcement of March 2, and the various statements issued by either the US or Indian officials on this issue) would clearly be a yardstick comprising of: 'national interest'; strategic autonomy; minimum credible deterrence; and autonomy of decision making, nuclear or otherwise, by India; plus continuing emphasis on developing own abilities, resources and technologies and a constant promotion of R&D in this and in other high tech areas.

We, therefore, list some cautions, clarifications and questions to the Government:

Cautions

The strategic autonomy gained by India through the May, 1998 tests must neither be diluted, nor compromised or diminished, in any fashion, at the implementation stage of this Agreement. In addition we urge the Government to always bear in mind that "strategic partnership" with the United States of America must never be permitted to become either 'strategic dependency', or convert itself into a 'strategic lock-inn' with US national and strategic interests, whether in this region or globally.

Clarifications

   1. Strategic partnership is most effective when between two equals. Our Government must always bear that in mind.
   2. In the realm of fast breeder reactors, at present India's basic science and technology compared to any other country's in the world is more advanced. India must not lose this lead or compromise it.

Queries

Our Queries to the government are:

   1. The Government must explain clearly this aspect of "safeguards in perpetuity". As in Koodankulam, if hereafter, we were to import nuclear power stations, say from the United States of America, and import fuel for it, say from Russia, then would that reactor installation automatically come under "safeguards in perpetuity"?
  

2. As 'perpetual safeguards' are not applicable to 'nuclear weapon states', how does this now apply to India, when the government has been asserting the same status as of Nuclear Weapon States? Also how does this protect India's nuclear programme as also its strategic autonomy?
 

  3. Has India the same responsibilities and obligation as 'advanced nuclear states', and if it does, then what do other such states have with IAEA?
  

4 The government must confirm that 'safeguards in perpetuity' will be locked in with fuel supply for the same length of time.

   5.The government must also explain, in detail, commitments made about the 'additional protocol' with the IAEA. What will this additional protocol involve?

   6.  The Prime Minister has used the phrase, in his statement of February 27 "that some other DAE facilities may be added to the list of facilities within the civilian domain". This has deliberately been kept vague. We would like to know whether this includes any fuel fabrication facilities, such as for example at the Nuclear Fuel Complex (NFC) at Hyderabad? or any other of strategic significance?

   7. As the route to safeguards is never straight, this phrase "India specific safeguards", with the IAEA confounds. This must be clarified by the Government.

   8. In the separation plan what is the status of spent fuel?

   9.The principal negotiator, spokesman for the United States, and some senior senators have asserted that through this Agreement India has been brought into "closer compliance with international non-proliferation norms", for the "first time ever"; in other words, without being a signatory to the NPT we have accepted the obligations of the NPT. The Government must clarify.
 

10.Has the country diminished, diluted, modified our established commitment to indigenous development of technology, directly or indirectly, thus affecting the strategic autonomy of the country?

  11.The government must also explain the absence of 'sequencing' and 'reciprocity', which had earlier been asserted by the Prime Minister.

  12.We need to know in detail what 'exit clauses' if any, have been built in by the Government should this Agreement not find favour with the US Congress?
 

13. In the newly announced global nuclear energy partnership of the United States, India has been classified not as a "country with advanced nuclear technology" but as a "recipient state" in this partnership. The Government must clarify.
 

14. US negotiators have stated that the separation plan has been "jointly" worked out between the US and official. Is this correct?

  15.There are further assertions that this 'plan, in detail', will have to be submitted to the US congress. Is this correct?
 

16. If plans have been discussed in detail, and also negotiated with the US then the PM must explain his statement of 27 February in Parliament, that the confidentiality of our strategic programme has been fully preserved?

  17. The US negotiators have stated that they consistently worked with the US Congress, Senators and others. How many consultations has the Government of India had with the Opposition?

  18.There are assertions made by the US, about 'India's obligations' now as part of its adherence to the 'non-proliferation regime'. Is this correct? The Government must answer.

  19. What are the consequences of the schedule for separation extending to 2014?

India's assertions of being part of the solution, not a problem appear to have also been compromised by the Government's handling of this issue. The Government must, therefore, fully satisfy the country how our national interests will continue to be fully sub served. If it is only energy security that persuaded the Government then clearly emphasis should be on breeding Plutonium, not burning it. There are disparities in the various statements made, these cause confusion. It is the duty of the Government to explain fully and to the total satisfaction of the country. A welcome development must not become a nightmare of the future through shoddy and inept implementation.