jawwal
08-27-2007, 02:27 PM
Doubts grow over U.S.-India nuclear deal By MATTHEW ROSENBERG, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 16 minutes ago
NEW DELHI - The United States gave India nearly everything it wanted in a landmark nuclear energy deal, but that may not be enough for a vocal chorus of Indian critics.
A wave of opposition has left India's government reeling and raised serious doubts about the deal's future. Critics argue the agreement could undermine India's cherished nuclear weapons program and allow the U.S. to dictate Indian foreign policy.
Leading the charge are the communist allies of India's prime minister, and beneath their arguments many here see a deeper objection — they don't want New Delhi drawn closer to Washington under any circumstances.
For both countries, the stakes are enormous.
The deal has been repeatedly touted as the foundation of an alliance that could potentially redraw the global balance of power, completing the transformation of a once-hostile relationship between the world's two largest democracies.
U.S. policymakers see India as a counterweight to an ever-more powerful China, and the deal reverses three decades of American policy by allowing the shipment of nuclear fuel and technology to India, which never signed international nonproliferation accords and has tested atomic weapons.
The two years of painstaking negotiations to reach the deal have also provided President Bush with a foreign policy achievement amid the Iraq war and other crises.
For India, the benefits are arguably greater. Its booming but energy-starved economy would gain access to much-needed nuclear fuel and technologies that it has been long denied by its refusal to sign nonproliferation accords. Even though the deal only covers civilian nuclear power, it tacitly acknowledges India as a nuclear-weapons state, giving its weapons program a degree of international legitimacy — and adding to India's growing clout.
The deal, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said in an Aug. 13 speech to Parliament, is "another step in our journey to regain our due place in global councils."
But few of the deal's opponents heard his speech that day — they were too busy shouting him down and disrupting Parliament, as they have done nearly every day since.
The opponents run the gamut from right-wing Hindu nationalists to the communists, who are key to Singh's parliamentary majority. The nuclear agreement does not need parliamentary approval, but Singh's government could collapse if his communist allies pull their support because of the deal.
Most of their criticism stems from the Hyde Act, passed last year by American lawmakers to allow nuclear trade with India.
It contains a nonbinding clause directing the U.S. president to determine whether India is cooperating with American efforts to confront Iran about its nuclear program. That has been seized on by Indian critics as proof that Washington intends to direct New Delhi's foreign policy.
The nuclear deal does not address what happens if India tests an atomic weapon — a sign, American critics say, that New Delhi got too much out of the pact.
Indian critics, meanwhile, argue that the lack of an explicit right to test is a sign the U.S. aims to shut down the country's weapons program.
But for the communists, their ultimate objection appears simply to be the United States.
"We must stand against a strategic partnership with the United States of America," said Basudeb Acharya, a top official of the Communist Party of India (Marxist).
He called the invasion of Iraq and Washington's efforts to stop Iran from producing nuclear weapons "foreign policy adventures," and said: "We want no part of this."
The standoff has the communists warning Singh not to press ahead with the next steps in the deal — negotiating agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Nuclear Suppliers Group, a group of nations that export nuclear material — and the prime minister daring them to stop him.
But with talk of early elections growing louder, both sides have started to back down. They are expected to announce this week the creation of a committee to examine the deal before pushing ahead with it.
That, Indian and American officials privately say, could end up scuttling the pact, which still has to be approved by U.S. lawmakers, delaying it to the point where it is no longer viable.
"We will talk and talk and talk and nothing will be done," said a senior member of India's scientific establishment with knowledge of the nuclear deliberations.
"The Americans will not wait forever," he said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the political sensitivities. "And we will never get an agreement like this again."
American officials, who have publicly stayed out of the fray, privately confirmed that view, saying that with U.S. presidential elections coming up next year, they could only wait so long.
Washington acceded to most of New Delhi's demands, giving India the right to stockpile nuclear fuel and reprocess it, a key step in making weapons.
Abandoning such a deal would "be a major setback to India's international ambitions," said retired Gen. Ashok Mehta, a strategic analyst in New Delhi.
"Long-term, India, without the help of the United States and or any other big power, will take much longer to be counted globally," he said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070827/ap_on_re_as/india_us_nuclear
1 hour, 16 minutes ago
NEW DELHI - The United States gave India nearly everything it wanted in a landmark nuclear energy deal, but that may not be enough for a vocal chorus of Indian critics.
A wave of opposition has left India's government reeling and raised serious doubts about the deal's future. Critics argue the agreement could undermine India's cherished nuclear weapons program and allow the U.S. to dictate Indian foreign policy.
Leading the charge are the communist allies of India's prime minister, and beneath their arguments many here see a deeper objection — they don't want New Delhi drawn closer to Washington under any circumstances.
For both countries, the stakes are enormous.
The deal has been repeatedly touted as the foundation of an alliance that could potentially redraw the global balance of power, completing the transformation of a once-hostile relationship between the world's two largest democracies.
U.S. policymakers see India as a counterweight to an ever-more powerful China, and the deal reverses three decades of American policy by allowing the shipment of nuclear fuel and technology to India, which never signed international nonproliferation accords and has tested atomic weapons.
The two years of painstaking negotiations to reach the deal have also provided President Bush with a foreign policy achievement amid the Iraq war and other crises.
For India, the benefits are arguably greater. Its booming but energy-starved economy would gain access to much-needed nuclear fuel and technologies that it has been long denied by its refusal to sign nonproliferation accords. Even though the deal only covers civilian nuclear power, it tacitly acknowledges India as a nuclear-weapons state, giving its weapons program a degree of international legitimacy — and adding to India's growing clout.
The deal, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said in an Aug. 13 speech to Parliament, is "another step in our journey to regain our due place in global councils."
But few of the deal's opponents heard his speech that day — they were too busy shouting him down and disrupting Parliament, as they have done nearly every day since.
The opponents run the gamut from right-wing Hindu nationalists to the communists, who are key to Singh's parliamentary majority. The nuclear agreement does not need parliamentary approval, but Singh's government could collapse if his communist allies pull their support because of the deal.
Most of their criticism stems from the Hyde Act, passed last year by American lawmakers to allow nuclear trade with India.
It contains a nonbinding clause directing the U.S. president to determine whether India is cooperating with American efforts to confront Iran about its nuclear program. That has been seized on by Indian critics as proof that Washington intends to direct New Delhi's foreign policy.
The nuclear deal does not address what happens if India tests an atomic weapon — a sign, American critics say, that New Delhi got too much out of the pact.
Indian critics, meanwhile, argue that the lack of an explicit right to test is a sign the U.S. aims to shut down the country's weapons program.
But for the communists, their ultimate objection appears simply to be the United States.
"We must stand against a strategic partnership with the United States of America," said Basudeb Acharya, a top official of the Communist Party of India (Marxist).
He called the invasion of Iraq and Washington's efforts to stop Iran from producing nuclear weapons "foreign policy adventures," and said: "We want no part of this."
The standoff has the communists warning Singh not to press ahead with the next steps in the deal — negotiating agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Nuclear Suppliers Group, a group of nations that export nuclear material — and the prime minister daring them to stop him.
But with talk of early elections growing louder, both sides have started to back down. They are expected to announce this week the creation of a committee to examine the deal before pushing ahead with it.
That, Indian and American officials privately say, could end up scuttling the pact, which still has to be approved by U.S. lawmakers, delaying it to the point where it is no longer viable.
"We will talk and talk and talk and nothing will be done," said a senior member of India's scientific establishment with knowledge of the nuclear deliberations.
"The Americans will not wait forever," he said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the political sensitivities. "And we will never get an agreement like this again."
American officials, who have publicly stayed out of the fray, privately confirmed that view, saying that with U.S. presidential elections coming up next year, they could only wait so long.
Washington acceded to most of New Delhi's demands, giving India the right to stockpile nuclear fuel and reprocess it, a key step in making weapons.
Abandoning such a deal would "be a major setback to India's international ambitions," said retired Gen. Ashok Mehta, a strategic analyst in New Delhi.
"Long-term, India, without the help of the United States and or any other big power, will take much longer to be counted globally," he said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070827/ap_on_re_as/india_us_nuclear