[Reader-list] Open letter to MPs from CPI(M)

[prakash ray]

*AN OPEN LETTER TO MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT** *
*from Central Committee, CPI(M) *

*
September 8, 2007 *

*Dear Member of Parliament,**  *

*The Indo-U.S. bilateral agreement on nuclear cooperation has raised a
number of issues which are of vital importance to the nation. Through this
open letter we wish to place before you the considered views of the
Communist Party of India (Marxist).**  *

*Ever since the Joint Statement issued in July 2005 during the Prime
Minister's visit to Washington in which the civilian nuclear cooperation
agreement was announced, there has been a debate in the country about the
merits of such an agreement. Political parties, nuclear scientists, the
media and concerned citizens have been expressing their views. Parliament
has also discussed the agreement at various stages.  However, the current
debate is crucial as the bilateral text has been finalised and the
Government is planning to take the next steps to operationalise the
agreement. **  *

*It is our contention that the nuclear cooperation agreement should not be
seen in isolation from the overall context of India-US strategic relations,
its impact on our foreign policy and our strategic autonomy. Further, the
nuclear cooperation agreement must be seen in the context of our energy
security, access to technology and the development of the three stage
nuclear programme. *

*The bilateral "123" agreement has also to be seen also in the light of the
assurances given by the Prime Minister in his statement to Parliament on 17
August 2007. *

*The Left parties have asked the Government not to proceed with the next
steps to be taken to operationalise the agreement. *
*Implications of the Hyde Act *

*Members of Parliament will recall that in August 2006, there was a debate
on the draft law being discussed by the US Senate and the House of
Representatives to amend the US Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to give exemption
for the proposed  nuclear cooperation agreement  with India.  The two draft
legislations before the House of Representatives and the Senate contain many
provisions which were detrimental to India's interests. *

*The Prime Minister  had given certain categorical assurances on the points
raised regarding this draft legislation.  The nine points which the Left
parties had raised were covered by the Prime Minister's statement.   However,
subsequent to that, the Hyde Act (Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful
Atomic Energy Cooperation Act" was adopted by the US Congress in December
2006. *

*Many of the provisions of the Hyde Act go contrary to the assurances given
by the Prime Minister in August 2006.  What are these? *

*·        Under the terms set out by the Hyde Act, it is clear that the
Indo-US nuclear cooperation would not cover the entire nuclear fuel cycle.
It denies cooperation or access in any form whatsoever to fuel enrichment,
reprocessing and heavy water production technologies.  *

*·        The denial extends to transfer of dual use technology and covers
items which could be used in fuel enrichment, reprocessing or heavy water
production facilities.  Thus, dual use restrictions remain on technology
transfers to India.  Hyde Act section 102 (13) states, "The US should not
seek to facilitate or encourage the continuation of  nuclear exports to
India by any other party if such exports are terminated under US law".  *

*·        Section 103 (a)(6) of the Hyde Act says US policy shall be "Seek
to prevent the transfer to a country (India, in this case) nuclear
equipment, materials or technology from other participating governments in
the NSG or from any other source if nuclear transfers to that country
(India, in this case) are suspended or terminated pursuant to this title
(Hyde Act), the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 or any other US law".  *

*The Act concerns itself with areas outside nuclear cooperation and contains
objectionable clauses to get India to accept the strategic goals of the
United States.  These issues are: *

*·        Annual certification and reporting to the US Congress by the
President on a variety of foreign policy issues such as India's foreign
policy being "congruent to that of the United States" and specifically India
joining US efforts to isolate and put sanctions against Iran [Section
104g(2) E(i)] *

*·        Indian participation and formal declaration of support for the US'
highly controversial Proliferation Security Initiative including the illegal
policy of interdiction of vessels in international waters [Section 104g(2)
K] *

*·        India conforming to various bilateral/multilateral agreements to
which India is not currently a signatory such as the US' Missile Technology
Control Regime (MTCR), the Australia Group etc  [Section 104c E,F,G] *

*It is on the basis of the Hyde Act that the United States has negotiated
the bilateral "123" agreement with India.  Some of the harmful provisions of
the Hyde Act are reflected in the bilateral agreement.  *

*·        The bilateral agreement, while superficially using the original
wording of the joint statement of 2005, "full civilian nuclear cooperation"
actually denies cooperation or access in any form whatsoever to fuel
enrichment, reprocessing and heavy water production technologies. The
statement of intent in the agreement that a suitable amendment to enable
this access may be considered in the future has little or no operative
value. *

*·        Further, this denial (made explicit in Art 5.2 of the agreement)
also extends to transfers of dual-use items that could be used in
enrichment, reprocessing or heavy water production facilities, again a
stipulation of the Hyde Act. Under these terms, a wide range of sanctions on
a host of technologies would continue, falling well short of "full civilian
nuclear co-operation". *

*·        It is also important to recognise that the fast breeder reactors
under this agreement would be treated as a part of the fuel cycle and any
technology required for this would also come under the dual use technology
sanctions. This would be true even if future fast breeder reactors were put
in the civilian sector and under safeguards. Thus, India's attempt to build
a three-phase, self-reliant nuclear power program powered ultimately by
thorium would have to be developed under conditions of isolation and
existing technology sanctions.  *

*·        Another key assurance that had been given by the Prime Minister
was that India would accept safeguards in perpetuity only in exchange for
the guarantee of uninterrupted fuel supply. While the acceptance on India's
part of safeguards in perpetuity has been spelt out, the linkage of such
safeguards with fuel supply in perpetuity remains unclear.  *

*The assurance that the United States would enable India to build a
strategic fuel reserve to guard against disruption of supplies for a
duration covering the lifetime of the nuclear reactors in operation appears
to have been accepted in the agreement. However, whether the fuel supply
will continue even after cessation or termination of the agreement depends
solely on the US Congress. The Hyde Act explicitly states that the US will
work with other Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) countries to stop all fuel and
other supplies to India if the agreement is terminated under US laws. Since
this agreement explicitly incorporates domestic laws, it appears that fuel
supply from the US will not only cease in case the US decides to terminate
the Agreement but they are also required under the Hyde Act to work with NSG
to bar all future supplies. The clause 5.6 on disruption of supplies
therefore seems to be limited to "market failures" and not to cover a
disruption that takes place under the clauses of the Hyde Act. In such an
eventuality, the US will have to pay compensation to India but all future
fuel supplies would stop. Therefore, the 123 agreement represents the
acceptance of IAEA safeguards in perpetuity for uncertain fuel supplies and
continuing nuclear isolation with respect to a substantial amount of
technological know-how. *

* **The Hyde Act and Supremacy of National Law *

*The government has asserted that the Hyde Act is not binding on India.  The
relevant issue is that it is binding on the United States and this has been
repeatedly stressed by US spokespersons. *

*Article 2 (1) of the 123 Agreement states, "The parties shall cooperate in
the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes in accordance with the
provisions of this agreement. Each party shall implement this agreement in
accordance with its respective applicable treaties, national
laws,regulations, and license requirements concerning the use of
nuclear energy
for peaceful purposes".   *

*If the argument is that the reference to national laws is simply the case
of binding towards the law, that will have a bearing on the conduct of
different transactions under the 123 agreement, then what do we make of the
reference to national laws in other places in the 123 agreement?  *

*Thus, for instance, Article 5 (6) (a) in part states  that "As part of its
implementation of the July 18, 2005, joint statement the United States is
committed to seeking agreement from the US Congress to amend its domestic
laws…to create the necessary conditions for India to obtain full access to
the international fuel market…..".  Article 5(6) (b) (i) states that "The
United States is willing to incorporate assurances regarding fuel supply in
the bilateral US-India agreement on peaceful uses of nuclear energy under
Section 123 of the US Atomic Energy Act,  which would be submitted to the US
Congress".  These clauses show that the need for conformity with "national
laws" is not superfluous. If there is no direct reference to the Hyde Act in
the 123 agreement, it is simply because and this is worth reiterating that
the Hyde Act is the `Act to exempt from certain requirements of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954 a proposed nuclear agreement for cooperation with India.
*
*Nuclear Power and Energy Security *

*It is said that the Indo-US nuclear deal is central to our future
electricity and energy requirements.  At present, nuclear power generation
capacity in India stands at  4,120 MW which is a little less than 3 per cent
of our installed capacity of all power plants.  One reason has been the
nuclear isolation imposed on us resulted in the slow development of our
civilian nuclear energy programme. However our scientists overcoming many
hurdles did very well in indigenising the Pressurised Water Reactors, and
then developing it further to 540 MW. The next stage is the fast breeder
reactors, in which the Indian scientists are leading the world. The planned
three stage nuclear programme would depend largely on technologies based on
fast breeder reactors, and in the future, thorium as fuel. This programme
requires far less uranium and lower dependence. Instead, the imported
reactor route would focus much more on Light Water Reactors, which require
much more uranium and are more expensive. Thus even the technology being
offered will not necessarily be the best choice for India.  Significantly,
the mainstay of our nuclear power program – the fast breeder reactors – will
still be under technology sanctions, as they would be considered a part of
the fuel cycle. *

*The other reason is the techno-economics of nuclear power and its
relatively high cost.  Nuclear power plants are about 50% per cent more
expensive, even when using domestic technology and equipment.  If imported
reactors for nuclear power are considered, the situation becomes worse: it
will cost about three times as much to set up nuclear plants with imported
reactors than coal based ones. It will also cost twice as much per unit –
Rs. 5.10-5.50 as against Rs. 2.50 from coal fired plants. *

*According to the Planning Commission's study, the most optimistic scenario
of nuclear power is 15,000 MW by 2015 and 29,000 MW by 2021.  These targets
includes 8,000 MW of imported reactors.   Even then, nuclear energy will
only add up to about 7 per cent of our total installed capacity.  *

*Going ahead with such an ambitious power programme dependant on imports
will come at a high cost and will dry up investments in other sectors.
Interestingly enough, nuclear power is not the energy of choice for most
advanced countries. The US itself has commissioned its last reactor in 1996!
Members of Parliament may recall the fiasco of Enron and its Dabhol power
plants.  *
*Implications for Foreign Policy and Strategic Autonomy *

*The United States does not see the nuclear cooperation agreement as a
stand-alone. It is part of American design to try in India a wide ranging
strategic alliance which will adversely affect the pursuit of an independent
foreign policy and our strategic autonomy.  The facts speak for themselves.
*

*·        Two weeks prior to the joint statement which announced the Indo-US
nuclear cooperation agreement, India signed a ten-year Defence Framework
Agreement with the United States in June 2005.  This is being cited by the
Bush administration as India's commitment to cooperate with the United
States furthering its strategic interests in Asia.  *

*·        Two months after the nuclear cooperation agreement was announced
in September 2005, India voted against Iran in the  International Atomic
Energy Agency, contrary to its stance earlier that Iran, as an NPT
signatory, has every right to develop its nuclear technology for civilian
purposes.  *

*·        This was followed by a second vote against Iran in February on the
eve of President Bush's visit to India. *

*·        Nicholas Burns, US Under Secretary of State, in his "On record
briefing" after the finalisation of the 123 agreement said on July 27: "And
I think now that we have consummated the civil nuclear trade between us, if
we look down the road in the future, we're going to see far greater defence
cooperation between the United State and India: training; exercises; we
hope, defence sales of American military technology to the Indian armed
forces."  The United States is exercising tremendous pressure on India to
buy a whole range of weaponry including the 126 fighter planes, radar,
 helicopters,
artillery etc. worth multi-billion dollars.  *

*Is the nuclear cooperation agreement going to bind India with the United
States in a relationship which goes contrary to our cherished goals of
national sovereignty and independent foreign policy and an economic
development based on the priorities of our people?  *

*The objections and the apprehensions raised by the Left parties and other
parties, organisations and concerned scientists and citizens need to be
examined before proceeding further.  All we are asking the government to do
is not to rush through with the next steps which are necessary to
operationalise the deal.  *

*We hope that you, as a Member of Parliament, which is the sovereign
representative institution of the Indian people, will seriously consider
these issues on this vital matter affecting our country's future.  *

*CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIA (MARXIST) *