[Reader-list] US-India Nuclear Agreement - Still a Bad Deal

[Anivar Aravind]

From: 	SANSAD <sansad at sansad.org>

As a constituent of US-India Working Group of Abolition 2000, SANSAD is
pleased to disseminate this Media Release. Once again, we urge the
Canadian government (a member of Board of Governors of the International
Atomic Energy Agency, as well as of the Nuclear Suppliers Group) to not
support the highly problematic US-India Nuclear Deal.

sansad
*******************

Media Release
July 8, 2008

US-India Nuclear Agreement - Still a Bad Deal:
Global Network of NGOs Urge International Community to Oppose

The US-India Deal Working Group of Abolition 2000, a global network of
over 2000 organizations in more than 90 countries working for a global
treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons, says that pressure to rush a
decision on the US-India Nuclear Agreement must be resisted.

The organizations are calling upon key governments "to play an active
role in supporting measures that would ensure this controversial
proposal does not: further undermine the nuclear safeguards system and
efforts to prevent the proliferation of technologies that may be used to
produce nuclear bomb material," or "in any way contribute to the
expansion of India's nuclear arsenal."

This week, in defiance of opposition from Left Parties on whose support
it depends, the Indian government is expected to circulate a draft
nuclear Safeguards Agreement to the Board of Governors of the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In doing so, it set in motion
the remaining steps required to operationalize the US-India bilateral
nuclear agreement (known as the "123 Agreement" after the relevant
clause in the US Atomic Energy Act). Besides the Safeguards Agreement,
the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) must grant India a special
exemption from its nuclear trade guidelines and finally the US Congress
must accept the terms of the "123 Agreement".

It took two years from the July 2005 Joint Statement by Prime Minister
Singh and President Bush until the text of the "123 Agreement" was
finalized and nearly a year has elapsed since then. After delaying for
so long, the decision at this time by the Indian government to send the
draft Safeguards Agreement to the IAEA Board of Governors has more to do
with the personal pride of Prime Minister Singh than with any changes in
national or international circumstances. It appears that Mr Singh is
more concerned about keeping faith with President Bush than the chances
that the deal might actually be concluded. Most political commentators,
including proponents of the deal within the US government and Congress,
believe that the required steps cannot be completed during the life of
the Bush Administration. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that the
next President will wish to proceed with the deal in its current form.

The US-India Nuclear Agreement was a bad deal when it was originally
conceived and nothing has changed to redeem it since then. All the
problems identified in a letter sent to the NSG and the IAEA by 130 NGOs
and experts in January this year still remain. See the following link
for the text of and list of signatories of the international letter:

_http://cnic.jp/english/topics/plutonium/proliferation/usindiafiles/nsgiaea7jan08.html_
_
_
The deal effectively grants India the privileges of nuclear weapons
states (NWS), despite the fact that India developed nuclear weapons
outside the NPT regime. It doesn't even require India to accept the same
responsibilities as other states: full-scope IAEA safeguards for non-NWS
and a commitment from NWS to negotiate in good faith for the elimination
of nuclear weapons.

The IAEA and NSG must not to be stampeded into making decisions to fit
in with an unrealistic political time-table. The 35 countries
represented on the IAEA Board of Governors must consider the possibility
that special conditions demanded by India could undermine the
credibility of the IAEA safeguards system itself. They must also
consider whether undertakings made by a government at the fag end of its
tenure and facing strong domestic opposition would actually be honored.
The NSG must consider the implications for the international
non-proliferation regime of granting India a special exemption. These
are weighty matters which should not be judged precipitously.

The IAEA Board of Governors and the Nuclear Suppliers Group of countries
should, as a minimum condition, hold firm to the longstanding
international effort to end all production of highly enriched uranium
and plutonium to make nuclear weapons. They should insist that the
U.S.-India deal be conditioned on an end to further production of
fissile materials for weapons purposes in South Asia.

Contacts
JAPAN (English and Japanese)
_Tokyo:_ Philip White, Coordinator, Abolition 2000 US-India Deal Working
Group +81-3-3357-3800
_Toyako G8 Summit_: Akira Kawasaki, Peace Boat, 090-8310-5370,
kawasaki at peaceboat.gr.jp
INDIA: Sukla Sen, National Coordination Committee Member, Coalition for
Nuclear Disarmament and Peace +91-22-6553-4377
UNITED STATES: Daryl Kimball, Director, Arms Control Association,
+1-202-463-8270
AUSTRALIA - John Hallam PND Nuclear Flashpoints 61-2-9810-2598
61-2-9319-4296

c/- Citizens' Nuclear Information Center, Tokyo, Japan
Tel: 81-3-3357-3800  Fax: 81-3-3357-3801        Email 1: white at cnic.jp
Web Site: http://cnic.jp/english/topics/plutonium/proliferation/usindia.html