Nuclear Meltdown: The Threat is Real for India

Japanese nuclear engineers are making heroic efforts at immense personal risk to prevent a steam explosion (not a nuclear explosion) in the Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) at Fukushima. This is the point at which the design and construction standards of the concrete double containment structure of the nuclear reactor will have to withstand the explosion.

This could trigger a partial or total meltdown of the reactor core, similar to what happened in USA in 1971 in the Three Mile Island NPP. (This put the US nuclear power industry into the doldrums until USA revived it by negotiating the nuclear deal with India in 2009).

Japan has a reputation for good design and safety standards and good quality control and quality assurance in execution. It would be the fervent wish of every thinking person on the planet that the double containment will not fail and that the engineers will control the desperately delicate situation in the Daiichi NPP. Nobody is as yet even thinking of the costs of containing the accident and the subsequent nuclear clean-up.

But let us now cut to the nuclear situation in India. The issue of Indian design and construction quality standards stands naked when we note that the concrete containment dome of the Kaiga (Karnataka) NPP collapsed when under construction, and had to be rebuilt. It has not been revealed whether it was a failure of design or execution quality.

It is not possible to obtain reliable information regarding the operation, safety standards and performance or other cost, constructional or operational aspects of any NPP because of the following reasons: One, Section 18 (Restriction on disclosure of information) and Section 24 (Offences and penalties) of the draconian Indian Atomic Energy Act 1962, do not permit anybody to even ask questions about NPPs.

Two, nobody except the nuclear industry is permitted to conduct tests for radioactivity even outside the perimeter of any NPP. Three, the Environment Protection Act 1986, does not apply to NPPs. Four, the safety and monitoring agency (AERB) is not an independent agency and the public has to accept whatever health and safety information is released by the NPP or the AERB.

Five, the budget of the DAE is not placed even before Parliament and the power generation and efficiency figures are not available even to the Central Electricity Authority (CEA). In short, the Indian nuclear industry is a closed door to the rest of India, and this can be at the cost of public safety and health.

Further, in the event of a nuclear accident, Government of India (GoI) has sought to cap or limit the liability of operators or suppliers of nuclear hardware and technology to assure profits to the US nuclear industry. In simpler language, this means that the real financial cost of post-accident nuclear clean-up and repair would be borne by India, as the liability of the suppliers would be limited to the cap amount, while the real costs of health and livelihood would be borne by the people.

In view of the secrecy and the poor standards of construction even in the nuclear industry, the conflicting parameters of safety, operational cost and radioactive emissions of any NPP leave the public to guess when one of India's NPPs may suffer a serious accident, and whether we will be able to handle the disaster effectively and efficiently.

Indian nuclear engineers are second to none, thus the issue of safety in India's nuclear establishment is institutional. The secrecy, intransparency, unaccountability and self-certification of the nuclear industry makes one doubt whether we will be able to prevent serious emergency or handle it effectively should it happen.

This also raises questions about the advisability of going for mega NPPs such as planned in Jaitapur, Maharashtra. This is quite apart from the fact of enormous resistance to its construction from local people on the grounds of livelihood and environment.

Let us hope that the Indian nuclear establishment would never need to handle a serious accident of the type of Three Mile Island or Chernobyl or Fukushima.

SG Vombatkere

Nuclear Liability Bill : Government Protects Foreign Suppliers

The amendments to the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill, 2010 proposed by the Government not only goes against the grain of the crucial recommendations of the Standing Committee, but also seeks to further dilute the provisions of the original bill to protect the interests of the foreign suppliers of nuclear equipment and domestic private players.

The new formulation of Clause 17 (b) suggested by the Government reads as follows:

"(b) the nuclear incident has resulted as a consequence of an act of supplier or his employees, done with the intent to cause nuclear damage, and such act includes supply of equipment or material with patent or latent defects or sub-standard services;"

This makes any liability on the part of the suppliers, for supplying defective or sub-standard equipment or material, contingent upon proof that it was "consequence of an act.done with the intent to cause nuclear damage.". With this amendment, it will become impossible  to ascribe liability to the supplier.

This goes against the Standing Committee formulation of 17 (b), which does not require any such proof:

"(b) the nuclear incident has resulted as a consequence of latent or patent defect, supply of sub-standard material, defective equipment or services or from the gross negligence on the part of the supplier of the material, equipment or services."

Thus, in the name of removing the "and" in 17 (a), as suggested by the Standing Committee, the Government has rewritten 17 (b), effectively throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The formulation of 17 (b) proposed in the amendment is in fact worse than the provision contained in the original bill.

The dubious intent of the Government is further exposed by the addition of Clause 7 (1) proposed as an amendment, through which it seeks to "assume full liability for a nuclear installation not operated by it" (i.e. private nuclear installations) even as the Standing Committee had categorically recommended "that there will be no private operator of nuclear installation". This paves the way for a massive subsidization of the private players in nuclear power by the Government, as and when they are allowed to operate.

All this is clearly being done under pressure from the foreign nuclear suppliers and domestic corporate lobbies.

Siddharth Vardarajan of The Hindu gives the background to the Manmohan Singh Government's shenanigans: 

Despite assuring the Left and the BJP that their concerns on the government’s proposed nuclear liability law had been fully addressed, the final version of the bill – as cleared by the Union Cabinet on Friday – protects foreign companies in the event of a nuclear accident caused by gross negligence or defective supplies on their part.

It does this by raising a legal barrier against damage claims that is so high it will be impossible to scale. The amended version of the bill says the suppliers of any defective equipment involved in an accident can be sued by the Indian operator of a nuclear facility only if the supply in question was made “with the intent to cause nuclear damage”.

In other words, the operator, who is wholly liable in the first instance for any damages resulting from an accident caused by that faulty equipment, can recover his money only if it is proved that the supplier intentionally caused the accident.

Clause 17(b) of the original draft allowed a right of recourse for the operator in the event of an accident resulting from “a wilful act” or “gross negligence” on the part of the supplier. As reported by The Hindu on March 8 and April 1, U.S. nuclear suppliers want this clause deleted as they feel it would expose them to litigation.

Critics in India, on the other hand, saw these conditions as too weak. The Standing Committee on Science & Technology, whose report on the bill was released earlier this week, felt the “vague” language of 17(b) offered suppliers an “escape route” and needed strengthening. “In case an incident takes place, it would be difficult to prove and establish the fact that it was a wilful act or gross negligence on the part of the supplier”, the report said.

“Hence there should be clear cut liability on the supplier of nuclear equipments/material in case they are found to be defective”. The committee also quoted the testimony of the Secretary (Legislative Department) to argue the use of the doctrine of mens rea, or criminal intent, though common in criminal and tax law, “is grossly inadequate and misplaced” in compensation cases.

Accordingly, the Standing Committee expanded the scope of the right of recourse in 17(b) to include nuclear incidents resulting “as a consequence of latent or patent defect, supply of sub-standard material, defective equipment or services” in addition to gross negligence.

The government’s first attempt by stealth to indemnify suppliers from legal action came in June, when it circulated amendments to the Standing Committee deleting 17(b) altogether. When the Opposition cried foul, it backed off, seeking instead to negate the clause by making it contingent on 17(a), which grants operators a right of recourse against suppliers only if expressly provided for in a contract.

Forced to backtrack there too, the government now appears to have hit upon the inclusion of intent as the best way of ensuring foreign suppliers never face legal action in the event of a nuclear accident.

Thus, the amended 17(b) gives the operator a right of recourse where “the nuclear incident has resulted as a consequence of an act of supplier or his employees, done with intent to cause nuclear damage, and such act includes supply of equipment or material with patent or latent defects or sub-standard services”.

Since accidents resulting from the intentional acts of a “person” (including corporate entities like a supplier) are already covered by 17(c) of the original draft, the government is now proposing to replace the word “person” in 17(c) with “individual” to avoid the charge of redundancy.

If the earlier subterfuge was to merge 17(b) with 17(a), the attempt now is merge it with 17(c). Either way, the Manmohan Singh government’s aim is the same: to produce legal language that would shield foreign suppliers from civil suits.

Oppose The Nuclear Liability Bill

The recent radioactive poisoning death in Delhi has once again highlighted the fact that the Civil Nuclear Liability Act being foisted on the nation will only help American companies get away with murder just as Union Carbide did after killing and maiming thousands in Bhopal. In the Mayapuri case one person died after coming into contact with a radioactive pencil that was disposed of by Delhi University as scrap, the vice chancellor appeared on TV to offer only an apology. No talk of compensation. This is going to be repeated on a horrific scale in case of an accident at nuclear power plants proposed to be built across the country. Sitaram Yechury argues why this the Civil Nuclear Liability Bill must be opposed 

On the last day of the budget session of Parliament, the government hurriedly introduced the Civil Nuclear Liability Bill amid largescale protests by the Opposition.

The Left had opposed the introduction of the Bill itself on the grounds of violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees protection of life and personal liberty.

Former Attorney General Soli Sorabjee says, “In view of Supreme Court judgements which are part of Indian jurisprudence and whose thrust is for the protection of victims of accidents as part of their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution there is no warrant or justification for capping nuclear liability.”

However, it is precisely such a cap that the Civil Nuclear Liability Bill introduces.
The proposed Bill has sought to limit all liability arising out of a nuclear accident to only 300 million Special Drawing Rights (about $450 million) and the liability of the operator only to Rs 300 crore.

The difference between $450 million and Rs 300 crore (about $67 million) is the government’s liability. Given that a serious accident can cause damage in billions, the small cap of $450 million that’s been proposed shows the scant regard the the UPA has for the people.

The Bhopal Settlement of $470 million reached between the government of India and Union Carbide and accepted by the Supreme Court, has been shown to be a gross underestimation. Even today, gas victims are suffering and have received only meagre compensation.

It is unconscionable of the UPA government to suggest that all nuclear accidents, which have the potential of being much larger than Bhopal, be capped at a figure that has already been shown to be a gross underestimate. Since the government wants to allow private operators in the nuclear power sector, this low level for compensation is meant to serve their interests too.

Apart from this, the minuscule liability of Rs 300 crore for the actual operator is tantamount to encouraging the operator to play with plant safety.

The Indian legal regime is quite clear: for hazardous industries, the plant owners have strict liability. Neither does the law accept any limits to liability — the party concerned must not only pay full compensation but also the cost of any environmental damage that any accident may cause. The Oleum leak from Sriram Food and Fertility settled the liability regime in India and any legislation seeking to cap liability will be completely retrogressive.

Contrary to the claims being made, the Vienna Convention — the basis of the proposed Nuclear Liability Bill — does not cap nuclear liability but only puts a minimum floor. It also allows countries to operate their liability regimes. For example, Germany, Japan and Finland all have unlimited liability, the same as current Indian law.

The US has a liability cap of $10.2 billion. Not only is the Indian government proposing to cap liability of nuclear plants, but it is also proposing a cap of only $450 million, way below the consequences of any serious nuclear accident. It appears that in order to promote private nuclear power and foreign suppliers, the UPA government is willing to sacrifice its own people.

The suppliers’ liability is also being considerably weakened by the proposed Bill. Instead of the normal contract law, where recourse of the operator to claim damages is inherent, the Bill limits this recourse only if it is explicitly mentioned in the contract. Otherwise, the nuclear operator cannot claim compensation from the supplier of equipment even if it is shown to be faulty.

It is evident that contracts for buying US nuclear reactors will explicitly exclude any liability on the part of the suppliers and, therefore, by the law to be adopted, they will go scot-free even if an accident occurs due to a defect in the equipment supplied by a US company. 

In fact the UPA-II government wanted such a legislation, which the prime minister could carry with him to the Nuclear Security Summit that President Obama convened in Washington in April. However, following the controversial passage of the Women’s Reservation Bill in the Rajya Sabha with the help of marshals, the crucial support of 47 Lok Sabha MPs belonging to the BSP, SP and RJD was not forthcoming.

This obstacle, however, appears to have been overcome now through possibly some ‘bargain’ similar to what happened at the time of the passage of the Indo-US nuclear deal.

The US is insisting that this law be enacted to protect US suppliers of nuclear equipment from liability to pay compensation in the case of a nuclear accident. Currently, only the State-run Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. under the existing Atomic Energy Act can operate nuclear power plants. But with the opening up of international nuclear commerce, US companies have sought a civil nuclear liability framework to be put in place before they enter.

The US government has linked the completion of the Indo-US nuclear agreement to India’s capping of nuclear liability. The UPA-I government, prior to the ratification of the 123 Agreement, had given a written commitment that India will buy nuclear reactors from the US totalling 10,000 megawatt of capacity.

This Bill has now been referred to the parliamentary standing committee for its consideration. It will now be tabled in the monsoon session. It is imperative for all political parties to ensure that the government is not allowed to disregard the life and safety of the Indian people through such a legislation. Article 21 of the Constitution and the various judgements of the Supreme Court cannot be allowed to be violated.

Indo-US Nuclear Deal: Kowtowing Again!

In the newest 123 agreement, the US has retained the legal right to unilaterally terminate cooperation but provided political assurances to India that such a right will be exercised only in extraordinary circumstances. A similar approach is mirrored in the reprocessing accord, warns Brahma Chellaney


One more accord has been concluded under the much-trumpeted Indo-US nuclear deal. But like the previous two — the 123 bilateral agreement with the US and the safeguards accord with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) — the latest agreement, too, will escape scrutiny by the Indian Parliament. The newest agreement involves US consent to India to reprocess spent fuel of American origin.

Is it a good advertisement for the world's most-populous democracy that while the American president will submit the reprocessing agreement to the US Congress for scrutiny, the Indian Parliament will again be shut out from playing any role on this latest accord? How can there be effective checks and balances in a democracy if the executive branch insists that the national legislature has no role to play in any international agreement?

It is only on the nuclear-accident liability issue that the government is coming to Parliament because that involves passing a new law. In fact, it wants Parliament to pass a law that limits liability to a pittance, overturning the doctrine of absolute liability that the Supreme Court has set in response to the Bhopal gas disaster.

The result of blocking Parliament from scrutinising the nuclear deal is that India is now saddled with a deal that does not adequately protect its interests. India has got no legally binding fuel-supply guarantee to avert a Tarapur-style fuel cutoff, and no right to withdraw from its obligations under any circumstance, although the US has reserved the right for itself to suspend or terminate the arrangements.

The terms of the latest reprocessing agreement are in continuation of what the US was able to extract in the 123 bilateral agreement. The US has retained the right to unilaterally suspend its grant of reprocessing consent to India. This is an extension of its right, incorporated in the 123 agreement, to unilaterally suspend or terminate fuel supply to India. That is exactly what the US did in the mid-70s under its previous 123 agreement with India dating back to 1963. As a result, the twin-reactor, US-built Tarapur nuclear power plant near Mumbai, was left high and dry.

In the newest 123 agreement, the US has retained the legal right to unilaterally terminate cooperation but provided political assurances to India that such a right will be exercised only in extraordinary circumstances. A similar approach is mirrored in the reprocessing accord.

Under Article 7 of the reprocessing accord, the reprocessing consent can be suspended on grounds of "national security" or a "serious threat to the physical protection of the facility or of the nuclear material at the facility," and if the party determines "that suspension is an unavoidable measure." So the US right to suspend reprocessing consent is unfettered.

Still, the agreement's article 7 and the accompanying "agreed minute" record political assurances to India that such a right shall be exercised only in special circumstances and after careful thought. But such assurances hold little value when the legal right to suspend reprocessing consent is explicitly recorded in the text.

The actual implementation of the reprocessing agreement is years away, even though US-origin spent fuel has been accumulating in India for nearly 40 years at Tarapur.
India will not be able to reprocess that spent fuel until it has built at least one new dedicated reprocessing facility — a process that will take a number of years. Article 1(3) specifies that the US consent relates to "two new national reprocessing facilities established by the government of India."

Only in those new facilities, approved by the IAEA, can India reprocess the discharged fuel under international inspection. Any additional reprocessing facility can be added only with prior US agreement.

Another feature of the agreement is that it amplifies India's reprocessing obligations with the IAEA, including to provide facility-design information in advance and to allow unhindered international monitoring and verification (article 2). But in addition, the accompanying "agreed minute" obligates India to permit US "consultations visits" to each dedicated reprocessing facility. Every "visiting team of not more than 10 persons" will be permitted onsite access "at a time and duration mutually agreed by the parties."

It is thus apparent that the US has got what it wanted. For example, the state department had earlier notified the US Congress in writing that "the proposed arrangements and procedures with India will provide for withdrawal of reprocessing consent" by the US. That is exactly what the text of the accord provides. Also by providing for US "consultations visits," it effectively permits IAEA-plus inspections.

Had the Parliament been allowed to play a role, the government would have been able to leverage that to fight back one-sided provisions.

Cortesy: DNA

Sleeping With The Enemy: Getting Screwed And Loving It!

We are seeing the contours of a new road map on strategic and security issues, quietly being implemented by the government, surreptitiously, stealthily, without public debate, and finally to confront the nation with a fait accompli

In the past week or so, three or four changes in Government of India's stand in various international forums have briefly been reported. They appear seemingly unrelated; however there is a clear possibility that there may be a strong inter-connection.

At L'Aquila in Italy, where the G8 summit took place last week, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was one of the few non-member invitees who participated in this annual meeting of the heads of eight developed countries. In the joint declaration of G8, apparently India has agreed on a formulation on 'climate change', essentially agreeing to a two-degree rise cap on global temperatures from the pre-industrial era. G8 leaders also issued a statement, while Singh was still at the venue, linking the supply of nuclear fuel to power plants to the issue of joining the NPT/CTBT regime.

About the same time, the commerce ministry announced that the final preparatory meeting for the Doha Round of trade negotiations under the auspices of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) will be held in India, with a significant statement that India will ensure that finally an agreement will be reached at this conference.

A few days later, at the NAM Summit in Cairo, India and Pakistan, at the highest executive levels, apparently formally delinked terrorism from an all-encompassing bilateral dialogue. All of above appear quite independent of each other but can one see the elements of a grand plan, a change in India's basic strategic position?

It almost appears as though the new government has decided to restate its policy position on national and international issues, without notice or debate, even as Parliament is in session in India. Take the Doha Round of WTO negotiations. India, along with leading developing countries, like Brazil and China have strongly articulated positions on a number of issues, especially Trade in Agriculture.

Considering the critical importance of the agricultural rural economy to India, there has been extreme caution in the past about supporting initiatives to liberalise trade in agriculture. Our classic position over two decades now has been, rightly, that US and Europe should first significantly roll down the massive subsidies that they provide to their domestic farmers before the question of trade in agriculture can be seriously discussed.

The US and EU have staunchly refused to consider this, while trying to bind developing countries to a new discipline. Making India host of the next round of discussions is a clever tactical move by the developed countries to mute the Indian opposition; besides India has also agreed to 'find a solution'!

Have we changed our policies overnight, even without a discussion? Is there a connection between the departure of Kamal Nath as commerce minister to a relatively less prestigious assignment and his replacement by Anand Sharma, to ensure that India will play ball?

Very similar is the Indian acquiescence to the cap in global warming without any consideration to the differential contribution to climate change by USA and the developed countries on the one hand and the developing countries on the other. Our consistent posture in the past has been that India can look to join any regime provided USA and the rest, who have been the major polluting culprits till now, take major steps in controlling their emissions.

Indeed, USA has not even subscribed to the Kyoto declaration on climate change. Yet the recent joint communication from Italy which makes no distinction between developed and developing countries comes as a total surprise. One has not seen any debate or recent discussions preceding this massive change in posture, in the Parliament or elsewhere.

Equally puzzling is the recent Cairo communiqué, tacitly dropping any prior condition relating to addressing the terror issue, before an all-encompassing bilateral dialogue between India and Pakistan. Is there a connection between this and the week-long visit of the US secretary of state to India?

For the first time, a high US dignitary has visited India and bypassed Pakistan. Is this the quid pro quo? What has India received, in giving up so much negotiating room? We need some clarity on these bizarre developments of last week.

A mention also needs to be made of the new conditions imposed by the West on supply of nuclear fuel, linking it with international treaties on the subject. Clearly there is an apparent conflict between these new conditions and the interpretation of the Indo-US nuclear deal as rendered to Parliament by the Indian leadership. Hillary Clinton's clear agenda is to open up the Indian market for US exports, particularly on technology areas; witness the proposal for two nuclear power plants during this visit. All of these do not appear to add up.

Are we seeing the contours of a new road map on strategic and security issues, quietly being implemented by the government, surreptitiously, stealthily, without public debate, and finally to confront the nation with a fait accompli?

By TSR Subramanian. The writer is a former Cabinet Secretary, Government of India. Having been privy to State secrets at the highest level of decision making, he knows what he's talking about.

Courtesy: DNA/Mumbai

India Well On Way Of Becoming Client State Of US

Just two months in office and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh just cannot wait to make India a client state of the United States. And even though it won just 206 of the 543 seats in the Lok Sabha, he thinks he has the license mortgage India's sovereignty to the United States.

The latest in a series of sell-outs is the End-Use Monitoring Agreement under which US inspectors would be given the right to enter Indian military bases to inspect American military systems in service with the Indian Army, Navy and Air Force.

India does not have such an agreement with any other country.

The EUMA agreement is a part of a pattern — the virtual shelving of the India-Pakistan-Iran gas pipeline, indications of India supporting the US rather than the developing countries in the Doha Round, the climbdown on climate change at the G8+G5 summit in Italy, and the abdication of India's position on Pak-sponsored terrorism on the sidelines of the NAM summit in Egypt – of Manmohan Singh compromising India's economic and political sovereignty.

India's best defence correspondent Josy Joseph reports spin doctors from within the establishment are trying to project the agreement as a huge victory for them, saying there is no direct reference to “physical onsite inspection” but military sources who have studied the American agreement - better known as Golden Sentry programme - say that “physical verification” is integral to it.

The Golden Sentry programme is a cradle-to-grave inspection mechanism governed by the US department of defence (DOD) to monitor all military equipment sold to foreign countries. The aim of the mission, according to Pentagon, is to “minimise security risks” and to satisfy its “foreign policy objectives.”

The Golden Sentry inspections are done by “Tigers”, specialised teams of the Pentagon, at random on defence articles and services provided to foreign customers through government-to-government sales called FMS (foreign military sales). All sensitive military systems are sold by the US through FMS.

The agreement also means the US inspectors have to regularly “evaluate” and “plan” India's military capabilities. According to Pentagon officials, while normally the end use monitoring agreement “presupposes a trusted partner” if the circumstances prove different they could take actions ranging from demarche to sanctions.

“These (EUMA) are designed to ensure America has leverage over the recipient country. These are designed for client states not for India which is a strategic partner,’’ says strategic affairs analyst Brahma Chellaney, adding, “the US wants a big slice of India’s arms market. India does not have such clauses with any other supplier.”

“The whole idea is essentially meant for formal allies. It is strange for India to sign it because we have a whole bunch of hardware from other countries,’’ wonders Bharat Karnad, a security expert at the Centre for Policy Research. Indeed, it is no secret that the Indian military and also the defence establishment has for long been opposed to the EUMA

Not surprisingly, the Indo-US joint statement issued after Hillary Clinton's visit bluntly seeks to deepen the strategic alliance between the two countries. Despite the high sounding phrases about transforming the relationship to “enhance global prosperity and stability in the 21st century,” the contents and the agreements arrived at demonstrate that India is now virtually a client state of the US.

This growing military collaboration with India is the key US interest. Washington wants India to buy billions of dollars of military equipment. Recall that on the eve of Hillary Clinton's visit to India, US Assistant Secretary of State Philip J. Crowley had gloated that the EUMA “is part of the fulfilment of an important initiative that India and the US have signed in the area of nuclear co-operation.”

Those opposed to the Indo-US Nuclear Deal, including this writer, have repeatedly pointed out that the deal was a quid pro quo for India becoming a military ally of the US. But even on the nuclear deal, the US is again seeking to shift the goalposts. Washington is moving quickly to deny India access to enrichment and reprocessing technology. This is what the recent G-8 decision amounts to. Uncle Sam now wants to bring the Indo-US nuclear deal within the global non-proliferation architecture.

It is clear that the EUMA is just a trailer. The joint statement issued at the conclusion of Clinton's “hugely successful” visit (from the US viewpoint) underlines that US business interests will have priority in Indian policy making. This is going to be formalised with the bilateral investment treaty and the pursuit of the Indo-US Joint CEO Forum. Manmohan Singh will be pushing for more FDI in insurance, banking, higher education and other sectors in line with these lobbying forums.

Moreover, by reiterating the earlier Bush-Manmohan Singh commitment to promote “democracy” on a global scale, the Congress-led government has shown itself willing to go along with this ideological enterprise of the US. That is why India has adopted a hostile stand towards Iran and shelved the IPI gas pipeline deal besides voting against Tehran in the IAEA, diluted its stand on agriculture and investment related matters in the Doha round of talks on WTO, and given in to the US demand on climate change talks which requires India to cut carbon emissions without serious steps being taken by the developed countries to do so.

And now that India is well on its way to become a client state of the US, voices are already being heard that American English is the way to go.

Get the drift?

An Old Honduran Coup on a Different Stage

The Presidential residence is surrounded; the president is kidnapped and flown out of the country. The opposition says the president has resigned and a conservative pro-business leader is appointed de-facto president, immediately shutting down the state television and cracking down on the dissidence. Unconfirmed reports say arrest warrants have been issued for all mayors in support of the defunct government. Thousands take to the streets, but the mainstream television stations report nothing.

No, this is not Venezuela in 2002. Nor is it Haiti, 2004. It's Honduras, 2009, but roughly the same story is once again being told, on a different stage with different actors. But that difference could mean everything.

Even as of halfway through last week, both the Civic Council of Indigenous and Grassroots Organizations of Honduras (COPINH) and Honduran President Jose Manuel Zelaya Rosales had already denounced the impending coup.

For months, Zelaya had been planning a non-binding consultative referendum to take place this Sunday that would have asked the Honduran people if the issue of a 2010 constitutional assembly should be added to the ballot of this November's upcoming elections.

Then, last week, a politically motivated Honduran Supreme Court ruled the referendum "illegal." General Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, head of the Armed Forces, refused to distribute the ballot boxes. Last Thursday, June 25th,Zelaya removed the general from his post, and accompanied by members of the country's grassroots social movements, Zelaya went personally to recover the 15,000 the ballot boxes.

But Defense Minister Ángel Edmundo Orellana resigned in solidarity with Vásquez Velásquez and soldiers took to the streets. An emergency session of the Organization of American States (OAS) was called to evaluate the deteriorating situation.

Despite opposition in the National Congress, the Supreme Court, the majority of the major parties, the chamber of commerce, and the Catholic Church, Zelaya was steadfast. Supported by the grassroots movements, the non-binding referendum would go on.

Just a day later, the world has changed.

President Zelaya is now in Nicaragua, after having been "kidnapped", and thrown on a plane to Costa Rica in the early hours of Sunday morning. The head of the National Congress, Roberto Micheletti was sworn in as de facto President of Honduras on Sunday afternoon, declaring, "I did not reach this position because of a coup. I am here because of an absolutely legal transition process."

Like Pedro Carmona-the head of the Venezuelan chamber of commerce, Fedecameras, who took power when Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez was briefly ousted on April 11, 2002-Micheletti received a round of applause as he was sworn in. Like Carmona, outside, the people protested.

But unlike Carmona, the rest of the planet doesn't buy it. That is the difference. Not one country has recognized the de facto Micheletti government. On Sunday, the U.S. ambassador to Honduras declared, "The only president the United States recognizes is President Manuel Zelaya."

US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton declared, "The action taken against Honduran President Mel Zelaya violates the precepts of the Inter-American Democratic Charter, and thus should be condemned by all."

The OAS, which held an emergency meeting on Sundayafternoon, issued a resolution condemning the coup and calling for the immediate reinstatement of Zelaya as president. The president of the United Nations General Assembly, Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann, called the Honduran military intervention a "criminal action."

Although the Micheletti government has not been recognized, that hasn't stopped the international media from acting as though it has. CNN Online is airing an interview with the conservative former Venezuelan Ambassador Diego Arria, who blames not the military, but Zelaya for "attempting a coup against the [Honduran] constitution."

The BBC asked their English-speaking readers in Honduras if they thought the Honduran Constitution should be changed. By reading many of the comments, it would also appear as though Zelaya was the criminal: "The events that ocurred today ARE NOT an attack to the Honduran democracy. There is no coup in Honduras. Finally we have peace in our country."

Many in opposition to Sunday's non-binding referendum feared Zelaya was attempting to alter the constitution in order to eliminate term limits and be re-elected beyond the end of his term early next year. Brazil's largest media chain, Rede Globo, echoed the fears in an article on Sunday evening.

Nevertheless, Sunday's non-binding referendum was simply meant to test the waters for the possibility for a referendum for a Venezuela-style Constitutional Assembly. Since the 1999 Constitution, Ecuador and Bolivia have followed, holding Constitutional Assemblies in each of their countries and passing democratically written constitutions with large participation. Zelaya's re-election was not on Sunday's ballot.

"Today's proposed referendum was non-binding and merely consultative. Thus no one could argue that allowing it to go forward could cause irreparable harm," said Mark Weisbrot, co-director of the Washington-based Center for Economic and Policy Research on Sunday. "There was no excuse for the Honduran military to intervene, regardless of the constitutional issues at stake."

Meanwhile, in Honduras, thousands have been in the streets protesting.

COPINH wrote in a communiqué, "We tell everyone that the Honduran people are carrying out large demonstrations, actions in their communities, in the municipalities; there are occupations of bridges, and a protest in front of the presidential residence, among others. From the lands of Lempira, Morazán and Visitación Padilla, we call on the Honduran people in general to demonstrate in defense of their rights and of real and direct democracy for the people, to the fascists we say that they will NOT silence us, that this cowardly act will turn back on them, with great force."

Mexico-based reporter, Kristin Bricker, has been reporting for Narco News that according to Radio Es Lo De Menos, the military has set up road blocks all over the country in an attempt to prevent Zelaya supporters from reaching the capital. The soldiers are also reportedly attempting to shut down public transportation.

Honduran labor leader Ángel Alvarado told TeleSUR that he has called a national strike for Monday in Honduras to protest the coup. According to Daniel Ortega, President of Nicaragua, the Honduran military has closed the border between the two countries.

Only time will tell what course the next few days will bring, but the around the clock coverage by Telesur, and the immediate international solidarity echoed around the globe may have changed the face of military coup d'etats in Latin America.

Only a few short decades ago, military dictatorships ruled much of the region, and in Central America, those that weren't, were steeped in brutal civil wars. In less than 24 hours after the Honduran coup, President Zelaya was joined by the countries of the progressive trading block, the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas, (ALBA) in Nicaragua for an emergency presidential summit. The Presidents of Ecuador, Rafael Correa; Venezuela, Hugo Chávez; Bolivia, Evo Morales; Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega and others joined together with Zelaya and demanded the Honduran president be returned to power.

This is the new face of Latin America, and only with this international solidarity, and overwhelming repudiation against the blatant disregard for the rule of law, will these actions be isolated, overturned and hopefully never again repeated.

That is the difference. It is the same story as before. Told with similar actors-some of whom even studied at the School of the Americas in Ft. Benning, Georgia (http://www.southernstudies.org/2009/06/key-leaders-of-honduras-military-coup-trained-in-us.html)-- [5] only this time we live in a different age; under a shifting geo-political backdrop. On the presidential level, the coup has been denounced across the planet, and governments are standing behind Zelaya. On the local level, Honduras' Radio Es Lo De Menos has called on international activists to march on Honduran embassies across the globe. There is a necessary active roll for all to play. The difference could mean everything.

Like in Venezuela, where the people remembering the way they flooded into the streets to demand the return of their President Hugo Chavez just two days after he had been taken from office, "Every April 11thhas its April 13th".

Bush's 'Signing Statement' Is Not US Law

By Roger Alexander

India has now ‘operationalised’ the 123 Agreement with the US despite the US Congress HR 7081 or  the US-India Nuclear Cooperation Approval and Nonproliferation Enhancement Act. The new US domestic legislation has put an end to the Government of India’s spin that the 123 Agreement does not trump the provisions of the Hyde Act as far as American obligations are concerned. This has been done by explicitly inserting rules of construction stating that nothing in the Agreement should be construed to supersede the legal requirements of the Hyde Act.

India’s Ambassador to the US Ronen Sen curtly brushed aside pointed questions saying that India was “completely satisfied” by President Bush’s ‘Signing Statement’. A ‘Signing Statement’ is a written comment issued by a President at the time of signing legislation. Often, signing statements merely comment on the bill signed, saying that it is good legislation or meets some pressing needs etc.

The more controversial statements involve claims by presidents that they believe some part of the legislation is unconstitutional and therefore they intend to ignore it or to implement it only in ways they believe is constitutional. Some critics argue that the proper presidential action is either to veto the legislation (Constitution, Article I, section 7) or to “faithfully execute” the laws (Constitution, Article II, section 3).

In one frequently used phrase, George W. Bush has routinely asserted that he would not act contrary to the constitutional provisions that direct the president to “supervise the unitary executive branch.”  This formulation can be found first in a signing statement of Ronald Reagan, and it was repeated several times by George HW Bush. Basically, George W Bush asserts that Congress cannot pass a law that undercuts the constitutionally granted authorities of the President. 

John W. Dean, a FindLaw columnist, argues that Bush has used signing statements like ‘line item vetoes.’ Yet the US Supreme Court held the line item vetoes are unconstitutional. In 1998, in Clinton v New York, the High Court said a president had to veto an entire law: Even Congress, with its Line Item Veto Act, could not permit him to veto provisions he might not like.

The Court held the Line Item Veto Act unconstitutional in that it violated the Constitution's Presentment Clause. That Clause says that after a bill has passed both Houses, but "before it become[s] a Law," it must be presented to the President, who "shall sign it" if he approves it, but "return it" - that is, veto the bill, in its entirety - if he does not.

Following the Court's logic, and the spirit of the Presentment Clause, a president who finds part of a bill unconstitutional, ought to veto the entire bill - not sign it with reservations in a way that attempts to effectively veto part (and only part) of the bill. Yet that is exactly what Bush has been doing over the past eight years. The Presentment Clause makes clear that the veto power is to be used with respect to a bill in its entirety, not in part. The powers of foot-dragging and resistance-by-signing-statement are not mentioned in the US Constitution alongside the veto, after all.

Anyway, Bush remains in the White House for three more months before he retires to Crawford on January 20, 2009. And by incorporating an explicit reference to Bush’s letter — as well as other “authoritative representations” on the subject by the administration — Congress has given its interpretations a definite legislative status, which will live well beyond the life of the current presidency. The next President may well choose to ignore Bush’s personal interpretation of the Berman Law. And that is what is going to remain of the statute books.

ends

Iran: Indo-US N. Deal to Create New Crises

(Here's Iran's take on the Indo-US Nuclear Deal. The Persians have a point)

TEHRAN (FNA)- Iran on October 6 warned that the Indo-US nuclear deal has "endangered" the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and will trigger a "new crises" for the international community.

"The method used by several nuclear states to transfer the technology to non-members of the NPT, will create new crises for the international community," Deputy head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization Mohammad Saeedi said. 

"Cooperation in the area of transfer of nuclear technology to the NPT non-members will endanger the treaty," he said, adding that although India is enjoying nuclear weapons it is not a signatory to the NPT. 

He said that "privileges" to India which is not a member of NPT will endanger the treaty. 

According to the NPT, only signatories to the treaty can make use of the rights mentioned in the treaty, Saeedi noted. 

Both houses of the US Congress voted in favor of the landmark nuclear deal this week and President George W. Bush is expected to sign it into law on Wednesday. 

This is while Washington and its Western allies accuse Iran of trying to develop nuclear weapons under the cover of a civilian nuclear program, although they have never presented any corroborative evidence to substantiate their allegations. Iran denies the charges and insists that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. 

Tehran stresses that the country has always pursued a civilian path to provide power to the growing number of Iranian population, whose fossil fuel would eventually run dry. 

Despite the rules enshrined in the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) entitling every member state, including Iran, to the right of uranium enrichment, Tehran is now under three rounds of UN Security Council sanctions for turning down West's illegitimate calls to give up its right of uranium enrichment. 

Tehran has dismissed West's demands as politically tainted and illogical, stressing that sanctions and pressures merely consolidate Iranians' national resolve to continue the path. 

Iran insists that it should continue enriching uranium because it needs to provide fuel to a 300-megawatt light-water reactor it is building in the southwestern town of Darkhoveyn as well as its first nuclear power plant in the southern port city of Bushehr. 

Iran currently suffers from an electricity shortage that has forced the country into adopting a rationing program by scheduling power outages - of up to two hours a day - across both urban and rural areas. 

Iran plans to construct additional nuclear power plants to provide for the electricity needs of its growing population. 

The Islamic Republic says that it considers its nuclear case closed as it has come clean of IAEA's questions and suspicions about its past nuclear activities. 

Political observers believe that the United States has remained at loggerheads with Iran mainly over the independent and home-grown nature of Tehran's nuclear technology, which gives the Islamic Republic the potential to turn into a world power and a role model for other third-world countries. Washington has laid much pressure on Iran to make it give up the most sensitive and advanced part of the technology, which is uranium enrichment, a process used for producing nuclear fuel for power plants. 

Washington's push for additional UN penalties contradicts a recent report by 16 US intelligence bodies that endorsed the civilian nature of Iran's programs. Following the US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) and similar reports by the IAEA head - one in November and the other one in February - which praised Iran's truthfulness about key aspects of its past nuclear activities and announced settlement of outstanding issues with Tehran, any effort to impose further sanctions on Iran seems to be completely irrational. 

The February report by the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, praised Iran's cooperation in clearing up all of the past questions over its nuclear program, vindicating Iran's nuclear program and leaving no justification for any new UN sanctions. 

The UN nuclear watchdog has so far carried out at least 14 surprise inspections of Iran's nuclear sites so far, but found nothing to support West's allegations. 

Also in his latest report to the 35-nation Board of Governors, IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei confirmed "the non-diversion" of nuclear material in Iran and added that the agency had found no "components of a nuclear weapon" or "related nuclear physics studies" in the country. 

The IAEA report confirmed that Iran has managed to enrich uranium-235 to a level 'less than 5 percent.' Such a rate is consistent with the construction of a nuclear power plant. Nuclear arms production, meanwhile, requires an enrichment level of above 90 percent. 

The Vienna-based UN nuclear watchdog continues snap inspections of Iranian nuclear sites and has reported that all "declared nuclear material in Iran has been accounted for, and therefore such material is not diverted to prohibited activities." 

Many world nations have called the UN Security Council pressure against Iran unjustified, especially in the wake of recent IAEA reports, stressing that Tehran's case should be normalized and returned to the UN nuclear watchdog due to the Islamic Republic's increased cooperation with the agency. 

Observers believe that the shift of policy by the White House to send William Burns - the third highest-ranking diplomat in the US - to the latest round of Iran-West talks happened after Bush's attempt to rally international pressure against Iran lost steam due to the growing international vigilance. 

US President George W. Bush finished a tour of the Middle East in winter to gain the consensus of his Arab allies to unite against Iran. 

But hosting officials of the regional nations dismissed Bush's allegations, describing Tehran as a good friend of their countries. 

ends

True Colours Of The Nuclear Deal

(Okay, you don't agree with me. So here's Dr PK Iyengar, Former Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission - midwife (nay one of the fathers of our indegenous nuclear programme) and known opponent of Manmohan Singh's sell-out to the US making the same point. And if you think India has made a breakthrough deal with France - bypassing the US - you've got another thing coming. But more of that tomorrow)

 

The US House of Representatives has passed a bill (H. R. 7081) that approves the 123 Agreement, but which is contradictory to the assurance given by the Prime Minister to the nation. An identical version is before the US Senate for voting. Even as late as 26 September 2008, the Prime Minster was seeking an agreement that would ‘satisfy India’. This has not come to pass, and it will be interesting to see how the Indian government and the Indian media will ‘spin’ this into a victory for India. The Indian side is supposed to have been unhappy with the language. The fact is that one is not worried about the language, but the content and compulsions of the Bill.

Why is the House bill not satisfactory? Even the title of the Bill, ‘United States-India Nuclear Cooperation Approval and Nonproliferation Enhancement Act’, makes it clear that they seek to press their non-proliferation agenda. The Bill makes a number of things explicitly clear, and reveals the true colours of the nuclear deal.

(1) The 123 Agreement is subject to the provisions of the Hyde Act and the Atomic Energy Act, and does not supersede them.

This is said, in so many words, twice in the Bill. Section 101 (page 3, lines 16-21) says that: “The Agreement shall be subject to the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, the Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006, and any other applicable United States law.” Section 102 (page 6, lines 8-12) reiterates that: “Nothing in the Agreement shall be construed to supersede the legal requirements of the Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006 or the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.”

Therefore there is now no question of differences in the ‘interpretation’ of the 123 Agreement. Irrespective of what we think we are bound by, the Americans have made it abundantly clear that they are bound by the Hyde Act and the Atomic Energy Act, and the 123 Agreement does not supersede either of them. If we conduct a test it is now abundantly clear that, as per the provisions of the Hyde Act and the Atomic Energy Act, it is the end of the nuclear deal.

(2) In the event of a disruption of fuel supply from the US, the Americans will not help arrange for fuel from another country.

Article 5(b-iv) of the 123 Agreement says that in the event of fuel disruption the US will help India get fuel from ‘friendly supplier countries’. But it seems that the Congress is having none of this. Section 102 (page 5, lines 4-12) of the Bill explicitly states that in the event of fuel disruption, not only will the US not help arrange for fuel from other countries, but it will also “seek to prevent the transfer to India of nuclear equipment, materials, or technology from other participating governments in the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) or from any other source.” Since this sentence is not in the 123 Agreement, the Indian government will probably claim that we are not bound by it. However, the simple reality is that if there is a disruption of fuel from America, for whatever reason, the Americans will work hard to ensure that we do not get it from any other source.

(3) There will be no transfer of enrichment technology, and even permission for reprocessing imported fuel may be denied.

This is the most disturbing clause in the Bill. Sec. 204 of the Bill (page 14, lines 11-19) says explicitly that before the 123 Agreement enters into force (according to Article 16), the President has to certify that the US will work with NSG countries to “agree to further restrict the transfers of equipment and technology related to the enrichment of uranium and reprocessing of spent fuel”. So, one of the major advantages we were expecting from the NSG waiver and the 123 Agreement will not be forthcoming. But this Bill goes even further. Section 201 makes it very clear that any future proposal for reprocessing needs explicit approval from the US Congress, and the Congress retains the right to refuse (page 13, lines 1-4). This is a new twist, and extremely dangerous, because it leaves us completely at the mercy of the Congress. The same section also says that the US will pursue efforts with other countries to ensure that reprocessing of fuel from those countries will also be governed by ‘similar arrangements and procedures’.

This seems to suggest that the US would even like the existing arrangements with Russia for the Kudankulam reactors to be modified along the proposed lines. The same would also apply to any other supplier. It is surprising that in spite of our being a ‘strategic partner’, the US wants to restrain our fuel-cycle developments. This shows, again, that India is not being treated as an equal, in spite of the fact that for decades India has developed reprocessing and enrichment technology on its own, and produced plutonium for fast-breeder reactors as well as enriched uranium for the submarine reactor.

 These explicit statements in the House Bill only reaffirm what many of us have been saying for a long time. The 123 Agreement does not supersede, and is constrained by, the Hyde Act and the Atomic Energy Act. The House Bill has added new constraints. The entire Indo-US nuclear deal, which must now be taken to comprise of the Congress Bill, the 123 Agreement and the Hyde Act, is in contradiction to the July 2005 Joint Statement, because it doesn’t give India the status of an advanced nuclear state enjoying the same obligations and benefits as others. The nuclear deal does not allow cooperation in enrichment or reprocessing technology. The nuclear deal does not guarantee fuel supplies or a fuel reserve. In the event of a breach of the 123 Agreement, the US will not work with its allies to find alternate solutions – on the contrary it will pressure them to act against Indian interests. ‘Full cooperation’ in civil nuclear power is meaningless without assurances of fuel supply and technological cooperation in the fuel cycle.

 The House Bill also makes it clear that the US continues to impose on us the existing non-proliferation regime, and is not ready to recognize India as a nation with advanced nuclear technology. President Bush may have made many promises, but he will not be around to fulfill them. The reality is that the nuclear deal will not bring us as equals to the nuclear table. It will only serve to tighten the non-proliferation regime around us, make us dependent on the nuclear cartel for fuel, and completely cripple our strategic programme.

If the government’s intention is to import nuclear reactors and fuel, a simple bilateral agreement, which guarantees application of safeguards to the reactors, the fuel, and the end products of reprocessing the fuel, would have been sufficient and meaningful. There is already a precedent for this. In the nuclear deal with Russia, the irradiated fuel from the Kudankulam reactors can be reprocessed in India, provided this is done under IAEA safeguards. The plutonium that is produced in these reactors, when separated, will also attract IAEA safeguards. This is perfectly understandable, and India has accepted this. Why this should not be applicable in a more friendly agreement with the US, is incomprehensible.

 In 1974, when India was less developed and had a bleaker future, Indira Gandhi  was able to stand firm in supporting a strategic programme, in spite of ominous warnings of the retribution that would follow. It is ironic that in 2008, when India is in a much stronger position, economically and geopolitically, her own party is ready to betray her legacy and put on nuclear shackles, for a few dollars more.

Dr PK Iyengar

30 September 2008

.

3-2-1-0: Indo-US Nuclear Deal Enters Home Stretch

By Roger Alexander

After a lot of drama and suspense, Congressman Howard Berman, a strong opponent of certain provisions of the Indo-Us Nuclear Deal, introduced a bill in the House of Representatives that is almost identical to the one that was overwhelmingly adopted by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.

However, his bill is said to have an extra paragraph that would require that the Senate and the House versions would have to be reconciled in a committee with the involvement of the administration as well, reports rediff.com.

 

Berman was also persuaded to drop killer amendments, including one on Iran that could have sabotaged the legislation following which he introduced the bill. He probably did so as the Hyde Act contains 17 references to Iran and directs India to have a foreign policy “congruent” to that of the US. That was why India voted twice against Iran in the IAEA.

(The Hyde Act requires an annual Presidential certification that India is in compliance with American law. And this so-called prescriptive clause is going to be a millstone around country’s neck for a long time to come.) 

As this blog reported yesterday (September 24) - ‘US Senate Committee Shafts India On Nuclear Deal’ - Berman provided considerable input into the Senate Committee’s legislation with his staffers and that Senate panel staffers worked in concert to craft a bill that could possibly be cloned in the House of Representatives for floor action. That has happened.

According to the rediff.com report, Berman's bill, though in all respects similar to the Senate Committee's Bill, contains an additional proviso that in the event of a nuclear test by India, which leads to the automatic termination of the deal, the presidential waiver of this termination could be limited. 

Under the Senate Committee's bill, as does many pieces of legislation dealing with such 123 Agreements and arms sales bills with America's allies, automatic termination of these agreements can be waived by the President on national security grounds and can be overridden by Congress only with a two-thirds majority.

Berman's Bill puts slightly more teeth into Congress with the presidential waiver having the authority for being overridden by the Congress with a simple majority and not two-thirds majority.

Now it is only a matter of time and procedure that the US Congress puts is imprimatur on the Indo-US 123 Agreement. It was being speculated that Congress might fail to endorse the 123 Agreement as House Committee on Foreign Relations chairman Howard L Berman, an alleged critic of the deal (even though he supported the passage of the Henry J Hyde Act) was refusing to play ball. But unlike in India, even the so-called maverick American politicians put the US' supreme national interest above personal preferences.

The Senate panel bill - the United States-India Nuclear Cooperation Approval and Nonproliferation Enhancement Act - though approved 19-2, forcefully stresses that “…nothing in the Agreement shall be construed to supersede the legal requirements of the Henry J Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006 or the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.”

It also introduces a new element impinging on India's right to uninterrupted fuel supplies guaranteed by the 123 Agreement. In the approval legislation sent to the full Senate, the Committee makes it clear that “...it is the policy of the US to seek to prevent the transfer to India of nuclear equipment, materials, or technology from other participating governments in NSG or from any other source.”

This contingency would arise in the event nuclear transfers to India are suspended or terminated in the event of a test in pursuance of provisions of the US enabling law, the Hyde Act, the Atomic Energy Act or any other US law, it says.

Manmohan Singh and his minions have consistently trotted out the specious argument that India is only bound by the 123 Agreement and papered over the supposedly "extraneous provisions" in the Hyde Act, the US legislation that grants the US administration an exemption from the Atomic Energy Act to carry out nuclear trade with India, a non-signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Another provision in the SCFR's recommendation sets limits on the nuclear fuel provided to India as part of promised fuel reserve saying "any nuclear power reactor fuel reserve provided to the government of India in safeguarded civilian nuclear facilities should be commensurate with reasonable reactor operating requirements.”

This is a far cry from Manmohan Singh’s assurance to Parliament on a number of occasions that India had obtained fuel supply guarantees for the lifetime of the reactors that would be purchased from the US and that India would have the right to build up a strategic reserve.

As usual, the Indian government’s spinmeisters are trotting out arguments that have already been discredited. "I am not going to comment on internal process in the US. We have the right to test and they have the right to react," Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon told reporters in New York. The usual bluster – India has the right to test while others have the right to react – was once again the retort to pointed questions from the media.

Still, the US Congress is all set to pass the Indo-US 123 Agreement along with the attendant riders (maybe some more may be added by Representatives and Senators). But Manmohan Singh is all set to sign away India’s sovereign rights and shackle us permanently to the Hyde Act and its pernicious conditions, including India’s foreign policy being “congruent” to that of the US. He has indicated as much in the past few days.

ends