The US administration is not backing away from critical provisions of the ‘123 Agreement’ on civilian nuclear cooperation with India
HONG KONG: The US administration is not backing away from critical provisions of the ‘123 Agreement’ on civilian nuclear cooperation with India, a senior US official asserted on Wednesday.
Responding to questions from DNA in Hong Kong about differing perceptions in India and the US on the supply of nuclear fuel to India and India’s rights to reprocess spent fuel, US deputy secretary of state John Negroponte initially pointed to the progress made so far to operationalise the agreement. “This has been a landmark agreement, and we’ve worked hard to move it forward. We negotiated with India, and we worked with the Nuclear Suppliers Group, and I think we’re going to keep chipping away at it to bring it to fruition because we think it is positive,” he said.
Asked again about the growing perception in India that the Bush administration is walking away from its assurances under the ‘123 Agreement’, particularly on provisions relating to lifetime supply of nuclear for Indian reactors and US consent for India’s right to reprocess spent fuel, Negroponte denied there were differences.
“I think those impressions are w-r-o-n-g,” he said, stretching out the word for emphasis. “I’d say that despite reservations that have been expressed by other countries, we’ve worked hard to overcome those reservations to take forward the agreement....”
That, he added, “remains our policy: we think it’s the right policy.” He also said that president George Bush and secretary of state Condoleezza Rice “have been courageous in pressing it forward [with the deal] despite resistance from other quarters.”
Negroponte’s assurances, however, may not go far enough to allay concerns gaining ground in India that the Bush administration has injected add-on clauses to the 123 Agreement in a way that renders it fatally flawed. Those concerns have gained ground in the light of two documents submitted to US Congress last week that point to a different interpretation of US fuel supply assurances and India’s right to reprocess spent fuel.
In a sense, the Bush administration appears to be saying that the provision under Article 5(6) of the 123 Agreement, which offers assurance on fuel supply, is not “legally binding” on the US administration. That interpretation is at odds with India’s, which insists on “lifetime supply of fuel”.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}