Long way to go

GEORGE W. BUSH and Manmohan Singh during their bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the G8 summit, in Tokyo on July 9, the day India sent the safeguards agreement draft to the IAEA.-JIM WATSON/AFP

The government might be in a hurry, but there are too many factors at play that might scupper the nuclear deal.

PRIME Minister Manmohan Singhs assertion, on his way to the G8 summit in Japan, that the Indian government would go to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors very soon for an India-specific safeguards agreement has brought the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government to the brink. The Prime Minister gave the impression that his main priority at the summit, whose focus was on climate change, was to convince the participating countries to mobilise support for the India-United States nuclear deal. Manmohan Singh, before touching down in the island of Hokkaido, had expressed confidence that the Bush administration would use its influence to get the nuclear deal passed in the IAEA and obtain a clean waiver from the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG).

On the sidelines of the summit, the Prime Minister and U.S. President George W. Bush held a meeting that extended beyond the scheduled time, highlighting the close relationship the two leaders share. Manmohan Singh told the President that he had fulfilled his promise of taking the safeguards agreement to the IAEA. Bush described the interaction as a typical conversation among friends. The discussions, of course, revolved around the nuclear deal but both sides have refused to divulge the exact nature of the conversation. Bush talked about the importance of nuclear power for both countries. Communist Party of India (Marxist) general secretary Prakash Karat, who asked the Prime Minister to explain to the nation what transpired in his talks with the U.S. President, pointed out that it was only after this conversation that the minority government formally approached the IAEA.

If the India-U.S, nuclear deal passes the parliamentary test in India and then manages to get the approval of the IAEA and the NSG, then it will constitute the only significant foreign policy achievement of the Bush administration in eight years. The deal would make India one of Americas closest strategic allies for the foreseeable future and enable American companies to make billions of dollars by selling nuclear technology and armaments to India. Already, the price of uranium has more than quadrupled in the past four years. The uranium cartel consisting of Canada, Australia, France, South Africa and the United Kindom will be in a sellers market once India goes into nuclear power generation in a big way. China is already its biggest market.

Getting the India-U.S. nuclear deal formalised seems to have been since 2005 the single-point agenda for the UPA government, which has persisted with it even as the economy floundered. In this single-minded pursuit, India has not hesitated to sacrifice hallowed foreign policy principles. Manmohan Singh told the media in Japan that the relationship with the U.S. has truly acquired the characteristics of a genuine strategic partnership. He emphasised that India and the United States must stand tall, shoulder to shoulder and took the opportunity to thank Bush for his personal magnificent contribution to the evolution of our relationship.

The two leaders with whom Bush has struck a close personal relationship are the Indian Prime Minister and the right-wing Italian Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi. They are among the few leaders in the world who are willing to sing paeans in praise of the lame-duck President. Manmohan Singhs praise for Bush coincided with the ratcheting up of U.S. pressure on Iran. The U.S. conducted war games again in the Persian Gulf in early July. The gas pipeline project with Iran has been put on the back burner.

At the G8 summit, Manmohan Singh sought support for the nuclear deal in the NSG from President Hu Jintao of China, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd of Australia and Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada. Though Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon told the media that the Chinese President expressed his countrys willingness to cooperate with India in developing civilian nuclear energy, the official Xinhua news agency did not talk specifically about the nuclear issue being discussed at the meeting between the two leaders.

The governments of Canada, Australia and Japan, all members of the NSG, have not so far taken a clear-cut stance on an India-specific waiver in the NSG, which operates on the basis of consensus. The India-U.S. nuclear deal could be derailed if NSG members like Ireland or, for that matter, South Africa, countries that are fiercely proud of their independent foreign policies, decide to take a principled stand in keeping with their professed views on nuclear disarmament issues. The Chairs statement at the end of the G8 summit talked about adopting a more robust approach to civil nuclear cooperation with India to help it meet its growing energy needs in a manner that enhances and reinforces the global non-proliferation regime.

The entire process of formalising the deal, if it is approved by the NSG, could still take much more time than the governments optimistic projections suggest. The IAEA needs a 45-day notice period before the proposed safeguards agreement can be taken up for consideration. The next meeting of its Board of Governors is scheduled for September 22. Most observers are of the view that the Board of Governors will not rush through with the India-specific deal.

The Left parties as well as the other major opposition parties are questioning the legality and morality of a minority government approaching the IAEA. External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee had made a solemn promise to the Left on the governments behalf that it would seek a trust vote in Parliament before approaching the IAEA. Many IAEA and NSG members are no doubt aware that the country is polarised over the deal.

Some IAEA members who have serious questions about the deal will insist on adequate time to scrutinise the text thoroughly. China and Pakistan, along with the Nordic and Scandinavian countries, are known to have doubts about the draft India-specific safeguards agreement. Though Indian officials appear optimistic, it is unlikely that European Union countries that are members of the IAEA and the NSG will take a united position on the deal.

American experts on disarmament and nuclear-related issues feel that it will be difficult for the U.S. Congress to find sufficient time to approve the deal. U.S. law requires India to make substantial progress towards concluding an additional protocol that would give enhanced access and information to the IAEA. India has not made any move towards implementing this additional protocol. American columnists and leading newspapers such as The New York Times have strongly criticised the deal, saying that the Bush administration has made too many concessions.

The Indian government, they pointed out, had vowed not to stop producing bomb-producing material and had pledged to continue expanding its nuclear arsenal. Darryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association based in Washington, told AFP that the Indian governments assertion that the IAEA safeguards can be terminated by India if foreign fuel supplies are interrupted even if India conducts a test would make a mockery of the principle of permanent safeguards.

The Washington Post reported on July 9 that even if the Indian government were able to clear the hurdles in Parliament, the IAEA and the NSG, it was unlikely that the U.S. Congress would be in a position to approve the nuclear deal in the current calendar year. The Hyde Act passed in 2006, which gave the preliminary approval to the deal, requires that Congress be in continuous session for 30 days. The U.S. Congress can only debate on the deal after it is approved by the NSG. Congress is scheduled to adjourn on September 26, which leaves it with very little time to rubber-stamp the deal.

U.S. officials expect the NSG to take several months to reach a decision. Though the majority in Congress is supportive of the deal, several prominent Democrats oppose it because India is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and conducted nuclear tests in 1974 and 1998. Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate for President, had seen to it that the language of the Hyde Act was changed when the Bill was debated in Congress. His intervention ensured that the amount of nuclear fuel supplied to India from the U.S. would be limited, so as to deter another round of nuclear testing by India.