Indian’s were told back then that their nuclear programme would be compromised by this deal, so why are they complaining now?
India stance threatens US nuclear deal
The historic civil nuclear deal between the US and India is running into serious difficulties over New Delhi’s insistence that the Bush administration rewrite elements of the law enacted by Congress last year.** US State Department officials say that India’s negotiating stance risks unravelling the deal**, which gives India unprecedented access to nuclear fuel without requiring it to sign up to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The agreement was enacted by large margins on Capitol Hill in December and marked a dramatic breakthrough following a history of often tense relations between the two countries. “We are disappointed with the pace and seriousness of the civil nuclear negotiations with India,” Nicholas Burns, US undersecretary of state, told the Financial Times. “It is time to accelerate our efforts to achieve a final deal.”
According to people close to the talks, Indian negotiators are contesting a clause in the law that states the US would withdraw civil nuclear fuel supplies and equipment if India breached its unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing. India is also insisting it be given the explicit right to reprocess nuclear fuel - again, in contradiction of the US law.
Observers say India’s tough stance stems in part from the political weakness of Manmohan Singh, whose Congress party has lost recent state elections and whose own position has always been parlous. Mr Singh faces opposition from his coalition government’s allies in the communist bloc of parties and also from leading nuclear scientists. Scientists from India’s Department of Atomic Energy are insistent that India needs to retain the right to test nuclear weapons. A particular concern of the defence establishment is that nuclear co-operation could be suspended if India tested in response to nuclear tests by neighbours such as China and Pakistan. Indian officials say it is important that India, which is termed a “responsible state with advanced nuclear technology” under the July 2005 agreement, receives the same reprocessing rights Washington has granted under strict conditions to the EU, Japan and Switzerland.
Officials in Washington, which believes the Bush administration took great risks with its own non-proliferation “hawks”, have expressed surprise at the inflexibility of India’s stance. They are also frustrated by the fact that India has made little headway negotiating a parallel agreement with the International Atomic Energy Authority, which it had pledged to do. “That the US government would go to such lengths to help India out and that India is now in the position of aggrieved party in the talks is extraordinary,” said Michael Krepon, co-founder of the Henry Stimson Center, a public policy institute in Washington. **“If, as a result, this deal stalls, then the next US administration and the one after that will be very reluctant to extend such help to India.” **However, most people involved in the talks believe that India would eventually agree to a deal if the alternative was nothing at all. They say that the State Department is simply getting used to New Delhi’s inimitable style of negotiating. “We have ultimate optimism that India will understand the importance and benefits that this deal would bring to the Indian energy sector and to India more generally,” said Mr Burns. The nuclear talks between the US and India are being closely monitored by Australia, which is considering whether to meet an Indian request for Australian uranium to boost its power generation capacity. Canberra has set a US-India deal as a prerequisite for any exports.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/f7b3815e-ee12-11db-8584-000b5df10621.html