Balance Hyde with Indian law ============================
Insofar as the text of an agreement can protect one side when the other is bent on reneging on its commitments, Article 16.4 of the Indian 123 and the Vienna Convention give New Delhi as much legal cover as Article 2.1 of the Chinese 123 gives Beijing. Of course, India would get more effective protection by building a strategic fuel reserve on its territory. There is, however, the issue of the U.S. %u201Cright of return%u201D of exported material in the event of termination of cooperation and the fear that this strategic reserve may not be fully immunised from returnability.
Though Article 14 of the 123 provides effective protection for India, the Government should consider the merit of adding a further layer of insurance under domestic statute just to be doubly sure. Specifically, Parliament could enact an amendment to the Atomic Energy Act of 1962 as well as a change in the Special Chemicals, Organisms, Materials, Equipment and Technologies (SCOMET) guidelines making it illegal for nuclear material or equipment to be transferred out of the country if the transfer would disrupt the continuous operation of our power reactors or pose an environmental or security risk. Similarly, the AEA could be amended to make it illegal to import into India any reactor under a commercial contract that does not explicitly provide for the reprocessing of spent fuel.
In other words, rather than seeing the Left%u2019s call for P
RE:RE:Balance Hyde with Indian law
by Satish G on Aug 22, 2007 09:27 PM Permalink
In other words, rather than seeing the Left%u2019s call for Parliament to play a role in validating the nuclear deal as something adversarial, the Prime Minister should realise the legislature is very much an instrument of modern diplomacy. By amending its domestic statute, India can effectively balance the provisions of the Hyde Act. If the U.S. insists in the future that internal law trumps the 123 agreement and uses that to build a case for demanding the return of material even when the strict conditions of Article 14 have not been met, India would be bound by its own internal law not to oblige Washington.
All of this, of course, begs the question of India%u2019s capacity to hold its own internationally. Washington%u2019s aim is to build a strategic relationship in which India can act as an outsourcer of U.S. hegemony in Asia. But there is a dialectic here as well. The U.S. created the NSG after the 1974 nuclear test to isolate Delhi from all high technology trade; but today, in order to allow itself to enjoy the strategic and economic benefits of nuclear commerce with India, it must perforce open the door for everyone else as well. What Washington intends to be a chain that will tie New Delhi down could very well turn into its opposite.
Unfortunately, the Manmohan Singh government%u2019s lack of confidence in the country%u2019s negotiating strength has led it to make vital concessions over the past two years. Even today, many decisions of enormous foreign policy sig
RE:RE:RE:Balance Hyde with Indian law
by Satish G on Aug 22, 2007 09:28 PM Permalink
Even today, many decisions of enormous foreign policy significance are taken casually, without due application of mind. Next month%u2019s Quadrilateral Power naval exercise (with an embedded Singaporean ship thrown in as cover) is one example. In this respect, it is perhaps more crucial that the Government be urged not to operationalise the June 2005 Indo-U.S. Defence Framework Agreement rather than the nuclear initiative.
Deal or no deal, there will always be pressure on the foreign policy front. In a country like India with sharply polarised class interests, compromising decisions can be taken even without external pressure. India%u2019s ability to withstand external and internal pressures will depend crucially on the configuration of political forces within the country at any given moment in time. The balance of forces today favours an independent foreign policy. There is no reason why this should change tomorrow.
RE:RE:RE:RE:Balance Hyde with Indian law
by Satish G on Aug 22, 2007 09:30 PM Permalink
All my postings above are copy and paste from Siddharth Varadarajan article "Deal breather, not deal breaker" on www.hindu.com [Monday, Aug 20, 2007]
RE:Urgent requirement
by Sahadevan KK on Aug 23, 2007 01:47 PM Permalink
India's independent foreign policy is far better than George Bush's world image. Manmohan tries to equalize both. The result will be equalized Congress and George Bush.
I don%u2019t know much about nuclear deal. I%u2019m not qualified to say if it%u2019s good or bad for the country. But from various discussion, I can guess India lose something and gain something from the deal. Probably Cong is happy about the gains and Left is concerned about the losses. I don%u2019t know the position of other partners of UPA on this matter. But by paying no heed to Left, Cong is definitely violating the basic principle of coalition govt. If Left believes the deal is not good for the country, they must oppose it and they have every right to withdraw the support to govt. Cong should remember, it%u2019s they who depend on Left to run the govt. and not other way round. Left has already done enough save the nation from another election by extending support to Cong to form the govt. though they are in different pole to Cong politically. Left have no obligation to face Cong humiliation. They may lose maximum a dozen of seats if another election is held as an immediate effect. They should not be afraid of it because Cong has to fall on Left again if they have to form the govt. If the deal is really bad for the country the people of India will not forgive Cong. in long run.
This deal is not about Congress, the Left or the BJP. This deal is not about communism or socialism or capitalism. This deal is not about personal ego or politics morons. This deal is about India's future. Her (India) ability to carry out nuclear tests and still be part of the NSG. Her (India) ability to secure her long term energy future without compromising on sovereign rights. Her (India) skill to get into a deal without compromising her future. All those moro..ns out there and equate China with evil, US as saviour and BJP as stupid opposition are grossly mistaken. This is not about china or US or any other states. It is pure and simply our ability to get into a deal in our terms. Dont blame the left, dont blame the BJP or communism or capitalism or socialism. It is purely a test for our netas and babus (the current ruling ones) to strike and get into a deal which doesn't compromise our ability to do a nuclear test as everyone might remember that we are not a signatory to CTBT and / or NPT. The deal is off if test is done and we agree to it, it tantamounts to signing the CTBT indirectly. All the 5 veto weilding nuclear countries have a one - sided law favoring them and India should become 6 with ability to test and still be part of the NSG PERIOD!.
This deal is about India. So, think like an Indian, not as left, right or center. Analyze this issue in objective manner!. Does this deal address all the concerns of India? If not, renegotiate or step out of the deal?
RE:This deal is not about one political party!.
by tar sha on Aug 24, 2007 01:10 AM Permalink
Understood your point. Tell me one thing, what if we can not close this deal?
Shouting words tht we need to be at par with 5 veto nations is good but who will listen to that? We are not even able to push our people for UN positions. Why not we sign the deal now and once we have enough inhouse capabilities and if nuclear test is needed, we can conduct the test? I am sure at that time India's economical and political clout will be totatlly different than what is today and no country will think of killing the deal at that time.
