I find most of the writters go out of the topic. It is not healthy.
There is no point in discussing about which party is good and which party is bad while discussing about whether the IAEA Agreement is in the interest of both parties or not.
One thing which everyone should keep in mind is that, when we are making an agreement with two parties, it has to be agreeable to both. Then only it will become agreement.
In most cases the Agreements will contain a compromise of the stand points of both parties concerned.
After going through the IAEA Draft agreement in detail, my comments are :
1. For a Country which is particular about not signing NPT and at the same time wants to do nuclear business with the rest of the world, especially wants to import nuclear fuel, the terms of the deal is OK.
2. The perpetuity clause of IAEA safeguards will be based on the bilateral agreement which India will enter into with the supplier country. In that Agreement, we will surely have clause that will stipulate that in the event of fuel supply stippage the safeguards will cease. If not, we will not buy reactors from them. We will buy only fuel. Simple.
3. Too much is read into this deal w.r.t US. In fact, after the deal, we may not do much with US unless they give the Reactors at throw away price with financila aid. We will be doing business with France / Russia / Australia / China, etc. We may not import Reactors at all ! We may export Reactors and Reprocessing plants !
