Indo-US Nuclear Deal Demystified

The deal is not a panacea for energy security as the government makes us believe. However it is desirable as a part of long range planning to develop alternative sources of energy in view of the finite nature of resources like coal and gas. The left

The Indo-US civilian nuclear deal is hailed as a landmark in the relations between the two countries. America imposed sanctions against us after we tested a nuclear weapon in 1974. As a result of this we were not able to import nuclear minerals or advanced nuclear technology from the US. In view of US dominance in the 45-nation nuclear suppliers group (NSG) other nations have also refused to supply us nuclear fuel or technology.

Civilian nuclear uses include power generation, medicine, agriculture and nuclear applications in other industries.

The 2005 accord between the two countries leading to the 123-Agreement signed in 2007, the international atomic energy agency (IAEA) Safeguards Agreement and the formulation of the nuclear suppliers group (NSG) guidelines in 2008 ended our 34-year isolation from international nuclear commerce.

The proponents of the deal hail it as the harbinger of energy security and praise the government’s futuristic vision.

The opponents of the deal criticise the government for surrendering India’s strategic sovereignty and the ability to pursue an independent foreign policy.

The facts - India’s nuclear mineral resources / technology

1. Uranium, plutonium (derived from uranium) and thorium are used as nuclear fuels. Polonium and Lithium are auxiliary elements used in initiators.

2. The technology that is available in the world today uses Uranium and Plutonium in civilian (energy generation) applications and military (atomic weapons) applications.

3. The technology that uses thorium (India has the third largest thorium deposits in the world) as fuel is under development and may be a long way away.

4. India’s uranium deposits estimated to be 50,000 - 60,000 tons account for a mere 0.8% world’s uranium production.

5. Naturally occurring uranium is a mixture of isotopes. They are U235 used in atomic weapons and U238 used in nuclear reactors for power generation. The proportion of the two in natural Uranium is: Uranium238 (99.275%) and Uuranium235 (0.711%).

6. When the mixture of uranium isotopes is refined to contain 20% or more of U235, it is known as highly enriched uranium.

7. The technology needed to refine the mixture to increase the concentration of U235 to 20% or more is known as advanced / high or dual use technology and is classified.

8. The concentration of U235 should be enriched to at least 99% for use in atomic bombs.

9. Under the nuclear fuel cycle burnt uranium is reprocessed as plutonium and after it is burnt, allowed to degrade (which takes thousands of years) in special containers in order to prevent the radiation leaks. Spent fuel disposal is very important because of radiation health hazards like cancer.

10. The technology needed to reprocess the spent fuel and finally its disposal is also advanced technology.

The facts - nuclear resources and energy production

1. The current contribution of nuclear power accounts for 3% of India’s electricity generation. This can be increased to about 6% by 2020.

2. Nuclear power is cleaner and environment friendly compared to coal and natural gas.

3. Hydroelectric power is the cleanest and there are other renewal options like wind power.

4. It takes about a minimum of five years for nuclear reactors to be set up and power generation to start after all agreements are signed and formalities observed with the US, France or Russia.

5. The government’s argument that it provides energy security is a little far fetched. Only France derives 80% - 90% of its energy needs from nuclear minerals. For the rest, the US may be drawing between 20 - 30 % of its energy needs from nuclear minerals and other countries even less.

The 123-Agreement vis-à-vis US Legislations

2. Harnessing nuclear energy only for peaceful purposes and nuclear non-proliferation are two of the chief objectives of the USAEA. Therefore the act prohibits nuclear commerce between the US and other nations which have:

a. Not signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT).

b. Have tested atomic weapons.

c. Possess atomic weapons if they are not recognised nuclear weapons states.

3. The Henry J Hyde Act known simply as the Hyde Act is an enabling legislation that exempts India from the disqualifications mentioned in the US Atomic Energy Act mentioned above.

4. Under the US constitution and specially Sections 121 and 122 of the USAEA, international agreements prevail over US domestic legislation. These provisions however have no significance vis-à-vis the 123-Agreement with India because US presidents are accountable for implementing domestic legislation and can not renege from this duty.

5. India has refused to sign the NPT on the grounds that it is discriminatory. Under the NPT, while the five nuclear powers (US, UK, France, Russia and China) can retain their nuclear weapons other nations are prohibited from making nuclear weapons. Apart from the 5 nuclear powers 180 other nations signed the NPT.

6. India, Israel and South Africa also tested nuclear weapons and gained nuclear weapons capability but are not recognised as nuclear weapons states.

7. China a signatory to the NPT has been mocking at the NPT regime by clandestinely arming rogue nations like Pakistan and North Korea. This should be a major cause of concern to international peace and world order.

The course of the nuclear deal

1. The process for the current agreement between the US and India was initiated by the Vajpayee government but clinched by the Man Mohan Singh government.

2. India and the US signed the 123-Agreement the preamble of which recognises India as an advanced nuclear technology state:

“AFFIRMING that cooperation under this Agreement is between two States possessing advanced nuclear technology, both Parties having the same benefits and advantages, both committed to preventing WMD proliferation…”

Under the agreement the US will supply nuclear fuel and reactors to India. The following clauses in the 123-Agreement are very significant, as they allay India’s concerns about building strategic reserves and address co-operation in advanced technology applications in various fields, disposal of nuclear waste and co-operation in fusion experiments.

“2e. Development of a strategic reserve of nuclear fuel to guard against any disruption of supply over the lifetime of India’s reactors;”

“2f. Advanced research and development in nuclear sciences including but not limited to biological research, medicine, agriculture and industry, environment and climate change;”

“2h. Alteration in form or content of nuclear material as provided for in Article 6;”

“2j. Controlled thermonuclear fusion including in multilateral projects;”

3. As part of the 123-Agreement India has agreed to separate its 8 military nuclear reactors and place the 14 civilian nuclear reactors under IAEA safeguards: annual inspection with regard to maintaining safety regulations, usage of nuclear fuel only for peaceful purposes etc.

Many people argue that this in fact amounts to the world recognising India as a de facto nuclear weapons state in view of the NPT recognising only five nations as nuclear weapons states but such an indirect recognition is of dubious value because:

a. The original provisions of the US act which aim at preventing nuclear proliferation for non-civilian purposes are still applicable notwithstanding the protestations of the Man Mohan Singh government.

b. If India tests a nuclear weapon in future the US (and possibly other nations) will immediately halt supplies of Uranium.

4. The 123-Agreement would be finally ratified by the US congress after India:

a. Signs a Safeguards Agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for the separated civilian nuclear reactors and

b. Obtains a clearance from the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), framing guidelines for nuclear commerce with India.

Ironically NSG is a cartel of nuclear mineral / technology producing nations formed to block nuclear commerce with India after India’s first nuclear explosion in 1974.

5. These two processes outlined above are over and the 123 agreement will go to the US congress for approval. After the US congress approves it hopefully without amendments, nuclear commerce can commence between the two countries.

6. Following the IAEA and NSG approvals, India can also sign commercial agreements with other nuclear mineral and technology supplying nations.

7. While France and Russia are willing to do nuclear commerce with India, Germany and Australia have refused to supply nuclear minerals to India.

The opposition:

1. The left parties oppose the deal based on ideological considerations, as they argue that by signing the deal we surrendered our right to pursue an independent foreign policy - certain non-binding clauses in the 123-Agreement suggest that our foreign policy should be congruent with US interests.

2. The BJP opposes the deal because it prohibits nuclear weapons testing which according to it surrenders the country’s strategic sovereignty.

Conclusion

The deal is not a panacea for energy security as the government makes us believe. However it is desirable as a part of long range planning to develop alternative sources of energy in view of the finite nature of resources like coal and gas.

The left’s opposition is untenable (or stupid) because in foreign relations, there is no place for dreamy-eyed ideological considerations. A clever nation pursues a foreign policy that suits its strategic interests. The US may be no exception. But we must not forget that it was the US that bailed us out when China invaded us in 1962. It is therefore desirable to have a strategic alliance with the lone super power in view of our hostile neighbourhood.

The alliance with the US can only accelerate our progress in various scientific and technological fields and in wealth creation. No doubt nuclear commerce creates thousands of jobs in the US but will also do so in India.