Nuclear Deal De-mystified

Here is an overview of the deal and its implications

WHAT IS THE PACT?

• The legislation amends Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. It lets the US make a one-time exception for India to keep its nuclear weapons without signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
• The amendment overturns a 30-year-old US ban on supplying India with nuclear fuel and technology, implemented after India's first nuclear test in 1974.
• Under the amendment, India must separate its civilian and military nuclear facilities, and submit civilian facilities to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

WHAT DO THE DEAL'S SUPPORTERS SAY?

• US President George Bush calls the deal necessary to reflect the countries' improved relations. It strengthens international security by tightening US ties to ally India, the world's biggest democracy. It also ensures some of its nuclear industry will undergo international inspection.
• New Delhi, which relies on imported oil for some 70 per cent of its energy needs, says nuclear power will help feed its rapidly expanding economy.
• France, which signed a similar deal with India in February 2006, says the move will help fight climate change and aid non-proliferation efforts.

WHAT DO THE DEAL'S CRITICS SAY?

• The deal is likely to abet the nuclear weapon capabilities of India. For, if civil and military facilities are separated, the supply of international nuclear fuel will free its existing facilities, designated as military facilities, to produce plutonium and enriched plutonium exclusively for weapons’ purpose.
• India has still not signed the NPT treaty. But it will enjoy all the privileges available to declared nuclear powers under the NPT regime. In the eyes of American non-proliferation lobby the nuclear deal is an American sellout to India.
• Arguments against the deal in India have centred around three main points. First and foremost, the proposed separation of nuclear facilities into civil and military is costly and difficult or rather impractical due to the Indian nuclear programme being unified since the very beginning. Secondly, the deal will impact India’s ability to produce requisite fissile material as all new nuclear facilities will be civilian in nature and under the supervision of IAEA. Third, nuclear power is costly in nature and an emerging county like India can ill afford it. It is a luxury that only the developed world can enjoy and India should not count on it in its energy security calculus. Last but not the least, the deal is asymmetrical in nature since it is all about American promises and Indian commitments.
• Finally, the deal does not remove the discriminatory nature of the present nuclear regime which India has been fighting all along. Why should India place all its “existing and future civilian nuclear facilities under IAEA supervision” when other nuclear powers are not compelled to do so? In terms of statistics, out of the 915 facilities under IAEA safeguards worldwide, only 11 are in the five NPT nuclear powers. Thus, India will continue to be a part of the discriminatory non-proliferation regime.

HOW IS PAKISTAN INVOLVED?

• Pakistan sought a similar civilian technology deal with the US but was refused last in March. It is the only other confirmed nuclear power not to have signed the NPT - saying it will join after India does.
• The deal might provoke other nuclear weapon states like China to enter into the same kind of agreement with other implicit nuclear nations like Pakistan. In fact, Pakistan President Musharraf, during his recent visit to China, has argued for a Pakistan-China nuclear deal along the same lines.