|
India defends nuclear deal with US
(Reuters)
Updated: 2005-12-22 09:19
India on Wednesday defended a controversial new civilian nuclear cooperation
deal with the United States and rejected demands by American critics that New
Delhi accept curbs on its atomic weapons program.
Ahead of talks with senior U.S. officials, Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam
Saran said he was bringing "ideas" to address a centerpoint of the July 18 deal
-- India's commitment to place nuclear facilities associated with its civilian
energy program under international inspection.
But he declined to give details, including how India would treat its
Canadian-supplied Cirus nuclear plant, which experts say was intended for
peaceful use but was diverted for military purposes.
"We are not talking here about a capping of India's strategic (nuclear
weapons) program. We are not talking here about a fissile material cutoff" but
about how to meet India's burgeoning energy needs, he told the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace, a think tank.
Saran, who later met US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, said a fissile
material cutoff halting India's production of bomb-grade nuclear fuel, and other
changes suggested by nonproliferation advocates, would be "deal-breakers."
The agreement, which must be approved by the U.S. Congress, would give India
access to nuclear technology, including fuel and reactors, that it has been
denied for 25 years.
Experts fear that as the deal is now written, India would acquire nuclear
fuel from the United States for civilian use, thus freeing up its own stocks for
more weapons.
Carnegie experts say India has enough weapons-grade plutonium for 75 to 110
nuclear bombs.
For more than two decades, Washington led the fight to deny India access to
nuclear technology because it rejected the nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and
developed nuclear weapons.
But US President George W. Bush, aiming to build an alliance with India,
reversed that approach.
U.S. and Indian officials are keen to work out differences on this and other
initiatives in time for Bush's planned visit to New Delhi in early 2006. State
Department spokesman Sean McCormack said he had "every expectation that it will
be the historic visit that everybody wants."
CONCERN OVER CIRUS REACTOR
Experts and some U.S. congressmen say the July 18 accord undermines
nonproliferation objectives by rewarding a state that built a nuclear arsenal in
contravention of international norms.
Under the deal, India made certain nonproliferation commitments and Saran
said bringing India into the fold this way was "indispensable for the emergence
of a new global consensus" on halting the spread of weapons.
He said India met its past international commitments and would assure that
U.S. civilian technology supplied in the future would not be diverted to
military uses or third parties.
But former U.S. energy official Leonard Spector said the 40 megawatt Cirus
reactor located north of Mumbai was proof of an "apparent diversion" and must be
resolved.
The United States is affected because it supplied Cirus with heavy water,
which is used to moderate nuclear fission.
Spector and other experts want Cirus formally designated a civilian facility
open to international inspection and the plutonium it produced sequestered from
the military inventory. Only four of nearly 60 Indian nuclear facilities are now
open to inspection, according to Carnegie experts.
Central to the agreement is a plan specifying how many and what plants and
personnel India will designate as related to its civilian program versus its
military program.
"Yes, I have come with certain ideas ... but the place to discuss this is in
the joint (U.S.-India) working group," not in public, Saran said.
Asked if the U.S.-India deal means American companies would be favored over
other countries for nuclear-related contracts, Saran only promised a "level
playing field."
He also said that U.S. calls for India to agree to international inspections
"in perpetuity" could only be agreed if the United States guaranteed fuel in
perpetuity.
|
