Finally Hillary Clinton visited India, after a gap of almost 10 years. Both countries, and indeed the world was a different place the last time she came. She wasn’t the Secretary of State, but was the First Lady of the US back then. Indo-US ties are a lot better now, and we’re a lot more engaged with them, on multiple issues. Last year, was undoubtedly one of our best, in the history of our ties with the US. We had signed a historic Nuclear deal, and due to the haste shown by the then Bush administration, we had arguably gotten the better half of the deal.
The 123 Agreement, ensured that we get an uninterrupted supply of fuel, get the right to reprocess spent fuel and, did not specify any new safeguards and monitoring groups, apart from the ones already specified by the IAEA. While, there were doubts about our right to test Nuclear weapons, I still think it was a victory for Indian diplomats, who negotiated a tough deal with a lame-duck president who was itching to get the deal done, before his term was over. Thus, though there were parts of the deal that many in India raised questions about, one thing was clear, the US was making realistic concessions it wouldn’t have made previously. Thus, the 123 agreement was the best we could have bargained for. This was very much, a high point in the story of Indo-US relations.
But quite a few things have changed since last year. It is no longer a lame-duck president, but one with a strong domestic mandate, and possibly, a different vision of Indo-US ties. Though, the Obama administration has not made any it’s misgivings of the deal public, there was ample room for concern for South Block. The recent G8 summit in Italy, has confirmed what many had already speculated. The US endorsed a statement, seeking to ban transfer of nuclear fuel reprocessing technology, to nations not party to the NPT regime, including India. This was, therefore in contradiction with the 123 agreement, which formed the basis of the nuclear deal. Next, during Clinton’s visit to India, they insisted on an End-User Monitoring Agreement with India, for future sales of defence equipment, which means that the US will be allowed to monitor the use of all defence equipments purchased from them, which includes routine as well as random inspection tours. These recent events certainly cast doubts over the US’s intentions with India.
The statement at the G8 summit:
At first sight, the statement seems fair, and given the non-proliferation theme of the G8 summit, it seems a natural and logical statement. The basic idea is to prevent sale and transfer of advanced nuclear technology to countries with shady non-proliferation records. The Obama administration has attempted to build much more consensus on non-proliferation than the previous government, and rightly so. But, the whole foundation of the non-proliferation movement, ie, the NPT is flawed, and no one’s seems to be concerned by it. The NPT is a highly discriminatory agreement, which seeks to create a group of “Nuclear Haves”, comprised of US, Russia, China, UK and France and the “Nuclear Have-nots” comprising all the other signatories. It accords different rights and responsibilities to the two groups of nations. India has always opposed the NPT, because of this discriminatory approach. But, India’s disapproval to the NPT has often been interpreted as a broad disapproval the non-proliferation movement, by several in the past. Thus, to club India with nations like Pakistan, Israel and North Korea as “outside the movement” would be terribly wrong.
Also, as part of the nuclear deal, India availed a waiver from the NSG and IAEA last year, allowing it to do business in the nuclear sector. The IAEA noted India’s “exceptional record in non-proliferation” while according us this exception. The G8 statement is thus, against this NSG endorsed exemption too.
The End-User Monitoring Agreement:
Allowing US to monitor our usage of our defence equipment is nothing short of a threat to national security. It automatically means that they will have access and information on our vital defence installations. The armed forces would also have to face the inconvenience of having to undergo external monitoring. What it also implies is that, the US can block military sales to India, if it feels that their use will not be in line with US interests. Such agreements therefore, intrude on India’s sovereignty and independent foreign, military policy. India’s long-standing defence suppliers like Russia and France do not insist on such agreements. And thus, this begs the question, how could we accept such an agreement! Such blunders cast doubts, not just on the US (rather, it confirms our suspicions), but also on the Indian govt’s intentions, especially given the governing party’s history in Defence deals. Thus, it is important that the govt come out and clarify its stand on this EUMA, and also explain to the Parliament, the benefits of such an agreement to India, and why it went ahead in signing it.
In conclusion, these two events have, I believe, changed Indo-US ties, from last year. The stage is now set, for increased US pressure. One only hopes, India does not buckle down, and that our policies are governed by an “enlightened self-interest”. The coming few months would be quite interesting...
