South Asia Peace WiregalleryContact

Avert a Nonproliferation Disaster: oppose NSG waiver to India

[ ] by sapw @ 16.08.2008 03:23 CEST

Letter sent to foreign ministers of governments represented on the NSG

Decision Time on the Indian Nuclear Deal: Help Avert a Nonproliferation Disaster

August 15, 2008

Dear Foreign Minister

Your government and other members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) are being asked to consider the Bush administration's proposal to exempt India from longstanding NSG guidelines that require comprehensive IAEA safeguards as a condition of supply.

As many of us wrote in a January 2008 letter ("Fix the Proposal for Nuclear Cooperation with India"), India's commitments under the current terms of the proposed arrangement do not justify making far-reaching exceptions to international nonproliferation rules and norms.

Contrary to the claims of its advocates, the deal fails to bring India further into conformity with the nonproliferation behavior expected of the member states of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Unlike 178 other countries, India has not signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). It continues to produce fissile material and expand its nuclear arsenal. As one of only three states never to have signed the NPT, it has not made a legally-binding commitment to achieve nuclear disarmament, and it refuses to allow comprehensive, full-scope International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards.

Yet the arrangement would give India rights and privileges of civil nuclear trade that have been reserved only for members in good standing under the NPT. It creates a dangerous distinction between "good" proliferators and "bad" proliferators and sends out misleading signals to the international community with regard to NPT norms.

We urge you to support measures that would avert further damage to the already beleaguered global nonproliferation and disarmament regime.

Given that the NSG only takes decisions by consensus, your government has a responsibility to consider the following adverse implications of the U.S. proposal to exempt India from key NSG guidelines:

1. Undermining the Nuclear Safeguards Regime
The proposed exemption of India from the comprehensive nuclear safeguards standard of supply threatens to undermine the nuclear safeguards system. Given that India maintains a nuclear weapons program outside of safeguards, facility-specific safeguards on a few additional "civilian" reactors provide no serious nonproliferation benefits.

As part of the carefully crafted final document of the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference, all NPT states-parties endorsed the principle of full-scope safeguards as a condition of supply. A decision by the NSG to exempt India from this requirement would also contradict this important element of the NPT bargain. Furthermore, it is inappropriate for the member states of the NSG to take it upon themselves to make a decision on this matter for the 140-plus other members of the NPT.

Making matters worse, Indian officials have suggested that it might cease IAEA scrutiny if fuel supplies are cut off, even if that is because it renews nuclear testing. NSG members should reject such an interpretation. Your government has a solemn responsibility to reject any India-specific exemption from NSG guidelines that is premised on a safeguards agreement that is in any way inconsistent with the principle of permanent safeguards over all nuclear materials and facilities.

India also pledged on July 18, 2005 to conclude an additional protocol to its safeguards agreement. States should insist that India conclude a meaningful Additional Protocol safeguards regime before considering whether and how to make any India-specific alteration to the NSG guidelines.

2. Possible Transfer of Sensitive Enrichment and Reprocessing Items
Unless rejected by the NSG, India's insistence on obtaining "full" nuclear cooperation would undermine efforts to prevent the proliferation of technologies that may be used to produce nuclear bomb material, including reprocessing and enrichment technologies and items. Allowing transfers of these sensitive nuclear technologies is extremely unwise given that IAEA safeguards cannot prevent such items from being replicated and used to advance India's weapons program. U.S. officials have stated that they do not intend to sell such technology, but other states may. Virtually all NSG states support proposals that would bar transfers of these sensitive nuclear technologies to non-NPT members. India must be no exception.

Recall that India detonated a nuclear device in 1974 that used plutonium harvested from a reactor supplied by Canada using heavy water from the United States in violation of earlier bilateral peaceful nuclear use agreements.

3. Indirect Assistance to India's Nuclear Weapons Program
In the absence of a suspension of fissile material production for weapons by India, foreign nuclear fuel supplies would free up India's relatively limited domestic supplies to be used exclusively in its military nuclear sector, thereby indirectly contributing to the potential expansion of India's nuclear arsenal. This would contradict the spirit if not the letter of Article I of the NPT (which prohibits direct or indirect assistance to another state's nuclear weapons program), and it would spur further arms racing in South Asia.

India's political commitment to support negotiations of a global verifiable fissile material cut off treaty is a hollow gesture given the fact that states have failed to initiate negotiations on such a treaty for over a decade.

4. Facilitating Indian Nuclear Testing
If, as Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said on July 18, 2005, India would "assume the same responsibilities and practices" as other countries with advanced nuclear capabilities, it is reasonable to expect that India should agree to a legally-binding moratorium on nuclear test explosions. It would be highly irresponsible for CTBT signatories not to establish CTBT signature as a basic condition for NSG nuclear trade with India or any state that has not yet signed that treaty.

While Singh has reiterated his commitment to maintaining India's voluntary nuclear test moratorium, India has refused to make any commitment to a legally-binding commitment to a test ban and has sought to avoid the possibility of any penalty in the event that it does resume testing. As Singh asserted most recently in his July 22 statement to the Lok Sabha, "I confirm that there is nothing in these agreements which prevents us from further nuclear tests if warranted by our national security concerns."

To reduce the impact of a fuel supply cut off if India were to resume nuclear testing, Indian officials have gone further and are demanding a so-called "clean" and "unconditional" exemption from NSG guidelines and are seeking bilateral nuclear cooperation agreements that help provide India with strategic fuel reserves and/or lifetime fuel guarantees.

This flatly contradicts a provision in the 2006 U.S. Henry Hyde Act, which was championed by Sen. Barack Obama and approved by the U.S. Congress that stipulates that fuel supplies be limited to reasonable reactor operating requirements.1 It would also contradict the policy mandated by the U.S. implementing legislation that a nuclear test would lead to the immediate cessation of all U.S. nuclear cooperation with India.

If nuclear testing is to be deterred, meaningful penalties must be available. If NSG states do agree to supply fuel for India's "civilian" nuclear sector, they must avoid arrangements that would enable or encourage future nuclear testing by India. Otherwise, you and your government may become complicit in the facilitation of a new round of destabilizing nuclear tests.

In light of the above-mentioned flaws in the ill-conceived proposal to exempt India from certain NSG guidelines, we recommend that:

    * If NSG supplier states agree to supply fuel to India, they should establish a policy that if India resumes nuclear testing, or if India violates its safeguards agreement with the IAEA or withdraws "civilian" facilities or materials from international safeguards, all nuclear cooperation with India involving NSG members shall be terminated and unused fuel supplies from NSG states shall be returned.
    * If NSG supplier states agree to supply fuel to India, they should do so in a manner that is commensurate with ordinary reactor operating requirements and not provide - individually or collectively - strategic or lifetime nuclear fuel reserves.
    * NSG states should expressly prohibit any transfer of sensitive plutonium reprocessing, uranium enrichment, or heavy water production items to India, whether inside or outside bilateral nuclear cooperation agreements.
    * NSG states should actively oppose any arrangement that would give India any special safeguards exemptions or would in any way be inconsistent with the principle of permanent and unconditional safeguards over all nuclear materials and facilities subject to its safeguards agreement with the IAEA.
    * Before India is granted a waiver from the NSG's full-scope safeguards standard, it should join the other original nuclear weapon states by declaring it has stopped fissile material production for weapons purposes and transform its nuclear test moratorium into a meaningful, legally-binding commitment.2
    * NSG states should agree not to grant India consent to reprocess nuclear fuel supplied by an NSG member state in a facility that is not under permanent and unconditional IAEA safeguards, and also agree that any material produced in other facilities may not be transferred to any unsafeguarded facility.
    * NSG states should agree that all bilateral nuclear cooperation agreements between an NSG member state and India explicitly prohibit the replication or use of such technology in any unsafeguarded Indian facilities.

The Indian nuclear deal would be a nonproliferation disaster and a serious setback to the prospects of global nuclear disarmament, especially now. For those world leaders who are serious about ending the arms race, holding all states to their international commitments, and strengthening the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, it is time to stand up and be counted.

Sincerely,

Daryl G. Kimball,
Executive Director,
Arms Control Association, Washington, D.C.

Steven Staples
Director
Rideau Institute on International Affairs (Canada)
Global Secretariat to Abolition 2000

Hideyuki Ban
Co-Director
Citizens' Nuclear Information Center (Tokyo, Japan)

Endorsements continued below

1. See September 16, 2006 exchange on the floor of the Senate between Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Richard Lugar, then Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, available from <http://bulk.resource.org/gpo.gov/record/2006/2006_S11021.pdf > and <http://bulk.resource.org/gpo.gov/record/2006/2006_S11022.pdf>. Also see Sec. 103 (b) para 10 of the Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act.

2. All UN members states are also obligated to support UN Security Council Resolution 1172, which calls on India and Pakistan to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) stop producing fissile material for weapons, and undertake other nuclear risk reduction measures. All NSG states have a responsibility to uphold their obligations under UNSC 1172 by reiterating and actively encouraging India and Pakistan to implement these and other nuclear restraint measures.

Contact Addresses:

Abolition 2000 US-India Deal Working Group
c/o Citizens' Nuclear Information Center, Akebonobashi Co-op 2F-B, 8-5 Sumiyoshi-cho, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 162-0065, Japan
Tel: 03-3357-3800 Fax: 03-3357-3801

Arms Control Association
1313 L Street NW, Washington, DC 20005

Endorsements continued

Individual Endorsements

International NGOs

National and Local NGOs

Individual Endorsements (organizations listed for identification purposes only)

Tadatoshi Akiba (Japan)
Mayor of Hiroshima

Tomihisa Taue (Japan)
Mayor of Nagasaki City

Amb. Richard Broinowski (Australia)
Adjunct Professor,
School of Letters, Art and Media
University of Sydney, and
Former Ambassador to Vietnam, Republic of Korea, Mexico, the Central American Republics and Cuba

Amb. George Bunn (Stanford, CA, USA)
First General Consul for the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency,
Former Ambassador to the Geneva Disarmament Conference, and
Consulting Professor at the Center for International Security and Cooperation
Stanford University

Amb. Jayantha Dhanapala (Sri Lanka)
Former United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs, and
President of the 1995 NPT Review & Extension Conference

Amb. Robert Grey (USA)
Director, Bipartisan Security Group
Former U.S. Representative to the Conference on Disarmament

Fred McGoldrick (USA)
Consultant and
Former Director of Nonproliferation and Export Policy U.S. Department of State

Hon. Douglas Roche, O.C., (Canada)
Canadian Senator Emeritus
Former Canadian Ambassador for Disarmament

Praful Bidwai (India)
Senior journalist and author
Fellow at the Transnational Institute

Dennis Brutus (South Africa)
Honorary Professor Centre for Civil Society
University of Kwazulu-Natal, Durban

Adele Buckley (Canada)
Canadian Pugwash Group
Executive Committee, Member
Pugwash Council

Michael Byers (Canada)
Chair in Global Politics and Intl. Law
University of British Columbia

Helen Caldicott (Australia)
Co-founder, Physicians for Social Responsibility
Founder, Women's Action for Nuclear Disarmament
Founder, Nuclear Policy Research Institute

Noam Chomsky (Cambridge, MA, USA)
Emeritus Professor of Linguistics and Philosophy
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Joseph Cirincione (USA)
President
Ploughshares Fund

Mark Diesendorf (Australia)
Senior Lecturer
Institute of Environmental Studies
University of New South Wales

Jim Falk (Australia)
Director
Australian Centre for Science, Innovation, and Society
Melbourne University

Charles D. Ferguson (Washington, D.C., USA)
Philip D. Reed Senior Fellow for Science and Technology
Council on Foreign Relations

John Finney (UK)
Chair, British Pugwash Group
Member of the Council and Executive Committee of International Pugwash
Department of Physics and Astronomy
University College London

Geoffrey Forden (Cambridge, MA, USA)
Research Associate, Program in Science, Technology and Society
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Lt. Gen. Robert Gard Jr. (USA, Ret.)
Senior Military Fellow
Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

Subrata Ghoshroy (Cambridge, MA, USA)
Research Associate, Program in Science, Technology and Society
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Prof. Dr. Ulrich Gottstein (Germany)
Emeritus IPPNW Vice President Europe and
Honorary board member, IPPNW-Germany

Frank von Hippel (Princeton, NJ, USA)
Professor of Public and International Affairs
Program on Science and Global Security
Princeton University

Kayoko Ikeda (Japan)
Member of the Committee of Seven for World Peace Appeal

Jungmin Kang (Stanford, CA, USA)
Science Fellow
Center for International Security and Cooperation, Stanford University

Michiji Konuma (Japan)
Member of the Committee of Seven for World Peace Appeal
Former Council Member of the Pugwash Conferences, and
Professor Emeritus, Keio University and Musashi Institute of Technology

Oliver Meier (Germany)
Researcher
Hamburg Peace Research Institute

Zia Mian (Princeton, NJ, USA)
Research Scientist
Program on Science and Global Security
Princeton University

Gavin Mudd (Australia)
Engineering Lecturer
Monash University

Masashi Nishihara (Japan)
President
Research Institute for Peace and Security

Jin Hee Park (South Korea)
Assistant Professor
Dongguk University

William C. Potter (Monterey, CA, USA)
Sam Nunn and Richard Lugar Professor of Nonproliferation Studies
Monterey Institute of International Studies

Ernie Regehr, O.C. (Canada)
Co-Founder
Project Ploughshares of Canada
Adjunct Associate Professor of Peace and Conflict Studies
University of Waterloo

Alan Roberts (Australia)
Former member of the
Nuclear Safety Committee of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency

Timothy L. Savage (Republic of Korea)
Deputy Director
Nautilus Institute at Seoul

Shoji Sawada (Japan)
Emeritus Professor
Nagoya University

Henry D. Sokolski (USA)
Executive Director
Nonproliferation Policy Education Center

Tatsujiro Suzuki (Japan)
Member, Japan Pugwash Group
Co-founder, Peace Pledge Japan

Takao Takahara (Japan)
Professor, International Peace Research Institute
Meijigakuin University

Aaron Tovish
Director, 2020 Vision Campaign
Mayors for Peace

Hideo Tsuchiyama (Japan)
Member of The Committee of Seven for World Peace Appeal
Emeritus Professor and former President of Nagasaki University

Hiromichi Umebayashi (Japan)
Special Advisor
Peace Depot

Achin Vanaik (India)
Professor of International Relations and Global Politics
Department of Political Science
Delhi University
Fellow, Transnational Institute

Leonard Weiss (United States)
Consultant and Chief Architect of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978

Kiho Yi ( Republic of Korea)
Research Professor
Democracy and Social Movement Institute
Sungkonghoe University

Ichiro Yuasa (Japan)
President
Peace Depot

International NGOs

Regina Hagen
Coordinator
International Network of Engineers and Scientists Against Proliferation

Tilman Ruff
Chair, International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War
Chair, Australian Management Committee of ICAN

Susi Snyder
Secretary General
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom

Alyn Ware
Consultant
International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms

National and Local NGOs (listed by region)

South Asia

India

Sujay Basu
Director
Centre of Energy and Environment Management (Kolkata)

Santanu Chacraverti
Secretary
Society for Direct Initiative for Social and Health Action

Anil K. Chaudhary
Popular Education and Action Centre (New Delhi)

Sajaya Kakarla
Caring Citizens Collective (Hyderabad)

Saraswati Kavula and Dr. Satya Lakshmi Komarraju
Movement Against Uranium Projects (Hyderabad)

N. Ramesh
Organiser
Journalists Against Nuclear Weapons, Thanjavur Chapter

Captain J. Rama Rao and Dr. K. Babu Rao
Forum for Sustainable Development (Hyderabad)

Sukla Sen
EKTA (Committee for Communal Amity) (Mumbai)

S. P. Udayakumar
Coordinator
People's Movement Against Nuclear Energy (Nagercoil, Tamil Nadu)

South Asian Diaspora

Harsh Kapoor
South Asians Against Nukes (France)

Hari Sharma
President
South Asian Network for Secularism and Democracy (Vancouver, Canada)

Africa

South Africa

Genni Easton
Chair
Table View Ratepayers Association

Dominique Gilbert
Pelindaba Working Group

Mike Kantey
National Chair
Coalition Against Nuclear Energy

Andy W. Pienaar
Namaqualand Action Group for Environmental Justice (Komaggas)


East Asia

Japan

Sadao Ichikawa
Chair
Japan Congress Against A- and H- Bombs (Gensuikin)

Mayako Ishii
President:
YWCA of Japan

Goro Kawai, Haruko Moritaki, Mitsuo Okamoto
Co-Directors
Hiroshima Alliance for Nuclear Weapons Abolition

Akira Kawasaki
Executive Committee Member
Peace Boat

Nobuo Kazashi, Director and
Haruko Moritaki, Executive Director
NO DU Hiroshima Project

Masayoshi Naito
Coordinator
Citizens' Network for Nuclear Weapons Abolition (Tokyo)

Osamu Niikura
President
Japanese Lawyers International Solidarity Association

Kenichi Ohkubo
Secretary General
Japan Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (JALANA)

Daisuke Sato
Secretary-General
NoNukes Asia Forum Japan

Yoshiko Shidara
Co-Director
Women's Democratic Club

Aileen Mioko Smith
Director
Green Action (Kyoto)

Terumi Tanaka
Secretary General
Nihon Hidankyo (Japan Confederation of A- and H-bomb Sufferers)

Republic of Korea

Cheong Wooksik
Representative
Peace Network

Koo Kab-woo
Director
Center for Peace and Disarmament
People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy

Lee Heonseok
Representative
Korea Eco-Center

Park Jung-eun
Chief Coordinator
Center for Peace and Disarmament
People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy

Seok Kwanghoon
Energy Policy Consultant
Green Korea United

Malaysia

Ronald McCoy
President
Malaysian Physicians for Peace and Social Responsibility

Europe

Austria

Hildegard Breiner
President
Naturschutzbund Osterreich, Landesgruppe Vorarlberg (Dornbirn) and
Speaker
Vorarlberger Plattform gegen Atomgefahren (Bregenz)

Pete H_mmerle
Austrian Fellowship of Reconciliation
(Internationaler Vers_hnungsbund, _sterreichischer Zweig)

Hans Holzinger
Robert-Jungk-Foundation (Salzburg)

Maga. Johanna Nekowitsch
Wiener Plattform "Atomkraftfreie Zukunft"



Matthias Reichl
Center for Encounter and active Non-Violence (Bad Ischl)

Dr. Klaus Renoldner, Chair
International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War Austria

Heinz Stockinger
PLAGE (Salzburg Platform Against Nuclear Dangers)

Belgium

Jef De Loof
President
'Physicians for Peace' (Belgian Affiliate of IPPNW)

Gio De Weerd
Pax Christi Vlaanderen

David Heller
Coordinator
Friends of the Earth, Flanders & Brussels

Hans Lammerant
Vredesactie - Bombspotting

Georges Spriet
Secretary General
Vrede

Michel Vanhoorne
Coordinator
Left Ecological Forum

Finland

Laura Lodenius
Executive Director
Peace Union of Finland

Anna-Liisa Mattsoff
Coordinator
No More Nuclear Power movement

France

Dominique Lalanne
Chair
Abolition of Nuclear Weapons / Stop essais

Germany

Johannes M. Becker
Board
Wissenschaft & Frieden

Xanthe Hall
IPPNW Germany

Martin Kalinowski
Board
Forschungsverbund Naturwissenschaft, Abr_stung und internationale Sicherheit (FONAS)

Prof. G_tz Neuneck, Ph.D.
Chair
Germany Pugwash Group

Ireland

Mary McCarrick
Executive Committee Member
Irish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament

Italy

Albino Bizzotto
President
Beati i Costruttori di Pace (Blessed Are the Peacemakers)

Lisa Clark
Nuclear Weapons Working Group
Rete Italiana per il Disarmo (Italian Disarmament Network)

Nicola Cufaro Petroni
Secretary Generale
USPID (Union of Scientists for Disarmament)

Netherlands

Marjan Lucas
IKV Pax Christi Netherlands

Ak Malten
Director
Global Anti-Nuclear Alliance

Fred Valkenburg
Chair
Pais (Dutch Section War Resisters International)

Wendela de Vries
Coordinator
Campagne tegen Wapenhandel (Campaign Against Arms Trade)

Norway

Tordis S_rensen H_if_dt
Chair
Norske Leger mot atomv_pen, NLA
(Norwegian Affiliate of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War)

Stine Rodmyr
Director
No to Nuclear Weapons

Russia

Alexey Toropov
NGO Siberian Ecological Agency

Spain

Josep Puig
President
Group of Scientists and Technicians for a Non Nuclear Future (Barcelona)

Sweden

Frida Sundberg (President) and Gunnar Westberg (Member of the Board)
Swedish Physicians Against Nuclear Weapons (SLMK)

United Kingdom

Pat Haward (Chair) and George Farebrother (Secretary)
World Court Project UK

Paul Ingram
Executive Director
British American Security Information Council (London and Washington, D.C.)

Oceania

Australia

Michael Denborough
The Nuclear Disarmament Party of Australia

John Hallam
People for Nuclear Disarmament Nuclear Flashpoints Project

Don Jarrett
President
Australian Peace Committee

Pauline Mitchell
Campaign for International Cooperation and Disarmament (Melbourne)

South Australian Regional Meeting
Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)

Cam Walker
National Liaison Officer
Friends of the Earth Australia

Sue Wareham OAM
President
Medical Association for Prevention of War

New Zealand

Dr. Kate Dewes (Coordinator) and Commander Robert D. Green (Royal Navy - Ret.)
Disarmament & Security Centre (Christchurch, New Zealand)

Simon Reeves
Chair
Aotearoa Lawyers for Peace

North America

Canada

Elaine Hughes
Spokesperson
Stop the Hogs Coalition


S. (Ziggy) Kleinau
Coordinator
Citizens for Renewable Energy (Lion's Head, Ontario)

David H. Martin
Climate & Energy Coordinator
Greenpeace (Canada)

Dr. Joan Russow
Global Compliance Research Project (Victoria, B.C.)

Laura Savinkoff
Boundary Peace Initiative (Grand Forks, B.C.)

Mexico

Luis Guti_rrez Esparza
President
Latin American Circle for International Studies (Mexico City)

USA - National

David Culp
Legislative Representative
Friends Committee on National Legislation (Quakers) (Washington, DC)

Marie Dennis
Director
Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns (Washington, DC)

Bruce K. Gagnon
Coordinator
Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space

Amy Isaacs
National Director
Americans for Democratic Action (Washington, DC)

John Isaacs
Executive Director
Council for a Livable World (Washington, DC)

Rob Keithan
Director
Washington Office for Advocacy
Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations (Washington, DC)

Michael Mariotte
Executive Director
Nuclear Information and Resource Service

Paul Kawika Martin
Organizing and Policy Director
Peace Action

Michael McNally, MD, Ph. D
Executive Director
Physicians for Social Responsibility

Jon Rainwater
Executive Director
Peace Action West

Susan Shaer
Executive Director
Women's Action for New Directions (Washington, DC)

Alice Slater
Convener
Abolition 2000 Sustainable Energy Working Group

USA - Regional

Chuck Baynton
Member
Wisconsin Network for Peace and Justice

Ken Bossong
Executive Director
SUN DAY Campaign (Takoma Park, MD)

Buffalo Bruce
Vice-Chair
Western Nebraska Resources Council

George Crocker
Executive Director
North American Water Office (Lake Elmo, MN)

Mary Davis
Director
Yggdrasil, a project of Earth Island Institute (Lexington, KY)

Elena Day
Steering Committee Chair
People's Alliance for Safe Energy (Charlottesville, VA)

Bruce A. Drew
Steering Committee
Prairie Island Coalition (Minneapolis, MN)

Wells Eddleman
Staff Scientist
North Carolina Citizens Research Group

Judi Friedman
Chair
People's Action for Clean Energy (Connecticut)

Marylia Kelley
Executive Director
Tri-Valley CAREs (Livermore, CA)

Mary Lampert
Director
Pilgrim Watch (Duxbury, MA)

Conrad Miller, MD
Founder
Physicians For Life (Watermill, NY)

Capt. William S. Linnell
Spokesperson
Cheaper, Safer Power (Portland, OR)

Sal Mangiagli
Board Member
Citizens Awareness Network - Connecticut Chapter

Alan Muller
Executive Director
Green Delaware

Lewis E. Patrie, MD
Chair
Western North Carolina Physicians for Social Responsibility

Guy C. Quinlan
Chair, Nuclear Disarmament Task Force
All Souls Unitarian Church (New York, NY)

Judy Treichel
Executive Director
Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force (Las Vegas, NV)

Michael Welch
Redwood Alliance (Arcata, CA)

Tags:
Related Entries:
India: Statement of Students Against Nuclear Power
Resolution adopted at the seminar Indo US Nuclear ‘Deal’ India, South Asia, NAM and the Global Order
Citizens Groups respond to fire bombing of the train between India and Pakistan
India: Cut down defence spending to fight inflation
Villages near India's nuclear tests site have no reason to celebrate
 Permalink

India: Statement of Students Against Nuclear Power

[ ] by sapw @ 29.03.2008 01:00 CEST
South Asians Against Nukes Mailing List
March 29, 2008
URL: groups.yahoo.com/group/SAAN_/message/1102

o o o o

Kerala students, who have set up an organisation, Students Against Nuclear Power (SANP), were on indefinite hunger strike at New Delhi’s Jantar Mantar to project their demand that the Indo-US civil nuclear deal be scrapped, gave up their fast after eight days on March 17, 2008 following the intervention of and assurance from various socio-political leaders. Their demand has been powerfully raised in the Lok Sabha and in the crucial meeting of the UPA-Left committee on the deal. They received support from various political leaders in carrying the struggle forward against the Indo-US nuclear deal. The initiative taken by them is regarded as a distinct one of its kind as it is directly related to the future of the nation, said many in solidarity. Members of Parliament like D. Raja, P. Karuunakaran, M.P. Veerendra Kumar, C.K. Chandrappan, Pannyan Raveendran, Dr K.S. Manoj, Dr P.P. Koya, political leaders like Annie Raja, G. Devarajan, K.N. Ramachandran, Dhruv Narayanan, and eminent personalities like Medha Patkar, Arundhati Roy, Sandeep Pandey, Swami Agnivesh, Praful Bidwai, Prashant Bhushan, and so many others visited and expressed their solidarity with the students’ struggle against nuclear power. Many faculty members and students from Delhi Universtiy, Jamia Mallia Islamia, JNU and AMU came to them. Pratidhwani, a Delhi based movement, observed a day’s hunger strike with the students to express their solidarity. Memoranda were forwarded to the Prime Minister, UPA chairperson, Defence Minister and External Affairs Minister through Member of Lok Sabha Sandeep Dikshit. Demanding the scrapping of the deal and supporting the students’ hunger strike, hundreds of telegrams, fax messages and e-mails were sent to the Prime Minister’s Office from different parts of the country. Several demonstrations, poster campaigns and dharnas in solidarity with the hunger strike of the SANP took place in different parts of the country. The students, while winding up the fast, declared that they ‘are ready to sacrifice and will resume the struggle if the government is going on with the deal’. The position of the SANP  activists has been spelt out in the following statement.


STATEMENT OF STUDENTS AGAINST NUCLEAR POWER (SANP) ON INDEFINITE HUNGER STRIKE IN PROTEST AGAINST INDO-US NUCLEAR DEAL

The anxieties concerning the Indo-US nuclear deal began on July 18, 2005 with the Joint Declaration of our Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, and US President George Bush. The treaty is known as the 123 deal because of the changes that were made in the 123 section of the American Atomic Energy Act of 1954 that allows the US to enter into treaties with India which has not signed the NPT. There are 17 sections in 22 pages in the deal which is relevant for 40 years. The Hyde Act is another amendment made to this deal that will allow the US to sell nuclear technology and equipments to India. The Hyde Act is known after the name of Henry Joseph Hyde, the Senator who proposed the Act.

    The PM insists that nuclear energy is the only source for meeting the energy crisis of our country. But one needs to look at the energy production of this country and compare how much nuclear energy India will get from the nuclear deal before signing the deal. Thermal and hydro-electric projects contribute 55 per cent and 22 per cent respectively of the total production of power in the country. The 4120 megawatts that come from nuclear power projects contribute only two per cent. The government claims that if the nuclear deal is signed, by 2040 the nuclear power production will touch 40,000 megawatts. The Planning Commission places it at 29, 000 megawatts by the year 2021. The wind generated power units and the recently improved power generating source jointly produce 10,715 megawatts (7.5 per cent) whereas nuclear power with its history of more than fifty years has been able to produce only 4120 megawatts.

    The cost of nuclear generated electricity is appalling. Coal/thermal power is priced at Rs 3.73 crores/megawatt as against the Rs 7.4 crores/megawatt from nuclear power. Natural Gas and hydroelectric power can be generated at Rs 2 crores per megawatt. The imported reactors that are part of the nuclear deal will take the cost to something like Rs 11.1 crores (inclusive of the interests of the production capital). Statistics show that the cost of nuclear power is five times that of hydroelectric power and three-and-a-half times that of thermal/coal power. It might be relevant to recall the financial burden that Enron, with its mere 2000 megawatt capacity, brought to bear on the Government of Maharashtra. The burden of 40,000 megawatts will be staggering.

    A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology reveals that the US spends 4.2 cent for coal generated power and 7.6 per cent for nuclear power. The disposal of nuclear waste, which poses a grave threat to all forms of life, is still a daunting problem. The cost of decommissioning of nuclear reactors exceeds that of commissioning. The carelessness of man, internal unrest, civil wars, natural disasters raise serious challenges to nuclear safety. The cases of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island are hard to forget. Einstein’s observation that research on nuclear safety should be given priority over nuclear energy is worth recalling here.

    India, a fast-developing country, is in urgent need of nuclear safety. What is of paramount importance is why and how India should depend on nuclear energy. It is not wise to engage in a frantic rush for nuclear energy which causes serious social crisis when there are other more productive and less harmful ways of producing power using modern technology and natural resources. Those who argue that we will need nuclear energy when the coal and thermal sources of power are exhausted should remember that uranium, which is essential for nuclear power, will  not be available as a long term source.

    We need to depend on alternative sources and systems of generating power that will not destroy the balance of nature or the existence of humanity. Solar power is the fastest growing option that is receiving widespread attention and acceptance. Scientists have come to the conclusion that from the Rajasthan desert alone one lakh megawatts of solar power is possible. On a long term basis, we need to develop solar, hydro-electric, wind and biomass and for short-term dependence we can look to thermal and coal. In Nepal alone, there is the possibility of producing 8000 megawatts of hydro-electric power and our National Hydroelectric Power Corporation points out that we can make around 50,000 megawatts of hydro-electric power. Many mini hydro-electric projects and alternative systems and sources are possible. This being the situation, we need to think whether we should lead ourselves into a Gordian knot (nuclear deal) that America insists.

    Another objection raised by those who support nuclear power is that coal/thermal power generating stations will worsen global warming. There is no doubt that use of fossil energy will augment the green-house effect. Just because India stops using such energy is not going to help. If India’s coal reactors emit 500 kilos of waste US reactors emit five tonnes. Statistics show that the major culprit of global warming is the US. The US has always resisted everything that is against their interests. The US had no qualms about walking out of the Kyoto agreement. Only selfish interest governs the US in this nuclear deal. Section 104 (d) 5 (b) is ample proof of that country’s selfish concerns in this deal.

    The above data proves without doubt that for power safety and environmental protection we need coal based power generating stations and not nuclear power reactors. We need to rely on clean coal technology to reduce environmental pollution. A major chunk of the domestic power use is the electric bulb invented by Edison more than one hundred years ago. Such bulbs convert 90 per cent of electricity to light. The use of such bulbs in India is estimated at Rs 100 crores. Replacing them with CFL bulbs will reduce energy consumption by more than fifty per cent. You can save the environment from thousands of tonnes of carbon waste, and reduce the electricity bill in households. The longer life of the CFL bulbs will also reduce E wastes. The total cost will be somewhere between Rs 7000-10,000 crores. Such being the case, to argue that nuclear power is the only solution is fooling oneself.

---

THE deal, which is supposed to be for power safety, refers only to electric energy. Electricity forms only a portion of our energy consumption. Oil, natural gas and petrochemical products are not even discussed. The demand for oil and natural gas are on the rise by the day. Seventytwo per cent of the petroleum consumption of our country is imported. According to the Integrated Energy Policy Report of the Planning Commission, by 2032, the demand for petroleum will rise from 33,400 lakh tonnes to 46,200 lakh tonnes and that of  natural gas from 990 to 1840. These figures show that the Indo-American nuclear deal will meet only a small portion of our energy demand. Before one enters into this deal, one needs to take into consideration some facts. India’s share in the world energy consumption is a mere two per cent. India stands first globally as the importer of oil. Nuclear energy meets only three-to-five per cent of the demands for energy as compared to 30 and 10 per cent of oil and natural gas. In the future 40 per cent of the energy demand will be from oil and natural gas.

    The pipeline project from Iran through Pakistan will be a partial solution to our demands. The project with an output of 250 lakh tonnes of natural gas would be a significant step towards saving millions of rupees. The figures furnished by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Resources are significant. The cost of one billion Terminal Unit of  Natural Gas (Iran-Pakistan pipeline project) is a mere $ 4 as against the international market price of $ 14. The possibility of a very cost effective means of acquiring natural gas will be nullified by the Indo-American nuclear deal.

    American business concerns give much importance to the 123 deal. The US Chamber of Commerce, the largest business federation in the world, expects around Rs 60 lakh crores from India as part of the Indo-American deal. The business houses in India also expect crores of rupees from this deal. The big shots in the government also expect monetary gains from this deal. How can one claim that they are the followers of Gandhiji who insisted that all plans for development should be implemented without losing sight of the poorest sections of our country? That smiling toothless revered old man sitting on the wall of Manmohan Singh’s office would have said ‘no’ to the Indo American nuclear deal. ‘Quit Nuclear Deal’—that is what that great old man, who passed away sixty years ago, would be exhorting us to do today.

    The intention of the Indian Government is to amend the nuclear deal and open up the production of nuclear energy to private corporations. This will destroy the nuclear safety of our country. The possibility of uranium and plutonium falling into the hands of terrorists cannot be ruled out. It would be worthwhile to remember Einstein’s words—“It is dangerous to give greater powers to private agencies and corporations that do not have equally great responsibilities”.

    The meagre energy that we get through the 123 deal will be achieved at the expense of sacrificing India’s sovereignty and integrity. It will be the end of our self-reliance in the field of nuclear energy and it will offer shackles in the sphere of foreign policy.
    The question whether India should keep aloof from nuclear energy when China, Korea and France even with their energy resources from coal are favourable towards nuclear energy has also come up. It is not by quoting the example of France or China that India should take a decision; rather, it should be based on the assessment of technological advances that India has achieved in the field of nuclear energy. Indian scientists have pointed out that the nuclear deal will destroy the second stage fast breeder technology that our country alone possesses.

    India’s voting against Iran can be seen as a move only to appease America. This is ironic since those who voted against Iran are the followers of Nehru who once reiterated to America that we are not international beggars. Such actions adversely affect the sense of justice that this country has always upheld.

    What is more essential for the power, security and self-sufficiency of the country is to use the energy that is available from oil and natural gas. These do not lie in buying reactors from GE or Westinghouse. To make this possible we must have peace in the Asian region. The intention of the American imperialist forces is to cause unrest. Do we need this deal that will sacrifice the sovereignty and foreign policy of our country? Power safety means self-reliance. Remember what the Urdu poet Iqbal wrote:

The ocean told the dew drop:
“Come I will protect you in my lap.”
The dewdrop said: “I prefer to die on the hot sands rather than merge myself in you.”   
Tags:
Related Entries:
Avert a Nonproliferation Disaster: oppose NSG waiver to India
Resolution adopted at the seminar Indo US Nuclear ‘Deal’ India, South Asia, NAM and the Global Order
Abolition of nuclear weapons and the Indo US Nuclear Deal
 Permalink

Resolution adopted at the seminar Indo US Nuclear ‘Deal’ India, South Asia, NAM and the Global Order

[ ] by sacip @ 12.03.2007 16:31 CEST
Resolution adopted at the seminar Indo US Nuclear ‘Deal’ India, South Asia, NAM and the Global Order

[Press Release - Bombay, 12 March 2007]

The International Seminar on “Indo US Nuclear ‘Deal’ India, South Asia, NAM and the Global Order” held in Mumbai, on March 10-11, 2007 was organised by a number of local organisations, as per the attached list ‘A’, and endorsed/participated by the international organisations, as per the attached list ‘B’.

After due and indepth deliberations in which a number of international and national experts and activists took part, the Seminar has resolved as under:

I. What the Deal Is All About?
The content of the ‘Deal’, which is currently being negotiated between India and the US, was first laid out the joint statement issued by the Indian Prime minister and the US President on July 18 2005 from Washington DC and then further reiterated on March 2 2006 in another joint statement by them issued from New Delhi incorporating the major elements of agreements between the countries reached till then. The signing of the Henry Hyde Act on December 18 2006, after protracted and nervewracking deliberations in the US Congress, by the US President towards amending its own Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to make the ‘Deal’ possible is a major step forward towards bringing the ‘Deal’ into force.

The ‘Deal’, in its essence, is meant to enable India, a nonsignatory to the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty (NPT), henceforth to have ‘civilian’ nuclear trade - in terms of nuclear fuel, technology, plants, spares etc., with the US, and also other nations so desirous, by making a unique exception in case of India. India in return will have to designate, at its own options, its nuclear reactors into two categories - ‘civilian’ (for power production) and ‘strategic’ (for Bomb making), and ensure separation between the two. The ‘civilian’ reactors/plants only will be opened up for international inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The nuclear trade will accordingly be limited to the ‘civilian’ reactors only. In case of the ‘strategic’ ones, there will be neither any inspection nor any trade.

II. When and How the ‘Deal’ Comes into Operation?

In order to bring the ‘Deal’ into force, India will have to further finalise the “123 agreement” with the US, laying down the specific scope and terms of cooperation and codifying the modes of separation between the ‘civilian’ and ‘strategic’ plants and perhaps diluting some of the conditions incorporated in the Henry Hyde Act at the instance of the US Congress to which India is objecting; and conclude a treaty with the IAEA on the specific scope and terms of inspection.
Then the proposal will go to the 45member Nuclear Suppliers Group so that it unanimously amends its rules, which as of now prohibits nuclear trade with India - being a nonsignatory to the NPT, to accommodate the above two agreements reached between India, on the one hand, and the US and the IAEA on the other.
On succeeding in obtaining a green signal from the NSG, the whole package will go back to the two houses of the US Congress, which stands reconfigured since, for its final nod.

In the event of obtaining such, the US President would put his signature and the ‘Deal’ will eventually come into operation.

The Indian government, unlike its US counterpart, is not obligated to obtain any parliamentary approval.

III. Why the ‘Deal’ Must Be Opposed?
The ‘Deal’ as and when, and if at all, comes through will grievously undermine the current global regime of nuclear nonproliferation, as it is meant to make a unique exception in case India, in gross violation of the underlying principles of the NPT, and thereby also the prospects of global nuclear disarmament. The fact that Pakistan has been brusquely refused a similar deal by the US in spite of persistent clamouring and Iran is being demonstratively coerced to desist from developing its own nuclear fuel cycle technology, integral to nuclear power production allowed and encouraged under the Article IV of the NPT, further brings out graphically the abominable discriminatory nature of the ‘Deal’. Moreover, the lesson that one would tend to learn is that if one can weather the initial storms of international censures after breaking the nonproliferation taboo, things would normalise in a while. One may even get rewarded in the process. This is sure to trigger off stepped up vertical and horizontal proliferations.

Moreover, by enabling India to import fuel, natural or enriched uranium, from abroad, the ‘Deal’ would make it possible for India to use the indigenously produced uranium exclusively for Bombmaking. This possible escalation in its fissile material production capacity is, in all likelihood, push Pakistan further to nuclearise even at a great cost, and thereby aggravate tensions and accelerate arms race in the region with spinechilling consequences.

It’d also further cement the growing (unequal) strategic ties between the US and India and thereby would add momentum to the US project for unfettered global dominance and Indian craze to emerge as a global power basking in the reflected glory of the global headman. It’d just not only undermine India’s position as a founding and leading member of the NAM, it’d also pose a very serious challenge to the NAM and its objectives in terms of radically raised level of US domination on the global scene.

India’s rather meek submission to highly deplorable and dangerous threats issued and postures adopted by the Bush regime in relation to Iran and its nuclear programme instead of trying to find a just and fair solution in terms of having a Weapons of Mass Destruction free MiddleEast including Israel is a clear and extremely worrisome pointer. India’s keenness to join the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) initiated by the US to interdict any vessel in international waters suspected of carrying (unauthorised!) nuclear materials, in gross violation of all international laws and also the Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) programme of the US are another two highly disturbing indicators.

India’s growing closeness with Israel, the frontline state of the US in the Middle East, would also pick up further pace in the process.

This ‘Deal’ would obviously distort India’s energy options by diverting scarce resources to developments of resourceguzzling, intrinsically hazardous and potentially catastrophic, nuclear power at the cost of ecologically benign renewable sources of energy.

This would, furthermore, provide a strong boost to the nuclear industry worldwide, particularly the potential suppliers from the US. And that’s precisely why the business lobby in the US is working overtime to get the ‘Deal’ clinched.
The recent visit by the Russian President Vladimir Putin to India as the guest of honour at the Republic Day event and his public commitment to supply additional nuclear reactors to India and work for the safe passage of the ‘Deal’ through the NSG underscores the convergence of interests of the nuclear power lobbies worldwide as regards the ‘Deal’ and the new market that it is promising to open up.

IV. We Demand

The government of India, given the grave multifaceted negative implications of this ongoing deal, must forthwith withdraw from all further negotiations with the US in this regard.

It must strive to regain its old prestige and influence, both moral and political, by opting to again play a meaningful leading role in the NonAligned Movement and other international alliances geared against imperialism, militarism and oriented towards a nuclear weapons free South Asia and the world.

The government of India is further urged to make global abolition of nuclear weapons its diplomatic priority and take up and pursue the issue vigorously with the NAM, UNGA and other international fora.

V.

The Seminar also decides to send a copy of this Resolution to the Prime Minister of India, the Chairperson of the ruling UPA - Mrs Sonia Gandhi, the incumbent chair of the NAM - the Cuban government, and also the United Nations SecretaryGeneral, Mr Ban Kimoon.

It also urges the members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group to turn down the proposal to amend its rule to accommodate the ‘Deal’, as and when it come sup for discussions.

‘A’
Indian Organisers:
Bombay Urban Industrial League for Development (BUILD)
Centre for Study of Society and Secularism (CSSS)
Church’s Auxiliary for Social Action (CASA)
Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace (CNDP)
Documentation & Research Training Centre (DRTC)
Forum for Justice & Peace (FJP)
Indian Institute for Peace, Disarmament &
Environmental Protection
Indian Doctors for Peace and Development (IDPD)
Initiative India
Institute Community Organization & Research (ICOR)
Labour Education and Research Network (LEARN)
National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM)
Pakistan India Peoples’ Forum for Peace & Democracy (PIPFPD)
Peace Mummbai
People’s Media Initiative (PMI)
Vikas Adhyayan Kendra (VAK)
Wisdom Foundation
Women’s Centre
and others

‘B’
International Organisations Endorsing:
AfroAsian Peoples’ Solidarity Organisation
Friends of the Earth Australia
Mayors for Peace
South Asian Network for Secularism and Democracy (SANSAD),
and others

Event Details
10.3.2007 (SATURDAY)
10 0011 00: Registration & Inauguration.
Welcome Speech: Admiral (Rtd.) L Ramdas (PIPFPD/CNDP).
11 0014 00: 1st Plenary: ‘IndoUS Nuke Deal: India, NonAligned Movement and the Emerging Global Order’.
Speakers: Achin Vanaik (CNDP), A.A.M Marleen PC (SecretaryGeneral, AAPSO, Sri Lanka), Ashim Roy (General Secretary, NTUI), Ms. Hamsa Abd ElHamid (International Secretariat, AAPSO, Cairo).
Chair: Fr. Allwyn D’Silva (FJP/ICOR).
15 0018 00: 2nd Plenary: ‘IndoUS Nuke Deal: Its Impacts on Global and Regional Nuclear Arms Race’.
Speakers: John Hallam (Friends of the Earth, Australia), E.A.Vidyasekera (AAPSO Secretariat Coordinator), Hari Sharma (President, SANSAD, Canada) speech read out in absentia, Praful Bidwai (CNDP).
Chair: Vijay Darp (PIPFPD).
March 11 (SUNDAY)
10 0013 00: 3rd Plenary: ‘IndoUS Nuke Deal: Its Impacts on Global and Regional Energy Options’.
Speakers: Surendra Gadekar (CNDP/Anumukti), V T Padmanabhan (Researcher on radiation effects on human heath), M V Ramana (CNDP).
Chair: Leslie Rodrigues (VAK).
14 0018 00: 4th Plenary:
Documentary film by K P Sasi on effects of radiation (from thorium) on human health.
Strategy Session and Adoption of Resolution.
Speakers: Theodore Orlin (President, International Human Rights Education Consortium, USA), Sandeep Pandey (NAPM/CNDP), Eric Toussaint (CADTM, Belgium) and others.
Chair: Sukla Sen (CNDP).
Discussion on Film
Speaker: V T Padmanabhan.
Chair: Sushovan Dhar (VAK).
Thanksgiving
Tags:
Related Entries:
Avert a Nonproliferation Disaster: oppose NSG waiver to India
India: Statement of Students Against Nuclear Power
India: Cut down defence spending to fight inflation
Villages near India's nuclear tests site have no reason to celebrate
India-Pakistan: 3 minutes to nuclear disaster, anybody listening ?
 Permalink

Abolition of nuclear weapons and the Indo US Nuclear Deal

[ ] by sacip @ 12.08.2006 12:22 CEST
[The following is the text of the speech delivered by the Sukla Sen as the representative of the people’s movements in India against nuclear weapons during a panel discussion on the above theme held in Japan. The other members of the panel were the representatives of the governments of Mexico and Egypt; Arab League and the General Secretary of the Japan Council against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs (Gensuikyo) - the host.]

o o o

International Forum
2006 World Conference against A & H Bombs - Nagasaki
Nakabe Auditorium, August 8, 2006


Sukla Sen
Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace
India

Respected Members of the Chair, Other Distinguished
Dignitaries on the Panel and Dear Friends and
Comrades,

I now propose to make only a brief initial presentation on the theme of quick abolition of nuclear weapons from a specific angle which I’ll elaborate as I go along. The essential points made now will be enlarged upon later during the interactive session.
My presentation will have three sections: first, I’ll very briefly touch upon the uniqueness of nuclear weapons as an instrument of deliberate and indiscriminate mass murder on a mind boggling scale; then I’ll try to present a bird’s eye view of the developments on the nuclear front in the global arena during the last decade; and finally, as the representative of the anti-nuke peace movement in India, I’ll deliberate the Indo-US nuke ‘deal’, which, if eventually implemented, will have a serious bearing on the course of events in the coming days.

As regards the question why it is at all necessary to work wholeheartedly and with single-minded determination towards quick abolition of the nuclear weapon, we have to investigate and underscore its uniqueness as a weapon of deliberate mass murder.
The nuclear weapon is unique just not in terms of its instant destructive effects caused by terrible blast and heat - way beyond the limits of conventional explosives, but it’s also unique as it keeps on killing and maiming silently and invisibly through nuclear radiation emitted for decades and decades punishing cruelly even unborn generations, and at times, in faraway lands beyond national boundaries. Not only the hapless targets of Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, but also the unintended victims of the Chernobyl disaster twenty years back - mostly in Belarus and Ukraine but also elsewhere in Europe in this regard provide the most tragic and graphic evidences. It is precisely this that makes the weapon a unique and absolute evil regardless of the holder.

Now I come to the second part.

Just over a decade back, in 1995, the NPT was indefinitely extended without any concrete commitment from the five recognised Nuclear Weapon States (NWSs) as regards a time-bound disarmament programme. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) that, however, came up in the process as a sort of inadequate but nevertheless a positive move towards global disarmament most unfortunately failed to be born in any meaningful sense. The major impediments were firstly Indian intransigence and subsequently the refusal of the US Senate to grant the mandatory ratification. This development had a profoundly negative impact and seriously undermined the mood of tentative optimism that had been generated in the immediate aftermath of the end of the Cold War. The 2000 NPT Review Conference was, however, a modest success. The NWSs renewed their commitment to nuclear disarmament and, even more importantly, thirteen practical steps were laid out to commence a purposeful journey in that direction. The change in regime in the US soon after with George Bush grabbing the Presidential throne in January 2001 however changed all that. It inaugurated an almost uninterrupted journey downhill. Since then gross and brazen unilateralism has emerged as the most significant marker of the policies of the Bush regime propelled by its relentless drive for unfettered global dominance nicknamed as the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Towards this goal the regime has unashamedly foregrounded its awesome military might, including the nuclear firepower, to make up for the deficiencies of its otherwise huge economic muscles and political/diplomatic clout. It soon reactivated its nuclear arsenal development programme including tactical and earth-penetrating nukes and launched the Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) Programme unilaterally scrapping the 1972 ABM Treaty. But the most significant development was unarguably its savage War on Iraq launched in March 2003 to gain control over its oil and in turn the lifeline of the global economy. Under the circumstances it is no wonder that the 2005 NPT Review Conference ended in a stalemate. The positive hopes generated by the previous Conference were all but lost. The ongoing highpitched campaigns of the US, together with its allies, to cap the nuclear capabilities of Iran and North Korea have emerged as two major recent flashpoints. Moreover, tensions and conflicts are at the moment indeed boiling over in West Asia. This has all the potentialities of turning into a full-scale nuclear holocaust.

Now I take up the third and last part.

The proposed Indo-US nuke deal, the first outlines of which were given out on July 18 last year, is yet another profoundly negative development in the making demanding all our immediate attention. This has to be viewed in the context of the utterly disturbing global scenario, as we’ve just discussed in brief, and the overt nuclearisation of South Asia in May 1998.

This would-be ‘deal’, which has already crossed a number of milestones, would enable India - a non-signatory to the NPT - as are Pakistan and Israel, in gross contravention of its underlying principles and the current norms of the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Groups (NSG), to have civilian nuclear trade with the US and also the rest of the world. In return India is to designate and separate its civilian and ‘strategic’ nuclear power plants and negotiate with the IAEA the special and specific terms of its inspections of the plants designated ‘civilian’ by India at its own option. The nuclear trade - understandably consisting of fuel, plants, spares, technologies etc., would, however, be restricted to the plants under IAEA inspection only.

This ongoing act of unique exceptionalism is a severe frontal assault on whatever credibility of the NPT - the only multilateral commitment, however vague, of the five NWSs to global nuclear disarmament. The virtual legitimisation of India’s nuclear status, as and when the ‘deal’ comes through would deal a severe blow to the prospects of nuclear non-proliferation and thereby disarmament. Further cementing of the strategic ties between the US and India, as its junior regional ally, through this ‘deal’ would provide an added fillip to the aggressive ambitions of the Bush administration. This asymmetric ‘favour’ to India would also go to further aggravate the simmering tensions and spiralling arms race in South Asia.

This would also distort India’s energy options by diverting scarce resources to developments of resource-guzzling, intrinsically hazardous and potentially catastrophic, nuclear power at the cost of ecologically benign renewable sources of energy.
The ‘deal’ mercifully, however, calls for the US Congressional assent, as it’d impact the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act, 1978, and primarily the US Atomic Energy Act, 1954. Two Congressional committees, from both the houses, have already given green signals to the Bill proposed by the Bush administration in this regard albeit with a few (thorny) riders. Subsequently the House of Representatives has passed the ‘US India Nuclear Cooperation Promotion Act of 2006’. In the process, however, the assent has become a two-stage affair instead of one, that too in advance, as originally envisaged. So, while even the ongoing first stage remains to be completed with the approval by the Senate still pending; when the full details of the separation plan and nuclear cooperation are worked out between India and the Bush administration, the terms of inspections by the IAEA are finalised and, most significantly, the NSG discusses and (consensually) clears the ‘deal’, the ‘deal’ would again go back to the Congress for its final nod.

The Indian peace movement as spearheaded by the Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace (CNDP) is seriously engaged with raising public awareness and mobilising opinion against the ‘deal’. This, we must keep in mind, is very different from the Rightwing and hawkish opposition on the false pretext that the ‘deal’ would delimit India’s capacity to produce as many Bombs as it likes. In fact the ‘deal’ would do just the opposite by allowing India to use its indigenously mined uranium exclusively for Bomb production. The ‘deal’, in any case, doesn’t call for any parliamentary ratification in India.

Under the circumstances, while it’s extremely important to carry out vigorous campaigns against this pernicious move all over the world including India and, more importantly, the US; there is an urgent need to focus our attention on the NSG members who’re not too enamoured by the commercial prospects of the ‘deal’. We must do whatever we can to encourage and further strengthen the contrarian voices. The members of the NAM and the erstwhile New Agenda Coalition in the NSG deserve our special attention. So do Norway and a few other members.

It is extremely important for the global peace movement to take due note of the severely damaging fallout of this dangerous ‘deal’ and spare no efforts, both conventional and creative, to stop it in its track.

Thank you.
Tags:
Related Entries:
Avert a Nonproliferation Disaster: oppose NSG waiver to India
India: Statement of Students Against Nuclear Power
Resolution adopted at the seminar Indo US Nuclear ‘Deal’ India, South Asia, NAM and the Global Order
 Permalink
1-4/4