Arun_S wrote:The surprise is in finding written proof that is contrary to the placating arguments made by GOI to say that there is enough ambiguity written in the terms of agreement and we have the backing of US Govt that in the case of a Indian Nuclear test, US law may be invoked to prevent and recall nuclear supplies to India but an implied understanding that US will NOT prevent other NSG countries from continuing to supply India with N fuel and material. That 'snake oil' has evaporated with this written response to written question.
The people selling the deal to Indian population were touting "that" as an opening designed in the US_India N deal that will allow Indian elephant to walk out unmolested in the event of Indian N test.
Anyone who had taken the trouble of going through the 4 page 123 agreement, will know that the US_India N deal was a misnomer. When you are putting billions of money in investments, which can last only 1 year (the notice period), that line was a red herring. That line was definitely read by me as stating, no US tech after 1 year of bum. Everything to be shipped back.
It was an opening, the opening was not for US-India N deal, but for NSG-India N deal. yes, there was enough ambiguity, but ambiguity over what is the question? If we remember, when the Hact was passed, the response from our MMS was it was an internal US matter. That should have been the biggest alarm, if ever there was a need.
Now regarding the implied understanding,
from the agreement itself
Before this Agreement is terminated pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Article, the Parties shall consider the relevant circumstances and promptly hold consultations, as provided in Article 13, to address the reasons cited by the Party seeking termination. The Party seeking termination has the right to cease further cooperation under this Agreement if it determines that a mutually acceptable resolution of outstanding issues has not been possible or cannot be achieved through consultations. The Parties agree to consider carefully the circumstances that may lead to termination or cessation of cooperation. They further agree to take into account whether the circumstances that may lead to termination or cessation resulted from a Party's serious concern about a changed security environment or as a response to similar actions by other States which could impact national security.
iii) The United States will support an Indian effort to develop a strategic reserve of nuclear fuel to guard against any disruption of supply over the lifetime of India's reactors.
iv) If despite these arrangements, a disruption of fuel supplies to India occurs, the United States and India would jointly convene a group of friendly supplier countries to include countries such as Russia, France and the United Kingdom to pursue such measures as would restore fuel supply to India.
The first line, if China/Pak/ anyone tests, the implied understanding is its game. However if India does it unilaterally, the max US will have to do is "jointly convene", why cant we do that ourselves?
Now this written response clarifies the intent and purpose saying that US will go to other NSG countries to end their cooperation too. Thus pulling the rug on the key argument used by people that say that the deal does not support nor hinder future Indian N test.
In India, Singh and his aides have insisted that the deal would not constrain the country's right to nuclear tests and would provide an uninterrupted supply of fuel to India's nuclear reactors. In August 2007, Singh told Parliament, "The agreement does not in any way affect India's right to undertake future nuclear tests, if it is necessary."
2. The U.S. will not work with friends and allies to make good any shortfall of fuel which results from US termination of cooperation following a test and actually intends to get all NSG states to end their cooperation as well.
This writing was clear on the wall, long long ago. That was why all this 123 etc etc is humbug. Get the NSG clean, its done. Remember NSG is based on consensus and it cuts both ways. Once we get the consensus on clean, if we test, this time it will be their duty to get consensus