This video is called India nuclear deal controversy.
AAPSO on U.S. India Nuclear Deal
The nuclear deal which culminated in signing an agreement between President Bush and Prime Minister Man Mohan Singh in 2005 has a long history.
In 1974 India detonated a nuclear devise that used plutonium harvested from a heavy water reactor supplied by Canada and the United States in violation of bilateral peaceful nuclear use agreement. This raised loud agitations around the world.
The U.N. Security Council Resolution 1172 calls on India and Pakistan to sign the comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and stop producing fissile material for weapons. This had not happened. India at the same time refuse to sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) perhaps with a sound argument that the NPT does not provide ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons which would be exclusively held by the “Nuclear Club” – U.S; Russia, France, Britain and China. Moreover the nuclear powers will continue to modernize, improve and stockpile nuclear weapons which paused a danger to the world.
According to NPT, non-nuclear countries have the right to get assistance through the IAEA once they become signatory to the NPT. Since India did not sign the NPT, it does not have such rights but under the deal between the U.S. and India; the U.S. could provide nuclear know how to India once the 45 nation Nuclear supply group exempt India from the rule.
Both within India, the United States and around the world, this issue because a debating point. The treaty also has other implications as it was bound by the 123 agreement and the Hyde Act, which the Indian critics believe violate the sovereignty of India by linking with the U.S. strategic Alliance.
123 agreement is the relevant clause in the U.S. Atomic Energy Act which is binding to operationalise the U.S. India bilateral nuclear agreement which the U.S. congress has to accept in order 45 nation nuclear suppliers group (NSG) must grant India a special exemption from nuclear trade.
The left parties in India which supported the congress party led coalition government in Delhi from outside refuse to support the deal but ultimately as the Prime Minister Singh was determined to accede, the left-parties on their meeting on 8th July 2008 withdrew their support to the government thereby reducing into a minority. Meanwhile another regional party Samajawadi Party with 39 members of parliament had agreed to prop up the central government and whether government has a majority could be seen only when they seek a vote of confidence in the Indian Parliament.
The treaty has international implications. AAPSO from the very beginning joined with other peace forces around the world against this treaty as it violates the NPT and provoke more nuclear proliferation around the world. More over India being a strong pillar in the Non-Aligned Movement, this action contradicts the NAM principles.
Under this condition, AAPSO is of the opinion that IAEA and the 45 nation NSG need to thoroughly study the request of India for a safeguard exemption before granting such a privilege in keeping with the interest of the world public opinion.
Bush’s Nuclear Deal with India Is a Disaster for World Safety and the Environment: here.
Nuclear Supplier Group gives India unique “waiver,” but only after row between Delhi and Beijing: here.
Update November 2008: here.
On December 6, 2010, France took many by surprise by becoming the first country to sign agreements to build nuclear reactors in India. The event came 12 years after India’s nuclear weapon tests (of May 11, 1998) and two years after the deal preceded by the death of the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group’s anti-India sanctions (October 8 and September 6, 2008, respectively): here.
The leaders of India and Japan signed a tariff-slashing trade deal on Monday and agreed to speed up talks toward a civilian nuclear energy deal despite New Delhi’s refusal to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: here.
India: The Biggest Arms Recipient, by Sajjad Shaukat: here.
India should…not overstate the value of its Western allies and the profits it could gain from participating in a containment of China. If it equates long range strategic missiles with deterrence of China, and stirs up further hostility, it could be sorely mistaken: here.