Neuclear agreement 123


Published on

1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Neuclear agreement 123

  1. 1. The Indo-U.S. civilian nuclear agreement, also known as the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal,refers to a bilateral accord on civil nuclear cooperation between the United States ofAmerica and the Republic of India. The framework for this agreement was a July 18,2005 joint statement by Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and then U.S. PresidentGeorge W. Bush, under which India agreed to separate its civil and military nuclearfacilities and place all its civil nuclear facilities under International Atomic EnergyAgency (IAEA) safeguards and, in exchange, the United States agreed to work towardfull civil nuclear cooperation with India.[1] This U.S.-India deal took more than threeyears to come to fruition as it had to go through several complex stages, includingamendment of U.S. domestic law, a civil-military nuclear Separation Plan in India, anIndia-IAEA safeguards (inspections) agreement and the grant of an exemption for Indiaby the Nuclear Suppliers Group, an export-control cartel that had been formed mainly inresponse to Indias first nuclear test in 1974. In its final shape, the deal places underpermanent safeguards those nuclear facilities that India has identified as "civil" andpermits broad civil nuclear cooperation, while excluding the transfer of "sensitive"equipment and technologies, including civil enrichment and reprocessing items evenunder IAEA safeguards. On August 18, 2008 the IAEA Board of Governors approved, [2]and on February 2, 2009, India signed an India-specific safeguards agreement with theIAEA.[3] Once India brings this agreement into force, inspections will begin in a phasedmanner on the 35 civilian nuclear installations India has identified in its Separation Plan.[4]The nuclear deal was widely seen[by whom?] as a legacy-building effort by President Bushand Prime Minister Singh.[citation needed] But while the deal had to pass muster with the U.S.Congress twice (once when the Hyde Act was passed in late 2006 to amend U.S.domestic law and then when the final deal-related package was approved in October2008), Singh blocked the Indian Parliament from scrutinizing the deal. The deal provedvery contentious in India and threatened at one time to topple Singhs government, whichsurvived a confidence vote in Parliament in July 2008 by roping in a regional party as acoalition partner in place of the leftist bloc that had bolted.On August 1, 2008, the IAEA approved the safeguards agreement with India,[5] afterwhich the United States approached the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) to grant awaiver to India to commence civilian nuclear trade.[6] The 45-nation NSG granted thewaiver to India on September 6, 2008 allowing it to access civilian nuclear technologyand fuel from other countries.[7] The implementation of this waiver makes India the onlyknown country with nuclear weapons which is not a party to the Non Proliferation Treaty(NPT) but is still allowed to carry out nuclear commerce with the rest of the world.[8]The US House of Representatives passed the bill on 28 September 2008.[9] Two dayslater, India and France inked a similar nuclear pact making France the first country tohave such an agreement with India.[10] On October 1, 2008 the US Senate also approvedthe civilian nuclear agreement allowing India to purchase nuclear fuel and technologyfrom the United States.[11][12] U.S. President, George W. Bush, signed the legislation onthe Indo-US nuclear deal, approved by the U.S. Congress, into law, now called theUnited States-India Nuclear Cooperation Approval and Non-proliferation
  2. 2. Enhancement Act, on October 8, 2008.[13] The agreement was signed by Indian ExternalAffairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee and his counterpart Secretary of State CondoleezzaRice, on 10 October.[14][15]Contents[hide] • 1 Overview • 2 Background • 3 Rationale behind the agreement o 3.1 Nuclear non-proliferation o 3.2 Economic considerations o 3.3 Strategic • 4 Agreement • 5 Hyde Act Passage in the U.S. • 6 Political opposition in India • 7 Indian parliament vote • 8 IAEA approval • 9 NSG waiver o 9.1 Versions of U.S. draft exemption o 9.2 Initial support and opposition o 9.3 Reactions following the waiver  9.3.1 Indian reactions o 9.4 Other reactions over the issue • 10 Consideration by U.S. Congress o 10.1 Passage in Congress • 11 Formal signing of the deal • 12 Chronology of the Indo-US Nuclear Deal • 13 See also • 14 References • 15 External links [edit] OverviewThe Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of2008, also known as the Hyde Act, is the U.S. domestic law that modifies therequirements of Section 123 of the U.S. Atomic Energy Act to permit nuclearcooperation with India[16] and in particular to negotiate a 123 Agreement to operationalizethe 2005 Joint Statement. As a domestic U.S. law, the Hyde Act is binding on the UnitedStates. The Hyde Act cannot be binding on Indias sovereign decisions although it can beconstrued as prescriptive for future U.S. reactions. As per the Vienna convention, aninternational treaty such as the 123 agreement cannot be superseded by an internal lawsuch as the Hyde Act.[17][18][19]
  3. 3. The 123 agreement defines the terms and conditions for bilateral civilian nuclearcooperation, and requires separate approvals by the U.S. Congress and by Indian cabinetministers. According to the Nuclear Power Corporation of India, the agreement will helpIndia meet its goal of adding 25,000 MW of nuclear power capacity through imports ofnuclear reactors and fuel by 2020.[20]After the terms of the 123 agreement were concluded on July 27, 2007,[21] it ran intotrouble because of stiff opposition in India from the communist allies of the ruling UnitedProgressive Alliance.[22] The government survived a confidence vote in the parliament onJuly 22, 2008 by 275–256 votes in the backdrop of defections from both camps to theopposite camps.[23] The deal also had faced opposition from non-proliferation activists,anti-nuclear organisations, and some states within the Nuclear Suppliers Group.[24][25] Adeal which is inconsistent with the Hyde Act and does not place restrictions on India hasalso faced opposition in the U.S. House.[26][27] In February 2008 U.S. Secretary of StateCondoleezza Rice said that any agreement would be "consistent with the obligations ofthe Hyde Act".[28] The bill was signed on October 8, 2008[edit] BackgroundParties to the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) have a recognized right of access topeaceful uses of nuclear energy and an obligation to cooperate on civilian nucleartechnology. Separately, the Nuclear Suppliers Group has agreed on guidelines for nuclearexports, including reactors and fuel. Those guidelines condition such exports oncomprehensive safeguards by the International Atomic Energy Agency, which aredesigned to verify that nuclear energy is not diverted from peaceful use to weaponsprograms. Though neither India, Israel, nor Pakistan have signed the NPT, India arguesthat instead of addressing the central objective of universal and comprehensive non-proliferation, the treaty creates a club of "nuclear haves" and a larger group of "nuclearhave-nots" by restricting the legal possession of nuclear weapons to those states thattested them before 1967, who alone are free to possess and multiply their nuclearstockpiles.[29] India insists on a comprehensive action plan for a nuclear-free world withina specific time-frame and has also adopted a voluntary "no first use policy".In response to a growing Chinese nuclear arsenal, India conducted a nuclear test in 1974(called "peaceful nuclear explosion" and explicitly not for "offensive" first strike militarypurposes but which could be used for "peaceful deterrence").[citation needed] Led by the U.S.,other states have set up an informal group, the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), to controlexports of nuclear materials, equipment and technology.[30] Consequently, India was leftoutside the international nuclear order, which forced India to develop its own resourcesfor each stage of the nuclear fuel cycle and power generation, including next generationreactors such as fast breeder reactors and a thorium breeder reactor[31][32] known as theAdvanced Heavy Water Reactor. In addition to impelling India to achieve success indeveloping these new reactor technologies, the sanctions also provided India with theimpetus to continue developing its own nuclear weapons technology with a specific goalof achieving self-sufficiency for all key components for weapons design, testing andproduction.
  4. 4. Given that India is estimated to possess reserves of about 80,000-112,369 tons ofuranium,[33] India has more than enough fissile material to supply its nuclear weaponsprogram, even if it restricted Plutonium production to only 8 of the countrys 17 currentreactors, and then further restricted Plutonium production to only 1/4 of the fuel core ofthese reactors.[34] According to the calculations of one of the key advisers to the USNuclear deal negotiating team, Ashley Tellis:[34]Operating India’s eight unsafeguarded PHWRs in such a [conservative] regime wouldbequeath New Delhi with some 12,135–13,370 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium,which is sufficient to produce between 2,023–2,228 nuclear weapons over and abovethose already existing in the Indian arsenal. Although no Indian analyst, let alone a policymaker, has ever advocated any nuclear inventory that even remotely approximates suchnumbers, this heuristic exercise confirms that New Delhi has the capability to produce agigantic nuclear arsenal while subsisting well within the lowest estimates of its knownuranium reserves.However, because the amount of nuclear fuel required for the electricity generation sectoris far greater than that required to maintain a nuclear weapons program, and since Indiasestimated reserve of uranium represents only 1% of the worlds known uranium reserves,the NSGs uranium export restrictions mainly affected Indian nuclear power generationcapacity. Specifically, the NSG sanctions challenge Indias long term plans to expand andfuel its civilian nuclear power generation capacity from its current output of about 4GWe(GigaWatt electricity) to a power output of 20GWe by 2020; assuming the plannedexpansion used conventional Uranium/Plutonium fueled heavy water and light waternuclear power plants.Consequently, Indias nuclear isolation constrained expansion of its civil nuclearprogram, but left India relatively immune to foreign reactions to a prospective nucleartest. Partly for this reason, but mainly due to continued unchecked covert nuclear andmissile proliferation activities between Pakistan, China [35][36] and North Korea,[37][38] Indiaconducted five more nuclear tests in May, 1998 at Pokhran.India was subject to international sanctions after its May 1998 nuclear tests. However,due to the size of the Indian economy and its relatively large domestic sector, thesesanctions had little impact on India, with Indian GDP growth increasing from 4.8% in1997–1998 (prior to sanctions) to 6.6% (during sanctions) in 1998–1999.[39]Consequently, at the end of 2001, the Bush Administration decided to drop all sanctionson India.[40] Although India achieved its strategic objectives from the Pokhran nuclearweapons tests in 1998,[41][verification needed] it continued to find its civil nuclear programisolated internationally.[edit] Rationale behind the agreement[edit] Nuclear non-proliferation
  5. 5. The proposed civil nuclear agreement implicitly recognizes Indias "de facto" status evenwithout signing the NPT. The Bush administration justifies a nuclear pact with Indiabecause it is important in helping to advance the non-proliferation framework [42] byformally recognizing Indias strong non-proliferation record even though it has not signedthe NPT. The former Under Secretary of State of Political Affairs, Nicholas Burns, one ofthe architects of the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal said “India’s trust, its credibility, the fact thatit has promised to create a state-of-the-art facility, monitored by the IAEA, to begin anew export control regime in place, because it has not proliferated the nucleartechnology, we can’t say that about Pakistan.” when asked whether the U.S. would offera nuclear deal with Pakistan on the lines of the Indo-U.S. deal.[43][44][45] MohammedElBaradei, former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which would be incharge of inspecting Indias civilian reactors has praised the deal as "it would also bringIndia closer as an important partner in the nonproliferation regime".[46] However,members of the IAEA safeguards staff have made it clear that Indian demands that NewDelhi be allowed to determine when Indian reactors might be inspected could underminethe IAEA safeguards system.[citation needed] The reason for this is to restrict development ofnuclear weapons and to negotiate with India indirectly to ratify the NPT using anothermechanism.[citation needed] Likewise, the reaction in the Western academic community wasmixed. While some authors praised the agreement as bringing India closer to the NPTregime, others argued that it gave India too much leeway in determining which facilitieswere to be safeguarded and that it effectively rewarded India for continuously defying theNon-Proliferation Treaty by not acceding to it.[47][edit] Economic considerationsFinancially, the U.S. also expects that such a deal could spur Indias economic growthand bring in $150 billion in the next decade for nuclear power plants, of which the U.S.wants a share.[48] It is Indias stated objective to increase the production of nuclear powergeneration from its present capacity of 4,000 MWe to 20,000 MWe in the next decade.However, the developmental economic advising firm Dalberg, which advises the IMFand the World Bank, moreover, has done its own analysis of the economic value ofinvesting in nuclear power development in India. Their conclusion is that for the next 20years such investments are likely to be far less valuable economically or environmentallythan a variety of other measures to increase electricity production in India. They havenoted that U.S. nuclear vendors cannot sell any reactors to India unless and until Indiacaps third party liabilities or establishes a credible liability pool to protect U.S. firmsfrom being sued in the case of an accident or a terrorist act of sabotage against nuclearplants.[citation needed][edit] StrategicSince the end of the Cold War, The Pentagon, along with certain U.S. ambassadors suchas Robert Blackwill, has requested increased strategic ties with India and a de-hyphenization of Pakistan with India, i.e. having separate policies toward India andPakistan rather than just an "India-Pakistan" policy. The United States also sees India as a
  6. 6. viable counter-weight to the growing influence of China,[citation needed] and a potential clientfor which it must compete with Russia.[citation needed]While India is self-sufficient in thorium, possessing 25% of the worlds known andeconomically viable thorium,[49] it possesses a meager 1% of the similarly calculatedglobal uranium reserves.[50] Indian support for cooperation with the U.S. centers on theissue of obtaining a steady supply of sufficient energy for the economy to grow. Indianopposition to the pact centers on the concessions that would need to be made, as well asthe likely de-prioritization of research into a thorium fuel cycle if uranium becomeshighly available given the well understood utilization of uranium in a nuclear fuel cycle.[edit] AgreementOn March 2, 2006 in New Delhi, George W. Bush and Manmohan Singh signed a CivilNuclear Cooperation Agreement, following an initiation during the July 2005 summit inWashington between the two leaders over civilian nuclear cooperation.[51]Heavily endorsed by the White House, the agreement is thought to be a major victory toGeorge W. Bushs foreign policy initiative and was described by many lawmakers as acornerstone of the new strategic partnership between the two countries.[52] The agreementis widely considered to help India fulfill its soaring energy demands and boost U.S. andIndia into a strategic partnership. The Pentagon speculates this will help ease globaldemand for crude oil and natural gas.On August 3, 2007, both the countries released the full text of the 123 agreement.[53]Nicholas Burns, the chief negotiator of the India-United States nuclear deal, said the U.S.has the right to terminate the deal if India tests a nuclear weapon and that no part of theagreement recognizes India as a nuclear weapons state.[54][edit] Hyde Act Passage in the U.S.On December 18, 2006 President George W. Bush signed the Hyde Act into law. The Actwas passed by an overwhelming 359–68 in the United States House of Representativeson July 26 and by 85–12 in the United States Senate on November 16 in a strong show ofbipartisan support.[55][56][57]The House version (H.R. 5682) and Senate version (S. 3709) of the bill differed due toamendments each had added before approving, but the versions were reconciled with aHouse vote of 330–59 on December 8 and a Senate voice-vote on December 9 beforebeing passed on to President G.W. Bush for final approval.[58][59] The White House hadurged Congress to expedite the reconciliation process during the end-2006 lame ducksession, and recommended removing certain amendments which would be deemed deal-killers by India.[60] Nonetheless, while softened, several clauses restricting Indiasstrategic nuclear program and conditions on having India align with U.S. views over Iranwere incorporated in the Hyde Act.
  7. 7. In response to the language Congress used in the Act to define U.S. policy toward India,President Bush, stated "Given the Constitutions commitment to the authority of thepresidency to conduct the nations foreign affairs, the executive branch shall construesuch policy statements as advisory," going on to cite sections 103 and 104 (d) (2) of thebill. To assure Congress that its work would not be totally discarded, Bush continued bysaying that the executive would give "the due weight that comity between the legislativeand executive branches should require, to the extent consistent with U.S. foreignpolicy."[61][edit] Political opposition in IndiaMain article: Opposition to the Indo-US civilian agreement in IndiaThe Indo-US civilian nuclear agreement was met with stiff opposition by some politicalparties and activists in India. Although many mainstream political parties including theCongress(I) supported the deal along with regional parties like Dravida MunnetraKazhagam and Rashtriya Janata Dal its realization ran into difficulties in the face of stiffpolitical opposition in India. Also, in November 2007, former Indian Military chiefs,bureaucrats and scientists drafted a letter to Members of Parliament expressing theirsupport for the deal.[62] However, opposition and criticism continued at political levels.The Samajwadi Party (SP) which was with the Left Front in opposing the deal changedits stand after discussing with ex-president of India and scientist Dr A P J Abdul Kalam.The SP then supported the government and the deal. The Indian Government survived avote of confidence by 275-256 after the Left Front withdrew their support to thegovernment over this dispute.[63] Incidentally, results showed ten MPs belonging to theopposing BJP party cross-voting in the favor of the government.As details were revealed about serious inconsistencies between what the Indianparliament was told about the deal, and the actual facts about the agreement that werepresented by the Bush administration to the US Congress, opposition grew in Indiaagainst the deal. In particular, portions of the agreement dealing with guaranteeing Indiaa fuel supply or allowing India to maintain a strategic reserve of nuclear fuel appear to bediametrically opposed to what the Indian parliament was led to expect from theagreement:Prime Minister Manmohan Singhs statement in parliament is totally at variance with theBush Administrations communication to the House Foreign Affairs Committee, whichsays India will not be allowed to stockpile such nuclear fuel stocks as to undercutAmerican leverage to re-impose sanctions. To drive home this point, it says the 123Agreement is not inconsistent with the Hyde Acts stipulation—the little-known BarackObama Amendment -- that the supply of nuclear fuel should be "commensurate withreasonable operating requirements". The strategic reserve that is crucial to Indiasnuclear program is, therefore, a non-starter.[64] Furthermore, the agreement, as a result ofits compliance with the Hyde Act, contained a direct linkage between shutting down USnuclear trade with India and any potential future Indian nuclear weapons test, a point thatwas factually inconsistent with explicit reassurances made on this subject by Prime
  8. 8. Minister, Manmohan Singh, during final parliamentary debate on the nuclear deal. Asprofessor Brahma Chellaney, an expert in strategic affairs and one of the authors of theIndian Nuclear Doctrine [65], explained:While the Hyde Act’s bar on Indian testing is explicit, the one in the NSG waiver isimplicit, yet unmistakable. The NSG waiver is overtly anchored in NSG GuidelinesParagraph 16, which deals with the consequence of “an explosion of a nuclear device”.The waiver’s Section 3(e) refers to this key paragraph, which allows a supplier to call fora special NSG meeting, and seek termination of cooperation, in the event of a test or anyother “violation of a supplier-recipient understanding”. The recently leaked Bushadministration letter to Congress has cited how this Paragraph 16 rule will effectivelybind India to the Hyde Act’s conditions on the pain of a U.S.-sponsored cut-off of allmultilateral cooperation. India will not be able to escape from the U.S.-set conditions byturning to other suppliers.[66][edit] Indian parliament voteFurther information: 2008 Lok Sabha Vote of Confidence and Notes-for-Vote scandalOn July 9, 2008, India formally submitted the safeguards agreement to the IAEA.[67] Thisdevelopment came after the Prime Minister of India Manmohan Singh returned from the34th G8 summit meeting in Hokkaido, Japan, where he met with U.S. President GeorgeW. Bush.[68] On June 19, 2008, news media reported that Indian Prime Minister Dr.Manmohan Singh threatened to resign his position if the Left Front, whose support wascrucial for the ruling United Progressive Alliance to prove its majority in the Indianparliament, continued to oppose the nuclear deal and he described their stance asirrational and reactionary.[69] According to the Hindu, External Affairs Minister PranabMukherjee’s earlier statement said “I cannot bind the government if we lose ourmajority,” [70] implying that United Progressive Alliance government would not put itssignature on any deal with IAEA if it lost the majority in either a opposition-initiated no-confidence motion or if failing to muster a vote of confidence in Indian parliament afterbeing told to prove its majority by the president. On July 8, 2008, Prakash Karatannounced that the Left Front is withdrawing its support to the government over thedecision by the government to go ahead on the United States-India Peaceful AtomicEnergy Cooperation Act. The left front had been a staunch advocate of not proceedingwith this deal citing national interests.[71]On 22 July 2008 the UPA faced its first confidence vote in the Lok Sabha after theCommunist Party of India (Marxist) led Left Front withdrew support over Indiaapproaching the IAEA for Indo-U.S. nuclear deal. The UPA won the confidence votewith 275 votes to the oppositions 256, (10 members abstained from the vote) to record a19-vote victory.[72][73][74][75][edit] IAEA approval
  9. 9. The IAEA Board of Governors approved the safeguards agreement on August 1, 2008,and the 45-state Nuclear Suppliers Group next had to approve a policy allowing nuclearcooperation with India. U.S. President Bush can then make the necessary certificationsand seek final approval by the U.S. Congress.[76] There were objections from Pakistan,Iran, Ireland, Norway, Switzerland and Austria at the IAEA meeting.[77][edit] NSG waiverOn September 6, 2008 India was granted the waiver at the NSG meeting held in Vienna,Austria. The consensus was arrived at after overcoming misgivings expressed by Austria,Ireland and New Zealand and is an unprecedented step in giving exemption to a countrywhich has not signed the NPT and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)[78][79] TheIndian team who worked on the deal includes Manmohan Singh, Pranab Mukherjee, ShivShankar Menon, Shyam Saran, MK Narayanan, Anil Kakodkar, Ravi Grover, and DBVenkatesh Varma.[78][edit] Versions of U.S. draft exemptionOn August 2008 U.S. draft exemption would have granted India a waiver based on the"steps that India has taken voluntarily as a contributing partner in the non-proliferationregime".[80] Based on these steps, and without further conditions, the draft waiver wouldhave allowed for the transfer to India of both trigger list and dual-use items (includingtechnology), waiving the full-scope safeguards requirements of the NSG guidelines.[81]A September 2008 waiver would have recognized additional "steps that India hasvoluntarily taken."[82] The waiver called for notifying the NSG of bilateral agreementsand for regular consultations; however, it also would have waived the full-scopesafeguards requirements of the NSG guidelines without further conditions.[81]The U.S. draft underwent further changes in an effort to make the language moreacceptable to the NSG.[83][edit] Initial support and oppositionThe deal had initial support from the United States, the United Kingdom,[84] France,[85]Japan,[86] Russia,[87] and Germany.[88][89] After some initial opposition, there were reportsof Australia,[90] Switzerland,[91] and Canada[92][93] expressing their support for the deal.Selig S. Harrison, a former South Asia bureau chief of The Washington Post, has said thedeal may represent a tacit recognition of India as a nuclear weapon state,[94] while formerU.S. Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Robert Josephsays the U.S. State Department made it "very clear that we will not recognize India as anuclear-weapon state".[95]Norway, Austria, Brazil, and Japan all warned that their support for India at the IAEA didnot mean that they would not express reservations at the NSG. New Zealand, which is amember of the NSG but not of the IAEA Board of Governors, cautioned that its support
  10. 10. should not be taken for granted.[25] Ireland, which launched the non-proliferation treatyprocess in 1958 and signed it first in 1968, doubted Indias nuclear trade agreement withthe U.S.[96] Russia, a potentially large nuclear supplier to India, expressed reservationsabout transferring enrichment and reprocessing technology to India.[97] China argued theagreement constituted "a major blow to the international non-proliferation regime".[98]New Zealand said it would like to see a few conditions written in to the waiver: theexemption ceasing if India conducts nuclear tests, India signing the International AtomicEnergy Agencys (IAEA) additional protocol, and placing limits on the scope of thetechnology that can be given to India and which could relate to nuclear weapons.[99]Austria, Ireland, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Scandinavian countries proposedsimilar amendments.[100] The nuclear deal was opposed by former U.S. president JimmyCarter, who opined that the U.S. would be making "a dangerous deal with India"[101]After the first NSG meeting in August 2008, diplomats noted that up to 20 of the 45 NSGstates tabled conditions similar to the Hyde Act for Indias waiver to do business with theNSG.[102] "There were proposals on practically every paragraph," a European diplomatsaid.[102] A group of seven NSG members suggested including some of the provisions ofthe U.S. Hyde Act in the final waiver.[103] Daryll Kimball, executive director of theWashington-based Arms Control Association, said the NSG should at a minimum "makeclear that nuclear trade with India shall be terminated if it resumes testing for any reason.If India cannot agree to such terms, it suggests that India is not serious about its nucleartest moratorium pledge."[104][edit] Reactions following the waiverAfter India was granted the waiver on September 6, the United Kingdom said that theNSGs decision would make a "significant contribution" to global energy and climatesecurity.[105] U.S. National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said, "this is ahistoric achievement that strengthens global non-proliferation principles while assistingIndia to meet its energy requirements in an environmentally friendly manner. The UnitedStates thanks the participating governments in the NSG for their outstanding efforts andcooperation to welcome India into the global non-proliferation community. We especiallyappreciate the role Germany played as chair to move this process forward." [106] NewZealand praised the NSG consensus and said that it got the best possible deal with India.[107] One of Indias strongest allies Russia said in a statement, "We are convinced that theexemption made for India reflects Delhi’s impeccable record in the non-proliferationsphere and will guarantee the peaceful uses of nuclear exports to India."[108] AustralianForeign Minister Stephen Smith said that the NSG granted waiver because of "Indias riseas a global power" and added, "If such a request was made for another country, I dontthink it would have been cleared by the NSG members."[109] During his visit to India inSeptember 2008, Smith said that Australia "understood and respected Indias decision notto join the Non-Proliferation Treaty".[110] German Foreign Ministry spokesman JensPloetner called India a "special case" and added, "Does this agreement send an approvingmessage to Iran? No, it absolutely does not."[111]
  11. 11. Initially, there were reports of Peoples Republic of China analyzing the extent of theopposition against the waiver at the NSG and then revealing its position over the issue.[112]On September 1, 2008, prominent Chinese newspaper Peoples Daily expressed its strongdisapproval of the civilian agreement with India.[113] Indias National Security Advisorremarked that one of the major opponents of the waiver was China and said that he wouldexpress Indian governments displeasure over the issue.[114] It was also revealed that Chinahad abstained during the final voting process, indicating its non-approval of the nuclearagreement.[115] In a statement, Chinese delegation to the NSG said the group shouldaddress the aspirations of other countries too, an implicit reference to Pakistan. [116] Therewere also unconfirmed reports of India considering the cancellation of a state visit byChinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi.[117] However, External Affairs Minister PranabMukherjee said the Chinese Foreign Minister will be welcomed "as an honored guest".[118]The Times of India noted that Chinas stance could have a long-term implication on Sino-Indian relations.[119]There were some other conflicting reports on Chinas stance, however. The Hindureported that though China had expressed its desire to include more stern language in thefinal draft, they had informed India about their intention to back the agreement.[120] In aninterview to the Hindustan Times, Chinese Assistant Foreign Minister Hu Zhengyue saidthat "China understands Indias needs for civil nuclear energy and related internationalcooperation."[121] Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi told Indias CNN-IBN, "We didntdo anything to block it [the deal]. We played a constructive role. We also adopted apositive and responsible attitude and a safeguards agreement was reached, so facts speaklouder ... than some reports".[122] During a press conference in New Delhi, Yang added,"The policy was set much before that. When consensus was reached, China had alreadymade it clear in a certain way that we have no problem with the [NSG] statement."[123]Highlighting the importance of Sino-Indian relations, Yang remarked, "let us [India andChina] work together to move beyond doubts to build a stronger relationship betweenus."[124][edit] Indian reactionsIndian PM Manmohan Singh visited Washington D.C. on September 26, 2008 tocelebrate the conclusion of the agreement with U.S. President George W. Bush.[125] Healso visited France to convey his appreciation for the countrys stance.[126] Indias ExternalAffairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee expressed his deep appreciation for Indias allies inthe NSG, especially the United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, Germany, SouthAfrica and Brazil for helping India achieve NSGs consensus on the nuclear deal.[127]Bhartiya Janata Partys Yashwant Sinha, who also formerly held the post of IndiasExternal Affairs Minister, criticized the Indian governments decision to seek NSGsconsensus and remarked that "India has walked into the non-proliferation trap set by theU.S., we have given up our right to test nuclear weapons forever, it has been surrenderedby the government".[128] However, another prominent member of the same party andIndias former National Security Advisor Brajesh Mishra supported the development at
  12. 12. the NSG and said that the waiver granted made "no prohibition" on India to conductnuclear tests in the future.[129]A leading advocate of the agreement was Indias most eminent strategic affairs analyst K.Subrahmanyam, also known for his long and controversial championing of an Indiannuclear deterrent.[130] He argued that the convergence of strategic interests between thetwo nations forced such a remarkable gesture from the US, overturning its decades-longstand on non-proliferation, and that it would be unwise on Indias part to spurn such anoverture.[131] He also argued that not recognizing new geo-political realities would beeven more foolhardy on the part of the Indian elite.[132][133]Former President of India and noted Indian scientist, APJ Abdul Kalam, also supportedthe agreement and remarked that New Delhi may break its "voluntary moratorium" onfurther nuclear tests in "supreme national interest".[134] However, analyst M KBhadrakumar demurred. He said that the consensus at NSG was achieved on the "basis"of Pranab Mukherjees commitment to Indias voluntary moratorium on nuclear testingand by doing so, India has entered into a "multilateral commitment" bringing it within"the ambit of the CTBT and NPT".[135]The NSG consensus was welcomed by several major Indian companies. Major Indiancorporations like Videocon Group, Tata Power and Jindal Power saw a $40 billion (U.S.)nuclear energy market in India in the next 10–15 years.[136] On a more optimistic note,some of Indias largest and most well-respected corporations like Bharat HeavyElectricals Limited, National Thermal Power Corporation and Larsen & Toubro wereeyeing a $100 billion (U.S.) business in this sector over the same time period.[136]According to Hindustan Times, nuclear energy will produce 52,000 MW of electricity inIndia by 2020.[137][edit] Other reactions over the issueMore than 150 non-proliferation activists and anti-nuclear organizations called fortightening the initial NSG agreement to prevent harming the current global non-proliferation regime.[138] Among the steps called for were:[24] • ceasing cooperation if India conducts nuclear tests or withdraws from safeguards • supplying only an amount of fuel which is commensurate with ordinary reactor operating requirements • expressly prohibiting the transfer of enrichment, reprocessing and heavy water production items to India • opposing any special safeguards exemptions for India • conditioning the waiver on India stopping fissile production and legally binding itself not to conduct nuclear tests • not allowing India to reprocess nuclear fuel supplied by a member state in a facility that is not under permanent and unconditional IAEA safeguards
  13. 13. • agreeing 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 facilitiesThe call said that the draft Indian nuclear "deal would be a nonproliferation disaster and aserious setback to the prospects of global nuclear disarmament" and also pushed for allworld leaders who are serious about ending the arms race to "to stand up and becounted."[24]Dr. Kaveh L Afrasiabi, who has taught political science at Tehran University, has arguedthe agreement will set a new precedent for other states, adding that the agreementrepresents a diplomatic boon for Tehran.[139] Ali Ashgar Soltanieh, the Iranian DeputyDirector General for International and Political Affairs,[140] has complained the agreementmay undermine the credibility, integrity and universality of the Nuclear NonproliferationTreaty. Pakistan argues the safeguards agreement "threatens to increase the chances of anuclear arms race in the subcontinent." [141] Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah MahmoodQureshi has suggested his country should be considered for such an accord, [142] andPakistan has also said the same process "should be available as a model for other non-NPT states".[143] On July 19, 2010, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Pakistanscheckered history on nuclear proliferation "raises red flags" regarding nuclearcooperation with Pakistan.[144] Israel is citing the Indo-U.S. civil nuclear deal as aprecedent to alter Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) rules to construct its first nuclearpower plant in the Negev desert, and is also pushing for its own trade exemptions.[145]Brahma Chellaney, a Professor of Strategic Studies at the New Delhi-based Centre forPolicy Research, argued that the wording of the U.S. exemption sought to irrevocablytether New Delhi to the nuclear non-proliferation regime. He argued India would bebrought under a wider non-proliferation net, with India being tied to compliance with theentire set of NSG rules. India would acquiesce to its unilateral test moratorium beingturned into a multilateral legality. He concluded that instead of the "full" civil nuclearcooperation that the original July 18, 2005, deal promised, Indias access to civil nuclearenrichment and reprocessing technologies would be restricted through the initial NSGwaiver.[146][edit] Consideration by U.S. CongressThe Bush Administration told Congress in January 2008 that the United States may ceaseall cooperation with India if India detonates a nuclear explosive device. TheAdministration further said it was not its intention to assist India in the design,construction or operation of sensitive nuclear technologies through the transfer of dual-use items.[147] The statements were considered sensitive in India because debate over theagreement in India could have toppled the government of Prime Minister ManmohanSingh. The State Department had requested they remain secret even though they were notclassified.[148] Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also previously told the House ForeignAffairs Panel in public testimony that any agreement would "have to be completelyconsistent with the obligations of the Hyde Act".[28] Assistant Secretary of State for South
  14. 14. and Central Asian Affairs Richard Boucher and the Former Assistant Secretary of Statefor Legislative Affairs Jeffrey Bergner also said the agreement would be in conformitywith the Hyde Act.[149]Howard Berman, chair of the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee, in a letter to U.S.Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warned that an NSG waiver "inconsistent" with the2006 Hyde Act would "jeopardise" the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal in the U.S. Congress. [150]Edward J. Markey, co-chairman of the House Bipartisan Task Force on Non-proliferation, said there needed to be clear consequences if India broke its commitmentsor resumed nuclear testing.[151][edit] Passage in CongressOn September 28, 2008 the US House of Representatives voted 298-117 to approve theIndo-US nuclear deal.[152] On October 1, 2008 the US Senate voted 86-13 to approve theIndo-US nuclear deal.[153] The Arms Control Association said the agreement fails to makeclear that an Indian nuclear test would prompt the U.S. to cease nuclear trade; [153]however, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that any nuclear test by India wouldresult in the “most serious consequences,” including automatic cut-off of U.S.cooperation as well as a number of other sanctions.[154]After Senate approval, US President George W. Bush said the deal would "strengthen ourglobal nuclear nonproliferation efforts, protect the environment, create jobs, and assistIndia in meeting its growing energy needs in a responsible manner." [155] Then-USpresidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain, as well as then-VicePresidential candidate Joe Biden, voted in support of the bill.[156][edit] Formal signing of the dealThere was speculation the Indo-US deal would be signed on October 4, 2008 when U.S.Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was in India. The deal was to be inked by IndianExternal Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee and U.S. Secretary of State CondoleezzaRice. The two leaders were to sign the deal at 2 pm at the Hyderabad House in NewDelhi.[157] But Mr. Mukherjee announced that India would wait for the US President tosign the 123 agreement legislation first into law and address India’s concerns on fuelsupply guarantees and the legal standing of the 123 agreement in the accompanyingsigning statement.[158]Ms Rice was aware of the Indian decision before she left Washington. But she was veryhopeful that the deal would be signed as the US state department had said that thePresidents signature was not prerequisite for Rice to ink the deal. [159] Rice had earlier saidthat there were still a number of administrative details to be worked out even as sheinsisted that the US would abide by the Hyde Act on the testing issue:
  15. 15. Secretary Rice and Indian Minister for External Affairs Pranab Mukherjee after signingthe 123 agreement in Washington on October 10, 2008."There are a lot of administrative details that have to be worked out. This (the deal) wasonly passed in our Congress two days ago. The President is looking forward to signingthe bill, sometime, I hope, very soon, because well want to use it as an opportunity tothank all of the people who have been involved in this," said Rice.[160]In Washington, a Senate Democratic aide said such a delay was not that unusual becauselegislation needed to be carefully reviewed before being sent to the White House.[161]US President George W Bush signed the legislation on the Indo-US nuclear deal into lawon October 8.[13] The new law, called the United States-India Nuclear CooperationApproval and Non-proliferation Enhancement Act, was signed by President Bush at abrief White House function in the presence of the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice,Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, Vice-President Dick Cheney and the IndianAmbassador to the U.S. Ronen Sen besides a large gathering of other dignitaries. [162] Thefinal administrative aspect of the deal was completed after Secretary of StateCondoleezza Rice and External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee signed the bilateralinstruments of the 123 Agreement in Washington on October 10 paving the way foroperationalization of the deal between the two countries.[163] [164][edit] Chronology of the Indo-US Nuclear DealJuly 18, 2005: President Bush and Prime Minister Singh first announce their intention toenter into a nuclear agreement in Washington.March 1, 2006: Bush visits India for the first time.March 3, 2006: Bush and Singh issue a joint statement on their growing strategicpartnership, emphasising their agreement on civil nuclear cooperation.July 26, 2006: The US House of Representatives passes the Henry J Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006, which stipulates thatWashington will cooperate with New Delhi on nuclear issues and exempt it from signingthe Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
  16. 16. July 28, 2006: In India, the Left parties demand threadbare discussion on the issue inParliament.November 16, 2006: The US Senate passes the United States-India Peaceful AtomicEnergy Cooperation and US Additional Protocol Implementation Act to "exempt fromcertain requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 United States exports of nuclearmaterials, equipment, and technology to India."December 18, 2006: President Bush signs into law congressional legislation on Indianatomic energy.July 27, 2007: Negotiations on a bilateral agreement between the United States and Indiaconclude.Aug 3, 2007: The text of the Agreement for Cooperation between the Government of theUnited States of America and the Government of India concerning peaceful uses ofnuclear energy (123 Agreement) is released by both governments.Aug 13, 2007: Prime Minister Manmohan Singh makes a suo motu statement on the dealin Parliament.Aug 17, 2007: The CPI(M) General Secretary Prakash Karat says the honeymoon (withgovernment) may be over but the marriage can go on.Sept 4, 2007: In India, the UPA-Left committee to discuss nuclear deal set up.Feb 25, 2008: Left parties in India say the ruling party would have to choose between thedeal and its governments stability.March 3–6, 2008: Left parties warn of serious consequences if the nuclear deal isoperationalised and set a deadline asking the government to make it clear by March 15whether it intended to proceed with the nuclear deal or drop it.March 7–14, 2008: The CPI writes to the Prime Minister Singh, warns of withdrawal ofsupport if government goes ahead with the deal and puts political pressure on theManmohan Singh government not to go with the deal.April 23, 2008: The Indian Government says it will seek the sense of the House on the123 Agreement before it is taken up for ratification by the American Congress.June 17, 2008: External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee meets Prakash Karat, asksthe Left to allow the government to go ahead with International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA) safeguards agreement.June 30, 2008: The Indian Prime Minister says his government prepared to faceParliament before operationalising the deal.
  17. 17. July 8, 2008: Left parties in India withdraw support to government.July 9, 2008: The draft India-specific safeguards accord with the IAEA circulated toIAEAs Board of Governors for approval.July 10, 2008: Prime Minister Manmohan Singh calls for a vote of confidence inParliament.July 14, 2008: The IAEA says it will meet on August 1 to consider the India-specificsafeguards agreement.July 18, 2008: Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon briefs the IAEA Board ofGovernors and some NSG countries in Vienna on the safeguards agreement.July 22, 2008: Government is willing to look at "possible amendments" to the AtomicEnergy Act to ensure that the countrys strategic autonomy will never be compromised,says Prime Minister Singh.July 22, 2008: The UPA government lead by Manmohan Singh wins trust vote in theLok Sabha in India.July 24, 2008: India dismisses warning by Pakistan that the deal will accelerate anatomic arms race in the sub-continent.July 24, 2008: India launches full blast lobbying among the 45-nation NSG for anexemption for nuclear commerce.July 25, 2008: IAEA secretariat briefs member states on India-specific safeguardsagreement.Aug 1, 2008: IAEA Board of Governors adopts India- specific safeguards agreementunanimously.Aug 21-22, 2008: The NSG meet to consider an India waiver ends inconclusively amidreservations by some countries.Sep 4-6, 2008: The NSG meets for the second time on the issue after the US comes upwith a revised draft and grants waiver to India after marathon parleys.Sept 11, 2008: President Bush sends the text of the 123 Agreement to the US Congressfor final approval.Sept 12, 2008: US remains silent over the controversy in India triggered by PresidentBushs assertions that nuclear fuel supply assurances to New Delhi under the deal wereonly political commitments and not legally binding.
  18. 18. Sept 13, 2008: The State Department issues a fact sheet on the nuclear deal saying theinitiative will help meet Indias growing energy requirements and strengthen the non-proliferation regime by welcoming New Delhi into globally accepted nonproliferationstandards and practices.Sept 18, 2008: The Senate Foreign Relations Committee kicks off a crucial hearing onthe Indo-US nuclear deal.Sept 19, 2008: Americas nuclear fuel supply assurances to India are a "politicalcommitment" and the government cannot "legally compel" US firms to sell a "givenproduct" to New Delhi, top officials tells Congressional panel.Sept 21, 2008: US financial crisis diverts attention from N-deal as both the BushAdministration and the Congress are bogged down over efforts to rescue bankruptAmerican banks. financial crisis in the country.Sept 26, 2008: PM Singh meets President Bush at the White House, but were not able tosign the nuclear deal as the Congress did not approve it.Sept 27, 2008: House of Representatives approves the Indo-US nuclear deal. 298members voted for the Bill while 117 voted against.Oct 1, 2008: Senate approves the Indo-US civil nuclear deal with 86 votes for and 13against.Oct 4, 2008: Secretary of State Rice visits Delhi. India and the US unable to ink thenuclear agreement with New Delhi insisting that it would do so only after President Bushsigns it into a law, an occasion when it expects certain misgivings to be cleared.Oct 4, 2008: White House announces that President Bush will sign the legislation on theIndo-US nuclear deal into a law on October 8.Oct 8, 2008: President Bush signs legislation to enact the landmark US-India civiliannuclear agreement.Oct 10, 2008: The 123 Agreement between India and US is finally operationalizedbetween the two countries after the deal is signed by External Affairs Minister PranabMukherjee and his counterpart Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in Washington D C.[edit] See also Energy portal • India – United States relations • Energy policy of India
  19. 19. • Nuclear Liability Bill • Energy security • Foreign relations of India • Nuclear power in India[edit] References 1. ^ Joint Statement Between President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh 2. ^ IAEA Board Approves India-Safeguards Agreement 3. ^ India Safeguards Agreement Signed 4. ^ INFCIRC/731 5. ^ "IAEA approves India nuclear inspection deal - International Herald Tribune". India.php. Retrieved 2008-10-02. 6. ^ " | wired". Retrieved 2008-10-02. 7. ^ "Nuclear Suppliers Group Grants India Historic Waiver - MarketWatch". group-grants-india/story.aspx?guid={BA6E4022-DBC8-4B43- B9DE-62608913CB8A}&dist=hppr. Retrieved 2008-10-02. 8. ^ 3 hours ago (3 hours ago). "AFP: India energised by nuclear pacts". Retrieved 2008-10-02. 9. ^ "House of Reps clears N-deal, France set to sign agreement-USA-World-The Times of India". deal_France_set_to_sign_agreement/articleshow/3536151.cms. Retrieved 2008-10-02. 10. ^ "India, France ink nuclear deal, first after NSG waiver". waiver/368048/. Retrieved 2008-10-02. 11. ^ "Finally, its done: India back on the nuclear train-USA-World-The Times of India". US_nuclear_deal/articleshow/3551691.cms. Retrieved 2008-10-02. 12. ^ "Senate approves nuclear deal with India -". 2008-10-01. Retrieved 2008-10-02. 13. ^ a b "Bush signs bill on N-deal on October 8". United States Office of the Press Secretary. 2008-10-08. http://georgewbush- Retrieved 2008-10-08. 14. ^ Done Deal: India, US seal landmark nuclear pact CNN-IBN
  20. 20. 15. ^ Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Indian Minister of External Affairs Pranab Mukherjee At the Signing of the U.S.-India Civilian Nuclear Cooperation Agreement16. ^ dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h5682enr.txt.pdf17. ^ The Indo-U.S. nuclear debate from www.gulfnews.com18. ^ ITGD Bureau. "India Today - Indias most widely read magazine". option=com_content&task=view&issueid=63&id=11755&Itemid=1&sectionid=4 . Retrieved 2008-10-02.19. ^ "War of words & world views-India-The Times of India". 1765.cms. Retrieved 2008-10-02.20. ^ "At G-8, Singh, Bush reaffirm commitment to nuclear deal - Economy and Politics -". Singh-Bush-reaffirm-c.html. Retrieved 2008-07-11.21. ^ "India and US confirm nuclear pact". BBC News. 2007-07-27. Retrieved 2010-05-05.22. ^ India: Government crisis deepens over U.S. nuclear deal23. ^ "Indian government survives vote". BBC News. 2008-07-22. Retrieved 2008-07-23.24. ^ a b c Arms Control Association: "Decision Time on the Indian Nuclear Deal: Help Avert a Nonproliferation Disaster"25. ^ a b Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation: U.S.-India Nuclear Energy Deal: Whats Next?26. ^ AP: Democrat pushes for India nuke conditions27. ^ Markey: U.S.-India Nuclear Deal Vote Near Impossibility This Year28. ^ a b Economic Times of India: Hyde Act will haunt nuclear deal at NSG too29. ^ "Embassy of India: Nuclear Non-proliferation". policy/CTBT/embassy_non_proliferation.htm. Retrieved 2006-06-01.30. ^ "Nuclear Suppliers Group". ^ "A Thorium Breeder Reactor". ^ "India unveils worlds safest nuclear reactor". ^ "P.18, paragraph 1, Tellis, Ashley, "Atoms for War? U.S.-Indian Civilian Nuclear Cooperation and Indias Nuclear Arsenal"" (PDF). ^ a b "P.31-P.36, Tellis, Ashley, "Atoms for War? U.S.-Indian Civilian Nuclear Cooperation and Indias Nuclear Arsenal"" (PDF). ^ Vergano, Dan (2008-08-29). "Report says China offered widespread help on nukes". USA Today. china_N.htm?csp=34. Retrieved 2010-05-05.
  21. 21. 36. ^ "Against Nuclear Apartheid". ^ "Bermudez, Joseph S. Jr. 1998. A History of Ballistic Missile Development in the DPRK". ^ "Pakistans Nuclear Weapons Program - 1998: The Year of Testing". ^ "Achieving 9% Growth Rate in India: A Growth Paradigm". abstractid=365440&mirid=1.40. ^ "U.S. Ready to End Sanctions on India to Build an Alliance". %20End%20Sanctions%20on%20India%20to%20Build%20an%20Alliance.htm.41. ^ { CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0}42. ^ "Condoleezza Rice Paks a proliferation punch". The Economic Times. 2008-07-26. %20India%20Can%20Help%20Stabilize%20Asia.htm. Retrieved 2008-08-03.43. ^ [1][dead link]44. ^ "Russia hints at smooth sail for India at IAEA". iaea/70099-3.html. Retrieved 2008-10-02.45. ^ %3D31+india+willing+to+sin+npt+as+a+nuclear+weapons+state&hl=en&ct=cln k&cd=6&gl=in46. ^ VandeHei, Jim; Linzer, Dafna (2006-03-03). "U.S., India Reach Deal On Nuclear". The Washington Post. dyn/content/article/2006/03/02/AR2006030200183.html. Retrieved 2006-03-03.47. ^ Müller, Jörn (2009). "The Signing of the U.S.-India Agreement Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy". Göttingen Journal of International Law. pp. 179–198. %C3%BCller2. Retrieved 2009-04-05.48. ^ Linzer, Dafna (2005-07-20). "Bush Officials Defend India Nuclear Deal". The Washington Post. dyn/content/article/2005/07/19/AR2005071901847.html. Retrieved 2005-07-20.49. ^ "Information and Issue Briefs – Thorium". World Nuclear Association. Retrieved 2006-06-01.50. ^ "UIC Nuclear Issues Briefing Paper #75 – Supply of Uranium". Uranium Information Center. Archived from the original on April 27, 2006. Retrieved 2006-06-01.51. ^ "Bush, Indias Singh Sign Civil Nuclear Cooperation Agreement". USINFO - International Information Programs. 02-806725.html. Retrieved 2006-03-02.
  22. 22. 52. ^ "U.S. House votes for nuclear deal". The Hindu. Retrieved 2006-07-29.53. ^ "U.S. and India Release Text of 123 Agreement". Archived from the original on July 9, 2008. 7/aug/90050.htm. Retrieved 2008-07-11.54. ^ U.S. can terminate N-deal if India conducts tests: Nicholas Burns55. ^ "Bush Welcomes Senate Approval of U.S.-India Nuclear Agreement". USINFO - International Information Programs. english/2006/November/20061117171748idybeekcm0.2382471.html. Retrieved 2006-11-17.56. ^ "H.R. 5682: House Vote 411: Jul 26, 2006 (109th Congress)". GovTrack. http:// Retrieved 2006-07-26.57. ^ "H.R. 5682: Senate Vote 270: Nov 16, 2006 (109th Congress)". GovTrack. Retrieved 2006-11-16.58. ^ "Congress Passes U.S.-India Civilian Nuclear Cooperation Bill". USINFO - International Information Programs. 2006/December/20061208173518adynned0.1525385.html. Retrieved 2006-12-09.59. ^ "H.R. 5682: House Vote 541: Dec 8, 2006 (109th Congress)". GovTrack. http:// Retrieved 2006-12-08.60. ^ "Nuclear deal with U.S. made easier for India to digest". Hindustan Times.,001301790001.htm. Retrieved 2006-11-09.61. ^ "Hyde Act not binding, says Bush". CNN-IBN. ndeal/28903-3.html. Retrieved 2006-12-19.62. ^ " :: ‘The question is can we get a better n-deal? No&#x2019". Retrieved 2008-07-11.63. ^ Indian government survives vote64. ^ "The Pioneer > Columnists". main_variable=Columnist&file_name=KANCHAN196.txt&writer=KANCHAN &validit=yes. Retrieved 2008-10-02.[dead link]65. ^ "Brahma Chellaney a strategic affairs expert, is a professor at the Centre for Policy Research. He was one of the authors of the nuclear doctrine submitted to the government for finalisation". Retrieved 2008-10-10.66. ^ "Stagecraft and Statecraft: Indias retarded nuclear deterrent".! 4913C7C8A2EA4A30!788.entry. Retrieved 2008-10-02.67. ^ Text of India-IAEA Safeguards Agreement68. ^ "India submits draft safeguards pact to IAEA". PTI ( 2008-07-09.
  23. 23. _IAEA/rssarticleshow/3215970.cms. Retrieved 2008-07-08.69. ^ "PM wants to quit over nuclear deal". Retrieved 2008-07-11.70. ^ Varadarajan, Siddharth (2008-07-09). "India sends safeguards agreement to IAEA Board". Retrieved 2008-07-08.71. ^ "The Hindu News Update Service". Retrieved 2008-07-11.72. ^ Sengupta, Somini (2007-07-23). "Indian Government Survives Confidence Vote". The New York Times. _r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin. Retrieved 2010-05-05.73. ^ Indian govt wins trust vote in parliament_English_Xinhua74. ^ Default75. ^ Post trust vote victory, India Govt. to move forward with reforms, nuclear deal - International Business Times76. ^ "IAEA board gets Indias safeguards agreement". 2008-07-09. Retrieved 2008-07-08.77. ^ N-deal: Getting NSG nod may not be easy78. ^ a b "NSG CLEARS NUCLEAR WAIVER FOR INDIA". CNN-IBN. September 6, 2008. india/73011-3.html?from=rssfeed. Retrieved 2008-09-06.79. ^ "INDIA JOINS NUCLEAR CLUB, GETS NSG WAIVER". September 6, 2008. id=NEWEN20080064332. Retrieved 2008-09-06.80. ^ Carnegie Endowment (August 2008): Text of U.S. NSG Proposal on India81. ^ a b NSG Guidelines82. ^ Arms Control Association (September 2008): Revised Indo-U.S. NSG Draft83. ^ Khabrein: U.S. plans nuclear rewrite to build NSG consensus84. ^ "UK backs Indias nuke energy ambitions". The Australian. 2008-01-23. http://,25197,23093209-2703,00.html.85. ^ "France to back India at IAEA meet-India-The Times of India". ticleshow/3233901.cms. Retrieved 2008-10-02.86. ^ India Times: Japan to recognise India as nuclear state87. ^ "Russia, India Close on Nuclear Deal". 13 February 2008. Retrieved 2008-10-02.88. ^ German leader: Much scope for India-Germany cooperation on peaceful nuclear energy - International Herald Tribune89. ^ The Hindu News Update Service90. ^ RTTNews - Political News and Chatter, World Political News, Forex News, Earnings Revisions
  24. 24. 91. ^ "Switzerland to support Indias case at NSG- Politics/Nation-News-The Economic Times". t_Indias_case_at_NSG/articleshow/3372695.cms. Retrieved 2008-10-02.92. ^ "Canada, India exploring ways to co-operate in nuclear energy". PTI - The Press Trust of India Ltd. 2007-10-10. ^ Times of India: Canada behind U.S., Britain in wooing India, says expert94. ^ Harrison, Selig S. (2006-04-23). "How to Regulate Nuclear Weapons". The Washington Post. dyn/content/article/2006/04/21/AR2006042101627.html. Retrieved 2010-05-05.95. ^ Arms Control Today (May 2006): Interview With Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Robert Joseph96. ^ "Indias N-deal hurdle: Pak warns of arms race". CNN IBN. 2008-07-24. http:// race/69471-2.html?xml. Retrieved 2008-07-24.97. ^ Times of India: Indias NSG battle to focus on nuclear tech98. ^ Times of India: India sees red as China voices n-deal concerns99. ^ The National Business Review: NZ wants conditions written into nuclear agreement100.^ Gulf Times: NSG ‘will seek clear conditions’101.^ Carter, Jimmy (2006-03-29). "A Dangerous Deal With India". The Washington Post. dyn/content/article/2006/03/28/AR2006032801210.html. Retrieved 2010-05-05.102.^ a b Daily Times: Nuclear suppliers propose terms for U.S.-India deal103.^ Telegraph: Vienna blow to nuclear deal104.^ AFP: Nuclear suppliers fail to reach consensus on U.S.-India deal105.^ Sep 6, 2008 (September 6, 2008). "AFP: Britain hails landmark US-India nuclear deal". Retrieved 2008-10-02.106.^ "U.S., India welcome NSGs agreement to lift nuclear trade embargo on India_English_Xinhua". 2008-09/06/content_9815475.htm. Retrieved 2008-10-02.107.^ "New Zealand compromises on India nuclear deal_English_Xinhua". Retrieved 2008-10-02.108.^ "The Hindu : International : Russia welcomes NSG waiver for India". Retrieved 2008-10-02.109.^ "India got the waiver because of its rise as global power-India-The Times of India". _global_power/articleshow/3472841.cms. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
  25. 25. 110.^ "India understands uranium stance: Smith - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)". September 12, 2008. Retrieved 2008-10-02.111.^ DW Staff (jen). "Germany Grudgingly Accepts Landmark Nuclear Deal with India | Europe | Deutsche Welle | 09.09.2008". http://www.dw-,2144,3629002,00.html. Retrieved 2008-10-02.112.^ " China, the main spoiler". Retrieved 2008-10-02.113.^ "China state paper lashes India-U.S. nuclear deal | Markets | Reuters". 2008-09-01. Retrieved 2008-10-02.114.^ "China was Indias secret enemy at Vienna | What NSA says". vienna/73025-3.html. Retrieved 2008-10-02.115.^ id=2beddd13-7339-4bcf-8484-83f7b7e2e8c6&ParentID=725c91cd-5ecf-44c4-8e 4f-d5bd5791c1e4&&Headline=China+says+it+backs+India’s+N-ambitions116.^ "NSG should address aspirations of others too: China". Retrieved 2008-10-02.117.^ "India runs into the great wall of China at NSG". nsg/72999-3.html. Retrieved 2008-10-02.118.^ "Will discuss NSG U-turn with China Foreign Min: NSA". http:// pranab/73058-3.html. Retrieved 2008-10-02.119.^ "Beijing disappoints Delhi-India-The Times of India". 453544.cms. Retrieved 2008-10-02.120.^ "The Hindu : Front Page : Waiver enables member states to provide India full civil nuclear cooperation". 2008090760781100.htm. Retrieved 2008-10-02.121.^ sectionName=&id=2beddd13-7339-4bcf-8484-83f7b7e2e8c6&&Headline=China +says+it+backs+India’s+N-ambitions&strParent=strParentID122.^ "China denies blocking Indias nuclear waiver bid | Markets | Reuters". 2008-09-08. Retrieved 2008-10-02.123.^ "We decided to back India in NSG before Vienna meeting: China- Hindustan Times". sectionName=Cricket&id=bd343cf5-
  26. 26. dc29-4841-8c69-60b9e6a2febf&&Headline= %27We+had+decided+to+back+India+in+NSG%27&strParent=strParentID. Retrieved 2008-10-02.124.^ "Lets move beyond doubts to build ties: China to India - Express India". beyond-doubts-to-build-ties--China-to-India/359300/. Retrieved 2008-10-02.125.^ "Manmohan arrives in Washington, to meet Bush". Thaindian News. washington-to-meet-bush_100100078.html. Retrieved 2008-10-10.126.^ "Manmohan leaves for home winding up 9 day US, France visit". The Hindu. Retrieved 2008-10-10.127.^ "India thanks NSGs Big Four for unique waiver -". http:// Retrieved 2008-10-02.128.^ "Gulf Daily News". http://www.gulf-daily- Retrieved 2008-10-02.129.^ "The Hindu : National : Advantage India, says Brajesh Mishra". Retrieved 2008-10-02.130.^ Sengupta, Somini (2006-12-10). "Interests Drive U.S. to Back a Nuclear India". The New York Times. Retrieved 2010-05-05.131.^ %20Relations%20in%20a%20Changing%20World.pdf132.^^ take_23244/134.^ Hindustan Times: N-deal, NSG waiver good for country135.^ "Asia Times Online :: South Asia news, business and economy from India and Pakistan". Retrieved 2008-10-02.136.^ a b "India Inc sets eyes on $40 bn nuclear energy market- Indicators-Economy- News-The Economic Times". mkt/articleshow/3460143.cms. Retrieved 2008-10-02.137.^ "N-trade: Its a $40 billion opportunity-India-The Times of India". trade_Its_a_40_billion_opportunity/articleshow/3469511.cms. Retrieved 2008-10-02.138.^ The Hindu: Tighten draft waiver for India139.^ Afrasiabi: Iran heartened by Indias nuclear vote140.^ Second Meeting of Experts of The Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (July 2004): Statement By His Excellency Dr. Ali-Asghar Soltanieh
  27. 27. 141.^ Forbes: India moves a step closer to U.S. nuclear pact142.^ ISIS (July 2008): "Press Trust of India - India dismisses Pak talk of arms race due to N-deal"143.^ Permanent Mission of Pakistan to the International Organizations (July 2008): Letter from Pakistan to the IAEA Board of Governors and Nuclear Suppliers Group144.^ Clinton woos Pakistan on security, aid, Reuters, July 19, 2010.145.^ Hindustan Times: Now, Israel wants NSG rules changed146.^ "Serious implications for India in NSG draft". Retrieved 2008-10-02.147.^ Indian Express: Was India misled by America on nuclear deal?148.^ Washington Post: In Secret Letter, Tough U.S. Line on India Nuclear Deal149.^ Department of State: Answers to questions about Indo-U.S. nuclear agreement150.^ The Hindu News Update Service151.^ Economic Times of India: Congressional approval may not be automatic; dissenters speak out152.^ Times of India: US House approves Indo-US nuke deal153.^ a b Bloomberg: Bush Wins Approval in Congress for Priority India Atomic Accord154.^ The Hindu: Nuclear test will have serious consequences155.^ "Bush hails Senate passage of Indo-US nuclear deal-USA-World-The Times of India". US_nuclear_deal/articleshow/3551793.cms. Retrieved 2008-10-02.[dead link]156.^ Rice hails approval of India nuclear deal157.^ "N-deal faces last-minute glitch". Deccan Harald. section=frontpagenews.158.^ "Condoleezza Rice leaves without inking deal". Economic Times. ves_without_inking_deal/articleshow/3561357.cms.159.^ Sunday Times (October 5, 2008), Rice is here but deal still not on table, Times of India160.^ "Rice arrives, nuclear deal not to be signed today". id=NEWEN20080067616&ch=10/4/2008%2012:00:00%20PM.161.^ "Rice in India, may not sign nuclear deal". 2008-10-04.^ "Bush signs India-U.S. nuclear bill into law". The Hindu. 2008-10-10. Retrieved 2008-10-13.163.^ Gollust, David (2008-10-10). "US, India Sign Civilian Nuclear Accord". Voice Of America. voa66.cfm. Retrieved 2008-12-24.164.^ Times of India (October 11, 2008), India, US seal 123 Agreement, Times of India
  28. 28. [edit] External links This articles use of external links may not follow Wikipedias policies or guidelines. Please improve this article by removing excessive and inappropriate external links. (August 2010)U.S. Government links • U.S. Government Printing Office: The text of the Hyde Act • U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee: Questions for the Record submitted to Assistant Secretary Bernger by Chairman Tom Lantos • U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee: Documents from the White House related to the U.S.-India civilian nuclear cooperation agreementIndia Government links • Indian Ministry of External Affairs (August 2007): Text of the preliminary Indo- U nuclear agreement ( Suppliers Group links • Nuclear Suppliers Group (August 2008): NSG Public Statement – Extraordinary Plenary Meeting • Nuclear Suppliers Group (November 2007): INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 1 • Nuclear Suppliers Group (March 2006): INFCIRC/254/Rev.7/Part 2