ID :
10769
Wed, 06/25/2008 - 13:37
Auther :
Shortlink :
http://m.oananews.org//node/10769
The shortlink copeid
Nuke scientists against Govt. going ahead with N-deal
New Delhi, Jun 25 - (PTI) As the Congress-led coalition
grapples with the nuclear deal issue, senior scientists
Tuesday strongly opposed Government seeking the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board approval on the Indo-US
accord before debating it within the United Progressive
Alliance-Left Committee.
"We are strongly of the opinion that the Government
should not proceed to seek IAEA Board approval for the current
draft safeguards agreement, until its implications are debated
more fully within the country, or at least within the UPA-Left
Committee," they said.
In a joint statement, P.K. Iyengar, former chairman of
Atomic Energy Commission, A. Gopalakrishnan, former head of
Atomic Energy Regulatory Board and A.N. Prasad, former
Director of Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, said that the
agreement should also be dicussed with a group of experts who
were not party to the IAEA negotiations.
They said there was a "great deal of disquiet" among the
scientific community at large at "this critical juncture"
when the government was about to rush the safeguards agreement
to the IAEA "without giving its details to the UPA-Left
Committee created specifically for a joint evaluation of the
deal".
"There are several other key safeguards-related issues
of crucial importance, for which no one, including the
UPA-Left Committee which the government created, has been
provided answers," the scientists said.
They said none of the issues raised by them could be
addressed adquately and in an acceptable manner "unless the
entire safeguards agreements and its associated papers are
made available to the UPA-Left Committee for their
evaluation".
They were also of the view that the documents should be
made available to a set of independent national experts who
have so far not been part of the government's negotiations
with the IAEA.
The scientists apprehended that once the deal was in
place, India's commercial nuclear interactions with the US as
well as with any other country would be firmly controlled from
Washington via the stipulations of the Hyde Act, 2006,
enforced through the stranglehold which the US retains on the
Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG).
"Any argument to the effect that the deal will be
governed only by the bilateral 123 agreement is untenable,
because this agreement in turn is anchored in US domestic
laws, which include the Hyde Act," they said.
Noting that power would come at a much higher cost, they
wondered whether India needed "this mythical extra energy
security" through this deal with the additional burden of
subjugating the freedom to pursue a foreign policy and
indigenous nuclear Research and Development programme on its
own.
The top scientists said the "urgency" to rush to the
IAEA Board in consonance with the American timetable to get
the safeguards agreement approved and then clinch the deal
during the prevailing tenures of the governments in India and
the US "must be replaced with an openness and introspection
that is vital for a serious debate which the situation
demands."
They said the combination of the "extreme secrecy" with
which the government carried forward the deal, the "media
hype" generated in its favour, the "parochial interests of
opportunistic individuals and organisations" and the
"unfortunate ignorance" of the people over the issue had "put
the country on a dangerous path".
They claimed that no uninterrupted fuel supplies for
those reactors which India would place under safeguards have
been guaranteed in the Hyde Act as well as the 123 agreement.
"Since the IAEA was all along known to be no fuel-
supply guarantor, there is serious doubt whether Indian
negotiators obtained any assurance in this regard," they said.
Pointing that the government had asserted that IAEA
safeguards would have provisions for corrective measures in
the event of disruption in fuel supplies, the scientists said
the nation would like to know clearly what these corrective
measures will be, "before plunging headlong into this deal."
They maintained that the Hyde Act prohibited the US
Administration from directly or indirectly, through the IAEA
or other countries, assisting India with life-time fuel
supplies after suspension of the deal.
"Therefore, the government owes a clarification in this
regard to the UPA-Left Committee and the Indian public," they
said.
grapples with the nuclear deal issue, senior scientists
Tuesday strongly opposed Government seeking the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board approval on the Indo-US
accord before debating it within the United Progressive
Alliance-Left Committee.
"We are strongly of the opinion that the Government
should not proceed to seek IAEA Board approval for the current
draft safeguards agreement, until its implications are debated
more fully within the country, or at least within the UPA-Left
Committee," they said.
In a joint statement, P.K. Iyengar, former chairman of
Atomic Energy Commission, A. Gopalakrishnan, former head of
Atomic Energy Regulatory Board and A.N. Prasad, former
Director of Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, said that the
agreement should also be dicussed with a group of experts who
were not party to the IAEA negotiations.
They said there was a "great deal of disquiet" among the
scientific community at large at "this critical juncture"
when the government was about to rush the safeguards agreement
to the IAEA "without giving its details to the UPA-Left
Committee created specifically for a joint evaluation of the
deal".
"There are several other key safeguards-related issues
of crucial importance, for which no one, including the
UPA-Left Committee which the government created, has been
provided answers," the scientists said.
They said none of the issues raised by them could be
addressed adquately and in an acceptable manner "unless the
entire safeguards agreements and its associated papers are
made available to the UPA-Left Committee for their
evaluation".
They were also of the view that the documents should be
made available to a set of independent national experts who
have so far not been part of the government's negotiations
with the IAEA.
The scientists apprehended that once the deal was in
place, India's commercial nuclear interactions with the US as
well as with any other country would be firmly controlled from
Washington via the stipulations of the Hyde Act, 2006,
enforced through the stranglehold which the US retains on the
Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG).
"Any argument to the effect that the deal will be
governed only by the bilateral 123 agreement is untenable,
because this agreement in turn is anchored in US domestic
laws, which include the Hyde Act," they said.
Noting that power would come at a much higher cost, they
wondered whether India needed "this mythical extra energy
security" through this deal with the additional burden of
subjugating the freedom to pursue a foreign policy and
indigenous nuclear Research and Development programme on its
own.
The top scientists said the "urgency" to rush to the
IAEA Board in consonance with the American timetable to get
the safeguards agreement approved and then clinch the deal
during the prevailing tenures of the governments in India and
the US "must be replaced with an openness and introspection
that is vital for a serious debate which the situation
demands."
They said the combination of the "extreme secrecy" with
which the government carried forward the deal, the "media
hype" generated in its favour, the "parochial interests of
opportunistic individuals and organisations" and the
"unfortunate ignorance" of the people over the issue had "put
the country on a dangerous path".
They claimed that no uninterrupted fuel supplies for
those reactors which India would place under safeguards have
been guaranteed in the Hyde Act as well as the 123 agreement.
"Since the IAEA was all along known to be no fuel-
supply guarantor, there is serious doubt whether Indian
negotiators obtained any assurance in this regard," they said.
Pointing that the government had asserted that IAEA
safeguards would have provisions for corrective measures in
the event of disruption in fuel supplies, the scientists said
the nation would like to know clearly what these corrective
measures will be, "before plunging headlong into this deal."
They maintained that the Hyde Act prohibited the US
Administration from directly or indirectly, through the IAEA
or other countries, assisting India with life-time fuel
supplies after suspension of the deal.
"Therefore, the government owes a clarification in this
regard to the UPA-Left Committee and the Indian public," they
said.
