CHENNAI: "It is a matter of great concern to us" that the "Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006" stated that the U.S. would terminate civilian nuclear cooperation if India were to conduct a nuclear test, said M.R. Srinivasan, former Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), on Saturday.

According to Dr. Srinivasan, this provision already existed in the U.S. Atomic Energy Act of 1954 but it specifically referred to non-nuclear weapon States conducting a test. "What will happen if the U.S., China or Pakistan were to conduct a nuclear test?" he asked, and added, "It [this provision] is a matter of great concern to us. " It was also "a matter of concern" that India had been denied access to full civil nuclear cooperation. (India had been barred from getting the reprocessing, enrichment and production of heavy water technologies).

Dr. Srinivasan, who is now a Member of the AEC, said that India already possessed the technology to reprocess the spent fuel from nuclear power reactors. But the Government of India's view was that access to full civilian nuclear cooperation included access to reprocessing and enrichment technologies. For any effective nuclear power programme entailed that India should reprocess plutonium from the spent fuel and it should enrich uranium. The U.S., however, had a policy that did not allow the export of these technologies to other countries.

"Wait and see"

Dr. Srinivasan said: "But we have advanced technologies in these areas. The key issue here is that we do not want to be denied the right to reprocess the fuel we get from outside, whether it is natural uranium or enriched uranium because we need the uranium for our Fast Breeder Reactors and thorium utilisation programme. Nicholas Burns [U.S. Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs] has said it is India's sovereign right to reprocess the spent fuel. If this gets reflected in the discussions leading to the `123' agreement between India and the U.S, and in the `123' agreement itself, it will meet India's concerns to some extent. But we have to wait and see."

On the provision that the U.S. President should provide an "assessment" every year to the Congress that India was in full compliance with its non-proliferation commitments, he said it had now been left to the U.S. President and his administration to make this "assessment" without making it obligatory on India's part to keep reporting [to them]. Earlier, a "certification" was required. "This partly meets India's concerns," Dr. Srinivasan said.

About the Bill itself, he said the House of Representatives and the Senate "have tried to meet some of India's concerns but then the language still has some elements which are not exactly what we expected. The language is still a problem from the Indian point of view... There is some movement [forward] but still there are some areas which have to be analysed and examined." It was "true" that there was non-recognition of India as a nuclear weapon State.

"However, if we take a look at the resolution, it says we can have our nuclear weapons programme and it recognises the existence of India' s nuclear weapon programme," Dr. Srinivasan said.

Top officials of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) took the stand that since this was a legislation enacted in a foreign country, they would study it in "a systematic manner on how it affected us."

They added: "It is all the more important to ensure that we continue our indigenous research and development in nuclear power technology. It is extremely important to keep the leading edge in indigenous technology not only in nuclear power technology but its application in health, agriculture and industrial sectors. So for the future we will not diminish our indigenous R and D in any way, even if we get to buy nuclear reactors from outside."

Mixed reaction

PTI reports from Mumbai: A.N. Prasad, a former AEC Chairman, said many Indian concerns were not addressed in the Conference Bill but ``it was expected as it is very difficult for them [U.S. to drop many of the conditions introduced earlier by Senate and House separately] during the reconciliation process."

"I hope India does not get euphoric with [U.S. Under Secretary of State] Nicholas Burns' assurances ... . as the country has to take what is put out in black and white in the Bill," Mr. Prasad said.

"Needs to be polished"

Dr. Homi Sethna, also a former AEC Chairman, said "on the whole, it is a good arrangement. But India has to polish it in such a manner that it protects its interest on the thorium fuel cycle, which is a unique contribution by Indian scientists."

Another former AEC Chairman, P.K. Iyengar, said "we have to study the Bill in detail and lots of discussions are required before commenting on it. We are going to have meeting with Kakodkar on December 15 and by then we will be in a position to give a proper analysis."

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail