Front Page

India reiterates ‘legally binding’ nature of 123 pact’s provisions

— Photo: PTI

A done deal: External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice exchange documents after signing the Indo-U.S. civil nuclear co-operation deal in Washington on Friday.

New York: Even as it signed a bilateral nuclear cooperation agreement with the United States on Friday, India sought to draw a line under assertions Washington has made about the “non-binding” nature of its fuel supply commitments by declaring that the “[123 Agreement’s] provisions are now legally binding on both sides once the Agreement enters into force.”

The agreement was signed at the State Department in a formal ceremony for which External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee specially flew in.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice signed the Agreement on behalf of the United States.

In a statement prior to the actual signing of the Agreement, Mr. Mukherjee noted that the Agreement was the “first step” to civil nuclear cooperation and trade between India and the United States. The Agreement, he said, was about civil nuclear cooperation “and reflects a careful balance of rights and obligations.”

He added: “The Agreement has been passed by the U.S. Congress without any amendments. Its provisions are now legally binding on both sides once the Agreement enters into force. We look forward to working with U.S. companies on the commercial steps that will follow to implement this landmark Agreement.”

In a second statement issued to the press after the Agreement’s signing, Mr. Mukherjee emphasised another key Indian position: “We intend to implement this Agreement in good faith and in accordance with the principles of international law and I am confident that the U.S. will also do the same.”

No such reassurance was forthcoming from the U.S. side other than the State Department saying the Agreement provided the “legal framework” for nuclear cooperation.

The 123 text itself calls the Agreement a “legal framework and basis,” and it is clear that despite India moving to protect its legal position, problems of interpretation are likely to persist.