Civil Nuclear Agreement Explained

The pact also allowed India to separate its civilian and military programs. The country currently has 15 of its reactors under the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In terms of electricity generation, the share of nuclear power in the country`s total electricity production is 2.03% in 2008, up from 3.2% in 2017, Ramana said. [44] B. Muralidhar Reddy, “Namibia decries `nuclear apartheid`,” The Hindu, 18 October 2016. A proposed groundbreaking nuclear agreement between the United States and India raises questions and concerns in both countries. Singh`s visit also coincided with the completion of the next steps in Strategic Partnerships (NSSPs), announced in January 2004, aimed at strengthening cooperation on civilian nuclear activities, civilian space programs, high-tech trade and missile defence. Yashwant Sinha of the Bharatiya Janata party, who previously served as India`s foreign minister, criticized the Indian government`s decision to seek NSG consensus and said: “India has entered the U.S.-imposed non-proliferation trap, we have renounced our right to test nuclear weapons forever, it has been abandoned by the government.” [139] Another prominent member of the same party and India`s former national security adviser, Brajesh Mishra, supported the development of the NSG and stated that India`s waiver was “not prohibited” from conducting nuclear tests in the future. [140] On 2 March 2006, in New Delhi, George W. Bush and Manmohan Singh signed a nuclear cooperation agreement following their creation at the July 2005 summit of the two heads of state in Washington on civil nuclear cooperation. [62] In a joint statement by Singh and Obama, India and the United States reaffirmed the terms of the nuclear agreement and stressed their moratorium on nuclear testing and the growing need to work for global non-proliferation. A third major challenge facing India and the international community is the security of nuclear and non-nuclear materials.

Faced with institutions such as the IAEA, the concern of countries that conclude nuclear agreements with India is the risk of nuclear disasters such as Chernobyl and Fukushima. The Fukushima tragedy in Japan, a technologically advanced country, has raised concerns around the world about nuclear safety. Although it was mainly caused by natural factors, anthropogenic factors such as the failure not only of the cooling system, but also the control of radioactive releases resulted in the evacuation of more than 100,000 people and stopped the city. [59] The details of the serious inconsistencies between what was said in the Indian Parliament about the agreement and the facts about the agreement submitted by the Bush administration to the US Congress were revealed, the opposition to the agreement intensified in India. In particular, parts of the agreement, which guarantees India`s fuel supply or allows India to maintain a strategic nuclear fuel reserve, appear diametrically opposed to what the Indian parliament suggested: Prime Minister Manmohan Singh`s statement to Parliament is in complete contradiction with the Bush administration`s communication to the House foreign affairs committee. , which stipulates that India must not store such nuclear fuel reserves in order to undermine U.S. leverage to restore sanctions. To bring this point home, it is said that Agreement 123 is not at odds with the provision of the Hyde Act – the little-known “Barack Obama Amendment” – that the supply of nuclear fuel should be “reasonable in terms of operation”. The “strategic reserve,” crucial to India`s nuclear program, is therefore a non-launcher.

[75] Dr.

Comments are closed.