Devil's Advocate: 'N-deal India's passport to the world'

DEAL OR NO DEAL? If N-deal is not processed in the present Congress, it is unlikely it will be offered again, says Mulford.

          

People who read this also read:

It's now or never for nuclear deal: Mulford

Mulford said it is unlikely that this deal will be offered again.

• US to India: Complete N-deal while Bush is prez
• N-deal may be dead deal if not worked out by Jan

Featured Blog

Plastics and the environment!

Featured Slideshows

Ads by Google

Karan Thapar: So it is just a reminder, nothing more?

David Mulford: Yes.

Karan Thapar: Let us come to some specific concerns with the 123 Agreement. To begin with if the 123 Agreement goes through, would India lose its right to conduct further nuclear tests?

David Mulford: Not at all. It can make that decision any time—it is a sovereign state.

Karan Thapar: To paraphrase, are you suggesting that India retains its sovereign right to carry out further nuclear tests but America at the same time retains its right to respond as per its own domestic legislation?

David Mulford: Well it is very clear that India is free to do as it wishes—with regard to future testing—(but) it also clear that if it does test then certain things may or may not happen that are prescribed in the agreement. So it is all visible—there transparently for everybody to see.

Karan Thapar: Secondly, critics of the deal, like Dr Gopalakrishnan, a former director of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, say the 123 Agreement doesn't have sufficiently binding assurances on lifetime supplies of fuel. How could you reassure him that he is in fact incorrect?

David Mulford: I would suggest that he read the language that was negotiated between the President and the Prime Minister in March 2006 and which became the language governing the issue of fuel and safeguards in perpetuity. This language was accepted by the Indian government and was thought by both sides to serve the purposes, so I think that's a closed issue.

Karan Thapar: So you think this is an invalid concern?

David Mulford: I think it is.

Karan Thapar: Thirdly, critics point out that the 123 Agreement doesn't have a clear and unequivocal right to reprocess. Is that a fact?

David Mulford: That is not true. The negotiations on that point were long and drawn out and the right was granted up front for reprocessing as part of the 123 Agreement. That is clear.

Karan Thapar: When you say it is granted upfront are you saying it is a prior consent, to use the language the Indian government uses?

David Mulford: It was granted as a right upfront, but of course there has also to be—as India proposed itself—a special reprocessing facility, which they have agreed to and which they have put forward as their proposal and which we found acceptable. That (special reprocessing facility) has to be put into existence before reprocessing actually begins but the right to reprocess is recognised in the agreement.

Karan Thapar: I tell you why there is a certain amount of ambiguity, perhaps even doubt, in that score. The 123 Agreement says parties grant each other consent to reprocess but then it adds to bring these rights into effect they have to agree on arrangements and procedures within 18 months. What would happen if after 18 months that agreement on arrangements and procedures isn't happening?

David Mulford: I am not going to speculate on the future as it may unfold but what is clear that the language was negotiated carefully. It was aimed at closing that particular issue, which it did. Both sides agreed and we will go forward if this agreement is put into effect and honour our side of the agreement.