Devil's Advocate: M K Narayanan on 123 deal

REAL DEAL: Narayanan says the negotiation was much better than what had been anticipated.

      

Other stories in the section:

Kashmiriyat: A tradition of warmth and hospitality

After protests broke out, locals ensured the safety of the yatris.

• J&K land row: No Dialogue due to militancy, politics

Featured Blog

Abhishek Patni

MAULANA MULAYAM AND PERILS OF NUCLEAR DEAL

Featured Slideshows

Just how good is the 123 agreement India negotiated in Washington D C last week? That’s the key issued explored in the first of the two-part series on Devil’s Advocate this week with National Security Advisor, M K Narayanan.

Karan Thapar: Let me start with a simple question. How pleased are you with the work you did in Washington last week?

M K Narayanan: I think the team that went to Washington is fairly satisfied with what we have achieved and I think when we came back and reported to our leaders they seem pretty satisfied.

Karan Thapar: Is this merely a good deal or is it the best you could have got?

M K Narayanan: There’s always scope for improvement I suppose but it was much better than what we anticipated so I presume it is somewhere between the best and good.

Karan Thapar: In August last year, the Prime Minister said in Parliament, “We seek the removal of restrictions on all aspects of co-operation and technology transfer pertaining to civil nuclear energy.” Is he now in a position to go back to Parliament in August and say he succeeded?

M K Narayanan: I think he is in a position to go back to Parliament and say that what he had said about full civil nuclear co-operation, that commitment he has sustained as far as he is concerned.

In a comprehensive sense, I think it is an all-encompassing kind of a statement, which I think should make me sustain all that we wished to have. To that extent, the agreement fulfills all the commitments the Prime Minister has made.

Karan Thapar: So the agreement fulfills the Prime Minister’s commitment to secure full civil nuclear co-operation?

M K Narayanan: Yes, I think so.

Karan Thapar: Let’s go into some of the issues you mentioned one by one and let’s start by the right to reprocess. Has this been granted to India in a manner that India can accept?

M K Narayanan: The question you are asking me is whether we have the right to reprocess. I think we have the right to reprocess spent fuel.

Karan Thapar: We have the right to reprocess spent fuel? The newspaper report says the 123 agreement gives India prior consent although the specific arrangements will need to be worked out mutually between both sides within a finite time period of 18 months. If within that time the two sides can’t agree does prior consent mean India can go ahead and reprocess anyway?

M K Narayanan: No, it is not that there are any conditions to prior consent. It is upfront, advanced consent. What we have offered the Americans is the fuel that they would supply as also the fuel we would get from other countries; we are willing to put it in a dedicated national facility, so as to remove any concerns they might have about the fuel going anywhere other than what they wish to send.

Karan Thapar: And that was an important assurance?

M K Narayanan: That was an important assurance. I think it satisfied them. I don’t think we had any problem with it but it satisfied both parties.

Karan Thapar: On that basis, you have got prior consent?

M K Narayanan: Well, I presume that is one major factor.

Karan Thapar: And prior content is an important term.

M K Narayanan: Yes.

Karan Thapar: So there is no further negotiation needed.

M K Narayanan: No, as far as the consent is concerned is no more negotiations at all.

Karan Thapar: Connected to this is the issue of fallback safeguards. In the event that the IAEA is unable for whatever reason to safeguard Indian facilities, what fallback procedure is agreed upon?

M K Narayanan: You are now forcing me to go into the text. What I would like to mention is that we have taken that contingency into consideration and if and when such a situation were to arise, the general belief is that this would happen only when Armageddon takes place in which case what rights anybody has is a matter of speculation. But if such an eventuality were to occur then both the supplier and the recipient would get together and decide what procedures are necessary.

Karan Thapar: So this is left to be decided when an event occurs, it is not agreed upon now?

M K Narayanan: No. There is no problem. We have agreed that we will have only IAEA safeguards and no fallback safeguards.

Karan Thapar: So there is no question of any American or any other National inspectors trampling over our territory?

M K Narayanan: What we are trying to be as true to our commitment is that there will be safeguards in perpetuity. If for some reason it breaks down, we are willing to look at what other verification measures we should think of.

Karan Thapar: Another critical concern is India’s right to carry out further nuclear test if it deems that it is in its national interest to do. Is there anything directly or indirectly in the 123 agreement which would limit this right?

M K Narayanan: In this entire 123 negotiations that we have had with the US has been about civil nuclear co-operation. So our rights to test just did not come into the debate at all.

Karan Thapar: A newspaper report says that the 123 agreement specifically contains what’s called a non-hindrance clause which explicitly says that nothing in the 123 impinge or in any way hinder India’s strategic nuclear programme. Is that right?

M K Narayanan: I do not know where the newspaper got it this from. But I would not like to deny what it has said.

Karan Thapar: The newspaper report also said that the very word detonation, nor the phrase nuclear test appears anywhere in the text of the 123. Is that right?

M K Narayanan: Once again, I would not like to deny what the newspaper has said.

Karan Thapar: Lets then ask you a blunt question. One of the concerns people have is that the 123 agreement is designed to in fact cap or roll back India’s nuclear arsenal.

M K Narayanan: Whoever is saying this, either he is ignorant or he is jaundiced or prejudiced. I think there is nothing in the 123 agreement, as I said, which deals with the strategic programme. We decided this issue way back in March 2006. We have separated our military arsenal from it.

Karan Thapar: So the nuclear military arsenal remains sacrosanct.

M K Narayanan: Total and absolute.

Karan Thapar: Another issue of concern is India’s right to build up strategic reserves what are considered lifetime supplies of fuel for reactor. Is that assured by the 123?

M K Narayanan: How did the issue of strategic fuel reserve arise? When we agreed that we would put our nuclear reactors under safeguards, we wanted an assurance that there will be uninterrupted supply of fuel.