Indo Us Nuclear Agreement Of 2007

At the same time, it is clear that the left-wing parties are not necessarily opposed to the IAEA agreement, but in fact to the Hyde Act passed by the US Congress in December 2006. [47] They argue that the Hyde Act contains conditions and provisions that would nullify Agreement 123 for many reasons, from a nuclear test by India to New Delhi`s non-compliance with Washington`s foreign policy objectives. [48] One of the main arguments put forward by the Communist alliance with respect to the Hyde Act is that it would allow the United States to repatriate all equipment and fuel transferred to India. [49] The clarifications provided by senior U.S. officials that the basis of the nuclear agreement is Agreement 123 and that the Hyde Act is consistent with it is unlikely to change the position of the Communist parties. Thus, it is claimed that it is the Hyde Act and the nuclear agreement in general that would jeopardize India`s foreign policy and its nuclear program. 25 July 2008: IAEA secretariat informs member states of India-specific safeguard agreement. Sharad Joshi discusses the obstacles to the implementation of the Indo-American Civil Nuclear Cooperation Agreement, both in New Delhi and within the Nuclear Suppliers Group. The proposed civil nuclear agreement implicitly recognizes India`s “de facto” status, even without signing the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The Bush administration justifies a nuclear pact with India by arguing the importance of contributing to the promotion of the non-proliferation framework[47] by formally acknowledging India`s strong non-proliferation record when it did not sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Former Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns, one of the architects of Indo-U.S. “India`s confidence, credibility, the fact that it promised to create a state-of-the-art facility, overseen by the IAEA to launch a new export control regime because it has not increased nuclear technology, we cannot say about Pakistan.” Deal. [48] [49] Mohamed ElBaradei, former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency responsible for inspecting India`s civilian reactors, praised the agreement as it would “also bring India closer as an important partner in the non-proliferation regime.” [50] Reaction in the U.S.-led university community has been mixed. While some authors praised the agreement for bringing India closer to the NPT regime, others argued that India had too much leeway to determine which facilities to protect and that it was effectively rewarding India for its continued refusal to join the NPT. [51] All of this essentially reduces the possibility of meeting the July 2008 deadline proposed by Washington for the conclusion of the nuclear agreement.

Comments are closed.