US Senate passes Indian nuclear deal; where next for nuclear non-proliferation?

The NYT made one last desperate case against it but the Senate was unusually busy today, and passed the US-India nuclear agreement that got through the Nuclear Supplier's Group with New Zealand's reluctant support.

At the moment this move by New Zealand looks like a very good tactical retreat. Firstly we have the move by the US to sign a free trade agreement with the P4 nations. Secondly there may be secret side agreements in Vienna that would make us happier, or maybe not. Thirdly US lawmakers seem to be clear that a nuclear weapons test by India would end the US supply of uranium (but can the same be said for France and Russia?

In private correspondence with Congress that was made public last month, the administration said the United States would terminate nuclear trade with India if it conducted another nuclear test. But the administration refused to add such terms to the Nuclear Suppliers Group waiver, and an amendment to the bill that would have made them explicit failed to pass last night. Sen. Richard G. Lugar (Ind.), the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, argued that the amendment was not necessary because U.S. laws made it clear that the deal was off if India tested again.

"There should be no doubt" because of the floor debate, Kimball said. "There will be practical consequences if India tests."

Both presidential candidates are in favour of the deal.

But the agreement had the strong support of both presidential candidates, helping grease the way to victory. The House approved the bill Saturday, 298 to 117.

Just to throw the cat among the pigeons. If India is to become part of the "mainstream" of civilian nuclear trade then it seems only fair that so should Israel.
(While we are at it Israeli "nuclear opacity" may have run its course.)

Given the current parlous situation, good luck to Kevin Rudd's efforts to reinvigorate international non-proliferation efforts I say and lets hope Gareth Evans is serious about his efforts to bring India, Israel and Pakistan under some form of restraint.

Australia's former foreign minister, Gareth Evans, will co-chair the event with Yoriko Kawaguchi, an ex-foreign minister in Japan, the government said. Senior Indian diplomat Brajesh Mishra and Pakistan's ex-army chief Jehangir Karamat are to be among the delegates.

Evans has recently said all nuclear powers _ including those who have refused to join the nonproliferation treaty such as India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel _ must be included in the new process if the world is to ever achieve disarmament.

Still waiting for final whistle on US-India nuclear trade

It appears that the backdown last week at the Nuclear Suppliers Group may have been associated with some private side agreements restricting the sale of fuel enrichment and reprocessing technology to India and other countries that are not signatories of the NPT. The report in the Washington Post is here.

The Arms Control Wonk discusses it here and here.

Kessler cites “sources familiar with the discussions” making two claims:

1. “[The NSG] privately agreed last weekend that none of its members plans to sell sensitive technologies to India .. [to] persuade several skeptical member states to support a waiver authorizing nuclear trade with India…”

2. “The NSG separately is nearing consensus on a total ban on sensitive sales to countries such as India that have not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty … [This was] another factor in persuading countries such as Ireland, New Zealand and Austria to end their effort to write such trade restrictions into the waiver for India.”

This doesn't seem to address the question of what happens if or when India tests a nuclear bomb but it definitely represents a significant win over the public version of the deal.

Those of you interested in Kim Jong-il should be reading the Arms Control Wonk also.

Did we back down on the nuclear agreement? Yes

If you are interested in this issue there are now blog posts at Kiwiblog and No Right Turn.

DPF argues that Clark backed down on this one. I think this is true but I am not sure that I blame Clark greatly. Would a National government have been more resolute on this issue? Even once we were the only country on the NSG to remain opposed to the agreement? At the cost of improved trade access to the US? No I thought not.

Idiot/Savant on the other hand argues that we did not back down because we got most of what we wanted. In this he relies on the Herald's summary of New Zealand's goals in the negotiations.

New Zealand had wanted:

* Action to be taken should India resume nuclear testing;

* For India to sign up to an International Atomic Energy Agency protocol extending its monitoring powers;

* A review of the exemption.

(The full text of the waiver is available here, and a complete analysis from the arms control point of view here.)

It's certainly true that the three points mentioned by the Herald are addressed in the waiver as I/S notes. However this list is drawn up after the fact.

In interviews prior to the NSG meeting Goff was very clear; New Zealand and other nations wanted it written into the waiver that a nuclear test by India would end the supply of uranium. Avoiding this was the goal of US and Indian diplomacy and we backed down, the waiver is not conditional on India refraining from testing.

Here is Goff in an interview by the ABC

LOPRESTI: So with the safeguard agreement would you like to see tighter controls over India such as with the nuclear tests?

GOFF: Well we'd like to see what's already built as part of the United States Hide Act, which allows the United States to undertake nuclear trade with India, which requires that the deal would cease immediately in the event that India would conduct a nuclear test. India's not currently conducting tests; it says that it's made a domestic decision not to do so. We'd like some certainty around that and should not be an impossible ask of India to say that as long as you, in fact it's not even an ask, it could be built unilaterally into the agreement that this exemption would only apply so long as India did not again test its nuclear weapons.

This is a very unfortunate development but I blame the Bush administration rather than New Zealand and the US congress may still act to require such a conditionality at least for US sales.


Particularly unfortunate is the situation whereby countries like New Zealand have had to put their concerns in national statements that do not form part of the waiver. The Arms Control Association notes:

Because of the negotiations were tough and the real differences not fully resolved, there will likely be serious differences between India and most of the NSG about the interpretation of what the guidelines allow and don't allow and what the consequences of any violation of India's nonproliferation and disarmament commitments would be. This outcome is a failure of the NSG as a whole, the U.S. delegation, and the NSG chair Germany.

Also the Arms Control Wonk

I worry this sets up a potential trainwreck:

* Indian officials believe they have what they seek: the legal commitments at the core of a strategy that will mitigate the consequences of a resumption of testing. (The fuel reserve, access to the international marketplace, etc.)

* NSG members, on the other hand, believe they have a political commitment, however weak, from India to refrain from testing and options to isolate India again in the event that it violates the pledge.

One of the two parties is wrong. I am not eager to find out which.

NSG agrees to India waiver

In a dramatic last minute agreement the NSG has agreed to the waiver for the US-India uranium deal. Details of the waiver are sketchy and the deal must now get through the US congress.

According to the Hindu, New Zealand was the last to concede in a classic divide and conquer strategy by high level US diplomats.

“It was clear to us that as long as these countries were a group, they would remain a problem,” a senior Indian official said. “But we also knew none of them wanted to be the last man standing.” So between the United States and India, a determined political effort was made late Friday night to ensure each of the four came on board. The first to agree was China, said the official, and the last New Zealand, with Ireland and Austria also dropping their objections in between. Though the last three communicated their decision to Washington, the official said the Chinese side directly informed India that it intended to back the consensus.

It seems that little has been done formally to modify the original waiver, but that a statement on September 5 from the Indian Foreign Minister reiterating their moratorium on testing has been mentioned in a 'chapeau' to the waiver. New Zealand is also one of several countries to make a national statement expressing disquiet at the deal. From the Hindu again:

Though several minor changes were made in the India waiver adopted by the Nuclear Suppliers Group on Saturday, the most important change from the point of view of those countries with non-proliferation concerns was the incorporation of a reference to the September 5 statement made by External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee reiterating India’s stand on disarmament and non-proliferation.

Among the commitments the statement highlighted were India’s voluntary and unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing, its “policy of no-first-use of nuclear weapons” and several initiatives the country has taken in recent years to press for the elimination of nuclear weapons at the global level.

For a feeling of the pressure that has been exerted there is this:

Asked for his assessment of the waiver, a diplomat from a European country which initially wanted much stronger conditional language said his government had joined the consensus “very reluctantly.” “I wouldn’t say we’re happy,” he said, adding that his country and several others had been “leaned on at the highest levels.”

I take it we can assume that we have been "leaned on at the highest levels" also.

The Washington Post has run an impassioned critique of the deal here.

The Group of Six Still Making Trouble in Vienna

The first day of the NSG meeting is now over. The Hindu has talked to diplomats representing countries opposed to the US-India uranium deal and the prospects for the deal do not appear bright.

The six countries holding out for tougher conditions to be written into the draft proposal granting India an exemption from the NSG's rules are Austria, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, the Netherlands and Switzerland. But the coalition is a shifting one and the six are getting support from other countries on some of the demands they are making. At the same time, the number of countries pushing for approval of the exemption has also grown, say diplomats.

The biggest issue appears to be the requirement that any nuclear test by India would result in a cessation of uranium sales. Interestingly this may be most strongly opposed by the big uranium supplying nations (France and Russia for example) than by India itself.

Automatic cut-off of supplies in the event of India abandoning its moratorium on nuclear testing "has been our absolute bottom line from the beginning," said the diplomat, "and there is no question of it being dropped". At the same time, he conceded that more than India, it was the "big supplier nations" like Russia and France that were opposing automaticity of termination. "We know the U.S. is committed to terminating supplies [if India tests] but we don't want to leave the decision within the NSG to each individual PG [participating government]".

Contrary view on US-India uranium deal

The New York Times editorial has prompted a response from the Times of India, putting the case for the waiver at the Nuclear Suppliers Group to go ahead.

Realistically speaking, what a ban on nuclear trade with India would achieve is keeping it out of the loop on civilian nuclear technology. That means it'll have to rely primarily on coal-fired plants to meet the electricity needs of an expanding economy, increasing the stock of greenhouse gas emissions. Bringing India into the non-proliferation tent, on the other hand, has its advantages. It's a democratic and transparent country that can't be placed on the same footing as, say, North Korea. That's why Japan, whose non-proliferation credentials can't be doubted, is now in favour of granting India an NSG waiver. So are France, the UK, Russia and the US. Important countries like New Zealand, Ireland and Austria should follow.

Good to hear that we are an "important country"!

Contrary to my misapprehension yesterday it seems that New Zealand and Austria are not satisfied with the new draft agreement being circulated to NSG member. Not only this but China, which had previously acquiesced to the deal is now voicing doubts. (Somewhat cynically given its own record on proliferation issues.) (Times of India, Economic Times.)

Second Nuclear Suppliers Group Meeting this Week

The second meeting of the Nuclear Suppliers Group will be this week. A revised draft of the proposed agreement on supplying uranium to India's civilian nuclear power industry is currently being circulated.

After weeks of following this closely I am beaten to the New York Times editorial supporting New Zealand's stand by Russell Brown. It's definitely worth a read.

I am unsure how Goff's leadership on this issue would be affected by an early dissolution of Parliament. It might be interesting to know what National's position on this issue is.

Update: one comment removed, I had failed to read news report carefully.

New Zealand position on US-India Civil Nuclear Arrangement

Sorry for my continuing obsession with this. My reading of Goff's comments to media outlets in Australia and India on the US-India civil nuclear agreement seems to be confirmed by this press release from Goff. New Zealand is not expecting India to sign either the NPT or the test ban treaty. This is contrary to the surprisingly scant reporting I have seen from New Zealand sources. This release has been widely reported in India.

“While New Zealand remains a strong advocate of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and would welcome India’s accession to these treaties, we have not included these elements in our package of proposals.

“New Zealand engaged constructively in the discussions, acknowledging potential benefits involved in the Agreement and its good relationship with both countries, while noting concerns and the need for consistency in pursuing the objective of non-proliferation.

Rather the Government is seeking stronger protections in the sale of nuclear equipment and technology. These are characterized as 50 amendments to the proposed text rather than an outright rejection of the intent of the US-India deal which was to bring the Indian civilian nuclear industry into the mainstream without India joining the NPT.

Around 50 amendments have been proposed to the original text, with many countries speaking in favour of amendments.

“The key function of the NSG is to formulate guidelines for managing exports of nuclear material, equipment and technology to ensure that this trade does not contribute to nuclear weapons proliferation.

Update: Contrary to my disparaging comments just now Audrey Young did have a good article on this issue prior to the NSG meeting last week.

Nuclear Suppliers Group defers decision, India in uproar, New Zealand under pressure from ally

The Nuclear Suppliers Group did not reach a decision on uranium sales to India and has agreed to meet again September 4.

According to the New Zealand press our stance was slightly more hard line than the interview with ABC Australia suggested

New Zealand is holding out demanding that India sign both the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Nuclear Testing Ban.

Our new ally the US is keen for us to accede to the deal

In Auckland today the a US Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Glyn Davies, confirmed he delivered a message to the government here asking again for New Zealand support.

He said his boss, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had pushed the message when she was here too.

"I mentioned it to your government," he told Fairfax Media. "Its been mentioned by much higher pay-grades than mine."

His message to New Zealand was that it was important to bring India into the nuclear fold.

"We think it is important to find ways to go forward in a transparent fashion with India as they develop nuclear energy," he said. "We think this is the way to do it.

"Its too important given the size of India's economy, given the size of its nuclear infrastructure, and its aspirations in nuclear generation, we need to find a way to embrace them in bring them into the tent."

The Times of India reports that there is much consternation in India at the failure of the talks and any further conditions on nuclear testing for example seem likely to break the fragile Indian political consensus in favour of the deal.

Finally the Times of India also has detailed comments from Goff on this issue. These seem to me also to fall short of asking for India to sign the NPT and Comprehensive Nuclear Testing Ban.

Nuclear Suppliers Group Meets in Vienna

The Nuclear Suppliers Group is being asked to approve the sale of uranium to India for its civilian power industry after the India-US deal. They are meeting in Vienna currently. I've posted on this before and it appears that Australia will indeed support this development.

However the vote must be unanimous and New Zealand has emerged publicly as a sceptic. Phil Goff has been interviewed here.

He comments that

GOFF: This is an exemption that is being sought, normally an agreement of this nature would not be approved for a country that was not a member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. So New Zealand will be working with other countries that I think are of a like mind; countries such as Ireland, Austria, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark and so on to try to find a way of accommodating the desires of the Indian and the American governments while ensuring that any exemption granted would be supportive of non-proliferation rather than working in the opposite direction.

Goff says that at the least India would be required not to test nuclear weapons and signals that New Zealand is looking for various other safeguards but seems to suggest the deal may well go through.

LOPRESTI: And just finally have you hard any rumblings as yet from Vienna as to which way the NSG, the Nuclear Suppliers Group will go on this?

GOFF: Well the Nuclear Suppliers Group it will meet over two days but a number of countries will bring in the requirement for a number of safeguards. One of them is about nuclear testing that we've talked about, but we would also like to see India join up to the IAEA additional protocol allowing broader inspection and access powers. We would also like to see constraints on transfers of sensitive technologies, we would like to see a review mechanism built into any exemption, and we would like to see a termination clause that if India opted out of the safeguards agreement it would need to return its goods and technology received as part of the exemption. None of those things are exceptionable in my view, none of them are unreasonable, they're the sort of safeguards that you would want to have if this agreement is to progress.

So I am happy that we are holding out for stronger safeguards. I'd also like to see India being asked to affirm the goal of eventual disarmament like the nuclear-armed NPT signatories. It seems though that the writing is on the wall for an Indian exemption to the provisions of the NPT and I can't shake the feeling that this is yet another setback for nonproliferation efforts.