The Nuclear Deal - Where Congress and left differ ?

- External Affairs Minister
- Pranab Mukherjee
- Indian Express - 22nd August 2007
1 It began during the Prime Minister's Visit to USA in July 2005. Then there was joint statement of the two leaders and a discussion in Parliament, discussion in the cabinet, discussion in the political establishment.
2 We have initiated separate texts of the 123 agreement. The next step is to negotiate with IAEA for India specific arrangements. That negotiation has not yet started. Then we have to go before the nuclear supplier Group (NSG). There are 45 countries and we have to meet them all. They have to agree - Via consensus, not Voting - to amend the guidelines to agree to supply nuclear material to India. The third process, of course, is reflection by the US Congress. The Congress will either vote for it or they will reject it. Unless all these process are complete, one can not say the deal is over. It is in Process.
3 This agreement is important because of access to nuclear energy and access to high technology.
4 When negotiators started negotiating on the text of the 123 agreement, we told them what our parameters were. These parameters included the separation plan of 2006, the PM's commitment to Parliament. Now our contention is that in the text of the agreement, we have been able to get these points of view fully listed.
5 In December 2006, the Hyde Act was passed and they are not accepting our explanation - the position we are taking is that the Hyde Act is an enabling provision and there are two contracting parties in Hyde Act. India is not a party to it. The relevant parties are the US administration and US Congress. The Hyde Act binds only them.
But they say, no, the Hyde Act binds them (USA) but in the Hyde Act there is a provision that the implementation of the 123 agreement will be as per national law and as the Hyde Act constitutes their national law so they are taking a different view.
6 I feel the Hyde Act has no relevance because substantial parts of the Hyde Act and the concerns expressed by the left are in the sections which are advisory in Nature .
7 In December 2006, as per President Bush's administration, they said they by mere signing the Act and putting my assent does not construe my adoption of the philosophy or the foreign policy of the Nation because many of these areas are of advisory Nature. And I am sticking to that But the left says 'No', this is not merely advisory, they are binding in Nature and that is why they have asked for this assessment.