Jump to content

India–United States Civil Nuclear Agreement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.251.191.149 (talk) at 07:10, 21 August 2008 (move in to proper section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

US President George W. Bush and India's Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh exchange handshakes in New Delhi on March 2, 2006

Indo-US civilian nuclear agreement is the name commonly attributed to a bilateral agreement on nuclear cooperation between the United States of America and the Republic of India. The framework for this agreement was a Joint Statement by Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and U.S. President George W. Bush, under which India agreed to separate its civil and military nuclear facilities and place its civil facilities under IAEA safeguards and, in exchange, the United States agreed to work toward full civil nuclear cooperation with India.[1]

The Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006, also known as the Hyde Act, is the U.S. domestic law that modifies the requirements of Section 123 of the U.S. Atomic Energy Act to permit nuclear cooperation with India[2] and in particular to negotiate a 123 agreement to operationalise the 2005 Joint Statement. As a domestic U.S. law, the Hyde Act is binding on the United States though it does not directly bind India, except insofar as its requirements have been incorporated into the 123 agreement or provide the basis for interpreting the provisions of the 123 agreement. As per the Vienna convention, an international treaty such as the 123 agreement cannot be superseded by an internal law such as the Hyde Act.[3][4][5]

The 123 agreement defines the terms and conditions for bilateral civilian nuclear cooperation, and requires separate approvals by the U.S. Congress and by Indian cabinet ministers . According to the Nuclear Power Corporation of India, the agreement will help India meet its goal of adding 25,000 MW of nuclear power capacity through imports of nuclear reactors and fuel by 2020.[6]

After the terms of the 123 agreement were concluded on July 27,2007,[7] it ran into trouble because of stiff opposition in India from the communist allies of the ruling United Progressive Alliance.[8] The government survived a confidence vote in the parliament on July 22, 2008 by 275-256 votes in the backdrop of defections from both camps to the opposite camps.[9] The deal faces opposition from non-proliferation activists, anti-nuclear organisations, and some states within the Nuclear Suppliers Group.[10][11] A deal which is inconsistent with the Hyde Act and does not place restrictions on India has also faced opposition in the U.S. House,[12] and may not recieve a vote until 2009.[13] In February 2008 U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that any agreement would be "consistent with the obligations of the Hyde Act".[14] Richard Stratford, the U.S. Head of Delegation to the Nuclear Suppliers Group,[15] has said he has no expectations that a ‘clean’ draft will be the final version.”[16]

Background

Signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) are granted access to civilian nuclear technology from each other as well as nuclear fuel via the Nuclear Suppliers Group in exchange for International Atomic Energy Agency-verified compliance of the NPT tenets. India, Israel, and Pakistan, however, have not signed the NPT, arguing that instead of addressing the central objective of universal and comprehensive non-proliferation, the treaty creates a club of "nuclear haves" and a larger group of "nuclear have-nots" by restricting the legal possession of nuclear weapons to those states that tested them before 1967, who alone are free to possess and multiply their nuclear stockpiles. [17] India insists on a comprehensive action plan for a nuclear-free world within a specific time-frame and has also adopted a voluntary "no first use policy".

In response to a growing Chinese nuclear arsenal, India conducted a nuclear test in 1974 (called "peaceful nuclear explosion" and explicitly not for "offensive" first strike military purposes but which could be used as a "peaceful deterrence"). Led by the US, other nations set up an informal group, the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), to control exports of nuclear materials, equipment and technology.[18] As a result, India was left outside the international nuclear order. India conducted 5 more nuclear tests in May, 1998 at Pokhran.

Rationale behind the agreement

Competition for conventional energy

The growing energy demands of the Indian and Chinese economies have raised questions on the impact of global availability to conventional energy.[citation needed].The Bush Administration has concluded that an Indian shift toward nuclear energy is in the best interest for America to secure its energy needs of coal, crude oil, and natural gas.

Nuclear non proliferation

While India still harbours aspirations of being recognised as a nuclear power before considering signing the NPT as a nuclear weapons state[citation needed] (which would be possible if the current 1967 cutoff in the definition of a "nuclear weapon state" were pushed to 1975), other parties to the NPT are not likely to support such an amendment. [19] As a compromise, the proposed civil nuclear agreement implicitly recognises India's "de facto" status even without signing the NPT. The Bush administration justifies a nuclear pact with India because it is important in helping to advance the non-proliferation framework [20] by formally recognising India's strong non-proliferation record even though it has not signed the NPT. The former Under Secretary of State of Political Affairs, Nicholas Burns, one of the architects of the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal said “India’s trust, its credibility, the fact that it has promised to create a state-of-the-art facility, monitored by the IAEA, to begin a new export control regime in place, because it has not proliferated the nuclear technology, we can’t say that about Pakistan.” when asked whether the U.S. would offer a nuclear deal with Pakistan on the lines of the Indo-U.S. deal. [2] [3] [4] Mohammed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which would be in charge of inspecting India's civilian reactors has praised the deal as "it would also bring India closer as an important partner in the nonproliferation regime".[21] However, members of the IAEA safeguards staff have made it clear that Indian demands that New Delhi be allowed to determine when Indian reactors might be inspected could undermine the IAEA safeguards system.

Economic considerations

Financially, the U.S. also expects that such a deal could spur India's economic growth and bring in $150 billion in the next decade for nuclear power plants, of which the US wants a share.[22] It is India's stated objective to increase the production of nuclear power generation from its present capacity of 4,000 MWe to 20,000 MWe in the next decade. However, the developmental economic advising firm Dalberg, which advises the IMF and the World Bank, moreover, has done its own analysis of the economic value of investing in nuclear power development in India. Their conclusion is that for the next 20 years such investments are likely to be far less valuable economically or environmentally than a variety of other measures to increase electricity production in India. They have noted that U.S. nuclear vendors cannot sell any reactors to India unless and until India caps third party liabilities and or establishes a credible liability pool to protect U.S. firms from being sued in the case of an accident or a terrorist act of sabotage against nuclear plants.[citation needed]

Strategic

Since the end of the Cold War, The Pentagon, along with certain U.S. ambassadors such as Robert Blackwill, have requested increased strategic ties with India and a de-hyphenization of Pakistan with India.

While India is self-sufficient in thorium, possessing 25% of the world's known and economically viable thorium,[23] it possesses a meager 1% of the similarly calculated global uranium reserves.[24] Indian support for cooperation with the U.S. centers around the issue of obtaining a steady supply of sufficient energy for the economy to grow. Indian opposition to the pact centers around the concessions that would need to be made, as well as the likely de-prioritization of research into a thorium fuel-cycle if uranium becomes highly available given the well understood utilization of uranium in a nuclear fuel cycle.

Agreement

On March 2,2006 in New Delhi, George W. Bush and Manmohan Singh signed a Civil Nuclear Cooperation Agreement, following an initiation during the July 2005 summit in Washington between the two leaders over civilian nuclear cooperation.[25]

Heavily endorsed by the White House, the agreement is thought to be a major victory to George W. Bush's foreign policy initiative and was described by many lawmakers as a cornerstone of the new strategic partnership between the two countries.[26] The agreement is widely considered to help India fulfill its soaring energy demands and enter the U.S. and India into a strategic partnership. The Pentagon speculates this will help ease global demand for crude oil and natural gas.

On August 3, 2007, both the countries released the full text of the 123 agreement.[27]

Hyde Act Passage in the U.S.

On December 18th, President George W. Bush signed the Act into law. The Act was passed by an overwhelming 359-68 in the United States House of Representatives on July 26th and by 85-12 in the United States Senate on Nov 16th in a strong show of bipartisan support.[28][29][30]

The House version (H.R. 5682) and Senate version (S. 3709) of the bill differed due to amendments each had added before approving, but the versions were reconciled with a House vote of 330-59 on Dec 8th and a Senate voice-vote on Dec 9th before being passed on to President G.W. Bush for final approval.[31][32] The White House had urged Congress to expedite the reconciliation process during the current lame duck session, and recommended removing certain amendments which would be deemed deal-killers by India.[33] Nonetheless, while softened, several clauses restricting India's strategic nuclear program and conditions on having India align with U.S. views over Iran were incorporated in the Hyde Act.

In response to the language Congress used in the Act to define U.S. policy toward India, President Bush, stated "Given the Constitution's commitment to the authority of the presidency to conduct the nation's foreign affairs, the executive branch shall construe such policy statements as advisory," going on to cite sections 103 and 104 (d) (2) of the bill. To assure Congress that its work would not be totally discarded, Bush continued by saying that the executive would give "the due weight that comity between the legislative and executive branches should require, to the extent consistent with U.S. foreign policy."[34]


Opposition in India

Detailed timeline

Although many mainstream political parties including the Indian National Congress support the deal along with regional parties like Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and Rashtriya Janata Dal its realisation has run into difficulties in the face of stiff political opposition in India. Also, in November 2007, former Indian Military chiefs, bureaucrats and scientists drafted a letter to Members of Parliament expressing their support for the deal.[36] However, opposition and criticism continued at political levels. The Samajwadi Party (SP) which was with the Left Front in opposing the deal changed its stand after discussing with ex-president of India and nuclear scientist Dr A P J Abdul Kalam. Now SP is in support of the government and the deal. Indian Government survived a vote of confidence by 275-256 after communists withdrew their support to the government over this dispute.[37]

Bharatiya Janata Party

The main opposition party BJP which laid the groundwork for the deal criticized the deal saying that the deal in its present form was unacceptable to BJP and wanted the deal renegotiated. The BJP had asked the government not to accept the deal without a vote in the parliament. However, the government remained steadfast on its commitment to the deal and has refused to back down on the agreement. 81 year old veteran BJP leader Lal Krishna Advani, in a statement to the Indian Express newspaper, seemed to indicate willingness to support the government provided some legislative measures.[38] However his party refused to follow that line and stuck to its earlier stand.[39]

Left Front

The primary opposition to the Nuclear deal in India, however, comes from the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and its parliamentary allies (CPI, RSP, AIFB)[40][41] November 17 the left parties had provisionally agreed to let the government initiate talks with the IAEA for India specific safeguards which indicated that they may support.[42] The CPI(M), an external parliamentary supporter of government as it stipulates conditions that in some areas are more severe than the clauses in either the NPT or the CTBT.[43][44][45] They alleged that the deal would undermine the sovereignty of India's foreign policy and also claimed that the Indian government was hiding certain clauses of the deal, which would harm India's indigenous nuclear program, from the media.[46] On July 9, 2008, the Left Front withdrew support to the government reducing its strength to 276 in the Lok Sabha[47] (the lower house of the parliament).[48] The government survived a confidence vote in the parliament on July 22, 2008 by 275-256 votes in the backdrop of defections from both camps to the opposite camps.[49]

Others

In 2006, some Indian ex-nuclear scientists had written an appeal to Indian Members of Parliament to ensure that "decisions taken today do not inhibit India's future ability to develop and pursue nuclear technologies for the benefit of the nation".[50]

United Nationalist Progressive Alliance (UNPA)

The UNPA was divided over support of the nuclear deal. While the SP supported it after consultations with Abdul Kalam, the other members of the UNPA led by the TDP opposed it saying that the deal is against India's interest. The SP was eventually suspended from the UNPA.

Bahujan Samaj Party

The BSP also opposed the nuclear deal, saying that it was anti-muslim. The party joined hands with the Left Front and the TDP in voting against the government in Parliament on the nuclear deal.

Issues in the Indian parliament

Main article: 2008 Lok Sabha Vote of Confidence

Following the passing of the Act, negotiations on implementing the cooperation through a 'Section 123 Agreement' were concluded on July 27, 2007.[51] For this agreement to be sent to the U.S. Congress, India must have negotiated a safeguards agreement with the IAEA and the Nuclear Suppliers Group must have agreed to modify its export control standards to permit nuclear cooperation with India.[51]

On June 19, 2008, news media reported that Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh threatened to resign his position if the Communists in India continue to oppose the nuclear deal, an opposition that Singh declares as irrational and reactionary.[52]

On July 08, 2008, Prakash Karat announced that the Left Front is withdrawing its support to the government over the decision by the government to go ahead on the United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act. The left front had been a staunch advocate of not proceeding with this deal citing national interests.[53]

On July 9, 2008, India formally submitted the safeguards agreement to the IAEA.[54] This development comes after the Prime Minister of India Manmohan Singh returned from the 34th G8 summit meeting in Tokyo where he met with U.S. President George W. Bush.[55] Other world leaders of G8 have also endorsed the agreement, suggesting that it is likely to gain support from the IAEA & NSG.[56] India has also already secured the approval from China which it thought might hold some reservations against the deal.[57] Australia which is a key exporter of Uranium for India after the deal becomes active has also suggested its approval.[58] According to The Hindu sources, External Affairs Minister's Pranab Mukherjee’s earlier statement said “I cannot bind the government if we lose our majority,” [59] implying that United Progressive Alliance government would not put its signature on any deal with IAEA if it lost the majority in either a 'opposition-initiated no-confidence motion' or if failing to muster a vote of confidence in Indian Parliament after being told to prove its majority by the president. Left Front withdrew support to UPA government on same day.

On 22 July, 2008 the UPA faced its first confidence vote in the Lok Sabha after the Communist Party of India (Marxist) led Left Front withdrew support over India approaching the IAEA for Indo-US nuclear deal. The UPA won the confidence vote with 275 votes to the opposition's 256, (10 members abstained from the vote) to record a 19-vote victory.[60] [61][62][63]

Latest developments

IAEA approval

The IAEA Board of Governors approved the safeguards agreement on August 1st 2008, and now the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group must approve a policy allowing nuclear cooperation with India before President Bush can make the necessary certifications and seek final approval by the U.S. Congress.[64] There were objections from Iran, Ireland, Norway, Switzerland and Austria at the IAEA meeting.[65]

NSG waiver

Germany, the current chair of NSG, has called a plenary session of the group on August 21-22 to discuss the draft of India specific NSG waiver. India objected to a line in the NSG draft that referred to a key paragraph in the NSG guidelines — whereby India had to accept full-scope of the "comprehensive safeguards agreement(CSA)" similar to non nuclear weapon state. Therefore, Indian and US officials deleted the offending paragraph in the latest NSG draft proposal.India's DAE chief Anil Kakodkar said “India is not a non-nuclear weapon state. NSG guidelines (CSA) are essentially meant for non-nuclear weapons states." He continued "..we will expect the world community to also treat us the way we are (nuclear weapon possessing state)". He opined that the NSG's "comprehensive safeguards agreement(CSA)" as a condition for supply should not be applicable in the case of India because India had its own strategic programme. He expressed optimism that the NSG will treat India as India is.[66]

The wording of the US draft for carving out an exemption for India from the to the Nuclear Suppliers' Group's rules (called "guidelines") seeks to irrevocably tether New Delhi to the nuclear non-proliferation regime. India would be brought under a wider non-proliferation net, with the US draft tying it to compliance with the entire set of NSG rules. India is acquiescing to its unilateral test moratorium being turned into a multilateral legality. Instead of the "full" civil nuclear cooperation that the original July 18, 2005, deal promised, India's access to civil nuclear enrichment and reprocessing technologies will be restricted through the proposed NSG waiver.[67]

Dr. Kaveh L Afrasiabi, who has taught political science at Tehran University, has argued the agreement will set a new precedent for other states, adding that the agreement represents a diplomatic boon for Tehran.[68] Ali Ashgar Soltanieh, the Iranian Deputy Director General for International and Political Affairs,[69] has complained the agreement may undermine the credibility, integrity and universality of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Pakistan argues the safeguards agreement "threatens to increase the chances of a nuclear arms race in the subcontinent."[70]

Norway, Austria, Brazil, and Japan all warned that their support for India at the IAEA did not mean that they would not express reservations at the NSG. New Zealand, which is a member of the NSG but not of the IAEA Board of Governors, has also cautioned that its support should not be taken for granted.[11] New Zealand has said it would like to see a few conditions written in to the waiver: the exemption ceasing if India conducts nuclear tests, India signing the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) additional protocol, and limits on the scope of the technology that can be given to India and which could relate to nuclear weapons.[71] Austria, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Switzerland and Scandinavian countries are proposing similar amendments.[72] Russia, a potentially large nuclear supplier to India, has also reportedly expressed reservations about transferring enrichment and reprocessing technology to India.[73] Richard Stratford, the U.S. Head of Delegation to the Nuclear Suppliers Group,[15] has said he has no expectations that a ‘clean’ draft will be the final version.”[16]

Calls for tightening the agreement

More than 150 non-proliferation activists and anti-nuclear organisations across the world recently called for tightening the NSG agreement to prevent harming the current global non-proliferation regime.[74] Among the steps called for were:[10]

  • ceasing cooperation if India conducts nuclear tests or withdraws from safeguards
  • supplying only an amount of fuel which is commensurate with ordinary reactor operating requirements
  • expressly prohibiting the transfer of enrichment, reprocessing and heavy water production items to India
  • opposing any special safeguards exemptions for India
  • conditioning the waiver on India stopping fissile production and legally binding itself not to conduct nuclear tests
  • not allowing India to reprocess nuclear fuel supplied by a member state in a facility that is not under permanent and unconditional IAEA safeguards
  • agreeing that all bilateral nuclear cooperation agreements between an NSG member-state and India explicitly prohibit the replication or use of such technology in any unsafeguarded Indian facilities

The call said that "the Indian nuclear deal would be a nonproliferation disaster and a serious setback to the prospects of global nuclear disarmament" and also pushed for all world leaders who are serious about ending the arms race to "to stand up and be counted."[10]

Passage in US Congress

Howard Berman, Chairman of the crucial House Foreign Affairs Committee, in a letter to US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had warned that an NSG waiver "inconsistent" with the 2006 Hyde Act will "jeopardise" the Indo-US nuclear deal in US Congress.[75] Berman said a deal which did not punish India for testing atomic weapons "would be inconsistent with U.S. law, place American firms at a severe competitive disadvantage and undermine critical U.S. nonproliferation objectives. It would also jeopardize congressional support for nuclear cooperation with India, this year and in the future."[12] Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice previously told the House of Foreign Affairs Panel that any agreement "will have to be completely consistent with the obligations of the Hyde Act".[14]

The Bush administration proposes to present the nuclear deal to the US Congress on September 8 if the NSG clearance is obtained.[76] Representative Edward J. Markey, founder and co-chair of the US House Bipartisan Task Force on Nonproliferation, has said any final deal will meet the conditions required by the Hyde Act and will likely not be voted on until 2009.[13] Markey and Ellen Tauscher, the chairwoman of the House Strategic Forces Subcommittee, recently suggested the NSG should require India to sign the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and agree to halt production of nuclear material for weapons as a possible solution.[77]

International reaction

Besides the United States, the deal has widespread support from several states including United Kingdom,[78] France,[79] Japan,[80] Russia,[81] and Germany.[82][83] After some initial opposition, there were reports of Australia,[84] China,[85] Switzerland,[86] and Canada[87][88] expressing their support for the deal when India asks Nuclear Suppliers Group to exempt it from the requirement that states place all their nuclear material under safeguards. Some have argued that the deal represents a tacit recognition of India as a nuclear weapon state.[89] If the deal is approved by both the IAEA Board of Governors and the Nuclear Suppliers Group,[90] France and Russia would be able to begin nuclear commerce with India, even if the US Congress does not approve the deal before presidential elections and enable the United States to begin such cooperation.[91]

The deal could face opposition from Ireland in the Nuclear Suppliers Group. According to CNN IBN, a former Pakistani ambassador to Austria, has stated that Pakistan is opposed to any "selective concession" to India.[92] However, Pakistan's Foreign Secretary Shah Mahmood Qureshi said that Pakistan will not "obstruct" the deal.[93] Ireland, which launched the non-proliferation treaty process in 1958 and signed it first in 1968, doubts India's nuclear trade agreement with the US.[92] Norway, Austria, Brazil, Japan, and New Zealand have cautioned that their support for an NSG deal should not be taken for granted despite their support for the IAEA agreement.[11]

Austria, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Switzerland and Scandinavian countries are proposing amendments to the waiver which would place additional restrictions on India.[72]

See also

Template:EnergyPortal

References

  1. ^ Joint Statement Between President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh
  2. ^ http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h5682enr.txt.pdf
  3. ^ The Indo-US nuclear debate from www.gulfnews.com
  4. ^ India Today - The most widely read newsweekly in South Asia
  5. ^ [1]
  6. ^ "At G-8, Singh, Bush reaffirm commitment to nuclear deal - Economy and Politics - livemint.com". Retrieved 2008-07-11.
  7. ^ BBC NEWS | World | South Asia | India and US confirm nuclear pact
  8. ^ India: Government crisis deepens over US nuclear deal
  9. ^ "Indian government survives vote". BBC News. 2008-07-22. Retrieved 2008-07-23.
  10. ^ a b c Arms Control Association: "Decision Time on the Indian Nuclear Deal: Help Avert a Nonproliferation Disaster"
  11. ^ a b c Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation: U.S.-India Nuclear Energy Deal: What's Next?
  12. ^ a b AP: Democrat pushes for India nuke conditions
  13. ^ a b Markey: US-India Nuclear Deal Vote Near Impossibility This Year
  14. ^ a b Economic Times of India: Hyde Act will haunt nuclear deal at NSG too
  15. ^ a b Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory: Biographical Information for Richard J. K. Stratford
  16. ^ a b The Hindu: For nuclear club, it’s decision time on India
  17. ^ "Embassy of India: Nuclear Non-proliferation". Retrieved 2006-06-01.
  18. ^ "Nuclear Suppliers Group".
  19. ^ {{http://www.indianembassy.org/US_Media/2000/pm_us/Armed%20India%20Can%20Help%20Stabilize%20Asia.htm}}
  20. ^ "Condoleezza Rice Paks a proliferation punch". Economic Times. 2008-7-26. Retrieved 2008-08-03. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  21. ^ "U.S., India Reach Deal On Nuclear Cooperation". Retrieved 2006-03-03.
  22. ^ "Bush Officials Defend India Nuclear Deal". Retrieved 2005-07-20.
  23. ^ "Information and Issue Briefs - Thorium". World Nuclear Association. Retrieved 2006-06-01.
  24. ^ "UIC Nuclear Issues Briefing Paper #75 - Supply of Uranium". Uranium Information Center. Retrieved 2006-06-01.
  25. ^ "Bush, India's Singh Sign Civil Nuclear Cooperation Agreement". USINFO - International Information Programs. Retrieved 2006-03-02.
  26. ^ "U.S. House votes for nuclear deal". The Hindu. Retrieved 2006-07-29.
  27. ^ "U.S. and India Release Text of 123 Agreement". Retrieved 2008-07-11.
  28. ^ "Bush Welcomes Senate Approval of U.S.-India Nuclear Agreement". USINFO - International Information Programs. Retrieved 2006-11-17.
  29. ^ "H.R. 5682: House Vote 411: Jul 26, 2006 (109th Congress)". GovTrack. Retrieved 2006-07-26. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  30. ^ "H.R. 5682: Senate Vote 270: Nov 16, 2006 (109th Congress)". GovTrack. Retrieved 2006-11-16.
  31. ^ "Congress Passes U.S.-India Civilian Nuclear Cooperation Bill". USINFO - International Information Programs. Retrieved 2006-12-09.
  32. ^ "H.R. 5682: House Vote 541: Dec 8, 2006 (109th Congress)". GovTrack. Retrieved 2006-12-08.
  33. ^ "Nuclear deal with US made easier for India to digest". Hindustan Times. Retrieved 2006-11-09.
  34. ^ "Hyde Act not binding, says Bush". CNN-IBN. Retrieved 2006-12-19.
  35. ^ The math behind UPA's survival in Parliament
  36. ^ "IndianExpress.com :: ‘The question is can we get a better n-deal? No&#x2019". Retrieved 2008-07-11.
  37. ^ Indian government survives vote
  38. ^ "IndianExpress.com :: Advani’s yes to n-deal forces BJP on mid-course correction". Retrieved 2008-07-11.
  39. ^ "IndianExpress.com :: Renegotiate 123: Advani gives in to pressure from party". Retrieved 2008-07-11.
  40. ^ "CPI(M) against nuclear deal with the US - Newindpress.com". Retrieved 2008-07-11.
  41. ^ "No Passage For Nuclear Deal". Retrieved 2008-07-11.
  42. ^ "Indian-Americans encouraged by ‘progress’ on N-deal - ExpressIndia.Com". Retrieved 2008-07-11.
  43. ^ "'Provision on nuclear test a matter of concern'". The Hindu. Retrieved 2006-12-10.
  44. ^ "'Reject U.S. Act on nuclear deal': BJP". The Hindu. Retrieved 2006-12-11.
  45. ^ Dr Suvrokamal Dutta. "The Indo-US Nuclear Civilian Deal: Dictate Or Deal?". INDOLink - News & Analysis.
  46. ^ Cong nukes rivals, says sovereignty not at stake
  47. ^ We are 276 and will prove majority: Pranab
  48. ^ Gulfnews: Crisis in Delhi after Left ends support
  49. ^ "Indian government survives vote". BBC News. 2008-07-22. Retrieved 2008-07-23.
  50. ^ "'Appeal to Indian parliamentarians on Nuclear Deal by Indian Nuclear Scientists'". The Hindu. Retrieved 2006-08-15.
  51. ^ a b India and US confirm nuclear pact, BBC, published 2007-07-27, accessed 2007-07-31
  52. ^ "PM wants to quit over nuclear deal". Retrieved 2008-07-11.
  53. ^ "The Hindu News Update Service". Retrieved 2008-07-11.
  54. ^ Text of India-IAEA Safeguards Agreement
  55. ^ "India submits draft safeguards pact to IAEA". PTI. timesofindia.indiatimes.com. 2008-07-09. Retrieved 2008-07-08.
  56. ^ "G8 says to work with India, IAEA on non-proliferation". in.reuters.com. July 9, 2008. Retrieved 2008-07-10. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  57. ^ "PM counts on China, USA on India". www.thestatesman.net. 2008-07-09. Retrieved 2008-07-10.
  58. ^ "Australia may support n-deal". www.thaindian.com. 2008-07-10. Retrieved 2008-07-10.
  59. ^ Varadarajan, Siddharth (2008-07-09). "India sends safeguards agreement to IAEA Board". www.thehindu.com. Retrieved 2008-07-08.
  60. ^ "Indian Government Survives Confidence Vote". The New York Times. 2007-07-23. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  61. ^ Indian gov't wins trust vote in parliament_English_Xinhua
  62. ^ Default
  63. ^ Post trust vote victory, India Govt. to move forward with reforms, nuclear deal - International Business Times
  64. ^ "IAEA board gets India's safeguards agreement". www.rediff.com. 2008-07-09. Retrieved 2008-07-08.
  65. ^ N-deal: Getting NSG nod may not be easy
  66. ^ http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/US_gives_NSG_exemption_draft_minus_offending_para/articleshow/3339526.cms
  67. ^ http://in.rediff.com/news/2008/aug/15brahma.htm
  68. ^ Afrasiabi: Iran heartened by India's nuclear vote
  69. ^ Second Meeting of Experts of The Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (July 2004): Statement By His Excellency Dr. Ali-Asghar Soltanieh
  70. ^ Forbes: India moves a step closer to US nuclear pact
  71. ^ The National Business Review: NZ wants conditions written into nuclear agreement
  72. ^ a b Gulf Times: NSG ‘will seek clear conditions’
  73. ^ Times of India: India's NSG battle to focus on nuclear tech
  74. ^ The Hindu: Tighten draft waiver for India
  75. ^ The Hindu News Update Service
  76. ^ US Govt to present N-deal to Congress on Sept 8
  77. ^ The New York Times: Don’t Loosen Nuclear Rules for India
  78. ^ UK backs India's nuke energy ambitions | The Australian
  79. ^ http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/France_to_back_India_at_IAEA_meet/articleshow/3233901.cms
  80. ^ http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/PoliticsNation/Japan_to_recognise_India_as_nuclear_state_report/articleshow/1116314.cms
  81. ^ http://www.moscowtimes.ru/article/1009/42/302215.htm
  82. ^ German leader: Much scope for India-Germany cooperation on peaceful nuclear energy - International Herald Tribune
  83. ^ The Hindu News Update Service
  84. ^ RTTNews - Political News and Chatter, World Political News, Forex News, Earnings Revisions
  85. ^ India is hungry for our uranium - Opinion - Editorial - General - The Canberra Times
  86. ^ http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/PoliticsNation/Switzerland_to_support_Indias_case_at_NSG/articleshow/3372695.cms
  87. ^ Canada, India exploring ways to co-operate in nuclear energy. | PTI - The Press Trust of India Ltd. (October, 2007)
  88. ^ http://www.ptinews.com/pti%5Cptisite.nsf/0/F8321DC4F9992D48652574810036BBF5?OpenDocument
  89. ^ How to Regulate Nuclear Weapons
  90. ^ Khaleej Times Online - Riding piggyback on US, India hopes for IAEA, NSG nod
  91. ^ BBC NEWS | South Asia | Why US could lose out on India nuclear trade
  92. ^ a b "India's N-deal hurdle: Pak warns of arms race". CNN IBN. 07/24/2008. Retrieved 2008-07-24. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  93. ^ http://www.timesnow.tv/NewsDtls.aspx?NewsID=11979
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=India–United_States_Civil_Nuclear_Agreement&oldid=233275740"