Tuesday, September 04, 2007

Lok Satta Defends Nuclear Deal with US

The Lok Satta Party today unequivocally supported the nuclear deal with the U. S. saying it served India’s economic and strategic interests and provided room for diplomatic maneuvering.

Lok Satta’s National Coordinator Dr. Jayaprakash Narayan (Dr. JP) said that the country’s national interest should be the sole criterion for judging such deals since there are no permanent friends and permanent enemies in international relations.

He was responding to a question at a conference of youth held to mark the launching of “Jana Chaitanya yatra” by the Yuva Satta.

Dr. JP said the nuclear deal would strengthen India’s energy security, facilitate access to high technology and promote bilateral trade. Strategically, India retained its right to reprocess spent nuclear fuel, pursue its three-stage nuclear cycle that facilitates thorium use and strengthen defense capability.

Dr. JP drew pointed attention to the double standards of certain parties which defended Iran’s right to nuclearization and criticized India’s nuclearization. “To have another nuclear power in India’s neighborhood is antithetical to India’s self-interest”, he added. He ridiculed the contention that India voted against Iran’s nuclear quest in the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Authority) because it had become a stooge of the U. S. Pointing out that Russia, China and Pakistan too voted against Iran, Dr. JP asked whether anybody could say that the three countries too were U. S. stooges.

Dr. JP conceded that nuclear testing was an issue. Although there was nothing in the 123 agreement which inhibited India from testing a nuclear device, India was aware that testing was fraught with certain consequences. The Government of India in its wisdom had declared a unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing. But if national interests warranted a test, India would do so and face the consequences.

On the criticism that the deal abridged India’s sovereignty, Dr. JP said every international agreement imposed certain mutual obligations between contracting parties. It did not mean the sovereignty was violated. “The deal with the US is mutually beneficial”.

1 comment:

  1. policy very clear&focussed !
    congratulations;
    balaram akkineni

    ReplyDelete