HYDE ACT

MOST CLAUSES LEFT IS OPPOSED TO NOT BINDING ON INDIA

What is most important to understand about the Hyde Act is that it is divided into binding & non binding parts. The non binding parts are fluff designed to keep congressman happy. They are not enforced and are acted when the bill become law.

Almost all parts being objected to are in the non binding section. And the evidence of their irrelevance lies in the fact that not one clause of the nonbinding parts is the present in 123 Agreement, the only document India has to act upon the Ferro clause in the binding parts that some have objected to require nothing of India.

The segment of Hyde Act that are causing the entire flurry. All of them are non binding and are therefore irrelevant.

SECTION 102:

# Clause 6D which says nuclear cooperation should be granted to a country if it “will induce the country to give greater political and material support to the achievement of United States global and regional non proliferation objectives, especially with respect to dissuading, isolation and if necessary, sanctioning and containing states that sponsor terrorism and terrorist groups seeking to acquire nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction capability and the means to deliver such weapons.”

Critic says this along with the more explicit clause B4 will force India to toe the US line on Iran. Both are non binding and neither exits in the 123 Agreements.

SECTION 103

# Clause A5 says US policy on equipment and technologies relating to enrichment, reprocessing and technology and heavy water production should be to “further restrict the transfer of such equipment and technologies, including India”

The US doesn’t give this technology to anyone and India doesn’t need them. Nonetheless123 doesn’t close the door but says future amendments to 123 can be negotiated to that later. India is granted the right to reprocess US nuclear fuel if it wants.

#Clause A6 says US policy should be to “seek to prevent the transfer to a country of nuclear equipment material or technology from other participating govt. in the NSG or any other source if nuclear transfer to that country are suspended or terminated pursuant to the title the Atomic Energy Act of 1954…”

This is contradicted by Article 5, Clause 6; of the 123 Agreement which has a long listed of such reassurances Clause to the Govt. of India for use in safe guarded civilian nuclear facilities should be commensurate with reasonable reacted operation requirement.”

Could have limited India’s ability to have a strategic reserve but is also non-binding and contradicted by Article 5,6iii of 123.

The parts of the binding segment that some critics in India have objected to:

SECTION 104

Clause C7 part of the US President report to congress on the deal should describe “the steps India is taking” to ensure its nuclear regulation are in harmony with missile Technology Control regime NSG, Australian Group and Wassenaar Arrangement… the Proliferation Security Initiative

THIS IS ONLY REPORT OF “STEPS”, IT DOESN’T SAY INDIA HAS TO FOLLOW THROUGH AND IT IS IN 123 AGREEMINT……