Burns says Hyde prevail with right to terminate deal

2008-08-04 08:17:52 - Burns had said that the Hyde Act will prevail Nicholas Burns had stated that the 123 agreement was "absolutely consistent" with the Hyde Act, and that US can terminate the pact if India conducted atomic tests.

The Left parties today said the approval of the India-specific safeguards agreement by IAEA does not recognise India's nuclear weapon status or protect its interests on issues like uninterrupted fuel supply assurances.Pointing out that former American pointsman on the Indo-US nuclear deal Nicholas Burns had stated that the 123 agreement was "absolutely consistent" with the Hyde Act, Left leaders said this clearly showed that their concerns were "totally true".

Mr Burns was one of the architects of the Indo-US nuclear deal. During a panel debate on the deal at the Brookings Institute, Mr Burns said that the Washington has in place 'the right measures to protect' its interests by retaining the right to terminate the agreement.

The Left parties, which withdrew support to the UPA government on the issue, would now "go to the people to expose the government".

"Burns had said that the Hyde Act will prevail but our government says the US law will have no impact. We have been opposing the deal because it is not in India's interest and that is why we withdrew support. There is no change in the Left position," CPI National Secretary D Raja told

BJP too has asked that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and external affairs minister Pranab Mukherjee come clean on the Hyde Act and the 123 Agreement. The BJP demand comes close on the heels of former under secretary of state of political affairs, Nicholas Burns' statement that the 123 is absolutely consistent with the controversial Hyde Act and that US can terminate the pact if India conducted atomic tests.

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE Excerpts:

Nuke deal would allow the United States to trade in nuclear fuel and technology with India.India has been isolated from international atomic markets because of its refusal to sign nonproliferation accords or accept UN inspection and its testing of nuclear weapons.

Major opposition in India asking Congress moot point of hyde act and her sovereignity , the deal faces pertinent tough questions in India. left,BJP,SP are still queston the government examine the pact along with Hyde act ,it dilutes the authority from indian side and give clear edge to US to hich Indian critics say could cap the country's nuclear weapons program and would allow the United States to dictate Indian foreign policy.

The civilized and peace-loving nations of the world are joining forces to combat their evil ideology and hatred. Together, India and the United States can hold aloft a bright beacon of democracy and freedom to lead the way to a more peaceful and a more tolerant world.

Mr. LANTOS said to US congress chairman, Indeed, Mr. Chairman, in this regard, we can have no better partner than India, a country of a billion people consisting of numerous ethnic minorities that nonetheless have found a way to create a pluralistic political society. Mr. Chairman, our last hearing focused exclusively on the possible implications, both positive and negative, of a portion of the July 18th agreement between our two countries, the proposal to expand nuclear cooperation. That hearing was remarkable in its examination of the details of the proposal and the expertise of our witnesses, and they gave the Members of this Committee much to think about as we consider implementing arrangements for this agreement. However, as I said at our last hearing, this deal will ultimately be approved on its merits as a whole.

Mr. TELLIS.{ Dr. Ashley Tellis. Dr. Tellis has served as Senior Advisor to the American Ambassador in India and was also on the staff of the National Security Council.Thank you, } Mr. ChairmanAlthough India and the United States have been united by common values for a long time and, increasingly, by the presence of Indian Americans in our national life, what I think is truly important is that in the 21st century we are likely to see a new convergence in our geopolitical interests. These geopolitical interests include advancing peace and stability in Asia, defeating international terrorism, arresting the spread of weapons of mass destruction, promoting democracy worldwide, diffusing economic development to an open trading system, preserving energy security, protecting the global commons, especially sea lanes of communication, and safeguarding the global environment.

It would not be an exaggeration to say that for the first time American and Indian interests in each of these eight issue areas are strongly convergent. It is equally true to assert that India's contribution ranges from important to indispensable as far as achieving U.S. objectives in each and every one of these reasons is concerned. This does not mean, however, that the United States and India will automatically collaborate on every problem that comes before our two countries.

The differentials in raw power between the two sides could produce differences in operational objectives even when overarching interests are preeminently compatible. Bilateral collaboration could also be stymied by differences over strategies, negotiating styles, and tactics. If all this is true, what does it mean then to say that U.S.-India relations are strongly convergent?

I believe it means three things: First, that the United States and India share a common vision of which outcomes are desirable and ought to be pursued by the two sides; second, that there are no differences in vital interests that could cause either country to levy mortal threats against the other; and third, that Washington and New Delhi can and will collaborate despite the absence of any priority guarantees that assure such collaboration.