After N-gagement for 6 yrs, India inks key deal with Japan
HISTORIC Only country to have come under nuclear attack had been wary of signing pact with a non-NPT signatory
NEW DELHI: After almost six years of protracted negotiations, India and Japan on Friday signed a pact on civil nuclear cooperation. This is the first pact Japan has entered with a country that is not a signatory to the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Japan, the only country to have ever come under a nuclear attack, has remained wary of signing a pact with India, a non NPT country.
The deal would help speed up India’s civil nuclear cooperation with the United States although a US-based firm, Westinghouse, is a whollyowned subsidiary of the Japanese firm, Toshiba.
After five years of discussions, the two sides concluded the pact last year and it was signed on Friday after the annual summit meeting between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Japanese counterpart, Shinzo Abe.
Japanese companies are world leaders in nuclear technology and most nuclear power plant equipment-makers, barring the Russians, are dependent on them.
Japan has a near monopoly over making reactor vessel, with Japan Steel Works (JSW) leading the pack.
Also in the fray are Chinese state-owned China First Heavy Industries, Creusot Forge, a subsidiary of France’s Areva group, and Russia’s OMZ Izhora, but JSW accounts for over 75% of the business globally.
Westinghouse is a Toshibasubsidiary and even a General Electric reactor core is built by Hitachi. In other words, a pact with Japan would help the process of signing a nuclear cooperation agreement other countries easier.
The Japanese have the upper hand in nuclear fuel fabrication and breeder technology. And the pact will help India advance the technology cooperation with Japan.
A pact with Japan will also help India to bolster its non-proliferation credentials. Japan approving of Indian credentials is a shot in the arm for the country to stress on its non-proliferation track record when it is pulling out all stops to get an entry into the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). SHINZO ABE, Japan PM NARENDRA MODI, Indian Prime Minister
This agreement is a legal framework that India will act responsibly in peaceful uses of nuclear energy.
NEW DELHI: Defence minister Manohar Parrikar’s remarks about when and how nuclear weapons should be used came on the eve of a crucial meeting of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) in Vienna that is expected to take up India’s application to join the elite club.
They also came at a time when India’s Prime Minister was preparing for a landmark civil nuclear agreement with Japan, whose sensitivities about atomic weapons are no secret.
The point of having a credible minimum nuclear deterrent and a nuclear doctrine that is largely out in public is that there is no need to talk about the nukes, or what India intends to do with them.
Parrikar, of course, tried to pass off his remarks as a personal opinion. “Why a lot of people say that India has (a) No First Use policy… I should say I am a responsible nuclear power and I will not use it irresponsibly… as an individual, I get a feeling sometime why do I say that I am not going to use it first,” he said on Thursday.
Experts, however, argued that the greater the ambiguity about a nuclear doctrine, the greater the deterrence. Some even contend that India erred by making public its draft nuclear doctrine in 1999, almost a year after the blasts in Pokhran, and by releasing parts of the doctrine on its adoption in 2003.
“The more ambiguity and opacity there is about a nuclear doctrine, the more it adds to deterrence,” Bharat Karnad, a national security expert at the Centre for Policy Research, told HT.
Karnad, who was part of India’s first National Security Advisory Board that put together the draft doctrine, said the members of the body were “aghast” when the government of the day decided to make the document public. Aug 2016: Going to Pakistan is the same as going to hell.
(On finance minister Arun Jaitley skipping Saarc meet of ministers in Islamabad)
July, 2016: One actor had said that his wife wants to leave India. It was an arrogant statement. If I am poor and my house is small, I will still love my house and always dream to make a bungalow out of it. (In a veiled attack on actor Aamir Khan)
May 2015: We have to neutralise terrorists through terrorists only. Why can’t we do it? We should do it. Why does my soldier have to do it?... kaante se kaanta nikalta hai (you remove a thorn with the help of a thorn)
June 2015: Pakistan ko mirchi lagi, woh bhi Andhra ki (A chilli that too from Andhra Pradesh has hit them).
(When questioned about Pakistan’s reaction to his “terrorist against terrorists” comment)
June 2015: I’ve found that nowadays the eyes (of Ganesha idols) are becoming smaller and smaller. One day I turned it back and found Made in China
Achin Vanaik, one of the founders of the Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace, said it had become the norm for some Union ministers and chief ministers to make “outrageous” statements that were later rationalised.
“No matter what the defence minister said, he was speaking in an official capacity and his comments can’t be taken lightly,” Vanaik said. “This is part of a wider strategy to inject certain things into the public discourse that fits in with the belligerent, intolerant nationalism this government is pushing.”
Vanaik also questioned the nuclear stance of India and China,
saying both weren’t “practising what they preach” about No First Use. He said, “No First Use implies these countries should have enough weapons only for a second strike but they’re both expanding their arsenals.”
Observers have contended that Parrikar’s remarks were an apparent retort to recent sabre-rattling by Pakistan, but Karnad argued that the neighbouring country did not even pose a “credible threat”.
Referring to a country’s capacity to absorb a nuclear strike, he said the “exchange ratio between destruction imposed and destruction absorbed” would be far greater for Pakistan.
Our cooperation in this field will help us combat the challenge of climate change. No matter what the minister said, he was speaking in an official capacity and his comments can’t be taken lightly. This is part of a wider strategy to inject certain things into the public discourse that fits in with the belligerent, intolerant nationalism this government is pushing.
ACHIN VANAIK, founder, Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace