Verification of the FMCT: Lessons from IAEA, OPCW and CTBTO

Published in the CBW Magazine: Journal of Chemical and Biological Weapons, Vol. 1, No. 3, April 2009, New Delhi, IDSA, pp. 3-7 available at http://www.idsa.in/cbwmagazine/VerificationoftheFMCT_avishwanathan_0408#.UB4Gj6BWDCM     [PDF version]

WMD Danger Symbols (Source: Wikipedia)

The successful completion of a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT), some believe, would be an important step towards the ultimate goal of elimination of nuclear weapons. The FMCT will affect individual states differently due to the variance in their nuclear fuel cycles and pre-existing inventories of fissile material.[1] It is this difference which has led to divergent opinions among experts as to what the ultimate aim of the FMCT should be and how it fits into the broader arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation processes. This article seeks to study the current debate surrounding the verification of a future Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT) and posit as to whether the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) could provide a verification mechanism for a future FMCT.

With the recent breaking of the deadlock at the Conference on Disarmament (CD) and the perceptible movement at the CD on the issue; studying the nature, scope as well as the implications of any future treaty has become very important.[2] For India, the issue assumes greater significance due to the fact that the Indian government under the July 18, 2005 Joint Statement has made a very clear cut commitment to work with the US for the conclusion of a multilateral FMCT.[3] More importantly, India will be most affected by the conclusion of at future FMCT regardless of the scope of the treaty. This is due to the fact that India possesses no hedge-stocks, unlike the case with most other nuclear-weapon-states (de facto or otherwise). This fact explains the rationale behind the importance that India ties to “effective verification” of a future treaty which is nondiscriminatory, universal and credible.

Share:

Read more

The Week's Nuclear Round-Up: 3-9 December '07

Published in the IDSA's Strategic Digest as part of The Week in Review Section

India

• Debate in Parliament continues; Burns: The 123 agreement is done and completed, Implementation remains; Second round of India-IAEA talks on India specific safeguards begin

Debate in the Parliament continued on the Indo-US nuclear agreement. EAM Pranab Mukherjee speaking in the Rajya Sabha reiterated that the agreement did not prevent India from conducting a nuclear test if it was necessary. Sitaram Yechury of the CPI(M) opined that the deal was not in India’s interests as it would bestow ‘sub-ordinate ally status’ on India as it will bring India “closer to the US positions on global issues as well as on regional strategic concerns.”[1] Nicholas Burns, US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs on his part noted that the 123 Agreement was “finished … done … completed” and that it just needed to be approved by both governments.[2] The statement gained significance in light of calls for the renegotiation of the agreement during the debate in Parliament.

In other developments, India initiated second round of discussions with the IAEA on the India-specific safeguards agreement.[3] The draft of the text on the safeguards, which would address issues such as assured fuel supply, strategic fuel reserves and recognition of the separation plan, would be ready within December with one more round of talks by the end of the week.[4]

Share:

Read more

Intelligence report on Iranian nukes: Vindication of India's Stand?

This was published on the South Asia Monitor website

India Iran (Rising Powers website)

The mandarins at South Block have every reason to be pleased with the latest US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on the Iranian nuclear programme. In many ways, the NIE has vindicated the Indian stand on the Iranian nuclear issue. The Indian policy on the issue was centred on three pillars. The first was the support of Iran's right to pursue civilian nuclear technology. The second was the realisation that a nuclear-armed Iran would shift the regional threat calculus which would be detrimental to India's interests. The third was the Indian desire to de-hyphenate the Indo-US nuclear agreement from the Iranian issue. The NIE has vindicated the Indian policy on each of these parameters.

India has for long held that Iran must abide by its Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) obligations and also clear up the doubts surrounding its compliance with the NPT. Concrete progress on this front has taken place in light of the recently drawn up International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) - Iran 'Road Map,' and is reflected in the recent IAEA Director General's report to the IAEA Board of Governors. Though, Iranian cooperation with the Agency is still less than optimal, the process of engagement has begun, which could help clear differences on thorny issues as well as convince Iran on the need to clarify on many unanswered questions regarding its nuclear programme. More importantly, ElBaradei in his statement has said that the NIE "is consistent with the IAEA's assessment of Iran's nuclear programme."

Share:

Read more

The Week’s Nuclear Round-Up: 26 November – 2 December 07

Published in the IDSA's Strategic Digest as part of The Week in Review Section
 
INDIA

• Moscow assures New Delhi of lifetime fuel supply for the two 1000 MW reactors at Koodankulam; Opposition questions government decision not to sign intergovernmental agreement with Russia; Parliament discusses nuclear deal

Moscow has assured New Delhi of lifetime supply for the two 1,000 MW nuclear reactors, being built with Russian assistance at Koodankulam. This was disclosed by Prithviraj Chavan, the Minister of State in the Prime Minister’s Office in the Rajya Sabha on 29 November.[i] However, the guarantee did not cover the fuel supply for the other four proposed reactors of 700MW each, the supply of fuel for which would depend on India getting the green signal both from the NSG as well as the IAEA.

The government’s failure to sign an intergovernmental agreement with Russia during the recent visit of Prime Minister Singh was raised in Parliament during the debate on the nuclear deal. A report in The Hindu on 13 November had noted that the government had backed out from signing the agreement.[ii] Dr. Singh on his part clarified that due to the delay in finalising the India-specific safeguards agreement with the IAEA, it was felt that it will be premature to sign an agreement which cannot be operationalised.[iii] Some analysts however raised suspicions that the government had backed out of the Russian deal due to an apprehension about American displeasure.[iv]

In other developments, the much-awaited Parliamentary debate on the nuclear deal took place on the 28 November. Leader of Opposition L.K. Advani criticised the deal as being “unacceptable to the nation because it is deeply detrimental to India’s vital and long-term interests.” He also declared that if the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance came to power, it would renegotiate the nuclear deal. Prime Minister Singh again reiterated that there was nothing in the agreement which prevented India from carrying out further tests.[v] EAM Pranab Mukherjee noted that the India-specific safeguards agreement with the IAEA was aimed at ensuring the country’s right to create strategic reserves to meet any interruption in fuel supply, besides securing recognition for India’s strategic programme by accepting the separation plan.[vi]

Share:

Read more

The Week's Nuclear Round-Up: 19-25 November 07

India

• Menon holds talks with Mulford; Kakodkar meets ElBaradei; China indicates its support for India at NSG

With the Left parties acquiescing to talks on the India-specific safeguards with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the government has quickly got its act together. Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon held a meeting with the US Ambassador, David Mulford on 19 November to discuss the next steps and the timeline for the implementation of the nuclear agreement. It is expected that India would not take more than a few weeks to negotiate the safeguards agreement with the IAEA. The three important points of negotiations would be the issue of fuel supply assurances, the corrective measures that India can take in case of disruption of fuel supplies and India’s right to build a fuel reserve.

Share:

Read more

The Week's Nuclear Round-Up 12-18 November '07

India

• Indo-Russian Koodankulam agreement fails to materialise; Left allows government to talk to IAEA; PM, Sonia bat for nuclear deal at AICC meeting

The much expected Indo-Russian agreement for the construction of four additional reactors at the Koodankulam site failed to materialize during Prime Minster Manmohan Singh’s recent visit to Moscow. No reasons were assigned for the agreement not being signed.23 Some reports suggested that the decision could be due to the domestic problems that the government was facing with operationalising the nuclear deal.[1]

In other developments, Dr. Singh reiterated during a meeting of the All India Congress Committee that Indo-US nuclear agreement concerned only the civil side of the nuclear programme and would have no bearing on India’s strategic programme. Congress President Sonia Gandhi also affirmed that the deal would facilitate India’s access to fuel and new technologies to fulfil its requirements in the energy sector.[2]

Share:

Read more