Washington has lobbied hard for a nuclear commerce deal for India, writes Mary Fitzgerald, Foreign Affairs Correspondent
THIS WEEK Washington and Delhi will formally sign off on a landmark deal opening nuclear trade between the US and India for the first time since the latter conducted its initial atomic tests three decades ago.
The signing of the pact will mark the culmination of more than three years of tortuous negotiations and intensive lobbying by Washington and Delhi aimed at granting India an exemption from internationally-agreed rules forbidding nuclear commerce with any country that has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) designed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.
India, along with Israel, Pakistan and North Korea, has never signed the NPT.
In an historic decision in Vienna last month, the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), of which Ireland is a member, adjusted its guidelines to allow atomic trade with India, paving the way for the India-US nuclear accord.
Supporters of the NSG decision argued it would accomplish three things: it would bring India in from the non-proliferation cold by opening its civilian reactors to UN inspectors; help the growing world power and its population of more than one billion meet surging energy demands, and reduce pressure on global oil supplies and help combat climate change.
The agreement also clears the way for US and European firms to bid for multi-billion euro contracts to build nuclear reactors across India.
But critics argue that the September 6th agreement, reached after nearly three days of diplomatic wrangling and strong scepticism on the part of Ireland, Austria and New Zealand, sets a dangerous precedent, weakening the non-proliferation regime and raising the spectre of a nuclear arms race in south Asia.
One member of the US Congress commission on proliferation and terrorism dubbed the move "Non-proliferation's 9/11." Labour TD and foreign affairs spokesman Michael D Higgins believes Ireland's eventual decision to go along with the deal constitutes a betrayal of the State's long historical commitment to nuclear non-proliferation. He will raise the issue in the Dáil today, asking Minister for Foreign Affairs Micheál Martin to explain the reasons for the Government's change of policy and subsequent facilitation of the US-India agreement at the NSG.
It is understood the Minister will describe Ireland's decision to join consensus at the NSG last month as a reluctant one, reached after it became increasingly clear that a very large majority of NSG members, including several countries that normally share the State's position on disarmament and non-proliferation, were falling behind the move to grant the waiver. The fact that the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency Mohamed ElBaradei, also strongly supported the deal was, in the Government's opinion, significant.
Ireland's position also softened somewhat as a result of a statement issued the day before agreement was reached, in which India sought to reassure doubters by reiterating key positions, including the "voluntary moratorium" on testing Delhi declared soon after its 1998 nuclear weapons tests. The final document states the exemption granted to India is "based" on these assurances.
As one of the last NSG members to hold out, Ireland was the focus of a flurry of calls from Washington, Delhi and European capitals. On September 5th, Brian Cowen received a phone call from British prime minister Gordon Brown and a letter from French president Nicolas Sarkozy. Both argued there were strong economic and energy-related cases to be made for the deal and both stressed it was in the West's interest to foster good relations with Delhi. Mr Sarkozy also noted that 25 out of the 27 EU member states supported the deal. That afternoon, Brian Cowen took a call from US president George Bush. "There were no raised voices and no threats. The tone was very friendly," a source said, adding that Bush made no mention of any impact Ireland's continued opposition to the deal might have on its relations with the US.
Meanwhile, Irish diplomats were told by their Austrian counterparts that Vienna's position was weakening. "Austria said three of us [opposing the deal] is too few, we're too exposed politically," said one Irish source. There were similar signals from New Zealand.
"Ireland never considered going it alone," the source said. "The view was that once it went below a certain number it was not sustainable. Our strong preference was that this deal would not happen but Ireland cannot be expected to be the conscience of the world."
India's increasing clout as a major player on the world stage was also a factor. One source said Ireland could not disregard the prospect of future Indian investment. "There was an overall sense that the world order is changing and India is a serious player." Irish officials were surprised at the lack of public debate on the deal at home - Michael D Higgins was the only public representative to highlight the issue. One official described this as "astonishing" given Ireland's long involvement in non-proliferation agreements.
Indian officials have since asked the Irish Embassy in Delhi why the Government portrayed the issue as a "grave political matter" when, as the Indian embassy in Dublin reported back, it received scant attention here.
Critics of the deal acknowledge that within the NSG Ireland played a leading role in seeking clarifications and voicing concerns about the repercussions of granting a waiver to India. "The Irish Government did all it could. In my view no other country played a more energetic role in identifying the problems with this deal," says Daryl G Kimball, executive director of the Washington-based Arms Control Association and a strong opponent of the US-India pact.
"The problem was Ireland was alone in a sea of much larger countries using strong-arm tactics. It was a real David versus Goliath situation."