Expectedly, Indian politics has been mired in bread and butter issues so far, with politicians periodically enticing the electorate with dreams of a rosy future. Remember Sonia Gandhi?s reference to ?Mungeri Lal ke haseen sapne?? Observers, therefore, are still coming to terms with the alphabet soup they now find politics in, from the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) to NSG (Nuclear Suppliers Group), thanks to the Indo-US nuclear deal. Obscure abbreviations until recently, these have assumed the power of WMDs as far as the longevity of the UPA government is concerned.
With the director general of one such abbreviation, the IAEA, Mohammed El Baradei, in India at the moment, it may be worthwhile to examine what this agency is all about.
The IAEA is an inter-governmental agency, which describes itself as the ?world?s centre for cooperation in the nuclear field?. Set up as part of the UN in 1956, it works with its member states to transfer appropriate nuclear technology for civilian purposes, develop nuclear safety standards, and use its inspection systems to ensure compliance with non-proliferation rules.
It owes its existence to the ?Atoms for Peace? speech made in 1953 by Dwight D Eisenhower, US President then, to the UN General Assembly (India?s Vijay Lakshmi Pandit was in attendance). The only ever dropper of an atomic bomb was keen to contain the spread of such dangerous technology, and the other allied powers of World War II readily agreed to set up the agency?to ?allow all peoples of all nations to see that… the great Powers of the earth, both of the East and of the West, are interested in human aspirations first, rather than in building up the armaments of war?, in Eisenhower?s words.
The Vienna-based IAEA reports annually to the UN General Assembly, and when required to the Security Council, on whether states are complying with their safeguard obligations. According to David Fisher in History of the IAEA, while the Cold War made it almost impossible for the agency to get on with its business, the near nuclear collision between the US and USSR in the form of the 1962 Cuban missile crisis renewed its relevance. As France (in 1960) and then China (in 1964) joined the elite club of nuclear-weapon states, the need to keep others from gatecrashing led to the more legally stringent Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968. As it envisaged, five nuclear-weapon states?the US, USSR, UK, France and China?were all there would ever be. Others were asked to sign the treaty, and were to gain access to civilian nuclear technology and fuel only under the IAEA?s close watch.
Much uranium has been enriched and depleted since. The IAEA was called upon to serve evidence on what Iraq, for example, had been up to on the nuclear front, with the US alleging that it was in violation of its international commitments. There?s the case of North Korea, too, though the IAEA?s most closely watched cases have been further west, where the strategic matrix of calculations is a whole lot more complex. Hans Blix, El Baradei?s predecessor, was often heard contradicting US claims about violations by Iraq. Even now, El Baradei is not exactly echoing the US?s assessment of Iran?s nuclear programme.
Now, India, a non-NPT signatory and nuclear club gatecrasher, is trying to carve its own space in the nuclear arena via the 123 agreement with the US, which involves signing a special safeguards agreement with the IAEA?a move the Left opposes.
Just what sort of engagement is it likely to be? A slow waltz, perhaps, with the rock-n-roll soundtrack receding in salience, if not relevance. Just as well. The slow waltz is one of Vienna?s best-known exports, and the UPA may try to keep the going slow with the IAEA at least through winter. But then again, what kind of ?spring? did the PM have in mind when he said; ?If winter?s here, can spring be far behind??