Should the EU negotiate a non-proliferation clause with India?

(B2 - archives) The presence of clauses limiting (nuclear) non-proliferation in the agreements signed by the European Union with third countries is once again crucial; the Iranian question demonstrates this. And the European Parliament is determined to make its voice heard, and to make it a condition of future agreements, particularly in the cooperation and partnership agreement currently being discussed with India (the exploratory talks for the negotiation have been launched on 4 September by the Commission). This type of text can, in fact, include “political” clauses, unlike a simple free trade agreement (the negotiation mandate with India was approved by the Council on April 18, 2007).

MEPs who are members of the Defense sub-committee of the European Parliament reminded the Commission representative of this at the beginning of October. The latter, after recalling the history of the clause (crises in the nuclear field, the risks resulting from the "privatization" of proliferation, United Nations Security Council resolution 1540, the emergence of a doctrine according to which security issues are a prerequisite for development), detailed its three major axes: the commitment to respect the agreements signed and ratified, the commitment to subscribe to the agreements not yet signed and the implementation of control measures exports.

Faced with the concerns of MEPs, who felt that the Commission, under the impetus of former Commissioner Patten, was tending to move away from the standard model, he specified that it is "a standard clause", adopted by the Council, "whose the EU tries to move away as little as possible”. However, he confirmed that “the fact that it is subject to negotiations with third countries entails the risk that compromises must sometimes be accepted” (example with Tajikistan).

MEPs heard highlighted the differences between the agreement being negotiated between the EU and India compared to the current one between India and the United States. Angelika Beer (Grüne-Verts/EFA, Germany), supported by Tobias Pflüger (PDS-GUE/NGL, Germany), wanted to obtain the assurance that the non-proliferation clause will be included in the first agreement and will be a condition for his signature. The Commission representative agreed that the clause is essential and every effort will be made to have it included in the agreement, in the hope that the Indian side will accept it at the summit on November 30, 2007.

As for the agreement between India and the United States, he said that it is a complex and evolving agreement, on which the EU does not yet have a final position. An answer which did not really satisfy Ms. Beer, because it contradicted previous statements, during a closed session on September 10, by Ms. Giannella, Javier Solana's personal representative for non-proliferation.

(Nicolas Gros-Verheyde)
article published in Europolitics on 16 October 2007