|
|
-
US Congress International
Relations Committee approved Indo-US civilian Nuclear deal 37-5
-
Several amendments were added
that may be rejected by US Administration and India
-
Senate to discuss later this
week
|
The 50-member US Congress International Relations Committee (HIRC) approved
37-5 the Indo-US civilian nuclear deal to exempt India from the U.S. laws that
restrict nuclear trade with countries that have not submitted themselves to
full nuclear inspections. The HIRC considered House Resolution (HR) 5682, a
modified version of HR 4794, that will exempt certain requirements of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to facilitate closer cooperation with India.
The supporters of the deal also fought off some crucial amendments that could
have essentially made it more dead on arrival than it already is. An amendment
offered by a California lawmaker, that sought to add language in the Bill in
effect asking India sign the NPT, was defeated 36-4. Another amendment seeking
to place limitations on nuclear transfers unless a presidential determination
has been made regarding India's adherence to a unilateral moratorium on
production of fissile material was also defeated 31-12.
This approval did not happen by itself. US President George W Bush, Secretary
of State Condoleezza Rice, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, and Under
Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns met several Congressmen
and Senators yesterday in a last-minute lobbying effort to impress upon them
the importance of passing the legislation concerning the civil nuclear deal
with India. A White House spokesman said “President Bush considers the passage
of the legislation concerning the nuclear deal a top priority and wants both
Houses of Congress to act on it affirmatively.”
HIRC Chairman Congressman Henry Hyde characterized the Administration’s
original HR 4794 bill as “profoundly unsatisfactory” and helped draft a new
bill, HR 5682 with several significant changes. Hyde said that the original
bill gave itself sweeping powers and “In effect Congress was being asked to
remove itself from the process and abandon its constitutional role.”
The long process includes “markups” or amendments being approved by the
broader house through a vote and then merging them with a parallel draft from
the Senate with a similar process of amendments and voting. The amended bill
was introduced by Hyde, committee co-chairman California Democrat Tom Lantos,
Florida Republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, New York Democrat Gary Ackerman,
Indiana Republican Dan Burton, South Carolina Republican Joe Wilson, American
Samoa Delegate Eni Faleomavaega, New York Democrat Eliot Engel, New York
Democrat Joseph Crowley, and North Carolina Democrat Bob Etheridge.
The new draft requires the following:
-
Inspired by Lantos, an extremist politician, the new bill includes a provision
that the US “secure India's full and active participation in United States
efforts to dissuade, isolate, and, if necessary, sanction and contain Iran for
its efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, including a nuclear weapons
capability (including the capability to enrich or process nuclear materials),
and the means to deliver weapons of mass destruction.” While India believes
that Iran must abide by its international commitments, including the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty, the new text in the bill will be completely
unacceptable to India. Both domestically and internationally, New Delhi does
not want to be seen as a satellite, client, or subservient state of the US.
Besides, while there is circumstantial evidence that
Iran has a nuclear
weapons program, there is very little evidence that can show that it does.
-
The bill wants the Administration to secure India’s full participation in the
Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). The concept of PSI is to stop the
proliferation of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) through
any means possible. This initiative would require India to participate in
military operations, board ships, and seize materials sometimes at variance
with international laws. The loosely worded doctrine can be interpreted in
multiple different ways and analysts think that the nation may be coerced into
actions that it does not necessarily want to engage. Hence, unless there is a
further refinement of wording and a veto or exclusion clause, it is highly
unlikely that India will be part of this initiative.
-
The nuclear deal is also now dependent on a certification regime from the US
President that:
a. India has provided the United States and the
International Atomic Energy Agency with a “credible plan to separate civil and
military nuclear facilities, materials, and programs, and has filed a
declaration regarding its civil facilities with the IAEA
b. India and the IAEA have concluded an agreement
requiring the application of IAEA safeguards in perpetuity in accordance with
IAEA standards, principles, and practices
c. India and the IAEA are making substantial
progress toward concluding an Additional Protocol consistent with IAEA
principles, practices, and policies that would apply to India's civil nuclear
program
d. India is working actively with the United
States for the early conclusion of a multilateral Fissile Material Cutoff
Treaty
Most analysts believe that India will not have a
problem with any of these stipulations. The only discordant element is the
“certification” aspect since there are no parameters defined on how the US
President will certify India’s adherence to these stipulations. India is
already working on such a deal with the IAEA and is also developing these
parameters with the US Administration in parallel.
-
HIRC’s draft also stipulates a termination of the deal if India makes:
a. Materially significant transfer of nuclear or nuclear-related material,
equipment, or technology that does not conform to NSG guidelines;
b.
Ballistic missiles or missile-related equipment or technology that does not
conform to MTCR guidelines, unless the president determines that cessation of
such exports would be seriously prejudicial to the achievement of United States
nonproliferation objectives or otherwise jeopardize the common defense and
security.
India would not have any trouble with the 1st part as it does have a stellar
non-proliferation record. However, the 2nd part is confusing in what it expects
from India. It is not clear if the intention is to cap Indian missile program
or to contain the development. Either way, the Indian establishment will have a
lot of trouble convincing strategic thinkers on accepting this restriction.
India developed its nuclear weapons program outside the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), has refused to sign it, and will continue with
that line with the current text in perpetuity.
-
The Bill restricts the Administration saying "no item subject to such
agreement or subject to the transfer guidelines of the NSG [Nuclear Suppliers
Group] may be transferred to India if such transfer would violate the NSG's
transfer guidelines as in effect on the date of the transfer."
The fact that the deal was passed by the HIRC is a significant victory noting
the change in the mindset of policy makers in the two nations. However, the
victory may turn up more as a vote of confidence in relationship than any
significant surge in Indo-US relations as the amendments will no doubt be
rejected by India.
Besides, while most members of HIRC supported the bill, there were some notable
dissensions. Republican Rep. Jim Leach called it a "sad day" in the history of
non-proliferation saying that it “knifed” the NPT. Passage of the Bush
administration plan, he said, would open the door for "a whole host" of
countries to press claims for similar nuclear cooperation. However, this is old
school thinking, disconnected from reality, and rooted to perpetuating the
lopsided status quo. Democratic Rep Joe Crowley rightly countered saying "This
is not about nuclear weapons as much as it is about finding alternatives to
fossil fuels and the tremendous energy needs that a country like India has."
During the debate, supporters of the agreement described it as an "unmistakable
gain" for non-proliferation.
Indian officials say that this formulation will only bind the US as India is
only bound by the commitment contained in the July 18, 2005 joint statement
that New Delhi will continue its moratorium on nuclear testing. However, they
concede that India is not comfortable with the draft text but say that
operative amendments to US laws allowing civilian nuclear cooperation are more
important. They also say that that there could be more amendments to the draft
Bill and if the bill fails to clear Congress, there will be “implications” for
bilateral relations.
A similar markup of the bill by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC),
chaired by Mr. Richard Lugar and Delaware Democratic Senator Joe Biden, had
been originally scheduled on June 28 but has now been rescheduled for June 29.
|
