India News Online » News Analysis » India and the World » 

US House votes for India-America nuclear pact

	July 31, 2006

The American House of Representatives last week passed a landmark legislation approving the US-India nuclear pact by a massive 359-68 margin, rejecting several amendments unpalatable to New Delhi and Washington. The House vote was largely partisan with 84 per cent backing it from both sides of the aisle: 218 Republicans and 141 Democrats supported the deal, with only nine Republicans and 59 Democrats opposed.



The Bill approved by the House requires the President to make several determinations to Congress. Among these, the President must determine: that India has concluded a credible plan to separate civilian and military nuclear facilities. That India has concluded a safeguards agreement with the IAEA that will apply safeguards in perpetuity to India’s civil nuclear facilities, materials and programmes. That India is harmonizing its export control laws and regulations to match those of the Nuclear Suppliers Group and that India is actively supporting US efforts to conclude a fissile material cut off treaty. The legislation also requires that the President makes detailed annual reports on US non-proliferation policy with respect to South Asia and the implementation of the US-India agreement.

Republican Henry Hyde, who piloted the legislation, expressed happiness at the overwhelming vote. “It clears the way for the US and India to reinforce an already strong strategic alliance”. Democrat Tom Lantos who co-authored the Bill characterized the deal’s passage as “a tidal shift” in relations between India and the US.



All but one amendment rejected

En route to the vote that came at the end of intense debate the House discarded at least three “killer” amendments which could have put off New Delhi . One such amendment that would have the US annually audit India’s fissile material stock was defeated by 155-268. Another, that would restrict export to uranium to India until the US President certified that New Delhi had frozen its fissile material production was rejected 184-241. Supporters of the nuclear deal argued that although the agreement pertained to energy, India would never consent to such caps on its strategic capability. When these two amendments were defeated, opponents of the agreement attempted to link the deal to India further supporting the US in its campaign against Iran. That too was defeated 192-235 by supporters who argued that New Delhi had already proved its credentials as a US partner opposed to nuclear proliferation, including twice voting against Iran at IAEA. About the only significant amendment that was passed without contest was one that enjoins the US only to support India’s civilian nuclear programme and not any nuclear weapons capability enhancement. At the end of almost five hours of marathon arguments and legislative procedures, the US and India Nuclear Cooperation Promotion Act of 2006 – to be renamed the Hyde Amendment after the lawmaker who engineered it – was passed by a handsome 359-68 margin. The Act will permit a certifiably nuclear-armed India to buy reactors and fuel from the international market for the first time in more than 30 years (subject to final approval and international consent), despite not having signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which is the gateway to such commerce. It will, in effect, mark the end of India’s nuclear isolation and possibly arrange the global strategic architecture.



The Senate will now approve the Bill but a vote is not expected until September. The House and the Senate would vote again after US-India negotiations on the technical details of the agreement are completed. India must also complete discussions with the IAEA and the Nuclear Suppliers Group must allow nuclear transfers to India.



Left attempts for a resolution in Parliament – Govt. jittery

Although in his separate statements in the two Houses of Parliament, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has ruled out any shift from the July 18, 2005 joint statement on Indo-US nuclear deal and advised the law-makers to wait for the end product, his Government is uncomfortable with a Left move to get Parliament to pass a “resolution” which would set the “parameters” of the deal which the Communists feel is being mutated to dock New Delhi’s foreign policy interests to Washington’s. The CPIM has circulated what it feels are relevant points about the agreement arrived at between Prime Minister Singh and President Bush in July last year is being altered. The Left proposal for a unanimous resolution to be passed by Parliament like the one on Kashmir in the past, is aimed at binding Government to a document which would then be a set of guidelines for the deal with the US.



Some reports say the Leftists are having second thoughts on joining hands with the BJP against a Government which they support from outside, to press for the resolution. But, the CPI[M] is in no mood to compromise on any changes in the nuclear deal with the US. In a exhaustive note on its stand, the CPI[M] has pointed out the changes Washington is wanting to gradually make in the July 2005 understanding which are not in favour of India.



Prime Minister Manmohan Singh made statements in both Houses of Parliament to mollify the Leftists who now appear to be willing to explore other options than the resolution that met their concerns. He said there would be no compromise on the nuclear deal, it will be in line with the July 2005 joint statement and there is no sell-out on the issue.



In a statement in the Lok Sabha on July 26, the Prime Minister assured the members that his Government would never compromise on the July 2005 joint statement. Some MPs wanted the Government to explain sections in the current US Bill that prohibit India from certain exports. Replying to this, Minister of State for External Affairs Anand Sharma said he said there was still no final legislation in the US. The Government would have to wait for a conciliation but assured members that India would not accept any fresh obligations beyond the scope of that statement.



In the Rajya Sabha also, the Prime Minister asserted that the goal posts will be there and not shifted. He told Elders that if the end product of the American legislation was inconsistent with the July 18, 2005 agreement on the Indo-US nuclear deal then that would be determining factor on what India would do. However, the entire Opposition as well as the Samajwadi Party rejected Dr. Singh’s assurance and walked out of the Rajya Sabha which witnessed a clear anti-deal mood cutting across the Opposition and Left benches, much to the discomfort of the ruling party. However, the Left did not join the NDA-SP walk-out.



Merits in Left’s opposition

Security affairs analysts agree with the opponents in Parliament that as the Indo-US July 2005 joint statement was evolved into an agreement and the concerns and reservations of the non-proliferation Ayatollahs in the two US key committees on foreign relations were accommodated, the original understanding has been greatly eroded. A balanced document has now given the impression that it is not an agreement to help India meet its energy needs but to constrict India’s nuclear weapons programme.



As remarked by G. Parthasarthy, the operative part of the proposed legislation to end US sanctions on India that have secured considerable support in both the senate and the House of Representatives broadly conform to the provisions of the July 18 agreement but the proposed legislation contains several “non-binding” clauses that have caused understandable concern. There are demands that India should join US efforts to “dissuade, isolate and, if necessary, sanction and contain Iran” for its efforts to “acquire weapons of mass destruction”. These provisions also require President Bush to work to obtain a “moratorium on fissile material production by India, Pakistan and China” and conclude a FMCT at the earliest to which India and the US become parties. Finally, there is a legally binding provision that nuclear cooperation with India will end if it tests a nuclear device. What is even more objectionable is that this provision is designed to prevent India from even undertaking sub-critical [hydronuclear] tests to determine the reliability of its nuclear weapons. While New Delhi can say it is not bound by any “Sense of Congress” provisions in the legislation, it cannot ignore the fact that, as things stand, nuclear cooperation with the US will end if it tests a “nuclear device”.



There is, therefore, merit in the criticism that India is being coerced to adhere to the CTBT by the threats of sanctions and an end to nuclear cooperation.



India has yet to negotiate the text of a bilateral nuclear energy agreement with the US and an Additional Protocol for safeguards with the IAEA. The NSG is also yet to approve the end of nuclear sanctions against India. It remains to be seen what conditions some members of the NSG will seek to impose for the resumption of nuclear cooperation. No government in India can allow a situation to arise where fuel supplies for nuclear power plants are terminated if India decides that its national security interests require that it has to carry out further nuclear tests. Observers say, the main focus of national attention has to be on whether the fuel supply agreements India signs contain irrevocable provisions for uninterrupted supplies and “a strategic reserve of nuclear fuel”.



The July agreement states that India will “work with the US for the conclusion of a FMCT”. It does not, however, require India to accede prematurely to such a treaty which will cap its nuclear weapons programme. India has agreed to complete the separation of some designated peaceful facilities and weapons-related nuclear facilities only by 2014. It is evident from this separation plan that India intends to produce fissile material for weapons even beyond 2014. Thus, while India need not oppose the conclusion of a FMCT, military analysts say, it should make it clear that it will abide by its provisions only if it is verifiable, non-discriminatory and not binding on it till it chooses to accede to it. India should not rush into concluding any agreement for importing nuclear reactors till there are irrevocable guarantees of fuel supply for the life of the reactors.



US Embassy put on terror alert



A top Intelligence Bureau official is reported to have sent a letter to security Agencies with a chilling message - the American Embassy might be targeted any time between now and July 30 by terrorists owing allegiance to an Iranian terror group in what is seen as a bid to extend the conflict in the Middle East. Sources said the input was received early last week and was circulated among all security agencies in Delhi including police and paramilitary forces. The input even identified one of the men likely to participate in the attack.



According to Intelligence report, the attack on the US Embassy was likely to be carried out a by group of 20 highly motivated terrorists some of whom have been part of attacks in other parts of the world. This group, according to the intelligence agency, is headed by a terrorist named Jawad Shah Shanas. The report said that Iranians had enlisted a few Afghans and Kashmiris to put together a 20-strong gang which had been on the lookout since June for an opportunity to attack their target. The letter said that these men were armed with sophisticated weapons and could cause heavy damage to the embassy.



The Iranian Embassy in New Delhi angrily reacted to the news report about its involvement with a terrorist group allegedly planning attack on the US Embassy. Its Press Attache said in fact the group mentioned in the news report had a history of strong enmity with Iran. The group was accused of carrying out many bombings and killings of government officials and later getting shelter in Iraq and other Western countries. He claimed that the group was also supplied wrong information to some countries about Iran’s peaceful nuclear programme.