India's US nuclear deal hangs by a
thread By Kaushik Kapisthalam
The India-US civilian nuclear cooperation
agreement is in serious trouble in the US
Congress. Highly placed sources tell Asia Times
Online that a powerful coalition of
non-proliferation hawks is at work in Washington
to scuttle the nuclear deal. Aiding this powerful
coalition is what some see as tepid efforts by the
administration of President George W Bush to argue
in favor of the deal and address the numerous and
vociferous objections.
Under the proposed
deal signed in March, India would open most of its
nuclear facilities for international inspections,
and in return it would be able to buy nuclear
power plants and fuel from the United States and
other members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group
(NSG). In April, India rejected a proposed
addition to the draft
agreement offered by
Washington, stipulating that the deal would be
canceled if India detonated another nuclear bomb.
What, me, hurry? The primary
concern for the deal's supporters is that the
clock is ticking for its passage this year. US and
Indian negotiators envisaged a sequence of
reciprocal steps for the deal's quick passage. The
reciprocity is very important for the coalition
Indian government led by Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh because it reflects on national pride and
political sensibilities.
For both the Bush
administration and the Indian government, the next
big step in the reciprocal process is for the US
Congress to change legislation to give India an
exception from current US civilian nuclear
commerce laws, especially the 1954 Atomic Energy
Act.
Both governments hoped that Congress
would change the US laws by this month. Then India
would announce the contours of its safeguards with
the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Armed with a congressional clearance and Indian
safeguards, the US would then go to the NSG cartel
to get a consensus on nuclear trade with India, a
necessary step as India is not a member of the
nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Many experts
feel that this is an exceptionally aggressive
schedule for what is clearly a landmark departure
from past practices with regard to India's nuclear
program.
To add to the mix, informed
sources in Washington and New Delhi tell Asia
Times Online that Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice promised Indian officials that the deal would
be passed by June. That appears to be unlikely,
sources said, because the US Congress seems to be
in no mood to take any action any time soon.
This is an election year in the US, and
one-third of the Senate and the entire House of
Representatives will be busy with re-election
campaigns once Congress returns from its summer
recess. There doesn't seem to be enough time
before the recess for deliberations on the India
deal to be concluded.
To bridge the gap
between congressional unwillingness and the
executive branch's hopes, Congressman Tom Lantos,
the ranking Democrat in the House International
Relations Committee, has proposed a compromise.
Under the proposal, Congress would "welcome" the
India-US nuclear deal but delay making changes to
US law until the two countries had negotiated a
formal peaceful nuclear cooperation agreement and
until India finalized a safeguards agreement with
the IAEA.
Once those two were complete,
the Lantos proposal would "fast track" an approval
of critical changes in the US Atomic Energy Act
with a Yes or No vote that would bar "poison pill"
amendments that could further delay or scuttle the
deal.
One of the leading drafters of the
India-US deal, Ashley Tellis, senior associate of
the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,
told the International Relations Committee that
the agreement was hanging in "very delicate
balance".
Enemy within? The
Bush administration, however, has rejected the
Lantos proposal. "Right now, our view is to handle
this differently," State Department counselor
Philip Zelikow responded after a speech at the
conservative think-tank American Enterprise
Institute last week.
Zelikow is known to
be one of the key proponents of close US-India
ties and was appointed to the State Department to
ensure that the traditionally
non-proliferation-obsessed US diplomatic
bureaucracy stays true to the vision behind the
US-India nuclear deal.
Part of the problem
facing the deal's passage in Congress may be from
within the Bush executive branch itself. Noted
South Asia expert Selig Harrison revealed to an
Indian weekly that key figures within the Bush
administration may in fact be trying to sabotage
the deal. Harrison named Under Secretary of State
for Non-Proliferation Robert Joseph, David
Addington from Vice President Dick Cheney's
office, and John Rood, the non-proliferation
specialist at the National Security Council
advising the White House. Joseph is known to be an
ally of his predecessor and current US
representative at the United Nations, John Bolton.
While Bolton is known to be a hawk, he was
vehemently opposed to any concessions to India on
the nuclear front. Bolton also blocked a key
Indian plan to acquire the Arrow anti-missile
system from Israel. The plan fell through because
Israel needed US permission to sell the system to
foreign nations.
In essence, opponents of
India's nuke deal within the Bush government have
been able to impede its progress through leaks to
media and tips to congressional staff. Another
favorite tactic of the deal's critics in
government has been to try to embarrass India. For
instance, not long ago, the Bush administration
sanctioned two Indian firms for supplying
chemicals to Iranian companies. This has been used
as a stick to beat India in congressional
hearings.
However, experts tell Asia Times
Online that the sanctions were not under
international law but under a more restrictive US
law that seeks to punish any trade with Iran.
Noted export-controls authority Scott Gearity
dismissed the sanctions, pointing out that the
chemical in question was on the least restrictive
of the three Chemical Weapons Convention schedules
and there was no obligation under that agreement
for the Indian exporter even to obtain an end-use
certificate from its Iranian customer, let alone
an overarching export prohibition.
Time
running out So it appears that time is
fast running out for the implementation of the
India-US nuclear accord this year. If Congress
does not pass the deal before August, it appears
that it will be stuck until the 110th Congress
takes power in 2007. Given that most of the deal's
current opponents are minority Democrats and the
possibility that they may take one or both houses
in this year's elections, a long delay may scuttle
this deal.
However, a well-placed
congressional source told Asia Times Online that
the Democrats' current opposition to the deal is
based on their unwillingness to hand the
Republicans a foreign-policy victory, and not on
substantive concerns with regard to Indian nukes.
On the multilateral front, the deal's
prospects look no better. NSG member nations have
informed the US they will not act until Congress
changes US laws. During the March 22-23 NSG
meeting in Vienna, several countries, including
China, Japan and Sweden, reportedly questioned the
wisdom of the India-US deal. The 45-nation NSG
controls global exports of nuclear technology and
fuel and holds the key to facilitating civilian
nuclear cooperation with India.
Given the
prevalent mood and a lack of congressional
authorization, the US may not even raise the India
issue at the NSG plenary in Rio de Janeiro between
May 29 and June 2. Regardless of what Rice may
have promised the Indians, it appears now that a
revision of expectations may be necessary both in
New Delhi and in Washington.
Kaushik
Kapisthalam is a freelance defense and
strategic affairs analyst based in the United
States. He can be reached at
contact@kapisthalam.com.
(Copyright
2006 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved.
Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing
.)
