news details |
|
|
| Nuclear deal on course | | |
by Ashish Kumar Sen
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on August 17 outlined his government’s stand on the U.S.-India civilian nuclear agreement in an effort to allay critics from the Left and the BJP.
U.S. nonproliferation and South Asia analysts – Robert Einhorn of the Center for Strategic and International Studies; Stephen Cohen of the Brookings Institution; Teresita Schaffer of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies; and Michael Krepon of the Henry L. Stimson Center – discussed the significance of Dr. Singh’s remarks to Parliament in an interview. Both Mr. Einhorn and Mr. Krepon have been critical of the deal, while Ms. Schaffer and Mr. Cohen have been supportive.
Q: Will Dr. Singh’s comments on the deal affect its progress in the US Congress?
Einhorn: The prime minister’s comments to Parliament are unlikely to have much of an impact on Congressional attitudes. The comments might energize the U.S. administration to work harder to roll back elements of the House and Senate bills that Indians find objectionable. But because most members of Congress do not believe the current House and Senate bills are inconsistent with the July 2005 agreement, they are unlikely to be sympathetic to changing elements of the bills in significant ways.
Schaffer: In general, the U.S. and India are trying to make very different points to their respective parliaments and publics. As a result, every time that one government or the other spells things out in detail, it causes problems in the other capital.
Krepon: The Congress and the Bush administration have been extraordinarily generous to India, but I suspect that even the Bush administration and the Congress will not support India’s demand for access to reprocessing capabilities and changes in U.S. public law to lift penalties in the event India resumes nuclear testing.
Cohen: The deal obviously is more than about nuclear energy, although everyone wants to maintain the fiction that it is, and therefore a variety of strategic interests have to be accommodated.
Q:. Would the PM’s comment on future testing cost the deal support?
Einhorn: The comments on tests won’t cost the deal support in Congress. But neither will those comments alter the Congressional view that U.S. nuclear cooperation with India should be terminated if India conducts a nuclear test. Members of Congress do not believe that a U.S. legislative requirement to terminate cooperation in certain circumstances imposes any obligations on India. India would still be entirely free to test or not. But it would be on notice that if it elects to test, it could not expect continued nuclear cooperation with the U.S.
Krepon: Both Houses of Congress will include language reaffirming existing U.S. Public Law that calls for penalties in the event of a nuclear test by India. If anything, the Prime Minister’s presentation in the Rajya Sabha reaffirms the necessity of the Congress doing so. The Prime Minister’s insistence that "there is no question of India being bound by a law passed by a foreign legislature" is true, but is also besides the point, since members of Congress have the power to establish laws governing U.S. nuclear commerce to foreign nations.
Schaffer: India has made a unilateral undertaking not to test. That presumably means that in the best judgment of the Indian government, its strategic programme does not require a test. I don’t think that his statements now are likely to cost India the deal.
Q: Would the inclusion of the condition that India support U.S. policy on Iran be a deal breaker?
Einhorn: The proposed legislation simply says that it is U.S. policy to promote full and active Indian cooperation with U.S. efforts to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It does not make U.S. nuclear cooperation with India conditional upon India’s support for U.S. efforts vis-a-vis Iran. I don’t expect that element of the draft legislation to change.
Schaffer: I know that the administration is trying to get the reference to Iran removed from the legislation, and think its chances are good. The key for the administration is what India does, and on that score the U.S. has nothing to complain about.
Q: Would members of Congress be willing to lift all restrictions on civilian nuclear trade with India before India places its reactors under IAEA safeguards?
Einhorn: The legislation requires the President to make a determination that India has concluded an acceptable safeguards agreement with the IAEA. Thus, the waivers required to permit nuclear cooperation with India cannot be issued before the safeguards agreement is "concluded." But the entry into force of that safeguards agreement could take place at a later date. I don’t think sequencing should be a problem.
Schaffer: No one wants to move first. They will have to find a way to move simultaneously.
Q: The Prime Minister said the nuclear deal in no way could affect the Indian strategic programme.
Krepon: The White House has convinced a majority of Members of Congress not to seek direct constraints on India’s strategic programme by means of a fissile material moratorium and a CTBT signature. It looks like the Prime Minister has upped the ante by demanding the lifting of all restraints on nuclear commerce, including reprocessing, as well as by demanding a free pass on the resumption of nuclear testing.
Schaffer: The Indian government has been saying this from the start. Some members of Congress aren’t happy about this but believe that canceling the deal at this point is a bad idea.
Q: Has the Prime Minister painted himself into a corner by publicly spelling out a rigid stance on the deal?
Einhorn: I think a number of Members of Congress will find both the tone and content of the PM’s remarks a bit worrisome - and an indication that the Administration’s hopes for close partnership between India and the U.S. in the future may be overstated.
Schaffer: The key point he made is that he won’t accept anything that deviates from the July 18 agreement. That is a standard I think the eventual legislation will be able to meet. There may be issues on which Manmohan Singh will have to say ‘Well, that interpretation is what the U.S. Congress says, but our understanding is in the papers we’ve signed with the U.S. government.’ Ultimately both sides will have to live with some level of ambiguity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
