WASHINGTON: Congressional battles over the Indo-US nuclear deal will begin in September when lawmakers return to Washington after a month-long recess but the opening shots have already been fired.
Powerful lobbies within Congress have begun to voice concerns over the deal which they say will weaken international efforts to discourage nations from making nuclear weapons.
The Congressional Research Service, in a study prepared for US lawmakers, warned that the US-India agreement on civilian nuclear energy cooperation will contravene the control guidelines laid down by the Nuclear Suppliers Group.
Recently, members of the House Energy Conference Committee also approved a measure to prevent the export of nuclear technology to countries, such as India, which are not party to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and have detonated a nuclear device.
Massachusetts Democratic Congressman Edward Markey, who authored the amendment, said: “Why should the United States sell controlled nuclear goods to India? India is not a member state of the NPT and lacks full-scope safeguards required by the International Atomic Energy Agency for non-nuclear weapons states to receive nuclear supply materials.”
He added: “We cannot play favourites, breaking the rules of the NPT, to favour one nation at the risk of undermining critical international treaties on nuclear weapons.”
Congressional sources say that other members of Congress also have similar concerns over the Indo-US treaty, signed by President Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on July 18. They predict that the Bush administration will face a tough resistance on Capitol Hill as it seeks to amend US laws to enable India to receive nuclear cooperation.
Robert Einhorn of the Center for Strategic and International Studies said at a recent discussion in Washington that the formulation in the joint statement that India would acquire the same benefits and advantages as other states with advanced nuclear technology was an “unfortunate” one.
“I would suspect that this formulation would be a red flag to a number of non-nuclear NPT parties, including many friends of the United States, including Japan, Germany, Canada, Australia, Brazil, South Africa. And for over 30 years it was a key principle that NPT parties deserved some preferential treatment. There had to be some advantage in joining the NPT, and so there was this principle of preferential treatment,” he said.
Mr Einhorn, a former assistant secretary for non-proliferation at the Department of State, criticized the haste with which the Indo-US agreement was pushed through. The initial expectation was that the agreement would be put together in time for President Bush’s 2006 visit to India, he said. But because of this haste there wasn’t an opportunity to lay the groundwork with members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group or with members of Congress, where US legislation will have to be changed, said Mr Einhorn.
Lynne Weil, a spokesperson for California Democratic Congressman Tom Lantos, said Mr Lantos believed the issue of civil nuclear cooperation between India and the US was a “complicated” one, which will “require careful review by Congress”. Mr Lantos is the ranking Democrat on the influential House International Relations Committee.
Some observers have maintained that while the strategic benefits of expanded cooperation with India may be considerable, the non-proliferation costs may outweigh the benefits. Congressman Markey warned, “Selling nuclear materials to India is a dangerous proposition and bad non-proliferation policy.”
“Now that Russia and China have agreed to adhere to the Nuclear Supplier Groups requirements, the United States is going to ignore the rules,” Mr Markey said. “What will Russia say when they want to supply more nuclear materials or technology to Iran? You can be sure that Pakistan will demand equal treatment. Will the Bush administration soon be announcing nuclear cooperation with them?”
“This is a way for the House to send a signal on this particular treaty,” said Congressman Joe Barton, a Texas Republican who chairs the House Conference Committee.”
One document that is expected to exert a major influence on US lawmakers as they try to understand the ramifications of the Indo-US nuclear deal is the report by the Congressional Research Service. And it is not going to be a positive influence.
The report warns that if implemented, the cooperation between US and India for civilian nuclear energy “would dramatically shift US non-proliferation policy and practice towards India.”
“Such cooperation would also contravene multilateral support control guidelines of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, which was formed in response to India’s proliferation,” the report said.
The report points out that at a time when the US has called for all states to strengthen their domestic export control laws and implementation and for tighter multilateral controls, US nuclear cooperation with India would require loosening its own nuclear export legislation, as well as creating an NSG exemption.
“Observers note that US-India cooperation could have wide-ranging implications for the international nuclear non-proliferation regime, and could prompt other suppliers, like China, to justify their supplying other non-nuclear- weapon states (as defined by NPT), like Pakistan.”
“There are no measures in this global partnership to restrain India’s nuclear weapons programme. India has a self-imposed nuclear test moratorium but continues to produce fissile material for its nuclear weapons programme, despite support for the Fissile Material Cut off Treaty. Few observers are sanguine that FMCT negotiations can proceed quickly in the conference on disarmament even if negotiations do not cover verification, as the Bush administration prefers.”
From a technical verification perspective, the report contends, “the existence of India’s nuclear weapons programme negates potential non-proliferation assurances that nuclear safeguards on civil facilities might provide.”
“A significant question is how India, in the absence of full-scope safeguards, can provide adequate confidence that US peaceful nuclear technology will not be diverted to nuclear weapons purposes,” the report asks.
