Opinion - Editorials   

The Senate vote and beyond

By voting overwhelmingly in favour of the draft law authorising civil nuclear cooperation with India, the United States Senate has underscored the broad, bipartisan nature of support the Bush administration's policies towards New Delhi enjoy in Washington. By any yardstick, 85 to 12 is a handsome margin. It augurs well for the next stage in the legislative process when the Senate and the House of Representatives are expected jointly to adopt a harmonised version of the final law — before the year is out. As matters stand, the two houses of Congress have passed somewhat different texts, and there are elements in both that India has officially expressed its discomfort with. Among these are provisions for intrusive end-use verification by the U.S. of nuclear plant, equipment, and technology sold to India; and these go beyond the requirement of normal IAEA safeguards. India is also not thrilled about the prospect of the U.S. President being asked to certify Indian compliance every year — or about the explicit and unwarranted exclusion of reprocessing and enrichment technology. The Bush administration has endorsed some of these concerns and it is possible that at the conference stage these extraneous irritants will be `reconciled' off the page. However, if some of the more contentious parts of the law remain, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will have the difficult task of evaluating whether the nuclear deal in its final form satisfies the red lines he drew on the floor of Parliament this summer.

As expected, all five `killer amendments' proposed during the Senate debate on Thursday were defeated, some more decisively than others. New Delhi can take particular comfort from the refusal of Senators to graft a fissile material cut-off provision. Among the amendments that did pass, two are worthy of further analysis. The Obama amendment inserts a statement of policy that any supply of nuclear fuel to India must be commensurate with reasonable reactor operating requirements. As long as it does not hamper the negotiation of cast-iron guarantees for the lifetime supply of nuclear fuel for safeguarded Indian reactors, this amendment will be harmless. But if it can be used to hamper India's right to stockpile natural uranium as the ultimate guarantee against supply disruption, it could pose difficulties. There is neither constructive spirit nor good sense behind the Harkin amendment, which makes presidential waiver contingent on a determination that India is fully participating in U.S. and international efforts to dissuade, sanction, and contain Iran for its nuclear programme "consistent with UNSC resolutions." Such a requirement suggests a lack of respect for India's foreign policy, also an intent to continue applying pressure on it. That compliance with this demand has been grafted on to the `presidential determination' is a clear violation of the July 18, 2005 agreement and India must treat it as such. The hope will be that this can be taken off the page at the reconciliation stage.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

The Senate vote and beyond
Seize the opportunity
India and China: reassessing relations
APEC is Russia's option in Asia, Pacific
A battle for change at Oxford University
Battle royal ahead in France
Corrections and Clarifications
Whither conscience?
A blessing
Should we improve?
The Hyderabad boys

Copyright © 2006, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu