US President to sign historic Indo–US civilian nuke deal as world watches warily

Last weekend's flurry of activities, including the overwhelming approval by the US Congress of a landmark legislation that allows US to engage in nuclear trade with India after 32 years, has paved the way for US President George W. Bush, enabling him to sign the legislation into a law.

After the House of Representatives cleared a reconciled version of the Bill, aimed at implementing the Indo–US civilian nuclear deal reached between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President George W. Bush in July last year, with a thumping majority, the Senate approved a 'unanimous consent agreement' to endorse it.

The President is expected to sign the legislation into a law sometime this week.

"I am pleased that our two countries will soon have increased opportunities to work together to meet our energy needs in a manner that does not increase air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, promotes clean development, supports non–proliferation, and advances our trade interests," President Bush said.

An official statement posted on the US State Department web site said the US sees the agreement as a way for India formally to comply with some of the same tenets codified in the Nuclear Non–Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which New Delhi never signed. India has agreed to separate its nuclear reactors used for civilian purposes from those designated for military use.

"Further, it has agreed to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to monitor its 14 civilian reactors and to bring them under IAEA safeguards, to continue its moratorium on nuclear weapons testing, and not to transfer nuclear technology to third parties," the State Department said.

The US stopped nuclear co–operation with India after it conducted its first nuclear test in 1974.

The lawmakers from both Houses last weekend approved a reconciled version of the Bills passed by the two chambers of the Congress. The reconciled Bill has either diluted or removed the language which had been objected to by India.

The House voted in favour of the Bill by a margin of 330–59 votes after an hour–long debate with Chairman of the House International Relations Committee Henry Hyde and Ranking Member Tom Lantos backing it, while Massachussetts Democrat Edward Markey spoke against it.

The Bush administration and its allies contend that civil nuclear commerce to expand electricity generation in India will foster a broad range of ties with the world's largest democracy – a rising South Asian power – and open up billions of dollars in trade for US companies.

Critics have decried the Bill as a historic mistake that would undermine US efforts to curb the spread of nuclear weapons.

Other critical approvals – by Congress a second time, the 35–member International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the 45–nation Nuclear Suppliers Group – are needed before the agreement can take effect. That will not happen before some time next year.

India and the US also have to finalise the bilateral 123 agreement to make the deal operational. New Delhi will also have to sign an India–specific safeguards agreement with the 35–member IAEA under which all its civilian nuclear facilities will be opened for the atomic watchdog's safeguards.

India will identify and offer for IAEA safeguards 14 of its 22 nuclear facilities between 2006 and 2014.

The deal also has to be backed by the 45–nation Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), which will be required to change its guidelines to allow the international community to have nuclear co–operation with India.

Republican Rep. Henry of Illinois, chairman of the House International Relations Committee, voiced hope the measure will mark "the beginning of a new and ever–closer relationship between the world's two largest democracies, the United States and India."

Terming as a "historic achievement" the passage of the Bill to implement the Indo–US nuclear deal, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the United States intends to fulfill all commitments it made to India under the landmark pact.

Rice welcomed the "the strong bipartisan support for the US–India Civil Nuclear Cooperation initiative shown by the Congress in adopting the legislation of the Henry J. Hyde US–India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006."

"This is a historic achievement and a major step forward toward realizing President (George W.) Bush's and Prime Minister (Manmohan) Singh's vision of a strategic partnership between the world's oldest and largest democracies," she said.

"The United States intends to fulfill all of the commitments it made to India in the 18th July and 2nd March Joint Statements," she added.

"We greatly appreciate that Congress has made the completion of this legislation a priority at this important juncture in our relations with India and also for their efforts in addressing the concerns of the Administration," Rice said.

The nuclear deal "is a major, historic step forward for both our countries," U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said. "[It] is the symbolic center of this new strategic partnership between India and the United States."

The deal reverses 30 years of US policy that, until July 2005, opposed nuclear cooperation with India because the country developed nuclear weapons in contravention of international standards and never signed the NPT.

As lead signatory of the NPT, the United States has been obligated to forswear assistance to the nuclear programs of states that did not sign the treaty.

While Indians celebrated the launch of their new strategic partnership with the US, the American business leaders looked keenly at new money making opportunities opened up by the deal. The US Chamber of Commerce, known as the world's largest business federation representing more than 3 million businesses and organizations, said the deal could provide them with $ 100 billion worth of new opportunities in the energy sector alone.

The agreement would also open the country’s markets to investment in technology, telecom, and financial services, according to the Chamber. "The civilian nuclear agreement is a win–win–win for America and India," said Lt. Gen (Retd) Daniel W. Christman, US Chamber senior vice president for International Affairs and chairman of the Coalition for Partnership with India.

"It's gone on very well. The way the text has been smoothed with many of the irritants removed shows the desire of the two countries to reach a civil nuclear agreement," Salman Haidar, a former Indian foreign secretary was quoted by the Indian media as saying.

Haidar, however, admitted that there were elements in the legislation that pointed to "divergences of approach," notably about the bill calling for New Delhi's full cooperation with the US in containing Iran's nuclear programme.

K. Subrahmanyam, an expert who heads the government's task force on global strategic developments, said the legislation, on the whole, addressed India's concerns on most key issues, but pointed out that the real test will be the bilateral 123 agreement that will be the sole binding document that will define terms of nuclear commerce with India.

Meanwhile, Japan, a key civilian nuclear power, has offered its support for the nuclear deal between India and the United States.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is expected to relay the backing for the deal in his meeting this Friday with his counterpart Manmohan Singh, the Mainichi Shimbun said, quoting unnamed government sources.

Japan's support is considered crucial to allowing India into the NSG that controls the export of nuclear materials to prevent weapons proliferation.

However, not everybody is happy with the developments.

According to Democratic Rep. Edward Markey of Massachusetts, the deal is a "historic mistake which will come back to haunt the United States and the world" and underscores what he said was the hypocrisy of American policy.

He noted that even as Washington sought to sell nuclear technology to India – which never signed the NPT – it is working to halt the nuclear program of Iran, which did sign the NPT.

"The United States expects the rest of the world to listen to us (on Iran) while we selectively grant exceptions to countries that never signed the NPT," Markey added.

According to Indian media, Bharat Karnad, an expert on nuclear issues said the legislation shows the US' resolve to "cap and freeze India's thermonuclear weapons programme."

"That's what they wanted all along. And that's what they have achieved through this legislation," Karnad, a vocal critic of the India–US nuclear deal said.

He also pointed to "several intrusive clauses" in the legislation that enable the US to gain an insight into India's strategic programme. "They will get into the inside of our strategic programme under the guise of promoting proliferation. Otherwise, why do they want to know the quantum of uranium mined by India every year?"

Kanrad warned that there was no need to boast that some of the controversial clauses have now been moved to the non–binding section in the final legislation. "The trouble with non–binding clauses is that when the two sides sit down to negotiate the 123 agreement, they can't ignore these clauses," Karnad said.

"And don't forget that the 123 agreement will go to a Democrat–controlled Congress next year. Democrats are known for their hawkish views on non–proliferation and they will not allow India to pussyfoot around these issues," he warned.

Karnad also pointed out that the legislation restricted the transfer of cutting–edge technologies related to reprocessing, spent fuel and heavy water and, therefore, it did not fulfil the promise of full civilian nuclear cooperation as mandated by the July 18, 2005 nuclear agreement between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and US President George Bush.

Most importantly, the legislation expects India to accept safeguards in perpetuity on its civilian nuclear reactors – a practice that is applicable to non–nuclear power states, Karnad said.

Haidar agreed that the legislation, in a formal sense, treats India like a non–nuclear weapon state, but added that it was because the US could not confer this status through a bilateral instrument. But it does remove most significant sanctions to allow India access to civilian nuclear technology and fuel, he added.

Indian experts said even as India asserts that it would only be bound by a bilateral 123 agreement, it is not yet clear whether the resumption of civilian nuclear cooperation will be full, as promised, or a partial one that cuts New Delhi's access to crucial technologies related to the fuel cycle.

But many are visibly rankled by suggestions from Washington that New Delhi should support American policy, be it on Iran or China, with whom India is also seeking closer ties.

"We're a sovereign nation – we don't need Washington to decide what is best for us," said one Indian official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he needs to work with U.S. officials.

Critics have also claimed that the cooperation plan, a deal which American officials insist will not be given to any other country, could boost India's nuclear arsenal and spark a nuclear arms race with Pakistan.

The deal "brings about the qualitative change in relations between India and Washington," said Talat Masood, a Pakistani defense analyst. It "will make Pakistan much more insecure."

Experts have also warned that India has already produced about 50 nuclear weapons and plans to reach up to 400 in a decade. Many fear selling India US–origin fuel for civilian energy use will free up New Delhi's indigenous uranium stocks for weapons.

The compromise retained a Senate ban on enrichment, reprocessing and heavy water production cooperation with India.

Under pressure from New Delhi, negotiators softened a requirement that US Presidents certify India is actively cooperating in restraining Iran's nuclear program as a condition of nuclear cooperation with the United States.

The new provision also requires Presidents to report annually to Congress on India's performance on this matter but would not end nuclear cooperation if India fails to meet expectations.

"The Bill set a precedent for India, which is not a signatory to the non–proliferation treaty. The US Atomic Energy Act prohibits nuclear sales to non–NPT signatories," the Chinese state–run Xinhua news agency said soon after the US Congress approved the legislation that will help implement the deal.

"The legislation is also in contradiction to the obligations of Washington as a lead signatory to the NPT. The treaty obligates its signatories not to provide assistance to the nuclear programmes of states that did not sign the NPT," Xinhua said in its latest criticism of the deal.

"While many blame the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) and Iran for frustrating international efforts on nuclear non–proliferation, the double–standards adopted by some Western countries on nuclear issues could also be said to add to the problem, for their stance has undermined the authority of the Nuclear Non–Proliferation Treaty (NPT)," the state–run Xinhua news agency said.

"These double standards would inevitably diminish the NPT's authority among countries that have not acquired nuclear weapons," the article warned.

The official Chinese position is that China wants the United States and India should work under the international non–proliferation mechanism in their nuclear cooperation.

China believes international nuclear cooperation can be carried out on a basis of peaceful use and concerned countries should fulfil their international obligations, Chinese Foreign Ministry officials have said in the past.

"Relevant cooperation should abide by international regulations, and contribute to the international efforts of non–proliferation," a ministry spokesman had said recently.

Back home, the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has declared that the Indo–US nuclear deal as cleared by the US Congress and Senate was unacceptable to it and has demanded that the government reject the Bill.

A joint statement by former External Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha and BJP general secretary Arun Jaitley stated that the provisions of the Bill cleared in the US flies in the face of assurances given by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to Parliament from time to time.

"The final product, for which the PM asked us to wait, is before us. The US administration is bound to ensure that the bilateral 123 agreement, the IAEA safeguard agreement, the Additional Protocol and the NSG 'consensus' on the deal will have to be in line with the Act of the US Congress," said the statement.

"The PM, therefore, cannot tell us to wait for yet another final product," it added.

According to the BJP, the Bill, now an Act, "militates against full civil nuclear co–operation with India, the certification and reporting requirements continue to be rigorous, and there is no assurance of uninterrupted fuel supplies even for our civilian reactors."

It further stated that, "in fact, the provision is to the contrary, India cannot reprocess the used fuel nor can it ship it back to the US unless the US Congress approves the reshipment."

The statement also pointed out that "the moratorium on the production of fissile material remains a key US objective. India has been expressly forbidden from nuclear testing in future, even of the kind permitted by the CTBT."

The Communist Party of India–Marxist (CPI–M), formidable allies of the coalition government at the center has also criticized the legislation, calling it "unacceptable" as it had failed to take India's concerns into account.

"It is very clear and evident that the US Congress has not taken into account the concerns expressed by India... The framework of the proposed bilateral agreement in not acceptable," CPI–M general secretary Prakash Karat said.

The CPI–M said the parameters laid down in the legislation by the US Congress were not in conformity with the assurances given by the prime minister to Parliament.

Karat has asked the government to talk to the Bush administration about India's concerns and apprehensions before continuing the negotiations for a bilateral agreement.

"Nothing short of the assurances made by the prime minister on Aug 17 (in Parliament) can be acceptable," said Karat categorically. He has been opposing the nuclear agreement on the plea that it was a violation of India's independent foreign policy.

"It (the framework laid by the US Congress over the deal) undermines India's independent foreign policy," the CPI–M general secretary said.

Pointing out that the final act of the US legislation, which lays down the parameters for the bilateral agreement, was contrary to Manmohan Singh's assurances to parliament in August, Karat said, "Under these circumstances, the argument that the country should wait for the final bilateral agreement is specious."

According to Karat, "the final act of the US legislation includes provision of imposing restrictions and trade regimes barring access to dual use nuclear technology thus denying India its full nuclear fuel circle."

"The annual good conduct certification by the US president remains. There are nine references to India's role being one of support and complicity with the US designs of Iran," Karat warned.

He said the legislation also talked of "India's foreign policy being 'congruent to that of the US'."

"Instead of an India specific additional protocol with the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Association), US law calls for a modified additional protocol meant for non–nuclear weapon countries etc," said Karat.

He also said the goal posts have been shifted. He said two new provisions have been added to the agreement. "In case of US cancelling its obligations it would help facilitating alternate fuel supplies from friendly countries of the Nuclear Supplier Group. This is now restricted only under conditions of market failures and does not cover deliberate US termination."

"It was agreed that US would help build a strategic fuel reserve to ensure continuity of running our reactors for their lifetime," he said.

"The final act now explicitly bars any reserve other than normal operating reserves required to run our reactors," Karat alleged.

"This cannot be accepted by India as it negates the most significant, if not all, assurances made by the prime minister to Indian Parliament. Thus further negotiations on this score must not proceed," he warned.