NEW DELHI – The United States and India have taken yet another step toward finalizing the nuclear cooperation agreement they signed in July last year and more key lawmakers in Washington have expressed support for the deal.
The agreement makes a special, one-time exception in the global nuclear nonproliferation regime for India by acknowledging and legitimizing it as a "responsible" nuclear weapons state. After decades of technology sanctions, civilian nuclear commerce with it will now be resumed.
The deal has provoked controversy because of the unique country-specific treatment given to India which is not a signatory to the nuclear nonproliferation treaty (NPT) and "weaponized" its nuclear program eight years ago. The deal is part of, and further consolidates, the emerging India-U.S. "strategic partnership," which is designed to contain China.
Both governments are making hectic efforts to get the agreement through U.S. Congress before it goes into a recess in August. The Bush administration staunchly defended the deal in congressional hearings. And India has redoubled its lobbying on Capitol Hill through professional public relation agencies and influential groups of Indians settled in the U.S. Their efforts have borne fruit as increasing numbers of U.S. lawmakers, who were earlier skeptical, have come around to backing the deal.
Washington and New Delhi are negotiating the language of what they hope will be the final text of the agreement, under which India must separate its civilian nuclear facilities from military ones, and place the former under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. India has offered to put 14 out of its 22 operating and planned civilian reactors under safeguards.
The current negotiations center on issues other than the civilian-military separation. They also highlight the limits beyond which neither side can press the other.
On Friday, India’s Foreign Secretary (chief of the diplomatic cadre) Shyam Saran and U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns concluded two days of talks in London, which the State Department described as "another good step forward." At the talks, the U.S. prodded India on making a legal commitment to abjure further nuclear testing.
Saran, however, made it plain that "we are not in a position to deviate from the July 18 joint statement" signed between President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, in which India only said it would continue with its voluntary moratorium on testing.
A voluntary moratorium can be lifted at will. Nuclear hardliners in India do not want to write off the option of further tests to develop a fusion (hydrogen) bomb. India claimed it successfully tested a fusion assembly in 1998, but independent experts say it turned out to be a dud.
Nuclear testing is one of the two issues on which the U.S. has been trying to push India, the other being a treaty to ban the production of fissile material, the fuel that goes into nuclear weapons. Last fortnight, the U.S. introduced a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT) at the United Nations Conference on Disarmament in Geneva.
In the past, India was lukewarm toward the FMCT, which it regards as a measure to limit the size of its nuclear arsenal. India, like Pakistan, is still producing and stockpiling fissile material, whereas the major nuclear weapons-states have a surplus of it. But in the nuclear deal, initialed last July, New Delhi had to make a concession on the issue.
"This is part of the small price that India paid for the deal," says Achin Vanaik, professor of International Relations and Global Politics at Delhi University. "The U.S. is keen on an FMCT because it wants to freeze nuclear competition among the major states at the present level. China resists this and would like the Conference on Disarmament [CD] to negotiate a treaty to ban an arms race in outer space before it takes up the FMCT."
China is especially anxious about Washington’s plans for "Star Wars"-style ballistic defense (BMD). Beijing believes the BMD program is targeted primarily at China.
By committing itself to "work with" Washington on getting the FMCT passed, New Delhi has signaled that it stands by the U.S., not with China. India has nevertheless entered a minor caveat by emphasizing the issue of verification of the FMCT.
The London talks showed that Indian officials are wary of introducing even minor changes in the agreement, which was fleshed out further during President George W. Bush’s visit to India during March.
The Bush administration finds itself under some pressure to show "flexibility" in "accommodating some of the desires of Congress," Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs Richard Boucher told an Indian news agency. "We certainly accept the views of Congress on different issues, but we are also going to make clear that we cannot do things – legislations or conditions – at this point that will break the deal."
India’s lobbying efforts on Capitol Hill received a big boost when it managed to win over a traditionally anti-Indian Republican Congressman, Dan Burton. He joined three members of the Congress’ India Caucus to write a letter countering "distortions" and "erroneous" statements made by detractors of the nuclear deal.
Describing the deal as "visionary," the letter said: "We firmly believe that the facts underlying the decision to enter into the agreement fully warrant the conclusion that its implementation is in the best interest of both the U.S. and India."
The letter commends India’s record on nuclear nonproliferation to reassure Congress that legitimizing India’s nuclear weapons would not lead to their further spread. The letter said: "For 30 years, India has protected its nuclear programs. It has not engaged in or allowed proliferation of its nuclear technology. Simply put, India is treated uniquely because of its history of maintaining a successful nuclear nonproliferation regime."
New Delhi is anxious to have the agreement ratified along with the necessary legislation during the term of the present (109th) Congress. Elections to the 110th Congress are due in November. It is possible that it will be controlled by the Democrats, who are less amenable than the Republicans to persuasion to ratify it.
Both governments are testing the waters to see how far they can go to meet domestic concerns and head off accusations that they are compromising their respective national interests. In the U.S., much of the opposition to the deal in the Senate has been softened. But in the House of Representatives, it still faces significant opposition, in particular from a group of Democrats led by Ed Markey.
In India, the deal faces opposition from the right wing, especially the Hindu-nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which accuses the Manmohan Singh government of having sold India’s interests short. It was a BJP government that, in 1998 ran a series of tests and declared India a nuclear weapons state.
Domestic pressure will limit the extent to which India can be flexible. Having tabled the main contents of the deal in Parliament, the government cannot ask for amendments without inviting the charge that it succumbed to U.S. pressure.
(Inter Press Service)
