Center for International Policy

As reported in Asia Times Online

Date May 16, 2006

India's US nuclear deal hangs by a thread
by Kaushik Kapisthalam

The India-US civilian nuclear cooperation agreement is in serious trouble in the US Congress. Highly placed sources tell Asia Times Online that a powerful coalition of non-proliferation hawks is at work in Washington to scuttle the nuclear deal. Aiding this powerful coalition is what some see as tepid efforts by the administration of President George W Bush to argue in favor of the deal and address the numerous and vociferous objections.

Under the proposed deal signed in March, India would open most of its nuclear facilities for international inspections, and in return it would be able to buy nuclear power plants and fuel from the United States and other members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). In April, India rejected a proposed addition to the draft agreement offered by Washington, stipulating that the deal would be canceled if India detonated another nuclear bomb.

What, me, hurry?

The primary concern for the deal's supporters is that the clock is ticking for its passage this year. US and Indian negotiators envisaged a sequence of reciprocal steps for the deal's quick passage. The reciprocity is very important for the coalition Indian government led by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh because it reflects on national pride and political sensibilities.

For both the Bush administration and the Indian government, the next big step in the reciprocal process is for the US Congress to change legislation to give India an exception from current US civilian nuclear commerce laws, especially the 1954 Atomic Energy Act.

Both governments hoped that Congress would change the US laws by this month. Then India would announce the contours of its safeguards with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Armed with a congressional clearance and Indian safeguards, the US would then go to the NSG cartel to get a consensus on nuclear trade with India, a necessary step as India is not a member of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Many experts feel that this is an exceptionally aggressive schedule for what is clearly a landmark departure from past practices with regard to India's nuclear program.

To add to the mix, informed sources in Washington and New Delhi tell Asia Times Online that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice promised Indian officials that the deal would be passed by June. That appears to be unlikely, sources said, because the US Congress seems to be in no mood to take any action any time soon.

This is an election year in the US, and one-third of the Senate and the entire House of Representatives will be busy with re-election campaigns once Congress returns from its summer recess. There doesn't seem to be enough time before the recess for deliberations on the India deal to be concluded.

To bridge the gap between congressional unwillingness and the executive branch's hopes, Congressman Tom Lantos, the ranking Democrat in the House International Relations Committee, has proposed a compromise. Under the proposal, Congress would "welcome" the India-US nuclear deal but delay making changes to US law until the two countries had negotiated a formal peaceful nuclear cooperation agreement and until India finalized a safeguards agreement with the IAEA.

Once those two were complete, the Lantos proposal would "fast track" an approval of critical changes in the US Atomic Energy Act with a Yes or No vote that would bar "poison pill" amendments that could further delay or scuttle the deal.

One of the leading drafters of the India-US deal, Ashley Tellis, senior associate of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told the International Relations Committee that the agreement was hanging in "very delicate balance".

Enemy within?

The Bush administration, however, has rejected the Lantos proposal. "Right now, our view is to handle this differently," State Department counselor Philip Zelikow responded after a speech at the conservative think-tank American Enterprise Institute last week.

Zelikow is known to be one of the key proponents of close US-India ties and was appointed to the State Department to ensure that the traditionally non-proliferation-obsessed US diplomatic bureaucracy stays true to the vision behind the US-India nuclear deal.

Part of the problem facing the deal's passage in Congress may be from within the Bush executive branch itself. Noted South Asia expert Selig Harrison revealed to an Indian weekly that key figures within the Bush administration may in fact be trying to sabotage the deal. Harrison named Under Secretary of State for Non-Proliferation Robert Joseph, David Addington from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, and John Rood, the non-proliferation specialist at the National Security Council advising the White House. Joseph is known to be an ally of his predecessor and current US representative at the United Nations, John Bolton.

While Bolton is known to be a hawk, he was vehemently opposed to any concessions to India on the nuclear front. Bolton also blocked a key Indian plan to acquire the Arrow anti-missile system from Israel. The plan fell through because Israel needed US permission to sell the system to foreign nations.

In essence, opponents of India's nuke deal within the Bush government have been able to impede its progress through leaks to media and tips to congressional staff. Another favorite tactic of the deal's critics in government has been to try to embarrass India. For instance, not long ago, the Bush administration sanctioned two Indian firms for supplying chemicals to Iranian companies. This has been used as a stick to beat India in congressional hearings.

However, experts tell Asia Times Online that the sanctions were not under international law but under a more restrictive US law that seeks to punish any trade with Iran. Noted export-controls authority Scott Gearity dismissed the sanctions, pointing out that the chemical in question was on the least restrictive of the three Chemical Weapons Convention schedules and there was no obligation under that agreement for the Indian exporter even to obtain an end-use certificate from its Iranian customer, let alone an overarching export prohibition.

Time running out

So it appears that time is fast running out for the implementation of the India-US nuclear accord this year. If Congress does not pass the deal before August, it appears that it will be stuck until the 110th Congress takes power in 2007. Given that most of the deal's current opponents are minority Democrats and the possibility that they may take one or both houses in this year's elections, a long delay may scuttle this deal.

However, a well-placed congressional source told Asia Times Online that the Democrats' current opposition to the deal is based on their unwillingness to hand the Republicans a foreign-policy victory, and not on substantive concerns with regard to Indian nukes.

On the multilateral front, the deal's prospects look no better. NSG member nations have informed the US they will not act until Congress changes US laws. During the March 22-23 NSG meeting in Vienna, several countries, including China, Japan and Sweden, reportedly questioned the wisdom of the India-US deal. The 45-nation NSG controls global exports of nuclear technology and fuel and holds the key to facilitating civilian nuclear cooperation with India.

Given the prevalent mood and a lack of congressional authorization, the US may not even raise the India issue at the NSG plenary in Rio de Janeiro between May 29 and June 2. Regardless of what Rice may have promised the Indians, it appears now that a revision of expectations may be necessary both in New Delhi and in Washington.

Kaushik Kapisthalam is a freelance defense and strategic affairs analyst based in the United States. He can be reached at contact@kapisthalam.com.