WASHINGTON
President George W. Bush's administration is confident ofgetting the approval of the U.S. Congress for a civilian nuclearagreement with India, and attracting the support of many countries, asenior U.S. official said on Friday.
On Capitol Hill, however, members of Congress reacted cautiously asthe U.S. and India released the text of the so-called 123 Agreement,which will govern this cooperation.
Administration officials have spent the past two weeks briefingmembers of Congress on the details of the agreement, which seeks tooverturn nearly three decades of U.S. nonproliferation policy.
In a briefing to a handful of South Asian journalists at the StateDepartment, Undersecretary of State R. Nicholas Burns said he hopedIndia would now negotiate "in the quickest time" a safeguardsagreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The next step is to get approval of the 45-member Nuclear SuppliersGroup, which is expected to meet in Vienna in the autumn. Mr. Burnssaid the U.S. sees its role as India's "sherpa" at the NSG. "Wepledged to the Indian government that we would make every effort tohave a clean, positive decision by the NSG," Mr. Burns said.
He said the U.S. will work to convince NSG members that it is "reallyin the best … interests that international action be taken on Indiacommensurate to what the United States would have done bilaterally."
While the NSG has prescheduled meetings, the United States, as a keymember of the group, can call for additional meetings to dealspecifically with the India issue and change NSG policy to allow thesale of nuclear fuel to India. "We would not be averse to calling aspecial meeting of the NSG because we feel so strongly that thisquestion of India is so important for the overall agreement," Mr.Burns said.
Following this the Bush Administration will formally ask the U.S.Congress to vote for a final time to approve the deal. Mr. Burns wasoptimistic the deal would strong bipartisan support.
Democratic Congressman Tom Lantos of California, chairman of the HouseForeign Affairs Committee, said he was keen to review the deal indetail. "As Congress considers it, we need to determine whether thenew agreement conforms to the Henry Hyde Act, and thereby supportsU.S. foreign policy and nonproliferation goals," Mr. Lantos said in astatement.
The committee's Republican co-chairwoman Congresswoman IleanaRos-Lehtinen of Florida, said: "Like so many of my colleagues, I havea number of concerns about this proposed agreement, among them India'sright to reprocess U.S.-origin nuclear fuel; transfers of technology,material, and facilities that could be used to enhance India's nuclearweapons program; andenforcement of U.S. law requiring termination of cooperation if Indiawere to once again test a nuclear weapon."
She noted that the proposed agreement "must also be considered in thecontext of the growing military, political, and commercialrelationship between India and Iran at a time when responsible nationsare curtailing their dealings with Iran in light of the regime'spursuit of activities that could be used to achieve a nuclear weaponscapability."
"In the months ahead, we will be working toward resolving theseconcerns that are critical to our nation's security and look forwardto developing a consensus on how to proceed," Ms. Ros-Lehtinen said.
Mr. Burns said he hoped to get the deal back to Congress for a vote bythe end of the year.
He said the U.S. decision to allow reprocessing rights for India was a"big step" and pointed out that the U.S. doesn't have civil nuclearagreements with many countries and certainly not reprocessingagreements with many countries in the world. "The reprocessing issuewas by far the largest issue, we spent the most time on this issue,"he said.
On the so-called right of return, Mr. Burns said, "We expect and hopethat the future will be one of India and the United States adhering toour commitments to each other … and hope and expect that there will beno reason for a nuclear test in the future."
Asked if India had retained its right to test a nuclear weapon, Mr.Burns said, "That is a decision for the Indian government to make.Obviously in the modern world, in the 21st century, advanced nuclearpowers largely do not test nuclear weapons. The United States is nottesting nuclear weapons, Britain is not testing nuclear weapons. Indiaretains its sovereign rights, but the United States retains its legalrights as well," he said. That, he added, "is a good compliment toeach other."
The United States has committed to working with its allies likeBritain, France and Russia to ensure uninterrupted nuclear fuel supplyto India in the event that Washington cuts off its own supply.
Anupam Srivastava at the University of Georgia told Outlook thesecountries "will continue to supply if they find that Indian behaviorremains in compliance as reported by the IAEA."
"If the United States government is unable to supply because of say aminor technical violation by India, or any domestic problems on theU.S. end, it will ask these to supply -- who'll gladly do it to get alarger share of the Indian market, and improve relations with acountry that otherwise has one of the best nonproliferation records,"Mr. Srivastava said.
Lisa Curtis at the Heritage Foundation, who served as a staff memberof the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told Outlook there are"concerns on the Hill about the uninterrupted fuel supply assurances."
"Most members are likely to take a wait-and-see approach and watchhow India's negotiations with the IAEA proceed as well as its effortsto obtain consensus agreement within the Nuclear Suppliers Group," shesaid. "There has been a great deal of tension between the BushAdministration and Congress on this deal for the last two years, and Idon't think that has changed. That said, most Congressional membersunderstand why this agreement is so important for the broaderU.S.-India relationship."
Once Congress approves the 123 Agreement India and the U.S. can beginnuclear trade. Reprocessing, however, cannot begin until Indiaconstructs a dedicated facility, a proposal New Delhi floated in June.Mr. Burns admitted that might take a little bit more time.
"But the critical thing is for the Indian government – as well as forus – is that we have made the decision and made the commitment and wehave actually spent a lot of time thinking through how we will do it,"Mr. Burns said, adding, "I think we have surmounted the tallestmountain in these negotiations, which was how to handle thereprocessing issue. This really bedeviled the negotiations for thelast six months."
Asked if the ball is now in India's court regarding reprocessing, hesaid, "It is in both of our courts. I think it is a mutualresponsibility … we are partners with India. This is not anantagonistic relationship. We are friends. We have a sense that we areresponsible for this agreement together – we both have to take thisforward together."
