|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
House Approves Nuclear Export Changes for India By David Ruppe WASHINGTON — After allowing just one hour of debate, the U.S. House of Representatives yesterday overwhelmingly passed legislation that would exempt India from decades-old U.S. export control legislation forbidding nuclear trade with countries that have tested nuclear weapons and do not allow international monitoring of all their nuclear facilities (see GSN, July 26). In July 2005, President George W. Bush agreed to pursue congressional exceptions to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as part of a nuclear deal with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The deal “will permit the U.S. to sell technology to India for nuclear power development. In return, India will open up for inspection its civilian nuclear program to international inspections and also agree not to test nuclear weapons and abide by nuclear export controls,” said Representative Henry Hyde (R-Ill.), who along with Representative Tom Lantos (D-Calif.) introduced the bill. While the U.S. House yesterday took a step toward implementing the agreement, many of the terms of the future cooperation have not been decided and announced, such as what forms of cooperation might be allowed and what forms of International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards would be applied to Indian facilities. Concerns of an Arms RaceThe 359-68 vote yesterday, one of several steps needed before any U.S. nuclear technology or material might flow to India, occurred after the House struck down several amendments intended to ensure U.S. fissile material does not help India expand its nuclear arsenal. The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty prohibits such assistance “in any way.” A proposal by Representative Howard Berman (D-Calif.), defeated in a 184-241 vote, would have blocked shipment of nuclear reactor fuel to India until the country halted fissile material production for nuclear weapons. An amendment by Representative Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), defeated 155-268, would have required presidential assurances that India was not increasing the level of domestic uranium used for nuclear weapons production. Experts have said a preliminary arrangement negotiated by Bush in March could enable India, by freeing up domestic uranium supplies, to increase its nuclear weapons production capacity from about 10 weapons to 50 per year. Pakistan, meanwhile, reportedly has begun building a new plutonium production reactor that could enable it to produce 40 to 50 nuclear weapons annually, according to a satellite photo analysis by the U.S.-based Institute for Science and International Security (see GSN, July 24). “This agreement pours nuclear fuel on the fire of an India-Pakistan nuclear arms race. This agreement will free up 40 to 50 bombs worth of nuclear fuel for Indian nuclear bombs, and the consequence of that will be that Pakistan will respond,” said Representative Ed Markey (D-Mass.) during floor debate. An amendment by Representative Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.), passed unanimously, stated that it is the intent of Congress that U.S. nuclear cooperation with India not contribute to New Delhi’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. An approved amendment from Representative Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb.) would require annual reporting by the U.S. president on what New Delhi has done with all its domestic and foreign-supplied uranium, to help gauge whether India has increased its nuclear weapons production as a result of the deal. The House Rules Committee on Wednesday blocked a proposed amendment by Markey requiring a presidential certification that India is “fully and actively participating in U.S. efforts to dissuade, isolate, and, if necessary, sanction and contain Iran for its efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction.” U.S. analysts have said India maintains military ties with Iran. Text declaring a January 2003 strategic agreement with Iran appears on the Indian External Affairs Ministry Web site, and says the countries would aim to conduct defense cooperation and training. The joint statement expressed concern about “restrictions imposed on the export of [nuclear] materials, technology and equipment to developing countries and acknowledged the right of these countries to research, production and use of technology, material and equipment for peaceful purposes.” Markey yesterday before the vote proposed sending the bill back to the House International Relations Committee with instructions to add his amendment. “India is now the only global power that has yet to get on board with the United States policy on Iran,” he said. Lantos, the lead Democratic cosponsor of the legislation, spoke in favor of the amendment. “I strongly support this motion. In committee deliberations, we have made it clear to India that they must make a choice between Tehran and Washington,” he said. Representative Edward Royce (R-Calif.) said India has shown signs of cooperation on Iran, including supporting an International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors vote declaring Iran noncompliant with its agency safeguards agreement, and that closer energy ties with the United States could draw New Delhi away from Tehran. “As we continue to engage India, and this agreement is about India’s growing energy needs, as we engage India, we move them away from states like Iran,” he said. New Delhi, following the IAEA vote, issued a statement to indicate that it did not wholly endorse the declaration. The House rejected Markey’s amendment with a 192-235 vote. The full Senate is not expected to take up its version of the bill at least until after its August recess. Both bills would require additional congressional approval for any specific nuclear trade to occur. Prime Minister Singh reportedly said in comments today to the Indian Parliament that substantive changes to the July 2005 agreement by the U.S. Congress could prompt India to pull back from the deal. “If the United States’ legislative process leads to an end product which is not consistent with the [original agreement], that would be the determining factor of what we will do then,” he said, according to the Associated Press. Indian critics of the deal have complained, among other things, that the House and Senate legislation would effectively commit India to no further nuclear testing or face a halt of U.S. nuclear trade. Bush and Singh in July 2005 did not include extending India’s testing moratorium as part of the deal. Instead, Singh then issued a unilateral statement that India intended to maintain the suspension.
| ||||||||||
Back to top
