|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Rice Urges Approval of U.S.-Indian Nuclear Pact
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday promoted the Bush administration’s planned U.S.-Indian nuclear sharing agreement in both houses of Congress, the Washington Post reported (see GSN, April 5). “I know that there is a history that we are trying to overcome,” Rice said on Capitol Hill. “But the time comes when you must deal with the realities and, indeed, overcome that history.” Senators Joseph Biden (D-Del.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.), key Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said that while displeased by certain parts of the deal they would support it. The House International Relations Committee had tough questions for the secretary, but a number of members said they support the idea of nuclear sharing with India. For the deal to move forward, Congress must amend the 1954 Atomic Energy Act, an agreement with the Nuclear Suppliers Group must be reached, and a safeguards agreement between the International Atomic Energy Agency and New Delhi must be finalized. The White House would like Congress to act before the administration pursues international approval. India has begun discussions on safeguards with the U.N. nuclear watchdog, but also would prefer that Congress act before an agreement is completed. No dates have been set for committee votes on the legislation, the Post reported. “What we actually are trying to do is move on several fronts together,” said Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran last week. “Each is linked to the other as well, but I think the critical thing is the legislation. Nothing else is possible unless the law is changed.” Some lawmakers said that they would be reluctant to take the steps necessary for the deal to move forward without knowing what safeguards would be placed on Indian reactors. Congress is not privy to the safeguard negotiations between the nuclear agency and India. As a compromise, Rice said that any changes to the law would not be made until President George W. Bush signs off on the safeguards. Some lawmakers were not happy with this idea. The compromise would “move Congress out of the decision-making process,” said Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-Md.). The White House could also seek a waiver to current law, which would make the agreement subject to annual review. Rice indicated that solution would be a barrier to businesses looking to sell nuclear technology to India. A Democratic staffer said it is important whether changes to U.S. law or international safeguards come first as “this is a president who has a very low stockpile of trust left.” The staff member said lawmakers are likely to insert requirements into the legislation that India would not divert nuclear materials from civilian to military sites and that U.S. technology would not be used to make weapon-grade materials. The Bush administration plans to delay pursuing approval of the deal from Nuclear Suppliers Group until Congress acts, officials said. Representatives from the group reacted skeptically when briefed on the deal recently (Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, April 6). White House officials are confident that the support of lawmakers like Senators Biden and Kerry will help built momentum for a May or June vote on the agreement, the New York Times reported. Senate Foreign Relations Committee officials said that a vote might be put off until July. On the House side, International Relations Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) has not expressed support for the plan but has not ruled out backing it, an aide said. Rice told lawmakers that the United States was urging India to join international conventions that address shipment of nuclear technology and chemical weapons, as well as enter into a treaty that blocks the exports of material that could be used for making nuclear arms. Democratic Senators Barbara Boxer (Calif.) and Russell Feingold (Wis.) argued that India was not a deserving nuclear partner no matter its desire to improve ties with the United States. Other lawmakers said India could be used as a counterweight to China, the Times reported. A senior State Department official said that the White House would accept conditions on the deal as long as they did not require renegotiating the deal with India. For example, a provision that the deal would not take effect until safeguards are in place would be acceptable. India said it would be amenable to such an arrangement as long as no additional burdens were required. “We’re moving ahead on all the things we've committed ourselves on,” said Raminder Jassal, deputy chief of mission at the Indian Embassy (Steven Wesiman, New York Times, April 6). Rice also told lawmakers that the United States would work for some nuclear limits in South Asia to reduce tensions between Pakistan and India, Agence France-Presse reported. “We would like to see, obviously, in the regional sense in the relationship between India and Pakistan and others, a look at regional moratorium on fissile material production,” she said. “We've made it very clear that we would encourage that; that we would encourage India and Pakistan to look at their nuclear relationship and the way that in some of the earlier days people were concerned about safety and security between the U.S. and Soviet arsenals,” Rice added. Rice made these statements in response to questions from Kerry, who asked if the United States could offer “real leadership” for India and Pakistan. Neither country has signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Kerry said it was difficult to comprehend why either country would need a nuclear arsenal beyond a deterrent against China and each other. He said he raised this point with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, and “there seemed to be a genuine spark of interest in the notion of trying to arrive at some agreement regionally on the numbers of nuclear weapons.” Rice said the United States could not persuade South Asian nations to agree on nuclear controls. “Well, what we couldn't achieve — and I think it was unlikely — was a constraint unilaterally by any one state,” she said. “But the idea that has been pursued in some second-track arrangements, some second-track of discussions between the parties about not just absolute levels but also safety and security and confidence-building measures, I think is something we're very interested in and we'd like to pursue,” she added. (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, April 5). House committee members expressed concerns about ties between India and Iran, Reuters reported. Some on the panel predicted that conditions would be placed on the pact. “It is my view that this is in trouble here,” said Representative Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.). Representative Tom Lantos (D-Calif.) warned that “any (Indian) military cooperation with the present terrorist regime in Iran will certainly derail this deal in Congress.” Rice said U.S. assistance to India’s nuclear power industry would “ease its reliance on hydrocarbons and unstable sources like Iran” (Giacomo/Allen, Reuters/AlertNet, April 5).
| ||||||||||
Back to top
