U.S. Lawmakers Bash Indian Deal

The U.S.-Indian nuclear trade agreement formally announced last week was greeted with skepticism by some U.S. lawmakers who questioned whether the deal could deter India from enhancing its nuclear weapons program, Agence France-Presse reported Friday (see GSN, July 26).

Representative Edward Markey (D-Mass.) who co-chairs the House’s nonproliferation task force, promised that Congress would give the deal tough scrutiny.

“I can only surmise that it includes provisions they fear will raise the hackles of Congress," said Markey.  "Of course the administration will argue that they aren't breaking the law, but I think that folks up on the (Capitol) Hill have become increasingly skeptical of the administration's legal arguments (P. Parameswaran, Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, July 27).

Meanwhile, several high-level Indian officials praised the agreement, Agence France-Presse reported Saturday.

“We have got a very good deal which should meet requirements of both the countries,” said Anil Kakodkar, chairman of India’s atomic energy agency. “You give some and you get some and we are satisfied with this.”

Indian national security advisor M.K. Narayanan, who helped lead negotiation of the implementation agreement, called the deal “as good a text as one can possibly get,” but added that New Delhi does not intend to use its right under the deal to reprocess U.S.-supplied nuclear fuel to create material for nuclear weapons. “I think it's time certain countries overcame the belief that we are interested in proliferation,” he said (Pratap Chakravarty, Agence France-Presse/Space War, July 28).

Indian External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee said the agreement would not affect New Delhi’s weapons program and encouraged officials to finalize the deal “as soon as possible,” the Press Trust of India reported Sunday.

“Our weaponization program will not be interfered with in this arrangement,” Mukherjee said, but he added that India should not expect cooperation from the United States or any other country for its weapons activities (Press Trust of India/India Abroad, July 29).

Meanwhile, U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns dismissed claims in Washington Friday that the agreement could trigger an arms race in Southeast Asia while stressing that the United States would not make similar deals with any other countries, the Press Trust of India reported.

The [U.S.] relationship with India is based on this extraordinary growth of trade and investment between our private sectors,” Burns said.  “The fact that India has the greatest number of students here, 75-80,000, and the fact that we are going to do things with India — civil nuclear trade, democracy promotion worldwide, HIV/AIDS cooperation — that are going to be unique.” (Press Trust of India/Zee News, July 28)

Burns told reporters that India’s offer in early June to dedicate an IAEA-supervised facility to nuclear fuel reprocessing was a “fundamental turning point” in negotiations to finalize the agreement, the Press Trust of India reported Saturday.

“They knew they had to do that in order to earn the reprocessing consent that we have subsequently given,” Burns said (Press Trust of India/DNA India, July 28).

In formulating its view of India as a “unique” strategic partner in Asia, Burns said the Bush administration took into account the country’s record in fighting nuclear proliferation, the Press Trust of India reported yesterday (Press Trust of India/Udayavani, July 30).

“We have made the argument that India has not proliferated its nuclear technology; that India, in effect, outside the system, has played by the rules and that the system would be strengthened by bringing it in.  But we’re not anticipating, in any way, shape or form, a similar deal for any other country,” Burns told reporters.

Leonor Tomero, nuclear nonproliferation director for the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation, criticized the deal in a statement for allowing India to reprocess fuel obtained from the United States for weapons production and not establishing clear consequences if New Delhi conducts a bomb test.

“These further concessions and lack of clear rules of the road undermine the U.S. ability to limit the consequences of Indian actions that threaten nonproliferation efforts, such as a potential Indian nuclear weapon test, the production of weapons-usable material, and India’s military ties to Iran,” Tomero said (Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation release, July 27).

Michael Krepon, co-founder of the Henry L. Stimson Center, also criticized the deal.  “At the very least, the Bush administration should not make it easier for New Delhi to resume nuclear testing and to produce fissile material for nuclear weapons,” Krepon said.  “It appears that the 123 agreement fails to meet these minimal standards as well as the clear requirements established in the Hyde Act,” he added, referring to the legislation exempting India from most U.S. nuclear nonproliferation trade restrictions (Stimson Center release, July 27).

Back to top
About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines © Copyright 2008 by National Journal Group, Inc. The material in this section is produced independently for NTI by National Journal Group, Inc. Any reproduction or retransmission, in whole or in part, is a violation of federal law and is strictly prohibited without the consent of the National Journal Group, Inc. All rights reserved.