Key US lawmaker threatens to hold up India nuclear deal: AFP
In context of the Hyde Act, US Administration and India have been doing their best to square the circle and to delay the thorny issues. Now the moment has arrived, where it requires ever better magic to accomplish the feat.
If US President wants to ensure that the Indo-US nuclear deal is taken up at the Hill in September, it needs a cooperative Congress. When The
Chairman of the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee takes a
public stand against it, then, it is indeed doubtful, that George W. Bush and Dr. Manmohan Singh would be partaking in any 123 Agreement Signing Ceremony any time soon.
His condition for a timely passage is that the NSG Waiver should have certain conditionalities attached.
Representative Howard Berman wants Bush to reject any NSG proposal that does not:
a) Immediately stop NSG member countries from conducting nuclear trade if India explodes a nuclear device;
b) Prohibit the transfer of enrichment and reprocessing technology to India;
c) Include a stipulation that prevents countries from letting India reprocess nuclear fuel in a facility outside permanent safeguards.
Berman wrote Rice that he found it "incomprehensible that the administration apparently intends to seek or accept an exemption from the Nuclear Suppliers Group guidelines for India with few or none of the conditions" in a 2006 U.S. law provisionally approving nuclear cooperation with India.
"Such an exemption," Berman said, "would be inconsistent with U.S. law, place American firms at a severe competitive disadvantage and undermine critical U.S. nonproliferation objectives. It would also jeopardize congressional support for nuclear cooperation with India, this year and in the future."
He also has stolen Pro-Deal Lobby's greatest Mantra: that the deal is good for American Business.
If Condition (a) is not fulfilled, then US Businesses are indeed at a disadvantage in comparison to Russian and French Businesses, as Russia and France Laws do not prohibit nuclear commerce with countries conducting nuclear tests. US Businesses might need to give written assurances, that in case of termination of agreement (perhaps due to a nuclear test by India), they will have to reimburse their Indian partners or the govt. for the dismantling and they will buy back the equipment. Maybe to cover such an eventuality, they will require extra insurance, etc. All that would be OK for them, if all other companies like Areva, etc. also had to likewise. So they are surely at a disadvantage.
If Condition (a) is not fulfilled, then 123 Agreement will not pass in September, according to Representative Howard Berman, but have to wait for the next Administration. That would give French and Russian companies a head-start in the Indian market.
If Condition (a) is fulfilled, then UPA would not be able to sell the Agreement to the Parliament, as BJP and the Left would fall upon it like a mountain of stones, and it will be considered a total sell-out of Indian sovereignty. MMS loses face and the elections.
Again
if Condition (b) is not fulfilled, then Russia and France are allowed to sell and promise India, even enrichment and reprocessing technology, which would allow their companies to be able to pitch more attractive business proposals to India. The Hyde Act may again put US business at a disadvantage.
If Condition (b) is fulfilled, then India would not be able to swallow it, as 123 Agreement foresees an amendment regarding export of these technologies and was sold as a win for the Indian negotiating team being adherent to the promise of full civilian nuclear cooperation between the two countries. Such a condition would be annulling that gain.
123 Agreement states:
2. Sensitive nuclear technology, heavy water production technology, sensitive nuclear facilities, heavy water production facilities and major critical components of such facilities may be transferred under this Agreement pursuant to an amendment to this Agreement. Transfers of dual-use items that could be used in enrichment, reprocessing or heavy water production facilities will be subject to the Parties' respective applicable laws, regulations and license policies.
If Condition (c) is fulfilled, then India would be placing the reprocessing facility under permanent safeguards. However India only wants to place it under campaign safeguards, as stated in the IAEA safeguards agreement, i.e. only for the course of time, during which spent fuel from another safeguarded facility is being reprocessed. This allows India to use the facility for reprocessing of spent fuel from the strategic facilities also, which are not under safeguard, in the same facility, thereby saving costs. If India allows that, then our strategic program also comes under the preview of IAEA. This is not acceptable to India, if permanent also means continuous.
All Conditions are red herrings for India. Anil Kakodkar will not be accepting these conditions.
The question is:
"Will the US Administration submit a draft to NSG, which does not contain the above conditions, as per the wishes of India, which it knows is detrimental to the interests of US businesses AND the House of Representatives would not approve 123 Agreement during George W. Bush's tenure, taking away his biggest and a rare foreign policy achievement from his grasp OR will India walk out of the nuclear deal OR is it just a tactic to put pressure on India to succumb to US choice of wording?".
Even though MMS too would not be signing the 123 Agreement, he would at least have delivered an acceptable NSG waiver to the country.
IMO, US should submit the draft without these conditionalities. Then blackmail the US Congress, that if they do not pass the 123 Agreement in September, it would give companies from Russia and France a head-start. When the next Administration comes in Washington and India maybe, the US Congress can modify Hyde Act, US Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to give US Companies the same level of leeway as the companies of other countries. That would also satisfy BJP.
