After House, Senate panel votes 16-2 to clear nuclear deal, no reference to Iran

In a demonstration of the bipartisan support for the bill, six of the eight Democrats joined the ten Republican Senators in the decision to move the legislation to the Senate floor.

Opposition to the bill came from only Senator Barbara Boxer (California) and Senator Russell D Feingold (Wisconsin) who argued that this would result in proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Unlike nearly a dozen amendments in the House International Relations Committee, three amendments were introduced. Two minor amendments by Senator Lincoln Chafee and Senator Barack Obama were accepted by voice vote.

The Obama amendment states that the President may not encourage or facilitate supply of nuclear fuel to India in the event the civilian co-operation is restricted or terminated. It is not binding. The Chafee amendment was also on similar lines.

However, a killer amendment requiring a “binding” Presidential Certification that no US support system “would aid” directly or indirectly India’s nuclear weapons programme was defeated handsomely (13-5).

While New Delhi would be satisfied with the general outcome in the Senate, it might be irritated with some of the gratuitous references in the bill that seek to deny the transfer of enrichment, reprocessing and heavy water production technologies to India and underline the importance of end-use verification.

To be sure, there are less “intrusive” formulations in the non-binding sections of the Senate version of the bill on India foreign policy. Unlike the House Committee which focused on the importance of Indian support for preventing Iranian proliferation, the Senate Committee chose to stay clear of Indian foreign policy.

The provisions of the bill on the denial of reprocessing, enrichment and heavy water technologies seemed to underscore the strong sentiment in that Senate that American cooperation should not beef up India’s nuclear arsenal. The bill also provides an exception to this requirement if India joins other nations, either bilaterally or multilaterally, in developing future generation fuel cycles.

The Bush Administration has already invited India to participate in its multilateral initiative to jointly develop new reprocessing technologies and other advanced nuclear technologies. For now, though, the prohibition on the transfer of reprocessing, enrichment, and heavy water technologies is meaningless since India has developed its own capabilities in all the three sectors and has no interest in acquiring them from abroad.

Equally unnecessary were references to strong end-user verifications on materials and technologies transferred to India. Such procedures for preventing the use of imported technologies for weapons purposes are already in place between the two countries. The American objective of preventing India from using imported technologies for developing its weapons programme, has already been met by India’s commitments to separate its civilian and military programmes and place the former under international safeguards.

These provisions, reflecting the pettifogging mindset of non-proliferation lawyers in Washington, hardly constrain India’s new opportunities to import nuclear reactors and fuel from the international market after the new nuclear law takes hold.

The non-proliferation champions in Washington might have failed in halting the momentum behind the proposed nuclear cooperation between United States and India.

But they were not going to just fade away from the scene without one last fight. This throw-back to an unsavoury nuclear past when the two governments are so close to overcoming it, is certainly not welcome in New Delhi.

Pointing to the lack of political grace in some of these provisions, Republican Senator Richard Allen of Virginia promised to challenge them on the floor of the full Senate. Some of this nuclear nitpicking was also apparently aimed at solidifying the support from the Democrats for nuclear cooperation with India.

The impressive support from the Democrats certainly augurs well for the early passage of the bill on the floor of the House of Representatives and the Senate in the coming weeks.

Once the two houses approve the legislation, the differences between the two versions of the bill will be reconciled and sent to the President for his signature.

In the debate that preceded the vote, most Senators across the aisle backed the Chairman of the Committee, Richard Lugar’s sentiment that the nuclear agreement with India, “is the most important strategic diplomatic initiative undertaken” by President George Bush.

Under the deal signed by Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh last July 18 in Washington and consolidated on March 2 in New Delhi, India would regain access to international nuclear cooperation.