• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Indo-US Nuke Bill: India's hands are tied, says BJP and CPM

IRNA - Islamic Republic News Agency

New Delhi, June 29, IRNA
India-US-Deal
The United States and India Nuclear Cooperation Promotion Act of 2006, which cleared the House International Relations Committee with an overwhelming majority on Tuesday, has met with stiff opposition here.

Both the key allies and the opposition protesting against the sweeping powers being acquired by the US President and the US Congress to keep a close check and control over India.

Senior political leaders rejected the government's claim that all the provisions of the Bill would not be binding on the government, with former external affairs minister Jaswant Singh pointing out: "If the icing on the cake is not required the government must say so, it should say it is diabetic and there is no need for the (non-binding) icing", said a report published in an Indian leading English daily "Asian Age", here Thursday.

Jaswant Singh pointed out that there was a "clear mismatch between the intent of the Indian Parliament and the US Congress."
Another former external affairs minister, Yashwant Sinha, said, "There is no doubt in my mind that the government is tied to US instructions, and this is completely unacceptable for the large majority of Indians."
He said that the US Congress was now seeking to shift the goalposts yet again, and the Indian government was prepared to accept this without a murmur.

The Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI-M) said that all assurances given by the UPA government to Parliament and the nation that "India will not become prey to the US carrot and stick policy" were contradicted by the proposed legislation.

The PMO and the ministry of external affairs, on the other hand, went on a propaganda blitz even as the legislation was being considered by the House committee in Washington, briefing select journalists about the "merits" of the legislation and maintaining that the more awkward clauses would "not be binding" on the government.

Sources close to former Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee laughed away this argument with: "It is just sophistry, it has no meaning."
Jaswant Singh said: "Now we are being informed by the media that what is voiced, written and contained as the intent of the US Congress is not binding."
He wanted to know: "Who is it not binding on?"
He said that if this was indeed not binding on the government or upon India, and despite that the US Congress had gone ahead to include these provisions, then it was very important for the Indian government to clearly state its position on the non-binding clauses.

"Where does our government stand on this," the senior BJP leader asked, pointing out that an explanation was necessary as the proposed legislation ran "contrary to the many assurances given by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to the Indian Parliament."
Informed sources raised two other specific points about the government's position that clauses of the legislation were not binding.

"What will happen if India refuses to cooperate on any one of the aspects contained in the legislation, and the US President goes back to the US Congress saying he did not have sufficient information?" they asked.

Under the legislation, the US President is bound to report regularly to the US Congress about different aspects of the nuclear agreement, including the uranium being mined within this country and how it was being used. Again, what would the Indian position be if China or Pakistan decided to carry out a nuclear test?
"Will we conduct a test and risk the agreement on which we would have spent thousands of crores, or would we be guided by the expense and decide to ignore the event to keep the nuclear agreement in place?" the sources asked. In either situation, India would be the loser.

Foreign policy experts were equally worried about the fallout of the nuclear deal. Former envoy Bhadrakumar said: "We have now placed ourselves in a position where we are answerable not to our Parliament but to the US Congress."
The NDA and Left leaders agreed with the former diplomats who pointed out that if and when the US Congress approved the legislation, "every single word in it would be binding."
For instance, a reference in the first part of the legislation about the need for India to cooperate with the US to sanction and contain states that are seeking to acquire a nuclear weapons capability is specified in the "statements of policy" as Iran.

The US, this part clearly specifies, will secure India's cooperation, if necessary, to "sanction and contain Iran for its efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction."
The CPI(M) politburo urged the UPA government to "uphold India's sovereignty" and not to deviate from stated foreign policy commitments under US pressure.

Referring to the Bill's provision that the presidential waiver will "cease to be effective" if India conducts a nuclear test, the statement said that "India's sovereignty cannot be compromised." Citing the section on Iran, the CPI(M) warned that the "US will armtwist India to change its foreign policy to kowtow to US strategic global designs."
It said that the Bill's proviso that the US President must first determine that the safeguards agreement between India and the IAEA had been successfully concluded "runs completely contrary to the assurance given by the Prime Minister in both Houses of Parliament that India will approach the IAEA for safeguards only after the US endorses the July 18, 2005 nuclear deal."
2160/1420