Thursday, April 27, 2006
US Senate hears testimony for and against Indian N-deal
By Khalid Hasan
WASHINGTON: In a long hearing on Wednesday morning, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee heard from both critics and proponents of the Indo-US nuclear cooperation treaty, now before Congress for approval.
While the proponents of the treaty emphasised the beneficial aspects of the deal, its opponents argued that it would undermine the non-proliferation regime, have a blind eye turned to Indiaâs nuclear military programme and seriously damage a system that has kept the number of countries with nuclear weapons to a minimum in the last 50 years.
<b>
Senate Committee chairman Dick Lugar said some months ago, he had submitted 82 questions related to the agreement to the State Department to enable Congress to make an âinformed decisionâ. The answers sought were provided, but after Condoleezza Riceâs testimony, Lugar sent the Department another 90 questions which were also responded to. This alone illustrates the complicated nature of the deal that the administration seeks and shows that not all aspects of the arrangement are clear.</b>
Sen Lugar cautioned that while the US pursues closer ties with India, the implications and risks of initiating a cooperative nuclear relationship must be carefully examined. He said among the many questions that needed to be asked was an evaluation of the potential benefits of drawing India into a deeper relationship with the IAEA. He urged India to work hard to conclude an agreement with the IAEA which should be effective and timely.
Sen Joseph Biden, ranking Democrat on the committee, pointed out that the Bush administration had not consulted the committee as it negotiated the July 18, 2005 joint statement issued by the president and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Little attention had been paid to the committeeâs concerns regarding Indiaâs plan for separating its civilian and military nuclear facilities. He pointed out that undoing the deal could do more damage in terms of US-India relations than approving it, with carefully crafted conditions. The deal brings risks which must not be minimised, either by Congress or by the administration, he warned. He said the administration still has to answer âour questions for the recordâ and it has yet to share its negotiating record or explain just what it agreed to when it accepted the idea of India-specific safeguards or corrective measures India may take in the event of disruption of foreign fuel supplies. Nor was it clear what assurances the US had given regarding fuel supply or the strategic reserve of nuclear fuel for India. The Senate still had not been given a complete list of Indiaâs civilian nuclear facilities. He said while the deal makes sense for India, it is not a âslam dunkâ.
Robert L Gallucci of Georgetown University said the deal proposed does not justify the cost to national security. While the US had good reasons for improving its relations with India, part of the calculation must turn on US uncertainties about China and whether it would turn out to be more of a strategic competitor than a partner in the decades ahead. <span style='color:red'><span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'>The deal would give India what it has long sought: American acceptance of the country as a nuclear power.</span></span> However, it would do nothing to help the US deal with the risks posed by the proliferation of nuclear weapons. â<b>There is no reason why we should attach any positive value to Indiaâs willingness to submit a few additional nuclear facilities of its choosing to international safeguards, so long as other fissile material producing facilities are free from safeguards,â</b> he said.
<span style='color:red'><span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'>
âIn truth, we would reward India with nuclear cooperation because we now place such a high value on improved relations with New Delhi, not because of its uniquely good behaviour.â</span></span> The deal, he warned, proposes to allow India to expand its nuclear energy programme and expand its nuclear arsenal at the same time, which is why it will be a mistake.
The Senate also heard testimony from Ashton B Carter of Harvard, William J Perry of the Hoover Institution, Ashly J Tellis of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Ronald F Lehman of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Robert J Einhorn of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, Gary Milhollin of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, Henry Sokolski of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Centre and Stephen P Cohen of the Brookings Institution.
US Senate hears testimony for and against Indian N-deal
By Khalid Hasan
WASHINGTON: In a long hearing on Wednesday morning, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee heard from both critics and proponents of the Indo-US nuclear cooperation treaty, now before Congress for approval.
While the proponents of the treaty emphasised the beneficial aspects of the deal, its opponents argued that it would undermine the non-proliferation regime, have a blind eye turned to Indiaâs nuclear military programme and seriously damage a system that has kept the number of countries with nuclear weapons to a minimum in the last 50 years.
<b>
Senate Committee chairman Dick Lugar said some months ago, he had submitted 82 questions related to the agreement to the State Department to enable Congress to make an âinformed decisionâ. The answers sought were provided, but after Condoleezza Riceâs testimony, Lugar sent the Department another 90 questions which were also responded to. This alone illustrates the complicated nature of the deal that the administration seeks and shows that not all aspects of the arrangement are clear.</b>
Sen Lugar cautioned that while the US pursues closer ties with India, the implications and risks of initiating a cooperative nuclear relationship must be carefully examined. He said among the many questions that needed to be asked was an evaluation of the potential benefits of drawing India into a deeper relationship with the IAEA. He urged India to work hard to conclude an agreement with the IAEA which should be effective and timely.
Sen Joseph Biden, ranking Democrat on the committee, pointed out that the Bush administration had not consulted the committee as it negotiated the July 18, 2005 joint statement issued by the president and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Little attention had been paid to the committeeâs concerns regarding Indiaâs plan for separating its civilian and military nuclear facilities. He pointed out that undoing the deal could do more damage in terms of US-India relations than approving it, with carefully crafted conditions. The deal brings risks which must not be minimised, either by Congress or by the administration, he warned. He said the administration still has to answer âour questions for the recordâ and it has yet to share its negotiating record or explain just what it agreed to when it accepted the idea of India-specific safeguards or corrective measures India may take in the event of disruption of foreign fuel supplies. Nor was it clear what assurances the US had given regarding fuel supply or the strategic reserve of nuclear fuel for India. The Senate still had not been given a complete list of Indiaâs civilian nuclear facilities. He said while the deal makes sense for India, it is not a âslam dunkâ.
Robert L Gallucci of Georgetown University said the deal proposed does not justify the cost to national security. While the US had good reasons for improving its relations with India, part of the calculation must turn on US uncertainties about China and whether it would turn out to be more of a strategic competitor than a partner in the decades ahead. <span style='color:red'><span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'>The deal would give India what it has long sought: American acceptance of the country as a nuclear power.</span></span> However, it would do nothing to help the US deal with the risks posed by the proliferation of nuclear weapons. â<b>There is no reason why we should attach any positive value to Indiaâs willingness to submit a few additional nuclear facilities of its choosing to international safeguards, so long as other fissile material producing facilities are free from safeguards,â</b> he said.
<span style='color:red'><span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'>
âIn truth, we would reward India with nuclear cooperation because we now place such a high value on improved relations with New Delhi, not because of its uniquely good behaviour.â</span></span> The deal, he warned, proposes to allow India to expand its nuclear energy programme and expand its nuclear arsenal at the same time, which is why it will be a mistake.
The Senate also heard testimony from Ashton B Carter of Harvard, William J Perry of the Hoover Institution, Ashly J Tellis of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Ronald F Lehman of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Robert J Einhorn of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, Gary Milhollin of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, Henry Sokolski of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Centre and Stephen P Cohen of the Brookings Institution.