Friday, June 30 2006 10:16 Hrs (IST) - World Time -

Washington: The India-US nuclear deal was Thursday assured a virtually smooth passage in the US Congress with a ringing endorsement from a key panel of the Senate sans any pinpricks like the one about Iran that came with the House committee's approval.

An all but unanimous 16-2 vote in the 18-member Senate Foreign Relations Committee, just two days after the 37-5 majority in the House panel, reflected the success of efforts made by all President George W. Bush's people in building a bipartisan consensus for the 'historic' legislation that the White House had declared its top priority.

To that end, like their counterparts on the International Relations Committee of the House of Representatives, the Senate panel's Republican Chairman Richard Lugar and leading Democrat Joseph Biden chose to bring forward an altogether new bill instead of the one they had introduced last March at the Bush administration's bidding.

During the ensuing debate lasting almost 90 minutes, senator after senator highlighted the proposal as a historic turning point in the US- Indian relationship. Opposition came from only Russ Feingold and Barbara Boxer, both Democrats.

The committee rejected by 13-5 an amendment from Feingold to require President Bush to provide assurances that India was not taking advantage of the agreement by diverting nuclear fuel to its atomic weapons programme after Republican George Allen dubbed it a potential 'deal breaker'.

However, it accepted an amendment by Republican Lincoln Chafee stipulating US policy was to ensure that cooperation under the agreement did not assist India's nuclear weapons in any way.

Approval of the enabling legislation by the Senate panel made up of ten Republicans and eight Democrats paves the way for its introduction before the two houses of US Congress some time in mid-July when it reconvenes after a ten-day recess.

However, before that the two panels would have to work out a common language, as the two drafts though reflecting a common intent, differ in their approaches to a legislation that both suggest would become a cornerstone for US-India relations.



Both suggest a two-step vote for the final Congressional approval. The first vote would allow the Bush administration to negotiate a formal agreement for peaceful nuclear cooperation with India under conditions outlined in Section 123 of the US Atomic Energy Act of 1954. In the second vote, the Congress would approve the so-called '123 agreement' itself.

Where the two panels differ is in the approach. While the House panel draft set out criteria that would fit only India, the Senate chose to custom tailor it for India alone with no extraneous references, bar one to Pakistan, or a litany of expectations and exhortations.



In fact, the draft specifically states that the president would keep Congressional committees informed of any material non-compliance by India of non-proliferation commitments undertaken in the July 18 joint statement of President Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and the separation plan presented to Indian Parliament on March 7 and May 11, 2006.

The reference to Pakistan comes in a section relating to implementation and compliance requiring the president to report on several things within 180 days of the agreement coming into force. One of these is to detail US efforts to promote national or regional progress by India and Pakistan in disclosing, securing, capping, and reducing their fissile material, their reactions to it and the assistance that America could provide them to promote these objectives.



References there are to Iran too. Not in the bill, but in Lugar's opening statement and none too unpalatable to India. In fact, one has been used to cast an additional charge on the US Congress itself to approve a bill to implement an IAEA Additional Protocol, and broaden the scope of the India bill.

"At a time when the US is demanding that India complete and ratify an Additional Protocol as part of our civilian nuclear agreement and we are continuing to demand that Iran abide by its Additional Protocol, it is important that Congress complete its work. Continued failure to pass this bill would weaken US standing and President Bush's diplomatic leverage on these important issues," Lugar said.



Lugar and Biden thus added an important piece of non-proliferation legislation to the draft making it a bill to exempt from certain requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 US exports of nuclear materials, equipment and technology to India, and to implement the US Additional Protocol.

In the second reference to Iran, Lugar said, "India's votes at the IAEA on the Iran issue last September and this past February demonstrate that New Delhi is able and willing to adjust its traditional foreign policies and play a constructive role on international issues."

"Citing this as an example of already seen strategic benefits from our improving relationship with India," he said the agreement can be a lasting incentive for India to abstain from further nuclear weapons tests and to cooperate closely with the United States in stopping proliferation.



Again in providing waiver authority to the president, the Lugar-Biden bill adds another determinant that decisions in the Nuclear Suppliers Group enabling nuclear trade with India are made by consensus and consistent with its rules. The aim is to guarantee that this multilateral organization will continue to play a vital role in global non-proliferation efforts, Lugar said.

Commending the agreement as the most important strategic diplomatic initiative undertaken by President Bush, Lugar said by this he has embraced a long-term outlook that seeks to enhance the core strength of US foreign policy in a way that will give it new diplomatic options and improve global stability.



Cautioning members against bringing deal killer amendments, Lugar said the US-Indian agreement resulted from a delicately balanced negotiation. Neither side got everything it wanted. Nevertheless, the Bush administration and the Indian government came to the conclusion that the agreement was in the national security interest of both countries.

Leading Democrat co-author Biden described the deal as a milestone on a journey started by former President Bill Clinton that Bush continued and accelerated, and said no other relationship was more important for global security than the one between US and India. He asked the critics to understand that it was not an easy deal for Indian government politically, given the compulsions of a coalition and the fact that the leading opposition BJP was not particularly supportive of it.

It was to unruffle Congressional feathers that the Bush administration agreed to the two-vote process instead of its original proposal that would have allowed the 123 agreement to enter into force 90 days after submission, unless both houses of Congress voted against it and then overcame a likely presidential veto.

"In our view, this fully protects Congress' role in the process and ensures Congressional views will be taken into consideration," Lugar said to allay a widespread feeling that the Congress was being taken for granted or being reduced to a mere rubber stamp.