Washington: As the US government hailed the law on India-US nuclear deal as symbolic of a new chapter in their relationship, some lawmakers criticised the president for declaring that he was not bound by all its provisions. 

While it opens up quite obvious possibilities in the nuclear energy sector, it also signifies a qualitative change in their relationship that has been building for quite some time, state department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters yesterday (Dec 21, 2006)

Noting that there were certain obstacles, including the issue of India's nuclear programme and how it related to the rest of the world, for it to actually proceed to the next stage, he said, "So yes, we think that it is quite important."

It was a quite important moment in US-Indian relations and there's more to do to broaden and deepen the relationship, McCormack said,"And I think you'll probably see more activity in that regard from the Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and others in the months ahead."

"There's still work to do, mind you, in terms of negotiating some of the agreements, 123 agreement, and then India also has to negotiate a separate agreement with the IAEA, and then the Nuclear Suppliers Group has to act," he noted.

"So there are some other things related to this issue that have to happen before it's really completed, but I think the act, the demonstration of trust and confidence and willing(ness) to bargain on this issue certainly opens the door to a different kind of relationship," McCormack said.
 

Asked why US could not have an India type agreement with Iran, the spokesman said, "I think it's self-evident. here's just no comparison in terms of Indian behaviour and responsibility with respect to its nuclear programme and what the Iranians are doing. It's an easy answer."
 

However, a major critic of the India deal, Democratic Congressman Edward J. Markey, criticised President George Bush for issuing a 'signing statement' in which he appears to have reserved the right to ignore portions of the India legislation that he does not like.

"With yet another infamous 'signing statement,' President Bush is declaring that he can ignore the will of Congress when it comes to ensuring India doesn't aid Iran's fledgling nuclear programme," he said.

"These Bush signing statements are an egregious abuse of the separation of powers, in which the Executive declares itself above and beyond any limitations or policies enacted by the Congress, even as he signs them into law," Markey said.

Democrat Senator Tom Harkin too found it outrageous that the president has repeatedly stated the greatest threat to US national security is a nuclear Iran, yet explicitly rejects Congress' declaration that it shall be the official policy of the United States that India will not use its nuclear technology to help develop Iran's nuclear weapons arsenal.

"With his recent signing statement, once again the president has shown he views Congress as a nuisance rather than an equal branch of government under the Constitution. "Congress and the Administration agree it is imperative to our national security that we prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Yet the president shamelessly brushed aside concrete steps Congress approved to avert that exact scenario," Harkin said.

"This signing statement is yet another example of the Administration's rhetoric saying one thing and its actions doing another," he added.

In a statement after signing the law on the deal India Monday, Bush said his signature does not constitute my adoption of the statements of policy (in the law) as US foreign policy.
 

Also in responding to reports mandated by Congress, he would consider how releasing data requested by lawmakers might 'impair foreign relations.'

In one of its most controversial directives, Congress stipulated in the law that presidents should report annually on India's cooperation in restraining Iran's nuclear programme, which Bush has condemned as a major international threat.

In the statement, Bush also said he considered as only"advisory" a congressional directive prohibiting nuclear transfers toIndia that conflict with guidelines of the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group, which the United States helped establish years ago to restrain nuclear trade.

Meanwhile, Pakistan's ambassador to US, Mahmud Ali Durrani, said Islambad does not object to the India-US nuclear deal although there is recognition that the un-inspected Indian reactors could be used to produce weapons-grade material.

 He had talked to Pakistan's senior nuclear military expert and was told that the pact does not worry him, the envoy was quoted as saying by the Washington Post.

"We have a strong deterrent, as India appears to progress, we will too," he said.