Us And Indian Perceptions Of Nuke Deal Differ

By Cernig

Praful Bidwai at IPS has a great piece on the very real differences between US ideas of what is contained in the India 123 deal and Indian notions that is worth reading:

Indian leaders are equally concerned at the subtle differences between the just-enacted US legislation and the 123 agreement, and the interpretations placed on some US commitments by senior officials, including assurances of uninterrupted fuel supplies and restrictions on the transfer of uranium enrichment and spent-fuel reprocessing technologies.

Just before the Congress debate, President Bush stated that some of the commitments in the 123 agreement are "political" in nature and not legally binding.

Last week, as the Senate began its debate, Rice wrote a letter to the Senate majority leader to assure him that a nuclear test by India would result in "the most serious consequences,’’ including an automatic cut-off of U.S. cooperation and sanctions.

This is in sharp contrast with the Indian stand that nothing in the 123 agreement prevents India from conducting a nuclear test, and that India can take "corrective measures", such as walking out of IAEA safeguards in case supplies are interrupted in response to an Indian test.

On Thursday, U.S. Ambassador to India, David C. Mulford, told the media in New Delhi that "not every single commitment" in the 123 agreement is binding on the U.S., and in any case, the U.S. government cannot compel American companies to sell technology or equipment to India.

Indian officials are particularly concerned at some key issues such as interpretation of the "meaning and legal effect" of the 123 agreement on the basis of all communications from the Bush administration to Congress prior to Sep. 20.

These include a recently revealed letter to Howard Berman, chair of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, in which Bush made the distinction between politically and legally binding commitments, and also tried to assuage other non-proliferation sentiments among U.S. lawmakers.

... In a statement signing the new Act into law, Bush can waive some of these conditions and make the new law more palatable to India.

The Bush administration lied to someone, because the deal that Congress thinks it voted on isn't the same as the deal India thinks it's getting. My bet is that the administration will side with the interpretation that makes its corporate donators the most money, which isn't the same as the one that looks after America's long-term national security interests or the one that safeguards the concept of non-proliferation.