Details of a Indo-US nuclear cooperation agreement disclosed on Friday gave new fodder to American critics, who say the accord harms non-proliferation goals but a key congressman held his fire.
Releasing the text of the agreement did little to end the debate in Washington over the deal’s impact.
Some congressional staff said the true meaning of key provisions may not be known until administration officials testify publicly on Capitol Hill. That is unlikely before September.
The deal aims to give India access to US nuclear fuel and equipment, overturning a three-decade ban imposed after New Delhi, which has not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, conducted a nuclear test in 1974.
Although the framework accord – called the Hyde Act – was approved by the US Congress last December, talks over a companion implementation pact, called the 123 agreement after a section of the US Atomic Energy Act, had run into trouble.
India demanded the United States permit reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, assure permanent fuel supplies and not penalize India by ending nuclear trade if it conducts another nuclear test.
The companion deal was finalised last month.
Democrat Tom Lantos of California, chairman of the US House of Representatives International Relations Committee, said he was keen to review the deal in detail.
“As Congress considers it, we need to determine whether the new agreement conforms to the Henry Hyde Act, and thereby supports US foreign policy and nonproliferation goals,” he said in a statement that carefully avoided any commitment.
The administration insists the new agreement is consistent with the act but critics disagree.
Loopholes Seen
“We agreed in principle for them to reprocess American (nuclear) fuel. We didn’t have to do that,” said Sharon Squassoni, a nonproliferation expert with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
“We agreed to enrichment and sensitive technology cooperation. We didn’t have to do that. As far as I can tell, the US caved to all the Indian demands,” she said in an interview.
Daryl Kimball and Fred McGoldrick of the Arms Control Association said while the deal gave Washington the right to demand return of nuclear items if India violates the accord, unlike nuclear deals with other countries, it did not specifically cite a nuclear test as a potential violation.
They said Congress and other nuclear supplier states must use their authority to “weigh the alternatives, and close the proliferation loopholes that plague the proposed” deal.
A congressional aide took a contrary view and said the deal may give Washington greater flexibility to halt cooperation and take back nuclear items if New Delhi tests another nuclear weapon.
India would consider a test a disruption of supply that may force a halt in US nuclear cooperation but would also require Washington to find other countries to keep the fuel flowing to Indian reactors, he said.
But the aide said US officials had said privately if India tests, “we don’t have to find other countries to supply the Indians,” as New Delhi has asserted.
“The administration has told us one thing, let’s see if they stand by that” when officials testify before Congress, he added.
The pact has to be approved by Congress, while India needs to get clearances from the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group that governs global civilian nuclear trade and also conclude an agreement to place its civilian reactors under UN safeguards.