US Senate passes landmark Indian nuclear deal

[Ron Burgundy]

AFP - The US Senate passed a landmark civilian nuclear deal with India, more than a year after it was proposed by leaders of the two countries as a strategic move to boost ties.

The bill on the US-India Civilian Nuclear Agreement was adopted 85-12 by the Senate after a day of intense debate, officials said.

Under the agreement, India, a non-signatory of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), would be allowed access to long-denied civilian nuclear technology in return for placing its atomic reactors under global safeguards.

US President George W. Bush, in Asia to attend a summit of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum, hailed the Senate passage of the deal, saying it would bring the Asian giant into the "non-proliferation mainstream."

For its part, India cautiously welcomed the deal, saying it would await the final version of the US legislation before celebrating.

Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee, in a statement, called for the final bill to adhere "as closely as possible" to the pact signed by Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh "so that full civil nuclear cooperation between India and the US becomes a reality and contributes to India's security."

Bush and Singh agreed to the deal in July last year when Singh paid a visit to Washington. They reaffirmed it during the US leader's visit to New Delhi in March.

The agreement was seen as controversial because the US Congress had to create a rare exception for India from some of the requirements of the US Atomic Energy Act, which currently prohibits nuclear sales to non-NPT signatories.

In addition, US weapons experts warned that forging such an agreement with non-NPT member India would not only make it harder to enforce rules against nuclear renegades Iran and North Korea, but also set a dangerous precedent for other countries with nuclear ambitions.

"This agreement is the most important strategic diplomatic initiative undertaken by President Bush," said Republican Senator Richard Lugar, co-author of the bill.

"By concluding this pact and the far-reaching set of cooperative agreements that accompany it, the President has embraced a long-term outlook that seeks to enhance the core strength of our foreign policy in a way that will give us new diplomatic options and improve global stability," he said.

During the debate, some Senators tried to inject controversial amendments, including a mandatory commitment by New Delhi to stop making nuclear bomb materials and to sever military links with Iran, but they were rejected by vote.

"Granting India a special exemption from international and US nuclear nonproliferation laws and guidelines sends the wrong signal at a time when the world is trying to prevent Iran from getting the bomb," Edward Markey, co-chair of the House of Representatives Taskforce on Nonproliferation, said in a statement.

The Bush administration has won a commitment from New Delhi to negotiate a so called Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty as a multilateral approach to reduce nuclear tensions and threats associated with an arms race in South Asia, US officials say.

The House of Representatives gave its thumbs-up to the nuclear deal in July, a year after Bush and Singh first agreed on it, but a Senate vote had been delayed due to legislative elections last week that resulted in Democratic control of both chambers in the new Congress from January.

The Senate approval Thursday, however, is not the final step in the process.

The Senate and the House are scheduled to meet in December to reconcile several amendments they had made and that needed to be approved again by the two chambers before Bush signs the final bill into law.

In addition, Congress will have to consider a comprehensive US-India agreement incorporating all technical elements of the deal, including a set of international nuclear safeguards that India had to adhere to.

"I am confident that we can now work closely with our colleagues in the House to get this important measure to the president as swiftly as possible," said Bill Frist, the Republican Senate majority leader.

[motivez]

Well, now we no longer have any credibility when it comes to the NPT.. no more using it as justification for telling countries like Iran what to do with their nuclear programs.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

Well, now we no longer have any credibility when it comes to the NPT.. no more using it as justification for telling countries like Iran what to do with their nuclear programs.

Treaties, protocols, or anything else for that matter never had credibility to begin with. Countries do, and will always do, what's in their best interest, no matter what pieces of paper have been signed.

I could care less about the NPT or Kyoto, as well as world organizations that are nothing but a political front like the UN. They're all meaningless in the end. Actions always speak louder than words.

[motivez]

Actions do indeed speak louder than words.

What these actions say is that we don't respect our treaty obligations signed by ourselves and our allies in good faith.

That we don't care about nuclear proliferation as a serious issue if it benefits us.

That we're hypocritical in trying to prevent a NPT signatory from obtaining nuclear technology they claim is for peaceful purposes, but have no problem sharing it with a non signatory who has nuclear weapons.

It's pretty sad IMO. I have no problem with sharing peaceful and civilian nuclear technology with India, but it should have been done within the framework of the NPT, which they refuse to sign.

[ethyl]

Why is India refusing to sign the NPT? Would they be able to sign up as a nuclear power or would they be forced to disarm?

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by ethyl

Why is India refusing to sign the NPT? Would they be able to sign up as a nuclear power or would they be forced to disarm?

NPT forces everyone who signs it to disarm. Only the 5 nuclear power states are allowed to have weapons today and they are supposed to disarm as well.

[avsp]

The UK buys its nuke weapon tech from the US

A decision on the replacement, (if any), of the current system, Trident, will need to be taken in the next year or so.

Just in time for Iran to kick up a fuss about double standards, regardless of whatever the NPT'small print' states

Currently we build our own subs (the 'Trident' class) & purchase the Trident II missiles from the US. The warheads are British built, ..., although the designs are almost certainly American.

There is speculation that the guidence systems operate with live data from US sats thus the UK may not actually have an independant nuke strike capability, ..., but this is speculation.

[DosEquis]

Pakistan ought to just LOVE this one. So much for them helping us land OBL.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Treaties, protocols, or anything else for that matter never had credibility to begin with. Countries do, and will always do, what's in their best interest, no matter what pieces of paper have been signed.

Not always, just sometimes and what they *think* is in their best interests.

The point is that now the US cannot bitch that Iran isn't fufilling treaty obligation if they fail to do the same.