Removing ‘unacceptable’ clauses will become even more difficult
(Article was first published in Vijay Times, 9th November 2006)
The Democrats’ victory in the US congressional elections holds no prospect of a big change in the fate of the India-US nuclear deal. That is not to say that the US Congress will pass the bill during its expected ‘lame duck’ session that begins on Monday, but to say that the nuclear deal was already ailing and even its strongest supporters had lost hope after it was put on the backburner by its original sponsor, the Bush administration, itself.
If anything, the Democrats are likely to make reconciliation of the House and Senate versions of the bill more difficult, especially any attempts to address Indian concerns over the several unacceptable clauses and references in the Senate version. That is, if the bill comes up for consideration at all in the Senate during the ‘lame duck’ session.
The nuclear deal was a Bush administration initiative designed to overcome the biggest hurdle to a India-US strategic partnership. Hopes of getting it through Congress successfully, and in accordance with Indian insistence on the principles of the July 18, 2005 India-US Joint Statement, were based on the fact that the Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate and therefore had the numbers to push through the deal. Indeed, quite a few of the amendments proposed mostly by Democrats were voted out.
Even so, the American democratic process had already changed the intent and character of the India-US Civilian Nuclear Cooperation bill from one of strategic partnership to non-proliferation. So much so that it caused a huge uproar in the Indian Parliament and media, forcing Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in August this year to send a not-so-subtle message to the Bush administration that the bills under consideration in the US Congress – filled with several non-proliferation as well as extraneous conditions and reporting requirements -- were not acceptable to India.
The supposedly non-partisan voting earlier, which saw the nuclear deal bill being passed by an overwhelming 359-68 majority in the House of Representatives, occurred because many Democrats calculated that there was no point opposing a deal, which the Republicans would push through anyway, and losing the support of Indian-Americans in the congressional elections.
Now, however, the Democrats have the numbers in Congress. Neither do they have worry that they may not be able to carry the day on their favourite amendments nor do they have to fear any immediate consequences of a loss of Indian-American support. Many Democrats, therefore, are expected to return to their original position on issues nuclear – non-proliferation as an article of faith – and push for even more amendments. Flush with victory, a temptation to seek even greater concessions from a desperate India will be hard to resist.
Indeed, the Democrats are said to be ready with a host of new amendments should their Senate leader Harry Reid let the nuclear bill come on to the floor during the ‘lame duck’ session.
But even if no new amendments are brought on, there still is the question of the unacceptable clauses and references that have already been written in. Reconciling them with what’s acceptable to India will be particularly difficult because now the Democrats will control key committees, including the House International Relations Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Democrat Tom Lantos, for instance, wrote in the US policy to ‘‘Secure India’s full and active participation in United States efforts to dissuade, isolate, and, if necessary, sanction and contain Iran for its efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, including a nuclear weapons capability (including the capability to enrich or process nuclear materials), and the means to deliver weapons of mass destruction’’ in the House bill. Lantos will now become the chairman of the House International Relations Committee. He will be loath to let his pet amendment go.
Even harder political calculation suggests that the Democrats may stall the passing of the bill now, and instead seek to pass some version of it in the next Congress, closer to the 2008 presidential elections, thus wresting both credit for the initiative as well as large Indian-American support.
