The Washington Post headlines today: Glitch Delays Signing Of India Nuclear Pact. It is correct that the so called ‘123 agreement’ has not been signed yet as was expected. But this was not a simple glich.
This was a botched attempt by the Bush administration to screw the Indians.
The treaty will allow India to import nuclear technology and fuel for its civil nuclear program, while leaving its military nuclear programs and bombs untouched and unsupervised by the IAEA. The U.S. hopes to make multi-billion dollar deals under this agreement and sees it as the beginning of an U.S.-India alliance aimed against China and Pakistan.
In India the deal is attacked by the left and by hard right nationalists because they fear that it will severely restrict India’s sovereignty. Democrats in Washington were also very concerned about the deal as it practically nukes the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty which India is not willing to comply with.
These tensions culminated in one point. What happens if India tests another nuclear weapon?
In the Indian interpretation the deal guarantees access to nuclear fuel even if India does more testing. (For example in response to a Pakistani or Chinese test.) Under the current political conditions the Prime Minister Singh would be in severe political trouble if he would agree to anything else.
But some Democrats, especially Senators Dorgan and Bingaman who had put
a hold on the bill and pressed for amendments, wanted the opposite. An
explicit U.S. statement that nuclear cooperation would be cut off and
delivery of nuclear fuel halted, if India makes another test.
To get their support for the deal, Rice last Wednesday wrote a letter to Senator Reid which said:
Let
me reassure you that an Indian test, as I have testified publicly,
would result in most serious consequences. Existing US law would
require automatic cut-off of cooperation, as well as a number of other
sanctions, if India were to test.
That was binding enough for the Senate and the treaty passed on Thursday.
But it somewhat incompatible with what the Indians were told:
[A] senior Indian official said his government wants Bush to make a statement that clearly addresses India’s concerns about fuel supplies if it conducts a test. The official said Bush had promised an accompanying statement at the time of signing.
The Indians were wondering: "If on one side the 123 agreement has no restriction or consequence of testing and we get assured by the administration that there is nothing like this, how can Rice write a letter that says the opposite?"
They smelled a rat.
On Saturday Rice flew to New Delhi and it was expected that she would sign the final deal with Premier Minister Manmohan Singh, which
Bush has not yet signed:
Before leaving Washington, Rice had told reporters that
Bush "does not have to sign before I sign."
and
Many Indians had expected Rice to sign the agreement during her visit,
but an Indian foreign ministry advisory issued late Friday did not
mention it.
To Rice’s embarrassment the Indian’s refused to sign. They fear, with reason, that
if they sign first, Bush might sign later and add a signing
statement that would include what Rice promised to the Senate.
As an Indian official tells WaPo:
"We would like
President Bush to sign the legislation into law first and make a
statement that alleviates our fears about fuel supplies," the official
said on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to
speak to the media about the matter. "What if we sign it first here in
Delhi and then President Bush signs it later and introduces a
conditionality that is not acceptable to us?"
But how would such a statement by Bush be compatible with what the Senate was told?
It was now announced that Bush will sign the treaty next Wednesday. But will he add a statement on the fuel supply and testing?
To get the deal done Bush will have to show Congress the finger. That of course would not be the first time.