Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: U.S. Senate Approves U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Deal
Common Ground Common Sense > National & International News > Congress Watch > Congress Watch Archive
Noonan
U.S. Senate Approves U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Cooperation Deal

by Julian Ku
Yesterday the U.S. Senate overwhelmingly approved a deal to provide U.S. cooperation with India in the development of a civilian nuclear program (the vote was 85-12). The House approved similar legislation earlier this year by fairly huge margins as well so final passage is likely relatively soon.

I have two observations. First, this deal no doubt reflects the importance of India as a strategic ally for the U.S. It also represents a shift in U.S. strategy for controlling the use of nuclear weapons. The old U.S. strategy: no one gets nukes unless they submit to international treaty regimes. The new U.S. strategy: friends like India get help in peacefully controlling their nukes, enemies like Iran and North Korea get ugly threats of sanctions even if neither India, Iran, nor North Korea are currently part of the international non-proliferation treaty regime.

Second, being more of a foreign relations than international relations guy, I'm interested in the fact that the nuclear cooperation deal is being approved in the form of a congressional-executive agreement rather than as a treaty or even as a sole executive agreement. In fact, the President has to go to Congress twice to get approval for this deal. (A copy of the bill can be found here)

(1) After this bill passes, the President is now authorized to waive US law restrictions (in the Atomic Energy Act) in sharing of nuclear energy with India. Those restrictions essentially required International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards to be in place. These restrictions can be waived with respect to India only.

(2) The President is therefore authorized to execute an agreement without the restrictions that would basically limit such agreements to nations that are part of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty system. He has to make a bunch of determinations first, but those are pretty discretionary.

(3) Once executed, however, the President is not home free. Any future agreement has to come back to Congress one more time for approval via Joint Resolution.

This last requirement is similar in some ways to the trade agreement system, where the President gets trade promotion authority, then he goes out and makes deals, and then he has to bring those deals back to Congress for approval. This civil nuclear cooperation system is not supposed to require dual approvals, but India is a special case. If any other countries out there want a similar deal, the President will again have to get two congressional approvals, because the statute is being amended just for India.

Who said Congress doesn't get involved enough in foreign affairs? In this instance, Congress is all over this process and gets not one but two bites at the apple. Imagine that: presidential-congressional cooperation in an important foreign policy decision. In fact, this type of cooperation actually has happened all the time during the Bush Administration, despite wrongheaded overheated suggestions by critics to the contrary.
http://www.opiniojuris.org/posts/1163733585.shtml
Noonan
I had been searching for the names of the 12 Senators who had the foresight to oppose this bill. Guess I didn't have to look too far to find one:

U.S. Sen. Feingold: Statement on Opposing the U.S.-India Nuclear Deal
11/17/2006

Zach Lowe (202) 224-8657

“I’m disappointed that the Senate passed this bill. It fundamentally changes over 30 years of nonproliferation policy and will have serious consequences for our national security. This bill, supported by the same Administration that has failed to stem the nuclear weapons efforts of North Korea and Iran, flies in the face of our country’s nonproliferation obligations and only contributes to a developing nuclear arms race. Unfortunately, my amendment to ensure that this deal would not break our nonproliferation obligations and help India’s nuclear weapons program failed. The U.S. relationship with India is one of our most important, and I fully support developing closer strategic ties with India. But I had to vote against this bill because it hurts, rather than helps, our national security.”
Beamer
WHY WOULD DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS SUPPORT THIS DEAL???!!!
Beamer
QUOTE
U.S.-India Nuclear Deal Criticized, Then Passed
Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

Washington, DC – The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation released to US Senators a letter signed by fourteen government officials and current international legislators expressing concern about the danger of allowing nuclear trade with India for the continued sustainability of non-proliferation achievements built over more than three decades.

The letter was signed by Lt. Gen. Robert Gard (USA, Ret.), Amb. Thomas Graham, Jr. (Ret.) who was lead US negotiator for the indefinite extension of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in 1994-1995, former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, Amb. Robert Gallucci (Ret.) who was former Assistant Secretary of State, and Amb. Rolf Ekeus who was Chairman of the UN Special Commission on Iraq, among others.

The signatories warned that “While strengthening cooperation with India on energy, economic and other issues is appropriate and important, the proposed nuclear cooperation with India without further non-proliferation commitments would have a deleterious effect on vital nuclear non-proliferation efforts.”

The letter also stated that “Carving out an exception for India would significantly undermine the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which for thirty-five years has kept the number of nuclear weapon states under ten, rather than dozens as predicted in the 1960s.”

The letter continues “We are particularly concerned about the proposed exception that would enable India to expand its nuclear weapons production significantly beyond its current production level by freeing up India’s limited uranium resources for its military program.”

In a reference to Iran and North Korea the letter, the signatories expressed concern that “The proposed exception for India also risks significantly complicating on-going negotiations to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and bomb-grade material.”

The US Senate started debate on the US-India nuclear deal legislation today and it is expected to vote on final passage either later today or tomorrow.

The full text of the letter is attached below.

For more information on the US-India nuclear trade deal, please visit www.armscontrolcenter.org/nonproliferation/india.


November 16, 2006

Dear Senator,

We would like to express our concern about the repercussions of allowing exceptions to US and international export control laws that would enable U.S. nuclear trade with India. While strengthening cooperation with India on energy, economic and other issues is appropriate and important, the proposed nuclear cooperation with India without further non-proliferation commitments would have a deleterious effect on vital nuclear non-proliferation efforts.

Carving out an exception for India would significantly undermine the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which for thirty-five years has kept the number of nuclear weapon states under ten, rather than dozens as predicted in the 1960s. The NPT is predicated on a delicate balance of obligations, with the non-nuclear weapon states giving up the right to acquire nuclear weapons and gaining access to peaceful nuclear cooperation, while the five recognized nuclear weapon states (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States) undertaking legally-binding commitments to engage in disarmament negotiations. Pursuant to these obligations, the nuclear weapon states have all promised to roll back their nuclear weapon arsenals, have signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and have stopped the production of bomb-grade material. While further progress is undoubtedly necessary, allowing an exception for India without similar commitments would erode the non-proliferation norm and set a dangerous precedent.

We are particularly concerned about the proposed exception that would enable India to expand its nuclear weapons production significantly beyond its current production level by freeing up India’s limited uranium resources for its military program. Creating this condition would undermine Article I of the NPT, which commits nuclear weapon states “not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear-weapon state” [including India as defined by the NPT] “to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons.”

The proposed exception for India also risks significantly complicating on-going negotiations to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and bomb-grade material. The perception of a double-standard would undermine on-going negotiations with Iran and North Korea as well as international efforts to limit the spread of enrichment and reprocessing technology.

Therefore, given the considerable risks for nuclear non-proliferation, we recommend that the US Congress and the Nuclear Suppliers Group decline to go forward with this proposed exception, at least until completion and release of the required negotiated agreements between the United States and India on nuclear cooperation, and between the International Atomic Energy Agency and India on safeguards, which will disclose the details of the planned arrangement with India, and until the proposed deal in its entirety can be understood.

Sincerely,

Dr. Robert Gallucci (Ret.)
Ambassador At Large (1993-1996)
Assistant Secretary of State (1992-1993)

Lt. General Robert Gard Jr. (US Army, Ret.)
Senior Military Fellow, Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

Ambassador Thomas Graham, Jr. (Ret.)
Special Representative of the President for Arms Control, Non-Proliferation and Disarmament (1994-1997)

Ambassador Robert Grey (Ret.)
Former U.S. Representative to the Conference on Disarmament

Robert S. McNamara
Secretary of Defense (1961-1968)

Henry Sokolski
Deputy for Nonproliferation Policy in the Office of the Secretary of Defense (1989-1993)
Executive Director, The Nonproliferation Policy Education Center

Ambassador Rolf Ekeus
Former Executive Chairman of the UN Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM)
Former Permanent Representative of Sweden to the Conference on Disarmament
Former Ambassador of Sweden to the United States

Douglas Roche, O.C.
Senator Emeritus of Canada

Chris Balance, Member of the Scottish Parliament

Angelika Beer, Member of the European Parliament
Member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Member of the Subcommittee on Security and Defense
Member of the Delegation for Relations with the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, and President of the Delegation for Relations with Iran

Dr. Werner Hoyer, Member of the German Parliament
Deputy Chairman and Spokesman for International Affairs of the FDP Parliamentary Group
German Parliamant, Berlin

Ute Koczy, Member of German Parliament

Harald Leibrecht, Member of the German Parliament

Uta Zapf, Member of the German Parliament
Deputy Spokeswoman for Foreign Policy of the Social Democrats
Chair of the Subcommittee on Disarmament, Arms Control and Non-Proliferation 


http://us.oneworld.net/article/view/142633/1/
Noonan
California
Nay CA Boxer, Barbara [D]
Hawaii
Nay HI Akaka, Daniel [D]
Iowa
Nay IA Harkin, Thomas [D]
Massachusetts
Nay MA Kennedy, Edward [D]
Minnesota
Nay MN Dayton, Mark [D]
New Mexico
Nay NM Bingaman, Jeff [D]
North Dakota
Nay ND Conrad, Gaylord [D]
Nay ND Dorgan, Byron [D]
South Dakota
Nay SD Johnson, Tim [D]
Vermont
Nay VT Leahy, Patrick [D]
West Virginia
Nay WV Byrd, Robert [D]
Wisconsin
Nay WI Feingold, Russell [D]
Noonan
Arkansas
Aye AR Lincoln, Blanche [D]
Aye AR Pryor, Mark [D]
California
Aye CA Feinstein, Dianne [D]
Colorado
Aye CO Salazar, Ken [D]
Connecticut
Aye CT Dodd, Christopher [D]
Aye CT Lieberman, Joseph [D]
Delaware
Aye DE Biden, Joseph [D]
Aye DE Carper, Thomas [D]
Florida
Aye FL Nelson, Bill [D]
Hawaii
Aye HI Inouye, Daniel [D]
Illinois
Aye IL Durbin, Richard [D]
Aye IL Obama, Barack [D]
Indiana
Aye IN Bayh, B. [D]
Louisiana
Aye LA Landrieu, Mary [D]
Maryland
Aye MD Mikulski, Barbara [D]
Aye MD Sarbanes, Paul [D]
Massachusetts
Aye MA Kerry, John [D]
Michigan
Aye MI Levin, Carl [D]
Aye MI Stabenow, Debbie Ann [D]
Montana
Aye MT Baucus, Max [D]
Nebraska
Aye NE Nelson, Ben [D]
Nevada
Aye NV Reid, Harry [D]
New Jersey
Aye NJ Lautenberg, Frank [D]
Aye NJ Menendez, Robert [D]
New York
Aye NY Clinton, Hillary [D]
Aye NY Schumer, Charles [D]
Oregon
Aye OR Wyden, Ron [D]
Rhode Island
Aye RI Reed, John [D]
Washington
Aye WA Cantwell, Maria [D]
Aye WA Murray, Patty [D]
West Virginia
Aye WV Rockefeller, John [D]
Wisconsin
Aye WI Kohl, Herbert [D]
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2008 Invision Power Services, Inc.