The Senate should strip Title Two of its version of a bill on the Indo-US civilian nuclear deal if it is seen as causing undue delay in implementing the pact, a leading American think tank has said.
The Title Two of the US-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act (Bill 3709) deals with the Additional Protocol that Washington is signing with the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The Additional Protocol, about which some US lawmakers have expressed wariness citing national security, entails inspections and payments and perhaps a perceived interference in the fashion Americans would want to run their nuclear programmes.
It is also seen as running the risk of jeopardising substantial part of the legislation.
'Some senators are wary of passing the Title II legislation for national security reasons, but US nuclear facilities used for national security purposes are subject to a national security exclusion clause under the agreement because the US is a recognised weapons state under the NPT,' The Heritage Foundation's Lisa Curtis and Baker Spring said.
"The national security exclusion clause should be broadened and made permanent through an amendment to Title II. As appropriate, it should name specific facilities and categories of facilities that are covered by the exclusion clause," they said in a report.
"However, if such an amendment will result in undue delay in the adoption of the provisions of the bill related to the bilateral agreement with India, the Senate should simply strip Title II from the bill and take up S.2489 at a later date," they added.
"This wariness is partially justified, and the issue of which sites are subject to the exclusion should be addressed. The Bush Administration plans to ensure that appropriate facilities are covered by the national security exclusion, but the Senate should not simply leave the identification of such facilities to this and future administrations," the authors said.
"The US strongly supports the application of Additional Protocols to other states, including India, and so should honor its commitments under the agreement with the IAEA," they said.
The Senate is due to take up the Bill relating to the civilian nuclear deal with India sometime this month. All eyes are now on the Senate, which is likely to vote on its own version of legislation to support the agreement sometime this fall.
The Senate should move as quickly as possible since further delay would raise suspicions in India that the US is not fully committed to sealing the deal and could chip away at Indian public support for moving forward.
"Many in India are beginning to question the benefits of the agreement, and any further delay could make it more difficult for Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to continue to back it," the authors have pointed out.
The Heritage scholars have further warned against excessive tinkering that, among other things, would jeopardise the strong bipartisan support the Bill currently enjoyed.
"Despite Indian criticisms of the legislation, excessive tinkering at this stage carries the risk that the carefully crafted legislation will lose the strong US bipartisan support it now enjoys. Tensions between the Bush Administration and Congress have been palpable since the deal was first announced," the authors said.
"Despite the warming in US-India ties over the last several years, tensions over India's nuclear programme have persisted, preventing the two countries from overcoming a deep-rooted mistrust.
'Successful completion of a civil nuclear accord will help to lift these suspicions so that the US-India relationship can finally realize its potential,' Curtis and Baker have said.
"Given the historical importance of this agreement, US and Indian officials should resist the temptation to bargain endlessly over details and instead focus their energies on finalising the deal without further delay," they note.
