Kerry favours N-deal as Senate hearing sees tough questioning

Sridhar Krishnaswami

Washington, Sept 19 (PTI) Top U.S. officials faced
intense questioning from lawmakers at the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee which discussed the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal
here, even as leading Democrat John Kerry said denying India
crucial technology was like lumping it with "uncooperative"
regimes.

The Senate hearing that went well past two hours saw
several prominent lawmakers on both sides of the aisle airing
their views, with administration witnesses trying to allay
concerns on non-proliferation and India's relations with Iran.

Favouring the landmark 123 agreement "because of the
importance of this emerging strategic partnership between the
U.S. and India," Massachussetts Democrat John Kerry said
denying crucial nuclear technology to India might be
tantamount to bracketing a "responsible democracy" with outlaw
governments.

"We can't lump India, a responsible democracy, that plays
by international rules and has a strong record of responsible
stewardship of nuclear technology, into those either outlaw or
uncooperative governments," Kerry said.

He, however, added that legitimate questions did exist on
whether ratifying the civil nuclear cooperation agreement with
India "will make it tougher to strengthen the global consensus
again Iran's and North Korea's nuclear activities".

The top Democrat also maintained that the deal should not
become a referendum on the future of U.S.-India relations,
"... not when our interest and our ties are more closely
aligned than ever before".

Among those who participated in the Senate hearing were
Senators Rich Lugar, Chuck Hagel, Bob Corker, Barabara Boxer,
James Webb, Russ Feingold and John Barrasso.

With the Bush administration pressing hard for a waiver
of the 30-day waiting period in the U.S. Congress for the
India deal, analysts believe the fact that lawmakers are
addressing the initiative in the backdrop of the financial
collapse on Wall Street is an indication of the importance
Capitol Hill attaches to the accord.

Known for his long standing opposition to the agreement
on non-proliferation grounds, senator Feingold questioned the
credibility of India's commitment of using nuclear fuel
supplies strictly for civilian purposes.

"...how can we be fully assured of any commitment? I
mean, India had previously claimed it was using nuclear
technology for civilian purposes right up until the time it
tested in 1974," he asked Under Secretary of State for
Political Affairs William Burns.

"... Isn't it true that by opening the door to providing
nuclear supplies to India, we are freeing up local fuel
supplies for India's weapons program?" asked the Wisconsin
Democrat.

Conceding that there was no perfect guarantee to the
Indian commitment, Burns said the move to offer nuclear
supplies to India was aimed at bringing the country into the
"mainstream of the non-proliferation regime".

"... by moving in this direction, we're deepening the
incentive for India to focus on civilian nuclear energy and
deepening its incentive to continue to move into the
mainstream of the nonproliferation regime," Burns said.

He added that Indians clearly had the ability to sustain
their nuclear arsenal and even expand it over time, with or
without the initiative, though they have laid down that their
intention is to increase their civilian nuclear program.