Secretary of State Condoleeza rice was grilled in Congress over the controversial deal between the United States and India announced by President George Bush in March.
And it was not a clear-sailing session for her. Perhaps the most descriptive account of what occurred was run by the Calcutta Telegraph, whose correspondent K.P. Nayar writes:
US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, normally confident, erudite and knowledgeable in her field, wilted under questioning about the Indo-US nuclear deal on Capitol Hill today as it became clear that Senators were less concerned about the content of the deal than with losing their power to regulate American nuclear trade with India.
The first hearing on American legislation to facilitate the nuclear deal got off to a good start in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with Rice offering a bait to the panel’s members that US help to strengthen India’s civilian nuclear power capabilities will move New Delhi away from seeking oil and natural gas from Tehran.
But her strategy to win over wavering Senators to support the agreement with India quickly fell apart with several senior legislators objecting that the proposed amendments to the US Atomic Energy Act will replace them as arbiters of the deal, and instead, give that responsibility to the White House or the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Senior Democrat Paul Sarbanes, the longest serving Senator in Maryland’s history, unsettled Rice and demolished her arguments by calling for the Senate to withhold its approval for the deal until India worked out an agreement with the IAEA on full-scope safeguards that is required under the agreement between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and US president George W. Bush.
Sarbanes suggested that the Bush administration should use its existing powers for presidential waivers to conduct nuclear trade with India instead of approaching the Congress with fresh legislation.
Still, the Telegraph’s Washington correspondent writes, it was a “net plus for India,” because Democratic bigwigs Senators John Kerry and Joseph Biden seemed ready to support the agreement. The New York Times saw it this way:
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice faced tough questioning from the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee this morning on the administration’s nuclear deal with India. But while Democrats made clear they would seek changes in the pact they did not seem inclined to try to block it.
Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, who is the panel’s senior Democrat, seemed to sum up the mood of many on the committee when he mused that the damage to our relationship with India that blocking the deal would certainly cause outweighed the possible danger that the agreement could lead to a breakdown in anti-proliferation efforts.
Ms. Rice argued that the Senate needed to approve the deal President Bush signed with India to keep that country aligned with the United States in what she called “an all-out rush for energy supplies” by rapidly developing nations.
Knight-Riddder newspapers notes that this was the first Congressional test of the appeal of this deal — and that not all lawmakers have taken a position on it yet:
Most Republican lawmakers were supportive or withheld judgment. Democrats were split. Approval of the pact requires a majority vote in both chambers. Administration officials fear that if Congress attempts to amend the deal, India might abandon it.
Nearly everyone agreed on the need for closer ties to India, which is on track to surpass China as the world’s most populous nation by the middle of this century.
“It’s probably time to admit, in my view, that India will keep its nuclear weapons,” Biden said. “America is going to have to, needs to and should pursue closer relations with India. … I am probably going to support this.”
Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004, said he, too, was inclined to forgive India’s past nuclear transgressions.
“It’s not the deal I would have negotiated, personally,” he said. “But the fact is it is better to build this relationship.”
Opponents said letting bygones be bygones would send the wrong message to Iran and other nations that had shown an interest in developing nuclear weapons. The agreement would let India keep its nuclear weapons facilities beyond the reach of international inspectors.
Fourteen of India’s nuclear facilities would be brought under international safeguards, while eight would remain off limits. India would decide whether future facilities were classified as civilian or military.
The bigger picture is that for decades even though India and its leaders have felt a great kinship with the United States, there have been stumbling blocks due to some policies pursued by the governments of both countries. This deal was designed to get relations back on track (see our previous post in the post link chain below for more details). It sounds as if there may be more lawmakers willing to take a risk on the deal to bolster relations than those willing to scuttle it and put relations back to the way they were for so many decades.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.