WASHINGTON: Are US President George Bush's nuclear fuel assurances to India only "political commitments" as he asserts or are they "legally binding" as New Delhi avers?
Does the India-US civil nuclear deal get undone if India conducts a nuclear test and is the US obliged to get New Delhi nuclear fuel from other countries if Washington cannot do so under the compulsions of its domestic law?
These were some of the questions that exercised senators from both sides of the aisle as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee met on Thursday to review the deal and see if it could be done before lawmakers leave town Sep 26 for the Nov 4 presidential elections.
Undersecretary of State William Burns and Acting Undersecretary of State for Arms Control John Rood stuck to their guns that the deal was consistent with US law as they faced a barrage of questions from acting chairman Chris Dodd and the top Republican on the panel Dick Lugar.
But the answers that came were not as clear as daylight and seemed to leave a lot of room for interpretation.
On the question of fuel assurances, Burns, making a distinction between "political commitment" and "legally binding", said the implementing 123 agreement provided a legal framework for it, but does not compel the US to do that.
"It's not an enabling legislation as we could not compel US firms," he said. Another reason for making the distinction was that the president of the day would have to look at the circumstances and take a decision keeping US interests in mind.
"What we have agreed to do is to help should there be a market disruption or other reasons beyond India's control," said Rood.
But would the US still be compelled to get India fuel from other countries in case the president determines that India's actions warrant a termination of the deal, persisted Dodd.
"It would be inconsistent to terminate and then arrange alternative fuel supplies," said Rood.
US believes India will stand by a voluntary, unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing, he said. But "just as India has maintained its sovereign right to conduct a test, so too have we maintained our right to take action in response".
Rood also repeated Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's 2006 comments that should India test nuclear weapons, the deal would be called off.
But an automatic cutoff in nuclear trade in the event of a test was not provided for in the NSG waiver for India as it would have tied the hands of the US president, said Burns.
If the Atomic Energy Act provides for stopping nuclear exports, Sec 129 also provides some flexibility to the president to issue a waiver if he determines that doing so "would be seriously prejudicial to the achievement of United States non-proliferation objectives or otherwise jeopardise the common defence and security", he said.
On concerns that the extra fuel the accord provides could boost India's nuclear arsenal by freeing up its domestic uranium for weapons, the third top US diplomat said "India subscribed to the doctrine of credible minimum deterrent" and "with or without the deal they can sustain or even nuclear arsenal over a period of time".
"Our conviction is that by moving in this direction, we are deepening the incentive for India to focus on civilian nuclear energy and deepening its incentive to continue to move into the mainstream of the non-proliferation regime," he said.
But "to be honest there is no perfect guarantees", said Burns - leaving unsaid "... or no perfect answers".
