US firms can't be compelled to sell fuel to India: Bush Admn

Sridhar Krishnaswami
Washington, Sep 19 (PTI) America's nuclear fuel supply assurances to India are a "political commitment" and the government cannot "legally compel" U.S. firms to sell a "given product" to New Delhi, top officials told a Congressional panel as the administration worked hard to push the Indo-U.S. deal through the Congress before September 26.

On a day of intense grilling at an extended hearing of
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the administration
also said the U.S. has the "same right to respond" as India
had "the sovereign right to test".

"The commitments that the President (George W. Bush) made
that are recorded in the 123 agreement are firm, solemn
commitments... the President made clear in the transmittal
letter, they're political commitments," Under Secretary of
State for Political Affairs William Burns replied when asked
if the fuel supply assurances have no "legal effect".

There was a furore in India after President George W.
Bush wrote to Congress that fuel supply was not legally
binding.

"They're political commitments ... in the sense that we
are determined to help India to try to ensure a reasonable
steady supply of fuel and should disruptions arise, for
example, trade disputes, a commercial firm fails to meet its
requirements, then we are firmly determined to do everything
we can to help in that instance," Burns said when asked if the
commitments are binding on the next administration.

Acting Under Secretary for Arms Control and International
Security John Rood maintained that the 123 agreement provides
a legal framework. "The agreement, as a legal matter, is, as I
say, only an enabling piece of legislation," he said.

"It's not a government activity to produce nuclear fuel,
it's a commercial activity in the U.S., and we in the U.S.
government would -- could not legally compel American firms to
provide fuel to India if they did not wish to do so," he said.

The agreement does not compel U.S. firms "to sell a given
product to India," Rood said in reply to queries on legal
implications of the deal.

"With regard to their understanding that our actions are
going to be guided by U.S. law and will be consistent with
U.S. law, I believe the Indians do understand that," he said.

Burns said the U.S. would keep in mind the Indian
"sensitivities" on the issue of supply.

"What is very clear is that we will do everything we can
to ensure that steady supply, except in extreme circumstances.
And in those extreme circumstances, whether it's a test or an
abrogation of a safeguards agreement, then our actions will be
bound by U.S. law. And I guess that's the clearest way that I
can put it," the senior State Department official added.

On another contentious issue of India's right to test,
Burns said, "Just as how India had the sovereign right to
test, the United States enjoyed the same right to respond".

"We believe the Indian government intends to uphold the
continuation of the test moratorium it committed to in 2005
and reiterated in its September 5 statement," Burns said.

Asked why the U.S. did not support an automatic
termination provision in the N.S.G., he said, "We could not
support proposals to automatically terminate the exception if
India tests, because the Atomic Energy Act gives the U.S.
President the statutory authority to waive restrictions if
terminating cooperation would be seriously prejudicing to
achievement of U.S. non-proliferation objectives or otherwise
jeopardise the common defence and security.

"To do so would have tied the hands of this and every
president to exercise their authority under that," he said.

Acting Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee
Christopher Dodd asked if the U.S. will be obliged to help
India find alternative fuel sources in the event of Washington
cutting off supplies following a nuclear test.

"...it would be inconsistent with a president's decision
to terminate U.S. supply of fuel to then seek the supply from
other countries of fuel to India," Rood said.

Burns told the Senators, "We also believe India will
uphold its safeguard agreement with the International Atomic
Energy Agency. But Secretary Rice has noted clearly the right
to take appropriate action, should India nonetheless resume
nuclear testing, as she told Congress in April 2006."

The senior official said the "strong package" sent to the
lawmakers based on Presidential recommendations is consistent
with the requirements of the Hyde Act.

He said the U.S. has sought Nuclear Suppliers' Group
(N.S.G.) exception for India, consistent with the Hyde Act.

On transfer of enrichment and reprocessing technology to
India, Burns said, "The Hyde Act does not allow for U.S.
transfer to India of such technology, except in very narrowly
limited circumstances".

The push by the administration for the deal also got the
backing of some key lawmakers who favoured a fast track
process for the initiative, which is being termed as a
cornerstone of a new relationship with an emerging Asian
power.

"It would be well advised to approve it this month...
rather than wait till next year," Dodd said.

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