New Delhi races to win nuclear deal approval

By Amy Kazmin in New Delhi and Demetri Sevastopulo in Washington
Published: July 30 2008 01:38

India has gone into diplomatic overdrive to persuade the United Nations nuclear watchdog and nuclear technology exporters to lift a decades-old embargo on New Delhi’s access to atomic energy technology, despite its refusal to give up its weapons programme.

India’s Congress-led ruling coalition won a domestic political fight last week over a landmark nuclear energy deal with the US. But New Delhi and Washington are facing an uphill battle to secure the necessary international and US congressional approval before President George W. Bush leaves office in January.
Ending its status as a nuclear pariah requires India to win endorsement from the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) for its planned safeguards to prevent foreign nuclear technology from being diverted to military use. The 35-member IAEA governing board is due to vote on India’s plan on Friday. Washington hopes the 45-member NSG will meet within the 10 following days.
Mr Bush last week reassured Manmohan Singh, the Indian prime minister, that he wanted to complete the deal as soon as possible. But domestic delays in India have greatly reduced the chance of US congressional approval this year.
India’s quest for foreign nuclear technology may also face resistance from countries unhappy with its rejection of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Brahma Chellaney, a strategic studies professor at New Delhi’s Council for Policy Research, says the NSG – formed after India’s first nuclear weapons test in 1974 – may impose conditions before giving India the green light. Scandinavian countries, with their opposition to nuclear weapons proliferation, and Pakistan, India’s neighbour, are seen as potential obstacles.
“The future of the [Indo-US nuclear] deal is far from certain,” said Mr Chellaney. “This elation among proponents that the way has been cleared is so misplaced. It’s very likely that this deal will pick up more conditions when it goes through the NSG.”
George Perkovich, a non-proliferation expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said one possibility was that the NSG would seek a ban on countries exporting civil nuclear technology to India if New Delhi – which also tested nuclear devices in 1998 – carried out further tests.
China, India’s neighbour and strategic rival, has so far remained quiet on any objections it might have, at the official level at least.
“We believe different countries can co-operate on peaceful use of nuclear energy on the premise of observing international obligations,” Liu Jianchao, a Chinese foreign ministry spokesman, said this month. But any deal, he added, “should be ... conducive to strengthening the international non-proliferation efforts”.
Some Chinese analysts argue that the introduction of advanced US nuclear techniques to India could upset the strategic balance in south Asia and stimulate a new nuclear arms race. The fact that India is not a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty could also weaken the authority of the international non-proliferation system, other Chinese experts contend.
Pakistan, which sits on the IAEA governing board, has objected to an Indian inspections regime and called for the agency to draft a “non-discriminatory” safeguards plan applicable to all countries, which could delay IAEA approval for India.
Japan, a member of the IAEA board and the NSG, appears to have concluded that having a strong India as a strategic counterweight to China overrides unease on welcoming a new nation to the nuclear club. “India and Japan are strategic partners,” said Tomohiko Taniguchi, a foreign ministry spokesman.
The Bush administration hopes to have IAEA and NSG approval in time to notify Congress in early September. But unless Congress goes into recess later than scheduled – currently late September – lawmakers may not have the 30 days required before they can vote on the deal.
The Democratic leadership on Capitol Hill has also ruled out holding a “lame duck” session between the presidential election and the inauguration of the next president in January. A congressional aide said it was unlikely to be a priority early in a new administration.
Additional reporting by Farhan Bokhari, David Pilling, Chris Mason, Hugh Williamson and Geoff Dyer
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008