Senate Rangling over India Nuclear Treaty

As usual the MSM has not reported much on what was really offensive in the politico's statements. Babs Boxer compared India to an errant child, though finding a quote of that in print seems to be very difficult to find.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), offering one of the day's bluntest critiques, said at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing that the deal in effect rewards India for refusing to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. She also charged that the administration's desire to solidify ties with India was part of its goal of offsetting the influence of China, which she called "the unstated yet driving force behind this deal." She said the strategy was "old-fashioned, Cold War thinking."

Boxer, Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Burlingame) and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) expressed concern about news reports of military contacts between India and Iran, suggesting that the administration should not provide nuclear know-how to a nation that is friendly with the Islamic regime in Tehran. The concern was based on reports that Iranian ships carrying naval cadets made a port call at the southern Indian city of Kochi last month.

Clever logic I supposed. Or extremely isolationist.

India has never been a part of the NPT. Punishing them, if you really see the refusal of this as a punishment, will mean that they go elsewhere for their civilian use technology. Say to Russia. They already have a military nuclear program that you can be assured will not be going away, and they have a civilian nuclear program besides.

I find it rather humorous that thinking that India can balance some of the regional power of China is "old fashioned Cold War thinking." I suppose if something actually is correct thinking, it doesn't matter if its old-fashioned.

The thought that India's relationship with Iran should negate all of this is also rather short sighted. India and Iran are close neighbors. Getting along with a neighbor is good policy, and doesn't necessarily mean you're providing them with logistical or military support. In fact, this treaty would help balance that relationship as well. India has far more to gain from a US relationship than one with Iran.

Sarbanes made a good point in his questions.

Rice offered a compromise yesterday. She said any changes in the law would not take effect until the president certifies that he is satisfied with India's agreement with the IAEA. But some lawmakers balked at that idea, saying it would leave the matter entirely in the hands of the Bush administration.

Rice's solution would "move Congress out of the decision-making process," said Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes (D-Md.).

Alternatively, the administration could seek a waiver from current law, but that would subject the deal to annual renewal, which Rice said would make it impractical for businesses seeking to sell nuclear technology to India.

One Democratic Senate staff member said whether the changes in U.S. law or the IAEA agreement come first is important because "this is a president who has a very low stockpile of trust left." He said lawmakers are also likely to seek a number of assurances written into the legislation, including commitments that India will not divert nuclear material from civilian to military facilities, and that India will not tap U.S. technology to reprocess or convert nuclear material for weapons use.

It would be far better to know that the IAEA had its safeguards agreed upon with India first. Or the US could make the treaty contingent on them. But the Senate shouldn't give blank approval before that is in place. In fact, it would be irresponsible of them to leave it in the President's control. The Senate approves treaties as they stand and not as they may come to be.

Fortunately it looks like there are more Senators in favor of this treaty. Hopefully they will work out the logistics of having the IAEA controls in place prior to the final vote.