Opinion: Indian Nukes Deal Sails Through Senate
This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.
The U.S-Indian nuclear deal--which would allow countries to sell nuclear technology to India--has had pundits worrying since the summer of 2005. The Times editorialized on July 22, 2005:
President Bush took the wrong path to a desirable goal, bowing to India’s requests for assistance in developing nuclear energy but getting nothing in return, a reversal of long-standing U.S. policy on stopping the spread of nuclear weapons. Luckily, Bush alone cannot make the agreement reality.
But now Bush has some back up. The House approved his plan--albeit with some tough amendments that left Indians none too happy--by a 359-68 vote back in July. And today, the Senate passed a version that nixed the so-called ‘killer’ amendments, like requiring India to end military cooperation with Iran. The comfortable 85-12 margin probably would have been smaller with the new Congress in place, which led the senators to speed legislation through during the lame duck session. Why the big win for India? One Mumbai-based publication credits lobbying by Indiaphiles in Congress and the increasingly politically active Indian-American community.
But the nuclear deal still has several hurdles to clear. The House and Senate have to reconcile their versions of the bill, then Bush has to sign it. The Nuclear Suppliers Group--composed of countries that export nuclear material--must approve it, and India has to negotiate safeguards with the U.N. and technical matters with the U.S. Last, Congress has to reapprove the entire treaty.
You can read more about the nuclear deal: New America Foundation fellow Rajan Menon on why the deal isn’t all bad; the Stimson center’s Michael Krepon on why the deal is bad; and Brookings’ Stephen P. Cohen on the history behind the deal.