As for arguments that the bill calls upon the US president to submit detailed annual reports on India’s nuclear weapons programme to Congress, this is already being done under sections 601 (a) of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Act and Section 620F (c) of the Foreign Assistance Act. More so, the most relevant factor here is that the reports are to be made on publicly available information.

The annual good conduct certification remains and the US Congress has merely replaced the word “certification” with “assessment”.

Rice took on board Indian concerns when she asked Congress to remove this as it may lead to “annual tensions” between the two countries. Certification has a significant connotation. This is not the case with “reporting” or “assessment”. These actions don’t lead to termination of cooperation. They are an internal exercise in which India has no role to play, let alone cooperate.

The prime minister had promised full civilian nuclear cooperation, but the US bill says no to enrichment and reprocessing technologies.

The US as a matter of policy does not export these technologies to any country. The sole exception is the bilateral SILEX project with Australia. The bill, after India raised the concern, lists the conditions under which such exports can be made to India.

But for India, the key issue is an explicit commitment to allow reprocessing of US origin spent fuel and up to 20 per cent enrichment of US origin uranium. The bill is silent about this because this is under negotiations in the 123 Agreement, where India has made it clear that it needs the right to reprocess and enrich US origin fuel. It is encouraging that the bill does not tie the hands of US negotiators on the issue.

... contd.