Most issues causing alarm in the Indo-US pact are contained in the non-binding and advisory portions. Whether it is Iran or the reference to “The foreign policy which is congruent to that of the US” or “Achievement of US Global non-proliferation” or the exhortation to sign the NPT or the CTBT or MTCR, these declarations are contained in sections 102, 103 and 109. That is why the US Ambassador to India, back in June 16, 2006 said “The Bill that you refer to has a sort of legislative scheme in it which are the provisions that are to become law. There is also a declaratory preamble to legislation in the US and those declaratory provisions and positions are not binding... What is significant in my view is that the issues which are troublesome in terms of legislation are incorporated into the declaratory, non-binding area of the Bill and not in the indispensable part of the Bill. That was a huge victory”.

Thus the short answer is that this is not binding even in the US or upon the US President and that surely Indian critics should defer to the Americans’ understanding of their own law. That is why, even as we spoke in the Rajya Sabha, President Bush clarified, “Section 103 of the Act purports to establish US policy with respect to various international affairs. My approval of the Act does not constitute my adoption of the statements of policy as US foreign policy...”. The president added that his administration would construe section 104(d)(2) as advisory.

... contd.