|
Energy deal with Iran could derail U.S. nuclear agreement with India |
|
By David Mikhail
|
|
Posted: 06/26/07 07:36 PM [ET] |
A controversial energy agreement involving Iran could spell the end of a groundbreaking nuclear deal between the U.S. and India.
With Iran and India reportedly close to finalizing a long-negotiated agreement on a natural-gas pipeline, there is mounting pressure on members of Congress to renounce their initial support for the historic nuclear deal. The pipeline prospect — which the White House and lawmakers contend would result in billions of dollars in revenue for Iran, which they could apply towards their efforts for a nuclear weapons program — would eviscerate the political capital necessary to approve an agreement that would provide nuclear technology to India.
The fate of the deal remains firmly in the hands of Congress; it still has to ratify the accord known as the “123 Treaty” in order for the agreement to be completed.
The failure of the nuclear agreement would represent a significant turn of events within Congress, as the deal had secured widespread support from lawmakers, including leaders of both parties. This would also signify a particularly significant loss for the White House, which has been in negotiations with India since 2005 and intensely lobbied for passage of the enabling legislation with few to no amendments last session.
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who recently went to India along with Rep. Ed Royce (R-Calif.) and voiced concerns with members of the Indian government, said that the prospects of passage have decreased from where they were last year and that lawmakers will feel free to vote against ratification because India has “renegotiated the terms.” He added that he “wouldn’t bet right now that it would pass” given India’s relations with Iran and remarked that he was undecided on the issue.
Democratic and GOP sources in the House said that lawmakers had perceived the nuclear deal as a quid pro quo for India’s rejection of the pipeline agreement, a stark contrast to the State Department’s official position that the two issues are not linked. The sources both stated that the pipeline deal could ultimately derail the nuclear agreement.
India’s minister of petroleum and natural gas, Shri Murli Deora, announced last week that the pipeline agreement will happen, while other members of the Indian government have stated that they expect the agreement to be finalized by the end of July. The pipeline — which would extend between Iran, India and Pakistan — will export 60 million cubic meters of natural gas a day.
The situation has arisen during a period of increasing tension between the U.S. and Iran, entailing allegations by the administration and lawmakers that Tehran is providing arms to Taliban forces in Afghanistan and insurgents in Iraq.
Sanjay Puri, chairman of the U.S. India Political Action Committee, said that the group’s goal is to establish to congressional opponents that the pipeline and nuclear agreements represent “two separate issues,” while acknowledging that final agreement on the pipeline would make the passage on the nuclear deal more difficult. Puri added that, though some financial issues remain unresolved, the pipeline deal is closer to final agreement than it has ever been. The Indian Embassy did not respond to calls for comment.
The matter is already threatening to peel off two supporters of the nuclear deal who will be integral in securing passage, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Lantos (D-Calif.) and ranking member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.). The two have already expressed their disgruntlement in a letter sent to Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh last month that highlighted the gas pipeline agreement and stated that “(t)he expectation of an enhanced effort by India to restrain Iran’s nuclear weapons program was a crucial factor” in persuading members of Congress to agree to the enabling legislation. The letter also stated that India’s relations with Iran would be a factor in assessing whether to ratify the treaty. Both offices did not respond to requests for comment.
There is disagreement, however, as to how the new developments could affect lawmakers when Congress takes it up. According to Schiff, many members supported the enabling legislation last year because they knew that they would have a later opportunity to vote on the treaty ratification.
Another source contended that some lawmakers who had strongly supported the deal could be trapped by their previous rhetoric at the time of the vote, which may not come until 2008 or later.
The pipeline agreement has worsened what has already been a difficult negotiation over the nuclear deal. While India has argued for more leeway to conduct nuclear enrichment and testing, it was also implicated in a plot to steal U.S. technology for a ballistic missile program, and is considering a controversial defense pact with Iran. The White House has focused its efforts on negotiating with New Delhi and has not engaged in discussions with members of Congress, according to several sources.
Last December, Congress overwhelmingly passed legislation that would enable the nuclear agreement, as the bill carved out an exemption to allow for transfer of nuclear technology to India, which is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The essential terms of the agreement call for the U.S. to provide nuclear fuel and technology, while India will subject the majority of its nuclear reactors to international inspections. Concern that the nuclear deal was unwise given India’s relations with Iran served to stall the bill, however, with lawmakers finally adding language calling for India’s “full and active participation in United States efforts” regarding Iran’s nuclear weapons program, to secure passage.
Supporters of the deal have contended that the agreement would bring India’s nuclear program under international scrutiny while bolstering India as a geopolitical counterweight to China. Opponents, however, have argued that the deal undermines the NPT while allowing India to prevent its “fast-breeder reactors,” which can create weapons-grade material more easily, from being open to inspections. |
