123 lingo kept vague: Paper

WASHINGTON: Indo-Us civil nuclear agreement does not circumvent American law but the language has been kept deliberately vague so that it can be interpreted differently by the two sides, a news report has claimed, quoting Congressional sources who were briefed by the Bush administration officials.

In classified briefings to key members of Congress, the Bush administration has been stressing that the recently concluded 123 Agreement and the nuclear deal does not circumvent American law. However, “briefers conceded that some language is deliberately vague to help both sides save face”, according to a front page report in The Washington Times.

The media report, citing unnamed Congressional officials and staffers on Capitol Hill, said some Congressional officials were satisfied with the administration assurances but concerns and questions do remain on Iran’s relationship with India.

According to The Washington Times report, the agreement recently negotiated has been deliberately written in such a way that it can be interpreted differently by the two sides.

“The way Indians are reading it is not correct from the administration’s point of view,” a congressional official, who attended the briefings has been quoted as saying by the daily.

It is being pointed out that India had protested from the very beginning the legal US requirements to automatically suspend nuclear cooperation if India conducted another atomic test; and to help New Delhi save face domestically, the administration agreed to consult with New Delhi before taking any action in response to a test, officials said.

The Bush administration has, however, started briefing members of the US Congress on the 123 Agreement. Washington’s chief interlocutor on the deal, under secretary of state Nicholas Burns, is leading the briefings for members of the Congress, which must approve the agreement named after section 123 of the US Atomic Energy Act before the deal is implemented.

“We believe that this is the right deal for the US national interest, for our relationship with India, as well as for addressing our concerns about non-proliferation globally,” state department spokesperson Sean McCormack said.

Mr Burns, who was to brief the media Friday, has said, “We’re very satisfied because we know the agreement is well within the bounds of the Hyde Act,” passed by the Congress last December approving the deal in principle.

New Delhi also needs to sign an India specific additional protocol with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for inspections of its 14 designated civilian nuclear facilities as also persuade the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group to change its rules.

Apart from the briefings starting now, there have been some discussions with some members of the Congress all throughout the process, Mr McCormack said. “So this has been a process of negotiations where we’ve been working with the Indian government, but we’ve also been back briefing the Hill.”

“Typically with these sorts of things, you brief a selected membership on both sides of the aisle who have the most direct oversight responsibility or leadership responsibilities. I think that’s a pretty typical practice here in Washington,” he explained. Asked if the agreement had some secret clause, Mr McCormack said he did not know. “I’m not sure if there is anything classified to it. I’m not aware that there is. I don’t know what our agreements are with the Indians in terms of publishing a text of it.”

He also did not offer any comment on a letter to President George Bush by 23 members of the House of Representatives, warning that “any inconsistencies between the so-called 123 agreement and US laws would put final Congressional approval of the deal in doubt.”

“If the 123 Agreement has been intentionally negotiated to side-step or bypass the law and the will of Congress, final approval for this deal will be jeopardised,” said Edward Markey, a known critic of the deal.