America’s assurances to supply nuclear fuel to India are a “political commitment” and the government cannot “legally compel” US firms to sell a “given product” to New Delhi, top officials told a Congressional panel as the administration worked hard to push the Indo-US deal through Congress before September 26.
On a day of intense grilling at an extended hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the administration also said the US has the “same right to respond” as India had “the sovereign right to test”.
“The commitments that the president (George W Bush) made that are recorded in the 123 agreement are firm, solemn... The president made it clear in the transmittal letter, they are political commitments,” Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs William Burns said when asked if the fuel supply assurances have no “legal effect”.
There was a furore in India after Bush wrote to Congress that fuel supply was not legally binding.
“They are political commitments ... In the sense that we are determined to help India to try to ensure a reasonable steady supply of fuel and should disruptions arise, for example, trade disputes, a commercial firm fails to meet its requirements, then we are firmly determined to do everything we can to help in that instance,” Burns said when asked if the commitments are binding on the next administration.
Acting Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security John Rood maintained that the 123 agreement provides a legal framework. “The agreement, as a legal matter, is, as I say, only an enabling piece of legislation,” he said.
“It’s not a government activity to produce nuclear fuel; it’s a commercial activity in the US and we in the US government would not legally compel American firms to provide fuel to India if they did not wish to do so,” he said.
The agreement does not compel US firms “to sell a given product to India”, Rood said.
