U.S. Announces Nuclear Exception for India

July 27, 2007
U.S. Announces Nuclear Exception for India
NYTimes: By DAVID E. SANGERWASHINGTON, July 27

Three years after President Bush urged global rules to stop additional nations from making nuclear fuel, the State Department today announced that the administration is carving out an exception for India, in a last-ditch effort to seal a civilian nuclear deal between the countries.
“The United States and India have reached a historic milestone in their strategic partnership by completing negotiations on the bilateral agreement for peaceful nuclear cooperation,” the department said in a statement.
The announcement follows more than a year of negotiations intended to keep an unusual arrangement between the countries from being defeated in New Delhi.
Until the overall deal was approved by Congress last year, the United States was prohibited by federal law from selling civilian nuclear technology to India because it has refused to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The legislation passed by Congress allows the United States to sell both commercial nuclear technology and fuel to India, but would require a cutoff in nuclear assistance if India again tests a nuclear weapon. India's Parliament balked at the deal, with many politicians there complaining that the requirements infringed on Indias sovereignty.
Under the deal, which was described on Thursday by senior American officials, Mr. Bush has agreed to go beyond the terms of the deal that Congress approved, promising to help India build a nuclear fuel repository and find alternative sources of nuclear fuel in the event of an American cutoff, skirting some of the provisions of the law.
In February 2004, President Bush, in a major speech outlining new nuclear policies to prevent proliferation, declared that “enrichment and reprocessing are not necessary for nations seeking to harness nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.” He won the cooperation of allies for a temporary suspension of new facilities to make fuel, but allies that include Canada and Australia have also expressed interest in uranium enrichment.
The problem is a delicate one for the administration, because this month American officials are working at the United Nations Security Council to win approval of harsher economic sanctions against Iran for trying to enrich uranium. India is already a nuclear weapons state and has refused to sign the treaty; Iran, a signer of the treaty, does not yet have nuclear weapons.
But in an interview Thursday, R. Nicholas Burns, the under secretary of state for political affairs, who negotiated the deal, said, “Iran in no way, shape or form would merit similar treatment because Iran is a nuclear outlaw state.”
He noted that Iran hid its nuclear activities for many years from international inspectors, and that it still had not answered most of their questions about evidence that could suggest it was seeking weapons.
Because India never signed the treaty, it too was considered a nuclear outlaw for decades. But Mr. Bush, eager to place relations with India on a new footing, waived many of the restrictions in order to sign the initial deal. It was heavily supported by Indian-Americans and American nuclear equipment companies, which see a huge potential market for their reactors and expertise.
Representative Edward J. Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat who opposed the initial deal and said he would try to defeat the new arrangement, said Thursday, “If you make an exception for India, we will be preaching from a barstool to the rest of the world.”
Though India would be prohibited from using the fuel it purchases from the United States for nuclear weapons, the ability to reprocess the fuel means Indias other supplies would be freed up to expand its arsenal.
“It creates a double standard,” Mr. Markey said. “One set of rules for countries we like, another for countries we don’t.”
Robert J. Einhorn, a scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said that in “the first phase of negotiations with India, the administration made concessions that put the country on par with countries that have signed” the Nonproliferation Treaty. (Israel and Pakistan are the only other countries that have refused to sign it, and North Korea quit the treaty four years ago.)
“Now we’ve gone beyond that, and given India something that we don’t give to Russia and China.”
In general, advocates of a far-stronger relationship between India and the United States have favored the nuclear cooperation deal, and it passed through Congress fairly easily. But those arguing that the administration has not made good on its promises to clamp down on the trade in nuclear fuel argue that Mr. Bush could be setting a precedent that will undercut his nonproliferation initiative.
Mr. Burns said he disagreed because “this agreement is so very much in our national interest.”
“It will further our nonproliferation efforts globally” by gradually bringing India into the nuclear fold, he said.

July 27, 2007
Japan’s Leader Faces Defeat, Polls Show
By NORIMITSU ONISHITOKYO, July 27

With only two days before Sunday’s election in the upper house of Parliament, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s Liberal Democratic Party faced a significant defeat that could potentially force his resignation, according to polls published on Friday.
Polls conducted by four major news organizations indicated that the governing Liberal Democrats may be unable to secure what is widely considered the minimum number of seats that would allow Mr. Abe to continue as prime minister.
Adding to Mr. Abe’s troubles, fresh revelations about his scandal-ridden agriculture minister emerged on Friday, reminding voters at the worst possible time of the corruption that has already produced a resignation and a suicide in Mr. Abe’s 10-month-old government.
On Friday, Mr. Abe campaigned in Kyushu, in western Japan, in the kind of rural districts that had always supported the Liberal Democrats but now appeared ready to turn to the opposition Democratic Party.
The Japanese premier campaigned with his wife, Akie, who said, “Please believe in my husband one more time.”
Half of the 242 seats in the upper house are up for grabs in Sunday’s election. The Liberal Democratic Party and its junior coalition partner, the New Komeito, must win a combined 64 seats to maintain a majority in the upper house.
But polls indicated that the governing coalition will win far fewer than the 64 seats and that the opposition Democratic Party is likely to gain a majority.
A loss in the upper house would not automatically force Mr. Abe to step down as prime minister. The more powerful lower house, which his party controls by a huge majority, selects prime ministers.
But in the past, prime ministers have taken responsibility for defeats in the upper house by resigning. Party members have preferred turning to a new leader instead of facing a future election with an unpopular one.
On Thursday, Mr. Abe vowed in a statement posted to his Web site that he would continue as prime minister no matter what happens on election day. But with polls indicating defeat, high-ranking members of his own party have already begun doubting him.
“Indeed, if we endure a great loss, I think the prime minister will feel responsible,” Hakubun Shimomura, the deputy chief cabinet secretary, said at a news conference. He later backpedaled.
In recent months, the opposition Democratic Party has succeeded in making inroads by emphasizing voters’ deepening anxieties about the economy and their living standards, in sharp contrast to Mr. Abe, who preferred pursuing pet causes like revising the pacifist Constitution and instilling patriotism in schools. The opposition leader, Ichiro Ozawa, a veteran politician famous for his tactical skills, focused on building support in rural areas that have been strongholds for the governing party.
But the Liberal Democratic Party’s wounds have been largely self-inflicted. Mr. Abe misjudged public anger over problems surrounding pension records that could jeopardize the amount of benefits collected by retirees. Mr. Abe’s leadership and judgment was questioned after he appointed largely yes-men to his cabinet.
Mr. Abe continued to back his first agriculture minister, Toshikatsu Matsuoka, who was accused of misusing public funds and eventually committed suicide under pressure. Tragedy turned to farce after Mr. Abe appointed his second agriculture minister, Norihiko Akagi, who was quickly accused of the same practice.
Mr. Akagi repeatedly refused to provide receipts to justify his expenses of more than $1 million over 16 years in one office while insisting that he had done nothing wrong. Then he became the object of ridicule -- and the ungainly face of Mr. Abe’s administration -- when he appeared one morning at a cabinet meeting with two huge bandages on his unshaven face. With the same stubbornness he had shown over his receipts, Mr. Akagi refused to explain what had happened to his face.
As polls showed that Mr. Akagi was the least trusted member of Mr. Abe’s Cabinet, he left this week -- at the height of the campaign -- on a trip to China. On Thursday, Mr. Akagi said he felt dizzy and would have to stay in China at least one extra day.
On Friday morning, the Japanese media reported that Mr. Akagi had double-reported and was reimbursed for expenses totaling $1,600. His office said Friday that it had mistakenly submitted the expenses twice.
In the afternoon, Mr. Akagi flew back here but managed to avoid a throng of reporters waiting for him at Narita International Airport by having a car pull up to his plane on the tarmac. His office said he was feeling unwell, heading straight to a hospital in Tokyo.
The opposition called for his resignation while Yasuhisa Shiozaki, the chief cabinet secretary, said the government had no comment.