[NukeNet] Bush India Statement Raises Congress Concerns

[Bill Smirnow]

   Astonishingly outrageous and yet another
example of Bush's psychopathology and the need for
his removal from office:



http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/washington/politics-nuclear-india-usa.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
 Bush India Statement Raises Congress Concerns
  a.. Sign In to E-Mail or Save This
  b.. Print



By REUTERS
Published: December 21, 2006
Filed at 11:14 a.m. ET

Skip to next paragraph
Blog
The Caucus
Kate Phillips and The Times's politics staff
report on the latest political news from around
the nation.

  a.. More Politics News
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A statement by President
Bush issued in connection with the just-signed
U.S.-India civil nuclear cooperation law has
raised concerns that Bush may try to circumvent
some of Congress' intentions, lawmakers and
analysts say.

The statement, clarifying Bush's views on law and
policy, was issued after he signed legislation on
Monday permitting U.S. sales of nuclear fuel and
reactors to India for the first time in 30 years.

In the statement, Bush said his signature ``does
not constitute my adoption of the statements of
policyas U.S. foreign policy.'' Also in responding
to reports mandated by Congress, he would consider
how releasing data requested by lawmakers might
``impair foreign relations.''

In one of its most controversial directives,
Congress stipulated in the law that presidents
should report annually on India's cooperation in
restraining Iran's nuclear program, which Bush has
condemned as a major international threat.

``With his recent signing statement, once again
the president has shown he views Congress as a
nuisance rather than an equal branch of government
under the Constitution,'' said Sen. Tom Harkin of
Iowa, a Democrat whose party will control a
majority of the new Congress to be sworn in next
month.

It was ``outrageous that the president has
repeatedly stated the greatest threat to U.S.
national security is a nuclear Iran, yet
explicitly rejects Congress' declaration that it
shall be the official policy of the United States
that India will not use its nuclear technology to
help develop Iran's nuclear weapons arsenal,''
Harkin said in a news release.

'THUMBING HIS NOSE'

In the statement, Bush also said he considered as
only ''advisory'' a congressional directive
prohibiting nuclear transfers to India that
conflict with guidelines of the 45-nation Nuclear
Suppliers Group, which the United States helped
establish years ago to restrain nuclear trade.

Democratic Rep. Edward Markey of Massachusetts
said this shows Bush is ``reserving the right to
ignore the Nuclear Suppliers Group.''

The president is ``turning decades of U.S.
international policy on its head -- and thumbing
his nose at Congress at the same time,'' added
Markey, co-chair of the House of Representatives
task force on non-proliferation.

Separately, during a telephone conversation
between Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and
Bush on Thursday, Singh said he still had some
concerns over the law.

``The Prime Minister said India still has some
concerns, though many have already been expressed
in the President's signing statement,'' said a
statement from Singh's office.

Critics in India say the deal may constrain New
Delhi's policy toward Iran as well as its nuclear
weapons program and fails to guarantee
uninterrupted fuel supplies for civilian reactors.

Before U.S. nuclear exports can begin, other
approvals are needed including a Nuclear Suppliers
Group decision to change its rules barring trade
with India and passage of a second U.S. law.

Some non-proliferation experts worry that if the
United States does not win NSG approval -- which
must be by unanimous consent -- Bush will let the
trade with India go forward.

The White House and State Department rejected such
interpretations of Bush's statement.

Asked if Bush might ignore the NSG, a State
Department official told Reuters: ``No, quite the
opposite.''

He said that while NSG guidelines are ``political
commitments,'' Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
``has been very clear that we're not going to do
the (nuclear) deal without consensus in the NSG.''

Meanwhile, a White House official said the
statement's treatment of the NSG ``is not
regarding any particular intended course of
foreign policy or with any particular practical
effect in terms of intended treatment of
materialtransfer.''

Rather, the statement is intended to deal with the
''domestic issue of government power rather than
an issue of international nuclear policy,'' he
said.

Justice Department lawyers were concerned the way
the law is written meant that a change in NSG
rules would force a change in U.S. law, a U.S.
official said.