Sticky points of nuke deal

Senate Bill 105(8) required a written annual determination by the President that India had backed efforts to contain Iran in line with UN resolutions

India would rather not have this entire section in the bill. Though this is extraneous to nuclear cooperation and will not figure in the “123 Agreement” to operationalise the deal, it will cause political turbulence.

In the new bill, it has been shifted to Section 104 (g)(2)(E)(i) which lists the requirement as an annual report whether India is participating in efforts to contain Iran for its nuclear weapons programme.

House Bill Selection 4(d)(4) required that if the US terminated nuclear transfers to India, it would also prevent transfer of nuclear equipment and technology by NSG members.

This section has been removed.

Section 106 of the Senate Bill would have banned transfer of technologies of enrichment, reprocessing and heavy water production to India.

The US does not transfer these technologies to anyone, India objected because it was being singled out by name.

In the new bill, Section 104 (d)(4)B has shifted to positive discrimination and allows transfers if it is to IAEA approved multinational facility.

Senate Bill Sections 105 (3) and (4) said the law came to force after the India-IAEA pact and efforts went into implementing an additional protocol.

Section 104 of the new bill has deleted language suggesting that the Indian action with IAEA would precede final US Congressional nod.

India had objected as it was being singled out to observe restrictions to regimes it is not signatory to.

The new bill has qualified this by authorising the President to continue cooperation if it was determined that the transfers were “without government’s knowledge”