Despite a lack of adequate support for the U.S.-India civilian nuclear deal in the U.S. Congress, India’s ambassador in Washington is confident that the agreement will eventually win over skeptics.

“The deal must not be written off,” Ronen Sen told the Tribune in an interview. But, he admitted, “This is going to be an uphill battle.”

On Thursday, Congressman Tom Lantos, co-chairman of the House International Relations Committee, conceded that the deal “does not have the wide and bipartisan backing it needs.” The Democratic lawmaker announced a legislative proposal that would keep the agreement alive until a consensus is built.

Mr Sen predicted that if the Congress does not approve the agreement before it breaks for its month-long recess in August, it is unlikely to be approved by the current body. Appropriations and other issues on the agenda will crowd out the nuclear pact, he said.

Mr Sen has been doing his part to build support. In meetings with a cross-section of members of Congress, opinion makers, CEOs of major U.S. companies, and analysts at think tanks and universities, the ambassador has been reiterating the importance of this deal for India, the U.S. and the world. “They mustn't be under the misconception that this is a one-way benefit,” he said.

A recent advertisement placed in the Washington Post by Indian American organisations described the deal as a “reward” for India. Sources say this erroneous description has complicated efforts to push the deal with members of Congress who are unfamiliar with its details.

Describing the deal as being good for the nonproliferation regime, energy security and environment, Mr. Sen pointed out its “soft aspects” as well – India is a thriving democracy and a diverse society. India is also key to stability in the subcontinent, he said, noting its fragile and diverse neighbours.

Sources bemoan the lack of understanding in New Delhi of the importance of methodically pushing through the civilian nuclear deal on Capitol Hill. There is no “tearing hurry” to have it approved by the U.S. Congress, said an official on the condition of anonymity. The official noted India has ample fuel supplies for its nuclear facilities in Tarapur and there is no urgent need to replenish its supplies. It took 13 years before Congress approved a similar deal with China.

Mr Sen is determined that there be “bipartisan consensus” for the agreement. “Unless the deal has bipartisan support it will be like a building on shifting sands,” he said. “It [the deal] has to inspire confidence in Congress. Unless it does, it won't last.”

So far Democrats have been wary about supporting the deal, which has been brokered by a Republican administration and a president whose approval ratings are at an all-time low.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, whose husband Bill Clinton was responsible for an upswing in U.S. relations with India, has been conspicuously unsupportive. Despite being a beneficiary of fundraisers by prominent Indian Americans, including New York hotelier Sant Singh Chatwal, Mrs. Clinton has not publicly backed the deal. Incidentally, Mrs. Clinton is the Democratic co-chair of the Friends of India Caucus in the Senate.

Political pundits predict Democrats may retake the House of Representatives from Republicans in mid-term elections in November. In such an eventuality, sources say the India nuclear deal may face stronger opposition.

In a bid to win Democratic support, lobbyists have focused their efforts on the Black and Hispanic caucuses in Washington – both groups are predominantly Democratic.

Responding to calls from members of Congress to add amendments to the civilian nuclear deal, Mr. Sen said, “If they put riders they are going to kill it. This is a finely tuned and balanced agreement. One or two words here or there made all the difference.”

Washington, May 13
A major political furore has broken out on Capitol Hill here over a media report alleging that a government spy agency had been secretly collecting telephone records of ordinary Americans.

With both Republicans and Democrats demanding answers from the White House over the activities of the National Security Agency (NSA) — the agency in charge of electronic surveillance — President George W. Bush neither confirmed nor denied the report, but only said that authorities were not mining data and that the privacy of Americans was being protected.

“We’re not mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans,” Bush said.

But lawmakers and political analysts have said that the disclosure in the newspaper ‘USA Today’ of the activities of the agency will certainly complicate the confirmation process of General Michael Hayden who has been nominated to take over the top spot in the Central Intelligence Agency.

Hayden was the major principal running the NSA programme in the aftermath of the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. Warrantless eavesdropping on Americans and residents that raised issues not only of legality but also of civil and personal liberties.

Democratic Senator from California Dianne Feinstein, who had spoken favourably of Hayden’s nomination, took the position that the latest revelation “is going to present a growing impediment to the confirmation”.

The ranking Democrat in the Senate Judiciary Committee Patrick Leahy expressed shock at the activities of the NSA. “Those entrusted with great power have a duty to answer to Americans what they are doing,” he said.

The Chair of the Judiciary Committee Senator Arlen Specter indicated that he would be hauling the major telephone companies over to his panel for some intense questioning.

The report said that AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth started turning over the records of tens of millions of their customers’ phone calls to the NSA programme shortly after the 9/11 attacks.

“We’re really flying blind on the subject and that’s not a good way to approach the Fourth Amendment and the constitutional issues involving privacy,” said Senator Specter in reference to domestic surveillance. — PTI 

London, May 13
London’s High Court has accused the British Government of “an abuse of power” for refusing to allow nine Afghan asylum seekers who hijacked a plane to Britain to stay in the country as refugees.

In a fiercely critical ruling, judge Jeremy Sullivan overturned the government’s decision and said the conduct of the home office (interior ministry) deserved “the strongest mark of the court’s disapproval’’.

“It is difficult to conceive of a clearer case of conspicuous unfairness amounting to an abuse of power by a public authority,’’ he said.

The nine Afghans, armed with knives and guns, hijacked a Boeing 727 plane in February 2000 after the aircraft left Kabul on an internal flight.

They ordered the pilot to fly to Stansted airport, near London, where they told negotiators via radio they had fled the Taliban regime and would blow up the plane and kill everybody on board if they were not granted political asylum in Britain.

The High Court ranks third in Britain’s legal hierarchy below the Court of Appeal and House of Lords, which is the upper house of parliament and highest court in the country.

Sullivan criticised the then Home Secretary Jack Straw and his successors, David Blunkett and Charles Clarke, who had all failed to grant the Afghans discretionary leave to enter Britain and allowed them only temporary admission.

He said the government had “defied” judges and legal procedures and “deliberately delayed” implementing a June 2004 appeal panel decision that, under human rights law, the nine could not be sent home because their lives would be at risk. 
— Reuters 

London, May 13
A woman volunteer police constable was stabbed to death as she investigated a disturbance outside her home.

She was murdered yards away from her house in Wembley, north London, just before midnight on Thursday.

Police believe the off-duty Special, who was wearing a nightdress, may have gone outside because she heard thieves trying to break into two cars, one a stretched limousine, belonging to her and her husband.

Neighbours heard Ms Patel-Nasri screaming and dashed outside to find her lying on the pavement, bleeding from a stab wound on the leg. A man in a hooded top was seen fleeing.

Three black men had tried to break into her house and fled when she challenged them in the porch. One theory being investigated is that one of the three men could have returned to the house.

Ms Patel-Nasri was alone at home, in Sudbury Avenue, on the night of her murder as her husband Fadi Nasri, who she married three years ago, had gone out for the evening.

The fatally stabbed woman was given first aid by one of her neighbours, who also alerted her husband and called the police. — Independent