U.S. - India Nuclear Deal Passes as America Focuses on Bailout Plan
National and international news sources are reporting about a nuclear deal between the US and India. The US Congress and Senate have both approved a nuclear deal between the US and India. The LA Times reports the debate ensued for three years. The deal passed the Senate on September 28th, Congress October 1st and ends a 30-year ban on sales to India of nuclear technology and fuel. The ban was the result of India developing and testing a nuclear device in 1974. The deal was signed yesterday, October 10th, and does not require India to sign the Non-proliferation treaty.
Advocates of the bill say it will “will form a lasting strategic alliance between the United States and the world’s largest democracy.” Supporters of the bill also contend that this partnership will help offset China’s current dominance in Asia. In a BBC News article, Condolezza Rice, is quoted saying the bill is a “landmark deal” and received “strong bi-partisan support.” President Bush applauded the deal in an official statement on October 1st saying “This legislation will strengthen our global nuclear nonproliferation efforts, protect the environment, create jobs, and assist India in meeting its growing energy needs in a responsible manner.”
Opponents of the bill are concerned that the current deal does not require India to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Other nations pursuing nuclear technology are required to sign this treaty. India has agreed that it’s civilian nuclear facilities will be open for inspection. However, their military facilities will not be open for inspection. Bi-partisan opponents are also concerned that “rewarding a country that ignored international nonproliferation efforts, the deal will make it harder for world powers to contain the spread of nuclear weapons to countries such as Iran, and may even accelerate nuclear arms races.”
An October 3rd Seattle Times article reported and explained strong opposition to the deal. Those in favor of it seem to have their approval centered around India’s geographical location and hopes that India will be “key to battling Islamic extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.” Strongly opposed to the deal chairman of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, retired Army Lt. Gen. Robert Gard is concerned that “This deal significantly weakens U.S. and international security.”
Of course, the U.S. - India deal is touted mostly a move for energy and economy, however there is cause for concern when a country will not sign a non-proliferation treaty, will only allow civilian reactors to be inspected and reserves the right to determine which reactors are considered civilian at any given time. As with most complicated situations we face there are several ways to view this deal. In the arena of expanding nuclear energy this may be called a victory, in the arena of national and international security this is a grave concern. Time will tell.
Related Posts:
- Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) Approves US-India Nuclear Agreement - Let the Marketing Begin
- Nuclear Isolation Comes to An End for India: Now on the Pathway to Nuclear Future
- Putin Praying $80 Billion India-US Nuclear Power Deal Fails
- 75% of Greens OK with Nuclear Power
Photo Credit: wikinews via public domain/creative commons license
The last two lines in the above article say: “As with most complicated situations we face there are several ways to view this deal. ,,, , in the arena of national and international security this is a grave concern.” This conclusion is arbitrary, capricious, and definitely not based on any rational, pragmatic or logical analysis.
As of today, the NPT signatories include all nations except Israel, India, and Pakistan. North Korea signed the treaty only to withdraw from it later to conduct a nuclear test. Negotiations are on to bring Pyongyang back into the treaty. Of the three non-signatories, Israel is not interested in civil nuclear commerce. That leaves only India and Pakistan. Pakistan, through A.Q. Khan’s notorious activities, stole nuclear technology and has engaged in terrible WMD proliferation. India has built a large nuclear infrastructure based on its indigenous expertise. It has designed its own reactors, including a fast breeder reactor, and is conducting research on conversion of thorium into uranium 233. While the United States orchestrated the restrictions on international commerce since 1974, it has come to terms with the reality that those restrictions are progressively losing relevance and impact as far as India is concerned. Thus, the current U.S. government has decided to treat India as an exceptional case. In doing so, the U.S. government points out that India has maintained an impeccable record on non-proliferation since it conducted its first nuclear test. Whenever foreign states such as Libya and Iran approached New Delhi for nuclear capability barters, Indian leaders from Indira Gandhi to everyone else who followed her have unequivocally, categorically, and resolutely refused to engage in such trades. That history and political culture and tradition encouraged the founders of the NSG to believe that there is a rock-solid and business-wise case to bring India into the non-proliferation regime. They cannot simply incorporate India into the NPT because the treaty would unravel if any attempt is made to amend it.
India shares its borders with two nuclear weapon powers (Pakistan and China) that have been engaging in nuclear proliferation. The non-proliferation community was impotent and failed to take action when that proliferation occurred in the 80s and 90s. Pakistan officially claims that its arsenal is deterrence against India. Under these circumstances, India has very little choice. For its own national security and national interest concerns, it cannot join the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state. Given such constraints, the founders of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) devised a very practical and sophisticated policy approach by making India a stakeholder in the non-proliferation regime; in this way, they are giving India its due recognition for its advanced nuclear technology and its non-proliferation record and paving the way for further promotion of non-proliferation. India will institutionalize rigorous export controls, place fourteen nuclear power reactors under international safeguards, and actively participate with the U.S. and other NSG countries in reducing WMD proliferations worldwide. Many U.S. foreign policy experts, including several ambassadors, agree that bringing India into the nuclear non-proliferation regime is entirely consistent with the U.S. and other NGS countries’ devotion to the NPT.
In March 2006, President George Bush said: “Pakistan is a different country, with different needs and a different history. All other countries are members of the NPT and if any of them were to breach the treaty, it would not amount to following the Indian example but that of North Korea.” Understanding and appreciation of India’s particular set of circumstances have moved the founders of the NSG to approve the waiver and frame a new creative approach to nuclear technology sharing and managing a more proliferation-proof fuel cycle that, in turn, would multiply the benefits of a cooler climate.
The issue that the NSG had to critically review was whether the benefits of bringing India as a stakeholder in the non-proliferation regime through the waiver would outweigh any perceived damage to the NPT. The NSG is on target - it is about to achieve its cherished goal of making the non-proliferation regime totally international by bringing India into it. Failure to see this unfolding drama is short-sighted and unfortunate. As President George W. Bush took office eight years ago, he was very conscious of the fact that, for 34 years, the biggest impediment to a close U.S. – India relationship was the continuing disagreement about India’s nuclear capability and its status in the international non-proliferation order. In fact, even before he entered the White House oval office, President Bush made up his mind to put in place the building blocks for a new relationship with India. He decided that India and the United States should have a new and strong relationship, akin to an alliance. His success brings to mind Allison Graham’s seminal article on the Cuban Missile Crisis (Graham Allison, Essence of Decision: The Cuban Missile Crisis (Boston: Little, Brown, 1971)), which espoused the notion that statesmanship requires visionary leaders to make tough choices and demonstrate political will. Henry Kissinger put it in more practical terms: “The task of the leader is to get his people from where they are to where they have not been.” President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh demonstrated that visionary leadership.