[ | | | 8 interested person(s) ]

Looks like once again the US is rewarding bad form. India was making nuclear weapons as late as 1998. They are not apart of the NPT (non-proliferation treaty). True, they are a trusted ally but why make a nuclear deal with a country that has no intention of signing the NPT?

This move undermines the Nuclear Nonproliferation Agreement and sends the wrong message to leaders of North Korea and Iran, who have snubbed their noses at international calls to halt their nuclear weapons programs.

If India wants our technology and nuclear know how why not commit to the NPT?

UN watchdog welcomes US-India nuclear deal by Reuters
US India Seal Historic Nuclear Energy Deal by Washington Post

8 interested person(s)

Adam said... @ 3/02/2006 11:52:00 AM

I've got my doubts as well, but we are dealing with an ally. Personally, if anything is to be done, I think the UN should be in charge of the investigation, setting their own standards rather than following those set by India. They should be allowed to investigate all nuclear facilities before we can make anything of this deal. I believe you're right in saying they should abide by the NPC before a deal concerning nuclear power is closed. What we need is a thourough investigation, and perhaps a new proposed NPC; a renewal, if you will. We must wait and watch, friend.

K. said... @ 3/02/2006 12:51:00 PM

I don't find problems with sharing the technology with India the problem I find is the double standards we are applying. We go after NPC signee Iran for presueing nuclear energy and accuse them of wanting to make nuclear arms. AND ON THE OTHER HAND we ally and help a non-NPC signee in India who has nuclear weapons currently.

Sends mixed messages and undermines what I see has a very important document which tries to curb the proliferation of nuclear weapons around the world.

If a country hasn't signed the NPC then we shouldn't share nuke technology. NO EXCEPTIONS in my opinion.

nico said... @ 3/03/2006 01:47:00 AM

I'm very against us snuggling up to India with nuke stuff. We've got a shaky, but semi-cooperative relationship with Pakistan right now and I imagine this is going to piss them off to no end.

Additionally, all we need to do is irritate the Muslim world by beefing up the nuke capabilities of a country that's bitter enemies to one of the biggest Muslim nations on eart.

Plus, I don't fully trust India (and neither does my wife...whose Indian!)

I prefer India to Pakistan, but still, I don't like it because it makes posturing to Iran and North Korea look ridiculous.

Vivek said... @ 3/03/2006 11:43:00 AM

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is the NPT. I think NPC is the Nashville Polygamy Council.

In any case, as an Indian, I think the deal is great...for India. For the world, it's not so good. It's not like the NPT prevented Pakistan, NK or Iran from getting Nukes...or Libya and Iraq from trying.

But India has an impeccable record when it comes to proliferation...has sent more people to UN peacekeeping duties than any country...is a vibrant strong democracy...has more Muslims (and none in Al Qaeda) than anywhere else but Indonesia...and has't gone on the offensive in a war since 400 BC.

K. said... @ 3/03/2006 12:33:00 PM

Arg thanks Vivek. Typo fixed.

K. said... @ 3/03/2006 12:37:00 PM

Loving this by the way, "Nashville Polygamy Council" haha.

All valid points Vivek which I do not dispute but given that record why not sign the NPT?

Just seems like an easy thing to get around this whole thing. Plus it also give the US its leverage back when negotiating with countries like Iran and N. Korea.

Anonymous said... @ 3/03/2006 05:19:00 PM

Oh I think India will sign it soon, if the US Congress ratifies the deal. The original reason to not sign it was were very highly principled ones --

1. that no countries should have nukes and that all countries with weapons should disarm

2. that a selective hierarchy enforced by the victors of WWII and China is unfair and does not properly recognize India's uniqueness and history (we Indians are very prickly about this)

If India had signed the NPT it could not have developed a weapons program, since all of its nuclear assets would have come under IAEA safeguards. Development of a weapons program would have been impossible. Pakistan and Israel have done the same thing.

Additionally, India felt that not having a weapons program would have essentially ceded hegemony of Asia to China without the tiniest of objections. Though India and China (the two oldest civilizations) have had a mostly peaceful co-existence, a nuclear, communist, expansionist (to wit: Tibet) China offering succor to a truculent Pakistan would be an impossibility for India.

But like I said, since India has now got what it wants from the US (and has had the deal blessed by the IAEA) India will probably sign the NPT soon...unless they hold out for a permanent seat in the UNSC.

Which, IMHO, India is far more deserving of than either France or the UK.

K. said... @ 3/03/2006 05:55:00 PM

Wow. Thanks Anon. Great post. Blogging rules you can learn so much.

Anon said: "That no countries should have nukes and that all countries with weapons should disarm."

Amen. I also agree that India might be more deserving than France or UK.

What I also find troubling is the fact that the US (the country with the most nukes) makes the rules and bullies countries like Iran and North Korea...just seems like its all a matter of perspective on who and who should not have nuclear technology.

Also wanted to add that your second point about WWII and a selective hierarchy had never dawned on me. Very intersting. Thanks Anon stop by anytime.

Post a Comment