Nuclear Double-Standard
The new US-Indo accord
has given India on a silver platter
what it had been seeking for years,
namely, full US civilian nuclear cooperation
without India exposing its military
nuclear program to international inspections.
The effect of the accord is that a nuclear
weapon state operating outside the purview
of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
has been promised US civilian nuclear
technology. Thus, the principle that
countries that refuse to sign the NPT
should be barred from getting civilian
nuclear assistance has been hit for
a six. As characterized by the Financial
Times in its editorial of July 20 “the
US has erred in giving India almost
everything it wanted on the nuclear
front.” Senior news analyst Daniel
Schorr described the US-Indo accord
in the Christian Science Monitor of
July 29 as a “historic change
in attitudes toward India…with
the Bush administration ready to show
favoritism to India.”
The Bush administration has made an
exception of India by giving it exemption
a la Israel. Not coincidentally, both
the “exempt” and “exceptional”
states, i.e., India and Israel, are
forging closer ties. Knowledgeable circles
in the Washington area are of the view
that India accessed Israel in a belief
– well-founded it appears –
that the route to Washington was through
Israel. It has not been without cost
to the credibility of US officialdom,
which has been accused by US Presidential
candidate and pioneer of the consumer
movement, Ralph Nader, of being “puppets
of Israel.” There is also a Chinese
sub-text, with India being crudely propped
up as a counterweight to China. Already,
this is fueling a growing alliance between
China and Iran, which is cemented by
a shared distrust of US motives.
Also, the US plans to help India become
a ‘major power’. But, among
other things, a world-class power needs
a world-class infrastructure, such as
good transport networks, sound telecommunications,
and electricity systems. Not to speak
of a society bereft of crippling caste-ridden
violence and discrimination.
The president of Brookings Institution,
Strobe Talbott, has depicted the new
Indo-US alliance as a “step toward
a breakdown in the international proliferation
regime.” And, according to a leading
Washington-based Pakistan expert, Stephen
Cohen, “The Vajpayee government
invented the term ‘natural alliance’
which has been adopted by American officials.”
But the Indo-US accord is still not
a done deal. It has to be approved by
the US Congress which, despite its Republican
majority, will not find it easy to reverse
its long standing nuclear policies.
For Bush’s plan to take off, the
US Congress would have to repeal or
amend US law.
In 1978, the US Congress passed the
Non-Proliferation Act, which bars countries
which have not signed the NPT from acquiring
civilian nuclear technology from the
US. As a non-signatory to the NPT, India
thus is currently ineligible to receive
US civilian nuclear technology. The
same law would also require India to
agree to “full-scope” safeguards,
agreeing to open its civilian and military
reactors to international inspection
by the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA). Although India is prepared to
permit IAEA inspection of all of its
civilian nuclear reactors, it will not
agree to inspection of its military
nuclear facilities. Thus, US civilian
nuclear technology cannot be transferred
to India unless and until the US Congress
acts to change its laws.
Congress should refuse to do so if it
values US interests as opposed to the
temporary exigencies of the Bush administration
whose unwise policies have already caused
profound harm both to the US as well
as to the Muslim world. This also would
be a test case for the Pakistani-American
community in that it presents an excellent
opportunity for it to make its mark.
On this issue, its interests converge
with the interests of the US public
as well as goals of global nuclear non-proliferation.
Commenting on the Indo-US nuclear concord,
The New York Times, through its editorial
of July 22, said: “A nuclear non-proliferation
policy that is selective and unilateral
is no policy at all.”
During these deadly times, it sends
yet another message of double standards.
