US–India
Nuclear Agreement: Failure of Pakistan Strategy
By Bushra Ahmad
University of California
Berkeley
The US House of Representatives
overwhelmingly approved a US-India civil nuclear
agreement on July 26, 2006. H.R. 5682, cited as
the ‘United States and India Nuclear Cooperation
Promotion Act of 2006,’ allows India to purchase
fuel and nuclear reactors from the US in order to
create cleaner energy sources. The Bush Administration
sees this agreement as a step towards full civil
nuclear cooperation and is asking Congress for an
India-specific amendment to the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954. This would enable India to be treated as
a country in good standing with the international
nuclear nonproliferation regime.
The US-India Nuclear Agreement would enable India
to achieve a new host of capabilities. Since India
has reprocessing fuel capabilities, it would enable
them to produce more fissile material, including
plutonium. This is significant since less plutonium
is needed to increase the production of light weight
nuclear weapons.
While increasing India’s nuclear capabilities,
this deal also takes away from the Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT) since India is not a signatory to it.
India does not want the rest of the world to be
able to view its actions while it tests nuclear
devices. This allows India to perform more tests,
the results of which affect the entire world. All
these tests have dangerous consequences as they
pose serious hazards to human beings. The material
from them enters our water supply, the food chain,
and the air. Highly radioactive elements will be
present everywhere and as they enter into our system;
they may cause cancers and tumors, for which there
is no known cure.
This agreement will also have dire consequences
for the region of South Asia. Although Pakistan
already has nuclear capabilities, there is never
a positive outcome when a country develops nuclear
capabilities since the result is massive destruction
in half a second. If India pulls its trigger, it
will result in the destruction of both sides.
While India is not a signatory to the NPT, the Bush
Administration views this as a progressive step
towards incorporating India into the nonproliferation
regime. Bush stated, “This historic action
by the House of Representatives is another important
step toward building a new strategic partnership
between the United States and India.”
While India benefits from this agreement by strengthening
its ties with the United States and upsetting the
balance of power in South Asia, some see this as
hindering the Non-Proliferation Treaty as well as
US and international attempts. It would upset the
balance of power in an already unstable region and
would not put any pressure on India to sign the
NPT. It would also enable India’s civilian
sector capabilities to be transferred to the military
sector. Thus enabling civilian technology to be
shared with the military and enhance its abilities.
In addition to refusing to sign the NPT, India has
detonated nuclear bombs and refuses to enforce International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safety measures in its
nuclear facilities. Thus, according to US laws and
global nuclear export regulations, India is not
entitled to full civil nuclear cooperation.
As India becomes a major power on the world stage
through its nuclear and military capabilities, the
United States will be putting forth the bill. Supporting
India enables the United States to reduce its own
military, political, and economic costs when it
comes to limiting the growth of its possible rival,
China.
In addition to the US limiting its rival’s
growth, India seeks to limit Pakistan’s growth
in the region. Although Pakistan had demanded the
same agreement, the United States refused. China
had insisted that any exemptions for nuclear cooperation
should not only be offered to India but should also
be offered to other countries, including its ally
Pakistan. With different countries having different
allies, this agreement will drastically disturb
India and Pakistan’s balance of power in the
region.
Before discussing the House vote on the nuclear
agreement, one must comparatively analyze the size
and role of the US Congressional Indian Caucus and
the US Congressional Pakistan Caucus. The Indian
Caucus consists of 173 House members, 105 Democrats
and 68 Republicans. The Pakistan Caucus is much
smaller with 74 House members, consisting of 38
Democrats and 36 Republicans. There are 36 members,
21 Democrats and 16 Republicans who belong to both
the caucuses. The purpose of a caucus is to represent
issues that are important to representative’s
members. A caucus requires the backing of a community
as many Congressional staffers have pointed out
that the community needs to be proactive and encourage
their representatives to address specific issues.
Caucus
Membership
|
|
Indian
Caucus |
Pakistan
Caucus |
Senate
|
House |
Senate
|
House |
Democrats |
18 |
105 |
----- |
38 |
Republicans
|
19 |
68 |
----- |
36 |
Total |
37 |
173 |
----- |
74 |
On July 26th, 2006, House members voted on the nuclear
agreement. A majority vote of 359 favored the agreement
while 68 opposed and 6 did not vote. Of the 36 House
members that belong to both, the Indian Caucus as
well as the Pakistan Caucus, 32 members voted in
favor of the agreement while 4 members opposed it.
House
Vote
|
Favor
|
Oppose |
Not Voting |
Republican
|
219 |
9 |
3 |
Democratic |
140 |
58 |
3 |
Independent |
|
1 |
|
Totals |
359 |
68 |
6 |
The voting results
only validate the claims of what many activists
in the Pakistani community have been saying all
along. They have raised concern that an overlap
of members could result in a conflict of interests
and that caucus members with dual membership tend
to vote with India. With the nuclear agreement vote,
the House members seemed to be playing favorites
as they overwhelmingly sided with India’s
interests. Only one out of every nine members, roughly
11 percent, of those belonging to both caucases
opposed the agreement.
The results also illustrate the failure of the Pakistani
Caucus. A report by the Weekly Report from Washington,
DC showed just how much of a failure Pakistani lobbying
was at the nation’s capital. The report states,
"The Pakistan Embassy claims to have secured
the support of 75 Congressmen, but whenever any
meeting is called, only a handful of members of
Congress are present - mostly, Black Congresswoman
Sheila Jackson Lee would be present. Then, many
of the Congressmen listed in the Pakistani Caucus
are also part of the Indian Caucus. This is scandalous.
But who would bother about it?” The report
goes on to state, "Pakistani Ambassador Jehangir
Karamat hardly comes to the embassy. Even when the
General comes, he stays there only for a while.”
When a Congressman is a member of both Caucuses
it poses a challenge for them to equally represent
both caucuses’ interests. When one looks at
financial contributions, Indians contribute half
a million more US dollars to their lobbyists than
Pakistanis. Since lobbying is a crucial factor in
the foreign policy process in the United States,
it is not difficult to understand the results. Thus,
the failure of Pakistani lobbying has worked to
India’s nuclear advantage.
These results are not surprising when one considers
that Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf’s
strategy has been a failure. Although President
Bush and President Musharraf had a strategic partnership
between their countries that took into account their
shared interests of promoting peace and security
in South Asia, that may no longer be the case. Musharraf
is now at a crucial juncture as he must reexamine
his strategy with the United States
In addition, India may soon have a top official
at the United Nations. Shashi Tharoor is India’s
candidate and a serious contender for the UN secretary
general position. If he wins this position, it would
increase India’s influence and power in the
world.
In light of recent events with Israel’s attack
on Lebanon, one must also recognize India’s
other ally, Israel, and its role with India. In
2000, Israel was India’s second largest equipment
supplier as their military transactions were greater
than 3 billion dollars. In addition, Israel is China’s
second major arms supplier. With Israel being number
four among the world’s arms suppliers, one
can expect its relationship with India to only become
closer after this nuclear agreement.
The next step for the nuclear agreement will be
the US Senate which is supposed to vote on the agreement
later in 2006. If the Senate passes the bill, it
then goes to the president who signs the bill in
order to enforce the agreement. If the Senate passes
the bill, Musharraf must revaluate his strategy
with the US as he considers his country’s
security and stability on the world stage.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
