The US-India nuclear partnership

The Manila Times Internet Edition | OPINION > The US-India nuclear partnership: "
Saturday, September 03, 2005

EDITORIAL
The US-India nuclear partnership

THE move of US President George W. Bush to share civilian nuclear technology with India has raised fears that his decision may have set the stage for nuclear proliferation.
Viewed from the perspective of the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, there is nothing wrong with Bush’s initiative. Although the treaty’s objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and technology, it also seeks to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and provides all states with equal access to the technology.
That is the whole objective of the US-India nuclear partnership.
What critics are questioning is bringing US nuclear technology to India, which, besides being a nonsignatory to the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, had conducted nuclear tests in 1974 and 1998.
Critics have some qualms that, being outside the treaty, India may not submit itself to nuclear inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the nuclear watchdog.
This violates a US law banning civilian nuclear cooperation with countries that do not submit to full nuclear inspection.
This is one rough edge of the US-India agreement that needs to be smoothed out. The US Congress may have to amend its law; and in this respect, US State Secretary Condoleezza Rice is already doing much of the spadework to win the support of lawmakers for the agreement.
Many US lawmakers see some strategic reasons for Bush to help India with its civilian nuclear program. The idea, some say, is to help bring India to a certain level of economic growth and prestige to “counterbalance” China’s growing influence in the Asian region.
Democratic Rep. Frank Pallone, the founder of the House India Caucus, was quoted by The Associated Press as saying that “everything in India is civilian-controlled” and that India “has no history of trying to send nuclear weapons or technology to third parties.”
Bush’s nuclear partnership with India has the support of legislators from both the Republican and Democratic parties. In the 100-member Senate, the House India Caucus, chaired by Senators John Cornyn and Hillary Rodham Clinton, has more than 40 members, not including those outside the Caucus who support the agreement.
The desire of nations to have nuclear weapons is natural from a strategic perspective. Some of the countries with ambitions to possess nuclear weapons, if they don’t already have it, are Iran, Brazil and North Korea.
Iran has long been trying to acquire nuclear weapons since the days of the Shah. Brazil has tried to revive its nuclear weapons program. North Korea has tried to rattle its nuclear saber to compel the respect of nations.
Pakistan is believed to be a nuclear power.
Pakistan may not take kindly to the US decision to share its civilian nuclear technology with India, its nuclear rival. But Bush cannot do for Pakistan what it is doing for India.
After the 9/11 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in New York, the US got tough with Pakistan owing to reports that it had given aid and comfort to the al-Qaeda terrorist group.
The US could have ousted President Pervez Musharraf as it did with the dictator of Afghanistan. Many observers, however, believe that the US chose prudence because Pakistan, a nuclear power, could have used its bomb in retaliation.
If Pakistan’s possession of the nuclear bomb could deter an external attack, the temptation of nations to acquire the bomb becomes more intense. The bomb has become the 21st-century equalizer, and its proliferation makes our world more dangerous than ever.
The stakes in the US-India nuclear agreement are high. “[In] the end, historians are going to judge this agreement primarily by whether or not it does provide a convenient pretext for other nonnuclear weapons states to become nuclear weapons states,” said Robert Hathaway, director of the Woodrow Wilson Center’s Asia program.
The Philippines has great faith in President Bush’s wisdom in helping an ally, especially in its development of nuclear energy in the face of the oil crisis. But this could send the wrong signal to other nations in the region, particularly Pakistan, and could lead to armed confrontation."