Dealing with India

On March 7, the New York Times ran an editorial that lamented President Bush's recent trip to India and Pakistan. The authors contend that, while a similar offer should not have been made to our ally Gen. Musharraf, who pardoned the Pakistani scientist that helped transfer nuclear technology to leading rogue states, "Granting India a loophole that damages a vital treaty and lets New Delhi accelerate production of nuclear bombs makes no sense either."

The treaty in question is, of course, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, signed by the five nations possessing nuclear weapons in 1968 as well as the vast majority of the remaining sovereign states, including both Iran and North Korea (which has since withdrawn). It was not signed by India, Pakistan, or Israel, all three of which have since developed nuclear technology and are believed to possesss more than 60 missiles apiece. Although the US signed the treaty, we were engaged in secret weapons sharing agreements with non-nuclear members of NATO, and still provide nuclear bombs to Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey, thus violating Articles I and II. (This fine example of global leadership fits right in with our refusal to sign the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban, along with China, Israel, India, and Pakistan.)

So the US is hardly in a position to take the moral high ground when it comes to nuclear non-proliferation. Clearly we are willing to operate by a double standard in our own interests - or, let's say, in the interest of global stability - by providing trusted democratic allies with weapons of mass destruction.

And the new deal with India doesn't even go that far. The proposed agreement 1) does not introduce nuclear technology to a non-nuclear power, 2) provides nuclear materials for civilian energy use, not military purposes, and 3) encourages India to reclassify many existing nuclear plants as "civilian" and subject them to monitoring by the IAEA.

In fact, my main question is, why has it taken so long for the US to create official agreements like this with the world's largest democracy? Apparently we're still suffering the after-effects of the cold war strategy that involved support of military coups (especially in Central/South America) in opposition to those left-leaning legitimately elected leaders who might turn out to be (cue ominous music)... COMMIE SYMPATHIZERS!!! And India, which chose to pursue many socialist policies as a fledgling nation to keep itself from being economically overrun by more powerful nations, has been regarded with similar suspicion... in contrast to neighboring Pakistan, currently ruled by the military dictator who usurped their democratically elected leader.

And let's face it, having Musharraf on our side really hasn't accomplished very much in the fight against Al-Qaeda. Although, as our President said recently, finding Bin Laden isn't really that important anyway.

Because clearly it's much more critical to eliminate a sovereign government with no links to 9/11 or Al-Qaeda - a secular regime, however abhorrent, that had been providing a critical balance against fundamentalist Iran. And to maintain good relations with the Sauds and Emirati who supplied 17 of the 19 identified 9/11 hijackers.

***
Declaration of competing interests: I am currently dating an Indian national, discussions with whom provided the basis for this post.