The US is having a difficult time trying to
justify the US-India nuclear deal as part of
which the 123 agreement has just been concluded,
guaranteeing India full civil nuclear
cooperation. As the text of the agreement has
been released 3 days prior to Hiroshima Day,
there is consternation among people believing in
a world free of nuclear weapons.

After imposing sanctions on India, after its
nuclear tests in 1974 and 1998, the US is
ultimately according it the status of a nuclear
weapons state under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty without formally saying so.

The US is willing to do business with India in
nuclear technology and materials, as it is with
any other nuclear weapons or non-nuclear weapons
state, which is a party to the NPT. As a
non-signatory state, India is not supposed to
derive this privilege.

However, under the deal, India is being given the
benefits which have been made available to some
very close allies of the US, like Japan or
EURATOM, making other NPT members wonder about
the utility of their acceding to the Treaty.

The US seems to be more worried about the
business interests of its corporations than about
the more worthy cause of disarmament, and it has
once again proved that to maintain its global
hegemony it does not mind throwing all national
and international norms and laws to the wind.

With Nicholas Burns, the chief diplomat-architect
of the 123 agreement, hinting at subsequent
non-nuclear military cooperation with what he
describes as a "soon to be the largest country in
the world," we are going to see more of a
unipolar world, posing a threat to the smaller
countries around the world, especially the
unfortunate ones out of favour with the US
Government.

It is quite clear that US wants to court India as
a strategic ally, with the objective of
developing joint military capabilities and
perhaps even establishing military bases on
Indian territory, and it is willing to play along
with Indian nuclear ambitions.

The recent stop-over of the US nuclear powered
aircraft carrier Nimitz, recently deployed in the
Persian Gulf as a warning to Iran and possibly
carrying nuclear weapons, at the port of Chennai,
in violation of India’s stated policy of not
allowing transit of foreign nuclear weapons
through its territorial waters, is a sign of
things to come.

At the preparatory committee meeting for the 2010
NPT review conference held in May-June, in
Vienna, the New Agenda Coalition countries,
Ireland, Brazil, Egypt, Mexico, New Zealand,
South Africa, Sweden and Japan have urged India,
besides Pakistan and Israel, to accede to the NPT
as non-nuclear weapons states in order to
accomplish universality of the Treaty.

Under the Treaty a nuclear weapons state has been
defined as one, which has manufactured and
exploded a nuclear weapon or other nuclear
explosive devices prior to January 1, 1967.

It would really be a misnomer to call India —
and Pakistan and Israel — as non-nuclear weapons
states. So, the US is doing the next best thing.
It says that by signing the deal with India it is
bringing India into the non-proliferation regime,
as more of its nuclear facilities will now be
subjected to IAEA safeguards.

As part of the negotiations, India has agreed to
bifurcate its nuclear activity into clearly
identified civilian and military categories, with
the provision of the former being open to IAEA
inspections.

The US has agreed upon this India specific deal
as an exception, in spite of resistance from
within and without, because it thinks that India
has not contributed to proliferation.

It is a different matter, though, that by
conducting nuclear explosions twice India has
violated the global non-proliferation regime,
instigating Pakistan to do the same. North Korea
was also emboldened to come out of NPT because of
India’s brazen transgression.

India has consistently refused to sign the NPT,
CTBT or FMCT. It is amazing how India has come
this far with the US, outraging the modesty of
the international community, and extracted
significant concessions in the deal.

Against the spirit of the Henry Hyde Act, if
India decides to conduct another nuclear test or
violates IAEA safeguards agreement, the US will
not immediately exercise its right of return of
materials and technology but, giving due
considerations to the circumstances which
prompted India’s action, will ensure the
continuity of India’s nuclear fuel supply from
other sources around the world.

The text of the 123 agreement has even gone as
far as identifying France, Russia and the UK as
potential suppliers in the eventuality of the US
terminating its supply. And even if the US
exercises right of return, India will be suitably
compensated. Moreover, the US would support India
in building up a strategic nuclear fuel reserve,
ensuring that India will not be stranded like it
was when fuel for the Tarapur plant was stopped
after India’s first testing.

The issue which clinched the 123 agreement was
India’s offer to subject a new reprocessing
facility, which will be built exclusively for
this purpose, to IAEA safeguards in return for
the consent to reprocess the spent fuel, even
though the US president is on record as saying
that enrichment and reprocessing are not
necessary for a country to move forward with
nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. India will
be free to maintain and develop its nuclear
arsenal.

The deal will not have any impact on this. In
fact, with external resources available for its
nuclear energy programme, it will be able to
divert its internal resources for strengthening
its strategic programme. 8 nuclear reactors out
of 22, and an upcoming Prototype Fast Breeder
Reactor, will remain dedicated for military
purposes, outside the purview of IAEA.

Hence, in essence, India will enjoy all the
powers of a nuclear weapons state under the NPT,
especially if the Nuclear Suppliers Group of 45
countries also yields to the US-like concessions
to India.

The US is going to campaign with the NSG to
engage in nuclear trade with India after it has
helped India sign an agreement with IAEA on
safeguards, because it has to seek another
approval of the Congress before the deal can be
considered final.

It is intriguing how Australia, Canada, South
Africa, and others, are only too willing to go
along with the US desire so that they can do
business with India, giving up their long
standing commitment to non-proliferation.

23 US lawmakers wrote a letter to the US
president on July 25, expressing concern over
India’s growing ties with Iran, including the
domain of defence partnership. It must be
remembered that India is considering a very
important deal with Iran on the
Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline.

Considering that the energy information
administration of the US has, in its
International Energy Outlook 2007, predicted that
the largest proportion of the new capacity
addition for electricity generation until 2030
will be in the form of gas fired technologies,
which are also better from the point of view of
reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it is more
likely that India will give equal if not more
importance to its relationship with Iran. The
deal with Iran is also one of the rare instances
where Indian and Pakistani interests converge.

Hence, it should not surprise anybody if the gas
pipeline deal with Iran dominates the nuclear
deal with US in the Indian and regional context,
at least for a couple of decades to come.

India claims that with this deal the global order
has been changed. And it is right. It has upset
the non-proliferation regime. Globally and
regionally, it is going to lead to
reconfiguration of forces, possibly leading to a
renewed arms race.

The National Command Authority of Pakistan, which
oversees the nuclear programme there, chaired by
President Musharraf, has already expressed its
displeasure at the deal and pledged to maintain
(read upgrade) its credible minimum deterrence.
Pakistan views this deal as disturbing the
regional strategic stability, and has asserted
that it cannot remain oblivious to its security
requirements.

An International Panel on Fissile Materials
report predicts at least four to five times
increase in India’s weapons grade plutonium
production rate. The present Indian stock is
estimated to be sufficient for about 100 nuclear
warheads. This is obviously alarming for Pakistan.

What India and Pakistan need, in the interest of
the people of the sub-continent, is a mutually
reassuring deal to suspend the nuclear arms race
rather than something which will fuel the nuclear
fire. The peace process undertaken by Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh and President Pervez
Musharraf is in danger of being eclipsed by the
US-India nuclear deal.