The civilian nuclear agreement between the United States and India, signed by President Bush on Monday is a milestone that authorizes nuclear trade with New Delhi after 32 years. Congress passed the ratifying legislation just before it adjourned on Dec. 9, by a large majority in the House and by unanimous consent in the Senate, demonstrating bipartisan support for the agreement. The ban against India, a non-signatory to the 1968 Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty, was removed.
The next steps call for India and the United States to conclude a specific agreement for bilateral nuclear cooperation, and for an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency for India-specific safeguards. There also must be clearance from the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group to change its guidelines to allow the international community to have nuclear cooperation with India. Once the technology apartheid is lifted, India will be free to get its reactors and nuclear technology from any source.
President Bush has worked passionately for the accord, saying, “As India’s economy continues to grow, the U.S.- India strategic partnership will help India meet its energy needs without increasing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. It will also help reduce India’s dependence upon imported fossil fuels.”
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice considers the deal as serving non-proliferation interests, as well.
In India, the opposition and even some allies of the coalition government object to the final deal on the grounds that it is not fully consistent with the agreement reached in Washington between President Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on July 18, 2005, and the subsequent March 2, 2006, joint statements between the two countries regarding the accord.
They object to some language and to extraneous factors, such as a non-binding condition requiring India’s cooperation to help contain Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Indian opponents argue that as a sovereign nation its foreign policy cannot be dictated by the United States.
The act ratifying the agreement is seen as militating against the United States’ full civil nuclear cooperation with India. Its certification and reporting requirements are seen as not adequately ensuring uninterrupted fuel supplies for India’s civilian reactors. Congressional approval is required for India to reprocess the used fuel or ship it back to the U.S.
Proponents of non-proliferation, on the other hand, also object to the act, claiming that it does not require adequate commitments from India to restrain its production of nuclear weapons and nuclear bomb material. The accord might lead to the unraveling of the non-proliferation regime, they assert. What if China entered into a similar agreement with Pakistan, they ask. The response by proponents of the accord is that India has always acted as a responsible member of the international community, faithfully adhering to the non-proliferation regime even though it has not ratified the treaty.
China-India relations are on the mend, and while Pakistan has strongly objected to the U.S. nuclear act, China has taken a conciliatory stance. China’s President Hu Jintao was visiting India while I was there recently. India and China entered into several trade and security agreements with India. The general impression I found was one of cautious optimism about India-China relations. China is generally seen as pursuing a policy of simultaneous engagement and containment with India.
In Delhi, Rajasthan and Punjab, where I traveled extensively, almost everyone with whom I spoke had a good word for the U.S., in contrast with sentiments in many other parts of the world. They saw a common interest in combating terrorism and shared democratic values and economic interests. “Notwithstanding Iraq, I consider President Bush a great friend of India. The U.S. and India must continue their strategic partnership,” said S.L. Sobti, a retired economics professor.
As U.S.-India relations continue to grow, it must be recognized that there are bound to remain foreign policy differences – on Iran, Pakistan and Myanmar, where the U.S. has imposed sanctions against the military junta while India is cultivating closer ties with it. Issues such as this, however, should not dampen the rise of this important alliance.
Ved P. Nanda (vnanda@law.du.edu) is the Evans University Professor and director of the International Legal Studies Program at the University of Denver.
