UNITED NATIONS, Jul 31 (IPS) – The U.S. decision last week to proceed with a controversial civilian nuclear deal with
“The development of a nuclear/strategic alliance between the
The deal, he told IPS, also undermines prospects for global agreements on nuclear restraint and disarmament.
An equally negative reaction came from former U.N. Under-Secretary-
But the Indian government argues that the nuclear agreement would neither destabilise the region nor prompt an arms race.
Nor will it trigger a “copycat deal” between
“This agreement was not an excuse to enhance our strategic capabilities,
Zia Mian of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at
“But the people of
The deal will allow
“This means nuclear establishments in both countries will become more powerful, drain even greater resources away from social development, and increase the nuclear danger in South Asia,” Mian told IPS.
Nicholas Burns, the
“This agreement sends a message to outlaw regimes such as
Called the “123 agreement”, last week’s nuclear deal will help create a civil nuclear enrichment facility in
Still, in a major speech in February 2004, U.S. President George W. Bush said that “enrichment and reprocessing are not necessary for nations seeking to harness nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.”
“The details of the so-called ’123 agreement’ are still shrouded in secrecy but, on the basis of what has been disclosed, it is clear that the U.S.-India nuclear cooperation deal is an example of crude realpolitik trumping nuclear nonproliferation principles in total disregard of the NPT,” Dhanapala told IPS.
He warned that it sends “a bad signal to the overwhelming majority of NPT parties who have faithfully abided by their treaty obligations.
Last week Burns told reporters that the deal would not act as an incentive for other countries to develop nuclear weapons outside the NPT.
Burroughs said that
“The problem with the deal is not that it acknowledges that
Under the deal, neither country agrees to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).
“And while India agrees to work with the United States towards a treaty banning production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons, India is not required to stop producing materials for weapons now or to refrain from building additional weapons from existing material,” he added.
In short, the deal seems to certify
Mian of Princeton University pointed out that the deal is also a clear violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1172, adopted on 6 June 1998, which was passed unanimously, and called upon India and Pakistan “immediately to stop their nuclear weapon development programmes, to refrain from weaponisation or from the deployment of nuclear weapons, to cease development of ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons and any further production of fissile material for nuclear weapons.”
That resolution also encouraged all States to “prevent the export of equipment, materials or technology that could in any way assist programs in India or Pakistan for nuclear weapons,” said Mian who along with M. V. Ramana co-authored “Wrong Ends, Means, and Needs: Behind the U.S. Nuclear Deal With India”, in the January/February 2006 issue of Arms Control Today.