'Deal accommodates N Delhi's bomb lobby'

A leading US think tank has charged the Bush Administration with signing a deal that "accommodates" New Delhi's bomb lobby, does nothing to allay the fears and suspicions of those opposed to nuclear non proliferation and generally, tilts the balance of advantage of the deal squarely in India's rather than the US's favour.

Michael Krepon of the Stimson Centre, Washington, said that when the deal was discussed in the US, it promised that only a few power reactors""especially those designed to facilitate production of large quantities of bomb-making material""would be placed on the military list; that fast-breeder reactors would be designated for civilian purposes; and that civilian facilities would be safeguarded in perpetuity.

"On all of these core non-proliferation principles, the administration caved in to allow New Delhi to accommodate its bomb lobby," Krepon says.

He pointed out that India's fast breeder programmes that now exist or are under construction will not be safeguarded. Eight reactors will not be placed under safeguards, including six knockoffs of a Canadian design well suited for bomb making.

The 10 new power reactors that would be dedicated to producing electricity would be subject to a new, "India-specific" type of inspection, meaning that they would be safeguarded only so long as fuel is provided for them.

"By promising assured fuel in perpetuity, the administration has managed to meet its promise of safeguards in perpetuity. The practical effect of this tortured logic would be that if India tests a new and improved nuclear weapon design ""as most close observers of New Delhi's nuclear ambitions expect""then the US would be obliged to continue supporting India's nuclear ambitions", said Krepon.

Krepon says that nothing else - not the global debate on the NPT, nor the debate over countries like Iran which have signed the NPT and have reneged on the promises this binds them to - will contibute more to the imminent withering away of the NPT than the Indo-US nuclear deal. If the debate with India, he says over the civilian nuclear deal is the new 'nonproliferation mainstream' then 'the NPT is in serious trouble', he says.

One of the strongest arguments of the proponents of the civilian nuclear deal - including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and former US ambassador in India, Robert Blackwill - is that by bringing india's nuclear programme under the spotlight of international scrutiny, the US has ended years of Indian isolation, unaccountability and actually made the world a safer place. The article argues that the agreement's geo-strategic advantages will outweigh whatever costs there may be with respect to proliferation.

However, Krepon questions the central premise - that India will fall in line with other nuclear weapons state in respect of the rights and obligations system that the NPT demands without signing the NPT.

He says India has won independence from colonialism through a hard battle and is unlikely to timidly do what Washington tells it to do. It will define it's security and national interests on it's own.

Krepon uses contemporary politics to illustrate his point: 'he long-term energy requirements that prompted New Delhi to seek Washington's help in this nuclear deal will also require India to remain on good terms with Iran. Similarly, those anticipating a united front between Washington and New Delhi against China are likely to be disappointed', he says.

'Regrettably, the deal struck under the deadline presented by the President's trip to India accepts New Delhi's place far outside the nonproliferation mainstream' he says.