India nuclear deal could trigger arms race: US lawmakers

[Neo]

India nuclear deal could trigger arms race: US lawmakers​

* Democrat legislators say arms race on the subcontinent will be more difficult to control with Musharraf gone​

WASHINGTON: A nuclear energy deal between the United States and India could fuel an arms race with Pakistan unless it is amended to ensure New Delhi is banned from producing new weapons-grade material and from conducting nuclear test explosions, two US lawmakers said Wednesday.

The two lawmakers called on the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group to insist on amending the agreement when it meets to consider the deal on Thursday in Vienna.

Objections by any nation in the group — which controls the global flow of civilian atomic exports — would scuttle the pact.t.

The nuclear energy pact “threatens to rapidly accelerate New Delhi’s arms race with Pakistan — a rivalry made all the more precarious by the resignation on Tuesday of the [former] Pakistani president, Pervez Musharraf,” Democrats Edward Markey and Ellen Tauscher wrote in a commentary published in the New York Times..

With Musharraf gone: “This deal was foolish when Pakistan was relatively stable; with Musharraf gone, an arms race on the subcontinent would likely be more difficult to control.”

The suppliers group “can say yes to nuclear trade with India if two simple conditions are met,” wrote the two members of the House of Representatives.

“First, India must sign the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, a step already taken by 178 other countries and every member state of the Nuclear Suppliers Group,” the commentary said.

“Second, India must agree to halt production of nuclear material for weapons.”

Such a ban would not require India to give up the atomic weapons it has or prevent it from building more weapons with nuclear material previously produced, according to the lawmakers.

By shutting down the manufacture of new plutonium and highly enriched uranium, India “would prove to the international community that opening up nuclear commerce would not assist, either directly or indirectly, its nuclear weapons programme.

Markey, from Massachusetts, is co-chairman of the House Bipartisan Task Force on Nonproliferation and Tauscher, from California, is chair of the House Strategic Forces Subcommittee.

United States President George W Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh agreed a framework for the nuclear deal in 2005, under which the United States will provide energy-starved India civilian nuclear fuel and technology.

India still needs a waiver from the Nuclear Suppliers Group and ratification by the US Congress before the deal can go through. afp

 

[Contrarian]

Why do they waste their time. No harm in an arms race either.

 

[nitesh]

any way we will come know wht NSG says very soon.

 

[Neo]

Why do they waste their time. No harm in an arms race either.

NPT and NSG is a direct result of India going nuclear. Their main purpose was to disarm the world, not encourage nuclear arms race.

 

[Neo]

any way we will come know wht NSG says very soon.

NSG members Australia and Japan will not go around Hyde Act, I'm curious how US will convince these nations to act in favor of India without including the Hyde Act.

 

[nitesh]

NPT and NSG is a direct result of India going nuclear. Their main purpose was to disarm the world, not encourage nuclear arms race.

Not to unarm the world but to keep an exclusive club of nation who can keep possession of such weapons

 

[nitesh]

NSG members Australia and Japan will not go around Hyde Act, I'm curious how US will convince these nations to act in favor of India without including the Hyde Act.

In this week we will come to know the result anyway sir

 

[Contrarian]

NSG members Australia and Japan will not go around Hyde Act, I'm curious how US will convince these nations to act in favor of India without including the Hyde Act.

Australia and Japan have already agreed to the draft that has been circulated by the US in NSG, that has no conditions on India. So its basically done.

What matters is that legally, the NSG waiver should not include text that would ensure that every member of the NSG cease cooperation with New Delhi if it tests a nuke or something of the sort. If that happens, then India can do nothing. But US and India have agreed to a text that does not mention these things, and it has been accepted by a majority of nations barring a couple.

Now if that text goes through, India will require a bilateral treaty with almost all the NSG members to allow those countries to export nuke fuel to India. That is much better than having it all written in the NSG waiver. Because even if INdia tests, Russia and France might/would still support India by giving fuel, as it is not mentioned in their bilateral treaty. Had it been a legal clause in the NSG waiver, it would be mandatory to cease cooperation in all forms.

The countries that are creating problems are ones that are not important strategically-Ireland, New Zealand, then again, NSG works by consensus.

 

[Neo]

Not to unarm the world but to keep an exclusive club of nation who can keep possession of such weapons

Thats not all NPT is about. Yes, she's designed to keep the nuclear club to the original N5 but second goal was to disarm the world of nuclear weapons in time.

NPT​

First pillar: non-proliferation

Five states are recognized by the NPT as nuclear weapon states (NWS): France (signed 1992), the People's Republic of China (1992), the Soviet Union (1968; obligations and rights now assumed by Russia), the United Kingdom (1968), and the United States (1968) (The U.S., UK, and Soviet Union were the only states openly possessing such weapons among the original ratifiers of the treaty, which entered into force in 1970). These five nations are also the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. These five NWS agree not to transfer "nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices" and "not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce" a non-nuclear weapon state (NNWS) to acquire nuclear weapons (Article I). NNWS parties to the NPT agree not to "receive," "manufacture" or "acquire" nuclear weapons or to "seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons" (Article II). NNWS parties also agree to accept safeguards by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to verify that they are not diverting nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices (Article III). This has been cited as a major issue in the Indo-US civilian nuclear agreement as India has not offered unrestricted access to its nuclear facilities.

The five NWS parties have made undertakings not to use their nuclear weapons against a non-NWS party except in response to a nuclear attack, or a conventional attack in alliance with a Nuclear Weapons State. However, these undertakings have not been incorporated formally into the treaty, and the exact details have varied over time. The U.S. also had nuclear warheads targeted at North Korea, a non-NWS state, from 1959 until 1991. The previous United Kingdom Secretary of State for Defence, Geoff Hoon, has also explicitly invoked the possibility of the use of the country's nuclear weapons in response to a non-conventional attack by "rogue states"[2]. In January 2006, President Jacques Chirac of France indicated that an incident of state-sponsored terrorism on France could trigger a small-scale nuclear retaliation aimed at destroying the "rogue state's" power centers.[3][4]


Second pillar: disarmament

The NPT's preamble contains language affirming the desire of treaty signatories to ease international tension and strengthen international trust so as to create someday the conditions for a halt to the production of nuclear weapons, and treaty on general and complete disarmament that liquidates, in particular, nuclear weapons and their delivery vehicles from national arsenals. The NPT's Article VI elaborates on the preamble's language, urging all State Parties to the NPT, both nuclear-weapon states and non-nuclear-weapon states, "to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."

On the one hand, the wording of Article VI arguably imposes only a vague obligation on all NPT signatories to move in the general direction of nuclear and total disarmament, saying, "Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament." Under this interpretation, Article VI does not strictly require all signatories to actually conclude a disarmament treaty. Rather, it only requires them "to negotiate in good faith."[5]

On the other hand, some governments, especially non-nuclear-weapon states belonging to the Non-Aligned Movement, have interpreted Article VI's language as being anything but vague. In their view, Article VI constitutes a formal and specific obligation on the NPT-recognized nuclear-weapon states to disarm themselves of nuclear weapons, and argue that these states have failed to meet their obligation. Some government delegations to the Conference on Disarmament have tabled proposals for a complete and universal disarmament, but no disarmament treaty has emerged from these proposals[footnote needed]. Critics of the NPT-recognized nuclear-weapon states sometimes argue that what they view as the failure of the NPT-recognized nuclear weapon states to disarm themselves of nuclear weapons, especially in the post-Cold War era, has angered some non-nuclear-weapon NPT signatories of the NPT. Such failure, these critics add, provides justification for the non-nuclear-weapon signatories to quit the NPT and develop their own nuclear arsenals.

Peter Pella (Gettysburg College), a former William Foster Fellow who worked with the Arms Control Disarmament Agency on the NPT, maintained that countries will pursue nuclear disarmament as a goal only if they feel it is in their national interests to do so, and that the permanence of NPT along with other measures will enhance security and speed up the disarmament process.[citation needed]

 

[nitesh]

Thats not all NPT is about. Yes, she's designed to keep the nuclear club to the original N5 but second goal was to disarm the world of nuclear weapons in time.

Sir I know that there were fissile material cut off treaty but we all know what is the situation in present.

 

[Neo]

Australia and Japan have already agreed to the draft that has been circulated by the US in NSG, that has no conditions on India. So its basically done.

What matters is that legally, the NSG waiver should not include text that would ensure that every member of the NSG cease cooperation with New Delhi if it tests a nuke or something of the sort. If that happens, then India can do nothing. But US and India have agreed to a text that does not mention these things, and it has been accepted by a majority of nations barring a couple.

Now if that text goes through, India will require a bilateral treaty with almost all the NSG members to allow those countries to export nuke fuel to India. That is much better than having it all written in the NSG waiver. Because even if INdia tests, Russia and France might/would still support India by giving fuel, as it is not mentioned in their bilateral treaty. Had it been a legal clause in the NSG waiver, it would be mandatory to cease cooperation in all forms.

The countries that are creating problems are ones that are not important strategically-Ireland, New Zealand, then again, NSG works by consensus.

I'm unaware that Australia, Japan and Canada have agreed to accept the 123 text without same mechanism as the Hyde Act.
Can you please provide link to support your claim?

 

[nitesh]

I'm unaware that Australia, Japan and Canada have agreed to accept the 123 text without same mechanism as the Hyde Act.
Can you please provide link to support your claim?

This might help

Crucial NSG meeting to decide on nuke waiver to India today

 

[nitesh]

Some more on same:

NSG meet: India allays fears as nations raise questions -India-The Times of India

 

[Contrarian]

I'm unaware that Australia, Japan and Canada have agreed to accept the 123 text without same mechanism as the Hyde Act.
Can you please provide link to support your claim?

Your getting confused mate. They dont have to accept the 123 agreement. The 123 agreement is a bilateral agreement b/w India and the US.

What Australia, Japan and Canada have agreed to is to support the draft text that has been introduced by the US in the NSG. That draft is the key to anything and everything. And it does not mirror the Hyde Act, it mirrors the 123 Agreement. It has no provisions or conditions that are set on India.

India has advocated that instead of making the NSG waiver 'front loaded' with provisions and conditions, it should be a clean and unconditional waiver. The conditions can be attached by individual nations in their own legislature if they have to modify it for allowing trade with India in nuclear technology and fuel.

Australia, Japan and Canada are supporting the draft waiver in the NSG in its current form, which is ideally suited to India.

However, Austria, New Zealand and Ireland are proving to be the biggest hurdles in NSG. They dont want to give India an unconditional waiver, they want checks,clauses and conditions put in the waiver.

 

[ashfaque]

I'm unaware that Australia, Japan and Canada have agreed to accept the 123 text without same mechanism as the Hyde Act.
Can you please provide link to support your claim?

Neo, Actually these three countries are fighting India's case. Ya I can agree if you see Austria, new zealand and switzerland are asking few Qs then I can agree.