Nuclear Deal Agreed, What is Next?
Four months after the signing of the much-hyped Indo-US nuclear deal in New Delhi, the US House of Representatives finally passed the bill that would accommodate the implementation of the agreement. Under the proposed deal, the United States will aid the development of civil nuclear power in India in return for New Delhi placing its civil nuclear facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency inspections.
With an overwhelming majority in the US House voted for the deal, by a vote of 359 to 68, it means a major victory for the Bush administration, which argued that nurturing India as an ally outweighed concerns that the agreement would free more nuclear material for India to use for the manufacture of nuclear weapons.
This approval of the bill also means that the US would for the first time allow itself to ship nuclear fuel and technology to a country that has refused to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. India, Pakistan and Israel are countries with nuclear capability that refused to be a part of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). The deal is also seen as a sign of a geopolitical re-alliance following the Cold War, one that allows India to jump-start its quest for alternative energy, as its economy booms.
With majority of Democratic and Republican leaders in both houses of Congress have expressed strong support for the bill, it is expected that the Senate would pass the bill when they will meet and vote for it this year-end. And if it becomes law, the measure would reverse some three decades of US policy to restrict access to nuclear technology.
On the contrary, when the members of the US House are overwhelmingly in support of the deal despite opposition from some of its members, in India, the scene is the opposite. The Manmohan Singh’s government is facing distractions both from the opposition and from his own coalition partners, especially the Left parties and the Samajwadi Party.
They argue that if the bill that has just been passed by the US Congress finally becomes a law, it would curtail India’s independency in the nuclear technology development. According to the agreement India must separate its indigenously developed civilian and military nuclear facilities, and submit civilian facilities to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
At the same time, the international community would see India as an ally to the US in South Asia, replacing Pakistan, something that the Left parties have been criticizing since the very beginning.
In response to these critics, PM Singh said that the Indian government would wait and watch the final shape of the agreement and will response accordingly. He said, "Let it (legislative process) be completed. Once it is completed we will then determine whether there are elements which go beyond what we have committed in July 18 (agreement) last year."
Thus the Indo-US nuclear deal is definitely having its supporters and detractors. The supporters say that the deal is the best deal an emerging giant like India can get from a superpower like the US. It will boost India’s growing needs of energy to keep the pace of its ever-growing economy. Nuclear power will help feed its rapidly expanding economy. At the same time, it strengthens international security by tightening US ties to ally India, the world's biggest democracy. A new alliance with a South Asian giant would balance the power equation in Asia that has been dominated by China.
On the other hand, the detractors argue that the deal is opposed to the NPT. India has refused to sign the Treaty. It also undermines the US campaign to halt the development of nuclear technology by Iran. Worse it could trigger a new nuclear arms race in South Asia. Pakistan's expanding nuclear program could fan the rivalry that saw the neighbors almost go to war for a fourth time in 2002, and conduct tit-for-tat nuclear tests in 1998.
In view of all the pros and cons, it must be remembered that unilateralism in international politics must be confronted at all cost. Nuclear technology is free for all. All sovereign nations, both developing and developed countries, can equip itself with the technology as long as there is responsibility in it. It is the responsibility of the political leadership to be accountable and responsible for their decisions. If India, an emerging giant in Asia, is capable of developing the technology independently and responsibly, why restrain it? So does Iran.
With an overwhelming majority in the US House voted for the deal, by a vote of 359 to 68, it means a major victory for the Bush administration, which argued that nurturing India as an ally outweighed concerns that the agreement would free more nuclear material for India to use for the manufacture of nuclear weapons.
This approval of the bill also means that the US would for the first time allow itself to ship nuclear fuel and technology to a country that has refused to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. India, Pakistan and Israel are countries with nuclear capability that refused to be a part of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). The deal is also seen as a sign of a geopolitical re-alliance following the Cold War, one that allows India to jump-start its quest for alternative energy, as its economy booms.
With majority of Democratic and Republican leaders in both houses of Congress have expressed strong support for the bill, it is expected that the Senate would pass the bill when they will meet and vote for it this year-end. And if it becomes law, the measure would reverse some three decades of US policy to restrict access to nuclear technology.
On the contrary, when the members of the US House are overwhelmingly in support of the deal despite opposition from some of its members, in India, the scene is the opposite. The Manmohan Singh’s government is facing distractions both from the opposition and from his own coalition partners, especially the Left parties and the Samajwadi Party.
They argue that if the bill that has just been passed by the US Congress finally becomes a law, it would curtail India’s independency in the nuclear technology development. According to the agreement India must separate its indigenously developed civilian and military nuclear facilities, and submit civilian facilities to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
At the same time, the international community would see India as an ally to the US in South Asia, replacing Pakistan, something that the Left parties have been criticizing since the very beginning.
In response to these critics, PM Singh said that the Indian government would wait and watch the final shape of the agreement and will response accordingly. He said, "Let it (legislative process) be completed. Once it is completed we will then determine whether there are elements which go beyond what we have committed in July 18 (agreement) last year."
Thus the Indo-US nuclear deal is definitely having its supporters and detractors. The supporters say that the deal is the best deal an emerging giant like India can get from a superpower like the US. It will boost India’s growing needs of energy to keep the pace of its ever-growing economy. Nuclear power will help feed its rapidly expanding economy. At the same time, it strengthens international security by tightening US ties to ally India, the world's biggest democracy. A new alliance with a South Asian giant would balance the power equation in Asia that has been dominated by China.
On the other hand, the detractors argue that the deal is opposed to the NPT. India has refused to sign the Treaty. It also undermines the US campaign to halt the development of nuclear technology by Iran. Worse it could trigger a new nuclear arms race in South Asia. Pakistan's expanding nuclear program could fan the rivalry that saw the neighbors almost go to war for a fourth time in 2002, and conduct tit-for-tat nuclear tests in 1998.
In view of all the pros and cons, it must be remembered that unilateralism in international politics must be confronted at all cost. Nuclear technology is free for all. All sovereign nations, both developing and developed countries, can equip itself with the technology as long as there is responsibility in it. It is the responsibility of the political leadership to be accountable and responsible for their decisions. If India, an emerging giant in Asia, is capable of developing the technology independently and responsibly, why restrain it? So does Iran.
Labels: Indian Nuclear
blog by Mas Qisa'i at 12:36:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home for More Stories