WP: US, India May Share Nuclear Technology

[Ancalagon the Black]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/18/AR2005071801646.html

U.S., India May Share Nuclear Technology

Bush Move to Reverse Policy on Civilian Aid Needs Hill Approval

By Dana Milbank and Dafna Linzer

Washington Post Staff Writers

Tuesday, July 19, 2005; A01

President Bush agreed yesterday to share civilian nuclear technology with India, reversing decades of U.S. policies designed to discourage countries from developing nuclear weapons.

The agreement between Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, which must win the approval of Congress, would create a major exception to the U.S. prohibition of nuclear assistance to any country that doesn't accept international monitoring of all of its nuclear facilities. India has not signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which requires such oversight, and conducted its first nuclear detonation in 1974.

Participants in the discussions said there had been debate within the administration about whether the deal with India -- which built its atomic arsenal in secret -- would undercut U.S. efforts to confront Iran and North Korea over their nuclear programs. There were also concerns about how the agreement would be accepted in Pakistan, India's regional rival and an ally in the U.S. campaign against al Qaeda.

But supporters of the approach said it was an important part of a White House strategy to accelerate New Delhi's rise as a global power and as a regional counterweight to China. As part of the strategy, the administration is also seeking ways to bolster Japan's posture in the region.

The Bush administration, which had not expected to reach agreement on the matter until a future Bush visit to India, said it had moved more quickly because it had secured commitments from New Delhi to limit the spread of nuclear materials and technology. The agreement does not formally recognize India as a nuclear power -- a status India had sought -- but it is a significant plum for the world's most populous democracy and cements India as a key strategic U.S. ally in Asia for the coming decades.

R. Nicholas Burns, undersecretary of state for political affairs, called the agreement "a major move forward for the U.S." and "the high-water mark of U.S.-India relations since 1947." Burns said the agreement, the subject of months of talks and six weeks of intense negotiations, is in line with "efforts that nuclear powers have taken to maintain a responsible policy in terms of nonproliferation."

But some nonproliferation specialists found the deal troubling.

"This is a stunning example of the Bush administration's policy of exceptionalism for friends at the cost of a consistent and effective attack on the dangers of nuclear weapons," said Daryl G. Kimball, director of the Arms Control Association.

According to a White House communique yesterday, Bush agreed that "India should acquire the same benefits and advantages" as other states with advanced nuclear technology. Bush vowed to "work to achieve full civil nuclear energy cooperation with India."

Under the terms of the deal, India agreed to place its civilian nuclear facilities -- but not its nuclear weapons arsenal -- under international monitoring and pledged to continue to honor a ban on nuclear testing. In return, it would have access, for the first time, to conventionalweapons systems and to sensitive U.S. nuclear technology that can be used in either a civilian or a military program. It could also free India to purchase the long sought-after Arrow Missile System developed by Israel with U.S. technology.

The agreement does not call for India to cease production of weapons-grade uranium, which enables India to expand its nuclear arsenal.

The United States did not offer support for India's drive to become a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, and the sides did not reach agreement on India's plan for a $4 billion pipeline delivering natural gas from Iran. The administration opposes the deal on grounds that it provides Iran with hard currency it can use for its own nuclear program.

The White House faces two major hurdles to put the deal into effect. One is altering rules in the Nuclear Suppliers Group, a consortium of more than 40 countries that controls export of nuclear technology. The group has been unreceptive to previous Bush administration initiatives and will be reluctant to create country-specific rules, said George Perkovich, a nuclear specialist at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

The other challenge will be persuading Congress to change the U.S. Nonproliferation Act, which prevents sales of sensitive nuclear technology to countries that refuse monitoring of nuclear facilities.

Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) condemned the agreement as a "dangerous proposition and bad nonproliferation policy" and said he will introduce legislation to block it. "We cannot play favorites, breaking the rules of the nonproliferation treaty, to favor one nation at the risk of undermining critical international treaties on nuclear weapons," he said in a statement. "What will Russia say when they want to supply more nuclear materials or technology to Iran? You can be sure that Pakistan will demand equal treatment."

Much of the plan was conceived by Robert Blackwill, former ambassador to India and a deputy national security adviser under Condoleezza Rice, along with his close confidant, Ashley J. Tellis, a specialist on U.S.-India relations at Carnegie .

Earlier this year, Tellis laid out a broad vision for India-U.S. relations in a paper titled "India as a New Global Power." It promoted geostrategic cooperation between the two countries rooted strongly in U.S. defense and military sales to India and U.S. support for New Delhi's growing nuclear arsenal.

"If the United States is serious about advancing its geopolitical objectives in Asia, it would almost by definition help New Delhi develop strategic capabilities such that India's nuclear weaponry and associated delivery systems could deter against the growing and utterly more capable nuclear forces Beijing is likely to possess by 2025," he wrote.

The India deal had been opposed by nonproliferation officials in Bush's administration, including John R. Bolton, who was the administration's point man on nuclear issues until March.

Bolton, Bush's nominee to become U.N. ambassador, argued that such cooperation would mean rewarding a country that built a nuclear weapon in secret, using technology it obtained under the guise of civilian power. Both North Korea and Iran are believed to have tried the same route to develop nuclear weapons. Some within the administration said the deal would be damaging at a time when the United States is trying to ratchet up international pressure on both those countries to give up their nuclear-weapons ambitions.

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

[Sarge]

That's us bringing India to our side to counter China and so we still have access to the region when we pull the rug out from under Pakistan

[Ancalagon the Black]

Originally posted by Sarge

That's us bringing India to our side to counter China and so we still have access to the region when we pull the rug out from under Pakistan

Manmohan is just about creaming himself right now. You should see some Indian newspapers' gleeful articles, full of references to how this undercuts "ambitious China" and "militaristic Pakistan."

[Sarge]

Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black

Manmohan is just about creaming himself right now. You should see some Indian newspapers' gleeful articles, full of references to how this undercuts "ambitious China" and "militaristic Pakistan."

I'm sure. As close as India and Pakistan came to nuking each other a couple of years back, I'm sure things will continue to improve between the US and India. I'll see first hand in a couple of months

[Johnny Punani2]

VERY smart move...

I've been wondering when this was going to go down.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Originally posted by Sarge

I'm sure. As close as India and Pakistan came to nuking each other a couple of years back, I'm sure things will continue to improve between the US and India. I'll see first hand in a couple of months

You are gonna see some crazy ish on the subcontinent.

When do you leave again?

[Sarge]

Originally posted by Johnny Punani

VERY smart move...

I've been wondering when this was going to go down.

It's been happening for a couple three years

[Sarge]

Originally posted by SkinsHokieFan

You are gonna see some crazy ish on the subcontinent.

When do you leave again?

Sometime end of Aug beginning Sept. Depends on when the paperwork gets through the embassy:whoknows:

[Prosperity]

They already have nuclear weapons what is giving the more civil nuclear power plant technology going to do?

[SkinsHokieFan]

Originally posted by Liberty

They already have nuclear weapons what is giving the more civil nuclear power plant technology going to do?

Honestly, I think it is much more symbolic.

Sends a message to Pervez to find the terrorists within Pakistan, and come up with something on Kashmir

Puts a lot of pressure on China. Now we have 2 allies over there right on China's border

[zoony]

India is our most under-appreciated friend...

[Ancalagon the Black]

Originally posted by Sarge

Sometime end of Aug beginning Sept. Depends on when the paperwork gets through the embassy:whoknows:

Through the Indian embassy? Good luck getting there by 2008.

[iheartskins]

Two Great Democracies

http://online.wsj.com/article_print/0,,SB112165100903588010,00.html

By DAVID C. MULFORD

July 18, 2005; Page A12

U.S.-India relations are at an all-time high as President Bush welcomes Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to Washington today. Our two great pluralistic democracies are now positioned for a partnership that will be crucial in shaping the international landscape of the 21st century. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has recently said, "the United States is serious about its vision for the U.S.-India relationship," and welcomes India's ambition to become a world power.

Secretary Rice's first visit to India in March marked three important areas for expansion of the U.S.-India strategic partnership: economic policies; a formal dialogue on India's energy requirements, including civil nuclear; and strategic and military issues. Our respective private sectors will play a key role in all these areas.

The U.S. commitment to develop deep economic and commercial ties with India has never been stronger. U.S. exports to India are up by 50% and India's by 15% for the first quarter of 2005. The recent Open Skies Agreement with India is already increasing air traffic, and India is finalizing a large order for Boeing aircraft. Our revitalized Economic Dialogue focuses on finance, trade, commerce, energy and the environment.

Private enterprise and free markets are key to long-term progress. Effective public-private cooperation will address economic growth and development challenges far more effectively than micromanagement by governments. Governments after all are not the creators of wealth, the makers of markets, the wellspring of human energy and ingenuity. These are the productive forces of individuals, which governments must make special efforts to promote. Business activity and people-to-people engagement will be critical to the transformation of U.S.-India relations.

Nevertheless, governments play an important role in setting the ground rules for much business activity. Prime Minister Singh has put economic reform at the top of India's agenda. I recognize that these reforms must be politically viable to survive, yet there are a number of mutually beneficial strategic reforms that could contribute significantly to India's progress and encourage American business to invest in India's future.

The most prominent challenge is world-class infrastructure, which India must provide as a platform for higher sustained growth to achieve its vision of becoming a world power. Infrastructure is now a national priority, but bringing together federal and state authorities and public and private players is just beginning, and remains a tall order. Political stakes are high because those leaders who provide infrastructure to India's rural and urban millions will gain lasting popular support. Infrastructure challenges are complicated by the fact that India's federal and state fiscal deficits severely restrict necessary finances for development. India must invigorate private sources to finance long-term project development.

This means that the regulatory environment and attitudes towards private investment in infrastructure at the federal and state level must change. Investors need greater confidence to undertake infrastructure investments, especially in the power sector, where our new Energy Dialogue promotes increased trade and investment, including in civilian nuclear power.

Liberalization of India's financial markets would have significant positive ripple effects throughout the economy. Chronic budget deficits derive in part from wasteful government subsidies. Developing a truly long-term capital market that taps India's vast private savings must be a key objective, together with fiscal restraint and creative private-sector financial engineering that reduces government's "crowding out" in India's financial markets. Reducing government's dominance in banking is vital to these reforms as is lifting the ceiling on foreign direct investment in insurance and liberalizing India's emerging pension industry, with greater private participation and increased freedom for both foreign and domestic banks to invest in India's rising economy.

Continued progress in intellectual property rights, or IPR, is also helping India attract more U.S. investment in biotechnology and pharmaceuticals. We share a major interest in science and technology, and India is proving to be a world-class player in these fields. As IPR protection improves, U.S. companies will become major investors, contributing capital, top quality science and technology, global management expertise, and new jobs.

Liberalization of India's retail sector is another strategic reform vital to India's future development. Today, India effectively prohibits foreign investment in the retail industry and permits a variety of restrictive practices favoring countless middlemen and preserving internal barriers that raise costs to India's consumers. International giants like Wal-Mart buy billions of dollars of goods in India annually to sell to foreign consumers. Current Indian law prohibits these same companies from selling goods to consumers in India. Likewise, agricultural reform and higher growth may be hampered without commensurate liberalization in retail and related businesses.

Increasingly it is understood in India that much can be gained from bold initiatives that liberalize India's economy and, in turn, generate popular political support. Such reform will improve living standards in ways the average citizen can feel and understand. Political credit will accrue to those in government with the vision to effect such change. Impressive results in the IT and telecom sectors already demonstrate the dynamic of less regulation, free foreign direct investment, freer trade in services, and consumer benefit. Broadening our investment in both directions is firmly in the interests of both our countries.

Finally, we must extend our growing strategic relationship. Cooperation on political issues -- from promotion of democracy abroad to global peace-keeping operations, to combating terrorism and WMD threats -- are at the core of the bilateral relationship. Defense cooperation has reached new levels and military cooperation in the tsunami disaster was unprecedented. A new defense relationship agreement signed recently by Defense Minister Pranab Mukherjee and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld will guide our defense relations for the next decade in a wide variety of areas, including the enlargement of two-way defense trade, improved interoperability, co-production and greater technology transfer.

Prime Minister Singh's visit to the U.S. will mark the next stage as the world's two largest multicultural democracies reach for new heights in their relationship.

Mr. Mulford is the U.S. ambassador to India.

[NavyDave]

Great move

I keep thinking of the classic board game RISK and seeing colored pieces you can call democracy slowly dominating the areas youwouldnt normally expect.

[miragv]

Glad to see everyone approves of this

[Mr. S]

Originally posted by Sarge

Sometime end of Aug beginning Sept. Depends on when the paperwork gets through the embassy:whoknows:

what are you visiting there for, and where would you be (stationed I guess?)? The Indian Embassy is pretty slow, as are most, though its nice when you know people who work there

Anyways, yeh, I am glad as well people are supporting this. Since the cold war ended, India has been more willing to ally with the US in my opinion. They were ready to help out when 9/11 first happened.

Liberty, yes they do have weapons capability, but im sure you know the power and water situation in India. Power outages are constant, even in larger cities they can happen. Water is a problem all over depending on the rain. Giving them more civil engineering capability if used for more power plants should help.