The Nuclear Plan: India’s Indecision Lingers

After another inconclusive meeting (pictured right) with the United States, India has once again neglected to move forward with the controversial implementation of civilian nuclear deal. Instead, they have postponed their participation in this particular pact until more of the consequences can be analyzed. While India remains skeptical of the N-Deal, pressures from the US are mounting as the presidential elections creep closer. Arguments and accusations have been made on both sides about the actual incentives and goals of this nuclear deal, which have only caused further delay of a decision. It seems that the political disparities and petty tiffs between the two countries have created a halo effect around the nuclear deal, which has masked the many potential economic and intercontinental relations benefits that an agreement like this could bring if implemented correctly. Nevertheless, it is absolutely necessary to resolve all domestic and political differences regarding the deal first.

The N-Deal, which was proposed in July of 2005, was a “landmark agreement” on civilian nuclear energy cooperation between the US and India, but has generated controversy since the day it was produced. Critics of this deal, such as Jayanti Natarajan--an Indian lawyer and politician-- say that it is too intrusive, requiring more intense inspections, which“undermines attempts to prevent states like Iran and North Korea from acquiring nuclear arms and [that it will] potentially contribute to a nuclear arms race in Asia.” Some details of the nuclear deal may actually allow terrorists to access nuclear weapons more easily. This is one of the many things the US must monitor if the deal is signed. Now, it is said that the added pressure is simply due to the Bush Administration’s need to tie up loose ends before Washington becomes too busy with issues concerning the presidential elections occurring in November 2008. Nicholas Burns, US Under Secretary of Political Affairs, commented that “it is smart to get it back to the Congress in a time when they will have the time to look at it and not to get it too deep into our election year.” Burn's comments call into question the objectives of the US government and indicates that the US is simply trying to do as much as they can while they still have the the political power. These criticisms pose valid arguments as to why the nuclear deal should be abolished. Although, is nixing the deal and potentially never knowing what kinds of nuclear technologies India has been producing really the best deccision?

Shared knowledge of nuclear technology and information reduces the risk of a nuclear attack happening. If India decides to sign this pact, there is no doubt that the information gained through an open transfer of knowledge would foster a much needed relationship with the United Nations Security Council. The more information that is disclosed to the UN, the easier it will be to monitor nuclear action. The deal would open new trade opportunities and strengthen the US relationship with India, which is already hesitant to form closer political and strategic ties with the US, due the possibility of losing their military advantage. It would also provide India with US assistance in their civilian nuclear program, and expand cooperation in energy and satellite technologies. (Facility pictured left) Even though there is a significant number of advantages, India should be concerned about the effect of declining such a deal. Questions of reliability start to arise around other topics of conversation. It is possible that other countries, like China or England--both countries participate in valuable trade with India-- could start to see them as resistant and unpredictable to agreements. Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger has said that there would “undoubtedly be disappointment and also there would be a question as to what extent one can calculate Indian reaction to the negotiations on other subjects.” It is fair to say that this issue cannot be dragged on forever, and that a decision needs be reached in order to make any significant progress. However, India should be given more time to consider if the gain of powerful ally is worth sacrificing so much of their privacy.

The importance of this topic tends to be more sensitive and should not be rushed. While there is a remaining concern regarding the need to prevent nuclear conflict, forcing an agreement that may still have loopholes is not the answer. The criticisms mentioned before are some of what has made this N-Deal so controversial. The US and India should focus on that which would involve India in the global atomic energy commerce. The n-deal may help India “meet the future energy needs of an economy steaming along with an annual growth rate of 9%.” India needs to consider the ramifications if the nuke deal is rejected and how it will affect their relations with the other parts of the world. As for now, the civilian nuclear deal is put on hold, but not considered completely dead. The US should take this time to refine the guidelines of the deal to make it more appealing and concrete for India rather than put more pressure them.