I think you make the mistake of buying into the Bush Administration's false choices.

The choice isn't between whether to have a deal with India or not.

The choice is whether to gain a deal that has the full support of all the international and domestic political actors or to ramrod through a deal that breaks laws both foreign and domestic and possibly even gets upended because of legal and political objections, making it difficult to go back and try again for a new deal.

I also think you don't fully appreciate the potential consequences of Bush's tendency to constantly run roughshod over both domestic law and international treaties. It gradually changes us and the international world structure from being a system run by agreed upon law into a system governed purely by raw power.

And in the end a system based on raw power will become a system in constant upheaval because when people can no longer appeal to the law then everyone will seek power, which means an ever increasing cut-throat global and domestic politics.

Would this deal have happened without Britain's support? Chirac was in Delhi earlier and he openly supported the deal. Russia has always been a strong supporter of India. Of the 5 major players only China has publicly expressed any reservations about the deal. I think this time the Americans played nice with most of the important players even if only behind the screens.

This might be a good deal to make. But for gods sake if it's going to be a deal you announce publicly, make it legal!

I don't much like secret illegal deals, but they're way better than public illegal deals.

Change the laws and treaties involved, or don't make the deal. It isn't good for the world to see us break treaties on the spur of the moment. It reduces their trust in our willingness to keep our word.

jav,

First, there are others who have objections.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4766608.stm

"Ireland, Japan and the Netherlands have been far from enthusiastic."

And you miss the point. The point is that there are procedures for things in this world and when you bypass all precedants and procedures and render them meaningless, you may get the thing you want, but you are also fundamentally changing how the world works, particularly if you keep ignoring procedure over and over again or only half-heartedly go through its motions (as in the case of the start of the Iraq war).

You are establishing a system where the law doesn't matter. All that matters is power and that will one day turn every dispute into a power struggle.

The really big news is the end of the 17 year ban on importation of Indian mangoes. Those juicy pendulous-breast shaped fruits should be heading to the US soon. That's a trade deal even the most diehard protectionist can get behind.

Before I read anything other than the headlines and the ledes of the articles today the same thought regarding the NPT and other bodies' need for involvement in order for this deal to be anything resembling kosher. It's been a long time since I actually studied the NPT but I would think that in the case of India that a deal could be reached wherein the Big Five could allow India to become a "Genie" signatory. India gets to be an acknowldeged member of the Nuclear Club and pledges to abide by the nonproliferation protocols in the future.

And while this particular deal may be a good one and even one worth having, the process is almost as important as the deal itself, D.D. If the process is rendered worthless -- and thereby the interests of all members who should have been involved in it -- then I would submit that the entire structure of such international agreements is weakened. Thus in the end the agreement itself becomes less effective.

"The point is that there are procedures for things in this world and when you bypass all precedants and procedures and render them meaningless, you may get the thing you want, but you are also fundamentally changing how the world works, particularly if you keep ignoring procedure over and over again or only half-heartedly go through its motions (as in the case of the start of the Iraq war)."

If the NPT were actually keeping countries like North Korea from getting nuclear weapons you would have a point. The reality of the NPT seems very different.

Since India has never been a party to the NPT, regularizing India's nuclear status is the right move. If anything, it will put pressure on Pakistan to regularize their nuclear status and to put better controls in place.

It amazes me that people will criticize Bush for being unilateral and breaking international law when he is literally creating a new ally and bringing an outside-of-the-law situation into closer accord with international legal norms. Should we also ask the UN to review our lumber negotiations with Canada and our port issue with Dubai before we make any decisions?

1. There is no way within the existing NPT framework, the Indian knot would have been solved. This means, one was required to go around NPT any way and that is what happened here.

2. Good thing is it is USA which is taking the initiative so down the line USA would have some benefits of the 'first mover'.

3. The point that except China, other 3 UNSC members have implicitly backed is true. Indeed it matters less what Ireland (the original promoter of NPT) or Netherlands think in today’s world. Japan’s objections are serious, but it is the only non UNSC country which has got explicit and emphatic backing by USA for a future UNSC seat. So Japan will only murmur. The issue is with China and they will not be happy. But is it not a goal here to make life difficult to China? Granted that there is a danger that China may draw similar deals with some other countries. But for this to happen, the domain field is small – non signatories to NPT. Essentially only three countries – India, Pakistan and Israel. Theoretically China can only work such a deal with Pakistan. But how realistic is that as long as USA has such an enormous control over Pakistan? If with any other nation China (or Russia for that matter) attempts to make any deal along these lines; USA, Britain can continue to make the noise on the basis of NPT since that nation will be NPT signatory. All said and done, we have to understand that by India not signing NPT, on legal side there is lot of freedom which is essentially not available to more or less all other countries of the world. That in nutshell will make things harder for others to emulate. In other words, India deal has really been ‘one off’ situation unlikely to repeat with any other nation.

4. The process, the way Pres. Bush would be selling this deal with various stake holders, is an important issue. Pres. Bush’s track record in this regard is not good and there is indeed real possibility that it would bite back in approving the deal. That will be the real danger. It is still a mute question how the deal will pass through American Congress. (I have an elaborate write up on that: http://21stcenturypolitics.blogspot.com/2006/02/bush-singh-nuclear-accord-will-fat.html)

What is to prevent India from exporting nuclear technology it gains?

India has had nuke technology since the 1960s - a time when it was run by a left leaning politician and so didn't test any weapons then. There was a war with China at the time to think of. Had India tested its weapons then, it would've been a part of the so called 'Nuclear Club' also.

India's first nuke test happened in 1974. The ensuing outrage in the world slowed the programme down until the 1990s when it went on the fast track again.

I'd say India has been pretty good where its proliferation record is concerned. After all, it wasn't India selling nuke projects in the black market despite possesing the technology for four decades.

So much for all those arguments of principle that prop up the case against the India-US deal.

Can any of those making principled arguments point out how the world benefits if say the pre-July 2005 position continues?

The manner in which North Korea and Iran have managed to get away after having violated the terms of NPT create far more powerful precedents for nuclear-weapon-wanting countries than any deal with India.

IMHO, much of the ire the non-proliferation 'principle' people are directing at the India deal is because they have no clear ideas how to combat the real proliferation problems --- those by North Korea, Iran (and China).

Legal is as legal does, in a world of millions of fuzzy, often contradictory laws. The anti-proliferation laws are political maneuvers with which to begin. Why agonise over President Bush's move to change those laws retroactively (with implied and direct pressures) by bypassing them in a rather important political maneuver? India is a very large, English-speaking country run by people who *want* to be part of the West, and they're already well-armed with nuclear weapons that will *not* disappear in a blaze of anti-nuclear sentiment.

A rational realist will say it's best in this case to ignore the legalists who convulsively elevate *all* laws to the same cloud-misted fantasy of untouchability.

This marks the unofficial but very real end of the NPT. From America's perspective, since the NPT is pretty useless at stopping hostile states (DPRK, Iran, pre-1991 Iraq) from getting nuclear weapons, it should not be applied only to friendly, responsible states.

Thank God that President Bush is acting in an “unilateral” manner. There is no reason to respect the clowns at the United Nations. I’ve been saying for over five years that India may be the center of Western Civilization by 2050. Countries like France and Germany are losers. We have got to form a closer relationship with the winners.

Agreed, this is the end of the NPT. Now we'll get to see whether the NPT had any successes.

John Bragg mentions 3 highly-visible failures. But the successes (if there were any) were all invisible. If a NPT signee didn't build nukes, who's to say whether the NPT had a part in it, of if they just didn't want to?

Now we'll find out. Argentina/brazil? Japan? South korea? Mexico? (Surely not!) Saudi arabia? Kuwait?

Proliferation weakens the USA internationally. So far, nobody has ever invaded a nuclear nation. When our enemies go nuclear it gets hard for us to invade them. When our friends go nuclear they have much less need of us to deter their enemies from invading them. We lose influence either way.

At first thought I figured we ought to go through the proper procedures, not simply break our treaties. It hurts our credibility to just break our agreements. But then I thought more about it. We don't have any credibility left anyway, so that doesn't really matter.

About india being a counterweight to china, it sounds good but what does it mean? Is india going to invade china over the himalayas for us, when we have our big war? Not likely. How long has it been since india has fought a war outside india/pakistan? India simply is not an aggressive military power and there's no reason to think they will be in the foreseeable future.

How about the short run? Do we hope india will loan us the kind of money china does? Not likely. India is a democracy, the people would notice.

"Hey, we're working very hard and we're making all this stuff to send to america, and all we get back is pieces of paper. What for?"
"Well, you see we're loansharking. The americans already owe more than they can possibly pay so they'll be paying us interest forever."
"Oh, loansharking! That's all right, then. Why didn't you say so earlier? Only, aren't they already pretty much tapped out? Why are we still lending them more?"

No, I don't think so.

Which leads to a related point, if china is such an enemy why are we letting them control our economy? But now we're well away from proliferation.

Global positioning technology and economic globalization make nuclear weapons less useful every year. France's example has convinced countries that nuclear energy is safe and effective. Energy cost must go down to continue the current global economic expansion. Think of horses vs cars. Simplified, had to have cars because horses produced manure. For a higher rate of growth we have to have energy sources with different caracteristics than current energy sources.
This is a win for US, India, and most of the future people of the world. Lose for nationalism and people that want a population drop.

Yeah, and the AP would report "Bush believes in genies".

Can't object. That genie, as you put it, has been out of the bottle for 30 years. Very good point about A. Khan as well. India is going to be very, very important.

So India honestly not signing the NPT and putting her defense first, against Islamo-Nuclear powers that dishonestly signed the NPT then actively participated in Nuclear weapons proliferation...

...is 'bad'.

Or maybe just another illustration of the fact that the collection of the appointees of tyrants, we call the UN, puts the needs of tyrannies first?

I'm with you on this one, Dan. A half loaf that also has the benefit of furthering a friendship with the baker is worth having. As for whether Japan, Germany and Brazil care to follow India's path--I for one have no objections. I find the arguments that lump India in with proliferating nations like Pakistan and North Korea, or terrorist sponsors like Iran useful only as a litmus test for those proferring them.

Bush can do no right with many globo-critics, and I think it says a lot that so many S. Asian participants on this thread are in his and Manmohan Singh's corner on this fight. I thought the point of foreign policy was to promote stability, foster democracy and economic growth, reward good behavior and punish bad. Bush scores on just about every level here and some of you can't quite bear it. Grow up, would you?

Contrast between Bush's and Clinton's vistits is illuminating

Why would anyone worry about Japan in an NPT context?

My point being that Japan already has nuclear reactors and plutonium... and every bit of the technical and scientific skill needed to make nuclear weapons - probably even thermonuclear ones.

If Japan decided it was necessary to do so, India's "exception" to the NPT would have no effect whatsoever on their ability to do so. (And the most likely reason for Japan to make that decision is... North Korea, who were not at all slowed down by the NPT in their quest for nuclear weapons - and were aided, if not directly, then indirectly as a pawn, by China, one of the Big Five Nuclear Powers.)

The best way to keep proliferation from happening is to make sure that people don't think nuclear weapons are especially useful to them. India's already got The Bomb. India having more and better nuclear power plants won't make anyone else want The Bomb any more.

(The only people who might get nervous are Pakistan... who also already have The Bomb, and who are more friendly with India than ever lately - not friendly, but more friendly.)

I won't kneel at the altar of the Holy Treaty and disavow anything that violates it, when the Treaty itself is useless.

Mitchell -- I've heard the phrase "breasts like mangoes" before, mostly in EM Forester, but this is the first time I've heard anyone refer to mangoes as breast shaped :-).

Alok

India has had nuke technology since the 1960s - a time when it was run by a left leaning politician and so didn't test any weapons then. There was a war with China at the time to think of. Had India tested its weapons then, it would've been a part of the so called 'Nuclear Club' also.

Where on Earth did you get that from ? India has definitely not had nuke technology (by which I mean the capacity to explode a nuclear device) since the 1960s. It was not until the 1970s that India developed the capability to explode a nuclear device. However, that device could not actually be delivered. It was not until the mid to late 80s that India had genuine deliverable warheards.

FWIW, one thing that does concern me about India's nuke program is not intentional leaks (of the AQ khan variety) but unintentional leaks in the form of bribery, insecure computer networks etc.

I won't kneel at the altar of the Holy Treaty and disavow anything that violates it, when the Treaty itself is useless.

In that case it makes a certain sense to cross the t's and dot the i's and withdraw from the treaty using the procedures the treaty itself provides for that withdrawal.

And it would make sense for us to stop threatening iran for (apparently) breaking the treaty, when we ourselves have no interest in maintaining it.

Dan,

You should reconsider your position on this one. Someone else in the comments said that it was better to get a half-loaf and make friends with the baker than get nothing. That might be a good analogy if we got something out of this deal. But we don't. We get squat.

The Indian nuclear weapons program is not only not constrained in any way by this deal, it's actually facilitiated. Because the IAEA inspections will cover only a fraction of India's nuclear complex, they will have no practical effect. The whole point of such inspections is to prevent diversion into a weapons program.....but India already has a weapons program. So these inspections achieve very little. And this is the benefit that the administration is trumpeting from this agreement?

There may have been a way to square this circle and negotiate a good deal with India that would have brought them closer to the nonproliferation regime and protected US interests, but Bush gave up the farm in the last-minute talks. He capitualted to Indian demands regarding the size of their "military" nuclear complex. And by supplying India with uranium fuel for its "civilian" reactors, we are going to free up Indian uranium for plutonium production and bomb making. This deal thus enables India to make more nuclear weapons than it could on its own. How is that good for US interests? Is it really useful for deterring China?

This deal is also arguably a direct violation by the US of the NPT, which prohibits us IN ANY WAY from assisting, encouraging, or inducing non-nuclear states (like India, under the treaty) to make nuclear weapons. It thus hardly sets a good example at a time when we are trying to hold Iran's feet to the fire for non-compliance with the NPT. How can we credibly preach nonproliferation when we are facilitating it at the same time? And our crediblity is important on this issue right now--we need broad international cooperation to constrain Iran.

There's a lot of opinion in this discussion that the NPT is not a very successful treaty. It has its faults, to be sure. But this deal strikes at the very core of the NPT bargains, bargains which a lot of the non-nuclear states are already unhappy with. This may not be the straw that breaks the camel's back, but it is certainly going to inrease the load. We may not yet have reached a tipping point where nuclear proliferation accelerates, but this deal brings us closer. It's not just Japan. South Africa, Brazil, Argentina, Egypt, and some others are probbaly wondering why they are holding to the NPT bargain when a county like India gets all the benefits (access to peaceful nuclear technology) without paying the cost (nuclear restraint). This deal definitely raises the chance that one of these countries will change its mind.

Put simply Dan, this deal raises the benefits of defecting from the NPT and associated export control regimes, and lowers the cost of cooperating. We should not complacently think that those changes are just marginal, either. They may have a real impact on our security. When other countries see us bending the rules of the game like this, they are going to be less inclined to cooperate on other issues, where we really need their help, like export control. Good luck stopping the next A.Q. Khan without robust international cooperation on noproliferation export controls. This deal is going to directly undermine that sort of cooperation.

One of the posters above said that the best way to prevent proliferation is to convince other countries that nuclear weapons are not particularly useful. I agree completely, but this deal does the opposite. It endorses India's nuclear weapons status, and in fact, many observers view this deal as concrete proof that India's acquisition of nuclear weapons has increased its status and prestige, and frankly, bargaining power. If we want to discourage proliferation, that's the wrong message to send.

As the world's greatest conventional power, the US benefits enormously from the diffuse norm that nuclear proliferation is bad. Anything we do to undermine that norm is just shooting ourselves in the foot. And as that norm erodes, we may well find ourselves in a world with not just 9 nuclear powers, but 20. Will we be more secure in this post-NPT world? I don't think so.

A major miscalcuation by the administration is believing that getting India to help balance against China will compenstate for the damage done to the global nonproliferation regime. I don't think it's even a close trade-off. Bush himself has said that proliferation is the greatest threat to our national security, yet he's sacrificed it to appease India. And Dan, if you're anything of a realist, you must admit that India is always going to be likely to balance with us against China...we don't need to sell out our nonproliferation principles (this deal makes me wonder if we have any left)to have them as a likely ally.

And don't forget that this deal is going to look very bad in the Arab world, especially in Egypt. Along with our stance on Israel's program, it reinforces the view that only Muslim countries aren't allowed to have nuclear weapons without suffering punishment...but if you are India or Israel, we will look the other way. This perception may be unfair, but we are helping it take root with this deal, and getting nada security benefits in return.

So you don't have to be some sort of disarmament fanatic, hard core international institutionalist, or Bush-hater to see this deal as a bad one. But is does look even worse because it strongly resembles an attempt to manufature a foreign policy success to distract from domestic troubles and bad poll ratings.

Dan, I hope you'll rethink this one. And then join me in praying that Congress has the good sense to block this folly from moving forward.

The biggest problem Indian politicians had with the "Coalition of the Willing" is that it existed outside the United Nations. We Americans might laugh at the hapless and corrupt bureaucracy, but up until recently India has had a much deeper faith in the U.N. Now that faith is being tested.

This treaty drives a wedge between India and the U.N., to the degree that the "International Law" fetishists who typically invoke the authority of the U.N. will be the ones most zealously against the treaty.

I expect strident efforts in the U.N. to condemn and block the treaty, forcing India to choose between sitting at the big kids' table with the United States or the kiddie table with the U.N.

The U.N. and her fellow travelers are going to make themselves as popular in India as they are in Israel, and that only inures to the benefit of the world's liberal democracies, particularly when it comes time to put together another Coalition.

Please read my response to SDP at this post: Why US is courting India.

For the impatient, I have linked to this website, called 'Aspects of Indian Economy', please do not miss reading that article!

I can point exactly how, why and where The United States and India moved away

In 1954 India was trying to industrialize itself mostly on the back aid. The process involved building 3 Steel plants to reduce dependence on imports - not to mention India had and still has high iron ore reserves. India filed the plans and appealed for aid, let me remember you in 1954 India was the youngest democracy in the world.

The West Germans and the British agreed to finance two of the steel plants.

The Indian Government now approached the United States for the fourth plant in, Bokaro, John F Kennedy, the then President, was a friend of India and he readily agreed to champion the project. It was the biggest plant, and it had the biggest price tag - roughly a billion dollars. Despite a friendly President and supportive Ambassador, the plant was spiked by the U.S Congress.

India built that plant with the assistance of the USSR.

I feel we are at the second juncture of Indo-US ties and I'm afraid if the US congress thwarts this deal - USA will loose India as an ally for another 50 years. Seeing that India is the largest democracy and the second fastest growing Economy in the World it is something USA cannot afford.

They wanted a Billion dollars in 1954?

What was India offering in return for this other than warm fuzzies?

"Your regard for international law is extremely touching, except that it conveniently ignores ground realities. Furthermore a screwed up law is hardly justification for ignoring existing realities."

Then why not withdraw from the NPT? It takes 3 months, and then we aren't breaking our treaties.

"the non proliferation regime did nothing when the first A.Q Khan was busy with his proliferation networks in plain sight. I still remember previous American presidents certifying Pakistan as not eligible for sanctions under U.S law for proliferation"

It's a problem that we're careful not to punish our friends, only our enemies. We don't have what it takes to live up to NPT, so we should withdraw.

"The U.S gains tremendously in economic and strategic terms from this deal, as much because it removes the most major barrier to better Indo-U.S ties as it creates new business opportunities for American industry."

Do you believe that? Sales opportunities in india? If it was really going to do that, would india agree to it? No way. There aren't going to be big sales opportunities in india for US business.

"Furthermore, until this deal was made, the U.S had little or no leverage over Indian policy, especially with regard to Indian nuclear and security policy."

This deal has been presented as a promise we're making. Is it really a bunch of little bribes? "We've divided our nuclear technology into 34 packages. You get the first package when you vote our way on these three important UN initiatives. You get the second package when you give us the control we want over your terrorist detainees and the procedures you use to detain more. You get the third package when...."

"I may also add that India would have developed its weapons stockpile nevertheless, until it felt it had a sufficient deterrent against China."

Well, yes. India will keep making nukes regardless, until in their opinion they have enough of them to "deter" china.

"If India was faced by a hostile American stance in opposition to its needs for energy sources and otherwise, its posture towards the US would also be correspondingly hostile."

Ah. And how would that hostility be expressed? Would they perhaps keep making nukes until in their opinion they had enough to "deter" us?

Just what kind of ally are we buying here?

"I think President Bush has a better idea of the friends he wants to keep in this regard."

I'm sure he does. That's a part of this story which hasn't developed yet at all. What do Bush's friends get out of the deal? Do they believe in the illusory business opportunities? Military contracts? How can Bush's friends get vast profits from it? I don't see that anybody has begun to explore that topic.

A major miscalcuation by the administration is believing that getting India to help balance against China will compenstate for the damage done to the global nonproliferation regime.

No doubt I am naive and uninformed but aren't the real questions here "how effective has the 'global nonproliferation regime' been?" and "how much will this deal damage it?"

Obviously, the 'global nonproliferation regime' has not been perfect. North Korea, which has not signed the Non-proliferation Treaty, has developed nuclear weapons and delivery technology, and even sold it.

Iran has been a signatory since 1970 but they have been seriously developing nuclear weapons for the last several years. That has been obvious to everyone. During that time they have violated International Atomic Energy Agency directives but it took years for the dipolomats in charge to agree to refer Iran to the Security Council, a referral that by the terms of the treaty is supposed to be automatic.

I don't mean to mindlessly bash the NPT. But I wonder how much real effect it has. How much does the NPT raise the real costs of "going nuclear?"

I think of the old joke, "Every day a man walks out in front of his house and stands in the middle of the street and sings Beethoven's "Ode to Joy." "Why do you do that," someone asks. "It keeps the elephants away," he says. "But we don't have elephants here," the other person replies. "See, it works."

Perhaps the present 'global nonproliferation regime' does indeed involve a tone, an ethos, that acquiring nuclear weapons is a fool's bargain, more trouble than it is worth. Perhaps, the India deal will weaken or shatter this. Or perhaps decision-makers will just say, "India has had nukes since the '70s. Since the legal non-proliferation regime hadn't stopped it, Bush went outside it."

In the immortal words of Captain Renault, "I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!"

Ah. And how would that (India's) hostility be expressed? Would they perhaps keep making nukes until in their opinion they had enough to "deter" us?

They need not be making nukes but these two countries will remain estranged in some sense forever. India will continue to think US as being naive for wanting India to lose its weapons permanently. Sooner or later this deal had to happen.

What do Bush's friends get out of the deal?

I take it that you are a democrat, and if you are, you might be surprised to learn that John Kerry has given his 'cautious' support. Even if Kerry had won the elections there is a good chance that this deal would've happened and you can sense this from the loud endorsements of Blair, Chirac, Putin, and even Japan (in contrast to what the BBC article claimed)

I think you are ignoring India's geopolitical compulsions. Do you seriously believe a country of billion people would give up the option of nuclear deterrence? What could possibly tempt them to give up? Especially when they have a volatile Pakistan to their west and up north they have another powerful military, China, to contend with. China as one of the 5 super members could, is allowed to have weapons and could threaten a nuclear attack on India. You'd have to be a crazy Indian PM to give up your nuclear options. It certainly isn't fair to punish India just because they live in a bad neighborhood!!

India has always been forced to choose one of the two:
1. Die at the hands of your neighbors (by giving up nuclear deterrence) or
2. Die of starvation (face economic sanctions) Obviously India took the second option and we all know how effective the economic sanctions have been on India.

Jav, I certainly wouldn't expect india to give up nukes. Who asked them to?

I was under the impression that Clinton had already eliminated all but a few nuclear sanctions against india.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/051200-101.htm

These last ones appear to violate our treaties. If we want to violate the treaties, shouldn't we withdraw from them first? Whyever not? Something vaguely like this deal may have been inevitable eventually, but why this particular deal now?

" What do Bush's friends get out of the deal?"

"I take it that you are a democrat, and if you are, you might be surprised to learn that John Kerry has given his 'cautious' support."

I'm not particularly a democrat, and I don't much care about Kerry. I voted for him in 2004 because he looked like the second-worst candidate, better than Bush.

When it's american politicians involved with money, it's only natural to ask who's getting the sweetheart deal. Iraq, Katrina, yhou name it. Bush didn't invent that, but he's been particularly blatant.

The poster I was responding to seemed to think that Bush thought of india as a friend. I haven't particularly heard of any of his indian friends, not like his saudi friends. I haven't heard of him getting great deals for his indian friends' companies. Maybe now we'll find out he does have friends from india.

J Thomas,
My previous writeup on this issue is missing. Maybe I was too rude to people, if so I am sorry and that was not my intent.

In any case, from my memory of what I had written, here is my response to your questions:

1. Why don't we withdraw from the NPT altogether?

While I think that the NPT is seriously flawed, I still think that completely dismantling it is a bad alternative. The ideal policy would be to construct a more effective regime starting with what already exists.

2. Do you believe that? Sales opportunities in india? If it was really going to do that, would india agree to it? No way. There aren't going to be big sales opportunities in india for US business.

I don't know whether this is meant as sarcasm, but I should point out that India is very willing to buy nuclear reactors and technology from the
U.S, provided that the U.S does not renege on its contractual obligations, as has happened in the past.

3. Well, yes. India will keep making nukes regardless, until in their opinion they have enough of them to "deter" china.

This is a bit of a cheap shot. It is a fundamental flaw in past U.S nonproliferation policy towards India, that the U.S refused to recognize the very real and serious security concerns that India has. You cannot seriously expect a country which has faced aggression from its neighbours in the past for promises which are usually not worth the paper they are written on. Furthermore, the same sort of cheap shot can be taken against the U.S with considerably more justice.
As another commentator, Jav, succiently puts it:

"India has always been forced to choose one of the two:
1. Die at the hands of your neighbors (by giving up nuclear deterrence) or
2. Die of starvation (face economic sanctions) Obviously India took the second option and we all know how effective the economic sanctions have been on India."

4. Just what kind of ally are we buying here?

I would say a responsible and largely status-quoist power. India is not particularly interested in hegemony like some other of its neighbours are. Its sole policy interests are to secure a peaceful neighbourhood and further economic opportunities. When I said that the U.S would have to face hostility if India was denied access to energy, I meant that India would probably not have any qualms about obtaining what it requires even if it meant not playing along with American interests in the region. It is not reasonable to expect the representatives of a billion people to not do anything when faced with increasing energy demands
from its population.

5. I am sure he does. That's a part of this story which hasn't developed yet at all. What do Bush's friends get out of the deal? Do they believe in the illusory business opportunities? Military contracts? How can Bush's friends get vast profits from it? I don't see that anybody has begun to explore that topic

Curiously, there are several sections of the Indian polity who also seem to think that this deal has been a sellout to the Americans. This is for the same reason you suspect Mr Bush's intentions :). My view is a little bit more cynical. I am pretty certain that this deal lines the pockets of certain of his "friends" and similarly on the Indian side. However, I think that in addition to this almost unavoidable event, this deal has real benefits for both countries.

I hate to sound pessimistic here, as I've worked and traveled in and genuinely like India more than almost any other country in the US-- but I have a very, very bad feeling about this nuclear deal. For one thing, we'd have to modify US law *and* break the terms of the NPT to exempt those 8 Indian breeder reactors to allow them to manufacture nuke weapons. If the NPT is null and void, then that means that Iran and other countries currently on the nuclear wannabe list (e.g. Egypt and Brazil), have all kinds of outs now to avoid meeting the treaty obligations. Once the basic principles of a treaty are ruptured, that means that all its signatories have leeway from its obligations under international law.

For another, I worry that this may be suggesting to some people that India has a green light to initiate a big South Asian arms race, which I suspect, would inevitably lead to nuclear war in the region. There's no way Pakistan would just sit around if India starts stockpiling nukes by the hundreds and places them on missiles ready to be launched. Pakistan would respond in kind, and a nuclear war, then, is almost inevitable.

My third concern is more subtle but it hasn't been getting much press. India already has 200-250 million Muslims, and the number is rapidly growing not only due to birth rates but conversion, as the Untouchables and the lower casts convert to Islam in high numbers (as well as to Christianity, Buddhism and Sikhism). To make matters worse, India now has the highest numbers of AIDS cases in the world, and for whatever reason HIV disproportionately strikes the Hindu population. So India is already very nearly the world's largest Muslim country after Indonesia, and it's not inconceivable that in 20 years or so, India may well have a Muslim majority itself. That would make two densely populated South Asian Muslim countries with a large stash of nuclear weapons-- not a good scenario.

I suspect that all the old warnings about "unintended consequences" should be heeded here. I think the US Congress should reject the nuclear deal.

"India is a very large, English-speaking country run by people who *want* to be part of the West, and they're already well-armed with nuclear weapons that will *not* disappear in a blaze of anti-nuclear sentiment."

"I’ve been saying for over five years that India may be the center of Western Civilization by 2050. "

I hate to burst your respective bubbles, BrotherBark and David, but India is far, far more complex than this. I worked there for almost five years, and India has indeed prided itself-- and in my opinion, rightfully so-- for having inherited some of the best institutions that the West has to offer, and they have managed to institute a working democracy, whatever its flaws, to a remarkable extent. It's one of the reasons that I love the country so much.

But first of all, India is not an English-speaking nation, not by any stretch. The country has over 1,000 languages and dialects total, and 18 official ones, and although English is one of them, only about 4-5% of the population is even passable in it, with very few among those fluent. Hindi is the national language and while the southern states like Tamil Nadu are not going to allow it to displace the great Dravidian tongues like Tamil or Telugu, there is a form of "popular Hindi" taken from films and TV that's most widespread. Even for official purposes, English is losing traction. After independence in India, almost all the most respected dailies were in English, and the fledgling television and radio industries (let alone the book industry) were in English. Now, that's all changed, with Hindi and the local languages (especially Tamil) getting prestige status and dominating the newspapers and airwaves. Over 90% of the best-selling newspapers in India are in Hindi or other local languages, while the major TV and radio stations have been switching to the vernaculars away from English to survive. Even the book industry is moving to the vernaculars-- Penguin recently switched its focus in India to Hindi and the vernaculars, away from English. Even in the outsourcing biz, many Indians are learning French and German-- the languages of those "losers" that you fantasize about, David-- to capture the increasing offshoring stemming from these countries. English isn't about to be entirely cast aside, but the predominant and still growing languages in India are the vernaculars, especially the most widespread ones such as Hindi, Tamil and Telugu.

As far as being a Western nation, India has a complex attitude to that. Again, Indians have adopted many traits of Western societies and even improved on them compared to the West, but they also have an ancient history that predates that of the Western Enlightenment by millennia. They're not about to give that up. Remember, too, that the Indian attitude toward the British is mixed. The British did build railroads and provide civil laws, but the British also did a lot of exploitation that damaged India severely. There was heavy taxation of Indians during the Raj period and all kinds of tariffs levied on internal Indian transactions which, combined with the forced imports of British textiles, basically wrecked India's industries and contributed to famines that killed millions of people in India under British rule.

So India in many ways does carry and maintain much of the best of Western culture, but India's culture is predominantly an heirloom of the great and ancient Asian civilization that India has had for millennia. As I said, I fear for the future as HIV spreads throughout India's population and potentially contributes to upheaval, but under no circumstances is India going to become a Western nation in South Asia. The country is a far more complex patchwork than that.

Russ, I think your concerns are a little overblown.

"My third concern is more subtle but it hasn't been getting much press. India already has 200-250 million Muslims, and the number is rapidly growing not only due to birth rates but conversion, as the Untouchables and the lower casts convert to Islam in high numbers (as well as to Christianity, Buddhism and Sikhism)."

Your number is overexagerated, the number of Muslims in India is closer to 135-150 million according to all recent data, secondly its unlikely that current rates of Population growth or conversion rates will stay at its current rates, its unsustainable at its current rate, especially considering the Indian population is well over a billion already.

"So India is already very nearly the world's largest Muslim country after Indonesia, and it's not inconceivable that in 20 years or so, India may well have a Muslim majority itself. That would make two densely populated South Asian Muslim countries with a large stash of nuclear weapons-- not a good scenario."

Considering the population of Hindus is around 900 million, bringing the entire country's population to well over a billion, even if the Muslim population growth rates are high its unlikely that the country will support the populations necessary for the Muslims to surpass Hindus any time soon.

Russ,

I wouldn't worry too much about HIV having that devastating an effect-- the Indian public health system was unfortunately horribly slow in responding to the AIDS epidemic as it took off, but we've caught up and both the antiretroviral regimens and the prevention regimens in India, especially in the HIV epicenter in Tamil Nadu, are decent if not quite robust. Most Westerners don't know this, but India was one of the first non-aligned countries to start a strong family planning movement in the 1950's, and we've had one of the most solid regimens even if there was occasional abuse as during Indira Gandhi's term with the forced sterilizations. The reason we haven't made more progress yet, is that so much of India is still desperately, desperately poor and rural, so family planning really doesn't reach them. As for the Muslim/Hindu differential in HIV rates, that seems to be mostly because the Muslim population in India is, overall, far poorer and more rural than the Hindu population on average, and it's mainly in urban centers (and in villages that support the urban centers) that AIDS crops up and wreaks its havoc. AIDS will enact a toll and it is scary, but I think we'll be able to control it.

Also, congrats on being one of the first Americans (I'm presuming you're American?) to actually recognize that India is a multilingual country, not an Anglosphere country. I can't tell you how many frustrating times I've encountered even an educated American who thinks that Indians are basically just like Americans planted in South Asia, all speaking English to each other with a funny accent. English, frankly, really isn't used all that much in India, and if anything it seems to me that the Japanese are more of an "English-speaking nation" than Indians are. Whenever I return to India, I'll spend weeks there without speaking a word of English to friends, family, shopkeepers on the street, clerks, police officers, whatever.

I'll speak Marathi with family and close friends from Aurangabad or Pune but Hindi with almost anyone else (even with many other people from Maharashtra). I do know some Tamil so I'll often use this with people from Tamil Nadu, the one place where there still is some Hindi resistance, but at least among the younger generation a fair number from Tamil Nadu speak at least basic Hindi. We generally just wind up mixing the two together in some form, which can get very entertaining.

BTW, in regard to the point you raise about broadcasting, I think you may be thinking of Rupert Murdoch's experience with the Star Plus network in India. Star was originally an English channel but it was financially a disaster for Murdoch because nobody was watching it, so he switched over to basically make it a Hindi channel, after which it flourished:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/01_38/b3749073.htm

Local language program is even better. So the lesson to Indian publishers and broadcasters is to use Hindi and the local Indian tongues. It really is amazing, because the media in India really did used to be English-dominated as you pointed out, but English has been basically disappearing as a major medium and being overrun by Hindi and local language publishing and broadcasting. If you are going back to India to work, make absolutely sure that your Hindi is strong, but it can help to learn some basic Tamil if you're going to the south. Tamil, Telugu and Malayalam are the major southern Indian languages, and you'll at the very least break the ice and show respect to them if you speak some words in a southern language, especially Tamil.

Ah here you go:

Hindus at 80.5% growth rate, 20.3% growth rates down from 25.1%

Muslims at 13.4%, growth rate at 36% up from 34.5%

Jains are up by huge numbers, from 4.6% to 26%

Sikhs down to 18.2 down from 24.3

Buddhists down to 24.5 from 35.1

Christians up from 21.5 to 22.6

Clearly the numbers show that while Muslims are growing fastest in India, Hindu numbers are also growing, and considering the Hindus have like a 700 million+ lead I really think your concern that Muslims in India will be a threat are overblown.

(Census numbers courtesy of the times of india)

http://www1.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-841592,curpg-1.cms

Roger Sweeny asks how effective the global nonprolfieration regime has been. As I noted earlier, it's plenty flawed.

But Roger's discussion of North Korea and Iran is incomplete. He should note the role of that regime in uncovering these countries' programs. Roger said that North Korea hadn't signed the NPT. But it did, back in the 1980s, and it was the IAEA that uncovered inconsistencies that led to the first Korean nuclear crisis back in 1993-94. Without the IAEA inspections, it might have been much longer before we knew about the North Korean program.

In Iran, the IAEA inspections have provided a very large amount of information about the Iranian program. While these inspections haven't achieved everything one might hope, they are a lot better than nothing. To get an idea of what might happen without this system in place, think about how well the US did at assessing the nuclear program in Iraq before the 2003 invasion. (after Sadaam kicked out the IAEA inspectors in 1998.)

The regime also consists of more than the NPT. There is the Nuclear Supplier's Group, which coordinates nuclear export controls among 45 countries. This group is one of the best mechanisms for stopping future AQ Khan-like proliferation networks. But the India deal is likely to provoke infighting in the group itself, diverting attention from more important problems.

The US gets a lot out of this regime. We just tend to take it for granted and focus only on its shortcomings in the hardest cases. The joke about the guy singing songs to keep elephants away is amusing, but not very apt. Roger's approach is like saying the law against murder is ineffective because murders still take place. But would the frequency of murder decrease if it wasn't against the law? We have only 9 nuclear powers at the moment (if you believe North Korean claims that they have a weapon). There are over 40 states that could go nuclear without too much difficulty. Without the regime, which this deal undermines, we could find ourselves much worse off.

It would have been excellent if Bush had found a way to include India and update the regime to take into account the current challenges it faces. There are plenty of good proposals he could have taken up. But he didn't do that. Instead, he just cut India a special deal, and did nothing to address the problems in the regime. That's bad foreign policy making. And it won't surprise Dan or many other readers here to know that the deal with India was cooked up with very little participation by the talented nonproliferation experts in our government. It's the same pattern as in Iraq, where so much expert advice and talent has been squandered. I just hope the ultimate results don't turn out as badly. But it's hard to be optimistic.

Roger Sweeny asks how effective the global nonprolfieration regime has been. As I noted earlier, it's plenty flawed.

But Roger's discussion of North Korea and Iran is incomplete. He should note the role of that regime in uncovering these countries' programs. Roger said that North Korea hadn't signed the NPT. But it did, back in the 1980s, and it was the IAEA that uncovered inconsistencies that led to the first Korean nuclear crisis back in 1993-94. Without the IAEA inspections, it might have been much longer before we knew about the North Korean program.

In Iran, the IAEA inspections have provided a very large amount of information about the Iranian program. While these inspections haven't achieved everything one might hope, they are a lot better than nothing. To get an idea of what might happen without this system in place, think about how well the US did at assessing the nuclear program in Iraq before the 2003 invasion. (after Sadaam kicked out the IAEA inspectors in 1998.)

The regime also consists of more than the NPT. There is the Nuclear Supplier's Group, which coordinates nuclear export controls among 45 countries. This group is one of the best mechanisms for stopping future AQ Khan-like proliferation networks. But the India deal is likely to provoke infighting in the group itself, diverting attention from more important problems.

The US gets a lot out of this regime. We just tend to take it for granted and focus only on its shortcomings in the hardest cases. The joke about the guy singing songs to keep elephants away is amusing, but not very apt. Roger's approach is like saying the law against murder is ineffective because murders still take place. But would the frequency of murder decrease if it wasn't against the law? We have only 9 nuclear powers at the moment (if you believe North Korean claims that they have a weapon). There are over 40 states that could go nuclear without too much difficulty. Without the regime, which this deal undermines, we could find ourselves much worse off.

It would have been excellent if Bush had found a way to include India and update the regime to take into account the current challenges it faces. There are plenty of good proposals he could have taken up. But he didn't do that. Instead, he just cut India a special deal, and did nothing to address the problems in the regime. That's bad foreign policy making. And it won't surprise Dan or many other readers here to know that the deal with India was cooked up with very little participation by the talented nonproliferation experts in our government. It's the same pattern as in Iraq, where so much expert advice and talent has been squandered. I just hope the ultimate results don't turn out as badly. But it's hard to be optimistic.

"The regime also consists of more than the NPT. There is the Nuclear Supplier's Group, which coordinates nuclear export controls among 45 countries. This group is one of the best mechanisms for stopping future AQ Khan-like proliferation networks. But the India deal is likely to provoke infighting in the group itself, diverting attention from more important problems."

The NSG regulations that try to prevent proliferation are pretty much the same today, as they were 20 years ago. They did nothing to prevent proliferation by member nations (China), so it is rather silly to expect that things will be any different now. So, if this is the best attempt to prevent proliferation, it is very poor indeed.

"It would have been excellent if Bush had found a way to include India and update the regime to take into account the current challenges it faces. There are plenty of good proposals he could have taken up. But he didn't do that. Instead, he just cut India a special deal, and did nothing to address the problems in the regime. That's bad foreign policy making. And it won't surprise Dan or many other readers here to know that the deal with India was cooked up with very little participation by the talented nonproliferation experts in our government. It's the same pattern as in Iraq, where so much expert advice and talent has been squandered. I just hope the ultimate results don't turn out as badly. But it's hard to be optimistic."

It takes two to tango, as the saying goes. The talented non proliferation experts that you speak of will not settle for anything less than India giving up its sovereignity over its nuclear policy, and this is never going to happen. This is precisely why the only policy that previous U.S governments have been stuck with has been one of ineffectual sanctions and sanctimonious pontification about evil and irresponsible Indian nuclear policy. To an Indian, the nonproliferation "experts" sound mostly like a bunch of hypocrites, and dont have much respect in Indian policy circles. It is rather naive to believe that policy experts from a nation which maintains a massive deterrent (10,000 nukes) for "national security" and which has been the only one to use them so far are taken very seriously when they lecture others about the evils of nuclear weapons. Especially when the others belong to a nation surrounded by a hegemonic nuclear power on one side, and the world's chief state sponsor of terrorism on the other side.

V, we don't have data about how effective the NPT has been. All we know is how many nations have nukes in spite of it; we don't know how many nations don't have nukes because it stopped them.

We'll probably start finding out about that.

"To an Indian, the nonproliferation "experts" sound mostly like a bunch of hypocrites, and dont have much respect in Indian policy circles."

The USA sounds hypocritical to everybody. Officially we were supposed to be proceeding with nuclear disarmament as well as nonproliferation, but we didn't want to. We have not only the largest arsenal, but we refuse to pledge no-first-use, or no-use-against-nonnuclear-nations.

We have a rationale for not making those pledges, though. The nations that make them would just do it anyway when they think they need to, but we're too principled to lie about it now when we're going to do it as soon as we need to.

To make the US stand look honest to *anybody*, not just indians, you need to start with the basic principle that the USA is special, not like other nations, and so the rules don't apply to us.

When I first heard we were breaking the nonproliferation treaty, it bothered me that it would hurt US credibility around the world. But then I realised that the US doesn't have any credibility around the world about following treaties and keeping agreements, so that doesn't really matter.

J Thomas,

The USA sounds hypocritical to everybody. Officially we were supposed to be proceeding with nuclear disarmament as well as nonproliferation, but we didn't want to.

Are you really saying that the United States hasn't destroyed any nuclear weapons since the end of the Cold War? Are you really saying that the American nuclear arsenal hasn't gone down in the last 16 years? If you are saying that, you are very, very wrong.

Since the break-up of the Soviet Union, the United States and the successor states to the USSR have destroyed thousands of nuclear weapons. Destruction is a continuing process, with an agreed-upon schedule extending many years into the future.

Does the schedule go to zero? Does it seek complete nuclear disarmament? Of course not. But to write as if the US has as many nukes as it ever did is absolutely and positively wrong.

SDP,

Thanks for the correction. I had forgotten N. Korea signed the NPT. I googled and got this:

"In 1985 US officials announced for the first time that they had intelligence data proving that a secret nuclear reactor was being built 90 km north of Pyongyang near the small town of Yongbyon. The installation at Yongbyon had been known for eight years from official IAEA reports. In 1985, under international pressure, Pyongyang acceded to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). However, the DPRK refused to sign a safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), an obligation it had as a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty."
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/nuke/index.html

Your comment seems to say that the NPT has been useful in regard to Iran and North Korea because even though it hasn't stopped them from acquiring nuclear weapons, it has helped the world to know just how badly they are violating the treaty. I'm not sure that's really much of a gain.

The real gain from the NPT, of course, would be non-proliferation. Is it ineffective (like singing in the street to keep away elephants) or effective (like laws against murder)? Or, to be logically rigorous, is it more effective than the situation would be without the NPT? After all, we keep laws against murder even though they are not completely effective.

One difference is that potential murderers don't have to agree to obey the anti-murder laws. And they aren't allowed to withdraw from anti-murder laws. Search warrants and arrests apply to them whether they agree or not. That is not the case with the NPT.

But more than that, I can't help thinking of the "war against drugs." It is unquestionable that the United States Coast Guard has stopped tons and tons of cocaine from reaching the United States. US government pressure has caused thousands of acres that once grew coca to be put to other uses. Many, many local cocaine deals have been stopped and many people involved in the trade have been put in jail.

But it is also unquestionable that cocaine is no less available than it has been and the price and quality are just as consumer-friendly.

Americans buy cocaine when the perceived benefits exceed the perceived costs. Countries go into the business of acquiring nuclear weapons when the leaders of their government have the same perception. Does the NPT, on net, change their perception more than an alternative regime would? I just don't know.

Manish,

I noticed in a post of yours on another blog that you're concerned about some evangelical Christian groups endangering Indian Hindu civilization by aggressively sending in missionaries to convent Indians away from Hinduism and offering false inducements. Please be careful about generalizing-- there are indeed abuses among Christian missionaries as there are among members of other prominent religions.

The vast majority of us Christians, in India and otherwise, are respectful and do not partake in such excesses. We try to lead by example, in part according to the Parables as written in the Gospels-- but, in any case, we try to attract interest by setting a positive example.

I'll add, on the topic of this nuclear deal itself-- it's good that our countries are engaging, and that India is being able to ease out of its isolation. I think that technology sharing is valuable for all sides involved.

However, there's not one chance in a thousand that this deal is going to get approved. I used to work in international and Constitutional law, and the number of things Congress would have to do to approve this deal is almost more intensive than getting a Constitutional Amendment passed. Not only would the treaty itself have to be amended (which requires the consent and approval of the other signatories), but US law, and US legal doctrines as mandated by the treaty, would have to be radically altered, so much so that much of the entire multilateral US nonproliferation strategy would come tumbling down. The Constitution has deliberately made it unbelievably, extremely difficult to modify laws when there are not only Congressional statutes, but the constraints of a treaty involved. It's just not happening-- Bush doesn't have anywhere near sufficient political capital, but to be fair, not even George Washington at the start of his second term would have had sufficient capital to make modifications like this.

What I think is most important, is the opening up of trade with India where there had been restrictions before. India will continue to develop nuclear power regardless of technology sharing from the West, they have smart people there. What's most important here is to remove the straitjacket from Indian commerce and help trade in basic raw materials-- and that means that everybody should benefit, including China as well as the US and EU, from access to the Indian market and reciprocal access by investors from India in their markets as well.

One closing point here-- while people understandably inhabit opposing sides on this issue, it is pathetic, utterly pathetic to cast aspersions in the direction of people working in the nonproliferation field. You may disagree with their reasons, but having collaborated with them before, I can tell you that they're among the smartest, most level-headed, most even-handed, fairest, most decent and most needed people you'll ever encounter. They're among the few people who really do have the interests of humanity (and the environment as well) in general in mind and practice what they preach, with a genuine concern that civilization in general is threatened by the spread of nuclear weapons. Those who trash the non-proliferation activists, shame on you. I don't agree with them on all of their stands either, but I will never, ever trash them or the absolutely pivotal work they do. Of all the policy activists at work today, they're among the most admirable and the most necessary.

"However, there's not one chance in a thousand that this deal is going to get approved. I used to work in international and Constitutional law, and the number of things Congress would have to do to approve this deal is almost more intensive than getting a Constitutional Amendment passed."

That fits my understanding too. But imagine this -- could the US government simply ignore the obstacles?

Suppose that Bush announces it (as he has) and Congress ignores the problems and votes for it. And then the courts ignore any legal challenges to it.

Then can't they just pretend it's legal and do whatever they want? What's to stop them?

"What I think is most important, is the opening up of trade with India where there had been restrictions before."

Does anybody have links about this? I had not paid a lot of attention, and I thought the restrictions were minimal. I imagined we were restricting sales involving nuclear technology, and that was about it.

What further restrictions in trade with india do we have, and how long have we had them?

It does make some sense that if we're approaching our credit limits with china, we would be looking hard to buy stuff on credit from india.

"What's to stop them?"

Nothing. If Congress votes for the treaty it's a done deal.

The usual suspects will lodge the usual complaints about "unilateralism" and "international law", just like when we went into Iraq, and we'll politely ignore them.

Sometimes a problem is only a problem if you think it's a problem.

The U.N. and her fellow travelers are going to make themselves as popular in India as they are in Israel, and that only inures to the benefit of the world's liberal democracies, particularly when it comes time to put together another Coalition.

No, because unlike neocons, Indians know that there is really no UN. Its a fictious body composed of a hundred plus nations. Therefore, its not this mythical "UN" that might block Indian access to nuclear weapons or anything else, its discrete actual countries like Pakistan and China.

And incidentally, the Indian Parliament condemned the action in Iraq virtually unanimously. India learned its lesson of getting involved in other countries civil wars after the disasterous intervention in Sri Lanka (that cost the like of one ex-PM). Don't be too sure that India will join any such "coalition" if neocons want to invade Iran. for instance.

I see a difference here..

Now first check this out :
http://www.ibnlive.com/article.php?id=6513§ion_id=2

Why can't Pakistan open all their nuclear establishments and reveal what's going on inside same as India as done? I believe bush offered the only source of huge electric power to India only to upgrade India in front of China so as to break China's monopoly in terms of supplies to USA. India is in an acute short of power even at the time of rapidly growing economy... Check out their BSE and NSE stock exchanges and you understand the whole story... Indian companies are highly profit making even internally and can come up as a remarkable supplier to USA parallel to China. India can be a trusted partner in this way and thus help us, the USA in combating China's monopoly where we've always felt china as a potential rival to us. With that I feel Bush has taken one of the cleverest move...

Bush has empowered India to stand up parallel to China + he has brought all Indian nuclear establishments under closer watch to International community with IAEA working right inside India for all times from now for the future... Trapped an upcoming superpower and made it a subbordinate for all times to come! If ever India thinks of stepping backwards, it would be considered a real offense and an evil instinct in terms of operating their nuclear establishments.

Anyway, with India's willingness to accept even this agreement clearly reveals India's clear and open attitude towards working with nuclear content. It clearly reveals India isn't up to any conspiring mission or something they want to keep secret. They're an open book, truly responsible and appreciable. I believe all nuke countries should follow what India has done. Not what Pakistani government did through their top nuclear scientist making the nuke technology passed on to Iran, Libya, Korea and who knows many others! Pakistan seems to me as a truly irresponsible and truly unreliable member of the nuclear community.. where BUSH has failed is imposing sanctions on Pakistan for passing nuke tech to newcomer amateurs in the field such as Iran, Korea and even Libya and who knows many others... but there's a core reason why bush didn't do that till date... and that's because Bush and US government wanted Pakistani government's cooperation and support for fighting the war of Afghanistan to crack down Taliban and it's network through the rocky wild terrains of Afghanistan which was a real challenge and US could never win the war without Pakistan's support... With that, Musharraf felt he's getting an opportunity to oblige USA so that one day USA would take pakistan's stand over Kashmir and support all their ISI terrorist camps and activities in the northern Pakistan north to Peshawar... But of course USA was never to do that with Pakistan... Musharraf always remained with the same expectations and requested the same to George Bush straightaway in an open Press meet... expecting Bush to be under pressure and reply with at least some sort of positive statement to his old friend in the war of terror...

I firmly support Bush's handling the scenario... and I personally believe Bush has done one of the most profittable deal for USA that will bear real positive effects to the US economy and foreign policy for over several decades... Bush has certainly obliged the power deficinent India and has provided the required source of electric power to run their industries.... only to help International investors in India to reap good profits for their investments they're pumping in through the everclimbing Indian stock exchanges that are the most lucrative exchanges all over the world since over an year now...