By Stephen Fidler
US officials congratulated themselves on Thursday on the nuclear agreement they secured in New Delhi, which they portrayed as bringing India out of the nuclear wilderness. But among arms control specialists, the reaction was less enthusiastic.
The officials, among other things, secured a pact that India’s existing nuclear reactors, covering 65 per cent of power output, would be designated as civilian and subject to international controls “in perpetuity”.
“That is a signal both to the United States and to the rest of the international community that this move by the Indian government is permanent. It’s going to be sustainable and it’s not going to be taken back,” said Nicholas Burns, undersecretary of state for political affairs.
But in Washington, critics said the designation of the reactors as civilian or military would be left to the Indian government, which would also decide on how to designate future reactors. “Anybody who thinks that this agreement is a restraint on the Indians’ ability to make bombs can’t count,” said Henry Sokolski, of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center.
In fact, in Washington, the agreement has faced opposition from both sides of the ideological fence.
Some rightwing officials – including Robert Joseph, undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, and his predecessor, John Bolton, ambassador to the United Nations – opposed the agreement, arguing it gave up too much for too little. They were overruled, US officials said.
But the agreement, which was first outlined in July, has also been a source of concern to those in Congress who worry that it undermines multilateral arms control and the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in Congress.
Yet the toughest opposition may be international. The Bush administration has placed emphasis in its counter-proliferation policy on the 44-strong Nuclear Suppliers Group of governments. The US needs an agreement in this forum, which operates by consensus, to support its side of the bargain.
Some NSG governments, including the UK, France and Russia, have welcomed the initiative. President Jacques Chirac of France has offered his country as a more reliable supplier of nuclear technology than the US, while most other NSG governments have sat on the fence, including China.
Convincing China is “likely to prove the most problematic task”, according to Mark Fitzpatrick, a former US non-proliferation official now with the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London.
Though the US administration has not emphasised it publicly, India is seen as a strategic bulwark against China.
China, says Mr Fitzpatrick, has been silent on the initiative.
One possible clue was provided in an October 26 opinion article in Beijing’s People’s Daily, which noted: “Other nuclear suppliers also have their own partners of interest.”
This, he says, may be a hint that China will seek a similar arrangement in future for its ally, and India’s rival, Pakistan
