|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Potential India Nuclear Energy Cooperation Deal Holds Nonproliferation Benefits, U.S. Official Says By David Ruppe WASHINGTON — A potential U.S.-India nuclear cooperation deal announced in July offers potential nonproliferation benefits by formalizing existing Indian policies against spreading nuclear weapons technology and by addressing “today’s” proliferation concerns, a senior Bush administration official said today, (see GSN, Sept. 9). Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control Stephen Rademaker said India has not been a proliferation concern. “We thought it was important to formalize India’s commitment to nonproliferation,” he said, responding to a question at an event hosted by Georgetown University’s Center for Peace and Security Studies. In addition, he said, “focus” has shifted away from encouraging universal membership in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty toward trying to prevent treaty members from obtaining nuclear weapons capability and potentially sharing it with terrorists. “We’d like to enlist India as a partner in focusing on those aspects of nonproliferation,” he said. Spurgeon Keeney, a former deputy director of the disbanded Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, was critical of that argument. “He’s articulating an administration position that’s hostile to the treaty and wants unilateral U.S. determination of what’s right and wrong. If you have treaties, they should be applied across the board,” he said today in a telephone interview. ‘Today’s’ Proliferation FocusRademaker said India — a non-NPT state — has demonstrated “responsible stewardship of their technologies and has not as far as we know been responsible for intentionally transferring such technology to other governments and to nonstate actors. And there’s no record of covert networks operating out of India, engaging in such transactions.” As part of the deal, he noted, India would adhere to the guidelines of the multilateral Nuclear Suppliers Group for exports of nuclear-related items. That would be a “huge deal,” Rademaker said, because India has been a lead voice of the United Nations nonaligned movement opposing export controls, arguing they are a means to keep the underdeveloped world impoverished. He added that India also would enact a law limiting the export of sensitive technologies, has agreed to separate its military and civilian energy nuclear facilities, putting the latter under IAEA safeguards, and would sign on to an Additional Protocol for its civilian nuclear facilities. “So the judgment of the Bush administration is that on balance, this is a plus for dealing with today’s nonproliferation problems, which as I said is less a matter of rolling back nuclear weapons programs outside the NPT than it is of keeping those who are today non-nuclear weapons states nuclear weapons states free and also keeping these kinds of weapons” out of the hands of terrorists, he said. Representative Adam Schiff (D-Ca.), also on the panel, called the deal’s potential nonproliferation benefits “extremely limited” and said the administration’s reason for the agreement had “very little to do with nonproliferation [and] has a lot more to do with a desire to have an effective counterweight to China.” U.S. officials reportedly have said that closer relations with India could help it become a military counterweight to China in the region. Schiff said the deal could actually harm nonproliferation efforts because casting India in the role of China’s counterweight could encourage New Delhi’s reliance on nuclear weapons. The deal would not restrict India’s nuclear weapons program. The deal further could undermine efforts to gain Chinese help in pressuring North Korea to disarm and referring Iran to the U.N. Security Council over a suspected nuclear weapons program, he said. “If you were China, would you be motivated that the U.S. has struck a deal with India because it wants to provide a counterweight to China?” he said.
| ||||||||||
Back to top
