Click here to go to the main page of Star Of Mysore.
Click here to go to the main page of Sri. K.B.Ganapathy.
Please send your opinions, feedbacks, articles to shshenoy at yahoo.com

The New York Times recently published an editorial titled 'A bad deal' on the nuclear deal with India which has seen many ups and downs ever since it was initiated during NDA regime and brought into fruition (almost) by Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh - led UPA Government. The India Waiver clause obtained from the 45 - nation Nuclear Suppliers Group under America's influence has brought into question America's credibility regarding restraining the spread of nuclear weapons.

A friend of mine Mr. Brijesh Kalappa, Supreme Court Advocate, has drawn my attention to this editorial which is an in depth analysis of the Nuclear Deal (which nearly brought down the UPA government following the withdrawal of support by the Left parties). I thought I should share it with our readers who may not have seen the editorial.

A Bad Deal:
President Bush has failed to achieve so many of his foreign policy goals, but last weekend he proved that he can still get what he really wants. The administration bullied and wheedled international approval of the president’s ill-conceived nuclear deal with India.

The decision by the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group (which sets rules for nuclear trade) means that for the first time in more than 30 years, since New Delhi used its civilian nuclear program to produce a bomb, the world can sell nuclear fuel and technology to India.

Mr. Bush and his aides argued that India is an important democracy and dismissed warnings that breaking the rules would make it even harder to pressure Iran and others to abandon their nuclear ambitions.

The White House will now try to wheedle and bully Congress to quickly sign off on the deal. Congress should resist that pressure.

The nuclear agreement was a bad idea from the start. Mr. Bush and his team were so eager for a foreign policy success that they gave away the store. They extracted no promise from India to stop producing bomb-making material. No promise not to expand its arsenal. And no promise not to resume nuclear testing.

The administration and India’s high - priced lobbyists managed to persuade Congress in 2006 to give its preliminary approval. But Congress insisted on a few important conditions, including a halt to all nuclear trade if India tests another weapon.

That didn’t stop the White House from insisting on more generous terms from the suppliers’ group. When New Zealand and a group of other sensible countries tried to impose similar restrictions, the administration pulled out all of the diplomatic stops. (Officials proudly reported that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made at least two dozen calls to governments around the world to press for the India waiver.)
The suppliers’ group gave its approval after India said it would abide by a voluntary moratorium on testing, but it does not require any member to cut off trade if India breaks that pledge.

That means that if India tests a nuclear weapon, it could still bypass American suppliers and keep buying fuel and technology from other less exacting sellers. Let us be clear about this. It is the administration that disadvantaged American companies when it argued for more lenient rules from the suppliers group than those written into American law.

And let us also be clear that Congress’s restrictions were a sensible effort to limit the damage from this damaging deal and maintain a few shreds of American credibility when it comes to restraining the spread of nuclear weapons.

Lawmakers should hold off considering the deal at least until the new Congress takes office in January. And they must insist that at a minimum, the restrictions already written into American law are strictly adhered to. The next president will have to do a far better job containing the world’s growing nuclear appetites. And for that, he will need all of the moral authority and leverage he can muster.

Courtesy: Star of Mysore