John Rapley
ON HIS RECENT VISIT to India, U.S. President George W. Bush struck a nuclear-energy accord. Some see it as a pragmatic alliance, others as a dangerous precedent. But it does seem to be a grim recognition of the way in which the world is changing in ways the U.S. and its allies cannot control.
The deal essentially allows India to accelerate the development of its nuclear industry. In part, it anticipates India's future growth, which will add immensely to the planet's energy consumption. Accordingly, this pact will enable the world's most populous democracy to meet much of its future energy demand without putting undue strain on its foreign exchange reserves (needed to pay for oil imports), while restricting its contribution to the world's emissions of greenhouse gases.
American firms, previously barred from selling nuclear technology to India, will now be able to conduct business. Meanwhile India, which was previously seen as a nuclear renegade for having developed a nuclear bomb, will now subject most of its nuclear facilities to international monitoring.
However, there is an added element to the pact that is raising concerns. It essentially ropes off some of India's reactors, accepting that they will remain beyond the scrutiny of the International Atomic Energy Agency and effectively enabling it to be used for military purposes. In short, Washington is recognising that India is now a legitimate party to the world's nuclear club.
According to the principles of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, only five countries are supposed to possess nuclear weapons: the U.S., Russia, China, France and Britain. But in the time since the treaty was signed, India and Pakistan developed nuclear bombs, and Israel - while remaining coy about its programme - is known to possess them. But because none of them signed the treaty, strictly speaking, none of them have violated it either.
DEVELOPING A BOMB
However, in more recent years, other countries are known to have been trying to secure a bomb. Among those whose programmes were pressing ahead before being curtailed by foreign pressure were Libya and Iraq. Iran is believed to be well on the way towards developing a bomb. North Korea may already have one.
Meanwhile, the global network activated by A.Q. Khan, who helped developed Pakistan's nuclear bomb then commercialised the technology to make himself a rich man, has made it seem increasingly likely that yet other players may be on the way to developing nuclear weaponry. Washington's greatest fear is that a non-state enemy, like al Qaeda, may one day get its hands on the bomb in this way.
Accordingly, a subtle shift in U.S. foreign policy may be occurring. Rather than prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, the White House may be hoping to encourage their restriction to regimes it considers friendly and reliable. As a democratic country which enjoys increasingly warm relations with the U.S., and which apparently has not spread its nuclear technology beyond its borders, India's hands may appear safe to the Bush administration. Moreover, given that it serves as a counterweight to China, India looks to the Americans like a desirable candidate to join the nuclear club.
Since U.S. legislation bars the sale of nuclear technology to countries which have not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the deal must be approved by Congress. There are sure to be voices of objection. President Bush, meanwhile, is saying that times have changed. By that he appears to mean that the Cold War is over, the nuclear age is here, and it's time to circle the wagons against a foe.
And a nuclear India, friendly, democratic and capitalist, has just been summoned into the camp.
John Rapley is a senior lecturer in the Department of Government, UWI, Mona.
