The Hindu Business Line : ‘Indo-US nuclear deal not perfect, but a net plus’

The Indo-US nuclear deal has been the most controversial issue in recent weeks, even leading to speculation of a mid-term election in the event of a likely withdrawal of support to the ruling UPA coalition Government.

Those opposing the deal, chiefly the Leftist parties, point to the possibility of Indian interests becoming subservient to those of the US should the agreement be finalised in its present form.

But Dr S. Paul Kapur, a visiting professor at the Center for International Security and Co-operation (CISAC), Stanford University, thinks that the Indo-US nuclear deal, “while not perfect, is a net plus.”

Interacting with Business Line over the email, Dr Kapur, who is the author of ‘Dangerous Deterrent: Nuclear Weapons Proliferation and Conflict in South Asia’ (Stanford University Press 2007), conceded that there are a nu mber of legitimate concerns being voiced by most of the deal’s detractors in the US, but added that the deal has likely economic, strategic and diplomatic benefits for India.

“In the US, the concerns include the fact that the deal does not require India to cease fissile material production, nor does it prevent it from testing nuclear weapons.”

Other fears pertain to the fact that the deal could enable India expand its nuclear arsenal, which could encourage a regional arms race.

Underscoring the fact that the deal undermines the non-proliferation treaty (NPT), Dr Kapur said that as part of the deal, India promises to take a number of steps to limit proliferation. “But India was already committed to doing most of those things prior to the agreement.”

Serious issues

According to him, though these are serious issues, the global non-proliferation situation would not probably look much better in the absence of the deal.

“India would still be a nuclear weapons state, able to expand its nuclear arsenal and test nuclear weapons if it felt they were necessary.”

Stating that the deal’s impact on the NPT regime was more problematic, he said: “Even here, it is not clear how much the Indian case will actually change things. States engaged in lots of counterproductive proliferation-related behaviour prior to the Indo-US deal.”

He cited the examples of North Korea quitting the NPT to produce nuclear weapons and China assisting Pakistan in acquiring a weapons capacity.

“Even prior to the deal, States took actions that harmed the non-proliferation regime when they believed that doing so was in their interest. This deal is not going to change this.”

Requirements

The agreement requires India to separate its military from its civilian nuclear facilities and to open the civilian facilities to international safeguards.

Dr Kapur pointed out that this would impose a greater degree of transparency on the Indian nuclear programme than previously existed.

“And we must remember that India has long been a responsible custodian of nuclear weapons and technology. This may mitigate some of the proliferation concerns.”

On the implications for a host of issues not related to nuclear proliferation, he said that enhanced civilian nuclear power could comprise one component of an Indian strategy to reduce dependence on fossil fuels.

“This is important given the spiralling energy demands that have resulted from India’s economic growth.”

Benefits

Strategically, the deal may facilitate an expansion of India’s nuclear arsenal. “Although a larger Indian arsenal could lead to wasteful and potentially dangerous arms races, its strategic implications would not be wholly bad.”

According to Dr Kapur, larger nuclear arsenals can reduce first-strike incentives and thus enhance crisis stability.

“Given the frequency of militarised disputes in South Asia, this could be important. A more robust Indian nuclear capability could help the US and India balance against a rising China.”

On the diplomatic front, the deal’s advantages are considerable, he said.

“The US and India have many common economic, political and strategic interests. However, India has greatly resented the US non-proliferation efforts, and the nuclear issue has prevented extensive Indo-US co-operation.

“By essentially recognising India as a legitimate nuclear weapons State, the deal does away with what Indian leaders have termed ‘nuclear apartheid.’ This should greatly increase Indian trust in the US.”

According to him, this is likely to open up important avenues of economic, strategic and diplomatic co-operation.

Given the size of the Indian economy, its strategic importance in the Asian region and its democratic values, this is a major accomplishment and gains of such magnitude would not be possible without the deal, he added.

Stating that the deal’s advantages outweigh its disadvantages, Dr Kapur said that the Indo-US nuclear deal should be assessed in a broad economic, strategic and political context, weighing possible proliferation costs against benefits in a range of other areas. “The deal’s implications are not limited to the problem of nuclear non-proliferation.”

Though the deal offers modest direct economic and strategic gains, it offers major diplomatic gains, which will spill over into the economic and strategic arenas, creating further indirect benefits in those areas, he argued. “Again, such benefits would not be achievable without the agreement.”

Dr Kapur is on leave from the US Naval War College, where he is associate professor in the Department of Strategic Research.

His research interests include the strategic effects of nuclear weapons proliferation, deterrence theory and the international security environment in South Asia.

http://InterviewsInsights.blogspot.com

More Stories on : Power | Politics | Foreign Relations

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page