South Asia Arms Race: Why is the US promoting nuclear proliferation?

Last updated on: April 3, 2006 at 1:48 pm by Guest Contributor

South Asia Arms Race: Why is the US promoting nuclear proliferation? 2006-04-03T13:48:00-04:00 Guest Contributor

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

All people should be concerned with the recent nuclear proliferation agreement proposed by President Bush, which is currently being debated in Congress. Citizens and their Congressional Representatives on both sides of the aisle have expressed alarm over this issue. The lack of media coverage has shaded the masses from this issue that should be important to Americans and others around the world.

The US is breaking from a policy of not giving nuclear aid in any form (weapons or otherwise) to any country by signing a nuclear agreement with India. It is especially noteworthy because as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the United States cannot spread nuclear technology much less provide material nuclear support countries that have not signed the NPT.

By giving nuclear weapons aid and technology to India, the United States is setting a dangerous precedent. India has never been a close, reliable, or a vital ally of the United States. History shows that during the Cold War that many times India aligned itself with the Soviet Union against the United States and really played both sides. Yes, a positive economic relationship with India is in the interests of the United States, but a nuclear and military relationship is not. Though some speculate that forging a closer relationship with India will serve to buffer China, the agreement looks like another example of our government exercising futile, shortsighted policies that have long-term consequences. It also sends a bad message to other states, like Iran and North Korea, that are trying to obtain nuclear technology. Other countries might also rethink their nuclear policies and seek nuclear weapons programs.

In a Washington Post opinion piece, former President Jimmy Carter explains the many problems with this deal including the fact that it increases the chances of nuclear holocaust. Nuclear non-proliferation was a big issue back in the day and it’s as big a danger – if not more – nowadays. It’s been on the back burner and people don’t know or don’t care, partly because the media is not really paying attention.

We should be concerned as citizens because we are spreading Weapons of Mass Destruction. There is no limit on how much technology that can be shared. The problem is not that America is sharing secrets with one country over another; it is that the US is proliferating – period. It will spur the nuclear arms race in South Asia and could further destabilize a volatile region of the world.

If you take a look at what the nonproliferation community’s overwhelming response has been to this deal, you can realize that there is broad-based opposition to the plan from all political ideologies. Former Senator Sam Nunn, the co-author of the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program in Russia, has especially been outspoken out on the deal. He has explained how under the pact, India is to separate its civilian and military nuclear programs over the next eight years to gain U.S. expertise and nuclear fuel to meet its rapidly rising energy needs and India’s civilian facilities would be subject for the first time to permanent international inspections, but the agreement does not require oversight of India’s prototype fast-breeder reactors, which can produce significant amounts of weapons-grade plutonium when fully operational. The entire nonproliferation community is riled up about this.

Some argue that the agreement will lower energy costs in the United States because the Indian�will be less reliant on fossil fuels. There are better alternative renewable energy sources like solar, hydrogen, wind, or even bio-energy that we should be encouraging and developing over spreading nuclear energy. Even if the nuclear energy agreement was accepted the decreases in American energy costs have not been proven to be more than marginal.

A common myth is that the nuclear technology that will be shared is for civilian purposes only, but in fact the United States is going to share technology that will significantly strengthen India’s nuclear weapons stockpile. In a time, when most countries, including the United States are recognizing the dangers of nuclear technology and are even moving away from nuclear power, spreading nuclear technology is ill-advised. The countries of the world decided almost a half a century ago that disarmament and moving away from nuclear weapons was the best path and now we are helping to increase the world�nuclear weapons stockpile.

Many people also overestimate India’s current nuclear capabilities, especially their uranium and plutonium enriching technology, which is rudimentary compared to what the technology offered by the United States will allow. The Bush administration originally sought a plan that would have allowed India to continue producing enough nuclear material for six to ten weapons each year, but the new plan would allow India to produce enough fissile material for fifty weapons a year. This will greatly exceed its current capacity. All India has right now is forty weapons total and this agreement will exponentially increase India�weapons program and drastically increase their capacity to construct warheads.

Another myth is that this agreement will make India safer. Part of this argument is that it will decrease nuclear radiation and lower the risks of nuclear disasters. However, once you realize that increasing nuclear energy facilities only increase the probability that one of them will be susceptible to a meltdown, a terrorist attack, or some other nuclear disaster, this argument is not strong. That is one of the reasons why the United States, in the post-Chernobyl world, has moved away from nuclear technology – it is simply too risky. Increasing the odds for one of the many doomsday scenario disasters is not good for our world. The biggest criticism of the agreement is that it does not require the Indians to do anything new with respect to their safeguards. This is a bad deal just in terms of the fact that we are giving a lot and getting very little in return.

People say that the agreement brings fourteen of India’s twenty-two power reactors under international safeguards. Actually, it only brings eight new reactors under safeguards, which is much less than present. Next, the agreement gives the Indians the discretion to decide which of their reactors is “civilian” and which is “military.” There is nothing to prevent India to get assistance for a civilian reactor and switch it over to military use at any time. Also, the agreement only specifies that thermal reactors are civilian, and says nothing about breeder reactors. The administration is glossing over this fact.

Many also say that India does not belong in the same sentence at North Korea and Iran, yet interestingly enough, India has been put into the same sentence as Iran quite a bit lately. A huge point of contention right now is India’s warm relationship with Iran. By principle, India believes that all countries are entitled to nuclear weapons, including Iran. It has always protested the idea of the NPT (that only a few states had a right to nuclear technology) vehemently. Thus it would not support sanctions on Iran, and wants to build an energy pipeline stretching from Iran to India through Pakistan. Congressman Tom Lantos (D-CA) has brought this up because there is no way for the US to stop them from doing this. Some say that the nuclear deal will prevent Indian cooperation on energy with Iran, but there is no evidence or assurances from the Indian government to back this up.

India’s proliferation record is not perfect. For most of recent history, the US did not care to know about India’s nuclear program because India became nuclear through a loophole in the NPT at a time when it was not recognized as such through a peaceful nuclear explosion. Part of Congress approving this deal will be closer scrutiny at India’s record. Some Indian scientists are currently sanctioned for proliferating by doing business with Iran in dual-use items. David Albright has exposed many points of the permit network that India ran. They have also sought to evade the export controls of other countries. There are also instances where India has been derelict in procurement and allowed leaks into larger procurement networks.

The agreement will also hurt US foreign relations with countries like Pakistan. China is livid and feels that if the U.S. is now allowed to share nuclear technology then China will assert its right to do the same, namely to Pakistan. This will fuel the inevitable nuclear arms race between the two nations that will further destabilize the volatile region of South Asia.

The deal is simply a horrific idea that can be stopped. The Christian Science Monitor has reported on March 24th that politicians and activists from a broad spectrum of political beliefs are coming together to oppose the plan and it is vulnerable to defeat. Currently, Representatives Edward J. Markey (D-MA) and Fred Upton (R-MI) have introduced Resolution 318 in the House of Representatives, which expresses concern about nuclear cooperation with India and compels the United States to consistently fulfill its obligations under the NPT. The legislation will also allow the United States to demonstrate its ongoing commitment to global non-proliferation and to conserve positive international relations with states currently party to and complying with the rules of the NPT. The US can and should strengthen ties with countries like India through expanded cooperation in trade and human development, scientific and medical research, energy technology, and humanitarian relief. However, the US should not expand nuclear cooperation with any state if it comes at the expense of efforts to curb the spread of nuclear weapons.

Zeeshan Hafeez is a JD candidate at Georgetown Law School in Washington, DC.

Commentary

Previous Post

March 31, 2006

Apostasy in Islam: Apostasy and religious freedom

Next Post

April 4, 2006 Podcasts: altmuslim review 015

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 2012 Elections 30 Dayd 30 Writers (2017) 30 Days 30 Writers 30 Days 30 Writers (2015) 30 Days 30 Writers (2016) 30 Days 30 Writers (2018) 30 Days 30 Writers 2017 Ali Asadullah Ali Eteraz Alper Bilgili Arthur Richards Asides Asma Uddin Black History Month Briefings Charles Turner Commentary Cyrus McGoldrick Eman H Aly Fatimah Popal Hajj Hajj and Dhul Hijjah Hesham Hassaballa Hisham Hellyer Ibrahim Abusharif Inas Younis Irfan Yusuf Jalal Baig Junaid Afeef Laila Alawa Laila Alwala Mas'ood Cajee Muqtedar Khan Nakia Jackson Newsmakers Parvez Ahmed Podcasts Rabia Chaudry Rafia Zakaria Ramadan Reviews Safiyyah Ally Saud Inam Shahed Amanullah Svend White The Opinionated Oncologist Visions Wajahat Ali Zahed Amanullah Zahir Janmohamed Zainab Khan

Select a Month November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002 October 2002 September 2002 August 2002 July 2002 June 2002 May 2002 April 2002 March 2002

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

True or False: Romans teaches that whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.

Select your answer to see how you score.

FALSE TRUE