The Indo-US Civilian Nuclear Agreement What's the Big Deal?

Abstract

What's big deal?The year 2008 saw a paradigm shift in US foreign policy. The US signed 123 civilian nuclear agreement (referred to as nuclear deal or simply deal) with India, a country that is not a nuclear nonproliferation treaty signatory, has nuclear weapons, and until recently was a nuclear pariah. It is extremely surprising that even many scholars of US foreign policy, let alone public, have given little attention to this rather historic paradigm shift in US policy on civilian nuclear trade. The US government, on other hand, has passed new Hyde act, which facilitates implementation of civilian nuclear agreement by exempting India from certain requirements of atomic energy act of 1954.1The deal was signed between Indian and US government on 1 October 2008 and cleared by Nuclear Suppliers Group. It gives India access to civilian nuclear technology and is supposed to help country fulfil its energy requirements. At same time, India has placed 14 of its 22 nuclear reactors under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards and has agreed to separate its civilian and military reactors, which it has not done before. In return, US companies hope to get a few of pending multibillion-dollar reactor-building contracts. The deal was signed with India even though it is not a signatory to either nonproliferation or comprehensive test ban treaties. The nuclear deal does not require India to give up its nuclear weapons program, but future nuclear testing by India would, as per US law, lead to US stopping nuclear commerce with India. Republican Senator Richard Lugar stated that this deal was a good incentive for India to refrain from nuclear testing in future.2 However, there seems to be some room for contention on this issue. The Indian government has asserted that nuclear deal theoretically does not constrain it from future testing. Furthermore, according to a Council on Foreign Relations publication, the US Senate rejected an amendment that would require US nuclear supplies to be cut off if India tests nuclear weapons. The deal does not explicitly impose that condition, though it is part of a 2006 law known as Hyde Act, which gave deal preliminary approval.3While it is yet to be seen how deal is implemented under President Barack Obama's leadership, analysis presented here is based on agreement as it exists on paper. The main goal of article is to address some of major critiques of deal, namely that, first, nuclear deal undermines nonproliferation treaty and weakens nonproliferation efforts; second, that deal sets a precedent for other countries like Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan; third, that it allows India to have biggest nuclear arsenal possible as it frees up its domestic resources of uranium; fourth, that it does not ensure energy security for India and takes away its strategic sovereignty; and fifth, that it will lead to a nuclear arms race in south Asia. The article will review benefits of deal and examine who really benefits from it.The main arguments here are that deal has been result of realization that India will never sign nonproliferation treaty and that sanctions that were imposed on India have not yielded any results; it will lead to a greater transparency in India's nuclear sector, which reduces risks of proliferation, nuclear accidents, and nuclear meltdowns; it is a part of America's anti-China strategy; it provides India with opportunity to reduce its energy deficit and does not compromise India's strategic sovereignty; and, finally, it will not significantly escalate tensions between India and Pakistan. There will be recurring tensions between India and Pakistan irrespective of nuclear deal; intractable issues such as terrorism and Kashmir dispute will continue to be major causes of tension between these two countries. …