Bush: U.S. Shouldn't See India As Threat

It is hard to decide, from a casual glance, if this is good or bad news.

On the one hand we are sending a mixed signal - we dont want people who didn't sign the non-proliferation treaty to extend/advance their nuclear technology.

On the other hand we are accepting the fact that India didn't really care what we wanted, but at least now they will allow some international oversight into their civilian program; which, I suppose, is better than no oversite on either of their nuclear programs.

I'm am leaning toward the camp that is glad this happened so at least India won't be working fully behind closed doors anymore and, hopefully, it will help improve safegaurds at the civilian facilities. Plus, as a potential bonus safety side-effect maybe some of the tips they pick up on the civilian side will be ported over to the military reactors as well.

The White House said India was unique because it had protected its nuclear technology and not been a proliferator

I don't think that's a very good argument for working with India and against Iran and North Korea. Is it foolish to say that either both India and Iran have the right to nuclear technology or neither of them?

I think this is good news, but I'm leaning more towards India on this, partly because I'm of Indian origin, but I live in the UK and to be honest I'm sceptical about American intentions in this relationship. India has proven in the past that it is an ally to democracy, even though it leaned more towards the Soviet Union during the Cold War, I don't see India as being a threat to the West or democracy as a whole. America I think is trying to ensure that it becomes part of the Indian subcontinents success as the country begins to emerge as a word super power, be it economic or military.

Of course there is the reassurance of the transparency this will create over the Indian nuclear projects, and that is important to the world but I don't think America need be overly concerned when there are more dubious practices going on elsewhere on the planet.

The only bad thing I can see about the agreement / relationship is the bi passing of the NPT which India is one of those countries who has not signed to the pact. This doesn't really send out a good message to other countries who see this now as a possible side step to the treaty. If India can do it then so can we.

America I think is trying to ensure that it becomes part of the Indian subcontinents success as the country begins to emerge as a word super power, be it economic or military.

I think the US is desperately looking for a solid ally as a counter-balance to China, and I'm afraid India is all too well aware of that and might take advantage of it. Nothing wrong with India, but...

This doesn't really send out a good message to other countries who see this now as a possible side step to the treaty. If India can do it then so can we.

I think Mr. Bush is taking quite a gamble on this one...

Arjan, I agree with what you've said. China too is seen as an emerging world power and due to its restrictions on democracy you're right in saying that India could be used as a counter balance.

This months issue of The Economist has an interesting article, a feature article, about President Bush's visit to India and it goes on to talk about the worries the US has about China. It'll be interesting to see what happens as a result of this visit, I don't think things will begin to happen immediately.

It's also interesting to note the high level of anti-American demonstrations during President Bush's visit.

Iran can't have nuclear technology but India can have them? Maybe if we offshore jobs to Iran, they'd be allowed to have nuclear weapons. This deal stinks. We must be firm: sign the non-proliferation treaty or we'll end support. If India developes more, Iran will create their own followed by every fanatic government in the world.

I don't understand how you can call the Indian government fanatical. It's not as if the Indians have signed to a treat which they have then turned their backs on, something the Americans have done with the Kyoto Treaty. That's besides the point. America needs India and India's weight in that part of the world. You only really have President Bush to blame here for placing Iran on his 'axis of evil'. Are you suggesting that Bush treats his allies the same as his enemies? Maybe i'm getting a little ahead of myself here.

Ultimately I think that this is a simple issue of economics. Nuclear power programs are being explored simultaneously worldwide, with the UK scheduled to bring several reactors online in coming years and the US considering similar expansions for the first time in a decade. By international sharing of plans and procedures a stronger global consortium of civilian power plants can ensure integration of nuclear power across international boundaries. Envision a few tightknit public companies running and maintaining the majority of the nuclear programs of diverse nations, and those nations no longer have direct control of the funding, research, and operation of those sites. Ultimately it signifies a marked decrease in the amount of time, money, and energy being put into nuclear programs, which must result in a decrease in military advancement.

The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty was written in a time when weapons development was the central aim of any nuclear program, with the express intent of limiting that advancement. In the face of our continued energy crisis Nuclear power, for possibly the first time, is being seriously considered as a source on it's own merits. A more far-seeing method of dealing with those expanding civilian demands is needed, and soon, as more nations are bound to turn to fission for their power requirements.

Kayjay, I don't think the US ever signed the Kyoto treaty. In fact I'm pretty certain we didn't. The fact that the treaty fails to address the developing nations that are also heavilly contributing to the pollutions the Kyoto treaty targets has left many thinking it is too weak.

I'm not claiming that is the only reason the US didn't sign the treaty; nor am I saying it is a totally vaid reason; but it is the most often cited one. Another issue is the fact that by signing that particular treaty the US sacrifices a portion of it's sovreignity - and takes a backseat to the UN. That is a pill that is tough to swallow from a US standpoint.

finalcut, you're right, my mistake.

The non-proliferation treaty only works when countries with the bomb stick too it. That was no problem, until a certain Mr. Khan stole vital designs (from the Netherlands) and spread the bomb via Pakistan to the rest of the world (India, North-Korea and whoever else pays the price).

The point of the treaty was to keep vital technology from spreading beyond the countries who signed it—at which it failed. There's no point in keeping it now. It seems Mr. Bush realizes that and I'm looking forward to seeing what alternatives—if any—he will come up with.