Proliferating ignorance

Last Friday I had the pleasure of attending a lecture by General V.P. Malik, former chief of staff of the Indian Army. The lecture was titled, “Indo-U.S. Defense and Military Cooperation,” a topic most Americans probably don’t think about a lot. \nThe opposite situation exists in India. Every day. One of the main focuses of Indian media is the progress of a controversial nuclear deal between India and the United States. Under the deal, the U.S. will provide access to civilian nuclear technology and access to nuclear fuel in exchange for International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards.\nThis intense debate has not been mirrored in Washington, where the deal was approved with bipartisan support by Congress in the form of the United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act. However, Congress still needs to approve a Section 123 agreement with India as per the United States Atomic Energy Act of 1954 – and I hope that evryone reading this takes the time to urge their congressional representatives to vote against it. \nSome of you may or may not be aware of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, a supposed commitment to the disarmament and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. India remains one of three nations that have not signed it.\nPresident Bush has championed the deal by claiming that it will bring India out of nuclear isolation. By providing India with nuclear fuel, supporters of the deal claim worldwide demand for coal, crude oil and natural gas will ease. Furthermore, they claim the deal would allow the IAEA to inspect some of India’s reactors, increasing safety.\nStill, these advantages do not outweigh the drawbacks of going ahead with this deal. China is already exploring the possibility of more nuclear cooperation with Pakistan, another non-signer, and India has demanded exceptions in cooperating with the IAEA. India wants the right not just to say which reactors can be inspected, but also when inspections can occur.\nCritics of the NPT too often downplay its successes. After signing it, South Africa dismantled its nuclear weapons program, and the NPT achieved similar success in Argentina and Libya. The IAEA and the Nuclear Suppliers Group, both solidified in the NPT, have created a stable structure for exchanging nuclear material. Such a structure will become only more important as the popularity of nuclear power increases.\nI see students protesting against abortion, rallying against the war and urging intervention in Darfur, but why is it that no one seems to talk about non-proliferation? As the United States has loosened its commitment to the NPT, is it any wonder that countries such as Iran, Syria and North Korea pursue their own nuclear weapons programs?\nAfter the lecture, I asked Gen. Malik why India wouldn’t sign the NPT. He said the treaty was discriminatory because countries like the United States, who are allowed weapons under the treaty, have not scaled back their nuclear weapons programs. It is true that the United States needs to recommit itself to disarmament, but an India-sized hole in the NPT is only likely to get bigger.