<p>The latest pronouncements emanating from the US administration on nuclear non-proliferation issues are a matter of concern for India. The US Assistant Secretary of State, Rose Gottemoeller, told a preparatory conference for a review meeting for the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty last week that it was the “fundamental objective” of the US to bring India on board the treaty. She bracketed India with Pakistan, Israel and North Korea, which also have not signed the NPT. It has been India’s consistent position that the treaty is an unequal one and will not help to achieve its declared aim of non-proliferation. India has resisted pressures on it to sign the treaty for a long time and there is no reason to change the position now. <br /><br />The de facto nuclear status of India has been well accepted. The Indo-US nuclear deal was all about a legal recognition of its special status. The exception given to India was approved by the IAEA and the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group last year. This status also meant an acceptance of India’s impeccable record in non-proliferation. There cannot be an equation of the country with known proliferators like Pakistan and North Korea and a secret nuclear power like Israel. The US had taken the initiative for bestowing on India its unique status. The deal allows India to maintain unsafeguarded, non-civilian nuclear facilities. Signing the NPT would reopen the entire issue and make the deal almost redundant and useless. <br /><br />President Obama’s views on nuclear policy had given vague indications of a return to the traditional hawkish policy of the US. Rose Gottmoeller’s enunciation is the clearest exposition so far of the policy. Though the Obama administration has affirmed its commitment to the July 2005 deal, the absence of any reference to it by Gottmoeller raises questions about the new administration’s real stand on the deal. Though much of the work at the IAEA and the NSG concerning India has been done, there are still issues like the move for a ban on sale of enrichment and reprocessing equipment to countries outside the NPT regime to be addressed. The US has also raised the proposal for the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty and the ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. These can also be uncomfortable for India. In the circumstances India has much diplomatic work to do on the nuclear front.</p>
<p>The latest pronouncements emanating from the US administration on nuclear non-proliferation issues are a matter of concern for India. The US Assistant Secretary of State, Rose Gottemoeller, told a preparatory conference for a review meeting for the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty last week that it was the “fundamental objective” of the US to bring India on board the treaty. She bracketed India with Pakistan, Israel and North Korea, which also have not signed the NPT. It has been India’s consistent position that the treaty is an unequal one and will not help to achieve its declared aim of non-proliferation. India has resisted pressures on it to sign the treaty for a long time and there is no reason to change the position now. <br /><br />The de facto nuclear status of India has been well accepted. The Indo-US nuclear deal was all about a legal recognition of its special status. The exception given to India was approved by the IAEA and the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group last year. This status also meant an acceptance of India’s impeccable record in non-proliferation. There cannot be an equation of the country with known proliferators like Pakistan and North Korea and a secret nuclear power like Israel. The US had taken the initiative for bestowing on India its unique status. The deal allows India to maintain unsafeguarded, non-civilian nuclear facilities. Signing the NPT would reopen the entire issue and make the deal almost redundant and useless. <br /><br />President Obama’s views on nuclear policy had given vague indications of a return to the traditional hawkish policy of the US. Rose Gottmoeller’s enunciation is the clearest exposition so far of the policy. Though the Obama administration has affirmed its commitment to the July 2005 deal, the absence of any reference to it by Gottmoeller raises questions about the new administration’s real stand on the deal. Though much of the work at the IAEA and the NSG concerning India has been done, there are still issues like the move for a ban on sale of enrichment and reprocessing equipment to countries outside the NPT regime to be addressed. The US has also raised the proposal for the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty and the ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. These can also be uncomfortable for India. In the circumstances India has much diplomatic work to do on the nuclear front.</p>
