Jury still out on historic pact with India (03/04/06)

The United States took a historic step this week, though most Americans didn’t pay much attention and it will be years before anyone can measure whether that step was wise or foolish.

With little in the way of discussion or debate, President Bush tossed out 30 years of foreign policy toward India and initiated a new era of nuclear expansion in that country.

Does it make sense? The jury is still out on that one.

Debate on the issue is likely to drag out in Congress over the next several months if not years, but right now it’s not clear whether the president’s step was bold or simply reckless.

India has been in the doghouse in terms of nuclear proliferation since the 1970s.

It declined to sign the international treaty limiting the spread of nuclear arms, then diverted material from nuclear power plants to start building its own nuclear arsenal.

This week’s policy shift gives the U.S. seal of approval to the development of more nuclear weapons, apparently in exchange for closer relations between our two countries.

Critics say the deal gives India everything it was looking for without providing much to the U.S.

It also comes at a time when American policy opposes the spread of nuclear weapons to Iran and the build-up of such weapons in North Korea.

And because India and Pakistan have been engaged in an arms race since 1998, it’s inevitable that Pakistan is going to press for a similar arrangement with the U.S. After all, Pakistan has been an American ally in the “war on terror.”

Backers of the shift in strategy argue that a stronger bilateral relationship with India, particularly a nuclear-armed India, will be important in offsetting China’s muscle in the future.

That may be, but the future has a way of shifting and changing in ways that are difficult to foresee.

And the proliferation of nuclear weapons around the globe makes the future ever more dangerous. — J.R.[[In-content Ad]]