Round The World

New Delhi, 6 October 2009

UN Security Summit

INDIA-US SPAR OVER NPT

By Monish Tourangbam

Research Scholar, School of International Studies (JNU)

It was nothing less than ironical when President Obama chairing a United Nations Security Council Summit chose to press on the non-NPT countries to sign the controversial nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. His oft-repeated rhetoric on the virtues of a nuclear weapons free world comes at a time when his administration is literally helpless in dealing with North Korea and Iran. While the former signed the NPT and chose to withdraw in pursuit of its own nuclear weapons, the latter, one of the first countries to sign the NPT, is charged with non-compliance and the nature of its nuclear programme continues to be in dispute. In the face of these challenges, a thorough revision of the relevance of the NPT in its original form is much needed.

The summit unanimously adopted Resolution 1887, which calls on countries that have not signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty “to comply fully with all their obligations.” The “nations with nuclear weapons have the responsibility to move towards disarmament and those without them have the responsibility to forsake them,” said the President Obama.

Indeed, his administration seems to see a great promise in the provisions of the NPT. It is often highlighted as a means to a world free of nuclear weapons and hence an equitable world. This belief is nothing but utopian at best. A lot many countries see the NPT as just another means of cementing the gap between the nuclear haves and the have-nots. At the Summit and inside the conference halls, the NPT might sound like an antidote to all forms of insecurity in international politics concerning nuclear weapons. But, out in the real world, it is not saleable. It is sheer wastage of time and money put into decision-making, if one were to imagine that some flowery speeches given to receptive audiences inside air-conditioned halls would lead nations such as India, Pakistan and Israel to forgo their nuclear option.

It was very evident from the start that President Obama wanted non-proliferation goals to be the USP of his administration. Therefore, it is no surprise that the non-proliferation issue constantly questions the otherwise positive trend of India-US relations. Obama’s posturing that his call to universalize the NPT is not directed against India is clearly hollow. Whether or not the initiative is directed against India, it is obvious New Delhi will be a victim. And a victim cannot be expected to take things lying down. New Delhi has every right to express its concerns and question the viability of the ‘idealistic goals’ set by the US.  

The resolution also asked all States to refrain from conducting nuclear tests and to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). It seeks talks on framing a treaty to ban the production of fissile material for atomic weapons and calls on non-NPT members to join it as non-nuclear weapons States. This apart, the resolution contains provisions to deter countries from abandoning the NPT. The Obama administration is striving hard towards the ratification of the CTBT by asking countries to help it come into force.

Though the treaty was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1996 it has yet to come into force. There are still serious differences regarding its motive as the treaty completely bans nuclear testing, for whatever purpose it may be. This renewed vigor for the implementation of the treaty comes at a critical time when opinion is divided in India regarding the success of its Pokhran II nuclear tests in 1998. As such, the severity of the impact this treaty will have on the country’s nuclear programme would be taken more seriously.

Undoubtedly, these treaties which the Americans try to showcase as a means to an equitable and safer world are viewed with much suspicion by nations such as ours. In view of the security situation in the subcontinent, India sees its nuclear weapons status as inevitable for preserving the status-quo, if not to improve the situation. Theories and ideas are saleable only when grounded on real world politics. Treaties and agreements can endure only when parties involved come away with the feeling that they have gained more than they have given. Besides, the parties should have the confidence that a common interest has been served by the treaty. Clearly, no one wants to be deprived of their security and bargaining power.

Moreover, international politics is played at two levels; international and domestic. Even if leaders manage to strike deals at the international platform; they still have to come back and convince the domestic constituency. And India’s nuclear weapons status is something that its citizens value highly for its symbolic power, if not for a real sense of security. Treaties that seek to deprive India of such an imposing sense of power would never garner much support.

India’s permanent representative to the UN, Hardeep Puri has in a letter to the UN Security Council President Susan Rice (US ambassador who holds the rotating UNSC presidency), categorically denied adherence to the resolution 1887. Though utopian, talks on universal disarmament do no harm. But overemphasizing the NPT would certainly distance countries like India from efforts to curb non-proliferation activities. New Delhi’s track record of safeguarding its nuclear technology should be reason enough for the US to entice it as an important partner in its non-proliferation initiative and not treat it as a challenge.

In response to Obama’s statement that “We have made it clear that the Security Council has both the authority and responsibility to respond to violations of this treaty," New Delhi has argued that the Council does not have the mandate to judge non-compliance of the treaty rules. Instead it is something to be decided on the basis of provisions of the treaty by the members. Moreover, India has made it clear that it does not propose to obey any imposition on the basis of treaties that it has not signed; and the provisions of which goes against its interests.

Ever since President Obama came into the Oval Office, there has been no substantial progress on the Indo-US nuclear deal despite mere lip service. Moreover, his obsession with non-proliferation issues puts a big question mark on the future of the Indo-US nuclear deal. Arundhati Ghose, India’s former permanent representative to the United Nations, has aptly said: “I feel such a position would result in India-US relationship to be pushed back to the era of Bill Clinton’s first term. The Bush Administration had worked a lot to remove the nuclear thorn from India-US relations. I think the stand taken by Obama will have a serious impact on the relations between the two countries.”

Remember, the Manmohan Singh administration burned the midnight oil with the Bush government to get India the NSG waiver. As such, New Delhi would want to capitalize on this new opportunity, rather than get entangled with the all-too familiar non-proliferation question. If Obama persists with India to join the NPT as a non-nuclear weapons State, he will end up negating the positive relationship with New Delhi, painstakingly built up by his predecessor. ---INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)