The presentation here implies you don't favor the measures taken to date. What would you recommend instead? It seems unlikely we could persuade India to wipe clean the minds of its nuclear scientists and/or to eliminate its nuclear weapons, so the options are pretty limited. We could impose sanctions, at the risk of driving away a powerful and rising state that in most other respects is willing to work with us. Or we could attempt to devise a formula to work around what is done and move forward. I can't claim to be a South Asia expert, but if we can readily work with a Communist China that clearly has ambivalent feelings about US power and a demonstrated willingness to provide military technology to unfriendly states, it seems odd to discard a potential relationship with the world's largest democracy whose record on non-proliferation is stronger than that of most of our closest European allies.

Posted by: Jem at March 13, 2006 04:50 PM | Permalink to this comment

This is the first time we see a statesman peep through someone who has been known as a person of unknown leadership qualities. The decision is expansive and will touch a billion people and set off a chain reaction of different energies.

Posted by: Mohican at March 14, 2006 06:34 AM | Permalink to this comment

The non-proliferation treaty, which was already on life support because of Bushco's efforts to develop new nuclear weapons, is now officially dead thanks to the India deal.

Except Iran to formallyrescind its participation in the NNPT in the near future, given America's tacit endorsement of further weapons programs in India as well as its continued refusal to sanction Israel for its nuclear program.

Posted by: p.lukasiak at March 14, 2006 01:23 PM | Permalink to this comment

From the Indian POV, the NPT is not just dead, it was stillborn. A regime that allows five countries to keep nuke weapons indefinitely is simply NOT a non-proliferation regime. India is the only country in the world which has both the will and ability to challenge that inherent discrimination. Pity that the vociferous NPT supporters conveniently forget the thousands of nukes possessed by the US.

While I align with American liberals on most issues, on this one, I, a bit uncomfortably, find myself on the side of W.

I think the pragmatic view is that the presence or absence of the nuke deal will NOT change the weapons status of either India or Iran.

Posted by: technophobicgeek at March 14, 2006 03:35 PM | Permalink to this comment

The discussion about the NPT raises an interesting philosophical question: is maintaining and extending the NPT an overriding virtue in and of itself, or does the NPT exist for larger goals?

If the NPT exists outside the state system (though, if we're honest, we must acknowledge the fact that the signatories did so as representatives of the respective states), then I guess p.lukasiak is right. I'm more inclined to the belief that treaties exist to support the aims of states--and, given that virtually all treaties include "exit clauses" explaining how the parties will express their desire to withdraw, I guess the people that write and sign them (including those who wrote and signed the NPT) would agree.

By the way, since India was never a signatory, there is nothing it could do that would reduce the legitimacy of the NPT in any way, aside from signing it and ignoring its precepts. Indeed, it would be easy to argue that the steps by China, France, and Russia to develop nuclear technology in various irresponsible dictatorships unfriendly to democratic principles and "western" values had already done a pretty fair job at undermining the legitimacy of the NPT before George W. Bush even chose to run for governor of Texas. But admitting that would also require an honest approach to the issue, and one can only expect so much, right?

Posted by: Jem at March 14, 2006 10:10 PM | Permalink to this comment