The nonproliferation lobby in the United States has launched a massive campaign to kill the US-India civilian nuclear agreement unless New Delhi [Images] agrees to several conditions, including India acquiescing to cap its production of fissile material vital to the production of nuclear weapons.

Indo-US nuclear treaty: A good deal

In a letter sent to every member of the US House of Representatives and the Senate, the nonproliferation lobby comprising a bipartisan group of 16 former US government officials led by Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, called on lawmakers to critically examine the US-India nuclear deal before any action was taken on any  legislation sent up by the administration to implement the proposal.

The group has vast experience in security, energy and nonproliferation matters. 
 
They argued that the proposal for civil nuclear cooperation with India posed far-reaching and potentially adverse implications for US nuclear nonproliferation objectives and promises to do little in the long-run to bring India into closer alignment with other US strategic objectives.

Indo-US nuclear deal a complicated process

"We cannot overestimate the long-term unintentional damage that could be done to the world's nonproliferation effort if the current proposal is allowed to go through without a complete vetting of its possible consequences," they said.
 
They attached a list of questions that Congress needs to seek detailed answers to, ranging from India's reliability as a nuclear trading partner based on its past record to how the proposed deal would stop trade to and from states of concern.

Besides, they wanted to know whether the delivery of US technology or nuclear fuel for Indian reactors would free-up indigenous Indian nuclear fuel for its weapons programs.
 
The questionnaire also asks as to which International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards will be applied to Indian civilian nuclear facilities and how the US will check those commitments.

Blueprint on separating civil, N-prog reqd: Cohen

"Contrary to assertions by the administration, the current proposal would not bring India sufficiently into conformance with nonproliferation behavior expected of responsible states," they wrote.
 
The authors noted, "So far, India has pledged only to accept voluntary safeguards over civilian nuclear facilities of its choosing. This could allow India to withdraw any nuclear facility from IAEA safeguards for national security reasons. Such an arrangement would be purely symbolic and would do nothing to prevent the continued production of fissile material for weapons by India."
 
"The supply of nuclear fuel to India would free-up its existing stockpile and capacity to produce highly enriched uranium and plutonium for weapons," they warned.

Indo-US N-deal will trigger Asian arms race

The authors argued that the deal in its current form could also trigger a significant erosion of the guidelines of the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group, which are an important barrier against the transfer of nuclear material, equipment, and technologies for weapons purposes.
 
They asserted that, "On balance, India's commitments under the current terms of the proposed arrangement do not justify making far-reaching exceptions to US law and international nonproliferation norms."
 
Congressman Edward Markey, Massachusetts Democrat and a fierce nonproliferation supporter, who opposed the deal almost immediately as it was signed on July 18 and also introduced an amendment to kill it, wrote to President Bush on November 30, copies of which were sent to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice [Images] and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, saying that the letter by the nonproliferation experts to every member of Congress raised very serious detailed questions about the advisability of moving forward with such a plan.

That Obscure Object of Desire: Nuclear energy

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack, at a December 1 briefing, acknowledged that the administration had received the letter and noted that it would be a topic of discussion in the coming months.
 
"We came to an agreement with the Indian government after a long period of discussion concerning this issue. I think that in our view the reason why we did come to this agreement with the Indian government is our belief that it is a net gain for nonproliferation efforts," he said.
 
"We are waiting to hear from the Indian government about their plan," he said, when asked if the administration was not open to amendments or other suggestions, and if the Administration was going to take India's word that it would separate its civilian and military programs.