current Events

THE WORLD FROM BERLIN

US Blanket for India's Nuclear Winter Chills

The nuclear deal inked by the United States and India on Thursday was a doozy. In one stroke, Washington ended India's pariah status and drove a stake through the heart of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. But it still may have been the right thing to do.

And indeed, on his Thursday trip to India, Bush came bearing gifts; but the ones he scattered were much more substantial than flower petals. After talks with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, the two leaders announced an agreement whereby the United States would provide the rapidly growing economic giant India with technological assistance for its civilian nuclear power program. Far more important than the details of the deal, however, is the break with three decades of US opprobrium directed at the Indian nuclear program. India, not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, first tested a nuclear weapon in May 1974 -- which the country then called a "peaceful nuclear explosion" -- and then in 1998, it set off five nuclear devices in quick succession officially joining the club of nuclear armed nations. When it comes to nuclear-related technology, the United States has held India at arms length since the 1974 test.

But by signing a nuclear agreement with India, the United States has essentially ended India's days as a nuclear pariah and shepherded the country into the club. It remains unclear whether the US Congress will agree to the deal. Approval from the 44-member Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) -- a group of nations which produce nuclear-related technology but have agreed not to deal with states interested in producing nuclear weapons -- may likewise be difficult. The NSG was founded in 1975 in response to India's 1974 test. German commentators on Friday are wary of the Indian-US deal.

The Financial Times Deutschland leads off the editorial brow-wrinkling with a commentary beginning: "A pariah becomes socially acceptable." The move to accept India into the club of nuclear-armed states, the paper writes, "has a bitter odor of opportunism and hypocrisy, because for decades India has consciously opposed" the world nuclear order and ignored global criticism of its nuclear weapons program.

The paper also publishes a brief interview with Oliver Meier of the US-based Arms Control Association. "The deal is a perfect example of the double standards of the Bush administration, which considers itself above global norms and treaties," Meier says. "The contradiction -- demanding Iran abandon its program on the one hand while granting India unconditional privileges on the other -- is a situation Tehran is already taking advantage of."

But the paper's editorial doesn't take long to come to a more nuanced position. Even given the seeming hypocrisy, bringing India in out of the nuclear winter was the right thing to do. The Non-Proliferation Treaty, after all, divides the world into three, not two. The haves, the have-nots, and the non-signatories. Among the non-signatories, one has to make a distinction: "Questions about intentions and reliability of a given country have to be asked." After developing its bomb, India has never passed technology along to others. "The nuclear deal now struck rewards that and could ensure that it stays that way. It makes the world safer."

The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung takes a broader view. As much as Europe would like to think it is one of the world's power poles, the growing power centers are actually India and China. And the two are also growing together with some €10 billion in annual trade between them. This is the background to the US-India nuclear deal. "America's strategists have long realized that the US doesn't necessarily have to be among the winners of the Pacific Century. America's power and influence is in danger, and Washington has reacted as big powers have always reacted: they build alliances, create buffers, and introduce new rules of the game." That, at least, is what Bush was trying to do with the India deal. But, the paper argues, he failed. In ignoring the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Bush justifies India's nuclear program and thus "calls the US's political and moral leadership in Asia into question and achieves the opposite of what he wanted."

The leftist Die Tageszeitung is likewise willing to grant the geo-political realities that led to the treaty: a more-or-less responsible India which has never, unlike nuclear neighbor Pakistan, passed on nuclear technology to other states. But, at the end of the day, the Bush-Singh deal further damages the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Before the deal, none of the signatories were living up to the treaty's demands that nuclear states disarm. Now, a non-signatory has been welcomed to the club. "Tehran and Pyongyang will come to the conclusion that, if they are able to ... acquire atomic weapons, Washington cannot avoid being forced to accept such a reality as it has with India."

Finally, the conservative Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung seems content not to make any bold statements on Friday as to exactly how the new deal will affect peace on Earth. It too spends a few paragraphs in its front page editorial pointing out the global implications of the treaty -- and points out that India, because it is a democracy, is a natural partner for the US. But granting India nuclear recognition is, "given the current conflict over the Iranian nuclear program, a dubious example." The paper sees potential for the US-India partnership, though. It's an alliance that could very well solidify the two countries' leadership in Asia.

-- Charles Hawley
12:30 p.m. CET