Indo- U.S. nuclear deal halted

As Reuters reports the Indo- U.S. nuclear deal will not be ratified by Congress as planned before January.

The U.S. Congress will not have time to approve a landmark civilian nuclear agreement with India at the center of a bitter Indian political row, a key U.S. lawmaker on South Asian affairs said on Tuesday.

The deal was meant to bring India and the U.S. closer together in its nuclear power and would have had serious implications for South Asia and the World.


The Indo-U.S. nuclear deal has more facets: On the one hand it gives India the chance to use U.S. nuclear fuel, it basically formally acknowledges India as a nuclear weapons states without having signed the NPT and gives the U.S. in return a little more leverage over India's nuclear program, by putting civilian nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards. This certainly is a positive effect, since it would make India a safer ground fro nuclear technology, helping to achieve at least a minimum level of safety and security.

But it also gives India the chance to end its heavy reliance on their own uranium sources, which could be used to produce weapons grade uranium and plutonium in military and strategic reactors that won't be under safeguards.

An Indian official announced after the U.S.-India deal in 2005: “The truth is we were desperate. We have nuclear fuel to last only till the end of 2006. If this agreement had not come through we might have as well closed down our nuclear reactors and by extension our nuclear program. 10 India ran out of uranium and putting nuclear reactors under safeguards opens India to the international nuclear fuel cycle thus providing it access to uranium. But most of the reactors are not going to be under safeguards until 2010 or 2014, from the spend fuel those civilian facilities produce, India could produce from 2007 about 4274 kg reactor grade plutonium. “Meanwhile the military reactors could keep producing 1250 kg of plutonium a year. (paragraph copied from own paper)

Especially the later point of gaining the ability to produce weapons grade plutonium from spend fuel, will give India a critical advantage over its adversary Pakistan, which already struggles to follow up in this neighbour nuclear arms race.

Stephen Cohen (Brookings) and Lisa Curtis (Heritage Foundation) said a setback to the nuclear deal would not derail bilateral ties. But in addition to the time needed for a transition to a new U.S. administration, Bush's successor might pause before going to bat for India again.

In fact the Indo- U.S. nuclear deal might pause not only until spring next year, but maybe even until Bush's predecessor got accustomed to dealing with South Asia and having understood the importance of this issue. More urgent policy decisions (Iraq, taxes, health care) will most likely postpone decisions on South Asia for a while.

This does not necessarily have to be negative for South Asia. Despite the risks of nuclear weapons and nuclear facilities being unsafe and not secured enough, in terms of Confidence Building Measures with Pakistan, a delay of tis deal could make time for a deal being hammered out with Pakistan, bringing all three parties on a table to halt the increasing speed of the South Asian nuclear arms race.