UN Set To Approve US/India Nuke Deal

By Cernig

The BBC reports that the UN looks set to approve the US/India nuclear agreement, under heavy American pressure, despite India having developed a nuclear weapon secretly outwith the NPT treatu. The deal would allow the U.S. to sell nuclear technology and India to sell nuclear fuel abroad.

The IAEA's approval of the plan is a key condition for enacting it.

India's government recently survived a confidence vote over the deal, which it says is vital to meet energy demands.

The deal would allow India to enter the world market in nuclear fuel and technology - as long as it is for civilian purposes.

It had previously been banned from doing so under the terms of a 30-year embargo imposed because of its testing of atomic bombs and refusal to join the global Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Correspondents say that if India gets IAEA approval, 14 of its 22 existing or planned reactors would come under regular IAEA surveillance.

India must then win an unprecedented waiver from the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) later in August which would allow it to trade in sensitive nuclear materials.

The deal must also be ratified by the US Congress.

India is actively seeking Chinese co-operation in getting the deal passed by the Nuclear Suppliers Group after it gains IAEA approval.

The Bush administration is keen to see the deal pushed through before Dubya leaves office, as a key component of his recent ego-fluffing "legacy" drive, but critics point out that India's military nuclear facilities would not be subject to inspection and point out that civilan aide would allow India to redirect more of it's own nuclear material to bomb production.

All of which is in marked contrast to the rhetoric and punitive actions directed at Iran's nuclear activities - which have been subject to basic IAEA inspections all along, have not led to actual weapons production and are in accord with national rights under the NPT. An observer might well note that a deal to allow Iranian uranium enrichment to be internationalized, as has been suggested by both Iran and US non-conservative American experts, would be far less hypocritical and far less likely to lead to a disasterous conflict than the Bush administration's course.

Perhaps the dissonance between the two when both are on UN member's minds at the same time is why the Bush administration doesn't seem to be holding Iran to the "two week deadline" originally touted after recent talks, by which Iran must cease enrichment activities. Iran, for its part, denies a deadline was ever discusssed in those talks, saying the time limit was unilatreally imposed afterwards. Iran has suggested another round of negotiations but is unlikely to agree to suspend enrichment - not only are such activities not illagl under NPT membership but the issue has become ammatter of national pride.