Economist's Continued Assault on Indo-US Nuclear Deal

Economist is clearly perturbed by US Congress and Senate committees approval, first step in multi-step bill approval process, of Indo-US Nuclear deal of July 18, 2005 and the implementation plan announced in March 2006 during Bush's visit to India.

None of its arguments make any sense. It agrees that China is stock piling nuclear weapons; but bristles at India when it wants to maintain minimum credible deterrence. Link

"...the NPT to curb their arsenals (four are shrinking, only China's bomb-pile is still growing) on the way to eventual disarmament."

It approve the bogus signature of NPT P-5 countries that they will eliminate their weapons the never future; but it would not approve of India become a full fledge member of NPT as nuclear weapons state taking on the same responsibilities as the P-5.

"The five have at least all signed the treaty banning further nuclear tests and have stopped producing more highly enriched uranium and plutonium for weapons; India flatly refuses to do either."

And of course the Pakistan boogie! If only Economist (and western media at large) didn't turn blind eye to Pakistan stealing designs from Europe, its collaboration with China to make nuclear weapons, and creation and sustaining WMD Walmart of Pakistan's father of WMD, A.Q. Khan, may be Economist has some right to use Pakistan boogie.

Now it wants Nuclear Suppliers Group and IAEA to block the deal. The noble prize winner IEAE chief, Mr. al Barade’i, already supports the deal. Good luck with NSG!

The only way Economist can influence the process now is to join the suspicious bandwagon in India. Everyone from the Communists to pseudo-analysts to serious analysts are afraid of the deal - Communists because they don't want anything to do with US; pseudo-analysts because they are afraid of some the fine print the Manmohan and MEA apparently is covering up; and serious analysts that US Congress will have too much influence on India nuclear establishment. While I think the concerns are far outweighed by the real benefit to India from access to Uranium to sophisticated reactor designs, if Economist wants to stop the deal it has to pump up Indian legislature, that has to approve the deal also, to reject it.

For that the Economist has to change its message, a bit.

Update: The most serious critic, from the start of the nuclear deal, came from Brahma Chellaney. His complains are exactly the opposite of Economist. To torpedo the deal, Economist should join hands with Mr. Chellaney. Link (subscription needed)

"Paying For Naïveté

The much vaunted Indo-US nuclear deal is pockmarked with a string of humiliating conditions for India"