The Other N. Korean Nuclear Fall Out: An Imperiled U.S.-India Nuclear Deal

Has North Korea's recent nuclear test in Hwaderi killed the U.S. India nuclear deal?

The upcoming Outlook Magazine (Outlook India's weekly magazine) offers this article discussing new Indian apprehension about the other political fallout of the North Korean nuclear test: an imperiled nuclear deal.

Here's some background for those not hip to the U.S.-India nulcear beat.

In March, President George W. Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh announced a nuclear deal between the United States and India. The U.S. agreed to supply nuclear materials to India. In return India pledged to separate its nuclear program into civilian and military components, and allow international inspections of their civilian nuclear sector.

The catch? The deal provides India fissile material which can be easily used to bolster its India's nuclear arsenal.

The deal also offers India de-facto nuclear legitimacy from America. India announced its entry to the nuclear club in in 1998, to the great consternation of the international community. While not breaking international law--they did not sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)--the U.S.-Indian nuclear deal puts America (a leading NPT member) in the uneasy position of providing nuclear supplies to a state that has flouted counter-proliferation norm.

At a time when the administration is aggressively fighting to stop the nuclear enrichment program of Iran, many critics consider the nuclear deal setting a dangerous diplomatic double standard.

Opponents also worry that other recognized nuclear powers (which include France, China, Britain, and Russia) may replicate this nuclear deal with other countries. While perhaps not spreading WMD ingredients to worrisome regimes, some contend that any proliferation is inherently dangerous to global security. (For more from deal opponents, go here to see an article by CAP's Larry Korb and Peter Ogden)

North Korea's recent nuclear test has only served to fuel such concerns.

Proponents of the deal counter that the international community must engage, not ignore today's non-recognized nuclear powers (who include Israel and Pakistan). Supporters further contend that India has been an ideal nuclear power, not proliferating nuclear technology or needlessly imperiling global stability with their weapons. These voices argue that good behavior must be rewarded, not shunned. (For a more detailed pro-deal argument, go here).

But all sides of the debate agree that the U.S.-India deal represents a transitional moment into proliferation diplomacy. While older treaties, such as the NPT, seek to maintain one set of nuclear rules universally, the U.S.-India deal adopts a country-specific approach.

So where is the deal now? Caught in legislative limbo. While passed by the House of Representatives by an overwhelming majority, its frozen in the Senate until the lame duck session following November's mid-term elections.

With an unpopular war in Iraq and North Korea so dominant in this election cycle, don't expect much talk about the India nuclear deal by either the Administration officials or Congressional candidates.

But for opponents of the India deal, North Korea's nuclear gambit may have given them just what they need to to run out the legislative clock on this controversial deal.

(This article was printed earlier on CampusProgress.org, but will be updated throughout the day-- unlike its CP predecessor).