:: Editorial

NPT cannot be forced on India

Sep 26 : To no one’s surprise, India has rejected UN Security Council Resolution 1887 passed on Thursday, a measure authored by US President Barack Obama that seeks to "universalise" the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT); in other words, force it down the throats of countries that have refrained from signing it. The evolution of the efforts that materialised as the NPT in 1970 leaves little doubt that the so-called US-inspired non-proliferation concord was targeted specifically at India. Given the politics of our own day, it is not difficult to see that Resolution 1887, too, primarily has India in view. Pakistan and Israel are also NPT holdouts. But Pakistan’s position is special. It was helped to build the bomb by China with the US and some West Europeans looking the other way for reasons of political convenience. The recent disclosures of officially disgraced Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan, and numerous observations of former Dutch Prime Minister Rudd Lubbers (suggesting CIA intercession for the release of Dr Khan from arrest after the scientist was caught smuggling nuclear materials out of Holland), leave little doubt on this score. Such assistance was in clear violation of the letter and the spirit of the NPT, which President Obama is pushing so strenuously. As for Israel, its unique position as the sole repository of Western trust in the difficult and intrinsically unstable West Asia region gives it extraordinary leverage in dealing with NPT-related pressures, especially in the light of Iran’s burgeoning ambition to acquire nuclear weapons in spite of its status as a NPT signatory.

India has made the valid point that not having signed the NPT, it can’t be made to accept it merely because the Security Council has passed a unanimous resolution to that effect. Without question, the point is sustainable in international law. But it is a pity that in the resolution it moved in the Security Council, America chose to recall elements of earlier NPT review conferences that reaffirmed that countries that don’t sign the NPT shall be denied opportunities of trading in nuclear materials for peaceful purposes. This flies in the face of the Nuclear Suppliers Group clearance obtained by India in September last year in the context of its civil nuclear agreement with the US. If America insists on pushing its NPT-love to such a degree, it risks putting in question the repair work it has managed to do in recent years to its relations with India.

President Obama first signalled his dedication to the cause of the NPT at Prague in April this year. While stressing non-proliferation, and indicating his preference for reducing America’s stockpile of nuclear weapons, the US leader revealingly also said, "Make no mistake: As long as these weapons exist, the United States will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary, and guarantee that defence to our allies." This underlines that the US proposes one set of standards for itself, and another for India. This country’s long-held position has been that it is in favour of comprehensive nuclear disarmament, and that non-proliferation is not a substitute for this. President Obama is yet to offer disarmament as an attainable goal. So long as that remains the case, it will continue to be on the wrong side of political morality. India too has been lax in not publicly countering the American stance under Mr Obama right after Prague. It has also been remiss on another count. After the passage of UNSC Resolution 1887, its official view is that it won’t sign the NPT as a non-nuclear weapons state (whose obligations are of a different order under the NPT from those who have come on board as nuclear weapons states). This is at variance with this country’s original stance that the NPT ought to be rejected on grounds of being an inequitable arrangement that allows nuclear weapons only in the hands of a few.