![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
Abstract
U.S. nuclear export policy has undergone major transformations since 1945, and the most recent change, as expressed in the July 18, 2005, India-U.S. Joint Statement, represents an especially significant shift in policy. The document reverses more than a quarter century of U.S. declaratory policy, suggesting that the current U.S. administration regards nuclear proliferation to be both inevitable and not necessarily a bad thing. This article investigates this policy shift, looking at the history of U.S. nuclear export policy and the potential ramifications of the new policy on the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The author also touches on the potential effects of the Joint Statement on Indian-Pakistani relations. Finally, it is suggested that it is not too late for India and the United States to change the new policy with more consideration for the NPT and the Nuclear Suppliers Group Initiative.
The author is grateful to Gaurav Kampani, Jean duPreez, Scott Parrish, Lawrence Scheinman, Nikolai Sokov, Leonard Spector, and Jonathan Tucker for their comments on an earlier draft.
Notes
1. U.S. government officials (names withheld by request), telephone interviews by the author and other CNS staff, July 19, 2005 and July 25, 2005. Gaurav Kampani compares the strategic shift and the manner in which it was accomplished to Kissinger's opening with China. Gaurav Kampani, correspondence with author, Aug. 13, 2005.
2. A number of these assumptions are shared by actors other than those wielding power in the Bush administration, and several variants of them also found expression during the Clinton administration.
3. See Kenneth N. Waltz, The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Be Better, Adelphi Paper 171 (London: International Institute for Strategic Studies, 1981). For an updated version of Waltz's argument see Scott D. Sagan and Kenneth N. Waltz, The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate Renewed (New York: Norton, 2003).
4. One prominent advocate for the new policy who is familiar with Waltz's arguments is Ashley J. Tellis. See his important study, India's Emerging Nuclear Posture (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2001).
5. Defense Science Board Chairman William Schneider quoted by Edward Alden and Edward Luce, “A New Friend in Asia,” Financial Times, Aug. 21, 2001, <http://globalarchive.ft.com/globalarchive/articles.html>.
6. See, for example, Dana Milbank and Dafna Linzer, “U.S., India May Share Nuclear Technology,” Washington Post, July 19, 2005, and Zlatica Hoke, “U.S. and India Getting Closer than Ever,” Voice of America News Analysis, July 22, 2005, <www.voanews.com/english/NewsAnalysis/2005-07-22-voa46.cfm>. Blackwill heads the lobbying firm of Barbour Griffiths & Rogers, which has been hired by India to represent its interests in Washington. See “India Hires Lobbyist for Debate on Nuclear Deal,” Dawn, Aug. 26, 2005.
7. Robert Blackwill quoted in Hoke, “U.S. and India Getting Closer.” See also, the Hon. Robert Blackwill, “Why is India America's Natural Ally?” In the National Interest, May 2005, <www.inthenationalinterest.com/Articles/May%202005/May2005Blackwill.html>. For a Chinese perspective on emerging U.S.-Indian relations, see Zhang Guihong, “US-India Strategic Partnership: Implications for China,” International Studies (forthcoming).
8. See Ashley J. Tellis, India As a New Global Power (Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2005).
9. See Ashley J. Tellis, India As a New Global Power (Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2005), p. 25: For relevance to Tellis's role in the plan to change U.S. policy, see Milbank and Linzer, “U.S., India May Share Nuclear Technology.”
10. See Ashley J. Tellis, India As a New Global Power (Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2005), p. 25: For relevance to Tellis's role in the plan to change U.S. policy, see Milbank and Linzer, “U.S., India May Share Nuclear Technology.”, Consistent with this perspective is the absence in the Joint Statement of any commitment by India to stop production of fissile material for weapons.
11. Albert Wohlstetter, et al., Moving toward Life in a Nuclear Armed Crowd? Report to the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (Los Angeles: Pan Heuristics, 1976), p. 1. A revised version of the report was published as Swords from Plowshares (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979).
12. See Henry Sokolski, "The India Syndrome: U.S. Nonproliferation Policy Melts Down," Weekly Standard, Aug. 1, 2005.
13. Great Britain already has moved in this direction by announcing its intent to alter its nuclear export laws consistent with Washington's wishes. See “Britain to ease sanctions against India,” The Hindu, Aug. 12, 2005, and Ashish Kumar Sen, “Nuclear battle lines drawing,” India Monitor, Aug. 14, 2005.
14. U.S. government officials (names withheld by request), telephone and personal interviews by Center Of Nonproliferation Studies staff, week of July 18, 2005.
15. Simon Tisdall, “Tehran Accuses US of Nuclear Double Standard,” The Guardian, July 28, 2005, p. 14.
16. See Sharon Squassoni, “U.S. Nuclear Cooperation with India: Issues for Congress,” CRS Report for Congress (Washington, DC: The Library of Congress, July 29, 2005), p. 7, <www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33016.pdf>.
17. See Dennis M. Gormley and Lawrence Scheinman, "Implications of Proposed India-U.S. Civil Nuclear Cooperation," NTI Issue Brief, July 2005, <www.nti.org>.
18. On the issue of prior consent, see Sokolski, “The India Syndrome.”
19. Tellis, India As a New Global Power, p. 27.
20. These recommendations are consistent with the concept of a global “disarmament roadmap” for both NPT and non-NPT parties proposed by IAEA Director General Mohamed El Baradei. See Mohamed ElBaradei, “Nuclear Non-Proliferation: Global Security in a Rapidly Changing World,” Carnegie Endowment Non-Proliferation Conference, Washington D.C., June 21, 2004.