By Justin Norris,
Senior Staff Writer

In an historic agreement, President Bush promised to aid India with its civilian nuclear energy needs, while allowing the Asian country to develop weapons.

The agreement states that India must separate its military facilities from nuclear ones, and open 14 of 22 civilian facilities for inspection by the international community.
India’s concessions include the ability to buy nuclear fuel and reactor components from other countries such as the United States.

However, India reserves the right to refuse inspections into their military nuclear facilities where arms would be made.

Most disconcerting about this U.S.-Indo Agreement remains the fact that India is not party to a 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which is one of the most widely accepted arms control agreement that states maintains and regulates nuclear weapons and energy.

Already, legislators criticize President Bush as sending the wrong message to countries that are not part of the 1968 Treaty. Countries like Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea--who are confirmed nuclear powers--can salt an open wound if much attention is given to this agreement between both countries.

India will clearly escalate into a well-developed nuclear power as the United States backs the country and concern arises where the country heatedly disputes territory such as Kashmir, which stands at the center of India, Pakistan, Russia, Afghanistan, and China.

Is it possible that India may use its nuclear muscle to make more imminent threats to its neighbors and gain possession of Kashmir?President Bush recently visited Pakistan to talk about this issue.
For a country that has certainly bent and shifted for the United States, it may feel that it has somehow been cheated.

In fact, the large Muslim nation trying at its best to eradicate terrorism receives no real benefit such as that between India and the United States.

Pakistan may again just have to bend and shift for the United States again.

Some foreign policy analysts worry about a president who backs away from the traditional treaties, agreements and alliances created and maintained from our World War II and Cold War legacy.

President Bush has withdrawn from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2001, perhaps for the greater purpose on the War on Terror. Rightfully so, the Soviet Union, with whom the treaty was made, no longer presents a threat and no longer exists.

However, it’s the implication of the policy - to break away from traditional agreements that are troublesome.

The Iraqi war again resulted in the United States acting on its own with no cooperation, support, or encouragement from the broader international community.

The world sees a United States that uses its power to ignore the consensus of other democracies and act decisively, but not thoughtfully. The future of American diplomacy and security will play an interesting game in the next few years, especially when the election of a new president may present new problems or perhaps solutions. But until now, nuclear energy and weaponeering still glares in the face of the United States as an encompassing problem.

To view all articles by this writer Click here.