Sunday, July 24, 2005

Nuclear India

Joseph Cirincione was on the terrific C-SPAN this morning discussing the Indo-US nuclear agreement.

He is an able advocate for non-proliferation, hence opposed the agreement. No surprise there. The key point he made was that there's always a conflict between those who focus on state-to-state diplomacy and those (like him) who focus on functional diplomacy (e.g., non-proliferation). In case of India, the former appear to have the upper hand.

The most important part of the discussion were the viewer calls. Of all the viewers who called in, only one (a Pakistani-Canadian) opposed the Indo-US agreement. One viewer was confused why the controversy existed given that India is already a nuclear power. Another thought that India is a key ally in the war against Islamist terrorism. Yet another felt that India is key to containing China.

This pro-India reaction of the American people is a very welcome development. They are wisely reciprocating India's own warmth for Americans. Also, because this warmth is not limited to the elites in Washington & Delhi, it has all the signs of strengthening over time.


Kumar said...


You give Mr. Cirincione far too much credit. He's just an ideologue;his pious non-proliferationism is impervious to contrary facts-on-the-ground (empirical and moral). Only this sort of attitude explains his lament (on NPR and the WaPo, etc.) that the Indo-U.S. nuclear accord signals the triumph of political expediency over principle. A truly absurd statement, lacking even a trace of irony: After all, the NPT is, at the least, a codification of post-WWII political expediency.

And I say this as one who worries about this treaty's possible baleful effect on India's nuclear deterrence.


Primary Red said...

Just trying to be polite in expressing strong disagreement with Mr. Cirincione. You and us are on the same page on this.

Best regards.


Blog Archive