Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Saturday, July 23, 2005

Editorial: Deal to exempt India deserves scrutiny

President Bush's decision to withdraw from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, announced in late 2001, was preceded by years of intense public debate. It was a bad decision, we believe, but at least the subject received the discussion it deserved.

Nothing like the same kind of debate preceded a decision Bush announced Monday: to exempt India from major provisions of the 1970 Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. Before Congress agrees to these historic exemptions, it needs to give the decision the close examination that it has thus far not been given.

In essence, the non-proliferation treaty codified a bargain: Countries that, like the United States, had nuclear weapons agreed to reduce and eventually eliminate their stockpiles in return for a willingness to supply nuclear energy components to countries that pledged not to acquire nuclear weapons. The State Department calls the treaty "one of the great success stories of arms control." It is.

The deal with India pokes a big hole in it. It would allow India to receive nuclear energy components as well as nuclear technology, some of which could have military applications. Also, India would have access to certain new weapons.

In return, India agreed to continue a ban on nuclear tests and refrain from transferring nuclear arms technology to other countries. But India refused to sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, which means it continues to refuse international inspections of both its civilian and military nuclear programs.

This is a terrific deal for India. It is so good, in fact, that archrival Pakistan - which also has not signed the treaty - will likely want a similar deal. So, too, will other countries. Also this: If key requirements of the treaty are waived for India, how are the U.S and other countries going to persuade Iran and North Korea to obey the treaty and renounce their nuclear programs? What, then, happens to the entire treaty?

There may be convincing answers to these and other questions, but they have not been given, much less appraised. Congress should scrutinize this deal closely before it approves legislation that would put the agreement into effect. If the deal inflicts serious damage on "one of the great success stories of arms control," it shouldn't be approved.