Many independent observers fear that this “deal” will deal a mortal blow to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) because it rewards a known proliferator (India) — one of the few countries in the world that refuses to sign the NPT — and it is “spearheaded” by the USA, which has an enormous arsenal of nuclear weapons and is showing no inclination to live up to its obligations under Article VI of the NPT to eliminate its nuclear arsenal.

“US President George W. Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh Saturday welcomed the “historic achievement” of approval of a landmark civil nuclear cooperation deal between the two countries, the White House said. ‘The two leaders congratulated each other on the consensus reached at the Nuclear Suppliers Group meeting in Vienna and expressed appreciation for the joint efforts made there to move forward with civil nuclear cooperation between the United States and India,’ spokesman Gordon Johndroe said of a phone call between Bush and Singh. 

‘This is a historic achievement that strengthens global nonproliferation principals while assisting India to meet its energy requirements in an environmentally friendly manner,” Johndroe said. In Vienna earlier Saturday, the United States secured the approval of nuclear supplier nations for proposals to lift a 34-year-old embargo on nuclear trade with India. On the third consecutive day of crunch talks, the Nuclear Suppliers Group, which controls the export and sale of nuclear technology, reached consensus on a one-off waiver of its rules for India, which refuses to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty. 

‘The United States thanks the participating governments in the NSG for their outstanding efforts and cooperation to welcome India into the global nonproliferation community,’ Johndroe said. ‘We especially appreciate the role Germany played as chair to move this process forward.'” (AP, September 6, 2008)

In fact, under the influence of the USA, NATO maintains that nuclear weapons are necessary for defense and insists that it will; be the first to use nuclear weapons if there is a conventional conflict which they cannot win with conventional weapons. If this is so, then how can one argue that other nations cannot also have nuclear weapons “as necessary for defense?”

Thus the idea of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons is seen as a hypocritical charade based on an increasingly obnoxious double-standard : “Do as we say, not as we do.”

If there is to be any hope of a secure and sustainable planet, there has to be a mass movement calling for the total elimination of all nuclear weapons everywhere. 

Even” nuclear hawks” like Kissinger and Schultz in the USA, and highly placed officials in other nuclear weapons states suchas Britain, and the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, El-Baradei, have spoken out strongly in recent times for the absolute necessity of reducing the number of nuclear weapons in the world to ZERO. 

It is not because of these men that we should call for abolition of weapons, it is simply an indication of how inescapable the logic has become.
We literally have to choose between the Human Race and the Nuclear Arms Race. We cannot hold on to both.