New York: Claiming that the Indo-US nuclear agreement could end up "benefiting New Delhi's weapons programme", the New York Times newspaper has asked the American Congress to reject it and call for a new pact that will "not undermine" Washington's non-proliferation efforts.

Conceding that India's record on nonproliferation is "pretty good," the US daily in its editorial published today said the problem is that the United States got very little back. "No promise to stop producing bomb-making material. No promise not to expand its arsenal. And no promise not to resume nuclear testing," it said. In an unusually harsh criticism of the Indo-American civilian nuclear deal, the daily said the deal was "deeply flawed" from the start and it has been made "even worse by the newly negotiated agreement that lays down the technical rules for commerce."

Asking the US Congress to reject the agreement and demand the administration, or its successor, negotiate a new one that does not "undermine efforts to restraint spread of nuclear weapons", the paper said President George W Bush is "understandably desperate" for some kind of foreign policy success but it cannot "justify sacrificing his principled stand against weapons proliferation to seal a nuclear a cooperation deal with India." The agreement, it wrote, could end up "benefiting New Delhi's weapons programme as much as its pursuit of nuclear power."

When it comes to nuclear proliferation, the Times said Washington's only real policy is to reward its friends and punish its enemies. "Suspicion of America's motives around the world are high enough. America cannot afford another such blow to its credibility, especially when it is trying to rally international pressure against nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea," the daily added.
The administration, the editorial says, will argue that altering this agreement now would be a slap at India. "But there is no good in compounding a bad deal. And there are better ways to deepen political and economic ties," it added.

Any agreement, the Times said, needs to honour the "principle that Mr Bush set forth in 2004," countries do not need to make their own nuclear fuel or reprocess their spent fuel to operate effective nuclear energy programmes. "The technology can be all too easily diverted to make fuel for a nuclear weapon," it warned. Bush s accord with India, the Times said, "jettisoned" that essential principle. "Washington capitulated to India's nuclear establishment and endorsed continued reprocessing. And while United States law calls for nuclear cooperation to end if India detonates another weapon, the agreement makes no explicit mention of that requirement while it promises that Washington will acquiesce, if not assist, in India's efforts to find other fuel suppliers," the editorial added.

Congress, it said, accepted the Administration's arguments "far too uncritically" when it approved the first India-related nuclear legislation last December. "It must now take a stand against the even more damaging companion agreement. At a time when far too many governments are re-examining their decision to forswear nuclear weapons, the United States should be shoring up the nuclear rules, not shredding them," it added.