The United States' agreement with India to operationalise the civil nuclear deal could end up benefitting New Delhi's weapons programme as much as its pursuit of atomic power, according to The New York Times.
"Washington capitulated to India's nuclear establishment. The problem is that the US 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," the daily said in its editorial.
While United States law calls for nuclear cooperation to end if India detonates another weapon, it said, "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 deal was deeply flawed from the start. And it has been made even worse by a newly negotiated companion agreement that lays out the technical details for nuclear commerce. Congress should reject the agreement... negotiate a new one that does not undermine efforts to restrain the spread of nuclear weapons," according to the editorial.
After its foreign policy failure in Afghanistan and Iraq, the author claimed that "President Bush is desperate for some kind of foreign policy success. But that cannot justify sacrificing his principled stand against weapons proliferation to seal a nuclear cooperation deal with India."
Urging the Congress to take a stand against the even more damaging companion agreement, the editorial said, "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."