Personally, I cannot think of a reason why India was not made a nuclear-weapon state in the “NPT.”:http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/npt2.htm

Well, except for this:

bq. For the purposes of this Treaty, a nuclear-weapon State is one which has manufactured and exploded a nuclear weapon or other nuclear explosive device prior to January 1, 1967.

Indira Gandhi “didn’t argue”:http://www.indianembassy.org/policy/Disarmament/disarm10.htm at the time that India even _wanted_ nuclear weapons:

bq. we have stated that the Government of India does not propose to manufacture nuclear weapons. This is a decision taken many years ago and is unrelated to the treaty on nonProliferation of nuclear weapons. We shall continue our efforts for nuclear disarmament because it is only through nuclear disarmament that discrimination would be eliminated and equality between nations reestablished.

Details…

The NPT is unfair and unworkable, which is why only three countries in the world haven’t signed it.

Sean-Paul Kelley was kind enough to “link”:http://agonist.org/sean_paul_kelley/20080906/india_pakistan_and_nukes to “this post”:http://www.totalwonkerr.net/1703/unsc-on-india-and-pakistan about UNSCR 1172.

One of his readers wrote in to say:

bq. “Sean-Paul, just fyi, I think that that comment you referred to by Paul misunderstands what the UNSC resolution in question in fact does (even for the UN the text is clear enough). It calls on India and Pakistan to become signatories to the NPT. If they were to have done so, then they would not be allowed to have weapons. They didn’t sign up, however, nor could that particular UNSC resolution or any other force them to do so.”

I’m honestly not sure what this person thinks I got wrong. Article 25 says what it says, but it is true that the council took no action to try and force India and Pakistan to accede to the NPT.

ACA has “it.”:http://www.armscontrol.org/system/files/Final+Version+of+Statement.pdf

I am still thinking about it, but Daryl has some “action.”:http://www.armscontrol.org/node/3340/print This part jumped out at me:

The text of the NSG’s Sept. 6 statement on India — along with the national statements issued today by Austria, China, Germany, Ireland, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, and others — indicates that even if the NSG guidelines are not as clear as they should be or fail to include key provisions to reduce the adverse nonproliferation consequences, for all practical purposes:

– NSG states should not and will not likely engage in “full” nuclear trade with India;

– NSG states should and very likely would terminate nuclear trade with India if it resumes testing; and

– India’s compliance with it pre-2005 nonproliferation commitments and the implementation of bilateral trade with India will be reviewed on a regular (probably annual) basis by the NSG.

The rules are gone. Now what?

So what was happening about -15- 10 years ago? Well, the UNSC was adopting Resolution 1172 in response to New Delhi and Islamabad’s nuclear weapons tests.

The full text is “here”:http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N98/158/60/PDF/N9815860.pdf?OpenElement, but it’s worth pointing out that the council demanded that the two countries “refrain from further nuclear tests” and “become Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty without delay and without conditions.”

The resolution also called on Islamabad and New Delhi

bq. immediately to stop their nuclear weapon development programmes, to refrain from weaponization or from the deployment of nuclear weapons, to cease development of ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons and any further production of fissile material for nuclear weapons, to confirm their policies not to export equipment, materials or technology that could contribute to weapons of mass destruction or missiles capable of delivering them and to undertake appropriate commitments in that regard

One other interesting provision that I had forgotten about concerns the question of whether India and Pakistan could be nuclear-weapon states. Unsurprisingly, the answer is “No”:

bq. in accordance with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons India or Pakistan cannot have the status of a nuclear-weapon State.

Oh, the resolution also encouraged other countries to

bq. prevent the export of equipment, materials or technology that could *in any way* assist programmes in India or Pakistan for nuclear weapons or for ballistic missiles capable of delivering such weapons, and welcomes national policies adopted and declared in this respect.

Interesting, given “recent events.”:http://www.totalwonkerr.net/1699/nsg-approves-india-exemption

Here is Article 25 of the “UN Charter,”:http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/ if anyone cares:

bq. The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.

Yes, it’s a Saturday, but it’s raining outside and I _could_ be playing World of Warcraft, so leave me alone…