Political Science

The 21st Century is a duration that is faced with an increasing desire to have new and renewable energy sources all over the world.  This is due to the increase in global economic and technological development.  The main problem at hand is how to obtain cheap energy sources that are easy to replenish, easy to use, that are locally available at the different regions, that which can ensure national and international security in terms of global fuel crises resolution and the environmental concerns that are now a main concern.
 
Following this kind of desire, there are options that are under exploration beside the commonly used petroleum fuels, forest energy sources is more emphasis on the safe generation and use of nuclear energy with global environmental degradation prevention in the minds of the researchers. Several global and national agreements have been on going in response to the power needs. The Indo-U.S agreement is an example of such. The Indo- US nuclear agreement is a deal that involves that agreement between the United States of America and the Republic of India which gives an accord toward the management and the reduction of nuclear weapon use aimed at the development of global security, the promotion of peace in the region.  They agreed to disconnect the civil and military conflicts through the facilitation of the IAEA agreement of July 18th, 2005. The agreement was signed between the former president George Bush of the United States of America and Singh, the prime minister of the republic of India.  The declaration took about three years to become effective as from 8th October, 2008.  The declaration has made India well known for its synthesis of nuclear weapons that is non partisan to the non proliferation treaty (NPT) and legally accepted to practice nuclear weapon trade with the world round.

The 123 agreement had clearly stated that the corporation was only between India and U.S. That is, the only two countries only which are in possession of advanced nuclear technology where each of the parties enjoy similar advantages and benefits, and that both are devoted to the deterrence of WMD proliferation.  The second section of the commitment clauses stated that the affirmation of the two states to uphold to the IAEA objectives as well as its safeguards mechanisms as stipulated in the U.S and India, plus the protection of international corporation interest to deterring the proliferation of nuclear explosives and weapon with the aim of safe use of nuclear energy ensuring peaceful deals ass defined within the agreement.  The third declaration under the agreement is that the two States would be heedful of collective commitment to avert the production of mass destruction armaments. One major mistake made while designing and drafting the 123 agreement was that there was no definition of the term proliferation in the context of the agreement thus provoking constant disapproval of the agreement which would otherwise have been acceptable not only to the region but also to world round.

A series of debates and confrontation took place before the signing of the treaty by the U.S. president. It involved thorough consultations and legal proceedings that gave reasons as to why the nation would be allowed to deal with the nuclear power weapons.  Disputes against it were common because it was felt that regional peace and security would be compromised. Immediately after this treaty was signed France found its way to gain access to the Indian trade agreement.  Although the Indo-U.S agreement was met with frustrations and indifferences by various political parties in the India, it was supported by the bureaucrats, scientists and number of scholars who wrote letters of acceptance to the parliament in support. Despite the opposition, the Indian parliament kept to its agreement but promise to guard the national and regional peace and security.  The U.S also declared that it was not their heartfelt intention to finance of support the republic of India in the design of any nuclear weapons.  It was further agreed that if the Republic of India tested their weapons without care, the treaty world be broken and they would be responsible for the damages.

In his speech the Prime Minister, Singh assured the world that with the common goal of deterring the proliferation of nuclear weapon, the union agreement was geared towards the universal disarmament and that they would not encourage proliferation of any kind.  He assured the world of security since he stated that there would be the formation of the India EU security Dialogue forum that will carry out consisted discussions and consultations the safeguard regional peace as well as global peace encouraging disarmament and non proliferation policies within the corporation.

It was firmly believed that India would compromise her stand in ensuring her own security for fuel requirements and would lead to increased dependency on the U.S thus they would only be manipulated by the U.S. the communist communities were all against the signing of the agreement for fear of their regional security.  Many organizations felt that the allowance of India to the exploitation of nuclear power would impact negatively in that it would encourage India to embark on the generation of more bombs rather than other production processes they had worked on before. This was said to be triggered by other nations in the region who were most likely to place more orders for the nuclear weapons from India.  This would endanger regional peace to a great extend.  Experts felt that even though the agreement with the U.S did not allow India to exploit the nuclear power for domestic weapon generation, India is likely to be forced to import nuclear fuel form other states and use it for the generation of their domestic weapon leading to more destruction of regional peace.  It was further argued that India could not be fully inspected to measure the standards by which they was using the nuclear energy for thus at any given moment they would not own up to regional security although they had initially stated that  until 1974 they had used the energy for civilian energy programs.

It was further argued that despite the signing of the agreement, there were unnecessary flaws that resulted form the rushing of the program initiations and discussions had a lot of omissions that provided for an increase in proliferation.  Since there was no enough preparation time, for experts to review the agreement then it would negatively impact regional security.  This suggested that there was need for a more critical review of the agreement before its implementation.

Another shortcoming to these agreement is when it is not clearly defined to what extend India should exploit the nuclear energy.  It was questionable that India shall not regulate their nuclear energy exploitation while all super power States like the U.S, Russia, Britain, and France were already limiting their generation in order to comply to the global policy on non proliferation of nuclear power equipment.  Furthermore the number of weapons that were to be produced by India was not to be restricted something that posed more danger to the global and regional peace and security.   The agreement was not only going to endanger regional security but more specifically the state of security in the U.S was more at risk.

The global concern on environmental conservation and energy crises as well as the urgent need for extra energy supply towards the industrialization and fast growing economies in the world round led to meet and deliberate on the nuclear energy and threaten associated to nuclear proliferation.
More threats to the global energy crises and proliferation of nuclear power is attributed to the implications that North Korea and China are more than willing in the proliferation of missiles and their components than the developing countries.  This raises concern to the US and other developed nations on their safety in the near future.  Iran and Pakistan are also allegedly suspected of using the proliferated nuclear weapons. Beijing has been suspected of assisting in the design of Iranians missiles that can penetrate war ships of various categories.  

Argentina and Brazil are also strongly declining to be registered or support the formation of the nuclear free zones.  The Germany in reported as rather undecided in joining this kind of forums at whatever cost despite the pressurized persuasion from the UN, GNEP and other organizations concerned with global environmental degradation from nuclear effect and related war like situations.  Canada and Australia already joined hands in the fight against nuclear proliferation after a pressurizing debate and negotiations were posed to them frequently. The Asian continent has currently a number of nations that have signed towards the non-nuclear proliferation treaty called Central Asian Nuclear Weapon Free Zone (CANWFZ) which was ratified in December 2008 and enforced in 2009 March.  Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Tajik, and the Uzbekistan are the five leading nations of central Asia that have signed to the treaty of the free nuclear weapon zone since its campaigns in 2006 to date.  The presidents have signed the declaration statements towards the agreement and express interest in the freedom of such weapons because they feel that this could promote world peace if not the regional peace that is being campaigned for.

The Caribbean State, the Latin America, the South Pacific and the South East Asia are also other examples of nations that are in support of the nuclear proliferation free zones.  Efforts are now directed towards the African continent.  This will raise the assurance of progressive development towards a nuclear weapon free world although more fight is required to mobilize those rivaling nations to regard the efforts of ratification a nuclear free zone.  The attempt by the central Asia nations to sign the free zone creation is important although it threatens the peace of those nations since they are surrounded by the warring nations who are fully committed to the proliferation of the nuclear weapons. Central Asia is surrounded by Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel and Chinese that are well formed nuclear weapon zones as well as the military bases of the U.S.
 
It is rather contradicting that the Central Asia region has signed the current agreement on the nonproliferation zone. Contradiction arises when theoretically its former agreements face a breach because the nations had earlier agreed with the Russian that they would be supplying weapons and nuclear equipment to the region.  The contradiction provokes a state of unrest within the region although the UN assures the region of protection through negotiations and further resignation assistance towards the former agreements. Central Asia is further criticized for not being cautious over the modest of signing into these treaties that compromise individual national security and economic development within the region. It is feared that regional security is compromised in such attempt of proliferation of the nuclear weapons by the implicated nations.  This is a threat that impacts negatively on the control of arms and defense activity.  This leads to the development of imbalance and instability among the regional military thus the concerned security bodies are found to be fully suspicious of any conflict hence rival-like atmosphere is generated.

For instance, all are witnesses to the Pakistan- Indian missile race ravage as if the activity is capable of compromising and contracting the management of crisis, in case there was growing conflict.  Good examples are the Kasmir and Kargil which are two well known nations that have carried test on their missiles and are said to progress in the induction of nuclear warheads to their menacing systems of weapon set.   In the real sense, the situation is compromising the regional security and is a matter of concern to the world at large.  Moreover, the proliferation of missiles creates a spirit of competition on arms and the deliberate attacks of nations to others just to test their powerfully believed weapons.  Some examples of tension created environment is in the Japans reaction towards the launch of missiles by the North Korea in 1998. This provoked the lack of financial release by the Japan government.   More threats to Japan forced the signing of a joined agreement with the US towards the funding of TMD theatre missile defense system, in 2002, which Japan was reluctant to signing at first.  The truth is that a frustrating environment to global peace is prevailing despite other economic constrains.

Despite the frequent warnings issued over the proliferation of arms and nuclear power development, it is rather alarming that china, Beijing, and North Korea have recently bee reported to test their high power missiles of various categories and varied destructive effects.   It is speculated that chinas involvement would be the worst and could provoke regional security by far because it has signed more treaties with America and Pakistan among others.  The Indo- Pakistan agreement would be compromised as well as the Sino- America one.

Generally, the Indo-U.S treaty is currently faced by rather strong challenges than it is presupposed is.  It works at cross roads. The more challenge comes from the regions that are active in the supply of nuclear weapons like China in the NSG, nuclear supply groups which are likely to negatively and strongly object to the smooth progress of the Indo-U.S deals.  The compromising situation that faces India through the Indo-U.S agreement that pressurizes the nation to state a numerical figure of her nuclear weapon and provide a legal record to show how long the process is likely to take in the proliferation process, is likely to challenge the congress a great deal resulting in failure to achieve the desired effects towards a nuclear free nation. Finally, the agreement forced India to become a signatory of the IAEA safeguards to nuclear power generation and nonproliferation policy (February 2008). It was also agreed that the nuclear supply groups were mandated to regulate the nuclear technology spread.  There was also the need for regulation of nuclear trade material by the congress in the U.S. passed under the U.S Atomic Energy Act.