Did Bush Blink?

" 'It's not meaningful to talk about 14 of the 22 reactors being placed under safeguards,' said Robert J. Einhorn, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, who served as a top nonproliferation official in the Clinton administration and the early days of the Bush administration. 'What's meaningful is what the Indians can do at the unsafeguarded reactors, which is vastly increase their production of fissile material for nuclear weapons. One has to assume that the administration was so interested in concluding a deal that it was prepared to cave in to the demands of the Indian nuclear establishment.' "

Peter Wallsten writes in the Los Angeles Times that "it appeared in the hours after the announcement that India had emerged a winner. . . .

"[CSIS's] Einhorn said the U.S. had initially offered to let India produce weapons materials at its two planned fast-breeder reactors -- enough to produce as many as six bombs a year. But India, underscoring its interest in a more robust weapons program, rejected the deal, he said."

Farah Stockman writes in the Boston Globe that "critics of the deal, under negotiation since July, said Bush did not drive a hard enough bargain. They said he failed to win any major restrictions on India's nuclear arsenal, such as a halt to the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons.

" 'India has wanted this deal for 30 years,' said Jon Wolfsthal, a former policy adviser for the US Department of Energy under President Clinton who now works at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. 'For them, this is the Holy Grail of international acceptance, and we sold it for pennies on the dollar. In the end, the major players in the Bush administration feel it's OK for India to have a large nuclear arsenal as long as its not directed at the United States, and that there might even be benefits, for instance, to deter against China.' "

Steven R. Weisman writes in the New York Times: " 'This deal not only lets India amass as many nuclear weapons as it wants, it looks like we made no effort to try to curtail them,' said George Perkovich, vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 'This is Santa Claus negotiating. The goal seems to have been to give away as much as possible.' "

James Sterngold writes in the San Francisco Chronicle: "While some officials hailed President Bush's announcement Thursday of a nuclear cooperation deal between the United States and India as a sign of warmer ties, a number of experts and some members of Congress reacted with deep concern, saying the proposal could allow India to expand its nuclear weapons arsenal. . . .

"India has a stockpile estimated at 40 to 50 warheads, which it developed to counterbalance threats from China and Pakistan, both nuclear-armed countries with which India has had military conflicts. In 1998, India and then Pakistan conducted underground tests, bringing them to the brink of a nuclear exchange, prompting many security experts to call for steps toward disarmament in the volatile region rather than an increase in nuclear technology. . . .

"[N]ow that the two sides have agreed on specific terms, the skeptics said the deal could allow India to expand its arsenal even further and possibly encourage a regional nuclear arms race."

In Other Indian News

Jim VandeHei and Daniela Deane write for The Washington Post: "President Bush concluded his first visit to India Friday by calling for tighter trade and military relations that could 'transform the world.'

"In a night-time speech at Purana Qila, an historic fort in New Delhi, Bush said America should not fear India's rapid economic growth and shut itself off to expanding trade opportunities with the world's second most populous country."

Earlier in the day, Bush chatted with a panel of young Indian entrepreneurs. Here's the transcript . Asked about outsourcing, he replied: "People do lose jobs as a result of globalization, and it's painful for those who lose jobs. But the fundamental question is, how does a government or society react to that."