ldev wrote:A clandestine wink wink nod nod for a Chinese transfer of warheads/fissile material to Pakistan cannot be compared to an agreement being signed in the full glare of daylight with every comma examined and legal opinions sought on specific provisions including the potential if the US had given India what you are asking for that a possible legal interpretation of that one time waiver could be that the US had abrogated its obligations under the NPT.
I am sorry to have to refute your statements once again, but unfortunately, the facts are otherwise. There was nothing clandestine or wink wink nod nod about the US-China 123 agreement which was debated publicly and exhaustively since the early 1980s, with specific reference to Chinese proliferation activities (and it was not just to Pakistan; other countries mentioned were Iran, Argentine, South Africa, etc.).
Please read CRS Report on China 123
This Report cites innumerable news reports, other publicly available reports and analyses of the Congressional Research Service (CRS), letters/statements by members of Congress/Senators, Congressional testimony by Admn officials, Congressional debates, etc. on the Chinese proliferation issue over a period of many years. All this debate actually led to Congress stipulating a requirement -- while approving the China 123 in 1985 -- for a Presidential certification on this issue before the China 123 could be implemented.
My point is: during all this multi-year debate about a very real and on-going Chinese proliferation issue, no one raised the question of whether the US would be considered in breach of its NPT obligations as a result of signing the China 123.
This whole NPT obligation thingy is something dreamed up to justify actions whose real purpose is to keep India on a very short leash indeed -- an objective that makes eminent sense from the US point of view; it just does not make much sense from the Indian point of view!! MMS/GoI need to be able to explain why they have gone along with this US objective!!!