Links to U.S. official, academic and business viewpoints on US-India relations.

Letter to Senator John Kerry from Ayesha Nariman, Democratic Candidate for NY's 26th. Congressional District

April 27, 2004

Dear Senator Kerry,

I ran as a delegate for John Kerry in your bid for the United States Presidency in the 26th. Congressional District of New York.

I spent a couple of months in the dead of winter, trudging in the Buffalo cold and snow to get the petition signatures necessary to get you on the ballot, when your poll numbers were sinking. I was very happy and proud
to represent you, and help you become the Democratic Candidate for the U.S. presidency. I continue to work on your campaign along side Mark Poloncarz, the WNY coordinator for the Kerry campaign (who is doing a fabulous job on your behalf), to make sure that you will become the 44th. president of these United States.

I am an Asian-American (originally from India), and was the democrat candidate for Congress in NY's 26th. Congressional District in the 2002 mid-term elections. I will be facing a primary in the 2004 elections.

I believe my Indian ancestry, my current association with your campaign and the democrat party place me in an unique position to ask you to reassess your position on allowing India, the world's largest democracy, and 4th.
largest economic power to become a permanent member of the United Nations Security Counsel. India has been a stable democracy for over fifty years, and has risen to become both an economic and military power. It is time
for the world to acknowledge India as a world power, and to elevate it to the status it has earned and deserves in the United Nations Security Counsel. Your reservations on making India a permanent member of the expanded UNSC is based on India not being a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). However, a more nuanced examination and understanding of the facts on the ground will clarify that this demarcation is an unworthy one.

Let us examine recent history:

Recently, the A.Q. Khan scandal highlights the fact that a nation's membership in the NPT does not automatically guarantee good behavior with respect to proliferation. Iran, North Korea, Libya and other regimes involved were all NPT signatories when they indulged in covert nuclear weapons acquisition. Second, at least one UN SC and NPT member, China, has transferred WMD technology to Pakistan, North Korea, and possibly Libya.

Further, in the last few months, the world has witnessed alarming revelations of a nuclear proliferation network, which, although spread throughout the world, had its core in Pakistan. Through Pakistan's "nuclear Wal-Mart" anti-American regimes like that of North Korea, Iran, and Libya either have nukes or are close to developing them. The chief of the IAEA believes that this is only the tip of the atomic iceberg. Yet, the international community, including the United States, is powerless to enforce the NPT on Pakistan.

Given all this, it is quite clear that the global nonproliferation regime which was devised decades ago, has outlived its utility in its primary goal of making the world a safer place with regard to nuclear weapons. Accordingly, linking India's permanent membership in the UN SC to the NPT does not advance American interests by any manner of means.

On the other hand, India, a non-NPT member state, has demonstrated a record on nonproliferation that is second to none. It is, in fact, better than some of the US allies (in or out of the UNSC).

Therefore, would it not be more logical for the United States to look at India's stellar track record on nonproliferation as an appropriate criterion for a permanent seat in the UNSC rather than a membership in a flawed nonproliferation regime? India is already working with the US and other partners on strengthening its export laws and strengthening enforcement where needed. Admittedly gaps remain, but the point to note is that the Indian political commitment to export controls did not come as a result of international pressure after repeated violations (as has been the case with Russia and China recently, or with UK and France after the first Gulf War).

As a stable democracy of a billion plus people, India has a large stake in ensuring that its nuclear assets don't leak and India's security and economic interests are strategically congruent with long-term US interests. It would be only logical, therefore, that the United States would welcome India into the UNSC, to be a reliable partner in resolving global problems.

I would, therefore, respectfully urge you to reconsider your position on the question of a permanent seat for India in the UN Security Council.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Ayesha F. Nariman, MBA
Democrat Candidate for NY's 26th. Congressional District
www.narimanforcongress.com