After the election last week, in which Democrats took over control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, many people (including much of the Indian press) were running around screaming “the sky is falling.” What would this mean for the precious India-U.S. nuclear deal? Let’s take a look at the reality behind the hype. Outlook India reports today:
The United States Senate is expected to debate and vote this week on a bill that would permit civilian nuclear cooperation with India.
Congressional and diplomatic sources told this correspondent the long-awaited vote could take place on Wednesday or Thursday. The United States Congress commenced its lame-duck session on Monday and the U.S.-India nuclear deal features prominently on the agenda…On Monday, both Republicans as well as Democrats indicated their intention to take up the India nuclear deal in the lame duck session. But before that they will vote on a bill that makes permanent trade relations with Vietnam.
In his remarks Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Republican, said, “This week, the Senate agenda will focus on completing the remaining appropriations bills. And in the days and weeks ahead, we’ll also need to consider the nomination of Bob Gates as Secretary of Defence, Vietnam trade legislation, and the U.S.– India civilian nuclear technology bill, among others.”
Mr. Frist’s Democratic counterpart, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, said, “We have our mind on concluding the appropriations bills and the very important nuclear agreement with the largest democracy in the world, India… [Link]
<
p>So the Democrat and Republican leadership are both on record as supporting this bill but both seem like they have a lot of domestic items on their plate they need to first take care of in the lame duck session, especially since Bush is fleeing going on a long trip to Asia in a few days. Not so fast though. Many arms control experts are recommending changes to the bill before it gets approved:
Arms control advocates urged changes in a U.S.-India nuclear cooperation agreement on Tuesday as the U.S. Senate prepared to resume action on the long-stalled deal……Meanwhile, a new report by the Congressional Research Service, which examines issues for Congress, found that while India does not want Iran to have nuclear weapons, New Delhi’s “views of the Iranian threat and appropriate responses (to that threat) differ significantly from U.S. views…” [Link]
<
p>Here is a succinct summary of their main concern:
“It is clear that on the issue of preventing Iran from going nuclear, and on the crucial issue of nonproliferation, India’s record is not encouraging,” said U.S. Rep. Ed Markey, a Democratic leader of the U.S. House of Representatives task force on nonproliferation.
The 18 arms control advocates, in a letter to senators, said that without amendments, the proposed legislation before the Senate “would have far-reaching and adverse effects on U.S. nonproliferation and security objectives…” [Link]
<
p>Now, if Congress is too bogged down with domestic issues this week to get to a vote on this then this is what would happen next:
Failure to pass the measure in a short session after the elections would require new legislation to be introduced next year, delaying exports from nuclear-industry suppliers such as Fairfield, Connecticut-based General Electric Co. and Pittsburg- based Westinghouse Electric Co. Still, the agreement has bipartisan U.S. support, which should allow the measure to eventually go through, Shashank said….“There would not be any direct kind of impact that would be deemed to be negative because the India-U.S. nuclear deal has largely bipartisan support,” C. Uday Bhaskar, an independent strategic analyst, said in New Delhi today. [Link]
<
p>
<
p>Betting on the possibility that this will make it to the floor on Wednesday, the Indian lobby is taking out an ad in Roll Call, the congressional newspaper:
On Wednesday, the IASLC plans to run a full-page advertisement in Roll Call, a congressional newspaper, urging the Senate to pass the bill without any killer amendments. The advertisement will be signed by IASLC supporters from national veterans organizations. “We have been overwhelmed by the support we received from veterans organizations, Indo-American leaders and other Americans who are concerned about U.S. national security and have expressed to their Senators the need to have this bill passed before the 109th Congress adjourns,” said Mr. Kapur. [Link]
<
p>If you take a look at the ad you will see the tactic that the IASLC has decided to use in trying to persuade Congress, “on behalf of Indian Americans,” that they should support this deal. The headline reads: Veterans groups representing millions of veterans urge Congress to pass U.S. India Nuclear Initiative NOW because it serves the future security of America.
The way I see it I’d rather not have legislation rushed through without studying it carefully. We’ve had way too much of that for at least the last six years. If this legislation doesn’t get passed now because Congress is busy with domestic issues, I don’t think it is the end of the world if it gets resurrected next year. The Indian strategic analyst I quoted above doesn’t think it’s that big a deal either. Bottom line from my perspective: don’t believe people that tell you that one American political party is better for India than the other and that your vote as a U.S. citizen should therefore hinge on such considerations.
“on the crucial issue of nonproliferation, IndiaÂ’s record is not encouraging,” said U.S. Rep. Ed Markey, a Democratic leader of the U.S. House of Representatives task force on nonproliferation.”
it would help if he explained to whom india has been proliferating nuclear technology.
Amen to that!!! Even if you are not a US citizen and just a “resident”, still dont buy into the myth of one party being better for India v/s other. Most serious political leaders understand the strategic importance of India and India’s growing power. If India’s surging power isnt a myth, than India should not be concerned with handouts from US. India should be able to deal with any political party in power in the US on the “merit” of its case.
“on the crucial issue of nonproliferation, IndiaÂ’s record is not encouraging,” said U.S. Rep. Ed Markey, a Democratic leader of the U.S. House of Representatives task force on nonproliferation.”
All the bitches screaming about India and its nuclear testing and proliferation etc etc need to shut the f up. If you had a violent muslim country sharing your border, you’d be readying up nuclear arms to keep them at bay too.
Its all nice and good when you’re half a globe away from virgin seeking islamic extremists.
…and scene.
“virgin seeking islamic extremists”
lol. that is some funny shit.
Who is this virgin and whyfor she be seeking Islamic extremists? Is she a desi virgin? Is it a matter of finding an extremist from the right community? Will a Bohra extremist do? If caste is no bar, what’s wrong with corn-fed Evangelicals? Can sabzi-making skills be a substitute for a lack of marh? Speaking of sardars, maybe she can hook up with pro-Khalistani Col. Sekhon, who might, post-defeat, be in the market.
What?
You meant virgin-seeking Islamic extremists?
Oh.
Never mind.
nice post, Abhi…tho with way too much past baggage…
An interesting background on the current situation.
It seems like this deal is being heavily pushed for both economic and political reasons – India rationalizing that nuclear energy is the key to their economic growth and the US eager to capitalize on the new markets this deal with open up. If the agreement goes through it will be interesting to see who benefits more in the end, and at what actual cost.
Nuclear Gangsta Rap?
And I guess the US has a stellar record of non-proliferation? Typical NPT hogwash. What I suspect some Democrats really want is more control over Indian nuclear installations, both civilian and military. India is better off without this deal. Even with the deal, there are no indications that NSG nations like Australia would be willing to export uranium to India.
😀 . What’s that sher from Pyaasa ?
‘Hum aah bhi karte hai to ho jate hai badnaam, Wo qatl bhi karte hai to charcha nahi hoti.’
(A sigh by us ruins our reputation, While a murder by them does not even get a mention.)
What are the energy options for India if this deal is not? Is Australia the only source for uranium?
You mean, the last sixty years? Considering Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, Affirmative Action, Animal rights, Eminent domain over private property…. the list of ponzi schemes hastily passed by Congress in the last sixty years is endless. But I digress…
The Nuclear Deal is good for America, because if it goes through India will reduce its consumption of oil, thus bringing down gas prices for the average Joe. And it has the side-effect of being good for the environment as well: At the present rate of growth India and China will each surpass amount of emissions than that of the US within a decade (and neither of them are signatories to Kyoto, nor will be). The nuclear deal will greatly reduce dependance on fossil fuels. IASLC should be using this tactic to get it into the thick heads of liberal Democrats who want to scuttle the deal.
M. Nam
And pushes the case for the US energy industry.
What are the energy options for India if this deal is not? Is Australia the only source for uranium?
Right now, on 5% of India’s energy budget is from nuclear, and in the best case scenario, they are shooting for 10-15% in future (also offsetting the growth in need). Most of the India’s energy comes from coal, oil and gas, and always will be in next 100 years of so.
Uranium legally has come from NSG (Australia is a big player in NSG), that is another hurdle.
Also, India has been building thorium reactors, but it will take ~25 years to build enough stockpile.
May, the India-US nuclear deal should be off. It is just waste of time. I am going to call PM Manmohan Singh tonight, and we will discuss this post.
I’ve heard that argument but is nuclear power considered a serious energy option? Does nuclear power currently fill a significant component of India’s energy needs?
Nanda,
That’s an excellent insight : regardless of which party is in power, the deal will go through from the US side because it is just too good a deal for the US to pass up. India lost big time at the negotiating table and as an Indian nationalist, I cringe at the thought of how idiotic the Indian negotiators must be to give up so very much and have so very little to show for it. I am hoping against hope that partisan bickering in the US will scuttle this deal, which will be really the best outcome for India.
An excellent analysis of this deal was presented on the INI blog a few months ago. It looks at the deal in detail and I’d highly recommend it to the policy-wonk types on this thread. The comments following that post are also highly insightful:
Dissecting the U.S.-India Nuclear Cooperation Act 2006
WOW! What happened to that guy who could make petroleum out of water and some herbs?!! lol
Why is India signing it if its not a good deal? Just for better India-US relations?
Thanks for posting this Abhi.
There will never be ‘ONE’ source of energy for any country. It will always be a multipronged approach with coal (still being the primary one in the world), oil, natural gas, nuclear, hydroelectric, and solar (when the technology catches up) energy providing the needs of the world. Barring any revolutionary technological leap (fusion), we have set sources to draw power from.
India increasing its nuclear energy sources is a good thing overall. As large as India’s coal reserves are, it simply doesn’t have enough to fuel a billion people to propell growth. Same with China. Any supplemental energy either country can generate with efficiency, they need to explore. Period. The US is willing to provide technology (French and Japanese are looking on with interest, too). Proving such energy to a country already with the means to create weapons and an establish aresnal (whatever that may be) isn’t going to ‘increase’ bomb supply. The NPT is already a failure. Secure interests with bilateral agreements maintaining the cartel. Others will follow, amendments to agreements will be made, and things will be all good. This is the vetting period India is going through in an attempt to become a member of the nuclear cartel. The last thing Indians want to do is become defensive and snap back at the United States. Act like you’ve been there before and time to show maturity and act like a big boy with deft political and diplomatic skill.
These things take time to hammer out and it took over a decade for China to get a deal. India will happen sooner or later.
Why is India signing it if its not a good deal? Just for better India-US relations? For one simple reason: Do anyone in right mind think that USA will give the prize as a free lunch or touchy-feel buddy buddy. This deal has been on the table for years, starting from President Clinton days. Right now, US has no peg in South and West Asia. If General Musharraf goes (almost all dictators eventually do), who knows how friendly the next regime will be in Pakistan, and how plays vis-a-vis Afghanistan and beyond. The deal has symbolic value of putting some permanency in relationship between US and India, also as a counter to China too.
Why India mandarins fell for it? Their reactors are aging, and thorium reactor will not be on line for long time. Perhaps, they also wish for a new alliance with US, with China emerging more powerful than ever. It has very little to do with energy needs. It never was.
But now I think the deal should be off.
Word!!
I hope you are right, but I am not sure exactly what you mean. Do you think that the Dems will block the deal? Or do you think the deal should be off because it’s not desirable for India? If it’s the former, I’m interested in hearing why you think that will happen. All IA lobbies are gearing up to spend whatever financial or political capital it takes – seemingly driven by themisconception that this deal is good for India. What do you think will prevent the deal from passing in the Congress?
Check it out. It might not be the Dems that blow this but the Republicans who are pissed at Bush. On the eve of his trip to Vietnam they’ve embarassed him mightily:
Could the nuke deal be next?
I hope you are right, but I am not sure exactly what you mean. Do you think that the Dems will block the deal? Or do you think the deal should be off because it’s not desirable for India? If it’s the former, I’m interested in hearing why you think that will happen. All IA lobbies are gearing up to spend whatever financial or political capital it takes – seemingly driven by themisconception that this deal is good for India. What do you think will prevent the deal from passing in the Congress?
Eventually, this deal will pass – why? – because of its strategic reasons. The China-US deal was framed when USSR was still in existence, and at that time US wanted to widen the wedge that was already there between USSR and China, and engage China in all ways. Little business (GE, etc.) on the side helped. Same is here with the India-US deal. It will take 4-5 years to pass with multiple to and fro, amendments, etc.
In all honesty, it benefits US more than India. In one shot, you have made India as a stakeholder once you become partners in their nuclear facilities. It is almost like China has pegged US by letting Microsoft, Apple, GE, and all operate in China, and buying US bonds.
Have you read the conditions of India-US deal, and how much control India looses when they open reactors to inspection and what not? It is like opening your house to check your kitchen sink, does anyone you know really relishes that. Do read Indian newspapers like Indian Express, and India Today for serious analysis. PM Singh has already been on the ropes a number of times in the parliament on the deal. But as I said, it does help India modernize their reactors, and most importantly they wanted to be treated in the league of big boys, and not be a nuclear pariah state. The domino effect is perhaps increased nuclear and non-nuclear related business to India for long time. The benefits to India are mostly perception (and perception is reality) and psychological, and that is why Indian lobby is pushing it hard. Inspite of all this, there is more opposition to the deal in India than in US. Hey, read this.
the nuclear deal, if passed with all the changes that the americans want, is a blunder for india
there is already strong opposition in india for the deal (mainly by the oppposition party BJP) – and am not sure about this , but even if it passes in the us, i think that it still has to pass in the indian parliament as well – good luck with that!
Kush:
I agree with your assessment, though, it is very hard to see the value of strategic success. On paper, India isn’t gaining all that much in the immediate future.
But India has always had a desire to be treated as a big boy on the diplomatic and political table, yet, has never really garnered the respect (or fear) its neigbor China has for various reasons. One may give up a bit on the nuclear side (oversight), which may seem to be an invasion of privacy. But in the end, India has secured itself as a responsible nuclear state with weapons. From a deterrent standpoint, it already has enough to flex the nuclear muscle it it chooses to.
Strategically, becoming a member of the cartel has subtle influence in world affairs. Since India doesn’t see itself as an aggressor (like China), it plays well into the traditionally passive strategy. Line all the chips up and play nice. As you say, perception is everything. With the global economy and the role media/perceptions play in shaping world power/respect, the US-India deal is just another facet to gaining strategic leverage in the world.
LoW,
Unfortunately, the deal does not have to pass the Indian parliament. Under the Indian constitution, the Executive can sign foreign treaties without having to get them ratified by the Legislature. So, if the Prime Minister signs it than there’s very little that can be done short of abrogating the entire deal.
Kush,
Thanks for the CFR link.
You are right : the deal has faced a lot more opposition in India than the US. The BJP, in fact, has threatened that if it ever comes back to power than it will abrogate the deal. This raises the question about why there is such a huge dissonance between the IA lobbyists/other desi politcial organizations like USINPAC etc on one hand and Indian analysts opposing the deal on the other. The US is getting a hell of a deal and India is getting screwed – if anything, I would’ve expected the USINPAC types to lead the charge in changing the terms of the deal to make it better rather than spending political capital in selling the deal as it is right now.
I do have to disagree with you about the role of Indian media in this. I have followed them on this topic for quite some time, and most of them have unfortunately been vociferous supporters of the deal. With a few exceptions, they have done a very shoddy job of analyzing the deal. C Raja Mohan of the Indian Express has been writing strongly supportive editorials in IE for a long time. His “analysis” is of extremely poor quality, but he gets quoted a lot. The only opposing voices I’ve heard are Brahma Chellaney and Bharat Kranad, mostly writing for the Asian Age. They’ve had very little airtime compared to the deal-pushers in IE, ToI and so on. If it weren’t for the Indian scientists coming out very strongly against the deal, the government might very well have succeeded in keeping it under the wraps and selling out on India’s interests without anyone getting wiser.
also, from a July 7, 06 report on current trade policy:
Not only is it embarrassing to go to Vietnam for photo-ops without a trade agreement, it’s a reflection that the spirit in which these agreements are drafted is flawed- the drafting is hurried, with little negotiation, allowing less time to bounce initial proposals off Representatives, who in turn must get it ok’d with their constituents. When the constituents don’t approve, the Reps end up holding the hot potato and its a messy, disjointed fallout. Then, its the trade reps who must clean up the mess, restart negotiations, only this time in a more hostile trade climate. This should not happen with bilateral trade agreements; regional trade agreements, yes; bilateral, no. I suppose this hurried process, combined with Fast Track, is expected being that the bilateral FTAs aren’t drafted in compliance to free trade theory as the theorists presume; rather, they are procured by geopolitics, with one eye on China, who has been far more thorough and diligent in making bilateral FTAs work for them, politically and economically. I expect Mankiw, his ilk and the WSJ to spin this as “Dems against free trade, economic crisis looms”
Regarding the nuke deal, oversight is a small price to pay for an agreement that still manages to leave India’s foreign (and foreign economic) policy apparatus autonomous. Which party initiated this deal to be hashed out and paraded about in 2006? If it was India, twas a shrewd move and the timing was impeccable for the giant is not at his best this year, both in war and politics.
I don’t quite understand the underlying current of scepticism in all the comments in this thread. Nobody, I mean nobody, actually seems to take it seriously that India is going to use the nuclear power in a legitimate way i.e. to generate electricity. Why is that so hard to believe? Everyone’s like ‘it’s only gonna benefit American companies/interests blah blah…’
I think that inspite of all the reactors that India has built so far, it has been unable to take advantage of them coz of all the restrictions on nuclear fuel. It remains to be seen whether getting better access to them can make a difference.
Nuclear power is one of the safest and greenest power sources available, and that alone is a good reason to adopt it. After seeing the environmental degradation in India over the last 10 or so years, I’m all for greener measures. If American companies benefit from that, well, good for them.
technophobicgeek,
I think the Indian parliament’s opposition to the bill is due to the wariness over dependence on a foreign supply of nuclear fuel. Since India has an abundant supply of thorium (24% of the world’s supply), and limit supply of uranium (1% of the world’s supply), many advocates of self-sufficiency suggest indigenous development of nuclear life-cycles based on thorium. Unfortunately, thorium technology is nascent and India would have to develop it on its own since the rest of the world hasn’t much need to utilize thorium when uranium is abundant.
If India purchases technology, it will be uranium-based technology and hence India will need to import its fuel. Furthermore, indigenous thorium research will likely come to a screeching halt if technology that utilizes uranium is decades more advanced and India gains access to uranium from the US/NSG. If India stop researching thorium, no research on thorium gets done. (The only other 2 countries with vast thorium deposits are Australia and Canada, both of which have vast uranium deposits, and as such see no need to investigate thorium’s utility.)
Think back to Germany’s Helium vs Hydrogen dilemma. Except, pretend Hydrogen wasn’t explosive, and pretend Germany was technology behind not ahead. I’m not saying self-sufficiency is better than foreign reliance, or vice-versa, but there is a strategic component and the direction taken will have huge ramifications for the future.
The decision India makes will be to (A) research the thorium fuel-cycle and utilize domestic thorium reserves (B) gain access to research concerning the uranium fuel-cycle and purchase foreign uranium for civilian consumption.
Thanks for doing this post.
“The way I see it IÂ’d rather not have legislation rushed through without studying it carefully.”
At this stage, I couldn’t agree more. The Sino-US deal took thirteen years. So what is the rush.
“Bottom line from my perspective: donÂ’t believe people that tell you that one American political party is better for India than the other and that your vote as a U.S. citizen should therefore hinge on such considerations.“
I am one of those “people” who urges people, not just desis, to vote Republican in most cases. And, it is not only due to the Nuke deal. To wit- One of most powerful (institutional) supporters of the Democrats is the AFL-CIO, who given the nature of their membership is naturally opposed to outsourcing and offshoring.
The bill will likely pass. The objections Gujubhai raises – to the provisions within the bill inserted to please the non-proliferation lobby – needn’t carry much weight within India. Once GE et. al. start supplying fuel, it will become an entrenched corporate interest, difficult to rescind. Also, the BJP opposition is largely rhetorical; its what the opposition party is supposed to do.
Nuclear energy is really the best “green” option available, and a viable counterweight to global warming.
And one of the most powerful institutional lobbies on the Republican side are xenophobes and racists against immigration both legal and illegal, Indian or Mexican. Witness George Allen’s “macaca, welcome to America” speech. The RSCC ran a blatantly racist and vicious spot against Harold Ford in Tennessee, which eventually helped them win. The openly racist Trent Lott has just been elected No.2 on the Republican Senate hierarchy You really should be proud of your people for being so accommodating Kritic.
desi new yorker:
What are your thoughts on this?
Bizzarely, while the Republican party is purportedly for outsourcing, they are against the much-needed labor that comes with (illegal) immigration. So basically they don’t mind jobs being done by foreigners as long as they don’t have to stand in the same checkout line at the grocery store. And when all the fruit were rotting on the trees in california because of crackdowns on migrant farmworkers, I’m sure they didn’t mind eating foreign oranges, either.
While outsourcing is one of the few issues I disagree with the Democrats on, I would never consider voting Republican.
Do you not see a valid reason in wanting that? Preserve social order maybe? Their lack of honesty is in failing to put the point in context of what the society stands to lose from that course. So,
While that is a fair counter argument to the crackdowns on migrant farmworkers, failing to acknowledge the validity of the first point makes your second point deceptive.
Vinay:
Could you explain what you meant by that?
What makes you think they would rather stand in line with YOU at the grocery store, even if you came here legally? While republicans claim it’s the illegal part they don’t like, it’s really the (brown) immigration part. I knew tons of illegal Irish immigrants in Boston and no one wants to build a wall around Ireland to keep them from getting out. If the jobs are there, and going unfilled, then there is obviously scope for expanding immigration to let more migrant farmworkers in.
My point is that Republicans don’t like foreigners on American soil (to continue the agricultural metaphors). Where is the validity in that?
Racial purity!!!! That elusive goal …
Exactly !!! You dont have to be a Doctor like Sister “Desishiksa” to figure that one out 🙂
Of course I understand that, I have faced a few incidents which made feel like an outsider in the society. I am not arguing that. When I said preserve social order I meant continuity in the society (in the perspective of the current majority, not mine). The changing face of America is something that threatens a big chunk of the society, and I hear this from people I know. They might be republicans but they are still part of the society. A fast paced change in the language and culture takes away the security one expects in a place they call home. Immigrant populations which don’t assimilate pose a problem anywhere in the world and I think the US has done a pretty good job in absorbing them so far. But now there is a threat of that changing.
I took that your line about standing in the grocery checkout line is representative of the changing face of society and my point was there is a reason for the resistance to change. And that the reason needs to be acknowledged in the point you made here. Anyway we are going off topic here, so I’ll stop.
desi new yorker writes:
Considering that from 2000-2006, under a Republican Senate/Congress/President, more than 400,000 Indians came into the country legally, bought houses, cars, TV’s, sponsored their parents, in-laws, third-cousins, started businesses etc etc, your statement is utter crap.
It’s the AFL-CIO that’s xenophobic and racist (nice link, Manju), and they are hand-in-glove with the Democratic party.
M. Nam
Race is tangential in both examples. Nationalist, specifically economic nationalist, is a more accurate description.
desi_new yorker,
are you implying that all republicans are racists? and that, no democrats are racists?
Here’s what I just got from the Coalition for Partnership
The Coalition for Partnership with India urges all supporters U.S.-India civilian nuclear cooperation to call your Senator immediately to urge a VOTE AGAINST THE BOXER AMENDMENT of S.3709.
The Boxer Amendment would ban any military-to-military contact between India and Iran. However, India has been clear in its opposition to IranÂ’s nuclear program, and has repeatedly sided with the U.S. in the UN Security Council. By seeking legislate IndiaÂ’s foreign policy, this amendment would force India to reject the overall agreement. The BOXER AMENDMENT WILL SERVE ONLY TO PREVENT U.S.-INDIA CIVILIAN NUCLEAR COOPERATION AND SHOULD BE OPPOSED.
The democrats are proposing amendment after amendment. wow!
so yeah … for those still interested
US Senate votes 85-12 in favour of India’s Nuclear Bill
http://ia.rediff.com/news/2006/nov/17ndeal8.htm?q=tp&file=.htm
Killer amendment killed, but Hillary votes for it http://ia.rediff.com/news/2006/nov/17ndeal6.htm?q=tp&file=.htm
btw… is is just me, or does anyone else think hillary clinton is a biaaaaaaatch