It looks like the U.S.-India nuclear deal, that was greeted with such fanfare 2 years ago, is going to be put into cold storage until 2009, disappointing Americans who hoped for a new strategic partnership and demonstrating again that India is not ready for the world stage. PM Singh announced:
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India, even though he has forcefully staked his legacy on a landmark nuclear agreement with the United States, made it plain on Friday that his government would not invite early elections by confronting its Communist allies in Parliament over their opposition to the deal. “What we have done with the United States — it is an honorable deal, it is good for India, it is good for the world,†he said at a conference here. “I do attach importance in seeing this deal come through, but if it doesn’t come through that is not the end of life.â€
Not ready for the world stage may seem a harsh assessment. After all, many critics of the deal pointed out that even if it did go through, the actual electricity generated would not meet India’s needs. Indian security experts (that were not reflexively anti-American) pointed out that they were uneasy about how involved America would be in setting Indian nuclear policy.
I do not dismiss those concerns out of hand, but the deal was something more – it was an acknowledgement of changing global realities. The. U.S. invested a lot into the deal, being criticized by the non-proliferation community as being reckless, by some paleo-cons as being too indulgent with India, etc. But it was, in a sense, a bet by the U.S. that India was going to take a bigger role on the world stage. America bet on the wrong horse.
By failing to get the Communists in line, PM Manmohan Singh has shown he is an incompetent who cannot get things done. Under his watch, there have been no major arrests in high profile terrorist attacks, such as the Bombay train blasts of 2006 or the recent blasts in Hyderabad. Naxalites have free reign over parts of rural India. In the immediate neighborhood – the Maoists are close to seizing control in Nepal, Bangladesh is under military rule, and Sri Lanka is looking to Pakistan for weapons to deal with the Tamil Tigers. Pakistan has been a better neighbor lately, but that may have to do with its preoccupation with internal matters than any new thinking on their part.
On the economic front, reforms have stalled. With millions of young workers entering the labor force every year, Singh has failed to enact labor market reforms that can make those jobs available. Instead, all Singh managed to do was threaten the private sector with caste quotas. All that will do is ensure that the private sector will be as wasteful and unproductive as India’s public sector.
On the education front, primary and secondary education are still woefully underfunded, with absentee teachers collecting money for classes that are not taught. Rather than deal with this, Singh offers to expand quotas at university level, and increase the acceptance rate – which is likely to lower standards.
By being adamant in their opposition to the deal, India’s Communists have blocked India from having access to Western technology that their paymasters in China already enjoy. Someone is popping champagne in Beijing, seeing their Indian puppets carry out their bidding with such effectiveness.
When Singh first became PM, it was thought that since he was not a career politician, he would not be as beholden to special interests. He’d handle the policy, and Sonia Gandhi would handle the politics. By not having any experience on how to keep parties in line, Singh was a poor choice for prime minister. Nitin Pai at The Acorn is calling for his resignation.
Am I over-reacting? I’d like some feedback from the India-based readers.
I think Gujjubhai states it well in 96, if someone has doubts of declining American economic might, please check the IPO listings in the European exchnages in the last two years, check the FX volumes traded and see if UAE is developing a state of the art finance center. By 2010 India will have approximately $20 billion worth PE investment. Even though I don’t believe any of this will make a significant dent in American Financial Markets, but unlike the past, large numbers are moving abroad. For me personally it is simple math, it is better to bet on a growing economy. IMF has the growth in India at 8.9%, which is impressive by any Benchmark.
Interesting read from Lehman on India’s growth for the next decade and the possible performance of it stock market indices.
Apropos comment #74 citing Shashi Tharoor’s column in TOI;maybe this short hagiography of veteran communist ideologue of yore EMS Nampoodiripad at Wikipedia would shed some light on India’s fifth column.
Gujjubhai,
I have to agree with Chachaji’s critique of your position. You’re on strong ground when you address concerns about preserving Indian strategic independence, but you are on shakier ground when you go into America’s motives. If the U.S. really wanted to keep India down, why go through an elaborate, time-consuming 2-year negotiation? Bush could have simply kept traditional American policy going – that India was an outlaw nation that should sign the NPT and CTBT without conditions immediately, and rollback it’s nuclear program. Instead, when it came to fissile material that would be produced by these new reactors, America said, “That’s India’s business.â€
Americans are more concerned about the threat posed by Indian workers than any military threat. If anything, there is a risk future American administrations will have a “Why bother?†attitude when it comes to dealing with India. American companies may stand to gain by spending resources in dealing with Indian bureaucrats, but the American government may just treat India as an ordinary country.
Contrast India’s behavior to Vietnam. The U.S. waged a massive war for over a decade that wreaked havoc, the U.S. lost and its reputation was in tatters. But as Chachiji pointed out, a short-term situation is not always indicative of a long term trend. The U.S bounced back. Vietnam itself seemed to be on the verge of being another Cuba – run by dictators, while the population lived in poverty. But that was short-term was well.
And yet, Vietnam is growing rapidly, and pretty much in an alliance now with the United States, because both nations realize that the circumstances have changed and they both stand to gain from a new partnership. Seems that the Communists in Vietnam are more capable to engage in long-term strategic thinking than their Indian counterparts.
Just a few quick points.
KXB, I think it was NS who directly critiqued Gujjubhai’s position. Props to NS.
While I think Gujjubhai made his point well, the fundamental premise of positing an oppositional dynamic between the US and India is wrong, it is also anachronistic, from the Cold War and the socialistic mindset. India is now more vested, whether all Indians yet realize it or not, in the world economy, and about a quarter of that is still the United States. Getting to a point where it has about the same fraction of world activity as the US would be a splendid motivational challenge for India. Setting up oppositional mindsets is not the way to get there.
On the internal sources of growth argument Gujjubhai makes – it’s based on an autarkic worldview. While I agree that merely undoing the effects of Nehruvian socialism provides some growth, internal sources alone cannot provide all the investment required, especially in infrastructure. Even given the high savings rate which India currently has.
India is counting on international capital flows to help with infrastructure, and the nuclear deal establishes the overall framework for investment, including foreign long-term investment, in one part of the energy sector. (I agree with Gujjubhai when he points out that India’s problems in the energy sector include regulatory regime and pricing – but changing these improves the investment climate so that capacity can be increased, which is paramount. Listen to Montek Ahluwalia at Davos 2007 here, and he clearly says India wants international capital flows for infrastructure development.)
I disagree that natural gas can easily contribute another couple hundred GW. Even if it could, that would not be wise, both from the carbon emissions pov and from a strategic energy security pov, although natural gas does burn cleaner than coal.
Nuclear on the other hand can be truly self-sustaining once the fast breeder cycle kicks in, with so much thorium in the monazite sands of Kerala. The Indo-US nuclear deal enables India to strategically reconfigure and reorient its internal civilian nuclear efforts, for example, to concentrate on the fast breeder – while leaving other technologies – whether natural uranium or enriched uranium to the private sector, including the foreign private sector. In this case I disagree with Gujjubhai that the deal is a smokescreen for India to get foreign uranium for its weapons, which in any case are based on plutonium!
Amit, of the 1400 GWe India is aiming for in 2050, only 300 GWe is supposed to be nuclear. The rest of the 1100 GWe can include solar, which, if it actually works, can eventually provide almost all of India’s needs. It’s not here right now though, and it would be unwise to jettison something that works (nuclear) for something which doesn’t yet work with the needed efficiency. You do need things that work at night and on cloudy days.
Oops – thanks. Credit goes to NS
KXB,
are you going to leave this unanswered or have you done so already? I’m not trying to be snarky, i’ve just read everything on the thread and didn’t see a response to what is a strongly worded comment.
Amit, of the 1400 GWe India is aiming for in 2050, only 300 GWe is supposed to be nuclear. The rest of the 1100 GWe can include solar, which, if it actually works, can eventually provide almost all of India’s needs. It’s not here right now though, and it would be unwise to jettison something that works (nuclear) for something which doesn’t yet work with the needed efficiency. chachaji, bit of a catch-22/chicken-and-egg situation as I see it. 🙂 Also it depends on how “wisdom” is defined. For me, investing in and using renewable energy resources is much wiser (and long-term thinking) than storing radio-active waste for centuries, the pollution+health costs associated with mining the ore, and risks associated with a malfunctioning nuclear reactor. There are always trade-offs. I also don’t agree with your iffy attitude towards it, based on this wiki page on solar power in India and latent potential according to some reports.
You do need things that work at night and on cloudy days. Well, solar panels work in conjunction with energy storing devices, so that takes care of cloudy days. But yes, as of now, there is still a need to be connected to the grid as a backup. And nuclear reactors can and do malfunction. Remember Chernobyl? Let’s tally up all the costs associated with cleanup and health issues that originated in neighboring European countries because of it, and see what the (actual) price of electricity was.
My point is that if Indian government spends on solar energy even a fraction of efforts and energy that it poured into 123 for only 300GWe, there’s a likelihood that it will become viable and practical (which is not to say that it’ll be a smooth ride free of any challenges). But that’s the way the cookie crumbles – 123 is not just about fulfilling India’s energy requirements, but goes much beyond that into geo-political games and status symbol etc., which I am less interested in. 🙂
I also think it is better to know about the authors and commenters to put their opinions in perspective, I can be the first, I am DBD, working for a private bank with personal investment interests in the India.
Muralimannered,
Here you go:
KXB, I am not sure on what your credentials are, but a lot of what you have written here, shows your lack of understanding on how India works. To start off, the past decade, Indian voters have been split when it comes to electing people to power. The growth of regional parties and lack of voters have been major contributors. Another ill timed election will have serious consequences for India.
True – but the election was not being threatened by supporters of the deal, but it’s opponents. As a rule, there is no penalty for being obstinate in Indian politics, whether it is walking out of Parliament, supporting bandhs, etc. The deal did not bring to the fore a hidden defect in India’s Parliamentary setup, it was just a new subject.
One of the important reasons the US pursued this deal was to balance the power in Asia. In fact very recently there were joint military exercises between India and the US that irked China. To say that the US invested a lot is the half truth. India did too.
True – but considering that Singh is stalling due to the behavior of 41 MPs, it can be fair to say that he does not know how to value time spent on negotiations. All that work, by both sides, was just disposed of by a man not willing to face down a reflexively anti-American malcontents.
If you look at India’s stance towards the US, they have never been too comfortable. In fact when the Tsunami hit South Asia, India refused US help.
So? India traditionally does not accept help in times of catastrophe, because pride is more important to its politicians than the welfare of its people. It helps that Tamil Nadu, which was the state that bore the brunt of the tsunami, has done a better job of providing services. Switch to Bihar, with its woeful record, and would India’s refusal be as admirable?
There are a number of policies India pursues that makes Americans uncomfortable. Plenty of Americans are uncomfortable with the India-Iran relationship, but such criticism by the administration has been muted, because they valued the nuclear deal more. Whether that criticism will be so soft-spoken now that deal is kaput is anybody’s guess. Given such a stance (and it has been the same way throughout history) it was amazing that we opened our doors and we engaged in dialog. You cannot expect us to jump into bed when you are ready, there is also the part where you want to dictate terms.
Nothing really amazing about it – India realized it cannot catch up with China solely through its own efforts, the U.S. has no interest in seeing China be the dominant power in the region, so the deal was one step in trying to meet this concern. Considering that India began getting closer to the U.S. starting in 1991, and the deal was officially announced 14 years later, that is one long jump into bed. Also, I think India earned this. Out of all the developing counties if one can be trusted with technology, it is India. Sure we have our flaws, at least we are not secretly selling ammunition.
An empty argument – it was precisely because India has a sterling reputation in the area of non-proliferation area that Bush felt it was a good idea to go ahead with the deal. It is American opponents of the deal that say India cannot be trusted with the technology.
Like you quote else where, Singh is not a career politician, but no matter who was in power, this deal was never going to go take off as easily as people assumed. Most issues you have pointed out here have always existed. Given that Nepal, Bangladesh and Burma are all having trouble at the same time has focussed a lot of international attention to the region. The Sri Lanka problem has existed for over a decade, none of which, Singh is responsible for.
I can’t think of one prominent supporter of the deal who said it was going to be easy, so again you are dismissing an argument that nobody made. After the India-U.S. portion of negotiations, there was going to be negotiations with the IAEA and NSG – it was seen as a long road by everyone involved. Calling a timeout until 2009 places an unwarranted faith that the circumstances will be roughly the same.
As far as the increased international attention on South Asia is concerned, what exactly is India doing to stabilize it? Would that be looking the other way while Burma shoots monks in the hopes of securing contracts that will probably go to China anyway? India is twiddling its thumbs while the Maoists in Nepal are about to re-start their hostilities. There have been few administrations like this where there is such a glaring lack of strategic thinking.
I would appreciate links. What economic reforms have been stalled? (The link you have now updated the post with red tape, not economic reforms) The growth that India was experiencing was never sustainable for a long time, talk to economists they will tell you. Although we produce a gazillion educated people, who enter the workforce every year, you will find that unless they come from a top ranking school, they skills in the world stage are lacking. A lot of it has to do with the lack of infrastructure and syllabus that is outdated. Again, problems that have been plaguing India for a long time, nothing that Singh could change in a few years at the helm.
State of agricultural reforms? Fertilizer subsidies going to be cut? The practice of cheap or free water for farmers going to be curtailed anytime soon?
Small isn’t beautiful
The lack of labor market reforms: A Himalayan Challenge
As for the argument that Singh has onlya few years at the helm, given that he is looking to complete his term by 2009, he will be the first Prime Minister since 1991 to complete a full term in office. He had far more time than say Vajpayee or Rao.
Blame this on the Indian voter bank and the democratic system in India, some of it on Singh, not all.
I can’t blame the voters, because rural Indians did not care, urban Indians were generally in favor of it. But, you are right on the part about the “system.” A system which allows an un-official member of a governing coalition so much power is in urgent need of reform – but like agriculture and labor, it will be a long time before reform takes place. Considering that Singh has a higher approval rating than Bush, and was unwilling to take the risk, yes, I will blame him.
Overall, this post shows that you are out of touch with reality, at least when it comes to India. I am thankful that none of the SM regular’s work on such sweeping and ill researched assumptions. To say that I am very very disappointed is an understatement.
Whatever – your post was largely a series of talking points, not backed up with anything substantial. No one suggest the deal would solve all of India’s energy problems, but it looks like Indians will deal with the status quo of unreliable and frequently stolen electricty.
off-topic:
I’m looking for a comprehensive list of countries with which the US has nuclear energy agreements. Could someone point me in the right direction? my e-mail is vivek[at]passtheroti[dot]com
thanks.
KXB,
I have an issue with the economist story that you linked as it doesn’t provide any historical context of the labor practices. Although the article states that even at current situation the economy can grow at 8% which is impressive.
I’m looking for a comprehensive list of countries with which the US has nuclear energy agreements. Could someone point me in the right direction? my e-mail is vivek[at]passtheroti[dot]com
China is number #.1
Comprehensive list would require some research.
I have an issue with the economist story that you linked as it doesn’t provide any historical context of the labor practices. Although the article states that even at current situation the economy can grow at 8% which is impressive.
I’ve been critical of some recent South Asian coverage in The Economist too, but not here. The historical context is really not all that important – all nations have pecularlities in their past that explains some labor practice, but India should not be excused for it. And 8% growth is good, but even mild reforms will make it go higher.
What I mean is, it is not as cut and dry as saying amend policies where laying off people becomes easy, it is never going to happen in India as long as coalition politics are a reality.
Agree and apologies for multiple comments, I absoutely agree for the higher velocity of reforms. To speculate a lot of small companies I know of count on ignorance of laws as to be honest for all the laws enforcement is always an issue. I am not even sure how many employees that work in small and medium enterprises are aware of these laws.
A few quick responses:
But how does adding nuclear power plants that depend upon foreign source of fuel solve these issues? If you just want to add generation, throw in coal, gas, wind and renewables. Pune-based Suzlon is the world’s largest wind energy company, for crying out loud!
Of the 600m, 100m were lifted out of poverty in the nineties and the trend is only likely to accelerate as the 2000’s have so far outperformed the 90’s. You are looking at today, American strategy is projecting trends and looking at 20-30 years out.
OK, I don’t want to get into the whole analysis thing, but the trend is very obvious even if you consider just a few factors : the emergence of very powerful non-Western potential competitors, mainly China & Russia globally and regional hegemons India & Brazil, the reduced credibility of America ability to project military force based on the Iraq and Afghanistan debacles, and the irreparable damage to America’s moral authority in the wake of the war. Evidence? It’s all around, my friend. Just watch Putin and Iran.
Confusing means for ends. If reducing carbon emissions is the end, then the means does not have to be non-polluting electricity generation : largest GHG emitters are agriculture, airlines, transportation and so on. Hell, Indiam are going gangbusters on the emission reduction business! If energy security is the end, then a judicious mix of gas, coal and wind is the answer.
Ah, the usual US-centrism. Pray tell why the rest of the world is in such a huge bull market while the US is about to get hit by a subprime-led recession and oil is trading at $88/barrel?
Sacrificing nuclear weapons to appease the State Department is not going to make India an economic supoerpower either, is it? It is strategically imperative for India to match China not only in terms of economic power but also military power. Otherwise, India’s security will be jeopardized. Becoming America’s client state is just too risky a proposition for India – India must be in control of its own economic AND military security.
Ummm….might it have something to do with five little explosions at a remote site in Rajasthan in 1998? Pokhran blasted NPT and CTBT into oblivion, so wouldn’t the US need to come up with something that actually might work in constricting India’s nuclear weaponization?
But American businesses have been coming to India for 15 years now, and they started coming in when the US government indeed treated India as just another country. How’s the dumping of the deal going to adversely affect business relations between the two countries? Last time I checked, I didn’t see any hedgies dumping Indian stocks when India put the n-deal aside nor has IBM threatened to stop recruiting engineers in Bangalore if India did not sign the n-deal. US businesses will simply chase the money – and India is currently one of the top money making opportunities on the planet. Just as simply, they’d walk away from India if there were no money to be made – regardless of whether the country is a US ally or not. Remember East Asia in late nineties?
No disagreement there : my position is based on hard-nosed realism. Funny that a hardline nationalist BJP supporter should be accused of being a letard socialist :). Relations between India and US will be just like those between any two great powers : cordial when interests converge and adversarial when they don’t. Joint military exercises are awesome, crippling India’s nuclear arsenal not quite. Silicon Valley-Bangalore or NYC-Mumbai connections are awesome, getting steamrolled at the WTO on farming not quite so. Etc, etc.
First, there is no evidence that not signing the deal will reduce the overall FDI coming to India. Secondly, Indian as well as foreign companies (Cairns etc from UK, Niko etc from Canada, for example) are perfectly capable of tapping into global capital markets to get all investments they need, and then some. Third, reforming the power sector is much more critical to attracting FDI in energy than the deal. Indian governments are working on it, and states like Gujarat are successful within the current framework itself. There is tremendous amount of FDI coming into the energy sector per se, all the n-deal does is open up the nuclear power generation sector to FDI – which currently accounts for nothing!! So the argument that FDI will reduce if the deal falls apart is illogical – any FDI brought in by the deal must be, by definition, incremental. Conventional generation has no trouble attracting capital – domestic or foreign.
Gujjubhai, See my responses below.
“But how does adding nuclear power plants that depend upon foreign source of fuel solve these issues? If you just want to add generation, throw in coal, gas, wind and renewables. Pune-based Suzlon is the world’s largest wind energy company, for crying out loud! “
Throwing in gas, wind, renewables ?? Heck, our power transmission and distribution systems are so woeful and need urgent reform, it would be nothing short of a fantasy to even think about new energy systems emerging successfully when these alternatives are not proven to be useful for mass production and distribution. We need to produce GigaWatts of energy for hundreds of millions of consumers. Alternative energies are … well alternative.
Besides this is more than a question of nuclear energy – this is a step towards formalizing a forward looking, strategic relationship.
“mainly China & Russia globally and regional hegemons India & Brazil, the reduced credibility of America ability to project military force based on the Iraq and Afghanistan debacles, and the irreparable damage to America’s moral authority in the wake of the war. Evidence? It’s all around, my friend. Just watch Putin and Iran.”
China would be NOWHERE today without Nixon beginning the first step in a relationship that has transformed the world. Its rise to power directly coincides with the intricate economic relationship that it has with the United States. Period.
Russia now controls a lot of energy resources in Europe but it is far cry away from the Cold war days. Also Putin is nt exactly going to be thrilled to have an Islamic fundamentalist state that is nuclear capable. In fact he might put more pressure on Iran than any one else thereby benefitting America in the end.
Irreparable damages to moral authority ? I really would like to know why people can some times make sweeping statements to illustrate a point that could be made without using them? The US has done a lot of damage to to its moral authority. No question. But irreparable? I dont know if you live here in the US or not, but not a day goes by without people strongly questioning the tactics used in this war on terrorism. The US is a liberal democracy and has liberated more people from tyranny than any other country in the world. Its democracy is robust enough to survive challenges to its moral underpinnings and correct the course. It has survived a Civil War, two World Wars, a Cold War and is beginning to see some light in its current fight in Iraq. The debacle can still turn around, how ever hopeless it looks, if the current strategy that the US military is using to bring around Sunni’s who have turned back on Al Qaeda succeeds with the Shias too.
“Ah, the usual US-centrism. Pray tell why the rest of the world is in such a huge bull market while the US is about to get hit by a subprime-led recession and oil is trading at $88/barrel? “
The usual US centrism derives from the fact that the US is a trillion dollar economy and the fact that it is still the center of the global economy. The sub prime mortage can induce recessionary trends but if you noticed carefully, the Feds have pumped in more money into the financial systems and so did the European central banks to improve the situation. So, again you are quoting a trend and using that to derive a radical conclusion.
The rest of the world or atleast the developing world have a lot at stake in their individual relationships with the US and the overall health of the US economy. And oil will trade in the high 80’s if the demand from China and India grows by the day and OPEC tries to profitize this situation to the hilt. What exactly was your point here ?
“Sacrificing nuclear weapons to appease the State Department is not going to make India an economic supoerpower either, is it? It is strategically imperative for India to match China not only in terms of economic power but also military power. Otherwise, India’s security will be jeopardized. Becoming America’s client state is just too risky a proposition for India – India must be in control of its own economic AND military security.”
I am sorry but i have to use the words that i hate to use – inferiority complex. Gujjubhai, on the one hand you say that this country is capable of growth of 8% or more inspite of all the difficluties. On the other hand, you use words like “sacrificing nuclear weapons” to appease the State Department. How can a growing economic power become America’s “client state”.? You seem to have made a lot of good points in this thread but please explain your fears of India becoming a “client state”.
Can you please, please illustrate how exactly India is sacrificing its nuclear weapon capabilites.? And how exactly does the US gain by weakening India’s nuclear aresenal ? Do you think it is downright giddy to see China growing by leaps and bounds and is hurrying to contain and control India so that China can grow even stronger ?
Just because you feel that it is imperative to keep up with China in the nuclear weapons department, does not make it so. Where exctly is the great Soviet Union today ?? Which tried to match USA , weapon for weapon , system for system? It dissolved like a house of cards when it could not stand up any more to the forces of human freedom and liberty. The German Wall’s fall hastened its demise.
For all its muscle today, China is still an authoritarian system – in the long run this WILL catch up with them. Not to mention the fact that their one child policy has already brought demographic changes that are only beginning to be felt. Ahh, i forgot to mention that pretty soon they will have a large number of senior citizens and their workforce reduced.
There will be repercussions if this deal is not going to come through. Some of it will be in the form of FDI. But most importantly it will be in the arena of trustworthiness. No Government will ever respect or expect India to follow up on its promises and would tread cautiously. Respect is some thing that is hard earned and of course a terrible thing to lose.
Bush is bucking a whole nuclear establishment here to go thru with this deal having the big picture in mind. It is terrible to hear the PM say that the nuclear deal failing would not be the end of the world. May be he should have told this to the Indian citizens ,US Govt, NSG, IAEA in 2005 and saved us all this show of weakness which inspires no one.
One last note – I am terribly disappointed by the narrowness of BJP’s vision in this situation. This will come back to haunt them and rightfully so.
related news on australia’s tentative deal with india. sorry, i haven’t read all the comments above in full, but does anybody know what the relative sizes of these deals are, and what proportion of india’s long term fuel supply would come from the u.s.? also, are any other countries potential suppliers to india?
Unproven? Educate yourself: gas is the second largest fuel source for power gen in the US, and accounted for 28% of US electricity production in 2006.
Ah, drinking the CNN kool-aid. Frankly, my dear, the world doesn’t give a rat’s a$$ that US is a liberal democracy. The world remembers US supporting tinpot dictators and napalming little children. The world remembers half a million dead Iraqi civilians. The world remembers Abu Gharaib and Guantanamo. The world sees that even today your best allies include barbarian regimes like Saudi Arabia. The world does not like to watch CNN anymore, the world prefers Al Jazeera.
Your arguments remind me of the neo-con delusions about how Iraqis’ would greet Americans as liberators. Sloganeering about freedom and democracy while US’s chief allies are a fundamentalist Islamic kingdom and a couple of tinpot dictators is actually quite hilarious.
Unlike the past, now there are others of comparable size too. BTW, EU has been a larger economy than US for a while now. Listen to the message of the market. Sure, the US economy still matters quite a bit – just not as much as it used to.
Thanks to the WTO, not so much as it used to. Google recent globalization studies that show changing trade flow patterns and emergence of strong regional trading compared to the past.
Japan.
Just because you feel it’s not imperative does not not make it so. Soviet Union lost the economic war – read again what I wrote.
India bucked the unflinching US support and weapons aid to its major non-Nato ally ruled by a dictator who happens to be the chief sponsor of terrorism to India. So what’s your point?
gas is the second largest fuel source for power gen in the US, and accounted for 28% of US electricity production in 2006.
Natural gas, no doubt is the energy source of tomorrow.
However, it is still a fossil fuel.
In past, they would only exploit it if there was a transport mechanism in place, or often burn it at the rig. That is why you see the “trade mark” torch on top of oil rigs.
Recently, a lot of infrastructure is being built like for LNG (liquefied Natural Gas) for mass transport.
India has lot of coal bed methane, another fossil fuel, but certainly not enough to sustain the country’s growth.
Natural Gas is definitely not an alternate energy.
Wind, Solar, Gobar Gas, Hydrogen cell, Geothermal (except Iceland) are interesting alternate energy sources worth pursuing, however, none of them fit economies of scale, except farting.
Man-moron (MM) is an apt name, only because he has shown that right wingers and BJP worshippers are morons. When he became Prime minister they predicted the share market would drop, investments would dry up and growth would reduce. Ha, ha. They are now left to claim that the growth seen recently is due to momentum created by the BJP. For hundutva-ites, an example of momentum is when you push a ball and it starts rolling a year later and then continues to pick up speed every year!
They fail to understand why MM is succeeding because, generally, communalists are poor economists and often come up with the wrong prescriptions. MM is an expert on the art of the possible but his greatest successes are opaque to the average communalist. MM is a bit like God, in that the rationale of some of the things he has done will be visible only over the course of a generation. Try understanding why Amartya Sen gave his government 8 on 10 on economic management, and why I give it 9. Just a few are listed here:
He brought a laser like focus on state (provincial) finances and rapidly implemented VAT. Infrastructure is India’s greatest challenge and state finances are the stumbling block in improving them. The improvements seen in state and city roads all over India are directly linked to the buoyancy of VAT revenues.
He changed focus from divestments to investments. He correctly recognizes that just 3 % of the investment required to build India to world averages has yet been made, and it is more important to rapidly bring in new investments than to spend time reworking old ones. Due to this gross capital formation is at record highs, from record lows of the BJP era.
He has engineered a huge switch from indirect to direct taxes. Direct taxes are considered better since they tax income, rather than transactions, and hence do not depress trade.
Number 1 and 3 are steps that will provide “momentum” for decades to come. (By momentum I mean that even if the BJP comes back to power, the economy will continue to grow, but may slow down). The nuclear deal is just one of many darts this man has thrown on the board, and he doesnt need each to land bulls eye,
There are many more successes to his credit, but would be wasted on the communalist mob. I can agree with just one thing they say. MM is lucky, not because the BJP provided him momentum, but because between the bomb, the war and the riot, the BJP depressed investments during their tenure. Part of the pick up in MM’s tenure is a rebound after the peace.
wo! phew! i got tired reading these comments- almost forgot what the article was ’bout. but love the democratic sentiments it threw up. KXB– I do think you are over-reacting. I am India based and i think the tone of the article led to the Dr. Singh bashing. He has before he came to the position of PM had clearly established his credentials. As for as India being regressive with going back on the nuclear deal, i don’t know if that is the right decision. Only time will tell. As far as India being economically in a bad shape…hmmm…i sincerely doubt it. The country, and i travel a lot within, is on a boom everywhere. But yes, the progress could’ve happened and could happen at a faster pace. My views on the nuclear deal- in agreement with the guy who is painting my house (a 46 year old 10th standard dropout from Moradabad, U.P.)who said it perfectly: ” didn’t we have it in the first place? and if we are discussing putting a space mission to the moon, don’t you think we can develop this what we intend buying into, ourselves? we might get behind by a few years but wont we be self reliant? sir, you tell me, Indians are everywhere, they develop all the computers and all technical things around the world, i am sure we will find a way…” not that i support the CPI and I really don’t think they are controlled by their ‘masters’ in China but I think their tone is the same. Their argument is develop it within without kowtowing to anyone.
Ah, drinking the CNN kool-aid. Frankly, my dear, the world doesn’t give a rat’s a$$ that US is a liberal democracy.
If that’s true, then shouldn’t they stop complaining about Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib? OTOH, maybe it’s because the U.S. was not living up to its reputation as a liberal democracy that it came in for such fierce criticism. No one criticizes China much for its human rights records because it makes no pretense of being a democracy. You can’t have it both ways – the world cannot urge the U.S. to take action in Darfur, Burma, Israel-Palestine, arguing it is the leader of the free world and then turn around and say it is not and demand an equal say, despite not taking on an equal burden. This is not an attempt to gloss over the blunders of the Bush administration, but it is a remark on the inconsistency of such arguments.
EU has been a larger economy than US for a while now
Yes – but does India trade more with US or the EU? Since you are Indo-centric in your policy prescriptions, shouldn’t you be concerned that a market as large as the EU seems to be such a tough market to enter for Indian companies. Secondly, despite the attraction of that large market, Indians are not applying for visas to work there. Lookw here Indian companies are investing their money and where Indian workers are applying to go – that is a better indicator of how Indians feel about the U.S.
You think!!!??? Well, look what Google dragged in:
Trade with the EU represents almost 20% of India’s exports and imports and the EU thus as a bloc is India’s largest trading partner….Negotiations for this EU-India FTA were launched on 28/29 June 2007 in Brussels. Further negotiating rounds are planned to take place later this year in both Delhi and Brussels.
Why your argument about world reaction to US vs China is logically absurd is left as an exercise for you. Now be a good brown and do your homework – figure that out for yourself. Hint: the world really does not give a rat’s a$$ that the US is a liberal democracy.
KXB, overall I am seriously disappointed with your lack of awareness of relevant facts and inability to make logically coherent arguments to support your position. I am not a Yalie but I too feel compelled to question your competence to take on and pronounce judgment upon this fairly weighty topic. I expect better from an SM blogger. You have pretty big shoes to fill – current and ex-bloggers on this site such as Anna, Vij and Amardeep are serious heavyweights. You’ve got a lot of catching up to do.
ok, i read the comments above, and assuming that nuclear power is an important part of india’s long term energy independence strategy (something which is reasonable to believe, given the current level of maturity of alternative sources), the real concern with this deal seems to me to be whether india will become dependent on u.s supply of fuel for its economy? can somebody answer my questions in 119 to help evaluate the extent of the risk here?
Professor Gujjubhai, first I would protest the hectoring tone you adopted with KXB. His econo-political-strategic vision is different from yours, but it is well-informed, and he has done a good job with this post. Secondly, if you are using a real life title to assert privilege online – I suggest it is counterproductive. If you have good online arguments, nobody cares who you are in real life (IRL).
Now – I certainly agree that India has a lot to learn from the EU – including innovative governance, operationalization of multilingual, multi-ethnic federative structures, making monetary unions work in areas at different levels of macroeconomic evolution, among other things. EU-India trade is also growing strongly, and will grow further, as you point out yourself.
1.) However, if we’re going to talk about the EU, let’s talk also about North America. While it probably won’t have de jure political (or even monetary) union any time soon, it is certainly quite integrated economically, and is only becoming more so, earning the right to be thought of as a single economy.
And while NAFTA is already in place, let’s not forget CAFTA for the Caribbean and Central America, plus, as long as we’re thinking long-term – the coming FTAA.
North America-23, including the Caribbean and all countries north of the Panama Canal – is larger than the EU-27 – both in size of economies and populations.
North America 2006: Population of NA-23 514.6 million. PPP GDP for NA-3 alone $ 15.3 Trillion (IMF, 2006) EU-27 2006: Population 495.5 million. PPP GDP $ 13.9 Trillion (IMF, 2006)
The point of all this being, NA is no pushover, is still the larger and richer market – arguably better integrated than EU at this time. So an apples-to-apples would be trade figures for the entity (at least NA-3 but even NA-23) vs the EU-27.
2.) But – in spite of all that can be said in favor of the EU, and despite all that has happened in the recent history of the US – in economic, soft-power and military terms it still comes out ahead by quite a good bit. The military and soft-power balances are overwhelmingly in favor of the US, the economic not nearly as much. The figures above speak for themselves.
3.) I suggest to you that, given this situation, it still makes much more sense for India to consider a strategic partnership with the US, while also building up both its own power and its economic and political relationships with other power blocs. There is always a small risk that India will lose a little, both locally and in more global settings, but looking at China and Japan, and the history of alliances between emerging powers and hegemons more generally – there are times when it makes sense for the emerging power to ally with the hegemon, or risk being snuffed out by competitors who will do so instead, or who are indeed already in de facto alliances, or both. I suggest that this is the case with India today. Japan chose to ally with the US post-1945, but during the 1920s and 30s attempted to compete with the US across the Pacific. We know how that turned out. You call it a client state, but for a client state it has certainly done amazingly well for itself. There are worse fates India could be cursed with! This is not theoretical, we know how the 1945-1990 period worked for India both internally and externally. I see no need to repeat it, and without a second pole in the world system today, the consequences could be unbelievably catastrophic if India tried it again.
Gujjubhai,
Your rank anti Americanism needs a suitable response. See below
“Unproven? Educate yourself: gas is the second largest fuel source for power gen in the US, and accounted for 28% of US electricity production in 2006.” Who is denying this fact ? My concerns are not just about alternative energy sources but the fact that India still has a lot of maturing to do. You speak as though private enterprises will spring up where ever there are proven natural gas resources and start delivering energy to the masses.
Again, i want to go back to the power systems that we already have and are so poorly managing. When is India going to ever going to allow full fledged privatisation ? Every damn thing has to be run by the Government.There are fundamental changes that India needs to make towards becoming a more liberal and free market economy which allows private enterprise to flourish. We are’nt there yet – and all this talk about alternative energy is good to hear. But it overlooks certain fundamental aspects of how things are run.
“Ah, drinking the CNN kool-aid. Frankly, my dear, the world doesn’t give a rat’s a$$ that US is a liberal democracy. The world remembers US supporting tinpot dictators and napalming little children. The world remembers half a million dead Iraqi civilians. The world remembers Abu Gharaib and Guantanamo. The world sees that even today your best allies include barbarian regimes like Saudi Arabia. The world does not like to watch CNN anymore, the world prefers Al Jazeera.”
Very presumptuous arent we Mr.GujjuBhai ? I dont even watch CNN !! Also, when did you start speaking for the world 🙂 I do not think that any one denies how much the US has compromised with its founding principles in dealing with unsavory regimes. But very few people seem to know or understand the difficulties it finds itself in and how it tries to manage these difficulties. But then again, when you start out being anti-American who has pretty much closed his mind to the fact that this country has done a lot of enormous good to human civilization, what can i do ?
The world remembers how Vietnamese people were napalamed – but it does seem eager to overlook the relations Vietnam has with the US right NOW!! Are you telling me that the Vietnamese care less about what happened in that war than what you do? They have’nt forgotten. But at the same time even they arent blinded by reflexive anti Americanism !! Go, figure !!
The world is all too ready to believe exaggerated number of people dead in Iraq while at the same time forgetting the millions of Iraqis who were freed from the tyranny of one of the most brutal dictators in the middle east. GujjuBhai, did you happen to see the execution of Saddam Hussein ? May be you would have got a glimpse of how terribly the Shias suffered under Saddam that they were ready to wring his neck off at the first opportunity.
The world remembers Abu Ghraib and forgets how it was exposed in the first place or who exposed it. Ever heard of Joe Darby ? Hmm, may be Al Jazeera hasnt bothered to figure out how the scandal was exposed. The world also has no idea in hell how much these incidents deeply anguish decent Americans who cant wait for Bush’s tenure to come to an end.
Here’s a question for you – How would you deal with a country which gave rise to fundamentalist Wahabbism , has the largest known reserves of oil known to mankind on which the world is terribly dependent and you have the world’s largest economy that needs crazy amounts of energy? It’s very easy to pass judgement from a safe distance when you are not the one who has to make a choice between the devil(Islamic jihadis) and the deep blue sea ( the fucked up house of Saud)
Did you see how India had to tread very carefully with Burma despite the recent round of brutality against innocent Burmese civilians and Buddhist monks ?? Does this mean that the largest democracy in the world prefers or supports a military junta whole heartedly as opposed to supporting Burma’s legitimate aspirations for freedom ? Absolutely NOT !! India realizes that it is not in a situation to do what it would actually like to do. And yet at the same time, it has decided to engage with the Burmese thugs alteast for now. Not because it prefers the thugs over Aung San Suu Kyi. But because it has to counter the enormous Chinese influence in Burma. And some day because of this traction it may gain with these thugs it may be in a position to force the thugs to share power with Aung San Suu Kyi.
Notice how many “mays” i used in the last paragraph. That is the kind of situation, India is in vis-a-vis Burma. But it has to take this unpleasant path that may be successful as opposed to totally rejecting the Burmese thugs (which it did right up to the 90’s until PVN Rao came to his senses and realized that the more India opposed Burma, the more its leaders were engulfed by China.)
“Your arguments remind me of the neo-con delusions about how Iraqis’ would greet Americans as liberators. Sloganeering about freedom and democracy while US’s chief allies are a fundamentalist Islamic kingdom and a couple of tinpot dictators is actually quite hilarious.”
Funny how the Iraqis need neo-colonial delusions to free them is’nt it? And by the way if you want to know how badly Iraqi’s feel about the American invasion, please read Mohammed at Iraq the Model (http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/) or intrepid reporters like Michael Totten at http://www.michaeltotten.com/. And no, its not “CNN propaganda”. These are accounts of every day life in Iraq by an Iraqi Sunni and an independent journalist who is there in Ramadi,Iraq (heart of the Sunni insurgency) to see how the situation is first hand.
“Unlike the past, now there are others of comparable size too. BTW, EU has been a larger economy than US for a while now. Listen to the message of the market. Sure, the US economy still matters quite a bit – just not as much as it used to. “
And how exactly did these “others of comparable size” come around in the world today? Europe was in tatters after the 2nd World War and if you knew that there was something called the Marshall plan that helped them kickstart the economy or the trans Atlantic relationship that they have had for 150+ years and counting, you would nt be pooh poohing the US away.
No prizes for guessing who exactly brought China on to the world scene or how much India’s fortune turned around because of its economic interactions with the bad bad USA ?
“Thanks to the WTO, not so much as it used to. Google recent globalization studies that show changing trade flow patterns and emergence of strong regional trading compared to the past. ” Hmm the WTO ? I wonder how this organization came into place ?? Or what exactly it is purported to be there for ? I dont know, but may be it helps trade flourish globally and between countries or something to that effect ?
Tell me that you are joking when you cite Japan and say that we will be following down that path. Can you apply something called context ? Japan was for ever transformed by the 2nd world war and the way it ended. It has a pacifist constitution and will not declare war or have much of a standing army. It is more than glad to have the US give it protection given the likes of China and North Korea in its neighborhood.
India has the fourth largest army in the world and needs NO ONES protection for its economic or national security. It does need to counter China’s growth and is trying to work with countries like US, Australia and Japan to remind China that it can play the strategy game too. If you have noticed China has actively been containing India, outbidding it for every serious oil contract, becoming a observer member of SAARC (!!) while managing to keep India away from ASEAN, and supporting every nation in Indias neighborhood inimical to its interests.
At this point, India has rightly hitched its strategy of countering China to a closer relationship with the US. It does not want this relationship so that it can become a “client state” but because it is beneficial to its self interests and these converge with those of America.
“Just because you feel it’s not imperative does not not make it so. Soviet Union lost the economic war – read again what I wrote”. I thought that you were the one who wrote that this deal will erode India’s nuclear weapons credibility (even though nothing of that sort is happening) and that it is imperative for India to be equal with China at the very least when it comes to nuclear weaponization.
My point was that all the nuclear weapons in the world wont help you if you dont have the economic power to back it up. I used the example of the Soviet Union to prove just that. And now you re directly weakening your own idea of the imperative of India to have top gun nuclear weapons when you yourself agree that it could nt save the Soviet Union from disintegrating.
“India bucked the unflinching US support and weapons aid to its major non-Nato ally ruled by a dictator who happens to be the chief sponsor of terrorism to India. So what’s your point? “
Ahh, if you have not been sleeping, the violence in Kashmir has been its lowest in years. Principally because Musharaff is under tremedous support from the US to stop the Taliban. The weapons that are given are for this purpose and not for attacking India !! Are you even following the news nowadays ? Most people in here have come to realize that Mush is a double dealing SOB and have openly expressed doubts about his leadership. Barack Obama, leading Democratic candidate for President went so far as to threaten Pakistan with a missile launch on Pakistani soil if he wanted to get at Al Qaeda terrorists.
Things are not always what they seem. It is very clear that you are not in the US and you dont know the ground realities of this support for Musharaff. If you noticed , the US just engineered Bhutto’s entry into Pakistan, made Musharaff to nominate a successor to lead Pakistan army and made him promise to shed his uniform when the Pak SC allows his election as President. It also stopped him from declaring martial law when the protests in pakistan got out of hand and musharaff was losing his nerve.(Condi Rice bluntly warned him not to declare martial law.)
Getting instructions on how to run your Government, forced to share power, and allowing your arch nemesis to re-enter the country after dropping all corruption charges against her- all because your “biggest supporter” told you to do so!!
Now that my friend, that would be the VERY DEFINITION of a CLIENT STATE !!
I don’t see why such a hue-and cry is being made about the deal getting delayed. Even if we do a rapid-fire agreement with IAEA within three months we will be entering a lame-duck US congress/President starting Jan 08 coz everybody will be busy with primaries and Nov elections. So why not wait and take a slow and steady step and complete the agreement wit IAEA over the course of the 6-12 months and then lets the new congress approve the 123 deal. Wht the hell are we going to lose in a 1 years time. No reactor can be approved or nuclear technology bought within a year anyway and there is a whole lot of bidding process and site selection, legal issues to be resolved. And the world is not going to slow its consumption of oil anyway within a year so it matters little to the environment
Gujjubhai,
The last person I knew who referred to himself as “Professor” was Professor Griff of the 1980’s rap group Public Enemy – and if you don’t know who is, it’s OK. But he did have the same knack for starting out speaking in a reasonable manner, and then going off the rails where no one could take him seriously.
With that sort of prickliness in your last post, I almost expect you to be a current or former Indian diplomat. Edward Luce, in his recent book In Spite of the Gods, wrote,
I have enough kakas in my family to know of this tired tactic – once you run out of ideas, engage in name-calling.
If trade between India and the U.S. is lagging that with the EU, you may want to know why? You know why trade between the U.S. and India is as (quoting Blackwill) “flat as a chapati”? It’s not because America has limited the entry of Indian software firms into the U.S – remember, big bad Bush did not object to outsourcing during his re-election campaign in 2004 while the more worldly John Kerry called any American company that outsourced a “Benedict Arnold CEO”. You two don’t live in the same neighborhood, do you?
India has done pretty much nothing in opening protected and heavily regulated sectors such as insurance, retail, and banking. Even Indian-based Reliance is having trouble expanding its chain of supermarkets, because politically-protected thugs trash their stores while government officials look the other way. Americans look at that and think, “If that’s how they treat their own companies, how will we be greeted?”
Returning to your hopes for India’s energy swadeshi, in the same book, here is this little bit of info:
BTW – if you are so adamant the India can look after its own energy needs without any help from the imperialist U.S., then I trust you are writing to you MP, urging him that henceforth the Indian navy should provide all security to ships leaving the Persian Gulf bound for India? Because right now, almost 100% of the region’s oil is pumped and shipped under security provided by the U.S. Navy. The U.S imports more oil from Nigeria and Venezuela than it does from the Middle East, yet it provides all the security for world’s petroleum markets. So America secures the passage of oil to India, where the Indian government then proceeds to subsidize the price to a low level to win votes, and encourages wasteful consumption. Nice deal.
Think of that – oil is the blood if of the world economy, and it’s all guarded by the big bad Americans. Perhaps America should just tell the rest of the world to guard their own damn oil, send their own ships to the Straits of Hormuz, and you try your hand at dealing with the medieval time-warped men that run Saudi Arabia? The again, India cannot even work up the nerve to ask Saudi Arabia to treat Indian workers in their country with even a modicum of dignity. Too busy inviting their leader to the Republic Day parade in New Delhi, I suppose, to worry about some Indian getting his head chopped off in a public square.
And you still have not squared the circle of your most obvious flaw – you said the U.S. is interested in keeping India’s nuclear weapons program under its heel, despite the fact that the treaty largely leaves the handling of fissile materials to India’s discretion. But if China is the biggest strategic concern that America has in Asia, but what stretch of the imagination does it make any sense for America to limit India’s nuclear arsenal? Robert Blackwill himself said that it makes no sense to limit India’s nuclear or ballistic missile program so long as China is ramping up theirs.
Were you able to secure tenure with that kind of argument?
As if India has to grateful to the US for the low level call-center/back-office jobs which US allows to be outsourced ( after lot of compliants by liberal Democrats and President Bush himself in his speech in the lawns in India ). If US cares about increasing trade why doesn’t it reduce the subsidy of its farm sector so that Indian agricultural products can be sold, why not allow more Indian banks be allowed to opened in US.
US is not protecting security to all other ship carrying oil just for nothing. They need to maintian that force in order to undertake surveillance activties going on in that region for e.g. Chinese presence in Gwadar port in Pakistan and also be able to shoot ballistic missile/ maintain ready attack force for any eventuality in the Iran and Afghan region. The will probably consume more oil if they have to keep moving the ship to that region so better remain stationed there and do some work.
Priya,
No one is suggesting that India be grateful, but this idea that the U.S. has been and will always trying to undermine India is not based in any fact. As for agriculture, to mark this first year of Indian mangoes imported into America, some American opponents of the nuclear deal came up with the slogan, “India gets power plants, and all we got are mangoes”
As for oil security – who else is volunteering to protect the oil? If Putin shows up in Riyadh and offers protection, you think the Saudis are going to accept? Again, exhibiting self-interest while taking on responsibilities greater than is expected are not two mutually exclusive conditions.
I’m following your reasoning thus far but this seems like a poor example for the simple fact that there is no other navy in the world, currently capable of doing the oil-transportation protection duties that the US is currently taking up. Putin’s seaworthy fleet is hardly sufficient even for the task of policing the Indian Ocean.
this kind of rhetoric is common to chauvinistic nationalist and populist parties in the region. The JHU in Sri Lanka uses very similar rhetoric to justify their national security ‘platform’–i.e. the West (especially the American intelligence services) is out to get us because they know the importance and power of Sinhala culture and are willing to pull out all the stops to prevent it from growing in importance and getting it’s due on the global stage.
It really makes me laugh every time I read someone writing in from Desh denigrating Japan–WTF–that’s placing way too much on so-called pride at the expense of so may other more plausible social & moral goals–& even “cultural preservation.”
KXB–don’t let the haters get you down–you have a lot of fans too!
dravidian lurker, sorry if you felt a little left out on this question, which is quite basic. The answer is nobody knows (yet). A figure of $100 Billion is being bandied about for the reactor deals in India over the next 20 years. But this is not even back-of-the-envelope, it is ‘out of a hat’. The actual deal size will depend on the precise configuration of technology options that India chooses – light water vs heavy water, enriched vs natural uranium vs thorium reactor, etc. – from US or Canada or France or Russia. I don’t think even India ws yet, and since it is envisaged that nuclear power will open to the private sector – after appropriate changes to regulatory and pricing regimes – the actual deal value might depend on demand and supply in a big way, so nobody can predict how big things might get.
As to the uranium supply, again the deal dollar value depends on what kind of uranium – currently Australia does not enrich its uranium, but later on it might choose to – and of course it depends on the price of uranium in the future – kind of like oil, it can vary. So the answer again is ‘nobody knows’ (yet).
so why did this debate evolve into whether america is a lovely purveyor of utopia or the great satan? india’s acceptance or otherwise of the nuclear deal to dent america’s prestige is like using a pea shooter to blow the moon out of the night sky. heck, india was not even able to get its guy elected to the token position of secretary general, or get a permanent security council seat, so it would truly be a delusion of grandeur to think that this deal is make or break for the u.s. further, let’s face it, both america and india need each other as trade partners and that is not going to change independent of this deal.
what matters is what india needs to do to be able to meet the energy demands of its growing economy. is there a strategy that can address the projected needs till 2050 or so? india would need a substantial increase in its energy production, as well as investments in its infrastructure, to meet these needs. nuclear power definitely seems like the best medium term option for this energy production, and the u.s. deal seems the best way to kickstart it. the big question is what share of the nuclear power production will be dependent on u.s. supply, because clearly india would not want its economy to be held hostage by the u.s. in this manner. other potential suppliers are china, russia, australia, france etc., but i really see only russia being a bulwark to any u.s. shenanigans with the supply (i doubt that china will go out of its way to help india grow its economy, when they are probably going to be the likely competitors in 25 years or so). provided india has a strategy with other countries so that it is not reliant on any one supplier of fuel, or the foreseeable cartels (like u.s/australia/maybe france), i don’t see the downside with this deal. but per chachaji’s response in 136, i have not seen any analysis or evaluation of this specific question.
arguments based on macho swaggering claims of self reliance, and unfounded fears of ceding autonomy to the u.s. are completely unproductive to this decision making.
(i am assuming that since the military nuclear plants are out of inspection purview, it is not some ceding of our sovereignty or autonomy etc. to sign this agreeement. plus i am biased because really all i care about is alphonso mangoes.)
Mangoes is not the issue why the Doha round of talks was stalled. Mangoes were allowed by the US to enter its market only because India agreed to more stringent quality control. There are subsidies for american agriculture across the board which kills the livelihood of poor farmer across the developing countries and Africa.
And to come back on course… I still don’t understand what the big deal if the deal is delayed by one year ? One of the main components of the Left – CPI-M from Bengal is in favour of the deal. All they are asking for is more time and analysis and no haste.
that is partly true only. as a buyer of american fuel/technology the state dept/cia and other sources etc. have to still submit a report to the US president abt the how much amt of fissile material India has produced from both military and non-military sources in order to be able to continue with the trade. that sounds fair from the american non-proliferation perpspective but the indian hawks interpret it as yet another possible way to arm twist indian autonomy in future ( remember tarapur and technology restrictions ) But as KXB mentioned “exhibiting self-interest while taking on responsibilities greater than is expected are not two mutually exclusive conditions” …so in that sense it is not bad for India to go for the deal all out but nothing wrong in going slow. There are whole lot of legal,technical, beuracratic issues that need to resolved and understood and as India negotiates with IAEA we can slowly hatch out all these.
What wrong with foreplay and flirting going on for some more time before America and India tie the knot ?
KXB–don’t let the haters get you down–you have a lot of fans too!
I know, ain’t nothin’ but a thang.
You raise a good point dravidian lurker. This is, (of course) related to the issue of how India – and its near term intentions, are seen by the world system. It might also have to do with the fact that South Korea ran a good campaign. According to Shashi Tharoor, the President of South Korea traveled to many of the major countries in the world, trade and parliamentary delegations visited, a major diplomatic offensive was launched on behalf of their candidate. I feel that these things helped, but the US wanted to make a point (if Japan is a ‘client state’ then South Korea is even more of one – a prosperous and technologically advanced one, and one which is now much more democratic than it once was) – that it could get someone from South Korea elected.
I think the Security Council seat will come only when the Council itself is reformed to remove the veto from all permanent members – and replaced with a supermajority. A permanent membership of (say) 13 would need a supermajority of (say) 8 to act – the other 5 won’t be able to hold things up. I don’t think anyone in the current P-5 wants another country with a veto – leave alone one such as India who might be seen as having a boulder on its shoulder. And when it does come, of course, expect to see Germany, Japan, Brazil and South Africa (at least) elevated alongside India. It won’t be a P-5 + 1 situation.
And India really ought to settle with Pakistan before – because they will otherwise want to be on it too – and if being a nuclear power gets you there, they can hardly be refused. Pakistan has also carried out a lot of Peacekeeping missions for the UN, just as India has (and which is part of its claim to permanent membership, not just being 1 billion strong and a nuclear power). Also, it would be unwise for the world system to let India have a Security Council seat so it can feel ‘one-up’ on Pakistan. The wiser thing – both locally and globally – would be to give South Asia a seat after India has settled with Pakistan, the two have evolved a joint strategic consensus, or even moved toward a federation. Actually, I think it would be splendid both as a prize to South Asia for solving that issue and as an incentive. Before that can happen, Pakistan will have to show that it is moving decisively in the direction of democracy, and that it has truly put behind its support for Islamic terrorism. I am encouraged by recent developments, and see the beginnings of movement toward both those goals. I hope Indian strategic thinking also moves to take advantage of these opportunities.
KXB,
as you may already seen the news tab here is another interesting intereview on us-india deal
India represents 1 billion people of a type not represented elsewhere in the Secdurity Council. That in itself is reason enough to include them. And Brazil should be included too. And after a few years, South Africa should be on that list to give some representation to Africa. India doesnt need to clean up its affairs to deserve a seat. China hasn’t and it has one.
Pakistan can also claim there is no permanent ‘Muslim nation’ on the Council, and if population alone mattered, it has more people than France and the UK put together.
It simply won’t be in the interest of world system stability to ‘elevate’ a country like India that has a running feud with another that has nuclear weapons, and which also wants in to the Security Council. Besides which, it is in India and Pakistan’s own best interest – Security Council or not – to move away from nuclear confrontation and settle the Kashmir issue.
Why should India get a voice in the ‘higher councils’ of the world system and have a bigger hand in settling other big issues of the world – if it can’t settle with its own neighbor? Pakistan would then permanently mistrust any decision coming out of the Security Council, and so I simply don’t think that would ever happen. I think once India and Pakistan settle, and realize it’s not a zero-sum game, they could also more easily move toward developing a shared strategic consensus, and get a shared seat, or if they federate before that, then a South Asia seat. A solution in which they both get seats is also possible if Pakistan cleans up its internal act much quicker than the India-Pakistan mess is sorted out, but I rather feel that if the internal act is clean, India can also settle with Pakistan soon enough – especially because India would not want to be in a situation where both have permanent seats – because that would instantly dilute the meaning of India’s seat!
Also, these things don’t occur piecemeal – so it’s not like India will get it next year and Germany in a couple years, Japan next, while South Africa cools its heels for a decade before coming in. No, all these things are going to happen as part of an overhaul of the entire world system governance structure, and I would guess it would be in the second term of the next US President to have two terms – before these things even get considered, and at least a half-decade of consultation and consensus building before it is implemented.
So: India and Pakistan, seize the moment, settle up!
@ 137,
If this is really true then the point-man of US-Indian negotiation Mr Nicholas Burns wouldn’t be making this statement in one of the interviews
“…And within twenty-five years, I think 90 to 95 percent of their entire establishment will be fully safeguarded. So the choice is: Should we isolate India for the next thirty-five years, or bring it in partially now and nearly totally in the future? I think’s an easy choice for us to make strategically…”
Such statements are ready made ammunition for indian hawks and the left and betrays the real intentions of US establishment. So in that sense it makes sense to go slow, analyze, take all the time to finalize the deal.
I certainly agree that all implications of the deal must be openly discussed and understood, on both sides, including, especially, this one – but remember that what is contemplated is a privatization of the nuclear power sector in India.
Both Indian and foreign companies will be allowed to set up nuclear reactors to provide power. These private sector nuclear reactors is the 90-95 percent he means.
If foreign private entities are setting up nuclear reactors, with their own financial investment and technological knowhow, why is there any loss of sovereignty in ensuring they come under international safeguards, especially since India is allowed to have reactors outside the system for its own ‘strategic’ needs? Wouldn’t you rather that these private reactors be safeguarded, (not only in India but in every other country they are set up in) – by an international agency to which India will contribute technical manpower?
Alternatively, would you expect, for example, that the plutonium created from foreign uranium in those foreign-owned reactors should be available to India (or any other country) for its bombs? I wouldn’t!
Why not. Is India worse than China at bullying neighbors? India by itself represents 1 billion people and there are no redundant populations of that type in the Council. The size and uniqueness of its population should be good enough reason. Not to mention that they are a democracy which should be give it the edge if it’s case to be included in the council is considered borderline. Britain should actually be removed from the Council once the commonwealth is deemed totally useless. If a muslim country has the size anywhere comparable to India, then by all means, suggest one. India, by the way, represents more muslims than most Muslim countries. And it has supported Palestinian rights over the years.
Pravin, I fully grant that India has a comparable (or greater) Muslim population than Pakistan – I’m only pointing out how Pakistan will perceive India’s elevation (if it occurs) and what objections it will raise to prevent it or at least get the same recognition, and how India could proactively forestall them, besides also doing things in its own best interests, and Pakistan’s. And BTW, Indonesia might be considered a candidate too, as the largest Muslim country, and a large country in its own right.
There are two things about the whole way you’re coming at this that seem questionable. One, you’re assuming the UNSC structure will remain the same going forward – it most likely won’t, and changing it in any direction will not be easy, hasn’t happened for 60+ years – and admitting a brand new member with a veto is most unlikely of all. Second, it isn’t logic or demographic weight or the spirit of inclusiveness, but the needs of the powerful that decide who gets to sit at world high tables.
China’s case illustrates this most clearly. It was admitted as a permanent member of UNSC in 1945 after it was conferred ‘Great Power’ status in 1943 by the Allies during WW2. It was a very different politial entity at that time, and was expected to, and did, vote with the US in the UNSC. During 1949-71, after PRC came into being – it was Taiwan that held the seat because the US refused to recognize the PRC. India argued for PRC, as a matter of principle, hoping that would help its own case, but it made no difference.
When the UNSC membership was being considered in 1945, Britain, thought it, through the Commonwealth, would represent India’s interests – so you’re right that once that didn’t happen to the extent India wanted or would have liked, some revision was in order. Who knows, if Partition hadn’t occured, or the war had ended sooner, or independence had come earlier, India might have come in as a permanent member as a whole. But since that didn’t happen, India can only work within the system now to gain admittance, and with Pakistan also having a reasonable case, it makes a whole lot of sense to work together; or at least to strengthen its own case by settling the dispute with Pakistan (and doing the right thing besides).
KXB:
For your information, the U.S. is being criticized for Abu Graib, Guantanamo etc not because its “not living up to its reputation as a liberal democracy” but because its violating international laws and conventions.
Chachaji:
For your information, Japan had no choice but to ally with the U.S. after being nuked (a war crime if ever there was one) and occupied by it. Secondly Japan was already a world power, mass producing fighter planes, aircraft carriers etc before it was defeated. India on the other hand is still incapable of building tanks, planes and even artillery pieces. Its laughable to compare India’s position in the world with that of Japan which is first-world.
Kush Tandon:
Ignorant nonsense. For your information, hydrogen cells are not ‘alternate energy sources’. Secondly Solar energy scales far better and fits economies of scale far better than nuclear energy.
NS:
FYI, it was the British Empire that empowered the wahhabis of Saudi Arabia. You must be one of the few people who didnt see the movie Lawrence of Arabia.
T. E. Lawrence, great hero of the Empire, can be considered the father of modern terrorism. The British Empire was founded on theft, genocide, piracy, drug running etc.
And the U.S. has continued the support of wahhabis. Bin Laden and his ilk were called freedom fighters by Reagan when they were fighting the Soviet Union, and wahhabi Saudi Arabia which finances all these jihadi producing madrassas worldwide is a long term american ally.
You, KXB, chachaji et al obviously do not really believe this (correctly). Which is why you are so desperate to make India a subservient tool of the powerful anglosphere.
FYI, the U.S. is a 13 to 14 trillion dollar economy. India on the other hand is not even close to being a trillion dollar economy (nominal) despite being more than 3 times as populous.
FYI, oil was already trading in the high 80s when you wrote that and is now trading in the 90s.
Sheer cravenness and cluelessness. China gets multiple times the FDI that India gets without signing such deals.
Laughably stupid. You are making a point against yourself. Its nuclear energy that is far more dependent on India’s ‘woeful power transmission and distribution’ infrastructure. Solar energy can be independent of India’s decrepit infrastructure; it can scale from powering tiny electronics to entire cities and solar panels can be mass produced far more easily than nuclear power plants.
The U.S. was forced into liberating a large percentage of its own people from long term tyranny (african-americans and other coloreds including desis) because of the moral pressure applied by communists during the Cold War. Thank the commies for the fact that your colored ass is even allowed to immigrate here.