Well, it took three years and it nearly toppled Manmohan Singh’s UPA government, but the India-U.S. nuclear deal was finally ratified in the U.S. Senate last night (along with some other trivial legislation…). On NPR yesterday, I heard snippets of speeches supporting the deal from Republican Senator Richard Lugar and Democratic Senator Chris Dodd (who is almost as ubiquitous as the top 40 M.I.A. these days). I also heard a Democratic Senator, Byron Dorgan, from North Dakota, who opposed it. India’s fourteen civilian nuclear reactors will be under international inspection, but eight military reactors will operate without inspection.
Interestingly, India has also just signed a nuclear deal with France, after getting a general waiver from the Nuclear Suppliers Group. So clearly the work that went into the main India-U.S. deal is already paying off for India in some surprising ways. There is further talk of a deal with Russia in weeks to come.
Though I’ve supported the deal from the beginning, one of the arguments against it from the American side seems worth considering: if you grant India an exemption for civilian nuclear energy, even though it didn’t play by the rules and sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and even though it engaged in testing ten years ago, you weaken the argument against allowing countries like Iran to develop civilian nuclear energy.
Does that hold water? I tend to think not, since the point is moot if India already has nuclear technology and is committed to not sharing it with nations that want it. But the Times quotes one Michael Krepon who thinks it will be a problem:
Michael Krepon, co-founder of the Henry L. Stimson Center, a research organization in Washington, called the promise of big dollars and American jobs “pure fantasy†and predicted that the United States would regret further opening the nuclear door.
“There will be a reckoning for this agreement,†he said. “You can argue till you’re blue in the face that India is a special case. But what happens in one country affects what happens in others.†(link)
There is a full-length critique of the deal by Michael Krepon here, published in 2006.
Amardeep
Though I’ve supported the deal from the beginning, one of the arguments against it from the American side seems worth considering: if you grant India an exemption for civilian nuclear energy, even though it didn’t play by the rules and sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and even though it engaged in testing ten years ago, you weaken the argument against allowing countries like Iran to develop civilian nuclear energy.
Unfortunately, you’ve been taken in by the rampant nonsense that outlets like the NYT have been peddling. India was under no obligation to play by the NPT rules because it was not a signatory. Neither staying outside the NPT nor testing nuclear weapons was a case of not playing by the rules. On the contrary, those who didn’t play by the rules are:
a) the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China: who were obliged to give up their nuclear weapons under the original NPT (that was the whole friggin’ idea of the NPT) but didn’t. Instead in the mid-1990s, they institutionalised their right to own (and denied the others a right to own) nuclear weapons in perpetuity.
b) Iran and North Korea: who signed the NPT and violated the terms of the treaty they had signed.
c) China: that sold nuclear technology to Pakistan and North Korea, and tested nuclear weapons on its behalf
All this is documented, and only a Google search away. But not if you read the NYT or The Economist, which will tell you that India’s weapons and tests are “illegal”. That’s sheer nonsense.
Unfortunately, you’ve been taken in by the rampant nonsense that outlets like the NYT have been peddling.
Nitin, perhaps you shouldn’t be so quick to start throwing around polemical language (“rampant nonsense,” “peddling” etc)? I supported the deal earlier, and still support it. I am well aware that India never signed the NPT, as the phrasing in my post indicated. I merely raised an issue that might be worth discussing.
The U.S. has always considered itself an exception, rightly or wrongly, so wondering why the U.S. hasn’t obeyed the NPT doesn’t really get us anywhere.
That said, the North Korea, Iran, and China examples you raise are relevant.
Apart from India not proliferating even though it never signed the NPT, it is the only country with an explicit no first use policy. Therefore, India’s military nuclear doctrine is safer for the planet than the nuclear powers within the NPT. This may have helped the nuke deal.
Yep the deal is done and the historic victory for the Congress government under many agitations by left parties.. Now we got to see how far this can be helpful for the UPA to comeback in the next elections? Its almost tough for congress to bounce back in the “AndhraPradesh” as the “chiru” came with “prajarajyam” party.. already lost in “karnataka,gujarat” etc.., Lets see the interesting elections…
Amaun, you raise a fair point about India being the only country with an explicit no first use policy. This is rarely mentioned in news coverage and analysis and even if it is, it is not given the weight it deserves.
Not only does India have a no first use policy, I believe it also has a policy where it would never use nuclear weapons on a non-nuclear nation.
Passing this deal has proven to be a roller-coaster, but that it did not simply get dropped demonstrates that both Singh and Bush knew it was an important matter. As an unpopular lame duck, Bush could have simply ignored it. With inflation rising and increased terrorist attacks, Singh could have made it a low priority. While I have been critical of both men, I have to give credit where credit is due.
As for other nations – they choose to pursue nuclear weapons based on their security concerns. Even if Iran was not ruled by mullahs, it would still be concerned by the threat of nuclear Israel. If you want Iran to desist from enrichment activities, you will need to address its security concerns. Just as South Africa relinquished its nuclear arsenal once it no longer felt threatened by its neighbors.
Amardeep, thanks for blogging this.
India has a ‘no first use’ policy, but it is the moratorium on ‘no new explosions’ that played a role in the NSG waiver. Another thing to note is that the US strategic consensus is moving toward a ‘no nukes for anyone’ point of view. And this includes the US, and the other 8 (P5+ India + Pakistan + North Korea plus Israel).
Since civilian nuclear technology is going to play a big role in meeting the world’s future energy needs (including in the developing world, and the Islamic world), the only way to ‘stay safe and be able to sleep at night’ is also to outlaw nukes for everyone. In such a scenario, India’s own nukes, and its ability to test new designs in the context of the deal – that had become such an issue with the Indian Right – as well as with the ‘non-proliferation ayatollahs’ in the US – becomes moot.
I hope that, during his visit here, Zardari was also sounded out on the possibility of Pakistan joining the nuclear mainstream, subject to some conditions, and relatively soon, in the context of real commitment to global nuclear disarmament. Because otherwise, they’re going to seek a similar deal from China. From India’s own point of view, the strategic aspect of the Indo-US nuclear deal can be nullified in the short and medium term if a Pakistan-China axis strengthens. For this reason, it should support, indeed, also encourage movement toward bringing Pakistan also into the nuclear mainstream, along with true global nuclear disarmament. And soon.
It is very simple. International treaties are means not ends. If the United States wants to grant India an exemption and punish Iran that is her right due to the only thing that matters: power and force. International law is an illusion.
I hope this helps is reducing the power shortage in the immediate future. Folks in Chennai are suffering 3 to 5 hour power shutdowns everyday for the past few months.
The opposition from the left parties in India is that the conditions of the agreement such as India cannot maintain any fuel stock in reserves and India cannot conduct any future weapon tests. In this case, I think the left is fair in opposing the deal. I’m not sure if its in India’s interests to depend on the US to maintain fuel reserves, US can stop supplying anytime if and when the relations with India go sour. Also if we can’t conduct any future tests ( for upgrading / maintenence ) what’s the point of owning the technology?
Please please please, no one use the term “non-proliferation ayatollahs”. I’d like to see a cliche-free thread.
Oops! I was too late. Oh well. 😛
For a well thought-out Indian perspective on the deal: http://chellaney.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!4913C7C8A2EA4A30!811.entry
12 · cc said
I put it in quotes, to clarify that I’m using terminology that is current, but which I don’t necessarily agree with. So did you in referring to the term. Then it doesn’t count 🙂
So Bush will be etched in the history books in both positive (US-India) and negative(war) ways ultimately. Eventful President with lots of action in his term.
That happens with all Presidents. Both LBJ and Nixon are regarded as failed presidencies, but LBJ did sign the Civil Rights Act, and Nixon re-established relations with China.
Amardeep: I knew all along that ultimately this has to pass. I do have relevant first hand inside information – that readers and commenters on this blog, may not have. There is an advantage working for the FED in the most screwed-up city in the world (!). The bottom line is MONEY. The whole world is going to do nuclear power plants related business with India. I am glad USA finally saw the light and joined the parade. As I said earlier on your NEWS tab, this “one for the cowboy” 😉 Condi Rice will be in India in few days to brag about it all over.
14 · chachaji said
Point taken!
This is hardly surprising, part of the rationale behind the deal from India’s perspective was exactly the ability to buy from not just the US bout others too.
The deal with france is not very surprising. Once India got the NSG waiver, it did not matter as much if the US did not ratify the deal, since the NSG waiver allows for India to trade with other members of the NSG.
Incidentally, the “rules” (in this case the NPT etc) are pretty arbitrary, and generally are determined by the interests of the most powerful countries in international relations. This deal is also significant in that it is a recognition of the changing nature of this international balance of power.
It doesn’t weaken the argument anymore than Israel (wink wink) having nuclear weapons weakens the argument – because the argument has no legs to stand on. The argument is not really against civilian nuclear energy – I can’t imagine anyone seriously believes that Iran needs civilian nuclear power given its oil reserves. At worst, the argument is basically the expressed fear of the Muslim bogeyman having nuclear weapons, and is correspondingly crude despite the language its couched in. It simultaneously assumes that the West has any control over developing countries acquiring nuclear technology in the long run, which it, in fact, does not, as far as I can tell, while expressing this lack of control by making the argument.
So too is this nuclear deal part of a realpolitik approach to international relations – the U.S. and India are tying themselves together on defence ever more. Anyway, the whole thing is a mess.
Oh, but wait, I thought that this site was not a place to discuss what happens in India:
Essentially that post said that DBDs are unwelcome (gee, I wonder which blogger wrote that one). Why bother writing about South Asian politics then?
Amardeep,
I chose my words carefully. Despite their frequent use in polemics, in this case their use is warranted. To say that India’s nuclear weapons are ‘illegal’ or that it has broken ‘rules’ is nothing but nonsense.
The following is based from an interesting/informative chapter (The quest for atomic power and rockets) that I read from Dietmar Rothermund’s recent book – India The Rise of an Asian Giant.
This issue of not playing by the rules is actually a very interesting point for technical debate and which has been the source of all politics and controversy. NPT was opened for signature on Jul 1968 much after India had bought the so called “errant reactors” from US and Canada ( in 1955/56 ) that supplied the bomb-making material for India’s first test. China tested it first weapons in 1964 and 1966 and there was great pressure on India to follow suit considering that it was defeated by China in 1962 war. The cold war and cumulative result was that India didn’t sign the NPT. So there is always an argument from the Indian establishment that India didn’t break any rules….it chose to stay out of the system. As the book highlights, India would have probably tested it device before 1968 if it hadn’t been for the death of Bhabha (father of India’s weapons program) due to an Air-India crash on the hills of Switzerland in 1966 and the subsequent director Sarabhai (father of India’s civilian space program) and Shastri ( prime minister after Nehru) not being very favorable to nuclear weapons.
It was also very interesting to read many anecdotes about how Americans political invovlement with India&Pak has been so entertwined with nuclear weapons right from the beginning till the stage when Nuclear supplier cartel (NSG)was created by Kissinger after India’s first weapons test. And now America involvement with the region (Bush-Singh treaty and war in Iraq-Afghan-Pak ) is related to WMD.
A interesting cycle of history is that Clinton partially separated the US civilian and weapons program (to the chagrin of many republicans)and now Bush has pushed a separation treaty of India’s program (to the dislike of mostly democrats, non-proliferation advocates)
An interesting coincidence is that today is Mahatma Gandhi’s birthday….doyen of non-violence and weapons.. nice historical juxtaposition.
The NPT was already broken, and the deal with India only serves to show US willingness to take a positive approach and accommodate responsible countries. Hopefully, Iran and China will take away a few lessons from that. I would say that this is the first step towards refashioning a whole lot of institutions that were built up during the Cold War ranging from the UN Security Council to the IMF and World Bank. Sitting here in India, I truly appreciate the US Administration for its attempts to shape events rather than react to them. To their credit, they realised that India cannot be asked to step upto the plate and shoulder global responsibilities while it is kept outside the tent, and acted on that.
I think this is legitimate because US is involved. Anyways, if I understand the philosophy right, not all DBDs are unwelcome only the “non-progressive” ones they can’t relate to.
I remember Joe Biden speaking out against this in the Senate on C-SPAN. How long ago I can’t remember, but I’ve been a fan ever since.
25 · Priya said
I’m pretty sure Gandhi would have approved non-violent, civilian use of nuclear energy
The thing that disturbs me in all this is that the focus is on very near-future politics; the NPT, Iran, etc. Nuclear waste generated from civilian and military nuclear reactors remains extremely dangerous for TENS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS. With all the climate change/fossil fuel concerns, I am less rabidly anti-nuke than I used to be, but I wish the discussion was more about how to manage this stuff in the long run.
A previous blogger on Sepia said: we wish some of you would remember that this is a second generation-centric blog… We never intended to be a place to discuss the politics of India.
And now on India’s nuclear politics ???
Amardeep, do let us know what is your stance ?
His edginess aside, Nitin’s points stand; including the one on US.
31 · Siddharth said
Should we really be making a big deal on what the blog-owners chose to write or not write about.This is not a university with a defined curriculum is it……..its casual informal conversation.I think when the particular blogger reminded us that ‘this is a second generation blog’,he/she just might have been implying that even if what they are discussing could be 100% desi,it would be presented and viewed through the lens of an ABD.DBD’s have been more than welcome to opine and contribute and enrich the discussion but not with the sense of entitlement and (subsequent) grievance some of us display.Not being condescending,I am a DBD and ‘been there done that’.
Anything related to India very technically could be of interest to ABD’s…..so no topic related to India is off-limit to them.At the same time,the relative newsworthiness and emotional resonance of stories about des is likely to differ amongst the ABD’s and DBD’s.Their might be some convergence but if there is not,no big deal.
India and US entered in to nuclear deal not only to share technology but also to preserve the peace on this earth.
Though this traty is meant for world peace these two nations has to convince other nations like UK. Let us pray for the better world where this nuke energy is used only to light lamps in many houses(nations).
macmillan
DUI
This deal, thanks to W’s courage and vision, will end up changing the geo-political game, in favor of U.S. and India, for a very long time. In a couple of decades, India will most likely be the third largest economy in the world with a very modern and large military, affording her the ability to project power from Somalia’s coast to South East Asia and Australia, if not further.
The Pakistani establishment which was praying for the deal to fail, must be very, very depressed these days. First, their “closest non-NATO ally”, not only violates their purity but also tells the world, and then the cad goes ahead and proposes to Pakistan’s arch nemesis. Such betrayal. Heartbreaking. I want to cry.
34 · Axis Mundi said
Can I have some of whatever you’re smoking?
S . e . e . . e . n . s . e . x . . . ! . ! . ! .
Toonces watch out!!!!!
“This deal, thanks to W’s courage and vision, will end up changing the geo-political game, in favor of U.S. and India, for a very long time. In a couple of decades, India will most likely be the third largest economy in the world with a very modern and large military, affording her the ability to project power from Somalia’s coast to South East Asia and Australia, if not further.”
Actually one of the underlying reasons this bill managed to pass is that India doesn’t project military power outside its close neighbors.
It is probably a dead thread by now; but here is what I would like to say to nfa at 32.
What the bloggers choose to write about is totally their choice: they might blog on Indian politics and simultaneously maintain that this blog is not about Indian affairs. As a DBD I have enjoyed reading Sepia and by pointing out the contradiction I am not making a case for any one’s exclusive right to talk about India. Rather, the issue is this: whether an individual blogger writing in a collective blog should or should not clarify his position vis-a-vis what the other bloggers maintain in the name of the collective.
The rest of your observations do not relate to my original post.