US / India nuclear deal

bonkey

Has anyone a take on the US/India nuclear deal?

I've been thinking a bit about it, and it just doesn't seem to gel.

Bush et al have been making big noises (and thats an understatement) about the undesireability of nuclear proliferation. And yet here they are, signing a treaty with a nuclear nation who isn't a signatory of the NPT, agreeing to hand over civilian nuclear technology.

What do they get in return for this? Well - there's the right to monitor 14 of 22 facilities. Lack of oversight on these remaining 8 facilities fundamentally means that the US has absolutely no mechanism to ensure that the technology it allows access to will only be used for civilian/peaceful means. All they can tell is that in roughly 2/3 of India's current facilities that it is used for civilian or peaceful means.

While I accept that the US and India are on vastly better terms than (say) US/Iran or US/North Korea would be, I still find it hard to understand the deal. Can you picture the US being satisfied if the NK or offered complete monitoring of 2/3 of its facilities alongside not being bound by the NPT as an offer at the negotiating table. They'd be laughed home.

The more I look at the deal, the more it seems to be counter to any and all moves made in the past few years to limit nuclear proliferation. Even if India doesn't misuse what it is given, the US has just thrown away any moral high-ground it has with respect to proliferation. It can no longer insist that nations need to be signed up to the NPT, need to give the IAEA full access, or any such thing, when it is willing to hand over nuclear technology to a nuclear-capable, non-NPT-signatory without insisting on full oversight. Well - it can make such an insistence, but only with an implicit suggestion of "international treaties are worthless...what you need is US on your side".

And lets not forget Pakistan. They're great buddies with India, especially with respect to the nuclear-arms race going on in their corner of the world. They've also been cozying up to the US ever since the latest War on Terror kicked into gear, so will they be given a similar deal? Uf not, will they accept the US giving India a "leg up" without issue?

I'm fully expecting that the most prominent argument in support of this deal will be the "promoting democracy" one. Y'know....give democracies the sweets so its an incentive for others to democratise. Coming at a time when a UAE-owned company is in the spotlight wrt a huge deal concerning US ports.....that doesn't wash so easily for me. Could you see the US handing over nuclear tech (albeit civilian) to the newly democratized Afghanistan (or has that stopped being peddled as a "success" story yet?) or Iraq?

I know I'm being mostly negative in this post, so to add some balance...there is part of me that thinks this has the potential to be a fantastic political move. Unfortunately, it would require altruistic motives from all concerned...and call me a skeptic, but...

So am I missing something?

jc

esskay

I reckon any deal with the US is a poison apple. Looks great from the outside but bite in and soon your sick as f@#k. I am in New Delhi at the moment and I can't make sense of what has been agreed to. CNN are running banners saying "Indo-US nuke deal" and then showing pics of George been entertained at local receptions?!? The indian people are definately being kept in the dark as to what is going on. As usual the news media has an agenda other than to keep the public informed. Unfortunately I can't understand the hindi new channels, but hopefully they are more informative. Still, india has a HUGE (12 million people in delhi alone) and highly educated workeforce that the US would just love to exploit some more by introducing more of its corporations to india. Already it is hard to get water here that does not have a Coke or Pepsi symbol on it. Its just a new market to be exploited

Frederico

Its not exactly rocket science..
Indian is pro-west
Iran and North Korea are anti-west

Remember who won the Cold War, we call all the shots now, its not about good or bad, its about pro and anti west.. simple.

bonkey

Frederico wrote:

Its not exactly rocket science..
Indian is pro-west
Iran and North Korea are anti-west

And Pakistan? Back in '98 when they performed a nuclear test, they were most defiitely in the anti-West classification. Now they're a key ally in the War on Terror, and have to be considered more and more pro-West. Iraq, you may also remember, was considered pro-West up until it crossed into Kuwait.

If nothing else, these examples show that such classifications are dynamic....although I would consider such a point inherently self-evident.

The possession of nuclear tech, on the other hand, is cumulative as opposed to dynamic. If India gets into another buildup race with Pakistan and/or starts throwing its weight around the region in a non-Western-friendly manner....you can't exactly take back the knowledge and equipment you've already handed over.

This was the entire basis of the NPT. It wasn't pro- or anti- West, and the US has been suing it as stick to beat nations with up until 2005, so its a bit strange to bel linking its relevancy to the end of the Cold War. Hell, the NPT is still the stick being used to beat Iran and NK with, and here the US is...happily undermining it.

Remember who won the Cold War, we call all the shots now,

By "we" I assume you mean the US?

So you think the US calls all the shots? Funny...there's a small country called North Korea who most definitely proves that theory to be not entirely correct. The US might be boycotting the NK and all of that, but you might spot one country which isn't. Small one...on the northern border...whats it called again? Oh yeah. China.

If the US calls all the shots, why are the Chinese still buddies with the NK? Indeed, why does the US have anything to do with China when it acts in such a manner? Could it be because the notion that they call all the shots is a western myth? They call the shots until someone else decides to step in. Unlike the US, the Chinese are far more circumspect about throwing their weight around, but when they do....its a lot of weight and it ain't ignored. Napolean had it right with his sleeping dragon comment then, and its still accurate today.

Some analysis I've already seen commented that because India is (currently) US-friendly, this could be a move to help "contain" China. Of course, if thats accurate, then one has to ask whether or not the Chinese will simply take it lying down. Now that the US is clearly showing that its OK to hand over nuclear tech to nations who haven't just refused to sign the NPT but who have a history of violating it....whats to stop the Chinese (openly) giving the NK a hand? After all, the NK are sympathetic to China and are no threat to the Chinese, just as India are no threat to the US.

And lets not forget Kashmir....a territory which two nuclear powers are politely disagreeing over. The US has just enabled one of those nations to redivert all of its internal enrichment programs to whatever purpose it likes, including a nuclear arms buildup. You think this isn't an issue of concern?

If we're going to ignore the reprecussions that an act will have on the region in general and on other nations, then sure...its as simple as you make out. And maybe it is. I just don't think the US is so short-sighted.

samb

Frederico wrote:

Its not exactly rocket science..
Indian is pro-west
Iran and North Korea are anti-west

Remember who won the Cold War, we call all the shots now, its not about good or bad, its about pro and anti west.. simple.

Yes we are the goodies-we are helping the goodies, simple. life is great and simple. I think you may be the simple one frederico

good analysis others. I don't know much about the deal but i would imagine that may be motivated by...guess what..money. I'm sure the Americans secured some good trade deal or something. Unfortunately I don't have your faith bonkey about the Americans not being short-sighted.

shuushh

Yes we are the goodies-we are helping the goodies, simple. life is great and simple. I think you may be the simple one frederico

garbage and unessecarily insulting he never claimed the west were goodies and the east were baddies he simply stated their positions in regards to the west

seems like a smart move by the U.S. trying to get a gang together for when NK and China are ready to start off the inevitable fight thats just waiting to happen

Captain Trips

shuushh wrote:

...the U.S. trying to get a gang together ...

LOL! "Come on guys, play with me!". US has been trying to "get a gang together" for years, and it's not working so well as the usual agreements end up with the US being the "winner". Although in reality, the winner is not so much the people at the bottom (that's the 95% of the population then), but the adminstrative figures who move and sway large chunks of industry across the globe like a fat man swaying his belly from one side of the couch to the other.

The propaganda is great for this India deal though. I loved seeing the Newsweek edition come out with "India! The other asian powerhouse" last week, BANG on que. Turn on CNN - Bush, is, oh my, god, in ANOTHER COUNTRY. That doesn't happen often either.

The US is a collection of corporations trying to do business and make some money. It is not the US of the actual people, so this is more for the benefit of the likes of Dell, etc., than anyone else. Next, he will start kissing the ass of Vladimir Putin.

"we won the cold war" LOL! Bush is kissing the rest of world's ass hoping the will not slap his teenage country round the backside. "Won" the cold war, man that sentence makes just NO sense regarding this India thing. It's an entirely different matter, but no-one won it, it just stopped being so cold because both sides realised they could make more money by not using the entire resources of their countries/regions for building thigns that only the other side could afford to buy. Better to make a deal (you remember that bit right) and then everyone can start selling arms to everyone else - which is why we end up with every tinpot country with nuclear arms and AK47s. Now, sorry about going off topic, but I felt it needed to be closed. This India nuclear deal has nothing to do with the US "winning" some war that was never fought (isn't that the ultimate propaganda though).

The India deal is just a public acknowledgement of the corporate relationships that exist between those corps in the US who set up in India. It's about money.

fly_agaric

Bonkey wrote:

"international treaties are worthless...what you need is US on your side".

That has been the message coming over loud and clearer than ever before from the foriegn policy the US has been following of late.

Bonkey wrote:

there is part of me that thinks this has the potential to be a fantastic political move.

It must be the biggest come-hither gesture the US has offered to any developing country. They are also offering to sell them some of their more advanced weapons too, aren't they? Can't see them doing that for China!

Stick with us boys - send us your brightest young people to study and work here, supply our companies with a big open market and a never-ending supply of talented, eager, and cheap labour. We'll make you golden - and to hell with any silly treaties.

Nietzschean

Yeah with moves like these by the US to try make huge influence in the region i'd love to see closer ties between china and the EU. Use it as a position to properly counter balance the US in world affairs, if not openly undermine them for the ****s and giggles of it all

Moriarty

bonkey wrote:

So am I missing something?

jc

I dunno. I have a feeling that there's more to it than simple leg-in-the-door commerical intrests at play here.

What with the A.Q. Khan debacle and continuing suspicions of non-compliance (never mind active r&d by non-signatorys) by a number of countries, the US may no longer think that the NPT is viable. Too many people, countries and organisations are now haemoraging technical know-how and materials for the NPT to be effective any more.

The US administration may have been looking at this situation, seeing the notional protection of the NPT dwindling further month by month, and decided to try and influence international nuclear proliferation in a damage limitation style with the taccit acceptance that pandoras box will never be closed on the nuclear issue.

I can never honestly see nuclear disarmament becoming a reality. Quite the opposite infact, I've always felt proliferation was unfortunatly inevitable. Perhaps they've come to the same conclusion?

The Saint

I think there are a number of reasons why the US has done this and some have already been stated. You can be sure the US has gotten something out of this in regards to trade. They probably got some bilateral trade agreements without having to go through the inconveniences of having to negociate them through the WTO and the pesky G20.

India has tradionally been non-aligned in regards to international relations (especially through the Cold War). This can probably be seen as sweetening up a regional and international powerhouse to become not so alligned especially when it's neighbour to the north is considered as well as the North Korean situation. You can't have too many regional friends especially ones of India's stature when dealing with regional crises and economics oppertunities.

The reason that seems most pragmatic and compelling to me is that India's energy needs are massive and growing fast and it is therefore sucking energy supplies, mostly oil, out of the world market. Demand rises, prices rise and there isn't enough oil on the market for everyone, especially the US. Giving India civilian nuclear capabilities takes some of the pressures off the market and allows the US to secure its required energy supply needs.

bonkey

Perhaps jsut as relevant is the fact that the US, under recent Administrations, has seriously courted the notion of developing "tactical nuclear weapons" - battlefield nukes in otherwords.

Sure, the reasoning will go that they are clean, and so aren't "really" WMDs, but the simple fact will remain that they will be a technology only obtainable via a specific route - that being the development of "dirty" nuclear weaponry and the subsequent refinement of that.

I know this seems only tangentially related, but bear with me....

Changing the perspective on nuclear arms and their development is a key step towards this goal. If the NPT can be "sold" as being out of date and no longer relevant, then it is no longer an obstacle to US advancing their own technology.

It would be vastly preferable for the US to weaken (or totally destroy) the NPT and people's perception of its purpose rather than simply turning around and saying "screw you guys, we're building new nukes but you still can't".

If Bush can sell that its OK for US Allies to have ignored the NPT because they are trustworthy by definition of being US-friendly, then half the battle is alerady won. If allies can be trusted, how can one not trust the US itself.

What the long-term implications for global stability are...who can tell. However, I'm willing to bet that more than one US-Administration supporter would be more than happy to explain why allowing America to build newer, better nukes and/or a "nuclear shield" would be a worthwhile (desireable, even) tradeoff for allowing US-friendly nations to develop nuclear technology.

US-non-friendly nations, of course, will continue to be portrayed as only wanting to persue nuclear technology in order to attack the US. Why else would anyone not friendly to the US want nuclear tech, after all.

Iran clearly would be better off being dependant on others for its fuel-sources, and besides...thats not even important because if it didn't want to blow up the US/Israel/Iraq/whoever, they wouldn't even need to follow this path.

So clearly, while India has a massively burgeoning need for power to serve its population, Iran - which also has a generation-capacity issue - is different. China too, at a guess, will be significantly different, despite it having a need for nuclear generation facilities.

The NPT was a (somewhat flawed) success simply because it didn't rely on partisan lines to decide who did or did not have the right to do something. Reigning political ideology was not what determined what nations could and could not develop nuclear technology.

Undermining the NPT, particularly without clearly articulating what the desired alternative is, strikes me as foolhardy. At a guess, though, the alternative is not clearly articulated because the administration know how unacceptable it would be.

So instead, we have the ususal "decry it as broken" approach, which in due course (unless the US abandons this path) will be replaced with another fine example of flawed binary reasoning we've seen so often from this administration: "Well, we have to do X, because what we have is broken. Would you have us do nothing and live with a broken system? No? Then we have to do X".

Yes, there are also short-to-mid-term financial benefits to the US from this move, but I seriously don't think these are what drove the issue. They were a factor, sure, but not the only factor.

jc