Hez Here
Now that George.W.Bush is on his way to India, i felt its time to write something about the Nuclear Deal that has been discussed by every major media outlet and strategic think tank. Though I don't have much of an idea about this topic, often i found myself coming up with the knee-jerk reaction (very typical of us, desis) of opposing this idea just because it involves the US. I am not sure if my reaction would be the same if it had been with Russia or any other European state. But, I also understand that i was not being paranoid. After all, the US does not have such a great record in dealing with countries around the world. It had such a close relationship with Saddam Hussein until he became expendable in the larger scheme of things. No one can forget the support it gave to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan until the Soviets were thrown out. It didn't care to bring back the country into the international mainstream; the rest as they say is history and we know what Afghanistan stands for today. All the so called allies in Asia are either its client state or its vassal with a form of quasi-sovereignity. Let me get back to the topic instead of digressing. Is the Nuclear deal really good or bad for India? I read through some articles to find what's the fuss is all about. I will give the essence of what those articles say (at times just parroting what they say) and also give the links at the end (for those who are interested).
What's the deal to begin with? To say in simple terms (the following has been repeated in so many newpapers and website, it may sound like cliche for those who follow the news), the deal is that India will follow the procedures and take the responsibilities of other Nuclear powers (which in essence means, all its civilian reactors would follow IAEA safeguards and are subject to inspection by IAEA) and in turn India will get civilian reactors from the US. The problem as all of you know is that Indian reactors are not separated as civilian and military. So, Indians and Americans are locked horns in the list of reactors that should be classified as civilian and military. The bone of contention is the Fast Breeder Reactor (the ProtoType Fast Breeder Reactor) in Kalpakkam ( the CIRUS reactor near Bombay is another case where the US and India have a disagreement). For the uninitiated, the Fast Breeder Reactor produces more fuel (a very simplistic explanation) than it consumes. Also, the Fast Breeder Reactor uses Thorium , of which India has one of the largest reserves in the world. Apparently, the process leaves a large residue of weapon grade Plutonium (or is it Uranium ?) with which India can have as many weapons as it wants. It is this reactor that the US wants to bring under inspection. But, Scientists are dead against it (PM has also issued a statement today that fast breeder cannot be included in the civilian list). Another important reason why the scientists are against this is that India has probably one of the most advanced Breeder Technologies. Opening it up for inspection would be like opening up this technology to others without getting our due. From the perspective of the military strategists, putting too many reactors in the civilian list would curtail the amount of fissile material India could have for its strategic uses. If there are so many reasons for opposing the nuclear deal, why did India even go in for a deal with the US?
1) It would come out of the Nuclear Pariah status (a tacit acceptance of it as a nuclear power).
2) It would get to buy URANIUM (India has a very little reserves of Uranium) from the NSG.
3) It needs Uranium immediately in the short term for the Tarapur Reactor.
4) Once it is accepted as a Nuclear Power, obtaining of the Permanent Seat in the Security Council would be easier (or so some people in the Govt think).
Are these considerations enough to go in for a deal with a country like US which is so well known for breaking a lot of interational treaties (remember how India would always be told why it should sign CTBT until the US Congress failed to ratify it)? I don't want to say an absolute No to the deal, but given the secrecy with which the Govt is handling the issue, every bit of news typically comes out US media, I am very apprehensive about the deal. Why so much secrecy? Also, the number of reactors to be classified should also be nominal; right now the numbers floating around 12 to 17 of the 22 reactors India would have. My apprehension arises not merely because of what the deal gives India, but also from the noise that is emanating from Washington. Bush only a few days back changed his stand and said India was a nation with developing nuclear technology from a nation with advanced nuclear technology. Robert Blackwill said that if the deal does not go through then it will paint a very bad picture of the ruling elite and the people of India. Mulford says what is credible and what is not in selecting the reactors. While Americans are well known for arm-twisting, i don't find any reason why we as nation of a billion would have to bend over backwards to sign this deal.
Note : US last built a reactor in 1979. So, they are lagging behind in this area. This is all the more reason for thinking twice. Also, the western nations (except i guess France) had given up on Fast Breeder Technology long back. So, if US is asking us to open up the PBFR, you can understand that something is not right.
C Karthikeyan
P.S. Anyone with more foresight and knowledge please leave your suggestions. I request all to leave a statement on where they stand on this issue.
References:
3 comments:
I guess, we are just seeing one side of the coin for this particular deal, by this I am no way supporting the stand of the two governments, I totally agree that the US is very well known for betraying its so called allies, but in this particular deal India has more to gain than the US, if the deal goes through. But the key point in this deal is going to be the Russian's reaction to the whole story, knowing all the good relations we have shared over the years with them... Are we making them feel insecure in the relationship between the two countries??? Are we concentrating too much in pleasing our new 'friends' and taking the trusted allies for granted???
Sunil
hey
your research on the nukes are pretty interesting, i have little idea on the global politick, I donno whether am seeing the whole pie or just the slice, but i would like to mention one thing. I guess this deal was a deliberate one and not a hastly taken!
And also this deal would brume the global media for only shorter period and people will soon talk about other issues.
Now that the agreement has been signed with 14 reactors under civilian category and more importantly PFBR made a military one, this deal sounds good. But, this is rather just the first step. The US congress has to ratify it. Lets see how this unfolds.
And btw, US did ask us to classify PFBR as civilian(anyone interested about this can go thru the references I had given). Mulford said the list we gave initially was not credible. (there are some really interesting articles on the cut throat negotiations that happened between us and the US).
If at all there are two countries that can use Nuclear weapons now, its the US and North Korea. One will be able to get away with it (of course with potentially a huge diplomatic and political loss). The other if pushed to the wall would dare to do anything.
C Karthikeyan
Post a Comment