India and the Nuclear Deal

[Blackthorne TA]

India is not a member of the NPT whose members get special treatment regarding nuclear technology transfer for civilian use because of their membership.

Now the US is making deals with India regarding transfer of civilian nuclear technology even though they are not a member of the NPT. I'm not sure how I feel about this.

I understand that India has done well in its nonproliferation duties regardless of being outside of the NPT (unlike Pakistan), yet should the US just ignore its non-membership and give them the same special treatment?

What do you all think? As I said, I'm just not sure...

[Aldeth the Foppish Idiot]

I'm not sure how I feel about it either, but that's because I'm unsure of the exact wording of the NPT. Does the NPT strictly forbid passing on civilian nuclear technology to non-member countries, or is it merely discouraged?

[Blackthorne TA]

I believe it is only nuclear weapons technology that is prohibited, so I don't think there's anything "illegal" in the deal, but part of the appeal of being a member of the NPT is the benefits you get. So why give these benfits to non-members?

[Carcaroth]

Because India is George Bush's big hope for the spreading of democracy and the American way...?

[Iago]

There's a love affair between Pakistan and the US since the 1950's. And I've read an article about a year got that some Indians want to seize the moment and benefit from the fact that this love has grown cold.
India is getting closer to the US and the US is getting closer to a strong ally and Kashmere (and the terrorists there). And India gets to put drive a wedge between Pakistan and the US.

I think there's a lot to gain for both of them and a lot to lose for Pakistan and Iran. Paksitan is in bed with China anyway. And isn't China courting Iran?

[Blackthorne TA]

Hmmm. Interesting points, and those concerns may be more important than preventing the transfer of nuclear technology given that it's too late for India to join the NPT unless changes were made to it.

[Aldeth the Foppish Idiot]

You know Iago, I never thought of that, but that's an excellent point. China and India and #1 and #2 respectively in the most populous countries in the world, and they are also #1 and #2 respective of countries that are industrializing very quickly. Given the extremely unlikely situation of the U.S. every becoming buddy-buddy with China, it would certainly behoove the U.S. to gain the other as an ally. Also, like BTA said, it's too late now for India to join the NPT even if it wanted to, and that may not be impetus enough for the U.S. to lose what may prove to be an valuable ally.

[-Chad-]

I believe that if they aren't a member they shouldn't get the rights of being a member.

[Pac man]

Questionable situation, because i believe India has a double agenda.

[Taluntain]

Good grief, you'd think that most Americans' experience with outsourced tech support was enough. Now Bush is sending them nukes? I sincerely hope they've translated the manuals for them...

[Blackthorne TA]

Hehe, no, not nuclear weapons. Apparently it's civilian technology and fuel for power reactors. Though now I see it includes conventional military technology and material as well...

I think I am now more negative than positive on this.

By the way, this isn't a done deal yet, it still has to be approved by Congress...

[Taluntain]

How often has the congress been against anything military-wise that Bush has come up with?

[Blackthorne TA]

It seems there is a battle brewing over it, though El Baradei of the IAEA seems to think it's a good idea.

[Sir Fink]

India has had nuclear technology (both civilian -- and it is assumed -- military) for a few decades, correct? The US certainly isn't handing them "nukes."

Bush loves India because Bush's corporate sponsors love India, or at least love India's 1 billion people. That's 1 billion potential Marlboro smokers, Coke drinkers and MTV-watchers. Oh, and he wants to spread "freedom and democracy" and, like, stuff.

[Blackthorne TA]

You are correct that India has had nuclear technology, but now they want the US's nuclear technology and fuel as well as conventional arms.

It just seems to me that India made a decision 30 or so years ago that they didn't need the rest of the world when it came to nuclear technology and material and decided to go it alone. They should have to live with that decision.

But, as things do, the world has changed since then. India is a rising power consuming lots of energy... and so is China. China is not so friendly with the US, so India can be a counter to that. Also, providing India with nuclear energy can help relieve their consumption of oil...

[Mithrantir]

The problem is that by giving the technology to promote their research for, as it is said, civilian atomic energy, USA is also giving sources to expand their research on nuclear missiles.
And yes India and Pakistan have nuclear missiles. They have doing the last 10 years one test after the other, competing who will get the stronger missile.
IMHO to start giving that kind of firepower to a nation that has a open triffle with it neighbouhring nation is risky, to put it mildy.
Kasmir is an area that has no terrorists at least from a global point of view.
It is an area that has become the reasons for many, not so gentle, episodes in the diplomatic life of these two countries.
The story is long and the end is far from near.
Anyway the reality is that indeed India in the matter of spreading the nuclear secrets around was and is far more trustworthy than Pakistan.
And one more big plus they are not Muslims (as a majority of course), which means that they are somehow not so much influenced by the current global climate in diplomatic stratosphere
If it is a good move or not?
Well this is move, is more like the move Hrutsef used by sending missiles to Cuba. A straight and loud shout at the growing superpower (China) that hey here are some friends of ours , that in case of trouble will help us. USA tried it once with Pakistan, planned to do the same with Afganistan (will never become a peacefull country as i fear) and now India is the nr3 candidate.
Future will show how much the plans of USAs goverment are matching Indias plan for a firm and strong hold in the elite states.

[Faraaz]

Well...AFAIK...our Prime Minister Manmohan Singh isn't getting very many thumbs up from his own political counterparts in the Lok Sabha...the sore point here being that Singh's agreed to open up a fair share of indigenously developed nuclear plants and other nuclear facilities to US supervision (IIRC).

Of course, I'm a noob when it comes to this sort of thing, so I could be wrong.

BTW...WHY is it a big deal? We've had nukes for a LONG time now...publicly ever since the Pokhran tests in North India IIRC...also, Bush isn't GIVING us any nukes, just nuclear fuel, and civil nuclear technology...which will also be under US supervision.

All of this aside...

And one more big plus they are not Muslims (as a majority of course), which means that they are somehow not so much influenced by the current global climate in diplomatic stratosphere

@Mithrantir: Not to be overly sensitive or anything, but I find your comment quite offensive. I'm a Muslim myself, and there's almost more Muslims in India itself, than there are in Pakistan on the whole! If India is more responsible with nukes, it would be because the Indian government is more responsible...not because we're not Muslims!

Also...I'm not sure if you know, our President is Muslim at the moment. I'd keep such comments to myself if I were you.

[Blackthorne TA]

The reason it is a big deal is because India did not sign the NPT, and so has been before now on the nuclear "pariah" list. Which means (at least for the US) that the policy is to not deal with such countries when it comes to nuclear technology and materials.

[Mithrantir]

@Mithrantir: Not to be overly sensitive or anything, but I find your comment quite offensive. I'm a Muslim myself, and there's almost more Muslims in India itself, than there are in Pakistan on the whole! If India is more responsible with nukes, it would be because the Indian government is more responsible...not because we're not Muslims!

First of all it was not supposed to be offending.
The truth is that India is not a Muslim nation.

Personally i don't care even if India was atheists as a whole. The fact remains though that at the certain period of time, the tensions between Muslim (as a political system) countries and Western countries are high.

I don't like it either, but the fact is a fact.
So if i am right and if really the Muslims are not the majority, which is right, then India is not so much influenced by the ravings of Muslim extremists.

Which makes India a very well suited candidate, for someone who fears the effect of the tensions before mentioned, to do bussiness with.

The US Foreign Office must have also realized that, and that is why they decided to turn their backs (sort of) on Pakistan and General Musharaf.

Furthermore the fact that Indias goverment is more responsible (which i agree), is not a reason IMHO. After all if the secrets are to be spread it does not take a goverment to do it. A person with access is enough.
There are many countries with responsible goverments, that doesn't mean that they will all get what India took.

The big player here is USA and India is a pawn (sorry but this is a point of view, nothing disrespectful towards India)

[Faraaz]

@Mithrantir: I didn't mean that I was offended because you're putting Muslims down or something. Not at all!

I found it offensive because you said it was a plus that they are not Muslims. This would imply that Muslims as a stereotype are irresponsible. Now, I'm not going to get into that angle of the debate. Just trying to point out that...yes, you are right. India is not a Muslim state. However, that should NOT be the main reason for being considered a responsible nuclear state.

I hope that was clear.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, and I was not offended by the religious sentiments, if any. It was more of a national thing...

[Wordplay]

The big player here is USA and India is a pawn (sorry but this is a point of view, nothing disrespectful towards India)

They're both big players and I wouldn't exactly say "pawn." Rather: mutually beneficial contract with two big players to strenghten them even more in relation to other, weaker ones. Richer get richer, poorer get poorer. The usual power-play.

[ March 16, 2006, 13:29: Message edited by: Wordplay ]

[Shrikant]

The big thing about this deal is not the fuel. Yeah we are light on Uranium and Tarapore's two civilian reactors (the biggest in capacity iirc) are standing idle but India hasn't been looking at going Nuclear in a big manner because of the existing supply conditions.

The big fallout of relaxation of US and then IAEA rules will be in open access of dual use technology. Technology right from supercomputers and large datamining software (which may be use for predicting weather patterns or nuclear bomb effect) to nanotechnology (again with the possibility of being used anywhere from brain surgery to nucear warships) has been kept out of Indian hands due to the US laws with regard to non-NPT signatories.
Once the changes in US laws goes through, Indian companies will be able to import all these cutting edge technlogies giving a fillip to industries as varied as petrolium refineries to automobiles. This is what every one is looking at.

If India does not have access to nuclear energy, we will simply depend on coal and gas. Not only might this be eventually bad for the world ecology but the rising gas prices are definately bad for US economy right now. That is why Bush is pushing this through.

[Mithrantir]

This would imply that Muslims as a stereotype are irresponsible. Now, I'm not going to get into that angle of the debate. Just trying to point out that...yes, you are right. India is not a Muslim state. However, that should NOT be the main reason for being considered a responsible nuclear state.

First of all i would like to clarify that the stereotype of Muslims i have is not that of a terrorist. Irresponsibility is an issue that has to do with people not religions.

All i wanted to say is that the influence of a Zealot Muslim priest (Mullah) expressing angered words against the evil West will be far less than in Pakistan. The psycology of the masses if you get my meaning .

I was partly (if someone looks at the figures) wrong about the pawn remark i made for India. The truth is that India is the second biggest country in population and economy growth. That means that is a very powerfull ally. Especially for USA, since India is right next to China (a country which is considered as a threat by the Foreign office).

If India does not have access to nuclear energy, we will simply depend on coal and gas. Not only might this be eventually bad for the world ecology but the rising gas prices are definately bad for US economy right now. That is why Bush is pushing this through.

I don't know for sure, but i think India is a little bit stressed over the energy resources. Which means that te economical growth India experiences could hold back due to the lack of energy, and the constantly increasing cost of gas.

But by USAs move to give Indias nuclear fuel (Plutonium, Uranium), makes India also a hostage to USA. Since if at some point the energy output of the nuclear plants is so critical to have, then India will find it hard to resist any demand US may make (not an outrageous one but sometimes even a vote at the security counsil can be painfull).

This is only a personal opinion of course. I surely can't imagine the plans that have been made behind this move.

As for the ecology issue i am sure that US did not proposed this deal for ecology reasons. After all the US administration has rejected the Kyoto agreement too many times, in order to give us a clear picture of what the goverment thinks about ecology and the future of this planet.

As for gas and coal. Well these two resources are expentable. They are diminishing and at the not so distant future, human civilization will have to find alternative sources of energy. Furthermore US now has Iraqs oil too under control so it has only a small concern about the prices, and don't forget the fact that US is among the biggest oil producers. They just don't sell.

[AMaster]

Tangent: the Economist's March 11th cover about the nuke deal was, bar none, the best magazine cover I've yet seen.

Behold the glory that is the March 11th issue.