India nuclear deal could trigger arms race: US lawmakers

[Neo]

What are those priveleges? IIRC the N5 enjoyed some under the LTBT which forbid atmospheric testing but under ground testing was tollerated but all came to an end when CTBT was adopted.

Please elaborate.

 

[Neo]

Actually I'm not exactly sure why this argument always boils down to nuclear arsenal when that isn't the real motivator here in the first place.

Let's be honest, this "deal" is being offered to India now only because there are massive potential economic gains for the west, particularly the USA. If India hadn't been performing well economically for almost two decades no such offer would have ever surfaced. Similarly, India's first and foremost desire is energy, something their foreign policy has otherwise been unable procure effectively so far, resulting in a bottleneck for their burgeoning but otherwise burly industrial complex.
With a greater energy availability the Indian industries are bound to stupendously increase their productivity, further bolstering the rising middle class consumer culture... all of which of course will be a bonanza for the west.

This is one of the reason I find the the indignant displays over biased treatment by Pakistan propelling the "we want one too" demands vacuous. For a number of complex reasons, in the regards to stability and economic development, Pakistan and India haven't been alike, and the world at large is well aware of this. Subsequently this isn't an issue of treating a Muslim nation unfairly as it is making an investment for the maximum gains. Granted Pakistan's instability and proliferation records don't help the matter, but at the end of the day, breaching protocol and availing nuclear energy to Pakistan hasn't nearly as much economic benefit as it is for India at this point in time.

Good post Energon. But let me assure you that there's no "we want it too" policy, its another Indian invention to mark Pakistan as an India centric country which we're not!

A opportunity is unfolded here for us to address the world community about unfair treatment we're getting regardless our nuclear past and we'll make sure we're heard. It happens to be India, but if the deal was offered to Israel instead I'm sure we would have raised our concerns and demanded our rights.

No matter how big Indian economy is or how big your hunger for energy, Pakistan has needs of her own and they're no way related to India. France started building nuclear reactors soon after the first oil crisis in 1973 to reduce dependence on ME Oil and many other countries adapted same policy. Now with new oil crisis looming, one which will not settle for years to come we too are looking into all possibilities to increase our energy output in cheapest and cleanest way, nuclear energy is the answer to that. We'll get it, if not today then tomorrow but it doesn't end here and it doesn't have anything to do with India, she's not the center of our universe!

 

[Neo]

Nuclear suppliers propose terms for US-India deal​

VIENNA, Aug 21: Nuclear supplier nations on Thursday proposed conditions for lifting a global ban on fuel and technology exports to India, a step required to implement a US-India nuclear cooperation deal.

A green light from the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group is needed for the deal, which has drawn criticism because India has never joined the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), to proceed to the US Congress for final ratification.

Diplomats said up to 20 NSG states tabled conditions for India to do business with the cartel despite its repeated calls for a “clean, unconditional” exemption from rules barring trade with an NPT outsider that has tested nuclear bombs.

“There were proposals on practically every paragraph,” a European diplomat said, referring to a US waiver draft that some delegations and disarmament critics had said was too vague to ensure NPT principles would be safeguarded.

Diplomats said conditions included full-scope UN inspections of Indian nuclear sites, no more test explosions and periodic reviews of Indian compliance with the exemption, which would be the first in the NSG’s 33-year history.

An NSG waiver granting India access to nuclear fuel and technology markets would end an embargo imposed after it test-detonated a nuclear bomb in 1974 with Canadian technology imported ostensibly to develop peaceful atomic energy.

New Delhi is one of only three nations not to have signed the non-proliferation treaty. It conducted another nuclear test in 1998 but is now observing a voluntary moratorium.

Special US legislation enacted in 2006, known as the Hyde Act, established conditions for US nuclear commerce with India, including no more test explosions.

The Hyde Act by itself made it unlikely that the US waiver text under discussion at the two-day meeting would pass without amendments, diplomats said. A second meeting is expected in early September to decide the extent of conditions.

“Tomorrow we will try to narrow down the focus to how the text can be tightened up to satisfy all concerns. We (envisage) another meeting in early September,” said another EU diplomat.

“But it’s fair to say the issues raised follow closely in line with what is in the Hyde Act,” he told Reuters.

 

[ashfaque]

Good post Energon. But let me assure you that there's no "we want it too" policy, its another Indian invention to mark Pakistan as an India centric country which we're not!

I do not agree with you. Pakistan's Prime Minister has demanded same kind of deal in last visit to US and Nicholas Burns has rejected it. Any way I am now against why Pakistan has asked same deal.
I am not giving you link, because if you search google there are full of stories.

A opportunity is unfolded here for us to address the world community about unfair treatment we're getting regardless our nuclear past and we'll make sure we're heard.

I agree Pakistan has got opportunity and should pursue it. I do not know what do you mean by "nuclear past", if it means clean record, I am sorry no one is going to listen.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I do not agree with you. Pakistan's Prime Minister has demanded same kind of deal in last visit to US and Nicholas Burns has rejected it. Any way I am now against why Pakistan has asked same deal.
I am not giving you link, because if you search google there are full of stories.



I agree Pakistan has got opportunity and should pursue it. I do not know what do you mean by "nuclear past", if it means clean record, I am sorry no one is going to listen.

Ashfaque,

You contradict yourself in the second paragraph. As you admit, Pakistan sees an opportunity to pursue a nuclear deal for itself (leave alone for now whether it will be successful), this has less to do with 'me too' (as Neo pointed out, if Israel had been offered this deal, both India and Pakistan would be doing exactly what Pakistan is doing now) and everything to do with the world powers willing to make exceptions, and Pakistan trying to create an opening for its own needs to be addressed.

Now, I agree that a lot of groundwork went into the 123 agreement, so it would be unreasonable to expect concessions anytime soon, but the effort has to be initiated and that is what we are seeing Pakistan do currently.

On your last point, those are the double standards we are alluding to - there are hundreds of individuals and entities in the West who have proliferated, so why should Pakistan's 'past' be the only 'unforgivable' one?

Heck, if you just take the example of Pakistan's nuclear program,the Wests own arguments state that their own institutions and individuals were instrumental in helping complete it (Pakistanis would disagree, but this is to illustrate the West's perspective) , and violated almost every agreement, export control and safeguard in the process.

So while you are correct that the West may not agree with the argument that the past is the past, it is essential to point out the hypocrisy there. Call it real politik or whatever you want, it is double standards.

 

[Neo]

I do not agree with you. Pakistan's Prime Minister has demanded same kind of deal in last visit to US and Nicholas Burns has rejected it. Any way I am now against why Pakistan has asked same deal.
I am not giving you link, because if you search google there are full of stories.

Why are Indians so obsessed using "I (Pakistan)want it too" rhetoric? Does it make them bigger entity, more important, a super power?
Going by the same childish logic I can mention numbers of "I want it too" cases for India but its not worth wasting my time nor banwidth. Nuclear energy is the next logical step forward and India isn't the only country chasing this technology.
Accept it!

I agree Pakistan has got opportunity and should pursue it. I do not know what do you mean by "nuclear past", if it means clean record, I am sorry no one is going to listen.

I agree with AM here, no one has a clean past. US is the only country who's used nuclear bombs on civilians, passed nuclear technology to UK and Israel. India too proliferated by abusing CANDU reactor and even used AQ's network to smuggle technology.

Its all about realpolitik and double standards US is applying. Its a relief to see that atleast 20 NSG members have refused to buy the 123 draft and don't want to turn a blind eye to India until Hyde Act mechanism is included into the waiver.

 

[nitesh]

Hey guys any way deal is stuck up there seems like dead to me.

 

[fatman17]

Hey guys any way deal is stuck up there seems like dead to me.

india will have to "give" some to get the NSG suppliers group approval, blanket waiver seems to be off the table for now.

 

[nitesh]

india will have to "give" some to get the NSG suppliers group approval, blanket waiver seems to be off the table for now.

Well let's wait and watch for 4-5 september. Seems like the text will include what proposed by canada it should be something like this "there should be a review in case of India tests". Otherwise the deal is as good as dead.

 

[nitesh]

Guys one wild theory as swiss seems to be against the deal can some major defense purchases could be offered to those companies to pull them towards supporting India?

He he he

 

[Neo]

Guys one wild theory as swiss seems to be against the deal can some major defense purchases could be offered to those companies to pull them towards supporting India?

He he he

NSG counts 45 members, how many will you you bribe?

 

[Energon]

Good post Energon. But let me assure you that there's no "we want it too" policy, its another Indian invention to mark Pakistan as an India centric country which we're not!

I'll have to respectfully disagree with you Neo. Pakistani diplomats for a while have been clamoring for the same deal only for the US to refuse it. This issue was heavily pushed by Musharraf on his 2006 visit. There are ample web links for these stories, so I won't start linking them. Also, your own words on another thread show that there is certainly a feeling of discontent.:

Why should Pak be so concerned about India getting fuel for nuclear reactors? surely the US (pakistan's ally) would have made sure the play ground is even for both.

A matter of principals, we want parity.

Now mind you I'm not trying to ridicule you or unnecessarily belittle Pakistan, but by default this problem is India centric. Even the foreign minister's recent comments indicated as much...

Pakistan wants a nuclear deal with the United States, like the one Bush administration has signed up with New Delhi. If justification for the deal, which grossly violates the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, is to supplement India's energy requirements, Pakistan too "is energy deficient as India and we are as responsible a nuclear power as India", said Foreign Minister Shah Mehmud Qureshi in London last week

I don't think Pakistan's is India centric approach here should come as a shock by any means. I do however think that the matter should be discussed within its true scope: economic reasons instead of digressing on the tangent of nuclear weapons.

A opportunity is unfolded here for us to address the world community about unfair treatment we're getting regardless our nuclear past and we'll make sure we're heard. It happens to be India, but if the deal was offered to Israel instead I'm sure we would have raised our concerns and demanded our rights.

The problem would nonetheless remain the same. Israel and Pakistan are two very different countries with differing capacities and contributory roles in the global economy. Granted Israel is far too much of a hot button issue for anything like this to go down in the open, but one must also credit Israel for being a highly impressive industrialized society with a stable system of governance who makes a significant contribution to the global economy despite its minute size. Pakistan cannot be categorized alongside Israel in this measure. However, if Pakistan were to invest the next few decades stabilizing itself and revamping its economy, I'm sure it'll be a different story.

No matter how big Indian economy is or how big your hunger for energy, Pakistan has needs of her own and they're no way related to India. France started building nuclear reactors soon after the first oil crisis in 1973 to reduce dependence on ME Oil and many other countries adapted same policy. Now with new oil crisis looming, one which will not settle for years to come we too are looking into all possibilities to increase our energy output in cheapest and cleanest way, nuclear energy is the answer to that. We'll get it, if not today then tomorrow but it doesn't end here and it doesn't have anything to do with India, she's not the center of our universe!

It is important to note that this issue has little or nothing to do with India's empirical need for energy per se but rather what the western dominated global economy has to gain from India having its energy crisis partially resolved. The overpopulated nation has been energy deficient ever since its creation, and the west has been largely aware of this situation. The difference now is the potential economic benefits for the west attached to investing in India who have made themselves very attractive through decades of progress (an admirable achievement).

At the end of the day all of this boils down to two things

• More powerful states making an investment into a particular developing nation primarily for their own interest.
• A particular developing nation reaping the benefits for making sound policy and progressing steadily over a significant period.

This is by no means a "fair" system, but it does work well in the current period of time by giving developing nations incentives to become more progressive. Again, if Pakistan were to do the same over the next couple of decades, I don't think anyone would be complaining.

 

[Neo]

New Nuclear Arms Race in South Asia Nuclear Armageddon by India and US​

The Indian-U.S. nuclear deal risks triggering a new arms race in Asia: Pakistan will seek nuclear parity with India, and China will fume at a U.S. ploy to balance Beijing’s rise.

While everyone has been abuzz about Georgia, the Beijing Olympics and Sarah Palin, perhaps the most important development in the world has been unfolding with almost no attention.

India and the United States, along with deep-pocketed corporations, have been steadily pushing along a lucrative and dangerous new nuclear pact, the U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Agreement. Both governments have been working at a fever pitch to get the pact approved by the 45-country Nuclear Suppliers Group, which governs the world’s trade in nuclear materials, and before Congress for a final vote before it adjourns this month.

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh says the deal will let his country, which refuses to sign either the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) or the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, take “its rightful place among the comity of nations.”

I understand why today’s democratic, globalized and modernizing India wants recognition and respect, and I agree that it needs more energy. But this foolish, risky deal is not the way to get any of these things. India’s democracy has already paid a crippling price, and now the planet may too.

The historic deal will allow U.S. nuclear companies to again do business in India, something that has been barred since 1974, when New Delhi tested its first atomic bomb. (India tested nuclear bombs again in 1998, spurring Pakistan to follow suit with its own tests days later.)

The pact will also lift restrictions on other countries’ sales of nuclear technology and fuel to India while asking virtually nothing from India in return. All that will undermine the very international system that India so ardently seeks to join.

The deal risks triggering a new arms race in Asia: A miffed and unstable Pakistan will seek nuclear parity with India, and China will fume at a transparent U.S. ploy to balance Beijing’s rise by building up India as a counterweight next door. The pact will gut global efforts to contain the spread of nuclear materials and encourage other countries to flout the NPT that India is now being rewarded for failing to sign.

The U.S.-India deal will divert billions of dollars away from India’s real development needs in agriculture, education, health care, housing, sanitation and roads. It will also distract India from developing clean energy sources and reducing emissions from its many coal plants. Instead, the pact will focus the nation’s efforts on an energy source that will, under the rosiest of projections, contribute a mere eight percent of India’s total energy needs — and won’t do even that until 2030.

So what will the deal accomplish? It will generate billions of dollars in lucrative contracts for the corporate members of the U.S.-India Business Council and the Confederation of Indian Industry.

The Bush administration hopes that it will help resuscitate the moribund U.S. nuclear power industry and expand the use of this “nonpolluting” source of energy, a pillar of the Bush team’s energy policy. The deal will let the real leaders of the global nuclear power business — France and Russia, both of which eagerly support the deal — reap huge profits in India.

And the pact will provide spectacularly profitable opportunities to India’s leading corporations, which are slavering for their share of the booty. How much? The Washington Post estimates more than $100 billion in business over the next 20 years, plus perhaps tens of thousands of jobs in India and the United States.

This is what the U.S.-India nuclear deal is really all about. This is what the nonproliferation regime that has kept the world safe from nuclear Armageddon for decades is being risked for: Cash.

The version of the deal the Bush administration put before the Nuclear Suppliers Group went further than ever, giving India a “clean” waiver of the usual responsibilities of a nuclear power. In other words, India gets unfettered access to nuclear fuel and technology, and it doesn’t have to do anything in return.

It doesn’t have to do what Iraq did last month and sign the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which has now been signed by 179 nations. It doesn’t have to open all its reactors to inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency, meaning that both the new technologies India will now be able to acquire and the fuel it now has on hand can be plowed into its nuclear weapons program.

Scandalously, the Bush administration asked the Nuclear Suppliers Group to bless a proposal that excludes the modest provisions that Congress imposed on the deal in 2006. Why? Because the White House knows that anything short of the current “something-for-nothing” version risks finishing off the Indian government, already weakened by its support for a pact that faces fierce resistance back home.

Singh and his ruling Congress party pulled out all the stops to get a skeptical Parliament to approve the deal. These corrosive effects on India’s democracy will be felt for years. India’s complicated coalition politics will become even more chaotic.

More ominously, the deal will tell other would-be nuclear powers — and nuclear rogues — that the old barriers to nonproliferation need not be taken seriously. Other, less high-minded powers will surely follow the short-sighted example being set by Delhi and Washington. Russia has emphatically signaled that it has had enough of global norms that it considers unfair and is keen to return to old-fashioned realpolitik.

India’s nemesis and neighbor Pakistan is outraged that India has been offered a deal it won’t get. China cannot help noticing that the United States has engaged in bizarre doublespeak over what it expects of rising Asian powers.

The nuclear deal will not magically transform India into China’s economic or military equal. A shocking 42 percent of Indians live below the World Bank’s new poverty threshold of $1.25 per day. Even if India managed to match China reactor for reactor and missile for missile, Delhi could do so only at the expense of precisely the investments in human and physical infrastructure that could make India into a truly great power, prosperous and secure. This is the real tragedy of the U.S.-India nuclear deal. It’s not too late to stop it.

 

[Flintlock]

The nuclear deal will not magically transform India into China’s economic or military equal. A shocking 42 percent of Indians live below the World Bank’s new poverty threshold of $1.25 per day. Even if India managed to match China reactor for reactor and missile for missile, Delhi could do so only at the expense of precisely the investments in human and physical infrastructure that could make India into a truly great power, prosperous and secure. This is the real tragedy of the U.S.-India nuclear deal. It’s not too late to stop it.

Match China "reactor for reactor"? "Magically transform India into China's equal"?

Why should the nuke deal do any of that?

And what's all that about Nuclear Armageddon?