Indo-Us Nuke Deal
The Indo-US Nuclear Deal
The 123-agreement and the Hyde Act have been agitating the minds of the people like us for quite some time. One thing, the Government of India went on with the deal without letting the public know what was brewing. It was only through newspaper articles that we have come to understand a few facts about the “deal”. As far as I can gather, it is a pure business deal for the US, without any generous, munificent intention as was the case with PL480 which some people are bringing up to showcase the magnanimous attitude of the USA towards India.
Out of many articles, I refer to two recent write-ups in The Statesman of September 16 and 17 (go to site below) http://www.thestatesman.net/page.archive.php?usrsess=1645174461507&date=2007-09-16
The first is entitled “The Nuke Deal” in two parts (16 and 17 Sep) by Muchkund Dubey, a former Foreign Secretary of India and the other “Why the Nuclear Deal is opposed” (16 Sep) by Gurudas Dasguota, a CPI MP. The first supports the “deal” and the second opposes it.
The two-part article “The Nuke Deal” (16 & 17 Sep) by Muchkund Dubey supports the Indo-Us Nuclear Deal on the ground that it will increase Indo-Us military cooperation but does not specify what our gains will be in the matter of energy production or how it will affect our economy. He says “For one thing, the implementation of the 123-Agreement will give a fillip to military cooperation”. He also says: “Unfortunately the Left parties have taken a very negative view of the recent improvements in the Indo-US relations. The concern seems to arise from the basic anti-American attitude rather than being based on a careful calculation of where our national interest lies.”
. . The leftist bloc may be opposing the deal from a political, anti-American standpoint, but it is also true that the rest of the political parties, particularly the Congress are behaving like a bull in the arena with the eyes focused on the (communist) red flag. That there are some positive points in the leftists’ negative stand has been clearly brought out in the article of Gurudas Dasgupta “Why the nuclear deal is opposed” (Perspective:16 Sep).(Same issue as Dubey’s). Firstly he points out that the present Indo-US Nuke-deal will be worth only seven percent of India’s total power generation. He has also shown by facts and figures that economically it will be devastating for India. I quote him: “Apart from political implications the deal must appear to be economically justified. Nuclear power generation with imported reactors will be of high cost loaded with high debt burden. The massive investment that is needed is unlikely to be sustainable, may even starve the different sectors of the economy…..It is estimated that Rs. 2 lakh crores is needed for the purchase of the reactors and Rs. 8 lakh crores for the downstream industry. It is highly improbable that the economy will be able to bear such heavy burden of repayment…..If we accept the government’s figures, the imported reactors will be able to produce an additional 13000 MW power…..A country having a budget of not more than 6.5 lakh crores cannot afford to incur a debt of nearly Rs. 10 lakh crores for the manufacture of only 13000 MW when the total generation in 2020 is likely to be 1.5 lakh (150000) MW…. For only 7 per cent of the total generation should we invest so heavily?”
(1 lakh= 100000; 1 lakh crore = 1 million million)
What he has not written is that it will be a much-needed boost for the US-economy after its misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan – because not only of the import of expensive light-water (normal-water) reactors, but also of future import of fuel and components by India from the US..
Again, though India will not be supplied with nuclear reactors or fuel for military purpose, yet it will be subject to inspections by the IAEA who may impose new restrictions on our defence-production – is being done to Iran and North Korea, and Iraq in the past. An interesting question here is “does the IAEA inspect the nuclear installations of US, UK or France? And impose restrictions?” Not by any stretch of imagination. Jeremy Seabrooke laments: “the US, the only power ever to have used nuclear weapons is now the arbiter of who may and who may not possess them”
Now, why does the Government of India, in spite of the negative points, want to go for the import of expensive light-water reactors, thus tying itself to the USA for future supply of fuel and components, in spite of the fact that it will hurt the Indian economy grievously? The answer is that our government has been gullible in the past when it was duped into buying a second-hand warship for a whooping $50 million, as it is being naive now in believing that the present nuclear deal with the US will bring a renaissance to India, as also it is being tricked into “lending” its much-valued Foreign Exchange Reserve to unscrupulous parties.
I think, The ‘deal” is just another way of getting round the refusal of India to sign the Nuclear non-proliferation Treaty and roping India in finally to the same predicament by another route..
Comments welcome
The 123-agreement and the Hyde Act have been agitating the minds of the people like us for quite some time. One thing, the Government of India went on with the deal without letting the public know what was brewing. It was only through newspaper articles that we have come to understand a few facts about the “deal”. As far as I can gather, it is a pure business deal for the US, without any generous, munificent intention as was the case with PL480 which some people are bringing up to showcase the magnanimous attitude of the USA towards India.
Out of many articles, I refer to two recent write-ups in The Statesman of September 16 and 17 (go to site below) http://www.thestatesman.net/page.archive.php?usrsess=1645174461507&date=2007-09-16
The first is entitled “The Nuke Deal” in two parts (16 and 17 Sep) by Muchkund Dubey, a former Foreign Secretary of India and the other “Why the Nuclear Deal is opposed” (16 Sep) by Gurudas Dasguota, a CPI MP. The first supports the “deal” and the second opposes it.
The two-part article “The Nuke Deal” (16 & 17 Sep) by Muchkund Dubey supports the Indo-Us Nuclear Deal on the ground that it will increase Indo-Us military cooperation but does not specify what our gains will be in the matter of energy production or how it will affect our economy. He says “For one thing, the implementation of the 123-Agreement will give a fillip to military cooperation”. He also says: “Unfortunately the Left parties have taken a very negative view of the recent improvements in the Indo-US relations. The concern seems to arise from the basic anti-American attitude rather than being based on a careful calculation of where our national interest lies.”
. . The leftist bloc may be opposing the deal from a political, anti-American standpoint, but it is also true that the rest of the political parties, particularly the Congress are behaving like a bull in the arena with the eyes focused on the (communist) red flag. That there are some positive points in the leftists’ negative stand has been clearly brought out in the article of Gurudas Dasgupta “Why the nuclear deal is opposed” (Perspective:16 Sep).(Same issue as Dubey’s). Firstly he points out that the present Indo-US Nuke-deal will be worth only seven percent of India’s total power generation. He has also shown by facts and figures that economically it will be devastating for India. I quote him: “Apart from political implications the deal must appear to be economically justified. Nuclear power generation with imported reactors will be of high cost loaded with high debt burden. The massive investment that is needed is unlikely to be sustainable, may even starve the different sectors of the economy…..It is estimated that Rs. 2 lakh crores is needed for the purchase of the reactors and Rs. 8 lakh crores for the downstream industry. It is highly improbable that the economy will be able to bear such heavy burden of repayment…..If we accept the government’s figures, the imported reactors will be able to produce an additional 13000 MW power…..A country having a budget of not more than 6.5 lakh crores cannot afford to incur a debt of nearly Rs. 10 lakh crores for the manufacture of only 13000 MW when the total generation in 2020 is likely to be 1.5 lakh (150000) MW…. For only 7 per cent of the total generation should we invest so heavily?”
(1 lakh= 100000; 1 lakh crore = 1 million million)
What he has not written is that it will be a much-needed boost for the US-economy after its misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan – because not only of the import of expensive light-water (normal-water) reactors, but also of future import of fuel and components by India from the US..
Again, though India will not be supplied with nuclear reactors or fuel for military purpose, yet it will be subject to inspections by the IAEA who may impose new restrictions on our defence-production – is being done to Iran and North Korea, and Iraq in the past. An interesting question here is “does the IAEA inspect the nuclear installations of US, UK or France? And impose restrictions?” Not by any stretch of imagination. Jeremy Seabrooke laments: “the US, the only power ever to have used nuclear weapons is now the arbiter of who may and who may not possess them”
Now, why does the Government of India, in spite of the negative points, want to go for the import of expensive light-water reactors, thus tying itself to the USA for future supply of fuel and components, in spite of the fact that it will hurt the Indian economy grievously? The answer is that our government has been gullible in the past when it was duped into buying a second-hand warship for a whooping $50 million, as it is being naive now in believing that the present nuclear deal with the US will bring a renaissance to India, as also it is being tricked into “lending” its much-valued Foreign Exchange Reserve to unscrupulous parties.
I think, The ‘deal” is just another way of getting round the refusal of India to sign the Nuclear non-proliferation Treaty and roping India in finally to the same predicament by another route..
Comments welcome
posted by SENsible at 12:19 pm
1 Comments:
First of all the nuclear agreement does not require India to acquire nuclear reactors from the US. India has the nuclear technology -- in fact the nuclear reactor near Chennai has a technology (a variant of the fast breeder) that minimizes nuclear waste. So the whole getting into debt argument is moot. What the agreement does do is allow India to get nuclear fuel -- from the likes of Canada and Australia and not the US (the US does not export much nuclear fuel). In fact regulation of the power sector in the US has crippled the development of nuclear technology in that area. India may indeed be able to export technology to the US. At any rate India needs clean power to create jobs -- nuclear power is critical for India's future growth. India has the nuclear technology but it needs the fuel. This deal allows nuclear fuel exporting countries to do so under their international treaty obligations.
As for signing the NPT -- one reason for the US's readiness to offer this deal is the de facto non-proliferation that India has practiced. India has followed the spirit of the treaty without signing it. The deal thus allows India to have the flexibility to import nuclear fuel without changing her behavior. So the point about the NPT is moot.
As for the Hyde Act -- yes it would apply to India if India did test a weapon. But the sanctions in the Hyde Act refer to military and economic aid from the US of which India gets neither. So the implications of the Hyde Act for Indian commerce would be zero. It was limited even when it was applied during India's socialist (read poverty stricken) glory days. So the Hyde Act is a cipher.
What is left of the argument against the nuclear deal?
The nuclear deal is in India's strategic interest -- both in terms of economic growth and in terms of countering China (nobody in their right mind would think of using nuclear weapons against Pakistan since we have such overwhelming conventional superiority).
The left wing thrives on poverty and so wants to perpetuate it. The left wing thrives on a false internationalism that allies them with the Chinese communist party (They continued to support China even when members of my family were protecting India with their lives from Chinese aggression in 1962). It is time Indians stopped listening to the left wing traitors.
Post a Comment
<< Home