Apocalypse Watch

A lot has been on about the Indo-US nuclear deal in the recent days. This has been written and re-written to death all over. However, my post revolves around the involvement of the Left in this deal.

The Left parties in India baffle me sometimes. For one, I was very glad when the Left won more seats in the parliament than anyone expec­ted. I believ­e the Left has some of the brightest politicians and policy makers among their ranks. To set the background, here are a few quick pointers to the nuclear deal.

• China carries out nuclear test in 1964, worried about the changing dominance in the world order, USA and USSR propose NPT. NPT (Non-proliferation Treaty) is signed in 1968 by USA, China, USSR, France and UK. This means that these 5 nations are allowed to keep nuclear weapons while everyone else must open all civil nuclear facilities to IAEA inspections and renounce nuclear weapons.

   

• India does not sign NPT and keeps its nuclear options open; conducts first nuclear test in 1974. USA cuts off nuclear fuel supply to Tarapur Atomic Power Plant, sets up NSG (Nuclear Suppliers Group) in 1975.

   

• Despite being part of the NSG, France and USSR continue suppling nuclear fuel to India. This stops during the Clinton administration due to changing dynamics within the NSG. USA and other countries like Japan keep denying nuclear and other technology to India as a part of this embargo. India becomes a nuclear outcast in the international community because of sanctions for the past three decades.

   

• France and Russia encourage USA to end the nuclear embargo towards India. It becomes imperative to end American sanctions if India's international nuclear isolation was to end.

   

• India makes a mistake (or so I think) of trying to get USA on board first. However, Dr Singh still manages to clinch what I think is a completely impossible deal to get from President Dubya. The new deal would end all nuclear embargoes on India; give us a chance to buy fuel and technologies from 45+ nations of the NSG.

   

• We would not even be required to sign the NPT or CTBT. India will be the only nuclear state (excluding Pakistan as it is still under nuclear embargo) to get all the benefits without signing these treaties. When China signed the 123 agreement (same as the agreement being offered to India), it was made to sign the NPT and was made to abide to various other conditions (including assurances that it will improve its human rights record). However, China gladly accepted the agreement without any fuss.

   

• Nuclear fuel is an absolute necessity for a growing economy like India. India just does not have enough natural resources to be self sufficient as far as nuclear fuel does.­

  Why did US offer such a good deal? Probably to offset China’s growing influence in the region. Sino-Indian competition is, of course, economic. India lacks substantial energy resources, and its continuing development will require massive energy use: power for new infrastructure, rural electrification for the poor and automotive fuel and air conditioning for the burgeoning middle class. The United States sees its transfer of uranium fuel and nuclear technology to India as, in part, an investment in a democratic alternative to Chinese economic hegemony in Asia.

  Does it affect India’s sovereignty? To quote from MEAs website:

  ­"The civilian facilities listed out in the Indo-US accord will be placed under the IAEA safeguards. These include not only the present and future imported nuclear reactors, material and technology, but also 14 of the 22 Indian built (some under construction) civilian reactors, future civilian fast-breeder reactors (other than the fast-breeder test reactor and the upcoming 500 MWe prototype fast-breeder reactor), designated heavy water plants, part of the nuclear fuel complex and civilian R&D complexes like the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, the Variable Energy Cyclotron Centre, the Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics and the Institute of Plasma Research, and the Prefree Tarapur Reprocessing Plant.­The nuclear military facilities will not be under the IAEA purview and will be entirely for India to operate. It is for India to name its military and civilian facilities. The facilities that India names as military — BARC, Kalpakkam’s IGCAR, FBTR and the upcoming 500 MW prototype Fast Breeder Reactor, the supporting infrastructure and reprocessing plants — will determine India’s strategic program out of the IAEA safeguards purview. India is also free to build any fresh military facility to keep its nuclear deterrent in vibrant condition. The shape of the Indian nuclear deterrent is for the Indian government to comprehend and decide — based on its threat perception and global overview."­

  The biggest opposition of the deal has come from China and Pakistan. There is a lot of opposition in the US congress as well as this will mean drafting a special version IAEA rules just for India (the current rules don’t exactly apply to us due to us getting special consideration). Chances are the democrats won’t be as lenient as the Republicans have been. Quoting from the Harvard International Review:

  “US President George W. Bush has rec­ently signed a key nuclear energy deal with the Indian government. US Representative Edward Mackey (D-Massachusetts) has stated that this deal had "blown a hole in the nuclear rules that the entire world has been playing by." The basic spirit of the international non-proliferation treaty regime is that the great powers keep their nuclear weapons to themselves and provide other states’ civilians with nuclear technology in exchange for their refusal to produce nuclear weapons. The recent deal between the United States and India provides US nuclear technology to India to meet its energy needs, but does not subject India to the requirements of disarmament that the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) imposes upon other states. It will be able to continue enriching nuclear fuel for military purposes. Representative Mackey is correct: the deal undermines the world’s present set of nuclear rules.”

  Personally, I’d rather see the Democrats win but it is impervious that we push the deal through the US Congress while the Republicans are still around. This opportunity is too good to lose.

  The stumbling block is the Indian parliament. The deal must be approved in the Indian parliament first. BJP on its part was bound to play the opposition and have asked for a debate and a vote on the issue in the parliament. This is a sound move and the debate should just prove the point in favor of the deal.

  The opposition of the Communists has more to do with their ideology. After having opposed India acquiring nuclear weapons -- while supporting China's nuclear weapons program and remaining silent on Beijing's transfers of nuclear weapons designs and know how to Pakistan -- the Communist parties can hardly oppose an end to nuclear sanctions on the grounds that India's nuclear weapons capabilities are being adversely affected.

  • What are the reasons of the Left being opposed to the deal? Why wouldn’t they come out and tell us their reasons?
  • Why were they opposed to a debate on the issue in the parliament?
  • Why are they opposed to a vote on the issue in the parliament?
  • Will the really hold the government at ransom over this issue?
  • Can they just oppose the deal on the grounds that it was not a part of the common minimum program of the NDA?
  • What is the best way forward for Dr Singh?

    This is not about finger pointing, but I defiantly am looking for some answers as I am convinced this deal is an absolute must for India. Any takers?

    PS: For brevity, I do not include references but am happy to provide them if anyone is interested.