Bush's Nukes Deal with India: Another example of weakness on security?

[BurtWorm]

It's difficult to see how this deal is consistent with US policy toward Iran. How is Pakistan, for that matter, going to react to this?



http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/03/international/asia/03prexy.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

Bush and India Reach Pact That Allows Nuclear Sales
By ELISABETH BUMILLER and SOMINI SENGUPTA

NEW DELHI, March 2 — President Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India announced here on Thursday what Mr. Bush called a "historic" nuclear pact that would help India satisfy its enormous civilian energy needs while allowing it to continue to develop nuclear weapons.

Under the agreement, the United States would end a decades-long moratorium on sales of nuclear fuel and reactor components and India would separate its civilian and military nuclear programs, and open the civilian facilities to international inspections. The pact fills in the broad outlines of a plan that was negotiated in July.

In Washington, Democratic and Republican critics said that India's willingness to subject some of its nuclear program to inspections was meaningless so long as the country had a secret military nuclear program alongside it, and that the pact would only encourage rogue nations like North Korea and Iran to continue to pursue nuclear weapons. They predicted a bruising fight in Congress over the pact, which needs its approval.

At the same time, Mr. Bush said he was going forward with a trip on Friday night to the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, to meet with the country's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, despite a bombing Thursday morning outside a Marriott Hotel and the United States Consulate in Karachi. The bombing, a suspected suicide attack, left four dead, including an American Embassy employee....

[gatorboy]

1. Oh, Pakistan is gonna LOVE that!

Thanks for the mushrooms clouds, Georgie. :scared:

[BurtWorm]

2. China will probably love it, too.

:wtf:

[jpak]

3. The whole thing is a scam that only benefits Bush Cronies, US arms dealers

and the Indian nucular program...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/03/politics/03nuke.html?hp&ex=1141448400&en=d42eda04f813734e&ei=5094&partner=homepage

<snip>

The Defense Department issued an unusually explicit statement hailing the deal for opening a path for more American-Indian military cooperation.

"Where only a few years ago, no one would have talked about the prospects for a major U.S.-India defense deal, today the prospects are promising, whether in the realm of combat aircraft, helicopters, maritime patrol aircraft or naval vessels," the Defense Department statement said.

<snip>

India, the negotiators agreed, will be able not only to retain its nuclear arms program but to keep a third of its reactors under military control, outside international inspection, including two so-called fast-breeder reactors that could produce fuel for weapons.

The accord would also allow India to build future breeder reactors and keep them outside international inspections. A fast-breeder reactor takes spent nuclear fuel and processes it for reuse as fuel or weapons. American officials negotiating with India over the last several months failed to get India to put its current and future breeder reactors under civilian control. But the accord would allow India to buy equipment and materials for only those new reactors that are to be used for civilian purposes.

<snip>

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/34/12907/printer

Washington - Just over an hour after the White House's surprise pledge to help India develop its civilian nuclear power sector, the head of General Electric, the American company that could benefit most from the policy change, sat down for a celebratory dinner.

The host was President George W. Bush; a few feet away was India's prime minister, Manmohan Singh, and his top aides. GE Chief Executive Jeff Immelt, a contributor to Bush's presidential campaigns, had a coveted seat at the president's table.

 Bush's announcement on nuclear trade with India - followed by a formal dinner in the State dining room - was not just a victory for Singh. For GE, the only US-owned company still in the nuclear business, it marked a possible turning point in a years-long push to re-enter the Indian nuclear power market, which it was forced to leave in 1974 when India conducted its first nuclear test.

"In the short term, it's really business as usual. ... But if things unfold the way it looks they may, then clearly it is a significant opportunity for us," said Peter Wells, general manager of marketing for GE Energy's nuclear business.

<more>

[BurtWorm]

4. Looking out for corporate interests in Iraq really did wonders

for security, didn't it. I wonder what unintended consequences the Bushists have unwittingly cooked up for us now.

[Krist]

5. Looking for some sense/intelligence around here..

Am I the only one to see these things -

--> India's FBR (Fast Breeder Reactor) program has been developed indigenously and is THORIUM based, not URANIUM. It can carry out that program irrespective of the NPT clause - which prohibits supply of nuclear fuel to non-signatory nations. So, why do you think they'll even consider having the FBR under international civilian inspections ? Logically, they have the leverage on that matter.

---> France has already signed a similar agreement with India just a week before Dubya went there. And UK too would follow sooner or later. Australia, the world's largest supplier of uranium and which controls 40% of the market, might pitch in too, if this deal materializes.

---> US has a similar agreement with China, inspite of its shaky non-proliferation record. It has openly built numerous nuclear plants in Pakistan afterall, all the while claiming they are for civilian purposes only. Dont think India has ever proliferated nuclear technology to any country.

---> Its also the world's largest democracy, where you find anti/pro western people in large numbers. There are some morons who give out death threats against Teenage girls for wearing skirts on one hand, and on the other there are even liberals who push for legalizing gay marriages. Its a messy, complex country but its also one of the few democracies in that region

---> Bush, however whacked up on many fronts he may be, got this one quite right. It serves American interests to have the world's largest democracy on its side rather than befriend China and form a strong anti-American axis in Asia.

No wonder even John Kerry supported this deal..

[BurtWorm]

6. I noticed that Chirac applauded the agreement.

I don't really know enough about the issue. I'm almost inclined to believe that if any country is "permitted" to have nuclear weapons, there's no good reason to deny any country from having them if they want them. But this is complicated by the bi-polar nature of most regions where countries want nukes--i.e., where one country wants nukes, there's usually another country that wants them to defend against it. In India's case, there's China and Pakistan. Some critics of this deal are worrying that it could set off a regional arms race. If so, is that good or bad for security? I really don't know the asnwer to the question. I only know that the last time a nuclear confrontation almost occurred in the world, India was one of the players. And it wasn't that long ago.

[Krist]

7. Complex situations

Yes, this is a complex foreign policy issue and we need to constantly read more about these things before forming opinions.

---> Arms race in that part of the world will exist regardless of this civilian nukes issue. If you just look how rapidly India, Pakistan and China are modernizing their armed forces in the past decade, you might be surprised. Countries with such low per capita income are investing billions of dollars preparing for every eventuality. If you look at their arsenal, its quite easy to conclude that China is preparing VERY SERIOUSLY for military parity with US in the next 50 years. Looking at the way their economy is growing, it is definitely possible and it will immediately end up threatening Taiwan, Japan and South Korea.


---> From a pragmatic perspective, nukes in the hands of Indians are not a major problem. India has never been much anti-western or anti-American, but for their struggle against Britishers. They only want nukes to protect themselves from Chinese and Pakistanis, both of whom are actively colluding with each other in exchanging nuclear supply. And they have not proliferated nukes yet either like the Chinese and Pakistanis have.

---> We could continue to isolate India and refuse nuclear fuel supply, all the while permitting the Chinese, who are qualified under NPT to buy nuclear fuel, which will be gladly supplied by our own major profit-minded corporations. Which could be a serious security risk in the next few decades. By doing business with India at the same time, it might hand over some sort of even-handed approach to that situation.

--> Countries that donot proliferate nuclear technology would be rewarded by the entire world - that is the point that US, UK, France and Al-Baradei of IAEA are trying to get across. I think the entire western world was behind this decision to resume nuclear business ties with India, and Bush is merely walking away with the credit.

[liberalpragmatist]

9. So what do you propose to do?

Full disclosure: I am Indian-American

Fact is, India is keeping their nuclear weapons. You're not going to get India to disarm. Whether India SHOULD have produced nuclear weapons is another question - it may not have been a very positive step. Although OTOH, it's possible that Mutually-Assured Destruction worked in India and Pakistan last time around; the countries came close to war both in '99 and '02 and ultimately stepped back from the brink largely because of fears that a conflict would escalate into a nuclear one. I'm not sure it would have worked out the same way were their forces entirely conventional.

Point is, however, that India is the world's second-most populous country, is surrounded by hostile or at least suspicious neighbors and India sees a double-standard. Why should Britain, France, China, the US, and Russia have nuclear weapons and why should India be prevented from the same rights? Essentially, for the Indians they see this as an issue of hypocrisy. And if the US and the other major powers have nukes, by what standard are you going to deny India the right to have nukes?

And since India ISN'T going to disarm, what should be done? Are we just going to isolate them? Or are we going to co-opt them and treat them as a partner?

Granted, there are aspects of the deal that may be wrong-footed. But I think that if the US and the rest of the world sets the standards fo nuclear weapons such that a new nuclear power should be (a) stable, (b) democratic (doesn't apply in China or Russia's case though), (c) non-proliferation, we wouldn't be acting hypocritically in regards to Iran and North Korea, neither of which match those criteria.

[jpak]

8. John Kerry did NOT support this deal

and the Thorium FBR's will breed plutonium for bombs...

'N-Deal will help launch thorium reactors'

http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=63418

<snip>

The basic reason why thorium is ignored world over is that it has to be externally fed with some man-made fissile material like plutonium to get ignited and start producing power, he said.

According to the designer, if India on its own, wanted to accumulate sufficient plutonium for its fast breeder programme and the thorium reactor research, it has to wait for at least 30 years.

"On the other hand, the Indo-US deal provides India a window of opportunity to get the plutonium and build thorium reactors today", he said.

There is at least 3000 tons of plutonium waiting to be reprocessed from spent fuel discharged globally from uranium-based reactors. For the first time after 30 years of freeze, the US is reconsidering plutonium use for energy generation and, together with Russia, is wanting to set up the GNEP (Global Nuclear Energy Partnership) for plutonium recovery. It has invited India to become a partner.

<snip>

India's FBR will remain with their nucular weapons - not civilian nucular - program...