Indo-U.S. nuclear deal in jeopardy

Indo-U.S. nuclear deal in jeopardy

Toronto, ON, Canada, — The much-heralded Indo-U.S. nuclear deal, which was one of the few successes of former U.S. President George W. Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, is in danger of being shelved. U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration in the last three months has delivered one piece of bad news after another, from India’s point of view. The “change” promised by Obama last fall, prior to his election, is visible in U.S. policy toward South Asia. His lukewarm attitude toward India, and now his go-slow tactic on the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal, is disappointing. Obama needs to be reminded that India is not Pakistan and does not privately sell nuclear technology to rogue states. He needs to be reminded that India exited the Iranian gas pipeline deal as a price for the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal. Also, the building of nuclear power plants by India will be one less factor in the climate catastrophe that has been magnified by coal-based power plants. Obama has said nothing about India policy publicly; he has merely exchanged letters of goodwill with the Indian leader. His advisors, however, are busy upsetting the apple cart. First, a no-confidence move by a minor State Department official to withhold the commissioning of a GE engine for a finished Indian naval ship was a rude shock to India. Then, India’s Reliance Industries was threatened with the withdrawal of a US$900 million loan over its ties with Iran, which included selling gasoline from its refinery. Early this month, the Indian government conveyed its objections to a U.S. travel advisory against India, which warned of a terror threat in the country.On top of all this, Undersecretary of State William Burns visited India recently to try to cement growing India-U.S. relations, but carrying a letter from Obama that essentially asked India to unconditionally restart talks with Pakistan and forget about the Mumbai massacre. Restarting such talks would enable Pakistan to withdraw troops from its border with India and redeploy them in its troubled tribal region. A few days ago, at the behest of the U.S. administration, US$1.5 billion in annual aid for Pakistan was voted into law.

All of these acts in the last few months are illogical, designed to downgrade India-U.S. relations.As if this were not enough, Obama has been looking to the past and appointing a few anti-Indian diplomats who had been shown the door by Bush in 2001. One such appointment is of Robert Einhorn as advisor to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on nonproliferation matters. Einhorn is well known for his opposition to the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal. He spent 30 years with three U.S. administrations opposing India and putting together the infamous laws banning nuclear-related exports. None of these prevented Pakistan, North Korea or Iran from gaining access to nuclear technology, however.The appointment of Ellen Tauscher as undersecretary of arms control is also bad news for India. She is a well-known hardliner and opponent of the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal, but has been mostly ineffective in her nuclear technology control efforts.

These two appointments are a matter of grave concern to both India and the U.S. nuclear power hardware and technology industry. The deal could generate US$100 billion in business, which would benefit both sides. The Obama administration’s go-slow approach will be detrimental to both. Jointly, Tauscher and Einhorn could shelve the nuclear deal and reopen the subject of India signing the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, which was not the subject of discussion during lengthy negotiations.The U.S. Congress passed the India-specific bill, making India a full partner in nuclear commerce with the United States. The Indian Parliament did the same. Since both governments have ratified the treaty and agreed on 123 nuclear trade agreements there is no reason to reopen discussions on this.Concurrent with the passage of the nuclear commerce bill in the U.S. Congress, the Nuclear Suppliers Group granted India an exemption on the NPT issue – which applies to all 40 group member states. Even if the United States backs down on the deal, India can source uranium supplies from France, Russia or Kazakhstan and proceed with building nuclear power plants with French and Russian aid.

The thinking of Obama’s inner circle with regard to nuclear nonproliferation is not very clear. If the appointments of Tauscher and Einhorn are any indication, banning nuclear tests and capping production of nuclear fissile materials are their objectives. The NPT, signed in 1968, became effective in 1970 – making China exempt by default. It is reviewed every five years; the next review is due in 2010. The Bush administration had cold-shouldered any moves on the NPT, giving India the opportunity to sign the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal. Now the Obama administration is looking to resurrect the NPT, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty into a major non-proliferation regime. So the 2010 review conference will make or break the proponents of the nonproliferation lobby.The NPT in 1968 defined countries as nuclear weapons states and non-nuclear weapons states. But in the past 40 years much has changed. Three more states – India, Pakistan and North Korea – have tested nuclear weapons, threatening the monopoly of the nuclear weapons states that depend on those weapons for their security.

With the end of the Cold War, although the number of nuclear weapons has decreased, their quality, reliability and accuracy have improved. The 2010 conference will strive to stop the development of nuclear materials, which the current regime is unable to do. The purpose will be to strengthen the monopoly of the nuclear weapons states. Another issue that has not been dealt with effectively is the nuclear fuel cycle. There are no proliferation-proof fuel cycles. Not even the International Atomic Energy Agency can prevent the theft or misuse of nuclear materials. This is another issue the 2010 conference will address. As for the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal, India has already placed its few nuclear facilities under IAEA supervision. It is unlikely that India will give in to any additional demands by the old stalwarts of the anti-proliferation regime that have been brought into the Obama administration. If the deal falls through, U.S. participation in India’s nuclear power plant business will be sorely missed.The future of nuclear energy worldwide is bright, though it must be handled with care, especially the spent fuel. However, there are not many alternatives. The past 60 years have seen uncontrolled emissions of greenhouse gases, which must be curbed.

If the United States stands in the way of India in producing nuclear fuel for civilian purposes, then India can revert back to coal as its main source of energy, while building nuclear plants with French and Russian aid.