Indo-US nuclear deal and debate in India

Pakistan OBSERVER, Tue, Sep,11, 2007.

Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema
 

The debate initiated by the controversial Indo-US nuclear deal and subsequent 123 Agreement is reaching its crescendo both in the US as well as in the region and more specifically in India. One view is that the deal seems to have caused a major division among the Indians thinking public. The argument on both sides appears to be convincing. 

Critics of the deal stress that the deal is going to make India a heavily dependent country somewhat similar to what was pursued on armaments. It would increase India’s import dependency. Many in India stress that the energy security cannot be achieved on the basis of imported reactors and uncertain imported fuel. Since India has large reserves of thorium and once the technology of using thorium as a fuel for future reactors is mastered India could become completely self reliant in nuclear fuel. 

Second, India would be buying expensive reactors while it could easily invest that amount to commercially develop its own energy resources. The argument revolves around that the money could be far better utilized by investing in pursuit of the indigenous energy resources. Not only has it implied more and more explorations but also investing in procurement of cheaper energy within the region rather than importing expansive reactors from US. 

Third, the deal does not allow testing which implies that the nuclear program is effectively constrained and even 123 Agreement has given no reprieve in this regard. The US President is now required to annually certify to Congress that India is in full compliance with commitments and obligations. Fourth, the deal may not lead to a satisfactory level of energy security as the reactor and fuel import is world’s most regulated commerce.  Fifth, even with the deal India would still not be able to get enrichment, reprocessing and heavy water component. 

The promoters and advocates, of course, offer a different set of arguments in support of the deal. First, the deal allows India to become part of the US led non-proliferation system. In other words India is being recognized by the sole super power as one of the important actor of the operative international system. Besides, the deal allows India to secure much desired recognition of its status of a nuclear weapon state though indirectly. Although the Americans have repeatedly stated that they would not recognize India as a nuclear weapon state but when they ask you only to subject civilian nuclear establishments to IAEA control and leave the military related nuclear reactors, they have implicitly recognized you a nuclear weapon state. 

Third, India would be able to import nuclear reactors and fuel once the Americans begin to influence the members of NSG (Nuclear Suppliers Group). The regular supply of fuels would enable India to use the existing stockpiles for non-civilian uses though Americans insists that it would not happen. Fourth, many argue that once you have accepted strategic partnership with US, it is only a next logical step to sign a deal of this nature. By developing closer association with US not only India strengthens its position at the global level but it also gains access to latest nuclear technology. 

Fifth, on the issue of testing, the supporters argue that if India needs to conduct a test, it will have to come out of its unilaterally imposed moratorium. The choice is with India and the decision would depend upon Indian assessment of the situation.  They believe that India’s position on testing continues to remains somewhat unaltered. 

Apart from striking a death blow to operative NPT regime and changing its own laws in order to facilitate the deal, the American administration has provided ample encouragement to all the potential proliferators. The US does have any moral grounds to pressurize Iran which is a member of NPT while rewarding and recognizing a non-NPT member India as a nuclear weapons state indirectly. It amounts to rewarding a criminal friend who violated the NPT regime and injected proliferation in South Asia but opposing an unfriendly regime which may be member of NPT regime. This amounts to a practical manifestation of two different sets of rules for a friend and an unfriendly regime. 

The deal has also impacted upon Congress government whose Left partners are demonstrating their unhappiness over the deal. The previous Indian government of BJP is also opposing the deal. The former Foreign Minister even went to the extent of suggesting that deal; should be scrapped. He further stressed that the closing down of the Cirus reactor, the shifting of  Aspara reactor from BARC and the placing of 14 nuclear reactor under IAEA safeguards would limit India’s capacity to produce fissile material and would certainly affect India’s nuclear weapon program. “The placing of our fast breeder reactors under IAEA safeguards is bound to have an adverse impact on our three-stage nuclear programs and our R&D programs’, he wrote in an article. 

For the incumbent Prime Minister the deal with US is an extremely important step for India’s engagement with the world and its evolution as a power.  Undoubtedly the deal has enabled India to get closer to US and wield sufficient influence to have a desired impact on American policies especially the regional policies. He took a tough line on this issue and categorically stated that the deal is not renegotiable and if the alliance partners don’t want to support the government, they may go separate ways. 

For the last three years the Left has been supporting the Congress led coalition government from the outside. On many issues the Left has been able to influence government policies rather effectively but on this issue the incumbent Prime Minister Manmohan Singh who is more known for his patience and quiet diplomacy has take a firm stance. Many in India believe that the Left is merely bluffing and eventually they would come around to supporting the government. 

There is no doubt that deal has invoked some reactions among Indian thinking public but there is no major division. Many in Pakistan believe that eventually the deal is going to be operational soon as the cost-gain analysis is clearly in favor of the deal. Some consider that the current debate in India is genuine while the others regard it as a put up show to demonstrate how vibrant the Indian democracy is. Indeed there are few people in India who are not happy with the deal as it stands today but the majority of the people are either supportive or indifferent. It has not caused a major disruption or even substantive changes. The debate has merely reflected what is deemed to be very normal in a democratic set up. Given the views of the two leading parties in Indian parliament, divergence in views and interpretation is not very unusual.
 

The writer works for Islamabad Policy research Institute.