What are the implications of the US nuclear deal with India?

[Art]

Pact sends inspectors, U.S. expertise to India's nuclear programs

Friday, March 3, 2006; Posted: 11:29 a.m. EST (16:29 GMT)

NEW DELHI, India (CNN) -- The United States will send nuclear fuel and expertise to India under the terms of a pact reached on the last day of President Bush's visit to New Delhi.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/03/02/bush.india.visit/

Federal law prohibits the United States from sharing its nuclear technology with nations that have not signed the non-proliferation treaty or have tested weapons yet Bush has agreed a deal whereby the US will provide India with nuclear fuel and technical expertise despite India being a non-signatory and has tested nuclear weapons as recently as 1998.

In return it is hard to see what the gain is for the US

India will continue their military nuclear programs with only civilian reactors being subject to IAEA overview. Thus their current stock of eight military reactors including 2 fast breeders will continue to remain exempt from international scrutiny with India holding the right to designate any other reactors military (and thus secret) as they see fit.

This deal while it seems to be in total contradiction to the Bush administration's stance towards Iran, where they cite concern about nuclear proliferation as their justification for trying to prevent Iran gaining the ability to refine their own nuclear fuel, is in keeping with the ongoing double standards adopted in the world today as Germany and Japan amongst others have both been allowed to develop and continue with domestic enrichment programs despite their history of aggression.

What is the liklihood of congress scuppering this deal?

 

[Gokul43201]

This deal while it seems to be in total contradiction to the Bush administration's stance towards Iran, where they cite concern about nuclear proliferation as their justification for trying to prevent Iran gaining the ability to refine their own nuclear fuel...

Perhaps the contradiction falls away if you consider that they feel safe that in the case of Indian Nuclear Programs, since there is little cause for worry about proliferation ?

 

[Gokul43201]

In return it is hard to see what the gain is for the US

The obvious gain is the money. There are huge profits to be made if this deal comes through. The less obvious benefits are a strategic partnership and all the good stuff that comes out of global trade.

 

[Hurkyl]

Federal law prohibits the United States from sharing its nuclear technology with nations that have not signed the non-proliferation treaty or have tested weapons yet Bush has agreed a deal whereby the US will provide India with nuclear fuel and technical expertise despite India being a non-signatory and has tested nuclear weapons as recently as 1998.

This is confusing. Why mention this law if India has tested weapons, and thus the law doesn't apply?

 

[Anttech]

This is confusing. Why mention this law if India has tested weapons, and thus the law doesn't apply?

Why doesn't the law apply?

 

[Art]

This is confusing. Why mention this law if India has tested weapons, and thus the law doesn't apply?

I suggest you read it again. You appear to have misunderstood.

 

[Art]

Perhaps the contradiction falls away if you consider that they feel safe that in the case of Indian Nuclear Programs, since there is little cause for worry about proliferation ?

It will assist India in increasing it's nuclear arsenal. This is aiding proliferation.

 

[Amp1]

The law applies Hurkl, its just the Bushco has given India an exemption; this was discussed on the Mclauglin Group Sunday. Another country that has an exemption is Pakistan, which has sold its nuclear technology.

 

[Art]

The obvious gain is the money. There are huge profits to be made if this deal comes through. The less obvious benefits are a strategic partnership and all the good stuff that comes out of global trade.

The inference is if Iran bought it's nuclear knowhow from the US instead of Russia that would be okay then?

 

[SOS2008]

Consider the President’s recent itineraries and you will notice something interesting. He has recently been to Mongolia (first time for any president), and India (first time for him), Pakistan (first time for him). A heck of a coincidence for a guy who doesn’t travel much.

Anyone heard of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO)? You can learn more about it here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/int/sco.htm

Current members include Russia, China, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kazahkstan, Kyrgystan and Tajikistan. These member countries represent 1/4 of the world’s population. Two of the countries are nuclear powers. One is a major oil producer. Belonging to SCO allows small countries like Uzbekistan to align themselves with Russia AND China--a little country that was able to throw the U.S. out. You think given Uzbekistan’s strategic location we would leave willingly? You really believe the Bush administration chose to put “human rights” as a higher priority than a forward base in Central Asia as a launch pad for counterterrorism operations?

But wait…. there’s more: Iran, India, Pakistan and Mongolia are all petitioning for membership in the SCO. When that happens, you will have four nuclear powers representing 1/2 the world’s population!

Aside from being desperate for a perceived "win," that's why Bush just gave away the farm in India. Too bad he's wasted the years of his administration on wars of attrition and domestic goals to privatize Social Security and reform tort law instead of focusing on America's place in the global community.

These trips are a day late and a dollar short. Too bad incurious George sucks at relations with the rest of the world and at representing the American people. We can only hope it's not too late to recover after he is out of office.

 

[Grogs]

This deal has been bothering me, and (unfortunately) not getting enough press. It's not a done-deal yet though. The Senate still has to approve it to make it official. I haven't heard any Senators talking about it, which surprises me. It seems like an easy way to score some cheap polictical points off the President, which with Bush's low poll numbers is becoming increasingly popular as we head into the mid-terms.

On the practical side, I don't have any problem with the Indians expanding their nuclear power program. In fact, I think it's a great idea. It would be a nightmare trying to supply power to a country that size with fossil fuels. They'd be choking to death from the fumes and the supply of oil could probably never reach the level necessary.

Practical matters aside, I think the deal stinks. We complained about Iraq buying Yellowcake (even though they weren't), we complain about North Korea, and now we complain about Iran building a nuclear weapons program. Then we turn around and offer nuclear material and expertise to India, who hasn't signed the NPT. I think the only way this deal would be palatable to me would be if it required the Indian government to sign the NPT and accept strict monitoring by the IAEA to ensure none of the nuclear material was diverted to their weapons program. They'd refuse, of course, but we would be applying a more uniform, and less hypocritical standard.

 

[Astronuc]

The obvious gain is the money. There are huge profits to be made if this deal comes through. The less obvious benefits are a strategic partnership and all the good stuff that comes out of global trade.

The money may not be so big. With Toshiba (Japanese company) buying Westinghouse, that technology will most be now Japanese. Framatome owns what was once B&W, and they will be selling European technology anyway. That leaves GE - as the only indigenous US company, and they have partnerships with Toshiba and Hitachi.

As for the manufacturing of large components for nuclear plants. The US has lost most of that, particularly large forgings. Even for new nuclear plants in the US, the large components must come from outside!

Technologically, the US is rather anemic at the moment.

 

[loseyourname]

I don't the motive was profit in this one; it was just securing an important partnership with a country likely to be the world's largest in population pretty soon and a possible future superpower. They'll also fall under the supervision of the IAEA now.

This deal does violate US law, and Congress will have to change the applicable laws before it can officially go through. Isn't that the great thing about being the president? If you don't like the law, you just break it, and retroactively have it changed.

Anyway, they had a very long discussion of this on NPR's Talk of the Nation earlier today, and the rationale given by a congressman in favor, and the Indian ambassador to the US, was that India had self-imposed standards more stringent than those of the NPT and had no history of its technology leaking to other nations. Supposedly, this makes it an exception, whereas countries like Pakistan and North Korea are not.

 

[Hurkyl]

Federal law prohibits the United States from sharing its nuclear technology with nations that have not signed the non-proliferation treaty or have tested weapons yet Bush has agreed a deal whereby the US will provide India with nuclear fuel and technical expertise despite India being a non-signatory and has tested nuclear weapons as recently as 1998.

This quote seems to say that if either:
(1) The nation has signed the non-proliferation treaty
(2) The nation has previously tested weapons
Then the law does not apply. In other words, for the law to apply, both of these conditions must not be satisfied.

This is confusing.

I already said I found this quote confusing...

I suggest you read it again. You appear to have misunderstood.

The law applies Hurkl

So simply telling me that I'm confused, without any attempt at clarification, doesn't help matters any. :tongue:

 

[Cyrus]

But the law does apply,

Federal law prohibits the United States from sharing its nuclear technology with nations that have not signed the non-proliferation treaty or have tested weapons yet Bush has agreed a deal whereby the US will provide India with nuclear fuel and technical expertise despite India being a non-signatory and has tested nuclear weapons as recently as 1998.

They have tested weapons, and thus are in violation of sharing information.

 

[Grogs]

From http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11677308/site/newsweek/ article:

Both India and Pakistan have been subject to U.S. sanctions since the archrivals tested nuclear weapons in the late ' 90s. But under the terms of the U.S. deal, which was eight months in the making, India alone would be brought back from official outcast status. New Delhi agreed to subject 14 of its reactors to international inspection by 2014. But it reserves the right to produce unlimited fissile material, to keep its eight military reactors from any scrutiny and to build as many more as it wants. In return India will receive U.S. investment and equipment directed toward expanding its civilian nuclear program.

Not only have they tested nuclear weapons, they haven't signed the NPT, so they're 0-for-2 as far as the law is concerned.

They'll also fall under the supervision of the IAEA now.

Yes, in a 'when we feel like it' way. Under the agreement, their military reactors would be off-limits to the inspectors, they can produce as much fissile material as they feel like, and they can build as many new military reactors as they feel like.

 

[Cyrus]

Out of curiosity, do we have inspectors come in and tell us what to do with our nuclear materials?

 

[Gokul43201]

It will assist India in increasing it's nuclear arsenal. This is aiding proliferation.

The deal allows the US to provide technological support to civilian nuclear programs and is not hardly going to increase India's nuclear arsenal.

The inference is if Iran bought it's nuclear knowhow from the US instead of Russia that would be okay then?

No. Iran has a history of proliferation. India does not. There's a difference.

 

[loseyourname]

Yes, in a 'when we feel like it' way. Under the agreement, their military reactors would be off-limits to the inspectors, they can produce as much fissile material as they feel like, and they can build as many new military reactors as they feel like.

Their civilian reactors will be monitored. According to the ambassador, India has no plans to expand its military arsenal, but of course, what do you expect him to say?

 

[loseyourname]

Out of curiosity, do we have inspectors come in and tell us what to do with our nuclear materials?

The IAEA has jurisdiction over all NPT signatories, including the US. The only nuclear countries it does not have access to are North Korea, Pakistan, Israel, and India. If this deal goes through, India will be off the list.

They don't really tell anybody "what to do" with their nuclear materials, though. I think they have some purpose in maintaining safety standards, though I'm honestly not sure how that works. Their main purpose is to ensure that no fissile material from civilian reactors is diverted to military programs. That isn't really a concern in the US, as we have so many nukes already. I highly doubt that we'll ever increase the size of our arsenal, as there just isn't any reason to. We've already got enough to blow up the moon if we wanted to (okay, that might be a little hyperbolous).

 

[Gokul43201]

The IAEA has jurisdiction over all NPT signatories, including the US. The only nuclear countries it does not have access to are North Korea, Pakistan, Israel, and India. If this deal goes through, India will be off the list.

If I'm not mistaken, or unless things have changed recently, some of India's civilian reactors are open to IAEA access despite India being a non-signatory.

And further, I believe that India is the only country - not the US, or Russia, or UK or anyone else, except perhaps for China - that has a "no first use" policy written into law.

India has a declared nuclear no-first-use policy and is in the process of developing a nuclear doctrine based on "credible minimum deterrence." In August 1999, the Indian government released a draft of the doctrine which asserts that nuclear weapons are solely for deterrence and that India will pursue a policy of "retaliation only." The document also maintains that India "will not be the first to initiate a nuclear first strike, but will respond with punitive retaliation should deterrence fail" and that decisions to authorize the use of nuclear weapons would be made by the Prime Minister or his 'designated successor(s).'"

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/india/nuke/

China has such a policy too, with one exception - it doesn't apply to Taiwan. **

** Edit : It appears that China has recently clarified/updated it's "no first use" policy to include conflicts involving Taiwan. I have not read the text of the policy, but here's a link that mentions this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-first-use

 

[Cyrus]

China has such a policy too, with one exception - it doesn't apply to Taiwan.

Minor details.

In terms of energy, India looses upwards of 40% of its power in transmission. I think one of the big things India needs to do first is set up a solid ultra modern infrastructure, which in a way works well for them because they don't have an old but expensive one up and running. It's like Asia and the internet. They can surpass us because they can install ultra modern networks without having to replace already existing outdated and expensive networks like in the US. So I feel that India should set up a solid infrastructure first, and then start going to energy sources. China is already working very hard to extract all the energy it can from wind farms, dams, and other power sources, both renewable and nonrenewable; but as someone has previously said, all that fossil fuels will be a problem in India. China already has big smog problems.

There is also the minor detail that the US want's to project India as a powerful ally to pressure Iran and China.

 

[dsky]

India can develop its own nuclear program and can souce out technology from the others.The US technology is not a significant factor, but the US market is. Bush is preventing the oil producing countries like the arabs from obtaining nuclear energy source, coz once they gain oil independence, they can hike the prices.Allies in the SC will help see to this

 

[Cyrus]

I don't understand what your saying? Why would the Aarab countries need oil independence from their own oil?

 

[alexandra]

India can develop its own nuclear program and can souce out technology from the others.The US technology is not a significant factor, but the US market is. Bush is preventing the oil producing countries like the arabs from obtaining nuclear energy source, coz once they gain oil independence, they can hike the prices.Allies in the SC will help see to this

This is an interesting hypothesis, dsky. At some future date, when fossil fuels like oil become an illegal source of energy (because of pollution, climate change, etc) then only the 'advanced' capitalist economies will have access to nuclear energy creation facilities and they can therefore set the price, once again making huge profits out of the once oil-rich nations that now have no legal sources of energy! I hadn't thought of this, but it makes sense in the long term. And so the cycle of making profits out of the 'third world' can continue unabated... Sigh.

 

[alexandra]

Australia's role

According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS):

In exchange for India’s commitments on safeguards, the U.S. has promised to provide India with access to peaceful nuclear technology and to work to open up the multinational Nuclear Suppliers Group so that India may access the international nuclear supply market.

<snip>

President Bush must now pursue significant changes in U.S. law to implement the U.S.-Indian agreement. To do so, he must overcome some significant concern in Congress and policy circles in Washington in order to gain congressional approval for a still to be negotiated agreement for civilian nuclear cooperation. Congress must approve such an agreement before any nuclear cooperation can take place. It is likely the negotiation of this bilateral agreement will take several months if not longer, pushing consideration of any agreement into the next Congress. In the mean time, some members of Congress may seek to condition their support for any agreement on strengthening the nonproliferation terms of the U.S.-India agreement.

Reference: http://www.csis.org/component/option,com_csis_progj/task,view/id,533/

But there's a fall-back plan, it seems: Australian PM John Howard has just visited India as well, and according to tonight's TV news it sounds very much like despite what the Australian government has been saying over the past few days...

AUSTRALIA is close to signing a lucrative deal to sell uranium to China as a split emerged with the US over global nuclear trade.
The agreement, which will stipulate that the uranium can be used only for peaceful purposes, could be signed as soon as next month, when Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao visits Australia.

But Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said yesterday Australia was at odds with the US over uranium sales to India following the nuclear accord signed between US President George W. Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Thursday.

Mr Downer repeated Australia's long-standing policy of refusing to sell uranium to India until it signs the UN Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Reference: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18341455-2,00.html

... Howard is now playing with words and won't make any definite statements on this issue.

Even if the US Congress does not approve, there are ways and means around the problem to meet the agreement between the US administration and India.

 

[alexandra]

Federal law prohibits the United States from sharing its nuclear technology with nations that have not signed the non-proliferation treaty or have tested weapons yet Bush has agreed a deal whereby the US will provide India with nuclear fuel and technical expertise despite India being a non-signatory and has tested nuclear weapons as recently as 1998.

In return it is hard to see what the gain is for the US

A political analysis I heard on the radio this morning (Australian Broadcasting Corporation, around 7am) suggested that what the US gains is an ally against the looming threat of China. I have spent the past half hour trying to find a reference to back up my statement above, but it's too soon for there to be a transcript on the ABC's website and I can't find a similar analysis elsewhere (so please disregard this point if you - not you, Art, anyone - don't believe I heard this theory on the news).

 

[dsky]

Alex that's one scenario that may happen, you have extended ahead of what I meant, But before youre scenario, the most immediate scenario that Bush is preventing maybe something like this, most industries of oil rich nations run on their own oil, it will slow down if they increase the oil price(even though they are the producing it its not for free,since they are quasi-democracy&capitalist) Now if they get hold of non-oil dependent energy source "NoW" or relatively "ahead of oil dependent industries" they can run their own idustrial production at the same time place a sky's the limit price on oil. Think of how much profit these nations will get "Now" before the oils get extinct. At the StateOf the Nation Addres of Bush, this is what u can infer when he said that "america will be independent of mid east oil by pursuing alternative tech. Why is the US is in the mad rush to get involve in these oil rich nations. Mayb bcoz he wants the profits for the US itself. otherwise your scenario may be the next event...
At the expense of poor nations

And finally let's us share love with one another
Dsky

 

[Art]

This quote seems to say that if either:
(1) The nation has signed the non-proliferation treaty
(2) The nation has previously tested weapons
Then the law does not apply. In other words, for the law to apply, both of these conditions must not be satisfied.



I already said I found this quote confusing...



So simply telling me that I'm confused, without any attempt at clarification, doesn't help matters any. :tongue:

Originally Posted by Art
Federal law prohibits the United States from sharing its nuclear technology with nations that have not signed the non-proliferation treaty or have tested weapons yet Bush has agreed a deal whereby the US will provide India with nuclear fuel and technical expertise despite India being a non-signatory and has tested nuclear weapons as recently as 1998.

Let's break this down a little;

Federal law prohibits the US from sharing its nuclear technology with nations that have not signed the non-proliferation treaty.

India has not signed the NPT and therefore federal law prohibits the US sharing nuclear technology with them.

Federal law also prohibits the US from sharing its nuclear technology with nations that have tested nuclear weapons.

India has tested nuclear weapons and therefore federal law prohibits the US sharing nuclear technology with them.

Hope this clarifies it for you.

 

[Hurkyl]

Hope this clarifies it for you.

Thank you, this was very clear.

 

[Art]

Getting back to my original question; is it considered likely that congress will block this deal?

 

[russ_watters]

Federal law prohibits the US from sharing its nuclear technology with nations that have not signed the non-proliferation treaty.

Art, perhaps you could link a copy of the law? I'm interested to know if it differentiates between weapons technology and power technology...

Since I haven't heard from your claim from any other source (including your article), I'm not prepared to accept its validity quite yet. And your claim's validity has a big impact on your question.

 

[Gokul43201]

Mr Downer repeated Australia's long-standing policy of refusing to sell uranium to India until it signs the UN Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Would Australia sign the NPT if New Zealand were a political enemy (that) :

(i) Has Waged war against Australia on more than one occasion,
(ii) Is a non-NPT nuclear armed state,
(iii) Has no history of democracy (or checks and balances), and
(iv) Whose present dictator is in constant danger of being overthrown by even more radical extremist militia ?

 

[Art]

Art, perhaps you could link a copy of the law? I'm interested to know if it differentiates between weapons technology and power technology...

Since I haven't heard from your claim from any other source (including your article), I'm not prepared to accept its validity quite yet. And your claim's validity has a big impact on your question.

I'm surprised you are unaware of the legal hurdles (especially as you live in the US) as there are numerous news articles referring to it on the web. Here's a BBC source;

The US applied sanctions against India and a battery of US legislation put India into a kind of nuclear isolation.

Hurdle one for the Bush administration is to get Congress to unpick this legislation.

However fyi I believe the main piece of legislation involved is The Atomic Energy Act

And here's an extract from state acknowledging the need to change the law to allow the deal to go through.

Securing domestic legal reform: The President promised in the Joint Statement that the Administration would seek agreement from Congress to adjust U.S. laws and policies. We recognize that the pace and scope of civil nuclear cooperation requires close consultations between the Executive and Legislative Branches. In our own ongoing review, we have identified a number of options for modifying and/or waiving provisions of the Atomic Energy Act that currently prohibit the United States from engaging in such cooperation with India.

http://www.state.gov/t/us/rm/55968.htm

btw The USA will also need to breech it's agreements with the NPG to make the deal happen.

On the bright side the US and France are now apparently on the same side again as France signed a similar agreement with India last month.

 

[Gokul43201]

Link to a DoE overview of the Atomic Energy Act :

http://www.eh.doe.gov/oepa/laws/aea.htmlA clear summary of the US-India Nuclear deal (from CFR) :

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9663/