Indo-US nuclear deal and its implications

As we had often come back to discussing economic benefits/impact of sports I thought it was about time for an economic discussion forum.
User avatar
BSharma
Authors
Authors
Posts: 12076
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 8:51 pm
Please enter the middle number: 1
Location: USA

Indo-US nuclear deal and its implications

Postby BSharma » Sat Jan 28, 2006 9:50 pm

Sandeep,

I do not think that anyone in this thread is suggesting that India should take action because USA is pressuring India but because it is in India's best interest.

User avatar
gvhvhg
Member
Member
Posts: 4513
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 5:39 pm
Please enter the middle number: 1
Location: NYC/Medford, MA
Contact:

Indo-US nuclear deal and its implications

Postby gvhvhg » Sat Jan 28, 2006 10:04 pm

The US (and the non-proliferation establishment) have in fact set aside long-standing rigid positions in order to accommodate India into the nuclear club despite our non-signing of the NPT. We are gaining much more (in terms of civil nuclear technology, and all its potential applications) than we are giving up (in separating our civilian and military nuclear establishments).


PKB-What you and nobody else seems to understand is that India will end up getting NOTHING! ZILCH...ZERO

The US Congress WILL NOT vote in our favour and that is what Bush and everyone in the US is counting on....Anyone who thinks otherwise is incredibly naive....In the end India will have gained nothing and will only have given up things to the US
Last edited by gvhvhg on Sat Jan 28, 2006 10:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Sandeep
Moderators
Moderators
Posts: 10713
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2003 4:21 pm
Antispam: No
Please enter the middle number: 5
Contact:

Indo-US nuclear deal and its implications

Postby Sandeep » Sat Jan 28, 2006 10:18 pm

I do not think that anyone in this thread is suggesting that India should take action because USA is pressuring India but because it is in India's best interest
.

What are the gains we are talking about Bsharma? I would like to hear the gains if anyone of you know it. I haven't read much on gains!

First and foremost, how desperate or dependent are we on nuclear energy? India already has 10 nuclear power plants and government is working on improving the capacity to 20,000MWe . When we have technology why are we dependent on USA?

And India has to volunatarily agree for nuclear inspection at any time by IESA/USA if they set up a plant in collaboration with USA technology (now that India signed the deal we can't do much). As Dr Brahma Chellaney has cautioned "to limit the size of India's deterrent, control its fast breeder programme and bring a maximum number of Indian nuclear facilities under international inspection" . China never seperated civil and military nuclear plants!!! By doing so we will be under constant inspection and will be on mercy of USA to manufacture our own weapons! China rightly said that USA is playing with India.

Here is a beautiful piece of article on the deal Nuclear deal: Much ado for marginal gain

What might happen in the end is that India's arms will be twisted to deliver on its commitments, but the US will wriggle out" on some pretext or the other.


More humiliating than this was the omission on the part of India to lodge a strong protest with the US President and get him to disown the treatment of India as if it was some kind of banana republic standing with a begging bowl before the US.


There can be nothing more galling to a nation's prestige than its arms being twisted and its nose being rubbed on the ground like this.


And as Ashish has said, US congress is not going to vote in India's favour. Even if they do the 45 countries are not going to! This deal means weakening the NPT and I don't think many countries will support that.
Last edited by Sandeep on Sat Jan 28, 2006 10:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
BSharma
Authors
Authors
Posts: 12076
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 8:51 pm
Please enter the middle number: 1
Location: USA

Indo-US nuclear deal and its implications

Postby BSharma » Sat Jan 28, 2006 10:27 pm

Sandeep,

We are confusing two separate issues here.

1. Should India support Iran because USA is putting some sort of pressure and India wants to express anger towards USA? What some of us are saying that India should do what is in the country's best interest.

2. India-USA deal on nuclear technology.
If India signed a deal that is not good for India then why did she sign it? Was India desperate for this technology?

User avatar
Sandeep
Moderators
Moderators
Posts: 10713
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2003 4:21 pm
Antispam: No
Please enter the middle number: 5
Contact:

Indo-US nuclear deal and its implications

Postby Sandeep » Sat Jan 28, 2006 10:32 pm

Bsharma, actually Jay, PKB and some of the members here think India should vote against Iran even though it is not correct because we shouldn't loose the deal with USA (though PKB has posted a beautiful argument on why it is correct for India to vote against Iran irrespective of what USA thinks). We were discussing on how important is the US deal for us to go out of our way and vote against Iran! So there comes the importance of how important the deal is! And hence the discussion has taken a different route.

User avatar
gvhvhg
Member
Member
Posts: 4513
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 5:39 pm
Please enter the middle number: 1
Location: NYC/Medford, MA
Contact:

Indo-US nuclear deal and its implications

Postby gvhvhg » Sun Feb 05, 2006 10:12 pm

Absolutley ridiculous...(but expected) that we voted against Iran...It is disgraceful that Manmohan does not have the balls to stand up to the US like Cuba, Syria and Venezuela.

Jay, PKB, Bhushan...pretty much everyone...I know you don't agree with me on this one...but we will see what happens to India now.

User avatar
puneets
Member
Member
Posts: 3823
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 5:57 pm
Please enter the middle number: 1
Location: US

Indo-US nuclear deal and its implications

Postby puneets » Mon Feb 06, 2006 1:26 am

India should (and will) never be like Cuba, Syria and Venezuela. We're a nuclear nation and that changes the whole equation.
Manmohan Singh has been doing a good job..and I hope that he continues on with his work.

User avatar
arjun2761
Member
Member
Posts: 4971
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 2:26 pm
Please enter the middle number: 1
Location: US

Indo-US nuclear deal and its implications

Postby arjun2761 » Mon Feb 06, 2006 4:04 pm

gvhvhg wrote:Absolutley ridiculous...(but expected) that we voted against Iran...It is disgraceful that Manmohan does not have the balls to stand up to the US like Cuba, Syria and Venezuela.

Jay, PKB, Bhushan...pretty much everyone...I know you don't agree with me on this one...but we will see what happens to India now.

Now that is an august club that we should join :D Who said the commies are the only enemies we have....

User avatar
PKBasu
Member
Member
Posts: 29327
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 6:04 pm
Please enter the middle number: 1
Location: Singapore

Indo-US nuclear deal and its implications

Postby PKBasu » Sun Feb 12, 2006 11:29 am

Ashish, perhaps I should spell out for you why we don't need to emulate Cuba, Syria and Venezuela.

Syria is ruled by a dictatorship of the Assad family, which belongs to the Alawi sect of Shi'ism, a minority group that makes up about 11% of the population. There have been several ethnic massacres sanctioned by the state, and Syria is a poorly run autocracy with very little to commend it.

Cuba has arguably developed in the social spheres under Castro, with one of the best health-care systems in the world, and absolute poverty (particularly among the blacks) largely eliminated. But Cuba's economy has effectively been stagnant for the past two decades at least -- partly because it became a classic two-commodity economy (producing sugar, plus cigars) that was dependent on the Soviet Union for imports of virtually everything else (machinery, arms, intermediate and capital goods, oil, etc.) and it has been in desperate straits over the past 15 years. The lack of democracy of course led to a large part of the population (perhaps a fifth or more) emigrating to the US, the clearest sign that the local populace has given up hope. Cuba is hopelessly isolated, and it makes little sense for India to attempt to emulate Castro (just as it would make absolutely no sense for India or anybody else to emulate the regime in Burma / Myanmar).

Venezuela under Chavez is trying hard to emulate the Cuban example, albeit with one major factor in its favour: Venezuela is a major oil exporter. Venezuela was among the first oil exporters (along with Mexico) to take some of the power over oil revenue flows away from the global oil majors in the late 1940s. I have a bit of sympathy for what Chavez is attempting to do (as it isn't too different from what Mossadegh was attempting in Iran in 1953, until a CIA coup ended that). As a maverick regime that is effectively using its oil weapon, Chavez's Venezuela has special reasons to vote in favour of Iran (and other maverick regimes around the world). Although he has abridged democracy, his opponents haven't covered themselves in glory either. Given the history of oil politics, Chavez' position is understandable. But we in India have very little in common with Venezuela.

On the merits of the case, Iran as a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has clearly violated its treaty obligations. As such, we (as a responsible nuclear power) should naturally vote to refer Iran to the Security Council. Whether the India-US nuclear deal comes through or not (and I think Ashish's certainty about the US Congress nixing the deal is ill-founded) is completely irrelevant to the issue India was voting on.

User avatar
Sandeep
Moderators
Moderators
Posts: 10713
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2003 4:21 pm
Antispam: No
Please enter the middle number: 5
Contact:

Indo-US nuclear deal and its implications

Postby Sandeep » Thu Apr 27, 2006 3:57 pm

Brahma Chellaney who was dead against India's nucler deal wit USA right from the first has come up with another very interesting article.

India has sold its nuclear soul to the US

Whenever the Indian leadership has hurriedly entered into an agreement with another state, without involving its policy-making processes in the decision, it has proved to be a blunder. The nuclear deal is a historic blunder in the making. If it takes effect, it will prevent India from ever emerging as a full-fledged nuclear-weapons state, and thus rank as serious a blunder as Jawaharlal Nehru's decision to take the Kashmir issue to the UN and accept a ceasefire, the return of Haji Pir to Pakistan under the Tashkent Declaration, and the repeat surrender of battlefield gains at Simla in 1972 without securing a Kashmir settlement.

Such are the capability constraints and onerous, one-sided obligations under the deal that India can forget about emerging as a strategic peer to China.

User avatar
India1989
Member
Member
Posts: 1247
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:25 pm
Please enter the middle number: 1
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Indo-US nuclear deal and its implications

Postby India1989 » Sun Jan 07, 2007 4:33 pm

India shouldn't care about what's going on in Iran. They should just think about their nuclear weapons. How they can improve their arsenal and think of making a nuclear defence system so that it can stop any incoming nuclear weapons.

User avatar
jayakris
Moderators
Moderators
Posts: 22677
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2002 7:24 am
Please enter the middle number: 1
Location: Irvine, CA, USA
Contact:

Re: Indo-US nuclear deal and its implications

Postby jayakris » Fri Nov 02, 2007 1:21 am

I guess the way the nuclear deal was squashed by the communists is something we did not discuss ... I guess many of us were just too disgusted to comment.

Saw this article today in the Indian Express:

Latest from Karat: US and India will corner China

He is about cry about China. 

What the hell.  I am going to call a spaed a spade.  This guy is nothing but anti-national.

Jay

User avatar
PKBasu
Member
Member
Posts: 29327
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 6:04 pm
Please enter the middle number: 1
Location: Singapore

Re: Indo-US nuclear deal and its implications

Postby PKBasu » Fri Nov 02, 2007 2:52 am

India's communists have been anti-national throughout their history -- a good reason why they are such a pathetic little minority party. In 1942-45, they followed their leaders in Soviet Russia in supporting the British rather than Gandhiji and Subhas Bose (who, as Maulana Azad's autobiography shows, were working implicitly in tandem during the period to oust the Brits). In 1962, the CPI(M) supported Mao's invasion of India -- having previously supported Stalin's aim of bringing about a revolution in India in 1948 (starting in the Telengana region of the erstwhile Hyderabad state) rather than the fledgling independent nation of India.

The most interesting thing about Stalin, Mao and Ho Chi Minh is that they were all arch nationalists first, and communism was merely a tool to achieve their nationalist goals. Stalin consolidated the old Russian empire first (incorporating Ukraine, Belarus, the central Asian states of Kazakhstan, Uzebekistan, etc. as well as Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and the vast Siberian lands), then sought to expand into Eastern Europe during and after WWII. Communism was a wonderful ideology to suppress the underlying subnationalisms of the Russian periphery (he himself was a Georgian; Trotsky was Jewish; Gorbachev's rival, Gaidar Aliyev, was Azeri). Similarly, one of Mao's first acts was the invasion of Tibet. Communism provided a marvellous cover (and ideological justification) for converting minority regions like Nei Mongol (Inner Mongolia), the Uighur province of Xinjiang, and Tibet itself into outposts of Han-Chinese domination. (Notice that a Han Chinese is always party chief in Tibet; no Tibetans need apply; the leader of the 1989 Tienanmien agitation was a Uighur called Wuerkaixi). Today there are 5 Han Chinese in Inner Mongolia for every Mongol there, and the demographic transformation of Tibet and Xinjiang is well underway.

The trite leader of the CPI(M), Prakash Karat, claims China is "the most powerful socialist country capable of challenging the might of the USA". He fails to realise that there is nothing socialist about today's China, which is a thoroughly capitalist economy -- where most of the dynamic growth comes from companies that are privately owned, principally by rich investors from Taiwan and Hong Kong. Virtually all of China's exports are accounted for Taiwanese, Korean, Hong Kong, and Japanese-owned private companies. Most of China's state-owned enterprises are either on their death-bed (receiving emergency resuscitation from the state-owned banks -- themselves being gradually privatised) or are in lucrative sectors like oil, with very substantial foreign share-ownership. China's income distribution is much more skewed than India's -- and, according to the OECD, India's job growth is much faster than China's. The only thing growing faster in China are corporate profits, which accrue to the growing legions of China's new capitalists, most of whom are children of past leaders of the communist party.

Most interesting of all, of course, is that China has its own nuclear agreement with the US -- including a 123 agreement. And China's 123 agreement is more favourable than India's: it does not contain any clause like the Hyde amendment, under which India is effectively banned from conducting any nuclear tests into perpetuity. The CPI(M) not only failed to condemn China when it conducted its first nuclear test in 1964, but also when it conducted all its subsequent nuclear tests. But the CPI(M) was quick to condemn India's nuclear tests at Pokhran in 1974 and 1998. (the same criticisms of course apply to Arundhati Roy, the great crusader against India's development). So, Jay, you are being mild in calling the CPI(M) and Prakash Karat anti-national.

As a Bengali, I take particular exception to Prakash Karat presuming to speak on behalf of Bengal as some sort of vanguard for his anti-national crusade. The chief minister of West Bengal is clearly much less enthusiastic about Karat's crusade, as was clear from his hosting of Hank Paulson and his US Treasury officials this week.
(In West Bengal, the communist party is led by disenfranchised landlords from east Bengal -- later East Pakistan, now Bangladesh -- who lost all their land at independence/partition, and so naturally gravitated toward communism as they had nothing -- ie, no property -- to lose anyway; ironically, the communists tapped into the network of violent opposition to British rule built up by Anushilan and Jugantar, the "terrorists" that the British feared most of all and suspected of links to Subhas Bose and Chittaranjan Das. Ironically, Anushilan and Jugantar were started by devoutly Hindu nationalists like Aurobindo Ghose -- whose brother was hanged by the Brits, and who was represented by Das himself in court. Pramode Dasgupta, the party secretary of West Bengal for much of the '60s and '70s was a former Anushilan member. It is one of Bengal's great tragedies that these ultra-nationalists -- with a devoutly nationalist and Hindu ideology -- went on to join the ultimate anti-national party in post-Independence India).

User avatar
prasen9
Member
Member
Posts: 11210
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 8:49 pm
Please enter the middle number: 1
Location: State College, PA
Contact:

Re: Indo-US nuclear deal and its implications

Postby prasen9 » Fri Nov 02, 2007 3:02 am

I do not agree with how things happened and the rationale for killing the deal.  However what has happened is perhaps good for us.  I have not seen in this thread any argument about the cleanliness of nuclear energy.  Given our lax attitude about disposing garbage, it may be a good thing that we will not open more nuclear power plants.  There is some debate about this, but on the balance, I think nuclear energy is very bad for the environment because we cannot dispose of the resulting garbage safely.  That and the inspections that would have been imposed on India make it a bad deal in my mind.  So, it may be a good thing that it is killed.  I do not see much benefits to India from the deal. 

User avatar
PKBasu
Member
Member
Posts: 29327
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 6:04 pm
Please enter the middle number: 1
Location: Singapore

Re: Indo-US nuclear deal and its implications

Postby PKBasu » Fri Nov 02, 2007 8:08 am

There definitely are some problems with the deal (including the fact that China has negotiated a more favourable deal with the US), and the fact that Brahma Chellaney opposes the deal is the clearest sign that the deal is problematic. However, the key question is: can India negotiate a better deal with any successor US President? Bill Clinton was certainly more inclined to go with the view of the non-proliferation ayatollahs in the US, who curiously oppose India's nuclearisation tooth and nail while saying little about China's vastly larger nuclear arsenal (and  also about China's key role as a known proliferator of nuclear technology to Pakistan, North Korea and sundry others; ironically, China is a signatory to the NPT, has openly flouted it and got away with its behaviour).
What is particularly objectionable in Prakash Karat's grandstanding is his opposition to India's putative alliance with the US. Ironically, China is more of an ally of the US than India is even now. The US parrots China's "One China" line on Taiwan, and has fewer restrictions on technology transfer to China than to India. All that the nuclear deal will do is put us on a normal footing with the US, which we have never had. This has a long history: in 1945-6, Roosevelt and Truman's envoy Col. Johnson camped in Delhi for more than a year, with a clear remit to ensure that India wasn't partitioned (both Roosevelt and Truman -- especially -- believed that partitioning India was a British ploy to keep real control over the Middle East, and they were dead right; the 1956 Suez manoeuvre is what finally ended British hopes and illusions on that count). Nehru pointedly ignored Col. Johnson, because he completely misread the realignment of world power then underway -- and thought of the Americans as little more than uncouth cowboys.
The Soong sisters (respectively married to Sun Yat-sen and Chiang kai-shek) were educated in the US, and they had very close links to missionaries and others in the US. During WWII, the US saw China as an ally (and an equal) although Japan was in control of most of the economically-relevant parts of China (Beijing, Shanghai, Manchuria, Hong Kong, Guangdong, Fujian, Zhejiang) -- while letting the Brits make all decisions regarding India. Our leaders failed to sieze the opportunities to improve ties with the US at numerous points in the intervening years (in 1962, the US first came to our aid when China was over-running Assam and north-eastern India -- and the Soviets offered only tacit support -- yet Nehru refused to join any form of alliance with the US; eventually Indira Gandhi was forced into the Soviet camp in 1971, when repeated spurning of the US hand led the latter to befriend Communist China; countering the Soviets was the main reason for the US embrace of Mao's China, but no such embrace would have been necessary for the US had India responded in a more friendly manner to the overtures of Democratic presidents in the 1960s).
The US and China have been allies at least since 1979. Now the US does see China as a potential threat, and is therefore looking at India as a possible future ally. But our leaders (and our communist naifs) are under a silly illusion if they think that India has a great deal of options -- and the US is desperate to befriend us. We need to engage with the US on our terms, but spurning the US overtures toward building our relationship as natural allies is the height of idiocy. Who are our friends in international affairs then? China is clearly not -- as China has clearly looked upon us as an enemy to be contained since 1962. There have been about 200 incursions into Indian territory by China's PLA just in the past twelve months, and I see a repeat of 1962 beginning to occur. The CPI(M) continues to act as if it is the representative of China's ruling party rather than an aspirant for national power in India. 


Return to “Economic and General Development”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest