Desicritics Category: Politics: Energy

Why the Nuclear Deal is Bad for India

Venkatesh Sridhar — Thu, 3 Jul 2008 11:39:15 EDT

For the past 2-3 weeks, there has been one issue that has dominated much of media attention in India. That singular issue is the Nuclear Deal between US and India. Now, everyone knows what I feel about the Left, but this time strangely I agree with them that India should not sign the deal as it is not in India's interest to do so, though I have strong factual reasons to do so unlike the more ideologically bent opposition of the Left.

The reason why this post comes so late in the day - now that it's almost a given that the Government of India (GoI) will go ahead with the deal despite the opposition to the deal by its coalition partner; the Left with the PM now officially going to the G8 meet, is because I have spent a lot of time in finding out information and framing a fact oriented opinion.

My opposition to this deal centers on the following grounds, questions which the media has not bothered raising and neither the opposition:

1. Shift of dependencies: Oil & Gas is a form of energy that is used worldwide in everything from agriculture to electricity generation. Oil is controlled by a cartel called OPEC. For nuclear energy creation, you need Uranium, India does not have enough Uranium resources so India needs this deal for access to Uranium. Now, that would mean being dependent on another cartel - the NSG - Nuclear Supplier's Group. Will this provide energy self independence?

2. Why rely on another nation?: Do you know that another fission material that can be used for generation of Nuclear Energy is thorium, India has 24% of the world proven thorium reserves in the world. India is conducting cutting edge research on how to use thorium in producing nuclear energy. This research will lose its importance and significance when you are going to be getting the Uranium from somewhere else. Now, why should you spend strategic forex reserves outside of the country to benefit another nation. If India needs nuclear energy so much (India does need alternative forms of energy as India will be short of 412 gigawatts by 2050 and the need to import 1.6 billion tonnes of coal will be needed to fulfill this energy) then India can increase the allocation in the budget to thorium research and increase the strategic importance.

3. Minor benefits in the short term: India currently produces 4000 MWe of nuclear energy after this deal, it will rise to 20,000 MWe in a DECADE, yes in a DECADE. So, it is not a short term solution to the energy crisis in India. Also, construction of a nuclear reactor is a time consuming process.

4. Water usage in nuclear energy production: Nuclear energy, though considered one of the cleanest forms of energy, you require a lot more water - which is another resource that is depleting worldwide - for production and storage.

5. Strategically swallowing a bullet: Let's get to strategic issues, as per the Hyde act as amended by both the Senate and the House of Representatives in the US (Bills: H.R. 5682 and S. 3709, a comparison of the two can be found here) and passed in the final version clearly dictates the following if you go through the congressional record S.11021 on November 16,2006:

i. India's ties with Iran. As per Section 105 (8) of H.R. 5682 as passed by the Senate (with text of S. 3709 as engrossed amendment), Requires India’s full & active participation in U.S. and international efforts to dissuade, sanction, and contain Iran for its nuclear program consistent with U.N. Security Council resolutions (source). So, this puts us in a bind w.r.t to the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline which will provide us with much needed cheap gas. Because, if construction begins in 2009, the gas can be supplied starting September 2012 (source). According to Jorge Hirsch - a physics professor at the University of Chicago, who initiated a letter to George Bush Jr., to prevent the US from adopting a hawkish stance towards Iran which will inevitably lead to use of Nuclear weapons against Iran - feels that unlike Russia and China, "India could indeed be bought off by US incentives like the nuclear deal, because its shortsighted leaders don't recognize that they are committing national suicide by entering into this nuclear deal with the US." (emphasis mine).

ii. In an event of a nuclear test by India, the US President will have the right to end the deal on the spot and demand return of the materials supplied and guess who wanted this clause in the bill - Senator Barrack Obama of Illinois and the presumptive Democrat Party nominee for the President of United States of America. From the congressional record S.11021 on November 16,2006, this is what Barrack Obama said:

Mr. OBAMA. On a related note, is it the chairman’s interpretation of the legislation that, in the event of a future nuclear test by the Government of India, nuclear power reactor fuel and equipment sales, and nuclear technology cooperation would terminate; other elements of the United States-India nuclear agreement would likely terminate; and the United States would have the right to demand the return of nuclear supplies? (emphasis mine)

Mr. LUGAR. Yes, under our bill, the only requirement which is waived is that in section 123.a(2) of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, for full-scope safeguards. India’s 123 agreement would still have to meet the requirement of section 123.a(4), which requires that in the event of a test by India of a nuclear
explosive device the United States shall have the right to request the return of supplies as you have stipulated. (emphasis mine)

Read it again, this is the Democratic Presumptive Nominee for the post of the President of the United States of America asking very clearly whether the US has the right to end this deal and ask for return of supplies if India does a nuclear test. Based on his question, what do you think he would do if he was the President and India does a nuclear test. Do not forget as of today he has a 50% chance of being the US president considering that only he and McCain are realistic candidates to be the President.

6. Lag in gaining benefits from this deal: India will have to wait for some years before it can actually get to use the Nuclear energy, I believe a reasonable time frame will be 5-10 years - considering that it involves going to so many governmental organizations, the NSG, the IAEA, the time it takes to construct additional nuclear reactors. Now, meanwhile our dependency will not reduce on Oil and Gas. Iran who has been a longtime friend of India. India and Iran have long cordial relations. India and Iran are talking with regards to a gas pipeline from Iran to India. The act of signing the deal means that India will have to forego this deal, read point 5(i). Period.

7. Economic costs: Commercially, the cost of producing Nuclear energy will be high considering the capital cost of setting up the Nuclear reactor, understand that you cannot produce electricity till the reactor is completely up which means the cost of production can vary anywhere between US$ 2,950/kWe to to a Moody's Investors Service (read para 9 in the link) conservative estimate of between $5,000 and $6,000/kWe. According to a BusinessWeek report, "...,the [US] industry is aiming to build new plants for $1,500 to $2,000 per kilowatt of capacity,...". However, they also added, "Trouble is, the cheapest plants built recently, all outside the U.S., have cost more than $2,000 per kilowatt." For further information go to the wikipedia entry on economics of nuclear energy). There are a few costs no one is willing to factor in. Who will pay for the costs of ensuring compliance and the safeguards and all other reporting elements that are critical to the functioning of the deal after signing it. It is common sense that it will cost more.

8.Alternative energy creation: India has a stated goal of achieving energy independence by 2012, don't see that happening with this deal for reasons explained above. India introduced the Jatropha incentives to encourage production of bio diesel using Jatropha seeds. Jatropha can grow in the wastelands. GoI has already identified 400,000 sq.km. of land where Jatropha can be grown. A much more prudent and truly long term solution to India's energy crisis than the Nuclear deal, as India is a big consumer of diesel especially in rural areas.

9. Safety considerations: The world has already seen the impact of two major nuclear accidents, the famous Chernobyl disaster in former Soviet Union and current Ukraine and the Three Mile Island disaster in the US. Just as the Richter scale is used to measure the magnitude of Earthquakes, there is the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES). Chernobyl was rated 7, a non nuclear event that can be rated 7 is the Bhopal disaster in India and Third Mile was rated 5. Now, India's nuclear reactors are close to two major cities in India - Mumbai (Tarapore) and Chennai (Kalpakkam), as the Chernobyl disaster The radioactive debris of the Chernobyl reactor covered an area more than 5,000 square kilometres. Imagine the damage it will cost if something goes wrong. Thank God, nothing has gone wrong so far, but still it should be an important consideration. India has not framed a Nuclear liability framework, what if something goes wrong, who will bear the brunt of clean up work, the economic cost and other such issues. We have not learnt our lessons from the Bhopal disaster as the clean up work continues to be stuck. Yet, the Government is silent on this issue.

Now, Dr. Manmohan Singh, may go right ahead and sign this deal, because he is hell bent on this deal as he views this as his personal stake being on the line plus this is the legacy he wants to leave behind, as he has nothing much to show as being the Prime Minister, except maybe be known as the most compromised Prime Minister.

Also, he has chosen a very good time - there is about 6 months left for the next General elections in February 2009, and even if his Government falls, it would take the Election Commission atleast 6 months to prepare itself for elections. As an economist he knows that India's inflation problem - which will be a key poll issue cannot be solved in the 6 months timeframe without compromising serious growth, hence he has sensed his opportunity and decided to push for it regardless of the Left's threat to withdraw support.

As I have outlined, overall it is not in our interests to go ahead with the deal and if the PM does sign the deal, the legacy he would leave behind will not be of securing India, a place as a Nuclear Weapon State but it will be of selling India's nuclear independence.

The India-US Nuclear Deal - What Happens Next?

Ashish — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 14:03:28 EDT

Whichever way the nuclear deal tilts, the prospects are surely troubling to the Congress chief (Sonia Gandhi, not Manmohan Singh). The same Prime Minister who last August backed down after initially acting like a lion (remember the statement - 'this is not a one issue Government' ?) is now suddenly passing out signals that he wants the nuclear deal to be done, and is willing to sacrifice the support of the left.

Sonia Gandhi must be scared out of her wits - her compliant Prime Minister is suddenly displaying a spine, her reluctant allies (the ever pressurizing left) are threatening that they will have a team outside Rashtrapati Bhavan to give the withdrawal letter to the President if the Government states its intention to go ahead with the nuclear deal, inflation is out of control and threatens to remain so, farmers are protesting in many states because of the fertilizer snafu, the other allies (NCP, DMK, RJD, etc) are all potential allies of the Left and hence not particularly eager to buck the support of the Left and go in for maybe possible early elections where they will also get tagged with the inflation and bad governance tag, and the Congress is losing states left right and center, ceding many of them to the BJP.

This particular issue comes as a surprise to most political observers; after all, the nuclear deal had more or less died out as an issue that the Congress would bother to pick up a fight for - it does not have electoral appeal, most people in the country would not bother to base their voting pattern over such a deal, and the left would have painted proponents of such a deal as being very aligned to the US (not a very appealing prospect to most parties who believe that this would put off the Muslim vote - not a done deal, but most parties believe that this is the likely case). It was only strategic observers who bemoaned the loss that the country was facing over the failure of such a deal (and the fact that such a deal was not something that India's neighboring countries were happy over). There were weaknesses in such a deal, but the fact is that unless India were to steal advanced technology, this deal is about as good a deal as it got (and that too because Washington has its own motives behind such a deal, including the advantages that its own nuclear plant firms would get).

So now what happens? I would suspect that eventually the Prime Minister will back down; they have already done so many rollbacks because of the pressure of the Left that maybe they have lost the guts and sight to see that the Left would face a bad time if elections were held now. The Left faces pressure because of the Nandigram incident, and Kerala is ripe for a movement of the electorate to the Congress (because the Left Government in Kerala has not exactly been an epitome of good governance); further, if the Left withdraws support now, and the BJP comes to power, then the left loses whatsoever influence it has over the policies of the country.

Eco Friendly Vehicles: A Case of Misplaced Emphasis?

Krips — Sun, 11 May 2008 14:07:45 EDT

In this year's budget, the Government reduced the excise duty on electric cars from 8 per cent to nil. Recently the Government repeated the same with 2 and 3 wheel electric vehicles. (Full article here) Why? Well, if one were to believe the advertisements, this is because the Government wants to promote these "eco friendly", "zero pollution" vehicles. Just open any electric vehicle manufacturer's website and you will see these words laced all over the site.

Well, that might be true if one were to compare electric vehicles with carbon dioxide emitting vehicles. However, I seem to have been bitten by the recent bug of measuring everything by its carbon footprint. Considering that most of the power produced in India is from hydro carbon fuels I fail to see how these vehicles are eco friendly. Just because you choose to be blind to the technology that brings the electricity right to your doorstep it does not cease to exist. Add to that the fact that we are an energy deficient nation, I fail to see the rationale in promoting electric vehicles.

I see a lot of similarities between ethanol blended fuel and these electric vehicles. Ethanol blended fuel was supposed to be environmentally friendly since it used natural component that could be regenerated. However, this has a hand in the spiraling food prices as food crops like corn were diverted to produce ethanol. Similarly agricultural land meant for food crops began to grow crops that were in demand to produce this "bio-fuel".

As and energy deficient nation and one that meets its electricity needs primarily through fossil fuels can we really afford to promote electric vehicles?

Food or Fuel - A Hobson's Choice

Shantanu Dutta — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 01:14:35 EDT

I grew up hearing stories about the Bengal Famine of 1943-45, hearing about them from my mother about how close to four million people died due to what was essentially a man made tragedy as food grains were diverted by the British Indian Government to feed the Allied Armies and the war effort, putting civilian lives at a much lower priority. My mother recounts stories of how food was scarce but unavailable as the prevailing shortages and black marketing and hoarding made it unaffordable for most of the farmers who actually grew the food in the first place. Wealthy families who could afford to still buy would often cook a little extra, running soup kitchens of a kind for those who turned up at their doors.

Hearing and reading about the food riots in various parts of the world makes one wonder if the man made famines are coming back to haunt us again. Food riots have already been reported in Haiti, Ivory Coast, Cameroon, Mozambique, Senegal, Uzbekistan, Yemen, Bolivia and Indonesia. India thus far has been spared because the country has been self sufficient in food but the impact sooner or later will be felt here too no doubt with inflation making food grains inaccessible to many, especially those out of the ambit of the revamped public distribution system or the various employment guarantee schemes.

But what is worrying now is not that food shortages are happening but the reasons why they are happening and the fact that unlike the famine victims of the 1940s, who were largely ignorant of the causes as well as ignorant of the way, they could protest, today’s generation is empowered enough to make their voice heard but not necessarily knowledgeable enough to reverse powerful processes that seem driven by irreversible policy imperatives

Here is the grim scenario of how the post modern Frankenstein is playing out :

“Briefing media persons in New Delhi on Wednesday, the director-general of UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Jacques Diouf said: "World food prices have risen 45% in the last nine months and there are serious shortages of rice, wheat and maize." He singled out bio-fuel programme as one of the major contributing factor to the global price rise as it has caused diversion of farmland from food to fuel crops and the prices of bio-fuels which scaled up in tandem with the prices of fossil fuels in turn affected the food prices.”

Now with the prices of crude oil consistently rising and trading for long at prices of over at one hundred dollars a barrel, it is imperative to look for alternative beyond fossil fuels. And the search for an alternative seems to have zeroed in on bio fuels wherein farmers once enticed by cash crops to abandon staples are now being enticed to grow food product but use them not for food but to produce fuel. And so farmers in several parts of the world including the USA have increasingly switched to producing corn for the purposes of producing ethanol. This has obviously reduced the area available for cultivation for crops like wheat and diversion of corn from the market place to the refinery. Climate change over the years has also begun to affect farm yields.

In India, the government has mandated the blending of ten percent ethanol in all petrol to be marketed from October. Apart from technical issues (Germany has scrapped a similar program finding it unviable); there is the question of where this ethanol is going to come from. If it is going to come from domestic sources, then it would mean that in India too, land would come from that part of the agricultural land that is currently being used for growing food grains. This along with the fact that increasingly needs for infrastructure are being met by acquiring agricultural land (West Bengal being a well known case in point) means that food grain production in India will decline. India's food grain production could fall 11 million tonnes short of the target of 220 million tones according to the pre budget economic survey presented before the budget.

Caught between the need to feed its people and the need for energy to transport people and goods, it seems that not just India but just the world itself is caught between a rock and a hard place. The tragedy is that in earlier days, thought the effects of famine were colossal, they were localized and temporary and with the right kind of political will, they could be handled in part, because if parts of the world had food shortages, there were other parts of the world that had surpluses and imports or food aid could be arranged. The news this time round is that the shortages of food could be global and there simply may not be enough food any where in the world that is available for import. That the whole world could be headed for a chronic and slow famine with some of the environmental tinkering that we have done apparently irreversible in the short haul at least is a grim thought.

How Green is My Antilla!

arZan — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 01:00:28 EST

In a hard hitting and valid argument Daniel Brook talks about Mukesh Ambani's Antilla being billed as a Green Building by its American architects Perkins+Will.

When completed, the 24-story Ambani family home will include its own health club, terraced sky-gardens, and 50-seat screening room (the reclusive Ambani is reputed to be a huge Bollywood fan). Antilla also boasts three helipads and a 168-car garage. This may sound like transportation overkill, if not outright eco-terrorism, for a family of six. But despite its 38-to-1 car-to-person ratio, Antilla has been billed by its American architects as a “green building.” And under the leading standards for green architecture, the building will likely qualify.

The LEED rating system at best is a guideline and at worst is riddled with loopholes.

Installing a $395 bike rack is worth the same under the LEED checklist system as installing a $1.3 million environmentally sensitive heating system. Which is the cynical builder going to choose?

This allows for architects like Perkins+Will to claim to design green buildings while in reality it is all a hogwash.

The rating system is designed for US standards and when implemented on Indian conditions and buildings, every project could bag the "green" tag.

Perkins+Will is not the only ones who ride the hype-mobile. Even reputed Indian architects like Karan Grover do the same. By understanding the system and finding the loopholes, Grover has the "distinction" of being the first architect with both a LEED Platinum Building and a LEED Platinum Commercial Interior project.

Even FXFowle who is designing the India towers at Charni Road in Mumbai are billing their project to be

within a sustainable network of green roofs and hanging gardens; creating a singular, extraordinary building that, when completed, will be the tallest and greenest - building in India. [link]

Green has become the buzzword of the latter half of this decade. And it helps to sell everything from food to apartments costing millions (in whatever currency).

And from what I read and see, India seems to be picking up the hype which has somehow started clearing out in the US, as the article above points out .

The Indian Green Building Council has just now woken up to the big difference in standards and the first LEED guidelines are being formalized for India. However it will take a few years for the real effects to trickle down to the individual building level.

People like Mukesh Ambani and Reliance should be leading the way instead of being an example of the moral bankruptcy that Reliance has time and again shown.

Architects in India have an easier job designing in sustainable ways. A lot of our building materials procurement and construction technology are sustainable to start with. Indian architects, developers and designers have a real opportunity to push beyond the "green" envelope and set an example.

Poetry: indolence

temporal — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 00:32:47 EST

photo credit Nat/Geo

indolence

under the facade
below the abyssal ocean floor
hidden by the grave dark
behind the veiled smile
beneath the abysmal roots
covered by the october carpet
………………..of april's distant hopes
lies serene embers of dormant fury
sequestered by light-less water

when the last straw
of environment’s rape
breaks down..………and tilts
the voluble volcano sounds
………………..go ululating
and once again the animals run
………………..and people
from far off consciences
………………..and continents
come………………..together

The Indo-US Nuclear Deal: To Be or Not To Be?

Sam Siddiqui — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 13:00:15 EST

The current stand by the Left leaders to put an indefinite hold on the Indo-US nuclear deal while awaiting its ratification by the Indian Parliament, is a good opportunity to go over the grievances and assertions of both sides regarding this two year long attempt by the US to share its technology and nuclear fuel with India for civil purposes.

Both sides of the Indian government and the nation's scientists have reservations regarding the conditions attached to this proposal, chiefly the ability to carry out nuclear testing and limiting India's right to process depleted uranium fuel, a key step in plutonium processing; which they perceive as an undermining of India's national security concerns as well as its sovereignty.

India, US and the NPT:

Since 1974, when India conducted its first nuclear weapons test, it has been effectively isolated in the international nuclear community, with consequent barring of any civilian use of nuclear technology and materials. This followed India's refusal to be a signatory to the nuclear nonproliferation treaty (enacted in 1970 and extended indefinitely in 1995) and comprehensive test ban treaty, on the basis of their unequal and discriminatory nature.

The United States itself rejected ratification of the test ban treaty and renounced the obligations made to non-nuclear parties at the 1995 and 2000 conferences. Moreover, the US Senate has voted to keep alive the bunker buster program in the face of demands that it be dropped.

Broken Promises:

After a promise of long term nuclear support to India in 1963 and following the provision of India's first two nuclear power reactors, the United States unilaterally changed its policy in the 1970s and stopped supplying fuel. Huge pools of spent nuclear waste accumulated in India, with Washington neither taking it back nor giving India the requisite permission to process it.

Conditional Treaty:

Apart from restrictions on processing depleted uranium or conducting nuclear tests, the Indo-US nuclear deal is further contingent on certain conditions expected to be met by India.

1. Cutting down emission of greenhouse gases, which imposes restrictions on industry and technology, as well as development of infrastructure.

2. US opposition to the $7 billion Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline project; a necessity in a multi-pronged approach to energy considering India's growing requirements. India would also have to cut off all energy and military agreements with Iran, a long standing and historical ally.

3. Joint operations with US military for non-proliferation and security, which essentially put India in the disturbing position of playing watch dog for the US at a time when the US sponsored War on Terror has destabilized world peace and security.

So, why should India consider the Indo-US civilian nuclear deal?

Political Gains:

Firstly, it would not only improve India's standing as a regional superpower, but also in the next decade, provide it with a permanent seat on the UN Security Council (albeit without a veto), with the opportunity to have its voice heard in world forums like the UN and WTO as well as the IMF.

Technological Growth:

The treaty would provide an instant spur to India's technological growth, through import of nuclear technology; high tech manufacturing investments would increasingly find their way to India, with its low labor costs and strong base of science and engineering graduates.

Economic gains:

The US and Europe presently send the bulk of their capital to China for consumer goods. The import of technology (avoided by the US and Europe for China), would make India a competitive contender in the fields of high technology capital goods, such as auto parts, pharmaceuticals, computer hardware, commercial aircraft manufacture, ship building, steel plants, mining and drilling hardware and petrochemical facilities.

As is apparent from the weighing of pros and cons above, India stands to gain a lot from this nuclear deal, although it would be wise not to give up too much of our sovereignty and to keep a firm eye on what is in our best strategic and domestic interests.

As Defence Minister AK Antony said, in reference to the Indo-US nuclear deal, “The challenge is to keep pace with these technological changes is more pronounced than ever before. The choice before us is clear – either let events shape us, or enhance our ability to shape events.”

The Consistency of French Foreign Policy

Dr Bhaskar Dasgupta — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 07:15:11 EDT

Here we have a country which was considered to be a colonial enterprise in the Middle East, hated with a vengeance, totally imperialistic, only interested in its own culture and shoving its language down the native throats, only interested in the natives' oil and in return, selling arms to repressive regimes. Thirty years later, it has suddenly become a close friend of the very same people who previously thought of it as an enemy. Yes, Sir, I am referring to France, the same cheese eating surrendering monkeys who have successfully managed to turn their foreign policy dramatically upside down, inside out, and to turn enemies into friends. Compare that to the USA and UK, which are still embroiled in that hell-hole called as the Middle East. What happened there? Any lessons to be learnt?

Frankly, up and until 1967, France was considered as the mortal enemy of the Middle East. The majority of the crusades were staffed, funded and originated in the French kingdoms. The name Franks relates to the French. Most of the massacres during the crusades, whether in Byzantine lands, Constantinople, Levant, Jerusalem or in Egypt were carried out by the Frenchmen. While the Brits think that they exerted most of the influence in the Ottoman Empire, it was actually the French who can arguably be said to have the greatest influence. French troops were present when the Turks were turned back at the gates of Vienna.

Do you remember the battle of Lepanto? French capital, lots of French ships. Charles Martell? How about the huge French backing, funding, people and tactics which were involved in the roll-back of the Arab/Berber Empire of Granada in Spain? Or Napoleon’s invasion of Egypt, the carve out of the Ottoman Empire – the French got the best parts of the carcass if you ask me - ranging from Algeria to Syria / Lebanon, etc. France sold weapons gaily to everybody and their dogs. And then came the disaster that was the 1956 Anglo-French-Israeli invasion of Egypt, followed by the strong French support for Israel (and the huge arms deals!)

Think about the biggest military defeat for the Arabs, the 1967 war. It was almost completely due to French military equipment for the air force, army and the tiny naval fleet. Who can forget the long brutal colonisation of Algeria followed by the devastatingly brutal gradual retreat and final independence for Algeria with millions killed, injured, hurt, imprisoned and made destitute.

You ask about oil? Well, after World War I, the carcass of the Ottoman Empire and the German colonies were subdivided, and France got a share of the Turkish Petroleum Company - an Anglo-German dominated company - as part of the repatriations emanating from the Versailles treaty. This company was the seed leading to the Compagnie Française des Pétrole in1924 and in turn became TOTAL in 1954. TOTAL was a very heavy investor in Iraq during the middle part of the century, right up to the point when the Iraqi oil fields were nationalised. Unlike the USA and UK, France does not have local domestic sources of Oil, which made it very single minded in pursuit of stable, secure and most importantly long term supply of oil.

So a country which clearly wants oil and has had a very long history of anti-Arab/anti-Muslim actions is now, in the beginning part of this century, a very close and trusted friend of the Arabs! France deploys troops in Lebanon and not even a single squeak. France wags her fingers at Arab potentates and not even a single murmur of protest. Terrorist gangs are generally quiet about France. France negotiated the release of the nurses held for over ten years in Libya. Everyone loves France. It's not just the Arabs, but the Iranian Shia love it too. Remember the long hosting of Ayatollah Khomeini during his exile in France? (His house there is now apparently a pilgrimage site!) But this support has faded because France supported Iraq in the Iraq Iran War. Even the current sabre rattling against Iran is part of the same design, this puts them firmly in the Sunni Arab camp.

So what did France do? Starting from the 1960s, it started to redress its balance to Israel and started supporting Arabs a bit more. This was a master stroke. France imposed an embargo on arms sales on both sides before the 1967 war. Since most of Israel’s weaponry was French, Israel was hit proportionally harder. And paradoxically, since Israel won so handsomely using French arms, the Arabs junked their clunky Soviet equipment and went for more French arms. And the cherry on the cake, was that after the war, France managed to sell more parts and equipment to Israel, funded by the Americans. So, at a masterstroke, France gained public congratulations from the Arabs, ended up earning loads of brownie points from the Arabs, and sold more to both sides.

Guess who supplied Iraq with its Osirak Nuclear Reactor, which the Israelis destroyed? Guess who was supplying Iraq with huge amounts of weaponry during the Iraq Iran War? Guess who helped to broker the agreement which ended Lebanon’s civil war? Who do you think was the biggest opposer of Iraqi sanctions before the Gulf War I? And when it became clear that Saddam Hussein would not repay the debts owed to France for arms sales, who do you think was the fourth largest contributor to the coalition after USA, UK and Saudi Arabia (well, you can quibble whether Saudi Arabia really was a contributor, but that is detracting from the point)? Guess who positioned themselves very well for the post Gulf War I period? Do you remember the corruption allegations and accusations relating to the Iraqi Oil for Food programme against a gentleman called as Charles Pasqua and the BNP Paribas bank? Which western country fought the hardest against Gulf War II? No prizes for guessing!

So how it is that France has a great reputation (despite having the most atrocious reputation amongst its own domestic Arab minority population)? What can the UK and USA learn from France's foreign policy? UK and USA are the Great and Smaller Satan at this moment on the Arab Street and in its basement. You are almost guaranteed to have the effigies of Brown and Blair and/or the flags of the two countries burnt during every Arab street demonstration.

The first and foremost reason is that its national interest (oil) is aligned to its foreign policy. For almost a century, the state was aligned with going after external oil with the exception of some war years. So the policy is stable. It learned from its colonial experience in Algeria and has decided not to get involved in colonial endeavours. It supports the ex-colony governments, ties them together in a very tight francophone web of culture, language, politics, diplomatic, military and government contacts. When was the last time you heard France going to war or beating the war drums because a French ex-colony’s government has been beastly to its citizens? Do you seriously think that France gives a rat’s behind about democracy, equality, liberty and fraternity of those oppressed people?

All elements of its intelligentsia subscribe to France’s foreign policy, so it does not alter, given changes of its president or prime minister. Whether we are talking De Gaulle, Mitterrand, Chirac, Jospin and now Sarkozy, the foreign policy has been remarkably consistent for almost half a century. This is because the elite of French society are drawn from a tight circle and the think tanks and intellectuals, are all bought into this national interest, national ethos and foreign policy.

It is also remarkably consistent in its secularism, which paradoxically is very appealing to its Arab Muslim client states. They like knowing that the French State will follow its own national interest and that it will have nothing to do with anti-Islam, Islamophobia or what have you. It is also remarkably hypocrisy-free in terms of its arms sales these days. No questions asked, you want arms, you want technology, you want engineering products, show me the money and the stuff is yours. Whether we are talking food processing, engineering, petrochemical, shipping, France is your woman (if you pardon the pun, France is a woman, and don’t you know? Unlike Germany which is masculine!) Why is it that French products were never hit with the boycott calls after the infamous Mohammad cartoons row blew up, despite French newspapers and magazines publishing the very same ones? While UK, despite not publishing them, was panned left, right and centre?

The solution is simple! If the UK and USA want to go down the route of France They need to drop the governmental support for Israel, stop banging on about democracy, freedom, free speech, etc. They need to divorce foreign policy from trade policy and be ready to sell anything / everything to anybody who has money. Be discreet but consistent about supporting autocratic rulers, who will in turn support trade, industrial and defence industries. They need not worry about their populace, but have to make sure that the intelligentsia will march to the same tune of the national interest of UK and USA being the most important issue. The rest follow much later if at all. There you go - simple answer.

All this to be taken with a grain of piquant salt!

Congress Capitulates to Left over Nuclear Deal

Ashish — Sun, 14 Oct 2007 13:27:19 EDT

One can call it the success of coalition politics. After all, when you are running a coalition government, then you have to listen to your partners and sometimes take decisions that appeal to them. The Congress used to be a proud party that at one time had more than 400 members of Parliament, but now it survives at the mercy of a host of coalition partners and outside supporters.

So, the Congress has had to cancel its decisions to sell off stakes in companies such as Neyveli Lignites, and other companies due to the pressure from allies. It had to agree to subvert the political system when a friend of the holiest of the holies (Quattrochi) was in the line of fire. It had to agree to block the prosecution of Laloo Prasad Yadav and Mayawati (who declares massive assets of over Rs. 50 crores). It had to look the other way when the DMK government refused to obey the Supreme Court. It had to bend the CBI so as to get Shibu Soren acquitted by the High Court, and so on.

The backtracking over the nuclear deal must be the biggest loss of face that the Congress has ever experienced. Over a period of two years, while it must have been updating its allies on the progress, the Congress government has been negotiating a deal with the United States that would remove a large number of the restrictions on nuclear dealings with India. Now, we all know that the Indian civilian nuclear program has achieved a great deal in the face of technology cut-off, but realistically the Indian energy generation from the nuclear area has been much slower than expected and has failed to meet its targets in the past (otherwise why would we be buying nuclear reactors from Russia?). Our energy needs are such that we have to be a part of this world in our policies, and no longer work with the "we can do everything" stance.

Like any deal, no party can ever come out of something like this having got everything it wanted. One measure of how good a deal is whether people are satisfied or dissatisfied. A deal that fails to get the support of the Indian left and the nuclear-ayatollahs of the US State Department is intrinsically a good deal :-). On a serious note, there are a number of strategic experts who are happy with the deal, and my own take on the deal is that this is a good effort. In an ideal world, we should have exploded a device in the 1960s and become a member of the nuclear-capable club, but no use crying over spilt milk.

The bigger problem with the apparent government and Congress capitulation to the left over the nuclear deal is that the credibility of the government is shot. If, when the deal was announced and the left had laid down the line of "over our dead body," and the government had backed off at that point, it would still have been good. The deal was a complex deal, and there was little understanding of the deal.

Instead, the government spent so much time explaining how the deal would be good, got the nuclear experts to vouch for the deal, got a lot of strategic security experts to favor the deal, and got the middle class involved in the deal with the talk of a closer understanding with the US and the promise of removal of many of the dual-use restrictions. It even got the allies to speak in the same way. And then the ultimate, with the two divinities, Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi both daring the left to withdraw support.

Maybe the expectation was that the left would back off this strong show of opposition, and maybe there was a wrong thought that this was play-acting by the left so that their constituency was mollified. But from all the discussion, it would be clear that rather than the nuclear deal, it was the implied much closer relationship with the US that was abhorrent to the left, and the feeling was so strong that they would be willing to let the Congress government fall.

In addition, the allies, having anticipated that the fall of the government and the elections might impact them negatively, also pushed back. And so we had the extraordinary spectacle that the PM and the party president in one day moved back and admitted that the deal was dead, and so was the credibility of Manmohan Singh.

This is also the death of Manmohan Singh the technocrat, the man with the non-politician touch. He laid his reputation on the line on this issue with personal comments, and having to step back must have hurt. One thing is for sure, the author of this piece will no longer treat Manmohan Singh as being different from the other politicians.

The India-US Nuclear Deal - Part II - The Right To Test

SeethepalliRaviKrishna — Sat, 13 Oct 2007 11:15:25 EDT

Looking further at the implications of signing the nuclear deal with the United States, India expects the right to conduct further tests without any penalties and any disruptions to the fuel.

There are three aspects to be considered
a. Does India want to conduct further tests ?

In the first place, India has had a voluntary moratorium in place after the 1998 testing. It had that earlier too for about 25 years, from '74 to '98. When the conditions were ripe (read economic and international political climate) India broke the moratorium, and vaporized the sand in Thar desert, India did it with the full understanding that it would invite the wrath of international community, yet the Government of the day did it.

Why? What happened after that?

As expected, sanctions came with no serious economic consequences, In less than a decade, all those who condemned India are falling all over us, and offering goodies. Japan, Australia, UK, Germany, Canada, even China, and finally the US want to do business with India and are pumping billions of dollars. Yet the same is still not happening with Pakistan, because they know screwdriver workers cannot really build a Nuclear industry but they can open Nuclear Wal-Mart but Baniya's cannot plough the fields, there is institutional knowledge in India to build and sustain nuclear industry, but the pace will be slower. Now all these countries to a certain extent are dependent on Indian brainpower or at least they have the sense that Indians are capable of being unaffected by all the sanctions they can think of.

More importantly, we need to understand under what circumstances would India conduct further tests? Also, lets not forget our declared intention to use N-weapons only in case we are attacked by N-weapons, and also our stated policy of no first strike.

- Further tests by China or Pakistan? Very legitimate concerns and I am sure we will get support from the world community to sharpen our weapons given the threat in our immediate neighborhood
- New kids on the block with N-weapons, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Iran, Afghanistan, little more further, South East Asian nations. Another legitimate reason to conduct tests.
- Let]s think of the worst case, US will threaten to attack India, or Russia or any of the other known Nuclear weapons states declares war or attacks India. Here, we are talking of World War III, then its anybody's game. If they are testing we will have right to continue our tests.
- A terrorist N-attack on India? Yes, this is one possibility where India could break its self imposed ban, but then for what purpose will it serve us to further test? will we be able to go and nuke them in barren lands of Afghanistan or North west provinces of Pakistan or in the jungles of Myanmar or in the perpetually flood hit regions of Bangladesh? In such scenarios, we still have to rely on our conventional forces, it will not really help us to do further tests.

b. Can India conduct further tests?

India has not agreed to allow America any control over production of fissile material. That is the reason why we have a separation of energy-related and strategic nuclear reactors. The Indo-US agreement does not stop India from producing fissile material to make nuclear weapons which will be done in strategic reactors, so we do have the requisite yellow cake to play Diwali in the desert, and that too if the strategic considerations force us to. Bottomline, India vaporized portions of Thar desert sand six times. Nothing will stop us from doing the same again.

C. What happens if India conducts the tests ?

There is nothing explicitly stopping us from testing. India reserves the right to test for whatever reason. Likewise, the U.S. also reserves its right to take action. From what I understand, there is no explicit mention of what that action is going to be and something similar will apply even to the rest of NSG folks. If we test, the Americans want their fuel and equipment back and I assume the same will be demanded by others when we go to the NSG. We waited 25 years for the second set of tests, we will wait another 35 years to do the next. We will bring our FBR tech to full steam before we test for the third time, if they want to take back all the equipment and spent fuel at that time, let them take it. Anyway, by that time we will have difficulty storing all the radioactive material deep down in earth's bowels. Let us pass that headache to them. As it is, now they are struggling and finding new places to bury the N waste and ending up shipping it to Australia who are also struggling to store the waste.

Wishful Predictions

I suspect either the Congress or Left will bring in a motion to get what is these days being called "Sense of Parliament". Not a vote which might kill the deal, but what we used to call in the past "Parliament resolution", which again is not a binding thing on the Government. Remember, the BJP Government with great fanfare brought in a resolution declaring that we need to get back the rest of Kashmir into Indian rule and within two years of that, we were shaking hands in Lahore and secretly discussing the option of converting LOC into an international border, so much for BJP's commitment . Anyway, a "Sense of Parliament" will re-affirm our stance of an independent foreign policy and for any new direction from US, we can bring out this statement in parliament just like they can quote the "Hyde Act", which by the way is non-binding on the US President.

"In international diplomacy there are no permanent friends only permanent interests." For now India's interests lie in getting this deal and the subsequent goodies. In 1946, the US passed a legislation saying it cannot share its Nuclear tech with its allies and that included its cousin UK, and look what happens after that, within 10 to about 15 years it seems that law had been annulled or violated in view of US national interests. So for us, we need to understand the US national interests which will help us counter the Hyde act and similar acts in other democracies which support us at NSG. That is the challenge for those entering IFS/IAS today, because we need their skills in about 15 - 20 years time to understand and maneuver India's foreign policy.

Having said the above in favor of the deal with US, it seems Indian strategic experts have genuine concerns in a deal with US. Memories of the Tarapur backstabbing are still fresh, the US is known to pull out of deals and agreements unilaterally. It is with this background that we need to adopt a smarter approach with the US - "Trust and spread out",

Trust the US that they will stick to their side of the deal, spread out our risks. This can be two-fold - one, get the US to depend on India more economically, strategically, and at the same time enhance and increase our engagement with Iran, Russia, China. Let them also have a stake in India's growth and unity. Also speed up our own research in the field of FBR technology, collaborate more with Research organizations in US, get them to outsource more and more research to India.

In conclusion, India needs this deal, not just for N-power, but to end the technology isolation and to have wider markets for our services and goods too. The deal is not just in the interest of India but is also in the interest of the rest of the world. While it appears we might have to make some compromises, much depends on how we negotiate the difficulties that will arise after signing the deal. We do have a vibrant democracy, well-supported by a parliament which is attended by "headless chickens" and this will provide the necessary impetus for an independent foreign policy because nobody can think or understand things like 123 or Hyde Act,

The US will have a better time if India has an independent policy instead of joining the Western camp, they are already having a tough time with one country who on paper is in their camp, with India joining them it can only get worse, I am sure US realizes this and will not meddle much, though the itch will be there. Yes, India will have to continue to maintain its self-declared pause in testing but that does not mean it will have to stop it altogether, it can still experiment with lesser yield testing. It can pursue FBR technology and get help with our LCAs and MCA, manned space flights, Chandrayana-1, get clearances to put some US and European satellites in orbit, those which US does not want to do, bottom line we can hope to get some serious returns out of our four decades of investment in space technology. We have already been admitted into ITER project in France, a precursor to Nuclear Fusion based technology to generate electricity. India will continue to get small but critical US radar technologies, at the same time we will keep the Russians happy by co-financing their advanced fighter projects.

More color TVs and McDonalds, more mobile phones, higher real estate prices, higher salaries, increased cost of living and the rest will continue. We need to take the risk to move faster in God we trust and move ahead and look at more opportunities which might come up in future. This is not the end of the world, its a fresh beginning on a long road of development and believe me this is a never ending road. India has many Gods to protect it from evil designs of other countries.