The Daily Observer

During the recent visit of the President of the United States to India, an agreement on nuclear cooperation between the two largest democracies was announced. According to  the agreement, India will have to declare 14 out of 22 nuclear reactors civilian in purpose. The remaining 8  can be used as part of India’s military program. The US will help provide technology and fuel to the 14 civilian reactors. India reserves the right to reserve any nuclear reactor it builds in the future for military purposes. However it can receive international assistancec only for  its civilian reactors, which will also come under international inspection. The US and the world benefit from this deal in many ways. Number one, this is  the first time in history that India has declared its intention to allow international inspections on its civilian reactors. Number two, this will allow India to help meet the growing energy needs of its large population and rapidly expanding economy without burning a lot of fossil fuels. This will reduce the amount of harmful pollutants in the atmosphere, leading to cleaner air for all.  Number three, this will help reduce pressure on prices for petroleum based fuels. Number four, this is an example to the entire world that countries that behave responsibly in the international arena and do not indulge in proliferation of weapons of mass destruction will be treated differently than those that do.

What is hard to comprehend is the reaction of some of the media and politicians in the US who are opposing the nuclear agreement. The New York Times has been proiminent in this regard. Edward Markey, a US Representative from Massachusetts, has also been critical of the agreement. One thing that some of the critics keep harping on is that countries like Iran and North Korea will look at this deal and feel discriminated. The critics think that this will make it harder for the US to convince them to give up their nuclear weapons. I just wonder how anybody who follows world history and current politics can put India in the same bracket with North Korea and Iran . The entire point of diplomacy is to see how to best further the interests of your own country by negotiating on different terms with different countries depending on circumstances, shared values and shared objectives. Is it really in the interests of the US to have a nuclear armed Iran and a nuclear armed North Korea but an energy starving India? North Korea and Iran didn’t get their arsenal by playing by the rules.  They got their arsenal partly with the help of a certain Dr. Khan from  a certain country which lies on India’s  border to the west. Incidentally, that country iis cited by critics of the Indo-US nuclear deal as another country that has been discriminated against.

I don’t for a moment doubt the patriotism of Rep. Markey and the NYT and  other critics of the deal. But their is a certain amount of intellectual dishonesty in opposing the Indo-US nuclear deal because of discrimination towards other countries and because it leaves India a certain degree of freedom to develop its nuclear arsenal further, and at the same time not seriously challenging the conventional nuclear order which gives 5 countries (Russia, US, UK, China and France) immense privileges in terms of nuclear energy and atomic military development. The critics may feel that the best way to ensure long term security is to limit the nuclear weapons capabilities of other countries. If it is easier to chip away at India’s arsenal than doing the same for Iran and North Korea, go ahead and do it.

However the reality of today’s world is that nations (more specifically ruling establishments) do have qualitative differences amongst them. Some national regimes think it is okay to brainwash their citizens , isolate them from the rest of the world, and routinely threaten the obliteration of other countries. Other regimes may think that it is important to hold free and fair elections, make sure that the press is not bullied around,and that the way to ensure lasting peace is by strong economic, cultural and people to people contacts with other countries. Some countries routinely disburse money to people in other countries to fund terrorist operations. Other countries may use spare funds to assist other nations in holding free and fair elections, and to improve educational and health facilities abroad. Therefore the presence of a nuclear weapons program in some countries may pose a strong threat to world peace than the presence of weapons in other countries. I wish  the influential critics of the deal took a moment to ponder this.

A peaceful, economically prosperous world is  in the best interests of the people of the US. India long  ago announced a no first  use policy on nuclear weapons, in addition to a voluntary memoriam on testing. India has an excellent record in terms of not assisting  other nations in nuclear weapons programs. Assisting India in its quest for energy can only strengthen the long term economic and  security interests of the US.

 -A

Well said. In spite of what pseudo-secular lefty pinko ‘intellectuals’ may say about George W, W does have a genuine commitment to the emergence of India as a global democratic power. This stems from his belief that global democracy is the best defender of long term American commercial and security interests. Previous US Presidents either lacked this commitment , or were frustrated with India’s pre-1991 non-aligned status (which basically meant that Indian diplomats supported the Soviet Union whenever it invaded countries like Hungary, Afghanistan, etc but would never hesitate criticize the US).

The recent changes in the contours of the Indo-US relationship are not just a tribute to George W (and to a much smaller extent Bill Cllinton), but to the vision of people like Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Jaswant Singh and Manmohan Singh who had the political courage to break away from the previous non-aligned norms and instead concentrated on letting India occupy her rightful place as a proud , influential democratic , powerful country in the comity of nations.

The fact that Manmohan decided to remove a left winger (Natwwar Singh) from the External Affairs ministry did not make matters worse, either.

Howevevr our pinko, pseudo-secular leftists are too bogged donwn in vote-bank politics and harmful ideologies to see anything positive about anything that will help India become a stronger force (either militarily or economically). They would rather organize bank strikes , shutdown airports ,incite communal passions, and organize poetry contests in praise of Stalin.   -AS