India Nuclear Deal

Yesterday, with reference to the bizarre nuclear deal the Bush administration reached with India, Robert Farley made reference to our shift toward an attempt to impose an "arbitrary and self-interested" non-proliferation regime on the world, an attempt that's doomed to failure. And quite so. It's worth saying, though, that in the particular case of the India deal and self-interested is doing the bargain a kindness. What's happening in this deal is that we're granting India concessions related to its nuclear program and India is giving us . . . essentially nothing in exchange.

This passed congress thanks to a lot of effective lobbying by Indian American business associations, complete with a revolving door lobbying job for former US assistant secretary of state for arms control Stephen Rademaker once the deal was sealed. The negotiations themselves, meanwhile, were all messed up. Bush headed off to India in March 2006 hoping to conclude a deal but without one actually in place. The administration then appeared to be so determined to accomplish something on the trip and stage a big photo op that it was willing to agree to a deal that didn't achieve anything in particular for the US other than to allow the photo op.

Meanwhile, from a neoconnish perspective the fact that this undermines the nonproliferation regime is probably a good thing. They hate the idea that diplomatic agreements might actually work and undermine their efforts to start an endless series of wars.

Comments

Worth pointing out the fact that the China hawks want India as a counterbalance to China. China was desperate to try and avoid this nuclear deal (and the concurrent alliance-in-all-but-name with the US) and even offered territorial concessions to try and sway Delhi, but no luck.

Posted by John | July 26, 2007 3:26 PM

Not only that John, but who is India's historical arch-nemesis? Who did India very nearly have a "nuclear exchange" with back in 1998?

That's right, Pakistan, the very same military dictatorship anti-war peaceniks say Bush is giving a free ride.

I think the US should be doing everything it can to shore up democratic India, short of this sort of deal which hurts the goal of nuclear non-proliferation.

Posted by Peter K. | July 26, 2007 3:39 PM

AIPAC must be involved. We all know they are the only lobby that controls anything in washington.

Posted by Dave | July 26, 2007 4:26 PM

I seem to remember that the exchange agreement with India was nukes for them and mangoes for us.

Posted by Dick W | July 26, 2007 4:42 PM

"AIPAC must be involved. We all know they are the only lobby that controls anything in washington."

The American Indian Political Action Committee?

Posted by Njorl | July 26, 2007 4:54 PM

Nonproliferation is a dead ideal, and good riddance.

It's deeply hypocritical at its core. It's simply a codification of Hilaire Belloc's old ditty: "Whatever happens/We have got/The Maxim gun/And they have not." Substitute "atom bomb" for "Maxim gun" and you've got the logic of nonproliferation, such as it is. Note that no real efforts at nonproliferation have been aimed at the white Israelis.

Nuclear weapons keep the peace by making the costs of war too terrible to contemplate. That worked for 50 years of the Cold War (even with leaders of sometimes questionable rationality on both sides) and there's no reason it will not continue to work.

Posted by Josh G. | July 26, 2007 5:18 PM

India and Israel have made quite a bit of nice together too. So it's a two prong strategy, a check against China and Pakistan, with Pakistan representing dirty Muslims. if you want to grace such things strategy instead of just hare brained tactics.

Now your average cracker conservative can't tell the difference between a Pakistani and an Indian and would like nothing better than to see them all gone. So come to think of it this is a great strategy.

Posted by rapier | July 26, 2007 6:55 PM

MY:
Meanwhile, from a neoconnish perspective the fact that this undermines the nonproliferation regime is probably a good thing. They hate the idea that diplomatic agreements might actually work and undermine their efforts to start an endless series of wars.

Jozef
Your "nonproliferation regime" is doing a hell of a job,Matt. Actually, if we act in concert with countries that have the balls to do something constructive (India & Israel , not the EU) we can crush the islamostanis and bunghole sungs. Peace "roadmaps" and nonproliferation regimes have been a joke. Peole act in their self interest, and its a two way street. Let the Europeans don their burhkas and let the heathen rage.

Posted by Jozef | July 26, 2007 8:20 PM

I really love this touching concern for nonproliferation. First, US govts in the 80's and 90's (including democratic ones) looked the other way when the Chinese and Pakistanis proliferated nuclear technology. After all North Korea did not wake up to become a near nuclear state one fine day. Second, India has never proliferated nukes, and probably never will. Third, India is not going to stop its weapons program simply because a treaty to which she is not a signatory decided who should have access to nukes and who should not. Fourth, given the security environment India is in, it is foolish to expect that she will give up a nuclear deterrence capability. Also, India needs energy in large quantities and nuclear technology is one way to satisfy some of these needs. This is one of the few smart moves any US Govt has made in their diplomatic dealings with India. This deal is not without benefit to the US, they get access to a huge market for nuclear technology (~$100 billion) and make relations with India a lot more friendly and smoother which makes long term strategic and economic sense. Something that sanctimonious and hypocritical speeches on nonproliferation and nonproliferation treaties will definitely not do.

Posted by vkri | July 26, 2007 8:31 PM

"I think the US should be doing everything it can to shore up democratic India, short of this sort of deal which hurts the goal of nuclear non-proliferation."

I agree with this, but the problem is India only has one democratic national party, the Congress Party. The BJP is a national party that has had an unprecedented level of involvement in state-led pogroms in modern Indian history. They also performed nuclear tests partly based on the idea that pissing on Muslim Pakistan is itself a good thing.

"Your "nonproliferation regime" is doing a hell of a job,Matt. Actually, if we act in concert with countries that have the balls to do something constructive (India & Israel , not the EU) we can crush the islamostanis and bunghole sungs. Peace "roadmaps" and nonproliferation regimes have been a joke. Peole act in their self interest, and its a two way street. Let the Europeans don their burhkas and let the heathen rage."

You really have never studied the history of Indo-American bilateral relations, have you? The Indian foreign policy elite is haughty and arrogant enough to give our own a run for its money. Indians right now may be pro-American, but they hate the idea of doing anything the US tells it to do. Indians are going to do what they think is right for Indians no matter what the Americans say. Think how little help India gave the US in Korea and in Iraq I. The State Department South Asian hands were floored when Vajpayee offered the US help by opening up Indian ports to the US military, which was quickly rescinded. As to your last sentence, ironically, South Asians, including Indians, living in Europe tend to be highly discriminated against, not just on the basis of religion but also race. Members of my own family living in Europe has had to deal with this.

I could be in favor of this deal if it wasn't so flying-by-the-seat-of-our-pants and ad hoc. We could change the nonproliferation regime to one of 1) reducing the nuclear arsenals of existing nations (there are too many nukes already in the world and even if 0.1% of them leak out to a non-state actor, there will be hell to pay that could end liberalism for the next generation) 2) recognizing that the imaginary line between military and civilian nuclear capabilities is largely imaginary (India and Israel got their nukes via civilian use and espionage while Japan could go nuclear within a year if it wanted to) 3) allowed for a process that would allow a liberal democracy to gain nukes but not if that violated 4) creation of regional nuclear-free zones in Latin America, Africa and possibly other regions that unlike the other two currently have nukes. It also doesn't help that the only two democracies with nukes that aren't in the permanent five are India and Israel, who are currently both occupying Muslim lands and peoples.

Posted by Reality Man | July 27, 2007 2:27 AM

> It also doesn't help that the only two democracies
> with nukes that aren't in the permanent five are
> India and Israel, who are currently both occupying
> Muslim lands and peoples.

This would be very profound if it wasn't for the
little factoid that every single nuclear power
(except France, perhaps) is currently occupying
"Muslim lands and peoples." (Iraq, Chechnya,
Xinjiang etc. if you need a hint).

So what point did you wish to make by that
observation?

Posted by DJ | July 27, 2007 3:22 AM

"This would be very profound if it wasn't for the
little factoid that every single nuclear power
(except France, perhaps) is currently occupying
"Muslim lands and peoples." (Iraq, Chechnya,
Xinjiang etc. if you need a hint).

So what point did you wish to make by that
observation?"

The problem is that by shifting from the status quo system to one where I believe we can and should allow liberal democracies to legally possess nukes, the only two countries this would allow into the fold would be India and Israel while Pakistan (and North Korea) would be the only ones excluded. This wouldn't be a problem if at the same time we weren't trying to convince the Muslim world we are not at war with them.

Posted by Reality Man | July 27, 2007 3:42 AM

Reality Man:

"I agree with this, but the problem is India only has one democratic national party, the Congress Party. The BJP is a national party that has had an unprecedented level of involvement in state-led pogroms in modern Indian history. They also performed nuclear tests partly based on the idea that pissing on Muslim Pakistan is itself a good thing."

I disagree with the specifics of your argument here about the relative democratic credentials of the two national parties--both have less than sterling histories in this area. I do agree with the general point I take you to be making (please correct me if I am mistaken in this): India is very much an imperfect democracy, at times even a democracy-in-the-making.

Still, in the nuclear arena, India has been a responsible actor. That, coupled with the rise of Indian economic power, has increased the strategic value of cooperating with India in the judgment of the current U.S. administration. In this arena, Indian and American goals do coincide, broadly speaking--countering China by shoring up India, assistance to the civilian nuclear program in India, etc. So I do think that an agreement of this sort--if not necessarily the one that's been hammered out--is in both countries' interest.

I also think you're mistaken in thinking that the tests were motivated to any substantive extent by a desire to 'piss off' Muslim Pakistan. The evidence I've come across suggests that the main strategic aim was to counter China, along with non-strategic aims to increase Indian prestige etc.

The utility of conducting a nuclear test was shared across the political spectrum in India--notice that Prime Minister Rao's administration (Congress party) was planning to conduct a test, only to abandon plans to do so under American pressure. Still, even after that instance, the Congress party govt. only kept the plans to test in abeyance and did not abandon the idea--that's why the BJP-led alliance administration was able to conduct the test so quickly after winning the elections. If you have found evidence otherwise, please do post a link or cite (btw, this is not a rhetorical request).

"It also doesn't help that the only two democracies with nukes that aren't in the permanent five are India and Israel, who are currently both occupying Muslim lands and peoples."

I don't wish to turn this thread away from its focus on the nuclear deal. However, as a Kashmiri Pandit I don't agree with your (rather illiberal) characterization of J&K State (and/or some of its regions) as a 'Muslim land'--do correct me if you are not referring to J&K. Like other communities in the State (Muslim and non-Muslim), our community is indigenous to the State, the Valley to be precise--certainly, the history of our community can be traced for several millenia in the Valley, just like the Muslim communities of the Valley. We most emphatically do not think of our home as a 'Muslim land'.

Besides ignoring the non-Muslim communities, both in the Valley and elsewhere (Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Christian), your characterization incorrectly portrays the Muslim community in that state as monolithic in its attitudes toward the insurgency in J&K State. For example, Kargil Muslims, as well as the vast majority of Muslims in Jammu district, don't support the insurgency in J&K State.

Even in the Valley, enthusiasm for secession is not uniform: It is greatest among urban, Sunni Muslims for example, with lesser support--compared to urban Sunnis--in northern, rural areas of the valley, as well as in the Gujjar Muslim shepherding community (who make a living in the upper reaches of the Valley). And, of course, we Kashmiri Pandits--also indigenous to the Valley--most certainly don't support the insurgency.

Regards,
Kumar

Posted by Kumar | July 27, 2007 1:33 PM

Reality Man,
Care to comment on Mr.Kumar's piece.?

unfortunately, one of the irritating things that i have had to encounter as an Indian guy living here in the US are people like Reality Man who may have partial knowledge of the Indian political scene or Indo-US relations and then pass them off as facts.

Reality Man and any one else who share his opinions, there are reasons why Indian foreign policy makers were wary of the US. For starters, there was the Cold War. India's "liberal elite" was and still is left leaning and had no qualms about siding with the Soviet Union even though they pretended to be "non-aligned" with either of the superpowers.

Couple this with Nixon's threat to send US naval carriers to the Indian Ocean during the India-Pakistan war of 1971 (when Nixon was ready to try anything to keep Bangladesh from breaking away from Pakistan), the US looking the other way when Pakistan was accquiring nukes or the Sino-US nexus in the 70s (which i think was brilliant in the overall Cold War strategy) and you can see why both sides were deeply mistrustful of each other.

All that changed with India's economy growing, potential for greater growth and of course 9/11. India's foreign policy does not have that great leap leftward as it used to. You can blame globalization for that or the growing number of Indian Americans who have come to love and admire this country, understand its position during the Cold War and now are ready to ally with it against the scourge of Islamic fundamentalism.

Matt Yeglasias ,btw reminds me of the foreign policy elites in India who can moralize to no end about nuclear non proliferation without realizing that no one in hell will listen to your happy talk about a peaceful world of no nukes.

Nuclear weapons are the deterrent and as long as countries have no record of proliferation and are not inimical to American interests must have a chance for civilian nuclear co-operation. Screw with the NPT - Iran is going to develop a bomb and barring some miracle, we would have to live with it.

What would have happened to the NPT then ?

Posted by NS | August 2, 2007 12:02 AM