Skip to main content

India Comes in from the Cold

5_wa

India has been suffering as a nuclear rogue state over the last several years, as it has not signed the non-proliferation agreements and has in fact built nuclear weaponry – from their perspective, to ensure parity with neighbors Pakistan and especially China. India has a policy of never using nuclear weapons offensively but only if nuclear missiles are hurled its way – seems very cold war, doesn’t it?

But the Bush administration has been looking for a way to fold India back into the international batter and has succeeded in pacting with the country to ensure that India primarily pursue civilian uses of nuclear energy and accept house calls from the International Atomic Energy Agency. This is an agreement that has been struck with other countries that aims to open trade routes in nuclear materials and technology. (Thorium, which India has in abundance, may well prove interesting going forward. Look here for some more information.)

The vote on the treaty in the United State was fast and easy (with just a little mischief in the form of India having to align its views on Iran with those of the U.S. A similar agreement with Russia has stalled over the big bear’s meddling in Iran).

The vote in India’s parliament yesterday looks like it was a near thing, with the Communists completely out of sorts. This popped out in the coverage:

In the end the vote was won comfortably – with a majority of 19 – partly because MPs [members of parliament] were brought in from hospital on trolleys and others convicted for murder were released from prison to attend parliament.

Were, um, a lot of MPs in prison for murder? And still voting? If true, the wild west is alive and well in the east. Nineteen votes seems a pretty comfortable margin, but that’s in an assembly of 534 members. A lot of arm twisting likely took place. (This was actually a confidence vote – if the ruling Congress Party had lost, it would have had to call elections and that would have been the end of the treaty. This was a big worry, and the party put on a literal fireworks show when the vote went its way.)

However, there might have been more than arm twisting going on:

For the first time in the annals of Indian Parliament, the Prime Minister [Manmohan Singh] had to table his reply on the confidence motion as the determined Opposition including the Left parties raised slogans demanding the response of the Government to use money power to secure MPs to win the confidence vote.

In other words, money crossed hands to secure votes – or so says the opposition. Investigation to follow – if this goes badly, it still seems unlikely to derail the vote, even if it ought to.

There’s still more to come before it’s a done deal:

The deal has to be approved by the International Atomic Energy Agency and the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group, which monitors sales of nuclear technology. Most big powers have backed the deal, although Pakistan has raised objections.

Pakistan’s reaction is understandable under the circumstances and if parliament is really as described, the IAEA will likely take a hard look, but in sum, this is good news even within a disquieting context. Both the U.S. and India affirm that India has a clean proliferation record.

Better news would be India abandoning its nuclear arms – Brazil, for one, had to do this to get on the good side of the non-proliferation argument. We assume that India’s rapidly rising economic and geopolitical standings motivate the U.S. desire to get this issue out of the way and to accept terms that are less than ideal.

Let’s see where the IAEA takes this.

Picture of an Indian jail. It’s not as though American politicians avoid this fate – we’re looking at you, James Traficant (House member from Ohio who ran for office from his jail cell in 2004 and lost) – but it adds an interesting wrinkle, doesn’t it?

Comments

Anonymous said…
Interesting, James Traficant was a Dem. And so is Ted Kennedy. But he never got jailed for what happened to Mary Jo Kopechne at Chappaquiddick.

We need to remember history the way it was, not the way it's being revised.
Finrod said…
What's all this partisan stuff? From what I've seen on the net, nuclear power has a broad support base, spanning both wings of the political spectrum.
Ray Lightning said…
"Better news would be India abandoning its nuclear arms"

Please.. We Indians are sick of this hypocrisy.

India has been calling umpteen times for complete nuclear disarmament in the world. The cold war is over. Why do you still keep those bombs ? Let's destroy nuclear bombs forever.

We cannot accept a world where select powers like US and China still carry nuclear weapons.

Is this clear ?
Ray Lightning said…
About criminals getting elected to Indian parliament, here are the figures. 120 members out of 543 (22.1%) in the Indian parliament have criminal cases against them.

This is what you get when 50% of the country is illiterate and mired in poverty.

But atleast, Indian democracy functions like clockwork. There has never been a military coup or authoritarian rule imposed on the country (except for a brief period of emergency during 1975-77)

India is the only example in the developing world that democracy indeed works. Maybe, that is because we had the world's most ancient democracies.
Anonymous said…
Ray Lightning, far more criminals exist in the US Senate and House of Representatives, but few of them have actually been convicted of any crime. How can Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, and their like be convicted when the crime that they support (and you all know what that is) has been made legal? Are politicians in the Indian Parliament hypocritical? I would wager that is so to a far lesser extent than Pelosi, Kucinich, Boxer, Clinton, Kerry and all the rest here in the US.

And by the way, NONE of the names above are really enthusiatic nuclear power supporters (indeed, even in Teddy's case, wind mills off Cape Cod are no good because they might despoil his view).

The only good Dem is a defeated Dem.

And yes, let's take weapons grade HEU and plutonium out of the bombs and downblend them for use in nuclear reactors. Why can't we give some of our bomb grade material to India in a downblended form for its civilian nuclear energy program? What in God's name is wrong with that?

I also agree with Ray that so long as China has nuclear arms, India has a right to possess them as a means of deterrence. For the Dems to insist that the Indians disarm their nuclear weapons platforms leaves them vulnerable to the Red Chinese. Don't forget - China is STILL communist, India is NOT.
Mark Flanagan said…
To Ray: Thanks for the extra information. I guess the American attitude has been that criminality in elected life lessens an overall respect for the rule of law. Maybe India is a good case study for the truth of that attitude.

To anon: I could just as easily have mentioned Duke Cunningham.

This is really a non-partisan blog. We're interested in politics because of its involvement with nuclear energy issues and for occasional snark, but we want to stay away from the foul swill that partisanship and ideological purity invites. Accept that energy issues affect all of us and that's not so hard to do.

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...