The Hindu Business Line : ‘Buddy, where is the catch?’

No matter what hidden agenda the US might have, it is worth going ahead with the nuclear deal, if the worst thing that can happen is the annulment of the agreement.

M. Ramesh

You want to hire a taxi to travel, say, 100 km and the driver says he’ll charge you just Rs 25. Would you be happy? Of course, but you would certainly ask him: “Buddy, where is the catch?”

Like the under-charging taxi driver, the United States’ zeal in sealing the 123 Agreement has never been satisfactorily explained. And hence the question is, “buddy, where is the catch?”

An ace up its sleeve

The US is an exemplary democracy with an extremely responsible and accountable government that works well for its people. But in all the country’s external dealings, the US has always an ace up its sleeve, a hidden agenda, well-meant for sure, to serve the interests of Americans.

If anybody needs any evidence of this, please look at WTO, especially the Uruguay Round negotiations.

The ‘123 Agreement’ paves the way for lifting of sanctions and supply of uranium, despite not only the fact that India will not sign the NPT, but will not give up pursuing its weapons programme. Even the US position that the 123 Agreement will turn null and void if India conducted a nuclear test is not so watertight, as Mr G. Parthasarathy, India’s former High Commissioner to Pakistan, has noted in a recent article in Business Line.

The US wants to…

So, why is the US going out of the way to please India? I have asked this question of many experts. The answers are: The US wants to cosy up with India with an eye on the business opportunities; the US wants to help India grow stronger so that it is a counter-weight to China in Asia; the US is alarmed about global warming and wants to assist an energy-hungry India to get access to clean energy sources; the US wants to entice India to its side and against Iran, etc, etc…

These explanations simply do not wash. The US does not need the 123 Agreement for stronger economic ties with India; the US knows that India will not be a counter-weight to China because it knows India will not do anything at its bidding; a few thousand megawatts of power is not going to make a very serious impact against global warming; India’s support is not so critical to the US in its war on Iran.

Micheal Krepon is the co-founder of the Henry L. Stimson Center, an American think-tank on global issues. He is the contributing editor of Nuclear Risk Reduction in South Asia (see his extremely illuminating Web site www.stimson.org).

I asked Micheal Krepon (by email) why the US was so keen on the nuclear deal. He replied: “I don’t know. I am as puzzled as you are.”

But the analogy of the under-charging taxi driver ends here. You would not take the taxi, fearing that the taxi might be faulty and breakdown in the middle of nowhere or the taxi driver might be a guy with less-than-honourable-intentions.

External help welcome, not critical

But, no matter what hidden agenda the US might have, it is worth going ahead with the nuclear deal, if the worst thing that can happen is the annulment of the agreement.

For India — a world leader in Pressurised Heavy Water Reactor technology and one that has recently gained expertise in Fast Breeder technology — external help is welcome, but not critical. (Presumably, this is the premise on which Manmohan Singh & Co is proceeding with the deal.)

The recent problems we are hearing about India’s nuclear power plants not working to full capacity because of want of uranium is only because of an inability to open new domestic uranium mines in good time, and not the lack of the raw material.

In April, the Chairman and Managing Director of Nuclear Power Corporation of India, Mr S. K. Jain, told this newspaper that India had enough uranium to last the next 50 years to support a 10,000 MW nuclear power programme. There are indications that more deposits of the mineral could be lying underground.

Considering, therefore, that external help is not so critical, there is no harm in India going ahead with the 123 Agreement and saying, ‘let’s see how it goes’. If the US stops supplies of uranium, so be it.

The issue then would only be, what happens to all the investments made in setting up nuclear power projects?

The answer is to let the private sector of the nuclear suppliers group make the investments — of course, with domestic participation. Let the investors take care of uranium supplies.

More Stories on : Foreign Relations | Power

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page