Indo -US nuclear agreement controversy

[Nakeeran]

How come noone has yet opened any topic on this burning issue ?

The recent Indo-US nuclear agreement has snowballed into a major crisis at the centre with left parties having taken a diametrically opposite stand . Consequence >>>> an imminent threat to the Congress UPA government & all opposition parties are keenly watching the moves of CPM .

On March 2, the United States and India reached agreement on their controversial nuclear deal. The deal still must be approved by the U.S. Congress. The deal provides India with American nuclear technology and fuel; India, however, does not have to become a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (N.P.T.) and only has to open 14 of its 22 nuclear reactors to international inspections. [See: "Bush Visits South Asia and Offers a Nuclear Gift to India"]

The Bush administration's motivations behind this deal lie in Washington's strategy of convincing India to become a South Asian ally of the United States. The purpose of turning India into a U.S. ally in the region is primarily due to Washington's concerns over the growing power of China. There is recognition in Washington that China will pose a strategic threat to U.S. interests in the future. Nevertheless, Washington also sees India as a stable partner in a critical region. [See: "China's Geostrategy: Playing a Waiting Game"]

It is in India's interests to improve its relations with the United States. There are two primary strategic reasons behind this interest. For one, India faces an ongoing conflict with Pakistan. While weaker than India, Pakistan has received military equipment from China. In addition, Pakistan has become an ally of convenience to the United States. Relations with the United States are now important for Pakistan, especially for its current government of President Pervez Musharraf that keeps a tenuous grip on power. The relationship between the U.S. and Pakistan acts as a controlling factor in Pakistan's conflict with India. As long as Washington keeps control in Islamabad, the chances for conflict between India and Pakistan decrease. [See: "Pakistan: a Geopolitical Crux"]

India's second strategic interest for improving relations with the United States lies in New Delhi's relationship with Beijing. While there is much talk about the improving relationship between India and China, their relationship is still marked by rivalry. Both countries are competing in the energy field, with China seeming to have taken the edge. They have fought a border war in the past, and there is the possibility that the two countries will clash in the future. Therefore, by improving relations with the United States, India gains more leverage in its relations with China.

Additionally, improving relations with the United States does not mean that India has to limit its relationship with China. On the contrary, improving relations with the United States provides India the ability to balance more effectively between the simultaneous pressures placed on it by Washington and Beijing. There is, of course, the concern that by improving relations with the United States, India risks damaging its relations with China. Nevertheless, India has become a strong enough player to pursue its interests in the region, and its relationship with the United States will not prevent it from forging better relations with China if it pursues that foreign policy course.

One aspect of U.S.-India cooperation that has caused unrest in India is how the relationship will affect India's relationship with Iran. While India and Iran were on opposite sides during the Cold War, in the last decade they have improved relations dramatically. The two countries have engaged in joint military exercises, and they also have increased economic ties. However, as India and the United States improve relations, Washington has put pressure on New Delhi to weaken its relationship with Tehran. This has caused much domestic unrest in India, with lawmakers seeing the U.S.-India nuclear deal as placing too many restrictions on India's foreign policy. [See: "India's Interests Collide Over Iran"]

The Bush administration, however, apparently recognized India's interests in this matter and altered its position, stating that India can go ahead with a pipeline deal involving Iran and Pakistan. For instance, on March 4, Bush said in Islamabad, in a statement more directed at Pakistan, "Our beef with Iran is not the pipeline."

India's nuclear deal with the United States will prove valuable for New Delhi. In addition to the technical benefits of the deal, India also gains geopolitical leverage in the region. There are, however, some potential drawbacks to the deal. As India forges a closer relationship with the United States, it will cause China to become more concerned about its neighbor to the west and may cause Beijing to work toward better containment of India. [See: "China's Strategy of Containing India"]

Additionally, as India and the U.S. improve relations, it will also cause concern in Russia, a strong Indian partner. Currently, Russia is India's biggest arms supplier, and Moscow is keen on continuing this relationship for as long as possible. Their military relationship involves not just hardware, but expertise, training and spare parts. As the U.S. and India move closer together, Washington is interested in expanding its access to India's arms purchases. These conditions suggest that India will strike a balance in its defense needs between its steady partner and its new potential ally. This balance might not be easy to maintain, as various domestic factions will be competing with each other in order to gain dominance over U.S.-India and India-Russia security arrangements. As India and China seek energy access in Central Asia -- a region dominated by Russia -- India's close position to Washington may cause Russia to favor China or Japan in upcoming oil and gas exploration and pipeline deals.

http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=vi...&language_id=1

Anybody with a better knowledge on this topic , pl enlighten us . Looks like the union govt even may collapse wrf to this agreement !

[unhappyboy]

India should be happy with the deal for two reasons:

#1 India has no clout, yet she's managed to strike a deal with the world's sole superpower.

#2 India won't be able to test nukes.

That's it.

[Rohit]

It is not that strenuous to see that the Indo-US nuclear agreement would serve more US interests in the long run than it would serve India’s interests. On the contrary, it is more likely to produce far-reaching consequences against India, as India sends strong signals to China of its weaker position and of having no better options but to shift its position from a neutral neighbour to that of an influenced, biased and weaker opponent.

The fact is, the US can no longer ignore China’s phenomenally growing economic, military and political power at the world stage; and neither can India. Like the rest of the world, US sees China as an up coming superpower and impending threat to its supremacy. In the same vein, India is strained to see its safety in becoming a US pet, while nourishing itself from US nuclear fodder.

[Rohit]

• *Would India be better of as a US pet ?
  *There is no comparison between China and India !
  *India – 163 years behind China !

• China’s Swelling Military, Economic and Political Power

Space Technology

China's escalating expertise in space is also enhancing its competence as a global military force. Along with lofting future radar, ocean surveillance, and high-resolution photoreconnaissance satellites, China's rise as a space power also includes pursuit of an offensive anti-satellite system.

Those observations are included in a new report-Military Power of the People's Republic of China: A Report to Congress-issued by the U.S. Office of the Secretary of Defense.

Furthermore, China's access to space will continue to improve as it develops newer boosters to replace the aging Long March system, the report stresses.

In the next decade, Beijing most likely will field radar, ocean surveillance, and high-resolution photoreconnaissance satellites. China will eventually deploy advanced imagery, reconnaissance, and Earth resource systems with military applications," the report states.

The Pentagon report explains that China launched its second manned space mission on October 12, 2005, nearly two years after its first piloted Earth orbiting mission. The two-person crew returned safely on October 17, 2005.

The success of China's human spaceflight program to date "required a substantial amount of systems integration and planning, and serves as an indicator of China's rapid and relatively smooth rise as an emerging space power," the report concludes.

In the marketplace

The newly issued report highlights the fact that not only is China expanding indigenous capabilities, it is also marketing its technological space knowledge-satellite building, manufacturing, and launch services-to the international market.

Anti-satellite weaponry

The Pentagon report warns that Beijing "continues to pursue an offensive anti-satellite system," saying that China can currently destroy or disable satellites only by launching a ballistic missile or space-launch vehicle armed with a nuclear weapon.

China is also working on several types of "new concept" weapon systems, the report says, including a radio frequency (RF) weapon, citing Chinese writings that suggest it could be used against satellites in orbit.

http://www.space.com/news/060605_china_military.html

China & India October 10, 2005 -A visual essay

The Chinese economy is much more integrated with the world economy

China’s early steps to liberalise its economy and invest heavily to modernise its physical infrastructure gave it a substantial edge over India

http://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/DBR_I...0000192108.pdf

Chasing China: Like its rival, India has produced staggering growth, but it still lags on most fronts.

http://www.time.com/time/asia/covers...9/graphic.html

India and China: a comparison

China has demonstrated again and again that when it focuses its resources, especially financial resources, there isn't much that can stand in its way.

Let's throw in some other metrics just for fun. China won 63 medals at the 2004 Olympics, 32 of them gold. India won a single silver medal. Beijing will host the 2008 Olympics. No Indian city has yet made a serious bid for the Games. China is on its way to becoming one of the world's most popular tourist destinations. India just isn't.

Stop comparing China and India. There is no comparison.

http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/...naindia_1.html

Science panic in India

Science in India is on its deathbed

Indian science will be finished in the next five years. Our universities have dried up.

There are only a handful of scientists left. Even the smaller countries like Taiwan, Singapore and South Korea have become global players and have overtaken us.

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbi....html#comments

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/a...ow/1784139.cms

A top science body in India, the Scientific Advisory Council, last week caused jitters among Indians after assessing a recent U.S. military report comparing the research output of scientists in China, India and other developing countries. Not only was India behind China in number of papers published, Jain notes, but far more Chinese research papers are landing in top Western journals. More worrisome still for the Indians – and encouraging for the Chinese – is the likelihood that the trend is going to continue: Jain writes that the World Bank’s “Knowledge Index,” a ranking that looks at a country’s scientific fundamentals including Internet and PC usage, patents, and IT adoption by local companies, also skews heavily toward China. In 1995 China scored 3.03 and now scores 4.21, he writes, but India has gone in the other direction, scoring 2.76 11 years ago and just 2.61 today.

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbi....html#comments

India – 163 years behind China?

New Delhi, Feb. 10: A bit of school algebra may sometimes deliver a reality check. India is hoping that its economic growth will edge closer to China’s 10 per cent, but it still lags over a century and a half behind the northern neighbour in its science and technology workforce.

A scientist at the Centre for Mathematical Modelling and Computer Simulation in Bangalore has shown that India will take at least 163 years to match China’s research workforce of 850,000 even if Beijing were to freeze the number today.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/107021...ry_7377689.asp

China can build things. Why can't India?

India’s top science and technology official is in China, making excuses about why his country’s infrastructure is so shoddy.

India can't grow at China's pace

I have been to both countries, and there are just no comparisons. In India, beggars are everywhere and things are built haphazardly; there seems to be no city planning everywhere. In China, you could feel the prosperity, clean and orderly.

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbi....html#comments

India struggles to catch China

The desire to make comparisons is understandable. Both have more than a billion people. Both are growing at 10% a year.

There are, I suspect, many who are hoping that India, with its freedom and democracy, will win this new race to become the next economic super power. I am not so sure.

China is not a free society, and it has immense problems. But its successes should not be underestimated.

They are ones that India, even with its open and democratic society, is still far from matching.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programme...nt/5181024.stm

[c4ramesh]

India should go ahead with the Nuclear Deal. The non alignment policy is no more relevant in today's world.

[c4ramesh]

H

Anybody with a better knowledge on this topic , pl enlighten us . Looks like the union govt even may collapse wrf to this agreement !

The left parties are just echoing the feelings of their masters in china... it is better we don't get cowed down by their threats.

[Rohit]

This is not about leftist and rightist policies, as they represent the two polar opposites. The former represent socialism, secularism and political liberalism, whereby law dictates culture; while the latter represent nationalism, dogmatism and political conservatism, whereby culture dictates law.

Since, all leftist [aligned] thoughts cannot be wrong; and in the same vein, all rightist [aligned] thoughts cannot be right and vice-verse, it all comes down to the ability of Indian political machine to apply critical thinking and assess the long-term implications of agreeing to such inducement deals.

However, non-alignment is a wishful thought and not a realisable reality, for it is essentially against human nature.

[Rohit]

INDIA, THE UNITED STATES’ NEW ALLY IN ASIA

American ambivalence and Indian expectations at first glance, the pursuance of the Indian-United States rapprochement intrigues observers all the more since New Delhi does not seem able to obtain what it demands in exchange.

Up to now, the NSSP has not fulfilled its promises. This agreement pertains to four types of issues: closer collaboration in the civilian nuclear and space industries, more trade in high technologies, and an expanded dialogue on missile defence.

India is persuaded that the NSSP and other aspects of the cooperation between New Delhi and Washington are tantamount to recognition of India’s status as a nuclear power. In the eyes of many Indians, this is a remarkable evolution.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/alliance/...-Jaffrelot.pdf

India: America's New Ally?

India is a democracy; while there was continuity between the conservative nationalist BJP-led coalition and the current left-liberal Congress-led coalition, the fact is that India is likely to remain governed for many years by ideologically diverse coalitions of uncertain durability. This means that US-Indian relations will remain hostage to Indian domestic politics. Further, there are important differences within the Indian strategic elite as to the wisdom of the growing American tie.

http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed...s/20050718.htm

[c4ramesh]

This is not about leftist and rightist policies, as they represent the two polar opposites. The former represent socialism, secularism and political liberalism, whereby law dictates culture; while the latter represent nationalism, dogmatism and political conservatism, whereby culture dictates law.

Since, all leftist [aligned] thoughts cannot be wrong; and in the same vein, all rightist [aligned] thoughts cannot be right and vice-verse, it all comes down to the ability of Indian political machine to apply critical thinking and assess the long-term implications of agreeing to such inducement deals.

Its just a generalization to say that one can't be always right or wrong. It does nothing in the way of answering the question at hand. Are the communists right in opposing the deal so vehemently?

However, non-alignment is a wishful thought and not a realisable reality, for it is essentially against human nature.

India has always been caught in the vicious dilemma of whether to align or not. Their partnership with Russia is/was anything but full a fledged alignment.

At the current scenario where terrorism has taken Global dimensions, with India and US (in a sense even Russia) being on the receiving end it is not a surprise that India enters into a goal based partnership.

This is all the more necessary considering the Military and Economic threat that a country like China posses. Without help China is poised to widen the edge it already has over India with ease. Remember India has a border dispute with China, and if India is to have any chance of a good bargain, it should be in a position to get one.

[c4ramesh]

Just to remind hubbers as to how hypocritical the lefts opposition to the nuclear deal is. When India went nuclear the only major political force that opposed it was the left, it is suspiciously strange that they don't want the deal to go through because our nuclear capability would be in danger. But didn't they oppose this very capability in the first place?