While there can be little doubt that the US India agreement on cooperation in civilian nuclear energy will help India realize growth targets for power generation so critical to sustaining its current high rate of economic growth, there is clear evidence to suggest that the agreement will limit India's strategic posture to that of a second rate power.
The US has played its card very well in getting India to sign on the dotted line. Its ruse to project the deal as a near sellout of its own Non Proliferation Interests that will be difficult for it to push through Congress succeeded in luring India to halt the the advance of its strategic nuclear posture from a Force in Being to Credible Nuclear Deterrence. In other words, India's posture will now for ever remain a Force in Being.
The two most debilitating parts of the agreement, that represent a sellout of India's strategic nuclear posture are its consent to
- Maintain all safeguards in perpetuity
- Maintain its current moratorium on nuclear-weapon tests.
Safeguards In Perpetuity
Indian bureaucrats and media have imparted a self deluding spin to the first point above by saying that because of the tough negotiating stance that India adopted the US agreed to link safeguards in perpetuity to supply of nuclear fuel in perpetuity. Available facts seem to suggest otherwise.
Supply of nuclear fuel by the US will continue to be governed by US laws. In other words, it could stop, as it did in the past, were the Congress to amend the laws governing the supply any time in the future. If that were to happen, under the agreement, India would have the option to source nuclear fuel from other countries like Russia and France but it would not have the option to renege on its commitments to safeguard inspections of its reactor.
What if Russia and France, under US pressure, refused to supply the nuclear fuel? Would that liberate India from safeguards? There is no evidence that it would.
Do our policy makers and Prime Minister really think that France or Russia would risk US economic sanctions to make sure their friend India got nuclear fuel supplies? I think the only country capable of defying the US today is China but then China is hardly likely to supply us nuclear fuel!
In other words, the spin notwithstanding, India's tough negotiating stance has safeguarded its reactors but not its strategic interests.
Moratorium on Nuclear Weapon Testing
On the eve of the Bush visit Prime Minister Manmohan Singh told Indian lawmakers, "The ability to maintain a minimum nuclear deterrent is intact," adding, "there will be no capping of our strategic program."
Those words must have been music to the ears of Indian lawmakers. Frankly, I was proud and happy listening to them on TV. However, all available evidence seems to suggest that those words were misleading.
I do not believe there is one Indian strategist who believes that India has already acquired a credible nuclear deterrent against China. What we do have is a Force in Being that could become a credible nuclear deterrent in the years to come as we develop more and better nuclear warheads and delivery systems.
Unfortunately, that cannot happen now as our voluntary restraint on nuclear weapon testing is set to be replaced with a treaty binding us to it. This is indeed very disturbing in view of the evidence on record that suggests that some of the nuclear warhead designs tested in 1998 failed. Indeed, the failure seems to have occurred with the thermonuclear warheads so critical to a credible minimum deterrent posture against China.
There isn't and cannot be a single nuclear warhead design that fits all delivery options - aircraft, short, medium and long range ballistic missiles, and cruise missile. With just one or two tested warheads India can never acquire a credible nuclear deterrent.
Surely, the Prime Minister knew that when he made his speech in Parliament. Surely, some of the lawmakers who were in the Parliament during the Prime Minister's speech knew that. And surely, the Indian press knew that when it waxed eloquent on the tough negotiations that had got India such a good deal. Perhaps there is something that I am missing?
What is a military reactor?
India under the deal would open 14 of its 22 existing nuclear reactors for monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency and would pledge to place all civilian nuclear reactors yet to be constructed under safeguards as well. The eight reactors operating without safeguards would be designated as military in nature.
Military reactors will not be subject to International Atomic Energy Agency inspections under the deal.
It is evident that no yardstick has been developed by India or the US to designate a reactor as military. One reason why such a yardstick has not been developed is that the use of the term military reactor is academic and means nothing. India would have no reason to develop a military reactor. What would it do with the additional plutonium without new tested warhead designs?
In this context it is interesting to note that speaking at the Heritage Foundation yesterday, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns, who negotiated the deal said as the number of nuclear reactors rose in the energy-hungry country, the percentage of facilities under safeguards — about 66 percent of the existing sites — would also rise.
Clearly, the US Officials don't envisage India developing more military reactors either.
Ref: Indian Nuclear Reactors
Copyright © Vijainder K Thakur. May not be reproduced without explicit written permission.