November 16, 2010
Nuclear power is a major tool
of contention in foreign affairs because it has the potential of being an
inexpensive and environmentally-friendly option, yet it also has the potential
of being used as a weapon of mass destruction. This debate is evident when
deliberating on the 2008 Indo-U.S. nuclear cooperation agreement. This is an
agreement in which India is allowed to be supplied with nuclear fuel, reactors,
and technology even though it is not a signatory of the Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT). This deal has had numerous benefits; however, this paper will
argue that threats to security, diplomacy, and non-proliferation have emerged.
The Indo-US nuclear cooperation agreement has had an adverse effect on
domestic, regional, and global security.
Before there is deliberation on the effects of the nuclear deal, it is important to note how the deal was passed and the different actors involved. Before the agreement the United States had implemented sanctions on India due to the fact that it developed nuclear weapons. These sanctions were not effective so the U.S. began examining cooperation with India as a viable solution, especially due to India’s emergence as an economic power. Cooperation began in 2004 with the Next Steps in Strategic Partnership (NSSP) initiative, which began discussion on developing a civilian nuclear energy program for India[1]. In order to pass the United States-India Nuclear Cooperation Approval and Non-Proliferation Enhancement Act many steps had to be taken to lead to the final agreement being passed in 2008. The agreement between India and the U.S. was signed in 2005 but the U.S. had to amend its domestic law with the Hyde Act and pass it through congress in order to make an exemption for India. India then passed a civil-military Nuclear Separation Plan, which ensures that the nuclear energy is not used to make nuclear weapons. The final step was to pass the agreement through the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for a safeguards agreement and the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) in order for them to grant a waiver for India. Illustrating the different actors involved in passing the deal shows how difficult the legislation was to pass and how it would affect both the domestic and international sphere.
Benefits to Security:
Before explaining the threats
to security, it is evident that the Indo-US nuclear deal has many benefits. The
agreement benefits the U.S. because of economic, environmental, and diplomatic
reasons. Economically, the deal will lead India to purchase nuclear power,
which will allow the U.S. to profit from its exports. The sanctions that
America previously had on India were not working because other nations were
willing to sell them nuclear reactors. These methods of dealing with India’s
complacency were not working so the U.S. decided to start cooperating on
nuclear energy, especially in an effort to deal with an unstable Afghanistan
and Pakistan; as well as China, an emerging economic power. The U.S. benefits
with India as a strong ally because it serves as a “counterbalancing presence
against China in South Asia,” and it is useful in protecting the Indian Ocean
sea-lanes[2]. Since 40% of the world’s
oil and commerce pass through these sea-lanes, it is in America’s interest to
help protect them[3].
The U.S. also has a military presence in the Indian Ocean with the base Diego
Garcia, which is crucial for the war in Afghanistan. Therefore, having India
secure and as an ally improves American security.
India has similar benefits in
cooperating with the U.S. because “building alliances with stronger countries
has been one route for ensuring security”[4]. The alliance with America
would also lead to India being recognized as a nuclear power and in 2010 the
U.S. President Barack Obama announced that the U.S. supports India’s bid for a
seat on the Security Council[5]. Acquiring nuclear energy
is also important for resolving India’s energy deficit. The use of fossil fuels
is costly, it is a major source of pollution and the resources are diminishing.
Therefore, the use of nuclear energy is a way to avoid serious competition for
hydrocarbons, as well as being the economic and environmentally-preferred
choice. Regardless of these potential benefits, it is evident that the Indo-US
deal threatens domestic, regional, and global security; and these threats far
exceed the benefits.
Threat to Security:
Domestic Insecurity:
The Indo-US nuclear deal has
had negative effects on domestic security because of the threat of political
division, the threat of terrorist organizations obtaining nuclear weapons, and
the threat of nuclear accidents in India.
Firstly, a source of domestic
insecurity resulted from the passing of the agreement because it caused a major
division within the Indian government. Opposition arose against the deal
because of the lack of transparency when the deal was passed. Singh did not
consult Parliament when he signed the agreement in 2005 and he blocked them
from analyzing the deal. In addressing the issue, Singh said that “the deal is
signed and sealed…It is not renegotiable”[6]. Politicians also had
objections to the inconsistencies considering what parliament was told and the
actual facts of the deal. The dispute led Singh’s coalition government to lose
political support from groups, such as the Left Front. His government ended up
barely passing a vote of confidence in 2008.
Another source of contention
was the content of the agreement, especially the Hyde Act amendment. This was
an American agreement, which modified Section 123 of the U.S. Atomic Energy
Act, and served to put restrictions on India[7]. The Act stipulated that
if India were to test nuclear weapons, then the U.S. would stop supplying them with
nuclear energy. This became a threat to Indian autonomy because the state would
be tied to the nuclear non-proliferation regime, they would be unable to test
nuclear weapons, and they would have to follow NSG guidelines, which would
limit their access to nuclear technology. Congressman Tom Lantos further
increased anxiety over the deal by saying that “if our Indian friends are
interested in receiving all of the benefits of US support we have every right
to expect that India will reciprocate in taking into account our concerns”[8]. There were increased fears
that the U.S. would have strong influence over Indian foreign policy.
The political ramifications of
Singh’s actions have been numerous, with many politicians calling for an
amendment to the Indian Constitution in order to make parliamentary
ratification mandatory when passing international agreements or treaties[9]. It has also led to
considerable debate as to whether the agreement is against Indian interests.
Many Indians disagreed on the limitations being put on India and did not want
to sign the deal at the expense of independent foreign policy.
The second source of domestic
insecurity from the nuclear deal is the fact that having more nuclear
technology available in the country increases the threat that terrorist groups
can obtain nuclear weapons. Incidents, such as the 2008 attacks in Mumbai, show
that terrorism is prevalent. Lisa Curtis calls India “one of the most
terrorism-afflicted countries in the world,” especially due to its major
ethnic, linguistic, and religious diversity [10].
The last major issue that
threatens domestic security is the chance of a nuclear power accident occurring
in India. Ashwin Kumar writes that “the safety record in India’s nuclear
facilities reveals poor practices and routine accidents”[11]. There have been six
major nuclear power accidents, calculated in 2006, which have cost a total of
910 million US dollars[12]. A serious incident could
economically and environmentally hinder the state and increasing dependence on
nuclear energy will inevitably lead to an increase in the risks involved.
Regional Insecurity:
The Indo-US nuclear deal has
also had a significant effect on creating regional insecurity. The common belief
in the area is that “given the fact that India currently needs only seven
percent of its energy requirements from nuclear power, it is obvious that
geopolitics is a driving force in this deal”[13]. The agreement has
created tensions with states in the South Asia and Central Asia region,
especially those such as Iran, China, and Pakistan who have nuclear programs. One
possible threat is that the deal could lead to an arms race and encourage
states to continue developing nuclear weapons. Supporting “India with its
nuclear program will, even in the civilian sphere, trigger a nuclear weapons
pursuit by other countries,” who will assume that the U.S. will grant similar
concessions[14].
The fact that the U.S. has refused to grant these same concessions to other
states has created tensions among states who feel resentment over the double
standards. Another issue is that other nuclear weapons states may consider mimicking
the U.S. by granting its allies concessions, making it easier for rogue states
to attain nuclear weapons[15]. Non-proliferation appears
to have been ignored so that America could
exploit its economic interests in the region. Despite these general threats to
regional security, there are also more specific issues felt by Iran, China, and
Pakistan, concerning the deal.
Relations between Iran and
India were said to have strained because the deal led to India supporting the
U.S. against Iran. Huntley explains that “in return for the agreement, India
[was] obliged to support U.S. non-proliferation efforts toward Iran”[16]. The nuclear deal included
conditions on having India align with US views over Iran, which it did in 2005
when India voted against Iran on a nuclear issue in the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA). The U.S. Ambassador to the IAEA, Greg Schulte, explained
that “India’s voice will carry particular weight” because its vote was crucial
in getting a sizeable majority in order to refer the matter to the Security
Council for further actions against Iran. The Iran nuclear crisis can also lead
to an arms race in Asia motivated by ideological differences. There may be an
increase of tensions between Western and Islamic countries because it “will
antagonize Muslim opinion in the world with India provided with concessions not
granted to Pakistan and Iran, both Islamic countries” [17].
Pakistan has had a similar
reaction to the Indo-US nuclear deal because it acquired nuclear weapons in
1975, yet has not signed the NPT agreement. It is resentful of not having the
same accord and concessions because historically Pakistan has been a valued
ally to the U.S. and it continues to be in the twenty-first century by
providing support for the war in Afghanistan and a collaborative campaign
against the Taliban. The deal increases the chance of a nuclear arms race in
the region, especially since India and Pakistan have had a history of disputes
from the issue of Kashmir, border disputes, and accusations of backing militant
groups. Involving nuclear power in the equation merely increases regional
insecurity.
Furthermore, the nuclear deal has
affected relations with China, which has threatened regional security. Historically
China and India have had tense relations due to issues, such as unresolved border
disputes. Therefore, when China began developing its nuclear arsenal, India
responded with a nuclear test in 1974. Although relations have slightly
resolved, the 2005 US-Indo nuclear agreement could reignite tensions between
the two powers. China objects to the fact that India has not signed onto the
Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) and hopes that “non-signatory countries will
join it as soon as possible as non-nuclear weapon states, thereby contributing
to strengthening the international non-proliferation regime”[18]. China resents America’s double
standards by having nuclear dealings with India, which is not a signatory to
the NPT; while not having these ties with China, a signatory state. However,
China’s apprehension of the agreement does not solely come from these double
standards but also from America’s involvement in South Asia. The two countries
have had many incidents of tension, such as in 2005, the U.S. implemented
sanctions on six Chinese companies because of their supporting the nuclear
weapons program of Iran, and another incident over the Taiwan conflict, which
resulted in a Chinese general threatening the use of nuclear weapons on the U.S[19]. The fact that China has
emerged as a formidable economic power makes these threats a challenge to deal
with because “if China turns hegemonic, then the US would have to balance Chinese
dominance with a partnership with India”[20]. Therefore, China objects
to the Indo-US nuclear deal because it is believed to be motivated by an effort
to contain them.
Global Insecurity:
Global security is also threatened
as a result of the agreement because it undermines the nuclear
non-proliferation regime. The NPT does not allow those not a signatory to the
treaty to acquire nuclear energy; therefore, India being the only exception
does not only cause resentment among other states, but it shows that the U.S.
puts its interests before global non-proliferation. India was granted an
exemption by the U.S., which has allowed them to access nuclear technology
without having to commit to the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) guidelines, such
as allowing the IAEA “inspect military facilities that remain sufficient to
produce large quantities of weapon grade plutonium”[21]. Although the IAEA and
NSG approved the policy, there were numerous objections and a lack of consensus
on the matter.
The agreement also threatens
the U.S. role in international diplomacy because its reputation and credibility
in the world is harmed when it does not follow traditions and regulations. This
action shows that “America is not at all a guard of NPT and the treaty however
is no more than a disguise for US interest[22]. The NPT is undermined by
the Indo-US nuclear agreement because it rewards India for not signing and
accepting restrictions on nuclear weapons[23]. Countries in the future
will be less willing to join the NPT but rather they will look to other
alternatives, such as being supplied by the U.S. The agreement creates an interesting issue, which is not the dangers
of nuclear war but the problems with nuclear peace and how the “relative stability
would reinforce perceptions of the strategic and political efficacy of nuclear
weapons and, ironically, pose the greatest challenge to the non-proliferation
regime”[24]. Therefore, the agreement
has had negative ramifications, which affect global security by undermining
non-proliferation organizations and American credibility in the world.
In conclusion, the Indo-US
nuclear cooperation agreement has created insecurity in the domestic, regional,
and global sphere. Some arguments can be said about the benefits of the deal, especially
in terms of economic and environmental effects; however, overall security is
threatened. Domestically, the deal threatens security because it causes
political division, it can lead to a nuclear accident, or the nuclear power can
find its way to terrorist groups. In the region, tensions between states, such
as China, Pakistan, and Iran have increased because they feel resentment and
are threatened by the deal. Lastly, global security is threatened by
undermining the international non-proliferation bodies and the U.S. There is no
strong basis for nuclear weapons as a security tool because “sixty years since Hiroshima should be enough to make
clear to anyone that there is no security to be found in the threat to kill
millions”[25].
Many believe that no country should ever be able to acquire nuclear energy
because of the possibility of nuclear war. However, due to the increasing
importance of nuclear power as an energy source; it is evident that banning
nuclear power is not an option but that making sure that regulations are strictly
adhered to should be the main priority. Maintaining the regulations set up by
international non-proliferation organizations is crucial because making
exemptions and violations could lead to a nuclear arms race, and eventually a
nuclear holocaust, which would be in the interest of everyone around the world
to prevent.
[1] Rahul
Bhonsle et al., Indo-US Civil Nuclear Deal (New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers,
2007) 4.
[2] Bhonsle
2
[3] Hari
Sud, India-US Nuclear Deal: The Benefits, South Asia Analysis Group (SAAG)
2006, <http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers18%5Cpaper1740.html>
[4] Mushahid
Hussain, Pakistan’s Quest for Security and the Indo-U.S. Nuclear Deal. The Korean
Journal of Defense Analysis, Vol.XVIII, No. 2, Summer (2006) <http://kida.re.kr/data/2006/10/25/06_2_6(2).PDF>
pp. 118.
[6] The
Japan Times Online, Nuclear Deal Fueling Opposition to Singh, 22. Aug, 2007.
<http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20070822a1.html>
[7] Scott
Douglas Sagan, Inside Nuclear South Asia, (Stanford: Stanford University Press,
2009) 252
[8]
Wade L. Huntley, and Karthika Sasikumar, Nuclear Cooperation with India: New
Challenges, New Opportunities, (Vancouver: the Simons Centre for Disarmament
and Non-Proliferation Research, 2006) 43.
[9] The Japan Times Online
[10] Lisa
Curtis, After Mumbai: Time to Strengthen US-India Counterterrorism Cooperation,
(Massachusetts:The Heritage Foundation, 2008) 2
[11] Ashwin
Kumar, Nuclear Safety: A Poor Record. India Together. 30 Mar 2007. <http://www.indiatogether.org/2007/mar/env-nukesafe.htm>
[12]
Benjamin K.
Sovacool. A Critical Evaluation of Nuclear Power and Renewable Electricity in
Asia, Journal of Contemporary Asia, Vol. 40, No. 3, August 2010, pp. 393–400.
[13] Hussain
13
[14] Bhonsle
39
[15]
Bhonsle 26
[16] Huntley
43
[18]
Jabin T. Jacob, Indo-US Nuclear Deal: The China Factor. Institute of Peace and
Conflict Studies (IPCS) Special Report 14. (New Delhi: 2006) 1.
[19]
Jacob 3
[20]
Bhonsle 18
[21]
Hussain 12
[22] Jacob
3
[23]
Huntley 28
[24]
Huntley 4
[25] Huntley
27
No comments:
Post a Comment