Against
The Indo-US Nuclear Deal
By Sharbani Banerji
23 March, 2006
Znet
Amidst countrywide protests in
India, the President of United States, George W. Bush Jr., the killer
Bush, visited India on 2nd and 3rd March, and ultimately succeeded in
signing the Indo-US (nuclear) deal with the Indian Prime minister Dr.
Manmohan Singh. The deal has been called “historic”, and
so was the way New Delhi literally fell on it’s knees to welcome
the person who in all probability would be tried for war crimes in Iraq
and Afghanistan, in years to come. Both sides woo-ed each other like
newly weds, in royal durbars. On the Indian side especially, it appeared
that they did not represent a sovereign country anymore, but some state
in US instead. And outside, protests raged far and wide against Bush’s
visit, which even turned violent in some places.
Protests were reported from
across Uttar Pradesh (UP), being organized by the Left parties, many
muslim organizations, and also women’s organizations. Traders
downed the shutters in several districts like Kanpur, Bareilly and Meerut.
In Delhi, amidst extremely tight security arrangements made for Bush’s
visit, protest rallies were organized by the Left parties and Samajwadi
Party at Ramlila Grounds, which then moved towards Jantar Mantar. The
leaders warned the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) Government at the
Center, against ignoring popular sentiment and aligning with the US.
They demanded prosecution of President Bush, blaming him for the deaths
of 1.5 lakh people in Iraq. “He should be treated like a ‘war
criminal’” was their demand. They protested against the
deal, which they alleged was decided upon in haste, without taking everyone
into confidence. Even Parliament work was stalled as the Members of
Parliament protested against Bush’s visit—the reason why
he wasn’t called upon to address a joint session of Parliament.
Similarly, there were protests in Hyderabad, Ahmedabad, and Chennai.
In Bihar too there were protests both inside and outside the State Assembly.
Life in South Mumbai came to a halt as 1.5 lakh people gathered at Azad
Maidan to protest against the visit. Similarly, there was a massive
protest rally held in Kolkata, the bastion of the Left.
What were they protesting
about? Were the protests primarily against George W. Bush as a person,
who epitomizes naked, heartless, unlawful aggression and carnage in
today’s world, or were there deeper issues involved in these protests?
Would there have been as wide spread a protest, if it had been someone
other than G.W. Bush representing US, ---John Kerry, for example? Well,
if John Kerry had done the same things that Bush Jr. did, yes. If not,
perhaps no. So, prima facie, the protests were against the killings
and carnage by US in Iraq and Afghanistan. The deeper reasons hadn’t
sunk in yet, in the psyche of the common people, because they, in fact
still do not understand the deep and far reaching implications of the
deal, if it does come into force.
Though there are many sub-deals
in the deal, which if read in isolation are important enough, the central
theme of the deal is the nuclear deal, and all other deals seem peripheral
to that deal. On the surface, and in a very straight forward language,
the Indo-US nuclear deal is an attempt by the “benevolent”
US to solve the problems of acute power shortages in India, by allowing
and enabling India to build and run nuclear power plants, which would
provide electricity to the power hungry masses. It would allow full
civilian nuclear energy cooperation between India and US, and also between
India and other Nuclear Supplier Group (NSG) countries. The accord would
pave the way for US companies to sell nuclear equipment, technologies
and also fuel to India. This accord is a follow up of the July 18, 2005
commitments by US and India on civilian nuclear cooperation, which in
turn was an offshoot of the Bush Energy Bill passed by the US Congress
last July, which decided to provide nuclear power industry in US with
$12 billion in subsidies to build new nuclear power plants.
For about fifty years, India
and US have had differences, especially in the nuclear arena, and the
restraints hadn’t allowed India’s nuclear power industry
to become a big factor. But today, in the changing global scenario,
for which, US itself is responsible to a large extent, the strategic
interests of US have changed, and so, G.W. Bush came and said, “I
want that deal”! The deal will have to be passed by the US Congress
and accepted by the NSG. Corporate America has hailed the Indo-US nuke
deal, and has stepped up its efforts to obtain an agreement from the
Congress.
Before we analyze the main
accord in detail, here are the other secondary accords, highly significant
in their own right. (1) India and US have signed an agreement on launching
of satellites. It will facilitate India to launch satellites licensed
by US and also to launch third country satellites carrying US controlled
items. (2) India and US would strengthen cooperation to combat AIDS
globally and encourage corporate participation in the field. (3) India
can now export irradiated mangoes to US. (4) About forty Indian agricultural
universities have been identified for collaboration in the areas of
biotechnology, food processing and marketing, water management and education.
(5) India has agreed to liberalize the retail and financial sectors.
(6) India is to participate in international thermonuclear energy research
(7) India seeks membership in the Integrated Ocean development program.
(8) Besides civilian nuclear energy, India and US have agreed to cooperate
in other energy sectors too, including oil, natural gas and coal. And
lastly, the most important, (9) India-US partnership will spread democracy
around the world. It seems Bush administration has recently earmarked
millions of dollars to spread democracy in Venezuela and Iran.
It doesn’t need much
analysis to read the designs of US. It indeed wants India to become
a “state” of US, and literally to surrender its sovereignty.
What does the 9th accord above mean? In return for the nuclear accord,
in the name of democracy, like Britain and others, now India too should
be sending troops to various countries, to go and torture the native
population there? --- Unfortunately, this will never happen. It would
not be allowed. Even the other agreements clearly show the designs of
US, in wanting to turn India into a corporate country. Of course, the
Corporate India is all too willing, but the masses aren’t. The
Bush administration wants Monsanto to rule India, by producing “terminator”
seeds. The Left has vehemently protested against these designs, and
a lot of work is needed to educate the masses.
Nuclear Deal
The main thrust of the deal
is that, civilian and military nuclear facilities and programs have
to be identified and separated in a phased manner, and India must voluntarily
place its civilian nuclear facilities under IAEA (International Atomic
Energy Agency) safeguards. India would declare fourteen of its twenty-three
reactors, as part of its civilian program and place them under international
monitoring. Eight reactors, which are under construction, including
five Pressurized Heavy Water Reactors (PHWRs), two Russian built Light
Water Reactors (LWRs) and one Fast Breeder Reactor (FBR), wouldn’t
be covered by safeguards and could supply plutonium for weapons. The
safeguards do not cover the existing spent reactor fuel, which contains
enough plutonium for more than thousand weapons, and a facility for
enriching uranium, which can be used to make nuclear weapons. Thus,
India can now make as many nuclear weapons as it wants.
India can build Fast Breeder
Reactors on its own, and its technology is one of the most advanced
in the world. These would remain outside the purview of IAEA safeguards
and international inspections, as will be around 35% of country’s
thermonuclear power generating capacity. About 65% of India’s
nuclear power capacity would come under international safeguards. Full
implementation of the separation plan would not materialize before 2014.
It would be India’s sovereign decision to classify as civilian
or military, any future reactor it might construct. India would have
the right to take corrective measures should the fuel supply be stopped
as had happened in the case of Tarapur plants.
Against the Nuclear
Deal
The arguments for the nuclear
deal are many, and one would naturally ask, why shouldn’t that
be welcome, since, with the changing life styles, India’s energy
demands are exploding every day? However, it would appear that, the
main argument for building and activating nuclear energy (NE) power
plants in India is that, there are more than 110 NE plants in US, and
NE is America’s second largest source of electric power after
coal. France, uses NE extensively, and worldwide there are 442 nuclear
power plants at work. So, one would say that they are time tested and
safe. But this is a very superficial picture, as we shall point out.
It is also argued that electricity
derived from NE is cheap and clean. NE plants do not pollute the air
and do not produce green house gases. But, they produce radioactive
emissions, with irreversible, and extremely harmful effects. There have
been studies to prove it. (See http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Mar2006/steinberg0306.html
). And nobody talks about that. And above all, the central question
is, “How is the highly radioactive waste handled”? There
is no foolproof method to eliminate radioactive waste, and it appears
that its best use is to convert them into nuclear weapons. So, civilian
nuclear energy program is intimately tied up with the production of
nuclear weapons, whether one admits it or not. If some country wants
to use NE only for civilian use, i.e., for producing electricity mainly,
it would either have to transport that waste to some other country which
produces weapons, or produce weapons itself. Of course, there are various
ways of dealing with the radioactive wastes from nuclear power plants
(see below), but, if we have an active plant, the waste will also be
more, and will not be consumed by standard methods. And, exposure to
radioactive waste is as good as being exposed to a nuclear bomb. When
dealing with nuclear energy, there cannot be any scope for mistakes
and corrections. Hence, one must think thousand times before getting
into such deals, and avoid it as much as possible. India’s electricity
requirement must be met in a different manner, through alternative sources
of energy, and not by NE--- and above all, not the way US solves its
problems.
About Nuclear Power
Plants, and Waste Disposal
In a nuclear power plant,
the energy needed to produce steam from water, which in turn spins the
shaft of a huge generator to produce electricity, is produced by splitting
atoms of uranium in a nuclear reactor, i.e., by the fission process.
All these reactors produce plutonium as waste, a highly radioactive
material used for making nuclear weapons.
Though the electricity produced
by the reactors is not radioactive, there is radioactivity all over
the place in a nuclear reactor. The “low level” radioactive
wastes include materials used to handle the highly radioactive parts
of nuclear reactors (i.e., cooling water pipes, radiation suits etc).
Levels of radioactivity and half-life of radioactive isotopes in low
level waste is relatively small. However, they need to be stored for
about 10-50 years, to allow most of radioactive isotopes to decay, after
which, the waste can be disposed off without any danger. “High
level” radioactive wastes are materials obtained from the core
of the nuclear reactor and also the nuclear weapons. This waste includes
uranium, plutonium and other highly radioactive elements made during
fission. Most of the radioactive isotopes in high-level waste emit large
amounts of radiation and have extremely long half lives (some even greater
than 100,000 years). The problem of disposal of high-level radioactive
wastes should be the central reason against the construction and and
running of nuclear power plants. How does one deal with them? Either
by “long term storage”, or by “transmutation”.
Long-term storage means storing them for thousands of years away from
the reach of humanity or any other kind of life. And that can be done
either in space, or under the seabed, both extremely costly projects,
and fraught with danger. It poses danger to the planet as a whole. Radioactive
waste can be left in space by a rocket (in fact Russians have already
done it). But there is danger of collision with other bodies in space,
and which can in turn come back to earth. And, there is danger of accidents,
which would cause catastrophic results. Burial of radioactive waste
under the seabed too is full of danger. Radioactivity can escape into
water above, and if there were under water earthquake like recent “Tsunami”,
there wouldn’t be much left of life on earth. Hence, “transmutation”,
would be the best alternative, i.e., converting highly radioactive elements
with long half-life, into less radioactive elements with shorter half-lives.
FBRs and Hybrid Reactors are used for transmutation. But, it does not
eliminate radioactivity. And it is preferred under the assumption that
slow emissions for a shorter duration are less harmful—once again
a false assumption. Exposure to radioactive rays is by definition extremely
harmful, can cause deformities, mutation, cancer, and death. Transmutation
is a solution only by a relative standard. The arguments are thus quite
circular, as is the process. The bottom line is that, radioactive waste
cannot be disposed of safely and completely, and greater the use of
nuclear energy for production of electricity, greater will be the waste.
There is a limit to “long term storage”, with great environmental
hazards. Hence it seems to be a compulsive necessity that the waste
would be used for producing weapons and ultimately for trading in weapons.
How much can one store after all?
Also, nuclear plants have
a limited life, about fifty years may be. The radioactive waste disposal
of a decommissioned nuclear plant would be an enormous task. And, the
plants need to be refueled after 12-18 months, when it is shut down
completely. Thus, alternative arrangements must remain always.
India’ three
stage nuclear power program cannot not eliminate waste
Though India claims that
its three stage nuclear program takes care of the fact that it has limited
uranium reserves, but vast thorium reserves, and makes judicious use
of radioactive fuel in the three cycles, as it seems on paper, every
stage produces high-level radioactive waste, and makes the making of
weapons almost mandatory. Besides, the three-stage cycle would not be
complete before 2030. Where does one store the waste until then?
Dangers
As we have pointed out above,
the main argument against NE is the danger inherent in the very concept.
It is impossible to make it totally safe. And in a volatile country
like India, it is extremely dangerous to go nuclear in the power sector.
There have been accidents in the past--- at Chernobyl in USSR, at Three
Mile Island near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania in US. Even in US, lapses
have been reported in the implementation of safeguards.
If the accord works as intended,
it would be a matter of time that India too starts allowing private
sector participation in the nuclear power program, with dangerous consequences.
India must realize, that we simply cannot ape US. The ground realities,
as well as geographical differences between the two countries are far
too different. India is a country of extremes. If there are 27 billionaires
in India, a huge population still lives under the poverty line, and
major part of the country has extremely poor infrastructure facilities.
It is impossible to obtain a reliable security with an ever exploding
population, and greater the discrepancy in the standard of living, greater
the risk of terrorism, naxalism, and all kinds of violence. In the name
of globalization, and liberalization, the power structures today, do
not administrate anymore. It is “laissez faire” everywhere.
Given this scenario, nuclear power is an immensely risky venture.
Today, it is in the strategic
interest of US to cooperate with India in the civilian nuclear arena,
which as we have argued above, is a sanction to produce as many nuclear
weapons as India wants. Tomorrow, the strategic interests of US might
change, since strategic interests are not based on any international
law or morality, or ideas of the kind. Then, US would behave the same
way with India, as it has done with Iraq, and now planning something
similar for Iran. After all, US has its “National Security Strategy”
of September 2002, according to which, US reserves the right to act
unilaterally, whenever necessary, to protect its vital interests, such
as access to key markets, energy supplies and strategic resources. Also,
nobody can forget or ignore the fact that Saddam Husein was US’s
great ally once. In fact, India’s nuclear sites can even be attacked
by US and its allies, if for some reason they feel that India is not
obeying their orders anymore. For example, on June 7, 1981, Israeli
military had struck Iraqi nuclear reactor Osirq near Baghdad, and smashed
it into pieces. How can US ever be trusted? Following is a very pertinent
remark from Noam Chomsky’s “Hegemony or Survival: America’s
quest for global dominance” (Metropolitan Books: New York: 2003:
25)
“A more far reaching
example of establishing norms was Israel’s bombing of the Osiraq
reactor in Iraq in June 1981. At first the attack was criticized as
a violation of international law. Later, after Saddam Hussein was transformed
from favored friend to unspeakable fiend in August 1990, the reaction
to the Osiraq bombing also shifted. Once a (minor) crime, it was now
considered an honored norm, and was greatly praised for having impeded
Saddam Husein’s nuclear weapons program”.
It must be the case that
the deal is linked to trade in defense, which would create an explosive
situation in an already unstable South Asia. And, one should not forget
that too many nuclear weapons ultimately led to the bankruptcy of the
Soviet Union.
If India goes the US way,
we would soon see Indian Universities actively participating in the
research and production of nukes, just like the Universities in US,
and in the near future, we would be teaching students from other countries
who would come to study here, to do the same. Can that be our goal?
Suggestions
In any case, nuclear power
will begin to form a significant part of energy mix only after 2030.
So, the benefits will not accrue to the masses immediately, or in the
near future. And, we need power now. Hence, the accord solves nothing.
Come summer, and India would be desperate for electricity, which is
directly linked to the supply of water in most parts of the country.
Hence, we need a power policy right now, and the policy must encourage
alternate sources of electricity, that is, solar electricity mainly.
Why don’t companies make good quality solar panels available at
affordable rates? They would sell like hot cakes in India, and take
the load off the normal electric supply greatly. As the outsourcing
industry grows (which Bush has assured it would), so does the consumption
of electricity by these industries, which happens at the cost of power
due to the common man. We cannot wait till next year. How can we wait
for even another ten years for nuclear energy to reach the masses? And,
if in the next ten years, the alternate sources of energy “catch
up”, the demand for nuclear power would become minimal, a very
welcome development in every way.