This is with regard to the Indian civil nuke deal currently making the rounds in the US Senate and the Indian parliament.
I've seen reports on both sides now saying that the deal is a half-measure. US reports seem to indicate that India should be put under stricter controls and have more facilities open to inspection. The Indian reports seem to indicate that India has willingly retarded its nuclear program.
My questions (maybe naive and in the wrong forum :)) are as follows.
-
I can understand why the US is interested in this deal. It can use this deal to put India in a legal bind with any future proliferation and testing initiatives India might entertain. Also, Dr. Rice’s comments on India’s energy needs and collaboration with Iran are compelling. Plus, the US makes money out of it too.
The Indian polity seems amazingly naive to be signing up for something like this. Seeing that the US deal-makers seem to have this kind of levarage on their Indian counter-parts, I think they should go for broke and demand 100% inspection of Indian facilities and complete ban on testing. Would this work? -
Is this a model the US can follow in the more troubled parts of the world with propensity to be trouble spots? In countries like Egypt, Pakistan, African net oil importers, South America etc, The US and the Nuclear Suppliers Group can follow a program of low Grade Civilian Nuclear Proliferation. The US can build and operate nuclear plants for other countries or have strict regulation and inspection. This will ensure that developing countries become dependent on clean nuclear fuel rather than oil and dont have to jump into bed with troubled OPEC countries. Instead, In the next 10-20 years, as more of these countries become dependent on the Nuclear Suppliers Group for their energy needs, US sanctions will have more sting to it than they have currently.
Is this a stretch or is this worth pursuing? In my opinion, any chance we get in reducing global oil demand is a worth-while cause.