Tuesday, September 2, 2008

Contrary view on US-India uranium deal

The New York Times editorial has prompted a response from the Times of India, putting the case for the waiver at the Nuclear Suppliers Group to go ahead.

Realistically speaking, what a ban on nuclear trade with India would achieve is keeping it out of the loop on civilian nuclear technology. That means it'll have to rely primarily on coal-fired plants to meet the electricity needs of an expanding economy, increasing the stock of greenhouse gas emissions. Bringing India into the non-proliferation tent, on the other hand, has its advantages. It's a democratic and transparent country that can't be placed on the same footing as, say, North Korea. That's why Japan, whose non-proliferation credentials can't be doubted, is now in favour of granting India an NSG waiver. So are France, the UK, Russia and the US. Important countries like New Zealand, Ireland and Austria should follow.

Good to hear that we are an "important country"!

Contrary to my misapprehension yesterday it seems that New Zealand and Austria are not satisfied with the new draft agreement being circulated to NSG member. Not only this but China, which had previously acquiesced to the deal is now voicing doubts. (Somewhat cynically given its own record on proliferation issues.) (Times of India, Economic Times.)

No comments: