My op-ed at the Atlantic-Community.org

The Berlin based Atlantic-Community.org recently published one of my opinion pieces - 'Improving India's nuclear standing.' In the piece I argue how next month’s Nuclear Security Summit is "a chance for India to show its commitment to non-proliferation and to be a leader of setting up mechanisms for securing nuclear materials." You can read the rest here.

Round 2 for IAEA elections

The IAEA has failed to elect a new Director-General for the agency to take charge after Mohamed ElBaradei's term ends in Nov 2009. According to AP the Board of Directors did not support any of the candidates with the required 2/3rd majority. This means there will have to be a new round of elections with fresh candidates in the coming months.

I personally liked ElBaradei's term during which he proved to be a strong and independent head of a sensitive organization. I have written about him and the elections before. With Iran's nuclear program continuing at full speed and the visible surge in nuclear energy deals since the Indo-US agreement, it is important that the IAEA elects an objective Director-General. The demand for nuclear energy capacity is only going to increase in the coming years and an efficient IAEA is essential to ensure non-proliferation. We need someone who can factually evaluate and report, rather than be a puppet in the hands of either of the nuclear powers.

The 62 year old dream

Reading this piece by Einstein makes me think of how even the greatest minds are not immune to the utopian idea of a world government and peaceful no-war existence. The indirect originator of nuclear weapons, urges the United States to adopt a policy of outlawing them before any other country acquires the capability. He like many others during the period argue for a supranational control of the atomic weapons/technology, which might be a safer bet than an arms race. Considering that Cold War did not result in actual war but saw significant proliferation of nuclear weapons, makes it seem plausible retrospectively in terms of non-proliferation, but nevertheless an utopian dream. As Einstein himself points out the problems with getting the Soviet Union on board with a world government, so would it have been with supranational control of atomic weapons. The closest the world got to it was Euratom and perhaps even the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Even today supranational control of fissile material is talked of as an ideal to be achieved. Something that would reduce proliferation and the danger of a nuclear war or nukes falling in terrorist hands, and save the NPT regime. The creation of an 'international fuel bank' particularly with reference to curbing Iran's nuclear ambitions is seen as a compromise solution. While I think that having an international fuel bank is a good idea to meet the energy needs without risking nuclear weapon proliferation, I don't think the political will and diplomatic skill exists to make it happen. Issues of sovereignty, impartial and/or equal control of the fuel bank, equitable distribution of fuel are but some of the things that come to mind immediately. What happens to the fuel that countries produce or own individually? Does it automatically become a part of the fuel bank? Since it is a lucrative business with long-term potential, should uranium and fuel be regarded as any other raw material and finished product in the market? If not, why not?

The idea that Einstein hopes for, and many others since continue to hope for need not be an utopian ideal to be achieved in a perfect world. We have come so far in our quest for nuclear weapons and technology (even if only for peaceful purposes) that we need it to happen soon. It is becoming difficult to argue that the current setup has worked well and averted a nuclear war so far, and will continue to do so in the future too. Technology and players may have changed, but the world is no less immune than it was on August 6, 1945.

Lobbying the new administration

India is apparently making some significant lobbying efforts to be excluded from the South Asian group of problem countries. It does not want to be clubbed together with Pakistan. This reminds me of the numerous times when during discussions with friends and colleagues, I have made an effort to distance myself as an Indian from Pakistanis. Trying to point out how the bigger problem is Pakistan, not India; Pakistan is the rogue nation in the region, not India. In spite of appreciating that our nuclear program has been an act of proliferation, I never wanted it to be rated on par with that of Pakistan's in terms of the risks and proliferation concerns it raises. But the truth is that the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) was largely in reaction to and to avoid the repetition of situations like the first Indian nuclear tests. It is also true that the Indo-US civilian nuclear cooperation treaty is very likely to undermine nonproliferation efforts.

While it can be flaunted as my patriotism and love for my country, it does not take away the holier-than-thou attitude inherent in it. We are a part of the problem. Maybe not as big as Pakistan or Afghanistan is, but definitely a part. And we should be willing to recognize and deal with it if the tensions in the region are subside. While I am with the government on not wanting to internationalize the Kashmir issue, it is unofficially an international issue. There is an UN mission in the region. The U.S., UK, China talk about it in the same breath with Pakistan. Various international non-profits are involved in helping people deal with the consequences of the constant conflict. It would be oversimplifying if I say that solving the Kashmir problem will solve all Indo-Pak problems. But it would definitely reduce them.

We, as a nation have to appreciate that we are part of the problem. And we will have to be an active part of the solution. We cannot go on with a holier-than-thou attitude forever. That will only alienate other countries in the region. We would be following the U.S. path if we do that. South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) is not a big success because we are seen as the dictating big brother in the region. Being proud and being arrogant are two different things. We cannot afford to be arrogant if we really want to be an economic and regional superpower.

Hope

The United States has finally come down (albeit softly) on Pakistan. It has imposed sanctions on A.Q Khan & Co. Though I am skeptical about the real benefits of such sanctions, it is a positive gesture. Particularly since the safety of Pakistan's nuclear weapons and facilities is a matter of grave concern. I have always worried about proliferation by/from/through/due to Pakistan, more than the threat of proliferation by Iran. Iran's program is a concern, but there is still hope due to the absence of any real weapons. With Pakistan, they have proved that they can and will proliferate if opportunity presents itself. Maybe even go looking for one. The consequences of their actions are for all to see in North Korea and Libya. And least we forget, Pakistan's program has Chinese blessings.

With Bush leaving, and Obama having displayed intelligence and understanding of issues, I am hoping that the threat from Pakistan is duly understood and appropriately dealt with. Musharraf might be out of the way, but the weak government, overly ambitious army and ISI combo can be lethal. And the worst part is that there are no real chances of this power structure changing anytime soon. All we can do is hope.

Russian or US?

The New York Times reports about possible connection of a Russian scientist in providing nuclear assistance to Iran. This comes as part of the IAEA's investigations into Iran's nuclear program. While the IAEA is quoted as clearing the Russian government of any involvement, the Arms Control Wonk by bringing up the Merlin operation accuses the United States government of assisting Iran. Jeffery ponders about the possibility of the Russian scientist in the IAEA investigations and the one that the CIA sent out being one and the same.

I was completely unaware of the Merlin operation, but was not particularly surprised that the CIA attempted it. The CIA, with support from Clinton, planned to send Iran on a wild goose chase by giving it the wrong blueprints for a nuclear bomb in 2000. The purpose of the operation was to estimate where Iran was in its nuclear program, how close was it to getting a nuclear bomb. However, the Russian scientist or the agent recognized the flaw in design and put in a note for the Iranians to contact him to locate it. Maybe it really is the same Russian scientist the IAEA is talking about.

Reading these stories I was worried about how many times the United States has done this before and where. The motives might be good, but was there sufficient understanding and discussion about the consequences? Or did Clinton go into this like Bush went into Iraq?

Overemphasizing intent

Here is James Acton* talking at the New America Foundation on Iran's nuclear intentions and the IAEA.



It is a long talk but he makes some very interesting, and to some extent obvious points that a lot of debate on Iran has overlooked. Acton begins of by explaining how the purpose and legal obligation of the IAEA is not to analyze the 'intent' of a violating country. However, the IAEA reports on Iran tend to be looked at with a view to finding an answer to the question of Iran's intention behind violating the safeguards.

With the larger non-proliferation regime enforcement view he says that we are sending out a wrong message to future violators by harping upon the motive factor. The violating state should be punished for 'what' it has done and not 'why' it did so. Irrespective of good or bad intent the violator should be punished. By concentrating on the motive the signal being sent out is that if you violate with good intent, you can be excused. The deterrence value is diminished in the process. I think this is an important aspect to be considered given that it is almost impossible to prove 'intent' with 100 percent confidence or even beyond reasonable doubt.

*"James Acton is a lecturer at the Centre for Science and Security Studies in the Department of War Studies at King's College London. He holds a PhD in theoretical physics from Cambridge University's Cavendish Laboratory."

Pak Nuke plant accident

This is interesting.

"The government claims Khushab produces electricity. Last year, the Washington-based Institute of Science for International Security said the plant has three reactors, including two that were still under construction last June. It cited satellite photos of the sprawling site that is under military control.
The development of the reactor and other nuclear-related activities ''imply'' that Pakistan has decided to ''increase significantly its production of plutonium for nuclear weapons,'' the institute said in a report analyzing the images."

Violation or failure?

The choice of words can make a huge difference. This was reiterated again this morning when I was reading a paper on Iran. The author stressed that Iran's non-disclosure of certain nuclear reactors was a "failure" and not a "violation" of IAEA guidelines. By interpreting it as a "violation" gives the situation a different meaning (i.e. the US interpretation), when it is a "failure" on Iran's part. The distinction being made was important because so far all my readings on Iran have always conveyed a "violation" thereby affecting my interpretation and views about the issue. I agree that there is a minor distinction between the two terms, but the connotational distinction makes a big difference to the conclusion. A "violation" seems to justify sanctions, whereas "failure" makes it sound disproportional to the offense.

The energy story

I recently attended a talk on the 'Future of India's Energy Security', and came out with a distinct impression that the Indo-US nuclear deal would not revolutionize the energy sector, and could be a high cost to pay for the proliferation regime. Though the speaker Parmit Pal Chaudhuri, Washington, DC correspondent for Hindustan Times did not say so explicitly, the facts and figures he quoted pointed in that direction.

Today India’s economy is growing at nine percent, whereas energy production has increased at only 5% over the last couple of years. To sustain its economic growth, energy production would have to increase five to seven fold over the next 25 years. According to Chaudhuri a transformation of market forces in the energy sector would be crucial for this. He touched upon the four major energy sectors, laying out the shortcomings in each and the areas that demand change. With the poorest track record and the biggest potential, the coal sector seemed to define the critical condition of the energy sector.

This sector is the most important sector contributing to more than half of India’s energy requirements, and the biggest contender for reform. Unless there is significant reform in the coal sector, other energy reforms would be meaningless. The coal sector is highly inefficient, overstaffed, with poor cost effectiveness and is referred to as the coal mafia in the prime coal producing states of Bihar and Jharkhand. Almost 40% of the coal mined is stolen in transit between the mine and the consumer. In spite of having the fourth largest coal reserves in the world, India is one of the net coal importers due to the inefficiency of the coal industry, and lack of new exploration efforts. There is an urgent need for large efforts at explorations and overall reforms in the culture of the coal industries.

Next in line is Oil. India imports 70% of its oil and it is expected to grow to almost 90% in the next 20 years. The biggest irony of the sector is that it is taxed at very stage and finally subsidized for the consumer. The subsidy burden is estimated to be around $10 billion. However, the huge import bills are partially offset by the export of processed petroleum products, particularly to Iran. Overseas equity purchases in oil are poor, as the nationalized oil companies cannot afford them after running losses due to the tax and subsidy policies.

A silver lining to this sorry state of affairs is the gas sector. It has the highest potential to change the energy profile of India. It is estimated to supply almost 20-25% of the energy in the next 20 years. The sector is witnessing the biggest market reforms, with a large number of private companies participating. It also has the least number of mass based interest groups involved that could dampen the reforms. 96% of India’s gas comes from Qatar alone. It is imported through the sea route, which would continue to be the main transport route as ships get bigger and the shipping costs decrease.

The growth in the nuclear sector is subject to increased fuel and capital inflow. The Indo-US nuclear deal would be instrumental in lifting restrictions on the fuel aspect. While the amendments to the Atomic Energy Act would allow private firms to enter the nuclear power industry and reducing the capital problem. However, Chaudhuri does not think that it would be a prominent contributor to the energy requirements in the near future. Through my readings so far I had gathered that the Indo-US nuclear deal, if successful, would considerably help the generation of electricity. Though I was not expecting any dramatic changes or a sudden reduction in dependence on oil, the strategic benefits of the treaty gave it a different appeal. The proliferation concerns seemed to take a backseat. However, listening once again to how the nuclear energy sector would not transform the energy sector brought me back to the reality of the proliferation risks it would pose. But that is a matter for another post.

Coming back to the talk, Chaudhuri emphasized the success of the wind power sector as a promising sign for renewable energy. Wind power is one of the largest renewable energy sectors in India, but has to depend upon subsidies for efficiency. It has shown the greatest potential so far with private players being active in the field. On the other hand the solar energy sector has a lot of potential but cannot be harnessed efficiently unless there is a technological breakthrough to reduce costs. Chaudhuri believes that biofuel as an option would end in a few years, due to its direct association with increasing food prices worldwide.

He was also very critical of the electricity distribution system and said that on an average an Indian company has to pay almost 80% more than what any company in China pays for electricity. Distribution is a politically sensitive issue and reforms are slow to come. Electricity theft is probably the single largest issue and needs to be addressed for any real reforms in the area. He also talked of how big hydroelectricity projects have taken a backseat after the Narmada project fiasco. Though smaller local projects mostly in Uttaranchal, Sikkim and other hilly areas continue to harness the hydroelectric potential. Private firms are entering the sector and have struck deals for projects in Nepal.

On the Carbon emission debate Chaudhuri was of the view that so long as carbon emissions and economic development are a zero sum game, developing countries cannot be expected to agree to reduce carbon emissions. It is also a politically infeasible option for them. In India the use of biomass as fuel is one of the important contributors to emissions. With poverty levels decreasing, the switch to LPG as a primary domestic fuel would decrease the emissions.

Overall the energy story came out looking rather dismal, and in urgent need of path breaking reforms to sustain India’s economic growth.

Ahmedinejad vindicated

Now the US intelligence agencies believe that Iran is "not likely to have enough highly enriched uranium to build a bomb until 2010-2015." The program apparently ran into technical problems after making significant headway in 2007 by installing gas centrifuges used to enrich uranium. The same report mentions that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003 due to "international pressure." And yet the US National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley thinks that the reports findings confirm that "the US was right to be worried about Iran's nuclear ambitions."

For all the good that this finding might do, it puts the ball in Ahmedinejad's court. He has been asserting that Iran is not making a bomb, this reports simply vindicates him. There is nothing stopping him from saying "I told you so!" It makes Ahmedinejad look like the 'truthful' one. It can lead one to believe that his anger against the US is well-placed, justified.

I think I just pity Bush? Not only are his ratings abysmal, it is getting increasingly difficult to tell when he is lying and not.

Update: Iran's reaction - "Iranian state TV hailed the report as a "victory". It said Iran was "honest" and had been "vindicated", while it said the report demonstrated flaws in US intelligence."

The 'nuclear plot'

I think this would be a good story to look out for. With so much concern over the possibility of nuclear material being sold to terrorists, it would interesting to see how the media picks up on the alleged attempt at sale of nuclear material. Where did they get it from? Who were their potential buyers? Or probably it is just a hoax and the concluding piece is as small as this one.

Update: The Nuclear Threat Initiative gives a list of trafficking incidents so far.

A peek at the nuclear threat

Today's Washington Post opinion page is interesting not only for those interested in nuclear issues, but also others who would like to update themselves on the nuclear threats in general.