Good Nukes, Bad Nukes

Ignatius gets it right - almost. The nuclear issue seems to dominate President Bush's visit to India that begins today. The bottom line is that if the negotiator can reach a workable agreement on India's nuclear status, it will mean an end to decades of isolation of the Indian nuclear energy establishment. It opens up much-needed sources of fuel for the Indian civilian reactors. Going by reports in the media, there seems to be intense ongoing diplomacy promising a photo finish by the end of the President's visit.

The latest numbers doing the rounds is a 65:35 split, i.e., 65% of the reactors will come under international safeguards. That will mean NSG (nuclear suppliers group) countries can supply fuel to those reactors and take away spent fuel for reprocessed. The remaining 35% will be military reactors that fall outside the purview of the agreement. India will continue to exercise complete control over those. This number is an improvement over the 70:30 split that the previous BJP-led government had almost agreed to. There seems to be some unanswered questions about the fate of future (yet-to-be built) reactors. And the hyped Fast Breeder Reactors (FBRs) may be kept out for now.

India needed that push to demystify - to some extent - its nuclear energy and weapons programs. It was a logical next step after heralding its status to the world a few years ago. Of course, this won't happen overnight. It is heartening to know that the process has been hastened.

Now, to the Ignatius article in today's Post: he distinguishes between the nuclear ambitions and programs of India and Iran using 'good nukes' and 'bad nukes' - a' la Bush's 'good vs. evil' argument, one wonders.

Incidentally the New York times has come strongly against the proposed deal crying its hypocritical to de facto admit India into the nuclear club while lecturing countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia and South Korea against pursuing nuclear ambitions. It is like saying, if you are sneaky enough, if you are patient enough, we'll let you into this elite club.

Ignatius, without referring to NYT, agrees with the hypocrisy argument. But it is enlightened hyprocrisy. The world, we all know is fueled by pragmatism and not idealism. In that spirit, it makes sense to recognize India's responsible behavior with the proposed agreement.

Why do I say Ignatius gets it almost right?
The Indian foreign policy establishment has long strived to de-hyphenate India and Pakistan in the eyes of the world. It has had much success in that regard. But I can see them wincing at the end of paragraph in Ignatius' piece:

The world is ready to accept India as a nuclear power because its actions have given other nations confidence that it seeks to play a stabilizing role. A world where behavior matters gets the incentives right: It forces Iran to demonstrate its reliability so that, over time, it can be seen in the same league as India and Pakistan.

Good Nukes, Bad Nukes