[Marxism] On The US-India Nuclear Agreement [response to all the other nuclear items)

[David Walters <dwalters@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I said: "I appreciated the general anti-nuclear weapons perspective that 
just about anyone holds, generally. I would like it too if the planet 
disarmed."

Then you said: "It's just not true. Not everybody has an "anti-nuclear 
weapons perspective". Definitely Bush does not have it. Nor those states 
who're engaged in upgrading their nuclear arsenals and/or going for it."

Me: Well no kidding. By "people" I mean the average person-on-the- 
street, not the ruling class.

You said: "Nor those who're agitating, campaigning, and "lobbying", for 
global nuclear disarmament can hardly be equated with those who 
"appreciate" such demands and advocates and justifies nuclear 
proliferation, in the name of nuclear parity quite ignoring the simple 
fact that it points in the opposite direction of global nuclear 
disarmament and the fact that their position essentially means that 
global nuclear disarmament would come only when every segment (or only 
nation?) is in possession of this apocalyptic weapon or at least till it 
comes everybody should go nuke. (An insane idea!)"

Me:
That is not the issue. The issue is lobbying other imperialist powers  
to stop the US from selling nuclear energy technology to India. I'm  not 
"for" India having the bomb (and, I'm not against it either). All I  
know is if that they have the right as a developing country for  
sovereignty. They certainly have a right to nuclear energy. That they  
have bilateral trade with the US on this question * in and of itself *  
is something I don't care about. There are reasons, from an Indian  
perspective, why this agreement is a bad thing, mainly the  
subordination of it's native Thorium development to western  Uranium 
development (which India has almost none of). It's another  debate. The 
issue is this: does India have a right to develop nuclear  resources, 
mainly energy? I say it does and I defend that right.

You said:  "The fact is that the US itself is out to undermine the NPT. 
The 2005 Review Conference failed to come out with a resolution because 
of the US intransigence. The NPT is of course skewed. But it is the only 
multilateral agreement which contains the commitment of the nuclear 
weapon states to disarm. It does not provide for any definite timeframe. 
So the struggle is to obtain that."

Me: No, it doesn't. You are wrong Selka. This the point you are missing  
completely! The NPT was designed to keep nuclear weapons in the  hands 
of 6 countries, effectively. There was an insane balance when  two of 
these countries were non-capitalist ones. Not any more. The  US threats 
to nuke N. Korea and Iran have changed the game,  providing the US 
monopoly status on nuclear weapons the incentive  for other countries to 
go for nuclear weapons. This includes India.  I'm against the US 
controlled monopoly on nuclear weapons. I'm not  for India (or Pakistan) 
disarming until the US agrees to disarm to.  Until then, all bets are off.

You said: "In fact, in the instant case, the emphasis is on "lobbying" 
the NSG - which has 45 and NOT 8 members. And again within that the 
members of the New Agenda Coalition."

Me:
I explained above: effectively this means the US, the other members  
being almost wholly irrelevant. The NSG is irrelevant. The only real  
disarmament campaign should be aimed at the US (maybe the UK  and 
France), but really, I'm not about to sit here in the US and  demand 
that my Congress NOT sign a deal with India that could  help in 
developing nuclear energy (every MW of which would be, IN  FACT, 
replaced with carbon emitting coal or gas) and cave into the  chauvinist 
campaign which is being waged right now in MY  COUNTRY against Indian 
energy sovereignty (as tilted toward  foreign supplied Uranium as it is 
nevertheless).

The US is doing this for three reasons:

1. The US has been trying to woo India for decades, especially as it's  
MIGs were shooting down Pakistani F-15s, and the Soviet designed  Indian 
navy and army was embarrassing the shit out of the US. At  any rate, it 
wants to continue to breakdown Indan trade barriers for  US investment 
and trade.

2. To make tons of money for the big US turbine/generator/reactor  
manufacturers (who, BTW, already make tons of money building  natural 
gas and coal plants there) and

3. Establish and fortify overall US control of processed nuclear fuel,  
kill of Indian's Thorium program, and assure imperialist pax- Americana 
overall all things nuclear. Like I stated above, this IS a  reason to 
oppose the deal if there was one at all.

Lastly on the Indian CNDP campaign: they are anti-nuclear power and this 
shows the true intend of those that oppose the deal from their 
perspective. The idea that "renewables" is going to lift India out 
poverty under *any* class conditions is a poor joke, IMO, and one that 
is best buried as quickly as possible.

David



 


________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism