August 13, 2007
Will the U.S.-India Nuclear Deal Get Nuked?Politics
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is facing the threat of a mutiny from the left parties in his coalition government over the recently-finalized — but still not finally approved — U.S.-India nuclear deal, also known as the “123 Agreement.”
As he addressed Parliament today, some members of Left parties staged a walk-out, while others made so much noise that MPs who actually wanted to hear what was said had to use their translation headphones. On the right, the BJP has also been critical of the deal, though I tend to think it’s more because of political opportunism than anything else: one gets the feeling they wish they’d pulled this off.
Thus far, the Congress Party hasn’t seemed seriously concerned about a collapse of the government; no one is yet talking about votes of no-confidence, mid-term polls, or rejiggering the deal to make critics happy.
Are the Communists and others on the left bluffing when they say they’ll walk away from the Coalition government over this? I tend to think so, though I could be wrong. Indian politics — with the combination of regional and caste parties in addition to the left/right axis — is often so complicated, it makes the U.S. system seem laughably simple. Still the Times has a certain wry tone in its summary of where the opposition is coming from:
At one point in Mr, Singh’s speech, the Left parties, which provide crucial support to his Congress-led coalition government, walked out of the house. The Left has opposed the nuclear accord with the United States since it was announced, less over the specific provisions of the accord than over the general principle of closer ties to America.
“We do not share the optimism that India can become a great power with the help of the United States,” Prakash Karat, the general secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), said on Saturday. (link)
(This is where I sniff in Prakash Karat’s general direction.)
For those who have kind of let the whole U.S.-India nuclear deal slip past them in recent months, Siddharth Varadarajan has a good point-by-point summary of the agreement here. And the full text of the agreement, released by the U.S. State Department, is here.
amardeep on August 13, 2007 02:15 PM in Politics · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
The deal, which is as good as done, does not require the Indian Prime Minister to seek permission from the Parliament.
All this noise is just that, Noise. After all the Commies have to prove their worthiness to their voters.
OTOH, Once completed, I hope the deal seals Bush's reputation as one of the most pro-India American President to date.
what is the US getting out of this deal? a bulwark against china?
OTOH, Once completed, I hope the deal seals Bush's reputation as one of the most pro-India American President to date.
Since India's 60th is approaching, I'll bite: what about Franklin Roosevelt instead? As I recall, he tried hard to persuade Winston Churchill that granting India independence was in the Allies' best interests. To my eye, that makes him pretty pro-India...
This is a very poor deal for India. All the clauses are useless with US, as US acts unilaterally. What happens when a different anti-India President comes in?? He just cuts off the supply.
This is a deal where supplier (USA) continuously blackmails the buyer (India).
I'll bite: what about Franklin Roosevelt instead? As I recall, he tried hard to persuade Winston Churchill that granting India independence was in the Allies' best interests.
Yes, but that was mostly just a discussion and letter writing during all the WW-II conferences (Tehran, Potsdam, Yalta, etc.) which Winston Churchill did not like or relish.
For a brief period, Eisenhower was quite keen on India too, this is the height of red scare and Chinese emergence.
The communists have to make noise, for the sake of their core electoral base (the adda elites, the factory worker does not care about Indo-US nuclear deal), or they will loose relevance.
Puliogre in da USA - Bush, to his credit, has been pretty consistent when it comes to US policy vis a vis India. Indeed, even while campaigning for his first term, he stated that his major foreign policy agenda if elected would be closer cooperation with the world's largest democracy.
Besides the tangential benefit of US business selling nuclear supplies worth billions, America seeks and will likely get deeper enegagement with India on all fronts, a regional [and future global] superpower, which may some day throw in her lot with Uncle Sam, either against China or even Radical Islam.
p.s. the Indian Ministry of External Affairs also has the deal details on their website - http://meaindia.nic.in/
This is a very poor deal for India. All the clauses are useless with US, as US acts unilaterally. What happens when a different anti-India President comes in?? He just cuts off the supply.
This is a deal where supplier (USA) continuously blackmails the buyer (India).
On the other hand, some experts on the American side think that the U.S. is giving India exactly what it wanted: see Ivan Oelrich, at Strategic Security Blog. Oelrich interprets the agreement as saying, in essence, "the U.S., while it reserves the right to terminate the deal, doesn't really care what India does with nuclear materials, as long as India doesn't start doing full-scale nuclear tests."
And Manoj Joshi agrees with that reading (thanks, Ruchira, for the link!).
Amardeep, FDR did notice Britain's hypocrisy, who while seeking American help to safeguard itself and liberate Europe from the clutches of Hitler, was denying the same liberation to India.
Alas, whilst noble, it remained only a thought. FDR, as Kush has pointed out, never put anything on the table to back his [very soft] entreatments to that uber racist and India hater, Churchill.
This is what The USA gets out of this deal. India will become less dependent on fossil fuels for power plants, meeting her energy needs with nuclear reactors thus keeping the global demand for oil down.
India does not sacrifice its independence to build nuclear weapons.
This is not designed as a counter to China as India already has nukes pointed towards China.
Once this deal becomes written into US law another administration cannot rescind it. In the same way Ronald Reagan could not take back the Panama Canal after Jimmmy Carter gave it away to Gen. Torijlos.
This is a win win deal for both India and The United States.
Indian American political organisations joined with American Jewish lobby groups to get bipartisan support for this deal.
The USA will not be the lone supplier of enriched uranium, as this deal opens the way for other countries to participate.
I beleieve that as hisotory between the two giants evolves and trust grows, there will be some wink, wink between the two. I.E., US will turn the other way while India tests advanced weapons using dual use technology. After all a stronger India is in American interest.
p.s. Amardeep, my wife and i put great faith in your movie critiques. so, if and when convenient, do consider reviewing chak de india for sepia.
I think its just some noise making by the communist and the opposition parties. The opposition wants credit for the nuclear deal and they would ideally like to scuttle it now but sign the deal when they are in power. The communists oppose everything that involves working together with the US.
As far as benefits from the Nuclear deal are concerned, Its pretty simple. As long as you are getting something out of it ... keep it alive. When your strategic interests start being compromised, Re-debate, pass a resolution in the parliament and chuck it out. Something is better than nothing. I feel trade and economic gains is the biggest motivation for signing such a deal. Uncle Sam is not exactly benevolent and India obviously has its great power aspirations. Once the two countries get further entwined with trade and commerce, The relationship can only get better until either feels threatened (economically or security). I think once this deal is done the relationship will flourish for the next couple of decades atleast.
I don't know about you guys but in India, they don't consider US
as a friend who can be trusted in matters of our security. US always acts
on its own interests, everything else is discard able. It maybe a destination
for students & professionals but we do go in different directions in terms of policy.
123..4(disarm) 5(Iran)..6
Please please please, can everyone promise not to use the phrase "Non-proliferation ayatollahs"?
A message from the Foundation of Sepia Mutineers to Keep Threads Cliche-Free.
The Left parties have always been very anti-American ever since the Soviets (mostly) and Chinese (not so much) bankrolled them way back in the 60s. That financial support which came with the HateAmerica tag has all dried up, communism is dead and reduced to handbags and tshirts everywhere except in the largest democracy in the world. Its good to see that these comrades who gave up their communist ways long back atleast retain something from their original ideology.
CPM can go f@#k itself, but how is a U.S.-India-Japan or U.S.-India-Israel alliance in anyone's favor? Meaning those who stand to actually get blown up.
Mohamed ElBaradei (iaea) is behind it i believe.
The deal is a stroke of genius for Americans. They won everything at the negotiating table while India lost everything. Two very respected Indian analysts, Brahma Chellaney and Bharat Karnad, have been stridently opposed to the deal.
Chellaney's clause-by-clause analysis of the deal:
http://chellaney.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!4913C7C8A2EA4A30!387.entry
Karnad wrote this in the Asian Age today:
http://www.asianage.com/presentation/leftnavigation/opinion/op-ed/n-deal-relies-on-god,-not-common-sense.aspx
The context for Karnad's arguments is this interview of the NSA published in The Hindu last week:
http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/thscrip/print.pl?file=2007072855121300.htm&date=2007/07/28/&prd=th&
Bhagwan help India if such naive suckers are their leading negotiators! The consultations that the US has "conceded to" will not amount to a whole hill of beans when the US decides to arm-twist India.
I have to agree with Confusious and Gujjubhai -- there is too much unbridled enthusiasm going on for a very lopsided deal. What's with Congress getting to review what the Indian Parliament can't? Fifty years is a very long time for India ot be on tenterhooks about the U.S. pulling out any time on a year's notice with a right of return of all the fiddly bits. And then if the U.S. starts into Pakistan. how will all this change? Not confident in all of PM's approach as in his speech at Oxford, esp this bit:"...even at the height of our campaign for freedom from colonial rule, we did not entirely reject the British claim to good governance. We merely asserted our natural right to self-governance." Too much forgiveness, wrong generation.
Yes, the right of repossession is the true leverage the US created for itself. Here's how: the US never wanted to explicitly bar India from testing nukes as, politically, that would be a non-starter in India. Instead, they just wanted to make it extremely expensive for India to test - and slowly tighten the noose around India’s strategic program by creating dependency upon US-controlled fuel and subjecting India to non-NWS intrusive IAEA inspecitons that would allow the entry of CIA agents just as they did in Iraq.
This is implicit imposition of CTBT and NPT on India as non-NWS state. Add in the increasing pressure on toeing the FMCT line as laid out in the Hyde Act, the trap becomes very clear to see.
But wait, that's not the end of it. The real genius of the Americans is in how they've deployed the brilliant Sun Tzu strategy of turning the very growth of an adversary's strength into their weakness. Again, this is through the usage of repo rights. How? Fast forward 20 years from now and imagine that India is generating 25000-50000 MW of nuclear energy. Which Indian government will ever have the audacity to go against the wishes of the US by risking an energy blackout and hurting the economy? Think about this : the more nuclear power India generates, the more US exerts its influence on India’s power grid. Electricity is the life-blood of an economy.
This is a strategically brilliant trap : US lured India by visions of generating cheap electricity, even as it positioned itself to gain more and more influence as Indian nuclear industry grows. In that process, US also gets to generate huge business for its nuclear energy suppliers in India. And that installed base of US equipment turns into an increasingly growing sword of Damoclese through the growing power of the threat of repossession by the US! This is deal is indeed much worse than Indira Gandhi losing the 1971 war in Simla. The US managed to slip a Trojen Horse into the Indian nuclear establishment.
This deal represents a beggar's bargain for India. Especially when there was no particular hurry to even pick up this deal at this point in time for India. The Congress government has even given away one of India's few strategic advantages by throwing open the Thorium Nuclear technology to international inspection and sharing. There has been a lot of indigenous research carried out in this field by Indian scientists for a technology that seeks to de-couple India's dependency on Uranium based nuclear economy (think of OPEC like cartel of Australia and the US) to Thorium based, which India has plenty of.
I used to think that India has not had a worse prime minister than Chacha Nehru who single handedly created some of the most vexing problems for independent India by giving away, as a matter of principle, the Security Council seat to China being offered to India, and insisting on taking J&K issue to the UN when Indian Army was seeking permission to complete the mission of flushing out Pakistani army regulars and tribals out of western Kashmir (PoK). The V.P. Singhs, Gujrals et. el. were just aberrations. Even the naïve and futile magnanimous gesturing of Indira Gandhi, of pulling defeat out of jaws of victory after 1971 war, is nowhere close to the damage this deal has the potential to inflict on India's sovereignty. MM Singh has outdone them all and will be judged by history as the worst PM of India (then again, he really didn't want to be the PM, did he?)
Wonder when the so called leaders of India will learn to lead with interests of the nation at the forefront. Or maybe India is doomed to carry out reliving the experience of Jaichands and Shikhandis in all ages. As other commentators have pointed out, this deal gives US all it wanted from India but could never get directly (in the form of CTBT) in the last 40 years, on a silver platter, in return of empty promises of mere consultations.
Gujjubhai, you're spinning paranoid fantasies, and you're trying to turn what is clearly a major strategic victory into a defeat.
It's in the U.S. interest to keep selling enriched uranium to India indefinitely. Also, you haven't read the agreement very carefully. Read article 14.5:
5. The two Parties recognize that exercising the right of return would have profound implications for their relations. If either Party seeks to exercise its right pursuant to paragraph 4 of this Article, it shall, prior to the removal from the territory or from the control of the other Party of any nuclear items mentioned in paragraph 4, undertake consultations with the other Party. Such consultations shall give special consideration to the importance of uninterrupted operation of nuclear reactors of the Party concerned with respect to the availability of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes as a means of achieving energy security. Both Parties shall take into account the potential negative consequences of such termination on the on-going contracts and projects initiated under this Agreement of significance for the respective nuclear programmes of either Party.
As I read it, any "right of return" is conditional on the "uninterrupted operation of nuclear reactors," and only after mututal consultations. This cannot be used as blackmail. Incidentally, the 123 agreement with Japan also has a similar right of return clause. (according to Siddharth Varadarajan)
There are also lots of things advantageous to India that you and other commenters haven't noticed. For instance, article 5.6:
The United States has conveyed its commitment to the reliable supply of fuel to India. Consistent with the July 18, 2005, Joint Statement, the United States has also reaffirmed its assurance to create the necessary conditions for India to have assured and full access to fuel for its reactors. As part of its implementation of the July 18, 2005, Joint Statement the United States is committed to seeking agreement from the U.S. Congress to amend its domestic laws and to work with friends and allies to adjust the practices of the Nuclear Suppliers Group to create the necessary conditions for India to obtain full access to the international fuel market, including reliable, uninterrupted and continual access to fuel supplies from firms in several nations.
In effect, this is saying that the U.S. is committed not only to selling India nuclear fuel, but to ensuring that India has access to fuel from other suppliers in the Nuclear Suppliers Group. The bill that the lower house of Congress passed (the Henry Hyde version of the bill) said the opposite -- India has clearly negotiated an advantage back into the final version of the bill.
One other point: Article 5 states that the U.S. will transfer not only material, but the technology to use them. Once India has this technology, it can use it if and when it purchases uranium from other suppliers.
As for the IAEA and CIA agents, again, you're being paranoid. The IAEA is an independent agency -- in Iraq, they produced a clear statement that the Bush administration ignored: "no nukes here." According to the agreement, they will only be called in if there is a concern about "inventories" (article 10.7). It doesn't specify that IAEA will have the right to survey all of India's nuclear program.
In general, if you read the agreement carefully, you'll see that the language is really oriented to opening as many avenues as possible for India and the U.S. to do business on nuclear fuel. And that's about it.
Well said, Amardeep. The right of return is also exercisible by both the US and India. In general, when people in the US think India got the upper hand and people in India think the US got the upper hand, that's an indication that this is a fair agreement.
Also, it's worth noting that the deal almost stalled last year. Then the Indians offered up the creation of a reprocessing facility. I think credit goes to the negotiators on both sides for being creative on this.
I have a "layman understanding" of the deal. ( I believe like that of Bush. :-) )
Right now there are pretty much five countries that can do whatever they want with their "nuclear" stuff and that includes China and Russia, one future competitor and the other past competitor.. And if they can do whatever they want why can't India, after all India is not going to go after US interests in the next million years (irrespective of what the communists in India want).
For me, if I can get continuous power supply in the cities and villages of India, I'd say go for it..
Whither "mutineers," pray? All I see in discussions like this one is a discussion or "debate" between gung-ho-nationalists and skeptical-nationalists.... What "mutiny" is this blog supposed to be about? Why not just drop that desire to appear radical-chic?
The issue is not that this deal is completely a goner but that India could have got a much better bargain. Also,
We cant test, even though as a nation which has (presumably) not
proliferated , is under voluntary moratorium & is bordered by china & pakistan.
US hasn't given any special consideration.
Somehow we are still not convinced..lets see how this plays in the parliament.
The Tellis interview :
http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/aug/14arvind.htm
correction : the links should be http://www.rediff.com/news/2006/jul/19inter1.htm
Gujjubhai, you're spinning paranoid fantasies, and you're trying to turn what is clearly a major strategic victory into a defeat.
Come on, now...I expect better from you : just because you think they are paranoid fantasies doesn't make them so. Granted that it's hard to disprove a negative, but the concerns I have expressed are well justified based on the American track record. The US has used international treaties and even multilateral institutions to arm-twist others or walk away unilaterally breaking its binding obligations in the past. Surely, you know about the Tarapur imbroglio and the recent unilateral breaking of the arms treaty with Russians.
It's in the U.S. interest to keep selling enriched uranium to India indefinitely.
It is in the commercial interest of the US to sell uranium as long as it serves its political interests. The US's nuclear establishment as always followed the policy of squashing nuclear competition even from the closest allies like the UK and Japan : when push comes to shove, the US will be ruthless in using all leverage it has over India.
As I read it, any "right of return" is conditional on the "uninterrupted operation of nuclear reactors," and only after mututal consultations.
For a professor of English, you amaze me by reading conditionality into a clause that says "...if either Party seeks to exercise its right pursuant to paragraph 4 of this Article, it shall, prior to the removal from the territory or from the control of the other Party of any nuclear items mentioned in paragraph 4, undertake consultations with the other Party. Such consultations shall give special consideration to the importance of uninterrupted operation of nuclear reactors of the Party concerned with respect to the availability of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes as a means of achieving energy security." You think that such "consultations" or "special considerations" amount to "conditional"?? Where you read guarantee, I read a clever face-saving phrase without any teeth. Real guarantees are backed by binding arbitrations, punitive damages, replacement supplies and so on. Here you have a monopoly supplier who is also a market maker holding all power over India's head - any lawyer or i-banker who has ever negotiated anything commercial will laugh at promises of "consultations" or "special considerations". The are not worth the paper they are printed on in case of a dispute.
Read the clause-by-clause analysis of the deal by Brahma Chellaney. It's quite an eye-opener. India got taken to the cleaners.
Could it be that the gain the US is also hoping to receive from this deal is to build a stronger relationship with Bharatavarsha as a result of the friendship that Bharatavarsha shares with Cuba and Venezuela? Hoping to become a "better friend" than Castro and Chavez to snatch Bharatavarsha away from them? Is this obvious or does it sound Ludakrishna?
I'm with leftyprof up there on the implicit statism in the comments. Alas, I just didn't figure it was worth saying anything... But now that it's been said, I add "here, here."
Whither "mutineers," pray? All I see in discussions like this one is a discussion or "debate" between gung-ho-nationalists and skeptical-nationalists.... What "mutiny" is this blog supposed to be about? Why not just drop that desire to appear radical-chic?
LeftyProf, you're raising two different issues. One is the hawkishness of the commenters, which I really can't help; it's a matter of who shows up on any given day. If you want to make a defense of the CP's position, please do so.
The question of whether we as bloggers are Mutinous or not is separate. For one thing, I don't think a certain ideology makes one mutinous anymore -- after all, it's the communists of West Bengal that ban Taslima Nasreen's books. (And there are many other failures that could be mentioned.) Secondly, in this case, adding something useful to the general conversation (which would be the goal of blogging) might simply be a matter of carefully reading and understanding the agreement, which 99% of the mainstream media and associated talking heads haven't done.
Amardeep: I agree with you when you say that
I like the way you use the phrase "a certain ideology." I take it your comment is directed against Marxism. But surely we've come a long way since the postmodernist reductionism of equating Marxism and Stalinism....? You assume here that the communists of West Bengal, and their actions, somehow speak for Marxism itself; that they have a monopoly on the meaning of Marxism.
So what does make one mutinous these days? Do enlighten me.
If it is no longer a question of "a certain ideology," then what is it? Several different ideologies? No ideology? Pretending to not have an ideology? Pragmatic picking and choosing? Mutinous flavor of the day?
Seriously.
You assume here that the communists of West Bengal, and their actions, somehow speak for Marxism itself; that they have a monopoly on the meaning of Marxism.
You're absolutely right. I forgot about the Maoists, who are doing wonderful things for the 'people' all across eastern India. Seriously. Then of course there are the Chinese Marxist-Maoists, who are surely on the right track to liberating the masses of oppressed laborers from their chains. There's also the Hugo Chavez variety, which doesn't need term limits, apparently. Last of all are the academic Marxists in western universities, who alone know the true meaning of Marxism, which is of course contained in Sri Das Kapital.
If it is no longer a question of "a certain ideology," then what is it?
I'm writing a comment in response to your recent post.
Sorry--I hit "Post" too soon, and my last comment was truncated.
Amardeep:
Of course, I wouldn't hold you responsible for the comments that others make. But I find it curious that the only two permissible positions here seem to be that of the UPA or of the CPs. I said "nationalist" in my original comment, but I think Buster (#29) is more accurate--"statist" is the word I should have used. The problem is that BOTH of them share the understanding that what's good for the Indian state (i.e., what strengthens the Indian state) is good for Indians.
Why must one's rejection of the deal have to imply an acceptance of the CP's nationalist "we are undermining our sovereignty" position? Whatever happened to standing up against further nuclearization of the subcontinent?
The way I see it, this is an agreement between the world's sole superpower and an aspiring regional hegemon, between an imperialist power and a sub-imperialist power, if you will. It is fundamentally an agreement between the elites of the two nations, designed to bolster and enrich their own interests in the geopolitical arena. In an agreement like this, the rest of us have nothing to gain, one way or another. There are various ways of looking at this: the nuclearization angle, the environmental angle, the energy-needs angle, etc.
Yes, this is a "strategic victory" for India's rulers. But it also sets the stage for India's incorporation into the broader geopolitical framework that the U.S. is trying to craft for the region.
What do ordinary Indians gain from this? One comment above (#23) says: "For me, if I can get continuous power supply in the cities and villages of India, I'd say go for it." But this is a big "if", isn't it? Such facile notions fail to address some crucial questions:
Why IS there a power shortage in Indian cities and villages?
IS nuclear power the solution?
What about the environmental costs?
What about the economic costs of nuclear power?
What about the political costs--won't this escalate the arms race between India and Pakistan?
So, once again, I ask: whither "mutineers"?
LeftyProf, if I'd known you were going to do a more substantial, less sarcastic follow-up, I myself wouldn't have resorted to sarcasm in my previous comment above. (I'm now feeling a bit remorseful)
Anyway, to my mind, these are valid questions, which do need to be addressed:
Why IS there a power shortage in Indian cities and villages?
IS nuclear power the solution?
What about the environmental costs?
What about the economic costs of nuclear power?
What about the political costs--won't this escalate the arms race between India and Pakistan?
I might have more on this a bit later.
Thank you.
I started my comment with this. "I have a layman understanding of the nuclear deal". So please excuse me for having "facile notions".. I know that Tamilnadu (my state) is a power surplus state and it is in big part due to the Kalpakkam nuclear plant (plus the Neyveli Thermal plant). There are a couple of nuclear reactors coming up in Koodangulam in southern Tamilnadu. and people are generally happy if they can get enough "electric power".
If you have other solutions that are "cost effective" in mind you can come out with those.. I don't think anyone would refuse a "clean energy" alternative.
Ponniyin (#36):
My point here was simply that this discussion had showed little critical distance from the discourse of the Indian elites, and basically accepted the parameters established by that discourse (i.e., is this a "victory" for "India" or not), without raising what to my mind were some critical questions. This led me to ask: "whither mutineers"? So I wasn't faulting you for having a layman's understanding of the nuclear deal--believe me, I don't claim to be an expert either.
LeftyProf:
Asking questions is always good. But without providing alternative solutions to the problem and just questioning the "proposal" on vague terms like "enivornment factors" / "relations with Pak" etc.. is as good as keeping quiet. People would just think of the questioners as "rabble rousers" who are out to sabotage any work and not give much importance..
One more thing to add.
"Manmohan Singh" is a proven economist. His model worked atleast for people like me. To tell you the truth, my dad used to get us down at a bus stop 100 metres before another bus stop which is actually closer to my grandma's place because the ticket was 5 paise cheaper.. ( yes 5 paise that is 0.05% of 1 Indian rupee) and that period coincided with the late 80s / early 90s...
I do not know how much of the money I earn now directly corresponds to the so called "Manmohan Singh / Rao" reforms. But I'd beleive Manmohan Singh rather than some rabble rousers who oppose all kinds of things without providing any alternative..
the above is mathematically incorrect, should be 5% of 1 indian rupee. well, anyhow i think i made my point..
Funny, how LeftyProf's question is alluded to as a 'rabble rouser's' question on a site that I personally think is fueled by comments (and some posts) that
.But then again, most of us always think that the world ends at the tip of our nose (including me).
I should clarify: some comments, not all
Actually the phrase "as good as keeping quiet" was used in this sentence.
Check out Praful Bidwai's useful article that raises some of the questions that I've been asking here. Apparently, it is from the Times of India, but I couldn't locate the original.
Thanks I'd look into it later. Do you think he offers "viable cost effective solutions"??
Ponniyin:
Well, good for you. I'm not here to trade stories of personal tribulations--I don't think such anecdotal evidence proves anything. For every such story, I can find dozens, if not hundreds, of cases to the contrary.
And this economic model is not Manmohan Singh's at all. It is a set of policies, known variously as neoliberalism or globalization or the "Washington Consensus," that were pioneered by the U.S. starting in the early 1970s, and then exported across the world, through institutions like the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO. The effects of these policies have been disastrous in country after country. It is true that, given the Indian economy's current phase of expansion, there is a sense of optimism among the urban middle classes. How long this expansion will last is a different matter entirely. Not to mention the impact of these policies on the rest of the population.
Awash with money, and upbeat about their global competitiveness, India's rulers are now hoping to acquire an equal status within the elite club of nuclear-armed and nuclear-powered states. Should we support this uncritically? And should opposition to it be automatically identified with the nationalistic opposition of the Communist Parties? These are the questions I'm trying to raise here.
If you don't think it is okay to raise such questions on a blog whose very title invokes a spirit of rebellion, then I wonder what brings you to this blog in the first place.
And this economic model is not Manmohan Singh's at all. It is a set of policies, known variously as neoliberalism or globalization or the "Washington Consensus," that were pioneered by the U.S. starting in the early 1970s
Sure, it was not Manmohan Singh-Narishma Rao's original idea. Yes, it was part of IMF recommendation when India came a hair's breath of defaulting their loan payment. The country's foreign reserves were abysmally low, circa 1991. You very easily ignored the key pillar in 1991 reforms in your discourse. India was on the verge of bankcrupty.
However,
It took a lot of courage by Manmohan Singh to start a chain reaction which was against the grain of Indian economic mindset at that time. In fact, there was so much internal bickering over loosening of economy, currency devaluation, that Manmohan Singh was dropped from the cabinet reshuffle that happened immediately after.
Yes, such policies have failed in Mexico, etc. but have succeeded too - in addition to India, Argentina is seeing a come around. It is not the policy per se, it the ingenuity of the people and the opportunities. In India's case, it was software engineering, Y2K, business friendly policies of AP, and Karnataka.
Now let us come to nuclear power, currently India's energy budget includes 3% from nuclear power. The Indo-US deal envisions that will increase to 8-10 %. Sure, it does not measure to France which has 75% of its energy needs met by nuclear power. Nuclear power is perhaps the cleanest (sans solar power) energy source. The only downside is leakage (Chernobyl, Six Mile Island), and for India, to be at world standards in their nuclear reactors, had to do such a deal. For India to have such safe, newest, state-of-the-art reactors, it has to have GE (General Electric), Toshibha and all doing business there.
India cannot maintain its growth rate unless it finds new source of energy. Conventional energy is all staked out by US, Europe, and China. China has taken up areas out of US interests - billions of dollars are invested by China in Iran, and Africa.
Mutiny or no mutiny....please let be comprehensive.
KarmaByte:
Are you serious?!
I'll assume you are, and say that I see things in terms of the interests of ordinary working people, regardless of nationality. I believe I have an interest in a healthy environment, as should all of us. And yes, I speak for the health of fish in the ocean too (less mercury in my sushi would be nice).
But then, you weren't being serious, were you? If you were, you would have said something a bit more substantial about my argument than the bland statement: "very interesting comments." So you turn around and mock the commenter instead. How predictable.
If you want to take issue with the substance of my argument, do so. If you can't wrap your head around it, then say so. But if you want to trade personal barbs and flamebait, then stuff it.
If you don't think it is okay to raise such questions on a blog whose very title invokes a spirit of rebellion, then I wonder what brings you to this blog in the first place.
LeftyProf, could you please quit it with the grandstanding? People are obviously engaging with your arguments, and this repeated lofting of the "mutiny" question is getting old. Don't hector us.
Otherwise, I agree with just about everything in Kush's comment (#48). And when I read the Praful Bidwai piece you linked to above, it struck me that a moderate investment in nuclear power might in fact a much better way to go than simply adding polluting coal plants indefinitely. There are environmental costs, but also environmental gains to going this route -- disposal is not a trivial concern, nor is the risk of meltdown. But given the Indian Ocean "brown cloud," the rapidly retreating glaciers in the Himalayas, and the ongoing health problems associated with suspended particulate matter, those might be risks worth taking. Development/industrialization in the Indian subcontinent is not going to be reversed.
Kush Tandon:
No doubt. The weaknesses and internal contradictions of the state-capitalist model that preceded liberalization had led to this crisis. True enough.
Hmm.... I think this is not quite so simple as you make it out to be. The Argentinian economy "is seeing a come around" after completely tanking, thanks to neoliberal policies. The disasters produced by neoliberalism have been written about so extensively by progressive economists the world over, it's hardly necessary to reproduce the arguments here.
There is no doubt that right now, the Indian economy is growing. In my comment earlier, I had said: "It is true that, given the Indian economy's current phase of expansion, there is a sense of optimism among the urban middle classes. How long this expansion will last is a different matter entirely. Not to mention the impact of these policies on the rest of the population." I think I will stick with this assessment.
Well, here's what Praful Bidwai writes in the article I mentioned earlier:
I think the jury is still out on the benefits of nuclear power.
I won't say much about this, except to remind you that "growth rates" do not equal progress. The question is, who benefits from this growth? And who pays for it?
You seem to ask a lot of questions.. It is all good.
I benefit from the growth. My family / friends / neighbors / city benefits from it..
And I was not born into a rich family. I was not poor either. I could claim the status of suburban lower middle class. I have relatives in the villages and they have no complaints either..
If you know people who have actually suffered from the growth please let us know.
Okay, my last comment on this thread, I promise. Indeed, my last visit to this blog.
Amardeep:
What grandstanding? Ponniyin had said in comment #38
You call this "engaging with my arguments"? On what planet? In effect, I was being told that my questions are out of place. I responded by reminding Ponniyin that this is a blog that invokes a spirit of rebellion by its very title, and therefore if s/he thinks such questions are not okay, s/he is probably in the wrong place. Where's the grandstanding?
You never did respond to my earlier question regarding ideology either--and that was asked very much in the spirit of wanting to know what the bloggers on this site, in this case you, consider to be so "mutinous" about their project, given the conformist nature of the discussions that I have seen here. Rather than explain that project, you fired off a sarcastic comment, then dropped the issue entirely, and when I raise the question again, you now berate me for "grandstanding." How commendable.
Clearly, my sense that this blog is a space for progressive, non-conformist folks, for ... well, mutineers ... was mistaken. Oops, sorry. Didn't mean to grandstand. I see now that this really is a waste of time. So--please excuse me if I don't respond to any further admonishments.
There are a lot of questions prof, don't be afraid to answer some of them yourself!
You never did respond to my earlier question regarding ideology either--and that was asked very much in the spirit of wanting to know what the bloggers on this site, in this case you, consider to be so "mutinous" about their project, given the conformist nature of the discussions that I have seen here.
Uh, no, you wanted me to pin myself down to a specific political platform. I choose not to do so. If you want to know about the project behind this blog, please go read the FAQ.
Rather than explain that project, you fired off a sarcastic comment, then dropped the issue entirely, and when I raise the question again, you now berate me for "grandstanding."
Actually, I didn't drop the issue in the sense that I did go to your blog and write a substantial comment on specific political issues you raised. Perhaps they represent an 'ism' (or ideology), perhaps not. I try not to traffic in grand generalizations, but specific issues. My days of sitting around trying to figure out what the hell Althusser or Laclau and Mouffe are talking about are long past.
Clearly, my sense that this blog is a space for progressive, non-conformist folks, for ... well, mutineers ... was mistaken. Oops, sorry. Didn't mean to grandstand. I see now that this really is a waste of time. So--please excuse me if I don't respond to any further admonishments.
That kind of rhetorical move is, I'm afraid, the definition of grandstanding. Cheers.
This is scary when viewed in the light of Bhopal. In order to sustain the (disputable) safety of a state-of-the-art facility that deals with and produces copious amounts of extremely hazardous materials, you have to already have a fully functioning, state-of-the-art infrastructure to support it. This isn't the case in the US, and it's certainly not the case in India. You also have to have companies running it that care deeply about the lives and safety of nearby residents, and the environmental track record of US corporations in India doesn't exactly inspire confidence. Dominique LaPierre and Javier Moro's Five Minutes Past Midnight in Bhopal gives a detailed explanation of both the negligence and infrastructure-failure aspects that led to the Bhopal disaster. Read this, and then tell me: would you want to draw your drinking water from a well near the site of a "safe" nuclear plant?
You also have to have companies running it that care deeply about the lives and safety of nearby residents, and the environmental track record of US corporations in India doesn't exactly inspire confidence.
Sarah, these are valid concerns, and I think even enthusiastic supporters of this deal would be foolish not to worry about the safety issue.
But I can offer one thing -- one of the surprises in the agreement is the strong insistence on safety, particularly environmental safety. One of the reasons the clause about IAEA inspections might actually be a good thing is that it will require India to maintain world class standards in running and maintaining its plants.
No building shortcuts, no watering down the cement...
I hope it turns out that way. But you'll have to forgive me for remaining skeptical; governments and corporations do so much "greenwashing" and so little actual maintenance of infrastructure, safety standards and disaster cleanup that it's hard to believe such good intentions will be honored...
Sarah,
Sure, the infrastructure in India in general is very shakey.
That is the very reason that if you want to explore the nuclear energy route, you have to have first-world, state-of-the-art support structure. Therefore, the Indo-US deal. Indian reactors are aging, due to trade embargo (post 1978/ 1998) are woefully out of date, and their uranium stockpile is low. Thorium is not an option yet.
US gets a peg in South-West Asia (from India to Iran and beyond). You control part of their energy supply, you almost control everything of that country, and have an ally for a reason. That is why US is so keen.
Regarding nuclear reactors, US has somewhat mixed record, USSR/ Russia's pathetic.
But, France does it. Japan is seriously exploring the nuclear option too.
Personally, I believe in buffet approach to energy - you try different things, and see what works for you, you should have a mixed entree so you are not dependent on vagaries of one (uranium supply, OPEC, daily price of oil and gas, sunshine in your village).
Union Carbide was negligent in a "third world" country with corrupt and daft politicians. Maybe, this time around GE and others will be more careful, with F-16/ F-18/ Boeing orders from India on the horizon. We'll see. You cannot be so scared all the time
Just curious, So are you against the deal or against the concept of "nuclear power"..
You have valid concerns about the safety and I fully share those concerns, in fact if something happens to Kalpakkam, my city goes to ruins. That's why I'm asking the opponents of nuclear power/ deal if they have any other "cost effective" alternatives in mind.
I guess you're more trusting than I am. I think that given the abysmal safety record of nuclear power it's reasonable to be scared.
I really wish we could trust nuclear power. It'd be great if it were as 'clean' and wonderful as proponents like Al Gore make it out to be; it'd be an easy answer that would solve a lot of problems quickly. Unfortunately, the evidence simply doesn't bear out that view.
Ponniyin, you want an easy, ready-made answer, and I don't have one. The global economy is built on oil and gas, and it's moving the world into an environmental crisis. We have some options like solar and wind power that either haven't been explored fully on a major scale or haven't yet been able to produce power in the amounts needed. We have sources that help with global warming but pose extremely dangerous problems on a much more short-term basis (nuclear power). We also have the option of reducing our energy consumption by doing things like moving toward organic and local agriculture, cutting unnecessary production (does my toothpaste really need to come in a tube inside a box covered in plastic??), funding public transportation and gasoline alternatives, and installing expensive cleaning equipment inside already existing factories, but those solutions put the financial burden on big business, and big business won't do that voluntarily. That would probably take major civil uprisings, which aren't really on the horizon at the moment.
So, sorry, no easy answers. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't question the supposedly easy answers that are handed to us; I don't think that's 'as good as keeping quiet' at all. How are we going to find viable answers if we're not even willing to ask the questions??
Ponniyin Selvan,
I refuse to believe you really think it is that simple. I am hoping that you wrote that merely to score a point on a blog site over somebody who tried to make you read between the lines.
I am a product of a line of people who lost their way when they gave up their socioeconomic niche VERY QUICKLY and moved to the city to find a new place in society. That diasporic journey is not an easy, healthy job when your skills are traditional and 'obsolete' and you have no new skills or education to survive with dignity in the town. What I am trying to say, without giving too many personal details, is that I call my previous generation 'the lost generation' of my family. In other words, I come from a very dysfunctional background and there are socioeconomic reasons to my personal story. This observation of mine was reinforced yesterday when I was listening to my grandmother cry on the phone that the last piece of hard-earned land her father acquired in his lifetime was sold for a [mere] sum of Rs. 16 lakhs by a relative who also decided that his fortunes could lie only in the city. I can both share my grandmother's pain and lost hope (apparently she always dreamed of dying with dignity in the house/land she was born on) and also appreciate the reason for the charge of hypocrisy hurled at her when she attempted to tell this rural relative that Rs. 16 lakhs alone will not improve a newcomer's life in the city.
Anyway, dysfunctionality in personal stories may not rank too high anywhere, least of all on blog sites such as this, unless you yourself happen to be the blogger. Even I, despite writing it, am squirming because even I am confused about when the economics should trump over the social/psychological and when it should not, or if it is even relevant to this particular discussion when I am choosing not to give more background details.
But it bothers me more when *you* do not appreciate the complexities of life at all levels in India.
Malathi/LeftyProf/Sarah,
I think what Ponniyin and others are asking is: If Rao/Manmohan/Liberalisation is bad, and if the license/bureucracy preceding it for 35 years was bad: Then what is good? What is your prescription for the problem? If you were the finance minister of India, what specific policies would you implement?
M. Nam
I stand corrected: Manmohan Singh was not dropped from the cabinet, I checked. But he and Narishma Rao took a lot of flak from all directions when he initiated the opening of the Indian economy.
Because any negative costs of development are externalized and do not figure in the balance-sheet of the corporation when calculating profits (unless it's too late). Because economic models haven't even started (with very few exceptions perhaps - Paul Hawken) to figure in the cost to environment when calculating profits and loss, or the concept of sustainability. I'm not opposed to progress or growth (hey, I'm a simple layman, not a powerful policy-maker or economist or industrialist), but I do think that in the name of progress, such concerns are repeatedly ignored, and then come back to bite us in the ass - either Bhopal in India, or Enron, Love Canal, SuperFund sites in the US (and others that sarah mentioned). In general, I view corporations with distrust for the simple reason that there is plenty of history and evidence that they do not care for the well-being of people and the environment if it comes in the way of profits, and willingly lie about it. Hey, it gives PR and law firms plenty of work and business, so it's all good for the economy, I guess.
I don't think that we should go back to sticks-and-stones age, but I do think that as we talk about progress and growth rate etc., we also start thinking about the ecological impact and figuring it into our calculations and discussions. I don't think it's a simplistic issue of jobs vs. environment - a common and fallacious argument put forth - mostly during election times for obvious reasons. An example would be the declining returns of fishing industries due to unsustainable fishing over the years - today we end up with lesser fish and lesser jobs in our race to maximize profits or output.
I always get a kick out of people who have this fascination for anything big - big dams, big nuclear reactors, big power plants. Wonder why. :p Or maybe I just need to stop worrying.
/rant over
Nuclear power plant is a nice and powerful national symbol, but why don't we talk about all the effects of pollution at the mining places where the ore is mined, or the indigenous people who are affected, or the fact that radio-active material will be with us for generations to come, or that there have been issues and accidents with how nuclear reactors are operated. How much do the corporations really tell us?
Also wondering why solar power (and other renewable energy resources) gets such short shrift when India does not have the issue that countries in northern latitudes have - too little sunlight. Is it because there's more opportunities for corruption and lining the pockets for all involved when constructing huge dams and nuclear power plants? Is it not practical, or is it lack of political will? Somewhat moot point, but would solar power have been profitable and practical today if considerable effort and money had been spent on research a few decades ago? Or is it not as sexy as a big dam or a big nuclear plant?
And, I wish I had a silver bullet to offer that would solve all our problems, but right now, this is my (somewhat critical) voice, and how I see things now. It is bound to change as I learn more. Maybe something along the lines of Green Economics would be the model/theory I hope develops over the next few decades.
I don't know what is good. I don't even know what is bad. I am not ashamed to say this. I would make a bad leader/decision maker because the 'grey' in the issues always hold me back from deciding 'black' or 'white'. I am barely surviving in this complex with my set of professional skills, as are some of you. Therefore, despite a Master's degree in Conservation (yes, I am one of those!) I am still undecided on the 'evils' of nuclear energy. My Master's thesis advisor, a respected wildlife biologist, is not, but as I said to him, "you didn't live 160 kms away from Chernobyl for 5 years."
So I cannot even attempt to critique/propose an economic/political policy which will be signed with or without me understanding most of it.
In general, what I appreciate from people like LeftyProf is their ability to gather what has not been said/represented and add it to what has been said. You may decide that his contribution is not benefiting you-- as a member of a self-select subpopulation here--but I appreciate being reminded of things I deliberately wish to forget, unlearn or remain ignorant of.
What I don't appreciate is the faint air of derision I sense he/she gets on this site. I also respect the fact that the man (woman) wears his/her label on the handle. He/she at least has the courtesy to tell us quickly what the angle or agenda is. I truly respect that. After all, if all of us wore our agendas on our handles we will see several interesting ones such as 'self-interest', 'elitist', 'upper class', 'Ayn Randian', 'reservation beneficiary', 'DMK politics survivor', 'Arundhati is a goddess', 'Liberalization policy beneficiary', etc.
malathi, well-said. I think your thoughts echo mine. And I do hope that LeftyProf comes back and engages in discussion. I have observed this on blogs, that any discussion gets bogged down due (maybe that's just the nature of discussions) to neat little boxes that we like to put others (and ourselves) in - libertarian, capitalist, environmentalist, socialist, communist, marxist, atheist, saffronist, secular, pseudo-secular and so on. The truth is almost always somewhere in the middle and we're looking at it from different angles. The fable of elephant and the blind men comes to mind.
I come from the sustainable living and renewable development angle, and that health of people and community comes before monetary profits (which is not the same as no development, and no profits). If we had two or three uninhabited earths available to us for natural resources, then I probably would be gung-ho for progress and development too. But that's not the case.
/end-meta-post
Amit and Malathi, I have very little to add to that-- thanks for those thoughtful contributions!
As for me, I'm a socialist, so in the world we live in, nobody's about to make me finance minister of anything. But if you want to know what I think would be a start, see my comments at #63.
It is critical, that nuclear power as proposed by Americans(i.e. uranium based) do NOT become more than what it is now (3-4%). In this way US never gets a lever to blackmail India to do what it wants. I would hate to see a day when an Indian prime minister will become the Indian version of Tony Blair
So, how do we solve the energy crisis
Few ideas of mine
1) Coal (India's 4th largest coal reserves). Short term solution (say next 20-30 years)
2) Thorium based nuclear power. ( India is the world second largest Thorium reserves)
Problem with Thorium is presently technology is not there. And not much development is not going on in this sphere. Huge investments in developing a cost effective safe throium powered nuclear plant technology be done ASAP.
3) Our northern neighbor Nepal with their Himalayan ranges has plenty of Hydro-potential. Encourage political stability there, build dams/help Nepalese build them. Even within India plenty of hydro-power potential.
4) Look at other innovative things, solar, tidal on coasts....
There is no one solution, plenty of options available. If worst come to worst we can import gas from Myanmar for the short term.
Once Thorium gets in operation, India has plenty of supplies for a century of more.
No energy supply is worth forfeiting India's sovereignty and having American/NATO soldiers marching near India Gate in Delhi.
Indian(#71) I am afraid thats not going to happen, the deal will go through despite the opposition & we'll soon be building the reactors in maybe 3-4 years time. What i am interested in(& hope) is how soon can we build up enough thorium out of the spent uranium that we don't need it anymore from the US & can do out own thing .. talking abt independence day we should be independent in those terms as well.
US threatens to scrap India nuclear deal if India conducts a nuclear test
The true intentions of US are coming out even before the ink is dry on the paper. As I said, this deal is an instrument to relegate India to a second-class nuclear status and impose CTBT - a treaty that the US Senate itself has refused to ratify - through the backdoor. This is MM Singh's Simla playing out right in front of us.
On the question of environmental concerns, a quick google search for "turamdih" leads to a number of news reports about waste and leakage from the uranium mine and illness, deformities resulting in the local village population. It's a serious and valid question to ask whether the existing infrastructure, capability, and willingness exists on the part of Indian business and government to adequately safeguard radioactive material. That's also why international oversight of reprocessing is important. UCIL (Uranium Corp of India Ltd.) will say one thing in their press releases, but a lot of people are saying the reality on the ground is quite different.
Also, France has much more of its energy met by nuclear power than the US does (about 60% I think). Both France and Russia among others will be vying for the contracts, and as Amardeep pointed out, it's not in the US interest to incorporate specific assurances that it will work with India to provide fuel sources in the event US tech and material are returned.
Amardeep, the following words, coming as they do from an English Professor, still continue to haunt and bother me. So please indulge my straying away from the specific issue highlighted here.
I see this as you being privileged enough to try on different hats, and pick and choose what suits personally you, what is necessary at a minimum for you to survive in the world that was partly chosen for you, but mostly built by yourself.
So I would term that as the ideology of the privileged, and hope that it doesn't merely come across as pure derision.
All of this you are entitled to. It is within your rights, your pursuit of your personal goals, happiness.
But some among the rest of us cannot, should not, easily discard the hats that we were destined to be born with in order to wear the hats of those who tell us how to prioritize, think, feel, vote, live. It is a boring and unpopular burden in some ways. That probably explains why not all of us are true to the worlds that surrounded us. Hence my gratitude to theorists. And I would appreciate if you, in your capacity as an educator, will understand that sentiment.
If my daughter comes to you 15 years from now seeking your help to understand why her mother, who read and loved a myriad of Indian English books, cherished one particular, almost-obscure book ('Nectar in a Sieve' by Kamala Markandaya), will you be ready for the challenge? Will you understand that this is the only book that comes anywhere close to portraying her mother's people's story? Despite the overrepresentation in numbers, the rural, Southern, under-class is systematically underrepresented in literature, media, internet, western diaspora.
Admittedly, this is a straying on my part from the specifics to the large generalization. I apologize.
"Vishal, India already has more than enough Thorium to go the plutonium route for nuclar power generation. What we need is to invest in technology to make that route safe."
As far as i understand, we still need some amount of Uranium to get the Thorium cycle started. Its
the thorium fast breeder cycle that we a looking for, I am not even a physics student so maybe wrong.
I just hope the scientists & negotiators know what kind of binding they're putting us into.
India has always been on the side of tyrants, despots and fascist regimes with its mindless anti-American and anti-West bias. India hardly gained nothing by playing the lead stooge of the Russians; neither did India gain anything by sucking up to the Chinese. The Russians turned India into of model of third world penetration by KGB and the Chinese walked away with hundreds of square kilometers of Indian territory. While the smart Japanese and Europeans lost no time in understanding the importance of being on good terms with the US and proceeded to rapidly rebuild their war ravaged economies India preferred to go the way of economic stagnation and regression. India needs to work in close co-operation with the US and give up its antipathy to the West. The nuclear deal can go a long way in easing the power situation which threatens to become critical in a few years. The gap between the demand and supply of power is going to increase and at the moment there seems to be no other way than to follow the example of coutries like France and US that generate a substantial amount of power by nuclear route. Energy Statistics
What about the Aussies ? http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/aug/28flip.htm
re: the value of growth -
Growth isn't inherently bad. The growing inequity between the richest and poorest Indians (and indeed citizens nearly any country these days) as a result of this growth and who has benefited MORE from it is bad.
No one denies that the gap between rich and poor is increasing (anyone been to the brand spanking new Chennai City Centre?), but most people don't talk about it. Instead, this central issue (the growing disparity between the richest and the poorest) is glossed over in more aggregate statistics like gross domestic product, or simply in terms like "The Economy." What's good for "The Economy" is good for everyone. The questions "How good?" and "For whom?" never arise.
So the question of whether or not the nuclear deal OR economic growth is good for India is a bad, awful question. That's a judgment call I make. Ideology? Call it what you will. But the reason I make it is because most people who consider the question in these terms do so at an aggregate, abstract level, without considering the needs and interests of every citizen within the nation. Someone please tell me what the value is of a nation in which every citizen's interests are not taken into consideration when making policy?
The point isn't to come up with answers. We're not even close to ready to do that. The point is, as LeftyProf put it, to start asking other questions. For example, in all of these debates in the Indian press about the nuclear deal, I haven't seen a single piece on the value of nuclear energy with regard to the environment or people living in the vicinity of a nuclear plant. Doesn't this seem like a very basic question which should be answered and debated in the public realm?
All this talk of calling for solid answers and solutions sounds well and good, but how can you have a solid answer to a flawed question?