Style and Substance

The President was in India yesterday discussing nuclear policy with a democratically elected leader of more than one billion people. The outcome is an agreement to provide peaceful nuclear technology to India in return for arguably limited access to India’s existing nuclear programs. That means we are going to be offering our expertise and materials to a nation which is already a nuclear power so that they can increase their nuclear power generating capability. What we get back is a chance to monitor their programs—not all of them, but some. We get a peek into the back rooms of their weapons programs. As a sovereign nation they don’t have to offer that, but as a nation seeking to develop and needing more energy it is to their benefit to do so.

Now comes the posturing of the politicos. First we’ve got the newspapers noting with customary hysteria that the President did not take time to visit the Taj Mahal. Yes, this visit is wasting cultural opportunity and failing to measure up to the intellectual curiosity of President Clinton who not only toured the Taj, but also went into the jungle seeking a glimpse of a Bengal Tiger! The only thing coming out of this trip is a nuclear agreement between major world powers, and not enough photo-opportunities. Some substance, but the President apparently fails to score Associated Press style points.

Soon we’ll be hearing the non-sequitur arguments against the agreement. You remember the type; “if we can put a man on the moon, we can’t we cure cancer?” The format will be of the order that we shouldn’t be making agreements with India when we are trying to enforce non-proliferation on N. Korea (too late!) and Iran. Fact may fall victim to the need to pontificate before the electorate who, as I mention all too often, are relatively indiscriminate in their acceptance of non-sequiturs.

India is a nuclear nation already. They have the bomb. They have nuclear power plants. They have enrichment facilities. And, they are a democracy seeking to become more closely allied with us. India is a dominant regional player and an increasingly significant global force. They can continue to develop albeit more slowly using non-nuclear energy, but that simply strains the global market for carbon-based fuels. Or, we can acknowledge where they are, what they mean and where we can help them go. Would we like to help them build modern nuclear generating capability, or maybe direct them to shop the former Soviet Union bargain basement Chernobyl sales lot?

India is a lot different situation than N. Korea. Democracy versus totalitarian is the first difference to note. Rational versus irrational leadership is second. Pivotal in the region versus small player in a deep pond is third. Recognizing the realities is critical in choosing whether to embrace this agreement. We can benefit from aiding India, and we can still latch the barn door on a very weak nuclear horse in N. Korea.

We all fear change and most of us would like to live in our yesterdays. The world was a simpler place when we were the only ones with the bomb. It was tolerable when the Soviets showed up with their own brand of nuclear weapons. It began to get a bit scary when the Brits, the French and the Chinese showed that given enough time, money and dedication almost any modern nation could build a nuclear weapon.

Sixty years into the nuclear age and we’ve got India and Pakistan in the club. Most everybody acknowledges Israel is a member, but they’re pretty close-mouthed about it. It’s sort of like the guy you know has a concealed carry permit, but you’re never quite sure if he’s packing today. Then there’s South Africa, Brazil, and a couple of other places. Iraq tried back in the early ‘80s at a place called Osirik and Iran is pretty darned close to joining the club.

Genies don’t go back into bottles. The real issue is not being afraid of nuclear power. Let’s admit what is undeniable. We are facing energy issues in coming years. Oil is limited, coal is more or less polluting, and hydro-electric requires big, fast-flowing rivers which aren’t always where we need them. Wind doesn’t blow and those big fans are butt-ugly. Solar takes huge expanses of panels and isn’t that reliable or efficient. And, we don’t even want to get into how dangerous free hydrogen is in bulk—think Hindenburg here.

That means the Greenies are going to have to accept the fact that nuclear energy is clean, safe, reliable and efficient. There’s going to be a lot of NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) arguments, but a quick look at the nuclear energy map of Europe should help calm a lot of fears.

It will be interesting to see if the India/US nuclear agreement pushes the bogus Dubai Ports World argument off the front pages. The poor nay-sayers are going to have to choose what gets top billing in their oppositional agenda.