Unknown's avatar

About Chellaney

Professor, strategic thinker, author and commentator

China’s unsustainable Korean gameplan

Decks are stacked against China keeping its stake in Korea game
By BRAHMA CHELLANEY
Japan Times, June 6, 2010

KOREAN DEMILITARIZED ZONE — One of the last Cold War relics, the Demilitarized Zone that cuts the Korean Peninsula in half, is the world’s most fortified frontier. Although this division has prevailed for almost six decades, it is unthinkable that it can continue indefinitely, despite renewed inter-Korean tensions over the deaths of 46 South Korean sailors in the sinking of a warship.

Just as the last two decades since the end of the Cold War have geopolitically transformed the world, the next two decades are likely to bring no less dramatic international change. One place where major geopolitical change seems inescapable is the Korean Peninsula.

Today, however, the spotlight is on the return of the Cold War between North and South Korea. Relations between the two Koreas have sunk to their worst point in many years, as South Korea’s neoconservative president — holding Pyongyang responsible for the sinking of the ship on the basis of a multinational inquiry that he ordered — has redesignated the North as his country’s archenemy. The North, in reprisal, has frozen ties with the South and banned its ships and airplanes from using the North’s territorial waters and airspace.

The deterioration in North-South relations, however, predates the March 26 sinking of the South Korean warship, Cheonan. It began soon after South Korean President Lee Myung Bak took office in 2007 and reversed the decade-long "sunshine policy" with the North that had been pursued by his two immediate predecessors, Kim Dae Jung and Roh Moo Hyun. As part of his policy of squeezing the regime in Pyongyang, Lee also effectively cut off bilateral aid.

Lee’s strategy has little to show in terms of results. If anything, the Stalinist regime in Pyongyang has demonstrated a proclivity to throw caution to the wind, best illustrated by the manner it conducted a second nuclear test, launched a long-range rocket and fired several missiles — all in the span of a few weeks in April-May 2009.

Although none of the four powers with a history of intervention on the Korean Peninsula — China, Japan, Russia and the United States — has any interest at present in disturbing the political status quo there, events could occur that are beyond the control of any internal or external force. The trigger for unleashing a cascading effect can come only from an increasingly isolated, impoverished and unstable North Korea.

North Korea’s economic crisis is deepening, with food shortages and widespread malnutrition rife in a nation of more than 24 million people. Desperate government attempts at currency reform have only spurred hyperinflation and simmering social unrest. The South’s reversal of the sunshine policy has added to North Korea’s economic woes.

Another indicator of the looming uncertainty is the poor health of North Korean leader Kim Jong Il. Despite surviving an apparent stroke in August 2008 and returning to his feet, a shriveled Kim today looks palpably sick. On a recent visit to China, he was seen dragging his feet.

Kim Jong Il seems to be grooming his third son, the 26-year-old Kim Jong Un, to succeed him. In the coming months, Kim Jong Un is likely to assume a party position. But Kim Jong Un is too young and inexperienced to command popular respect and authority by succeeding an ailing father who may not last too long.

Given the worsening economy and the uncertainty over how long Kim Jong Il will survive, the decks seem stacked against the prolongation of North Korea’s totalitarian system for many more years.

Yet, China seems more intent than ever to maintain the North Korean regime, with or without Kim Jong Il. China continues to prop up the regime with economic aid, military hardware and political support. In fact, without the political protection it has continued to provide North Korea in the U.N. Security Council, the regime would have by now collapsed under the weight of international sanctions.

It is with such political protection that North Korea became the first nonnuclear member of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to breach its legal obligations and go overtly nuclear. It is also because of Chinese policy and protection that the now-dormant six-nation talks on the North Korean issue made no progress.

Yet, China has cleverly played its diplomatic cards to emerge as the central player on the North Korean issue, with U.S. policy more dependent than ever on Beijing for any forward movement. But Beijing, intent on shaping a regional order under its influence, has little interest in helping out U.S. policy.

The reality is that China is being guided by its ancient zhonghwa ideology, which calls for an East Asian order led by China. According to zhonghwa, the entire region stretching from the Korean Peninsula to the Japanese archipelago is supposed to be within China’s sphere of influence, thus requiring it to exercise leadership through aid, leverage and diplomatic maneuver.

That may explain why Beijing, ignoring sensitivities in South Korea, warmly received Kim Jong Il on a recent state visit — a visit about which Seoul learned only after the North Korean strongman had arrived in China.

The fact is that China sees its interest best served by preservation of the status quo on the Peninsula. Korean reunification would not only change the geopolitical dynamics in Northeast Asia by creating a resurgent united Korea, but also bring U.S. influence and military to China’s doorstep.

Today, by continuing to play the North Korea card, Beijing is able to wield political leverage against the U.S. At the same time, it is able to keep the economically powerful South Korea — a U.S. ally that is double the size of North Korea demographically — at bay. The logic on which Chinese policy operates is simple: Outside forces like the U.S. cannot be allowed to exercise power in China’s backyard.

Yet, such is China’s growing clout that none will dare to criticize the political protection it provides North Korea — not even Lee’s government, despite the dual diplomatic snub Beijing has recently delivered, first by hosting Kim Jong Il and then shielding Pyongyang over the Cheonan crisis.

Through his hardline policy on Pyongyang, Lee has played into China’s hands. Beijing can only thank him for pushing North Korea onto its strategic lap.

Given the fact that it will be South Korea, like West Germany, that will have to bear the costs of reunification, the South should actively be seeking to open up the North, rather than working to further isolate it. The way to reduce the costs of reunification would be for the North to be integrated with the South economically before moves are made toward political integration. But Lee’s policy, in reversing the inter-Korean detente, has blocked such a path.

China has not tried to export its economic model to its client states. It is actually afraid that if North Korea begins to reform, its own ailing system could collapse under the weight of its contradictions. After all, despite its economic success, China itself must walk a tightrope on opening up to the outside world. Because of its opaque, repressive system, the more it globalizes, the more vulnerable it becomes internally. China has sought to open up only to the extent necessary to underpin economic growth.

It is doubtful it can prop up the North Korean system for very long. When Kim Jong Il passes away, events over three to four years could create an unstoppable momentum toward radical change in the North — and on the Peninsula as a whole.

Brahma Chellaney is the author of "Asian Juggernaut" (HarperCollins, 2010).
The Japan Times: Sunday, June 6, 2010
(C) All rights reserved

China’s counterproductive actions in Asia

China pushes
Japan and India closer to the U.S.

Brahma
Chellaney

The Sunday Guardian, May 30, 2010

China’s rise in one
generation as a global player under authoritarian rule has come to epitomize the
qualitative reordering of power in
Asia and the
wider world. Not s
ince
Japan rose to world-power
status dur
ing the reign of the Meiji
emperor in the second half of the 19th century has another non-Western power
emerged with such potential to alter the world order as
China today. As the
2009 assessment by the
U.S.
intelligence community predicted,
China stands to more profoundly
affect global geopolitics than any other country.
China’s ascent, however, is dividing Asia, not bringing Asian states closer.

            A fresh
reminder of that came recently when provocative Chinese actions prompted the new
Japanese government to reverse course on seeking a “more equal” relationship
with the
United States and agree to keep
the American military base in
Okinawa island.
That outcome is similar to the way
Beijing has
been pushing
India closer to
the
U.S. through continuing military and
other provocations.

Given that the balance of power
in Asia will be determined by events as much in the Indian Ocean rim as in East Asia, Tokyo
and
New Delhi
are keen to work together to promote Asian peace and stability and help
safeguard vital sea lanes of communication.

Japan and
India indeed are natural
allies because they have no conflict of strategic
interest and share common goals to build
institutionalized cooperation and stability
in Asia. There is
neither a negative historical legacy nor any outstand
ing political issue between them. If anything, each
country enjoys a high positive rating with the public in the other
state.

Prime Minister Yukio
Hatoyama’s visit to
India
last December, soon after coming to office, showed he is keen to maintain the
priority on closer engagement with
India that started under his four
immediate predecessors, especially
Junichiro Koizumi, Shinzo Abe, Yasuo
Fukuda
and Taro Aso of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), now in the
opposition. Mr. Hatoyama and his Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) came to power
vowing to reorient Japanese foreign policy and seek an “equal” relationship with
the
United
States
. But events have forced a rethink.

How unstable the security environment
is in
Japan’s own
neighborhood has been brought home by 
two recent incidents with
China and the renewed
tensions on the
Korean Peninsula following the sinking of the South Korean naval ship.

One incident involving China occurred less than two months ago, on April
8, when a helicopter from a Chinese naval vessel in international waters south
of
Okinawa flew to within 92 meters of a
Japanese defense force escort ship — so close that Japanese sailors could
clearly see a gun-wielding Chinese soldier. To compound matters, not only was
Tokyo’s diplomatic protest summarily dismissed by Beijing, but Chinese naval ships less
than two weeks later, on April 21, sailed between Okinawa and another Japanese
island chain to conduct a large-scale exercise. Once again, a Chinese naval
helicopter buzzed a Japanese escort ship. A Chinese military analyst called on
Japan to get used to
China‘s navy appearing in
Japan‘s exclusive economic
zone.

The second
incident happened last month. Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi flew into a
rage after his Japanese counterpart, Katsuya Okada, politely suggested that
China cut its nuclear arsenal. At the
May 15 meeting in the South Korean city of
Gyeongju, Mr. Yang yelled that his relatives had been
killed by Japanese forces in northeastern
China during Japan’s occupation of China.
He almost walked out of the meeting.

The upshot of
such incidents and the greater volatility in the regional security environment is that
Prime Minister Hatoyama and his Cabinet are now convinced that this is not the
time to
move the Futenma air base off Okinawa, even if it means breaking one of his DPJ’s
election campaign promises.

Significantly, there also have a number of
incidents that suggest that
China is starting to muscle up to India.
The renewed Sino-Indian border tensions have resulted from growing Chinese
assertiveness
on several fronts — border (Chinese
cross-frontier incursions have increased in a major way); diplomatic
(resurrecting its long-dormant claim to India’s Arunachal Pradesh state, which
is three times bigger than Taiwan); and multilateral (
launching an international offensive to undercut Indian
sovereignty over Arunachal; for example, by successfully
blocking the
Asian Development Bank from identifying that region as part of India in its $1.3
billion credit package last year). As the resistance to its rule in
Tibet has grown since last
year,
Beijing has sought to present
Tibet as a core issue to its
sovereignty, just like
Taiwan. Tibet now holds as much importance in Chinese
policy as
Taiwan. In ratcheting up the
Arunachal issue with
India,
Beijing seems to be drawing another analogy:
Arunachal is the new
Taiwan that must be “reunified” with
the Chinese state.

In fact, the incidents with
Japan and India serve as another reminder that Chinese
policies and actions are counterproductively pushing these countries closer to
the
U.S.

There is
realization in
Japan and
India that each is located in
a very dangerous neighborhood and that their security ties with the
U.S.
are critical.

India and Japan,
although dissimilar economically, have a lot in common politically. They are
Asia’s largest democracies, but with fractured,
messy politics.
Just as India has progressed from doctrinaire
nonalignment to geopolitical pragmatism,
Japan
the “Land of the Rising Sun” — is moving toward greater realism in its foreign
policy.

Their growing congruence of
strategic interests led to a Japan-India security agreement in 2008, a
significant milestone in building Asian power stability. A constellation of
Asian states linked by strategic cooperation and sharing common interests is
becoming critical to ensuring equilibrium at a time when major shifts in
economic and political power are accentuating
Asia’s security challenges. The Japan-India security
agreement was modelled on the 2007 Australia-Japan defense accord. Now the
Japan-India security agreement has spawned a similar Australia-India
accord.

The path has been opened to
adding strategic content to the Indo-Japanese relationship, underscored by the
growing number of bilateral visits by top defence and military officials. As
part of their “strategic and global partnership,” which was unveiled in 2006,
India and Japan
are working on joint initiatives on maritime security, counterterrorism,
counterproliferation, disaster management and energy security. But they need to
go much further.

India and Japan, for
example, must co-develop defence systems.
India and Japan have missile-defense cooperation with
Israel and the U.S.,
respectively. There is no reason why they should not work together on missile
defense and on other technologies for mutual defense. There is no ban on weapon
exports in
Japan’s U.S.-imposed Constitution,
only a long-standing Cabinet decision. That ban has been loosened, with
Tokyo in recent
years inserting elasticity to export weapons for peacekeeping operations,
counterterrorism and anti-piracy. The original Cabinet decision, in any event,
relates to weapons, not technologies.

As two legitimate
aspirants to new permanent seats in the UN Security Council,
India and Japan should
work together to push for the Council’s long-pending reform. Asian peace and
stability would be better served if all the three major powers in Asia —
China, Japan and India — are in
the Council as permanent members.
Beijing’s
provocative actions indeed underscore the risks of
China remaining Asia’s sole representative among the Council’s permanent
members.

Impact of China’s rise on Asian security

Beware China’s Determination to Choke Off Asian Competition

Brahma Chellaney
The Sunday Guardian, May 16, 2010
 
The ascent of China, while a symbol of the ongoing global power shifts, has been accentuated by major geopolitical developments — from the unravelling of the Soviet Union that eliminated a mighty empire to China’s north and west, to the manner the American colossus has stumbled after the triumphalism of the 1990s. The free world’s mounting problems, including Europe’s worries about its future, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the West’s troubled relationships with Moscow and Tehran, Japan’s uncertain demographic future and India’s internal challenges, have all helped Beijing to increase its strategic space, not just in Asia, but also in Africa and Latin America.
 

While Asia’s growing importance in international relations signals a systemic shift in the global distribution of power, it is the rising heft of a single country — China — that by itself is transforming the international geopolitical landscape like no other development. As world history attests, the dramatic rise of a new power usually creates volatility in the international system, especially when the concerned power is not transparent about its strategic policies and military expenditure. Therefore, China’s rise constitutes a strategic challenge by itself in Asia — a challenge that needs to be managed wisely, so that Beijing stays on the positive side of the ledger, not the negative side.

After all, in 25 years from now, China will clearly be more powerful and influential than it is today, with a greater propensity to assert itself on issues while projecting power far beyond its shores. China’s rapidly accumulating power already is emboldening Beijing to pursue a more muscular foreign policy. After having touted its “peaceful rise,” it has shown a creeping propensity to flex its muscle.

China’s economy has expanded 13-fold over the last 30 years, thanks to surging exports and copious investments. As a result, China already has arrived as a global economic player. Today, with its burgeoning foreign-exchange reserves, it is courted around the world to help resolve a host of financial problems. At the same time, it is true that China’s global ambitions get weighed down by its vulnerabilities, including authoritarian rule, an opaque culture, failure to accommodate ethnic nationalities like the Tibetans and Uighurs, and growing disparities in Chinese society.

Militarily, China is likely to continue to put the emphasis on indigenous research and development to further augment its capabilities. China already spends far more on its military than any other country in Asia.

It is also set to develop clear and deep linkages between trade and foreign policy, and between trade and power projection. That will mean a proactive, assertive Chinese foreign-policy posture in relation to countries and issues of vital interest. The creeping extension of China’s security perimeter is bound to increase international concerns about the opacity of its strategic doctrine and military spending.

China’s priority, of course, will remain what it has been for long: Boosting indigenous capabilities, especially its conventional and nuclear deterrence, and working to shift the balance of power in the Asia-Pacific in its favor. China’s increasingly sophisticated missile force remains at the heart of its military modernization. As part of a calculated strategy to project power far beyond its frontiers and strengthen its deterrent capabilities, China has placed missile prowess at the center of its force modernization. It is developing a range of land-attack and anti-ship cruise missiles, long-range surface-to-air missiles and anti-radiation missiles. As its nuclear-force modernization gains further momentum, shifts in China’s nuclear doctrine — from a defensive orientation to a more offensively-configured posture — would inevitably occur.

Broadly, Chinese naval power is set to grow exponentially, as Beijing expands its indigenous ship production and deploys naval assets far from its exclusive economic zone. Little surprise the Chinese Navy is beginning to show open interest in extending its reach and operations to the Indian Ocean — a crucial international passageway for oil deliveries and other trade.

That interest is manifest from the Chinese projects in the Indian Ocean rim region, including the building of a port at Hambantota in Sri Lanka, the modernization of the Bangladeshi port of Chittagong, and the construction of a deep-water naval base and commercial port for Pakistan at Gwadar, situated at the entrance to the Strait of Hormuz — the only exit route for Persian Gulf oil. In addition, the Irrawaddy Corridor between China’s Yunnan province and the Burmese ports on the Bay of Bengal is set to become a key economic and strategic passageway involving road, river, rail and harbor links.

In the Pacific Ocean, as underlined by the rising frequency of Chinese naval patrols, Beijing also is seeking to extend its strategic perimeter there. What is being subtly suggested by Chinese analysts today — that the Western Pacific is China’s maritime zone of influence — could set the stage for an intensifying strategic competition with Japan.

Beijing, not content that Han territorial power is at its pinnacle, still seeks a Greater China. With 60 percent of its present landmass comprising homelands of ethnic minorities, modern China has come a long way in history since the time the Great Wall represented the Han empire’s outer security perimeter. Yet, driven by self-cultivated myths, the state fuels territorial nationalism, centered on issues like Tibet and Taiwan, and its claims in the East and South China Seas and on India’s northeastern state of Arunachal Pradesh. China’s insistence on further expanding its national frontiers stymies a forward-thinking approach essential to building peace and stability in Asia.

It is thus not an accident that as its power grows, China seems more determined than ever to choke off Asian competitors, a tendency reflected in its hardening stance toward India. Hopes of a politically negotiated settlement of the lingering territorial disputes have dissipated amid Chinese muscle-flexing along the long, 4,057-kilometer Himalayan frontier. Indeed, it is approaching three decades since China and India began border negotiations, making them already the longest and the most-barren process between any two countries in modern history. In this period, the world has changed fundamentally.

Against India, the PLA is now better geared to wage a short, swift war by surprise, thanks to the significant upgrading of the military infrastructure and logistics on the Tibetan plateau. The state-directed demographic changes under way in Chinese-ruled Tibet also carry long-term military significance vis-à-vis India.

The India-China tensions explain why soaring bilateral trade is not a barometer of how well a relationship is doing. Trade in today’s market-driven world is not constrained by political differences — unless political barriers have been erected, as the U.S. has done against Cuba and Burma, for example. 

Asia’s Water Crisis: Strategic Implications

Water emerges as a potential constraint on Asia’s rapid
growth

Brahma Chellaney

The Sunday Guardian, May 9, 2010

As the most-pressing resource, water holds the strategic
key to peace, public health and prosperity. With its availability coming under
pressure in many parts of the world due to greater industrial, agricultural and
household demands, water is likely to serve as the defining crisis of the
21st
 century. This is most evident when one looks at Asia, the world’s largest
continent.

In Asia, growing populations, rising affluence, changing
diets and the demands of development already are already putting strain on two
resources linked to climate change. One is energy, the main contributor to the
buildup of planet-warming greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. And the other is
water, whose availability will be seriously affected by climate change,
increasing the likelihood of water-related conflicts there, as the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has warned.

The sharpening Asian competition over energy resources, driven
in part by high GDP growth rates and
in part by mercantilist attempts to
lock up supplies, has obscured the other danger — that water shortages
in much of Asia are
becom
ing a threat to rapid economic
modernization, prompt
ing the
build
ing of upstream
hydro-engineering projects on transnational rivers, with little concern for the
interests of co-riparian states. If water geopolitics were to spur
interstate tensions through reduced
water flows to neighboring countries, the Asian renaissance could stall in the
face of inter-riparian conflicts.

Today, no region better
illustrates the dangers of water wars in the future than Asia, which has less
fresh water — 3,920 cubic meters per person — than any other cont
inent, according to a 2006 United Nations report. This fact often
gets obscured by the spotlight on the sharpening energy competition. Indeed, at
a time when the assertive pursuit of national
interest has begun to replace ideology, idealism and
morality
in international relations, there is a danger that
interstate conflict in Asia
in the coming years could be driven by competition not so much
over political
influence as over
scarce resources.

The UN report has pointed
out that when the estimated reserves of lakes, rivers and groundwater are added
up, Asia has marg
inally less water
per person than Europe or Africa, one-quarter that of North America, nearly
one-tenth that of South America and 20 times less than Australia and Pacific
islands. Yet
Asia is home to almost 60 percent
of the world’s population.

In Asia, two broad water-related effects of climate change
can be visualized. First, climate change is likely to
intensify interstate and intrastate competition over water resources. That
in turn could trigger resource
conflicts with
in and between states,
and open new (or exacerbate exist
ing)
political disputes. Second, the likely increased frequency of extreme weather
events like hurricanes, droughts and flood
ing, as well as the rise of ocean levels, are likely
to spur greater
interstate and
intrastate migration — especially of
the poor and the vulnerable — from delta and coastal regions to the
h
interland. Such an influx of outsiders would socially swamp
inland areas, upsetting the existing fragile ethnic balance and provoking a backlash that strains internal and regional security. Through such
large-scale migration, the political stability and
internal cohesion of some nations could be
underm
ined. In some cases, this could
even foster or strengthen conditions that could make the state dysfunctional.

In water-deficient
Asia, most societies are agrarian, and the
demand for water for farming is soaring.
Asia’s
rapid
industrialization and
urbanization, additionally, are boost
ing demand for water considerably.

Household water consumption
in Asia is also rising rapidly, but such is the water paucity that not
many Asians can aspire for the lifestyle of Americans, who daily use 400 liters
per person, or more than 2.5 times the average
in Asia.
Agriculture, however, remains the major consumer of water. Some three-fourths of
all water withdrawals in
Asia are for
agriculture.

Asis’s vast irrigation
systems helped usher in the Green Revolution. Today, irrigated croplands produce
60 percent of
Asia’s rice, wheat and other
staple food grains. But in a new era of growing water shortages, the
water-intensive and wasteful nature of Asian irrigation practices are becoming
apparent, including the growing of rice in saturated paddy fields, old and
inefficient irrigation canals and the widespread use of electric and diesel
pumps to recklessly extract groundwater.

Add to this picture the
fast-rising demand for food in
Asia. But to
grow more food will require more water — a resource now under the greatest
strain. Pollution, too, is threatening
Asia’s
freshwater resources.

The spread of prosperity is
changing diets in
Asia, with people tending to
eat less grain and more meat, dairy products and fruit as they rise to the
middle class. In
China, for example, meat consumption
has doubled in the past 20 years and is expected to again double by 2035. A
shift from traditional rice and noodles to a meatier diet has helped double
East Asia’s “water footprint” for food
production since 1985, given the fact that it takes 12 times more water to grow
a kilogram of beef as compared to a kilogram of rice or wheat.

Take China and India, which
already are water-stressed economies.  As
China and India
gain economic heft, they are increasingly drawing international attention. The
two demographic titans are com
ing
into their own at the same time
in history, helping to highlight the
ongo
ing major shifts in global politics and economy.  However, when one
examines natural endowments — such as arable land, water resources, mineral
deposits, hydrocarbons and wetlands — the picture that emerges is not exactly
gratifying for
India and
China.

The two giants have entered
an era of perennial water shortages, which are likely to parallel, in terms of
per-capita water availability, the scarcity in the
Middle
East
before long. India and China
face the prospect that their rapid economic modernization may stall due to
inadequate water resources. This prospect would become a reality if their
industrial, agricultural and household demand for water continues to grow at the
present frenetic pace.

Water presents a unique
challenge. While countries can scour
the world for oil, natural gas and
minerals to keep their economic machines humming, water cannot be secured
through international trade deals. Sustainable and integrated management of
national water resources is essential to prevent degradation, depletion and
pollution of water. To meet the gap between supply and demand, water
conservation, water efficiency, rainwater capture, water recycling and drip
irrigation would have to be embraced at national, provincial and local levels.

One can hope that advances in clean-water
technologies would materialize before water conflicts flare.
Low-cost, energy-efficient technologies for treating and
recycling water could emerge from the scientific progress on nanoparticles and
nanofibres and membrane bioreactors. But until that becomes a reality, Asian
states have little choice but to upgrade their antiquated irrigation systems and
adopt more water-efficient agricultural practices.

Two contending ideologies reemerge in the world

The 60th Year of China’s Tibet Invasion

Brahma Chellaney

The Sunday Guardian, May 3, 2010

Francis Fukuyama, a deputy director in the
U.S. state department then, gained
intellectual
stardom
by making the
self-righteous claim
in a 1989 essay that the conclusion of the Cold War marked the end of
ideological evolution, “the end of history,” with
the
“universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human
government.” Today’s world demonstrates that Western liberal democratic values
and practices are anything but universal.

But, more importantly, just as they were two contending
ideologies during the Cold War, two contending ideologies are again staring the
world in the face — international capitalism, spearheaded by an America whose
political and economic pre-eminence is on the wane even as it retains its
military supremacy, and authoritarian capitalism, led by a fast-rising China.

The rise of China as a world player in one generation under
authoritarian rule is the single most-profound geopolitical development since
after the collapse of the
Soviet Union. Its
rise epitomizes the qualitative reordering of power that is under way in the
world.

China’s future, however, remains more uncertain
than ever. It faces a worrisome paradox: Because of an opaque, repressive
political system, the more it globalizes, the more vulnerable it becomes
internally. At the core of its internal challenges is how to make a political
soft landing.

Political modernization, not economic modernization,
thus is the central challenge staring at
China.
But it won’t be easy for the communist leadership to open up politically without
unraveling a system that now survives on a mix of crony capitalism and
calibrated, state-dispensed patronage.

Unlike India, China first concentrated on acquiring
military muscle. By the time Deng Xiaoping launched his economic-modernization
program in 1978,
China already had tested its first
intercontinental ballistic missile, the 12,000-kilometer DF-5, and developed
thermonuclear weaponry. The military muscle gave
Beijing the much-needed security to focus on
civilian modernization, helping it to fuel its remarkable economic rise, which,
in turn, has armed it with ever greater resources to sharpen its claws. 

China’s economy has expanded 13-fold over the
last 30 years. Consequently,
China has arrived as a global
economic player, with its state-owned corporate behemoths frenetically buying
foreign firms, technologies and resources. Add to the picture its rapidly
swelling foreign-exchange coffers, already the world’s largest.
Beijing is well-positioned
geopolitically to further expand its influence.

Its defence strategy since the Mao Zedong era has been
founded on a simple premise — that the capacity to defend oneself with one’s own
resources is the first test a nation has to pass on the way to
becom
ing a great power. So, even when
China was poor, it
consciously put the accent on build
ing comprehensive national power.

Communist China actually began as an
international pariah state. Today, it is courted by the
world.
  As the latest
U.S. intelligence assessment
predicts,
China is “poised to have more impact
on the world over the next 20 years than any other country.”

A long-term
strategic vision and unflinching pursuit of goals have been key drivers. But
China’s rise also has been aided by
good fortune on several fronts. Deng Xiaoping’s reform process, for instance,
benefited from good timing, coinciding with the start of globalization. The
Soviet Union’s sudden collapse also came as a great strategic boon, eliminating
a menacing empire and opening the way for
Beijing to rapidly increase strategic space
globally. A succession of China-friendly
U.S. presidents
since Richard Nixon also has helped.

The most important international factor in
China’s rise, however, is rarely
discussed.
China’s rise owes
a lot to the West’s decision not to sustain trade sanctions after the
1989 Tiananmen
Square
massacre, but instead to integrate Beijing with global
institutions through the liberalizing influence of foreign investment and trade.

The end of the Cold War allowed the United States and its allies to take a more
tolerant approach toward
China by abjuring sanctions. Had the
U.S. treated
China post-1989 in the way
countries like
Burma,
Iran and Cuba have been targeted for long, a less
prosperous and more insecure
China would have
emerged.

Although China has come a long way since Tiananmen
Square, with its citizens now enjoying property rights, the freedom to travel
overseas and other entitlements that were unthinkable two decades ago, political
power still rests with the same party responsible for the death of tens of
millions of Chinese in state-induced disasters like the so-called Great Leap
Forward and the Cultural Revolution.  That the communist party continues to
monopolize power despite its past horrific excesses indeed is astonishing. This
is now the oldest autocracy in the world. And it is unthinkable that it can
survive for another 60 years. Before long,
economic progress will challenge the adamantine political
system.
The longest any autocratic system has
survived in modern history was 74 years in the
Soviet
Union
.

The threat
to the communist dictatorship extends beyond the ethnic and social unrest.
Reported incidents of grassroots violence have grown at about the same rate as
China’s GDP. The ethnic challenges —
best symbolized by the Tibetan uprising and the Uighur revolt — won’t go away
unless
Beijing
stops imposing cultural homogeneity and abandons ethnic drowning as state
strategy in minority lands. But given the regime’s entrenched cultural
chauvinism and tight centralized control, that is unlikely to happen. After all,
President Hu Jintao’s slogan of a “harmonious society” is designed to undergird
the theme of conformity with the state.

China’s challenges actually center on its
political future. Although
China has moved from being a
totalitarian state to being an authoritarian state, some things haven’t changed
since the Mao years. Some others indeed have changed for the worse, such as the
whipping up of ultra-nationalism as the legitimating credo of continued
communist rule. Unremitting attempts to bend reality to the dangerous illusions
the state propagates through information control and online censors risk turning
China into a modern-day Potemkin
state.

Today, China’s rapidly accumulating power raises
concerns because even when it was backward and internally troubled,
it
employed brute force to annex Xinjiang (1949) and
Tibet (1950), to raid South Korea (1950), to invade India (1962), to initiate a border conflict with
the Soviet Union through a military ambush
(1969), and
to attack
Vietnam (1979). A prosperous,
militarily strong
China cannot but be a threat to its
neighbours, especially if there are no constraints on the exercise of Chinese
power.

This year marks the 60th anniversary of China
becoming India’s neighbour — by gobbling up the traditional buffer, Tibet, which
was almost two-thirds the size of the European continent. As a result of that
event, Han soldiers arrived for the first time on
India’s
borders. Yet
India is officially celebrating 2010
as the year marking 60 years of Sino-Indian diplomatic relations. Does this
reflect low self-esteem or a refusal to face up to a harsh six-decade-old
reality?  

How to salvage climate change negotiations

EARTH IN THE BALANCE

Confronting the Geopolitics of Climate Change

Brahma Chellaney

Project Syndicate

International climate-change negotiations are to be renewed this year. To be successful, they must heed the lessons of last December’s Copenhagen summit.

The first lesson is that climate change is a matter not only of science, but also of geopolitics. The expectation at Copenhagen that scientific research would trump geopolitics was misguided. Without an improved geopolitical strategy, there can be no effective fight against climate change.

The second lesson from Copenhagen is that to get a binding international agreement, there first must be a deal between the United States and China. These two countries are very dissimilar in many respects, but not in their carbon profiles: each accounts for between 22% and 24% of all human-generated greenhouse gases in the world. If a deal can be reached between the world’s two greatest polluting nations, which together are responsible for more than 46% of all greenhouse-gas emissions, an international accord on climate change would be easier to reach.

In Copenhagen, China cleverly deflected pressure by hiding behind small, poor countries and forging a negotiating alliance, known as the BASIC bloc, with three other major developing countries – India, Brazil, and South Africa. The BASIC bloc, however, is founded on political opportunism, and thus is unlikely to hold together for long. The carbon profiles of Brazil, India, South Africa, and China are wildly incongruent. For example, China’s per-capita carbon emissions are more than four times higher than India’s.

China rejects India’s argument that per-capita emission levels and historic contributions of greenhouse gases should form the objective criteria for carbon mitigation. China, as the factory to the world, wants a formula that marks down carbon intensity linked to export industries. As soon as the struggle to define criteria for mitigation action commences in future negotiations, this alliance will quickly unravel.

A third lesson from Copenhagen is the need for a more realistic agenda. Too much focus has been put on carbon cuts for nearly two decades, almost to the exclusion of other elements. It is now time to disaggregate the climate-change agenda into smaller, more manageable parts. After all, a lot can be done without a binding agreement that sets national targets on carbon cuts.

Consider energy efficiency, which can help bring one-quarter of all gains in reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. Energy inefficiency is a problem not only in the Third World, but also in the developed world. The US, for instance, belches out twice as much CO2 per capita as Japan, although the two countries have fairly similar per-capita incomes.

Furthermore, given that deforestation accounts for as much as 20% of the emission problem, carbon storage is as important as carbon cuts. Each hectare of rainforest, for example, stores 500 tons of CO2. Forest conservation and management thus are crucial to tackling climate change. In fact, to help lessen the impact of climate change, states need to strategically invest in ecological restoration – growing and preserving rainforests, building wetlands, and shielding species critical to our ecosystems.

The international community must also focus on stemming man-made environmental change. Environmental change is distinct from climate change, although there is a tendency on the part of some enthusiasts to blur the distinction and turn global warming into a blame-all phenomenon.

Man-made environmental change is caused by reckless land use, overgrazing, depletion and contamination of surface freshwater resources, overuse of groundwater, degradation of coastal ecosystems, inefficient or environmentally unsustainable irrigation practices, waste mismanagement, and the destruction of natural habitats. Such environmental change has no link to global warming. Yet, ultimately, it will contribute to climate variation and thus must be stopped.

Climate change and environmental change, given their implications for resource security and social and economic stability, are clearly threat multipliers. While continuing to search for a binding international agreement, the international community should also explore innovative approaches, such as global public-private partnership initiatives.

As the international community’s experience since the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change shows, it is easier to set global goals than to implement them. The non-binding political commitments reached in principle at Copenhagen already have run into controversy as well as varying interpretations, dimming the future of the so-called “Copenhagen Accord,” an ad hoc, face-saving agreement stitched together at the eleventh hour to cover up the summit’s failure. Only 55 of the 194 countries submitted their national action plans by the accord’s January 31 deadline.

The climate-change agenda has become so politically driven that important actors have tagged onto it all sorts of competing interests, economic and otherwise. That should not have been allowed to happen, but it has, and there can be no way forward unless and until we confront that fact.

Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2010.
http://www.project-syndicate.org

You might also like to read more from Brahma Chellaney or return to our home page.

Reprinting material from this website without written consent from Project Syndicate is a violation of international copyright law. To secure permission, please contact distribution@project-syndicate.org.

India’s missing hard power

One missile to rule them all

Developing intercontinental ballistic missiles is crucial if India is to have credible deterrence and power-projection force as it aspires to become a global power

Brahma Chellaney

Mint newspaper, April 21, 2010

With China engaged in ambitious missile force modernization and the US building new intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) as part of its “Prompt Global Strike” programme, the question we need to ask is: When will India develop its first ICBM? Without such capability, India has little hope of emerging as a major power.

ICBMs are the idiom of power in international relations. Even as economic might plays a greater role in shaping international power equations, hard power remains central both for national deterrence and for power-projection force capability. For example, all countries armed with intercontinental-range weaponry hold permanent seats in the United Nations Security Council, and all aspirants for new permanent seats have regionally confined military capabilities.

India has glaring deficiencies on both the deterrence and power-projection fronts. It urgently needs a delivery capability that can underpin its doctrine of minimum but credible nuclear deterrence. The current heavy reliance on long-range bomber aircraft is antithetical to a credible deterrence posture.
Such a posture bereft of long-range missile reach only helps typecast India as a subcontinental power. In fact, in the absence of “strategic” or long-range missile systems, India’s deterrent capability remains sub-strategic.

If India seriously desires to project power far beyond its shores in order to play an international role commensurate with its size, it cannot do without ICBMs. Indeed, the only way India can break out from the confines of its neighbourhood is to develop intercontinental-range weaponry. With its current type of military capabilities, India will continue to be seen as a regional power with great-power pretensions.

To embark on an ICBM programme, India needs to shed its strategic diffidence. The National Democratic Alliance government told Parliament: “India has the capability to design and develop ICBMs. However, in consonance with the threat perception, no ICBM development project has been undertaken.” That policy inexplicably remains unchanged under the United Progressive Alliance government, even as India faces a growing threat from the new ICBMs in China’s increasingly sophisticated missile armoury.

An ICBM has a range of 5,500km and more. Rather than aim for a technological leap through a crash ICBM programme, India remains stuck in the intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM) arena, where its frog-like paces have taken it—more than two decades after the first Agni test—to Agni III, a sub-strategic missile still not deployed. Even the Agni V project, now on the drawing board, falls short of the ICBM range.

No nation can be a major power without three key attributes: (1) a high level of autonomous and innovative technological capability; (2) a capacity to meet basic defence needs indigenously; and (3) a capability to project power far beyond its borders, especially through intercontinental-range weaponry.

India is today the world’s largest importer of conventional weapons, ordering weapons worth at least $5 billion per year. Far from making the nation stronger, such large arms imports underscore the manner in which the country is depleting its meagre defence resources and eroding its conventional military edge. The Indian military today can achieve many missions, including repulsing an aggression and inflicting substantial losses on invaders. It can even carry out limited pre-emptive or punitive action and fend off counteraction. But it cannot do what any major military should be trained and equipped for—decisively win a war against an aggressor state.

The reason is not hard to find: Modernization outlays mainly go not to develop the country’s own armament production base, but to subsidize the military-industrial complex of others through import of weapons, some of questionable value. None of the weapon mega deals India has signed in recent years will arm its military with the leading edge it needs in an increasingly volatile and uncertain regional security environment.

Its military asymmetry with China has grown to the extent that it has fostered disturbing fecklessness in India’s China policy, best illustrated by external affairs minister S.M. Krishna’s recent Beijing visit. And in the absence of a reliable nuclear deterrent, India has become ever more dependent on conventional weapon imports. Among large states in the world, India is the only one that relies on imports to meet even basic defence needs.

Last year’s launch of the country’s first nuclear-powered submarine, INS Arihant, for underwater trials received a lot of media attention. A nuclear-powered, ballistic missile-carrying submarine (known as SSBN) is essential for India to bridge the yawning gap in its deterrent force against China. But even if everything goes well, India’s first SSBN will be deployed in the years ahead with a non-strategic weapon—a 700km submarine-launched ballistic missile now under development. That would further underpin the regional character of India’s deterrence.

Without hard power, India will continue to punch far below its weight and be mocked at by critics. One well-known India baiter, journalist Barbara Crossette, claims: “…today’s India is an international adolescent, a country of outsize ambition but anemic influence.” That India still does not have an ICBM project—even on the drawing board—is a troubling commentary about the lack of strategic prudence. China built its first ICBM even before Deng Xiaoping initiated economic modernization in 1978. A generation later, the Indian leadership has yet to grasp international power realities.

Brahma Chellaney is professor of strategic studies at the Centre for Policy Research in New Delhi.

China-based cyber spying

Cyber-warrior China opens new front against India

Brahma Chellaney

The Sunday Guardian, April 11, 2010

The detailed report released by a group of Canadian researchers on how a
China-based cyber spying ring has been systematically stealing top Indian
defence and security secrets for a number of months has spotlighted the growing
cyber threat
India
confronts.
It is unlikely that the
hackers are private individuals with no links to the Chinese government.
Private
individuals are unlikely to engage in systematic pilferage of defence secrets
of a rival country over an extended period.

Let’s
be clear: The Chinese hackers are
an irregular force of the People’s Liberation
Army. In war, this force will become the vanguard behind which the conventional
PLA divisions will take on
India.
In other words, the regular PLA forces will wage war after the cyber
warriors have caused serious damage to the enemy to defend itself.

Cyberwarfare and cross-border terrorism are the two main
frontiers of asymmetrical warfare. In both, irregular or non-state actors are
employed by a state to wage attacks on another country. The sponsoring state
then feigns ignorance of the attacks carried out at its behest. Just as
Pakistan pretends Lashkar-e-Taiba is not its
front against
India, China claims
the Chengdu-based cyber ring is not its spying arm. In both cases, the enemy
hides behind a cover, underscoring the asymmetrical nature of the warfare.

With national security and
prosperity today dependent on the safekeeping of cyberspace, including the
virtual movement of finance and the flow of security data and other secrets,
cybercrime must be effectively countered as a priority.

The cyber
threat from
China
is at two levels. The first is national, as manifest from the
cyber
attacks already carried out in recent years against
India’s National Infomatics
Centre (NIC)
systems and the
ministry of external affairs. The previous national security adviser disclosed
that his own office computers had been hacked by the Chinese. The aim of such
attacks has been to
engage in espionage and
also to overawe the Indian establishment.

By scanning and mapping India’s
official computer systems,
China
is able to both steal secrets and gain an asymmetrical advantage over its
rival. Intermittent cyber intrusion in peacetime allows
China to read
the content and understand the relative importance of different Indian networks
so that in a war, it knows what to disable in order to inflict pain and
punishment.

The second type of cyber threat from China is aimed at the individual
level. Individual targets in
India
range from the functionaries of the Tibetan government-in-exile and Tibetan
activists to Indian writers and others critical of
China. The most-common type of
intrusion
is an attempt to hack into the e-mail
accounts of targeted individuals. Often the targets are subjected to the
so-called Trojan horse attacks by e-mail that are intended to breach their
computers and allow the infiltrators to remotely remove, corrupt or transfer
files.

At a time when China-based
cyber attacks are ramping up in the world, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton was right to recently declare that an attack on one nation’s computer
networks “can be an attack on all.” Singling out
China for its Internet censorship,
Mrs. Clinton warned that “a new information curtain is descending across much
of the world.” Her statement’s
Cold War undertones — likening the
“information curtain” to the Iron Curtain — amounted to an implicit admission
that
the central assumption guiding U.S. policy on China
since the 1990s has gone awry: that assisting
China’s economic rise would usher
in political opening there.

The strategy
to use market forces and the Internet to open up a closed political system
simply isn’t working.
Indeed, the more economic power China has accumulated, the more
adept it has become in extending censorship controls to cyberspace.
China deploys tens of thousands of “cyber police” who
block Web sites, patrol cyber-cafes, monitor the use of cellular phones and
track down Internet activists.

But the threat to countries
like
India comes not from
what
China
does domestically. Rather, it comes from the manner the experience, information
and knowhow gained in fashioning domestic cyber oversight is proving invaluable
to
China
to engage in cyber intrusion across its frontiers.

The Canadian researchers, who had earlier
uncovered a
vast Chinese surveillance system called “Ghostnet” that
could
automatically scan overseas computer
networks and transfer documents
to a digital storage facility in China,
have revealed in their latest report that the origin of the attacks against
Indian targets was Chengdu, which is also the headquarters of the PLA’s signal
intelligence (SIGINT) bureau. The Chengdu SIGINT station in
China’s Sichuan
province is specifically tasked to monitor
India.

Chinese hackers often try to camouflage the
point of origin of their attacks. They do so by routing their attacks
through
the computers of a third country, like
Taiwan
or
Russia or Cuba.
Just as some Chinese pharmaceutical firms have exported to Africa spurious
medicines with “Made in
India
label — a fact admitted by
Beijing
— some Chinese hackers are known to have routed their cyber intrusion through third
countries. But like their comrades in the pharmaceutical industry, such hackers
tend to leave telltale signs. But in the case of the India-directed cyber ring
that has just been uncovered, it was ensconced in
China itself and openly operating
from there.

Despite its information-technology
skills,
India
lacks offensive or defensive capabilities in cyberwarfare. It has developed no
effective means to shield its cyber infrastructure from the pervasive attacks
that are being carried out in recent years
in search of competitive
intelligence
and to unnerve
the Indian establishment.

India’s cyber vulnerability holds major
implications in a war situation. In peacetime,
China
is intimidating
India
through intermittent cyber warfare, even as it steps up military pressure along
the Himalayan frontier. In a conflict,
China could cripple major Indian
systems through cyber attacks. With cyber attacks against Indian government,
defence and commercial targets ramping up, the protection of sensitive computer
networks must become a major national-security priority.

One mode of asymmetrical
warfare —
Pakistan’s
unceasing export of terrorism — has traumatized
India for long. It should not allow
itself to get similarly battered on the new frontier of asymmetrical warfare
China
has opened over the past five years.  On both fronts, state actors are
employing non-state actors.

The costs for India to fight
two asymmetrical wars simultaneously will be high.
India should treat the Canadian
report as a wake-up call to plug its vulnerabilities by developing appropriate
countermeasures. At the same time, it should have the capability to take the battle
to the enemy’s camp. Offence is often the best form of defence.

Seven key revisions needed in India’s nuclear-accident liability bill

HOT POTATO

BRAHMA CHELLANEY, STRATEGIC AFFAIRS EXPERT

Revisions in N-liability bill a must

DUE TO EXTRAORDINARY MOLLYCODDLING, THERE ARE NO RISKS FOR FIRMS ENTERING INDIAN MARKET, ONLY PROFITS TO RAKE IN

The Economic Times, April 6, 2010 http://u.nu/35v48

After
the national furore, the government has begun to redraft its nuclear-accident
liability Bill. It was left with little choice: Unlike the 123 agreement or the
latest reprocessing accord with the
US, the proposed new law on
liability has to go before Parliament for scrutiny and approval.

The
Bill it circulated to members of Parliament last month attempted to
fashion a new principle in
international law: Profits are private, accident-related liabilities are all
public. The Bill gave foreign reactor suppliers a free ride at the Indian
taxpayer’s expense.

Limits on
liability traditionally have been designed in the world to limit the financial
risks of private firms engaged in the business of nuclear-generated
electricity. But in
India
the state intends to own and operate all nuclear power plants. That is the
reason why the Atomic Energy Act, which shuts out the private sector from
nuclear power generation, is not being amended.

But foreign
reactor suppliers cannot complain because they are in an exceptionally happy
situation. The Indian government has earmarked separate nuclear parks for each
of the two American reactor-exporting firms as well as for the sole French and
Russian companies. It is acquiring land for them. It also is freeing them from
the task of generating electricity at marketable rates. The government will run
the reactors through the state operator, subsidizing the high-priced
electricity generated. To top it all, foreign suppliers will have no
direct accident liability.

So, given this
extraordinary mollycoddling, there are no risks for foreign firms in entering
the Indian market, only profits to rake in.

Against
this background, the liability Bill must contain seven essential revisions.

■One, there
is no need for a limit on liability as the Indian state, in any case, will be
the sole owner and operator. There is no maximum cap on liability in the
US, Germany,
Finland, Japan, South Korea
and
Switzerland.
The proposed Indian law must mesh with the doctrine of absolute liability and
“polluter pays” principle set by the Supreme Court in response to the
Bhopal gas disaster.

■Two, the
minimum cap should reflect the international trend of providing enough to deal
with the long-term public health problems likely to be caused by a nuclear
accident. For example,
Japan’s minimum liability is 120 billion yen ($1.33 billion).

Three, the revised Bill
should not relieve foreign companies of direct liability for any accident. Nor
should
victims be stripped of their right to sue a culpable foreign firm
in an Indian court, or through a foreign court.

India ought to follow the example set by US law, which
permits “economic channelling,” but not “legal channelling,” of liability,
thereby allowing civil suits against any party in
courts. That is the main reason why the
US
has not joined the
Vienna or Paris convention — the two main international
liability instruments. But the
U.S.
has become party to the Convention on Supplementary Compensation (CSC), which
is still not in force. The CSC,
as the name
suggests,
is about compensation, to be paid
“supplementary” to the liability limit. The CSC permits either “economic
channelling”
or “legal channelling” of liability.

Why
shouldn’t
India emulate the US example and
permit economic (but not legal) channelling of liability to the operator? That
will leave suppliers (foreign or Indian) legally liable for an accident, but
allow for speedy disbursement of compensation to victims following an accident.

■Four, the
Indian taxpayer ought to be the insurer of last resort, not of first resort. In
the existing Bill, all liability falls on the Indian taxpayer, whether it is
the state operator’s slice or the Central Government’s share. By contrast,
America’s Price-Anderson
system is without cost to the American taxpayer. It ensures that there is at
least $10.5 billion in private-sector funds available to cover a nuclear
accident. As the
US
has no cap on liability, the US Congress serves as the insurer of last resort.
If a catastrophic accident were to occur, Congress could raise its contribution
not by burdening the taxpayer but by imposing additional taxes and other levies
on the nuclear industry.

■Five, the
new Bill must do away with the specious distinction between the operator and
the government when, in the Indian context, both are fused. Throughout the
existing Bill, the pretence of a US-style separation between the operator and
the government in maintained.

■Six, the
powers of
Indian courts must not be curtailed.
Under the existing Bill, all nuclear-damage claims will be dealt with by a
Claims Commissioner or a Nuclear Damage Claims Commission, and any award made
“shall be final” and cannot be appealed in any court. Indeed, it declares that
“no civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings” or
grant any “injunction.”

■Seven, while
limiting
liability in time, the Bill must set a
more reasonable timeline, given that damage to health from exposure to severe
radiation can be transmitted to future generations. The 10-year time limit set
in Clause 18 of the existing Bill is simply
untenable.

Brahma Chellaney is professor of strategic
studies at the Centre for Policy Research.

Shutting out Parliament from scrutinizing nuclear deal

Bypassing Parliament

Brahma Chellaney  DNA newspaper, April 2, 2010

One more accord has been concluded under the much-trumpeted Indo-US nuclear deal. But like the previous two —the 123 bilateral agreement with the US and the safeguards accord with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) — the latest agreement, too, will escape scrutiny by the Indian Parliament. The newest agreement involves US consent to India to reprocess spent fuel of American origin.


Is it a good advertisement for the world’s most-populous democracy that while the American president will submit the reprocessing agreement to the US Congress for scrutiny, the Indian Parliament will again be shut out from playing any role on this latest accord? How can there be effective checks and balances in a democracy if the executive branch insists that the national legislature has no role to play in any international agreement?

It is only on the nuclear-accident liability issue that the government is coming to Parliament because that involves passing a new law. In fact, it wants Parliament to pass a law that limits liability to a pittance, overturning the doctrine of absolute liability that the Supreme Court has set in response to the Bhopal gas disaster. 

The result of blocking Parliament from scrutinizing the nuclear deal is that India is now saddled with a deal that does not adequately protect its interests. India has got no legally binding fuel-supply guarantee to avert a Tarapur-style fuel cutoff, and no right to withdraw from its obligations under any circumstance, although the US has reserved the right for itself to suspend or terminate the arrangements.

The terms of the latest reprocessing agreement are in continuation of what the US was able to extract in the 123 bilateral agreement. The US has retained the right to unilaterally suspend its grant of reprocessing consent to India. This is an extension of its right, incorporated in the 123 agreement, to unilaterally suspend or terminate fuel supply to India. That is exactly what the US did in the mid-70s under its previous 123 agreement with India dating back to 1963. As a result, the twin-reactor, US-built Tarapur nuclear power plant near Mumbai, was left high and dry.

In the newest 123 agreement, the US has retained the legal right to unilaterally terminate cooperation but provided political assurances to India that such a right will be exercised only in extraordinary circumstances. A similar approach is mirrored in the reprocessing accord.

Under article 7 of the reprocessing accord, the reprocessing consent can be suspended on grounds of “national security” or a “serious threat to the physical protection of the facility or of the nuclear material at the facility,” and if the party determines “that suspension is an unavoidable measure.” So the US right to suspend reprocessing consent is unfettered.

Still, the agreement’s article 7 and the accompanying “agreed minute” record political assurances to India that such a right shall be exercised only in special circumstances and after careful thought. But such assurances hold little value when the legal right to suspend reprocessing consent is explicitly recorded in the text.

The actual implementation of the reprocessing agreement is years away, even though US-origin spent fuel has been accumulating in India for nearly 40 years at Tarapur.

India will not be able to reprocess that spent fuel until it has built at least one new dedicated reprocessing facility — a process that will take a number of years. Article 1(3) specifies that the US consent relates to “two new national reprocessing facilities established by the government of India.” Only in those new facilities, approved by the IAEA, can India reprocess the discharged fuel under international inspection. Any additional reprocessing facility can be added only with prior US agreement.

Another feature of the agreement is that it amplifies India’s reprocessing obligations with the IAEA, including to provide facility-design information in advance and to allow unhindered international monitoring and verification (article 2). But in addition, the accompanying “agreed minute” obligates India to permit US “consultations visits” to each dedicated reprocessing facility. Every “visiting team of not more than 10 persons” will be permitted onsite access “at a time and duration mutually agreed by the parties.”

It is thus apparent that the US has got what it wanted. For example, the state department had earlier notified the US Congress in writing that “the proposed arrangements and procedures with India will provide for withdrawal of reprocessing consent” by the US. That is exactly what the text of the accord provides. Also by providing for US “consultations visits,” it effectively permits IAEA-plus inspections.

Had the Parliament been allowed to play a role, the government would have been able to leverage that to fight back one-sided provisions.

Brahma Chellaney is professor of strategic studies at the Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi.

(c) DNA, 2010.