“In Washington, DC, the US-India Business Council (USIBC) emerged from hibernation (it was formed in 1975) in the 1990s to lobby for US business interests in India. The USIBC is housed, conveniently, in the US Chamber of Commerce in Washington, from where it pushes against the walls erected in India to protect the national economy from those who want to make dollars out of rupees. For the nuclear deal, the USIBC and the US Chamber of Commerce’s Coalition for Partnership with India drew upon the lobbying expertise of Patton Boggs and Stonebridge International. They had a vested interest in the deal, because it would have allowed U.S. firms to gain contracts in the Indian nuclear sector. In March 2007, the USIBC hosted a 230-member business delegation to India, the Commercial Nuclear Executive Mission. Tim Richards of General Electric (GE) gingerly said of the trip, “We know India’s need for nuclear power” (there is, in fact, no such need; nuclear power would only cover a maximum of seven percent of India’s energy needs). Ron Somers, president of USIBC, said of the purported $60 billion boondoggle that would have come as a result of the deal, “The bounty is enormous.”

As the deal fizzled out, the nuclear moneymen grieved. Russia and France had also already lined up to supply India, and both had begun to lobby the Nuclear Suppliers Group to give the deal a free pass. A few days after Singh told Bush their deal was in cold storage, seventy French delegates from twenty-nine nuclear firms met with three hundred Indian delegates in Mumbai for a discussion on a potential France-India nuclear deal. French Ambassador to India Jerome Bonnafont eagerly anticipated the restarting of nuclear cooperation between the two states, which would provide substantial contracts for the French nuclear industry. They want to make Francs out of Rupees.”

Vijay Prashad, on how the communists spiked the nuclear deal in India.

Comment:

Excellent news. Nuclear energy is touted falsely as the energy of the new age. Actually, it’s wildly expensive, dangerous, and unnecessary, since merely upgrading existing infrastructure and cutting back on a few fighter jets and pointless space programs, will probably do as much for energy needs in the third world with less expenditure. But, while good nukes have nothing good about them, bad nukes (i.e., nuclear weapons) probably aren’t such a bad thing for weaker countries to pack, so long as the major powers aren’t willing to give them up themselves.

Another of those perverse contradictions of the state system.

Clarification:

In case this sounds as though I am recommending a nuke arms race in Asia, I should add that packing a few (minimal) weapons acts as a deterrent to neighbors who might otherwise feel emboldened to lob a few themselves (or to  superpower ambition, as in the case of non- nuclear Iraq). I advocate it as I advocate guns for the citizenry. That doesn’t mean I think you should be building chemical weapons in your basement, nor does it mean I think the rest of the world should be so stupid as to waste their money on endless nuclear and space boondoggles as the US – to its lasting detriment – has.

Of course, as a libertarian, I would say that any billionaire who wishes to explore space on his own (inside his head or out) should be free to do so. I am just opposed to the Feds using their toy money (it’s a toy once it’s in their hands; it’s real enough in ours) to play Darth Vader on our dime.