On the heels of the recent outreach by Howard Dean, the website of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) announces the creation of an Indian American Council (IAC):
[On Sept. 15th], the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) announced the formation of an Indian American Council to provide the party with valuable insight on a broad range of issues important to the Indian American community.
Ro Khanna, appointed as chair of the Council by Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, said “The creation of this council is a historic step for the Indian American Community, and attests to the party’s appreciation for what the community has contributed to this country. Leader Pelosi has once again demonstrated her extraordinary vision in harnessing the talent, passion, and energy of the community…”The Council will be sponsoring an inaugural issues conference entitled “Innovate America: A Vision for the 21st Century.” The conference will initiate a dialogue between leaders of the community and the Congressional leadership about ensuring that our country remains competitive and generates high quality jobs and new opportunities throughout the 21st century. It will take place on October 1, 2005 in Fremont, California. [Link]
The council has been launched as part of the party’s Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) on the eve of the 2006 elections for the US Congress where it has no majority in the House or the Senate.But with controversial issues such as Iran’s nuclear programme where some Democrats accuse India of soft-pedalling, and US-India civilian nuclear cooperation against which a number of Liberal Democrats have spoken out, the party is going to be hard put to bring Indian Americans around.
Prior to the 2004 presidential elections, the Democratic Party had formed an Indian American Leadership Council at the Democratic National Committee (DNC). It is a sign of the increasing clout of this community that the Democrats have established the IAC as part of the more powerful DCCC.
See, this is where I get frustrated. I am a young liberal Democrat and I think India is soft-pedalling on Iran. I support some of the Democrats who are taking a hard-line against India on the nuclear issue. If this new IAC caters to older first generation Indian Nationalists living in America (there is no reason yet to believe they will), they will not have my support. As an American I want India to cut off support of Iran on all nuclear issues. Period. I do not want this newly formed committee giving into the demands of old Indian uncles living here simply because they control the purse strings for congressional donations. Khanna is also young and I hope his strategy shuns old first generation money AND issues if they run counter to American interests.
On another matter, I’d also like to ask why it is that all Indian newspapers assume that all Indian Americans are going to just blindly support issues that favor India. I have noticed this false assumption in nearly every on-line Indian publication I read. I am the opinion that reporters and editors over there just don’t get the changing realities that take place in a well-established NRI population. Take for example this quote:
Then there’s the question of US hardline policy toward Iran, where Lantos has been vehement in demanding that New Delhi toe the line with Washington, sharply criticising India for its alleged soft-pedalling on Iran.Even as they may try to bring around Congressmen like Lantos, Indian Americans are going to be lobbying “friendly” legislators rather than chasing those that are ranged against civilian nuclear cooperation, an issue a majority of the community wants to see move forward.
Where are they getting this information from? Where is the poll that shows this is true? Nobody polled me. I think Lantos had a point. I am excited to see what the IAC’s agenda will look like but I do not want to see yet another “Indian American” political committee that’s really just and “Indian” political committee.
Abhi: “…Khanna is also young and I hope his strategy shuns old first generation money AND issues if they run counter to American interests.”
Nothing “wrong” with this statement obviously, but this would be a first for American politics don’t you think? I mean, where would Irish-American and Jewish-American politics be if all that were being considered was “American interests”?
We are not towing the India line as you seem to accuse us but would rather see India develop a position based on it’s interests not some ideals that in no way reflect the real world.
India has an interest in making sure that it’s energy needs are met in the near future. China , US, Europe and India are involved in a zero sum game (as far as oil) i.e., there is not enough oil for all of them to keep growing at their current rate. We all know that Iraq is pretty much out of the equation. Iran is a major source of oil and not an enemy of India. We need to consider Indian interests while pursuing or not pursuing relations with other countires.
On the Iran issue, I read this intersting article in the NY Times .
Maybe the cynic in me can acknowledge that you are right, but the idealist in me hopes for something better.
Abhi, I agree with you in principle. (I don’t know enough about the current Iran-India nuclear relations, and often tend to take a more multifacted view on Iran than most people, totally independant of being “Indian.”) An Indian-American committee should be an Indian-American committee–we already have an India Caucus (and any number of other caucuses involving relations with other countries.) People can participate in each as they see fit.
But given the recent influx of immigration, and the number of partially-American, partially-still-Indian households I encounter, I wouldn’t be surprised if your stringently American take on Indian-American politics might be in the histogramatic tail of the desi-in-America population. Sure, a scientific survey would be nice (hey, that’s your fight with Manish, right? 😉 ) and until we have one, I’m just guessing. But of all the desis in America, we fully American citizen-since-birth/childhood types are probably a minority, and even some of us may have stronger preferences for pro-India policies than others. (All else being equal, I certainly prefer pro-Indian policies–partially because I do have some affection and attachment to India, but also b/c I think on the whole America benefits from policies friendly to the world’s biggest democracy.) If you eliminate India-centric issues from the IAC, someone has to be very articulate and very concrete about what you want the committee to be talking about.
Possible issues based on how I read your criteria:(not that I’m endorsing these, just extemporizing here)
1) Preserving and enhancing religious freedoms 2) Preserving and enhancing linguistic, satorial, and culinary freedoms. 3) Straightening out immigration regulations, particularly helping part-American families stick together. 4) Combatting racism
5) Promoting science 6) Promoting medical education, research, and access. 7) Promoting education.
Any ideas?
to believe that this organization will not cater to the old uncles/auntees with the purse strings firmly in their grasp may be a bit naive. american politics usually boils down to following the money, sad to say. this is true on both sides of the fence.
there’s something about the tone of the announcement that gets at the idea that indian americans have finally come far enough to “deserve” this council that really bothers me. if we were not an economically significant portion of the population, i doubt we would see this type of attention. and even then, this is pretty miniscule in the bigger picture.
did anyone see this list on the press release?
(my emphasis added on the successful ones i’m aware of from that list)
half of this list reads like a veritable who’s-who of uber-successful (and uber-rich) indian entrepreneurs. sure they’re indian americans, but i don’t feel like this council will tackle socially relevant issues for 1.5G or 2G indian americans…
i agree with abhi’s concern. hopefully we’ll see something productive for the entire indian american community come out of this.
Yes, exactly. I want Indian American politics to address more mainstream issues like the ones you list. I am tired of us being a one-issue constituency that is easy (relatively speaking) to get money from if the only thing a politician (of either party) has to say is that he/she thinks Pakistan is bad.
Where are they getting this information from?
aktivists with time because they aren’t in grad school 🙂
I mean, where would Irish-American and Jewish-American politics be if all that were being considered was “American interests”?
there is an interesting issue. some points.
1) the irish american lobby you are talking about is the irish roman catholic lobby. in other words, there are multiple intersecting identities here. likewise, the vast majority of american jews are ancestrally ashkenazi, from the former territories of greater poland-lithuania (later partitioned between russia, prussia [germany] and austria-hungary), as well as being religiously (at least nominally) jewish. it makes sense why they would have a tight homogenous focus (divisions between german jews and russian jews disappeared once the latter swamped out the former in the leadership by the 1920s). is that so for the indian american community? i mean, we are talking about a diverse group from all regions of india, speaking different languages, worshipping different religions and adhering to varied cultural traditions. obviously there is a common affinity, but how closely do the interests of a gujarati patel and a sikh from the punjab coincide? on the other hand, the formation of a commmon identity does seem to be happening among some born-in-america browns, taking bits and pieces and forming a central identity that transcends the ethnic divisions of their parents…but the 2nd generation people are also more firmly rooted in the united states. ergo, the analogy might be weak.
2) irish american and jewish american political activism as relates to their homeland (or armenian american or cuban american for that matter) is only relevant if there is a sharply deleterious effect on the rest of america because of their parochial interests. frankly, it sucked that the IRA was blowing people up in northern ireland and britain because of funds raised in the american northeast…but that was not a central issue for the health of the american republic. similarly, there is debate about the worth of the american-israel relationship (i for one think we should be betting a better deal!), but the debate is premised on the possibility of conditions where the interests of the two states might diverge. ergo, when america and india converge in their interests, there isn’t an issue (containing pakistani terrorism), but there might be an issue when they don’t converge (cooperating with the pakistani state to further inner asian interests). in the case of iran, the USA and india have two different interests it seems.
Well, Iran is an “axis of evil” for US, Not for India. My Question is whats wrong with India, being Softer with Iran, after all its in India’s best interest. Why on the earth America can have a selfish Foreign Policy, favoring its interests and when someother country in the face of the earth does something simillar, its called a “Huge Mistake”. Why double Standards?
Always remember this is Politics. In Politics there is nothing like Permanent enemy or Permanent friends, there is only Permanent Interests.
To Saheli’s list, I would amend #4 and include racial profiling in there. Since some don’t consider racial profiling a form of racism, I think it deserves some of its own attention. I would also add targeted social services. There’s a lot of abusive marriages in the Indian community and I don’t think there’s much knowledge of available services in the community. Education about these issues would help eliminate a bunch of the taboos surrounding this stuff too.
To clarify: India SHOULD be selfish. THEY should look out for THEIR interests. I am an American though and I want a political group representing ME looking out for MY interests. India’s interests are not always MY interests.
I want Indian American politics to address more mainstream issues like the ones you list.
the list was pretty vanilla, i didn’t see anything that was distinctively indian.
Why on the earth America can have a selfish Foreign Policy, favoring its interests and when someother country in the face of the earth does something simillar, its called a “Huge Mistake”. Why double Standards?
did you read the post where abhi said it was an indian american political group??? india should do what is in its best interest, and that doesn’t gel much of the time with the USA. it always has trod its own path since the non-aligned movement and its tacit pre-1991 alliance with the soviet union. but indian americans should focus on their homeland, the united states, first and foremost. at least that’s what i think. i’m just a joe-blow brown american 🙂 not even indian origin.
I happen to know a thing or two about oil and gas.
http://www.kushtandon.squarespace.com/journal/2005/6/9/where-is-oil-in-the-new-world-endgame.html
I have to agree with “an old uncle” and Natwar Singh. All India shining will come down crash landing if India does not build their own oil relationship, irrespective of any telling them what to do.
Israel and USA are very close and have always been – however Israel does not compromise (or manipulate) their own interest. Same holds for Ireland – Irish Americans, etc.
Kush
Israel and USA are very close and have always been – however Israel does not compromise (or manipulate) their own interest. Same holds for Ireland – Irish Americans, etc.
you have to be more precise here. i’m a skeptic of the israel-US alliance myself, but
1) israel is usually our toady in the UN (they always vote with us).
2) remember during the first gulf war when israel didn’t respond to the scud missle attacks??? that was due to US influence.
3) if oil is on the line, i have no doubt that no matter what APEC says we would sell israel down the river if core interests were at stake.
4) do brown americans want to emulate the jewish example?
p.s. to be clear, if india was an assured ally like israel, it might be worthwhile to cave even on this iran issue in my opinion. but india is an incipient great power. the analogy is an awkward fit because of that.
Abhi: Re: “To clarify: India SHOULD be selfish. THEY should look out for THEIR interests. I am an American though and I want a political group representing ME looking out for MY interests. India’s interests are not always MY interests.”
Once again, that’s a fair statement; but then what is INDIAN about the Indian-American identity? If (as I suspect) the “Indian-” comes about because of ethnicity, then I have long felt that might be an insurmountable gap between Americans of Indian origin and Indian immigrants. Because for the latter being Indian is not simply an ethnic issue (i.e. it is not an analogue to being black, or Hispanic, etc.), whereas for the former I seem to get the impression that is the case (which is why Americans of Indian origin are more likely by far to think in “South Asian” terms than Pakistani or Indian immigrants). Again no “better” or “worse” here, just that “Indian-American” hides a multitude of fissures.
To put it another way: Saheli’s list is great, but I do agree with the commenters who say there’s nothing “Indian” about it. I mean, I agree with that list (I’m a registered Democrat), but isn’t that what we expect period? Why have an “Indian-American” group if it’s agenda is not going to be “pro-India” in some way? We could have a “South Asian-American” grouping, but no way are old uncles with money going to sign up for that…
” 4) do brown americans want to emulate the jewish example?”
No, not at all.
Maybe, I should put this like this: “An Indian-American/ NRI/ PIO, especially Indian-American is under no obligation to blindly support the interest of the country of their (their forefathers) origin. However, they should be fully aware of the complexity of the issue at hand, and then make their own decisions”
From my experience of Irish-Americans, I think for the most (barring their financial support to IRA by some of them) part have been very instrumental in safeguarding the interest of Ireland vs. UK in USA and resurgence of Ireland as an economic power.
I just to want to bring up that oil and gas politics is not as simple as it might seem on the surface.
Well what would you do if two friends doing business, whose interests are contradicting to each other. You find a better solution in the long term interests for a better relationship. I think thats what needs to be done in this case. find a better way to resolve the issue, so that both parties get what they want.
I completely agree on that part. After all the whole idea of this council is for solving the issues faced by Indian Americans.
Yes I did read it properly. Till 1991 India’s interests were in different direction. Infact US and India were going in Opposite directions till that period. But after 1991, they started moving towards each other and they have come a long way since 1991. I am sure these politicians would find a better way to come closer further overcoming issues like Iran and find more common grounds to work.
For me both countries have to go in the positive direction. Its just my selfish wish
Umair, I believe there’s a clear distinction between issues that concern India, and issues that concern Indian Americans. I think it’s entirely possible to have an Indian American organization that is not “pro-Indian”, in fact, I believe being anti or pro shouldn’t even be a concern for an Indian American organization. (call it south asian if you want) My point is, while Saheli’s list are issues and expectations that can be generalized in a multitude of ways, there are specifics and nuances that uniquely identify these problems in the Indian American community in my opinion. And in that vein, I would expect an Indian American organization to be acutely aware of those nuances and capable of addressing them in a political context.
Abhi, Would you then support and work for the US completely cutting its ties with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Any such maximalist policy by the US w.r.t India will not meet with a pleasant response, and will materially affect the US’s ability to leverage in the region, not just in India. This maximalist policy is plain hypocrisy and damaging to India’s energy and regional situation.
Umair, I agree with what you are saying but I am trying to figure a way out of that mold. A good issue would be Saheli’s # 5. I’d like to see the Indian American, nay, the South Asian American community flex it’s “muscle” on the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design issue. Indian parents always promote science and want to see their kids get into the best schools. Most would also want to promote secularism I would think, so as not to encourage religious discrimination. I dunno, just an idea. I hope that at the meeting in Fremont they discuss issues like this. I know as well as you however, that cash rules everything.
kush,
speaking as someone who is only mildly patriotic in the american sense, and not patriotic in any non-american sense, i don’t have any problem with the USA being in a good place to aid india, and indian americans being primary facilitators of that relationship. the only issue where my brows rise is where there might be conflicts of interest…which is probably why abhi is focused on the iran case.
the fact is that i think an indian american political group might be essential oil to smooth the interface between the indian and american political classes, and perhaps further investment in that country. that relationship is good for both.
on the other hand, india will be a great power in the near future and likely begin to expand its influence outside of south asia, at the minimum because of chinese hegemonic rumblings. it stands to reason that india and the USA will sometimes be at cross-purposes, though i suspect most of the time the USA will try to use india as a counterbalance to china. but, the key here is use, and no doubt the USA will sell india down the river periodically when it is in the interests of america.
ultimately you have to look at the cost vs. benefit. if the cost to india is high and the benefit to the USA is minimal i can see even assimilated indian americans arguing that one should lean toward india in this case. i suspect that, right or not, american jews would argue that the america-israel alliance at its worst might be a minimal cost to the hyperpower of this age, but it is of existential significance to israel. barring pakistan engaging in a massive nuclear weapons program, i do not see any existential threats to india right now….
hasn’t this already happened? in fact, didn’t the us deploy troops to pakistan to help them protect their nuclear infrastructure and assets during the afghanistan conflict? there is still a game of one-upsmanship going on in south asia…
For me both countries have to go in the positive direction.
we do not live in the best-of-all-worlds 🙁 the fact is that the india-america relationship will be uncontroversial and any lobbying that might be done in its interests are going to be superfluous when the interests run in the same direction.
the israel and cuba lobby do not exist simply to facilitate legislation and policy which favors both nations, they exist (unfortunately) in part to work against the short term interests of america in a realpolitik game. farmers in the midwest, and the majority of americans, don’t really care much about the embargo on cuba. similarly, we would probably gain a lot of short-term goodwill if we abandoned israel to the sharks.
but again, my major problem with this analogy is that ireland, cuba and israel are all relatively small states with a few critical foci of issues. within a generation the india-USA relationship will be one between two great powers, and i think that the reprecussions of perceived interests at work against the USA by diaspora communities could be nastier than in the irish, cuban or jewish models (ie; think the anti-german jingoism or anti-japanese racism prevelant during the first and second world wars, the magnitude of any hostility would be far, far, less because war is unlikely, but great-power relations are tricky).
I am an American though and I want a political group representing ME looking out for MY interests. India’s interests are not always MY interests.
What I have failed to understand is that under which law (or appearance of law) does US have the authority to ask Iran not to pursue N-porgram?
Why is it OK for US and Israel to have N-program and weapons and Iran cant have them?
I hope the argument is a little better than “Iran is evil”.
Basically, US wants to continue its hegemony and more countries having N-power diminishes that.
hasn’t this already happened? in fact, didn’t the us deploy troops to pakistan to help them protect their nuclear infrastructure and assets during the afghanistan conflict? there is still a game of one-upsmanship going on in south asia…
do the math. india is a big country. israel is the size of new jersey. an existential threat against india needs to include several orders of magnitude more nukes than against israel. pakistan would have to also hit all parts of the country, does it have good rockets that can reach south india? i know that indian strategy always has contingencies for retreat and retrenchment in the south in case of chinese invasion from the north.
That would be the Law of the Jungle: self-preservation. Is there any law more important?
” i suspect most of the time the USA will try to use india as a counterbalance to china. but, the key here is use”
I agree, Razib. Donald Rumsfeld made a very similar statement in Singapore a few months ago. In fact, this might be even a bigger factor than terrorism, and out-sourcing for the USA-India coming close.
Maybe, let’s look into how Irish-Americans deal with this (again, no one is asking to copy cat them). I personally need to read on them more to be more intelligent and insightful. Little I know, the role of Irish expats is very powerful – it includes Kennedys and Ronald Reagan, amongst millions of others.
I understand Israel-USA analogy is a very case specific.
Basically, US wants to continue its hegemony and more countries having N-power diminishes that.
of course. american hegemony seems pretty good for americans. why shouldn’t we want to perpetuate that???
My understanding was that U.S. blackops wanted to make sure Pakistan’s nukes were safe-guarded in case Mushie was overthrown in a coup by the ISI in response to his support of the U.S. in Afghanistan.
Maybe, let’s look into how Irish-Americans deal with this (again, no one is asking to copy cat them). I personally need to read on them more to be more intelligent and insightful. Little I know, the role of Irish expats is very powerful – it includes Kennedys and Ronald Reagan, amongst millions of others.
irish roman catholic antipathy toward the united kingdom didn’t block our “special relationship” with america’s mother country. i have read that roman catholic irish americans were not particularly excited about fighting to save england during both world wars. but of course they did. they were americans after all before they were patties.
p.s. kennedy was a roman catholic irishmen whose grandfather was mayor of boston. reagan was a protestant whose family had assimilated long ago. those are the two types of irish in america, and though we tend to notice the first kind (boston-drunk-catholic :), the second kind is actually far more numerous.
also, a larger number of americans are scotch-irish, than irish proper. they are a different bag alltogether….
this is not an Indian or Indian-American issue. it is an issue that divides people who want to bring faith into everything versus people who want to keep science and faith seperate. I think in this we definitely should bring all races, ethinicities together.
Now on to Saheli’s points. How does this list differ from any minority’s list. There is nothing inherently Indian or Indian-American about it.
now having re-read Abhi’s post i see his point. He wants someone to represent the Indian-American. But, the queston should be what is that Indian-Americans want represented? Why is tt important that the person representing be Indian? Why not an African-American or Caucasian ?
the asian american activists have traditionally focused a lot on immigration. the reasons are obvious. similarly, indian american political groups could serve as focal points to dissemination of information and awareness. there are roles such groups could play. i just think moving into the foreign policy arena is a high risk strategy…because too often it is the hyperpower (us) vs. the world.
“Of 1.67 million Indian Americans in the country, about one million were born in India”-source
I think Lantos had a point.
This FOB totally agrees that the US should take a hard-line against India to support its own interests. However, taking a hard line does NOT mean that it’s necessary or wise to call the Indian foreign minister “imbecilic” and “dense.” The Bush administration had been handling India masterfully – all India needs is a little love – and Lantos comes along and uses words that he would never have used against Russia or China (no friends of the US, those). Whatever happened to good ol’ diplomacy and RESPEK?
I simply don’t understand the Indian American reluctance to facilitate more understanding for the Indian point of view in Washington WHEN IT DOES NOT GO AGAINST US INTERESTS (especially in light of the political histories of other major immigrant groups in the US). It would be beneficial for BOTH groups and needn’t be done at the expense of excluding domestic issues. Israel may be a small state but it looms large on the international landscape, both in reality and in imagination. The Jewish community in America is about 5 million strong, if I remember correctly. Yet, their dogged pursuit of Israel’s interests (arguably against US interests at times) hasn’t harmed them in the least and they’ve still succeeded in hobbling together a platform of domestic and international positions that both parties fall over themselves to represent…
P.S. Rumors of India’s ascendancy to great power status are greatly exaggerated. Americans who wring their hands about great power relations with India are, to paraphrase Bhagwati, like a doberman who starts to worry when it sees a poodle coming up the street.
Iran is also doing the same thing, IMO. Only jungle law can resolve this.
See, you guys are smart Americans, so you dont claim moral superiority, but argue that the hegemonistic policy is only for “interests”, which is a perfectly fine reason as far as I am concerned. But there are lots of not so smart people, who take US position as the morally superior position. The other problem is that hegemonistic policy leads to confrontation and that causes loss of lives. So when US lives are lost to maintain the hegemony or interest whatever you want to call it, Americans think that the enemy is a-moral and evil.
But there are lots of not so smart people, who take US position as the morally superior position.
sure, but this sort of idiocy is not limited to americans. stupidity knows no borders.
but….
So when US lives are lost to maintain the hegemony or interest whatever you want to call it, Americans think that the enemy is a-moral and evil.
not always. consider the case of vietnam. many americans oppose unmitigated hegemony. we are a pluralistic democracy after all.
Do you really think John Kerry would not have attacked civilian Afghanistan after 9/11 or backed out troops from Iraq were he elected? I seriously doubt it. Our hegemonic assertions exists across political ideologies.
You are combining a whole bunch of issues. “Hegemony” isn’t a word to be thrown around loosely. Applying it willy-nilly to every situation concerning U.S. foreign policy isn’t fair. I hate most of Bush’s policies with a passion but I think that when history looks back on his Presidency, Afghanistan may be the one bright spot.
Maybe I’m missing something here. Why exactly is there a need to take a hardline against Iran? Why should Iran not be allowed to develop nuclear technology if it so wishes? Who said the west should be allowed to dictate what third world countries should be doing?
Who said the west should be allowed to dictate what third world countries should be doing?
might (intersection) self interest.
also, many non-imperial non-republics (saudi arabia, the gulf nations, iraq, turkey, israel etc.) are pretty nervous about the possibility of nukes in the region. and i think most of the world is pretty cautious about the nukes in the hands of a quasi-democracy in the vicinity of 1/4 of the world’s oil reserves. from an american perspective what the ideal situation is is a no brainer!
US’s position with respect to Iran in its self-interest and in “jungle law” can be explained, but IMHO cant be justified (as its morally abhorrent).
but IMHO cant be justified (as its morally abhorrent).
if morals can be justified via propositional logic, than the justification is premised on axioms (norms). unless you agree on the axioms you are talking past each other.
i agree that some of the moral talk hypocritical, but i also think that the presumption that all polities are on equal moral ground is also a fallacy (this is the major weak point in many american arguments, because they refuse to deny the equivalence between a semi-idiotic semi-literate republican democratic semi-plutocratic polities vs. idiotic illiterate undemocratic polities).
and of course, democracy is not a panacea, cretinism is still an issue in much of the malnourished world….
Hello Sunny ol’ chap. You have said something along the lines of what I was thinking, but wasn’t sure how to phrase. It’s really picking up on a small point Abhi made about nuclear capabilities and where he stands.
When India and Pakistan got the bomb the West was united in its condemnation. I have spent most of my life in Britain, support the England cricket team when they play India and have an English Dad, but I remember clearly feeling furious that countries like the UK and America to be condemning India for joining their club, it smacked of a colonial mentality. So I fully comprehend the finer points of being an NRI and I can empathise with those who find themselves divided between two countries on several issues.
If I defended India’s decision to perform nuclear research, I can’t attack Iran’s. It’s churlish to draw a definite line in the sand with India and Iran on opposing sides. India has a shady side, it’s academic saying “yeah but Iran is WORSE” – neither are 100% clean. And neither is America, but since they had the bomb before anyone, nobody judges their right to own it – despite the fact they remain the only users.
I abhor warfare and of course the answer is simple – destruction of all nukes, which will, of course, never happen. Why? Because Americans will always live in fear. Commies, Islamists…a boogieman will be created and an excuse will always exist.
Because Americans will always live in fear. Commies, Islamists…a boogieman will be created and an excuse will always exist.
let me unfurl my mildly patriotic streak and offer that your countrymen and you might be speaking german (twice over) if it were not for my country and the “fear” we have toward the world.
myself, i was not particularly worried that india got the bomb. i was worried that pakistan got the bomb. making an equivalence between india, a nation which managed to maintain a semblence of democracy for about 5 decades before its bomb and iran, a nation which is predicated on perpetual islamic revolution, where the democratic republican impulse is supine at the feet theocrats and hard-line nationalists, seems churlish to me.
additionally, the fact is that the danger posed by the south asian bomb is not to americans, it is to south asians! i don’t hold for a minute that the danger to south asians was the primary concern of the nuclear first world nations when they objected to the brown bomb, but it seems that neglecting this point when discussing this issue is like spiting the slave master by killing your family committing suicide. the danger from an iranian bomb would be to the interests of developed nations since iran is within shooting distance of 1/4 of the world’s oil. this is a main issue. but the fears of neighboring nations, and their populace, shouldn’t be discounted, and escelation if iran does go nuclear is almost a certainty. i am also skeptical that israel would not lose it send its airforce into iranian airspace if the program proceeds, which would cause problems for the whole middle east (political leaders, and nations, are not utility maximizers….).
i grant there are moral issues at work here. but hidden in abhi’s spare prose i assumed we could all agree that there are implicit background conditions which bode ill for all, in particular for iranians. but i guess we can’t all agree on these points (at least if sticking it to the yanks is at issue)….
Cheers BB, you said exactly what I wanted to, except in more detail. Shouldn’t you be studying anyway 😛
Let me add to this. There is a lot of hyberbole within the American press right now.
Iran is nowhere even near nuke capability. It is trying to make a nuclear power station first to boost energy supplies (though you might argue why when it has so much oil, but it might be more worth its while to sell that oil when the price is so high for arguments sake).
That nuke power station will give it the capability to process materials that may eventually help it to develop a nuke. We are still many years off, but it helps the American govt to keep eyes on Iran and make noises about nuke capability just so it can give the impression it is cracking down on “bad regimes” around the world.
I’m disappointed you guys have been sucked into this propaganda war and talking about India taking a hardline stance against Iran.
India has no need to do so, and neither should it just to appease the USA. And neither does it have any moral right to do so considering it also ignored American pressure before to carry its nuclear programme (as BB said).
Bong,
My story now. I used work for an oil and gas company in Texas when the recent nuclear Indian test happened. We had an animated discussion at the lunch. My two sentences then were:
“The nuclear test will create unnecessary arms race in India and Pakistan”
“It is not USA or UK business to tell who should/ who should not have nuclear technology”
Surprisingly, everyone (every American) on the lunch table agreed and respected me for my stance. I have talked to Arab-Americans and they echo same feelings, when Iran does not even depend on US for anything. Give Iran a breathing space and dignity.
As of India-Iran-Pakistan gas line deal, that is the smartest real politick India has ever undertaken since its independence. If India does not secure their oil and gas market share, they will “choking” themselves to dark ages.
All we will then talk about women relegated to different in certain parts of the month or Ravi Shankar or Salman Rushdie when comes to India. Energy needs holds the key to a country’s survival – I cannot emphasize any more.
China is already in Iran with big $$$ investments, do you think Chinese-Americans are being upset/ conflicted about it. So is France (through TotalFina). BP (England) is waiting for the piece of pie as soon as the rhetoric goes down. So is ExxonMobil…….
Bottom Line: The fuel of the future is natural gas (even in hydrogen economy), and Iran has the third largest reserves in the world.