There is a game of high-stakes foreign policy poker being played in Washington right now between the U.S. and India with respect to nuclear cooperation. As with most issues of late, the normally homogenous Republicans are showing signs of a spine again by demonstrating thinking independent of their party leader. The Washington Post reports:
Congressional leaders crucial to the fate of a controversial U.S.-India nuclear deal are pressing Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to consult them before proposing legislation to implement the agreement.The leaders make their case in a letter which congressional aides said reflects deep unease about the deal’s consequences and the way the administration secretly negotiated it, without input from lawmakers who must approve it.
“We firmly believe that such consultations will be crucial to the successful consideration of the final agreement or agreements by our committees and the Congress as a whole,” they wrote in the letter, which was obtained by Reuters.
Many members of Bush’s Republican party, which controls Congress, and also many Democrats fear the deal excessively benefits India and undermines international efforts to halt the spread of nuclear weapons.
Of course, this is all really about Iran. India surprised people last month by voting with the U.S. in threatening to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council (where it could potentially be punished) for its nuclear activities. The genie is out of the bottle with respect to nuclear technology so we may as well spread weapons to our friends if they will help us prevent the spread to our enemies. The U.S. however, wants assurances that their technological gifts won’t be used for India’s weapons program:
The separation plan is at the heart of the nuclear deal because it is meant to ensure any U.S. or international cooperation with India advances only the South Asian nation’s civilian energy program, not weapons development.Burns said the separation issue will be central to his talks in New Delhi this week but it would probably take a month or two for the plan to be drawn up.
Once a clear separation plan is offered by India, it will be easier to ask the U.S. Congress for the necessary changes, he said.
So what is it exactly that has Congress so riled up?
India is a nuclear power but not a signatory of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.“I think this is going to be a very tough deal” to get approved, especially in time for the planned U.S.-India summit, said one Republican congressional aide.
A second Republican adviser told Reuters: “It’s very dangerous to assume we’d be predisposed to act quickly.”
“No one believes the Indians will do that (separation) as quickly as implied in that (Burns) statement. This is just a plan. Why should the United States change its laws before India implements the plan,” he said.
I think Bush often forgets that he has used up much of the “capital” he bragged about at the beginning of his term. Foreign Policy in Focus has an excellent and concise article which deconstructs this game and all the players involved. “Separation” of civilian and military programs isn’t as clear cut as you’d think, and the U.S. may end up getting screwed like some Congressman believe:
…by allowing India to buy uranium on the open market, the pact will let India divert all of its domestic uranium supplies to weapons production. That would allow it to produce up to 1,000 warheads, making it the third largest arsenal in the world behind the United States and Russia.
Bill, I think you just lost a lot of people. If 9/11 had anything to do with dictators it had to do with the dictators in Pakistan and in Saudi Arabia (who we still coddle). That fact makes your sentence above sound clueless. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 so I hope you weren’t trying to imply that it did.
Hmm Selling Kissinger to Indians? Even Bush Senior who was a friend of kissinger did not try that. That comment requires to open up a can of whopass. I dont know what kind of moral gymnastic kishitter was playing in his head for his entire time as secretary of state when he chose to ignore the massacare going on in Bangladesh. The leader of a democraticaly elected party was arrested and Mr kisshiter congradulates yahya khan for tactfuly handling situation. The american consulate from dacca sent the following wire(telegram)
Then kisshiter and nixon tell the Chinese to move toops closer on Indian border during the 1971 war, and later they ask state department to create a whitepaper denouncing india. Looking at non indian centric perspective one has to look at the overthrow of a democraticaly elected government in chile or the bombing of cambodia and laos ? Great policy decisions Eh by a nobel prize winning statesman?
IC so Saudi Arabian team of dictators are almost a democracy and so is pervez mussharraf.
A good account of the Indian viewpoint: Final Analysis
Gujjubhai, Very Good and pertinent article. I tried searching for the full speech online I can find the link on the PMs website it cant load the speech. From the quotes in the article I agree with ManMohans SinghÂ’s articulation on International relations.
He is aware of counterweight/regional balance views and the complexity it can present to India. “we must also be mindful of the desire of extra-regional powers to keep us engaged in low-intensity conflicts and local problems, to weigh us down in a low-level equilibrium”.
To the tune of mannu bhai motor chali ManMohan bhai India ko le ke chale pam pam pam. America jayenge reactor le ayenge Achi Achi Fighteron se ankhe larayenge Halla machayenge gulla macheyenge white house me band baja bajeyenge econonmic development ko aage badhaayenge Badi badi takto ke beech counterweight nahin banjayenge
Guru Gulab Khatri,
Saying that I am a realist in the vein of Dr. Henry Kissinger doesn’t mean that I agree with all of his foreign policy decisions as Sec. of State or US National Security Advisor. To a student of International Relations it is a label, like saying a modern day Machiavelli or Metternich. Just do a search in Google including “Kissinger” and “Realism” (results here)
I wrote that definition to add clarity to the readers, since prior to this post I had not been to the site. It is easy to add a label.
I find it ironic after labeling me and denouncing Kissinger, you quote something directly out of the “Realism” school of thought:
“It is unrealistic, to expect nations to act for altruistic reasons. International relations are, in the final analysis, power relations. This balance of power politics in international relations is more sophisticated than during the Cold War era. We must learn to deal with this new reality and plan our long-term security based on a proper appreciation of those evolving trends.”
I also added to my position of believing foreign policy should be conducted under a Realism rubric that it must serve a larger, macro “moral” purpose. I believe on the whole, America’s history has held to this standard. It is the exceptions of American history that prove the rule. No country on earth has had a greater impact on spreading democracy and encouraging capitalist-libertarian enterprises than the United States.
I will say that it has been enlightening to watch the debate among Indians about what is right for their country. I am at a loss though when people with rights and liberties seem to discount these thoughts for their neighbors. If you think I am taking a moral view that is arrogant, I can point to a larger portion of the members of the party out of power who share the viewpoint I disdain.
Education and freedom, unconstrained from a moral compass (ie., realitivism) leads to this type of discounting of others personal liberties, because the “educated” either 1) know better or 2) don’t believe in saying something what is the difference from right and wrong.
Kind regards,
Bill Rice
Abhi,
Thank you for making the point you did in comment 51 above. Let me clarify.
September 11 fundamentally changed the view of security most American’s felt. We believed prior to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon that barring a nuclear strike from a major world power, it was doubtful that our shores would ever see the type of destruction we witnessed that day. Considering the US, by the nature of its role as a sole superpower, began a rethinking of its security and what would over the long term promote it. This where the “realism” school of thought that had let to the US policy of “coddling dictators” as long as they served US policy proved its long term bankruptcy. Outside of a moral goal of increasing democracy around the world, the US’ long term security is at risk if it only seeks to preserve the status quo. Where we have failed in this strategy is a long list, from the Shah of Iran to our history in Latin America to Southeast Asia.
Rogue regimes became a more direct threat because of their ability to supply and equip islamic-terrorist groups with money, weapons and potentially bio/atomic weapons. No longer could the United States believe that its security was protected because of its distance from failed states.
Iraq presented an opportunity to remove a brutal regime and produce an democratic nation in the heart of the Middle East, much like India in being a diverse country with many different ethnicities and religions vying for power.
If democracy works in the most stagnant and respresive of regimes in the heart of the Middle East, how long do you suppose Saudia Arabia, Syria and Egypt, not to mention Iran will not have to go through some form of democratic change. Do you think that the majority of Pakistani’s do not desire to have free elections?
Afghanistan provides the same potential for change not only with Iran but with Pakistan and central Asia. Afghanistan is historically one of the most failed states in Asia. If it can transform, why not more educated, richer dictatorships?
Iraq did not cause September 11, but its continued existence pointed to a world order that was not tolerable to international stability and the promotion of democracy. Why then you ask does the US not invade other dictatorships?
The US position, at least in the Bush Administration, is that change will come over time as Iraq and Afghanistan become recognized successes where the people have the opportunity to practive their God given freedoms.
Would Libya have gone to the UK and the US with its secret weapons program if it wasn’t for the toppling of Saddam? Does not Kim Jong il worry constantly about his weapons program? While the Iranians flout the UN, Europe and IEAE it is only a matter of time until their system of government fails. Syria’s undemocratic ways of meddling in Lebanon and Iraq are bringing their further isolation and possibly US military action.
So yes, Iraq was not responsible for Sept 11, but it is important for non-Americans to understand the logic of our position in going to war to topple Saddam.
You may disagree with the logic but I do believe it makes a compelling case. From a realist point of view, advocated by Guru Gulab Khatri it seems to make perfect sense to enhance long term US security and world security of democratic nations. It also has the benefit of being a moral policy, in that liberty is spread which in the long run can bring impressive changes to the once stagnant Middle East.
Kind regards,
Bill Rice
Your argument now seems to shift from ‘sincere’ to ‘self interested’ rather than common respect to a principle which is what I had said before but its not what you had said.
Ignore previos it lacks quotes
Then you are using Kissinger as a verb of sort lacking in any potency or idea. This is what I find not only arrogant but repugnant.
What did I Label you in my last response ? Are you the etymological arbitrator of real/imaginary. I clearly pointed out USÂ’s Past alliances and actions against democracies and current alliances and actions and instead of providing a counterpoint or response you are saying I agreed with you which is not true. I quoted PM ManMohans SinghÂ’s comments on international relations which were inline with my view that this is a power game (loaded with short term interests) which rightfully cannot be seen as an alliance of idealogy.
Your argument now seems to shift from ‘sincere’ to ‘self interested’ rather than common respect to a principle which is what I had said before.
What are you saying? My points were regarding loss of ALL liberties for Bangladesh which were perpetrated by Pakistan and your realistic idolÂ’ Kissinger had a BIG hand in doing so.
WOW “education and freedom”which are constrained by a ‘moral compass’ whose direction ONLY YOU CAN JUDGE which then YOU can use to imply or outright condem any one else who does not agree with YOUR viewpoint. You’ve given me an example of your ARROGANCE. SHEER BRILLIANCE
Guru Gulab Khatri,
Your comment fails to make sense.
1) I gave the background for using the word Kissinger. (ie., Machiavelli, Metternich, etc.) Any student of international relations would not claim that using the description a “Kissinger realist” as lacking in “any potency or idea”.
2) Your labeling comes in the form of the “kisshiler” comments which I take to mean “Kissinger-Hitler” unless I am mistaken. Since I referred to myself as a part-Realist in the Kissinger sense (his writings not necessarily all of his diplomacy), I take that repeated wording as somewhat personal in nature.
3) You are clearly personally attacking me in your last comment in bold by being arrogant and repugnant.
4) You then argue PM Singh’s comments about International Relations being a power game. That is extremely, fundamentally a Realist thought in the Kissinger sense. So your argument here makes no sense to me. You are saying you are not a Realist by attacking Kissinger (your right) and then argue we disagree on International Relations (I agree to a point, I am a Realist who believes in power politics that serve a moral or “Idealist” point of view and I think you are arguing a straight Realist point of view, again your right). Then ironically you revert back to an Idealist argument by denouncing Kissinger over Bangladesh (again your right, and I have no argument in the this fight).
5) Now you are in a full personal attack by arguing that by my reasoning “ONLY [I] CAN JUDGE”. I am purely making an International Relations argument.
I must say I am at a loss in our discussion because I do not see what framework you are coming from. I have been commenting on this site because of the interesting dialogue. However, I have no intention of carrying on at this type of personal level.
I am more than happy to return to the debate on merits.
Sincerely,
Bill Rice
WTC was the target of a failed bombing a few years prior also! I would just like to ask you where was Mr Ramzi Yousef was from. And you should also add the tally of NonAmericans who died because of “terrorism” all the while US was a backer and protector of countries causing this grief.
It did not stop after September 11 either this was the point raised here. You did not provide answer to the question of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan etc raised here.
BUT in the past as these states posed security and humanitarian threats to other states US(most of which were not important militarily or economically or culturallyor racially as in the past and even in present are not white…It was amazing to see US sympathy and coverage of the london bombings but none when victim was india the bombing of indian parliament got nowhere as near coverage as london bombing)
????HOW SO IRAQ under Saddam H was more secular than all its neighbors barring turkey. It even had a Christian foreign secretary, ie Tariq Aziz. Iraqi women had better socioeconomic standing than other arab countries.
Do you think they did not have them in the past? What kind of a leadership did the US coddle after a coup? What happened to the free elections in Chile?
Who asked that here ? OR FOR THAT MATTER HAS US DONE ANYTHING ABOUT IT? It has strenghthended Mussharaf after Septermber 11 if anything. Its brought him out of diplomatic isolation. ItÂ’s the same with Mr Niyazov.
May be but they arenÂ’t going to give up their nuclear plan with a government change. The current form of Iranian government is more democratic it was under the iran than it had been under the shah. BTW the government before shah was more democratic and was overthrown by a coup supported by UK and US.
???And Israel and what about US meddling in chile and Iran?
US is still having trouble explaining it to Americans and their allies forget the rest of the world
I did not say thatÂ…. I even disagreed with your vien of realism along kissinger I have said that US and Indian interest MAY line up in a LIMITED scope involving china. US however does not seem interested in Indian related issues with chinaÂ….because Indian interests are very specific and US wants to USE India in a GRAND India-China game. It wants to exploit a desire of some Indians to become ahead of china in military matters (who would like to do so ignoring all domestic economic and political issues) Even the Taiwanese have less issues with the Chinese than many Americans do, Tiawan is largest foreign investor in China not by duress, Its forged by cultural links and the longterm knowledge that mainland is moving along and wants a rapprochement with tiawan. India might end up being locked in a long running low level conflict(thanks dr Singh) draining resources which is NOT in Indias Long term interest. Kind of like whats going on between India and Pakistan. It hurts Pakistan more than it hurts India, but It does bog down Indias resources. India as well as China have LONG memories. It may seem surprising to you, but Indians see themselves and China as survivors in a tough period. Currently there are serious disagreements with china, but in LONG RUN(which can be very long run for westerners) India and china have coexisted and cross-pollinated each others culture. Only Persia is ahead of Chinese in influencing India in the overall historic view. Desis who know Iqbal will recognize.
This applies to Chinese as wellÂ…They have survived as a culture for a long time, Not only did china not have compass prior to others, Integrating their civilizations moral direction for the entire duration of their past history its obvious that for the most part it worked well.
, ????? I need to get Amartya Sens arguments pushed into Krishna Mennons head and bring him out to lecture on moral policy here.
Guru Gulab Khatri,
I give you credit for raising the level of the discussion back to a give and take of ideas.
Ultimately though, we have a fundamental difference of opinion on US motives.
You are entitled to your opinon, but I really do think you hold far to cynical of a view of US intent. However, if one focuses on the errors of US policy and chalks up any positive outcome always to the result of US selfish intent, it is a likely conclusion.
My final thought on this debate with you: India is a democracy, China is not. China is a potential threat to the US, India is not. Which country do you think the US wants to see a 20th Century Major World Power?
From a realist point of view, in light of the question above, what should India’s response be?
Sincerely,
Bill Rice
I said that realist = kissinger lacks potency. By no means defending kissinger is moral. BTW I called him kisshitter (henry shiteater might have been more appropriate).
Majority of Indians who know anything about the 70Â’s era American foreign policy find glorifying kissinger (more than Nixon) to be the most arrogant act coming from americans. I suggest visiting west Bengal and talking with people 50 or older that will give you the real sense of the rage it creates. Its repugnant because the you (and in general the viewpoint you represents) keep bringing sanctimonious morality into the matter. Any student of US policy would know that Nixon and kissinger were both crooks. Nixon being putaway for Watergate was like al capone being finaly put away on postal fraud. Kissinger if he goes to france, spain, Cambodia will be arrested and charged with war crime. Almost all of their foreign policy Kissingers writings are bunch of lies as every one from woodward, Seymour Hersh Christopher Hitchens has pointed out over the years. And you did not quote any example of his writing in your arguments.
In any sense a realist in true sense wouldnÂ’t give a rats ass about whats written but what is implemented.
I had earlier said
to which you disagreed and quoted bushÂ’s inagural speech. By quoting Singhs analysis that International Relations are about power it shows that he is aware that being a democracy doesnÂ’t buy him much.
Your view of Kissinger’s realist power politics serving “moral” goals is not evident. You did not provide any counter point to the utter lack of morality in his power play in Indian Subcontinent. Outside of India Where was his moral position when he told the the south Vietnamese to not to agree to democratic party proposed ceasefire b/c if Nixon is elected he will give them a better deal? And the war continued for 4 years. And ended on the same conditions Where was his morality on extending the war illegally into Cambodia and Laos then denying it? Where was his realism serving moral goals on aiding the coup of a democratically elected government in chile?
NO your statements regarding when a group disregards another groups personal liberties were
I read your statements in view of world history pertaining to the American policies. And those in which other parties personal liberties were violated. Who can claim the compass then ?
Its obvious that I donÂ’t see yours either. Thats life
I have been keenly following this discussion for quite some time and I feel impelled to step in. I would request Bill and Guru both to consider why America and India should co-operate and avoid needlessly pondering over history. In short this let us turn this into a discussion of commonalities. I suppose the times we were born in and our respective histories have fashoined our perceptions rather differently. To the more perceptive Indians the legacy of the Raj still rankles and though we retain more than a passing fondness for the British there is also considerable distaste for the erstwhile policies and action of the british in India – years of oppression and famines and a very bloody parting kick in the form of the partition of India. Add to that the heady post independence years when India was the voice for the oppressed and the colonized and found itself in at odds with most western powers. What rankled to most Indians was that those voicing virtues of democracy and free society were the ones who kind of ganged together to suppress sometimes legitimate grievances of Indians. As the idealistic post independence age gave way to a more cynical age politicians in India adopted a very farcical leftism and consequent anti-americanism. This left the country years behing its peers in developement, encouraged corruptions, sloppiness and a generally lethargic and rhetorical national culture. Any anti-americanism we see in India today is a legacy of this culture not the idealistic one before it. As far as america is concerned even though it has not always lived up to its rhetoric about democracy – one must admit that it has achieved that to a large extent in its own society. I feel that the initial American scepticism about india had to do with the fact that India ( for good or for bad ) played spoilsport in what were essentially American efforts to preserve its freedom and way of life against onslought from communism. India’s suffering under the British had given its intellectual elite and its leadership a pathologically negative and often hypocritical attitude towards America, England and other western powers. America in the the throes of a death struggle with Communism has little patience for this kind of thing. NO major efforts were made to salvage this relationship – and so it remained – lukewarm and uninspiring – until the casue for all this – namely the cold war – was removed from the scene. Let us also remember that for America’s ‘Chile’ there is Indias ‘Hungary’ and for every ‘Vietnam’ there is an ‘Afghanistan’. To put it consicely – both parties have not lived up tot thier professed ideals – wherever events overtook them and they felt that thier national interests were in jeopardy. So it is often futile to argue about the past and point fingers. Now India is increasingly facing a situation that America faced in the turn of the fifties. On its borders China has morphed from rabidly communist to rabidly nationalist – and it grows more powerful by the day. India inspite of all appeasement and false-bonhomie find s that CHina is not willling to relent to India on any count. Seperately America finds a uneasy shift in Balance of power taking place. If we look at the the way international politics works we find that the most dominant powers tend to export thier political philosophies and generally militarily dominate thier backyards. And for a country that thinks that the whole of Asia is thier backyard – one can imagine what it would mean to its neighbours. Irrespective of what others may say I think that India and China are locked in a death struggle. On has to cease to exist in the present form. A democratic India is a constant reminder to a China that there exists a different way of life to thiers. Hence the encirclement and the dismissive treatment of India by China. In due course either India would succumb to rising power of china and consequently fragment or become an also-ran state in Asia or the communist chinese empire would collapse. Both cannot co-exist indefinitely side by side as major powers.
What happens when Communist China is a power comparable to America. Democracy, freedom of expression and belief would take a massive hit. Thugs and dictators everywhere will be emboldened. What makes me say this – just look at China’s best friends today – Pakistan, North Korea, Iran. Saudi Arabia and now an increasingly autocratic Russia – and you know the reason why.
India because of its size, demographics, history and chance is the biggest hedge against this – and I think the biggest hope for the continuance of democracy in the world. It is the biggest hope that history would not slip and hundred years into autocratic governance.
The leadership in both america and India see this coming and are working to turn the tide. National interests yes – but there are larger issues involved here too. It is imperative that both countries work together to forward thier shared interest in a secure democratic future.
Indians owe it not to America but to themselves to make things work this time.
Raj-Chan
I am pragmatic about india developing good relations with US. But i am not blindsighted by fluffy rheotric about worlds largest and the worlds oldest democracies coming together, or US having changed its views about democracies vs dictatorship which mr rice was repeating without evidence. Than raising the morality issue and kissinger is silly. Chinas best friend is not pakistan, but walmart. Similarly Microsoft,Intel,cisco may become india’s friend. The death struggle with china that you raise is quite funny.The death struggle that india faces is with pakistan. China is indias 2nd largest trading partner Indias relation with china is more ambigous than its relation with america. BTW pakistan did get a lot of US aid including military aid after 9/11. Mushies game was to delay purchases of f-16 planes for 3 weeks. He’s recieved the first couple already. Bulk of the payment was funged from american aid and bond offerings. It remains to be seen what pakistan will do with its 5.4billion in aid its received. If history is any guide, it will be used to screw india. US demands that india split up its civilian and military nuclear operations when china pakistan dont have to. Is this a sign of close cooperation with india? Or is it a sign to cut the program. Its not as sophisticated as US’s or japan or china’s for that matter. The alleged game of propping up india as alternate to china is NOT being played out here. India has to work its ass off to get to a ‘superpower’ status. no one gives any free ride. So IMNHO india should adopt a trade and wait attitued with US. Dont give any one that you’d regret later. Remember its india which gave up a UN security council seat earlier and today is begging the world for it.
With due apologies to you I must state that there is a fine line between pragmatism and cynicism. Of course we must not get carried away with overdone rhetoric but the fact remains that this relationship has better potential and depth than the one with USSR which we were once so loud about. However a better relationship with the US must be given the chance it deserves. Here it would be of import to note that the US relationship with the French or Japanese (inspite of problems present and past) is on a qualitatively higher plane than its relationship with China (inspite of all the economic interaction) or for that matter with any other authoritarian states. That is exactly where shared values come in. It offers us something in common. A basis to build relationships on. International relationships being a matter of negotiating from a position of strength – it is futile to expect anyone to give quarter. America’s bad image can be better understood if we look at how India is percieved within its own neighbourhood – inspite of repeated overtures and appeasement of neighbouring states.
I would agree that mixing Kissinger and morality is mixing kerosene with scotch.
China’s best friend may be walmart but China is best friend to the likes of North Korea and Pakistan and Burma and thier ilk.
As far as trading partner is concerned – look at Japan and the US and last but not least Taiwan – they have a larger and deeper volume of trade with China – and just how does thier diplomatic relations measure up? A point to ponder I suppose ? Trade is fine – but it is just one facet of relationship between nations. It never conveys the full picture.
Sure Pakistan did get a lot of aid from the US. Does it not get aid, technology, knowhow etc from China ? The point here is that states that are independent will act independently in a manner that defines thier interest best. Here we need to behave in a way that defines our interest best. The “death-struggle” with Pakistan you mentioned is the manifestation of the same with China. It needs no deep scrutiny to recognize that fact. Only one who looks at a problem squarely in the eye can tackle it – anything else is self-deception. It is here that putting our relationship with communist China in a rather harsh spotlight would help. If we anticipate the worst we plan for the worst. The alternative is of course to treat it as funny.
My point is that a communist china and a democratic India cannot exist in perpetuity in a balance of power scenario. One has to give way in the form of a visible change in ways of governance. I believe that a democratic China would fragment into a number of stable states. I also believe that if India were to have any other form of governance except democracy – it would fragment. Hence the term death struggle. Of course I would rather it was China than India.
As far as the nuclear agreement is concerned do we really have anything to gain by China or Pakistan splitting up thier nuclear infrastructure – so far as we stand to gain from our doing so ? I feel that in terms of a long term energy security strategy it is vital we make this sacrifice now – without unduly worrying about someone else doing the same. Let us understand that neither do we posses the necessary clout to make others behave as we see correct, nor do we retain any definite advantages from clinging on to our decades old positions. We just need to take pragmatic decisions in self interest.
We may think that we deserve superpower status – but to make others recognise us a superpower is a very differenet thing. Small beginings have been made by this governement and the previous ones – this is the time to build on those gains. In the past our internal and external policies , driven by ideological moorings and a warped sensee of past grievances rather than present benefit ensured that we were left far behind in the game of nations. That must not be allowed to happen again. It is therefore in our interest to have a close and stable relationship with the US rhetoric notwithstanding.
Finally we must not trade and wait. We must trade and play – play and accrue all the advantages we can. For history does not favour an also-ran.