The NYT, the Economist and several U.S. congressmen have been on a sanctimonious, anti-India tear after the India-U.S. deal for nuclear power generation.
 |
|
The NYT op/ed committee for Dubya’s South Asia trip |
It’s just baffling why Mr. Bush traveled halfway around the world to stand right next to one of his most important allies against terrorists — and embarrass him… when Mr. Bush agreed to carve out an exception to global nonproliferation rules for India, it should have been obvious that Pakistani opinion would demand the same privileged treatment… [Link]
Fast-forward to Thursday’s nuclear deal with India, in which President Bush agreed to share civilian nuclear technology with India despite its nuclear weapons programs and its refusal to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty… This would be a bad idea at any time… Mr. Bush might as well have tied a pretty red bow around his India nuclear deal and mailed it as a gift to Tehran. [Link]
President Bush wants to carve out an exception for India. That’s the worst possible message to send to other countries — Iran comes to mind — that America and its nuclear allies in Europe are trying to keep off the nuclear weapons bandwagon. Already, Pakistani officials are requesting the same deal for their country, although it is a request that is unlikely to be granted. Congress would have to approve this nuclear deal, and it should kill it. [Link]
What has emerged on Capitol Hill is an alliance of conservative Republicans, who are concerned that the deal will encourage Iranian intransigence, and liberal Democrats, who charge that the Bush administration has effectively scrapped the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty… “People are worried about the precedent of establishing a full-fledged cooperation with India while we’re wagging our finger at North Korea and Iran”…
“This deal not only lets India amass as many nuclear weapons as it wants, it looks like we made no effort to try to curtail them,” said George Perkovich, vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “This is Santa Claus negotiating. The goal seems to have been to give away as much as possible.” [Link]
The Economist even quotes A Passage to India, a landmark of colonialist literature, and puns on a fakir’s rope trick. Stylistically, it’s a retrograde embarrassment:
George Bush could do a lot worse than to put aside his briefing books and curl up instead with E.M. Forster’s best-known novel… In July, when India’s prime minister, Manmohan Singh, visited Washington, he came home with a remarkable present: a promise from Mr Bush that he would aim to share American civilian nuclear technology with India. That was too generous… Mr. Bush, in effect, was driving a coach and horses through the treaty in order to suit his own strategic ends… [Link]
<
p>Unilateral nuclear disarmament is a pipe dream. Can you imagine any scenario in which the U.S. would scrap its nukes with two nuclear-armed neighbors parked on its borders? It ain’t gonna happen. Nobody’s going to eliminate their nukes any time soon — not India, which has been processing plutonium since 1964; not Pakistan; and not Israel. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, now almost 40 years old, is outdated and in need of severe amendment to recognize de facto nuclear states and distinguish between responsible actors and bad ones.
<
p>If preventing future prolif is the goal, you have to focus on the nuclear merchants: Pakistan, China and North Korea. Analysts say India has never sold nukes to other countries. And the NYT’s concern for Musharraf’s feelings is truly precious. Successive Pakistani military dictatorships have created the very problems they want to be rewarded for solving. Bin Laden most likely sits in Pakistan this very day. The Pakistani military has been one of the most irresponsible nuke proliferators for 20 years — that’s blackmail, not alliance.
<
p>Comparing India and Iran is laughable. Iran is hardly as important to the U.S.’ future as India. With 68M people, it has only 6% of India’s population and 14% its PPP-adjusted GDP, largely from state-owned oil rather than a healthy, organic economy. Iran has attacked U.S. troops and sponsored acts of terrorism against the U.S.; India has never done so. Iran is an Islamist mullahcracy; India is a secular democracy. Iran signed and then broke the NPT; India has never said it would sign. Discussing India in the same breath as Iran makes about as much sense as demanding that America disarm to spare Libya’s feelings. It’s about as silly as defining ‘East’ Indians in terms of the West Indies (4% of India’s population).
<
p>
You don’t go to the U.N. and say ‘the India deal tarnishes the Iran argument,’ or ‘India is a special exemption,’ or ‘we’re doing India a favor.’ You go to the U.N. and tell them that trying to compare the world’s sixth-largest GDP (PPP-adjusted), a country with more purchasing power than Germany, the UK, Russia, Canada, South Korea and Taiwan, a country which is the second-largest arms importer in the world, with Iran is simply asinine:
“The comparison between India and Iran is just ludicrous,” R. Nicholas Burns, the under secretary of state for political affairs, said… “India is a highly democratic, peaceful, stable state that has not proliferated nuclear weapons. Iran is an autocratic state mistrusted by nearly all countries and that has violated its international commitments.” [Link]<
p>… we are somehow supposed to believe that by favoring India, Bush has made it much harder to put pressure on Iran… This overlooks the fact that Iran is governed by a zealot who has pledged to eradicate Israel and who firmly believes in the inherent evil of the United States of America… No one worries about India or Israel making the technology available to terrorists. Everyone worries about Iran doing that. These are distinctions with great differences. [Link – thanks, WGIIA]
<
p>And India and North Korea? Please. If you want to talk double standards, let’s talk coddling authoritarian states (China), proliferators (China and Pakistan) and supporters of terrorism (Pakistan) while jawboning the world’s largest democratic republic.
<
p>It’s all big steaming piles of shitpocrisy.
Dubya’s motive in pushing this deal is to shore up the country which runs the Fortune 500’s back room and has the world’s second-largest consumer market. And he’s trying to eliminate a competitor for oil field rights by helping India switch over to clean nuclear technology.
These rags are suffering post-ColdWar-onial hangover. It is against American interests to oppose this deal.
Thank you for writing/posting this. I’ve been very much annoyed reading the editorials re: India/U.S., especially the ones in the New York Times, and haven’t been able to articulate my displeasure. You’ve done it (of course) better than I ever could.
Not only US wont scrap its nukes, US is building the next generation “bunker buster” nukes.
We have seen the “liberal”-ness of the liberal Democrats in the whole Dubai Ports deal issue.
It is in America’s interest, it needs another ally to balance off with China. But Dr. Singh is a smart man, he knows this and he is using this to his and India’s advantage.
Manish
Thanks from me for posting this too. The NYT has completely disillusioned and lost me, though it used to be my fav paper until this nuclear issue. I just don’t understand the need for one vitriolic anti-India editorial a day with no attempt at fairness.
It’s kinda annoying to find myself so completely on the side of GWB for once. His visit to India was actually pretty statesman-like. No gaffes, no bushisms, very articulate, and friendly. I only wish the liberals on this side of the world actually took the time to update themselves about India, instead of trying to preserve it as their pet ‘poor starving nation” cause.
I’m actually curious. What is it with democrats/liberals that they are so virulently anti-India with this deal? I think I’m missing some historical context here. Is it just that they are very pro-NPT or is there something else?
Some of the hate is politics…..NYT has to criticize everything Bush does as a matter of principle. Second…There is a lot of lobby money from China and Islamic countries pouring in that will oppose the deal. Passage through congress will be tough given these scenarios.
It’s kinda annoying to find myself so completely on the side of GWB for once. His visit to India was actually pretty statesman-like. No gaffes, no bushisms, very articulate, and friendly. I only wish the liberals on this side of the world actually took the time to update themselves about India, instead of trying to preserve it as their pet ‘poor starving nation” cause.
I think George Bush has engendered tremendous good will among the usually Democratic-leaning Indian-Americans -everyone I talked to loved this trip. And then there was his speech about the “great civilization” that contributed to mathematics and initiated world religions. If he wasn’t President of the US, he would be tarred a Hindutva-vaadi by now 🙂
“What is it with democrats/liberals that they are so virulently anti-India with this deal? I think I’m missing some historical context here. Is it just that they are very pro-NPT or is there something else?”
Bush’s ratings are down after the whole port-security contract issue with a Dubai based company, they just want to hurt him more and kick him when he is down.
It’ll be soon when somebody goes dick-cheney on their ass!
Simple. They are leftists. And leftists do not like it when countries dismantle their bureaucracy, sell off state-owned white elephant enterprises, open up the economy to free market competition, remove barriers to trade, provide tax incentives to start businesses, free-trade zones, etc etc etc. And India is doing all of this and more, giving the term Hindu Rate of growth a whole new meaning.. And that’s something NY Times cannot stand.
M. Nam
Manish, not only is the logic of these guys laughable when comparing India and the other states, but it is flat out wrong.
The President approached India because it has one thing, which is critical to any relationship (political or personal) – India can be trusted. Plenty of nuclear energy around the world, and several guys on the block have the ability to weaponize immediately if desired (Japan, SK).
Those who compare India to Iran and North Korea don’t understand what the gesture means. It says,”Since you guys are transparent (IAEA inspections on civilian stuff), have a trustworthy, responsible record, we’ll do business with you. NSG nations will supply you with fuel and reactors, you keep your economy booming, we all make money. Welcome to the Global economy.”
A rare pro-India-U.S. deal in the U.S. press:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/06/AR2006030601614.html?sub=AR
not a big Bush fan or U.S. foreign policy fan. although I can see some merit in some of the arguments against the deal, both by Americans and Indians, some of the columns against the deal seem to be based on a deeper resentment of some sort.
Wow. This is the worst post you’ve ever written, Manish. Did you violate the first commandment of bloggers — Never write in Anger?
The US still holds to and supports the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty. No US gvt has renounced it. Non-proliferation is still a US goal. Sharing nuke tech with a decalred nuclear power that is a non-signatory is contrary to established US policy. The NYTimes and the Economist are correct to point this out (they are also correct to point out that Pakistan matters to the USA, and this its perspective must be taken into account when evaluating the US national interest).
You may be unhappy with the NNP treaty. Fine. You can write a post arguing that it is in the US interest to single out India for special treatment. But shitting on the NYT and the Economist for pointing out the obvious discrepancy between past policy and present actions is wrong. And gratuitously insulting E.M Forster is beneath this site.
Note: The US will NOT be the only country to benefit from this deal. Once India opens up and the basic protocols are in place, the French, Russians, Australians (who have the worlds largest Uranium deposits), etc. all are keen to see what they can get. India, under soviet deals, was getting reactors. A couple are still being built under those deals. But under newer regulations, they cannot provide more help. The French, who have most of their electricity generated by Nuclear Power, are rubbing their hands. Chirac signed a similar deal with MMS, that Bush and MMS signed up to last year. The French didn’t want to take the first step (and heat that goes along with it), but they’ll sure as hell want a piece of it.
India also has safeguards on it’s weapons programs. From what was rumored or written, the delivery systems, warheads, and denonating devices are kept seperate. But if attacked, India could respond within a very short time by putting them together and counter striking. I’m sure others probably know better, if so, please correct me.
SMers,
Cynical Nerd has invested a lot of time and energy writing on US-Indo Nuclear Deal. Do visit his blog.
One thing he is saying that is very important, “The games have just begun, everyone should do their bit within the entire diapora“. China has started their PR machine that needs to be countered.
Even if it is a symbolic deal, it holds a lot for India if it plays out well.
I was surfing channels this past Sunday, and what I got out of all these ‘open forums’ (Meet the Press etc.) is that there is a lot of old school thinking (cold-war era) still left amongst these journalists. They still sorta resent India for not siding with the US during the cold war. And unfortunately its these folks who try and shape public opinion / policy.
But Manish, that was a good write up. You should send a copy to the NYT.
Btw, it was always known that Bush was good for India.
Yes, please :).
And heÂ’s trying to eliminate a competitor for oil field rights by helping India switch over to clean nuclear technology. Manish,
I am a big fan of the deal for multiple reasons. I have given huge ++ points to President Bush for this.
However, the deal is not a silver bullet. Currently, India’s energy budget includes 3% as nuclear. In the best case scenario, experts believe that it can be raised to 10%, maybe.
The most important thing is moves India into a league as a responisble nuclear nation with great potential for commerce – huge $$$$$
Ikram, whats more important?
a) A country who signed the NPT, yet violates it.
b) A country who never signed it, yet abides by its intentions.
What the anti-nuke deal guys are missing is that shitting on Bush for changing outdated policy reeks of ignorance and an obsolete mindset. Yea, the devil is in the details, and that needs to be ironed out, but the intent is to recongize the BENEFITS of not proliferating (respect, mutual benefits, business, MORE MONEY, WOO WOO). There is a reason the deal still needs ratification in Congress, because as it stands, without their approval, its illegal.
It seems the NYT is on a role here. While I know that they have every right to report this news
http://nytimes.com/2006/03/07/international/asia/07cnd-india.html?hp&ex=1141794000&en=dec462d9fa79210b&ei=5094&partner=homepage
The stench of bias against India is overwhelming. Following on the tails of the editorials, we have every right to be suspicious that the Times is trying to discredit India in American minds. It portrays India as unstable, sectarian ruled country. I, for one, am utterly disgusted.
Did you violate the first commandment of bloggers — Never write in Anger?
Somehow I don’t think that’s the recipe for either interesting writing or a successful blog 😉
Sharing nuke tech with a decalred nuclear power that is a non-signatory is contrary to established US policy… they are also correct to point out that Pakistan matters to the USA…
Perhaps you missed the policy critique:
This is the worst post you’ve ever written, Manish.
But I give you so many to choose from! 😉
And gratuitously insulting E.M Forster is beneath this site.
I hear E.M. Forster’s momma looked like a monkey.
Sharing nuke tech with a decalred nuclear power that is a non-signatory is contrary to established US policy. The NYTimes and the Economist are correct to point this out (they are also correct to point out that Pakistan matters to the USA, and this its perspective must be taken into account when evaluating the US national interest).
fair enough. i can see why advocates of the NNPT would be upset. However, the NYT and Economist should also realize that from India’s viewpoint, bestowing millions of dollars on an unstable dictatorship like Pakistan, a known nuclear proliferator that had close ties to the Taliban, a sponsor of cross-border terrorism (but wink, wink, who cares about the eastern border, it’s the western border with afghanistan that matters to the West), for the sake of expediency (aka ‘partner in war on terror). long before this deal, china also violated NNPT by giving technology to Pakistan, so it’s hardly earth shattering.
should read for the sake of expediency (aka ‘partner in war on terror) also reeks of hypocrisy.
If anyone is interested in finding out whats going on in the neighborhood, here is an excellent article on how China plans to contain India.
Manish,
I read NYT everyday for last ~20 years. I been reading The Econimist for ~10 years. I do not like one bit what they are saying even though I listen to them carefully.
Even Larry Pressler (of Pressler amendment fame) himself has written quite a few times in NYT in favor of the deal. Please do check their Times Subscription database.
NYT and The Economist are great. I do not have buy everything they say. They are wrong on this one – NPT has been a dead horse for a while. One word – Israel. Bush is thinking long term – an ally in South-Central Asia for 20-30 years.
I do not believe in organized religion and unlimited devotion to anything – be it NYT, The Economist, maybe, Priyanka Chopra.
oh no it’s not 😛
Kush: The cynical nerd blog is money.
An Indian take on why Bush got all snarky in Pakistan.
The NYT isn’t anti India or anti Arab. It just doesn’t like George Bush. That’s why the out of character editorials in this liberal paper opposing both the ports and nuclear deals. I wonder if they’d opine the same way were Bill Clinton the president.
it’s an open secret that the U.S. has proliferated by aiding Israel’s nuclear program. what do the NYT and all these u.s. politicians have to say about that?
Pressler is as pro-India as they get. Of course he has financial interests in India too. But that being said, the tone of most liberal publication against India is more because of their hatred towards Dubya.
“Of course he has financial interests in India too.”
Yeah!! Larry Pressler is on the Infosys board. Good for him.
This is from Andrew Sullivan’s blog:
“The Israeli bomb threatens nobody. An Iranian bomb does. India has transferred its nuclear technology to no one. Pakistan has. No one worries about India or Israel making the technology available to terrorists. Everyone worries about Iran doing that. These are distinctions with great differences. They are, as critics charge, double standards, but to apply a single standard to both friend and enemy, while it might be fair, would be singularly stupid,” – Richard Cohen, making abundant sense, in the WaPo today.
Great post Manish. Totally level-headed and not at all a rant even if accused of being one. Defintely send an abridged version of it to the NYT. Let’s see if they print it.
Manish — So your goal is to have SM read like Powerline or DailyKos? Badly written partisan rants, demonization of the enemy, and dishonest punditry? If only I could channel the ghost of Saurav and give you the tongue-lashing you deserve!
Yes, you had a policy argument in your post. But you wrapped it in an emotional Indian-American rant.
Anyway, I do recommend that people click through to read both Economist articles. I’m not a huge fan of the magazine’s present incarnation (too American), but the article(s) are even-handed and fair. And even shitpocrisy free!
Good for him and good for India. The more on our side the better. Just thought I should point out he may not doing it entirely out of the goodness of his heart.
Good show Manish. Did you guys check out Charlie Rose’s interview of Nicholas Burns? It was like an India-love-fest. And despite Charlie’s textbook insistence on comparing US-India relations with US-Iran relations, Ambassador Burns was quite emphatic, even going as far as saying that even though in theory there might be room for a comparison, but in the read world, India is quite different from Iran or any other countries. Yes, Mr. Burns get it.
Firstly, double standards are the standard in politics and policy, so this is nothing new.
Secondly, even as a Pakistani, giving India the nuclear deal was warranted – India has been a responsible democracy and this relieves demand pressure off energy commodities like oil and natural gas – which is good for developing countries with high fossil fuel dependance. This is actually good for Pakistan – it encourages us to clean our act up. Note: I do not subscribe to the traditional notion that what is good for India is bad for Pakistan – both countries have to break out of this mode of thought.
Finally, the Americans are starting to realize the possibility of the end of the American hegemony. America’s economic supremacy isn’t what it used to be, and recent developments have startled people. The reactions to transactions have been very telling – from the Unocal deal, the textile quotas, yuan re-evaluation and to the ports fiasco. The Arcelor deal also smacks of similar reactions. Westerners weren’t expecting the Asian century to come so quickly.
sam,
politics is not being religious zealot. you pick and choose what you support (according to your conscience, real politick, whatever you suits you). there are unquestioned observance.
for example, centrists often reserve their support case-by-case basis.
you may support bush all the time, you may not. you may never.
From a US perspective this deal makes no sense. The have nothing to gain from it. Economic Interest? Please. A revenue new stram of even $10 bn is nothing to US gov’t. India clearly got the better end of it. It allows them to still produce nukes and get the same benefits that are offered in the NPT.
Personally I don’t think that nukes are that useful in any military confrontation. Rather than enhancing your offensive power they limit it. Having nukes makes a nation less likely and able to take bold military decisions. And you can’t really use nukes with international condemnation.
Yes – part of the reaction is Cold War hangover, part is that people haven’t adjusted to the speed with which India, and to some extent Pakistan, are rising economically. Blink and you’ll miss it.
From a US perspective this deal makes no sense. The have nothing to gain from it.
Personally I don’t think that nukes are that useful in any military confrontation.
True in some cases, but AFAIK no nuclear-armed nation has ever been invaded (excluding a China/Russia border skirmish).
Manish,
I always knew you had it in you.
Richard Cohen (not a great friend of the President) basically agrees with you. Even the venerable NYT (still the best newspaper this side of the Atlantic) and the Economist (the best magazine) get it wrong sometimes.
But, I will have to disagree with you on the colonial ref. I think has Ikram pointed out that was emotional and not neccessary for this post.
Winning a war isn’t just a military endeavor. It uses all political, diplomatic, economic, and military muscle. Nukes do have political use, but not everywhere. Evidence refutes your assertion that countries can’t make ‘bold moves’. Israel, the United States, GB, and the USSR/Russia have made military bold moves while holding back their nuclear arsenals.
Great post.
The NYT’s unrelenting, rubbish editorials are almost becoming funny.
This is a great deal both morally AND strategically for the United States. The alternative is no deal, 1 billion people forced to scrounge around for other sources of energy [cue the inevitable sombre NYT editorial about the inappropriateness of Indian deals with Sudan and Iran], while India continues to develop her nuclear power indigenously and in secret. This way, at least 14 of 22 Indian nuclear reactors will be subject to international inspections “in perpetuity,” while India comes to rely (at least in part) on Western sources of fuel.
The deal is part of a wider quid-pro-quo between India and the US. India’s previous petroleum minister (pro-Iran) had an ambitious plan to create an oil and gas zone that stretched from Central Asia to Japan, connected through pipelines. That man was suddenly demoted around the time that negotiations between India and the US became thick and heavy; the dream of a vast gas-oil-grid will become a distant memory. The world needs to develop new sources of energy. Must it continue to be hostage to stalwart nations such as Saudi A, Sudan, et al?
But shitting on the NYT and the Economist for pointing out the obvious discrepancy between past policy and present actions is wrong.
Pray tell WHY? Is US geo-strategic policy supposed to be in cryogenic freeze for all eternity?
From a US perspective this deal makes no sense. The have nothing to gain from it.
I think Bush might be thinking about his legacy when he decided to make the deal. On PBS’s News Hour Kurt Campbell , director of the International Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. He served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for Asia and the Pacific in the Clinton administration.
said the following:
Manish,
Sorry to contradict you, but what about Pakistan’s invasion of Indian Kashmir (Kargil etc) a couple of years ago ?
Having said that, maybe that’s just one exception to your statement. I can’t think of any others either.
Well-written article, by the way.
True– another border skirmish though, not really the heartland (and thanks).
RC
It hasnt gone thru. Congress still needs to approve. This is just the start. Mud slinging is about to begin. sit back and enjoy. But sooner or later it will go thru. The desi community in NJ and CA is banaly leftist from school boards to presedentialy election. It will be interesting to see how many support the republicans now.
Yes! That NYTimes editorial was so over the top jimmie koi hasab ne si. thank you for writing about that!
“But sooner or later it will go thru. “
GGK,
Exactly. The US-China fissible material deal took 13 years.
This deal needs supporters involved with real stamina on both sides.
Allow me to go against the grain. I don’t buy Manish’s take on this at all. And not from an anti-Indian perspective (I think India is potentially getting very little out of this in return for scratching Bush’s back).
For a start: Iran signed and then broke the NPT; Iran hasn’t broken the NPT AFAIK. Currently it is still within its rights and not violating any deal, despite all the bruahaha in the media.
Now, starting with the article.
Unilateral nuclear disarmament is a pipe dream. Can you imagine any scenario in which the U.S. would scrap its nukes with two nuclear-armed neighbors parked on its borders? It ainÂ’t gonna happen
Agreed – except this is exactly what Iran is also going to say. So for the USA to then turn around and say “well, it doesn’t matter we don’t support people who allow the proliferation of nukes” is going to look might hypocritical.
So while the USA is referring Iran to the Security Council, this deal with India is very hypocritical.
Successive Pakistani military dictatorships have created the very problems they want to be rewarded for solving I agree with that… but I’d characterise it rather as problems they’ve been ignoring rather than actively creating. The army and elite in Pakistan is quite secular compared to the villagers.
Comparing India and Iran is laughable. Iran is hardly as important to the U.S.Â’ future as India.
Me thinks the reference here is around the current “controversy” on referring Iran to the Security Council. Considering that there is talk in neo-con circles about “taking out” Iran before it threatens the world with its nukes, I’d say Iran is higher on the US agenda than India is. This is no reflection on each’s economic might.
You go to the U.N. and tell them that trying to compare the worldÂ’s sixth-largest GDP (PPP-adjusted),
Yeah – see I don’t agree with this policy either. This is once again about the mighty being able to do what they want and the poor/small being dictated to. It only breeds resentment. Why should any Iranian take that argument at face value? Just because there are a billion Indians means they have a right over 68 million Iranians to develop nukes? International law, if it is to mean anything, should mean the same rules apply to everyone, otherwise its just an extention of US foreign policy.
ItÂ’s all big steaming piles of shitpocrisy.
Yes – that’s American foreign policy for the last… erm 100 years or so.
This is very little do with democracy or who will proliferate, so using that argument is kinda baseless. When I lived in India as a little critter, everyone loved the Russians and hated the Americans because that is how Indian foreign policy played out. The Soviets were friends, while America favoured Pakistan.
Now America favours India because it has woken up to the middle class, and because they need a strong friend in the region while China starts flexing its diplomatic muscles.
The US would also desperately love for India and Pak to shelve the pipeline they’re proposing from Iran all the way through Pak, India and to East Asia. Though Bush said in Pak he was not really opposed to it, I don’t believe him on that. They eventually want to tie in India to its own nuclear technology rather than having the country become entirely independent.
There is so much politics and backstabbing in all this…. I love Realpolitik. American foreign policy has always been about what is good for America, not who is a democracy and is does not give secrets to terrorists. So for those questioning Bush over his decision – they’re doing it in the spirit of what is right for America, not what is right in general.