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.
Its funny the same people who oppose the deal with India, have no problems with Israel getting the Nukes with US help.
Lets compare India with Israel.
Israel is currently occupying land which belongs to Palestine, Jordan, Syria and Egypt(till recently). It is sujugating a whole native population and is the single biggest source of instability in the world while India has never occupied any nation nor does have intention of occupying any nation. India has not occupied a single inch of any of its neighbors and has in fact lost territory to China.
Israel is a racist, quasi apartheid state where the main minority community cannot even join the military and till late 90’s the Israeli Arabs were even prevented from buying land, conducting business because of severe restrictions under Anti-Arab zoning laws in Israel while India is secular democracy albeit with hiccups like Gujarat, Delhi but there is no institutional discrimination against anyone. India has a Muslim president and a Sikh prime minister.
Israel continues to occupy and expand its settlements. The Zionist land grab continues even as we speak with more settlements, more bulldozing, more displacement of the native population every day while India is headed towards becoming a truly liberal democracy, exercises tremendous restraint when provoked and is basically a force for good in that part of the world.
Israel was founded on land grab by crazed Zionists terrorist groups like Irgun and Lohamei Herut Israel who massacred civilians, killed UN mediators, British envoys, ethnically cleansed the indigenous population and the terrorists later became the leaders of Israel while India was founded on the principles of secularism with a freedom struggle which pioneered non-violence and did not start a war even to stop the partitioning of its country.
I dont see any editorials condemning the US arming of that obscene nation. The hypocrisy of NYTimes, Economist and the US Congressmen is indeed infuriating.
I think as Fareed put it best, lecturing India on Nuclear proliferation hasnt really worked, so maybe including India in the community of nuclear nations is not that bad an idea. India has acted responsibly and should be rewarded for the progress it has made. When Pakistan stops proliferating nuclear technology and Iran stops acting crazy, they can also get the same technology.
taliban was a creation of pakistani army
International law is bullshit promoted to keep the europeans in the game till asians take it over. International relations are power game. The brits were the lousiest player in the game
The biggest mistake US did was to help UK get the bomb.
The biggest mistake US did was to help UK get the bomb.
Why is that? The UK has been an excellent ally.
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.
How the hell did India get a better deal? They were producing nukes anyway and planning to carry on developing their own technology. Now they have US blessings. Well whoopydoo! To me this deal makes no sense from India’s viewpoint. All the Indian newspapers are drooling over Bush as if Vishnu’s re-incarnated again. This lame-duck president will be out in a few years, and castrated before that. So excuse me for not being able to gather my enthusiasm. It might be preferable for India to have tighter economic relations with the USA (though I would prefer them with China and Pakistan), but it’s not as if a huge amount of technology is going India’s way.
International law is bullshit promoted to keep the europeans in the game till asians take it over. International relations are power game. The brits were the lousiest player in the game
Well forgive me for asking that every country gets treated equally. Obviously might is right and all that, we might as well forget any sense of fairness and all that.
Even if I buy that, all it means is that for the next 50 years India keeps sucking up to anyone so its power can be “recognised”. To me this is like one big inferiority complex: “Don’t you know us Indians are an upcoming power and important – how dare you not give us the respect we deserve?”, and throw the toys out of the pram until someone throws the country a sweetner.
This is what happens to the UK. We desperately follow Bush in a belief that it buys us some influence over Bush and the rest of the world, yet it gets neither. The goddamn US govt can’t even be asked to follow through with an extradition policy around sex offenders: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,200-2073035,00.html
I’d hate for India to become another US lapdog.
from an NPT like arguement you can see that is how the game began. UK has been an ally that america has had to bail out mostly.
India did not suck up to the US, It offered US the same deal since regan administration whenever this issue was brought with US.
“How the hell did India get a better deal? They were producing nukes anyway and planning to carry on developing their own technology. Now they have US blessings. “
Sunny,
1) Indian nuclear facilities are aging fast. 2) The heavy water supply is being reduced to droplets. 3) If civilian nuclear facilities are at par with world standards through US/ France/ NSG, then it contributes to easing the energy crunch.
I still believe India needs to be very agressively pursuing fossil fuel portfolio no matter what happens to the nuclear deal.
Absolutely brilliant post. Should be mandatory reading for all those who seek to lump India with rogue nations.
The New York Times is the same paper that gave us that shining star of journalism Walter”what Ukrainian famine ?” Duranty… I think that sets the level for their journalistic standards.
I hear E.M. Forster’s momma looked like a monkey.
The bunch at the NYT and the Economist who came up with all the twisted logic should go screw themselves, what a bunch of stiffs!
Excellent post, Manish! One has to wonder whose interests the NYTimes represents.
I brought this up the other day with the family (all registered voters, and active in local politics) over dinner:
We, as the Indian Diaspora, should attempt to make our feelings known on the issue of American nuclear fuel to India by influencing the people that count, our elected officials. Before we give you our votes, you must give us your stance.
Elections are coming up (primaries) in many locales this month, and November is looming on the horizon. What’s stopping you or me from emailing my congressman and senator, governor, and heck even alderman, local councilman (or women…you get the idea)?
Grassroots lobbying for what we clearly know is a win-win situation for the USA (counterweight against Chinese hegemony, aiding the development of a gigantic market for American goods and services, ease on global oil/gas demand) and India (energy to fuel power-hungry economic expansion, which will transform the poor and rural into an educated and empowered force for the 21st century, and strategic security through ease on demand for “weapon’s grade” uranium).
And while you’re at it, add a little P.S. along the lines of “And please support India in her bid for a seat on the UN Security Council.”
Post #63 – Pravasi – I agree with you 100%. Excellent writeup Manish.
Now Tom Friedman is lamenting too. From today’s NYT. Some exerpts:
“India is a country that had me at hello. Call me biased, but I have a soft spot for countries of one billion people, speaking a hundred different languages and practicing a variety of religions, whose people hold regular free and fair elections and, despite massive poverty, still produce generations of doctors and engineers who help to make the world a more productive and peaceful place.”
…………………
“India deserves to be treated differently than Iran. But we can’t do it in a way that could melt down the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and foster a nuclear arms race in South Asia.”
I think Tom is missing that nuclear race has been going on South Asian for a while and a deal like this acts as a deterrent – India will never become a runaway nation (not that it was trying too)
Gulab – India did not suck up to the US, It offered US the same deal since regan administration whenever this issue was brought with US.
Except both countries have moved on significantly, specially India, since then. The country is no longer as reliant on external transfers of technology.
Kush: 1) Indian nuclear facilities are aging fast. 2) The heavy water supply is being reduced to droplets. 3) If civilian nuclear facilities are at par with world standards through US/ France/ NSG, then it contributes to easing the energy crunch.
Clear something up for me Kush – USA is not promising to spend money to upgrade India’s facilities is it? The UK’s nuclear facilities are aging fast too but that doesn’t mean its gonna die. India has spent time and money investing in nuclear tech, and it has to keep investing in power plants anyway. I don’t see how the USA deal affects that.
India’s nuke technology may not be developed worlds standard yet (I don’t know enough), but at least it has spent time building its own knowledge infrastructure in the last 30 years or so. And I’d like to see that continuing rather than being “persuaded” by the US to fit into its own realpolitik posturing.
I wrote a piece recently titled ‘Is India selling out‘ which probably explains more where I’m coming from.
Kush
India is OK wrt heavy water but there are other major problems for india they are lack of uranium Australia is sitting on 30% and has consistently refused to sell it any. Scalability of reactor, the indegenous program does not have a GWatt reactor yet. Its much cheaper to go ahead and buy rather than spend a few billion scaling up the design (and still no uranium) The control and monitor sensors etc, India has these developed localy but the ones coming from US/Germany are much better(and of course the issue is will they work on a larger reactors). The thorium reactors prototypes are somewhat successful they will helpout in due course.
I agree with you on the need to go after fossil fuel as well as stepping up energy research in areas where the payoff is obvious eg more money for thorium project(not a research project any more, more of an engineering challenge) looking into chemical processes to get rid of high ash in indias coal
wrong again, If so india would have made a successful GWatt reactor. it did not! even if it did no one is selling india any uranium, especialy the consortium lead by UK,Australia,and their cousin to the north canada.
“USA is not promising to spend money to upgrade India’s facilities is it?”
No. They are just letting India to buy the stuff from US/ France/ Australia that was out of bounds before. Their options are almost nothing as Russia (then USSR) and Canada (past suppliers of nuclear technology to India) are no longer allowed to. You can go so far home-grown.
Sunny, I understand where you are coming from and there is nothing wrong. But you have to see in terms that should India be kept in isolation in a crucial field.
The NYT has been quite anti-India for a very long time. I remember reading some of Barbara Crossette’s columns from the past and thinking, “what the hell?”
Kush – ok I’ll buy your argument that India needs technology in this area to move forward. I’m just cynical of US administration moves because they’re usually for self-benefit and hardly ever about helping others altruistically.
I neverthless feel that the whole focus on nuclear technology is a bit of macho posturing from an Indian perspective – the country could deal with energy shortages if it invested more in not letting its existing output go to waste or be pilfered by local operators.
An arms race has been taking place in South Asia, but I see no reason to carry it on. Essentially it’s a crude dick-size comparing exercise and I hate it. Just take the above ‘and please sign a petition so India can get a permanent seat on the UN’.
I mean really, I couldn’t give a flying fuck for a permenent seat – it’s one of those pet projects of right-wing diaspora (and Indians in India) kids who worry more about the country’s international standing than about the 300 million who live on less than a dollar a day. What will a permanent seat get you? Will it feed people? Like hell it will.
Randeep Ramesh has written a piece in today’s Guardian which has a much better analysis than the American press: http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,,1726269,00.html though interestingly he previously questioned whether the deal was good enough for India (as I did), but now comes to the conclusion that it is. Hmmmm…
How the hell is it macho posturing when every media outlet gave indian nuclear deal a mixed review. At 1st stage the deal is about uranium for existing reactors designated as civilian second stage will be about selling india larger and more efficient reactors. And there is no energy pilfered by local operators The operator is essentialy the state, and hell they know which slum has being stealing electricity and guess what they allow it its almost an analog to social services. In sum slums they even started placing meters over time. Its Desotian(Hernando Desoto that is) in approach your rant against the deal was on par with that regarding imf and world bank. The US is not in it for altruism but its a deal in which both parties benifit.
it’s one of those pet projects of right-wing diaspora (and Indians in India) kids who worry more about the country’s international standing than about the 300 million who live on less than a dollar a day.
ohmigosh that’s SO true. Because there’s absolutely no way these people could care about India’s international standing and the 300 million who live on less than a dollar a day.
every media outlet gave indian nuclear deal a mixed review That’s not what I read, in the Indian MSM and from some blogs. Manish for example starts from the assumption in this piece that the American press is anti-India because (a) They’re comparing India to Pak and Iran and (b) India has a right to nukes. I’m all for the country being self-sufficient in energy and technology (even nuke technology), but I’m not convinced building nuke weapons is necessary.
And there is no energy pilfered by local operators WTF? Have you ever lived in India?
Because there’s absolutely no way these people could care about India’s international standing and the 300 million who live on less than a dollar a day.
You choose to make that leap of faith – I don’t. I see the slavish desire for international recognition almost analogous to colonial mentality. As if India is not getting its due without being invited into private western clubs.
Nonsense! It is about security. Its about the veto if need arises. In your ‘asian’ mentality you have created a anti-US vs pro-US lapdog mentality. Beyond that not given a single fact but indulge in your rants.
“And there is no energy pilfered by local operators”
Yes, it is true that a lot of energy is pilfered by local operators.
However,
To sustain 8-9% annual growth, India needs all the help/ resources for energy needs they can get and then some. Their home base is mostly coal, and they are running out. Bombay High (India’s largest oil field) is depleting fast. New oil and gas discoveries are good news but not even a droplet for the “new” thirst. Stopping leakage alone will do nothing to maintain 8-9% growth rate. Cities in India as of today have 4-5 hours daily power outage – that is the ground reality.
If you read all my comments, I do not believe this nuclear deal is a silver bullet. But it can help shore up ~10% energy needs in future and that is very crucial.
In fact, India should be as agressive as China and Japan in hunting for their energy needs. Japan is embracing Russia (centuries old animosity aside) and will dump $$$$ for the Islands for oil and gas that once were Japanese.
Real politick and some hard-nosed economics, my friend.
Everything nations do is first in the interest of said country. In international politics, rarely does anyone help others alturistically. There is something in it for everyone, and that isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Bottom line is each nation needs to negotiate the best deal it can for itself.
India has huge coal reserves, albeit not top grade. Clean coal technologies, natural gas, Nuclear power, renewable energy sources, etc. all factor into creating a sufficient base for energy.
Not trusting the United States is understandable, not trusting India is understandable, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t emotional reactions driven by a sense of insecurity. India, despite its home grown expertise, has limited options to fuel the fundamental infrastructure that would propel it further. Wait for the thorium cycle, home grown solutions, etc, or get an infusion of technology with limited barriers. More money in the govt’s coffers for the future means more resources for further research and development.
Looks like SMeditors removed my last comment Read my post about state being the operator and it being aware of the energy theft. In New Delhi the slums take 30% of electricity and the state accepts that, for political as well as humanistic reason
yes i have, Currently i am a US citizen, I just applied for US citizen ship now b/c india allowed dual citizenship.
My mistake it should say currently i am indian citizen
Sunny,
On comment 13, I directed people to Cynical Nerd. He has written about a half dozen posts with lot of home work. Please read him, and see what you think. I think he lives in Europe but is Indian.
Apart Manish’s write-up, read Larry Pressler’s view for American advantage in the Indo-US nuclear deal.
I think you are getting caught up in London coffee house world view. Sure, they are lot of Indians in India that are leery of the deal but they are also suffering from cold war/ Bhopal gas tragedy fatigue. I credit Prime Minister Singh for looking beyond that.
I see the slavish desire for international recognition almost analogous to colonial mentality.
Sunny- your refusal to attribute cold-headed deal making to Indians is what’s colonial. This is a deal that’s been pushed by THREE successive democratically elected Indian governments (Congress AND BJP). Why assume that Manmohan Singh’s government suddenly woke up and decided to sell India for a few pennies to be a “US lapdog”? What on earth does the humble Prime Minister get out of it?
India has recognized that in order to lift those 300 million people (the same ones you pay lip service to) out of poverty, it needs to achieve growth rates of above 7% for at least a couple of decades. This requires energy and power. While it searches for other sources of energy from unstable oil countries, it makes sense to switch to nuclear sources for electricity. So the deal is good for India. For the US, the deal makes sense geo-politically AND economically. What does “international recognition” have to do with anything?
Kush – Much as I come across as anti-American – I’m not exactly. I’m anti-neo-con ideology, and am merely asking whether the deal is right for India. There seems to be a tendency for American-Indians and Indians to cheer for such deals because they are both well-disposed towards both. I’m mostly favourable to India and the UK.
I do accept your point India needs to expand its energy supplies and sort of agree on nuclear energy on that level, but I haven’t made up my mind on it fully yet. There is a debate in this country over future energy supplies, and I’m caught between wanting less environmental degredation (less CO2) and lesser chances of a nuclear accident.
Anyway, so the point is I’m not fully certain on whether investing in nuclear energy is the way forward, but I’ll accept your point that India needs USA’s help on that. I saw that link you posted before. Will read up on it.
I will also point out that I’m disappointed with the way Pakistan is written off on here. Yeah I know it’s an Indian blog, yada yada but this characterisation of the entire country as a terrorist state is so cringingly reductionist. It’s almost Hindutva language. I would rather India make overtures to Pakistan to reduce tensions, not focus on keeping at an arms race, and figuring out better trade and energy relations.
Not trusting the United States is understandable, not trusting India is understandable, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t emotional reactions driven by a sense of insecurity.
I base the first on the UK’s own experience in dealing with America – the fruits of which have come to almost nil since 9/11.
In New Delhi the slums take 30% of electricity and the state accepts that,
How exactly do they know what is being pilfered other than through a wild guess? Where I lived in Madras, this was nearly out of control…. damn power stations themselves have been known to sell electricity on the side.
SMR: Why assume that Manmohan Singh’s government suddenly woke up and decided to sell India for a few pennies to be a “US lapdog”? On the basis that the USA hasn’t suddenly woken up and realised that India is a democratically elected potential powerhouse.
it needs to achieve growth rates of above 7% for at least a couple of decades. If you want to indulge the neo-classical ‘trickle down effect’ of wealth distribution – you can do. I don’t buy it. I’m not saying India doesn’t need energy, but just having 7-10% growth rates doesn’t mean poor people become rich. It usually means the rich get richer and the poor get offered a bit more for their labour.
“I would rather India make overtures to Pakistan to reduce tensions, not focus on keeping at an arms race, and figuring out better trade and energy relations.”
I agree with you on that.
In May-June, I will visit Pakistan for the first time. I am looking forward to it.
It is important that India and Pakistan engage in trade and commerce together but you know all this can only be done from position of stength. In fact, ONGC (Oil and Natural Gas Commission) has a bid for a gas field in Pakistan. Let’s see how that plays out.
I’m not saying India doesn’t need energy, but just having 7-10% growth rates doesn’t mean poor people become rich.
It’s pointless to argue basic economics, but I have FAR more respect for a critique from that angle rather than a critique that claims India entered into the deal for the sake of “macho posturing.”
I would rather India make overtures to Pakistan to reduce tensions, not focus on keeping at an arms race, and figuring out better trade and energy relations.
Relations between India and Pakistan are the best they’ve been in a couple of decades.
Sunny,
US and UK have been natural and the closest allies from since ever – it is not me saying, I am paraphrasing Charles deGaulle. Post 9/11 reaction was no surprise.
Part of it is due to Anglo-Saxon emotional connection.
Bull! Look at the wealth distribution of South Korea, a country that followed this model. And its not neo con, if you read manmohans and chidambarams(hardly neocons) proposed planwhich in common minimum program is a revised version of the congress manifesto from almost more than a decade ago. It is essentialy about (1) agriculture (this is what the cooperation calling for 2nd Green Rev was for, they did sign up for 100 days of employment gaurentee before US deal was announced) (2) energy (its beyond nuclear…) (3) education (even manmohans leftist IMNHO are underfunding primary education) Both singh and chidambaram have manuevered as well as any one else. You are engaging in nothing but rants without ever pointing facts most likely cause you dont know any.
again! point out facts sunny. India did, it granted pakistan most favored nation. India did provide pakistan assistance during quake(I personaly was against that but its something they did) They started bus service not only in kashmir, but between amritsar to lahore.
Kush – In May-June, I will visit Pakistan for the first time. I am looking forward to it. Good on you, I want to go there eventually too. but you know all this can only be done from position of stength.
I think it should come from a position of just having basic respect for each other. There’s no need for either countries to try and prove who is better or more powerful. I’ve seen so many silly arguments on my websites between Indians and Pakistanis – “we’re a bigger economy”, “oh yeah? well we’re richer than you per person”…. blah blah. It’s like a bunch of dogs fighting for scraps. I don’t care for it at all.
but I have FAR more respect for a critique from that angle rather than a critique that claims India entered into the deal for the sake of “macho posturing.”
There are two critiques here, not just one. Firstly – is the deal necessary, and what are the benefits. Related question – Does India need this deal to reduce poverty, or are there other ways? I’m an economist by study, and believe in the market, but this assumption that an Indian growth rate of 8% will automatically get rid of poverty is at best simply naive. There are tons of things India can do right now to reduce poverty, with or without the deal.
are the best they’ve been in a couple of decades. And I’d like to keep going down that route, and start by moving away from emotive language such as nominally referring to our neighbour as a terrorist state.
Kush – My point was that despite the emotional connection – Bush has pretty much ignored most of Blair’s advice on anything, and failed to “reward” this country with anything.
As an economist you should have known that indian poverty increased under the brits when the economy was essentialy contracting at the rate of -1%. it stabalized post independence without any growth, Since the mid 50s growth rate had been 3% that it self lifted many out of poverty. In the 80s even more were lifted at the rate of 5%. All indicators are that if primary education, liberalization, and ENERGY needs are met india will reduce its poverty to under 20% by 2030. Read Gurucharan Das’s India Unbound. It was reccomended by none other than a left-centrist figure amartaya sen. Again you dont provide any facts but made a silly lapdog arguement, followed by a macho arguement you suggest that the deal is not necessary, Give an alternative scenario to show why or how it is not necessary ? Indias reactors are inefficient and india DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANY AMOUNT OF URANIUM nor does it have a single Giga watt reactor and the Thorium reactor is a good 20 years away. The chinese are not only going after worlds oil and gas aggressively. They are also going after Uranium agressively. So hell yeah the deal was necessary, cause without it india can not even buy uranium for its current reactors! The Coal india has is high in sulphur and ash. India does not have significant gas reserve.
why if you think that the deal was not necessary do point out where india will get its electricity? Point out facts sunny Ji ?
No one was selling it was just a known fact. But the the electricity board decided for political or humanitarian reasons to not go after those stealing. B/c the bulk of them were just stealing for a light bulb. The governments response is essentialy well this is the least we can do. Increasing electricity generation will aleivate this problem. Since according to you this is some conspiracy hatched up by bush and his indian wanna be lapdogs, lets see your proposed solution ?
In response to #71, Sunny, I think its quite important not to underestimate and to really appreciate the benefits of the perception of India through the eyes of the world. In addition to the economic and strategic/military benefits to both parties I noted in my previous posting, India gains through this agreement tangible benefits from your much-loathed “status symbols” of recognized nuclear power state and UN Security Council permanent membership.
A strong nation inspires its people, and does exactly the opposite of what you see as
India’s prowess in IT, and growing skills in biotechnology, medicine, and space exploration are important results of this pride and self-confidence in Indian science and engineering. I would coin this phenomenon Navi-Swades. And others are taking notice, be they the EU using ISRO’s PSLV, or medical tourists escaping high costs back home, potential customers must have confidence in whome they buy from.
Much like the many technological industries and advancements spawned as a result of the United States’ space program, an enhanced Indian nuclear energy industry (civilian and military) will have exponential effects and perhaps sprout industries that are as yet unborn in India. The arms industry is just now witnessing the growth of the private sector.
Lastly, the Security Council seat is important because despite what the Left/CPI and (pardon my bluntness) Chinese-ass-kissers may say, we live in a rowdy neighborhood and its only going to get more crowded. I’d feel a lot more secure knowing my country has veto power, and the weight of referral to the Security Council. Think of it as the boldface type in the letter from your lawyer.
The 300 million of our downtrodden brothers & sisters aren’t NOT going to be uplifted from poverty by pursuing these very necessary ends. The 1 billion of our brothers & sisters, however, could very easily be trodden down upon if we refuse to take our rightful place under the sun.
Good lord, speaking of reductionism:
First, this is not an Indian blog, it’s a desi American blog.
Second, I’ve never characterized Pakistan as a terrorist state or all Pakistanis as terrorists, and we often defend Pakistani Americans on this blog from those exact accusations.
At the same time, I have no hesitation in calling a spade a spade when it comes to the foreign policies of military-run administrations in Pakistan.
Has any Mutineer thought about writing to their senator/congressperson, on how they might vote on this issue? As someone said, it is an election year. If you have thought about writing to them, how are you approaching it?
(FYI: Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said he had “serious reservations” about the deal and Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass. said, “With one simple move the president has blown a hole in the nuclear rules that the entire world has been playing by and broken his own word to assure that we will not ship nuclear technology to India without the proper safeguards.” And I am sure I can dig up some others all over the web.)
Sunil,
I’ve been reading your comments with interest. You have many valid points against the deal, and the Indian administration should consider those issues (if they haven’t already). Now let me move to some of my objections….
Why should the US (or anybody other country) care about anything other than self-benefit? Other than Gandhian desis, the whole world looks after its interests. The world will not bat an eyelid if India drowns into the ocean tomorrow – they will all move on. The only people who should care about India are Indians. I’m glad more and more Indians are coming around to this viewpoint, including people in the Congress party.
Would you rather have 500 million people living on less than a dollar a day? Been there – done that. It’s so 90’s.
And not having 7-10% growth rates means…?
Arrey baba – India has made tons of overtures to Pakistan. The grandest overture gave us Kargil.
Pakistan too is making overtures to India. They sent us a Diwali gift in Delhi last year. This year they’ve sent us a Holi gift in Varanasi. Who wouldn’t want to be on good terms with such a peaceful neighbour?
Manish writes:
While there are surely a few Pakistani Americans who have their head screwed right, I would quickly add that they are a hopeless minority. If the majority of Pakistani Americans stood for democracy, peace, anti-terrorism etc etc, then why is it that they fecilitate Musharraf whenever he visits the US? Why the photo-ops? Why the dinner bashes to the dictator?
M. Nam
Manish wrote:
First, this is not an Indian blog, it’s a desi American blog.
Yeah, I know you try hard. But that’s bullshit. Well-meaning bullshit, but it stinks all the same. This is pretty much an Indian-American blog.
If you had a lot of Pakistani commentors, it might be different. Or if you wrote about PK and India from a South Asian, or Pakistani perspective. But your posts on Pakistan look and sound like they were written by an Indian. (And not becuase they’re anti-Musharraf)
(I think I’m the closest you get to a frequent PK-American commentor. And I’m not American. On that note, I note that you’ve excluded Canadians from your vision of the blog. On purpose? Because we just beat you at your own national pastime?)
Manish also wrote:
Second, … we often defend Pakistani Americans on this blog from those exact accusations
Yep. But you’d be closer to your desired goal of being a ‘desi’ blog if he category of ‘we’ and the category of ‘Pakistani-American’ overlapped a little more. Even in your head.
The reason I wrote this was your worst post ever is partly because it was the most overtly Indian-American post I’ve ever read by you. (and you’re right when you say it resembles a dailykos or powerline post — which is also why you’re getting generally postitive responses.)
Moornam
If you think that the Delhi and Varanasi blasts came from orders from the Pakistani establishment you are delusional. Why, its in Pakistan’s interest to stir up more trouble in India, so they can look like hypocrites and a terrorist state. I wouldn’t be surprised if rogue elements outside the general locus of control, from the ISI provided support, but to claim its an official policy like you do is absurd. I don’t see what they have to gain from it.
The initial intelligence indicators are they were kashmiri militants. They dont have much to gain but that is the jihadi mindset its about the hoors.
Some time reader, first time poster Â….
I’m going to join the distinct minority who disagrees with this post. What Manish and most posters seem to be missing, in my opinion, is that there are two aspects to this whole nuclear deal – substance and process. With respect to the substance of the deal, I agree with what Manish says, more or less – the NPT is seriously outdated, comparing democratic India to Iran or North Korea is absurd, etc.
The problem with the deal, however, is with the process, something which is a mark of all this administrationÂ’s screw-ups. Simply put, whether you like the substance of it or not, the existing legal paradigm is based on the NPT. Even if we all agree that it is outdated, it is still the law, and we should be following it. If you donÂ’t like the NPT, negotiate a new treaty that makes sense in todayÂ’s political environment, and then follow that.
Now, I’m not naïve enough that I don’t realize that negotiating a new treaty will not be easy – obviously, certain entrenched interests (China, most obviously) are not going to want to modify the existing framework to allow India to have nukes. This may be one of those instances in which the US is justified in acting outside the confines of the existing treaties. But if the US is going to do that, it should come out and state the principles on which it is basing its decision. Why India and not Pakistan, Iran, etc? Because India is a democracy? Because it has not traded nuclear arms in the past? These are all good reasons. But the US should come out and give its reasons. Let other countries know what they have to aspire to if they want to get similar treatment. There needs to be some standard, some articulated basis for the decision. Right now, it sounds like “you don’t get the same deal because India is better than you.”
While I’m at it, I strongly disagree with the notion that this deal should somehow turn on the size of India’s GDP and so on. It sounds like you’re saying “there’s absolutely nothing wrong with one set of rules for superpowers and another set of rules for ‘small’ countries, but India is a superpower and Pakistan isn’t.” As Sunny I believe it was said, using different standards for some countries based on their size is exactly the kind of reasoning breeds discontent toward the US.
I think the NY Times, Democrats in congress, and others are justified in opposing this deal, because it is another example of the way in which this administration does whatever it feels like without explanation, without caring about the process. Don’t like Kyoto? Fine, like any agreement that involved so much compromise, the terms of the treaty may not have been perfect, and the administration’s argument that the protocol was flawed was not entirely without merit. The law is the law, and if you don’t like it, go back and negotiate different terms the next time around. Or come up with an entirely different alternative. What you don’t do, though, is take your ball and go home. Same thing with domestic spying. Sure, maybe a law written in 1978 doesn’t fully anticipate a post 9/11 world, and the law needs to be changed to allow effective counter-terrorist policing. If that’s the case, fine, get the law changed. You don’t just say, “this law doesn’t let us do our job, so we’re going to ignore it.” That is, in effect, what the administration did with respect to the India nuclear deal. The main reason the Times and whoever else opposes the deal is that it isn’t consistent with the existing legal framework, and until we change the existing legal framework, Iran and whoever else is exactly like India under the old framework. Just because we all might agree with the substance of the administration’s decision, the outcome in this instance, doesn’t mean that the process used to reach the outcome wasn’t screwed up. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m an American, and I’m not going to support the administration’s flawed decision-making (and lack of respect for international law, institutions, and process) just because it happens in this instance to support the country I lived in for a third of my life.
Anyway, thatÂ’s my $0.02 worth.