Robert Farley notes that the US-India nuclear deal is so one-sided and favorable to India that it's hard for Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to convince parliament that the deal really says what he says it says.
« New New Pornographers | Main | A Conservative DLC? »
How Good Can It Get?
16 Aug 2007 01:17 pm
Comments (22)
I don't believe it either. Historically, neither Democrats nor Republicans have been particularly enamored of India. JFK tried, but was put off by Nehru's 'lecturing' to him during his visit to USA.
"I'll bet the Pakistanis aren't too crazy about the deal."
Perhaps engendering a strong interest among the Pakistanis in having powerful friends is part of the plan. I wonder if anyone in the White House considers that the "friends" might be China or Russia rather than the US.
The funniest part is that the Bushies seem to think that this will make India some sort of client. We can't even get Brazil to be a client, so what chance do we have of making a nuclear-armed, much larger country with faster economic growth and a history of suspicion of the US to be a client? There's an argument to be made that nuclear-armed democracies like Israel and India should have the nukes recognized as legitimate, but an ad hoc basis that undermines the non-proliferation regime isn't the way to do it. On the plus side, we finally get Indian mangoes. Ironically, Clinton and the US became more popular in India after he slapped economic penalties on India after the nuclear tests because the Indians like Clinton's style of diplomacy.
Reality Man,
The point isn't for India to become a "client"; the point is to solidify a long-term alliance between two large democracies with many important mutual interests. The alliance of the United States, Japan, India, and Australia will be a source of stability in Asia, and will aid in encouraging the peaceful rise of China.
As for Brazil, we have better relations with that country than with most in Latin America, and its fairly centrist, fiscally conservative, macroeconomic policies have been a source of stability for Brazil and its neighbors. But we have fewer mutual interests in common with Brazil than with India. China is a potential (and previous) threat to India; for Brazil, China is just a huge customer and contributor to Brazil's trade surplus. India also has a more profitable trade relationship with us than Brazil does, since our agricultural protectionism impedes Brazilian exports to the U.S.
Another major Shrub scam happening with nary a discouraging word from what should be the adult supervision.
Off subject, could we soon have a post relative to the economy crashing before our very eyes?
"The point isn't for India to become a "client"; the point is to solidify a long-term alliance between two large democracies with many important mutual interests. The alliance of the United States, Japan, India, and Australia will be a source of stability in Asia, and will aid in encouraging the peaceful rise of China."
India also has to co-exist with China in a way that it doesn't have to with the US because 1) China is right there and the US is far away and often not interested historically in India and 2) China is poised to become India's biggest trading partner. To think that there is an alliance between Japan, the US, Australia and India is silly. There is something there if you take India out of the mix, but India has always been too much of an independent-minded actor to be part of such a framework. After all, who joined SEATO and CENTO, India or Pakistan?
In addition, while the quasi-fascist BJP tends to want something of an alliance with the US against Pakistan, the less crazy but corrupt Congress Party is much more agnostic on the US and its intentions. India and China have been working on their points of disagreement, such as border disputes, on a bilateral level. To the extent that India wants to have the US as a partner, it also wants to have China as a partner as well. If there is a war between the US and China, India would be more likely to stay on the sidelines then become involved and then have to deal with an angry China, which has beaten India in a war before. In addition, this deal really doesn't help India improve its security position over Kashmir vis-a-vis Pakistan because it won't lead to Pakistan getting rid of its nukes. While India does benefit more from this deal than the US, those benefits tend to be economic (getting nuclear fuel and a mango export market) than security-related, which brings up the question of why we signed off on India's nuclear weapons - a security question - to tie the two countries together when directly trying our two markets together would get pretty much the same benefits without the drawbacks.
It is naive to think that the US gets nothing in return. US corporations (and people who profit from corporations) will make a bundle selling nuclear stuff to India.
But agree with Fred in that India will not be a client but can be a good ally. Non proliferation is pretty much dead anyway. India is a declared nuclear power and would be so whether of not the deal goes through. If the US does not step in someone else will. Whatever may have happened in the past, why should the world's biggest democracy not be friends with the world's most powerful one?
And Reality Man, Clinton did not become more popular in India because of the sanctions. That is a preposterous claim. Clinton was (and remains) very popular in India because he is well…Bill Clinton. He is just a very likeable bugger!
I confess that I am totally confused about the India deal. What did we get out of it? Is there something under the table that we don't know about? The only thing I can think of is that it's an attempt to offset China's growing influence. But I'm really not sure how that would play out. are we trying to kick start industrialization in India, in the hopes that they might catch up to the Chinese? There's gotta be something.
There is that other little point that the more nuclear energy India can generate the less it will rely on fossil fuels to generate electricity as it industrializes.
They'd have to be idiots if they think that India would become a US client state, regardless of how much we throw at them.
Sadly, I'm no longer convinced that they aren't idiots.
My guess - this is a move to make Pakistan even more crazy mad at the US and this Administration so that the Bush Administration can eliminate one more "shade of grey" nation in the Mid-East and have Pakistan commit itself firmly to the "Axis of Evil" side instead of ihabiting the quasi-US ally side it sits on right now. Then they'd at least know how to handle the country.
Yes that's facetious. Mostly.
"But agree with Fred in that India will not be a client but can be a good ally. Non proliferation is pretty much dead anyway. India is a declared nuclear power and would be so whether of not the deal goes through. If the US does not step in someone else will. Whatever may have happened in the past, why should the world's biggest democracy not be friends with the world's most powerful one?"
I'm not saying we shouldn't be friends with India. Hell, I'm Indian-American and proud of it and would like warm Indian-American relations. However, it's not like this nuclear deal was the only way to move forward on this front. Just deciding ad hoc that's India's nukes are ok while not attempting to create/reform a framework for this is silly. Are going to sign off on every democracy that gets nukes in the future (possibilities like South Korea or Japan) or is this going to just India? If we end up with a future administration against this ad hoc approach but cannot get Republican support for a reformed nonproliferation regime, we could end up in a silly "Yes to India, No to Japan (or whoever)" position.
"And Reality Man, Clinton did not become more popular in India because of the sanctions. That is a preposterous claim. Clinton was (and remains) very popular in India because he is well…Bill Clinton. He is just a very likeable bugger!"
After the sanctions went through, he ended up spending days in India meeting with its leaders and working his charm on the Indian media. Funny how common sense things like that seem beyond us now.
Damned Bush. He's always being too nice to other countries and looking out for other countries' needs. He needs to stop being so multilateral and diplomatic and start focusing on the USA's interests first and foremost.
Heee...
"Damned Bush. He's always being too nice to other countries and looking out for other countries' needs. He needs to stop being so multilateral and diplomatic and start focusing on the USA's interests first and foremost.
Heee..."
It would be nice if we could have a happy middle of looking out for American interests while also listening to others. PepsiCo's Indian CEO described recent American foreign policy as giving the world the finger. The nuclear deal served the neocons delusional fantasies on China and they simply lack the power to bully India like we could smaller countries that don't have a billion people and nukes.
This deal could been made many years before but human evolution has its own pace and speed. Wait another sixty years when the oldest civilisations of this planet will bring their heads together in their persuit to make a harmonious planet for all the mankind to live and enjoy among the flora and fauna.
Wait another sixty years when the oldest civilisations of this planet will bring their heads together in their persuit to make a harmonious planet for all the mankind to live and enjoy among the flora and fauna.
If the oldest and youngest civilizations don't get together a tad sooner a lot of the oldest is gonna be under water.
You may want to read this
http://www.livemint.com/2007/08/07000223/India-in-a-nuclear-trap.html
slamming the nuclear deal from an Indian point of view.
"Having portrayed this agreement as something of a diplomatic coup, the Indian negotiators, the text of the agreement suggests, were outmanoeuvred by the professionals at the US state department. The latter happily traded vacuous language for Indian compliance with the Hyde Act and other US domestic laws on all the critical issues, including testing, reprocessing, assured fuel supply, and the right of return of US nuclear material. In case of the deal breaking down, however, the Americans minorly conceded India the right to “consultations” before the Hyde Act provisions are enforced. Some right!"
"Each of the 17 Articles in the 123 Agreement reveal a consistent pattern of the US sticking to the letter of the Hyde Act even as the Indians are fobbed off with verbiage."
Reada about the four-way country manuevers described here - US, China, India, Pakistan:
http://www.saag.org/papers24/paper2330.html
"The US might insist that before clearing the supply of Chashma III and IV to Pakistan, China and Pakistan should sign a formal agreement similar to the Indo-US deal under which Pakistan would separate its military and civilian infrastructure and sign a Pakistan-centric safeguards agreement with the IAEA, which would apply to its civilian infrastructure."
Divide and Conquer
"I'll bet the Pakistanis aren't too crazy about the deal."
Exactly. Even if Musharraf were personally gung-ho anti-Taliban (And why should he be?), there's only so much he can afford to alienate folks in his country who don't agree (And why should any Pakistani be anti-Taliban?). We need something to keep Musharraf, or his successor, in line, and a threat that we would invade and occupy his country is pretty hollow now that the grand Iraq project has gone belly up. But India could always be tempted to reach for a Final Solution of the Kashmir Problem, or perhaps even the underlying Pakistan Problem.
"Divide and conquer." It worked for the Romans...
Expecting India to influence China and the Far East is like expecting Nigeria or Sweden to influence China and the Far East.
India is simply not part of the "Asia" (at least not the part, we consider important to us.) Anyone who've been to the East Asia and the Western Pacific would know this instinctively. India is a non-player there. The difference in race, culture and location is too great.
What this deal does is put more pressure on Pakistani leaders to formally discard their alliance to the United States. Maybe that is what we want to do?
But India as a balancer to China is a pipedream no matter powerful we make India. We'd better off allowing Japan, which is far more powerful than India both in economic and military terms, to develop nuclear weapon. Now that would really balance China.
Hoping India's nuclear program instead of Japan's in hopes of containing China is indicative of an administration who has no understanding of the world at large. India is "Asian" but not in the same part of the world that China influences. Japan is.
I wonder if the wording of the agreement would have been different if India would have carried out more nuclear tests starting in 1998.
Lets say if India would have tested continuously for five years (three to four tests each year underground and overground), would the shape of this agreement be different from what it is today?
If the answer is Yes, then the only logical thing for India to do is to start a fresh five year nuclear testing program now and then sign this agreement five or maybe ten years from now and no one will loose any sleep over it. Its not like the rest of the world is disarming.
Comments closed August 30, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I'll bet the Pakistanis aren't too crazy about the deal.
Posted by goethean | August 16, 2007 1:22 PM