Nuclear Deal With India a Victory for Bush

[dotcoma]

yahoo news On his first trip to India, President Bush and his Indian counterpart agreed Thursday on a landmark nuclear energy agreement that deepens ties between the world's oldest and largest democracies. Bush acknowledged it will be difficult to persuade Congress to support the agreement, in which the United States would share its nuclear know-how and fuel with India. But he said he's confident it will be approved so India can power its fast-growing economy without expanding world demand for oil. Critics in Congress say the United States is making an exception for India, which has nuclear weapons but won't sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. "Proliferation is certainly a concern and a part of our discussions, and we've got a good-faith gesture by the Indian government that I'll be able to take to the Congress," Bush said. "But the other thing that our Congress has got to understand is that it's in our economic interests that India have a civilian nuclear power industry to help take the pressure off the global demand for energy," the president said. "To the extent that we can reduce demand for fossil fuels, it will help the American consumer." The agreement was a political coup, too, for Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. "We made history," he said, standing alongside Bush in a sunwashed courtyard. Bush mourned the loss of life in a suicide bombing Thursday in Karachi, Pakistan, that ripped through the parking lot of the Marriott Hotel and broke windows in the nearby U.S. consulate. At least four people died, including a U.S. foreign service officer. The attack occurred hundreds of miles from Islamabad, where Bush was headed later this week. "Terrorists and killers are not going to prevent me from going to Pakistan," Bush said. For a second day, thousands of demonstrators gathered in New Delhi to protest Bush's visit. Dozens of politicians, mainly from leftist parties, stood on the steps of the country's national parliament building chanting "Bush go back!" and "Down with Bush!" "We're saying this because he is the biggest killer of humanity in the 21st century. He has killed in Afghanistan, he has killed Iraqis and now he is bent on killing Iranians," said Hannan Mollah, a lawmaker from the Communist Party of India (Marxist). "The Indian government should not get into any deal with the Americans. Bush has laid a trap for India."

What do you think is behind this? Is it truly the desire of the US to avoid India's consumption of a large portion of oil as it grows?

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: dotcoma What do you think is behind this? Is it truly the desire of the US to avoid India's consumption of a large portion of oil as it grows?

Of course it's better for us to have India use less oil. Less demand should help keep prices lower. I wonder, however, if this will be seen as more American hypocrisy. We don't build more nuclear plants in the U.S. because of environmental and safety issues, something that we don't seem too concerned with over there.

[bishop]

i support this deal with india.. they're rapidly growing and already have nuclear technology/weapons.. it makes sense to foster nuclear energy usage in india. economically, india also has a current account deficit (in part because it imports most of its energy), so improving their energy self-sufficiency would improve their economy's stability and long-term prospects.

i tend to look at india as a natural ally of ours because of the strong similarities in our societies.. geopolitically, they're also a good proxy between pakistan and china. and, india's relationships with each country aren't exactly cozy.

the NPR treaty's de-facto obsolete, so i don't think any hypocrisy arguments will have any lasting power.

this is one of the few instances where i think bush made a good decision - amongst the loads of instances where bush fucked up.

[RickSp]

It appears to be a simple business deal which should open up numerous opportunities for US companies to sell components to India.

It also trashes the only remaining framework for controlling nuclear proliferation. I could see it being viewed as just another example of the US acting as an arrogant imperial power that feels no need to honor treaties or international agreements.

[bishop]

in reality, though, that treaty's been obsolete for quite some time now..

and bush made it a point to make many other international laws (ex. the geneva convention) obsolete over the course of his presidency.

[RickSp]

Quote by: bishop in reality, though, that treaty's been obsolete for quite some time now.. and bush made it a point to make many other international laws (ex. the geneva convention) obsolete over the course of his presidency.

That is exactly my point. Bush claims the rules don't apply to him he is the emperor, ordained by God. I do not necessarily agree that the treaty is obsolete. It is at least a framework from which to work.

I find it interesting that while Iran is a signatory to the Nonproliferation Treaty and claims to have no nuclear weapons program, India refuses to sign and has a nuclear arsenal. How does one say hypocrisy in Urdu?

From his New Delhi press conference.

Q: Mr. President, Mr. Prime Minister, following up on this just a touch, what kind of message, sir, does it send to the world that India, which has been testing as late as 1998, nuclear testing, and is not -- has not signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty -- is this a reward for bad behavior, as some critics suggest? And what kind of message does it send to other countries that are in the process of developing nuclear technology? Why should they sign the NPT if India is getting a deal without doing so, sir? PRESIDENT BUSH: What this agreement says is things change, times change, that leadership can make a difference, and telling the world -- sending the world a different message from that which is -- what used to exist in people's minds.

[bishop]

i can't think of a single country that chose not to develop nukes because of that treaty though, can you? frameworks are nice, but the deciding factor is whether/not they actually accomplish what they were intended to accomplish.

in india's case, since it never signed the treaty, it can do whatever it wants.. but really, it doesn't matter if they've signed it or not - as evidenced by iran.

heh, and that quote of bush's response.. maybe it's just me, but i don't have a clue what the hell he's trying to say.. the little bit of that jibberish i was able to understand was pretty deep though - "things change".

god i'm glad he's our president. bumbling fucking idiot that he is.

[ShOuLdEr]

imagine of George dubya Bush was the president of North Korea lol...

personally i think we should just start launching nukes and get it over with..its gonna happen eventually anyways.

[bishop]

yeah... the suspense of a nuclear holocaust is just killing me. and there isn't enough excitement in the news since "shock and awe" ended...

bring on the death wish!

[brien]

Quote by: dotcoma What do you think is behind this? Is it truly the desire of the US to avoid India's consumption of a large portion of oil as it grows?

Not sure this has much to do with oil. The population and demographics of India don't seem to be glued to the oil tit as much as the more moderized society of America.

I think it has more to do with India emerging into the 21st century. A population of about 1,080,000,000 with the median age of 24.44 represents a staggering number of people who will require more than energy in the near future. Nuclear power can, in one fell swoop, solve a multitude of energy problems facing the country. No EPA there to get in the way. The fact that India is a democracy with the majority of the people being Hindu (80%), not Muslin, (13%) and the fact that the national language is English, and its location, makes India a fertile ground for the US to solicit its favor. The US is more respected there than in any other country of nearly half the size in population. There is so much potential in India the US would be foolish not to see the opportunity for economic and political cooperation .

We just need to convince them to eat Big Macs!

[petter]

Quote by: brien Not sure this has much to do with oil. The population and demographics of India don't seem to be glued to the oil tit as much as the more moderized society of America. I think it has more to do with India emerging into the 21st century. A population of about 1,080,000,000 with the median age of 24.44 represents a staggering number of people who will require more than energy in the near future. Nuclear power can, in one fell swoop, solve a multitude of energy problems facing the country. No EPA there to get in the way. The fact that India is a democracy with the majority of the people being Hindu (80%), not Muslin, (13%) and the fact that the national language is English, and its location, makes India a fertile ground for the US to solicit its favor. The US is more respected there than in any other country of nearly half the size in population. There is so much potential in India the US would be foolish not to see the opportunity for economic and political cooperation . We just need to convince them to eat Big Macs!

Iran needs nuclear power too :)

[brien]

Quote by: petter Iran needs nuclear power too :)

Yes they do, if that is what they choose. It is probably a ruse but I also don't care if they have nuclear weapons either. Who is the US to dictate nuclear terms to another country? Negotiate yes, dictate, no. I do care if Iran attempts to use nuclear weapons. Because if they do, they deserve to be annihilated.

[Osborn F Enready]

dotcoma said: What do you think is behind this? Is it truly the desire of the US to avoid India's consumption of a large portion of oil as it grows?

I say:
My opinions.

*India wants nukes, without compliance with the international treaties.
*India wants the U.S. as an ally, as well as its market to pick from as it grows its economy.
*India wants the AVAILABILITY of U.S. Technology through legal channels, for its new war machine.

*Bush wanted to try to aquire more oil futures and assets.
*Bush wanted to get more business for the Defense Industry, and India plans on "ordering" 130+ new fighters/bombers from the global defense market, so he saw this as a way to get "favored status".
*Bush wanted to further exploit trade with India, to help downplay the globalization towards cheap labor and paint more of a picture of "helping grow a struggling ecnonomy" as U.S. manufacturers move to India.

This entire deal will end up biting us in the ass in the next 10 years, almost assuredly.

I am not against any soverign nation having nuclear power OR nuclear defense capabilities, but I think this is more political posturing than anything productive or long term beneficial.

Overall, oil companies, the defense industries, and the governments will profit from this, but not much else will change in the life of average people in either country except taxes and gas prices will rise as freedom gets weaker under a globally more oppressive defense process between opposing regimes as they build up for the next war.

[bishop]

care to explain how this deal will end up biting us in the ass in the long-run? personally, as i previously stated, i see india as a natural and strategic ally. their society is very similar to our own, they're an established democracy, they're capitalist, etc... and, they're also strategically located between some countries that we are much more worried about - pakistan, iran and china in particular.. plus, india isn't much of a friend to any of these countries either. they've warred with pakistan several times, and have had border skirmishes with china - who the indians see as their chief competitor in the region.

indian/iranian relations have improved in recent years primarily due to india's growing energy needs. there's a $4 billion oil pipeline deal in the works between iran and india that bush wants to stop.. maybe his dumb ass thinks that this nuclear deal will be enough to kill this pipeline deal? well, the indians have already said that the pipeline deal is going through no matter what bush says - because india needs the energy.. nevertheless, i don't have a problem with the indians wanting secured oil pathways for their economy.


the big problem i have with this deal is that it's a total giveaway... what a great negotiator bush is.. in exchange for nuclear technology and knowledge (along with the ability to sell them weapon systems like the f16), we get to import fucking mangos.. you think that this master statesman could've gotten a little more out of the indians, given the significance of what we're giving them..

f16's and nuclear technology for MANGOS?!?!?

bush is a goddamn retard andthensome.

[Scribbler1]

But we DO get to inspect their nuclear facilities. Well, the CIVILIAN ones anyway. The 20 or so MILITARY nuclear facilities are off limits to us.

So what does this mean to us? I suspect it is a grand scheme by Bush to make sure India's state-owned power plants don't charge the people too much for electricity. They might STILL want to obliterate Pakistan but we won't know where THAT deal is going, will we?

[bishop]

heh... what's the point of being able to inspect their facitilities? they already have nukes, so..... i give up trying to make sense out of bush's policies - it's an exercise in futility.. mangos are probably a more important part of the deal than being able to inspect their facitilities imo. definitely speaks volumes for the lop-sidedness of this deal.

i don't see how this changes anything between india and pakistan.. (i think pakistan is the one who started their previous wars if my memory's correct) they would both have nukes regardless of this deal/giveaway...

i'll bet that the indians might even like bush more than americans. he's their santa claus.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: bishop i don't see how this changes anything between india and pakistan.. (i think pakistan is the one who started their previous wars if my memory's correct) they would both have nukes regardless of this deal/giveaway...

I don't see where it changes anything which makes me suspect there's a back door somewhere. I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say almost EVERYTHING Bush has done as president has either been an idiotic blunder or a clasic example of misdirection.

In this case I see it as more than meets the eye and as usual the real reasons won't become clear until it's too late to do anything about it. I would say we should keep our eyes open for the next few weeks though. It should be interesting.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: dotcoma What do you think is behind this? Is it truly the desire of the US to avoid India's consumption of a large portion of oil as it grows?

(Among other issues) India is to :
1. fight terrorism
2. support U.S. position and/or efforts in U.N.
3. corner China

[Osborn F Enready]

Bishop said: care to explain how this deal will end up biting us in the ass in the long-run? personally, as i previously stated, i see india as a natural and strategic ally. their society is very similar to our own, they're an established democracy, they're capitalist, etc... and, they're also strategically located between some countries that we are much more worried about - pakistan, iran and china in particular.. plus, india isn't much of a friend to any of these countries either. they've warred with pakistan several times, and have had border skirmishes with china - who the indians see as their chief competitor in the region.

I say:
I think it could bite us if the market conditions stay the same with regards to market tariffs, sanctions and supposed "free market agreements" and our economy keeps operating as it is now.
Regardless of what happens to India, with India, those things need to change.

Overall I think it is good to have India as both an ally, and a free market partner. I do think however, India has a lot to do in the area of rights of the individuals that make up their nation, and that should PRECEED these types of agreements and technology deals.

I am not anti-India, I will just quote some of Reagans better words here and say "Trust, but verify." and actually mean it. We have no intrest in helping India grow its economy if it is going to be an enemy of us in the future, therfore to ensure they are an ally at the core, and not the surface, we should put the focus on rights of the individuals as a basis for free market participation without tariff requirements. I don't think simply being a "modern capitalist" is a level which should auto-qualify the decision for a person being an ally. It should be about the individuals interaction ability with the global market as a citizen in that nation.

Bishop said: indian/iranian relations have improved in recent years primarily due to india's growing energy needs. there's a $4 billion oil pipeline deal in the works between iran and india that bush wants to stop.. maybe his dumb ass thinks that this nuclear deal will be enough to kill this pipeline deal? well, the indians have already said that the pipeline deal is going through no matter what bush says - because india needs the energy.. nevertheless, i don't have a problem with the indians wanting secured oil pathways for their economy.

I say:
I agree, and I think Bush used U.S. nuclear acceptance and technology as a lever to try to get rights to that pipelines products. Is this good or bad? Depends on the fine print in my opinion.

Bishop said: the big problem i have with this deal is that it's a total giveaway... what a great negotiator bush is.. in exchange for nuclear technology and knowledge (along with the ability to sell them weapon systems like the f16), we get to import fucking mangos.. you think that this master statesman could've gotten a little more out of the indians, given the significance of what we're giving them.. f16's and nuclear technology for MANGOS?!?!? bush is a goddamn retard andthensome.

I say:
I agree, and don't forget they are also getting a lot of WORK from U.S. companies moving production facillities there, or buying pre-finished goods there. India is leveraging its geographic position, cheap labor and political clout against the United States so as to play indirect decision maker in the region. They learned well from American example between the 1900's to now in how to best wield the indirect threat politically.

I am not nearly as upset about the obsolete F-16s as I am the Nuclear research and the progression of labor shift.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Rainbow (Among other issues) India is to : 1. fight terrorism 2. support U.S. position and/or efforts in U.N. 3. corner China

Do you have a link on that, especially the "corner China" part?