Indo-US nuclear deal and its implications

gbelday · Post by **gbelday** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 7:12 pm

Don't know where to put this..didn't want to create another thread..

---------------------------------------------------------------
This one is tough to call (for me). What should India do?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4647956.stm

Sandeep · Post by **Sandeep** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 7:17 pm

What is India's stand on Iran? Is India supporting their nuclear cause or no?

Post by **jayakris** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:03 pm

If you want to be among the big dogs, you better play with the big dogs in the games that the dogs play.

If that requires dogging Iran, so be it. It is time we stopped the traditional views on standing by every Muslim country (except Pakistan) out there.

India should make a decision based on what is best for us. Not based on morality (or even internal votebank politics).

There is some serious nuclear technology issues involved. We probably cannot drop nuclear energy plans from our side. If we need USA for that, so BE IT.

Jay

Post by **jayakris** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:06 pm

Is India supporting their nuclear cause or no?

Huh? Why would India want to support ANYBODY'S nuclear cause? .. Once you are a nuclear nation, you try to stop everybody else from becoming one - which is the game they have all played all along (unless you are China and you want to play with fire by making Pakistan a nucelar power as counter to India). I just don't see India wanting Iran to turn nuclear... If we have a real strategic reason for that, sure -- then let us clandestinely support them

.. Otherwise, stand on the rooftops and yell, stop Iran.

Brutal pushing of selfish interests by India. That is all I want.

Jay

Sandeep · Post by **Sandeep** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 9:10 pm

Every nation needs some nuclear weapons to protect themselves. Isn't it. When whole world is doing that why not Iran? And what is the relation between we supporting Iran and USA giving us their technology? What is the gaurantee that USA will not ask for few other favors/put conditions in future? I am sure they are not going to share entire technology so that India can run the nuclear plants on its own!

I think India should stick to what it thinks is correct, even it means that we loose the nuclear deal (which I don't think will happen)

Post by **jayakris** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 9:39 pm

Why do we care if other countries want to protect themselves? Did China or US or Britain care about INDIA protecting itself? .. No. We shouldn't care for the next guy either. If Iran goes down the tubes, it is THEIR problem. Brutal selfish intrerst man. That is all Indian givernment should engage in. We people elected them first for that. No more of the India-China bhai-bhai type Nehru business.

Why are you bringing morality in this? Which country is ever "moral" over their own interests? .. Why should India be "moral" now?

What is the guarantee that USA will follow through or will not ask for more later? .. Obviously none, unless we KNOW of reasons why they can't back out. Otherwise we should expect them to back out. The operating phrase is "trust but verify" (one of the greatest lines by Reagan) .. It's a dog eat dog world, I repeat. Of course we should not expect USA to follow through on anything and should not proceed unless we are utterly confident that WE HAVE ENOUGH HOOKS ON THE USA for them not to back out. China has done this for decades. India can, too. But first we should start thinking like a BIG DOG.

I think India should stick to what it thinks is correct, even it means that we loose the nuclear deal (which I don't think will happen)

Ther is nothing "correct" in international relations. If this is what it takes, this is what we need to do.

As for your statement that we may not lose the nuclear deal, I am not so sure. One problem with the US that we don't face with many other countries is that the US congress may (actually almost surely will) vote against us if we do not do something about Iran, because the congress votes in their own way in many issues, not necessarily with George Bush. Now, there may be ways to "finess" this -- but that would still require the US president to go the very long extra miles to bat for us and cut deals with the congress, etc. I just don't see it happening right now on this issue. If we already have enough hooks on the USA, or know that Bush can come through with what we want despite the congress (there are also ways for the executive to finess things and go around the legislature in the US system), yeah, we could consider such options.

The bottom line is -- I want to hear no talk of any moral stands in this. Nobody ever takes a moral stand in favor of India. Show me ONE case of that. None. Or the Kashmir problem would not exist, as you know. So, drop that thought. I say we play the game with full conscience (or without a conscience, if you will!)

Jay

PKBasu · Post by **PKBasu** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 9:10 am

It is utterly impolitic (and ludicrously arrogant) for the US ambassador to have made the statement he has made.
That said, my view is that we should vote against Iran at the IAEA, especially after Iran has recently started making silly comparisons between its "right" to nuclear weapons and India's deal with the US. Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and it must fulfil its obligations as a signatory. (Remember, India did not sign the NPT -- saying it was discriminatory -- and so does not have the same obligations). Iran is currently in contravention of its treaty obligations, and should therefore be censured by the IAEA and brought before the Security Council.
Iran is supposedly an Indian "ally", as we have a convergence of interests in Afghanistan (where we both supported the Northern Alliance, although India was supporting the Tajik-led forces of Ahmad Shah Masood, while Iran's primary allies were the Shi'i Hazara; both speak languages linked to Farsi but our allies make up about 25% of the Afghan population, while the Hazara make up about 11%). Iran and Pakistan have traditionally clashed, especially because the Shi'a minority (who are 20% of Pakistan, 11% of Afghanistan) has been heavily persecuted by Pakistan. (Incidentally, the majority of Indian Muslims are Sunni too, although Lucknow is predominantly Shi'a, and Ayatollah Khomeini's family had links to that city). But although we and Iran have a lot of Pakistan-related issues we agree on, that hasn't prevented Iran from voting against us at the OIC over the years (especially on the Kashmir issue). We should vote against Iran at the IAEA, and then send E Ahmed (acting foreign minister) to Iran to make conciliatory noises (without compromising a bit on the matter of principle: Iran must fulfil its treaty obligations as a signatory to the NPT).

gvhvhg · Post by **gvhvhg** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 3:32 am

We should definitley NOT let the US dictate this issue and we should vote with Iran next week. The chances of the US Congress actually voting in favor of the Indo-US deal are minimal and we have given up too much for too little....

PKBasu · Post by **PKBasu** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 1:41 am

Which national interest of ours is served by voting for Iran, Ashish?
The US (and the non-proliferation establishment) have in fact set aside long-standing rigid positions in order to accommodate India into the nuclear club despite our non-signing of the NPT. We are gaining much more (in terms of civil nuclear technology, and all its potential applications) than we are giving up (in separating our civilian and military nuclear establishments).

Sandeep · Post by **Sandeep** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 1:52 am

How big are the gains if we set up a civil nuclear plant? Is it worth it to allow USA dictate terms to us (I don't know how big the gains are).

arjun2761 · Post by **arjun2761** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 3:41 pm

I don't know what we will actually get but I am told that our nuclear technology is very outdated using 60s-70s style Soviet technology (sort of like the 50s era Ambassador cars ruling roads in the isolation era 80s)...

Post by **jayakris** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 4:13 pm

Exactly, Arjun.

We NEED technology help on the nuclear front from the US. Right NOW. I would not trust our current technology if we are to go seriously nuclear for our energy needs. As far as I can see, we have no option but to go nuclear, and we need help.

I was itching to ask exactly the same question that PKB asked above, too. Exactly what "national interest" is really met by voting for Iran?

Yes, the USA will actually be bringing about a humongous shift in its long-standing positions by working with India (even if it is because they see the need/potential from their own interets). India must acknowledge that and try to make it happen, rather than do cheap talk about "super power bullying" and all that. GET OUR INTERESTS HANDLED FIRST, before talking morality and pride and all that.

Jay

BSharma · Post by **BSharma** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 8:11 pm

As long as the communist party in India is supporting a weak central government and can extract its pound of flesh, it will do so. Then there are other politicians who want to cave in to the demands of certain sector of the population to win votes, and will take actions for political gain rather than in the country's best interest.

Indian leaders must do what is best for India. How often has the Middle East supported India on issues that are important to India? The Arabs have to sell their oil and they do it to people who have opposed them openly, and India will get the oil one way or the other.

Communism is falling apart in many places, and the communist party in India will continue to thrive as long as it can exploit the situation in India. Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc found out that depriving their public of the necessaties of life at the expense of military might goes only so far. China will prosper until its public realizes that the profits from their hard labor is not coming to them. A country that rules its people by depriving them of vital information (e.g., Google in China), having a central power base that makes all the decisions for its public without giving a voice to them, and having corrupt leaders will in the end fail. If you look at the Arab countries and China, both follow the same model. The difference is that China uses its own population for the work force and the rich Arabs use people from other countries to do their work.

Democracy is far better than the communists and the autocrats of the world. I am sorry that I have changed the direction of this discussion, but the main point of my argument is that India must not succomb to the Middle East and communists, and India must look after its own best interest.

Sandeep · Post by **Sandeep** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 9:27 pm

It is not the question of India supporting Gulf or not but why should we be dictated by USA? As I said I didn't read much into this topic so I have no valid points. But from what I see USA is not doing some social service by sharing nuclear technology with India (that too inspite of we not signing NPT). They sure must be having some selfish interests. I will go through some more article/opinions on net and hopefully come up with why I think India shouldn't be dictated by USA.

The whole point is not about supporting Iran or not, and it is not even about morality and ethics but India should be convinced with what it is doing, what it thinks is right. The right can be anything, may be even voting against Iran. Whatever India does should be because it thinks it is right and not because of the pressure applied by USA!

Sandeep · Post by **Sandeep** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 9:47 pm

Though hot much related to the ongoing discussion here is a nice article on why the author thinks this deal is difficult to implement: -

http://www.idsa-india.org/P%20R%20Chari.htm

I am pretty convinced with his argument especially the part in which he says all the 44 nations should accept the India-US deal and why would any country accept the Indo-US deal unless the their own nation is going to gain from it?

Especially China, will it agree to something where there is a danger of its neighbouring countrybecoming technologically more advance than them (in this case nuclear technology)?