India Succeeded In Pushing Bush Around

Dissenting On Atomic Deal

WASHINGTON, March 2 — In concluding its nuclear deal with India, the Bush administration faces significant opposition in Congress and tough questions from its allies on whether the arrangement could set a precedent encouraging the spread of nuclear weapons to Iran and other potential foes of the United States.

But Bush administration officials expressed confidence on Thursday that they could overcome the skepticism of the critics, in part because support is nearly universal in the West and among Republicans and Democrats in Washington for building India's strength as a bastion of democracy and a counterweight to China in Asia.

India has a long way to go before it becomes a "bastion of democracy." Its government is constantly in a state of turmoil and internal conflict. There have been numerous conflicts ostensibly based on religion, but more properly based upon a profound class-based society where the gap between the rich and the poor is so great and so deep that it rivals the Grand Canyon or the Marianna Trench. The government has historically violated its founding principles offered by Neru, Patel and Ghandi in favor of tactics that rival the suppression and oppression of the British prior to independence gained in some many decades ago. There is an undercurrent of ethnic, religious, economic and caste discrimination running throughout all of India. The geo-political behavior of this nation is irradic at best, often bringing tensions between India and Pakistan to the brink of all out war and the threat of using nuclear war.

But hey, if we ever have to go to war with the Chinese, it won't hurt to have 1.27 billion dispensable people right next to the enemy... and if they happen to launch a nuclear attack on China then we won't look so bad. While it is a good thing to separate the civilian and military nuclear programs, there remains a problem with standards of construction, security and protection of the general population.

The Defense Department issued an unusually explicit statement hailing the deal for opening a path for more American-Indian military cooperation.

"Where only a few years ago, no one would have talked about the prospects for a major U.S.-India defense deal, today the prospects are promising, whether in the realm of combat aircraft, helicopters, maritime patrol aircraft or naval vessels," the Defense Department statement said.

Having that many people on friendlier terms with the US government certainly makes the Pentagon's job of dealing with global threats easier. It isn't a bad deal to have ports of call and friendly military arrangements on that side of the world, but what are we going to do when the next political and military destabilization occurs over there?

Diplomats familiar with the negotiations with India said Britain, France, Germany and probably Russia would eventually line up to support the agreement, in part because it would clear the way for them to sell nuclear fuel, reactors and equipment to India. They would not agree to be identified, because several countries have yet to signal what stance they would take.

So this is more of a business deal?

More skepticism is expected from China, several diplomats said, because India has made little secret of its desire for a nuclear weapons arsenal to counter Beijing and its longtime ally, Pakistan.

We can be sure that the Chinese are taking careful notes on what is happening between US and THEM. This deal amounts to Bush pushing ahead an agenda that is unstable in the long-term but offers short-term gains.

Critics of the deal in Congress and abroad are certain to focus on what they maintain is a double standard embraced by the Bush administration: in effect, allowing India to have nuclear weapons and still get international assistance but insisting that Iran, North Korea and other "rogue states" be given no such waiver.

But administration officials insisted there was no double standard.

The US has always held to double standards in its foreign policy. This deal is no different than the deals made with Noriega, and held in place until he went "rogue" and got greedy for drug money. But we supported Saddam Hussein, and the forerunners of the Taliban, the Shah of Iran, and several other despots along the way. Always these were negotiated for short-term gains with unstable political entities in unstable political environments.

Certainly we need to maintain relations with India, supporting all efforts for a fuller development of democratic principles... but entering into this deal is dancing with the devil.

"The comparison between India and Iran is just ludicrous," R. Nicholas Burns, the under secretary of state for political affairs, said Thursday in a telephone interview. "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."

The comparison of India to Iran is an exaggeration, but there are dynamics that are similar and comparable... especially if we compare India today to Iran before the fall of the Shah.

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.

This bipartisan skepticism is unusual, producing for example cooperation between a liberal Democrat, Representative Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, and a conservative Republican, Representative Henry J. Hyde of Illinois, chairman of the House International Relations Committee.

Senator Richard G. Lugar, the Indiana Republican who leads the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has raised more than 80 questions about the deal that he says need to be answered before it can be approved.

I am no fan of either of these honorable gentlemen of congress. Markey is an entrenched politician that falls in line with the Kennedy line far too often. Hyde is wishy-washy on far too many issues. Lugar is usually far too entrenched on the ultra-conservative side of things. But, Lugar and Markey have considerable experience in matters of foreign affairs, and their questions, doubts and objections should be given due consideration.

I am putting this matter under the heading of yet another screwed up proposition by the Bush administration.

U.S., India Reach Deal On Nuclear Cooperation

NEW DELHI, March 2 -- President Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh announced Thursday an unprecedented agreement that would provide U.S. nuclear power assistance to India while allowing the country to substantially step up its nuclear weapons production.

The agreement, which marked a significant break from decades of U.S. nuclear policy, highlighted the increasingly close relationship between the world's two largest democracies and enabled both leaders to declare Bush's visit a success. But it also drew protests from some politicians in both countries.

Significant departure and a proliferation of nuclear power that may bring about another arms race between the US, its allies and China.

In Washington, where the pact is subject to approval by Congress, some lawmakers said the goal of improved bilateral relations must be balanced against the need to curb nuclear proliferation. In India, a number of protests were held to oppose Bush's visit, and socialist groups warned that India should not succumb to U.S. pressure on nuclear issues.

Under the agreement, India is to separate its civilian and military nuclear programs over the next eight years in order to gain U.S. expertise and nuclear fuel to meet its rapidly rising energy needs. India's civilian facilities would be subject for the first time to permanent international inspections.

Bush and Singh praised the deal at a joint news conference, but they did not mention that it would allow India to produce vast quantities of fissile material, something the United States and the four other major nuclear powers -- China, Russia, France and Britain -- have voluntarily halted. The pact also does not require oversight of India's prototype fast-breeder reactors, which can produce significant amounts of super-grade plutonium when fully operating.

Eliminating oversight? I see a consistent Bush theme here... no oversight, no answering to pesky powers that be, no accountability... very scary.

The Bush administration originally sought a plan that would have allowed India to continue producing material for six to 10 weapons each year, but the new plan would allow India enough fissile material for as many as 50 weapons a year. Experts said this would far exceed what is believed to be its current capacity.

"The nuclear options that India insisted on protecting in this deal cast serious doubt on its declared policy of seeking only a credible minimum deterrent," said Robert J. Einhorn, a former assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation, now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.