?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry


Nuclear Deal with India

  • Oct. 8th, 2008 at 9:17 AM
views_livemint
This is a bit off-election-topic, but it's a pretty big deal in India and thought I'd ask your opinions.

Bush will likely sign into effect a law that an AFP article explains as:

"The agreement offers India access to sophisticated US technology and cheap atomic energy in return for allowing UN inspections of some of its civilian nuclear facilities -- but not military nuclear sites."

While India itself is divided on the pact (and won't sign it into law until Bush does), it seems to me that Bush tried to usher this law through as fast as possible before leaving office because he couldn't rely on either McCain or Obama to ensure the deal.

As one of Bush's last moves as president, will his efforts to strengthen ties to India gain him some respect, does it even matter anymore what Bush is doing, or do you disagree with the new nuclear deal?

Comments

( Comment )
jeffxandra wrote:
Oct. 8th, 2008 04:43 pm (UTC)
This deal has been long in the works, indeed I can remember discussions of it back in 2005 at least. So I would disagree with the assertion that he's just trying to get it done now.

I've strongly disagreed with it as it undermines the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty the U.S. so stridently wields against countries like Iran. Furthermore it undermines the U.S.' relationship with Pakistan which is allegedly such a key ally with the U.S. in the war on terror. Indeed, I am concerned about the balance of power between those two countries and feel it's not a good tactic for the U.S.

There's a valid strategic question to ask if it an attempt to divorce India from the Russian and Chinese spheres of influence, but is this the appropriate priority if the War on Terror is the so-called greatest threat to the U.S. for the significantl futre?
brennakimi wrote:
Oct. 8th, 2008 05:16 pm (UTC)
It depends on what the "sophisticated US technology" is...

It is important to have cooperative efforts that encourage peaceful development. Nuclear energy is a guaranteed right under the NPT. But, any plan like this should include military inspections, as well, and it shouldn't be an agreement we make only with select nations.

This kind of an agreement should be available to any country willing to make promises and stick to limits on non-proliferation. It's important to build friendships, and this is a good way to do it while encouraging cleaner energy. But being belicose with some nations and overly squishy with others about proliferation is so not going to help us. We have to be consistent.
millenium_king wrote:
Oct. 8th, 2008 05:18 pm (UTC)
India
I am a US citizen and a big supporter of India. I believe them to be a responsible country interested in peace. I have no problem with India possessing nuclear facilities.

As for the effect on the "Non-Prolifferation Treaty," does it really matter? I have no problem witht the US wielding the Treaty against dangerous havens for terrorists and giving its allies a little more leeway.

India is the future of the Middle East (I know, it's not technically in the Middle East) and the East. They can be a huge counterweight against the Islamic radicalism and Chinese Communism that infuse the area.
letitshine wrote:
Oct. 8th, 2008 05:19 pm (UTC)
i need more information. Lets digg on this one and post our findings!
(no subject) - erynn999 - Oct. 8th, 2008 09:42 pm (UTC)
bridgeweaver wrote:
Oct. 8th, 2008 10:21 pm (UTC)
Actually, forging new and stronger ties with India can be said to be one of the only foreign policy successes that the Bush administration can claim. India will be a high-ranking second-tier world power and an extremely important counterweight to Chinese regional hegemony within the next 20 years, and it would be good for the U.S. to have a solid foundation of trust with the Indian government. India is already a nuclear power and it would be well to persuade Indians that their long-term interests are aligned with the West.

There are troubling questions about Pakistan and the effect a pro-India policy will have on our troubled relationship with that failing state. I think that Pakistan as an ally is rather like high-dose radiation therapy for cancer; it may kill the tumor but it may start three more. If forced to choose, India for the win all the way.
tyskkvinna wrote:
Oct. 8th, 2008 11:24 pm (UTC)
I completely agree with this - well said.
renegade_blue wrote:
Oct. 9th, 2008 05:42 am (UTC)
It's good for trade, but there are questions on India's commitment to the NPT and the stability of the region, particularly issues like Kashmir at the Pakistani border. Similarly Australia's government decided against uranium exports to India because it was not a party to the NPT.
tinceiri wrote:
Oct. 9th, 2008 07:37 pm (UTC)
While India itself is divided on the pact (and won't sign it into law until Bush does), it seems to me that Bush tried to usher this law through as fast as possible before leaving office because he couldn't rely on either McCain or Obama to ensure the deal.

Are you serious?
inafoxhole wrote:
Oct. 10th, 2008 04:06 am (UTC)
In a lot of ways it doesn't matter what Bush does... but at the same time, we are going to have to clean up after his mess when he's gone, and I am extremely skeptical of any deal that spreads nuclear technology, especially since India and Pakistan are still fingering triggers over territory, and while both are nuclear. Why is our supposed ally India concealing any nuclear sites from the UN, and why are we not treating them like Iran? No offense, of course, but it makes us look like hypocrites. I expect that from Bush, and that's why he can't rely on either candidate to support it.
polarisdib wrote:
Oct. 10th, 2008 06:53 am (UTC)
I'm sorry. Pardon me for being selfish, but I'm much more concerned with the $700 billion bailout and the rumors of another bailout, this one for banks, occurring inland right now. Nuclear power and a nuclear war is an interesting and multifaceted issue, indeed (I'm for nuclear power if we reprocess the waste and highly regulate it, which might make it more expensive enough to no longer be considered a reputable alternative fuel source), and the international implications are always dizzying, but Bush has done more obvious harm recently than "sneak" this in at the last minute.

--PolarisDiB
( Comment )