Full Version: Bush signs Nuclear Deal with India
This story pretty well speaks for itself. Basically, President Bush has signed an agreement with India to share advanced Nuclear technology. Here's a nice juicy bit...
Now the serious problems that such an agreement raises are straightforward, but I'll summarize in the interests of a focused debate.
1. The United States currently has a ban on sharing this sort of technology with countries that does not permit monitoring of it's Nuclear facilities... like India.
2. Congress and numerous international organizations forbid the sale of this sort of technology to countries just like India.
3. India publicly supports Iran's own Nuclear program.
Now at this point you're probably wondering why Bush would make such a commitment, especially given the obstacles confronting it in Congress. Well, here's another juicy bit from the aforementioned article:
So basically we have a deal that contravenes both U.S. law, international law, all common sense, undermines the very principles of non-proliferation, and lends tacit support to a government which the U.S. government has determined is actively undermining global security through their support of Iran.
1. Do you support this deal with the Indian government?
2. Should the U.S. President be pursuing agreements that contradict legislative policy?
3a. Should the U.S. government be engaged in "power balancing" in Asia?
3b. At what point do the aforementioned ends (opposing China) justify the means (further undermining nuclear non-proliferation ideals)?
QUOTE
The India deal, announced at the White House in July, would for the first time provide New Delhi with sensitive civilian nuclear technology. That would create an exception to the U.S. ban on nuclear assistance to any country that does not accept international monitoring of its nuclear facilities. India has not signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which requires such oversight, and conducted its first nuclear detonation in 1974.
Now the serious problems that such an agreement raises are straightforward, but I'll summarize in the interests of a focused debate.
1. The United States currently has a ban on sharing this sort of technology with countries that does not permit monitoring of it's Nuclear facilities... like India.
2. Congress and numerous international organizations forbid the sale of this sort of technology to countries just like India.
3. India publicly supports Iran's own Nuclear program.
Now at this point you're probably wondering why Bush would make such a commitment, especially given the obstacles confronting it in Congress. Well, here's another juicy bit from the aforementioned article:
QUOTE
Privately, administration officials have said the deal was part of a White House strategy to accelerate New Delhi's rise as a regional counterweight to China.
So basically we have a deal that contravenes both U.S. law, international law, all common sense, undermines the very principles of non-proliferation, and lends tacit support to a government which the U.S. government has determined is actively undermining global security through their support of Iran.
1. Do you support this deal with the Indian government?
2. Should the U.S. President be pursuing agreements that contradict legislative policy?
3a. Should the U.S. government be engaged in "power balancing" in Asia?
3b. At what point do the aforementioned ends (opposing China) justify the means (further undermining nuclear non-proliferation ideals)?
[s]Topic closed...
Recommended action:
If you started this topic, please contact the staff member who closed it by clicking the PM button below this post with a clear question to debate.
Helpful links:
- Starting New Topics
- Survival Guide
- The Rules
- Staff Directory
Note: This is an automated response.
REOPENED.
DEBATE:
1. Do you support this deal with the Indian government?
2. Should the U.S. President be pursuing agreements that contradict legislative policy?
3a. Should the U.S. government be engaged in "power balancing" in Asia?
3b. At what point do the aforementioned ends (opposing China) justify the means (further undermining nuclear non-proliferation ideals)?
DEBATE:
1. Do you support this deal with the Indian government?
2. Should the U.S. President be pursuing agreements that contradict legislative policy?
3a. Should the U.S. government be engaged in "power balancing" in Asia?
3b. At what point do the aforementioned ends (opposing China) justify the means (further undermining nuclear non-proliferation ideals)?
1. Do you support this deal with the Indian government?
It goes against the NPT, but India is already a nuclear power in terms of weaponry, so I don't really see that this deal on civilian nuclear power (if I've read the source material correctly it is a civilian deal) is going to have a destabilising effect.
Having said that, I don't think America should be supporting a bending or breach of the NPT rules with India while condemning any attempt to do so from Iran ostensibly under the same rules. It's a double standard, the percieved application of which is already one of the main reasons why the Islamic world (and many other pars of it) dislike America.,
2. Should the U.S. President be pursuing agreements that contradict legislative policy?
No, he shouldn't.
3a. Should the U.S. government be engaged in "power balancing" in Asia?
On the one hand, nuclear electricity generation in India (and China) will - regardless of the causes of global warming - be environmentaly friendlier in the short and medium term than burning the coal that is the main source of power in these growing Asian economies.
On the downside, Western interference in Asian regional politics has a long and happy history - the 19th century "Great Game" between Russia and Britain gave us the peaceful and stable nation of Afghanistan **ahem**. Traditionally, outsiders have always failed to take full account of the consequences of their actions and policies (and not just in foreign policy towards Asia) - the American support for anti-Soviet mujahedin during the Russian occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s led directly to the Taliban, and indirectly towards al-Quaeda.
If the goal is to create two regional superpowers, America should be careful waht she wishes for. To avoid the prospect of being dominated by China in (say) 50 years' time, America may just be creating the possibility that she will be dominated by both China and India in (say) 75 years' time.
3b. At what point do the aforementioned ends (opposing China) justify the means (further undermining nuclear non-proliferation ideals)?
In the immediate aftermath of WW2, America was a big fan of the creation of intenational law and of the institutions that oversee it. I think America needs to urgently remind itself (perhaps by - horrors! - reading some history books) of why it thought such ideas were valid in the first place, and then compare those ideas to it's current policies.
And realise two things:
1. The best way to avoid international complications is to apply one set of principles and aply them with utter consistency. Those principles should be based on international law, and not on transient American national interest (not least because American national interest is, almost by definition, transient, and principles, on principle, are not).
2. The best way to oppose or undermine Chinese the continued meteoric economic and political growth is to curb American enthusiasm for buying their cheap goods while not making anything much that they want to buy.
It goes against the NPT, but India is already a nuclear power in terms of weaponry, so I don't really see that this deal on civilian nuclear power (if I've read the source material correctly it is a civilian deal) is going to have a destabilising effect.
Having said that, I don't think America should be supporting a bending or breach of the NPT rules with India while condemning any attempt to do so from Iran ostensibly under the same rules. It's a double standard, the percieved application of which is already one of the main reasons why the Islamic world (and many other pars of it) dislike America.,
2. Should the U.S. President be pursuing agreements that contradict legislative policy?
No, he shouldn't.
3a. Should the U.S. government be engaged in "power balancing" in Asia?
On the one hand, nuclear electricity generation in India (and China) will - regardless of the causes of global warming - be environmentaly friendlier in the short and medium term than burning the coal that is the main source of power in these growing Asian economies.
On the downside, Western interference in Asian regional politics has a long and happy history - the 19th century "Great Game" between Russia and Britain gave us the peaceful and stable nation of Afghanistan **ahem**. Traditionally, outsiders have always failed to take full account of the consequences of their actions and policies (and not just in foreign policy towards Asia) - the American support for anti-Soviet mujahedin during the Russian occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s led directly to the Taliban, and indirectly towards al-Quaeda.
If the goal is to create two regional superpowers, America should be careful waht she wishes for. To avoid the prospect of being dominated by China in (say) 50 years' time, America may just be creating the possibility that she will be dominated by both China and India in (say) 75 years' time.
3b. At what point do the aforementioned ends (opposing China) justify the means (further undermining nuclear non-proliferation ideals)?
In the immediate aftermath of WW2, America was a big fan of the creation of intenational law and of the institutions that oversee it. I think America needs to urgently remind itself (perhaps by - horrors! - reading some history books) of why it thought such ideas were valid in the first place, and then compare those ideas to it's current policies.
And realise two things:
1. The best way to avoid international complications is to apply one set of principles and aply them with utter consistency. Those principles should be based on international law, and not on transient American national interest (not least because American national interest is, almost by definition, transient, and principles, on principle, are not).
2. The best way to oppose or undermine Chinese the continued meteoric economic and political growth is to curb American enthusiasm for buying their cheap goods while not making anything much that they want to buy.
1. Do you support this deal with the Indian government?
No way. Aside from the ignoring of aforementioned agreements made regarding nuclear technology and their support of Iran's program, the idea that one large country with an itchy tigger finger will be the "counter-balance" that the region needs in regards to China is in-freakin-sane.
Because if that's the case we have: a) angry Pakistanis who know we won't do them the same courtesy, b ) angry Chinese who are wondering why the hell we're helping the neighbor they don't like with upgrading their program and c) two ticked nations that share an already tense border with a country they don't trust.
That's a perfectly logical solution to China!
/sarcasm
2. Should the U.S. President be pursuing agreements that contradict legislative policy?
Uh, I'd hope not. There's a difference between bending international law and completely freakin ignoring it.
3a. Should the U.S. government be engaged in "power balancing" in Asia?
Yes. But this is not the way to go about it. I've always believed that the way to dealing with China is through Japan. They're not as un-freaking-stable as the Indians or the Pakistanis
3b. At what point do the aforementioned ends (opposing China) justify the means (further undermining nuclear non-proliferation ideals)?
They don't. Any further explanation would go into a philosophical debate on a middle ground, the need for nukes, and who gets to possess them.
No way. Aside from the ignoring of aforementioned agreements made regarding nuclear technology and their support of Iran's program, the idea that one large country with an itchy tigger finger will be the "counter-balance" that the region needs in regards to China is in-freakin-sane.
Because if that's the case we have: a) angry Pakistanis who know we won't do them the same courtesy, b ) angry Chinese who are wondering why the hell we're helping the neighbor they don't like with upgrading their program and c) two ticked nations that share an already tense border with a country they don't trust.
That's a perfectly logical solution to China!
/sarcasm
2. Should the U.S. President be pursuing agreements that contradict legislative policy?
Uh, I'd hope not. There's a difference between bending international law and completely freakin ignoring it.
3a. Should the U.S. government be engaged in "power balancing" in Asia?
Yes. But this is not the way to go about it. I've always believed that the way to dealing with China is through Japan. They're not as un-freaking-stable as the Indians or the Pakistanis
3b. At what point do the aforementioned ends (opposing China) justify the means (further undermining nuclear non-proliferation ideals)?
They don't. Any further explanation would go into a philosophical debate on a middle ground, the need for nukes, and who gets to possess them.
Let me say, first of all, that I do not oppose nuclear power in general. In fact, I think it probably the only realistic hope for "green" power in the near future.
I also have nothing against a close relationship between the United States and India. India, although it has problems, is currently one of the less repressive governments in the world (in very broad terms.) Here's a report from the watchdog group Freedom House.
Link
On a scale from 1 (USA, UK, Canada, etc.) to 7 (China, North Korea, etc.) those are pretty decent numbers. The USA should be on friendly terms with India, and encourage those numbers to improve.
One point to consider is that India is already a member of the Nuclear Club.
Link
Thus, it can be argued that the administration is not contributing to nuclear proliferation, since India already has nukes. (I might state here that a hot war between India and Pakistan leading to use of nuclear weapons is one of my apocalyptic nightmares.)
With all this mind, however, this seems like a very bad deal in general.
I. It bends, if not breaks, the rules on nuclear proliferation.
II. India gets what it wants, and the USA does not get what it wants. (Things may change with later negotiation.) India still supports Iran's nuclear energy program. What am I missing here? Why is this a good deal for the USA?
III. It's a major foreign policy decision made by the executive branch with little, if any, input from the legislative branch. This is a very bad precedent.
IV. As stated by others, it will cause increased resentment among other nations in the region.
To answer the debate questions:
1. No. I certainly support close relations with India, but this seems like a poor way to go about it.
2. No. It's another sign of the trend, over the last several decades, for the executive branch to dominate the legislative branch, particularly in foreign policy.
3. a. It should be done, but very, very carefully. Diplomacy is a game for experts only.
b. Only a "clear and present danger" (for example, China becoming much more aggressive than it already is) could justify this.
I also have nothing against a close relationship between the United States and India. India, although it has problems, is currently one of the less repressive governments in the world (in very broad terms.) Here's a report from the watchdog group Freedom House.
Link
QUOTE
Political Rights: 2
Civil Liberties: 3
Status: Free
Civil Liberties: 3
Status: Free
On a scale from 1 (USA, UK, Canada, etc.) to 7 (China, North Korea, etc.) those are pretty decent numbers. The USA should be on friendly terms with India, and encourage those numbers to improve.
One point to consider is that India is already a member of the Nuclear Club.
Link
QUOTE
India is in the process of becoming a full-fledged nuclear power with a wide variety of weapon systems . . .
Thus, it can be argued that the administration is not contributing to nuclear proliferation, since India already has nukes. (I might state here that a hot war between India and Pakistan leading to use of nuclear weapons is one of my apocalyptic nightmares.)
With all this mind, however, this seems like a very bad deal in general.
I. It bends, if not breaks, the rules on nuclear proliferation.
II. India gets what it wants, and the USA does not get what it wants. (Things may change with later negotiation.) India still supports Iran's nuclear energy program. What am I missing here? Why is this a good deal for the USA?
III. It's a major foreign policy decision made by the executive branch with little, if any, input from the legislative branch. This is a very bad precedent.
IV. As stated by others, it will cause increased resentment among other nations in the region.
To answer the debate questions:
1. No. I certainly support close relations with India, but this seems like a poor way to go about it.
2. No. It's another sign of the trend, over the last several decades, for the executive branch to dominate the legislative branch, particularly in foreign policy.
3. a. It should be done, but very, very carefully. Diplomacy is a game for experts only.
b. Only a "clear and present danger" (for example, China becoming much more aggressive than it already is) could justify this.
1. Do you support this deal with the Indian government?
2. Should the U.S. President be pursuing agreements that contradict legislative policy?
3a. Should the U.S. government be engaged in "power balancing" in Asia?
3b. At what point do the aforementioned ends (opposing China) justify the means (further undermining nuclear non-proliferation ideals)?
India is the world's largest democracy - and very succesful given it's size, history and economic status. (I'd also point out that it has the second largest Muslim population in the world and yet almost no fundamentalist groups operate out of there...)
It has made the decision, without arm-twisting, to negotiate peacefully with Pakistan on the status of Kashmir and is generally a responsible country that does not cause trouble on the international scene. It is not perfect, but it's certainly a lot better than many countries in the world today.
So I generally support any deal the US makes with India. Sooner or later, India will be a country with considerable economic and military power, so better it is accepted as a fellow democratic and responsible country by the West, than treated as a pariah.
2)No, but practicality should also be taken into account. India has nuclear technology, so there is little point in trying to act as if it doesn't. It isn't as if India has been walking around shouting 'do this or we will nuke you!'. Secondly, most countries in the world will want to start developing nuclear power stations to supply their energy needs. You think oil is expensive now? Just wait...
3) China needs to be encouraged to become democratic, and if that doesn't work, contained. Dealing with India shows the rewards of being democratic and also encourages the development of someone who may help contain China.
2. Should the U.S. President be pursuing agreements that contradict legislative policy?
3a. Should the U.S. government be engaged in "power balancing" in Asia?
3b. At what point do the aforementioned ends (opposing China) justify the means (further undermining nuclear non-proliferation ideals)?
India is the world's largest democracy - and very succesful given it's size, history and economic status. (I'd also point out that it has the second largest Muslim population in the world and yet almost no fundamentalist groups operate out of there...)
It has made the decision, without arm-twisting, to negotiate peacefully with Pakistan on the status of Kashmir and is generally a responsible country that does not cause trouble on the international scene. It is not perfect, but it's certainly a lot better than many countries in the world today.
So I generally support any deal the US makes with India. Sooner or later, India will be a country with considerable economic and military power, so better it is accepted as a fellow democratic and responsible country by the West, than treated as a pariah.
2)No, but practicality should also be taken into account. India has nuclear technology, so there is little point in trying to act as if it doesn't. It isn't as if India has been walking around shouting 'do this or we will nuke you!'. Secondly, most countries in the world will want to start developing nuclear power stations to supply their energy needs. You think oil is expensive now? Just wait...
3) China needs to be encouraged to become democratic, and if that doesn't work, contained. Dealing with India shows the rewards of being democratic and also encourages the development of someone who may help contain China.
So you are okay with India supplying nuke stuff to Iran then? You didn't seem to address this much in your post- so I am curious- for the most part, India, on the global scene, has been far more responsible in it's dealings than say, oh, the US 
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Sep 12 2005, 08:09 AM)
So you are okay with India supplying nuke stuff to Iran then? You didn't seem to address this much in your post- so I am curious- for the most part, India, on the global scene, has been far more responsible in it's dealings than say, oh, the US
TOPICS:
1. Do you support this deal with the Indian government?
2. Should the U.S. President be pursuing agreements that contradict legislative policy?
3a. Should the U.S. government be engaged in "power balancing" in Asia?
3b. At what point do the aforementioned ends (opposing China) justify the means (further undermining nuclear non-proliferation ideals)?
Please do respond to moderation notes within the topic.
I was wanting clarification- perhaps put this way- "what about the issue of India's close relationship with Iran on nuclear issues, isn't that problematic in your response- or do you think it is minor compared to positives you described?"
I'm going to play devil's advocate on this one---I'm not sure yet where I stand on this issue.
The idea of helping along India's civilian (i.e. non-military) nuclear program should not necessarily be automatically viewed as a Bad Thing ™.
First off, we must look at the general energy situation. The Chinese and the Indians are both starving for resources to fuel their economies. They both import huge quantities of oil--currently China is at about 7 million barrels a day and India is at around 1.4 million barrels per day. This consumption jumped 15% last year and is projected to increase 9% this year Business Week
India is losing the energy war. China has secured deals with many major oil producers and is muscling its way towards more.
Why should the US care? We should care because this is the primary cause of skyrocketing oil prices here in the US. These countries need oil and they are willing to pay for it.
81% of India's electricity is produced with fossil fuels. Only 3.4% is produced by nuclear power plants. source India has 14 nuclear plants now and is currently building 8 more. It is one of only 7 countries world-wide who are building nuclear power plants. source.
Given these facts and the pressures that India's demands for oil put on the cost of oil on the world-wide market, it is in our best interest to try to wean them off of oil as much as possible. Heck, we should wean ourselves off of oil (as an electricity source, but that is another debate).
India and the US have had an ever closer relationship since the Cold War ended and especially after 9/11. source The US has viewed India as a potential counterweight to growing Asian powers for years. India has been exploring relationships with both Russia and China. For those that believe we need allies, India is the choice for the Asian region.
The next factor is non-proliferation. Part of the agreement is additional controls on civilian nuclear facilities in India. source: US State Dept
This is the carrot that India needed to get it in line with "international nonproliferation mainstream". India does not have a history of proliferation, even though it is not a NPT signatory. This does give the US additional guarantees that India will not sell nuclear secrets to rogue states. India is against certain provisions of the NPT, but is generally for non-proliferation. See this document.
The last factor: Iran. India supports Iran's right to use nuclear energy. India is walking a fine line: it needs oil and natural gas from Iran but it does not want Iran to "go nuclear" as in weapons. link
2. Should the U.S. President be pursuing agreements that contradict legislative policy?
This question is a non sequitur. In order for this deal to become effective, the legislation must change. If it doesn't, then the deal is a no-go.
3a. Should the U.S. government be engaged in "power balancing" in Asia?
Absolutely. In a more neutral wording, this would be called recruiting allies.
3b. At what point do the aforementioned ends (opposing China) justify the means (further undermining nuclear non-proliferation ideals)?
I am unaware of India being a party to "undermining non-proliferation ideals". They are not a party to the NPT but they are hardly the only proliferator. As a matter of fact, the US is probably more of a proliferator than India (ahem, North Korea). Russia, France, Germany, the Ukraine, Pakistan and others have dealt in the nuclear market as well.
To boil it down:
Reasons to help India with civilian nuclear technology:
- Alleviates the increasing demand for petroleum fuels.
- Builds stronger relationships with an Asian power.
- Gives India a reason to back off its agreements with Iran over energy exchange.
- Technology traded to India would be monitored by the IAEA.
Reasons against:
- India is not a signatory to the NPT.
- Iran has closer relations than we would like with Iran.
There is a lot involved in this. I'm not sure what the right answer is.
The idea of helping along India's civilian (i.e. non-military) nuclear program should not necessarily be automatically viewed as a Bad Thing ™.
First off, we must look at the general energy situation. The Chinese and the Indians are both starving for resources to fuel their economies. They both import huge quantities of oil--currently China is at about 7 million barrels a day and India is at around 1.4 million barrels per day. This consumption jumped 15% last year and is projected to increase 9% this year Business Week
QUOTE
Both of Asia's rising powers desperately need energy. China today imports roughly half its oil. Consumption rose by 15% last year and is forecast to jump by an additional 9% this year. By 2025, China will burn through 14.2 million barrels a day, double this year's level, the U.S. Energy Dept. predicts. India's oil imports are expected to rise to some 5 million barrels a day by 2020, from around 1.4 million barrels at present.
India is losing the energy war. China has secured deals with many major oil producers and is muscling its way towards more.
Why should the US care? We should care because this is the primary cause of skyrocketing oil prices here in the US. These countries need oil and they are willing to pay for it.
81% of India's electricity is produced with fossil fuels. Only 3.4% is produced by nuclear power plants. source India has 14 nuclear plants now and is currently building 8 more. It is one of only 7 countries world-wide who are building nuclear power plants. source.
Given these facts and the pressures that India's demands for oil put on the cost of oil on the world-wide market, it is in our best interest to try to wean them off of oil as much as possible. Heck, we should wean ourselves off of oil (as an electricity source, but that is another debate).
India and the US have had an ever closer relationship since the Cold War ended and especially after 9/11. source The US has viewed India as a potential counterweight to growing Asian powers for years. India has been exploring relationships with both Russia and China. For those that believe we need allies, India is the choice for the Asian region.
The next factor is non-proliferation. Part of the agreement is additional controls on civilian nuclear facilities in India. source: US State Dept
QUOTE
India will assume the same responsibilities and practices as other countries with advanced nuclear programs, and has agreed to:
Identify and separate civilian and military nuclear facilities and programs and file an IAEA declaration regarding its civilian facilities;
Place voluntarily its civilian nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards;
Sign and adhere to an Additional Protocol with respect to civilian nuclear facilities;
Continue its unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing;
Work with the U.S. for the conclusion of a multilateral Fissile Material Cut Off Treaty;
Refrain from the transfer of enrichment and reprocessing technologies to states that do not have them and support efforts to limit their spread; and
Secure nuclear materials and technology through comprehensive export control legislation and adherence to the Missile Technology Control Regime and Nuclear Suppliers Group.
Identify and separate civilian and military nuclear facilities and programs and file an IAEA declaration regarding its civilian facilities;
Place voluntarily its civilian nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards;
Sign and adhere to an Additional Protocol with respect to civilian nuclear facilities;
Continue its unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing;
Work with the U.S. for the conclusion of a multilateral Fissile Material Cut Off Treaty;
Refrain from the transfer of enrichment and reprocessing technologies to states that do not have them and support efforts to limit their spread; and
Secure nuclear materials and technology through comprehensive export control legislation and adherence to the Missile Technology Control Regime and Nuclear Suppliers Group.
This is the carrot that India needed to get it in line with "international nonproliferation mainstream". India does not have a history of proliferation, even though it is not a NPT signatory. This does give the US additional guarantees that India will not sell nuclear secrets to rogue states. India is against certain provisions of the NPT, but is generally for non-proliferation. See this document.
The last factor: Iran. India supports Iran's right to use nuclear energy. India is walking a fine line: it needs oil and natural gas from Iran but it does not want Iran to "go nuclear" as in weapons. link
2. Should the U.S. President be pursuing agreements that contradict legislative policy?
This question is a non sequitur. In order for this deal to become effective, the legislation must change. If it doesn't, then the deal is a no-go.
3a. Should the U.S. government be engaged in "power balancing" in Asia?
Absolutely. In a more neutral wording, this would be called recruiting allies.
3b. At what point do the aforementioned ends (opposing China) justify the means (further undermining nuclear non-proliferation ideals)?
I am unaware of India being a party to "undermining non-proliferation ideals". They are not a party to the NPT but they are hardly the only proliferator. As a matter of fact, the US is probably more of a proliferator than India (ahem, North Korea). Russia, France, Germany, the Ukraine, Pakistan and others have dealt in the nuclear market as well.
To boil it down:
Reasons to help India with civilian nuclear technology:
- Alleviates the increasing demand for petroleum fuels.
- Builds stronger relationships with an Asian power.
- Gives India a reason to back off its agreements with Iran over energy exchange.
- Technology traded to India would be monitored by the IAEA.
Reasons against:
- India is not a signatory to the NPT.
- Iran has closer relations than we would like with Iran.
There is a lot involved in this. I'm not sure what the right answer is.
QUOTE
I was wanting clarification- perhaps put this way- "what about the issue of India's close relationship with Iran on nuclear issues, isn't that problematic in your response- or do you think it is minor compared to positives you described?"
Ok, I should have addressed that in my earlier post. Thanks for pointing it out
I believe that Iran has every right to pursue nuclear technology so far as it pertains to the development of civilian reactors, which is the Indian stance too. India has NOT said 'we believe that Iran should have nuclear weapons' but it HAS said that Iran should be allowed to pursue nuclear technology for peaceful means.
Now, India needs Iranian natural gas (well, it needs energy) and yes, Iran has broken its commitment to the NPT, but we still have no proof that Iranian intentions are not peaceful. India is simply being pragmatic. I can't say that Western governments haven't turned a blind eye every so often when it suits them. (Uzbekistan anyone?)..
I have no end of problems with Iran. I am sure that privately the Indian government would prefer that Iran was a nicer place. However, given that India needs Iranian gas and that Iran is not a threat to India, they are making the right call. Besides which, Iran would be able to get the technology from somewhere. If not India, then I am sure another nuclear power would be happy to sell it to them.
This is a hard one for me. I'm not sure what I think about it, but I'll attempt to address the topic questions from ambivalent ground.
1. Do you support this deal with the Indian government?
I'm not sure. I think it's important to keep in mind that this deal needs Congressional authorization AND approval from the Nuclear Suppliers Group (a consortium of more than 40 countries that controls export of nuclear technology). That is enough checks and balances, IMO, if it succeeds. Also worth noting, the IAEA director general has reacted favorably to this agreement.
A few more things to consider: The agreement would provide controls on nuclear materials whereas there are none now (India has done well on the honor system, though). Basically the agreement would recognize India as a nuclear power and provide the same set of expectations that other nuclear powers have. On the issue of non-proliferation India would become an active partner. With an armed Pakistan there is no way to do so otherwise.
2. Should the U.S. President be pursuing agreements that contradict legislative policy?
The short answer is yes, if the policies need to change based on the times. Pursuing agreements doesn't mean he has the power to act on them without approval, it is a way to push for change, or in some cases keep the negotiation process going...as Clinton did when he signed into the ICC, Unconstitutional though it was and is, without approval from the Senate.
3a. Should the U.S. government be engaged in "power balancing" in Asia?
3b. At what point do the aforementioned ends (opposing China) justify the means (further undermining nuclear non-proliferation ideals)?
I'm sort of an isolationist in this regard, but we do currently have forces in Asia offering an active defense and staging ground. That is power balancing. I'd rather do so via economic stimulus and common interest with a proven responsible country than place soldiers in the field under the old paradigm.
This move isn't just a measure to combat the Chinese, it has a lot to do with Pakistan and terrorist interception too. There are a few other pieces on the chess board that have been considered. Of course, there are pieces on the other side of the chessboard, too. This move is inconsistent as no other countries have been offered this type of deal, and a major change of policy. The debate, IMO, comes down to whether we are resolved to the fact that the NPT will eventually be ineffective as the incentive to obtain weapons (modern technology is making it easier) outweigh the incentives not to and if so, what is the best way to combat that.
Interesting India opinion piece here
1. Do you support this deal with the Indian government?
I'm not sure. I think it's important to keep in mind that this deal needs Congressional authorization AND approval from the Nuclear Suppliers Group (a consortium of more than 40 countries that controls export of nuclear technology). That is enough checks and balances, IMO, if it succeeds. Also worth noting, the IAEA director general has reacted favorably to this agreement.
QUOTE
20 July 2005 | IAEA Director General, Mohamed ElBaradei has welcomed the US-India agreement to embark on full civil nuclear energy cooperation and to work to enhance nuclear non-proliferation and security.
"Out of the box thinking and active participation by all members of the international community are important if we are to advance nuclear arms control, non-proliferation, safety and security, and tackle new threats such as illicit trafficking in sensitive nuclear technology and the risks of nuclear terrorism," Dr. ElBaradei said.
"Out of the box thinking and active participation by all members of the international community are important if we are to advance nuclear arms control, non-proliferation, safety and security, and tackle new threats such as illicit trafficking in sensitive nuclear technology and the risks of nuclear terrorism," Dr. ElBaradei said.
A few more things to consider: The agreement would provide controls on nuclear materials whereas there are none now (India has done well on the honor system, though). Basically the agreement would recognize India as a nuclear power and provide the same set of expectations that other nuclear powers have. On the issue of non-proliferation India would become an active partner. With an armed Pakistan there is no way to do so otherwise.
2. Should the U.S. President be pursuing agreements that contradict legislative policy?
The short answer is yes, if the policies need to change based on the times. Pursuing agreements doesn't mean he has the power to act on them without approval, it is a way to push for change, or in some cases keep the negotiation process going...as Clinton did when he signed into the ICC, Unconstitutional though it was and is, without approval from the Senate.
3a. Should the U.S. government be engaged in "power balancing" in Asia?
3b. At what point do the aforementioned ends (opposing China) justify the means (further undermining nuclear non-proliferation ideals)?
I'm sort of an isolationist in this regard, but we do currently have forces in Asia offering an active defense and staging ground. That is power balancing. I'd rather do so via economic stimulus and common interest with a proven responsible country than place soldiers in the field under the old paradigm.
This move isn't just a measure to combat the Chinese, it has a lot to do with Pakistan and terrorist interception too. There are a few other pieces on the chess board that have been considered. Of course, there are pieces on the other side of the chessboard, too. This move is inconsistent as no other countries have been offered this type of deal, and a major change of policy. The debate, IMO, comes down to whether we are resolved to the fact that the NPT will eventually be ineffective as the incentive to obtain weapons (modern technology is making it easier) outweigh the incentives not to and if so, what is the best way to combat that.
Interesting India opinion piece here
QUOTE
Mr. Bush wants to extend the lessons from the war on terrorism by drawing in law enforcement agencies to crack down on networks of nuclear smuggling of the type developed by Dr. AQ Khan in Pakistan.
Until now, India has neither criticized nor endorsed the PSI. As the victim of clandestine nuclear flows between Pakistan and North Korea, India understands the importance of addressing the challenge of international traffic in sensitive materials.
*snip*
The US is aware of the vital role that the Indian Navy could play in monitoring and interdicting international commercial traffic in the Indian Ocean region. But questions remain to be addressed on the terms and conditions under which India could become a part of the PSI, either formally or informally. India is unlikely to object to the second Bush proposal calling for a United Nations Security Council Resolution criminalizing proliferation and strengthening export controls and tightening security over sensitive materials.
Until now, India has neither criticized nor endorsed the PSI. As the victim of clandestine nuclear flows between Pakistan and North Korea, India understands the importance of addressing the challenge of international traffic in sensitive materials.
*snip*
The US is aware of the vital role that the Indian Navy could play in monitoring and interdicting international commercial traffic in the Indian Ocean region. But questions remain to be addressed on the terms and conditions under which India could become a part of the PSI, either formally or informally. India is unlikely to object to the second Bush proposal calling for a United Nations Security Council Resolution criminalizing proliferation and strengthening export controls and tightening security over sensitive materials.
1. Do you support this deal with the Indian government?
There are many advantages to this deal that Amlord and BeetleMeetle have brought up. Looking at the follow up Washington Post article from Indian PM Singh's visit we see that
This would almost put India in compliant with the Nonproliferation Act. My question is why is India against international monitoring of its nuclear weapons program? If it is good enough for 44 nations, why not India? Because of this, I do not like this specific deal as is. As is, India gains a bargaining chip to get that natural gas pipeline from Iran in exchange for nuclear technology and US policy is undermined.
2. Should the U.S. President be pursuing agreements that contradict legislative policy?
That said, I support the President's move here because it will never get past Congress or France or Russia until India agrees to become fully compliant. As Mrs. P has hinted towards, it's a gesture that could get India to join the international community on their nonproliferation stance. From the aforementioned article,
If this is true, then India will have no problem becoming fully compliant with the Nonproliferation Act and will be obligated to join the rest of the world in pushing Iran towards compliance.
3a. Should the U.S. government be engaged in "power balancing" in Asia?
3b. At what point do the aforementioned ends (opposing China) justify the means (further undermining nuclear non-proliferation ideals)?
I think that the US should build alliances with freedom loving countries.
There are many advantages to this deal that Amlord and BeetleMeetle have brought up. Looking at the follow up Washington Post article from Indian PM Singh's visit we see that
QUOTE
Under the agreement, India would place its civilian nuclear facilities, but not its nuclear weapons program, under international monitoring and would continue a ban on nuclear testing. The United States would give India access to U.S. nuclear technology and conventional weapons systems.
This would almost put India in compliant with the Nonproliferation Act. My question is why is India against international monitoring of its nuclear weapons program? If it is good enough for 44 nations, why not India? Because of this, I do not like this specific deal as is. As is, India gains a bargaining chip to get that natural gas pipeline from Iran in exchange for nuclear technology and US policy is undermined.
2. Should the U.S. President be pursuing agreements that contradict legislative policy?
That said, I support the President's move here because it will never get past Congress or France or Russia until India agrees to become fully compliant. As Mrs. P has hinted towards, it's a gesture that could get India to join the international community on their nonproliferation stance. From the aforementioned article,
QUOTE
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, addressing Congress, said his country, which developed its nuclear program in secret in the 1970s, was a responsible nuclear state that would closely guard any future acquisitions of sensitive U.S. technology.
If this is true, then India will have no problem becoming fully compliant with the Nonproliferation Act and will be obligated to join the rest of the world in pushing Iran towards compliance.
3a. Should the U.S. government be engaged in "power balancing" in Asia?
3b. At what point do the aforementioned ends (opposing China) justify the means (further undermining nuclear non-proliferation ideals)?
I think that the US should build alliances with freedom loving countries.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.