Lord Curzon said in 1901 “As long as we rule India we are the greatest power in the world. If we lose it we shall drop straight away to a third-rate power.”

Manish, your argument underestimates the degree to which reciprocity and the example set by countries like the US and UK matter when it comes to compliance with international law. Suppose we rewrote your post as follows:

The British rag The Economist once again criticizes the [U.S. practices in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, John Yoo's torture memo, etc.] for breaking the [U.N. Convention Against Torture], claiming there’s some kind of comparison with the pariah government of [Saddam Hussein].

Would you make that structurally identical critique of this hypothetical Economist column? Perhaps you would, in which case end of discussion, I suppose, though I think that the critique would be deeply misguided. Or maybe the difference for you is that you don't believe in the NPT while you do believe in the Torture Convention. But as a valid and binding international law instrument it still does deserve the respect of its state parties unless and until renegotiated. When the US and UK flout its provisions to create ad hoc exceptions for countries like India, it does send a message to other countries that they, too, should not take their international law obligations all that seriously. Follow the law.... when it's convenient and in our interests, but otherwise, ignore it. But if that principle is good enough for the UK, US, and India, why isn't it good enough for Iran -- whether it comes to the NPT or anything else, including human rights treaties?

Incidentally, the notion in your earlier post that India deserves special treatment because it is a responsible, non-profliferating democracy is subject to the following qualification: by conducting its tests in the late 1990s, India essentially legitimated Pakistan's nuclear tests that same month and in the broader scheme of things probably undermined efforts to contain profileration by Pakistan. Not necessarily responsible in its exercise of judgment, and not necessarily anti-profileration in its effect.

The British rag The Economist once again criticizes the U.S.-India nuke deal

I dont share their view of the deal, but I wont call the Economist a rag.

India essentially legitimated Pakistan's nuclear tests that same month and in the broader scheme of things probably undermined efforts to contain profileration by Pakistan.

AQ Khan had been proliferating before India conducted their nuclear tests. Moreover, it gives India a reason to possess such weapons...

In the same issue, in Letters to the Editor, a number of people take the The Economist to task for its position, and one even defends Arundhati Roy. I think the first letter is particularly brilliant ;)

On America and India

he law firm for whom Cherie Blair works, has drawn up a legal opinion… that any replacement of Trident would constitute “a material breach” of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

While the other, Blair (the one who really matters) is threatening Iran over Nuclear matter

In striking his deal with India, allowing it to import nuclear fuel and technology despite its weapons-building, Mr Bush has not for the first time seemed readier to favour a friend than to stick to a principle…

This is the same thinking that still has most British convinced that the British Empire was a benevolent rule. Wage Chemical warfare against a nation/people for purely the reasons of empire and still claim to have principles.

In striking his deal with India, allowing it to import nuclear fuel and technology despite its weapons-building, Mr Bush has not for the first time seemed readier to favour a friend than to stick to a principle…

In a very "principled" way, The Economist has NOT covered UK's nuclear weapon story, while pontificating about principles that others should stick too. Very principled indeed ....

Didnt know this, (from KXB's link)

Moreover, India has adopted two policies that none of the five established nuclear powers follow: no first use of nuclear weapons, and no weapons to be used against a non-nuclear nation. Can we expect the established nuclear powers to follow Delhi's example?

Can someone confirm the above?

From the Federation of American Scientists:

India has a declared nuclear no-first-use policy and is in the process of developing a nuclear doctrine based on "credible minimum deterrence." In August 1999, the Indian government released a draft of the doctrine which asserts that nuclear weapons are solely for deterrence and that India will pursue a policy of "retaliation only." The document also maintains that India "will not be the first to initiate a nuclear first strike, but will respond with punitive retaliation should deterrence fail" and that decisions to authorize the use of nuclear weapons would be made by the Prime Minister or his 'designated successor(s).'"

This is the same thinking that still has most British convinced that the British Empire was a benevolent rule.

As someone who actually lives in the UK and has spent his entire life here, I can state categorically that this claim is not accurate. The whole issue of British colonialism is a very awkward topic indeed here these days (to the extent that even the high school-level curriculum treats the imperial era as having few redeeming features). To say that "most" British believe the above is a huge exaggeration, especially with regards to large numbers of the indigenous British younger generation who have grown up in a multicultural society surrounded by 2nd-generation non-whites who were also born in the UK. On the whole, this is also reflected in the mainstream British media.

RC, unless you personally live in the UK or have spent a large proportion of your life in this country (especially during the last 15 years or so), with all due respect you may not be in the best position to comment on indigenous British attitudes.

what do u expect its a brit journal, I used to read economist when i was in school but never subscribed to it.
A better name should be the colonialist
Apart from FT i dont read anything coming from those islands.
They are allways smug, huffing and puffing over any thing any one does and in essence saying we could have done it
better.(except they never do anything)
Back in the day economist had real economy related story.
a good journal for real economic and political analysis is far eastern economic review.
It is more wider in scope than what its name applies.

A trivial but humorous story is after 1974 test france sent indira a wire with 1 word :-"congratulation",
within hours british ambassador called to get an apppointment she told him that it could only be done on the phone
later on the phone she told him if it is regarding the test only there isnt much to talk about and she had more pressing things to do.
The conversation was over in under a minute.

PS this deal is going to go along the lines of US-China Nuclear Cooperation.
Check this summary of the long events
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/58442.pdf

The US congress will attempt to add more clauses, in that case india should just walk out of the deal.
All that would mean is that it wont go thru this year but another couple of years down the road.

Moreover, India has adopted two policies that none of the five established nuclear powers follow: no first use of nuclear weapons, and no weapons to be used against a non-nuclear nation. Can we expect the established nuclear powers to follow Delhi's example?

Can someone confirm the above?

GGK wrote:

Apart from FT i dont read anything coming from those islands.

FYI, the FT Group, a subsidiary of the Pearson Group, has a 50% stake in the Economist. I find the content and editorial opinions to be quite in synch in both FT & the Economist.

I believe the Pearson Group also has a minority stake in the Economic Times published in India.

Can someone confirm the above?

Yes!
Where have you been!

Watching football ;)

Jai,
I made my claim based on a US based leftist Rahul Mahajan's (with whoes views, I dont always agree) blog entry that described his lectures in the UK.

An excerpt :

The idea of prosecuting soldiers for the crimes they've committed in occupied Iraq has, interestingly, caused even more outrage in Britan than in the United States, with condemnations of the entire concept from major political figures (whereas in the United States, ever since the Abu Ghraib photographs, the attitude has been more a CYA approach of blaming crimes on individual soldiers in order to exonerate the larger policy and its policymakers). This attitude is clearly a legacy of the old-time British imperial mindset (I was deeply annoyed to see, in a recent speaking tour in Britain, how much of a feeling there is that the British empire was benevolent).

I have been to school in UK (albeit for a short time and not long enough to meet the 15 year requirement set by Jai) and in elite universities in UK, I saw numerous otherwise very liberal British students express benevolent feelings towards the 'Raj'.

Of course, I do realize that I can only extrapolate that much from my anecdotal evidence, but that was the general feeling I got from both students and professors, while I was there. There were some dissenters, but most people had a more benign impression of the Raj than I expected.

FYI, the FT Group, a subsidiary of the Pearson Group, has a 50% stake in the Economist. I find the content and editorial opinions to be quite in synch in both FT & the Economist.

I believe the Pearson Group also has a minority stake in the Economic Times published in India.

1. Brits are predictably vocal in opposition because, in all the exuberance by the US at gaining a new ally in India along the lines of traditional allies UK and Israel, their role is naturally diminished:

(US support / 2) >> (US support / 3)

2. It doesn't (they think) cost them much "diplomatic capital" to oppose India, as the EU isn't as aggressive in foreign policy, and in fact courts China. Britain actually gains by vocal opposition as it makes them seem caring and anti-proliferation in the eyes of their friends (too bad about Iraq, eh?). The truth, as other mutineers have nicely pointed out by the Titan post, is far from it.

3. Despite what Jai says I believe Britain has and will continue to view India as an unequal. I don't live there nor have I stepped foot outside of Heathrow, but I know they "owned" us for 200+ years, "civilized" us (read: sucked us dry... but thanks for the railroads), and will be damned if they stand by and let India eclipse them.

How 'bout taking a page from the great Johnny Carson on gracefully bowing out, Tony...

There is no real equivalence between the UK and Iran, nor between India and Iran, only a cartel negotiation. It’s strictly business.

Yup, a cartel negotiation. Iran is milking the best deal possible. IF the US reaalllyyyy wanted to take those installations out, they could in a heartbeat. The first squadron of F-22s are up, obviously we have the B-2 and F-117s operational. And you have cruise missles. Israel would send a mission somehow, those dudes have balls (Entebbe, Iraq's nuclear facilities). Iraq was the low hanging fruit of the middle east and Saddam was a blatanly stupid businessman. He called the bluff (Twice) that wasn't one. Iran has been very careful, avoiding direct conflict with the United States for a long time. They (the ruling mullah despots) are crafty businessmen.

What is the shelf life for these weapons? Much of the world's nuclear aresenal is getting old. Does it constitute a breach of the NPT if one develops more efficient weapons, yet at the same time reduces their overall quantities? I don't know.

Indian democracy thrives on debate and dialogue with its writers and intellectuals, which is probably why an illiterate rickshaw-puller on the street is better informed and has far greater critical thinking skills than the “educated” average American.

This is from one of the letters from The Economist, through KXB. It is amazingly true.

In 2004, I used to chat with one of the inner-city bus driver in Hyderabad around Nov.4 elections. He knew quite a bit about Bush, Kerry stances on out-sourcing, Iraq, etc. He was pro-Bush.

I think it will take 3-4 years before Indo-US Nuclear deal gets passed in the Congress (as opposed to 13 years for China-US deal). A lot will depend on how Congress views China at that time. Does India have good lobbyists lined up. I'll send emails to lawmakers when the deal on the front burner. I know a couple of ex-ambassadors to India are speaking on India's behalf.

"Does it constitute a breach of the NPT if one develops more efficient weapons, yet at the same time reduces their overall quantities?"

I think one of the breaches of NPT is to make new weapons-grade plutonium. I think making new warheads is not one. I might be wrong.

China does not claim that they are not making new plutonium - Strictly, they are not obeying NPT.

IF the US reaalllyyyy wanted to take those installations out, they could in a heartbeat.

OK I'm having posters remorse... re-reading statement #3 above I feel I was a bit harsh on the good old Union Jackers. I still think some on the Isles privately take credit for India's successes as "former subjects of Her majesty, the Queen," but then again we all know how the US looks at the rest of the world.

(I was deeply annoyed to see, in a recent speaking tour in Britain, how much of a feeling there is that the British empire was benevolent).

No. They cant. Iran is not Iraq. Iran is 3 times the size of Iraq. Iraq was gutted from inside due to the 10 years of sanctions. Iran's army is just fine. Even after attacking a tiny nation which practically didnt have an army, the US is having a hard time controlling it. and Yes, chest thumping feels good.

Reading comprehension is a skill. I said installations, not outright full fledged war. That is why I listed weapons that are stand-off in nature. What did my post highlight? The US HAS the ability to take the installations out, yet haven't? Why? Going based upon your previous positions, you'd think if GWB was so keen on starting something, he would have already sent in the tip of the spear.

Iranian Army, though underequipped, is very loyal to the mullahs. Underestimating their technical competance was the Saddam's biggest mistake during the Iran-Iraq war. Those guys died in droves and kept coming, not unlike the Soviets during WWII. Again, no one is starting a war with Iran anytime soon. Iranians are engaging countries on a level where it doesn't cost them much. Sure, a war with the US and it's allies probably would end in some sort of stalemate, but the burden of cost would be on Iran. One has to take a look next door to see that.

I'm not chest-thumping. Just stating the pragmatic realities of the tactical strike capabilities. The US Army, nor any in the world as an individual nation, is in a position to occupy Iran.

A reccomended book is punjabi saga by prakash tandon.(Hey Kush are you related? ;-

Yes, very distantly. I am not sure. I might have to ask my parents.

the pics are precious. i can't tell which one i'm enjoying more....bush on the bomb or ....wait, no brainer.

Does India have good lobbyists lined up. I'll send emails to lawmakers when the deal on the front burner. I know a couple of ex-ambassadors to India are speaking on India's behalf.

I just read this morning in one of the Indian newspapers that the Indian govt has signed up Robert Blackwill's lobby firm for $1.5mn to promote the deal in Congress. Can't find the link right now, though.

RC,

I was deeply annoyed to see, in a recent speaking tour in Britain, how much of a feeling there is that the British empire was benevolent

I think it's more accurate to say that the general consensus here is one of underestimating (or ignoring) the more negative aspects of British colonialism, rather than some kind of "apologist" attitude -- especially as, from their view, their most recent point of comparison is Nazi Germany. The average Brit is usually embarrassed by his/her nation's imperial past -- especially those who have lived, studied, and worked alongside a significant number of non-whites and have had positive experiences with them. There are, of course, plenty of exceptions -- both subtle and overt -- but to assume that "most" indigenous British people are some kind of jingoistic, chest-thumping imperialists hankering for the days of "the Raj" is not correct. Maybe about 20 years ago, but not today. In fact, on the whole, people who do espouse that kind of attitude are usually ridiculed, especially if they do so in the public eye/the media (here in the UK, such people are often disparagingly referred to as "Daily Mail readers" -- fellow Mutineers from the UK will know what I mean).

Al_M_f_D,

elite universities in UK, I saw numerous otherwise very liberal British students express benevolent feelings towards the 'Raj'.

I myself studied at several (to use your term -- I'm trying to be modest here) "elite universities in the UK" -- please refer to my previous paragraph. The same applies to many of my current and former professional colleagues, large numbers of who are also originally from top-tier universities. They regard the colonial era as ancient history, one which they're not necessarily very proud of and something they associate as one of the more distasteful aspects of their grandparents' generation. In fact many of these guys find it grossly offensive if you continue to carry a chip on your shoulder towards them about this, especially as they do not hold any personal responsibility for the actions of their ancestors and they very often go to great lengths to be friendly, fair-minded and non-prejudiced towards all of us. One may as well continue to harbour a grudge against present-day Germans for the actions of the Nazis, or even present-day Iranians and Afghanis for the excesses of the Mughal Empire.

As I said before, there are of course plenty of racist English people around, and these things can also sometimes have a professional impact on one's career too (a while ago I had a disagreement about this with BongBreaker and found an unexpected ally in MoorNam !), but to say that "most" English people have this attitude is inaccurate. A lot, yes. Most, no. Otherwise we really wouldn't be able to make any professional progress here at all apart from what are regarded as low-level menial careers.

Pravasi,

Britain actually gains by vocal opposition as it makes them seem caring and anti-proliferation in the eyes of their friends (too bad about Iraq, eh?).

The majority of British people actually oppose the war in Iraq and condemn the unethical actions of some of the Coalition troops, including the various prisoner abuse scandals, the whole issue of Guantanamo and "extraordinary rendition", and indeed collateral damage in general (especially considering the sheer numbers involved). This has created a far greater outcry in the UK than you may think.

Britain regarding itself as an imperial power in 2006 ? No -- in many ways, the UK is practically the 51st state of the US these days, and not just culturally either ;)

I just read this morning in one of the Indian newspapers that the Indian govt has signed up Robert Blackwill's lobby firm for $1.5mn to promote the deal in Congress. Can't find the link right now, though.

The majority of British people actually oppose the war in Iraq and condemn the unethical actions of some of the Coalition troops, including the various prisoner abuse scandals

Yet, they voted for Tony Blair. Protest doesnt mean anything. Vote means everything. When inside the voting booth by-themselves, it is clear who and what majority of Britons prefer.

When inside the voting booth by-themselves, it is clear who and what majority of Britons prefer.

Not aware of British politics. Most people do not base their voting decisions on foreign policies, but on domestic, esp economic issues.

the BBC reporter put in some cockney humor into the flea market deal:

"The White House has now revealed the full extent of the historic
agreement reached with India.

In return for American help with its civilian nuclear programme, India
will export mangos to the US."

GujuDude Said

....I said installations, not outright full fledged war.

The assumption that attacking installations will not lead to full fledged war is erroneous. Iran had made statements to that effect, in response to talk that plans are underfoot to take out the reactors.

The US HAS the ability to take the installations out, yet haven't? Why?

Iran isnt Osirak Part 2, where all you had to do was take out 1 reactor and it was all over. Iran's case is much more complex.

.....you'd think if GWB was so keen on starting something, he would have already sent in the tip of the spear.

He hasnt recovered from the mess next door to make that decision yet. Iran was supposed to be next on the list, till the iraqis got all uppity and messed up the plans.

Sure, a war with the US and it's allies probably would end in some sort of stalemate, but the burden of cost would be on Iran. One has to take a look next door to see that.

While its true that Iraq had paid a higher price, the US is exactly walking away unscathed. Correct me if I am wrong, but the war cost is out of control, military had been stretched to the breaking point and will need time to get back in shape...etc. Burden of cost will be on anyone unfortunate or stupid enough to get involved.

The assumption that attacking installations will not lead to full fledged war is erroneous. Iran had made statements to that effect, in response to talk that plans are underfoot to take out the reactors.

I have not assumed it won't lead to full flegded war. That is a possibility, as is a limited confrontation, or nothing, or something extremely messy. People are looking too far into my comments. I simply said the US has the ability to destroy those facilities, and haven't, because it isn't in our interest.

Iran isnt Osirak Part 2, where all you had to do was take out 1 reactor and it was all over. Iran's case is much more complex.

Agreed. It is more complex. Underground and de-centralized facilities making things a more difficult. Doesn't mean it cannot be done, just takes more than 4 F-16s screaming through the desert with their munitions.

He hasnt recovered from the mess next door to make that decision yet. Iran was supposed to be next on the list, till the iraqis got all uppity and messed up the plans.

No. How do you know that he was planning on attacking? What if the strategy simply hinged on changing Iraq and having a country with US presence on the Syrian and Iranian borders. I guess just like GWB talks to God, many of you talk to Bush.

While its true that Iraq had paid a higher price, the US is exactly walking away unscathed. Correct me if I am wrong, but the war cost is out of control, military had been stretched to the breaking point and will need time to get back in shape...etc. Burden of cost will be on anyone unfortunate or stupid enough to get involved.

Obviously, we're bearing a heavy cost. But the war isn't exactly on OUR land is it? Its on theirs, which means they would suffer the greater burden. Thats all I said. I did not say its easy pickens NOR cheap. Simply, the brunt of the total cost (life, infrastructure, economy, etc.) will be theirs.

*sigh* Seriously. I'm sitting here saying that IT IS possible, but none of the parties involved really want it (Despite the saber rattling). That is all, and thats my position. History or many of you can prove me wrong. In this case, I think all parties are bluffing.

Seriously. I'm sitting here saying that IT IS possible, but none of the parties involved really want it (Despite the saber rattling). That is all, and thats my position. History or many of you can prove me wrong. In this case, I think all parties are bluffing.

Well, the hard core Zionists in the White House who would have cheered/led the US into a possible military confrontation with Iran have either been defanged (Elliott Abrams), indicted (Scooter Libby) or have left the White House (Douglas Feith)

claiming there’s some kind of comparison with the pariah government of Iran:

You're regurgitating the same old arguments. In international law there should be no exceptions. By Bush blatantly ignoring at NPT at a time when he's playing hardball with Iran is stupid.

I don't get why that's so difficult for some SM readers to understand.

RC & Technophobicgeek,

Not aware of British politics. Most people do not base their voting decisions on foreign policies, but on domestic, esp economic issues.

Correct, plus in this case it was due to a lack of viable alternative candidates at the time. However, the previous margin of victory had been substantially diminished this time round.

In international law there should be no exceptions.

Then Britain should disarm. No?

You're regurgitating the same old arguments.

Silly me, I thought Britain and the U.S. violating the NPT were news.

'Regurgitating the same old arguments' = 'You didn't adopt my kumbaya, anti-nuke views.'

Then Britain should disarm. No?

Yes it should, and I keep saying that anyway. If I oppose nukes in the UK and want less of the global arms industry, then by logical extension I am against the NPT being broken. I don't see my views as inconsistent.

Silly me, I thought Britain and the U.S. violating the NPT were news.
I refer to your argument that put forward as: 'India is more important than Iran economically and politically therefore it should get special treatment'. That is a repetition of your previous theme.

Out of curiosity, why is Iran exactly a pariah nation?

Led by a crazy leader? Yes.
Pariah? I am not sure why Iran is a pariah nation. Most nations in the world have diplomatic contracts with Iran and actually trade with it.

Contacts* and not contracts

Jai,

I know that in politics its not always black and white and the fact that there was no good alternative to Blair. But then all these "oppose Iraq war" is a position of "latte liberal" position. Doesnt mean a damn thing.

RC,

Apart from trying to vote the leader out of office, there's little else ordinary people can legally do in terms of concrete actions.

Government ministers do have the power to take further measures, but they need to build up enough of a consensus to initiate such proceedings, especially if they wish such actions to carry enough weight to be taken seriously.

From what I understand about the American democratic political system, I believe similar procedures exist in the US too.

When inside the voting booth by-themselves, it is clear who and what majority of Britons prefer.

The Conservative Party were for the War in Iraq too. The British voters didnt get a choice.

But then all these "oppose Iraq war" is a position of "latte liberal" position. Doesnt mean a damn thing.

That is a travesty of the widespread opposition to the war across Britain - it was not some metropolitan bourgoise posturing. It was principled and consistent. You don't seem to have much knowledge of the temperature of British society or politics, do you?

It was principled and consistent

I want to end global warming and world hunger.

I want to end global warming and world hunger.

Isn't time for your mommy to come and put you to bed yet?

Addendum to one of my previous answers, in response to one of RC's comments:

I agree that I am not in the best place to make claims about YOUNG Britons views about their history. But then UK is not a very YOUNG society (by % of population below the age of 30)

I was actually referring to people under the age of 40, as most 1st-Generation desis migrated to the UK during the late 1960s and early 1970s. As for me, I am 32 and was born here.

RC,

I want to end global warming and world hunger.

I understand the analogy you're trying to draw, but read my post #44 again. Beyond a certain point, there is relatively little British people can legally do.

Here's the lobbying link.

Isn't time for your mommy to come and put you to bed yet?

Jai,
I understand that a lot people such as yourself are genuinely against the war and may have voted accordingly. I understand that people such as you didnt really have a good choice. All I am pointing out is that the reason that you didnt have a true choice against the war is that the majority's feeling towards the war. IMO, Politicians dont make up positions out of thin air. Their positions are based on "their" reading of public sentiment. (actually thats their real role. To represent public opinion)

I will give you a good example. I was watching a book discussion on TV and the Author's argument was that American people are somewhat "warmongers". The reaction to his postion was really interesting. Lot of the people participating in the discussion were seriously hurt by Author's suggestion.... !!
Here in the US, silent majority was for the war. It has to be. Thats why both the parties were for war. Essence of representative democracy.
Lastly, I understand the frustration of those who feel they dont have a choice (arent being represented, properly??) Like I said earlier ... politics is not black and white.

RC,

IMO, Politicians dont make up positions out of thin air. Their positions are based on "their" reading of public sentiment. (actually thats their real role. To represent public opinion)

Thats why both the parties were for war. Essence of representative democracy.

Aha, we finally reach the crux of the matter. You're assuming that public opinion in the UK was indeed accurately read, which was not necessarily the case.....

Anyway, Sunny is a better person to comment on all that since he has a more detailed insight into the intricacies of British politics and corresponding events here during the past few years. If he's still reading this, perhaps he will be kind enough to summarise the issues involved for the benefit of yourself and other interested SM participants on that side of the Atlantic.

Thats very mature.
Oh I'm sorry, were you trying to raise the quality of debate with that "latte liberalism" comment?

There seems to be this arrogant presumption amongst (especially American) warmongers that those who want to avoid are all fluffy, middle-class hippies with little understanding of realpolitik. What bollox. That may apply to your democrats, but not those of us who have debated and argued these issues endlessly.

Here in the US, silent majority was for the war.
The same "silent" majority that was also under the mistaken impression, repeatedly asserted by your president, that Saddam Hussain was in league with Al-Qaeda and behind 9/11?
What is so silent about a pro-war group that dominates talk-radio and broadcast news? Even the NYT went along with the rubbish.

Politicians dont make up positions out of thin air. Their positions are based on "their" reading of public sentiment.

Except our PM decided decided he was planning to go to war (with Iraq) before the British public even knew there were plans for one. On the eve of war our country had the biggest ever (by far) rally against the war and yet the PM refused to listen. Both Labour and the Tories were for the war based on WMD intelligence, and once that turned out to be false shifted their arguments to "liberating" the Iraqis. Hell, if that was their stated original intention, at least we wouldn't accuse them of being lying bastards.

Only the Liberal Democrats opposed the war, along with that embarassment of a politician George Galloway.

You also forget that public opinion can be manipulated with the help of the press even if it is initially against something. A case in point is the hysterical '45 min' claim that it would take that long for one of Hussain's WMD to reach Britain.

Thats why both the parties were for war.
The Democrats weren't really, but they went along because of the patriotic hysteria whipped up by your media. Howard Dean's grass-roots popularity is indicative of this.

Tony Blair bought into the Churchillian doctrine of the unity of the English-speaking people. Just as the Americans helped them during the blitz, so to would he help the Yanks.

Except that the Yanks were a legitimate power during WW2. Declining Britain today can be nothing more than America's little bitch. I think much of the British intelligentsia understands this but will not fully admit it. They fool themselves into thinking they are still players in the mythologized creature known as "the West."

London's economy (and thus Britains') is powered by the large presence of American investment banks there. They might have easily and just as legitimately made Frankfurt their capital, but there are advantages to English speaking countries. In a sense, Britain is as much a beneficiary of its English speaking capacity as is India.

Once upon a time, in a country that no longer exists, there was a mountain cave. And inside the cave was a treasure. Slaves worked to mount up more and more and more treasure. They worked day and night in the bowels of the earth, and fashioned the things of the earth into something celestial. They used the products of the earth: animals that had died billions of years ago; chemicals that had hidden in earth and air were caught, distilled and carefully recombined - these became its fuel. Minerals that had been harvested from the earth were purified by fire until they were strong and stainless, then forged into many shapes - this became its skin, its brain its vital organs.

Everything has come from mother earth in this way. Cars, ploughs, televisions, clothes, electricity. Ourselves. Gathered, processed, moulded, ignited. If all this had happened in a flash, we would call it magic - lions freeing themselves from the clay, soldiers springing up from serpents' teeth, lightning snaking from the tip of a wand, language from our mouths.

But it did not happen in a flash. It happened over time. The age of the earth was necessary to create it all, and the minds and bodies of many people. Humans can only work the magic in reverse. Returning it all to the earth and atmosphere in one great flash.

- from Ann-Marie MacDonald's The way the crow flies.

Sunny,
Since you take umbrage at the American war supporters percetption - "There seems to be this arrogant presumption amongst (especially American) warmongers that those who want to avoid are all fluffy, middle-class hippies with little understanding of realpolitik."

Allow me to posit the realpolitik rationale/s for the U.S./India nuke deal.

While Iran is a signatory of the NPT, India never signed the NPT.
So technically India is not breaking the treaty. Neither will be the U.S. if Bush gets Congress to pass the law. [If the American legislators has any sense of history they will vote yea.]
India is the only country to resolve not ever being the first user of nuclear weapons.
And she has always urged the civilized nations to join her in such a groundbreaking declaration.
Imagine if all signed on to the "no first use" clause.......Imagine!!

So technically India is not breaking the treaty. Neither will be the U.S. if Bush gets Congress to pass the law.

I never said it was. However Iran can legitimately ask - "why is that the USA is happy to supply one country with nuclear technology, but if we want to develop it for energy use, we get referred to the Security Council."

Where Manish and others are looking at the issue from an Indian perspective, I'm looking at this from that of a person who would prefer no nukes, anywhere. Iran's resentment at being treated differently to India (and I don't think they'll be comparing GDP btw) will lead to a protracted stalemate at the UN, and from there who knows - maybe war. Either way the US/India deal comes at the wrong time. But then when has Bush ever cared about what other countries think? Maybe this is his way to increase Iranian resentment so it can be provoked into some military expedition that brings war.

Imagine if all signed on to the "no first use" clause.......Imagine!!
Hell, imagine if they all gave up nukes! Please allow me at least worthwhile objectives. A no first use clause doesn't stop stupid arms races.

London's economy (and thus Britains') is powered by the large presence of American investment banks there.
A gross over-simplification there... but there is little point in getting into this debate. The American economy isn't exactly on solid foundations either... its supported by having the dollar as the global reserve currency.

There is no real equivalence between the UK and Iran, nor between India and Iran

India and Iran are both languishing in the bottom of the world fighting for scraps. As Iran has more oil, its poor are doing better and it has a lower rate of poverty than India.
Iran might be a pariah nation, as Manish puts it, but its poor are doing better than India at every imaginable human development index. I think most poor denizens of India would gladly switch places with the denizens of the pariah nation.

Here is a comparison of the Indian masses with the Iranian masses,

Per Capita Income Iran: 6,690
Per Capita Income India: 2,670

Population living below $2 a day (%), 1990-2003 Iran: 7.3
Population living below $2 a day (%), 1990-2003 India: 79.9

Population undernourished (% total), 2000-2002 Iran: 4
Population undernourished (% total), 2000-2002 India: 21

Adult Literacy Rate Iran :77.1
Adult Literacy Rate India :61.3

Human Development Index Iran: 0.732
Human Development Index India: 0.595

Infant mortality rate (per 1,000 live births) 2003 Iran: 33.0
Infant mortality rate (per 1,000 live births) 2003 India: 63.0

Under 5 mortality rate (per 1,000 children) 2003 Iran: 87.0
Under 5 mortality rate (per 1,000 children) 2003 India: 87.0

Child immunization, measles (% of under 12 mos) 2003 Iran: 99.0
Child immunization, measles (% of under 12 mos) 2003 India: 67.0

Probability at birth of surviving to age 65, female (% of cohort), 2000-2005 Iran: 71.7
Probability at birth of surviving to age 65, male (% of cohort), 2000-2005 India: 59.2

Population with sustainable access to improved sanitation (%), 2002 Iran: 84
Population with sustainable access to improved sanitation (%), 2002 India: 30

Population with sustainable access to an improved water source (%), 2002 Iran: 93
Population with sustainable access to an improved water source (%), 2002 India: 86

Probability at birth of not surviving to age 40 (% of cohort), 2000-05 Iran: 7.2
Probability at birth of not surviving to age 40 (% of cohort), 2000-05 India: 16.6

Probability at birth of surviving to age 65, female (% of cohort), 2000-2005 Iran: 79.2
Probability at birth of surviving to age 65, female (% of cohort), 2000-2005 India: 67.4

Pardon my Bhojpuri but what the hell development index has to do with nuclear technology.
Iran might fare better on development, however it is largely a irreposible nation
Whereas India has proven her credentials

Why, oh Why so many non sequiturs!

Mudde pe aayiye
(Come to the point)

Regards

That's right, we're better even if they have a better standard of living. I mean.... who really cares about the poor? Nukes is where it's at!

India responsible eh... I'm not sure everyone agrees. And even then the Bofors scandal, and many more since, have shown that Indian politicians are too easy to buy. I'd go easy on the "we're responsible and more important" jingoism.

I never said it was. However Iran can legitimately ask - "why is that the USA is happy to supply one country with nuclear technology, but if we want to develop it for energy use, we get referred to the Security Council."

As a compromise russians agreed to sell iran uranium for reactors(the spent fuel they will take back)
Leaving iran free to generate electricity which iranians refused.

PS iran is not using reactor route to develop weapons, it is using the uranium enrichment route ie
no reactor but series of chemical/mechanical processes.

Sunny,

As far as Non proliferation is concerned India has a better record than Iran (about which GGK told)
And leave this Jingoism Shingoism stuff. It has been used so many times that people have become impervious to it.

And who cares what DailyKos thinks, so far except for Non proliferation Ayontollahs, no one contests the record of India in non proliferation.

Regards

Sunny,

What exactly has Bofors to do with non - proliferation ?

Regards

I'm new to this blog, so please be nice, but a former boss of mine, Dr. Arjun Makhijani of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research wrote a very thoughtful piece on the subject. It's available at http://www.ieer.org/latest/indiaus.html.

Peace

I'm new to this blog, so please be nice, but a former boss of mine, Dr. Arjun Makhijani of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research wrote a very thoughtful piece on the subject. It's available at http://www.ieer.org/latest/indiaus.html.

Peace

Well, one thing everyone HAS to get is - NPT is bloody useless. Has always been, and will be. So don't waste your breath flogging a dead horse. The simple truth is, Iran and a few others in the future will all acquire nuclear technology/weapons. The genie has been unleashed, and it's an insecure, unequal geo-political situation, which means everyone is going to try to outwit everyone else. What proliferation are we talking about without destroying the thousands of warheads that the nuclear states have? It is nice to have a principled anti-proliferation stance, and in theory I'm for that too, but doesn't work in the real world, does it? India's defence situation makes it imperative that we have a strong deterrent capability, and that is as important as alleviating poverty, no gratuitous remarks are necessary there. Finally, ppl shouldn't forget this deal is not all about weapons, it is about energy too, quite desperately needed.

I'm new to this blog, so please be nice,

1) Iran not having enriched uranium
Iran had small quantities which they later said that it came from pakistan.

2) India iran pipeline
India iran pipeline feasability studies have been inconclusive.
Iran wanted commitment of fixing the amount of gas india would buy, India demanded price be fixed,
this is still an ongoing discussion.
This is why no clear document exists describing the price. Another big if is that it goes through pakistan
particularly balochistan(which is burning)
So where iran pipeline will go, no one knows any one who claims that is guessing.
Untill solid security and financial terms are there that is just a speculative deal.
The same arguement goes towards uranium prices too, So that is a valid concern regarding if
india should scale up nuclear power generation if it becomes expensive.
If that is what mr makhijani wants to discuss that will be a valid point, but he was not.
Another issue is that environmentaly burning fossil fuel creates more pollution why doesnt
he site that.

3)Nuclear aparthaeid
Not True!
What makes india the leader of the nuclear have nots.
Countries like iran have not supported india on kashmir issue, nor on the bangladeshi war of independence.
So there are plenty of those who are now claiming to be have nots that have taken anti india stance for geo political reason.

India saw the agreement as nuclear halve/halve not and did not sign.
Other nations felt that it was ok agreement and they did signup to those agreement.
If other nations felt that way they could have chosen not to sign!, but they did not.
It was upto each nation to decide these issue. If a nation made a deal with the halves saying that it will work with them
on this unequal setting it was that nations call.

Judging from the protests to Bush's visit, there does seem to be a large anti-american sentiment in India. It's difficult to understand the protesters because the deal was largely a win for India.

Sunny, I say this with utmost respect. Please refer to a Macro Economic textbook before making comments like - "The American economy isn't exactly on solid foundations either... its supported by having the dollar as the global reserve currency."

You run an intelligent blog. Please don't let people doubt that.

To all the Naysayers and poverty baiters -
# 1) India is inherently more responsible than China. btw, wonder how critical the europeans [esp, Britain] were of the U.S.-China deal?

# 2) This Nuclear deal could go a long way in alleviating Indian energy needs.
Meaning lesser dependence [more money for development] on middle east [blood] oil and indigenous coal. The latter happens to be one of the worst pollutants in the world.
One doesn't need be an economist to relaize how much this deal could help the Indian poor in the long run. Not to mention the benefit to the environment.
by the by, I wonder what percentage of her majesty's subjects energy needs are satisfied by nuclear energy.

Pardon my Bhojpuri but what the hell development index has to do with nuclear technology.
Iran might fare better on development, however it is largely a irreposible nation
Whereas India has proven her credentials

I think a nation is in fact irresponsible when a majority of its population lives on less than $2 a day.

Of course that irresponsibility does not mean that a country should not get nukes and I am not arguing that India should not get nuclear technology. As I have already stated in the other post, I do believe that India should get the nuclear technology.

I scanned through that thoughtful? piece by Arjun Makhijani &, even to a layperson like me, it is clear that not enough thought has gone into it. Makhijani blames the US-India nuke deal for weakening the NPT but this is rather clueless given that NPT signatories like China, Iran etc. were already breaking the rules at will while other NPT signatories (EU, Clinton Administration) were playing Nero while NPT burned.

By 1970, Iran had signed & ratified the NPT. As a reward, Iran got its first nuke plant in 1974 with german help. Even back then, many had questioned why iran, an energy surplus country, would even need nuclear power given that all their needs could be satisfied through oil & gas. Those misgivings were borne out recently when IAEA observers discovered highly enriched uranium stuck in advanced P-2 centrifuges at an Air Force base outside Tehran. P-2 is used to pull out highly enriched uranium. Iran's explanation?

"well, er, we got pre-owned centrifuges from pakistan & the uranium came with it!"

"Yes, yes iran mian, but under the NPT, you were supposed to inform us about the centrifuge before you got it from pakistan. Unfortunately, the NPT prohibits you from getting even the parts of a P-2 given that it is utterly useless for producing power"

All that stuff about human development index is an eyewash. The Iran argument is dead in the water & will not last a minute in Congress.

Expose, I gotta run somewhere, and yes it was a throwaway comment, but I refer you to this. I did do Economics as my major at university.

Sunny man

I don't agree with you on lotsa (most) things. But you gotta like somebody who reads and quotes Asia Times. Love that site.

Do you guys know any other equally good or better news analysis sites?

it is about energy too, quite desperately needed