March 6, 2006
WHY DOES BRITAIN GET NUKES BUT NOT CUBA? (via Pepys):
India Giver: Why was Bush so generous in New Delhi? (Fred Kaplan, March 6, 2006, Slate)
As I've written in Slate twice before, it's very much in America's interest to form a grand alliance with India—the world's largest democracy, one of the fastest-growing economies, an Asian counterweight to a rising China, and a vast market already inclined toward the United States. It's also long been clear that an alliance would have to entail some sort of nuclear partnership. India's energy needs are enormous; its energy resources are slender; and, as presidents from Richard Nixon to Bill Clinton have realized when they tried to strike a deal, India just isn't going to dismantle its nuclear arsenal or sign the NPT, which would require it to do so. And so the earlier attempts collapsed.George W. Bush's move, at once bold and reckless, was to smash through the barrier and form an alliance anyway. The question back in July, when he and Prime Minister Singh declared their intentions, was how Bush would reconcile the alliance with the NPT. The dumbfounding answer, it turns out, is that he won't. The deal with India, he and his aides have said, is a one-time exception. Other countries may view it differently.
For instance, there's Iran, which faces possible sanctions from the U.N. Security Council for enriching uranium at one of its reactors—a process that, if continued, might violate the NPT. The Iranians will argue that they're victims of a double standard: Why should they be punished while India is rewarded?
Did he even read what he'd just written? India is "the world's largest democracy, one of the fastest-growing economies, an Asian counterweight to a rising China, and a vast market already inclined toward the United States." That's why it gets treated better than Iran.
Posted by Orrin Judd at March 6, 2006 6:59 PM
India is about as far on the opposite pole from Iran as possible.
Posted by: erp at March 6, 2006 7:11 PMI think David summed it up a few weeks back when he said something like: "we are the exceptional nation, the rules don't apply to us or our friends". The real qustion is why aren't more countries our friends, the benefits are enormous.
Posted by: Bob at March 6, 2006 7:46 PMLooks like this is a (rare) victory of sorts for the Realists: India was never going to abandon their nuke weapons program, so GWB struck the best deal he could (and one which seems well inclined to help the USA). I suppose the Idealists would have wanted the NPT followed to the letter. Or, perhaps it is an Idealist treaty after all: a US-friendly nation benefits and we do to, and that is all that counts.
Posted by: Bruce Cleaver at March 6, 2006 8:12 PMBruce:
Vice versa. The Realists want India kept in a box. The Idealists want them an integral part of the Axis of Good, including nuked up against the Communists to the East and Islam to the West. The Realists just aren't realistic.
Posted by: oj at March 6, 2006 10:24 PMQuod licet bovi.
Posted by: Lou Gots at March 6, 2006 10:53 PM[P]residents from Richard Nixon to Bill Clinton have [...] tried to strike a deal; [...] the earlier attempts collapsed.
The question [...] was how Bush would reconcile the alliance with the NPT. The dumbfounding answer, it turns out, is that he won't.
Not so dumbfounding, but certainly revolutionary.
If insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different outcome every time, then trying once again to convince India to ditch their nukes would have been crazy.
Instead, Bush and his team came up with a paradigm-shifting Gordian Knot solution.
In defense of past Presidents, however, it should be noted that Bush's solution wouldn't have been possible in earlier eras, when India was pro-Soviet.
It does mean that Bush and Co. are somewhat better at foreign policy than was Clinton's motley crew.
Posted by: Noam Chomsky at March 7, 2006 3:59 AMhe real qustion is why aren't more countries our friends, the benefits are enormous.Bob, this is answered by another question, cui bono? The benefits are enormous for the nation that are our friends, but not necessarily for the ruling class. Just think what dropping in to a real alliance with the USA would mean for Iran vs. the mullahocracy. Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at March 7, 2006 9:14 AM
For the tranzi states and their character don't matter; only treaties and international law matter.
Posted by: Luciferous at March 7, 2006 10:01 AMRichard Cohen, writing in Tuesday's Washington Post, makes a more coherent case for the so-called double standard in Bush's closer ties with India (Richard also raises his monthly batting average on sensible columns well over the Mendoza Line with this one).
Posted by: John at March 7, 2006 10:16 AMDid he even read what he'd just written?
It's Fred Kaplan. Probably not.
Posted by: kevin whited at March 7, 2006 10:43 AMThe Iranians will argue that they're victims of a double standard: Why should they be punished while India is rewarded?
Well Fred, because Iran signed the NPT. India, Israel, and Pak didn't. Or is Kaplan implicitly arguing that international treaties ultimately don't matter.
Fred Ikle wrote a classic 1961 article on arms control noncomplaince, "After Detection... What?"
"What" indeed, Mr Kaplan?