July 18, 2005

ONE STANDARD FOR OUR SIDE... (via Kevin Whited):

US and India boost nuclear ties (BBC, 7/18/05)

India and the United States have agreed to increase co-operation on civilian nuclear energy programmes.

US President George W Bush announced the move after talks with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in Washington.

The relationship between the two countries "had never been stronger", Mr Bush told a joint news conference.

Posted by Orrin Judd at July 18, 2005 12:15 PM

Another benefit here is that we've manuevered India and Pakistan into a virtuous cycle. Each wants to have the better relationship with us, so every step forward by one puts pressure on the other.

Posted by: David Cohen at July 18, 2005 12:32 PM

The president should start limiting questions at news conferences to the subject at hand. The media yellow jackets buzzing around trying to trap him into talking about the special prosecutor are getting tiresome. The wasps will fade away at the end of summer, as I hope will this annoying, endless soap opera.

Posted by: erp at July 18, 2005 12:33 PM

Then why are we jerking India around on its desire for a Security Council seat? Could it be the close relations between the Saudis and the Pakistani ISI, which sponsors terrorist activity not only in the allegedly disputed Indian state of Kashmir but other such niceties like blowing up the Lok Sabha?

Posted by: bart at July 18, 2005 3:08 PM

because there are others with equal claims and it couldn't be worked out. It will be.

Posted by: oj at July 18, 2005 3:13 PM


Because it'd look pretty bad to get India on the UNSEC right before it became completely irrelevant.

Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at July 18, 2005 3:20 PM

Hints of cooperation between India and Taiwan with regard to space programs or nuclear research could go a long way to convince China to stop its proliferation game.

Posted by: Daran at July 18, 2005 3:47 PM

Who,other than Japan, Taiwan and Israel, has a claim to a Security Council seat superior to that of India?


Fair point. However, our relations with India are of sufficient importance that if Manmohan Singh wanted to sing 'Take Me Out to the Ballgame' at a Cubs game or go dancing with Paula Abdul, if I were President, I would arrange it.

Posted by: bart at July 18, 2005 8:31 PM

Brazil, SAfrica/Kenya/Nigeria/Egypt/...

Posted by: oj at July 18, 2005 10:22 PM

Nigeria ???


India deserves a UNSEC seat more than Brazil, Japan, Israel, or Taiwan, (although it would be loads of fun to see the PRC seethe and sputter over the last), and FAR more than SAfrica/Kenya/Nigeria/Egypt.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at July 19, 2005 12:42 AM

Everybody should get a seat on the Security Council.

Posted by: Ali Choudhury at July 19, 2005 5:20 AM



Posted by: oj at July 19, 2005 7:53 AM


To the extent that anyone should have a permanent seat on the UNSEC, it should be those nations with a global reach.

The U.S. in a no-brainer, and Russia has/had all of those nukes, plus troops (or their Cuban or Eastern Bloc client states' troops) involved in conflicts or hot spots all around the world.

One can only make a case for a permanent seat for Brazil, Israel, Taiwan, SAfrica, Kenya, Nigeria, or Egypt by comparing them to France, which should NOT have a permanent seat - it was an historical anomaly.
Even then, France is more powerful militarily, and economically, than most of the above.

We could put Israel on, under the operating principle that nuclear states matter, but then what of Pakistan and NoKo ?

They certainly don't merit permanent seats.

We could put Japan on, but is simply being a prosperous nation that gives a lot of aid enough ?

Brazil is a regional power, but not a global one.

One might make a case for an "African seat", but could the African nations agree about who should fill it ?

India is: A hugely populous nation, a democracy, a nuclear power, and on an UPWARD trajectory, unlike many of the current permanent UNSEC members.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at July 19, 2005 5:28 PM

Democracy knocks off China, populous knocks off Britain, upward trajectory knocks off everyone but us.

How are you getting anyone other than us to approve this?

Posted by: oj at July 19, 2005 5:41 PM

Can't, of course, which is why it didn't happen.

My original post said "deserves", not "will get".

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at July 20, 2005 3:51 AM

Okay, I agree that only America and India deserve seats.

Posted by: oj at July 20, 2005 8:42 AM