Opposition to the Indo-US nuclear cooperation agreement
Opposition to the Indo-US nuclear cooperation agreement
Old Thread in Trash Can Archive.
Mr. R wrote:
India's vote against Iran at the IAEA has now blown a hole in the anti-India balloon in the US Congress. If the Indian lobby is good, I expect them to rush through legislation to clear the nuclear deal.
Or alternatively, they will demand more and more from India till we are unable to comply. Then we will be back to square one. Do not underestimate the anti-Indian (pro-Puke, NPT Ayatollahs, etc, etc) lobby.
Gautam
India's vote against Iran at the IAEA has now blown a hole in the anti-India balloon in the US Congress. If the Indian lobby is good, I expect them to rush through legislation to clear the nuclear deal.
Or alternatively, they will demand more and more from India till we are unable to comply. Then we will be back to square one. Do not underestimate the anti-Indian (pro-Puke, NPT Ayatollahs, etc, etc) lobby.
Gautam
Gautam:
Look at the big picture. The US is in no position to continue making demands. It has disasters to handle at home, and wars to fight abroad. Neither are going particularly well. There is a time to make incessant demands, and a time to close a deal. This is a time for the US to close a deal with the Indians. And stick to it.
Look at the big picture. The US is in no position to continue making demands. It has disasters to handle at home, and wars to fight abroad. Neither are going particularly well. There is a time to make incessant demands, and a time to close a deal. This is a time for the US to close a deal with the Indians. And stick to it.
Lantos hails India's vote on Iran
Congressman Tom Lantos, California Democrat, and the highest ranking Democrat on the House International Relations Committee, has hailed India's about-face in Vienna in aligning itself with the United States and the European Union and voting to refer Iran to the United Nations Security Council for alleged nuclear nonproliferation violations.
Lantos had launched a venomous attack on India at the hearing on the US-India nuclear cooperation agreement early this month where he even ridiculed Indian External Affairs Minister Natwar Singh as 'dense' and warned that if India doesn't change its policy toward Iran in sync with US policy, the relationship would 'go down the tubes'
In a statement made available to rediff.com, Lantos said, "I am pleased that New Delhi clearly heard the message that I and other members have been emphatically trying to convey." He noted, "India's support this past weekend and next November, when Iran should finally be referred to the UN Security Council for action, will go a long way to cementing our new partnership."
"These actions will certainly promote positive consideration in Congress of the new US-India agreement to expand peaceful nuclear cooperation between our two countries," he added.
It is increasingly looking as if Unkil has been taking lessons from Musharaff (for a stiff fee) in the art of getting something for nothing and this Lantos fellow is just another madrassa madari deployed with a specific purpose in mind.
On no account should be we distancing ourselves from the idea and implementation of a long term LNG/crude supply deal by ship from Iran straight to Reliance and other refineries on the west coast.
Let the local woman-of-easy-virtue be pacified with a couple of safeguarded reactors stuffed up their well worn rear orifice and a few more F16s.
MMS isnt really acting like serious "player" is he ?
On no account should be we distancing ourselves from the idea and implementation of a long term LNG/crude supply deal by ship from Iran straight to Reliance and other refineries on the west coast.
Let the local woman-of-easy-virtue be pacified with a couple of safeguarded reactors stuffed up their well worn rear orifice and a few more F16s.
MMS isnt really acting like serious "player" is he ?
xposted:
India's vote in the IAEA to refer Iran to the UNSC has a ring of pragmatic inevitability about it.
What Iran and US both were demanding from India was really merely 'fluff'. What US wanted was to show that the IAEA vote was not vote by a gang of western rich bullies attacking a helpless 3rd world country like Iran. India's positive vote provided a 'fluffy' fig leaf. Iran for opposite but equally fluffy reasons wanted India to vote against the move. India had no power to really block a referral to the UNSC. What India was left with was to balance competing fluffy requirements of US and Iran with some solid real Indian requirements.
Nonprolotullahs appear noisily significant and relevant. But they are merely a sideshow. It is the Bush admin that can make or break the nuke deal with India. And the grand choreography unfolding made it clear that the Bush admin was very serious about this issue.. MMS concluded that at this time India's real interests are well served by India voting yes for the referral after achieving some breather time for Iran to engage in some effective diplomacy.
And as R pointed out, this vote has punctured many anti-India hot air balloons in the US.
India's vote in the IAEA to refer Iran to the UNSC has a ring of pragmatic inevitability about it.
What Iran and US both were demanding from India was really merely 'fluff'. What US wanted was to show that the IAEA vote was not vote by a gang of western rich bullies attacking a helpless 3rd world country like Iran. India's positive vote provided a 'fluffy' fig leaf. Iran for opposite but equally fluffy reasons wanted India to vote against the move. India had no power to really block a referral to the UNSC. What India was left with was to balance competing fluffy requirements of US and Iran with some solid real Indian requirements.
Nonprolotullahs appear noisily significant and relevant. But they are merely a sideshow. It is the Bush admin that can make or break the nuke deal with India. And the grand choreography unfolding made it clear that the Bush admin was very serious about this issue.. MMS concluded that at this time India's real interests are well served by India voting yes for the referral after achieving some breather time for Iran to engage in some effective diplomacy.
And as R pointed out, this vote has punctured many anti-India hot air balloons in the US.
Tom "Lifafa" Lantos is no different that 400% Generalissimo Musharraf. Tom presented a congressional citation to the chief terrorist of TSP ( btw 60 minutes showed a smirking Mushy hoping that Bin Laden would be captured elsewhere, however he would line up for the $25 million reward) I hope that the outstretched "hugging a terrorist" arm of Tom's would not be chopped by a JDAM. Lantos thinking is like the Madrassah Mullah - he arm twists a non-proliferating country like India.
Here is more evidence of TSP perfidy on the nuclear front.
N Korea has acquired uranium technology from TSP - USA says
The Bush administration has for the first time presented North Korea with specific ‘evidence’ that it secretly obtained uranium enrichment technology from the founder of Pakistan’s nuclear programme, senior administration officials said here.
Dishing out the evidence that North Korea obtained technology from the network built by Abdul Qadeer Khan, is significant because it is an effort to break an impasse over the scope of North Korea’s nuclear programme, two officials told The New York Times.
Here is more evidence of TSP perfidy on the nuclear front.
N Korea has acquired uranium technology from TSP - USA says
The Bush administration has for the first time presented North Korea with specific ‘evidence’ that it secretly obtained uranium enrichment technology from the founder of Pakistan’s nuclear programme, senior administration officials said here.
Dishing out the evidence that North Korea obtained technology from the network built by Abdul Qadeer Khan, is significant because it is an effort to break an impasse over the scope of North Korea’s nuclear programme, two officials told The New York Times.
xpost
PM dispels nuke doubts
PM dispels nuke doubts
Dr Singh said reciprocity was the key as India’s actions at every stage would be contingent on actions taken by the US.
The Axman wrote:
The US is in no position to continue making demands.
I am afraid that the US will continue to make demands, and there is nothing wrong with that. It is up to us to positively say NO and put an end to such blackmail. I fervently believe that a gas pipe line through Pakistan is stupid. But it is a decision for our leaders to negotiate and make, not the US to dictate. The US wants us to be subservient like Pakistan or at least like the UK. But India can only be like China or at the most like France in its dealings with Uncle.
Gautam
The US is in no position to continue making demands.
I am afraid that the US will continue to make demands, and there is nothing wrong with that. It is up to us to positively say NO and put an end to such blackmail. I fervently believe that a gas pipe line through Pakistan is stupid. But it is a decision for our leaders to negotiate and make, not the US to dictate. The US wants us to be subservient like Pakistan or at least like the UK. But India can only be like China or at the most like France in its dealings with Uncle.
Gautam
India's Iran vote decisive for US strategic ties: Experts
"I think it shows a new maturity and that India is beginning to think for itself," asserted Stephen Philip Cohen, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington.
"This vote was especially important since the Iranians have drawn from Indian rhetoric in defending their violation of their Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) commitments. My guess is that this will not harm the oil/gas pipeline project, and it certainly strengthens India's case regarding the US nuclear deal," Cohen said.
According to Michael Krepon of the city-based Stimson Center that focuses on conflict resolution, "Had India not voted to support the IAEA resolution, the nuclear cooperation agreement would have been in big trouble on Capitol Hill."
Krepon is among those who have been anxious about the civilian nuclear deal with India on the grounds that it weakened the NPT.
"The Bush administration defended the deal on the basis of a new strategic partnership with India. If, on the first test of this partnership, India lined up with Beijing and Moscow instead of Washington, the administration's rationale would have been dynamited," Krepon said.
He, however, added, "India's vote does not mean smooth sailing for the nuclear cooperation deal, as there will be other tests ahead."
"My first reaction is that this is a significant development," said Leonard Spector, deputy director (Washington, DC) of the Monterey Institute Center for Nonproliferation Studies.
As one of those who took part in drafting the original NPT, Spector has spoken of India's own alleged violations of the NPT but is not opposed to stronger strategic relations with New Delhi.
He has spelt out conditions that would help strengthen the administration's hand in putting through the July 18 agreement signed by President Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
"The fact that India has aligned affirmatively with those attempting to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons is a major change and is consistent with India's taking on the role of a responsible major power," Spector said.
"It is, of course, most unexpected to see India in effect enforcing the NPT through the IAEA, but certainly the action is welcomed, far more so than the hesitancy of Russia and China," Spector said.
He added that to fully gain acceptance, "India needs to consider its own apparent violations of international nuclear norms, specifically, its apparent use of the Canadian-supplied CIRUS reactor for its nuclear weapons programme, contrary to the terms of the Indo-Canadian agreement under which it was supplied."
That agreement with Canada, he emphasised, required the reactor to be used exclusively for peaceful purposes. "To clarify that India is in compliance with this agreement, it should declare the facility to be a civilian facility and place it under IAEA inspection, in keeping with the terms of the new US-India understanding," Spector reiterated.
"The Iran vote was not only important in terms of American expectations but in terms of its relationship with its other new friend, Israel," Cohen emphasised, adding, "Iran's recent election pushed it further to a hard line position, and Israel remains the main target of Iran."
From Pioneer
Bitten by Vienna vote, Iran vows vengeance
Bitten by Vienna vote, Iran vows vengeance
Is it not enough for the US congress to OK the deal and when did UK "signal its disapproval"While it is clear that for the India-US nuclear deal to become operational, the US Congress will have to revise a 1974 nuclear legislation, it is to be noted that India must also get on board Russia, France, China and Britain, the remaining four P-5 countries in the Security Council. Britain has already signalled its disapproval.
The UK wants to increase nuclear trade. Blair recently made a statement to that effect. France wants to sell reactors. The US wants to sell reactors. Russia wants to sell reactors. Even some Australian ministers are now advocating sale of Uranium to India.Gus wrote:Is it not enough for the US congress to OK the deal and when did UK "signal its disapproval"
Heads up folks.
That little creep Cohen is hard at work: Cohen's testimony to the US House of Reps Committee on Armed Services Defense Review Threat Panel 26 Sep 2005 has, on the *first* page of his testimony and his *first* main point that:
More to the point, this has now been officially "seeded" into the public domain. Watch for all sorts of folks to begin citing this as "evidence" all over the place and it becoming a "commonly known fact".
Cohens official testimony is at the link below (posted by arun on the Pak thread):
http://www.house.gov/hasc/CDR/Cohen27Sep05.pdf
By the way, Cohen also says that in the 2005-2025 timeline, there is a hihgh probability of danger to the United States that Pakistan *and* India will share nuke tech with other countries. (Table 1, p.4).
Note too, how carefully he slips in "South Asia as a base of terror against the US", not to mention the equally carefull equal-equal treatment in the military balance of both sides.
On page 8, he specifically advises *against* a US/Indian military response to Bangladeshs slide into terroristan. Clearly, in Cohens calculations the danger of an Islamist Bamgladesh to the US is far outweighed by the pleasant prospect of such a Bangladesh being a problem to India - since clearly pakLand alone is no longer enough to hold us back.
On p. 9 he writes that India's ship-borne triad element in the Pacific could target the US west coast or the east coast from the Atlantic. This is quite cleverly done. He mentionsit in merely in passing while talking about the deterrent against China.
As a citizen of the the Nation of the electoral college, Cohen is kind enough to remind his audience, on p. 10, that Indian democracy has "many flaws". LOL!
Even funnier is his first conclusion on page 12. It's really hilarious! The testimony is 14 pages. A good read. Cohen at his very best. But a little sad too. The last conclusion of his is a pitiful attempt to get some money for more "studies". The dude is becoming what he loves - a Pakee!
That little creep Cohen is hard at work: Cohen's testimony to the US House of Reps Committee on Armed Services Defense Review Threat Panel 26 Sep 2005 has, on the *first* page of his testimony and his *first* main point that:
One waits with bated breath for Cohen's testimony that during the cold war, the US bought it's nuclear tech from the Soviet Union.Pakistani scientists, notably A. Q. Khan, provided direct nuclear assistance to a number of states, including Iran, Libya and North Korea; there are even allegations that India made purchases from the far-flung Khan network.
More to the point, this has now been officially "seeded" into the public domain. Watch for all sorts of folks to begin citing this as "evidence" all over the place and it becoming a "commonly known fact".
Cohens official testimony is at the link below (posted by arun on the Pak thread):
http://www.house.gov/hasc/CDR/Cohen27Sep05.pdf
By the way, Cohen also says that in the 2005-2025 timeline, there is a hihgh probability of danger to the United States that Pakistan *and* India will share nuke tech with other countries. (Table 1, p.4).
Note too, how carefully he slips in "South Asia as a base of terror against the US", not to mention the equally carefull equal-equal treatment in the military balance of both sides.
On page 8, he specifically advises *against* a US/Indian military response to Bangladeshs slide into terroristan. Clearly, in Cohens calculations the danger of an Islamist Bamgladesh to the US is far outweighed by the pleasant prospect of such a Bangladesh being a problem to India - since clearly pakLand alone is no longer enough to hold us back.
On p. 9 he writes that India's ship-borne triad element in the Pacific could target the US west coast or the east coast from the Atlantic. This is quite cleverly done. He mentionsit in merely in passing while talking about the deterrent against China.
As a citizen of the the Nation of the electoral college, Cohen is kind enough to remind his audience, on p. 10, that Indian democracy has "many flaws". LOL!
Even funnier is his first conclusion on page 12. It's really hilarious! The testimony is 14 pages. A good read. Cohen at his very best. But a little sad too. The last conclusion of his is a pitiful attempt to get some money for more "studies". The dude is becoming what he loves - a Pakee!
the final para, conclusions says : US must strengthen & deepen their understanding of this very complicated region!!!
===============
that is enough statement to prove cohen does not understand a bit at all , and he has no strategic thoughts in his minds.
sope, when is he going to come to our land and start his quest for deepenings and understandings!
===============
that is enough statement to prove cohen does not understand a bit at all , and he has no strategic thoughts in his minds.
sope, when is he going to come to our land and start his quest for deepenings and understandings!
crossposted:
More fuel for kgoan:
Noting the innocuous sounding statement about India-China relations, one wonders whether Paki army is the sole finacier for Uneven. Why not China? China has deeper pockets and much more expertise in these matters, and same interests as Pakistan wrt India.
India was a major proliferator-Cohen
More fuel for kgoan:
Noting the innocuous sounding statement about India-China relations, one wonders whether Paki army is the sole finacier for Uneven. Why not China? China has deeper pockets and much more expertise in these matters, and same interests as Pakistan wrt India.
India was a major proliferator-Cohen
The Rediff Interview/Professor Stephen Cohen
September 30, 2005
...
For many Americans, the fact that India went nuclear is a nonproliferation disaster. I don't share that passion, but clearly it did some damage to the nonproliferation regime. Whether it is justified or not is another question, but India cannot simply say they are great on nonproliferation because in fact they were a major proliferator.
...
You can't pour water in the bucket and then have it pour out into another bucket -- that's not going to work. So India is going to have to erect a really tall and impermeable wall between its military and civil programmes.
...
For example, the Indians themselves have invested heavily in Chinese software and Chinese high-tech, yet when China tried to invest in the Indian high-technology industry, it was opposed by the Indian security and intelligence people although the Indian commercial people are all for it.
Somebody should remind this crook (SPC) that during the 80 when Perkin Elmer was for sale the Japanese wanted to buy it but then GOTUS intervened from back doors citing National Security, for that matter why go that far the recent PRC bid for US OIL giant and the subsequent furore is very well forgotten by this crook.
These days he doesnt even make pretence of fair and balanced like FOX
These days he doesnt even make pretence of fair and balanced like FOX
Stephen Cohen’s recent testimony to Congress on “South Asian security and the United States” finds Cohen in familiar territory. Cohen has been the master of careful juxtaposition and prevarication (Coelho, 2003). This testimony does not disappoint us in this regard.
Cohen’s testimony begins with the term “South Asia”. The term “South Asia” is an interesting one. On the surface, it is a seemingly innocuous term referring to India and other countries in the South Asian peninsula. However, when one talks about Nepal, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burma, Sri Lanka or Afghanistan, one rarely feels compelled to use the generic instead of the specific – and one is keenly aware of the irrelevance of conflating the challenges and successes in those nations with the largest of the nations in South Asia. This is mainly because there is much that distinguishes each of those nations to make the generic meaningless.
If the generic is irrelevant in the context of those nations, then how much more is the generic irrelevant when comparing a secular democracy with a theocratic dictatorship? In one case, Pakistan, we have a military dictatorship ruling a state on the verge of failure, known for harboring terrorists, and proliferating nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea; and on the other hand we have one of the great success stories of the 20th and 21st centuries – an economic powerhouse built on democratic ideals.
Given this, it is obvious that anyone who seeks to use the “South Asia” term to discuss India and Pakistan generally seeks to tar India with Pakistan’s woes; and to obliquely suggest that India’s successes apply equally to Pakistan. In other words, we should be immediately wary of the spin that is about to be ladled out.
We are not disappointed. The conflation of India with Pakistan’s well documented dalliance with terrorists and nuclear proliferation starts immediately. On Page 4, Cohen notes that “South Asia will again serve as a base of terror against the US,” including “chemical terrorism” and “bioterrorism.” This is a particularly interesting assertion since India has never served as a base of terror against the US. The only part of “South Asia” that has served as a base of terror against the US is Pakistani (Komerath, 2002). Interestingly, the only fear of bioterrorism and chemical terrorism emanating from “South Asia” were linked to the Taliban, who were known to be controlled by Pakistan. Why does Cohen feel it is honest to conflate India with Pakistan in this context? Would it not have been more accurate had he been specific rather than generic in his assertion?
Cohen goes on to note that there is a “high probability” of “danger … that Pakistan *and* India will share nuclear technology with other countries.” This is an interesting conclusion given that India has never shared nuclear weapons technology with other nations. India has also recently greatly strengthened its already exemplary export control laws. Pakistan, on the other hand, is the home of the Islamic bomb. And, as if to underline that idea, has been documented to have proliferated nuclear weapons and missile design to Libya and Iran. As if this was not enough, Pakistani weapons technology has been documented to be exported to North Korea on American made C-130s (Raman 2003).
On Page 9, Cohen suggests “the possibility of India or Pakistan sharing their nuclear weapons with other states.” Cohen then goes on to admit that this “was Pakistan’s policy for several years” while obliquely recognizing that this has never been India’s policy by noting that “India might find it useful to extend its umbrella over another state.” It is unclear how Cohen jumps to this conclusion. The Indian polity and leadership have never suggested that an Indian nuclear weapon is to be used for anything other than deterring attacks on India.
Interestingly, Cohen by conflating the “good” in India’s democratic polity with all of the regional countries finds that “all regional governments” exhibit “generally sound judgment and moderate tendencies”. This is a convenient conclusion that seeks to forget the nuclear proliferation, as well as Islamic terrorism sponsored by the Pakistani state.
Occasionally, Cohen relies on the outright lie when he claims that “Indian strategic elites imagined an American-China-Pakistan axis aimed at cutting India down”. The recent FOIA disclosures (Gill 2004; Chowdhury 2005) remind us of Kissinger’s actual words and deeds encouraging Chinese action against India in 1971, and the threat of force embodied in the USS Enterprise in the Bay of Bengal in 1971 at the moment that India was engaging in the liberation of Bangladesh from the genocide of their Western co-religionists.
By refusing to acknowledge the Pakistani states sponsorship of terrorism, or use of nuclear proliferation as an instrument of state policy, Cohen is deliberately misrepresenting the threat to the United States. Cohen is so absorbed in his attempt to acquit the Pakistanis that he completely ignores the threat of the jihadi delivered atomic munition (or JDAM).
The only thing worse than the pedantic analysis, is its prevarication that seeks to pervert the truth from the American people and its elected representatives.
Chowdhury, D. R. “Indians Are ******** Anyway” Asia Times June 23, 2005. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GF23Df04.html
Coelho, J L Khayyam, “Stephen P Cohen: South Asia Analyst - A Review” Volume 6(1) Jul-Aug 2003. http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/I ... Cohen.html
Gill, John H. “Dissuasion and Confrontation: US Policy in India-Pakistan Crises” Strategic Insights Volume 3 (10) October 2004. http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2004/oct/gillOct04.asp
Komerath, N, “Pakistani role in terrorism against the US” Volume 5 (2) Sep – Oct 2002. http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/I ... yanan.html
Raman, B. “The Pakistani-North Korean WMD Axis” South Asia Analysis Group July 4, 2003. http://www.saag.org/papers7/paper654.html
Cohen’s testimony begins with the term “South Asia”. The term “South Asia” is an interesting one. On the surface, it is a seemingly innocuous term referring to India and other countries in the South Asian peninsula. However, when one talks about Nepal, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burma, Sri Lanka or Afghanistan, one rarely feels compelled to use the generic instead of the specific – and one is keenly aware of the irrelevance of conflating the challenges and successes in those nations with the largest of the nations in South Asia. This is mainly because there is much that distinguishes each of those nations to make the generic meaningless.
If the generic is irrelevant in the context of those nations, then how much more is the generic irrelevant when comparing a secular democracy with a theocratic dictatorship? In one case, Pakistan, we have a military dictatorship ruling a state on the verge of failure, known for harboring terrorists, and proliferating nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea; and on the other hand we have one of the great success stories of the 20th and 21st centuries – an economic powerhouse built on democratic ideals.
Given this, it is obvious that anyone who seeks to use the “South Asia” term to discuss India and Pakistan generally seeks to tar India with Pakistan’s woes; and to obliquely suggest that India’s successes apply equally to Pakistan. In other words, we should be immediately wary of the spin that is about to be ladled out.
We are not disappointed. The conflation of India with Pakistan’s well documented dalliance with terrorists and nuclear proliferation starts immediately. On Page 4, Cohen notes that “South Asia will again serve as a base of terror against the US,” including “chemical terrorism” and “bioterrorism.” This is a particularly interesting assertion since India has never served as a base of terror against the US. The only part of “South Asia” that has served as a base of terror against the US is Pakistani (Komerath, 2002). Interestingly, the only fear of bioterrorism and chemical terrorism emanating from “South Asia” were linked to the Taliban, who were known to be controlled by Pakistan. Why does Cohen feel it is honest to conflate India with Pakistan in this context? Would it not have been more accurate had he been specific rather than generic in his assertion?
Cohen goes on to note that there is a “high probability” of “danger … that Pakistan *and* India will share nuclear technology with other countries.” This is an interesting conclusion given that India has never shared nuclear weapons technology with other nations. India has also recently greatly strengthened its already exemplary export control laws. Pakistan, on the other hand, is the home of the Islamic bomb. And, as if to underline that idea, has been documented to have proliferated nuclear weapons and missile design to Libya and Iran. As if this was not enough, Pakistani weapons technology has been documented to be exported to North Korea on American made C-130s (Raman 2003).
On Page 9, Cohen suggests “the possibility of India or Pakistan sharing their nuclear weapons with other states.” Cohen then goes on to admit that this “was Pakistan’s policy for several years” while obliquely recognizing that this has never been India’s policy by noting that “India might find it useful to extend its umbrella over another state.” It is unclear how Cohen jumps to this conclusion. The Indian polity and leadership have never suggested that an Indian nuclear weapon is to be used for anything other than deterring attacks on India.
Interestingly, Cohen by conflating the “good” in India’s democratic polity with all of the regional countries finds that “all regional governments” exhibit “generally sound judgment and moderate tendencies”. This is a convenient conclusion that seeks to forget the nuclear proliferation, as well as Islamic terrorism sponsored by the Pakistani state.
Occasionally, Cohen relies on the outright lie when he claims that “Indian strategic elites imagined an American-China-Pakistan axis aimed at cutting India down”. The recent FOIA disclosures (Gill 2004; Chowdhury 2005) remind us of Kissinger’s actual words and deeds encouraging Chinese action against India in 1971, and the threat of force embodied in the USS Enterprise in the Bay of Bengal in 1971 at the moment that India was engaging in the liberation of Bangladesh from the genocide of their Western co-religionists.
By refusing to acknowledge the Pakistani states sponsorship of terrorism, or use of nuclear proliferation as an instrument of state policy, Cohen is deliberately misrepresenting the threat to the United States. Cohen is so absorbed in his attempt to acquit the Pakistanis that he completely ignores the threat of the jihadi delivered atomic munition (or JDAM).
The only thing worse than the pedantic analysis, is its prevarication that seeks to pervert the truth from the American people and its elected representatives.
Chowdhury, D. R. “Indians Are ******** Anyway” Asia Times June 23, 2005. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GF23Df04.html
Coelho, J L Khayyam, “Stephen P Cohen: South Asia Analyst - A Review” Volume 6(1) Jul-Aug 2003. http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/I ... Cohen.html
Gill, John H. “Dissuasion and Confrontation: US Policy in India-Pakistan Crises” Strategic Insights Volume 3 (10) October 2004. http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2004/oct/gillOct04.asp
Komerath, N, “Pakistani role in terrorism against the US” Volume 5 (2) Sep – Oct 2002. http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/I ... yanan.html
Raman, B. “The Pakistani-North Korean WMD Axis” South Asia Analysis Group July 4, 2003. http://www.saag.org/papers7/paper654.html
excellent. well written. I would suggest only one change ... in para 7 ... replace:
with:It is unclear how Cohen jumps to this conclusion.
but then I'm just another jingoCohen's perfidy is abundantly displayed in the alacrity with which he has jumped to a conclusion that defies logic and makes a mockery of the facts.
Latest from Shekhar Gupta. A very sensible column. I have noticed that lately he has been aiming his guns more at the Commies than at the BJP.Paul wrote:Stinker Cohen's disciple Stinker Dupatta is lying low for the time being. What is with him?
My apologies if it has been posted already.
Diplomacy’s red flag
http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story ... t_id=79219
Driving hard bargains is a centuries-old Persian skill. And if you catch Mani Shankar Aiyar, the original Marxist, in his more candid moments some day, he will tell how exasperating it has been dealing with the Iranians over the past months of negotiations. They have generally reneged on one commitment after another, squeezing India for the last possible dollar. What he may still not tell you is how much cockier the Iranians have got lately, believing that India’s compulsions on the pipeline are not merely commercial but also political.
The UPA needs the pipeline desperately — or so they think — to keep its Leftist allies happy and therefore they have no hesitation in exploiting the compulsions of India’s domestic politics for their own commercial benefit. The Iranians are not about to cancel anything in a fit of anger or emotion. They need the dollar much more than we need their gas. We can buy it elsewhere, but who else can they sell so much gas to?
The same applies to Pakistan, too. Yes, India needs the pipeline for gas from Iran and also as yet another instrument of stabilisation of its relationship with Pakistan by building a common economic interest in peace. But, similarly, the Pakistanis need that pipeline, for commercial as well as political purposes. If India is not a part of it, the pipeline is a pipedream. It is financially un-feasible and, really, howsoever much he may thrust his khaki, be-medalled, bully’s chest at hapless women’s groups questioning his insensitive remarks on rape, do you really expect Musharraf to defy the US entirely by himself and build a pipeline from Iran, without India in the deal?
This was the logic on which India’s original negotiating position was built, that if the Pakistanis want the pipeline, they also need something in return. And no, it was not additional assurances on controlling terrorism. It was something as small as limited transit rights to Indian goods by road to Afghanistan. But Pakistanis are far too sharp to have missed the opportunity presented by the pipeline becoming such a left-liberal cause-celebre in India.
Out went all discussion on transit rights. They even, most bloody-mindedly, blocked UN World Food Programme from carrying high-protein biscuits donated by India for Afghan children. The moment the pipeline issue got linked so fantastically to the idea of defiance of America and support for an “anti-America”, “third world” , “non-aligned” (I am surprised we haven’t heard secular and liberal in the list of adjectives yet) Iran, the Pakistanis changed their tone.
The good thing about Pakistani leaders and diplomats also is that one thing they cannot hide is glee, particularly when they think they have put one past India. Try speaking to senior Pakistani officials now and ask how come they are not willing to concede even symbolic transit rights in return for the pipeline. You will get a mischievous smile, if not a straightforward ‘why should we, who needs the pipeline more?’ We may just make money on it, but you guys must have it for your domestic politics!
Some of the recent responses from China are more than mere straws in the wind. We are so caught up in this suicidal ideological confusion that we have overlooked the very significant postponement of the opening of the Nathula transit route by the Chinese to April next year. The date for the opening was fixed a long time back and if anybody buys at face value the Chinese reason for postponement, that logistical preparations on their side are not complete yet, he lives in cloud cuckoo-land. It is more likely the Chinese have also figured the confusion here and decided to turn the knife slowly so as to extract more concessions on the border issue. Please do not overlook the fact that Nathula is located in Sikkim and its opening as a trade and transit route was to be a significant step of Chinese acceptance of Indian sovereignty there.
On the nuclear front, just as we are breaking free of our 34-year-old isolation from civilian nuclear trade and technology, there are indications that when we go to the Nuclear Suppliers Group, we may run into the Beijing Wall. China might want to extend this special favour to Pakistan as well.
Calvin:
Lovely disection. I'd suggest however, changing the passive "one" to something more active in this sentence,
Could be re-focused on Cohen as:
Lovely disection. I'd suggest however, changing the passive "one" to something more active in this sentence,
to, say, something like this (changes in italic):However, when one talks about Nepal, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burma, Sri Lanka or Afghanistan, one rarely feels compelled to use the generic instead of the specific - and one is keenly aware of the irrelevance of conflating the challenges and successes in those nations with the largest of the nations in South Asia.
Also, perhaps the first sentence in para 5;However, when Nepal, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burma, Sri Lanka or Afghanistan are discussed, rarely does anyone feel compelled to use the generic instead of the specific - because of the obvious irrelevance of conflating the challenges and successes in those nations with the largest of the nations in South Asia.
We are not disappointed.
Could be re-focused on Cohen as:
The last sentence in the second last para could also be focused more on the danger to the US and allies, i.e. to this sentence:Cohen, as usual, does not dissapoint us.
add something along the lines off:Cohen is so absorbed in his attempt to acquit the Pakistanis that he completely ignores the threat of the jihadi delivered atomic munition (or JDAM).
Cohen is so absorbed in his attempt to acquit the Pakistanis that he completely ignores the possible threat of a jihadi delivered atomic munition, (or JDAM), by one of the myriad Pakistani based terror groups against the United States, its friends and it's allies.
Enough UN reform to satisfy Congress?
"There are times when you feel like you're in a bubble [in New York] debating issues from the '70s and before," Bolton said.
In response, Representative Lantos said it is time for the US to get tough with countries, such as Egypt and Pakistan that are beneficiaries of the US but that turn around and "stab us in the back" on broader foreign-policy goals. In response to such tactics, he said, "There will be a growing emphasis on quid pro quo in US foreign policy."
Calvin, if I may
Excellent work. Hope to see it in print and splashed on the net.
Pass it throught the spellchecker as well, there is one spelling mistake I noticed
replace forget with perhaps. disguise or obscure.This is a convenient conclusion that seeks to forget the nuclear proliferation, as well as Islamic terrorism sponsored by the Pakistani state.
may readThe only thing worse than the pedantic analysis, is its prevarication that seeks to pervert the truth from the American people and its elected representatives.
or maybe disingeneous instead of calculated if you do not prefer calculatedThe only thing worse than the pedantic analysis, is its calculated prevarication that seeks to pervert the truth from the American people and its elected representatives.
at the moment that India was engaging in the liberation of Bangladesh from the genocide of their Western co-religionists.
In these times when rape is an issue with the General its worth reminding the world again of the 300,000 women raped by the Pakistani army. I have added Pakistani co-religionists in case some in the west have forgotten whose army was on the genocidal rampage in Bangladeshat the moment that India was engaging in the liberation of Bangladesh from the genocide and rape on a industrial scale of their Western Pakistani co-religionists.
Excellent work. Hope to see it in print and splashed on the net.
Pass it throught the spellchecker as well, there is one spelling mistake I noticed
Fellow day-dreamers
Folks too much hype about US-India nuclear and other benefits, deal and relations.
As long as CPI(M) and CPI, on whom the present UPA is dependent, can pressurise the govt., the deal will not come through. Islamic Republic of Iran(where all the commies, the Tudeh party got purged) or not.
CPI(M) idealogues abhor Indian patriotism or National Interest.
They are infatuated with China since 1948.......Period.
Their forebears CPI, from who they broke, were with the Soviets all along, and now orphaned.
They never liked India's Independence.
So many people have suffered, because they acted as agents of British(serving Stalin's orders) in 1942.
Their's over 60 Seats in parliament supported by naive bussinesses operating in WB (state, trying to immitate, to Deng's China), naive(for now) Bengalis who vote for them overwhelmingly and naive(again, for now) keralites is a reality, election rigging -la Bihar or not.
The call of the nation, patriots and all (including idealogues, intellectals, Red-Socialistic-Nehruvian brainwashed psycopaths) is to isolate and banish (firing squad or "purges" will be too harsh)) all these subversive bred personalities and people.
To really achieve those objective:
1) Identify and Boycott all the Corporates, and their products and services originating from those constituencies, who chose and selected CPI(M), & accesories-(Mir Kassims). Similar to Gandhi's boycott.
2) Question and verify all Bengalis, Keralites and Tripurians, intellectuals, web surfers, forum posters, employees, employers, social contacts, about their Chinese patriotism, which is obvious, from the democratic results of elections, over a period of time.
3) Ask every Bengali, Keralite, what he or she has done for India, against this Marxist(Mir-Kassims scourge). Have they gone to their roots, educated and conveyed their patriotic feelings to their fellow folks in no uncertain terms? or have they been co-operating and feeding them with remmitances or doing business la-Deng style?
As long as CPI(M) and CPI, on whom the present UPA is dependent, can pressurise the govt., the deal will not come through. Islamic Republic of Iran(where all the commies, the Tudeh party got purged) or not.
CPI(M) idealogues abhor Indian patriotism or National Interest.
They are infatuated with China since 1948.......Period.
Their forebears CPI, from who they broke, were with the Soviets all along, and now orphaned.
They never liked India's Independence.
So many people have suffered, because they acted as agents of British(serving Stalin's orders) in 1942.
Their's over 60 Seats in parliament supported by naive bussinesses operating in WB (state, trying to immitate, to Deng's China), naive(for now) Bengalis who vote for them overwhelmingly and naive(again, for now) keralites is a reality, election rigging -la Bihar or not.
The call of the nation, patriots and all (including idealogues, intellectals, Red-Socialistic-Nehruvian brainwashed psycopaths) is to isolate and banish (firing squad or "purges" will be too harsh)) all these subversive bred personalities and people.
To really achieve those objective:
1) Identify and Boycott all the Corporates, and their products and services originating from those constituencies, who chose and selected CPI(M), & accesories-(Mir Kassims). Similar to Gandhi's boycott.
2) Question and verify all Bengalis, Keralites and Tripurians, intellectuals, web surfers, forum posters, employees, employers, social contacts, about their Chinese patriotism, which is obvious, from the democratic results of elections, over a period of time.
3) Ask every Bengali, Keralite, what he or she has done for India, against this Marxist(Mir-Kassims scourge). Have they gone to their roots, educated and conveyed their patriotic feelings to their fellow folks in no uncertain terms? or have they been co-operating and feeding them with remmitances or doing business la-Deng style?
g. sarkar wrote :
Are you toeing the line of the Communists ? India's voite against Iran was a good move. Iran never supported India on J & K issue. So, then why should India support Iran at IAEA ?
Read the following Editorial by G. Parthasarathy, ( the Pakistan expert )
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2005/20051006/edit.htm#4
Had Inran been happy with India's 1998 test. Not at all. It was rather jubiliant at the Paki Tests. No Islamic country would come to support India for J & K Issue. Only the Idiot Commis like you , your Boss Mani Shankara Aiyar, Biman Bose, Buddhadev Bhattacharya would cry wolf over the spilt milk.
G. Sarkar :Or alternatively, they will demand more and more from India till we are unable to comply. Then we will be back to square one. Do not underestimate the anti-Indian (pro-Puke, NPT Ayatollahs, etc, etc) lobby.
Are you toeing the line of the Communists ? India's voite against Iran was a good move. Iran never supported India on J & K issue. So, then why should India support Iran at IAEA ?
Read the following Editorial by G. Parthasarathy, ( the Pakistan expert )
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2005/20051006/edit.htm#4
Had Inran been happy with India's 1998 test. Not at all. It was rather jubiliant at the Paki Tests. No Islamic country would come to support India for J & K Issue. Only the Idiot Commis like you , your Boss Mani Shankara Aiyar, Biman Bose, Buddhadev Bhattacharya would cry wolf over the spilt milk.
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2005_10/OCT-Cover.asp
Summary from this story:
http://www.newkerala.com/news.php?actio ... s&id=31384
Three American non-proliferation experts have argued for modifying the US-India civilian nuclear cooperation deal, saying it gave away too much to India.
On the eve of the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) meeting on Oct 17, the Bush administration is pressing members of the group to have a special session to discuss nuclear trade with India, the authors reveal.
Writing in this month's "Arms Control Today" journal, the article entitled "US-India Nuclear Deal: Taking Stock," by Fred McGoldrick, Harold Bengelsdorf, and Dr. Lawrence Scheinman, claims that "without significant modification, it will have given the Indians a great deal - acknowledgment as a de facto nuclear weapon state and access to the international nuclear energy market - in return for largely symbolic concessions in the non-proliferation area."
The trio argues that peaceful nuclear cooperation with India must occur only under certain basic conditions. "India needs to bring an early halt to the production of nuclear materials for nuclear weapons or nuclear explosives...[and] New Delhi must accept safeguards in perpetuity on its civil nuclear facilities," they recommend.
Summary from this story:
http://www.newkerala.com/news.php?actio ... s&id=31384
Three American non-proliferation experts have argued for modifying the US-India civilian nuclear cooperation deal, saying it gave away too much to India.
On the eve of the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) meeting on Oct 17, the Bush administration is pressing members of the group to have a special session to discuss nuclear trade with India, the authors reveal.
Writing in this month's "Arms Control Today" journal, the article entitled "US-India Nuclear Deal: Taking Stock," by Fred McGoldrick, Harold Bengelsdorf, and Dr. Lawrence Scheinman, claims that "without significant modification, it will have given the Indians a great deal - acknowledgment as a de facto nuclear weapon state and access to the international nuclear energy market - in return for largely symbolic concessions in the non-proliferation area."
The trio argues that peaceful nuclear cooperation with India must occur only under certain basic conditions. "India needs to bring an early halt to the production of nuclear materials for nuclear weapons or nuclear explosives...[and] New Delhi must accept safeguards in perpetuity on its civil nuclear facilities," they recommend.
Hi,
I think India must stand by its vote in the IAEA. As others have pointed out, we have never received substantiative support from Iran on issues that matter like J&K or even the nuclear tests that we conducted. We owe the Iranians nothing, and after Mr Ahmednijad's speech in New York to the UNGA,
there is even less reason for us to support them (he offered to sell nuke tech to other Islamic countries. It also appears to me that the Iranians had taken Indian support for granted, something which they must be reminded is a mistake.
The truth is that they will sell us oil and gas irrespective of how we vote-this is dictated by economics, and additionally, we buy off the international market, and they cannot afford not to sell us this stuff. By voting the way we did, we have, in addition, secured greater access to nuclear fuels and technology which are quite essential for our economic growth. Even if the US Congress does not pass the required changes, there are already other nations who are offering us some of these things (the most recent being the British), and I think the US will also finally come around. I think the deal is a good thing, and the NPT ayatollahs can at best stall things. We also have some leverage in this matter.
I think India must stand by its vote in the IAEA. As others have pointed out, we have never received substantiative support from Iran on issues that matter like J&K or even the nuclear tests that we conducted. We owe the Iranians nothing, and after Mr Ahmednijad's speech in New York to the UNGA,
there is even less reason for us to support them (he offered to sell nuke tech to other Islamic countries. It also appears to me that the Iranians had taken Indian support for granted, something which they must be reminded is a mistake.
The truth is that they will sell us oil and gas irrespective of how we vote-this is dictated by economics, and additionally, we buy off the international market, and they cannot afford not to sell us this stuff. By voting the way we did, we have, in addition, secured greater access to nuclear fuels and technology which are quite essential for our economic growth. Even if the US Congress does not pass the required changes, there are already other nations who are offering us some of these things (the most recent being the British), and I think the US will also finally come around. I think the deal is a good thing, and the NPT ayatollahs can at best stall things. We also have some leverage in this matter.
MMS has already made it clear to his domestic audience (commies) that he cannot gaurantee Indian behaviour for the Nov. voting at IAEA. It makes clear GoI will do as per national interest.
W.r.t India supporting anybody, I think the Iranians have been taking it for granted and the speculation that GoI has submitted to Unkil.
Both are BS. Iranians mistaken expectation has been put to rest.
Now the GoI should talk tough with Unkil. They should produce something concrete for the Nov. vote.
The Canadian and Britsh moves must have Unkils blessings. Nov. vote is still a month away. Time to check with the Aussies via Unkil for their uranium supplies.
W.r.t India supporting anybody, I think the Iranians have been taking it for granted and the speculation that GoI has submitted to Unkil.
Both are BS. Iranians mistaken expectation has been put to rest.
Now the GoI should talk tough with Unkil. They should produce something concrete for the Nov. vote.
The Canadian and Britsh moves must have Unkils blessings. Nov. vote is still a month away. Time to check with the Aussies via Unkil for their uranium supplies.
That point of Gudakesa's needs to be highlighted.
i.e. The payoff is not necessarily what the US will sell us. The payoff is the US *not* interfering when we buy uranium from Australia or Canada or reactors and tech from Russia and France etc.
Note: The US nuclear power industry has serious manufacturing weaknesses. (Reactor tech - not the gigawatt generator tech that GE etc churn out).
They source their spare parts from *France*, because their *manufacturing* industry, (not the base science or the tech in advanced materials), is in the pits after the decades long hiatus in the field. IIRC, the last reactor to come on line in the US was in 1996 (?) and it depends on French parts to a great extent.
So it's not what the US can give us that's the point. It's what we can source from the rest of the world, without US interference, that is the payoff.
i.e. The payoff is not necessarily what the US will sell us. The payoff is the US *not* interfering when we buy uranium from Australia or Canada or reactors and tech from Russia and France etc.
Note: The US nuclear power industry has serious manufacturing weaknesses. (Reactor tech - not the gigawatt generator tech that GE etc churn out).
They source their spare parts from *France*, because their *manufacturing* industry, (not the base science or the tech in advanced materials), is in the pits after the decades long hiatus in the field. IIRC, the last reactor to come on line in the US was in 1996 (?) and it depends on French parts to a great extent.
So it's not what the US can give us that's the point. It's what we can source from the rest of the world, without US interference, that is the payoff.
Good point, KG. By the way, as George Bush's poltical fortunes sink lower and lower in the US domestic political scene, the chances of the Dems (and/or an unholy alliance of politicians and NPAs) sabotaging this Bush-MMS agreement look more and more severe. We need to keep watching this. The 2006 mid-term elections in the US have huge implications for US-India relations.kgoan wrote:The payoff is not necessarily what the US will sell us. The payoff is the US *not* interfering when we buy uranium from Australia or Canada or reactors and tech from Russia and France etc. ... So it's not what the US can give us that's the point. It's what we can source from the rest of the world, without US interference, that is the payoff.
In any case, Indian negotiators need to be planning for the worst right now, i.e. what happens if the Democrats gain control of either house of Congress in 2006? Let's assume the worst and say the Bush-MMS deal is dead -- that still doesn't prevent India from negotiating the civilian nuclear thingie with Russia, France, the UK, Australia etc. After all, the GOTUS has now condeded, publicly and unequivocally, that India is a responsible nuclear power and needs to be treated as a de facto (not de jure) nuclear-weapons state with all the privileges and responsibilities of an NPT-signatory state. IMO India has also implicitly accepted those responsibilities.
BTW, if the US Congress shoots down this deal, India should IMO shoot down any negotiations with US companies for the MRCA contract. But that is a whole other topic for another thread.
NSA Narayanan has hinted that their is a very good possibility of Indian NPCIL setting up plants in the US in the near future. Kakrapar attaining top performing reactor position in the world for 2 years, and NPCIL reducing lead time in construction to 4 yrs.kgoan wrote: Note: The US nuclear power industry has serious manufacturing weaknesses. (Reactor tech - not the gigawatt generator tech that GE etc churn out).
JaiKissan wrote:
Huh? And the US companies like GE will sit around while this happens? This is akin to naming the second child after the first dinner date. This completely misses the point made by KG and MR above -- the whole idea here is for India getting access to fuel and tech from the NSG countries.NSA Narayanan has hinted that their is a very good possibility of Indian NPCIL setting up plants in the US in the near future. Kakrapar attaining top performing reactor position in the world for 2 years, and NPCIL reducing lead time in construction to 4 yrs.
Gudakesha uvacha:
"We have never received substantiative support from Iran on issues that matter like J&K or even the nuclear tests that we conducted. We owe the Iranians nothing, and after Mr Ahmednijad's speech in New York to the UNGA ...the Iranians had taken Indian support for granted, something which they must be reminded is a mistake."
Other than the access to Afghanistan that they give now and the Oil/gas they may supply in future, or provide military access in the remote chance of an all out war with Pakistan, Islamic Iran has only secondary importance to India.
That is not the point. What is important is the perception of how much India will bend to the demands of the US every time pressure is put to change our long term policy to suit short term US interests. The more accommodating we are now, more difficult it will get in the future to steer an independent course. Such situations as we just had with respect to Iran will be common if we persue a closer relationship with the US. As it is clear that the US respects the strong, we should emulate China in this matter, and not smaller nations such as UK or Pakistan. If we must yield for the greater good, then a high price must be demanded.
Gautam
"We have never received substantiative support from Iran on issues that matter like J&K or even the nuclear tests that we conducted. We owe the Iranians nothing, and after Mr Ahmednijad's speech in New York to the UNGA ...the Iranians had taken Indian support for granted, something which they must be reminded is a mistake."
Other than the access to Afghanistan that they give now and the Oil/gas they may supply in future, or provide military access in the remote chance of an all out war with Pakistan, Islamic Iran has only secondary importance to India.
That is not the point. What is important is the perception of how much India will bend to the demands of the US every time pressure is put to change our long term policy to suit short term US interests. The more accommodating we are now, more difficult it will get in the future to steer an independent course. Such situations as we just had with respect to Iran will be common if we persue a closer relationship with the US. As it is clear that the US respects the strong, we should emulate China in this matter, and not smaller nations such as UK or Pakistan. If we must yield for the greater good, then a high price must be demanded.
Gautam