A Bad Deal With India

By Lawrence J. Korb and Peter Ogden Wednesday, August 3, 2005 Many of the people who are made uncomfortable by President Bush's ideologically driven foreign policy have been pleasantly surprised by his recent decision to supply India with nuclear energy technology. This diplomatic agreement, its admirers eagerly point out, is not rooted in "freedom" or "values" but in a strategic calculation: that providing India with such technology will help balance China's power in the region.

This does appear to be the case. But what they fail to note is that the administration's inexperience with such strategic, non-ideological calculations has caused it to mishandle the negotiations themselves and, in so doing, to damage one of our country's most strategic, effective and "realistic" agreements: the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

First, the Bush administration made two amateurish mistakes in the way it brought this agreement to the world's attention. One was announcing the agreement just days before the resumption of six-party talks over the fate of North Korea's nuclear arsenal. For the past few years, the United States has struggle to convince China that North Korea, its ally, should be punished for violating the NPT. Yet just before the six-party talks began, the Bush administration declared that our ally India would not be punished for its refusal to join the NPT. This clearly undermines our ability to secure China's much-needed cooperation in denuclearizing North Korea.

God, I'm old enough to recall when I took L. Korb seriously. This would get a C- in any decent seminar. He makes no sense and doesn't even try to refute the argument he set out to challenge (setting aside all the facts that were omitted).

But, to give him credit, he sure does remember how well the Washington Conference on naval disarmament worked to prevent a replay of WWI. I mean, how awful would it have been to fight Germany AGAIN in the 1940s because their leader refused to abide by scraps of paper.

I too continue to be amazed at how many then-conservatives are against Bush. Actually, not even that: it's OK if he has a different view, but look at the language of the article. Characterizing the administration as "inexperienced" (as if Bush has changed the whole State Department when he came to power), its moves as "amaturish", etc. This is not a diagreement: this suggests simmering hate that you now here form the Left.

<< Cant believe Lawrence J. Korb was an "assistant secretary of defense" during the Reagan administration. >>

Yep.

'FRaid so.

But then [And this is just a very wild guess] India, among the 96% of its population that at last count comprised it, surely has sufficient members its very own parasitical class [Classless?] -- and doesn't need to come looking for any spare members of ours?

Blessings -- Brian

" But then [And this is just a very wild guess] India, among the 96% of its population that at last count comprised it, surely has sufficient members its very own parasitical class [Classless?] -- and doesn't need to come looking for any spare members of ours? "

----
Difference is..........
In our case, most of the perfunctory criticisms comes from those [fringe minority] of "parasitical class (or)[Classless?](whatever you call them)" (and by that I assume we are referring to the leftist brigade) can be ignored/disregarded as hackneyed as it is their common business to make a living out of despising the US which is not very unlike the leftists of your own country.

In simpler words cursory criticisms from the peanut gallery of the left does not matter.

But.........

This guy.......(watsizname)...... al korb.... is (or was a) conservative........
And one who equates India with NK......

One who believes the US is about to do for India what China has done for NK, (and ofcourse disregarding the fact that NK became a nuclear weapon state because of China while India [which is a bigger, older and more advanced nuclear power compared to NK] did so inspite of the US.

One whose main worry seems to be that the Pakees may not like it or would demand something similar and the US will have to oblige (in which case I would assume he would have no qualms whatsoever)........

One who laments the last rites of an evil relic called "NPT" [and makes a fetish out of it throughout the article and demands of others to do the same......and conveniently forgetting about the country that keeps the worlds largest arsenal ;) ].....

.......not that the article interested me but that fact that he was the "assistant secretary of defense" during Reagan (who I believe was a man of vision and for those who follow the transformation of Indo-US relations over the years would know that the current Indo-US ties is the result of the first moves made by him in that direction.
Or in other words Bush completed what Reagan started.)

Still cant believe this guy occupied a place (however insignificant) in the Reagan administration.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.