India elected to UNSC as non-permanent member

[broadway]

The bolded part is false because we are not alone in our positions here wrt to NPT & climate change so any thing deriving from that stance is also false.

What they mean is that we honour the sanctions they created. Then we would automatically come under their umbrella of security against pakistan or china. Like what japan has done.

I don't have much info about this point, were we sticking up for our rights or just being disruptive.

Emission protocol conferences are a farce. We weren't responsible for the cost. And we didn't accept it either.

Again, were we the only one that brought about the downfall of Wolfowitz or is the author again being 'liberal' with the facts ?

Would you be surprised if it were true?

Again true because we cannot throw any stones at others and whilst living in a glass house. I agree we could defnitely do more, tho after a point nobody out there is any different, when they want something they also do exactly the same.

They engage in pre-emption and invade other countries in the 21st century and point at us as if it's we who have done the ultimate bad. It is "propaganda" warfare. It is just a word for us but they know how to work it.

I think now is not right time for us to have a permanent seat in the UNSC. Maybe in twenty more years when we have more money to throw around.

Will we be ready to walk along with them after 20 years?

IMO India has always been a rebel. We like to see ourselves as equals rather than subordinates. The sheriff views us as a spoilsport. And they are right.

If the liberals have problems with us today how will it work for the rightwingers ?

Our attitude of trying to please everyone will not work and in fact make things worse. We need to grow a backbone wrt to domestic affairs first, before even thinking about intl ones.

Actually, we are not trying to please everyone. We just do not want to be involved. Hence the reason why they think india is not ready for a leadership role.

How can he add more conditions to an already signed deal ?

The entire text hasn't been made public. At least, that is what i've read.

I think it's more than just iran. I guess manmohan thinks it's best to co-operate with the US in some areas. The US with all it's might can afford to be pragmatic. But we simply cannot. The last thing we want is to be pressed against china and spend ourselves in the process.

Making friends in the area involves throwing money around and having those countries economically dependent on us, until we manage that its premature to expect more. The last twenty years have seen us go from crawling to walking (just about). It will take another twenty years to go from walking to running. At that point we start to become a contender

Notice the assertiveness of china since the nuke deal? I think we f#$ked up. And if it turns out that both china and US were part of this great game then were dead.

 

[blr_p]

What they mean is that we honour the sanctions they created. Then we would automatically come under their umbrella of security against pakistan or china. Like what japan has done.

We've never wanted to be under anyone's 'umbrella of security' (!)

Why develop nukes in that case which even Nehru was not against.

Memories of the East India company are still too vivid for any party to contemplate this.

Would you be surprised if it were true?

I don't accept we were solely responsible as the author alleges, to begin with. Wolfowitz had lots of issues with other WB members given his neocon stances already. See this

Meanwhile, 37 country directors on the front line of the bank's operations said in a letter to the board and to Wolfowitz that the leadership crisis had damaged the bank's reputation and effectiveness in fighting poverty.

They engage in pre-emption and invade other countries in the 21st century and point at us as if it's we who have done the ultimate bad. It is "propaganda" warfare. It is just a word for us but they know how to work it.

She is just some hack looking for attention. She is not speaking for the US govt only herself.

Will we be ready to walk along with them after 20 years?

IMO India has always been a rebel. We like to see ourselves as equals rather than subordinates. The sheriff views us as a spoilsport. And they are right.

Why not

China & Pakistan are growing closer and the Chinese want US influence in the area to end, that means the only way for us is to strengthen ties with the US. Twenty years from now we will be that much more in line with their views

Actually, we are not trying to please everyone. We just do not want to be involved. Hence the reason why they think india is not ready for a leadership role.

Why all the talk in our media about a UNSC position over the past few years then ?

We defnitely want a seat at the big boys table, I say we're not ready for it yet.

The entire text hasn't been made public. At least, that is what i've read..

Then it works both ways wouldn't you say, yes they can armtwist us but we don't have to agree to it. In the end I trust our govt not to have sold us out, its only the opposition parties that will make politics over this to spread FUD.

Notice the assertiveness of china since the nuke deal? I think we f#$ked up.

No, its natural they would be more assertive as we made the first move. Its a bad move only if China can punish us more over it than vice-versa. I would say they cannot and its a stalemate. To have not gone ahead with the nuke deal fearing it would upset China makes us look weak and they will not respect us for that. We have to be assertive & decisive when it counts.

And if it turns out that both china and US were part of this great game then were dead.

China wants Taiwan, the US won't allow it. China wants the US out of Asia, US won't budge. Both of them are on a collision course. We are in the opening stages of the new cold war between these two powers. So the thought that the two would somehow forget their differences in the interest of hanging us out to dry is a bit unlikely don't you think.

In fact its exactly the opposite, out of this rivalry between the US & China, the nuke deal was born. It took vision from our leaders and Bush to see it through

 

[broadway]

I don't accept we were solely responsible as the author alleges, to begin with. Wolfowitz had lots of issues with other WB members given his neocon stances already. See this

Sure. But the author claims that india had it's own reasons. It is not possible for us to find these reasons.

This is a rare article. The author has acted like a tattletale. Very common in pakistani's op-editorials but rare in western journos.

China & Pakistan are growing closer and the Chinese want US influence in the area to end, that means the only way for us is to strengthen ties with the US. Twenty years from now we will be that much more in line with their views

No one likes the US in this part of the region. The indo us nuke deal was to distance india from iran. Ever since 9/11, the americans have begun eliminating all dictators, international militant groups etc from the muslim world. Saddam is dead. Osama is being pursued. The next one in the line is ahmadinejad and co. I think iran knows that very well. The chinese have probably made a deal with the iranians. That explains why the chinese are trying to access the strait of hormuz through baltistan and then through gwadar. What the US would like is for the countries in the region to fight it out and spend themselves till it arrives in the scene for clean up.

Why all the talk in our media about a UNSC position over the past few years then ?

Our media says a lots of things. Ask any indian and he'll say we are a super power.

Then it works both ways wouldn't you say, yes they can armtwist us but we don't have to agree to it.

Didn't we vote against iran?
Why didn't we do what we always did? Agree that all parties are right and get out of there... Why did we get involved?

In the end I trust our govt not to have sold us out, its only the opposition parties that will make politics over this to spread FUD.

Lot has changed since manmohan took over. Surprisingly, the indian military and political administration has the time to clarify doctrine related doubts for the US authorities but likes to leave the indian media hanging. Just over 10 years ago we were seen showing the middle finger to the US in the deserts of pokhran. Now, all of a sudden we have no problems assuring the US that we wouldn't disturb the pakistani's? I need to know what our price was.

China wants Taiwan, the US won't allow it. China wants the US out of Asia, US won't budge. Both of them are on a collision course. We are in the opening stages of the new cold war between these two powers. So the thought that the two would somehow forget their differences in the interest of hanging us out to dry is a bit unlikely don't you think.

China and US are in the middle of a power struggle. China wants more power which US is unwilling to give so the chinese are taking it. Both are aware of what each wants. Both are capable of managing that power. But outside each others equation, what do they think about india?

What part did the US play in the 1962 india-china war? You understand what im trying to say?

In fact its exactly the opposite, out of this rivalry between the US & China, the nuke deal was born. It took vision from our leaders and Bush to see it through

Like i said above, the US has some plans about what it wants to do with iran. It is in some sort of a clean up drive in the muslim world. So it wants india to stay away from what is going to happen in iran. They offered us the nuke deal which we could not think about refusing. It had little to do with counter-balancing china.

Or maybe it is a great game. Both china and the US are in it together.

 

[blr_p]

Sure. But the author claims that india had it's own reasons. It is not possible for us to find these reasons.

Ah but she's saying we alone had the power to take out the WB chairman and I find that assertion preposterous. Don't you ?

No one likes the US in this part of the region. The indo us nuke deal was to distance india from iran.

Agree, thats one of its objectives.

Ever since 9/11, the americans have begun eliminating all dictators, international militant groups etc from the muslim world. Saddam is dead. Osama is being pursued. The next one in the line is ahmadinejad and co. I think iran knows that very well. The chinese have probably made a deal with the iranians.

Agree

That explains why the chinese are trying to access the strait of hormuz through baltistan and then through gwadar.

They are trying to add the next country (after Pakistan) into their chain. Just like the game 'GO', all about preventing and breaking encirclement. Our problems are only the two countries on our borders. What is China's problem ? US, Russia, India, plus two rogue states to keep happy. Lot more on her plate than ours

What the US would like is for the countries in the region to fight it out and spend themselves till it arrives in the scene for clean up.

And what good is that ?

No, the US wants these countries to be friendly and not cause chaos by screwing up the existing balance of power in the area. Just like we would with those in our neighbourhood.

Our media says a lots of things. Ask any indian and he'll say we are a super power.

I don't think this is a media creation alone. We defnitely aspire to becoming a superpower, we've not quite there yet

Didn't we vote against iran?

Yep

Why didn't we do what we always did? Agree that all parties are right and get out of there... Why did we get involved?

Because there are bigger things to settle. We would like to grow peacfully in our area without being pushed around.

Do you believe given China's actions these last few years that she will grow peacefully ?

She might but if not...

Lot has changed since manmohan took over. Surprisingly, the indian military and political administration has the time to clarify doctrine related doubts for the US authorities but likes to leave the indian media hanging. Just over 10 years ago we were seen showing the middle finger to the US in the deserts of pokhran. Now, all of a sudden we have no problems assuring the US that we wouldn't disturb the pakistani's?

Only while they are in country. Once they leave our hands are no longer tied.

I need to know what our price was.

Don't you see it ? The US in Afghanistan means an India hostile govt isn't there and its not going to change anytime soon despite Pakistan's best efforts because nobody else in the area wants to see the Taliban back.

We're not footing the bill for their adventure are we and in exchange we get one less country against us in the neighbourhood. One that never was against us to begin with but only since the Taliban took over.

China and US are in the middle of a power struggle. China wants more power which US is unwilling to give so the chinese are taking it. Both are aware of what each wants. Both are capable of managing that power. But outside each others equation, what do they think about india?

A means to an end. So we try to get out as much as we can. We help them out and vice-versa.

What part did the US play in the 1962 india-china war? You understand what im trying to say?

Yes, i do and i'm asking you to think today not then. You need to seperate these two era's because times have changed. That was a different cold war and our NAM position was seen as benefitting the warsaw pact more than it did the US, so she acted as a consequence.

Like i said above, the US has some plans about what it wants to do with iran. It is in some sort of a clean up drive in the muslim world.

Only the troublesome ones like it has with countless others over the years.

So it wants india to stay away from what is going to happen in iran. They offered us the nuke deal which we could not think about refusing. It had little to do with counter-balancing china.

Sure it does, because it opens up a dialog that for a long time was not present between our two countries. Its just one part of the equation. You can't look at this deal in isolation to what is going on in our area.

Or maybe it is a great game. Both china and the US are in it together.

Why do you insist on them being in it together ?

Can you articulate the reasons for them to do so when they seem opposed on so many other issues.

--- Updated Post - Automerged ---

The entire text hasn't been made public. At least, that is what i've read.

You can find it here

Agreed Text of Agreement between the United States of America and India (1/8/07)

It was signed into law in the US under the title of United States-India Nuclear Cooperation Approval and Non-proliferation Enhancement Act which is publically available.

 

[broadway]

What is China's problem ? US, Russia, India, plus two rogue states to keep happy. Lot more on her plate than ours

That would be true if it were in a "defensive" posture.

And what good is that ?

War costs men and money. With an enemy like china, the chances of attacks in it's homeland is huge. A direct confrontation will be avoided. An indirect one will be preferred.

No, the US wants these countries to be friendly and not cause chaos by screwing up the existing balance of power in the area. Just like we would with those in our neighbourhood.

The power is shifting. By 2025, USA's powers will be constrained to around it's periphery. The only power which seemed to aimed for it's head collapsed. China's is it's next contender. Unsentimental and unpredictable. It knows the carrot stick strategy better than the US. It's making deals with the war lords in africa in return for wealth. Proliferates as a counter strategy. Such codes of conduct? Like WWII, the US would like the region to spend itself first and arrive at the scene later.

Because there are bigger things to settle. We would like to grow peacfully in our area without being pushed around.

I agree that we had no choice but to ally with the US due to the current situation. But US get's involved only because it's own interest are at stake. How do you think it plans to play india to accomplish it's own goals?

I keep saying that us-nuke deal was to distance us from iran. I do not agree that it was to counter balance china. The US actually appointed china to balance the region. The great game was all a shady affair pre 9/11. After 9/11 all nations in the region got exposed.

Only while they are in country. Once they leave our hands are no longer tied.

Pakistan has been receiving financial and military aid pre and post 9/11. Like i said above, 9/11 exposed them.

Don't you see it ? The US in Afghanistan means an India hostile govt isn't there and its not going to change anytime soon despite Pakistan's best efforts because nobody else in the area wants to see the Taliban back.

Nope. The neighbours would rather live with taliban in it's periphery than the US of A. Just like the americans would rather have india busy with proxy warfare than to solve the afghanistan-pakistan problem. Both iran and pakistan are covertly engaged in providing aid to the taliban.

We're not footing the bill for their adventure are we and in exchange we get one less country against us in the neighbourhood. One that never was against us to begin with but only since the Taliban took over.

Afghanistan is a hopeless war. The taliban will be back. In a coalition with the karzai govt in the beginning.

A means to an end. So we try to get out as much as we can. We help them out and vice-versa.

I say we be the rebel we always were.

Yes, i do and i'm asking you to think today not then. You need to seperate these two era's because times have changed. That was a different cold war and our NAM position was seen as benefitting the warsaw pact more than it did the US, so she acted as a consequence.

What scared the US so much when indians and persians decided to partner up in the oil pipeline deal? Was the threat so big for it to counter that with the indo-us nuke deal? Don't you wonder what it's notions were?

Why do you insist on them being in it together ?

It is not always democracy v/s communism.
China was a US appointed subordinate till it began biting and now it wants a bigger role. It is challenging americas iran isolation by meeting iran in straits of hormuz through gwadar.

 

[blr_p]

That would be true if it were in a "defensive" posture.

I do not consider China an aggressor nation.

The power is shifting. By 2025, USA's powers will be constrained to around it's periphery.

Why and quote some sources if you have any ?

The only power which seemed to aimed for it's head collapsed. China's is it's next contender. Unsentimental and unpredictable. It knows the carrot stick strategy better than the US. It's making deals with the war lords in africa in return for wealth.

Basically the rogues nobody will touch. Big deal.

Proliferates as a counter strategy.

Correction -- Proliferated, China signed the NPT in 1992.

Like WWII, the US would like the region to spend itself first and arrive at the scene later.

So why did Clinton sanction both us & Pakistan when we tested instead of celebrating with us ?

How do you think it plans to play india to accomplish it's own goals?

Already got us to sideline Iran. Is working at getting to the frontline to sell us lots of arms. Already got our civilian nuclear reactors under the IAEA's watch without having to get us to sign the NPT or CTBT.

I keep saying that us-nuke deal was to distance us from iran. I do not agree that it was to counter balance china.

Look deeper and don't ignore the background. Don't stop at just one reason there are quite a few.

The US actually appointed china to balance the region.

What ?!? This statement makes no sense unless you give some background here. When did they do this and with what motive

Pakistan has been receiving financial and military aid pre and post 9/11. Like i said above, 9/11 exposed them.

Umm, Pakistan only got aid upto 1991, there was a gap then till 9/11.

Nope. The neighbours would rather live with taliban in it's periphery than the US of A.

Pre 9/11 yes, post not a chance in hell. The US in any case will be out of there in a few years so they won't be on anyone's periphery. Afghanistan will be overflowing with arms & militants subsidised by China, EU, India, Russia & the US.

Just like the americans would rather have india busy with proxy warfare than to solve the afghanistan-pakistan problem.

What does this mean :huh:

Both iran and pakistan are covertly engaged in providing aid to the taliban.

Agree to a certain extent, their hands aren't entirely free though.

Afghanistan is a hopeless war. The taliban will be back. In a coalition with the karzai govt in the beginning.

Let us see. Taliban might share some power, thats expected but taking over the country like in the past is unlikely.

I say we be the rebel we always were.

Depends on what's on offer and its cost Can't use one way only have to be flexible.

What scared the US so much when indians and persians decided to partner up in the oil pipeline deal? Was the threat so big for it to counter that with the indo-us nuke deal? Don't you wonder what it's notions were?

Already stated them, you're not seeing it because you think distancing Iran was the whole idea which it clearly was not. If it matters we are Iran's second biggest importer after China, so no pipline is not a big deal. We also export to them as Iran does not have enough refineries.

It is not always democracy v/s communism.

It isn't, today its US vs China.

China was a US appointed subordinate till it began biting and now it wants a bigger role. It is challenging americas iran isolation by meeting iran in straits of hormuz through gwadar.

Won't do any good if the bombs start falling in Iran. China is just stealing a headstart over the others in the region.

 

[antz123]

UN was formed after second world war. Japan was against Allied nations of US, UK, Russia, France and China.

Japan's reason is same as no Germany.

 

[agupta02]

I do not consider China an aggressor nation.

It has proven to be VERY aggressive at times and has recently become even more brash in the region. I would say China has every quality that an aggressor nation has. It just hasn't donned the hat of the Global cop like the US yet. Not that it wants to either, its very satisfied with donning that hat in the region at this point.

Basically the rogues nobody will touch. Big deal.

Rogues in control of some of most resource rich swathes of land in the world. Africa has still huge caches of unexplored natural resources which China is working hard to get control of. And it has little or no competition as no one else would touch these nations with the end of a stick and they need money to wage their little genocides.

Correction -- Proliferated, China signed the NPT in 1992.

Signing the NPT is no guarantee for non-proliferation. China is helping Pakistan construct "civilian" nuclear reactors. It also has a very close relationship with North Korea and its program. And where is Iran getting support for its tech?

So why did Clinton sanction both us & Pakistan when we tested instead of celebrating with us ?

Had to. He couldn't play favorites. But our sanction were lifted much earlier than Pakistan's.

Already got us to sideline Iran. Is working at getting to the frontline to sell us lots of arms. Already got our civilian nuclear reactors under the IAEA's watch without having to get us to sign the NPT or CTBT.

The IAEA votes against Iran were in India's own interest as well. Its not in India's best interest to have Iran, a hard line fundamentalist state, to have a successful nuclear program. Diplomatically, India still supports Iran on a number of other issues and I wouldn't go as far as to say that Iran has been completely sidelined. As far as sales of arms go, again its in India's best interest to have its army work with the latest tech and we buy it from whoever has the best product to fit our needs. We are not buying everything from the US. What is of note here is that the US, which previously was not very keen on selling arms to us due to our proximity to the USSR and various other reasons has now allowed its defense contractors to go head over heels to bag the Indian Arms contracts, which are currently, the largest in the world. In fact, India is one of the biggest arms markets in the world currently and the US cannot afford to miss such an opportunity to make money. The flip side though is that the same money is being rerouted to Pakistan as aid to fight terrorism which Pakistan is diverting against India blatantly. So in effect, by purchasing arms from the US to bolster our defenses, we are indirectly giving Pakistan the money it needs to wage its proxy war. Ironic to say the least. As far as the Civilian Nuclear deal goes, we have gained much more than we have lost in the long term.

Umm, Pakistan only got aid upto 1991, there was a gap then till 9/11.

But Pakistan had uninterrupted access to US military hardware at discounted prices.

Pre 9/11 yes, post not a chance in hell. The US in any case will be out of there in a few years so they won't be on anyone's periphery. Afghanistan will be overflowing with arms & militants subsidised by China, EU, India, Russia & the US.

Post Afghan invasion, the anti-US sentiment has been at its highest level than it ever has been and the Taliban has been feeding off it quite vigorously. Both the US & its puppet Karzai government have not been able to rein in the warlords despite offers ranging from arms to money to more power and autonomy. The Taliban is as strong as ever, has completely taken over North-West Pakistan and has even forced the US to classify them as Good & Bad. The US knows that its effort in Afghanistan has failed completely simply because the Karzai government has been able to gain no power or acceptance whatsoever amongst the Afghani people and for the US to exit, it has to involve the Taliban in the power equation which would eventually takeover. At this point, the people may not want the Taliban but they definitely don't want the US.

Agree to a certain extent, their hands aren't entirely free though.

And how would you classify a free hand, go into the UN assembly and recognize the Taliban??? Pakistan at least has done all they could to clandestinely support the Taliban. From money to arms to refuge and safe passage to & from Afghanistan. They have single handedly frustrated all US efforts to rein in the Taliban by disallowing the US forces to cross into its borders in pursuit and refusing to send in its own forces after them either. According to them, they just don't have the money or the equipment and have decidedly given away a large part of THEIR SOVEREIGN LAND to the Taliban to plan, train and conduct guerrilla operations against the US forces in Afghanistan.

Let us see. Taliban might share some power, thats expected but taking over the country like in the past is unlikely.

Have you read the articles on WiKi Leaks about the Afghan war? Seems from them that most of Afghanistan never came out Taliban rule at all.

 

[blr_p]

It has proven to be VERY aggressive at times and has recently become even more brash in the region. I would say China has every quality that an aggressor nation has. It just hasn't donned the hat of the Global cop like the US yet. Not that it wants to either, its very satisfied with donning that hat in the region at this point.

Confusing belligerent with aggressive. The only time i would say they have been aggressive is when they moved into Tibet.

Rogues in control of some of most resource rich swathes of land in the world.

But what % of the globe ?

I'm not saying its insignifcant but it represents a small fraction of what is already under other party's control.

Signing the NPT is no guarantee for non-proliferation. China is helping Pakistan construct "civilian" nuclear reactors.

Its exploiting a loophole. China can help anyone with 'civilian' reactors. What the country does after with them is besides the point. Pakistan is not a NPT signatory by the way and can weaponise if they want.

Signing NPT means you dont give nuclear weapons tech to others. Chinese won't muck around with the NPT. Remember, they have two rogue states on their borders to keep happy.

It also has a very close relationship with North Korea and its program.

But thats been going on for a long time. No case of proliferation has been shown after they signed the NPT.

And where is Iran getting support for its tech?

AQ Khan network & N.Korea. Norks were implicated with the one in Syria that the Israeli's blew up in 2007. Syria & Iran have good relations.

Had to. He couldn't play favorites. But our sanction were lifted much earlier than Pakistan's.

Sure, but i used that as a counter to broadway's assertion that the US wants ppl to go to war and then come in and clean up.

The IAEA votes against Iran were in India's own interest as well. Its not in India's best interest to have Iran, a hard line fundamentalist state, to have a successful nuclear program. Diplomatically, India still supports Iran on a number of other issues and I wouldn't go as far as to say that Iran has been completely sidelined. As far as sales of arms go, again its in India's best interest to have its army work with the latest tech and we buy it from whoever has the best product to fit our needs. We are not buying everything from the US. What is of note here is that the US, which previously was not very keen on selling arms to us due to our proximity to the USSR and various other reasons has now allowed its defense contractors to go head over heels to bag the Indian Arms contracts, which are currently, the largest in the world. In fact, India is one of the biggest arms markets in the world currently and the US cannot afford to miss such an opportunity to make money. The flip side though is that the same money is being rerouted to Pakistan as aid to fight terrorism which Pakistan is diverting against India blatantly. So in effect, by purchasing arms from the US to bolster our defenses, we are indirectly giving Pakistan the money it needs to wage its proxy war. Ironic to say the least. As far as the Civilian Nuclear deal goes, we have gained much more than we have lost in the long term.

Agree

Post Afghan invasion, the anti-US sentiment has been at its highest level than it ever has been and the Taliban has been feeding off it quite vigorously. Both the US & its puppet Karzai government have not been able to rein in the warlords despite offers ranging from arms to money to more power and autonomy. The Taliban is as strong as ever, has completely taken over North-West Pakistan and has even forced the US to classify them as Good & Bad. The US knows that its effort in Afghanistan has failed completely simply because the Karzai government has been able to gain no power or acceptance whatsoever amongst the Afghani people and for the US to exit, it has to involve the Taliban in the power equation which would eventually takeover. At this point, the people may not want the Taliban but they definitely don't want the US.

Only applies to Afghan areas bordering Pakistan and not the Northern areas bordering the stans & Russia. Afghanistan was invaded with less than five hundred US troops, the rest was their airforce and the Northern Alliance. Still think the Taliban will take over ?

And how would you classify a free hand, go into the UN assembly and recognize the Taliban???

I meant as in being limited by the US in how much they can covertly support the Taliban. If Iran pushes too much it will backfire and the same with Pakistan. Iran is the minor player by a large extent in comparison to the other. Iran does not want a Taliban there either and almost went to war with them in '99. The only reason they are supporting them now is because enemy of enemy is friend.

Pakistan at least has done all they could to clandestinely support the Taliban. From money to arms to refuge and safe passage to & from Afghanistan. They have single handedly frustrated all US efforts to rein in the Taliban by disallowing the US forces to cross into its borders in pursuit and refusing to send in its own forces after them either. According to them, they just don't have the money or the equipment and have decidedly given away a large part of THEIR SOVEREIGN LAND to the Taliban to plan, train and conduct guerrilla operations against the US forces in Afghanistan.

And in doing so acceded to drones targeting areas and taking off/landing from Pakistani soil.

Have you read the articles on WiKi Leaks about the Afghan war? Seems from them that most of Afghanistan never came out Taliban rule at all.

This has been claimed a lot even in the open source media. The Taliban tends to move into areas and if pushed moves out then moves back in. So its much harder to say how much they really control or not. Can they hold their positoins ? in the southern areas to a certain extent but elsewhere their hold is not that secure.

 

[agupta02]

Confusing belligerent with aggressive. The only time i would say they have been aggressive is when they moved into Tibet.

Belligerent is a synonym for aggressive BTW . Anyway, what about the incident involving the US P3 mid air collision with a Chinese MiG. Or more recently, the Chinese response to the collision of one of its fishing trawler with a Japanese Coast Guard ship? Or its recent heavy rhetoric and diplomatic action on border disputes with Japan and armed border incursions against India. Its open warning to India when our PM planned to visit Tawang. Rapid development of infrastructure nearby contentious borders whose sole practical purpose is rapid deployment of military force. Making bold statements by issuing separate stapled visas to residents of Kashmir and calling it India Occupied Kashmir. I would say these are signs of an aggressive state.

But what % of the globe ?

I'm not saying its insignifcant but it represents a small fraction of what is already under other party's control.

I think the more relevant question would be what % of global natural resources. I don't have exact figures but Africa has always been known to hold huge reserves of natural resources including oil, gas, precious metals and stones which have not been successfully tapped due to various conflicts in the region. The reserves held by other parties in the world are being tapped successfully and aggressively and would run out in due time whereas the resources present in Africa are still virgin and of unknown but substantial size.

Its exploiting a loophole. China can help anyone with 'civilian' reactors. What the country does after with them is besides the point. Pakistan is not a NPT signatory by the way and can weaponise if they want.

I don't think China is naive enough to think that the pakis would NOT weaponize using the nuclear tech being provided by China. China through its proxy North Korea has already provided the pakis with very stable and deadly weapon delivery systems the kind India can only hope to have over the next 10 years. The Chinese bid to help Pakistan on the nuclear front is a clear response to the Indo-US civil nuclear deal which again no one is naive enough to think that India would not utilize the tech to further fine tune its own arsenal. What I am trying to say is that NPT or not, China has been instrumental in proliferating nuclear tech to these countries, maybe in the guise of civilian projects but clearly with the objective of weaponizing them.

Signing NPT means you dont give nuclear weapons tech to others. Chinese won't muck around with the NPT. Remember, they have two rogue states on their borders to keep happy.

China has no reason to keep Pakistan, North Korea or Iran happy. Economically, they are not significant trading partners and diplomatically, they do not carry any clout on the world stage to work with China on the issues it wants addressed. I think its got more to do with divide and rule. The Pakistanis are being supported because of their single minded goal of annihilating India and by helping them China is trying to keep India in check and preventing it from becoming a significant force in the region militarily. If ever there is a confrontation, the pakis would not hesitate to open up a front along with China against India. But I fail to understand why China's doing it with North Korea or Iran. It holds significant clout in the world anyways due to its economy that it doesn't need to support North Korea and Iran and create distractions still it does???

But thats been going on for a long time. No case of proliferation has been shown after they signed the NPT.

Well, they won't do it openly now would they. Nor did the US when it supplied nuclear tech to Israel.

AQ Khan network & N.Korea. Norks were implicated with the one in Syria that the Israeli's blew up in 2007. Syria & Iran have good relations.

Yes but where did they get it in the first place???

Only applies to Afghan areas bordering Pakistan and not the Northern areas bordering the stans & Russia. Afghanistan was invaded with less than five hundred US troops, the rest was their airforce and the Northern Alliance. Still think the Taliban will take over ?

Well to answer that question, I'll ask another one. Which other significantly armed force is present in Afghanistan today other than the US? In absence of a proper civilian government, guns generally rule. And the US airforce was out in full force. If you count total US military involvement, the number would go upto thousands. Add to that thousands more in intelligence, logistics and support. They didn't want a ground presence in the beginning as they knew nothing decreases support for war than the sight of Americans coming home in body bags. Priceless lesson learned in Vietnam.

I meant as in being limited by the US in how much they can covertly support the Taliban. If Iran pushes too much it will backfire and the same with Pakistan. Iran is the minor player by a large extent in comparison to the other. Iran does not want a Taliban there either and almost went to war with them in '99. The only reason they are supporting them now is because enemy of enemy is friend.

And in doing so acceded to drones targeting areas and taking off/landing from Pakistani soil.

Well as far as I can tell, its a general consensus that the ISI or elements in the ISI are openly supporting the Taliban. ISI is a Pakistani state body which the civilian government admits it has little control over. Yet it sanctions enormous funds to the agency year after year. Further. Pakistan has vehemently stood its ground on not sending troops in to the Northern Tribal regions. The US has no choice but to support Pakistan despite all this and present a rosy picture of its ally back home because its between a rock and hard place. Pakistan is by far the only ally the US could use to support its efforts in Afghanistan w/o whom they just cannot continue. It has tried other avenues to supply its troops but the route through Pakistan is by far the only one reliable enough to be used continuously. Pakistanis further demonstrated this by holding up NATO supplies on its borders which forced the US to tender an official apology for its recent border incursions. Of course Pakistan has to give something, in this case allowing drone attacks to the US for them to be able to show cooperation or run the risk of the US going all out on its ass. As far as using its own airfields for the drone attacks, its supposedly a CIA operation and is not sanctioned by the US military. Whether there's any strength in the story, I can't really comment.

This has been claimed a lot even in the open source media. The Taliban tends to move into areas and if pushed moves out then moves back in. So its much harder to say how much they really control or not. Can they hold their positoins ? in the southern areas to a certain extent but elsewhere their hold is not that secure.

If they are able to move back in after being pushed out what'll happen when the pushers themselves move out?

Anyway, I think we have moved WAY off-topic in this thread and have kinda ruined it ultimately. But I guess thats what happens when one starts to discuss politics . I suggest lets leave it at this and if anyone feels that this is something we should take forward, might I suggest opening a new thread.

Cheers !!!

 

[blr_p]

Belligerent is a synonym for aggressive BTW .

By aggressive I meant as in go in, occupy and remain there. Little incidents or strongly worded statements are nothing.

Anyway, what about the incident involving the US P3 mid air collision with a Chinese MiG.

Defending their space.

Or more recently, the Chinese response to the collision of one of its fishing trawler with a Japanese Coast Guard ship?

This one has been discussed quite a bit but here is the latest reason and its a real laugh

Or its recent heavy rhetoric and diplomatic action on border disputes with Japan and armed border incursions against India.

China being China. Their dispute with Japan has already blown up in their faces. Everything is hunky dory now.

Its open warning to India when our PM planned to visit Tawang.

Warnings are good so long as they are backed with actions and what was the Chinese action ?

Rapid development of infrastructure nearby contentious borders whose sole practical purpose is rapid deployment of military force.

So we reciprocate.

Making bold statements by issuing separate stapled visas to residents of Kashmir and calling it India Occupied Kashmir. I would say these are signs of an aggressive state.

Just trying to test the neighbour's response to see who can be influenced away from the US. Score sheet on that is not very impressive. Their main problem with us has always been Tibet and anything associated with it.

The reserves held by other parties in the world are being tapped successfully and aggressively and would run out in due time whereas the resources present in Africa are still virgin and of unknown but substantial size.

And the moment that becomes more clear you will see the other big boys move and claim their share of the pie. China is doing the pioneering work, will they be able to hold onto it, remains to be seen.

I don't think China is naive enough to think that the pakis would NOT weaponize using the nuclear tech being provided by China.

Correct but there is no way to charge China with proliferation is there

China through its proxy North Korea has already provided the pakis with very stable and deadly weapon delivery systems the kind India can only hope to have over the next 10 years.

Hmm, the only two options the Pak's have for delivery are missile and airplanes. There is a lot more missing that we have over them.

The Chinese bid to help Pakistan on the nuclear front is a clear response to the Indo-US civil nuclear deal

Chinese have helped the paK's on the nuclear front since the 70's, initially to counter the soviets. This recent move is a response to the nuke deal i agree. Question is does it matter ? I dont think its signficant enough to worry about. Its a big win for Pak leaders as they can show they somehow managed to 'balance' India

...which again no one is naive enough to think that India would not utilize the tech to further fine tune its own arsenal.

This one is harder to call, the civilian stuff cannot be diverted for military use the IAEA will ensure that.

We don't need foreign tech for our arsenal its indigenous which is why we could hold onto it and still sign the 123 agreement. We can get anything we need non-nuke realted through arms deals. We have a credible minimum deterrent in place already.

What I am trying to say is that NPT or not, China has been instrumental in proliferating nuclear tech to these countries, maybe in the guise of civilian projects but clearly with the objective of weaponizing them.

Do you see the IAEA take China to task over this ?

That should tell you whether your assertion holds any water or not. Ignore what the domestic coulmnists think, its the IAEA that calls the shots in the end.

China has no reason to keep Pakistan, North Korea or Iran happy.

Strongly disagree. The whole idea of keeping the first two happy is to keep the US out of them and China will defend these two to the very end. They will send in troops to back them up in the event either were invaded by others.

Economically, they are not significant trading partners and diplomatically, they do not carry any clout on the world stage to work with China on the issues it wants addressed.

You're not seeing it because you do not realise that China does not want US friendly states on its doorstep.

I think its got more to do with divide and rule.

I would say it's all about preventing and breaking encirclement. This is the prime motive to keep them happy and they've been doing it now for over thirty years with the Paks and even longer with the Norks.

The Pakistanis are being supported because of their single minded goal of annihilating India and by helping them China is trying to keep India in check

yes

..and preventing it from becoming a significant force in the region militarily.

No, we will become a signficant force in the region despite their best efforts and by that i mean economically, this is the first requirement, military will flow naturally afterwards. We just need to keep our noses to the grindstone and grow for the next twenty years without interruptions or hiccups. I would say the only force stopping us from achieveing that is ourselves.

If ever there is a confrontation, the pakis would not hesitate to open up a front along with China against India.

Right and that maintains the balance of power in the area which is a good thing otherwise wars break out.

But I fail to understand why China's doing it with North Korea or Iran. It holds significant clout in the world anyways due to its economy that it doesn't need to support North Korea and Iran and create distractions still it does???

See above.

Well, they won't do it openly now would they. Nor did the US when it supplied nuclear tech to Israel.

I'm not sure if it was the US that supplied the tech to Israel, i think it was the french.

Yes but where did they get it in the first place???

Norks did not sign the NPT

Well to answer that question, I'll ask another one. Which other significantly armed force is present in Afghanistan today other than the US?

The Northern alliance, the Taliban and their affliates.

In absence of a proper civilian government, guns generally rule. And the US airforce was out in full force. If you count total US military involvement, the number would go upto thousands. Add to that thousands more in intelligence, logistics and support. They didn't want a ground presence in the beginning as they knew nothing decreases support for war than the sight of Americans coming home in body bags. Priceless lesson learned in Vietnam.

Yes but my point was to show it did not take much to bring about the rout of the Taliban.

Well as far as I can tell, its a general consensus that the ISI or elements in the ISI are openly supporting the Taliban.

Yes and they will continue to do so but they will be up against US, China, India, Iran, EU and Russia, those are not good odds.

The US has no choice but to support Pakistan despite all this and present a rosy picture of its ally back home because its between a rock and hard place.

That stops the moment they leave.

Pakistan is by far the only ally the US could use to support its efforts in Afghanistan w/o whom they just cannot continue.

You realise that only non-lethal convoys pass through Pakistan so where do you think they get their arms supplies from

It has tried other avenues to supply its troops but the route through Pakistan is by far the only one reliable enough to be used continuously.

Not reliable just cheaper.

Pakistanis further demonstrated this by holding up NATO supplies on its borders which forced the US to tender an official apology for its recent border incursions.

Just entertainment noting more.

Whether there's any strength in the story, I can't really comment.

Don't have to, its a fact that those drones use Pak bases.

If they are able to move back in after being pushed out what'll happen when the pushers themselves move out?

Remember that long list of countries I mentioned earlier, its in their interest not to have things revert back. So the US with its missoin has got all these countries around to its point of view.

Anyway, I think we have moved WAY off-topic in this thread and have kinda ruined it ultimately. But I guess thats what happens when one starts to discuss politics . I suggest lets leave it at this and if anyone feels that this is something we should take forward, might I suggest opening a new thread.

I think the thread question has already been answered, I don't mind discussing related stuff, and its to do with the power equations in the area so its not exactly OT.

Hope i did not waste my time in answering any of the points brought up

 

[agupta02]

Well I guess you've it all figured out. Good for you.

Cheers !!!

 

[blr_p]

It's not like that. I'm not saying i'm right and you or any one else is wrong.

When we have discussions of this nature we are inherently trying to predict the future. To do that you have to explain what the situation is today and how others in the area may behave. This forms the basis for making statements. When it comes to international relations things do not change very fast especially when it comes to country's behaviours and their rationales for being so. If you notice all along this is what i tried to show, that certain developments have stronger likelihood than others. Those developments owe a lot to the history and pressures the countries face.

What's important is to have that basis so the reasoning can be understood. That reasoning should withstand examination & critiques, if it does so then it become stronger than those that cannot

 

[spacenoxx]

Firstly, let me say that it has been a fascinating read. I have not come across a better discussion in ages on our forums. Would like to thank you all for this. Cheers!!

Couple of things I wanted to add:

This one is harder to call, the civilian stuff cannot be diverted for military use the IAEA will ensure that.

No the civilian stuff cannot be diverted. However, it allows us to use our own very limited enriched uranium resources for our nukes and yes US knows this and is willing to look the other way while the Paki's obviously hate it and are therefore running to 'mama' who is promptly helping them out as needed.

..its IAEA that calls the shots in the end.

Dont think so. IAEA said there was no evidence of Nukes/WMD in Iraq and USA hardly paid any attention to it.

No, we will become a signficant force in the region despite their best efforts and by that i mean economically, this is the first requirement, military will flow naturally afterwards. We just need to keep our noses to the grindstone and grow for the next twenty years without interruptions or hiccups. I would say the only force stopping us from achieveing that is ourselves.

An excellent point IMO. At this point, it is better in my opinion, for us to stay focused on the development. Like in the US, its the corporates/lobbyists that hold the real power, not those in power. So, money at the end of the day is what is most important to become powerful. Once you have it the rest of the stuff usually fallows.

 

[blr_p]

Dont think so. IAEA said there was no evidence of Nukes/WMD in Iraq and USA hardly paid any attention to it.

Couple of things here. There is the IAEA's role in regulating nuclear supplies of those that signed the treaty. It does not have any enforcement power. Its upto the world to decide what to do and eventually any actions rest upon those able to carry them out. So wrt to China supplying the Paks withose two reactors, do you see any countries voicing concern or outrage over it ? No, at least none of the major powers.

Secondly, WMD was not the reason the US went into Iraq

 

[spacenoxx]

Couple of things here. There is the IAEA's role in regulating nuclear supplies of those that signed the treaty. It does not have any enforcement power.

So it kind of implies that IAEA doesn't call the shots, when a bully like USA can do whatever she/it wants.

Secondly, WMD was not the reason the US went into Iraq

Exactly my point. Which kind of proves your own point that at the end, whoever has money, ultimately calls the shots. China is now doing the same cause it has the $$$.

 

[agupta02]

Secondly, WMD was not the reason the US went into Iraq

Yes but that was the reason quoted for justifying the war in Iraq, at home and to the world. Everyone "knew" its was about the oil. No one said it out loud though certainly not in the US, high on revenge for 9/11 at that time. In the end, it really doesn't matter what the IAEA or any other statutory body says unless and until the major powers decide to do something about it. Hence a permanent seat WITH veto powers in the UNSC is such a coveted position and one which India is qualified for even at this point both economically and militarily.

The IAEA would not, IMO, pinpoint China's indiscretions because it knows that the report, if any, would probably be swept under the rug by the powers that be as its in no one interests to confront China or embarrass it diplomatically, not while it is the powerhouse of the world economy & international trade. Had China been like Iraq, weakened by a UN invasion followed by decade long economic and trade sanctions, the US would have invaded it too by now for all the pain its causing in SE Asia.

 

[blr_p]

So it kind of implies that IAEA doesn't call the shots, when a bully like USA can do whatever she/it wants.

Saddam did not cooperate with the IAEA. He led them on then obstructed them and so on. The ppl looking for WMD's was UNMOVIC. All the 15 members in the UNSC agreed that he should disarm or face the consequences. Course as we know he never did and the rationale was given by himself later that if he openly admitted to it that Iran would attack knowing he was weak. So the US called his bluff.

So we have a situation here where its unclear and the IAEA never gave its approval in the first place, the UNMOVIC guy however disagreed and thats what was picked up by the media. Of course the US did not accept it because Saddam never did come clean at the time. The US did not move in because its the most powerful and can ignore intl. treaties and break any rules out there, but there was a clear case of reasonable doubt. Let's be clear that the US invading Iraq is not illegal.

Exactly my point. Which kind of proves your own point that at the end, whoever has money, ultimately calls the shots. China is now doing the same cause it has the $$$.

It's still a loophole wrt to China & Pakistan. Giving them a reactor requires them to be able to enrich the fuel into weapons grade and further be able to weaponise it. The Paks can already do this without any help and are not breaking any laws in doing so.The power thing does not come into it here.

Everyone "knew" its was about the oil.

I hear this from so many ppl but when i press them to explain what "for the oil" means they come up short so can you do better ?

In the end, it really doesn't matter what the IAEA or any other statutory body says unless and until the major powers decide to do something about it.

It does matter a great deal what the IAEA says or there would be no reason to have an IAEA

After that its up to the major powers to do something about it.

Hence a permanent seat WITH veto powers in the UNSC is such a coveted position and one which India is qualified for even at this point both economically and militarily.

I'll leave out the first bit of your statement because its not been shown by anyone here that China has proliferated and used its weight to get away with it.

But the second bit implies you think India is ready to be a veto wielding member today ?

The powers that be don't and they are being diplomatic when asked. I see it, that's why i said twenty years from now.

The IAEA would not, IMO, pinpoint China's indiscretions because it knows that the report, if any, would probably be swept under the rug by the powers that be as its in no one interests to confront China or embarrass it diplomatically, not while it is the powerhouse of the world economy & international trade.

A case of proliferation by a country that signed the treaty would not be swept under the rug. That's a clear case of breaking it, if the powers that be ignore it then the treaty is as good as null & void. I think quite a few ppl would be very upset about that.

Had China been like Iraq, weakened by a UN invasion followed by decade long economic and trade sanctions, the US would have invaded it too by now for all the pain its causing in SE Asia.

India has not lodged any complaints with anyone about this has she ?

If China was weak, i think the Russians would've get there first. China spent the 70s unsure if she would ever see the 80's.

 

[agupta02]

I hear this from so many ppl but when i press them to explain what "for the oil" means they come up short so can you do better ?

All right why don't you enlighten us why the US went into Iraq if not for the oil with valid support???

I'll leave out the first bit of your statement because its not been shown by anyone here that China has proliferated and used its weight to get away with it.

I don't think anyone here has the expertise to "show" you something that obviously is not common knowledge and hence would not be available on Google. It is simply a plausible speculation as an attempt to explain the proliferation on Nuclear tech, materials and expertise to countries who otherwise do not possess the funds or the infrastructure to develop an indigenous program. You may very well counter that by making a statement that I am being a conspiracy theorist and you may very well be right. But then there are things that happen behind closed doors and are as such much beyond a normal human being's understanding. No one would have guessed what was cooking in Satyam and even though every one knew what the IPL really was, no one knew the actual depth or touched Modi until he dared to take on the government itself. Before Tharoor gate, if this discussion might have come up, one would have said that there is no proof and its all hearsay. No one could have "shown" anything to anyone at that time but just speculate as there was NOTHING to show except a gut feeling based on our own experiences and understanding of the world, that nothing is free. And these two instances, we as Indians, can relate to. There's a lot more going on globally which, I for one, being an inconsequential unit in the grand scheme of things, would never be expected to know in my lifetime. Obviously some people are better read, better fed, better educated and have bigger brains than me and are more "in the know" with the world and hence would differ.

What I am trying to say is that before refuting all arguments with such stamina just because no one can "show" you that its happening, doesn't necessarily mean that its not happening.

But the second bit implies you think India is ready to be a veto wielding member today ?

The powers that be don't and they are being diplomatic when asked. I see it, that's why i said twenty years from now.

well I say India's ready now and thats that. Please don't ask me to "show" you how .

A case of proliferation by a country that signed the treaty would not be swept under the rug. That's a clear case of breaking it, if the powers that be ignore it then the treaty is as good as null & void. I think quite a few ppl would be very upset about that.

Rules and regulations are made by the mighty to control the meek. Has been like that and will be like that. No one interferes in a situation where they have nothing to gain. Iraq attacked Kuwait and the UN pounced on it, bombed it and sanctioned it to save the wealthy oil sheiks. The US & the UK attacked Iraq in 2003 much against the global consensus, were they sanctioned or even reprimanded by the UN? Or do you think it was a legitimate invasion backed by extremely good intel and Iraq actually was a threat to the "free" world?

If China was weak, i think the Russians would've get there first. China spent the 70s unsure if she would ever see the 80's.

I am talking about present day China, not the one at the height of the Cold War. Its flexing its muscle because it knows it can. And global politics is not a school where the bully leaves you alone after you complain to the headmaster. Infact, even in school, you get beat up if you're unlucky enough to end up in the bully's hands after school .

 

[blr_p]

All right why don't you enlighten us why the US went into Iraq if not for the oil with valid support???

Not so fast, you said "everybody knows" so i'm going to give a chance to tell us what that is

I don't think anyone here has the expertise to "show" you something that obviously is not common knowledge and hence would not be available on Google.

Ok, then let's step back and review our positions on this subject. You said

China is helping Pakistan construct "civilian" nuclear reactors.

I take it this is wrt to the announcement that China made recently ??

Both the Indian & Pak media made lots of hay with this and painted it as a fait accompli. But is it ?

As China is a member of the NSG it needs the approval of the rest before supplying any fuel to a non NPT member. This point seems to have been glossed over. China has not asked about it yet at NSG meetings because the US is opposed to the deal.

The construction at Chashma III & IV can go on but in the end it requires the goods to operate. China seems to be trying to argue that because it built the earlier ones this one should be fine as well. There is also the mention that these two reactors would be under IAEA safeguards.

If China goes ahead and does it without NSG approval then the NPT is finished. The only way would be for her to withdraw from it. I don't think this matter is resolved as yet. There is still some more wheeling & dealing to go on between the US & China.wrt to this.

It is simply a plausible speculation as an attempt to explain the proliferation on Nuclear tech, materials and expertise to countries who otherwise do not possess the funds or the infrastructure to develop an indigenous program.

Initially we were talking about two reactors now there is nuclear tech, materials & expertise (!)

I'm not disagreeing this went on in past leading up to '92 as its an accepted fact. I'm disagreeing you can use the world 'proliferate' today wrt to China. And the reason is its very easy for the intel communities of various countries to see this, the dead giveaway is arms tests which indicate a vast improvement over previous accomplishments. A revolutionary improvement rather than an incremental one.

You may very well counter that by making a statement that I am being a conspiracy theorist and you may very well be right.

I never said you were, if you notice i offered counters, and these are not my personal opinons, in fact i've offered not a single personal opinion in this thread, everything is from reading those a great deal more competent than i am in this field and understanding their reasons.

well I say India's ready now and thats that. Please don't ask me to "show" you how

You don't have to, the proof of your statement is how soon we get called up. I don't see us being asked to do so just yet. There's all sorts of talk in the media about how Obama will come with good news etc but i'll believe that when it happens.

Iraq attacked Kuwait and the UN pounced on it, bombed it and sanctioned it to save the wealthy oil sheiks. The US & the UK attacked Iraq in 2003 much against the global consensus, were they sanctioned or even reprimanded by the UN? Or do you think it was a legitimate invasion backed by extremely good intel and Iraq actually was a threat to the "free" world?

I will answer this after you tell me what "everyone knows" means

I may or may not convince you, it was very difficult to accept myself but it became easier when i started to look at it through the Bush adminstration's eyes only instead of others best attempts to obsucure & obfuscate that view. This is the key.

I am talking about present day China, not the one at the height of the Cold War. Its flexing its muscle because it knows it can. And global politics is not a school where the bully leaves you alone after you complain to the headmaster. Infact, even in school, you get beat up if you're unlucky enough to end up in the bully's hands after school .

Ah, but China is not the only bully around, it has to deal with bigger ones too.