Kerry in support of the India deal

[Mass]

I have to say I still do not know about what to think about this deal. I can see reasons to do it (I consider that, if well mastered, nuclear energy would be the best way to curve global warming), but I also see the danger to do that with a country that did not sign the NPT, and why I understand the arguments I have heard that the treaty is non really relevant given Iraq and North Korea who signed it, I am bothered by the fact that there is nothing to replace it.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2360581&C=america

Kerry: U.S. Senate Likely To Vote on India Nuke Pact This Week
By GOPAL RATNAM


The U.S. Senate is expected to consider the U.S.-India civil nuclear cooperation agreement before breaking for the Thanksgiving Day holiday, allowing time to hammer out differences with the House version and possibly pass the deal by December.
“I believe this agreement we’ll vote in the Senate will strengthen all components of our relationship with India,” said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Speaking at a Nov. 15 event organized by the U.S.-India Business Council, Kerry said the Senate could vote on the deal before it recesses Nov. 16.
Several members of Congress and arms control groups have raised questions about the agreement, arguing that it would reward India for developing nuclear weapons in disregard of the U.S.-led nonproliferation regime.
India, Pakistan and Israel are not signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which prohibits countries other than declared nuclear powers from developing weapon capability.
Kerry, acknowledging that the deal is unprecedented, also cast it in broad terms as being in America’s interests. The agreement, which will open doors for U.S. nuclear technology and materials to flow to India, should be seen as part of the U.S. effort to combat terrorism and build support among a wide variety of allies, he said.
“This agreement is part of the building-block process to do a number of things,” including fighting terrorism, he said. “We stand on the edge of a brand new U.S.-India relationship. India is a natural and wonderful partner, if we realize it.”
While the deal is “unprecedented, India’s record on nonproliferation is also unprecedented and different from other countries,” he said.
Kerry said the Senate version that’s likely to be put to a vote already includes 18 amendments, which must be debated before the vote. He and others who favor the deal hope that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., will allow adequate time for those discussions....

[karynnj]

1. I can see where he is coming from

There is a balance of power between Pakistan and India. India is a democracy and unlike Pakistan (A Q Khan) it has not engaged in spreading nuclear technology - there violation was that they developed it after the nations that had it decided no one could have it. Kerry's comments that we need India as an ally in the WoT are right - it is the most trustworthy country there.

India developed theirs before Pakistan, but likely as a counter to the fact that it was likely Pakistan would develop it. Pakistan and India have been hostile almost since they were seperated when British rule ended.

I think Kerry's key sentence is: "While the deal is “unprecedented, India’s record on nonproliferation is also unprecedented and different from other countries,” he said." (I'm not sure it's totally unprecedented as we didn't hold Israel accountable either - likely for the same reason.)

[beachmom]

2. I agree. Basically Bush put together a deal where India got far

too much for breaking the rules. But, as we know, Bush is a very poor diplomat, so we have to deal with the treaty they agreed on. I know The Economist is highly opposed to the treaty, but, quite frankly, the U.S. has few friends at the moment, and India is one of them. Kerry said it himself in one of the committee hearings that he wishes a better treaty had been negotiated; nevertheless, he supports it because of that special relationship with India. India is beginning to undergo some changes that is liberalizing it (the outsourcing) as well as some not so liberal trends (extreme Hindu fundamentalism). In the balance, it is a stable democracy, and may prove to be a long time ally to the U.S. I actually trust Sen. Kerry on this for he is far more an expert on this. And the fact that he did mention the problems with the treaty shows he understands it's not anywhere near perfect. Any lefty who makes a stink will not have an easy time trying to label Kerry for this action.

(I will admit my gut reaction was we shouldn't ratify it, but Kerry's opinion does hold sway over me, so that I will trust him on this one)

[karynnj]

3. I agree totally with you and remember Kerry's frustration with Rice.

There will be people who will take the word of those organizations and criticize him. I agree totally with your analysis. There are good reasons to build this relationship - and as he said in committee it doesn't make sense to treat them like the countries that actively spread stuff.

[Mass]

5. I think it depends on the amendments.

As it stands, there are serious objections to the bill and no real reasons for it to be voted in a lame-duck session when it could be seriously amended in the new congress.

I sincerely hope Kerry will support the amendements brought forward by Feingold and Boxer, that would make the bill more palatable, because, Kerry or not Kerry, I cannot support the bill as it is (I feel in the same position as for the IWR. I understand his reasonning, but I think it is a flawed reasonning and agree with Ed Markey on this one. This agreement should not have passed, whatever the diplomatic implications. Diplomaty does not allow for a breach in principles - It makes no sense to ask Iran not to develop nuclear weapons and to recompense countries who have nuclear weapons and have not signed the treaty).

[Mass]

4. More of this for info.

I think I really have to see more on this one to know if I agree or not. Right now, I strongly disagree. There is no reason to break our principles in non-proliferation and certainly no reason to have a vote on that during the lame-duck session.

http://www.zeenews.com/articles.asp?aid=335960&sid=NAT&ssid=

[beachmom]

6. This is about an alliance and to give it to Pakistan (which is a failed nuclear

state). Just from what I'm reading here, it is obvious that it is in the U.S.'s interest to have closer ties with India.

I think there are a number of principles here, Mass, and they are at odds. What Kerry is saying is that a real alliance and special relationship with India is in the best interest of the United States. And that trumps the nuclear non-proliferation issues you bring up. Of course, I realize you disagree, but this is hardly in the realm of the IWR (which had to do with war). But you should call his office, and explain your problems with it.

Sounds like Kerry will kill those amendments if he can.

[Mass]

7. And I will feel sorry if he does.

In addition, there is not a lot of advantages to these links as long as the economical issues are not treated. May be big business is happy to have links with India, but I am not sure that ordinary people benefit from that.

There needs to be links with India, but a good treaty cannot be negotiated with Bush at the bar. So the choice is between a bad treaty that nobody can control or no treaty at all. I prefer no treaty.

In addition, the leadership is breaking its promise to rural states to bring the Agriculture Appropriation Bill and Draught relief Bill next in order to push the deal. Conrad and Dorgan have been blocking the floor since yesterday because of that. I definitively would have liked Democrats stand strong with them on that. This did not happen. So, sorry, there are definitively a lot of reasons why I am mad at this bill and those who support him. I would have loved to see Kerry stand for a few principles here, including the respect of given word. He stayed silent (I am not prejudging of what he was thinking, I am just stating a fact).

[karynnj]

10. I saw the ND Senators

They were doing an excellent job making their case. I'm not sure they were looking for other Senators to join them. At this point, Kerry joining them would not help - the question is where is the Democratic leadership? Where is Tom Harkin, who will be heading this committee? They are the ones that should be there - and there in FORCE. They will take over very very soon. That should give them the leverage to say that they are not standing for this. Kerry doesn't have that power - he's not in the leadship and he's not on the agriculture committe. I don't see how this relates to India.

I remember being shocked a few years ago when Pakistan was given a preferencial relationship denied to India. This was like the Pakistan tilt the US had in the 80s(?). Given the inherent instability in Pakistan, India is a good country to have on our side in that area - it is political, more than economics.

[Mass]

11. Sometimes, principles matter.

Sometimes, leadership matters and people should make their position clear, whether they are important or not.

The reason invoked for not voting the Agriculture Bill is that the India deal MUST BE DONE NOW. There is no other more important priorities, according to Frist and others. This is how it relates.

As for the deal, yes, India is probably a good country (though it has its own problems and difficulties). Does that mean we need to get rid of a few more principles because it is a good country. I am tired of seeing good people sacrificing their principles. One of Kerry's strong points some years ago was non-proliferation. How does this deal (selling nuclear material to a country who did not sign the NPT without any guarantees) fits with that. May be it does, but I am getting tired of trying to find excuses. If it does, I'd like to hear it from him, and if it does not, I'd like to hear why he thinks it is more important to break them. I may agree or not, but I least I would know.

I just do not see why this treaty, an important treaty, should be voted quickly and without a real public debate, in a lame-duck session. This is too important and I am disappointed that the Democrats do not see that. I cannot agree more with Feingold that this lame-duck session is a trap.

[MH1]

17. Quickly? Without public debate??? Hardly.

Sorry if this sounds confrontational, but this is what frustrates me about politics.

See the stuff I posted below. That was back in January 2006. When was the treaty agreed between Bush and Singh? According to the article you posted - July 2005.

How much more freakin' time should be allowed for "public debate"? In the 16 months since the treaty was negotiated, how much debate has there been? If that wasn't enough, why would anyone think that pushing it off until 2007 will create any more space for debate? Is it because now that there is talk of actually voting on it, some folks who weren't paying attention before are saying oh shit, we have to stop this? Let's pretend there hasn't been time enough for discussion?

Sorry, I don't buy it. I think that Kerry has put his position and rationale out there (see my post below), and others have had the time to do that too.

That said, yes they should consider amendments, but they should start considering them NOW.

[beachmom]

8. Mass, you've gotten me interested. Here are some articles

on it:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15733500/site/newsweek/

It looks like the Democrats will slow it down in the House, and talk about nuclear nonproliferation, but it is by no means dead. Also, there is a 45 country group called Nuclear Suppliers Group that must unanimously approve the deal, and they're not all on board yet.

This one is about the Democrats and foreign policy, in general:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/11/10/MNG6SMA3RS1.DTL&type=politics

Biden also favors the India treaty.

[Mass]

9. Thanks. I had not yet read the MSNBC article. It is interesting.

[beachmom]

12. Whoa -- The Economist still violently opposed to deal:

http://www.economist.com/research/backgrounders/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7193934


Of course, they also called John Kerry a "loser" and all of us "over excited activists" when he attempted the Alito filibuster, so keep that in mind.

[Mass]

13. They laid very well the arguments against it.

Kerry understands perfectly the risks. As I said in a post earlier, he is a strong proponent of non-proliferation, which is why his position is so strange.

He also understands how badly the NPT is broken and needs to be repaired (Iran is part of the NPT, so who are we joking). He proposed solutions for that (I think it was in its Dublin speech). However, you can wonder whether it is wise to allow the treaty to be broken even more before it can be fixed?

[sandnsea]

14. Shifting nuclear power to India from Israel?

Is it even possible that behind the scenes thinking is that there has to be another nuclear power in the region to keep Muslim states from attacking Israel. If hitting Israel wih nukes means a response from India, that sort of changes the dynamics in the region. It's also worth making sure that the one strong democracy has a growing economy that isn't completely based on fossil fuel. I can see benefits to this deal. I wish there was some other way for sure.

[MH1]

15. Some information on why Kerry supports this.

From an Agence France Press article last January (Jan 12 2006) "US Senator Kerry backs controversial India-US nuclear deal":

The agreement, signed in July by Priem Minister Manmohan Singh and US President George W. Bush, would give India access to civilian nuclear technology in return for separating its civilian and military nuclear facilities.

The separation is to ensure US nuclear cooperation does not aid India's weapons program.

"It's a positive game for India, the US and for the international community," the former Democratic presidential candidate told reporters on Thursday.

His statements came a day after he held talks with Singh, during which the Indian leader solicited support for the deal, National Security Adviser M.K. Naraynan and other top leaders.

Indian newspapers had said New Delhi saw Kerry's support for the deal was important in getting bipartisan Congressional backing for legislation amending anti-proliferation laws.

......

Energy-hungry New Delhi has been denied access to nuclear technology for over two decades since it first tested a nuclear weapon and refused to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Kerry said the agremeent "creates adherence to international non-proliferation standards".

"It's better to have India as part of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) programme than not to have it," said Kerry, who is on a 12-day swing through South Asia, West Asia and Europe.

Unfortunately I don't have a link to the article and anyway it's behind the AFP firewall now. But I saved the article when it was published because I was concerned about this too.

Kerry's statement about bringing India under IAEA monitoring, even if they don't sign on to the non-proliferation treaty (which is essentially on its deathbed anyway), is a good rationale, I think. I think Kerry is being sensible and realistic here, a test his positions almost always, if not always, pass, in my opinion. (Thus why I support him.)


BBC News ahd another article which addressed this, also on January 12, 2006, upon the event of Kerry's travel to India:

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4605246.stm

But he said the fine print of the deal would have to be studied before Congress voted on the issue.

"What Congress will or won't do is going to depend on what the four corners of the agreement finally say when it is arrived at."

Washington and Delhi have held several rounds of talks on the issue and a senior US State Department official, Nicholas Burns, is due to visit India later this month to hold more discussions.

Mr Kerry said that the nuclear deal would have large implications internationally.

Apart from being approved by Congress, he said it would need:

* to be approved by the 44-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group
* changes to be made to the Atomic Energy Advisory Board
* the adoption of the Fissile Technology Control Regime

My only question is if he is still adhering to these stipulations? If he is sticking to these, then I am totally on board with his position - as stated above, it's sensible and realistic, the best that can be made of the real situation we are faced with. If he has relented on any of these stipulations, then I would want to know what his reasoning is, but I would expect that it again reflects a negotiation with reality for the best possible outcome in the situation as it is.

[karynnj]

16. These are interesting - I hope he speaks on it

I agree with the comments you made here.

[beachmom]

18. Actually, those aren't stipulations for his favoring it in the Congress

The Congress can approve it, but if those above groups DON'T approve it, then it's dead. It had to go through these steps:

1. Deal with President Bush
2. Gain approval in the Congress
3. be approved by the 44-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group
4. changes to be made to the Atomic Energy Advisory Board
5. the adoption of the Fissile Technology Control Regime


If it fails to go through any of these hoops, then it dies. That's what Sen. Kerry is saying -- certainly for #3 (which is now 45 nations). See that Newsweek article for a better explanation of #3.

[Mass]

19. There are plenty of good reasons to sign A treaty with India on this issue.

But what was negotiated is a terrible treaty and this is admitted by everybody including some of the proponents of the treaty (like Kerry, for example).

This is also a total U-turn for the non proliferation agreement and probably a fatal blow to NPT, without anything in replacement. In addition, it will allow India to build new nuclear weapons by giving them new material, and will push Pakistan and China to produce more, whether India does or not.

So, whatever my faith in Kerry is, I cannot agree with him on that. I would really hope he would reconsider his view on the treaty. Pragmatism is a quality I value, but sometimes, IMHO, it is not enough.

[MH1]

20. Could you point me to where

Kerry says that this is "a terrible treaty" and where he discusses the specific drawbacks?

(sorry I am being lazy, or more accurately, sneaking time from work and haven't read all of everything linked above - a direct quote(s) and source(s) would be appreciated)

[Mass]

21. Sorry. I do not have the minutes of the hearings.

However, he said clearly that Rice did not get enough from India and could have gotten more if she wanted. He was also one of the four who voted for the Feingold amendment that was asking for more serious guarantees that India would not increase his military nuclear program if this agreement was signed. So, I think it is pretty clear that he has doubts about that.

[MH1]

22. A few points

1) saying that we didn't get the best deal possible does not equate to calling it "a terrible treaty." In the sources I linked above, JK indicated that overall he thinks this is a good deal for both the US and India. Based on your comment here, without looking up the transcript, I would say that his criticism of Rice is just that she could have and should have made it better than what it is. It is a reflection of poor diplomacy skills that she couldn't get more concessions from India. But, that doesn't make it a "terrible" treaty - "terrible" is a very strong adjective, and using it would contradict what Kerry has said elsewhere.

2) The article you linked in the op quotes Kerry saying that he hopes Frist will allow adequate time for discussion of amendments. So, he does think it can be improved. However I think it is also justifiable to say that the US needs to get this done, otherwise India will go find more reliable partners.

3) Principle: I think JK's position on this shows his strength of principle, rather than the opposite that you seem to imply. A document is not a principle. A treaty is not a principle. A document or treaty is created to advance certain principles. However in this case the principle (reducing nuclear proliferation) can be advanced even though it is done in a framework outside the NPT. If we lose this treaty, don't we lose the IAEA oversight that India has agreed to? And other concessions they made, such as demonstrating separation of military and civilian nuclear technology use? If the treaty fails, we get none of that. Also, based on the article you linked in the o.p., our companies lose significant contracts. Those contracts don't mean just money for the big companies that get them - they also mean dependencies and leverage between the two nations. That leverage will give us greater ability to influence India's behavior in the future. If we lose it to France (who as I understand, has not always fulfilled the NPT spirit particularly well) or others, then how have we made things better? I think that we have not. (btw, this is the side of globalization that many extreme protectionists want to ignore).

Bottom line, I think this is a complex question and that Kerry has done a lot of study on it. I reject the notion that he somehow violating some "principle" just because of the NPT.

[Mass]

23. For your information,

France is thrilled by this treaty. They desperately wanted this treaty to be signed because it breaks the NPT and they can sign the same type of treaties with different countries now.

Sorry, I do not feel the need to be in agreement with Kerry each time he says something. I understand it is sometimes disturbing for some, but on this, allow me to agree with my representative, a good friend of Senator Kerry, Ed Markey, who said this treaty needed to be stopped.

So, I am going to take a little break.

[MH1]

24. Not agreeing with someone

does not mean that you can justifiably attack them as abandoning principle. (I don't always agree with Kerry either. I usually keep my disagreements and concerns off the public boards, but I don't expect everyone to do that. The attack on his integrity is what bothers me here.)

And, does not give you license to stretch their words to things they did not say. (e.g. claiming Kerry said it was a "terrible treaty", without a link to back it up, when that contradicts other statements that have been substantiated with links.)

Do you have a link for the "France is thrilled" point? I'm not necessarily sure I understand how this "breaks" the NPT anymore than it is already broken. Why can't France sign those treaties now, if it wants to? WTF would the US be able to do about it?

[TayTay]

25. The speech by Kerry is up on a webcast (11/15/06)

http://www.uschamber.com/webcasts/2006/061115_international_cpi.htm

Interesting.

[cadmium]

26. I dont know enough

about this issue to post an educated comment. I am open --- I am pretty sure that I trust JK on these issues. My instinct from the skinny reports in the media a few months ago would be to be against it