Re: India still N-pariah

Mortayee wrote:
Marcus Aurelius wrote:

Mortayee wrote:
Marcus Aurelius wrote:

Mortayee wrote:
Marcus Aurelius wrote:

Mortayee wrote:
Marcus Aurelius wrote:

harmony wrote:
let's look at this way:
india goes ahead and does what it wants as per its own understanding of its
responsibilities and interpretation of the deal signed with bush, regardless
of this bill.
what is the worst case scenario when conflict of viewpoints does arise 5
years down the line?
if india is buying fisile materials from france, can usa then stop france?
i think india will run into problem if it buys things from usa which might
get stopped.
i think the treaty does not bind india to buy anything from usa.
at the very worst, we will be back to where we are today, no? is that bad if
the world bank finances the project and some u.s. insurance company insures
the project against supply interrurptions which are not acts of war?

what am i missing?


I suppose that if India buys reactors and fuel from non-US sources
(hehe, I don't yet know if there are clauses in the deal that american
businesses have to profit), the harm from this deal can be managed
somehow. This will hurt the US businesses, and they in turn will press
US congress to listen to India's concerns.


US has right to halt fuel supply, so the reactors without fuel will be
dangerous white elephants; dangerous because in the absence of uraniusm
critical electricty supply from these reactors will be open halted.
India eventually want to have thorium reactors for her long term energy
need, these require some plutonium and that is the reason for India
wants uranium. US wants to control all the plutonium produced by the
reactors. So, its not simple.

How would the US exert control over fuel gotten from Russia?

By virtue of her being boss of NSG (Nuclear Suppliers Group).

I am suggesting that India use this deal, not to go through with its
provisions, but to prod other suppliers to loosen their controls.>
If the US objects to others supplying reactors and fuels to India, they
can always retort that the USA was willing to do it, so it can't object
to others doing it.

Other suppliers are no longer independent actors as they once were.

But they still have different ideas about how to deal with India.




Still, never underestimate the american instinct to gain control over
the lives of all people, and the evil extents to which they will go to
gain it.

In international arena and affairs of states use of such adjectives as
'evil' and 'good' seem to be wholely inappropriate. US is just looking
after her national interest, and one expects India will do likewise.

"good" and "evil" are VERY useful terms, especially in international
affairs. These terms were used to end colonialism, apartheid, racial
discrimination etc.

Let us not get carried away, it none of the above. In this it is two
nations trying to forge link to defend and expand their respective
interest, and good andf evil does not enter the equation. Furthermore,
good and evil had very little role in ending colonialism, apartheid, or
racial discrimination, it was war, instability and financial
considerations. In contemporary world history, good/evil are
meaningless jargon..

Good and evil are ALWAYS there at the base of any human interaction.
The definitions vary, but not the form.

Good and bad are highly subjective terms, and definition changes
depending on which side of the fence one is standing.

Subjective, yes. And I said so already. But that doesn't change the
fact that they are present in any human interaction.


Then such subjective and vague concepts have no currency, when compared
with 'national interest, in the formulation of international affairs.

You still don't get it.

There is no such thing as an objective "national interest" either. It's
all about the policy which the ruler(s) want to pursue.

You seem to think that once you have decided what you want to do, then
it is as good as done, because you have decided that it is a "national
interest". To get things done, you have to make it attractive to other
people besides yourself. Unless material interests converge, the idea
of good/evil is all that will help.



Any notion of gain or loss arises from the labels of good and evil, and
vice versa. The islamic armies called idol worship "evil" and went to
war over it against all peoples. The imperialists believed that their
actions were driven by god for "good" purposes, even when they indulged
in genocide.


Exactly.
The above demonstrates "good and bad" concepts are useless and can
be used to justify and action. Therefore, in international relations
such woolly concepts have no currency, and consequently never form
basis of any interaction or discussion.

WTF?! Didn't I just show you that massive amounts of history have been
the result of the idea of good/evil?! How the heck do you still say
that this instinct of human beings has "no currency"?!?




The idea is that there is a principle of human equality and fairness
that is the only tool that can counter the subjective labels of good or
evil.

So now you abandoning you previous position about good and evil.

On the CONTRARY, the GOOD idea of human equality can be used to counter
the BAD ideas like theocracy, or EVIL ideas like nazism.



Good or evil must therefore be defined by what they produce for
that principle or take away from that principle.

?


Sheesh.

That definition is
what makes treaties that seek to subjugate or control weaker nations
"evil".

Welcome to the real world.
There are no free lunches, treaties are contracts between states,
You really are now tying yourself in knots, with no hope of redemption.

On the contrary, you just don't seem to be able to define anything, and
are talking geopolitical gibberish.

ALL of your "national interest" crap has to be sold as good/evil before
it gets acted on.


Not the nebulous and undefinable concept of "national
interest".


Hmm, the concept of 'good' and 'evil' which you argued for, you stated
is useless as over millenia genocides have bee carried out by people
pretending to be good. Now having conrtadicted yourself, now you call
concept of "national interest" vague. The fact of the matter is
"national interest" is pretty sold when compared with your suggestion
of empolying good and evil.

On the contrary, "national interest" does not exist separate from the
person selling it to the public. Did Gandhi accept India's partition in
"national interest"? Did Nehru promote socialism in "national
interest"?





It was the demonization of the Nazis as "evil", that led to the support
of neutral countries to the allies.


You are free to believe that Nazi were defeated because they were
successfully branded evil, and involvement of allies was to protect
good rather than to protect their respective national interest. After
people believe in Santa and fairies.

You are using a facile argument.

A bit rich coming from somone who is going around in circle.

I just have to repeat the same argument because you just go blank half
the time and can't get it.

Nazis were using "national interest"
as a guide - the interests of the ruling class.

The driving force for Nazi were about racial superiority of the 'master
race' and therefore felt they had right to rule inferior underlings.
Apart from being factually wrong, and inapproparite use of terms such
as 'facile', you have singularly failed to defend your position.

The driving force for Nazis were nationalism and imperialism , as
defined by its leaders at the time. How else do you calculate "national
interests"?

The horrors they
committed were done in the name of "national interest", just like the
jihadi armies did in earlier times.

Wrong again, it was in the name of master race not national interest.
Even if Naziz had used "national interest", that does not make this
concept evil or invalidate it use by other benign or enevolent nations.

WTF?!? Was calling themselves a "master race destined to rule over
others", NOT a "national interest" for Nazi Germany?




Just like "national interests" led
to the spread of colonialism.

Again you have contracdicted your position where you stated "national
interests".

Sheesh. Commercial "national" interests produced colonialism -
everybody but my dog knows that.





"National interests" that are delinked from some measurable goodness,
are "evil".

Read the Mahabharata: Both the Kauravas and the Pandavas were working
in their own interests. What made the Pandavas the heroes, was the fact
that they believed in strength AND humility - a moral strength.

There are things that gladden the hearts of men. In any conflict. If
you are not the one doing them, then you are on the losing side of
history, temporary victories notwithstanding.



It was the demonization of
communism as "evil" that led to the cold war. It was the demonization
of imperialism and colonialism that led to their end by eliminating
support for them around the world - such as FDR telling Churchill to
end british rule in India.

So FDR was doing it because he was good, leaving aside the fact he was
scared out of his wits of India falling to communist.

FDR was doing what he thought was a good thing. FDR even liked Stalin.
The conflict with communist Russia was Truman's idea, who came later.

Nonsense. It was increasing violence and radicalization of Indians that
was the reasons.

Indians tried it in 1857 too, with very different results - because
britain was strong then.
It was the weakening of the british position OUTSIDE of India,
including the devastation of its economy and infrastructure, and the
loss of support for its empire from powerful states like the USA, that
led to Indian independence.

The loss of support from its allies is important - because it was based
on the idea of what is good and what is evil. The methods that the
brits used to quell the 1857 rebellion became "evil" by mid 20th
century. The brits could not resort to genocide or wholescale slaughter
(such as Jallianwallah), in order to keep their grip on India.


No amount of war, instability or financial
consideration would have given equal rights to the blacks in the USA.


Black liberation movements like Black Panther and many other movements,
inner city riots, financial loss were the reason

No. The reason was that america looked like a monster ("evil") when
oppressing the blacks and denying them freedom and equality.

Wrong again. America looked like monster in SEAsia, Iraq, Korean War.
but carried on regardlless.

The Korean war was SANCTIONED by the United Nations. Indians troops
were there aiding S Korea. Vietnam and Iraq came after the civil rights
movement.




The concept of "national interests" is a recent invention, and
incorporates elements of imperialism in it.



It has nothing to do with imperialism, and has been practised by
nations of all varieties.

Nations are abstract quantities. The practices come from the choices of
the ruling classes or rulers.
Can you even define what a "national interest" is?



It is bit like good and evil, again depend what you mean by 'recent'.
The concept has been exercised and was enunciated over years ago years
Lord Palmerston Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only
have permanent interests.

Palmerston ruled over a colonial empire.


Palmerston said that to French, not colonies, your are really scraping
the barrel.

He said that in the House of Commons, and not to the French. And he
said "His Majesty's government has no permanent friends.....".

Which goes to prove what I said earlier, if you were paying attention:
Those who have control over resources, will formulate policies to
extend those controls.
Such controls can be evil, like colonialism.


That's quite recent

Exasperation! What do you define as recent? Mnay would say 200+yrs is
long time.

Doesn't it make sense that the idea of "national interest" would arise
after the idea of a "nation" has come about? Doesn't it make sense that
the rulers would formulate policies to keep their rule intact? Does it
help the "national interest" of a country to subjugate another, or does
it harm it?
That can only be answered with the good/evil argument.

Get it, now?



. And what
makes you think that Palmerston had a deeper insight into the reality
of the world, present and future, than anybody else?

Irrelevant.

Since you quoted him to support your prejudice in this argument, how is
that irrelevant?
Because you don't have an answer?


Britian could have
allied itself with Nazi Germany, and avoided war - how would that have
harmed british national interest?


It could not because Nazi wanted to displace UK as the top dog.

Really? How? Germany never invaded any territory of england until the
war broke out, when britain came to the aid of Poland.

Why was it not in british interest to ally with Germany and carve up
the world between them?

Surely britain would have gained far more in an alliance, than it got
by going to war with Germany?






It would be foolish to
legitimize a concept under which India has little chance of gain at the
moment.


The concept is not going to become delegitimised just because Indian s
don't use it.

It will if India has a majority on its side. And majorities are created
by arguments for good or evil.

The conecpts are neutral and free from such influences and not
enshrined as international law.

The concept of "national interest" is far from neutral. It will always
evoke hostility or discomfort from others, because it is a statement of
one nation's ambitions.



You seem to be under the impression that arguing about good or evil
means not doing anything for one's interests.


Indians have ppor track record, Nehru did just that and caused much
misery.

Nehru could have handed the Dalai Lama to the Chinese in "national
interest", according to your arguments.


Quite the contrary. One's
interests are far more likely to become accepted and permanent if they
are seen as good by others.

That is called PR.

No. PR can be done by anybody. Convincing people of the legitimacy of
your position is what I am talking of.

It is up to the person making the argument
to convince others that his/her idea of "good" is superior to the other
ideas of "good".

Agreed.


If national interests were the sole criterion, then what would produce
the difference between a democracy and a theocracy?

Becasue democracy is better for the national interest aka common goog
of all.

How do you defend that argument when China is doing better than India
at the moment?


Why should the
world object to the "national interests" of state sponsors of terror
like pakiland?

You said it!
India has been terrorised by Muzzies since Prthviraj Chauhan, it is
only now when the sWest is attacked that they are joining forces to
fight common enemy in their national interest.

Even preventing the west from joining sides with the pakis required the
argument of good versus evil.
In terms of national interests, the west would have overtly sided with
pakiland, just to harm India which had favored the soviets.


If interests were the only criterion, then on what basis
is any murder "wrong"?

Because nationaal interest is served better, trade etc, if they keep
world opinion on board.

Precisely. And favorable opinion is only gained by arguments of
good/evil, and not those of national interests.


Why are genocides "evil" then? Surely, some
"national interests" were served in the carrying out of genocides!

Genocide have negative fallouts, trade etc.

Everything else does too.


Only when India has a blue water navy, ICBMs with global reach
and nuclear warheads, and a technological and industrial base that
links India to most parts of the world - only then should India use the
concept of "national interests" to keep its powers or strengthen them.

?

Bah, for the last time: "National interests" are the arguments by those
that have control to perpetuate their controls.



The strongest nations have "national interests". Others have to use the
ideas of fairness and equal opportunity to advance.


All nations have national interest regardless of their size and power.


But the strong will always win over the weak, if interests were the
sole criterion.

Despite having many silly head of states, many know that perpetual wars
do not serve national interest. OTH, hositilities, cold wars are good
for arms trade that is why they are kept simmering.

There are alternatives to perpetual war: genocide is one. Only the
ideas of good/evil prevent such solutions.


And we would be back in the medieval ages, with kings
instead of parliaments. And the weak far outnumber the strong.



Pakiland has "national interests" in Kashmir, or so they think. Does
that make it less "evil" for them to train jihadis to ethnically
cleanse the Pandists from kashmir? If a sense of good or evil does not
guide the Indian actions in Kashmir, then on what basis does India
object to the paki actions?

Pakis are too engrossed in Muzzie business to be able to pay any
attention to their supereme national interest.

Pakis have not grasped the ideas of good/evil except what the koran
tells them. That is why, no matter how much attention they pay to
national interests (or as their rulers tell them), they cannot win the
support of any objective observer. They cannot meet their interests,
because they cannot convince others of the "goodness" of their
objectives.

I suppose that a short summary of my argument would be that
intellectual arguments like "national interests" are inferior to the
instinctive ideas of "good and evil" in gaining favor for one's
ambitions.


Adi Anant

Those that speak up, get believed. Those that ask, receive.

.