What's new

Australian Defence Minister says no to Pakistan

Of course you don't see the duplicity because the beneficiary on the other hand is India. So i don't expect you to see. India like Pakistan is not a signatory of anything which makes it no better then Pakistan for any waiver yet there India is with one. So by all standards its duplicity on the part of these nations not India because India is doing whats in its interests and getting the best out of it. Hope you get my point.

Icy sahab, here is the explanation given.
There has never been a suggestion of (nuclear) proliferation from India," he said adding, "Regrettably, over preceding years, there have been serious concerns about proliferation from Pakistan."
 
Since when does the US care about dictators or democracy?

However, the US has explicitly stated that they will facilitate India's entry into a number of institutions, as well as promoting India as a counter to China.

The operative words were actually "failed state", "Honorable Army" & "terrorism". We could add "proliferation" or "trading of nuclear information for profit" - if that suits better - to the list. But that is Zimbawe. Pakistan I am sure is quite different. May be comparing was a mistake (?).

Now to the US support to India's civilian nuclear program. What you miss is the sheer business potential in this move. Pakistan continues to make the mistake of being stuck in a warp of ideas that nations will help other nations just because "they want to be their soldiers and pointmen" or "because your enemy will be my enemy, your friend will be my friend - stuff".

That is not the truth. Nations now promote other nations for their own economic greed. US is also greedy as is India. Both are taking something out of it. France, Japan, Russia, UK, Germany, South Korea, Australia, South Africa are all in the Indian Civil Nuclear deal mix, out for their own share of the cake. So you get highly motivated economies trying to eke out for themselves a profit out of a possible business situation.

The imperative word here is "credibility" & "purchase power". And of course, as you would know yourself, geo-political interests often tend to coincide with economic interest. It has to be always that. If you try to make economic interest follow geo-political interest, you get a "round peg & square hole" situation. Does not work out. Maybe you can compare US Aid and Chinese Aid to draw an analogy. But once again it does not matter when Army is running the country. Like I said, it is an operative factor.
 
Of course you don't see the duplicity because the beneficiary on the other hand is India. So i don't expect you to see. India like Pakistan is not a signatory of anything which makes it no better then Pakistan for any waiver yet there India is with one. So by all standards its duplicity on the part of these nations not India because India is doing whats in its interests and getting the best out of it. Hope you get my point.

check put your past record for reference. World do not consider pakistan a responsible nuclear power but they do consider India. Even China didn't object the NSG's waiver to India.

Kindly don't treat Pakistan and India at par.
 
Isnt it obvious how things work at international level. You need something from them and they need something from you. Why is it that when it comes to Pakistan, you make it sound as if its illegal or something which India would not do.

Strange. That is exactly what I was wondering in my other post above :)
 
The operative words were actually "failed state", "Honorable Army" & "terrorism". We could add "proliferation" or "trading of nuclear information for profit" - if that suits better - to the list. But that is Zimbawe. Pakistan I am sure is quite different. May be comparing was a mistake (?).

Now to the US support to India's civilian nuclear program. What you miss is the sheer business potential in this move. Pakistan continues to make the mistake of being stuck in a warp of ideas that nations will help other nations just because "they want to be their soldiers and pointmen" or "because your enemy will be my enemy, your friend will be my friend - stuff".

That is not the truth. Nations now promote other nations for their own economic greed. US is also greedy as is India. Both are taking something out of it. France, Japan, Russia, UK, Germany, South Korea, Australia, South Africa are all in the Indian Civil Nuclear deal mix, out for their own share of the cake. So you get highly motivated economies trying to eke out for themselves a profit out of a possible business situation.

The imperative word here is "credibility" & "purchase power". And of course, as you would know yourself, geo-political interests often tend to coincide with economic interest. It has to be always that. If you try to make economic interest follow geo-political interest, you get a "round peg & square hole" situation. Does not work out. Maybe you can compare US Aid and Chinese Aid to draw an analogy. But once again it does not matter when Army is running the country. Like I said, it is an operative factor.

If the US was chasing partners based on their "economic potential", they would dump India in a microsecond and embrace China instead, since the latter has much higher per-capita GDP and is far better positioned to consume American products.

The timing of the Australian decision speaks volumes. It happened right after a series of close meeting between Obama and Australia's Gillard. It happened one day before Obama's visit to Australia to formalize a much larger US military presence in Australia aimed at China. India's economy didn't just jump volumes in that one day; the decision had everything to do with American power-play against China.

The US and others are supporting India precisely because no one takes India's rise seriously enough to consider it a worthy challenger. Hence the US is propping it up as a deputy sheriff to keep China busy and, Indian ego being what it is, India is doing exactly what the US wants it to do in Asia Pacific.
 
If the US was chasing partners based on their "economic potential", they would dump India in a microsecond and embrace China instead, since the latter has much higher per-capita GDP and is far better positioned to consume American products.

The timing of the Australian decision speaks volumes. It happened right after a series of close meeting between Obama and Australia's Gillard. It happened one day before Obama's visit to Australia to formalize a much larger US military presence in Australia aimed at China. India's economy didn't just jump volumes in that one day; the decision had everything to do with American power-play against China.

The US and others are supporting India precisely because no one takes India's rise seriously enough to consider it a worthy challenger. Hence the US is propping it up as a deputy sheriff to keep China busy and, Indian ego being what it is, India is doing exactly what the US wants it to do in Asia Pacific.

minor correction. India is acting in its own interests. We are still by far a non-aligned nation.
 
minor correction. India is acting in its own interests. We are still by far a non-aligned nation.

That line is always good for a laugh.

For the longest time, the Indians here were high and mighty about "hindi chini bhai bhai" and a joint Asian century against the evil West. Problems with China were minor irritants which would be worked out in due time.

Now that the Indian government and media has come out swinging against China -- just after Hillary asked them to "look east" and be more assertive -- we see Indians beating their chests about confronting China and justifying the confrontation as being in India's interests.
 
Back
Top Bottom