The Acorn on the proliferation of non-proliferation ideology to your bedroom
According to the New York Times the Bush administration's nuclear deal with India is 'misbegotten'. The editorial does not stray far from the non-proliferation ideological line --- that making an exemption for India will threaten the NPT's "carrot-and-stick" approach. Bizarrely, it also has problems with Indian middle-class homes turning their air-conditioners on the year round.
In the new enclaves for India's emerging middle class and its rapidly rising nouveau riche, environmentally unsustainable, high-ceilinged houses feature air-conditioning systems that stay on year round. [NYT]This is perhaps the first time that the proliferation of airconditioners has been linked with the the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Wrongly, in both instances.
The New York Times also gets India's position on the Iran issue quite wrong. It suggests that India's support for referring Iran to the UN Security Council was with 'an eye on the US-India' deal. That is a misconception, but an understandable one. But like its comment on airconditioning, the newspaper is way too far down the path of unreason when it points out that despite the nuclear deal with the United States, India should be faulted for purchasing oil & gas from Iran, Venezuela and Sudan - regimes that 'Washington wants to isolate'. Far-reaching as it may be, the US-India nuclear deal does not envisage the wholesale replacement of oil and gas with American supplied nuclear fuel. Neither does it envisage India having to toe the American foreign policy line on everything.
But as bizarre arguments go, the New York Times reserves the best for the last: it advises the Bush administration to push for serious energy conservation steps. This as a recipe to weaken Iran's 'stranglehold' over oil markets is one thing. How this will solve India's energy requirements (and address the current debate over bringing India into the international nuclear market) remains as an exercise for its puzzled readers.
Right Said Fareed
Coincidentally, Fareed Zakaria's Newsweek column works as an effective rebuttal to the more reasonable of the New York Times' arguments.The benefits for the United States—and much of the world—are real. This agreement would bring a rising power into the global tent, making it not an outsider but a stakeholder, and giving it an incentive to help create and shape international norms and rules. For example, India is becoming more worried about a nuclear Iran for this reason, and not because it is being pressured to do so by the United States. When India was being treated like an outlaw, it had no interest in playing the sheriff. Of course, some nonproliferation ideologues in Washington view the administration's shift with great skepticism. For them, it rewards India for going nuclear and sets a bad precedent. But the truth about nuclear weapons is that there has always been an exception for major powers—Britain, France, Russia, China. The only real question is, does India belong in that group? Also, what is the alternative policy toward India that has any chance of changing its status—more lectures on nonproliferation? [Newsweek]
Tailpiece: The person(s) who wrote the New York Times' editorial are welcome to spend the summer in India...without air-conditioners, of course.
The person(s) who wrote the New York Times' editorial are welcome to spend the summer in India...without air-conditioners, of course.
ho ho
That's really cruel.
It is surprising to me to sometimes identify it seems to be some kind of goal for the left to keep the poor people as poor as possible. I guess they want it so to later blame Capitalism and Neoliberalism for it.
The Indian Union is a power, we have to acknowledge it. Its population, its strategic position in the middle of the Indian Ocean, soon its economy, no political leader in this world can ignore it, especially after it has finally awaken from Socialism.
In addition, it is a country with a Democratic tradition, its culture is highly compatible with Western civilization and also it has a big problem with Islam...
What else can we ask for? It is our natural ally.
Moreover, the NPT is very ill, maybe dying. It has been a tool to keep peace in the world for some years but it seems a bit outdated.
Japan might need nuclear warheads in the coming years. Maybe they are provided by the U.S, locating some launchers there, but if not, Japan can, and I am sure if necessary will, build a nuclear device in months. They have expertise in launchers and nuclear technology.
The U.S defence shield itself is a recognition that rogue countries can build nuclear devices and that the NPT effectiveness is limited.
The world is changing, new cards are being dealt, why don't favour India, our best emerging ally?
NYT's air conditioner bugaboo is the perfect example of the parochialism of our "sophisticated" elites.
Just because NYC is cold this time of year doesn't mean it's that way in India.
It's also a good example of the "instinct for the capillary" (to cop a phrase)of the MSM.I mean...air conditioners?
And finally, it's the perfect example of how the easiest targets will aimed at first by the MSM.
Can anyone imagine the NYT getting this huffy about Iran's attempts at getting nukes? 'Course not...those people might actually hurt somebody.
I've been mulling over what I call NNP, which stands for Nuanced Non-Proliferation (Treaty optional)<i?. Something like a satisfactory "wer're in the Core" score might help. But I'm just dreaming, because scores can be gamed.
That abbreviation was supposed to read N N P ( T ), but somehow it got garbled, along with the fouled up italics. Sorry.
I wonder who uses more BTUs on a yearly basis, an Indian software exec or a New York Times functionary? The Indian may use more air conditioning, but the NYT person surely uses much more heating. Do they think it is morally superior to live in a climate that gets very cold rather than a climate that gets very hot?
If NYT keeps up this kind of thing, maybe their ombudsman should post a regular list of energy consumption for each senior staff member.
Interesting also to note that the NYT's product is probably much more energy-intensive than that of the Indian software guy. Making and delivering the newsprint; running the presses; delivering the finished product...those all sound like BTU hogs to me. Wonder how much energy we could save if the NYT would just decide to close down? (or even just to go all-online)