In a New York Times editorial titled “Secretary Clinton Goes to India” published 17th July, the writer makes the case that “it is time for India to take more responsibility internationally.” I completely concur. The editorial spells out what India should do. For instance, it points out that India has to ” constrain its arms race with Pakistan and global proliferation.” Excellent advice — but for one small little inconvenient detail. Who exactly is the one that fuels the arms race in the Indian subcontinent?
The editorial wants the “primary focus to be Pakistan.” Shouldn’t the NYTimes, as the mouthpiece for US foreign policy, be taking that advice instead of dishing it out, though? It goes on to smugly state, “We are encouraged that India and Pakistan have resumed their dialogue, interrupted after last fall’s attacks in Mumbai by Pakistani-based extremists. New Delhi exercised welcome restraint when it did not retaliate.” We are preaching the virtues of restraint now, are we? Isn’t that a bit like a sodden drunk preaching the virtues of abstinence at an AA meeting?
But it gets worse. “One of our many concerns about the nuclear deal was that it would make it easier for India to expand its arsenal — and drive Pakistan to produce more of its own weapons. With access to global fuel markets, India can use its limited domestic uranium stocks for weapons.” The US’s concern about nuclear proliferation would have been more credible if it were not in the business of giving cover to Pakistan for all the proliferation it did and continues to do. In any event, it is quite accurate in pointing out that India’s access to foreign fuel sources will make domestic sources of nuclear fuel available for weapons. Nuclear fuel, so to speak, is fungible.
What else is fungible? Ah yes, money!
Since Sept 11, 2001, the US has paid Pakistan $12 thousand million in aid. To paraphrase the NYT editorial: “With access to billions of dollars from the US, Pakistan can use its limited domestic finances for funding terrorism directed against India.” It must take immense chutzpah to pretend that the US has nothing to do with the global terror that Pakistan funds.
I think it is entirely fitting that Clinton is the Secretary of State for the US administration. She epitomizes the double-standards and the hypocrisy that the US has perfected in matters pertaining to the Indian subcontinental conflicts. It loudly proclaims itself as a champion of democracy and simultaneously works hand in glove with Pakistani dictators whose raison d’etre appears to be the destruction of India.
The editorial gives out lofty advice to Clinton. “She should urge India to consider opening regional arms talks with Pakistan and China and drop its opposition to the test ban treaty.” Of course she should. After all, India must do all it can to keep Pakistan, the US’s prime client state, in a good mood. The US pays good money to keep Pakistan from imploding. India’s restraint is sorely needed for Pakistan’s continued existence. And China? The US owes China a great deal of money, and strange though it may seem, it has to dance to China’s tunes. It is not the least surprising that the US has to preach to India to curry favor with China.
You would have expected that could be no issue on which the US and the commies of India would see eye to eye on, but there is: that India has to subordinate its national interest in its relationship with Pakistan and China.
There’s a not-so-veiled threat in that editorial. “The world’s wealthy nations have given Iran until late September to accept restraints on its nuclear program or face consequences. We hope this time India’s arm will not have to be twisted . . . ”
Yes, “we hope” but if needed, we will go and twist away. Well that’s what a country impoverished though socialism has to do: bear ignominy silently because it cannot do anything else.