Why is Bush so Keen on a Nuke Deal ?
nabendu debsharma March 3, 2006
#96 Posted by arjun_m on March 7, 2006 5:01:44 am
Businessmen disappointed by outcome of Bush visit
By Aamir Shafaat Khan
KARACHI, March 6: Industrialists and businessmen felt highly disappointed over the last week’s visit of President George W. Bush and termed his stopover in Pakistan a “mere courtesy call.” They believed that India had been the main beneficiary of the visit during which nuclear and other business deals were inked.
Businessmen were expecting the signing of a Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) between Pakistan and the United States that could have paved the way for greater market access for the local exporters besides, expansion of bilateral trade.
Commenting on the visit on Monday, Chairman Site Association of Industry, Ameen Bandukda, said that actually, the US president had made a courtesy visit to Pakistan as his main focus was India and signing of a number of agreements there during the South Asian visit.
He said that there was some lacuna in signing of the BIT on issues like proper implementation of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) in Pakistan and indirect expropriation and compensation mechanism which means that Pakistan commits to compensate the US investor for any loss that he may incur due to a change in policy.
He said that negotiations could have been held on these issues and assurances could be given that these issues would be addressed in a due course of time.
However, the US president should have offered some concessions to the business community as a proof of its commitment to support the development process in Pakistan.
If US can give Bangladesh, Vietnam, Cambodia, Nepal, Jordan, Madagascar, and Kenya market access and zero-rated duty on import of goods from these countries, then why it had ignored Pakistan, he said.
Ameen said that Pakistan’s export to US is $3.4 billion per annum, with better market access it can easily cross $five billion mark.
Chairman Korangi Association of Trade and Industry (KATI), Gulzar Firoze said that perhaps Pakistanis were expecting more from the US, but being the KATI chairman he was not expecting a major breakthrough from the US President’s visit to Pakistan in terms of greater bilateral trade.
“It was just a friendly visit of Mr Bush to show that Pakistan is a friend. It was not at all a purposeful visit from the business point of view,” he said.
Perhaps, neither the Pakistani nor the US government had done any spadework for business negotiations, BIT and market access. “I can say that the US president was actually not ready for any breakthrough in expanding business with Pakistan,” he added. Briefly, KATI chief said, “He would say that he (Mr Bush) came, he ruled and he left.”
President Karachi Chamber of Commerce and Industry (KCCI), Haroon Farouki also termed the Bush’s visit as symbolic.
“There might be some political headway in talks with the government but there was no specific economic agenda for expansion of business activities with Pakistan,” KCCI chief said.
It was presumed in the business circles that there would be a comprehensive dialogue on BIT, greater market access and agreements on energy needs of Pakistan with the US, but unfortunately, nothing had happened. In India, Mr Bush had a wide range of negotiations and agreements on agriculture, IT, atomic energy, fuel and energy needs, but in Pakistan he came out with general statement like appreciating Pakistan as a frontline state in fighting terrorism and agreeing on giving aid rather than boosting trade with Pakistan, Farouki said.
Chairman F B Area Association of Trade and Industry, Rehan Zeeshan said that actually expectations were very high from the US president’s visit regarding giving more market access to Pakistani products especially, textiles.
“We are disappointed that nothing materialized with reference to fostering business with Pakistan,” he said.
“Mr Bush has actually bowled a googly on Pakistan’s visit as he appeared more interested in playing and learning cricket,” he added.
By Aamir Shafaat Khan
KARACHI, March 6: Industrialists and businessmen felt highly disappointed over the last week’s visit of President George W. Bush and termed his stopover in Pakistan a “mere courtesy call.” They believed that India had been the main beneficiary of the visit during which nuclear and other business deals were inked.
Businessmen were expecting the signing of a Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) between Pakistan and the United States that could have paved the way for greater market access for the local exporters besides, expansion of bilateral trade.
Commenting on the visit on Monday, Chairman Site Association of Industry, Ameen Bandukda, said that actually, the US president had made a courtesy visit to Pakistan as his main focus was India and signing of a number of agreements there during the South Asian visit.
He said that there was some lacuna in signing of the BIT on issues like proper implementation of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) in Pakistan and indirect expropriation and compensation mechanism which means that Pakistan commits to compensate the US investor for any loss that he may incur due to a change in policy.
He said that negotiations could have been held on these issues and assurances could be given that these issues would be addressed in a due course of time.
However, the US president should have offered some concessions to the business community as a proof of its commitment to support the development process in Pakistan.
If US can give Bangladesh, Vietnam, Cambodia, Nepal, Jordan, Madagascar, and Kenya market access and zero-rated duty on import of goods from these countries, then why it had ignored Pakistan, he said.
Ameen said that Pakistan’s export to US is $3.4 billion per annum, with better market access it can easily cross $five billion mark.
Chairman Korangi Association of Trade and Industry (KATI), Gulzar Firoze said that perhaps Pakistanis were expecting more from the US, but being the KATI chairman he was not expecting a major breakthrough from the US President’s visit to Pakistan in terms of greater bilateral trade.
“It was just a friendly visit of Mr Bush to show that Pakistan is a friend. It was not at all a purposeful visit from the business point of view,” he said.
Perhaps, neither the Pakistani nor the US government had done any spadework for business negotiations, BIT and market access. “I can say that the US president was actually not ready for any breakthrough in expanding business with Pakistan,” he added. Briefly, KATI chief said, “He would say that he (Mr Bush) came, he ruled and he left.”
President Karachi Chamber of Commerce and Industry (KCCI), Haroon Farouki also termed the Bush’s visit as symbolic.
“There might be some political headway in talks with the government but there was no specific economic agenda for expansion of business activities with Pakistan,” KCCI chief said.
It was presumed in the business circles that there would be a comprehensive dialogue on BIT, greater market access and agreements on energy needs of Pakistan with the US, but unfortunately, nothing had happened. In India, Mr Bush had a wide range of negotiations and agreements on agriculture, IT, atomic energy, fuel and energy needs, but in Pakistan he came out with general statement like appreciating Pakistan as a frontline state in fighting terrorism and agreeing on giving aid rather than boosting trade with Pakistan, Farouki said.
Chairman F B Area Association of Trade and Industry, Rehan Zeeshan said that actually expectations were very high from the US president’s visit regarding giving more market access to Pakistani products especially, textiles.
“We are disappointed that nothing materialized with reference to fostering business with Pakistan,” he said.
“Mr Bush has actually bowled a googly on Pakistan’s visit as he appeared more interested in playing and learning cricket,” he added.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#98 Posted by arjun_m on March 7, 2006 5:49:09 am
India Giver
Why was Bush so generous in New Delhi?
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Monday, March 6, 2006, at 6:09 PM ET
Many epithets can be hurled at George W. Bush`s foreign policy, but I wouldn`t expect ``weak-kneed`` to be among them—until his nuclear deal last week with India, which is looking more slack and supine with each inspection.
A cardinal rule of negotiation, whether for labor talks or international diplomacy, is don`t be afraid to leave the table. Bush broke this rule.
India needed this deal more than the United States did. Yet it was India that got everything it wanted—and Washington that caved. The deal was wrapped up less than two hours before Bush was scheduled to hold his press conference in New Delhi with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Bush reportedly ordered his negotiators to give in on the final disputes rather than defer the accord and mangle his timetable.
As I`ve written in Slate twice before, it`s very much in America`s interest to form a grand alliance with India—the world`s largest democracy, one of the fastest-growing economies, an Asian counterweight to a rising China, and a vast market already inclined toward the United States. It`s also long been clear that an alliance would have to entail some sort of nuclear partnership. India`s energy needs are enormous; its energy resources are slender; and, as presidents from Richard Nixon to Bill Clinton have realized when they tried to strike a deal, India just isn`t going to dismantle its nuclear arsenal or sign the NPT, which would require it to do so. And so the earlier attempts collapsed.
Why was Bush so generous in New Delhi?
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Monday, March 6, 2006, at 6:09 PM ET
Many epithets can be hurled at George W. Bush`s foreign policy, but I wouldn`t expect ``weak-kneed`` to be among them—until his nuclear deal last week with India, which is looking more slack and supine with each inspection.
A cardinal rule of negotiation, whether for labor talks or international diplomacy, is don`t be afraid to leave the table. Bush broke this rule.
India needed this deal more than the United States did. Yet it was India that got everything it wanted—and Washington that caved. The deal was wrapped up less than two hours before Bush was scheduled to hold his press conference in New Delhi with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Bush reportedly ordered his negotiators to give in on the final disputes rather than defer the accord and mangle his timetable.
As I`ve written in Slate twice before, it`s very much in America`s interest to form a grand alliance with India—the world`s largest democracy, one of the fastest-growing economies, an Asian counterweight to a rising China, and a vast market already inclined toward the United States. It`s also long been clear that an alliance would have to entail some sort of nuclear partnership. India`s energy needs are enormous; its energy resources are slender; and, as presidents from Richard Nixon to Bill Clinton have realized when they tried to strike a deal, India just isn`t going to dismantle its nuclear arsenal or sign the NPT, which would require it to do so. And so the earlier attempts collapsed.
#99 Posted by rsridhar on March 7, 2006 5:57:49 am
re: Why are Indians happy about the deal
Some Pakis who are wondering may find answers in the following article:
Why are Indians happy with this deal
(A lot of people in India like this bargain, too. Not because they have any interest in ``counterbalancing`` China on America`s behalf. As former U.S. Ambassador to India Robert Blackwill explained last week, Indians aren`t anti-China. They want China to get richer so that the Chinese can buy more of what India`s selling. No, they are glad to strike a favorable deal with the United States because of what it symbolizes. After decades of being scorned by the United States as a friend of the Soviets and blacklisted for refusing to accept the non-proliferation regime, India was finally invited into the club of world powers -- indeed, India was whisked through the VIP entrance. A happy Prime Minister Manmohan Singh heralded ``India`s emergence as a full member of a new nuclear world order.``)
Sridhar
Some Pakis who are wondering may find answers in the following article:
Why are Indians happy with this deal
(A lot of people in India like this bargain, too. Not because they have any interest in ``counterbalancing`` China on America`s behalf. As former U.S. Ambassador to India Robert Blackwill explained last week, Indians aren`t anti-China. They want China to get richer so that the Chinese can buy more of what India`s selling. No, they are glad to strike a favorable deal with the United States because of what it symbolizes. After decades of being scorned by the United States as a friend of the Soviets and blacklisted for refusing to accept the non-proliferation regime, India was finally invited into the club of world powers -- indeed, India was whisked through the VIP entrance. A happy Prime Minister Manmohan Singh heralded ``India`s emergence as a full member of a new nuclear world order.``)
Sridhar
#100 Posted by soysauce on March 7, 2006 10:43:49 am
#95 nabendubabu,
Jang paraphrased Blackwell as saying the quickest way to empty a drawing room in dilli is to mention india as a buffer against china - so one may surmise being a buffer state for amrika is not on india`s interest.
Bush wants india to open up to the walmarts selling cheap chinese manufactured goods? What`s in it for the USA?
At any rate, it all boils down to our need to show up pakistan (& pakistan`s desperation to show us up) - at least that`s what your post suggests. The last time the darkies were fighting among themselves and got the white man to pick sides we ended up with a 200-year overlordship...
So hasanji is on to something.
Jang paraphrased Blackwell as saying the quickest way to empty a drawing room in dilli is to mention india as a buffer against china - so one may surmise being a buffer state for amrika is not on india`s interest.
Bush wants india to open up to the walmarts selling cheap chinese manufactured goods? What`s in it for the USA?
At any rate, it all boils down to our need to show up pakistan (& pakistan`s desperation to show us up) - at least that`s what your post suggests. The last time the darkies were fighting among themselves and got the white man to pick sides we ended up with a 200-year overlordship...
So hasanji is on to something.
#101 Posted by soysauce on March 7, 2006 10:51:41 am
arjun
just a general observation - why do you think Fred Kaplan`s opinion is any more worthwhile than, say, your own?
I don`t see in what he wrote anything new or insightful. It`s just a bunch of cliche`s strung together. I have nothing against Kaplan, not having read him much, but in general, why are the OPINIONS of some people more valuable unless they contain some new insight or some such.
As they say, opinions are like a$$holes - everyone has them. Why are some a$$holes more important?
just a general observation - why do you think Fred Kaplan`s opinion is any more worthwhile than, say, your own?
I don`t see in what he wrote anything new or insightful. It`s just a bunch of cliche`s strung together. I have nothing against Kaplan, not having read him much, but in general, why are the OPINIONS of some people more valuable unless they contain some new insight or some such.
As they say, opinions are like a$$holes - everyone has them. Why are some a$$holes more important?
#102 Posted by nasah on March 7, 2006 11:06:31 am
some of my favorit Indian friends...:) -- in the exuberance of India`s nuclearization -- are so enamored by the Bush`s `surrendering deal` they have lost the bone for comprehending serious critical satires -- the two articles quoted are no compliments to India but serious criticism of Bush`s Buffoonery in India -- hence not a good omen for the approval of the `deal` by the American media and American Congress........:)
#103 Posted by nasah on March 7, 2006 11:07:26 am
some of my favorit Indian friends...:) -- in the exuberance of India`s nuclearization -- are so enamored by the Bush`s `surrendering deal` they have lost the bone for comprehending serious critical satires -- the two articles quoted are no compliments to India but serious criticism of Bush`s Buffoonery in India --
hence not a good omen for the approval of the `deal` by the American media and American Congress........:)
hence not a good omen for the approval of the `deal` by the American media and American Congress........:)
#104 Posted by arjun_m on March 7, 2006 11:58:05 am
#101 by soysauce on March 7, 2006 10:51am PT
why do you think Fred Kaplan`s opinion is any more worthwhile than, say, your own?
The sky doesn`t stop being blue just cos Kaplan says it is purple..
He makes a very good point..Dubya was banking on this deal to make news..I posted an article earlier about how Rice called up MMS and told him his negotiators were playing hardball...MMS backed up his negotiators and as it went down to the wire, the US caved.
why do you think Fred Kaplan`s opinion is any more worthwhile than, say, your own?
The sky doesn`t stop being blue just cos Kaplan says it is purple..
He makes a very good point..Dubya was banking on this deal to make news..I posted an article earlier about how Rice called up MMS and told him his negotiators were playing hardball...MMS backed up his negotiators and as it went down to the wire, the US caved.
#105 Posted by rsridhar on March 7, 2006 6:49:48 pm
re: Talking about double standards
Pakis are fond of talking about double standards when it comes to the nuclear deal between India and US. Paki newspapers are telling the worlds how Pak has not been rewarded with a similar deal even though Pak has been an ally of US in fighting terrorism.
The fact is: policies of a nation are dictated by strategic interests and not by altruistic motives like ``being fair to everybody``.
When India became independent more than 50 years ago, it faced a belligerant US that said: you are either with us or against us. Nehru chose not to align with either superpower during the cold war and this resulted in India being out of the strategic radar of US for many decades.
In recent years, post 9/11, India and US strategic interests have converged. While India is seen as a strategic ally in the area, Pak is seen as a ``necessary evil`` to fight terrorism from Al Qaida. Pakis may term this double standard but that is how the world operates.
This Washington Post article talks about double standards.
(The Israeli bomb threatens nobody. An Iranian bomb does. India has transferred its nuclear technology to no one. Pakistan has. No one worries about India or Israel making the technology available to terrorists. Everyone worries about Iran doing that. These are distinctions with great differences. They are, as critics charge, double standards, but to apply a single standard to both friend and enemy, while it might be fair, would be singularly stupid.)
Sridhar
Pakis are fond of talking about double standards when it comes to the nuclear deal between India and US. Paki newspapers are telling the worlds how Pak has not been rewarded with a similar deal even though Pak has been an ally of US in fighting terrorism.
The fact is: policies of a nation are dictated by strategic interests and not by altruistic motives like ``being fair to everybody``.
When India became independent more than 50 years ago, it faced a belligerant US that said: you are either with us or against us. Nehru chose not to align with either superpower during the cold war and this resulted in India being out of the strategic radar of US for many decades.
In recent years, post 9/11, India and US strategic interests have converged. While India is seen as a strategic ally in the area, Pak is seen as a ``necessary evil`` to fight terrorism from Al Qaida. Pakis may term this double standard but that is how the world operates.
This Washington Post article talks about double standards.
(The Israeli bomb threatens nobody. An Iranian bomb does. India has transferred its nuclear technology to no one. Pakistan has. No one worries about India or Israel making the technology available to terrorists. Everyone worries about Iran doing that. These are distinctions with great differences. They are, as critics charge, double standards, but to apply a single standard to both friend and enemy, while it might be fair, would be singularly stupid.)
Sridhar
#106 Posted by harish_hyd on March 7, 2006 9:27:51 pm
Yaar Nabendu, didn`t I say that the US still hasn`t approved of the IPI pipeline?
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006 03 08 story_8-3-2006_pg1_4
``The White House said on Tuesday it still opposes a proposed natural gas pipeline linking Iran with India, clarifying remarks by President George W Bush that seemed to soften US opposition to the project. Bush had seemed to suggest a shift in policy when he said during a visit to Pakistan on Friday that “our beef with Iran is not the pipeline, our beef with Iran is the fact that they want to develop a nuclear weapon.”``
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006 03 08 story_8-3-2006_pg1_4
``The White House said on Tuesday it still opposes a proposed natural gas pipeline linking Iran with India, clarifying remarks by President George W Bush that seemed to soften US opposition to the project. Bush had seemed to suggest a shift in policy when he said during a visit to Pakistan on Friday that “our beef with Iran is not the pipeline, our beef with Iran is the fact that they want to develop a nuclear weapon.”``
#107 Posted by sanjay on March 7, 2006 11:22:23 pm
Can anyone cut-paste Friedman`s view on `Nuclear India`` published in NY Times of today?
Thanks in advance.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- anil: Tahmed sahib: May be Hamidm... Why Zardari Should Be
- tahmed32: in #59, para 5... Why Zardari Should Be
- tahmed32: anil sahib: i hope... Why Zardari Should Be
- tahmed32: hamidm #53 actually i... Why Zardari Should Be
- anil: Hamidm sahib: I do not... Why Zardari Should Be
- anil: Tahmed sahib: After Zardari’s election,... Why Zardari Should Be
- bubba: Re: # 77 Posted... US Commando Strike in
- hellbound: and YLH I still... Why Zardari Should Be
