Nuclear Thread - 2

[Guest]

I dont think its their Jewish background that is responsible for this nutty behaviour. Atleast in case of Boxer, its her extreme left leanings and her inherent white-rascist attitude that says --> i am white, i am the only one who knows how to be responsible with nukes, those brownies cant be trusted.

I sincerely hope somebody will make a list of anti-India nuts. "pandering to local constituency" is a BS excuse.

Received in mail..

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->INDIA ABROAD, April 7, 2006 pg. A16

Aziz Haniffa column: Inside the Beltway

STAND UP, SPEAK OUT!
In the Indo-US Nuclear Deal There Lies, for the Community, Both a Challenge and a Unique Opportunity

It has been awhile since I last wrote my column -- an interval explained by the frenetic pace of developments in Indo-US relationship and, in particular, the civilian nuclear cooperation deal between the two countries.

These developments, and the enormous amount of reportage they entail, kept my from my column; today, the same developments compel me to return to it, if only to alert the Indian American community to the urgent, even vital, need to play a proactive role in seeing the deal through to a successful conclusion.

It needs to be stated, up front, that there are many factors working against the deal: the concerted opposition of the nonproliferation lobby is one; President George W. Bush’s precipitous decline in public opinion polls, the erosion of his political capital, and the certainty that sooner than later he will be reduced to a lame duck; and also the rapidly dissipating euphoria over his recent visit to India, as the November congressional elections draw near, being merely the most prominent of them.

It is therefore absolutely vital that the community that has thus far allowed its attention and energies to be dissipated in what I think of as ’photo op activism’ -- a Diwali stamp, a Dilip Singh Saund portrait, a party in the White House -- get together to play hard ball on this issue; it is vital that the community tells its lawmakers that their vote on this issue will determine their standing within the community.

It is time to hold your lawmakers’ collective feet to the fire, and there are prime candidates for such treatment. Take for example Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Florida Republican, who lobbied extensively for the post of co-chair of the House Congressional Caucus on India and Indian Americans and who, now ensconced in that post, not only has not supported the nuclear deal, but has in fact expressed reservations about it in Congressional hearings and during a recent meeting with the President at the White House.

Or take Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, New York Democrat and co-chair of the Friends of India Caucus in the U.S. Senate, a lawmaker who at the drop of a cue waxes eloquent about her regard for India, and her abiding belief that India and the U.S. are natural allies. It was her husband, President Bill Clinton, who took the first steps towards bringing India out of the nuclear cold -- by lifting sanctions and through his landmark visit to New Delhi in the concluding phase of his presidency.

Yet today, Senator Clinton, who is the then First Lady, was part of that history, has been conspicuously silent on the issue. A silence that is frankly both embarassing and insulting.

Both lawmakers need to be told that if they cannot bring themselves to support the changes in law that are required for the deal to fructify, they should in all conscience and good faith, resign their respective positions in the Indian Caucuses, and refrain from embarassing the community, and the country, further.

Let us, too, not forget fence-sitters such as Congressman Ed Royce, California Republican and former co-chair of the India Caucus, and the dozens of members of the Caucus on both the House and the Senate side, who parlay their membership into fundraising opportunities within the community but who, when push has come to shove on this all important issue, have gone AWOL [absent without leave].

These lawmakers need to be told that posing for photo-ops, or talking of their pride in being members of the India Caucus, and recycling the same tired sound bytes about the ’relationship’ between the ’oldest democracy and the largest democracy’ can take them only so far in the community’s favor.

There are an estimated 190 members of the India Caucus, yet only a handfull -- Democratic co-chair Gary Ackerman, erstwhile co-chairs Frank Pallone, Joe Wilson and Joe Crowley -- have taken the floor of the House to support the deal. On the Senate side, where the Friends of India Caucus boasts 40-plus members, the only one who has had the courage and conviction to come forward in support of the deal is co-chair Senator John Cornyn, Texas Republican.

This raises a question -- do we really need to boast of the 190 members of the House Caucus or the 40-odd members of the Senate group? Or are we better off with a pared down list of lawmakers who are genuinely committed to the cause of the community, and the country?

Do we remain satisfied with innocuous sound bytes, or are we as a community ready, at this critical point in time, to ask that the lawmakers walk the talk they have been talking all these years?

I have been both reporter and guest at various community forums where the theory has been advanced ad nauseum that we do not need to reinvent the wheel when it comes to political involvement and by extension political empowerment and that we need only to replicate the political savvy and sophistication of the Jewish American community.

The way the Jewish community comes together to put pressure on their lawmakers at the first sign that some U.S. act may adversely impact on Israel has been held up as an example for the Indian American community. Right, so now it is time to put that precept into practice.

It is time to send the message, loud and clear to every lawmaker that if the community cannot count on his or her support to this deal, then it is goodbye to the open wallets and large-hearted generosity these same lawmakers routinely count on at election time.

And no moment could be more opportune for sending out that message -- because the next election cycle is almost upon us.

This message needs to be conveyed most strongly to presidential aspirants such as Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who have already begun tapping into the fund-raising prowess of topnotch reign makers like Drs. Zach Zachariah, Akshay Desai and Raghavendra Vijayanagar.

These leaders need to be informed that the Indian American fundraising machine is closed to them unless they can bring themselves to get off the fence and help the President make this accord a reality.

The support these lawmakers express needs to be loud, it needs to be public. Other presidential aspirants like Republicans Sam Brownback and George Allen, and Democrats like Evan Bayh have privately informed their close Indian American supporters that they support the deal -- but private whispers don’t cut it; we need them to take to the floor of the House and of the Senate and make their support heard loud and clear.

And then there is Bobby Jindal, Louisiana Republican. To his credit, Bobby though yet a freshman has unequivocally endorsed the agreement publicly at various forums and Indian American events. The most recent being in Dallas at the Indian American Friendship Council’s Texas Chapter annual banquet.

However, as the sole Indian American congressman you need, Bobby, to speak out on the floor of the House arguing the case for the deal; such a move by you will help among other things to convince the members of the Freshman Republican Caucus to come out in support of the deal.

Face one fact, fair and square -- if this deal falls through, India will not fall with it. India has in recent times got its second wind; its economic progress is second to none, and its future is assured -- so much so that in the coming years, the U.S. will need India as much, if not more, as India needs the United States.

So, this is not do or die for India. But it is a sticking point -- perhaps the most important in the history of the two nations. As a senior diplomatic source who was one of the protaganists who negotiated the deal, told me the other day, "This is the litmus test. If it falters or fails, the fall-out will be severe, it will not be limited to just this issue, but will adversely impact on other issues."

This source while discussing the burgeoning strategic partnership between the two countries, pointed out that the critical element in this relationship has been mutual trust.

So if, after achieving all that we have achieved so far, and after coming right down to the wire, this deal falters and fails, critics in India opposed to any substantive relationship with the U.S. will have the ammunition they need to argue that we cannot trust the Americans. And the relationship, which now holds such tremendous potential for the future, will again be obscured by clouds of mistrust and suspicion.

Listen to former U.S. Ambassador to India Robert Blackwill, who was indispensable to the process that laid the groundwork for this agreement by defining the substantive content of how U.S.-India relations ought to be transformed: "On the U.S. side, if it were to go down, it would deal a very serious blow to our national interests in having an even closer relationship with India. And on the Indian side, it would strengthen dramatically the case of Indian critics and skeptics of this relationship with the United States along of the lines of ’we told you the Americans wouldn’t deliver; we told you it was all rhetoric; well, now you see it’."

Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns, in a communication to Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Richard Lugar, and also in an exclusive interview to India Abroad [March 24], underlines the point. ’The initiative to reach civil nuclear cooperation with India recasts one of the most devisive issues of our relationship, and is viewed by many in India as a litmus test for our strategic relationship,’ Burns said in his missive to Lugar.

’If Congress does not approve provisions for India related to nuclear energy, it is likely that the nuclear issue will continue to constrain our diplomatic relationship, as well as our strategic, commercial, defense and scientific ties, thereby having a negative impact on many of the bilateral activities mentioned in the July 18 Joint Statement [India Abroad, February 24].’

Burns, like a true diplomat, is always wary of dealing with a hypothetical. Yet when, in course of our interview, I asked him, what if the deal falls through, he said "There is no question that the deal is going to strengthen US-India relations, and so by logic, if for whatever reason the deal doesn’t go through, it’s going to have an impact -- a negative impact on the relationship."

The stakes thus are very clear; the need for the community to come together and speak to the lawmakers in one clear strong voice could not be more obvious. If it can pull it off, it will be a shot in the arm for the community, a clear sign of its growing political maturity, and importance. Conversely, if it fails it will mean that the community was rendered impotent on the first really substantive issue that it backed -- an issue of enormous importance to the community and to the country.

It is, therefore, time for heavy-lifting; a time for the community’s leaders to forget their personal agendas to come together on one platform and to speak in one voice. Forget the reactive battles you have fought thus far from attempting to roll back sanctions imposed on India in the wake of the Pokhran nuclear tests of May 1998, to opposing the sale of F-16 fighter aircraft to Pakistan.

As I write this, there are heartening signs that a movement on these lines is happening. Some leading Indian American political activists and organizations are coming together in a unified and bipartisan manner to launch a massive campaign to push through the deal on Capitol Hill; hopefully this initiative will gain momentum in the coming weeks.

Dubya was on target when in course of a speech in Cleveland, Ohio on March 20, he said, ’For too long, America and India were not partners in peace. We didn’t deal with each other because of the Cold War. And now is the time to set the Cold War behind us. It’s over folks. Let’s think about the next 30 years.

’And so my hope is some day, somebody will be asking a question, aren’t you glad old George W. thought about entering into a strategic relationship with India? And I believe it’s in our country’s interest that we have such a relationship.’

You said it, Dubya -- here is hoping the community is listening and acting<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->