Thoughts on the India Trip

I don't think it's good policy, in an age where everybody agrees that the biggest threat to the country is nuclear proliferation, to reward countries that refuse to sign a Nuclear Nonproliferation Agreement. One of the biggest issues in the Muslim world with Western foreign policy is that "they act with a double standard when it comes to Israel." In other words, countries in the Middle East must not have nuclear weapons, but Israel can, and they don't have to report it. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, but the perception is that the United States and the West plays favorites. This India deal will only perpetuate that, in yet another country with historical animosity to Muslims.

Furthermore, the idea that this deal will dampen India's voracious energy needs is unlikely:

Its pact with the United States on civil nuclear cooperation will help energy-hungry India set up more atomic power plants, but it will take decades to reduce its dependence on oil.

Asia's third-largest economy imports 70 percent of its oil. This is likely to rise to 85 percent over the next 20 years as rapid economic expansion boosts energy demand.

I think what we have here is a nuclear power industry that has been frustrated by its vain efforts to grow in the United States, and so the Administration helped them expand abroad through international treaty rather than free market competition. The public doesn't have as much of a say over where power plants will be built in India. Let's hope for no Bhopal redux.

Futhermore, I'm puzzled by this:

"It's ... important to remember that when someone loses a job it's an incredibly difficult period for the worker and their families," Bush said in a speech in New Delhi.

"It's true that some Americans have lost jobs when their companies move their operations overseas," he said.

"Some people believe the answer to this problem is to wall off our economy from the world through protectionist policies. I strongly disagree."

"The United States will not give into the protectionists and lose these opportunities," Bush said.

"For the sake of workers in both our countries, America will trade with confidence."

But he added that "India has responsibilities as well."

"India needs to continue to lift its caps on foreign investment ... and to continue to lower its tariffs and open its markets to American agricultural products, industrial goods and services."

Shouldn't that be the other way around? Shouldn't it be "India must continue to lower its tariffs and open its markets... otherwise we will wall off our economy through protectionist policies." Isn't that a more likely way of leveling the playing field?

See, the President talks tough on terror, but when it comes to "free" trade, he's as much of a patsy as the CEO class requires.