Jimmy Carter is Angry - a Barometer of Good News

Jimmy Carter has predictably slammed the Indo-US nuclear deal.  This is more proof that this deal is fair, moral, helpful to the security and economic growth of the world, and that Indo-US relations are progressing on precisely the most favorable path.

Carter is unhappy that India and Pakistan are no longer being treated as equal violators of nuclear non-proliferation by Bush.  His worldview of moral equivalence requires that a large, vibrant democracy not be considered as a safer custodian of nuclear weapons than a dictatorship known to harbor many well-known terrorists.  In Carter's view, if Israel has nuclear weapons, Hamas deserves to have them too.  Carter's worldview is also an indirect reason that Iran and North Korea have nuclear weapons today.  America's enemies know this of Carter, which is why Iran was bold enough to keep American hostages for 15 months, and the Soviet Union knew they could invade Afghanistan at merely the price of the US boycotting the 1980 Moscow Olympics. 

Decades of anti-capitalist policies championed by Indian politicians seeking a pat on the head from the likes of Carter resulted in great poverty for India.  The Indian public has had enough of this, and is the reason why India today is the most pro-US and pro-Bush country in the world.  President Bush's free-market embrace of India, and praise for India's success as a secular democracy, have helped win the US a powerful economic, military, political, and cultural ally for the 21st century. 

Given that Jimmy Carter has a post-Presidential approval rating lower than any other President of at least the last 50 years, his outrage over an issue is a good litmus test of the merit of it. 

Bravo, President Bush, for helping flush moral equivalence on nuclear proliferation down the toilet of history. 

Also, read this article from the Indian media, praising Condoleeza Rice's rejection of the Carter-era status quo. 

Comments

[jeffolie]

Jim Carter was known for the "maliase". I do not know how good of a peanut farmer he was, but his brother Billy drank a lot of Billy Beer.

[DumbMonkey]

Why won't India sign the NPT?

If they aren't planning on developing any more weapons, why don't they sign it?

If they are planning on developing more weapons, why are we giving them materials to do so?

What is your source for Carter's approval rating?

What is Bush's approval rating?

[GK]

DumbMonkey,

Are you suggesting that India is no more of a responsible custodian of nuclear weapons than Pakistan, North Korea, or Iran?

India is threatened by both Pakistan and China, neither of which is democratic and both are big proliferators. Pakistan will not sign the NPT either.

Your statement is exactly why India is so pro-Bush. He finally made sure the US stopped treating Pakistan as India's equal, something the UN and moral-equivalence left has inflicted on India for decades. The left is not even aware that it has made some pretty formidable and numerous enemies.

Carter's approval at the end of his term was the second lowest ever. It dropped even below Nixon in hindsight years later, to deservedly be at the very bottom.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/poll_clintonlegacy010117.html

Bush will end up in the mid-50s a few years after he leaves.

[Sahil]

I'm from India and I still don't think it is a good idea to go through with the nuclear deal. Well, the timing isn't right. By approving this deal for India, Bush has put Musharraf in a tough spot. I realize that Pakistan under Musharraf or other leaders doesn't deserve similar treatment and believe me I'm not a big fan of his. But the fact is that the US needs Pakistani cooperation to fight al Qaeda and Musharraf is at least being helpful. No use undermining him now.

Second point, Iran should NOT have nuclear weapons BUT it is technically a democracy, which makes any action taken by the US hypocritical when they are providing a non-NPT signatory nuclear help.

Third, Bush expects that India will be a counterweight to China. This may well be true but it is not is India's strategic interest to antagonize China. They are more likely to develop extensive trade relations and remain peaceful if not cozy neighbors.

Fourth, about the timing, Bush could've given his approval for India's seat in the Security Council. I think the Indians would have appreciated that even more... and it probably wouldn't have taken its own sweet time to get it through the UN bureaucracy. He didn’t need to offer the nuclear deal.

[GK]

Sahil,

Iran is not a democracy in anything more than the most cosmetic sense. All candidates are within a narrow band that the Mullahs pre-approve, and demonstrations against the government are often massacred.

The US does not see India merely as a counterweight to China. The potential goes much deeper. Economic integration, cultural trade, and a bulwark for pressuring other nations in the region towards democracy - these are all things that Indo-US ties can achieve.

http://futurist.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/03/does_the_world_.html