Chapter 19

India USA Nuclear Tango is a Defense Pact

USA-India Civilian Nuclear Deal

“Global Clash of Races-Diplomacy of Civilizations” © (2006) Kalki Gaur

19(0) Purport

(1) Asia is the Future and Europe is Old

In exchange for nuclear technology India agreed to militarily support American imperialist policies in the Middle East. India and USA heading towards strategic alliance and Defense Pact to make America the preponderant imperial power in the oil-producing world, in the Middle East and Caspian Central Asia. Indians love pax-Americana and India could supply 10 million soldiers to fight for Allied Powers in the Third World War in exchange for a fair share of the colonial loot and colonial territories. President Bush and Secretary Condoleezza Rice’s Civilian Nuclear Deal with India is a USA-India Defense Pact in the making. India fully supports American imperial policy and accepts American reasons to engage in a campaign to become a Global American Empire through a foreign policy based on the frequent use of military power. Civilian nuclear deal with India recognizes that 21st Century is the Century of Asia and hitches rising India to the United States. The 21st Century is an Asian Century and India and China are the leaders of Asia. In geopolitical terms, all of Europe is old, the world’s most tourist friendly museum piece. In the mind’s eye of the Neo-conservatives, Europe should be hung with an enormous sign: “The future used to happen here.” It is understatement to say that Germany and France is Old Europe, while former Soviet colonies the East Europeans or Poland represent New Europe, as the whole Europe is old, with ageing population and declining birth rate. After the decline of Germany and France no Catholic nation could ever aspire to join the ranks of world powers in 21st Century, unless Papacy succeeds to partition Protestant USA to carve out a Catholic United States.

One. The trend lines in terms of economic and military power all say “Asia,” Hindu and Buddhist Asia, and the future is happening in Asia, for better or worse. The geopolitical stakes in Asia are much higher than the stakes in Europe. The top world civilizations and top world powers of the 21st Century are: Protestant United States, Buddhist China, Hindu India, Buddhist Japan, Western Christian European Union and Orthodox Russia.

Two. No Islamic nation could possibly join the ranks of world powers in the 21st Century, neither Pakistan nor Iran nor Saudi Arabia nor Indonesia, in spite of all oil-incomes the GNPs of all Islamic nations consign them to the status of a medium powers at the best. No OPEC nation and no Muslim nation can ever be a world power in the 3rd Millennium.

Three. The clash of civilizations in the 21st Century requires Troika of USA, China and India to lead the world, as by 2050 the GNP of top 4 economies in the world shall be: China, USA, India and Japan, and the GNP of India shall be four times the GNP of Japan.


(2) Sustainable Balance of Concert of Asia

Civilian nuclear deal with India hitches rising India to the United States and stabilizes the China-India-Japan triangular balance of power in Asia. The de Richelieu Raison D’etat Concert of Asia, seeking a sustainable triangular continental Asian Balance of Power, among China, India and Japan with United States as the maritime Balancer shall maintain peace in Asia and realize the dream of Century of Asia. The post-Napoleonic Concert of Europe (1815-1914) maintained peace in Europe between several European powers with Britain as a Balancer.

One. The strategic goal of Bush-Rice foreign policy is to create a sustainable balance of power in Asia, so Asian countries can continue to liberalize, progress and develop in the 21st Century of Asia. If the focus of USA-India strategic ties in Asia is containment of rising China vis-à-vis the United States and India, the historic model is Europe circa 1914, with China in the role of Germany.

Two. If the geopolitical balance of power focus in Asia is widened out to include Hindu India and Buddhist Japan along with Buddhist China, then the more congenial triangular Asian balance of power or Concert of Asia might be Europe circa 1815, with a stable balance of power between several Asian world powers, throughout next 100-years of the 21st Century and the Protestant United States as balancer as Britain was during Concert of Europe (from 1815 to 1914), with very little cost to Christian United States.

Three. The Triangular Balance of power in Asia requires United States should undertake preemptive attacks to demilitarize nuke-seeking Iran.


(3) Crusades of Democracy & Tolerance

Civilian nuclear deal with India hitches rising India to the United States and harnesses the support of India, a global power to the crusades for democracy worldwide, including the Middle East, Iran, China and the Vatican. The demise of Communism heralds the victory of Republican Neo-Conservatism and Protestant Reformed Christianity as new Agency of History, to export Democratic Utopia and religious tolerance worldwide to wage wars on extremism fundamentalism and intolerance worldwide, to fruitfully leverage the might of the sole super to create a tolerant inclusive 3rd Millennium. United States as well as India is the new agency of History and Democracy and Neo-Conservatism is the reigning ideology of the 3rd Millennium.


(4) Maoist Terrorism Threatens India

Civilian nuclear deal with India promoted USA-India strategic ties to counterbalance China as well as secures American support to meet the growing Maoist threats in India and Nepal. India is under triple attacks of Communist Maoist terrorism, Wahhabi Islamic terrorism, Catholic terrorism and Organized crime. India is under attack by growing Beijing-Mecca-Vatican-Crime Nexus. The Mountain terrain of Nepal and Tibet allows the small band of terrorists disrupt the vehicular traffic in the mountain roads. The lessons of the Kargil War are repeated in Nepal and can also be used by India and USA to engineer the secession of Tibet and other non-Han regions of Western China.

One. A war being waged by Maoist rebels represents the gravest threat to India's internal security since independence. The Naxalite movement had evolved into a major force that threatened "our democracy, our way of life. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the problem of Naxalism is the single biggest internal security challenge ever faced by India. There seems to be unanimity on the fact that we need to give the problem a very high priority. China finances Indian Communist parties and Maoist terrorism in Nepal, India, Burma, Laos and Cambodia to create a Red corridor in Southeast Asia and South Asia.

Two. Geopolitically the Maoist Terrorism in India like the Islamic terrorism in the United States had evolved into a major force that threatened "Indian democracy and Indian way of life. The strategic alliance of inclusive tolerant democratic Protestant United States and Hindu India is a turning point in history, and it counterbalances the global alliance of murderous ideology of Communist China and Islamic intolerance extremism and fundamentalism, by undertaking crusades for democracy in China and in the Islamic world.

Three. It is no accident that only Muslims, Communists and Catholics opposed President Bush’s March 2006 visit to India and continue to oppose Bush’s nuclear deal in the US Congress and Senate.

Four. In the clash of civilizations the Protestant United States and Hindu India are on the side of the inclusion tolerance and democracy. Those who are not on the side of inclusion tolerance and democracy are against it and against United States.

Five. The growing Nexus of Beijing-Mecca-Vatican threatens to descend New Global Dark Age on the Earth and undermine the dominance of the Protestant United States, the sole super power of the world in 21st Century. The W’s (aka President Bush) wise Indian outreach has hitched a rising India to the United States, as India is where future is, as by 2050 Communist China either could break up into feuding fiefdoms or replaced by Buddhist China, and by 2050 Indian economy shall be four times the size of Japanese economy.

Six. Democratic tolerant inclusive India is the Exemplar State in the post-Nation State international system of the 21st Century. Neo-Conservatism is the reigning ideology of the 21st Century. The United States as well as India is the Agency of History in the 21st Century destined to export Democratic Utopia and Crusades of Democracy to Beijing, Mecca, the Vatican and worldwide.



19(1) Talking Points: 


19(2) Turning Point in History

INDIA IS A GLOBAL POWER: “The United States and India separated by half the globe, are closer than ever before, and the partnership between our free people has the power to transform the world. As a global power, India has a historic duty to support democracy around the world. I explained that Pakistan and India are different countries with different needs and different histories, so as we proceed forward, our strategy will take in effect those well-known differences. We concluded an historic agreement today on nuclear power. It’s not an easy job for the prime minister to achieve this agreement, I understand. It’s not easy for the American president to achieve this agreement. But it’s a necessary agreement. It’s the one that will help both our peoples,” said President Bush. The nuclear deal with India is turning point as President Bush realized that India is a “Global Power”, and India has a “historic duty to support democracy” around the world and that partnership between USA and India are closer than ever before.


INDIA-USA TANGO IS A TURNING POINT IN HISTORY: India-US tango is really a big deal. A journalistic enumeration of specifics alone cannot do justice to United States President George W Bush's three-day visit to India. On the positive side, Bush’s visit gave a Leviathan big boost to India-US relations and helped the strategic partnership take a geopolitical quantum jump. On the negative side, Bush’s visit, organized by Secretary Dr. Rice stirred up the bitter oppositions in US media led by conservative religious right and pro-China lobby in the Congress and media, many of them owed their positions, to the China’s point-man in the United States, former Secretary Dr. Henry Kissinger. Both on the positive side as well as negative side President Bush could not have any more a memorable imprint. Secretary Condoleezza Rice, the black and a woman, brought the curtain down on the lingering Judeo religious right worldview of Dr. Kissinger. Dr. Rice has outsmarted Dr. Kissinger, and while brought world largest democracy and oldest democracy on the same side of the Clash of Civilizations in 2006. The deal stands out as the harbinger of a new era of trust and faith between an established world power and a putative one.



“How to treat New Delhi as a strategic ally of the United States!” was very much on the agenda at the White House during the second Bush Administration, led by Secretary Condoleezza Rice. On March 2, US President George Bush traveled to India to clinch what Bush rightly called "an historic agreement" with Prime Minister Man Mohan Singh. The deal would "mainstream" India into the club of recognized nuclear weapon powers. It is required before nuclear commerce between the two countries could become possible because India is not a signatory to the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Nuclear deal will draw Washington and New Delhi into a genuine 21st century alliance contributing to a more secure America.

The nuclear deal in a nutshell marks America’s' acceptance of India as a partner, a member of a nascent governing board, in the management of a world rendered chaotic by globalization, the end of the cold war, and the rise of new threats to international peace and stability.



Prime Minister Dr Man Mohan Singh, not given to high-flown expressions, told President Bush at the media conference that they had 'made history.' President Bush too exulted over the achievement. The nuclear deal aligned India and USA on the same side of the clash of civilizations, and paved the way for the credible balance of power in Asia by judiciously containing Communist China. The nuclear deal will eventually secure the approval of the US Congress, in spite of the uproar raised by pro-China lobby, religious right conservatives and those that still cling to Dr. Henry Kissinger’s worldview. Pro-China and anti-India former Secretary Dr. Henry Kissinger represents old era, while pro-India Secretary Dr. Condoleezza Rice represents new era in American diplomacy.



President George Bush's visit to India is geopolitically similar to Richard Nixon's Cold War opening to China. As with the earlier metamorphosis in Washington’s relations with Beijing, suspicions need to be overcome and risks weighed. Secretary Dr. Kissinger cemented the US-China relations, transforming the former adversary of the Vietnam War into an ally that joined with United States to check the Soviet Union, after the defeat of the United States in the Vietnam War. Secretary Dr. Rice has cemented the US-India relations, transforming the former Cold War adversary into an ally. Dr. Kissinger and his successors, Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinki and Madeline Albright influenced by religious right patriarchy put United States and India on the opposite side of the global Clash of Civilization. Condoleezza Rice and George Bush have brought United States and India on the same side of the global clash o civilization. The raison d’etat of the triangular balance of power among United States, China and India requires that United States, the hegemon and the sole super power of the world, must build India into a military and economic powerhouse to contain and balance China, to stabilize Asian balance of power. The delicate and complex triangular relations among India, China and the United States needs to be defined by raison d’etat to contain the threats to peace caused by the unprecedented rise of China as a military and economic power. The strategic argument for implementing the agreement has to take into account the phenomenal rise of China. A strong, stable India will advance the traditional US objective of an Asian balance of power in which no one nation, including China, is able to exercise overwhelming dominance.


PERCEPTIONS OF AMERICAN POWER: Two developments, one the progressive decline of American power and second the progressive unfavorable perception about United States, brought about this somewhat surprising convergence of national interests of the United States and India, which culminated in this landmark civilian nuclear deal with India. The first is the US' progressive loss of the hegemony it had enjoyed since the end of the WWII. The second is the progressive loss of favorable perception about the United States in the principal countries of the world. Two days before Bush left for India, the Pew Research Center released a survey of global attitudes toward the USA in 17 countries which showed that 10 countries had an overall unfavorable impression of the USA; and 15 countries expressed a lack of confidence in Bush and 17 countries believed that the USA made policy solely in its own interest to the detriment of other nations. Every country in the poll, with the unsurprising exception of the US itself, believed that the world would be safer if there was another military power to rival it.



USA-India nuclear deal will go down in the history as America’s “New Deal” of the 21st Century, which reminiscences post Second World War “New Deal” that United States gave to the Western Europe, Germany and Japan, which rebuilt their cities and their economies. “We concluded an historical agreement today on nuclear power. It is not an easy job for the prime minister to achieve this I understand. It’s not easy for the American President to achieve this agreement. It’s one that will help both our peoples. Some people just don’t want to change and change with the times. But this agreement is in our interest,” said Bush.


IND-US CIVILIZATION: India could hardly be more pleased. “IND-US CIVILIZATION” screamed a front-page headline in the Times of India on Saturday, March 5, in joyous praise for what President Bush had bestowed on India. Indian backers of a United States-India partnership were elated. The balance of costs and benefits has everything to do with India’s new place in the world and its rise in the American imagination. India is world’s largest democracy, seen by many as a potential check on China. Perhaps most important, India’s economy has galloped, poised to post more than 8 percent growth this year and double-digit growth in years ahead. Economics has featured prominently on this trip, but it is the nuclear deal that will stand as the measure of what was achieved.



American Crusades for democracy worldwide “is obviously a really big change in American foreign policy, to put he promotion of democracy as the center of it. And people take very seriously what this president is doing and intends to do,” said Secretary Condoleezza Rice. Promoting democracies worldwide is one of President Bush’s cherished tenets, pitting Republicans who call themselves realists against Republican Neoconservatives. Neoconservatives saw the invasion of Iraq as a catalyst for change in Iraq. Neoconservatives remain the most vigorous advocates of a muscular American campaign to foster democratic movements. The Republican realists in the party are rearing their heads and asking, ‘Is this stuff working?


Neocons argue that whatever is the outcome of elections, elections is better than violent upheaval. Republican realists worry that antidemocratic extremism will prevail whenever tradition and existing civil institutions are too weak to protect the rights of minorities or to nurture moderates. Realists argue that heavy-handed pressure for democracy has strained American relations with Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Russia and China. The realists argue that the promise of democracy as an outlet for tensions brings up sectarian parties and their affiliated militias to the fore. Realists argue that you cannot just impose a democratic form of government with no history and no culture and no tradition of democracy. The ongoing debate in the Republican Party regarding crusades for democracy between Neoconservatives and Realists is healthy debate and proves beyond doubt that President Bush and Secretary Condoleezza Rice are serious about bringing about a really big change in American foreign policy, to put the promotion of democracy at the center of it. It is really turning point in American history and may turn out to be a turning point in the world history and a turning point in the history of democracy in the world. President Bush and Secretary Condoleezza rice have identified democratic India as the key player in the implementation of the crusades for democracy worldwide. Refusal of Realists to support the crusades of democracy made realistrs a bad word in America. “The United States is probably the only country in which ‘realist’ can be used as a pejorative epithet,” said Dr. Henry Kissinger.


INDIA-USA PACT IS TURNING POINT: President George W. Bush and Secretary Condoleezza Rice succeeded in befriending India and in the process the world balance of power in favor of forces of “good” and democracy. For the first time in 59 years after becoming independent in 1947, India is openly in American camp in 2006. Previous administrations of Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan and Clinton, and the State Department Secretaries Dr. Kissinger, Dr. Brzezinski and Dr. Albright were all avowedly pro-China and anti-India, and they all ordered covert operations to subvert and overthrow the democratically elected governments in the Non-aligned Third World and shunned India. President Bush’s 2006 civilian nuclear pact with India is a turning point in Diplomacy and ranks as a history making diplomatic coup, such as that of President Nixon and Secretary Kissinger’s trip to Mao’s China after the Vietnam War. America’s economic, strategic and diplomatic ties with China and growing Chinese exports to America because of Most Favored Trading Nation (MFN) status in the United States defined world diplomacy in 1980’s and 1990’s and even 2000’s. The Bushian Universalism, Crusades for democracy, Nation building, energy security and pro-India policies represents a new era in American history.


19(3) How Nuke Deal Clicked?


“I’m trying to think differently,” said Bush in India. Mr. Bush made a huge gamble, that the United States can control nuclear proliferation by single-handedly rewarding nuclear states it considers responsible, and punishing those it declares irresponsible. India is in the first camp and considered a responsible nuclear state, Iran is in the second camp considered rogue irresponsible state, and no one in the Bush administration want to talk about Israel or Pakistan, two allies that have embraced the nuclear bomb, but not the Non Proliferation Treaty. Bush administration hopes that other countries with nuclear ambitions shall react to the nuclear deal with India by becoming more responsible. The nuclear deal puts the United States in the position of dealing directly with India’s plans to maintain or expand its nuclear arsenal. China has stolen top-secret designs of American thermonuclear devices used in missiles, reported Cox Report of January 1999, during Clinton Administration. Pakistan government and Dr. A. Q. Khan stole western nuclear technology and sold Uranium enrichment know-how to China, North Korea, Iran, Libya, Saudi Arabia and Malaysia. China has sold nuclear bomb designs and testing equipments to Pakistan in exchange of Uranium enrichment technology. By allowing India the access to civilian nuclear technology, United States would be able to use force to recover nuclear components, uranium enrichment plant components that Pakistan and Dr. A. Q. Khan to Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya and Malaysia.


BUSH-SINGH PERSONAL CHEMISTRY: One reason the United States and India reached agreement on a potentially far-reaching nuclear deal is the unusual rapport between President Bush and Prime Minister Man Mohan Singh. George Bush impressed Man Mohan Singh when they met in New York in 2004, with a comprehensive analysis of energy issues and ingratiated himself to the gray-bearded Indian leader by his body language and respectful language. Man Mohan Singh impressed George Bush, by convincing him that India was now ready willing and eager to try new diplomatic approaches and take some political risks to improve the relationship between India and the United States to strategic levels, and that India was willing to tango with United States to match the economic of India. Diplomats watching the spotlight displayed on television screens noticed how the leaders of the two democracies hit it off with each other, in the true style of long-time buddies, ready to join forces to solve the problems of the world. George Bush struck a closer personal chemistry with Man Mohan Singh than the personal chemistry Richard Nixon struck with Mao Tse Tung. Because of the better personal chemistry between George Bush and Man Mohan Singh, United States and India could travel much further on the path of strategic alliance than what Nixon could achieve with Mao.


EAGLE CAME TO MATE WITH ELEPHANT: It was a diplomatic bonanza for India since it had the spotlight turned on it in the process of the head of State of the most powerful, affluent and influential nation and world’s richest and oldest democracy coming all the way to pay respects to the world’s largest democracy. India the home of 15 percent world population, suddenly realized that American eagle came to the land of Elephant not only to court but also ready to mate, tango and copulate.


INDIA IS SIMPLY BUSHED: Within the span of a short visit, George Bush managed to stage a veritable public relations coup, by his zestful courting of India and its people, and Indians were simply Bushed, and they gave in return more love and admiration than they gave to any other foreign dignitary for a very long time. To Indians it was clear that George Bush had developed a genuine admiration for the outstanding achievements of the billion-strong democracy and the spirit of tolerance and harmony distinguishing the bewilderingly pluralistic society. The coming together of world’s largest democracy and world’s oldest and richest democracy on nuclear issues, a matter that both hold to be of great significance, not only for their energy security but also for the optimum utilization the world's energy resources, is a turning point in history and a diplomatic landmark event. Never before has a foreign visit of an American President created such a political storm as the recent visit of George W. Bush to India.


BUSH WANTED TO MAKE A DEAL: George Bush seems to have been determined not to go back to White House without pulling off the one diplomatic stunner, the civil nuclear compact with India, which he knew would be a feather in his cap more than any other issue. The talks at the official level over the separation of India's civilian and military nuclear facilities were on the rocks right up to the moment of the meeting of the two leaders on the morning of March 2, and it was only George Bush overruling of all the objections raised from the US side that made it sail through in the nick of time. Suddenly Indians realized that in George Bush and Condoleezza, they have genuine friends, whose worldview is not tainted by religious right patriarchy, like that of Dr. Henry Kissinger, Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Madeline Albright.  


BUSH BROKE NUCLEAR IMPASSE TO INDIA: George W. Bush's diplomatic move, drafted by brilliant Secretary Condoleezza Rice, to sign a civilian nuclear deal with India, which was bold and reckless, smashed through the nuclear barrier and formed a civilization alliance with India, with one single stroke. It is in the geopolitical national interest of the United States to form a grand alliance with India, the world's largest democracy, home to 15 percent or world population, one of the fastest-growing economies, an Asian counterweight to a rising Communist China, and a vast capitalist market already favorably inclined toward the United States. It's also long been clear that an USA-India alliance would have to entail some sort of nuclear partnership with India that recognizes nuclear India as a de facto nuclear weapon power.

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. So the earlier attempts at USA-India rapprochement collapsed. Dr. Kissinger’s ghost that influenced the foreign policies of Zbigniew Brzezinski and Madeleine Albright to prevent Hindu Oriental India from joining the ranks of recognized nuclear weapon powers. On the contrary President Ronald Reagan and President Bill Clinton and CIA allowed Dr. A.Q. Khan’s to acquire nuclear weapon capability, hoping nuclear Muslim Pakistan would keep Hindu India away from developing and deploying nuclear weapons.


INDIA AS A CATEGORY OF ITS OWN IN NPT: The question back in July 2004, when President Bush and Prime Minister Singh declared their intentions for a civilian nuclear deal, was how Bush would reconcile the USA-India nuclear alliance with the NPT. The dumbfounding answer, it turns out, is that he won't. The deal with India, George Bush and Dr. Rice said, is a one-time exception. With India eager to buy American nuclear power plants and technology, and America eager to build India into an economic and geostrategic counterweight to China, the George Bush and Condoleezza Rice team wanted, rightly to find a way to get India out of the corner it put itself in when it first set off a nuclear blast in 1974.


COMMON INTERESTS OF USA & INDIA: The second Bush administration and Secretary Rice had realized much earlier that Indian national interests coincide or overlap with five fundamental national interests of the United States, hence Dr. Rice advocated the need of India-USA formal or informal alliance to promote national interests of the United States. There are five vital national interests of the United States, namely, defeating Islamic radicalism, checking proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, pursuing energy security, funneling the rise of Chinese power in a responsible direction and keeping the international economy healthy. India, with exceptions here and there, naturally lines up with United States on all five of them. The American outreach to India began in the area of defense, with twice-yearly meetings between military officials of the Pentagon and Indian Ministry of Defense.


INDIANS LOVE GEORGE BUSH FOR REASONS EUROPEANS HATE: After taking salutes from the inter-services guard of honor in front of Rashtrapati Bhawan, the Presidential house in Delhi, President George W. Bush told reporters, "I have been received in many capitals around the world but I have never seen a reception as well-organized or as grand." This was not simply an appreciation of traditional Indian hospitality but a reflection of the warmth that vast majority of Indians feel for George Bush. Contrary to trends in most other parts of the world, 71 percent of India's populace holds a favorable view of the U.S., with 54 percent supporting Bush's handling of global affairs. Even before the trip to New Delhi, Bush's personal standing in India was higher than even in the United States and it is bound to skyrocket after the recently signed civilian nuclear pact, which was the highlight of the president Bush's four-day trip to South Asia. Indians love George Bush and Condoleezza Rice, because they do not belong to religious right wing conspiracy and are willing to accord democratic nuclear India, the status and role it as the world’s fourth largest economy in terms of PPP dollars and home to one sixth of the mankind.  Only few Muslims, Catholics and Communists opposed President Bush’s visit to Delhi. Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Zoroastrians and Protestants of all classes and castes overwhelmingly supported and welcomed President Bush and Secretary Condoleezza Rice.


USA & INDIA CLOSER THAN EVER BEFORE: “The United States and India, separated by half the globe, are closer than ever before, and the partnership between our nations has the power to transform the world,” George Bush declared in the cool March air on the ground of the 16-th century fort in New Delhi. President Bush strongly defended the outsourcing of American jobs to India as the reality of global economy, and the United States should instead focus on India as a vital new market for American goods. People do lose jobs as a result of globalization and it’s painful for those who lose jobs. Nonetheless globalization provides great opportunities. There is a 300-million-person market of middle class citizens here in India, and that if we can make a product they want, then all of a sudden, people will be able to have a market. India should continue to raise its ceilings on foreign investments and to continue open its markets to American goods. The major nuclear pact that America signed with India will help India meet its enormous energy needs.


PAKISTAN NOT EQUAL TO INDIA: Pakistan should not expect a civilian nuclear agreement like the one United States signed with India soon, and two rivals on the subcontinent could not be compared to each other. “I explained that Pakistan and India are different countries with different needs and different histories. So as we proceed forward, our strategies will take in effect those well-known differences,” said Bush in Pakistan. “The day is passed since Indians worried about America’s friendship with Pakistan. India is better off because America has a close relationship with Pakistan, and Pakistan is better off because America has a close relation with India. A prosperous democratic Pakistan will be a steadfast partner for America, a peaceful neighbor for India, and a force for freedom and moderation in the Arab world,” said Bush in India.


BUSH VERY WARMLY RECEIVED IN INDIA: India, where George Bush spent two packed days, embraced him in a way the president had not experienced in a long time. Mr. Bush felt very warmly received. Even before his arrival, a survey in the Indian newsweekly Outlook found that two-thirds of Indians strongly or somewhat regarded Mr. Bush as a friend of India. United States is highly popular in India. Mr. Bush bestowed on India such an astonishing gift, the civilian nuclear deal that Indian greeted like an American Maharajah. Mr. Bush, who can look miserable on foreign trips, often appeared moved and delighted as he raced around India. “I have been received in many capitals, but I have never seen a reception as grand as the one we just received,” said Mr. Bush after the majestic arrival ceremony at Rastrapati Bhawan. Mr. Bush was captivated by the India of the present, a functioning democracy of a billion people, a counterweight to China, and a huge market for American goods.


BUSH/REALIZED IMPORTANCE OF INDIA: The cementing and deepening of the USA-India Alliance was simply too important to allow a mere international legal regime such as NPT or NSG, to get in the way. Because India is potentially so important a strategic partner of America and emerging world economic power with 4th largest GNP in the world in purchasing power parity that Washington is no longer in a position to insist, even rhetorically, that New Delhi either abandon or cap its nuclear weapon capability to gain access to nuclear power plants from Nuclear Suppliers Group. American officials made little effort to deny that they were making an exception in India’s case, an exception they were at pains to point out they would never make for Iran, North Korea or Pakistan. Bush administration took the view that long-term global stability, including the stability of energy prices, required the abandonment of the NPT and NSG stipulation that nuclear suppliers should not supply nuclear materials to countries such as have not signed the NPT. In a world where the economic balance o power is steadily tilting toward Asia, it is naïve to imagine that geoeconomics would play second fiddle to geopolitics. American concerns about the need to prevent a destructive competition for scarce oil and gas fossil-fuel resources between India and China, which might lead to runaway oil price rise, necessitated India develop nuclear power industry to produce up to 25 percent of India’s energy requirement. 


19(4) Dr. Rice’s 21st Century

USA-INDIA BLOC AS COUNTERWEIGHT TO CHINA: Dr. Rice jettisoned Dr. Kissinger’s erroneous worldview and impressed upon George Bush to publicly demonstrate tangible progress is diplomatic ties to India, as a geopolitical hedge and as a counterweight to China's rising military power. With nuclear deal with India, Bush can salvage a foreign policy legacy despite the morass in Iraq. Nuclear deal with India has the potential to pave the way for a global realignment of forces in world politics, besides strengthening the ties between two leading democracies and deepening American influence on the sub-continent. All this is good. China is one of five recognized nuclear weapons powers under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. India, having weapons but not being one of the five recognized nuclear weapon powers, thereby India is an international nuclear outcast; hence, it faces more hurdles than China in obtaining the civilian nuclear technology, nuclear fuel and Uranium.


REDEFINING WORLDVIEW OF THE HEGEMON BY DR. RICE: Secretary Rice advised George Bush to rebuild US as a Hegemon, not so much based on military power, as to gain the consent of the governed by bringing democratic India and democratic America on the same side of the clash of civilization. Prior to Secretary Dr. Condoleezza Rice, previous secretaries of state, including Dr. Henry Kissinger, Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Ms. Madeleine Albright had inadvertently undermined and shunned the democratically elected regimes such as India, and developed closer ties with authoritarian, dictatorial totalitarian regimes, which made a mockery of America’s commitment to the cause of democracy worldwide. George Bush and Condoleezza Rice became aware of the need to rebuild US hegemony more than a year ago. Hegemony, they were aware, could not be based on military power alone. To last Hegemon needed the consent of the governed and nations that are aligned to the Hegemon. It meant the voluntary acceptance by the coalition allies, of the goals and worldview espoused by the hegemon. By bringing India the world’s largest democracy into the American camp, the American worldview, albeit the worldview of the hegemon, gains acceptance of the nations of the world as a rational or desirable worldview in the new world order. If democratic India joins the American crusade for democratizing the world, the worldview of the hegemon would become more palatable to nations of the world. While in the world history former Secretary Henry Kissinger is known as butcher of democracies in the Third World, present Secretary Condoleezza Rice want to go down in history as the Crusader for democracy worldwide. The geopolitical worldview of Dr. Rice is Antithesis to the worldview of Dr. Kissinger, the thesis, and after the USA-India Pact, under the influence of Dr. Man Mohan Singh, it could produce a synthesis worldview


President George Bush spelt these out in his second inaugural speech in 2005. "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world. So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world".


INDIA IS EXEMPLAR OF POST-NATIONAL GLOBAL STATE: India not European Union is the Exemplar model in the post-national state world order. The post-colonial nation states in the Third World were adapted from European nation state model that became popular in the Concert of Europe that replaced the imperial world order in Europe. Secretary Condoleezza Rice realized that only when democratic India is firmly in American camp could this new vision of the hegemon become a diplomatic easy sell. It is this vision of a democratic peaceful world thriving under the benign tutelage of the United States that draws George Bush and Condoleezza Rice to democratic India like a magnet. Following the example of European Union, as globalization continues to knock down the walls of the nation state, the need to find a model of global governance that will enable the world to live in peace becomes steadily more urgent, and democratic India of over 15 percent of world population, with a stable, multi-ethnic, federal democracy seems to provide an ideal model for continental federations or regional groupings. While the European Union is another such model, what makes India unique is its success in engaging its vast Muslim population in the nation building process. The secret of its success - reflected dramatically by the fact that predominantly Hindu India has a Muslim President and Sikh Prime Minister and there is not a single Indian Muslim working for Osama bin Laden, lies in the way that Indian parliamentary democracy has empowered the Muslims in India and given them allies in other castes and communities in India, when they seek to redress their grievances. Bush's unstinting praise of India's multi-ethnic democracy at Purana Qila at Hyderabad was therefore not diplomatic fluff. It reflected his realization that India was an exemplar of the 'post-national, global state'. This role, in which India seems increasingly to be cast, places an immense burden of responsibility upon Dr. Man Mohan Singh's government. India enjoys a political capital in the third world, which it can use to legitimize worldview of the US Hegemon, provided new world view of Secretary Rice and President Bush incorporates India’s perspective and perceptions of world reality.


SECRETARY RICE DEFENDS NUCLEAR DEAL: US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has urged Congress to amend the American atomic energy law in order to implement a nuclear agreement, which President George W Bush signed with India. 'This agreement is a strategic achievement,' she said. 'It will strengthen international security. It will enhance energy security and environmental protection. It will foster economic and technological development.' The deal will also 'help transform the partnership between the world's oldest and the world's largest democracy.'

The Bush administration has proposed to Congress that an India-specific amendment be made to the US Atomic Energy Act, which currently prohibits nuclear sales to states, which are not signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).


The nuclear agreement with India will strengthen international security, energy security and environmental protection, as well as fostering economic and technological development, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice argues in an opinion piece entitled ‘Our Opportunity With India’. Ms Rice states, “Our agreement with India is unique because India is unique”.  “Aspiring proliferators such as North Korea or Iran may seek to draw connections between themselves and India, but their rhetoric rings hollow”. There is simply no comparison between the Iranian or North Korean regimes and India.” Secretary Dr. Rice, is a staunch supporter of closer links with India, while Secretary Kissinger, Secretary Zbigniew Brzezinki and Secretary Madeline Albright were openly anti-India. “The world has known for some time that India has nuclear weapons, but our agreement will not enhance its capacity to make more.” Under the agreement, India will separate its civilian and military programs for the first time. It will place two thirds of its existing reactors, and about 65 per cent of its generating power, under permanent safeguards, with international verification, again for the first time ever”.


Nuclear agreement will strengthen environmental protection. The nuclear deal has huge environmental benefits because: “A threefold increase in Indian nuclear capacity by 2015 would reduce India’s projected annual CO2 emissions by more than 170 million tons, about the current total emissions of the Netherlands”.

Nuclear agreement will foster economic and technological development. The nuclear agreement will benefit the US economy: “Because it opens the door to civilian nuclear trade and co-operation between our nations. India plans to import eight reactors by 2012. If US companies win just two of those reactor contracts, it will mean thousands of new jobs for American workers”.


INDIAN NUCLEAR DEAL & HEGEMON: President Bush’s nuclear deal with India has brought India into the American camp and on the same side of the clash of civilizations, and restored the predominance of the United States in the new world order and counter balanced the menacing military power of China in Southeast Asia. "Unilateral" in the post-Soviet Union era meant that the world was a unipolar place that revolved around the benign American hegemon, and that the rest of the lesser powers, including Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Japan, China and India related to Washington as if they were so many spokes to the American hub, during Reagan Administration to Clinton Administration. However, a combination of military adventurism and appallingly profligate economic policies that have left the United States as the world's leading debtor have broken that wheel and turned the hub and spokes into a new multi-polar world. America is still the first among equals, but the Chinese, Russian, Indian and European powers now all think of themselves of equals, or at least demand to be treated that way. But in 21st Century American predominance is not much obvious and not enough to persuade Russia, India and China to go against their own interests, and may not even be enough to persuade the American public to trust the leadership of President Bush on Iran.


However, after the nuclear deal with India, the United States has reestablished the Hegemon in partnership with India. Neither China nor Russia would dare challenge the American hegemon, when India is firmly in the American Camp. After the nuclear deal with India, Pentagon can safely plan an Iraq type of invasion of Iran to restore democracy in Iran, if the need so arises to prohibit Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. After India joins American alliance, the United States can undertake crusades for democracy in Iran and Sudan.


DEMOCRATIC PEACE THEORY: President George Bush and Secretary Rice are the first leaders of the United States that gave capitalist India, the world’s largest democracy the chance to befriend United States. Succession of Presidents and their secretaries of state neglected democratically elected governments of the Third World and wooed and courted totalitarian and dictatorial regimes with unadulterated passion. President Clinton talked about promoting democracies, but went about to overthrow democratically elected governments, notably that of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharief of Pakistan. Secretary Kissinger had go all out to overthrow democratically elected governments, such as President Salvadore Allende of Chile. History would record Secretary Henry Kissinger, Secretary Zbigniew Brzezinski and Secretary Madeleine Albright as the butchers of democracies worldwide and they all justified the overthrow of democratically elected governments in terms of national security. As a result prior to George W. Bush Administration, United States hardly cultivated any democratically elected major third world power, including India. Prior to Bush Administration the United States had bullied the world and toppled the democratically elected governments to promote its parochial patriarchal conservative religious right agenda.


WHEN AMERICA FORGOT INDIA EXISTED? When India’s Prime Minister Inder Kumar Gujral, met President Clinton in 1998, the first summit after many years, Mr. Gujral is believed to have remarked that America seemed to have forgotten that "there is a country called India." Clinton apologized for Washington's lapses. But he still took two years to visit India. Clinton's visit to India was America's first public admission, of neglect.


GLOBAL ALLIANCE OF DEMOCRACIES: Secretary Rice has been an ardent advocate of improving ties with India, to counterbalance China. Secretary Rice ushered in a new era in American history and consciously worked towards developing closer ties of the democratic United States with other democratic governments in the Third World. Secretary Condoleezza Rice and President Bush reformulating American foreign policy to align United States with the democratically elected governments. Underlying the Bush administration’s strategic embrace of India is the “democratic peace theory”, the premise that democracies don’t go to war with each other. The President George Bush and Secretary Condoleezza Rice have a faith in the “Democratic Peace Theory” is widely held among the U.S. foreign policy elite in George W. Bush administration.


USA CAN’T NEGLECT ELEPHANT INDIA: Secretary Condoleezza Rice and President Bush realized that continued neglect of nuclear India as a legitimate nuclear weapon power, while nuclear China had unfettered access to western nuclear technology and equipments, and Pakistan continued to steal nuclear technology from Germany and Netherlands with impunity, might force nuclear India to challenge the might of the sole super power of the world, just as Jawaharlal Nehru led India had done in early fifties by launching some new variation of Non Alignment, which might complicate President Bush’s plan to punish Iran for violation of the NPT. After Second World War, the independent democratic capitalist India and a member of Commonwealth of Nations refused to join the American camp even when India as a major Allied Power had supplied millions of soldiers to the Allied Forces. When India was boxed into a corner, when White House said that those who are not with it were against it, India retaliated by founding Non Aligned Nations Movement. India led Non Alignment Movement and nurtured it to become a great force in the bipolar world, which effectively neutralized the unilateralism and predominance of the United States, even when United States was the sole nuclear power of the world. Even during and after the end of the cold war, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush (Sr.) and Clinton Administrations had not forgotten New Delhi's unequivocal rejection of military pacts against the Soviet Union. When assembling allies against Moscow at that time, White House had said that those who were not with it were against it. Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s retort was in the shape of non-aligned movement, stringing together some 100 countries to serve as a bulwark against war, which India feared from the West.


INDIA NOT EUROPE AS NEW ALLY OF USA: For Secretary Condoleezza Rice, the 21st century national interests and geopolitical worldview of United States likely to coincide with more with those of India rather those of Western Europe, including Britain, France and Germany. Even though Europe, especially Germany and France are technically allies of the United States in NATO, it is very likely that in any future world conflict, United States more likely to be on the same side of the battle lines with India, than with Germany or France. It's hello, India, and goodbye, Europe, as the United States seeks out a strong new partner in world affairs.

India is a better strategic partner than Europe for the United States, as India is the one that is growing, bold and confident instead of Europe that is hiding from the future and in steep decline. Besides India shall support United States in the thankless job of maintaining and restoring the world balance of power and oil security of industrialized nations, more than any European power.

India is a free market economy. India today has a 7 percent to 8 percent growth rate, an innovative entrepreneurial class, highly efficient corporations and the prospect of becoming one of the largest economies in the world in the years ahead. Today India is the fourth largest economy of the world in terms of purchasing power parity dollars. India is already the world's largest democracy. India wants to be a major world player, and it will be.


CONDOLEEZZA RICE OVERTAKES KISSINGER: In terms of geopolitics, President Bush's visit to India to sign a Nuke deal with India's Man Mohan Singh, arranged by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, ranks higher than President Nixon's visit to China to meet Mao Tse Tung arranged by Secretary of State Dr. Henry J. Kissinger. If post Vietnam policies carried the imprint of Dr. Kissinger, it is very likely that 21st Century foreign policies of the United States shall carry the indelible imprint of Dr. Rice, in equally significant manner in world history. Secretary Dr. Kissinger has met his match in Secretary Dr. Rice. India likes Dr. Rice.


NUCLEAR PRINCIPLE VS PRAGMATISM: The triumph of Secretary Rice’s Indian nuclear deal reflects President Bush's ability to not let small irritants obscure the big picture. Drafted by Secretary Rice it is a major step forward in the difficult process of turning Cold War mentalities on its head and rejection of the erroneous foreign policy perspective legacy of former secretaries Dr. Kissinger, Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski and Madeleine Albright. USA-India political and diplomatic understanding has moved to the next stage. During June 2004, the United States and India agreed to an historic nuclear deal, one that was designed to transform USA-India relationship to strategic partnership level. The core of the nuclear agreement was a reassessment of India's nuclear program, which included nuclear weapon program. The United States sought to end nuclear India's pariah status under NPT and NSG and to normalize Delhi's relations with the global non-proliferation order, by de facto recognition of India as a recognized nuclear weapon power under NPT and NSG, which would allow India unrestricted access to civilian nuclear technology. India determined to claim its rightful place on the international stage and convinced of the utility of such weapons, it developed its own nuclear arsenal. India detonated a "peaceful nuclear explosion" in 1974 and exploded a nuclear bomb in 1998. In addition to a status symbol, India saw nuclear weapons as an equalizer in its contentious relations with China.


Followers of Dr. Kissinger and Madeleine Albright in the White House opposed lifting of nuclear pariah status of India under NPT and NSG, while pragmatic group led by Secretary Condoleezza Rice wanted to bring India into nuclear mainstream, to mobilize India’s support against rogue nuclear aspirants, notably Iran. In the internal power struggle of the White House, the pro-India pragmatists led by Dr. Rice prevailed over pro-China hawks, arguing that India's exemplary behavior when it came to nonproliferation was more important than formal compliance with the NPT. For the past eight months, U.S. and Indian negotiators have endeavored to close a deal before President George W. Bush's visit to India last week. They succeeded and the deal they reached designates 14 of India's 22 nuclear reactors as civilian and thus subject to international inspections (the rest are military and exempt from inspections). The deal allows India to produce unfettered weapons-grade fissile material. The deal, however, increases the number of facilities under international supervision from six to 14; that seems like a net plus. India will also get access to civilian nuclear technology, much needed to power its growing economy. The White House agreed to lobby on India's behalf in the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), a consortium of nations with technologies whose sale has been forbidden to India. That promises to be a boost to domestic nuclear-energy producers around the world eager to make nuclear products sales to India. India hopes to expand the nuclear contribution of total energy consumed from 3 percent in 2006 to 25 percent by 2050. Indian nuclear plants will reduce international demand for oil. On a practical level, the deal makes sense. After all, it is compliance with international standards, not membership in formal institutions that is more important. India's record is strong in this regard. The political and business benefits are equally compelling. But the world will not know for some time the "demonstration effects" of this agreement.


USA-INDIA CRUSADES FOR DEMOCRACY: President Bush expected of his new friends in India, crusading for democracy worldwide. In India, George Bush’s message of crusading for democracy worldwide was very tempting for Indian armchair strategists who have always harbored the deep hidden desire of recreating Indian Empire of Pax Britannia fame. “As a global power, India has a duty to support democracy around the world,” said Bush to the audience at Purana Qila fort in Hyderabad. Bush used the world “democracy” 16 times in his speech. India Army financed by Indian Empire from Delhi financed the entire military operations of the British Empire worldwide, the entire Pax Britannia during 19th and first half of the 20th century. Though India may presently lack the political will, it has a proven military, economic and political capability to undertake worldwide crusades for democracy, especially in the developing nations of the Middle East, Central Asia, Southeast Asia and Africa. After the demise of Indian Empire, independent India abandoned the imperial legacy of the Indian Empire and shied away from exercising gunboat diplomacy in formerly Indian sphere of influence in Iran, Iraq and Arabian Gulf. Indian Army fought Germans in First World War and Second World War as a leading Allied Power and defended Pax Britannia worldwide. Whenever political leadership of India, its aversion to export democracy in the neighborhood or worldwide, India has the required political skill and credibility to promote democratic institutions and polity worldwide. It is high time that pacifist India follows the path shown by George Bush and reformulates its foreign policy to promote democracy worldwide to end tyranny. Just as Communist China finances Communist Party of India Marxist, Maoists and Naxalites, it is high time that India begins to finance and support capitalist or Buddhist political parties in Communist. It would be in the common national interest of the United States and India to support multi-party democracy in Communist China, which would eventually bring down the totalitarian Communist rule in China. If United States is serious about crusades for democracy worldwide then India should join forces with America to promote freedom and justice for peoples of Tibet, Falun Gong and rural people of China, who are presently persecuted in China. Only when India and United States can jointly undertake pro-democracy, pro-freedom crusades in Communist, would Indians believe that President George Bush and Secretary Rice are serious not hypocritical about crusading for democracy worldwide. Bush Administration wants to build up India as a democratic model for other countries.


REALITY OF AMERICAN IMPERIALISM: The reality of the contemporary world order or the international community where the mankind live in, in “the reality-based community” is the hard reality that democratic capitalist liberal United States is also an “American Empire” where Imperial agents operating out of the White House are free to implement with impunity the wishes and policies of the President, and when these imperial agents of the White House acts, it creates its own reality and the action become legitimate in the new world order. The fundamental reality of the reality-based international community or world order is that when American Empire, the hegemon, the sole super power acts, America creates its own reality. The United States in 2006, as the sole super power of the world, with continental-size land mass and more than 287 million population, and GNP of more than $12 trillion, is undoubtedly is the “legitimate Roman Empire” of the world. The Washington DC is the Rome of the world. The theory of International realism states that diplomacy in International politics seeks to enhance the power of the State. It is an undeniable fact that United States became the de facto sole super power of the world after the decline of the Soviet Union and became the de jure sole super power of the world after the collapse of the fall of the Berlin Wall, or the fall of the communist regimes in the Eastern Europe, or demise of the Soviet Union. United States is the undisputed Hegemon of the world, and writ of the White House runs around the world. The terms, “Sole Super Power,” “Hegemon,” “Unilateralist Power,” are synonymous and interchangeable with “Imperial America,” or “American Empire.” The cardinal principle of American foreign policy in successive American administrations of President Reagan, President Bush (Sr.), President Bill Clinton, and present President George W. Bush Administration has been, “America is an Empire now. When America acts, America creates its own reality in international politics.”  


The key to understanding the Bush administration and its policies is George Bush’s concept of international reality in contemporary world order. George Bush understands the role international reality plays in the post-Soviet Union, where United States is the sole super power of the world, where United States is the hegemon of the world, where United States is free to pursue American Unilateralism. The reality of the “the reality-based community” in the present new world order is that United States can afford to if it chooses to contemptuously dismiss the international community that most of nations of the world live in, “the reality-based community.” The times have changed after the demise of the Soviet Union, after the call of the Communism in the Eastern Europe and the rise of America as the sole super power of the world, and the present day reality isn’t what it used to be, during the Cold War. American policy makers can declare for the world to hear, “We are an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.”


President Dwight Eisenhower worked hard to end European colonialism, because United States didn’t have colonies of its own, and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill refused to hand over half of the British Empire to United States in exchange for the British War Debt. After the CIA learnt the art of engineering military coups in Iran in 50’s, the American Empire after the Second World War, took the form of military coups against rulers or implanting American agents as Presidents, Prime Ministers or Kings by covert operations. The CIA became the principal instrument of American Empire in the Bipolar world and during the Cold War.  


While decolonization process characterized the post-second world war world order, the 21st century heralded the new age of colonialism, in form of oil-colonialism. The age of colonialism would by no means go away. The colonial empires shall stage a come back during the first quarter of the 21st Century. President Bush has opened the genie of oil colonialism during the American invasion of Iraq. The terrorist attack of 9/11/2001 was a turning point in history and it resulted in the naked American invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. American imperial invasion of Iraq, though justified on grounds of terrorism, was in fact the first attempt by American Empire to create American Oil Colonialism, which leveraged America’s unique position as the sole super power of the world in the post-Soviet Union and post-Cold War international system. The first reality that defined the 21st Century, is that when President Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq overruling rest of the world, including so-called great powers, namely, China, Russia, Germany, France and Japan, not a single nation came out militarily in support of Iraq. The second reality that defines the 21st Century is that United States could invade and conquer Iraq with the loss of no more than 100 casualties of American and allied forces throughout invasion of Iraq. President George Bush is a historical person and he understands that as the leader of the world’s sole super power, he has the power, resources, will and military capability to change the course of history. President Bush has decided to exercise his executive Presidential powers to usher in a new age of oil colonial empires in the 21st century.


Middle Eastern Ottomans’ increase in the price of Indian spices in transit to Europe, crucial for the preservation of meats, resulted in the rise of European colonial empire. Europe’s economic need for Indian spices to preserve meats for use in winter, resulted in the European colonial empires. European greed for gold had created permanent European settlements throughout European colonial empires. Post-Columbus European colonial empires were the by-product of West European’s economic need for Indian spices and love for gold. Indian spices were very important ingredient for the long-term preservation of meat and other edible perishables. The Ottoman Empire blocked the direct trade of Europe with India in spices. The maritime circumnavigation of the world was the direct result of Middle Eastern Ottoman blocking the direct trade route between Europe and India.


Middle Eastern OPEC increase in the price of crude oil, crucial for the survival of world economy, used by the industrial economies of Europe, Asia and North America has caused the rise of a new age of oil colonialism. President Bush invaded Iraq and created a de facto American colonial empire in Iraq and has ushered in a new age of oil colonialism and the world shall witness the rise of many oil colonial empires during 21st century. President Bush invaded Iraq to protect American energy security. President Bush may again invade Iran to further strengthen America’s energy security.


President Bush was wise in invading Iraq, before Iraq could have acquired Atom Bombs. Israel wisely bombed the nuclear reactor of Iraq, which could have helped Iraq develop nuclear weapons. President Bush has full right, albeit to invade Iran to prohibit Iraq from acquiring nuclear weapons and to forcibly destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment plants. Throughout world history, whenever barbarians gain access to new military technologies, they have misused it to invade, conquer and destroy civilizations. Ottomans used the cannon technology to invade, conquer and destroy Christian Orthodox Byzantine Empire, to murder or convert Christian men and forcibly married Christian women of the Byzantine Empire and destroyed Eastern Roman Empire and converted it into a Sunni Muslim empire, hereafter called Ottoman Caliphate. Just as Roman Empire came under attack of barbarians from north and ultimately Roman Empire disintegrated when the Pope made a secret pact with the barbarian king, similarly barbarian attack of 9/11/2001, replicates the threat Roman Empire faced when barbarians attacked Rome. Since sole super power United States is an American Empire now, it must act to undertake preemptive strikes and invasion of Iran to ensure that Iran is permanently barred from acquiring nuclear weapons. As a leader of American Empire, President Bush would be failing in his duty and responsibility as an Imperial leader if United States develops cold feet and fail to invade Iran, in case intransigent Iran continues to defy Non Proliferation Treaty. India has a moral obligation albeit duty to militarily support any Pentagon’s plan for the invasion of Iran, in case Iran continues with its nuclear weapon program. Iranian Nuclear weapons present dire geopolitical threat to India as well as the United States. Iranian nuclear program is against India’s national interests and also against the national interest of the United States and rest of the civilized world. The civilized world has the moral duty to support the preemptive strikes against Iran to keep nuclear technology out of the hands of Iranians.


The new imperial power of the 21st century may acquire legitimate rights over the oil-lands, since Semite Arabs were not the original inhabitants of these lands, before the rise of Islam, and the original inhabitants, belonging to brown and black races were slaughtered by camel riding Arab Muslim invaders, who forcibly married brown and black womenfolk. The oil-rich lands of the Middle East did not belong to Arabs or Muslims. Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Libya and Algeria were Hindu nations and they worshipped Hindu gods and goddesses. Some of them became Christians in the 4th Century. Roman Empire, Mediterranean Europe and North Africa and Asia Minor worshipped Hindu pagan gods and sun god. After the birth of Islam, camel riding Arab Bedouin armies, funded by Jews of Damascus, invaded and defeated the armies of Egypt, Syria, Libya, and Algeria and conquered these lands and massacred the brown peoples that lived and owned these lands and forcibly married brown and black women of North Africa. Iran is an Aryan nation and practiced Zoroastrianism, the sun worshippers, where Zoroastrian scripture Zed Avestha is very similar to Hindu scripture Rig Veda. Arab race has occupied the lands of pagans and Hindus by sword. Arabs are not the original inhabitants of Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Libya and Algeria, and the original inhabitants of these lands in North Africa were brown and black people mostly with non-curly hair.


India’s High-Tech Competitiveness

Secretary Condoleezza Rice recognizes India’s high-tech competitiveness and believes that USA-India partnership in high technology shall give the United States the technical competitiveness required to maintain its hegemony in the 21st Century. India’s surge into world markets hasn’t followed the patter set by other developing nations, which started their exports drive in low-tech industries like clothing. Instead, India has moved directly into industries that advanced countries like the United States thought were their exclusive turf. When Business Week put together a list of areas “where India has made an impact and where it is going next”, that list consisted entirely of high-technology activities. What this means is that American workers whose jobs are threatened by Indian competition are in many cases, people thought they already had acquired the skills to fill the jobs of the 21st century, but just discovered that Indians, who are paid about a tenth as much, also have those skills. The income disparity in the United States is widening. Between 1979 and 2003, the share of overall income received by the bottom 80 percent of taxpayers fell from 50 percent in 1979 to 40 percent in 2003. More than half of the income lost by the bottom 80 percent was gained by just one-fourth of 1 percent of the US population, people with incomes of at least $750,000 in 2003.


Nuclear Espionage By China & Pakistan

Secretary Condoleezza Rice realized that while nuclear India played by rules, Communist China stole America’s nuclear weapon secrets with impunity during Carter, Reagan and Clinton administrations. The Congressional Cox Report (3rd January 1999) describes the rampant nuclear espionage at America’s leading Nuclear Weapons Research Laboratories, and the scant regard shown by Clinton Administration towards measures that could have prevented the theft of nuclear secrets. Secretary Rice realized that Pakistan has brazenly stolen nuclear technology, including uranium enrichment plant from Germany and Holland and previous administrations overlooked Dr. A.Q. Khan’s clandestine Nuke bazaar hoping that Islamic Bomb may be a equalizer for India’s predominance in the Subcontinent. President Bush and Secretary Rice understands that all those who opposed the civilian nuclear deal in Congress, Senate, Media and previous administrations are very same people, who kept quiet while Cox Report revealed Chinese nuclear espionage at American weapons laboratories. These critics of Indian nuclear deals were also quiet during Carter, Regan and Clinton Administrations, when widespread nuclear theft by Pakistan became public. India doesn’t need transfer of nuclear power plant technology from the United States, as India presently operates 22 nuclear plants. India has advance know-how in fast breeder reactors and is in a position to make FBR technology transfer to the United States. President Bush’s civilian nuclear deal is an economic bonanza for American nuclear industry by the sale of a number of nuclear power plants, each costing over $2 billion. The nuclear deal doesn’t involve the transfer of any new nuclear technology that India doesn’t already possess.


19(5) Nuclear Deal’s Outline


President Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India announced in New Delhi on Thursday, March 2, 2006, what Mr. Bush called a “historic nuclear pact” that will help India satisfy its enormous civilian energy needs while allowin git to continue develop nuclear weapons. In New Delhi, Amereican and Indian negotiators working all night reached agreement on the nuclear deal at 10:30 a.m. Thursday, only two hours before Mr. Bush and Mr. Singh announced it, after the United States accepted an Indian Plaan to separate its civilian and military nuclear facilities.


The nuclear deal envisions India-specific rules from the Internatonal Atomic Energy Agency, effectively recognizing India as a nuclear weapon state in “a category of its own.” India will be able to arrive at a standing arrangement with the IAEA and the NSG on the kind of safeguards and guidelines that would be in tune with its national interest, with India recognized as a category of its own. The status of India does not quite fit into the presently known definition of either a nuclear weapons State or a non-nuclear entity, and India has stayed out of the Non Proliferation and Comprehensive Test Ban Treaties. The IAEA's mandatory requirements that safeguards should extend to all the nuclear materials -- both those which are weapons-usable and those which require additional processing in order to become weapons-usable, on the territory of the country concerned, and that nuclear material should not be diverted from peaceful applications to nuclear weapons or other explosive devices. India must negotiate hard, and secure for India the de facto recognition as a nuclear weapon power.


The diplomatic part of inking the nuclear deal is over. Now India should undertake painstaking and patient work both on the technical and diplomatic fronts, in which it is of the utmost importance that the policy makers in the Prime Minister's Office, Ministry of External Affairs and the concerned ministries and the scientific community act in unison, leaving no scope for even a hint of discordance. India should lobby the US Congress that it is in the national interest of the United States to enact new legislative proposals to accommodate India without a compliance report in all these respects.


DEAL FOR 14 CIVILIAN REACTORS 8 MILITARY REACTORS INCLUDING 2 FBRs: The nuclear deal is aimed at removing the ban effectively imposed by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty on the sale of nuclear fuel and civilian nuclear technology to India, in return for India’s agreement to put its civilian reactors under international inspections. India will be able to not only retain its nuclear arms program but to keep a third of its reactors, 8 reactors out of total of 22 reactors, under military control outside international inspection, including two fast-breeder reactors (FBR) that could produce fuel for nuclear weapons. The accord would also allow India to build future fast-breeder reactors and keep them outside international inspections. A fast-breeder takes spent nuclear fuel and processes it for reuse as fuel or weapons. The accord would allow India to buy nuclear equipment and materials for only those new reactors that are to be used for civilian purposes. India would place 14 out of India’s 22 nuclear reactors under civilian inspection regimes by 2014.


DEMARCATION OF CIVIL & MILITARY FACILITIES: India-US nuclear deal could come about because India was honest in working out the modalities of separation of civilian and military nuclear facilities. India worked out a clear demarcation between civilian and military nuclear facilities, keeping the fast breeder reactors and research establishments out of the purview of the accord. India conveyed its willingness to comply with any mutually acceptable framework of 'India-specific' safeguards following discussions between India and the International Atomic Energy Agency.


GUARANTEED SUPPLY OF NUCLEAR FUEL: The US, on its part, gave its approval to India's separation plan and undertook to make available supply of nuclear fuel for as long as required, promising to place before the US Congress and the Nuclear Suppliers Group proposals to amend the laws and the regulations facilitating the smooth implementation of the agreement. According to the media briefing by US Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns, India will be free to make future additions to its fast breeders and military facilities, and 'could build reactors (to) service (its) nuclear weapons industry.' There will also apparently be no fettering of India's judgment on the nuclear deterrence it needs to take care of its security concerns.


DEAL HELPS NON-PROLIFERATION: The NPT created two sets of global rules – one for the five recognized nuclear weapons powers (United States, China, Russia, Britain and France) and another for everyone else. The Five, recognized nuclear weapon powers, allow only "voluntary" international safeguards on their civilian nuclear facilities.  Recognized nuclear weapon powers have no obligation to open their military programs to any kind of scrutiny. The NPT places no real limits on their nuclear arsenals, other than a vague commitment to reduce and eventually eliminate all nuclear weapons. The rest must open their programs fully to international inspection and agree never to build bombs. In exchange, they gain access to the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. This nuclear deal with India, does not weaken the NPT, rather it strengthens it. It brings it more into accord with reality and gives India a stake in a NPT system it had previously rejected as unfair.


Homi Bhabha could have easily developed Atom Bomb in 1965. Dr. Homi Bhabha has responded to the China’s nuclear test that India could build an Atom Bomb in six months. Dr. Homi Bhabha was murdered, when the Air India plane he was traveling was bombed. India's nuclear program is the product of decades of largely indigenous effort, driven by its security needs. It is not a case of secretive proliferation in violation of the NPT. The deal with India turns the Five into Six. It treats India as a de facto member of the inner club, including membership in Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), the organization to control nuclear exports. In removing existing U.S. restrictions on transfer of nuclear energy technology, it treats India no differently than China.


The nuclear deal enables India to expand its production of fissile materials to make nuclear warheads. Some eight of India's 22 power reactors will remain outside of international controls, along with a new fast breeder reactor. The nuclear deal allows India to make new nuclear weapons to maintain credible nuclear deterrent, whenever it feels that its nuclear arsenal is not large enough to deter a nuclear first strike by Pakistan or China in the future. The nuclear deal gives de facto recognition of India like the Five. It is misleading to argue that unlike India, however, the Five have halted their production of plutonium and highly enriched uranium.


INDIA NEEDS NO TRANSFER OF NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY: The nuclear deal with India is less about the transfer of nuclear power generation technology, but for the supply of nuclear reactors, nuclear fuel and nuclear equipments. India has sufficient nuclear power generation technology as it presently operates 24 nuclear reactors. India doesn’t need technology transfer. The nuclear deal therefore is not so much to transfer any new American nuclear technology but to expand India's civilian nuclear reactors to meet its expanding energy needs and thereby reducing dependency on Middle Eastern oil. It is good business for U.S. companies to sell civilian nuclear reactors to India at the same time benefiting the American public with low priced Middle East oil. India's nuclear technology is under civilian government control and the record is very clean.


INDIA’S GREAT DIPLOMATIC SUCCESS: The nuclear agreement that prime minister Man Mohan Singh signed with president Bush in Delhi is probably the most important diplomatic success that India has ever recorded. India’s gains in civilian sphere exceed the gains in the military sphere in this deal. India’s economic benefits that are likely to flow from the civilian nuclear agreement are, dwarfed by its political significance.


Indian government's negotiating skills succeeded in keeping eight out of the 22 reactors that are operational or under construction within the military program and preventing restrictions from being placed on any new nuclear reactors or fast breeder reactors that India will build in future from adding to the military list in the future. But the concessions that India got in the military sphere are less important part of the overall significance of the deal. India's greater success lies in the civilian sphere. Although public attention has been focused mainly upon the access to civilian nuclear reactors and nuclear fuel that the agreement will ensure, India will gain far more in the long run from the removal of the embargo on dual use technology. The embargo on the sale of dual use technology and products had already begun to hurt India. After its 1974 'Peaceful Nuclear Explosion' (PNE) India had become the target of a battery of international agreements whose sole purpose was to deny India, any access to so-called dual use technology. These international sanctions against India were immeasurably reinforced after the Pokharan tests in 1998. India has an immediate need for nuclear power. India’s own uranium deposits are sufficient only to meet the needs of 10,000 MW of 'pressurized heavy water reactors' during their lifetime.


The Nuclear Suppliers' Group (NSG) has 45 members and the list of dual-use technologies has continuously expanded to become a serious roadblock to the acquisition of even new technology in fields totally unrelated to nuclear weapons. Once President Bush and Secretary Rice persuade the US Congress to remove this roadblock, civilian nuclear energy will the great benefit that India will derive, besides numerous dual-use technologies, which are more valuable than the civilian nuclear technology. The economic benefits that are likely to flow from the nuclear agreement are, dwarfed by its political significance. With the nuclear deal marks the American acceptance of India as a partner, a member of a nascent governing board, in the management of a world rendered chaotic by globalization, the end of the cold war, and a diplomatic breakthrough that was scarcely imagined a decade ago.


President Bush took great pains to emphasize that the July 18 deal was a 'one-time exception' and not the first step in the creation of the a third-tier of nuclear states between the haves and have-nots of the NPT. This means that after the dust kicked up by this seismic shift in global alignments settles down; the US Congress has amended its domestic laws and the Nuclear Suppliers' Group has lifted the embargo on the sale of dual use technology to India, India's status as a nuclear weapon power of a category of its own, will gradually become indistinguishable from the recognized nuclear weapon power status of other members of the five recognized nuclear weapon powers states.


USA RECOGNIZED GLOBAL POWER INDIA: President Bush recognized India as a “Global Power”. President Bush accepted India as the flag bearer of democracy in the developing world. President Bush recognized that “As a global power, India has a historic duty to support democracy around the world.” President Bush recognized as a de facto recognized nuclear weapon power, as it is defined in Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and by Nuclear Suppliers’ Group (NSG). President Bush de-hyphenated India from Pakistan. President Bush declared that India has a right and a duty to support democracy around the world, and implicitly suggested that India should take pro-active action to promote Indian version of democracy in the Third World.


INDIA RECOGNIZED AS DEVELOPED NATION: The single biggest advantage that has accrued to India by signing nuclear deal with President Bush, India has entered into the developed world as a developed nation, and the sole power of the world recognized India as a “Global Power.” President Bush recognized India as a developing world power. President Bush recognized India as the latest entrant into the nuclear club as a de facto NPT and NSG recognized nuclear weapon power. India as a country finally came out of the South Asia box. President Bush has de-hyphenated India from Pakistan. United States has developed separate parallel policies with India and Pakistan. India has entered into a larger compact with America, and nuclear agreement is among a host of other equally important deals, even when nuclear deal is touted as a showpiece for USA-India diplomatic relations.


DEAL LEADS TO MILITARY COOPERATION: The nuclear deal is deal for opening a path for more American-Indian military cooperation. Where only a few years ago, no one would have talked about the prospect for a major USA-India defense deal, today the prospects are promising, whether in the realm of combat aircraft, helicopters, maritime patrol aircraft or naval vessels.


INDIA IS UNIQUE: “India is unique. India has developed its entire nuclear program over 30 years alone because it had been isolated. So the question we faced was the following: Is it better to maintain in isolation, or is it better to try bringing it into the international mainstream? And President felt the latter,” said R. Nicholas Burns, the under secretary of state for political affairs. “India is a responsible power and access to civilian nuclear energy would help India respond to its immense energy needs while limiting its emissions of greenhouse gases,” said President Jacques Chirac of France. “This agreement is an important step towards satisfying India’s growing need for energy including nuclear technology and fuel as an engine for development. It would also bring India closer as an important partner in the nonproliferation regime.”


INDIA IS NUCLEAR WEAPON STATE: The strategic ties with United States can help India achieve its aspirations on the world stage, chief among them, ending the country’s nuclear isolation in the world and yielding the legitimacy it has long sought as a nuclear weapon state.


19(6) Wars for Energy Security

LOOMING WARS FOR ENERGY SECURITY: The question is why has George Bush and Condoleezza Rice thrown the weight of entire second Bush Administration behind this "new deal" with nuclear India? What strategic import do Dr. Rice and George Bush see in democratic nuclear India that President Bush signed a nuclear deal with Prime Minister Man Mohan Singh, which his critics and pro-China lobbyists in the United States dubs as "Santa Claus" agreement with nuclear India? Is it because Dr. Rice finds nuclear India as the right countervailing military power to rising military power of China? Or is it, as President Bush has said, because he does not want Americans to pay for India's increasing consumption of energy? President Bush gave a favorable nuclear energy deal to India, to help India build nuclear power plants, so that India may not get embroiled in regional military conflicts in oil-producing Arabian Gulf or Caspian Central Asia in order to safeguard India’s energy security. Speaking to Indian students in Hyderabad, Bush said the deal would relieve pressure on oil prices. "When a fast-growing country like India consumes more fossil fuels, it causes the price of fossil fuels to go up not only in India, but around the world," he said. They believe that it is environmentally desirable to expand the civilian nuclear power capability of India, which are both energy- poor and a large producer of greenhouse gases.


President George Bush and Secretary Rice led America is not in these ongoing wars of energy security out of choice, on the contrary America is in the wars of energy security out of compulsion. Dr. Rice and President Bush realized that in the ongoing wars of energy security, in the war that is raging worldwide, India could not have remained a bystander for long, as a non-aligned entity without any moral or ethical or geopolitical position on the economic security issues that the ongoing wars or competition for energy security has kicked up. In contemporary geopolitics, taking positions offers diplomats one of the ways to geopolitically define their definition of their national interests. President Bush, by his recognition of India as a de facto recognized nuclear power, eligible for unrestricted access to peaceful nuclear energy, has made the exercising of that choice to define India’s geopolitical interests to secure India’s energy security easier for India.


LETTING INDIA IN NUCLEAR CLUB FOR ENERGY SECURITY: America now recognizes that India, a country with a billion-plus population, needs energy security, and India’s energy security needs are considerably higher than of many other countries in the world, and second only to China. America recognizes that of all the claimants to nuclear energy, nuclear India's requirements alone are the most genuine. That nuclear India is a democracy also helped, as democratic institutions and checks and balances guarantee that India would not misuse nuclear weapon technology and its de facto status recognition as recognized nuclear weapon power in a category of its own in NPT and NSG. Thus President Bush is fair in adopting double standards in its dealings with various countries that professed the need of energy, because democratic India’s claims for access to nuclear power plants are genuine, as India is the home of one sixth of the mankind. India should openly acknowledge this act of fairness of President Bush, by celebrating this shift in America's view of nuclear democratic India in the new world order, where America continues to be the Hegemon.


NUCLEAR OPTION FOR ENERGY SECURITY: India’s strategic concern about future energy needs required India to insist that any centerpiece of enhanced co-operation with the United States must be the civil nuclear deal, which Bush and India Prime Minister Man Mohan Singh signed in Delhi. India desperately seeks alternative sources of energy, other than oil or gas, to meet its burgeoning need for electricity. Man Mohan Singh’s government now views that India's increasing dependence on imported fossil fuels is a threat to future economic development. Man Mohan Singh is genuinely impressed with George Bush for opening his eyes towards the need for reformulating India’s policies to strengthen India’s oil security, as George Bush being an oilman, is intimately familiar with the intricacies of the global oil trade.


OIL IS THE KEY TO AMERICAN NEO-COLONIALISM: Energy security is India’s greatest need. The visit of President Chirac from France just before the arrival of President Bush prepared the ground for USA-India nuclear deal. With American green light to civilian nuclear sales to India, all members of Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) including France, Russia, Britain, Australia and Canada shall sell India civilian nuclear reactors and nuclear fuel. One thing India should remember is that there is no free lunch in diplomacy. Secretary Rice will expect from India more access to its market. How far India can go will be India’s predicament.


Indians are happy that the pro-American lobby in India has become so blatant that it wants to push India into American Camp, not leaving even the fig-leaf of non-alignment, to cover or hide its tilt towards America. President Bush's worry is that India is not implementing economic reforms fast enough. In spite of certain bottlenecks George Bush and Man Mohan Singh have developed confidence in each other. President Bush's visit has convinced Indians that the United States is keen to span the distance with India at full speed to cover in a few months the ground that they did not cover in past few decades. Indians have nostalgia of British Indian Empire, and may become greater advocate of Pax Americana than Americans themselves. Oil is the key to the emerging American Empire or Pax Americana in the world in the 21st Century. President Eisenhower engineered the demise of European colonial empires, especially British Empire and French Empire. Non Aligned Movement safeguarded the freedom and independence of the newly independent nations of Africa and Third world. President George W. Bush inadvertently ushered in the new historical age of oil-colonialism by successfully invading oil-rich Iraq with minimal casualties. The military success of American oil-colonialism in Iraq has inadvertently laid grounds for the American invasion of oil-rich Iraq. India has become totally disillusioned with the non-aligned movement. It is no accident that Indian empire controlled the 100% of Iranian oil and 48% of Iraqi oil in 1947, at the eve of Independence of India. India exercised gunboat diplomacy in the Persian Gulf, presently known as Arabian Gulf throughout 19th Century and first half of 20th Century. As late as 1966, Indian Rupee zone covered Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Bahrain, Yemen and Qatar, and these countries kept their foreign currency reserves in Indian currency, the Rupees. Pro-Bush Indian lobby in India is ready, willing and able to mobilize India’s resources and power to promote the American democratic agenda of crusading for democracies worldwide. Indians welcome the invitation of President Bush, “As a global power, India has a historic opportunity to support democracy around the world.”  Indians are ready to join American crusading for democracy worldwide.


19(7) Nuclear Industry Revives


American nuclear reactor power plant industry needs Indian orders for nuclear power plants to undertake new research and to validate the remediation issues related to “materials degradation” and the problem associated with tritium (a form of hydrogen with two additional neutrons) leak. Without new Indian nuclear plant orders, American nuclear industry would fail to certify to US “Nuclear Regulatory Agency” that is has certified and validated the "problems of materials degradations," an essential prerequisite before American utilities orders for 17 new nuclear power plants is approved. With the nuclear power cleaner than coal and cheaper than natural gas and oil, the American nuclear industry, 25 years past its 1979 near meltdown at Pennsylvania’s 3-Miles Island nuclear reactor, after Bush’s India deal is ready for its second act; its first new reactor orders since the 1970’s. American utilities are planning to apply for 11 nuclear power reactor projects, with a total of 17 nuclear power plants. The Palo Verde reactor was the last one that was ordered, in October 1973, and actually built. But the American public’s acceptance of new nuclear power plant reactors depends in part on the performance of the old nuclear reactors. Lately, several of them have been discovered to be leaking radioactive water into the ground. Near Braceville, Ill, the Braidwood Generating Station has leaked tritium into underground water that has shown up in the well of houses nearby. In a survey of all 10 of its nuclear power plants, Exelon found tritium in the ground at two others. In New York, at the Indian Point 2 Nuclear Reactor in Buchanan, working digging a foundation adjacent to the plant’s spent fuel pool found wet dirt, an indication that spent fuel was leaking. Workers at the Palo Verde plant in New Mexico found tritium in an underground pipe vault. In the past 10 years, tritium had leaked from at least seven reactors. As the “Nuclear Regulatory Agency” prepares to review license applications for the first-time in decades, it is focusing on “materials degradation,” a catchall term for cracks, rust and other ills to which nuclear power plant reactors are susceptible. The old metal has to hold together, or be patched or replaced as required, for the nuclear power plant industry to have a chance at building new nuclear plants in the United States. The energy department closed a research reactor in New York at its Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island, largely because of a tritium leak. After years of flat employment levels, the American nuclear industry is preparing to hire hundreds of new engineers.


NEW NUCLEAR RECTORS IN USA: In February 2006, President Bush cited the success of France’s nuclear reactor power plant strategy as the best way to meet America’s growing energy needs and through advances in nuclear power plant reactor technology. The provisions of 2005 Energy bills opened up contracts to build fleets of nuclear reactors in the USA.


60000 MEGAWATTS OF NUCLEAR PROJECTS: Indian Minister of Commerce Kamal Nath has claimed that 'the deal would eventually translate into generation of 60,000 megawatts of power which would put India on to a different platform altogether.' Nuclear power could equal the total estimated availability from hydropower. The thorium technology already within the reach of the Indian scientists may soon make any reliance on outside source of nuclear fuel supply redundant. The ready access to civilian nuclear technology would allow India to develop thorium based nuclear plant technology as well as fast breeder technology more efficiently.



India as well as China is overpopulated and faces significant energy security challenges and lacks enough clean energy resources, but India has fewer tools to cope with energy security than its Asian rival. However, India does not have China's enormous exports to buy imported oil or gas. For India, nuclear power to generate electricity, and thus reduce its dependence on imported oil and gas may be just the ticket, to meet the demands of energy security. The technological obstacles to powering cars and industry with hydrogen are rapidly dissipating. More nuclear reactors would provide India with electricity now and the means to transition to the hydrogen economy over the next two decades. With its engineering talent, it could become the leader in hydrogen technology, while the Chinese, Americans and others continue to consume awesome amounts of oil and gas.


INDIAN MARKET FOR US NUCLEAR INDUSTRY: For the United States, civilian nuclear deal with India makes sense. American civilian nuclear industry is in doldrums due to by opposition from environmentalists. India offers great export opportunities to further develop the American nuclear industry until Americans come around to the idea that nuclear reactors are as safe as coalmines and cleaner than petroleum refineries and do not add CO2 emission. Civilian nuclear deal with India enhances the India-USA "strategic partnership", besides opening a lucrative market for American nuclear industry to sell nuclear fuel, nuclear technology and nuclear power reactors to India. The nuclear deal promises a bonanza not only for American nuclear companies but also for new orders for French, Canadian and Russian nuclear industry. American suppliers of nuclear equipment will now be able to sell to booming India, which has a population of about 1 billion and a growing thirst for energy, which can be safely met by nuclear power plants. The civilian nuclear deal has been at the center of the Bush visit to India. President Bush casts his nuclear technology agreement with India Thursday as being about better relations between the two countries.


ECONOMIC BONANZA OF NUCLEAR DEAL: Why did President Bush give India this marvelous, about-face deal on India’s civilian nuclear program, without having India to renounce nuclear weapons? One angle is that the American nuclear industry companies that manufacture and export the equipment and technology that the Indian nuclear power plant industry would buy, after the deal approved by the Congress are allies of and big campaign finance donors to the Republican Party. Second angle is that companies in the India's nuclear industry and American nuclear industry would all undertake joint advance research in civilian nuclear fusion power plants, fast breeder reactors, thorium based nuclear power plants, after the nuclear the agreement is approved by the Congress. American nuclear industry foresees an economic bonanza in nuclear deal with India. Third angle is that with world supplies of oil a finite quantity and the energy needs of the world, including those of India and China, increasing for the future, the commercial importance of nuclear energy can only grow exponentially, thus making the U.S.-India civilian nuclear accord of greatly increasing economic importance for American economy.


BRAVE NEW NUCLEAR ENERGY WORLD: In the brave new world of the future, we will hopefully not have to build dams to build hydroelectric power plants. In the brave new world of the future we will not have to sully the atmosphere with fumes from coal-based thermal stations or gas or oil based power plants. In the brave new world of the future we can energize our towns and villages with nuclear energy since we all have stakes in an earth that is at peace with its own population. Human societies and civilizations everywhere are going through technological transition. It's important for us to understand this, global changes brought by technology and new sources of alternative energy, and how we can effect the technological changes with the maximum possible knowledge, with the maximum possible intelligence, and the maximum possible wisdom.


FAST BREEDER TECH TRANSFERS TO USA: President Bush and Condoleezza Rice apparently signed the nuclear deal favorable to India, hoping that nuclear deal will help India reduce the carbon emission rates as well as imports of oil and gas. The nuclear deal will result in exports of American nuclear power plants and equipments and nuclear fuel. On the front of technology transfers, India may sell or transfer to the United States, the nuclear fast breeder reactor technology and thorium nuclear reactors, as India is more advanced than United States in these areas. More than 2,000 nuclear scientists have been working for three decades on nuclear power technology, most notably in its fast breeder program and thorium reactor program. President Bush therefore signed a nuclear deal with India on apparently favorable terms to India. However it is dressed up, this is a tilt towards India. India does not need the technology of nuclear power plants, and it simply needs nuclear fuels and nuclear plants and machinery. India may be ahead of the United States in nuclear fast breeder plant technology and thorium nuclear plant technology, so in reality while United States will sell nuclear power plants to India, and may buy nuclear fast breeder technology from India in exchange.


NUCLEAR POWER CHECK GLOBAL WARMING: America is belching out a 25% of the world's atmosphere-altering fumes. China follows on 16%, while relatively unindustrialized India emits 6%. President Bush reasons that carbon emission rates are unsustainable, effectively buying the argument over climate change. Secretary Condoleezza Rice reasons that providing India with nuclear power plants would help reduce India’s carbon emission rates as reduce the demand for oil and gas imports. Nuclear power plants can fuel future clean growth. President seems convinced that burning plutonium, the vital ingredient in any nuclear bomb, is the answer to clean energy generation and is pushing plans for a global project to do so.


FRENCH NUCLEAR POWER PLAY: Nuclear power as percentage of domestic electricity production among the leading nations in 2003 is as follows: France (78%), Germany (28%), Japan (23%), Britain (22%), USA (19%), Russia (16%), Canada (13%) and India (3%). Today France produces 78% of its electricity from nuclear power, and this policy has slashed France’s dependence on foreign energy and given it one of the lowest rates of greenhouse emissions in the industrialized world. The French nuclear industry has cost an estimated $120 billion. French Nuclear reactors generate electricity, which accounts for only 20% of French energy consumption, and Oil makes up 49% of French energy consumption in 2003. French nuclear reactor plants were designed by Westinghouse Electric co., based in Monroeville, PA, near Pittsburgh. In February 2006 Japan’s Toshiba Corporation agreed to buy Westinghouse. Nuclear plants technology was Pittsburgh technology but France Frenchified it. French consumers have enjoyed some of the lowest electricity rates in Europe. After the 1979 Three Mile Island nuclear plant accident in Pennsylvania, the French government ramped up nuclear oversight. The 1986 nuclear disaster near Chernobyl, Ukraine the nuclear oversight was revamped still further. In 2006, the United States has more nuclear power plants than any other country, nearly double the number of nuclear reactors in France, but they provide only 19% of America’s electricity. It has proved far harder to construct an efficient nuclear industry in USA where lots of utilities compete than in France, where government is in control. The lack of standardization in the nuclear market of USA has created inefficiencies and higher costs.


19(8) Deal helps Denuke Iran


Congress will approve the civilian nuclear deal as the United States needs India’s help in the preemptive attacks on Iran and subsequently to administer and manage Iran. India’s tacit support to American preemptive attacks on Iran is he unspoken understanding that President George Bush arrived at with Primeminister Manmohan Singh. With the tacit or open support American invasion of Iran would be more difficult, because of the mountaneous terrain in Iran. Indian military assets and armed forces would be very crucial in the regime change in Iran. The National Security Strategy 2006 identifies Iran as the country likely to present the single greatest future challenge to the United States. America-led diplomacy to halt Iran’s program to enrich nuclear fuel must succeed if confrontation is to be avoided. The preemptive strikes have been elevated to a central part of United States strategy. It has indicated a willingness to step up pressure against Iranian leaders, including the threat of penalties that the United States is pressing in the United Nations Security Council.


NUCLEAR DEAL STRENGTHENS NPT: Facts have made the NPT irrelevant to India, and it is foolish for the United States to pretend otherwise. It is better to welcome India into the nuclear club, and have it accept IAEA inspections of its civilian reactors, than leave it out in the cold as a nuclear pariah. But nothing in the Bush’s India deal would prevent India from developing 50 new warheads a year, which may fuel an Asian nuclear arms race, between India and China. Without India in the NPT, as recognized nuclear weapon power, the NPT would get thrown over the side, and there would be little to prevent Iran or others from following in North Korea’s footsteps.


INDIA & USA TO JOINTLY DENUKE IRAN: President Bush accepted India as a de facto recognized nuclear weapon power, to win Indian support in present and future measures to prohibit Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and delivery systems. President George W. Bush met with Indian Prime Minister Man Mohan Singh in New Delhi and took a nuclear gamble by plumping for favoritism in favor of nuclear, rather than sticking to principle to continue keeping India a pariah. Had President Bush not signed the Indian nuclear deal, India may not have supported United States to approve UN Security Council’s sanctions on Iran. By recognizing India as a legitimate nuclear power, President Bush is sure to get India’s support to prohibit Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.


Ten years from now, George Bush's determination to rewrite nuclear rules for preventing the atom bomb's spread judged to have been courageously right. In striking President Bush’s deal with India, which allows India to import nuclear fuel, nuclear power plants and nuclear technology despite its nuclear weapons building programs, George Bush and Condoleezza Rice seemed readier to favor a new ally than stick to a principle. George Bush and Condoleezza rice are gambling that the future benefits of accepting a rising nuclear India in all but name as a member of the nuclear club and de facto recognized nuclear weapon power, will outweigh the shock to the global anti-proliferation regime, NPT and NSG. President has secure the permanent consent of India to deep Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, as it would be a geopolitical nightmare if Shiite Iran becomes a second nuclear weapon power in the neighborhood of India, besides Pakistan, with nuclear capable North Korean missiles in stock. India must not and shall not accept Iran as a nuclear weapon power as it threatens India’s very existence. Had President Bush not accepted the legitimacy of Indian nuclear deterrent, then Indian policy makers might have suspected that the West could target to denuke India, after the cleansing Iran of nukes. With India safely on the side of America in the Clash of civilizations, the West could count of India’s consent to denuke Iran. President Bush took a calculated gamble and in his rush to accommodate nuclear India, Bush won the support of nuclear India to restrain Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons or nuclear weapon technology, and thus greatly enhanced the chances to force Iran accept wide range nuclear restraints, and thus enforce nuclear peace in South Asia, one of the world's tougher neighborhoods.

Secretary Rice wisely introduced new thinking in the anti-proliferation game, by inviting nuclear India to join the nuclear club, to gain India’s support to denuke Iran, as nuclear Iran presents direct geopolitical nuclear threat to India, which might some day necessitate preemptive strikes against Iran. United States would require India’s direct participation in any military action against Iran. North Korea has broken every rule of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and boasts proudly of its bomb. Iran threatens to resume nuclear enrichment program. Iran might have bought some ready made nukes in Dr. A. Q. Khan’s nuke bazaar. It is very likely that United States may have to invade Iran to keep it away from making nukes, which makes the role of India very crucial. Since Iranian nukes would present direct geopolitical threat to 1.1 billion people of India, it may willingly join United States in the invasion of Iran to keep Iran non-nuclear.


REAGAN & CIA OVERLOOKED PAKISTAN’S NUKE BAZAAR: Those in the Congress and in the government bureaucracy that presently opposing President Bush’s nuclear deal with India, were responsible for allowing Dr. A. Q. Khan’s Nuke Bazaar and they had bullied the CIA to overlook the illicit trade in nuclear components, even though it was a common knowledge. The protégés of Dr. Henry Kissinger and Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski might have encouraged Muslim Pakistan to steal, buy and develop uranium enrichment plant technology and components to keep Hindu nuclear India under check. In the 1980s, the Reagan-Bush administration was so eager to use Pakistan as a route to get Stinger missiles and other weapons to Osama bin-Laden and Islamic radicals fighting Soviet troops in Afghanistan that CIA analysts were bullied into closing their eyes to Pakistan's development of a nuclear bomb. The CIA prohibited Dutch government to detain Dr. A. Q. Khan for nuclear technology theft. Then, Pakistani bomb-makers contributed to nuclear proliferation both by selling the nuclear technology to terrorist Islamic nations, including Iraq, Libya, Saudi Arabia and Malaysia to raise funds Pakistan’s nuke program and gave rival India an incentive to build its own nuclear bomb. Indian nuclear bomb makers in 1988, were afraid that had either United States or Pakistan had come to know of Indian plan to explode nuclear devices, it might have caused Pakistan’s preemptive nuclear strikes against India in 1988.


19(9) India Deal Balances China

CHINA FACTOR IN BUSH-SINGH DEAL: China factor clicked the nuclear deal with India. President Bush and Secretary Rice gave a favorable nuclear deal to India to gain India’s confidence and direct participation in the American policy for balancing the rise of China. It is in India’s geopolitical interest to join and support American policy of containment of China. The United States is trying to forge closer military cooperation with countries surrounding China. The United States is trying to “contain” Chinese ambitions. In Southeast and East Asia United States once as a super power but now has to navigate uneasily because of China’s spreading influence. United States has expressed concern over the rising power of China. Australia and China have struck markedly different tones over the rising power of China, with Secretary Rice criticizing China’s military expansion. Secretary Rice criticized China’s 14 percent increase in military spending as demanded that China should undertake to be transparent about what it means. Australia warned United States against trying to contain Chinese ambitions. “Australia does not support a policy of containment of China. Australia doesn’t think that’s going to be a productive or constructive policy at all,” said Foreign Minister Alexander Downer. Japan is concerned about threat from rising China and rising nationalist sentiments in both Japan and China have worsened their relations. The trilateral security alliance of United States, India and Japan, makes geopolitical sense. President Bush signed the civilian nuclear deal with India as a prelude to forge closer military cooperation with countries surrounding China, to provide geopolitical mass to United States existing military ties with Japan and South Korea.


CHINA IS MAJOR REGIONAL POWER: Secretary Rice gave the nuclear deal to India, because Indonesia and Australia have developed very deep economic ties with China, and thus may not be interested in joining the United States to contain China. China has now established as the paramount regional power in Southeast Asia. This is widely recognized in Southeast Asia, however people may choose to express the idea.” Secretary Rice warned of China’s military buildup and China’s long-term negative role. Dr. Rice seems to suggest that the United States might be recruiting partners, particularly Australia and Japan, in an effort to contain China. America has a joint responsibility and obligation to try and produce conditions in which the rise of China will be a positive force in international politics not a negative force. China’s role emerges as major issue for Southeast Asia. The overriding interest of Indonesia and Australia can be summed up in one word: China. For Indonesia and Australia, China is not just a rising power, but has already arrived as the regional power that spreads economic benefits. China is driving intra-Asian economic integration through the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), which excludes the United States, and by 2010 the ASEAN trade with China is likely to outstrip its trade with the United States. In Indonesia, China has turned on the charm, transforming a relationship that was once fraught with suspicion into a blossoming economic partnership. The enduring economic boom in Australia is almost solely a result of exporting natural resources to China: huge amounts of iron ore and alumina and soon natural gas and uranium.


CONTAIN CHINA WITHOUT BEING A STOOGE: The real motivation for the US is to draw India into the vortex of its own global power play, especially with the aim of containing China. The Leviathan of South Asia is awake enough to take care of itself. India functioning within the checks and balances of democracy, knows how to keep its eyes wide open against any machinations to make India a stooge of some super power’s stratagems. India would now willingly cooperate with United States and other regional to attempt containment of China, but only when it would not risk making South Asia a theater of any major war.


CHINA TRADE IMPACTS INDIA-USA DEAL: Indian diplomats has been pro-China for too long and pro-China lobby in Indian Foreign Service, may conspire to ensure that the new understandings with America do not have anything to do with a wish to contain China. It may be true no formal India-USA alliance is being formed against China. However, many aspects of the U.S.-India partnership resemble the sort of common endeavors allies undertake in regard to a common rival, among them joint protection of crucial sea lanes in Asia, sharing of intelligence and close co-operation in security matters. There are economic reasons for India to seek friendly relations with China while firming up a strategic partnership with the United States. India-China bilateral trade expected to surpass India-USA bilateral trade. Trade between India and China has been growing at more than 30 per cent per year. With both economies expanding and guzzling energy, the two governments realize they have a shared interest in not driving up the price for energy resources by bidding against each other. So in January 2006, India and China signed a deal, agreeing not to compete for the same oil or natural gas concessions. China, with which India also fought a border war a half-century ago, also appears to view the U.S. agreement with India with at least some anxiety.


CHINA FACTOR: India presents the United States and the West with enormous capitalist economic opportunities. China offers its blend of Marxism, capitalism and autocracy, which does not recognize private property, to developing countries in Asia and beyond, especially ASEAN economies to tie them with Chinese economic infrastructure. Democratic capitalist India is a monument to the idea that developing countries can prosper under capitalism and enjoy the many blessings of democracy.


INDIA HELPS CONTAINMENT OF CHINA: Secretary Rice correctly perceives the military and economic threat Communist China presents to India and the United States. However, China presents greater threat to the United States, Australia and Southeast Asia than to India. The military reality is that China poses no danger that India cannot now deal with independently, as in terms of conventional military power India enjoys military parity with China on borders. It is not clear to Indian policymakers, how alienating China by joining a United States’ sponsored scheme of containment of China, will add to India's security. India realizes that America needs India's help to offset China in any future conventional warfare in Southeast Asia makes great sense, even when there is a gargantuan gap favoring the United States in all reasonable measures of power, save population and geopolitics. The recent technological advances in precision guided munitions and anti-ship cruise missiles, which made the aircraft carrier battle groups vulnerable to Brahmos anti-ship cruise missiles, made the Indian Infantry the crucial element that alone could contain Communist China and check its expansionist ambitions in Southeast Asia and Australia.


NUCLEAR INDIA BALANCES NUCLEAR CHINA: The Bush administration lifted sanctions that had been imposed on India after its nuclear testing in nuclear 1998. Ending the sanctions was a supreme act of realism, since they were never going to get India to forswear its nuclear weapons program and were only an irritant in our relationship. A nuclear India could be a high hurdle for Chinese military ambitions to overcome. The Chinese will have to devote a significant part of its resources to deploy opposite a nuclear power in its neighborhood. It is almost certain that in the wake of the Indian nuclear deal, the nuclear arms race between India and China will accelerate, but that is a price George Bush and Condoleezza Rice are ready to pay, even if it is totally opposed to their own declarations.


BUSH BETTING ON INDIA BECOMING WORLD POWER: Secretary Condoleezza Rice and president Bush is betting on India becoming one of the world's great powers, in the near future. George Bush and secretary Condoleezza Rice are seeking to take advantage of the changing power relations in Asia, where India is fast rising as an economic power and emerging as a natural counter balance to China. President Bush's trip to south Asia must be seen the light of America’s subtly shifting policies. Afghanistan gets a stopover visit from President Bush, stamping Afghanistan with a seal of approval. India gets its natural ally status and a bagful of American deals, especially its recognition as a de facto nuclear weapon power. The reason for such contrasting stays is Bush's vision of south Asia is dominated, by the rise of a potential competitor and control of the planet's future energy resource. As the world’s economic center of gravity shifts to Asia, there is greater recognition of India as a strategic counterweight not only to China but to provide diplomatic options to Japan and Russia. The world history, at least in American eyes, is about relations and balance of power among great powers. In Secretary Rice and President’s worldview, nuclear India with a dynamic economy and world’s fourth largest GNP in terms of PPP dollars, is one of the global powers of the world or about to become one of world powers, so it is in the national interest of the United States to bring India into the American Camp by offering India access to civilian nuclear technology and by recognizing it as de facto legitimate nuclear weapon power. But the de facto status will in due course turn into the de jure one.


USA-CHINA-INDIA TRIANGULAR BALANCE: The Nuclear deal comes at a cost of India’s tacit consent to join the United States in the containment of China, which India would love to do. The nuclear cooperation agreement between the United States and India was a simple trade-off: The United States was willing to risk losing ground in the worldwide campaign to limit the spread of nuclear weapons with a civilian nuclear deal with India, hoping India could help United States counter the rising military power of China.

Bush administration realizes that an India that is economically more prosperous and militarily armed with nuclear weapons represents a hedge against Chinese military ambitions. With China's ambitions unclear, such a hedge is an important component of Pentagon’s strategy. Counterbalancing China "is an under-the-surface issue that only rarely pokes its head up, but it is very much there."

The US- Japanese strategic relationship ensures that the United States has a close and capable ally on China's northeast flank. The nuclear deal with India reflects an American desire to build a military alliance on China's southwest edge. The nuclear agreement lifts a moratorium on civilian nuclear cooperation with India and permits India's continued work on nuclear arms. The United States wants to strengthen India to offset China. Allowing India build up its nuclear arsenal is not only in New Delhi's interest, but Washington's. An Indian nuclear arsenal will cause Beijing to worry more about India and less about the United States. Officially neither the United States nor India contend that they consider China an enemy, or a force that needs to be "contained," as the United States once sought to contain the Soviet Union. It is more accurate to describe the US strategy as an effort to offset one rising power by building up one that is considered closer in values and outlook to the United States.

This deal is an effort to counterbalance the rise of China, but one shouldn't go so far as to say to contain China or to be antagonistic toward it. "The United States obviously have an interest in a large democratic, multiethnic society such as India as a counterbalance to the Chinese in the region. India and China say they do not want to compete with each other militarily. In 2003, India and China signed an agreement to build a "long term constructive and cooperative partnership" based on "peaceful coexistence." Indeed, their relations have improved in recent years, as seen in the settlement of old border disputes and an agreement aimed at reducing competition for oil. Yet India and China are also taking steps that could lead to confrontation. China, for example, is helping Pakistan build a submarine base at Gwadar, in Baluchistan, where Pakistan claims India is backing insurgents to destabilize the region.

At the start of President George W Bush's first term, dealing with China's growing power was a top priority of many policymakers, beginning with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and then-deputy Paul Wolfowitz. Meeting the challenge of China was a central tenet of the "neoconservative" creed associated with Bush's inner circle.

But China lost its top priority spot after the September 11 attacks. Since then, policymakers have placed more emphasis on cooperation with Beijing along with an increased emphasis on terrorism, the North Korean nuclear threat and other issues. Former secretary of state Colin Powell boasted that relations with China were the best they had ever been. And even Rumsfeld made moves to begin restoring the US-Chinese military relationship. Pentagon officials acknowledge that national security experts still debate how to counterbalance China. Discussions now frequently center on what is the most productive way to influence China's development as a nation. While China was a key factor in the nuclear deal with India, it is not Bush administration's only motive.


BALANCE OF POWER SHIFTING TOWARDS ASIA: As part of a restructuring of America’s diplomatic services, the White House announced a reduction in the number of diplomats in Europe and an increase in its presence in Asia. Explaining the diplomatic reshuffle, Condoleezza Rice is reported to have said that in the 21st century, emerging countries like India and China "are increasingly shaping the course of history." The landmark nuclear deal between the US and India reached last week during George Bush's visit to Delhi is another step in that direction. Second, Mittal Steel's dramatic £12.7 billion hostile takeover bid for Arcelor, the European steel giant, generated a heated controversy in Europe. Both events have a common sub-text, which reads as follows: The balance of power in the world is slowly shifting eastwards, towards Asia. The comparative analysis of the reduction of American diplomats in Europe, with European discontentment over Mittal Steel's bid shows while United States embraced India and Asia with vigor, France and Europe heading towards protectionist mode. French finance ministry’s opposition to the Mittal Steel’s bid are founded not purely on economic criteria but are driven by a resistance to the idea of a European conglomerate falling into foreign ownership. While the US is keen to demonstrate a forward looking and pragmatic approach by strengthening ties with India, in contrast, by reverting obdurately to protectionist impulses, European countries and France are in danger of being left behind in a changing world, where balance of power and economic center of gravity is shifting towards Asia from Europe.


WORSENING HUMAN RIGHTS IN CHINA: The Annual State Department Report on Human Rights Conditions Globally, March 2006, said that situation worsened in China in 2005, revising a modest trend toward improved respect for rights that were observed earlier. United States should aggressively work to censure China at the annual United Nations human rights convention in Geneva, which shall take place in April 2006.


CHINA’S RURAL LAND ISSUE & CORRUPTION: India and United States should promote pro-democracy forces and non-Han peoples and rural farmers to help overthrow the Communist dictatorship in China and establish democracy in China. Totalitarian Communist China can no longer have the capitalist type fast economic growth in economic zones, which recognize right to private property, but deny the right to strike to workers and deny the private property rights to rural farmers, without undermining the socialistic system of the society. Communist China would either face a Buddhist Capitalist revolution or backlash to Maoist communist fundamentalism, which would abolish private property rights in special economic zones to party leaders and foreign investors. Corrupt communist party leaders have stolen more than $4 trillion of national assets and siphoned the money abroad. “China’s rapid economic rise is accompanied by a high concentration of all kinds acute problems, including official corruption by some officials who have violated the rights of the people. The land issue is the biggest problem facing hundreds of millions of farmers. China intends to close the income gap between urban and rural areas and create a new socialist countryside,” said Prime Minister Wen Jiabao. But one major rural issue- whether farmers can have more control over the sale of their leased farmland- seems unlikely to change in the near future. Government studies show that at least 40 million farmers have been left landless in recent years, often because of illegal seizures by local officials who exploit the current policy. That policy grants villages, collective ownership over farmland, which is then leased to individual farmers. Corrupt officials often seize farmland and sell out to developers at a fat profit, while farmers get little compensation. Mr. Wen Jiabao said more enforcement is needed, to ensure that farmers’ land rights are protected and that are paid fair compensation when their land is confiscated.


Marxists Control Half World Cocaine Trade

Colombian Catholic Cocaine Marxists control half of the world’s cocaine trade. Global drug trade in Cocaine and Heroin generates for he organized crime, more than $700 billion annually, and half of it more than $350 generated in the United States. Chinese people and Catholics control the Heroin trade of the Golden Triangle of Myanmar (Burma), Laos and Cambodia. The flood of direct foreign investments (FDIs) in China is an efficient and lucrative means of laundering global drug incomes. It is no accident that Catholic Marxists control the cocaine trade in Colombia and Heroin trade in Asian Golden Triangle or Burma. The Plan Colombia policy of President Clinton and Secretary Madeleine Albrights has misfired as the erstwhile military commanders have turned to drug trafficking to make money, once the American aid dried. The America-sponsored fumigation campaign against the coca plant, made the agricultural lands in the oil-rich area of Colombia, Peru, Bolivia and Ecuador barren, raising suspicion that fumigation campaign primarily aimed to remove farmers and indigenous populations out of the oil-producing regions by destroying their agricultural base. The Plan Colombia merely helped in the monopolistic consolidation of major Catholic Colombian Cocaine Cartels in the Cocaine trade and used American support in eliminating the non-cartel drug traffickers. The global laundering of incomes of drug cartels in form of foreign direct investments in China may explain the capital flow into China. It is in the national interest of India and China to stop the flow of Drug incomes into China as FDIs.


Pro-China Oppose Indian Nuclear Deal

(1) Principal opposition to President Bush’s civilian nuclear deal with India in American media, Congress and elites comes from Albright/Kissinger’s Realists, supporters of President Bill Clinton and from all those who kept mum when Congressional Cox Report 1999, exposed the rampant Chinese nuclear espionage in the United States and President Bill Clinton and Energy Secretary Richardson’s deliberate inaction for putting a stop to the nuclear espionage, even years after it had come to their notice. Such opponents to nuclear deal with India as had remained silent over Cox Report on Chinese nuclear espionage show their moral bankruptcy or disloyalty to the United States.


(2) Congressional Cox Report, 3rd January 1999 on Chinese espionage of nuclear weapon technology from American Nuclear Weapon Research Laboratories, explains Clinton Administration had failed to protect theft of American nuclear technology and continued to overlook the ongoing nuclear espionage, even when it was brought to the notice of the Administration. President Clinton the Bombing of Yugoslavia within weeks after the publication of the Cox Report on January 3, 1999, so that the media would lose interest in the Cox Report China (PRC) has stolen design information on the United States most advanced thermonuclear weapons. China’s next generation of thermonuclear weapons, currently under development, will exploit elements of stolen U.S. design information. Chinese penetration of our national weapons laboratories spans at least the past several decades and almost certainly continues today. China (PRC) has stolen design information on the United States’ most advanced thermonuclear weapons. China has stolen classified design information on the United States’ most advanced thermonuclear weapons. These thefts of nuclear secrets from our national weapons laboratories enabled China to design, develop, and successfully test modern strategic nuclear weapons sooner than would otherwise have been possible. The stolen U.S. nuclear secrets give China design information on thermonuclear weapons on a par with our own.


(3) The Chinese thefts from American National Laboratories began at least as early as the late 1970s, and significant secrets have been stolen as recently as the mid-1990s. Such thefts almost certainly continue to the present. The stolen information includes classified information on seven U.S. thermonuclear warheads, including every currently deployed thermonuclear warhead in the U.S. ballistic missile arsenal. China has obtained classified information on the following Seven U.S. thermonuclear warheads, as well as a number of associated reentry vehicles (the hardened shell that protects the thermonuclear warhead during reentry). The China has stolen the technology of the following seven U.S. Warheads and Nuclear Missile Currently Deployed: (i) W-88 Trident D-5 SLBM, (ii) W-87 Peacekeeper ICBM, (iii) W-78 Minuteman III (Mark 12A) ICBM, (iv) W-76 Trident C-4 SLBM, (v) W-62 Minuteman III ICBM. China has also stolen the technology of the following warheads, namely: (vi) W-56 Minuteman II ICBM, (vii) W-70 Lance SRBM.

W-88 WARHEAD: The W-88, a miniaturized, tapered warhead, is the most sophisticated nuclear weapon the United States has ever built. In the U.S. arsenal, it is mated to the D-5 submarine-launched ballistic missile carried aboard the Trident nuclear submarine. The United States learned about the theft of the W-88 Trident D-5 warhead information, as well as about the theft of information regarding several other nuclear weapons, in 1995.


NEUTRON BOMB WARHEAD: China has stolen U.S. design information and other classified information for neutron bomb warheads. China stole classified U.S. information about the neutron bomb from a U.S. national weapons laboratory. The U.S. learned of the theft of this classified information on the neutron bomb in 1996. The stolen information includes classified design information for enhanced radiation weapon known as the "neutron bomb", which neither the United States nor any other nation has yet deployed.


Pro-Pakistan Oppose Indian Nuclear Deal

Many of those opposing President Bush’s civilian nuclear deal with India, are people and politicians that during Reagan and Clinton Administration either encouraged or looked other way while Dr. A. Q. Khan’s nuke bazaar operated global clandestine trade in uranium enrichment plant centrifuges, North Korea missiles and Chinese Atom Bomb design manuals.

Principal opposition to President Bush’s civilian nuclear deal with India in American media, Congress and elites comes from Albright/Kissinger’s Realists, supporters of President Bill Clinton and from all those who kept mum while Pakistan flaunted its Uranium enrichment plant at Kahuta, with stolen German and Dutch technology and components. Those who criticize nuclear deal with India openly or secretly consented for Pakistan’s development of Atom Bomb to counter balance India. The supporters of Chinese nuclear espionage in the United States and the supporters of Pakistani theft of uranium enrichment plant technology, missiles and Chinese atom bomb designs have done a great disservice to the United States, and they are adding insult to injury they have caused by opposing President Bush’s civilian nuclear deal with India.


19(10) Ratification of Deal

PRO-CHINA LOBBY CAUSING NUCLEAR HURDLES: Secretary Madeleine Albright had been anti-India and so were the officials of the Clinton Administration, who all were in pro-China camp. A nexus between China, Pakistan and former Clinton Administration officials, conspiring to oppose the removal of sanctions against India appears set to emerge. Within the Nuclear Suppliers Group, China will attempt to undermine moves to remove sanctions against India by demanding that its partner in proliferation, Pakistan, should be treated similarly.


EXPERTS SUPPORT INDIAN NUCLEAR DEAL: The pro-nuke deal and pro-India forum expert say, ''Congress should support the agreement to promote US strategic interests, US non-proliferation goals, US energy security and global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions leading to global warming.'' The strategic argument for implementing the agreement has to take into account the rise of China. A strong, stable India will advance the traditional US objective of an Asian balance of power in which no one nation is able to exercise overwhelming dominance. Failure to implement the agreement would be a blow to the development of a strong relationship with India so important to achieving US goals in Asia and beyond''. It has been signed by luminaries such as Director Asia Program Selig Harrison, who is also senior scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center, Associate Director Walter Andersen, South Asia Studies, at the Johns Hopkins University, former Assistant Secretary of State Rick Inderfurth, Brookings Institution Senior Fellow Stephen Cohen, two former US ambassador to India Frank Wisner and William Clark, Center for Strategic International Studies (CSIS) Director Teresita Schaffer, Robert Hathaway, Director of Asia program, Woodrow Wilson Center, Thomas Donnell, resident fellow, American Enterprise Institute, and Harold Gould, visiting scholar, Center for south Asian studies, University of Virginia.


INDIA HIRES TOP LOBBYISTS IN WASHINGTON: India isn't relying on diplomacy alone to win the U.S. Congress's backing for the controversial nuclear cooperation pact announced by George W. Bush and Indian Prime Minister Man Mohan Singh in New Delhi. India is playing the Washington game like the locals do, with paid lobbyists. Long before Bush's visit, India lined up two lobbying firms to sell the deal. The Indian embassy in Washington DC, signed a $700,000 contract last fall with Barbour, Griffith & Rogers, an outfit led by Robert Blackwill, Bush's ambassador to India from 2001 to 2003. The embassy is also paying $600,000 to Venable, a firm that boasts former Democratic Senator Birch Bayh of Indiana as its point man.


MR. BUSH’S ASIAN ROAD TRIP: Mr. Bush's Asian Road Trip and civilian nuclear deal with India promoted geopolitical national interests of the United States. Firstly, President Bush's visit to India, the world's 4th largest economy in terms of purchasing power parity, enhanced America's national security by bringing nuclear India into the American Camp for the first time. Nuclear deal generated the greatest amount of good will for the United States among 1.1 billion people of India. Secondly, geopolitician Secretary Dr. Condoleezza Rice spectacularly well conceived President Bush's trip to India, which marvelously mobilized nuclear India on the side of the United States. Nuclear deal with India can undo the damage done by Dr. Khan's nuclear bazaar and his sale of nuke technology to Iran, by gaining India’s support in any future American moves to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapon, enriching weapon grade uranium or nuclear capable missiles. The US-India nuclear deal strengthened NPT as without India as the recognized nuclear power, the NPT had less moral credentials of its own, and keeping nuclear India as a nuclear pariah, even when India had been a nuclear power since 1974, eroded the moral foundations of NPT. Thirdly, it is wrong to argue that Pakistan felt obliged to explode atom bombs within India's explosion in 1988, as atom bomb is not a fast food that can be built in few weeks. President Reagan turned a blind eye to the theft of nuclear technology and nuclear materials by Dr. A. Q. Khan, in order to gain Pakistan’s assistance as a conduit of arms to Mujahideens in Afghanistan. How come the CIA didn't expose Dr. Khan's nuke bazaar while it existed for decades?  Fourthly, neither Pakistan nor Iran nor North Korea is any match to India. India's GNP in PPP dollars is more than the combined GNP of all Muslim nations of the world, including those of OPEC nations. Sixthly, if the Congress looks at the nuclear deal with India from the perspective of American national interests and geopolitics, then it shall immediately ratify the Bush-Man Mohan Singh deal on civilian nuclear technology. Failure to ratify President Bush’s nuclear deal with India shall undermine geopolitical national interests of the United States. Seventhly, Geopolitically speaking, history shall record President Bush and Secretary Rice as the most competent President and Secretary of State respectively. Let Geopolitics and national interests define the foreign policy of the United States. President Bush reshaped the 21st Century by signing nuclear deal with democratic India, the home of one sixth of the mankind.


CONGRESS WILL OK NUCLEAR DEAL: President Bush has survived rough scrapes before. There are signs that Mr. Bush’s once limitless supply of political capital had few resources left, an extraordinary turn of events so early in the second term of a president whose party control both wings of Congress. The open rebellion of his own Republican party in Congress at almost every turn, forced the White House to accept changes in the Patriot Act; challenged the Administration’s domestic wiretapping program; and overturned Dubai company’s takeover of terminals at major American ports. The Republican are openly attacking the president in the area of his greatest strength with the public – national security. Can President Bush recover the political clout to advance his geopolitical agenda by securing Congressional approval of the civilian nuclear deal with India? Scholars say it is too soon to begin closing the books on Mr. Bush’s legacy. After all, he has engineered the Supreme Court nominations of Justice Samuel a. Alito Jr. and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. And he is taking advantage of he growth of the federal government over the last 60 years, a shift that has put much of the power of the executive agencies solely in the president’s hands and often far from public view. When Congress takes up the subject of civilian nuclear deal with India this spring, it is expected to pass it, as it realizes that the successful implementation of American national security strategy, including pro-democracy crusades, balancing the rise of Communist China, and regime change in Mullah-run Iran to keep nukes out of the hands of Iran, would be possible only when democratic India is firmly in the American Camp in the ongoing clash of civilization. Congress may raise few objections which are implanted b pro-China lobbyists belonging to Kissingerian realism and Albright’s fundamentalism.


19(11) Bushian Universalism

BUSHIAN UNIVERSALISM: Bushian Universalism believes that history is not a prison. Culture shapes people, but cultures are changeable. In 2005, at second inauguration speech, President Bush spoke that freedom is God’s gift to humanity that people everywhere hunger for liberty. He hit all high notes of American creed. Bush/Rice represents American conservatism and have an Enlightenment faith in the power of reason to change minds. Bush/Rice Universalism believes that American Creed can help transform the Third World’s culture of poverty, the culture of tyranny, the culture of totalitarian dictatorship. It is true that the covert or overt operations of the United States or the CIA caused the military coups and failures of many if not most democracies that were either toppled or failed in the Non-Aligned Third World after the Second World War. Prior to President Bush the American creed was to overthrow the democratically elected governments in the Non-aligned Third World, perhaps believing that democratically elected governments would not be friendly to the United States. Secretary Rice and second Bush Administration changed anti-democratic worldview of American creed. The continental size, populous, multi-ethnic democratic capialist India and the United States are “Exemplar States” in the post-nation state new world order. The European Union is not a model Exemplar State for the Third World in the post-nation state world order. Bush/Rice have a faith that crusades for democracy can transform patterns of behavior. 


THYMOTIC BUSH SEEKS PLACE IN HISTORY: Nuclear deal is truly a history making deal that catapulted President Bush, Secretary Rice and Prime Minister Singh into the ranks of great world leaders. Civilian nuclear deal satisfied the thymos, the hunger for worldclass recognition of leaders of USA and India. President Bush signed the civilian nuclear deal with India to satisfy his hunger for recognition as the greatest president of the United States in the 21st Century. Secretary Condoleezza Rice the pro-India, pro-democracy, anti-China foreign policy of the United States to get recognition as the leading geopolitician of the world. The civilian nuclear deal allows India join the American Camp in the global clash of civilizations and provide the missing link in the regme change in Iran and containment of China. President George Bush is a thymotic man partially chastened by Christianity. President Bush wants recognition. Mr. Bush want others to recognize his significance. George Bush is not motivated by greed for money or lust for power, though money and powr are means to get recognition. Money and power are markers for success, and success makes men feel important. The political patnership in Wasshington is a thymotic contest in stilts.


Politicians are motivated by the huger for: Recognition, Power, Wealth, Desire and Idea. Plato famously divided the soul into three parts: Reason, Epithymia (appetitive part of the soul, eros Desire) and Thymos (the hunger for Recognition). Thymos is what motivates the best and worst things men do. Thymos drives them to seek glory and assert themselves aggressively for noble causes. Thymos drives them to rage if others don’t recognize their worth. Thymotic people mobilize to assert their group’s significance if they feel that they are being rendered invisible by the society. In the thymotic urge, selfishness and selflessness are interwined. But thymos also induces them to sacrifice for causes larger than themselves. All politics is a competition for recognition. The US-India civilian nuclear deal satisfies the thymotic needs, the hunger for recognition at world stage for Protestant President George W. Bush, Sikh Prime Minister Man Mohan Singh and Black woman Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.


REPUBLICAN CULTURAL DETERMINISM: The ideology of Cultural Determinism as well as Kissingerian Realism, simply camouflages the morally bad or immoral policies implemented by realists belonging to the Kissinger/Brzezinski/Albright camp who used CIA covert operations to engineer the military coups or ordered direct invasions to overthrow the democratically elected governments in the Non-Aligned Third World, and justified it in the name of realism, national security or culturl determinism. Bush/Rice have rejected these policies and argue that United States now onwards should use its resources to promote nation building and to undertake crusades worldwide to help the Third World reorganize into multi-ethnic, multi-religion democracies, copying the idea of Indian democratic model, as India is an Exemplar Democratic Model in the post-Nation State world order. The Confederation of European Union is not an Exemplar Model for democracy in the Third World. History is not a prison of culture. Culture shapes people but cultures are changeable. Democratic institution is and instrument of change of Culture, Society, Politics and the Civilization.


Cultural determinists look at Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations,” and argue that Huntingtonianism doesn’t advocate any changes in the Muslim world it just calls for a less contact with it. Republican and Democratic cultural determinists want to raise a high wall around the extremist fundamentalist society, to let them abuse woman and deny freedom to their people, so long as they do not come outside the wall to make terrorist attacks on America. Republicans advocates of cultural determinism are comfortable for using force abroad, but have little patience for a deep entanglement with the Muslim world, which they consider unredeemable, or at least not worth the strenuous efforts of trying to redeem. Republican cultural determinists look at car bombs and Prophet cartoon riots and wonder whether Islam is really a religion of peace. They look at the mayhem in the Middle East and just want to withdraw. The misguided doctrine of cultural determinism is propagated by arch-fundamentalist Papacy and anti-democracy immoral realism that Kissinger/Albright advocated to justify the CIA sponsored military coups in moderate Islamic countries such as Pakistan and Indonesia as well as artificially supporting monarchies in oil-producing Middle East. American secret services imposed the rule of Wahhabi Monarchy in Saudi Arabia and Wahhabi sheikhdoms in the Arabian Gulf. President Carter and Secretary Zbigniew Brzezinski imposed the rule of Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran by engineering the overthrow of Pahlevi Monarchy in the name of democracy and they bring down the government of democratically elected government of Prime Minister Shahpur Bakhtiar and used Pentagon’s links to sniff out any possibility of military government in Iran. Secretary Madeleine Albright brought down the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Nawaj Sharief and supported the military coup of General Pervez Musharraf.



Republican Neo-conservatives most vigorously advocate muscular American campaign to foster democratic movements. Republican realists are not opposed to the crusades for democracy, but are not so confident that the policy for crusades for democracy could work.



Prophetic Christians who shape their view of politics and world around signs that are predictors of apocalypse, would support nuclear deal with India, as they realize that Iranian atom bomb fitted on North Korean design missiles is the sign that is one of the predictors of the apocalypse. Only India can help save the world in the time of apocalypse as it alone has the military manpower to denuke Rogue nuclear nation Iran. Civil nuclear deal allows President Bush to undertake decisive preemptive invasion of Iran, in the event Mullahs of Iran refused to back down from acquiring nuclear weapons. The end of time teleology forecast dire consequences in case Iran gains access to nukes and Ian possesses nuclear-capable missiles. Bush administration has calculatedly reached out to Prophetic Christians, who often shape their view of politics and world around signs that charlatan biblical scholars have identified as predictors of the apocalypse. He has encouraged prophetic Christians see president’s policies as a response to premillennialist thought. President Bush and some members of his administration may actually believe these things themselves, that religion is the basis of policy, not just a tactic for selling it to the public. "Some worry that it is somehow undiplomatic or impolite to speak the language of right and wrong. I disagree. Different circumstances require different methods, but not different moralities," declares President Bush. A very large group of Protestants, perhaps as many as third of Protestant population in America, claims to believe in the supposed biblical prophecies of an imminent “rapture” – the return of Jesus to the world and the elevation of believers to heaven. 



President Bush gave a favorable civilian nuclear deal to India to secure India’s participation in the American goals for energy security, especially the Middle East including Iran. The role of oil in defining and distorting American foreign and domestic policy is a broad trend, not new to the Bush years, but exacerbated by Bush administration’s policies. President Bush thinks Iraq as a military base with a very large oil reserve underneath. You can’t ask better than that. Terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, tyranny, democracy and other public rationales were simply ruses to disguise the real motivation for the invasion of Iraq. The pursuit of oil has for at least 30 years after 1971, one of the defining elements of American policy in the world. Bush administration, unusually dominated by the oilmen, has taken the America’s addiction to oil to a new and terrifying levels. The United States has embraced a kind of “petro-imperialism,” the key aspect of which is the Pentagon’s transformation into a global oil-protection force. The US military puts up a democratic façade, emphasizes freedom of the seas for pipeline routes and seeks to secure and protect, drill and ship oil, not administer everyday affairs.


BUSH’S INTERNATIONALISM: There is no rising tide of isolationism in the United States, even with the bloodshed in Iraq. Instead of seeing a return to isolationism, poll after poll, American public opinion returning to normal post-World War II levels, after the unusual 9/11 blip. Pew survey found that 42 percent of Americans believe that the United States should mind its own business, a 12-point rise over three years. But 42 percent number puts Americans back where they were throughout the Clinton years, when Americans supported more foreign interventions than ever before. American public support American engagement in foreign affairs and support for multilateral actions remains phenomenally strong. In the 1940’s during the heyday of American internationalism, 69 percent said America should be active abroad. In 2006, the share of people who say that is the same: 69 percent. The influence of Reagan and Bush and the growing evangelical interest in foreign affairs have virtually eliminated isolationism from the Republican Party, the traditional home of isolationism in America.



American public opinion favors President Bush’s planned preemptive attacks on Iran to keep Mullahs from getting hold of nuclear technology and weapon-grade enriched uranium. The defeat in the Vietnam War caused America and subsequent genocide of 2 million Buddhists with the alleged complicity of Secretary Dr. Kissinger, resulted in the swing from extroversion to introversion. The Iraq was has a different dynamic, the American armies conquered and colonized oil-rich Iraq with almost no war casualties, except by the accident. The chief effect of Iraq war is not to move the United States towards isolationism. Iraq war has shifted American opinion from one form of internationalism to another. The rising American internationalism is based on Arab exceptionalism. This is the belief that while most of the world is chugging toward a globally integrated modernistic democratic future, the Arab Wahhabi Muslim world and Shiite Iran remains caught in its own medieval whirlpool of horror. The Arab countries cannot become quickly democratic; Arab Muslims are not ready for pluralistic modernity; Arab people just have to be walled off so that they do not go around the carrying out suicide attacks so that Arab Muslim fundamentalists do not hurt the civilized world again. American people won’t express such quasi-racial vies directly to pollsters, but the attitude shows up in mammoth public reactions. As the election season progresses, American voters are going to put candidates in a contest, as who can be the toughest on the Islamic Crescent menace to the civilized world.


President Bush signed the nuclear deal with India to gain India’s support to forthcoming tough Bush measures to counter Islamic Arab Crescent menace. It is in the national interest of India to help United States, wall off the breeding grounds of global terrorism in the oil-producing Middle East, so that without disrupting the oil-production the global terrorist network of Arab terrorists is neutralized and rogue nations like Iran do not acquire nuclear know-how and uranium enrichment centrifuges.



President Bush creating Petro-imperialism based on the control of oil reserves, as oil accounts to more than 80 percent of the total value of all other metal and nonmetal commodities and minerals combined, including gold, silver, copper, platinum, aluminum. The role of crude oil in defining American foreign and domestic policy resulted in the American oil-colonization of Iraq, and would also result in the colonization of Iran. Spanish Empire in the New World based upon the gold. Just as gold created and sustained Spanish Empire and Hapsburg Spanish Empire crumbled when the colonies in the New World could no longer supply gold to Spain. Iraq is a military base with very large oil reserve underneath. The transformation of the Army means the ability to guarantee the freedom of maritime oil routes and pipeline routes and ability to secure, protect, drill and ship oil in colonies but not administer everyday affairs. American Empire Inc., or American oil colonialism is no different than the Roman Empire Inc., or British Empire Inc., or Hapsburg Spain Inc. American Empire would last as long as oilfields of the Middle East do not dry up.


Geopolitics looks Roman Empire as a multinational corporation with a business model, a coherent management structure and greedy executives. Roman conquest of Sabines may be history’s first hostile takeover. Roman imperial strategy was a canny blend of aggression and conciliation. Newly acquired territories after suffering the usual round of pillage and plunder, were welcomed warmly as new members of the Roman imperial team and offered all manners of incentives and bonuses. Rome could defeat Carthage, because Rome relied on citizen soldiers to carry out its expansion, while Carthage depended on mercenaries. The greatest of Roman executive was Julius Caesar. The Rome Inc., flourished because it had a sense of mission, a well-marketed brand and highly effective management, especially in the Middle ranks. Roman Empire could survive even when led by some dicey executives, the kind who regarded themselves as gods.


The civilian nuclear deal with India paves the way towards India-USA military alliance and India’s support to Petro-Imperialism in the Middle East, as every empire of the past based on profits from the colonies. The Petro-Imperialism and American colonial Empires shall provide energy security to India, and in return India shall provide to United States the manpower and colonial bureaucratic infrastructure to secure freedom of maritime oil routes, pipeline routes a nd to manage the drilling, exploration and oil production operations, to guarantee that American Petro-Empire Inc., remains profitable for decades to come, if not for centuries. India can help Washington DC become the new Rome. Indian Empire created Pax-Britannia and India has the proven capability to create Pax-Oil-Americana for the mutual economic profits of both the nations. Oil Colonialism and India can stop the impending decline of the American Empire or hegemon or the sole super power.



America’s Petro-Imperialism seeks to continually replenish the dwindling oil and gas reserves in North America and to maintain dollar’s virtual monopoly on oil pricing. American doctrine for petro-imperialism is pushed by pressure from Republican constituencies. American oil and gas producers worried abut dwindling oil and gas reserves in North America. First, American Big Oil finds that all major opportunities of exploration and drilling oil and gas are overseas only, where China emerged as principal competitor to United States. China is trying to lock up oil and gas reserves and supplies around the world. China seeks to direct oil markets rather than opening them up, as if they can develop mercantilist oil empires. China’s threat to Iraqi oil, where Saddam Hussein was predisposed to favor Chinese, Russian, French and German companies over American Big Oil contributed significantly towards President Bush’s preemptive attacks on Iraq. China’s strategy to lock up oil supplies of Kazakhstan, Sudan or Iran may necessitate similar preemptive attacks on these oil producers to protect America’s energy security. American Wall Street is worried that OPEC could end the dollar’s virtual monopoly on global oil pricing. Dollar likely to crash in world’s financial markets against if ever OPEC decided to price significant portion of oil sales in Euro or Yen. Saddam Hussein provoked the United States by selectively pricing some of the sales of Iraqi oil in Euro. American invasion of Iraq was a crude reminder to OPEC oil producers, not to allow China lock up the oil reserves and not to attempt ending the dollar’s virtual monopoly on oil pricing.



Neither George Bush nor Condoleezza Rice belong to religious right wing conspiracy and do not believe in premillennialist thought and they use religious beliefs as a tactics for selling their Iraqi/Iranian petro-imperialistic policies to American electorate, where 30 to 40 percent is caught up in Scripture. Fundamentalist Christians convinced that recent developments in the Iran and Middle East are signposts on the road to Armageddon, the end-time teleology and Fatima Prophecy. The 30 to 40 percent of American electorate caught up in Christian Scripture has exerted a strong pull on the Bush White House and the Republican Party. Prophetic Christians often shape their view of world politics around signs as predictors of apocalypse – among them a war in Iraq, Iran and Arabian Peninsula and the rise of petro-imperialism in the Middle East. The prophesies of an imminent “rapture” –the return of Jesus to the Middle East and the Christianization of the Middle East and the elevation of believers to heaven. Holy Koran did forecast the end of Islam in the 15th Century Hijra. Prophetic Christians and Wahhabi Muslims are hostages to their own beliefs and teachings.


Christian Reconstructionists believe in a Taliban-like reversal of women’s rights and who openly call for a theocratic American government shaped by Christian doctrine. Catholic ultraconservatism propagated by Pope John Paul II, undermined the progress Catholic Synod 1965 made. Highly conservative Christians, conservative Catholics and fundamentalist Wahhabi Muslims are all determined to bring about in the oil-producing Middle East the apocalypse, to fulfill their narrow religious agenda. American petro-imperialism that may establish oil-colonial empires throughout the Middle East may turnout to be the only way Middle East may avert the looming apocalypse. American Petro-imperialism may be god’s answer to help free the Wahhabi Muslims and Prophetic Christians from unleashing the destruction of apocalypse in the oil-rich Middle East. Wahhabi Arab Muslims, Shiite Iranians and apocalypse-seeking Christians aren’t ready for pluralistic modernity in the Middle East, they just have to be walled off so they don’t hurt civilized world, and petro-imperialistic oil colonial empires could effectively wall off the Middle East, so that they are no longer able to nurture, harbor and promote global terrorism. Petro-Imperialism would effectively choke the threat of Wahhabi and Shiite Muslim terrorism. The Prophetic Christians among Protestants and Catholics that believe in End-of-Time Apocalyptic Teleology assume that the return of Jesus in the Middle East shall result in Christianizing of the Islamic Middle East. American Petro-Imperialism has neither religious nor Christian agenda as it seeks to control oil and gas resources to make profits, and administer neither civilian nor religious affairs of the oil-colonies. President Bush may calculatedly reach out to Prophetic Christians or Christian Reconstructionists, and sell his policies arguing that they are in response to the premillennialist thought.


However, neither President Bush nor Secretary Rice actually believes these apocalyptic theories themselves, and it is just a tactic for selling his petro-imperialistic agenda to American public. Hindu India may support American petro-imperialism in the Middle East, but would vehemently oppose any policy that seeks to implement the hidden agenda of apocalyptic premillennialist thought. Hindu India may support Crusades for Democracy a well as petro-imperialism in the Middle East to promote energy security.


INDIA OPPOSES APOCALYPTIC AGENDA: Secular India will forcefully oppose any hidden fundamentalist Christian agenda in the Middle East. Hindu secular India shall support the either the “American Petro Empire” or “American Roman Empire,” but would openly oppose any design to create “Christian American Holy Roman Empire.” Secular India will support secular American hegemony, but would ruthlessly oppose any design to create religious Judeo-Christian patriarchal hegemony in the world. American Empire and Indian Empire are on the same side in the clash of Civilizations. However, in the Clash of Civilizations the secular Hindu India shall oppose non-secular New Christian Holy Roman Empire. Even while India is firmly in American Camp, India shall openly oppose any Christian conspiracy in Buddhist Myanmar (Burma) or Hindu Nepal. India would never allow any future genocide of Orientals or Buddhists as happened in Cambodia where Catholics and Communists joined forces to massacre 2 million Buddhists to implement hidden Catholic Christian patriarchal agenda in Indo-China. India is in American Camp because Indians believe that black woman Secretary Condoleezza Rice has no hidden Christian agenda like those of Secretary Kissinger, Secretary Brzezinski or Secretary Albright. Even when Sonia Gandhi is an Italian Catholic and Papal agent, is leader of the ruling party in India, no power can persuade India to support apocalyptic Christian agenda. Using moral terminology of President Bush, Hindu secular India can only be a military and political ally of the powers representing the “Right or Good” and shall never join as ally with powers representing the “Wrong or Bad.” "Some worry that it is somehow undiplomatic or impolite to speak the language of right and wrong, but President Bush disagrees. Different circumstances require different methods, but not different moralities." India-USA Pact is based on the solid foundation of secular goals defined in terms of national interests that explicitly rejects any hidden Occidental patriarchal religious agenda in the conduct of diplomacy.


BUSH’S NEW INTERNATIONALISM: India takes President Bush and Secretary on their face value because Bush’s second term is the un-first term. “The road to isolationism and protectionism may seem broad and inviting- yet it ends in danger and decline,” said Bush. George Bush in his second term is moving into a new phase of his presidency, not by choice or natural inclination, but by necessity. For the State of Union address Mr. Bush asked his speechwriter to make global engagement a major theme, a big change for a man who ran in 2000 under the banner of a “humble foreign policy.” The president earlier associated the word “globalization” with “mushy Clintonialism.” There is a lot of on-the-job training in the modern presidency. Clinton ran on taking a tough line with China, and decided United States needed China.

In the first term Bush was almost neo-isolationist. Iraq War was a unilateralist policy outside the context what globalization implies. In the second term President is warning the nation of the dangers of turning inward and isolationist and making the case for international engagements. That is why second Bush term is un-first term. Secretary Rice realized that necessity demands a new emphasis on global engagement, with India on the side of the United States to implement Bush’s new second term agenda.


SPREAD OF DEMOCRACY: President Bush’s effort to make the spread of democracy the signature of his second term, first cropped up in his State of the Union address in January 2006. Bush changed his tone on nation building several years ago. As the Iraqi invasion turned to occupation, he emphasized the spread of democracy. The commitment of President Bush and Secretary Rice for nation building spread of democracy, globalization and strategic ties with India is not farce, but genuine and truly reflects that the second term is the un-first term. It is a big change in the American foreign policy and its key component is strategic ties with democratic India. President Bush and Secretary Rice are honest and not faking their newfound love for Democracy in the third world and crusades for democracy.


19(12) Indo-US Options in Sudan


Osama Bin Laden made Sudan and Afghanistan the two principal bases of his terrorist networks. Wahhabi Arab militia initiated the long-term campaign for Islamization and Arabization of oil-rich Sudan to engineer Saudi Arabia inspired military coups to install Islamic government in Sudan and to impose Shariah laws in Sudan. Wahhabi Arab terrorists led Osama Bin Laden launched the traditional Arab Muslim genocidal campaign to slaughter matriarchal non-Muslim black African pagans. Throughout history, patriarchal Arab Muslims have launched genocide of matriarchal black African pagan followers of ancient Egyptian Nubian religion, to snatch lands of North Africa including Mediterranean Africa from the original black and inhabitants in Egypt, Sudan, Libya, Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia. Osama Bin Laden and Bin Laden Group of Saudi Arabia targeted oil-rich Sudan to aid and finance Arab Muslim militia to massacre non-Muslim black Africans, and establish Islamic regime in Khartoum and to force Chevron to surrender its oil concessions to Sudan government in 1985. The purpose was not to allow Sudan develop oil exploration, drilling and production to emerge as a major oil-produce and a challenger for Saudi Arabia. It is no accident that Osama bin Laden also financed Taliban to impose Wahhabi fundamentalism in Afghanistan, which lies on Caspian oil-pipeline routes from Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan to Arabian Sea outlets and to markets in Pakistan and India. President Bill Clinton launched Cruise Missiles on certain targets in Sudan to hurt Osama Bin Laden. President Bill Clinton refused the offer of Sudanese government to arrest and handover Osama bin Laden to the Americans. The logic and reasoning that justified President George Bush’s invasion of Afghanistan, as a part of America’s War on global Islamic Terrorism would necessitate preemptive attacks on Sudan.


MUSLIMS COMMIT DARFUR GENOCIDE: In what the United Nations calls the greatest humanitarian crisis and the Bush administration has labeled genocide, more than 200,000 non-Muslim black African people in Darfur have been killed and up to 2 million non-Muslim black African villagers driven from their homes by Muslim Arab Janjaweed militia terrorists, who are armed and funded by Sudan government. Violence is rising in Darfur and the lack of progress in South Sudan was jeopardizing a peace agreement that ended a separate conflict there. Killings, rapes and armed attacks on Darfur villages committed by armed gangs, secure in the knowledge that no one would stop or punish them. In South Darfur militia continue to cleanse village after village. The Muslim Arab Sudan government has not disarmed Muslim Arab Janjaweed Terrorists and on the contrary, armed and financed Janjaweed militia and directed them to commit genocide of non-Muslim black Africans that occupy the oil-rich lands of Darfur. In peace agreement in southern Sudan signed in end of 2004 ended 20 years of civil war. The Muslim Arab Sudan government sponsored genocide of non-Muslim black Africans in Darfur and southern Sudan presents grave threat to international peace and stability, which requires sanctions against Sudan government by UN Security Council.



Sudan and Chad could be the test case to test Indo-US diplomatic cooperation launch President’s crusades for democracy and nation building efforts in the African country facing genocide at the hands of government-supported Arab Janjaweed militia made up of nomadic Arab tribes. India and United States should pool diplomatic resources to undertake multi-racial nation building in Sudan, crusades of democracy, and use military force to neutralize the Arab Muslim Janjaweed terrorists. It is no wonder that Osama Bin Laden had purchased very large tracts of lands in Southern Sudan and developed terrorist network to undertake genocide of pagans in Southern Sudan to impose Islam by sword in pagan-majority South Sudan and Darfur. Diplomatic operations in Sudan would enhance the oil security of India and United States, as Sudan has very large oil reserves. Sudan may become the testing ground for Bush’s strategy for nation building and crusades for democracy. Sudan is also the testing ground for undertaking military actions to foil the terrorist genocidal acts of Janjaweed Muslim Arab terrorist networks who were financed by Osama Bin Laden to create Civil War in South Sudan to engineer the exit of Chevron from Sudan, so that Sudan’s oil may not compete with Saudi oil. Sudan is also an ideal ground for India and United States to compete with Communist China on a level playing ground in Sudan, as China determined to lock up the energy supplies of the world, to undermine the energy security of the United States and India. Sudan could become a geopolitical testing ground, to study whether or not India brings diplomatic and military assets of value for the implementation of the United States national security strategy in oil-producing world, such as Sudan, rumored to have more oil than Iran and Saudi Arabia combined. China, Iran, Energy security and Sudan were the four unspoken factors that obliged President Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to sign the historic civilian nuclear deal. The geopolitical, diplomatic and economic value of the nuclear deal and subsequent USA-India diplomatic alliance needs to prove its worth to the diplomats of the world, by successfully implementing their diplomatic and economic agenda in oil-rich Sudan. India welcomes to compete with China in Sudan and American support shall tilt the balance of power in favor of India in Sudan.


GEOPOLITICS OF SUDAN: Estimates of how much oil lies beneath Sudan’s desert sands vary from 3 billion barrels to 10 billion barrels. Figures for proven oil reserves are around 635-million barrel mark. The 1998 Chevron report estimated that Sudan had more oil than Iran and Saudi Arabia together. Five times the size of Texas and blessed with abundant natural resources, including possibly more oil than Saudi Arabia. Most of Sudan’s oil fields are to be found in the southern part of the country, where majority of the population is pagan with indigenous beliefs and some Christians. The high producing Higleig and Unity fields are part of the Al Muglad Basin, one of the three major basins running from the northwest to the southwest of the country. The other two, the Mulut Basin and Blue Nile Basin are yet to be explored for oil.


Sudan has been an oil-exporting nation for little more than six years. Sudan earned $3.7 billion from oil exports in 2005, and estimates for 2006 are $7.8 billion. Oil revenues are expected to contribute around 50 percent of Sudan’s 2006 Budget. The production could double to one million bpd by the end of 2006. In the 1970s and early 1980’s Chevron was the dominant player, and discovered oil in Southern Sudan, but Chevron abandoned the concessions in 1985, and sold its concessions back to the Sudanese government in 1992 President Bill Clinton imposed ban on investment in Sudan, which still remains in force. Sudan produces Medium-Sweet Nile Blend.


China has become the key player and Sudan’s largest foreign investor. China National Petroleum Company (CNPC) currently controls 40 percent of Sudan’s oil industry. China sourced up to seven percent of its oil needs from Sudan, accounting to around 50 percent of Sudan’s crude oil. CNPC is the leading shareholder (40 percent) in Greater Nile Petroleum Operating Company (GNPOC) and other shareholders are India’s ONGC Videsh (25 percent) and Malaysia’s Petronas (30 percent). The consortium GNPOC developed the former Chevron oil fields and built the 994-mile crude pipeline from Higleig to Port Sudan. India’s ONGC awarded the contract to build a new refinery at Port Sudan with a capacity to process 100,000 bpd costing $1.2 billion. ONGC completed $200 million 460-mile pipeline to Port Sudan from the Khartoum refinery. India’s Videocon will invest $100 million for a 76 percent stake in an oil field. Foreign investors poured an extra $2.1 billion into Sudan in 2005.


ETHNIC GROUPS IN SUDAN: Blacks represent 52% of population, Arab represent 39% and others 9% of a population of 40.2 million (2005 estimate). Sunni Muslims represent 70% of the population and concentrated in the north, Pagans with indigenous beliefs are 25% of population and located in Central and South Sudan and Christians 5% mostly in the south and Khartoum. Sudan has Area of 967,527 square miles, slightly more than one-quarter size of the United States, GDP $85.46 Billion in purchasing power parity 2005 estimate, GDP growth rate of 8.6% in 2005. Chad has 25% pagans in the population of 8.7 million.


Government of National Unity (GNU) has been established in Sudan. Sudan’s Federal government headed by President Omar Al Bashir of NCP, First Vice President and leader of the SPLM Salva Kiir, and Second Vice President Ali Othman Taha of NCP. Chinese, Malaysians, Indians, Pakistanis and Europeans do business in Sudan. China, India and Malaysia are also investing both inside and outside the oil sector. Export partners of Sudan are: China 66.9%, Japan 10.7%, Saudi Arabia 4.4% a 2004 estimate.


ARAB GENOCIDE OF SOUTH SUDANESE: One of the aims of the Sudanese Muslim Arabs committing genocide of non-Muslims in Sudan and Chad is to drive away pagan African tribes to achieve what Hitler called Lebensraum: “living space” for nomadic Arab Muslims and their camels. Wahhabi Arab Muslim leaders support the genocide of pagan Africans who represent 25 percent of Sudan’s population. Saudi Arabia had financed with genocide of pagan Ugandans by Muslim dictator Idi Amin, who murdered 25 percent population of Uganda, and lived happily after in Saudi Arabia. Muslim Arab terrorists have committed genocide of original inhabitants in North Africa since the rise of Islam 1400 years ago, and the genocide continues in Darfur Sudan to this day. Arab militias called Janjaweed are the brutes armed and paid by the Arab Sudanese government to engage in government sponsored genocidal campaign to destroy villages of black pagan African tribes in the Darfur region of Sudan, with the explicit backing of the Arab Muslim world. Historically North Africa belonged to black African races, before desert-dwelling Bedouins of Arabian Peninsula, in the first Century of Islam, conquered Egypt, Libya, Algeria and Morocco and massacred the original male inhabitants and married the black womenfolk. Arab slave traders continued the slaughter of Africa’s black people and sold them to slavery and took over African women.


Sudan government backed armed camel and horseback riding Muslim Arab militia Janjaweed, has killed more than 200,000 non-Muslim black pagan Africans and driven away more than two million non-Muslims from their homes in Darfur region of Sudan, to impose Islam by sword over black pagans followers of pre-Islamic ancient Nubian religion. Genocidal acts of Sudan government backed Muslim Arab Janjaweed to impose Islam and Arab domination by sword, exemplifies the menace Arab Muslim terrorism presents to the civilized world. Papacy apparently supports the genocide of black pagan Africans by Sudan government backed armed Arab Muslim militias, apparently hoping that the genocide of pagans would encourage the spread of Christianity in Southern and Central Sudan. European powers including Roman Catholic Church overlooked albeit supported the genocide of pagans in Uganda during the Saudi Arabia backed dictatorship of Muslim Idi Amin.



Sudanese Muslim Arab Janjaweed terrorists committing genocide of non-Muslims in Sudan and Chad, just like what Hitler did to the Jews, only many times more brutal? Sudanese Muslim Arab Janjaweed terrorists, funded and armed by Sudanese government, have committed war crimes, crimes against humanity and crime of genocide against non-Muslim black Nubians in Central Sudan, South Sudan and now in Chad bordering Darfur, to implement their genocidal agenda to eliminate pagan “black slaves” and to impose Islam and Arab rule by sword, to expel black peoples rom oil-producing regions of Southern Sudan. Muslim Arab terrorists Janjaweed financed by the Arab government of Sudan to cleanse Darfur of blacks are moving across the Sudan border into neighboring Chad. Janjaweed terrorists, is alliance with Osama bin Laden, have unleashed their fury on villages in Chad, riiding in and koilling and raping, accompanied by their standard shouting of racial epithets like “black slaves.” The United Nations has described the carnage in Darfur as the world’s biggest humanitarian crisis. In the Security Council Communist China protects Sudan, just as China protected pro-China Pol Pot regime in Cambodia and directly helped in the genocide of 2 million Buddhists in Cambodia. The Janjaweed Muslim terrorists using non-Muslim black Africans as targets and they kill as if he were a chicken. Whether the offenders are Nazis or Sudan’s Muslim Janjaweed that is a crime not against the victims but also against all humanity? It is brutally demoralizing for these non-Muslim black Africans in Darfur, Sudan and Chad to be hunted down as if theywere wild beasts, tohave their children pulled form their arms and thrown into burning huts. Arab Muslims are committing genocide fo non-Muslim black Africans with a aim to achieve what Hitler called Lebensraum: living space for Muslim Arabs and their camels.


Papacy and European Union has not opposed the genocide of non-Muslim black Africans, who are Nubian pagans, just as they had encouraged by their silence the genocide of pagans in Uganda and Buddhists in Cambodia. Arab Nations led by Saudi Arabia applaud and finance the ongoing genocide of non-Muslims as if genocide is a holy duty for Muslims. Now, apparently encouraged by the support of OPEC nations and the acquiescence of European Union and Papacy, Muslim government of Sudan is sending its proxy forces to invade neighboring Chad and kill and rape members of the non-Muslim non-Christian black African tribes that hav already been ethnically cleansed in Darfur itself. Arab Muslim terrorists backed by Sudan race on camels and pickup trucks into Chadian villages and use machine guns tomow down non-Muslim black African farming families. Many tens of thousands of black Africans have fled their vvillages in Sudan and you can drive for mile after mile and see no sign of life, except for the smoke villages or fields being burned by Sudan-armed Muslim Janjaweed terrorists. It is eerie to drive on the dirt track along the border because countless black African villages have been torched or abandoned. It is on record that Sudanese military aircrafts and a force of several hundred Janjaweed terrorists attacked the village of Karmadodo, between the towns of Adre and Ade. Sudan is also arming and equipping a proxy army of Chadian rebels under a commander named Muhammed Nour. Sudan’s aim seems to be to ovderthrow Chad’s president and install a pawn as president of Chad, in part because this would allow Sudan’s Army and Janjaweed terrorists to murder non-Muslim black Africans in Darfur Sudan from both directions. Sudan wants toignite a new civil war in Chad.


BUSH/RICE’S POLICY OPTIONS IN SUDAN: President Bush has shown an increased willingness to address the Muslim genocide of non-Muslim black Africans in Darfur and Sudan. The present Vatican and European of playing down the genocide of non-Muslim black Africans, because they are pagans not Christians has proved tobe bankrupt practically as well as morally, unless of course the Muslim genocide of pagan non-Muslim black Africans is a part of an Evangelican and Papal conspiracy to Christianize pagan Africa with the use of Muslim sword. By European Union and Vatican ignoring Muslim-led genocide of non-Muslims in Darffur, Chad and South Sudan has only magnified the genocide, and it’s just shameful to pretend not to notice it. Black women secretary of State Condoleezza Rice would betray her black race and African heritage if she failed to use the military might of the United States to arrest and prosecute the Muslim war criminals in Darfur, Chad and South Sudan and send their political leaders and government leaders to face prosecution at TheHague, the International Criminal Court. Indians have taken self-declared commitment of President Bush and Secretary Rice for War against Islamic Global terrorism, Crusades for Democracy worldwide, Globalization, Nation Building, Energy Security and preemptive attacks against Rogue nations seeking Weapons of Mass Destruction at its face value, not it is prudent to apply these principles to Sudan. India will support American diplomatic measures in Sudan for mutual benefits and for proving to the Diplomats of the world that developing USA-India ties have teeth and represent the forces of “right” or good in the world, and can make a difference in taming the forces of “wrong”.


MECCA-VATICAN-BEIJING AXIS IN SUDAN: The Wahhabi Mecca, Papal Vatican fundamentalism and Judeo-communistic Beijing have joined forces to compete against American and Indian national interests, energy security, to engage upon organized genocide of matriarchal non-Muslim pagan Nubian black Africans as part of historical conspiracy to destroy by sword ancient religion, culture and civilization to impose by sword Islam and Arab domination. The political, military and diplomatic effectiveness of the Washington-Delhi Axis for energy security of the democratic capitalist world need to prove its effectiveness Sudan. Sudan is the test case for the implementation of new policies: Bushian Universalism, Crusades for Democracy, Nation building and War on global Islamic Terrorism. Oil-rich Sudan, facing genocide at hands of Islamic terrorists is the testing ground for all what President Bush and Secretary Condoleezza Rice stand for in the second Bush administration and for the effectiveness of the emerging Indo-US Pact. Morally “right” USA-India Axis of Democracy should confront morally “wrong” Mecca-Vatican-Beijing Axis of Genocide in Sudan. Different though similar circumstances in Sudan, Iran, Afghanistan, and Iraq require different methods, but not different moralities. United States should undertake preemptive attacks on Sudan and bring about he regime change in Sudan and Iran. Partition of non-Muslim non-Arab South Sudan including Darfur from Muslim Arab Sudan is a moral imperative, and a litmus test of Bushian Uiversalism of the second Bush administration. Osama bin Laden focused on oil-rich Sudan reputed to hold more oil and gas reserves than that of Saudi Arabia. Osama bin Laden focused on oil-pipeline ruote located Afghanistan, gateway to Caspian oil and gas reserves, believed to be more than that of Saudi Arabia. Wahhabi Arab Muslim terrorists are committing genocide, crime against humanity, and crime against women in non-Arab non-Muslim Darfur and South Sudan. Wahhabi Muslim terrorists commit crimes against culture and civilization and crimes against women in non-Arab Aryan Afghanistan. Morally “wrong” patriarchal Mecca-Vatican-Beijing Axis for Genocide in Sudan harms the geopolitical and energy security interests of United States and India and required use of morally “right” overwhelming force, to bring about a regime change in oil-rich Sudan. Oil is the key to understand the politics of Sudan and to understand the future of Sudan. Sudan is a battleground where India shall compete with China for oil and energy security. India and the United States should support non-Muslim non-Arab Nubian black African peoples of Darfur and South Sudan, where most of the oil and gas reserves of Sudan are located. Congress should ratify the nuclear deal with India and advocate closer ties with India, as political assets and military assets of India would strenthern America’s energy security, crusades for democracy and war on terrorism.


19(13) Democracy Vs Mob Rule

PEOPLES POWER AS INSTRUMENT OF POLICY: The CIA-inspired military coups have been instrument of foreign policy after the success of coup against the popular anti-USA Prime Minister of Iran. Covert operations can successfully fund and publicize the anti-government demonstrations as expression of people power to bring down the popularly elected governments in democratic nations. The use of covert operations to fund, organize and publicize anti-government demonstrations and peoples-power demonstrations, to bring down governments has become a legitimate instrument of foreign policy. India and United States should pool their political, diplomatic and media assets to acquire the ability and resources to undertake covert operations, to fund and foster anti-democratic movements to pressure political incumbents to modify its foreign policies.


MOB RULE THREATENS DEMOCRACY: If Bushian Universalism or Crusades for Democracy, simply a Rooseveltian foreign policy camouflage to cover up the CIA-sponsored urban demonstrations to legitimize the “Mob Rule” or the “Dictatorship of the Mob” to overthrow democratically elected popular prime ministers and the Presidents in the Third World, then India would oppose it. Would President George Bush agree to resign if one million plus demonstrators continue demonstrations near the White House for days to come? Would President agree to hold the presidential elections again, if the world leaders demanded or if the demonstrators demanded that the results of presidential elections 2000 or elections of 2004 because of election frauds or faulty election machines? It raises a disturbing issue, Bushian Universalism could be just a Rooseveltian camouflage to justify the CIA-funded mob demonstrations to bring down democratically elected governments, such as in Thailand, Philippines, Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia and other nations. If it were so then India would have nothing to do with Bush/Rice led crusades for democracy.


The confrontation against Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, led by foreign-funded urban demonstrations echoed popular uprisings in the Philippines, Ukraine, and Georgia and other nations where “Mob Rule” has driven democratically elected leaders from office. As was the case in some of these uprisings, the Thai demonstrations that at its peak attracted a crowd estimated at 100,000 was festive with pop music, skits, speeches, ice cream, roasted peanuts and periodic chant of “Get Out.” The tide continues to turn against Mr. Thaksin- much as it has in other popular uprisings- with groups and public figures speaking out in opposition. India shall oppose any Pope-led demands to overthrow the Buddhist leadership in Myanmar to replace it by Christian Catholic leader. India shall also oppose any attempt to replace the Hindu monarchy in Nepal, to replace it by Maoists to repeat the Papacy-Maoist conspiracy of Cambodia.


DISPUTED US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS: The disputed 2000 Bush Vs Al Gore presidential election and the disputed 2004 Bush Vs Kerry presidential election exposed the weaknesses of the American election process. Should rest of the world reject the election results in the US presidential election and demand reelections? Should President Bush resign if democrats organize large demonstrations against President Bush asking for his resignation? Should foreign countries finance the elections of their protégé candidates in US elections either at Federal or the State level? The American crusaders of democracy worldwide should also accept the prescriptions for American election failures, the prescriptions they prescribe for winners in democratic elections, in Belarus, Georgia, Ukraine, the Philippines and Thailand. The very old constitution of the United States has more defects than many of the newly adopted constitutions of the third world countries. The democratic elections in Thailand, Belarus, Ukraine and Georgia are no less fair and impartial and no more vulnerable for fraud and manipulations than the democratic elections in the United States at the Federal or the State level. If the United States advises that the Belarus elections be held again or that Thailand’s Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra resigns, simply because urban minority protesting for his resignation, while rural majority supports him, then United States should also be open to suggestions that the US presidential elections be held again if election frauds are found or if millions of demonstrators came out demanding the resignation of the US President at the gates of the White House?


Mob-led Regime Changes in Democracies

President Bush and Secretary Condoleezza Rice’s Crusades for Democracy should not be limited to bring down the democratically elected governments by foreign-inspired and funded mass demonstrations. United States succeeded in regime change by organizing foreign-funded mass demonstrations against democratically elected leaders in Georgia and the Philippines. United States realized the effectiveness of mob demonstrations to bring down the tyrant, when American covert operations organized and financed the mass movement and demonstrations in Yugoslavia, where Slobadan Milosevic had apparently won the elections. The Papacy, Cardinal Sin organized mass demonstrations with America’s support to bring down the democratically elected President of Philippines to install the then Vice President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo as the President of Philippines. However, neither the Cardinal nor the United States supported the demonstrators when they demanded the resignation of President Gloria Arroyo. United States understood for the first time, the effectiveness of covert operations to bring about military coups and regime change, without the direct use of American military, when it engineered the fall of the anti-American Prime Minister in Iran, who had nationalized oil industry in Iran, in early 1950’s, and succeeded in establishing the Pahalevi Monarchy in Iran. Is Condoleezza Rice’s rejection of the democratic elections of the Belarussian President Aleksandr G. Kukashenko, a prelude to the real purport of second Bush administration’s crusades for democracy? The White House presently involved in aiding and abetting public demonstrations to bring about the regime change in Nepal and Myanmar. The Washington supports the protestors that demand the resignation of Thailand’s Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra.


URBAN PROTESTS & RURAL LOVE THAI P.M.: It is against the norm of parliamentary democracy that a leader gets two-thirds of the popular vote and then is brought down by street demonstrations. In the February 2005 election, Mr. Thaksin won 61 percent of the vote; a landslide by Thai standards and his “Thai Rak Thai Party” win an absolute majority. In many rural areas his party swept all the seats. India does not support the demand of the foreign-funded urban anti-government demonstrations of 2006 against Thailand’s Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who continues to enjoy support of the majority in the rural areas. Rural voters outnumber urban voters. In the rural areas where about two-thirds of Thailand’s 63 million people live, Mr. Thaksin Shinawatra’s popularity remains untarnished. In Thailand’s vast and populous rice farming heartland, Mr. Thaksin’s popularity approaches adoration. Farmers and owners of small businesses say their lives have been transformed and their incomes have doubled during Thaksin Shinawatra’s five years in power. Both Mr. Thaksin and his opponents expect the prime minister to win the most seats in the parliamentary elections scheduled for April 2, 2006. On Feb. 24, 2006, in an attempt to undercut his challengers, Mr. Thaksin dissolved Parliament and set an election for April 2, three years early and slightly more than a year after winning re-election in aa landslide. But the three main opposition parties blunted the move, announcing a boycott of the vote, and the election seems more likely to bring new disarray than to resolve the standoff of elective democracy and the Mob rule. Mr. Thaksin’s electoral base is among the rural poor who make up a majority of the population and whose views clash with those of the mostly urban demonstrators in the capital. Mr. Thaksin’s government cemented the loyalty of rural Thais with a three-year moratorium on rural debt and a government program that offered $26,000 to every village in Thailand, from which residents could borrow for small business ventures. Partly as a result, rural incomes increased 29 percent in 2001, 23 percent in 2002, and by double digits each year since. In 2005, the rural per capita income reached $821. Mr. Thaksin also began a health program allowing Thaïs to obtain any medical treatment for just 77 cents per visit. Rural masses are convinced that urban demonstrators against Mr. Thaksin were being paid to show up.


PEOPLE-POWER UPRISING IN PHILIPPINES: President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo rigged presidential election in 2004. Ms. Arroyo is as unpopular a president as anybody in the Philippine can remember. While Ms. was the Vice President she conspired with Cardinal Sin and organized the public demonstrations against the incumbent democratically elected President, and she took over power by arresting the incumbent President, Joseph Estrada. There are striking parallels between the foreign-funded urban anti-government demonstrations against popularly elected prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra of Thailand, and the foreign-fund and Catholic Cardinal Sin-led public demonstrations against Philippine President Joseph Estrada in 2000. Like Mr. Thaksin, President Joseph Estrada was a populist leader beloved by the poor and despised by the elite and the intelligentsia. The impeachment trial of President Joseph Estrada was deposed in 2001. The airing of President Arroyo’s conversations with Virgilio Garcillano, the election commission official, lead to an impeachment attempt that failed in fall of 2005. Like the aborted impeachment of her predecessor, Joseph Estrada, it has left her enemies hungry for blood. Former President Corazon C. Acquino led the original people-power uprising that ousted her predecessor, Ferdinand E. Marcos.


PEOPLE-POWER UPRISING IN UKRAINE: The covert operations funded by the CIA, brought about the Orange Revolution in Ukraine and helped install a pro-American and pro-Europe government of Mr. Yushchenko in Ukraine in 2005. The March 26, 2006 Ukrainian Parliamentary elections, is the first since the CIA-sponsored peoples-power albeit mob-demonstration led Orange Revolution of 2005. In the presidential race, the main issues revolve around Russia, namely Ukraine’s relations to Russia. Mr. Yanukovich’s Party of Regions promised to make Russian a second official language and to improve economic and political relations with Russia, which have been stained since Mr. Yushchenko took office.


Yevgeny G. Bubnov, a member of Crimea’s regional Parliament, sponsored a proposal to hold a referendum on whether to elevate Russian language to official language status in Crimea and Ukraine, where constitutionally, Ukrainian is the language of the land. The Crimea is a peninsula of seaside resorts and largely Russian population. Kiev, the Capital of Ukraine, is bent upon imposing a Ukrainian identity on Crimea, which is overwhelmingly Russian population, and Crimean Russians crave to reunite with Russia and shoes political, economic and cultural affiliations are closer to Moscow than to Kiev. Crimea was a part of Russia until Nikita S. Khrushchev decreed otherwise in 1954. A few of the Crimea’s parties openly support the call for separatism. Several smaller parties and blocs running on platforms calling for closer cooperation with Russia and even Crimea’s unification with Russia. One party based in Crimea even calls itself the “Party of Putin’s Politics.” Natalia M. Vitrenko is the leader of a fiercely anti-American and anti-European bloc of Crimea’s parties that advocates a new union among the Slavic nations of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine. Ethnic Russians account for two-third population of Crimea’s two million. Ethnic Russians are in large majorities in the eastern Ukraine regions of Donetsk and Lugansk. Predominantly Russian City Kharkiv, voted on March 6, 2006 to adopt Russian as a second official language in municipal affairs. Khrushchev’s decision to cede Crimea to Ukraine mattered immensely after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 and internal administrative borders became international boundaries. It was not until 1997 that Russia and reached agreement on how to divide the fleet and to accept the current borders.


India does not mind if the United States finances covert operations to fund people-power or anti-government demonstrations in former territories of the Soviet Union and in Russia, as Soviet Union had routinely funded the Congress Party of Mrs. Indira Gandhi to elect her into power and bribed Indian politicians to elect Indira Gandhi as the Prime Minister after Indian Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Sastri was murdered in Taskent in 1965.  From the Indian perspective, the use of western financial and media resources to help organize anti-government movements in the former Soviet territories is a legitimate instrument American foreign policy and the practice should continue. However, President Putin also has the similar rights to finance the anti-government movements and demonstrations and fund pro-Russia political parties in Eastern Europe, Central Asia and also in European Union. India should also flex its political muscle and promote pro-India democratic parties and political movements in North America, Europe and the Third World. Financing political parties and anti-government demonstrations is an efficient use of resources and effective instrument of foreign policy in the 21st Century.


Funds for Religion-Based Social Initiatives

BUSH’S RELIGION-BASED SOCIAL PROGRAM: India expects that Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh and Jaina social programs should also get funding from Bush administration, at par with social programs operated by Christian Churches, Jewish synagogues and Muslim mosques. Bush administration, White House Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives, awarded more than $2.1 billion in 2005 to social programs operated by churches, synagogues and mosques, a modest increase over 2004. Mr. Bush has made his religion-based initiative a central part of his “Compassionate Conservative” agenda since his first year in the office. George Bush signed executive orders that created religion-based offices in 10 agencies and recently established a religion-based office in an 11th agency, the Homeland Security Department. These directives removed barriers for religious groups that sought federal money for programs that help prisoners, the homeless, addicts and others, were necessary because religious charities have been denied government money simply because they were religious. His critics have said that Mr. Bush used taxpayers’ money to promote organized religion and to break down the constitutional barriers between church and state. Indians support Bush’s policy for government funding of religion-based social initiatives, and expect that Hindu, Sikh, Jaina and Buddhist social initiatives shall be treated at par with those of Christians, Jews and Muslims.


19(14) NeoConservatism & India

MODERN AMRICAN CONSERVATISM: Modern Conservatism began in the mid-1950’s, when the ideas of antistatism, cultural traditionalism and fierce anti-communism fused to create the core vision of the American Right. Barry Goldwater gave that vision broad exposure, and institutes like the Heritage Foundation turned it into policy.



Republican Neoconservatives believe that democratic states are by nature friendly and unthreatening therefore America ought to go around the world promoting democracy and human rights wherever possible. Neoconsevatives believe American power serve moral purpose. The problem arises when neoconservatives try to reconcile their ambitious desire to combat despotism around the world, with their cautious aversion to social engineering. Neoconservatives are skeptical about what is called “social engineering.”


NEOCON ARE ANTI-COMMUNISM: Neoconservative foreign policy thinking has all along indulged a romance of the ruthless, an expectation that small number of people might be able to play a decisive role in world events, if only their ferocity could be unleashed. It was a romance of the ruthless that led some of the early generation of neoconservatives in 1970’s to champion anti-Communist guerillas in Angola, Central America. Neoconservatives by nature and philosophy are anti-communist and pro-democracy. Neoconsevative principles in its pristine version had always been pro-democracy and anti-democracy.


ORIGINS OF NEOCONSERVATISM: Neoconservatism had its origins at the anti-Communist left at City College in 1930’s and 40’s and owed to the conservative philosophers such as Leo Strauss, Allan Bloom and Albert Wohlsters at the University of Chicago in later years. From these disparate origins, neoconservatives eventually generated a ‘set of coherent principles,’ which taken together, ended up defining neoconservatism and defined neoconservative worldview and foreign policy perspective of America during last quarter of the 20th century.


HEGELIAN BASIS OF NEOCONSERVATISM: Neoconservatives believe in Hegelianism and Hegel’s doctrine of philosophy of history, in which every new phase of human development is thought to be more or less an improvement over whatever had come before. Neoconservatives following Hegelian approach believe in modernization theory, bringing Hegel’s optimistic vision of progress into the world of modern social science. Neoconservatives believe in the steadily progressing phases of history, as determined by predictable workings of sociology or e economics or psychology, which can help crusades for democracy and nation building. Neoconservatives do not believe in Marxist economic determinism. The worldview of President Bush and Secretary Condoleezza Rice is Hegelian in foreign policy perspective and diametrically opposed to the Kissinger’s foreign policy perspective, which is anti-Hegelian and borrows extensively from iconoclast patriarchal Judeo Marxist logic tuned for capitalism. Condoleezza Rice’s worldview is the negation of Henry Kissinger’s worldview. It provides a three-year window of opportunity for India to influence the foreign policy of the United States in the second Bush administration.  


KISSINGER NOT A NEOCONSERVATIVE: Anti-Indian, anti-democracy and anti-Buddhism Dr. Henry Kissinger was not a Neoconservative. The principal achievements of Dr. Kissinger had been that he could conspire to install a non-elected Masonic Lodge member Gerald Ford as the President of United States and Nelson Rockefeller as the Vice President, and catapult Jewish race as part of the conservative ruling elite in the United States. The Ashkenazi Judeo patriarchal foreign policy perspective of Secretary Henry Kissinger shared by Secretary Zbigniew Brzezinski and Secretary Madeleine Albright, and it was characterized pro-Papacy, pro-China, anti-democracy, anti-India policies. Secretary Kissinger had been distinctly anti-democracy as is evident the role he played in the genocide of 2 million Buddhists in Cambodia, the Pinochet regime of Chile. Secretary Kisisnger wasn’t a neoconservative rather his practiced Judeo-Christian ultra-conservatism, pro-Masonic Lodge, pro-Papacy and iconoclast patriarchal foreign policy perspective, where the purpose of American foreign policy was to undermine paganism, Buddhism and Oriental civilization, to promote Occidental cultures and religions. It is no accident that Secretary Kissinger threatened India with nuclear strikes, in the event Indian troops invaded West Pakistan, after the defeat of Pakistan in 1971 War and liberation of Bangladesh. The guiding principal during Secretary Kissinger, Carter administration and Clinton administration has been to bring about the unity of the peoples of the book, namely Jews, Christians and Muslims and bring Judeo-Marxist Communist China into the fold of iconoclast anti-pagan patriarchy. Neither Republican Secretary Kissinger, nor Democratic Secretary Zbigniew Brzezinski nor Secretary Madeleine Albright belonged to neo-conservatism, and their foreign policy perspective was identical.


NEOCONS SHOULD DENOUNCE KISSINGER: Republican neoconservatives openly denounce Secretary Henry Kisisnger’s role in the bloodthirsty military dictaroship (1976-83) in Argentina, the overthrow of President Allende in Chile, and the imposition of Pol Pot regime in Cambodia, which caused genocide of 2 million Buddhists. Otherwise the world will suspect the motives underlying president Bush’s crusades for democracy. The declassified US government cables and transcripts relating to 1976 coup, indicate for example, that when a deputy warned Secretary Kisisnger two days after the coup to “expect a fair amount of repression, probably a good deal of blood,” Mr. Kissinger was unfazed and ordered American support for the new military junta. “I do not want to give the sense they’re harassed by the United States.” The bloodbath unleashed by Republican Secretary Kissinger is a blot on the Republican Party and only a open denunciation of the morally “wrong” policies, implemented by Secretary Kisisnger, would cleanse the Republican Party, the Republican administration, or America of the sin commited by him as Secretary of State. No politician in the United States can convince any foreigner that he stands of “morally right” if he refuses to condemn Secretary Kissinger.


COMMUNIST IMPLOSION & LAWS OF HISTORY: Neoconservatives by ideology are anti-communist and anti-China. Neoconservatives believe that Communism’s implosion reflected the deepest laws of history, which were operating in their own and America’s favor. Francis Fukuyama, in “End of History” articulated that one could see in the collapse of the Communism the deepest laws of history. Ashkenazi Dr. Henry Kissinger found common grounds with Marxist Mao Tse Tung as both were trained in Jewish patriarchal iconoclast anti-pagan worldview. India should leverage the anti-Communism and anti-China ideological basis of neoconservatism to cement long-term strategic ties with the Republican Bush administration, lest the next Democratic administration revert back to pro-China and anti-Hindu foreign policy perspectives of secretaries Zbigniew and Albright during Cater and Clinton administrations. India should cement closer strategic, political, military ties with United States by developing ideological synergy with neoconservatism before the new presidential elections of November 2008.


BOLD & CONTROVERSIAL BUSH PRESIDENCY: Visionary President Bush deserves comparison with Harry Truman, Woodrow Wilson, Ronald Reagan and both Roosevelts. Bushian universalism, crusades for democracy and nation building is the Wilsonianism in action in the second Bush administration. Harry Truman had the courage to drop atom bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to force Japan surrender, before Stalin could send troops from European frontier to Japan front. President Bush had the courage to invade Afghanistan and Iraq to secure control over the oil pipelines from Turkmenistan and to control the oil and gas reserves of Iraq, respectively. President Truman made United States the sole super power as United States was the sole nuclear weapon power for few years, before Soviet Union stole Atom Bomb secrets. Just as Soviet theft of Atomic secrets transformed the world order into bipolar world order, similarly the Chinese theft of nuclear weapon designs from American weapons research laboratories would have similar consequence for America’s sole super power status in early 21st century. Ronald Reagan brought about the disintegration of the Soviet Union, by bluffing that United States has developed Star War weapon systems. The arrogance of Ronald Reagan expedited the demise of the Soviet Union. Ronald Reagan focused on disintegrating the Soviet Union, present President Bush may bring about the disintegration of Communist China, or push China towards democracy, or convince China that Communism is a failed ideology. President Bush’s Crusades for democracy is the Rooseveltian approach to foreign policy, which sought to clothe American national interests in the flowery language of idealism. While President Bush has adopted Wilsonianism during his second term, he adopted Rooseveltian realism in the first term. No wonder his second term is called the un-first-term, as he follows Wilsonianism in the second term, while he followed Rooseveltian real politik in the first term. Indians loved President Bush during his first visit and he created history by nuclear deal with India. Indians believe that George W. Bush is as important a historical leader as were Harry Truman, Woodrow Wilson, Ronald Reagan and Teddy Roosevelt. Bush is after big fish and takes the long view. “You can’t worry about being vindicated, because the truth of the matter is when you do big things, it’s going to take a while for history to really understand it,” says Bush. Bush is bold. Bush is a visionary, magnanimous and instinctive.


19(15) Global Political Parties

USA-INDIA’S ROLE IN WAR OF IDEAS: Bush’s India deal allows India and United States to meet the challenge of the most important problem of the world, namely, the problem of dangerous ideologies and how to combat them. The problem of Wahhabi fundamentalism and Islamic terrorism and its widespread support among Islamic political parties, is a political problem and requires a political solution, in form of political opposition in the very homelands of the Wahhabi fundamentalism. Muslim people join the Wahhabi terrorist networks and Wahhabi-Shariah political parties and movements for ideological reasons, exactly as in the case of fascists and communists. Pro-terrorism Islamic political parties and movements will be defeated only when the Wahhabi Islamic ideology is politically defeated in the Islamic world by anti-Wahhabi democratic political parties and movements. India and the United States should fund, promote, support and establish political parties and movements in the Islamic world to confront the Wahhabi fundamentalism at the grass root political level and at election level as war of ideas and conflict of policies. The ideas that would lead the crusades for democracy and nation building in the third world, Middle East and Eastern Europe already exists, but they need to be articulated clearly from a global perspective, so that they are applicable to every nation of the world. India and the United States could promote four global political parties drawing on the political experiences of the Republican Party and Democratic Party of the United States and Congress party and Bhartiya Janata party of India. The common goals of all global political parties promoted under crusades for democracy should enshrine anti-communism and anti-Wahhabi fundamentalism at its ideological core. The ideology of neoconservatism based on the bedrock of anti-communism and global war on Islamic terrorism.


USA-INDIA LED GLOBAL POLITICAL PARTIES: The principal gain of Bush’s India deal is the joint venture of American and Indian political institutions to develop two distinctly separate global political parties, with branches worldwide to develop credible two-party systems worldwide. India and the United States should develop one global political party based on American political consensus and second global based upon Indian political consensus. United States and India are alternative Exemplar democratic models for post-nation state reorganization of the world, and third model is the European Union model. As of today no democratic capitalist political party has any significant presence outside it national borders, except among its expatriates settled in foreign lands. The global franchising of political party brand name with global media marketing support and global political fund-raising networks, would make three ideologically distinct democratic political parties, promoted by United States, India and European Union a great business, political and financial product. The democratic capitalist civilizations need to market their brand of democratic political parties to meet the menace of global political parties spawned by Wahhabi-Shariah Islam, Papacy and International Communism. United States can meet the global political threat of patriarchal iconoclast totalitarian fundamentalist Mecca-Vatican-Beijing Axis or Wahhabi-Papacy-Communism Axis by promoting and franchising ideologically well-defined exportable political party franchises. Just as liberal, tolerant, secular Polytheism lost the battle when confronted with the iconoclast monotheist religions of the sword, the tolerant secular liberal democratic regimes face the similar from murderous ideologies that have branded themselves as political parties, and work in unison alongside global drug cartel to engineer the descent of a New Dark Age in the world in the 21st Century. India and United States should promote: one Global Republican Party based on the principles of the American political process, and second Global Democratic Party based on the principles of Indian political process and third Global European Party based on the principles of European Union. In the age of rising cost of election campaigns, media campaign and name recognition the global franchises of political parties makes sense. India and the United States should also develop model constitutions to provide the template for the leaders to draft their national constitutions and political party constitutions.


WAHHABI-SHARIAH POLITICAL PARTIES: Arabian Wahhabi fundamentalism has branded itself as a global political movement and succeeding in creating global political parties operating worldwide. Aspiring young Muslim politicians join the Wahhabi network as it provides them with well-defined political ideology, stable platform of Mosques and Muslim charities and funding from Saudi Arabia and Sunni Heroin cartel and secret services of Muslim nations. Saudi Arabia funded the movement throughout the Islamic world to replace Western legal system with Shariah laws as a prelude to transform the liberal modern post-colonial society and culture with 7th century Islamic society. Wahhabi Shariah brand emerged as saleable product in the Islamic world and no nation is safe from this network. The murderous ideologies of Wahhabi Sahriah extremism has become a professionally marketed political product, highly visible, easy to explain and easy to sell throughout the Muslim world. Wahhabi religious charities nurture Muslim politicians to undertake political activities worldwide. Wahhabi-Shariah brand became a powerful political franchise in democratic elections worldwide. Wahhabi Shariah became a powerful franchise to legitimize tyrannical dictatorships in the Islamic world.


POPE’S POLITICAL PARTIES: The Papacy has spawned numerous political parties throughout the world and Papal brand succeeded in getting numerous priests, reverends and pastors elected as congressmen and Senators in the United States. The political leadership of American Blacks constitute primarily of Christian Church leaders, Catholic and Protestant alike. The Papacy has successfully developed a political brand name, professionally marketed backed by the institutional infrastructure of the Roman Catholic Church. The Papacy nurtures clergy or priests as political leaders, provides funding to help elect them at local, State and Federal elections in the United States and worldwide. Papacy has developed political ties with Islamic fundamentalist forces and Chinese anti-Buddhist Communist forces to widen its political base to get its nominees win elections. Papal brand emerged as a powerful political franchise in democratic elections worldwide. Pope’s political parties support Arab Muslim genocide of pagan Nubian black Africans in Sudan and Nigeria. Pope’s political parties support the imposition of Islamic Shariah law over pagan black Africans throughout sub-Sahara Africa.


COMMUNIST POLITICAL PARTIES: China has taken over the Communist party franchise worldwide, after the demise of the Soviet Union. Communist parties funded by China operates worldwide and played important role in promoting pro-China foreign policies in their countries. Just as after the demise of the Byzantine Empire at the hands of Ottomans, the Papacy could take over the legacy of Christian world, similarly the demise of communism in the Soviet Union, allowed Communist China to takeover the Communism brand name and to franchise Communist political parties worldwide. In Cambodia, Maoist China sealed strategic ties with Papacy by engineering the genocide of 2 million Buddhists as a prelude to Christianize Cambodia.


MECCA-VATICAN-BEIJING POLITICAL AXIS: Global alliance among Wahhabi-Shariah parties, Pope’s parties and Communist parties emerged throughout the world. It is no accident that during 2006 President Bush’s trip to India, only Catholics, Muslims and Communists opposed the trip, and continued to do so even after nuclear deal with India. It symbolizes the war waged by Mecca-Vatican-Beijing Axis of fundamentalism over new emerging Washington-Delhi Alliance. It is mind boggling that Catholics under order of Pope would dare to oppose the visit of a Christian President of India that changed world politics and legitimized India as a legitimate nuclear weapon power of a category of its own. India should cement ties with Republican neoconservatives to launch two distinct global political parties franchises, Global Democratic Party and Global Republican Party based on the political process of India and United States respectively, to meet the challenge of Wahhabi-Shariah political forces in the Islamic world.


GLOBAL POLITICAL WAR OF IDEAS: The world faces the problem of murderous ideologies and how to combat them. Many of the murderous ideologies have had Jewish origin. Karl Marx’s Marxism and Communist Utopia in the hands of Bolshevik Jew Laventi Beria resulted in the genocide of 30 million Orthodox Russians during and after Bolshevik Revolution. Marxist Utopia of Mao Tse Tung resulted in the genocide of more than 60 million Buddhists. Judeo-Communist utopia of Catholic Pol Pot resulted in the genocide of 2 million Buddhists in Cambodia. India and United States should join political resources to support pro-democracy forces in China. Indo-US economic and media support to China’s Buddhist capitalist democratic forces, rural population and non-Han population might overthrow the totalitarian regime in Communist China and usher in new era of democracy and capitalism.


WAHHABI BASIS OF ARABIAN STATEHOOD: The Wahhabi Utopia resulted in the genocide of pagan black Africans in Sudan and suppression of women throughout the Islamic world. Islam practiced in Syria, Libya, Algeria and Turkey is very modern and highly civilized. Saudi Wahhabi funded by oil-incomes and emboldened by Wahhabi control over Mecca and Medina threatens to descend New Medieval Dark Age over civilized Islamic world, even when Islamic world during European Medieval Dark Age remained a beacon of civilization. The Semite Wahhabi murderous ideology is a threat to liberal moderate Islam. British and American secret services worked to undermine the secular Ottoman civilization by promoting the desert dacoit Bedouin tribes to challenge the rule of Ottomans over Arabian Peninsula, to engineer the secession of Saudi Arabia and Iraq from Ottoman Caliphate. Wahhabi extremism represents the Islamic doctrine of Mecca Caliphate, which was replaced within 100 years of the death of Prophet by Damascus Caliphate, which had rejected the Wahhabi-type doctrines. Baghdad Caliphate and Ottoman Caliphate had totally rejected the Wahhabi-type doctrinal interpretations of Islam. Indo-US political measures can establish democracy in Wahhabi Arabian world and give freedom to their woman folk. Middle East is ripe for democracy and modernization of society, culture including betterment of the status and role of women in Islamic societies. Islam allows property rights for women, and allows women ownership of businesses, and with the spread of wealth among Arab women, who are now financially independent, it is a matter of time that the Wahhabi suppression of women would meet its match in the revolt of women. India and United States should militarily, politically and diplomatically support the simmering revolt of Arab women.


DRUG TRADE FINANCED POLITICAL PARTIES: Incomes of global Heroin and cocaine drug trade has spawned numerous political parties and political leaders. Besides buying political influence by bribery the Drug lords have moved big in formally launching political parties or promoting cartel operatives as elected representatives. The global drug trade generates for the organized crime more than $700 billion annually, half of which is generated in the United States, which is laundered through largest financial institutions. Arab OPEC nations, Vatican and China emerged as mega financial Laundromats for laundering the global drug incomes. Many of the foreign direct investments (FDIs) in China simply laundered drug incomes. Sunni Heroin Cartel controls the Heroin production of Afghanistan and directly funds Wahhabi-Shariah politicians throughout the Islamic world. Former Colombian paramilitary militia, with some 23,000 paramilitary fighters, financed by the Plan Colombia, now disarmed have declared their intention to play a role in politics. The role is a dark one, as militia commanders use bribery and intimidation to control the local lawmakers or even blocks of representatives in Congress, while they reshape their militia into criminal networks that traffic in cocaine, extort business and loot local government. Colombian Catholic Marxist insurgents, with links to Papacy and Communist China, control 50 percent of the world’s trade and 60 percent of the cocaine exported to the United States. There is recognition of clear relationship between terrorism and narco-trafficking. The leader of the Colombian cartel is Pedro Antonio Marin also known as Manuel Marulanda. They are involved in the relentless effort to topple President Alvaro Uribe’s government. Clinton Administration hired Albanian drug traffickers to organize pro-West anti-government operations in Yugoslavian civil war. The CIA had hired Italian Mafia to undertake clandestine operations in Mussolini’s Italy during the Second World War. The sovereign status of Vatican provides opportunity for white Catholic cocaine cartel to launder drug incomes. The UAE and Saudi financial institutions launder incomes of the Heroin cartel and Cocaine cartel. Chinese Heroin cartels, earlier with ties to Taiwan, now with South China have historically controlled the Heroin trade in the Golden Triangle of Burma, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand and Vietnam. Much of the foreign direct investments flowing into China could be laundered drug money. Drug trade generates annual incomes for the organized crime more than $350 billion in the United States and $350 billion in Europe, out of estimated $700 billion annual incomes of the organized crime drug syndicates. 


WAHHABI-PAPACY-COMMUNISM-DRUGS NEXUS: Wahhabi-Papacy-Communism-Drugs Nexus in Politics threatens the democracies of the third world. The Wahhabi extremists, Papal fundamentalists and Communist totalitarians have misused the freedom of the democracy to undermine the democracy itself. Neither Wahhabi Saudi Arabia nor Vatican Papacy nor Communist China permits democracy in their homelands, but misuse the democratic freedom to undermine the secular liberal democracies. The global alliance of organized crime and extremist fundamentalist organized religion and totalitarian communism threatens to descend a New Global Dark Age on the world civilization in the 21st Century. Political parties financed by the Mecca-Papacy-China-Drug Nexus, threaten democracy and capitalism worldwide and harm the national interests of the United States and India.


19(16) NeoConservativism Polity for Foreign Democracies

(1) Crusades for Democracy worldwide is a Revolutionary US Foreign Policy Agenda:

Just as Saudi Arabia exports Wahhabi-Shariah polity and China exports Communist polity, India and the United States should jointly export democratic capitalist polity based on the democratic experience of India and the United States, as they both are the Exemplar States in the post-nation state world order. Neoconservative policy to promote democracy worldwide and to modernize backward traditional fundamentalist regimes by social engineering and nation building is a revolutionary foreign policy agenda of President Bush and Secretary Condoleezza Rice and marks a striking break with the Kissinger-like patriarchal amoral realism. American foreign policy provides the solid bedrock on which rests the Republican NeoConservatism and distinguishes it from Kissinger-like “amoral realists” both in the Republican Party and Democratic Party. The neoconservatism of black woman Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice rejects the Ashkenazi patriarchal amoral realism of Messrs Kissinger, Brzezinski and Albright, which had roots in their experience in Communist Eastern Europe and they implicitly believed in Judeo-Marxist economic determinism. Republican neoconservatives do not have any hidden patriarchal hidden agenda.


India has never thought about exporting democracy and Indian version of democracy even in its neighborhood, while Saudi Arabia filled the vaccum and implanted Shariah laws and Islamic societies in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh. The Central Asian Aryan republics of Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan would have readily liberal democratic Indian-type political system, had India learnt from Republican Neoconservatives to export democracy, atleast in its neighborhood in Asia. India and the United States should actively promote democratic Neoconservatism as a guiding principle to establish Buddhist Capitalist Democracy in China by bringing about the downfall of the repressive Han-dominated Communist rule in China.


The Republican neoconservative political principles of crusades for democracy, social engineering for nation building and development of democratic institutions in otherwise tyrannical, dictatorships, sheikhdoms or theocracies finds ready acceptance by India and nascent democracies of the Non-Aligned Third World. This principle can be incorporated in the political agenda of foreign neoconservative parties, worldwide.


Global Neoconservative political Parties shall reject the Kissinger-like iconoclast patriarchal amoral realism and advocate the crusades for democracy, promote democratic social infrastructure, employ social engineering and nation building for transforming the erstwhile theocratic, fundamentalist dictatorships and tyrannies, by borrowing the democratic experience of India and the United States. Neoconservative revolution in American foreign policy will make the United States a nurturing “Mother of democracy” in the Third World during second Bush administration, while during previous administrations of President Ford, Carter and Clinton, America had got the nickname of “Butcher of Democracy.”


While Kissinger-like Republican amoral realists, would not feel any remorse even if their policies resulted in the genocide of 2 million Buddhists in Cambodia, genocide of 2 million pagans in Uganda, murders of tens of thousands of civilians at hands of military dictatorships implanted by United States covert operations in Chile and Argentina. The Democratic camp of Kisinger-style Ashkenazi patriarchal “amoral realists” included Secretary Zbigniew Brzezinski and Secretary Madeleine Albright. The American foreign policy during administrations of President Ford, Carter and Clinton, United States got the nickname of “Butchers of Democracy.” The Kissinger-type realists have historically engineered the demise of democracies in Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Peru, Colombia, Ghana, Nigeria, and Uganda, just to name a few. The Kissinger-style amoral realists did not represent Wilsonian idealism and even didn’t bother to clothe their naked real politik to implement hidden patriarchal religious agenda, which no American President approved officially except perhaps President Carter, an d which all Americans vehemently opposed. Neoconservatives openly reject amoral realism practiced by Secretary Kissinger, Secretary Brzezinski and Secretary Albright. The Kissinger-like “patriarchal amoral realism,” using President Bush’s terminology, is morally wrong and it neither represented American creed, nor promoted the national interests of American Empire. The genocidal iconoclast patriarchal anti-polytheism hidden agenda of amoral realists became promptly clear when Secretary Kissinger threatened Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi with nuclear strikes, in case India invaded West Pakistan after Pakistan surrendered in East Pakistan 1971 War.


Neoconservative foreign policy of President Bush and Secretary Condoleezza Rice makes a dramatic break with the Kissinger-like patriarchal amoral realism and instead advocates Crusades for Democracy worldwide as well as social engineering for nation building to transform tyrannical fundamentalist theocratic dictatorships into liberal democracy by implanting American democratic institutions and American democratic creed in these less developed nations of the Middle East, South America, Africa and Asia and Eastern Europe.


(2) Foreign Neoconservative Party’s Policies:

REJECTION OF SHARIAH LAWS: First. Global Neoconservative Party should demand that United States should support pro-democracy political movements in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and rest of the Middle East. Global Neoconservative party should demand that Western legal system, which existed in these countries before Shariah laws replaced it, should be reinstated in the Islamic countries.


EQUAL RIGHTS FOR WOMEN: Second. Global Neoconservative party should demand that women get equal protection of law and equality before law in all third world countries including Islamic nations.


HUMAN RIGHTS: Third. Global Neoconservative party should demand that human rights, liberty and freedom of religion enshrined in the national legal system.


NURTURE NEW LEADERSHIP: Fourth. Global Neoconservative party should advocate the use of economic and political resources of the United States and India to nurture, train and financially support the young leadership in the Third World so that these new leaders succeed in elections and hold elective political offices in their countries. Rather than finance the agents for covert operations of the CIA, the Global Neoconservative party should arrange funding for foreign election campaigns and nurture future politicians, as is done by Chinese Communist party and Saudi Wahhabi groups.


EXEMPLAR DEMOCRATIC CONSTITUTION: Fifth. Global Neoconservative party should prepare a draft of model democratic constitution of developing nations, based on American Presidential system incorporating the democratic political experience of India and Canada. Just as Wahhabi fundamentalists impose Shariah laws and Islamic society, similarly India and the United States should promote democratic polity in the Third World based on India and the United States as the Exemplar Democracy in the post-nation state world order.


SUPPORT PEOPLE POWER UPRISING: Sixth. The Global NeoConservative Party should provide support, publicity and funding for anti-government demonstrations, pro-democracy and pro-women movements to bring down tyrannies, dictatorships and theocracies in Iran, Libya, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and Sudan, and others. Ayatollah ruled regime in Shiite Iran is very vulnerable to youth-power uprising as Iranians are very modern people and would lead a violent revolution to overthrow Mullah’s rule provided they are given material and political support by India and the United States. In China only Han-populated coastal regions have profited by fast economic growth caused by capitalist foreign direct investment. In China Communist Party leaders are notoriously corrupt and reputed to have siphoned away $4 trillion worth state assets abroad. Buddhist Falun Gong movement has more than 100 million followers in China. Non-Han races represent 65 percent of the landmass of China but only 15 percent of the population, and they all resent Han-domination and the fact that economic prosperity limited to Han-populated coastal regions. Communist China vulnerable to foreign-supported pro-democracy and pro-Buddhism movements. India and the United States could leverage their resources to bring about the crusades of democracy in China and bring about the regime change.


PROMOTE SPREAD OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE: Seventh. Global Neoconservative Party should promote English language usage in Hispanic South & Central America.


DEMOCRATIZE PAPACY: Eighth. Global Neoconservative party should demand that sovereign state of Vatican should revamp itself and hold democratic elections for the post of Pontiff, Cardinals and Bishops. It is in the political interests of neoconservatives to demand that the sovereign state of the Vatican hold direct elections of its leaders and office-bearers.

PETRO-COLONIALISM IN OPEC WORLD: Ninth. The Global Neoconservative Party should propagate the idea that general public in the OPEC nations would be better off, if greedy corrupt theocracies and sheikhdoms replaced by Pax-Americana, where common peole will share the prosperity and women would have equality of opportunity. Republican Neoconservatives should justify the gains of American Oil Colonialism in the oil-producing world. Deprived ethnic groups, youths and women in the Wahhabi nations shall prefer live under modern legal system of Pax Americana rather than Shariah laws. Number of people living Shariah laws, blissfully remember the good old colonial laws, under wich they enjoyed greater freedom than the present. President George Bush inadvertently unleasehed the genie of colonialism, when he invaded Iraq, and the genie of colonialism can’t be put back into the bottle again. President Bush is a history maker and he unleashed the New Age of Colonialism and the history will never be the same again. 


19(17) President Elections 2008

NUKE DEAL’S IMPACT ON US ELECTIONS 2008: Republican President’s nuclear deal with India may tilt the balance in favor of Republican presidential candidate versus favorite Democratic presidential candidate Senator Hillary Clinton. President Bush is not eligible for reelection in 2008 and Jeff Bush cannot be the presidential candidate in 2008. The dream ticket shall be a Protestant Republican frontrunner campaigning on the platform of Bushian Universalism, crusades for democracy, war against Islamic terrorism and pro-India foreign policy with black woman Condoleezza Rice as the vice presidential running mate, has very good chance to defeat Senator Hillary Clinton, in presidential elections 2008.


Condoleezza Rice would be a perfect black woman Vice Presidential teammate for the Republican frontrunner in the 2008 elections and Neoconservative revolution in the American foreign policy should be the principal theme of the Republican presidential ticket.


Republican Neoconservatives should force Democratic frontrunner for 2008 presidential nomination about her stand on foreign democracies, whether she would purse policies of Secretary Madeleine Albright or support the American crusades for democracy and nation building the nations that suffer extremism and fundamentalism under theocracies and dictatorships. The Democratic Party’s stand on the use of American might for engineering the coup d’etat against elected democracies or for crusades for democracy shall define the presidential campaign in 2008. President Bill Clinton engineered the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Nawaj Sharief of Pakistan and installed General Pervez Musharraf as the dictator.


19(18) Conclusion




© 2006 Copyrights All Rights Reserved Author: KALKI GAUR

Kalki Gaur Books are as follows:

Kalki Gaur, “GLOBAL CLASH OF RACES” (2006)






Kalki Gaur, “GNOSTIC BIBLE” (2006)

Kalki Gaur, “POPULIST MANIFESTO” (2006)

The complete text of 5,000 pages of Books by Kalki Gaur available for free download at following Kalki Blogs for academic and non-commercial usage.

http://360.yahoo.com/gaurkalki   ; 

http://360.yahoo.com/clashofreligions  ; 

http://360.yahoo.com/diplomacyofcivilizations  ; 

http://clearblogs.com/kalkigaur/  ; 

http://kalkigaur.blogstream.com/  ;

http://my.opera.com/kalkigaur/blog/  ;

http://my.opera.com/kalkitv/blog/  ;

http://indiatalking.com/blog/kalkigaur/  ;

http://diplomacyofcivilizations.blog.com/  ; 




© 2006 Kalki Gaur Copyrights All Rights Reserved, Email: kalkimail@gmail.com