nov 13th, 2006
i am reduced to reading the tea-leaves, alas!
but the defeat of this innocuous vietnam bill means the democrats, newly triumphant, are planning to give bush no quarter at all.
this is good news as far as the indo-us nuclear agreement is concerned. these atlanticist non-proliferation ayatollahs will hopefully spike that too.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/washington/AP-US-Vietnam-Trade.html?hp&ex=1163480400&en=ba29d1bc573c23a4&ei=5094&partner=homepage
1 comment:
san, consider the famous business principle of 'sunk cost'. it's better not to keep throwing good money after bad, just because you've already invested so much. the concessions made so far are sunk cost. let's not do even more concessions to rescue this bad deal.
the point is: the deal is only a means, it's not the end. india's mandarins have a consistent history of confusing the means with the end. eg. they were doing so much just so that the indo-pak bus service would go on, like ignoring pak terrorist attacks. but the bus service is not the end. the end is the end of terrorism, but they forgot that.
similarly here rescuing the deal is not the end. energy security is the end. the deal does not give india energy security, and in any case is only relevant to a scenario where ancient american fission reactors and uranium are key. india is preparing to give up a lot in return for an american 'promise' of dubious value. americans are not known to keep their promises: they will unilaterally abrogate treaties.
so whatever has been given up is sunk cost. iran is not exactly india's pal either, it's just a convenient ally to contain pakistan. the key nations in central asia are russia, iran and, alas, increasingly, china. whereas india has seen its investments in afghanistan increasingly downgraded by pakistan. and in any case, central asia is only important in a hydrocarbon-based economy. all the indications are that we will enter a new, renewable energy regime in the not too distant future.
from that point of view, i am quite disappointed that california did not vote in proposition 87 which would have taxed hydrocarbons and helped renewable energy. sigh.
Post a Comment