Clark gives in to Bush

September 8th, 2008 at 9:27 am by David Farrar

New Zealand has dropped its opposition to a US- nuclear deal after a phone call between and .

India is delighted:

This followed tough negotiations in which several small NSG states agreed under heavy U.S. pressure to weaker language than they had sought to ensure India does not test atom bombs again.

“I thank the United States and other member countries of the Nuclear Suppliers Group for the role they have played in ensuring this outcome,” Singh said.

The NY Times says:

Its critics warned that such a sweeping exemption for India, which has developed an atomic weapons program but steadfastly refused to sign the global nonproliferation treaty, sets a dangerous precedent.

The NZ Government is said to have wanted three concessions:

  1. Action to be taken should India resume nuclear testing;
  2. For India to sign up to an International Atomic Energy Agency protocol extending its monitoring powers;
  3. A review of the exemption.

Could someone advise how many of these were formally agreed to? Is India signing up to such a protocol?

Personally I have no issues with the deal. I am just highlighting how the lofty rhetoric of the Clark administration fades way under a phone call from Duyba.

Do the Greens have anything to say?

Tags: , , ,

24 Responses to “Clark gives in to Bush”

  1. dime (8,790 comments) says:

    HAHAHAHAHHAH outstanding.

    whats Helens secret agenda? is she just a puppet of the US? isnt she in charge of our intelligence agency?

    i demand answers from this Hollow Woman!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. xy (130 comments) says:

    This is terrible. See http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12009694 for a good writeup.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. getstaffed (9,188 comments) says:

    “Hello Hellen? This is George. Now listen, this Indian nuclear business. I have one or two very influencial folks at the UN. You’re after a role there, right? …”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. dime (8,790 comments) says:

    heh its all about the UN.

    i still wish she had of made it through to the final round of selection to be the head of the UN, only to have W. veto her. that would be like porn to me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. burt (7,096 comments) says:

    Do the Green’s have anything to say….

    No, they just abstain on issues of major importance. It’s their job – don’t rock the boat and do what Helen tells them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Grant Michael McKenna (1,152 comments) says:

    To have Our Dear Leader make the final round to appointment as Grand UN Commissar on the Environment- and have US VP Palin announce the veto would be even better, I think Dime.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. BlairM (2,266 comments) says:

    “Clark Gives In To Bush”

    Well that’s hardly news to anyone around here DPF…. oh, you mean the US President! Silly me!

    :oD

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. pushmepullu (686 comments) says:

    Clark isn’t going to try to be Head of the UN – That position won’t be open until 2011 and Ban Ki Moon is doing a cracker job so he won’t be up for replacement.

    She will probably go for some sort of bullshit role like promoting religious diversity (eg encouraging islamic extremism)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. adamsmith1922 (879 comments) says:

    Having given up a principled position, even though I did not necessarily agree with it, I would hope that the least we got out of capitulation was an FTA with the USA and a really good FTA with India.

    I won’t hold my breath though.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. gd (2,286 comments) says:

    What would we have to do to get India to strap Helen to a nuclear warhead and test fire it

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. PhilBest (5,112 comments) says:

    Pushmepullu:

    “……She will probably go for some sort of bullshit role like promoting religious diversity (eg encouraging islamic extremism)”

    Is it just me, or is the common denominator of ALL the P.C. and “religious diversity” bullshit that it explicitly undermines and attacks Christianity? Both at the U.N. and in N.Z.? H1 is the perfect person for this role, she has been using N.Z. as her training ground.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. dime (8,790 comments) says:

    Pushmepullu – thats why i said, i still wished she had fo made it through..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. mara (641 comments) says:

    Pushmepullu; Ban Ki Moon doing a “cracker job?” Are you being droll or something?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. andrewcdoherty (7 comments) says:

    It doesn’t seem to be the case that the formal details of the deal were changed very much. However the Indian foreign minister did make a statement reiterating their voluntary moratorium on testing and this is referred to in a chapeau to the appropriate clause of the waiver.

    It also seems that New Zealand was the last country to relent. The account in the Hindu seems to be well sourced http://www.hindu.com/2008/09/07/stories/2008090760781100.htm. By the way Phil Goff had a press release stating New Zealand’s original concerns about the waiver, which don’t seem as strong as disagreeing with the broad principal of the US-India deal despite some reporting to the contrary in NZ, but did want safeguards that seem not to be in the final deal. I’ve been following this on my blog, most recently here http://addingnoughts.blogspot.com/2008/09/nsg-agrees-to-india-waiver.html.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. andrewcdoherty (7 comments) says:

    It doesn’t seem as though many formal changes were made to the deal, but India did reiterate it’s voluntary moratorium on nuclear testing and this is mentioned in a chapeau to the document. Also New Zealand seemed to be the last country to relent on the deal. The best account is in the Hindu http://www.hindu.com/2008/09/07/stories/2008090760781100.htm.

    Oh and it’s pretty hard to imagine a National government being more resolute on this issue isn’t it???

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. andrewcdoherty (7 comments) says:

    Couldn’t get it into previous comment but I’ve been blogging on this, most recently here http://addingnoughts.blogspot.com/2008/09/nsg-agrees-to-india-waiver.html.

    There’s been quite a lot of comment on New Zealand’s role in the US and Indian media. Despite the US-India deal being widely decried NZ’s position was not in opposition to the waiver in principal but rather in support of further safeguards, that admittedly it did not ultimately obtain.

    Interestingly these safeguards were chosen to be consistent with a law that passed the US Congress which must now approve the deal. So the game is not completely up yet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. IdiotSavant (88 comments) says:

    Could someone advise how many of these were formally agreed to? Is India signing up to such a protocol?

    Yes. The full text of the deal is here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. IdiotSavant (88 comments) says:

    There’s more analysis here. Basically it looks like the NSG will be keeping a very close eye on things, and will pull the plug if India tests. Meanwhile, the Indian government is trying to say domestically that this is not the case – which is going to cause them some interesting times.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Kimble (4,095 comments) says:

    20 demerits for the title DPF!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. baxter (893 comments) says:

    Her first decision as Minister of Foreign Affairs reversing the position of the stand down with perks Minister of Foreign Affairs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    Where did the ‘Clark for UN position’ rumours come from anyhoo?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. IdiotSavant (88 comments) says:

    Where did the ‘Clark for UN position’ rumours come from anyhoo?

    Mostly the National Party.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. pushmepullu (686 comments) says:

    Ban Ki Moon has managed to pull the UN away from its pro-dictatorship approach and back towards something reasonably close to favouring democracies. OK so he has a lot of work to do and may ultimately fail but he is the first Secretary General to come from a democracy for decades, and as such he has some idea that states like Iraq and North Korea aren’t the good guys.

    Phil you are exactly right. Diversity and multiculturalism are nothing but attempts to protect and incubate attitudes that lead to the suppression of liberty under the iron jackboot of Islamofascism. Hopefully John Key will do something about it and drive out the Islamicists.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. clintheine (1,560 comments) says:

    Blair…touche! Very good call indeed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.