He ain’t no short-term lip-biting President

(picture via Lucianne)

If you looked at the Washington Post’s website last Thursday, you likely saw their lead photo of Bush’s burning effigy in India(sorry, no link) – that being about the only burning bush the left seems to acknowledge. You’d think from all the talk of protests that Bush was less popular in India than he is in the US, but not so, according to the CSMonitor and [cough] CBS “News.” So it’s a shame that the Post's photo of the burning Bush is worth a thousand words, since in this case it is a thousand misleading words. A better lead photo would have shown that his trip to India was much much more than the tight security measures taken and several thousand protestors that hit the Indian streets.

I noticed bloggers like Edward Copeland and several papers started last week like they do most weeks, drooling over the prospects of an Iraqi civil war and salivating over an embarrassingly dishonest AP rehash of Katrina. Anything to suggest that President Bush is incompetent, stupid, uncaring, self serving, evil or any combination thereof is what matters, right? Meanwhile, plagued by low and suspect poll numbers showing Bush and his policies in a weakened state, he went about last week as he does most weeks, orchestrating the tectonic shifts of US diplomacy that will save our ass down the road.

We ceased punishing India for developing nuclear weapons, agreed to sell them nuclear fuel and share nuclear technology as well as clean coal technology. From an environmental standpoint, if this agreement reduces burning dung emissions in India, it may do more to clean the air than the Kyoto Protocol could ever hope to do. But more importantly, security wise, Bush didn’t let the antiquated 1970 Cold War Era Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty stand in the way of acknowledging reality. Critics griped. In fairness, Bush’s critics want to make changes to the treaty in order to make it more effective (excessive scrolling required to find the relevant passage). Well, in a broad sense, Bush got the ball rolling and did just that. Whether the specific treaty will change and survive and accommodate India or whether it will dissolve and be replaced with something else or nothing at all remains to be seen. Whatever happens, it will no doubt be more representative of this day and age. Treaties and alliances, as nice as they sound, are not meant to last forever and when you try to preserve them past their due date, expect disastrous results.

The other complaint is that we are revealing a double-standard. How can we wheel and deal with India while they develop nukes and not deal with Iran? Why can’t we block both countries, equally, from ushering in an era of black rain? To that sentiment, I offer a fat wet raspberry. Here’s the message for Iran: look at India, they’ve got an antiquated caste system, border disputes and internal dissension – that’s not much different than you. But because India is democratic and genuinely looking to join the global market to develop a prosperous and more open economy – and because they do not openly suggest that they would destroy their neighboring states – the U.S. will befriend them.

Iran, on the other hand, is actively stifling freedom among its citizens, fueling the instability in its neighbors (near and abroad), threatening the destruction of Israel and bearing false witness against the character and deeds of the U.S. Put away any artificial ideals you may have of “equal” treatment and ask yourself which nation is more responsible to handle the bomb?

Proliferation is a reality and won’t be stopped by paper. In that way, the NPT is like any other arms treaty. That doesn’t mean it was never useful, but treaties are what they are. The double standard, in this case, allows Bush to help a friend and hurt the plans of an enemy at the same time. Double standards can be just and good.

I’m sure some critics believe that the agreement will spark an arms race in the region, that Iran will double its efforts of its program. However, that may be difficult if Russia quits them and opts for more lucrative Indian contracts, which is a possibility. Who knows? The main point, however, is that ultimately we will end up with a more solid democratic ally in Central Asia, which is not a bad thing when dealing with Iran or China.

The double standard came in handy with Pakistan, too. When Bush arrived there, they wanted the same deal that India got. Bush was respectful and frank. He said no. He also wisely refused to mediate in the Kashmir dispute (I can envision a Zakaria column lamenting that) yet still encouraged Musharraf to keep on track for elections in 2007.

Finally, there’s the line that Bush is going to have a tough sell getting the Indian agreement approved by Congress. Sure, he may have to twist an arm or two, but what’s going to happen to that line in a few months when we have a port deal as well as this Indian agreement? I would’ve thought that after Senator Reid celebrated the murder of the Patriot Act that that would’ve been a tough sell. But a few delays and concessions later, Bush got what he wanted, 89-10. For an incompetent leader who has to deal with a cowardly weather vain Congress, he still manages to get what he wants on these types of issues. I don’t see this as being a tough sell.

So it was a good trip all the way around and Bush deserves credit for improving ties to India, making environmentally friendly fuel deals and still maintaining good relations with Pakistan and Afghanistan. Did he somehow find Kerry’s magic wand?

UPDATE: Gateway has some good photos of Bush.