Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiUS-India Deal Said to 'Increase Nuclear Danger'
UNITED NATIONS -- The Bush administration's decision to let India obtain nuclear technology from the United States is renewing long-held fears that it could result in further proliferation of nuclear weapons around the world.
''It will allow India to increase its capacity to make nuclear weapons material,'' Zia Mian, professor of global security and environment at Princeton University, told OneWorld. ''[It] will increase the nuclear danger in South Asia.''
Last week, senior U.S. officials announced they finalized a deal with India over the supply of nuclear technology. In reaching the agreement, India assured the U.S. government that it would use the imported technology for civilian, not military purposes.
But critics of the accord say it's hard for them to believe that India, which possesses a significant amount of nuclear warheads, would live up to its promise.
''[It] may promote not only a possible arms race between India and Pakistan, but also [between] India and China, as well,'' said John Boroughs of the New York-based Lawyers Committee for Nuclear Policy, reflecting on the deal between Washington and New Delhi.
Like many others, both Mian and Boroughs also think the agreement would undermine prospects for global treaties on nuclear restraint and disarmament.
''This is in clear violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1172,'' said Mian.
The resolution calls upon all states to ''prevent the export of equipment, materials or technology that could in any way assist programs in India or Pakistan for nuclear weapons.''
The resolution was adopted in 1998 with consensus soon after both India and Pakistan tested their nuclear devices in defiance of international opinion against the spread of nuclear weapons.
Since India's partition in 1947 when the British ended their colonial rule of the country, India and Pakistan have gone to war with each other three times.
According to the Uranium Resource Center, India has 14 nuclear energy reactors in commercial operation and 9 under construction. Currently, its nuclear power supplies are estimated to account for about 3 percent of total electricity production.
For its part, India strongly denies that it intends to use the deal with the United States to expand its nuclear weapons program.
''We are not using it as an excuse to enhance our strategic capabilities,'' said MK Narayan, India's national security adviser, in a recent statement.
However, the deal, as it has been interpreted by Indian officials, does not cover the question of whether it has a right to carry out further nuclear tests.
Critics have described the U.S. acceptance of India's nuclear weapons program as amounting to ''a major concession'' for a country that has refused to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
In justifying the deal, U.S. officials have defended India's assertions that it will only use the technology transferred from Washington for ''peaceful'' nuclear purposes.
The agreement sends a message that ''if you behave responsibly and play by the rules you will not be penalized. You will be invited to participate [in the international system],'' said U.S. Under Secretary of State R. Nicholas Burns.
''India will be able to tap into clean nuclear power and make it more energy independent,'' he added in a recent statement.
But many of those among the international civil society movement who support global efforts for increased reliance on clean energy refuse to accept the notion that nuclear energy is a safe alternative.
''It is perhaps the least talked about and most worrying irony of our time,'' David Krieger of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation told OneWorld. ''The United States has a massive defense budget, but spends relatively little addressing the most immediate danger to humanity.''
Krieger's group, Greenpeace International, and many other environmental groups have repeatedly called for the United Nations, the United States, and other powerful nations to stop promoting nuclear technology as an alternative to fossil fuels.
Recently, some leading European politicians also raised serious questions about the UN's role in encouraging countries to acquire nuclear energy for non-military purposes.
Last year in April, former environment ministers from European countries, including Russia, sent a letter to the former UN chief urging him to reform the mandate of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is charged with overseeing the development of nuclear energy capabilities worldwide.
''Nuclear power is no longer necessary,'' they said in the letter. ''We have now numerous renewable technologies available to guarantee the right to safe, clean, and cheap energy.''
But this line of reasoning has failed to win over many of the world's most powerful nations. In July last year, when leaders of the most industrialized countries, known as the Group of Eight, gathered in St. Petersburg, Russia, they signed a joint statement saying that nuclear energy is one way to address climate change.
Many environmentalists rejected that statement and repeated calls for restraints on the use of nuclear technology, arguing that nuclear reactors are vulnerable to catastrophic mishaps related to natural disasters and unintentional human error. They also say it is hard to separate weapons manufacturing processes from those meant for generating energy for civilian purposes.
There are currently some 27,000 nuclear weapons in the world, and 12,000 of these are deployed. Of those, 3,500 nuclear weapons are on hair-trigger alert, ready to be fired in moments.
Nine countries currently possess nuclear weapons: China, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom. More than 95 percent of the nuclear weapons in the world are in the arsenals of the United States and Russia. The UK, France, China, and Israel are estimated to have arsenals numbering a few hundred each.
India and Pakistan are thought to have arsenals under 100, and North Korea is believed to have up to 12 nuclear weapons. As many as 35 other countries have the technological capability to become nuclear weapons states, including Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Brazil, Iran, and Egypt.
Nearly all countries in the world are parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Only three countries have not signed the treaty: Israel, India, and Pakistan. A fourth country, North Korea, withdrew from the NPT in 2003. All of these countries have developed nuclear arsenals.
The NPT obligates the nuclear weapons states that are parties to the treaty to engage in good-faith negotiations for nuclear disarmament. The International Court of Justice has interpreted this to mean that negotiations must be concluded ''leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects.''
''As the world's only remaining superpower, the United States can lead the way in fulfilling this obligation,'' Krieger told OneWorld. ''[But] It has failed to do so.''
In his view, the U.S. missile defense program is largely responsible for provoking Russia and China, and has resulted in these countries improving their offensive nuclear capabilities. In addition, the United States has failed to provide legally binding security assurances that it will not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapons states.
''U.S. nuclear policy undermines the security of its people,'' Krieger said. ''The more the U.S. relies on nuclear weapons, the more other countries will do so.''
Mian appears to be in full agreement with Krieger, particularly in regards to South Asia and the Bush administration's deal with New Delhi.
''The U.S. sees strategic and economic benefits in the nuclear deal with India,'' he told OneWorld. ''But the people of India and Pakistan will pay the price. This means nuclear establishments in both countries will become more powerful and drain even greater resources away from social development.''
Copyright © 2007 OneWorld.net
21 Comments so far
Show AllSiouxrose:"one must ask what will this nation do with its spent radioactive fuels'.
Good point . But they're hardly likely to flush it down their loos.
"A country that has not learned to make clean toilet faciities a priority is in no position to get into the nuclear shit business."
Toilet facilities or not , no country -repeat no country -should be in this nuclear 'shit' business. Think of all the ICBMs that Uncle Sam still has still pointed at those 'bad bolshie guys'.Goodness knows we have far too many Dr. Strangeloves ,with terribly itchy trigger fingers.
shadow,
I know most the history, but Bush & Cheney represent the END of history, since there could be no survivors of a nuclear World War Three on top of the already polluted environment. Thus, Bush and Cheney are insane, each in their own way, Bush the religious fanatic and Cheney the corporate criminal. They are insane because the afterlife is real, yet Bush imagines his God will reward him for pushing the World into a Biblical Armageddon in which God's Creation is destroyed - similar to the Islamic fanatic who is told Allah will reward him for murdering innocent civilians. It is Bush & Cheney's bloated egos, their mad machismo, their "tough guy" self images super-exadurated by political power, that is luring them to assume they have a right to commit the crimes they are inflicting on the people of the World. Thus, according to his own religion, Bush is a dupe of Satan and must suffer consequences in the afterlife. But in the physical World both men deserve to be impeached, tried and convicted of high treason and sentenced to life imprisonment in a maximum security federal prison.
Having traveled in India and seen the LACK of water facilities, that on trains used by 2000 persons at once "bathroom" facilities consist of a HOLE in the floor, one must ask what will this nation do with its spent radioactive fuels? A country that has not learned to make clean toilet faciities a priority is in no position to get into the nuclear shit business (excuse my French, but the analogy is apt in this case!).
entelechy August 2nd, 2007 6:32 pm
If that in fact is what this is about, then the 144,000 chosen ones are taken to the garden of eden and all of the rest are turned to dust. They might just believe in the Rapture and if that is true you have to decide what you believe in and stick to it. If you believe in God and the Bible then you should help Bush to hasten the Rapture. If your like me and believe that the entire Bush family are nut cases then at a minimum you must resist them till the death.
Go to this link and have a listen (you need Real Player or Real Alternative) and then you will understand the FULL MAGNITUDE of the Shrub Situation...
The Whitehouse Coup
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/rams/document_20070723.ram
"The coup was aimed at toppling President Franklin D Roosevelt with the help of half-a-million war veterans. The plotters, who were alleged to involve some of the most famous families in America, (owners of Heinz, Birds Eye, Goodtea, Maxwell House & George Bush's Grandfather, Prescott) believed that their country should adopt the policies of Hitler and Mussolini to beat the great depression.
Mike Thomson investigates why so little is known about this biggest ever peacetime threat to American democracy."
If we survive this there will have to be a law passed preventing any relative of the Bush family or and Bush at all from serving in politics and the Bush name will have to be affixed next to Hitler's name since it was a Bush that ultimately created Hitler.
Who the hell is Zia Mian and in any case why should anyone believe somebody who makes a living off grant monies. The gist of all these stories is that nukes are not good for anybody except the recognized nuke powers. They perpetuate the myth that nuke war is not winnable, not only is it eminently winnable its outcome could be totally unpredictable and that is what is behind the NPT frenzy. It is true that India should have rejected the deal for the right reasons - to maintain the independence of their nuclear policy while challenging their scientific community to develop their own resources. In that respect it is a sell out.
Shakker: What do you mean "NEXT will be the accusation that anyone who is not enthusiastically supporting him is supporting the enemy"? Bush said that to Congress immediately after 9/11 ("if you are not with us, you are with the terrorists"); and he and his underlings have been saying it constantly ever since (e.g., see last week's letter to Senator Clinton from a flunky in DOD chastising the Senator for asking DOD about Iraq withdrawal plans). As insane as this plainly nuclear-proliferating treaty may appear to rational beings like most of the commentators here, rationality is apparently unpopular and/or unprofitable in our nation's Capitol. Witness the recent 97-0 Senate vote condemning Iran for supposed acts of war against the US in Iraq, including patently absurd "legislative findings" that the Shia government of Iran is training, equipping and directing the terrorist activities of radical Sunni groups who are attacking and seeking to overthrow the Iranian-supported Shia government of Iraq. We do indeed have a grave problem with the war-making irrational Bush Administration, but unfortunately we have an similarly grave problem with Democratic presidential candidates who go out of their way to refuse to "take off the table" preemptive military attacks which the UN Charter and the Nuremburg trials definitively removed from "the table" 60 years ago. Not a day goes by that our Government does not blatantly violate our solemn treaty obligation under the UN Charter to refrain from "the unilateral use or threat of military force against a member nation . . . excepting only in response to an actual or imminently threatened attack." Do you suppose this little issue might be inserted in the current presidential debates?
Siemens Corporation, who first built up nuclear power under the Nazi Reich in Germany, is the biggest profiteer.
Bush (and politicians like him) probably also sees dropping bombs on nuclear power plants one of the fastest ways to wipe out large sectors of a population all at once, too.
Notice that progressive Germans today know all this, are among the most adamant about being anti-nuclear, knowing its history -- and that Germany requires far higher standards in terms of nuclear plant safety than most other nations because of the pressure from the once-genuine Green movement there (now corrupted like many other political parties have become).
Nuclear power is IDIOTIC and deadly. Only crazed Nazis would promote it, once knowing the facts about how dangerous and costly it is... and then those samed crazed Nazis profit from it.
If you think this is an exaggeration, note what happens to people who protest at nuclear plant constructions sites.
entelechy - If you take the Hitler analogy one step further - It is beginning to look like Bu$h the inferior believes the U.S. should be destroyed for not being totally committed to his vision.
This is what Hitler believed as the war went against him. His people were not worthy of his great leadership.
Bu$h the inferior has already blamed everyone who has opposed or questioned him. Next will be the accusation that anyone who is not enthusiastically supporting him is supporting the enemy.
History (according to Bu$h the inferior) will write volumes on how the people were too stupid or corrupt to recognize his God given brilliance.
Similar to Hitler, Bush has a subconscious need to lose, and indeed he is losing with his insanely corrupt policies, and dragging the American people behind him.
It's called a bribery or shake down depending on if you are the U.S. or the other country.
All of these arms deals are about ONE THING. Bribing a country's support of Bush's policies. To get Saudi Arabia to the talks table with Israel we sell them 30 billion in satelite guided missle technology and to appease Isreal we give them 20 billion more in arms. Now to continue India's support as part of the bribed, I mean coalition of the willing, we will give them nuclear material.
And who benefits? the arms dealers. When will the press print the truth that the Bush administration is selling the U.S. out and allowing "slick" leaders of other countries to "shake down" the U.S. for their support- they sell out their own country and people at the same time. What a disgrace and insult to people's intelligence that this is not pointed out.
Well done Bush, SATAN loves you, insted of spreding peace and good will smear, the world with danger an distruction. But juest remember your childrean inherit all the SINS of the father. I know you heard that in church.
Madman Bush is deliberately trying to provoke World War Three to fulfill his religious belief in "Armageddon" - and who will stop him?!
Let me give you a glimpse of how some in Indian media perceive the India-US nuclear deal.
"U.S. big business linked to N-Deal"
By SEEMA MUSTAFA
New Delhi, July 17: The military and strategic component of the India-US civilian nuclear energy agreement was underlined in no uncertain terms when national security adviser M.K. Narayanan and foreign secretary Shivshankar Menon began their three-day visit to Washington D.C. for the nuclear talks with a meeting with US defence secretary Robert Gates.
The Wall Street Journal carried an extensive report about the dependency of military and business cooperation between India and the US on the nuclear deal where, according to the newspaper, at least $250 billion of military, energy and nuclear reactor sales are hinged to the nuclear deal. It quotes the vice-president at Pratt and Whitney, Mr Bill Begert, as saying, "The deal is very very important to both countries. If this falls apart, it will have real near-term consequences for everyone in the defence industry."
The newspaper, stressing the importance of the nuclear deal for big business in the US as have other sections of the US media in the recent past, has pointed out that the US Chamber of Commerce and companies, such as General Electric and Boeing, "are ready to launch a big lobbying campaign to persuade Congress to bless the final deal, as soon as any compromise is nailed down".
The Indian Navy is being targeted by the US that is keen to develop as what is described as its "strategic sword arm". US strategy papers, assessing the importance of the Indian Navy, had noted that it "leaves no footprints in the country" and that unlike the Army, cooperation on the seas did not usually hit the public eye.
Between April till the end of May, the Indian Navy participated in exercises with the US, China, Singapore, Vietnam, Russia and Japan with the focus on interdiction at sea. It is now set to join the biggest-ever maritime exercises with the "quadrilateral", including the US, Australia and Japan. Defence experts said this was like introducing the controversial Proliferation Security Initiative, that the Hyde Act makes mandatory for India, "through the back door". The "Quad", as it is referred to, aims to involve India in activities that it is already committed to bilaterally with the member nations. These include securing the sea lanes of communication in the Indian Ocean region for a steady supply of hydrocarbon fuels, combating terrorism and developing enhanced "military interoperability and jointness" in dealing with natural disasters.
The role of the Indian Navy in the tsunami rescue and relief work has been widely recognised.
The US is encouraging the Indian Navy, that is recognised by all countries as a highly competent and professional force, to "grow longer sea legs", according to experts here.
It sold its ageing USS Trenton to India in early 2006, which has now been renamed INS Jalashva, although initially this deal was kept under wraps as the US, by its own admission, did not want it to agitate its strong non-proliferation lobby and threaten the passage of the nuclear deal. The ship was handed over to the Indian Navy in January this year. The US also supplied six H-3 Sea King maritime utility transport helicopters to be operated from the ship.
A top Pentagon official, Lt. Gen. Jeffrey B. Kohler, who is director of the Defence Security Cooperation Agency, on a visit here last week said that the overhauled landing ship USS Nashville was on offer, and that a meeting of the Cabinet Committee for Security was expected to take a decision very soon. He also said that talks were on with the Navy for supplying sub-systems and strategic components for India's new range of warships. Maritime reconnaissance aircraft are also on the US shortlist for supply to India.
The US has made no secret of its interest in the $10-billion contract for 126 multi-role combat aircraft. Boeing and Lockheed Martin are both in the queue.
However, politically, the nuclear deal is still not out of the woods, with the officials now gathered in Washington expected to take what many term as a final call for this presidency. In an interview with Rediff, a senior associate of the Carnegie Endowment for International peace Ashley J. Tellis, who is intimately associated with the nuclear negotiations, said that "any nuclear cooperation agreement with India must comply with the... Hyde Act of 2006".
www.asianage.com, 18.7.2007
Let me first make my position clear regarding nuclear weapons: I am against ANY COUNTRY POSSESSING these weapons (including the US, and India). Because of spending millions of dollars on these weapons, some countries do not have enough money to meet even the basic necessities of their citizens. It is the transnational corporations that are benefiting. I am also against the present India-US nuclear deal because it is actually pushed by the transnational companies and the US Chamber of Commerce. It is more than $250 billion business.
Regarding nuclear proliferation and A.Q. Khan's role in this, when Charlie Rose asked Musharaf, the later in turn asked the former, how did the US, Russia, UK, China, Israel have got the nuclear technology? It was through proliferation. So no country is immune to this. When Charlie Rose on another occasion asked Arundhati Roy whether India should possess nuclear weapons, she answered neither India, nor the US nor any other country possess nuclear weapons. Not being satisfied with her answer (because he wanted her not to include the US among the countries that should not possess nukes) Rose repeated his question and she repeated the same answer. The result was the interview was cancelled!!! This highlights the attitude of the countries that possess stockpiles of nukes. Nuclear Proliferation Treaty (NPT) includes the reduction of nuclear weapons gradually by the countries which possess these weapons in large numbers (i.e. US, Russia, China, UK, France….). What is happening now is these countries have not only failed to comply with NPT regulations by not reducing their stockpiles, but also adding new destructive ones. The US government is pouring billions into America's ugly germ warfare labs and nuclear weapons. Jimmy Carter in his book "Our Endangered Values" writes, "American leaders have not only abandoned existing treaty restrictions but also assert plans to test and develop new weapons, including antiballistic missiles, the earth-penetrating bunker buster bombs, and perhaps some secret new small bombs."
With these weapons these countries are also bullying the countries that do not possess the nuclear weapons, like Iran. About the US leaders Carter writes: "They have also reneged on past pledges and have reversed another long-standing policy, by threatening first use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states." Reagan pledged to Gorbachev the U.S. would never be the first to start an atomic war. Bush betrays that pledge by warning Iran the "nuclear option". President Bush voiced his "preventive war" doctrine in September 2002, and then gave the world a glimpse of first-strike by invading Iraq. According to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Bush's "preventive war" doctrine incites regional powers to get their own WMD since their conventional forces can't match the U.S: "If the (U.S.) nuclear posture contemplates using nuclear weapons against such states, they may be further encouraged to build such weapons and the result may be more proliferation." Why is Israel able to bully its neighbors? Isn't it because of these weapons? Therefore, non-nuclear countries are forced to have them as a deterrent. So the countries that continue to possess nuclear weapons are main the cause for this entire problem the world is facing. NPT has become discriminatory in its implementation.
When Bush announced that he would pull the U.S. out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Moscow responded by announcing plans to upgrade its nuclear force. Again, after Bush scrapped the "no first use" policy, Chinese major general Zhu Chenghu responded: "If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on to the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons." The Pentagon has been transferring missile-capable attack submarines from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
Jimmy Carter in his book says by "rejecting or evading almost all nuclear arms control agreements negotiated during the past 50 years, the United States has now become the prime culprit in global nuclear proliferation." The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists warns: "The United States is on the verge of committing itself to churning out a new generation of nuclear weapons without fully vetting the consequences for itself and its efforts to halt and roll back proliferation worldwide." Carter notes that U.S. proliferation is an increasing source of instability in the Middle East and Asia. U.S. ally Israel's "uncontrolled and unmonitored weapons status pushes leaders in neighboring Iran, Syria, Egypt and other Arab nations to join the nuclear weapon community." Carter quotes ex-Defense Secretary Robert McNamara: "I would characterize current U.S. nuclear weapons policy as immoral, illegal, militarily unnecessary and dreadfully dangerous."
Venezuela's Hugo Chavez was right when he told the U.N. he could smell the sulfur in the chamber after Bush spoke.
And the nuclear industry is laughing all the way to the bank.
"Nine countries currently possess nuclear weapons..." - Then adding Iran should make a nice round number, eh???
Follow the money!___ Deepthroats appropriate advice to Bob Woodward.
Duh!
General Strike, Sep 11!
This was totally unnecessary and destabilizing. If you noticed, there was NO discussion about this, Bush just went there and made the announcement. No rational for any of this, just a press release and a photo op. The arrogance of Bush is disgusting. Now he will cause an arms race that will last decades after he is gone, as if the damage that he has caused already is not enough.
Another brilliant move by this twisted administration. Hasn't Iran been saying it wants to develop nuclear technology for civilian uses as well?
"In justifying the deal, U.S. officials have defended India's assertions that it will only use the technology transferred from Washington for 'peaceful' nuclear purposes."
I guess if Iran didn't have oil or a geographically-strategic location, the U.S. administration would rationalize the Iranians having nuclear technology just like the Indians.
The most perverse part is that these Bible-thumping evangelicals who run the country actually WANT the world to "end" so they can be part of the Second Coming of Christ.
Aren't we living in the 21st century? Hopefully reason and compassion will be victorious the long run ...
RJKT: I agree with you.
ENTELECHY/SHADOW and anyone else interested, I highly recommend your going to TRUTHOUT.ORG and checking out Friday's posting entitled, "Evangelism at Highest Levels of U.S. Military." There are people on CD who do not realize the extent to which our military is being brainwashed in a 21st century version of the Crusades. Turning the massacre of another society into a purported edict from God fills the soldiers with a false sense of righteous impunity. Many come from fundamentalist backgrounds and so the authoritarian "do not question orders" of the military fits quite well with their previous "religious" programming. As I have stated before, this to me smells of the anti-Christ prophesied because it so directly uses the name of Christ, arguably THE prophet of Christianity, to do everything Christ did NOT sanction, primarily the killing of others. I am aghast at the degree to which the "president" and "military" and sick minds like Prince, owner of Blackwater (a purported born again Christian) have taken to killing/slaughter/murder as their personal missions, erroneously associated with 'god's' will. This is more disgusting then the weapons themselves, and the promise, as with DU of "gifts that keep on giving" DEATH! Not Life! And this is their tribute to GOD? Heaven help us all! The lies must be exposed, and religious delusion forms the CORE of it, because it's used as the rationale for massacre on a phenomenal scale!