Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

ForeignPolicy

Indian Gambling

By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted April 17, 2006.


Bush's mangos for nukes deal with India is another step in the president's plan to save us from nuclear weapons by ditching the nonproliferation framework.
Advertisement

George W. Bush is so concerned that weapons of mass destruction will fall into the wrong hands that he's going to roll back the entire global nonproliferation regime -- 50 years in the making -- so we can sleep safe at night.

Last month, amid great fanfare, he announced his latest move: a new agreement with India that would not only increase trade and investment between the United States and the world's largest democracy -- American markets will now be open to Indian mangos for the first time -- but will also provide India with U.S. nuclear technology and fuel for its civilian nuclear energy program.

In exchange, India, which has refused to sign the nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and has been a nuclear pariah since testing its first a-bomb in 1974, agreed to separate its civilian and military nuclear programs and allow the IAEA to inspect facilities on the civilian side (14 of the country's 22 existing reactors). According to an analysis by the Congressional Research Service, India will have ultimate discretion over which sites are considered military and which are civilian.

The administration argues that the deal represents a breakthrough achievement in President Bush's new Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), an ambitious plan that would limit the most vulnerable stages of the nuclear fuel cycle -- uranium enrichment and the disposal of enriched uranium waste -- to a limited number of sites in the United States and Russia (and perhaps other members of the nuclear club like France). Never mind that we don't know what to do with our own nuclear fuel waste.

For the dwindling number of Bush supporters, the Indian deal is a brilliant geostrategic move. It takes India out of the competition for the world's remaining oil supplies, increases nuclear fuel security by putting international controls on more than half of India's reactors, throws some business at American nuclear energy firms -- especially GE (reactors) and the United States Enrichment Corp. (fuel) -- and discourages India from procuring nuclear materials from other sources in the future (like Iran).

But the deal doesn't adhere to either U.S. law or the patchwork of treaties and institutions that make up the international nonproliferation regime. Bush's policy of keeping nuclear materials out of the hands of bad guys will set back nuclear nonproliferation by a generation.

The grand bargain that's supported the Non Proliferation Treaty since its inception in 1968 is simple: The hundred plus states that signed on agree to forgo nuclear weapons in exchange for nuclear security and the promise that the countries of the nuclear club will disarm. It was understood by the parties that nuclear weapons are a menace to humankind regardless of what governments own them. The more nukes there are kicking around, the stronger the likelihood that one will go off, whether in the heat of a conflict or by accident.

In 1995 and 2000, the 187 countries in the NPT met in a series of major international conferences in New York to reaffirm their commitment to the treaty. At the time, the United States joined the rest of the "nuclear club" in promising, again, the "unequivocal undertaking" to eliminate its nuclear arsenal.

As soon as he was elected, George W. Bush renounced those commitments. We need the nukes because we're the good guys, went the rationale. The administration pulled out of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty at the same time (although a moratorium is in effect).

With a series of moves capped off by the deal with India, Bush has now renounced the central idea that "the proliferation of nuclear weapons" itself, as the NPT reads, "would seriously enhance the danger of nuclear war." The administration wants a new order where Washington decides -- without objective criteria -- which countries are worthy of nuclear technology and which ones are not. India's nuclear program -- which U.S. policy makers have condemned since the mid 1970s -- is fine. Pakistan's is fine. Israel's, no problem. Iran? No way.

That may not seem so bad on the surface, but it sends the worst possible message: All those years of complaints that the NPT was a discriminatory treaty set up by the powerful to keep the powerless from creating an even playing field have been proved right by George Bush. Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., a nonproliferation vet -- told PBS's News Hour, that the deal "blows a hole through any attempts in the future that we could make to convince the Pakistanis, or the Iranians, or the North Koreans, or for that matter any other country in world that might interested in obtaining nuclear weapons, that there is a level playing field, that there is a real set of safeguards."


Digg!

Joshua Holland is an AlterNet staff writer.



Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
what?
Posted by: nbrown on Apr 17, 2006 12:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What change is supposed to come out of this? Even the headline makes absolutely no statement at all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: troll alert Posted by: thoughtcriminal
Does it matter anymore?
Posted by: daniel1982 on Apr 17, 2006 12:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Any nation that wants a nuke will get one, and we're not going to do anything about it (see N.Korea, Iran).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's IMPEACH BUSH instead of worrying about NUKES
Posted by: thinkverybig on Apr 17, 2006 1:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Picture this.... you have a gun and you try to tell me that I can't have one. Are you insane? What right does anyone or any country have to tell someone else or another country that they can't have a nuclear weapon when they have one themselves. We need to mind our own damn business and leave other countries alone. The United States is going to get enough with picking on poor countries. Iran is not stupid and I'm sure they know what they're doing. Instead we need to be working on impeaching that idiotic Bush and trying him for crimes against humanity. Let's all become more active politically and make a change in our systems. The present systems are corrupt and need abolishing. We need a complete change in almost everything.

Please join me... I am seeking volunteers to assist me in launching a new website by the name of "WeMustChange.org"

I need creative people, a web designer etc. I'm looking for a future staff of volunteers .....

I can be emailed at david@thinkverybig.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» ??? Posted by: brasilaron
» RE: ??? Posted by: brunowe
» RE: ??? Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: ??? Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: ??? Posted by: brunowe
» RE: ??? Posted by: Joshua Holland
Don't let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud...
Posted by: wli on Apr 17, 2006 3:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I almost forgot that the entire political power structure in the US is too corrupt to ever hold a President or his cronies responsible for anything. Otherwise, one might be tempted to follow the title of this post up with, "Impeach Bush today!" with perhaps an addendum of "to the Hague with him tomorrow!"

The fantasy of justice is so compelling it's difficult to suppress the reflex.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

either we WAKE UP or we will blow up
Posted by: eileenflmng on Apr 17, 2006 4:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"During the past five years the United States has abandoned many of the nuclear arms control agreements negotiated since the administration of Dwight Eisenhower."-Jimmy Carter
Washington Post March 29, 2006

From that article:

Last year former defense secretary Robert McNamara summed up his concerns in Foreign Policy magazine: "I would characterize current U.S. nuclear weapons policy as immoral, illegal, militarily unnecessary, and dreadfully dangerous."

There is no doubt that condoning avoidance of the NPT encourages the spread of nuclear weaponry. .

Why should they adhere to self-restraint if India rejects the same terms?

At the same time, Israel's uncontrolled and unmonitored weapons status entices neighboring leaders in Iran, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other states to seek such armaments, for status or potential use.

“A global holocaust is just as possible now, through mistakes or misjudgments, as it was during the depths of the Cold War,” -Jimmy Carter

Above excerpted from April 12, 2006 WAWA BLOG:
http://www.wearewideawake.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Worrying signs on nuclear lunacy in the Bush administration
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Apr 17, 2006 6:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Another issue is the engineering firm Bechtel: it has now contracted with the University of California to manage all of the US nuclear weapons labs. This is the same Bechtel that has stolen huge amounts of money via the "Iraqi Reconstruction Budget" and is busy stealing more through "Katrina no-bid contracts". They will now be managing the US nuclear weapons program - bad news indeed. See here for more: Bechtel and the University of California. They can be expected to leverage this into an increase in nuclear weapons production, which is very profitable. This is yet another case of corrupt cronyism in the Bush administration.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

otto
Posted by: otto on Apr 17, 2006 7:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
'GUNS DON'T KILL; PEOPLE DO!" Now I can picture a whole new slogan: "Atomic bombs don't kill; bad people do!" The Texas-American, Bush-style, NRA mentality seems to have grown by leaps and bounds, but it's still the same basic idea: Take care of yourself, and if it's necessary (or convenient), Kill them before they can kill you! Guns don't kill; people do...so maybe we just have to kill off all the people!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WMD
Posted by: Ming on Apr 17, 2006 9:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People cannot be trusted when they have access to weapons of any kind. Common criminals use guns and knives and all sorts of other devices to injure and kill people. Governments with militaries have an aresenal of weapons; some even have nuclear and biological weapons (you know the usual suspects). Of course the best course for all of mankind is to get rid of the nuclear weapons (and other forms of WMD) once and for all. But that won't happen because of distrust between nations. In fact, more countries are seeking nuclear power to protect themselves from the new Bush Pre-emptive Doctrine. So let's just say that the world is a scary place and the USofA is right at the top making it that way. We don't have to like it and we can't do a lot to change it. Our government, whether Republican or Democrat, intends to keep our superpower status intact until the end of time. No laws, policies, or treaties are going to get in our way when we go after what we want. That is the bully nature of America.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

HEY Ed: The 'hole' was blown with Israel Nukes
Posted by: fairleft on Apr 17, 2006 10:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and your comment is naive and silly. So, let's be clear, after we (20 or 30 years ago) let Israel develop nuclear weapons, no country could ever again trust some US blowhard pretending there is a level playing field. D-u-h-h!

>> Ed Markey, D-Mass., a nonproliferation vet -- told PBS's News Hour, that the deal "blows a hole through any attempts in the future that we could make to convince the Pakistanis, or the Iranians, or the North Koreans, or for that matter any other country in world that might interested in obtaining nuclear weapons, that there is a level playing field, that there is a real set of safeguards."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We have blown away the promises of the future, but Bush has made it even worse.
Posted by: Sojourner on Apr 17, 2006 8:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
War solves nothing. I have lived through WWII, the Cold War, Korea, Vietnam, and now Iraq, and all the mini-wars in between.

The militarization of the US has turned our nation into a Frankenstein monster. Most discouraging to me is that those who now are making policy cannot even imagine peace. For me, it was the experience of the Great Depression, so no firsthand acquaintance with good times. But I had teachers and parents as I grew up who did remember the post WWI years of a disarmed US.

So I grew up with a hopeful future. Things were getting better. While our world was far from loving and kind, that was the direction that beckoned.

Between too many people, too few natural resources, and turning the institution over to the inmates (Bush needs to be restrained not unleashed), we have lost that hopeful future. And every new generation of combat veterans coarsens us to the kill or be killed mentality.

My heart is breaking, but not from age as much as from disillusionment. We can make time or spend time or waste time. All around I see utter waste. It pisses me off that the Cold Heart is winning.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not Talking about the Dragon in the Room
Posted by: EncinoM on Apr 17, 2006 8:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With the growh of the influence of CHina in world politics and China's new relationship with Russia, a deal with India makes sense. Look at tne map, friendly relationships with India and Pakistan can counter China.

I expect that if North Korea continues to act the way it is, the rising sun may join the club. Then things will become interesting with China surrounded, and the a polic of MAD more likely.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

bad guys
Posted by: rsaxto on Apr 18, 2006 1:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Bushies are correct: impeach the worst bad guys in the world and things will get better and all they need to do to find the worst bad guys in the world is to look in their mirrors.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

hi
Posted by: aser on Sep 27, 2006 12:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Arts definations-Arts definations firm ,Home dictionary- Home dictionary from loter ,Science dictionary- Science dictionary miscs ,Computer dictionary- Computer dictionary usa ,news dictionary- news dictionary by mark , Shoping dictionary- Shoping dictionary form, Games dictionary- Games dictionary find, Recreation dictionary- Recreation dictionary info, Society dictionary- Society dictionary load, Health dictionary- Health dictionary local, Reference dictionary- Reference dictionary glob, Sport dictionary- Sport dictionary in use, World definations- World definations archive, Psychology definations- Psychology definations list, Biotechnology definations- Biotechnology definations joke, Agriculture definations- Agriculture definations status

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

0Beer
Posted by: extremist on Oct 8, 2006 9:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
0MEN
Posted by: extremist on Oct 8, 2006 9:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
fishing rods
Posted by: mcclaincarolyn on Mar 7, 2007 11:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good links about britney spears & fishing. Look it.
costa rica fishing
fishing rods
canada fishing trip
free homemade sex video
britney spears sex tape video

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

fishing rods
Posted by: mcclaincarolyn on Mar 7, 2007 11:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good links about britney spears & fishing. Look it.
costa rica fishing
fishing rods
canada fishing trip
free homemade sex video
britney spears sex tape video

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]