The British rag The Economist once again criticizes the U.S.-India nuke deal
for breaking the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, claiming there’s some kind of comparison with the pariah government of Iran:
In striking his deal with India, allowing it to import nuclear fuel and technology despite its weapons-building, Mr Bush has not for the first time seemed readier to favour a friend than to stick to a principle… His gamble is a dangerous one… Rule-bending for India is bound to encourage some other countries to rethink their nuclear options too. [Link]
<
p>Meanwhile, here’s how the same country is treating the NPT and the Iran argument in a report out the same week (thanks, RC):
 |
|
Rabinder Singh |
Over the past few years the [UK] government has quietly been pouring hundreds of millions of pounds of extra funding… in pursuit of a replacement warhead for the Trident ballistic missile system…. the data produced by the test were part of a much wider, secret research programme to build a new nuclear weapon that some experts say will breach the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)…… the law firm for whom Cherie Blair works, has drawn up a legal opinion… that any replacement of Trident would constitute “a material breach” of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The opinion has been prepared by… a professor of international law at the London School of Economics, and Rabinder Singh QC, a barrister who challenged the legality of the Iraq war…
Under the NPT, which came into force in 1970, Britain is committed to prevent proliferation and to “pursue” disarmament… “Replacing [Trident missiles] wrecks any standing we have when we preach non-proliferation to countries like Iran…” The reality, as one US official put it, is that whatever the public political niceties, “Britain is focused on a successor to the Trident warhead”… [Link]
‘In striking his deal with the UK, allowing it to import nuclear missiles despite its weapons-building, Mr. Bush is taking a dangerous gamble. Rule-bending for the UK is bound to encourage Iran to rethink its nuclear options too.’ Innit, gander?
There is no real equivalence between the UK and Iran, nor between India and Iran, only a cartel negotiation. It’s strictly business.
Thats very mature.
Jai, I understand that a lot people such as yourself are genuinely against the war and may have voted accordingly. I understand that people such as you didnt really have a good choice. All I am pointing out is that the reason that you didnt have a true choice against the war is that the majority’s feeling towards the war. IMO, Politicians dont make up positions out of thin air. Their positions are based on “their” reading of public sentiment. (actually thats their real role. To represent public opinion)
I will give you a good example. I was watching a book discussion on TV and the Author’s argument was that American people are somewhat “warmongers”. The reaction to his postion was really interesting. Lot of the people participating in the discussion were seriously hurt by Author’s suggestion…. !! Here in the US, silent majority was for the war. It has to be. Thats why both the parties were for war. Essence of representative democracy. Lastly, I understand the frustration of those who feel they dont have a choice (arent being represented, properly??) Like I said earlier … politics is not black and white.
RC,
Aha, we finally reach the crux of the matter. You’re assuming that public opinion in the UK was indeed accurately read, which was not necessarily the case…..
Anyway, Sunny is a better person to comment on all that since he has a more detailed insight into the intricacies of British politics and corresponding events here during the past few years. If he’s still reading this, perhaps he will be kind enough to summarise the issues involved for the benefit of yourself and other interested SM participants on that side of the Atlantic.
Thats very mature. Oh I’m sorry, were you trying to raise the quality of debate with that “latte liberalism” comment?
There seems to be this arrogant presumption amongst (especially American) warmongers that those who want to avoid are all fluffy, middle-class hippies with little understanding of realpolitik. What bollox. That may apply to your democrats, but not those of us who have debated and argued these issues endlessly.
Here in the US, silent majority was for the war. The same “silent” majority that was also under the mistaken impression, repeatedly asserted by your president, that Saddam Hussain was in league with Al-Qaeda and behind 9/11? What is so silent about a pro-war group that dominates talk-radio and broadcast news? Even the NYT went along with the rubbish.
Politicians dont make up positions out of thin air. Their positions are based on “their” reading of public sentiment.
Except our PM decided decided he was planning to go to war (with Iraq) before the British public even knew there were plans for one. On the eve of war our country had the biggest ever (by far) rally against the war and yet the PM refused to listen. Both Labour and the Tories were for the war based on WMD intelligence, and once that turned out to be false shifted their arguments to “liberating” the Iraqis. Hell, if that was their stated original intention, at least we wouldn’t accuse them of being lying bastards.
Only the Liberal Democrats opposed the war, along with that embarassment of a politician George Galloway.
You also forget that public opinion can be manipulated with the help of the press even if it is initially against something. A case in point is the hysterical ’45 min’ claim that it would take that long for one of Hussain’s WMD to reach Britain.
Thats why both the parties were for war. The Democrats weren’t really, but they went along because of the patriotic hysteria whipped up by your media. Howard Dean’s grass-roots popularity is indicative of this.
Tony Blair bought into the Churchillian doctrine of the unity of the English-speaking people. Just as the Americans helped them during the blitz, so to would he help the Yanks.
Except that the Yanks were a legitimate power during WW2. Declining Britain today can be nothing more than America’s little bitch. I think much of the British intelligentsia understands this but will not fully admit it. They fool themselves into thinking they are still players in the mythologized creature known as “the West.”
London’s economy (and thus Britains’) is powered by the large presence of American investment banks there. They might have easily and just as legitimately made Frankfurt their capital, but there are advantages to English speaking countries. In a sense, Britain is as much a beneficiary of its English speaking capacity as is India.
Once upon a time, in a country that no longer exists, there was a mountain cave. And inside the cave was a treasure. Slaves worked to mount up more and more and more treasure. They worked day and night in the bowels of the earth, and fashioned the things of the earth into something celestial. They used the products of the earth: animals that had died billions of years ago; chemicals that had hidden in earth and air were caught, distilled and carefully recombined – these became its fuel. Minerals that had been harvested from the earth were purified by fire until they were strong and stainless, then forged into many shapes – this became its skin, its brain its vital organs.
Everything has come from mother earth in this way. Cars, ploughs, televisions, clothes, electricity. Ourselves. Gathered, processed, moulded, ignited. If all this had happened in a flash, we would call it magic – lions freeing themselves from the clay, soldiers springing up from serpents’ teeth, lightning snaking from the tip of a wand, language from our mouths.
But it did not happen in a flash. It happened over time. The age of the earth was necessary to create it all, and the minds and bodies of many people. Humans can only work the magic in reverse. Returning it all to the earth and atmosphere in one great flash.
– from Ann-Marie MacDonald’s The way the crow flies.
Sunny, Since you take umbrage at the American war supporters percetption – “There seems to be this arrogant presumption amongst (especially American) warmongers that those who want to avoid are all fluffy, middle-class hippies with little understanding of realpolitik.”
Allow me to posit the realpolitik rationale/s for the U.S./India nuke deal.
While Iran is a signatory of the NPT, India never signed the NPT. So technically India is not breaking the treaty. Neither will be the U.S. if Bush gets Congress to pass the law. [If the American legislators has any sense of history they will vote yea.] India is the only country to resolve not ever being the first user of nuclear weapons. And she has always urged the civilized nations to join her in such a groundbreaking declaration. Imagine if all signed on to the “no first use” clause…….Imagine!!
So technically India is not breaking the treaty. Neither will be the U.S. if Bush gets Congress to pass the law.
I never said it was. However Iran can legitimately ask – “why is that the USA is happy to supply one country with nuclear technology, but if we want to develop it for energy use, we get referred to the Security Council.”
Where Manish and others are looking at the issue from an Indian perspective, I’m looking at this from that of a person who would prefer no nukes, anywhere. Iran’s resentment at being treated differently to India (and I don’t think they’ll be comparing GDP btw) will lead to a protracted stalemate at the UN, and from there who knows – maybe war. Either way the US/India deal comes at the wrong time. But then when has Bush ever cared about what other countries think? Maybe this is his way to increase Iranian resentment so it can be provoked into some military expedition that brings war.
Imagine if all signed on to the “no first use” clause…….Imagine!! Hell, imagine if they all gave up nukes! Please allow me at least worthwhile objectives. A no first use clause doesn’t stop stupid arms races.
London’s economy (and thus Britains’) is powered by the large presence of American investment banks there. A gross over-simplification there… but there is little point in getting into this debate. The American economy isn’t exactly on solid foundations either… its supported by having the dollar as the global reserve currency.
There is no real equivalence between the UK and Iran, nor between India and Iran
India and Iran are both languishing in the bottom of the world fighting for scraps. As Iran has more oil, its poor are doing better and it has a lower rate of poverty than India. Iran might be a pariah nation, as Manish puts it, but its poor are doing better than India at every imaginable human development index. I think most poor denizens of India would gladly switch places with the denizens of the pariah nation.
Here is a comparison of the Indian masses with the Iranian masses,
Per Capita Income Iran: 6,690 Per Capita Income India: 2,670
Population living below $2 a day (%), 1990-2003 Iran: 7.3 Population living below $2 a day (%), 1990-2003 India: 79.9
Population undernourished (% total), 2000-2002 Iran: 4 Population undernourished (% total), 2000-2002 India: 21
Adult Literacy Rate Iran :77.1 Adult Literacy Rate India :61.3
Human Development Index Iran: 0.732 Human Development Index India: 0.595
Infant mortality rate (per 1,000 live births) 2003 Iran: 33.0 Infant mortality rate (per 1,000 live births) 2003 India: 63.0
Under 5 mortality rate (per 1,000 children) 2003 Iran: 87.0 Under 5 mortality rate (per 1,000 children) 2003 India: 87.0
Child immunization, measles (% of under 12 mos) 2003 Iran: 99.0 Child immunization, measles (% of under 12 mos) 2003 India: 67.0
Probability at birth of surviving to age 65, female (% of cohort), 2000-2005 Iran: 71.7 Probability at birth of surviving to age 65, male (% of cohort), 2000-2005 India: 59.2
Population with sustainable access to improved sanitation (%), 2002 Iran: 84 Population with sustainable access to improved sanitation (%), 2002 India: 30
Population with sustainable access to an improved water source (%), 2002 Iran: 93 Population with sustainable access to an improved water source (%), 2002 India: 86
Probability at birth of not surviving to age 40 (% of cohort), 2000-05 Iran: 7.2 Probability at birth of not surviving to age 40 (% of cohort), 2000-05 India: 16.6
Probability at birth of surviving to age 65, female (% of cohort), 2000-2005 Iran: 79.2 Probability at birth of surviving to age 65, female (% of cohort), 2000-2005 India: 67.4
Pardon my Bhojpuri but what the hell development index has to do with nuclear technology. Iran might fare better on development, however it is largely a irreposible nation Whereas India has proven her credentials
Why, oh Why so many non sequiturs!
Mudde pe aayiye (Come to the point)
Regards
That’s right, we’re better even if they have a better standard of living. I mean…. who really cares about the poor? Nukes is where it’s at!
India responsible eh… I’m not sure everyone agrees. And even then the Bofors scandal, and many more since, have shown that Indian politicians are too easy to buy. I’d go easy on the “we’re responsible and more important” jingoism.
The answer to that is under its NPT agreement, Iran had to allow inspections to IAEA facility. They refused once 2 things were discovered, Iran had small quantities of weapons grade uranium, and a larger enrichment program that was not for energy. They kicked inspectors out.
As a compromise russians agreed to sell iran uranium for reactors(the spent fuel they will take back) Leaving iran free to generate electricity which iranians refused.
PS iran is not using reactor route to develop weapons, it is using the uranium enrichment route ie no reactor but series of chemical/mechanical processes.
Sunny,
As far as Non proliferation is concerned India has a better record than Iran (about which GGK told) And leave this Jingoism Shingoism stuff. It has been used so many times that people have become impervious to it.
And who cares what DailyKos thinks, so far except for Non proliferation Ayontollahs, no one contests the record of India in non proliferation.
Regards
Sunny,
What exactly has Bofors to do with non – proliferation ?
Regards
I’m new to this blog, so please be nice, but a former boss of mine, Dr. Arjun Makhijani of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research wrote a very thoughtful piece on the subject. It’s available at http://www.ieer.org/latest/indiaus.html.
Peace
I’m new to this blog, so please be nice, but a former boss of mine, Dr. Arjun Makhijani of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research wrote a very thoughtful piece on the subject. It’s available at http://www.ieer.org/latest/indiaus.html.
Peace
Well, one thing everyone HAS to get is – NPT is bloody useless. Has always been, and will be. So don’t waste your breath flogging a dead horse. The simple truth is, Iran and a few others in the future will all acquire nuclear technology/weapons. The genie has been unleashed, and it’s an insecure, unequal geo-political situation, which means everyone is going to try to outwit everyone else. What proliferation are we talking about without destroying the thousands of warheads that the nuclear states have? It is nice to have a principled anti-proliferation stance, and in theory I’m for that too, but doesn’t work in the real world, does it? India’s defence situation makes it imperative that we have a strong deterrent capability, and that is as important as alleviating poverty, no gratuitous remarks are necessary there. Finally, ppl shouldn’t forget this deal is not all about weapons, it is about energy too, quite desperately needed.
No way! Its more fun abusing people. The article you sight was not thoughtful
1) Iran not having enriched uranium Iran had small quantities which they later said that it came from pakistan.
2) India iran pipeline India iran pipeline feasability studies have been inconclusive. Iran wanted commitment of fixing the amount of gas india would buy, India demanded price be fixed, this is still an ongoing discussion. This is why no clear document exists describing the price. Another big if is that it goes through pakistan particularly balochistan(which is burning) So where iran pipeline will go, no one knows any one who claims that is guessing. Untill solid security and financial terms are there that is just a speculative deal. The same arguement goes towards uranium prices too, So that is a valid concern regarding if india should scale up nuclear power generation if it becomes expensive. If that is what mr makhijani wants to discuss that will be a valid point, but he was not. Another issue is that environmentaly burning fossil fuel creates more pollution why doesnt he site that.
3)Nuclear aparthaeid Not True! What makes india the leader of the nuclear have nots. Countries like iran have not supported india on kashmir issue, nor on the bangladeshi war of independence. So there are plenty of those who are now claiming to be have nots that have taken anti india stance for geo political reason.
India saw the agreement as nuclear halve/halve not and did not sign. Other nations felt that it was ok agreement and they did signup to those agreement. If other nations felt that way they could have chosen not to sign!, but they did not. It was upto each nation to decide these issue. If a nation made a deal with the halves saying that it will work with them on this unequal setting it was that nations call.
Judging from the protests to Bush’s visit, there does seem to be a large anti-american sentiment in India. It’s difficult to understand the protesters because the deal was largely a win for India.
Sunny, I say this with utmost respect. Please refer to a Macro Economic textbook before making comments like – “The American economy isn’t exactly on solid foundations either… its supported by having the dollar as the global reserve currency.”
You run an intelligent blog. Please don’t let people doubt that.
To all the Naysayers and poverty baiters –
1) India is inherently more responsible than China. btw, wonder how critical the europeans [esp, Britain] were of the U.S.-China deal?
2) This Nuclear deal could go a long way in alleviating Indian energy needs.
Meaning lesser dependence [more money for development] on middle east [blood] oil and indigenous coal. The latter happens to be one of the worst pollutants in the world. One doesn’t need be an economist to relaize how much this deal could help the Indian poor in the long run. Not to mention the benefit to the environment. by the by, I wonder what percentage of her majesty’s subjects energy needs are satisfied by nuclear energy.
Pardon my Bhojpuri but what the hell development index has to do with nuclear technology. Iran might fare better on development, however it is largely a irreposible nation Whereas India has proven her credentials
I think a nation is in fact irresponsible when a majority of its population lives on less than $2 a day.
Of course that irresponsibility does not mean that a country should not get nukes and I am not arguing that India should not get nuclear technology. As I have already stated in the other post, I do believe that India should get the nuclear technology.
I scanned through that thoughtful? piece by Arjun Makhijani &, even to a layperson like me, it is clear that not enough thought has gone into it. Makhijani blames the US-India nuke deal for weakening the NPT but this is rather clueless given that NPT signatories like China, Iran etc. were already breaking the rules at will while other NPT signatories (EU, Clinton Administration) were playing Nero while NPT burned.
By 1970, Iran had signed & ratified the NPT. As a reward, Iran got its first nuke plant in 1974 with german help. Even back then, many had questioned why iran, an energy surplus country, would even need nuclear power given that all their needs could be satisfied through oil & gas. Those misgivings were borne out recently when IAEA observers discovered highly enriched uranium stuck in advanced P-2 centrifuges at an Air Force base outside Tehran. P-2 is used to pull out highly enriched uranium. Iran’s explanation?
“well, er, we got pre-owned centrifuges from pakistan & the uranium came with it!”
“Yes, yes iran mian, but under the NPT, you were supposed to inform us about the centrifuge before you got it from pakistan. Unfortunately, the NPT prohibits you from getting even the parts of a P-2 given that it is utterly useless for producing power”
All that stuff about human development index is an eyewash. The Iran argument is dead in the water & will not last a minute in Congress.
Expose, I gotta run somewhere, and yes it was a throwaway comment, but I refer you to this. I did do Economics as my major at university.
Sunny man
I don’t agree with you on lotsa (most) things. But you gotta like somebody who reads and quotes Asia Times. Love that site.
Do you guys know any other equally good or better news analysis sites?
and dont forget “energy storgage” 🙂