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.
Lord Curzon said in 1901 “As long as we rule India we are the greatest power in the world. If we lose it we shall drop straight away to a third-rate power.”
Manish, your argument underestimates the degree to which reciprocity and the example set by countries like the US and UK matter when it comes to compliance with international law. Suppose we rewrote your post as follows:
Would you make that structurally identical critique of this hypothetical Economist column? Perhaps you would, in which case end of discussion, I suppose, though I think that the critique would be deeply misguided. Or maybe the difference for you is that you don’t believe in the NPT while you do believe in the Torture Convention. But as a valid and binding international law instrument it still does deserve the respect of its state parties unless and until renegotiated. When the US and UK flout its provisions to create ad hoc exceptions for countries like India, it does send a message to other countries that they, too, should not take their international law obligations all that seriously. Follow the law…. when it’s convenient and in our interests, but otherwise, ignore it. But if that principle is good enough for the UK, US, and India, why isn’t it good enough for Iran — whether it comes to the NPT or anything else, including human rights treaties?
Incidentally, the notion in your earlier post that India deserves special treatment because it is a responsible, non-profliferating democracy is subject to the following qualification: by conducting its tests in the late 1990s, India essentially legitimated Pakistan’s nuclear tests that same month and in the broader scheme of things probably undermined efforts to contain profileration by Pakistan. Not necessarily responsible in its exercise of judgment, and not necessarily anti-profileration in its effect.
The British rag The Economist once again criticizes the U.S.-India nuke deal
I dont share their view of the deal, but I wont call the Economist a rag.
AQ Khan had been proliferating before India conducted their nuclear tests. Moreover, it gives India a reason to possess such weapons…
In the same issue, in Letters to the Editor, a number of people take the The Economist to task for its position, and one even defends Arundhati Roy. I think the first letter is particularly brilliant 😉
On America and India
While the other, Blair (the one who really matters) is threatening Iran over Nuclear matter
This is the same thinking that still has most British convinced that the British Empire was a benevolent rule. Wage Chemical warfare against a nation/people for purely the reasons of empire and still claim to have principles.
In a very “principled” way, The Economist has NOT covered UK’s nuclear weapon story, while pontificating about principles that others should stick too. Very principled indeed ….
Didnt know this, (from KXB’s link)
Moreover, India has adopted two policies that none of the five established nuclear powers follow: no first use of nuclear weapons, and no weapons to be used against a non-nuclear nation. Can we expect the established nuclear powers to follow Delhi’s example?
Can someone confirm the above?
From the Federation of American Scientists:
India has a declared nuclear no-first-use policy and is in the process of developing a nuclear doctrine based on “credible minimum deterrence.” In August 1999, the Indian government released a draft of the doctrine which asserts that nuclear weapons are solely for deterrence and that India will pursue a policy of “retaliation only.” The document also maintains that India “will not be the first to initiate a nuclear first strike, but will respond with punitive retaliation should deterrence fail” and that decisions to authorize the use of nuclear weapons would be made by the Prime Minister or his ‘designated successor(s).'”
As someone who actually lives in the UK and has spent his entire life here, I can state categorically that this claim is not accurate. The whole issue of British colonialism is a very awkward topic indeed here these days (to the extent that even the high school-level curriculum treats the imperial era as having few redeeming features). To say that “most” British believe the above is a huge exaggeration, especially with regards to large numbers of the indigenous British younger generation who have grown up in a multicultural society surrounded by 2nd-generation non-whites who were also born in the UK. On the whole, this is also reflected in the mainstream British media.
RC, unless you personally live in the UK or have spent a large proportion of your life in this country (especially during the last 15 years or so), with all due respect you may not be in the best position to comment on indigenous British attitudes.
what do u expect its a brit journal, I used to read economist when i was in school but never subscribed to it. A better name should be the colonialist Apart from FT i dont read anything coming from those islands. They are allways smug, huffing and puffing over any thing any one does and in essence saying we could have done it better.(except they never do anything) Back in the day economist had real economy related story. a good journal for real economic and political analysis is far eastern economic review. It is more wider in scope than what its name applies.
A trivial but humorous story is after 1974 test france sent indira a wire with 1 word :-“congratulation”, within hours british ambassador called to get an apppointment she told him that it could only be done on the phone later on the phone she told him if it is regarding the test only there isnt much to talk about and she had more pressing things to do. The conversation was over in under a minute.
PS this deal is going to go along the lines of US-China Nuclear Cooperation. Check this summary of the long events http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/58442.pdf
The US congress will attempt to add more clauses, in that case india should just walk out of the deal. All that would mean is that it wont go thru this year but another couple of years down the road.
Yes! Where have you been!
GGK wrote:
FYI, the FT Group, a subsidiary of the Pearson Group, has a 50% stake in the Economist. I find the content and editorial opinions to be quite in synch in both FT & the Economist.
I believe the Pearson Group also has a minority stake in the Economic Times published in India.
Can someone confirm the above?
Yes! Where have you been!
Watching football 😉
Jai, I made my claim based on a US based leftist Rahul Mahajan’s (with whoes views, I dont always agree) blog entry that described his lectures in the UK.
An excerpt :
I agree that I am not in the best place to make claims about YOUNG Britons views about their history. But then UK is not a very YOUNG society (by % of population below the age of 30)
I have been to school in UK (albeit for a short time and not long enough to meet the 15 year requirement set by Jai) and in elite universities in UK, I saw numerous otherwise very liberal British students express benevolent feelings towards the ‘Raj’.
Of course, I do realize that I can only extrapolate that much from my anecdotal evidence, but that was the general feeling I got from both students and professors, while I was there. There were some dissenters, but most people had a more benign impression of the Raj than I expected.
Yes pearson has a stake but they dont seem to move in synch to me.(but i havent read the print edition of economist since 3 years ago and only have occasionaly clicked a link to it) Economist allways was a set of opinion after another(kind of like opinionjournal), where as FT was about facts and numbers. CNN has a stake in CNN-IBN but contents and analysis dont seem to be moving in sync there. I think FT and economist are like that, but again if you read both regularly you may know more. FT’s coverage of india nuclear deal was mostly coverage of statements made by politicos and potential numbers if deal goes thru.
Intersting. will have to read economic times, thanks
It doesn’t (they think) cost them much “diplomatic capital” to oppose India, as the EU isn’t as aggressive in foreign policy, and in fact courts China. Britain actually gains by vocal opposition as it makes them seem caring and anti-proliferation in the eyes of their friends (too bad about Iraq, eh?). The truth, as other mutineers have nicely pointed out by the Titan post, is far from it.
Despite what Jai says I believe Britain has and will continue to view India as an unequal. I don’t live there nor have I stepped foot outside of Heathrow, but I know they “owned” us for 200+ years, “civilized” us (read: sucked us dry… but thanks for the railroads), and will be damned if they stand by and let India eclipse them.
How ’bout taking a page from the great Johnny Carson on gracefully bowing out, Tony…
Yup, a cartel negotiation. Iran is milking the best deal possible. IF the US reaalllyyyy wanted to take those installations out, they could in a heartbeat. The first squadron of F-22s are up, obviously we have the B-2 and F-117s operational. And you have cruise missles. Israel would send a mission somehow, those dudes have balls (Entebbe, Iraq’s nuclear facilities). Iraq was the low hanging fruit of the middle east and Saddam was a blatanly stupid businessman. He called the bluff (Twice) that wasn’t one. Iran has been very careful, avoiding direct conflict with the United States for a long time. They (the ruling mullah despots) are crafty businessmen.
What is the shelf life for these weapons? Much of the world’s nuclear aresenal is getting old. Does it constitute a breach of the NPT if one develops more efficient weapons, yet at the same time reduces their overall quantities? I don’t know.
Indian democracy thrives on debate and dialogue with its writers and intellectuals, which is probably why an illiterate rickshaw-puller on the street is better informed and has far greater critical thinking skills than the “educated” average American.
This is from one of the letters from The Economist, through KXB. It is amazingly true.
In 2004, I used to chat with one of the inner-city bus driver in Hyderabad around Nov.4 elections. He knew quite a bit about Bush, Kerry stances on out-sourcing, Iraq, etc. He was pro-Bush.
I think it will take 3-4 years before Indo-US Nuclear deal gets passed in the Congress (as opposed to 13 years for China-US deal). A lot will depend on how Congress views China at that time. Does India have good lobbyists lined up. I’ll send emails to lawmakers when the deal on the front burner. I know a couple of ex-ambassadors to India are speaking on India’s behalf.
“Does it constitute a breach of the NPT if one develops more efficient weapons, yet at the same time reduces their overall quantities?”
I think one of the breaches of NPT is to make new weapons-grade plutonium. I think making new warheads is not one. I might be wrong.
China does not claim that they are not making new plutonium – Strictly, they are not obeying NPT.
No. They cant. Iran is not Iraq. Iran is 3 times the size of Iraq. Iraq was gutted from inside due to the 10 years of sanctions. Iran’s army is just fine. Even after attacking a tiny nation which practically didnt have an army, the US is having a hard time controlling it. and Yes, chest thumping feels good.
OK I’m having posters remorse… re-reading statement #3 above I feel I was a bit harsh on the good old Union Jackers. I still think some on the Isles privately take credit for India’s successes as “former subjects of Her majesty, the Queen,” but then again we all know how the US looks at the rest of the world.
RC A reccomended book is punjabi saga by prakash tandon.(Hey Kush are you related? 😉 ) it is mostly one guys recollection of his families history and his professional life but it had a couple of pages text books in schools in india glorifying brits, the allegation of political manuevers in text book today are way minor to those that they did Since then i have been collection old text books in india. But i couldnt find a single british era text book yet.
Reading comprehension is a skill. I said installations, not outright full fledged war. That is why I listed weapons that are stand-off in nature. What did my post highlight? The US HAS the ability to take the installations out, yet haven’t? Why? Going based upon your previous positions, you’d think if GWB was so keen on starting something, he would have already sent in the tip of the spear.
Iranian Army, though underequipped, is very loyal to the mullahs. Underestimating their technical competance was the Saddam’s biggest mistake during the Iran-Iraq war. Those guys died in droves and kept coming, not unlike the Soviets during WWII. Again, no one is starting a war with Iran anytime soon. Iranians are engaging countries on a level where it doesn’t cost them much. Sure, a war with the US and it’s allies probably would end in some sort of stalemate, but the burden of cost would be on Iran. One has to take a look next door to see that.
I’m not chest-thumping. Just stating the pragmatic realities of the tactical strike capabilities. The US Army, nor any in the world as an individual nation, is in a position to occupy Iran.
A reccomended book is punjabi saga by prakash tandon.(Hey Kush are you related? ;-
Yes, very distantly. I am not sure. I might have to ask my parents.
the pics are precious. i can’t tell which one i’m enjoying more….bush on the bomb or ….wait, no brainer.
I just read this morning in one of the Indian newspapers that the Indian govt has signed up Robert Blackwill’s lobby firm for $1.5mn to promote the deal in Congress. Can’t find the link right now, though.
RC,
I think it’s more accurate to say that the general consensus here is one of underestimating (or ignoring) the more negative aspects of British colonialism, rather than some kind of “apologist” attitude — especially as, from their view, their most recent point of comparison is Nazi Germany. The average Brit is usually embarrassed by his/her nation’s imperial past — especially those who have lived, studied, and worked alongside a significant number of non-whites and have had positive experiences with them. There are, of course, plenty of exceptions — both subtle and overt — but to assume that “most” indigenous British people are some kind of jingoistic, chest-thumping imperialists hankering for the days of “the Raj” is not correct. Maybe about 20 years ago, but not today. In fact, on the whole, people who do espouse that kind of attitude are usually ridiculed, especially if they do so in the public eye/the media (here in the UK, such people are often disparagingly referred to as “Daily Mail readers” — fellow Mutineers from the UK will know what I mean).
Al_M_f_D,
I myself studied at several (to use your term — I’m trying to be modest here) “elite universities in the UK” — please refer to my previous paragraph. The same applies to many of my current and former professional colleagues, large numbers of who are also originally from top-tier universities. They regard the colonial era as ancient history, one which they’re not necessarily very proud of and something they associate as one of the more distasteful aspects of their grandparents’ generation. In fact many of these guys find it grossly offensive if you continue to carry a chip on your shoulder towards them about this, especially as they do not hold any personal responsibility for the actions of their ancestors and they very often go to great lengths to be friendly, fair-minded and non-prejudiced towards all of us. One may as well continue to harbour a grudge against present-day Germans for the actions of the Nazis, or even present-day Iranians and Afghanis for the excesses of the Mughal Empire.
As I said before, there are of course plenty of racist English people around, and these things can also sometimes have a professional impact on one’s career too (a while ago I had a disagreement about this with BongBreaker and found an unexpected ally in MoorNam !), but to say that “most” English people have this attitude is inaccurate. A lot, yes. Most, no. Otherwise we really wouldn’t be able to make any professional progress here at all apart from what are regarded as low-level menial careers.
Pravasi,
The majority of British people actually oppose the war in Iraq and condemn the unethical actions of some of the Coalition troops, including the various prisoner abuse scandals, the whole issue of Guantanamo and “extraordinary rendition”, and indeed collateral damage in general (especially considering the sheer numbers involved). This has created a far greater outcry in the UK than you may think.
Britain regarding itself as an imperial power in 2006 ? No — in many ways, the UK is practically the 51st state of the US these days, and not just culturally either 😉
Is it that much! I had read elsewhere blackwill was goint be an indian lobbyist.
Yet, they voted for Tony Blair. Protest doesnt mean anything. Vote means everything. When inside the voting booth by-themselves, it is clear who and what majority of Britons prefer.
Not aware of British politics. Most people do not base their voting decisions on foreign policies, but on domestic, esp economic issues.
the BBC reporter put in some cockney humor into the flea market deal:
“The White House has now revealed the full extent of the historic agreement reached with India.
In return for American help with its civilian nuclear programme, India will export mangos to the US.”
GujuDude Said
The assumption that attacking installations will not lead to full fledged war is erroneous. Iran had made statements to that effect, in response to talk that plans are underfoot to take out the reactors.
Iran isnt Osirak Part 2, where all you had to do was take out 1 reactor and it was all over. Iran’s case is much more complex.
He hasnt recovered from the mess next door to make that decision yet. Iran was supposed to be next on the list, till the iraqis got all uppity and messed up the plans.
While its true that Iraq had paid a higher price, the US is exactly walking away unscathed. Correct me if I am wrong, but the war cost is out of control, military had been stretched to the breaking point and will need time to get back in shape…etc. Burden of cost will be on anyone unfortunate or stupid enough to get involved.
I have not assumed it won’t lead to full flegded war. That is a possibility, as is a limited confrontation, or nothing, or something extremely messy. People are looking too far into my comments. I simply said the US has the ability to destroy those facilities, and haven’t, because it isn’t in our interest.
Agreed. It is more complex. Underground and de-centralized facilities making things a more difficult. Doesn’t mean it cannot be done, just takes more than 4 F-16s screaming through the desert with their munitions.
No. How do you know that he was planning on attacking? What if the strategy simply hinged on changing Iraq and having a country with US presence on the Syrian and Iranian borders. I guess just like GWB talks to God, many of you talk to Bush.
Obviously, we’re bearing a heavy cost. But the war isn’t exactly on OUR land is it? Its on theirs, which means they would suffer the greater burden. Thats all I said. I did not say its easy pickens NOR cheap. Simply, the brunt of the total cost (life, infrastructure, economy, etc.) will be theirs.
sigh Seriously. I’m sitting here saying that IT IS possible, but none of the parties involved really want it (Despite the saber rattling). That is all, and thats my position. History or many of you can prove me wrong. In this case, I think all parties are bluffing.
Seriously. I’m sitting here saying that IT IS possible, but none of the parties involved really want it (Despite the saber rattling). That is all, and thats my position. History or many of you can prove me wrong. In this case, I think all parties are bluffing.
Well, the hard core Zionists in the White House who would have cheered/led the US into a possible military confrontation with Iran have either been defanged (Elliott Abrams), indicted (Scooter Libby) or have left the White House (Douglas Feith)
claiming thereÂ’s some kind of comparison with the pariah government of Iran:
You’re regurgitating the same old arguments. In international law there should be no exceptions. By Bush blatantly ignoring at NPT at a time when he’s playing hardball with Iran is stupid.
I don’t get why that’s so difficult for some SM readers to understand.
RC & Technophobicgeek,
Correct, plus in this case it was due to a lack of viable alternative candidates at the time. However, the previous margin of victory had been substantially diminished this time round.
Then Britain should disarm. No?
Silly me, I thought Britain and the U.S. violating the NPT were news.
‘Regurgitating the same old arguments’ = ‘You didn’t adopt my kumbaya, anti-nuke views.’
Then Britain should disarm. No?
Yes it should, and I keep saying that anyway. If I oppose nukes in the UK and want less of the global arms industry, then by logical extension I am against the NPT being broken. I don’t see my views as inconsistent.
Silly me, I thought Britain and the U.S. violating the NPT were news. I refer to your argument that put forward as: ‘India is more important than Iran economically and politically therefore it should get special treatment’. That is a repetition of your previous theme.
Out of curiosity, why is Iran exactly a pariah nation?
Led by a crazy leader? Yes. Pariah? I am not sure why Iran is a pariah nation. Most nations in the world have diplomatic contracts with Iran and actually trade with it.
Contacts* and not contracts
Jai,
I know that in politics its not always black and white and the fact that there was no good alternative to Blair. But then all these “oppose Iraq war” is a position of “latte liberal” position. Doesnt mean a damn thing.
RC,
Apart from trying to vote the leader out of office, there’s little else ordinary people can legally do in terms of concrete actions.
Government ministers do have the power to take further measures, but they need to build up enough of a consensus to initiate such proceedings, especially if they wish such actions to carry enough weight to be taken seriously.
From what I understand about the American democratic political system, I believe similar procedures exist in the US too.
The Conservative Party were for the War in Iraq too. The British voters didnt get a choice.
That is a travesty of the widespread opposition to the war across Britain – it was not some metropolitan bourgoise posturing. It was principled and consistent. You don’t seem to have much knowledge of the temperature of British society or politics, do you?
I want to end global warming and world hunger.
I want to end global warming and world hunger.
Isn’t time for your mommy to come and put you to bed yet?
Addendum to one of my previous answers, in response to one of RC’s comments:
I was actually referring to people under the age of 40, as most 1st-Generation desis migrated to the UK during the late 1960s and early 1970s. As for me, I am 32 and was born here.
RC,
I understand the analogy you’re trying to draw, but read my post #44 again. Beyond a certain point, there is relatively little British people can legally do.
Here’s the lobbying link.