Bush nukes the NPT
Danny | 04.03.2006 00:59 | Analysis | Anti-militarism
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones - Einstein
The Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty was effectively ended by Bushs nuclear deal with India yesterday. All the old treaties have been ripped up or abused as if we were on the verge of a new world war.
The Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty was effectively ended by Bushs nuclear deal with India yesterday. All the old treaties have been ripped up or abused as if we were on the verge of a new world war.
In 1968 the signatories to the NPT agreed to nonproliferation and disarmament alongside the right to peacefully use nuclear technology None of the 5 recognised nuclear powers ( the UN Security Council permanent members ) disarmed or made any serious attempt to do so, although they have used it as a pretext for military action. And they continue to do so, quite openly hypocritical.
Iran signed it and is not in breach.
The US signed it and is in breach both for not disarming and for proliferation.
India never even signed it but would definitely be in breach if it had.
It also marks a significant mark in global politics, an abandonment of the US regional policy of treating Pakistan and India equally, effectively an alliance with India. Pakistan will be forced into a similar tacit alliance with China, effectively setting the stage for the end of this 'phoney war' 'war on terrorism'. The long war that US planners refer to is not likely to remain low intensity conflict for long. Remember Blair just recently going to make peace between India and Pakistan while in reality just selling more British arms to both sides ? We have a limited time period to overthrow these war-mongers and make real peace. Any slight incident from Taiwan to Kashmir to Tehrann now implies total war - total incineration.
My generation used to fear that before the wall came down in 1990 and we began talking about the peace dividend.
The director of the IAEA disagrees with my analysis, in public at least, but then since Hans Blixs slight rebuke and recrimination of USuk undermining of the UN pre-Iraq I can't really take any 'Directors' seriously. They are stooges, fools or impotent charlatans.
IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei - "This agreement is an important step towards satisfying India´s growing need for energy, including nuclear technology and fuel, as an engine for development. It would also bring India closer as an important partner in the non-proliferation regime," he said. "It would be a milestone, timely for ongoing efforts to consolidate the non-proliferation regime, combat nuclear terrorism and strengthen nuclear safety."
"The agreement would assure India of reliable access to nuclear technology and nuclear fuel. It would also be a step forward towards universalisation of the international safeguards regime," Dr. ElBaradei said. "This agreement would serve the interests of both India and the international community."
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060303/NEWS07/603030313/1009
"With this agreement, we're basically saying that India can do something that Iran can't do," said William Potter, director of the Center for Nonproliferation Studies, a policy study group in Monterey, Calif., and a former consultant to the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. "It's very damaging for nonproliferation efforts to have this double standard." Thursday's deal would make India eligible to buy U.S. nuclear technology and fuel from U.S. companies such as General Electric Co., the world's biggest maker of power-generation equipment. It also marks India's arrival on the world stage and acts as a counterweight to China's growing power, proponents say.
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/586be162-aad5-11da-8a68-0000779e2340.html
Edward J. Markey, co-chair of the Bipartisan Task Force on Nonproliferation and senior Democrat on the House energy and commerce committee, claimed the administration had in effect scrapped the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. “The ink on this agreement has barely dried and already Pakistan is asking for the very same special treaty Bush has carved out for India,” Mr Markey said. “It empowers hawks in every rogue nation to put nuclear weapons plans on steroids.” The US administration has indicated it has no intention of working towards a similar deal for Pakistan, whose record on non-proliferation was gravely tarnished by the clandestine “nuclear Wal-Mart” run by A. Q. Khan, its top nuclear scientist. “Pakistan is not in the same place as India,” Condoleezza Rice, US secretary of state, said this week. “We have programmes and relationships with Pakistan that would not be appropriate with India, and vice versa.” However, a foreign ministry official in Islamabad said the US-India deal opened the door for Pakistan to seek a similar deal for the supply of further nuclear energy reactors from China, which has already supplied one and promised a second. “There is now a precedent that Pakistan can try to follow for seeking nuclear power reactors from other countries,” said Shireen Mazari, the head of the Islamabad-based and government-funded Institute for Strategic Studies. Ending India’s so-called “hyphenation” with Pakistan has been a long-standing goal of an Indian strategic elite convinced that US military and economic support for Pakistan has bogged it down in sub-regional conflict and delayed its arrival on the world stage.
IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei called the deal "a step forward towards universalization of the international safeguards regime." The accord, however, excluded important parts of India's nuclear program from safeguards. Eight reactors wouldn't be covered by the safeguards and could remain sources of plutonium for weapons. The facilities include several civilian power plants and a fast-breeder reactor that will produce large amounts of plutonium. While many details of the agreement weren't disclosed, experts said that safeguards also wouldn't cover existing spent reactor fuel, which contains enough plutonium for more than 1,000 weapons, and a facility for enriching uranium, which also can be used to make nuclear weapons. "The bottom line is that this deal would allow India to significantly increase its nuclear weapons arsenal and provides precious little safeguarding," said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association. "This is a nonproliferation nothing-burger, and Congress will see it as that if they look carefully." India has an estimated 50 to 60 nuclear warheads, according to a September report by the Natural Resources Defense Council, a U.S. arms-control group.
Iran signed it and is not in breach.
The US signed it and is in breach both for not disarming and for proliferation.
India never even signed it but would definitely be in breach if it had.
It also marks a significant mark in global politics, an abandonment of the US regional policy of treating Pakistan and India equally, effectively an alliance with India. Pakistan will be forced into a similar tacit alliance with China, effectively setting the stage for the end of this 'phoney war' 'war on terrorism'. The long war that US planners refer to is not likely to remain low intensity conflict for long. Remember Blair just recently going to make peace between India and Pakistan while in reality just selling more British arms to both sides ? We have a limited time period to overthrow these war-mongers and make real peace. Any slight incident from Taiwan to Kashmir to Tehrann now implies total war - total incineration.
My generation used to fear that before the wall came down in 1990 and we began talking about the peace dividend.
The director of the IAEA disagrees with my analysis, in public at least, but then since Hans Blixs slight rebuke and recrimination of USuk undermining of the UN pre-Iraq I can't really take any 'Directors' seriously. They are stooges, fools or impotent charlatans.
IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei - "This agreement is an important step towards satisfying India´s growing need for energy, including nuclear technology and fuel, as an engine for development. It would also bring India closer as an important partner in the non-proliferation regime," he said. "It would be a milestone, timely for ongoing efforts to consolidate the non-proliferation regime, combat nuclear terrorism and strengthen nuclear safety."
"The agreement would assure India of reliable access to nuclear technology and nuclear fuel. It would also be a step forward towards universalisation of the international safeguards regime," Dr. ElBaradei said. "This agreement would serve the interests of both India and the international community."
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060303/NEWS07/603030313/1009 "With this agreement, we're basically saying that India can do something that Iran can't do," said William Potter, director of the Center for Nonproliferation Studies, a policy study group in Monterey, Calif., and a former consultant to the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. "It's very damaging for nonproliferation efforts to have this double standard." Thursday's deal would make India eligible to buy U.S. nuclear technology and fuel from U.S. companies such as General Electric Co., the world's biggest maker of power-generation equipment. It also marks India's arrival on the world stage and acts as a counterweight to China's growing power, proponents say.
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/586be162-aad5-11da-8a68-0000779e2340.html Edward J. Markey, co-chair of the Bipartisan Task Force on Nonproliferation and senior Democrat on the House energy and commerce committee, claimed the administration had in effect scrapped the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. “The ink on this agreement has barely dried and already Pakistan is asking for the very same special treaty Bush has carved out for India,” Mr Markey said. “It empowers hawks in every rogue nation to put nuclear weapons plans on steroids.” The US administration has indicated it has no intention of working towards a similar deal for Pakistan, whose record on non-proliferation was gravely tarnished by the clandestine “nuclear Wal-Mart” run by A. Q. Khan, its top nuclear scientist. “Pakistan is not in the same place as India,” Condoleezza Rice, US secretary of state, said this week. “We have programmes and relationships with Pakistan that would not be appropriate with India, and vice versa.” However, a foreign ministry official in Islamabad said the US-India deal opened the door for Pakistan to seek a similar deal for the supply of further nuclear energy reactors from China, which has already supplied one and promised a second. “There is now a precedent that Pakistan can try to follow for seeking nuclear power reactors from other countries,” said Shireen Mazari, the head of the Islamabad-based and government-funded Institute for Strategic Studies. Ending India’s so-called “hyphenation” with Pakistan has been a long-standing goal of an Indian strategic elite convinced that US military and economic support for Pakistan has bogged it down in sub-regional conflict and delayed its arrival on the world stage.
IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei called the deal "a step forward towards universalization of the international safeguards regime." The accord, however, excluded important parts of India's nuclear program from safeguards. Eight reactors wouldn't be covered by the safeguards and could remain sources of plutonium for weapons. The facilities include several civilian power plants and a fast-breeder reactor that will produce large amounts of plutonium. While many details of the agreement weren't disclosed, experts said that safeguards also wouldn't cover existing spent reactor fuel, which contains enough plutonium for more than 1,000 weapons, and a facility for enriching uranium, which also can be used to make nuclear weapons. "The bottom line is that this deal would allow India to significantly increase its nuclear weapons arsenal and provides precious little safeguarding," said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association. "This is a nonproliferation nothing-burger, and Congress will see it as that if they look carefully." India has an estimated 50 to 60 nuclear warheads, according to a September report by the Natural Resources Defense Council, a U.S. arms-control group.
Danny
Comments
Hide the following 3 comments
scratching my head
04.03.2006 10:51
sceptic
Keeping up with the Singhs
04.03.2006 14:55
India isn't a signatory to the NPT and so isn't one of the states that are recognised by the treaty to have the right to aquire nuclear technology from NPT signatories. This deal transfers technology and legitimises Indias existing programme, effectively leaving their fast breeder reactors ( the ones that produce plutonium ) and their nuclear warhead programmes - including testing - outside of international inspection.
It does increase the number of nukes in the world. The deal will allow India to ramp up its production of nuclear weapons unhindered by any legal trade sanctions.
It will increase the number of nuclear states. Brasil, which has a space program (ie ICBM ) and fast breeder reactors ( plutonium sources for warheads ) will likely soon unsign the NPT as there is no discernable benefit to them remaining legal. And its not just Brasil, ElBaradei estimates that another 40 countries are able to convert their civilian programmes to military programmes.
The lessons Iran can draw are pretty obvious - the rules aren't applied equally and so they have little reason to remain in the treaty. No nukes like Iraq mean you get invaded, whereas North Korea remains safe from invasion by having aquired nuclear weapons.
Article I
Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices.
"“The plan’s gaping loopholes would allow India to increase its current capacity to produce 6-10 additional nuclear bombs a year to several dozen per year. In addition, the plan probably excludes the spent fuel from its 11 operating power reactors from safeguards. This would allow India to use the 9,000 kilograms (over 1,000 bombs worth) of unseparated plutonium in those fuel rods for its weapons program....In the rush to meet an artificial summit deadline, the White House sold out core American nonproliferation values and positions. The so-called civil-military separation plan announced today is clearly not ‘credible’ from a nonproliferation standpoint as the Bush administration had promised it would be” -Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association
"India acquired a nuclear-weapon capability under the cover of an ambitious nuclear power program that received considerable support from the major nuclear suppliers, particularly Canada and the United States, until India detonated a so-called peaceful nuclear explosive (PNE) in 1974. Pakistan’s acquisition and subsequent development of nuclear weapons have been driven by its perceived need to match India in this sphere as well as to compensate for its conventional military inferiority to India in the context of a possible war over Kashmir...In the aftermath of the Indian PNE, the United States led an international effort to clamp down on further proliferation. One step was bringing the major nuclear suppliers together to agree on a code of conduct (the Nuclear Supplier Guidelines) for nuclear exports that mandated International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards on nuclear-related items and also urged restraint on the transfer of sensitive nuclear technologies. Domestically, the United States enacted the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978, conditioning U.S. nuclear cooperation on a country’s acceptance of full-scope safeguards. That law led to the termination of U.S. nuclear cooperation with India....However, permitting the transfer of nuclear technology on this basis, even if coupled with their endorsement and implementation of rigorous export control arrangements such as the NSG guidelines, as some advocate, would blur the distinction between NPT parties and nonparties and thus undermine the treaty. In the case of the United States (and other major nuclear suppliers), such a trade-off would contradict national law and the NSG guidelines that require acceptance of full-scope safeguards as a condition for nuclear technology transfer. For this reason, such a trade-off is not prudent. "
Danny
Australia considers exporting uranium to India
07.03.2006 15:44
"
But Bush, apparently without consulting Howard, has negotiated a nuclear co-operation agreement with India. And the Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, is now leaning on Australia to provide uranium. Apparently making it up as he went along, Howard initially said Australia might be able to make an exception of India.
...Already there is widespread disillusionment with the double standards of the treaty, especially the refusal of the five recognised nuclear weapons states to take any meaningful action under Article VI to reduce their nuclear arsenals, while non-nuclear states must refrain from acquiring their own. The double standards extend to Israel, Pakistan and Iran...The first two, like India, have escaped international censure for developing their nuclear weapons outside the treaty. Meanwhile Iran correctly asserts that as a treaty signatory, it has the right to pursue peaceful nuclear technology, including enrichment. But it is disbelieved, and may be bombed instead of being given treaty-sanctioned co-operation.The sale of Australian uranium to India would not just weaken our non-proliferation credentials - it would also signal to some of our major uranium customers, such as Japan and South Korea, that we do not take too seriously their own adherence to the treaty. They may as a result walk away from the treaty and develop nuclear weapons - against North Korea, China, or perhaps Russia - without necessarily fearing a cut-off of Australian supplies. We would certainly have no moral grounds for stopping supply.
"
Sydney