India is not a signatory to the NPT, so is it not a violation of the treaty to give them nuclear technology/fuel especially since they already have the bomb? And even if it is not a violation, is it not the utmost in double standards considering that other countries are prohibited from receiving such technology and are NPT signatories? I don't trust this at all, and I don't trust what India will do with such technology and fuel just as I don't trust any other country with it. I don't trust anything this dictator is allowed to do either nor those who go along with him. There is more to this than meets the eye for both parties involved. And why the hell IS he being allowed to do this? Seems to me he is actually precipitating nuclear proliferation by doing this. As I have always believed, nuclear energy will lead to nuclear arms proliferation... especially in the world we now live in. We should be limiting nuclear use and dismantling weapons, not going in the opposite direction.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1540683,00.htmlGeorge Monbiot spells out the hypocrisy well in this article from a couple of years ago.
The treaty wreckers
In just a few months, Bush and Blair have destroyed global restraint on the development of nuclear weapons
George Monbiot
Tuesday August 2, 2005
The Guardian
snip
Bush wanted to destroy the treaty because it couldn't be reconciled with his new plans. Last month the Senate approved an initial $4m for research into a "robust nuclear earth penetrator" (RNEP). This is a bomb with a yield about 10 times that of the Hiroshima device, designed to blow up underground bunkers that might contain weapons of mass destruction. (You've spotted the contradiction.) Congress rejected funding for it in November, but Bush twisted enough arms this year to get it restarted. You see what a wonderful world he inhabits when you discover that the RNEP idea was conceived in 1991 as a means of dealing with Saddam Hussein's biological and chemical weapons. Saddam is pacing his cell, but the Bushites, like the Japanese soldiers lost in Malaysia, march on. To pursue his war against the phantom of the phantom of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, Bush has destroyed the treaty that prevents the use of real ones.
It gets worse. Last year Congress allocated funding for something called the "reliable replacement warhead". The government's story is that the existing warheads might be deteriorating. When they show signs of ageing they can be dismantled and rebuilt to a "safer and more reliable" design. It's a pretty feeble excuse for building a new generation of nukes, but it worked. The development of the new bombs probably means the US will also breach the comprehensive test ban treaty - so we can kiss goodbye to another means of preventing proliferation.
But the biggest disaster was Bush's meeting with Manmohan Singh a fortnight ago.
India is one of three states that possess nuclear weapons and refuse to sign the non-proliferation treaty (NPT). The treaty says India should be denied access to civil nuclear materials. But on July 18 Bush announced that "as a responsible state with advanced nuclear technology, India should acquire the same benefits and advantages as other such states". He would "work to achieve full civil nuclear energy cooperation with India" and "seek agreement from Congress to adjust US laws and policies". Four months before the meeting the US lifted its south Asian arms embargo, selling Pakistan a fleet of F-16 aircraft, capable of a carrying a wide range of missiles, and India an anti-missile system. As a business plan, it's hard to fault.
Here then is how it works. If you acquire the bomb and threaten to use it you will qualify for American exceptionalism by proxy. Could there be a greater incentive for proliferation?The implications have not been lost on other states. "India is looking after its own national interests," a spokesman for the Iranian government complained on Wednesday. "We cannot criticise them for this. But what the Americans are doing is a double standard. On the one hand they are depriving an NPT member from having peaceful technology, but at the same time they are cooperating with India, which is not a member of the NPT." North Korea (and this is the only good news around at the moment) is currently in its second week of talks with the US. While the Bush administration is doing the right thing by engaging with Pyongyang, the lesson is pretty clear. You could sketch it out as a Venn diagram. If you have oil and aren't developing a bomb (Iraq) you get invaded. If you have oil and are developing a bomb (Iran) you get threatened with invasion, but it probably won't happen. If you don't have oil, but have the bomb, the US representative will fly to your country and open negotiations.
end of excerpt
~~~~~
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12309269&ft=1&f=1004The deal has many critics on Capitol Hill and among non-proliferation experts. Gary Milhollin of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control says the deal sends the wrong message to Iran.
"We tried to stop India from getting the bomb; we failed. India has the bomb; India is still building its missile program, and yet we are ready to treat India as a normal trading partner, basically because we want to make money," Milhollin says.
India never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and the Bush administration argues that this deal will bring India into the fold — putting its civilian nuclear facilities under inspection for the first time. Burns says Iran, on the other hand, is an outlaw state that should get a different message from the India deal.
"It sends a message that if you behave responsibly in regards to nonproliferation and you play by the rules, you will not be penalized but will be invited to participate more fully in international nuclear trade," Burns says.
He says the United States would ask for all of its fuel and technology back if India were to conduct any nuclear weapons tests in the future.
India still must reach agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Nuclear Suppliers Group. And Congress must approve the final arrangements. Burns says he hopes that can happen in the next several months.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
