4 Responses to Roadblock to Beijing Runs through New Delhi

1. Mi-Hwa
   March 1st, 2006 at 5:52 pm

   One major reason for Bush’s trip to India is to advance the nuclear technology deal with India. This nuclear deal shows the double standard of America towards countries developing nuclear weapons. India, Pakistan, and Israel have all rejected the Non-Proliferation Treaty, yet they are treated as allies by America. However, America is selectively punishing Iran and North Korea. This double standard lessens the credibility of NPT and America’s position.

2. Richardson
   March 1st, 2006 at 7:08 pm

   Hopefully India, Pakistan, and Israel will quickly come up with some gulags, starve a few million people to death, and threaten to turn various parts of neighboring nations into “Sea[s] of fire” sometime soon so we can pull down this hideous double-standard.

3. The Korea Liberator » Those Crazy Neo-Cons, Going after China Again
   March 2nd, 2006 at 12:15 am

   Roadblock to Beijing Runs through New Delhi

   Roadblock to Beijing Runs through New Delhi

   Roadblock to Beijing Runs through New Delhi

   […] Earlier I put forth the reasons why Indian and U.S. interests in South Asia converage: In particular, China has cultivated a strong relationship with the repressive military junta of Myanmar (the former Burma), with which both China and India share borders. […]

   COMMENT:
   AUTHOR: Mi-Hwa
   EMAIL: ajung@knology.net
   
   threaten to turn various parts of neighboring nations into “Sea[s] of fire”
   

   India and Pakistan actually did that. They were on the verge of a nuclear war in 1999, until Pakistan backed down. Pakistan’s Dr. Khan was one of the worst nuclear proliferators. Yet, America treats these countries with favors. This is a blatant double standard.

   COMMENT:
   AUTHOR: Richardson
   EMAIL: richardson@dprkstudies.org
   Pakistan has given much assistance to the U.S. in Afghanistan. A.Q. Kahn undoubtedly proliferated nuclear technology, but there is no evidence that Musharraf – who was not in power when Kahn’s activities began – had any knowledge that nuclear technology was being shared (Kahn’s true cover was obtaining missile technology). Musharraf has actually done an excellent job of walking a thin line between assisting the West and seeing to his constitutions.

   India has assisted as a strategic partner in other areas. The nuclear deal with India will actually get inspectors into the country, and move them towards standard control regimes.

   While India and Pakistan nearly went to war in 1999 over Kashmir (and it would be a mistake to blame only Pakistan for that), that situation is very different from Iran suggesting Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth, and North Korea claiming the entire peninsula and threatening to nuke Seoul.

   If you take a narrow view of the situation and exclude many of the relevant facts, it may be tempting to think of this as a double-standard. But that is specious. As you seem generally well informed, I can only conclude that you willfully discard information that does not fit your predetermined assessment of the situation in order to further whatever agenda you have.

   COMMENT:
   AUTHOR: Mi-Hwa
   EMAIL: ajung@knology.net
   The Non-Proliferation Treaty is useless if America makes exceptions for the countries it likes, and punishes other countries for withdrawing from the NPT. It’s hypocrisy. There should be one standard for every country, or not at all.

   COMMENT:
   AUTHOR: slim
   EMAIL: slimilsung@yahoo.com
   The NPT is built with inherent flaws but has been far better than nothing. Iran and North Korea are beyond-the-pale regimes even without nuclear arms and no sensible person would compare them with India, Israel or even the relatively more dodgy Pakistan.

   COMMENT:
   AUTHOR: Mi-Hwa
   EMAIL: ajung@knology.net
   Slim: Are you suggesting that it’s OK for India and Pakistan to totally disregard the NPT, because they are ‘nicer’ than Iran and North Korea?
   That’s not a good way to enforce international law.
   If India wants help with its civilian nuclear program, then it should join the NPT, in the same way as Iran and North Korea. The nuclear deal with India undermines the NPT, and increases tensions with Pakistan, China, and Russia.

   An American professor wrote an article about the problems with the nuclear deal with India:

   India is one of only four countries that have refused to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) – a treaty endorsed by 188 nations. Thumbing its nose at the world, India has conducted nuclear tests and has developed what experts believe to be 50 to 100 nuclear weapons. Under the terms of the NPT, the export of nuclear technology is banned to nations that don’t accept international inspections of their nuclear programs. In addition, U.S. law prohibits the transfer of nuclear technology to a country that rejects full international safeguards. U.S. law also bans such technology transfer to a non-NPT country that has conducted nuclear test explosions.

   Thus, if the President were to give any weight to Gandhi’s ideas, international treaty obligations, or U.S. law, he would not be working to provide India with the same nuclear-capable technology that he so vigorously condemns in Iran – a country, by the way, that has signed the NPT, has undergone inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency, and has not conducted any nuclear weapons tests.

   There are other reasons to oppose this deal, as well. Although India’s relations with Pakistan are relatively stable at the moment, they might well be very adversely affected by any perception that the Indian government was racing ahead with a buildup of its nuclear arsenal. Furthermore, Pakistan might demand the same nuclear assistance as India. Indeed, if India can simply ignore the NPT and, then, receive nuclear technology from the United States, why should other countries observe its provisions? The Iranians, certainly, will make this point.

   At home, the Bush administration’s double standard has not gone unnoticed. In Congress, Representatives Ed Markey (D-MA) and Fred Upton (R-MI) have introduced a bipartisan resolution – H.Con.Res. 318 – expressing strong concern about the proposed U.S.-India nuclear deal. Although this resolution affirms humanitarian and scientific support for India, it contends that full civil nuclear cooperation between the two nations poses serious dangers. For example, it points to the possibility that the supply of nuclear fuel to India could free up India’s existing fissile material production, thereby enabling it to be used to expand India’s nuclear weapons arsenal. The resolution also opposes transfer of nuclear technology to any country that is not a party to the NPT and has not accepted full safeguards.

   Whatever happens to this resolution, if the Bush administration were to implement its nuclear agreement with the Indian government, it would have to convince Congress to amend U.S. law. And arms control and disarmament groups are determined to prevent that from happening.

   COMMENT:
   AUTHOR: slim
   EMAIL: slimilsung@yahoo.com
   Not really. I’m less than happy with the India nuclear deal, but not because of any “double standards” unfairly applied to North Korea and Iran, whose regimes are more of a problem than their weapons and who were caught cheating on their NPT commitments. It is worth noting that the IAEA applauded the India nuclear deal — perhaps because it has the potential to move India closer to NPT compliance than it was before.

   Speaking of beyond the pale, Lew Rockwell - I’m pretty sure that is a Lyndon LaRouche-related site. If so, I’d approach it with care.

4. The Korea Liberator » SecState Rice Tumbles with Congress over India Nuke Deal
   April 5th, 2006 at 1:15 pm

   Roadblock to Beijing Runs through New Delhi

   Roadblock to Beijing Runs through New Delhi

   Roadblock to Beijing Runs through New Delhi

   […] Remember what I wrote in the Seattle Times about the potential Indo-American alliance in view of their common concerns over China’s rise? […]

Leave a Reply