19 July 2005 at 10:22:38 PM
"Why should the United States sell controlled nuclear goods to India? India is not a member state of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and lacks full-scope safeguards required by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for non-nuclear weapons states to receive nuclear supply materials. We cannot play favorites, breaking the rules of the non-proliferation treaty (NPT), to favor one nation at the risk of undermining critical international treaties on nuclear weapons."
"Now that Russia and China have agreed to adhere to the Nuclear Supplier Groups requirements, the United States is going to ignore the rules? What will Russia say when they want to supply more nuclear materials or technology to Iran? You can be sure that Pakistan will demand equal treatment. Will the Bush Administration soon be announcing nuclear cooperation with them?
"Selling nuclear materials to India is a dangerous proposition and bad nonproliferation policy. I am offering legislation to make sure that we don’t jeopardize the delicate balance of our existing nonproliferation policy."
89 Nations did sign, yet to ratify a treaty to protect enriched uranium.
The Convention of the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material originally obligated the 112 countries that have accepted it to protect nuclear material during international transport. The amended version _ which still has to be ratified by those countries _ expands such protection to materials at nuclear facilities, in domestic storage and during domestic transport or use.The International Atomic Energy Agency said that under the toughened treaty, countries will work more closely together to track down and recover stolen or smuggled nuclear material and "mitigate any radiological consequences of sabotage.
Apparently, India, Pakistan and Israel are three countries that have refused to sign.
India can hope to acquire N-reactors from international market
Today the Prime Minister of India, Manmohan Singh, met with U.S. President Bush at the White House, among the issues discussed during the meeting was Mr. Singh’s request that President Bush lift the ban on exports of controlled nuclear goods to India. The U.S. –India Joint statement issued reads, "The President told the Prime Minister that he will work to achieve full civil nuclear cooperation with India as it realizes its goals of promoting nuclear power and achieving energy security." Representative Markey (D-MA), author of an amendment to the Department of State Authorization bill (H.R. 2601) to restrict the sale of weapons to India and honor the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act, which prohibits nuclear cooperation with non-nuclear weapons states not party to the non-proliferation treaty (NPT) and lacking full-scope safeguards, issued the following statement in response to the new U.S. - India joint bilateral energy statement on nuclear power.
Under the agreement arrived during talks between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President George W Bush on Monday, US had agreed to recognise India as a nuclear weapon state and supply fuel for Tarapore reactors US has agreed to achieve full civil nuclear energy cooperation with India as it realises its goals of promoting nuclear power and achieving energy security.
• It would also seek agreement from Congress to adjust US laws and policies, and will work with friends and allies to adjust international regimes to enable full civil nuclear energy cooperation and trade with India, including but not limited to expeditious consideration of fuel supplies for safeguarded nuclear reactors at Tarapur.
• It will encourage its partners to also consider this request expeditiously.
• India has expressed its interest in ITER and a willingness to contribute. The US will consult with its partners considering India's participation. The US will consult with the other participants in the Generation IV International Forum with a view toward India's inclusion.
• For its part, India would reciprocally agree that it would be ready to assume the same responsibilities, practices and acquire the same benefits and advantages as other leading countries with advanced nuclear technology, such as the US.
These responsibilities and practices consist of identifying and separating civilian and military nuclear facilities and programmes in a phased manner and filing a declaration regarding its civilian facilities with the IAEA; taking a decision to place voluntarily its civilian nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards; signing and adhering to an Additional Protocol with respect to civilian nuclear facilities; continuing India's unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing; working with US for the conclusion of a multilateral Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty; refraining from transfer of enrichment and reprocessing technologies to states that do not have them and supporting international efforts to limit their spread; and ensuring the necessary steps have been taken to secure nuclear materials and technology through comprehensive export control legislation and through harmonisation and adherence to Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) and Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) guidelines.
• India and US agreed to establish a working group to undertake on a phased basis in the months ahead the necessary actions mentioned above to fulfil these commitments.
• The President and the Prime Minister also agreed that they would review this progress when Bush visits India in 2006.
A Nuclear Triumph for India
On Monday July 17, President George W. Bush reversed decades of U.S. nonproliferation policy, stating that India "as a responsible state with advanced nuclear technology, should acquire the same benefits and advantages as other such states," adding that he will "work to achieve full civil nuclear energy cooperation with India as it realizes its goals of promoting nuclear power and achieving energy security." President Bush thus accorded India a much sought-after seat in the "responsible" nuclear club.
This is a sweeping reversal of U.S. and international nuclear policy. While Washington has passed New Delhi’s litmus test on U.S. good intentions, what does this shift mean for U.S. leadership of global nonproliferation?
In the joint Indo-U.S. declaration during Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s U.S. visit, Indians believe that Singh secured a nuclear triumph, with potential for great national benefit at little national cost. "What has been achieved is recognition by the US that, for all practical purposes, India should have the same benefits and rights as a nuclear weapons state," India’s Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran announced. As one commentator writing in the Times of India pointed out, "For India, US backing of its nuclear and space program, subject to sanctions for decades, had become a litmus test of Washington's good intentions." ...
The declaration reflects the Bush Administration’s general low regard for formal treaties and regimes, and its view that nuclear proliferation is not all bad--and some may even be beneficial. In the long run, these officials argue, a friendly nuclear-India, with a similar (though not identical) strategic vision, could well serve as a counterweight to a potentially unfriendly China. India, which has always disdained the nonproliferation regime, has warmed to Washington’s "good guys, bad guys" vision of a nuclear club.
Working out an agreement to provide India with nuclear power equipment and fuel is not in itself a bad idea. The problem lies in the way both nations are pursuing this deal. India has not committed to fullscope IAEA safeguards, or to restrain development of its nuclear weapons and delivery systems. The agreement appears to reaffirm the notion that nuclear weapons are useful tools to enhance one’s power. The Indo-U.S. joint declaration takes India off the nuclear blacklist, telling other nuclear wannabes that they can develop and even test nuclear weapons and successfully wait out U.S. opposition. Washington’s unilateral willingness to change international rules undermines other critical U.S. nonproliferation goals, could weaken international cooperation and sets a dangerous model that other states might follow.
The Carnegie report Universal Compliance argued in March against this kind of change, contending that "dealing with the reality that India, Israel, and Pakistan possess nuclear weapons does not mean rewarding these three states with new nuclear reactors, as India and, more recently, Pakistan have sought." Instead, the report said, the United States and others should "continue to observe the Nuclear Suppliers Group agreement of 1992 barring reactor sales to recipients operating nuclear facilities that are not under international safeguards. This restriction on nuclear commerce is not a punishment, but a necessary means of upholding the incentives that reward other states for complying with their obligation not to acquire nuclear weapons." The authors further noted, "Were these states to dismantle uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing facilities, and place all nuclear reactors under international safeguards, international cooperation in supplying power reactors and fuel cycle services would make sense from a global security standpoint."
The new deal falls far short of that goal. In return for civilian nuclear trade with the United States, India has committed to separate its civilian and military nuclear facilities, declare its civilian facilities with the IAEA and to voluntarily place them under IAEA safeguards. It has also committed to sign and adhere to the Additional Protocol with respect to civilian nuclear facilities; continue its unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing; and work with the United States for the conclusion of a multilateral Fissile Material Cut Off Treaty.
Additionally, India will refrain from transferring enrichment and reprocessing technologies to states that do not already possess them and support international efforts to limit their spread; and ensure that the necessary steps are taken to secure nuclear materials and technology through comprehensive export control legislation and adherence to Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) and Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) guidelines.
Latest Blog Post by salon -Last Show Tonight on SLAPP Suits
You! Leave a Comment! You Know you Want To!
You must be a registered member to comment on the blog.
Your first post is held pending approval to make sure you're not
a spammer bot
Or you can login!
New poster comments are moderated,
meaning they won't show up until approved... or not. Be patient-we
have lives outside this blog, so it might take awhile You want to be rude?
totally stupid? inappropriate? Racist? Bigoted? Flame war baiter? Your
post may be deleted. Spammers or people posting pretend interest comments
but really wanting to hawk their latest book or sell stuff or govt
propaganda flacks won't see their posts published. Comments do not
necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the site owner(salon).
If you have a problem with logging in or registering, please speak up
right away. Love your comments. Oh, except spammers
More on commenting
for Main Page
Sunday, November 17, 2019
Last Show Tonight on SLAPP Suits
Louis Vuitton Artistic Director Calls Trump a Total Joke (Keene, Texas)
Here's Creep Trump Giving the Finger to Female Astronauts
Impeaching Trump- Is it acceptable for a president to pressure a foreign.....
Why are Paul Manafort's defense attorneys helping Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman today?
Money Laundering 101- Trump seeks to get rid of regulations on offshore money
Been awhile. Send me an email at email@example.com with the names of who you're talking about, above. Also, the newspaper editor is no longer local, ie officed here, but the paper is run....
(What Happened to Jerry Jacene? )
I'd love to see the Hotel Guest books and see if Jacene's name shows up long before he officially *found* the tracks. I'd like to know if the Visitor's Bureau has emails wit....
(What Happened to Jerry Jacene? )
I see the land or that part of it is now in the hands of Glen Rose's own Corky Underwood.
Is Jacene still involved? I had already informed the Visitor Bureau manager (who's....
(What Happened to Jerry Jacene? )