BBC story

Not only is this rank hypocrisy on the part of the US (India is not signed onto the non-proliferation treaty, but it's okay for them to have nukes and not Iran?), but it's a "friendly" takeover of their economy by American corporate interests, namely those three corporations above. There was another interesting and tragic story about how Indian farmers are committing suicide in mass numbers because Monsanto is destroying their livelihood with GMOs and terminator seeds.

It was also speculated on Democracy now that the Americans are also doing this as a containment measure against China.

[ 15 December 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]

The folks at the Arms Control Association have some reaction here.

quote:

---

Put simply, the U.S.-India nuclear trade legislation would grant India the benefits of being a member of the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty without requiring it to meet all of the responsibilities expected of responsible states. By making a special exemption for a favored ally, the approach will make it even more difficult to enforce existing rules with states such as Iran and North Korea and convince other states to accept tougher nonproliferation standards in the years ahead.

India has been outside the international nuclear mainstream since it improperly used Canadian and U.S. peaceful nuclear assistance to conduct its 1974 nuclear bomb test, refused to sign the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and conducted additional nuclear tests in 1998. India made its choice and, as a result, it has been cut off from most U.S. civilian nuclear assistance since 1978 and most international assistance since 1992.

---

The above mention of Canada points to our country's special responsibility in this area: a country that used Canadian technology to become a nuclear power has already begun to solicit the approval for this US-India deal of members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group.

How will Canada's government respond?

The actions of past governments do not fill one with hope.

Some babblers may recall that after the Indian and Pakistani nuclear tests of 1998, Canada imposed sanctions on the two nations in support of UN Security Council Resolution 1172, which condemned the tests and called on the countries to put an end to their arms race:

quote:

---

"7. Calls upon India and Pakistan immediately to stop their nuclear weapon development programmes, to refrain from weaponisation or from the deployment of nuclear weapons, to cease development of ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons and any further production of fissile material for nuclear weapons, to confirm their policies not to export equipment, materials or technology that could contribute to weapons of mass destruction or missiles capable of delivering them and to undertake appropriate commitments in that regard;

---

Quite the opposite has happened, in fact: Indo-Pak missile tests have continued apace, and the US itself has moved ahead this fall with a decision to provide Pakistan with nuclear-capable F-16 aircraft:

quote:

---

Washington, 16 Nov. (AKI/DAWN) - The US and Pakistan have been quietly rebuilding their military-to-military relationship disrupted in 1990 when Washington slapped restrictions on Islamabad for its efforts to develop nuclear weapons, says a congressional report. The report by the Congressional Research Service notes that in June 2004, President Bush designated Pakistan as a major non-NATO ally of the United States.

The report says the close US-Pakistan security ties of the cold war era — which came to a near halt after the 1990 aid cut-off — have been in the process of restoration as a result of Pakistan’s role in US-led anti-terrorism campaign.

The Pentagon reported Foreign Military sales agreements with Pakistan worth 344 million dollars between 2003 and 2004, growing to 492 million dollars in 2005.

In June 2006, the Pentagon notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military sale to Pakistan worth up to 5.1 billion dolars. The deal involves up to 36 F-16 combat aircraft, along with related refurbishments, munitions, and equipment, and would represent the largest-ever weapons sale to Pakistan.

---

And yet the US administration considers itself to be in a position to demand that everyone else observe the UN Security Council?

Returning to Canada's role in controlling nuclear proliferation on the unstable subcontinent, I note that despite India's refusal to heed UNSCR 1172, a Canadian Liberal government, having decided that trade and economic benefits were more important than maintaining a principled position on nuclear non-proliferation, announced a policy of re-engagement in 2001, a policy which has only accelerated since that time.

It's that trend towards putting profits over the security of Canadians and their fellow human beings that makes me worry about what stand Canada's follow-on government will take as the NSG is asked to green light Bush's irresponsible nuclear deal with India.

IIRC, some sanctions still remain in effect on Canadian trade with Pakistan, though the Globe's Graeme Smith reported back in September that Canadian Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor was under pressure from the Pakistanis (whose leverage includes support for the Taliban, remember) to loosen those restrictions:

quote:

---

Pakistan is expected to push Gordon O'Connor for help with obtaining Canadian nuclear power technology today, as the Defence Minister visits Islamabad for talks about the rising Taliban insurgency in southern Afghanistan.

[snip]

Analysts say nuclear technology could be a key bargaining chip in Canada's increasingly urgent diplomatic efforts to win Islamabad's support for the war against the Taliban.

Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency has deep historical links with the Taliban movement, and some experts accuse the ISI of quietly fomenting the insurgency.

"Canada needs to build pressure on Pakistan to co-operate against the Taliban, and nuclear technology is one thing that Pakistan wants," said Hasan-Askari Rizvi, a political analyst in Lahore.

---

In closing, I'd just like to underline two points.

The first point is that much of what passes for analysis of Canada's current mission in Afghanistan routinely ignores not only the economic issues Michelle mentions, but also the strategic balance between Pakistan and India, not to mention that between India and China, as well as that between China and the United States.

Therefore, the obvious truth that the so-called 'war on teror' actually increases the risk of nuclear disaster in asia goes all too often unremarked, along with other unpleasant truths.

The second point is that we as Canadian citizens have both an opportunity and a responsibility to make sure our government does nothing to increase the risk of nuclear disaster in asia: we should call on our government to

• refuse to put the desire for profit and economic advantage over the need for basic human security; and
• use its place at the NSG to thwart Bush's plans for US-India nuclear cooperation; and
• use every economic and diplomatic means available to demand that all nations, including India, Pakistan, Israel, the UK, France, Russia, China, the United States, Iran and North Korea, renounce forever the use of nuclear weapons.

[ 15 December 2006: Message edited by: sgm ]