A.Rafay
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,400
- Reaction score
- 10
- Country
- Location
The nuclear pact signed last week between President Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, which would provide India with access to sensitive nuclear technology and sophisticated nuclear-capable weapons systems, marks a dangerous step backward in the struggle against nuclear proliferation.
I strongly support efforts to improve U.S.-Indian relations. However, I believe that the president's initiative represents a dangerous misunderstanding of how America can best use foreign assistance in support of economic development and international security.
If approved by Congress, this agreement would put the United States in violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1172, passed in 1998 with U.S. support, which "prohibits the export of equipment, materials or technology that could in any way assist" the nuclear programs of India or Pakistan. Neither Pakistan nor India has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and both countries have dozens of nuclear warheads and hundreds of medium-range missiles.
There is nothing in the proposed U.S.-India agreement that prohibits India from continuing its production of weapons-grade plutonium, which enables India to further expand its arsenal of more than three dozen nuclear warheads.
Furthermore, in order for the proposed U.S.-Indian
agreement to be implemented, Congress would have to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, which prohibits nuclear cooperation with countries that refuse to abide by full-scope safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. body which was recently awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. If Congress allows the deal to go through, it will also mean contravening the rules of the 40-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group, which controls the export of nuclear technology and to which the United States is a signatory.
How can we have any credibility in trying to block Iran's nuclear program, which is still many years away from weapons capability, when we are supporting the nuclear program of a neighboring country which has already developed a dangerous nuclear arsenal? Maintaining such flagrant double standards regarding nuclear proliferation is simply not worthy of a country that asserts the right to global leadership.
I find that U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns' claim that the proposed agreement constitutes "the high-water mark of U.S.-India relations since 1947" is a sad demonstration of the Bush administration's distorted world view. How could the proposed transfer of such dangerous technology be of greater positive significance than the critical agricultural assistance the United States provided India in the 1960s, when I served President John F. Kennedy as the first director of the Food for Peace Program? Our efforts not only helped prevent widespread famine, they also enabled Indian farmers to grow more food on less land with fewer pesticides and less water, leading India to increase food production more than 75 percent. Indeed, within three decades, India had become a net exporter of grain.
There is still enormous poverty in India, however. India ranks 118th out of 164 countries on the U.N. Development Program's Human Development Index, ranking below even the impoverished nations of Central America. More than 400 million Indians are illiterate, more than 600 million lack even basic sanitation, and more than 200 million have no safe drinking water. Surely, if promoting "sustainable development" in India is really the goal, as President Bush claims, there are better ways than transferring nuclear and military technology.
And surely America will win more friends in that critical region and thereby better enhance our security interests if we focus upon the needs of ordinary people rather than the grandiose desires of military and industrial elites.
George McGovern served as a three-term senator from South Dakota and was the 1972 Democratic Party nominee for president. This past year, he served as Leo T. McCarthy visiting scholar at the University of San Francisco. He wrote this article for this newspaper.
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_21829698/george-mcgovern-u-s-nuclear-support-india-over
I strongly support efforts to improve U.S.-Indian relations. However, I believe that the president's initiative represents a dangerous misunderstanding of how America can best use foreign assistance in support of economic development and international security.
If approved by Congress, this agreement would put the United States in violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1172, passed in 1998 with U.S. support, which "prohibits the export of equipment, materials or technology that could in any way assist" the nuclear programs of India or Pakistan. Neither Pakistan nor India has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and both countries have dozens of nuclear warheads and hundreds of medium-range missiles.
There is nothing in the proposed U.S.-India agreement that prohibits India from continuing its production of weapons-grade plutonium, which enables India to further expand its arsenal of more than three dozen nuclear warheads.
Furthermore, in order for the proposed U.S.-Indian
agreement to be implemented, Congress would have to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, which prohibits nuclear cooperation with countries that refuse to abide by full-scope safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. body which was recently awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. If Congress allows the deal to go through, it will also mean contravening the rules of the 40-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group, which controls the export of nuclear technology and to which the United States is a signatory.
How can we have any credibility in trying to block Iran's nuclear program, which is still many years away from weapons capability, when we are supporting the nuclear program of a neighboring country which has already developed a dangerous nuclear arsenal? Maintaining such flagrant double standards regarding nuclear proliferation is simply not worthy of a country that asserts the right to global leadership.
I find that U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns' claim that the proposed agreement constitutes "the high-water mark of U.S.-India relations since 1947" is a sad demonstration of the Bush administration's distorted world view. How could the proposed transfer of such dangerous technology be of greater positive significance than the critical agricultural assistance the United States provided India in the 1960s, when I served President John F. Kennedy as the first director of the Food for Peace Program? Our efforts not only helped prevent widespread famine, they also enabled Indian farmers to grow more food on less land with fewer pesticides and less water, leading India to increase food production more than 75 percent. Indeed, within three decades, India had become a net exporter of grain.
There is still enormous poverty in India, however. India ranks 118th out of 164 countries on the U.N. Development Program's Human Development Index, ranking below even the impoverished nations of Central America. More than 400 million Indians are illiterate, more than 600 million lack even basic sanitation, and more than 200 million have no safe drinking water. Surely, if promoting "sustainable development" in India is really the goal, as President Bush claims, there are better ways than transferring nuclear and military technology.
And surely America will win more friends in that critical region and thereby better enhance our security interests if we focus upon the needs of ordinary people rather than the grandiose desires of military and industrial elites.
George McGovern served as a three-term senator from South Dakota and was the 1972 Democratic Party nominee for president. This past year, he served as Leo T. McCarthy visiting scholar at the University of San Francisco. He wrote this article for this newspaper.
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_21829698/george-mcgovern-u-s-nuclear-support-india-over
