India,
Iran and
U.S. nuclear hypocrisy
PressInfo #
238
March
29, 2006
By
David
Krieger,
TFF Associate*
The Bush administration has
approached nuclear nonproliferation with Iran and India
by two very different measures. Iran, a party to the
Non-Proliferation Treaty, has been threatened with
sanctions, if not actual violence, for its pursuit of
uranium enrichment, although there is no clear evidence
that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program.
India, on the other hand, has now
been offered U.S. nuclear technology, although India is
not a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, is known to
have tested nuclear weapons and is thought to possess a
nuclear weapons arsenal of 60 to 100 weapons.
The Non-Proliferation Treaty, which
entered into force in 1970, is at the heart of worldwide
nuclear nonproliferation efforts. The United States was
one of the original signers of the treaty and was one of
the major supporters of its indefinite extension in 1995.
The principal goal of the treaty is to prevent nuclear
weapons proliferation by assuring that nuclear weapons
and the materials and technology to make them are not
transferred by the nuclear weapons states to other
states.
The five nuclear weapons states
that are parties to the treaty (the United States,
Russia, the United Kingdom, France and China) all made
this pledge. They also pledged "good faith" negotiations
to achieve nuclear disarmament. The 183 nonnuclear
weapons states that are parties to the treaty pledged not
to develop or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons and the
materials and technology to make them.
A problem arises with the treaty
because it also promotes peaceful nuclear technology --
which is inherently dual-purpose, capable of being used
for peaceful or warlike purposes -- as an "inalienable
right" for all nations. Iran claims to be exercising this
right, arguing that it is pursuing uranium enrichment for
nuclear power generation and not for weapons purposes.
The Bush administration disputes this claim and insists
Iran must stop enriching uranium altogether, a policy
inconsistent with its proposed deal with India, a country
that has already developed nuclear weapons.
India never became a party to the
Non-Proliferation Treaty, and conducted its first nuclear
test in 1974, which it claimed was for peaceful purposes.
India did not test again until 1998, when it conducted a
series of nuclear tests and announced to the world that
it had become a nuclear weapons state. Pakistan followed
India with nuclear tests of its own. While India and
Pakistan were not restricted by the Non-Proliferation
Treaty because they had never joined the treaty, they
were initially sanctioned by the United States and other
states for going nuclear. But now this has changed.
Mr. Bush wants to provide nuclear
technology to India in exchange for India's allowing
international safeguards by 2014 at 14 of its 22 existing
civilian nuclear power reactors. This makes little sense,
as it would leave eight of India's civilian reactors
without safeguards, including those in its fast breeder
program that would generate nuclear materials that could
be used in weapons programs.
The Bush administration seeks to
reward India for noncooperation with the treaty and for
developing a nuclear weapons arsenal, while Iran is
threatened with punishment for being part of the treaty
and seeking to exercise its rights under the treaty. The
implications of the hypocritical U.S. approach to
proliferation are to leave countries questioning whether
their participation in the Non-Proliferation Treaty is
worthwhile. This approach is likely to lead to a major
breakdown of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the
international regime that supports it.
To prevent such a breakdown, a
number of important steps should be taken, which will
require U.S. leadership. First, there should be a
worldwide moratorium on uranium enrichment and plutonium
reprocessing, subject to international inspections and
verification. This means a moratorium by all countries,
including the United States and other nuclear weapons
states.
Second, all current stocks of
weapons-usable uranium and plutonium in all countries
should be placed under strict international
controls.
Third, there should be no "nuclear
deal" with India until India agrees to give up its
nuclear weapons program and dismantle its nuclear
arsenal. Congress should turn Bush down flat on this
poorly conceived and opportunistic deal.
Fourth, the United States should
give up its plans to develop new nuclear weapons such as
the Reliable Replacement Warhead program, which signal to
the rest of the world that the United States intends to
keep its nuclear arsenal indefinitely.
Fifth, the Non-Proliferation Treaty
should be replaced by two new treaties: a Treaty to
Eliminate Nuclear Weapons, which sets forth a workable
plan for the phased elimination of all nuclear weapons
under strict international controls, and an International
Sustainable Energy Agency that develops and promotes
sustainable energy sources (solar, wind, tidal and
geothermal) that can replace both fossil fuels and
nuclear energy.
The alternative to this ambitious
agenda, or one similar to it, is a world in nuclear
chaos, in which extremist terrorist organizations may be
the greatest beneficiaries. This is the direction in
which current U.S. nuclear policy, with its flagrant
disregard for international law, is leading us. The
double standards in U.S. dealings with Iran and India are
the latest evidence of the extent to which this policy is
misguided.
*
David Krieger is president
of the Nuclear
Age Peace Foundation and a
leader in the global movement to abolish nuclear weapons.
This article was also published by the National Catholic
Report, march 24, 2006.
Get
free articles & updates
Få
gratis artikler og info fra TFF
© TFF and the author 2006
Tell a friend about this article
Send to:
From:
Message and your name
You are welcome to
reprint, copy, archive, quote or re-post this item, but
please retain the source.
Would
you - or a friend - like to receive TFF PressInfo by
email?
 
|