Optimism in Armageddon
The expanding war will lead to more war not less. India and Pakistan have been exchanging cannon and machine gun shots for months. Pakistan alone has 80,000 troops on the Kashmir border. The two bellicose powers are supposed to be negotiating a peace deal. India complains that “there is no one to talk to,” because of the chaotic political situation in Pakistan—produced by competitive war between the Great Powers of the Soviet Union and the United States since the late 1950s.
All talk of our "possible destabilization of Pakistan" should be met with a snort: Russia and the United States have already destabilized Pakistan. And the whole region.
Even the United States accuses Pakistan’s Inter-Service Intelligence of bombing the Indian Embassy in Kabul, killing 41 and injuring more. President Bush himself was reported calling Pakistan to demand to know who commands ISI. Now Musharaff has finally resigned. Is this the end of something old and the beginning of something new? Or is it only more of the same plethora of lies on all sides generating “the fog of war?”
Some nuclear scientists in India, who were involved in building India’s illegal nukes, and who have an inordinate amount of influence on the government, have openly called for India to nuke Pakistan. It was India that set off the race for atom bombs in South Asia. This is coming to us from the land of Gandhi.
In 2003, India and Pakistan came perilously close to nuclear war. The present “peace talks” are the result of that. Recently, reputable scientists in Colorado reported that a nuclear exchange between the two South Asia nations would set cities like Islamabad and Bombay afire, producing firestorms that would “blowtorch a hole through the Ozone Layer.” Then, the scenario continues, soot would rise into the stratosphere, collect harmful radiation, and drift to the surface covering crops the world around.
Into this situation struts the Bush Administration, representing corporate magnates who outsourced our productive capacity to India for cheaper wages. Bush proposes to sell India nuclear fuel in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It seems India has exhausted (poor) uranium deposits, and can’t find the fuel for its 22 reactors.
After India agreed to inspections for 14 of the 22 reactors (?), the International Atomic Energy Agency approved the sale and an “exemption” for India (so trustworthy) from the treaty—a first. But Bush still has to go to the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group for approval. Politicos say it is unlikely. However, a very recent meeting of the Group adjourned without a decision and plans to meet in September for some reason.
The eight uninspectable reactors must be military property for making more nuclear bombs. The other reactors are not supposed to be giving them enriched fuel, but negotiators admit there are "loopholes" that would let them do so. "Loopholes?" What loopholes? Why? Is the IAEA signing into a situation they know is dishonest, with the excuse that its foot at least is in the door?
Make India and Pakistan (and Israel) sign the damned treaty!
But why in the first place does the US want to help India get its reactors up and running faster? India now gets only 2% of its energy from them, obvously because what fuel it has is diverted to weapons-making.
Without being an analyst for the National Security Council or the Rand Corporation, one can see that India needs more electricity to handle the load of expanding American business, which our patriotic corporations exported for higher profits, betraying our own workers who made them rich, and ultimately our country, for cheaper labor. The United States Government wants to help India compete with American workers!
More important than that unsurprising fact, however, is that selling nuclear fuel and technology (profitable!) to India is a clear tilt by the United States in the India-Pakistan War. Even supposing that Bush does not get permission to go ahead—and supposing he lacks the arrogance to disregard disapproval--what are the implications of this request? Who will be next-up for a precedent-setting “exemption” from the most-important treaty in the world? Perhaps it will be Israel, with its 100-200 undeclared nuclear bombs.
The aim and purpose of the Non-Proliferation Treaty is to stop the spread and rid the world of all nuclear weapons and eventual complete disarmament. Imagine. A world without arms.
"You may say I'm a dreamer/but I'm not the only one." (Lennon)
It is extremely important that there be no exemptions from this very important treaty. To exempt India or any other country for any reason is to reward nations for bad behavior in defiance of the decision, wisdom, and commonsense of the whole world. In 1968, 189 nations signed the NPT. In 1995, it was "extended indefinitely."
Furthermore, to dodge the treaty is a violation of the U.S. Constitution, which says that “a treaty has the force of law.” It is a violation of the President's Oath, and an impeachable offense. It also sucks the validity from our justified and correct argument against the development of nuclear bombs in Iran. It endangers our national security.
The Non-Proliferation Treaty (online) is the context in which we must place this war issue. Basic strategic questions have not been answered. Or have they been answered wrong? Does this escalating war enhance our national security, or imperil it? Are these violent acts of war at the doorstep of nuclear death in the interests of the American people, or against them?
All talk of our "possible destabilization of Pakistan" should be met with a snort: Russia and the United States have already destabilized Pakistan. And the whole region.
Even the United States accuses Pakistan’s Inter-Service Intelligence of bombing the Indian Embassy in Kabul, killing 41 and injuring more. President Bush himself was reported calling Pakistan to demand to know who commands ISI. Now Musharaff has finally resigned. Is this the end of something old and the beginning of something new? Or is it only more of the same plethora of lies on all sides generating “the fog of war?”
Some nuclear scientists in India, who were involved in building India’s illegal nukes, and who have an inordinate amount of influence on the government, have openly called for India to nuke Pakistan. It was India that set off the race for atom bombs in South Asia. This is coming to us from the land of Gandhi.
In 2003, India and Pakistan came perilously close to nuclear war. The present “peace talks” are the result of that. Recently, reputable scientists in Colorado reported that a nuclear exchange between the two South Asia nations would set cities like Islamabad and Bombay afire, producing firestorms that would “blowtorch a hole through the Ozone Layer.” Then, the scenario continues, soot would rise into the stratosphere, collect harmful radiation, and drift to the surface covering crops the world around.
Into this situation struts the Bush Administration, representing corporate magnates who outsourced our productive capacity to India for cheaper wages. Bush proposes to sell India nuclear fuel in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It seems India has exhausted (poor) uranium deposits, and can’t find the fuel for its 22 reactors.
After India agreed to inspections for 14 of the 22 reactors (?), the International Atomic Energy Agency approved the sale and an “exemption” for India (so trustworthy) from the treaty—a first. But Bush still has to go to the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group for approval. Politicos say it is unlikely. However, a very recent meeting of the Group adjourned without a decision and plans to meet in September for some reason.
The eight uninspectable reactors must be military property for making more nuclear bombs. The other reactors are not supposed to be giving them enriched fuel, but negotiators admit there are "loopholes" that would let them do so. "Loopholes?" What loopholes? Why? Is the IAEA signing into a situation they know is dishonest, with the excuse that its foot at least is in the door?
Make India and Pakistan (and Israel) sign the damned treaty!
But why in the first place does the US want to help India get its reactors up and running faster? India now gets only 2% of its energy from them, obvously because what fuel it has is diverted to weapons-making.
Without being an analyst for the National Security Council or the Rand Corporation, one can see that India needs more electricity to handle the load of expanding American business, which our patriotic corporations exported for higher profits, betraying our own workers who made them rich, and ultimately our country, for cheaper labor. The United States Government wants to help India compete with American workers!
More important than that unsurprising fact, however, is that selling nuclear fuel and technology (profitable!) to India is a clear tilt by the United States in the India-Pakistan War. Even supposing that Bush does not get permission to go ahead—and supposing he lacks the arrogance to disregard disapproval--what are the implications of this request? Who will be next-up for a precedent-setting “exemption” from the most-important treaty in the world? Perhaps it will be Israel, with its 100-200 undeclared nuclear bombs.
The aim and purpose of the Non-Proliferation Treaty is to stop the spread and rid the world of all nuclear weapons and eventual complete disarmament. Imagine. A world without arms.
"You may say I'm a dreamer/but I'm not the only one." (Lennon)
It is extremely important that there be no exemptions from this very important treaty. To exempt India or any other country for any reason is to reward nations for bad behavior in defiance of the decision, wisdom, and commonsense of the whole world. In 1968, 189 nations signed the NPT. In 1995, it was "extended indefinitely."
Furthermore, to dodge the treaty is a violation of the U.S. Constitution, which says that “a treaty has the force of law.” It is a violation of the President's Oath, and an impeachable offense. It also sucks the validity from our justified and correct argument against the development of nuclear bombs in Iran. It endangers our national security.
The Non-Proliferation Treaty (online) is the context in which we must place this war issue. Basic strategic questions have not been answered. Or have they been answered wrong? Does this escalating war enhance our national security, or imperil it? Are these violent acts of war at the doorstep of nuclear death in the interests of the American people, or against them?
Comments
Post a Comment