Lieberman Leads Nukes-for-India Campaign

Did the U.S. change positions (4.00 / 1)

because all our corporations customer service departments are located in India now?

---

by: Missy's Brother @ Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 01:10:03 AM UTC

What worries me more is health insurance companies (0.00 / 0)

outsourcing a lot of their jobs overseas.

---

by: snorwich @ Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 02:22:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

More to do with Global Strategic Alliances... and a little to do with Iran (0.00 / 0)

The Bush administration believes that it is in the strategic interests of the United States for India to emerge as a major global power, and the administration has made it clear that it will do its best to help India achieve that goal.

Why the change in policy? Maybe as a result of Pakistan getting nukes. On May 28, 1998, a few weeks after India's second nuclear test, Pakistan detonated 5 nuclear devices. Pakistan's nuclear weapons capability allegedly was made possible with Chinese-supplied technology.

But if Joe's involved, you know Iran plays a role in this too.

India was asked to prove its loyalty to the U.S. by lining up behind Washington on the question of Iran's nuclear program. ... The Bush administration made it clear that if India voted against the U.S. motion on Iran, Congress would likely not approve the U.S.-India nuclear agreement.

China, naturally, is getting in on the action...

China decided to sell Pakistan six to eight nuclear reactors at the cost of US$10 billion. It was a not-so-subtle message to the U.S. that if Washington decides to play favorites, China also retains the same right. China's action also conveyed to India that even as India tries hard to break out of the straitjacket of being a South Asian power through forging a strategic partnership with the U.S., China will do its utmost to contain India by building up its neighboring adversaries.

Some countries are OK with India becoming a nuclear power, especially those with nuclear technology to sell. But the result is that the Bush Administration, instead of leading an international effort to reduce the proliferation of nuclear weapons, is doing the opposite.

---

by: CaptCT @ Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 03:07:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nuclear non-proliferation treaty (4.00 / 3)

It's amazing that US officials still have the audacity to wag their fingers at India for not signing the nuclear non-proliferation treaty when the US itself has refused to sign this treaty. Morever, Israel (unlike Iran) has refused to sign this treater or allow inspectors into its nuclear facilities, and yet it is rewarded with billions of dollars of weapons every year despite it's awful human rights record.

As for the US-India nuclear deal, it is a violation of UN Resolution 1172:

the agreement would undermine prospects for global treaties on nuclear restraint and disarmament.

"This is in clear violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1172," said Mian.

The resolution calls upon all states to "prevent the export of equipment, materials or technology that could in any way assist programs in India or Pakistan for nuclear weapons."

The resolution was adopted in 1998 with consensus soon after both India and Pakistan tested their nuclear devices in defiance of international opinion against the spread of nuclear weapons.

Finally, this deal will undermine the Pakistani efforts to control the militants in their Northwest region. Already,  Pakistani soldiers have died cooperating with US forces and innocent Pakistani civillians have been killed. Also, the influx of millions of Afghans (many of them disabled, widowed or orphaned) into North Pakistan has put a strain on the country. Of course, the US likes to bomb Afghanistan and the Pakistani border regions, but it's not really good at providing compensation to all the victims of its bombings whose lives have been destroyed. Thus, the population gets radicalized as Musharraf gets sternly lecutred by US officials who tell him that any US aid to Pakistan will be contingent upon him controlling radicals in his country. Where is the onus on the US to stop radicalizing the population? Where are the US promises to provide justice for the innocent Afghan and Pakistani victims of its crimes? Why not address radicalism by its root causes?

Pakistan is very unstable right now and this US-India nuclear deal only makes things worse because it makes some Pakistanis wonder why they should help the Americans fight the Taliban at all when America is, at the same time, arming their chief rival, India.

This deal will greatly undermine the US ability to fight global terrorism.

"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."--James Madison

---

by: sufi @ Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 14:09:14 PM UTC