Thursday, March 02, 2006

"Diplomacy" in Pursuit of War

As Bush tools around India with Prime Minister Singh, they took a few moments to come to an agreement on sharing nuclear technology, or rather, for the US to give India more nuclear technology:
the United States would share its nuclear know-how and fuel with India.
Despite concerns that India developed nuclear arms in secret, Congressional critics of the deal are to be assauged because, if India develops more nuclear capability, this is really just plain good for the "American consumer":
But the other thing that our Congress has got to understand is that it's in our economic interests that India have a civilian nuclear power industry to help take the pressure off the global demand for energy. To the extent that we can reduce demand for fossil fuels, it will help the American consumer.
Bush clearly has our best interests at heart.

Just in case the world might still be wary of this situation, John Bolton was called on to make a statement that the way India and Pakistan developed their nuclear weapons was completely legitmate, that they didn't try to pretend they wouldn't develop such weapons by signing some silly non-proliferation treaty. We have known of Bolton's contempt for treaties and international agreements for sometime: they're for pussies. In fact, Bolton heaps praise upon India and Pakistan for their open disdain of nuclear non-proliferation:
I give them (India and Pakistan) credit at least that what they did was consistent with the obligations they undertook. They never pretended that they had given up the pursuit of nuclear weapons. They never tried to tie what they were doing under a cloak of international legitimacy. They did it openly and they did it legitimately.
Despite the fact that the US imposed sanctions on Pakistan for their nuclear weapons development and despite the fact that the UN Security Council condemned both countries for their pursuit of nukes, Bolton now wishes us all to believe that there really is no issue about this. I'm guessing that, in diplomatic circles, Bolton's reasoning would be viewed as "thinking outside the box."

It will no doubt be pointed out elsewhere how utterly bizarre Bolton's post hoc legitimacy claim really is, especially when legitimacy was certainly not what popped into anyone's head when India's and Pakistan's nuclear weapons tests surprised and worried the world. And almost within the same breath, Bolton manages to work in a zinger aimed right at Iran by claiming that, because Iran has signed the NPT, they can't be trusted, even though they have never been in violation of the treaty. Ever:
John Bolton said on Wednesday the way India and Pakistan had obtained nuclear arms was legitimate, in contrast to Iran, which he accused of pursuing atomic weapons in violation of its international undertakings.
Apparently, Bolton is unaware of the latest report from the IAEA:
the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has revealed that it has not found any evidence that Teheran had diverted material towards making atomic weapons.

In its report which has been circulated to its 35 board members, the IAEA said that its three years of investigations had not shown "any diversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.
This was the same determination that was made back in August, with an interesting tidbit to chew on. Remember this little nugget:
Traces of bomb-grade uranium found two years ago in Iran came from contaminated Pakistani equipment and are not evidence of a clandestine nuclear weapons program, a group of U.S. government experts and other international scientists has determined."The biggest smoking gun that everyone was waving is now eliminated with these conclusions."

Scientists from the United States, France, Japan, Britain and Russia met in secret during the past nine months to pore over data collected by inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, according to U.S. and foreign officials. Recently, the group, whose existence had not been previously reported, definitively matched samples of the highly enriched uranium -- a key ingredient for a nuclear weapon -- with centrifuge equipment turned over by the government of Pakistan.

Iran has long contended
that the uranium traces were the result of contaminated equipment bought years ago from Pakistan. But the Bush administration had pointed to the material as evidence that Iran was making bomb-grade ingredients.

My, my. The irony oozes off the page.

These two stories now make me wonder what the hell Newsmax can possibly be talking about:

Iran's nuclear program was "a reason for immediate concern," the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna circulated an internal report that referred to evidence that Iran was pursuing a "nuclear weapons" program.
Oh, that's right, they're channeling John Negroponte, the other diplomatic genius of the Bush administration.

But the irony heaps up even more. News of this latest IAEA report that declares Iran is nuclear weapons free and has never pursued such a program can found at the Indian paper The Hindu and, so far, nowhere else. Will the rest of the world take notice or will it choose to be led down this long-expected war path by the Bush administration?

[Bolton's idiocy via Newshog]


Blogger Badhri said...

Aparently, the American public doesn't understand two phrases. "civilian purposes" and "open to inspection".

Read my lips.

India has used Nuclear energy for civilian puposes alone (unlike the US, who are the only ones to have used the atomic energy successfully to win wars). India has agreed to let the inspectors in at any time. (So, has Iran, but I don't care about them). More importantly, it is a stable democracy, with a clear chain of command and a secure defense forces (unilike Pakistan, whose nuclear architect is also a famous black-market big-shot! And the US did nothing when he was pardoned). What exactly is the problem then? Oh! I know. India has tested its nuclear weapons secretly. Nobody country has ever announced such a test the previous day. And as you know, India has not signed the NPT. So, India is not bound.

Until 911, US has seen terrorism in its homeland only on the pages of dictionary. India literally had hostile (most of them terrorists) states all over it. Pakistan, China, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka. (ever heard of LTTE?). While US supples F-16s, China donates them the nuclear bomb they "tested".

If a USSR justifies US nuclear missiles, with so much danger around, India can conduct 5 more tests and it won't be enough.

2:06 PM  
Blogger theBhc said...

Let me first address this incredible statement:

"India has used Nuclear energy for civilian puposes alone..."

While you later admit that India has tested nuclear weapons, this statement stands in direct conflict with that. The development of a or many nuclear weapons is hardly a "civilian purpose." How do you come by this bizarre position. Because India hasn't actually used one of their weapons yet?

But apart from this, you have apparently taken the wrong look at the issue I raise in the post. It is not that India has nuclear weapons but that Bolton says this was ok because they were never a party to the NPT. All of this is true, of course, but absolutely absurd of him to criticise Iran's nuclear program, which has never been found to be in violation of the NPT, and the fact that Iran is a signitory to the NPT.

If Iranians were to take the obvious inference it would be better for them to opt out of the NPT so that they then could pursue a weapons program unencumbered by agreements not to.

Is this really good advice? Obviously not. It is a ridiculous thing for Bolton to have said, but that's just par for the course.

5:50 PM  
Blogger tmpfs said...

> ...absurd of him to criticise Iran's nuclear program, which has never been found to be in violation of the NPT, and the fact that Iran is a signitory to the NPT.

The key words there are "never been found". That and the immense trust the Iranian mullahs generate.

Discussing nuke possession wholly in the context of the NPT makes no sense: weapons are not a matter of abstract law or idealism. The real question, what is the record of those who wish to possess nukes?

9:18 AM  
Blogger theBhc said...

While I would agree with your concern, Iran probably cannot be trusted, I still cannot believe Bolton's position. His message seems clear to Iran: if your not in the NPT, you're free to develop all the weapons you want. And John Bolton will applaud you for it.

You are aware of the fact that most, if not all, of the supposed evidence that Iran is developing nukes has been found to be lacking in vericity (eg. the phony laptop "discovered" to contain Iran's plans). The bush admin has been claiming as "intelligence sources," the MEK (Mujahadeen el Kak), an anti-Iranian terrorist group originally funded by Hussein (see Cernig at Newshog for abundant information about this absurdity)

The entire Iranian fear drum is mimicking the Iraqi WMD fiasco. Smoke and mirrors, people, smoke and mirrors. No amount of inspections will suffice when the proper dose of fear has been instilled.

10:33 AM  
Blogger Badhri said...

How do you come by this bizarre position. Because India hasn't actually used one of their weapons yet?"

Exactly! India has never used one of their weapons yet (and I mentioned we never used it to win wars). Now one may say that India has "used" it to test nuclear weapons and that is "using" the nuclear material for a non-civilian purpose. But I will have to ask myself "Look who is talking", given the fact that almost (if not all) the countries who police the whole world on not making nuclear weaponse have nuclear weapons capabilty. Now that is "bizzare" to me, and completely lacks moral stand point.

About Bolton's stand, I am in total agreement. But Republicans have mastered the art of coming up weird reasoning for every unreasonable things they do. I have been poring over Mr. President's reasoning on attacking Iraq and I dont' get it till date.

We know that WTC is hit. Its a slap in America's face. (And I genuinely empathize for the innocent Americans, since I was there in the US when it happenned). We know who did it. Today, he is at large and Mr. President is not even focussing on capturing him. The farce reached it peak when one after the other (Mr. President, Mr. Vice President, Mrs. Secretary of State, and Mr. Defense Secretary) admitted that mistakes have been made on preemtive strike on Iraq. Now I wonder if I will live to see the day Osama is caught.

3:34 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home