Iran: No, India: Yes
Published in Gandul
(Romania) on 10 September 2008
by Eliza Francu (link to original)
(Romania) on 10 September 2008
by Eliza Francu (link to original)
Translated from
by Sonia Mladin.
Edited by .
Washington has found two very different solutions for the very similar nuclear aspirations of India and Iran. If the answer for Iran was "no" from the beginning, India is being helped every step of the way. It is only the U.S. Congress that now stands between Indias nuclear ambitions and American leader George Bushs desire to see this chapter closed before he leaves the White House. Seeing as how even a Congress whose majority is democratic cannot risk losing a huge open market like India, the principle of "sole exception" will win once again.
Just as in the case of Kosovo, which became independent under pressure from the U.S., India is being supported, no matter the consequences, in order for it to secure modern nuclear technology. And if Kosovos reward to the U.S. was a statue of Bill Clinton in Pristina, India will be much more generous. It will open its vast market to American interests, allowing U.S. companies to sign deals that are worth billions of dollars. This is why, after Indias nuclear plans had been stalled for 34 years through an embargo, in his last moments of power, George W. Bush blackmailed the international community and U.S. Congress to accept the exchange.
The road is clear now for India after the 45 countries that export nuclear technology agreed - on the demand of the U.S - to sell their technology to a state that hadnt even signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. They did, however, get in return from India a "promise" that it will not conduct military nuclear experiments (which is exactly the reason why the great powers imposed the embargo three decades ago). China agreed, Russia did too (it is most likely that India will buy nuclear fuel from Russia), and so did France (and now it finds a new set of buyers for the Areva Companys products).
India says it doesnt need nuclear technology to fuel its expanding economy, but still it refuses to sign the aforementioned treaty, which means that in the future it can escape any control from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and go back to conducting military nuclear experiments. More precisely, with blessings from the U.S. and the entire West, it can do everything that Iran has been denied. And even if it looks like a worthwhile effort for all of the parties involved, the long term consequences could be far worse than those set off by Kosovo.
Not only is India a democracy in the earliest stages of infancy, it also has problems on the border with Pakistan, and in the region of Kashmir; problems that have turned into military issues more than once. A possible nuclear arming of India would set off unprecedented tensions in the region: Pakistan will try to develop its own military capacities in order to protect Kashmir, whilst China will think the U.S., by helping arm India, is trying to hold back its ambitions.
Just as in the case of Kosovo, which became independent under pressure from the U.S., India is being supported, no matter the consequences, in order for it to secure modern nuclear technology. And if Kosovos reward to the U.S. was a statue of Bill Clinton in Pristina, India will be much more generous. It will open its vast market to American interests, allowing U.S. companies to sign deals that are worth billions of dollars. This is why, after Indias nuclear plans had been stalled for 34 years through an embargo, in his last moments of power, George W. Bush blackmailed the international community and U.S. Congress to accept the exchange.
The road is clear now for India after the 45 countries that export nuclear technology agreed - on the demand of the U.S - to sell their technology to a state that hadnt even signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. They did, however, get in return from India a "promise" that it will not conduct military nuclear experiments (which is exactly the reason why the great powers imposed the embargo three decades ago). China agreed, Russia did too (it is most likely that India will buy nuclear fuel from Russia), and so did France (and now it finds a new set of buyers for the Areva Companys products).
India says it doesnt need nuclear technology to fuel its expanding economy, but still it refuses to sign the aforementioned treaty, which means that in the future it can escape any control from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and go back to conducting military nuclear experiments. More precisely, with blessings from the U.S. and the entire West, it can do everything that Iran has been denied. And even if it looks like a worthwhile effort for all of the parties involved, the long term consequences could be far worse than those set off by Kosovo.
Not only is India a democracy in the earliest stages of infancy, it also has problems on the border with Pakistan, and in the region of Kashmir; problems that have turned into military issues more than once. A possible nuclear arming of India would set off unprecedented tensions in the region: Pakistan will try to develop its own military capacities in order to protect Kashmir, whilst China will think the U.S., by helping arm India, is trying to hold back its ambitions.