Proliferation Press

A webpage devoted to tracking and analyzing current events related to the proliferation of WMD/CBRN.

Archive for August, 2007

« Previous Entries

Iran Update: IAEA Calls Iranian Cooperation “Significant” and Seals New Nuclear Plan; Iran Keeps Up Their Iraq Contribution

Posted by K.E. White on August 30, 2007

A Guardian report today seems to ease the nuclear tension between America and Iran:

The U.N. nuclear agency said Thursday that Iran was producing less nuclear fuel than expected and praised Tehran for “a significant step forward” in explaining past atomic actions that have raised suspicions.

The report is expected to make it more difficult for the United States to rally support for a new round of sanctions against Tehran.

At the same time, the report confirmed that Iran continued to expand its uranium enrichment program, reflecting the Islamic republic’s defiance of the U.N. Security Council. Still, U.N. officials said, both enrichment and the building of a plutonium-producing reactor was continuing more slowly than expected.

And BBC News reports on a new Iran-IAEA plan:

In a confidential report, a copy of which was obtained by the BBC, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said the work plan it had agreed with Iran to clear up key questions about its past nuclear activities was a “significant step forward”.

But it added: “Once Iran’s past nuclear programme has been clarified, Iran would need to continue to build confidence about the scope and nature of its present and future nuclear programme.”

It said it was essential for Iran to stick to the agreed timeline.

But Max Boot blog over at Contentions highlights this Kim Kagan report on Iran’s military activities in Iraq:

Kagan notes that, among other things, the Iranian government began plotting to undermine coalition forces in 2002—before the U.S. and its allies even entered Iraq. That effort has expanded so much over the years since then—now encompassing aid not only to Shiite but also to Sunni militants—that, according to Kagan:

Coalition sources report that by August 2007, Iranian-backed insurgents accounted for roughly half the attacks on Coalition forces, a dramatic change from previous periods that had seen the overwhelming majority of attacks coming from the Sunni Arab insurgency and al Qaeda.

Meanwhile, the New York Post ran an enlightening interview, conducted by Ralph Peters, with Lieutenant General Ray Odierno, the No. 2 U.S. commander in Iraq. Odierno has a lot of interesting things to say, but this point jumped out at me: “There are some signs that Syria’s doing a bit more to stem the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq, but their efforts are off and on. The airport in Damascus remains a major conduit for terrorists. The Syrians clearly still believe that instability in Iraq is to their benefit.”

The full Kagan report can be read here.

Posted in IAEA, Iran, Iraq, Nuclear, nuclear plan, proliferation | Leave a Comment »

Australia’s Nuclear Evolution: CNS Investigates the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone and Australia’s Current Stance Towards Uranium Sales to India

Posted by K.E. White on August 30, 2007

Summary: Sizes up a short report by the Center for Nonproliferation Studies. Is Australia violating a treaty—the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone—if it goes ahead with plans to sell India uranium? CNS probes this question, suggesting there is reason to think so. Proliferation Press looks into the question, and finds that it seems Australia is 1) not violating the treaty and 2) would actually go against the spirit of the treaty by refusing to approve the US-India nuclear deal at the upcoming meeting of the Nuclear Suppliers Group. But all this analysis merely displays how much the treaty regime depends on the policies of the announced nuclear powers.

The Center of Nonproliferation Studies is running this interesting report studying whether or not Australia would violate international law if it goes through with plans to sell uranium to India.

The South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone (SPNFZ) reads, in part:

Each Party undertakes:

(a) not to provide source or special fissionable material, or equipment or material especially designed or prepared for the processing, use or production of special fissionable material for peaceful purposes to:

(i) any non-nuclear-weapon State unless subject to the safeguards required by Article III.1 of the NPT [Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty], or

(ii) any nuclear-weapon State unless subject to applicable safeguards agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Any such provisions shall be in accordance with strict non-proliferation measures to provide assurance of exclusively peaceful non-explosive use;

(b) to support the continued effectiveness of the international non-proliferation system based on the NPT and the IAEA safeguards system.

Now while the CNS report shows well that Australian officials saw, in the past, the SPNFZ as barring uranium sales to India, the report does not take a definitive stance:

If Australia is legally barred from nuclear trade with India in light of the statements of the Foreign Affairs Department, for Australia to vote in favor of ending the Nuclear Suppliers Group embargo would be to authorize others to do what it cannot under the South Pacific treaty. This might be seen as violating the spirit, if not the letter, of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone pact.

Yes, if Australia is “legally barred” from a certain act and then does it—it broke the treaty.

But is Australia breaking the treaty? Australia is obliged “not to provide source of special fissionable material” unless one of two conditions are met. The first condition requires NPT safeguards to be met. This would seem impossible since India is not even a member of the NPT.

But the second condition states:

“any nuclear-weapon State unless subject to applicable safeguards agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).”

The IAEA endorsed the US-India nuclear deal, or at least their head ELBaradei:

“This agreement is an important step towards satisfying India´s growing need for energy, including nuclear technology and fuel, as an engine for development. It would also bring India closer as an important partner in the non-proliferation regime,” he said. “It would be a milestone, timely for ongoing efforts to consolidate the non-proliferation regime, combat nuclear terrorism and strengthen nuclear safety.”

“The agreement would assure India of reliable access to nuclear technology and nuclear fuel. It would also be a step forward towards universalisation of the international safeguards regime,” Dr. ElBaradei said. “This agreement would serve the interests of both India and the international community.”

As such the IAEA governing board will have to improve inspections of India’s nuclear sites. Now while this might not be finalized when Australia votes on the US-India nuclear deal at the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), any ‘yes’ vote at the NSG will be premised on successfully completed IAEA negotiations.

Rediff looks into this “long and hazardous” process of gaining dual approval from the NSG and IAEA:

The negotiations on an India-specific safeguards agreement with the IAEA Governing Board and talks with members of the NSG to seek an exception for India are likely to be long and hazardous. The United States has considerable influence in the IAEA Board and, as the founder of the NSG it has the necessary clout to determine the outcome of the informal group. But, over the years, positions of individual countries have crystallized in these bodies and they are likely to give us a hard time despite the US being our ‘sherpa’ on the climb.

It would seem India 1) getting the blessing of the IAEA chief and 2) undergoing IAEA approval could be read as being “subject to applicable safeguards agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency.”

And what is the intent of these two SPNFZ exceptions? “[T]o support the continued effectiveness of the international non-proliferation system based on the NPT and the IAEA safeguards system.”

It would seem approving a deal that America (a leading, recognized nuclear power under the NPT) is vying for meets that intent.

Now could a new American president change this calculus? Yes. The point here, though, is that it seems any hard prohibition against Australia selling uranium to India appears to stand on weak foundations.

The CNS report, while not taking a firm stand but simply highlighting past views of Australian officials, suggests Australia has reason to vote against the US-India nuclear during the NSG meeting. But it seems there is more reason—given current IAEA approval, apparent backing from Russia and China, and ongoing IAEA deliberations—that Australia voting against the US-India nuclear deal might do more harm to nonproliferation aims.

Posted in America, Australia, Center for Nonproliferation Studies, China, ElBaradei, IAEA, Leah Kuchinsky, Leonard S. Spector, South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone, U.S. India Nuclear Deal, US | Leave a Comment »

China’s Take on the US-India Nuclear Deal

Posted by K.E. White on August 29, 2007

Below are two takes on China feelings toward the troubled US-India nuclear deal. Both articles reveal the complicated relations between both India and the United States, and India and China.

Why would China be bothered by the US-India nuclear deal? If India takes an American tilt owing to America’s ad hoc sanctioning of their nuclear arsenal, China could feel entrapped. To the east China will face remilitarizing Japan, and now an emerging regional power to its west.

But in a post-Cold War world, dividing the world in pro-US and pro-China camps doesn’t get you very far. Perhaps a more appropriate view would be a four-layered approach: looking at the tensions between India and Pakistan, and then how those tensions interact with those nations’ relationships with China and America.

Reuters reports on Chinese approval of the US-India nuclear deal, in order not to alienate India:

However, experts said China was unlikely to stymie the nuclear deal and risk pushing Delhi closer to Washington — just when Beijing is seeking to avoid a destabilizing confrontation with its rising Asian neighbor and longtime rival.

“The United States has decided that using India to check and balance China is of more importance than non-proliferation, and that worries China,” said Shen Dingli, a nuclear security expert at Fudan University in Shanghai.

“But China does not want to push India towards the United States. I don’t think China will stand out to oppose the agreement; it doesn’t want to offend the United States or India.”

…

“But out of its own strategic interests, India is most unlikely to form an alliance with the U.S. to contain China.”

As it seeks to sway New Delhi, Beijing is instead likely to promote its own civilian nuclear technology. When President Hu Jintao visited India in November last year, he pitched for such cooperation.

But China is also likely to seek expanded nuclear cooperation with India’s rival, Pakistan, where Beijing has already helped build an atomic reactor — and it will be able to point to the U.S.-India deal to counter any criticism, said Shen.

From the Times of India is this take by K Subrahmanyam:

China’s strategy does not appear to be one of direct confrontation with India. By arming Pakistan with nuclear weapons, China is using Islamabad to counter India. This was noted by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in his address to the Combined Commanders Conference on October 20, 2005 when he said: “We cannot also ignore the strategic cooperation that Pakistan secured from China in many ways. We cannot rule out the desire of some countries to keep us engaged in low-intensity conflict with some of our neighbours as a means of getting India bogged down in a low equilibrium”.

The Chinese strategy of dominating Asia, which all other major powers view with concern, needs India to be kept tied down perpetually by a nuclear-armed Pakistan. The reason why liberating India from technology apartheid sponsored by the US is popular with Russia, France, UK, France and Japan is their desire to see a balance of power in Asia. In the 21st century it is not envisaged there will be wars among major powers. But there would be a constant balancing of power. China when fully developed can only be balanced by a billion-strong India if it develops itself. The other major powers of the world have a vital interest in this. Hence, the US nuclear agreement, India-specific IAEA safeguards and NSG waiver.

Will India accept this opportunity and help the world to balance China — a neighbour posing a surrogate nuclear threat to this country — or continue to talk only of US imperialism? India can stand up to US dominance, but it cannot wish away the India-specific nuclear threat emanating from a Chinese-armed Pakistan.

These two views on China show how many variables must be weighed by these four nations’ leaders when juggling diplomatic relations. Is Pakistan a Chinese-backed threat to India, or an emerging moderate stated owing to American pressure? Or both?

What does seem clear is that Pakistan is the most volatile part of the equation. If America can successfully bring on a moderating, democratic and peaceful (or just those tail-ends) Pakistan, the security calculus in the region dramatically changes.

Posted in America, China, Diplomacy, India, K Subrahmanyam, Nuclear, Pakistan, U.S. India Nuclear Deal | Leave a Comment »

Musharraf and Bhutto Make Key Progress: Musharraf To Quit as Army Chief

Posted by K.E. White on August 29, 2007

Summary: It seems the Musharraf-Bhutto alliance is nearly complete. With Musharraf giving it his role as top military general, a key hurdle is removed. Musharraf’s desired end: another term as President.

From The Age:

MusharrafPakistan‘s leading English-language newspaper, Dawn, said sources close to the President had confirmed he had offered to retire from the army, the main source of his authority, before being re-elected as a civilian president next month and general elections early next year.

Railways Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed, who held talks with General Musharraf on Monday, said: “The President has made up his mind on his uniform. He’ll make an announcement at an appropriate time.”

Mrs Bhutto said that in this week’s talks General Musharraf placed a new issue on the negotiating table by seeking her support over his eligibility to be re-elected.

General Musharraf, faced by an increasingly bold Supreme Court, has asked Mrs Bhutto to support a constitutional amendment allowing him to be re-elected.

Mrs Bhutto said the Government would have to make “an upfront gesture of reciprocity, a clear indication of political support for the Pakistan People’s Party”.

Voice of America also reports on the emerging deal, which is a political risk for both Musharraf and Bhutto:

Pakistan railway minister and presidential confidante Sheikh Rashid Ahmed told reporters the deal has almost been finalized.

Former Prime Minister Bennazir Bhutto has sought to end Pervez Musharraf’s dual role as president and army chief before any possible agreement.

…

Benazir BhuttoThe possible deal comes as popular support for the president is at an all-time low and legal challenges to his re-election intensify.

…

Ms. Bhutto has seen her own political fortunes decline in recent weeks. She faces charges of political opportunism and hypocrisy after negotiating with her rival, President Musharraf.

A second former prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, insists the president must step down for the good of the country. President Musharraf exiled Mr. Sharif to Saudi Arabia in 2000, a year after seizing power in a military coup.

This is a high stakes gamble, especially for American security. Musharraf, despite key flaws, has been a key ally and stable leader in a volatile, Muslim and nuclear nation. A calm transition in Pakistan, as opposed to civil strife with the specter of Islamic radicals, is a critical for regional and international security.

But the natural question remains: Will this deal be acceptable to the Pakistani public and, perhaps more importantly, the Pakistani military?

Posted in Bhutto, Musharraf, Pakistan, Sheikh Rashid Ahmed | 1 Comment »

Energy Security, But At What Cost? Glancing at the NPEC’s New Report on Security at Nuclear Power Sites and It’s Catch by Economist Magazine

Posted by K.E. White on August 29, 2007

Economist brings attention to a new NPEC report on nuclear security: specifically the urgent need for tighter security at civilian nuclear sites.

The Economist article points for the need for greater funding and real-time camera monitoring of nuclear sites. (Yes, putting real-time cameras at nuclear sites is a ‘new’ idea. And yes, the NPEC report highlights black-out periods in current video monitoring of nuclear sites)

So has the IAEA put the cart in front of the horse? The concept of international fueling stations has been floating around for years. But, as the Economist points out correctly, what’s the point of international sites if these sites aren’t monitored:

Henry SokolskiThat is because of the volume of material involved and the way the plants work. Material unaccounted for (called MUF) is often stuck in piping. Discrepancies, even at the best-run plants, can amount to many bombs’ worth. And it can take months for inspectors to be confident they have it all more or less accounted for. Imagine the problems if the IAEA is attempting to monitor such plants in a country like Iran, with its past record of lying to inspectors.

Mr ElBaradei and others have suggested multinational fuel centres as a way to avoid dangerous technologies being abused by individual governments. But safeguarding those would be no easier. Better that such fuel-making technology isn’t spread around at all.

If the IAEA wishes to show nations—like the United States—that they can adequately monitor future nuclear power nations (whether they be Turkey or Iran), their monitoring regime must be developed and more adequately funded.

Especially when even Hans Blix is praising nuclear power:

Hans BlixDr Blix says an international inspection regime and treaty would help remedy that, and ease the environmental pressures of India’s growing economy.

“It is highly desirable that countries like India and China, huge counties that will consume more and more electricity, that they switch increasingly from the coal, which dominates enormously and which really hurts the environment, to nuclear power, that does not,” he said.

“China does that in a big way and India wants to. And I think it would be good that they get access to the latest technology.”

Posted in ElBaradei, Hans Blix, Henry Sokolski, IAEA, NPEC, Nuclear power, nuclear security | Leave a Comment »

China Diplomacy Update: US Congressional Delegation Touts Chinese Military Transparency, China Reaffirms ‘No First Use’ of Nuclear Arsenal. Meanwhile, Merkel Urges Greater Press Freedoms in China

Posted by K.E. White on August 28, 2007

Summary: Congress tours China, praising the nation’s military transparency and getting briefed on that nation’s nuclear policy. Meanwhile German Chancellor Merkel takes stands up for freedom of the press during her own trip to China.Ike Skelton

A Congressional delegation headed by House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO) is touring Chinese military facilities. The results from the on-going visit, which kicked off in Guam last Friday, seem encouraging.

(Added note: Members of the delegation include Madeleine Bordallo (D-GU), Randy Forbes (R-VA), John Spratt (D-SC), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH).

The Guardian reports on the visit:

“Thus far we’ve received very candid answers about the capability of their military, they seem to be hiding nothing in our discussions with them.

“I think it’s beneficial to both China and the United States that there be strong military-to-military exchanges, that lowers possibility of misunderstanding, of lack of understanding of the other national security forces,” he told The Associated Press.

The group of lawmakers has met with several Chinese officials and toured a naval destroyer at a base in Qingdao in northeastern China. On Monday, they were to visit China’s military sciences academy and the No. 2 artillery division, which controls China’s nuclear and conventional missile forces.

They would also hold talks with Wu Bangguo, the head of China’s legislature and the Communist Party’s No. 2 ranking official.

In June, Skelton and the Pentagon accused the Chinese military of intentionally understating what it spends on military programs. Its official defense budget for this year is about $45 billion, but the “real” budget is between $85 billion and $125 billion, Skelton said then.

And China.org reports on China reaffirming their ‘no first use’ nuclear policy:

A senior officer of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) said on Monday that China is ready to deepen exchanges and cooperation with US armed forces.

Jing Zhiyuan, commander of the PLA’s Second Artillery Force, made the remarks when he met with Ike Skelton, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee of the US House of Representatives.

…

“China holds a positive attitude toward the development of ties between the two armed forces. My country is willing to make joint efforts with the US side to push forward exchanges and cooperation,” Jing told Skelton and his delegation.
…

Jing also briefed Skelton on China’s nuclear policy and strategy and the construction and application of nuclear forces.

“China’s policy of ‘No first use of nuclear weapons at any time under any circumstances’ is firm and consistent, and will never be changed,” Jing added.

And German Chancellor Angela Merkel is also touring China:

Angela Merkel

On her second full day in China, German Chancellor Angela Merkel conferred with

opposition journalists. She reminded Beijing that the West would like to see progress on freedom of the press and other human rights issues.

Merkel began Tuesday by meeting with representatives of the Chinese media — including four prominent figures critical of the government in Beijing. The meeting was a signal of Germany’s support for more press freedom in China.

Li Datong, the former publisher of a supplement to the China Youth Daily newspaper, was full of praise for Merkel.

“The meeting shows that the chancellor attaches great significance to democracy and freedom of speech in China,” Li told German news agency DPA.

Posted in Angela Merkel, Carol Shea-Porter, China, Congressional delegation, Ike Skelton, Jeff Flake, Jing Zhiyuan, John Spratt, Li Datong, Madeleine Bordallo, no first use, Nuclear, Randy Forbes, United States | Leave a Comment »

ASEAN Meeting Kicks Off: Nuclear Energy Plans Defended, Economic Integration Priority One

Posted by K.E. White on August 24, 2007

Summary: ASEAN started its three-day Manila meeting today, with two chief objectives: 1) implanting its long-awaited economic integrations plans and 2) reaffirming ASEAN’s nuclear energy plans.

Okay, so first some background on ASEAN from Alalam:

ASEAN LogoASEAN includes Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.

The bloc’s population is estimated at 500 million people and is comparable to the European Union’s market size.

Why the hubbub over nuclear power? Green Peace has criticized plans by Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam to construct nuclear power plants. The purported purpose? Cutting dependence on oil and natural gas.

The three nations plan to treat these plants, to be built over the next two decades, as an “ASEAN Power Grid”:

Jayakumar (Singapore Deputy Prime Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security) said in his speech the 10-member bloc will also sign a memorandum of understanding on an ASEAN Power Grid that “provides the essential framework” for the region to implement the project.

The ASEAN Power Grid is an ambitious plan to connect member countries to ensure continued power supply whereby countries with surplus reserves can sell to a neighboring country. (Agence France-Presse)

Channel News Asia highlights Dr Piyasvasti Amranand—Thailand’s Energy Minister–defense of nuclear energy:

Piyasvasti Amranand“Nuclear is now coming back, there are probably about 30 nuclear plants under construction worldwide. If you are really concerned about global warming, I believe that nuclear is an option that should not be ignored,” said Dr Piyasvasti Amranand, Thailand’s Energy Minister.

“It would be totally irresponsible for any government to ignore nuclear because I do not believe that energy conservation or renewable energy alone can solve and reduce the emission of green house gases,” he added.

The ministers also stressed that these are but a range of options available.

Shin-Ho KangBesides nuclear energy plans, ASEAN also hopes to get its economic integration plans underway. The plans, meant to harmonize monetary and trade polices among ASEAN members, were unveiled in 2003. This 2006 speech by Dr. Shin-Ho Kang gives offers a digestible look at the reasons for and challenges to ASEAN economic cooperation (AEC).

AFX News Limited provides this AEC background:

The roadmap was largely completed and was both comprehensive and flexible enough to ‘allow us to modify this … to adjust to the vagaries of the global economy and political landscape.’

ASEAN, which includes Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam, has set 2015 as the date for the establishment of the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC), an integrated grouping that will allow the region to compete with Asian giants China and India.

And Mathaba provides rest of ASEAN’s Manila slate:

They will also sign a key protocol regarding a deliberation of an import tariff cut on rice and sugar products some ASEAN members are not ready to cooperate within the given time frame, as well as another protocol on a cluster of logistics and transport services to boost the competitiveness of businesses.

In addition, the meeting will discuss with six dialogue partners including China, Japan, South Korea, India, Australia, and New Zealand on progress in implementing the free trade area agreement. (TNA)

Posted in AEC, ASEAN, ASEAN Economic Community, ASEAN Power Grid, Green Peace, Manila, nuclear energy, Piyasvasti Amranand, Shin-Ho Kang | 1 Comment »

News Round Up: Takes on Shinzo Abe’s Visit to India

Posted by K.E. White on August 23, 2007

Summary: The Times of India notes Abe’s critical nuclear omission. And the Asia Times Online delves into the nations’ growing trade relations—not to mention their shared Security Council aspirations.

 

From the Times of India:

Addressing a joint press conference with Manmohan Singh after signing a roadmap on strategic cooperation, Abe said Japan “was looking closely at the implications (of the nuclear deal) on non-proliferation and disarmament”.

The safeguards agreement has now assumed a very important position in India’s nuclear journey, particularly since this will be India’s responsibility and how India will be judged at the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group. The real test for the Indian nuclear deal will be at this body, where India and the US will ask for an exemption for India.

Nevertheless, it is clear that though Japan has a declared position on nuclear relations, it will not stand in India’s way.

The Asia Times Online explores Japan’s investment in the Delhi-Mumbai Industrial Corridor, and their shared desired for seats on the United Nations Security Council:

However, with the Indian economy clocking more than 9% growth for the past few years, and prospects of improved infrastructure, Japanese industry and investors are in serious rethink mode. The CII has predicted that two-way trade between India and Japan could double to $14 billion by 2012 from an estimated $7 billion in 2007.

And certainly, the DMIC is one big area of involvement. The DMIC will run through the northern states of Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Rajasthan, Gujarat and Maharashtra, following a proposed Delhi-Mumbai dedicated rail freight corridor and an Arabian Sea port.

The corridor envisages a freight rail network, industrial parks, special economic zones, airports, seaports, power plants, food-processing parks and other infrastructure along the stretch between the two major commercial hubs of Delhi and Mumbai.

…

Business apart, India and Japan are also seeking each other as strategic partners in making a combined pitch for a permanent seat at the United Nations Security Council and military and security cooperation in East Asia to check the influence of China. Beijing has been anxious about the “Quadrilateral Initiative” (Quad) involving India, the US, Japan and Australia.

Posted in Delhi-Mumbai Industrial Corridor, Japan India talks, Manmohan Singh, Security Council, Security Council membership, Shinzo Abe, trade, U.S. India Nuclear Deal | Leave a Comment »

US-India Nuclear Deal: Nuclear Diplomacy Between the US and China

Posted by K.E. White on August 23, 2007

Summary: Carl Robichaud details the looming conflict between America and China when the US-India nuclear deal comes up at the Nuclear Suppliers Group. China’s apparent approval of the deal rests on a key condition: that NSG regulations regarding undeclared nuclear states (India, Israel and Pakistan) be standardized. Naturally America would prefer an India exception—as to open the flood gates to other, less desired nuclear cooperation between nation-states.

From the World Politics Review: 

A deal that brings India into the nuclear fold — giving India access to technology and fuel in return for enhanced oversight of its activities — is not a bad idea per se. But the current deal is a loser because it carves out an exception rather than undergirding these changes in rules and standards of general applicability. Perhaps under a different American leader the pact might be perceived more positively, but in the context of the Bush administration’s six-year subversion of the rules-based international order, allies and adversaries alike see it as nothing more than another example of American “exemptionalism.”

The alternative, which China has proposed, is revising the NSG to include a set of criteria that any undeclared nuclear states (read: Israel and Pakistan) could aspire to meet. China’s motives may be transparent — if Washington wants to open the floodgates, Beijing insists on the chance to do the same — but the underlying principles are sound: a “criteria based” approach, applied stringently, would enhance the legitimacy of the NSG regime and would provide incentives for bringing the Pakistani program out of the shadows.

Any attempt to pressure the NSG to create an “India loophole” is likely to backfire. Michael Krepon of the Stimson Center has observed that “One key assumption behind the deal is especially important — that the relaxation of nuclear export controls can be confined to India alone. If this assumption is wrong, downside proliferation risks will be open-ended.” Bending the rules to benefit an ally would undermine the universality of nonproliferation principles at a time when America needs them most. Without adherence to a rules-based system, there is little hope of assembling the sort of broad-based coalition necessary to impede Iran’s march toward nuclearization or to roll back North Korea’s program.

Posted in China, Michael Krepon, U.S. India Nuclear Deal, United States | Leave a Comment »

Diplomatic Incident: Bill Murray Drinks and Drives in Sweden (In A Golf Cart Too)

Posted by K.E. White on August 22, 2007

For some lighter fare, enjoy Mr. Murray driving through Sweden in a golf cart:

“Caddyshack” star Bill Murray was pulled over in downtown Stockholm after admittedly driving drunk in a golf cart, but he refused a breath test saying he was protected by U.S. law.

Police wondered whether something was lost in translation.

“I have done this since ’68 and I’ve never experienced anything similar,” said Detective-Inspector Christer Holmlund of Stockholm police.

The 56-year-old actor-comedian could face drunken driving charges after his joyride early Monday in an electrical vehicle that had been used for a promotional display outside his hotel.

In a day filled with India-US nuclear deal updates and Bush bringing up Vietnam, it’s nice to know hilarious and random things can fill space in the international press.

Posted in Bill Murray, drunk driving, Sweden | Leave a Comment »

« Previous Entries
 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.