Proliferation Press

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

Archive for August 29th, 2007

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 »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.