Derailing a deal
By Noam Chomsky
10/08/07 "Khaleej Times" -- -- NUCLEAR-armed
states are criminal states. They have a legal obligation,
confirmed by the World Court, to live up to Article 6 of
the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which calls on them
to carry out good-faith negotiations to eliminate nuclear
weapons entirely. None of the nuclear states has lived up
to it.
The United States is a leading violator, especially the
Bush administration, which even has stated that it isn't
subject to Article 6.
On July 27, Washington entered into an agreement with
India that guts the central part of the NPT, though there
remains substantial opposition in both countries. India,
like Israel and Pakistan (but unlike Iran), is not an NPT
signatory, and has developed nuclear weapons outside the
treaty. With this new agreement, the Bush administration
effectively endorses and facilitates this outlaw
behaviour. The agreement violates US law, and bypasses
the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the 45 nations that have
established strict rules to lessen the danger of
proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control
Association, observes that the agreement doesn't bar
further Indian nuclear testing and, "incredibly, ...
commits Washington to help New Delhi secure fuel supplies
from other countries even if India resumes testing."
It also permits India to "free up its limited
domestic supplies for bomb production." All these
steps are in direct violation of international
nonproliferation agreements.
The Indo-US agreement is likely to prompt others to break
the rules as well. Pakistan is reported to be building a
plutonium production reactor for nuclear weapons,
apparently beginning a more advanced phase of weapons
design. Israel, the regional nuclear superpower, has been
lobbying Congress for privileges similar to India's, and
has approached the Nuclear Suppliers Group with requests
for exemption from its rules. Now France, Russia and
Australia have moved to pursue nuclear deals with India,
as China has with Pakistan hardly a surprise, once
the global superpower has opened the door.
The Indo-US deal mixes military and commercial motives.
Nuclear weapons specialist Gary Milhollin noted Secretary
of State Condoleezza Rice's testimony to Congress that
the agreement was "crafted with the private sector
firmly in mind," particularly aircraft and reactors
and, Milhollin stresses, military aircraft. By
undermining the barriers against nuclear war, he adds,
the agreement not only increases regional tensions but
also "may hasten the day when a nuclear explosion
destroys an American city." Washington's message is
that "export controls are less important to the
United States than money" that is, profits
for US corporations whatever the potential threat.
Kimball points out that the United States is granting
India "terms of nuclear trade more favourable than
those for states that have assumed all the obligations
and responsibilities" of the NPT. In most of the
world, few can fail to see the cynicism. Washington
rewards allies and clients that ignore the NPT rules
entirely, while threatening war against Iran, which is
not known to have violated the NPT, despite extreme
provocation: The United States has occupied two of Iran's
neighbours and openly sought to overthrow the Iranian
regime since it broke free of US control in 1979.
Over the past few years, India and Pakistan have made
strides towards easing the tensions between the two
countries. People-to-people contacts have increased and
the governments are in discussion over the many
outstanding issues that divide the two states. Those
promising developments may well be reversed by the
Indo-US nuclear deal. One of the means to build
confidence throughout the region was the creation of a
natural gas pipeline from Iran through Pakistan into
India. The "peace pipeline" would have tied the
region together and opened the possibilities for further
peaceful integration.
The pipeline, and the hope it offers, might become a
casualty of the Indo-US agreement, which Washington sees
as a measure to isolate its Iranian enemy by offering
India nuclear power in exchange for Iranian gas
though in fact India would gain only a fraction of what
Iran could provide.
The Indo-US deal continues the pattern of Washington's
taking every measure to isolate Iran. In 2006, the US
Congress passed the Hyde Act, which specifically demanded
that the US government "secure India's full and
active participation in United States efforts to
dissuade, isolate, and if necessary, sanction and contain
Iran for its efforts to acquire weapons of mass
destruction."
It is noteworthy that the great majority of Americans
and Iranians favour converting the entire
region to a nuclear-weapons free zone, including Iran and
Israel. One may also recall that UN Security Council
Resolution 687 of April 3, 1991, to which Washington
regularly appealed when seeking justification for its
invasion of Iraq, calls for "establishing in the
Middle East a zone free from weapons of mass destruction
and all missiles for their delivery."
Clearly, ways to mitigate current crises aren't lacking.
This Indo-US agreement richly deserves to be derailed.
The threat of nuclear war is extremely serious, and
growing, and part of the reason is that the nuclear
states led by the United States simply
refuse to live up to their obligations or are
significantly violating them, this latest effort being
another step toward disaster.
The US Congress gets a chance to weigh in on this deal
after the International Atomic Energy Agency and the
Nuclear Suppliers Group vet it. Perhaps Congress,
reflecting a citizenry fed up with nuclear gamesmanship,
can reject the agreement. A better way to go forward is
to pursue the need for global nuclear disarmament,
recognising that the very survival of the species is at
stake.
Noam Chomsky's most recent book is Interventions, a
collection of his commentary pieces distributed by The
New York Times Syndicate. Chomsky is emeritus professor
of linguistics and philosophy at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Mass.
|