Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Bolton: India, Pak. nukes legitimate because they never signed NNP Treaty

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 08:01 AM
Original message
Bolton: India, Pak. nukes legitimate because they never signed NNP Treaty
Edited on Sat Mar-04-06 08:04 AM by bigtree
Saturday, March 04, 2006
India, Pak. nukes legitimate: Bolton

thehindu/ap: Nuclear powers India and Pakistan attained that status in a "legitimate" fashion because neither country signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, US Ambassador John Bolton has said.

By contrast, Iran, under international scrutiny for what some see as its drive to obtain nuclear weapons, has no right to do so as it signed the NPT in 1970, Bolton said yesterday.

"In the context of the NPT, India and Pakistan had never signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty and therefore they weren't in violation of it by having nuclear programmes, in contrast with Iran that is a state party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and that's violating its obligations," Bolton said.

http://www.hinduonnet.com/holnus/001200603031001.htm


Perhaps someone here can explain this to me. The NNP Treaty seems to give the countries who have signed on legitimacy because of the accountability required. But, wouldn't that make the ones who have refused to sign the treaty less responsible? Why is more credit and leeway given to non signatories?

This seems to be a bullshit argument, on its face. Refuse to sign the NNPT and you get a pass from the U.S. and the U.N., no matter how you conduct yourself. What am I missing?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
liveoaktx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 08:05 AM
Response to Original message
1. So, If I get caught driving 120 mph without a driver's licence
it's okay if I never bothered to go to the DPS to get it in the first place, but anyone with a driver's licence will have to pay the fine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 08:07 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Perfect analogy--if yer gonna break the law, break it all the way! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HereSince1628 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 08:24 AM
Response to Original message
3. I thought Iran had renounced its participation in NNPT?
Although it promised to comply with the general inspection requirements.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 08:35 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Saturday, February 11, 2006
Iran to reconsider Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty adherence if pressed

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Saturday that Iran may reconsider its participation in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) but would not immediately withdraw from the pact. Speaking on the anniversary of the 1979 Islamic revolution, Ahmadinejad said Iran would reevaluate its position if other nations use its membership as a means to pressure its nuclear decision-making.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/02/iran-to-r...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 08:36 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. Iran went to a different style of government when the Shah was....
...overthrown. I would think that the current Iranian government considers any agreements signed by the Shah's government null and void.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. The Shah of Iran obtained uranium materials from South Africa in the 1970s
According to Dr. Akbar Etemad, who was the founder and first President of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran from 1974 to 1978, the TNRC carried out experiments in which plutonium was extracted from spent fuel using chemical agents . . .

http://www.payvand.com/news/03/oct/1015.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fujiyama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 08:31 AM
Response to Original message
4. It really depends on the country
Pakistan and India have VERY different records on proliferation. It was a mistake to lump them together in the first place.

In fact, India has a better record on proliferation than China, which has been blatant in its proliferation of missile technology to Pakistan. It has also pursued "civilian" nuclear plant deals with Pakistan for some time now.

So, no, not signing the NNPT doesn't make a nation automatically more or less responsible. Considering the way NK went around it and the way Iran likely wants to (though being that they have been threatened by the US I can't say I completely blame them), NNPT is showing itself to be less than effective.

The main issue with the NNPT is that it was setup to protect the five original nuke powers and did not allow nuclear weapons for any other nation. Well, understandably India is in a very bad neighborhood with two hostile countries, China to the north and Pakistan to the west of it. India also fought a war against China in '65 and China claims certain parts of India.

India felt it needed a deterrence and I don't blame it one bit for deciding to pursue nukes. Plus, the US turned a blind eye toward Pakistan's nuke program and subsequent proliferation to Iran, NK, and Libya. I'm especially amused by disingenuous calls by CHINA (of all countries!) calling on India to disarm. Hell, I'm not sure if such statements are even worthy of a response.

My suggestion is not to scrap existing treaties entirely as Bush no doubt would like, but it's certainly time to reevaluate them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 09:04 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. But, you would agree that this is a game that is tilted toward the U.S.
interest and the 'five original nuke powers'

The problem with the arrangement today is that the Bush doctrine of preemptive war makes any U.N. action moot and curious. What would be the motivation for the body to act when they know Bush will use military force across borders, into sovereign nations with impunity, even if the body rejects sanctions. Bush's flouting of the Security Council in his rush to invade Iraq has to make them wary of being used again. Annan called the Iraq invasion illegal, although he codified it later by recognizing the interim authority. Maybe they just want to get Bush on record before he inevitably ignores them.

You have to wonder why they bother. Most of the actual retribution from sanctions or anything else the U.N. approves comes from the hands of the U.S. government or the military.

Besides, the IAEA report doesn't appear to have evidence to support the claims that Iran is pursuing a bomb. Iran say they're not. All of the talk of sanctioning Iran comes from the belief that their non-compliance with the inspection requirements of the NNP treaty represents intent to build a bomb. Yet, India and Pakistan aren't bound by the requirements.

It's an American game, rigged because we make up the rules as we go, our justification the power of our military forces. Treaties mean nothing to this Bush regime. Anyone who signs on with Bush is either a dupe or a co-conspirator.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 08:48 AM
Response to Original message
7. Why the fuss about Korea then?
Also Iran does not possess nuclear weapons and by all real accounts they are not pursueing any. Only the Bush* Cabal says they are and we all know how credible they are. :shrug: They are going to try very hard to launch their war before the November voting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Oct 25th 2014, 03:53 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC