ACDN - Action of Citizens for Nuclear Disarmament
logo ACDN banniere ACDNVisiter ACDN
Accueil-Home ACDN Contact ACDN Consulter le plan du site - SiteMap Other Version
vous etes ici Homepage > News > External sources > India Abandons Global Nuclear Disarmament
ACDN, What is it ?

External sources
Letters from ACDN
News Articles

Campaign "The Very Last Atom!"
Gathering for a Livable World




Background papers


French Elections
News of the Presidential Campaign

Analysis by Praful Bidwai
India Abandons Global Nuclear Disarmament
Introduced by ACDN

Published 28 October 2005

On the same day as we heard about the US abandoning their Nuclear Bunker Buster programme - which seemed to be a good news although this decision was apparently made for technical and financial reasons instead of political ones - India announced it is abandoning its traditional advocacy of global nuclear disarmament in favour of nuclear counter-proliferation. As Praful Bidway writes in the following Inter Press Service release: "This shift... signifies that India has abandoned the pursuit of abolition of nuclear weapons from all countries. It only wants to prevent new states from acquiring such weapons. Those which have them, including itself, can keep them."

That is the foreseeable result of the US-India Nuclear Deal which the George W. Bush administration and Manmohan Singh designed last July in Washington. We denounced it at that time, describing it as a "nuclear political tsunami". That is an extremely bad news not only in itself but also because it could be followed by a similar shift in the Chinese stance. Recently, the China representative at the First Committee of UNGA was advocating global nuclear disarmament. How long will this continue? It was possible to hope that several nuclear states (China, Russia) and powers (India, Pakistan) would pursue the aim of nuclear disarmament in opposition to the US, so that the two other nuclear states (France, UK) - which are in fact on the same line as the US ("we’ll never renounce our nuclear weapons") but are still hypocritically referring to nuclear disarmament - would be eventually obliged to rejoin the "abolitionist camp". Today, one can fear that ALL the nuclear states and powers will more or less quickly align themselves with the US stance: "we will keep our nuclear weaponry for ever; let’s just try to limit the access of others to it."

Moreover, the new Indian policies could embitter the India-Pakistan relations, and could increase the likelihood of a military action against Iran as a "state guilty of proliferation".

All things considered, October, 26, 2005 seems to have been a very black day.

ACDN (Action of Citizens for the total Dismantling of Nukes)

NEW DELHI , Oct 26 (IPS) - Seven years after blasting its way into the world’s ’nuclear club’, India has executed a major shift in its policy stance by jettisoning its long-standing advocacy of global nuclear disarmament in favour of nuclear non-proliferation.

On Monday, the country’s Foreign Secretary, Shyam Saran enunciated a new doctrinal orientation: India will now be ’’part of’’ a ’’new global consensus on non-proliferation’’.

The new stance is in line with a far-reaching agreement on nuclear weapons and atomic power signed between India and the United States in July.

From now on India will pay lip service, if even that, to the goal of fighting for universal nuclear weapons abolition and a nuclear weapons-free world.

This unceremonious burial of the disarmament agenda comes less than 18 months after the Manmohan Singh government came to power pledging, in its principal programmatic document, to assume a ’leadership role’ in the struggle for the complete global elimination of nuclear weapons.

In his speech, Shyam Saran outlined India’s emerging tough posture on Iran’s nuclear programme, ahead of another possible vote at the coming meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna a month from now.

Last month, India shocked domestic opinion, Iran, and the Non-Aligned Movement by voting for a West-sponsored resolution accusing Iran of ’’non-compliance’’ with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the IAEA’s statute, and thus preparing the ground for reporting it to United Nations Security Council for possible sanctions.

An important element of Saran’s speech was the naming of Pakistan as the supplier of Iran’s clandestine nuclear programme and demanding an investigation into the role of AQ Khan, ’Father of the Pakistani Bomb’ in Iran’s imports.

Until now, New Delhi had maintained a discreet silence or a low-key approach on the sensational disclosures of Khan’s shady nuclear deals.

Since January, last year, India has also been carrying out a series of ’’composite dialogues’’ aimed at restoring normal relations with its nuclear-armed rival and neighbour, Pakistan.

’’We are clearly seeing in all this the unfolding of the real significance of the India-U.S. nuclear deal of July’’, says Kamal Mitra Chenoy, professor at the School of International Studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi.

’’The deal makes a special, unprecedented, one-time exception for India in the global rules governing civilian nuclear commerce by declaring India a ‘responsible’ nuclear state and admitting it into the small monopolistic cartel called the Nuclear Club,’’ Chenoy told IPS.

But the deal faces a tough ratification process in the U.S. Congress and in the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers’ Group. India’s chanting of the non-proliferation mantra, which Indian pro-Bomb analysts until recently equated with a form of religious nuclear fanaticism, is designed to facilitate Congressional ratification.

’’India is paying the price for the deal with the US by sacrificing its own policy independence and its long-standing role as an apostle of peace and nuclear disarmament’’, said Chenoy.

It is plain from recent Congressional hearings that the U.S. will make the deal’s implementation conditional upon India’s good or ’responsible’ behaviour in collaborating with the U.S. in isolating Iran.

Leading Congressmen have warned India that it must choose between ’’the Iran of the Ayotollahs’’, with its oil and gas, and the ’’democratic West’’, with its advanced nuclear power technology.

India has been negotiating a major agreement with Iran for a gas pipeline through Pakistan, which will give it assured long-term supplies of the fuel at a low price but the U.S. has publicly opposed the deal.

After the Indian vote at Vienna, the pipeline seemed to be in jeopardy. After Saran’s statement, it may well be dead in the water.

Saran signalled that India has gone beyond demanding greater transparency and details about Iran’s past nuclear activities, including its crude and primitive efforts to enrich uranium (which can potentially be used both to generate electricity and make weapons). India now says it won’t ’’accept as legitimate the pursuit of clandestine activities in respect to WMD-related techniques’’.

This blanket term covers an entire range of activities, including uranium enrichment and research reactors. Most of these are amenable to dual uses.

India’s shift away from the nuclear disarmament agenda to an exclusive preoccupation with non-proliferation is reflected in Saran’s speech. The phrase ’’global nuclear disarmament’’ does not occur even once in the text. But ’’non-proliferation’’ occurs 25 times.

This shift is not about language alone. It signifies that India has abandoned the pursuit of abolition of nuclear weapons from all countries. It only wants to prevent new states from acquiring such weapons. Those which have them, including itself, can keep them. To do this, India advocates ’’global norms that go beyond the NPT’’.

This too is in keeping with US priorities. Since September 11, 2001, Washington has refused all proposals for limiting, leave alone disarming, its nuclear weapons. It strongly signalled its opposition to nuclear disarmament at a review conference of the NPT this past May.

But at the same time, the US has redoubled its efforts at preventing proliferation through aggressive measures like intercepting suspect shipments on the high seas. India is moving towards support for such measures too.

’’This will be seen as India’s betrayal of its own past traditions as a peace campaigner and leader of the Non-Aligned Movement, and its own independent foreign policy’’, says Aijaz Ahmad, a distinguished professor of South Asian Studies at the Jamia Millia Islamia university in the capital. ’’There will be sharp divisions and no domestic consensus whatever on this disastrous policy shift’’.

India’s new turn on the AQ Khan issue is directed as much at the U.S. as at Pakistan. It wants to highlight the proliferation potential in its neighbourhood to indicate that it will play a leading, pro-active role in preventing the possible spread of nuclear weapons.

This is designed to please Washington although it is doubtful that it will lead to much investigation into Khan’s activities, given Washington’s dependence on Pakistan for the ’war on terror’.

India’s new position as enunciated by Saran is that clandestine nuclear operations must be scrutinised from both the demand and supply ends. ’’We see no reason why there should be an insistence on personal interviews with Iranian scientists but an exception granted to a man who has been accused of running a global ‘nuclear Wal-Mart’.’’ This refers to Khan, who is believed to have supplied components of uranium enrichment centrifuges to Iran.

Such rhetoric may embitter India-Pakistan relations. Already, the composite dialogue process has entered stagnation. The two failed to cooperate in rescue and relief operations across the Line of Control in divided Kashmir after the terrible earthquake there two weeks ago.

By moving into the U.S. orbit, and embracing non-proliferation at the expense of disarmament, India may end up sacrificing its interests in peace and cooperation in the immediate neighbourhood.

Praful Bidway

View online : Inter Press Service News Agency

L'argent est le nerf de la paix ! ACDN vous remercie de lui faire un DON

Other versions
print Printable version
pdfPDF Version

Share through social networks

Also in this section

Neither Bush nor Blair is in a position to take a high moral line on Iran’s nuclear programme
Nuclear Deterrence
20th Anniversary of World Court Advisory Opinion
Over 1750 Israelis Call to Stop the Genocide in Gaza
Signs of Change in the First Committee
Nuclear Weapons and Representative Democracy
The Nuclear Zero Lawsuits: Taking Nuclear Weapons to Court
Fukushima : Worse than Chernobyl
The death-cult
Gaza War Crimes: Israeli Government Contradicts its Own "Self-Defense" Argument

navigation motscles

Nuclear Clouds Gather Over Asia
Nuclear disarmament
"Israel will not lower its guard." Nor will Bush and Sarkozy.
For a Middle East without Weapons of Mass Destruction
Alain Juppé, the Minister of Defense, replies to the president of ACDN
World Peace Forum Calls on the United States to Lead the World in Nuclear Disarmament
Open Letter on NATO Missile Defense Plans and Increased Risk of Nuclear War
DECLARATION of the "Nuclear Phasing Out" French Network on the Current "Iranian Crisis"
Turning point at Chernobyl
First Minister Alex Salmond wants Scotland, UK and the World rid of nuclear weapons
Barack Obama undertakes to work for the abolition of nuclear weapons
Worldwide nuclear disarmament is the only response to anarchic proliferation
Vanunu and the question of nuclear weapons lie at the heart of the problems in the Middle-East
The solution exists, it just has to be seized!
Mohamed ElBaradei - Nobel Lecture
On Indo-US Nuke Deal
Secret sale of UK plutonium to Israel
Iran and the Bomb
They All Urge for Abolishing Nuclear Weapons
IRAN : No proliferation! No war!
Israelis consider attack on Iran
Implications of the US-India nuclear deal and the task for the peace movement
Negotiating with Iran is maddening, but bombing would be a catastrophe
The "Peace President" Wants To Keep America’s Nukes
The second nuclear age
Shultz, Other Experts Back Nuclear Disarmament
The military’s problem with the President’s Iran policy.
Bush doesn’t want detente. He wants to attack Iran
Ballistic Missile Defense: the new Cold War
Leading Americans Ask U.S. Military to Refuse Orders to Attack Iran

visites :  1269038

Home | Contact | Site Map | Admin |

Site powered by SPIP
design et fonction Easter-Eggs