|
India Thinkers Net Archives Index
|
Subscribe
|
|
| << November30, 2005 - [India Thinkers Net] Observe World AIDS Day |
December03, 2005 - [India Thinkers Net]River basin,Sukla Sen postings etc >> |
|
[1] From: rkurian@bgl.vsnl.net.in Date: Thu Dec 1, 2005 Subject: Atomic Hypocrisy (The Guardian) Atomic hypocrisy Neither Bush nor Blair is in a position to take a high moral line on Iran's nuclear programme By Tony Benn 11/30/05 "The Guardian" -- -- Britain has played a leading role in the negotiations with Iran about its nuclear programme and the risk that it might lead to the development of an atomic bomb, and may well seek to take the matter to the UN security council. Given that the prime minister himself is determined to upgrade Trident and appears to be committed to a new series of nuclear power stations, his position as the defender of the non-proliferation treaty is not very credible, and if we are to understand the depth of western hypocrisy on this question we should look back at the history, which has been conveniently forgotten. Thirty years ago, on January 7 1976, as secretary of state for energy I went for a long discussion with the Shah in his palace in Tehran, and much of the time was spent discussing the plans he had to develop a major nuclear-power programme in Iran. I had been well briefed on his proposals by Dr Akbar Etemad of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organisation, who had told me that he intended to build a 24 megawatt capacity by 1994, which was bigger than the programme Britain itself had at that time, and he expressed an interest in the centrifuges that are essential for reprocessing, while assuring me that he was anxious to avoid nuclear proliferation. My diary covering my talk to the Shah about the sources of his nuclear technology reveals that he told me that he was "getting it from the French and the Germans and might even get it from the Soviets - and why not?" It was only a year later that Dr Walter Marshall of the Atomic Energy Authority, my own adviser, announced that he was also the Shah's adviser on nuclear policy, and had prepared a scheme under which the Shah would order the Westinghouse pressurised-water reactor (PWR) if Britain would do the same, and that Iran was prepared to put up the money - a plan that I was determined to fight. It was actually being suggested as part of this deal that Iran would become a 50% owner of our nuclear industry for the purpose of building the PWRs. Marshall had, without any authority from me, apparently suggested that Britain abandon our advanced gas cooled reactors and order up to 20 PWRs, and I formed the impression that he took the view, as many in the nuclear industry did, that proliferation was inevitable and there was not much you could do about it. Indeed he almost said as much. For all these reasons I was totally opposed to this whole idea, and what was most worrying to me was the virtual certainty that it would lead to nuclear proliferation and the development of atomic weapons by Iran. It was never approved. Sir Jack Rampton, my permanent secretary, who seemed to be as keen as Marshall on the adoption of the PWR, and who was directly consulted by the prime minister, was clearly pressing this approach, and Jim Callaghan himself wanted me to go along with it. At a cabinet committee meeting held on May 4 1977, Jim, while expressing his concern about nuclear proliferation, argued that we should not reject the Iranian approach since he thought that either the Germans or the French would take it up. An added complication arose when it turned out that since nuclear power was, under Euratom, seen by the Foreign Office as being within the legal competence of the European commission, the British government might be unable to take its own view. Most astonishing of all, in the light of the present discussions, is that the problem of Iran developing such a huge nuclear capacity caused no problems for the Americans because, at that time, the Shah was seen as a strong ally, and had indeed been put on the throne with American help. There could hardly be a clearer example of double standards than this, and it fits in with the arming of Saddam to attack Iran after the Shah had been toppled, and the complete silence over Israel's huge nuclear armoury, which is itself a breach of the non-proliferation treaty. The International Atomic Energy Agency and its chief, Mohamed ElBaradei, were recently awarded the Nobel peace prize for their work on non-proliferation, but since that treaty provided that the nuclear-weapons states should negotiate their own disarmament agreement, which has not happened, it is clear that for them the NPT does not matter. Now there is a proposal to report Iran to the UN and ElBaradei could find himself in the same position as was Hans Blix, the Iraq arms inspector who was used by Washington for its own purposes, with the US seeking a UN resolution to condemn Iran and then, if that fails, acting unilaterally using force, as in Iraq. If the problems now being discussed can be dealt with in a practical way through the IAEA, there is a real chance of an agreed solution, and that is what we should be demanding since neither Bush nor Blair is in a position to take a high moral line. As I am strongly opposed to nuclear weapons and civil nuclear power, these comments should not be taken as endorsing what Iran is doing; but Britain's past nuclear links with Iran should encourage us to be very cautious and oppose those whose arguments could be presented as justifying a case for war, which cannot be justified. Tony Benn was the secretary of state for energy from 1975-79 - tony@... ?© Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 -------------------------------- [2] From: "suklasen" <suklasen@yahoo.com> Date: Thu Dec 1, 2005 Subject: Re: [india-unity] Declaration and Report of CNDP,UP Convention inLucknow: Call The July 18 joint statement by Manmohan Singh and George Bush etching out the Indo-US nuclear deal faces opposition from three major quarters: India, US and the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). Apart from these the global anti-nuke peace movement has also condemned the deal. Within the US establishment, there are individuals and sections, who view the deal too cheap for India and an assault on the NPT, and thereby the non-proliferation regime, by making an exception in case of India, an aberrant nation. In fact, just before the issue of the declaration, no less than Condoleeza Rice herself had opined against any such possibility. The US Congress is yet to give its assent necessary to operationalise the deal. Within the NSG, there are countries keen to do nuclear business with India. But there are many others, including those who had voluntarily given up their nuclear weapon options in the interest of global nuclear disarmament, who oppose this deal as an assault on the NPT, being clearly violative of its provisions, which debar nuclear commerce with any non-signatory. Incidentally, of the total 191 members of the UN, all but three ??“ India, Pakistan and Israel, put their signature to the NPT. North Korea, however, withdrew in 2003. But they have indicated their willingness to give up their weapons and weapon-making capability, developed clandestinely, in return for certain other concessions and rejoin the NPT. The question of the NSG approving the deal will arise only when the proposal formally comes before it after having been cleared by the USA. The anti-nuke peace movement considers this deal yet another act of gross unilateralism on the part of the Bush administration and an assault on the NPT by making an impermissible exception in case of India ??“ a non-signatory and a brazen `proliferator'. Within India, while the government and much of the nuclear establishment and its apologists have welcomed the deal with great gusto, the opposition came mainly from the rightwing "nationalists", the extreme nuclear hawks and also major sections of the Left, albeit in a fairly muted tone. The support has been justified on mainly two grounds. The deal, if comes into force, will confer a sort of quasi-recognition as a nuclear weapon power on India by the international community, which it has been denied all along. This will also de-hyphenate India from Pakistan. A dream for the Indian elite. At a more mundane level, this would be a lifeline for India's nuclear power plants, given the paucity of fuel ??“ naturally occurring uranium, available indigenously. Currently uranium is being mined only from Jadugoda in Jharkhand. Attempts at exploration in Nalgonda in AP and Arunachal Pradesh have been foiled by massive popular resistance. The opposition, as was articulated by Vajpayee on the floor of the Indian parliament during the debate on this issue, claims that it will restrict its India's sovereign option to keep on endlessly piling up the weapon of deliberate mass murder and also upgrade from the present level of fissile weapon to fusion weapon, or Hydrogen Bomb. The deal, as and when - and if at all, comes into force will obligate India to open its 'civilian' plants to IAEA inspection. As per the deal, It's for India to designate, at its own pace, which are the `civilian' plants. India will be entitled to nuclear commerce ??“ in terms of fuel, technology, plants and machineries etc., only as regards its `civilian' plants. So even without being a signatory of the NPT, it will enjoy the status of a non-nuclear weapon state under the NPT as regards its `civilian' plants. As regards the balance, or military, plants its status will remain unchanged. Neither any inspection, nor any commerce. And for this India will not have to give up either its existing nuclear arsenal or its future programme. The future programme will, however, be somewhat curtailed in as much some of the plants will go out of its purview having been designated as `civilian'. But this notion of `curtailment' applies only if we assume India would have been able to carry on with its programme unhindered - unrestrained by non-access to fuel, technology and hardware from external sources ??“ evidently a very questionable assumption. Moreover, one must also remember the deal is yet to be cleared by the US itself, despite full support from Bush himself. After that will come the turn of the NSG. Of course, Bush may ignore even the NSG, though not the US Congress, as it had ignored the UN Security Council while launching the war on Iraq. Sukla --- In indiathinkersnet@yahoogroups.com, "I. K. Shukla" wrote: > > > If they are not, they must be either Rip Van Winkles or Jaychands, or their descendants. It is the classical middle class which always rushes forward to collaborate with the enemy, the alien. It was Jagat Seth who loaned money to East India Company for its military campaigns. The class to which India was ceded by the Brits was in cahoots with the foreigner, both before and after 1947. Nothing new in NDelhi vying for the post of a peon. > |
|
| << November30, 2005 - [India Thinkers Net] Observe World AIDS Day |
December03, 2005 - [India Thinkers Net]River basin,Sukla Sen postings etc >> |
|
India Thinkers Net Archives Index
|
Subscribe
|
|
|
Archives powered by Zinester's Mailing List Service
Details on India Thinkers Net |
Browse for more newsletters at Zinester's Ezine Directory
Managed by Zinester's Mailing List Management |