“China’s agreement to help Pakistan build two nuclear power plants is prompting warnings that the new US-India civilian nuclear deal is already pushing other countries to pursue their own nuclear relationships,” he goes on to write.

“The concern among South Asia experts and nonproliferation advocates is that the American deal allowing India to pursue an expanded civilian nuclear program with limited safeguards is prompting other countries in a volatile region to seek a similar deal – something the US had said would not happen.”

Michael Krepon, a South Asia nuclear proliferation expert at the Henry L. Stimson Center in Washington told Lafranchi: “You can’t help but hear about China supplying Pakistan with nuclear power plants and see it as a reaction to the US-India deal. Pakistan is desperate for energy, as is India, but there are lower-cost and shorter-timeline options for producing it, so there is something else going on here and in the Middle East.”

When the United States announced it would work with China on nuclear energy, for the first time in history thereby recognizing and accepting India as a nuclear power, many Middle East and South Asia experts said the deal could very well trigger an angry response from Pakistan, which would look at America’s enemies in order to secure a similar deal. 

For Pakistan, its recent deal with China makes more than sense. It was the only logical policy for the Pakistanis to pursue. 

The bad news for the U.S. is, however, that other countries in the region are like to follow suit. When the U.S. does not allow you to produce nuclear energy, but another major power does, China, you turn to the Chinese for help. Especially if you know that the U.S. is unwilling to stop you when China is on your side and when you see that the U.S. is supporting and encouraging your enemies in the region. 

In the end, Pakistan and India remain archenemies. The U.S. should keep that in mind whenever it deals with either country.

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

India’s refusal to sign the NPT was based on principle, for the NPT is the last vestige of apartheid in the international system, granting as it does to five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council the right to be nuclear weapons states while denying the same right to others. A long-time advocate of global nuclear disarmament, India’s moral stand on the NPT enjoys near-unanimous backing within the country. Its weapons program is also widely (though far from universally) supported at home as a security imperative in a dangerous neighborhood.

Unlike Iran and North Korea, which signed the NPT and then violated its provisions through clandestine nuclear weapons programs, India has openly pursued its own nuclear development, and it has a stellar record on non-proliferation, never exporting its technology or leaking a nuclear secret. Moreover, its nuclear program is under strict civilian control.

Don’t talk about Hindu nationalism (a fault on both commentators). Don’t mention India’s record as both a non-aligned leader under Jawaharlal Nehru, followed by Indira Gandhi’s Soviet flirtations. And, for the love of peace, don’t mention the wars with PRC! Finally, I though Japan was America’s strategic partner in Asia.

Why is it, that when the US, the leader of the nuclear apartheid system in Tharoor’s estimation, argues it can use nukes prudently, that’s cant? But, when India (Tharoor) tries it, why isn’t that a parody, instead of a talking point?

If nukes can’t improve American moral authority, or Israel’s, then New Delhi hasn’t just become the new nuclear Buddha. It’s amazing what lobbyists’ cash will do for college-educated men!

Powered by ScribeFire .

©2008 PoliGazette . All Rights Reserved.

Although it’s horrible what the communists of North Korea do to their fellow countrymen, the reality of the matter is that the primary concern of the West is its own security, and the balance of power and stability of the region. It’s horrible that North Korea has concentration camps, but the reality of the situation is that there isn’t much we do about that without destabilizing the entire country and, thus, the region as a whole. As such, trying to force the North to destroy its concentration camps immediately isn’t doable.

This means that we have to do what is in our own direct interest. This is not convincing North Korea to close its concentration camps but to close its nuclear facilities and to destroy them. This is what the West’s goal should be right now; once that’s over and done with, we can talk about concentration camps and the North’s attempt to starve its own people to death (starving citizens don’t have the energy to revolt).

Having determined the closure of such facilities to be our primary goal, we have to come up with a way to do so. The hard approach has been tried. It worked, but the stick only works when you also promise a carrot. So we promised the North a carrot; if you close down your nuclear facilities, you’ll be taken off the terrorism blacklist. They closed it down and what did we do?

Nothing.

North Korea then reopened its nuclear facilities, in a move that made perfect sense to itself and to virtually every outside with some knowledge about the country and region. The stick had been tried, the carrot shown, but not given. Since people aren’t horses, you actually have to give them a piece of the carrot when they do something good as a reward, and then promise more when they do something else you want them to do.

In this case that means that you give them a piece of the carrot (take them off the terrorism blacklist), make sure the nuclear facilities remain closed and then continue to talk about destroying said facilities. Once that’s done you focus on other issues such as concentration camps.

That’s the only logical approach to the North Korean problem. Applebaum may not like it, but ‘wrong’ and ‘right’ don’t have a lot to do with the policy towards this renegade country. Security, however, does.

©2008 PoliGazette . All Rights Reserved.

Riding the Elephant thinks that with this deal the US-India relationship has reached a new era, a new watershed. Is it true? Certainly, many in mainstream media think so and there has been a lot of heated debate both in India and US about the deal, but it is very puzzling as to why there is very little debate among Indian bloggers on this important subject.

Jayashree Bajoria of Council on Foreign Relations spells out the pros and cons of the US-India nuclear deal (also known as 123 agreement) which she points out is a watershed in the relationship between US and India.

DeepitA of Desicritics writes, “This (the nuclear agreement) has been among the most heated and debated agreements in recent times.” She highlights the opposition that both countries faced for pushing through the agreement and notes:

“The United States also had to face opposition internally, both within the Administration, and outside in the strategic community; people were reluctant to approve any exemptions to the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty); thought was that this gave India the right to use its uranium resources to push its military weapons program; also that this gave the wrong signal to others such as Iran and Pakistan.”

Here are a couple of observations from an American perspective about the agreement. Interestingly, both the Presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain were in favor of the agreement writes Siddharth Varadarajan in his blog post.

Shashi Tharoor, who was formally with the United Nations, has this to say in his post ‘Why India Loves Bush‘:

“The fact is that the Indo-US relationship may well be the Bush administration's most significant (or perhaps only) international achievement of the last eight years. Look around the globe, and all you see are foreign policy shambles: five years of war in Iraq, accompanied by Abu Ghraib, torture, and rendition; a never-ending “global war on terror,” with Guantánamo a symbol of the Bushies' disregard for international law; rock-bottom opinion polls across Europe; a seething Middle East, a glowering Russia; and hostile powers from Iran to Venezuela. If there is a glimmer of light - one place in the world where the Bush administration leaves a better relationship than the one it inherited—it can only be India.”

As noted in our report yesterday, one of the main reasons North Korea reopened its nuclear facility was because its leaders were disappointed that they were not taken off the infamous blacklist. 

Map of North Korea

All the United States would have to do to make North Korea comply once again was to remove the country ruled by communists from the list.

The stick is often used these days in order to force hostile regimes to comply with rules established by the United Nations and other international bodies. The stick is, of course, important, but without the carrot, one will always fail in the long run. In the end, individuals and countries do not merely react to the stick, you also need to promise and give them something in return for good behavior. North Korea’s reaction today should serve as a reminder of this golden rule.

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

US President George W Bush has signed into law a nuclear deal with India, which ends a three-decade ban on US nuclear trade with Delhi. The landmark agreement was approved by the US Congress nearly a week ago. The deal will give India access to US civilian nuclear technology and fuel in return for inspections of its civilian, but not military, nuclear facilities.

India says the accord is vital to meet its rising energy needs. Critics say it creates a dangerous precedent. They say it effectively allows India to expand its nuclear power industry without requiring it to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as other nations must. The US restricted nuclear co-operation with India after it tested a nuclear weapon in 1974.

The Indian side faced tremendous challenges in getting this deal through. The process was started by a discussion with the BJP ruled Indian Government and the Bush Administration, and was then negotiated by the Congress Government with the US Administration a couple of years back. The Indian Government was a minority Government, and dependent on the Communist Parties and many other parties.

The Communist Parties, although against the nuclear policies of the Indian Government, have always despised a closer relationship with the United States and refused to flatly support such a policy, warning of a end to the Government (and since the Government was in a minority, an end seemed quite natural if their support ended).

For a long time, it seemed that the Government had given up, after all the nuclear deal was not a vote-winner, the deal also seemed to be against the interests of the Muslim minority vote that the Congress wants, and so on. And then, after many months, Dr. Manmohan Singh finally decided that enough is enough; he literally forced the Government to agree to his stand that they back the deal; to the extent that manipulations were allowed in order to make sure that the Government retained a majority in Parliament.

Getting the deal through the Nuclear Suppliers Group was another difficult task. There were many nations wedded to the cause of denial of technology to anybody who had not signed upto the NPT, and it required intensive effort by the US to get the group to agree. China in the end tried to prod other nations, but the US pressure (and a small amount of Indian pressure) was enough to get the member to eventually agree, even though it was totally under pressure.

The United States also had to face opposition internally, both within the Administration, and outside in the strategic community; people were reluctant to approve any exemptions to the NPT; thought was that this gave India the right to use its uranium resources to push its military weapons program; also that this gave the wrong signal to others such as Iran and Pakistan.

Overall, this deal will provide a vast impetus to the nuclear energy commercial business; with India planning a large number of reactors to meet a portion of its energy needs, a number of companies worldwide will benefit.

AmiraalHussaini, from Bahrain, balked at Sarah Palin's use of the familiar:

She then questioned how Palin managed to bone up on her public speaking skills so quickly:

She also wondered about Palin's promises regarding Wall Street:

Much of the Twitter commentary was in reference to Palin's gaffes and mispronunciations. Israeli gilgul remarked upon her pronunciation of “nuclear”:

He also remarked upon Palin's “O'Biden” gaffe:

lrakoto, from Madagascar, enjoyed Palin's “O'Biden” remark:

He also eschewed Palin's use of “doggone”:

AmiraalHussaini chose to comment on Palin's repeated mispronunciation of Iraq and Iran:

Many viewers were also appalled at Palin's response to the question on oil and energy. Danish-Puerto Rican Solanasaurus didn't quite agree with Palin:

By the end of the debate, it was clear that this segment of the Twittersphere favored Biden. lrakoto made his preference clear:

On the humorous side of things, eunice007 (Philippines) remarks upon the bipartisan US:

Australian rachelhills is a bit torn on the winner of the debate:

Bloggers were quick to point out a mistake by both candidates when they called the Iranian Revolutionary Guards the Republican Guards and moderator failed to correct them:

samsam1111 in Iranian.com blog writes:

“The old dude candidate while bragging about his immense foreign affairs expertise calls the regime revolutionary guards as republican guards …Hello !? this is not eye-raq pal !!…. As I was waiting for the all knowing genius, the Harvard educated professor to call his opponent on his gaffe, it even got more hilarious as Imam Hussein argued with McCain on the mullahs and said “Yes the republican guards are a threat but…blah blah.” And what is pitiful is the fact that the so called well informed moderator the one and only Jim Lehrer didn't correct the dumb & dumber duo.”

You can see this mistake from the lips of candidates  here.

Roznameh Negar No (which means New Reporter) writes [fa]:

Obama - 0.
McCain - 0.

He adds:

“The debate was not a very exciting one and it seems that insulting Iran is an a la mode story.”

The blogger further adds:

“McCain, once, had a real problem in pronouncing Ahmadinejad's name.” 

Watch it here.

Haji Kensigton says [fa] that McCain did not even once call Obama by his first name while Obama called McCain several times by his first name. The blogger thinks McCain failed to make contact with voters despite his experience in politics.

And finally Arash Sigarchi, a blogger and journalist, writes [fa] that Iran was the loser in the debate because both candidates call it a real threat.

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

And away they go. From the Toronto Globe and Mail:

Shooting from the hip on foreign policy, Palin raises spectre of war with Russia

Indeed, 3AW’s Neil Mitchell this morning scoffed that a President Palin would have already started “four wars”, to judge by the interview.

Really? Let’s check.

The first war a President Palin would allegedly start was with Pakistan, by invading it in the hunt for terrorists, and perhaps from the transcript you might agree the words are indeed naive and alarming:

We should start with the premise that the United States, like all sovereign nations, has the unilateral right to defend itself against attack. As such, our campaign to take out Al Qaeda base camps and the Taliban regime that harbored them was entirely justified… (I)f we’ve got (Osama bin Laden) in our sites, we should ask for Pakistan’s cooperation, we should ask Pakistan to take him out. But if they don’t, we shouldn’t need permission to go after folks that killed 3,000 Americans.

Oops, sorry. That was actually Barack Obama. This is Palin:

ABC News Anchor Gibson also asked Palin several times whether or not U.S. forces have the right to make cross-border attacks into Pakistan with or without the approval of the Pakistani government…

“In order to stop Islamic extremists, those terrorists, who would seek to destroy America and our allies, we must do whatever it takes, and we must not blink…”

The other war a President Palin would start, according to Mitchell, was with Russia over Georgia (should Georgia be a NATO member, which it isn’t). Again, the transcript might sound alarming:

I would also argue that we have the right to take unilateral military action to eliminate an imminent threat to our security— so long as an imminent threat is understood to be a nation, group, or individual that is actively preparing to strike U.S. targets (or allies with which the United States has mutual defense agreements)…

And those allies should include Georgia:

I have consistently called for deepening relations between Georgia and transatlantic institutions, including a Membership Action Plan for NATO…

Oops. Again, that’s Obama. Here is Palin:

Asked whether the United States would have to go to war with Russia if it invaded Georgia, and the country was part of NATO, Palin said: “Perhaps so.”

“I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you’re going to be expected to be called upon and help,” she said.

Pressed on the question, Palin responded: “What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against … We have got to show the support, in this case, for Georgia. The support that we can show is economic sanctions perhaps against Russia, if this is what it leads to.”

War three, fretted Mitchell, would be one with Iran, now seeking nuclear weapons, according to most assessments. Go to the scary transcript:

(T)he global community should offer “big sticks and big carrots” to persuade Iran to halt its nuclear programme.

“A nuclear Iran would pose a grave threat and the world must prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon…”

Damn, that’s Obama again. Here is Palin:

PALIN: No, no. I agree with John McCain that nuclear weapons in the hands of those who would seek to destroy our allies, in this case, we’re talking about Israel, we’re talking about Ahmadinejad’s comment about Israel being the “stinking corpse, should be wiped off the face of the earth,” that’s atrocious. That’s unacceptable.

GIBSON: So what do you do about a nuclear Iran?

PALIN: We have got to make sure that these weapons of mass destruction, that nuclear weapons are not given to those hands of Ahmadinejad, not that he would use them, but that he would allow terrorists to be able to use them. So we have got to put the pressure on Iran and we have got to count on our allies to help us, diplomatic pressure.

And the fourth war? Over Israel. To the transcript:

I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally, Israel.

You guessed it. Obama again. Here is Palin:

GIBSON: What if Israel decided it felt threatened and needed to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?

PALIN: Well, first, we are friends with Israel and I don’t think that we should second guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves and for their security.

If Mitchell is alarmed by Palin, running for vice president, he should be terrified by Obama, running for president. Either that, or he should accept that nothing Palin said was particularly bellicose, extreme or unreasonable. He’s just fallen for the Palin=redneck spin of the Left.

In fact, when you read the transcript of Palin’s discussion with reporter Charlie Gibson on foreign affairs, you realise how the gotcha cherry-picking of quotes from it, and the spin given to it, completely misrepresents Palin’s general ease with the subject. The Left dreamed of her making a fool of herself - “er, who’s Putin?” - but she most certainly did not.

UPDATE

Charles Krauthammer punctures Charlie Gibson’s big gotcha moment. No, Charlie, it wasn’t Palin who failed to understand what the “Bush doctrine” was. It was you.

(Thanks to reader Bruce.)

India is delighted:

This followed tough negotiations in which several small NSG states agreed under heavy U.S. pressure to weaker language than they had sought to ensure India does not test atom bombs again.

“I thank the United States and other member countries of the Nuclear Suppliers Group for the role they have played in ensuring this outcome,” Singh said.

The NY Times says:

Its critics warned that such a sweeping exemption for India, which has developed an atomic weapons program but steadfastly refused to sign the global nonproliferation treaty, sets a dangerous precedent.

The NZ Government is said to have wanted three concessions:

1. Action to be taken should India resume nuclear testing;
2. For India to sign up to an International Atomic Energy Agency protocol extending its monitoring powers;
3. A review of the exemption.

Could someone advise how many of these were formally agreed to? Is India signing up to such a protocol?

Personally I have no issues with the deal. I am just highlighting how the lofty rhetoric of the Clark administration fades way under a phone call from Duyba.

Do the Greens have anything to say?

A key civil nuclear agreement between Russia and the U.S. looks likely to be shelved until next year at the earliest amid mounting tensions over the fate of Georgia's breakaway republics.

The nuclear pact — signed last May — set the framework to give the U.S. access to Russian state-of-the-art nuclear technologies, while helping Russia establish an international nuclear fuel storage facility for spent fuel. Russia cannot achieve that goal without the deal, since the U.S. controls the vast majority of the world's nuclear fuel.

. . . the Bush administration . . . has backed the bill as a key part of its efforts to secure nuclear materials.

It would appear as if a top priority of the US government is no longer to keep nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorists. Rather, having a futile Cold War with Rusisa over Georgia's borders takes precedence.

If Russia's nuclear materials are not secured, eventually terrorists will get them.

read more

In meetings Monday and Tuesday, administration officials told Defense Minister Ehud Barak that the option of attacking Iran over its nuclear program remains on the table, though U.S. officials are primarily seeking a diplomatic solution.

At the same time, U.S. officials acknowledged that there is a rare divergence in the U.S. and Israeli approaches, with Israelis stressing the possibility of a military response out of concern that Tehran soon may have the know-how to build a nuclear bomb.

“Is there a difference of emphasis? It certainly looks as though there is,” said a senior American Defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity when discussing the sensitive talks.
But DEBKA is reporting that if a military option is going to be exercised against Iran, it will be Israel exercising it and not the United States:
The United States agreed to link Israel up to two advanced missile detection systems against potential attack by a nuclear-armed Iran, Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak said Tuesday night, July 30, at the end of his Washington talks. But US officials made it clear that, while prepared to help Israel defend itself against Iranian missile retaliation, they are determined not to be involved in any Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear sites.

DEBKAfile’s military sources report that Washington would deliver within six months “before the new US administration arrives” in January, a powerful forward-based X-band FBX-T radar. Increased access to its Defense Support Program (DSP) satellites, which spot missile launches, would take longer.

By putting a time frame around delivery, the Bush administration holds off a possible Israeli attack on Iran for as long as possible.

…

The upshot of the Israeli defense minister’s mission to Washington for a boost to Israel’s military capability for a possible preemptive attack on a pre-nuclear-armed Iran was therefore the promise of hardware to give Israel more time to defend itself against Iranian missile reprisals.
The new systems will allow Israel to give its population five minutes' notice of an Iranian attack so that the population could reach shelters. An Iranian missile would take about eleven minutes to reach Israel. More details on the missile detection systems here.

UPDATE 8:33 AM

Pastorius is reporting that Iran is planning a nuclear strike on the US.
In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee and in remarks to a private conference on missile defense over the weekend hosted by the Claremont Institute, Dr. William Graham warned that the U.S. intelligence community “doesn’t have a story” to explain the recent Iranian tests.

One group of tests that troubled Graham, the former White House science adviser under President Ronald Reagan, were successful efforts to launch a Scud missile from a platform in the Caspian Sea.

“They’ve got [test] ranges in Iran which are more than long enough to handle Scud launches and even Shahab-3 launches,” Dr. Graham said. “Why would they be launching from the surface of the Caspian Sea? They obviously have not explained that to us.”

Another troubling group of tests involved Shahab-3 launches where the Iranians “detonated the warhead near apogee, not over the target area where the thing would eventually land, but at altitude,” Graham said. “Why would they do that?”

Graham chairs the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack, a blue-ribbon panel established by Congress in 2001.

The commission examined the Iranian tests “and without too much effort connected the dots,” even though the U.S. intelligence community previously had failed to do so, Graham said.

“The only plausible explanation we can find is that the Iranians are figuring out how to launch a missile from a ship and get it up to altitude and then detonate it,” he said. “And that’s exactly what you would do if you had a nuclear weapon on a Scud or a Shahab-3 or other missile, and you wanted to explode it over the United States.”
Read it all.