"Delhi scorns to sign CTBT, NPT," The Daily Mail, January 17, 2009.

New Delhi—India has asserted that it will not sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) or Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) notwithstanding its bilateral atomic agreement with the US, which is expected to pursue these pacts during the Obama government.

Prime Minister Gilani said Pakistan expected similar treatment as far as the US-India nuclear deal were concerned.

“We will not sign CTBT or NPT and we have made it absolutely clear to the US that we are bound by the bilateral agreement with it and India-specific safeguards with the IAEA,” External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee said in an interview.

His comments came while responding to remarks by incoming US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that CTBT would be a priority for the new US government.

Read the rest here =>Recommend this Post

More =>

Sphere: Related Content

Louis Charbonneau, "US blocking nuclear arms reduction talks - Russia," WiredDispatch, September 29, 2008.

[Charbonneau sees this as a "sign of deteriorating Russian-US relations." It is also a sign of a collapsing nuclear non-proliferation regime owing largely to a failure of US leadership among the nuclear weapons states. A bad situation was made worse when Bush abrogated the ABM Treaty. The decline was punctuated this week with the approval of the US-Nuclear deal in the House of Representatives last week. The end of START would accelerate the process of turning the most successful international treaty regime in history into an empty formality. -jlt]

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Russia accused the United States Monday of stonewalling negotiations on a new pact on reducing the size of the two powers' nuclear arsenals, the latest sign of deteriorating Russian-U.S. relations.

"Negotiations between us and Washington to make sure that after START I treaty expires in December 2009 we have some meaningful strategic arms control regime, these negotiations are not so far heading anywhere," said Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.

Recommend this Post

More =>

Sphere: Related Content

"NPT RIP and reflections on consensus," September 6, 2008.

"...for the first time in my experience of international diplomatic negotiations, a consensus decision was followed by complete silence in the room. No clapping, nothing. It showed a lot of us felt pressured...

VIENNA, Sept 6 (Reuters) - Forty-five nations approved a U.S. proposal on Saturday to lift a global ban on nuclear trade with India in a breakthrough towards sealing a U.S.-Indian atomic energy deal.

One hurdle remained before the U.S.-India deal can take force -- ratification by the U.S. Congress. It must act before adjourning in late September for elections or the deal could be left to an uncertain fate under a new U.S. administration.

The U.S.-India deal raised international misgivings since India has shunned the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) meant to stop the spread and production of nuclear weapons and mandate gradual disarmament, and a companion test ban pact.

Washington says the fuel and technology deal would forge a strategic partnership with the world's largest democracy, help India meet rising energy demand in an environmentally sound way and open a nuclear market worth billions of dollars.

Read the rest here =>Recommend this Post

More =>

Sphere: Related Content

Campbell Clark, "Canada changes nuclear policy to accommodate India," Globe and Mail, August 1, 2008.

[When the going get's serious, Canadian politicians resort to sports metaphors. Remember Stephen Harper's reason why we were not going to cut and run in Afghanistan? It was time for Canada to "step up to the plate" and that couldn't be done "from the bleachers," games played I guess before lunch at the nuclear country club. There is a little problem of Indian companies that provided dual use technology to Saddam Hussein, but only Pakistan mentions that in discussions about India as a "responsible" nuclear proliferator. (An explosion, not a bomb.) What do you think is next? blessings for Israel's "ambiguous" proliferation? or a permanent seat on the Security Council for India? -jlt]

“...you can't keep somebody in the penalty box forever.”

David Emerson
Canada's Foreign Minister

OTTAWA — Canada has changed its policy on nuclear non-proliferation to accommodate India's entry into the club of countries that can trade openly in nuclear fuel and technology, despite its nuclear weapons programs.

India's emergence as an economic power is one reason Canada is overlooking concerns about making it an exception to the world's non-proliferation rules, despite Pakistan's warning it could spark an Asian arms race and Canada's own sour history with India's nuclear ambitions.

Canadian reactor technology, donated in the 1950s, was used to make India's first atomic bomb, tested in 1974. That cooled relations between Canada and India, ended nuclear exchanges and triggered new efforts by nuclear suppliers around the world to prevent arms proliferation.

Canada supported a nuclear-inspection plan for India that was approved by the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna on Friday, a plan required to implement a controversial U.S.-India deal on civil nuclear co-operation.

And Canada is now expected to back an exemption for India at the Nuclear Suppliers Group at a meeting being planned for later this month, which would clear the way for India to begin importing nuclear technology and fuel such as uranium.

Read the rest here =>Recommend this Post

More =>

Sphere: Related Content

Ernie Regehr, "Decision time for India's nuclear exemption," Globe and Mail, July 24, 2008.

At a minimum, India should be required to make three basic commitments in order to qualify for civilian nuclear co-operation: a freeze on testing until the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty includes a permanent ban; a verifiable freeze on the production of fissile material for weapons purposes until a Fissile Materials Treaty includes a permanent ban; and formal acceptance of the disarmament obligations in Article VI of the NPT.

So the on-again, off-again U.S.-India civilian nuclear co-operation deal is back on, although just barely. Tuesday, after a raucous two-day debate complete with cash-for-votes charges, the Indian Parliament voted confidence in Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's government and the nuclear deal on which he staked his administration.

The deal is intended to lift the prohibitions on civilian nuclear trade with India that were imposed after the country's warhead tests in 1974 and 1998. Arms control critics of the deal hoped it would ultimately fade away in the face of strong opposition within India itself — opposition based not on proliferation concerns but on the fear that it would tie New Delhi's foreign policy too closely to Washington's. But now, with parliamentary endorsement, the deal moves on to face two multilateral tests.

In early August, the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency will consider, and now likely approve, a new safeguards agreement with India that will cover civilian nuclear facilities to be newly designated as such under the deal.

The key test may come in September at the Nuclear Suppliers Group, where Canada and 44 other members will be asked to exempt India from a foundational non-proliferation rule that precludes civilian nuclear co-operation with any state that does not adhere to full-scope safeguards. India fails the full-scope safeguards test because some of its nuclear facilities are not and will not be safeguarded — namely, those reserved for its weapons program.

Read the rest here =>Recommend this Post

More =>

Sphere: Related Content

China Hand, "Twilight of the NPT? The US, Syria, Iran, North Korea and the Control of Nuclear Weapons," Japan Focus, May 9, 2008.

The United States has pushed the international non-proliferation regime to the breaking point.

Anxiety over US attempts to define and direct the international non-proliferation regime may be provoking some dangerous decisions in the Middle East.

The alleged clandestine nuclear facility at al Kibar in Syria that Israel bombed in September 2007 is a riddle wrapped in an enigma.

The Syrian government emphatically denies that there was a nuclear facility there.

Experts aren’t sure there was a reactor, and are even less sure, if there was one, that its purpose was weapons-related.

The United States and Israel insist that North Korea assisted Syria in building a clandestine reactor that would produce plutonium from un-enriched uranium.

But instead of celebrating their vigilance and decisiveness in pre-empting the devious nuclear machinations of a rogue state, in the months after the Israeli bombing, Washington and Tel Aviv remained remarkably diffident about publicly pointing fingers at Damascus or Pyongyang. This has led to accusations that the State Department was more concerned about preserving the Six Party Agreement on North Korea than putting paid to full and cadet members of the Axis of Evil.

And there is still no good explanation as to why, seven months after the Israeli Defense Force bombed the facility to rubble—and six months after a frantic session of demolition, dismantling, and construction by Syria to bury whatever was at al Kibar under a new concrete box—the Bush administration decided to resuscitate its long dormant obligation to keep Congress and the IAEA informed with a dog-and-pony show including aerial photography, alleged photos from inside the Syrian facility and a video leaning on computer reconstructions.

And this was only after elements inside the Bush administration had spun a competing story that al Kibar was a non-nuclear SCUD assembly facility.

Somebody’s got to be lying.

Or maybe everybody is.

But one thing is for certain.

The International Atomic Agency was left holding the short end of the stick again.

Read the rest here =>Recommend this Post

More =>

Sphere: Related Content

"Stopping the wrong sort of chain reaction," The Economist, May 22, 2008.

REDISCOVERING the charm of nuclear power throws up some odd results. America and Saudi Arabia have just signed a deal that may mean that the world's biggest oil-producer imports American-made uranium fuel for (as yet unbuilt) reactors. Japan's prickly relations with Russia did not stop Toshiba agreeing on joint reactor-construction and fuel-production efforts with state-owned Atomenergoprom. Diplomats, engineers and businessmen from Argentina, India, Pakistan, South Korea and elsewhere tout nuclear know-how around the globe. Yet behind the potential profits is a danger: that the spread of the peaceful atom will, as in the past, fuel military rivalry.

Cost, safety concerns and scarce skills mean that many of 200-plus new power reactors now proposed or planned (in addition to more than 400 operating worldwide and almost 30 under construction) may never actually be built. Yet curbing the most proliferation-prone nuclear technologies is already proving tricky. Efforts to persuade countries to forgo uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing (usable but not vital in civilian power programmes, but abusable for bomb-making) have sometimes backfired.

Canada, for example, is staunchly against proliferation, yet its government is lobbying hard for a loosening of proposed tighter rules for the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), an informal cartel that oversees nuclear trade. Four years ago, President George Bush urged the NSG to bar the sale of uranium and plutonium technologies to any country that at the time did not already possess “full-scale, functioning” plants. Canada doesn't, but has large uranium reserves and wants to keep the option open. So do Argentina, Brazil (which has a pilot enrichment facility) and South Africa, all NSG members. Australia used to, but its new government has gone cooler on the idea. Uranium-rich Namibia, a non-member, hankers after its own enrichment business too.

Read the rest in The Economist =>

Recommend this Post

More =>

Sphere: Related Content

Mustafa Adam-Noble, "Libya and nuclear energy," Pambazuka News, May 27, 2008.

[Those who are waiting for salvation to arrive as a Democratic victory in the American elections this November may be disappointed to learn that Bush's demolition of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is already spawning long-term consequences. Nuclear power isn't just a "solution" to climate change. It's a "futures" investment in the opportunity to develop nuclear weapons. -jlt]

Libya is getting the backing of Ukraine to build nuclear reactors. Mustafa Adam-Noble looks at the implications of an oil-rich country going nuclear and the possible impact on Libyan people.

A honeymoon is rapidly emerging between Libya and the Ukraine.

Viktor Yushchenko, the Ukrainian President, has declared his intention to help Libya develop its use of “peaceful” nuclear energy. According to Afrique En Ligne, an online African magazine, bilateral economic projects have been emphasised by Yushschenko. They include the granting of a Libyan contract to a Ukrainian oil and gas company in return for the use of Ukrainian agricultural land by Libya. The Ukraine has also offered to build roads and railways in the North African country and has recently supplied Libya with an Antonov AN-124-100, the world’s largest cargo plane.

Such a large scale of political and economic bartering and investment is bound to raise a few eyebrows.

On the one hand, the rush for oil by the Ukrainians makes sense: Moscow’s threat of turning off Russian-Ukranian pipelines is ever-present. Libya’s need for cheaper food amid rising food prices is a very real concern, and Gaddafi can’t seem to fix agriculture domestically. However, this eager international relationship is murky and far from straightforward.

Libya is awash with corruption amongst its officials and desperation within its population. Decades of crippling policies by Gaddafi, and subsequent trade sanctions, have left the country in tatters.

Libya was an active sponsor of terrorism until only recently when, in 2003, Gaddafi admitted to bombing a Pan American flight over Lockerbie in 1998, killing 270 people. The dictator also admitted to bombing the French UTA airliner over Niger in 1989 that killed all 170 civilians on board.

Read the rest at Pambazuka News =>

Mustafa Adam-Noble is a Libyan political commentator.Recommend this Post

More =>

Sphere: Related Content

Praful Bidwai, "Seductions of nuclear nationalism," Tehelka Magazine, Vol 5, Issue 12, March 29, 2008

[...]

Many of the deal’s opponents argue that it’ll cap India’s fissile production and nuclear arsenal. In fact, it’ll facilitate its expansion. India will only subject 14 of its 22 operating/planned power reactors to inspections. The rest can annually yield 200 kg of plutonium — enough for 40 bombs, in addition to the existing 100-150, and way beyond the professed “minimum deterrent”. India can also produce unlimited amounts of bomb-fuel in its military- nuclear facilities, besides dedicating domestic uranium exclusively to weapons.


The opponents are right that under the Hyde Act, India-US nuclear cooperation will cease if India tests — despite mandatory “consultations”. These don’t bind Washington. The opponents’ gravest mistake is to root sovereignty in mass-destruction weapons. Sovereignty lies in the people, never in military hardware, leave alone horror weapons.

That highlights a huge flaw in our nuclear debate: the absence of any reference to peace and nuclear disarmament. The deal will further distort the nuclear order and encourage other states to cross the nuclear Rubicon. It’ll legitimise nuclear weapons — India’s and America’s — and prevent India from fulfilling its commitment, reiterated in the UPA’s Common Minimum Programme, to fight for a nuclear weapons-free world. This isn’t a trivial matter. Nuclear disarmament is a precondition for genuine security — everyone’s security. Manmohan Singh acknowledged this on May 28, 1998, when he pilloried the Pokharan-II tests. He accused the government of violating India’s nuclear “consensus”, whose first pillar holds that “nuclear weapons [are] weapons of mass destruction and their use [is] a crime against humanity”. So “India should be in the forefront of international efforts... to have these weapons outlawed…”

[...]

Read the whole article =>
Recommend this Post

More =>

Sphere: Related Content

Diverse Coalition Launches Campaign to Stop US Nuclear Deal with India, BPS, January 16, 2008.

Arms Control Experts, Environmental Activists, Consumer Advocates, Religious Groups and Doctors Find Proposed Agreement Would Dangerously Undermine National Security, Global Stability

Contact: Kevin Davis, Bipartisan Security Group, (202) 543-9017
bsg@gsinstitute.org

www.bipartisansecuritygroup.org
www.responsiblenucleartrade.com

WASHINGTON, D.C. –The Bipartisan Security Group is one of twenty-three organizations which today launched a coalition to stop the Bush Administration’s proposed nuclear trade agreement with India. The proposed agreement would exempt that nuclear-armed nation from longstanding U.S. and international restrictions on states that do not meet global standards to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.

The Campaign for Responsibility in Nuclear Trade believes the agreement would: dangerously weaken non-proliferation efforts and embolden countries like Iran and North Korea to pursue the development of nuclear weapons; further destabilize South Asia and Pakistan in particular; and violate or weaken international and U.S. laws, including the Hyde Act, which Congress passed in 2006 to provide a framework for the bilateral U.S.-Indian nuclear cooperation agreement.

“It is ludicrous to characterize an agreement which would enable India to produce nuclear weapons as a step forward for non-proliferation,” said Ambassador (Ret.) Robert Grey, Jr., Director of the Bipartisan Security Group. “But that is the type of Orwellian new speak that has become a trademark of the Bush Administration.” Ambassador Grey is the former US ambassador to the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, and is an advisor to the Coalition.

The U.S.-Indian bilateral nuclear cooperation agreement would allow the transfer of U.S. nuclear technology and material to India. However, it fails to hold India to the same responsible non-proliferation and disarmament rules that are required of advanced nuclear states. The deal will increase India’s nuclear weapons production capability, exacerbate a nuclear arms race in the region, undermine international non-proliferation norms, and encourage the creation of large nuclear material stockpiles. Its contribution to meeting India’s growing energy needs has been greatly exaggerated and it would create economic opportunities for foreign nuclear industries without any guarantees for U.S. businesses.

The pact must win approval from the U.S. Congress, which changed U.S. law in December 2006 to allow negotiation of the agreement, under several conditions that have not been met in the final language of the agreement. Those conditions include a new agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency for safeguarding Indian power reactors and changes to the international guidelines of the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group, which currently restrict trade with India.

Members of the Campaign are working to educate the U.S. Congress and public about the dangers of the deal, and are working with experts and organizations in two-dozen countries to inform deliberation over the deal within Nuclear Suppliers Group and its member state governments.

The new coalition’s partners include: Council for a Livable World, Arms Control Association, Federation of American Scientists, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Washington office, United Methodist Church - General Board of Church and Society, Friends Committee on National Legislation, Institute for Religion and Public Policy, Union of Concerned Scientists, Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, All Souls Nuclear Disarmament Task Force, British American Security Information Council, Women’s Action for New Directions, Americans for Democratic Action, Peace Action, Peace Action West, Arms Control Advocacy Collaborative, Beyond Nuclear, Bipartisan Security Group, Citizens for Global Solutions, Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and Nuclear Information Resource Information Service.

Other advisors to the coalition include Dr. Leonard Weiss, former staff director of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Energy and Nuclear Proliferation and the Committee on Governmental Affairs; Dr. Robert G. Gard, Jr., Lt. Gen., U.S. Army (Ret.), Senior Military Fellow, Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation; Subrata Ghoshroy, Director, Promoting Nuclear Stability in South Asia Project, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and Dr. Christopher Paine, Nuclear Program Director, Natural Resources Defense Council.

The Campaign’s website is www.responsiblenucleartrade.com.

About the Campaign for Responsibility in Nuclear Trade
The Campaign for Responsibility in Nuclear Trade, a partnership project of 23 nuclear arms control, non-proliferation, environmental and consumer protection organizations, opposes the July 2005 proposal for civil nuclear cooperation with India and the additional U.S. concessions made to India as a result of subsequent negotiations because they pose far-reaching and adverse implications for U.S. and international security, global nuclear non-proliferation efforts, human life and health, and the environment. More information about the campaign can be found at
www.responsiblenucleartrade.com.

This article is published by James Terral under a Creative Commons licence. You may republish it free of charge, wholly or in part, with attribution and for non-commercial purposes following these guidelines. Commercial media must contact World Report worldreport (at) cjly dot net for permission and fees. Some postings on this site are published under different terms.

For example, this site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. World Report makes this material available in order to advance understanding of the issues by reporting, reviewing, and criticizing relevant public statements.

Canada's Copyright Act specifies in sections 29.1-29.3 that “fair dealing for the purpose of criticism, review, or news reporting does not infringe copyright if the following are mentioned:
(a) the source; and
(b) if given in the source, the name of the
(i) author, in the case of a work,
(ii) performer, in the case of a performer's performance,
(iii) maker, in the case of a sound recording, or
(iv)broadcaster, in the case of a communication signal.

Recommend this Post

More =>

Sphere: Related Content

"British and French nuclear weapons programmes at 'a crossroads'," BASIC, 5 June 2006.

According to a new report by the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission, Britain and France "will have to decide whether it will be meaningful to retain costly nuclear arsenals that were developed for an enemy that no longer exists, in order to meet hypothetical threats against which such weapons are of questionable value."

The British American Security Information Council (BASIC) welcomes the timely publication of 'Weapons of Terror - Freeing the World of Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Arms' by the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Commission.

The detailed 230-page report is based on the premise that war can best be prevented by more active non-proliferation policies, implemented collectively through the United Nations. Effective multilateralism and verification must reinforce efforts to promote common security and a rule-based international order with resort to coercive measures under Chapter VII of the UN Charter if necessary.

The WMD Commission report builds on the 1982 Common Security report, the 1986 Canberra Commission and the 1998 Tokyo Forum Action Plan. Despite the growing need for collective action on non-proliferation, "governments and world public opinion are paying less attention to the global regimes for arms control and disarmament" according to the Commission's Chairman, Hans Blix. As regards British and French policy, the report says both governments:

will have to decide whether it will be meaningful to retain costly nuclear arsenals that were developed for an enemy that no longer exists, in order to meet hypothetical threats against which such weapons are of questionable value. Both countries are now at a crossroads: going down one road would show their conviction that nuclear weapons are not necessary for their security, while the other would demonstrate to all other states a belief that these weapons continue to be indispensable. In addition, by pursuing their security interests without nuclear weapons, they would avoid the need for costly investments in dangerous new nuclear capabilities or replacements for existing weapons.

While critical of US policy, Dr Blix concluded, "if it takes the lead the world is likely to follow. If it does not take the lead, there could be more nuclear tests and new nuclear arms races".

"With the failure of the 2005 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference still fresh in our minds", said BASIC Director Dr Ian Davis, "I strongly support the Commission's call for a World Summit on non-proliferation and disarmament to generate some momentum behind the stagnant international forums and to regenerate public debate".

The most important recommendations of the report are subsumed under the following headings:

• Agree on general principles of action
  
• Reduce the danger of present arsenals: no use by states - no access by terrorists
  
• Prevent proliferation: no new weapons systems - no new possessors
  
• Work towards outlawing all weapons of mass destruction once and for all
  

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan welcomed the report on receiving it from Dr Blix in New York on 1 June. A spokesman for Mr. Annan called it "an important contribution to the debate on disarmament and non-proliferation" and urged the international community "to study the report and consider its recommendations."

On 7 June, Dr Blix will join the Arms Control Association in Washington, D.C. to discuss the Commission's report.

On 12 June, Dr Blix will join the WMD Awareness Programme and the All Party Parliamentary Group on Global Security and Non-Proliferation in London for the UK launch of the Commission's report. (Contact Carol Naughton on 07736 698 702.) BASIC is one of the founder members of the WMD Awareness Programme and facilitates the All Party Parliamentary Group.

For more information please contact:
Dr Ian Davis +44 (0)207 324 4685; mobile: 07887 782 389
Or
Nigel Chamberlain +44 (0)1768 898641
Or
Carol Naughton 07736 698 702

BASIC UK: The Grayston Centre, 2nd Floor, 28 Charles Square London N1 6HT, +44-(0)20-7324 4680
BASIC US: 110 Maryland Ave, NE, Suite 205, Washington, DC 20002, +1 202 546 8055
Recommend this Post

More =>

Sphere: Related Content