So, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is about to go the way of the Kyoto Protocol. This is neo-realist foreign policy at work. The realists say the following: Screw the treaties and mulilateral folderol. We should aid India to balance China, and we should block Iran from getting nuclear weapons or nuclear power because they are hostile. Who needs more of an explanation than that? To a realist, sending nuclear technology to India, a non-NPT state, is fine, even though the NPT treaty forbids it, because it's in our interest to align with India.
The problem, as I see it, is that temporary advantage gives way to long-term detriment. In the end, this sort of policy will make it easier for Iran to get nuclear weapons. It will contribute to general destabilization. Make no mistake, Bush is abandoning a 60-year commitment to multilateral institution-building in the form of treaties and organizations in favor of old-fashioned balance of power. The kind that brought us two world wars. The kind that was rebuked in the preamble to the UN Charter, which begins, "We the peoples of the United Nations, determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow and suffering to mankind."
And what, pray tell, will Bush now offer Pakistan, our "ally" in the "war on terror?" Less than for India? These people can't even think things through three DAYS ahead.
Thursday, March 02, 2006
Bombs, not Feathers
Posted by The Law Talking Guy at 12:13 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
And the real problem with realism is how unrealistic it is. They assume all states are unitary actors. That is they assume that "Pakistan" wants xyz instead of the more realistic view that certain constituencies within Pakistan want xyz and others want abc.
I'd support engaging India on the nuke issue if it were designed to bring them into the NPT regime rather than bring us out of it.
// posted by Raised By Republicans
I do not yet understand the problem with Bush's deal with India. Does it break our commitments to the NPT? I did not think it did.
I think the issue with India is that they have not signed the NPT, even though they claim they abide by most of the clauses. India is now asking the USA to pressure their allies into selling uranium to the Indians.
Australia has the largest uranium deposits in the world, and does not export to non-signatories of the NPT. In a move that suprised everyone the Australian Prime Minister John Howard re-affirmed the Australian requirement for the NPT before exports. Who would have thought? (The old joke here is that Tony Blair is far up W's backside he can see the soles of John Howard's feet...)
// posted by Numbat
Yes, Dr. S., it breaks the NPT. The NPT forbids sale of nuclear technology to non-NPT members, and for NPT members requires oversight and compliance with international observers. India not only is not an NPT member, but this deal explicitly allows it to keep a secret nuclear program.
// posted by LTG
By "secret" I mean "not subject to inspections."
Post a Comment