Philosophical Conversations Public Opinion Junk for code
parliament house.gif
Think Tanks
Oz Blogs
Economic Blogs
Foreign Policy Blogs
International Blogs
Media Blogs
South Australian Weblogs
Economic Resources
Environment Links
Political Resources
South Australian Links
"...public opinion deserves to be respected as well as despised" G.W.F. Hegel, 'Philosophy of Right'

Nuclear Bush « Previous | |Next »
March 7, 2006

The contradictions and double standards are greater than this, aren't they.


It's okay for India to have the nuclear bomb but not Iran. Bush has gone against the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) proscription against aiding another nation's nuclear-weapons program. So it is okay for the US to drive a hummer through the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) but not for Iran to sidestep it.

President Bush's deal with India endorses and assists India's nuclear-weapons program. US-supplied uranium fue. It would free up India's limited uranium reserves for fuel that otherwise would be burned in these reactors to make nuclear weapons, thereby allow India to increase its production from the estimated six to 10 additional nuclear bombs per year to several dozen a year. Bush has even given into demands from the Indian nuclear lobby to exempt large portions of the country's nuclear infrastructure from international inspection-- it appears that at least one-third of current and planned Indian reactors would be exempt from International Atomic Energy Agency inspections.

India is rewarded whilst Iran is punished. John Bolton, the US Ambassador to the UN, is quickening the drumbeat of hostility. He is advocating the need for a "chapter 7 resolution" under which the UN would authorise military action, such as air strikes, against Iran. Global security for the US neocons is just about furthering US power in the world. The US neo-conservatives are seeking to construct an anti-China alliance by arming India with nuclear weapons.

It is yet another example of the huge gap between the lofty rhetoric of the Bush administration about its "war on terror" and the practical realities in the way that it treats many Muslims around the world.

| Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 10:37 AM | | Comments (8)


There is consistency to it though. American exceptionalism is only extended to market oriented democratic nations. I have seen it called both the Bush and Rice doctrine in the US. Wolfowitz is conducting business in the World Bank along similar lines, and recently I read about Congressman Wolf lambasting K-street lobbyists for representing Sudan.

I don't have a problem with rewarding democratic nations with this type of diplomacy.

India has also said that it would rather than China bought more of its stuff rather than acting as a pivotal position in an anglospheric surrounding of China. India wants to be a trading nation.

Your business as normal account may well be true--especially for the US nuclear power industry, which is eager to make lots of money from the India deal.

It's still big state politics (in opposition to multilateralism) that is designed to contain China. If the India-US nuclear deal proceeds Australia will support it, participate in it and in due course almost certainly sell uranium to India and make lots of money.

The consequences of this American exceptionalism, neocon style, is that it impacts on the power symmetry that drives Pakistan in its bitter rivalry with its larger and more powerful neighbor, India. If the pro-American government in Islamabad is a key component of the United States war on terrorism, why act to weaken the regime of President General Pervez Musharraf?

President Bush has intensified the nuclear-arms race in the region with the US-India nuclear deal. Why wouldn't Islamabad see this as a major setback for its vital interests? Won't Islamabad now shift to aligning itself more with China to seek nuclear parity?

I appreciate that Pakistan has few friends on Capital Hill and that Washington won't give it the same nuclear deal as India.

Will the regime of President General Pervez Musharraf continue to do its bit in terms of fighting that war on terrorism on behalf of the United States? Or wil lit increasingly become a house of cards that tumbles at the push from a broad based radical Islamic movment?

Now that would change the regional dynamics wouldn't it? The Taliban hasn't been defeated. by the Americans.

I doubt if Bush and Rice think thrrough such implications when they play the American exceptionalism game.

I don't have a problem with this approach. Mushareff just got told he is tolerated but not welcomed. India got told they will be rewarded for pursuing the path of democracy and a market economy.

I actually think this doctrine is one of the very few things out of the Bush Administration that is worthy of merit.

that market/democracy interpretation of Bush's actions ignores the considerations big state politics in a world of antions and the containment of China by the Republicans. This geopolitical stuff is multilevelled.

Whatever, it looks as if US is committed to squeezing Islamabad until it produces on the US "war on terror" shopping list. But the regime is caught. The Pakistani leader is looking down a double-barreled shotgun: domestic wrath that could bring him down, and alienation of his increasingly disgruntled partner in the "war on terror", the United States.

Gary, Yeh they are anything but consistent, ie their relationship with Russia, but that doesnt mean the basis of it is without merit.


It may have merit for the US but 'the play with India and contain China' routine is going to restrict Australia's capacity to trade and to integrate with Asia. Isn't Asia supposed to be the new centre of economic growth?

No matter. We will continue to fight wars disconnected from our national interests, as we already have done.

We are already in Afghanistan. So what happens when Pakistan wobbles? We fight a resurgent Taliban in the mounitians?

Gary. Yes, well, the "Great and Powerful Friends" doctrine of policy is the worst foreign policy in the history of time. It has nothing but a century of failure to commend it. Australia makes itself weak by its foreign policy choices to follow the US uncritically.

We have hardly any assets in Afghanistan. Until the SAS were redeployed there we had one person. Which disproves the "complete the job" rhetoric.

I personally think we should go into Afghanistan and take responsibility for the border region. Make the necessary deployments and costs to take that conflict to its conclusion. At the least it will put us in the driver's seat.

Bravo. This kind of criticism and analysis of Bush actions is largely absent from the popular news. More people need to be aware of Bush's designs and the thread of future US-China conflict.