In June 2005, President Bush and Indian Prime Minister Singh signed a nuclear agreement that set the groundwork for the sharing of nuclear technology and fuel with India. By providing India with nuclear fuel under the agreement, the U.S. would free India’s domestic uranium deposits for use in production of more nuclear weapons. India is a known nuclear weapons state that conducted nuclear testing most recently in 1998, and has not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), a treaty controlling the spread of nuclear weapons and signed by 187 countries.
Before the deal can be finalized, Congress must amend the Atomic Energy Act to allow the U.S. to enable nuclear cooperation with India without requiring India to sign the NPT or give up production of nuclear bomb making materials. The House passed legislation on July 26, 2006 allowing the deal to proceed while the companion bill in the Senate has not been voted on. Maine Democratic Party Congressmen Tom Allen and Mike Michaud voted in favor of the House bill that passed by a margin of 359-68. Most progressive members of Congress voted against it. (Tom Allen has publicly stated that the U.S. must help India expand its nuclear industry in order to deal with global warming.)
Everywhere Mary Beth Sullivan and I went during our recent speaking tour in India our peace activist hosts were talking about this nuclear deal. While the U.S. is condemning North Korea and Iran for pursuing nuclear weapons, the White House is offering to supply India with nuclear fuel that would enable them to build as many as 30-40 more nukes a year. They could not understand why the American peace movement was not more aware of the bill that will dramatically increase nuclear tensions in Southern Asia, already a flashpoint for nuclear war as Pakistan and China will be forced to respond to India’s nuclear expansion. It became clearer to me that the U.S. intends to use India as a “military outpost” in its aggressive attempt to surround and “manage” China in the years ahead. The U.S. weapons industry is arming Pakistan and India, playing divide and conquer in the region, and making enormous profits in the process from the resulting arms race.
The New York Times, wrote on March 7, 2006, "The nuclear deal that Mr. Bush concluded with India threatens to blast a bomb-size loophole through the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It would have been bad enough on its own, and disastrously ill timed, because it undercuts some of the most powerful arguments Washington can make to try to galvanize international opposition to Iran's nuclear adventurism..."
Before the deal can be finalized, Congress must amend the Atomic Energy Act to allow the U.S. to enable nuclear cooperation with India without requiring India to sign the NPT or give up production of nuclear bomb making materials. The House passed legislation on July 26, 2006 allowing the deal to proceed while the companion bill in the Senate has not been voted on. Maine Democratic Party Congressmen Tom Allen and Mike Michaud voted in favor of the House bill that passed by a margin of 359-68. Most progressive members of Congress voted against it. (Tom Allen has publicly stated that the U.S. must help India expand its nuclear industry in order to deal with global warming.)
Everywhere Mary Beth Sullivan and I went during our recent speaking tour in India our peace activist hosts were talking about this nuclear deal. While the U.S. is condemning North Korea and Iran for pursuing nuclear weapons, the White House is offering to supply India with nuclear fuel that would enable them to build as many as 30-40 more nukes a year. They could not understand why the American peace movement was not more aware of the bill that will dramatically increase nuclear tensions in Southern Asia, already a flashpoint for nuclear war as Pakistan and China will be forced to respond to India’s nuclear expansion. It became clearer to me that the U.S. intends to use India as a “military outpost” in its aggressive attempt to surround and “manage” China in the years ahead. The U.S. weapons industry is arming Pakistan and India, playing divide and conquer in the region, and making enormous profits in the process from the resulting arms race.
The New York Times, wrote on March 7, 2006, "The nuclear deal that Mr. Bush concluded with India threatens to blast a bomb-size loophole through the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It would have been bad enough on its own, and disastrously ill timed, because it undercuts some of the most powerful arguments Washington can make to try to galvanize international opposition to Iran's nuclear adventurism..."
On why nuclear cooperation was given precedence over all other bilateral issues, one Indian diplomat has said, "If the nuclear issue was not resolved, India's space, defence and high-technology industry would not get huge investments. No multinational will invest in India if U.S. laws do not permit it. That unresolved issue was poisoning the entire trade system between India and the U.S.! It was the roadblock to India's knowledge power."
"This nuclear bill is not about nuclear technology or about selling some US reactors to India," the diplomat said. "The U.S. is buying a relationship and in the process India's strategic interest is being served. It will also help the Indian economy to grow by 10 per cent."
When Congress comes back to Washington for the short lame duck session in January, the administration is pushing the Senate to take up the U.S.-India nuclear deal.
The U.S. should develop a consistent position on nuclear weapons. We should not help other countries develop nukes and we should honor the NPT and get rid of our own.
We should also not be spreading nuclear technology - civilian or military around the world. If India wants to increase their ability to provide electricity for their country, they should expand the development of solar power. India gets lots of sunshine.
Please use the link in the headline above to contact your senators in Washington right away and urge them to vote NO on the U.S.-India Nuclear Deal.
No comments:
Post a Comment