I dagens Jerusalem Post kan man læse følgende analyse:
==
India is not Iran
Elliot Jager, THE JERUSALEM POST Mar. 12, 2006
Fairness isn't all it's cracked up to be. Sometimes it makes sense to
maintain "double standards," to dismiss cries of hypocrisy as naive, and
even dangerous. In the international arena, for instance, nuclear
proliferation rules that should be rigorously applied to rogue states
such as Iran, and proliferating countries such as Pakistan, ought not to
be applied to trustworthy and non-proliferating nations such as Israel
and India.
How to treat New Delhi is very much on the agenda. On March 2, a
politically weakened US President George Bush traveled to India to
clinch what Bush rightly called "an historic agreement" with Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh. The deal would "mainstream" India into the club
of nuclear nations (necessary because it is not a signatory to the 1970
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty), making nuclear commerce between the
two countries possible. It would also draw Washington and New Delhi into
a genuine 21st century alliance contributing to a more secure America.
The deal, years in the making, has India placing 14 of its 22 nuclear
reactors, those in the civilian-sector, under international safeguards;
the other eight would remain as military facilities and thus not be
subject to international inspections. Nevertheless, New Delhi is
prepared to limit its stockpile of nuclear bomb-making ingredients,
assuming multi-lateral arrangements can be worked out, capping its
stockpile of nuclear weapons.
That is not enough for New York Times super pundit Thomas L. Friedman.
In his March 8 column, Friedman questioned Washington's wisdom in
facilitating India's entry into the club of nuclear nations on the
grounds that New Delhi still refuses to sign the NPT, and that American
policy is to prohibit civilian nuclear technology from reaching nations
that have not signed the treaty.
While Friedman is a friend of India's (you just need to read his
bestseller, The World is Flat, to appreciate that), when it comes to
"undermining" the anachronistic NPT he won't make any exceptions - not
even for India.
Friedman argues that granting special dispensation to India would
undercut "the legal basis" for building coalitions against the spread of
WMDs to rogue states.
Right. I can just see North Korea and Iran capitulating under the onus
of international law.
Now the Economist has joined the fray. The newspaper, whose current
cover cleverly portrays Bush costumed as a Texas-cowboy straddling an
atom bomb (think Dr. Strangelove), editorializes that in allowing India
"to import nuclear fuel and technology despite its weapons-building, Mr.
Bush has not for the first time seemed readier to favor a friend than to
stick to a principle."
What Bush wants, says the Economist, is to treat "democratic, friendly,
law-abiding India" as some kind of exception. Says the Economist: That
could "fatally" undermine the NPT regime.
If the Bush-Singh arrangement "fatally" undermines NPT maybe the treaty
is as obsolete to the realities of the 21st century as the 1928
Kellogg-Briand Pact (which renounced war as an instrument of national
policy) was to the 20th century.
I MUCH prefer the more pragmatic worldview of another pundit, The
Washington Post's Richard Cohen, who writes that, "The cry of 'double
standard'" is a bit silly because "India is our friend and Iran" is not.
"The Israeli bomb threatens nobody. An Iranian bomb does. India has
transferred its nuclear technology to no one. Pakistan has. No one
worries about India or Israel making the technology available to
terrorists. Everyone worries about Iran doing that."
Significantly, International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed
ElBaradei has endorsed the Bush-Singh arrangement while opposition from
China (the nuclear club member that matters most) is muted.
On Thursday, the White House asked Congress to implement the Bush-Singh
deal by adopting legislation that would exempt India from Atomic Energy
Act rules prohibiting US nuclear sales to non-NPT states. In addition,
the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group would have to alter its
regulations to allow them to provide goods and services to India.
I HOPE Congress approves the deal because - like Israel - India finds
itself in a unique situation. And like Israel, it deserves special
consideration.
•India was in the forefront of the NPT idea, but wanted the rules
applied universally. Instead, the NPT formalized what India saw as a
discriminatory regime; only the US, USSR, China, France and Britain -
what became the club of nuclear nations - were given the legal right to
maintain weapons of mass destruction. New Delhi refused to sign on to
this arrangement.
•India never proliferated. It never obtained illegal know-how. Indian
scientists developed and then carefully guarded the knowledge of atomic
bomb-making. Contrast this with non-NPT signatory Pakistan which
illegally obtained its know-how and than proliferated what it knew (for
a price) to North Korea and Iran.
•Also contrast India's faithful non-proliferation behavior with the
deceitful actions of Iraq, Iran and North Korea in violation of their
NPT obligations. Even Indian firms behaved more responsibly than a
number of Western European companies which sold nuclear know-how and
material to the rogue states.
•And India opposes a nuclear-armed Iran. The Indian government
consistently supported Washington at the IAEA, despite powerful domestic
opposition from Muslim and left-wing parties, and notwithstanding the
fact that India imports 70 percent of its oil and will need Iranian
cooperation to meet its ever-growing energy needs.
SO HERE is one of those issues that require some out-of-the-box
thinking. India is already a major player in the international arena and
its voice will only become stronger with time. Fostering ties between
the US and India, which is not only the most populous democracy on
earth, but also the world's fourth largest economy, demands putting
ourselves in India's shoes. New Delhi is being wooed by the Arabs,
Persians, even the Chinese. As US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
pointed out on January 5: "We can't say to the Indians, on the one hand,
you can't... [engage in] energy relations with Iran, but by the way,
'civil nuclear' is closed off to you." In this, Rice is backed by former
secretary of state Henry Kissinger who argues that "India should be
treated as a country whose nuclear progress had become irreversible."
Whatever the Bush administration's other failings, it is spot on in its
appreciation of India's global importance.
It is also in Israel's geo-strategic interest to see ties between India
and America made stronger. Though much still needs to be done to draw
India and Israel closer, enormous steps have been taken since New Delhi
first recognized Israel in 1950 and finally established an embassy in
1992.
Both Israel and India represent ancient civilizations which today share
common political values, overlapping security concerns, and a growing
commerce (to the annual tune of $2.5 billion). There is even talk that
the Bank of India wants to open a branch in Israel, a step that would
make trade even easier.
As Jews mark Purim this week to commemorate our triumph over an ancient
Persian madman, Hindus will be marking Holi - the end of winter -
festival of colors. Megilat Esther recalls that King Achashverosh's
empire stretched from Hodu ad Kush - from India to Ethiopia. If we play
our cards right democracy's "empire" can stretch even wider.
jager@jpost.com
This article can also be read at
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1139395589187&pagename=JPost%
2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Copyright 1995-2006 The Jerusalem Post -
http://www.jpost.com/
==
Ja, man kan vel kun være enig i synspunktet.
Purim er i øvrigt en jødisk fest der fejrer at det jødiske folk undslap
det holocaust, som blev planlagt i Persien, og som er blevet beskrevet i
Esthers Bog 3,7.
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk