Det danske Fredsakademi
Kronologi over fredssagen og international politik 27. februar 2006 / Time Line February 27, 2006
Version 3.526. Februar 2006, 28. Februar 2006
02/27/2006
Gandhi, Bush, and the Bomb
By Lawrence S. Wittner
On February 24, at a press briefing, White House National Security
Advisor Stephen Hadley announced that, when U.S. President George
W. Bush travels to India, he will lay a wreath in honor of Mohandas
Gandhi.
For those familiar with the cynical gestures of government
officials, it might come as no surprise that an American President
would attempt to derive whatever public relations benefits he can
by linking himself to one of the most revered figures in Indian and
world history.
But the level of hypocrisy is heightened when one recalls that Bush
is currently one of the world’s leading warmakers and that
Gandhi was one of the world’s leading advocates of
nonviolence. Furthermore, the American President’s major
purpose for traveling to India is to clinch a deal that will
provide that nation with additional nuclear technology, thus
enabling it to accelerate its development of nuclear weapons.
Gandhi, it should be noted, was not only a keen supporter of
substituting nonviolent resistance for war, but a sharp critic of
the Bomb. In 1946, he remarked: “I regard the employment of
the atom bomb for the wholesale destruction of men, women, and
children as the most diabolical use of science.” When he
first learned of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, Gandhi recalled,
he said to himself: “Unless now the world adopts
non-violence, it will spell certain suicide.” In 1947, Gandhi
argued that “he who invented the atom bomb has committed the
gravest sin in the world of science,” concluding once more:
“The only weapon that can save the world is
non-violence.” The Bomb, he said, “will not be
destroyed by counter-bombs.” Indeed, “hatred can be
overcome only by love.”
That is certainly an interesting backdrop against which to place
President Bush’s plan to provide India with nuclear
technology. India is one of only four countries that have refused
to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)—a treaty
endorsed by 188 nations. Thumbing its nose at the world, India has
conducted nuclear tests and has developed what experts believe to
be 50 to 100 nuclear weapons. Under the terms of the NPT, the
export of nuclear technology is banned to nations that don’t
accept international inspections of their nuclear programs. In
addition, U.S. law prohibits the transfer of nuclear technology to
a country that rejects full international safeguards. U.S. law also
bans such technology transfer to a non-NPT country that has
conducted nuclear test explosions.
Thus, if the President were to give any weight to Gandhi’s
ideas, international treaty obligations, or U.S. law, he would not
be working to provide India with the same nuclear-capable
technology that he so vigorously condemns in Iran—a country,
by the way, that has signed the NPT, has undergone inspections by
the International Atomic Energy Agency, and has not conducted any
nuclear weapons tests.
There are other reasons to oppose this deal, as well. Although
India’s relations with Pakistan are relatively stable at the
moment, they might well be very adversely affected by any
perception that the Indian government was racing ahead with a
buildup of its nuclear arsenal. Furthermore, Pakistan might demand
the same nuclear assistance as India. Indeed, if India can simply
ignore the NPT and, then, receive nuclear technology from the
United States, why should other countries observe its provisions?
The Iranians, certainly, will make this point.
At home, the Bush administration’s double standard has not
gone unnoticed. In Congress, Representatives Ed Markey (D-MA) and
Fred Upton (R-MI) have introduced a bipartisan
resolution—H.Con.Res. 318--expressing strong concern about
the proposed U.S.-India nuclear deal. Although this resolution
affirms humanitarian and scientific support for India, it contends
that full civil nuclear cooperation between the two nations poses
serious dangers. For example, it points to the possibility that the
supply of nuclear fuel to India could free up India’s
existing fissile material production, thereby enabling it to be
used to expand India’s nuclear weapons arsenal. The
resolution also opposes transfer of nuclear technology to any
country that is not a party to the NPT and has not accepted full
safeguards.
Whatever happens to this resolution, if the Bush administration
were to implement its nuclear agreement with the Indian government,
it would have to convince Congress to amend U.S. law. And arms
control and disarmament groups are determined to prevent that from
happening.
Thus, the Bush administration might genuflect to Gandhi in its
efforts to arrange a nuclear pact with India, but it is going to
have to convince a lot of very skeptical observers before it
implements this agreement.
02/27/2006
£100M SPENT ON IRAQ PRIVATE SECURITY FIRMS
Vivienne Morgan, PA Political Staff
Press Association Newsfile
The Government has spent more than £100 million on private
security companies in Iraq since the 2003 invasion, it was
disclosed tonight.
International Security Minister Kim Howells said: ``The total
contractual costs of private security companies contracted to the
Foreign and Commonwealth Office and operating in Iraq, between
April 2003 and December 2005 was £110,342,718.''
He was responding to a Commons written question from Tory Rob
Wilson (Reading E).
In a separate reply to the MP, Mr Howells said that work on the
British Embassy and Consulate General facilities in Baghdad and
Basra, which begun under the coalition provisional authority, was
nearing completion at an estimated cost of £55 million.
 |
 |