|
|
| ARMS
TRADE RESOURCE CENTER
CURRENT UPDATES: June 6, 2006 Dear Friends, So, the remake of the classic horror flick The Omen comes out today: 6/6/06, get it? But far from the silver screen, all manner of devilry proliferates. A terrorist plot unravels in Ottawa, the U.S. death toll in Iraq nears 2,500, militants take the Somali capitol, the price at the pump is about $2.89 a gallon (.78 cents more than a year ago), and President Bush spends precious presidential time against same sex marriage. Maybe going to the movies tonight is a good idea, after all. But before you log on to fandango, check out the latest from the Arms Trade Resource Center. In this edition of the e-update we turn out attention to Iran, Iran, Iran (and India). First, Bill Hartung offers some high protein food for thought to U.S. negotiators sitting down with Tehran. And then Frida Berrigan looks at the Bush administration's very different approaches to Indian and Iranian nuclear programs. We hope you find it useful. Thanks, Frida Berrigan ================== TABLE OF CONTENTS I. STEPS TOWARD A SOLUTION: Hartung Offers Five Points on Talks with Iran III. RESOUCES ON IRAN AND INDIA 1. STEPS TOWARD A SOLUTION: Hartung Offers Five Points on Talks with Iran The latest offer to Iran - supported by permanent Security Council members the U.S., the UK, France, China, and Russia -- is expected to include offers of spare parts for Iranian aircraft, help for Iran in developing light-water nuclear reactors in partnership with other nations, and a commitment by the United States and Europe to support Iranian membership in the World Trade Organization. In order to trigger these potential benefits, Iran would have to freeze all nuclear activities, including the use of centrifuges to enrich uranium. Presumably the offer would include calls for the end products of Iranian nuclear plants to be taken out of the country and stored elsewhere (perhaps in Russia), thereby depriving Tehran of the fuel for a potential nuclear weapon. The bar is set pretty high. Is it impossibly high? One administration official has indicated that part of the point of the U.S. overture was the hope that Iran would reject it, thereby freeing up the Bush administration to take more forceful action without being seen as a group of unreasonable unilateralists. President Bush initially said that the offer would be on the table for only two weeks before the U.S. moved on to other approaches such as U.N. Security Council-backed sanctions. It was therefore hoped that an Iranian dismissal of the offer made by the U.S. and the European Union would make Russia and China more willing to vote for sanctions against Tehran in the Security Council. This cynical approach, so similar in style to U.S. actions in the run-up to the Iraq war, when President Bush falsely claimed that a diplomatic solution was possible even after the decision to attack Saddam Hussein's regime had long since been decided, is deeply disturbing to say the least. Given all of the obstacles, it would be surprising if this new package would convince Iran to suspend its nuclear program. In addition to taking a more step-by-step approach and giving the negotiating process months or years, not weeks, to bear fruit, non-aggression pledges by the United States and Israel might get things moving. Ultimately, negotiations should move towards a nuclear-free Middle East, with the elimination of Israel's nuclear arsenal as part of those talks. Sometimes diplomacy takes on a life of its own, and opponents of U.S. military action against Iran need to support talks with Tehran while pointing out the flaws of the current approach. Hopefully these direct talks will move in the direction of genuine diplomacy, not political maneuvering designed to clear the way for possible U.S. military action against the regime in Tehran. It's too soon to tell, but the situation requires close monitoring, not just by experts but by citizen's groups as well. So, as we watch and hope, here are five points negotiators (and all of us) should keep in mind. First, the notion that Iran needs to go first by shutting down its nuclear enrichment activities before any of the proposed incentives for it to do so take effect is a strange way to negotiate. Step-by-step actions on each side would make far more sense as a negotiating approach. Second, the U.S. has still not said publicly that it will not take military action against Iran, and even as it offers talks it continues to arm and train anti-government militias whose goal is to overthrow the Iranian government. Third, Iran has the right to enrich uranium under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and will need considerable persuasion to change its position on this point. Fourth, there is a strong nationalist current in Iran in favor of continuing its nuclear program, a political issue that any Iranian leader would need to address in some fashion. Fifth, Iran is in the vicinity of nuclear-armed nations Israel and Pakistan, and may feel that the potential threats from these countries along with U.S. pledges to keep the military option "on the table" vis-à-vis Tehran compel it to seek nuclear weapons. II. A
TALE OF TWO NUKE DEALS One way of thinking about U.S. nuclear policy is to focus on the domestic side-the billions spent on research and development, the strategic justifications for new nuclear designs, and the enduring political legacy of long-range ballistic missiles. But what happens in Washington, Los Alamos and Oak Ridge has a direct and profound impact on the rest of the world. Nowhere is that more evident than in the Bush administration's approaches to Indian and Iranian nuclear pursuits: aiding one and threatening the other, all the while denying that its own position as the world's ultimate nuclear power is a catalyst for proliferation and an impediment to peace and security. India's Nuclear Power Grab India stepped out of the international consensus on nuclear abolition in 1998 when it tested a nuclear device. Pakistan responded by detonating its own nuclear weapon and a new nuclear arms race was off and running. In 2001, the pressure to build an international coalition in the war on terrorism trumped international treaties and the Bush administration lifted sanctions on both India and Pakistan that had been imposed in response to their nuclear tests. In some ways, the new nuclear deal that President Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh signed in March is just one more quid pro quo in their ever cozier relationship. The deal, which still needs to approved by the U.S. Congress, would shelve the moratorium barring U.S. sale of nuclear-related materials to India; allowing New Delhi to receive U.S. reactor components, nuclear fuel, and expertise for its civilian nuclear power plants. In exchange, India has agreed to separate its civilian and nuclear infrastructures, permitting inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency into some of its sites for the first time. Even before the political and security implications are factored in, the deal seems heavily tilted in India's favor. Under the deal's terms, India's Department of Atomic Energy will be able to classify eight of its existing 22 reactors as military establishments, rendering them out of bounds to IAEA inspectors. Additionally, as new reactors are built, India will determine which should be classified as military or civilian. And its "fast-breeder program," which burns highly enriched uranium, is left untouched by the deal. On a practical level, critics worry that by providing India with nuclear fuel for its reactors, it will allow the country's Department of Atomic Energy to divert its own nuclear fuel into weapons materials, effectively accelerating India's nuclear weapons technology. There are many of these types of concerns-raising alarm bells that the deal is not designed to do what the Bush and Singh administrations assert it is intended to do. Even more importantly, the deal undermines the already tattered Non-Proliferation Treaty, rewarding a country that has refused to abide by international non-proliferation norms. Effectively, India has charted a new course into the nuclear club. What is to stop other countries with nuclear ambitions from following in their footsteps? The deal also makes it extremely difficult for Washington to enter good faith negotiations aimed at thwarting Iran's nuclear ambitions. As an Indian opponent to the deal opined, "the U.S. has itself become the biggest proliferator of nuclear technology… the only difference U.S. is that what the U.S. is practicing is selective proliferation." Iran concurs: a Senior Iranian official, speaking soon after the outlines of the India-U.S. deal were released in July 2005, said the following: "India is looking after its own national interests. We cannot criticize them for this. But what the Americans are doing is a double standard. On the one hand they are depriving a NPT member from having peaceful technology but at the same time they are cooperating with India, which is not a member of the NPT, to their own advantage." In the face of all of these critiques, the Bush administration refrain is: India shares U.S. values, needs more energy and does not have a track record of transferring nuclear technology to third parties. But just below the surface lurk two more compelling motivations-bulking up India as a counterweight to China's mounting military might, and boosting the U.S.'s shaky nuclear industry. LOBBYING AND HOB-NOBING: India Learns U.S. Politicking Is it worth it? Depends on who you ask. If you ask the industry, they cite $40 billion worth of yeses. New Delhi plans on building 25 to 28 new reactors by 2020, at a cost of more than $40 billion. U.S. nuclear giants General Electric and Westinghouse are at the top of the list of companies who stand to benefit, and French companies Areva of France (the world's largest builder of nuclear power stations) and Electricite de France are also mentioned as early contenders. Add a few more billion to the stack. New Delhi is also in the midst of a major arms spree and recently announced plans to purchase 126 new warplanes in a deal likely to top $7 billion. After competition amongst U.S. companies Boeing and Lockheed Martin and Europeans like Eurofighter, Dassault and Gripen, it looks as though Boeing has been picked to sell its F-18 fighters to India, where they will allegedly counterbalance Lockheed Martin's F-16s in Pakistan. The powerful U.S.-India Business Council, which argues for stronger business ties between the two countries in the halls of Congress, has both weapons and nuclear energy companies represented on its Board of Directors - officials from General Electric, Boeing and Raytheon all have seats on the Council. In the interest in securing the nuclear deal, the Indian government is playing hardball American politics, doling out $1.3 million so far to retain influential Washington lobbyists including former U.S. Ambassador to India Robert D. Blackwill and Birch Bayh, the retired Senator from Indiana. Last fall, according to Time Magazine, the Indian embassy signed a $700,000 contract with Blackwill's Barbour, Griffith & Rogers lobbying firm. Around that same time The Telegraph, a Calcutta based daily, reported on a meeting Ambassador Blackwill had with leaders of India's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and described him as a "guru" to President George W. Bush on foreign policy. Is Blackwill Bush's guru? Does it matter when each member of BGR's India team boasts very close ties to President Bush, including Lanny Griffith, who raised more than $200,000 for Bush's reelection in 2004, earning him the much-sought-after moniker "Ranger?" Another $600,000 in lobbying fees went to Venable, a firm that boasts former Democratic Senator Birch Bayh of Indiana as its point man. In addition to his own considerable clout, the elder Bayh knows people with big ambitions-- his son Evan took over his seat in 1998, serves in key committees like Armed Services and is the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on International Trade and Finance. AND, the younger Bayh is said to be considering a presidential bid in 2008. Given these connections, it's no surprise that the elder Bayh boasted to Time that, "We may be able to open some doors and begin an educational process." U.S. India Business Council, the Indian American Friendship Council and U.S.-India PAC are three of the major "grassroots" players in the push for the nuclear deal. The U.S.-India PAC contributed more than $200,000 to Congress in the past few years. In addition, the Political Action Committee has hosted nine fundraisers and receptions for members of Congress since January, raising tens of thousands for key members. In May and June, their schedule of receptions includes parties for Senators Bayh and Christopher Bond (R-IN), Representatives James Moran (D-VA) and Lantos (D-CA). An "exclusive fundraiser" with Senator Hillary Clinton is in the works, and the U.S.-India PAC promises an "exclusive meeting with Senator Clinton" for contributors at "the Platinum, Gold, or Silver" level who can "invite friends and family, based upon the sponsorship level." TEN NUCLEAR POWERS IN SEVEN YEARS While nuclear energy companies like Westinghouse, weapons companies like Boeing, and Indian and American politicians push on the nuclear energy door, international experts warn that as a result of this nuclear deal and other alarming developments, we could see ten new nuclear powers by 2013. In a new report, the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission to the United Nations is somber and clear, asserting that "over the last decade, there has been a serious and dangerous loss of momentum and direction in disarmament and non-proliferation efforts." The WMD Commission is chaired by former top UN inspector in Iraq Hans Blix, and was presented to Kofi Annan at the UN. Also known as the "Blix Commission," the report traces the domino effect of nuclear proliferation, beginning with India's nuclear test and Pakistan's response, and then North Korea-- the "hermit kingdom's determined and clandestine efforts to produce atomic arms" -- through to A. Q. Khan, the Pakistani nuclear scientist who helped build Islamabad's nuclear weapons program and then secretly shared the technology with countries like Iran, North Korea and Libya, and then on to Iran's nuclear activities. On Democracy Now on Friday, June 2nd, WMD Commission chairman Hans Blix asserted that while it is "desirable that Iran refrain from going on with enrichment of uranium," it is not just a matter of stopping them, but dealing with the reasons they seek nuclear capabilities. Taking the Iranian view, Blix ticks off the reasons for having nuclear options: "They see 130,000 American soldiers in Iraq and they see American bases in Pakistan and in Afghanistan and more American military activities to the north of them. They remember that Mossadegh, who was elected premier, was ousted with subversive methods from the outside." Blix concludes: "it is not inconceivable that some groups in Iran may feel that their security is being threatened from the outside." THE NUCLEAR ABOLITION OPTION "Why should others not wish to emulate" the big nuclear powers, asks the report, when "they seem disinclined to give up nuclear weapons?" When President Bush declared on April 18th that "All options are on the table" in relationship to Iran- he meant the nuclear option, menacing the nascent nuclear power with weapons. But there is another nuclear option that he could put on the table- nuclear abolition. The Blix Commission asserts that: "So long as any state has nuclear weapons, others will want them. So long as any such weapons remain, there is a risk that they will one day be used, by design or accident. And any such use would be catastrophic." And as John Burroughs, executive director of the Lawyer's Committee on Nuclear Policy, concludes, the solution embraced by the Blix Commission, "is that proliferation must be reversed where it began: in the United States." The clearest route to a nuclear free Iran, is (as Bill Hartung mentions in his "talking points" above) a nuclear free Middle East. The clearest route to a nuclear free Middle East is concrete steps towards nuclear disarmament by nuclear heavyweights (France, the U.K, U.S., Russia and China). And that has to start with the heaviest heavy of all-- the United States of America. A. WEAPONS OF TERROR: Freeing the World of Nuclear,
Biological and Chemical Arms B. Hans Blix Calls for PERMANENT
WORLDWIDE BAN on WMDs on DemocracyNow, June 2, 2006 C. IRAN: BUSH ISOLATED, UNDER
PRESSURE Tries to Talk the Talk Without Walking the Walk Phyllis
Bennis, Institute for Policy Studies June 2, 2006 D. BETTING THE RANCH ON THE
US-INDIA NUCLEAR DEAL
Reports | Recent News Coverage | Updates
|
 |