Gathering consensus against Indo-US Nuclear Deal
A. Siddique

THE smoke screen created by the Indian Political hierarchy and its nuclear establishment, to gate crash into the nuclear club with full access to nuclear fuel and technology while clandestinely following its single minded pursuit of improving the quality and quantity of its nuclear arsenal, is beginning to thin out. This has become manifest from the stalling of negotiations that are being conducted in Vienna between India and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to hammer out a joint stance on the draft “India specific” safeguards agreement that holds the key to operationalize the Indo-US nuclear Deal.
To become effective, the Indo US Nuclear Deal, called the 123 Agreement (because it relates to Sec 123 of the US Atomic Energy Act), requires the finalization of an agreed India specific text between India and IAEA. This is required to spell out conditions to safe guard against withdrawal of the safeguarded nuclear material from the nuclear facilities dedicated for civilian use for unauthorized utilization in promoting India’s nuclear, weapon program. It is only upon finalization of the text that US would be able to negotiate with the 45 Members Nuclear Suppliers’ Group (NSG) to exempt India from longstanding NSG guidelines that demand full - scope IAEA safeguards, which India refuses to comply with, as a condition of supply. Only when the “India Specific” safeguards (inspections) agreement and an additional agreement called “Additional Protocol” have been approved by the Agency’s Board of Governors, would the treaty be ratified by the U.S Congress.
One would have thought that given the U.S support to the deal and the commercial interests of some of the NSG members, the talks between India and the IAEA would be a breezy affair. However the brazen manner in which India wants to hoodwink the international nuclear watch dog agency, by retaining loopholes that would enable it to divert the technology acquired for reactors meant for civilian use to those dedicated for the military application and therefore not under safeguards, has left even its staunchest supporters wondering about the deceitful Indian intentions. There is an impending sense of anxiety that the “India specific” deal would damage the already fragile nuclear non-proliferation system beyond redemption. The resistance to the US India nuclear peace deal is increasing and the criteria forming the basis of India’s special treatment by the US, is coming under increasing challenge.
Recently, an international appeal to “Fix the Proposals for Nuclear Cooperation with India” has been launched by a stellar collection of 130 highly regarded nuclear non-proliferation experts and NGOs from 23 countries. These entities have articulated that exemption of India from the longstanding global nuclear trade standards, seen in the back drop of its proliferation record, would make a mockery of the NPT regime and irreparably damage the global efforts to achieve universal nuclear disarmament. The ranks of opposition to the India US Deal include the likes of Ambassador Jayantha Dhanapala, the former UN Undersecretary General for Disarmament Affairs and President of the 1995 Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty Review and Extension Conference. Other signatories include the likes of mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, NGOs from South Asia, East Asia, Australia, New Zealand, Europe, Africa and North America.
The appeal which specifically focuses its emphasis upon the 35 member IAEA Board of Governors and the 45 countries constituting the NSG, reminds the addressees that India has a proven history of betraying the trust and confidence of its benefactors by diverting the technology provided for peaceful use of nuclear energy for clandestine production of nuclear weapons. India detonated its 1974 nuclear device by ‘harvesting the plutonium produced by a Canadian reactor with US origins in violation of the bilateral peaceful nuclear use agreement, has refused to join the NPT , continues to produce fissile material for nuclear weapons and has not signed the Comprehensive Nuclear Test ban Treaty. Two Indian entities have been publicly sanctioned by the Bush Administration for transferring chemicals to Iran. Ironically the sanctions were announced on Jul 25, a day before the House passed its India Bill. Another Indian firm NEC Engineering Private Limited shot to notoriety by finding a mention in the British Government’s Iraq Dossier. NEC was the only company, which was accused of helping Iraq produce ammonium perchlorate in a plant at AI-Mamoun, a key ingredient in producing solid rocket propellants and providing banned chemicals to other suspect facilities like the Fallujah Chlorine Plant.
India - IAEA negotiations are stalled because’ India is seeking and the US has proposed a guideline that would open a way for the nuclear suppliers to transfer sensitive plutonium reprocessing, uranium enrichment and heavy water production technologies to India even though IAEA safeguards can not prevent such technology from being replicated and used in India’s weapons program. The other major problem area is the Indian insistence upon being provided with a guaranteed supply for the running of its reactors even if it goes ahead and throws into the bin its unilateral moratorium to conduct nuclear tests. India is demanding such a preferential treatment without making any promise to cut off its production of the fissile material to construct WMD. Given her track record, she is certain to use the supply of nuclear technology and the foreign fuel supplies, meant under the deal for ‘civil nuclear program’ to accelerate its weapons program.
There is hardly any doubt that India is going to use the loosely framed India Specific guidelines, under deliberation with the IAEA to accelerate its production of weapon production by switching the technology provided for use in the civilian use reactors to its un-safeguarded facilities dedicated to production of nuclear weapons. The advisory prepared by over 130 nuclear non proliferation experts; “Fix the Proposal of Renewed Cooperation with India” to explain to the world, particularly the IAEA and the NSG countries, of the perils of admitting India into the realm of nuclear trade without caveats, is serious stuff for deliberation. It is significant to note that NSG takes decisions by consensus. Public opinion opposed to proliferation of nuclear weapons must make its impact felt in IAEA and the NSG countries so that controversial proposals contained in the “India Specific Safeguard Agreement” do not permit India to make a mockery of the Non Proliferation Regime with contemptuous impunity.



The act, most foul
Nabeel Ahmed Sheikh

CONDEMNABLY, Danish newspapers have reprinted blasphemous depictions of the Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) which had earlier sparked violent protests across the Muslim world. The reprehensible act has been repeated on the pretext of ‘showing their commitment to freedom of speech’ after an alleged plot to kill one of the cartoonists behind the drawings. Jyllands-Posten which originally published these depictions in September 2005 and many other major Danish newspapers including Politiken and Berlingske Tidende reprinted the same in their Wednesday editions. Published on 30 September 2005, the blasphemous depictions were accompanied by an editorial criticising self-censorship after Danish writer Kare Bluitgen complained that he was unable to find an illustrator for his children’s book about the Prophet (PBUH). The blasphemous material was also broadcast on national television and even newspapers that were originally against the publication of the material are reportedly now backing the campaign to ‘defend freedom of speech.’As a matter of fact, the European newspapers which printed the outrageous depictions of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) of Islam have given the deepest possible offence to more than a billion of his followers across the world. To justify this defamation their editors invoke the right to freedom of speech and expression. The printing of the sacrilegious material in utter disregard to the Muslim religious sensibilities is the manifestation of West’s Islamophobia. This phenomenon is not new to the West. Its roots go deep into European history and the western psyche. Hostility towards Islam, which can be traced all the way back to Crusades, has continued through the periods of renaissance, enlightenment and modernity in European thought and action. There is abundance of literature available in Europe and America to substantiate the deep influence that Islamophobia exerts on the thought processes of the western mind and the policies of western countries.
The printing of the sacrilegious material cannot be defended from legal, political or moral points of view. Legally speaking, the right to freedom of expression guaranteed under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights carries with it special duties and responsibilities. The law may, therefore, subject it to certain restrictions for respect of the rights or reputation of others, and for the protection of national security or public order, or of public health or morals. The right to freedom of expression is not absolute. It is limited by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which requires due regard to maintenance of public order, health and morals. The sacrilegious drawings are so provocative to Muslims that many in the world wonder if this is not an opening salvo for a clash of civilizations, of the West vs Islam. The drawings are patently an expression of hate against the Holy Prophet and therefore Islam. As such, they violate the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) which outlaws dissemination of ideas of racial superiority, hate speech, and incitement to racial hatred. This convention makes it obligatory for states to punish those responsible. Thus the drawings violate international law. That this freedom is not absolute is clear from the above-mentioned international instruments (ICCPR and ICERD) to which the overwhelming majority of the international community (the UN) has acceded, and also from the case law of several European courts of justice and the European Court itself.
Beyond the legal argument, the drawings are reprehensible from the political and moral points of view as well. Laws and rules of social and political behaviour in all societies are ultimately based on some moral norms. One would assume that a civilized society would inculcate among its members sensitivity to each others views and feelings on issues of special significance, and the exercise of the right to freedom of expression would be informed by such sensitivity. Many of the western governments, which have tried to explain the publication of the offensive drawings on grounds of freedom of expression, show double standards by having at the same time laws prohibiting anti-semitism and the questioning of the Holocaust. The Holocaust is taboo even for researchers to analyse or explain in a purely academic or historical context. Recently, British historian David Irving was sentenced to three years in prison by an Austrian court for denying the Holocaust. This unfortunate episode has not only created a huge chasm between the West and the Muslims, it has also generated a climate of pervasive hostility towards expatriates living in Europe as law-abiding citizens. The failure of those responsible to demonstrate any contrition or regret for the offence committed has hurt the interfaith harmony and exacerbated tensions.






Green commitment
Jing Xiaolei

THIS is an important year for China not only because of the historical Olympics event but also because the country will significantly reduce pollution with its commitment to cutting up to 2.3 million tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions and 1.3 million tons of chemical oxygen demand (COD), according to a recent plan outlined by the State Environmental Protection Administration (SEPA). SEPA Director Zhou Shengxian said at a high-profile environment meeting in late January that this year’s mission is to reduce SO2 by 6 percent and COD by 5 percent based on their 2005 levels, which serves as the base for the environmental goals of the 11th Five-Year Plan (2006-2010).
“Industrial restructuring will play a fundamental role in curbing pollution,” Zhou said. By the end of 2010, the plan is to bring down both SO2 and COD levels by 10 percent, based on 2005 figures. Acknowledging the serious environmental challenge facing the country, Zhou noted that the fight against pollution is far from over. SEPA figures showed that last year, the quality of more than 26 percent of water runoff was worse than grade V-a level unfit for human contact. The air quality in cities on more than 100 days was below grade II, the level at which it is considered healthy for humans. To fulfill the commitment, more high energy consuming and high polluting power plants have to be shut down this year, including a number of small-scale thermal power plants with a combined output of 13 gw, steel plants with a total capacity of 6 million tons, cement plants with a combined output of 50 million tons, iron production facilities with a total capacity of 14 million tons, and papermaking factories producing a combined 1 million tons, said the top SEPA official.
“This phase-out plan, if achieved by the end of this year, will help China reduce its emissions of SO2 by 600,000 tons and cut COD by 400,000 tons,” Zhou said, also indicating that several key eco-friendly projects will soon be implemented. Last year the country made progress in its green battle against COD due to measures taken by the Central Government and environmental agencies. The density of COD in water resources was 6.5 mg per liter, down 7 percent on 2006.
In 2007, a reduction in SO2 emission also prevented 100,000 square km of land from suffering acid rain. The number of blue-sky days with good air quality was also up on the previous year. The plan aims to enhance sewage-handling capacity as well. The country’s urban wastewater treatment capacity is to be increased by 12 million tons a day, which will cut COD by 600,000 tons. Meanwhile, various industries will be required to improve their wastewater treatment capacities contributing to a COD reduction, of 200,000 tons a year. The use of sulfur scrubbers to clean emissions will be emphasized, the plan said. New thermal power generation units with a combined capacity of 30 gw will be installed with sulfur removal capabilities, leading to an SO2 emission cut of 1.5 million tons. Pushed by the critical environmental challenge caused by China’s rapid economic development, SEPA has taken greater initiatives to protect the environment, targeting its tough measures not only toward domestic enterprises but also foreign ones. Since last November, SEPA has conducted special environmental protection post-checkups on 130 multinational companies that had broken environmental laws in 2004-2007, across 19 provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities.
This year SEPA made more progress by starting to work with the financial sector to create an international benchmark for green credit.SEPA signed a deal with the International Finance Corp. (IFC) on January 25 in Beijing to introduce the Equator Principles to China. The principles are a voluntary set of guidelines based on IFC policies to incorporate social and environmental issues into project financing. China introduced the green loan concept last July as part of its enforcement of eco-friendly economic policies. Communication between environmental monitors and banks saw some plants blacklisted from receiving loans because of their pollution records. “It proved an effective instrument to curb pollution and lower financial risk,” said Yang Chaofei, head of SEPA’s policy department.

(The Daily Mail-Beijing Review Articles Exchange Item)