Noble Cause or Noble Duplicity

http://www.livemint.com/2009/10/11213737/A-prize-to-bind-nuclear-India.html: a Mint article on Obama, the geo-politics of disarmament and winning the Noble prize.

Prizes are usually given after the fact: Herta Mueller and Venkatraman Ramakrishnan first write about Romania or research ribosomes—they later get Nobels for their work. Then, there’s the strange occasion where a prize is awarded before the fact: US President Barack Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize for just dreaming to rid the world of nuclear weapons. If that dream comes anywhere close to becoming fact, India will find itself with nothing to celebrate.

On the same day that Obama was awarded the Nobel, he sent a letter to the US Congress or “certification” under the US-India civilian nuclear deal. This certified that the US would work to “further restrict the transfers of equipment and technology related to the enrichment of uranium and reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel”.

There’s no cause and effect here as yet: US law requires this general certification. But what if there’s cause and effect in the future?

The Nobel is sure to give Obama affirmation about his ideas for a nuclear weapons-free world. The trouble is that he is unlikely to be able to get countries such as Iran and North Korea to back off from the path they’ve chosen. He is also unlikely to be able to get Russia and China to disarm before the US takes such steps. That leaves players such as India that are considered easy to arm-twist in this quest.

It’s no secret that the White House has pressured India in the last few months on this issue. Post-Nobel, there’s the danger this pressure will increase.

Part of this centres on the US Democratic Party’s perception of India as being “obstructionist”. While they kowtow to China, progressives refuse to acknowledge, unlike—and perhaps even in reaction to—Bush, the exception the civilian nuclear deal seeks to give India.

The other part centres on what US journalist Walter Lippmann observed in 1943 about the disarmament movement—that it had been “tragically successful in disarming the (very) nations that believed in disarmament”. India, as its no-first-use principle shows, shudders at the thought of deploying such weapons. Others don’t share that apprehension. Yet, India’s responsible behaviour makes it the low-hanging fruit the disarmament ayatollahs can pick on. The true rogue states are instead appeased.

India must resist these pressures and double standards. This means not only forceful diplomacy, but—in light of the US-India talks that recently commenced in Vienna over reprocessing nuclear fuel and that further facilitate commercial negotiations—also making sure it doesn’t rely too much on the US for materials or diplomatic favours.

The release of Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan

That man on the picture who looks as innocuous as any septuagenerian is a very dangerous person. Individually he has done more to ensure that the world is a more dangerous place to live than many rogue state and governments combined together. He is Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, Pakistan's Nuke Man, the greatest nuclear technology smuggler and proliferator! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Qadeer_Khan

On him rests the responsibility of nuclear weaponized Libya, Iran and North Korea! The Saudi Arabia and Egypt angles have not been proven yet. On 6th February 2009, Islamabad High court declared AQK a "free man". His "house arrest" for the last 5 years is widely viewed as a neccessity for his own security. However, according AQK a "free man" status is perhaps a clear indication from Islamabad to US. An indication that Pakistan's loyalties cannot be taken for granted! Earlier, the Pakistan Foreign minister had issued a statement regarding "trust" on China. ( Where does that put US?). There have also been requests from Asif Zardari to US to do away with "drone attacks". Could the release of AQK be judged as an act of defiance by the Pakistani government? Especially because, AQK's house arrest under the Musharraf regime was seen as a tactic to assuage US woes and giving in to US pressure on AQK. There has been no direct word from officials in Islamabad on the government's interest and reactions on the release. However, "AQK" has thanked Asif Ali Zardari for lifting the restriction imposed on him. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1877608,00.html?xid=rss-topstories

While AQK had in a televised address in 2004 confessed to smuggling and stealing nuclear technology, later he had retracted his confession saying that its was forced on him, by the authorities i.e Musharraf! He had also indicated at another time, that the smuggling and stealing of nuclear weapon technology was done under the knowdge of the Pakistan authorities and there were pay offs at all levels (indicating a broader conspiracy). All said and done, Musharraf never allowed US or the IAEA to interrogate AQK.

We already have a threat note from Congressman Howard Berman,Chairman of House Committee of Foreign Relations ( a powerful Congressional committee that plays a key role in shaping US foreign policy) in terms of US assistance provided to Islamabad. In coming weeks, the House of Representatives and the Senate are likely to take up a legislation, which proposes to triple the non-military aid to Pakistan – amounting to $1.5 billion per annum for the next ten years.
http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/us-warns-pakliftingq-khans-house-arrest/10/29/54539/on

The situation in the subcontinent is far from what can be called "under control". Pakistan and Afghanistan are bombs waiting to detaonate. Loyalties and stands have varied from one end to another. Pakistan for instance has made many vacillating comments on the "war against terror". Its own loyalties are split between Islamic fundamentalism and allegiance to America against economic aid to keep alive! Counting on such a state as an ally is a mistake that America can ill afford. Will Obama choose to take more direct steps to diffuse Pakistan as a crisis or will he also circumvent and procrastinate the inevitable? By inevitable i mean a joint military operation in Pakistan (may be against Pakistan's own wishes but in their interest) to free the state of its rabid fundamentalists and ensure a free democratic structure working on its own.

A detailed history of AQK and his Nuclear smuggling network:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1025193-1,00.html