If The Telegraph
in Calcutta, India, is anything to go by, George W Bush is a handsome,
rock-star-esque man – powerful and yet humble. Reports centre on an
impetuous kiss on the cheek he received from a woman, while "[f]or a
split second, the most powerful man in the world was stunned. The next,
he gracefully pulled himself away from K. Padmavathi and started
patting her on her shoulders."
In
the same paper, it was reported on March 3 that in a speech he asked
"India to take the initiative in the ‘fight for freedom…India's
leadership is needed in a world hungry for freedom. From North Korea to
Burma, Syria, Zimbabwe and Cuba, people are yearning for liberty…We are
partners in spreading the light of freedom.'"
The
new nuclear deal, signed between the two nations last week, was almost
reported with a ‘hip, hip hooray!', saying that a "consortium of US,
Russia, France and the UK will ensure uninterrupted supply of nuclear
fuel to India and the Americans will support the creation of a
‘strategic reserve' of nuclear fuel for the lifetime of Indian civilian
nuclear reactors."
Conveniently (for the Indian and US governments), The Telegraph
did not happen to mention the massive crowds protesting all over the
country, with some estimating 250,000 to 700,000 people turning out in
New Delhi alone. And they weren't lining up to give him a peck on the
cheek.
The
controversy surrounding Bush's visit can be best summed up in two
words: nuclear power. Last week, a landmark deal was signed between the
Indian and US Governments, essentially bolstering India's nuclear
capability, despite the fact that India is not a signatory to the
non-proliferation treaty. It's a sharp turn-around for the US
Government, who, in the past, has seemingly been aware of the potential
for a nuclear arms race between Pakistan and India. According to a
report by the New York-based program, Democracy Now! (DN), US
Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton said that both India and
Pakistan had acquired their nuclear capability "legitimately" and that
"India and Pakistan had never signed the non-proliferation treaty and
therefore they weren't in violation of it by having a nuclear program."
It
reminds me of when I used to drive my motorbike home in Cambodia after
having a few beers. "There are no drink driving laws, therefore it's
completely safe." I was young. What's John Bolton's excuse?
Author
and activist, Arundhati Roy gave a very different account of the events
that took place in India last week. Writing for UK's Guardian newspaper (assume that The Telegraph couldn't spare a column for the woman whose novel, The God of Small Things,
won the Booker Prize), she said that "when George Bush places flowers
on that famous slab of polished stone [Ghandi's memorial in Rajghat],
millions of Indians will wince. It will be as though he has poured a
pint of blood on the memory of Ghandi."
Somewhat removed from the gushing sentiments of The Telegraph,
Roy went on to tell DN's Amy Goodman, "there were demonstrations on two
days continuously…everyone was just furious, you know." She said that
there were many reasons, along with the nuclear issue, why so many
people came out onto the streets of some of India's biggest cities.
"One is just the Iraq war and, you know, the terrorism that he's
unleashed on the world. But in India…the fact is that the economic
policies of the Indian government…this whole neo-con world which Bush
embodies, actually has more resonance…the real impact of all this is in
the villages in India."
Roy
also went on to explain that the nuclear issue is intertwined with the
economic issues facing India. "[I]t's very important for us to
understand that this nuclear deal that's being talked about is not just
that. You know, it's really the umbrella for a million different other
kinds of deals that are going on, which will make it impossible…the
Indian government is negotiating India into a corner…you're officially
signing a deal with an alligator."
Back
at home, there may be some resonance of what Roy is saying. Recently,
Bush asked congress for US$27 million to jumpstart a new nuclear
weapons program – the first in two decades. Two weeks ago, the US and
Britain performed a joint underground nuclear test in Nevada, the first
in two years. The Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum's peace watchtower,
which counts the days since a nuclear explosion, was re-set at zero.
DN
ran a series of stories last week on the recent turn of events in the
nuclear world. According to Greg Mello, Director of the Los Alamos
Study Group, the new nuclear weapons that Bush is putting forward
would, in fact, be in violation of the non-proliferation treaty, adding
as a signatory to the treaty "we are required to successfully negotiate
complete nuclear disarmament…we agreed to proceed with nuclear
disarmament in a series of 13 steps that would actually implement
that…requirement. The Bush administration has repudiated those 13
steps, and the subject…is not something the Bush administration wants
to talk about, especially in the context of Iran."
The
thread was further unravelled when Mello explained that the new 20-year
no-bid contract to run the Los Alamos National Laboratory, worth and
estimated US$2.2 billion per year, is likely to be handed to a group of
three corporations (Bechtel, The Washington Group International and
BWXT) and the University of California. "Well, we've never seen this
kind of profit motive in the nuclear weapons business up to now,"
marvelled Mello.
Bush's
nuclear plans seem to be finding their way onto the table across the
board lately. In a report by Walter Pincus in the Washington Post last
week, Ambassador Linton F. Brooks, administrator of the National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) "told the House Armed Services
subcommittee that ‘we will revitalize our weapons design community to
meet the challenge of being able to adapt an existing weapon within 18
months, and design, develop and begin production of a new design within
three to four years of a decision to enter engineering development.'"
Someone needs to remind a certain someone that this is not exactly what's meant by non-proliferation.
Yet
again, the Bush administration appears to be lexically challenged to
the detriment of just about everyone except the corporations that stand
to benefit. Of course, some are saying that if countries like India
increase their nuclear capacity, it leaves the fossil fuels at the US's
disposal. Given the increased pressure on the Navaho Nation to resume
uranium mining of late, the signing of the India/US agreement last
week, the outrageously discriminating debate over who should and
shouldn't have nuclear weapons is heating up.
Let's hope it doesn't get too hot to handle.
|
Some of our content may be related to gambling.    |