UN Calls on Israel to accede to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)

Show Me Your Nukes: UN Urges Israel to Come Clean About Its Nuclear Program A resolution introduced by Egypt and backed by 161 countries called on Israel to accede to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) ... Only five countries voted against the document: the US, Canada, Palau, Micronesia and Israel itself. 18 member-states abstained, according to AP reports. The resolution was unanimously backed by all Arab states. [ ... ] The UN resolution comes at a rather difficult time for Israel. Just recently the French Parliament recognized the independence of Palestine in a symbolic move, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu dissolved the Knesset with new elections set to be held on March 17. But since the document, overwhelmingly approved by UN members, is not a binding act, Jerusalem is not obliged to follow it, and the question of Israel’s nuclear weapons program will remain open, at least to the rest of the world. http://us.sputniknews.com/world/20141204/1013291211.html COMMENT How bizarre is the UN? What is the point of these resolutions? Canada's really in the thick of things.  Palau is in the Western Pacific Ocean, is geographically part of Micronesia and: Politically, Palau is a presidential republic in free association with the United States, which provides defense, funding, and access to social services. Micronesia is: Micronesia is divided politically among 6 sovereign countries — one of which being the Federated States of Micronesia, which is usually also called simply "Micronesia" for short ... Micronesia is party to Compact of Free Association and has "entered into as associated states with the United States".

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) - October 2014

India, Israel, N.Korea say no to NPT at UN October 31, 2014, 8:46 am India has voted against the provisions of draft resolutions that would have required it to accede to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), saying there is “no question” of it joining the treaty as a non-nuclear weapon state. The First Committee of the 193-member UN General Assembly that deals with disarmament and international security issues approved a draft resolution yesterday urging all member states that had not yet done so to sign and ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. Prior to approval of that draft as a whole, votes were polled on provisions, by which the Assembly would call on all those countries that have not joined the NPT to accede to it as non-nuclear weapon states. India, along with North Korea and Israel, voted against the resolution. 164 nations voted in favour of the resolution. “India’s position on the NPT is well-known. There is no question of India joining the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state. Nuclear weapons are an integral part of India’s national security and will remain so, pending non-discriminatory and global nuclear disarmament,” said an official Indian statement explaining the vote. By another provision in the resolution, the Assembly would stress the fundamental role of NPT in achieving nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation and urge India, Israel and Pakistan to promptly accede to the Treaty as non-nuclear- weapon states and place all their nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards. The provision was also approved by a recorded vote of 163 in favour with India, Israel, the US and Pakistan voting against. In its explanation of vote, India said it remains committed to the goal of complete elimination of nuclear arms. “We are concerned about the threat to humanity posed by the continued existence of nuclear weapons and their possible use or threat of use. India also shares the view that nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation are mutually reinforcing. We continue to support a time-bound programme for global, verifiable and non-discriminatory nuclear disarmament,” it said. Earlier last month, Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott inked a civilian nuclear deal with his Indian counterpart Narendra Modi in New Delhi. India and Australia had begun talks on the nuclear cooperation agreement in 2012. [Labor Party = 2012] The Australian decision, although geared to fight the energy poverty in India, has been criticised for circumventing the NPT and severely weakening it. The US administration had imposed sanctions on Delhi after its 1998 nuclear bomb tests. The tests confirmed India as a nuclear power and led neighbouring Pakistan to follow its lead. Later in 2005, however, the US had overturned its decision and agreed to aid India’s civil nuclear programme. Meanwhile, Iran, which is a signatory to the NPT ratifying the global accord, had accused Western countries of double standards while dealing with India’s nuclear ambitions. Last month, a UN monitoring agency said Iran is yet to fully address all nuclear concerns, in a further setback to international agreement over its nuclear program. http://thebricspost.com/india-israel-n-korea-say-no-to-npt-at-un/ COMMENT The existence of nuclear power and nuclear weapons is disturbing.  Sooner or later, something's bound to go wrong. Over 2,000 nuclear explosions detonated worldwide between 1945 and 1996 http://www.un.org/en/events/againstnucleartestsday/history.shtml#a24 1955 = just over 3,000 nuclear weapons 1965 = United States 31,000 nuclear weapons / Soviet Union 6,000 nuclear weapons ORDER USA - 1945 (July) - Trinity test, New Mexico USA - Hiroshima & Negasaki - 1945 (August) Soviet Russia - 1949 (August) UK - 1952 (Oct) - Tests Australia / USA USA - 1952 (Nov) - Hydrogen bomb USA - 1954 (March ) - Castle Bravo (largest ever nuke detonated by US + disaster) France - 1960 (tests Algeria + South Pacific) China - 1964 (test Lop Nur in Xinjiang Province) Partial Test Ban Treaty 1963, banned testing: atmosphere, underwater & space (testing goes underground) Israel - 1966 (R & D phase complete) India - 1974 (test) South Africa 1982 South Africa 1991 - dismantles nuclear program France - 1990s - closed & dismantled all nuclear test sites Pakistan - 1998 - 2 tests Korea - 2006 The UN article is a really good one. Look who has went from testing a nuclear weapon to using one, in the blink of an eye. Look who's been driving the nuclear weapons race.

INDIA - US WANTS TO LINE UP TRADE, PROFIT AND REGIONAL CONTROL

Uncle Sam’s worldview Hussain H Zaidi Monday, August 11, 2014 From Print Edition [...] The US wants to preserve the existing global order based on liberalism. The US also realises that although it is the lone superpower, it cannot control world affairs independently. It needs regional partners or allies, particularly those believing in economic and political liberalism (Japan and South Korea in East Asia, India in South Asia), to control the world. The political expression of liberalism is democracy, while its economic expression is free market economy. Democracy is advocated mainly because it is useful for promoting American interests as autocratic regimes are more likely to breed extremism and terrorism – at present the most potent threat to the US-dominated global order – than representative ones. By the same token, free market economy is advocated because it best suits American companies engaged in international business. Promoting the political interests of the US government and the economic interests of domestic firms is the pivot on which the American policy revolves. And given India’s political and economic credentials it finely fits into this scheme Hence the repeated statements from the US leadership that India – the largest democracy, the world's second largest market, and a nuclear and a rising economic power – is their strategic partner and a natural ally. Washington believes that New Delhi has to play a leading role in achieving durable peace and stability in the region, which is necessary for preserving the global order. Indo-US economic and commercial relations are growing. Merchandise trade between the two countries has gone up from $35 billion in 2009 to $63 billion in 2013 including $22 billion exports from the USA and $41 billion exports from India. This gives India a trade surplus of $19 billion – the country's largest trade surplus with any country. For India, the US is the single largest export market and the 5th largest source of imports. The US would like to push up its exports and investment in India and take a larger pie of the enormous Indian market. Coming back to Kerry's recent visit to India, the first US cabinet level visit after the change of the guards in New Delhi, the occasion was the fifth session of the annual strategic dialogue between the two countries. The latest round itself is being seen as preparing the groundwork for Prime Minister Modi’s visit to the US next month. The joint statement issued at the end of the strategic dialogue, inter alia, reaffirmed US support to India's efforts to have a permanent seat on the UNSC; reiterated the “commitment to eliminating terrorist safe havens and infrastructure, and disrupting terrorist networks including Al-Qaeda and the Lashkar-e-Taiba” and asked “Pakistan to work toward bringing the perpetrators of the November 2008 Mumbai attacks to justice.” As the joint statement shows, any account of US-India relations is incomplete without mentioning Pakistan. At least on paper, the US and Pakistan are also strategic partners and encouraging phrases such as ‘enduring partnership’, ‘shared goals’ and ‘mutual interest and respect’ are employed to characterise Washington-Islamabad ties as well. Yet the two sets of relations are different in terms of both the scale and the dynamics. New Delhi's much bigger economic muscles aside, several irritants have held back the Washington-Islamabad [Pakistan] relations. Take the war on terror. The US has long suspected that in the counterterrorism campaign, Pakistan has been hunting with the hounds and running with the hare. Although the ongoing military operation in North Waziristan, a long-standing US demand, will serve to dampen such suspicion, concerns regarding Pakistan being ‘soft’ on, if not allegedly supporting, non-state actors' involvement in cross-border terrorism is not likely to die down. Likewise, Washington has not conceded to Islamabad's [Pakistan's] demand for transfer of nuclear technology, because it suspects Islamabad does not have a clean record in non-proliferation. The US mediation on Kashmir on Pakistan's terms is also out of the question, as India has been successful in having the world see the militancy in the disputed territory as an expression of religious extremism. It is precisely for this reason that China, also facing religious uprising in its Muslim majority province of Xinjiang, no more supports Pakistan's Kashmir stance. Islamabad, on its part, complains that it has not been adequately compensated for the economic loss caused by the war on terror; that the US aid has too many strings attached to it and is cut off arbitrarily; that at times its sovereignty has been violated by American forces; that Americans have been oblivious to its major demands including a civil nuclear technology agreement – similar to the one with India – having UNSC resolutions on Kashmir implemented, and granting preferential market access to Pakistan exports in what is their single largest destination. Pakistan's problem is not that it's smaller than India but that it is an unstable society governed by a fragile political system – a fatal combination. The position held by such a country in a world power's worldview is qualitatively different from that occupied by a much more stable country. Hence, whereas the US interest in Islamabad consists mainly in the war on terror and nuclear non proliferation, New Delhi has a much larger role to play in Washington's scheme of things. EXRACTS ONLY - FULL @ SOURCE http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-9-266459-Uncle-Sams-worldview

Sounds like the US uses the same old 'partnership' spiel on everyone.

US interest in forming 'partnerships' is to maintain control on a global scale, for US political interests and US corporate interests.

US also wants stability (undisrupted trade) and some of that Indian trade surplus cash.

It appears to have a different relationship with Pakistan, due to the 'fragile political system' in Pakistan.

The US interest in Pakistan is (a) suppression of 'terror' and (b) nuclear non-proliferation.

Sore points for Pakistan are:

• Kashmir
• Insufficient compensation for economic losses (Pakistan bound up in military / 'war on terror' US directives)
• US aid - many strings attached; arbitrary.
• US military violation of Pakistan's sovereignty
• Oblivious to Pakistan demands:

• civil nuclear technology agreement
• Implementation of US Security Council resolutions - Kashmir
• the granting of preferential market access to Pakistan exports

-------------------------------------------------

Found this article an interesting one.

Unfamiliar with the 'war on terror' aspects and with the issue in Kashmir, but aware from other articles/sources that much of the US aid to Pakistan is spent on military rather than economic purposes.

US isn't intrinsically interested in democracy.  

US wants (a) regional stability (b) stable trade (c) free markets (d) strategic and political global control -- and this, by and large, is all about serving corporate American interests.

....................................................................

Checking out Google images out of curiosity, came across some scary looking stuff going on in Pakistan.  

Looks like there's bombings.

Appear to be ordinary people who have got massive guns (machine guns?).  

Loads of violence.