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.

Middle East

Losing a bit of interest in the middle east.  Too complicated and too hard to follow.

Current focus tends to be mostly on Ukraine.

However, I noticed that a heap of people (including Imran Khan) are planning on protesting in Pakistan over what they claim is rigged elections.

The government's troops/guards are going to square up to the protesters, so it could potentially get out of hand.

UK's Philip Hammond asked everyone to resolve things 'democratically', which struck me as rather lame and comic when things don't sound too democratic over in Pakistan.

Russell Brand's done another funny video; this time taking the piss out of some US wannabe-warmonger type of news presenter carrying on about ISIS.

Found it amusing mostly because the news guy's posturing carry-on actually is hilarious.

Don't have too many positive feelings about the middle east, though.

Middle east seems too warped to be fixed and it seems like there's no hope for anything over there.

The big story is a journalist (James Foley) has been beheaded.  

Did not read about it until some 'Who was James Foley' article popped up in front of me on twitter (where I've been wasting time lately).  Briefly skimmed over the article.  Looks like he's had a close call before.

Anyway, I wasn't game to look at the video because I find it disturbing to see a slow act of killing.  

It was only when I saw all these reports that it was being suppressed, that entertainers were calling on people not to look at it etc, that I thought I'll take a look (because they don't want me to look).

Went to LiveLeak (as twitter was allegedly blocking it).  First video off the rank was the blotted out face version.  Even so, I didn't get past a few seconds of it because I just couldn't handle knowing what was about to happen.  Does my head in.  Can't watch it even kind of screened off.

It is such a sick thing to do.  I can't understand how anyone would think this was an OK way to kill someone.  That sounds weird, because there's probably no really OK way to kill people.  But, anyway, if you're going to take someone's life, I don't understand the need to be really close, personal, bloodied, slow and sick about it.

That's why I don't think there is any hope.  There is no crossing that divide between middle east and west.

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.

US & UK - RENDITION - YANUS RAHMATULLAH

UK government attempts to conceal its involvement in rendition and torture By Robert Stevens 9 August 2014 The British government is seeking to cover up its role in the illegal “extraordinary rendition”—kidnappings and torture—programme run by the United States. Ahead of the delayed release of a US Senate report on the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) torture system ... [...] The war crimes carried out by British troops during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in which the UK was the main partner of the US, continue to come to light. Last week Reprieve cited the case of Yunus Rahmatullah, a Pakistani citizen who was captured by British forces in Iraq in February 2004 and subsequent rendered to Afghanistan later that year. He was held at the US-run prison at Bagram Airbase in Afghanistan for ten years without charge, trial, or access to a lawyer. He was initially seized despite having no involvement with any of the fighting in Iraq and was only in the country in order to find work on real estate projects after the initial US invasion, resulting in the fall of the Saddam Hussein regime, had ended. According to Reprieve, UK troops raided a house where he was staying with friends, “blindfolded Yunus, punched and kicked him, and hit him with the butt of their rifles. He was thrown in the back of a military vehicle and driven to a camp. On the way, the vehicle stopped and Yunus was taken out. UK forces again violently assaulted him.” Reprieve adds, “He was detained in Iraq at the now-notorious Camp Nama, where UK forces were also present, and possibly also in Abu Ghraib prison.” The US-run Abu Ghraib was the site of horrifying and systematic torture, abuse and murder of prisoners by US military personnel in Iraq. http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/08/09/rend-a09.html

This is the tail end of the British trying to hide their collusion story (in WSWS above).

I thought this guy might deserve his own post.

Never having paid attention to what's going on beyond my own narrow range of interests, this stuff is new and mind-boggling to me.

How can someone be kidnapped and basically gaoled for a DECADE -- without charge -- or lawyer or trial?

Wikipedia on Rahmatullah - here.

Check this out:

... because he was captured in Iraq by British Forces the UK justice system had standing to rule on his detention

"a substantial case for saying that the UK government is under an international legal obligation to demand the return of the applicant, and the US government is bound to accede to such an request."

The Court of Appeal agreed Rahmatullah's detention was "unlawful" and ordered Britain to pursue his release until January 18, 2012. [wikipedia]

US AID TO PAKISTAN - PAKISTAN STAND ON FOOD SECURITY - WTO TRADE FACILITATION AGREEMENT

US ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE and MILITARY AID TO PAKISTAN Commenced shortly after the country’s creation in 1947 US obligated nearly $67 billion (in constant 2011 dollars) to Pakistan between 1951 and 2011 2009 US renewed commitment to Pakistan US approved the Enhanced Partnership for Pakistan Act  (commonly known as the Kerry-Lugar-Berman bill, or KLB) Act authorized a tripling of US economic and development-related assistance to Pakistan, or $7.5 billion over five years (FY2010 to FY2014). Between FY2002 and FY2009, only 30 percent of US foreign assistance to Pakistan was appropriated for economic-related needs; the remaining 70 percent was allocated to security-related assistance. Since the KLB authorization (FY2010 through the FY2014 budget request), 41 percent of assistance has been allocated for economic-related assistance. [So that would mean military assistance exceeds economic] US aid pledged to Pakistan remains significant compared to funding for other development initiatives.  US $1.16 billion request for foreign assistance to Pakistan exceeds requests for: Global Hunger and Food Security initiative ($1.06 billion); Millennium Challenge Corporation ($0.90 billion); Global Climate Change initiative ($0.48 billion).  US $1.6 billion request for foreign assistance to Pakistan: not far behind the requested $1.36 billion for the World Bank’s International Development Association (IDA) which makes loans and grants to the world’s 81 poorest countries and is the single largest source of development finance in these locations. Source:  Greenbook - obtained from site:  CGDEV.ORG Pakistan is the fourth largest recipient of US assistance, trailing Israel, Afghanistan, and Egypt.  US has pledged seven times more aid to Pakistan than to Bangladesh, a neighboring country with a comparable population size and similar development needs. US largest contributor, nearly a third of total Official Development Assistance (ODA) to Pakistan (30 projects total commitment $5 billion), followed by: World Bank’s International Development Association (21 percent of total ODA); Japan (14 percent); United Kingdom (8 percent); and EU Institutions (4 percent). Asian Development Bank (ADB) is Pakistan’s biggest multilateral partner, providing assistance of $4.4 billion from 2009 through 2012. IMF disbursed credit worth $5.2 billion to Pakistan from FY2008 to FY2010 following the 2008 economic crises.  In 2011 the Government of Pakistan decided to end the IMF program, but following the country’s civilian election in May 2013 the new government, led by the Pakistani Muslim League (Nawaz), has entered into a new provisional agreement with the Fund worth $6.6 billion for a bailout package for FY2013-2016.  Although the IMF and Pakistan have an ‘unhappy history’, the new government is said to have little choice due to its balance of payments crisis and sharply declining foreign exchange reserves. Extracts Only -  Source -   http://www.cgdev.org/page/aid-pakistan-numbers

In an earlier post - here - it was noted that a World Trade Organisation (WTO) 'Trade Facilitation Agreement', freeing up trade to bring TRILLIONS into the world economy, is being negotiated.

India, Cuba, Bolivia and Venezuela are seeking to increase public stockholding for food security.

WTO stipulates no more than 10%' value of food/grains production to be allocated to 'public stockholdings'.

However, this is based on calculations dating back to 1986-1988 and therefore not in step with inflation figures.

While India is staying strong in the negotiations, asking for a permanent solution on food security, US Secretary of State, John Kerry is unsympathetic and playing games with peoples lives:

Secretary of state John Kerry, before starting for India on Wednesday morning, had expressed the hope that India’s opposition to TFA would wither away, adding that this was a test case for the country’s commitment to advance liberalisation of global trade and investment.  [source - here]

Hmmmm ... let's see, 'test case' for 'liberalisation of global trade' VERSUS 'food security' ... and John Kerry's hoping these countries' food needs are just going to 'wither away'?

Never mind food.  Let's make PROFIT and let's sell WEAPONS.

China and Pakistan, also parties to the proposed agreement, are ready to sign the WTO trade agreement set before them.

China, I figured, is cashed up.  Oddly, it's not very community minded for a communist nation (or are they no longer communists?).

What's Pakistan's story?

Pakistan looks like it's 'owned' by 'US and company', judging by the amount of US financial support it has received and continues to receive, as well as financial support from US allies and the IMF.


What I found shocking is that the amount of US support Pakistan has received is almost as much as the US contribution request for World Bank's allocation to 81 of the world's poorest countries!

Apparently, large portions of the US aid in Pakistan go on military spending.

The guess is that the US supplies Pakistan with arms, so the money would go from the US public purse back to back to US private military manufacturing companies.

What I'm unclear about is what is a freebie and what is repayable by Pakistan.

It looks like there may be non-reimbursable portions of US aid, which is what?  Is that non-repayable?

Well if 'reimbursable' is repayable, non-reimbursable must be non-repayable. 

Until 1990, the United States provided military aid to Pakistan to modernize its conventional defensive capability. The United States allocated about 40% of its assistance package to non-reimbursable credits for military purchases, the third-largest program behind Israel and Egypt.

The remainder of the aid program was devoted to economic assistance.

Sanctions put in place in 1990 denied Pakistan further military assistance due to the discovery of its program to develop nuclear weapons. Sanctions were tightened following Pakistan's nuclear tests in response to India's May 1998 tests and the military coup of 1999. The events of September 11, 2001 and Pakistan's quick agreement to support the United States led to a waiving of the sanctions, and military assistance resumed to provide spare parts and equipment to enhance Pakistan's capacity to police its western border. In 2003, President Bush announced that the United States would provide Pakistan with $3 billion in economic and military aid over 5 years. This assistance package commenced during FY 2005. [source - US Dept of State - http://www.state.gov/outofdate/bgn/pakistan/47936.htm]

Receipt of non-repayable money sounds pretty good.  Send some my way.  LOL.
 
As for the Nuclear weapons?  We're all doomed! 

Anyway, that's a bit of a fill-in on Pakistan, which might be handy if you're anything like me and clueless about what's going on.  LOL.

WTO TALKS - INDIA STAYING STRONG

WTO talks down to the wire, India holds out fe Bureau | New Delhi | Published: Jul 31 2014, 01:08 IST Even as Thursday’s deadline for signing the protocol for the trade facilitation agreement (TFA) at the WTO loomed large, India remained obdurate, asserting that the pact — expected to ease customs rules and potentially add $1 trillion to the world economy — could not be a done deal till it saw progress on the food security issue. Visiting the US commerce secretary Penny Pritzker, however, sounded optimistic about finding a solution to the vexed issue “over the next couple of days”. Secretary of state John Kerry, before starting for India on Wednesday morning, had expressed the hope that India’s opposition to TFA would wither away, adding that this was a test case for the country’s commitment to advance liberalisation of global trade and investment. Kerry arrived in India in the evening on a three-day visit. ... http://www.financialexpress.com/news/wto-talks-down-to-the-wire-india-holds-out/1275271

WTO (World Trade Organisation).

Re:  adoption of free trade facilitation protocol for Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA).

WTO is negotiating an easing of 'customs and rules'.

WTO says 'public stockholdings' of food/grain must not exceed 10% of grains produced by a country. 

But this is on the basis of a 1986-1988 stockholdings 'base price', and India is challenging on the basis of rising INFLATION.

Hey, I learnt about inflation. 

So the WTO 10% (dollar?) figure doesn't take into account rising inflation and India is like a trade union for food/grain reserves, asking for the reserve to be brought up in step with inflation?

Fair call, India.

India points out that there's a potential $1 TRILLION to the world economy coffers.  Go India! 

India standing firm:  insists no shift in its stand.

India wants TFA implemented ONLY as part of SINGLE UNDERTAKING ... INCLUDING the PERMANENT SOLUTION ON FOOD SECURITY.

For Food Security Against Food Security WORLD TRADE ORGANISATION vs FOOD SECURITY INDIA CHINA CUBA PAKISTAN BOLIVIA VENEZUELA

Deadline is on 31 July 2014.  Support of two-thirds of member countries is required to implement the TFP.

India suggested a postponement of adoption of TFP and outlined steps towards resolution by a date in December.

*Note:  there is a couple of other issues at stake. Bali Package (a big one) ... and LDC.

Bali Package is yet another trade agreement 'to lower trade barriers'.

LDC issues relate to Least Developed Country ... it's a United Nations designation of a country (I think) on the basis of:

lowest indicators of socio-economic development, with the lowest Human Development Index ratings of all countries in the world.  [wikipedia]

So there is some formula the UN apply for rankings of countries on socio-economic development.

Formula:  (1) Poverty assessment (2) Human Resource assessment (ie the labour force) (3) Economic Vulnerability ... eg. are exports stable etc.

Gee, sounds like estimating the quality of cattle.

All this stuff is worked out by economists and I guess it affects the trade deals that countries are party to and, I think, the concessions that countries may receive.

As I'm new to looking at politics and economics, this information is best double-checked.  LOL.

This is just my take at the moment.

Stand firm India ... world economy wants those trillions.

PS ... Love how John Kerry wants India's opposition to 'wither away'.  Bet he does.  LOL.

US NAVY PLAY DATE - JAPAN & INDIA

Another US navy play-date.

This time with India (accompanied by Japan).

Wall Street Journal Article [...] Japan, backed by the U.S., has launched a diplomatic offensive to draw other Asian countries into a more united front against China, which has been butting heads with its neighbors in the East China Sea and South China Sea. India, likewise, has accused Chinese troops of making repeated incursions into Indian-controlled parts of the Himalayas. The two countries fought a 1962 war over their Himalayan border. Indian officials have also grown concerned about China's presence in the Indian Ocean, which India sees as within its sphere of influence and which encompasses critical transit routes for shipments of Mideast oil to India as well as to China, Japan and the rest of East Asia. Beijing has bankrolled port construction in Pakistan and Sri Lanka, and its navy has been more active in the region. China, for its part, has sought to improve economic relations with India. [...] As part of the U.S.'s strategic pivot to Asia, the U.S. has announced plans to shift a bulk of its naval assets to the region within the next decade and increase the number of military exercises it conducts. SOURCE - WSJ - here.

As usual, the US is in the midst of bickering and is making the most of the opportunities it affords.

Looks like there's some gang-gathering going on as well, and Japan's been deputised to form the Asian posse.

China's put up the cash for ports at Pakistan and Sri Lanka, which is impressive.

And the weird part:  US planning on shifting bulk naval assets to Asian region in next decade.