The Economist’s article on India and the China-Pakistan nuclear deal.
The Economist ran an article (h/t Anantha Nageswaran) on June 24, 2010 on the China-Pakistan nuclear deal. Or so the title of the article suggested. However, a closer inspection will take you, the reader, through an elaborate labyrinth of half-truths, baffling arguments and sweeping generalizations. They all come to a close, not as one might expect, with a stern rebuke of China and Pakistan’s nuclear shenanigans, but with an admonition of India’s “growing nuclear arsenal.”
The writer should have stopped writing when it was clear that this was going to be the article’s first sentence:
China’s proposed sale of nuclear reactors to Pakistan will intensify nuclear rivalry with India.
The Economist fails to makes no attempt to substantiate the statement. The argument is lazy and fallacious, and deserves to be challenged. But the fun doesn’t end there. With regard to the India–U.S. nuclear deal, the article contends:
America argued that India had a spotless non-proliferation record (it doesn’t) and that bringing it into the non-proliferation “mainstream” could only bolster global anti-proliferation efforts (it didn’t).
Raise your hand if you’d like an explanation on India’s supposedly blemished non-proliferation record. Let us say, for argument’s sake, that the writer is alluding to India’s use of fissile material from the CIRUS research reactor towards its first nuclear test in 1974. This act by India could be called a lot of things, but nuclear proliferation, it most certainly wasn’t. Moreover, India’s actions were neither an infraction of any international treaties nor of agreements it had with Canada or the U.S.
The article’s final paragraph, though, is an absolute zinger:
If Pakistan really is worried about India’s growing nuclear arsenal, diplomacy might work better than an arms race. George Perkovich of the Carnegie Endowment, a think tank, says Pakistan should lift its veto on a ban on the production of fissile materials for bombs. That would put India (which claims to support a ban) on the spot. Like enriched uranium, hypocrisy can be costlier than it seems.
Really? India’s growing nuclear arsenal? Just last year, U.S. CJCS Admiral Mike Mullen, commented on Pakistan’s rapidly growing nuclear arms in a testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee. Adm. Mullen’s observations were further corroborated by reports by The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists and The Federation of American Scientists. That being the case, it should be pretty clear which country’s been adding to its nuclear stockpile like nukes are about to go out of fashion.
The bigger issue with the article though, is its defense of the discriminatory nature of the existing non-proliferation order, and the convoluted arguments it employs to suggest that “renegade” nuclear powers like India have endangered non-proliferation regimes (most of which came into force, by the way, after the Big Five had acquired enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world several times over).
And if the hypocrisy of the article isn’t immediately apparent, a gander at the accompanying chart, which displays the status of all nuclear weapons’ programs, excluding those of NPT nuclear powers (as if they were somehow above scrutiny), should put all skepticism to rest.