The Economist has an anti-Indian article this week. It is urging other nations not to sell nuclear material and technology to India.
The US-India civilian nuclear energy agreement is only the first step to ending India’s isolation in nuclear technology.The 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), which includes the US, still has to ease restrictions on exports to India. India also has to meet International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards. The Economist urges them to block nuclear cooperation with India:
Governments at the NSG and the IAEA that are unhappy with (the US-India deal ) need to find the courage of their convictions, and block it.
It trots out the old argument that nuclear cooperation with India, which has not signed the non-proliferation treaty, will encourage other countries like Iran to develop their own nuclear weapons. It points out:
China, unhappy at America's coddling of India, is exploring more nuclear co-operation with Pakistan — which in turn threatens to match India, should it step up weapons production or test again.
But that’s why India has not signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty -– for its own security. China, with which it fought a border war in 1962, was already a nuclear power when India conducted its first nuclear test in 1974, and Pakistan is also now a nuclear power.
The Economist frets about the dangers of nuclear proliferation. But so far the opposite has been true. There have been no wars between nuclear powers.
Of course, there is the danger of nuclear material falling into the hands of terrorists. But that could happen anywhere.
So why rail against India?
The Economist may say it’s not alone in raising objections. But compare its article with another which appeared in the International Herald Tribune recently. The latter doesn't t urge other nations to continue nuclear sanctions against India.
English prejudices
The fact is, the Economist is deeply prejudiced. It almost invariably finds some reason to criticise countries in Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe and Latin America.
But I wouldn’t call it racist. It’s simply English. It even whinged about the Scottish Gordon Brown for not having the same gift of the gab as Tony Blair, who of course is English.
The Economist prides itself on its “intelligence”. But it has been patently wrong on major issues. It supported the Iraq war. It wanted Clinton impeached. It even declared Blair a better politician than Clinton. How English can you get?
