A famous history professor at Yale wrote (recently reproduced in Indian Express) that the West became rich by LEARNING how to kill. They got the dynamite invented by Chinese and made guns to kill others and occupy others' lands. They are now preaching morals.
The famous George Will writes in Washington Post today:
He [Clinton] has helped China, by technology
transfers, to develop nuclear weapons and delivery systems. He has been
relaxed about China's helping Pakistan toward nuclear capability. He is startled
that India wants nuclear weapons.
India, although provoked by recent U.S. policy, would have acquired nuclear
weapons anyway. With a population 45 percent larger than the combined
populations of four of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security
Council (the United States, Great Britain, France, Russia), India is not
impressed by "international norms" defined by others to ratify their advantages.
Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser to presidents Ford and Bush, and his
colleague in a Washington consulting firm, David Sloan, express (in the Los
Angeles Times) the foreign policy elite's dreamy disappointment that India has
affronted "international norms." India, they say, must decide whether to "rejoin
the global community." But it is peculiar to speak of a "global community" with
India's one-fifth of the world's population exiled (by whom?) therefrom.
And what is the pertinent "norm"? That there shall be no nuclear proliferation?
Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter's national security adviser, notes that
U.S. policy (not quite the same thing as an "international norm") "all along has
been one of selective and preferential proliferation." U.S. policy openly helped
Britain to become a nuclear power, less openly assisted France, and did not
become exercised about Israel's developing such weapons. |
