Posted on 03/01/2006 8:09:39 PM PST by NormsRevenge
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton said on Wednesday the way India and Pakistan had obtained nuclear arms was legitimate, in contrast to Iran which he accused of pursuing atomic weapons in violation of its international undertakings.
While Iran is seeking to conceal development of nuclear weapons under the guise of a legitimate program to generate nuclear power, Bolton said, India and Pakistan "did it legitimately."
His comments, made in response to an audience question following a speech to a meeting of the World Jewish Congress, appeared to go farther than the administration of President George W. Bush has previously gone in embracing the two nations' nuclear programs.
They also coincide with a visit by Bush to India in which the United States is offering New Delhi de facto recognition of its nuclear arms program. Bush is due to travel to Pakistan from India.
The United States imposed punitive sanctions on India after it tested a nuclear bomb in 1998. In the same year, the U.N. Security Council unanimously passed a resolution condemning India and Pakistan for their nuclear weapons tests.
Under a deal India and the United States agreed in principle in July 2005, New Delhi would commit itself to certain international nonproliferation standards including putting its civilian nuclear facilities under international inspection.
In return it would gain access to U.S. civilian nuclear technology, including fuel and reactors, that it was denied for 30 years. India's military facilities would not be subject to inspections under the deal.
At the same time, the U.S. administration is pressing Iran to turn its back on a program to enrich uranium on its own soil, a plan Tehran insists is intended only to produce electric power but which Washington insists aims to develop nuclear bombs.
Bolton noted that neither India nor Pakistan had ever signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, intended to contain the spread of atomic arms, while Iran had done so.
"I give them (India and Pakistan) credit at least that what they did was consistent with the obligations they undertook," Bolton said.
"They never pretended that they had given up the pursuit of nuclear weapons. They never tried to tie what they were doing under a cloak of international legitimacy. They did it openly and they did it legitimately," he said.
The 1998 Security Council resolution called on India and Pakistan to stop all nuclear development programs immediately and urged other states to stop selling either country equipment that could be used in atomic arms.
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton speaks to an audience in New York February 25, 2006. Bolton said on Wednesday the way India and Pakistan had obtained nuclear arms was legitimate, in contrast to Iran which he accused of pursuing atomic weapons in violation of its international undertakings. REUTERS/Seth Wenig
Bolton is a good man and doesn't allow wishful thinking to cloud assessment of reality.
"I give them (India and Pakistan) credit at least that what they did was consistent with the obligations they undertook," Bolton said.
"They never pretended that they had given up the pursuit of nuclear weapons. They never tried to tie what they were doing under a cloak of international legitimacy. They did it openly and they did it legitimately," he said.
Oh, that makes things better. At least the Paks' "father of nuclear weapons" exported the weaponary knowledge for cash. So this thinking is, be open in the fact you want nuclear weapons to blow up your neighbor, and its okay.
Has Bolton been chewing the corner of his mustache too long? I like him, but this is a head scratcher.
THis idiot Bolton is one of the nuts who got us into the Iraq mess. He's now praising Pakistan, even though Osama is hiding out there.
Why in hell don't we care about getting Osama - the evil villain who did 9-11? Bolton's got an agenda, and it isn't responding to 9-11. It's invading Iraq and Iran, and spinning any excuse, however, incredible for doing so.
N Korea also 'withdrew' from the NPT.
The problem with first signing the NPT , using int'l help in setting up a nuke inidustry and AFTER doing so, withdrawing is that you essentially have to lie to do so. NPT doesn't have any 'voluntary withdrawal' clause in its setup charter.
Its like the US not wanting to join the int'l criminal court because we don't agree with it. Joining and then 'withdrawing' when US soldiers are tried is dishonest.
In any case, Bolton's praising Pakistan is nuts. Not after AQ Khan proliferating nukes to mideast and N Korea.
What is this "Iraq mess" you're squealing about?
Iraq is a going concern. STFU, observe and quit your whining.
If Bush's gamble fails then you can squeal like a pig.....call us in a decade.
I am observing, and it's a mess. If you can't see that, then you're the one who is willfully blind.
Boy old Winston sure f***** up in Germany didn't he. It took more than a decade to get them up and running so I guess that means he was a failure.
L
You're the product of a microwave oven culture who expects complex historical events to reach a conclusion overnight.
This may work, this may fail...but for God sakes man, this stuff is going to years to shake itself out.
Bush took a risk...he took the existing chess board and knocked the table over. How's it going to play out? Success..failure? Who knows?
Idiots like you who are already declaring failure when the history is ongoing are an embarrassment.
What churchill is that? Ward churchill?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.