US-India Deal Encounters Problems with NSG

The Financial Times reports that the US-India nuclear deal has encountered problems being approved by the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). The NSG was largely a creation of the US to enforce non-proliferation export controls by developed countries. We have over the years been the main country pressing for stricter controls. Now we want looser controls, and the rest of the developed world says, "Hey, wait a minute."

US policy on non-proliferation has turned 180 degrees. But the US is likely to get what it wants eventually, because most other countries have been more interested in selling than in controlling nuclear equipment and technology. For them the NSG was sort of a fig leaf that let them say, "We looked at the proliferation impact of this sale, and it's okay; so, the sale is going forward." For the US, the NSG was a way to keep potentially dangerous sales to a minimum, by actually blocking some sales. Now the US is leading the pack, saying, "Let's sell." The others, particularly nuclear vendors like the French and the Germans, for example, will probably quickly join us. Some smaller countries that truly worry about proliferation, perhaps Sweden and Switzerland, may drag their feet. It will probably mean the end of the NSG as an effective deterrent to proliferation. Every time another country wants to make a sale that we don't like, they'll say, "What about your deal with India?" And the sale will go forward.

One of the first tests may well be Russian sales of nuclear equipment to Iran.

When I was Science Counselor at the American Embassy in Warsaw, Poland, I worked with Polish Ambassador Strulak, who was Poland's main NSG expert, on NSG issues.

More on Israeli Lobby Article

The Christian Science Monitor has an update on Israeli response to the previously mentioned article on the amazing influence of the Israeli Lobby on US foreign policy. It says that while most Israeli and American Jewish commentators have condemned it, some have said that it is a wake-up call that requires discussion.

The Wall Street Journal has had two editorials condemning the article. Interestingly, the article names the WSJ as a newspaper strongly favorable to Israel, which the second editorial, "The Israel Conspiracy" in today's edition, confirms. The earlier op-ed, "Israel Lobby" by Ruth Wisse, a professor of Yiddish literature at Harvard, appeared in the March 22 edition. She implies that the authors are anti-Semitic. She says that a comparison of their article with an 1879 German one "might highlight some American refinements on the European model, such as the anti-Semitic lie that 'Israeli citizenship is based on the principle of blood kinship.' In fact, unlike neighboring Arab countries, Israeli citizenship is not conditional on religion or race." She concludes, "Their insistence that American support for Israel is bought and paid for by the Lobby heaps scorn on American judgment and values."

Today's editorial by Bret Stephens says:

The authors are at pains to note that the Israel Lobby is by no means exclusively Jewish, and that not every American Jew is a part of it. Fair enough. But has there ever been an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory that does not share its basic features? Dual loyalty, disloyalty, manipulation of the media, financial manipulation of the political system, duping the goyim (gentiles) and getting them to fight their wars, sponsoring and covering up acts of gratuitous cruelty against an innocent people -- every canard ever alleged of the Jews is here made about the Israel Lobby and its cause.

Both editorials condemn the article by noting that ex-Ku Klux Klansman David Duke has praised it, thus implying guilt by association.

These editorials demonstrate that you cannot criticize Israel or the Israel Lobby without being branded as "anti-Semitic." What if this issue is not about race, but about genuine political and foreign policy matters? The "anti-Semitic" sobriquet is in today's world equivalent to Senator McCarthy's "communist" name-calling in his day.

Mid-East Policy in Shambles

I want to give kudos to Mid-East special envoy (or whatever he is) James Wolfensohn. He has been a voice in the wilderness calling for something to be done about the Palestinian situation, as reported by the Washington Post. Administration officials seem to be immobilized by the election of Hamas and Ariel Sharon's incapacitation. But the Iraq invasion was supposed (in retrospect, after WMD failed to show) to be about bringing peace to the Middle East through the creation of democratic institutions. As Wolfensohn has pointed out, things are in danger of spinning out of control, into chaos if not into greater armed conflict.

I have not been a fan of Wolfensohn. I thought his appointment was bad because he was Jewish and would be too favorable to Israel to do his job. But he has turned out to be a friend of the Palestinians in this crisis, and I congratulate him for it. He probably thinks that ultimately Israel will benefit if a peaceful solution can be found, but that's fine, and I compliment him for that, too.

Orange Revolution Fading in Ukraine

After the euphoria of the Orange Revolution in Ukraine last year, the country appears on the verge of returning to its old eastward-looking, Russian policies. As the BBC reports, upcoming elections seem likely to return the russophiles to power.

American news networks don't seem interested, and neither does the American government. It doesn't need any more bad news on top of the bad news from Iraq. Condi Rice is supposed to be a Russian specialist; where is she? Meanwhile, the elections in Belarus seem to have maintained in power the party that favors Russia. And, Putin and Hu sign a big energy deal. In the old cold war days, a Russian-Chinese alliance would have worried everybody in the West. Things have changed, but have they changed enough so that we don't have to worry about this? There are rumors that the US is preparing to somehow support Taiwanese claims of independence. What if Russia, with all its old, cold-war nuclear missiles, sides with China in such a dispute?