More on 1172

Sean-Paul Kelley was kind enough to “link”:http://agonist.org/sean_paul_kelley/20080906/india_pakistan_and_nukes to “this post”:http://www.totalwonkerr.net/1703/unsc-on-india-and-pakistan about UNSCR 1172.

One of his readers wrote in to say:

bq. “Sean-Paul, just fyi, I think that that comment you referred to by Paul misunderstands what the UNSC resolution in question in fact does (even for the UN the text is clear enough). It calls on India and Pakistan to become signatories to the NPT. If they were to have done so, then they would not be allowed to have weapons. They didn’t sign up, however, nor could that particular UNSC resolution or any other force them to do so.”

I’m honestly not sure what this person thinks I got wrong. Article 25 says what it says, but it is true that the council took no action to try and force India and Pakistan to accede to the NPT.

1 thought on “More on 1172

  1. Sourav

    Hmmm … will be difficult to force something on someone, especially if this is based on inequality.

    Let’s be friends, mate. Or, give “one” logical reason that would justify the point that India can’t, and the US can be nuclear.

    Or may be I should give some reasons why Indians can and why the US shouldn’t have nuclear weapons.

    1. India, unlike the US, has never used her nuclear arms to kill other people.

    2. India, unlike the US, has never threatened another non-nuclear country to use nuclear against.

    3. And most importantly, India, unlike the US, has a no-first use policy.

    Now, I’m sure that you are going red reading me. Tell me I’m wrong!

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *