Mike the Usurper wrote:
Tom, those aren't what we're talking about. That's a side issue with NPT, not the sanctions put in place in response to the 1998 test.
Mike, those organizations were added to the entity list in 1998 in response to the test. As I said, I personally worked with these sanctions. Just because it deals with the same country, they do not exist for the same reasons, which you would be aware of if you'd read the link I provided on this. Or maybe, if you'd read your own link you would have seen this.
They do exist for the same reasons. Here is BXA's summary from the rule change made in November of 1998 that added those entities to the entity list: The Bureau of Export Administration ("BXA") is taking a number of sanctions measures consistent with the President’s directives of May 13th and May 30th. Consistent with the provisions of section 102(b)(2)(G) of the Arms Export Control Act, BXA is revising the Export Administration Regulations ("EAR") to codify sanctions against India and Pakistan by setting forth a licensing policy of denial for exports and reexports of items controlled for nuclear nonproliferation and missile technology reasons to India and Pakistan, with limited exceptions. This licensing policy was adopted in practice in existing regulations in June 1998. This rule also contains certain discretionary measures that are being taken. BXA is adding to the Entities List set forth in the EAR certain Indian and Pakistani government, parastatal, and private entities determined to be involved in nuclear or missile activities. In addition, Indian and Pakistani military entities are added to the Entity List in order to supplement the sanctions. BXA is adopting a licensing policy of a presumption of denial with respect to items specifically listed on the Commerce Control List to listed Indian and Pakistani military entities, with limited exceptions. This rule will increase the number of license applications submitted for India and Pakistan. This rule is effective November 19, 1998. Comments on this rule must be received on or before January 19, 1999.
... September 2001: U.S. President George W. Bush waives U.S. economic sanctions against India and Pakistan originally imposed as a penalty for their nuclear weapons tests conducted in 1998. The New York Times suggests that the United States undertook this measure to reward those nations assisting in the "war on terrorism."
Yes, it does say that. Yes, that is an oversimplification. Are there more complications? Sure. Is my assessment of the intent of the Bush Administration overly simplistic? Vaguely, in the sense that I don't get into the motives of people like the folks who put together PNAC.
What you said was "We care about NPT when it comes to Iraq, but not India." Having been personally unable to do business with India, during the reign of the Bush administration, because of U.S. government regulations that were designed to constrain the development of offensive nuclear weapons, I have to say that based on my direct personal experience you are absolutely 100% wrong about that. I know it doesn't fit well into a frothing partisan rant to acknowledge that the people on the other side are not completely insane and or crooked in every single action that they take, but actual reality isn't that simple. The Bush administration did significantly reduce the sanctions on India and Pakistan shortly after the 9/11 attacks. This was obviously non-optimal, but attacks clearly changed our priorities. The US government obviously needed assistance from those governments and loosening the sanctions was necessary in order to get it. As far as I can tell the sanctions were loosened in a structured way that was designed to incent assistance and removed punitive measures without opening the flood gates for weapons technology transfer. If you are under the impression that the Bush administration does not want India and Pakistan to sign NPT, I think you're nuts. Its patently obvious that the US would prefer that, regardless of which administration is in control, and its also patently obvious that there are higher national security priorities in the region at this time, and that being hard assess about it just isn't practical right now. RE: Bush: Threat of World War III if Iran goes nuclear - Yahoo! News | 
