India tests a nuclear-capable Agni-III intercontinental ballistic missile(ICBM).
Where is the international condemnation and calls for the UN Security Council to debate repercussions?
This is in no way trying to equate the governments or intentions of India and North Korea, but to point out the hypocrisy of international and US response as well as differences reported by the media. Recall that Iran is a party of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, while India is not. Also, India has a history of war with it neighbors and been closer more recently to such a war (Pakistan in 2001) than Iran.
Check out the difference reported between BBC and Reuters versions of the story.
BBC, India tests new ballistic missile:
Analysts say the Agni-III dramatically increases the range of targets which India could hit.
“This means that India has entered an altogether different league of nations, a new club,” Rahul Bedi of Jane’s Defence Weekly told Reuters.
“We can now reach large parts of northern China, making our deterrence capacity stronger. Also, when a country is able to develop a missile which can travel 3,500km, it is not difficult to make something that can go 5,000km.
“Very few nations have that capacity.”
Reuters, India successfully tests its longest-range missile :
Analysts say the successful test pushed India into a new phase in its long-term nuclear defense strategy.
“This means that India has entered an altogether different league of nations, a new club,” Rahul Bedi, India correspondent of Jane’s Defense Weekly, told Reuters.
“We can now reach large parts of northern China making our deterrence capacity stronger. Also, when a country is able to develop a missile which can travel 3,500 km, it is not difficult to make something that can go 5,000 km.
“Very few nations have that capacity.”
Will portraying this as a defense strategy be how India’s nuclear ballistic missle test will be downplayed in the American media soon to be described as their “missile shield” program?
Will this have any effect on Bush’s U.S.-Indian nuclear deal, which the Senate panel overwhelmingly endorsed?
Senate Committee approval came on a 16-2 vote. The debate preceding the vote lasted almost 90 minutes.
Senator after senator highlighted the proposal as a historic turning point in U.S-India relationship that has often been unfriendly.
The negative votes were cast by Sens. Russell Feingold and Barbara Boxer.
Or will Russ Feingold be right again:
The committee rejected by 13-5 an amendment from Feingold to require Bush to provide assurances that India was not taking advantage of the agreement by diverting nuclear fuel to its atomic weapons program.
