Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:37:21 -0400 
From: "Arun K. Gupta" <ag3l+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Russia/India Sanctions


Continuing with the examination of Wales Larrison's article:

(Russia/India Sanctions):

The more I look the less I find there to be anything credible about the
article.
I put what I find vs. the statements made in the article.



>What about US or French firms offering the same deal to India?
>   There were some rumors from ISRO that General Dynamics and
>Arianespace had offered substantially the same deal to ISRO before
>the Russian deal, and the sanctions were "commercial" retaliation
>for ISRO not giving them the contract.  I did some calling around
>and based upon available data believe this rumor is false.
 
Orbis,  Winter 1991: Can Missile Proliferation Be Reversed ?
by Kathleen Bailey.
Begin quote
Page 11: The debate over the ability of MTCR partners to assist other
states' space programs has put the MTCR at risk. In 1989, France offered
to sell rocket motor technology to Brazil and India. It said that the end-use
assurances offered by both recepients were sufficient, that the MTCR allows
such cooperation, and that France has the sovereign right to sell if it wishes.
End quote.
[etc.... offer put on hold under US pressure].
*****************************

Notice that the above statement was made *before* the Russian/Indian deal
drew any attention.

A statement was made in the Indian Parliament to the effect that the
Arianespace deal was turned down by ISRO because it was more expensive
than the Soviet deal. (See Indian newspapers around beginning of May.)
(At that time I didn't give much credence to that statement. Now I think
it is true. Because India didn't want the deal, it didn't draw much attention,
unlike the Brazil deal, and so Mr. Larrison hasn't a clue about it: that is my
hypothesis.)

The charge that the US was attempting to monopolize the market was 
charged by a Soviet official (see Nature, Flight International, around May 15).

Not exactly rumor.
*****************************

>  Back in the late 1980's the US and most other industrialized
>countries signed a set of treaties called the Missile Control
>Technology Regime (MCTR).  This treaty, which has the force of law
>within the US, is designed to slow or prevent the further spread of
>weapons of mass destruction - in this case missiles which are
>capable of delivering nuclear weapons.  (India has nuclear weapons -
>they've tested them.)  

First: India has made one nuclear explosion -- in 1974, so the plural
is inappropriate. Secondly, the device was too large in geometric dimensions
to be put onto any military plane, (read any of the conferences on third
world nuclear proliferation) and can hardly be called a weapon.

About MTCR:(its MTCR not MCTR)

Quoting Orbis again: (in a section titled "The Problems with MTCR")

"The MTCR is not a treaty or legal obligation. The MTCR relies on an
understanding among the partners. In 1989, when legislation was introduced
in the U.S. Congress to create sanctions against those caught in violation of
MTCR guidelines, Bush administration officials objected. They pointed out
that the MTCR is not a legally binding document, and that it recognizes the
final decision on any export belongs to the sovereign partners individually.
Washington cannot impose its will or its interpretation."

Flipping back a page:

"The MTCR partners also agreed on some basic ground rules for export control.
(i) All transfers would be considered on a case- by- case
basis.........(iv) The decision
to export would remain the sole and sovereign judgement of the
individual govt."

Contrast it with this:

>Ariane/ESA (and the French government) could not offer
>engine technology under the MCTR -- and if they did they would also
>get slapped with sanctions by the other signatories of the MCTR.

Moreover, according to the article, USSR had said it would join the MTCR soon,
but hasn't.
****************************************


>These regulations have been signed by about 50 nations.

You must be sick of Orbis by now. , "Issues in Science and Technology"
Fall 1991,
(The Politics of Proliferation, Janne Nolan) :
"The centerpiece of current policy is the Missile Technology Control Regime
(MTCR) a consensual supplier cartel forged among seven industrial countries
in 1987. Eleven countries now participate in the regime: the US,
Britain, Canada,
France, Italy, Germany, Japan, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and
Spain."

China may have agreed since. Notice no Soviet Union. Also, no Israel,
South Africa,
Taiwan, North Korea.  

Also, there is no question of non-missile countries entering the regime.
Quoting from
Orbis again :

"In constrast [to nuclear non-proliferation treaties, where have-nots
agree that they
will not], the MTCR is imposed on those without missile technology by
those with 
missile technology. There has been no attempt to establish a voluntary
international,
verifiable regime to limit the spread of missile technology."

*******************************************************************


Fifty countries ? Treaty ?  French offer to sell India technology only a
rumor ? 
The Soviet Union a signatory of the MTCR ? The following ?

>Ariane/ESA (and the French government) could not offer
>engine technology under the MCTR -- and if they did they would also
>get slapped with sanctions by the other signatories of the MCTR.

I'm sorry,  I don't believe a word of what you say now, Mr. Wales Larrison.
Good try, but the party line that you spout just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

-arun gupta
ag3L@andrew.cmu.edu







Newsgroups: talk.politics.space