It seems the direction of this thread thus far seems to concern Iran. All 4 posts seem to point out what I was planning to say: that the nuclear non-proliferation treaty serves a chiefly political function - and "non-proliferation" is defined by certain powerful states over lesser ones.
Although I might make an exception to N. Korea. For one thing, I'm a bit surprised that The Bush Administration has actually softened its stance on North Korea (despite North Koreans' belligerence) and has come down even harsher on Iran (who hasn't been making much noise).
So I openly wonder: who exactly defines the management & regulation of nuclear technology?
And looks like there might be a new state which will go nuclear soon - with some unusual reactions.
Quote:
Indonesia’s Eco-jihad?
November 4, 2008 (Tuesday)
FROM: TodayOnline (Singapore)
EXPECT a “confrontation” between the state and lay Muslims if Jakarta moves ahead with its nuclearisation plans without securing the consent of the national council of Islamic clerics, one of Indonesia’s leading environmental activists warned recently.
Indonesia plans to build its first nuclear power plant in the earthquake-prone region of Jepara in central Java by 2010.
“If the Majlis Ugama Indonesia (MUI) does not give the green light for this project, the people may take up the cause of eco-jihad to the streets,” said Mr Fachruddin M Mangunjaya of Conservation International Indonesia. He spoke to Today recently, on the sidelines of a seminar on Islam and conservation in Indonesia held at the University of Edinburgh. The prospect of “eco-jihad” had been raised earlier by a member of the audience.
|
It'll be interesting to see how the international community will handle this one, considering the implications involved.