0

See this video from 1:10. Bill Clinton says,

"I continue to urge him to refrain from testing and I told them that I had done everything I could do to get other world leaders involved and both supporting him if he would refrain from testing and encouraging Indians not to further aggravate the situation with precipitous comments or action in Kashmir or elsewhere."

See this video from 0:09. Bill Clinton says,

"First I deplore the decision. By failing to exercise restraint in responding to the Indian tests, Pakistan lost a truly priceless opportunity to strengthen its own security, to improve its political standing in the eyes of the world and although Pakistan was not the first to test, two wrongs don't make a right. I have made it clear to the leaders of Pakistan that we have no choice but to impose sanctions pursuant to the Glenn amendment as is required by law."

Here, I have two questions,

  1. When India had already detonated those bombs, why and how did he expect that Pakistanis would refrain from testing?
  2. What did he mean by "truly priceless opportunity"? What could have been better than detonating a bomb to show India what Pakistan was capable of?

Now, see this important video.

First, see how US official is condemning Pakistan's decision which was not visible just two weeks ago when India did the same.

"The United States deplores Pakistan's decision to test the nuclear explosive device. This further raises tension in South Asia, undermines the global consensus on non-proliferation. We think Pakistan's test is a huge mistake, we deplore it's action we think it's going to raise tensions in South Asia accelerate an arms race. We call on the governments of India to not conduct any further tests to stop increasing tensions in the region, to sign the comprehensive test ban treaty and to bring stability to a very tense region.

See also what Joseph Cirincione had to say.

... They failed to come down heavy on India, failed to impose sanctions together against India. Now they're reaping the consequences, Pakistan thinks it can get away with it perhaps withstand sanctions.

This means they implicated India only because Pakistan came into play. Otherwise, India was at large.

And, finally, see this video.

Here, I have two more questions,

  1. Where was UNSC when India tested first on 18 May 1974 and 11 May 1998?
  2. Why did UNSC become concerned after Pakistan's tests on 28 May 1998? (looked like they were hibernating until Pakistan came out with its own tests)

Final and the million dollar question is,

Doesn't this show the West's inherent bias towards India?

This question was virtually also asked by Nawaz Sharif in this video.

  • I feel this question has been edited too many times, that it no longer reflects the original questions asked in revision 1/2/3 - as such answers that may have previously been given may no longer be valid for the new question. – SleepingGod May 30 '17 at 9:05
  • @SleepingGod, original questions have been retained. – user4514 May 30 '17 at 9:27
  • When India had already detonated those bombs, why and how did he expect that Pakistanis would refrain from testing?, Indeed. This shows complete lack of understanding of South Asian Politics by Mr. Clinton and his advisors. Indo-Pak politics doesn't work that way. Moreover his assurances of getting sympathy and making India not issuing provocative comments or adventures in Kashmir would have just reminded Pakistanis of 1971 war when they kept waiting for that elusive American fleet even though Soviet union was openly on side of India. American promises are considered worthless in Asia. – NSNoob May 30 '17 at 12:06
  • Seeing as how North Korea got their technology for nukes from Pakistan, and then shared that with Iran, perhaps we're talking about a justified concerns instead of a bias. However, since the US immediately issued strong and official condemnation of the Indian tests, I think the overall premise is a flawed one. – PoloHoleSet Jun 1 '17 at 19:39
  • 3
    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because based on a false premise, not reality. – PoloHoleSet Jun 1 '17 at 19:54
3

According to UN Resolution 1172 on 6th June 1998, the UNSC condemned both India and Pakistans nuclear tests of 1998.

You are right however that India tested first, when they detonated the Smiling Buddha/Pokhran-I bomb in May 1974, but you are wrong in your assertion that India was not condemned for it.

The Nuclear Supplier Group was set up in reaction to the Pkhran-I tests, as the world simply didn't know how to react. India was the first non UNSC member to develop nuclear weapons, and proved you could do it with peaceful nuclear technology. At that time India was not (and still isn't)a signatory to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, so most countries didn't have a legal recourse to condemn the tests. Indeed France sent India a congratulatory telegram (but later withdrew it), most countries were quite preoccupied in the existing cold war between the USA and USSR to afford to alienate India a founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement e.g. if USA was too harsh to condemn it, they risked a new huge nuclear armed country siding openly with the USSR. Canada however was annoyed that India had violated a 1971 agreement between the two countries relating to the transfer of peaceful nuclear technology, and froze nuclear energy assistance to India for two years. Also until the 1998 tests, India maintained a position of Nuclear Ambiguity, that is they refused to say whether or not they actually possessed nuclear weapons.

The reason the 1998 tests received more attention and more condemnation was largely because at this point the cold war was long over and the rest of the world could afford to focus on the fight between India and Pakistan, also now you had two nuclear-armed countries that had a long history of going to war. The UNSC was genuinely concerned that they would bear witness to the first armed conflict with the use of nuclear weapons and the humanitarian impact of that conflict. Also they had legal recourse since in 1996 nearly every country in the world had signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which effectively banned nuclear testing (although we must note both India and Pakistan were not signatories, but were considered informally bound), thus more people were angry, and the greater outcry at the 1998 tests rather than the 1974 tests.

| improve this answer | |
  • I am talking about 1st Indian test on 11-13 May 1998. – user4514 May 30 '17 at 2:35
1

This is a fundamentally flawed premise.

Bill Clinton, in Germany, on May 13, 1998, before Pakistan performed their own tests (quoted from Karl Inderfurth's Congressional testimony on May 13, 1998 regarding the India tests) -

I think it is important that I make a comment about the nuclear tests by India. I believe they were unjustifiable. They clearly create a dangerous new instability in the region and, as a result, in accordance with United States law. I have decided to impose economic sanctions against India.

Congressional Hearings Transcripts from Mount Holyoke College archives

So the claim that Clinton was silent in response to India's tests, while chiding Pakistan for their later tests is a simply not true, and therefore can not be taken as evidence of some sort of inherent bias.

| improve this answer | |
  • You are just abusing your voting power. I have put a bunch of 4 questions together. – user4514 Jun 6 '17 at 3:20
  • 1
    @anonymous I didn't up or down-vote your question, I did vote to close, because the claim is not a true one, so the entire premise is false, which makes the question invalid. If you think posting an answer with valid, factual links that show your claims are not accurate is "abusing voting power," then maybe you should pick a less reality-based forum. – PoloHoleSet Jun 6 '17 at 13:49