Active Visitors: 121 Total Hits: 29340354 Since June, 2007
No First Use – ideal or slogan?
Comment
Abdul Sattar
Editor, Foreign Affairs
A NUCLEAR holocaust is abhorrent to humanity and no nation can
contemplate much less threaten first use of nuclear weapons as that
would invite universal condemnation and denunciation. Actually no
reputable strategist has ever advocated first use of unclear
weapons. On the contrary all conceived nuclear weapons as a means of
last resort for the sole purpose of deterring war. Surely it is
illogical for a state to suggest deterrence should be outlawed while
the option to use conventional force for aggression may be retained.
The vision of a world at peace requires a consistent and
comprehensive commitment to refrain from the threat or use of both
nuclear as well as conventional force against the independence and
territorial integrity of another state. Following that logic
Islamabad conceived the more comprehensive proposal of No First Use
of Force. That in fact has been a fundamental doctrine of our
policy. Pakistan does not contemplate first use of either nuclear or
conventional force.
At this time of tension and peril in the region it is imperative
that those who speak in the name of Pakistan should be particularly
cautious and clear in pronouncements on defence policy. The
eminently logical doctrine of No First Use of Force should be
maintained and pursued with all seriousness and sobriety while
eschewing both provocation and ambiguity of resolve to defend the
nation’s independence and integrity if it is subjected to
aggression. Mixed signals incur mortal risks of misinterpretation by
hawks contemplating exploitation of military disparity to the
detriment of our state.
The inherent logic of Pakistan’s stance is manifest from the history
of doctrinal debate between nuclear powers. The No First Use of
nuclear weapons was first proposed by the Soviet Union in the early
1960s when it commanded a preponderance of conventional military
force in Europe. Apprehending threat of Soviet aggression against
West European countries, NATO powers rejected the proffered idea as
a propagandist slogan. Instead they demanded reduction of Soviet
military deployments in Eastern Europe. NATO and Warsaw Pact
countries then agreed to launch talks for Mutual and Balanced Force
Reductions in Europe. Although these protracted talks did not
succeed, NATO’s resolve sent a loud and clear message they would
defend themselves against aggression. Fortunately for both sides and
for the world at large balance of strategic deterrence prevented
another world war.
China has remained consistent in its commitment to peace ever since
the Revolution. Neither before not after acquisition of nuclear
weapons capability has it ever held out a threat of first use of
either nuclear or conventional weapons. To its credit it has at the
same time eschewed propagandistic stances on nuclear issues. Making
its reasonable position clear, it has manifested understanding of
constraints of other states, each with a peculiar and different
security environment. It has not sponsored the No First Use idea for
adoption by all nuclear states.
Israel has maintained absolute silence on its nuclear doctrine at
the public level but its stance in favour of first use was exposed
during the 1973 war when apprehending defeat and destruction
Minister Golda Meir was reliably reported to have ordered loading of
nuclear weapons on bombers.
Although India first tested a nuclear bomb in 1974, it did not claim
the status of a nuclear weapon state until 1998. Thereafter it
launched its proposal of No First Use of nuclear weapons. No other
nuclear state has responded to the proposal. Evidently it is not
considered logical. Apparently New Delhi’s purpose has been to put
Pakistan on the defensive. For a time some Pakistani commentators
fell in to the trap and opposed the idea of going to the extent of
unnecessarily threatening use of nuclear capability as a means of
last resort if India launched aggression against Pakistan. As a
result they gave the impression of being trigger happy on an issue
of grave anxiety to world opinion. Soon however the wisdom of
discretion dawned and Pakistan adopted a nuclear doctrine
distinguished by force of manifest logic and strength of precedents.
That logic has been reinforced since the lapse of ideological
rivalry and transformation of balance of power in Europe. The
Russian Federation has abandoned the No First Use of nuclear weapons
slogan for rational and understandable reasons. While Russia does
not pose a threat to peace in Europe, it is increasingly concerned
by the expansion of NATO towards its borders. It has therefore taken
appropriate steps to maintain and strengthen its capability for
defence and deterrence.
More curiously – and creditably – the United States has not reviewed
its position of opposition to the first-no-use slogan even though it
is now the predominant if not the sole superpower in the world.
Evidently it and the two other nuclear weapon states in NATO
recognize that reversal of their historical and rational stance
would be a transparent act of propaganda and hypocrisy.
Taking heart from the example of major nuclear weapons including
Russia, the United States, Britain and France, and the long term
benefit of credibility of a public stance consistent with policy,
Pakistan can and should maintain its principled posture. It cannot
afford to succumb to the temptation of a hypocritical stance lest
that might send a wrong signal to hawks hovering over the region at
this critical time. Neither should we forget the lesson of 2002 when
Pakistan’s nuclear capability served as a critical factor in
deterring war and thus saving the entire region from disaster.
