UN resolution for nuke-free planet
Mohammad Jamil
The United Nations Security Council, at a summit chaired by US President
Barack Obama, unanimously approved a resolution on Thursday that
envisaged a world without nuclear weapons. The resolution called for
stepped up efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, promote
disarmament and reduce the risk of nuclear terrorism.
The US-drafted resolution also called for further efforts in the sphere
of nuclear disarmament envisaging a “world without nuclear weapons”. It
urged all countries that have not signed the 1970 nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to do so. The conference also aimed at
promoting the entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban
Treaty (CTBT), first initiated in 1999. Addressing the Conference, UN
General Secretary Ban Ki Moon, asked India and eight other countries
including Pakistan to ratify the agreement so that it comes into force.
In the past, Pakistan had taken the position that it will sign the CTBT
if India signs it, which was a flawed approach. Pakistan being a
sovereign country should formulate its own policy and its decisions
should not hinge on what India does.
India seems to be the first country to have given immediate reaction to
the resolution before it was voted. In direct answer to the resolution
calling for signing the non-proliferation treaty, India’s permanent
representative in the UN Hardeep Puri said: “There is no question of
Indian joining the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as a non-nuclear
weapon state. Nuclear weapons are an integral part of India’s national
security and remain so pending non-discriminatory and global nuclear
disarmament”. India’s External Affairs Minister SM Krishna has said that
the country has taken a “principled” stand on the Comprehensive Nuclear
Test Ban Treaty and there is no scope for change in its position unless
a number of other “developments” take place to address the concerns. To
be precise, India would not sign the NPT unless it is given the status
enjoyed by the five recognized nuclear powers.
In other words, India wants to be a permanent member of the United
Nations Security Council. The point besides, big powers wish to have the
monopoly of nuclear devices but they do not have moral high authority to
convince other countries not to produce atomic bombs especially when
they are being threatened by hegemonic regional and world powers. The
problem is that the US - the sole super power - has double standards,
one for its strategic partners and the other one for rest of the world.
Israel is an undeclared atomic power yet America would not like to see
Iran or any Arab country develop nukes to meet the challenges from it.
The US itself has entered into a civil nuclear agreement whereby India
would enjoy all the benefits accruing to a state that has signed
Non-Proliferation Treaty. This has disturbed the balance of power in
South Asia. At the time of concluding agreement with the US, India had
conveyed an impression that further nuclear tests would not be necessary
yet it is not willing to sign the NPT or CTBT. On the other hand,
members of US administration, government functionaries and think tanks
continue propaganda against Pakistan that terrorists could get control
of its nuclear assets in the event the state fails. In 2006, Pakistani
press quoting Indian news agency had published news that National
Intelligence Council, a think-tank organ of CIA in its 114-page report,
among other observations, presaged that the world would need America’s
help in resolving conflicts, and the US will have to intervene with a
view to stopping Kashmir dispute from taking an ugly turn. It observed
that in case India commits aggression against Pakistan, and gets initial
success due to its edge in conventional arms, Pakistan could use atomic
weapons. It is strange that the US needs Pakistan to win the war on
terror but it expresses concerns that terrorists could lay their hands
on Pakistani nukes knowing full well that Pakistan has a multi-layered
system, which was put in place with the cooperation of the US.
The US administration perhaps does not realize that its policy of
building up India as countervailing force to China would prove
counter-productive, as India would never flex muscle with a powerful
neighbour like China. American leadership does not realize that it is
creating a monster for which the US might face the consequences of
arming its potential rival in this region. It is an undeniable fact that
India has quantitative and qualitative edge over Pakistan in
conventional weapons such as tanks, aircraft and naval ships; still it
is on buying spree and acquiring sophisticated weapons from the US,
Russia, France, UK and Israel.
Of course, the US policy of making India a strategic partner has
emboldened India to continue to be stubborn and balk at resolving
Kashmir and other disputes. When the US and the West realize that the
Kashmir is a nuclear flashpoint, they should use their clout to persuade
India to resolve the issue to the satisfaction of all the stakeholders.
As regards credible nuclear deterrence, it is rather difficult to assess
as to how many nukes could make Pakistan safe, but it has to be decided
in the light of what its archrival does. The two pillars of India’s
strategy are a “minimum credible” deterrent and a doctrine of “no first
use” of nuclear weapons. Pakistan also believes in minimum deterrence
but does not subscribe to the “no first use” because of India’s edge
over conventional arms and size of the armed forces. After May 1998
nuclear tests the then India’s national security advisor had said that
for India’s deterrent to be credible, it needs nuclear weapons in
sufficient numbers and sufficiently dispersed across the country to
enable them to survive a first strike and cause enormous damage to the
aggressors. But the India’s blend of low-range and long-range missiles
to carry warheads is Pakistan-specific because it would not go to war
with China remembering 1962 war when it lost thousands of square miles
to China. Of course, after teaching India a lesson, China had returned
to its original positions.
In 2006, a small group of US military experts and intelligence officials
convened in Washington for a classified war game explored strategies for
securing Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal if the country’s political
institutions and military safeguards began to fall apart.
The secret exercise - conducted without official sponsorship from any
government agency, apparently due to the sensitivity of its subject -
was one of several such games the US government has conducted in recent
years examining various options and scenarios for Pakistan’s nuclear
weapons: How many troops might be required for a military intervention
in Pakistan? Could Pakistani nuclear bunkers be isolated by saturating
the surrounding areas with tens of thousands of high-powered mines,
dropped from the air and packed with anti-tank and anti-personnel
munitions? Or might such a move only worsen the security of Pakistan’s
arsenal? But Pakistan’s armed forces have the ability to frustrate such
designs.
|
