The Hindu Business Line : Double-speak on proliferation

India would be prepared to join a non-discriminatory treaty on fissile material cut-offs, but not one that allows nuclear weapons states to pay lip service to disarmament while turning a blind eye to proliferators, says G. PARTHASARATHY.

On July 8, 1996, the World Court held that States possessing nuclear weapons have not just a need, but an obligation to commence negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament. The Court also held that the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons would be generally contrary to the principles of international law, though there was some doubt about the extreme contingency when “the very survival of a State was threatened”.

Despite this World Court opinion, the United States, Russia, France and the UK reserve the right to use, or threaten to use, nuclear weapons, whenever their interests so demand. The US and Russia together possess around 19000 nuclear warheads; France has around 350 warheads and the UK 160 warheads.

The 2005 US Doctrine of Joint Operations spells out several contingencies when the US could use nuclear weapons, including situations where the US wants to “rapidly end a war on terms favourable to the US,” or to ensure that the US and international operations are successful. President Chirac announced in January 2006 that France reserves the right to use nuclear weapons against States supporting terrorism, or seeking weapons of mass destruction.

In 2003, British Defence Secretary Geoffrey Hoon warned Iraq that “in right conditions” the UK reserved the right to use nuclear weapons. China and India have ruled out the “first use” of nuclear weapons. Israel and Pakistan have indicated that they would use nuclear weapons if their very survival is threatened. Despite President Obama’s protestations that the 2005 US Doctrine would be reviewed, it is evident that under no circumstances would the US or its NATO allies rule out the use of nuclear weapons against States that do not possess such weapons, or give a “no first use” pledge against States possessing nuclear weapons.

ASSERTING USE RIGHTS

The US has no intention of abandoning nuclear weapons in the foreseeable future. President Obama has indicated that he does not expect to see the goal of a nuclear-weapons-free world achieved in his lifetime. The so-called “nuclear weapons states” may talk about arms limitations and undertake some token cuts in certain categories of strategic warheads. But the goal of eliminating nuclear weapons at some future date has so far not figured on their agenda.. Moreover, the American record on non-proliferation has been selective and duplicitous.

In their book Deception: Pakistan the United States and the Global Nuclear Weapons Conspiracy Adrian Levy and Catherine Scott-Clark have revealed how the CIA and successive US Administrations covered up information they had about Pakistan’s relentless, China-assisted quest for nuclear weapons, because of larger strategic considerations.

While American “non-proliferation Ayatollahs” roar like lions when talking about proliferation by Iran and North Korea, they squeak like mice when it comes to proliferation by China. For over three decades now, the Americans have known that China has provided Pakistan with nuclear weapons designs, fissile materials and enrichment equipment, but have deliberately turned a blind eye to China’s activities.

DOUBLE STANDARDS

Worse still, over the past decade, China has provided Pakistan with plutonium reactors and reprocessing technology to enable Pakistan to make lighter warheads for fitment on Chinese supplied ballistic and cruise missiles. Successive US Administrations have ignored this.

Moreover, despite recent revelations about Dr A.Q. Khan, which the Americans must have known about over five years ago, the Obama Administration continues to maintain that Pakistan’s proliferation activities were carried out solely by a rogue “A.Q. Khan network”, thus absolving the Pakistan army establishment, the prime culprit, of its culpability.

If President Reagan overlooked Pakistani proliferation in the 1980s to keep Gen Zia-ul-Haq pleased, President Obama does likewise now, evidently to keep Gen Kayani in good humour. The Obama Administration remains strangely silent on issues of the Pakistan Army establishment’s role in nuclear proliferation, or on the ISI’s support for Taliban leaders and groups such as the Lashkar-e-Taiba, which kill American soldiers and civilians in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

New Delhi is not the only capital where there is a sense of outrage at the repeated chants of the mantra by the Obama administration that it seeks universalisation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and wants India, Israel and Pakistan to accede to the NPT.

Responding to repeated statements on this issue by Obama administration luminaries, Israel’s normally soft spoken Defence Minister, Ehud Barak, retorted on September 7: “Until the Muslim world from Marrakesh to Bangladesh behaves like Western Europe, there can be no debate on nuclear non-proliferation.” Rarely, if ever, has Israel reacted in such terms to its security imperatives, in response to references by an American President.

CHANGE IN US ATTITUDE

India has predictably rejected the Obama-sponsored UN Security Council Resolution of September 24 calling on it to accede to the NPT. India should, however, make it clear internationally that the US is now making such a song and dance on NPT because it is desperately keen to ensure that the NPT Review Conference scheduled for 2010 does not end in a fiasco, like the Review of 2005.

But the reasons why the non-nuclear weapons states stood firm in the 2005 Review still remain valid ;the nuclear weapons states pay only lip service to nuclear disarmament, still insist on their right to use nuclear weapons against those who do not possess such weapons and deny technology for the development of nuclear energy, on specious grounds.

It should also be made clear that while India would be prepared to join a multilaterally negotiated and non-discriminatory treaty on a fissile material cut off, we cannot accede to the CTBT in its present form, as among other reasons, it was accompanied by secret understandings and exchanges between five nuclear weapons states.

India-US relations saw a remarkable turnaround in the last two years of the Clinton Administration and throughout the eight years of the Bush Administration.

The 2002 Bush National Security Doctrine resulted in the US regarding India as a partner in areas ranging from nuclear non-proliferation, to climate change and global economic issues. The policies the Obama Administration has pursued since it assumed office on such issues give the impression that it regards India as a target, rather than as a partner.

Including provisions in the UN Security Council Resolution of September 24 which are at variance with the letter and spirit of the 123 Agreement and subsequent NSG waiver, only accentuate misgivings and suspicions in India. Similarly the threats held out about trade sanctions against countries that do not toe the US line on climate change, by Democratic Party Senator John Kerry, smack of crude intimidation.

Given the Obama Administration’s approach to relations with China, can one really see any prospect of the type of swift and effective Indo-US cooperation that followed the Indian Ocean tsunami? Such misgivings and suspicions will have to be addressed when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh visits Washington.

(The author is a former High Commissioner to Pakistan. blfeedback@thehindu.co.in)

More Stories on : Security | Foreign Relations

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
India and China — Complex engagement

Roadmap for conversion to international standards

Pampering the maharajas

Why insurance curbs make sense

Preventing banks from folding up

Warming up to carbon credits

‘Angie’, the people’s Chancellor

Double-speak on proliferation

Taxes, bad and good

Soaring prices

How many telcos?