Chowrangi

During the 1980s, the United States continued its pressure on Pakistan with regard to the nuclear issue, asking it to sign the NPT unilaterally. Pakistan, on the other hand, argued that nuclear proliferation in South Asia was a regional issue and could not be resolved by singling out Pakistan, because it involved India as well which had already exploded a nuclear device. Pakistan emphasized that both countries should be asked to adhere to the Non-Proliferation Regime simultaneously. In order to demonstrate its non-proliferation credentials, Pakistan tried to initiate a dialogue with India on the nuclear issue and made a number of proposals to India which would require both countries to:

i. Sign the NPT,
ii. Allow reciprocal inspection of each other’s nuclear facilities,
iii. Establish a Nuclear Free Zone in South Asia,
iv. Accept full-scope safeguards,
v. Agree to a bilateral treaty banning nuclear tests,
vi. Make joint declaration of non-acquisition or manufacture of nuclear weapons, and
vii. Convene a Un-sponsored Conference to discuss the nuclear issue in South Asia

India rejected all these proposals and refused to put forward any proposals of its own to strengthen the Non-Proliferation Regime in South Asia. Pakistan kept the US informed of all these initiatives and the negative response from India. Gradually, the United States began to realize that the nuclear issue in South Asia was, indeed, a regional issue and could not be resolved simply by forcing Pakistan to sign the NPT.

India, on its part, insisted that the nuclear issue was not a regional issue but a global one. For India, the major concern was the existence of nuclear weapons in china and the nuclear stockpiles of the Superpowers. Unless something was done about these two, India would not change its nuclear stance. At the suggestion of the United States, and to respond to these proposed a Five-Nation Conference with the participation of India, Pakistan, China, USA, and Russia to discuss the nuclear issue in South Asia. India did not accept this proposal or change its stance.

The official Indian position was that it did not intend to manufacture nuclear weapons since it had no carried out further nuclear testing after the 1974 nuclear explosion. Yet it was opposed to accepting any non-proliferation initiatives or measures in South Asia, and continued to amass weapon usable fissile material and develop a nuclear delivery system. India says that its capability is not only a response to Pakistan but it is meant to meet the threat posed by nuclear weapons of China and even Kazakhstan. Hence, its insistence on wider, and even global, disarmament as a pre-condition for giving up its nuclear option. India prefers to hold bilateral discussions with the United States, Russia, and other countries on this matter rather than take part in any multinational conference. Consequently, over the past years, several rounds of discussions have taken place involving India, the United States, Japan, and other on the one hand and Pakistan, the United States, and Japan on the others. However, there have been no direct formal discussions between India and Pakistan on the nuclear problem.

There have been some contacts, which have led to an Agreement not to attack each others’ nuclear facilities. This agreement was reached in 1985 and ratified I 1991. in accordance to this, both sides exchange a list of their respective nuclear facilities every year which are supposed to be excluded from any attach in case of hostilities.

As seen from Pakistan’s standpoint, India faces no threat from Pakistan whether nuclear or conventional. If India agrees to accept the NPT, Pakistan will automatically do the same. Were this to happen, India, with eight times the population of Pakistan, would still retain overwhelming conventional arms superiority vis-à-vis Pakistan. It would appear that it is Pakistan which needs a nuclear deterrent against a far stronger neighbour than vice versa. But India appears to have other objectives. It seeks not only regional dominance, but also wants to be an extra-regional power. For this, it considers the nuclear capability a an essential element to multiply and project its power beyond its borders and extends its sphere of influence. This is why it is developing long range nuclear capable ballistic missile and building nuclear submarines. If this is, indeed, India’s strategic doctrine then it will be on a collision course with many countries outside the region, namely, USA, Japan, China, and Australia, whose vital interest will be adversely affected. Further, it will force India to divert more of its limited economic and technical resources towards building a credible nuclear arsenal which will severly strain its narrow economic base. If India wants to compete in the world market place and meet the basic social and economic needs of its poor at home it requires generous inputs of foreign investment and technology. India will have to decide whether its security and developmental objectives can be met b persisting on the nuclear course or changing this policy.

Pakistan’s position on the nuclear issue is very clear. It is ready to sign the NPT, accept full-scope safeguards or subscribe to any other non-proliferation measures, provided the same is applied to India simultaneously. While Pakistan seeks speedy abolition of nuclear weapons all over the world it does not make it a pre-condition for accepting the Non-Proliferation Regime in South Asia provided India accepts the same. India, on the other hand, insists that it cannot be expected to give up the nuclear option unless there is a complete elimination of nuclear weapons by the nuclear powers.

DIFFERENCES AND SIMILARITIES BETWEEN INDIAN AND PAKISTANI NUCLEAR STANDS

There are some similarities as well as wide differences between the views of India and Pakistan on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament issues. Both countries regard the NPT as discriminatory and subscribe to the goal of complete nuclear disarmament. However, while paying lip service to these views India seems to have its own nuclear agenda. It uses the slogan of complete nuclear disarmament as a cover for continuing its pursuit of nuclear and missile capability. Although it proposed the cessation of all nuclear testing as far back as the mid 1950s, when the CTBT was being negotiated in Geneva, and voted upon it in the UN General Assembly, it has refused to support it. It insisted on retaining its nuclear option to test, and linked its adherence to CTBT to the nuclear powers first agreeing to a fixed time-frame for complete disarmament, which obviously is not realistic. Further, it refused to have meaningful discussion on Fissile Cut Off Treaty (FMTC) using the same argument because it wants to continue amassing weapons grade material for its future nuclear stockpile. It has also ruled out the signing of NPT in the foreseeable future.

Pakistan, on the other hand, is willing to sign the NPT inspite of its shortcomings and defects, if India agrees to do so, and thereby advance the cause of non-proliferation in South Asia. Even though, unlike India, Pakistan has not carried out a nuclear test and finds CTBT still deficient in certain respects, it voted for the CTBT and is ready to subscribe to it provided India does the same. As far as the FMTC is concerned, Pakistan is willing the accept it in principle. In fact, it is known to have voluntarily frozen the production of weapon grade fissile material several years ago. India has not reciprocated. There are many in Pakistan who feel that the US and others have not appreciated this voluntary freeze. Pakistan is participating at the discussions in Geneva with the hope that a formal treaty can be negotiated on a non-discriminatory basis. Pakistan has also proposed that South Asia should get rid of all ballistic missiles and become a zero ballistic missile zone. India opposes this. In fact India has stepped up its missile testing, production, and deployment programme particularly with respect to Prithvi which ha already been inducted into its defence forces and aimed against targets in Pakistan.

From the foregoing it is clear that India is not at present willing to subscribe to any non-proliferation regime either in the nuclear or missile fields. This attitude will inevitably lead the two counties into a costly and dangerous arms race with grave consequences for peace and security in the region.

Other posts by Commoner

• Clear the Dust - November 20th, 2008
• Exactly What They Want - November 20th, 2008
• Punjab Heats Up - November 19th, 2008
• Eyeball to Eyeball - November 18th, 2008
• No Surprises There - November 18th, 2008
• Yousuf Ready to Leave "Power" - November 18th, 2008
• OGRA Website Hacked By Indian Hackers - November 17th, 2008
• Friends Of Pakistan Again Disappoints - November 17th, 2008
• New But Old Dimensions - November 17th, 2008
• After the Loan - November 16th, 2008