06-20-2008, 05:25 AM
<b>A DISARMING INITIATIVE </b>-
Where should India position itself on the elimination issue?
Kanwal Sibal
The elimination of nuclear weapons has resurfaced as a proposition after four former American secretaries of state and defence â George Schulz, Henry Kissinger, William Perry and Samuel Nunn â mentioned this possibility in newspaper articles in January 2007 and earlier this year. The previous British foreign minister and the Norwegian foreign minister welcomed this initiative. Senators McCain and Obama, the two American presidential candidates, have endorsed it, raising hopes that the idea of elimination may make some headway with the new administration in the United States of America. <b>It is a dramatic demonstration of the USâs soft power that it can present for serious global discussion simply through op-ed pieces themes it had itself firmly rejected previously as impractical and illusory.</b>
The skeptics, naturally, probe the hidden agenda of these quintessential cold warriors now espousing a radical agenda associated with fantasy-driven peaceniks. Is it that it is easier to make a bid to go down in history after retirement? <b>Realpolitik dictated their thinking and actions when in power; the same realpolitik, it is suspected, dictates the proposed agenda.</b>
Is it because they recognize the need for change in the American approach to the badly handled security and non-proliferation agenda? The US has been weakened politically, morally, economically and even militarily by the reckless policies of the neo-conservatives. The collapse of the Soviet Union persuaded them that history had come to an end with this triumph of Western political and economic values over communist ideology. <b>With no countervailing power left, they set about reshaping the world according to their wishes, attempting to consolidate their strategic advantage over others durably, with accompanying doctrines like that of regime change. </b>
The arms control agenda with Russia was dropped and the anti-ballistic missile treaty was abrogated. A Nato expansion eastwards began, and this policy continues despite Russian objections. September 11, 2001 traumatized the US, strengthening the proclivities of the administration to act unilaterally to protect US interests. The invasion of Iraq epitomized the neo-conservative agenda in its counter-proliferation, regime change, democracy promotion, pro-Israeli and hydrocarbon dimensions.
Iraq has been a quagmire, decisively shattering US unipolar ambitions. Afghanistan is in turmoil with the resuscitation of the Taliban threat, demonstrating again that the US cannot handle such problems alone. The combat against terrorism requires, in any case, collective international action to be successful.
North Koreaâs decision to repudiate the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and its announcement that it had tested and now possesses nuclear weapons have shown the USâs incapacity to deal with this problem on its own and the critical need to obtain Chinaâs cooperation. Iranâs defiance of the international community on the uranium enrichment issue has also proved the limits of the USâs counter-proliferation doctrines and policies of regime change. <b>If Iran cannot eventually be deterred from mastering the technology and accumulating the ingredients to make nuclear weapons, while legally staying within the NPT provisions, the danger of the NPT regime collapsing would be real. </b>
<b>As it is, the NPT regime is in serious trouble. It was extended permanently without amendment in 1995 through high-pressure tactics by the US and other Western nuclear weapon states (NWS). </b>The non-nuclear weapon states (NNWS) increasingly accuse the NWS of not honouring their part of the grand bargain by not fulfilling their obligations under Article 6 to move towards nuclear disarmament while, at the same time, demanding that the NNWS submit themselves to ever more stringent non-proliferation conditions for obtaining entitled civilian nuclear energy cooperation under the treaty. The earlier Iraqi case and now the Iranian case have mobilized the US and others to seek a tightening of the safeguards regime of the International Atomic Energy Authority and, more important, propose denying to the NNWS not already possessing such facilities, the right to set up national facilities to manufacture nuclear fuel.
Both the US and Russia advocate the creation of multilateral facilities to provide nuclear fuel to those countries desirous to build nuclear power reactors. With the oil and gas prices shooting up to unaffordable heights and with shortages looming ahead, besides climate change reasons strongly favouring clean energy, many countries, even those rich in hydrocarbons, have ambitions to develop nuclear grids, raising concerns about runaway proliferation in the years ahead.
<b>Work in the conference on disarmament in Geneva is effectively at a standstill since many years because of unresolved differences over the negotiating agendas. The US presses for negotiations on the fissile material control treaty to begin, but without any verification provisions, which is opposed by many, including India. The Chinese have blocked these negotiations, linking them to those on the issue of weaponization of outer space, which the US opposes. China fears the vulnerability of its nuclear deterrent to the American space-based weaponry, which is precisely the area of the USâs superiority. </b>
<b>The comprehensive test ban treaty has not come into force so far because some critical states like the US and China have not ratified it.</b> The US has periodically spoken about developing new nuclear weapons. Russia is developing new missiles and submarines to penetrate US ballistic missile defences so that the deterrent value of its nuclear panoply can be preserved. China, too, is developing upgraded intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarines to bolster its deterrent.
Neither the US nor Russia is ready to support moves in favour of no-first-use of nuclear weapons as a confidence-building measure, or removing hundreds of weapons still on hair-trigger alert on both sides.
So, where does the new initiative to eliminate nuclear weapons fit in? In actual fact, at the bilateral US-Russia level, mutually assured destruction remains the operative security framework despite the end of the Cold War. <b>Russia suspects that the elimination initiative is a ploy by the US to perpetuate its military domination because of its overwhelming conventional superiority</b>. Russia foresees the possibility of further reductions in the nuclear arsenals of the two principal nuclear powers, but is very skeptical about the possibility of total elimination. <b>Because 95 per cent of the existing nuclear weapons are in the hands of the US and Russia, it is recognized that the other three NWS will not join the process even of reductions, much less elimination, unless there are further substantial cuts in the American and Russian arsenals. The first need therefore is to revive the US-Russia arms-control agenda.</b>
Where should India position itself on the elimination issue? In 1988, India had presented a comprehensive proposal for a nuclear-weapon-free, non-violent world at the United Nations. India as a NNWS had reason and self-interest to propose such a plan. As a NWS now, although not officially recognized as such, its approach has to be different. In the background of the 1988 plan, we would be keen to have our ideas vindicated, but we should avoid putting ourselves in a position where our strong espousal of elimination generates pressure on us to take some intermediate steps, such as signing the CTBT and declaring a moratorium voluntarily on the production of fissile material as a gauge of our genuine commitment to a nuclear-weapon-free world.
Elimination of nuclear weapons will prove a proposition practically impossible to implement, given the inordinately complex nature of the issue. Ultimately it will get limited to an arms-control and non-proliferation agenda. We should neither get locked into arms-control arrangements prematurely nor allow ourselves to be subject to tighter nonproliferation restrictions applicable to NNWS. <b>Our rhetoric on elimination should not compromise the substance of our as-yet-incomplete deterrent.</b>
<i>The author is former foreign secretary of India Sibalkanwal@gmail.com </i>
Where should India position itself on the elimination issue?
Kanwal Sibal
The elimination of nuclear weapons has resurfaced as a proposition after four former American secretaries of state and defence â George Schulz, Henry Kissinger, William Perry and Samuel Nunn â mentioned this possibility in newspaper articles in January 2007 and earlier this year. The previous British foreign minister and the Norwegian foreign minister welcomed this initiative. Senators McCain and Obama, the two American presidential candidates, have endorsed it, raising hopes that the idea of elimination may make some headway with the new administration in the United States of America. <b>It is a dramatic demonstration of the USâs soft power that it can present for serious global discussion simply through op-ed pieces themes it had itself firmly rejected previously as impractical and illusory.</b>
The skeptics, naturally, probe the hidden agenda of these quintessential cold warriors now espousing a radical agenda associated with fantasy-driven peaceniks. Is it that it is easier to make a bid to go down in history after retirement? <b>Realpolitik dictated their thinking and actions when in power; the same realpolitik, it is suspected, dictates the proposed agenda.</b>
Is it because they recognize the need for change in the American approach to the badly handled security and non-proliferation agenda? The US has been weakened politically, morally, economically and even militarily by the reckless policies of the neo-conservatives. The collapse of the Soviet Union persuaded them that history had come to an end with this triumph of Western political and economic values over communist ideology. <b>With no countervailing power left, they set about reshaping the world according to their wishes, attempting to consolidate their strategic advantage over others durably, with accompanying doctrines like that of regime change. </b>
The arms control agenda with Russia was dropped and the anti-ballistic missile treaty was abrogated. A Nato expansion eastwards began, and this policy continues despite Russian objections. September 11, 2001 traumatized the US, strengthening the proclivities of the administration to act unilaterally to protect US interests. The invasion of Iraq epitomized the neo-conservative agenda in its counter-proliferation, regime change, democracy promotion, pro-Israeli and hydrocarbon dimensions.
Iraq has been a quagmire, decisively shattering US unipolar ambitions. Afghanistan is in turmoil with the resuscitation of the Taliban threat, demonstrating again that the US cannot handle such problems alone. The combat against terrorism requires, in any case, collective international action to be successful.
North Koreaâs decision to repudiate the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and its announcement that it had tested and now possesses nuclear weapons have shown the USâs incapacity to deal with this problem on its own and the critical need to obtain Chinaâs cooperation. Iranâs defiance of the international community on the uranium enrichment issue has also proved the limits of the USâs counter-proliferation doctrines and policies of regime change. <b>If Iran cannot eventually be deterred from mastering the technology and accumulating the ingredients to make nuclear weapons, while legally staying within the NPT provisions, the danger of the NPT regime collapsing would be real. </b>
<b>As it is, the NPT regime is in serious trouble. It was extended permanently without amendment in 1995 through high-pressure tactics by the US and other Western nuclear weapon states (NWS). </b>The non-nuclear weapon states (NNWS) increasingly accuse the NWS of not honouring their part of the grand bargain by not fulfilling their obligations under Article 6 to move towards nuclear disarmament while, at the same time, demanding that the NNWS submit themselves to ever more stringent non-proliferation conditions for obtaining entitled civilian nuclear energy cooperation under the treaty. The earlier Iraqi case and now the Iranian case have mobilized the US and others to seek a tightening of the safeguards regime of the International Atomic Energy Authority and, more important, propose denying to the NNWS not already possessing such facilities, the right to set up national facilities to manufacture nuclear fuel.
Both the US and Russia advocate the creation of multilateral facilities to provide nuclear fuel to those countries desirous to build nuclear power reactors. With the oil and gas prices shooting up to unaffordable heights and with shortages looming ahead, besides climate change reasons strongly favouring clean energy, many countries, even those rich in hydrocarbons, have ambitions to develop nuclear grids, raising concerns about runaway proliferation in the years ahead.
<b>Work in the conference on disarmament in Geneva is effectively at a standstill since many years because of unresolved differences over the negotiating agendas. The US presses for negotiations on the fissile material control treaty to begin, but without any verification provisions, which is opposed by many, including India. The Chinese have blocked these negotiations, linking them to those on the issue of weaponization of outer space, which the US opposes. China fears the vulnerability of its nuclear deterrent to the American space-based weaponry, which is precisely the area of the USâs superiority. </b>
<b>The comprehensive test ban treaty has not come into force so far because some critical states like the US and China have not ratified it.</b> The US has periodically spoken about developing new nuclear weapons. Russia is developing new missiles and submarines to penetrate US ballistic missile defences so that the deterrent value of its nuclear panoply can be preserved. China, too, is developing upgraded intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarines to bolster its deterrent.
Neither the US nor Russia is ready to support moves in favour of no-first-use of nuclear weapons as a confidence-building measure, or removing hundreds of weapons still on hair-trigger alert on both sides.
So, where does the new initiative to eliminate nuclear weapons fit in? In actual fact, at the bilateral US-Russia level, mutually assured destruction remains the operative security framework despite the end of the Cold War. <b>Russia suspects that the elimination initiative is a ploy by the US to perpetuate its military domination because of its overwhelming conventional superiority</b>. Russia foresees the possibility of further reductions in the nuclear arsenals of the two principal nuclear powers, but is very skeptical about the possibility of total elimination. <b>Because 95 per cent of the existing nuclear weapons are in the hands of the US and Russia, it is recognized that the other three NWS will not join the process even of reductions, much less elimination, unless there are further substantial cuts in the American and Russian arsenals. The first need therefore is to revive the US-Russia arms-control agenda.</b>
Where should India position itself on the elimination issue? In 1988, India had presented a comprehensive proposal for a nuclear-weapon-free, non-violent world at the United Nations. India as a NNWS had reason and self-interest to propose such a plan. As a NWS now, although not officially recognized as such, its approach has to be different. In the background of the 1988 plan, we would be keen to have our ideas vindicated, but we should avoid putting ourselves in a position where our strong espousal of elimination generates pressure on us to take some intermediate steps, such as signing the CTBT and declaring a moratorium voluntarily on the production of fissile material as a gauge of our genuine commitment to a nuclear-weapon-free world.
Elimination of nuclear weapons will prove a proposition practically impossible to implement, given the inordinately complex nature of the issue. Ultimately it will get limited to an arms-control and non-proliferation agenda. We should neither get locked into arms-control arrangements prematurely nor allow ourselves to be subject to tighter nonproliferation restrictions applicable to NNWS. <b>Our rhetoric on elimination should not compromise the substance of our as-yet-incomplete deterrent.</b>
<i>The author is former foreign secretary of India Sibalkanwal@gmail.com </i>