Nuclear weapons proliferation has emerged as one of the maj
global concerns over the last few decades. It has resulted from
circumstances which depict that several other states, apart from be
confirmed nuclear power, had devised or at least have reached at a pom
where they are just one screw turn away from having an actual nuclez
bomb:
The growing international attention is based on these grounds:-
1. Humanitarian concern.
2. International power politics.
3. Regional affairs. Humanists argue that acquisition of nuclear weapon is a “Domacles
Sword” on the existence of this world. The devastation that the two world
wars have done is enough to ruin the world and in any case if third world
war took place it would turn this world into a small comets floating in the
space with no human inhabitation.
The concern regarding international power politics is related to the
so called nuclear and developed, states. They have their own international
designs to fulfill. If all the states acquired nuclear bomb, it would
obviously undermine their status as super power. Secondly, they also
assert that some of the states pursuing nuclear proliferation lie in troubled
region, surrounded by hostile nations, any conflict among such states
would give rise to nuclear war which could become a pretext of third
world war.
Regional politics has also done a lot of harm to the developmental
process of such nuclear-pursuant states. One such example is India and
Pakistan. Both countries are developing nations and they are spending
considerable amount of national wealth on the acquisition of nuclear
devices, instead of utilizing that money for the eliminations of poverty and
unemployment.
CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS SINCE 1970.
The post-cold-war era has witnessed a substantive concern over the
nuclear proliferation. Treaty has been a major mechanism of nuclear
weapons.
The super powers in the cold-war era exerted considerable pressure
on the state, persuing nuclear weaponry programmes to stop or roll back
their efforts coupled with the promises of economic aid and considerable
amount of help in persuing nuclear programme of civil nature i.e. to
enhance the energy producing nuclear plants.
Since then over 150 states acceded to the treaty and ratified the
agreements. The NPT expressly stated that nothing in this treaty shall be
interpreted as effecting the inalienable right of nuclear development for
peaceful purposes.
For first ten to fifteen years this system proved effective with the
monitoring capability (granted through the treaty) of the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Few sates like Brazil and India refused to sign the treaty. They
criticized the concept of haves and have-nots in the nuclear proliferation
arena. They considered it discriminatory and subjugatory efforts on the
part of the then super powers, United States and Soviet Union to create a
perpetual do, inace of these countries on the third world countries.
Nevertheless, considerable number of countries adopted nuclear
non-proliferation in the best interest of humanity and their country. But
few state, even after ratifying the nuclear proliferation treaty secretly
pursued their nuclear programme, among such countries were Iraq and
North Korea and in addition there remained three major hold outs of the
NPT namely,
1. India.
2. Pakistan.
3. Israel,
These countries are yet to give any indication to submit to the
pressure of United Sates and then developed nations to enter into the
domain of nuclear weaponry states.
Within the last few years the world has witnessed a culminating
danger of nuclear warfare in the Gulf war crisis and another emerging
threat in the Korean peninsula with periodic threats from South Asia
region.
GLOBAL APPROACH-HAS IT PROVED FRUITFUL?
In the wake of these threats it is self-evident that the universal
approach to combat growing nuclear proliferation has failed to achieve the
desired objectives of the United Nations with IAEA coupled with the
pressurizing techniques of the United States and nuclear-export ban from
the other developed nations vis a vis India and Pakistan in South Asia,
Brazil and Argentina in South America, Israel, Iraq, Iran and Algeria in
Middle East and North Korea in the Korean peninsula.
This failure of the global regime, highlights the inherent weaknesses
present in the IAEA. In addition it is worth mentioning that approach of
the monitoring agency and the so called nuclear club had failed to
recognize regional problem of these countries, which justify the old
maxim that “A man convinced against his will is a man of same opinion
still”. Though all these countries recognize the inherent danger of the
nuclear weaponry but their own security concerns has gradually pushed
them towards nuclear proliferation specially the Iraq and North Korean
cases demonstrate that the non proliferation reflects single standard is
unrealistic and in certain cases counter productive. It means that NPT
regime cannot stop nuclear proliferation among the states having security
threat. In any case three pro-nuclear states India, Pakistan and Israel-
remains outside NPT.
NUCLEAR POLITICS IN THE SENSITIVE AREAS.
The obvious answer to this nuclear politics, as stated above is
“security-concern”. Taking at first South Asia, we observe that India has
always desired to be a regional power, with the growing might of China (a
traditional adversary of India). India has no other option but to develop its
nuclear answer keeping in view that China was doing the same. China
detonated its nuclear devise in 1964. This gave a substantial security
concern to India. India in the seventies also perceived the US – China –
Pakistan alliance as an emerging threat. In wake of these realities, India
indigenously pursued her nuclear goal and become successful in making an
atomic bomb in 1974 (India detonated its device in 1974).
This proved fatal blow to Pakistan’s security. As a result Pakistan
also started working on developing its nuclear potential so as to counter
India’s growing might keeping in mind that India is Pakistan’s traditional
adversary. There had been a periodic around the year, conflicts between
Pakistan and India. In addition to two major wars fought in 1965 and 1971
over the Kashmir dispute, which is yet be solved and there exist a major
threat of another war between the two countries.
The presence of IAEA, pressure of United States and other
members of the nuclear club with so called MTCR (Missile Technology
Control Regime) and the Nuclear Export ban has failed to produce
substantial results. It is nonetheless true that they have reverted the process
but have failed to stop the struggle to acquire nuclear weapons and in
some respect they have proved to be counter productive.
SOUTH AMERICA.
Taking South America as example we see Brazil and Argentina
locked up in the same circle of security concern. Their problem can be
traced back form 1962 when Brazil introduced the concept of nuclear free
zone which had the treaty of Taletlleco in 1967 but the presence of military regimes and the potential danger of Argentina nuclearization. The
treaty failed to achieve its desired goal, however, in the late 80’s after the
military regime in Brazil and Argentina were replaced by civilian
government, the situation changed.
In 1991 Argentina, China and Brazil re-signed Mendoza agreement
prohibiting acquisition of chemical and biological weapons but the problem
about nuclear non-proliferation, though improved, is yet to take a final
shape. the effective long term nuclear non-proliferation faces substantial
obstacles.
MIDDLE EAST.
In middle East, there exist a-far complex picture, efforts to develop
nuclear weapon are at various stage in Iraq, Iran, Algeria and to some
extent in Libya. Iraq would have gone through her process of completion
if she has not committed the mistake of attacking the Kuwait. The Iran-
Kuwait crisis proved to be a timely warning to the world community.
Though Iraq has been undermined after the infliction of embargoes from
the United Nations yet there exists a potential danger that Iraq would again
start persuing her programme once the restrictions are lifted.
For Israel, there existed a major concern of an entire hostile
community all round and the only way Israel could counter the economic
mights of oil producing countries was through nuclear deterrence, to
establish a balance of oil power and Islamic ideals through nuclearization.
Israel developed its nuclear programme with the help of United States
though in international arena, US condemned the Israel’s programme.
The case of Iran, Algeria and Libya are quite different. Their
nuclear programmes are results of more of an anti western attitude than
security concern. For these countries atomic colonialism was a major
threat.
KOREAN PENINSULA.
The last troubled region with respect to atomic development is
Korean peninsula. North Korea and South Korea had always been
principal enemies. South Korea had always stood under the US military
umbrella whereas North Korea had always been a country with few
friends (Among North Korea ally was China and Soviet Union). After the
disintegration of Soviet Union, North Korea had stood alone except
the periodic help from China and had successfully faced the Americans
Korea was a NPT signatory but even then it pursued its programme
growing pressure to dismantle its nuclear programme. Though, North with secretly. The death of Kim II Sung had proved a halting period, though
North Korea would stop its nuclear programme, yet there is no substantial
US and North Korea had issued a joint communiqué (or declaration) that
improvement. The accession of the next ruler (possible Kim Jong II)
would show what would be the final result.
SOUTH ASIA. DO WE REALLY NEED A BOMB?
India contends that discriminatory attitude of the United States is not
desirable and neither accedable from Indian stand point, if
denuclearization is necessary.for the existence of humanity then it should
be done at global level. United States and other nuclear powers should also
take similar steps to curb this growing threat.
Secondly, India plead security interest with respect to China and
Pakistan.
From Pakistan stand point it is willing to forego the nuclear option.
Pakistan is even ready to sigh up NPT provided India do the same.
Pakistan want accession to NPT and other safeguard measures present in
the IAEA convention simultaneously.
Pakistan similarly wants simultaneous inspection of each other
nuclear facilities but India has always brushed aside Pakistan’s offer,
presumably on her security concern regarding China, and in addition, her
contention of discriminatory attitude, under these condition India and
Pakistan are not willing to abandon, roll back or cap their nuclear
programmes. It is widely held by both the countries that their nuclear
programme has nothing to do with making atomic bomb but it is for
peaceful purpose.
Not only this but a missile race has also taken place in this region.
India has been highly critical of China’s transfer of M-11 missile
technology to Pakistan and in addition it accuse Pakistan of starting the
race after building Haft (1, 2, and 3) missiles reportedly with the help of
China.
India in addition has recently deployed a missile named Pirthvi with
a range of 150-250 km with 500-1000 kg pay load. This deployment of
Pirthvi has again heightened the security concerns of Pakistan. It is also
reported that India has a very ambitious missile programme at hand. it is
also widely held that India is working on building an intercontinental
ballistic missile (ICBM). The recent visit of the MTCR region has failed to convince both the countries in order not to develop their missile
programme. It is important to note that MTCR is not an official body of
United Nations and has nothing to do with IAEA. It is in fact made by the
so called five nuclear powers. Apart from the weakness of IAEA,
described above with examples of Iraq and Kuwait, the major weakness of
MTCR is that it can only ban the export of nuclear material or technology
but it is helpless where a state develops a missile indigenously.
Another menace, apart from nuclearization process in the Indo-Pak
conflict is Kashmir Issue. This 47 years old conflict has never been at rest
and both states are yet to devise a method by which they could bring a
peaceful settlement. Situation, regarding Kashmir is locked in a lid of
vicious circle. Pakistan is not ready to retreat and India not to forego
Kashmir territory. With India still wanted by the United States to keep a
balance of power (with respect to China) in the region there is no one to
back the issue in the Security Council.
Combining all these together, Pakistan arrives at a very challenging
point, where nuclearization is the only option, knowing that this is a
menace to humanity.
ROLE OF THE UNITED NATIONS IN THE WAKE OF
NUCLEARIZATION.
United Nations is not a law making institution, but it can only
recommend measures which could be adopted by the member states in
their dealing with one another. It is wrong to assert that United Nations is
a world government and international Court of Justice a world court.
Brushing aside its role as Peace Keeping in the world, the United
Nations has in fact failed to do anything about denuclearizing the world. It
won’t be wrong to emphasize that UN acts when US wants it to act. The
so-called group of 77 of the third world countries who wanted to impose a
new international economic order and new international information order
there has not been a single treaty regarding the prohibition
has failed to live up to the desires of the third world countries. So far
nuclearization at global level (here global level includes United Sates and
other nuclear allies). Apart from NPT which tends to restrict rest of the
world from developing nuclear weapons, against the five members of
nuclear club and to some extent a nuclear test ban treaty. United Nations
has done nothing to curb this ever increasing threat. IS THERE ANY WAY OUT,
Rationally speaking, it is next to impossible to direct the current
trend to acquire nuclear weapons. Though it is a hard hit fact that it is a
potent threat to the survival of mankind, yet inspite of this trend the world,
as a whole is getting conscious of the fact that denuclearization is needed
or else there are clear possibility that things may go out of hands. There
are two possible way outs:-
1.To let the race go on, taking the example of cold war between
United States and the Soviet Union we come to the conclusion that the
only thing which stopped them from going to war again was nuclear
capability. It was in fact balance of terror which led to the inception,
culmination and collapse of the cold war (with the collapse of Soviet
Union). Therefore, some policy makers feel that let this thing go unbridled
as it was between the erstwhile Russia and US, Let India and Pakistan
develop their nuclear arsenal (and off course let the same thing happen in
the other troubled regions). These policy makers not only lay stress on the
example of super powers but they also assert that the reason why India and
Pakistan has not gone to war after 1971 is probably the result of enhancing
nuclear capacity of each other.
Similarly, Israel and North Korea, after all these years of opposition
has survived only because of atomic weaponry.
But in doing so, the other nations should not be supported in doing
the same. This theory is propounded only for the troubled regions of the
world. The other States should be kept at rest and they should abide by the
NPT.
2. The second way out is the introduction of “regionalism”. This
school of thought believe that universal approach has failed. They argue
that it is impossible to treat each area of the world with similar standard.
They are highly critical of the above mentioned unbridled-concert school.
To them cold war had its own implications and circumstances. They
cannot be applied universally and secondly the problem at hand is regional
not global,
Therefore, instead of a global organization like IAEA the policy
makers should start stressing on building up regional organization which
would work according to the circumstances of that particular region. In
every region there is a unique, condition which need to be dealt accordingly. One such example is “Eurtom” (European atomic
commission). India and Pakistan should take initiative with confidence
building measures (CMB’s). Regional level talks should be encouraged
and if it does not prove fruitful they should be pressurized to create a
regional organization in order to deal with the denuclearization. Even if
such organization fails to live up to the required standard, at least these
CMB’s would halt the on going nuclear and missile marathon.
The question, can the world survive in the spread of nuclear
weapons? the answer is no, an unbridled race might prove fatal. Cold War
was fought in a different time and space. The time has changed so are
circumstances given the unpredictability of international relations and so-
called problem of “Status Quo” with third world countries and the problem
of “Prestige-Keep” with the developed nations does not endorse such an
act.
Conclusion:-
Given the avowal of the former Prime Minster of Pakistan that
“Pakistan possess a nuclear bomb” has already done enough harm to the
foreign policy of Pakistan vis a vis India. (Since US took it as a political
rivalry statement). AS a result India has started avowing that she is
capable of making a nuclear bomb. Not only this but it has boasted Indian
efforts to build her nuclear and missile programme with legitimate/security
threat from Pakistan. India has reached at a stage of bargaining position
with the United States. US is offering to give India a status of observer in
MTCR regime and not only this but her position has brightened her
prospectus of achieving the status of permanent member of the security
council (given the stable economic condition).
For Pakistan there exists no other option but to pursue her nuclear
threat under the excuse of Indian threat. It is important to note the public
opinion in Pakistan is also favouring the acquisition of nuclear capability.
This issue is so hard hit in the public that if it later turned out that Pakistan
does not possess a nuclear bomb it would result in great disappointment to
the public, not only for a general public but even for the morale of armed
forces.
author that there is emerging an anti-nuclear lobby in both India and
Pakistan who argue strictly from economic stand point with perfect
Yet nuclear option, as stated, is no solution. It is being felt by this
assessment of the fact that nuclearization would not only bring slow economic growth but in addition it would also give rise to the acquisition
extension at NPT in 1995 and wanted Pakistan to take part in the
of conventional weapons. This lobby also supported the indefinite
coronations.
Perhaps one of the reasons why Pakistan in pursuing her
programme, in spite of all these pressures, is the imposed policy of the
United States. The so-called principal ally of Pakistan the Pressler
Amendment since in 1990 which is discriminatory. India and Israel are
getting assistance while Pakistan is being scrubbed under nuclear
proliferation. Brown Amendment is likely to provide relief to Pakistan to
some extent.
The author of this note asserts that the only possible way out to
combat nuclear politics is the abandonment of American discriminatory
attitude plus efforts to introduce regional organization which would reflect
more to the wishes and circumstances of a given region and CMB’s to bolt
the growing enmity.