Nuclear Non-Proliferation

The year 1993 virtually started with the signing of START-II agreement between the USA and Russia which will reduce their strategic nuclear arsenals from nearly 24000 warheads by nearly two-thirds. Coming as it does, on the heels of other arms reduction agreements, this is likely to be increasingly cited in support of nuclear nonproliferation which has been moving up on international security agenda as the Cold War wound down, unprecedented proliferation has taken place consequent to the disintegration of the Soviet Union and continuing socio-economic crises in successor republics.

Pakistan, during the same period, moved its clandestine nuclear weapons programme towards a more explicit status, virtually becoming the sixth declared nuclear weapon state. Iraq’s clandestine nuclear weapons programme, heavily hit during the gulf War, came to light through sheer accident. More than anything else, it highlighted the weaknesses of the existing non-proliferation regime, and the acute difficulties for denuclearization of a clandestine programme.

It is against this background that the future of NPT, as it approaches 1995, needs to be seen. A conference is to be held, as per treaty provisions, in 1995 to decide on one of the three options for extension of the NPT-indefinitely, for a fixed period,, or periods. The mandate for this conference is clear: it is to decide the terms of extension.

It is also necessary to note that the primary motivation for the NPT which came into force in March, 1970 (and the departure from the concept of NPT proposed by India and endorsed by the UN general Assembly in 1965) was to ensure that Germany and Japan, the World war-II defeated states, who by now had acquired the capacity to go nuclear, should be prevented from doing so, Germany and Japan had their reservations, and ratified the NPT only in 1975 and 1976 respectively. And hence the great emphasis on stopping horizontal spread to states beyond the five nuclear weapon states of the period.

The end of the Cold war has highlighted serious contradiction in the nuclear field. First, the altered political and economic relationship between the US (and West Europe) and former USSR has undermined the very rationale of nuclear weapons.

The logic of nuclear weapons having kept the peace in Europe is no vented the armed conflicts going to on in former Yugoslavia and Trans Caucasian region. And yet the USA and Russia, even after START-II, is fully implemented by 2003, would possess 6500 strategic (and unspecified non-strategic) war-heads. There can be cold comfort in the knowledge that the world then could be destroyed only twenty-times as compared to the capacity to destroy it sixty times over at the peak of the Cold War!

Proponents of the Comprehensive test Ban (CTB) in the US have recently wakened up to the fact that it can be used as a step against non-proliferation. In current scenario a CTB will not make a great difference. The logic behind the CTB was that by prohibiting the testing of nuclear weapons it would be halt an arms race between the US and the Soviet Union.

With the collapse of the USSR the context of the CTB has become outdated. But eh concern over proliferation continues ands understandable in the post-Cold wear era. The newly independent states of the former Soviet Union provide a good example of the danger of proliferation. Ukraine as of this moment possesses the world’s third largest nuclear arsenal.

A rough estimate puts the number of its weapons at 176 strategic missiles, 30 bombers and over 16000 warheads-enough to eliminate life on this planet several times over it is significant that Ukraine has not committed itself to the complete destruction of its nuclear weapons.

With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the Central Asian states of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan managed to retain their nuclear weapons. Kazakhstan with the largest arsenal has shown a willingness to sign the NPT and destroy all nuclear weapons by 2000.

Members of the CIS undertook to respect the obligations of the former Soviet Union and follow a multilateral policy towards disarmament at an agreement signed at Minsk in December 1991. This was followed by the four members of the nuclear club of Central Asia signing the Strategic Arms Reduction Teary (START) on May 22, 1992 as a preliminary to the ratification of the START signed between the Soviet Union and US in July 1991. What remains to be seen is whether their action matches their commitments?

The proliferation of well-funded and sophisticated terrorist groups worldwide has lent certain urgency to the question of the future of the nuclear stockpile in Central Asia. The West ha expressed serious concern about these weapons falling into the hands of Islamic fundamentalists. But not all terrorists are Islamic, and if a free market situation arises, the seller would usually go to the highest bidder irrespective of religious affiliations.

The second tier nuclear weapon states (China, France, and UK) are showing no signs of even beginning to reduce their arsenals. All of them are modernizing their nuclear arsenals. China already possesses close to 1600 nuclear warheads.

The issue, however, remains essentially the same that is, the danger of nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands-be it Leftist or Right-Wing Islamic or non-Islamic.

While India fully believes in the importance of non-proliferation, it hesitates to sign the NPT as the latter does not appear to be an effective guarantee against proliferation. A case in study is North Korea. This country while signing the NPT in 1985 managed to stall inspection of any of its sites by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) till last year as its sites are supposedly engaged in purely civilian nuclear power industry.

Their intentions were made clearer by its withdrawal earlier this year from the NPT. Acceding to reports, North Korea possesses enough material to make at least one bomb. Recently a new missile, the Nodding 1, with a 1000 kilometer range was successfully test fired. US intelligence reports have already indicated North Korea as a major supplier of missiles to developing countries.

June 1993 North Korea revises its belligerent posture by ‘suspending’ its withdrawal from the pact. Yet the deal does not provide the guarantee the Clinton Government desires-that North Korea will open 311 its nuclear facilities to international scrutiny. In fact weapons specialists argue that this retreat is most likely to be temporary and that the agreement leaves North Korea free to continue its weapons development programme while feigning adherence to IAEA regulations.

The NPT so unfair and unequal, because besides the established nuclear powers, it would leave North Korea and others on the nuclear thresholds in possession of nuclear weapons.

Apart from the question of principle involved in India’s refusal to sign an unequal treaty like the NPT which it has adhered to since 1967, this country can hardly forego the nuclear option given its security compulsions. The threat which Pakistan and China pose to India should not be taken lightly. With the former there have already have been three wars.

Pakistan is now actively waging a low intensity war against this country. Reports also confirm that Pakistan is developing the 600 kilometer range Hatf-3 missile based on the Chinese M-9 missile technology which can target Delhi. With China, India has a history of order conflicts. US intelligence reports have confirmed that China has been passing M-11 missile technology to Pakistan. In May 1992, the Chinese exploded a megaton device following it with another test in September, 1993.

India cannot also be singled out for opposing the NPT. China, Brazil, Argentina, Pakistan, South Africa and Israel have all opposed the NPT. It is only in recent years that China, France and South Africa have signed the Treaty.

There is no firm evidence yet of a nuclear-free world and of durable peace. It is for the enlightened leaders of the international community to decide how the tackle the nuclear menace effectively and evolve an arrangement that would he equitable and free of discrimination on any ground-race, color, economic or military status and political complexion.