Editorial: Worrying over South Asia’s bombs
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Editorial, Daily Times, Pakistan
Saturday, May 30, 2009
The world (read the West and Japan) is worried over the weapons of mass destruction accumulating in South Asia where India and Pakistan cannot give up their conflictual relationship and are ramping up their nuclear programmes. As the Washington Post wrote on Thursday, Pakistan is supposed to start “churning out plutonium for its nuclear arsenal, which will eventually include warheads for ballistic missiles and cruise missiles capable of being launched from ships, submarines or aircraft. India is designing cruise missiles to carry nuclear warheads; it is also trying to equip its Agni missiles with such warheads and to deploy them on submarines”.
On the other hand, Pakistan was celebrating the anniversary of its nuclear test of 1998 the same day, calling its programme “the safest in the world” which had provided the nation with “an unshakeable defence against any enemy”. Both Indian and Pakistani experts have debunked the fear expressed in the US and other capitals that the two programmes in South Asia are vulnerable to “theft” by “a rogue scientist or a military officer”. It is argued that any rollback of their programmes is not possible because of the national consensus behind them. Therefore it would not be wrong to say that in part their mutually hostile nationalisms are driven by their “collective pride” in these nuclear weapons.
India and Pakistan have been gradually accepted as non-Non Proliferation Treaty signatory nuclear powers. Last year the United States concluded a nuclear cooperation treaty with India allowing it to import uranium and allowing the military to draw on enriched uranium produced by eight reactors that might otherwise be needed for civil power. The world cried “foul” half-heartedly before accepting it as part of the new global reality. Another step towards the regularisation of the status of the two nuclear South Asia powers was taken this month when France agreed to supply Pakistan with civilian nuclear technology “the same way America had done to India” (that’s not possible because the Nuclear Suppliers Group is not involved in the France-Pakistan deal in the way it is solidly behind the US-India deal).
Pakistan stands to gain from this new development, which has gone without much comment internationally. The US-India nuclear deal was finalised after the 45-strong Nuclear Suppliers Group declared its approval of it. One must note here that assent to the deal was given both by China and France. China has always been in favour of treating Pakistan at par with India on the provision of civilian nuclear technology. In other words, if India is to be exempted from the NPT conditionality of signing it before buying this technology, then Pakistan should also qualify. Now France too has adopted this point of view. It is also possible that France has moved forward after realising that China will ultimately come forth for Pakistan. On the other hand, there is no bar on Pakistan signing a nuclear treaty with more than one state provided the Nuclear Suppliers Group okays it. All this goes in favour of “equalising” Pakistan with India as a recognised nuclear power.
Pakistan’s non-reconciliation with India and its reluctance to allow the freezing of the status quo delays the process of “equalising the unequals” which lies at the core of nuclear possession. India’s unwillingness to return to peace talks in 2009 is adding to the problems of an unstable deterrence which scares the world. Pakistan has been politically unstable over the past thirty years because of its efforts at living up to its status of a revisionist state. In the new millennium it has been destabilised internally by uprisings and territorial losses to terrorist militias that contain men from as near as the Gulf and as far as Algeria, to say nothing of the Uzbeks and Chechens from areas nearer the region.
But a nuclear bomb is the best bargain counter for an agreement on peace and related economic arrangements that consolidate and perpetuate normal relations with perceived enemy states. In that sense the bomb is a weapon of peace, not of war. Today, the only unchanging element in Pakistan’s strategy is the perception of India as a permanent enemy. At the same time it is accepted on all hands that India cannot attack Pakistan because of the latter’s nuclear deterrence. This deterrence, however, will not be stable as long as the two countries remain daggers drawn against each other. That is why Pakistan wants the United States and its allies to persuade India to come to the negotiating table, because that is the only way forward to achieving stability in the region. *
Source
Saturday, May 30, 2009
The world (read the West and Japan) is worried over the weapons of mass destruction accumulating in South Asia where India and Pakistan cannot give up their conflictual relationship and are ramping up their nuclear programmes. As the Washington Post wrote on Thursday, Pakistan is supposed to start “churning out plutonium for its nuclear arsenal, which will eventually include warheads for ballistic missiles and cruise missiles capable of being launched from ships, submarines or aircraft. India is designing cruise missiles to carry nuclear warheads; it is also trying to equip its Agni missiles with such warheads and to deploy them on submarines”.
On the other hand, Pakistan was celebrating the anniversary of its nuclear test of 1998 the same day, calling its programme “the safest in the world” which had provided the nation with “an unshakeable defence against any enemy”. Both Indian and Pakistani experts have debunked the fear expressed in the US and other capitals that the two programmes in South Asia are vulnerable to “theft” by “a rogue scientist or a military officer”. It is argued that any rollback of their programmes is not possible because of the national consensus behind them. Therefore it would not be wrong to say that in part their mutually hostile nationalisms are driven by their “collective pride” in these nuclear weapons.
India and Pakistan have been gradually accepted as non-Non Proliferation Treaty signatory nuclear powers. Last year the United States concluded a nuclear cooperation treaty with India allowing it to import uranium and allowing the military to draw on enriched uranium produced by eight reactors that might otherwise be needed for civil power. The world cried “foul” half-heartedly before accepting it as part of the new global reality. Another step towards the regularisation of the status of the two nuclear South Asia powers was taken this month when France agreed to supply Pakistan with civilian nuclear technology “the same way America had done to India” (that’s not possible because the Nuclear Suppliers Group is not involved in the France-Pakistan deal in the way it is solidly behind the US-India deal).
Pakistan stands to gain from this new development, which has gone without much comment internationally. The US-India nuclear deal was finalised after the 45-strong Nuclear Suppliers Group declared its approval of it. One must note here that assent to the deal was given both by China and France. China has always been in favour of treating Pakistan at par with India on the provision of civilian nuclear technology. In other words, if India is to be exempted from the NPT conditionality of signing it before buying this technology, then Pakistan should also qualify. Now France too has adopted this point of view. It is also possible that France has moved forward after realising that China will ultimately come forth for Pakistan. On the other hand, there is no bar on Pakistan signing a nuclear treaty with more than one state provided the Nuclear Suppliers Group okays it. All this goes in favour of “equalising” Pakistan with India as a recognised nuclear power.
Pakistan’s non-reconciliation with India and its reluctance to allow the freezing of the status quo delays the process of “equalising the unequals” which lies at the core of nuclear possession. India’s unwillingness to return to peace talks in 2009 is adding to the problems of an unstable deterrence which scares the world. Pakistan has been politically unstable over the past thirty years because of its efforts at living up to its status of a revisionist state. In the new millennium it has been destabilised internally by uprisings and territorial losses to terrorist militias that contain men from as near as the Gulf and as far as Algeria, to say nothing of the Uzbeks and Chechens from areas nearer the region.
But a nuclear bomb is the best bargain counter for an agreement on peace and related economic arrangements that consolidate and perpetuate normal relations with perceived enemy states. In that sense the bomb is a weapon of peace, not of war. Today, the only unchanging element in Pakistan’s strategy is the perception of India as a permanent enemy. At the same time it is accepted on all hands that India cannot attack Pakistan because of the latter’s nuclear deterrence. This deterrence, however, will not be stable as long as the two countries remain daggers drawn against each other. That is why Pakistan wants the United States and its allies to persuade India to come to the negotiating table, because that is the only way forward to achieving stability in the region. *
Source
Labels: Inian Nukes, Inopak Nukes, Pakistan's Nukes
posted @ 11:08 AM,
0 Comments:
Post a Comment