Nuclear disarmament — the elusive goal!
It is no longer fashionable to discuss the subject of nuclear disarmament in knowledgeable circles
The writer is former ambassador of Pakistan and ex-assistant secretary general of OIC
Writing in The Guardian some years back, Hillary Clinton, then US Secretary of State, had talked feelingly about ‘a world free from nuclear danger’. She averred somewhat menacingly, “To those who refuse to meet their international obligations and seek to intimidate their neighbours, the world is more united than ever before and will not accept your intransigence.” The only snag is that, as always, the sole superpower has insisted on applying this concept selectively and not universally.
Meanwhile, back home we continue to harp on our old hackneyed tunes. We never tire of repeating the mantra of asking the American administration to treat Pakistan on a par with India in the matter of nuclear energy. One had thought that this thesis had died with the late lamented Agha Shahi. It appears that it has not. By now, it should be fairly obvious that the Americans have no intention of doing any such thing.
It is no longer fashionable to discuss the subject of nuclear disarmament in knowledgeable circles. In this topsy-turvy world of ours — one in which such lethal toys as smart bombs, daisy cutters and the likes are the latest rage — who would have the time or the inclination to dwell on such mundane matters as disarmament: nuclear or otherwise!
How many would recall that in the 1960s when what was to be known as the ‘Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)’ was under negotiation, it was the Indian delegation that came up with the (infamous) compound word ‘non-proliferation’! Until then, the buzzword among the multilateral circles was ‘disarmament’ that, admittedly, made a great deal of sense. Thanks to the inbuilt ambiguity in the compound word ‘non-proliferation’, the NPT emerged with enough loopholes to warrant comparison with a leaking bucket.
Had the powers that have been interested in nuclear disarmament — the sane approach that could possibly have set the ball rolling — would have been to encourage the creation of Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones. That strategy aims at creating a mesh of N-W-F Zones around the globe with a view to isolating such areas where nuclear weapons continued to exist.
The United Nations General Assembly did adopt several pro forma resolutions calling for the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones in various regions of the world. But, like most other decisions of the world body, the impact of these resolutions on powers that be was only marginal, if that. The world’s much-vaunted multilateral diplomatists, who show remarkable agility and sleight of hand during the debates in the United Nations, regrettably, exhibit little commitment when it comes to the implementation of the resolutions it adopts. What is conveniently forgotten in the international arms race is that disarmament, like charity, must begin at home.
The path to global nuclear disarmament lies via the creation of Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones.
The confrontation between India and Pakistan has oft been cited as an example of ‘balance of terror’, which, in turn, has been projected as the sine qua non of peaceful co-existence in the region. The very concept of ‘balance of terror’ appears to be full of holes.
The ‘deterrence value’ of tactical nuclear weapons may have made some sense in the stand-off between the erstwhile Soviet Union and the Western bloc during the height of the Cold War. In the current context of India-Pakistan relations, though, it may require a serious “re-think”. The option of Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones as weighed against the mirage of a nuclear deterrent would make a lot of sense. Meanwhile, the choice facing the peoples of India and Pakistan is stark: either embrace a new dawn of peaceful co-existence or revert to the odious status quo ante. There is no grey area in between.
Published in The Express Tribune, December 17th, 2018.
Meanwhile, back home we continue to harp on our old hackneyed tunes. We never tire of repeating the mantra of asking the American administration to treat Pakistan on a par with India in the matter of nuclear energy. One had thought that this thesis had died with the late lamented Agha Shahi. It appears that it has not. By now, it should be fairly obvious that the Americans have no intention of doing any such thing.
It is no longer fashionable to discuss the subject of nuclear disarmament in knowledgeable circles. In this topsy-turvy world of ours — one in which such lethal toys as smart bombs, daisy cutters and the likes are the latest rage — who would have the time or the inclination to dwell on such mundane matters as disarmament: nuclear or otherwise!
How many would recall that in the 1960s when what was to be known as the ‘Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)’ was under negotiation, it was the Indian delegation that came up with the (infamous) compound word ‘non-proliferation’! Until then, the buzzword among the multilateral circles was ‘disarmament’ that, admittedly, made a great deal of sense. Thanks to the inbuilt ambiguity in the compound word ‘non-proliferation’, the NPT emerged with enough loopholes to warrant comparison with a leaking bucket.
Had the powers that have been interested in nuclear disarmament — the sane approach that could possibly have set the ball rolling — would have been to encourage the creation of Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones. That strategy aims at creating a mesh of N-W-F Zones around the globe with a view to isolating such areas where nuclear weapons continued to exist.
The United Nations General Assembly did adopt several pro forma resolutions calling for the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones in various regions of the world. But, like most other decisions of the world body, the impact of these resolutions on powers that be was only marginal, if that. The world’s much-vaunted multilateral diplomatists, who show remarkable agility and sleight of hand during the debates in the United Nations, regrettably, exhibit little commitment when it comes to the implementation of the resolutions it adopts. What is conveniently forgotten in the international arms race is that disarmament, like charity, must begin at home.
The path to global nuclear disarmament lies via the creation of Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones.
The confrontation between India and Pakistan has oft been cited as an example of ‘balance of terror’, which, in turn, has been projected as the sine qua non of peaceful co-existence in the region. The very concept of ‘balance of terror’ appears to be full of holes.
The ‘deterrence value’ of tactical nuclear weapons may have made some sense in the stand-off between the erstwhile Soviet Union and the Western bloc during the height of the Cold War. In the current context of India-Pakistan relations, though, it may require a serious “re-think”. The option of Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones as weighed against the mirage of a nuclear deterrent would make a lot of sense. Meanwhile, the choice facing the peoples of India and Pakistan is stark: either embrace a new dawn of peaceful co-existence or revert to the odious status quo ante. There is no grey area in between.
Published in The Express Tribune, December 17th, 2018.