Pakistan, US and the FMCT
“Forum shopping — switching forums to pursue interests — is not a good idea for negotiating a treaty banning ‘future’ production of fissile materials,” an unnamed US official was reported as saying last month. That sane voice drowned amid media reports of the US tightening the noose around Pakistan’s nuclear programme. The array of options before the US include the impractical attempt to snatch Pakistan’s nukes, or shifting negotiations from the consensus-based Conference on Disarmament (CD), to the P-5-dominated UN and reforming the CD. The twelve-year itch is blamed on Pakistan, whereas Islamabad entered the spat three years ago.
The current acrimony between the US and Pakistan is ostensibly over the scope of the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT). The US apparently favours a halt on future production of fissile materials and Pakistan disagrees.
The impending face-off between Pakistan and the US raises three queries. Does the US have a problem with Pakistan’s nuclear programme? Why is Pakistan the only holdout state on the FMCT? Lastly, if cornered, what can Islamabad do?
US officials have always denied plans to snatch-and-grab Pakistani nukes. Senator Kerry, purportedly, was ready to write the assurance with his own blood. Realistically, nuclear weapons states would want to retain their status while denying it to others unless their strategic interests meet or there’s a quid pro quo — the US is no exception. Islamabad would not help in containing China like India does. It does not have strong caucus in the US like Israel or India. Additionally, Islamabad is not an economic magnet.
Instead of gelling with the regional economy and capitalising its potential to bridge the South and Central Asian Silk Road, Pakistan ends up providing its territory as a staging ground for forays into Central Asia. Lastly, Pakistan is the only Muslim nuclear weapons state. Hence, the jihadist threat is flagged to create an insecurity perception and past proliferation is drummed up as a pressure tactic.
Pakistan doesn’t stand alone at the CD, as evident from the Non Aligned Movement support to its stance. It rather shares the UNs disarmament ideal and urges the states not to disregard the regional conventional and nuclear asymmetries while negotiating treaties as means to achieve global strategic stability. Conversely, the US and like-minded countries follow an arms control approach to fissile material production.
The General and complete disarmament ideal does not suit the pre-1970 proliferators because they would like others to disarm first. Out of the non-proliferation treaty outliers, Pakistan is the only state that does not enjoy a special dispensation with the old proliferators. Can Pakistan change the status quo?
Islamabad may miraculously revive the Silk Road, but it cannot abandon China and certainly would not change its Islamic DNA. India’s burgeoning military power and extraordinary American-led politico-economic support stumps the FMCT. Pakistan’s National Command Authority has repeatedly demanded an end to this neo-nuclear apartheid, as it allows the first South Asian proliferator to expand its military power at Pakistan’s cost. The civil nuclear energy deal with the US is the tip of a broader ‘US-India strategic partnership’ and has exacerbated regional instability.
Pakistan may be a tugboat to the Indian capital ship in the economic sphere; it manages a credible ‘minimum’ deterrence. The word minimum has a dynamic nuance. If Pakistan seemingly has the fastest growing nuclear programme, it is logical to watch the increasing asymmetry with India. India’s $100 billion plus wallet for conventional, space and nuclear technologies is a good omen for the defence industry but a knell for Pakistan.
The FMCT presents a dilemma for Islamabad, as it may not be able to match India in the conventional arms race after the treaty. Pakistan can either freeze the stocks asymmetry with India by quickly negotiating a treaty on future production or let the Indian stockpile grow.
By signing a civil nuclear deal with India, the US allowed an exponential surge in its nuclear programme. Conversely, Pakistan is urged to ‘seize the opportunity’ of freezing its asymmetries with India by allowing negotiations to cap future production of fissile materials. In defence, the weak argument of phased reductions is offered. If the FMCT is signed, what will be the mechanism to verify stocks?
The fact is that the old proliferators would not leave their comfort zone and reduce to the levels of the young proliferators. It is a diabolical power maximisation game and every state uses its aces. The way out of the dilemma and impasse at the CD can be a genuine move to stop the trend of selectivity in the region.
Pakistan takes the blame for impasse at the CD free of cost for other equally concerned but hiding states. Interestingly, if push comes to shove, even India may throw a monkey wrench after the negotiations like it did on June 2, 2009. Ambassador Rao said, “India is willing to join only a non-discriminatory multilaterally negotiated and internationally verifiably the FMCT as and when it is concluded in the CD, provided our security interests are fully addressed…”. Their interest would be to avoid verification.
The FMCT is the hallmark of President Obama’s two-year-old Prague Agenda and Pakistan’s intransigence is frustrating America as its next elections draw closer. Failure of the Prague Agenda will be bad for optics and hence the urge to shift the issue to the General Assembly or reformation in the CD.
The US contends that it has garnered P-5 support, especially China’s, that may later guarantee a start of negotiations over the FMCT, but these will be meaningless without Pakistan. Consequently, Pakistan may be subjected to additional political and economic pressures but that is nothing new. Islamabad did not join the NPT, and the CTBT and test nuclear weapons in 1998 under duress. Similar pressure will only fuel the anti-US sentiment and even the goodwill American aid to the seminaries may fail.
Seeking treaties is a pipedream if the political issues that force the states to pick up arms are left unattended. While the states squabble for at least another decade to arrive at a treaty that bans fissile materials production, the stocks and strike capabilities will continue to swell.
The onus of breaking ice always lies with the larger powers. India has no incentive to control its arms acquisitions and gets no sermons. With three-fourth of Indian forces facing Pakistan and asymmetries widening, Islamabad will not be satisfied with good Indian intents and American assurances and impasse will continue at the CD.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 24th, 2011.
The current acrimony between the US and Pakistan is ostensibly over the scope of the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT). The US apparently favours a halt on future production of fissile materials and Pakistan disagrees.
The impending face-off between Pakistan and the US raises three queries. Does the US have a problem with Pakistan’s nuclear programme? Why is Pakistan the only holdout state on the FMCT? Lastly, if cornered, what can Islamabad do?
US officials have always denied plans to snatch-and-grab Pakistani nukes. Senator Kerry, purportedly, was ready to write the assurance with his own blood. Realistically, nuclear weapons states would want to retain their status while denying it to others unless their strategic interests meet or there’s a quid pro quo — the US is no exception. Islamabad would not help in containing China like India does. It does not have strong caucus in the US like Israel or India. Additionally, Islamabad is not an economic magnet.
Instead of gelling with the regional economy and capitalising its potential to bridge the South and Central Asian Silk Road, Pakistan ends up providing its territory as a staging ground for forays into Central Asia. Lastly, Pakistan is the only Muslim nuclear weapons state. Hence, the jihadist threat is flagged to create an insecurity perception and past proliferation is drummed up as a pressure tactic.
Pakistan doesn’t stand alone at the CD, as evident from the Non Aligned Movement support to its stance. It rather shares the UNs disarmament ideal and urges the states not to disregard the regional conventional and nuclear asymmetries while negotiating treaties as means to achieve global strategic stability. Conversely, the US and like-minded countries follow an arms control approach to fissile material production.
The General and complete disarmament ideal does not suit the pre-1970 proliferators because they would like others to disarm first. Out of the non-proliferation treaty outliers, Pakistan is the only state that does not enjoy a special dispensation with the old proliferators. Can Pakistan change the status quo?
Islamabad may miraculously revive the Silk Road, but it cannot abandon China and certainly would not change its Islamic DNA. India’s burgeoning military power and extraordinary American-led politico-economic support stumps the FMCT. Pakistan’s National Command Authority has repeatedly demanded an end to this neo-nuclear apartheid, as it allows the first South Asian proliferator to expand its military power at Pakistan’s cost. The civil nuclear energy deal with the US is the tip of a broader ‘US-India strategic partnership’ and has exacerbated regional instability.
Pakistan may be a tugboat to the Indian capital ship in the economic sphere; it manages a credible ‘minimum’ deterrence. The word minimum has a dynamic nuance. If Pakistan seemingly has the fastest growing nuclear programme, it is logical to watch the increasing asymmetry with India. India’s $100 billion plus wallet for conventional, space and nuclear technologies is a good omen for the defence industry but a knell for Pakistan.
The FMCT presents a dilemma for Islamabad, as it may not be able to match India in the conventional arms race after the treaty. Pakistan can either freeze the stocks asymmetry with India by quickly negotiating a treaty on future production or let the Indian stockpile grow.
By signing a civil nuclear deal with India, the US allowed an exponential surge in its nuclear programme. Conversely, Pakistan is urged to ‘seize the opportunity’ of freezing its asymmetries with India by allowing negotiations to cap future production of fissile materials. In defence, the weak argument of phased reductions is offered. If the FMCT is signed, what will be the mechanism to verify stocks?
The fact is that the old proliferators would not leave their comfort zone and reduce to the levels of the young proliferators. It is a diabolical power maximisation game and every state uses its aces. The way out of the dilemma and impasse at the CD can be a genuine move to stop the trend of selectivity in the region.
Pakistan takes the blame for impasse at the CD free of cost for other equally concerned but hiding states. Interestingly, if push comes to shove, even India may throw a monkey wrench after the negotiations like it did on June 2, 2009. Ambassador Rao said, “India is willing to join only a non-discriminatory multilaterally negotiated and internationally verifiably the FMCT as and when it is concluded in the CD, provided our security interests are fully addressed…”. Their interest would be to avoid verification.
The FMCT is the hallmark of President Obama’s two-year-old Prague Agenda and Pakistan’s intransigence is frustrating America as its next elections draw closer. Failure of the Prague Agenda will be bad for optics and hence the urge to shift the issue to the General Assembly or reformation in the CD.
The US contends that it has garnered P-5 support, especially China’s, that may later guarantee a start of negotiations over the FMCT, but these will be meaningless without Pakistan. Consequently, Pakistan may be subjected to additional political and economic pressures but that is nothing new. Islamabad did not join the NPT, and the CTBT and test nuclear weapons in 1998 under duress. Similar pressure will only fuel the anti-US sentiment and even the goodwill American aid to the seminaries may fail.
Seeking treaties is a pipedream if the political issues that force the states to pick up arms are left unattended. While the states squabble for at least another decade to arrive at a treaty that bans fissile materials production, the stocks and strike capabilities will continue to swell.
The onus of breaking ice always lies with the larger powers. India has no incentive to control its arms acquisitions and gets no sermons. With three-fourth of Indian forces facing Pakistan and asymmetries widening, Islamabad will not be satisfied with good Indian intents and American assurances and impasse will continue at the CD.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 24th, 2011.
COMMENTS (36)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
Looking at the size of India and Pakistan and their defence requirements proportionate to their need; why is Pakistan establishment wedded to the theory of parity with India in all respects. I fail to understand the reason behind this theory. As I understand that if you say India wants to “destabilize and destroy” Pakistan. Nothing could be further from the truth. Doing so could sow the seeds of India’s own destruction. And to believe that India wants to absorb another 170 million Muslims is pure nonsense. Then what is the reason??? Will some one explain to me please.
It's unfortunate to see how the essence of this article has been misconstrued by some and is used to challenge Pakistan's position against apartheid behavior. Author has merely touted the facts which are published by US, UN, IAEA and P-5 countries together, just a visit to a decent library should be enough to get the facts, squabbling or emotional scrimmages should be left to politicians. Debate or discussion on important matters require serious knowledge and a holistic understanding of geo-political situation, events and facts, emotional and personal comments are the tools of weak and ignorant people. I would suggest all reading Dr. Ganguly's post Mumbai attack article where he argued reasonably well about Pakistan's survival dispelling the wishes of those who desire to see Pakistan crumble. Focus of the article is to highlight the neo-apartheid approach of the west on nuclear disarmament in world, particularly asia. Pakistan has genuine and valid concerns about it which needs to be addressed. Had these concerns been addressed long ago, neither of the two countries would have spurred massive investments in the weapon of deterrence which has pushed the two countries further apart giving false sense of pride to its people.
Heading should read "Western Xinkiang, US and FMCT"
Some of the cynics instead of offering valid counter arguments, have just picked on the author and his association with the NDU. He is a student, like many of us who continue to seek more knowledge to understand the intricacies of realpolitik. Using forum that otherwise could have generated more informed debate, some commentators have only one agenda - to bash Pakistan and the military. It only exposes lineages of fake ID holders, and exposes the depth of understanding on issues that the author has discussed in his article.
I would agree with the author. Secondly, US is itself dangerous to the global nuclear non proliferation regime and its foreign policy positions will further exacerbate already fragile global strategic environment. It is time that global community shows transparency in its obligations rather than a principled nuclear weapons state such as Pakistan. Lastly, in my view, it would be beneficial for Pakistan that US takes the FMCT matter into general assembly as Pakistan will be relieved from a constant unjust pressure from CD forum of UN. Pakistan can also threaten to make CD ( United Nation's conference on disarmament) virtually freeze in other matters ?
Zahir. Its a good article and well explains the logical arguments so as to project Pakistan's interests. You may continue expressing your perspective so that the pseudo-intellectuals and short sighted policy compromises are neutralized for the common good of the state and the nation which is struggling against prejudices, coercive strategies, sponsored fifth columnists and hostile powers.
A good article, well thought and outlined. I would tend to agree with the writer that pioneer of nuclear proliferation (US) has double standards. At one side it has problems with Pakistan on the focus of FMCT and on the other side it is feeding India with nuclear material and technology to produce massive quantities of fissile material. US polices towards different regions and especially South Asia is based upon an apartheid agenda by not taking into account the regional and global stability. US policy makers are not understanding the problems that these polices to establish global stability is creating instabilities in regional contexts. Further more it is an old policy of US to not stand by its part of double bargain. If we carefully look at the history of nonproliferation we will reach at a conclusion that, US has a discriminatory approach towards those nations, regarding nuclear proliferation, which are not with her to contain its global adversaries. Surely the shopping of forums and shifting of forums is not a good idea to peruse non proliferation (US) objectives.
white elephent hypocracy is not new jeya Bhutto.
I am agreed with writer, as whatever is written in this article is fact. Writer has been able to make justice with the topic, he is been able to summarize all important and interlinked factors regarding FMCT which are under discussion in these days. Global and General disarmament is an idealistic approach and mean time it doesn't suite pre -1970 proliferators. Their unnecessary strategic cooperation in nuclear field with first South Asian proliferator to grab economic interests without taking regional peace & stability into account is inevitable reality. So, it is very clear Pakistan will never be a party to a treaty which is going to establish perpetuate nuclear asymmetries in South Asia. Allegedly Pakistan has fastest nuclear weapons production and Pakistani authorities never acknowledged it as they are working to maintain " Minimum Credible Deterrence" against its regional foe , and this regional foe is spending billion of dollars to procure conventional arms. Pakistan with its fragile and comparatively weak economy can't sustain an unending conventional arm race with India. So, it has no choice other than to work on its minimum credible deterrence for the security of its people. I welcome further intellectual thoughts on this issue, to draw a clear road map for Pakistan.
Another article to revive the theory of military power as the most important function of the state. India is no burgeoning military power and has no extraordinary American-led politico-economic support, as said in the article. Defense capability and its requirement of a nation largely depends on its size. The theory proposed in this article is misguiding and justifies requirement of military supremacy in all countries.
Good article If nonproliferation agenda of United States seems that the most important thing is Fissile Material Cut of Treaty so United States should accomplish it outside the CD.Pakistan trashes to sign the FMCT because of its anxieties that a fissile material ban should cover existing stocks of fissile material instead of only tentative future production, a position backed by several other CD members, mostly from the developing world. Most nuclear weapons inheritors, including India, aver on a production cut-off that does not address current stockpiles. Concluded the Indo-US civilian nuclear agreement and the subsequent Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) India can outflow the plug on the size of its nuclear arsenal, the renunciation allows it to conclude agreements with countries, including Russia and France, to supply it with nuclear fuel, allowing acquisition of hundreds of nuclear warhead
@observer:
Do you realize that number of nukes lose their relevance beyond a point? India is smart enough to realize that and invests her hard earned money in something more productive. BTW, what does Pakistan do with all the international aid money money anyway?
@Frank: Pak is just a sandwich between India, Afghanistan & on a later date Balochistan.
Guys hold your polemic and get some facts straight. You will realize why all the fuss. New Delhi has large fissile materials stocks and the fastest growing nuclear program. International Panel for Fissile Material’s reports 2006 onwards are fairly educative to assess asymmetries. Pakistan can yearly produce 36-48 kg of plutonium. An exaggerated estimate holds that Islamabad’s current weapons-usable plutonium stocks are likely 100-120 kg. Conversely, India’s fourth recently inaugurated plant can alone reprocess 100 tons of spent fuel yearly. India’s weapon-grade plutonium stocks are 950 kg. It has potentially stored a whopping 11.5 tons from unsafeguarded facilities. This means it has the potential to make 1150 nuclear warheads. Plutonium is the preferred material for bomb making compared to HEU for reasons of size, efficiency and yields. Hence, the reported 2.6 tons of Pakistani HEU is not really a leg up over India’s 1.3 tons. Now relate the above facts with this opinion piece and you will understand why the impasse at the CD.
Nadir el-edroos
If any country has cause to complain about Bin Laden's presence in Abbottobad it is Pakistan. Why did the American army allow Osama bin Laden to escape when they had him surrounded at his Tora Bora hideout? Why did they then allow him to cross into Pakistan from an Afghanistan under their occupation? Once here, because of American incompetence, he set up those terrorist networks that have wreaked so much destruction in the country. 35 000 Pakistanis murdered by Al Qaeda. Who has more reason to feel aggrieved, Pakistan or America? The ISI must have known about bin Laden's presence in Abottoabad, right? But then how is it that with the country crawling with CIA agents and with all that ultra high-tech surveillance equipment available to it the CIA was not aware of his whereabouts either?
Once again we are claiming parity with India and screaming discrimination by who else - the USA - our largest benefactor. We allege a conspiracy where none exists. We live in denial of our crass behavior. We are the export central of terror and nuke materials. We act with utter disregard for proper norms and demand that the world offer us parity with India! We can throw facts galore about India's arms spending and force concentration on our borders. Unless, we are willing to acknowledge our dangerous and reckless actions, the world will not grant us a nuclear civilian deal. Since we are hell bent on copying India, then let us be consistent in other areas too. We can then settle down to uplift our own and build a tolerant society that creates opportunities for all. Last, we want the USA to help us with a nuke deal, yet waste no time in spreading hate against it! Nuance and responsibility was never our DNA.
@observer:
All the nukes will not help even if you have a hundred in each province. A direct hit from a conventional vepon could trigger a nuke explosion in your backyard. and could trigger a chain reaction.
@Frank:
China wants to build a rail road into India and link tocentral asia. So where does it leave Pakistan.
@Frank: What about the west coast? We are one of the largest buyers of crude oil from Saudi Arabia. And also from Iran. Your statement is difficult to comprehend.
@Frank
United States has no land access to the world except Canada and Mexico, and still they are everywhere from Nicaragua to Abottabad.
@Nadir El-Edroos: Relax! He looks like an emerging scholar and we all start somewhere. I am not sure if I could understand your point from your hyperbole statements. Everyone has a right to express themselves and you can always criticize their work in a more professional and prudent manner. I do not know the author and am not trying to defend him or speak on his behalf but I was little puzzled by your statements and that also written in Desi English. I would appreciate a broader perspective of things and a positive feedback than just spiting in someone’s face.
Very well said.While keeping the cards open is important, however the threat from agression may not be completely solvable by just nuclear deterret, so we need to broaden our threat perception and plan accordingly. The two of the scenarios that we need to plan for are
Wide scale creation of anarchy to go the Libyan model in Pakistan (Now any country can try to save civilians in another country) Perpetual economic stagnation leading to wide scale mismatch of national capabilites vs our regional competitors"End 2010 Pakistan’s domestic debt was 5,497.4 billion rupees and external borrowing and liabilities of 59.356 billion dollars or 5105 billion rupees. In total 10602 billion meaning each Pakistani owes Rs. 589,000. This means that even street beggars and daily wage earner are under so much debt which they can never be able to pay".
So where does Pakistan get all money to develop and sustain neuclear weapons?
Are any of the above commenters ready to dish out Rs.589,000.00 to cover the debt?
@observer: You guys are so superior man!!. Remember the muslim warriors, each is as good as 10 Indians analogy. Keep on with your superiority crap!. India won't talk about what it has. I wonder where #1 Ton of Plutonium went missing from Russia in the '90s ended up. Pakistan has such superior weapons and military, got beat #4 Times. Still talking superiority. GROW UP! The whole world stands in awe of Pakistany superioriy.!!!*
I cant believe the Pakistani taxpayer has to subsidies a place like NDU which produces scholars of this quality. So US acrimony towards Pakistan is because we are not signing the FMCT? What about a certain most wanted terrorist living in Abottabad, that didnt sour relations but this does? Really? And its not the US position, it is 46 countries who are all against Pakistan's position! Pakistan cannot abandon China? Wow! Our ego has reached new levels where we consider that our attitude towards China even factors into the equation. And what exactly is Pakistans "Ismaic DNA"? Whose Islam are we talking about? Pre-Zia post Zia?Shia, Sunni, Brelvi etc etc. What "goodwill" aid is being offered to seminaries? Really this article is nothing more than a bunch of unsubstantiated talking points. If this is an insight into your military colleagues at the NDU, just goes to show that our so called strategic thinkers are hardly rational, but emotive analysts who believe their own propaganda. And rather than getting all excited about the US-India deal, why dont you add the obvious fact that the deal is dead in the water, and has not amounted to anything tangible! But no, stirring hysteria and fear is easier.
Let Pakistan make more nuclear weapons. More Pakistan spends on defense , less it will have left to defend. Solution will come when Pakistan spends everything on defense and its has nothing left to defend. What a paradox.
@ Frank... I really wonder even after closing all the borders bt Pakistan and China ... how is India progressing by 9% and Pakistan by 2%... and China by 12% ... can u guess ??? 1 + 1 = ??? ... hehehehe ... Pakistanis are getting used by China / America / Saudi .. and most of the gulf countries... wake up buddies ...
Zaihir! Good article. If FMCT is so important for President Obama's nonproliferation agenda, they should conclude it at any other forum outside the CD, minus Pakistan. US also knows very well that its new strategic partner India would not agree to a freeze in fissile material production. The India-US nuclear deal allows India to maintain at least eight nuclear facilities outside the IAEA safeguards for military purposes. A cut-off in fissile material production would obligate India to bring these facilities under the safeguards, and would thus nullify the unprecedented privilege that India enjoys through the US nuclear deal and the Nuclear Suppliers Group exemption of September 2008.
In the July 18, 2005 India-US Joint Statement India also committed to work with the US for conclusion of an FMCT. The statement made by Indian Ambassador at the CD in 2009, as you have highlighted, contradicts an earlier Indian commitment.
Instead of demanding from India, pressure tactics are being used to coerce Pakistan into submission.
Why all think tanks in west opsessed with pak nuc programme there are so many other countries and problems in this world for example poverty in africa, india and banking debt and worst is climate change there is more heat in cold places than its twenty years ago was and dringing water shortage problems gettting worst and basic human rights to all the human of world.
This article is oddly worded, rather disingenuous in my assessment.
@Zahir Kazmi
Islamabad may miraculously revive the Silk Road, but it cannot abandon China and certainly would not change its Islamic DNA.
Translation please. How does a road become antithetical to a friendship of mountaneous and oceanic proportions, and how does it help in genetic engineering? And aren't China and Pakistan proud co-owners of the Silk Road aka Karakoram Highway? So what is the miraculous revival all about. As I said. Translation please.
By signing a civil nuclear deal with India, the US allowed an exponential surge in its nuclear programme.
Well let us begin with this report, Islamabad: Daily Ummah, January 31, 2011. Finally, America has accepted that Pakistan's nuclear capability is superior to India's. According to a recent report published by David Albright, chairman of the Institute for Science and International Security, Pakistan now possesses 110 nuclear warheads, a spectacular increase from 30 to 60 warheads in 2007. India, on the other hand, is known to have built 60 to 100 warheads.
Please also see, http://www.defence.pk/forums/wmd-missiles/68060-pakistan-seen-possibly-surpassing-india-nuclear-buildup.html
I must say, Miracles never cease. It was Indian nuclear programme that was supposed to receive an 'exponential surge', but miraculously it is Pakistani nuclear arsenal that has surged exponentially. Verily, the Lord works in mysterious ways.
Either that or obfuscation of facts can account for the seeming contradiction.
America, the bankrupt superpower, is really promoting India as a counter to China. However, no country can seriously be considered a Great Power unless it can project power. China and Pakistan together have closed off all land access for India to the Middle East, Central Asia, and East Asia. We have made sure India can only project its power south, onto the mighty Maldive Islands. :)