National / International News
The nuclear question-Talat Masood
, 08-Feb-2010 The world for the last 65 years has got so used to nuclear weapons that talk of a world free of nuclear weapons can be unsettling and sound too idealistic. Nonetheless, after former secretaries of state George Schultz and Kissinger, former defence secretary William Perry and Senator Sam Nunn wrote their op-ed in The Wall Street Journal last month, a movement for elimination of nuclear weapons seems to be gradually gaining momentum. There is a growing realisation that two main threats loom large over the horizon that could completely destroy humanity. One is climate change, affected by the world’s heavy reliance on hydro-carbon fuels, and the other an even greater danger posed by a catastrophic nuclear exchange by design or accident.
The feeling is that whatever stabilising impact nuclear weapons had during the Cold War has been superseded by risks inherent in the proliferation of nuclear-weapon states and related dangers of nuclear terrorism. And unless the nuclear “haves” engage in serious disarmament it is becoming very difficult to prevent more and more non–nuclear weapon states from acquiring nuclear weapons capability.
The nature of threat has also changed dramatically. Nuclear weapons have no role in countering terrorism, cyber threats and asymmetric warfare. Nuclear weapons are only good for deterring nuclear weapons and if there are no nuclear weapons then they have no use. Demand for clean sources of energy has triggered a renaissance in civil nuclear energy, and that too has the potential for proliferation of nuclear weapon-states.
Realising these dangers President Obama and President Medvedev of Russia issued a historic joint statement in April last year committing their countries to achieving a nuclear-free world and to start negotiations for reducing their arsenals. Following this lead, in September the UN Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution calling for elimination of nuclear weapons.
1. In parallel prestigious organisations like “Global Zero,” “the International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament” and the Pugwash Conference on Nuclear Science and World Affairs have been highly active in support of this goal.
2. In pursuit of this aim Global Zero convened a “summit” inviting a galaxy of serving and former presidents, prime ministers, ministers, diplomats, generals and strategists from nuclear and non-nuclear countries in Paris last week. India and Pakistan too had their heavyweights attending the conference in their individual capacities.
3. In the 1960s and 70s the smartest minds had gone into the strategic field, believing in strategic deterrence. It is ironic and a good omen that similarly powerful minds are engaged in finding ways of eliminating nuclear weapons.
The organisers of Global Zero presented a plan of action for developing hardnosed practical comprehensive strategies for eliminating all nuclear weapons. This would, of course, require concrete steps.
In addition, the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in May provides a valuable opportunity to draw attention to the serious risks inherent in nuclear weapons and the urgent need to collectively work towards eliminating them. If the nuclear haves, and especially US and Russia, which hold nearly 95 per cent of nuclear weapons, do not agree to concrete measures of reduction and their ultimate elimination, it is very likely the global the nuclear non-proliferation regime may collapse. US-Russian relations touched a low point during the Bush period and the confidence level was very low.
Agreement on START could restore confidence between Washington and Moscow. If it happens before the NPT Review Conference it would be even better. It may then be possible to discuss the next steps towards further reductions. But unfortunately the US currently is politically polarised and the Republican Party would not like Obama to succeed. The record of the Senate in the last twenty years has not been good at ratifying international treaties either.
Moreover, Russians had been badly humiliated by President Bush’s policy of Nato’s enlargement, missile defence, Afghanistan and Iran.
The US, trying to expand its influence in Ukraine and Georgia, had further damaged relations that need to be repaired. It will therefore depend on the extent of cooperation President Obama gets from the Russian and Chinese leaderships. Lately, Chinese and US interests are clashing over Iran. China is dictated by commercial and strategic considerations in dealing with Iran while the US perceives it as a hostile regime and a threat to Israel and the Gulf states. These fears will have to recede for creating an enabling environment to move forward on nuclear arms reduction and their ultimate elimination.
President Obama has also asked for the Nuclear Posture Review by April. If this policy document recommends less reliance and utility of nuclear weapons his hands will be strengthened to move forward substantially on arms reduction and take a leadership role at the NPT Review Conference.
Another significant event will be the summit on nuclear security in April in which 43 countries will be participating. This again will provide a good opportunity to pursue issues of disarmament and proliferation.
In the near term several other developments will influence the nuclear landscape. Progress has to be made on the ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). China will only ratify if the US takes the lead. India and Pakistan will only join when United States and China ratify.
Negotiations on the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) have not even started due to the hard position Pakistan has adopted. It wants the agenda to be determined before it is willing to relent, for which it is receiving a lot of international flak. Islamabad has genuine concerns and would like the question of verification and other major issues to be settled before entering into formal negotiations. The Indo-US nuclear deal has given India the ability to build up stocks of fissile material at a faster pace as eight of its nuclear reactors are not under safeguards. But it may be better for Pakistan’s image if the same position is taken inside the conference.
It is envisaged that it is only when the US and Russia have reduced their arsenals that Britain, France, China and lastly India, Israel and Pakistan will correspondingly start reducing their arsenals.
In order to influence governments of nuclear-weapon states a worldwide campaign for public awareness has to be started. Interest in reduction and elimination of nuclear weapons must be revived in the public consciousness. Young people are uniquely placed to take the lead. In any case, nuclear weapons are more a weapon of the past than of the future. The time has come for the idea to be concretised to make our world a safer place.
As Hans Blix put it aptly, the world has to find ways of moving away from “mutually assured destruction” to an age of “mutually assured stability,” however daunting the challenge may be.
The writer is a retired lieutenant-general
http://thenews.jang.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=223051
The News
|
