Cat and Mouse game over nuclear weapons

The cat and mouse game over the elimination of nuclear weapons must end immediately. The recent UN general assembly where leaders where trading charges to their whims and fancies doesn't strike the required cord with the common public.

The Times of India writes (29 September 2009)

The nuclear move-counter move that took place in New York was not unexpected. Given that disarmament has been US president Barack Obama's pet
foreign policy initiative, a face-off of sorts was always on the cards. It has fallen out largely as expected, although UN Security Council Resolution 1887 calling on all non-signatories to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) to sign on was a surprise. But the rebuttal by Indian external affairs minister S M Krishna was inevitable, as was Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's stance. And at the end of the day, nothing has truly changed on the ground when it comes to genuine disarmament initiatives.

Both resolution 1887 and the NPT are self-defeating in their vagueness. The former does not authorise any concrete disarmament measures; it is, in effect, merely a promise to keep talking. And the latter is a fundamentally flawed document in both intent and execution. It lacks the teeth to compel disarmament on the part of the five de jure nuclear powers. In effect, it locks the non-nuclear signatories into a false bargain wherein they have gambled away a strategic option for a promise that was never delivered upon. For India to accede to such a treaty, rolling back its nuclear programme in the process, is simply not feasible.

That said, genuine global disarmament is a worthy goal, however distant, that New Delhi must continue to work towards. Rajiv Gandhi's 1988 action plan provides a template, entailing verifiable, time-bound waypoints towards disarmament for the existing nuclear powers. And controversial though it is bound to be domestically, New Delhi should not completely rule out signing on to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT). Neither is completely inconsistent with India's declared nuclear doctrine of credible deterrence. If, for instance, the government is confident of the existing arsenals and technology's effectiveness and of the capability to conduct computer-simulated tests it would lose little by acceding to CTBT. In the process, it may even be able to win concessions from the US such as data and technology to aid with simulations. Using the same logic, once a minimum credible deterrent has been achieved in terms of size of the arsenal, the FMCT becomes a possibility. But these remain hypothetical scenarios for now, given that the US itself has not ratified either treaty.

It is a fine line that New Delhi must walk, safeguarding India's strategic interests in a difficult neighbourhood while not being seen to be obstructionist when it comes to genuine disarmament efforts. As A Q Khan's clandestine network has shown the world, proliferation intrinsically linked to disarmament continues to be a serious threat. And India has more to lose than most.

Nuclear Controversy

Whether India's bomb exploded or not? This is the new controversy created by some of the eminent nuclear scientists. Although this kind of trouble brewed during the first nuclear tests. It is crucial to clear these doubts soon.


The Times of India writes (26 September 2009)


The controversy over whether the Pokhran tests of 1998 were a "fizzle" is nothing new. Prime Minister Morarji Desai reportedly asserted that Pokhran
I in 1974 was nothing more than a large explosion of conventional devices, while others asserted the yield then was less than that claimed by our scientists. The two most prominent scientists involved in the 1974 test were Raja Ramanna and P K Iyengar. Interestingly, Ramanna, who was associated as a member of the Atomic Energy Commission with the 1998 tests, validated claims about their success. Iyengar, however, expressed doubts about the claim that the second "boosted fission" device had a yield of 43 kilotonnes.

The only known comprehensive international study of Pokhran 1998 was based on data of 125 seismic stations across the world. This study, carried out by seismologist Roger Clark of the University of Leeds, validated the claims of Indian scientists associated with the test. The major implication of this controversy is that while there are very few demanding that India should immediately conduct further nuclear tests, the government will find it difficult to close options, by signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).

Even as this controversy raged in India, the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) declared that Pakistan, which according to latest estimates possesses 70-90 nuclear weapons, is set to rapidly expand its arsenal, with work nearing completion on two large plutonium reactors. Pakistan could double its nuclear arsenal, with lighter plutonium warheads within a decade. The FAS study also revealed that Pakistan is ready to deploy the Chinese origin Shaheen II missile, capable of hitting urban centres in distant corners of India and cruise missiles to counter Indian missile defences. It is now well established that the reactors and reprocessing facilities for Pakistan's new generation of nuclear weapons and its ballistic and cruise missiles are all of Chinese origin. The instruction manuals of nuclear weapons designs given by A Q Khan to Libya were in the Mandarin language!

Pakistan's intention to rapidly expand its nuclear arsenal was clear when its ambassador to the UN Committee on Disarmament in Geneva recently blocked proposals for the early conclusion of a treaty banning the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons (FMCT). This move came just after the US Military Academy at West Point published a report revealing that three nuclear weapons related facilities the Wah ordnance factory, the Kamra air base and the Sargodha weapons storage facility had been attacked by suspected jihadis. Why is it necessary for Pakistan to build such a huge and potentially unsafe arsenal when its Punjab and North West Frontier Province are vulnerable to attacks by jihadi groups?

The head of Pakistan's strategic forces command Lt Gen Khalid Kidwai has indicated that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is "aimed solely at India" and will come into play only if an Indian attack either makes deep inroads into Pakistan's urban centres, or significantly degrades its army and air force. Since neither of these scenarios is plausible, why does Pakistan need such a large arsenal?

The rationale for Pakistan's quest for nuclear weapons was outlined by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto after he decided on January 19, 1972 that Pakistan had to acquire nuclear weapons. Bhutto held that after the Bangladesh debacle in December 1971, it was imperative for Pakistan to acquire nuclear weapons to counter the conventional capabilities of a much larger India. Bhutto also noted that while the "Christian, Jewish and Hindu civilisations" had nuclear weapons capability, it was "Islamic civilisation" alone that did not possess nuclear weapons. Bhutto asserted that he would be remembered as the man who had provided the "Islamic civilisation" with "full nuclear capability". Libyan and Saudi Arabian funding of Bhutto's "nuclear vision" is well documented, as is Pakistan's supply of nuclear weapons know-how and equipment to Iran and Libya.

The Bush White House revealed that Pakistani nuclear scientists, Suleiman Asad and Al Mukhtar, had extensive discussions in Kandahar, on radiological dispersal devices, with Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden. Two associates of A Q Khan, Sultan Bashiruddin Mehmood and Chaudhuri Abdul Majeed, were detained for clandestine contacts with the al-Qaeda and Taliban. Mehmood publicly advocated transfer of nuclear weapons to other Islamic countries and echoing Bhutto, described Pakistan's nuclear capability as the property of the whole "Ummah" (Muslim world).

While General Kidwai, who now controls Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, belongs to a generation of officers commissioned before the fundamentalist General Zia-ul Haq ushered in a new generation of more religiously oriented officers, the control of Pakistan's nuclear weapons will inevitably shift to military officers and scientists who tend to regard their nuclear arsenal as an asset of the Islamic world. Pakistan's nukes might fall not just into the hands of jihadis, but there is also the prospect of cash-strapped Pakistan transferring nuclear weapons, or providing nuclear guarantees to countries like Saudi Arabia, as it seeks more influence and leverage in an oil-rich Islamic world, which is engulfed by rivalry between Shia-dominated Iran and the Wahhabi-oriented Saudis.

The writer is a former high commissioner to Pakistan

Putting Pakistan on Track

A train full of nuclear weapons is running at a high speed. The disastrous train is Pakistan. It is being operated by Jehadis and other fundamental elements. Politicians, army, ISI, scientists and other crucial people in the administration are willing to be partners with deadly train operators. For their selfish motives the most important people of Pakistan’s administration are willing to indirectly support the Jehadis. This has been the trend of Pakistan from its beginning as an independent nation in 1947. Now the global challenge is to stop the uncontrolled nuclear train before it rams into its own people and the world.

Although there was no jehadis that time hardliners were amply present. For them anti-Indian slogans and actions is space provider in the Pakistani politics. In a way their anti-Indian expression gave them legitimacy and political power. From its founder Mohammad Ali Jinnah to the present rulers like Asif Ali Zardari and Yusuf Raza Gilani every Pakistani politician tries to reach No.1 spot in anti-India tower.

Yusuf Gilani was nominated by Zardari as Prime Minister. With the expectation that Gilani will be his trustworthy man, Zardari supported him. Today Gilani is galloping to strike the most anti-Indian in the Pakisan establishment. He sacked the National Security Advisor, Durrani for towing a soft line towards India. It seems that Durrani got the prior approval from the president. If he spoke after Zardari’s green signal still he was sacked by the P.M then Gilani is trying to cultivate a hardliner image. He may be nurturing extra ambitions in the Pakistani politics. Not to lag behind India friendly Zardari is also trying to take hard positions. From the denial of Pakistani involvement in Mumbai terror to negating the terror dossier provided by India, Zardari signaled his hard line towards India. At this stage India has the most extremely job of keeping the Pakistan establishment under very cool temperature.

Now they have moved up from the anti-India sphere. Anti-West and Anti-Americanism is running thick in their blood. Every time they want a target to be in the global limelight. Bringing the atrocities committed against Muslims in Palestine, Kashmir, Iraq, Afghanistan, the hardliners have joined hands with Jehadis who are aided by the global force called Al Qaieda. In a way Pakistan has become a hotbed of international terror promotion and abetment. This worries the western nations.

The incoming USA president Barack Obama and his team consider nuclear enabled Pakistan as the biggest foreign policy challenge. David Sanger the Bush administration’s Pakistan policy investigator had claimed “only one of those countries has a hundred nuclear weapons. For al-Qaeda and other Islamists this is the home game—For anyone trying to keep a nuclear weapon going off in the United States, it is our home game too”.

There seems to be a network of Jehadis and ex nuclear scientists of Pakistan. A.Q.Khan and Bashirudding Mahmood are aiding Jehadis in the nuclear weapons programme. Knowing the consequences, USA had spent $100 million in ensuring the safety of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. The terrorists are attacking India to provoke a war with Pakistan. To retaliate India, Pakistan may move its nuclear arsenal to the borders with India. During that time Jehadis are trying to hijack the nuclear weapons for their use against Western countries. But Pakistanis are not willing to accept USA help in locking its nuclear weapons to safety. It thinks that America will lock its weapons to disable its nuclear status.

In this crossroad of global terrorism and Pakistan’s role, Americans are already alerted. It seems that Pakistan is the breeding and nurturing ground for jehadis against America. Hence there is a lot of focus on Pakistan. America should understand that any pep talk is not enough. It must go ahead and totally disable Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. Before that it must ensure complete wipeout of Jehadis from the soil of Pakistan. One they are eliminated it must move to Afghanistan and other countries to crush them. Jehadis are global terror spreading machines. What was spelled out by the US Congressional Bipartisan Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism in its report last month “were one to map terrorism and weapons of mass destruction today, all roads, would intersect in Pakistan” should be urgently acted upon.

In this regard Hillary Clinton the new secretary of state’s statement is encouraging. She said “Equally important will be a comprehensive plan using all elements of our power – diplomacy, development and defence – to work with those in Afghanistan and Pakistan who want to root out al-Qaida, the Taliban and other violent extremists who threaten them as well as us in what president elect Barack Obama has called the central front in the fight against terrorism.

All sensible nations have an immediate duty to perform - pulling Pakistani administration from the hard line and burying extremists below the ground. With all the available evidences point towards Pakistan as the home ground for global terrorists the earlier it is saved the better for the world. India must exercise patience, caution and consistency in eliminating its enemy which is global as well now without shooting mouth often.