New Delhi. THE
Centre for Strategic and International Studies, Delhi, and the Indian Council
of World Affairs held a joint conference to commemorate the 20th anniversary of
the ‘Action Plan on Disarmament’ presented by then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi
to the UN General Assembly’s Special Session on Disarmament on June 9, 1988. In
launching their initiative for a “world free of nuclear weapons” the
four US statesmen, former Secretaries of State, George Schultz and Henry Kissinger
and former US Secretary of Defence William Perry and former Chairman of Senate
Armed Services Committee Sam Nunn, have referred to Rajiv Gandhi’s appeal.
Rajiv Gandhi said, “Nuclear war will not mean the death of a hundred million
people. Or even a thousand million. It will mean the extinction of four
thousand million, the end of life as we know it on our planet, earth. We come
to the United Nations to seek your support. We seek your support to put a stop
to this madness.” The fact that the four US statesmen quote Rajiv Gandhi
19 years after his plea in the UN highlights that his appeal and Action Plan are
still valid. Rajiv Gandhi presented his plan as a world statesman and did not
adopt a parochial Indian view. He called on the international community to adopt
his phased plan for disarmament and offered that India would not cross the nuclear
threshold if his plan was adopted. He also warned them that if it was not adopted
there was not much leeway left for India in view of proliferation carried out
by great powers (meaning thereby Chinese proliferation to Pakistan). That
was a clear warning that India would be compelled to acquire nuclear weapons if
the international community continued in its traditional ways. Unfortunately it
did and Rajiv Gandhi after another eight months of agonising, decided to acquire
nuclear weapons for India. In the last 20 years there have been both positive
and negative developments in the international security scenario. The Cold War
has ended and no longer two major adversaries confront each other with monstrous
arsenals on hair-trigger alert. The nuclear arsenals of the world which had 60,000
weapons have now come down to 20,000. US and Russia are partners in peace.
There are no risks of major powers of the world — US, Russia, China and the
European Union — resorting to nuclear exchange. But there have been very
serious negative developments too. The nuclear weapons, which were considered
a temporary necessity to maintain deterrence against each other during the bipolar
confrontation have now been made permanent legitimate weapons for fi ve nations
(US, Russia, UK, France and China) through the indefi nite and unconditional extension
of the Nonproliferation Treaty in 1995. A temporary arms control treaty of 25
years duration with promises of elimination of nuclear weapons has In the last
20 years there have been both positive and negative developments in the international
security scenario. The Cold War has ended and no longer two major adversaries
confront each other with monstrous arsenals on hair-trigger alert. The nuclear
arsenals of the world which had 60,000 weaponshave now come down to 20,000. US
and Russia are partners in peace. There are no risks of major powers of the world
— US, Russia, China and the European Union — resorting to nuclear exchange.
But there have been very serious negative developments too. The nuclear
weapons, which were considered a temporary necessity to maintain deterrence against
each other during the bipolar confrontation have now been made permanent legitimate
weapons for five nations (US, Russia, UK, France and China) through the indefinite
and unconditional extension of the Nonproliferation Treaty in 1995. A temporary
arms control treaty of 25 years duration with promises of elimination of nuclear
weapons has non-proliferationists’ is still within the arms control framework
they devised in the sixties and managed to sustain relatively successfully. Consequently,
the four US statesmen propose a whole host of arms control measures - reduction
in arsenals, comprehensive test ban treaty, fi ssile materials production cut-off,
measures to increase the safety of weapons and materials and preventing new countries
acquiring nuclear weapons. While they recognise that in order to achieve
progress on these steps, the nations have to commit themselves to a nuclear weapon-free
world. For them the goal is like the top of a very high mountain which they are
unable to see. The want to chart a course to a high ground from which they will
be able to see the goal of a nuclear weapon-free world. In other words, this goal
is very much like Article VI of the non-proliferation treaty which committed the
members to nuclear disarmament but on which there has been no progress over the
last 40 years. While the world will wish success for the initiative of the
four US statesmen, the past history does not hold out much hope that the present
proposals are any more meaningful than what was proposed in the NPT and various
arms control measures, in taking the world towards genuine disarmament. The
Indian approach now advanced in the conference on disarmament in Geneva —
based on Rajiv Gandhi’s proposal — starts with a commitment by all nuclear
weapon powers to reach nuclear weapon-free world. That should be followed by reducing
the salience of nuclear weapons in the strategic doctrines. The third step is
a commitment to no first use. That will be followed by a verifi able treaty to
eliminate the weapons, with security assurances to non-nuclear weapons, and cut-off
of production of fissile materials. The world has the chemical weapons elimination
treaty of 1993 as the model. That came about 68 years after nations delegitimised
the chemical weapons in Geneva Protocol of 1925 which committed them to “no
first use”. India has committed itself to no-first use of nuclear weapons.
So long as weapon is not de-legitimised it will not be eliminated, especially
if it is considered militarily usable. President Reagan and General Secretary
Gorbachev declared in 1985 in Geneva that a nuclear war could not be won. Many
military men who have commanded nuclear forces have questioned whether a war using
nuclear weapons can be meaningfully fought and a military decision obtained. It
was the realisation after the First World War that chemical weapons could not
be used meaningfully to win battles that led to the Geneva Convention and their
non-use till 1993 except in cases where the aggressor had the weapon and the victim
did not and the international community callously took no action. Therefore,
to advance towards a nuclear weapon-free world, besides the arms control measures
proposed by the four US statesmen there should be a drive to delegitimise the
nuclear weapons, highlighting the non-fi ghtability and non-winnability of nuclear
wars and by adopting a no-first use doctrine as happened for the chemical weapons
in Geneva Protocol 1925 and which ended in the treaty for the elimination of chemical
weapons in 1993. In the Delhi seminar there was signifi cant focus on going
beyond arms control and emphasis on `no first use' doctrine. A suggestion was
also made that there should be an independent commission of retired Strategic
Force Commanders from the nine nuclear weapon countries to examine the fightability
and winnability of nuclear wars. One hopes these views will have some influence
on the campaigns now launched in the Western world.
(Courtesy
The Tribune)
(The author is India's eminent strategic analyst) | 
