Signing CTBT: Surfing on a Tornado
Columnist Wing Comd (Retd) MUHAMMAD IRSHAD comments on the pressures on Pakistan with respect to signing CTBT
Pakistan is under extra pressure to sign it for lots of reasons. Firstly, the Americans identified 44 nations whose signatures are mandatory for the treaty to take shape. Except India and Pakistan, all have signed it. Now India after marathon discussions, and after gaining (or with positive assurance of gaining) reasonable benefits (details not fully known) are quite close to signatures. This leaves Pakistan , the only country who has yet to sign the documents. Such a position is always an odd position to take , and thus the pressures on Pakistan.
The moving force behind the treaty are the Americans, who are the only super-power left on the earth, and also they have tremendous influence on aid giving agencies of the world. In case of denial to signatures, they are likely to exert a combined pressure, much more than what our fragile economy can tolerate. Thus knowing many pitfalls, an open denial to the signatures is not possible.
Our Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had almost agreed to sign this treaty before September 30, 1999, but he went back on the promise, giving in to the heavy domestic pressures. General Musharraf is in a similar position. The American Senators and officials of the State Department, would like Pakistan to take a clear stand on many issues including signatures on CTBT, much before the March 2000 planned visit of the US president to this sub-continent. They have been clear in stating that if these signatures and few other points are not clarified, then President Clinton might skip Pakistan from his planned tour, giving rise to the possibility of new low-level of Pak-American relations.
Those opposing signing of the treaty have build up a popular frenzy against CTBT. In this treaty, they see the beginning of the end of Pakistan's nuclear weapons programme, and term its endorsement tantamount to signing one's own death warrant. The clarifications by government appear to be making a mockery of the situation, as various known figures are on record to be taking changing positions with changing times. For example, our now foreign minister Mr Abdul Sattar is advocating that signatures on this treaty are in the best interest of the nation. But only few months back he was deadly against the signatures and wrote many articles in the press that were contrary to his present stand. Apparently he took a U-turn after being made the foreign minister (Or the statements are only to save his chair?).
The deplorable situation is that the fate of the masses was always decided without the consent of the masses, and the present military government is no exception. It has no vehicle, like a parliament, so the possibility of taking masses into confidence over this important issue does not arise. Remember when Mogul King Aurangzeb only signed a simple document allowing a British doctor to conduct trade, it resulted in the slavery of this sub-continent for next three centuries. Hindu Mahraja of the Muslim State of Kashmir signed a document of accession against the will of people (as stated by India), and the people of the valley are suffering since last fifty years. The last time our some ruler went to sign such an important document without the confidence of his nation was, when late President Ayub Khan went to Tashkent to sign like a tiger, and came out like a mouse shivering under constant threats of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Many in the politics believe that those signatures were the political death of Ayub Khan. I am sure he must have wished many times over of having taken his parliament into confidence before signatures, but time being an essence on many important occasions, had elapsed.
Why are Americans so crazy about this or many similar treaties? The basic problem is not just signatures on some paper or not even of conducting some nuclear tests. The basic problem is about possessing the nuclear capabilities with awesome possibilities, and the machinery for their perpetual enhancement. America, after conducting more than 1,000 tests, has reached a level of perfection where they are at least decades above the level of any other country. Also they have the advanced machinery where many tests can be conducted without an actual explosion. No country has similar machinery, and those even very close are decades away. Now the Americans feel that possession of these weapons by other states may be a serious hindrance in their future hegemonic designs. Thus they want to limit the capabilities of other countries through this treaty, which basically prohibits the testing of nuclear weapons. Under Article One sub-para one, 'Each State Party Undertakes not to carryout any nuclear test explosion or any other nuclear explosion, and to prohibit and prevent any such nuclear explosion at any place under its jurisdiction or control'. The logic behind these wordings is based on the principal that no one is going to risk using nuclear weapons unless they are pretty confident that they will work. This clause prohibits most kinds of testing and thus may make way for total non-usage.
The wordings of the treating have been written with extreme skill and more than 100 pages of the document still hides many American intentions, thus even our people and government are not clear about various clauses. Our past history is a strong witness that such treaties are always a trap. For example, we annoyed our Chinese friends and the Russians, in early late fifties by joining CETO & CENTO, which the Americans told us, would give us a status of partnership where attack on one would be considered an attack on the other. We had experienced a 14 months long war with India only months after our country's birth, and in the hope of being never attacked again, we joined the American pacts. But when in 1965, the Indians attacked us and we sought the American help. We were told, after many years of staying together in the treaties, that this treaty is valid for communist attacks only, and since India is not a communist country, Americans are not bound to help us. As a matter of fact, it is on records, that Americans-the allies of Pakistan actually gave a lots of moral and materialistic support to the Indians - Pakistan's perpetual enemy.
There is a similar situation now. For example let us consider only one clause of the carefully worded CTBT document. The clause of inspections states: 'The Treaty has a Protocol under which an International Monitoring System (IMS) and an International Data Centre (IDC) are being established as part of the global verification regime foreseen under article IV (Verification). The intrusions and inspection, though not clearly defined are stated in scattered manner like Article IV clauses 48, 58, and Article II, clause a3 etc. But the ambiguity, appears to have been deliberately inserted. Because of this ambiguity, many of our defence experts feel that this clause opens the door of all our nuclear installations for all kinds of checks under any heading. The interpretation by our foreign minister Mr Abdul Sattar, as published in The News on January 12, 2000, is 'Opposition propaganda about opening of Pakistan nuclear installations, once CTBT is signed is baseless. Pakistan has already endorsed the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) about Chemical and Biological weapons and no one inspected our installations on the pretext of CWC signing. 'On the other hand, just before the PM Nawaz Sharif's visit to America, US Under Secretary of State, Strobe Talbot, speaking on 'Peace and Security in South Asia' in the world network programme (Nov 13, 98) alluded to the inspections not merely of 'testing sites'(say Baluchistan) but of 'nuclear sites'(like Kahuta, Khushab laboratories). It was certainly not any lapse, it had just brought the cat out of the bag. In the same interview, he clarified that the real target was nuclear roll back. It may also be noted that the size of the 'Nuclear explosion' to qualify it as a nuclear explosion is missing in the treaty. A smallest test carried out in the laboratory may, at American will, be termed as an 'Atomic explosion' deserving an American inspection. Is it that our foreign minister does not know about the American intentions? or is his chair stopping him from presenting the real truth to the nation. . Even when Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan was asked the same question (Talbot's remarks) by a local journalist, he avoided the question by simply saying, 'What would be the political repercussions of signing the treaty or how would it effect Pakistan's other nuclear concerns, it will not be advisable for me to comment'. (Published in The Voice of May 1999). Why did he not say like the foreign minister that the treaty will not open doors to foreign inspections?
The whole treaty is a trap. A maze full of amazes. Space does not allow a complete discussion, but I must discuss one more clause of the treaty. Article One, sub-para 2 of the treaty states: Each State Party undertakes, furthermore, to refrain from causing, encouraging, or in anyway participating in the carrying out of any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion. The logic behind these words is to ensure that no nuclear expansion takes place because of nuclear co-operation. That means those who have nuclear weapons should not encourage other states to have this technology. Before any comments, let us see some facts:- a) All Israeli nuclear tests were conducted in the laboratories of America. b) All British tests from 1962 have been conducted jointly with the United States at the Nevada Test Site. (Guide to the World Today, by Gerald Segal) Recently India has signed a defence accord with Russia under which the latter has pledged to provide Indians with S-300 Theatre Missile defence system , popularly known as the 'Star War' system. With so much of open nuclear co-operation, why are the same states asking for a treaty of 'Non-Cooperation'. Obviously, all such words are for the Muslim states. The US nuclear umbrella provides protection and military alliance under NATO to Europe and Japan. UK and France have their own added deterrence. The erstwhile Great Russian Empire are economically on the mat and are thus no threat to Americans. China in the foreseeable future is not likely to adopt any aggressive posture. What still raises awe for the world's only superpower is the Muslim World. Although in a bad shape with less unity amongst themselves, but the Muslim World is one sixth of the world area with one fifth of the world resources including the world's biggest oil reserves and some precious minerals. The US and the West are nervous about Muslim Unity and a possible Islamic threat. Thus Israel has been strengthened so that it does dominate the combined strength of the Arab States, economically and militarily. It has been ensured that no challenging power should emerge in the area. Any nation that aspires for an independent role, be it Syria, Iran, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or anyone else, it has to be 'fixed' so that it may pose no threat to Israeli hegemony. The fate of the Central Asian Muslim states is no different where it has been ensured that a Muslim block is not created, and the whole area remains linked with Russia and Europe.
In this context, Pakistan becoming a nuclear state is most awesome and a factor that can upset their whole future plans. And now US wants Pakistan to be weak so that Muslim World does not look up to Pakistan for any possible assistance to attain independent nuclear postures. Pakistan's history of helping many countries in the Middle East in strengthening of conventional weapons technology is also a grim reminder of the possible capabilities of Pakistan. Thus all efforts to ensure that Pakistan's nuclear capability is reduced to all possible limits and a great emphasis on Pakistan for commitments to ensure that no export of nuclear technology takes place.
This clause is also in contradiction to the words of the holy book. In Holy Quran, at many places, including 49.10; 21.92; 23.52; 23.53; and 4.33 it is being emphasized to maintain co-operation and brotherhood amongst the believers. But this treaty says do not help each other. So if India is attacking Pakistan, no Muslim country should help us and if Israel is attacking the Palestinians, then we should not think of helping them in any way. Be rest assured that when it comes to helping the westerns amongst themselves, they will help openly, and will also find a secret clause within this treaty which justifies all their actions.
Another dangerous portion of the above clause states: Both the raw and processed data will be available to all the States parties. This clause will ensure that irrespective who comes for our inspection, our data will be in the hands of Indians and Americans within seconds of being approached. I am also positive that when we want some data, there shall be a clause prohibiting us the transfer of such secret information.
The American officials, during the recent visit had stated that by signing CTBT, Pakistan shall be strengthening her security. Unfortunately, some Pakistani officials have started echoing the same words. How America perceives the security of Pakistan, can be gauged by the Questions and Answers as given by the White House spokesman on the eve of our PM Nawaz Sharif's visit to America. Q: The Pakistan Prime Minister, after meeting the President (of USA) , talked about informing the president about Pakistan's National Security dilemma, as he calls it , as a result of prolonged American sanctions and depleted conventional weapons. How is the US expected to help him resolve the dilemma?. Assistant Secretary, Inderfurth (replying): We can't help him unless he helps himself. The fact is that the President was able to exercise limited waiver authority under the Brownback Amendment on Economic issues. Brownback does not cover, military to military relations. For us to have an opportunity to address the conventional military needs of Pakistan, Pakistan will have to take further steps to address our concerns on non-proliferation'. In simple words the American solution to all our security concerns is that 'you want conventional weapons, get rid of nuclear weapons'. This is the position, which the Americans want or probably the Indians would love to see us in. Unfortunately, we cannot ask the Americans, why they did not strengthen their security by getting rid of their nuclear weapons, when they were under threat from the Russians.
And if the Americans think that CTBT is such a lovely thing to sign, why can't they convince their own Senate to sign the same. After about four years of signing the treaty, the American president has yet not been able to convince his own senate to ratify the same. Yet the pressure on all other countries to sign the same. In fact, the CTBT is the thin edge of the wedge, which will push us up step by step to capping, restricting and compromising our nuclear programme. The US agenda goes far beyond the CTBT. It encompasses the fissile material production freeze, non-testing and non-deployment of warheads and ballistic missiles and ultimately joining the non-proliferation regime, which roughly means getting rid of all nuclear capabilities, and say 'Yes Sir' to all future American demands.
The road of refusing to sign is also not an easy one. In the short range it is a bundle of troubles. Basically it is the fragile economy, resulting from the luxuries of our various leaders which have put us in this miserable situation. The Americans will probably try to hurt us in more ways than we can imagine. At present all the aid giving agencies like IMF and the World Bank behave like departments of the US government. Even UN has acted as an extension of the American government. The Americans have enough experience of hurting the Muslim states, Libyan coasts have been bombarded, Palestinians have been kept under siege, Afghans have been attacked by missiles, Iraqis have been tortured to the extreme limits, Iran has been threatened on many occasions, Indonesia is being ripped apart, Kashmiris are suffering from every thinkable torture because Americans do not consider them as human beings fit for their attention. But if we look at Iran, Libya and many others, they are still very respectable nations. They all have a clear message for us. They have maintained their own independence under heavy odds. But the road of freedom was never an easy one. Tipu Sultan died, but left the golden words that 'A day's life like a lion is better than thousand years like a jackal'. As a nation, we have to make some such tough choices. The commandoes in Army are trained to accept the most demanding challenges. Let us wait and see, how our Commando , head of the government reacts to this challenge.
