How is NPT Possible?
(An Analysis)

Columnist Lt Col (Retd) MUHAMMAD ZAMAN MALIK discusses whether Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is feasible

Today, when the knowledge is going to double every quarter of a year, and nothing seems impossible for science and technology. We find the creation of 'World Order' that will keep nuclear weapons from being used destructively. This can obviously not be realised without organisational cohesion, discipline and sustained exertion of political will through a very strong 'CONVENTION' adopted and followed/practised by the FIVE Veto Powers first, through the machinery set in the UNO, for the purpose. Let us examine the thinking about it that goes across the minds of these powers.

WASHINGTON. The Clinton administration's Nuclear Posture Review launched with great fanfare in October 1993 as a comprehensive effort aimed at 're-writing the rules for post cold war world', concluded in September 1994, and embraced the status quo. Nuclear weapons, it said, would be needed for the foreseeable future, first, as a 'hedge' against a turn for worse in Russia and secondly, to deal with the threat posed by the 'rogues' eager to acquire nuclear weapons or other weapons for mass destruction1.

MOSCOW. These feelings are more intense in Moscow. Since late 1980s Moscow's empire in Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia has collapsed, its conventional military capability withered and economy imploded. Russia remains super Power in one and only one area: nuclear affairs and it is desperate to maintain it.

LONDON AND PARIS. Britain's motivations are reinforced by its desire to preserve the 'Special' British-American relationship which is one of the London's unique claims to international fame and which is rooted in Anglo-American nuclear cooperation. France's attachment to its nuclear arsenal is intimately linked to French beliefs, in country's 'Graneure' and its central place on the World Stage.

BEIJING. Mao Zedong had stated in 1958, 'As for the atomic bomb, this is a big thing, without it, people say you don't count much. Fine, then we should build some'. It has made China's leaders ever more committed to enhancing China's nuclear power2.

TEL AVIV. Gerald M. Steinberg writes: 'As long as the nuclear threats continue and legitimacy and permanence of Israel is questioned, Israel will continue to expand its nuclear capability'. The permanence to Israel's security rests entirely in Israel's own outlook3.

NEW DELHI AND ISLAMABAD. President Clinton of USA and his foreign secretary of state Albright do indeed feel very much concerned about the delay in signing the CTBT, by India and Pakistan. Lets, however, see what are the fears of these two neighbouring states and what are these arguments for not signing the CTBT, as yet. Denuclearisation is only slightly more imaginable in South Asia's near future. India and Pakistan remain embroiled in a bitter cold war whose epicentre is the disputed territory of the Muslim Kashmir. With daily headlines blaring the news of deaths and atrocities in Kashmir, by the eight hundred thousand strong Indian Army that are being committed by them on unarmed poor Kashmiris, the climate could hardly be less conducive to nuclear arms control. New Delhi, for decades advocated global nuclear disarmament while at the same time exploding her nuclear device in Pokhran in 1974, ostensibly for peaceful purposes, giving it the name of 'Smiling Buddha', which was accepted, most strangely, by the West as having been done for 'PEACEFUL PURPOSES' indeed! India is the most unreliable member of the UNO. Despite secret military pacts with the US 1959, it led the West by the nose to believe into her philosophy of non-violence. However, from common perspective of both India and Pakistan one does indeed find solace in the truth of their approach for it.

They maintain that global arms control requires replacing the NPT's discriminatory formula with a more egalitarian framework. Furthermore, India categorically rejects international efforts to achieve regional arms control in South Asia that did not require equivalent sacrifices on the part of China. In this respect, then, the road to denuclearisation in South Asia passes through Beijing. This is true because Pakistan claims that it will sign the NPT, the day India does4.

CONCLUSION. As can be seen, the sole Super Power and the other world powers which are industrially and economically very strong, have also achieved highest standards in the field of science and technology, are despite maintaining large forces in NATO, bent upon keeping their huge nuclear arsenals due to fears posed to each one of them. They do so despite shouting about end of the Cold War and the beginning of the Global Order. In South Asia or in Indo-Pak subcontinent, the situation is more explosive and desperate than it was during the proclaimed Cold War era. How can the US/the G-8 group of nations ensure peace under such volcanic scenario?

Two courses seem open for action:

a. Complete disarmament beginning with the sole Super Power itself, followed by the Five Veto Powers, in the light of strong convention evolved through consensus at UNO, supervised by the International Court of Justice, which should have essential powers vested in it, for the purpose.

b. Israel, India and Pakistan be accepted nuclear powers like the USA, Russia, France, UK and China, followed by signing of the NPT by all the eight nuclear powers, without wasting time lest some others should declare themselves for the title.

This is perhaps only how the state of mutual terror could be replaced by mutual confidence - a pre-requisite for 'Global/World Order'. Course B should be implemented forthwith while efforts for Course A be accelerated.