New Clear Realities

Columnist Wing Comd (Retd) MUHAMMAD IRSHAD
looks at the choices after India’s nuclear blasts
and our Chaghai response

On the issue of Kashmir, the Pakistani nuclear tests have served as a wake-up call for the international community, and by now, there has been an unambiguous public acknowledgment by the international community about Kashmir being the core impediment in the improvement of Pak-India relations. The nuclear tests did serve as an ultimatum that whatever the cost, Pakistan would not allow India ‘a simple walk over in Kashmir’. Even now the Indians are testing our nerves by escalating tensions in Kashmir and refused to talk about it in Colombo. Someday India will talk on Kashmir seriously, but only when it is convinced that the price of sticking to the disputed territory has become unacceptable , almost as unacceptable as the damage we can inflict in our moments of nuclear nervousness. Till then talking on Kashmir, with or without external facilitation will be meaningless.

On domestic fronts, the nuclear explosions shattered the thin covering under which lay the extremely weak economy, which was regularly being trumpeted by the government as ‘In good health’ and ‘Nothing to worry’. The exposed picture is miserable and pathetic. The inept management of the economy has led to a situation where the country is teetering on the brink of a financial meltdown. The country owes a debt of about 31 billions dollars to its creditors and badly needs $3 billion to meet the country’s debt-servicing obligations over the next six months. The federal reserves have depleted beyond the danger level and the government has already failed to meet its short term debt obligations to some foreign banks. There is strong likelihood that we shall not be able to pay our debt liabilities to other organisations and states and may soon, as a country have to become defaulters.

This situation is certainly not the outcome of any one mistake. Since almost the inception, Pakistan had problems of sincere leadership. Barring the creator, nature never bestowed us with anyone with the sincerity to serve country rising above his personal gains. We never got anyone with the high intelligence, courage , dedication, insight , foresight and the one who could ‘Outwork, Outthink, and Outfight’. Every leader who took reigns of the country, talked of being the ‘Only Savior’, but worked very hard to build his personal empire. All state energies remained diverted for personal gains and whims. A continued chain believed in reckless borrowing from abroad to support a corrupt and profligate lifestyle. A particular leader had to choose between personal elevation and splitting the country into two ,he chose personal elevation. A president was drunk and enjoying for three days and nights with his girl friend, state and military securities were guarding outside to ensure that he is not disturbed. A president spent millions to shoot some partridges. The famous couple had organisations to ensure accelerated pumping of Pakistan’s money into their personal accounts in the foreign lands, and even the present leadership has some questionable amount of wealth accumulation. Obviously they all did not have time, mind-frame and even the vision to look after the national affairs, which were and are left to the sub-ordinates. But sub-ordinates copy their masters. Thus without paying money under the table most job cannot be accomplished in government offices. All top ranks, the president, prime minister, all ministers, chairmen senate, head of CBR, are all exempted from taxes. There is a callous disregard to the plight of the common man and the mess of all the pitfalls has to be borne by the millions of people struggling for survival at the lower end of the economic spectrum. Governments are getting specialised in statements like ‘This will nor effect the common man’ and ‘Nothing to worry’. In the context of present crisis, Mr. Sartaj Aziz, the ex-finance minister on June 20, said ‘There is nothing to worry, everything is under control, and application of sanctions is an exercise in futility’. On July 8, he was seriously worried saying ‘Pakistan is facing a major financial crisis’. Thus persistent erosion of faith in our leadership has been the hallmark since about 50 years.

Now the situation has reached a point, where we do not have money to return the debt instalments. Thus there is no choice but to bow and respectfully and humbly beg the IMF and world bank to help us out of our economic insolvency. Immediately after his ‘breaking the begging bowl’ statement, the prime minister, with a much bigger bowl went on a tour of some middle east countries, but the response was not according to expectations, thus once again we stand with our begging bowl in hand, this time with head bowed and looking for pity rather than setting terms for structural adjustments. But IMF and World bank do not work according to mercy appeals, these agencies are puppets in the hands of some powerful developed countries, particularly America, who all hate our nuclear muscles for more than one reason.

We are not Israel whose all stupidities are considered a child’s play. In lieu of sanctions who always gets more equipment and aid. We are also not India whose Nuclear explosion (in 1974) was declared ‘Peaceful’ and since its creation, till to-date (much after their May 11 explosions) , are still being provided technical assistance for the expansion of missiles and nuclear program. In 1955 Americans trained many Indians under USA launched ‘Atom for Peace program’. In 1963-64 America’s trained Indian Dr.Kalam in the secrets of what has now become ‘Agni’ missile. Till to-date (after Indian Nuclear tests of May 11), some American firms are known to be busy in transferring latest technology to India. (In August 14, issue of ‘The San Jose Mercury News’ there is report of an American firm who is under investigation by US commerce department for the supply of high speed microscopic chips used in super-computers that have been linked to India’s controversial nuclear tests and the supply afterwards). Even the famous ‘Pressler amendment’ was Pakistan Specific’ basically to ensure that Israel and India do not get hurt.

We are the blood relatives of Afghanistan, Iran, Libya, Iraq, and Sudan and this reason alone should be sufficient to make us an international pariah by Uncle Sam. One can clearly see what America is doing with each one of them. ‘Divided we fall’. To-day Iraq is being humiliated upto the possible extremes. Yesterday it was Libya and Iran. Pakistan refused the ‘matchless opportunity’ and some signs of the possible cost are already there. Even the latest missile attack on Afghanistan had many Pakistan-specific lessons. One, it linked Pakistan with (so called) terrorist in our neighbourhood tarnishing our internationally acquired ‘Nuclear weapon state’ world standing to ‘terrorist allies’, two, the missiles were a warning of the extent, to which America can go ‘wild’ if the adherence is not to the preaching. Thirdly, it does make us think how safe are our nuclear installations in case we have any special notions about them. At this point of time it is useless to talk of the wrongs done by America. The fact is because of our own follies and bears-hibernating kind of attitude in being sincere to the building of our nation, we have reached a point where we have no choice but to either default our payments (Which have their own serious hazards) or ‘Behave’ . The Americans were very clear in the application of sanctions unless we tow their line. The fact sheet on sanctions issued by the department of state, clearly stated ‘ Our goals are that India and Pakistan halt further nuclear testing, sign the comprehensive test ban treaty(CTBT) immediately and without conditions, not deploy or test missiles or nuclear weapons, support cut off treaty (FCMT) negotiations in Geneva, maintain and formalise restrain on sharing sensitive goods and technologies with other countries, reduce bilateral tensions including Kashmir.’ This was followed by a long list of economic sanctions.

What is CTBT and FCMT and what is the significance of signing them.? To answer such questions, let us go through a brief history of nuclear test bans. Because nuclear weapons have revolutionized world politics, it is only natural that politicians have struggled with schemes to control the risk of nuclear war. One of the most persistent and possibly productive, means of nuclear arms control is the effort to halt the testing of nuclear arms. These efforts are based on the principal that no one is going to risk using the nuclear weapons unless they are pretty confident that they will work. A test ban would undermine such confidence. Nuclear weapons would then become museum pieces. Not surprisingly, it has been difficult to agree on the test bans. The Treaty is the culmination of 40 years of efforts. In April 1954, almost 10 years after the first nuclear weapon test was conducted in July 1945, it was proposed that nuclear weapon testing be suspended. This proposal was the first initiative of its kind. The Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963 prohibited all nuclear explosions in the atmosphere, in outer space and under water, but not underground. The Threshold Test Ban Treaty of 1974 limited the yield of underground nuclear weapon tests to 150 kilotons (the equivalent of the explosive force of approximately 150,000 tonnes of trinitrotoluene (TNT)).Over 2,000 nuclear weapon test explosions were registered during the 51 years between the conduct of the first nuclear test and the opening for signature of the Treaty in September 1996.

India initially was a co-sponsor, but later with Libya and Bhutan, it voted against the resolution whereas 158 have voted in favour. The great length of time involved was because of difficult details and complex negotiations for effective verifications. There are two stages for its implementation. The signing by its leaders and the ratification by their legislative. The fundamental requirement of CTBT is that it prohibits ‘any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion’ and asks signatories to ‘refrain from causing, encouraging , or in any other way participating in carrying out’ of any such explosions. The treaty calls for verifications on the basis of least intrusive manner and ‘on site inspections’ are for the sole purpose whether nuclear weapon test or any other nuclear explosion has been carried out. (Some more details are attached as an appendix).

The country appears to be divided on should we sign CTBT or not. There are plus points if we sign it. The posture of universal torch bearers of nuclear proliferation is a ‘Good Guy’ for world standing but who would believe seeing us walk on crutches of our extreme poverty, However, after signatures, the dollars might start flowing (as loan).[It is pity that the nuclear strength which the strategic analysts have consistently clamored for breathless compelling reasons, and which was the logical culmination of years of our scientific hardwork has to negotiated for few dollars which will only help for a short time]. But those who suggest Pakistan should sign the test ban treaty in order to extricate itself from the financial crisis err on several counts. Firstly, a power elite should not hawk national security in order to protect their narrow interests. Secondly, an expedient policy lacking conviction will lack credibility also. Thirdly, the crisis is the result of bad economics and political policies, and will not be resolved without a fundamental change in favour of good governance. Lastly, it is easier to defend a policy founded in logic; once virtue is abandoned, the fall to ignominy is inescapable.

There are many pitfalls of signing this treaty. But more than the built in pitfalls, there are other factors related to our psyche which worry if we have to sign it. Every clause of the treaty has many gaps of interpretation. Obviously, this interpretation is different if the country involved is powerful and the country is begging for few dollars, more specially if they are blood relatives of Iran, Libya etc. Thus it would at least require that we go through all the linking documents very very thoroughly, and there are many linking documents involved. The CTBT is about 400 pages document, but the 20 years discussion are spread over a million pages. Then there are NPT(nuclear proliferation treaty), CD(Conference on dis-armament), NuCrit(Nuclear critical safety codes), Nuclear waste disposal and FMCT(Fissile material control treaty) MTCR (Missile test control regime)etc. The fear is that we might sign these pages without reading them. Sounds unrealistic? Then hear this ‘Pakistan recently signed World trade organisation documents without reading because the document was spread over 22,000 pages’-Statement by Governor Sindh while inaugurating the all Pakistan marketing conference(Repotrted by the ‘News’ dated August 1, 98). Thirdly, there must be something that Indians are not signing it. It is known that they are trying for security council seat and many advanced technologies, but obviously we have to keep track of them. Also the Americans, being the sole superpower are still reluctant to ratify it, certainly not without some motive.

Why are Americans and other developed nations so serious about capping or retarding our nuclear capabilities. They have their own reasons. Firstly, no landlord wishes to see a tenant with same powers that he has. In the same spirit they wish to have it concentrated in the least number of hands. With nuclear arms, a small nation or a group can cause irreparable damage to superpowers, something not imaginable in pre-nuclear era. Secondly, nuclear capability, is a very cost effective national security. Few rudimentary bombs are better deterrent than a huge and costly fleet of conventional weapons. This decreases the military sales of the developed countries, and military sales are huge sources of contineous revenue in terms of dependence , spare parts etc, over which the developed world has almost monopoly and would hate to loose or decrease it.

FMCT, the document which has yet not been finalised, aims at putting a cap on the production and level of maintenance of the weapon producing materials, notably uranium, platinum etc. Pakistan is quietly taking part in these talks. FMCT will make permanent the imbalance between Pakistan and India in terms of a negative fissile stockpile balance for Pakistan. Pakistan must adopt a balanced arms control approach in a way, to concede grounds where it does not jeopardize the national security interest of the country in the long run(the CTBT), and bargain for concrete long term concessions on treaties that may well negatively effect Pakistan’s long term security in relation to India(The FMCT). Yet the Pakistani decision makers seem to be doing the reverse. As the days to return the debt installment draw close(It is Sept), government in panic and sweat, is conceding to also signing the CTBT without any conditions. The logic for consumption of local masses is that till India does not sign it, and America does not ratify it, the treaty does not come into force, so till then we have nothing to worry. One can only hope they know something which most of us do not know. Apparently the bureaucratic thinking has yet to be replaced by the new vision required by the nuclear state realities. True, under the CTBT, nuclear weapon states can do many things. One, they can design a variety of laboratory testing programs. Two, they can maintain nuclear test sites in state of constant readiness. Three, they can conduct sub-critical tests underground which would make it extremely difficult or impossible to verify whether small nuclear yields are actually being produced. Four, maintain huge weapon design teams as well as archives that preserve the design of nuclear weapons no longer in arsenal. Fifth, they can withdraw from the treaty without penalty, under a standard ‘Supreme national interest’ clause, which would enable nearly complete design to be fully tested. With the exception of the ‘Withdrawal’ clause, Pakistan cannot meaningfully engage in any of this ‘permissible activity’ mainly because of IMF and world bank controlling our nerves for long times to come.

India has been on the forefront of CTBT. It was one of the six countries including Sweden, Mexico and other Pacifist countries which launched the CTBT initiative in the eighties. Why did India support CTBT then? Simply to bolster its pacifist image, to be at the forefront of the disarmament movement and be able to deliver long speeches on the subject. There is a possibility that decision to weaponise might not have been finalised by that time. Why does India oppose CTBT now? India voted against the treaty saying that CTBT is ‘not only a flawed one but a dangerous one , that would encourage a new kind of nuclear arm race based in sophisticated laboratories out of the reach of most nations’. But actually there are all the indications that India now wants to nuclearise, lock-stock and barrel. It wants to acquire a big power status, an undisputed regional power and possibly a permanent seat in the security council. It’s motives are more status related than threat related. Their pursuit does not have serious problems because there is no threat to their economy, as opposed to Pakistan which is on the brink of a catastrophe.

Tragically, we are to-day faced with an unprecedented economic disaster , where it is not exactly known how critical the situation is. One does hope that things have not gone beyond a point of no return and crisis management is still possible. A survival strategy should be based on the recognition that it is not a question of getting the next tranche of the IMF loan under ESAF. The problem is much deeper and unless the underlying factors are addressed, the crisis can reoccur. In any case, it is the result of bad leadership and it is they who must worry more. The masses are already surviving under bare minimum conditions, and they can go a long way like that but they will never accept a mortgage of our nuclear capability. The feeling that our hands are tied as compared to India, might make the near starved people rise, rise to heights like the poor masses of Japan, China, Russia, France etc. who all emerged gloriously , only their leaders could not survive. So, before the time runs out, our leadership better act with rationality, skill and speed or the fragrance of change is in the air.

APPENDIX

CTBT-AT A GLANCE

Scope of the Treaty

Under article 1 of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty:

‘1. Each State Party undertakes not to carry out any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion, and to prohibit and prevent any such nuclear explosion at any place under its jurisdiction or control.

2. Each State party undertakes, furthermore, to refrain from causing, encouraging, or in any way participating in the carrying out of any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion.’

Adoption and signature of the Treaty

Negotiations on a Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty began at the Conference on Disarmament at Geneva in January 1994. The final draft, sponsored by 127 States, was submitted to the United Nations General Assembly two years later and adopted on 10 September 1996. The Treaty was opened for signature on 24 September 1996 at United Nations Headquarters in New York.

Verification of the Treaty

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).

IMS will consist of a global network of 321 monitoring stations, as well as 16 laboratories, capable of detecting nuclear explosions worldwide. This network of 170 seismic, 80 radionuclide, 60 infrasound and 11 hydroacoustic stations, as well as 16 radionuclide laboratories, comprising a total of 337 facilities, will supply data for processing and analysis to IDC.

Both the raw and processed data will be available to all the States parties. If a suspicious occurrence cannot be resolved through consultation and clarification, each State party has the right to request an on-site inspection.

Entry into force of the Treaty

The Treaty will not enter into force until it has been signed and ratified by the 44 States listed in the Treaty. This list comprises the States that formally participated in the 1996 session of the Conference on Disarmament. If the Treaty has not entered into force ‘three years after the date of the anniversary of its opening for signature’, a conference of those States that have already ratified it may be held to decide what measures may be taken to accelerate the ratification process and to facilitate the Treaty’s entry into force. l