ELECTIONS '98
COMMENTARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ARCHIVES

The Rediff Interview/Michael Krepon

'India's test makes it harder to prevent increases in nuclear danger'

The United States has been working hard to change China's export practices in the nuclear and missile realms, and many outside of India have noticed clear improvements in recent years. After India's test series, China can be expected to reaffirm its ties to Pakistan.

After the blasts, India-China relations suddenly seem at an all-time low. Do you see it deteriorating drastically? In that sense, do you think India miscalculated China's reaction?

India's diplomatic ties to China have greatly deteriorated, but the same could be said for India's ties to the United States, Pakistan, the Western European Union, the NAM, and ASEAN. Which country is pleased with India's detonations?

India has said it might sign the CTBT and NPT but on certain conditions (like being considered a nuclear state). Is this acceptable? Why, or why not?

The CTBT does not differentiate between nuclear and non-nuclear weapon states, per se. It merely commits states not to test, to join global monitoring efforts, to accept inspections, etc. Every state except India that has tested nuclear weapons has signed the CTBT. Over 140 states that have not tested nuclear weapons have signed the CTBT. If India signs the CTBT, it's pretty obvious in which category it falls.

The NPT is different. The NPT has a definition of a nuclear weapon state embedded in the treaty text, a definition that does not fit India's circumstances.

Do you see other countries such as Iraq, Iran, Israel, going in for nuclear arms now? How will the US contain them, especially since it is considered so pro-Israel?

Again, the question assumes that non-proliferation is merely a US objective, when it is a global objective, with the exception of the outlying states you mention. India's test makes it harder for the international community to prevent further increases in nuclear danger. Already, we see North Korea taking advantage of the opening provided by New Delhi.

It has always been believed that had Japan possessed N-arms in 1945, the US would never have bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Does this not justify India's decision?

Two weapons of mass destruction were used against Japanese cities to end a global conflagration. What does this have to do with India?

What prevents the US and the rest from giving a time-frame for complete and total disarmament? Is this not the only fair way out for the world at large?

There are times when setting a deadline is necessary to achieve a key objective that is within reach. At other times, deadlines are an exercise in cynicism or futility. If a near-term deadline were set for global nuclear disarmament, would anyone believe this to be possible? If a long-term deadline were set, how would this have practical effect?

India tried to attach deadlines for disarmament to the CTBT in Geneva at the Conference on Disarmament, and was rebuffed by every other state. India tried to attach deadlines to the CTBT at the United Nations and was rebuffed by the entire international community -- with the exception of two other states, Libya and Cuba, I believe. There is widespread recognition of the value of the CTBT as a disarmament as well as a non-proliferation mechanism. The international community would welcome India's signature on this treaty -- without conditions that would make its pledge meaningless.

Where does the world go from here? How does the world at large recork the nuclear genie?

Global developments to reduce nuclear dangers were trending in a very positive direction before the recent bad news from South Asia. Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Belarus are all members in excellent standing in the global effort to reduce nuclear dangers. The North Korean nuclear programme had been frozen. The US and Soviet Union/Russia have agreed to reduce by 80 per cent their deployed strategic nuclear forces. Both countries are dismantling and destroying approximately 2,000 nuclear warheads every year -- a painfully difficult, dangerous, and expensive process. It is sadly ironic that India, which has championed nuclear disarmament, is now working against this global trend.

Is one way out by recognising India and Pakistan as nuclear weapons states?

There you go again. This Indian government has chosen a very peculiar way to gain recognition.

Is global disarmament the only way out? Will that ideal ever be feasible in a realpolitik world?

The political conditions required for global disarmament are daunting. Rather than focus on this end state, I prefer to work on smaller steps that are achievable, keeping in mind the ultimate goal.

The entire justification for dividing the world between nuclear powers and non-powers is the NPT deal of 1968? But how valid is a treaty that arbitrarily divides the world that has so dramatically changed since then, and is still changing? Can any treaty ever be permanent when nothing else is?

The value of the NPT can be judged by its adherents. Other than North Korea, over 175 treaty adherents continue to see value in this bulwark against proliferation. Article VI of the Treaty also provides the only legally-binding commitment by the nuclear weapon states to progressively reduce and eliminate their nuclear arsenals. Those of us who are working toward nuclear disarmament in the NWS (nuclear weapon states) find this very helpful.

Is this not the best time for the entire world to disarm, and place all weapons under a unified global command to be used only by consensus or majority opinion? If some nations have N-arms, is it not logical to expect others to aspire to them?

Disrmament requires hard work, political leadership and deep political commitment, practical steps, and good fortune. If these are present, one doesn't need deadlines. If these are absent, deadlines won't help. The political conditions are quite obviously not present on the subcontinent for diasarmament. India's nuclear testing makes disarmament more remote.

Back

Interviews

Tell us what you think of this interview