Fighting nuclear apartheid

[Neo]

Fighting nuclear apartheid

EDITORIAL (February 22 2010): By diverting the fissile material transferred by the United States and other countries, under the garb of civilian nuclear co-operation, India is believed to have acquired capability to make 100 nuclear warheads a year.

The safeguards arrangements, contained in the bilateral agreements, aimed at preventing the diversion of highly-enriched uranium and plutonium stocks are not foolproof, a prospect made all the more ominous by the vendors' greed that seems to have turned the UN watchdog's face to look the other way. Obviously, who could be more concerned about the unaccounted for fissile material stockpiles in neighbouring India than Pakistan? So, unless the Geneva-based Conference of Disarmament takes cognisance of this "clear and present danger," Pakistan would be too reluctant to be a part of the required consensus to launch negotiations for any move to freeze global production of fissile material.

And in this, Pakistan is not alone; as Bangladesh insists the existing fissile material for stocks should be a part of the negotiations, Switzerland says focusing exclusively on future production "would not be an honest assessment of the situation". Pakistan is leading the fight to confront forces working to create nuclear apartheid, a kind of nuclear-haves and nuclear have-nots. For the second time in the last one month, Ambassador Zamir Akram, Permanent Representative of Pakistan Mission to the United Nations Geneva, has taken the stand at the Conference of Disarmament that the safeguards agreements, which are supposed to monitor the end-use of fissile material being supplied to India, by international vendors are too leaky and virtually nothing stops India from diverting the supplies to its nuclear weapon programme.

Why should Pakistan foreclose its nuclear option unless it acquires nuclear parity in the region and that, too, with the open and willing co-operation of international community? By agreeing to cut off its future production of fissile material, the Conference on Disarmament "would only accentuate the disparity and imbalance that exists," warned Zamir Akram.

Pakistan has no problem with President Obama's vision to secure a global halt to fissile material. But the enigma remains as to why Washington would supply India with fissile material that is very much likely to become part of its nuclear arsenal. Not surprisingly then, last month at a meeting of Pakistan's apex strategic organisation, National Command Authority (NCA), delivered a stiff warning to the Conference of Disarmament against "any approach or measure that is prejudicial to its (Pakistan's) legitimate national security interests". Pakistan clearly finds the Conference of Disarmament increasingly becoming a vehicle of India's strategic ambitions and designs in the region, which would be resolutely resisted.

By acquiescing into capping its production of fissile material, Pakistan would be virtually opting out of the nuclear equation that has secured peace in South Asia for the last 40 years. We believe, instead of seeking Pakistan's unilateral co-operation, the Conference of Disarmament, which is the sole disarmament negotiating forum, should play its role at all levels, be it the move to muster support for a global fissile cut-off treaty or effort towards resolution of regional tensions.

In 1974, when India illegally diverted nuclear material supplied by Canada and carried out its first explosion, the then-prime minister Indira Gandhi was informed of the explosion with the code-word 'Buddha is smiling'. What is the guarantee that Buddha will not smile again, when India has such an excess of supplied weapon-grade fissile material. Pakistan is fully in sync with issues on the agenda of the Conference of Disarmament, like limiting militarization of outer space and negative security assurances, which is that nuclear weapons shall not be used against non-nuclear weapon states. But it cannot be, and should not be, expected to agree to something which tends to aggravate the asymmetry in strategic capabilities, particularly now that Indian generals too unabashedly threaten a two-front war under a nuclear overhang.

[Neo]

Nuclear treaties

Friday, 23 Apr, 2010

US under-secretary of state for arms control and international security, Ellen Tauscher (L). - Photo by AP. World

Gates warns White House over ‘Iran nukes’ policy Gates warns White House over ‘Iran nukes’ policy The US under-secretary of state for arms control and international security, Ellen Tauscher, has declined to insist that Pakistan, and India, sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. And with good reason.



In its present form, there is simply no way Pakistan can sign the treaty. The NPT stipulates a cut-off year, 1968, after which no country can become a nuclear-weapons state. Since Pakistan joined the nuclear club subsequently, unless the present structure of the NPT is amended, Pakistan becoming a signatory is a non-starter. In some ways, the debate is not even that relevant anymore.

For many years, experts suggested that an NPT+3 structure be negotiated to accommodate India, Israel and Pakistan — all of which developed their arsenals after the NPT cut-off date expired and none of which is a signatory. But Israel has never formally acknowledged its arsenal, rendering the idea of ‘special status’ moot. And since the quasi-recognition bestowed on the Indian nuclear programme by the Indo-US civil nuclear deal, India has entered a different league and is unlikely to be worried about ‘special status’ within the NPT. Which leaves Pakistan; but the state here has consistently maintained it will only enter the NPT framework if two conditions are met: one, that India also joins the NPT, and two, that the Pakistani nuclear programme is given genuine international recognition. Recognising the impossibility of convincing Pakistan or India or even Israel in the present circumstances, the US has backed off, as Ms Tauscher’s comments suggest.

Problems for Pakistan on the nuclear front still exist though. For one, President Obama has shown genuine interest in reviving the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, a treaty that was essentially relegated to oblivion by the US Senate’s rejection of it in October 1999. On the CTBT, Pakistan has taken a similar line to the NPT i.e. ‘we will sign if India signs’. There is some sympathy for Pakistan’s position on the CTBT and that is unlikely to vanish any time soon. The negotiations over a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty could prove more problematic though because Pakistan is playing the role of spoiler and is increasingly isolated. The nuclear establishment here maintains that the FMCT will lock in forever a disparity in the fissile material stocks the two countries possess.

But experts outside the nuclear establishment are not convinced the position is straightforward, nor that Pakistan is taking the best route advisable. Thus far the Obama administration has generally held back from putting pressure on Pakistan on nuclear issues. International isolation is not in Pakistan’s interest, and the nuclear establishment must keep this in mind going forward on the FMCT negotiations.

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/...ties-340-hh-01

[Neo]

US discriminatory nuclear policy

Thursday April 22, 2010

The US has a history of supporting military dictators, monarchy or sham democracy and has never favored real democracy and a popular leader loved by his people. Morals, ethics and values are of no concern to US when it comes to serving its self interests. It breaks international laws, defies international institutions and never hesitates from using brute force or secret wars to protect or achieve its interests and objectives. It patronizes its two strategic partners Israel and India having similar traits.

The US is the only country that has used nuclear bombs in 1945 to force Japanese forces to surrender. It suffers from no remorse or guilt for the devastation it inflicted upon the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Israel and India acquired weapon-grade nuclear capability clandestinely but their nukes or gross human rights violations doesn’t ruffle the feathers of US leaders who otherwise raise a storm on minutest slip by any other third world nation particularly Muslim nation. The US has helped UK, France, Israel and India to further develop their weaponised nuclear capabilities.

USA, Israel and India are the only nuclear countries who threaten to employ nuclear bombs against other countries. The US while framing its new nuclear policy has put Iran, Syria and North Korea on its hit list. Israel has several times threatened to use low yield tactical nuclear weapons (TNWs) against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Likewise, India has threatened to start a limited war with nuclear overhang against Pakistan. TNWs are part of its Cold Start doctrine, authorizing operational commanders in the field to use them if required. Both Israel and India can launch TNWs using ballistic or missiles, or submarines. Iran, Pakistan and North Korea have only verbally responded to the threats asserting that if attacked they have the right to retaliate in self defence. Under the circumstances the real nuclear threat is posed by strategically aligned USA, Israel and India having offensive and ambitious designs and a blood-spattered history.

The nuclear threat posed by the three expansionist powers will become more menacing once the US installs nuclear defence shield and take its two strategic partners under its cover. America and Russia possess over 90% of world nuclear stockpiles. It has taken the two powers two decades to finally arrive at a decision to reduce respective nuclear stocks and will take many more years to implement SALT. Rather than deciding to get rid of self-destructive nukes altogether, the two big powers have contended to reduce the size. Having thousands of nukes and diverse delivery means at its disposal which can destroy the world several times, cutting down its arsenal slightly will be cosmetic.

Instead of vowing not to ever use nukes against any other country, the US brazenly announced its intentions of targeting the so-called axis of evil thereby provoking smaller states to take appropriate safety measures. Rather than addressing their security concerns, the three states are being coerced, provoked and denied the right to defend. Taking a cue from Obama’s speech in which use of nukes against specified countries has been declared as a policy option, it can be said that the US qualifies to be an irresponsible and reckless state and not a responsible state. In the face of nuclear threat posed by the trio, to say that dirty bombs in possession of terrorists pose biggest threat to world security sounds farcical and devoid of truth.

India and Israel are defying UN resolutions on Kashmir and Palestine respectively since 1948 but no action has been taken by the UNSC or world powers against the two errant states. Non-resolution of the two disputes and continued ruthless persecution and injustices of Israel and India against the Palestinians and Kashmiris, duly patronized by USA and western world has bred extremism and terrorism. In case of Iran and North Korea, USA has threatened to use nukes on the plea that they have defied UN resolutions on nuclear program. Iran is signatory to NPT and has repeatedly said that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. India is not a signatory to NPT or CTBT and also harbors hegemonic designs; yet the US has given it unlimited access to civil nuclear technology and is also building its conventional capability. Pakistan has suffered the most in fighting US war on terror but has been denied this capability, while its modest nuclear program meant to deter Indian nefarious designs remains under intense pressure.

In the recently concluded nuclear summit in Washington attended by representatives from 47 countries, Obama has vowed to cleanse the world of nuclear weapon producing fissile material within next four years to make the world safe from nuclear terrorism. If the world leaders are genuinely interested in saving the world from nuclear threat, the preliminary step would be to totally cleanse the world of nuclear weapons and fissile material. The five leading nuclear states should take the lead in this regard to set an example for smaller nuclear states. India had once agreed to get rid of its nukes provided recognized nuclear club did the same.

In addition to making the world nuclear free, the world powers suffering from megalomania should bring a change in their attitudes towards the Muslim world and work towards building inter-faith harmony. They must realize that extremists are not confined to Muslim world only but extremism and intolerance are common to all religions. Going by the tenets of history, Islamic rulers have been much more benevolent towards other faiths than others. It is high time non-Muslim world imbued with superiority complex and xenophobia should tone down its arrogance and hatred and start treating the Muslim extremists as human beings rather than continuing to kill them like partridges. Rulers of first world should collectively try to redress the genuine grievances of the aggrieved residing in third world and try to balm their wounds and make place in their hearts to avert nuclear terrorism in the future.

Failure to do so would be catastrophic. The hunted Islamists are going through virtual hell for 11 years. Taking into account their rising strength and pent up anger against USA indulging in unending brutalities and injustices, that day is not far when the terrorists will either steal or acquire know-how to construct dirty bombs and carry them in suitcases or strapped to their bodies for detonation at chosen targets. Having been shunned and deprived of everything, they are in a vengeful mood to blow up the materialistic world. No matter how much security is tightened and safety measures taken, they will keep creeping forward like phantoms in total disregard to threat to their lives. This is evident from the never ending phenomenon of suicide and terrorist attacks by the faceless enemy despite the power of the whole world pitched against them. Worst affected countries will be where war on terror is being fought on behalf of USA. As per Robert Galluci, “Risk of a militant group getting hold of nuclear material and building a bomb with it is possible, plausible, and probable”.

The problem however is likely to get more complex in the light of rising number of extremists within the western world and sharp rise in conversion to Islam in western countries including USA where the conversion rate is the highest. The US had sent its forces to Asia to fight al-Qaeda to make its homeland secure from Islamist threat. It is now faced with a bigger threat from within since al-Qaeda has recruited large number of westerners to fight the chief Satan. John Brenner, Obama’s counter terrorism adviser said that al-Qaeda appears to have been trying to get nuclear bomb material and that there have been numerous reports over the past nine years on this. Galluci advised world nuclear powers to stop producing weapon-grade plutonium to uranium; the raw material for nuclear bombs since growing stockpiles of fissile material increases the risk of falling in wrong hands.

http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.shtml?226746

[Neo]

Pakistan versus NPT

EDITORIAL (April 25 2010): In the run-up to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) review conference next month, disrobing the Treaty of its Cold War orientation is indeed a brilliant diplomatic feat, the credit for which goes to President Obama.

Though one-third reduction in the nuclear arsenals of the world's two top nuclear proliferators still falls far short of the idealists' dreams and the two would still retain potential sufficient to devastate the planet Earth many times over, but the latest START Treaty does serve as a marker for the direction the Obama administration would like to move.

At the same time, his administration has come up with the Nuclear Posture Review, which further commits the United States, unilaterally, to quite a few self-imposed restraints, especially with regard to the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states who are signatories to the NPT.

The Nuclear Security Summit, attended by 47 nuclear states, is the third important move President Obama made as his administration prepares for the review conference, which it expects to undertake a paradigm shift by turning the international community's focus from the proliferating states and governments to non-state actors like 'al Qaeda, criminal gangs or others'.

Under sharper spotlight is a 'Dirty Bomb', made of the loose material that is spread at hundreds of places in some 40 countries. President Obama wants "to lock down the world's vulnerable materials within four years".

The NPT review conference would like the states, who still sit outside like India, Pakistan and Israel, to sign up as members. But the United States is, perhaps, not as enthusiastic as others in seeking their membership; an indication of this policy shift was made available by Ellen Tauscher, US Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control, in a recent media briefing.

India and Pakistan, she said, are "very special friends" and "we have conversations with them every day," apparently obviating the need for them to formally join the NPT. As to what Under Secretary Tauscher implied, on the face of it her opaque comment has three critical implications.

One, Pakistan and India are de facto nuclear weapon states and their status, as such, is acknowledged. Two, they cannot be invited to the Nuclear Five's exclusive club, even when their nuclear weapon capability stands proven. Three, don't talk or ask any question about Israel, which is, by all means a nuclear weapon state but remains undeclared - so much so that it would refuse to attend the Nuclear Security Summit.

And, more importantly, what is it the two sides keep conversing about every day if the United States is not keen on seeking Pakistan's membership of the NPT? Under President Obama, the United States seems much more active in seeking safety and security of the nuclear fissile materials than nurturing the dream of global nuclear disarmament. It's much more focused at evolving a nuclear forensic and attribution regime that can help trace the origin of the nuclear material of a dirty bomb used in an attack.

That is to hold an erring government, which failed to protect its nuclear assets against pilferage, responsible for the dirty bomb attack. That would be done by the UN watchdog the International Atomic Energy Agency, to be followed by tough sanctions. Is this the subject matter of every day conversations between Islamabad and Washington?

We would like our interlocutors, who are in perennial touch with the Americans, to throw some light on Ms Tauscher's very telling words on Pakistan's position, vis-à-vis the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. May be her remarks signify tacit recognition of Pakistan's status as a nuclear weapon state, who can keep the bomb. But then what about co-operation by the international vendors and suppliers in peaceful uses of nuclear technology like that available to the Big Five?

http://www.brecorder.com/index.php?i...term=&supDate=

[kbksrb]

thanks dear