Nuclear Disarmament – A Golden Mirage
A draft treaty on nuclear disarmament was tabled recently
in Geneva. However, with India and 61 other participating countries unable to
reach consensus, the session was adjourned. The initial plan had been to
finalize the treaty by 28 June, but India’s representative, Arundhati Ghose,
made it clear that New Delhi had serious reservations about the neutrality of
the present draft. Until those doubts are addressed, India will not sign the
agreement. As a result, implementation remains stalled, and questions loom over
the treaty’s viability. Diplomats are now pushing for a fresh round of talks on
29 July, though prospects for success remain uncertain.
The debate raises a series of difficult questions about the credibility of the P-5 nuclear powers (United States, Russia, China, Britain, France) and their ambiguous dual role.
Doubts Over the P-5 Motives
First, there is widespread suspicion about the selective approach of the nuclear powers. Nations like India or Israel, both on the verge of being formally recognized as nuclear-capable states, are being pressed to join the treaty — seemingly to curb their progress. At the same time, the same Western powers have continued to export arms and sensitive technologies to regions such as the Middle East and Pakistan, fueling instability for profit and geopolitical leverage.
Notably, the current draft makes no mention of halting this lucrative arms trade. Why should third-world countries, supplied with nuclear technology and weapons by the very powers now championing disarmament, bear the cost of compliance?
Second, arms transfers from the U.S., Britain, Russia, and China to impoverished nations remain unchecked. Without addressing this supply chain, the security of countries that sign the treaty remains fragile.
Third, granting only five states permanent nuclear recognition risks undermining the security of all other nations. What guarantees exist for their protection?
Fourth, the exclusion of complementary technologies, such as supercomputing, which can accelerate scientific development, suggests an attempt to monopolize progress. The draft effectively ensures that while the P-5 reap the benefits of nuclear science, the rest of the world is left to face its destructive side.
The Hypocrisy of Nuclear Powers
Evidence of double standards is abundant. In 1995, the Jason Committee in the U.S. was established to strengthen America’s nuclear laboratories. Washington and Paris have already begun sharing nuclear codes, while facilities in California and New Mexico are importing French technology. Meanwhile, clandestine weapons transfers from China to Pakistan and Arab guerrilla groups, as well as the use of militias in Iraq and Afghanistan, highlight the covert strategies of nuclear powers.
Against this backdrop, why should developing nations trust the Geneva draft?
Human rights activists go further, asking when the nuclear powers themselves will dismantle their arsenals under international supervision. “Practice what you preach” remains unanswered. Until then, argue critics, every nation has the sovereign right to develop nuclear capacity for its own defense. Peace, they insist, can only exist when adversaries are evenly matched.
India’s Strategic Dilemma
For India, the stakes are particularly high. Surrounded by hostile neighbors — with China and the U.S. covertly arming Pakistan — New Delhi’s reliance on Russia has grown precarious, especially after Moscow’s weakening influence post-Cold War. In such circumstances, India must review its options carefully and keep all strategic doors open.
Crucially, the Geneva draft speaks only of “disarmament,” not “dismantlement.” Nuclear-armed states face no pressure to destroy existing stockpiles, while non-nuclear states are denied the right to develop them. Will such partial measures truly bring peace?
The Case for India’s Nuclear Assertion
The logical course for India, observers argue, is to assert political will and conduct a nuclear test — thereby declaring itself a nuclear power. Since independence, India’s left-leaning politics have often painted the U.S. or Pakistan as primary adversaries, while ignoring the far greater strategic and economic challenge posed by China.
In today’s world, strength — not pacifism — ensures equality among nations. Nuclear weapons, paradoxically, may be essential not for waging war, but for preserving peace.
The debate raises a series of difficult questions about the credibility of the P-5 nuclear powers (United States, Russia, China, Britain, France) and their ambiguous dual role.
Doubts Over the P-5 Motives
First, there is widespread suspicion about the selective approach of the nuclear powers. Nations like India or Israel, both on the verge of being formally recognized as nuclear-capable states, are being pressed to join the treaty — seemingly to curb their progress. At the same time, the same Western powers have continued to export arms and sensitive technologies to regions such as the Middle East and Pakistan, fueling instability for profit and geopolitical leverage.
Notably, the current draft makes no mention of halting this lucrative arms trade. Why should third-world countries, supplied with nuclear technology and weapons by the very powers now championing disarmament, bear the cost of compliance?
Second, arms transfers from the U.S., Britain, Russia, and China to impoverished nations remain unchecked. Without addressing this supply chain, the security of countries that sign the treaty remains fragile.
Third, granting only five states permanent nuclear recognition risks undermining the security of all other nations. What guarantees exist for their protection?
Fourth, the exclusion of complementary technologies, such as supercomputing, which can accelerate scientific development, suggests an attempt to monopolize progress. The draft effectively ensures that while the P-5 reap the benefits of nuclear science, the rest of the world is left to face its destructive side.
The Hypocrisy of Nuclear Powers
Evidence of double standards is abundant. In 1995, the Jason Committee in the U.S. was established to strengthen America’s nuclear laboratories. Washington and Paris have already begun sharing nuclear codes, while facilities in California and New Mexico are importing French technology. Meanwhile, clandestine weapons transfers from China to Pakistan and Arab guerrilla groups, as well as the use of militias in Iraq and Afghanistan, highlight the covert strategies of nuclear powers.
Against this backdrop, why should developing nations trust the Geneva draft?
Human rights activists go further, asking when the nuclear powers themselves will dismantle their arsenals under international supervision. “Practice what you preach” remains unanswered. Until then, argue critics, every nation has the sovereign right to develop nuclear capacity for its own defense. Peace, they insist, can only exist when adversaries are evenly matched.
India’s Strategic Dilemma
For India, the stakes are particularly high. Surrounded by hostile neighbors — with China and the U.S. covertly arming Pakistan — New Delhi’s reliance on Russia has grown precarious, especially after Moscow’s weakening influence post-Cold War. In such circumstances, India must review its options carefully and keep all strategic doors open.
Crucially, the Geneva draft speaks only of “disarmament,” not “dismantlement.” Nuclear-armed states face no pressure to destroy existing stockpiles, while non-nuclear states are denied the right to develop them. Will such partial measures truly bring peace?
The Case for India’s Nuclear Assertion
The logical course for India, observers argue, is to assert political will and conduct a nuclear test — thereby declaring itself a nuclear power. Since independence, India’s left-leaning politics have often painted the U.S. or Pakistan as primary adversaries, while ignoring the far greater strategic and economic challenge posed by China.
In today’s world, strength — not pacifism — ensures equality among nations. Nuclear weapons, paradoxically, may be essential not for waging war, but for preserving peace.
Comments
Post a Comment