The future of the Pak-India nuclear balance
After the disastrous events of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, arguably, the emergence of the concept of “world without nuclear weapons” was one of the most compelling ideas, and it gave the hope that nuclear race and warfare would cease. Furthermore, the formulation of Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was seen as a bulwark against nuclear pursuit. Despite criticism by non-signatory states and labelling it as a ‘discriminatory’ treaty, NPT, in some ways, has managed to prevent nuclear enrichment by sanctioning (signatory) states such as Iran. But the credibility and scope of NPT has always been compromised by its dominant members such as United States, China, and Russia by signing civil nuclear deals with non-signatories of NPT.
In 2008, the US signed a civil nuclear deal with India. According to the deal, the US will provide nuclear technology and fuel for peaceful purposes, especially for electricity production. Moreover, the deal strictly prohibits the usage of supply material for military purposes. The interesting part of the deal was that it has allowed India to become a part of Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), which is a multinational body trading in nuclear technology for civilian purposes and focusing on reduction of nuclear proliferation. However, despite several commitments to reduce its nuclear arsenal, India has continued to expand nuclear programme for military purposes.
In 2008, the US signed a civil nuclear deal with India. According to the deal, the US will provide nuclear technology and fuel for peaceful purposes, especially for electricity production
As President Barrack Obama stated in his April 5, 2005 speech in Prague, “I state clearly and with conviction America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons… the United States will take concrete steps towards a world without nuclear weapons.” Indian inclusion was seen as a violation of NSG rules and the US pressure on NSG members to include India in the club also raises questions on the US stance and its commitment towards non-proliferation. Keeping in mind that India is among those four states, including Pakistan and Israel, which are not signatories of NPT, and, according to the NSG guidelines, a member state of NSG cannot trade with a non-signatory of NPT.
Now, speculation is rife that the US might be pursuing another civil nuclear deal with another non-signatory of NPT member state i.e. Pakistan. The purpose of the deal is to cooperate with the latter to assist in controlling its energy shortage. The most fascinating part of the (possible) deal is that it strongly focuses on the reduction of nuclear proliferation along with urging Pakistan to restrict its nuclear warheads. In return, the US will provide fuel and technology for electricity generation, which is similar to the deal with India.
Assessing Pakistan’s nuclear programme, it has been under severe criticism since its inception. One can observe that the common trend or terminology in the four-point guiding principles of Pakistani nuclear doctrine is deterrence. Realistically, the concept of deterrence in Pakistan’s case can be justified because Pakistan’s military strength with India’s military was and still incomparable, at least in terms of number. Moreover, setbacks in 1971 and 1999 pushed it to deter India in all spheres to prevent future mishaps.
Pakistan had never hinted to pursue a nuclear bomb before India’s announcement. Furthermore, after the emergence of nuclear-India, Pakistan’s desire for the nuclear programme became inevitable.
In the realist discourse, it is argued that an increase in one state’s security may become threatening for other states. Moreover, mostly argued by realist thinkers, a state pursues maximum measures to ensure its security. Similarly, Pakistan — which has been affected by a security dilemma — has massively increased its production of nuclear warheads and outperformed India. According to a report, Pakistan has the capability to produce 20 warheads annually while India has five. If Pakistan continues at this pace it will have the world’s third largest nuclear stockpile after the US and China within a decade.
Whatever happens with the civil nuclear deal, the US along with the international community should make sure first that both countries will strictly implement and abide by the policy of non-proliferation before any transfer of civil nuclear technology
Noting Pakistan’s security dilemma and India’s nuclear expansion, if there is consensus between Pakistan and the US regarding restricting nuclear assets, it will be difficult for Pakistan to uphold its commitment.
If the international community — notably the US — is really concerned about non-proliferation, especially in the case of India and Pakistan, it has to push both countries to become part of NPT. In that scenario, the role of India would be more crucial because Pakistan has always agreed to sign the NPT agreement if India signs it first. Later on, changing its stance, Pakistan offered to sign NPT if it was accepted as ‘nuclear state’, which went unnoticed.
Whatever happens with the civil nuclear deal, the US along with the international community should make sure first that both countries will strictly implement and abide by the policy of non-proliferation before any transfer of civil nuclear technology. Otherwise, the idea of non-nuclear regime will only be restricted to books and the sessions of the United Nations on disarmament.
As far as India and Pakistan are concerned, indeed, both countries are facing energy crises and need alternate sources to meet their demand. Apart from the deals with the US, both countries can utilise a significant amount of money on their own by reducing their expenditure from nuclear arsenals.