The long trek to Global Zero
The fourth and the last Nuclear Security Summit, a signature foreign policy initiative of President Obama which was launched in pursuance to his landmark speech in Prague in 2009 with an avowed aim for a nuclear free world, after two-day deliberations resolved to stay committed to shared goal of nuclear disarmament, nuclear non-proliferation and peaceful use of nuclear energy. It also reaffirmed fundamental responsibility of states in accordance with their respective obligations to maintain at all times effective security of all nuclear and other radio-active materials including nuclear materials used in nuclear weapons and nuclear facilities under their control. Noting that more work needed to be done to prevent non-state actors from obtaining nuclear and other radioactive materials, a commitment was made to foster a peaceful and stable international environment, by reducing the threat of nuclear terrorism and strengthening nuclear security. The participating countries further vowed to take visible steps in the light of the national conditions to strengthen and build confidence in the effectiveness of their national nuclear security regimes. They recognized the need for international cooperation among nations to contribute to more inclusive, coordinated, sustainable and robust global nuclear security architecture for the common benefit and security of all; a responsibility to be discharged by the IAEA.
The major focus of the summit was on efforts to lock down vulnerable atomic materials to prevent nuclear terrorism by the non-state actors, a concern of the international community stemming from the burgeoning phenomenon of terrorism which is arguably the biggest challenge confronting the international community. These fears have gained growing currency due to the emergence of Islamic state and the acts of terrorism sponsored by it not only in the Muslim countries but also in the European continent. The IS along with Al Qaida is a credible threat to the world peace and looking at their track record and their avowed creed, they are capable of perpetrating a nuclear holocaust if they could lay their hands on the nuclear and radio-active materials for which they are reported to be making efforts. That makes it absolutely necessary for all the nuclear states and those who have a nuclear programme whether declared or undeclared to ensure fool-proof security of their weapons and nuclear materials and also participate in the global efforts aimed at developing nuclear security regimes.
Conceptually speaking, nobody in his right mind can take an issue with the aims and objectives of the initiative designed to ensure nuclear free world and adopting measures for safety of the nuclear weapons and nuclear materials. But unfortunately the dream to have a nuclear free world as envisaged by Obama remains elusive as ever, due to subservience of the international efforts to the strategic interests of the big powers at the global level and the discriminatory approach adopted by countries like US and its allies in regards to the implementation of NPT. The classic example of the breach of NPT is US-India deal on civil nuclear technology and NSG waiver for her, notwithstanding the fact that India was not a signatory to the Treaty. Russia did not attend the summit due to the on-going tensions between her and the US over Ukraine and Syria. For any international initiative to have chances of any success, it is imperative for all the nuclear powers to be on the same page in regards to elimination of nuclear weapons in a phased manner and strict compliance of the treaties on the nuclear issues with sincerity of purpose. That seems easier said than done as the history of such efforts indicates.
As regards the safety of nuclear weapons and the nuclear and radio-active material, apart from the global perspective, it is also in the interest of the nuclear states to have fool-proof arrangements for the safety of nuclear material and an impregnable command and control structure to handle the nuclear weapons, to avoid any nuclear accidents on their own soils with catastrophic consequences like in India, Russia and Japan.
Pakistan’s track record on safety of nuclear materials is impeccable. It has been handling nuclear materials and production of nuclear weapons for the last well over four decades without any accident even of minor nature. Foreign Secretary Aizaz Chaudhry representing the Prime Minister, who rightly decided to stay back in the backdrop of the Lahore tragedy, made a strong case for Pakistan’s inclusion in NSG saying that Pakistan’s nuclear installations were not only secure but the world also acknowledges that they were. He rightly emphasized that a policy of inclusiveness, rather than erecting barriers to the participation of wider circle of responsible states would serve far better the common goals of strengthening global nuclear security. It is a very logical argument and a perfect recipe for obtaining unqualified support of the countries of the world on the issue. Any discriminatory actions are bound to create fissures and apprehensions about the motives of the powers trying to sell the idea of non-proliferation and nuclear security.
Pakistan’s nuclear programme needs to be viewed in the context of security threat from India. It was forced to embark on the nuclear programme in response to the Indian nuclear explosion in 1974. It was India who again took lead in nuclear explosions in 1998 leaving no choice for Pakistan other than to give a befitting answer. The current short range and long range missile programme is also meant to deter aggression and from that perspective it is a contributing factor to peace in the region. Pakistan obviously could not remain oblivious to the Indian doctrine of ‘cold start’.
The diplomatic offensive of Pakistan has produced positive results. US authorities confessed that they were impressed by the steps that Pakistan had taken to secure nuclear weapons and materials since the beginning of Summit process as in their view Pakistan took this issue very seriously. Another big gain of this interaction with the global community and the US President was that President Obama told a post-summit press conference “we need to see progress in Pakistan and India, making sure as they develop military doctrines that they are not moving in the wrong direction”. It was a visible departure from the previous stance of US on the nuclear question when it invariably chose to advise Pakistan to cap its nuclear programme unilaterally without giving same advice to India. Pakistan’s consistent stand on the issue and the rationale for its concept of minimum nuclear deterrent viz-a-viz India has now started gaining international acknowledgement.
.
