Gains from iniquity but India is no better or worse off from CTBT - The Indian Express

• Messages sorted by: [ author ]
[ publication ][ subject ][ thread ]
• Next message: Editorial : "Farcical Finale"
• Previous message: Parsa Venkateshwar Rao Jr : "Good for himself, yes, but for Dalits?"

With the UN General Assembly voting by an overwhelming
majority for the CTBT, the world has taken a significant
step towards nuclear disarmament. Some of the treaty's
key provisions are heavily flawed and there will be
disappointment over missed opportunities. But even
India, bitter though it has reason to be for being put on
the rack at Geneva, may find that this incomplete treaty
is better than no treaty. It cannot be considered truly
'comprehensive' or universal as long as laboratory
testing escapes the ban and India and a few other
countries find they cannot accede to it. It may be
several years before all those who voted for it agree to
ratify it and be bound by its terms. But some progress
has been made towards capping the arsenals of the five
nuclear powers. After five decades and over 2,000 tests
they have promised at last to give up underground
testing. This must be regarded as a major gain for the
world community,

Will the promise hold? Article XIV (the entry into force
rules) which three of the five nuclear powers insisted on
retaining without amendment gives them a loophole to
delay ratification as long as India holds out. But in
that their votes in the General Assembly amount to a
solemn commitment to abide by the treaty, it will be
extremely difficult for any of the five nuclear powers to
actually conduct underground tests. A second and
probably more effective restraining factor is that even
an unfinished CTBT freezes the nuclear status quo between
the weapons powers and there will be consequences if
anyone of them tries to alter the balance. To that
extent the world may breathe a little easier. As far as
India itself is concerned it is best to recognise that
the global consensus against nuclear testing has been
strengthened. This leaves the country's "nuclear option"
no better or worse off than it was before. But by
holding out from an international agreement, even though
compelled to, India opens itself to being misunderstood
everywhere. Despite I. K. Gujral's denial of any
government intention to test weapons, speculation
continues about India's real intentions. Such
misunderstandings can cause complications in many areas
from trade and technology to getting support for a seat
at the Security Council. Indian diplomats have their
work cut out for them.

The Ministry of External Affairs' understanding of the
international scene will be much improved if it can find
an answer to how exactly Article XIV came to be written
in a form which India's representative at Geneva
described as coercive and against international law on
treaty-making. Did the arrogance of certain powers
combined with the failure of Indian diplomacy result in a
provision which demanded India's signature on a treaty it
had already rejected? Did it set up an exit route for
one or more weapons powers? Was it part of an
understanding with China without which Beijing would not
agree to a test ban? Was it a psychological tactic based
on the assumed vulnerabilities of a new coalition
government in New Delhi?

• Next message: Editorial : "Farcical Finale"
• Previous message: Parsa Venkateshwar Rao Jr : "Good for himself, yes, but for Dalits?"

Back                          Top