|
Round The World
Nuclear Discourse
REVIVING N-FRIENDLY WORLD
By Sitakanta Mishra
New Delhi, March 17, 2008
Contemporary nuclear discourse exhibits two apparent trends:
on the one hand a consensus is emerging for atomic power as
the viable alternative source of energy and on the other a
call for global nuclear disarmament is gathering steam. India,
the precursor of both trends for decades, has reiterated its
tenacity to delegitimise nuclear weapons by proposing a
seven-point agenda at the recently-concluded Geneva session of
the Conference on Disarmament (CD).
Over 30 countries, ranging from advanced economies to
developing nations, are now actively considering embarking
upon nuclear power programmes, which they don’t have. Number
of reactors operable in the world till January 2008, is 439,
producing 372,059 MW. The number of reactors under
construction by the same period is 34, which aim to produce
27,798 MW. The number of reactors which were planned and
proposed by January 2008 is 93 and 222 respectively.
Interestingly, the Cold War veterans George Shultz, William
Perry, Henry Kissinger and Sam Nunn, who viewed nuclear
disarmament as a fantasy, now forcefully argue for putting the
same back on the international agenda. A conference was held
in Norway in February to mobilise support for the initiative.
While the global renewed interest in atomic power promises a
hospitable and energy-sufficient world, increasing
availability of nuclear technology generates the fear of it
slipping into the wrong hands. The recent initiative by the
Cold Warriors is praiseworthy but such appeals for ridding the
world of nuclear weapons are not new. For decades, many
leaders and peace movements have been urging this.
Recall that two decades ago Rajiv Gandhi, along with Olof
Palme and others, attempted a major initiative towards this
end but was lost in deaf ears. Again, the prospects of blood
and death have never been deterrents for innovation of lethal
weapons; rather the inclination to kill and destroy is
historical constants. Therefore, the renewed disarmament task
seems onerous.
Since the dawn of the nuclear era till date, India's stand in
the nuclear domain is axiomatic. However, since 1998 until the
February Geneva conference, New Delhi has drifted away a bit
from its conviction to lead the way towards a non-violent,
peaceful world, a world free from the shadow of mass
annihilation. Not that it has abandoned its cherished goal but
rather it halted its endeavour to drive the world towards a
time-bound, non-discriminatory delegitimisation and eventual
elimination of nuclear weapons for a decade. Except codifying
its self-imposed No First-Use pledge in the Draft Nuclear
Doctrine, India had not embarked upon any substantial
initiative allaying the world of nuclear danger.
In the formal statement of Ambassador Hamid Ali Rao at the CD
on February 28, India enunciated "seven concrete proposals"
towards achieving the goal of a nuclear weapons-free world in
the sprit of the Rajiv Gandhi Action Plan. The only difference
is the agenda does not carry a strict time-frame tag. However,
the initiative is vindictive of not only the Congress-led UPA
government's interest to revive Rajiv Gandhi's visions of
universal disarmament, but also its responsibility to
crystallise India's global obligation to reduce the importance
of nuclear weapons in its national security strategy.
Moreover, the Geneva initiative would garner global support
and legitimacy for India as a major global player and would
certainly facilitate India's claim for special treatment to
conduct nuclear commerce and nuclear energy cooperation.
India's seven-point agenda for nuclear disarmament includes:
one, reduction of the salience of nuclear weapons in national
security strategy; two, negotiation of an agreement on
no-first use of nuclear weapons among nuclear weapon states;
three, negotiation of a universal and binding agreement on
non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons; four,
negotiation of a convention on the complete prohibition of the
use or threat of use of nuclear weapons; five, negotiation of
a nuclear convention prohibiting development, stockpiling and
production of nuclear weapons, moving towards a global,
non-discriminatory and verifiable elimination of these
weapons; six, unequivocal commitment of all nuclear weapon
states towards the goal of eventual elimination of nuclear
weapons; and lastly, adoption of additional measures by
nuclear weapon States to reduce risks, dangers and possibility
of accidental use of these weapons.
While the aim to hook nuclear weapon States into specific
commitments is explicit in the above proposal,
delegitimisation and circumscription of the utility of nuclear
weapons in security doctrines is firmly implicit. India's call
for the appointment of a Special Coordinator to initiate
consultation for building consensus on the proposal has not
been reciprocated. Also, it is to see how the IAEA and
countries like the US and Russia perceive the initiative.
It is unwise to expect much when States still consider nuclear
arsenals as currency of power. Further more, it is to
understand that nuclear weapons would continue to dominate
strategic thinking so long as something bigger than the bomb
is not invented. Therefore, it is foolish to expect a global
consensus in the foreseeable future to smoothly wither nuclear
weapons. Global disarmament will require several attempts
before it is achieved. Again, we need to introspect, would
nuclear disarmament completely dispel the dangers contemporary
world faces? It is certain, as long there is nuclear know-how
and fissile materials, risks will exist. Nuclear is more
psychology and politics than physics.
However, India today is in a position to take the initiative
of Shultz and Co. forward – towards a new global consensus to
outlaw nuclear weapons. For the vision to be accomplished, New
Delhi along with like-minded countries needs to start vigorous
diplomatic manoeuvres. Instead of idealising and consigning
the goal of nuclear disarmament to "the top of a very tall
mountain", India needs to bring it down to plain site and
chuck out graduated steps. Foremost, the world community needs
to embark on stringent control of sensitive technologies and
radioactive materials by further strengthening the
non-proliferation regime; or else, the current proposal would
face the fate of the earlier initiatives.
Nuclear disarmament, as realised by Shultz and his
compatriots, is still a distant goal. What India urgently
needs to do is to finalise the Indo-US civilian nuclear
cooperation and become a role model; propagate and divert
States' attention from nuclear weapons to nuclear energy. In
the meantime, it should prepare its own blue print of de-weaponisation
through graduated steps while persuading others, especially
the US and Russia, to follow suit. India would match the
emerging consensus on disarmament in the US around the idea
floated by George Shultz and others, at best, as a starting
point, by forming a high-level committee towards this end.---INFA
(Copyright India News & Feature Alliance)
E-Mail :
newseditor@sarkaritel.com |
