Disarmament talks

Nuclear arms control through reduction in fissile material production has become a critical international concern since the holding of a series of US-USSR disarmament talks, aimed at securing a cut in the number of warheads and production of fissile material.
The criticality of the issue lies in the fact that the Geneva-based 65-member Disarmament Conference has not been able to negotiate any arms limitation pact since the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was signed in 1996. The treaty aimed at banning underground tests, representing a crucial step towards eventual denuclearisation.
US Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller, chief US negotiator at Geneva talks, has observed that no country has a right to block nuclear negotiation - an oblique remark seen as criticism of Pakistan. She has further observed that talks on halting fissile material production for making nuclear warheads would be the next logical step.
Washington is scheduled to send fissile material experts to Geneva in the coming weeks amidst a warning by UN chief Ban Ki-moon that the deadlock has heightened the risk of the spread of nuclear weapons, and their falling into terrorists' hands. The West need not entertain any apprehensions because Pakistan has developed a foolproof, multi-layered security mechanism, and according to experts, there is no possibility of nukes or fissile material falling into the hands of terrorists.
Of critical centrality in this connection is the verification of compliance, without which mutual suspicions will linger on. The chief US negotiator has observed that the US agenda includes blocking the spread of nuclear weapons, which is indeed a laudable goal.
The START pact commits the two sides to a ceiling of 1,550 deployed strategic warheads in seven years, which has set the stage for clamping of further limits on, and reduction of nuclear arms. Disarmament and non-proliferation have become critical planks of peaceful coexistence in today's world, without which a safe world cannot be imagined. But these mechanisms must be absolutely even-handed, to maintain acceptable parity.
Pakistan has genuine concerns regarding the Nuclear Suppliers Group's unilateral waiver to India, which means further loading of the nuclear dice against Pakistan. Selective and discriminatory acts by the international community have tilted the balance of power in favour of India, which is understandably not acceptable to Pakistan.
Nuclear or conventional non-parity can bring about a dangerous disequilibrium, leading at times to open hostilities. India's clandestine nuclear programme, for which many Western countries had jointly extended help, dates back to the mid-1970 when New Delhi conducted a "peaceful" nuclear explosion, which allowed New Delhi to gatecrash the nuclear club. Pakistan's nuclear programme, on the other hand, was in reaction, in order to secure its geo-strategic interests against India's higher conventional and nuclear might.
Disinformation about Pakistan's nuclear programme has been a consistent feature in which powerful Western lobbies and media channels have played a role, though our own nuclear indiscretions too have played a role. Pakistan's opposition to FMCT is essentially due to asymmetry, which has become more acute in the wake of the India-US-IAEA civilian nuclear pact that has allowed New Delhi to increase the number of its warheads to 40 each year. (However, it is also claimed that the speed of Pakistan's legitimate nuclear arms production is quite substantial.)
The India-US-IAEA deal also covers the dual-purpose use of nuclear technology. Incidentally, Tarapore nuclear facility has been put to such use in the past. US President Obama's recent visit to India has put an entirely new complexion to the regional balance of power. India has been allowed to join the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the Missile Technology Control Regime and other international regimes, which will give it a head start, justifiably raising security concerns in Pakistan.
Instead of weaving a web of discrimination against Pakistan, the West must reward Pakistan for the critical role it has played as a frontline state against global terrorism. Pakistan's security paradigm has always been India-centric, though it has been widened since 9/11 to cover terrorism. Gottemoeller's remark at the Geneva disarmament conference was unfair, and Pakistan should lodge a formal diplomatic protest.