It should come as a shock to the media campaigners against Pakistan's nuclear programme that international support for the country's efforts to become a member of the Nuclear Suppliers Group has gained a tangible momentum. Away from its erstwhile indifference to Pakistan's desire for access to peaceful nuclear technology from the market the US has now 'welcomed Pakistan's efforts to harmonize its strategic trade controls with those of the Nuclear Suppliers Group'. That must have put paid to all vicious media op-eds and opinion pieces published on the eve of US-Pakistan Security, Strategic Stability and Non-Proliferation (SSS&NP) Working Group, alleging that Saudi Arabia has taken a "strategic decision" to acquire "off-the-shelf" nuclear bombs from Pakistan. Reportedly, at the Group's meeting in Washington there were no more sermons on how to secure Pakistan's strategic assets but, on the other hand, a realization that the country should get help from others to fully utilize its nuclear know-how and technological base for its much-needed socio-economic development. Not that the two sides have no perceptional mismatches; they have many, but by and large it was a 'productive exchange of views' on a variety of nuclear-related issues, both bilateral and international. Yet, it must be said that the kind of open support, like the one Washington has pledged to India, was not there, as the joint statement issued at the end of the Group's meeting abounds in ifs and buts. However, that is not the case with China. Expressing full-throated support in favour of Pakistan's candidature for NSG's membership the spokesperson of Chinese foreign ministry, Hua Chunging, said, "China has noted Pakistan's aspirations for NGS membership. Pakistan has taken steps towards its mainstreaming into global non-proliferation goal".
So, as of now, the ball is in the United States' court; it is Washington that has to establish its neutrality by offering Pakistan a civil nuclear technology assistance agreement like the one it has with India - given the fact that in no way is Pakistan's nuclear programme less secure and development-oriented as that of India's. The differences of fact and perceptions do exist between Pakistan and the United States, as reflected from the joint statement. They differ on the application of Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT); while the United States desires its enforcement as soon as the upcoming Conference of Disarmament (CD) Pakistan prefers a broader version of the treaty - in that it should address the asymmetries in existing stocks of nuclear states. Given that India has huge stockpiles of fissile material, by signing up the FMCT in its present form Pakistan would be jeopardizing its national security interests vis-à-vis India. Since Pakistan's nuclear programme is exclusively-oriented to the Indian threat it would be unjust to expect of it not use its veto at the CD against FMCT in its present form. On the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) too the two sides have divergent positions, but mainly of procedural nature. Pakistan has reassured the United States that "it will not be the first in its region to resume nuclear testing". But the Obama administration cannot hold out any such assurance because the congressional approval to ratify the CTBT is not forthcoming. Of course at the Group's meetings the US delegation outlined reductions in its own nuclear stockpiles and reaffirmed its commitment not to conduct further nuclear test explosions. At the meeting Pakistan also reiterated its commitment to maintain credible minimum deterrence and "to pursue measures in the region aimed at building confidence and lessening the risk of armed conflict". One would be profoundly naïve to think that Pakistan can just abandon its nuclear programme because others want it to do so. Of course, there are always the pious hopes of a nuclear-free world. But the reality of the ground is different; even those who have signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) have no respect for it. Yes, they do no more testing - because it is no more needed, but they are furiously engaged in refining the lethality and delivery of their nuclear weapons. In fact, two clashing realities happily co-exist: while nuclear weapons have the potential to annihilate the entire humanity the peaceful use of nuclear technology is the most economical way to fully meeting the socioeconomic needs of world's growing population and over time the only prescription to secure the planet from climate change with all its disastrous consequences.
Comments
Comments are closed.