| |
Whose hands are on the
buttons?
By Nadeem Iqbal
ISLAMABAD - India's disclosure of its nuclear
doctrine this month was supposed to quell fears by
clarifying the conditions under which it would use
nuclear weapons, but it has only increased uncertainty
in the subcontinent, Pakistani analysts say.
The
atmosphere is not helped by the latest tit-for-tat moves
by India and Pakistan on the missile front. Four days
after India explained its nuclear doctrine, Pakistan
handed over the Ghauri, a medium-range missile capable
of carrying nuclear warheads, to its army. A day
afterwards, New Delhi announced that it had successfully
test-fired a short-range version of its Agni-1
intermediate ballistic missile.
Predictably,
Pakistan's foreign office dubbed the Indian disclosure
of its nuclear policy and formation of its nuclear
command authority (NCA) as further evidence that nuclear
weapons and their use is very much part of India's
strategic policy. India had previously publicized only a
draft doctrine in 2000, and Pakistan itself announced
its NCA in February of that year.
Both
countries, which had back-to-back nuclear tests in May
1998, were supposed to install elaborate command and
control mechanisms for their nuclear arsenals to avert
any accidental or unauthorized use of nuclear weapons.
Pakistan says that it would use nuclear weapons as a
last resort if its existence is threatened by bigger
India. India says that it would absorb the first attack
and would only retaliate with full force under its "no
first use" policy.
But the establishment of NCAs
has not eased tensions between rivals India and
Pakistan, which were at the brink of a possibly nuclear
confrontation last year, says Dr A H Nayyar, a visiting
research fellow at the Sustainable Policy Research
Institute.
"The doctrines and establishment of
nuclear commands do not make the two countries less, or
more, responsible," he explains. "Pakistan already had
the doctrine as well as the command structure in place
when its leaders gave out irresponsible statements. In
any case, any country that possesses nuclear weapons is
by definition irresponsible," he argues.
Maria
Sultan, a defense analyst associated with the Institute
of Strategic Studies, says that India has "lowered the
nuclear threshold" through the changes reflected in its
doctrine. She says India's formation of its NCA in
effect puts the nuclear button in the hands of Prime
Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, who is to head a
political council. Another executive council would be
presided over by the national security advisor.
Likewise, India said that its "no first use" of
nuclear weapons will only be limited to cases of nuclear
attacks, but would not include an attack using
biological and chemical weapons. A statement by India's
External Affairs ministry said that "a posture of 'no
first use' of nuclear weapons will only be used in
retaliation against a nuclear attack on Indian territory
or on Indian forces anywhere".
But in the event
of a major attack against India, or "Indian forces
anywhere" by biological or chemical weapons, "India will
retain the option of retaliating with nuclear weapons".
It adds that nuclear retaliatory attacks can only be
authorized by the civilian political leadership through
the NCA.
"India's new nuclear doctrine is
different from the draft doctrine of year 2000 in two
major respects - when Indian forces come under a nuclear
attack 'anywhere', and when India is attacked by
chemical or biological weapons," adds Nayyar.
"The first addition," he says, "is meant to
neutralize Pakistan's implied threats of using nuclear
weapons on Indian troops advancing on Pakistani soil in
a conventional war. The second addition makes the use of
the term 'no first use' of nuclear weapons a little
unconventional, but reflects taking into account new
realities."
Sultan says that India's revisions
to the draft doctrine it released in 2000 reflect
loopholes and do not have enough protection against
misunderstandings and misuse that may lead to a nuclear
confrontation. "While the use of chemical weapons is
undisputedly unmistakable, biological weapons cannot be
detected so easily, and it is possible that India, in a
tense situation, could interpret a normal outbreak of
illness as a biological-weapons strike and plunge the
region into a nuclear holocaust," she explains.
Sultan adds that the Indian NCA does not clearly
spell out if it is centralized, with the push button
only in the prime minister's hands, or whether this
power can be delegated. The Indian NCA process also does
not say how a decision would be made in times of crisis
while establishing a reliable command, control,
communication, computers and intelligence network for
the authority, she explains.
Pakistan's NCA
comprises an employment control committee and
development control committee as well as a strategic
plans division. The apex employment control committee
groups the head of government, ministers of key
departments and military officials, among others. The
development control committee is made up of officials
from the government, strategic organizations and the
scientific community.
But unlike India, which
claims that the decision to push the nuclear button is
with the political leadership, in Pakistan it is the
army that calls the shots. In fact, the discussions
about India's nuclear doctrine led to the emergence of
what critics say are unclear aspects in Pakistan's
nuclear policies and procedures.
Zafar Jaspal,
professor of international relations in Quaid-e-Azam
University, says that when Pakistan's NCA was
established, President General Pervez Musharraf was
installed as its head as he was the chief executive at
the time. Now, Musharraf remains president and army
chief, but a civilian government led by a prime minister
is now technically in power after the October general
elections.
However, the issue of whether power
over Pakistan's NCA has been transferred to the prime
minister is not clear. The confusion surfaced last week
when, while officials were briefing the newly elected
Prime Minister Zafarullah Jamali, they did not make
clear who was heading NCA.
Said the
English-language daily The Nation, "The way things are
arranged, the military has a preponderant role, which
can be dangerous. The use of nuclear weapons is a
political, not a military decision. The NCA's structure
and operation needs to be re-examined in this light."
Missile madness?
Meanwhile, T V
Padma reports from New Delhi that India's plans to
test a range of missiles, including a nuclear-capable
ballistic missile that is China-specific, shows its
keenness to have a nuclear deterrent in place, analysts
say.
The announcement of India's continued
missile testing plans came soon after it test-fired an
800 kilometer range, Pakistan-specific Agni-I missile
last week and unveiled plans for further tests. Hours
earlier, Pakistan had inducted its own 1,300 kilometer
range HATF-V Ghauri missile into the army.
By
the year's end, Indian officials say that they hope to
have tested the Agni-III, which has a range of more than
3,000 kilometers and can reach China. "The sooner they
do it, the better. With a series of missiles, India will
have a nuclear deterrent in place," commented V R
Raghavan, a retired army general and security expert.
While the Agni-I missile is seen as targeted to deter
Pakistan, the Agni III would help India deal with China
on a more equal basis, analysts like Raghavan say. India
accuses China, its neighbor to the north, of providing
covert nuclear and missile help to Pakistan and its
military. Likewise, India's military has expressed
concern over alleged nuclear and military links between
North Korea and Pakistan.
The latest round of
missile rattling, which follows nuclear rhetoric between
India and Pakistan since the start of the year, promises
a tough year ahead in their already strained relations.
At one point, Pakistan President General Pervez
Musharraf boasted of a victory over India "without
waging a war", referring to the withdrawal of Indian
troops from the border in October after a near
confrontation in summer.
His threat that India
should not expect a "conventional war" from its smaller
neighbor Pakistan over the Kashmir dispute was seen by
officials here as his reference to the nuclear option.
Last week, Indian Defense Minister George Fernandes said
that the country "can take a bomb or two or more ... but
when we respond there will be no Pakistan". Analysts
fear an escalated missile race in the sub-continent,
saying that while it may not escalate into a serious
confrontation, it certainly adds to tensions that have
yet to cool from last year. "With Pakistan formally
handing over its Ghauri missile to its army, India will
naturally reply to this and go for more missiles,"
pointed out Kalim Bahadur, a retired professor from the
School of International Studies at the Jawaharlal Nehru
University in Delhi.
India and Pakistan accuse
each other with starting the missile race and have
exchanged tough rhetoric in recent weeks. On Saturday,
Pakistan said that India's test firing of the Agni
missile, which was criticized by countries including the
United States, did not succeed in creating deterrence or
"cow down" the country. "Pakistan has no fears from Agni
missiles as far as our national and territorial security
is concerned," Prime Minister Zafarullah Khan Jamali
said. India "did not succeed in tilting the balance of
power in South Asia in its favor", he maintained.
Pakistani press reports quote officials as
saying "all major Indian cities" are now within striking
range of the country's missiles.
On January 9,
India fired the shorter-range Agni-I missile, which can
go up to 800 kilometers and carry a payload of one
tonne. Defense scientists say that with this striking
distance, Agni-I missile is a "bridge"between the
shorter 250 kilometer range Prithvi missile and longer,
2,000 kilometer range Agni-II missile.
Soon
after the Thursday test that was watched by Fernandes,
Indian defense ministry officials said that it was but
one in a series planned in the next few weeks. On
Saturday, the scientific advisor to the defense
ministry, V K Atre, chose a gathering of non-resident
Indians to announce the planned test on the beyond 3,000
kilometer range Agni-III. "Yes we are developing
Agni-III and it will be tested by the end of the year,"
he said.
India is also expected to test Brahmos,
the Indo-Russian joint venture supersonic cruise
missile, with a range of 290 kilometers, in the coming
weeks.
Despite its plans for testing a missile
capable of reaching China - Fernandes had irked Beijing
by identifying it as a major security concern for India
after its nuclear tests in 1998 - India's and Pakistan's
missiles are increasingly aimed at each other. "The
India-Pakistan rhetoric is nothing new," adds Nihar Das
of the South Asia Foundation, which works on development
issues in the region. "Governments of both countries
have to cater to the extreme rightwing and
fundamentalist constituents that support them," Das
said. Meantime, all this focus on nuclear issues means
that development will suffer. "This will especially be
the case with the badly neglected health and education
sectors," pointed out Das.
Last week's Agni-I
firing also comes within a week of India's announcing a
nuclear command and control system that will based on a
"no first strike" principle, but warns of inflicting
"unacceptable damage" on attackers.
The Agni-I
test also indicates that India paid no heed to visiting
Japanese Foreign Minister Yoriko Kawaguchi's appeal last
week to sign international treaties banning nuclear
testing and proliferation. Kawaguchi made the plea as
Japan restored economic aid to India, lifting a ban
imposed for four years after India's nuclear tests in
the western state of Rajasthan. Japan pledged US$900
million to India this year as part of its aid program.
(Inter Press Service)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
