May 29, 1998

In this issue:

• Indian tests highlight folly of current nuclear treaties

David Kyd lives in Vienna. He is an official of some sort at the International Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC), and he knows every thing about nuclear regulations and treaties -- for example, The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). There being no treaty that asks for total and immediate ban on nuclear weapons or total and immediate nuclear disarmament, such extreme issues do not, of course, much vex our friend. But if I am to believe newspaper reports, David is mighty perplexed these days -- although, initially he wasn't fazed at all by India's recent atomic tests. He was certain that the incident did not make India a "nuclear weapon state," and he seemed content. However, when it was pointed out that it is not beyond the realm of possibility that India just might "weaponize" its armed forces, David was much perturbed. It appears that his feelings were not affected primarily by any great anxiety about the unsafe future of humanity, but by the supposedly flagrant illogicality of there being any more than the five "nuclear weapon states" mandated by Article 9 of NPT.

History, it is evident, must unfold according to articles in treaties sponsored by the mighty and the elect. No matter how many countries enhance their arsenals with nuclear stuff, for Kyd the central issue will always be of definitions, of clauses and subclauses, of what might or might not be allowed by the wording in a document. Of who violates the exclusivity of the P5 Club.

Then there is the CIA/NASA intelligence complex, which failed to predict the tests on both occasions but has by now pretty well satisfied itself that it had not been proved incompetent. Rather, these surveillance experts assert, India had "deceived" them by diverting the intelligence gathering operation's attention to a decoy rocket-launching site on the eastern coast -- the other end of the country from Thar desert! Surely, "deceiving" the mighty American spying network must be an unpardonably immoral act: after all, in accusing India of deception the CIA cannot but advance for the United States a claim for moral superiority.

Kyd's strange "categorical" conundrum and CIA's ludicrous moral outrage are, perhaps, the only comical aspects of this overall sombre affair. Unfortunately, international response to the testing of atomic devices by India earlier this month has mostly been characterized by the obtuseness of the Messrs Kyds of the world. No one can be expected to be happy over the new nuclear situation. And the affair can -- in circumstances I would think most unlikely -- lead even to a nuclear conflict threatening all of us. But, nuclear war can result from the possession of nuclear power by any country -- including the P5 nations. The non-proliferation-ist assumption that U.S.A., Britain, France, Russia and (reluctantly) China know how to maintain moral control over their weapons makes no deep rational sense, and might also be selectively racist in its implications. The fact that over 140 countries have signed the treaty is irrelevant, because all non-P5 countries have, by the very act of agreeing to the discriminatory arrangement, lent support not to world peace but to an unjust world order. Most of these countries are either incapable of producing nuclear arms, or are not permitted to do so, or -- worse still -- survive under the military protection of one or the other nuclear nation.

It is probable that India's nuclear move, at this juncture, is linked in some degree to the insecurities of a shaky minority government, which also has a prominently non-secular cast. However, in explaining the situation primarily in this way -- as many have -- one ascribes too much authority to a conveniently common-sense approach based mainly on the accidents of immediate history. The contradiction inherent in this superficial trust in reason is certainly proven by the same critics' far-from-reasonable belief in the supposedly non-threatening -- if not actually benevolent -- attributes of, say, America's nuclear weapons. After all, nearly 35,000 nuclear warheads remain stockpiled, justified by an absurdly docile acceptance of the value of "vertical proliferation." It is then particularly pathetic to witness the screaming and pretended outrage emanating from secondary First World nations like Australia (a major broker of these discriminatory treaties) and Canada. Yet another similarly reasonable-sounding position expresses moral disgust with India because it has supposedly diverted money that should have gone to feeding the poor into military muscle-flexing exercises. This line of thinking ignores America's politically expedient granting of "most favored nation" status to a notoriously undemocratic and militarily hostile China, a political factor that has already forced India to increase its national security expenditure.

I think it is possible to understand India's position in terms that are a bit more abstract, perhaps even philosophical -- terms that are less reliant on facts of immediate history, and are seemingly less "rational." I am not a journalist, and prefer to take the longer albeit less directly verifiable view. Folio has invited me to contribute an "opinion" piece. I do so as briefly as possible, and through an interpretation of a peculiarity of the Indian mind. (I am afraid, I am far from keen to provide merely an "ethnic" reading of a bit of current news.) Of course, I presume that there is such a thing as an Indian mind, or a widely-shared Indian perception of the country itself and its relationship with the rest of the world. In this typical Indian view, that relationship is of equivalence: India perceives itself as a metropolitan culture and, therefore, considers itself to be one of the centres of the world. If the world is to have a number of super-states -- and evidently it does -- India would consider itself one. Citizens of all important and powerful states think this way, although the connotations of the word "powerful" and what constitutes power necessarily vary from one country to the other. While the less power-hungry nations (which may really have no option in the matter) routinely claim a dubious moral superiority for themselves, they seldom dominate the world's attention and imagination in the way China or America does, or does India. There is, in this sense, a correlation between a major culture's perception of its central place in the scheme of things, and other peoples' glad or grudging acknowledgment of that centrality. And these specially privileged countries hold distinct views about the entire world and how it must operate. This is the particular nation's world-view, and it informs its actions more deeply than immediate contingencies of history. In fact, the Indian world-view -- and calling it a mere sentiment (which it probably also is) will not make any real difference to the fact that it exists -- is held by most Indian artists, thinkers, intellectuals and opinion makers who live and work in India. Moreover, the fact of India's complex economic woes, or the fact that many Indians are desperately seeking immigration abroad does not affect the way the culture views itself and views the rest of us. India has always been hard to understand, but this difficulty is especially apparent in the Anglophone countries of the Western world-countries to which most emigrating Indians tend to flock. The visibility of a large and largely self-serving diaspora, creates a distorted perception of India in the host countries. India cannot base its actions on a premise of keeping the expatriate from being embarrassed.

I am not pleased with the tests, but that will not matter to India. As a student of its history and culture, I know threatening Pakistan is only the most superficial aspect of the event. Even the keenest jingoistic attitude of the new government in India could not have produced the elaborate indigenous nuclear technology in three or four weeks. Pakistan may be a constant irritant for India, but simply being mightier than Pakistan is not the primary issue for India. In terms of the notion of equivalence I have tried to outline, Pakistan is not a real rival. China is, but not only because of the border dispute. The tests send a message to the world about the folly of its current nuclear arrangements; and no country has more consistently and strenuously sought total nuclear disarmament than India. An impractical and idealistic position? But a thoroughly courageous one as well: that's what leadership is all about. My only fear is that the unstable government now running the country may become satisfied merely with the immediate political gain, and be amenable to signing CTBT without getting its dangerous and discriminating loopholes sealed. If that happens there will be no meaningful nuclear disarmament in the world. There is much easy talk in world press of India having now killed Mahatma Gandhi a second time. The world's record is much too stained to make its pro-peace claims credible. Also, Gandhi did not support peace merely in a negative way, nor did he think national security a non-issue. As long as India does not make military use of its nuclear power, its current action can prove to be the only one that will bring nuclear sanity to the world: no nuclear weapon anywhere. For the first time in history the world has a nuclear state that does not haw and hem in the matter of total nuclear disarmament. It is sad that Pokharan had to happen to bring this about. Nevertheless, the number that we ought to worry about is 35,000, not five (three? for Kyd's treaties do not count the sub-kilotons!")

Folio front page

Office of Public Affairs

University of Alberta