Disarming new world

The authors refer back to the Reagan-Gorbachev summit at Reykjavik in 1986 when they came close to an agreement to get rid of all nuclear weapons. Though they do not say so, it failed because President Reagan8217;s advisers pulled him back from the agreement. At that time George Schultz was his secretary of state. Now the authors, as they recount past initiatives in this respect, cite Rajiv Gandhi8217;s fervent plea for nuclear disarmament when he submitted his plan to the Special Session of the UN General Assembly on June 8, 1988.

But Rajiv Gandhi8217;s plea was totally ignored in 1988. The belated wisdom of the US statesmen, they explain in the article, is due to three reasons. The Cold War is over and reliance on nuclear weapons for deterrence 8220;is becoming increasingly hazardous and decreasingly effective8221;, North Korea and Iran highlight the fact that the world is now on the precipice of a new and dangerous nuclear era, and most alarming of all is the likelihood that non-state terrorists will get their hands on nuclear weaponry and use it in their war against the world order.

While endorsing President Bush8217;s seven-point plan to counter nuclear proliferation beyond the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the authors urge further specific steps. They are:

8226; Intensive work with leaders of countries in possession of nuclear weapons to turn the goal of a world without nuclear weapons into a joint enterprise. It is to be noted that they do not restrict themselves to the five nuclear weapon powers of the NPT

8226; Change Cold War deployment postures to increase warning time

8226; Continue to reduce substantially the arsenal of states possessing nuclear weapons

8226; Eliminate short-range nuclear missiles

8226; Initiate a bipartisan process to achieve ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty by the US Senate and work to get ratification by other key states

8226; Provide the highest security to all weapons, weapon-grade plutonium and highly enriched uranium available all over the world

8226; Gain control of the uranium enrichment process with a guarantee for supplies to power reactors at reasonable price first from the Nuclear Suppliers Group and secondly from the International Atomic Energy Agency

8226; Halt the production of weapon-grade fissile materials

8226; Redouble efforts to resolve regional confrontations and disputes, which give rise to new weapon powers

8226; Take measures to impede or counter any nuclear-related conduct that is potentially threatening to the security of any state or peoples

The authors appear oblivious of the fact that Pakistan and North Korea have acquired nuclear weapons to thwart attempts at regime change by external powers and that Iran too is attempting to follow suit. That calls for certain changes in US foreign policy orientation. However the authors have set certain important tests for the US Administration and US Congress.

If the authors8217; advocacy prevails, the US cannot proceed with its modernisation of nuclear warheads. The US will have to initiate steps to revive the CTBT8217;s ratification in the Senate and begin discussions with all nations with nuclear weapons. The next few months will show which road the US Administration and the Congress are likely to take.

Immediately, this plea of the four US statesmen does not call for any response from the government of India. There will be a section of observers in India who would regard this as one more conspiratorial attempt on the part of the US to cap, roll back and eliminate the Indian strategic programme. That view need not be taken seriously. The fact remains that the new situation with the rise of new nuclear states breaching the NPT, the threat of jehadi terrorism and the end of the Cold War and emergence of a balance of power are compelling even the most seasoned veterans of

Cold War arms control to think through the conventional wisdom on nuclear weapons.

The writer is a senior defence analyst