Getting the chemistry right

Although Pakistan has consistently maintained that it would join WMD-related treaties as soon as India does, it has failed to ratify the CWC, let alone declare its stockpile. Pakistan8217;s bluff, that its WMD related policy is linked only to India, has been called. Were Pakistan to refuse to come on board the OPCW, India could certainly argue that there is no guarantee that Pakistan would join the NPT and the CTBT even if India did so. This would enable India to delink its WMD strategy from the Indo-Pak straitjacket.

The military reason behind India8217;s support for the CWC is obvious: there is no real protection against chemical weapons at the moment. Were this protection to be provided in the form of noddy suits8217; and antidotes, it would be a tremendous financial burden on the already stretched defence budget. Even if this investment were made, the military effectiveness of troops equipped with noddy suits8217; operating in the hot plains of Punjab or the hotter desert sands of Rajasthan would be severely curtailed.

Besides, the use of chemical weapons would mean that the civilised8217; and sanitised8217; warfare that India prides itself on would begin to affect civilian populations and become uncivilised8217;. Incidentally, India8217;s support of the CPCW may also have to do with reports that the Chinese had conducted exercises with chemical weapons in Tibet in the late 1980s. Thus, India8217;s rationale was to give up its chemical weapons and by taking a lead in the OPCW, to put pressure on China and Pakistan to give up their weapons too.

Another factor behind India8217;s almost unseemly haste in ensuring the CWC provisions were implemented relates to the domestic bureaucratic tussle. In the wake of globalisation, diplomats the world over bemoan the fact that foreign policy has been hijacked by ministries dealing with industry, trade and commerce. The Indian Foreign Service, which may have felt sidelined by the ministries for chemicals, industry and commerce, is no exception. Thus, by supporting the CWC the IFS lobby is clearly strengthening its own position and is asserting its right over foreign and domestic policy. The latter is on account of the IFS8217;s say in the kind of chemicals to be exported or imported.

The other group which could have opposed the CWC was the scientists from the defence laboratories working on chemical weapons, whose livelihood will be directly affected by India8217;s disclosure. However, the incentive for them would be that with India playing a leading role in the OPCW 8212; the agency charged with ensuring that CWC signatories follow procedures 8212; they in turn would have a significant role in ensuring that this mandate is met. Under the provisions of the CWC a country cannot handle its declared stockpile of chemical weapons. So these Indian scientists may be absorbed into the world body responsible for dismantling chemical weapons, particularly so as the declared stockpiles are to be destroyed by 2007. Given that the US and Russia alone have over 70,000 tonnes of chemical agents the Indian scientists along with other chemical weapons scientists are unlikely to be unemployed.

Thus, India8217;s stance on the CWC and the OPCW has to be appreciated not only because it is idealistic but also because it addresses the security and political concerns of the nation in a pragmatic and realistic way.

The writer is with the International Institute for Strategic Studies, London