Chapter five - The Pakistani nuclear tests
‘we have settled the score’[1]
Introduction
5.1
This chapter examines Pakistan’s decision to
follow India’s example and detonate its own nuclear devices. It analyses the
reasons behind this decision and details the international reaction to
Pakistan’s nuclear tests. Further, this chapter identifies and pulls together
some of the common threads running through the responses of individual
countries and international fora to the recent nuclear tests.
Pakistani Tests
5.2
The US Administration and in particular
President Clinton ‘worked diligently to try to persuade the Pakistani
Government to assume the political and moral high ground’ by showing restraint
and not matching India’s nuclear tests. The US government entered intensive discussions
with the Pakistani Government to explain to it the serious negative
consequences of testing. The Pakistanis were made aware that loans to India
including $450 million for electrical power distribution; $130 million for
hydro-electric generators, $275 million for road construction, and $10 million
for promotion of private sector development - a total of $865 million had been
postponed. The US Government wanted the Pakistanis to take note of what was
happening to India so they could fully appreciate the effect that automatic
sanctions required by American law could have on their nation.[2]
5.3
Other countries such as Japan actively engaged
Pakistani officials in discussions intended to discourage them from testing
nuclear weapons. Canada and Australia offered additional aid to Pakistan on
condition that they not conduct nuclear tests. Pakistan was clearly aware of
the international opprobrium likely to meet any further nuclear explosions.
5.4
Despite the efforts of the international
community to dissuade Pakistan from responding in kind to India’s actions,
Pakistan carried out five nuclear tests on 28 May and one on 30 May in the
Chagai hills in the remote south-western province of Baluchistan. Information
on these tests was at times confusing. According to Pakistani officials the six
devices were of the boosted fission type using uranium 235.
5.5
The yields of the five nuclear tests conducted
on 28 May were announced officially as 40 KT to 45 KT. According to one of
Pakistan’s top nuclear scientists, Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan, one of these was a
‘big bomb’ with a yield of about 30 KT to 35 KT. The other four were small
tactical weapons of low yield which when ‘tipped on small missiles can be used
on the battlefield against concentrations of troops’. The sixth test on 30 May
had an explosive yield of 15 KT to 18 KT and registered only a faint echo on
the global network that tracks earthquakes and underground atomic blasts.[3] As with the Indian data, some
seismic yield determinations appear to be smaller than those officially given.[4]
5.6
Pakistan issued few technical details about the
nature and scope of the tests. During an interview Dr Khan stated succinctly
that the tests were ‘a successful nuclear explosion by all definitions. It was
exactly as we had planned and the results were as good as we were hoping’.[5]
Reasons
Settle the score and restore the
strategic balance
5.7
The reaction of the international community
after India exploded its nuclear devices demonstrated a strong expectation that
Pakistan would indeed follow India down the nuclear path. There was real
anticipation that Pakistan would feel compelled to retaliate in order to
re-establish the strategic balance in the region.
5.8
Tanvir Ahmed Khan, a former Pakistani Foreign
Secretary, highlighted how tightly Pakistan’s security policies are coupled to
India’s. He stated: ‘We have always linked our responses to India. In the past,
we have said if India signs the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in the morning,
we will do it in the afternoon’.[6]
5.9
The events preceding the Pakistani tests
followed a pattern similar to those established before the Indian nuclear
blasts. For weeks prior to the tests Pakistan presented itself as a nation
fighting for its survival in the face of serious external threats to its
security. It unequivocally portrayed India as an aggressor. Indeed, on the very
eve of the tests the Pakistani Government made public its fear that India was
about to mount an attack. It reported on 28 May, that it had received
intelligence suggesting that India was planning to make a pre-emptive strike on
Pakistan’s nuclear installations.[7]
India dismissed these allegations as ‘utterly absurd and malicious’ propaganda.[8]
5.10
In explaining the reasons behind Pakistan’s
nuclear tests, the Pakistani Prime Minister, on 29 May, drew on the main
theme that his government had been developing over the past weeks—national
security. He stated:
As a self-respecting nation we had no choice left to us. Our
hand was forced by the present Indian leadership’s reckless actions. After due
deliberation and a careful review of all options we took the decision to
restore the strategic balance. The nation would not have expected anything less
from its leadership...
Under no circumstances would the Pakistani nation compromise on
matters pertaining to its life and existence. Our decision to exercise the
nuclear option has been taken in the interests of national self-defence. These
weapons are to deter aggression, whether nuclear or conventional. Pakistan will
continue to support the goals of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation,
especially in the Conference on Disarmament, bearing in mind the new realities.
5.11
The Prime Minister indicated his preparedness to
engage in constructive discussions with other countries on ways to promote
nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. He noted that Pakistanis were fully
conscious of the need to handle these weapon systems with the highest sense of
responsibility and asserted that they have not and would not transfer sensitive
technologies to other states or entities.[9]
5.12
Referring to outside influences, the Prime
Minister noted that Pakistan had refused a package of incentives which was
being offered to it as a price for exercising restraint, adding that Pakistanis
were not afraid of economic sanctions.[10]
5.13
Pakistani business leaders supported the
Government’s actions and accepted that national security had been at stake.
They asserted, ‘we were forced to go nuclear because of India’s aggression’.[11]
5.14
Throughout the days following the tests,
Pakistan held fast to its stand that it had acted in self-defence. On 2 June,
the Pakistani Ambassador Munir Akram told a special session of the Conference
on Disarmament that Pakistan did not instigate or initiate the security crisis
in South Asia. Rather, he asserted, they were obliged by security
considerations to respond to India’s provocative nuclear tests. He pointed out
that India backed up its nuclear tests with threats that culminated in
‘credible reports of planned pre-emptive strikes against Pakistan’s sensitive
facilities’. Developing his argument, he stated that ‘others may discount these
reports, but Pakistan which has been subject to aggression 3 times could not
ignore the nature and depth of the danger’. He added, ‘Thus, the nuclear
proliferation crisis was transformed into a major security crisis in South
Asia’. According to the ambassador, three factors underpinned Pakistan’s
decision to detonate its nuclear devices which he insisted became virtually
inevitable. They were:
- the steady escalation in the provocations and threats emanating
from India—its declaration that it was a nuclear weapons state, that it would
use nuclear weapons, its threats against Pakistan;
- the weak and partial response of the world community to India’s
tests and threats—no one was willing to underwrite Pakistan’s security and thus
criticism from some of those who enjoy the NATO security umbrella was not
even-handed;
- the realisation that, given the nature of the Indian regime,
Pakistan could not leave India in any doubt about the credibility of its
capability to deter and respond ‘devastingly’ to any aggression against its
country or pre-emptive strikes against its facilities.[12]
5.15
The ambassador drew a clear distinction between
India’s and Pakistan’s actions: India’s action were provocative, Pakistan’s
were reactive; India’s tests destabilised the security balance in South Asia,
Pakistan’s tests restabilized the balance of mutual deterrence.[13] He stated that Pakistan was
not seeking the status of a nuclear weapon state and that it had given only a
bare minimum response.[14]
5.16
Some witnesses appearing before the Committee
accepted that Pakistan felt compelled to match India’s nuclear threat by
demonstrating its nuclear capability. Dr Yasmeen noted that Pakistan’s nuclear
weapons were seen to balance India’s nuclear capability but they were also seen
to provide an additional shield for Pakistan which lacks strategic depth and
could be overrun easily.[15]
Survival as a proud nation
5.17
Unlike India, where it is difficult to
disentangle the issues of national security, national prestige and domestic
politics in explaining what moved the country to go nuclear, Pakistan’s main
consideration was strategic. Pakistan insisted that the issue was one of
‘security, and not status’.[16]
Nevertheless, national pride, honour and sense of achievement were also forces
propelling Pakistan to test its nuclear weapons. According to one Pakistani
analyst: ‘the people and the government were confronted with a very difficult
choice: explode the bomb, and prepare to eat grass. Or decide against it, and
eat humble pie’.[17]
The move to strengthen or enhance Pakistani’s sense of pride and achievement
was reflected in the Prime Minister’s announcement. He congratulated the nation
on the achievements of its scientists and engineers who, he stated, had made it
possible ‘for the people of Pakistan to enter the next century, with confidence
in themselves and faith in their destiny’. He told the Pakistani people:
I also know that when we were able to match India in respect of
nuclear explosions, the heads of my Pakistani brothers and sisters, the young
and elderly, were raised high with pride. They flexed their muscles for any
eventuality, and their faces shone with the light of happiness. To enable
Pakistan to walk tall, I am determined to sacrifice body and soul.[18]
5.18
This was a speech appealing to nationalistic
sentiment in a people who, despite obstacles, were determined to repel any
threat to their nation. Dr Abdul Qadir Khan, held to be the architect of
Pakistan's nuclear program, was hailed in the local press as a Pakistani hero
‘who led Pakistan to become a nuclear power’ and was the ‘pride of the nation’.[19]
Political motives
5.19
Domestic pressure was also a factor influencing
the Pakistani Government’s decision to conduct the tests. But unlike the
situation in India, where the BJP government had a more active and deliberate
role in grooming public opinion and in initiating the tests, in Pakistan the
call for nuclear tests came very strongly from the people and in reaction to
the Indian tests. The Pakistani Prime Minister felt that throughout his country
there had been an expectation that the Government would conduct nuclear tests.[20] He explained to a journalist
that the pressure within Pakistan was irresistible:
...It was mounting on the government every day, every hour. The
outside world is not aware of the emotional feelings of the people of this
region. I have been holding on and exercising utmost restraint. But we were
disappointed that the world community really failed to take a strong reaction
against India.[21]
5.20
Dr Yasmeen acknowledged that public pressure had
a major role in prompting a reticent Prime Minister to agree to explode the
nuclear devices. She asserted:
Both conservative and moderate elements supported and demanded
that Pakistan should go nuclear. So strong was this demand that a small
minority that objected to going nuclear was either silenced or sidelined.[22]
5.21
Clearly strong public support for Pakistan to
demonstrate its own nuclear capability and the desire for national prestige
influenced the Government’s decision to conduct nuclear tests. But the
overriding concern for Pakistan was to establish some form of strategic balance
in South Asia to ensure its own national security and to preserve its
sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Response
5.22
The international community, aside from India,
responded to the Pakistani nuclear tests by expressing disappointment with
Pakistan’s action and by condemning the tests. As with the response to India’s
tests, individual countries called for restraint and now urged both India and Pakistan
to establish dialogue in order to work through their difficulties.
India
5.23
India used the Pakistani nuclear tests to
justify its own position and brushed aside Pakistan’s claim that India posed a
threat to Pakistan’s security. In an official statement the Ministry of
External Affairs announced:
Pakistan’s nuclear tests have confirmed what has been known all
along—that that country has been in possession of nuclear weapons. This event
vindicates our assessment, and our policy as well as the measures that have
been taken...the government have taken all steps necessary for safeguarding the
nation’s security.[23]
5.24
It reiterated its offer to hold discussions with
Pakistan on ‘a no-first-use agreement reflecting its desire to maintain
stability in the region’. It also stated that the Indian Government remained
fully prepared to deal firmly and effectively with any outside threat.[24]
The United States
5.25
On 28 May, the American President condemned
Pakistan’s actions stating: ‘By failing to exercise restraint and responding to
the Indian test, Pakistan lost a truly priceless opportunity to strengthen its
own security, to improve its political standing in the eyes of the world.’ He
went on to say:
And although Pakistan was not the first to test, two wrongs
don’t make a right. I have made it clear to the leaders of Pakistan that we
have no choice but to impose sanctions pursuant to the Glenn amendment as is
required by law.[25]
5.26
He spelt out how India and Pakistan could take
positive measures to resolve the situation by renouncing further tests, signing
the CTBT, and by taking ‘decisive steps to reduce tensions in South Asia and
reverse the dangerous arms race’. Two days later, on 30 May, the President
directed the relevant agencies and instrumentalities to take the necessary actions
to impose sanctions set out under the Arms Export Control Act.[26] It was predicted that the
Glenn Amendment sanctions would cause more harm to Pakistan than to India,
because Pakistan’s economy was weaker and more dependent on assistance from
international financial institutions.[27]
5.27
The President also announced that he would
continue to work with leaders throughout the international community to reduce
tensions in South Asia and to preserve the global consensus on
non-proliferation. [28]This
message was firmly underlined by the Assistant Secretary of State, Mr Karl
Inderfurth. He told the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee on Near Eastern
and South Asian Affairs on 3 June:
Just as we responded to the Indian tests, the United States has
moved swiftly to invoke sanctions and to condemn Pakistan’s reciprocal
tests...In the short term...we are focussing our efforts on ways to prevent
further provocative acts, to get both sides to end further tests, and to
prevent related escalation such as missile testing and deployment. We are
encouraging the immediate resumption of direct dialogue between India and
Pakistan and are working to shore up the international non-proliferation
regime.
He went on to state:
Now and for the foreseeable future, we will enforce sanctions
firmly, correctly, and promptly, in full compliance with the Glenn Amendment
and other legislative authorities. We will continue working to ensure the
widest possible multilateral support for the steps we have taken. A vigorous
enforcement regime will be necessary for India and Pakistan to perceive that
their actions have seriously eroded their status in the international arena,
will have a substantial negative impact on their economies, and that they have
compromised, rather than enhanced their security. We will firmly reject any
proposal for India or Pakistan to join the NPT as a nuclear weapon state. We do
not believe that nations should be rewarded for behaviour that flies in the
face of internationally accepted norms
Nevertheless, he also made plain that the US did not want to
make ‘international pariahs’ out of India or Pakistan.[29]
5.28
On that same day, the Under Secretary of State,
Stuart Eizenstat, explained that the US administration sought to implement
sanctions in a way that would do the least harm to US business interests and
would not push India and Pakistan into ‘the behaviour of rogue
regimes—countries considered outside the world community’.[30] He recalled Inderfurth’s
statement that if India stands ‘outside the international community, we will get
nowhere’.[31]
5.29
Clearly the US wanted to avoid isolating India
and Pakistan from the international arena and wanted ‘to very much work with
both India and Pakistan to help them resolve their differences and restore
future hope, not fear, to the region’.[32]
Japan
5.30
On 29 May, Japan’s Minister for Foreign Affairs
summoned Pakistan’s Charge d’Affairs ad interim to protest strongly against the
nuclear tests. He urged Pakistan to cease immediately nuclear testing and the
development of nuclear weapons. Japan took the following measures:
- froze grant aid for new projects, except emergency and
humanitarian aid and grant assistance for grassroots projects;
- froze yen-loan for new projects; and
- announced it would cautiously examine the loan programs to
Pakistan by international financial institutions.
5.31
Japan also announced that in multilateral fora,
such as the United Nations Security Council, it would actively deal with the
issues so as to firmly maintain a non-proliferation regime and ensure peace in
South Asia.[33]
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs urged India and Pakistan not to commence a
dangerous nuclear arms race and to join the NPT and the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty without condition. It explained that it was exploring measures that
could be taken in collaboration with like-minded countries. The Ministry
expected to be in touch with more countries concerned with discussing the
possibility of joint appeals or actions.[34]
5.32
In addition, Japan proposed to host a meeting
between Pakistan and India on the Kashmir issue.[35] It also raised the possibility
of convening an Emergency Action Forum on nuclear disarmament and nuclear
non-proliferation. The proposal was to draw prominent thinkers, former
policy-makers and experts from throughout the world to discuss ideas about how
the goals of nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation might be
achieved.[36]
Foreign Minister Obuchi explained:
I believe that the issue of nuclear disarmament and
non-proliferation needs to be addressed, not only through discussion among
governments, but also by focusing wisdom from all possible realms on this
subject. To this end, parallel with forthcoming deliberations among the
relevant governments, the Government of Japan will join forces with the Japan
Institute of International Affairs and the Hiroshima Peace Institute to
establish at the earliest possible date, an Emergency Action Forum on nuclear
disarmament and non-proliferation in which around ten government and private
sector experts from around the world will gather for approximately three meetings
to be held in Japan with a view toward drafting concrete proposals within a
year on ways to further promote nuclear disarmament and maintain and enhance
the non-proliferation regime.[37]
5.33
On 6 June, Japan, together with Sweden, Costa
Rica and Slovena, proposed a resolution to the United Nations which was passed
unanimously. The resolution called on the international community to ‘maintain
and consolidate the international regime on the non-proliferation of nuclear
weapons as well as to cope with the threat against the preservation of peace
and security in South Asia and other regions'. It urged India and Pakistan to
resume dialogue on all outstanding issues and encouraged them to find mutually
acceptable solutions to the deep seated causes of tensions between them.[38]
New Zealand
5.34
New Zealand expressed dismay and disappointment
at Pakistan’s nuclear tests. The New Zealand Prime Minister, Jenny Shipley,
explained that the New Zealand Government had called upon Pakistan to exercise
restraint and that her government would be making known to Pakistan, as it did
to India, that the tests were totally unacceptable. She announced that the New
Zealand Government would be consulting with other governments about the steps
that the international community could take to defuse ‘this potentially
dangerous situation’.[39]
5.35
Indeed, New Zealand worked actively and closely
with other countries to explore options on how to exert pressure on Pakistan
and India to cease their nuclear weapons programs and to adhere to the CTBT and
the Non Proliferation Treaty. It joined Australia in calling for a special
emergency meeting of the Conference on Disarmament.
China
5.36
Although denouncing Pakistan’s nuclear tests,
China was less condemnatory. The Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Zhu
Bangzao, told a press gathering that China felt anxious and upset about the
escalation of nuclear arms in the region. He observed that ‘the current nuclear
arms race in South Asia was triggered off by India single-handed because
Pakistan’s nuclear tests were conducted as a response to the Indian threat’.
China strongly condemned India for its nuclear testing, but regretted that
Pakistan had also carried out tests.[40]
5.37
The Chinese Foreign Ministry urged both
countries to join unconditionally the CTBT and the NPT, and not to take any
steps that may further endanger the situation in South Asia. China maintained:
The nuclear tests carried out by India and Pakistan have dealt a
heavy blow to international non-proliferation efforts, and India and Pakistan
should exercise restraint, stop further nuclear tests and abandon their nuclear
weapons development programs.[41]
5.38
The spokesman from the Chinese Foreign Ministry
noted that China had vowed not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons
against countries or regions which do not have their own nuclear weapons. He
stressed that China had ‘always opposed the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction and their carriers, and therefore handles cautiously and controls
in a responsible manner export of missiles’.[42]
United Kingdom
5.39
Following Pakistan’s nuclear tests, Mr Robin
Cook issued a strong statement condemning the explosions. He explained that the
British government was engaged in detailed discussions with the EU and other
international partners on how ‘to impress on India and Pakistan the urgent need
to adhere to the global non-proliferation regime; to conduct no further tests;
and to begin a dialogue which will go to the heart of the differences between
them’. He pointed out: ‘The nuclear tests have only increased tension, not enhanced
security. It is now time patiently to rebuild confidence’.[43]
5.40
Mr Cook announced that he had decided to
withdraw Britain’s High Commissioner in Islamabad for consultations. He noted
that Britain had already cancelled a number of high level military visits
between India and the UK and would be looking for a similar reduction in
military cooperation with Pakistan. Further that the EU General Affairs Council
had decided that member states would work to delay consideration of loans by
the International Financial Institutions to India and asked the Commission to
consider India’s continued eligibility for GSP trade preferences.[44]
5.41
Britain also took measures to strengthen its
controls over the export of nuclear-related goods to India and Pakistan and to
discourage all contacts by British nuclear scientists or nuclear personnel with
Indians and Pakistanis, indicating that no visits by Indians or Pakistanis to
British nuclear facilities would be permitted. [45]
Canada
5.42
Canada condemned the actions of Pakistan in
detonating nuclear devices and urged both India and Pakistan to renounce their
nuclear weapons programs and to sign the nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty and
the CTBT. It recalled Canada’s High Commissioner to Pakistan, it discontinued
non-humanitarian development assistance to Pakistan, banned military exports to
Pakistan, deferred the planned visit to Canada by Pakistan’s Auditor General,
and announced that it would seek deferment of planned International Financial
Institution-funded projects in Pakistan.[46]
5.43
On 27 July, Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd
Axworthy and Minister for International Co-operation Diane Marleau announced
support for a project to promote disarmament and peaceful conflict resolution
in India and Pakistan. The project was to be implemented by the Indian and
Pakistani associates of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear
War, in partnership with Peace Fund Canada, a Canadian non-government
organisation. They were to organise an advocacy campaign to promote peaceful
conflict resolution and disarmament, directed both at political leaders and
across society throughout the sub-continent.[47]
Sweden
5.44
Sweden also severely criticised Pakistan’s tests
as a ‘dangerous step’. It urged Pakistan and India to accede without delay and
unconditionally to the Non Proliferation Treaty and the CTBT.[48] Looking at the broader issue
of nuclear proliferation, Sweden suggested that it was the ‘responsibility of
the five nuclear weapons states to show the way by taking prompt and concrete
action for intensified nuclear disarmament with the aim to achieve the complete
abolition of these weapons.’ Sweden joined with other countries of similar
views on the nuclear issue to bring the matter of nuclear non-proliferation
before international bodies and was particularly active in urging the nuclear
weapons states to begin practical steps toward the elimination of nuclear
weapons. It was on the initiative of Sweden and Japan that the Security Council
adopted a resolution on the recent nuclear tests. [49]
Sri Lanka
5.45
Sri Lanka noted the Pakistani nuclear tests with
concern. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that Sri Lanka believed that
the entire international community should continue its efforts to achieve
global nuclear disarmament leading to the total elimination of nuclear weapons.[50]
Saudi Arabia
5.46
After Pakistan detonated its nuclear devices,
King Fahd called on India and Pakistan to exercise self-restraint. He took the
opportunity to remark on the dual standard shown by the world community in
exempting Israel from international inspection of its nuclear facilities. He
wanted a comprehensive ban on proliferation of nuclear weapons and asked for
the Middle East to be a nuclear-free zone. Although he appreciated the
Pakistani stand regarding the preservation of its national security, Saudi
Arabia nevertheless called on both parties to exercise self-control in order to
make way for the welfare and prosperity of their people.[51]
Multilateral
5.47
By this time a core body of opinion had begun to
form toward the nuclear tests and a common approach was taking shape in the
international community. In coming together in multilateral fora, countries
were able to articulate their views and work toward reaching an agreement on
how to respond to the tests. At the very heart of the international response
was deep dismay and disappointment at the tests. With one voice the
international community urged countries to refrain from further testing and
from the deployment of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles; and called for
the adherence to the CTBT and Non Proliferation Treaty. There were, however,
some important differences in emphasis.
The United Nations—initial response
5.48
On 28 May, the President of the General Assembly
expressed his grave concern about Pakistan’s nuclear tests and appealed to both
India and Pakistan to refrain from continued development of their nuclear
weapons. He urged them to pledge their prompt and full cooperation with the
international community in preventing any further aggravation of the situation.[52] The Secretary-General of the
UN, Kofi Annan, deplored the tests conducted by India and Pakistan stating that
they exacerbate tension in an already difficult relationship’.[53]
Conference on Disarmament
5.49
On 2 June, thirty-four countries spoke at the
Conference on Disarmament. New Zealand made a statement in the name of 46
member states in which it expressed their alarm and serious concern about the
nuclear tests. They ‘condemned all nuclear testing and considered such acts to
be contrary to the international consensus which banned the testing of nuclear
weapons and other explosive devices’. The statement called on India and
Pakistan to: announce immediately a cessation to all further testing of those
weapons; to renounce their nuclear weapons programmes; to sign and ratify,
unconditionally the CTBT; to accede, without delay, to the Non Proliferation
Treaty; to join all States in ensuring the non-proliferation of nuclear
weapons; and to engage in negotiations to conclude a ban on the production of
fissile material.[54]
5.50
A few countries wanted a stronger reference made
to disarmament. For example, Egypt stated that ‘the crux of the matter was the
prohibition of possession of nuclear weapons and New Zealand’s statement this
morning should have included that truth’. Mexico, which supported New Zealand’s
statement, noted, however, that the statement did not sufficiently stress the
need for multilateral and universal steps to establish confidence in the
international nuclear non-proliferation regime. A number of countries,
including Iran, Sweden, Brazil, Colombia and Syria referred directly to the
need for the nuclear weapon states to honour their responsibility to implement
nuclear disarmament and to take prompt action to bring about the elimination of
nuclear weapons.[55]
Syria hoped that the latest events on the Indian sub-continent would be a
stimulus to wake up nuclear-weapon states to their responsibility to strive
for nuclear disarmament.[56]
5.51
Some countries took the opportunity to touch on
more specific regional concerns. Algeria, Iran, Syria and Egypt raised the
issue of Israel’s nuclear capability. More specifically, Algeria referred to
the need to break the silence on the nuclear regime of Israel. Iran spoke of
the imperative for serious attention to be given to establishing a
nuclear-weapon-free zone as a step to comprehensive nuclear disarmament. It
mentioned, in particular, the Middle East, ‘which was faced with the menace of
Israeli nuclear capabilities’. Syria described Israel as a threat to the Arab
region.[57]
5.52
Ireland, Switzerland, and China acknowledged
that the Pakistani tests were a response to India’s actions.
United Nations - Security Council –
P–5
5.53
Ministers from the five permanent members of the
UN Security Council met in Geneva on Thursday 4 June to consider ways to reduce
tensions between India and Pakistan.[58]
In a joint communique they condemned the tests and expressed deep concern about
the danger to peace and stability in the region. They pledged to cooperate in
their endeavours to reinvigorate the non-proliferation regime, to encourage a
peaceful resolution between India and Pakistan, and to prevent a nuclear and
missile arms race in South Asia.
5.54
The ministers agreed that India and Pakistan
should stop all further tests, refrain from the weaponisation or deployment of
nuclear weapons and of missiles capable of delivering such weapons and from the
production of fissile material for nuclear weapons. They believed that India
and Pakistan should adhere to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty immediately and
unconditionally, and that all countries, including India and Pakistan, should
adhere to the NPT as it stands without any modifications.
5.55
In addressing actions that they could take as a
group or individually, the ministers confirmed their respective policies to
prevent the export of equipment, materials, or technology that could assist
programs in India or Pakistan for nuclear weapons or ballistic missiles capable
of delivering such weapons. They undertook to promote the peaceful resolution
of differences and to assist in fostering confidence and security building
measures. Without any preamble, they stated their determination to fulfil their
commitments relating to nuclear disarmament under Article VI of the NPT.[59]
United Nations—Security Council
5.56
The Security Council also expressed strong condemnation
of the tests and called upon all parties to exercise maximum restraint and to
take immediate steps to reduce and remove tensions between them.[60]
5.57
In an official statement on 29 May, the
President of the Security Council announced that the Security Council strongly
deplored Pakistan’s underground nuclear tests. It urged India and Pakistan to
refrain from any further tests. On Saturday, 6 June 1998, on the
initiative of Sweden and Japan, the Security Council unanimously adopted
resolution 1172 on India’s and Pakistan’s nuclear tests. This resolution
followed closely the substance of the P-5 communique though expressed more
stridently and which inter alia:
- condemned the nuclear tests conducted by India and Pakistan;
- urged India and Pakistan to resume the dialogue between them on
all outstanding issues, particularly on all matters pertaining to peace and
security, in order to remove the tensions between them, and encouraged them to
find mutually acceptable solutions that address the root causes of those tensions,
including Kashmir;
- called on India and Pakistan to stop immediately their nuclear
weapons development programs, to refrain from weaponization or from the
deployment of nuclear weapons, to cease development of ballistic missiles
capable of delivering nuclear weapons and any further production of fissile
material for nuclear weapons;
- encouraged all States to prevent the export of equipment,
materials or technology that could in any way assist programs in India or
Pakistan for nuclear weapons or for ballistic missiles capable of delivering
such weapons;
- urged India and Pakistan, and all other States that had not done
so, to become Parties to the Non Proliferation Treaty and the CTBT without
delay and without conditions;
- urged India and Pakistan to participate in negotiations at the
Conference on Disarmament on a treaty banning the production of fissile
material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices with a view to
reaching early agreement;
- urged them to exercise maximum restraint and to avoid threatening
military movements or provocations likely to aggravate the situation.[61]
It reaffirmed its ‘full commitment to and the crucial
importance of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty’.
5.58
The Council also expressed its:
Firm conviction that the international regime on the
non-proliferation of nuclear weapons should be maintained and consolidated and
recalls that in accordance with the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear
Weapons India or Pakistan cannot have the status of a nuclear-weapon state.
5.59
Resolution 1172 drew attention to the reference
made by the P-5 to their responsibilities under Article VI of the NPT. It
affirmed the need to continue to move with determination towards the full
realisation and effective implementation of all the provisions of the NPT and
welcomed the determination of the five nuclear weapon states to fulfil their
commitments relating to nuclear disarmament under Article VI.[62]
5.60
India rejected outright the contents of
Resolution 1172. The Indian Prime Minister described it as unhelpful in respect
to the objectives it sought to address. He maintained that India was a
responsible and committed member of the international community and that urging
India to stop nuclear testing was redundant because India had already
instituted a voluntary moratorium. He noted that India had made clear its
readiness to engage in multilateral negotiations on a fissile material cut-off
treaty. Furthermore, he pointed out that his government was committed to
initiatives that could open negotiations for a global convention for the
elimination of all nuclear weapons.[63]
5.61
The Indian Prime Minister told parliament that a
glaring lacuna in the resolution was its failure to recognise that non-proliferation
had to be placed in a global context. He pointed out that India’s tests were
necessary because of the failure of a flawed non-proliferation regime, and
proceeded to dismiss any notion that India had adversely affected regional or
global security.
5.62
Pakistan also criticised the resolution which it
argued was deficient in several aspects and the product of an approach devoid
of realism. Pakistan depicted itself as a responsible regional citizen seeking
balance or parity and made this point all the more strongly by pointing to the
failure of the international community, notably the Security Council itself, to
address Pakistan’s security concerns. The Permanent Representative of Pakistan
to the UN made plain that India’s decision to weaponise and induct nuclear
weapons compelled Pakistan to join the process of nuclearisation. He stressed
that Pakistan was obliged to demonstrate its nuclear capability for self
defence and to restore the strategic balance in South Asia. He told the
Security Council:
We informed the Council about India’s provocative actions and
unambiguous expression of intent to commit aggression against Pakistan.
Unfortunately, the Council did not pay heed to the impending breach of peace.
Faced with these ominous developments resulting from India’s
deliberate and calculated actions to alter the strategic equation, Pakistan was
left with no choice but to exercise its nuclear option in its supreme national
interest, to restore the strategic balance and to preserve peace...
We cannot be asked to give up the right to defend our country
against any external threat emanating from conventional or weapons of mass
destruction. Pakistan reserves the right to maintain the ability to deter
aggression by conventional weapons or non-conventional means.[64]
5.63
Pakistan urged the Council to deal with the
issue pragmatically. It advised the Council to adopt a ‘comprehensive approach
to the issues of peace, security, confidence building, conventional imbalance,
and conventional and nuclear arms control...whereby this Council and the
international community could contribute to defusing the security crisis in
South Asia’.
5.64
Pakistan drew special attention to the Council’s
call for India and Pakistan to avoid threatening or provocative military
activities and for them to resume dialogue that would promote peace and
security and to find mutually acceptable solutions that would address the root
cause of tension. Pakistan simply answered:
In short, the Council wants Pakistan and India to settle the
issues bedevilling their relations by themselves.
If Pakistan and India could have sorted out these problems by
themselves, today South Asia would not have been nuclearized.[65]
New Agenda
5.65
A number of countries used the world’s
heightened awareness of nuclear proliferation to seek determined support toward
a nuclear weapon free world. Sweden and Ireland, together with the Foreign
Ministers of Brazil, Egypt, Mexico, New Zealand, Slovenia and South Africa who
had been working ‘to re-kindle the will of the international community for nuclear
disarmament’, formed a coalition known as the 'New Agenda Coalition’.[66] On 9 June they made
representation in a joint ministerial declaration to the nuclear-weapons states
and to India, Israel and Pakistan.
5.66
In this statement, they declared that they could
no longer remain complacent at the reluctance of the nuclear weapons states and
the three nuclear-weapons-capable states to make a commitment to the ‘speedy,
final and total elimination of their nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons
capability’. They urged the nuclear weapons states and the
nuclear-weapons-capable states to take fundamental and requisite steps for the
achievement of total elimination of nuclear weapons and to agree to start work
immediately on the required negotiations and on the implementation of practical
means. The ministers agreed that such measures would begin with those states
that have the largest arsenals, but they stressed the importance that they be
‘joined in a seamless process by those with lesser arsenals at the appropriate
juncture’.[67]
5.67
In looking at practical ways to begin this
process they called on the nuclear weapons states to abandon present
hair-trigger postures by proceeding to de-alerting and de-activating their
weapons and also to removing non-strategic nuclear weapons from deployed sites.
The eight countries believed that such measures would ‘create beneficial
conditions for continued disarmament efforts and help prevent inadvertent,
accidental or unauthorized launches’.[68]
5.68
As part of the process they stated that the
three nuclear-weapons-capable states must ‘clearly and urgently reverse the
pursuit of their respective nuclear weapons development or deployment and
refrain from any actions which could undermine the efforts of the international
community towards nuclear disarmament’. They urged them, and other states that
had not yet done so, to adhere to the Non Proliferation Treaty and to sign the
CTBT without delay and without conditions.[69]
5.69
According to a statement by the New Zealand
Government the joint declaration:
builds on the finding of the International Court of Justice that
there exists an obligation to pursue and conclude negotiations leading to
nuclear disarmament. It also supports interim steps to reduce the nuclear
threat, such as those recommended by the Canberra Commission.[70]
5.70
The joint ‘New Agenda’ declaration was read at a
meeting of the Conference on Disarmament on 11 June and formed the basis of a
resolution, ‘Towards a Nuclear Weapon-Free World: the Need for a New Agenda’,
adopted by the United Nations General Assembly during its 53rd
session.
G-8
5.71
The G-8 Foreign Ministers in recalling the
communique issued by the P-5 in Geneva on 4 June and the United Nations
Security Council Resolution 1172 condemned the nuclear tests and endorsed the
recommendations of the Security Council. They pledged to encourage India and
Pakistan to find mutually acceptable solutions to their problems. The ministers
expressed their belief that India and Pakistan must be made aware of the
strength of the international community’s views on the recent tests. They
stated:
Several among us have, on a unilateral basis, taken specific
actions to underscore our strong concerns. All countries should act as they see
fit to demonstrate their displeasure and address their concerns to India and
Pakistan. We do not wish to punish the peoples of India and Pakistan as a
result of actions by their governments, and we will therefore not oppose loans
by international financial institutions to the two countries to meet basic
human needs. We agree, however, to work for a postponement in consideration of
other loans in the World Bank and other international financial institutions to
India and Pakistan, and to any other country that will conduct nuclear tests. [71]
The European parliament
5.72
On 19 June the European Parliament adopted a
resolution on the nuclear tests conducted by India and Pakistan. It condemned
the tests and expressed deep concern about the danger to peace. The parliament
urged the Indian and Pakistani Governments to refrain from any further nuclear tests,
it called on them to give an immediate commitment not to assemble or deploy
nuclear weapons, to halt the development of ballistic missiles, and to start
talks immediately to reduce tension in the region. In turning to its members,
the parliament called on member states to prevent the export of equipment,
materials and technology that could assist nuclear or ballistic missile
programs in India or Pakistan and to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
The parliament called on the five nuclear states to ‘interpret their Treaty
obligations as an urgent commitment to the total elimination of their nuclear
weapons’.[72]
ASEAN regional forum
5.73
The nuclear tests were also discussed during the
ASEAN Regional Forum meeting in July 1998. China briefly referred to the
destabilising effect of the nuclear tests adding that they plunged South Asia
into ‘a sudden wave of tension’.[73]
Russia also mentioned the underground tests and the importance of India and
Pakistan signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and NPT as well as resuming
effective political dialogue between the two countries.[74] Mr Wolfgang Schussel on behalf
of the European Union spoke along similar lines. The US raised the matter of
the nuclear tests in greater detail. It acknowledged that both nations had legitimate
security concerns but neither faced an imminent threat that ‘could justify the
far greater danger we all now face’. It stated:
Our goal is not to point fingers but to point the way to
stability, security and peace. We are urging India and Pakistan to accept the
benchmarks set forth in the Geneva P-5 and London G-8 communiques and endorsed
by the UN Security Council.[75]
5.74
The forum had difficulty in reconciling some
conflicting approaches to the nuclear tests. The Chair of the ARF summed up the
feelings of the Forum in his closing statement:
On the basis of the views expressed by the ARF Foreign
Ministers, I, as Chairman, saw the need to strike a balance between the two
views that emerged.
One view felt that the nuclear detonations should be condemned
because, aside from violating the nuclear non-proliferation regime, the nuclear
tests breached the nuclear barrier and created a situation that is highly
dangerous not only to South Asia but to the entire world as well.
Therefore, it was deemed necessary to send an emphatic message
so that what happened in South Asia, which raised the spectre of a nuclear arms
race, will not be duplicated in other regions of the world.
The other view believed that the ARF should not be converted
into a forum for denouncing ARF participants in no uncertain terms as this
would affect the comfort level of the participants concerned.
Taking all these points into account, I deemed it appropriate
that the contentious portion of paragraph 21 be worded as follows: ‘the
Ministers, therefore, expressed grave concern and strongly deplored the recent
nuclear tests in South Asia which exacerbated tension in the region and raised
the spectre of a nuclear arms race.’[76]
Paragraph 21 reads in full:
The Ministers recalled that as early as 1995 the ARF put
emphasis on the importance of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons in promoting
regional peace and security. They also noted that the ARF subsequently welcomed
the overwhelming adoption of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty as an important
step in prohibiting nuclear test explosions and stressed its determination to
contribute to the prevention of the proliferation of nuclear weapons in all its
aspects. In this connection, the Ministers recalled the United Nations Security
Council Resolution 1172 issued on 6 June 1998. The Ministers, therefore,
expressed grave concern over and strongly deplored the recent nuclear tests in
South Asia, which exacerbated tension in the region and raised the spectre of a
nuclear arms race. They called for the total cessation of such testing and
urged the countries concerned to sign the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty without delay,
conditions, or reservations. They asked the countries concerned to refrain from
undertaking weaponization or deploying missiles to deliver nuclear weapons, and
to prevent any transfer of nuclear weapon-related materials, technology and
equipment to third countries. In the interest of peace and security in the
region, the Ministers called on the countries concerned to resolve their
dispute and security concerns through peaceful dialogue.[77]
5.75
Clearly within the ARF there were countries
prepared to refer to but not endorse Security Council Resolution 1172. While
some countries, in expressing their concern for the security situation in South
Asia, were happy to name India and Pakistan, others were not.
5.76
The body of opinion that was forming toward
India and the nuclear tests after 12 May firmed and took shape after Pakistan
exploded its nuclear weapons. The P-5 statement of 4 June and the Security
Council Resolution 1172 have become significant reference documents in debate
about nuclear testing. Three main objectives became clear: to stem any
escalation of the nuclear and missile race in South Asia; to defend and
preserve the international non-proliferation regime; and finally to ease
tensions between India and Pakistan.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page