In My View

Crumbling Monopolies

American eminences like former US secretaries of states, Henry Kissinger and George Shultz; former US secretary of defence, William Perry and veteran US Senator, Sam Nunn had caused a mild flutter a month ago worldwide. In a signed article on the right-wing Wall Street Journal they argued in favour of “… endors(ing) setting the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons and working energetically on the actions required to achieve that goal…”

These personages have been, and still continue to be high priests of American power – backed by a cornucopia of nuclear and conventional weaponry - and have never blanched at the prospect of exercising it at the behest of their ilk, the American elite. Consequently, their call to the international community for abjuring nuclear weapons naturally does not have the moral resonance of a call for the same by an Albert Einstein or a J Robert Oppenheimer, both of whom had been victims of the American coercive State.

For reasons similar, this column had consciously ignored the event. It was written off as a final flailing of arms by an imperial janissary witnessing the final days of the empire. Conversely, it could also be viewed as the one last attempt to hoodwink the world's populace and maintain supremacy for a few more days, especially with a Democratic Party regime on the horizon of Washington. Either motive was eminently ignoble.

However, I had to change my mind. For a few days ago, exactly a month after Kissinger et al purveyed their perfidy, K Subramanyam, known informally as the Bhisma-pitamaha of the Indian strategic community; or more accurately the Dronacharya, wrote an article in the Journal's (intellectually) poverty-stricken Indian cousin, Times of India.

He had concluded his piece by saying, “India has been an advocate of nuclear disarmament from the early 1950s up to the Rajiv Gandhi plan. It will, therefore, be logical for India to endorse the initiative of these gentlemen in principle. (Emphasis added.) But it must refrain from committing itself to any specific steps without further detailed negotiation and consideration of the impact of the proposals on our security.”

For Eklavyas, that formulation sounds deficient in Indo-centricity; more applicable to a China than India. China has a stake in the current status quo as a member of the P (Permanent) -5 or an N (Nuclear) -5. It has already emerged on the scene as the newest entrant to the Big Power club, and thus would abhor any new competition in terms of currencies of power.

India, on the other hand, has some way to go. The thinking behind this current call for abolition of nuclear weapons is on account of the challenge the current nuclear weapons regime has encountered, beginning with India and Pakistan and continuing with Iran. The US and its allies have realised that the deterrence logic of their nuclear arsenal has been overturned, with it is now working in favour of emerging powers. For the former can no longer browbeat these countries into submission based on their absolutist positions. The new nuclear programmes have brought some symmetry in highly asymmetric worlds, where the gulf between the nuclear haves and the have- nots was far too wide.

In many ways, Pakistan should acknowledge the ‘contribution' of AQ Khan towards levelling the nuclear field by his cottage industry of nuclear technologies Atleast, the word is out that Parvez Musharraf government in Islamabad is thinking of releasing him from confinement, soon after the elections are over in that country. Pakistan Muslim League (Q)'s Wajahat Hussain – whose brother was harassed at a London airport recently – met Khan and conveyed the Pakistan president's decision. Nevertheless, that is another story.

On the other hand, if nuclear weapons were to be abolished in today's world, it would leave the big powers, with their huge conventional and advanced arsenals and large armies, thus negating the cost they would now have to budget and mount up, with nuclear weapons technologies abounding. That cannot be the goal of an emerging power; of raising the comfort level of existing Big Powers. On the other hand, a diminution of supremacy of established powers can only help Indian gain elbow room.

Hence, it has to be said, the time in the world today is not opportune for India to commit to any nuclear weapons abolition agenda of the USA. By the same token, it has to be remembered that the Rajiv Gandhi Action Plan, Kissinger etc initiative has harked upon had also talked of a drastic reduction of ‘conventional' arms; removal of all military forces and bases from foreign countries; a ban on development of new weapon systems, such as space weapons, and other means of warfare; institutionalisation of a global common security system.

Now, that surely sounds more comprehensive in its scope than an exercise in perfidious realism that a Kissinger or a Shultz is famous for. Subramanyam too is aware of these goals set by the former prime minister of India.

That should be the very basis of any negotiation by India; if at all it needs to engage in any discussion on the future contours of global power. A future that ends monopolies can only be the desire of a state, which had shown to the world that liberty is the ultimate human desire.

Pinaki Bhattacharya, currently located in Kolkata, is a Special Correspondent with the Mathrubhumi, Kerala. He writes on Strategic Security issues. He can be contacted at pinaki63@dataone.in