The Paradox in Legitimizing India’s Nuclear Status

Discussion in 'Strategic Forces' started by sorcerer, Nov 15, 2014.

  1. sorcerer

    sorcerer Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2013
    Messages:
    6,203
    Likes Received:
    5,114
    Location:
    India
    The Paradox in Legitimizing India’s Nuclear Status
    India’s nuclear status-quo is a conundrum: Should it be legitimized, and if so, why? This ongoing argument is sowing discord within the international non-proliferation regime.

    Recently, India reaffirmed its fundamental position on the non-proliferation treaty (NPT): New Delhi will not join the NPT as a non-nuclear weapons state. It is, however, prepared to enter into bilateral or multilateral agreements with pledges of no-first-use and no-attack against non-nuclear weapons states, as stated by Ambassador D. B. Venkatesh Varma on October 21. This has provoked debate: Does the situation benefit India or does the advantage remain with non-nuclear weapons parties in the regime? And can a middle ground be reached that safeguards the NPT regime, and introduces pathways to non-member states like India.

    Whether or not they are part of the NPT, all states are part of the dilemma. Is it better to encourage India’s approach to reducing the risk of using nuclear weapons by accepting its position? On the positive side, India’s compliance with the no-first-use pledge may encourage it to avoid nuclear adventurism. If this is accepted by the NPT member states, it could increase the effectiveness and reduce the risk of nuclear weapons being used at times of war. The next question, then, is whether one can trust India.

    It is worth noting that New Delhi has attempted to contribute to the nuclear non-proliferation regime by voluntarily keeping clear records and proposing an ideal method of global nuclear disarmament. India has been strongly in favor of universal, non-discriminatory, and verifiable disarmament processes since its proposed 1982 resolution. On this basis, New Delhi’s perspectives on the NPT have established a firm foundation: India is willing to postpone its membership application until it is accepted as a nuclear weapons state. In the meantime, New Delhi has fulfilled its requirements by creating a space for nuclear commerce through Indo-U.S. nuclear deals, thereby demonstrating its progressive stance as an exceptional de-facto nuclear weapons state.

    The agreement suggested by New Delhi regarding no-first-use would effectively prevent full-scale nuclear warfare. If all non-NPT nuclear weapons states were to follow India’s example in the future, then it would have to be acknowledged that India’s suggestion is a practical means of lessening the nuclear peril. As many have suggested, if keeping nuclear weapons is an inevitable military strategy, then proposals from the non-NPT nuclear weapons states may be useful. Irrespective of the controversy surrounding what India claims to be the discriminatory nature of the NPT regime, bilateral and multilateral agreements on no-first-use against non-nuclear weapons states will pressure the nuclear weapons party states to be risk averse. In addition, the 1988 India-Pakistan bilateral non-attack agreement is an attempt to avoid creating a regional nuclear flashpoint, and to reduce the risk of nuclear warfare it could be expanded to encompass regional NPT signatories like Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka.

    On the other hand, India’s unilateral action is cause for grave concern – not because of doubts about its effectiveness, but because of a potential negative chain reaction among other de facto nuclear weapons states. Since the late 1960s, after the NPT regime was created, attempts to eliminate the loophole in the regime have proven ineffective. It is clear that any exceptions can be viewed as a weakness in the regime. Thus, India’s suggested agreement could provide the legal cover for non-NPT nuclear weapons states to change the spirit of the regime. If a bilateral agreement is made outside the NPT, the merits of the international non-proliferation regime become blurred: Non-nuclear states in the NPT may complain or use leverage against the P-5 (UN Security Council permanent members), such as asking for increased membership advantages. At the same time, the de facto nuclear weapons states outside the NPT may seek similar approaches that would grant them political and legal rights. The most serious concern here is that the regime, the ultimate goal of which is nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, may be dealt with separately.

    For instance, if North Korea were to propose an agreement that was then accepted by non-nuclear weapons states of the NPT, Pyongyang may hold the legal position of being a nuclear weapons state as a result of the agreement. This legitimization of nuclear weapons status would bring a range of advantages, both political and military. Definitions as well as terms and conditions used to clarify the final agreement between party states may lead to misuse of the agreement. Logically, it is likely to be used to increase nuclear capability against adversarial nuclear weapons states after gaining legitimacy outside the NPT. Since these states are pursuing a credible deterrence, agreements with non-nuclear weapons states may be a useful tool for legitimizing their position to match other nuclear weapons states’ capabilities, rather than promising not to launch nuclear attacks on non-nuclear weapons states.

    Similarly, to what extent is the agreement proposed by New Delhi relevant in cases of extended deterrence? States that have deployed nuclear weapons in alliance systems always receive attention concerning how long the extended deterrence will last. If an agreement enters into force between nuclear weapons states and non-nuclear weapons states which host deployed warheads, the situation may become untenable regarding nuclear proxy wars. In other words, the agreement is valid between the two state parties, yet the question is whether nuclear weapons deployed in non-nuclear weapons states will be used when the two nuclear weapons states are at war.

    Approaching the 2015 NPT Review Conference, there are considerable expectations surrounding India’s new government and NPT membership. New Delhi’s desire to transform policy into practice by signing the agreement looks valid in a regional context; however, India should be more cautious when moving forward in reading the global context.

    Ji Yeon-jung is a lecturer at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies (HUFS), Seoul, South Korea.
    source:The Paradox in Legitimizing India’s Nuclear Status | The Diplomat
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2014
  2.  
  3. sorcerer

    sorcerer Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2013
    Messages:
    6,203
    Likes Received:
    5,114
    Location:
    India
    India-Pakistan Non-Attack Agreement



    Signed: 31 December 1988.

    Entered into Force: 1 January 1991


    The India-Pakistan Non-Attack Agreement is a unique bilateral agreement that expands, in a sense, the scope of Articles 56 and 15 of the first and second protocols to the Geneva Convention. These articles state, "Works or installations containing dangerous forces, namely dams, dykes and nuclear electrical generating stations, shall not be made the object of attack, even where these objects are military objectives, if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces and consequent severe losses among the civilian population."

    Provisions:

    The agreement provides for refraining from undertaking, encouraging, or participating in, directly or indirectly, any action aimed at causing destruction or damage to any nuclear installation or facility in each country. It describes a nuclear installation or facility and requires each party to inform the other of the precise locations (latitude and longitude) of installations and facilities by 1 January of each calendar year and whenever there is any change. The agreement does not provide for detailed disclosures of nuclear-related activities.

    The agreement defines nuclear installation or facilities against which attack is prohibited as "nuclear power and research reactors, fuel fabrication, uranium enrichment, isotopes separation and reprocessing facilities as well as any other installations with fresh or irradiated nuclear fuel and materials in any form and establishments storing significant quantities of radioactive materials."

    India has consistently proposed extending the agreement to include non-attack on civilian and economic targets, but Pakistan has continuously rejected these proposals. However, India's recent draft nuclear doctrine involves a deterrent capability based on unacceptable damage to an opponent; thus, the likelihood of expanding the agreement to include counter-value (non-military) targets may now be small.

    Starting in January 1992, India and Pakistan have exchanged lists of their respective civilian nuclear-related facilities. However, each side has questioned the completeness of the other's list.

    Verification and Compliance:
    The Agreement requires an annual exchange of lists detailing the location of all nuclear-related facilities in each country. The measure further pledges both sides not to attack listed facilities. Though lists of nuclear facilities have been exchanged each year, the definition of nuclear facilities to be declared is unclear. There are no compliance measures in this Agreement.

    Source:India-Pakistan Non-Attack Agreement | Treaties & Regimes | NTI
    ------------
    Treaty Text

    AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIA AND PAKISTAN ON THE PROHIBITION OF ATTACK AGAINST NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS AND FACILITIES (INDIA- PAKISTAN NON-ATTACK AGREEMENT)

    December 31, 1988
    The Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Government of the Republic of India, herein after referred to as the Contracting Parties, reaffirm- ing their commitment to durable peace and the devel- opment of friendly and harmonious bilateral rela- tions; conscious of the role of confidence building measures in promoting such bilateral relations based
    on mutual trust and goodwill; have agreed as follows:
    1.
    i.
    Each party shall refrain from undertaking, encouraging or participating in, directly or indirectly, any action aimed at causing the destruction of, or damage to, any nuclear in- stallation or facility in the other country.

    ii.
    The term "nuclear installation or facility" in- cludes nuclear power and research reactors, fuel fabrication, ur anium enrichment, iso- topes separation and reprocessing facilities as well as any other installations with fresh or irradiated nuclear fuel and materials in any form and establishments storing signifi- cant quantities of radio-active materials.

    2. Each Contracting Party shall inform the other on 1st January of each calendar year of the latitude and longitude of its nuclear installations and facilities and whenever there is any change.

    3. This Agreement is subject to ratification. It shall come into force with effect from the date on which the Instruments of Ratification are exchanged.


    Done at Islamabad on this hirty-first day of December 1988, in, two copies each in Urdu, Hindi and English, the English text being authentic in case of any difference or dispute of interpretation.


    Signed:]
    Humayun Khan
    Foreign Secretary
    Islamic Republic of Pakistan


    K.P.S. Menon
    Foreign Secretary
    Republic of India
    Instruments of Ratification Exchanged: December
    1990 (Entry into Force)

    Source:http://cns.miis.edu/inventory/pdfs/aptindpak.pdf
     
  4. Abhishek Tanwar

    Abhishek Tanwar New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2014
    Messages:
    65
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    Jodhpur, India
    As i think India should not agree with NPT TERMS because these terms made by those countries who have more then 9000 thousand nuclear weapons ,In the matter of fact India should incress his power N-technology , because pak have more n-wep then India ,china is much more foreword in that case .
     
  5. prohumanity

    prohumanity Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2013
    Messages:
    889
    Likes Received:
    548
    Location:
    USA
    If a great nation like India needs to seek legitimacy from other nations, then, sadly India is still a weak, enslaved nation. If you have strong muscles, you don't need to seek legitimacy from anyone about your muscles...people see and know it.
    The nations with thousands of Nuclear weapons...do they seek legitimacy...did anyone seek legitimacy when they decided to use nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and nagasaki killing millions of innocent people? Lets change the slave language of seeking approval from others and be self respecting, self assertive nation. As Modiji say "PEACE THRU STRENGTH"
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2014
  6. Abhishek Tanwar

    Abhishek Tanwar New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2014
    Messages:
    65
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    Jodhpur, India
    People always talk peace when they even know what is the meaning of it but now i like to show mirror to them who are just good at talk too much , look who is talking about legitimacy , when America attack Iran ,Afghanistan, sirya ,Somalia , Bosnia,Libya and Vietnam or more what he did there for natural resource of them , what he done for black gold then talk about peace., may be people just don't even know what he did there , if anyone think that India don't have strong muscles so first check the history then talk about it. if anyone says that India need to be world power so i agree at that point we will do what we have to do but in the matter of fact we too much peacful then west.
     
  7. sorcerer

    sorcerer Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2013
    Messages:
    6,203
    Likes Received:
    5,114
    Location:
    India
    India is portraying herself as the super soft power minus the arrogance. Softpower is more mystifying and convincing. This place India in the hearts of the world, which is a good thing. This cultivates trust and makes it easy for India to manouver herself towards progress.

    India has to go through certain loops and hurdles. Thats natural when you are dealing with nations who has thier own vested interests in this world.

    I would say - Its easy to be arrogant with muscles. The sense is in using the muscles with elegance.
     
    sesha_maruthi27 and pmaitra like this.
  8. prohumanity

    prohumanity Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2013
    Messages:
    889
    Likes Received:
    548
    Location:
    USA
    Agree with Sorcerer...Walk humbly and be polite...but don't forget to carry a big stick !
     
    archie, sesha_maruthi27 and pmaitra like this.
  9. LETHALFORCE

    LETHALFORCE Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    20,543
    Likes Received:
    6,547
    This goes beyond just the NPT . Many other treaties FMCT , MTCR etc ... will also be
    Factors as well as many nations and other organizations like nsg, IAEA etc....
     
  10. prohumanity

    prohumanity Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2013
    Messages:
    889
    Likes Received:
    548
    Location:
    USA
    Most of these so called "treaties" are tools to continue hegemony and make independent nations subservient to "old,declining powers" They are irrelevant because they are hypocritical to say the least. For example, about recent food security issue...Imagine you are a middle class family and you decide to save and put a lot extra bread in your fridge out of fear that in the uncertain world, you can use it if you need it. BUT, your rich neighbor comes and orders you that you can only save extra 10% in your fridge for rainy days and you have to sell the rest . The questions are (1) Does this rich nosy neighbor has the right to tell this family how much bread they can store in their fridge ? (2) Why this nosy neighbor wants to dictate how much bread this family should save.
    My answers are (1) Nosy neighbor has no business telling this family how much bread they can store in their fridge. (2) Nosy neighbor is afraid that if this family has enough breads saved for the rainy day, he will have hard time dictating his terms when rainy day comes and the family is not desperately hungry to accept any terms and conditions dictated. Do you have any other ideas?
    Coming back to these "treaties"...Nosy guy has 10000 nukes and has a tract record of using them..but he goes around telling all other neighbors that they he will not allow any one else to have nukes and forces them to sign a "treaty" Isn't it the greatest example of HYPOCRACY. Yes ! That's why it does not work.
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2014
    LETHALFORCE likes this.
  11. sgarg

    sgarg Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2014
    Messages:
    3,479
    Likes Received:
    962
    My opinion is that nuclear weapons must not be used. It is better to not make them as well. However there is a serious trust deficit in the world and nations are not willing to live peacefully. The mistrust is fuelling development of nuclear weapons.

    The nukes will ONLY LEAD TO TRAGEDY. There is no happy ending to this story.

    All nuclear nations must give up their weapons.

    India feels the pressure on it, and as a country with 20% of world population, will definitely take measures for adequate security. This is why India developed nuclear weapons. The stability of India is very important to tackle fundamental issues of tackling hunger, and provide basic necessities to people. India continues to spend very little on defence compared to its size and despite having nuclear weapons. India's security stance has always been defensive.
     
    prohumanity likes this.
  12. sorcerer

    sorcerer Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2013
    Messages:
    6,203
    Likes Received:
    5,114
    Location:
    India
    More and more reports coming with respect to nukes say that Nuke will remain an artifact with the world moving towards more UW mode in warfare.
    The only threat is human emotions and fanatism which can surpass all doctrines on use of Nukes. We need to be guard on for that.
     
  13. LETHALFORCE

    LETHALFORCE Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    20,543
    Likes Received:
    6,547
    In a more peaceful world the nuclear nations would use the technology for positive
    Things like space exploration etc. nuclear nations will be space powers of the future.
    Nuclear power will probably power future spaceships.
     
    sorcerer and maomao like this.
  14. sgarg

    sgarg Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2014
    Messages:
    3,479
    Likes Received:
    962
    I think it does not matter if India is not recognized formally as a nuclear weapons state. India needs a certain posture against unfriendly neighbours. This has been achieved.

    Nuclear power will not play as big a role in India as it plays in cold countries. India has other sources of energy like coal, solar etc.

    We should just stop worrying. Even a permanent seat on UN security council is not very desirable. It will be a burden rather than a benefit.
     
    LETHALFORCE, sorcerer and pmaitra like this.
  15. prohumanity

    prohumanity Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2013
    Messages:
    889
    Likes Received:
    548
    Location:
    USA
    All nuclear nations must give up their weapons.


    Agree 100 %. Yes, all nuclear nations should form a special international body to count, secure and destroy EVERY single nuclear weapon on the face of Mother Earth. Indians believe that world is one family and should insist that all family members follow the path of peace and harmony.
    That way, all nations will be able to jointly fight terrorism, disease, hunger and ignorance.
     
    LETHALFORCE likes this.

Share This Page