exposing the double-talk of the five nuclear states, especially the us, requires little doing; the recently concluded Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (ctbt) in Geneva offered a remarkable instance. The five nuclear powers -- France, China, Russia, the uk and the us -- made it clear that they would not tolerate any attempts to question their hegemony in the nuclear arena. Their continued refusal to eliminate nuclear weapons in their arsenals in a time-bound manner leaves us with no option but to take the Clinton administration's much vaunted plan to buy world peace through the ctbt, with a pinch of salt.
Given this context, New Delhi is correct in its perception that the ctbt, in its present form, is highly discriminatory. The big five have in the past shown scant respect for world opinion in this regard; the recently conducted nuclear tests by China and France, notwithstanding strong international criticism, only strengthens this assumption. The treaty perpetuates the gap between the nuclear 'haves' and 'have nots' and marginalises the central question of introducing a nuclear-free world. What is offered instead is the self-appointed policing of the world by the nuclear 'haves', an arm-twisting, bullying tactic that India and other such nations can do without.
The government of India's formal rejection of the draft ctbt text at the end of the Geneva negotiations on June 28, certainly made the rest of the world sit up and take note. But it is here that New Delhi needs to introspectively look into its performance on ctbt . India did not have a single ally among the 61 nations which participated in the past 30 months of the ctbt negotiations. It stands alienated among the progressive environmental and social action groups in the world, and has been unable to build up a credible national consensus on the issue by networking with people's movements and ngo s within the country.
By neglecting to join hands with the disarmament movements in Europe and elsewhere, India has failed in its diplomacy miserably. It is easy to take a lone upright stand, but it is far more difficult to convince the international community about its rightness. If, today, the Indian government finds itself in an isolated position, it has nobody to blame but itself.
If the Indian government succeeded in driving a hard bargain in Rio (1992), it was only because it had a credible ngo opinion that was supportive. The Indian ngo representatives had played a critical role in bringing the Western environmental movement around to their points of view. Dialogues and some tough bargaining achieved what a mere diplomatic posturing of an aggressive one-point agenda (as the present stand of the Indian government on ctbt, linking it up with the elimination of nuclear weapons, does) cannot naturally do.
In the 30 months preceding the final negotiations, India has not managed to push for any positive changes in the treaty to the country's advantage. Australia has managed to do so, and so have some other countries. The reluctance of the Indian government to initiate any constructive discussion on nuclear issues governs its domestic policies too. The safety status of some of our atomic plants is a matter of serious concern. There have been protests by local people against incidences of radioactive leakages from nuclear power plants in various parts of the country.
The bureaucracy has chosen to respond in its characteristic manner: by simply stonewalling the issue. The incident of leakages from the Tarapur atomic power plant last year was kept shrouded in secrecy; when the dome of the Kaiga nuclear power plant had fallen off in 1994, efforts were made to hush up the event's implications. Affected local people and concerned citizens have been denied any information under the garb of the obsolete Official Secrets Act, 1923.
The nuclear policy in India, therefore, has been kept away from a democratic process of debate. And yet no other issue demands a more transparent, responsible and mature response from the countries of the world, given the growing interdependence in these days of globalisation.
At present, India's position on the ctbt sounds untenable and highhanded precisely for the disregard of its responsibility towards world peace and a lack of respect towards the global opinion which has steadily moved in favour of disarmament and nuclear safety over the years. Not surprisingly, India has today lost its stature as the champion of peace and disarmament among nations. We cannot aspire for a leadership role in the global arena by insulating ourselves from the perception that the ctbt is a step towards world peace.
What India needs to learn is to be a part of this global process, and use its position to bargain hard for a more equitable and fair ctbt, making it a more effective watchdog over the nuclear weapon states. The world order is unequal, but India must find imaginative and convincing ways to deal with this inequity.
We are a voice to you; you have been a support to us. Together we build journalism that is independent, credible and fearless. You can further help us by making a donation. This will mean a lot for our ability to bring you news, perspectives and analysis from the ground so that we can make change together.
.png)
Comments are moderated and will be published only after the site moderator’s approval. Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name. Selected comments may also be used in the ‘Letters’ section of the Down To Earth print edition.