India and the NPT: Separating Substantive Facts from Normative Fiction
This article examines the feasibility and advisability of India joining the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
- Anupam Srivastava , Seema Gahlaut
- March 2010 |
- Strategic Analysis
- |
This article examines the feasibility and advisability of India joining the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
The last couple of decades have seen a colossal change in terms of the influence that computers can have on the battlefield, with defence pundits claiming it to be the dawn of a new era in warfare. Under these circumstances, there has been a gradual paradigm shift in military thinking and strategies from the strategic aspect to the tactical aspect of cyber warfare, laying more emphasis on it being a potent force multiplier. The author believes this is wrong and rather than cyber warfare being an enhancement of traditional operations, the latter will be force multipliers of cyber warfare.
Amongst the challenges that bedevil the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) today, the NPT Review Conference (RevCon) 2010 will have to particularly handle two issues: one, right of non-nuclear weapon states (NNWS) under Article IV over the entire nuclear fuel cycle; two, identification by nuclear weapon states (NWS) of credible moves under Article VI for realising disarmament. In addressing the two interlinked issues, the RevCon has an opportunity to refocus the 40-year-old treaty into an effective instrument of non-proliferation and disarmament—its original twin objectives.
Despite groundbreaking disarmament pledges and substantial effort, the Obama administration's hopes for a successful Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference may not be fully realised. Many developing countries are in no mood to grant new non-proliferation concessions, such as tightened rules on access to sensitive nuclear technologies, tougher inspection rules, or limits on withdrawing from the treaty. The non-nuclear weapon states (NNWS) remain angered by the failure to move forward on many disarmament commitments pledged at the 1995 and 2000 Conferences.
This article lists the major issues before the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference and goes into the politics behind them. It concludes that as long as the treaty remains iniquitous, it will not be able to prevent nuclear proliferation. The forthcoming nuclear summit in April 2010 provides an opportunity for all countries to work towards a nuclear weapons convention, which outlaws nuclear weapons and promotes genuine nuclear disarmament.
With the 'world without nuclear weapons' speech by President Obama and the other moves, indications are good for the next Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference. Progress has to be made on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), the proposed fissile materials cut-off treaty (FMCT), Negative Security Assurance (NSA), and reducing the role of nuclear weapons. On the non-proliferation side, the Additional Protocol must be made a standard, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) strengthened, and NPT withdrawal acted on decisively.
The expiry of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty-1 (START-1) in 2009 and an urgent need to conclude a new US-Russian agreement on strategic nuclear weapons so that the oldest and biggest nuclear powers demonstrate some progress in implementing Article 6 of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in proximity of the 2010 NPT Review Conference has drawn international attention to the interface between the progress/crisis in nuclear disarmament and strengthening/weakening of the NPT regime.
The nuclear non-proliferation regime, despite being frequently criticised for an alleged lack of effectiveness, is in fact an amazing success story. The number of states which had conducted nuclear weapons activities in various stages but which have terminated them at one point surpasses the number of Nuclear-Weapon States (NWSs) by far. At the apex of its success, however, the regime is threatened by erosion from three different directions. A small number of rule-breakers and outsiders undermine its central objective: to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.