|
January
9, 2002
Rafiq
Kathwari
Kashmir
Will Make Ground Zero Look Like a Bonfire
January
8, 2002
Prudence
Crowther
Sting
Like a B-52
Nelson
Valdés
Al-Qaeda
at Guantanamo Bay
John Chuckman
Dark
Tales from the
Ministry of Truth
Richard
Corn-Revere
Do
We Fear Freedom?
Joan Hoff
The
Nixon You Haven't Heard
January
7, 2002
Lawrence
McGuire
Confusing
Economic Tales About Argentina
Wael Masri
They
Are Taking
Our Rights Away
Philip
Farruggio
Better
Medicine
January
6, 2002
Ralph
Nader
Students
Put the Heat on Foreign Sweatshops
Tariq
Ali
Battleground
Kashmir
January
5, 2002
Mark Schneider
Kifah:
The Movie Star
Israel Killed
Edward
Said
Is
Israel More Secure Now?
January
4, 2002
CG Estabrook
Anti-War
= Anti-Globalization
Jordan
Green
What's
Changed in New York
January
3, 2002
Walt Brasch
Exit
Cheney, Enter Ridge
Mokhiber
and Weissman
The
10 Worst Corporations
of 2001
Robert
Hunter Wade
America's
Empire Rules an Unbalanced World
Shahid
Alam
Is
There an Islamic Problem?
January
2, 2002
Ross Regnart
Patriot
Act Redefines the Mob as "Terrorist Associates"
John Chuckman
The
Republicans' Secret Plan X
David
Vest
Turn,
Turn, Turn
January
1, 2002
Kathy
Kelly
Iraq's
New Year
December
31, 2001
John Absood
An
Alternative to War in Iraq
Ramzi
Kysia
Iraq
Goes Radioactive
December
28, 2001
John Chuckman
Observing
George Bush
Suren
Pillay
Civilian
Bodies
Aaron
Lehmer
Inviting
Future Terrorism
December
27, 2001
Patrick
McNamara
Palestinian
Children Bear Brunt of Mideast Violence
Nelson
Valdés
A
Possible Scenario on the Location of bin Laden
Jensen
and Mahajan
Remember
the Afghan Dead
Philip
Farruggio
A
New Year's Resolution
Ramzi
Kysia
The
People of the Valley
December 26, 2001
John Chuckman
In
Praise of the Unspeakable
Sam Bahour
2002:
Year of the Twos
December 25, 2001
Jennifer Loewenstein
Israel's
Human Rights Record
December 24, 2001
Sam Bahour
It
Happened One Morning
Yair Khilou
Why I Resisted
Being Drafted into the Israeli Army
Michael
Chisari
War
as Diversionary Tactic
Cockburn/St. Clair
Enron
and the Green Seal
A Photographic Journal of Life
in an Afghan Refugee Camp
By Judith Mann
Resources:
100s of Links
About 9/11
CounterPunch:
Complete
Coverage of 9/11 and Its Aftermath
Five
Days That
Shook The World:
Seattle and Beyond
By Alexander
Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
Photos by Allan Sekula
(Click Here to Order from CounterPunch
Online at 20% Off Amazon.com's price!)
INSIDE
EXCLUSIVE
TO
COUNTERPUNCH
SUBSCRIBERS
Published Oct. 15, 2001
8-Page Special Issue
War Diary
CIA's Assassination Plan a History of
Torture in US Prisons
bin Laden and Bush
Business Connections
Aisha Ikramuddin on the Hidden Hype
of US Food Bombs
Peter Linebaugh on
Pakistan
Christopher Hitchens' Love for Mrs. Thatcher
Jiang Zemin Tells Bush:
Nuke 'Em
Search
CounterPunch
Read Whiteout and Find Out
How the CIA's Backing of the Mujahideen Created the World's Most
Robust Heroin Market and Helped to Finance the Rise of the Taliban
and Osama bin Laden
Whiteout:
CIA, Drugs & the
Press
by Alexander
Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
The Memphis Blues Again:
Six Decades of Memphis Music Photographs
Photos by Ernest Withers
Text by Daniel Wolff
The New Intifada:
Resisting Israel's Apartheid
Edited by Roane Carey
A Pocket Guide to
Environmental Bad Guys
by James Ridgeway
and Jeffrey St. Clair
The
Phoenix Program
by Douglas Valentine
Al Gore:
A User's Manual
by Cockburn
and St. Clair
Buy
This Explosive
New Book at an
Amazing Discount!
Reviews of Gore:
a User's Manual
|
January
9, 2002
Winnable Nuclear
War?
Time to End the Rhetoric
By N.D. Jayaprakash
The 13 December terrorist attack on the Indian
Parliament and all other terrorist acts, especially in Jammu
& Kashmir, are absolutely unpardonable. The trail of death
and injury left behind by such mindless acts and the fear and
hatred that has deeply scarred the psyche of those affected directly
and indirectly in various ways are all matters to be treated
with utmost concern. The perpetrators of these heinous acts,
including their mentors wherever they are, deserve exemplary
punishment. The travails, tribulations and privations that the
people of the region are forced to undergo under these trying
conditions also require to be understood with greater empathy
and wider understanding. In the prevailing situation, the strategy
for rooting out terrorism should be formulated with special care.
Counter-terrorism cannot end terrorism. If terrorism is defined
as the indiscriminate and wanton killing of innocent and unarmed
non-combatants, every effort should be made to protect the lives
and rights of unarmed civilians while conducting operations to
bring terrorists to justice.
Unfortunately, some of the shrill rhetoric
emanating from responsible quarters does not seem to have taken
note of these factors. Also many seem to forget that nuclear
weapon is the most potent terrorist weapon in existence. Its
use under any circumstance would be nothing but a heinous crime
against humanity. Therefore, any talk about winnable nuclear
war is preposterous. For the present, therefore, this article
will focus on the latter aspect.
The strident statements being made by
several leaders of the ruling alliance, including the Parliament
Affairs Minister, Pramod Mahajan, have been quite alarming. Reacting
to this belligerent mood in the ruling circles, the Strategic
Editor of The Hindu, Raja Mohan, could not but make a note of
it in his column on 31/12/01. According to him: "Coercive
diplomacy has never been a characteristic feature of India's
foreign policy. But by threatening an all out war with Pakistan
that could escalate to the nuclear level, India has entered the
uncharted waters of nuclear brinkmanship". Earlier The Times
of India (27/12/01) had reported that: "Mahajan told an
anti-terrorism rally organised by the ruling BJP party that if
circumstances 'pushed India' towards a war with Pakistan, New
Delhi would make sure the threat of terrorism was completely
stamped out." The report quoted Mr. Mahajan as saying: "If
at all the war happens the intensity will be so strong that there
will be no need for a future war with Pakistan. And the results
will be there for everyone to see." Surely, this was a statement
that could not have been taken lightly. However, Dr. K. Subrahmanyam,
India's leading strategic expert, chose to disagree with Raja
Mohan's view. In his column in The Times of India (02/01/02),
he said: "On no issue has there been so much disinformation
than on the alleged possibility of nuclear confrontation between
India and Pakistan". Alas, no sooner had this opinion appeared
in print, none other than the Indian Prime Minister himself came
forward to contradict Dr. Subrahmanyam.
The reported statement of Prime Minister
Vajpaee during his speech in Lucknow on 2nd January has not left
any room for doubt. According to The Hindu (03/01/02) he stated
that: "no weapon would be spared in self-defence. Whatever
weapon was available, it would be used no matter how it wounded
the enemy." It is quite explicit what weapon he was referring
to. But who is the enemy that he is targeting? Is it the mass
of the people of Pakistan or is it the foreign and home-bread
terrorists based in Pakistan and elsewhere? Can nuclear weapons
differentiate between mass of the people and terrorists when
they unleash destruction? Certainly the Indian Prime Minister
is fully aware that nuclear weapons do not make any such distinction.
Then with what responsibility has Mr. Vajpaee made such a sweeping
statement? Or does the BJP-led Government consider the entire
population of Pakistan as the enemy. The Government should forthwith
clarify its stand, as there are other ominous signs as well.
Holding Pakistan squarely responsible
for all the terrorist attacks against India, the RSS mouthpiece
has minced no words about the befitting action that the Government
of India should take against Pakistan. The Organiser, in its
editorial on 30/12/01 stated that: "Its [Pakistan's] very
existence has become inimical not only for India but for the
entire civilised world. Pakistan deserves to be punished for
all its errors of commission and omissionTime has come to solve
the problem of Pakistan forever and for all." The import
of this statement cannot be lost: punish Pakistan by obliterating
it! (Mr. Mahajan's pronouncement, as mentioned earlier, was also
on similar lines.) This bizarre advice cannot be dismissed as
mere ramblings of some lunatics, because the Indian Prime Minister
himself is a prominent leader of that very RSS. Also the lingering
memory about the terrible fate of Babri Masjid is still fresh
in the minds of most people.
In this context the reported statement
of Mr. George Fernandes, India's controversial Defence Minister,
only reinforces the worst fears, which the Organiser has brought
to the fore. According to The Hindu (04/01/02), the New York
Times has quoted him as saying that India would resort to 'Military
option if diplomacy fails'. (It is almost like saying that India
would do all it can to ensure that diplomacy fails so that it
can resort to military action!). Replying to questions, he is
reported to have said that Pakistan's possession of nuclear arsenal
would not deter India from taking military action. Giving reasons,
he said: "I can't believe they would ever use it for the
simple reason that they would be inviting a second strike. That
would be devastating given Pakistan's size." In fact Mr.
Fernandes was even more candid in a statement he had made earlier.
According to the Hindustan Times (30/12/01), he bluntly said:
"We could take a [nuclear] strike, survive and then hit
back, Pakistan would be finished." The ramblings on the
Pakistani side were not very different either. It is simply incredible
that people with such irrational and vengeful ideas are at the
helm of affairs on both sides!
Not to be outdone in the war of rhetoric,
the Pakistan President, Gen. Pervez Musharraf has reportedly
said: "If any war is thrust on Pakistan, Pakistan's armed
forces and the 140 million people of Pakistan are fully prepared
to face all consequences with all their might." (The Week,
06/01/02). While Mr. Fernandes seems quite content to wipe out
Pakistan and its people in retaliation, he appears to be least
bothered about the casualties that India would suffer in case
of a nuclear attack by Pakistan! Whether through a first strike
or a second strike it is millions of lives that is likely to
be lost on both sides in a nuclear war is a fact that is sought
to be hidden in Mr. Fernandes' convoluted logic. Thus, it is
clear that the Indian Government's current strategy is certainly
not to prevent a nuclear war but to win such a war under any
circumstances irrespective of the enormous human and material
costs it would inflict on both sides. The propagation of the
idea of winnable nuclear war is what is most frightening.
In the light of the above, Mr. Vajpaee's
feeble attempt to deny that he was talking of nuclear war with
Pakistan makes little sense since the phrase "no matter
how it wounded the enemy" conveys precisely what he had
in mind. In whichever way it is interpreted, there is absolutely
no ambiguity about his intent. Shocked by the bellicose stance
of Mr. Vajpaee, The Times of India in its editorial on 04/01/02
noted: "A mere 24 hours after he promised to go more than
halfway to meet the Pakistan President and 'resolve any issue,
including Kashmir', he was at his combative best, threatening
the 'use of any and every weapon' against that country. His audience,
which no doubt understood it to mean the nuclear weapon, lapped
up the brave talk Unfortunately, words have a momentum of their
own; even if they don't translate as actual war, they can vitiate
the domestic environment leading to polarisation of people on
sectarian lines." The editorial in The Hindu (04/01/02),
therefore, went on to warn the Government that: "Such hawkish
rhetoric [on the part of Mr. Vajpaee]does not exactly square
with the sort of statesmanship required at the present critical
juncture, both on the Indo-Pakistan and the international fronts."
What is the consequence of this nuclear
brinkmanship? According to Raja Mohan: "Brinkmanship is
clearly a high risk strategy that would force India to confront
rather difficult choices in the near feature" But having
said this he goes on to quote John Foster Dulles, the U.S. Secretary
of State in the 1950s and a self-proclaimed exponent of pushing
the world to the edge of the nuclear precipice on several occasions.
"The ability to get to the verge without getting into the
war", Mr. Dulles said, is a "necessary art". The
trouble with this perilous strategy is that if either side (or
even one side) fails to (or is incapable of) mastering the 'necessary
art', the result would be disastrous for both the sides.
Part II
Dr. Subrahmanyam, who has discounted the possibility of nuclear
war between India and Pakistan, claims that his opinion is based
on the pronouncement made by the Press Secretary to the Pakistan
President, Maj. General Rashid Quereshi, on 27/12/01. According
to him: "General Rashid Quereshi tried to assure his countrymen
and the rest of the world that both Pakistan and India were 'responsible
nuclear powers' and that the nuclear weapons were only meant
for deterrence. Therefore, he argued, there was no risk of escalation
of the conflict to a nuclear level. But his observations have
not received the attention they deserve." The above statement
from the Pakistan side was, of course, very reassuring. Yet is
there sufficient ground for the optimism that Dr. Subrahmanyam
has expressed? Unfortunately, no! That is because Dr. Subhramanyam
has failed to address one crucial question.
The problem is what if deterrence fails?
Can the possibility of deterrence failing be discounted? Of course
not! At least the Draft 'Indian' Nuclear Doctrine, that is still
in the process of being 'discussed and debated', certainly does
not think so. It clearly stipulates that "India's strategic
interests requireadequate retaliatory capacity should deterrence
fail." In other words, despite India and Pakistan being
"responsible nuclear powers", deterrence can fail!
What would happen then? Just that the entire national edifice
(or at least most of it), which nuclear weapons were supposed
to protect in the first place, would be smothered to smithereens.
The truth is nuclear weapons cannot offer any protection, they
can only heap ruin on the adversary. Can 'nuclear deterrence'
be a credible national security policy, if the cost of its failure
is death and devastation on an unimaginable scale?
What is the alternative? If the Indian
Prime Minister was indeed not talking of a nuclear war with Pakistan,
let him come out with a categorical statement that he is totally
against a nuclear war breaking out between India and Pakistan
and that his Government was prepared to take all measures to
prevent such a catastrophe. What is stopping the Government from
initiating steps to ward off the possibility of outbreak of nuclear
war? (Not that anybody is wishing that instead of a nuclear war,
a 'conventional' war should breakout!) All that Mr. Vajapee was
prepared to do was to reiterate that India would not be the first
to use nuclear weapons in the event of a war. But can it be denied
that millions of lives will be lost on both sides if a nuclear
war breaks out? Should millions of lives be sacrificed in trying
to avenge the death of hundreds of victims of terrorist attacks?
After millions of lives are lost will it make any sense in analysing
as to who started the nuclear attack first and as to who retaliated?
Will the outcome of such an analysis resurrect the countless
victims or console those who survive a nuclear holocaust?
The policy of No First Use of nuclear
weapon against nuclear weapon states and non-use against non-nuclear
weapon states, which only India and China (and earlier the Soviet
Union) have unilaterally adopted, is a very positive step as
an initial confidence building measure towards achieving complete
global nuclear disarmament. But if a No First Use policy becomes
a mere cover for building a second strike capability then such
a policy is clearly dishonest, highly misleading and totally
contemptible. If the goal of global nuclear disarmament is not
relentlessly pursued, there is every danger that a No First Use
policy for all practical purposes would tend to move closer to
a First Strike policy and become indistinguishable. From India's
current posturing its No First Use policy seems to be heading
in that dangerous direction. Therefore, it is high time that
all conscientious people in this country stood up to campaign
vigourously to put an end to the present frightening drift towards
nuclear war because nuclear brinkmanship can be a very expensive
proposition. The simple fact that the two tiny nuclear weapons
senselessly used by the U.S. Administration to destroy Hiroshima
and Nagasaki in August 1945 are reaping victims to this day should
open the eyes of all those who are still unaware of the havoc
nuclear weapons can unleash.
There is yet another disturbing dimension
to this debate. According to The Hindu (07/01/02), in an interview
to a German newspaper, Mr.Fernandes has reportedly stated that:
"India's nuclear doctrine states clearly that India will
never be the first to use nuclear weapons." While the second
half of that statement is India's formal position, the first
half of it is very misleading. This is because, in the name of
augmenting self-defence, the BJP-led Government is trying to
implement through the backdoor the proposals put forward in the
Draft "Indian" Nuclear Doctrine (DND) released by the
National Security Advisory Board in August 1999. It may be noted
that the DND was supposedly released for public debate and discussion
and has not been formally approved by either the Government or
the Indian Parliament till date. The DND is unlikely to get the
approval of Parliament because it is essentially a nuclear war
fighting doctrine.
The most abhorrent proposal in the DND
is about the necessity of developing "the will to employ
nuclear weapons and forces." The concept of 'nuclear deterrence',
which India had comprehensively rejected for over fifty years,
also finds a central place in the DND. What is missing from the
DND is also very significant: there is no reference at all to
India's long held principled stand that the use of nuclear weapons
constitutes a violation of the UN Charter and a crime against
humanity. There is not a word in it either about the need to
take urgent steps to prevent nuclear war. Under the circumstances
the tacit approval sought to be given to the DND in its present
form can only be viewed with deep suspicion. Therefore, any move
to give official sanction to the DND without radically revising
its present thrust has to be thwarted. Otherwise not only will
the global nuclear disarmament movement suffer a grave setback
but also India's stature as an astute champion of this overriding
cause would further diminish and dissipate.
One way of getting out of the present
quagmire is for India and Pakistan to first bilaterally put into
practice the expressed desire of the two countries to persuade
all nuclear weapon states to initiate steps for reducing the
nuclear danger. It may be recalled that in November 1998, at
the initiative of India and nine other nations and with the full
support of Pakistan, the UN General Assembly had adopted the
resolution on Reducing Nuclear Danger (A/RES/53/77). A revised
version of this resolution (A/c.1/55/l.32/Rev.1) was again adopted
by the UN General Assembly in October 2000 with the support of
no less than 102 UN members. But even a cursory glance at the
resolution would reveal that both India and Pakistan have either
been acting contrary to its letter and spirit or at least have
not made any serious effort to pursue its salient objectives
in a spirited manner. The resolution had categorically stated:
- that the use of nuclear weapons poses the most serious threat
to [hu]mankind and to the survival of civilization; - that any
use or threat of use of nuclear weapons would constitute a violation
of the Charter of the United Nations; - that nuclear disarmament
and the complete elimination of nuclear weapons are essential
to remove the nuclear danger.
Among other steps, the resolution called
for: a review of nuclear doctrines and, in this context, immediate
and urgent steps to reduce the risks of unintentional and accidental
use of nuclear weapons.
It also called upon: Member States to
take necessary measures to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons
in all its aspects and to promote nuclear disarmament, with the
objective of eliminating nuclear weapons.
Having been willing parties to this resolution,
which was adopted after the nuclear tests of May 1998, nothing
should prevent India and Pakistan from taking bilateral steps
to reduce the nuclear danger. Both sides have an obligation to
uphold its sanctity despite the fact that the other nuclear weapon
states have so far opted not to be parties to the same. If India
and Pakistan act in a concerted manner, the resolution on Reducing
Nuclear Danger has the potential to rouse worldwide public opinion
and force the other nuclear weapon states to fall in line.
Is it not a bitter irony that it is in
the shadow of this enlightened resolution, to which both India
and Pakistan are a party, that the whole game of nuclear brinkmanship
is being enacted?
N.D.Jayaprakash
is on the board of the Delhi Science Forum/Coalition for Nuclear
Disarmament and Peace in Saket, New Delhi, India. He can be reached
at: jpdsf@hotmail.com
|