Pakistan and CTBT Muhammad Kamal, Fremont, California
All kinds of clichés come to mind, starting from “living in fool’s paradise,” and so on and so forth! There is no such thing as “moral high ground” vis-à-vis India.
Review the History, please!
During Gen. Zia’s regime Indian and Pakistani governments had an understanding that both countries would not pursue the development of chemical weapons. At that time late General Zia decided purely on moral grounds not to proceed with the development of chemical weapons, even when Pakistan had world-class technical expertise available.
However, when the time came to sign the CWC treaty, the treaty gave the signatories a leeway if they declared their chemical weapon stockpile they could keep it for 20 years. India declared thousands of canisters of mustard gas and other similar weapons stockpile.
During the Ayub regime in 1962, we took a moral high ground and did not attack Kashmir when the whole Indian Army was occupied by China. Mr. Nehru promised Gen Ayub a mutually agreeable resolution to the issue, since he realized the consequences of an attack by Pakistan. We are still paying for taking the moral high-ground!
Need I say more. Our views need to be reviewed in the light of the historical events. We must learn from history: NEVER to take any stand on the basis of moral high ground, assuming that it would be a source of positive public relations. It did not work for the world against Hitler, it would not work for Pakistan against BJP.
With reference to the equally ill-conceived and illogical suggestion that signing CTBT would stop the arms race in South Asia, let me inform you that during the 1980’s total Indian defense spending was over US$18 billion, second only to Saddam Hussein’s. In the 1990’s, India was the biggest arm purchaser in the world. The trend continues. How do you plan to stop the Indian defense spending juggernaut? By taking a moral high-ground? Please do not believe in the fairy tales that you tell your kids at night!
During the Strategic Arms Limitation/Reduction negotiation in Reykjavik, Iceland, after the summit meeting between Reagan and Gorbachev, the Soviet Union agreed to ALL US terms only on one condition: The US had to stop work on SDI, Strategic Defense Initiative, ala Star Wars. At that time, the Chief US Negotiator told President Reagan that he stands a chance to go down in history as the greatest American President, by agreeing to halt the SDI work, which was completely in the R&D stage at that time. He would ensure a safer Earth as the Soviet Union was willing to make extremely broad cuts across the board in their nuclear stockpile. However, history knows that Reagan rose to the occasion by disagreeing on the point that he was NOT willing to compromise the defense and security of his nation. The Chief Negotiator went back and continued the negotiations, but halting SDI was not an option.
Overtime Russians did eventually eliminate more than 80% of their nuclear weapon stockpile, but it was done without a compromise on SDI. Reagan set a standard for the rest to follow! God knows that both Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto failed miserably to take equally courageous stands on the national security of Pakistan and history will judge them harshly. However, I sincerely hope and pray that that General Musharraf is different, and would not heed to such naïve suggestions as the ones put forth in some Pakistani newspapers’ editorial.
Pakistan Zindabad.