|
|
POLITICS: After Iraq, South Asia's Nukes May be Next U.S. Target
Analysis - By Ranjit Devraj
NEW DELHI, Apr 11 (IPS) - After the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, South Asian
nuclear rivals India and Pakistan are busy pointing fingers and trying to
draw Washington's attention to the weapons of mass destruction possessed by
the other.
''If lack of democracy, possession of weapons of mass destruction and
export of terrorism were reasons for a country to make a pre-emptive strike
in another country, then Pakistan deserves to be tackled more than any
other country,'' said India's Foreign Minister Yashwant Sinha during a
parliamentary discussion on Iraq this week.
To that, Pakistan's Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed said: ''It
is India which is a fit case for pre-emptive strikes - there is ample proof
that India possesses biological, chemical and other weapons of mass
destruction.''
In truth, many are keeping close watch on the implications of the
invasion of Iraq, especially after U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell
told the 'New York Times' recently that the ''Indo-Pakistan and whole
subcontinent problem'' was part of a ''broader agenda'' that Washington
planned to address as soon as the war in Iraq is over.
Following the Sep. 11 attacks, Washington had serious plans to take out
Pakistan's nuclear assets to prevent the possibility of their falling into
the hands of the al-Qaeda terrorist network, its main quarry in Afghanistan.
Pakistan President Gen Pervez Musharraf publicly acknowledged that the
one reason why he was ready to support Washington for its 'war against
terror' in Afghanistan was so that he could hang on to the nuclear assets.
In leading the invasion against Iraq last month, the U.S. government
said its main reason was to rid it of weapons of mass destruction, although
this has come under question since no huge cache of such weapons have yet
been found. As Washington seizes the military victory in Iraq, military
officials said Friday they believe that weapons of mass destruction are
there..
Weapons of mass destruction was not the first reason the United States
attacked Afghanistan in October 2001, but at one point Washington officials
were reportedly afraid that al-Qaeda had acquired enough material for a
nuclear device.
After Afghanistan and Iraq, Washington's gaze is likely to fall on
Pakistan's nuclear assets.
But relieving Pakistan of its nuclear weapons will not be easy, because
top military strategists in both Islamabad and New Delhi strongly believe
that what deters the neighbours from going to war is precisely the fact
that they possess nuclear weapons.
That would leave Washington with little room but to insist that India
too take apart its nuclear and missile programmes - which New Delhi loudly
insists it needs to contain China rather than Pakistan.
In fact, this week, India's Defence Minister George Fernandes announced
plans to test a long-range, nuclear-capable Agni III missile - it has a
3,000 km range that can only have targets in China.
If Washington decides to take the U.N. Security Council route to
disarming India of its nuclear weapons, it is sure to get the support of
all the permanent members starting with China.
Britain can be counted on to follow instructions from Washington.
France, irritated by suggestions that its place in the Security Council be
given to India, is not likely to show any sympathy for New Delhi.
That would leave Russia, which may depart from the traditional approach
of the former Soviet Union in its relentless use of the veto in India's
favour, especially on the question of disputed Kashmir.
Though it is hard to see India giving up its missiles and nuclear
weapons, there is the question of sanctions and a denial of concessions
which may then go liberally to its rival Pakistan as a reward for its
acquiescence to Washington's plan that the region must be rid of weapons of
mass destruction.
India's nuclear programme began in 1974, when it first exploded a
nuclear device in response to Chinese tests, prompting Beijing's to
proliferate nuclear technology to its ''all- weather'' friend Pakistan.
By 1982, Pakistan had made such advances that Israel was ready to make a
pre-emptive strike on its nuclear research centre at Kahuta, in the same
way that it had taken out Iraq's reactor at Osirak in 1981.
What stayed an Israeli strike was the realisation that Pakistan's
nuclear programme could be delayed but not stopped, simply because Beijing
had a vital interest in it.
When India carried out its second series of nuclear tests in 1998, Prime
Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee wrote to then U.S. President Bill Clinton and
said that the tests were in fact aimed at China rather than Pakistan.
If that indeed was the aim, there is reason for India's military
planners and strategists to believe that it has backfired.
The tests prompted Pakistan not only to go overtly nuclear, but also to
launch an armed incursion across the Line of Control (LoC) in Kashmir in
1999. This was later prevented from turning into a nuclear exchange only
because of Clinton's personal intervention.
Pakistan has refused to give up the option of a nuclear first strike
against India, and New Delhi says it uses this as the springboard for
continuing a ''proxy war'' through its backing of killings and attacks in
Kashmir and other parts of the country.
India says this 'proxy war' attacks never stopped. Last year, India
ordered some 700,000 of its troops to the Pakistan border and moved its air
force and navy to forward position. Its military leaders said they were
prepared for a nuclear strike, while Pakistan also beefed up troops on the
common border.
The present problem for India's planners and strategists boils down to
convincing Washington that Pakistan's weapons of mass destruction could
fall into the hands of Islamic extremists and must therefore be removed,
while New Delhi is allowed to keep its own as deterrence against China.
Washington recently accused Pakistan of proliferating nuclear technology
to North Korea in return for missiles from that country, but officials say
it refuses to publicly acknowledge that both the missiles and nuclear
technology may, in fact, have originated in China.
(END/2003)
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is RSS?
