Windjammer
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2009
- Messages
- 41,319
- Reaction score
- 181
- Country
- Location
India, Pakistan and Israel will not be allowed to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as nuclear-weapon states, Gareth Evans, Co-chair of the International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament, has said.
In an exclusive interview to the BBC’s Hindi service, Evans, whose commission was set up by the Prime Ministers of Australia and Japan last year, said on Sunday that the group would be presenting a major report ahead of the May 2010 NPT review conference.
“I think nobody is going to allow India, Pakistan and Israel to join (the NPT) as nuclear-weapon states and these three countries are certainly not going to join as non-weapon states. So we have a real stalemate,” Evans stated.
At the same time, the former Australian Foreign Minister hinted at the possibility of accommodating these three countries in the non-proliferation regime without giving them recognition as de jure nuclear powers.
“There are all sorts of other ways and mechanisms…to move towards disarmament where India, Pakistan and Israel could make a real contribution to make this a safer world,” Evans said.
He felt that the 2008 Indo-US civil nuclear mechanism, which allowed India access to international nuclear technology and fuel, was a one-sided deal that favoured New Delhi.
Describing the deal as “fantastic” for India, he said that New Delhi was allowed to produce more fissile material for nuclear bombs even while obtaining nuclear technology from abroad.
“With respect, you (India) have got away very easily and this is not a good precedent for anybody else,” he opined.
Evans, who will visit Pakistan for a day, did not believe that the international community would offer Islamabad a deal similar to the one struck by India and the US given Pakistan’s poor proliferation record in the past.
The China dimension
He conceded there was a direct connection with China if one were to examine the idea of an “effective” nuclear weapons-free zone in South Asia, given Delhi’s stated desire for parity with Beijing.
“You are absolutely right in the connection between South Asia and North Asia _ all these things are inter-connected and you are absolutely right that the India-China piece of the puzzle is as important as any other.”
India’s rationale for acquiring an overt nuclear weapons’ capability flowed from its perceived need to act as a counterweight to China along with the issue of prestige and status.
The question of leadership
According to Evans, advances on the disarmament agenda was possible if the US and Russia were to exercise leadership in cutting their nuclear arsenals dramatically and driving implementation of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).
The Commission co-chair was hopeful that an American nuclear posture review would come up with a “very close cousin” of a no-first-use of nuclear weapons commitment, something which China and India have already done.
If the Americans came up with such a commitment, then the NATO would have to fall in line because of close links to the US.
“The atmosphere is changing. For the last 10 years, the US was dragging its feet and literally sleepwalking on the subject. It’s perfectly true that countries with nuclear weapons are going to be very reluctant to give them up, but some more than others.”
Did he really believe that countries that had nuclear weapons would actually give them up? “If we could get the science of verification right, then we can get…governments to appreciate that these weapons wouldn’t allow them to win a war.”
?For India, no entry into NPT as nuclear power
In an exclusive interview to the BBC’s Hindi service, Evans, whose commission was set up by the Prime Ministers of Australia and Japan last year, said on Sunday that the group would be presenting a major report ahead of the May 2010 NPT review conference.
“I think nobody is going to allow India, Pakistan and Israel to join (the NPT) as nuclear-weapon states and these three countries are certainly not going to join as non-weapon states. So we have a real stalemate,” Evans stated.
At the same time, the former Australian Foreign Minister hinted at the possibility of accommodating these three countries in the non-proliferation regime without giving them recognition as de jure nuclear powers.
“There are all sorts of other ways and mechanisms…to move towards disarmament where India, Pakistan and Israel could make a real contribution to make this a safer world,” Evans said.
He felt that the 2008 Indo-US civil nuclear mechanism, which allowed India access to international nuclear technology and fuel, was a one-sided deal that favoured New Delhi.
Describing the deal as “fantastic” for India, he said that New Delhi was allowed to produce more fissile material for nuclear bombs even while obtaining nuclear technology from abroad.
“With respect, you (India) have got away very easily and this is not a good precedent for anybody else,” he opined.
Evans, who will visit Pakistan for a day, did not believe that the international community would offer Islamabad a deal similar to the one struck by India and the US given Pakistan’s poor proliferation record in the past.
The China dimension
He conceded there was a direct connection with China if one were to examine the idea of an “effective” nuclear weapons-free zone in South Asia, given Delhi’s stated desire for parity with Beijing.
“You are absolutely right in the connection between South Asia and North Asia _ all these things are inter-connected and you are absolutely right that the India-China piece of the puzzle is as important as any other.”
India’s rationale for acquiring an overt nuclear weapons’ capability flowed from its perceived need to act as a counterweight to China along with the issue of prestige and status.
The question of leadership
According to Evans, advances on the disarmament agenda was possible if the US and Russia were to exercise leadership in cutting their nuclear arsenals dramatically and driving implementation of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).
The Commission co-chair was hopeful that an American nuclear posture review would come up with a “very close cousin” of a no-first-use of nuclear weapons commitment, something which China and India have already done.
If the Americans came up with such a commitment, then the NATO would have to fall in line because of close links to the US.
“The atmosphere is changing. For the last 10 years, the US was dragging its feet and literally sleepwalking on the subject. It’s perfectly true that countries with nuclear weapons are going to be very reluctant to give them up, but some more than others.”
Did he really believe that countries that had nuclear weapons would actually give them up? “If we could get the science of verification right, then we can get…governments to appreciate that these weapons wouldn’t allow them to win a war.”
?For India, no entry into NPT as nuclear power
Last edited by a moderator:
