Re-igniting the
Arms Race
By Dr Ahmad
Faruqui
CA
On the fifth anniversary
of General Musharraf’s coup, the government chose
to launch a nuclear-capable Intermediate Range Ballistic
Missile. The President said, “The nation is proud
of our scientists and holds them in the highest
esteem for making the national defense impregnable.”
The military certified that the weapon was “based
on the highest standards of scientific and superior
technology advancement.”
So there would be no
doubt about where the missile may one day be fired
in anger, a senior defense official said the missile
could hit most cities in India. The official, who
spoke on condition of anonymity, said Pakistani
authorities had informed India beforehand about
the test. A spokesman of the Indian External Affairs
Ministry confirmed they had been informed “as per
normal practice.”
What came next from
the Pakistani official could have been written by
George Orwell. He said that the launch was not aimed
at inflaming tensions in South Asia nor was it designed
to send “any wrong signal to India.”
In reality, the missile
launch was full of symbolism and ambiguity. Its
very name, Ghauri, evokes the memory of the Turkish-Afghan
chieftain Shahbuddin Ghauri who conquered Delhi
in 1193. For bringing Northern India under Muslim
rule, Ghauri is feted in Pakistani history books
and reviled in Indian history books. The Roman V
numeral in the missile name reminds us of Musharraf’s
fifth anniversary and its color scheme based on
the uniform of the army commandos (including the
maroon cap) reminds us of the General’s affiliation.
Prime Minister Shaukat
Aziz and General Ehsan ul Haq witnessed the launch
of the missile. In the official photo they are shown
posing proudly in front of the doomsday weapon,
in a scene that could have come out of the film,
Dr. Strangelove. The presence of the Prime Minister
is noteworthy. When US concerns about Pakistan’s
nuclear program were at a peak, then Finance Minister
Shaukat Aziz was asked to tour the facilities at
Kahuta. Only when he gave the thumbs-up sign to
Paul Wolfowitz and Colin Powell was the all clear
sounded in Washington.
This missile launch
had at least five objectives. One was the ostensible
“scientific objective” of testing the equipment.
Second, it reminded India that Pakistan was not
going to be a pushover in any future war. Thirdly,
it played to the fundamentalist gallery at home
by saying that even though the demigod A. Q. Khan
may have fallen from grace and shown to have feet
of clay, the doomsday weapons he built are still
there. Fourthly, it offset the disappointment among
liberal and pro-democracy circles that the General
was not taking off his uniform. The General’s uniform
is likely to stay on at least until 2007, when he
will complete his post-referendum term as President.
In 2007, one may expect another referendum or a
Presidential election in the Hamid Karzai mode.
And the uniform may linger on in the second term
as well.
Finally, by launching
Ghauri V, the Generals have reminded the decision
makers in Washington that Pakistan is an active
nuclear power. Ergo, if Washington wants the weapons
to stay in safe hands, it should let the army stay
in power.
On the surface, the
missile launch seems to contradict the recent peace
overtures between India and Pakistan. But beneath
the surface, one detects a very sophisticated negotiating
process at work. At the UN, General Musharraf said
that India’s coercive diplomacy of two years ago
had failed. Then, after he met Prime Minister Singh
Manmohan Singh in New York, he waxed eloquent about
having made history. Then came the missile launch
and this was followed by a statement the next day,
in which he said that the Kashmir problem could
be solved in one day.
He has been around long
enough to know that the dispute between India and
Pakistan is half a century old and is not going
to be solved any time soon. But talking of a one-day
solution seems to calm some of the feathers that
have gotten ruffled in the world’s capitals by the
missile launch.
If peace were about
to break out, one would not see an up tick in defense
spending in South Asia. Unfortunately, that is what
is likely in the future. During the past decade,
defense spending on conventional arms and forces
has risen by 41 percent in the region, more than
double the global growth rate of 18 percent. The
only region that has seen faster growth is the Middle
East, with a slightly higher rate of 48 percent.
The Indian Defense Ministry
is planning to spend more money over the next five
years to give it an edge over Pakistan in conventional
weaponry. Defense expenditures as a percent of GDP
during the Seventh Plan (1985-90) were 3.5. They
dropped to 2.5 percent during the Eighth (1992-97)
and Ninth Plan (1997-2002) periods. India’s National
Security Advisory Board has recommended raising
the figure to 3 percent during the next fiscal year.
A parliamentary committee has even asked that defense
expenditures be raised to 4 percent of GDP to “ensure
that the forces have enough funds to get the latest
weapons.”
Higher spending on conventional
weapons is designed to raise the threshold at which
the use of nuclear weapons may be warranted. This
serpentine logic permeates nuclear programs globally
and indicates why no “conventional dividend” ever
occurs after a region has gone nuclear. They have
to spend more on conventional weapons to raise the
nuclear threshold and keep spending more on nuclear
weapons so they can survive a first strike from
the other side.
In a recent paper, David
Albright and Kimberly Kramer of the Institute for
Science and International Security estimate that
Pakistan now has a nuclear stockpile of 55 to 90
warheads while India only has a slighter larger
stockpile of between 55 to 110 warheads.
It is not necessary
to quibble over the precise number of nuclear weapons
in both countries to realize that such weapons pose
a threat to the national security of both countries.
Even without being used, they are consuming a large
portion of the scarce economic resources in both
countries that could be used to improve the quality
of life of their citizens. And, if they were ever
to be used, the devastation that would ensure would
be unthinkable. Not surprisingly, the leaders of
both countries are fond of saying they have no military
value. They should go one step further and admit
they have no value of any kind and scrap them.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
