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.