By Mian Majid Ali Afzal
Nuclear arsenal changed the world politics in previous century especially with the reference of traditional war culture among states. After Second World War when world politics analyzed the after effects of World Wars I and II, conclusion was none except millions of casualties and destruction of economy in more than two continents. Finally, major steps were taken by the world community to halt war type incidents among states, so that humanity will never experience again experience of total war. For this, UNO and many other regional organizations established along with nuclear race. Nuclear race started in the form of reactionary chains among rivalry countries of bipolar after USA, USSR then UK and France involved in it and in this way option of nuclear politics opened in 1960’s when India reacted to China nuclear programme and then Pakistan to react India in nuclear politics. Hundreds stances of intellectuals, writers and think tanks over there regarding nuclear politics in South Asia that, who is responsible of it? To solve this complex phenomenon for understanding, one thing is very clear that international politics is not piece of cake and very simple to understand that is apparently presented by the media or government representatives on the media. As for as concern, the responsibility of nuclear arms race in South Asia have to fix so that the future concerned decisions and policies about nuclear regional politics will be made on the behalf of historic truth that based on international politics.
In 1960s, South Asian politics eye witnessed three major incidents and those pushed this region into nuclear arms race. One was Sino-India war in 1962, second is China’s announcement regarding nuclear weapons in 1964 and in very next year third was Indo-Pak full scaled war. China’s nuclear threat to India and later on her relations with Pakistan against India, invited international nuclear politics in South Asian region so that India should ready for nuclear China on the behalf of bipolar politics. Both USSR and USA were agreed to hand shake with India to counter and contain China’s influence on South Asia due to different reasons. For USA, there was a humiliated defeat to contain China in Vietnam and due to this reason Nixon gave his doctrine that is known as Nixon Doctrine where he gained experienced of failure of military operations and its reaction from the American public. He states that “in the future, unless a major power intervened in a third world conflict, the US should not commit in a third world conflict, the US should not commit its combat forces. We should provide military and economic aid to the target countries …..But the country under attack should have the responsibility for providing the men for its defence……we should never again make the mistake we made in Vietnam.” On the behalf of Nixon Doctrine, Americans got the edge to propagate the nuclear technology to India to contain China in the regional politics. According to George Perkovich, Congress sent delegation to India saying, “Please, take our nuclear power technology. We want you to adopt our technology and not the Russian technology.” This was done by American because they thought if they are not shaking nuclear hands with India then may be Russian will do it while India was lucky in this sense that both Russians and Americans were ready to promote and help them in nuclear technology to counter China during cold war era.
Simultaneously Uncle SAM played a dual role with India. During the meeting held in Karachi, Chairman of USA Atomic Energy Commission Glenn Seaborg told Ayub Khan “India might be capable of making sufficient plutonium for a few nuclear weapons a year.” Here another dual plan was ready to poke Pakistan in this race to contain India in that condition if India is going outside the circle of influence of USA due to Russian factor then USA will contain Indian influence through Pakistan. According to Martin Schram, in Indian nuclear capability, “Canada provided the reactor. The USA provided ‘heavy water’, designs for the plant to separate the plutonium, and trained more than a thousand Indian nuclear scientists and engineers…… we now know that India took the plutonium from that reactor and used it for its first nuclear explosive. Even Ball suggested in his memorandum that, “The USA might offer to assist India in acquiring the capability to deter or retaliate against Communist Chinese nuclear attack with its own delivery means, using American nuclear warheads which would be made available to India at the time of Chinese attack. For concern Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal that was also supported by the USA on the behalf of Nixon’s doctrine that if Indo-Soviet alliance in the matter of nuclear politics is going to out of control then Pakistan will be over there to contain Indian nuclear politics. Through this nuclear politics in South Asia, USA achieved two major goals. One is to contain China through India and to some extent, limited the Russians hold over India and second is to prepare Pakistan to contain India if Indians try to out the circle of influence of USA. Both these were vital for American interest. Dual policy of American’s over nuclear politics in South Asia closely observed during Henry Kissinger’s visit to India on October 1974 when he gave the statement that “India ….the preeminent power in the region” and at the same time, he conveyed the message to USA ambassador in Pakistan to tell the Pakistanis that the US attaches great importance to its relationship with Pakistan. Because Americans have doubt, that may be Pakistan can change her interest from USA to China or Russia to counter Indo-US partnership over nuclear technology. So they want to hold Pakistan within their own constraint too along with India.
On the reaction of India’s nuclear experiment, Pakistan started her nuclear programme under the patronage of Bhutto; it is well-known Hennry Kissinger’s remarks and dialogue with Bhutto. According to Hassan, Henry Kissinger offered 110 A-7 attack bombers to Pakistan as an offensive force in return of holding the nuclear programme. According to some political thinkers that Henry Kissinger’s offer and threat both were as a causal struggle of USA because if USA was sincere to eradicate the nuclear politics in South Asia then USA should imposed nuclear sanctions on those western countries that were providing assistance to Pakistan.
The nuclear programme of Pakistan was become more problematic for USA at that time when Pakistan rejected USA dictation over nuclear arsenal because USA wanted to use Pakistani nuclear program to confined the India with limited devices. While in 1980s, Pakistan behind the curtain of Soviet-Afghan proxy war extended her nuclear programme with the perspective of stock pile and second one was the major problem of USA created at that time when Pakistan started her missile programme in reactionary and that’s range was extended to Israel. Through her missile programme, Pakistan got independence to engage her opponents in nuclear combat in the form of second strike capability.
The USA reservations over Pakistan nuclear programme further strengthened when Pakistan’s nuclear programme appreciated by Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. This was alarming situation for the USA because so far, the security of Middle East was into the hands of USA but now security paradigm is also going to change towards Pakistan. Even this was experienced in 1990s when KSA resisted the presence of American Army on the soil of KSA. While Middle East for USA is more important territory as compared to any other part of Asia, reason is known, except oil politics is none of others. New alliance in Middle East in the form of Pak-Saudi is taken by USA in the form of nuclear-economic strategic relation and that was horrible and shaking for the interest of USA. Through this, KSA’s dependency of defense and Pakistan’s economic dependency over USA, both were going to challenge through this new nuclear-economic strategic alliance and it was against the US interest. Because after the breakdown of USSR, Pakistan was problematic for the USA strategic interest in South Asia, Middle East and Indian Ocean politics. Now the strategy of nuclear politics of USA shifted completely towards India. Even the ‘War on Terror’ apparently and covertly was used against Pakistan on a multiple forum simultaneously. Almost three years before of 9/11, Jaswant Singh as External Minister of India said, “United States and India were on the same side in the war on terrorism……..which meant we (the US and India) should be allies against Pakistan……A nuclear-armed India was a natural ally of the United States in the struggle against Islamic fundamentalism, while a nuclear armed Pakistan was a threat to both countries. In reaction of this strategic alliance, Pakistan and China both have no option other than these two countries strengthened their already existing ties in each and every forum to maintain the status quo in the regional politics. The stance of USA over Pakistan nuclear programme became so rigid in 1998 at that time when Pakistan started a second nuclear reactor at Khushab. Over it, Paul Leventhal stated that “China assisted Pakistan in building ……..first military plutonium production reactor…….at Khushab……had promised the United States during talks on activating the US-China nuclear accord that it would not supply the heavy water needed by Pakistan to start up reactor.
In 1990s Pakistan became a prominent headache for American politics and her influence in regional as well as international politics with the perspective of nuclear politics and nuclear arms race due to four reasons. First, the expanding nuclear arsenal against the American will and consent, second was the advanced missile programme and third was the Pak-Saudi strategic friendship along with China factor. Fourth reason was the role of Pakistan as a bridge between new emerging ties between China and KSA. Due to changing regional politics in Middle East, it was need of time for KSA that USA should use the ‘carrot and stick diplomacy’ against Pakistan so that USA can secure her interest that was best for USA to impose ‘economic soft power’ in the form of nuclear sanctions but this policy was failed at that time when Saudis in 1998 began supplying crude oil under a deferred payment. Through this way, Pakistan survived in spite of USA economic sanctions and rejected to own the Einhorn draft through which Pakistan had to stop three activities which were following but rejected by Pakistan. Not to stockpile nuclear weapons in assembled form.
It was out of question that Indian nuclear tests are done without consent of USA. According to Hassan that Indian nuclear tests were designed to trap Pakistan into an economic crisis. Later on, war on terror used for Pakistan’s nuclear disarmament. Regarding this situation Thomas Friedman stated that “the USA and India made clear that Pakistan’s foreign policy had to change…….or America would destroy it economically and India militarily. About war on terror, on 31st, January 2011, The Washington Post mentioned the statement of COAS of Pakistan General Kayani that “the real aim of US strategy is to denuclearize Pakistan”. On the eve of war on terror since 2001, Pakistan faced many time USA direct threats such as one of them is cited by President Pervez Musharraf in an interview with CBM 60 minutes on September 24, 2006 that immediately after 9/11, the Pakistani intelligence director told me that Richard Armitage said, “Be prepared to be burned. Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age.” The first reaction of 9/11 in Pakistan was its nuclear arsenal movement at that time when President Pervez Musharraf ordered an emergency redeployment of nuclear arsenal to at least six secret new locations and has reorganized military oversight of the nuclear forces. While on the other hand, according to New Yorker Magazine, US and Israel was planning in a combined way to destroy Pakistan nuclear arsenals. According to Hersh, after 9/11 Joint special team of USA and special operations team of Israel known as Sayeret Matkal held meeting at an undisclosed location in the USA. Finally, all these techniques remained in vain to hold Pakistani nuclear capabilities at that time when Pervez Musharraf gave a strict and threatening response to USA Not to conduct flight testing of ballistic missile. Identify and separate those air force aircraft that were capable of carrying nuclear weapons. about her pre-emptive doctrine which linked with catastrophic terrorism and Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD), in response of that question that either Pakistan would be the target of a pre-emptive strike, he replied in such a way, “let me tell you that Pakistan’s turn will not come after Iraq…….No one can launch a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan because we are a nuclear power, we are a missile power. We are fully capable to face resist every situation…..we are fully capable to watch our interests…..our diplomatic stance was correct on Iraq….. We have respect in the commity of nations and in the Muslim world. How can our turn come?
In short, due to all these advancement, USA-India strategic partnership going to expand from South-Asian region to Indian Ocean to counter China-Pak alliance in the form of CPEC, the basic purpose of USA-India civil-nuclear handshake to fail the IPI gas pipeline where again Pakistan’s role was growing potentially along with Iran. Initially, USA’s strategy was to use Pakistan in nuclear politics in South Asia to counter the India-Russian alliance in that case if India is succeeded to get enough power in the region through Russian support and skipped from the American influence to counter China. The plan and regional game of USA inverted at that time when Pakistan ousted herself from the influence of USA due to the support of China and KSA that is going to disturb American strategy and in this way Pakistan succeeded to own her own plan to some extent. Meanwhile, Pakistan faced the major issues of international politics in the form of proxy factors like TTP, BLFA, BLA, PTM and many more sectarian and ethnic factors supported by the rivalry countries which were part of Plan “B” of USA and India strategic partnership. Let’s see in near and far future to what extent Nixon doctrine is going to be followed by USA to own unipolar politics in international jungle.
Nuclear Doctrine of Pakistan: Offensive or Defensive
South Asia could not be isolated from the world enthusiasm towards atomic energy after china’s nuclear tests. India, with the help of the USA, started its weapon-oriented nuclear programme on 2nd March 1944 more than a year before the ‘Trinity’ test, a year and a half before the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, over three years before the country’s independence. Pakistan, after India’s tests, also followed the lead. During the 80s and early 90s the debate was whether the two countries had the capability or just ‘paper tiger’. Whatever the scenario was, one thing is clear: Just this confusion averted wars between two countries in that era. This debate settled with the successful test of both India and Pakistan in 1998. The ensuing debate and major questions were related to nuclear policy and posture. What would be its effect on relations and its implications on acrimonious relation? Would WMDs stabilize or bring nuclear winter, India in 1999, presented the draft nuclear doctrine, and in 2003 adopted its nuclear doctrine. Pakistan, however, has not adopted any doctrine or clear-ad policy regarding nuclear-weapons at the state level. But, some semblance of doctrine can be inferred from its ruling elite and state institutions.
The rationale for nuclear weapons
The first thing to analyze is the rationale given for nuclear weapons. It can be found in the letter written after Indian nuclear tests by Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee to US President Bill Clinton, which gave two reasons for Indian weapons programme. Firstly Chinese nuclear weapons and the second thing was terrorism, a way to allege Pakistan. Formal doctrine succeeded, so it is better to analyze this with the perspective of China and Pakistan. Factoring China cannot be considered as a strong point, as china never threatened to use nuclear weapons. Also, at that point, both countries were successfully mooring towards amicable relations. A factor accepted by PM himself in the letter. Secondly, the terrorism issue cannot be correlated with nuclear weapons. Pakistan never wanted an all-out conventional war with India, due to its relative inferiority. These two reasons are not justifying nuclear detonations.
Reasons for developing nuclear weapons that are why must be found somewhere else? The most important thing was the historical insecurity in elites concerning Muslim rule and colonization of India. Another point was Indian elite perception concerning the Indian role in the region and the world. They always see India as a strong contender for superpower status in the global arena and as hegemony in the region and the world. During the early years, Nehru himself never denied Indian quest for nuclear weapons. The wording he used for this was “evil designs” a point, never expected from a statesman like Nehru. Along with Nehru, Bhabha also believed that catching up with the west would mean “establishing the centrality of science in the autobiography of the Indian nation.” He explained that Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR) and Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) to be western in their orientation and international in their aspiration. Bhabha wrote in 1944 to Sorab Saklatvala (Chairman of the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust) that “It is absolutely in the interest of India to have a vigorous school of research in fundamental physics, for such a school forms the spearhead of research not only in the less advanced branches of physics but also in problems of immediate practical application in industry. I hope to build up in the course of time a school of physics comparable with the best anywhere.” Dr. Homi Bhabba’s plans for the eventual development of weapons using civilian technologies are now clear from historical documents. This Indian programme even precluded Chinese nuclear explosions and Sino-Indian war.
Indian Doctrine: Contextualizing Pakistan’s nuclear policy
Nuclear policy of any state cannot be segregated from the broad foreign policy of the state, and its aspiration. For this, discussion regarding Pakistan’s nuclear posture is determined by its relations with India. India as an arch-rival state to it has always been a threat to its ideology, national security and territorial integrity. The debacle of East Pakistan still resonates in the strategic thinking of Pakistan. Nuclear weapons were also pursued in a reaction to Indian programmer. This, for instance, shows that any nuclear posture will always be contextualized concerning India.
The second factor that will determine Pakistan’s doctrine will be the policy, which India adopts with the passage of time in the form of reactionary to China. Pakistan, after the tests, hoped that India would stop at gaining the nuclear shield. However, this was not the case. India quickly factored China – evident from Indian Prime Ministers letter to Clinton in 1998, justifying the tests, and more broadly used. Failure was in broad disarmament. This was reflected in the doctrine and is evident in the Indian arms race policy. In the doctrine, adopted in 2003, Indian state assumed minimum credible deterrence, No First Use (NFU) policy and massive retaliation. This, however, may seem quite modest targets, but considering China. It gives India a broad room for increasing the arsenal. Next thing is Indian actions: constantly increasing defence budget and offensive military doctrine concerning Pakistan was cold start doctrine of India.
Pakistan policy will always be judged according to the Indian design and the context in which the programme was developed and started.
To analyze and deeply look at is the contradictions in Indian nuclear doctrines. There are many provisions and points which render No First Use (NFU) policy just rhetoric. In the draft nuclear doctrine’s article 23, it has been said that India would pursue credible minimum deterrence. Interestingly, in the same document, in article 26 this concept is explained as a dynamic. It has been said that it is related to technological imperatives, strategic environment and national security. This latter statement made credible minimum deterrence, a circumstantial thing. The flexibility which this statement tries to give made this whole concept defunct. Not to mention that world powers like USA and USSR followed this concept, justifying this by employing concepts like the balance of terror and having record strike capability, but this dissolves Indian facade of a defensive weapon programme. India operationalized this draft doctrine in 2003. This is some ways, deformed No First Use (NFU) policy enshrined in draft doctrine. A word anywhere changed the whole scenario. It has been said that India would use nuclear weapons as a retaliatory option against the use of nuclear weapons on Indian Territory or Indian forces anywhere. What this entails for Pakistan is an interesting thing; Pakistan has incorporated tactical nuclear weapons for defence using short-range ‘Nasr’ in its territory, against an advancing Army.
In addition to this ‘anywhere’ word also mentioned other mass destruction weapons like biological and chemical. It is said that in the event of using chemical or biological weapons against Indian forces, India would keep its nuclear option open.
Nuclear weapon states usually adopt a broad strategy regarding their weapons, their use, deployment and development. India, trying to act as a responsible nuclear state, issued draft doctrine in August 1999 and operationalized it in January 2003. The main point of this doctrine was its enunciation of NFU policy. Second important is the aspect was the adoption of credible minimum deterrence as a policy for the development and deployment of weapons. At face value, it looks like India was opting for a defensive doctrine. This conclusion is however negated by contradictions inherent in this doctrine. Also India’s overall military strategy and its view upon the strategic environment of South Asia render it offensive. Pakistan, looking at this, must move towards more robust and strategic use of nuclear weapons. Another thing to look into, while analyzing Indian nuclear doctrine, is Indian force structure and conventional capabilities. Currently, India has the fourth-largest Army’s in cumulative terms) in the world. She is the highest arms procuring country. She is active and developing an indigenous defence industry. In the oceanic domain, she is actively following a policy that would make it a hegemon in the Indian Ocean – even as the junior partner of USA. Adjoining this with Indian ‘ cold war strategy reveals what’s the purpose of nuclear weapons. Indian partnership with the USA for containing to China influence also unveils its weapon. Programme vis a vis China.
Indications for Pakistan
This nuclear policy of India is provocative and threatening for Pakistan. Indian plans for sub continental warfare and under the nuclear umbrella, without touching nuclear threshold threatens Pakistan’s security and strategic balance of South Asia.1 Considering all this, Pakistan has a strong need to modernize its nuclear weapons programme. Its deployment of weapons must be robust in the view of Indian intelligence and satellite reconnaissance capabilities. Till date, Pakistan has successfully averted wars with India. However, its ever modernizing domestic ballistic missile programme is a source of major concern for Pakistan’s security and stability of the region. Therefore, Pakistan must have a strong plan for countering Indian oppressive regional and global designs.
Mian Majid Ali Afzal is serving as a Strategic & Administrative Adviser at CPEC based project in Islamabad. He is also a member of Anti-Drug Task Force Punjab. Besides being an adviser and a socio-political analyst, he is also a columnist and a graphologist. He has also worked on different research papers including Pakistan Military (Nuclear) Doctrine, Narco-terrorism, cyberspace and cyber security, organizational behaviour and Police Reform in Pakistan. He has been worked as a policymaker in Youth Parliament of Pakistan and National Youth Assembly.