ELECTIONS '98
COMMENTARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ARCHIVES

The Rediff Interview/Michael Krepon

'Pakistani nuclear bombs are a threat to Pakistan'

Following Pakistan's blasts, how has the strategic situation and balance in South Asia been altered?

The conventional balance has not been altered, and offsetting nuclear capabilities have been demonstrated. Nothing has changed in terms of military balances, yet at the same time, nuclear dangers and regional tensions have grown significantly. The theory that offsetting nuclear weapons will promote stability and security in South Asia appears very questionable at this point.

Do you see an escalation in tension, or vice-versa? When with conventional arms, peace was always at risk, is there any reason to believe that the situation will now be any better?

I believe the situation is now dangerous and will become more so, unless wise, mature decisions can be made by Indian and Pakistani leaders. This is a partcularly bad time for India and Pakistan to raise the alert levels of their military forces and equipment. It is also a bad time for unusual troop movements near the international border and Line of Control. India and Pakistan have confidence-building measures in place to help in this regard, but they have not been implemented properly in the past. Perhaps now these measures will be implemented with the seriousness and professionalism they warrant.

Is there reason to believe that either side might now be tempted to up the ante, and go in for a stockpile?

India and Pakistan are both sliding down a very dangerous slope. One of the few footholds ahead is a mutual, verifiable agreement not to deploy ballistic missiles: missiles in storage are safer than missiles ready to fire -- even though the timelines for deployment from storage are hellishly condensed. Other states in other regions have arranged mutual verification measures to monitor the status of missiles; if India and Pakistan wished to do so -- or wished others to help in doing so -- this could be of use.

Is there now a real risk that N-arms will spread to other parts of the world?

Recent events in South Asia clearly increase nuclear danger and damage international accords, like the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which over 180 nations have ratified. The actions of India and now Pakistan are a blow to US non-proliferation policies, as well as to the aspirations of every state that wishes to reduce nuclear dangers. Already we have seen the government of North Korea use the occasion of recent troubles in South Asia to begin pulling away from its accord to freeze its nuclear programme. Bad news usually generates more bad news.

Do you view the blasts as a failure of the US policy of containment and disarmament?

The blasts certainly constituted a failure of global efforts to control nuclear danger, not just US non-proliferation policies on the subcontinent. While there is considerable opposition to "nuclear apartheid," there is equally strong global opposition to new members joining the nuclear club.

Are Pakistan's bombs a threat to Israel?

Pakistan's nuclear weapons are mostly a threat to the well-being of Pakistan, which desparately needs to use scarce resources for the well-being of its citizens.

Is there not a major risk that by pushing Pakistan into sanctions, the US is increasing the chances that a financially desperate Islamabad might be tempted to sell the bombs to some West Asian customers?

I have confidence in Pakistan's current military leadership not to export nuclear material and weaponry for cash. If the situation in Pakistan unravels, my concerns would rise, however.

Coming to the Indian nuclear blasts, what was your reaction to India's nuclear tests?

My reaction is one of dismay and disappointment that a two-year global moratorium on nuclear testing has been broken.

Opinion in the US seems divided about India's explosions? What is the divide between the pro- and anti-India groups?

Does reporting in India suggest a division of opinion in the United States about India's testing? There is a division of opinion within the Indian-American population here, but not elsewhere. The reaction on Capitol Hill was uniformly negative.

Are not Indians justified in taking the necessary measures to defend themselves against a nuclear power China and nuclear threshold Pakistan?

"National security" is an all-encompassing term that can embrace a multitude of sins. Previous Indian governments believed -- and acted -- upon the premise that national security could be maintained without testing. This government felt differently.

Michael Krepon interview, continued

Tell us what you think of this interview