Nuclear - SEMINAR REPORT

Aspirations for a world free of nuclear weapons- German Perspectives

• There is a difference in the opinion between the older nuclear powers and countries like India which are arriving on the scene. Even though, there was talk of reducing nuclear weapons in Moscow recently, India is not excited about reduction. India and Pakistan, unlike the US and Russia are adding-on to their nuclear weapons. To stop countries like India and Pakistan that recently arrived on the scene, from acquiring more weapons is not going to be that simple
• The reduction in the usability of nuclear weapons for military purposes is a hypothetical concept, especially for countries like India who have real security concerns. With regard to Pakistan, India’s concern is primarily about tactical nuclear weapons, because if these get into the wrong hands, they can be highly dangerous as they are easily deliverable. The G-8 and G-5 do not address these concerns, but these are very important for India.

• Germany is kinder to Iran because both France and Germany have economic relations with Iran but Iran is very likely on the way to build a bomb and they want to create stability in the region by having a bomb and not by not having one.
• Elections in Iran are an internal matter. The Chinese have the Uighur issue but the world still talks to them. The world is unnecessarily bothered by the vote count in Iran; this is an academic debate because democracy comes from inside. Germany and France have been too rough on Iran; if any country would say similar things to India, the administration would refuse to engage. Iran is a government and not a regime.
• Moreover, are there any sectors in Iran that are prepared to revise their thinking on the nuclear issues?

• The idea of global zero is definitely virtuous, but it must consider the security concerns of a state that signs on to it. Japan for instance said that it is committed to disarmament but not too soon and not too fast, because they have security concerns with North Korea. Similarly, for India to participate in this vision its security concerns will have to be adequately addressed and verification will have to be strengthened.
• It is important to view the role of India in the larger picture. India is an unaligned country; it is not non-aligned anymore. It is a growing power and the Indo-US nuclear deal has added to its power and confidence. The role of India has changed dramatically, but the paradox is that it is a reluctant nuclear power. India has always been committed to universal disarmament, but the western powers continued to arm and ignore all the rules that they made and India was completely neglected. The instability in India’s neighbourhood was overlooked; Pakistan had nuclear capability since 1987, even though they did not test.
• If all the P-5 members disarm, a new criterion for membership for the Security Council will have to be envisioned. If all the members disarm, there will be increasing pressures from India and Japan to be included in the P-5.
• How can alliances like NATO maintain their pact and yet continue with global disarmament?
• If Iran states that its security is threatened by Israel, would the West start by disarming Israel?

• Germany is not a nuclear state and therefore, it cannot set a deadline but it can definitely advise countries. It is true that not everyone is on board and for this reason, the issue of military doctrine needs to be addressed. India has always supported security guarantees. It has been hard to make every state realize that the military use of nuclear weapons is diminishing, but since so many states are going nuclear, this threat can only be reduced by giving up nuclear weapons. Also, in the past, every state wanted to possess nuclear weapons, but that mindset is changing now.

• The NPT has its flaws, but the international climate is changing, wherein states want to see less proliferation. If India would sign the NPT, it would help to rid the NPT of its flaws. It is easier, however, to cooperate on FMCT, so that area should be fully explored.
• India has some concerns with the CTBT, so it is imperative to find common ground to proceed. Like India’s former PM, Rajiv Gandhi said, a way must be developed to move from contention to cooperation. There are also inherent flaws in the NPT like it does not address the issue of enrichment and reprocessing and this omission has led to problems like Iran. There have been some positive moves as well, like the issue of Multilateralization of the fuel cycle and fuel banks, which acts like an insurance policy. It might be possible to realize this universally one day. India does have legitimate concerns with the status quo approach of the NPT, but it is important to engage on issues that are less contentious like the FMCT and Global Zero. The NPT might hinder scientific development, but on the flip side, it controls proliferation. For example, if Iran wants scientific technology, there will be a hesitation to provide it with the same. At the end of the day, things are not always black and white, there is a huge grey area and how countries are perceived becomes very important.

• It is true that the reduction in number of nuclear weapons is not going to solve everything. There is a suspicion against the intentions of major nuclear countries. It is important, however, to view the change in intentions of the developed countries in a positive manner. There is serious work ongoing between the different countries on reducing nuclear warheads and this should not be underestimated. The situation in the subcontinent is arguably different and the region is not very peaceful and stable. Even in Europe, the belief that conventional arms were under control was shattered by the Georgia episode last year and that has made Europeans more humble. There are now increasing attempts to control conventional arms alongside nuclear weapons and to link both of them. At the end of the day a reduction in nuclear weapons is more of a political decision. Unless, a political solution is reached to the conflicts in the Indian subcontinent, any attempts to control proliferation will be difficult.

• Iran is a big quandary. Germany is not kinder to Iran but is aware of the benefits of cooperating with it. Iran has had hostile relations with the US for the last 30 years and now the US is willing to engage with Iran, which is a positive step. Even though, the post election scenario in Iran has been challenging, the US has reiterated its commitment to continue a dialogue with Iran.
• There are certain elements in Iran that are not opposed to revising their stance on the nuclear issue and they view nuclear weapons as a matter of pride. There are questionable facts though like the clandestine nature of the nuclear programme and the threat of the military use of the weapons. With Iran, perceptions matter. The question is not whether they have nuclear weapons or not but how they can ensure a non-threatening scenario to other countries.

• Germany is aware of the security concerns of countries in volatile neighbourhoods so it does not intend to preach. But in a highly globalized world, where all countries are interconnected, every one can benefit from a common approach to these important issues. Arms control is not the panacea to all problems, especially in hostile neighbourhoods, but reduction is still helpful.
• The issue of perceptions has to be addressed as well for arms control. For instance, Washington does not view any problems in the missile defence in Russia, but Russia views it very differently and considers it a global conspiracy against them. In Washington, the perception towards Russia is reminiscent of the Cold War and thus it is imperative to change these perceptions to continue on the road towards disarmament.

Pia Malhotra
Research Intern