Should India Sign Ctbt (Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty) Essay, Research Paper
The article on which this paper is based appeared in The New York Times on May 14, 1998 by Paul Warnke that deals with the decision by India to openly pursue the nuclear option . In 1996, a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) was brought before the United Nations for the cause of disarmament and prevention of further production of harmful nuclear weapons. India, which had always advocated the cause of disarmament and had the moral high grounds since it called for global disarmament, was expected to endorse and sign the CTBT. With a broad range of objections, India refused. On the surface India appeared to be against the treaty that promotes disarmament. However, India was successful in outlining valid problems on variety of issues.
Paul Warnke proudly states that due to CTBT none of these five declared nuclear powers should or are likely to resume nuclear testing .[1] But the question is why should they? True, CTBT would prohibit further development of nuclear arsenals, but it does nothing to reduce the current nuclear arsenals that do not need any further testing. In fact, these nations (the nuclear powers) already have so much of nuclear bombs so as to blow the whole earth eight times. To destroy those bombs and then banning testing would have been the ideal treaty. India has rightly indicated that it will not support a treaty that fails to commit the five nuclear powers to a timetable for nuclear disarmament.[2] The treaty divides the world into nuclear haves and have nots. This is also termed as nuclear apartheid by many Indians. Basically, what India believes is that this Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is not comprehensive, since it stops any country other than the nuclear powers to acquire a nuclear bomb and on the other hand, there is no obligation on the nuclear powers to destroy their weapons. Common sense asserts that the subsequent difference of the countries military capabilities would lead to gross differences in ability to project force.
CTBT, in fact, would definitely decrease international security for India. Surrounded by two hostile neighbors, China and Pakistan, India has to keep its options open. India has a valid point when it argues that without a disarmament mandate, nuclear regimes would curb the spread of nuclear weapons to non-nuclear states without providing adequate security guarantees. [3] A ban on testing would highly tilt the balance of power in SouthWest Asia with China being already declared as a nuclear power. China already has an estimated 300 warheads.[4] China s arsenal of fully developed nuclear weapon could be threatened with impunity.
CTBT also in a way suggests a grand legitimacy to current nuclear powers. According to Ms. Arundhati Ghose, ambassador of India, Nuclear weapons were sought to be legitimized in the hands of the nuclear weapons states forever.
India has a unique security problem because of its situation between two nuclear weapon countries with a cooperative nuclear weapon relation ship.[4] The political differences between India and its neighbors have been quite high. Staying out of CTBT gives India the bargaining card of returning to the table once it is in interests to do so.
We should keep in mind that France after completing its South-Pacific tests was ready to join CTBT. Even China only after working out their security needs comes to talk about test ban treaty. But for India CTBT would mean to close its options which is clearly unacceptable.[4]
There si no other issue at this time that haunts the world more than that of nuclear weapons. Humanity carries a deep scar from the use of fission weapons and the world needs to start striving for disarmament. But keeping in view the above points, CTBT seems to be more like a bad precedent than a good start.