Op-ed: The arms race continues

M V Ramana

For the common person, arms races and the expenditure of scarce resources on weapons brings no benefits, only the diversion of money from real needs like health and education

For a little while earlier this year there seemed to be a small but real chance for progress on peace in South Asia. But events since then have dashed those hopes. Indian and Pakistani leaders have returned to their business-as-usual state of trading insults and furthering an arms race.

Some features of the arms race are noteworthy. First is that leaders in both countries claim not to be involved in any such arms race. Every military acquisition is purportedly only for defensive purposes. An instance is Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee’s recent statement that, “We are not in any arms race with anybody. Whatever steps India has been taking [are] for self defence.” Such claims are particularly common as far as nuclear weapons are concerned, with their attendant mythology of deterrence.

A second feature is describing everything connected with the nuclear and missile programmes as part of developing the country’s technological or scientific strength and not being directed against any other country. For example, according to the official announcement, the recent tests of the Shaheen and the Ghaznavi were dictated only by the pace of the missile development programme and its technical needs; Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed claimed that they were “not against any country or part of any arms race in the region.”

Both these features go well with the widespread but mistaken assumption that one’s own country is always the victim, bears no ill will towards, and does no harm to, other countries.

Finally, each round of arms acquisitions purports to establish a definitive equaliser or unbeatable advantage for the acquiring country. But each acquisition carries with it the seeds of the failure of that claim. The most audacious of these claims and the most spectacular of these failures has been the acquisition of nuclear weapons, which were supposed to bring stability and peace to the region, decrease expenditure on conventional weapons, and put an end to arms racing. None of that has happened; the only result has been that the lives of millions of common people in both countries are now at risk.

The arms race has occurred both in the nuclear and non-nuclear dimensions. On the non-nuclear front, India has been escalating the pace of its hi-tech military acquisitions. As it is, its military expenditure has been increasing by leaps and bounds. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, India’s military expenditure has gone up from about $ 9.4 billion in 1998 to $12.9 billion in 2002, with an increase of over $1 billion just in 2002 (all numbers in constant 2000 US dollars). During the same period Pakistan’s military budget went up from $2.8 billion to about $3.2 billion. As a fraction of their respective Gross Domestic Products, these numbers are around 2.2-2.5 per cent in the case of India but 4.5-5 per cent in the case of Pakistan.

Among the recent and prominent acquisitions has been India’s contract with Israel for the Phalcon Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS), valued at over $1 billion. After some initial reluctance, the US appears to have assented to the sale. In the typical fashion of arms racers, Pakistan’s Chief of Air Staff has vowed to counter this acquisition, promising ‘good news’ by June 30, 2004.

Another promise comes from Pakistan’s defence secretary, Lt-Gen (Retd) Hamid Nawaz, who has stated that the US has agreed to the sale of American military equipment to Pakistan, including a counter to the Phalcon, in order ‘to restore the conventional arms balance in South Asia’. This includes help to ‘refurbish’ its existing F-16s and possibly more F-16s from Belgium. Undoubtedly, the arrival of F-16s in Pakistan is likely to elicit some obscenely expensive military purchase by India.

Hand in hand with all these military acquisitions, both countries have continued developing all the accoutrements of a useable nuclear arsenal.

Over the last month Pakistan tested two of its nuclear capable missiles. While Pakistani Army spokesman Major General Shaukat Sultan has claimed that these tests ‘will have no impact on the situation in the region’, the unfortunate reality is that it brings the region closer to nuclear deployment, increasing the risk of nuclear war.

On the Indian side, the army is establishing two missile battalions, to be armed with the 700 km range Agni-I and the 2000 km range Agni-II nuclear capable missiles respectively. Pakistan’s nuclear capable Ghauri and Shaheen missiles were handed over to the military earlier this year.

There have also been recent meetings of the organisations involved in the command and control of nuclear weapons. India’s Nuclear Command Authority (NCA) met in September and took undisclosed decisions ‘on further development and management of the programme’. The official statement went on to claim that these ‘decisions will consolidate India’s nuclear deterrence.’

What is ironical is that this came at the same time as the announcement that the NCA has decided to build two bunkers to protect the cabinet (though not the common citizens of the country) in the event of a nuclear strike, thus demonstrating that in their heart of hearts, these planners do not fully believe in nuclear deterrence. If nuclear deterrence were to hold, there should be no nuclear strike, making protection unnecessary.

For its part, the Pakistani government also held a meeting of its National Command Authority in September, where it reportedly decided to make ‘qualitative upgrades’ in its nuclear programme. The Authority also expressed ‘complete satisfaction’ with the operational readiness of Pakistan’s nuclear forces and the pace of developments.

All of this should be cause for great concern. For the common person, arms races and the expenditure of scarce resources on weapons brings no benefits, only the diversion of money from real needs like health and education.

The nature of arms races is such that it is not possible to meaningfully apportion blame between the parties involved. The only sensible policy is to put pressure on both to unilaterally cease the procurement, development and deployment of these agents of death and destruction.

M V Ramana is a physicist and research staff member at Princeton University’s Program on Science and Global Security and co-editor of Prisoners of the Nuclear Dream

Home | Editorial