India - Pakistan nuclear tests: the positive aspects
Regional, Analysis, 6/1/1998

The situation between India and Pakistan has garnered lots of attention because of the recent nuclear test explosions and the concern for a nuclear confrontation between the two countries.

India started the first series of the nuclear tests and citing national security concerns with China and Pakistan, two countries that it fought wars with.

India and Pakistan have had a long history of fighting that goes back to their split from one country that was governed under British rule. The two countries are split along mostly religious lines with India having population a that is about 80 percent Hindu and 17 percent Moslem, while Pakistan is mostly Moslem.

The two countries have been fighting over sovereignty rights for the Kashmir region in the northern region of Pakistan and India.

The United States condemned both India and Pakistan for their nuclear tests and activated sanctions against both countries as required by US laws relating to countries that possessed nuclear weapons that are not inside the nuclear weapons club already in existence.

This club, which includes the United States, Russia, France, England, and China who are the winners of World War II, is a very exclusive and highly-coveted club that does not seek to have anyone else join it. The United States said that it will oppose having India and Pakistan join this club due to the definition of the 1964 agreement that determines who is a nuclear power and who is not.

At the very same time the United States is telling both India and Pakistan that their power and greatness does not lie a in possessing nuclear weapons. The United States is not very credible as it makes great effort to prevent any country from joining this nuclear club.

The United States has been the primary force behind most agreements on nuclear weapons related issues (non-proliferation etc) in order to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.

Of particular concern to us is the Middle East. But unlike Middle Eastern countries, India's nuclear weapons have been developed indigenously without outside help while others claim Pakistan had the technology to detonate a nuclear bomb some 20 years ago and they say that it gained some of its technology from China.

What is very clear is that those countries have achieved something that has been reserved in essence to Western nations and by so doing will force all the "great powers," who are the permanent United Nations Security Council members, to pay attention to the concerns of India and Pakistan and force awareness of their problems and therefore these two states will have their concerns taken more seriously into consideration when dealing with international issues.

India and Pakistan obviously view that the condemnation and the sanctions by the US and possibly Security Council member nations, which are all nuclear weapons nations, as too little to deter them from moving forward with their nuclear weapons development programs and weapons delivery systems for these weapons.

Though the problem seems to have sprung up all of a sudden, this problem is much more deeply-rooted and points to a fundamental weakness in the international system for governing countries' behaviors and interactions with each other during times of conflict.

In times of conflict, these countries find it almost impossible not to do what they are doing in terms of nuclear weapons development as a measure of national security, which is also the main reason why other countries in the Middle East, with their conflicts, have wanted so badly to possess nuclear weapons. There are few weapons that would protect national security as effectively as nuclear weapons. So the logical question is why wouldn't every nation want to possess these weapons especially if those nations are at war or have conflicts with their neighbors.

The problem lies in that these countries have no effective mechanism to ensure that their security concerns and conflicts can be dealt with in a way that they feel is just, fair and enforceable. Specifically there is no effective mechanism in the United Nations in which problems can be dealt with in a manner that would be to the satisfaction of all parties involved in disputes.

If India and Pakistan had found a forum to take their dispute over Kashmir to, where a decision can be made, with consensus the United Nations, in which a 90 percent majority is required, and a decision would be binding and enforced by ALL members of the United Nations, through absolute political, social, and economic sanctions for those that do not abide by the results of the UN General Assembly, then countries would feel they have a place to take their problems to. But there is no such place right now, and the UN Security Council apparatus as it exists is ineffective unless there is unanimity by the Security Council members, as opposed to a unanimity of the UN General Assembly which includes ALL nations.

Israel has proved the lack of usefulness of the UN except in cases where the parties agree to a UN decision, and even then, the UN is helpless to enforce its resolutions as proven by Israel time and again in obeying world community resolutions. So, the bottom line, the UN is not a medium for conflict resolution that can enforce the will of the international community when it comes to conflict resolution.

The UN is very unresponsive to the needs of countries that are not permanent members of the UN Security Council or are not favored by one of these member countries. Also the structure of the UN Security Council is inadequate to deal with those problems now arising some 50 years after its creation.

Permanent members of the UN Security Council have taken the results of World War II and have decided to enshrine the results of that victory forever at the expense of other nations who have every right to have a say in conflicts in international affairs.

Put differently, if the the United Nations was an effective mechanism for conflict resolution by having the United Nations have a democratic voting and representation system, such problems as the Kashmir problem between India and Pakistan, could be brought to the General Assembly for resolution and because because a decision by the UN General Assembly will be seen as a fair vote by world nations and they would have to abide by it because it will have the moral authority of the International community and because it will be backed by the severest of sanctions by the entire world.

Comprehensive political, social, and economic sanctions that are approved by all world countries are a force that any country would have to deal with, and isolation against the country is the ultimate way of dealing with serious problems that affect international security.

A mechanism of "extreme" majority voting, let's say 90 percent of the countries, on a conflict issue should override Security Council decisions, for a start. It is only natural for the United States and other permanent Security Council members to oppose such a reform in the structure of the United Nations since they have so much power in their current position as members of that council. However, this UN Security Council structure is obsolete and needs to be restructured or totally eliminated to make it more effective and more democratic in keeping with the times and the tremendous changes that the world has seen in the last fifty years, and this change will be to the benefits of the Security Council member countries as well. Everyone knows that monopolies are bad, and the Security Council is such an example of a monopoly in international affairs.

Consensus politics in conflict resolution is the answer, and we are limiting this to conflict resolution and not writing general laws that deal with other issues, as we do not want to get into the area of a world government!

If the nuclear powers who are the permanent UN Security Council members wish to set new grounds for a better world into the future and form effective mechanisms for dealing with problems in conflict resolutions, this is the time to start work on replacing the UN Security Council with a better mechanism.

The US can hold onto the past till the very last second when it is too late where some of these problems get out of hand, or the US can display the vision and leadership to pave the way for the future as it has done in the international commercial arena. But that may be too much to expect from a monopolist, no matter how well-intentioned it is, forgetting that the US will always do what is in its own interests and not what is in the interest of the international community even though that may be in the "long term" interest of the US

The hope lies in all the countries combining efforts to change the status quo in the UN.

For the Arab states, the issue is very clear. The UN has been impotent in resolving their problems. The UN has many outstanding resolutions against Israel, to withdraw from Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria's Golan, yet with no enforcement mechanism, Israel can choose to ignore these resolutions.

Compounded on top of this is the fact that United States is very selective in its sanction and condemnation of nations that are attempting to gain or already have nuclear weapons. The US takes extreme actions through its laws and other means to prevent nuclear weapons from being acquired by Arab states (and Iran and Pakistan) while remaining quiet about Israel's efforts and its supposed nuclear arsenal.

The Arab states have called for a nuclear-free region in the Middle East and they have signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, with Israel being the only exception that does not allow international inspections of its facilities.

It is not hard to see why many Arab states see that this kind of double standard in all issues relating to Arab states and perhaps the Islamic states as such a destabilizing factor in international politics. We use the term destabilizing because anytime there is the view by many that there is great injustice against them and that their issues are not being addressed, that tends to cause instability.

Therefore the United States would do the world a great favor and itself as well by starting a speedy and major reform process at the United Nations. However, since the United States is very unlikely to do so, it is time for the world community to call for a major reform of the United Nations to allow it to deal with current problems and conflicts and to pave the way for a modern United Nations that would be increasingly called upon to solve problems that trespass national boundaries as commerce and politics become increasingly international in their effects.

It is time for a new United Nations that is effective and representative of world opinion so that we can finally set the foundation stone for an organization that would allow us to get away from many problems that afflict the international community. It would be a shame if the world doesn't take advantage of the current situation to increase awareness about the need for UN reform so that we will not see India and Pakistan and others get into wars that are avoidable by having a judicial forum that is acceptable to all.

Let us not give aspirin to a cancer patient who needs major surgery.

Previous Stories:
  Moussa warns of nuclear proliferation   (5/28/1998)
  Syria's al-Sharaa in Colombia to focus on Israeli nuclear arsenal   (5/19/1998)
  Israel's nuclear position condemned   (3/23/1998)

Please add a link on your webiste pointing to ArabicNews.com and bookmark ArabicNews.com & subscribe to our daily email news bulletin.

Search