Connect with us

Defense

Analyzing the Decade of Non-proliferation Trends in South Asia

Published

on

It has been more than two decades since Pakistan and Indiahad carried out their nuclear tests. Since then, South Asia has come to the fore as a uniquely challenging nuclearized region of the world. The striking most aspect of this nuclearized region is the presence of three neighboring nuclear weapon states with rival history. Where the non-proliferation and disarmament efforts at the global level have significance, the volatility of South Asia and a continuous presence of escalation ladders have kept it more prone to the vertical proliferation of nuclear weapons with offensive doctrines and strategies. This volatility is directly and indirectly linked with India’s aggressive strategic expansion as well as its non-adherent behavior towards international nuclear norms. This threat perception and a series of provocative actions from India remain the vital cause of Pakistan’s principled stanceof neutral based mainstreaming in international nuclear arrangements.

Throughout this period, Pakistan and India both have been building up their nuclear arsenals in pursuit of their doctrinal and deterrence needs.  However, they have been suspended to conduct more nuclear weapon tests. With a gradual increase in individual stockpiles, both the nuclear-weapon states now appear to have developed their fully functional arsenals, deliverable by a triad structure that include; air, land, and sea-based platforms. Some of these capabilities are yet to be incorporated and tested successfully. After building infrastructure for extracting highly enriched uranium and production of plutonium, both the states have established politico-military institutions dedicated to the security, safety, and survivability of their nuclear weapon programs. Meanwhile, along with the international acknowledgment of functional nuclear arsenals in South Asia, the demand for non-proliferation by the international community has kept on increasing. However, this has been impacted by the need of keeping the region strategically stable yet holding deterrence alive.

The fact remains that both India and Pakistan have been recognized as de facto nuclear-weapon states.  Neither of the two is a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), nor either of them has signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) due to criteria based exemption. Moreover, both countries carry individual reservations on the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) as well. While both the states remain active members of the Conference on Disarmament (CD), their roles have not always been considered constructive enough, by the international community, to be taken on board for international nuclear arms control arrangements.

Pakistan, subjectively, is being alleged by the international community, especially by the west of growing its nuclear arsenal aggressively. This has been in practice along with the shadow of an accusation of horizontal proliferation for the past two decades. While falsifying the accused claims, Pakistan has repeatedly stood welcoming to any nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation arrangement. Nevertheless, Pakistan’s threat perception has been India centric, based on the relevance of the latter’s hostility as a significant national security concern. Consequently, Pakistan has kept its nuclear arsenal, posture, and nuclear doctrine with the same threat perception. Furthermore, Pakistan seeks for a non-discriminatory international approach towards nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. Unfortunately, the biased approach of the international community towards the goal of non-proliferation like for instance, the favored grant of NSG membership to India has also been one of the biggest destabilizing factors towards regional non-proliferation.

In a recent statement at the Conference on Disarmament, Pakistan laid out its concerns of proliferation and demanded some major steps towards non-proliferation from the international community as follows:

  • A universal and equitable commitment by all states to complete verifiable nuclear disarmament,
  • Elimination of the discriminatory and country-based approach in the current non-proliferation regime,
  •  Normalization of the relationship among signatory NPT states with the three non-signatory NPT nuclear-weapon states.

Such propositions depict Pakistan’s genuine approach to seeking the true essence of non-proliferation in the region.

Contrary to Pakistan’s approach, India has been pacing faster on its defense and strategic expansion to modernize its nuclear arsenal. In this regard, the recently recorded new weapon systems including the acquisition of S-400 along with the acquisition of BMD systems to advance its existing nuclear-capable aircrafts, land-based delivery systems, and submarine-launched systems are worth considering. With the acquisition of the latest delivery mechanisms, India has already enhanced its military plutonium production capacity of up to as much as 150 to 200 nuclear warheads. Likewise, the recent canisterization of missiles shows Indian evolving doctrine from ‘no first use’ to the probability of first use. Whether the Indian strategy is aimed at countering Pakistan or China, it remains highly violating in nature and non-adherent towards non-proliferation.

Hence, India stands reluctant towards non-proliferation and so Pakistan in response. Comparatively, South Asia could have better tackled the vertical proliferation if India would have been acting responsibly towards global non-proliferation efforts. While the disarmament holds no prospect in South Asia, vertical non-proliferation seems to be vague and unachievable too. India’s growing sense of China-centric nuclear posture and Pakistan-offensive expansion of its nuclear arsenal would likely keep the region on the verge of greater instability. This would be further characterized by India’s lesser concern of non-proliferation efforts in the coming decades as well. Mainstreaming both parties and universalizing the global non-proliferation regime with the inclusion of Pakistan and India following an unbiased approach would only serve the purpose. Only this could produce any fruitful outcome for the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and fissile material in the region.

Hananah Zarrar is a Researcher at Centre for Aerospace and Security Studies (CASS), Islamabad. She holds an MPhil degree with major area of interest in Strategic and Nuclear Affairs.

Continue Reading
Comments

Defense

The Proxy War of Libya: Unravelling the Complexities

Published

on

The African continent has been infamous for its desolate conditions and impoverished lifestyle for years. The violence has not spared the region either since the extremely unstable Middle-East has set the vendetta throughout the region, verging Africa in the east. Whether it comes to the spreading influence of ISIS under the flag of Boko Haram; a terrorist organisation operating in Chad and North-eastern Nigeria, or the rampant corruption scandals and ream of military cops in Zimbabwe, the region rivals the instability of its eastern neighbour. However, one conflict stands out in Northern Africa, in terms of high-stake involvement of foreign powers and policies that have riven the country, not unlike Syria in the Middle-East. Libya is one instance in Africa that has faced the civil war for almost a decade yet involves not only local powers but is also a focal point that has caused the NATO powers to be at odds.

Libya, officially recognised as the ‘State of Libya’, is a war-torn country in the Northern periphery of the African continent. The country is bordered by the Mediterranean Sea in the North, Egypt lies to its East and Sudan and Tunisia border in the Southeast and Northwest respectively. Apparent from the topography, Libya stands as an epicentre to the countries ridden with conflicts, stands the ground that was the central root of the infamous Arab Spring uprisings taking a rebellious storm right off its borders in Tunisia back in 2011. While the NATO-led campaign garnered success in overthrowing the notorious dictator, Muammar Gaddafi, and thus bringing the draconian regime to an end, it failed to account for the brewing rebels and militias in pockets throughout the state of Libya.

Over the following years, weaponry and ammunition was widely pervaded across the region in spite of strict embargo placed. The pilling artillery and unregulated rebels cycled the instability in the country leading to the successive governments to fail and eventually split the country in two dominant positions: The UN-recognised Government National Accord (GNA), led by Tripoli-based leader and prime minister Fayez Al-Sarraj, and the Libyan National Army (LNA), led by the tailing ally and successor to Gaddafi, General Khalifa Haftar.

While both GNA and LNA vied for the control on Libya, foreign powers involved rather similar to the labyrinth of stakes in Syria, each state split over the side supporting their part of the story and ultimately serving their arching purpose of interference in the region. Despite of the ruling regime of Al-Sarraj since the controversial election win of GNA in 2016, Haftar-led LNA controls an expansive territory and has been launching offensive attacks against the GNA alliance. GNA enjoys the support of US, Turkey, Qatar and Italy; each serving either ideological support or military backing to secure the elected government of Libya. Meanwhile, LNA is backed by Russia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and France. While the western powers see GNA as an economically stabilising solution to the Libyan crisis, Russia and France eye Haftar as a key ally to expand influence in the African region and reap control of the oil-rich resources under control of Haftar’s troops in the oil-crescent territory.

The Turkish regime, on the other hand, eye Libya as a direct answer to the Russian influence in the Syrian war that has been pushing the Kurdish alliance stronger along and within the southern borders of Turkey. This has led to recent clashes and direct escalation in the proxy war waged in Syria. Turkey plans to incentivise the leveraging position against Russia in Libya by deploying military advisory to Tripoli to strengthen their position against the Russian-backed Haftar to ultimately deter the alliance from spreading far in the African region.

The power split in Libya was exacerbated in 2017 following the Gulf crisis that led to the boycott of Qatar by the Arab quartet led by Saudi Arabia. Libya stood as a battle ground for both strategic and military positions to one up the other alliance in external power games while the internal matters of Libya are long forgotten and population left clueless and desperate for welfare. Since then, the vested interests in Libya have side-lined yet the peace process has been encouraged by both UN and Merkel-led ‘Berlin process’ in support to the UN efforts to restore peace in Libya. However, the strained relations and foreign demarcation is still apparent even though no escalation has been in action for months.

Now the ceasefires have been in talks for a while and except for a few skirmishes, the powers have been curbed since June 2020. The silence could imply room for diplomatic efforts to push a much-awaited resolve to this complex proxy war. With the recent turn of events in the global political canvas, wheels of the betterment might turn in favour of Libya. Saudi Arabia has recently joined hands with Qatar, opening all borders to the estranged ally and resuming diplomatic relations. Turkey is eying the coveted spot in the European Union since the UK exit. The US in redefining its policies under the revitalising administration of Joseph Biden while Russia deals with the tensed relations with the Gulf since the oil price war shattered the mutual understanding shared for years. The core players of the Libyan Proxy war are dormant and may remain passive due to external complexities to handle. Yet, with regional powers like Egypt threatening invasions in Libya and both GNA and LNA showing no interest in negotiation, a conclusive end to the Libyan crisis is still farfetched.

Continue Reading

Defense

Pakistan Army’s Ranking improved

Published

on

According to data issued by the group on its official website, Pakistan Army has been ranked the 10th most powerful in the world out of 133 countries on the Global Firepower index 2021.Especially the Special Services Group (SSG) is among the best in the world.  Just behind; 1- United States PwrIndx: 0.0721,  2- Russia PwrIndx: 0.0796, 3- China PwrIndx: 0.0858, 4- India PwrIndx: 0.1214, 5- Japan PwrIndx: 0.1435, 6- South Korea PwrIndx: 0.1621, 7- France PwrIndx: 0.1691, 8- United Kingdom PwrIndx: 0.2008, 9- Brazil PwrIndx: 0.2037, 10- Pakistan PwrIndx: 0.2083.

Global Firepower (GFP) list relies on more than 50 factors to determine a nation’s Power Index (‘PwrIndx’) score with categories ranging from military might and financials to logistical capability and geography.

Our unique, in-house formula allows for smaller, more technologically-advanced, nations to compete with larger, lesser-developed ones. In the form of bonuses and penalties, special modifiers are applied to further refine the annual list. Color arrows indicate a year-over-year trend comparison.

The geopolitical environment, especially the regional security situation, is quite hostile. Pakistan is bordering India, a typical adversary and has not accepted Pakistan’s independence from the core of heart, and always trying to damage Pakistan. The Kashmir issue is a long standing issue between the two rivals. On the other hand, the Afghan situation is a permanent security threat for Pakistan. Bordering Iran means always facing a danger of aggression from the US or Israel on Iran, resulting in vulnerabilities in Pakistan. The Middle East is a hot burning region and posing instability in the region. The growing tension between China and the US is also a source of a major headache for Pakistan.

Under such a scenario, Pakistan has to be very conscious regarding its security and sovereignty. Although Pakistan’s ailing economy is not supporting its defense needs, it may not compromise strategic issues for its survival. Pakistan focuses on the quality of its forces instead of quantity. The tough training makes a real difference—the utilization of Science and Technology-enabled Pakistan to maintain its supremacy.

Pakistan is situated at a crucial location – the entrance point to the oil-rich Arabian Gulf is just on the major trading route for energy. Pakistan is at the conjunction of Africa, Europe, Eurasia, Central Asia, East Asia, South Asia, and China. Pakistan is a pivotal state and always focus of world powers.

During the cold war era, Pakistan sided with the US and protected the region’s American interests. The US military establishment knows well that as long as Pakistan stands with the US, it can achieve all its strategic goals in the region. However, It was the American choice to give more importance to India and ignore Pakistan.

Pakistan is a peace-loving nation and struggling for the promotion of peace globally. Pakistan always raises its voice at the UN and other international forums for oppressed ones and against any injustice. Pakistan. In the history of seven decades, Pakistan was never involved in any aggression against any country. Pakistan’s official stance is, “We are partner for peace with any country, any nation, or individuals.” Pakistan is a partner and supporter of any peace-initiative in any part of the world. 

However, Pakistan is always prepared to protect its territorial integrity and will not allow any aggressor to harm our sovereignty at any cost. Pakistan is determined for its independence and geographical integrity.

Pakistan is no threat to any country or nation. Neither have any intention of expansion. But always ready to give a tough time to any aggressor.

Continue Reading

Defense

Israel continues its air strikes against Syria after Biden’s inauguration: What’s next?

Published

on

A family of four, including two children, died as a result of an alleged Israeli air strike on Hama in northwestern Syria on Friday, January 22, Syrian media said. In addition, four people were injured and three civilian houses were destroyed.

According to a military source quoted by Syrian outlets, Israel launched an air strike at 4 a.m. on Friday from the direction of Lebanese city of Tripoli against some targets on the outskirts of Hama city.

“Syrian air defense systems confronted an Israeli air aggression and shot down most of the hostile missiles,” the source said.

The Israeli newspaper Jerusalem Post reported that there were loud sounds of explosions in the area.

In turn, the Israel Defense Forces declined to comment on alleged strikes resulted in the death of Syrian citizens.

Over the past time, Israel significantly stepped up its aerial bombardment. This incident was the fifth in a series of Israeli air attacks on targets in Syria in the past month and the first after the inauguration of the U.S. President Joe Biden. Foreign analysts and military experts said that Tel Aviv intensified air strikes on Syria, taking advantage of the vacuum of power in the United States on the eve of Biden taking office as president.

While the Donald Trump administration turned a blind eye on such aggression, a change of power in the United States could remarkably limit Israel in conducting of military operations against Syria and Iran-affiliated armed groups located there. As it was stated during his presidential campaign, Joe Biden intends to pursue a more conciliatory foreign policy towards Iran. In particular, he unequivocally advocated the resumption of the nuclear deal with the Islamic republic. In this regard, Tel Aviv’s unilateral actions against Iranian interests in Syria could harm Washington’s plans to reduce tensions with Tehran.

By continuing air strikes against Iranian targets in Syria, Israel obviously sent a massage to the United States that Tel Aviv will consistently run anti-Iran policy, even if it will be in conflict with the interests of the Joe Biden administration. On the other hand, such Israeli behavior threatens to worsen relations with the United States, its main ally.

In the nearest future, the US reaction on the Israeli belligerent approach toward Iran will likely determine whether the relations between Tehran, Tel Aviv and Washington will get better or the escalation will continue.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Development2 mins ago

World Bank and EU to Help Iraq Strengthen Public Financial Management Oversight

The Government of Iraq, the World Bank Group, and the European Union signed today a grant agreement aimed at strengthening...

Defense2 hours ago

The Proxy War of Libya: Unravelling the Complexities

The African continent has been infamous for its desolate conditions and impoverished lifestyle for years. The violence has not spared...

Reports4 hours ago

Private markets forecast to grow to $4.9tn globally by 2025 and make up 10% of global AuM

Assets under management (AuM) in private markets to expand by between $4.2 trillion and $5.5 trillion in the years up...

Tourism6 hours ago

Opportunities for Women in Tourism Increasing Across Middle East

Fewer than one in 10 tourism workers in the Middle East are women though this proportion is steadily increasing, new...

South Asia8 hours ago

Hambantota: The Growing Nightmare For India

Authors: G Nitin &Juhi* China’s inroads in the Indian Ocean Region has alarmed India. Particularly since the controversial Hambantota Port...

Reports10 hours ago

Key Reforms Needed to Grow Albania’s E-commerce Sector

A new World Bank Albania E-Commerce Diagnostic highlights key reforms needed to better leverage digital trade as opportunity for economic...

Americas12 hours ago

The 4 groups of Senate Republicans that will decide Trump’s impeachment trial

With Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell pushing back the Trump impeachment trial to mid-February to make sure things cool down,...

Trending