Connect with us

Defense

The Prospects Of Nuclear Disarmament In An Uncertain Age

Published

on

The future of international nuclear arms control infrastructure based upon global liberal world order is deteriorating rapidly due to lack of implementation in good faith by the major powers. The non-compliance have instilled discord and mistrust among the Nuclear Weapon States (NWS) and Non-Nuclear Weapon States (NNWS). The withdrawal of US and Russia from Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) and proposed extension of New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) poses a grave concern to the nuclear disarmament initiatives. The uncertainty among these disarmament architectures impact the credibility and commitment gap of arms control initiatives at international and regional level. Thus, these issue if left unattended would resultantly lead to a new arms race with international and regional ramifications.

A New Cycle of Arms Race

In contemporary era the phenomenon of new arms race is being observed between major powers US, Russia and China at conventional, strategic and tactical level, space and cyber domain. The trend is being established by doctrinal shifts and massive force modernizations. The extent of increase in defense spending can be analyzed from the SIPRI estimates for 2019 which mount up to $ 1917 billion showcasing 3.6% rise from 2018. The US being the largest military spender with over $732 billion has embarked upon a major force modernization with China tailing behind with $ 261 billion and Russia with $ 65.1 billion. The withdrawal from INF also indicates the development of a new range of medium and intermediate range tactical, hypersonic and ballistic missiles, further lowering the nuclear threshold. Moreover, US have devised the budget of USD 1.2 trillion for 2017-2046 nuclear force modernization.

The Future of New START

The future of New START kept the arms control activists in a limbo as the Trump administration had displayed contradictory stance on the extension, while, after the inauguration of the Joe Biden’s administration extended the treaty. On July 17, 2019 between US and Russian delegation headed by US Under Secretary of State and Russian Deputy Foreign Minister in Geneva. During the strategic talks the two sides reportedly thoroughly talked about the extension of the New START. While, on the sidelines of the G20 Summit at Osaka the US hinted to initiate a three-way treaty that will include US, Russia and also bring China in the ambit of arms control treaties. While, Beijing has categorically stated that it will not become a party to any such initiative as it is not involved in numerical dominance. The major purpose for this measure is to restrict the Chinese intermediated range strategic forces which threaten the US interests in the region, have thrived due to the absence of any arms control agreements.

In order to decide the future of New START negotiations were conducted between the intervening months of September and October 2020 between the US and Russian delegations before the US Presidential Elections. The negotiations were aimed to further extend the New START for a period of five years but the efforts were in vain as both USA and Russia failed to reach a understanding although Russia stating that its willing as much as USA is to extend the Treaty. The basic points of contention for the extension of the treaty were the inclusion of all strategic and non-strategic weapon systems, intermediate nuclear weapons, ballistic missile defense systems and space based weapon systems along with exotic weapons that Russia had recently unveiled. While, USA insisted upon the inclusion of China into the Treaty, Russia persisted to induct UK and France under the fold of the treaty also. The Joe Biden administration even after extending the New START would be facing a crucial challenge of whether to indulge into a new arms race with Russia and China, initiating a vicious cycle which if taken would engulf the major powers into a new arms race surpassing any-thing seen during the Cold War era.

New START since 2010 was able to cap and limit the number of nuclear weapons to the limit at 1550 deployed nuclear warheads and 700 deployed heavy bombers and missiles each.  The future of New START is shrouded with uncertainty as US and Russia both raised concerns over the emerging advancement and proliferation of exotic weapons delivery systems including cruise, hypersonic and boost glide vehicles, development of new defense systems are being negotiated. The debate of extending the New START for a period of one year and imposition of freeze on the US and Russian nuclear warheads also was not realistic as discussed in October 2020. Russia in a response stated that it applied for the extension of New START for next 5 years upon securing the treaty.

The Biden administration which took the charge of the White House on January 20, 2021 after a very tumulus and controversial elections in US history would be facing among various other issue including putting the US house in order apart from rehabilitating the international nuclear arms control architecture. This would call for formulating, negotiating, and implementing a new arms control initiatives and to abstain from raising conditions which would cause further deterioration of the arms control initiatives. It was feared that if new White House administration and Kremlin fail to reach a conclusion prior to February 5, 2021 then the worlds 90 percent nuclear weapons and warheads would have been left unattended to be regulated and resized under any binding treaty, resulting into a vertical proliferation, thus, leading to a new arms race. While, Biden administration have confirmed to extend the New START for a period of five years and assuring Russia that the deal is still on the table. But the uncertainty looms whether the Washington would go for a unconditional approach for joining the treaty or would try to leverage concessions from the Moscow during the follow on negotiations of the treaty. It is also apprehended that the Biden administration would further continue the nuclear force modernization program as started under the Trump administration, thus, plausibly moving towards new arms race.

The China Factor and the New START

US has repeatedly reiterated that one of the major condition for extending and entering of New START for another term of five years would be subject to China’s inclusion into the treaty, an option which has been categorically rejected by China. The director-general of the Department of Arms Control in the Chinese Foreign Ministry Mr. Fu Cong recently stated that it is of immediate priority of China and international community that the arms control frameworks between USA and Russia must continue in a seamless manner with unconditional extension of the New START. While, he further emphasized that China would not be a part of any trilateral arms control arrangement as conditioned by USA until both Russia and USA agree to reduce their own nuclear arsenal to the level that of China.

The conditions that are being raised by both Washington and Moscow are not limited to the political aspect but also holds strategic and military ramifications. The treaty in itself is not only limited to the scope of caping the size of deployed nuclear warheads and bombers, but also provides a continuous flow of information and checks over the nuclear weapons numbers, keeps checks on force modernization and alert levels, while, reducing the aspect of uncertainty which is essential to maintain effective deterrence posture by both USA and Russia thus, eliminating the chances of any nuclear escalation. This level of uncertainty and flow of information is also welcomed by the security establishments of both sides which would have to use other covert means to verify and monitor the nuclear force structure of the other side and can presumably lead to raising a new iron curtain, peaking inside which would become complex and difficult. 

The best course of action that could be undertook by both Washington and Moscow after extend the New START for a further period of five years would be to work through and negotiate the contentious issues that comprise the burning issues of taking into fold the new destabilizing weapons platforms including nuclear powered cruise missiles, hypersonic and boos glide vehicles along with ballistic missile defense systems and space based ISR and weapons systems. The parties to the treaty can then again reconsider to either engage the remaining P-5 also by either allowing mainly China, UK and France to increase their nuclear weapons or USA and Russia to lower their nuclear weapons stockpiles at a level that is being maintained by other P-5 member states. The latter option is much suitable for the future of nuclear disarmament that would ensure that the strategic stability will be maintained and reassure the efficacy and credibility of the nuclear disarmament initiatives for the future. This would further reaffirm the Non-NPT Nuclear Weapon States and Non-Nuclear Weapon States that the credibility and capacity of nuclear weapons disarmament treaties is intact and that the contemporary international order based on liberal institutional system holds credibility and efficacy to reassert itself.

Conclusion

The debate for arms control and nuclear disarmament has been unfortunately for long has been played as self-serving and hollow pledges by the major NWS which have failed to deliver upon them. The withdrawal from the INF had lead to further lower the nuclear threshold as the US would actively develop and deploy tactical nuclear weapons in regions of interest including Asia Pacific and Eastern Europe. The new nuclear architecture developed by the actions of major powers further weaken and deteriorate the efficacy of institutional norms. The efficacy and credibility of new initiatives aiming to implement NPT Article (VI), among other arms control measures remains questionable as the P5 have failed to deliver measurable progress upon the existing arms control and disarmament initiatives especially that of NPT. The future of New START still lies in uncertainty as the major powers are reluctant to enter into any such binding engagement that would curtail and undermine them from projecting their national interests. The Biden-Putin recent negotiations do raise a hope among the arms control and disarmament proponents but the questions of prevalence of new arms race, nuclear force modernization and vertical and horizontal proliferation still remains a major challenge and threat. The emerging nuclear architecture blur the legitimacy of the arms control initiatives and further encourage NNWS to pursue for alternative measures including nuclear weapons program to secure their interests. Thus, resulting in proliferation of nuclear weapons which threaten world peace and security. The major powers should for once initiate a robust implementation upon their aforementioned commitments in good faith rather than devising frameworks for achieving their limited interests. The arms race at international level have a trickle down impact on the regional level states and states even though if they want to maintain strategic stability.

Continue Reading
Comments

Defense

India – The US Promote National Defense – Security Cooperation

Published

on

US and Indian foreign ministers and defense ministers at a press conference after 2+2 Dialogue on 27/10 (Source: IANS)

In recent years, the India-US bilateral relationship has been more closely bonded, especially defense-security cooperation in various fields including nuclear technology, maritime defense and security, anti-terrorism in the region and in the world … has been continuously promoted, contributing to the development of an intensive bilateral relationship. This results from the demand for security strategy, economic, security and political interests of the two parties. The United States wants India to become its ally in the Indo-Pacific region, counterbalancing China’s growing influence, ensuring U.S. maritime security interests and a huge commercial arm market for the US. To India: a good relationship with the US will help India highten its position in the region; India also wants to rely on US power to increase its military strength, to watch out China and create pressure on Pakistan. In addition, India’s comprehensive diplomacy and the US’s regional strategy carried out simultaneously without overlapping, is conducive to strengthening the bilateral security cooperation for both countries.

It is evitable that in recent years, defense-security cooperation between India and the US has made remarkable progresses. After removing the Sanctions on India for nuclear testing in May 2018, the US and India announced the Joint Declaration on Civil Energy Cooperation between the two countries. Accordingly, the US will provide nuclear fuel and technology support for India to develop civil nuclear energy. This has opened the door for India to develop their nuclear weapons and improve military strength. The two countries also cooperate in many defense activities including ballistic missile defense, joint military training, expanding arms sales, strengthening military staff exchanges and intelligence, as well as loosening two-way technology exports.

To be specific: In January 1995, the two countries signed the “US-India Defense Relations Agreement”, stipulating that in addition to conducting cooperation on research and production of military weapons, the two countries also conduct exchanges between military and non-military personnel. In May 2001, the Indian government announced its support for the US to develop a ballistic missile defense system, and proposed to purchase the “Patriot 1 (PAC-3)” air defense missile system. In March 2005, during the Conference on Cooperation in Ballistic Missile Defense, the US, India and Japan agreed to set up a joint working group, to implement close cooperation on ballistic missile defense. In June 2005, the United States and India signed a 10-year military cooperation agreement, which not only required increased exchanges between the two countries’ armies, but also proposed to strengthen military cooperation regarding weapons production, and trading as well as ballistic missile defense. In July 2009, the two countries signed a “Comprehensive customer surveillance treaty” on defense, the US sold advanced defense technology to India. This treaty allowed India to obtain a “permission card” to buy the US’s advanced weaponry. In addition, the two countries also cooperate in counter-terrorism in the region and around the world, maritime security, and joint military exercises …

One of the activities promoting bilateral relations between India and the US was the “2 + 2 Dialogue” taking place on October 27, 2020 in New Delhi. Within the framework of this dialogue, India and the United States had shared exchanges of a free and open Indo-Pacific vision, embracing peace and prosperity, a rules-based order with  the central role of ASEAN, resolving disputes, ensuring the economic and security interests of all related parties with legitimate interests in this region … The focus on defense-security cooperation in this “2+2 Dialogue” is the signing of the Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement (BECA). The agreement allowed India to access accurate data, topographic images, maps, maritime and aviation data and satellite data on a real-time basis from US military satellites. Thereby, this will assist the provision of better accuracy for such weapons as cruise missiles, ballistic missiles and drones of India, and support the rescue operations during natural disasters and security strategy. The BECA is one of the four basic agreements a country needs to sign to become a major defense partner of the US. The other three agreements that India had previously signed with the United States are the General Security Of Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA),  the Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA) and theCommunications Compatibility and Security Agreement (COMCASA) . These are “cornerstone” agreements allowing the armies of the two countries to fight together in the event of a conflict. Accelerating the signing of the BECA was just one of various ways India reacted to China threats, especially after the border clashes in Doklam (2017) and Ladakh (5/2020-now). India, the US, Japan and Australia were more active in the Quartet Meeting on October 6 in Tokyo. India also invited Australia to join the Malabar naval exercises with the US and Japan in November.

The signing of BECA was a further institutionalization of the Indo-US strategic relationship to promote the two countries’ intensive cooperate on strategy and military, without pressure to become an official ally yet have benefits. Washington received interests in selling weapons to New Delhi, especially when conflict starts. New Delhi has attached more importance to US military equipment because of its transparent pricing, simple operation and maintenance, thereby reducing reliance on Russia for weapons. Currently, the total value of Indian weapons purchased from the US is more than 15 billion USD and is expected to double in the coming time. The US-India military cooperation, therefore, will be closer in the future.

Also at this dialogue, the two countries agreed to cooperate in dealing with the Covid pandemic, considering this a priority for bilateral cooperation in this period. Accordingly, the US and India will cooperate in RDto produce a series of vaccines, to expand access to vaccines, and ensure high-quality, safe, effective and affordable medical treatment between the two countries and on a global scale.

Currently, India-US defense-security cooperation is at its heyday in the history and is likely to develop further. This relationship has profound effects on the regional security environment, especially direct effects on China. As military forces grow, India will probably implement their military strategy “taking the Indian Ocean in the South, expanding power to the East Sea in the East, attacking Pakistan in the West, watching out for China in the North”, plus nuclear deterrence. This will worsen the fierce arms race in such regions as the South Asia and the Indian Ocean, leading to an imbalance of forces and add up a number of unstability factors in these regions.

In short, India-US defense-security cooperation is making remarkable progresses and has created impact on regional security, especially China and other countries with common interests in this region, including Vietnam. Therefore, the China-American-Indian triangle relationship is currently in an unstable state. In this scenario, it is suggested that countries actively identify issues relating to the this three military powers relationship and devise appropriate diplomatic strategies, balancing bilateral relations with major powers with disagreements to ensure national security and stability in the region.

Continue Reading

Defense

India-Pakistan LOC peace

Published

on

India and Pakistan have both announced to “strictly observe” the truce along the Line of Control and all other sectors “in the interest of achieving mutually beneficial and sustainable peace along the borders”. Such an announcement could not have emerged without Indian prime minister Narendra Modi’s imprimatur.  A hunch is that the move is an upshot of a nudge from the US president. This impression is fortified by several events that are accentuated by India-Pakistan entente (so called surgical strikes, 5000 ceasefire violations, hype about 2008 Mumbai attack and the one at Pathankot  airbase, so on). From Pakistan’s angle, India believed in might is right. And while it was open to compromises with China, it displayed a fist to Pakistan.

Need for a dialogue

In the past, peace at the LOC proved ephemeral as it was not backed up by sufficient follow-up. A dialogue is needed for the hour. It is a good omen that Pakistan is open to talks despite chagrin at abolition of the occupied state’s statehood.

Misconception about the sanctity of the India-Pakistan LOC vis-a-vis the Sino-Indian LAC

A common misperception is that the Line of Actual Control (LAC) is more sacrosanct than the LoC. For instance, India’s prestigious Indian Express explained: ‘The LoC emerged from the 1948 ceasefire line negotiated by the UN after the Kashmir war. It was designated as the LoC in 1972, following the Simla Agreement. It is delineated on a map signed by Director General Military Operations of both armies and has the international sanctity of a legal agreement. The LAC, in contrast, is only a concept –it is not agreed upon by the two countries, neither delineated on a map nor demarcated on the ground’.

To understand Sino-Indian differences, one needs to peek into the Indian mind through books such as Shivshankar Menon’s Choices: Inside the Making of India’s Foreign Policy, Shyam Saran’s How India Sees the World, and A G Noorani’s India-China Boundary Problem 1846-1947.

The afore-quoted newspaper poses the question: “What was India’s response to China’s designation of the LAC?” It then explains India rejected the concept of LAC in both 1959 and 1962. Even during the war, Nehru was unequivocal: “There is no sense or meaning in the Chinese offer to withdraw twenty kilometres from what they call ‘line of actual control…” In July 1954, Nehru had issued a directive that “all our old maps dealing with this frontier should be carefully examined and, where necessary, withdrawn. New maps should be printed showing our Northern and North Eastern frontier without any reference to any ‘line’. The new maps should also be sent to our embassies abroad and should be introduced to the public generally and be used in our schools, colleges, etc”. It is this map that was officially used that formed the basis of dealings with China, eventually leading to the 1962 War’ (Indian Express, June 6, 2020, Line of Actual Control: Where it is located and where India and China differ).

India considers the LAC to be 3,488 km long, while the Chinese consider it to be only around 2,000km.

The LAC was discussed during Chinese Prime Minister Li Peng’s 1991 visit to India, where Indian PM P. V. Narasimha Rao and Premier Li reached an understanding to maintain peace and tranquility at the LAC. India formally accepted the concept of the LAC when Rao paid a return visit to Beijing in 1993.

The reference to the LAC was unqualified to make it clear that it was not referring to the LAC of 1959 or 1962 but to the LAC at the time when the agreement was signed.

India’s disdain of the LOC

India’s mindset on the LOC should change. The problem is Nehru never cared a fig for the disputed state’s constituent assembly, Indian parliament or the UN. This truth is interspersed in Avtar Singh Bhasin’s 10-volume documentary study (2012) of India-Pakistan Relations 1947-2007. It contains 3,649 official documents which gave new perspectives to Nehru’s state of mind.

In his 2018 book (published after six years of his earlier work), India, Pakistan: Neighbours at Odds (Bloomsbury India, New Delhi, 2018), Bhasin discusses Nehru’s perfidy on Kashmir.

LoC peace should lead to Kashmir solution

The tentative solutions include (a) status quo (division of Kashmir along the present Line of Control with or without some local adjustments to facilitate the local population, (b) complete or partial independence (creation of independent Muslim-majority tehsils of Rajauri, Poonch and Uri, with Hindu-majority areas merged in India), (c) a plebiscite to be held in five to 10 years after putting Kashmir under UN trusteeship (Trieste-like solution), (d) joint control, (e) an Indus-basin-related solution, (f) an Andorra island (g) Aland island-like solution and (h) permutations and combinations of the aforementioned options.

Another option is for Pakistan and India to grant independence to disputed areas under their control and let Kashmir emerge as a neutral country. An independent Kashmir, as a neutral country, was the favourite choice of Sheikh Abdullah. From the early 1950s “Sheikh Abdullah supported ‘safeguarding of autonomy’ to the fullest possible extent” (Report of the State Autonomy Committee, Jammu, p. 41).

Abdullah irked Nehru so much that he had to put him behind the bars. Bhabani Sen Gupta and Prem Shankar Jha assert that “if New Delhi sincerely wishes to break the deadlock in Kashmir, it has no other alternative except to accept and implement what is being termed as an ‘Autonomy Plus, Independence Minus’ formula, or to grant autonomy to the state to the point where it is indistinguishable from independence”. (Shri Prakash and Ghulam Mohammad Shah (ed.), Towards understanding the Kashmir crisis, p.226).

Sans sincerity and the will to implement, the only Kashmir solution is divine intervention or the unthinkable, nuclear Armageddon.

Continue Reading

Defense

New Wars

Published

on

Twentieth century was a century of great events and developments in every part of human life. The century is marked by the deadliest wars, deadliest weapons and unprecedented interconnectedness. The destructive power of A-bombs and the interconnectedness that transformed world into a global village infused traditional wisdom of conflict resolution with great confusions. New conflicts demanded new solutions. Globalization transformed the traditional theatre of conflict; war.

 War in twenty first century has acquired a whole new character. State which was once the almighty Leviathan has lost its monopoly over violence, its erosion of monopoly over violence from globalization transformed the character of war. Wars of today are not fought between states rather there is network of state and non-state actors which includes mercenaries, private security companies, hired thugs etc. Globalization has unleashed a plethora of problems by undermining state sovereignty. Globalization which was supposed to encourage cosmopolitan politics and cooperation ended up creating more divisions.

Mary Kaldore, professor at London School of Economics, is among the scholars who have acknowledged the impact of globalization on the character of war. In her book, New and Old Wars: Organized Violence in a Global Era, she highlights this change in character of war.  Highlighting the difference she wrote that new wars are different from old wars because of who fight these wars, for what reason these wars are fought, how these wars are financed and the way these wars are fought. Old wars were fought by states, financed by states, were waged for ideological purposes and battles were the defining character. However, in new wars; actors are networks of state and non-state actors, which are to a greater extent privately financed and direct confrontation between opposite forces is rare. Kaldor is of the view that this change in character of war is caused by globalization. Kaldor is of the view that this transformation is a consequence of globalization and disintegration of state.

 Along with globalization, clash of symmetrical opponents can destroy the world. Advent of nuclear weapons has changed the traditional military logic. In fact, any war according to old military logic is simply not beneficial anymore. War between nuclear powers will leave neither party at benefit. Since the costs of such victory cancel the benefits it holds. Avoiding direct war serves the political interest better than waging one. This change in military logic is evident from the change in tactics of wars of today. Today’s wars are fought through Guerilla and counter insurgency tactics are the tactics. Majority of the conflicts involves one state and one or more than one non-state actor. These are battles between wolves and shepherds where wolves attack the flock while shepherds try to save the sheep.

However, it is not the change in military logic and innovation of new types of weapons that have transformed the character of war. Rather transformation in politics is the defining element of this change. Politics of ‘new wars’ is Identity politics which is very different from politics of old wars.  Old wars were largely driven by ideological politics whereas new wars are driven entirely by identity politics. In words of Professor Kaldor, “identity politics is about right to power in the name of a specific group whereas ideological politics is about winning power in order to carry out a particular ideological programme”. Globalization prompted groups to securitize their identity. War for these actors is either a mean for keeping their identity or claiming in lands in the name of that identity.

 Another dimension of problems caused by globalization for the concept of war is proliferation of capitalism. The ideas of capitalism and free market motivated such actors who saw potential for profit in war. These actors established private security firms and were up for grab for the highest bidder. Companies like Titan and Blackwater are profit-maximizing companies whose only motivation is the accumulation of wealth. These institutions induced the concept of war with further complexities and legitimacy of violence further degenerated. These developments underline the need for a new conceptualization of war. To address these complexities and set the basis for future exploration, Kaldor defines war as a “mutual enterprise” rather than a “contest of wills”. The reason illustrated by Kaldor is that the latter makes the elimination of enemy the ultimate objective of war whereas former suggests that both sides are interested “in the enterprise of war rather than winning and losing for both political and economic ends”. Although it is very difficult to discern what means one employs for what ends, the protracted conflicts all around the world and the industry which these wars fuel paints a different picture a picture very close to the concept of war as mutual enterprise rather than a contest of wills.

War in nuclear age, where symmetry in capabilities will, eventually, lead to MAD, cannot have the same character it once had. Mankind frightened by the destructiveness of these weapons and compelled by their natural instinct to clash is trying to fight the new wars with new weapons according to old principles. This is commendable but not practical as this undermines the capabilities of new weapons by considering them just another weapon of war. Concepts of limited war show the appreciation of this reality. There political, technological and economical developments highlight the need for evaluation of old ideas and encourage the need for new ideas. As the aphorism goes “modern problems require modern solutions”, wars of today are modern and they require modern solutions as the traditional ones are not adequate enough.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Americas18 mins ago

Witnessing Social Racism And Domestic Terrorism In Democratic America

With just less than two weeks away from President-elect taking the office, the United States of America witnessed the worst...

Reports3 hours ago

Sustainable infrastructure can drive development and COVID-19 recovery

Zimbabwe has long struggled with crippling power outages, some of which can last up to 18 hours a day. The...

Development4 hours ago

Japan Launches Circular Economy Collaboration with WEF

Achieving a circular economy will require transforming policy and business. It will also require a new approach to collaboration. To...

EU Politics5 hours ago

Europe Future Neighbourhood – Disruptions, Recalibration, Continuity

On 8 March 2021 International Institute for Middle East and Balkan Studies (IFIMES organizes together with partners in Vienna international...

Tech News6 hours ago

900 suspects detained with the help of Moscow Metro’s face recognition system

Since the beginning of September, about 900 suspects have been detained in Moscow with the help of face recognition, said...

Middle East8 hours ago

China in the Middle East: Stepping up to the plate

By defining Chinese characteristics as “seeking common ground while reserving differences,” a formula that implies conflict management rather than conflict...

Environment10 hours ago

Can financial institutions invest in ocean health?

New, pivotal guidance published today by the UN Environment Programme Finance Initiative (UNEP FI) provides a market-first, practical toolkit for...

Trending