A second look at no-first use

Thirteen years after Atal Bihari Vajpayee committed India to a no-first use nuclear strike policy, his Minister for External Affairs Jaswant Singh believes the time has come to revisit and revise this strategy. Referring to India’s increasingly multi-dimensional security concerns, especially Pakistan’s growing nuclear arsenal and deteriorating political situation, he has cautioned the Government against sitting in yesterday’s policy. He has a point.

The year was 1998. America was the undoubted global superpower and the tall Twin Towers graced the New York City skyline. China was growing but was far from being a global player. Pakistan had a popularly elected Prime Minister in Mr Nawaz Sharif. The Buddhas of Bamiyan from the sixth century stood tall and proud in central Afghanistan. India was still a developing nation, although the effects of economic liberalisation introduced under the earlier Union Minister for Finance Manmohan Singh were gradually becoming conspicuous. No one was yet talking of an Asian century. Mr Atal Bihari Vajpayee was Prime Minister and it had been less than three months since India had test-exploded five nuclear weapons in a nondescript town in Rajasthan. 

During a debate on foreign policy in Parliament, Mr Vajpayee made a historic announcement that defined India's position as an emerging nuclear power -- he said that the country was committing itself to a distinct unilateral and global no-first-use nuclear strike policy. In other words, Mr Vajpayee promised that neither would India use its nuclear weapons against another state that does not possess nuclear weapons nor would it be the first to strike another nuclear power. Based on the principle of minimum deterrence, the policy went a long way in discrediting foreign criticism that the country was moving away from the principles of disarmament and setting the stage for another arms race. A no-first-use policy helped portray India as a responsible and non-aggressive nation, as was the need of the hour. 

Now, fast forward to 2011. A bearded old man who lives in remote mountain caves wields more power and influences more people than any world leader, business tycoon or matinee idol. America has lost its edge and the Twin Towers no longer exist. In a new global order that is now supposedly multi-polar, China has redefined the idea of an ‘Asian Tiger' while Pakistan is a malfunctioning state that is struggling with its democratic credentials. In other words, this is a new world which has presented before us a new set of realities, challenges and situations. Consequently, the policies and principles of 1998 may or may not be relevant any longer in 2011 and either way, deserve to be revisited. 

Little wonder then exactly 13 years after Prime Minister Vajpayee made his landmark announcement, his Minister for External Affairs Jaswant Singh, while participating in a similar Lok Sabha debate on foreign policy, pointed out that India's no-first-use policy is "greatly in need of revision" and cautioned the present Government against "sitting in yesterday's policy". Referring to India's increasingly multi-dimensional security concerns, the senior BJP leader has urged the Congress-led UPA regime to undertake a thorough review of India's strategic policy. 

Much to Mr Singh's credit, he has also specifically pointed fingers at Pakistan's fast growing nuclear arsenal -- a matter of grave concern that is often brushed under the carpet or simply ignored by the current regime. As Mr Singh mentioned, Pakistan possesses at least 100 to 110 nuclear warheads, which is double that of India's nuclear stockpile. But more than the sheer number of nuclear warheads, what is vastly more worrisome is the fact that these either remain in particularly unsafe hands or are at risk of falling into them. No matter how much we wish to sugar-coat the matter, we cannot, and indeed should not, undermine the fact that Pakistan is a dysfunctional state, run by a powerless Government that is a puppet in the hands of its huge military establishment and has absolutely no control over the extensive terror networks that have engulfed the country. It is, thus, imperative that the Government of India approach the possibly outdated no-first-use policy with an open mind and realistic expectations. 

Sadly, the present administration has shown little inclination towards either. Days after Mr Singh made his recommendations, the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs SM Krishna categorically stated that there would be no reconsideration of the policy. It seems like Mr Krishna has decided to continue with a strategy that is obviously way past its expiry date only so that he can be seen as the bearer of India's commitment to "universal, non-discriminatory nuclear disarmament". In itself, the aforementioned principle is praiseworthy but nonetheless unsuitable for present day circumstances. 

Let us not forget that a few days ago, former President of Pakistan Pervez Musharraf described India as an "existential threat" to its neighbour and the sole reason why his country possesses nuclear weapons. He also said that 90 per cent of Indian soldiers have an anti-Pakistan orientation. Irrespective of the degree of truth in his statement, it surely does point us to the mindset of every soldier on the other side of the border. Last time we checked, they were not big fans of India either. But what makes it worse is that the Pakistani military has access to power that is way beyond its means. In fact, it would not be wrong to assume that power in Pakistan is not in the hands of politicians in Islamabad but lies with the Generals in Rawalpindi. Thankfully for Pakistan, such is not the case in India where we at least have a functioning democracy, warts and all. 

It must also be mentioned that India's foreign policy towards Pakistan as it stands today is also one that needs to be revised. As Mr Singh pointed out during the debate, it is unclear if our bilateral ties are governed by the "spirit of the Shimla Agreement, the spirit of Sharm el-Sheikh or more recently the Thimphu spirit". This confusion has been sadly manifest in recent events during which India has tended to go soft on its neighbour in contrast to its earlier no-compromise stance. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's  invitation to President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minsiter Yousuf Raza Gilani to enjoy an afternoon of cricket at Mohali -- cricket diplomacy, they call it -- despite the fact that the two leaders have done nothing to assist with India's investigation into the 26/11 attack on Mumbai is a telling example of all that is wrong with our foreign policy.

(This article was published in the oped section of The Pioneer on March 29, 2011.)

Revolution of rising expectations

Arabs are rising against autocratic regimes not only because many of them are poor and unemployed but also because their rulers have failed to respond to a new society with a new economic order

That the historic ‘Jasmine Revolution’ that has swept through the Arab world was sparked, and literally so, by a young man with a college degree who sold vegetables by the street because he couldn’t find a job speaks volumes about the revolution itself. But equally so does the fact that this revolution began in a country that you may not have been able to place on the global map but has nonetheless been ranked by the World Economic Forum as the most competitive nation in its region (and 37th globally), has an impressive per capita GDP of $4,160 and a high human development index of 0.683 — in other words, this is a fairly rich country whose citizens are well educated, enjoy a good standard of living and expect to live long lives. 

This is in sharp contrast to the popular perception that the uprisings are taking place in backward countries where people live in abject poverty. Indeed, the popular narrative that has emerged from the ongoing unrest in West Asia is essentially this: After decades of autocratic rule that only enriched the ruler and stripped his people of all their rights, the poor public, now empowered by new technology (read: Facebook and Twitter) took to the streets and successfully toppled the repressive regime. The historic success of one people inspired others to follow suit but with varying degrees of success. 

Of course, this is not the first time that a local uprising by the oppressed against the oppressor has spread beyond its border. Several examples come to mind but chief among them would be the Revolution of 1848 that began in France but soon engulfed Europe, demonstrations in 1968 by the so-called ‘New Left’ in Belgrade, in erstwhile Yugoslavia, that spread across the world to New York, Paris, Mexico City and several other cities and similarly, the events of 1989 that began in Poland but soon spread to other Communist countries in Eastern Europe. Essentially, each of these revolutions, including the current uprising in West Asia, was/is a product of a clash between the oppressed and the oppressor. But also beyond that, every one of these mass movements is bound by a unique thematic concern that facilitated its spread from one country to an entire region in the first place. The Revolution of 1848 was an attempt to establish democracies in Europe in the post-Napoleon era while the 1968 protests demanded reform in the capitalist world and finally, the 1989 movement was simply about the overthrow of Communism. Of course, each of the revolutions were a lot more complex in nature and a sweeping generalisation perhaps does little justice, but ultimately the basic idea may still be presented into a sentence or two. 

So, now the question is what is that unique theme, beyond the oppressor versus oppressed motif, which defines the ongoing ‘Arab Unrest of 2011’? What is it that explains the sudden eruption of anti-Government sentiment in the region at this point in time? It is in this context that the contrary images of the Arab world, described earlier, come in handy. With its motifs of poverty, unemployment and injustice, the first image of the college graduate-turned-street vendor setting himself ablaze to protest the allegedly illegal confiscation of his vegetable cart in a nondescript rural village, sets the stage for the revolution. But it is the second scenario, an amalgam of hard facts that point to economic well being supported by images of sun-swept beaches along the Mediterranean and swanky five-star hotels which provides the necessary backdrop as the Arab movement plays out. Here is how it worked. 

In recent years, the Tunisian Government had marginally loosened its grip upon the national economy allowing for increased privatisation, a simplified tax structure and implemented an overall progressive social policy. This helped improve living conditions while growth rates hovered around a promising five per cent during the most of the past decade. As is always the case, growth — both economic and social — shook things up. It disturbed the stability of the old order, threw up new challenges for the Government and opened the Tunisians’ window to the world which brought in the winds of change. 

Typically, the Government was unprepared to handle the new challenges. An inept, corrupt and self-serving administration meant that there was inadequate and unequal growth (the numbers were promising but never potent enough) that created few jobs. Despots at the helm also prevented the benefits of growth and development from trickling down to the impoverished masses, instead hoarding all the gains themselves — this lead to greater social inequality which laid the foundation for the perfect breeding ground for dissent. 

Egypt has a similar story to tell: Over the past decade, the largest Arab nation has also been reforming itself, particularly its economy. It started in the mid-1990s, when Egypt began modifying its old socialist economic system, mostly so that it could receive loans from international financial institutions. More recently, former President Hosni Mubarak brought in several technocrats to restructure the entire Egyptian economy who introduced lower taxes and tariffs, eliminated stifling regulations and reduced state subsidies. Consequently, Egypt grew vigorously at around six to seven per cent per year. But like Tunisia’s former President Ben Ali, Mr Mubarak too fumbled as he attempted to gather the fruits of growth and liberalisation without sharing it adequately with his people. 

Similarly in Libya as well, Col Muammar Gaddafi himself set the stage for protests when he opened up the economy. Since Libya’s economic sanctions were lifted in 2004, several British and American companies have moved in to capitalise on the country’s valuable oil resources and have provided a tremendous impetus to national growth in that country. But once again, the fruits of development were hoarded by Col Gaddafi and his family, especially the UK-educated son Saif who strategically positioned himself as the West’s only access point to Libyan oil. 

Add to this: The collapse of the welfare state in the region. For generations, the Arab world was used to living in a Government-sponsored welfare state that was significantly subsidised. They were protected from the ups and downs of a free market, received free education and handsome dole from the Government. But the system was inherently unsustainable and soon people were dealing with subsidy cuts while the Government was faced with increasing demands. A liberalised economy was supposed to fix some of the problem but poor implementation meant that the entire plan backfired. The result: A mass uprising. 

To sum it up, we could recall the words of the French philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville: “The most dangerous moment for a bad Government is when it begins to reform itself.” It seems like the Ben Alis and the Mubaraks of the Arab world slipped at that moment. Dictatorships rarely deal well with change and in this case, the regimes failed to incorporate the changing dynamics of a new society with a new economic order, inhabited by a restive population increasing well connected to the rest of the world. 

What will happen next is hard to predict. Arabia is a vast and complex region and the events are still unfolding. The world, especially the West, is hoping for liberal democracies that will have free market economies. And yes, there is ample reason to hope for genuine change but we are far from knowing what that change will look like. Not all revolutions are equal game changers — the events of 1989 completely altered the global power equation but the revolution of 1848 failed at the time but managed to influence future political changes while protests in 1969 changed nothing at all. As for the Arab Unrest of 2011, let’s wait, watch and tweet!