ASAT Weapons Program with Chinese Characteristics

http://councilforstrategicaffairs.blogspot.com/2015/11/asat-weapons-program-with-chinese_23.html

No longer in the realm of science fiction, space could be the battle field for the future world war III. It is well-known that both the US and Russia have space weapon programs developed over the 1970s and 1980s. These capabilities of cold-war adversaries were directed mutually at each other and India certainly would not have been a target. There was some vertical proliferation but no horizontal proliferation till 2005. More recently, China has been developing a wide array of space-based weapons. Flush with $3.5 to 4 trillion foreign exchange reserves, China has evolved into a 21st century space super-power. Proliferation of anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons was on the fringes of academic discussions in 1990s and 2000s till China started to develop its ASAT weapons program.

ASAT weapons, broadly speaking belong to three categories. The direct ascent ASAT is carried by a missile launched from ground, sea or air and reaches its target directly without reaching the orbit.  The co-orbital ASAT is carried to orbit by a space launch vehicle and then reaches its target after one or two orbital evolutions. The third category include directed energy ASATs that can be deployed on ground or in space and involve projection of powerful energy beams that can kill the target. The most proven of the anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons are the ground based, long-range missiles that could shoot down satellites from afar.

After China conducted its successful test of an ASAT weapon on Jan 11 2007, even the US perceived it as a new strategic threat. Since then, the Pentagon has been discussing ways to deter and counter China's ASAT weapons, which can threaten US C5ISR (Command, Control, Communication, Computers, Combat systems, Surveillance, Reconnaissance) network. US military and national security officials acknowledged the Chinese ASAT test was part of China's asymmetric warfare capabilities and represented a new strategic weapon that could cripple the US military in a future conflict by giving Beijing the capability to shoot down most low-earth orbit  (LEO) satellites. The US officials indicated that US missile defenses can be used to counter China's strategic anti-satellite weapons. Consequently, after a lull of two decades, a secondary race for both vertical and horizontal proliferation of ASAT weapons has ensued since China’s ASAT test in 2007. Currently, three superpowers have demonstrated ASAT weapon capabilities. These countries are testing an array of ASAT weapons to take out the benefits and access to space to the adversary. Brian Weeden of the Secure World foundation has written a detailed review of Chinese, American and Russian ASAT testing in 2014.

China secretly started conducting ASAT tests in 2005 and has conducted a total of 8 ASAT tests so far (see Table-1). In January 2007, China tested an anti-satellite weapon against one of its own ageing weather satellite orbiting at 850km above the earth. The anti-satellite weapon was a non-explosive "kinetic kill vehicle," which destroyed its target by colliding with it. This was the third Chinese ASAT test. There was a total silence from the Chinese political leadership initially.  China, subsequently, claimed a communication gap between the PLA and the government. That was for public consumption only. It is impossible for the PLA to conduct an ASAT test without the Chinese government being aware of it. China has been preoccupied with space warfare activities since the first gulf war.  The US had an asymmetrical advantage against its opponents in satellite technology in Gulf War I, the Afghan war and Gulf War II. China has developed navigation satellite jammers that are equipped to disrupt GPS.  On several occasions, the Chinese secretly fired powerful laser weapons to disable US spy satellites by "blinding" their sensitive surveillance devices and preventing spy photography when they passed over China. The US did not condemn this Chinese action as it did not want focus on its own space program and was afraid of “losing China” in its various diplomatic initiatives.  China justified its ASAT tests on multiple grounds. In case of conflict with Taiwan, China was concerned about the US superiority with US spy satellites keeping vigilance over the Taiwan Straits. China also expressed its concern about massive Japanese investments in military space technology. China claimed that its test was a defensive and was undertaken to check its technical capabilities. China considered the ASAT as 'deterrence' and stated that it will continue to adhere to its 'no first use'. The Chinese accused that the US was not trustworthy in the area of space activities.  Since China could never match the US in terms of numbers and technology its best option was to develop asymmetrical space warfare advantages.

Since then China has mastered a broad array of counter-space-capabilities including direct ascent anti-satellite missiles, co-orbital anti-satellites systems, computer network operations, ground based satellite jammers and direct energy weapons. These weapons systems include a satellite armed with an explosive weapon, fragmentation device, kinetic energy weapon, laser, radio frequency weapons, jammers or robotic arms etc. China is investing heavily into developing anti-satellite capabilities because Chinese analysts justify and opine that their main adversary, US relies upon satellites for 70-80% of its intelligence collection and 80% of its communication. In 2014, US Government directly accused China of conducting another non-destructive Anti-satellite missile test on July 23rd 2014. On October 30th 2015, China conducted a test of Dong Neng-3 missile at the Korla Missile complex in Western China in the upper atmosphere. DN-3 is a direct ascent missile designed to collide with a satellite and destroy it. The Chinese are currently developing two direct-ascent missiles (SC-19 and Dong Neng series) capable of hitting satellites in both lower and higher orbits in the range of 10,000 to 30,000 km altitude. China has two powerful space launchers called KZ-1 and KZ-11. A DN-3 missile launched from KZ-11 launcher would be capable of hitting targets in higher orbits.

Since 2005, the Chinese space weapons program has shrouded in complete opacity. The only reason it got outed in 2007 was the space debris caused by satellite destruction. China has repeatedly used deception to camouflage its ASAT weapons program. China has also repeatedly denied its intentions of developing ASAT weapons program and  professed its desire to keep space peaceful as the Global Commons while developing space weapons in full blast. China has used the political cover of ballistic missile research to tests its anti-satellite weapons. In private conversations with Chinese researchers and officials with this author in 2013, Major General Yao Yunzhu of the China Academy of Military Sciences, Beijing stated that China will continue to develop its ASAT weapons till a legally binding multi-lateral treaty banning weaponization of the space is signed and ratified. She attributed this change in Chinese strategic postures to the US actions.

              Table 1: Chinese ASAT Tests (Modified/Updated from Weeden 2013)

Test #	Date	ASAT system	Target	Altitude Reached	Results
1	July 7, 2005	SC-19	None known	Unknown	Likely rocket test
2	Feb 6, 2006	SC-19	Unknown Satellite	Unknown	Likely fly-by of Orbital target
3	Jan 11, 2007	SC-19	FY-1C Satellite	865 km	Destruction of orbital target, 3000 pieces of space debris
4	Jan 11, 2010	SC-19	CSS-X-11 ballistic missile	250 km	Destruction of target, no orbital debris
5	Jan 20, 2013	Possibly SC-19	Unknown ballistic missile	Unknown	Destruction of target, no orbital debris
6	May 13, 2013	Possibly DN-2	None Known	10,000 to 30,000 km	Likely rocket test
7	July 23, 2014	Missile	Unknown target		No destruction, missile interceptor test
8	October 30, 2015	DN-3 Direct ascent	Unknown target	??>30,000 km	No destruction, missile interception test

Although officially China’s public policy does lip service to the notion of peaceful Global Commons, the unofficial position has evolved to be more hardline. An editorial in China’s state run English language newspaper Global Times on Jan 6th 2013 asserted that Beijing had the right to carry out ASAT tests as it was the “trump card against the US”.  It further elaborated that China should continue substantive research on striking satellites. In the foreseeable future, gap between China and the US cannot be eliminated by China’s development of space weapons. A more recent PLA’s assessment of Chinese military thinking report states that “war in the space is inevitable”.

China has an ongoing space collaboration with its military client state and “all weather friend” Pakistan. Pakistan launched its first satellite Badr-1 in 1990 from China as it does not have its own space launch vehicle. In 1991, both nations formally signed an agreement to boost cooperation in peaceful application of space technology. China launched in August 2011 Pakistan’s advanced communication satellite Paksat-1R. China signed a bilateral agreement with Pakistan in 2008, provided a loan of $34.7 million and provided the technical knowhow and expertise in satellite building. Pakistani Scientists gained hands-on training and experience while working with Chinese scientists while building this satellite. China’s constellation of 35 satellites that makes up the Beidou/Compass navigation network gives China and its military client state Pakistan their version of GPS with a military accuracy of 10 cm.

China has proliferated nuclear weapons & missile technology directly to Pakistan and also through its client state North Korea. China is co-producing 5th generation fighter aircrafts with Pakistan. China recently agreed to provide 8 submarines to Pakistan to beef up its second strike capability boosting Pakistan’s “Full spectrum Deterrence” doctrine. With Chinese assistance, Pakistan has already developed the 2750 km range Shaheen-3 missile to prevent India from using her second-strike nuclear capability from Andaman & Nicobar Island. China has ostensibly pledged not to proliferate the ASAT technology. Since China has shared advanced dual-use technologies with Pakistan in the past, in all probability, China will proliferate the ASAT technologies stealthily to Pakistan while brazenly denying it.

Chinese space capabilities pose serious strategic challenge to India owing to history of Chinese roguish behavior and adverse land-grabbing by China. Indeed, independent observers have noted that the US will not be the probable target of Chinese missile defense system but China’s neighbors including India and Japan. A new study by the Federation of American Scientists asserts that the “the prime impact of Chinese missile defense would be on India’s confidence on its ability to deter China with its nuclear weapons as well as sending a message to Japan. China can now use its advanced ASAT capabilities to hit Low, Medium and High Earth Orbit Indian satellites. China can also utilize jamming technology and laser technology to jam India's satellites. India’s space infra-structure is around $12 billion and expanding rapidly. The Chinese ASAT weapons pose a direct challenge to India's C5ISR architecture. India‘s efforts to establish her own GAGAN (GPS) network with MEO and LEO satellites can be compromised by China. China’s DN-3 direct ascent missile system can ram into and destroy GSAT-15, India's latest communications satellite that was launched on November 11, 2005.

In 2008, we were the first to suggest that India must match China with its own direct ascent ASAT tests. This analyst had exhorted then government and future Governments of India to seek technological parity with China and not box India again into a situation analogous to the NPT conundrum.  We had speculated in 2008 about the possibility of Japan, Iran, Pakistan and North Korea also developing ASAT capabilities. We are fast reaching an alarming situation of gross asymmetry between China’s offensive ASAT capabilities and India’s ability to defend her space assets.

India also needs to learn from her experiences during the negotiation of the NPT and its subsequent extension in perpetuity. If India had tested its nuclear device in 1968 instead of 1974, she would have been grandfathered into the NPT as a nuclear weapon state. India would have successfully negotiated any strategic challenges and would not have been boxed into the current situation she is in. Since China has already developed an ASAT weapons program and it pursues the doctrine of strategic parity with the US, it will continue to advance its cyber and space war capabilities. It is understood that the benefits from an ASAT attack are limited and would not confer decisive military advantage in every plausible conflict, however, each weapons system has its strategic value in case of a protracted war.

China is using the cloak of BMD research to give a political cover for testing its anti-satellite weapons under the guise of missile defense. Chinese ASAT weapons research and development has triggered a secondary ASAT proliferation race. Both the US and Russia have retooled their ASAT programs after the Chinese ASAT test of 2007. US went to the extent of destroying its apparently own out-of-control spy satellite (USA-193) in 2008 using a missile launched from Aegis cruiser. US analysts like Dr. Ashley Tellis agreed privately that this was nothing but a disguised ASAT test.  Iran and Pakistan are projected to be next in line to develop ASAT capabilities.

Indian response, so far, has been tardy, half-hearted, feeble and inadequate. Seeking to guide India’s responses to the Chinese threats, Space Security Coordination Group (SSCG) was set up in 2010 under the chairmanship of the former National Security Advisor SS Menon. SSCG had representation from the DRDO, IAF and NTRO. In 2012, the then DRDO Chief VK Saraswat emphasized a defensive strategy for India in the space domain. Following the trial of Agni V IRBM, Dr. Saraswat declared that the DRDO will field a full-fledged ASAT weapon by the end of 2014 based on Agni and ad-2 ballistic missile interceptor without resorting to actual testing. He projected the view that space security entailed the creation of “gamut of capabilities” without weaponizing. These capabilities included the protection of satellites, communications and navigation systems and denying the enemy access to their own “space systems”. India has mastered technical expertise over all the components of ASAT capabilities without actually testing an ASAT weapon. Unfortunately, having the technological capability without actually having tested has no deterrence value.

India must cure herself of the 6th nation syndrome in every advanced technological field. For a period of 14 years from 1974 to 1998, successive Indian governments kept the facade of not testing nuclear weapons while the international regulatory regimes hardened. Not only the NPT was extended into perpetuity by the P5 but also the CTBT was negotiated by the backdoor and its entry into force was made contingent upon India’s accession and ratification. It is imperative at this stage that India formally declares her-self to be a space weapon power and formally tests her ASAT capabilities prior to successful negotiations of multi-lateral space weapon control regimes. India must declare presence of her independent civilian and military space programs for strategic deterrence value. Owing to the nature of the power games being played, it is unlikely that we will have successful   multilateral treaties signed soon. Meanwhile, the big three actors, USA, Russia & China will continue to enhance their space weapon programs. It is incumbent upon the current Government of India to take this issue seriously, for once, in a proactive manner instead of reacting to international demands. There is still time for India to test, demonstrate the technology, acquire the capability and thereby safeguard our long-term strategic interests. The window of opportunity for India will not last very long in case the US decides to force the issue of an internationally verifiable space weapons regime.

Some analysts like Arvind John have suggested that India should conduct an ASAT test after seeking prior permission from the US. That is an absurd notion because the US is not going to give its blessings to an Indian ASAT test and program as is amply evident from the US response to India’s nuclear tests in 1974 and 1998. The US is a status quo superpower that will preserve its technological superiority and would not allow any other nation to share the exclusive expertise. If India needs to develop her strategic space capabilities, India will need to develop the spine and deal with the consequences for ASAT testing later on. India must test a direct ascent ASAT weapon now while simultaneously minimizing the space debris by lowering the orbit of the target satellite.

Russia and China have pushed for years for a PAROS treaty (Treaty on the Prevention of Arms Race in Outer Space).  A draft treaty on the prevention of placement of weapons in outer space (PPWT) was also submitted. Russia insists that it constitutes another multilateral measure in the field of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation and thus would be a real contribution to strengthening the NPT regime.  These proposals do not include the ground based ASAT weapon systems. The US initially refused the need for arms control agreements in outer space as it considered they are not a verifiable tool for enhancing the long-term space security interests of the US. The draft treaty on preventing arms race in outer space provides for a ban on placing any arms in space, a ban on the use of force or a threat of force against space objects as well as is called upon to remove the present lapses in the international space law as well as to ensure preservation of space property and strengthening of universal security and control over armaments.  The PAROS treaty aims to fill gaps in existing law, create conditions for further exploration and use of space, and strengthen general security and arms control, The US responded to the proposal saying it opposed any treaty that sought “to prohibit or limit access to or use of space.” The US insisted that such a treaty would also be impossible to enforce and verify because “any object orbiting or transiting through space can be a weapon if that object is intentionally placed onto a collision course with another space object.” The EU has suggested a voluntary, non-binding international code of conduct in space.

India needs to look at the military uses of space technologies and be prepared with its own ASAT weapon program. After ASAT testing, India should propose her own draft of a treaty and should become an active party to the outer space disarmament agenda. One of the reasons for a proactive stance is that India can ill-afford an expensive outer space arms race with China. Furthermore, we need to able to influence the treaty negotiations as an insider rather than as an outsider. India must factor in the worst case strategic scenario of an emerging hegemon China metamorphosing as a “rogue” outer-space superpower. The twin possibilities that China either will proliferate to Pakistan or will threaten to shoot down Indian satellites should be factored into the decision making process.

The US has started to talk of multilateral, verifiable treaty that includes both ground based and space based ASAT weapons. Before that is negotiated, India needs to preserve her strategic parity and balance of power by developing her own anti-satellite kinetic-kill capability. Other countries are likely to develop these space weapon capabilities and India should not remain far behind. Time has come for India to assertively proclaim its military space program after formally testing ASAT capability so as to avoid being marginalized again due to newly emerging international control regimes.

References:

Adityanjee, (2008) Pining for PAROS or Parity. C3S paper No.111 dated February 23, 2008       http://www.c3sindia.org/us/193

Adityanjee, (2008) Securing space on the table: Responding to a new strategic arms race.

http://pragati.nationalinterest.in/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/pragati-issue12-march2008-communityed.pdf

Adityanjee (2013) “No first use doctrine with Chinese Characteristics - http://www.vifindia.org/article/ 2013/may/02/no-first-use-nuclear-doctrine-with-chinese-characteristics#sthash.jWCUaA3J.dpuf

Weeden, Brian (2013) Ant-satellite tests in space. The case of China

http://swfound.org/media/115643/china_asat_testing_fact_sheet_aug_2013.pdf

Weeden, Brian (2014) Through a Glass, Darkly. Chinese, American, and Russian Anti-satellite testing in Space. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2473/1

Image Credits: By U.S. Navy. (http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/040170.htm) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

- See more at: https://www.myind.net/asat-weapons-program-chinese-characteristics#.dpuf



अपि स्वर्णमयी लङ्का न मे लक्ष्मण रोचते जननी जन्मभूमिश्च स्वर्गादपि गरीयसी
 DR. ADITYANJEE PRESIDENT, THE COUNCIL FOR STRATEGIC AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI adityancsa@gmail.com
 twitter@DrThinkTank

India, APEC and the US

http://councilforstrategicaffairs.blogspot.com/2015/11/india-apec-and-us.html


https://www.myind.net/india-apec-and-us

 

  by Dr Adityanjee

The major focus during the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting in Manila, Philippines on November 18^th and 19^th would be on the Paris terror attacks though it is a trade promotion group that does not delve into security issues. The regional tensions in the South China Sea would be coming to some sort of attention indirectly despite Chinese efforts to block any discussion.  The issue of enlarging the membership and India’s pending membership application will most probably again be relegated to the background. Both China and the US will raise their pitch to sell their version of free trade blocks. China will try to sell its proposal for the Free Trade Area for Asia-Pacific (FTAAP) which excludes India and the US will do the same for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) which currently excludes China. Prime Minister Narendra Modi had raised the issue of Indian membership in the APEC with President Barack Obama in January 2015, when Obama visited India as the guest of honor for India’s Republic Day parade. President Obama expressed verbal support for India’s membership in the APEC at that time.

The APEC was initially floated in 1989 by an Australian initiative and had 12 founding member economies: Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and the United States. In 1991, China, Hong Kong, China and the Chinese Taipei (Taiwan) joined the APEC as a regional package. Mexico and Papua New Guinea followed in 1993. Chile was allowed to join the APEC in 1994.  Peru, Russia and Viet Nam joined the APEC in 1998, taking its full membership to 21 economies. The group acts with consensus in making decisions. APEC is more a trade promotion group and its recommendations are not binding on the member economies.

    The APEC’s mission statement reads: “Our primary goal is to support sustainable economic growth and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region. We are united in our drive to build a dynamic and harmonious Asia-Pacific community by championing free and open trade and investment, promoting and accelerating regional economic integration, encouraging economic and technical cooperation, enhancing human security, and facilitating a favorable and sustainable business environment. Our initiatives turn policy goals into concrete results and agreements into tangible benefits.”

The APEC put a moratorium on new memberships in 1997 for a period of 10 years though India’s membership application was pending. The moratorium was extended for another three years in 2007. However, for inexplicable reasons the APEC economies have not bothered to deal with the issue of further enlargement.  Especially India’s application for the membership has been pending with the APEC for last 20 years without approval. Every year since 2010, India has been looking expectantly for the APEC to consider India’s application for membership but nothing concrete has materialized owing to passive obstruction and stonewalling.

Mainly, two arguments are used against India’s membership that India is not part of Asia-Pacific region and that India has proved to be an obstacle during negotiations in various international trade reforms/regimes. India had bargained tough during the Doha round and the Bali round of the WTO negotiations. Both these arguments are fallacious and self-serving. One fails to understand where countries like Thailand and Brunei have either land or sea borders with the Pacific Ocean? Or being a member of the ASEAN qualifies these two countries for the APEC membership! One also needs to ask a rhetoric question if India is an Asian country or not?  India is not located on the moon! Since the concept of Asia-Pacific has already been substituted by a larger strategic concept of the Indo-Pacific, there is no reason to continue to withhold India’s membership of the APEC on geographical grounds alone. Without India’s participation, there is no Indo-Pacific economy and hence no Asia-Pacific economy!

India introduced market reforms initially in 1991 when China was allowed to join as a member. India has gradually introduced more market reforms & liberalization and that is the reason India applied for the membership of the APEC. It is true that Indian economy was largely socialistic prior to 1991 but so were China’s, Russia’s and Vietnam’s. Indian membership of the APEC would provide an incentive to continue further deeper economic liberalization. India has been a founding member of the WTO as well as of its previous incarnation of the GATT (General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs) since its inception. Interestingly, Russia is a part of the APEC since 1998 though it still does not qualify for the WTO membership as a market economy. China was allowed to join the WTO only in year 2000 despite being a member of the APEC since 1991. There seems to be some sort of unstated cooperation between both the US and China to continue to go slow on India’s membership of the APEC.

A number of US based analysts have exhorted the US to champion India’s cause in the APEC for membership as a step toward eventual inclusion in the TPP.  Kevin Rudd, the former Australian PM and head of the CII-Asia Society Task Force opined that the APEC misses much by not having India on board. Clarifying that APEC is not a free-trade body, Rudd said, "APEC is not a platform for market access negotiations, or a trade negotiating forum, but voluntary association of economies”. We, in India, can understand China’s reflexive and habitual pattern of opposition to India’s membership for any international arrangement with strategic implications because China is an adversary and a strategic threat. India does not perceive the US as an adversary in the post-cold war scenario. In fact, Pew Research on public opinion has consistently shown Indian public considering the US as one of the most  friendly nations.
The US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and Senior Official for the APEC Matt Matthews on November 2^nd 2015 dampened cold water on India’s membership by categorically stating that it is not on the agenda of the APEC meeting in Manila in Philippines, on November 18 and 19. He further stated: “I do not believe there is any active consideration within APEC for expanded membership in the current time”. When reminded that President Obama had “supported” India’s desire for membership of the APEC during his 2015 visit to India on Republic Day, Matthews said the US had so far only welcomed “India’s interest” in joining the APEC. “It is important to be careful and accurate about describing President’s comment. President welcomed India’s interest in the APEC. That speaks for itself. We welcome India’s examination of APEC. We have not entered [into any] discussion about it. I do not believe India is formally pressing for actual membership now in APEC,” he said.

India needs to hold the US to its words. The US must stop playing word games like China. The US expects too many unilateral concessions from India without delivering anything in return. The US, after signing the civil nuclear deal in 2005 and after ratifying the same in 2008, has not been able to shepherd India’s membership of the NSG, the MTCR, The Australia Group and the Wassenaar arrangement. The US has also made verbal promises to support India’s permanent membership of the UNSC. However, there is no concrete effort or will to make it implemented into reality despite a lot of rhetoric from the US. The proof of the US goodwill should reflect in active and actual support for India’s membership for the most benign of these international arrangements. Being an active member of the APEC will help India transform its domestic economy into full-fledged market economy. It will also prepare India for additional economic reforms so to obtain eventual membership of the RCEP or the TPP or the FTAAP.

India and the US have had a legacy of trade disputes within the WTO. US trade representatives have invoked the Special 301 Priority Foreign Country designation for India. If the US continues to show a pattern of passive indifference and obstruction to India’s membership of the APEC while using the flowery rhetoric akin to China, India may have to utilize more aggressive marketing and trading strategies. Let it be known to everyone including the US that trade wars and denial of market access is as a detrimental as a hot war in the modern context. If you don’t support us, you are against us in our pursuit of market access. Since India and the US have now formalized an annual Strategic and Commercial dialogue, perhaps, the US performance in its active support to India’s membership of the APEC needs to be carefully monitored annually. Preferential trade access to Indian market for the US must be made contingent upon US behaviors towards India’s membership in the APEC and other free trade groups. To paraphrase and plagiarize Carla Anderson Hills, the former US trade representative: We (India) will be ready to open the APEC and other trade-blocks with a crowbar if necessary, but with a Namaste if possible!

अपि स्वर्णमयी लङ्का न मे लक्ष्मण रोचते जननी जन्मभूमिश्च स्वर्गादपि गरीयसी
 DR. ADITYANJEE
PRESIDENT, THE COUNCIL FOR STRATEGIC AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI
 adityancsa@gmail.com
twitter@DrThinkTank

Rewarding the Rogue Regime

http://councilforstrategicaffairs.blogspot.com/2015/10/rewarding-rogue-regime.html

 

https://www.myind.net/rewarding-rogue-regime

The cat is finally out of the bag! As a very much diminished Pakistani PM Nawaz Sharif  arrived for a much truncated  summit with Barack Obama on October 22^nd, initial Pakistani denials about a civil nuclear deal gave way to admission that Pakistan has already developed India-centric tactical nuclear weapons. The US side was more frank in admitting that a civil nuclear deal was being discussed with Pakistan for last few months but it will not be signed during the current visit owing to lack of agreement.

Initial US postures:

The first inkling about any possible civil nuclear deal between Pakistan and the US was a beautifully staged interview of General Khalid Kidwai, the former director of Pakistan’s Strategic Planning division. The interview was done during Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s Biennial Nuclear Policy Conference in March 2015. Peter Lavoy, a foremost Pakistan expert threw softballs at General Khalid Kidwai who took a very anti-India aggressive posture in the presence of still practicing Nuclear Non-Proliferation Ayatollahs of the American think tanks in Washington, DC. General Kidwai got away with regurgitating stark lies about the so-called “Cold Start Doctrine” of Indian Army and half-truths about India’s nuclear posture.

This was followed in August 2015 by a 48 page long joint report by Carnegie Endowment and Stimson Center authored by Toby Dalton and Michael Krepon. Titled a “Normal Nuclear Pakistan”, it advocated putting four brackets on Pakistani nuclear program in exchange for some concessions by the US and a carrot of the NSG membership and other international regimes. The report exhorted mainstreaming of Pakistan’s nuclear program if it agreed to sign and ratify the CTBT without waiting for India, agreed to limit production of fissile material and stop blocking FMCT, agreed to separate civil and military nuclear programs and agreed for limits in production of short range missiles and tactical nuclear weapons. In essence the report exhorted Pakistan to implement a paradigm shift back to “Credible Minimum Deterrence” from the “Full Spectrum Deterrence” in exchange for mainstreaming!

US Debate:

This was followed by selective disclosures and pleadings from former CIA officers like Kevin Hulbert and journalists including David Ignatius and David Sanger. Characterizing Pakistan as “Too big to fail”, Kevin Hulbert emphasized the nuclear threat posed by Pakistan.  Labeling Pakistan as probably the most dangerous country for the world, he enunciated his case for more nuclear engagement with Pakistan as that country poses triple threats of terrorism, failing economy and the fastest growing nuclear arsenal. David Ignatius, the Washington Post columnist disclosed the ongoing exploratory discussions of civil nuclear deal with Pakistan on October 6^th 2015. Ignatius reported that Pakistan has been asked to consider accepting “brackets” on its nuclear program and delivery systems without weakening the Pakistani nuclear deterrence towards India! David Sanger in his October 15^th piece clarified that Pakistan is not being offered the civil nuclear deal similar to India. He reported that US is trying to explore ways to relax NSG rules for Pakistan with a long-term goal of allowing it to join the NSG. Apparently China’s flagrant violation of the NSG rules and nuclear commerce and proliferation with Pakistan is the reason necessitating relaxation of rules. Essentially, US bureaucracy is searching for a fig-leaf to hide its shame in not being able to control the nuclear proliferation activities of China and Pakistan! US is too weak economically and militarily to confront China & Pakistan for both vertical and horizontal nuclear proliferation activities as part of the CHIPNOKISS network.

A lively debate has ensued in the US about inadvisability of the WH initiative of rewarding this rogue state. US think tanks have taken pro-Pakistani positions while politicians oppose it. Lisa Curtis a respected analyst has urged not rewarding the rogue state. George Perkovich, the vice-President for Carnegie Endowment used the sales pitch that “If Pakistan would take the actions requested by the US, it would essentially amount to recognition of its rehabilitation and would essentially amount to parole”. The phrase “rehabilitation and parole” used by Perkovich angered the Pakistani establishment.

Congressman Ted Poe, who is Chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Non-proliferation and Trade, in a strongly worded letter to Obama urged the POTUS to not engage in any negotiations regarding a US-Pak civilian nuclear agreement because "Pakistan has repeatedly proven itself to be deceptive and deceitful!"

Daniel Markey, a senior research Professor at the John Hopkins SAIS and Adjunct Senior Fellow at the CFR summarized his crisp opinion by stating that “there is simply no time for nuclear deal” because Pakistan’s current condition raises other fundamental questions about its long-term relationship with the US. Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal continues to pose serious threats like insider theft, onward proliferation, accidents, sabotage or unauthorized use by rogue Jihadi officers!

Senator John Cornyn, Senate Majority Whip for the 114th Congress, said "it is ill-advised" to pursue any type of civil nuclear agreement with Pakistan. Senator Cornyn,   founder and Co-Chair of Senate India Caucus, reminded that the issues surrounding Pakistan's growing nuclear arsenal are of significant concern, and serious doubts persist regarding the security of its nuclear weapons. He also focused on Pakistan government’s clandestine nuclear proliferation network that provided nuclear weapons technology to rogue regimes in Iran, North Korea, and Libya. Cornyn’s reminder about this illegal network that has been dubbed as Nuclear Walmart or the CHINOKISS network is indeed a very timely reality check.

Pakistani Postures:

The initial inkling of any possible US-Pakistan nuclear deal came from Saira Bano, a Pakistani visiting fellow at the Stimson Center on June 22^nd 2015. She disclosed that Pakistan had again demanded an India-style civil nuclear agreement under the auspices of the US-Pakistan dialogue during the 7^th round of the US-Pakistan Security, Strategic Stability and non-Proliferation Working Group in June 2015. Advising Pakistan that the road to civilian nuclear cooperation begins in Islamabad, she exhorted Pakistani government to emulate India by focusing on economic growth and increasing trade relations in order to minimize the political temperature. Creating a soft international image of Pakistan with responsible behavior was her mantra for Pak establishment.

Following the disclosure from the White House, the ostensible Pakistani response was a vehement denial coupled with assertions that Pakistan will never accept any “brackets” on its nuclear and delivery system program.  Pakistan is focusing on IRBMs and nuclear-powered submarines supplied by China for second strike capability.

 Munir Akram, the disgraced former Pakistani Permanent Representative to the UN gave the initial defiant response that Pakistan will not negotiate its nuclear assets and will not accept any brackets in view of it doctrine of “Full Spectrum Deterrence”. This was followed by a frank admission by Foreign Secretary Aizaz Chaudhry that Pakistan has developed tactical nuclear weapons that are primarily India-Centric. Appointment of recently retired General Nasser Khan Janjua as the new national security advisor is indicative of the fact that General Raheel Sharif wants to negotiate directly with the WH without the constraints of dealing with the civilian administration of Nawaz Sharif.

Shahzad Choudhry, a retired Pakistani air-marshall acknowledged that the suicidal threats of “Full Spectrum Deterrence” should be the leitmotif for a dance drama by Nawaz Sharif before Obama. He opened the window for Pakistan to bite the bullet and reverse back to doctrinal shift to credible minimum deterrence. It is again rationalization of nuclear blackmail by the rogue state with a gun pointing at one’s own head. Following the good cop, bad cop tactic, Dr. Zafar Nawaz Jaspal, director, School of Politics and International Relations at the Quaid-e-Azam University characterized the reported offer of waiver for Pakistan for admission into NSG as “lollipops”. While Pakistan wants to be member of all the export control regimes, it is not willing to accept restrictions on its nuclear weapons program. Zahir Kazmi of the Strategic Vision Institute of Pakistan dubbed these expectations of Pakistan agreeing to “brackets” as wishful thinking! He opines that Pakistan should reject any such deal because the cost of “mainstreaming” is too high in terms of accepting conditions. Dr. Zafar Iqbal Cheema, the president of Strategic Vision Institute demanded parity and hyphenation with India in accepting any nuclear deal. Dr. Cheema rejected demands for reversion from “Full Spectrum Deterrence” back to “Credible Minimum Deterrence”.

Indian Response:

While the Government of India has remained very restrained and measured about any possible nuclear deal between US and Pakistan, the hyperactive Indian press and analysts have discussed it threadbare. The Ministry of External Affairs responded in the following words: “We’ve seen these reports and it is not for the first time this issue has surfaced. Whosoever is examining that particular dossier should be well-aware of Pakistan’s track record in the area of proliferation. When India got this particular deal it was on the basis of our own impeccable non-proliferation track record. That is the reason the U.S. gave us 123 Agreement in 2005 and that is why we got a NSG waiver in 2008. Pakistan’s track record is completely different, so we hope that will be taken into account in making any such decision”.

Happymon Jacob who teaches Disarmament and National Security at the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.in his op-ed piece in the Hindu takes the pro-US views about “Mainstreaming Pakistan” and wants New Delhi to offer conditional support to Pakistan’s inclusion in the global nuclear order. He enthusiastically wants the U.S. and other stakeholders to press Islamabad to stop stalling the FMCT negotiations, and agree to a nuclear ‘No-first-use’ agreement with India, which is already part of the Indian doctrine. He advocates obtaining firm commitments from Pakistan on clamping down on terrorism in the country in order to reduce the likelihood of nuclear terrorism in the region. He suggests re-hyphenation of India with Pakistan, as part of the deal, and to negotiate nuclear confidence building measures (CBMs) with that country. What he totally forgets is that any commitment by Pakistan in the past have been worth the used toilet paper! Pakistan’s strategic behavior does not change with engagement strategies. C Mohan Raja another pro-US analyst cogently highlighted the inherent contradictions in the proposed deal that make it very difficult to sell to both US and Pakistan.

Seema Sirohi, a Washington based journalist analyzed the behaviors and motives of the US actors behind the sudden blockbuster proposal and characterized the proposal as part revenge and part grandstanding. Peter Lavoy, the point person for South Asia in the US National Security Council is the chief architect of this blockbuster plan has deep links to Pakistani army. She further highlights that the joint think tank report states that India should not be allowed to join the NSG before Pakistan thus re-hyphenating India with Pakistan. The US deep state still romanticizes the Pakistani allies of the cold war era and are pining for the return of the intimate relationship.

Kanwal Sibal, a former foreign secretary, in a very detailed analysis explicitly states that US-Pakistan nuclear deal will be a threat to India’s security. Noting the historical US soft spot of Pakistan, the China Pakistan Nuclear Axis the proposed deal, he argues  would be a reward for Pakistani military as the nuclear program is under control of military without any civilian input.

The most cogent analysis was done by Dhruva Jaishankar, who has inherited Indian strategic genes. He bluntly described America’s Pak-Af policy as the definition of insanity! The real reason for Pakistan’s nuclear expansion isn’t India — it is for blackmailing the US to collect more rent. He argues that the US has been so fearful of Pakistan’s nukes being sold, stolen, lost, sabotaged, or accidentally used that during George W. Bush’s administration, $100 million was spent trying to secure the Pakistani nuclear arsenal. Since 2001, the Pakistan Army has also received more than $20 billion in military support from the US, even though it has continued to support terrorist groups like the Haqqani network that have killed hundreds of Americans. US has been gullible to trust successive Pakistani rulers who have adroitly shook down the superpower without US realizing that it has been conned! Rakesh Sood, India’s former representative at the Conference on Disarmament highlighted the shortcomings of previous US administrations when Reagan deliberately overlooked Pakistan’s clandestine nuclear activities. Pakistan’s obsession of nuclear parity with India encourages the US non-proliferation lobby to attempt re-hyphenation of India and Pakistan thereby rewarding that rogue nation.

The US-Pak Joint Statement:

While the US-Pakistan joint statement released on October 22^nd is silent about any possible civil nuclear deal mainstreaming Pakistan immediately, it does comment on strategic stability, nuclear security, and nonproliferation. Using banal Diplomatese jargon the statement is high on rhetoric and low on content. Advising maximum restraint the statement exhorted Pakistan to work toward strengthening strategic stability in South Asia. The statement acknowledged the importance of regional balance and stability in South Asia. The joint statement highlights the continuing threat of nuclear terrorism and the need for Pakistan to work with US on Nuclear Security Summit.  The joint statement noted Pakistan's efforts and aspirations to improve its strategic trade controls and enhance its engagement with multilateral export control regimes. Recognizing the importance of bilateral engagement in the Security, Strategic Stability and Non-Proliferation Working Group, the joint statement hinted that both sides will continue to negotiate on a future “mainstreaming deal”.

The Aftermath:

Post the summit, Nawaz Sharif gave the ultimatum to the US to take Pakistan's side in its long-standing dispute with India or run the risk of escalating nuclear conflict. He stated that Pakistan was ready to help US and Afghanistan revive peace talks with Taliban rebels. Seeking a quid pro quo he made it clear that his main priority was seeking international support to compel India to negotiate over the future of Jammu & Kashmir.

The US, on the other hand, has categorically ruled out any kind of negotiations with Pakistan on India-type civil nuclear deal (123 Agreement), nor are they seeking country specific waiver for Pakistan from the NSG. The US insists that they have ongoing discussion on Pakistan’s nuclear safety and security along with promotion of strategic stability. What is not ruled out is a future deal that Pakistan may choose in near future if it does not insist on nuclear parity with India.

Gazing the Crystal ball:

Pakistani politicians and military take pride in brandishing their nukes at drop of a hat. Sartaj Aziz, the outgoing NSA of Pakistan boasted recently: “We are a nuclear armed country and we know how to defend ourselves”. From an Indian perspective, any civil nuclear deal between US and Pakistan would be strategically dangerous because it will further embolden the GHQ/ISI/Jihadi/Wahabi terror complex in Islamabad in staging acts of terrorism utilizing the services of non-state actors against India. It will be perceived as endorsement of Pakistan’s anti-India postures by the rogue military elite of that country.  Having said that, how much India would be able to influence the POTUS remains very questionable because in the 1980s Reagan administration brushed aside India’s concerns.

WWOD (What Would Obama Do)?

Obama’s legacy factor may trump all the rationale courses of action for the US. Obama is now a lame duck President hobbled by a dysfunctional Republican Congress who is looking for his foreign policy legacy. Despite his domestic failures, he has already made history by starting reengagement with Cuba and signing of a nuclear deal with Iran. However, he has proven ineffective and mediocre while dealing with the strategic chaos in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen and in ending Pak-Af terrorism challenges. His administration is trying to offer a candy to Pakistan to cajole it to cooperate with the US’s and Obama’s deeply flawed Pak-AF strategy. Following into the footsteps of George W Bush, Obama regime has offered 8 new F-16 fighter planes to Pakistan ostensibly to deal with the insurgency in Balochistan besides the 70 F-16’s that Pakistan already has. Whom is Obama administration trying to fool?

There is limited time window of only 14 months between now and January 2017 when a newly elected US President will take office. Obama’s lame duck regime is likely to go on a fast track to finalize a nuclear deal with Pakistan at the cost of India in order to glorify Obama presidency for the posterity! Although negotiations for such a deal takes months and years, both parties are eager to win the trophy before January 2017. The US think tanks have an incestuous relationship with Pakistan from the cold-war era. They are, indeed, cheering for Pakistan and egging on the Obama administration to reward the rogue nation.

Pakistan may reluctantly consider signing the nuclear deal with “brackets” having no intention of sticking to the limits or caps or brackets. Reneging agreements and treaties  has been the persistent behavior pattern of the Pakistani state. A future POTUS may disregard Pakistani nuclear indiscretions reflexively in “larger US strategic interests” as Reagan had done in the past. In this regard it is important to review Pakistan’s past performance. Hussain Haqqani, the former Pakistani Ambassador to US and currently the Director for South and Central Asia at the Hudson Institute makes a candid confession that US policies have aggravated Pakistan’s dysfunction; reignited and reinforced the magnificent delusions that the US cannot simply manage the world without Pakistani help. He makes a point that Pakistan acquired nuclear weapons while promising the US it won’t go nuclear if it gets US economic and military assistance in 1970s and 1980s.

Internally, because of the deep divisions in the US policy establishment, this issue may get dragged into the presidential electoral politics. Obama and his acolytes forget that any legitimization of Pakistan would embolden Saudi Arabia and other gulf monarchies to develop their own military nuclear programs. Since Saudi Arabia has been the paymaster for the Pakistani nuclear program, post-deal Pakistan will indulge in nuclear commerce again albeit legally instead of through clandestine CHIPNOKISS network. Furthermore, Pakistan is not a normal state. It is an artificially contrived transitional entity which has been facetiously dubbed as an ideological Islamic Army with a country. Nothing else is farther from the truth than this blunt statement. There are major ideological similarities between the Daesh/ISIS/ISIL/The Islamic state and the GHQ/ISI/Jihadi complex of Islamabad. In both cases, an ideologically driven fighting force is holding civilians to ransom in the land they control. Welfare of the citizens is not the concern. Retired Pakistani military officers and nuclear scientists in past have volunteered their services to Al Qaeda. Leakage, theft, diversion and sabotage will remain serious limitations of Pakistani nuclear arsenal even if gets “mainstreamed”!

The current Republican party dominated US Congress may not approve any civil nuclear deal (123 Agreement) with Pakistan because of Pakistan’s consistently stellar record of duplicity and cheating forever on bilateral and multilateral agreements. America’s India-bashing cold-warriors who serve as the high priests and Ayatollahs of the US non-proliferation industry will make a last-ditch effort to reward the rogue state of Pakistan in order to further humiliate India for strategic autonomy and for her principled stand on NPT and CTBT. India must watch out for her strategic interests.

Image Credits: https://www.flickr.com/photos/9364837@N06/22173388130/

अपि स्वर्णमयी लङ्का न मे लक्ष्मण रोचते जननी जन्मभूमिश्च स्वर्गादपि गरीयसी

DR. ADITYANJEE
PRESIDENT,
THE COUNCIL FOR STRATEGIC AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI
adityancsa@gmail.com
twitter@DrThinkTank

China's Ocean Hegemony and Implications for India

http://councilforstrategicaffairs.blogspot.com/2015/10/chinas-ocean-hegemony-and-implications.html

The fifth generation of CCP leadership under Xi Jinping has de facto abandoned the Deng doctrine of keeping low profile internationally. China has become more ambitious of becoming a superpower and has been extending its sovereignty claims on the land and the sea. As a rising hegemon, China has started to challenge the existing international strategic order. China has been in the news recently for building artificial islands with air-landing strips in the South China Sea. It has demanded 12 nautical miles exclusive economic zone around these artificial, man-made reefs. China is a signatory to the law of the Seas (UNCLOS). Chinese attempts to claim the bulk of the South China Sea goes against both the letter and the spirit of the law of the sea. Beijing will invoke its EEZ for its own economic benefits while denying the same rights to other claimants. Brushing aside the ASEAN Code of Conduct in the SCS, China claims sovereignty over all of the SCS which is disputed by Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan.

For the last several years, Chinese official media has been harping on safeguarding China’s “Ocean Sovereignty”. The PLA navy’s goal is to have a “Thousand Ships Navy”. This stated “TSN” Goal is to further Chinese supremacy in the Indo-Pacific region and exploit the mineral & hydrocarbon wealth in the international sea-beds. PLAN has been entrusted to fight future wars for China’s security as per the former President Hu Jintao. On December 6^th 2011, while addressing the PLA Navy, Hu Jintao pronounced that PLAN should make “extended preparations for warfare in order to make greater contributions to safeguard national security”. China unilaterally declared an air-defense identification zone in the East China Sea in November 2013. Recently, a Chinese admiral declared similar intentions of setting up an air defense identification zone in the future above the disputed areas of the South China Sea if Beijing thought it was facing a strategic threat.

China has created not only facts on the ground but also facts on the Ocean in a very predictable manner of claiming sovereignty with the “Chinese Characteristics”. China always makes maximalist claims against other countries, disputes sovereignty, and alters the facts on the grounds of medieval history or economic reasons, bullies the smaller adversaries into submission, demands mutual concessions while later on sending its armed forces. China has constructed a couple of lighthouses in the South China Sea to provide a fig-leaf for its naked hegemony and sea-resources grabbing activities. China has successfully converted the South China Sea into a virtual private lake affecting the freedom of navigation for the entire world. India has vital maritime interests in the South China Sea. 55% of Indian maritime trade passes through the South China Sea. China has objected vehemently to ONGC’s oil drilling in collaboration with Vietnam in the South China Sea and PLAN ships have started to harass the Indian drilling rigs.


 Once the heat of the South China Sea is gone and Beijing has de facto acquired the marine resources of the South China Sea, the dragon will spread its strategic tentacles into the Indian Ocean. Warning bells are already ringing in the Indian Ocean. PLAN started its naval forays in Indian Ocean up to the Gulf of Aden in 2010 under the garb of anti-piracy operations to control Somali pirates. China’s string of pearl initiative got absorbed in the 21^st Century Maritime Silk Road. China did acquire significant naval facilities in Hambantota, Chittagong, Maldives, and listening & communication facilities in the Coco Islands in Myanmar besides building the naval port in Gwadar. Incidentally, India has gifted the Coco islands to Myanmar in Nehru’s realm. Gwadar port was offered to India by Oman but Nehru declined and Pakistan became the owner and the beneficiary. China also acquired naval facilities for recuperation and re-fueling in Seychelles in December 2011. China has already signed an agreement with the UN backed International Seabed Authority to gain exclusive rights to explore poly-metallic sulfide ore deposits in 10,000 square-kilometers of international seabed in Indian Ocean for 15 years. China has been sending nuclear powered submarines to Sri Lanka and Pakistan. Pakistan will receive eight Chinese nuclear powered submarines effectively neutralizing the Indian second strike capabilities in case of a nuclear attack on India.  China plans to buy an island from the Maldives for $ 1 billion under the current Maldivian Government of President Abdulla Yameen.

China’s response to Malabar naval exercises in 2007 when trilateral format included Japan was very negative leading to non-invitation to Japan later on after 2007. India plans to invite Japan in the upcoming Malabar exercises and Chinese reaction would be worth watching. China remains very paranoid about the US “Pivot to Asia” doctrine. Chinese paranoia about the Asian Quadrilateral led to Australia pulling out of that mechanism for maritime cooperation in the Indo-Pacific.

 China had sent trial balloons to US for a G2 condominium by which US will take over the Atlantic Ocean whereas China will have rights over the Pacific Ocean. Unlike Tibet, Indo-Pacific is too important to be given to China on a platter. As a trading nation with vital economic and maritime interests, India will have to safeguard the sea-lanes of communication, ensure freedom of navigation and take the strategic ownership of her maritime interests.


China’s foreign exchange reserves were at the peak of almost $4 trillion in June 2014. Despite a recent decline in Chinese economy, China’s foreign exchange reserves totaled $3.514 trillion at the end of September 2015. China still has the largest foreign exchange reserves in the world.  China will continue to extend its strategic footprints under the much enlarged One Belt, One Road (OBOR) project because it has plenty of spare cash. China also proposes to use the Beijing sponsored AIIB as the financing arm for the OBOR which will ultimately require $ 1.4 trillion in investments. China has already sanctioned $46 billion on China-Pakistan Economic corridor as part of the OBOR connectivity without taking India’s sensitivities about CPEC passing through the POK. While India has cooperated with China in the BCIM (Bangladesh, China, India, and Myanmar) Corridor project, the GOI has been deliberately silent about any synergistic cooperation with the 21^st Century Maritime Silk Road project.

In contrast to China, India’s foreign exchange reserves were only $352 billion in September 2015. Despite willing to take remedial action, New Delhi does not have the hard cash to take upon Chinese naval strategic threat in Indian Ocean. The strategic asymmetry vis-à-vis China will require some cool-headed long-term strategic and economic planning. Diplomats like Shyam Saran have rightly advocated limited but pragmatic cooperation with China on the OBOR while shoring up our own connectivity projects including the Chabahar port in Iran and Andaman and Nicobar island naval command.

India must, first and foremost, increase her Comprehensive National Power to deal with continued Chinese threats. The only way forward is to rapidly speed up Indian economy, ensure permanent economic reforms, develop domestic infrastructure, reenergize the Indian manufacturing sector and solidly promote the Make in India initiative. With a projected growth rate of 7.5% in 2016, India can restore her share of the world GDP and reduce the economic and strategic asymmetry with China while safeguarding her strategic & maritime interests in the Indo-Pacific.

अपि स्वर्णमयी लङ्का न मे लक्ष्मण रोचते जननी जन्मभूमिश्च स्वर्गादपि गरीयसी

DR. ADITYANJEE
PRESIDENT,
THE COUNCIL FOR STRATEGIC AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI

adityancsa@gmail.com
twitter@DrThinkTank

Does India’s nuclear doctrine need a revision?

  Oct 12, 2015

  Dr. Adityanjee

http://councilforstrategicaffairs.blogspot.com/2015/10/does-indias-nuclear-doctrine-need.html
 

India’s first nuclear test in 1974 called smiling Buddha in Pokhran desert was, for tactical reasons, characterized as “Peaceful Nuclear Explosion”. The second series of five nuclear tests in 1998 (Pokhran II) was again accompanied by a statement from the then PM Vajpayee attesting to lack of aggressive intent. The 2003 Indian nuclear doctrine went a step forward and made a written unilateral concession about India’s adherence to “No First Use” Doctrine. Since then a lot of debate has gone into the rationale, the need and the necessity for India to revise her Nuclear Doctrine and posture. Some foreign policy mandarins have tried to argue that India does not need to make any changes in the 2003 version of the doctrine. Though the election manifesto of the BJP prior to May 2014 Lok Sabha election noted the need to take a relook at India’s nuclear doctrine, subsequent statements by the PM nipped it in the bud.

While looking at the nuclear scenario, India has to take the contemporary threat perception and other geo-political factors into account while revising her strategic nuclear policy. It will be a good idea for India to periodically revise her nuclear doctrine every 10-15 years based on the geo-political situation. A lot has already changed since 2003. There is nothing sacrosanct about revising a document that was essentially tactical in nature. Newer nuclear threats have emerged from both the nuclear neighbors, China and Pakistan that mandate that India revise her nuclear doctrine and posture in order to avoid future nuclear blackmail.

China has significantly diluted its “No first use” nuclear doctrine over the years. China has no intention of exercising restraint in the growth of its nuclear weapons program till the other two nuclear weapons superpowers (US and Russia) have brought down their number of nuclear weapons to China’s level. China has started deploying its nuclear powered submarines in the Indian Ocean region.

Pakistani Nuclear program was initiated in 1970s by ZA Bhutto after Pakistan’s defeat in Bangladesh war of independence in 1971. His famous statement in 1965 in UNSC was about waging a thousand years war against India. Later on he talked about eating grass and obtaining Nuclear weapons. Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program has been, is and will remain an India-centric nuclear toy in the hands of ISI/GHQ/Pakistani military as the civilians do not control the program. From the beginning Pakistani nuclear program has had Chinese footprints all over.
While Pakistan’s economy goes south, it remains a rentier state having extorted $31 billion from the US since 9/11. Pakistan keeps on getting tranches of money from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia under an all-weather Sunni Alliance. Pakistan and ZA Bhutto had proudly proclaimed Pakistan’s nuclear weapons as “Islamic bomb” having been financed by Islamic money from KSA. Last year, Pakistani PM was able to obtain $ one billion from Saudi Arabia at a time when Pakistan’s economy took a hit. Money will never be a problem for Pakistani nuclear establishment as it grows at a disproportionate rate.

Pakistani ballistic missile program has also heavily borrowed from China and North Korea since the 1990s. Hatf IX (Vengeance-IV) Nasr was purpose built to carry tactical nuclear weapons (sub kiloton yield) over short range of 60-90 kilometers. On March 9 2015, Pakistan successfully tested the Shaheen-III surface-to-surface ballistic missile, capable of carrying nuclear warheads to a range of 2,750 km. Shaheen III nuclear capable missiles increase the range of Pakistani nuclear missiles to include the entire Indian land mass and the Indian Eastern naval command based in Andaman & Nicobar Islands. Pakistan has recently become the beneficiary of Chinese nuclear powered submarines that definitely pose a threat to India for her second strike capabilities.

General Khalid Kidwai who was the director of Pakistani Army’s Strategic Planning Division (SPD) for a period of 15 years, in an open meeting in March 2015 at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, in Washington DC aggressively articulated Pakistan’s new offensive nuclear doctrine and posture. He brazenly threatened India with the first use nuclear attack threats painting a new picture.  From the initial posture of credible minimum deterrence, Pakistan has moved to the concept of “Full Spectrum Deterrence” which envisages aggressive and offensive use of nuclear weapons by Pakistan against India in a number of scenarios. Not only Pakistan has linked its full spectrum nuclear deterrence doctrine with resolution of J&K dispute in its favor, Pakistan has threatened to use nuclear weapons against India if its tentacles in Afghanistan are cut off. Extra-territorial linkage with loss of its assets in Afghanistan widens the role for nuclear weapons under the new Pakistani doctrine.

Pakistan has already developed tactical nuclear weapons to be used in the war theater on the mechanized divisions of Indian armed forces. Ostensibly, Pakistan has justified use of tactical nuclear weapons as a policy against Indian Army’s imaginary “Cold start doctrine” which was never officially promulgated.

Pakistan is the only country that has single-handedly blocked an international agreement on FMCT while feverishly increasing its fissile material production. While traditionally cited figure is Pakistan has 90-110 nuclear weapons, reality has changed during last few years. The Pakistani nuclear armada is the fastest growing in the entire world with production of 10-20 new nuclear weapons every year.
Pakistani state has brazenly and repeatedly indulged in nuclear blackmail and rent collection over the last several decades. This Pakistani behavior will NOT change only the sponsors and the rent-payers will change over time.

There is NO reason for India to remain complacent while the nuclear threat perception changes. The PM will do a yeoman’s service to long-term strategic security of Indian nation if he revisits the Indian nuclear doctrine and allows it to grow some teeth. A number of remedial steps can be taken including discarding the meaningless no-first use doctrine to safe-guard nation’s security. Victors always write the history and India has lost repeatedly in history making.

Image Credits: pib.nic.in 

अपि स्वर्णमयी लङ्का न मे लक्ष्मण रोचते जननी जन्मभूमिश्च स्वर्गादपि गरीयसी

DR. ADITYANJEE
PRESIDENT, THE COUNCIL FOR STRATEGIC AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI
adityancsa@gmail.com
twitter@DrThinktank

MR. PRIME MINISTER MODI, AWARD BHARAT RATNA TO ATAL

MR. PRIME MINISTER MODI, AWARD BHARAT RATNA TO ATAL

Independent India knows how to slight, insult and forget her historic icons! We did it with Netaji Subhash, Sardar Patel & Dr. BR. Ambedkar. We choose to call Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev as terrorists in government approved school textbooks while  some of our emancipated former leaders have glorified terrorists with  the  use honorifics like “Osamaji”.For the first time, there is a golden opportunity to correct the former wrongs into rights. Better late than never!

India has the reputation of being a lamb state whom anyone could punch without any probability of retaliation. That changed with India’s bold nuclear posture in 1998. The person who took that bold initiative has not been honored by the nation. While two former Prime ministers vainly awarded themselves Bharat Ratna, Atal Bihari Vajpayee was too modest to follow in their foot-steps. The UPA government had 10 years’ time to honor this former PM but they chose not to out of pettiness and partisan politics.The insult was further compounded by awarding Bharat Ratna to a nobody like Sachin Tendulkar. Of course in India cricket has become the opium of the masses. 

Mr. Prime Minister Modi, you have the golden chance to make history yet again by announcing Bharat Ratna for the former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, the man who transformed India from a fledgling lamb state to a confident nation on the road to superpower status. 

This leader deserves to be awarded Bharat Ratna before he leaves all of us on this planet. Let us not wait more or wait for another day! Certainly let us not make it a posthumous award as was done for Sardar Patel, JP Narayan, Gopinath Bordoloi & Dr. BR Ambedkar

अपि स्वर्णमयी लङ्का न मे लक्ष्मण रोचते जननी जन्मभूमिश्च स्वर्गादपि गरीयसी

DR. ADITYANJEE
PRESIDENT,
THE COUNCIL FOR STRATEGIC AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI
adityancsa@gmail.com
twitter@DrAdityan