[sacw] sacw dispatch #2 (4 Nov 99)

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Web Dispatch #2
4 Nov 1999
____________________________
#1. Language for peace and progress in Srilanka
#2. Auschwitz, Pokhran and beyond
#3. In arms control, logic can't compete with party politics & paranoia
____________________________
#1.
The Island Nov.3, 1999 http://www.upali.lk/island/mdwkrvw.htm

LANGUAGE FOR PEACE AND PROGRESS [in Sri Lanka]
by Rohana R. Wasala

It is often asserted than an important cause of the current crisis in our
country is the so-called lack of understanding=92 between the Sinhalese and
Tamil communities. This view leads to the logical conclusion that promoting
inter-communal communication should be an essential component of a possible
solution to the problem. So the teaching of Sinhalese to Tamil
school-children and Tamil to their Sinhalese counterparts is upheld as a
good practical measure that will ultimately contribute to the establishment
of lasting peace in the land.

No sane person would deny that mutual understanding is a good thing for
private individuals or whole races to achieve, because such understanding
is a prerequisite for the creation of an atmosphere of mutual respect,
accommodation, give and take and fair play so vital for any friendly social
relationship to flourish. Language certainly can be exploited as a means of
moving towards better communication between different groups of people.

However, we must not forget that politicians sometimes tend to make
simplistic analyses of serious problems and propose fantastic solutions to
them. Orman Tebbit, who later became the Chairman of the Conservative Party
in Britain, during a radio address in November 1985, traced the cause of a
popularly perceived rise in football hooliganism to a decline in the
teaching of English grammar in British schools! What caused him to make
this strange link between grammar and personal behaviour? The answer might
be that he equated the discipline that he believed would be generated in
school-children through the teaching of grammar with such manifestations of
obedience to authority as respect for elders, school discipline, personal
cleanliness, etc.

In our own country, under a previous regime, Lovadasangarawa=92 (an ancient
Sinhalese compendium of religio-ethical instructions in verse form) was
made compulsory reading for school students following violent youth unrest
(which, incidentally, on two occasions, was suppressed by the authorities
with the worst excesses of brutality imaginable defying every canon of
civilised conduct.)

the current policy of teaching Sinhalese to Tamil students and vice versa
can easily be shown to be a facetious solution to our problems. A moment=92s
reflection is enough for us to see that a common language will by no means
guarantee peace anywhere in the world. Think about Northern Ireland where
for decades a separatist conflict has been devastating an ethnically
homogenous community that speaks the same language. Think about the Middle
East, Algeria, Afghanistan, Burma, Cambodia and the newly independent
former Russian republics where internal fratricidal conflicts are engulfing
people sharing the same language. On the other hand, the people of
Switzerland speak four different dialects, but still there is peace in that
country. So language by itself is no guarantor of communal harmony.

Suppose we teach all our children both the national languages and thus
enable them to break down the alleged language barrier between them. Then
do you think we are going to be able to cheer =91Hey Presto! The problem is
gone!=92? Not likely in view of the above evidence unless certain other
things are put right first.

In reality instruction in grammar or ethics, or building linguistic links
between races, has little to offer by way of a solution to a country=92s
problems, when these measures are introduced in isolation. Problems facing
a country arise from a complexity of political, social, economic and other
causes. These need to be seriously studied and remedies must be formulated
and implemented.

Nonetheless I do not deny that language can be used for promoting peace and
progress. Obviously the policy of teaching Tamil and Sinhalese students
Sinhalese and Tamil respectively as a second language does not seem to be a
very well thought out proposition. How can we motivate our children to
address themselves to this task of learning an additional second language,
when that additional second language is either Sinhalese or Tamil? Can we
offer our Sinhalese speaking children as an incentive for learning Tamil,
or our Tamil speaking children for learning Sinhalese anything other than
the distant prospect of =91national unity=92 which, they know better than we
would care to admit, is only a pipedream in the context of the present day
realities of our country such as economic poverty and chronic political
corruption?

What do we learn a language for? It is rare that we learn a language for
the sake of a mere knowledge of that language. Rather, we learn a language
to get something else through it such as a job, to to acquire a knowledge
of sciences, technologies, skills etc. that are not available in the
languages that we already know. We need not be so blindly patriotic as to
assert that either Sinhalese or Tamil has much original information to
offer in modern science, technology, business, engineering, medicine and
other similar fields. This is not to disparage our own national languages.
The same is true about thousands of the world=92s other languages including
such widely used languages as Chinese, Hindi and Arabic. The reason is
nothing intrinsically defective in these languages. What prevails today is
the scientific, technological, industrial system that evolved through
centuries of mainly western domination of the world. The major players in
this arena have been the English speaking peoples. It is predicted that by
the year 2000 about one billion all over the world will be learning
English. The purpose for which they will learn English is too obvious to
explain. Although numerically English is not perhaps the most widely used
language in the world today, it is certainly the most powerful global
medium. It enjoys the most widespread dominance economically, politically
and culturally.

If we envisage a linguistic component for a broad-based solution to the Sri
Lankan ethnic crisis, the simplest and surest way to achieve that would be
for us to do a better job of our teaching of English in schools, colleges
and universities. That would be far more useful than trying to impose in
our children something that they are naturally inclined to reject. Children
of all communities will generally be more receptive to English than to
either Sinhalese or Tamil as a second language for reasons already outlined.

Learning a language is greatly facilitated by constant exposure to that
language. In Sri Lanka, there are a lot of opportunities for students to be
exposed to English in education, sports, entertainment, communication and
other fields. This situation naturally makes English attractive to us.

While paying special attention to the teaching of English we must not
neglect our own local languages. Language is an alienable part of any
culture. We must do everything in our power to protect and foster our
respective cultural identities, but we should not get

Language for peace

unnecessarily circumscribed within a narrow shell in the name of ethnicity
or culture. So my opinion is that our children, while being instructed in
their own mother tongues, would be taught English as a compulsory second
language. Provision must also be made for those who wish to study Tamil or
Sinhalese as an optional second language.

At the university level, science, engineering, medicine, agriculture and
similar professional subjects should be taught entirely in English.
Subjects such as religion, history, philosophy, local languages and
literary arts can be taught through the medium of national languages, but
even here students must be equipped with a sound knowledge of English in
order that they will be able to utilise sources of information beyond the
limits of their own languages. The same emphasis on English must be
maintained in all institutions of higher education including teacher
training colleges, technical institutes, etc.

However, we all know that this is easier said than done. Is it reasonable
to expect students who qualify to enter university and other centres of
higher learning to be able to follow courses in English or at least to do
reference in the library in that language, when they have been instructed
only through the medium of their mother tongue from the beginning to the
end of their school career? A clear =91no=92 is the answer to this question
considering the state of English language teaching in our schools today.
This has to be remedied first.

A three year course of intensive English language training could be a good
foundation for the type of English medium higher education I have in mind.
The first part of such a course may be conducted in the last two years of
school, i.e. in the GCE (Advanced Level) class. The syllabi of this course
must be drawn in such a way that the English that the students learn will
be oriented to the subject areas they are likely to follow at the higher
education level. The third and final year of the intensive English course I
am suggesting will coincide with the first year of lectures at the
respective institutions (i.e. universities, technical colleges, etc). Such
an English course will be so designed as to make possible a smooth switch
over from vernacular languages to English as the medium of instruction as
well as a natural passage from school to higher education. It will
definitely save the new entrants of these centres of higher education the
frustrating shock of the three month or so of intensive English that is
being administered now on a rather perfunctory basis.

The importance of English for national progress both in terms of
educational achievement and economic development has been well understood
by our people. Unfortunately, its popularity is being exploited by
businessmen as clearly shown by the proliferation of private tutories and
international schools in their thousands in all parts of the island. State
educational authorities have hardly any control over them: private
tutories, apparently, need not be registered only as business
establishments. This parallel system=92 of education which has emerged in
response to urgent public demand for more and more English education=92
remains to be investigated in earnest with a view to regulating it in order
to accommodate the broader national interests.

Education is a supreme national need and it should not be left in the hands
of private individuals whose only motive is money-making. The government
school system should take cognisance of the realities regarding the
position of English in education and introduce and implement the necessary
measures to make it available to all our students, thereby eliminating
their exploitation by unscrupulous businessmen who have intruded the field
of education.

While discounting the efficacy of teaching Sinhalese to Tamil children and
Tamil to Sinhalese children, I have here tried to outline the advantages of
teaching English as a =91lingua franca=92 to all our children whether they a=
re
Sinhalese, Tamil, Muslim or Burgher. If mutual understanding is the aim of
teaching our children the vernacular languages as second languages, that
goal may be better achieved by teaching them English instead. Although a
common or shared language can help promote mutual understanding between
communities, it will not necessarily ensure peace by itself. The real
causes of communal division, to my mind, lie elsewhere. In fact, any lack
of mutual understanding may not even among those causes. What is actually
required is the creation of conditions that will bring people together:
common interests and common goals, and a democratic environment in which to
pursue these ends in freedom and equality.

In the past there were situations in our country in which Sinhalese,
Tamils, Muslims and Burghers lived and worked together in complete peace
and harmony in spite of their divergent ethnic backgrounds. Even now,
ordinary Sinhalese and Tamils realise such peaceful co-existence. From
history, we know that the English-educated, mostly westernised elite of our
country under the British formed a close-knit community despite their
varied racial backgrounds. In such harmonious situations, what is important
is not race or language, but the community of interests and the opportunity
to promote those interests without hindrance. Of course social elitism,
which depends on a system of exploitation of the majority by a privileged
minority, cannot be a model for us to follow. I merely alluded to it here
as an illustration of my belief that shared goals and mutually beneficial
means of reaching them are a more potent factor in generating communal
harmony, than language.

What we need to do is to create democratic conditions for the people of all
communities without discrimination. In such an environment, no community,
whether a majority or a minority, can demand special treatment. All
communities should be allowed to enjoy the same rights and privileges.

This degree of democracy is closely bound up with economic development.
Where there is need and poverty there cannot be harmony or happiness. If
Sri Lanka were an affluent country, perhaps these conflicts would not be
there; then people would not fight for separatism, or try to migrate to
rich western countries as genuine or false refugees, because no one would
want to leave or spoil a sound economy. So perhaps, our poverty is at the
root of all these troubles.

To create healthy political conditions and a sound economic set-up we need
a broadminded, educated younger generation free from backward insularity.
This is where a high level of education has an important part to play. In
this connection, the value of English is immense; not only will it enhance
our educational standards, it will also widen the horizons of our
knowledge. The adoption of English as a more productive vehicle can thus
contribute to national unity through the education of our young by training
and allowing them to pursue common goals in peace, harmony and equality.
The forced teaching of Sinhalese and Tamil to the unmotivated young is not
likely to produce the same result; it could even be counterproductive.
_________________
#2.
=46rontline
Volume 16 - Issue 23, Nov. 06 - 19, 1999

AUSCHWITZ, POKHRAN AND BEYOND
The claim of the amorality of science is a clever way of escaping
responsibility for the horrors that have sprung or can spring from science.

by Amulya K.N. Reddy

A WORLD energy assessment meeting in Cracow, Poland, in September 1999
brought me to within 50 km and an hour's bus ride from Auschwitz and
Birkenau, where the concentration camps are now preserved as museums. I
decided to go with my energy analysis co-authors on a half-day visit to the
camps. Brought from all over Nazi-occupied Europe during the Second World
War, about 1.5 million innocent victims, overwhelmingly Jews, went either
directly to the gas chambers and the crematoria at Auschwitz and Birkenau,
or indirectly via the camps where they were held prisoners until they were
too weak to labour.

The tour of the camps left me with a completely unexpected feeling. The
scale of human extermination was so enormous that I had to remind
myself-particularly because the camps have been unpopulated since 1944-that
there used to be human beings there. Human belongings-toothbrushes, shoes
and suitcases-were piled from floor to ceiling in huge rooms, a separate
room for each item, but the aggregate was more reminiscent of factory
inputs. Even the human hair that filled a room looked like raw material for
an industry-in the case of Auschwitz, the manufacture of tailor's lining
cloth.

If Auschwitz was unbelievable, Birkenau, 3 km away, beggared the
imagination. Birkenau was spread over 175 hectares with 300 buildings, each
capable of housing 1,000 inmates. As my friend Bob Williams pointed out, it
was a scale-up from the pilot plant demo at Auschwitz with a peak of 20,000
prisoners to full-scale commercialisation of mass-murder technology at
Birkenau with 100,000 prisoners in August 1944. The powerful impression
that persisted was of detailed engineering resulting in "=8A the immense
technological complex created=8A for the purpose of killing human beings"
(Auschwitz-How many perished, page 11, Ved Vashem Studies, volume xxi,
Jerusalem, 1991). The meticulous organisation and rigorous management were
characteristic of mega-industries, "gigantic and horrific factories of
death". The main gate of Auschwitz displayed the inscription Arbeit macht
frei ("Work brings freedom"). Perhaps a more apt announcement would have
been "Technology completely decoupled from values". Also, one could not
help reflecting on the frailty of the social institutions that sanctioned
these horrors and the failure of legal safeguards to prevent them.

As the scale of killing increases, the technology often (but not always)
becomes more and more sophisticated-from knives to guns to machine guns to
bombs to gas chambers and crematoria to atomic bombs. Also, with the scale
increasing, not only does the distance from victims become greater but also
the complexion becomes more and more technical. Burial is sufficient for
one body, but for hundreds or thousands of bodies, one thinks in terms of
"throughput", "air/fuel ratios" and "burning capacity".

In Auschwitz, it is obvious that nothing happened spontaneously.
Everything was designed and planned. One of Germany's top chemical
industries, IG Farben, produced the poison Cyclon B for exterminating
people in the gas chambers. Careful experiments were done to determine the
time it would take for a person to be poisoned. An engineering firm
designed the crematoria furnaces to process 350 bodies a day in Auschwitz
I. So, there must have been engineers preoccupied with the technical
problems. Perhaps, like Oppenheimer talking about the atomic bomb, some
even thought that the problem was "technically sweet". Or, like the
Department of Atomic Energy scientist at the Bangalore Kaiga debate in 1989
who said: "Hiroshima provided us with a fortunate opportunity to study
radiation effects"!)

Once the problem was defined as eliminating hundreds and thousands of
people a day, the Auschwitz solution was inevitable. But, who defined the
problem and promulgated the order? By and large, it is political
decision-makers who define the problem. There was a conference at Wannsee,
a suburb of Berlin, on January 20, 1942, at which the Nazi leadership
decided in less than two hours before lunch on the "final solution"-to
exterminate the Jews. Ethnic superiority, racial/religious hatreds and
fundamentalist views are well-known bases for decisions with far-reaching
destructive impact on human beings.

WHY was this definition of the problem so widely accepted? There could be
several reasons. There was the silencing of the informed and articulate
dissidents who became the first inputs to the camps. The media were not
allowed to reveal the truth. As a result, many citizens genuinely claimed
ignorance as an excuse. The most serious problem is the plea of duty and
the obligation to carry out orders. Recall the movie Judgment at Nuremberg
with Spencer Tracy as the judge trying the Nazi judges for having furthered
the extermination of Jews. These judges defended themselves by submitting
that they were just carrying out orders. The judgment at Nuremberg was that
a human being has to take full responsibility for the consequences of
his/her actions and that the excuse of obeying orders is inadmissible.

Apart from the above factors that operate in the case of officials and
technical personnel, there is the additional device of taking a top-down
macro view (for instance, national security, geopolitical compulsions and
so on). In such a macro view, numbers and statistics displace human beings.
New proxy words dominate the discussions-"burning capacity" replaces "the
number of corpses burnt", "kilotonnes yield" replaces "kilodeaths", and so
on.

Functionaries, however, cannot avoid contact with the prisoners and
victims in order to keep the system going. What is overwhelming in
Auschwitz and Birkenau (as my friend Thomas Johansson also noted) is the
unbelievable cold-bloodedness of the operation. It appears that the guards
treated the inmates inhumanly because they believed that the victims were
sub-human and "things" rather than people. Once this belief is propagated
and accepted, anything goes-as in the growing number of examples of ethnic
cleansing and genocide (native Americans, Partition, Rwanda, Bosnia,
Kosovo, and East Timor).

LASKI DIFFUSION / GAMMA At the main gate of the Auschwitz museum,
participants of a march in April 1998 in memory of the victims of the
Holocaust. The inscription on the arch reads: "Work brings freedom".

The tour of Auschwitz ends at the gas chamber and the crematorium. But
just before that, near the main gate, is the gallows where Rudolf Hess, the
bestial camp commander, was hanged after a trial.

Just when I felt that this was fair retribution, a doubt arose: are only
the vanquished tried as war criminals, while the victors go scot-free?

Reeling under the impact of what we had seen, I began to wonder how the
development of the atomic bombs at Los Alamos, the test at Alamogordo and
the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki differed from the Nazi concentration
camps. Of course the Allies in the Second World War were not driven by the
racism of the Nazis, and they were not pursuing a final solution of
extermination of any particular religious group. But with regard to the
scale of killing, the recruitment of capable minds, the harnessing of
science and technology (some people perhaps hoping that the weapons would
never be used and others even opposing the use of the weapons after they
were developed), the extent of organisation, the resort to effective
management, and the choice of targets to maximise the annihilation of
Japanese civilians, the Manhattan project was like the concentration camps,
in fact, even more horrendous in its impact.

BUT, for me it was not merely the standard school question "Compare and
contrast X and Y". I was leaving the same evening for India and I was
agonising over what all this meant for India. Over the past year and a
half, the country had witnessed the scientist-politician nexus underlying
the nuclear tests at Pokhran, the use of security arguments to advance
party agendas, the jingoism of the scientists, the virtual absence of
dissent, the silence of its media with a few notable exceptions and the
obfuscation of reality. After an initial silence on the subject (as if it
never happened), the journal Current Science publicised the
official/government version of the "kilotonnes yield" of the test bombs but
rejected/suppressed M.V. Ramana's estimates of the hundreds of thousands of
innocent non-combatants who would be killed if even a primitive atomic bomb
were exploded on Mumbai or Karachi.

Other questions bothered me. Are the institutions on the Indian
sub-continent necessarily more robust and moral than those in the Germany
of the 1930s and 1940s? Are Indian politicians and parties less prone to
exploiting religious animosities? Are Indian scientists and engineers less
eager to get political support for their next ego trip or power play (for
instance, neutron bombs because they kill but do not destroy). Once the
nuclear-tipped missiles are deployed, are there guarantees against "some
crazy guy doing some crazy thing"? Are we sure that Pokhran will not lead
as inevitably to Lahore and/or Chagai to Mumbai as Alamogordo led to
Hiroshima?

The claim of the amorality of science is a clever way of escaping
responsibility for the horrors that have sprung or can spring from science.
=46or example, the well-known statement of a missile developer that he is
"only an engineer" and that his "missile can also be used for delivering
flowers". The relationship between the scientist (the subject) and the
object of scientific study must be such that initial separation (and
distance) ends in subsequent unification (and embrace). The suppression of
emotion during analysis must give way to emotion after analysis. The
functioning of scientists as individuals, groups and institutions must be
constrained and limited by moral strictures and taboos. Otherwise, the
isolation of the subject from the object, the removal or absence of
emotions and feelings, and the perception of people as "things", all lead
inevitably to science becoming the instrument of violence, oppression and
evil. Science, therefore, is not neutral, but it can be-and must be-encoded
with life-affirming values, as Shiv Viswanathan demands. The link between
science and morality must be re-established.

A crucial safeguard is to insist that, quite apart from the top-down macro
view of security, yields, kill-ratios and so on, there must be a bottom-up
micro view based on human beings. We must see beyond the numbers and the
statistics, we must see children and parents and grandparents, lovers and
married couples, siblings, friends and comrades. We must never forget the
Gandhi talisman:"Recall the face of the poorest and most helpless person=8A
and ask yourself if the step you contemplate is going to be of any use to
him. Will he be able to gain anything from it? Will it restore to him
control over his life and destiny?"

Amulya K.N. Reddy retired as a Professor of the Indian Institute of
Science, Bangalore. He is currently president of the International Energy
Initiative.
___________________
#3.

New Scientist, 6 November 1999

UNDER A CLOUD
WHEN IT COMES TO ARMS CONTROL, LOGIC CAN'T COMPETE WITH PARTY POLITICS AND
PARANOIA
by Charles Seife and Michael Day

THE LATEST ATTEMPT to halt the spread of nuclear weapons, the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, lies dead on the floor of the US Senate. The
CTBT, created back in 1996 to stop nuclear weapons proliferating throughout
the world, still needed to be signed by another 18 countries-including the
US-before it came into force. The US rejection effectively kills the
agreement.

Republicans who dominate the Senate claimed the CTBT was dangerous: not
only was it impossible to detect rogue states' clandestine tests, it
threatened the reliability and safety of America's nuclear arsenal.
Dismayed Democrats and international observers dismissed the Senate's move
as reckless party politics. Thirty-two American Nobel prizewinning
scientists attacked the logic of the decision, claiming that technology no
longer required the US to explode weapons in order to test the reliability
of its nuclear arsenal.

The first nuclear weapon, the "Little Boy" that obliterated Hiroshima, was
merely a modified anti-aircraft gun that smashed two chunks of the heavy
metal uranium into each other. When the lumps of metal reached a critical
mass, the atoms began splitting at an ever-increasing rate: a fission chain
reaction. But more sophisticated and powerful bombs require nuclear fusion,
the process whereby the nuclei of lighter atoms, such as hydrogen, stick
together. It's much harder to achieve than fission, because there's no
chain reaction to do all the work.

Nevertheless, the US managed it in 1952, when it detonated the first
hydrogen bomb. This redirected the radiation from an atomic bomb "primary"
onto a flask full of deuterium (heavy hydrogen) to achieve fusion. At about
10 megatons, this was some 750 times more powerful than Little Boy.

This hydrogen bomb and its ever more sophisticated descendants have
required extensive testing as part of their development. Thus, the CTBT
would theoretically have prevented nations like India and Pakistan from
developing more powerful and more reliable weapons, and prevented rogue
states from starting modern nuclear programmes. However, opponents of the
CTBT say that if you want to test a weapon for safety (shooting a bullet
into it and ensuring that it doesn't blow up) or reliability (letting it
sit in a hangar for 30 years and making sure it will still explode on
command), nuclear tests are obviously a boon.

But the 32 Nobel laureates noted that there were viable alternatives.
Among them is the US Department of Energy's Stockpile Stewardship Program,
dedicated to keeping nuclear weapons safe and reliable without the use of
nuclear tests. It has two major tools. The first is hydrodynamic testing,
in which engineers check the plutonium part of the warhead. In the second,
confinement fusion testing, engineers check the hydrogen component of the
weapon.

The Stockpile Stewardship Program can't test a bomb from the explosion of
its first stage to the ignition of its second stage. But it can verify that
a bomb with a well-understood design is working because all its individual
components are in good order.

"We understand the weapons very well," says engineer Frank Von Hippel, of
Princeton University's Program on Nuclear Policy Alternatives. This is why
he says that non-nuclear testing is sufficient to ensure that a weapon will
perform as advertised. "I think that the Stockpile Stewardship Program is
even more than we need for reliability." Jon Wolfsthal, of the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace in Washington DC, agrees. "The hawkish
view is that our weapons will not remain reliable and safe, but they
misunderstand that stockpile stewardship is actually working today."

International observers are also unconvinced by the argument for testing.
Philip Towle, director of the Centre of International Studies at Cambridge
University, says: "They've had a very long time to test the reliability of
trigger systems, and there are some states like Israel that are at much
greater risk from nuclear attack who have not needed to carry on testing."

Another objection by the opponents of the CTBT is the plan's supposed
inability to identify violators. "Well, this is kind of a distortion of the
evidence," says Jeffrey Park, a geophysicist at Yale University. "We do
monitor, currently, known test sites at fairly low magnitudes-2.5 or 2 on
the Richter scale-and a 1-kiloton nuclear blast is roughly equivalent to a
magnitude 4 earthquake. We've got a good capability now." The CTBT would
have provided for an improved network of seismic sensors to plug holes in
existing coverage. "The idea is not to give a potential tester any wiggle
room," says Park.

It is possible that by hollowing out a large cavity, a state trying to
evade the treaty might be able to set off a small nuclear blast-less than
one kiloton-without being detected. But anyone testing a hydrogen bomb or a
boosted weapon would need a yield much greater than that to collect the
required data. "We thought you'd be able to detect tests down to about 1
kiloton," says Von Hippel. "Below that, there isn't much interesting you
can do."

So if the stockpile is safe and geophysicists can detect significant
tests, why was the CTBT kicked out by the Senate? Most believe the
explanation is largely political, not scientific. The President is a
Democrat and the Senate majority is Republican. "Half of the Republicans,
really, are very sceptical of arms control," says Von Hippel. "All of them
hate Clinton." US commentators note that, during the debate on CTBT
ratification, Jesse Helms, the far-right chairman of the Senate's Foreign
Relations Committee, thought it relevant to include references to the
Monica Lewinsky affair.

But what effect will the death of the CTBT have on international security?
According to Towle: "The Senate vote certainly makes it easier for the
Indians to resume testing if they want. But whether it would tip the
balance with a state that is considering the nuclear arena, such as Iran,
is less likely."

The coup last month in Pakistan-India's bitter regional enemy and itself
an emerging nuclear power-has fuelled concern over the CTBT's demise. The
new regime in Islamabad, already under international pressure for
introducing martial rule, is unlikely to start rattling nuclear sabres-at
the moment. Others are more philosophical. L. K. Sharma, London
correspondent of The Times of India and an authority on Indian defence and
foreign policy, says: "Developing nations do not need encouragement by the
US to develop nuclear weapons. If they have the means and desire they'll do
it anyway." But according to Maleeha Lodhi, Pakistan's ambassador to the US
from 1994 to 1997: "It's conceivable that before the year was out India and
Pakistan would have been signed up."

India has declared a moratorium on nuclear tests. But some Western
observers believe that India cannot credibly deliver even small nuclear
weapons at the moment. And Pakistan is behind India. It's distinctly
possible that both states (with India taking the lead) may seek to refine
their weapons. If Lodhi's hunch is right, the Senate's action represents a
lost opportunity.

But looking beyond domestic politics and the paranoia over warhead
reliability, some observers detect more calculated thinking on the floor of
the US Senate. There are commercial interests in weapons investment. And
John Simpson, director of the Mountbatten Centre for International Studies
in Southampton, notes that the ascendant "unilateralist movement" in US
politics is talking up the issue of missile defence systems again. The
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty looks vulnerable. He suspects some
right-wingers are looking forward ten years to a time when the US may be in
the position to test new devices powered by nuclear explosion.

Indeed, senator John Warner, who chairs the Armed Services Committee,
says: "Many of the nuclear systems that we developed to deter the Soviet
Union are simply not suited to the subtle, and perhaps more difficult, task
of deterring rogue states from nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.. .
Such weapons do not exist today in the US arsenal."

Helms's success in having the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency
(effectively a watchdog to stop the Pentagon jeopardising international
arms control agreements) abolished last year fuels such speculation.

If we're about to witness a new push on the part of the world's only
superpower to subvert science for dubious political ends, it won't be the
first time. In the meantime, according to observers like William Walker of
St Andrew's University: "It looks like arms control is falling apart."

****************************************************************************=
****
***
SOUTH ASIA CITIZENS WEB DISPATCH is an informal, independent &
non-profit citizens wire service run by South Asia Citizens Web
(http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex) since1996.