[sacw] sacw dispatch #1 (5 dec.99)

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Web Dispatch #1
5 December, 1999
--------------------------------------
#1. Economists, not "strategists", should talk Pak nuclear doctrine
#2. Clinton's visit to South Asia & Kashmir
#3. Women still suffer due to Bhopal gas leak
#4. A National meet in defence of Indian democracy
--------------------------------------

#1.
The Friday Times
3 Dec. 1999

ECONOMISTS, NOT "STRATEGISTS", SHOULD TALK NUCLEAR DOCTRINE

Ejaz Haider tries to cut through the fog of contradictions thrown up by
nuclear strategists in Pakistan and says credible minimum deterrent cannot
be maintained in competition with a nuclear rival

On November 25, Foreign Minister Abdul Sattar spoke at a seminar on
"Pakistan's Response to the Indian Nuclear Doctrine." The seminar was
organised jointly by the Institute of Strategic Studies and Islamabad
Council for World Affairs. A balanced speech, it nevertheless contained
two contradictions that have virtually become the stock-in-trade of all
those analysts who look at Pakistan's security interests merely in terms
of nuclear capability.

The first deals with the issue of testing and the signing of CTBT, the
second with the concept of CMD (credible minimum deterrence). The minister
reportedly said that Pakistan could not foreclose its option to test
irrespective of the CTBT, should India decide to do so. Technically, this
would mean that even if Pakistan were to sign and ratify the CTBT, it
reserved its right to test if India did not abide by its moratorium on
testing. However, the fine print was revealed by the minister when he said
that the government did not intend to take a hasty decision on the issue
and would like to evolve a national consensus before deciding it one way
or another.

This again throws the issue into cold storage for obvious reasons, not
least because of the problems of defining what constitutes "national
consensus" in this regard. Does it mean putting the issue to a vote? That
could either mean a referendum, a laughable matter given the technical
complexity of the issue, or-under normal circumstances- creating a
consensus within elected bodies. The latter option is not possible since
there are no elected bodies functioning in the country. Moreover, even
when they are, they are not constitutionally mandated- in the way the US
Senate is-to undertake such an exercise. The job of signing/ratifying
treaties is done by the cabinet, which again is not constitutionally
mandated to do so but is authorised to do so under Rules of Business.

The reference to a "national consensus", therefore, can only mean one
thing: stall the process for as long as possible. In the terms stipulated
in the CTBT, however, and which were also mentioned by the minister,
withdrawal from the treaty under circumstances deemed to be against the
national interest(s) of any party is a clear provision under article VIII.
Therefore, if that were the only concern of the minister, the treaty does
provide an escape clause. The only concern in this regard could be that
when the crunch comes such issues tend to revolve more around global
politics than textual provisions of international law. However, global
politics is very likely to work against Pakistan anyway if it decides to
test in response to any future tests by India. In fact, one can argue that
perhaps Pakistan's stand will extract more sympathy if it were to sign the
CTBT and later forced into opting out in response to Indian tests than if
it chooses to stall it on the basis of a mere presumption.

Some analysts have argued that the treaty's status has become suspect
since the refusal of the US Senate to ratify it and therefore signing it
means nothing. The point can be more forcefully argued in the reverse on
the same grounds since it is clear-the minister in fact said this- that
Pakistan did not have any problem with the concept per se as India did.
Also, in terms of its entry into force, even if the US Senate had ratified
it, without Pakistan, India and North Korea signing it the treaty could
not have come into force under the provisions of the EIF clause. Moreover,
the question is: What would Pakistan have done if the US Senate had
ratified the treaty? If its national security is irrevocably tied to the
requirement of not signing the treaty, would Pakistan then have stood up
to the mounting pressure or given in?

The debate over signing the CTBT should have ended by now. This is not
because the treaty is nondiscriminatory-as the minister wrongly said- but
because in the near future, unless the global configuration were to
drastically change, testing is not a viable option for either India or
Pakistan. That in fact has nothing to do with the ratification or
otherwise of the treaty by the US Senate because unless the US itself, or
other legit nuclear players, were to start conducting tests, testing is
not a likely scenario.

The other issue pertains to CMD. It has become vogue among strategists
pushing the nuclear option to speak about a deterrent capability that does
not "seek any fixed ratio to the Indian nuclear weapons [but] require[s] a
self-assured autonomous existence in which dynamic reappraisals determine
the size [of Pakistan's arsenal]." The quote is from an article by Dr
Tanvir Ahmed Khan titled, "The great nuclear debate." He goes on to write:
"The low level=8Awe aim at is=8Anot a static but a dynamic concept, which
presupposes continued freedom to preserve deterrent stability through
increments, improvements and diversification of warheads and delivery
vehicles."

Simply put, this would mean: (a) we are not competing with India or
planning to match it missile to missile, bomb to bomb, but working out an
independent capability; (b) however, since India has made its intentions
very clear with its nuclear doctrine, we also have to keep an eye on our
minimum requirements for keeping the deterrent stable; (c) therefore, we
would be required to constantly reappraise our minimum requirements to
ensure India does not do us in.

The contradictions in this argument should be obvious to everyone. It is
presented primarily to offset questions regarding the cost of such an
exercise and to put fear-both domestic and international-at rest regarding
any likely "race" between India and Pakistan. The US and the USSR piled up
thousands of weapons not because they were stupid-as we think they
were-but because they were inevitably caught in the dynamic of nuclear
deterrence within the context of their global competition. India and
Pakistan are locked in a similar competition, albeit at a much lower
scale. Therefore, while the stakes might be low and the arena much
smaller, the ferocity of the competition is no less and the dynamics of
deterrence no different.

Therefore, to talk about CMD and then argue in favour of reappraisals,
although incremental, to determine the size of the arsenals, is to put a
square peg in a round hole. In reality, this would mean that while we
might want to have no more than say five warheads, India's repeated
strides would require us to reappraise our arsenal. Perhaps Minister
Shaukat Aziz should sit up and take notice before trying to put the
economy back on the rails. A better option would be, if one were to take a
cue from Minister Sattar's reference to a "national" consensus, to let the
strategists have a debate with the economists because in the final
analysis it is about the cost of developing and deploying a nuclear
arsenal.

Dr Tanvir Ahmed Khan writes in the same article: "Unless Pakistan's
economic vulnerability is radically decreased, the task of formulating a
sustainable security policy remains elusive and uncertain." He is
absolutely right in putting it like this, but surprisingly draws all the
wrong lessons. Even more surprising is the fact that he places Pakistan in
a global context despite talking about CMD. He is forced to do so because
India places itself in the global configuration.

Writing in the context of the three-way global competition among the US,
the Russian Federation and China, with the latter two countries opting for
an expansion and vertical upgradation of their arsenals Dr Khan says:
"This will doubtless be seized by India as enough justification for a
relentless implementation of the quantitative and qualitative goals
inherent in its own nuclear doctrine. Pakistan is no part of the global
calculus of nuclear weapons but would find it difficult to ignore major
increments in the Indian capability, justified by India as a legitimate
response to developments outside South Asia." Predictably, then, by dint
of its competition with India, and because India would not agree to a
bilateral restraint regime, Pakistan would automatically find itself in
the lions' den. Unfortunately, that argument also throws CMD out the
window.

This brings us to the final point-the debate over whether nuclear
capability by itself can guarantee national security. This is important
both in terms of direct and indirect costs. The events since May 1998 and
following Kargil have made certain things very clear. Not only has nuclear
capability failed to enhance Pakistan's prestige, it has failed to secure
the country from diplomatic defeat. Former foreign minister Agha Shahi's
speech at the same forum clearly spelled out the dangers Pakistan is
facing. He mentioned at length the Indian strategy of isolating Pakistan.
That Pakistan finds itself isolated today cannot be gainsaid. If nuclear
capability indeed guarantees national security-to the exclusion of all
other determinants-then Pakistan should not find itself in multiple crises.

General Pervez Musharraf's second speech after taking over power painted a
most dismal picture of a sinking state. At no point did it come across
that this country was, or is, facing greater danger externally. It is
clear to everyone that most of Pakistan's problems are homegrown and
linked essentially to the country's almost perverse desire to punch above
its weight. The danger of that Icarian overreach only increases when
strategists present nuclear capability as the sole guardian of this
country's national security. It may sound very prosaic, and nonstrategic,
but nuclear capability has done nothing to enhance the prestige of the
green passport in the eyes of immigration officers across the world.
Either there is something wrong with the "strategic" thinking of the world
or there is something wrong here. The sooner we make up our minds
regarding that the better.
--------------------------

#2.
The Nation
DECEMBER 02, 1999
THURSDAY =20
Op-Ed.

CLINTON'S VISIT TO SOUTH ASIA AND KASHMIR
by Amanullah Khan

Dr Josef Korbel, the Czechoslovakian member of the UN Commission on
Kashmir (UNCIP) and the illustrious father of the present US Secretary of
the State Ms Madeleine Albright, was a man of conscience and character
with a strong sense of history and direction and deeply attached to human
rights and humanitarian values. Although nominated to UNCIP by India, he
always had a realistic and judicious approach to the Kashmir issue and
often made observations and took decisions that went against his
nominator. Having remained attached to the issue for a long time and
having studied at thoroughly, he had become an authority on it and after
being granted political asylum by the US government in the fifties, he
wrote a book titled 'Danger in Kashmir', first published in 1954 and the
second edition in 1967. The book is considered as one of the most
authentic and valuable works on Kashmir issue. After narrating details of
the Kashmir problem, its background and the stands of India, Pakistan,
Kashmiri leaders and the UN, Dr Korbel makes some very realistic
observations in the concluding chapter titled 'What Next' (pages 351-353).
These observations are correct as much today as they were three decades
back. He terms them as 'immutable guidelines' for any future efforts to
solve the issue. These observations are:"The people of Kashmir have made
it unmistakably known that they insist on being heard=8A. The accession of
the State of Jammu Kashmir to India cannot be considered as valid by
canons of international law=8A The issue itself cannot be side-tracked. The
history of the case has made it clear that time has only aggravated, not
healed, the conflict=8A No high hope should be entertained that bilateral
negotiations will lead to a settlement. They took place on several
occasions during the past years and produced no result=8A The United Nation=
s
has a principal responsibility to seek a solution not only as the chief
international agency for maintenance and enforcement of peace but also as
an organ which was asked by India and Pakistan to intervene in the
conflict and which has committed its prestige and authority to its
solution through numerous resolutions=8A If it (an equitable solution of th=
e
issue based on Kashmiri peoples wishes and aspirations) is not achieved,
India and Pakistan, and indeed the whole free world may reap the harvest
of short-sightedness and indecisions of unpredictable dimensions." These
observations were made in 1966 and since then some other realities, quite
bitter though, have emerged. These realities are: (1) That the wars
between India and Pakistan through armed forces, media or diplomacy, have
harmed both of them far more than they have benefited them and the process
will continue; (2) That India's hope that time itself will solve Kashmir
problem to her exclusive advantage and Pakistan's dream of entire Jammu
Kashmir State falling in her lap, are tantamount to living in a fools'
paradise; (3) That Kashmiri leaders acting as puppets in the hands of
India and Pakistan at the cost of their own national interests, are the
real enemies of Kashmiri people; (4) That by subjecting peace in the
region to uncertainty, Kashmir issue creates hurdles in the way of smooth
and undisturbed functioning of the new global economic order; (5) That
only a committee comprising personalities of international repute enjoying
full support of those economically and diplomatically strong nations and
organisations who can also influence India and Pakistan, can persuade them
to accept a peaceful, equitable and permanent solution; and (6) That only
a solution that: (a) does not hurt the national egos of India and
Pakistan; (b) does not harm their national interests; (c) does not cause
mass-migrations, bloodshed or communal/ethnic disturbances; and (d) is
based on the national aspirations and freely expressed, unfettered will of
Kashmiri people, can be acceptable to all the three parties to the issue.
Now that it is clear that keeping the issue hanging in the balance is not
in the interests of the parties, and not even of the international
community, it is high time that concrete steps are taken to solve it
keeping in view all the aforementioned facts and prerequisites of the
solution being acceptable to all concerned. The heads of the governments
of G-8 and P-5 countries followed by the UN Security Council (the last
through its unanimous resolution No 1172) had called upon India and
Pakistan in June 1998 to solve Kashmir issue and had undertaken to
encourage and persuade them to do so. President Clinton is additionally
committed to take keen personal interest in solving Kashmir issue per his
pledge given to Nawaz Sharif, the former prime minister of Pakistan in
Washington on July 4, 1999. The practical way for all of them to honour
their undertaking will be to form a committee, call it International
Kashmir Committee (IKC), comprising representatives of the UN
secretary-general, the P-5 countries, Germany, Japan, OIC and NAM and
depute it to acquire approval, support and coo peration of India and
Pakistan and Kashmiri political parties to find a peaceful, equitable and
permanent solution to the issue. The peoples and the governments of India
and Pakistan should realise that it is no use going on living in a fools'
paradise. They owe it to their future generations not to be selfish and
narrow-minded about Kashmir and accept a peaceful, equitable and permanent
solution to the issue even if they have to concede something, to ensure a
peaceful and prosperous future for them (future generations). The Kashmiri
political parties of all parts of the state, their leaders in particular,
also owe it to their future generations to think only in terms of
Kashmiris' own long-and short term national interest, of course, not
totally ignoring the legitimate interests of India and Pakistan. In the
light of the 'immutable guidelines' given by Dr Korbel, of the new bitter
realities mentioned above, of the prerequisites of a solution acceptable
to all concerned, and the aforementioned duties of the international
community, India, Pakistan and of Kashmiris, the only formula that meets
all these requirements is the JKLF formula. In the shortest form, this
formula provides that Kashmir issue be solved in five peaceful phases. In
the first phase, the proposed IKC will acquire, through negotiations, the
approval of the governments of India and Pakistan and of Kashmiri
political parties to implement the formula with their help and
cooperation. The second phase will be simultaneous and total withdrawal
from Jammu Kashmir State of all Indian and Pakistani armed forces and
civil personnel and of all non-Kashmiri armed people present in the State.
The third phase will be disarming of all Kashmiri militant groups
including those raised by India and return of displaced Kashmiris to their
homes. The fourth phase will be to reunite the divided State and change it
into a democratic, federal and non -communal independent state having
friendly relations with both India and Pakistan. The fifth and final phase
will be that, 15 years after re-unification and independence, there be a
referendum under UN supervision in which the people will determine whether
the State should perpetuate its independence or become part of India or
Pakistan and that popular verdict be accepted by all concerned as final
settlement of the Issue and implemented. As can be analysed, this formula
solves the issue not only peacefully, equitably and permanently but also
without hurting the national egos of India and Pakistan, without
jeopardising their national ideologies or legitimate national interests,
without causing mass-migrations, bloodshed or communal/ethnic disturbances
and on the basis of Kashmiri people's national aspirations and unfettered
and freely expressed will. In short, this formula solves the issue to
reasonable satisfaction of all concerned, hence should not reasonably be
objected to by any of the parties. Permanent solution of the Kashmir
issue will, on one hand, herald the dawn of a peaceful and prosperous
future for over one-fifth of humanity inhabiting the region and, on the
other, strengthen world peace and ensure undisturbed working of a new
global economic order. With colossal benefits of permanent settlement of
Kashmir issue clear, the only and the basic thing that remains to be done
is to bell the cat i.e. to take a practical initiative. In the present
circumstances only two persons i.e. President Clinton and UN
Secretary-General Kofi Annan can do it. Let the UN secretary-general, with
the moral support of President Clinton and in consultation with the
Security Council and in the light of its resolution No 1172, set the ball
rolling by establishing the proposed IKC at the earliest and asking it to
start work on the first phase of the formula i.e. to acquire the approval,
support and cooperation of the governments of India and Pakistan and of
all Kashmiri political parties, to implement the proposed formula. As
mentioned earlier, President Clinton is already committed to take keen
personal interest in solving the issue and there can't be a better way and
better time to do it. President Clinton's forthcoming visit to South Asia
can change the very course of history of the entire region hence that of
the world if he, Kofi Annan and the proposed IKC succeed in making
necessary arrangements to have an agreement signed at the occasion, by the
governments of India and Pakistan and the heads of all Kashmiri political
parties undertaking to extend full support and cooperation to IKC to solve
the issue per aforementioned formula. If this historic feat is to be
achieved, President Clinton and Kofi Annan will have to do a lot and take
some concrete and courageous steps to prepare the ground for the feat
before Clinton's visit to South Asia. Besides emancipating South Asia and
its about one and a half a billion inhabitants, strengthening world peace
and ensuring smooth running of the global economic order, the feat will
immortalise both Bill Clinton and Kofi Annan and heighten the prestige and
international image of the United States and the United Nations for
solving the extremely dangerous international problem that no other
individual, organisation or state had been able to solve for the last over
half a century. Losing this golden opportunity will be the worst blunder
on the part of all those who could otherwise benefit from it.

(The writer is chairman, Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front )
=20
--------------------------
#3.

Rediff on the Net
2 Dec. 1999

WOMEN STILL SUFFER DUE TO BHOPAL GAS LEAK

Vanita Srivastava in Bhopal

Banu Bi, a victim of the Bhopal gas leak tragedy, still shudders while
recalling that fateful night of December 3-4, 1984, which left her with
blurred vision and a host of other health problems.

''Given up for dead, I had been thrown into the mortuary of a local
hospital,'' the 45-year-old said recalling her traumatic experience.

When she regained consciousness, she found herself lying in a heap of
bodies. ''In total darkness, I screamed for help and was taken out when
two policemen heard my cries.''

She lost her two-month-old infant in the gas disaster 15 years ago, and
trudges on groping with a host of medical problems.

With blurred vision and respiratory problems the latest in the array
includes several gynaecological complications. ''I attribute all this to
the toxicity of the gas inhaled,'' she asserts.

Eighteen-year-old Shabina Banu too has a similar problem which she
ascribes to the disaster. Shabina did not start her menstrual cycle long
after she was 16 years of age. Medicines started the cycle, which stopped
as soon as she discontinued the medication.

''She was almost four years old when the disaster occurred and was
severely affected by the gas,'' her mother says.

Reproductive disorders have been cited as some of the pernicious health
problems caused by the toxic methyl isocyanide gas that emitted from the
Union Carbide factory on the fateful December night.

Despite the absence of concrete ''statistical evidence to unfold the
veracity of this theory'', women inflicted with reproductive and
gynaecological problems candidly confess that the ''noxious gas'' was
responsible for their ailments.

The Indian Council of Medical Research had established that the toxins
from the carbide factory had caused damage to the lungs, brain, kidneys,
muscles, reproductive and other immunological systems.

Dr Smita Khandekhar, who works among the gas-affected females, concurs
saying there is no precise co-relation which can establish a scientific
equation between the female-related problems and the inhalation of the
gas. However, it has been found that the patients were from the severely
affected areas.

Vaginal discharge, pelvic inflammation, menstrual disorders and abdominal
pain were common among these women, she said, adding the results of the
multi-factorial treatment had been encouraging. ''The basic problem with
these patients was that they do not take the medicines regularly and leave
the treatment midway,'' she conceded.

Corroborating these co-relations, an international study titled
'Occupational and environmental reproductive hazards' maintains that the
female reproductive system is a complex system that required regulated
local and circulating hormones for proper functioning.

Normal reproductive function in the female requires integration of the
hypothalmic-pituary-ovarian axis and proper functioning of each of its
components. Interference at any level by a xenobiotic (toxic chemical) may
ultimately impair the normal ovarian processes. Clinical disruption of the
axis could manifest as amenorrhea, menstrual disorder or reduced fertility.
----------------------
#4.
A NATIONAL CONVENTION IN DEFENCE OF INDIAN DEMOCRACY

A national civil liberties convention, scheduled for the year 2000 hopes to
launch a nationwide organisation in defence of Indian democracy

The civil liberties movement in India has a long history=D6.Despite this
visible intervention from the civil liberties and democratic rights'
movements in different parts of the country around different issues,
democratic rights and civil liberties as a whole are increasingly under
threat today=8A The growth of an increasingly narrow political worldview of
the kind that dominates the Indian political scene at the moment
necessitates the emergence of a strong and vociferous forum for the
articulation of protest against these violations. On the eve of the new
millenium, basic democratic rights within India stand violated as never
before. Racial, religious, ethnic and regional discrimination have
acquired sharp and worrying dimensions. The basic fundamental right to a
life of dignity has never become reality; to many this right has, in recent
years, been actually taken away. Sixteen-seventeen per cent of India's
Dalit population continues to subsist without fundamental freedoms and
rights available to "better" placed citizens. While the right to freedom
of worship and the freedom of religion is guaranteed under the Indian
constitution, this fundamental right as much as the right to equal and
fair protection by the law stands systematically violated. Women as
citizens continue to struggle and protest for a life of equality and
dignity within the family, the community structure and within the
parametres of the state, as citizens. The past few years have also seen a
sharp increase in the violent crimes against women. Governments at both
the centre and state-levels, over the past decade, have also abdicated all
responsibility towards providing health facilities, housing, literacy and
education and employment to citizens. The resultant number of Indians
forced to live under the poverty line has increased and the conditions of
work for hundreds of thousands of our workforce, men, women and children
working long hours in inhuman conditions in the informal sector are
abysmal. Though the fundamental right of association (to form and organise
the workforce into a trade union) exists on paper, in practice this right
is systematically curtailed. Only seven per cent of the Indian workforce
is unionised today. Politically, Indian democracy has never faced a
greater threat than it does today. Apart from the systematic physical
attacks on sections of the Indian population on grounds of their
ethnicity, what India faces today is a systematic agenda to change its
democratic framework. Pogroms against citizens while the law and order
machinery watches silently or even participates have been some of the
manifestations. Infiltration into educational institutions and teaching
syllabi of a worldview that is sectarian, selective and hate-driven are
some others. The proponents of this worldview eschew violence and threats,
secure in the belief that they are above the law. That is the extent to
which the Indian constitution stands violated today. For the first time
since it's birth, the Indian state faces an authoritarian project that is
at its heart an anathema to the democratic process of equal and
proportionate representation, of dissent and difference, of equality and
social justice. We feel that it is important, under the circumstances, to
provide a comprehensive picture of the violation of democratic and human
rights in India and work towards a strategy to defending and protecting
any violations at all levels. The existence of several human rights and
civil liberties organisations on the field makes it easier for us to come
together for this purpose. It is with this aim in mind that we are
together inviting organisations and in individuals committed to the
struggle of democratic freedoms from different parts of the country for a
two-day National Convention in Defence of Indian Democracy in January or
=46ebruary (dates to be finalised) with an objective to launch an all India=
n
civil liberties organisation in the defence of democratic rights.
Justice Hosbet Suresh, Girish Patel
Madhav Sathe, Ramesh Pimpale
Gautam Thakker, Kirit Bhatt
Trupti Shah, Rohit Prajapati
J.S.Bandukwala, Sonal Mehta
Uday Mehta, Dolphy D'Souza
Ram Punjani,Teesta Setalvad

Interested persons please contact us at Communalism Combat, PB 28253, Juhu
post
office, Mumbai 400049. Email sabrang@b...

__________________________________________
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.