[sacw] [ACT] SAANP (29 January 00)

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asians Against Nukes Post
29 January 2000
-----------------------------------

Newsweek International,
January 24, 2000

A Bomb is Born

Pakistan has two missile programs, which wasn't known until recently.
They're racing each other for money and prestige." - George Perkovich

No westerner has come TO know the nuclear frontier in South Asia better
than George Perkovich. His new book, "India's Nuclear Bomb," offers
startling insights on how and why Nehru, the great peacemaker, and his
chief scientist Homi Bhabha began preparing the nuclear option as early as
the 1950s. Perkovich is director of the Secure World Program at the W.
Alton Jones Foundation, and debriefed many top Indian officials to shed new
light on this top-secret field. He breaks ground on the dueling 1998
nuclear tests in South Asia, and reveals an internal arms race in Pakistan.
He spoke with NEWSWEEK's Tony Emerson in New York.

Excerpts:

EMERSON: You draw a picture of Nehru as much more hardheaded than popularly
believed. PERKOVICH: He was. He made so many speeches where he said, in
seemingly categorical terms, we're not going to build the bomb. On the
other hand, he was knowingly working with Bhabha, who was developing a
capability that could produce a bomb. Nehru was hardheaded and shrewd and
did not want to forestall an option they might want down the road.

How did Bhabha become the unchallenged czar of the bomb?

This is very important, and it's a problem to this day. Here was this
charismatic, brilliant physicist, educated in Cambridge. He has offers at
Princeton and other places. He comes back to India and says, "Look, I'm
willing to stay here, but I want to create this grand nuclear establishment
and you, the government, have to endow me with the resources." The
government was glad to have someone who could put India on the map,
technologically. Nehru essentially gave Bhabha carte blanche. Nuclear
policy was made between those two over dinner. There were no checks and
balances.
And that pattern still holds? Essentially, yes. If you chart through the
'60s, '70s and '80s, the scientists have been on their own. Bhabha was
interested in nuclear explosives as a sign of prowess, not as a military
instrument.

You argue that it's "supercilious" for India to downplay the threat from
Pakistan. Why?

India wants to be seen as an emerging great power, like China. It
diminishes India's sense of self-regard to be equated with small and
incompetent Pakistan. There's real resistance to U.S. officials who say,
"You really have to work on this relationship with Pakistan." The Indians
say, "Why do you always equate us with Pakistan? Don't you realize we're
vastly superior to Pakistan?" The Americans who know this say, "This is
nuts. You just lost hundreds of men [last summer] to Pakistan in Kargil.
Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and they're aimed at you."

Is Pakistan still ahead in the missile race?

Pakistan today has a greater capacity to put nuclear warheads on missiles
and launch them tomorrow than India does. Pakistan has two competing
missile programs, which wasn't known until recently. The A.Q. Khan Labs
have the Ghauri missile, assisted by North Korea. The Pakistan Atomic
Energy Organization has missiles, too, assisted from China. They're racing
each other for money and prestige, for the title of the great providers of
Pakistan's strategic might. That raises the threat to India, because the
Pakistanis are under pressure to go forward.

So is Pakistan the problem?

You've got scientists in Pakistan who are out of control, especially A.Q.
Khan. He's kind of a mad scientist. He makes outrageous statements. He's
doing business with North Korea, procuring missiles. He's a bad dude. One
of the key questions for Musharraf Parvez, the new leader, is whether he
can rein this guy in. In India you've got much more sober scientists, but
the government is struggling to figure out how you put limits on these
guys. They're national heroes.

Is it true that the 1998 tests were weaker than India claimed?

The yield of the 1974 tests was much lower than India claimed, so 1998 must
have been lower, because India used '74 as a benchmark. No one doubts India
has a bomb, but this is about comparative manhood. Indian scientists are
upset that their prowess has been questioned=97especially by white scientist=
s
in the U.S. whom they perceive to be racially motivated.

Where does the arms race go from here?

In April of '98, India does one missile test. So Pakistan does two. India
then tests five nuclear weapons; Pakistan claims they tested six. They
didn't really, but claim to. That's the mentality: anything you can do, I
can do one better. Leaders in both countries say they don't want an arms
race, but they have done nothing to avoid one. You're going to see more
missile tests, and there will be leaks at some point that Pakistan has
warheads either on its missiles or standing right by the missiles. They're
creeping toward a situation like what we and the Soviets had, where you
have forces on alert that are ready to go on a moment's notice. That's
where it gets real dangerous in South Asia.

=A9 2000 Newsweek, Inc.