Before Nawaz Sharif ordered the nuclear button to be pressed, we urged the Pakistani establishment to take a long, deep breath, delink its nuclear concerns from those of India and consider all the implications of tit-for-tat nuclear testing. Now we know that the finance ministry, at least, didn’t do its homework before it nodded its assent. After the tests, we urged that the establishment should immediately enter into realistic negotiations with Washington with a view to signing the CTBT on terms favourable to Pakistan. This too did not happen. Indeed, we suspect that India may have already taken a lead in this direction. All that, however, is water under the bridge. But no matter. The situation can still be retrieved.
Pakistan has finally announced a “de-linking” of its CTBT position from that of India. If this means that Islamabad will sign the CTBT regardless of whether or not India does so, this is good news. But timing is of the essence in this matter. If we end up following rather than leading India in this direction, much of the potential economic goodwill and political leverage which we seek to extract from the international community may be lost. And if we do this later rather than sooner, current economic hardships could pile up into convoluted mountain of distortions next year when we come to face the hurdles of CTBT ratification and entry-into-force.
It is therefore crucial to be clear about what lies ahead. On the one hand, our political leaders have relentlessly pushed our economy to the point of breakdown. On the other, our strategic thinkers have pushed us into testing our bombs precisely when we are most vulnerable on the economic front. So we are now like an ailing patient who is on the brink of sliding into a coma unless oxygen is provided to him immediately. The problem is that it is the international community led by Washington which controls the supply of oxygen. And the international community is demanding a hefty price for putting us on our wobbly feet again.
This looks like a lose-lose situation. As long as we remain sick to our bones, the international community’s stop-go supply of oxygen will merely suffice to keep us clinically alive so that we cannot effectively defend our sovereignty and security. A quick restoration of IMF funding, even on double the earlier scale, may provide a respite but will make us doubly dependent on it next year. A waiver on all sanctions and a full restoration of G-8 financial assistance may allow us to sit up in bed but it will not cure the cancer which has spread to our innards. No, those of us who are waiting for a “good deal” to be struck on the CTBT before they can jump up and clink their heels are living in a fool’s paradise. Signing the CTBT is only the first milestone on the agonising route to nuclear non-proliferation along which lie other hurdles like the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, Missile Control Regimes, NPT and nuclear Roll-Back. In order to tackle and clear these hurdles cleanly and confidently, we need to build up our health, wealth and strength as quickly as we can and get rid of the oxygen mask proffered by the international community.
It is, of course, extremely unfortunate that we have landed ourselves in this difficult position. But there is no way out now except one: we must relinquish some space to the international community (CTBT) in order to buy some time (funds) in which to create the will (economy) to resist an erosion of our security.
But this is easier said than done. Who will formulate the tactics and strategy to affect the complex trade off between space, time and will so that our economy is strong enough to allow us to take independent political positions? The current political leadership is corrupt and incompetent. The established opposition parties are equally impoverished in terms of intellect and vision — so to expect a “national” government to solve our dilemma is whistling in the dark. Nor can we afford the luxury of waiting for the next elections to throw up a better leadership. The elections are miles away and the peoples’ wisdom cannot always be taken for granted, as we have seen time and again since 1988.
We could, however, take succor from a recent statement by General Jehangir Karamat. The army chief advocates “patience” because he is wary of “quick-fix” solutions which could “goad the military into becoming part of the problem rather than an answer to it”. This is to be welcomed if it means that the military leadership knows the answers, will drum them into the current political leadership and accept responsibility for their implementation. But if it means that the military leadership is seeking to stay aloof, we would beg to disagree. The peoples’ patience could run out faster than the military’s. And act of omission no less than those of commission can have far-reaching consequences. Indeed, sometimes they are the very stuff of history.