MR. CHAIRMAN (PROF. RITA VERMA): Your time is over.
DR. JAYANTA RONGPI: I do not want to go into the merits of CTBT, but I just want to point out one aspect. Somehow, somewhere during our dealings with the international community, India has emitted a signal of weakness. It might be the way we dealt with the General Agreement on Trade and Tariff or some other international issue. Somehow, a signal has gone that India can be coerced, India can be forced and that with a little pressure or with carrot and stick tactics, India can be made amenable to the wishes of America. That signal has somehow - consciously or unconsciously - gone to the international community.
So, I want to conclude my speech by saying that it is high time India stood with its head held high and took a very deliberate and determined step. A very strong signal should go out. Mr. Warren Christopher has threatened that there is an international lobby against India and that India will be isolated in the event of our not signing it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Please conclude now.
DR. JAYANTA RONGPI: We do not care if economic sanctions are imposed on us. With our rejuvenated national strength, we can withstand all these pressure tactics. A chance has come to India at this juncture. We can lead the entire world to nuclear disarmament in a time-bound manner and ultimately lead to global peace.
With this, I support the Government's stand of not signing the Treaty but at the same time I expect that the Government should take an aggressive diplomatic policy so that our stand on nuclear disarmament - which is linked to the CTBT - should go to the international community.
Thank you.
(ends)
1609 hours
We are sure that we are now going to stand by the stand which we have already taken. The question that now remains is, `What do we do next?' I do not want delve upon the issues which have really gone into taking this stand because they have been deliberated at length by many other hon. Members.
So, what do we do now?
We have read in the newspapers about the new stand that has been adopted by Pakistan. So far they were saying that they would not sign the statement unless it is signed by India. Now, today they have said that they are not going to sign it even if India signs the agreement. So, it puts a different perception and a different security threat. Now, we have a different type of security perception. So, that is one point that we have to take into consideration.
The second point is, the United States have stated that if we do not sign this, it is a political settlement. So, we have to face the consequences. They have said it in so many words. Now, how are we going to face those consequences is something which we would like to hear from the Minister of External Affairs and from the Government. It is very important.
Madam, another point I would like to make is that we have always been saying that we want total disarmament. But such piecemeal measure which do not mean anything will not subscribe to this correctly. Does the stand of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, gets reflected in the national policy? We are spending so little on Defence. We have taken a stand which means that we are opened to undertaking more nuclear tests and creating more nuclear weapons. But are we really doing that by spending more money on Defence?
The Budget for this year, in fact, says that we are going to spend a little less on Defebce because the salary bill which has increased compared to the last year will also not take care of the increase in the Defence Budget this year. So, this is the stand taken by us. It is not enough to take such a stand in the international convention that makes us proud and happy that we are really tough vis-a-vis the United States. But it also be reflected in our entire national policy and not in the foreign policy alone. We should have a comprehensive policy. It should have been reflected in everything that we do. It should not be just for the sake of rhetoric that we should say that we here are opposing the United States' stand and that we are not going to buckle down under pressure. Of course, we should do that but it should be reflected in other policies also.
Otherwise, the strong words will not really yield any results. Madam, there are countries which are not conducting tests. But there are evidences that these countries possess the nuclear capabilities. So, it is not just the Nuclear Ban Treaty which is going to help anybody. But we need a sort of an arrangement which brings total disarmament.
In fact, we are surprised now by the new stand taken by the United States. Previously, they were talking about disarmament between two super powers. Now, they have climbed down to say that there should be a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. When the hon. Minister replies, he should tell us what is the next step that the Government is going to take.
With these words, I would like to conclude my speech. Thank you.
(ends)
THE MINISTER OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS (SHRI I.K. GUJRAL): Madam, through you, I thank the entire House for the remarkable support and encouragement that I have received. In my personal life, I am a very humble man. But the voice that I represent today is not my voice. It is the united voice of this country aptly articulated by various sections of the House.
When I look to friends sitting in front of me or on my side or at the back, I think, this is one of the great occasions when India's one voice is being minced and that is India's spirit. India has one more strength also and that is the ethos of India. We do not use harsh words and we do not use strong words. We say with utmost politeness what we have to say. That has been the general policy so far as the Indian diplomacy is concerned. It is followed not only by me but my predecessors also who were in Office before me. All of us have followed one line and that is, where the national interests are concerned, we have to firmly stand and stand together. I must, therefore, thank all the leaders of various parties and all the Members from all sides of the House who have expressed their views so eloquently and so firmly. This gives this Government and our case a strength.
I am also going to take a few minutes to talk to you. The Treaty talks have been going on in Geneva for more than two and a half years. In this context, it is interesting for me to recall that in this two and a half years, Governments have changed. I think all of us who have come in office, at one time or the other - sometimes for a slightly longer period and sometimes it was not so long - have continued the same policy. That is really the strength of India. I think all of us follow the same policy. Instructions to our Ambassador in Geneva from all people who have occupied the office that I am now occupying was similar.
And that again, I repeat, is our strength. This is an irony in the whole situation as it is and the irony is that some nuclear powers - five of them have the heaps of arsenals in their stores that they do not feel satisfied with this. I remember in early 80's, when we were discussing the issue of nuclear weapons, it was estimated that the weapons available to the world, as a whole, in the hands of these few five were such that they could kill the entire world nine times. I do not know why they want to kill the world thirteen or fourteen times. And that is what continues. At the moment, the Treaty they are talking, I had said, at one time, is a charade. It does not really want to achieve what it pertains. They really are trying to make their weapons more sophisticated. That is where I wish to draw particular attention to my friend Lt.-Gen. Prakash Mani Tripathi's remarks in this regard. I support him. I think, he very eloquently expressed this.
The difficulty, at the moment, is that all the talks that are going on in Geneva do not really fulfil the mandate that was given to them by the United Nations. In my statement, I had said that the negotiators had the unambiguous mandate to conclude a CTBT which would contribute effectively to the prevention of proliferation in all its aspects to the process of nuclear disarmament and, therefore, enhancement of international peace and security.
This is the mandate. Is it being sustained? Is it being abided by? We have, therefore, repeated actively and constructively in these negotiations. I have put forward a number of proposals consistent with that mandate. We have stated clearly that the CTBT must be truly comprehensive and not leave any loopholes that would permit the nuclear weapon states to continue to refining and developing that nuclear arsenals at their test sites or in laboratories. I want to emphasise the word `laboratories' even more.
We have understood the importance of placing the CTBT in universal disarmament framework as a part of step by step process aimed at achieving complete elimination of all nuclear weapons within a time-bound framework.
Now, I notice that it is being absolutely, clearly and openly said that this is impractical. And if it is impractical, then what is the Conference about? Those who are saying it are the ones who are also trying to say that they are the high priests of the Treaty. At the same time, they say that it is not possible to eliminate them. It is a matter of regret that the CTBT, as it has emerged, does not do justice to the mandate. Without being anchored in nuclear disarmament framework, it will not contribute to the process of nuclear disarmament.
I had also said earlier while talking here that our nuclear policy is also very clear. Some of my friends have asked me: "What is our nuclear policy?" Our nuclear policy for all those years has been expressed in the CTBT negotiations. It is intimately linked with the national security concerns. We have never accepted the notion that it can be considered legitimate for some countries to rely on nuclear weapons for the security while denying that right to others. This has been a consistent policy also reflected in our rejection of the NPT that was done some years ago.
It has also been discussed. I think, I will come to those points later. We have also been asked and the attention of the House has been drawn that knowledge of technology is also being tried to be contained. After all, in today's world whether we talk of space, whether we talk of nuclear sciences, one likes to have more knowledge. India is one of those countries whose scientific manpower has proved that they can really do wonders if they have access to knowledge and technology. But they used to make it a monopoly to some which, I have said, is not acceptable to us.
The difficulty, at the moment, I must say, and I must draw your attention to is about the option. A question has been asked about our option. I must repeat, as I said, that we are keen that we preserve our option.
We continue to maintain our options. Why? It is because we are able to take all necessary measures to cope with any threat - I repeat, to cope with any threat - that may be posed to the security of the nation. We cannot allow this option to be restricted in any manner. If other countries remain unwilling to accept the obligation of eliminating their nuclear arsenals, we are deeply conscious of the fact that other countries continue their weapons programme, whether openly or in a clandestine manner. This is a situation that we are faced with and that is why, the option is being preserved.
I will come slightly later to the reply to the question which was asked as to when and how will the option be used. At the moment, I want only to say that some questions have been asked but before I come to that, I want to address myself to one major point and that is about Mr. Christopher's statement to which many of my friends have drawn my attention. May I, with your permission, submit that we have seen the reports regarding the observations made by US Secretary of State, Mr. Warren Christopher during Congressional hearings, on the CTBT negotiations, including on India's position.
As hon. Members are aware, India has followed a reasonable and positive approach in the CTBT negotiations. The CTBT was an Indian initiative and we are still supporter of a CTBT that is truly comprehensive and firmly placed within the framework of a nuclear disarmament process. It is incorrect to say, as some have tried to imply, that we have been holding back progress in the negotiations. On the contrary, we have flagged our concerns but to our disappointment, these have not been adequately addressed to in the CD. The reports from Geneva indicate that some compromises are being considered to accommodate concerns of other delegations, particularly China. This shows that the Ramaker Text is open to modifications. We continue to persist that our concerns, as also those of other countries, are addressed in order to arrive at a genuine consensus. For this, we remain engaged in the consultation processes underway in Geneva.
In my statement on 31st July, I informed the hon. Members that India cannot sign this Treaty in its present form. Further, we cannot permit any formulation in the draft Treaty text that will impose an obligation on India. If there are attempts to push forward such a text, we will have to oppose such efforts. This remains our firm position.
We have seen press reports that some delegations are exploring ways of bypassing the CD and bring the Treaty text to the UN General Assembly in New York. These are procedural devices. While we will make our position to the Treaty known in all fora, I hope that hon.Members will agree that it may not be desirable nor may be helpful for me to state in detail the line that we will follow as the situation develops. It is understood by many countries that the approach being adopted in the draft Treaty text is unprecedented in treaty negotiating practice. Yet, they are reluctant to bring in changes because of the rigid positions adopted by a small number of countries.
I had, in my statement, referred to my useful meetings with a number of Foreign Ministers in Jakarta. As the House knows, I had also met the Secretary of State, Mr. Christopher. I must say that it was a very pleasant and friendly meeting. While discussing a broad range of issues, we also discussed the CTBT, on which we agreed to disagree. The Secretary of State and myself took a broader view of the Indo-US relations which are positive and serve the interests of both our countries. In this positive spirit, both of us agreed that differences on a single issue should not have an impact on what is otherwise a fruitful and a mutually advantageous bilateral relationship. This was also discussed in my talks with the various Foreign Ministers with whom we had differences on issues of CTBT but all of them emphasised that the broad framework of bilateral relationship must be continued and be sustained.
Though some friends have asked this question, yet now, I would be referring to the two to three questions that my friend Lieutenant General Tripathy had asked. Shri Tripathy had asked about our nuclear option and what would be the right time to exercise it. I have indicated that we are fully conscious of the evolving security situation. Hon. Members are aware that after demonstrating our capabilities we have followed a policy of restraint. The `right time' is a complex issue. It would require a detailed discussion of our national security environment and the national security doctrine and policy. All I would like to say at this stage is that the Government is fully committed to sustain the nuclear option.
He had also asked me a question about whether we are shuffling our stand on CTBT or not. If I have to repeat, I would also like to again state my position as I did on the 15th of July when I had stated that India cannot accept the draft Treaty text in its present form. What I had stated two days back is with the relevance to the language relating to the entry-into-force, is a matter of immediate concern for us and I had informed the House that we would not allow such a language to go through in the Conference of Disarmament. It is because it attempts to impose an obligation on India despite our clearly stated position.
In my bilateral discussion in Jakarta, I have clearly conveyed that we would be obliged to block the consensus in the CD. This has also been conveyed in Geneva by our Ambassador on 29th of July, 1996.
Another question which again Lt. General Tripathy asked was, what would happen to our blocking efforts in the UN General Assembly? As I have stated already that at present negotiations are going on and we are hoping of making efforts to make others feel the sense of what we are saying. This would be unprecedented if our efforts are made to bypass the CD. It is permissible under the rules. Maybe, it is. But I would not like to spell out further, as I have said just now, as to how we would respond if a situation like that arises.
My attention was drawn to the statement made by my very revered friend, Shri Atal Behari Vajpayee in Calcutta. I do not have to say about the amount of respect I hold for him in my mind in all these years. I have seen the statement about nuclear apartheid and I share his views. Therefore, the Government's policy on CTBT reflects what Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee has said.
Dr. Mallikarjun may not be here, he had also raised some points. He is a very experienced person. He has been in charge of Defence affairs in this country for a long time. I would not go into all the questions raised but one of the points he made was that whether we should have a joint Resolution of the Parliament or not. This question also hold expression in the other House as well. I would not say the last word on this. I would like to watch the situation as it develops. Maybe, a stage might come when we would have to express our feelings unitedly and in unity when we want to pass a Resolution. But I would, for the time being, like to watch.
Hon. Member, Shri Rupchand Pal had also asked me whether we were taking any diplomatic offensive in this situation or not. I have said that I have written to all the Foreign Ministers of the world about our stand and we are in touch with most of them even now. I have said in the last statement that I met a large number of Foreign Ministers during my stay in Jakarta.
I do not know if Shri Swell is present in the House or not, he had asked me about our International Monitoring System. I would like to inform the Members that on June 26, we had conveyed to the Conference on Disarmament that India would not be in a position to be associated with the International Monitoring System. We gave notice of withdrawing our stations that were supposed to be the part of IMS. This was noted. There was no Indian station now listed in the IMS list. I must clarify that IMS would only come into being after the CTBT was signed. Earlier experimental networks were explored in which India had also participated.
[NEXT PAGE]
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
