 Welcome to another International Relations capsule for Shankar IAS Academy. Today we discuss a rare statement issued by the permanent members of the Security Council on nuclear matters. Rare I said because it is very rarely that permanent members of the Security Council get together and issue a statement. Because most of the time they don't agree but one thing that they agree on is the importance of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. So the reason for this statement is that the review conference of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty which was supposed to take place in 2020 did not take place because of the pandemic and again it was postponed in 2021 and now it is fixed for 2022 without a date having been fixed because a long conference takes about a month or so so they are not able to fit into the calendar. So the delay of holding the review conference is considered to be a negative feature as far as the permanent members are concerned. I presume that you have some idea about the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Briefly as you know this treaty was meant to eliminate nuclear weapons from the face of the earth when the negotiations started in the late 60s. But when the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty was finalized it became discriminatory because the nuclear weapons states defined as those who had nuclear weapons capability before 1967 were declared as nuclear weapons states and they were allowed to continue to use and develop nuclear weapons capability while all the other countries pledged not to develop nuclear weapons. So this was a negative development because the purpose was not to have a discriminatory treaty but to have a treaty which affects everyone including those who already have nuclear weapons. But this is how it happened and it was adopted and only three countries in the world did not sign the NPT and all others did. And among these three countries are India, Pakistan and Israel. And India took the position that NPT is discriminatory and therefore we cannot sign and we will keep the option open to develop nuclear weapons because we have a threat even a nuclear threat facing India. And you know that in 1974 India demonstrated our technological capability and many countries objected to that. And then in 1998 we declared ourselves as a nuclear weapon state which was even kind of regularized by the India-US nuclear deal of 2008. This is the history but the NPT was supposed to be only for 20 years but when it was completed 20 years they decided to make it a perpetual treaty. And also a review conference did not mean any review of the provisions of the treaty but just a review of its operation. So the nuclear weapon countries that is the permanent members we know all of them US, UK, Russia and China. So these countries had considered NPT as fundamental to the security of their countries because they believe that it is the nuclear weapons that enabled them to secure their guarantee their security. As nations that is there though they are opposed to each other in various ways but in this particular case that the NPT should be fundamental and there should be no change these five countries are agreed. And those who oppose the treaty or at least do not sign the treaty are India, Pakistan and Israel. India because of its discriminatory Pakistan because India has not signed it in Israel because Israel has not been recognized by some Arab countries even today so they feel that they are threatened. So this goes on every five years there is a review not to change anything in the treaty which is almost unchangeable. But to review it and see and in a way assert the rights of the nuclear weapon states and make sure that there are no developments among the non nuclear weapon states to develop nuclear technology. And that is very closely monitored and as it is in case of Libya Iran because India is now kind of legitimized but these activities are very closely monitored and action is taken to ensure that other countries particularly those who have signed the NPT do not develop nuclear weapons. So since this conference could not be held in 2021 the NPT countries felt that some assurance to be given to the world that they still remain pledged to do what the NPT is supposed to do. So the key element in this is that these nuclear weapon states said that they consider the avoidance of war between nuclear weapon states and the reduction of strategic risks as our foremost responsibilities. So and they also said that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. So this is a magazine that was established in 1985 between President Ronald Reagan and Gorbachev. This is just a statement which is true that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought but that is just a principled position. But the fact of the matter is that these countries have been not only maintaining their nuclear capabilities but also increasing them. So this has been going on for some time but in 2009 there was a particular development which was hopeful. For the first time in history an American President that is President Barack Obama declared in a speech in Prague saying that the nuclear weapon states or at least United States will not depend on nuclear weapons for its security over a period of time. They will be able to eliminate nuclear weapons. They will be able to but he hoped that this itself was a very significant statement that United States could think in terms of not having nuclear weapons for their security. But this was done only by the United States but United States is the most important country in this respect and therefore this was considered a historic statement. But what did President Barack Obama say? He said, I'm quoting him, so today I stayed clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. I'm not naive. This goal will not be reached quickly, perhaps not in my lifetime. It will take patience and persistence but now we too must ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change. We have to insist we can, he said. So this was a very historic declaration though he said this may not happen even in his own lifetime but at least for a predictable, not predictable perhaps future this was considered an objective of the United States. And at that time there was great hope that while like we are demanding or many other countries are demanding that nuclear weapons should be completely eliminated there should be a treaty by which everyone disowns nuclear weapons and they can be gradually destroyed over a period of time. Even before this happened in 2009, before that in 2007 four very famous former Cold War warriors, George B. Schultz, Jim Perry, Henry Kissinger and Sam Nunn had written an article in the Wall Street Journal. Again, it is surprising that in the future United States must also give up or destroy its nuclear weapons and should look forward to ultimately ending them as a threat to the world. And this was done before President Barack Obama's speech and so this thinking was broader in the United States in different political parties. So as a result of this there was a move for a treaty for a global zero as it was called. So the NGOs and other countries who do not believe in nuclear weapons campaigning for the elimination of nuclear weapons started on the basis of President Barack Obama's declaration. A global zero movement and a summit was held in London in 2011 brought together over 100 government representatives and prominent private individuals to push for its agenda striving to aim for a world free of nuclear weapons. And it was a timetable was set the first phase from 2010 to 2013 then reduction of the Russian nuclear arsenals to 1000 nuclear weapons each US and Russia and the beginning of multilateral negotiations. And then the road in the second phase 2014 to 2018 and finally 2019 to 2023 all these nuclear weapons would be eliminated. This was the very ambitious program that they put forward but the enthusiasm ended because none of these nuclear weapon states supported the global zero. They said in principle we agree but the time has not yet come there is still a clear threat etc. And it may be interesting to remember also that this global zero proposal in a certain form was actually proposed in 1988 by Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in the United Nations. He had proposed a similar faced out of nuclear weapons and presented but that was widely ignored by the international community because we had no weapons to give up. So when we don't have any obligation to give up any weapons since we didn't have any urging other people to give up their nuclear weapons did not seem very convinced. And therefore Mr Rajiv Gandhi's plan was largely ignored nobody even discussed it. But when this question of the global zero came up many people started saying that what Rajiv Gandhi suggested in 1988 was really good and we should go back to it etc. So the whole purpose of this joint statement is not to move towards elimination of nuclear weapons but to reaffirm the principles of the treaty that is they will be allowed to possess nuclear weapons and develop them also. But then there are some other elements in the NPT like the nuclear weapon states also eventually try to bring about disarmament and give up their weapons so some discussions will take place. That was just an in principle statement nothing has been done. And the second provision of that was that the non nuclear weapon states which have signed the NPT will be given assistance by the non nuclear weapon states in order to develop their peaceful nuclear program. And technological support fund has was established very small you know people could buy some x-ray machines or some other equipment which is used with nuclear elements in it. So some small funding was provided and the funding was not increased over a period of time. And therefore it did not have much meaning India for example never accepted it because we see since we had not signed the NPT and we did not want to accept it. But at the same time we kept encouraging the nuclear weapon states to increase the technology funding so that other small countries about 50 of them who wanted various equipment relating to nuclear power. But this was also not available the funding was not enough. So these are the three elements that is their ability their capability to keep the weapons number one. Secondly move towards disarmament at a unspecified period. And number three is to give some technology to the other countries which have no nuclear weapons. So these three things they put it together so in the statement these other elements have also been put. So in other words this statement was meant only to replace the declaration would have come from the review conference if it was held. So this does not mean any change in the policy of the nuclear weapon states but only their desire to keep the NPT pot boiling as it were. Because they want the NPT to continue indefinitely and therefore this fact that this conference was not held for these three years should not create a setback for the treaty. That is the only purpose of it. But at the same time most countries welcome the statement because there is nothing new in the statement. But the fact that they restated it was welcomed many countries including by India. But India after having supported to the understanding the statement by the P5 we continue to say that eventually our purpose is to lead to the elimination of nuclear weapons. Because we have annual resolutions in the United Nations National Assembly to move towards nuclear disarmament and also to have a global universal treaty which would make a possession of nuclear weapons illegal and to eliminate it. So India even after we have developed our own nuclear weapons and declared ourselves a nuclear weapon state. We stick to the position that we are in favor of elimination of nuclear weapons and we are ready to eliminate our weapons also when there is an agreement on this by other nuclear weapons states. So we reasserted it. We also said that we do our attention to India's annual resolutions in the UN General Assembly. There are two major ones, reducing nuclear danger and de-alerting and de-targeting of nuclear weapons. Then we also have a resolution on convention on the prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons and that there should be negotiations in the conference of disarmament on the, you know, remove the threat of nuclear weapons. So both resolutions are adopted every year but no follow up action is taken because there is no agreement. So India said that we will continue to contribute further to the global nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation agenda and this is the position of several countries. So it is very clear even though countries have supported this statement in a realistic manner because we cannot get more than that from the nuclear weapon states. But the statement was an effort to keep the NPT alive and well after the 10th review conference of the treaty which was postponed twice and now set forth 2022. So this is the 10th review conference which is very important because they see it, the permanent members see it as an opportunity to reaffirm the NPT and to remind everyone of its goals and objectives and also make sure that there is no lack of clarity in the world community that the NPT is somehow gone underground. So this is actually a consequence of the pandemic. So the real review of any portion of the treaty is not considered at these conferences and the intention is to assert the rights of the P file and to remind the non-nuclear weapon states of their obligations. So it is simply a formality but the fact that they did that underlines the importance that they attach to the NPT and they say I'm quoting here, we understand our desire to work with all states to create a security environment with the ultimate goal of a world without nuclear weapons with undiminished security for all. So they also have mentioned the ultimate objective as they called it to the ultimate objective of a world without nuclear weapons. So but there is nothing in it at least what they could have done was even without moving away from their original position. Even if they had proposed a non first use treaty that would have been an advance because if they are saying that they are committed to all this. Then why can't they at least agree to a non first use treaty and that would have been a good gesture. But then things don't change that fast for the non-nuclear weapon states and they will not agree to a non first use as a treaty. And in fact, as you may know, India has a non first use pledge that we have given and China also has done that. But other nuclear weapon states have not spoken about a non use non first use treaty and if they had done that that would have been something new and different. So and we also know that China Russia particularly are engaging in increasing their nuclear weapon capacity to destroy the world many times over. In fact, President Putin, I think it was last year he held a demonstration, a video demonstration of the increasing capability of Russia in nuclear weapons and showing the kind of places or the cities that they would be able to target successfully in the United States. So in other words, there is no doubt of preparation by the P5 to keep their nuclear arsenals intact and also to develop it. So the point that we have to remember in this case is simply that the P5 statement should be seen as a kind of cover for their activities to strengthen their nuclear capability. And generally to deny the other countries, the kind of technological transfer they have cuts to do. So, but since the statement is somewhat unusual, and the P5, of course, they differ on very many issues, but when it comes to the question of nuclear proliferation treaty, they are one solid thinking. And so that's all that has happened, but this was welcomed by the world in general, and urged them to move towards nuclear disarmament. So what I'd like you to remember, because all of you should know the basic elements in the nuclear proliferation treaty, and there is no likelihood of the nuclear weapon states changing their position, even though Barack Obama's speech and the other statements and global zero had all picked up some momentum from 2009 to 2011. But that seems to have died out, and the world without nuclear weapons is still a dream, but this is something which India supports. So India's position is unique because we are a non-nuclear weapon states, according to the NPT, but we have been recognized as a technologically advanced state, which has been authorized, shall we say, to keep our nuclear weapons on base of some conditions in the Indo-U.S. nuclear pact. So this is a complex subject, but the situation is the same, and we are really back to square one in spite of the P5 statement. This is what I wanted to stress today. Thank you very much.