SANDNet Weekly Update, November 28, 2000

Hello! The below report is written in English. To translate the full report, please use the translator in the top right corner of the page. Do not show me this notice in the future.

Recommended Citation

SANDNet, "SANDNet Weekly Update, November 28, 2000", SANDNet, November 28, 2000, https://nautilus.org/sandnet/sandnet-weekly-update-november-28-2000/

CONTENTS
November 28, 2000

Nuclear Issues

1. Pakistani Nuclear Export Policy
2. Pakistani Nuclear Program
3. Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
4. India-Russia Nuclear Cooperation
5. India Nuclear Policy

India

1. Overview
2. India-PRC Relations
3. India-PRC Border Dispute
4. US Sanctions Waiver for the PRC
5. US-India Relations

Pakistan

1. US Sanctions Under MCTR
2. Editorial Comments on US Sanctions

Kashmir

1. India Ceasefire Offer
2. Militant Group Responses to Ceasefire Offer
3. Other Responses to Ceasefire Offer
4. India-Pakistan Dialogue
5. Recent Violence
6. Jammu and Kashmir Census

Sri Lanka

1. Continuing Violence
2. Norwegian Peace Efforts

Afghanistan

1. Taliban Opposition


Nuclear Issues
    
1. Pakistani Nuclear Export Policy

Chairman of the Pakistani Atomic Energy Commission, Ashfaq Ahmed, said that Pakistan should sell nuclear technology “which was not sensitive and used in agriculture, health and other sectors” in order to help the national economy.

2. Pakistani Nuclear Program

Pakistan Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammed Riaz stated that a promise by the PRC to not provide missile technology to Pakistan would not hurt Pakistan’s missile program. Riaz stated that Pakistan already developed the minimum nuclear force needed for deterrence.
 
3. Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty

Pakistan Foreign Minister Abdul Sattar stated that Pakistan is “not in a hurry” to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Pakistan claims to be abiding by the treaty, but is waiting for a beneficial time to sign it.

Indian External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh stated that India will not block enforcement of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, but views nuclear testing as an “inherent right.” Singh also reiterated statements that CTBT enforcement will not be possible with the existence of nuclear weapons all over the world.

4. India-Russia Nuclear Cooperation

An article in The Hindu’s Frontline Magazine by R. Ramachandran argued that, because of Russia’s membership in the Nuclear Suppliers Group, there are doubts about the depth of future India-Russia cooperation in nuclear energy. The article reviews likely scenarios for India-Russia cooperation based on India’s previous nuclear cooperation with the US, France, and Russia.

5. India Nuclear Policy

An essay by Indian Air Force Wing Commander N.K. Pant, published by the Institute for Defense and Security Analysis in India, describes the three schools of thought on nuclear weapons in India. Pant argues, however, that these schools approach the issue too academically and that the decision requires a national consensus.

An editorial in the Times of India argued that while all democratic states should have an anti-nuclear peace movement, the people of India are largely indifferent to both national and international security issues. The editorial also argues that the predilection of retired Indian military personnel to aid anti-nuclear causes is a phenomenon that should be studied.

An essay by Manpreet Sethi, a Research Officer with the Institute for Defense and Security Analysis in India, examines the prospects of nuclear disarmament historically and analyzes why the prospects are so limited today. Sethi highlights major developments in the 1990s that created a short-lived atmosphere antithetical to nuclear disarmament.


India
    
1. Overview

India will purchase unmanned aerial vehicles to observe the borders shared with the PRC and Pakistan from Israel. The Indian government will spend between US$250 and US$300 million to purchase the Mark II UAVs, which will be delivered in 2001.

Padmaja Murthy, Associate Fellow at the Institute for Defense and Security Analysis in India, discusses India’s ties with Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, which Murthy argues have grown more complex and more an object of concern.

2. India-PRC Relations

While speaking at the 52nd anniversary of India’s National Cadet Corps, Indian Defense Minister George Fernandes stated that the progress made by the PRC in many areas of development represents a barrier to India becoming a world power. Fernandes also said that the PRC was India’s greatest rival.

An essay by Ritu Mathur, published by the Institute for Defense and Security Analysis in India, argues that the PRC believes that Theater Missile Defense (TMD) can seriously undermine the PRC’s nuclear deterrent and cause the historical enmity between Japan and the PRC to resurface. While the PRC has sought to build up global resistance to the development and deployment of TMD, its military is gearing itself to fight a “limited war” on its frontiers and enhancing military cooperation with France, Russia and Israel.

PRC Assistant Foreign Minister Wang Yi stated that India has been excluded from participating in ASEAN+3 (The Association of South East Asian Nations, the PRC, Japan, the ROK) because India is outside the geographic area of East Asia.

3. India-PRC Border Dispute

Indian External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh announced that there was forward movement in India-PRC ties because the two countries exchanged maps this month of the 545 km middle section of the Line of Actual Control. Singh said that the next step was to compare the maps.

An essay in Outlook India by Janaki Bahadur Kremmer reviews several issues in the border dispute, including unrelated pressures that are driving India to engage the PRC. An editorial in the Times of India argues that the Indian government should press forward upon the PRC because India’s claims along the Line of Actual Control are as strong, or as weak, as the PRC’s claims. The editorial cites the PRC’s continually shifting self-definition of the border as evidence of the weakness of the PRC’s claim.

4. US Sanctions Waiver for the PRC

The Times of India reported that the US had imposed new sanctions upon Pakistan and Iran for their missile programs, but waived any sanctions upon the PRC for its role in aiding their missile programs because the PRC has committed itself to strengthen its missile-related export control system. The article also states that this move could be a major step in stopping missile-technology proliferation and slowing an India-Pakistan arms race, but suggested that the US was “soft on China.” An article in the Times of India by Manoj Joshi sees the PRC waiver as a “sock on India’s jaw,” and stated that it was naive for the US Clinton administration to treat the issue as closed.

5. US-India Relations

Condoleezza Rice, foreign policy advisor to Republican presidential candidate Governor George W. Bush and potentially his National Security Advisor, stated that the US has allowed nuclear proliferation, Pakistan, and Kashmir to interfere with the US-India relationship. Rice stated the US relationship with India must be put into a broader, global context, but pressed India to forgo weaponization while increasing the transparency of its nuclear program.


Pakistan
    
1. US Sanctions Under MCTR

US acting Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher announced that the US was imposing sanctions upon Pakistan’s Ministry of Defense and the Space and Upper Atmosphere Research Organization under the Missile Control Technology Regime (MCTR). The sanctions also apply to Iran, but not to the PRC, which supplied the missile technology, in order to encourage PRC non-proliferation efforts. Boucher stated the new sanctions would have little practical effect.

A Pakistan Foreign Office spokesman said that Pakistan’s missile program would not be affected by the sanctions and denied that Pakistan had received assistance in this area from the PRC. The Dawn quoted a New York Times article that stated that the US was concerned that Pakistan was now receiving most of its help to its missile program from the DPRK and that the potential earnings from launching US satellites were greater than PRC earnings from the sale of missile technology and equipment.

2. Editorial Comments on US Sanctions

A Times of India editorial argued that the US will choose national interest over international agreements when there is a conflict, as it did in waiving sanctions upon the PRC under the Missile Control Technology Regime (MCTR). The editorial further points out the irony that the US will subordinate the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty to develop its National Missile Defense- which the US claims it needs because of the weakness of international regimes, such as the MCTR, for protecting the US.

An editorial in The Dawn argued that the Missile Control Technology Regime should itself be reviewed for allowing such contradictory and arbitrary actions such as the US decision to impose sanctions on Pakistan and Iran, but not on the PRC. The editorial speculates that the sanctions are more related to Pakistan’s military government and its failure to pursue policies of peace in the region.


Kashmir
    
1. India Ceasefire Offer

The Times of India reported that most Indian parliamentarians supported the ceasefire. Leaders of the Congress Party stated their preference for resumption of talks with Pakistan. Congress Party member Karan Singh stated, “When you’re ready to repeatedly offer a ceasefire and dialogue to insurgent groups… what is the point of simultaneously refusing to talk to those who control and arm them?”

The Shiv Sena party expressed opposition to the announced ceasefire and staged several protests. The Shiv Sena later said it would not continue its opposition to the ceasefire after talks with Union party divestment minister Arun Shourie.

Indian Prime Minister A.B. Vajpayee said that, despite threats of violence by militants and the protest by the Shiv Sena party, the ceasefire offer would not be withdrawn. A senior official in the India government said there had been positive responses to the ceasefire offer by local militants and foreign governments. The official stated that the ambivalence of several militant groups, especially the Hizbul Mujahideen, signaled division within their leadership.

Home Minister L.K. Advani referred to India’s ceasefire offer as “Lahore II” and asked Pakistan to stop cross-border terrorism. Advani said the Indian Army would not initiate any combat but would respond to an infiltration or an attack by terrorists.

2. Militant Group Responses to Ceasefire Offer

The Harkat-ul Mujahideen, Jaish-e-Mohammad, and Al-Badr groups declared their intention to increase attacks during the ceasefire. The Harkatul Mujahideen and Harkatul Jihad-e-Islami stated an intention to launch joint operations against Indian troops in Kashmir. The Hindu stated that pan-Islamic groups were less likely to observe the ceasefire. Praveen Swami writes in Frontline Magazine that the ceasefire offer may be driving a wedge between factions of the All-Parties Hurriyat Conference and the Hizbul Mujahideen over how to react to the offer, with much of the Hizbul’s members wishing for an end to the violence.

The Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front and other Kashmiri groups, including the Jammu and Kashmir People’s Democratic Party, called upon militants to honor the ceasefire.

The All-Parties Hurriyat Conference shifted its stance on the ceasefire from cautiously neutral to positively supportive, but reiterated its insistence that the Kashmir issue was not an internal Indian issue and its solution must involve Pakistan. The APHC reiterated its willingness to talk separately with India and Pakistan if India finds trilateral talks problematic.

After first stating that the Hizbul Mujahideen had not rejected outright the ceasefire offer, Hizbul commander Syed Salahuddin accused the Indian government of staging the attack on the five truck drivers to withdraw its ceasefire offer and stated that the separatist movement was united against offer. Salahuddin said the offer was meaningless unless India reduced troop levels, ended all operations against civilians, and released militants from prison.

3. Other Responses to Ceasefire Offer

A Times of India editorial argued that India’s diplomacy with Myanmar has indicated a willingness to work with cooperative military governments, but that it is up to Pakistan to address Indian security concerns. An editorial by Amitabh Mattoo argued that the ceasefire is India’s most significant gesture towards Kashmir in a decade, but that India needs to make a greater distinction between short-term tactics and its longer-term grand strategy. A third Times of India editorial argued that there are a number of steps Pakistan should take before India can have meaningful bilateral talks.

Former Prime Minister of Pakistan-administered Kashmir Sardar Abdul Qayyum Khan, currently head of the Muslim Conference, stated his support for the ceasefire offer and said that the next step should be India-APHC (All-Parties Hurriyat Conference) talks and talks between Kashmiris on opposite side of the Line of Control.

The Times of India reported that Mansoor Ijaz, a Pakistani-American businessman, was involved in negotiations between the Hizbul Mujahideen, India, and Pakistan during the last ceasefire. Ijaz was reported as saying that by the time he had been able to elicit promises from India that Pakistan could be involved in talks at some point, Pakistan had pressed Hizbul leader Syed Salahuddin to demand Pakistan’s immediate participation.

4. India-Pakistan Dialogue

Pakistan Foreign Minister Abdul Sattar stated that Pakistan was ready to stand by the July 4, 1999 agreement signed by then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and US President Bill Clinton. The statement, never clearly endorsed by the government of Pakistan Chief Executive Pervez Musharraf, commits Pakistan to respect the sanctity of the Line of Control and to prevent armed individuals from illegally crossing the border.

The Times of India reported that during a phone conversation between the Directors-General of Military Operations of India and Pakistan, the two countries agreed to stop efforts to change the Line of Control. The India Army gave orders to not engage in “retaliatory, speculative, planned and direct” firing upon Pakistani troops except in the cases of attempted infiltrations or self-defense. Pakistan was reported to have already violated the understanding.

In a meeting with All-Parties Hurriyat Conference leader Abdul Ghani Lone, Pakistan Chief Executive Pervez Musharraf stated that Kashmir was the core bilateral issue and there could be no solution without Pakistan’s participation. Musharraf reportedly said that Pakistan would react positively if India “improved upon” its offer. Lone said he urged Musharraf to not reject the ceasefire and also stated, “India should participate in the proposed tripartite talks with Pakistan and Kashmiri representatives.”

A joint paper by the Institute of Regional Studies of Pakistan and the Indian International Center for Peace Initiatives proposed a five-stage approach to restoring bilateral negotiations between Pakistan and India.
    
5. Recent Violence

Indian External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh accused Pakistan of releasing convicts and sending them into Kashmir to commit terrorist acts.

6. Jammu and Kashmir Census

The Times of India reported that the Jammu and Kashmir state government had completed its census, despite threats from militant groups, and were forwarding the results to the central government. The article reported that door-to-door counts were not conducted in many cases, and instead data was collected from local village numberdars and elders.


Sri Lanka
    
1. Continuing Violence

Encounters between the Sri Lankan Army and members of the Liberation Tigers Tamil Eelam continued in the Jaffna peninsula.

2. Norwegian Peace Efforts

The Norwegian peace envoy, Erik Solheim, pressed both the government and the LTTE to agree to confidence-building measures to create an environment conducive to ending hostilities and beginning dialogue.


Afghanistan

1. Taliban Opposition

India and Russia called for an end to support by external parties for the Taliban in Afghanistan, and continued to provide support and arms to the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance of Commander Ahmad Shah Massod. Afghanistan Ambassador to Pakistan Moulvi Abdul Salam Zaeef said India and Russia were prolonging strife in Afghanistan.

Taliban and opposition forces fought near the border with Tajikistan. The Times of India reported that a multinational counteroffensive with the support of the US, Russia, Iran, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan would be launched soon against the Taliban


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.