DISARMAMENT

• 1. DISARMAMENT: Concept
• It is elimination or reduction of armaments to preserve
international peace and security by averting wars. Morgenthau:
“Disarmament is the reduction or elimination of certain or all
armaments for the purpose of ending the armament race”.
• Charles P. Schleicher: Disarmament “means of reducing or
eliminating the material and human instrumentalities for the
exercise of physical violence”.
• V.V. Dyke: “Any regulation or limitation having to do with armed
power is treated as a measure of Disarmament”.
• ARMS CONTROL AGREEMENTS
• The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT): The NPT was signed
simultaneously in London, Moscow and Washington on 1 July 1968 and
came into force on 5 March 1970.
• Aim: limiting the spread of nuclear weapons globally. About 189 countries
are till date party to the treaty. Five members among these have nuclear
weapons.
• They are the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and the
People’s Republic of China. India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea are not
signatories to this Treaty. India and Pakistan both possess and have openly
tested nuclear bombs.
• Israel has adopted a policy of deliberate ambiguity regarding its own
nuclear policy. North Korea acceded to the Treaty, violated it, and later
withdrew itself.
• The Treaty consists of a Preamble and eleven articles and is considered
as having three pillars: non-proliferation, disarmament, and the right
to peacefully use nuclear technology.
• (a) Non-proliferation: Under Article I, the five Nuclear Weapon States
(NWS) agree not to transfer “nuclear weapons or other nuclear
explosive devices” and “not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce”
a Non-Nuclear Weapon State (NNWS) to acquire nuclear weapons.
Article II contains that NNWS parties to the NPT agree not to "receive,”
“manufacture” or “acquire” nuclear weapons or to “seek or receive
any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons”.
• Article III states that NNWS parties also agree to accept safeguards by
the IAEA to verify that they are not diverting nuclear energy from
peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.
• (b) Article VI urges all state Parties to the NPT, both nuclear-weapon
states and non-nuclear-weapon states, “to pursue negotiations in good
faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race
at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general
and complete disarmament under strict and effective international
control”.
• (c) Peaceful use of nuclear energy: The NPT allows for and agrees upon
the transfer of nuclear technology and materials to NPT signatory
countries for the development of civilian nuclear energy programmes in
those countries, as long as they can demonstrate that their nuclear
programmes are not being used for the development of nuclear weapons.
The Treaty recognizes the inalienable right of sovereign states to use
nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, but restricts this right for NPT
parties to be exercised “in conformity with Articles 1 and 2
• Criticism:
• The language of the Treaty--- especially from
the countries interested in developing their
nuclear capabilities. India, Pakistan, Brazil,
Argentina are among the many countries who
refused to sign the Treaty because they thought
that the Treaty was discriminatory.
• The Treaty, while on the one hand was aiming to limit
the vertical expansion was, on the other hand, silent
on horizontal expansion.
• In other words, it was silent about the control of
possessions of the nuclear capabilities of the states
belonging to the Nuclear Club.
• Creating a division between nuclear haves and have
nots.
•  The Treaty was viewed as being aimed at perpetuating nuclear
dependence of non-nuclear states on the nuclear states and, therefore,
increased the gap between them.
• The NPT failed to bring about any positive disarmament and arms control.
• Indefinite Extension of NPT, On 11 May 1995, at a Global Conference held
to review the NPT, the state Parties to the Treaty agreed by consensus and
without formal dissent that the Treaty would continue in force
permanently and unconditionally.
• The extension of NPT, however, legitimized the possession of nuclear
weapons by the five nuclear powers. India, Pakistan and Israel still
rejected the Treaty as discriminatory.
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)
• The Treaty was opened for signature at New York on 24 September
1996 and it is yet to come into force. It bans all nuclear explosions in all
environments, for military or civilian purposes.
• The CTBT was negotiated in the Conference on Disarmament
(CD)between January 1994 and August 1996, and adopted by the UN
General Assembly in September 1996.
• The CTBT has not entered into force, although all the five declared
nuclear powers are currently observing testing moratoria.
• In order to bridge the period until the Treaty's entry into force, on 19
November 1996 the Preparatory Commission of the Comprehensive
Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO PrepCom) was
established.
• BASIC OBLIGATIONS
• [1] Each State Party undertakes not to carry out any nuclear weapon
test explosion or any other nuclear explosion, and to prohibit and
prevent any such nuclear explosion at any place under its jurisdiction
or control.
• [2] Each State Party undertakes, furthermore, to refrain from causing,
encouraging, or in any way participating in the carrying out of any
nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion.
• ARTICLE-II – Organization--a forum for consultation and cooperation
among States Parties,- THE CONFERENCE OF THE STATES PARTIES, THE
EXECUTIVE COUNCIL, THE TECHNICAL SECRETARIAT.
• ARTICLE III: NATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES
• ARTICLE IV: VERIFICATION - (a) An International Monitoring System;
• (b) Consultation and clarification; (c) On-site inspections; and (d)
Confidence-building measures.
• ARTICLE V: MEASURES TO REDRESS A SITUATION AND TO ENSURE,
COMPLIANCE, INCLUDING SANCTIONS
• ARTICLE VI: SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES. Disputes that may arise
concerning the application or the interpretation of this Treaty shall
be settled in accordance with the relevant provisions of this Treaty
and in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United
Nations.
• ARTICLE VII: AMENDMENT PROCEDURE
ARTICLE VIII: REVIEW OF THE TREATY.
Unless otherwise decided by a majority of the States Parties,
ten years after the entry into force of this Treaty, a
Conference of the States Parties shall be held to review the
operation and effectiveness of this Treaty, with a view to
assuring itself that the objectives and purposes in the
Preamble and the provisions of the Treaty are being realized.
ARTICLE IX: DURATION AND WITHDRAWAL
Articles X-XIV- STATUS OF THE PROTOCOL AND THE ANNEXES,
SIGNATURE, RATIFICATION, ACCESSION, ENTRY INTO FORCE. 
• Seventy-one states, including five of the eight the then nuclear-capable states
signed the Treaty. At present, the CTBT has been signed by 180 states and ratified
by 145 states.
• India, Pakistan and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) did
not sign. In fact, India and Pakistan conducted back-to back nuclear tests in 1998,
while North Korea withdrew from the NPT in 2003. US Senate has not yet ratified
it yet.
• India and CTBT: From the beginning India was a vociferous proponent of a nuclear
test ban. In 1954, India initiated a global call at the U.N. Disarmament
Commission for an end to nuclear testing and a freeze on fissile material
production.
• Likewise, in 1978 and 1982 at the Special Sessions on Disarmament, India
proposed measures for banning nuclear testing, and in 1988, it introduced the
Rajiv Gandhi Action Plan for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons. However,
after co-sponsoring a resolution for a test ban treaty in November 1993
• India reversed course and tried to block the treaty text that was
negotiated at the Conference on Disarmament.
• Given the strategic security environment in South Asia, India has limited
options as a non-nuclear weapon state to deal with the lurking
challenges from China's nuclear arsenal and Pakistan's nuclear weapons
program. By signing the CTBT, India would have foregone the right to
test nuclear devices, yet its primary nuclear-armed adversary, China,
would be able to retain its nuclear weapons under the treaty and could
even upgrade them through subcritical experiments.
• CTBT was inadequate in terms of securing disarmament commitments
from the nuclear weapon states under declared deadlines.
• It saw this as a discriminatory replication of the imbalance inherent in
the Nuclear
• Much has changed since then. India's 1998 nuclear tests,
growing nuclear arsenal, and partial integration into the
nonproliferation regime via the Nuclear Suppliers Group
(NSG) waiver that was part of the 2008 U.S.-India
nuclear deal--along with the Obama administration's
moves to revive the treaty, have caused New Delhi to
reconsider its approach to the CTBT.
• Although opposition to the treaty remains, several
domestic justifications for a nuclear test ban have
emerged.
• India rejected the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 1996 as a non-
nuclear weapon state. But today, as a de facto nuclear weapon state, it
is reevaluating its position.
• Apprehensions : prospective nuclear technology supplier states will
stipulate India's commitment to the CTBT as a precondition for nuclear
trade.
• However, it will still be difficult for India to support the treaty unless it
adopts a time-bound disarmament process and New Delhi's security
establishment certifies the Indian arsenal as a credible minimum
deterrent.
• China signed the CTBT on 24 September 1996 (the second country to
do so after the United States), but has not yet ratified it. China's last
nuclear test  (its 45th) was conducted on 29 July 1996.
• After the test, China adhered to the voluntary
international moratorium on testing.
• Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR)The Missile
Technology Control Regime (MTCR) is a set of guidelines
regulating the export of missiles, unmanned air vehicles
(UAVs), and related technology for those systems capable
of carrying a 500 kilogram payload at least 300 kilometers,
as well as systems intended for the delivery of weapons of
mass destruction (WMD). The MTCR was originally
concerned only with nuclear capable delivery systems. In
January 1993, the Partners extended the guidelines
• In January 1993, the Partners extended the guidelines to cover delivery
systems capable of delivering all WMD (nuclear, chemical, and biological).
• During the August 2002 meeting in Warsaw, parties to the MTCR decided
on greater clarity in the definitions of "range" and "payload."  Members
agreed that the current range of 300 kilometers would be the distance
achieved at "range maximizing" capability.
• The definition of payload was expanded to include the cover support
structures and countermeasures.  The MTCR was formed in 1987 by the G-
7(Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Great Britain, and the United
State) partners, and is an informal voluntary arrangement, not a treaty or
an international agreement.
• The MTCR has 34 members."missiles" to include: ballistic missiles, space
launch vehicles (SLVs) and sounding rockets. Unmanned Air-Vehicles(UAVs)
include: cruise missiles, drones, and remotely piloted vehicles (RPVs).
• The MTCR's annex of controlled equipment and technology is
divided into "Category I" and "Category II" items.
• Category I includes complete rocket systems, unmanned air-
vehicle systems such as cruise missiles, target and
reconnaissance drones, specially-designed production facilities
for these systems; and certain complete subsystems.
• Category II covers a wide range of parts, components and
subsystems such as propellants, structural materials, test
equipment and facilities, and flight instruments.The Indian
Navy is set to carry Shipboard Supersonic Missiles on most of
its ships and submarines.
• The Indian Navy has always been ‘missile savvy’
and ‘pro missilery’ since both its historic attacks on
Karachi on 4th Dec (Op Trident) and 8th December,
1971(Op Python) which were path breakers in
missile warfare for the world to emulate.
• In the Indian Navy, a band of Soviet-trained officers
nicknamed ‘The Killers’ led the campaign for the
fitting anti-ship SSMs, and ship to land missiles on
ships.
• After several successful trials, at least two vessels, INS Rajput and INS
Ranvir, have already been fitted with the BrahMos supersonic missiles
while efforts to put it on board submarines, as well as naval and Indian
Air Force (IAF) aircraft is also on.
• The Indo-Russian BrahMosis the first operational supersonic missile in
the world and the Indian Navy, which has always been missile savvy, is
the first to carry any supersonic cruise missile.
• The range of the missile is limited below 300 km and the payload is
also restricted to less than 500 kg in accordance with the Missile
Technology Control Regime (MTCR) which India has observed without
being a signatory. Notably though, the other equal partner in the
BrahMos venture, Russia, is a signatory to the MTCR, and therefore
obliged not to cross these limitations.
• Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT).
• Background : Since the entry into force of the nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT), a significant issue for the disarmament and arms control has
been the continued production of fissile materials—the key ingredient for
producing nuclear weapons.
• Many states have long been calling for a ban on the production of these
materials. The issue has been on the UN’s agenda since 1957 and on the
proposed agenda of the Conference on Disarmament (CD) for many years.
• In December 1993, the UN General Assembly adopted by consensus
resolution 48/75 recommending the negotiation of a non-discriminatory,
multilateral, and internationally and effectively verifiable treaty banning
the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear
explosive devices.
• This treaty is commonly known as a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty
(FMCT).
• On 25 January 1994, the CD appointed a Special Coordinator,
Ambassador Gerald Shannon of Canada, to investigate the views of
member states on the most effective way to negotiate a fissile materials
treaty which met the requests of the UN General Assembly.
• The resulting report, CD/1229, came to be known as the “Shannon
Mandate” and proposed that an ad hoc committee be convened to
pursue negotiations and settle several of the outstanding issues—
including whether existing stocks should be included in the treaty or not.
• Ultimately, efforts to establish the committee failed, but many states
continue to refer to the Shannon Mandate as the basis for future
negotiations.
• Critical issues of FMCT
• The concept of a cut-off of the production of fissile material for
nuclear weapons has been discussed for a long time, and the
agreement on a mandate (known as the Shannon Mandate) to
begin negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament (CD) broke
down in 1995.
• Since then, there has been very little formal progress.
• There are three draft treaty texts which have been presented as
documents of the CD, one presented by the United States in May
2006, another submitted Greenpeace International in April 2004
and a third in September 2009 by the International Panel on
Fissile Material (IPFM).
• Differences on the question about existing stocks were one of the main
reasons that negotiations stalled in 1995.
• There are still great differences between positions on this matter.
• The United States and the Russian Federation have the largest
stockpiles, and most other states are waiting for these two to take the
lead.
• While the non-nuclear weapon states that are party to the NPT have
already agreed to accept comprehensive safeguards by the IAEA, the
nuclear weapon states and the states which are not party to the NPT
are not legally obligated to accept such safeguards. 
• Many states believe that a cut-off verification regime should be used as
a means to rectify this situation and impose a more equal safeguards
standard on the nuclear weapon states
• An FMCT will require many technical issues to be resolved, from
actually defining fissile material to ensuring that the treaty is
effective by developing specific procedures for verification.
Six Nation Initiative:
• In the first week of the 2005 UN General Assembly First
Committee meetings, Brazil, Canada, Kenya, Mexico, New
Zealand, and Sweden introduced a non-paper, with an
explanatory note outlining elements of a draft resolution that
would establish four open-ended ad hoc committees on the
four priority issues of the Five Ambassadors (A5) proposal for a
programme of work in the CD.
• These committees would meet in Geneva with resources from within
the regular CD budget, and be open to the 65 CD member states as
well as any interested UN member state.
• The initiative was squashed by the United States, which circulated a
memo to member states' capitals calling the proposal a "divisive
proposal" that would "likely spell the end of the CD.
• “Canadian initiative In 2007, the Canadian delegation to the General
Assembly attempted to garner support for “a strictly procedural draft
decision that would have added the issue of the prohibition of the
production of fissile material to next year’s First Committee agenda.
• " However, it was unable to reach consensus in preliminary
consultations and withdrew the draft decision
• Indian and FMCT
• Whether India will be unable to acquire enough weapon-grade
fissile materials for its perceived credible minimum deterrent
requirement after it concludes the 123 Agreement with the
United States and frees itself from the technology apartheid is at
the heart of the debate on the civilian nuclear deal with the US.
• Some have focused, as often happens, on US policies and raised
the question whether India concentrating on the verification
issue would be considered a breach of understanding between
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and US President George W
Bush that the two countries collaborate on progressing towards
the conclusion of a Fissile Materials Cutoff Treaty.
• The consequences of not signing the NPT are well known. India is being subject
to technology apartheid. India did not suffer very much for not joining the
CTBT, thanks to the US Senate action the treaty did not come into force.
• However, India should be prepared for the consequences of not going along
with US on the discussions leading to the FMCT
• If India stays out of FMCT, then India will have to devise a strategy to reach the
stage III of the Bhabha plan.
• Otherwise the shortage of indigenous uranium will slow down and bring to a
halt our nuclear programme unless new discoveries of uranium ore are made
in the country.
• China too will depend upon imported uranium for its nuclear reactor
requirements. But China already has a significant arsenal and has accepted all
conditionalities imposed by the US 123 agreement, the Nuclear Suppliers
Group and the recent agreement with Australia for supply of uranium ore.
• 2002, the MTCR was supplemented by the
International Code of Conduct against Ballistic
Missile Proliferation (ICOC), also known as the
Hague Code of Conduct, which calls for restraint
and care in the proliferation of ballistic missile
systems capable of delivering weapons of mass
destruction, and has 119 members, thus
working parallel to the MTCR with less specific
restrictions but with a greater membership.