How Resilient Is The Nuclear Taboo Today?

By Rizwana Abbasi

16 March, 2016
Countercurrents.org

Empirical record shows that nuclear weapons have not been employed after 1945. However, in many crises and wars in history, there were possibilities when nuclear weapons could have been used without fear of retaliation.But, states did not use the nuclear use option, even at the higher cost on the theatre of war. This happened despite the existence of many supporting variables that might have prompted employment of nuclear bombs, such as: widespread nuclear weapons in states’ possession internationally; states’ technical efficiency in regard to operationalization of such weapons;transfer of nuclear weapons from old to new proliferators with asymmetric power balance; the centrality of nuclear weapons in states’ national security policies and their strategic doctrines; states’ distinct strategic cultures/traditions and unique political systems and; more significantly, absence of legal prohibition towards possession and use of nuclear weapons. To fully understand the question as to why nuclear weapons have not been used since 1945, Tannenwald in her prize winning account, Nuclear Taboo[1]and T. V. Paul in his Tradition of Non-use of Nuclear Weapons[2] have revised this debate more persuasively and comprehensively than the others cited and commented on.

The present writer’s contention, drawing upon Tannenwald’s and Paul’s investigation is that ‘taboo’ may be the correct explanation and that the term gains credence because no state has used nuclear weapons from 1945 to the present even under compelling circumstances. To the present writer’s understanding, ‘taboo’ was certainly established by the United States of America after 1945, but there were some significant attributes that explicitly or implicitly contributed to the establishment of this taboo. These were material factors - guided bythe U.S. national security interests. Thus,this writer’s contention is that a single approach or cultural/normative aspects alone cannot explain the taboo talk. Combination of both material and non-material or ideational factors can explain this question of non-use more clearly.[3]

In the first place, realist and neo-realist theorists argue that states (rational, unitary actors) are primarily concerned with their own survival in the international order; the great powers have dominated the system, and anarchy has been the key ordering principle that has structured states’ behaviour.[4] Thus, it is fair to assume that the two superpowers’ national security interests and their strategic gains remained uppermostin the bipolar world. One, nuclear competition/arms race between the U.S. and the former Soviet Union in 1950s helped them achieve bomb efficiency and sufficiency to maintain their doctrinal force posture and preservedeterrence credibility. The former Soviet Union broke America’s nuclear supremacy and monopoly that certainly regulated the nature of war. Two, the U.S, and the Soviet Union were two leading global powers and they desired to maximize their global political influence. Thus, based on their technological efficiencies and capabilities, they realized that there can be no victory in the nuclear domain. Moreover, the two superpowers had to transcend their power beyond their regions.Thus, they preferred peace/ settlement over confrontation/war. Three, the U.S. wanted to establish afavourable world order by preaching peace and minimizing violence. Four, introduction of new conventional technologies, such as Ballistic Missile Defence and missile interceptors, reduced the role and utility of these weapons globally that indeed modified the U.S’behaviour.

Secondly, neo-liberal approach[5] articulates that institutions contribute substantially to the world of politics, especially in the area of state cooperation and behaviour. During the Cold War, the U.S. and the Soviet Union believed that the new patterns of international politics werebased on multilateral institutions, which help states see one another through the lens of shared interests. Thus, on the policyside, non-proliferation arrangements were initiated at the system level by the superpowers during the Cold War through negotiations which were somehow successful till 1991.[6] The two bipolar blocs, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Warsaw Pact, played a considerably important role in placing constraints on states’ nuclear behaviour through incentives and alliances. The establishment of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)was initiated as a system level arrangement based on President Eisenhower’s address to the UN General Assembly (UNGA) on December 8, 1953.

After President Kennedy’s prediction in 1963 that “15 to 25 states would obtain nuclear weapons by 1975,”[7]the U.S. opened discreet channels of communication with the Soviet Union, the Eighteen-Nation Committee on Disarmament (ENDC) and its NATO allies. Thus, negotiations on disarmament brought the two superpowers together to draft another arrangement to prohibit further nuclear weapons proliferation. Subsequently, the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was finalized and was opened for signature in 1968 that came into force in 1970, with a range of obligations on the Nuclear Weapon States(NWS) and Non-Nuclear Weapon States (NNWS) based on three bargaining pillars – non-proliferation, right to peaceful uses of nuclear technologies and disarmament. Later the Conference on Disarmament (CD) and export control regimeswere introduced thattend to give an important status to the NPT and overall non-proliferation efforts.

In 1961, President Kennedy’sadministration sought to reduce reliance on nuclear weapons and to develop more flexible and conventional alternatives. The initiatives that were initiated during the Cold War, such as introduction of Confidence Building Measures (CBMs), arms control arrangements, Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty with Soviet Union in 1972, and extension of nuclear states negative security assurances to non-nuclear states in 1978 also contributed to resilience of this taboo. These formal and informal treaties and regimes that are directed to promote non-proliferation laid down the concealed and robust foundation for nuclear taboo,Thereby, containing states’ behaviour not only towards development of nuclear weapons and arms control, but they also promoted the spirit of non-use. The purpose of these arrangements was to establish a rule-based mechanism against proliferation of nuclear weapons around the world and create trust among states.

Thirdly, constructivist approach[8] based on ideational factor thus helps oneto endorse Tannenwald’s taboo debate. This writer believes thatthe former two models based on political and self-interest grounds helped modify states’normative and social behaviour during the Cold War. President Truman’s contribution by assigning non-military or political role to nuclear weapons was based on fear factor or horrendous consequences of use of nuclear weapons. Strategic thinkers’ contribution based on their scientific inquiry at the RAND; such as, Bernard Brodie,[9]Shelling[10] and Wohlstetter[11], Henry Kissinger[12] and Herman Kahn[13]; injected vigorous strategic thinking at the political and strategic levels on the role of the nuclear weapons hence verifying the fact that there is no victory in the nuclear war. Indeed, American reputation was widely damaged due to employment of nuclear weapons that certainly set the new discourse/direction in regard to the role of the U.S. as a leading power in the world order. In parallel to this, the fear factor and consequences of use of nuclear weapons generated human rights debates, civil society movements, anti-nuclear weapons pressure groups in the U.S. and Europe. In this process, common public perception in the West was much more developed with respect to the horrific effects resulting from the use of nuclear weapons, and an increased sense of responsibility at state level had emerged in this respect.

Resilience and fragility of taboo in the present century

Resilience of taboo

In the first place, it goes without saying that slower proliferation of nuclear weapons,contrary to Kennedy’s prediction - that was widely anticipated - has not come to pass yet. Two, discernible declined in number of arsenals between the U.S. and Russia has strengthened non-proliferation framework and spirit towards disarmament. Three, the indefinite extension of the NPT in 1995 and the treaty’smembership that has reached up to 190 states, are hallmark developments.Four,the introduction of New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) by President Obama, announcement of diminishing role of nuclear weapons in the U.S. national security policies, Global Zero Movement and President Obama’s efforts are great steps towards the survival of taboo talk. Five, arrival of smarter conventional technologies such as Global Prompt Strikes (GPS), missile anticipators and shifting power centres, global integration/interdependence and regionalism have reinforced the spirit of non-use taboo, thereby minimizing the utility of nuclear weapons.

Fragility of taboo

However, the taboo remains fragile in the present century. The taboo holds no legitimacy and there is no legal prohibition on possession and use of nuclear weapons. Thus, the taboo talk demands a new nuclear taboo against proliferation of nuclear weapons via major fixes,thereby pluggingthe gaps that exist in institutional arrangements and agreements directed to promote non-proliferation. In this writer’s view, the major institutional arrangement with highest membership within the non-proliferation regime is the NPT that require major improvements.

Despite its successes, the regime has failed in achieving its desired goalsbased on its three pillars which constituted a grand bargain. One, under the NPT, five countries are recognized as NWS, while the rest of the Treaty’s signatories are regarded as NNWS and barred from acquiring nuclear weapons. Such an arrangement has raised global criticism against this regime’s efficacy and it underscores great powers’ interests.Two, there is a problem of non-universalnature of the NPT that needs to be addressed. Three, another issue is that in Articles III and IV, the vaguely defined Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) has been used to give waiver to states to transfer nuclear technology. Arguably, the U.S.waiver (2008) to India and U.S.-India Defense Technology and Trade Initiative (DTTI)have evidently damaged the essence and spirit of the taboo by complicating regional politics between India and Pakistan. Thus, it goes without saying thatIndia’s and America’s shared interests havecreated regional imbalance and mistrust.States’ interests at the system level are indeed damaging the set institutional norms, thereby making regional politics highly complicated. Against this backdrop of, existing realities such as: the growing reliance of India and Pakistan on nuclear weapons; absence of an arms control regime;non-existence of CBMs; existence of ambiguous doctrinal strategies and contingency plans; and aggravated arms race in South Asia powerfully advocate the fragility and vulnerability of taboo.

Four, no progress has been made in the implementation of Article VI prescribing disarmament by the NWS. In particular, the NPT extension conference referred to Article VI of the NPT and obligations of the NWS to pursue efforts in good faith towards total elimination of nuclear weapons. Five, export control regimes, particularly the NSG, are under immense stress against the backdrop of globalization, rising demand for energy security in developing countries of Asia and shifting global energy trends from fossil to non-fossil fuel – especially, clean energy.Thus, the NPT clauses on non-proliferation and peaceful uses require major changes.

The taboo against use would remain under strain until and unless we establish a new taboo against proliferation of nuclear weapons. To strengthen the new taboo, it is imperative that we universalizethe non-proliferation regime/agreements and arrangements, hence relating them to the states’ behaviour at the domestic level.

Pakistan and the Nuclear Taboo

How resilient is the taboo in Pakistani context? This writer has investigated[14]the extent to which Pakistan’s security considerations and its nuclear behaviour were factored into the regional strategic environment/thinking or global non-proliferation regime/norms; and to what extentnon-material/ideational attributes/ factors would have an impact on Pakistan’s use or non-use decision?

The present writer identified Pakistan’s nuclear behaviour motivated by two main factors. First, it is India-centric Pakistan’s behaviour, which became evident after 1965, is more adequately explained by the realist model: the threat to its security arising from its immediate neighbour, India, and the actions of India towards the acquisition of a nuclear capability which appears to be the main motivation behind Pakistan’s own drive towards acquiring a nuclear capability in response. Pakistan’s defeat in the 1965 and 1971 wars, when it received no help from its allies, led it to rely less on alliance systems and to turn instead to self-help. Pakistan was left with no choice but to acquisition of nuclear weapon capability after the Indian so-called Peaceful Nuclear Explosion (PNE) in 1974, which challenged the strategic equation in the South Asian region. India’s unconditional hostility and its tests again in 1998 changed Pakistan’s cautious and restrained nuclear policy into one of weaponization. Pakistan thinks strategically and realistically when its national security and survival is threatened. This writer believes that Pakistan’s policy decisions in relation to nuclear weapons, its doctrinal strategies, contingency plans are directed to neutralize Indian actions, its conventional and non-conventional postures and operational plans directed toward Pakistan. However, Pakistan is vigilant on Indian conventional and non-conventional defence build-up, its contingency plans and future policies. Pakistan has included tactical nuclear weapons in its inventory to counter Indian Cold Start Doctrine, thus minimizing probability of war in the region.[15]

Second, it was found that Pakistan’s behaviour is influenced by the non-proliferation regime which in the long term failed to secure Pakistan’s cooperation. We cannot deny the fact that on normative ground though from the outset Pakistan sought to be aligned with the global community, particularly the U.S., sometimes on bilateral grounds and on other occasions as a part of trilateral or multilateral alliances. Pakistan’s behaviour in the period from the early 1950s to the mid-1960s, shows its cooperation based policy when it was a part of global alliances such as Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) and Central Treaty Organization (CENTO). Pakistan refrained from nuclear weapons development in this period and relied instead on international alliances.

In 1974, on normative grounds, Pakistan had proposed to establish a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone (NWFZ) in South Asia; and in 1978, it proposed to India a series of measures which it rejected. These included a joint Indo-Pakistan declaration renouncing the acquisition and manufacture of nuclear weapons, mutual inspections by India and Pakistan of nuclear facilities, simultaneous adherence to the non-proliferation treaty (NPT) by India and Pakistan, and simultaneous acceptance of International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) full-scope safeguards. However, all these proposalswere rejected by India.[16]

In its national security interest, Pakistan decided not to sign the NPT: First, it has serious reservations about the structure of this Treaty that maintains a division between nuclear and non-nuclear weapon states on selective basis and has led to arguments that the NPT is primarily focused on safeguarding the interests of the P-5 states. Second, the NPT has made no progress towards disarmament, thus perpetuating the crisis of trust. Third, the NPT did not offer any incentive to Pakistan towards safeguarding its national security interests against existential threat coming from India. Fourth, the NPT failed to constrain states’ behaviour that legitimize and maximize their absolute gains thereby compromising the spirit of the Treaty. The Indo-U.S. nuclear deal is a significant case in point. Fifth, there exist considerable ambiguities and confusion between the clauses on non-proliferation and right to peaceful uses of nuclear technologies that put substantial pressure on the applicability of the NPT in the 21st century.

On Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT),[17] Pakistan insists that negotiations on all four items agreed to in the Shannon Mandate of 1995, be pursued simultaneously. Pakistan proposes: One, the FMCT needs to be a non-discriminatory and universally verifiable treaty. Second, it does not agree with the term “cut-off” as it does not cover the existing stockpile/fissile material. Third, the FMCT should be conceived as a legitimate disarmament measure, not devoted merely to the goals of non-proliferation. Four, non-inclusion of existing stockpiles of fissile materials puts Pakistan in a disadvantageous position viz-à-viz its adversary, India. Five, Pakistan believes that the U.S.-India nuclear deal and the Nuclear Suppliers Group’s (NSG) special waiver to India have unquestionably given India an advantage.

There are many reasons for Pakistan not to take a unilateral approach to signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT):[18] One, it is unclear whether India would follow suit, given its intention to build hydrogen bombs. Two, Pakistan will not be recognized as a nuclear weapons state by the world community even if it signs the CTBT. Three, Pakistan may not secure substantial support for its peaceful nuclear programme, unlike India. Finally, if Pakistan were to join and quit because of India’s possible tests, such a reversal would have a hugely costly strategic impact on Pakistan.

Being not a member of the NPT, Pakistan has instituted a laboriousand robust export control and nuclear security regime. Pakistan follows the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540; it is a party to the Convention on Nuclear Safety; the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials and Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism; the Container Security Initiative, and the IAEA’s Incident and Trafficking Database. Moreover, Islamabad has established its independent regulatory authority- Pakistan Nuclear Regulatory Authority ─ that works closely with the IAEA.[19]

While, in general, the arguments presented here subscribe to this viewpoint, the reality in the case of South Asia is that the acquisition of nuclear weapons by two rival powers has in fact had a stabilizing effect on a volatile region. India and Pakistan have fought three major wars before they gained a nuclear deterrence capability. Nuclear deterrence has prevented both a full conventional war and a nuclear war. U.S. mediation has strengthened the taboo against the use of nuclear weapons which demonstrates the relevance of the constructivists’ arguments here. For example, two major crises (Brasstacks in 1977–78 and the Kashmir crisis in 1990–91), as well as the Kargil crisis[20] in 1999 and the long period of armed confrontation following the attack on the LokSabha in December 2001 have been resolved or contained through U.S. mediation (that is not guaranteed in the future).

It is possible that the U.S. would not have intervened had not both states been nuclear armed. Equally, U.S. mediation might not have been accepted by the parties – principally by India, which rejects third party mediation in most cases – had not the risks of nuclear conflict been very great. Thus, it is argued that the taboo against the use of nuclear weapons has been recognized globally, but it still holds weak recognition in the South Asian context because of regional complexities and distinct political direction of two new nuclear weapon states. India is focused on projecting power beyond the region, whereas Pakistan is focused on maximization of its own security.

The problems of the state of Pakistan in the context of use and non-use cannot be explained based on ideational factors such as norms/ identity /culture/or dealt with in isolation from problems related to regional strategic environment or problem within the non-proliferation system. One, Pakistan and India are developing countries and their societal factors cannot be compared with the super and great power of the world; two, illiteracy rate and level of tolerance and human right debates are fairly weak in these societies; three, there are no strong indigenous civil society movements and public awareness on the consequences of employment of nuclear weapons; four, distinct politics directions of India (seeks global role in securitization process) and Pakistan (maximization of security)[21] is delaying the peace process; five, both countries are not willing to compromise on the Kashmir issue.[22]

Therefore, the argument generates a further debate: to fully understand Pakistan’s nuclear policy, the Indian case must also be considered. To alter Pakistan’s behaviour, it is necessary to change India’s behaviour first. To change India’s behaviour, there is a need to change the behaviour of the NWS overall. This is why this writer argues that it is only a change in the behaviour of states at the system level that can lead to a change in the behaviour of states at a regional level. A change in regional behaviour would lead to a change in Pakistan’s behaviour internally.

In the regional nuclear setting of South Asia, nuclear competition and mistrust is not bilateral, but triangular. India reacts not only to Pakistan but also to China. China supports Pakistan, but also has an uneasy relationship with the United States, which views it as a potential enemy. Therefore, the conclusion of this debate does not support the hypothesis that the solution in South Asia lies in bilateral negotiations between India and Pakistan or Pakistan’s behaviour on non-use phenomenon can be modified internally or on cultural basis. The argument is that the security dilemma of South Asia is sufficiently deep-rooted on realist thinking in both countries (India and Pakistan), and the prevention of risks and tensions between India and Pakistan is sufficiently problematic. This requires international institutions’ intervention and the non-proliferation regime itself to play a role in possible conflict resolution and to prevent use of nuclear weapons in crises and wars.

This writer believes that today’s global problems are sufficiently complex and interrelated that require global solutions based on a multilateral and collective approach. International institutions need to be strengthened to counter the emerging threats to global security. In the future, if states operate in isolation and solely according to self-interest, the interests of all assuredly will suffer. Cooperation is possible in case in which gains are shared equitably. Thus, there is an urgent need to revive the non-proliferation regime and engage the non-NPT states in the full spectrum of non-proliferation and disarmament standards and obligations.

Within this debate, Pakistan’s nuclear weapons development cannot be understood without taking into account this remaining puzzle: why a similar taboo does not exist against proliferation of nuclear weapons; why has one not emerged and why is one not recognized? Why did states find it difficult to institute a codified, stringent norm or a taboo against the proliferation of nuclear weapons?Unless there is a stringent prohibition of proliferation of nuclear weapons, the chances of moving towards total elimination or a global zero are low. A new taboo against proliferation will help secure the existing taboo against use and would pave the way to establish the ultimate and decisive step of a taboo against the possession of nuclear weapons.

RizwanaAbbasi (PhD) is an assistant professor in the Department of Strategic Studies at the National Defence University, Islamabad. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author’s own and do not necessarily represent the views of the NDU.

Notes

[1] Nina Tannenwald, The Nuclear Taboo: The United States and the Non-Use of Nuclear Weapons Since 1945 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007).

[2] T.V Paul, The Tradition of Nun-use of Nuclear weapons (California: Stanford University Press, 2009).

[3] See RizwanaAbbasi, Pakistan and the New Nuclear Taboo: Regional Deterrence and the International Arms Control Regime (Cambridge, New York, Bern, Peter Lang, 2012).

[4] See See E. R. Carr, The Twenty First Century Crisis (New York: Harper and Row, 1939);

See Hans J. Morgenthau, Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, 1stedn., (New York: Knopf, 1948); Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1979), p. 126.

[5]See Robert O. Keohane and Lisa L. Martin, ‘The Promise of Institutionalist Theory’, International Security, 20/1 (Summer 1995).

[6] See RizwanaAbbasi, Pakistan and the New Nuclear Taboo.

[7]Orde F. Kittrie, “Averting Catastrophe: Why the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty is Losing its Deterrence Capacity and How to Restore it”, Michigan Journal of International Law, vol. 28 (Winter 2007), p. 339.

[8] See Stefano Guzzini and Anna Leander (eds.) Constructivism and International Relations: Alexander Wendt and his critics(London: Routledge, 2006).

[9] Bernard Brodie (ed.) Absolute Weapons: Atomic Power and World Order (New York, Harcourt, Brace, 1946), p. 76.

[10] See Thomas Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict (Oxford University Press, reprinted in 1960).

[11]See Albert Wohlstetter, ‘The Delicate Balance of Terror,’ Foreign Affairs Journal, 37, No.2, Jan 1959, pp. 211-234.

[12] Henry Kissinger, The American Foreign Policy (United States: Norton, 1969).

[13]Herman Kahn, On Escalation (New York: Praeger, 1965).

[14] See RizwanaAbbasi, Pakistan and the New Nuclear Taboo: Regional Deterrence and the International Arms Control Regime (Cambridge, New York, Bern, Peter Lang, 2012).

[15] For more details see Zafar Khan and RizwanaAbbasi, ‘Pakistan in the Global Nuclear Order’, Islamabad Paper-Institute of Strategic Studies, Nuclear Series No.1 (Feb 2016).

[16]Ibid.

[17]Ibid.

[18] For more details on CTBT: Ibid.

[19] For more details on nuclear safety and security of Pakistan’s nukes, see Zulfqar Khan and RizwanaAbbasi, ‘Nuclear Terrorism and Pakistan: Reassessing the State’s Behaviour’, Pakistan Horizon, Vol. 68 Issue 1, (Jan 2015).

[20]For more details on Kargil see, Peter R. Lavoy (ed.), Asymmetric Warfare in South Asia
The Causes and Consequences of the Kargil Conflict(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2009).For further crises situations between India and Pakistan see Zulfqar Khan and RizwanaAbbasi, ‘Regional-centric Deterrence: Reassessing its Efficacy for South Asia’, Korean Journal of Defence Analysis, Vol.25 No. 4 (Winter 2013).

[21] For more details see, RizwanaAbbasi, ‘A Strategic Shift in Indo-Pak Nuclear Strategy: Implications for Regional Stability’, IPRI Journal, vol. XV, no. 2 (Summer 2015)

[22] For further details on Kashmir see, RizwanaAbbasi, ‘Enduring India-Pakistan Rivalry: Prospects for Conflict Resolution’, Regional Studies, Vol. XXXIII, No.3 (Summer 2015).