While the debate continues whether America can fulfill the leadership role in the post-cold war era in view of its economic weaknesses and its tendency towards some form of isolationism, the alleged shipment of Scud-C missiles by North Korea to Syria and/or Iran poses a direct challenge to the US concept of the new world order.
President Bush has ordered the US navy to stop the two North Korean freighters reportedly carrying the missiles. But the only pretext available to Americans is to pretend that the ship is proceeding to Iraq which is prohibited under UN resolution from receiving military supplies.
As a senior US defence official has admitted, if and when the freighter is finally identified and boarded, the captain says that “these are Scuds, they are for Syria and Iran … then there isn’t anything we can do”.
Provocation
The United States does not appear anxious to use force at this stage. For one thing, the provocation is not serious enough; Syria and Iran already possess such missiles; and some more will not immediately alter the power balance in the region. For another, Washington must know that it can neither secure a Security Council mandate nor win Congressional approval. But North Korea has dared America and if it gets away with it, US prestige will suffer among allies and non-allies alike.
There was a report recently that a North Korean ship carrying missiles to West Asia had returned without delivering the deadly cargo. While it is difficult to be sure of its accuracy, such a response in the present case would buy Washington the time it needs to try and sort out nuclear weapons and missiles issues, to begin with, in some deal with North Korea.
As at the time of the Gulf war, it is futile to speculate whether President Bush has acted on his own initiative or under Israeli pressure. Now as then, it is bit of both. Israel has good reason to be concerned over the transfer of Scud-C missiles, which have a longer range (500 kilometres) than the ones Iraq used against it last year (300 km) and is more accurate than Iraq’s al-Hussein and al-Abbas modifications.
Though Israel has no choice right now but to bide time, the development is a measure of the tricky situation in West Asia the US administration has to cope with if it is to continue its efforts promote deals between the Israelis and the Palestinians and the Israelis and the Syrians.
Americans were exceptionally lucky last year when the easy victory over Iraq enabled President Bush to proclaim the inauguration of a new world order under the auspices of the “only superpower”. By occupying and annexing Kuwait, President Saddam Hussein provided the provocation and by refusing to order his forces into action at any stage of the war, he made bloodless victory possible. And the allies – mainly Germany, Japan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait – picked up the bill of over $ 60 billions.
Neither President Kim II-Sung nor President Rafsanjani nor President Assad is likely to be so obliging. They will operate within the parameters of the system as outlined in the UN Charter if only because they do not need to move outside of it to go on increasing their military capability. The US response to this challenge will be interesting to watch.
On moral grounds, the United States is highly vulnerable. Even if we disregard its shocking record in Indo-China, no power has been more responsible for the spread of sophisticated weaponry and its supplies have not been limited only to states. It has gone so far as to provide Stinger missiles to Afghan mujahideen who are known for their lack of discipline, organisation and unity of any kind.
Only recently it has agreed to deliver weapon systems worth a whopping $ 15 billion to Saudi Arabia. But such gaps between words and deeds have never worried US policy-makers and presently they are well placed to ignore the chasm. The pertinent point, therefore, is that the present American policy is foredoomed strictly on pragmatic grounds.
America wants to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and missiles and it cannot succeed. While, for instance, it claims to have persuaded China not to sell any more M-11 missiles (capable of carrying nuclear warheads) to Pakistan and others in West Asia, reports suggests that Chinese experts are in Syria and are helping Syrians to develop their own missiles. And what even if the reports are inaccurate?
Testimony
Iraq has demonstrated what a small country of 15 million people can achieve in nuclear and missile fields if those in power are determined enough. If the Iraqis can be said to have depended greatly on European and US firms for technical assistance and supply of materials, the same cannot be said about the North Korean nuclear programme. On the testimony of US experts, it has been the most indigenous of all nuclear programmes in the Third World. Surely no one can suggest that Iranians are not equally skilful and resourceful.
As a status quo power with no irredentist claims on any neighbour and interested in a peaceful environment so that it can pursue economic development and social change, India has a stake in the success of the American effort. But we have good reasons to be sceptical and to retain our options in the nuclear field.
The official Indian response to US pressures is formulated in terms of danger from China and Pakistan which has admitted that it possesses a nuclear weapons capability. As such, no fair-minded person can dismiss Indian fears, especially when Pakistan is waging a proxy war on this country and China continues to assist it in both the nuclear and the missile field.
That too is not the end of the matter. The disintegration of the Soviet Union and the impending collapse of the unity of command and control over nuclear weapons and means of delivery in the so-called Commonwealth of Independent States has raised nightmarish possibilities on our borders. Kazakhstan for instance, possesses an arsenal of nuclear weapons and missiles. Only the naive can believe that they will all be returned to Moscow for safe storage till they are finally dismantled.
Clandestine Efforts
Till recently, there was no suggestion that Iran was also engaged in a clandestine effort to acquire nuclear weapons. Now that is widely regarded as certain in the West, especially the United States, notwithstanding Teheran’s disclaimer and the International Atomic Energy Agency’s endorsement of it after an inspection.
India has no dispute with Iran and indeed seeks close cooperation with it. Teheran too appears willing to respond. But Iran remains committed to promotion of Islamic revolution and solidarity. As such, its policy remains susceptible to fluctuations.
The Pentagon has to invent unlikely potential foes such as Panama and the Philippines in order to justify an over $ 200 billion defence outlay even after the demise of the Soviet adversary. New Delhi does not need to engage in any such exercise. Its security concerns are well founded. Even Washington cannot disregard the possibility of leakage of nuclear weapons and materials from the former Soviet Union, though it is reluctant to acknowledge its implications for India’s security.
Indeed, the Pentagon has listed India among near or suspected nuclear weapons powers in respect of which it “may be faced with the question of whether to take military steps to prevent the development or use of weapons of mass destruction”. This imaginary scenario is, however, not as pertinent a cause for concern for New Delhi as developments in its neighbourhood. The irony of it is that America’s almost certain failure to control them can bring us as little comfort as Washington’s dreams of Pax Americana.
The Times of India, 11 March 1992