The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), which should have been on the back burner after the US Senate rejected it, has become a matter for debate in this country thanks to Prime Minister Vajpayee's talk of developing a consensus on it. The PM has also indicated that he wants to bring it before Parliament in the monsoon session. 

The CTBT, however, is no longer the document signed by some 130 countries in 1996; it is virtually dead after it was rejected by the US Senate. Of the other four established nuclear weapon powers, UK and France have ratified it unconditionally. Russia has ratified it with the caveat that it might withdraw from the treaty if the US continues with its Nuclear Missile Defence (NMD) programme that breaches its commitment to the anti-ballistic missile treaty -- the mother of all arms control treaties. China, which has not ratified the CTBT has also vehemently opposed the NMD plan of the US and has vowed to take steps to counter its impact on China's deterrence capability. 

Some US strategists have warned that China might expand its missile and nuclear arsenals as a counter measure. Recent reports in the US press say that according to US intelligence agencies China has stepped up its assistance to Pakistan's long range nuclear capable missile programme. It is quite likely that China's proliferation to Pakistan is an attempt at hitting back at the US for supplying arms to Taiwan, its plans to develop theatre missile defence in East Asia and the NMD programme. 

The last time an international treaty was rejected by the US Senate was in 1919 when the League of Nations accord was rejected. There's no precedent in the past 80 years of the Senate reconsidering a rejected treaty. Of the two presidential candidates, governor George Bush has come out against CTBT. Even if Vice President Al Gore were to be elected he would still need 67 senate votes from both parties to get it ratified. Some 33 Republicans can block its acceptance.

If the US-China relations were to deteriorate, consequent on the US initiating the NMD, that would be a factor influencing the senators in voting on the treaty. Even if the treaty were to be successfully revived by the next president it is likely that the US Senate may ask for minor changes or even add a whole lot of caveats -- as they did in the case of the Chemical Weapons Convention -- just to show that it is not voting in a treaty draft already rejected. The treaty cannot be amended at this stage before it enters into force. 

Again, some US and UK scientists have questioned the yields of Indian nuclear tests, although Indian scientists argue that they were as per design and exactly what they were declared to be. It is quite possible that the Western scientists are attempting to get more information on the details of Indian weapon design. On the other hand the initial announcement of the US that the Pokhran II test was an earthquake and their lower estimate of the yield of the test may highlight that the treaty is fundamentally flawed and its verification mechanism is not up to the mark. Some in the US hold this view. In any case, the pronouncements have raised concern in this country about both the effectiveness of the treaty to monitor tests and the success of Indian tests according to our own design parameters. 

China, meanwhile, breached the Non-proliferation Treaty when it transferred 5000 ring magnets to Pakistan: It is now actively assisting Pakistan in setting up a plutonium production reactor at Kushab. The US administration knows all this from its own intelligence sources and sent a very senior official, John Holum, to Beijing to take up the issue of continued Chinese missile and nuclear proliferation. The visit is reported not to have been fruitful. Despite this, if President Clinton continues to press for permanent normal trade relations with China, then the message to the world is loud and clear. The NPT is not worth the paper on which it is written. Already the US wants to amend the ABM treaty as per its convenience. Then what good is the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty? 

When India had wanted the CTBT to be part of the disarmament framework it was argued that it could not be so, but it was necessary as a non-proliferation measure. After having got it as a nonproliferation measure, the US is now saying that in spite of CTBT there will be new emerging nuclear and missile states and therefore the US needs the national missile defence. Even after the failure of the test the US intends to continue further development of NMD. This is the strongest indication that the US does not believe in the efficacy of the CTBT even as a nonproliferation measure but expects continued nuclear proliferation by nuclear weapon states. 

The draft final document of the NPT review conference submitted by the non-aligned nations had a paragraph which called for complete prohibition of proliferation to states which had not signed the NPT. Obviously this is a reference to China-Pakistan proliferation relationship. After all, China is the only state engaged in deliberate proliferation. Interestingly, this concern does not find a mention in the final document, presumably because of pressure from nuclear weapon states. 

Now the US wants better relations with China, especially on the trade front. This reveals that the US has no capability to hold China accountable to the NPT obligation: It continues to expect Beijing to proliferate further but will not take any position on it since it does not want to forego the benefits of trade with China. Therefore it has decided to safeguard its own security through deployment of the National Missile Defence plan and could not care less how China's proliferation activities affect the security of other nations. Today the issue is not about signing the CTBT. The core issue is the viability of the nonproliferation regime, the continuing breach of nonproliferation norms and the total helplessness of the non-weapon NPT states to hold the nuclear weapon powers accountable.