thumbnail of Asia Society presents; 6
Transcript
Hide -
If this transcript has significant errors that should be corrected, let us know, so we can add it to FIX IT+
And from what we understand India is not among those who favor it. The reasons for it I think will be brought out quite clearly on this particular program because our guest is a man who's experienced in these disarmament problems and he comes from India. He is Alfred Gonzales Gonzales who is counselor of the permanent mission of India to the United Nations. He served in New Delhi for more than five years in the Ministry of External Affairs and it was there that he was concerned of disarmament problems and he's also served his first secretary of the Indian Embassy in Moscow. Now Mr. Gonzales I think if you would bring our audience up to date on what all the terms just concisely of the treaty and which countries have signed it and which have not. Thank you very much. First of all I would like to say that I am particularly happy for this opportunity to put across the point of view not only of India but also of a number of countries which have certain
reservations about this nonproliferation treaty. I say this because I am convinced from my limited experience that the American public does not have as complete information on this subject as is necessary for of get understanding of the problem. The nonproliferation treaty was agreed upon between United States the Soviet Union and United Kingdom. They produced and agreed text which was discussed in the 18 nation design committee in Geneva and was then transferred to the General Assembly Act. It's resumed going to second session in the spring of this year where it was hoped that that resolution would sort to indorse this treaty would receive that it wide support. In fact
there are very large number of countries. I think it would be right to say the great majority of countries didn't support that resolution. The reason for that is that all governments at least all peace loving governments are devoted to the idea concerned about the question of the spread of nuclear weapons. Unfortunately the problem is not as simple as might have been at first sight. In earlier discussions of the question of the spread of nuclear weapons we concerned ourselves exclusively with what used to be called non dissemination of nuclear weapons by which was meant very simply that one country did not transfer and another country did not see that if they undertook not to this nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons technology.
However around 1064 it began to become clear that one after another five nuclear weapons states had emerged and the dist limited approach of nondiscrimination was unsatisfaction. We had now to deal with the wider concept of what has come to be known as nonproliferation. This concept has two facets dilutive not only with non dissemination which means a non transfer and non deceit of nuclear weapons and nuclear technology but also with the stoppage of further production and sophistication of nuclear weapons by those states which already possess them. India has some original responsibility for having brought about a shift of emphasis to this new concept
because it was that India's request that an item on nonproliferation of nuclear weapons was inscribed on the agenda of the General Assembly in 1964. We did so because we had come to believe that the nuclear weapons states which had emerged at that time had done so not because there was no treaty prohibiting against their producing nuclear weapons but because they felt that as long as nuclear weapons existed in the hands of other powers. Reasons of security and considerations of prestige prompted them to go in for these weapons. Now what India found at that time and what India continues to believe and our views are supported by a large number of important countries is that it is this idea of this concentration of prestige
the entire question of security which has to be tackled in any attempt to deal with the question of nonproliferation. Therefore we have believed that any nonproliferation treaty if it is to answer the original purpose for which it was conceived must demand and bring about a prohibition on the further production of nuclear weapons. The discussion on this question has centered on the resolution which was adopted by the General Assembly at its 21st session when there was general agreement on there being a mutuality of obligations and responsibilities of the nuclear and non-nuclear weapons states. Mr. Gonzales the problem of disarmament and controlling the spread or the spread of nuclear weapons I know are very much on your
mind. I think if we would know this before we go any further which of the signatories to the treaty so far. There are at present it to one signatories to the treaty. Oh I more than I could ask you to enumerate them. But let's then ask this instead of reward her like to liberate the actually of the 81 signatories three are the three authors of the DAR treaty. Which are non-nuclear states and significantly the other seventy eight are states which have absolutely no pretensions to nuclear capacity or nuclear status and are unlikely to have any such pretensions even in the distant future. In other words the near nuclear and the potential nuclear countries which were to have been the object of this treaty have so far dissatisfied and have not appended their signature to the treaty that is most significant especially since there is such
unanimity among them as to their attitude Mr Gonzales which are they considered the nuclear nations of the world the nuclear weapons states in this discussion are in fact United States. The Soviet Union United Kingdom France and the People's Republic of China. Is Israel considered a nuclear nation at this point I mean it has a certain know how but it hasn't developed sufficiently I suppose I would say that any other country including India Japan Israel West Germany Sweden a number of others which have highly developed nuclear technology but have not actually used this technology for a peaceful or a military explosion. I cannot recall the nuclear states and those which have not used it for a military explosion. Cannot recall nuclear weapons. So when you were in Moscow serving your country of India there
and you were very concerned with the problem of disarmament in what way does that relate to your assignment in the Soviet Union. As a matter of fact my interest and desire was developed only after I had left Moscow and had joined the Ministry of External Affairs in New Delhi which was very very much later. In fact I would say that the whole concept of design meant in so far as it related to nonproliferation was very different in the period when I was in Moscow. The danger of the spread of nuclear weapons as it developed in the minds not only of the Great Bard which was a very very effect I would also in the minds of the smaller powers really developed. I would say to a large extent after China's first nuclear explosion in 1964 which was three years after I had left was what is the state well of perhaps this is confidential material of sell.
Please feel free not to answer it. But if you could say something generally about the state of military preparedness in India has it increased with the years. Have you found it practical to do so and not increase. I do get to say that we have. I mean facing a constant threat along our entire northern borders from two countries and that threat has been growing. We have been victims of aggression from both these countries and very gratefully we have had to step up our defense expenditure. Is there much conflict though in India as far as this is concerned. Is there a fairly large group which feels that in spite of what threat you are experiencing that you should not increase your military power. I would say the entire country is unanimous in the decision that we should build up our strength in such a way as to be in a position to rebuff a new for that
aggression which might take place against our country. But then if we come to the treaty which we hope will help them steal the spread of nuclear weapons is there some circumstance under which India would sign such a treaty with the treaty have to be rewritten largely May I ask in order for India to sign it. I would said the outset that one should not confuse the issue of our conventional defense arrangements with the Nonproliferation Treaty in the first place. These are under lated in the second place. India has a varied and developed nuclear potential but India has repeatedly reaffirmed its policy to use nuclear energy exclusively for peaceful purposes. However this decision of the government of India has been taken as a result of the Government of India's dedication
to design and to the elimination of nuclear weapons and its undiluted. Any decision on self-abnegation under the treaty so far that is what condition should be met if India were to sign the treaty. I think there are a large number but principally I think the absence of a mutuality of obligations and responsibilities. In other words the non-nuclear weapon states are being asked to give up. Much more than the nuclear weapons states are prepared to give up in terms of an arrangement for a mutually acceptable nonproliferation treaty. And secondly the prohibit on the use of peaceful nuclear explosions by non nuclear weapons states is a matter of very grave concern to developing countries like India because nuclear energy is the energy of the future and it is the only source which we look forward to
for the development of our countries without outside assistance which may or may not be available. And this is something we would be very reluctant to give up. What can you say though Mr. Gonzales that there is no connection between military preparedness and the use of nuclear weapons I mean in today's world can they be separated. I think that is a possible connection and the connection has often been made. And there is a very large sector of public opinion in India which believes that as long as we face a distinct nuclear threat from China the only alternative we have available to us is the manufacture of our own nuclear weapons particularly as an island country we do not have the advantage of nuclear protection from one or the other of the nuclear powers. But in our own understanding of the situation we continue to prepare ourselves to meet to the extent that is financially
possible. The threat we should face alone our borders and at the same time we are still indicating to a policy of working for design for that purpose. We are working for a nonproliferation treaty which will meet the requirements of all countries including our own. I'm not sure if I set aside your doubt but that is how I see the situation. You know I can understand it is the profound Don Lemon I think of our time is that on the one hand we do want peace on the other hand we are sometimes forced to fight a war if we must fight a war in self-defense particularly well we must have the weapons for it. And it's difficult to understand how both these thoughts can run kind of currently but they do if you feel threatened on one of your borders Naturally you must think of the protection of your country. But one can well understand that you nevertheless will work for disarmament. I don't think that's difficult to understand. Well in elaboration of what I just said earlier I would merely add that while deeply conscious of assuring the security of our country from any
kind of threat from abroad the government of India has not yielded to the pressure which has been exerted on the government to go in for a program of manufacture of clear weapons for the reasons which I indicated earlier. But under the present circumstances if India is not aligned with any country in a military manner then should there be a problem heaven forbid India would not then be entitled to nuclear help. One of the nuclear nations Well this entire issue has come up for serious consideration in the context of the nonproliferation treaty. The nuclear weapon states we are conscious that unless the non-nuclear weapon states had some assurance of security against the threat of the use of nuclear weapons and some protection against blackmail intimidation or the exercise of pressure by nuclear powers
it would be difficult for these non-nuclear weapon states to sign the treaty. Accordingly the three authors of the treaty United States and the Soviet Union and United Kingdom proposed the adoption of a resolution in the security and security council of United Nations which was to extend security assurances to meet this particular problem. Unfortunately the view taken by India and a certain number of other countries was that the protection which was sought to be offered under this resolution was already available under the charter of the United Nations because as long as nuclear weapons exist the nuclear weapon states the permanent member of the Security Council have a special responsibility to assure the security of non-nuclear weapon states that measure of security is available to all non-nuclear weapon states including India
under the provisions of the charter. Unfortunately under the provisions of the resolution which was adopted in fact by the Security Council and on and on which India was constrained to abstain because of our difficulties with it. An attempt was made to make these security assurances available only to those who would sign a treaty. It appeared as an attempt to a droll protection which we sincerely believe is available in any case under the provisions of the charter and it is this aspect of the treaty they are not a part of the treaty itself which has further added to our difficulties with the nonproliferation treaty. Yes Mr. Gonzalez how severe is this threat to your northern boundaries. Well there has been a constant pressure. China committed aggression against India in 1962. Pakistan committed
aggression against India in 1965. Both countries have mounted up very large amounts of armaments along our borders. A large group meseems and movements and I think it would be difficult in simple terms to assess just how large it is but it is a major threat and it has involved an expenditure on defense which is much larger than we would have liked at a time when we are pretty concerned with the development of our country. When you say that the threat seems larger in the eyes of the Indian people now than it did even when Prime Minister narrow was on by. I think it would be rather difficult to say when a threat is larger or smaller because that in fact depends upon the intentions of those who are likely are not likely to attack. This is something which is a matter of judgement and speculation. Yes but do you have it in sensational terms I think the
threat is very great. But I should also point out that our degree of preparedness is also much greater than it was in earlier days. And unfortunately that seems to be the one way to convince our enemies to be quiet. Yes I think that has had a very useful bit of end effect but one can never be certain in matters of war and peace in this way. Has it changed in years. Good well-known and wonderful philosophy towards peace. But though this threat and this need to be better prepared militarily and has the goal of disarmament somehow been diluted by it. I would say that again. The connection between India's dedication to the cause of design element and India's unavoidable military preparations is not very clear. We have
always tried to pursue a policy of peace. We have never raised our hand against any other country. And the preparations which we are making are entirely defensive. We remain devoted to the idea of desire and particularly of nuclear to India at the present time. Taking any steps to have the terms of this treaty changed in the UN so that perhaps you would feel in a better position to sign it and get other nations in your who feel as you do to sign it. I would say that that is a largely hypothetical question because it treaty has formally been open for signature in three chapters of the world seven to eight. Countries apart from the three authors of the treaty have signed the treaty processes are under way for its certification in some of these countries. Some of them will ratify it. Others will take their own time. And as things stand at present the nuclear weapons states or others of this
treaty are expecting other states including India to sign this very treaty and it would be a little difficult while a particular treaty is on the books ready for signature to even raise the question of renegotiating the treaty. It is the fact that this treaty was tabled without adequate consultation with the countries which are most intimately concerned in that there are the potential nuclear countries of new nuclear countries that has been the source of greatest dissatisfaction to these countries including India. Of course as you pointed out in a talk you recently made at the Asia Society China the unknown and mysterious factor in all of this. But we will not sign a treaty I mean I don't know where the treaty would be offered to China probably not that she's not a member of the United Nations and that would be the stumbling block no matter what was in it.
Well I didn't do glee with you much more than perhaps the government of the United States would do. They are inclined to believe that it is respective of our reservations about a situation in which China is not a party to the treaty in which China is not amenable to international discipline has a very one sided in your letter approach to problems of peace and security. It would be really an uncensored treaty for us to sign but the authors of the treaty have made out that in their view the treaty is a good thing irrespective of whether China is a party or not. I happen to share your view. Yes one more question Mr. Khan Selhurst how many member nations are there now in at the United Nations. One hundred twenty five members of the United Nations. I don't know the procedures so if you would tell me do you have to have a majority number signing a treaty to make the treaty a valid one. Or does it with this treaty just apply to those nations you
have signed in those who haven't signed it simply do what they want. No there is. This has nothing to do with the procedures of the United Nations. This has to do with the provisions of the treaty itself in which the number of countries who have to sign it. It is specified in order to make the treaty have a viable and final instrument unfortunately. The numbers of countries is far less important than which country signs a large number of countries which will never have any nuclear pretensions undertaking not to acquire or manufacture nuclear weapons doesn't really make the treaty a meaningful one. So numbers are really less important than having the important countries which are full of against whom the treaty was in fact directed. It is a question of trying to weigh down how many. Yes and I thank you very much Mr. Gonzales for giving us a clearer view of what this is about. One has to leave the question I think open ended because we don't know what the future will
bring. Perhaps common sense will make various nations behave better even without a treaty. I thank you for being here and I'd like to say that our guest on this program has been Alfred can solve this and you can solve this. At present is council of the permanent mission of India to the United Nations he served his country in various capacities and he was very much concerned with the problem of disarmament when he served with the Ministry of External Affairs in New Delhi and I think this is a problem to which he would dedicate himself I'm sure all his life. And this is Lee Graham saying goodbye and asking you to hold the thought that although East is East and West is West we do think the time has come for the twain to me. This program was distributed by the national educational radio network.
Please note: This content is only available at GBH and the Library of Congress, either due to copyright restrictions or because this content has not yet been reviewed for copyright or privacy issues. For information about on location research, click here.
Series
Asia Society presents
Episode Number
6
Producing Organization
WNYC
Contributing Organization
University of Maryland (College Park, Maryland)
AAPB ID
cpb-aacip/500-0g3h221b
If you have more information about this item than what is given here, or if you have concerns about this record, we want to know! Contact us, indicating the AAPB ID (cpb-aacip/500-0g3h221b).
Description
Series Description
Asia Society presents is a series of programs from WNYC and The Asia Society. Through interviews with experts on Asian affairs, the series attempts to strengthen listeners understanding of Asian people and ideas. Episodes focus on specific countries and political, cultural, and historical topics.
Date
1969-01-21
Genres
Talk Show
Topics
Education
Global Affairs
Race and Ethnicity
Media type
Sound
Duration
00:24:48
Credits
Host: Graham, Leigh
Producing Organization: WNYC
AAPB Contributor Holdings
University of Maryland
Identifier: 69-6-6 (National Association of Educational Broadcasters)
Format: 1/4 inch audio tape
Duration: 00:26:46
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
Citations
Chicago: “Asia Society presents; 6,” 1969-01-21, University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed March 29, 2024, http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-500-0g3h221b.
MLA: “Asia Society presents; 6.” 1969-01-21. University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. March 29, 2024. <http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-500-0g3h221b>.
APA: Asia Society presents; 6. Boston, MA: University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-500-0g3h221b