South Asia and the politics of non-proliferation

International Journal

Volumn 54, Issue 3, 1999, Pages 398-417

  Thakur, Ramesh ^a  

^a UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0039778540     PISSN: 00207020     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/002070209905400304     Document Type: Review

References (29)

1. Those arguments are discussed in Ramesh Thakur, 'India was wrong to test, but what can the world do?' International Herald Tribune, 19 May 1998; 'Next to subcontinent face-off, the cold war looks safe,' ibid, 20 July 1998; and 'Six lessons from south Asia,' Japan Times, 27 July 1998.
2. Those arguments are discussed in Ramesh Thakur, 'India was wrong to test, but what can the world do?' International Herald Tribune, 19 May 1998; 'Next to subcontinent face-off, the cold war looks safe,' ibid, 20 July 1998; and 'Six lessons from south Asia,' Japan Times, 27 July 1998.
3. Those arguments are discussed in Ramesh Thakur, 'India was wrong to test, but what can the world do?' International Herald Tribune, 19 May 1998; 'Next to subcontinent face-off, the cold war looks safe,' ibid, 20 July 1998; and 'Six lessons from south Asia,' Japan Times, 27 July 1998.
4. Richard Price and Nina Tannenwald, 'Norms and deterrence: the nuclear and chemical weapons taboos,' in Peter J. Katzenstein, ed, The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics (New York: Columbia University Press 1996), 114-52. Ironically, Price and Tannenwald echo the Indian argument that the NPT regime legitimizes the possession of nuclear weapons in the hands of five countries (p 142).
5. Stephen D. Krasner, ed, International Regimes (Ithaca: Cornell University Press 1983); and Volker Rittberger, ed, Regime Theory and International Relations (Oxford: Clarendon 1993).
6. Stephen D. Krasner, ed, International Regimes (Ithaca: Cornell University Press 1983); and Volker Rittberger, ed, Regime Theory and International Relations (Oxford: Clarendon 1993).
7. See Ramesh Thakur, 'The Last bang before a total ban: French nuclear testing in the Pacific,' International Journal 51(summer 1996), 466-86.
8. It should be noted, nevertheless, that while states can exempt themselves from customary legal prohibitions by pointing to a sustained pattern of objection, this will not protect them from violations of a 'peremptory norm.'
9. Thus an editorial in the Japan Times ('Pick priorities, Mr Clinton,' 4 March 199), hardly the bastion of anti-Western radicalism, observed that United States reluctance 'to accept international norms or standards of behavior ... undercuts U.S. efforts to get other nations to observe and abide by international norms. Washington's complaints about India and Pakistan's nuclear blasts ring hollow when the U.S. continues its own series of nuclear tests.'
10. See Ramesh Thakur, The Government and Politics of India (London/New York: Macmillan & St Martin's Press 1995).
11. Jaswant Singh, 'For India, disarmament or equal security,' International Herald Tribune, 5 August 1998. Singh at that time was the Indian government's point man in conducting nuclear negotiations with the United States. He later became foreign minister in the BJP government.
12. Ramesh Thakur, 'Nuclear India needs coaxing, not coercion,' Australian (Sydney), 6 September 1996. The General Assembly vote on the CTBT was held on 10 September 1996. See also K. Sundarji, 'India's best option' and 'India's post-CTBT strategy,' Hindu (Chennai), 17 and 30 September 1996; and K. Subrahmanyam, 'The world after CTBT,' Economic Times (Delhi), 19 September 1996.
13. Ramesh Thakur, 'Nuclear India needs coaxing, not coercion,' Australian (Sydney), 6 September 1996. The General Assembly vote on the CTBT was held on 10 September 1996. See also K. Sundarji, 'India's best option' and 'India's post-CTBT strategy,' Hindu (Chennai), 17 and 30 September 1996; and K. Subrahmanyam, 'The world after CTBT,' Economic Times (Delhi), 19 September 1996.
14. Ramesh Thakur, 'Nuclear India needs coaxing, not coercion,' Australian (Sydney), 6 September 1996. The General Assembly vote on the CTBT was held on 10 September 1996. See also K. Sundarji, 'India's best option' and 'India's post-CTBT strategy,' Hindu (Chennai), 17 and 30 September 1996; and K. Subrahmanyam, 'The world after CTBT,' Economic Times (Delhi), 19 September 1996.
15. K. K. Katyal, 'Gujral defends Pokhran tests,' Hindu, 26 September 1998.
16. Price and Tannenwald, 'Norms and deterrence,' 125.
17. For a succinct and accurate assessment of Indian reactions to emerging signs of a Sino-United States 'strategic partnership,' see Ted Galen Carpenter, 'Roiling Asia: U.S. coziness with China upsets the neighbors,' Foreign Affairs 77 (November/December 1998), 2-3.
18. According to a widely respected China watcher, in the wake of the NATO attack on the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, 'Several military strategists have proposed that Beijing resume its nuclear tests as a way of thumbing its nose at NATO "hegemonism,"' Willy Wo-Lap Lam, 'China takes turn to the right,' Japan Times, 22 May 1999.
19. 'Might on show,' Times of India (New Delhi), 2 April 1999. See also Muchkund Dubey 'The NATO juggernaut: logic of an Indian defence deterrent,' ibid, 8 April 1999; K.K. Katyal, 'A crucial step in missile development,' Hindu, 12 April 1999; and K. Subrahmanyam, 'A perilous decade,' Times of India, 19 May 1999.
20. 'Might on show,' Times of India (New Delhi), 2 April 1999. See also Muchkund Dubey 'The NATO juggernaut: logic of an Indian defence deterrent,' ibid, 8 April 1999; K.K. Katyal, 'A crucial step in missile development,' Hindu, 12 April 1999; and K. Subrahmanyam, 'A perilous decade,' Times of India, 19 May 1999.
21. 'Might on show,' Times of India (New Delhi), 2 April 1999. See also Muchkund Dubey 'The NATO juggernaut: logic of an Indian defence deterrent,' ibid, 8 April 1999; K.K. Katyal, 'A crucial step in missile development,' Hindu, 12 April 1999; and K. Subrahmanyam, 'A perilous decade,' Times of India, 19 May 1999.
22. 'Might on show,' Times of India (New Delhi), 2 April 1999. See also Muchkund Dubey 'The NATO juggernaut: logic of an Indian defence deterrent,' ibid, 8 April 1999; K.K. Katyal, 'A crucial step in missile development,' Hindu, 12 April 1999; and K. Subrahmanyam, 'A perilous decade,' Times of India, 19 May 1999.
23. Jaswant Singh, 'Against nuclear apartheid,' Foreign Affairs 77 (September/ October 1998), 48.
24. India Government Paper, 'Evolution of India's nuclear policy,' tabled in parliament on 27 May 1998, para. 18.
25. The official United Nations formulation, as enunciated by the Department of Disarmament Affairs, is that India and Pakistan are 'non-NPT States that have conducted tests of nuclear devices.' India describes itself as a declared possessor of nuclear weapons.
26. See Ramesh Thakur, 'The nuclear option in India's security policy,' Asia Pacific Review 5(spring/summer 1998), 39-60.
27. See Ramesh Thakur, 'India in the world: neither rich, powerful, nor principled,' Foreign Affairs 76(July/August 1997), 15-22.
28. Since this article was written, the Vajpayee government lost a vote of confidence in parliament. Elections have been schueduled for September-October 1999. This will clearly affect India's timetable for signing the CTBT and may have a flow-on effect on Pakistan.
29. Camille Grand, 'The current deadlock in nuclear arms control: a difficult mutation to a new era?' Disarmament Diplomacy 34(February 1999), 10-11.