Twisting the wrong arm?

This refers to the letter from the Australian High Commission published in The Jakarta Post on Oct. 7, 1996, in response to my earlier letter on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. In brief, what I understood is that Australia thinks it is better to compromise for a half-baked CTBT than stand firm and have a really comprehensive test ban treaty. In fact I have started wondering whether the "C" stands for "Coercive" not "Comprehensive."

Australia would have served the ideal of establishing a nuclear-free world much better had it isolated the nuclear "Haves" who want to have their cake and eat it too. It is a pity that it ended up isolating India instead. What moral right the Haves have to tell the rest of the world to stop testing when they have built a nuclear arsenal which can destroy the whole world many times over? It is like a feudal lord exhorting his poor and hungry subjects to go on a diet while he himself is suffering from a bad case of indigestion caused by gross over- eating.

India supports the concept of a nuclear-free world and declared its readiness to sign the treaty as soon as the Haves declare a timetable for getting rid of their own "indigestion" caused by over-testing.

When it has a neighbor with a proven nuclear capability who is basking in the warmth of its latest successful tests, is refusing to commit to a timetable for destroying its own arsenal and has a less than benevolent reputation, India has no option but to reject such a half-baked and unfair treaty.

Let us try to analyze why the Haves are not ready to destroy their nuclear warheads, but ready to stop the nuclear testing. After all, some have "voluntarily" stopped testing a few years ago. This is because most of the Haves don't need to test their nuclear warheads anymore. Australia knows that the last few tests conducted by the French in its backyard were merely held to fine- tune their computer simulations. Thus the Haves can keep building their nuclear arsenal merrily while the rest of us look on. By agreeing to stop new tests but not agreeing to eliminate their existing nuclear warheads, the Haves show that their intentions are far from honorable. They want the current nuclear hegemony to continue and don't want any new members to join their club. A new form of apartheid? And what stops the Haves from blackmailing us for all time to come?

We Indians have a high opinion of Australia as a country with an apolitical stance and a low-key approach internationally. It is hard to understand what prompted it to take this resolution to the UN General Assembly. We are sure that it did not give in to persuasive coercion or coercive persuasion. We hope that it makes amends by tabling a resolution in the next session of the UN General Assembly asking the Haves to set a deadline for the elimination of their existing nuclear arsenals and by approaching India to put its "inaugural" signature on what (then) can be called a CTBT.

K.B. KALE

Jakarta