By Nevine Khalil Is this the start of a new era of nuclear proliferation in the developing world? Yes, it is. I feel we are at a new stage, in which the poor countries of the South will begin a nuclear race similar to the one witnessed during the Cold War. Instead of spending money on development and improving the quality of life in these countries, money will be channelled towards a nuclear arms race. It is a bad sign for all of us, particularly for the Middle East. We are worried that the tests will give Israel the justification to carry out [similar tests], although this is unlikely. Alternatively, Israel may react against Pakistan's nuclear capability. Does this indicate a growing global trend to disregard international treaties that ban nuclear tests and nuclear weapon proliferation? Of course. It re-opens the nuclear file, both internationally and regionally. In 1995 Egypt led a campaign for revising the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as well as its membership. After the open extension of the NPT, some countries felt that the issue was closed. But now, we will have to work to ensure the universality of this treaty through unanimous commitment; otherwise double standards will prevail. Egypt will continue its policy on this issue, not only in connection with Pakistan and India, but also in connection with Israel, because, if we are talking about peace and stability, Israel will have to show goodwill by subscribing to the NPT. We will fight for President Mubarak's initiative to declare the Middle East a nuclear weapon-free zone, just like Africa, which was made a nuclear-weapon free zone in 1996. But realistically speaking, is it possible to declare the Middle East a nuclear weapon-free zone in the near future? I agree that this is unlikely because it is closely intertwined with the peace process, which is deadlocked. On the other hand, a policy of acquiring nuclear weapons does not serve stability and peace, but only serves to enforce the status quo. A peace based on justice and a relaxed climate of co-existence is the only way of ensuring the stability of any region of the world. This is the criterion that must prevail in the Middle East. Does this mean that the Asian tests spell out danger for the Middle East, in view of the stalemate in the peace process and the hard-line policies of the Israeli government? Yes, and I would like to tell the Israelis that their nuclear arsenal will never achieve security for them or create peace and stability in the region. The geographical facts of the Middle East make it difficult for the Israelis to use their nuclear capabilities against a neighbouring country, or even to conduct tests, although there is a new type of bomb, the so-called 'clean bomb'. There are reports that two of the five Indian tests were carried out on Israel's behalf. What is your reading of the scope of cooperation between India and Israel in nuclear technology? There is no evidence that two of the Indian tests were, in fact, Israeli. The reports could be a reaction to the idea of an "Islamic bomb" [in Pakistan]. When I was a diplomat in India in the late 1970s and early '80s, I wrote reports about the secret contacts between Israel and India, showing that the Indians were trying to open channels with Israel. The Indo-Israeli relationship should only be expected, because India feels that Pakistan is supported by Muslim and Arab countries. Therefore, it is only natural for India to link up with the enemies of the Arab-Muslim community, which leads them directly towards Israel. The Israelis say that even after a comprehensive peace is achieved with the Arab countries, they will continue to be worried by Iran and Pakistan. Their automatic justification for not signing the NPT is that they feel threatened by some Asian countries. This is why cooperation between Israel and India should be expected. What is the best way of dealing with this newly-opened nuclear file? We have to revive the Egyptian initiative for a comprehensive disarmament in the Middle East. This policy has been advocated by the Egyptian government since 1990 when President Hosni Mubarak first announced Cairo's intentions. We have succeeded in making Africa a nuclear weapon-free zone, and we are trying to do the same with the Middle East. We can't embark on a nuclear race with Israel, but we are simply urging Israel to sign the NPT. After the Indian and Pakistani tests, non-signatories have a strong reason to unveil their nuclear capabilities and come under the umbrella of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and other organisations concerned with nuclear disarmament. Pakistan's tests support Israel's argument but, on the other hand, they give us a good reason to put pressure on Israel [to sign the NPT]. In view of the Indian and Pakistani tests, how effective, in your view, are the international treaties on nuclear arms control? The tests show that we are still suffering from the conduct of those countries which never agreed to come under the international umbrella, such as India, Pakistan and, of course, Israel. These countries feel that, by conducting such tests, they did not violate any legal commitments. This is not true because they violated the international consensus. We might understand why Pakistan reacted the way it did, but why did India initiate these tests? One has to keep in mind that India is now controlled by an extremist government which is Hindu, rightist and extremist. This complicates matters. The Indians will never forget that Islam and Britain are responsible for dividing the Indian subcontinent into three countries, namely India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Also, India is looking for an opportunity to put itself on an equal footing with China. They feel they are denied a natural right, since they have a population of more than one billion, an advanced economy and are the world's largest democracy. They believe they deserve to join the nuclear club and have a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. This, of course, explains China's support for Pakistan. It goes without saying that both countries want to squeeze India in the middle. Why did the world community react more aggressively to the Pakistani tests? The Indians took the world by surprise, although there is strong evidence that the Americans had anticipated the Indian tests. The Pakistani tests were expected, however, and this is why everybody was prepared. When Pakistan reacted, this meant that a nuclear arms race had started in that part of the world. Also, Israel and the West have reasons to launch anti-Pakistan propaganda, but not in the case of India. Is this because Pakistan is the first Muslim state to acquire a nuclear military capability? Maybe. Accusations are being levelled against Pakistan that it was financially supported by some wealthy Muslim countries, which is an indirect allusion to the Gulf states. They [the West and Israel] wanted to involve the Arab states into the international nuclear race issue. On the whole, however, the international community is divided over the tests, but are US sanctions an effective tool? The world is divided because there are those who believe that the Indian and Pakistani tests are justified, since the two states want to protect their national integrity and pride. They also feel that Pakistan reacted under domestic public pressure which was difficult to resist. The Pakistanis also said that they reacted when they felt that the measures taken against India were not as strong as they expected. I don't feel that US sanctions will be very effective, because sanction policies have not succeeded in bringing about change in any country. It is a punishment against the people and it never alters the policies of governments. If you look at the map, there are sanctions against Iraq, Libya, Iran and Syria. What does this mean? Whenever you use a weapon repeatedly, it loses its effectiveness. Will the IAEA take action? No. After the Indian tests, the Agency advised the Pakistanis not to react. In return, the Pakistanis were assured that they would be compensated by the international community through political concessions and support. After Pakistan reacted, the IAEA is facing a different situation. It will continue to ask all countries to sign the NPT and come under the international nuclear umbrella. Where will the tests take the world community? They will change the political weight of countries. The international community will look at India and Pakistan in a different way. Maybe Iran would try to do something similar, but we hope that it does not. Maybe there will be an Israeli reaction in the direction of Pakistan. An inconvenient era of new conflict will begin in the Middle East. We must keep in mind that central Asia and southern Asia are not too far from western Asia, of which the Middle East is part. This is why we feel that what happened will have an impact on international relations generally in the future. So you believe the Indian and Pakistani tests mark a significant escalation in the arms race? It is escalation, unless both countries are brave enough to say that what they did was only to prove their capabilities, and immediately sign the NPT, which I doubt they will. At any rate, it is not difficult for many countries today to manufacture a nuclear bomb. It is a matter of a political decision, national determination, political circumstances and money.
