• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA SENATE Official Committee Hansard FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE REFERENCES COMMITTEE Reference: India’s and Pakistan’s nuclear tests MONDAY, 20 JULY 1998 SYDNEY BY AUTHORITY OF THE SENATE CANBERRA 1997 INTERNET The Proof and Official Hansard transcripts of Senate committee hearings, some House of Representatives committee hearings and some joint committee hearings are available on the Internet. Some House of Representatives committees and some joint committees make available only Official Hansard transcripts. The Internet address is: http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard SENATE FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE REFERENCES COMMITTEE Monday, 20 July 1998 Members: Senator Hogg (Chair), Senator Sandy Macdonald (Deputy Chair), Senators Cook, Eggleston, Lightfoot, Quirke, West and Woodley Participating members: Senators Abetz, Bolkus, Brown, Brownhill, Calvert, Chapman, Colston, Faulkner, Forshaw, Harradine, Margetts and Schacht Senators in attendance: Senators Cook, Hogg, Sandy Macdonald, Margetts and Quirke Terms of reference for the inquiry: (i) the implications of India’s nuclear tests, and the nuclear weapon and ballistic missile programs of both India and Pakistan, for regional and international security; and (ii) the Australian Government’s role in international efforts to constrain nuclear weapon and ballistic missile proliferation in South Asia. WITNESSES BHATTACHARYA, Dr Debesh, Director, Centre for South Asian Studies, Faculty of Economics, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales 2006 .......... 2 DOHERTY, Mr Denis William, National Coordinator, Australian Anti-Bases Campaign Coalition, and State Secretary, Pax Christi New South Wales, 109 Lennox Street, Newtown, New South Wales ........................... 30 HANSON, Dr Marianne Jean, International Relations and Asian Politics Research Unit, Department of Government, University of Queensland, Queensland 4072 . 61 MALIK, Dr Mohan, Director, Defence Studies Program, Deakin University, Gee- long, Victoria 3217 ............................................. 45 MASSELOS, Dr James Cosmas, 61 Corunna Road, Stanmore, New South Wales . 18 McDONALD, Mr Hamish, 17 Rawson Avenue, Queens Park, New South Wales 2022 74 Monday, 20 July 1998 SENATE—References FAD&T 1 Committee met at 9.30 a.m. CHAIR—I declare open this public meeting of the Senate Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade References Committee which is inquiring into the matter of India’s and Pakistan’s nuclear tests. This is the first public hearing conducted by the committee on this matter. The Senate referred the matter to the committee on 28 May 1998 for inquiry and report by 4 November 1998. To date, the committee has received 33 submissions, all of which have been made public. The committee expects to receive additional submissions. Further public hearings will be held tomorrow in Canberra and in Perth on Wednesday. I welcome Dr Debesh Bhattacharya to this hearing. FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 2 SENATE—References Monday, 20 July 1998 [9.31 a.m.] BHATTACHARYA, Dr Debesh, Director, Centre for South Asian Studies, Faculty of Economics, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales 2006 Dr Bhattacharya—I am not sure whether I am appearing as the Director or in my personal capacity. I am not sure about that. CHAIR—We will take it as your personal capacity. Dr Bhattacharya—Right. CHAIR—The committee prefers all evidence to be given in public but, should you at any stage wish to give any part of your evidence in private, you may ask to do so and the committee will consider your request. The committee has before it a written submission from you. Are there any alterations or additions you would like to make to your submission at this stage? Dr Bhattacharya—Quite a few grammatical mistakes. I think I can submit a corrected copy later on. CHAIR—Thank you. For the purpose of obtaining an accurate record, could you remain behind at the end of the proceedings so the Hansard officer can verify information that you have provided to the hearing. I now invite you to make an opening statement and then we will proceed to questions. Dr Bhattacharya—At the outset I would like to say a few things about myself. I have an Australian passport. I have been living in Australia for 30 years. I am married to an Australian, and our kids are always supporting Australia, even against India, which is my country of origin. Especially whenever there is a cricket match between India and Australia it creates a problem for me because there is one against three, which is not a good thing. Nevertheless, in a sense I was quite upset, and publicly I condemned the nuclear testing of both India and Pakistan, not so much because of the Australian stand but because I felt the opportunity cost of such test is quite high. Neither India nor Pakistan can afford the kind of luxury their political parties have been taking with the nuclear weapons program. So my stand is condemnatory of the Indian and Pakistan testing. I think they have increased tension in the region. A nuclear arms race cannot be afforded by the countries. Also, I find regional tension is only increased, although both countries are denying that. Nevertheless, there are some fundamental disagreements I have got with the group of five, group of eight and also the Australian government stand. First of all, the international community in the way it has been defined in the last five or six years is as if it means only two countries—the United States and Britain. Quite a few times I feel upset that these countries represent only five per cent of the global population, and whenever they want to take very unpopular measures they always say it is the wish of the international community. In my mind, nuclear weapons are not only problems for the FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Monday, 20 July 1998 SENATE—References FAD&T 3 South Asian region now; it is a global problem. I am glad to say that at least some countries are prepared to do some kind of inquiry. Consequently, I would like to state categorically here that I am prepared to give a ‘No’ for the nuclear arms race. At the same time I am prepared to understand the complexities of the situation which somehow has bypassed the Australian government’s response to the nuclear issues. Let me make the position quite clear what I mean by that. First of all, Australia has to be extremely careful that it does not follow policies which are detrimental to Australian national interest. Secondly, Australia should have to answer the charges of double standard. If you are going to impose any sanctions on the offending party, at least the sanctions could be comprehensive but there are no sanctions on wheat exports, I am glad to say. That is almost $300 million worth of exports from Australia at this point. The Indian government would immediately ask, ‘Why, if you really feel so strongly against our nuclear test, didn’t you impose sanctions on wheat exports to India?’ That double standard is also extended to the Australian attitude towards nuclear testing and the Indian attitude to the nuclear position in the globe over the last 50 years. I remember the Maralinga test when the Australian government of that day invited a nuclear power to explode a nuclear device in this country. I also remember that during the last 50 years no single Australian leader has ever asked the United States to apologise for dropping two atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the only country which has been the victim of nuclear weapons. Japan was not a nuclear country and Japan was almost beginning to surrender at the end of the Second World War. When American nuclear powered fleets come to the Australian shore, Australian governments always welcome them. If India and Pakistan try to follow the United States— after all the United States has done more than 1,200 nuclear tests—suddenly they find even their parliamentarians are not welcome. The double standard is going to be noted in the subcontinent. Also, the Prime Minister’s statement was very offensive, talking about the dirt poor country, as if the poor people do not love their country—it is a luxury for them. The poor are quite capable of loving their country and sometimes their sovereignistic tendencies and jingoism are well manifested. Basically they should be concerned with their national security. If the rich countries like Australia are concerned about their national security it is quite justifiable for the poor countries to be concerned about their national security. I still find, despite trying to explain it during the last 30 years, that Australia still does not understand the complexities of South Asia. The complexities are that since 1954 India has been saying the total elimination of nuclear bombs, weapons of mass destruction is their official policy. In 1965 India was the first country to suggest that phased withdrawal of existing nuclear weapons must be the policy of the United Nations. In the 1968 non- proliferation treaty that was completely disregarded. As late as 1988, Rajiv Gandhi, the late Prime Minister of India, was asking for the action plan exactly on that ground, that there FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 4 SENATE—References Monday, 20 July 1998 should be phased elimination and complete prohibition of nuclear weapons. That has never been taken seriously. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s China has become quite hegemonistic and in a sense it is documented that China has been exporting missile technology to Pakistan as well as to Iran. It is a CIA report; it is not an Indian government report. Nevertheless, the strange part throughout the second term of the Bill Clinton presidency is that he has been trying to establish a strategy of partnership with China. He is prepared to ignore India completely.

Load more

  87

Copy Link