U.S. Outlines Strategy to Contain Arms Race

The Clinton administration scrambled Thursday to map out a more assertive strategy to contain the escalating nuclear arms race in South Asia, a situation now widely considered more volatile than U.S.-Soviet tensions at the height of the Cold War.

“The task before the United States is urgent: to prevent South Asia from a free fall into nuclear war,” said a senior administration official.

The obstacles to disarmament appear even greater than during the Cold War, according to U.S. analysts. They include the geographic proximity of the warring parties, the absence of even basic communications like the Washington-Moscow “hotline,” and the susceptibility of two poor, developing countries to internal political pressures and long-standing border conflicts that have already sparked three wars.

“It’s not like the Cold War, when the parties were separated by the Arctic Ocean,” the senior official said. “Their armies shoot at each other every single day. There’s no margin for error as there was between the United States and the Soviet Union.”

The proximity of the two nations is a critical factor. During the Cold War, the United States and Soviet Union would have had at least 40 minutes’ warning after a missile launch by the other side. For India and Pakistan, it would be as little as three minutes, arms experts said.

As expected, President Clinton reacted within hours to the Pakistani explosions by imposing new sanctions mandated by Congress on countries that undertake nuclear tests.

But with sanctions having proved largely ineffective in preventing the recent escalation, Washington is already searching for other ways to work toward disarmament of the world’s deadliest weapon.

“We want to induce these countries to do what is in their national interest,” Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott said.

The evolving U.S. strategy will attempt to convince New Delhi and Islamabad to embrace five broad objectives:

* Renouncing further nuclear testing. U.S. officials hope intense diplomacy in the days ahead will open the way for a cooling-off period during which both sides can be persuaded not to engage in additional tit-for-tat tests.

“Just because there have been setbacks doesn’t mean we should abandon our fundamental objectives or relent on our efforts to achieve them,” Talbott said. “We will remain engaged in the diplomatic process . . . to see that cooler heads prevail.”

* Taking decisive steps to reduce tensions. The administration would like to help the two sides begin constructing a framework for direct dialogue and confidence-building measures to lessen tensions, a process that produced positive results last year.

“The administration needs to encourage the two sides to talk to each other directly and to try to establish a series of measures as we had with the Soviets,” said Richard Haas, director of South Asia policy during the George Bush administration and now a Brookings Institution analyst.

* Signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Although 149 nations have already signed the 1996 pact, India and Pakistan are the most conspicuous holdouts. In light of recent events, the treaty could collapse if the two new nuclear powers do not eventually sign on.

* Joining international talks on a new treaty to end production of fissile material. This is envisioned as the next important milestone in the disarmament process, and the one that would have the greatest impact on developing countries unable to produce nuclear materials themselves.

* Pledging not to adapt their nuclear capability to actual weapons or deploy nuclear warheads on ballistic missiles. These two steps, which experts say could take several months to start and possibly several years to finish, would signal the two states were moving closer to nuclear conflict.

Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif indicated in an address to his nation Thursday that Pakistan will attempt to deploy a nuclear device on a long-range missile. If either country moves in that direction, the other is certain to follow suit, U.S. officials predict.

Because of the lack of safeguards, the dangers are greater than during the Cold War for hair-trigger alerts, unauthorized use, exploitation by terrorists or deployment in the next regional dispute, Haas said.

“If Pakistan and India continue on this path and weaponize, the odds that you will see a nuclear weapon used by design or accident approach near-certainty,” said Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

But several experts expressed skepticism, in the current climate of deep political passions, about Washington’s ability to prevent the crisis from escalating.

“If either country had listened to the rational arguments made against nuclear tests, neither would have gone ahead. Now that they have, I wonder whether a rational process can even be imposed on this problem,” Cirincione said.

Another critical factor is the participation of other powers. After India’s nuclear tests, only Japan, Canada and Australia joined the United States in major punitive action. Europe’s nonparticipation is the “biggest hole,” the senior administration official said.

The Europeans are considered essential to any diplomatic effort to defuse the crisis and halt the rippling effect of the arms race across the continent, from the Middle East to East Asia.

Washington has been particularly disappointed in Britain’s refusal to impose sanctions, largely because of economic interests. Before the current showdown, London stood with Washington in dealing sternly with Iraq, Libya and other hot spots.

“The United States, despite all its wealth and might, can’t control every event in the world, especially in a place where for five decades people have fought wars and lived with tension,” said White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry.

In the aftermath of the nuclear tests, the White House has not decided whether to proceed with Clinton’s proposed trip to South Asia in November.

“There are strong arguments to be made for going to impress governments to lessen tensions,” McCurry said. “But there are also some arguments to be made not to go to show our displeasure.”

More on the Crisis

* BUILDUP: U.S. experts believe that Pakistan is only months away from fulfilling its claims about its nuclear missile capability. A21

* DIPLOMACY: The best efforts of the United States and other nations were not enough to dissuade Pakistan from the tests. A21

* INDIA REACTION: Military and government officials responded calmly and assured the populace that the nation was secure. A21

* ARMS RACE: These rivals won’t play a numbers game, some Asia experts say; they don’t need to match weapon for weapon. A22

* GROUND ZERO: A graphic look at the region and its risks. A20