The stand has led to pressures from major nuclear powers, particularly the US, who has warned that the blockage could discredit the world's principal disarmament forum. "The international community is watching and will draw the correct conclusions as to whether the Committee on Disarmament is to regain its relevance and stature as the world's multilateral negotiating forum, or revert to inertia and the failed patterns of the past," said US representative Garold Larson.
China's ambassador Wang Guangya called for work to start as soon as possible: "We must do it, we must start work." As Russian ambassador Valery Loschinin put it, the treaty provides a compromise that is "sufficiently balanced and should be acceptable to everyone." The stand by the five nuclear powers is understandable, as they are not affected by its implications. They already have enough stocks of fissile material to make hundreds of new bombs. They are, therefore, hesitant to introduce measures to reduce these stocks.
Pakistan's representative, however, stood his ground reiterating the reasons for his country's principled stand. He made it clear that the main problem with the proposed treaty is that by freezing the fissile material, it leaves Pakistan at a disadvantage as compared to India. New Delhi will benefit from the treaty, as it already has much larger stockpile of the nuclear-weapon material that can be employed to make many more nuclear bombs.
What is more, nuclear and arms deals between India and the United States, as well as with other nuclear powers have provided it with a further edge to enhance its nuclear capabilities. "If we are going to negotiate a treaty which only bans future production, then that asymmetry or imbalance between us will be frozen forever. It presents us with a clear and present danger," Munir Akram told the Committee on Disarmament.
Despite siding with the US, a number of other nations agreed that Pakistan's stand was by no means unjustified and talks on a new fissile material cut-off treaty should have addressed plutonium or highly-enriched uranium that has already been produced. As Bangladeshi Foreign Minister put it, negotiations should extend to stocks, "without which any such treaty may not be comprehensive."
Swiss ambassador Jurg Lauber also conceded that the treaty that addressed only new production of nuclear-weapon material would not reflect "an honest assessment of the situation." He also stressed that excess and civilian stocks are huge and certainly part of the problem and therefore, the scope of such a treaty should have been sufficiently broad. But since the issue is of little practical relevance for these countries, they decided to go with the majority.
The Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty is an important first step towards the goal of deweaponisation that the world badly needs. Nuclear weapons, in the possession of the US and Russia alone, are enough to destroy the world many times over. As a recent provocative statement by General Deepak Kapoor, followed by a tit-for-tat statement from General Tariq Majeed, would indicate South Asia would remain in perpetual fear of a nuclear holocaust if there was no movement towards the end of all nuclear weapons. India's hegemonic designs in fact led Pakistan to develop nuclear weapons that set off a nuclear race in South Asia.
Pakistan having first-hand knowledge of Indian excesses, was reluctantly forced to follow suit. Unless there is parity between the two countries in fissile material stockpiles, there is little possibility of Islamabad signing the treaty despite its value. There is a need, on the part of the international community, to persuade India to agree to proportionately reduce its stockpiles and on the part of US, to sign with Pakistan, a nuclear power treaty similar to the one it has signed with India. What is more, the outstanding issues between Pakistan and India need to be resolved if peace and amity are to be restored in South Asia.