FAIT Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES ET DU COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, June 9, 1998

• 1520

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.)): I would like to call this session of the committee to order. I would like to welcome, on behalf of the members of the committee, Senator Muhammad Zaki, who is the chairman of the foreign affairs committee of the Senate in Pakistan, accompanied by Colonel Cheema, who is the chairman of the defence committee. Welcome, both, and welcome to His Excellency the High Commissioner.

Colleagues, I apologize for the fact that some of our members are not here yet but I thought we should get going. Our experience is that in the last few days of the session, people are quite often tied up doing all sorts of different things. You may find members come and go, and please excuse us for that.

Senator Zaki, if you could lead off by introducing the members of your delegation and saying a few words, then we could open it up for questions and discussions between us.

Senator Muhammad Akram Zaki (Chairman, Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Kashmir Affairs and Northern Affairs, and Former Secretary-General, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Pakistan): Mr. Chairman, let me say that we are very grateful to you and members of the committee for finding the time to have an exchange of views with us on very important developments that have taken place in south Asia. Let me first, as you've stated, introduce members of the delegation.

My colleague is a member of the National Assembly, elected three times. He has served as Minister of Defence in a previous government. Now he is chairing the committee of the National Assembly on defence. Prior to joining politics he had an illustrious career as a member of the Pakistan armed forces. During his association with the armed forces he has concentrated a great deal on the study of strategy and military history. He has been teaching those subjects at the staff college and the defence college.

Tomorrow we have some commitments in Washington and one of our other colleagues had to rush back to tie up some of those things. We won't have the pleasure of having him with us today.

We also have the privilege of having Pakistan's accredited High Commissioner to Canada, who is of course known to you and is ably representing Pakistan. He is a career foreign service officer and has served with distinction in many posts.

We also have with us two other members of the embassy, our diplomatic first secretary and our secretary in charge of the press and media development, as we say.

On behalf of all my colleagues, I once again want to thank you and members of the committee. Whenever you wish, I will make a brief statement to state our point of view and then we will be ready to answer questions.

The Chairman: That would be very good, Senator. Perhaps you could open with a statement and then we will use that as a basis for asking questions.

• 1525

Senator Muhammad Akram Zaki: Let me say at the very outset that Pakistan is a country that loves peace and has made very serious efforts for the last quarter century to promote the cause of non-proliferation.

Perhaps you know that when the NPT was being negotiated it was recognized that there would be five powers recognized as nuclear powers. They would have the obligation eventually to disarm themselves and not to allow anybody else to nuclearize their program. The other members would have the obligation not to acquire nuclear weapons, but they would be entitled to peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

Pakistan called for a conference of non-nuclear states in 1968 at Geneva. The then foreign minister of Pakistan presided over the conference seeking guarantees from nuclear states against nuclear attack or against threat of nuclear attack. The objectives of the conference were not successful. That was one of the reasons why in 1968 Pakistan did not sign the NPT.

India also did not sign the NPT. That was the second reason for us not to sign it. We did not want to be placed in a disadvantageous position vis-à-vis India, which had had a hostile relationship with us, which was much larger than us and which until then had fought two wars with us.

A few years later in 1971 India imposed a third war on Pakistan and intervened to bifurcate Pakistan, leading to the establishment of Bangladesh.

Then came the most unfortunate development of the region, when in May 1974 India exploded the first nuclear device. Our reaction was that we went to the United Nations to propose a resolution for the establishment of south Asia as a nuclear-weapons-free zone. We got support, the resolution was passed, but India opposed the resolution.

Since 1974, every year Pakistan has been sponsoring this resolution to make south Asia a nuclear-weapons-free zone. In the end, only three countries oppose it. And after you have heard the names of the countries, you will kindly realize who is opposing it. The three countries are: India, Bhutan and Mauritius. Everybody else has supported the proposal in the United Nations to make south Asia a nuclear-weapons-free zone, but it has not been established. The main stumbling block has been India's opposition and obduracy.

Our government also proposed several measures. In 1978 we proposed that both India and Pakistan issue a joint declaration renouncing the acquisition and manufacture of nuclear weapons. India turned down the proposal.

In 1979 we proposed that India and Pakistan should open nuclear facilities on a reciprocal basis to mutual inspection to ensure that whatever they were doing was peaceful and that they had no weapons program.

Pakistan made two other proposals in 1979. One was that Pakistan and India should simultaneously accept IAEA comprehensive safeguards for all the nuclear facilities that they were establishing. Pakistan also said that India and Pakistan should simultaneously join the NPT.

All these proposals were rejected by India.

In 1991 Pakistan took another initiative. We proposed that the three major nuclear powers in the region, the United States, the then Soviet Union and China, should join with Pakistan and India to solve the question of proliferation and to make south Asia a nuclear-weapons-free zone. Later, England and France also wanted to be associated with this proposal. India was the only country that opposed it.

• 1530

Six countries, five permanent nuclear powers and Pakistan, wanted a conference to keep south Asia a nuclear-weapons-free zone. India refused because they had a clandestine weaponization program.

In 1992 we proposed to India on a bilateral basis that we should keep our area free from all weapons of mass destruction, which meant atomic, biological, chemical and missiles. India partially responded to this proposal. India rejected the other three but said it was ready for discussions on chemical weapons. We responded positively and immediately.

In August 1992 we concluded a bilateral agreement not to manufacture or stockpile chemical weapons. We were happy that some progress had been made. But later on in 1996 we were shocked to discover when India signed the chemical weapons international convention, it declared its stockpile of chemical weapons which it had concealed from us when it signed the 1992 agreement with us.

Pakistan has consistently advocated non-proliferation of all types of weapons of mass destruction, including their means of delivery. Pakistan is one of the original signatories to the ban on biological weapons convention. It is one of the main architects of the recently concluded chemical weapons convention, which it signed and ratified. As a member of the conference on disarmament, Pakistan has actively engaged in efforts to finalize a comprehensive test ban treaty and has participated in negotiations on a future fissile material cut-off treaty.

In August 1993 Pakistan proposed a new concept when India was testing all types of new missiles and placing them on Pakistan's borders. We proposed the concept of a zero missile zone in south Asia. This proposal was also rejected by India.

In 1995 we received reports that India had deployed missiles with a range of 250 kilometres to 300 kilometres that could reach any targets in Pakistan. When we took up this matter with the international community, we were given the semantic reply that they had not deployed them, they had only placed them or stored them close to the border. I don't know what the difference is, but they were there in case they wanted to use them.

While we were making efforts to keep this region free of nuclear weapons because we were committed to non-proliferation, we were also making efforts to solve the basic disputes between India and Pakistan. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, during his first term of office, had initiated a dialogue with Indian leaders. That was interrupted when his government fell in 1993.

Immediately on becoming Prime Minister in February 1997 he restarted Indo-Pakistan bilateral talks to solve disputes. He met the Indian prime ministers at conferences wherever they went, whether it was our conference, the Commonwealth conference or the United Nations in New York.

We instituted formal talks at the level of the head of the foreign office, the permanent secretaries of the foreign office. Three rounds of talks have taken place. The most successful round was the second one.

In the second round of talks, India and Pakistan agreed to set up eight working groups to discuss their various disputes so that progress could be made. I have these papers, which, with your permission, sir, I will distribute to members of the committee. These are the joint statement that was issued after the second round of talks and the statements made by the Indian and Pakistani foreign secretaries on that occasion.

• 1535

Two of those eight work groups were to deal with peace and security, including CBMs, confidence-building measures, and also with Jammu and Kashmir. Then we have other questions, Siachen and Wullar Barrage.

In September, when the third round took place, India went back on the commitment to have discussions on peace and security, confidence-building measures, and Jammu and Kashmir. The talks were stalled.

We were making efforts to start the talks again, but India's election came. During the election, a party that had given a program of introducing nuclear weapons in the Indian armed forces formed a coalition government.

People in the international community had thought, or wrongly assessed, that those declarations were perhaps only election programs and they would not put them into practice. We received information that soon after coming into office the new government had started moving in the direction of weaponizing or putting into operation their nuclear weapons program.

On April 3 the Prime Minister of Pakistan addressed letters to leaders of different countries. He wrote to President Clinton and to others that, according to our information, India was putting into operation its nuclear weapons program. I don't think much credence was given to our assessment.

Mr. Richardson, the U.S. ambassador in the United Nations, visited India and Pakistan. After his visit to India he came and told the Pakistan government that they had had talks with India and there was nothing to fear, India was not going to put into operation its program, that our assessment was perhaps not right and they were willing to enter into negotiations with us. This was the U.S. assessment of Indian intentions conveyed to us, contrary to our warning.

Then came the fateful day of May 11, when suddenly we were shocked to hear that India had exploded three nuclear devices. The sense of shock was unimaginable in Pakistan.

Perhaps the only way to relate what the people of Pakistan felt, how exposed they felt, to some extent, is to recall what happened when the Soviets launched their first Sputnik into outer space. For the first time people in this area felt vulnerable. Perhaps another example would be when missiles were placed in Cuba, and the shock and reaction in the United States and this part of the world.

Not only did India carry out the three nuclear explosions, but the very next day there came two horrifying statements from India. One was that in case of conflict, India would use the nuclear weapons. The other was that the missiles that had been placed on Pakistan's borders, which could hit any target in Pakistan, as they previously had been saying, would be fitted with nuclear warheads.

Then came a series of statements from high-placed Indian officials, particularly the interior minister or the home minister, that “We will seize as ours Kashmir by force. We will teach Pakistan a lesson. Pakistan should learn to accept the new geostrategic reality and roll back its anti-India policy.”

This was the atmosphere.

• 1540

Every night the people of Pakistan lived in a terror of imbalance. They felt there might be a prospect of Pakistani cities becoming Hiroshima and Nagasaki because the new government in India had a different philosophy. While the previous government claimed to be secular and liberal, this government is backed by two fascist party organizations, the RSS, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, and the Shiv Sena.

The RSS has had links with the Germanies and the Nazi party from the thirties and is organized along those lines. It wears the same swastika. It salutes in the same fashion. It has expansionists and monstrous designs, and this is the basic support of the new Indian government.

With nuclear weapons in their hands and with threats coming to Pakistan, Pakistan was looking to the international community to see whether the legality of the NPT could be enforced. The sixth gatecrasher into the nuclear club was proclaiming at the top of its voice that “We are now a nuclear state to be stopped”, and the voice from the Russian federation was that they were ready to accept India as a nuclear power.

Pakistan watched with patience, suspense, and fear. The government came under increasing pressure from every segment of society to provide psychological and strategic security to the people of Pakistan. No elected leader who enjoys the support of the people could ignore the feeling of the people. Defence had to be provided.

Instead of being helped, we came under pressure from friendly governments asking us not to do what India had done. However the ultimate responsibility for survival and self-defence rests with the people of Pakistan.

The Prime Minister of Pakistan was carrying out an agonizing appraisal from every angle, the threats of sanctions and the promise of some inducements. The serious security situation was staring every Pakistani in the face. The prospect of a costly nightmare was haunting us.

On the night of the 27th we received reports that India was planning to make a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan's nuclear facilities. Our air force went into action and guarded the skies. We alerted the world that if India indulged in such an activity, it would mean a major conflagration.

The next day Pakistan, exercising its right of self-defence under article 51 of the UN charter, tested its own devices to deter aggression. We thought balance of terror was better than terror of imbalance. If only one side possesses the dangerous weapon, the temptation to use it becomes irresistible, but if both sides have it, than sanity can prevail.

Having redressed the psychological and strategic balance, we have taken the initiative to say that we are ready to commence negotiations for stabilizing the situation, for introducing confidence-building measures, for discussing the basic issues underlying disputes like Kashmir, on the basis of the agreement of June 1976. We are even willing to sign a non-aggression pact with India.

We want to maintain and return to international legality. We want the support and understanding of the international community to help us achieve that objective.

• 1545

A nuclear war is terrible, horrible. We do not want it and we do not want to be the victims of it. That is why our action has to be distinguished from what India did. There is a difference between provocation and threats, which are illegal under the UN charter, and defensive action to re-establish the balance, which is a legitimate right.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Senator.

Our normal practice is to pass to various members to ask questions. We'll go to the opposition first. Members, I'll just remind you we only have half an hour, so maybe we'll keep it to five-minute intervals at the beginning and we might go around more than once.

Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): I want to certainly welcome our guests to Canada.

A number of questions arise out of your presentation, which was very graphic and certainly painted the picture for us. If you were guaranteed a security pact, if you had an international guarantee of security, would I be right in saying you would then be prepared to sign the NPT, to de-nuclearize?

Senator Muhammad Akram Zaki: Our position is that what we are seeking is survival and security. It depends on what kinds of guarantees are given, because we have had experiences in the past.

We were members of CENTO and SEATO. We had a bilateral defence agreement with the United States. In 1965 India committed aggression against Pakistan. Instead of being treated as a member of the alliance, our military supplies were cut off because they said they could not supply to the area of conflict.

In 1971 the same thing happened. When India intervened in Bangladesh, East Pakistan, we were placed under sanctions. Our country was bifurcated, despite the fact that we were members.

It depends what kind of security we are given and whether that security is credible, viable, and dependable. Pakistan is not a country that wants nuclear weapons. For India it is a matter of prestige and status; for us it is a matter of survival.

Mr. Bob Mills: There is a question that always comes out when we look at this. China has remained relatively quiet on this whole issue, but obviously China becomes a major player in the south Asia nuclear equation.

Could you give us your perspective? We have read that your involvement with China is certainly more than just diplomatic. That isn't really what I'm asking. I'm asking what position you see China playing in providing security, providing a threat. Certainly the India-China issue is part of that as well.

Senator Muhammad Akram Zaki: China and India have had a vast improvement in relations since 1988. In the last 10 years, China and India have developed trade and technical cooperation. They have removed their troops from the common frontier. They have not solved the problem, but they have stabilized their frontier.

Even on sensitive matters, India has succeeded in securing support from China. For example, we know that there was a supply of heavy water from China to India. Their relations have grown considerably.

We have had very close relations with China. We still have very good relations, but since 1978 China has adopted a position that economic development is its highest national priority. Therefore China is not ready to make any defence commitments outside its mainland.

In fact, China's philosophy is that even on its borders, where it fears there is encroachment, it would not like to enter into a conflict. So I don't see that China can be the guarantor of Pakistan's security. If there is a guarantee, it has to come collectively from the members of the security council. If China does become a guarantor, in fact India will consider it a further provocation and it will not stabilize the situation. I think China's role has to be seen as relatively less important in security matters.

• 1550

Mr. Bob Mills: Right.

A final one. As parliamentarians we wonder what role you see Canadians could play in this whole issue. Maybe the problem is Kashmir. What role might Canadians play in solving that problem?

Senator Muhammad Akram Zaki: Canada has a very good record in peacekeeping operations. Pakistan also has a good record of peacekeeping elsewhere. We have jointly conducted many operations.

I'm not suggesting any policy. Canadians have to decide their own policy. Judging from the background of Canada and your question, sir, India makes false accusations that Pakistan is sending infantry to Kashmir.

The fact is that when the movement in eastern Europe started against the Soviet Union, the people of Kashmir who were suppressed by India realized that if freedom could be gained from a superpower like the Soviet Union, why could they not throw off the yoke of a country like India? This new struggle that started was inspired by the eastern European freedom movements. It started in 1989.

India clamped down in 1989 with very cruel laws. They inducted 600,000 troops and they are committing atrocities, human rights violations, gang rapes. Sixty thousand people have been killed already. God knows how many are in jails and maimed, how many houses have been burned, how many women have been gang raped. They are practising gang rape as a matter of policy to humiliate them into submission. They are not going to submit.

Our view is that international observers should be placed on the line. They can see whether Pakistan is guilty or India is guilty.

They sometimes transgress into our area, shoot people, and then they say they were trying to infiltrate and we have stopped them. Sometimes they kill people inside Kashmir and throw them across the line and say we have killed them in trying to enter that area.

We want international observers there. I think Canada has a very good record of being able to play such a role, along with others if you so choose.

Mr. Bob Mills: Thank you, Senator.

The Chairman: Mr. Mills is going to propose in the House that Canada send forces to Pakistan. This will be a move for the Reform Party.

[Translation]

Madame Debien.

Ms. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Senator, gentlemen, as you know, our committee recently adopted a resolution on nuclear testings in India. Our resolution strongly condemned these tests. As you know, the Minister of Foreign Affairs also made a statement along the same lines.

Senator, you recently told the National Press Club that it was better to maintain a balance of terror in the region, and I think that you reiterated that earlier on. Is the philosophy behind that statement one of nuclear deterrence rather than nuclear disarmament?

That type of statement calls into question your decision to adhere or not to adhere to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and the comprehensive nuclear test-ban treaty. As we often say here, what way are you leaning?

We know that Pakistan is extremely poor. So can Pakistan afford its ambitions? Does the extreme poverty in Pakistan justify the large sums of money that you have invested in nuclear weapons?

• 1555

Personally, I think that Pakistan's authority and morality would have been enhanced in the region if it had not reacted to India. Despite the explanations you have given us, I think that Pakistan would have gained more credibility and significantly greater morality internationally without resorting to nuclear testing.

Senator Muhammad Akram Zaki: Madame, I have understood your question, but if I may, I will answer in English.

Ms. Maud Debien: Go right ahead.

[English]

Senator Muhammad Akram Zaki: I think the basic question is we would like to have a balance of confidence, a balance of trust, a balance of friendship. That is our preference.

The Prime Minister initiated a dialogue with India to improve relations. Our philosophy was that our first priority was economic development and extending benefits of development to the people to increase social justice and to strengthen the social sector. For that, international peace was necessary. That is why he initiated the dialogue with India, to resolve the dispute so that we could concentrate on economic development. This has been the effort of the Government of Pakistan.

The newspaper has quoted me and I don't deny having said that the balance of terror is better than the terror of imbalance. That's what my point is.

Instead of living in the constant fear that India is nuclearized and can overtake us anytime or dictate to us anytime, we would rather have both sides nuclearized. Our first preference would be to resolve the conflict, to eliminate the danger of nuclear weapons. I have given you an explanation, Madam. We have been making efforts since India's first nuclear weapon to have a nuclear-weapons-free zone. There cannot be a settlement where the other party does not accept any proposal.

We agree that we are a poor country. The ideal thing would have been to concentrate all our resources on improving the lot of the people, but survival is the first condition. Prosperity cannot come without survival. If we survive, we can be prosperous. If we don't survive, how will we prosper?

Kuwait was very prosperous, but Kuwait had no defence capability and it was a temptation to aggression. If we become very prosperous economically and weak militarily, there is a greater danger that we'll come under Indian attack.

On the third question about morality, Pakistan has exercised morality since India's nuclear test in 1974. We developed the capability and we continued to make efforts not to make the weapons. For 14 years we acted with morality, but still the international community kept us under sanction and forced us to roll back whatever research we had done. If we roll back today, we will be at the feet of India as a humiliated occupied country.

Morality has not rewarded us. Unfortunately morality is preached, but it is never respected. We are still willing to take a high moral ground to proceed on the side of de-escalation, but we will see how the international community makes a distinction between India's arrogance and Pakistan's cooperation.

[Translation]

Ms. Maud Debien: Do you plan on signing the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and the comprehensive test-ban treaty?

[English]

Senator Muhammad Akram Zaki: Pakistan has always had the intention of signing all these treaties. The NPT was being extended in 1995 indefinitely without amendment, and without amendment means only five nuclear powers. Our position is that we will not unilaterally accept anything that puts us at a disadvantage vis-à-vis India. We want non-discriminatory treatment on international treaties.

The Chairman: Merci.

Madame Beaumier, and then Mr. Bachand.

Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.): I always believe that you strike while the iron is hot. I don't want to talk about the nuclear situation today. I'm sure that you're speaking with a number of people who can better facilitate this than I can.

• 1600

First of all, I'm going to say that I believe the BJP originally did this because they're looking for a common enemy in order to strengthen their own minority government.

Canada has a very longstanding relationship with Pakistan. We have a very good relationship and have had a very good relationship with Pakistan. I recognize Pakistan's independence, having been an independent country for 51 years. We're a lot older than you are. We have 80 years on you.

Having said that, I recognize that Canada has gone through periods where we have not been wonderful in the area of violation of human rights of minorities within our own borders. Hopefully, we have put that behind us and we won't make those mistakes again.

Senator Zaki, you are the son of an educator and social worker, among other distinguished positions. I and my constituents, the Ahmadious, the Christians, and Muslims, are very, very concerned about the blasphemy laws in Pakistan. I would like you to make me understand why they can't be repealed and why there isn't an active movement to repeal them.

At least Benazir Bhutto pretended that she was working on it. I understand the new Prime Minister has said that they're good and necessary laws. Because of my personal commitment to the south Asians in my constituency—I'm here because of them—I would like to be able to give them a response.

Senator Muhammad Akram Zaki: I understand your concern. There are abuses in every society. The less educated the people, the more fanatical they become.

One thing is very clear. We live in an age where every individual deserves to be respected. There are laws of defamation if an individual's honour is attacked. There are libel laws and defamation laws.

If historical personnages, prophets, and noble leaders who are held in high esteem by millions of people are insulted, it leads to a law and order situation and a breach of peace. The blasphemy laws have existed in Europe and they exist in Pakistan.

Before coming here we were discussing this issue. I have made statements on this issue. We have decided that we need to ensure that these laws are not abused. The laws need to be amended to the extent that there would be a mechanism whereby nobody on the basis of personal hostility or enmity, as the case suggests, would make a complaint against somebody.

If somebody makes a complaint, it will be properly investigated. Only a reputable agency, after it is satisfied, will initiate the proceeding. If the charges are false, then the person who has made the charge will be libel to the penalty that would have been given to the person against whom the charge had been made, as a deterrent in giving false evidence. The law minister also made a statement just two days before I left that we are going to look into this and ensure that the laws are not abused.

Also, the lower courts have given decisions in a few cases, but so far, the state policy is that the higher courts have not upheld any one of those decisions. At the level of the uneducated public to maintain peace and security, as we evolve I am sure the laws, as in other advanced countries, will go rapidly into disuse.

• 1605

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: Do you not think that death is a fairly severe punishment for words that may be offensive?

Senator Muhammad Akram Zaki: We understand that situation, but if those words lead to riots, which lead to deaths and burning of localities, the situation is such that the law and order has to be met. We will make every effort to ensure that no innocent person becomes a victim of any of those false allegations. This we can guarantee you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Bachand.

Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Athabasca, BC): I would like to welcome you to the committee. It is a great honour to meet you.

I would like to know what year Pakistan officially built its first nuclear bomb.

[English]

Senator Muhammad Akram Zaki: We didn't have the nuclear bomb. We don't have the nuclear bomb. We developed the capacity to put things together.

In 1985 the President of Pakistan said in an interview that we have the capability. We don't want to make the bomb, but we are a few screws away from the final stage. After acquiring the capability, we stopped short of assembling a device. At that time it was assessed it could be assembled within a few days. In spite of the fact that in 1984-85 we reached the threshold, we did not assemble the device.

[Translation]

Mr. André Bachand: When did you assemble your first bomb?

Senator Muhammad Akram Zaki: I do not know, but we conducted tests on May 28. They said we needed seven days to conduct the tests and we conducted them after 17 days.

Mr. André Bachand: So it was only this year, in 1998, that Pakistan proved it truly had a nuclear capability. Pakistan had never conducted any tests before.

Senator Muhammad Akram Zaki: No.

Mr. André Bachand: You were in a position—

Senator Muhammad Akram Zaki: But it is because of the responsibility.

Mr. André Bachand: Despite your strained relations with India since independence, since the end of the kingdom, Pakistan had nevertheless more or less succeeded in preserving its sovereignty without nuclear tests. So we have trouble understanding why six tests were carried out this year. Do you see what I mean?

Senator Muhammad Akram Zaki: I understand.

Mr. André Bachand: Despite the Kashmir issue, you were able to maintain some military influence and balance towards India. Undoubtedly because of Pakistan's military capability and the quality of your armed forces, you were able to maintain some balance towards India without resorting to nuclear testing whereas India had conducted tests as early as 1974. How do you see that?

[English]

Senator Muhammad Akram Zaki: I can tell you, if India had not disturbed the balance on May 11 and May 13, and if it had not given us threats of what we call nuclear blackmail—India was even saying “We have called Pakistan's bluff. There was an ambiguity as to whether Pakistan has it or not. Pakistan doesn't have it and now we will teach them a lesson.” The balance that we had kept through ambiguity was no longer a balance after the tests on the 11th and 13th and the threats that we were receiving. We had to restructure the balance.

• 1610

[Translation]

Mr. André Bachand: My colleague talked about China. We are trying to understand why 11 nuclear tests were conducted, and there are perhaps more to come. Among others, there are long-range nuclear tests conducted by Pakistan and India. There is also talk of China's transfer of technology or technical assistance to Pakistan, which would have led India to fear—and as I say, we are here to learn—that Pakistan may have long-range missiles pointed in its direction.

When did all of that start, in your opinion? I am asking you that question as objectively as possible. Why, in your opinion, did India conduct five nuclear tests? What, in your opinion, triggered it? I am asking you that objectively. Is it because there were missiles? Is it because of an attack in Kashmir? What exactly is going on? Is it related to what China is doing in the Bay of Bengal and its privileged relations with Pakistan? In your opinion, what happened?

[English]

Senator Muhammad Akram Zaki: We don't know. We think there is an element of madness in the new Government of India. They are inspired by fascist ideology. They have expansionist aims. They wanted to create a reign of terror, or a situation of fear of India, so that every country on the periphery of India would accept the dictates of India.

Where the missiles are concerned, India has tested a total of 22 times. Pakistan has carried out only one test. Even after the nuclear tests of both sides, India carried out more missile tests. India has tested a missile from sea to air, but we haven't done anything.

Our missile was one. India has a whole range. It has short range, medium range, intermediate range missiles. Now it is developing intercontinental ballistic missiles. This is because it wants the whole region, from the Middle East to New Zealand, to be under India's sphere of influence, if it is not with domination.

We don't know why India did it. I suppose it wanted to frighten Pakistan into accepting India hegemony, which we have not accepted, and we will not accept it.

The Chairman: If you don't mind, very quickly, Colonel. Then I'm going to go to one more question. Then we'll have to break because our time has run out.

Colonel Ghulam Sarwar Cheema (Member of the National Assembly and Former Minister of Defence, Pakistan): Let me make an addition to what my esteemed colleague has said. I unfortunately don't understand French; otherwise I would have responded.

The question was why is it, when you have this and that kind of armed forces, did Pakistan have to do what it did on May 20? Why did the Indians at the first instance explode so many devices on the 11th and 13th?

It was kind of you to praise the Pakistani armed forces. We did not have this capability for 24 years, from 1947 onwards. We fought three wars with India, three of them inflicted by India on us. The quality of the armed forces notwithstanding, I think it was God almighty who enabled us to defend ourselves and survive.

The ratio and proportion of troops that we used to maintain with India in the initial 24 years became well nigh impossible for us to maintain in the 25th year and onwards. Why? Because of the state of the economy, as is well known to you.

Because of economic difficulties we could no longer maintain a one-third, one-fourth ratio of troops, because we have no aggressive designs. Defensive battle-wise, defensive strategy-wise, one-third to one-fourth ratio is good enough. This ratio was adversely affected in that in the navy and the air force the ratio from one-fourth and one-third became one-sixteenth and one-twentieth.

• 1615

Among the very many other factors of a strategic nature, one of the imports to this decision was that today the conventional disparity between India and us, and in fact all these other countries put together, is not such that you could effectively fight a defensive battle.

Why the Indians did it— we have lived with them for centuries. You are all very educated people. I am sure you are very conscious and well informed. You have your experts and universities studying the Indians. To really understand and have an insight into the Indian mind, their mythology, their thinking, their nationalism, you have to be a Pakistani who lives in their shadow 24 hours a day.

Last point, sir. Our nation unfortunately was disenchanted with the international community. We waited for 18 days. The Prime Minister and the leadership tried to convince and give the rationale why we are not doing it, why we don't want a tit for tat with India. We see a rationality.

We appreciate your policy. We appreciate your thinking. We are more or less in line with that, but it compulsively had to be done. My senior colleague said we were fighting a battle of survival.

Most of the nation, 95% of the electorate, did not see eye to eye with the supereducated elites of Pakistan. They asked “Where was the international community? Where was this morality? Where was this justice? Where was this fair play in the last 50 years? Now you tell us to have high moral ground. Has a new kind of morality crept in anywhere in Washington or in other capitals of the world?”

I'm sorry to say this was the rationale on our part and somewhat the rationale of India.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Speller.

Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.): Colonel and Senator, I have a comment following up on the question of my colleague, Colleen Beaumier. I also have a short question myself.

I welcome you here not only as a member of Parliament but as chair of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, also one who is on the international executive and one who has many friends, colleagues, members of Parliament, not only in Pakistan but also in India.

I say it not as a diplomat, nor do I say it as representing the government, but I say this as a parliamentarian. It's very difficult for me as a parliamentarian to gather support for your country when you have that blasphemy law. Newspaper articles are read throughout my constituency. People ask me what the heck is going on. It's very difficult for me to explain to them what reason you would have to put someone to death for blasphemy. I say that in terms of the friendship between our two countries, but I say it as direct as we normally do in Commonwealth parliamentary meetings.

What role do you feel the Commonwealth could play? Both countries are Commonwealth members. Is there a role you see for the Commonwealth in terms of trying to garner some sort of peaceful settlement between the two countries on Kashmir and certainly in terms of joining the non-proliferation treaty?

Senator Muhammad Akram Zaki: Let me come to this current issue first.

Let me recapitulate that Pakistan philosophically believes in non-proliferation. Our whole effort in the past had been to ensure that weapons of mass destruction were not introduced in that region. Our philosophy still remains. We are against proliferation of nuclear weapons.

First, we did not conduct any tests for 14 years in spite of having the capability, although India had done it in 1974.

Second, we have given the assurance to the international community and we are willing to repeat it now that we have not, and we will not transfer this technology to anybody else, because we believe in non-proliferation.

• 1620

Third, we have been willing to sign the NPT, the CTBT. We support the extension of and believe in the original NPT with five nuclear powers. We would be very happy. We have no ambition of keeping nuclear efforts.

You must stop the trouble where it started. The sixth country that tried to gate-crash into the nuclear club should be the first one to be convinced to roll back and accept the status of a non-nuclear power. This is the responsibility of the international community, whether it's the Commonwealth, the security council, NATO, or any other organization. As the phrase goes, the rogue nuclear state is a very dangerous thing to have. The rogue nuclear state that wanted to gate-crash into the club should be tamed.

You will find Pakistan more than cooperative to go to any lengths. The last thing we want is nuclear weapons. Our objective is survival, and it is the only way to survive against nuclear weapons. We did not get the guarantees in 1968 when we asked for them. We did not do explosions.

My view is that the international community, Commonwealth countries and major nations should move from punitive diplomacy to creative diplomacy. Creative diplomacy is to stabilize the nuclear situation in south Asia, not to allow the race to go on.

We are not interested in the nuclear race, but the other side should also be stopped. Creative diplomacy would be to have a collective effort to prevent India from moving forward and installing nuclear weapons into various missiles. If India deploys them, although we would not like it, we may be compelled to do the same.

India has demonstrated its capability and we have demonstrated our capability. Let's stabilize it. Let's step back and have meaningful political negotiations to resolve the disputes. Then we can move toward confidence-building measures.

The Kashmir issue has been neglected for a long time. I am very glad that at least the foreign ministers of the five who met in Geneva recognized that that has to be resolved, and I'm glad that you've mentioned the same thing.

A voice: Mediation.

Senator Muhammad Akram Zaki: Mediation, good offices, arbitration, adjudication—all the methods mentioned in the United Nations charter are welcome to us. We want to move beyond this. We want to concentrate on moving into the 21st century in peace and with a commitment to develop and to educate our people.

In that way the atmosphere becomes conducive to amending the laws that today glare into the eyes of those who are more advanced and better educated. The uneducated people will create riots. Many lives will be lost if we remove the laws now. If we have the possibility of peace and development, social development, these laws and their agony will be eliminated.

That's why I took this question. Canada has the ability and the credentials to show leadership in this.

We want to use nuclear energy only for peaceful purposes. That is the way we started, with the help of Canada and a small reactor to produce electricity. We would like to produce electricity and nothing else.

Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you, Senator. We have run out of time, but I would like to take advantage of having a former defence minister here and ask him a quick question.

In your experience as defence minister, Colonel Cheema, could you comment on whether the fissionable materials or technology from the Canadian Candu reactor supplied to Pakistan in any way contributed to the construction of the atomic bomb or the test that you recently conducted?

• 1625

Col Ghulam Sarwar Cheema: Sir, I will say with full responsibility that in the timeframe the reactor was provided by our friend, the Government of Canada, to Pakistan. You unilaterally decided to withdraw the facility of giving us different fuel. We were forced to look elsewhere for the means, methodology, and equipment for making our own fuel. Until then Pakistan did not have anything on its horizon, even the faintest idea or dream of having a full-fledged nuclear program.

In fact, after the first positive favour of having given us that equipment, it was a great negative favour that you did to us. Had this not been done, Pakistan would never have seen the part— We were forced to look for the fuel for the KANUPP reactor at Karachi.

I say again, in one short sentence, that the Canadian assistance to us in this field in no way, not even remotely, helped us in gaining, attaining, achieving the capability that we did. This ball game started much later.

The Chairman: Thank you both very much. We have overstayed our time.

I believe you have troops in Bosnia, do you not? You don't have troops in Bosnia.

Col Ghulam Sarwar Cheema: We said for peacekeeping.

The Chairman: Peacekeeping in Bosnia. I thought I recalled that from when our mission was there. I know that our troops have served together. I know that our troops have served together in Haiti.

I would like to welcome you on that, as having been colleagues in those very important peacekeeping missions. Peacekeeping is one of the principal pillars of Canada's foreign policy. It is one of which we're very proud. We are glad that we have been able to collaborate with Pakistan in that respect.

I would like to share with you my colleagues' concern. We are very concerned about events in southeast Asia, there's no question about it. We very much regretted India's test. We regret that you believe you could not ensure your security without making tests.

You may know that Canada is a country that could have developed nuclear weapons. Canada had the capacity—presumably still has it—and has chosen never to develop it. We do not see that as a way of enhancing our security.

This committee is presently conducting a study on nuclear proliferation. Nothing would give us greater joy than the thought that perhaps before we've completed our study, India and Pakistan would have signed a non-proliferation treaty and comprehensive test ban treaty. Nothing gives us greater sadness than the realization that the actions in Southeast Asia have made our study at this time all too relevant for everybody in the world.

Thank you both very much for coming before us today.

We are adjourned.