Three years after the attack on the World Trade Centre, the War Against Terror is in crisis. The initial and overwhelming support to the US in its hour of tragedy has passed. Today, perhaps a necessary War has become a very complex and a divisive one. A victory is unlikely and the War's end is not in sight. Instead it has a high probability of being transformed into a conflict between civilizations. If it indeed develops into one, its duration will be measured in decades and not years.

The policy of targeting rogue regimes to prevent their acquiring weapons of mass destruction has had precisely the opposite effect. It has provided these very regimes a strong motive to acquire these capabilities as deterrence against attack. In turn, it has endangered the entire non-proliferation order.

The ultimate horror of our times, the possibility of the mating of terror and weapons of mass destruction seems to be more likely than ever. Indeed some may claim this has already taken place in a country under military rule and a thriving terror industry, where its nuclear scientists were allowed to run amok. Its possibility then is no longer in the abstract.

The global non-proliferation agenda is in effect on hold with virtually no progress anywhere. The Conference on Disarmament at Geneva is unable to agree on a Decalogue and its deliberations remain suspended. An adhoc committee was established in September 2001 on Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space, but no progress has since been made. The Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention remains without an effective verification clause. There is no agreement on beginning a dialogue on cutting off fissile material production. The United Nations Disarmament Commission at New York addressed two issues recently; one, on ways and means to achieve nuclear disarmament and the other on confidence building measures in the area of conventional arms. On both questions it failed to arrive at any consensus. The First Committee of the UN General Assembly passed a number of resolutions, but as it is bereft of any executive authority, could produce no substantive action. Finally, at the last PrepCom to the NPT Review Conference held in May 2004, there was no agreement even on a common Chairman's text. The prospect of any constructive development at the main Conference next year is remote.

The three most pressing proliferation challenges facing the world today are:

• The elimination of weapons of mass destruction, through universal, non-discriminate global action incorporating effective verification procedures.

• Next, ensuring that these weapons do not fall in to the hands of terrorists anywhere through accepted international legal inspections.

• Prevent deployment of weapons in outer space, which can in turn only lead to an extremely costly arms race.

At this stage, it is necessary to clarify briefly Indian views on non-proliferation:

• India is the only country with nuclear weapons which genuinely believes that its security interests will be best served in a nuclear weapons free world. Hence it has without hesitation consistently supported efforts towards a nuclear free world.

•  It was India that first proposed an end to nuclear testing as far back as 1954. The principles for a nuclear non-proliferation treaty were first proposed by it in 1965.

•  In 1982 India proposed a convention to ban nuclear weapons. This was followed up at the third UN Special Session on Disarmament in 1988 by Rajiv Gandhi's call for a world without nuclear weapons.

• India has supported an early conclusion of a non-discriminatory fissile material cut-off treaty that will tackle the issue of future production of all fissile material in its totality, within the wider context of nuclear disarmament.

It is in this context that it is necessary to develop a common policy that we might pursue together. First is concerted action to delegitimise weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons, through collective international action by governments and civil society. The idea that nuclear weapons are necessary for security of some and that new uses should be found for their use; and then ask the rest of the world to give up acquiring them, is immoral and unrealistic. It will simply not happen. Next, call for a Nuclear Weapons Convention to seriously address a time bound plan of action for their elimination. The time frame need not be near term or a small number may be held under effective international control in the interim may suffice. If it is accepted that these weapons are unnecessary as weapons of war, it may allow us to pursue their eventual elimination. Finally, on a near term basis to speedily address non-proliferation measures adopted by the Security Council on 28 April  this year under Chapter VII provisions. Effective collective action to implement this should be high priority for the international community.

(Extracts from a presentation at the first EU-USA-India Trialogue held at Brussels on 30 September 2004)