prizes among other welcome welcome very much conversation where it's a pleasure to welcome to throw graham embassador my kemal and he is in bassett or at the united nations from the country of of pakistan he's been a guest on conversations in the past and i might say perhaps apparent thetic in this introductory note that for those at the united nations and in general who are interested in information revolutionary information technological developments he's known as is a man who is more familiar with informatics and with that revolution particularly as it relates to the united nations perhaps than than any other single person for which we can graduate him but on the other hand today we want to talk in june of one thousand nine hundred eighty particularly about the strategic implications in south asia of the recent atomic blast that have been taking place in india and pakistan and and baster kemal once again thank you very much for coming and welcome to conversations and pleasure to be here with you have manhattan network we gave a little brief resume and it is true that you are so in horned with the information technology you may get a chance to touch on that sort of thing it's hard not to talk to you about information technology because you're so familiar with it but this other event the atomic blast by china by india and then followed  know briefly by pakistan maybe you could feel it fill us in a little bit and your understanding not only of the events leading up to it and then we do want to talk some about the international particulars forty counts and other kinds of reactions to that in their view of that situation  and particularly with perhaps within the world's d g view but maybe if you share your own understanding and your own you know recollections of how you became aware of and what your understanding was that led up to the let's say the blast and off a reckless this and irresponsibility by a government in india a government which is fundamentalist and extremist which is new it just came to bother a few months ago it was an act rich was not a surprise for us or for anybody who had been following the many fist off this particular ruling party because they had said clearly in black and white that they had  two point agenda point one was that they were going to go nuclear and not just nuclear but to weaponize and to do deploy so they were going to be in the nuclear f eleventh of me important as it is did not come as a surprise to pakistan in fact we had known about it for several weeks earlier and had wronged everybody the prime minister of pakistan is what the indians are up to and it's coming and do something about it and nothing was done on the fact we were surprised at the fact that we would through today there was a as it were in a sense the there was much derision directed at the cia or intelligence agencies that they this the greatest event that could be seen coming eighty nine or ninety when that happened that it wasn't known and one wonders whether or not it was not to be known for reasons that you know are intrinsic to this to do you think you people who run the united states i'm one doesn't know it's hard to imagine but there was a great deal said that we didn't see that coming is quite possible it was a synergistic surprise and they tried to put that they tried to say that that was the attitude or the understanding of the american authorities and responsible people here that it came as a prize that india launched this on me eleven or you could have put it in the picture they had done nuclear explosions in one thousand seventy four what is the difference how does that fit into it and if they we're in a sense one of those those countries that was in a certain sense known to have a certain degree of nuclear capability but without one of the five that they're usually referred to and i wonder if that maybe to put that into a little historical perspective w capacity they had a nuclear capacity i want to maybe you can help straighten this out if nuclear but we're not talking about a nuclear reactor and the use of nuclear power to create electricity or something of that sort we're talking about and it's an important area isn't it because they tend to talk about the five nuclear power there are other powers and now it's gone i guess to seven we have in the way events have you revoke would be changed now with these two blasts and saudis recently but there were other countries that were had the capacity in a certain sense or israel is known to have nuclear states recognized by the nonproliferation treaty by that non polar we're going to want to talk about that and india has broken into that club by exploding in nuclear weapon and by stooping officially that it is now interpretation of what i was trying to get at here and and to your mind too or when we say about israel having two hundred you know nuclear bomb you go they have a nuclear capability and so what israel is widely room would you have to have nuclear weapons capability have no was in the year two thousand five hundred or more years ago and who is the father of my given me because he is the author of the definitive treaties on the art of but described as with one another they were part of a common thing they've had this long standing out a dispute over kashmir and so what you're saying this in a certain sense that you have this does you toward india it is widely understood as being something uniquely indian or is this something that  seen in the operation of other countries and there are some people in their foreign policy their foreign status their their their operation and there are some places where machiavelli is in some real politic centers of machiavelli is regarded as a as a hero figure and not it and not warning president clinton that on the thirteenth they were going to conduct for the deaths and all the while celebrating while and celebrating wildly this august and of course had the very major problem because a security threat  posed to us it was immediate it was serious and we started evaluating from the thirteenth of may what we could do about the end game due to the conclusion that to security highly threatening and aggressive statements against pakistan you said earlier that the recently elected a recently can select a government is a is a hindu fundamentalist yes and of the attack they take yes this is important for people to understand in terms of the politics of absolutely to organization which believes the apartheid which believes in ethnic cleansing in india and which is responsible for the number of actions including understood because india is in a certain sense in a region sense is a superpower i mean it's a huge army in the huge military capability and they have i suppose from your perspective and from others was that that they have certain kinds of  attitudes for south asia that they that they've been apparently with the reason government had made very very manifest and this is a direct immediate threat to pakistan and that's something that perhaps we here in united states who are distant from that you know  india and the hold region around india as a sub continent and to describe it as an indian subcontinent in fact their special envoy is to just one single was in new york just two weeks ago and even further to sa of hindu power historically or something a word is that from malaysia no i think it's just a delusion of a dream for the indians and a nightmare for the rest of us around it which is why india has this unique distinction  unique in the world of not being able to get along with a single one of their six neighbors i don't one of them is a friend of you do you mean our pakistan or burma our own a pakistan china view and that they have this hindu fundamentalist government that has just recently taken power and it sets them apart they've had this ability since seventy four in a certain sense but they've now come forward to it in a in an aggressive way particularly directed at your they have the delivery system they have deployed the delivery system it just makes it is rogue state which has to be carefully watched and controlled and constrained not pakistan india since the you know this is nine hundred forty seven and that sort of thing you know they've been at they fought three wars and so forth and they've had it so there you been developing and you'd in pakistan of course just recently also exploded their own nuclear device and answer to that threat with but they obviously over the years that isn't something that happens over a weekend you know this been done of elevating over a considerable period of time in response to the development of pakistan's atomic capability has been traditionally or developed in response to the threat that they could see growing from from india or and maybe you could just address that because yes because in the face of this threat pakistan felt obliged to you know to show that they they could not be intimidated by these as your money claims and so forth the u s release started late and he started in reaction to the indians and in one thousand nine hundred eighty four we saw it coming and we knew that something would have to be done in order to respond to the indian explosion of one nine hundred seventy four and so we started building up our capacity it took us a long time and it has gotten to the early one nine hundred ninety s that we finally succeeded in what doing what we call building up restraint and since our security was threatened reve were forced to abandon the district and because nobody was willing to answer the question how do we on so that security threats are right and we don't like it this is not a situational fide liking nor is it a situation of our choosing because for twenty five of tokyo's we have been committed to the concept of nuclear disarmament and nuclear non proposals that pakistan has made including a proposal for a nuclear weapons free zone in south asia by that through inspection of each of those facilities by that through signing off the safeguards of the international atomic energy agency there are lots of proposals all those proposals were dejected by india and now you know why because they wanted to be nuclear they wanted to be a nuclear weapons state they wanted to deploy their nuclear weapons on this  pakistan and partly because of a vision of god and of being on what they think is the word stage yes i see do you think that view of grandeur and that it was characteristics of the governments of india all along or is there something unique and different about the government this fundamentalist government who was recently elected that makes it a new ballgame i think is just part of the indian psyche right but it is the previous governments have exercised a certain degree of  this particular government has thrown all caution to the wind if this issue is brought before the security council then they would be brought within ideally you would want to be brought within a context that would address the security interests of the security concerns of south asia and is it essential in a realistic kind of frame of reference to address those issues in ways that would address not only the nuclear put nonproliferation or nuclear disarmament issue which is one one thing but address the other vital interests that are involved in terms of the south of the of south asia and one in particular is kashmir the issue of kashmir there's been animosity over the issue of kashmir and that h systematically been financed or not dealt with by security council or other security agencies and does that mean does that not that mean that to try and deal with the just as a nuclear issue is not going to be able to deal with it in the full terms of what the strategic the does the follow suit so you have a definite problem in south asia because you have two countries which have a history of animosity and with three wars having been fought and superimposed on that tension no is nuclear capability on both sides arise so you have to go into the reasons for detention because the key then becomes is this is tradition ship which is still a boon or is it a relationship between two countries which has in  india sees this whole area as an indian subcontinent i kissed on and all the other neighbors of india see it as south the issue not is an indian subcontinent in other words is a region of independent states yet some big  back into this root cause which is kashmir and so the security council and anybody else who is interested in south asia has to go for the juggler of the problem because the juggler lies in kashmir now there will but there will be given there will be there will be people within the security council that say within the five let's put it that way in the terms who will want to try and take these issues the issue of nonproliferation they might even want to not look at the issue of nuclear disarmament because they are in  nuclear powers go around the world intimidating people with their power and he said it's just unjust these that he said it in a sort of half joking ways that everyone ought to be able to have atomic power to level the playing field they might want to keep the five just as a thing and not address that issue and d to link these issues of nuclear proliferation or nuclear disarmament from any of the other regional issues that are intrinsic trying to understand his strategic way the way a problem be solved regionally or maybe in a larger scale and this is not a problem as far as the the thinking of the security council to think united nations that try to get real solutions that can deal with real strategic questions or yes of course into the rubble but let us let us all agree that nuclear weapons other dangerous things yes of course levels of mass destruction are not decidable and therefore nuclear disarmament is something which is important but now into security council we have the problem and this is the same international peace in south asia and therefore you have to address the peace and security has picked off the problem and the peace and security yes picked off south issue cannot be addressed without going into the diffusing often defense forces me you have the basic modern argument which is that you and i and everybody else has to be committed to it concept off into right to self determination which is one of the highest rights given in the charter of the united nations this is what is creating the problem of tension between india and pakistan and bucky of course the difference of vision reject or do about the india sees it things in terms of apartheid ethnic cleansing you know that in the unrealistic even today you have jobs of water which are marked water for muslims and water for hindus and there is no question of any one of them being this is not quite twentieth century let alone twenty first century yeah right at the time of the a break you know the withdrawal of the british and so forth there were some who felt we ought to just stay as one entity the hindus and pakistanis and the mongols over there's a rich history and there was an interesting image of that but there was felt that if there was such a diverse between these two peoples that there need be doubt mr gin and so forth they formed a separate country in order to represent those interest in those interests have to be maintained and respected and in a certain sense certainly from a from pakistani perspective and back again to the fact that pakistan is in a very it is is that india is very much a superpower in the region that they are a superpower it by population and by military capability they are a real menacing threat to the people there so that when they say we're going to take this militant stand they have a power we tell you we agree if you disagree we have no difficulty in dealing best friends that we disagree with that you are right also we would want to mention the fact that pakistan is also in a certain sense on an of geographic scale pakistan as at the center of a much larger or a larger islamic world that stretches from indonesia demartini and there is a certain level unity among the people that do ascribe to the islamic faith and there are some people who  direct animosity at islam you are you've seen the terms it was used in the in the press that pakistan's a bomb is an islamic bomb you must take umbrage at that oh no why do you how do you see that over there saying that this now was strictly a quickly spread to other islamic regimes or something of that sort and that this is going to be a threat to western interests and there is a certain mindset in the western mind against islam as a as a religious expression as a  as a view of the of the world that you believe you must be in a certain sense aware of that i wonder some of that is directed at pax then because of the fact that they are islamic and there's a distrust of islam in the western mind i don't think the educated when countries yes right so to try and put i think would be not just unfair but it would be unwise and i think people should examine each and every incident each and every country each and every people exactly for what they are booked for their goodness is confronted weaknesses and judged then yeah right if that would be ideal and that would be the world there is this book out on the world civilizations a big thrust and there's a western civilization and one of the major groups that they said might be a threat to let's say the established world organization we do want to get back to why the security council takes that kind of status quo view toward the world perhaps to the one is  islamic world could be a unifying force against the the forces of western culture and economics and multinational develop and so forth that is so much running the world now you seen this argument by some people making that is that position yes but to bribe them is the do the security council and the united nations and a lot of other people basically would love to have the state to school yes right and to look up in the morning and to see all this was a bad dream in south asia and animosity is cizik clashes anything of that sort in streets in other parts of the world or be other regional issues if you would be very exercised about it and so forth and they will deal with this nonproliferation issue and in a certain sense they do they seem if i may it seems to me they're much more willing nonproliferation issue than they are to deal effectively with the disarmament that would affect them in a sense it makes one feel that they are strong able to intimidate they did in iraq they intimidated the it is too late to know ok cause you can no longer want to not address the issue and that is what has happened because now you have to address the issues you have to address the question of nuclear disarmament of a method of operation where though well to do with the established are doing very very well and so forth there's a two tiered kind of world that could be seen developing that they don't have a system that's going to be issuing in or allowing for  or seeing a merge system let's just say on a large planetary scale it's going to be a bill to address the absolute essential quality need to have a world of elemental justice is going to be able to be found for this earth and they're going to have to address that very large question and they don't have a way of addressing it i wonder if you under stand what i mean rather than it being a specific regional issue the larger issue of the haves and have nots or whatever is two of injustice of that does exist on a large scale particularly with your informatic understand your understanding of the information revolution and the new technological capabilities that we do have at our disposal to bring answer the ancient scourges and so forth there's a large texas dental problem that the human family  that we need an answer to and we can't just dither and allow status quo notions to not address the fundamental issues we're going to have to be faced with fundamental existential question of how we're going to run this interrelated spaceship earth and so it's a larger kind of not a regional issue it's a larger issue that has to be addressed by the world political and economic and i don't know intellectual leader ship rather is going to turn to school to to school is dead ok because too much water has gone under the bridge during the month of m night among the mausoleum double standards which is the other point that you made is definitely on the on the agenda of the off the off everybody no in other words you cannot have different types of reactions to different situations and if that is is certain sanctity to security council resolutions in the case of iraq then the same sanctity must  defense i was going to say yes i understand absolutely in this case is absolutely the case but our saying wasn't it wasn't a situation to be in a certain sense safeguarded it is a situation on a world scale to be one that is an operating system of operating that is not going to just have the ten percent or twenty percent at the very top of you know people at the very top doing very very well and a mass of humanity that is not going to be we have great problems lord keynes thought of possible displacement of labor in the productive process w tremendous capability and tremendous challenges that are confronting us now the whole of humanity and it's also being felt by a great number of people even within the developed world there's beginning to be anxious seen and so with that we have some real problems in terms of how we're going to operate that our traditional economic and political you know a given wisdom that we've inherited from his to a condition do not give answer to and we it's a time of visionary leadership and we lack it on a world scale that's the point i was in a certain sense getting at and perhaps you know the vision is to be won not to the you are in theater than football no doubt about that is it's a very encouraging and even public access television where we're talking now in a certain sense of not within the gatekeepers realm of those who might want to just keep a certain kind of status quo but the question is i know on a larger scale in terms of the challenges you you think that the systems you make you think that the system by which into related planet spaceship earth is going to operate so that we could get to a situation where huge of the members of the human family are able to participate in some sort of maximal kind of way a liberated kind of way that we have the way to that now we understand either in theoretical economic terms or in terms of how we're going to operate the system that we have a system that's in order we have the vision we have only to implement that vision or some spiritual fundamental truth and we have all of our beliefs we have our religion's and they are all modern and spiritually valid secondly we now have the tools because mission information is now accessible and because it is accessible the the the fault or the strength lies in you yourself it is for you to use the information that is available to you on the basis of the spiritual strength which your beliefs give you and the third is that the word has really shown more than time and in space information is instantaneous and joe graffiti has no meaning because the internet time in history it is indeed history of man got rice from the three have this type of an opportunity yeah it is true it's a miracle it really is a miracle in terms and it's all extension of our capabilities all extensions of our of our of our consciousness and certain sense technology is and that we began two hundred thousand years ago collectively as a human society and that we've reached some sort of a point do you think we've reached a point where there's been some sort of a qualitative transformation in the reality one thing we talk about haves and have nots bucky fuller used to talk about measuring energy efficiency and so forth and said that we have actually we're gaining on by technological efficiency and good design and so we're gaining on the numbers of people who could be seen to be haves relative to our technological capability of providing the point where he said we'd reached the point where there were actually more haves and have nots in terms of our ability to provide whereas throughout history with there had been do you think we're transcending ontological reality of scarcity in terms of the world situation which we find ourselves in perhaps that gives us a new capability that historically has not been available to the us as we have fought tooth and nail the ancient scourges of waterfall one another throughout history that we may be coming to the end of the what nietzsche called the history  participation is global and therefore each one of us to begin with there was this concept of each one of us being to citizen of the word new knowledge you are not just these citizen of the word you out of all the citizens of the would y time ago yes we have it that but we want to bring about we are talking about this now what do you see now if we look at this situation as far as the you know south asia the atomic by the with what do you see what do you recommend what can you say to the people who might be viewing that we might seize this situation particular your colleagues at the u n and of what what's it just as you have what lessons does this situation that we come upon now give us in terms of we try to navigate it and i think basically my message would be learn from your mistakes and you cannot call yourself an international organization and not interest yourself in international issues some if we had he had to do if bin laden has been crossed by india each one of pakistan to the united nations are talking about recent events that are really staggering in terms of the importance to the world condition of the human condition happy to unable to bring you his perceptions when conversations invite you to tune in will become a back again next week that's it for now and  again thank you really very much for coming into the program and for all your work over over the years and for joining us here in manhattan thank you had it until next time