Print PDF

There is a pressing need to re-contextualize missile control regimes that have become weaponized geopolitical tools around the world.

The looming nuclear threat, terrorizing arms race, and the horrifying apocalyptic essence that was sensed during the Cold War, particularly after the nuclear proliferation of multiple states, was incontrovertible. The understanding regarding nuclear proliferation and arms race in the 20^th century formed a solid ground for the world to proceed towards the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) in 1987. This regime was formed in hopes that it would prevent the spread of ballistic missile technology. Nonetheless, it has become another instrumental tool for geopolitical bullying.

To begin with, the MTCR was, indeed, a result of growing hostility and concerns regarding the rapid proliferation of ballistic missiles, as well as the potential of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), Space Launch Vehicles (SLVs), and complete rocket systems to carry Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs). As this agreement was initiated by the G7 countries, their primary focus was confined towards preventing horizontal & vertical proliferation of ballistic missiles, reducing nuclear tensions, and dwindling the imminent extensive nuclear threats.

Moreover, the MTCR has two main categories. Category 1 established a strict threshold value for systems that are capable of delivering the so-called WMDs. Missiles with range of 300km or more, and payload of 500kg or more, are typically subjected to rigorous control mechanisms and are often denied export. Meanwhile, Category 2 includes items that are less sensitive than Category 1. Nevertheless, they are still considered prone towards contributing towards proliferation. This category includes technologies that can pose threats such as propulsion systems, guidance and control systems, and susceptible structural components.

Despite these extensive restrictions and exhaustive provisions, MTCR does not restrict states from conducting technological or defensive researches. States might comply with the proliferation restrictions on ballistic missiles. But they would not oblige to any space launch regulations for their national security. Still, the debate between technological exploration and exploitation under the irony of MTCR is, indeed, mind-boggling.

Conversely, the significance of this treaty reflected when countries like Argentina, Egypt, Brazil, South Korea, Taiwan, and Iraq, dismantled their joint ballistic missile program in 1990s. Particularly because of the relative paucity of global support and supply from G7 countries. Likewise, Taiwan, Czech Republic, and South Africa, all have faced identical issues that made them deflect and shelve from their substantial ballistic missile systems to other technological developments.

Favors or Sanctions?

Despite being effective, this regime faces some implications as well. As it does not have any legally binding obligations, it depends on the explicit affirmation given by member states along with relying on their diplomatic cordiality, and among all, their word of mouth. Despite its achievements, this regime is still subject to controversies, skepticism, and allegations of being “Eurocentric”. MTCR has major western suppliers in it and they hold significant dominance as well which compel the regime to exhibit Eurocentric biases.

The MTCR appears to have formed an alliance or, in other words, a ‘cartel’ of countries that restrict others but implicitly exempt themselves from any moral obligations. Those countries often weaponize such regimes or alliances while acting as playground bullies. They hinder the pathway for other countries who try to strengthen their international prestige, indigenous abilities, and power for the sake of their national security or technological prowess. Meanwhile, they regulate missiles for some and reward others.

Secondly, some non-member states argue that MTCR has a very meticulous set of requirements and it is used as a weapon to target their indigenous missile capabilities along with incapacitating their ties with other countries. It is also accused of turning a blind eye to the missile proliferation and exports of sensitive missile technology by the members of MTCR. The popular notion regarding the predisposition of western states, international treaties, and laws towards favoring their economic and strategic partners is an open secret that exhibits itself by fanning global cynicism.

In addition, I believe that MTCR, just like any other treaty or regime, lacks acuity regarding regional security issues of non-member states. The complexities about regional dynamics echoes for the elimination of the ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach, because it continues to diabolize states’ intentions, even if they have an immaculate diplomatic history of compliance.

Weaponized Tightrope

The western world demonizes South Asia and views it as the most volatile region in the world. In this region, two adversarial nuclear powers have been in conflict for decades. Their nuclear or strategic arsenals, according to their diplomatic posture, are only for regional deterrence if not for global prestige or hunger for power. Nevertheless, the world still has selective favors and sanctions on states which highlights the dark side of MTCR as a double-edged sword. As this regime gathers all the key suppliers, it hinders the indigenous strategic prowess of states that have a tangled web of regional security politics. Hence, this inflexibility and inadequate acuity creates an uneven playing field for states that have predatory regional realities.

This crucial concern has been raised for other international treaties and regimes as well that have focused more on the security issues of the Cold War era, rather than broadening their canvas to include transnational adversarial issues. States have been using their nuclear capabilities, ballistic missile systems, and other strategic technological programs as a deterrent against their adversaries. International community, on the other hand, despite progressing rapidly on evolving security issues, continues to act as street bullies, and turns a blind eye on the puzzling regional politics of adversaries that have securitized themselves by deadly arms. Which now work as a threat equalizer for balancing power in the region. According to some analysts, this plot is relatable in context of South Asian security issues and its nuclear diplomacy.

The Sanction Gauntlet

The recent round of sanctions on Pakistan’s ballistic missile program by the United States, similar to the rounds done before, has evidently taken place under the pretext of MTCR guidelines; preventing vertical proliferation of long-range weapons. Nonetheless, Pakistan’s missile program does not even fall under the MTCR. The implausible skepticism and sanctions from the United States on Pakistan’s missile system. Particularly because of Shaheen ІІІ that has a range of 2750km, is utterly absurd. Furthermore, the undeniable favors to India’s ballistic missile program that range more than 5000km, and rapid vertical & horizontal proliferation of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs is considered reprehensible.

Whereas, the extensive and worrisome focus regarding India’s expansion of ICBMs including Agni-VІ and Surya should be a global concern under this regime of contrasts. The so-called political use and weaponization of MTCR has been a shared concern for many non-member states. When China wanted to join this regime in 2000s, its application was rejected on grounds of “questionable exports of technology to antagonist states”. Unsurprisingly, the United States has violated the MTCR guidelines various times, but it never faced any repercussions.

Pakistan, on the other hand, despite not being a member of this western-dominated regime, is believed to be abiding by its guidelines. Thus, it has been sanctioned for rapid rocket testing and other defensive practices.

Under the MTCR dilemma, sanctions have become a geopolitical weapon, often used as a repeated act of diplomatic bullying. But Pakistan’s missile program, just like other states’, has become incontrovertibly efficient, and such acts will not hinder its growth now.

Whereas, if India, the adversarial nuclear power in South Asia, can make missiles that extensively cover the entire territory of Pakistan and beyond, should not they be exposed to rigorous sanctions and exhaustive scrutiny? Well, the international system that is pre-dispositioned towards favoring its strategic and economic partners, is undoubtedly and utterly biased. Also, the United States, surprisingly, does not feel threatened or face an existential crisis from 5000-8000km ballistic missiles from a certain country.

Therefore, the hyper-skepticism of non-member states towards the paradoxical nature of the MTCR and other international treaties is, indeed, plausible and understandable. The hypocrisy and audacity of western bullies, as they continue to daunt ‘specific’ states and give a free pass to others, is totally reprehensible.

With this in mind, the MTCR, international treaties and regimes are, doubtlessly, discriminatory, hypocritical, and subject to reasonable dubious remarks. Nevertheless, the debate surrounding international regimes and treaties about their successful progress in preventing nuclear apocalypses, vertical & horizontal proliferation, and strategic warfare, is under an ongoing debate. Nevertheless, these double-edged swords, particularly the MTCR, have become a concern for regional security and stability that undermines the power balance in South Asia.