Can the IAEA Take Control of Pakistan's Nuclear Arsenal? Rajnath Singh Sparks Debate

India’s Defence Minister, Rajnath Singh, recently stirred a global conversation by questioning the security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons. Speaking to troops at the Badami Bagh Cantonment in Jammu and Kashmir, Singh voiced his concerns about Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, referring to the country as an “irresponsible and rogue nation.” He called for Pakistan’s nuclear weapons to be brought under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), raising speculation about whether India intends to mount a diplomatic effort to challenge Pakistan’s nuclear program.

Why the IAEA Cannot Directly Control Pakistan's Nukes

Despite the Defence Minister’s statement, the reality is more complex than it appears. The IAEA’s authority is primarily rooted in agreements related to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Countries that have signed the NPT, such as Iran, are subject to IAEA inspections and controls, especially if they develop nuclear weapons or engage in nuclear activities deemed non-compliant.

However, Pakistan is not a signatory to the NPT and has developed its nuclear weapons independently of this treaty framework. As such, Pakistan has not committed to full-scope safeguards that would allow the IAEA to monitor or inspect its military nuclear sites. This effectively limits the IAEA’s role to inspecting only civilian nuclear activities in Pakistan—those that the country voluntarily places under scrutiny.

For the IAEA to gain control or even supervisory power over Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, there would have to be either voluntary compliance from Pakistan or a legally binding resolution from the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).

The Role of the United Nations and Geopolitical Realities

The UNSC can, in theory, impose sanctions or demand international oversight of nuclear programs when it deems them a threat to global peace. However, this process is laden with political hurdles, particularly for a non-NPT state like Pakistan. Unlike Iran, which faced sanctions as an NPT member in violation of its commitments, Pakistan’s nuclear program exists entirely outside the NPT’s jurisdiction.

Moreover, imposing sanctions or mandating IAEA supervision would require the support of at least nine of the 15 UNSC members, without a veto from any of the five permanent members—China, Russia, the United States, the United Kingdom, and France. Given Pakistan’s strategic relationship with China, it is highly likely that Beijing would block any resolution that directly challenges Pakistan’s nuclear sovereignty.

Diplomatic Implications of Singh’s Remarks

While Singh’s comments have sparked international debate, they do not indicate an immediate diplomatic move by India to formally challenge Pakistan's nuclear program at the IAEA or the UNSC. Nonetheless, his remarks reflect India’s long-standing concerns about nuclear security and the risks posed by Pakistan’s arsenal, particularly amid periods of heightened military tension.

This latest exchange comes in the wake of a series of recent skirmishes along the Line of Control (LoC), where both nations conducted military strikes and counterstrikes earlier this month. Singh’s address also included a strong message on India’s commitment to defending its sovereignty, following a major anti-terror operation termed “Operation Sindoor.”

A Global Question of Nuclear Safety

Singh’s statement underscores a recurring question in international security: Should the global community intervene when a nation perceived as unstable or irresponsible possesses nuclear weapons? While the IAEA's current mandate limits its role, Singh’s call for supervision signals India's concerns and hints at potential diplomatic dialogues to address perceived threats posed by Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities.

In the absence of a formal international mechanism to address this issue, Singh’s remarks seem more a diplomatic nudge than a concrete proposal. Yet, they reflect India’s strategic posture in a region where nuclear risk remains an ever-present concern.