KARACHI, March 5: Participants of a seminar on Friday contended that the nuclear issue was not yet over and the US and its allies would reopen it once their focus is shifted from Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.
They also claimed that nuclear weapons could not ensure national security, adding that vast expenditure on the nuclear weapons was responsible for little development in social sectors.
The seminar on the nuclear issue and Pakistan's future was organized by the monthly Badalti Duniya at the Pakistan Institute of International Affairs auditorium.
The main speaker of the day, Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy, contended that if Gen Pervez Musharraf thought that the nuclear issue was over because he had spoken to President Bush or Colin Powell, then he was wrong.
The US and others were downplaying the nuclear issue because of political considerations, he said, adding that India was also doing the same under US pressure. "But one thing is clear that the handling of the nuclear issue has tarnished Pakistan's image very badly and Pakistan has been proved a liar in this regard," he observed.
Dr Hoodbhoy said that in the past Pakistan had been vehemently denying international charges about nuclear proliferation and had accused the Israelis of hatching a conspiracy against it. But Libya and Iran leaked the whole thing, with the result that Pakistan could have been blacklisted and sanctions could have been reimposed, he said.
He was certain that President Bush and others were not satisfied with Gen Musharraf's explanation in which he made Dr A.Q. Khan a scapegoat. He said that it was simply not possible for Dr Khan to do it all by himself because the security of Kahuta was so strict that it was not possible for the scientists or technicians to move from one shop to another.
He alleged that the government and the military were involved in it because it was not possible for Dr Khan to transport such huge consignment without their knowledge. It would be naive to think the West had taken Dr Khan's "confession" on its face value, he said.
Dr Hoodbhoy said that no government servant could not travel abroad without a no-objection certificate. He wondered how the scientists working on the nuclear bomb managed to make many foreign trips.
He said the documents Libya had provided to the International Atomic Energy Agency contained a design of an atomic bomb which was similar to the one which China had provided to Pakistan in the 1970s. The writing on the design was also in Chinese, he claimed.
Dr Hoodbhoy dispelled the impression that Kahuta or Dr Khan had any major role in making the atomic bomb and claimed that 90 percent work in this regard had been done at the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission.
Dr Hoodbhoy, who is an ardent advocate of unilateral dismantling of nuclear weapons by Pakistan, voiced his ideas and said that since 1987 four times India and Pakistan had become locked in a situation when the nuclear option looked like a possibility.
The president of the Karachi Press Club, Sabihuddin Ghausi, held Pakistan's India-specific foreign policy responsible for the rise of militancy and extremism in Pakistan.
He said that democracy suffered a setback when Dr Khan Saheb's government was removed and Urdu was declared the national language which alienated a large number of people in the country.
He said the atomic bomb could not ensure security to either India or Pakistan when a vast majority in both the countries were living below the poverty line and had little access to drinking water, education, health care and other basic necessities.
Professor Mohammad Noman and Hidayat Hussain called for ending the supremacy of the military in decision-making and raised the question whether the nuclear bomb and missile capability were necessary for a country which was economically retarding.
Professor Noman claimed that in the given situation the military had decided to roll back on the issue. He also insisted that such issues should be nationally debated and asked political parties to play their role in creating awareness. M.B. Naqvi, who chaired the session, called for changing attitudes about the nuclear issue.
