Pakistan’s nuclear dilemma

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at her joint press conference with Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri during her recent visit to Islamabad did not mince words about the threat potential of Dr A.Q. Khan’s nuclear ‘entrepreneurship’. The Khan network, she said, represented a threat ‘not just to the United States, but to Pakistan, to the region, to the international community’. A statement simple in verbiage but ominously loaded in intent.

Whereas Pakistan has cooperated with the US in breaking up the Khan network, the US also had a number of other countries cooperating with it on that front, Ms Rice said. She stressed her country’s interest in knowing what happened so that ‘we can safeguard against this kind of black market entrepreneurship....’

Ms Rice left no doubt that her country would not rest content until fully equipped with vital information leading to the origins of the Khan network and its international world-wide sweep. Pakistan might well have gone out of its way to assuage US anxiety on that score, yet, apparently, not far enough to get down to the bottom of the case. In other words, to bring the culprit to book and punish him to meet the ends of American justice, ala Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay style.

One of the questions Pakistan must answer pertains to the mystifying ignorance or the deliberate connivance of authorities at the highest level when this illicit trafficking was going on for over a decade or so. How could an operation as elaborate and world-wide happen right under the nose of Islamabad without a finger being pointed or a hand raised to stop the mess at the source?

Time magazine in a recent cover story ‘The merchant of menace’, asked: How did A.Q. Khan become the world’s most dangerous trafficker? Even as an essentially speculative story based on information provided by unnamed sources, it did inestimable damage to Pakistan’s image as a ‘responsible’ nuclear state nevertheless.

How can Pakistan boast of ensuring foolproof security of its nuclear assets with whole centrifuges and allied equipment being flown out of Islamabad airport either direct to the end-user or to Karachi for onward shipment to destination? This is a question calling for a categorical answer to satisfy the world community as well as our own public.

Time squarely accuses Abdul Qadeer Khan of ‘stealing’ nuclear designs from the Netherlands to help Pakistan build a bomb. He was then to create a vast network to trade nuclear secrets and ‘illicit technology across several continents’.

Just about three weeks after the publication of the Time canard, Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmad appeared on TV (March 10) to confirm the substance of the story. Dr Khan, the information minister admitted in so many words, gave centrifuges to Iran in his ‘individual capacity’ and the government of Pakistan had nothing to do with it.

What sort of government would that be to have allowed the head of its highest security institution to indulge in extended piracy and not know about it?

As if the bare acknowledgement of Dr Khan’s role as a private salesman of vital nuclear equipment was not enough, the information minister went on to say that the centrifuges (P-1 and P-2) provided by Dr Khan were ‘outdated’. Dr Khan was thus acting not only as a private nuclear proliferator but also as a cheat.

The first to react to his information minister’s gaffe was Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz himself. He said the minister was ‘misquoted’. Less than a week later, President Pervez Musharraf told the BBC in an interview that no nuclear material was transferred. Investigation ‘revealed’ that no ‘nuclear material has been given over, other than some centrifuge parts, centrifuge designs.’ By implication nothing like enriched uranium or fissile nuclear material was included in Dr Khan’s bill of lading. It was the best the president could do in the face of distressing circumstances.

The somewhat baffling diversity of response to the A.Q. Khan affair has left the people at large wondering as to what exactly the truth might be.

Even the Foreign Office versions about a ‘request’ from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) were tentative if not exactly evasive. According to the FO spokesman, ‘We have not been asked to hand over any centrifuges to IAEA for inspection/verification) nor will Pakistan do so.’

The question remains as to what exactly Pakistan has been asked for. Also for how much longer will we be able to withstand the pressures being brought to bear on us to throw our nuclear programme open (if not the facility itself) to international inspection?

— The writer is a retired brigadier of the Pakistan Army.

Coming to the aid of Modi

JUST two days after US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice wrapped up a feel-good visit to New Delhi, Washington came out with a decision revoking Gujarat Chief Minister Narender Modi’s American visa. The US action apparently came in response to a resolution moved by Michigan Democrat Congressman John Conyers Jr. The carnage that Mr Modi overlooked under his nose was the reason for the move. The State Department revoked Mr Modi’s diplomatic visa under Section 214(b) of the US Immigration and Nationality Act. Similarly, his tourist / business visa was revoked under Section 212(a)(2)(g). The act makes a government official who was responsible for, or directly carried out, particularly severe violations of religious freedom ineligible for a US visa.

The diplomatic-cum-political snub for India was a surprise. New Delhi, for a period of time, had tried to portray a perfect relationship with the US and had been carefully playing a ball game of not only entertaining the Americans when it came to realpolitik with reference to China and the region at large but also wishing to carve out a special place for itself.

But to the surprise of many, Narender Modi who has been a persona non grata in Indian politics for some time has managed to win the support of the Indian government and many political leaders. Their theme is that Mr Modi enjoys the privilege of being a constitutionally elected chief minister. Political parties and civil society stake holders have been quick to come to Mr Modi’s rescue by condemning Washington for its insensibility and have evoked Indian sovereignty rights.

Even the Congress, that had marched to Delhi in the general elections by campaigning against the BJP’s insensitivity towards Indian secularism and called Mr Modi a mass murderer, was quick to jump to his defence.

“India will feel strongly when a chief minister is denied a visa ... but this must not been seen as a dilution of our view on Modi”, said Congress spokesman Anand Sharma. Similarly, the left got an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone and made good use of the episode to not only boost their patriotism but also play to the gallery by campaigning against the growing onslaught of western influence in the country.

What everyone forgot was that the elected chief minister was a blot on India’s secularism and its much cherished values of emancipation. The 2002 Gujarat massacre and the subsequent denial of justice are not only Mr Modi’s doings but are also a negation of democracy and secularism. Though one can always argue and question the intentions of the US in meddling in the internal affairs of other countries -- as and when its suits its own interest, it would have been politically correct if the Indian intelligentsia had not blown the visa denial affair out of proportion and opted not to stir chauvinistic feelings.

“The Modi affair has helped the BJP and the Congress to join hands against Washington’s growing assertiveness and to a great extent damaged the US influence at least in the immediate run,” comments Dr Sudhir Singh of the Jawaharlal Nehru University.

Rather than seeing the Modi affair as an opportunity to rectify the injustices committed against the Muslim minority, analysts believe that both the Congress and the BJP would try to squeeze honey out of Washington’s decision in the form of concessions that advocate free trade and an about-to-be expanded UN Security Council. Both the major political forces in India have played the ‘nationalism’ and ‘sovereignty’ cards with little regard to their Muslim citizens.

Though Mr Modi continues to have a mandate to govern Gujarat, that has not washed off the blood from his stained hands. The onus of making the Modi phenomenon a lesson to be learnt from lies on India’s civil society. A knee-jerk reaction like the one the political establishment has come up with can neither help bolster India’s image as a sovereign and progressive nation nor undo the injustices of Gujarat.