Games generals play

NUCLEAR proliferation is not child’s play. Nuclear weapons are not toys. But our generals have behaved like little children and treated nuclear proliferation as a game.

When the heat was on, they simply denied involvement, blamed it on Dr A.Q. Khan and locked him up. Chapter closed. Wishful thinking. Skeletons can be shoved into a cupboard but they can pop back out any time. So they have. After four years in virtual captivity, Dr Khan has come out guns blazing. He has made bombastic statements targeting Pervez Musharraf against whom he understandably harbours a grudge. In the most outrageous claim, Musharraf is accused of plotting with the United States to break up Pakistan by 2015. In a first, though, Dr Khan has settled scores with his tormentors in khaki by directly implicating the army in nuclear proliferation.

In the summer of 2000, he claims, the army under Gen Pervez Musharraf supervised a shipment to Pyongyang of second-hand P1 centrifuge machines used in uranium enrichment. In his own words, “no flight, no equipment could go outside without … clearance from the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) and the Strategic Plans Division (SPD) and they used to be at the airport, not me.” Dr Khan claims he visited North Korea twice, once in 1994 and again in 1999. The main aim of the first trip was to procure Nodong ballistic missiles, subsequently renamed Ghauri. His mission on the second trip was to purchase shoulder-fired SA15 missiles during the Kargil war.

The veracity of Dr Khan’s statement can only be proved through a neutral inquiry. It is no state secret that Dr Khan’s spectacular rise and fall from grace was orchestrated by the military establishment. The man who stole nuclear blueprints for his country was turned into a cult figure above reproach. Eulogies were written, awards were conferred on him. When the crunch came, however, he was discarded by the military in a flash. Of course, A.Q. Khan is no angel. He is believed to have run Kahuta Research Laboratories with more than justified autonomy. But it is a fact that the country’s nuclear programme depends on a clandestine network of suppliers. The good doctor obviously bought nuclear materials for the state and probably sold some along the way. But it would be stretching credulity to breaking point if we believe that he acted as a rogue scientist out to make a killing under the nose of the military.

Dr Khan has since tried to absolve himself by claiming he was coerced into a confession and promised “full freedom” in return for admitting his guilt publicly. Obviously, he did not have the mettle or the clear conscience to stand up to the army at the time. But since the generals apparently failed to live up to their side of the agreement by denying him his freedom for more than four long years, he sees no reason to stick to his.

Not surprising then that the military came back swinging at Dr Khan for slinging mud at the army. The SPD chief Khalid Kidwai delivered a Bond-esque version of the proliferation story exclusively to a group of “patriotic journalists” summoned to the division’s headquarters. According to him, the military reportedly got wind of Dr Khan’s suspicious activities somewhere in the year 2000. It was then that the ISI raided Chaklala airport to stop a suspected shipment of centrifuges. But the consignment never arrived at the airport as Dr Khan’s men were tipped off in advance. The centrifuges were eventually recovered from inside an “air-conditioning factory”.

The retired general claims that when Dr Khan was confronted with evidence of his culpability, he eventually broke down and begged for a pardon. In other words, Dr Khan made a voluntary confession to avoid prosecution. Musharraf then granted him a pardon. Under its terms, Dr Khan was basically expected to remain hush. The pardon was reportedly subject to review if the government were to find evidence of his involvement in other nuclear proliferation activities.

Kidwai tried to bolster the credence of all his claims by assuring reporters that the government was in possession of irrefutable evidence implicating Dr Khan in the proliferation of nuclear materials. Kidwai added he was willing to share this proof “in camera” with neutral persons, or present it in court if need be. Claiming that proliferation was a closed case, Kidwai cited as evidence the determination made by the United States in North Korea and the IAEA in Iran that proliferation in each case was an individual act. The implication is that if only Dr Khan had had kept his big mouth shut, everything would have been alright. If only things were that simple.

Of course, A.Q. Khan’s incriminating statements will reinforce the widespread perception of Pakistan as a fragile state fraught with the threat of loose nukes falling into terrorist hands. When the architect of the country’s atomic bomb hurls grave accusations of nuclear wrongdoing at its military and vice versa in the full glare of the global media, we have a grave situation on our hands that must be resolved once and for all. We must face the issue head-on by holding the guilty accountable rather than burying our head in the sand and wishing it will all go away. The elected government must take charge and constitute a bipartisan commission of inquiry to investigate the matter. The army has every reason to cooperate with such an inquiry since it claims to have solid evidence that it was not involved in proliferation as an institution.

Ultimately, nuclear command and control must be taken out of the military’s hands if Pakistan is to assure the international community that its nuclear weapons are not up for grabs. The entire world seems to have figured out that weapons of mass destruction are too dangerous and important to be left to the generals. What are we waiting for?

The writer, a PhD candidate in political science at Columbia University, is conducting his doctoral research in Pakistan.

as2552@columbia.edu

Only questions, no answers

I BELONG to a generation that has lived through many periods of hope — hope that was shattered again and again.

One of the reasons why hopes generated in such periods were never realised was our strategic geopolitical location and the failure of our leadership (such as there was) and society to come together and understand this reality, and on that basis develop a common vision of what our country stood for, how it was to be governed and how it should relate to powerful external interests that have constantly been knocking at our door.

As such, the hopes that the movement for reform and democracy generated in the last year and a half were not shared by me. There was an element of deja vu. A fear of another betrayal, the likelihood of another failure. I tried to stay quiet as my younger friends and colleagues discussed politics with enthusiasm; I did not write for newspapers unlike in earlier periods of hope; and I did not appear on TV channels to discuss political issues in spite of several invitations. Every morning I opened the newspapers with fear in my heart. Many of my friends, who belong to the same generation as me, had similar feelings.

However, I continued to read the news and the beautifully and often emotionally and well-argued analysis that appeared in the press. I also listened with interest to the informative conversations and discussions on various news channels until they became repetitive; the same experts, politicians and lawyers saying the same things with increasingly less conviction and clarity, to the same few anchors. Today there is an element of surrealism in reading the press and listening to the TV. The news we receive is increasingly contradictory and so is the analysis. Much of it is of fragments of our larger problems which have already been discussed to death.

There are so many questions that I, like other Pakistanis I am sure, would like to have answers to. I would like to know who is really in power, what are the policies of our government rather than what appears on the surface, what are the conflicts between the different organs of the state and why do they persist, who is fighting whom in the border regions and to what end, and what are the objectives of the great powers and our neighbours who are actively involved in our internal affairs and whose interests have so often determined the course of events in our country?

Reading and listening to the media, I get totally different answers to these questions, answers that are not simply contradictory but poles apart; answers that are disturbing and give no hope for the future. Given the nature of these answers, can the country have a coherent political establishment or an effective movement for reform and democracy?

However, one thing is clear from news and its analysis: without a consensus between the Americans, the Pakistan Army and the elected political establishment, there can be no peace in Pakistan. But it is also clear that such a consensus cannot last for there is a clash of interests between the army and the Americans, the political establishment and the army, and the Americans and the political establishment.

Overtly they cooperate with each other but covertly they pursue their own agendas, to the extent they can, because of pressure from their different constituencies. So the consensus cannot last, as we have seen, and for the time that it does it can do so only through coercion, buying and selling of loyalties, constitutional deviations masquerading as national interest and covert deals with the Americans; in short, everything that destroys the unity of our federation, the fabric of our society, the effectiveness of our institutions and undermines our sovereignty.

We are, as the Americans say, caught between a rock and a hard place. Our position is similar to that of Norodom Sihanouk during the height of the Vietnam war when, in spite of all his brilliance, he could not prevent that war from engulfing Cambodia. How are we to get out of this impasse?

The other issue is also disturbing. Some of the local and international press and think tanks have indicated that they believe the Nato troops in Afghanistan will tire and the Taliban will control the south and east of the country. They feel that when this happens the Taliban will take with them certain areas of the border regions of Pakistan. If this happens then what will happen to our federation and how will the Americans secure the Baloch frontier — something they are bound to attempt?

Also, this state of affairs can only come about after a major escalation of the war in Afghanistan and in the border regions of Pakistan. Karachi is required to make this escalation possible for oil, food and other supplies required for the troops in Afghanistan can only be sent through this city. Does the recent statement by the Karachi nazim that the geography of the city and the country will change in the future have something to do with this line of thinking?

It has to be remembered that Karachi was conquered by the British for the purpose of supplying men and material to British troops in Afghanistan to prevent Czarist Russia from reaching the Arabian Sea. In the First World War it was the headquarters for British intervention in Central Asia and in the Second World War support to the eastern front was provided from this city.

During the Afghan war against the Soviets, it played a similar role. Given these realities, how will all this affect (or is affecting) the politics of the city and hence of Pakistan in general and the rest of Sindh in particular? Does the battle for turf in Karachi, the violence associated with it and the bomb blasts of July 8 have something to do with this issue?

Truthful answers to the questions that have been posed in this piece are important. Without them there can be no effective policy to overcome the crisis we are in. Without them people cannot be mobilised for change and without them hopes cannot be realised and the reasons why hopes have not materialised in the past cannot be understood.

For reform and change, Pakistan needs a commission for truth and reconciliation on the lines of South Africa. We need to wash ourselves clean, however painful this may be. But this poses two more questions. One, is it possible to have such a commission in the situation we are in today? And two, if not, what sort of political movement is required to make this possible other than anarchy and conflict leading to the reorganisation of the state?

Pre-Olympic dope test

FROM pistol shooters to shot putters, every British athlete competing in this summer’s Beijing Olympics is being tested for performance-enhancing drugs in the most extensive anti-doping campaign in Britain’s Olympic history.

Around 1,500 sportsmen and women travelling to China to compete in the Olympic and Paralympic games this August and September are being screened as part of “a no-compromise approach” to stamping out drug cheats.

UK Sport, which controls the country’s anti-doping measures, said it will carry out tests on athletes’ blood and urine with no advance notice and mostly out of competition, the time when some athletes use drugs to prepare.

Anti-doping officials are determined to prevent any British competitor from incurring a two-year ban if they breach anti-doping rules, by running an education campaign alongside the testing.

“Every British athlete that goes into the Olympic Village from July 27 will have been tested, educated and there can be no excuse,” said Andy Parkinson, acting director of drug-free sport at UK Sport. “We are being tougher than ever and we are saying to every athlete in his country that you are going to be tested.”

The crackdown is partly aimed at avoiding international embarrassment in the run-up to London 2012. The 2004 Athens games were badly marred for the hosts when the Greek sprinters Kostas Kenteris and Katerina Thanou pulled out before the games because of missed tests.

At the same games Hungarian hammer thrower Adrian Annus was stripped of his gold medal after failing to supply a follow-up sample, with the suspicion that samples he had supplied belonged to different athletes suggesting tampering. Just four years away from the London games, UK Sport is concerned that the attraction to young athletes of performing on their home stage and increasing pressure on them, sometimes from criminal networks peddling performance-enhancing drugs, could lead to doping among 2012 hopefuls.

UK Sport’s goal of Team GB being “100 per cent clean and committed to the true spirit of the Olympic and Paralympic movement” is currently coming under pressure in the courts. Dwain Chambers, the British sprinter and former European 100m champion who was banned from athletics for two years in 2003 after testing positive for the anabolic steroid THG, has been granted an injunction hearing next Wednesday when his legal team will seek a temporary lifting of the British Olympic Association bylaw which bans drugs cheats from ever representing Great Britain at the games.

On Thursday, UK Sport opened the doors to the country’s only forensic laboratory accredited by the World Anti-Doping Agency, in a public demonstration of the science and investigative powers it plans to use to expose drug cheats. Based at the drug control centre at London University’s Kings College, eight scientists test 8,000 samples of athletes’ urine and blood every year for a myriad of doping offences. They include steroids and human growth hormones to increase power and strength and EPO and HBOC, natural and syntheric heamoglobin, to boost red blood cell count and increase endurance.

Transfusions of the athlete’s own or another person’s blood are used to boost stamina, as in the case of Alexander Vinokourov, the Kazakh cyclist who was caught during last summer’s Tour de France. Diuretics are used to try to disguise anabolic agents and plasma expanders can be used. All are banned.

“We are building an increasingly sophisticated, intelligence-based testing programme and we are one of the pioneers of what is to become the global approach to no advance notice, out of competition testing,” said Prof David Cowan, director of the drug control centre. “Put simply, any cheating athlete who thinks they can compete or train in the UK without getting caught should think again.”

The laboratory contains freezers holding thousands of athletes’ urine samples at -20C. The lab workers do not know the athlete behind each sample and standards of proof have to be high. The facility would lose its licence if it made more than one false positive claim in a year. Drug testing officials believe track and field athletes and cyclists are the most likely to use banned substances. Sprinter Linford Christie was banned for using nandrolone in 1999 following a routine doping test. In March 2005 Mark Lewis-Francis tested positive for cannabis, although he was not banned.

As part of the tougher regime the movement of British athletes is being monitored so they have no excuse for missing drug tests. By updating an internet database, each athlete going to Beijing has to inform UK Sport where they will be for one hour a day, five days a week. A new national anti-doping organisation will also investigate the trade in banned substances, which increasingly involves organised crime. “Our evidence suggests that gangsters are dealing in anabolic steroids and that it has become as lucrative as social drugs,” said Parkinson.

—The Guardian, London