Pakistan and the bomb
Submitted 1 hr 51 mins ago
The above title is the latest article in "The Wall Street Journal" by Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer, who is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, has been a senior advisor to three US Presidents on Middle East and South Asian issues and chaired President Obama's strategic review of policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan which concluded in March 2009. My respect for Bruce Riedel as an analyst has diminished after reading his latest endeavour, since portions of it appear to be based on half truths, conjectures and apparent twisting of facts in pursuit of an agenda. Lest I be accused of the same offense, let me illustrate my observation with examples from the renowned analyst's article.
He opens with the current intense military gunbattle raging in the Swat valley to crush the militants but appears to suggest the futility of the operation by mentioning the retaliatory suicide bomb attacks in Lahore and Peshawar. Bruce Riedel, in his third paragraph matter of factly states: "The fighting has cast a spotlight on the shaky security of Pakistan's growing nuclear arsenal...." And then self-contradicts in the very next paragraph, "Today the arsenal is under the control of its military leaders; it is well protected, concealed and dispersed. But if the country fell into the wrong hands-those of the militant Islamic jihadists and al-Qaeda-so would the arsenal." Firstly the country is in no danger of being overrun by the militants. Yes they had entrenched themselves in Swat and the tribal regions, but are in the process of being flushed out and defeated and have little or no chance of taking over the country. Moreover, the reason why Riedel talks of the secure protection of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is that, and he being a former CIA operative would know, if the Indian and western intelligence agencies have not been able to find any clue of the location of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal; how would a rag-tag militia do so? The honorable writer quotes former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto as believing that "al-Qaeda would be marching on Islamabad in two years". This has to be refuted as the armed forces are curently battling with full intensity to prevent such an eventuality.
The writer brazenly labels Pakistan as being a "state sponsor of proliferation" and being engaged in "highly provocative behavior against India, even initiating a limited war..." Unfortunately, Mr. Riedel, you will have to shed your blinkers to obtain a clearer vision. The lone example of proliferation was confessed by Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan as being his personal indiscretion and the state proceeded strongly to plug the gap and you yourself confirm the same in para 20 that "there has been little evidence of continued technology proliferation activity" since Dr. Khan's confession. Unfortunately, India, whose case Bruce Riedel appears to be pleading has indulged in numerous case of nuclear proliferation, some of which have been in the notice of US State Department and sanctions imposed against the scientists, yet it is Pakistan, which is continuously being flogged like a dead horse. Threats and beligerence have emanated from India starting with the May 1998 sabre rattling after conducting its nuclear tests, which forced Pakistan to cross the nuclear threshold; the 2001-2002 troops buildup against Pakistan following the December 13, 2001 attack on Indian Parliament building, which has been blamed on Pakistan, but little or no evidence provided and has been suggested by some Indian Human Rights activists as having been planned and executed by the Indian state mechanism. Regarding the Mumbai attacks too Indian foot-dragging on vital clues has stalled the investigations. Coming to the "initiating a limited war" allegation, implying "Kargil"; Bruce Riedel has been advisor to three US presidents, and he should get some facts of history right, Kargil is not Indian terrain but disputed Kashmiri territory. President Obama had promised to help resolve the Kashmir imbroglio to ease the tension between Pakistan and India but has now forgotten. Talking of history, Bruce Riedel has got President Yahya's name wrong and mentions the 1971 dismemberment of Pakistan's eastern wing but fails to acknowledge Indian machinations in the sorry episode.
Another insinuation is that Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan "stole" the sensitive centrifuge technology from the Netherlands. Two wrongs do not make a right but every single nuclear capable state, including USA, Soviet Union, Britain, France, India and Israel, has devloped its nuclear capability through clandestine means. Bruce Riedel talks of travelling to both Pakistan and India to convince them to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treay (NPT) and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treay (CTBT) but says "The Pakistanis were the harder sell and never even came close to an agreement with them." The fact is that neither did India and even the US refused to ratify the treaty in 2000. Thus what is good for the goose is good for the gander! Why single out Pakistan?
It is not till the 24th paragraph that the astute Bruce Riedel discloses the real agendum behind the long tirade on Pakistan's nuclear program: "US options would be severely limited by Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. We would need to work with India, Afghanistan, China and others (perhaps Israel) to isolate the danger." The method behind the madness appears to be a strident attempt to isolate Pakistan's nuclear capability, have it capped and defanged. The insistance that "India is no longer our enemy" now appears to fall in place. Bruce Riedel advises US to have "constancy and consistency" in its policy towards "Pakistan and its bomb" and end its "double standards with India." Sound advice but asking "Islamabad to put the no-first-use pledge back on the table with India, and sign the CTBT without demanding Indian adherence first" is unrealistic. The survival of a nation facing critical imbalance in conventional weapons vis-à-vis a belligerent and hostile neighbour lies in deterrence through the nuclear option. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) May 15 report notwithstanding that states "Pakistan may have developed a second-strike capability to again attain nuclear parity with India".
Pakistan and the bomb | Pakistan | News | Newspaper | Daily | English | Online
---------------------------------------------------
The author very correctly points out the biased and incorrect assertions in Reidel's article.
My take on Reidel's distortions and one sided Indian as* kissing was that it was an attempt to 'balance' his article, and placate any Indian ego's since he was arguing for Pakistan to be given the same nuclear deal India was.
You will be in for a shock when you get married and especially after a decade of marriage.
