Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 04 Feb 2004

Vijay J
BRFite
Posts: 130
Joined: 19 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: India

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 04 Feb 2004

Postby Vijay J » 05 Feb 2004 23:44

Tenet: We tagged proliferators, our spies infiltrated the network from .... it is now being shut down.

This is some serious damage control being carried out. Something tells me the situation may be out of control. AQK said too much before he was arrested.

Tenet was one of the key players in the entire Afghan War thing. He may not be the fall guy for just the Iraq WMD mess, he may be in for fall guy status on the entire gamut of failed non proliferation activity for the last twenty years.

parsuram
BRFite
Posts: 366
Joined: 31 May 2002 11:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 04 Feb 2004

Postby parsuram » 05 Feb 2004 23:46

Sai Krshna:

"They" have no intention of cleaning up Pakistan. They have need of an all purpose sewer, and Pakis fit the bill - clear over the other side of the world, from where its stench seldom pollutes their "spacious skies" (except, notably, a rude bit of gas called 911, thus the attempts to contain it "over there").

Umrao
BRFite
Posts: 547
Joined: 30 May 2001 11:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 04 Feb 2004

Postby Umrao » 05 Feb 2004 23:47

China was use dto contain Russia
China is using Pakistan to Contain India
Uncle is happy to wink because thats what he wants too.

gopal
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 3
Joined: 05 Jun 2002 11:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 04 Feb 2004

Postby gopal » 05 Feb 2004 23:48

Pakistan won't roll back nuclear programme: Musharraf

"We need not help any other country...we consider them our brothers but they did not hesitate to name us," Musharraf said, apparently referring to statements by Iran and Libya in which they named Pakistan for providing nuclear technology.
He has no qualms about nuclear proliferation, he is just unhappy that these "brothers" exposed him.

gopal
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 3
Joined: 05 Jun 2002 11:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 04 Feb 2004

Postby gopal » 05 Feb 2004 23:54

Originally posted by parsuram:
Sai Krshna:

"They" have no intention of cleaning up Pakistan. They have need of an all purpose sewer, and Pakis fit the bill - clear over the other side of the world, from where its stench seldom pollutes their "spacious skies" (except, notably, a rude bit of gas called 911, thus the attempts to contain it "over there").
Its getting more complex. Consider a nuclear exchange now would devastate India but wipe Pakistan off the face of the earth. In a few years, Pakistan will acquire the ability to completely destroy India and by that time India will have acquired the ability to destroy China, Saudi Arabia and other Pakistani friends. So the circle keeps expanding and puts the rest of the world at increasing risk.

Therefore, it is highly likely that there will be an attempt to cap Indian and Pakistani nuclear arsenals in the near future.

Abhijeet
BRFite
Posts: 805
Joined: 11 Nov 2001 12:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 04 Feb 2004

Postby Abhijeet » 05 Feb 2004 23:54

A request for those on this forum who are more on top of this story than I am. Can we have a list of links to articles about Pakistani proliferation from the last few months - opinion pieces plus news articles - posted here, perhaps like the first post on every Pakistan News and Discussion thread? It would be very helpful to have a handy list that can be posted on other forums. I will post that list on a different mailing list that I'm a member of. Thanks.

Rangudu
BRFite
Posts: 1751
Joined: 03 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 04 Feb 2004

Postby Rangudu » 06 Feb 2004 00:16

rtsp://video.c-span.org/15days/e020504_state.rm

Guys,

Above is the State Dept briefing from Today.

Tap dance city. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Johann
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 04 Feb 2004

Postby Johann » 06 Feb 2004 00:36

Why the sudden burst in wild theorising over the Western reaction to Khan?

Last week the consensus here seemed to be that Musharraf was performing a valuable service for both India and the West.

If Musharraf was valuable last week, why would he thrown to the wolves this week for things you already thought he bore responsibility for?

No one here has to think of what it would take to deal with a wave of Islamist revolutions across the Muslim world, but there are those in positions of responsibility who must. I disagree with many of the decisions, even the paradigms used and the absence of debate, but I dont scoff at the difficulty of the choices they face.

AQ Khan's public admission of guilt and apology (however insincere and incomplete) and status as the "father" of the Pakistani bomb clears the way for the *overt* institutionalisation of foreign inspection and safeguards on materials, facilities and personnel. When combined with the PSI, the co-operation of previous recipietns, what is left of the channels of proliferation?

Rangudu
BRFite
Posts: 1751
Joined: 03 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 04 Feb 2004

Postby Rangudu » 06 Feb 2004 00:38

Johann,

When you say overt inspection, I take it you include the Pakistani facilities.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 04 Feb 2004

Postby svinayak » 06 Feb 2004 00:41

Thursday February 5, 10:54 PM

Pakistan struggles to draw line under leaks

http://in.news.yahoo.com/040205/137/2bbwn.html
By Simon Denyer

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - At first glance it's the perfect face-saving solution.

But a dramatic confession by Pakistan's top nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan that he was personally responsible for selling nuclear secrets to Iran, Libya and North Korea is unlikely to draw a line under one of the largest proliferation scandals ever.

"A.Q. Khan has been made a scapegoat," said Samina Ahmed, Pakistan director of the International Crisis Group, a Brussels-based think thank. "Will the issue die that easily in Pakistan? It will be interesting to see."

The scientist's carefully scripted television apology was the result of a deal between Khan and the army, newspapers said.

Khan absolved the government and military of any responsibility for the nuclear leaks, and on Thursday Musharraf said he had officially pardoned Khan.

Washington appears to have agreed to stand by Pakistan's embattled president and not push for a full investigation into the military's role in selling nuclear secrets that could undermine one of its most important allies in the Muslim world.

U.S. administration officials say they are satisfied with assurances from Musharraf of no further proliferation, and do not seem to want to unsettle a man who survived two assassination attempts late last year.

"No doubt the U.S. is concerned, but it has to walk a tightrope," said Andrew Tan of the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies in Singapore.

"The U.S. will have to balance its wish for disclosure against the possibility that Musharraf may be destabilised in doing so."

The U.N. nuclear watchdog is unlikely to be satisfied quite so easily, even if it too is treading carefully.

On Thursday International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei said Khan was helped by many people in many countries, adding that Pakistan needed to answer the question about whether its government or military was involved.

"Dr Khan is the tip of an iceberg for us," he told reporters.

U.S. ASSURANCES

Nor can U.S. support be counted on for ever. With a $3 billion U.S. aid package contingent on Pakistan being declared a non-proliferator, President George W. Bush is already facing his own pressures to take a tougher line.

"The administration must confront the reality that Pakistan's military and leadership has done more to threaten U.S. and global security with weapons of mass destruction than either al Qaeda or Saddam Hussein," the Washington Post wrote in an editorial.

The Post argued that Pakistan should be subject to strict international inspections to ensure it never again proliferates. "Further promises of good behaviour from an unreliable general" are not enough, it said.

The suggestion was angrily rebuffed by Musharraf at a news conference on Thursday, when he said no documents would ever be handed over to the IAEA, and no independent investigation or U.N. inspections allowed.

Already Islamic hardliners are suggesting that the whole nuclear investigation is a U.S. plot to undermine and ultimately roll back the Muslim world's only nuclear programme.

In the longer term, further embarrassing allegations could undermine the cosy relationship between Washington and Islamabad, especially if Pakistan's friendship becomes less important.

"Pakistan has admitted to proliferation and in the canon of nuclear misdemeanours there is nothing more serious than that," said political commentator Ayaz Amir. "This can be dusted off and used against Pakistan whenever the need arises."

Some mud is being thrown directly at Musharraf, who took power in an October 1999 coup and says he put tough nuclear safeguards in place the following February.

Only last year, the United States imposed sanctions on Khan Research Laboratories for arranging a transfer of North Korean missiles to Pakistan.

U.S. officials told the New York Times that nuclear aid continued to flow to North Korea until 2002 and to Libya until last year, three or four years into the general's rule.

SILENCING CRITICS AT HOME

Musharraf warned Pakistani journalists not to speculate further about possible government or military involvement in the leaks, saying it was not in the national interest.

But it may not be that easy to silence the army's critics.

"This is not enough -- a full investigation is required," said Farhatullah Babar, spokesman for the opposition Pakistan's Peoples Party of exiled former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.

"And a far graver question is what the intelligence and security agencies were doing, who were supposed to monitor and oversee his activities," he told Reuters.

Many diplomats are convinced Khan could not have sold the country's closely guarded nuclear secrets and sent hardware abroad on charter planes without the knowledge and involvement of the military.

"It would be untenable to just let bygones be bygones," said one Western diplomat. "The important thing is that proliferation stops."

(Additional reporting by Mike Collett-White)

parsuram
BRFite
Posts: 366
Joined: 31 May 2002 11:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 04 Feb 2004

Postby parsuram » 06 Feb 2004 00:52

Johann:

No one here has to think of what it would take to deal with a wave of Islamist revolutions across the Muslim world, but others do.
Due perhaps, to the fact that those here are well past the theoretical possibilities that "deal with a wave of Islamist revolutions across the Muslim world"; India, having dealt with such matters for the past decade or two, seems fairly secure in its ability to deal with more of the same (there is no substitute for hands on experience). These are dubious advantages of being right there, next to the sewer out which such revolutions have been bubbling up for some time. Rest of the world had better get ready to get a lot of hand on experience.

Umrao
BRFite
Posts: 547
Joined: 30 May 2001 11:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 04 Feb 2004

Postby Umrao » 06 Feb 2004 00:59

Johann>> The change is because everything is now a farce, charade, the credibility of HM Govt, BBC or GOTUS or American Media both print and TV is as Sovereign as Mushy's word or Xerox Khans confession.

Its con con world (like mad mad world). :D

Nandu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2195
Joined: 08 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 04 Feb 2004

Postby Nandu » 06 Feb 2004 01:04

Is Tenet's speech an indication that GotUS decided to rake up this issue at this time to deflect some of the criticism it is facing over the Iraq WMD debacle?

BTW, did anyone listen to the KQED forum program today?

Vivek_A
BRFite
Posts: 593
Joined: 17 Nov 2003 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 04 Feb 2004

Postby Vivek_A » 06 Feb 2004 01:05

Originally posted by Johann:
No one here has to think of what it would take to deal with a wave of Islamist revolutions across the Muslim world, but there are those in positions of responsibility who must.
Why didn't the people of responsibility think of that when they liberated Iraq. We all know the shias are going to elect an Islamist government in Iraq.

Johann
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 04 Feb 2004

Postby Johann » 06 Feb 2004 01:08

Originally posted by Rangudu:
Johann,

When you say overt inspection, I take it you include the Pakistani facilities.
Yes absolutely.

Parsuram,

India only has Pakistan for now. What role would it willing play in the near future if the balloon went up across not just Pakistan, Gulf, and then forwards and bakwards from there? What will a massive conflagration do for Islamist credibility?

This war has to be fought at a pace that works against the Islamists strengths, worldwide. Wherever possible they ought to die with a whimper rather than a bang. That is the interest that WMD risk mitigation competes with.

Raman
BRFite
Posts: 268
Joined: 06 Mar 2001 12:31
Location: Niyar kampootar onlee

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 04 Feb 2004

Postby Raman » 06 Feb 2004 01:27

Originally posted by Johann:
AQ Khan's public admission of guilt and apology (however insincere and incomplete) and status as the "father" of the Pakistani bomb clears the way for the *overt* institutionalisation of foreign inspection and safeguards on materials, facilities and personnel. When combined with the PSI, the co-operation of previous recipietns, what is left of the channels of proliferation?
The problem is that this is like locking the stable after the horse has bolted.

First, given the stellar quality of proliferation intelligence, you really have no idea who else has this technology. You'll have to take AXK and Mushy's word that Iran, Libya and NK are it and no more. (What of those reports of Saudi Arabia? To be duly ignored until later, of course.) If, after all this, the West still wants to "trust" Mushy's 400% guarantee that he has not proliferated to anybody else in the last few years, well, whatever happens in the future will be well deserved.

Second, the notion of holding Musharraf accountable for his actions seems to be completely absent. It is one thing to wink when these activities are conducted on the sly. It is something else when the activity is so embarrassingly blatant, and yet seems to attract no more than "Really? Too bad. I applaud your decision to no longer be negligent and deceitful."

For the longest time, the West has intentionally ignored the "elephant under the table": the widely known proliferation activities of China and Pakistan. These activities have been reported in the Indian media for years (at least since the mid-to-late 90's), and I'm disgusted that the intelligence community now acts "shocked and surprised." To this day, the proliferation activities of China are conveniently ignored. (For example, the fact that Pakistan's warheads are of Chinese design.) I'm sure 10 years from now, when some tin-pot dictator in Africa has a Chinese nuke, the intelligence agencies will be "shocked and surprised" and be faced with the unenviable task of "making very tough decisions" that we mortals don't have to make.

The bottom line is that the West's anti-proliferation efforts have zero credibility, and the wrist-slap that this episode has ellicited *guarantees* the further proliferation of nukes by China and other actors (perhaps the frontline ally again! Surely Pakistan is big enough for *two* rogue scientists, what?)

Pakistan could have been stopped *years* before it became a problem, but the West *chose* to ignore the activities of both Pakistan and China in the misguided interest of expediency. A similar error is being committed right now, again, in the interest of expediency.

The price will be paid years from now, accompanied, no doubt, by "surprise, shock and dismay" leading to "very tough decisions" being made. When that time comes, I'm fully confident that these decisions will be made ... in the interest of expediency, of course.

Gudakesa
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 14
Joined: 07 Feb 2003 12:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 04 Feb 2004

Postby Gudakesa » 06 Feb 2004 01:33

And it is hard to take all this "pressure" on Pakistan seriously when this has been going on for more than 12 years with the knowledge of western governments. It is disingenuous to pretend that this was not known until it came out now miraculously, now. It does not fool people, it just irritates them. There is also no reason to have any faith in the credibility of monitoring further proliferation. Also, as Rajesh has put it, the horses have bolted.

jrjrao
BRFite
Posts: 869
Joined: 01 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 04 Feb 2004

Postby jrjrao » 06 Feb 2004 01:36

And Mush feels emboldened, now that he thinks he has beaten this rap also.

Pakistan to test new missile: Musharraf
"We have built the Shaheen II missile with a range of 2,000 kilometers and we will test fire it in one month," Musharraf said at a news conference during which he said he had pardoned the disgraced architect of Pakistan's nuclear bomb, Abdul Qadeer Khan, for leaking technology abroad.

Musharraf vowed Pakistan's nuclear and missile programmes would never be rolled back and the country was achieving steady progress in strengthening its assets.

"This country will never roll back its nuclear assets and its missile programme. This can never be done, this is my promise," he said.
http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=13381197

Sunil
BRFite
Posts: 634
Joined: 21 Sep 1999 11:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 04 Feb 2004

Postby Sunil » 06 Feb 2004 01:37

I am still in deep shock over the news items that indicate that AQ Khan used BCCI accounts to manage profits of his trade in nuclear products.

I simply do not know how to respond to something of that magnitude. For once words truly fail me.

I have that same queasy feeling in my stomach that I last had on the night after tragedy of Sept 11 2001.

It is going to be a while before I have anything to contribute to this thread.

Rangudu
BRFite
Posts: 1751
Joined: 03 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 04 Feb 2004

Postby Rangudu » 06 Feb 2004 02:25

Transcripts from today's State Dept briefing.

BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I don't have any statements or announcements, so I'd be glad to take your questions.

QUESTION: As you may have noticed, President Musharraf has pardoned Dr. Khan. Are you satisfied with that action?

BOUCHER: Let me, kind of, review the situation and what we see and what we expect.

First, I think the actions that Pakistan has been taking in regard to this investigation and uncovering information about the actions of various Pakistanis need to be seen in the context of the overall international effort against proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

The spread of nuclear weapons and technology is, indeed, a matter of global concern, and the United States has urged all nations that have this technology to take precautions to ensure that it's properly controlled, does not fall in the hands of rogue states, nonstate actors and individuals.

And that's why we have said that we value the commitments President Musharraf has made to prevent the expertise in Pakistan from reaching other places and other countries and other nations. And we have welcomed the investigation that they have undertaken into reports that such activities have occurred.

We think that Pakistan is taking serious efforts to end the activities of a dangerous network that, as Director Tenet said this morning, had already done much damage. It's up to the government of Pakistan to take the necessary measures to ensure that this kind of proliferation will not happen again.

BOUCHER: It's important that those measures be comprehensive and they be enduring.

We'd also expect that Pakistan will share information that they are unearthing in their ongoing investigation with the international community.

As far as the specifics of what happens to Dr. Khan, other than making sure that he and whatever other individuals or networks in Pakistan might have been involved in this trade don't transfer anything again -- as far as the specifics of sentencing or pardons or whatever, that really is a matter for Pakistan to decide. And they'll take, I'm sure, appropriate measures under Pakistani law and regulations to ensure that he and his associates are no longer able to endanger the international community.

QUESTION: Richard, yesterday, you said you wanted them to take appropriate action. And it seems a perfectly reasonable question to ask whether pardoning a man who has transferred weapons-related technology to countries hostile to this one is appropriate.

BOUCHER: I don't think it's a matter for the United States to sit in judgment on. I think it's a matter that we think what's important in this case is really two things.
:roll:

One is that the network and the individuals who were doing this in Pakistan or from Pakistan be found out, stopped, prevented from making any such transfers again.

And second of all that the information that they develop in their information is shared with the international community, because the international community as a whole needs to go after this network that extends far beyond Pakistan in some cases.

QUESTION: So it's OK if you proliferate as long as you tell us about it and don't do it again?

BOUCHER: No, it's not OK. It's for governments to find out and prevent this kind of thing.

But what penalties, sanctions, controls or steps are used to prevent it from happening again, those are up for individual governments to decide.
:roll:

QUESTION: There's no penalty or sanction here that I can see. The man's been pardoned.

BOUCHER: As I've said, it's up to the Pakistani government to make sure that this sort of thing doesn't happen again.

QUESTION: Is the United States concerned that the pardon sets a precedent for other proliferators who might think, "Well, I can get away with it, because I can say, 'Sorry,' give my information in and receive a pardon"?

BOUCHER: Again, it's up to Pakistan to decide the specific steps that they need to take in this case. I don't think it's a precedent for anything else.
:roll:

QUESTION: Richard, from the point of view of the United States, is this now done or is the case closed or do you think that...

BOUCHER: I think the government of Pakistan itself says that the matter is ongoing.

QUESTION: So you're not.

BOUCHER: The investigation is ongoing. There are other individuals that need to be looked at. There's a network that needs to be found out. And there's information that needs to be shared.

QUESTION: So the events of the last two days specifically related to Dr. Khan do not satisfy all of the U.S. concerns about Pakistan's proliferation?

BOUCHER: Nonproliferation is and must be an ongoing effort. It is for all of us, whether it's this particular network or anything other than this particular network.

But in terms of the specific investigation, I think the Pakistanis themselves acknowledged that this is an ongoing investigation and it's not finished yet.

QUESTION: President Musharraf has said, though, that he will not allow an outside investigation into this; i.e., the IAEA. And he also criticized...

BOUCHER: I don't know...

QUESTION: ... two.

BOUCHER: I think I called for that.

QUESTION: You did. No, you didn't. Well, that's sharing information. He has said he will not share information with the IAEA.

BOUCHER: No. I don't think he said that.

QUESTION: OK. You didn't think Khan ever said that Musharraf was involved either. And in fact, he did say that the day before he came out then and said it wasn't true.

BOUCHER: Again, I said -- we talked yesterday; I said I saw what he said this morning -- yesterday morning.

QUESTION: The day before, he said something different.

BOUCHER: I didn't say anything about what he said the day before, because I didn't know what he said the day before.

QUESTION: OK. What about the fact that Musharraf is criticizing to situations that the U.S. is very pleased about, and that Iran and Libya allowing investigations? Musharraf says that they should not have turned in Pakistan for sharing the technology.

BOUCHER: I think we have spoken quite clearly on the importance of the steps Libya has taken to disclose, dismantle, destroy all its activities in the area of weapons of mass destruction. These are important decisions from Libya, and we believe those do, in fact, serve as a model for others, that others should follow.

QUESTION: But Musharraf is criticizing that, so how can you believe that you're on the same page with him?

BOUCHER: I didn't see the specific comments, but I think the facts are clear that what Libya did is good for the international community.


QUESTION: You guys are only looking at some of the things that are being said. I mean, Musharraf said this in the same speech that you've talked about...

BOUCHER: Again, I know people have been quoted as saying this and that. I'm not trying to repeat their arguments or defend them.

I'm saying, what's important here is that the government of Pakistan take steps to make sure that Pakistan won't be a source of proliferation, either of materials, equipment or especially with the intangibles, the expertise that can help other countries develop weapons of mass destruction.

We see Pakistan taking steps that go to that end. We see Pakistan developing information as part of an investigation that is useful to the whole international community to go after this private network, this network of people sharing materials, information and expertise. And we would expect them to share that information with the international community. Those are the important things.

QUESTION: Because he says that he will not hand over any documents. He says, "The IAEA can come and talk to us, but we will not hand over any documents." So would that satisfy your...

BOUCHER: I don't know what documents they have. I couldn't make a judgment on that at this point.

QUESTION: Richard, until last year Pakistan denied having any hand in any of the nukes spread anywhere. And also I understand that, if I'm correct, in 2002 secretary of state also said that Pakistan has pledged to him they will not spread any nukes anywhere.

Now, until this became public late year from the IAEA and Iranian and Libyan officials, then is the only time that Pakistan is now under pressure to say, "Yes," and now their scientists also had a meeting.

QUESTION: My question is that how do we know that these weapons have not spread beyond Libya, Iran and North Korea, maybe in the hands of Osama bin Laden and his associates?

BOUCHER: I wouldn't speculate, but I think the fact that the expertise is easily transferable was one of the reasons why it's very important for all governments to exercise vigilance on these points and one of the reasons why we have undertaken an international effort to tighten export controls, including on expertise and other intangibles.

We've undertaken steps such as the Proliferation Security Initiative. We've pressed very hard for all countries to sign the additional protocols in the IAEA, so that countries do have -- there is more scrutiny and control over these things. Why the president has proposed that there be a U.N. resolution to bind countries to nonproliferation goals.

So the fact is that knowledge is more easily transferable than other things perhaps, and that's why it is important for all countries to exercise vigilance.

QUESTION: It might become -- or come in the limelight the link between Malaysia and Pakistan. Don't you think this is worried and should we worry to the United States of this because it may spread through all the Islamic world? Because it was called the Islamic bomb (ph).

BOUCHER: The fact that these two countries are involved -- I mean, there are other countries and places that may be involved in this private network. I'm not going to draw conclusions because we've seen two particular countries investigating.

Whether these countries who were trying to develop an Islamic bomb (ph) or whether they were individuals in these countries that had expertise and the ability to make equipment that they were sharing, for whatever reasons, is also a matter that I can't make assumptions about.

But at this point, what is also clear is the government of Malaysia has acknowledged that a Malaysian company was engaged in proliferation activities that were related to Libya's uranium enrichment programs and they have promised an investigation as well. Once again, as I said, with the case of Pakistan, it's important that this investigation be pursued vigorously and that they, you know, stop these activities, unearth the information and share it with the international community.

BOUCHER: They, I think, have sought the assistance and expertise of the International Atomic Energy Agency in that investigation. So that's a good thing as well.

QUESTION: You said earlier that the United States values the commitments Musharraf has made and that they're taking serious steps. But can you say anything more about whether we view those steps to pursue this are adequate in our view and also whether the sharing of information with the international community is adequate, or whether more needs to be done in both those areas?

BOUCHER: As this is an ongoing investigation and an ongoing matter, I don't think I can make judgments at this stage. We've been impressed by the seriousness of the investigation, but I can't make a final judgment for you.

QUESTION: Richard, have the events in the last couple of days in any way caused a reassessment of your earlier judgments of President Musharraf's pledges that Pakistan was not proliferating and his continuing assurances that Pakistan's own nuclear arsenal is in responsible hands?

BOUCHER: I'm not sure that the information that's coming out -- or the allegations as well -- really question the issue of nuclear safety of Pakistan's materials that they may have.

As far as the judgment -- the commitment that President Musharraf made in October of 2002 that Pakistan would not be a source of proliferation, we do think that the investigation and the steps that Pakistan is taking demonstrate that they're serious about that commitment.

QUESTION: Yes, but it also -- doesn't it not suggest to you that that commitment was not entirely serious?

BOUCHER: As I said, I think the steps that they're taking to investigate demonstrates that they are serious about adhering to that commitment.

QUESTION: But this is two years later, Richard.

BOUCHER: It's not two years later, but anyway.

QUESTION: Well, close to two years.

BOUCHER: Try 15 months.

But the point is that President Musharraf made this commitment and has taken steps to ensure that it's effective.

BOUCHER: We still see them taking further steps to make sure it's effective.

QUESTION: Do you think that those steps, to your knowledge, begin with his commitment in 2002? Or did he force his hand by presenting him with all sorts of...

BOUCHER: They took steps -- when he made his commitment, they started taking steps -- government departments and elsewhere -- to try to make it effective -- to make it effective. It's a commitment that we have said many times is important that we expect them to keep and we see them taking steps to keep it.

QUESTION: Are you aware of any Pakistani nuclear proliferation since October of '02?

BOUCHER: It's not a question I'd be able to answer at this point.

QUESTION: Just want another thing on this, which is going to an earlier question so I don't know if you'll actually answer it.

The lack of outrage from Washington on this is significant, I think, given the fact that when the Indians and Pakistanis engaged in nuclear tests back in 1998 there was sanctions immediately imposed. So I guess the question is, "Is the mea culpa enough?"

BOUCHER: I don't think that's the question.

The question for us is whether Pakistan has taken effective steps to stop this trade and is cooperating and helping the international community uncover the network that we all need to get at and stop. We see Pakistan taking those kind of steps. We welcome that and will continue to work with them to do that.

QUESTION: It's not even, you know, similar treaty to the No- Proliferation Treaty, but this is obvious violation of international law. The result of the investigation will, you know, affect your decision on the sanction issue suspended since 2001?

BOUCHER: That would, in the end, depend on what comes out in the investigation, on what the facts turn out to be. How the facts are determined and what the interplay is with U.S. law and I just can't make a judgment on that at this point.

QUESTION: What is the interplay, generally, with a government especially when you do have a element, such as the scientists in Pakistan, or the case of Iraq with elements within a rogue regime?

QUESTION: Are there any particular type sanctions that we should have homed in on earlier?

For instance, in Pakistan we've had this trouble where over the border elements of Al Qaida and Taliban have sought shelter up in the north and then Pakistan wouldn't allow American troops over the border to search for...

BOUCHER: You're going a little too far here. Let's start with the question and answer the question, and then if we want to go off into other regions we'll do that a step at a time.

The responsibility of governments is to ensure respect for international standards and laws. In the proliferation area, we rely on governments to regulate, monitor, police, enforce, prevent transfers of materials that could lead to proliferation.

That's why all these steps I've talked about -- improving export controls, tightening the nuclear suppliers group regulations, getting countries to sign up to the additional protocols, initiating the Proliferation Security Initiative -- these are all steps to tighten that network, that web of government controls so that we can stop this kind of activity.

And the responsibility of governments is to make that effort as effective as possible. And therefore governments that take steps to prevent proliferation activity, we welcome that; as we're welcoming what Pakistan is doing to prevent operations of a private network that would be involved in proliferation.

As far as question of sanctions, there's a multitude of U.S. laws that are involved when there are transfers. Sometimes it depends on whether the government entities, individuals, you can get hit or listed in different ways; it depends on the facts of the particular matter.

QUESTION: Does the U.S. expect this ongoing investigation in Pakistan -- does the U.S. expect the Pakistani investigating authorities to look into who in the Pakistani government may have had knowledge of these transfers? And will the U.S. be satisfied if it doesn't?

And when I say, "Who in the Pakistani government?," I'm also referring to President Musharraf.

BOUCHER: That is an issue that we would expect the investigators to look at.

At this point, we've seen that statements that have been made. We just have to see how things evolve.

QUESTION: Is the U.S. offering to help with the investigation at all, send any people or...

BOUCHER: I think this is a Pakistani investigation that they wanted to conduct by themselves.

QUESTION: Is your rather restrained response to all this now due in any way to a concern or a fear that President Musharraf's hold on power is so tenuous that it might be further eroded by U.S. condemnation?

BOUCHER: Our concern is that this be a complete and thorough series of steps that can stop the proliferation from Pakistan -- stop the activities of these individuals and help the world get at this, sort of, private network of people.

We see Pakistan doing those things and we want to see them continue. That's what we're talking about here.

QUESTION: Has the secretary made any calls to President Musharraf or has Deputy Secretary Armitage made any calls to Pakistani officials about this recently?

BOUCHER: Not that I know of.

QUESTION: Just to go back to the issue of the pardon in the context of the investigation, what's -- is the point of the investigation, in your mind, just to make sure that this activity stops and doesn't happen again or is it also to find those responsible and to make sure that they're brought to justice?

And what is the incentive or the disincentive for other such proliferators or black market operators to not take this type of activity if they see that it won't be punished?

BOUCHER: Once again, the matter of punishment, the matter of what to do about the individuals involved is a matter for Pakistan to decide.

BOUCHER: From the United States point of view, the broader picture is to stop the proliferation activity and to help the international community get at the networks that have been involved.

QUESTION: I mean, just to reiterate the question -- I mean, if you're going to...

BOUCHER: I'll reiterate the answer then.

QUESTION: Well, but I know. But if you want to try and stop this activity, I mean, if people see that there's no consequences for this, why would they not continue to do it?

BOUCHER: I don't think people are seeing that there are no consequences for this. There may be different consequences in different cases. It may be different consequences in different countries. But the broader point is to stop the activity and help the international community get at the problem.

QUESTION: So do you expect Malaysia, when it pursues its investigation, to also issue pardons to people who've...

BOUCHER: We would expect any country that is conducting an investigation to decide what's the appropriate penalties under their judicial system and their laws.

QUESTION: So you are relying on the Pakistanian investigation and how can you be sure that investigation will be fair and to the point where it will satisfy the international community, including the IAEA, because the people investigating are the same people involved in one or another way?

BOUCHER: If you want to ask questions about who's investigating and how thorough a job they'll do, I mean, really those questions have to be answered on the ground.

QUESTION: The U.S. is not investigating?

BOUCHER: We're not involved in this particular investigation.

QUESTION: Not in determining...

BOUCHER: ... and certainly.

QUESTION: ... (OFF-MIKE) investigation by the United States?

BOUCHER: I'll finish my answer. We certainly have been following this situation. We certainly have and will continue to develop our own information.

Director Tenet spoke today about how we had uncovered much of this activity, working with other governments and how our intelligence services had figured much of this out. So it's certainly an area that has been of concern and will continue to be of concern to us.

The goal is so that all of us in the international community can find this activity where it's occurred and stop it.

Johann
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 04 Feb 2004

Postby Johann » 06 Feb 2004 02:25

Originally posted by Gudakesa:
And it is hard to take all this "pressure" on Pakistan seriously when this has been going on for more than 12 years with the knowledge of western governments. It is disingenuous to pretend that this was not known until it came out now miraculously, now. It does not fool people, it just irritates them. There is also no reason to have any faith in the credibility of monitoring further proliferation. Also, as Rajesh has put it, the horses have bolted.
Is India always honest in its official public statements about what it thinks of Musharraf and Pakistan?

Is it holding Bangladesh publicly accountable for the involvement in subversion and terror within India? Or do other priorities (such as the worst case scenario of Bangladesh turning openly hostile) force it to maintain a working relationship regardless? If at some point Indian policy changes towards Bangladesh, dont you think people will say, I'm shocked and horified that things are as bad as they are?

Havent most of those that got out been captured? What makes you assume that the stables were empty when the doors were shut?

There's no doubt that there were mistakes in Western threat assessment. Its possible to recognise that without public self-flagellation. What matters if indeed the stables really are being watched properly now. Thats what really matters, and that is worth putting energy and thought in to.

Rangudu
BRFite
Posts: 1751
Joined: 03 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 04 Feb 2004

Postby Rangudu » 06 Feb 2004 02:27

Guys,

Can someone post any link to a video of Mushy's press interview/statement today?

He has made some statements that may be critical to understanding what's going on.

Raj Singh
BRFite
Posts: 101
Joined: 23 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 04 Feb 2004

Postby Raj Singh » 06 Feb 2004 02:33

Johann

Is it holding Bangladesh publicly accountable for the involvement in subversion and terror within India? Or do other priorities (such as the worst case scenario of Bangladesh turning openly hostile) force it to maintain a working relationship regardless?
Very valid questions indeed. :)

Absolutely nothing against you whatsoever (hope you will understand what I am saying here) when I ask (read wonder), how come no other Indian has come forward to put things in this manner, to explain things.....

Sridhar
BRFite
Posts: 838
Joined: 01 Jan 2001 12:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 04 Feb 2004

Postby Sridhar » 06 Feb 2004 02:34

R:

There's a link on this page to a video of the interview

http://www.pakistanvision.com/site/

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7805
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 04 Feb 2004

Postby Gerard » 06 Feb 2004 02:36

India could have helped pressure Pak: Strobe Talbott

the Clinton administration's point man for India following the

1998 nuclear tests believes New Delhi's failure to follow US advice on export controls robbed Washington of the "leverage" it needed to crack down on Pakistan's nuclear proliferation activities.
We knew where the Ghauri came from, where all the magical equipment at Kahuta came from".
"One of the reasons we pushed export control benchmarks with India was not because we were worried India would proliferate. We wanted Pakistan to tighten up. You know the perverse dynamics of the subcontinent: you do Pokhran, they do Chaghai. So we thought there could be a benign version too. India signs the CTBT and agrees to export controls; and then Pakistan follows."
India could have given us the leverage if it had moved on the export control benchmarks. But it didn't. Finally, 9/11 gave the US leverage by bringing regime change right on Pakistan 's western borders. I think

Mudy
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 38
Joined: 10 Aug 1999 11:31
Location: USA

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 04 Feb 2004

Postby Mudy » 06 Feb 2004 02:37

What is US objective at this stage to expose Pakistan/AXK?
Are they confident, Pakistan will deliver OBL in plater before Nov Pres. election?
Why Pakistan will do, now they are getting Hafta on monthly basis and all sins are ignored? Well they are in best situation and why should they get rid of paid Balcony seat.

Today's Mushy conference/speech shows he is more confident and happy he f***ed rest of world.

Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 04 Feb 2004

Postby Rye » 06 Feb 2004 02:40

Originally posted by Gerard:

Strobe Talbott says:

So we thought there could be a benign version too. India signs the CTBT and agrees to export controls; and then Pakistan follows.
Talbott must think that the brown rice-eating yindoos are a bunch of dimwits to swallow such "logic", and calls the logic in the subcontinent "perverse".
:roll:

So, Strobey, is the strategy to increase the risk of nuclear holocaust in India's neighbourhood, so that you can push for signatures on various "treaties" that are not even worthy of use for hygenic purposes.

suryavir
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 27
Joined: 06 Feb 2003 12:31
Location: usa

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 04 Feb 2004

Postby suryavir » 06 Feb 2004 02:41

What matters if indeed the stables really are being watched properly now. Thats what really matters, and that is worth putting energy and thought in to.
Johann, 1) What gives you the confidence - after so many lies that Musharraf has been caught red-handedly with - that he can be trusted now for certain that he will permanently clamp down on proliferation? 2) How can anybody rest assured that the international community (led by the US)has the will and the wherewithal to blow the cover off the proliferation racket and ensure its permanent death?

From the song-and-dance that is being played out now, it looks like deja vu, all over again, many times over. I ask this question seriously, are you sanguine that this is the final nail in the coffin of proliferation? And if so, what is the basis for your confidence and what mechanisms - international laws, sanctions, inspections, etc. -can and should be put in place?

Raj Singh
BRFite
Posts: 101
Joined: 23 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 04 Feb 2004

Postby Raj Singh » 06 Feb 2004 02:47

Johann

There's no doubt that there were mistakes in Western threat assessment.

That is/would be a real understatement....

Rangudu
BRFite
Posts: 1751
Joined: 03 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 04 Feb 2004

Postby Rangudu » 06 Feb 2004 02:48

Originally posted by Sridhar:
R:

There's a link on this page to a video of the interview

http://www.pakistanvision.com/site/
Thanks Sridhar!

Guys, you HAVE to watch Musharraf press conference!

He was FURIOUS! It is really funny as well as informative.

He read out KKhan and Hoodbhoy's aricle headlines and blasted the local press. He also blasted Aslam Beg. "Main Khushi say kehna chahta hoon kee Mirza Aslam Beg sahib aur Karamat sahib kee bhee debriefing huee" :D

"Haan hum nay Underworld say jauhri bum banaya. Hindustan nay bhee underworld kaa istemal kiya. Europe walay mulavviz hain"

"Hum compromise karnay vaalay naheen hain. Libya ney ghutnay thaik deen, Iran nay bhee"

"Naa kisee nay hamay phone kiya hai, naa ham nay kisee ko. Lekin humaari marzee jo hai vohee ham karangay"

"Hum nay press ko bahaut freedom dee hain. Lekin National interest kay baaray main sochna chahiye. Agar aapnay prove kar diya hai ki army mulavviz hain yaa siyasat mulavviz hain, to hamay rogue state banana chahtey hain kya? Sanctions laana chahtain hain kya?"

A must watch for Pakistan watchers!!

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 04 Feb 2004

Postby svinayak » 06 Feb 2004 02:51

Originally posted by Rangudu:
He was FURIOUS! It is really funny as well as informative.

He read out KKhan and Hoodbhoy's aricle headlines and blasted the local press.

A must watch for Pakistan watchers!!
[/b]
Who is who of the 500 family oligarchy is present in the audience.

This is Bollywood dialogue.

Javed Akhter may have written the dialogue.

Hilarious

Compromisch nahi karne wala hoon.

che bari maud dekhi hai.
------------

Thamaam nuclear assets control me hain.
Thakhat hain

Umrao
BRFite
Posts: 547
Joined: 30 May 2001 11:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 04 Feb 2004

Postby Umrao » 06 Feb 2004 03:02

Folks>> In one word (of Hyderbadi)

Musharaf gadu paheli baar damakh ladainchundu anna" :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Mushy is :whine: :whine: that Pakistani press is also :whine:

******************
Added later Just like the NP Jihadis who cant live without bringing India into Pakistani discussions, MUshy and his Paki chelas cant talk about Nook Proliferation with out talking about Kashmir

Rangudu
BRFite
Posts: 1751
Joined: 03 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 04 Feb 2004

Postby Rangudu » 06 Feb 2004 03:09

My letter to Toronto Star

Why such surprise at Pakistan nukes?

Why is everyone shocked at the recent ``revelations" on Pakistan's nuclear dealings? The United States has long been aware of this. In fact, most people in South Asia were aware of Pakistan's nuclear ties to Iran, Libya and other rogue nations for a long time. In the 1970s, Pakistan's largest cricket stadiumwas named after Libya's Col. Moammar Gadhafi. But I bet most American intelligence officials ignored looking into why the Libyan leader would get this honour from distant Pakistan.

Reports now say that former U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, Robert Oakley, was informed of Pakistan's nuclear deals with Iran in the early 1990s. But at that time, as it is now, it was diplomatically expedient to look the other way and place blame on rogue scientists.

The fact is when convenient, U.S. allies were allowed to flout non-proliferation laws with impunity.

Raman
BRFite
Posts: 268
Joined: 06 Mar 2001 12:31
Location: Niyar kampootar onlee

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 04 Feb 2004

Postby Raman » 06 Feb 2004 03:35

Originally posted by suryavir:
Johann, 1) What gives you the confidence - after so many lies that Musharraf has been caught red-handedly with - that he can be trusted now for certain that he will permanently clamp down on proliferation?
Suryavir,

I can only guess that this time, it is going to be the US that is doing the monitoring. The US is now going to be permanently 'jacked in' to the Pakistani C3I infrastructure. Not great news for India, because that would make the Pakis and US allies of a kind; shared assets leading to shared interests.

2) How can anybody rest assured that the international community (led by the US)has the will and the wherewithal to blow the cover off the proliferation racket and ensure its permanent death?
This is an open question. From the US POV, they don't care if anybody else is rest assured or not. I can only hope that this is enough of a wake up call to never, ever let Pakistan outside their close supervision. EVER. The rest of the world is irrelevent in this sordid drama, except for China, who gets to chuckle from the peanut gallery

Added later: say, what are the odds of BD getting nukes within the next 10 years or so? Chinese, of course. No huge delivery infrastructure needed, a couple of short-range missiles that can reach Kolkotta ought to do rather handsomely. Now that Pakistan is spinning ever so rapidly into the US orbit, the Chinese will need to whip up a new pain in the rear.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53971
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 04 Feb 2004

Postby ramana » 06 Feb 2004 04:09

Pioneer, 2/6/2004....
Dr Khan's story: Thy hand, great Gen!

Udayan Namboodiri/ New Delhi

No comments please. We are Indians. Please understand that we are currently in the middle of one more peace process with Pakistan. So this nuclear proliferation-Dr A Q Khan business is not happening.




Official India is tight-lipped over the import of Pakistan's nuclear father playing the willing scapegoat over PTV. But the dangers implicit in converting Dr Khan's public apology into a lid to cover up the world's biggest ever case of nuclear proliferation cannot be overstated.



Since 1998, New Delhi's implorations to the international community on the need to take notice of the one, and often two-way, supply of fissile material, know-how and knocked down assembly lines for missiles from Pakistan went largely ignored. Now, in its hour of vindication, New Delhi is playing coy.



Meanwhile, in Pakistan, a macabre act is further trivialised by melodrama in the form of "protest demonstrations" staged by the MMA and housewives outside the residence of Pakistan's 'Dr Strangeglove'. Not surprisingly, General Musharraf has "bowed" to public pressure and pardoned him.



So, unless the United States blows the whistle, General Pervez Musharraf and his ilk, by far the bigger actors in the scam, may never have to account for their misdeeds. In the medium to long term, many of these criminally talented men may well rise to positions of supreme importance in Islamabad and even influence its India policy. Above all, the world's next big nuclear proliferator will have a legitimate claim for clemency from the civilised world by citing how the generals of Pakistan got away in 2004.



Dr Khan's story, as he himself revealed over PTV on Tuesday, is full of holes. Nothing that he did could have happened without his government's knowledge. Pakistan's nuclear collaboration with Iran goes back to 1984 when the director of the Nuclear Technology Centre, Isfahan, Dr Gnadi Mohammad Mragih, visited Pakistan. The links got solidified into an informal partnership between the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran (AEOI) and the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) over the next few years.



In early January 1991, three Iranian delegations - one led by its foreign minister, a second comprising 51 military officials led by Major General Rezai, the then Commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps and an Army technical team headed by Brigadier General Mohammad Oskui visited Pakistan. This visit resulted in the signing of an agreement in March that year, which led to the identification of specific areas of cooperation. The visits by Pakistani scientists to Iran and their Iranians counterparts to Pakistan intensified. In November 1991, the Pakistani Chief of Army Staff visited Iran and signed a secret agreement to create a joint military commission with a specific provision for transfer of uranium enrichment technology to Iran. Iran was also assured help to operationalise a nuclear research reactor for the production of plutonium. The closeness that developed between the two countries can easily be gauged by the fact that Iran's foreign minister was the only foreign dignitary allowed to visit the nuclear test site, Chagtai Hills, after Pakistan "went nuclear" in May 1998.



Cut to 2000. The Clinton administration is trying to make up for years of inaction which resulted in Pakistan, a terrorist state by any definition, laying claim to the status of a nuclear power. But by April, that is a month after Clinton's public snub to the Pakistani nation in a televised address during his brief halt in Pakistan, about 30 Pakistani nuclear experts were working on a secret nuclear project in the outskirts of Teheran.



These experts faced some problems in 2001 and sought assistance from China's Shanghai Nuclear Engineering and Research Institute. On February 26, 2003, 18 more nuclear scientists and technicians reached Teheran to replace those already there. It is now well known that the secret project related to uranium enrichment and development of a plutonium production reactor. This fact came to the public domain only recently with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) discovering the secret nuclear facility in Natanz.



Proliferation was Pakistan's worst kept secret. Often Pakistan's own leaders sang out in public about this. For instance, on August 29, 2003, its foreign minister Khurshid Kasuri, who was on a visit to Teheran, stated: "Pakistan supports the right of Iran to develop its peaceful nuclear programme, concomitant to its adherence of its obligations under the arms control and disarmament agreements that it is a party to."



Islamic hardliners in Pakistan maintain that Dr Khan did nothing wrong. Afer all, Iran and Libya are muslim countries, Pakistan is not a signatory to NPT and, therefore, by this morality, he is above board. This was articulated by Qazi Hussain Ahmed, the chief of Jamaat-e-Islami, which enjoys terrific following in the Pakistani military establishment, in two interviews to BBC this week. This encapsulates the mentality of the average Pakistani soldier.



Lastly, how could General Musharraf, a rising star in the Pakistani Army since General Zia-ul-Haque's days, be innocent of all these developments? Dr Khan today admits what India knew all along. He had visited North Korea at least six times since March 1994 and actively promoted Pyongyang to Islamabad missile technology transfer in return for supply of uranium enrichment technology. Does the General mean to say that his government did not know what Pakistan gave in return for the Ghauri missile?

------------
Interesting huh?

Div
BRFite
Posts: 327
Joined: 16 Aug 1999 11:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 04 Feb 2004

Postby Div » 06 Feb 2004 04:32


Mehta
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 17
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 04 Feb 2004

Postby Mehta » 06 Feb 2004 04:53


James Bund
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 59
Joined: 08 May 1999 11:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 04 Feb 2004

Postby James Bund » 06 Feb 2004 04:59

To claim that the West did not have leverage against Pakistan, as Strobe Talbot does, is disingenuous-unless they thought pariah status would rally the Isamist masses and increase funding and proliferation activities. I accept that the US did not find it expedient to live up to its own stated policy goals and ideals.

Of course the nuclear serpent is out and may well bite 'someone' in the a$$. Americans can rest assured
1 it won't be Indian plutoniumdispersed in a truck bomb detonation in Times square.
2 they have a finite amount of time to correct their own policy short comings in Pakistan.

There are no other guarantees in South Asia.

But I don't see any reason for moral outrage. The US will control Pakistani nukes, not as a favour to India; but in its own self-interest.

pran
BRFite
Posts: 110
Joined: 09 Oct 2001 11:31
Location: internet

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 04 Feb 2004

Postby pran » 06 Feb 2004 05:07

Just watched Riff-Raff's Ulta Pulta show
N^3's N^2 message has hit home hard among the RAPE & media.His hand is being forced to come out with the truth. One Editor posted this in another thread that "he is being given enough rope to hang himself" seems to be happening.
He is working hard to present his intact credentials to the domestic bovine audience who were sacrificed to pay for the missing jewels.It also appears to be a collective decision that the inquiry be limited to Xerox Khan..He blamed the Iranian and Libyan Govts. of treachery.He reiterated over and over again that no one is doing GUBO.Well scripted DRAMA.While speaking about underworld he tried his best to skip the D connection Mush is selling short in D-company futures.

Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Re: Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 04 Feb 2004

Postby Rye » 06 Feb 2004 05:09

Originally posted by James Bund:
But I don't see any reason for moral outrage. The US will control Pakistani nukes, not as a favour to India; but in its own self-interest.
I do not see such actions a "favor to India" or a positive thing from India's POV. However, I strongly support the US moves to gain greater control of the Pakistani army and its various jihadis, for it will accelerate the fall. That should make the various mullah and maulanas who have been spewing against the US either (a) start reversing their claims on the US being the devil No. 1 to their flock
or (b) start consolidating power and weaken the paki army further.

(a) is against Indian interests but it is not likely to happen. But then, the paki mullahs have been a disingenuous oppurtunistic bunch no better than the RAPES when it comes to sending all their kids to western countries, while railing against these same countries in public.

(b) would result in castrating the pakjabi RAPES and Paki army for ever, and let the retrograde mullahs in power. This fits very well with Indian interests.

(c) US manages to maintain a sort of status quo with the power held by pro-US group (paki army/RAPE) and all the anti-american sentiments flourishing amongst those not in power, just like in Saudi Arabia.

(c) is possible, but pakistan is no saudi arabia...no oil, which means large US handouts for a long time to come.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests