Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 04 Feb 2004

[svinayak]

Originally posted by Calvin:
Gentlemen: I found the following interesting

8/29 - Pakistan states no link with Iran program
10/31 - Musharraf visits China
11/3 - Pak-China sign defense agreement.
11/6 - Pakistan protests bugging of HC in London
11/13 - Iran admits to enriched uranium
11/13 - Centcom chief Gen. Lance Smith calls on Musharraf.
11/14 - Pak says agrees with new US "strategy" on terrorism
11/15 - Pak receives CIA report on proliferation

Note for example:
1. The ceasefire offer comes after the Pakistani visit to IAEA in the context of Iran and presumably Libya

2. Attempt #1 was after the ceasefire and more importantly after debriefing of first 4 scientists

3. The second attempt was as soon as Libya owns up to its nuke program and shortly after AQK was debriefed for the first time.

4. The US gives Musharraf a clean chit followed by an ostensible Pakistani offensive on the Afghan border

5. The US then announces a spring offensive into Pakistan to get Omar and Osama, and immediately Islamabad goes on high alert with AA guns etc, and most importantly AQK is sacked.

I think the CENTCOM chief is Gen. Abizaid after Gen Tommy Franks retired.

The key point here is the Pak China defense agreement. The details of this agreement is of importance to many powers. But that agreement has triggered series of events world wide including the current revelations.

The full scale excercise of Russian forces with nuclear component has to be looked with this agreement in mind. Any signs of Chinese buildup or preparation may reveal the extent of this agreement between Pak and China.

Looks like Pak may not able to to get requisite international support for its actions unless the matter go to far more serious level invloving major powers.

[Umrao]

folks>> seriously

when a joker like Mushy lie day in day out, and then goes on to exhort his country pres to lie too
and then mocks Iranians and Libyans

why should India enter into talks with that country and what legitmacy will such talks treaties understanding have if any?

Hurmor in Uniform personified Mushy zindabad

[Vivek_A]

Damn...Xerox even offered nuke tech to Syria and Iraq!!

Islamabad received CIA report on Dr Qadeer in Oct

Armitage, Centcom chief came with proof against scientists

By Kamran Khan

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan was left with no option but to institute a swift and thorough investigation into the alleged connections between a few Pakistani nuclear scientists headed by Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan with the nuclear black market, when it was provided ‘mind boggling’ evidence by the top United States government officials, who arrived in Islamabad to meet top military leadership in the first week of October last year, informed officials said.

The government machinery swung into full action when two weeks later the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) not only fully endorsed the US findings, but also in a two-page letter to the government of Pakistan demanded probe and action against a few Pakistani scientists, two senior Pakistani officials confirmed in separate interviews.

"The US government, in order to emphasise the importance of the evidence of nuclear proliferation against Pakistani scientists, used the usual diplomatic channels and at the same time the military channel was used at the highest level," an informed official said.

October 6, 2003 was the crucial day on the subject. On this day the US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and Assistant Secretary of State (South Asia) Christina Rocca, loaded with intelligence information against Dr A Q Khan and a few other nuclear scientists, called on President Pervez Musharraf at the Army House in Rawalpindi and requested an independent verification, followed by a stern action against the scientists named in the report, an official said.

"We were told that Pakistan’s failure to take action will most certainly jeopardise ties of the country with the US and other important nations," an official said. "Nuclear proliferation has taken place either you as a country take the responsibility or let the world know if it was an act of some individuals," said the official summarising the message carried by the Armitage-Rocca team.

Underlining the importance and severity of the issue, the US Central Command chief Lt-Gen John Abizaid also arrived in Islamabad for an October 6 meeting with President Musharraf, also at the Army House. Another informed official said that Lt-Gen Abizaid stressed the need for a swift action against the nuclear scientists in separate meetings with other top military officials, including the Vice-Chief of Army Staff General Muhammad Yusuf Khan.

To get the maximum out of their meetings, Armitage and Rocca, who were earlier scheduled to arrive on October 2, advanced their trip to October 5 so that their meetings with President Musharraf coincide with the Centcom chief’s meeting, who landed in Rawalpindi on October 5, one senior official said. Senior officials said that the Pentagon had better ties with Pakistani military establishment than any other arm of the US government.

"Whenever there is an important geo-strategic development in the region, the Centcom gets in touch with the GHQ," commented a senior official.

Two senior officials said that the US government, for its own reasons, didn’t brief Prime Minister Zafarullah Jamali on the findings against the nuclear scientists, though the premier had visited the US during the same week and had meetings with President George Bush and at the Pentagon.

"This was the most important development for us since 9/11," a senior official said. "For one more time the ball was in the court of General Musharraf."

Officials said that the ‘incredible evidence’ collected by the US intelligence services detailed almost all foreign travels of Dr A Q Khan, particularly to the UAE, Malaysia, Libya, Iran and North Korea in the previous few years. Minute details of his meetings with active nuclear black marketers were provided, and documents were given to prove the sale of nuclear hardware and designs to many countries. Bank accounts establishing the profits made through this sale were also handed to Pakistan authorities.

"It seemed that the Americans had a tracker planted on Dr A Q Khan’s body," said a Pakistani official. "They had perfect information on Dr Khan’s abortive attempt to sell nuclear secrets to Saddam Hussain in 1992 and for his travel to Beirut in mid-1990s for a clandestine meeting with a top Syrian government official. They know much more than us about Dr Khan’s wealth spread all over the globe," he said.

"Things got worse when the IAEA stepped in with officially certified statements from Tehran and Tripoli, where the governments were happy to acknowledge Pakistani assistance to their nuclear programme," another senior official said.

"Both, the US government and the IAEA, separately reminded to Pakistan that its failure to pin the responsibly of proliferation activity may ultimately lead to sanctions from the US government and the United Nations," another official said.

At least three Pakistani officials said that despite ‘receiving apparently indisputable evidence’ against Dr A Q Khan and a few other scientists, President Musharraf ordered the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and Strategic Planning and Development (SPD) cell to independently verify each shred of information that had reached Pakistan either from the US or the IAEA.

"Top ISI officials travelled to relevant countries and found that the evidence was accurate," an official said. "Dr Khan’s associates in the country provided the details of corruption and malpractice that were not even available to the outside world."

Informed officials said that the US government presented its full case against the nuclear scientists in October, but twice in the past four years they had notified Pakistan about suspicious activities of nuclear scientists.

"Fairly strong reports were received in November 2000 and in May 2003 when Armitage came to Islamabad to inform us about the reasons behind the American decision to impose sanctions against the Khan Research Labs in March 2003," an official said.

[Vivek_A]

The Kamran Khan report is a bombshell. If this thread gets archived, someone please cross post this in the new thread.

[Umrao]

I am so saaad that you guys at BRF never took me seriously but the Paki (lurkers) chelas of ISI did take to heart my slogan

"A bomb in very back yard and ICBM in the front is the best way to ensure peaceful planet"

[Rak]

Originally posted by Vivek A:
The Kamran Khan report is a bombshell. If this thread gets archived, someone please cross post this in the new thread.

This is no bombshell. This is just a picture perfect example of how USA uses its information for getting what it wants by releasing it along with $$.

[svinayak]

It is called as the multi-tier approach to problem solving.

[shiv]

Originally posted by shynee:
Interesting Iraqi angle to the proliferation episode by B.Raman

--------------------------------------------

.........Pakistani sources claim that there has been another bombshell in the admissions of guilt made by Khan's colleagues and juniors, who are still under custody and questioning. They are reported to have stated that during his over 40 visits to Dubai in the last three years, he had met Iraqi intelligence officials who sought his help in having some of the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) material of Iraq airlifted from Syria to Pakistan for being kept in safe custody there to prevent their falling into the hands of the UN inspectors. ...................
------------------------------------------

Read the full article @ Outlookindia

Hey folks - why does this sound like a situation that can be turned into a win-win one?

Why are there no WMD in Iraq?

Because they have been moved to Pakistan, of course? Saddam DID have WMD - he just sent them back to Pakistan.

[Mudy]

Kamran Khan facts are TSP story to cover up TSP Army, he is saying what Musy was gloating.
Nuke to North Korea is barter. AQK alone can't decide, exchange nuke with missile technology.

[kgoan]

Folks, there's a very interesting point that I just realised we've missed:

China's long term strategy seems to have been rolled up like a carpet.

Recall how there were reports from US and Japanese strategists that China's plan was to "dissipate-US-strength" by ensuring the US had a multiple of crises to deal with in different countries?

Well, seems to me that there's fairly good grounds to wonder ( ) whether Pak's proliferation was at Chinese behest - to every anti-US nation around.

But that's all down the gurgler.

Ok, Iraq is still messy and Dubya might lose, but so what? Decades of Chinese plans have evaporated. Even if Dubya loses, the Chinese will still face the full brunt of US power, since, effectively, there are no "challenger" regimes left.

What difference would it make if that powers wielded by democrats or republicans? It's not as if the carrier battle groups, sent to remind China of the reality in the Taiwan area in the mid-90's, were any the less effective because Bill C sent them, eh?

Folks, what if - I know it's hard to believe - but what if the US really does know what it's doing?

I don't think it pays to underestimate the Hegemon. After all, it wasn't stupidity that gave it hegemony was it?

From our perspective, we may think the US has stuffed up, but that's simply because it's not being obliging enough to glass 'Pindi for us. But from the long term strategic point of view how is the US doing?

If we ignore all the media tripe about Iraq - the deaths of a handful of men every month is hardly going to undermine US global power is it? There is nothing in Iraq or Afghanistan that can damage US global power.

Yes, it can damage the current administration, but an administration is not the US. And as far as the US goes - regardless of Dubyas fate - it is in clover.

Short of OBL getting his hands on a nuke and managing an attack on the CONUS, I don't see this changing.

Do you?

[Umrao]

folks>> Think logically ( as first thing your are told in econ 101, rational behavior, rational expectations, optimization of utility).

Suppose Xerox Khan offered Nukes as stated in Kamran Khan report, and uncle knew it was offered,
why would uncle pre empt such a deal?

(No no I am not talking about uncle's winking habit).

Unlce would wait for the deal to be done material flows into Syria, then he would strike. why

1) Because it could be then said Iraq's bad guy Saddam tranferred the WMD material Syria.

2) The firing on the Russian embassy convoy (at the Syrian border) travelling under white flag.

3) Syria is developing WMD therefore logical extension of O(peration)I(raqi)Liberation to Syria.

4) Then Amrithraj comes to Islamabad says to Mushy you S*Bs you try to double cross now you what super GUBO means and does the usual things.

5) Comes to Delhi and tell us to talk to Pak as Kashmir is Nookler fash point.

So now all this piling up Xerox Khan is nothing unusal, Mushy after all made dustbin of
Nishani-e-Pakistan

The best RAW hide ever turned out to be.

[vijayk]

Originally posted by shiv:

Originally posted by shynee:
Interesting Iraqi angle to the proliferation episode by B.Raman

--------------------------------------------

.........Pakistani sources claim that there has been another bombshell in the admissions of guilt made by Khan's colleagues and juniors, who are still under custody and questioning. They are reported to have stated that during his over 40 visits to Dubai in the last three years, he had met Iraqi intelligence officials who sought his help in having some of the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) material of Iraq airlifted from Syria to Pakistan for being kept in safe custody there to prevent their falling into the hands of the UN inspectors. ...................
------------------------------------------

Read the full article @ Outlookindia

Hey folks - why does this sound like a situation that can be turned into a win-win one?

Why are there no WMD in Iraq?

Because they have been moved to Pakistan, of course? Saddam DID have WMD - he just sent them back to Pakistan.

This poses a classic dilemma for Bush & SD. WOuld they trumpet this info as a proof that Iraq had WMDs. Then they publicly have to agree that Pakis are in bed with Saddam. They can keep quite but WMD in Iraq is slowly eating this administration's credibility. Devil or Deep sea? That is the question for Bush and Powell.

[Rak]

Delicate Dance for Musharraf in Nuclear Case

Pakistanis' Yearning for a Hero Eclipses His Misdeeds

Confronting the Nuclear Threat America Didn't Want to Be True

[MohanJ]

All Hail N^3!!!!!!
Its now 'official', the Emperor is naked.

Source: Yahoo News

U.S. Helps Pakistan Safeguard Nuclear Material

WASHINGTON: The United States has been working secretly with Pakistan to protect its nuclear weapons from falling in the hands of terrorists or rogue commanders, NBC Television reported on Friday.

According to the Network, a group of American nuclear experts called the US Liaison Committee is ?spending millions to safeguard Pakistan?s more than 40 nuclear weapons.? They meet at least every two months and are helping Pakistan develop state-of-the-art security ? including secret authorization codes for the arsenal.

In effect, this would mean the US has virtually taken control of Pakistan?s nuclear arsenal, one reason why Bush administration officials seem to be so sanguine, rather than agitated, about Pakistan?s proliferation activities exposed recently.
--------------------

/Give me my Lollypop back pleeeeese!!

[Umrao]

folks>> Time for a real DANK report, where are all those senior citizens ( of age 2 and less N guru cant be excluded) ?

No pearls of wisdom on this matter?

[rajivg]

Don't jump the gun here. Unkil is no fool. He has the keys to TSP nukes and says to the RATS - you can only have them, IFF you plan to use them on India. This way India is checkmated.

If Unkil has the keys, then I don't see any reason not have an airstrike on Muzafarbad in PoK. Afterall, TSP gives India a chance for attack evey 3 months or so whenever they launch a major terrorist strike in India.

Added Later: The media reports mention the Liason Committee in charge of assessing TSP's nuke program. This committee probably consists of nuclear technology experts from the US govt, academic research labs and military staff. It is very likely that India's friends (read Israeli and Russian) have a little knowledge on what Unkil is up to. They may have important info to pass on.

[Umrao]

This is the kind of advice the prez receives from SOuth Asian experts, Gurus after SD tells them what to parrot.

"He's an egomaniac," said George R. Perkovich, a Pakistan expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Dr. Khan has told interviewers that he devised Pakistan's nuclear weapons program from a desire to have Islamic countries catch up with the West. But Dr. Perkovich painted a different portrait.

"There's almost zero pan-Islamic ideology there," he said. "What's more likely is a rejection of the nonproliferation ethos as something that the Americans and Israelis worry about, but is not Pakistan's problem."

What a joker.

[SaiK]

PAKISTAN MIRRORS IRAQ
Confronting the Nuclear Threat America Didn't Want to Be True
By DAVID E. SANGER

Published: February 8, 2004

WASHINGTON

PLACE side by side the two intelligence problems that captivated Washington last week - Iraq and Pakistan - and you can see stunning, polar-opposite images of what happens when murky intelligence collides with political agendas.

The story of what happened to the prewar intelligence estimates of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction has already been endlessly picked apart, spun and turned to campaign fodder as members of President Bush's cabinet backpedal from the definitive declarations made a year ago. Now the politically crucial part of the mystery - whether America's intelligence agencies misconnected the dots or whether President Bush and his team cherry-picked the evidence and ignored the caveats to justify a war they felt needed to be fought - is falling into the lap of a commission that will report back well after the presidential election.

"Some prewar intelligence assessments by America and other nations about Iraq's weapon stockpiles have not been confirmed," Mr. Bush said Friday. "We are determined to figure out why."

But no one at the White House will say if the commission will examine the equally critical question of whether the administration moved fast enough as the Central Intelligence Agency slowly untangled the nuclear empire of Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of the Pakistani nuclear bomb. As much as Mr. Bush's team wanted to topple Saddam Hussein in Iraq, they wanted to stabilize Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who many experts, from Washington to Islamabad, strongly suspected was turning a blind eye to how Dr. Khan was helping to arm some of the world's most hostile states.

The other burning question in Washington is whether the United States, because it needed Mr. Musharraf's help against Al Qaeda, waited too long to stop Dr. Khan's network as it traded in nuclear secrets and equipment. "We didn't ignore the evidence - far from it," one senior proliferation expert inside the administration said. "But a decision was made not to trumpet it, either,'' for fear of destabilizing Mr. Musharraf and ending up with an extreme Islamic government with a nuclear arsenal.

To many intelligence experts in Washington, Mr. Khan was a threat far more urgent and imminent than Mr. Hussein. For 15 years he peddled his recipes, and the equipment to do the mixing, to the highest bidders. There were many takers: Iran, North Korea, Libya and probably customers whose names have not surfaced yet. "He's the real-life Dr. No,'' a senior American intelligence official said the other day, referring to the evil antagonist of James Bond lore. "Only more terrifying.''

After years of denials, his own and the Pakistani government's, Dr. Khan finally confessed last week. George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, portrayed the unmasking of the Khan operation as a brilliant act of American spycraft. He said the C.I.A. had been tracking Dr. Khan for years, which is true.

But as in Iraq, the story of the intelligence is more complex, a puzzle whose pieces were scattered around the globe. Many were not found until the damage had been done. "We knew he was trading in missiles, and suspected he was getting into the nuclear business as well," Gary Samore, the head of nonproliferation in the Clinton Administration's national security council, recalled not long ago. "But I don't think we knew he was the supplier for Iran's program." Or for Libya's, a fact that emerged over the past year or so, and was not confirmed until inspectors sent bomb designs - for a Pakistani adaptation of a Chinese design - back to Washington two weeks ago.

And as with Iraq, a critical question is how intelligence was put to use. In his efforts to stem proliferation, Mr. Bush has threatened sanctions against Iran and Libya. He demanded that North Korea accept inspections. But General Musharraf has been allowed to play by different rules.

Few of Mr. Bush's aides believe Pakistan's story that Dr. Khan operated alone. He has the deepest ties to the military, which oversaw the Khan Research Laboratories, and supplied it with a cargo fleet. Pakistan got missiles from North Korea, investigators believe, in return for uranium enrichment technology. Clearly, the Pakistani government must have known something about how its new missile fleet materialized.

But when Mr. Musharraf struck a deal last week with Dr. Khan - a televised apology that absolved the government, in return for a full pardon - the White House applauded Mr. Musharraf. When the Pakistani president dismissed as "rubbish'' calls that he investigate the military's role, the White House said nothing. In fact, when President Bush on Friday named the members of the intelligence commission, asking them to examine troubles in penetrating countries whose weapons, ambitions or links to terrorism pose a threat to America, he named Iran, Libya, Afghanistan. Pakistan was not on the list.

"Look, it seems Machiavellian, but it is Machiavelli with a purpose,'' said George Perkovich, a Pakistan expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "It's worth it if you are secretly getting enough cooperation from the Pakistanis to map the entire enterprise and roll it up. But there's always the possibility that you are being played by Pakistan: that they will give you just enough information to keep the money flowing, but not enough to root out the real problem.''

On Friday, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said he would remind General Musharraf that the United States needs "a full understanding of what the A. Q. Khan network has done over the years so that there are no remnants of it left.'' But it is Mr. Musharraf who assured Mr. Powell 16 months ago - after The New York Times revealed that American intelligence had concluded that Pakistan supplied nuclear technology to North Korea, apparently in exchange for missiles - that any such activities were in the past. Exchanges with Libya occurred as recently as five months ago.

Administration officials say Mr. Musharraf went as far as he could, and that even now he is being tarred by the opposition as a yes-man to America. But one risk is that other nations will conclude that if you are a valuable enough ally to the United States, the usual nuclear rules will be waived.

Another risk, notes Michael Krepon, the president of the Henry L. Stimson Center, which works on security issues, is that other nations "could adopt the Pakistani definition of proliferation: If the state needs to swap some nuclear technology to modernize its deterrent, that's defense, not proliferation.''

It's a distinction that no one in the White House wants to discuss.link

[RajeshG]

I still cant figure out why Iran is cooperating so much.

One more question for BR guroos - at one point (i think couple of years ago) there was talk about Russians setting up a few nuclear plants for the Iranians ? What happened to that ? Did they back out ?

[shiv]

Before I lock this thread and start a new one, let me post something that I found on my hard drive - which seems to be links about nuclear proliferation from Pakistan from an old, now dead thread:

In order to prevent screwring up of forum formatting I have deleted the "http" from each url - leaving everything that follows the colon

://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/18/internationa ... l?pagewant
ed=all&position=top
://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/25/internationa ... 5MISS.html
://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20021018-025854-3927r
://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/ ... Oct17.html
://www.cdiss.org/99july9_a.htm ://www.flonnet.com/fl1615/16150090.htm
://meadev.nic.in/news/clippings/19990930/toi.htm
://headlines.sify.com/1276news4.html?headline=US~study~predicts~India
n~intervention~in~Pak~ ://washtimes.com/national/20021018-82935839.htm
://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/missile/
://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/asia-pacific/2340405.stm
://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGA5USV9G7D.html
://www.fas.org/news/pakistan/1998/05/ghauri2.htm
://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/articleshow?art_id=25485861
://www.nationalreview.com/mowbray/mowbray101902.asp
://www.nationalreview.com/mowbray/mowbray101802.asp
://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_87158,0008.htm
://www.paknews.com/main.php?id=3&date1=2002-10-18
://discussions.wsj.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=wsjvoices&msg=2596
://my.netscape.com/corewidgets/news/story.psp?cat=50600&id=2002101816
07000249127 ://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/oct19/img/fcapb.jpg
://www.msnbc.com/news/765161.asp
://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGA0HIAMG7D.html
://play.rbn.com/?url=ap/nynyt/g2demand/1018musharraf_SS.rm&proto=rtsp
&mode=compact
://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/021018/170/2h1pi.html
://www.msnbc.com/news/765161.asp
://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/ ... Oct18.html
://in.news.yahoo.com/021019/43/1wm2o.html
://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,366010,00.html
://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/ ... 67,00.html
://www.msnbc.com/news/765161.asp?0si=-
://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld ... 19,0,43390
71.story?coll=chi%2Dnewsnationworld%2Dhed
://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/articleshow?artid=25654759
://www.oakridge.doe.gov/u233seb/Tm13517.pdf
://nuketesting.enviroweb.org/hew/Pakistan/AQKhan.html
://rediff.com/news/2002/oct/20pak.htm
://www.saag.org/papers6/paper536.html
://www.intelligenceonline.net/allintellige ... 3721201111
20&recno=1447 ://www.msnbc.com/news/823557.asp
://www.isis-online.org/publications/
://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches ... pole_speec
h_120898.html ://www.msnbc.com/news/824035.asp?0na=x22019N1-
://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_88359,00050001.htm
://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/A ... 1/784qxlfp
.asp ://www.rediff.com/news/2002/oct/21jk.htm
://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld ... 22,0,63051
53.story?coll=chi%2Dnewsnationworld%2Dhed
://in.news.yahoo.com/021022/137/1wphx.html
://washingtontimes.com/world/20021022-29434.htm
://www.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire102202.asp
://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/22/internationa ... ?todayshea
dlines ://www.ndtv.com/ - Pak, N Korea had a barter deal: US
://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20021022-80797932.htm
://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/DailyNews/iraq_preps021022.html
://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Gu ... oners.html
://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/ ... Oct22.html
://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/ ... Oct22.html
://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/21/worl ... 6243.shtml
://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/18/internationa ... 8KORE.html
://www.dailypioneer.com/secon3.asp?cat=\edit3&d=EDITS
://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/ ... 0339.shtml
://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/55/193.html
://www.china.org.cn/english/2002/Apr/30418.htm
://www.merip.org/mer/mer220/220_alkadiri.html
://www.csis.org/mideast/reports/MEenergy.html
://www.mees.com/news/a45n42d01.htm
://www.tribuneindia.com/2002/20021023/main1.htm
://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/oct24/fp1.asp
://www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/i ... story.html
://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/ ... Oct24.html
://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/92542_hoagland24.shtml
://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/4356687.htm
://www.dailytrojan.com/article.do?issue=/V ... y.42v.html
://reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=worldnews&StoryID=1616701
://www.swaraj.org/multiversity/paranjape_english.htm
://www.infinityfoundation.com/ECITdecolonizingframeset.htm
://www.infinityfoundation.com/ECITneocolonialframeset.html
://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/DJ23Df03.html
://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/articleshow?artid=25683768
://www.afpc.org/crm/crm372.htm :// ://
://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/DJ18Df04.html</a>
://www.nlcnet.org/China/0401/010412ChinaFactSheet.htm
://hindustantimes.com/news/181_90235,0005.htm
://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/saudi/ ... s2_globe.j
pg ://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/articles/A ... Oct24.html
://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/ ... Oct24.html
://www.menewsline.com/stories/2002/october/10_25_1.html
://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2002/10/25/006.html
://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld ... 25,0,78780
21.story?coll=chi%2Dnewsnationworld%2Dhed
://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/25/internationa ... ?todayshea
dlines ://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/ ... Oct24.html
://rediff.com/us/2002/oct/26us.htm
://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson102502.asp
://www.cato.org/new/05-02/05-08-02r.html
://www.cato.org/dailys/02-28-02.html
://www.washtimes.com/world/20021028-9543907.htm
://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/28/opinion/L28STAN.html
://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB1035841423156683751.djm,00.html
://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,91 ... 04-1,00.ht
ml ://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/ ... Oct28.html
://www.nation.com.pk/daily/today/editor/opi1.htm
://www.wbez.org/services/ram/od/od_021029.ram
://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1030/p06s01-woap.html
://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page= ... 2002_pg3_5
://www.nationalpost.com/world/story.html?i ... ADD-AE0D-9
3D49FCB5FC3}
://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/ ... 2Nov8.html
://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/ ... Nov12.html
://www.stratfor.com/standard/analysis_view ... bscription
site so full article posted.From Stratfor
quote: U.S. Sends Subtle Warning to Pakistan

18 October 2002

Summary

Through a press leak, U.S. officials are saying that Pakistan
illegally aided North Korea's nuclear weapons program. The leak
appears to be a subtle attempt to make sure that Pakistani President
Pervez Musharraf -- who recently gained new leverage against
Washington -- remains cooperative in the battle against al
Qaeda.AnalysisOnly two days after U.S. State Department officials
announced that North Korea had admitted to possessing an active
nuclear weapons program, the New York Times reported Oct. 18 that
Pakistan had aided Pyonyang's weapons development in exchange for
missiles. The article stated that the equipment supplied by Islamabad
-- possibly gas centrifuges needed to create weapons-grade uranium --
apparently was part of a 1997 trade designed to help Pakistan build an
effective deterrent to India's nuclear arsenal.The timing of the leak
is telling: It comes soon after Pakistan's Oct. 10 elections, which
boosted the power of Islamist parties. By releasing the information
concerning North Korea, the Bush administration apparently is renewing
its pressure on Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf to remain
cooperative with Washington's efforts to battle terrorism.For more
than a year, Musharraf has been squeezed between Washington and a
potential Islamic backlash within his own country. However, the
results of Pakistan's Oct. 10 elections left him in a somewhat
improved position. Musharraf's Pakistan Muslim League Quaid-e-Azam
faction, or PML(QA) was the clear winner, but the Muttahida
Majlis-e-Amal Pakistan (MMA) -- a coalition of Islamic parties opposed
to U.S. actions in Afghanistan and Pakistan -- came in a close
second.The MMA's electoral gains have given Musharraf new leverage
with respect to its demanding U.S. ally. While U.S. operations
continue in Afghanistan and segments of Pakistan remain a source of
support for al Qaeda and the Taliban, Musharraf is almost guaranteed
the support of the United States. However, in light of the MMA's
growing political strength, Musharraf more easily can justify limiting
Islamabad's cooperation with the United States.The leak to the New
York Times may be Washington's response to an Islamabad that might be
feeling increasingly independent. The Pakistani army and support from
the middle class are the pillars of power for Musharraf, a secular
militarist. By linking the North Korean nuclear weapons program to
Islamabad, Washington raises the threat that economic-military
sanctions could be levied against Pakistan.Islamabad already has felt
the pinch of sanctions -- over its 1998 nuclear tests -- and the
relief that can come through cooperation with Washington.Prior to
Sept. 11, Pakistan's external debt and liabilities stood at $38.4
billion. With the country facing default, Washington dropped the
sanctions, arranged debt rescheduling and provided $2 billion in
assistance -- in exchange for Islamabad's cooperation with U.S.-led
battle against al Qaeda and the Taliban. Also, the Defense Department
in July announced the pending sale of six C-130 cargo planes and
related equipment and services, valued at up to $75 million, to
Pakistan. Other military and economic payoffs are still dangling,
including greater access to U.S. markets for Pakistani textiles and
renewed sales of F-16s or spare parts for those Pakistan already has
-- which is problematic, since the F-16 is potentially a main nuclear
delivery vehicle.Washington is not likely to levy sanctions quickly,
and the press leak leaves Musharraf with a convenient way out: The
illegal technology exchange with North Korea reportedly occurred in
1997, two years before he came to power. This allows Washington enough
ambiguity to wait, applying pressure only if and when it is necessary.