Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 07 Feb 2004

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Feb 2004 11:21

Old thread will soon be archived

Please do not delete this thread from the trash can until Feb 21st 2004

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 08 Feb 2004 11:36

a few good points to note from the nytimes link:

To many intelligence experts in Washington, Mr. Khan was a threat far more urgent and imminent than Mr. Hussein.

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.

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.

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.

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.
 LIER!!!!
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

Calvin · Post by **Calvin** » 08 Feb 2004 12:09

Repost from other thread with additional notes:

11/2000 - US issues proliferation concern regarding KRL
3/2003 - US Sanctions on KRL
5/2003 - Armitage visits to discuss sanctions on KRL
6/24/2003 - Musharraf meets Bush at Camp David.
6/2003 - Addressing a public rally while Musharraf is at Camp David, Gen. Aziz Khan says that people in uniform 'should not play politics'. Describes the US as the “no. 1 enemy of the Muslim world”. Goes on to say that resolving Kashmir would not lead to peace between India and Pakistan. ISPR attempts to supress the story, which is reported in the Washington Times.
7/2003 - Fazlur Rehman visits India.
8/2003: Musharraf's ceasefire proposal rejected by the Indian government.
8/2003: Laloo Prasad Yadav visits Pakistan
8/29 - Pakistan states no link with Iran program
10/1 - Armitage criticizes Pak support for resurget Taliban (in DC)
10/2 - Jamali meets Bush at DC
10/3 - Hatf III tested
10/4 - Two days earlier on the 4th of October, German charter freighter BBC China destined for Tripoli with an unlisted cargo of centrifuge parts loaded in Dubai was diverted to the Italian naval base of Taranto with the co-operation of the owners. The intelligence for the operation became available to the UK and US in September. The components had been acquired through AQ Khan's procurement network of international fixers, in this case largely from Malaysia, via a Muslim Sri Lankan middleman in Dubai.
10/5 - Pakistan launches "offensive" against Taliban
10/6 - Abizaid, Rocca and Armitage visit Musharraf (Army House), Provide CIA documents on AQK links to Iran/Libya
10/6 - Azam Tariq is gunned down
10/6 - Azam Tariq and 4 companions assassinated in his car in Islamabad. Some 70 protestors attempt to storm ISI headquarters but are turned away by SSG troops.
10/8 - Pakistan tests Shaheen I
10/8 - Pakistan launches "crackdown" on Zalikhel-Qarikhel tribe in South Waziristan
10/14 - Ariel Sharon declares once again that Libya may become the first Arab country to build the bomb, with the help of North Korea and Pakistan. Unlike his statements in September 2002, Iraq’s name is absent from the list of those providing assistance to Libya, and there is much greater certainty over Pakistan’s involvement.
10/15 - Hatf IV tested
10/18 - Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah visits
10/18 - Borchgrave warns of Pak Nukes being moved to Saudi
10/18 - Pak-China naval exercise in Shanghai
10/20 - ARD President Javed Hashmi convenes a press conference to release a letter written by dissident PA officers. Army leadership is described as corrupt and incompetent, and Musharraf as a traitor to the cause of Islam for his assistance to the Coalition in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The letter urges parliamentarians to seek greater accountability for Kargil and other matters. Hashmi is arrested a week later.
10/20 - ACM Kareem Sadaat visits China for 7 day visit
10/22 - Jamali visits Iran reaches agreement on "defence cooperation" with Khatami
10/22 - India announces 12-step CBMs
10/22 - Indo-China border meeting in New Delhi
10/23 - Pakistan and Turkey reach agreement on "defence production"
10/29 - Javed Hashmi arrested
10/30 - Saudis announce extension of $1 billion "oil facility"
10/31 - Musharraf visits China
11/3 - Pak-China sign defense agreement.
11/5 - 5-6 NOV 2003: Pakistani Education Minister Zubaida Jalal visits Washington DC to meet NSA Rice, Dty Sec Def Wolfowitz, Asst. Sec State for South Asian Affairs Rocca and senior members of Congress to discuss reform and control of Pakistani madrassas.
11/6 - Pakistan protests bugging of HC in London
11/8 - Iranian delegation led by a deputy foreign minister, Gholam Ali Khoshru, arrived in Islamabad, use "careful formulation" to say they had acquired components and designs in '87 from the black market -- they mentioned Dubai -- and said two of the individuals involved were of South Asian origin, though not from the same country. They hinted they were under scrutiny from the IAEA and would have to make these declarations" about who had supplied the technology. - One South Asian is Tahir (Sri Lankan), is the other AQK?
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
11/16 - Pak re-bans 3 terrorist groups
11/20 - IAEA letter to Pakistan on proliferation
11/2? - Pak team visits Vienna (IAEA)
11/? - Pak team visits Iran
11/24 - Ceasefire offer
12/3 - Banned terror groups bank accounts frozen
12/6 - First four nuke scientists debriefed
12/8 - US launches "Operation Avalanche" in Afghanistan
12/13 - Assassination Attempt on Musharraf
12/13 - Saddam Captured
12/19 - Libya owns up to Nuke Program
12/22 - AQK is questioned for the first time
12/26 - Assassination Attempt on Musharraf (Real one?)
1/1 - Asher Karni arrested at Denver for selling 400 spark gaps to Pakistan - nuclear triggers also used in medical equipment
1/1 - Parliament Endorses Musharraf's presidency
1/4 - SAARC Summit ends
1/6 - India/Pak Agreement for dialogue
1/6 - US says Musharraf not involved in Libyan nukes
1/8 - Pak launches "offensive" on Afghan border
1/12 - Brajesh in China for Border Talks
1/13 - Bush announces strategic ties with India
1/13 - Hurriyat invited for talks on 1/22
1/17 - Top Hizb commander killed in JK
1/17 - Eight more nuke scientists to be debriefed
1/18 - Gorshkov deal signed
1/21 - Sinha meets Bush, Powell discuss next steps on strategic path
1/21 - Powell says Musharraf is taking "right steps"
1/22 - Hurriyat agrees to a "durable" solution
1/23 - Musharraf meets Cheney at Davos "we will act over nukes"
1/24 - David Kay replaced
1/26 - New Afghan Constitution is signed into law
1/28 - US plans for "spring offensive" publicized
1/29 - GHQ to be shifted to Islamabad
1/29 - AA missiles around Islamabad noted
1/29 - Pakistan Joint Chiefs meet
1/31 - AQK removed
2/1 - AQK admits guilt
2/5 - Tenet admits intel lapses in Iraq
2/5 - Musharraf pardon's AQK
2/6 - Kamran Khan discloses that CIA report was provided in October by US, revealing that profits from sales went back to Pakistani Authorities
2/8 - Musharraf says AQK can keep his money.
2/8 - Musharraf talks to Powell, Powell to visit Pak soon.
2/8 - Brajesh and Kasuri in Munich
2/8 - NYT says Pak weapons are implosion type similar to Nagasaki weapon - implies Pu device
2/8 - US says that Pak nukes under US Liaison Committee control, including launch codes and PALs.
2/9 - Pak says AQK not given "blanket" pardon - probably result of Powell conversation.

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 08 Feb 2004 12:19

Pakistan is ready to implode under its own duplicity .US -PAK relation is likely to nose dive in not so near future no matter who the next US president is.The point is how US is going to take the nuclear teeth out of pakistani arsnel -most likely by force and when maybe in a few months time.This time pakistan will have nowhere to run when joint US-India-Israel and maybe Russia knocks on the door and requests admission .

Calvin · Post by **Calvin** » 08 Feb 2004 12:23

To review Kamran Khan's latest piece, I thought it would be interesting to go back into the archives and see what was said at the time.

http://www.dawn.com/2003/10/07/

ISLAMABAD, Oct 6: US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said on Monday that Washington was absolutely convinced that Islamabad's security and military apparatus was 200 per cent behind President Gen Pervez Musharraf.

"In no way do I have any sign that those running the security forces as institutions are anything but 200 per cent behind the nation and behind the President (Gen Pervez Musharraf)," Mr Armitage said during a brief talk with journalists after a working lunch with Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri at the Foreign Office here.

The US deputy secretary of state's comments came in response to a couple of questions on his last week's statement that he was not sure if the whole rank and file of the Pakistan security services were cooperating in the US-led anti-Al Qaeda campaign in the tribal areas.

Asked whether this statement amounted to saying that President Pervez Musharraf as the Commander-in-Chief of Pakistan Army did not have full control over his troops, he said: "There is no question in my mind about the total sincerity of the efforts put forth by Gen Musharraf. I said there was some question of some individuals in the security services who might not have the same affection, that is the same energy and the same regard, for the efforts of President Musharraf."

When it was pointed out that his latest statement was in sharp contrast to the doubts he expressed last week and what made him change his position, he reiterated: "I say there is no question in my mind and I don't think in anybody's mind in Washington that the institutions are firmly behind the president and the nation, and as I said 200 per cent."

Dilating on the same subject, Mr Armitage stated: "I said in Washington last week that there seem to be some individuals who did not share the same affection and let me reiterate I mean the same amount." However, he hastened to add: "But in terms of institutions we are absolutely convinced all the institutions, military or security, are behind the President (Musharraf)."

To a question on the Kashmir and the peace process between Pakistan and India, he said discussions on Kashmir continued to be high on the agenda, adding that the issue was also high on the agenda during the recent UN General Assembly session.

The US deputy secretary of state said he held "very good discussions" with President Musharraf and the foreign minister on this issue.

"From Washington's perspective the issue of Kashmir is one that has to be resolved through dialogue. We continue to seek its resolution through discussions," he maintained.

When his attention was drawn to the 'Glide Path' security programme entailing nuclear, missile and space technology development that the US and India had agreed to jointly pursue, he promptly clarified that it was a "civilian nuclear cooperation."

On Pakistan's concern about its implications on the security of the region given that the conventional arms balance was already in favour of India, Mr Armitage said: "As I assured our friends here in Pakistan and last month in New York to our colleagues that anything we did that affects Pakistan we are extraordinarily sensitive to."

In this context he emphasized that Washington was fully mindful of the "sensitivities of feelings" in Pakistan. "We do not feel that we are engaging in anything that will disrupt the status quo where it is detrimental to Pakistan," was his clear message.

On the question of US compensation for families of the two Pakistani soldiers killed by the American forces along the Pakistan-Afghan border a few weeks ago, Mr Armitage said: "I know the compensation discussions are going on."

Earlier, Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri, who flew in from New York on Sunday night, made a brief opening statement. He characterized Pakistan's relationship with the US as "robust and long-term" which, he said, was evident by the frequent high-level contacts between the two countries. He termed the visit of Mr Richard Armitage and Assistant Secretary for South Asia Ms Christina Rocca "very successful."

The foreign minister said he had "an in-depth interaction" with the US officials on bilateral relations, regional situation, Afghanistan and war on terrorism.

"Both sides expressed hope for continuation of the engagement between Pakistan and the United States."

Reciprocating Mr Kasuri's sentiments, Mr Armitage said: "This is a special relationship to the United States, one that President Bush treasures particularly."

Mr Armitage made it clear that Washington was interested in a relationship with Pakistan that was not merely based on global war on terror but one that covered the entire gamut: economic, social and political.

He said he had engaged in discussions with officials here following up on his trip to Kandahar and Kabul the other day.

"We shared with president and foreign minister our impressions of Afghanistan and were able to have in-depth discussions with President Musharraf," Mr Armitage told journalists.

He said he was "quite thrilled" with the discussions with President Musharraf earlier in the morning. US Ambassador to Pakistan Nancy Powell also accompanied Mr Armitage. Richard Armitage later called on the defence secretary.

The US deputy secretary of state arrived here on Sunday night after a day-long trip to Afghanistan. He was scheduled to leave Pakistan on Monday night.

member_6082 · Post by **member_6082** » 08 Feb 2004 12:49

B.Raman's article in Outlook
Reading B.Raman's above article hinting the transfer of Iraq's WMD material to Pakistan, I can't help wondering that if this is true and is brought out, then Unkil will redeem his image regarding iraq, and also whisk away Mushy's vital assets along with Iraq's followed by Mushy holding a press conference saying "Sirf Iraq ka samaan le gaye hain, hamaray vital assets koi 'naeen' lay ja sakta. Main bata raha hoon, merey hote huye koi hamaree cheezen nahin lay sakta!"

Bhai George · Post by **Bhai George** » 08 Feb 2004 13:06

My 0.02 paise

>Unlurk
Pak's current discomfiture wrt proliferation, is a temporary blip, with likely unfavorable long term consequences for India. Pak might emerge from its current mess, a stronger rival to India with US help. Our neighbor's current status as a near pariah state, is subordinate to its utility to the US, in the short and long term. This is going to result in the US working to try and clean Pak up, to India's detriment.

It doesn't serve India's interest for Pak to clean up its act and focus on strengthening its economy and institutions, something Pak is likely to do now at the US' behest. It is in the US interest to see Pak become a strong and functioning state, something that country currently is not - in part because we drove it into that situation. Paks proximity to Central Asian fuel reserves;the country's potential for breeding forces inimical to the US; and its option value as a future hedge against India, are among the chips that Pak will use to gain continuing support for itself and the causes it supports, even if the support comes at a price.(Pak presumably will continue to think little of mortgaging its future and its well being in its quest to 'liberate' Kashmir). This means that the current situation in Pak is of little consequence to us and doesn't diminish Paks' nuisance value in the long run.

If Kashmir is not settled, Pak will - on its own strenght and as an agent of our other rivals - have some ability to impact our strategic goals. These include a)a place at the UN (of questionable value), and b) our evolution into a strong,dominant economic, political and military player in Asia and beyond. At best,from our point of view, Pak might delay our achieving these goals, and give our rivals a competitive edge while doing so. At worst Pak will seriously impair our ability to achieve these goals.

If Kashmir is settled, it is unlikely to be settled to Paks' satisfaction. This might encourage Pak to compete with us economically and politically. It's going to be hard enough achieving our goals without having some fanatically determined rival stoop to irrationality just to see us fail, even if they hurt themselves in the process.

We are best served if Pak breaks up into helpless fragments(that we can play against each other), and its nuke capacity is consequently taken away by the US. Having Pak in its current state of jihad-inspired economic and political torpor may be the next best option. Anything that moves Pak out of this state into a situation where it focuses on economic, political and military progress won't serve our purpose. Unless, highly improbably, this progress leads Pak to leave us alone(a scenario with a very high utility value, but ultimatley a low expected value).

Paks' nuisance to us goes beyond its proliferation and even beyond its nuke capacity. It is an all weather, all purpose irritant,and especially so because it lends itself so easily to other rivals of ours. China propped Pak as a military rival to us, and might now decide to try and prop Pak up as an economic rival. Already, China is investing in software and outsourcing parks in Pak. Even without approaching Indian levels of capability in these fields, Pak can develop suffiecient capability to slow us a bit.

Mainly because of the strong role the military plays there, Pak was stuck in a game of playing catch up militarily with India. That suited us well particularly because it drove Pak near-bankrupt. The fallout of the profileration scandal is likely to move Pak away from that near-fatal game, India led it to play. That transformation can't be good news for India, without its leading to a complete reformation of the Paki mindset.
> Lurk

Prateek · Post by **Prateek** » 08 Feb 2004 13:11

'US will learn, the day Pak bombs fall on it'

We at Expressindia.com appreciate our readers' interest in sending comments on Pak deadlier than Osama, Saddam: US media and are pleased to publish the live discussion which is taking place:

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 08 Feb 2004 13:21

Calvin,

Your chronology missed the critical event that set the stage for the meetings of 6 October, 2003.

Two days earlier on the 4th of October, German charter freighter BBC China destined for Tripoli with an unlisted cargo of centrifuge parts loaded in Dubai was diverted to the Italian naval base of Taranto with the co-operation of the owners. The intelligence for the operation became available to the UK and US in September. The components had been acquired through AQ Khan's procurement network of international fixers, in this case largely from Malaysia, via a Muslim Sri Lankan middleman in Dubai.

One correction; Lt. Gen. Lance Smith,USAF is Centcom's deputy commander.

Other major developments that deserve to be included;

24 JUN 2003: Musharraf meets Bush at Camp David.

JUN 2003: Addressing a public rally while Musharraf is at Camp David, Gen. Aziz Khan says that people in uniform 'should not play politics'. Describes the US as the “no. 1 enemy of the Muslim world”. Goes on to say that resolving Kashmir would not lead to peace between India and Pakistan. ISPR attempts to supress the story, which is reported in the Washington Times.

JUL 2003: Fazlur Rehman visits India.

AUG 2003: Musharraf's ceasefire proposal rejected by the Indian government.

AUG 2003: Laloo Prasad Yadav visits Pakistan

6 OCT 2003: Azam Tariq and 4 companions assassinated in his car in Islamabad. Some 70 protestors attempt to storm ISI headquarters but are turned away by SSG troops.

14 OCT 2003: Ariel Sharon declares once again that Libya may become the first Arab country to build the bomb, with the help of North Korea and Pakistan. Unlike his statements in September 2002, Iraq’s name is absent from the list of those providing assistance to Libya, and there is much greater certainty over Pakistan’s involvement.

20 OCT 2003: ARD President Javed Hashmi convenes a press conference to release a letter written by dissident PA officers. Army leadership is described as corrupt and incompetent, and Musharraf as a traitor to the cause of Islam for his assistance to the Coalition in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The letter urges parliamentarians to seek greater accountability for Kargil and other matters. Hashmi is arrested a week later.

5-6 NOV 2003: Pakistani Education Minister Zubaida Jalal visits Washington DC to meet NSA Rice, Dty Sec Def Wolfowitz, Asst. Sec State for South Asian Affairs Rocca and senior members of Congress to discuss reform and control of Pakistani madrassas.

Prateek · Post by **Prateek** » 08 Feb 2004 13:34

Pakistan's nuclear skeleton back in closet

Pakistan's nuclear skeleton back in closet

HAROON SIDDIQUI

Even Pakistanis don't believe their top nuclear scientist did it all on his own. Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan couldn't possibly have transferred technology to North Korea, Iran and Libya without government complicity.

But they wanted their national hero spared. He fulfilled their aspirations when little else had gone right, from the economy to democratic governance.

More than him, they wanted their nuclear program saved.

"We will eat grass if we must, to make the bomb," prime minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto declared in the 1970s.

Incredible sacrifices were made to make the resources available to fulfill the dream.

Khan's televised confession, followed by a pardon by President Pervez Musharraf, suited both the people and the military.

It also suited America, the other most interested party in this worst scandal of illicit nuclear proliferation. Washington wanted Musharraf saved. It may even have co-conceived the choreography of the last few days.

Had Khan been put on trial, Musharraf would have become even more of a marked man than he is. He would have risked his job and the U.S.-Pakistan relationship he forged post-9/11.

Nationwide protests would have erupted and turned anti-American, so heavy is the Pakistani emotional investment in the nuclear program and so high the anger at George W. Bush.

The twin sentiments are not restricted to the "Islamic fundamentalists" or "Muslim nationalists," as assumed by the West in its self-delusion. They cut right across the entire social and political spectrum of Pakistan. Lest we forget, Bhutto was a wine-loving secularist.

Khan on trial could have named names, though two former army chiefs have ostensibly been cleared after questioning.

Best he fall on his own sword. And close the closet on the skeleton. He said so in his three-minute confession: "I appeal to all citizens, in the supreme national interest, to refrain from any further speculations and not to politicize this extra-sensitive issue of national security."

No wonder Musharraf, a general who combines the bluntness of a commando and the smoothness of the politician he now is, was combative at his 90-minute news conference the next day.

"My job here is, number one, to protect my nation and, number two, to protect the honour and dignity of our hero. But I'll never reverse the order."

How could he consider a person a hero who sold state secrets for princely sums? Never mind.

And if, as he said, neither the government nor the military was involved, and Khan still pulled off his racket, what does that say of the mantra, repeated by Bush recently, that the nuclear program had always been absolutely secure? Never mind.

Musharraf asserted that Pakistan "will never roll back its nuclear assets. This will never be done. This is my promise." Nor would he open the nuclear facilities to the International Atomic Energy Agency. "This is a sovereign country. No documents will be given."

Language right out of the manual of the unilateralist Bush. No wonder the White House is uncharacteristically quiet.

Khan, an émigré to Pakistan from India, studied in Karachi before going to Germany, Holland and Belgium, where he did his Ph.D. in metallurgy. In 1972, he joined an engineering firm near Amsterdam.

Khan was cleared to work at Urenco, a joint venture of Britain, West Germany and the Netherlands formed to end the European reliance on American enriched uranium. That is where he copied the classified centrifuge technology.

In 1975, he and his Dutch-speaking South African wife left for Pakistan. He had been recruited by the Bhutto government, by then obsessed with the need to match India's explosion of a nuclear device a year earlier.

Mythology soon surrounded him: "The spy of the century." "The most successful nuclear spy since Klaus Fuchs and Alan Nunn May took their secrets to the Kremlin."

But the story was only as poetic, or prosaic, as any involving nuclear development by stealth, from the Manhattan project to ones in China, Israel and India.

In Holland, Khan was convicted in absentia of industrial espionage. At home, he had carte blanche to buy whatever he needed from wherever he could.

In 1998, Pakistan matched India's nuclear explosion. With North Korea's help, it acquired missiles to match India's.

The highly decorated Khan was also amassing immense wealth, but with corruption rampant, few cared. Washington told Musharraf it suspected Khan of trafficking in nuclear secrets. The president listened politely but did little.

However, the recent opening up of the Libyan and Iranian programs uncovered the treasure-trove evidence that could no longer be ignored.

On Friday, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell called the Khan caper "a success." A prolific nuclear proliferator had been put out of business.

Even U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, expressed understanding of Musharraf's balancing act.

They can read the geopolitical realities. But, as ElBaradei said: "Dr. Khan was not working alone." He was "the tip of the iceberg" of the staggering black market in nuclear components and designs, stretching from the Netherlands to Germany to the Middle East to Malaysia.

All those connections need to be cut, front companies closed, traffickers prosecuted.

But the problem is bigger.

Those who have nuclear capability want to keep the club exclusive. The fewer the better, of course.

But the idea invites derision in the face of the deafening silence that surrounds the Israeli nuclear arsenal. You don't have to be in Europe or Asia long before hearing the double standard argument.

New states want nuclear weapons for the same reason the old ones did: to increase their clout. The only way to dissuade them is to have multilateral rules, fairly applied. You can't deal with Iran and Libya one way and North Korea another.

Similarly, efforts to stop nuclear states from proliferating also need consistency.

The 11-nation Proliferation Security Agreement, under which members interdict suspect shipments on the high seas, is effective. But the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is not. India, Pakistan and Israel never joined. North Korea pulled out.

If creating a level playing field is too utopian, then we have to live with the idea of trying to curb cloak-and-dagger operations with selectively applied half-measures hyped with even more selective moral outrage.

There is Musharraf's charade and there is ours.

Prateek · Post by **Prateek** » 08 Feb 2004 13:39

The next thing in pipe line is probably Pakistan signing NPT and CTBT without India signing it ???

Pakistani Looses Nuclear Genie
February 8, 2004

http://www.ctnow.com/news/opinion/editorials/hc-khan.artfeb08,1,6463107.story?coll=hc-headlines-editorials

The world is a far more dangerous place today because greedy bomb-makers in Pakistan, in cahoots with an international ring of black market middlemen, sold nuclear technology to regimes with an ax to grind.

Over the past two decades, secrets were sold to Iran, Libya, North Korea and who knows how many other states or movements with an itch to become radioactive. The motive simply was profit, said the ringleader, Abdul Qadeer Khan, until recently Pakistan's chief nuclear scientist.

Mr. Khan, the "father" of his country's nuclear bomb, is a disgrace who should be hauled before an international tribunal to answer for his greedy recklessness. Instead, the world's nuclear police might have to settle for a trip to Islamabad to discuss proliferation issues with Mr. Khan's protectors in the Pakistani government.

President Pervez Musharraf has pardoned Mr. Khan and called him a hero, thus heading off any trial that might expose Islamabad's complicity in the clandestine technology sales. The scientist is now confined to a loose house arrest.

Mr. Musharraf is acutely sensitive to Mr. Khan's widespread popularity in Pakistan among religious conservatives. The president, who is unpopular with the Islamists, has survived two recent assassination attempts.

To their credit, Libyan and Iranian officials blew the whistle on Mr. Khan's fire sale of nuclear know-how. Their leads could help efforts of the International Atomic Energy Agency to expose the rest of the nuclear black market network.

Pakistan has much to answer for. It should sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, subject its nuclear program to outside scrutiny and require Mr. Khan to cooperate with the IAEA. If it doesn't meet these conditions, Pakistan, should face international sanctions.

Although Washington has rightly denounced the avaricious behavior of Pakistan's nuclear scientists, U.S. officials dating back to President Lyndon B. Johnson's administration can't claim the moral high ground. It was with American and Chinese help that the Pakistani nuclear program got started.

If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at ctnow.com/archives.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 08 Feb 2004 13:49

Boys, I'm on the move and I have an URGENT request. I need to do a concise summary and set of links between proliferation activities linking Pak with Al Qaida - all that UTN/B. Mahmood/Gul sh1t. I have it myself at home, but unfortunately no access to it and no time to sift it out of BR archives. I need it to be within the next six hours, by which time I'll have to put it together in a "shuitable manner"

. I need just the relevant links. Please help.

I promise you, it is for a truly valuable purpose in terms of spreading the message...

Prateek · Post by **Prateek** » 08 Feb 2004 13:51

At Least 7 Nations Tied To Pakistani Nuclear Ring

By Peter Slevin, John Lancaster and Kamran Khan
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, February 8, 2004; Page A01

VIENNA, Feb. 7 -- The rapidly expanding probe into a Pakistani-led nuclear trafficking network extended to at least seven nations Saturday as investigators said they had traced businesses from Africa, Asia and Europe to the smuggling ring controlled by Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22508-2004Feb7.html

Three days after Khan confessed on television to selling his country's nuclear secrets, Western diplomats and intelligence officials said they were just beginning to understand the scale of the network, a global enterprise that supplied nuclear technology and parts to Libya, Iran, North Korea and possibly others.

"Dr. Khan was not working alone. Dr. Khan was part of a process," said Mohamed ElBaradei, director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Vienna-based U.N. agency that is conducting the probe along with U.S. and other Western intelligence agencies. "There were items that were manufactured in other countries. There were items that were assembled in a different country."

Meanwhile, Pakistani officials disclosed that they had launched their own probe of Khan's activities in October after the Bush administration presented what one senior official described as "mind-boggling" evidence that Khan was peddling nuclear technology and expertise to Iran, Libya and North Korea, and had attempted to do the same with Iraq and Syria.

The evidence included detailed records of Khan's travels to Libya, Iran, North Korea and other nations, along with intercepted phone conversations, financial documents and accounts of meetings with foreign businessmen involved in illicit nuclear sales, the Pakistani officials said.

Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, was personally briefed on the evidence on Oct. 6 by a U.S. delegation led by Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage. Gen. John Abizaid, the head of U.S. Central Command, made a similar presentation to Pakistani political and military leaders, the officials said.

"This was the most important development for us since 9/11," one of the Pakistani officials said. "One more time, the ball was in the court of General Pervez Musharraf."

Khan, known in Pakistan as the creator of the country's atomic bomb, acknowledged in the televised statement Wednesday that he had passed nuclear secrets to others, saying that he acted without authorization from his government. A day later, Musharraf pardoned Khan.

U.S. and U.N. investigators say Khan's nuclear trading network represents one of the most egregious cases of nuclear proliferation ever discovered. Using suppliers and middlemen scattered across three continents, the network delivered a variety of machines and technology for enriching uranium, a key ingredient in nuclear weapons. In the case of Libya, at least, it provided blueprints for the bombs themselves.

Khan's network provided "one-stop shopping" for nuclear technology and parts, said a senior U.S. official, who described how supply met demand in what amounted to a centralized ordering system.

"If I want to buy an IBM computer, I don't have to go to every single element of IBM," the official said, by way of analogy. "I can go to their salesman, and he fixes me up just fine."

Diplomats familiar with the Pakistan operation say Khan and his closest associates were the "salesmen" who filled orders for Libya and other customers. In the case of Libya, representatives of Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi contacted the Pakistanis, who relayed the requests to middlemen.

The middlemen, in turn, found suppliers to produce the necessary components. Finished parts were then shipped to a firm in the Persian Gulf emirate of Dubai, which arranged for delivery to Libya. The interception of a significant shipment of components in Italy last fall led to Gaddafi's decision to eliminate his nonconventional weapons programs, U.S. officials contend.

Companies or individuals in at least seven countries, including Pakistan, were involved, knowledgeable officials said. Among the countries known to be involved are Malaysia, South Africa, Japan, the United Arab Emirates and Germany. A company in another European country was also involved, two diplomats said.

The commodities produced for Libya ranged from electronics and vacuum systems to high-strength metals used in manufacturing gas centrifuges, which are used in making enriched uranium.

"It was a remarkable network that was able in the end to provide a turn-key gas centrifuge facility and the wherewithal to make more centrifuges," said former IAEA inspector David Albright, a physicist who has studied the nuclear procurement networks of Iran and Libya. "The technology holder was always Khan. Suppliers came and went, but Khan was always there."

Libya and Iran have already given investigators the names of many of the companies and middlemen involved, and are continuing to offer more, according to Western diplomats familiar with the investigation.

Two German businessmen identified by Libya as alleged suppliers of centrifuge technology -- Otto Heilingbrunner and Gotthard Lerch -- have been interviewed by IAEA investigators but not charged with any crimes, according to two officials close to the investigation. A third German named by Libya, Heinz Mebus, is now deceased. All were formerly employed by companies that manufacture equipment used in gas centrifuges.

Heilingbrunner, reached by phone at his home in southern Germany, said he tried to sell aircraft parts to Iran in the 1980s, but said he never sold nuclear technology to anyone.

"I never did business with this junk," said Heilingbrunner. "I do not know how they came up with me." A senior Bush administration official said the Khan connection may have provided everything Libya acquired for its nascent nuclear program, including weapons designs. The designs were later handed to U.S., British and IAEA officials in Tripoli and are now being studied in the United States.

The disclosure of Armitage's October visit by Pakistani officials provides new details of a claim made this week in a speech by CIA Director George J. Tenet. Tenet said the intelligence agency had successfully penetrated Khan's network long before the IAEA went to Pakistan in November with evidence of illicit technology transfers to Iran.

Two Pakistani officials said Armitage presented the case against Khan and several other associates during a meeting with Musharraf at his official army residence in the city of Rawalpindi. The Americans asked Pakistan to verify the information independently and to take action against those involved, the officials said.

"We were told that Pakistan's failure to take action will most certainly jeopardize its ties with the United States and other important nations," one of the Pakistani officials said. The U.S. officials warned Pakistan that failure to act on the information could lead to sanctions by the United States and the United Nations.

Musharraf was said to be stunned by the detailed evidence against Khan and his associates. "It seemed that the Americans had a tracker planted on Khan's body," a Pakistani official said. "They know much more than us about Dr. Khan's wealth spread all over the globe."

Among other things, he added, the U.S. officials presented evidence of Khan's alleged attempts to sell nuclear secrets to Saddam Hussein when he was president of Iraq and reported that Khan had traveled to Beirut for a clandestine meeting with a top Syrian official in the mid-1990s.

During the second week in November, an Iranian delegation led by a deputy foreign minister, Gholam Ali Khoshru, arrived in Islamabad, according to a third senior Pakistani official.

"They used a very careful formulation," the official recalled of the visit. "They said they had acquired components and designs in '87 from the black market -- they mentioned Dubai -- and said two of the individuals involved were of South Asian origin, though not from the same country. They hinted they were under scrutiny from the IAEA and would have to make these declarations" about who had supplied the technology.

Shortly afterward, the IAEA delivered its findings on Iran in a two-page letter, and Pakistan's investigation began in earnest. Musharraf ordered the Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI) and Strategic Planning and Development Cell to check out the evidence that had been provided by the United States and the U.N. agency, the officials said.

ISI officials traveled to Malaysia, Dubai, Iran and Libya and "found that evidence against Dr. Khan was accurate," one of the officials said.

Staff writer Joby Warrick in Washington and researcher Shannon Smiley in Berlin contributed to this report. Lancaster reported from Islamabad and Khan from Karachi.

Bhai George · Post by **Bhai George** » 08 Feb 2004 13:53

The weapons research labs at Kahuta are the country's most tightly protected facilities, and it beggars belief to accept the official version that the army had no idea what was happening there. I recall an incident in the mid-eighties when the French ambassador (no less) was beaten up by strapping men in tell-tale white shalwar kameez as he and a deputy stopped their car near the KRL fence. Despite protests, the matter was hushed up. So tight is the security there that even elected prime ministers were not allowed entry: when Benazir Bhutto asked Gen Aslam Beg, the then army chief, to arrange a visit, she was apparently told that "briefings at Kahuta were on a need-to-know basis, and she currently had no need to know."

http://www.dawn.com/weekly/mazdak/mazdak.htm

Prateek · Post by **Prateek** » 08 Feb 2004 13:53

'Pakistan Not to Take any Dictations on Nuclear Facility'
Pakistan Times Monitoring Desk
http://pakistantimes.net/2004/02/08/top2.htm

Powell arriving to discuss N-issue -- Detail Story
http://www.hipakistan.com/en/detail.php?newsId=en53063&F_catID=&f_type=source

Washington rules out apology -- Detail Story
http://www.hipakistan.com/en/detail.php?newsId=en53075&F_catID=&f_type=source

Pak press slams Musharraf
http://us.rediff.com/news/2004/feb/07pak1.htm

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Feb 2004 14:49

Originally posted by Bhai George:
My 0.02 paise

>Unlurk
Pak's current discomfiture wrt proliferation, is a temporary blip, with likely unfavorable long term consequences for India. Pak might emerge from its current mess, a stronger rival to India with US help. Our neighbor's current status as a near pariah state, is subordinate to its utility to the US, in the short and long term. This is going to result in the US working to try and clean Pak up, to India's detriment.

Pakistan has reached its current shape with all the help the US (and China) have given it for fiftyish years.

The "US cleaning Pakistan up" IMO is one of those fond things that many of us on this board refer to among those unfrigginbelievable superduper thoings that the US is supposed to be able to do.

The US cannot clean Pakistan up via the army - and in fact the US is doing us a great long term favor by supporting the Pakistani army and yet not arming those buggers to the teeth.

Pakistan will become a serious problem if it becomes a close enough ally to be supplied with readymade weapons and spares from the US. That will delay things a bit for us, but I am thinking really hard about what kind of thought process the US would need to re-arm Pakistan without shooting itself in the foot.

Oh yes - if Pakistan is nook nood AND the weapons are removed - the US could offer Pakistan a "nuclear umbrella." I am sure Packees would love that and jump at the opportunity.

jrjrao · Post by **jrjrao** » 08 Feb 2004 16:34

Amir Mir with more inside details.

In intricate behind-the-scenes moves, Pakistan's military buys Qadeer Khan's silence and pardons him his 'guilt'

Use the correct the URL from below..

www . outlookindia . com/full.asp?fodname=20040216&fname=Pakistan+%28F%29&sid=1

jrjrao · Post by **jrjrao** » 08 Feb 2004 16:39

From above:

Though Dr Khan has taken complete responsibility for nuclear proliferation to Iran, Libya and North Korea, diplomatic sources close to the US embassy in Islamabad claim the US intelligence has acquired irrefutable documentary evidence of a trilateral nuclear cooperation involving Pakistan, Iran and North Korea. The evidence, sources say, was extracted from a group of 20 senior scientists from North Korea who had defected to the US and its allies in March 2003, through a smuggling operation involving the tiny Pacific island of Nauru.The defections involved 11 countries which provided consular protection to smuggle the scientists from neighbouring China.

Among those debriefed in Washington was the father of North Korea's nuclear programme, Dr Kyong Won-ha. Their debriefing convinced the US about the existence of a nuke-for-missile deal between North Korea and Pakistan, proving indubitably that Islamabad had been sharing sophisticated nuclear technology with Pyongyang since 1997....

As the proliferation controversy broke out following the IAEA report's release in November 2003, Gen Musharraf, say diplomatic sources, tried to absolve himself, claiming nuclear leaks occurred before he took over. "However," says a diplomatic source, "pictures of a Pakistani C-130 loading missiles for Pakistan taken by a US satellite at the Pyongyang airport in 2001 were enough to refute Musharraf's claims. These missiles were exchanged for nuclear weapons technology. The ISI was in charge of the operation, approved by Gen Musharraf."

These sources say the American intelligence community has evidence showing Islamabad's willingness to sell enriched uranium and a nuclear power plant at the time Musharraf was wearing the three hats of president, army chief and chief executive.

jrjrao · Post by **jrjrao** » 08 Feb 2004 17:12

From a Rahul Bedi report in the Irish Times titled "Frightening story of a rogue nuclear scientist", dated Feb 7:

Reports from the US said there were "suspicions" that Syria or Saudi Arabia had also been clients of Khan's network and that Iran appeared to have bought more technology than it had declared to UN inspectors.

"During the last 48 months, Khan made as many as 44 overseas trips to Dubai, Malaysia, Libya and Iran," a government official who declined to be identified told a news agency in Islamabad . "When he was in Malaysia last year we summoned him back for fear that he might be picked up by some foreign agency," he added.

The Pakistani establishment's anxiety to prevent Khan from being questioned by the US or any other Western country is understandable. "It wanted to put the lid on the matter by stopping it at Khan and by preventing him from revealing details about the military's involvement in the proliferation scandal," a security officer said.

Umrao · Post by **Umrao** » 08 Feb 2004 18:16

Shivji>> you are forgetting the power of Indiana Jones, (who also visits this forum) just send him he will beat the crap out of Pakis, nukes or no nukes.

Its just matter of Time N Korea will be co opted in the war against terror.

You might ask who is terror then to fight, yes you got it as per Prez advisors and his gaming friends its India.

Rak · Post by **Rak** » 08 Feb 2004 19:57

Bush Says Saddam Had Capacity for Nukes

Jee I wonder how ?

nachiketa · Post by **nachiketa** » 08 Feb 2004 20:02

Originally posted by shiv:

Originally posted by Bhai George:
My 0.02 paise

>Unlurk
Pak's current discomfiture wrt proliferation, is a temporary blip, with likely unfavorable long term consequences for India. Pak might emerge from its current mess, a stronger rival to India with US help. Our neighbor's current status as a near pariah state, is subordinate to its utility to the US, in the short and long term. This is going to result in the US working to try and clean Pak up, to India's detriment.

Pakistan has reached its current shape with all the help the US (and China) have given it for fiftyish years.

The "US cleaning Pakistan up" IMO is one of those fond things that many of us on this board refer to among those unfrigginbelievable superduper thoings that the US is supposed to be able to do.

The US cannot clean Pakistan up via the army - and in fact the US is doing us a great long term favor by supporting the Pakistani army and yet not arming those buggers to the teeth.

Pakistan will become a serious problem if it becomes a close enough ally to be supplied with readymade weapons and spares from the US. That will delay things a bit for us, but I am thinking really hard about what kind of thought process the US would need to re-arm Pakistan without shooting itself in the foot.

Oh yes - if Pakistan is nook nood AND the weapons are removed - the US could offer Pakistan a "nuclear umbrella." I am sure Packees would love that and jump at the opportunity.

US will not clean up Pak any more than what is needed to keep it under its control. Their preferred style of maintaining control over client states is puppets like Mushy.

Shiv, I don't think the weapons will be removed (atleast we (India) will never know). If India knows that the weapons are removed, then there is no deterrent to keep us from unravelling Pak. Once Pak is unravelled there is no foothold for the US in South Asia. The ideal state for a foothold for the US is a dictatorship/kingdom etc, where they have to buy/control just a few men. These men will then do the dirty work of keeping the populace under control. I don't see afghanistan fitting the bill. On the other hand Pak with the PA and General Mush ruling is a perfect candidate.

If the US succumbed to some "democracy for people", "leader of the free world" crap, I would think they are extremely stupid geopolitically. This is a fantastic opportuinty for them and rightly there are not letting go.

This is no longer about trapped monkeys. The gorilla has entered the picture to sit on the monkey and now we have deal with a it instead of a puny monkey.

Calvin · Post by **Calvin** » 08 Feb 2004 20:32

Reading through some of the old Dawn articles in my attemptt o piece together a timeline I noted a rather interesting turn of phrase:

"He will discuss a range of regional security and bilateral issues including the status of US assistance programme on global war on terror."

Now, I've always thought that the US expected assistance *FROM* the Pakistanis. This means thath within the "war on terror" there is a program wherein there is US assistance TO Pakistan.

Perhaps this is diplomatese for the "US Liaison Committee"

Johann - good points. What I continue to be unable to understand is *WHY* AQK was trotted out (obviously by US interests) as the fall guy (12/22) and why 6 weeks later he was pardoned unconditionally (2/5). What was achieved by this?

SaiKrshna: As JOhann has pointed out the latest transfers occured in October 2003.

Div · Post by **Div** » 08 Feb 2004 20:35

Probably too late, but what the heck...

On the Record with Greta Van Sustren

ARNAUD DE BORCHGRAVE: After all, the nuclear establishment of Pakistan is already fundamentalist. The head of it is Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, who is a national hero in Pakistan and has sympathies with the Taliban, clearly, prior to 9/11. As a matter of fact, two of his nuclear scientists visited Afghanistan to confer with Mullah Omar, and I believe they also met with Usama bin Laden -- Mullah Omar being the head of Taliban. That was a few short weeks prior to 9/11. And one has to assume that they were discussing something to do with a nuclear device.

When this story broke -- I was one of the journalists who broke that story -- the Pakistani government immediately said that these two nuclear scientists had visited Afghanistan and conferred with the Taliban leaders on an agricultural project, which of course, taxed this observer's credulity.

Doubts About an Ally

It is in this context that it's advisable to consider the problem of the Pakistani nuclear program and the dangers of proliferation that it presents -- with Iran certainly, but also with al Qaeda and the still-at-large elements of the Taliban. In my book I bring up the case of the so-called "father of the Islamist bomb," the man after whom Pakistan's leading nuclear laboratory is named, Abdul Qader Khan. He is a revered figure in his country. He is cheered in the streets. His birthday is sanctified in the mosques. I witnessed an Islamist demonstration in which gigantic portraits of him led the march. But this man has long been not only a government official but a fanatical Islamist. This public figure, this great scientist, this man who knows better than anyone (since it is he who developed them) the most sensitive secrets of Pakistan's nuclear program, is both close to the ISI and a member of Lashkar e-Toiba, a group closely allied with al Qaeda. My story concerned Khan's "vacations" to North Korea and his links with bin Laden's men; one of my hypotheses is that Pearl may have been killed to prevent him from reporting on such trafficking of nuclear know-how.

Link

A bomb for the Ummah
Some of Pakistan’s nuclear scientists believe that the bomb should be shared with all of the Muslim community, even—or especially—with Al Qaeda.
http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/2003/ma03/ma03albright.html

shynee · Post by **shynee** » 08 Feb 2004 20:50

Most of our discussions are based on Pakis providing nuclear technology to Iran,North Korea and Libia. What about the Saudi angle ? If Saudi's bankrolled the Paki nukes, wouldn' it be easier assume that Saudi's have bought a few ?

Div · Post by **Div** » 08 Feb 2004 20:59

Yes, more here;
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20031020-115059-8319r

Calvin · Post by **Calvin** » 08 Feb 2004 21:02

From the earlier posted scenario:

Pakistani nukes are still in Pakistan, but under the effective control of US forces. Its possible that this occurred in the aftermath of Parakram and was responsible for India standing down. There might also have been an element of a US threat to India to not take advantage of the situation (see: Paddy's novel). Rereading Musharraf's December 2002 comments about nuclear threats may be instructive in this regard.

Having secured these nukes, remember these are still in Pakistan. Formalizing the denudation would probably result in civil war, hence the desire to maintain the status quo. This "fact" of de-facto US control is probably known to a very small group of people. Musharraf is one of them. It is possible that Yusuf is another (hence the repeated pointers to Yusuf as the anointed one).

Now this secret pact gives the US some leverage, in that they can threaten to publicize this fact or actual remove the weapons pre-emptively - and let Pakistan go to the dogs. And currently, the US needs leverage with regard to Afghanistan, and presumably Kashmir (due to a quid pro quo that led to the India calling off the dogs of war in June/October 2002).

However, it doesn't give them a lot of leverage, in that they do not want Musharraf gone. Also, they cannot be absolutely certain that Musharraf has turned in all the nukes to them. Therefore there is a vested interest in the survivability of Musharraf. Cohen's recent comment that the key is the Establishment, not Musharraf, suggests that there are others ready to toe the US line. This may not be Yusuf, who may being set up as the fall guy to draw out the anti-Musharraf generals before the Chosen one is trotted out.

Also, remember, the US has effectively controlled Pakistani airspace since October 2001. Any C-130s leaving Pakistani airspace was traced. In fact, the initial leverage the US had with Libya was *PRECISELY* because they knew that Pakistani C-130s were flying into Tripoli. The BBC/China situation (10/4) indicates the depth of US intelligence on the Pak establishment. The BBC/China coupled with Saddam's capture probably led to Tripoli's surrender on nukes (12/19).

Now, notice that AQK was not arrested until the Libyan situation broke publically (12/19). The US had been urging greater action on the Afghan front, launching its own offensive in mid December to no real success. Seeing Musharraf's unwillingness, the AQK story was broken(12/22). Musharraf attempts to gain leverage by claiming an assassination attempt (12/26). Thats when we see even more information leak out (about the finances). The Pakistanis launch an "offensive" in Afghanistan (1/8). The americans are still not happy, and Cheney reads Musharraf the riot act in Davos(1/23). Musharraf can still bolt the door by agreeing to cooperate in Afghanistan. The news of a gathering of anti-Karzai forces readying for war in the spring probably tells us why Musharraf is not ready to sell them out. On 1/28 there is the leak about a proposed "spring offensive." There may have been a fear about the nukes being removed, hence the increased alert in Islamabad (1/28-29)

At this point, Musharraf agrees to cooperate in Afghanistan. The US and Musharraf draft a plan to tie up loose ends - AQK is dismissed (1/31) and AQK who is probably not initially a party to this goes public (2/1) and is then offered the carrot of a pardon and therefore recants his allegations (2/2).

The fact that the US is still defending suggests that Musharraf is being given room to act on his promises. There is more under the "iceberg" that they can trot out at the appropriate time. As of 2/7 there is still no indication of cooperation in Afghanistan. We might expect the screws to get turned again.

This delicate balancing act suggests that the US is getting the results it wants. There is probably more by way of "leaks" that can be made known - the Iraqi/Syrian weapons one would have a lot of leverage and presumably will occur in the aftermath of the Feb 16 meeting with India. The Indian silence is presumably due to promises made in Washington (see Sinha's most recent visit to DC).

The delicate balancing might provide some insight into Shiv's thesis regarding how an assassination makes Musharraf weaker. Perhaps Musharraf has found that appearing weaker actually gains him leverage, in that there are not enough non-Islamic generals it can trust other than Musharraf (and perhaps Yusuf).

The daily whines about the US having "forgiven" Musharraf is probably misplaced. The americans are well versed in realist diplomacy and statecraft. War is diplomacy by other means can also be rephrased as Diplomacy is War (on Terror) by other means.

Look for pliability during the Feb 16 meetings with India, and for a de-surgence of the Taliban.

Does anyone know where US troops still continue to be present in Pakistan.

Mudy · Post by **Mudy** » 08 Feb 2004 21:26

Calvin,
Add dates, Gaddafi's son twice visited Pakistan in last two years.

Rudra · Post by **Rudra** » 08 Feb 2004 21:30

pasni, dalbandin(170m west of quetta) in baluchistan. karachi and jacobabad in sindh. during parakram , PAF was grudgingly allowed to share two of these as a rear area hiding hole but may have been chased out again.

AnantD · Post by **AnantD** » 08 Feb 2004 21:33

Calvin,

I think you have perfectly sequenced the events behind closed doors. You must be a genius.

Raahi · Post by **Raahi** » 08 Feb 2004 21:40

Appropriately, many threads have also proliferated on BR about the happenings. Eventually, threads go to "trash can", just like that 'US will throw Musharraf in the dustbin'

Sunil · Post by **Sunil** » 08 Feb 2004 21:49

Hi,

I am slowly recovering from the shock of discovering that A Q Khan was actually putting money he was making on the nuclear black market into BCCI accounts.

I have spent the better part of last week thinking about the implications of this and I have come away with very grim thoughts.

1) The involvement of BCCI in the sale of material on the Nuclear Black Market is the kiss of death for the War on Terror. One of the major objectives of the War on Terror was to credibly stop the flow of nuclear materials. The USG is no longer in a position to do this. All the claims by the US non-proliferation community about the workability of its protocols are no longer viable.

2) Furthermore a deeper investigation of A Q Khan will only result in further exposure of the BCCI angle and will severely undermine the polity in Washington itself. So just as a deep investigation of links between KSA Royals and Al Qaida cannot be carried out, an investigation of A Q Khan and his chums is out of the question. This has grave implications for counter-terrorist policy.

3) The exposure of A. Q. Khan's network has fundamentally changed the position of the pivot in US-Pak ties. The Pakistanis are now at an advantage. As reward for avoiding the course of political suicide, the Pakistani Army will reward the Americans with a few more Al Qaida dog biscuits. (yes that is worded correctly) There will most probably be some sort of show in the `Lawless Northern Areas' of Pakistan, and at the end of that show, the Pakistanis will `agree under great duress' to stop destablizing Karzai atleast until the US can make a show of it and withdraw from Afghanistan. Barring catastophic events there is nothing that will change Pakistan's position of advantage. Even if General Musharraf is replaced, it will only be more of the same.

4) Without a solid ballast in Non-Proliferation the US Counter-Terrorism policy, which targets the socio-political drivers behind terrorism will wither on the vine. This will deprive the counter-terrorist policy (which seeks to identify and eliminate individuals and groups that carry out terrorist acts) of a broader vision and that will cause the counter-terrorist policy to degrade in efficiency.

5) From the Indian perspective, this is an extremely unfortunate turn of events. It will further polarize Indo-US ties. Unless the US can break free of the Pakistani imposed shackles of Indo-Pak hypenation, Americans will eventually be sucked willy-nilly into a highly degrading and public slavery to Pakistani interests.

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 08 Feb 2004 22:15

Cross Posting from the News thread

<a href=http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... korea>From Yahoo News: North Korean defector said the North launched a uranium-based nuclear weapons program in 1996 with the help of Pakistan<a/>

shynee · Post by **shynee** » 08 Feb 2004 22:17

US not to sanction Pakistan - Daily Whines

shynee · Post by **shynee** » 08 Feb 2004 22:25

satribune is out

Calvin · Post by **Calvin** » 08 Feb 2004 22:40

“They’re keeping the Taliban alive as Plan B,” one US official said.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_8-2-2004_pg1_1

So, what is Plan A?

Sunil S - A couple of comments on your doom-and-gloom scenario:

1. The essence of Pakistani leverage is based on the thesis that BCCI revelations will wreck any administration in DC. So rather than let that house of cards fall down one at a time - would the US not be advised to yank the rug out from under the table - thereby eliminatin the people who would live to tell? IOW, replace the whole damn mess in Pakistan by whatever means necessary? The continuing life of this so called "spring offensive" into Pakistan is probably one aspect of this threat.

2. What happens if Karzai invites India to provide troops for Afghanistan after US troops leave?

3. How do we reconcile Borchgrave's warnings about Pak/Saudi nuke deal, and the subsequent reports of 3000 pak troops being moved to Saudi (Nov 2003)? The saudi's are not interested in learning how to build the bomb, they just want one. So does the US have access to all Pak nukes or not? If not, did Pakistan arrange to have at least one moved to Saudi?

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 08 Feb 2004 22:56

From the past :
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/clifford.htm

I don't think the long defunct BCCI has great political dangers for current US Gov. folks, and it is going to be more of "how could those past administrations have been so blind?" rather than "how corrupt".

Raahi · Post by **Raahi** » 08 Feb 2004 23:04

NBC's Tom Brokaw reports from Pakistan on the controversy surrounding the father of the Pakistani nuclear program and the selling of secrets...NBC Nightly News Monday 02/09/04

Vivek_A · Post by **Vivek_A** » 08 Feb 2004 23:31

Originally posted by Vinod T. Kumar:
Cross Posting from the News thread

<a href=http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... korea>From Yahoo News: North Korean defector said the North launched a uranium-based nuclear weapons program in 1996 with the help of Pakistan<a/>

So North Korea DOES have a uranium based program. That's a shock!!

jrjrao · Post by **jrjrao** » 08 Feb 2004 23:41

FWIW.

BBC Monitoring International Reports
February 8, 2004
HEADLINE: AL-QA'IDAH SAID IN POSSESSION OF "NUCLEAR WEAPONS" OBTAINED IN UKRAINE
Source: Al-Hayat, London, in Arabic 8 Feb 04

"Have Ukranian tactical nuclear weapons leaked to Al-Qa'idah?", published by London-based newspaper Al-Hayat on 8 February

Sources close to the Al-Qa'idah organization revealed yesterday that Usamah Bin-Ladin's organization acquired tactical nuclear weapons from Ukraine after Ukrainian scientists visited Kandahar (south of Afghanistan), the stronghold of the Taleban movement, in 1998 and met senior Al-Qa'idah leaders. The sources added that the visit resulted in a deal by which the organization bought suitcases containing these weapons, which were then placed in "safe places".

Several reports had talked about the disappearance of more than 70 nuclear warheads after the former Soviet Union's collapse.

The same sources asserted that the organization "will not use these weapons in any confrontation with the US forces except in two cases: The first inside the United States because it knows the extent of the massive damages that their use in any Arab or Muslim country might cause and the second in case the organization suffers a crushing blow that leaves it no room for manoeuvre or survival, such as the use of the nuclear or chemical weapon against the organization's fighters."

Identical US and Pakistani sources meanwhile asserted yesterday that the two countries are working strenuously to prevent nuclear technology from reaching Al-Qa'idah. While observers of this file rule out Al-Qa'idah as one of the beneficiaries from the leakage of Pakistan's nuclear technology whose details were revealed recently, they do not however rule out the possibility of nuclear leakage in view of the difficult economic conditions in the nuclear central Asian countries.