Pakistan Nuclear Proliferation - 11 Feb 2004

John_Doe · Post by **John_Doe** » 12 Feb 2004 21:26

India should sign NPT as a NWS as long as TSP signs it as a non NWS. Only under those circumstances, should we be willing to sign it.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 12 Feb 2004 21:31

Originally posted by John Doe.:
India should sign NPT as a NWS as long as TSP signs it as a non NWS. Only under those circumstances, should we be willing to sign it.

No, Pakistan should not even be mentioned in the same paragraph on any talks with respect to India and NPT. India will not sign the NPT PERIOD. Unless the definitions of a NWS state is modified to include India. It is probably a better idea to hand the EU and US SD turds a torch light and ask them to shove it.

John_Doe · Post by **John_Doe** » 12 Feb 2004 21:35

Let me clarify: India should only sign as an accepted Nuclear Weapons state and have the same status as USA, UK, France, Russia and China. We exploded a nuke in 1974 and thus if the cut off date is brought forward to 1975, then we would fit in as a NWS.

TSP did not explode a nuke (allegedly) till 1998. Thus they should not be included as a NWS. If they sign the NPT then they would have to rollback their nuclear program under international observation. India, as a NWS, would not.

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 12 Feb 2004 21:38

Originally posted by VRaghav:
Today's Diane Rehm Show:

http://www.wamu.org/ram/2004/r1040211.ram

Featured Terence Taylor and Mike Krepon. Taylor kind of dragged India into the very first response that he gave about AQ Khan's national hero status in Pak. He said even in India such scientists are hailed as national heros etc etc.

Michael Krepon was more or less balanced. But Terence Taylor showed himself to be a Paki apologist. He responded to every criticism of Musharraf with "IndiaPakistan IndiaPakistan IndiaPakistan IndiaPakistan IndiaPakistan "

VRaghav · Post by **VRaghav** » 12 Feb 2004 21:48

Exactly Rangudu. Krepon's responses were terse, crisp and realistic. Taylor, the expert on WMD and one of the former chief weapons' inspectors in Iraq, responded incoherently, almost kissing up to the Bush admin and the terrorist regime of the Pakistani state and seemed to agree with Krepon's responses not without a lump in his throat.

I do hope that the news and mass media people come out with keener investigative reports and tougher questions for the Bush admin and TSP in the coming days.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Feb 2004 21:59

The NPT was formulated for a different era. Its main goal was to prevent West Germany and Japan getting the bomb. India was a drive by shooting victim that has recovered. TSP getting the bomb was power politics by China and US.

The NPT is not sufficient for the post Cold War world. A new treay / regime has to be put together. Till TSP becomes a truly modernisitic state that will not happen. So till then all talk of NPT accession is puerile.
NPT has not prevented proliferation. Its main signatories have proliferated. Now Bush wants to break the bargian that the non weapon states have signed for- access to power technology in the name of proliferation initiative. The whole problem comes from the powers not wanting to address the real issues.

- Proliferation by NPT weapon states
- China, France and even US (allowing sale of inverters to TSP for the centrifuges and leakage of secrets to China -Cox Commission)
- Proliferation by non weapon states (Western Europe)
- Security threats from weapon states
- Ineffectiveness of the UNSC due to power games

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 12 Feb 2004 22:03

Ramana,

Considering that China and France only acceded to the NPT in the 1990s, there is no justification for not allowing India in as a nuclear power.

Rudra · Post by **Rudra** » 12 Feb 2004 22:05

india should also actively work for the irrelevance and breakup of the SecCouncil.

potential new members are NOT being offered veto

veto members are not going to give up veto

in that context, its best to render it irrelevant.
let them sit and drink tea and veto each other in a empty hall with cobwebs on the walls.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Feb 2004 22:29

R, Better to get a new regime in place than join a failed one. The NMD and the new treaty are signposts of naya yug. Same with Sec Council after POKII India has defacto veto power.

There is a reason why those two acceded in 1990s. By then they had proliferated to their hearts content. France may sound holy and benign but dont forget they were at the forefront of selling stuff to Iraq and TSP. It was a French supplied reactor at Osirak that was bombed by Israel in 1981. By 1990 China had done its deed and was waiting for the fruit to fall hoping that India would be racked up with a thousand mutines and the TSP poised to strike for ummah leadership. I wonder if Huntington was alluding to this Faustain bargain and as usual the 'experts' led us astray with their nonsense.

The challenge for the existing world order is how it accomodates India. Trotting up TSP is stale and is an old British formulation. The quest for creating a new political center for Islam based on TSP is dead in the water after the way Libya and Iran have turned them in to IAEA. Had they turned them in to the UK-US combine it would have been hushed up.

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 12 Feb 2004 22:29

Michael Krepon says what all of us in BR know already - It's OK to proliferate if you are an ally in the War on Terror.

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=3285

Lessons from an Unpunished Crime in Pakistan

The US says in effect: It's OK to proliferate if you are an ally in the War on Terror

Michael Krepon

YaleGlobal, 9 February 2004

WASHINGTON: A.Q. Khan got off lightly, sending disturbing messages about US and Pakistani attitudes toward proliferation. After setting himself up as the Wal-Mart for nuclear weapon shoppers in Libya, Iran, North Korea, and others who have yet to be identified, Khan, the self-proclaimed father of the Pakistani nuclear bomb, has admitted guilt as charged by Pakistani General-turned-President Pervez Musharraf. In quick succession, a penitent Khan met with the khaki-clad President and went on Pakistani television to take all the blame and to absolve the Army. Musharraf then suggested leniency to his Cabinet, which readily agreed. The President wasted no time issuing a pardon in light of Khan's heroic service to the nation and, for good measure, allowed Khan to keep the fortune in money and real estate he amassed from his illicit nuclear commerce.

Meanwhile, Musharraf continues to hound former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto to pay back to the nation her fortune of ill-gotten gains derived from corrupt government contracting.

There are two morals for the proliferators of nuclear and missile technology - if that is the right word for this strange story. The first is don't get caught. Khan's real estate holdings were no secret in Pakistan, nor was his penchant for foreign travel. Foreign intelligence services long-suspected Khan's dealings, as well as the difficulties his lab at Kahuta was having in producing nuclear warheads and missiles.

Pakistani officials responded to questions about nuclear transactions with blanket denials. This defense began to unravel when US intelligence agencies pieced together the existence of a uranium enrichment program in North Korea. Suddenly, the question of what Pyongyang got in return for bailing out the Khan Research Labs by transferring No Dong missiles could be answered with certainty: The Pakistani cargo plane that picked up the missiles, which were then re-labeled as the indigenously-built ‘Ghauri', was engaged in barter transactions that involved the provision of centrifuge technology.

Soon thereafter, Iran's uranium enrichment program, which was publicly revealed by an opposition group to the ruling ayatollahs, became the center of international attention. It was implausible enough for Tehran to claim it needed nuclear power for electricity, but there's no way that enriched uranium can be used to light street lamps. With clear evidence of an intent to acquire the entire fuel cycle necessary for bomb making, Iran's ayatollahs decided to take the heat off, to freeze the program temporarily, and to allow inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency to gain extensive access to plants under construction. Iranian officials also confirmed what the inspectors could plainly infer - that the centrifuges came from Pakistani sources.

Next it was Libya's turn. After a shipment of centrifuge parts was intercepted in the fall of 2003 headed for Libya, Muammar Qaddafi decided to come clean. In return for a lifting of sanctions and the prospect of foreign direct investment, he invited US and British officials to close down and cart out his bomb-making project. More equipment from A.Q. Khan's netherworld of nuclear commerce was uncovered. The most extraordinary find, as reported by the New York Times, were actual blueprints of a nuclear warhead of Chinese parentage that was given to Pakistan by Beijing to help the Khan Research Labs out of an earlier jam.

At this point, Pakistan's flat denials of illicit nuclear commerce were shredded beyond repair. Under heavy pressure by the United States to roll up Khan's network and to acknowledge misdeeds, Musharraf set in motion the investigation and public humiliation of Pakistan's national hero. Which leads to moral number two for future proliferators: Be an indispensable ally to the United States in the global war on terror.

If A.Q. Khan resided in another country, or if Pakistan were led by the religious leaders who are eager to unseat Musharraf, the Bush administration's response would have been far different. But Washington knew that a public trial of Khan would have put a club in the hands of Musharraf's many enemies while risking the disclosure of official government and high-level Army support for some of his transactions

Khan confessed to missteps driven by Islamic solidarity - an explanation that conveniently overlooks the money he pocketed and his dealings with North Korea. Two other rationales for Pakistan's nuclear commerce - paying back governments that helped to finance the program and seeking foreign assistance to overcome problems with domestic production lines - were also behind Khan's travels. These transactions surely required the authorization and full consent of army chiefs, prime ministers, and a president or two. The quick choreography of Khan's confession and pardon, as well as Washington's muted response, point to a mutual desire not to delve publicly into history.

In return for this pact not to question Khan's fiction that he, alone, was to blame, the Bush administration appears satisfied to roll up his supply network while Pakistani officials conduct a more thorough housecleaning at his lab. Musharraf will again promise that these transactions will not happen again. He gave Secretary of State Colin Powell a pledge of 400 percent on this score after US intelligence tracked the delivery of centrifuge parts to North Korea in the fall of 2002. Khan's shipment to Libya was intercepted one year later. If future transactions occur for reasons of state - that is, to repay foreign governments that have called in their notes or to overcome production bottlenecks - the Bush administration will have a tough decision to make. <u>Musharraf and his advisers will cross this bridge if they have to, but they have good reason to presume that Bush would be forgiving, as long as Pakistan makes progress in cleaning up messes, and as long as its support remains essential in nabbing Osama bin Laden and the remnants of his al Qaeda network. </font></u>

What is the net effect of the A.Q. Khan affair on global efforts to stop and reverse proliferation? The good news is that A.Q. Khan is no longer a player, that venality and Islamic solidarity are no longer acceptable drivers for proliferation in Musharraf's Pakistan, and that a very successful network of covert transactions is being put out of business. The number of states seeking nuclear weapons and missiles to carry them has been reduced significantly. Saddam is gone, and Libya has decided to go straight. This leaves Iran, which has agreed to a temporary freeze on fissile material production, and North Korea, which might be amenable to a deal - if and when the Bush administration is prepared to offer one.

The bad news is Khan has proved that extraordinarily damaging blueprints and parts can be surreptitiously exchanged for cash, and that this information can fit into CD-ROMs as well as military cargo planes. Covert supply networks can be reconstituted, but the market is likely to shift from sophisticated nuclear weapons to crude forms of nuclear terrorism. Global controls and safeguards on dangerous nuclear material are more essential than ever - and this work has barely begun.

Michael Krepon is founding president (1989-2000) of the Henry L. Stimson Center and author of "Cooperative Threat Reduction, Missile Defense and the Nuclear Future" (Palgrave, 2003).

karan · Post by **karan** » 12 Feb 2004 22:33

Guys,
Nobody is coming with any original idea on how to safeguard our interest, but posting URL's. Let me state few points here.
1. Whatever uncle does with pakistan in the light of this fiasco let him do it. We should wait and watch the events unfolding with hawk eye. Our response to any eventuality should be firm, positive. It has given us the opportunity to step upto the plate and play ball with the world from strength and claim our rightful place under the sun.
2. We should become part of uncle's Non Proliferation "PROCESS" as long as we do not get shafted.
3. We should drive a hard bargain with Uncle for him to achieve this goal wrt TSP.
4. Ignore all arm chair experts advise and take our Nuclear establishment and our Armed forces in confidence to shape our response and policies.
5. This is an election year in India, USA. Lets deal with emotions of election year rhetoric on daily basis as the events demand. Lets not get emotional, hyper-sensitive but be pragmatic and level headed. Remember, Sabar ka Phal Mitha hota hai.
6. For pakistan it is the begining of the end. But we should keep in mind that Islamic civilzation may be down but they are not out. We should keep a very close eye on them and learn from our history.(I hope you understand what I am saying here).
7. Let the peace process between India and Pakistan continue at its pace that is snail's pace. We know there are other skeletons that are about to fall from TSP closet. Sometimes it is necessary for a wise man to project the facade of giving sugar to an arrogant Bhikharee.
8. Modernise our Forces on urgent basis, well trained, well rested, ready to strike whenever the need arise on very short notice.

All comments, additions, and debates are welcome

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 12 Feb 2004 22:34

Originally posted by Rye:

Originally posted by ramana:
That Oakley quote & the US laison committee putting authorizing codes on over 40 weapons is disturbing noting that the TSP's stated target is India.
If they are worried about loose nukes falling into extremist hands shouldnt they corral them or better yet take them out?
Otherwise India would have to consider this an adverse act.
From the very beginning, it appears that one of the motivations for "supporting in public" pakistan's wish to hold nukes after they have been proven completely untrustworthy, is that the non prolif crowd would like to use this as leverage to get India to join the NPT as a non nuclear state. recent statements from the EU and US SD pushing exactly this line seems to validate this line of thought at least partially.

Mr. Brajesh Mishra's statement has made clear as to where the US can get off, it looks like. Pakistan is CLEARLY telling the US that it would be willing to sign any treaty the US wants as long as India signs before it. This would fall in line with their paki line of thinking all these years.

This requirement of Pakistan having a nuclear bomb and its activity was a opportunity for the non-Proliferation crowd in the long term since it could be used to blackmail India to sign the NPT and other 4 letter treaties. Hence Khan activities were not stopped for over two decades.

The drama of 1990 crisis with Robert Gates was used to up the ante to create an image of a "flash point" while at the same time encouraging the Kashmir "movement" and seems to be an elaborate psy ops planned over two decades.

In the current situation in Pakistan a similar argument is being put forth for supporting and helping the nukes so that it does not fall into the hands of the terrorists. he assumption here is that Indians are stupid not to understand the implications.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Feb 2004 22:36

Looks like Mike is disillusioned with the non-prolif razza (raid) he was waging. Little did he realize his razza was mere tool in the US big jihad(struggle) to gain dominance. he should go back to academia and delude more people.

Raahi · Post by **Raahi** » 12 Feb 2004 22:41

A surgery is required to separate the conjoined twins, India and Pakistan.

We need to launch a massive diplomatic, educational, global campaign to show the world that there is nothing common between India and Pakistan. In fact, there are million differences between the two. STOP using both names when you are actually talking about Pakistan. Stop equal-equal just to appease a rogue nation.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 Feb 2004 22:43

Ramana,

Not that I mind your idea, but what will a new regime state? Who will be the players?

As long as there are games to be played, no regime is going to matter. Politicians are notlogical - by definition. So, how can they come up with a regime? They themselves cannot follow such a regime - the very regime they themselves have created.

So, I am not convinced that a new regime is needed. Nukes are binary IMHO. Either we have them or get rid of them the world over. If they are not there we need no regimes and no politician to twist a regime to their own favor.

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 12 Feb 2004 22:43

We are starting to see a split here in the Non-prolif ranks.

The non-proliferation ideologues are now realizing that they have been had by the dyed-in-the-wool Foggies and ex-Foggies.

Krepon, to his credit, responded succinctly to a Paki caller to the radio program referred above. The caller went on a long winding rant about how the West and the UN "forced" Pakistan to proliferate and that if only they had given them Kashmir nothing would have happened. Krepon tersely told the caller that Pakistan was responsible for the image of Kashmir as a nuclear flashpoint by its support to the Jihadis and that no responsible nation will use nuke safety hostage to an issue like Kashmir.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 12 Feb 2004 22:45

Lets not get emotional, hyper-sensitive but be pragmatic and level headed.

Hey, yeah, Sparkle Plenty, don't get too emotional while yer dancing around the World Trade Center bonfire with yer jihadi heros.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 12 Feb 2004 22:45

Originally posted by ramana:
Some Issues:
3) Why does this Brit Griffin feel that TSP deserves the bomb. Is it any old colonial link?

There is a residual hatred of Indians among the British progeny after independence. This has been nurtured and makes them support Pakistan even if it is illigal and dangerous.

AJay · Post by **AJay** » 12 Feb 2004 22:54

Originally posted by pharkle:
2. We should become part of uncle's Non Proliferation "PROCESS" as long as we do not get shafted.

No way to insure that.

AJay · Post by **AJay** » 12 Feb 2004 22:58

Originally posted by acharya:
[t]he assumption here is that Indians are stupid not to understand the implications.

Acharya

I don't think the assumption is that Indians are stupid but it is Indians are not in the P5 league yet. It is time for India to prove otherwise. One way to do it is to do a POK3 - thermo-nucs for peace - the peaceful applications being tunneling the western ghats so that Mumbai-Pune-Hyderabad, Mumbai-Goa-Bangalore are better connected, garland canal construction.

Vivek_A · Post by **Vivek_A** » 12 Feb 2004 23:29

Anyone with access to the Economist?
Pakistan, America and the bomb

Spreading the word

Raj Singh · Post by **Raj Singh** » 13 Feb 2004 00:06

Originally posted by Ramana
.

3) Why does this Brit Griffin feel that TSP deserves the bomb. Is it any old colonial link?

I wouldn't read too much in his feeling Pakistan deserves the bomb. He is/was an arms trader (a seller). Generally, for them, it is not about loyalty to a country or love for a country or some idealogy. It is more about money/hard cash than anything else. In his case, he was making good money and happy in doing so, so his inventing/theorising that Pakistan deserves the bomb is just an attempt to justify his actions. And perhaps, try to have some moral (?)ground to cover his actions.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 13 Feb 2004 00:17

Extracts from abovementioned Economist article

What is to stop it happening again?

“IS PAKISTAN important, or the hero important? Pakistan is important.” Thus General Pervez Musharraf, explaining why he forced Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of Pakistan's bomb, to make a public apology for covertly selling nuclear secrets to Iran, Libya and North Korea. But that is far from the end of the story. Were there other buyers? How could Mr Khan get up to all this without official knowledge? And what light does the subsequent pardon for Mr Khan cast on General Musharraf's assurances that nothing like this will ever happen in Pakistan again?

….Yet there is much unhappiness that he and Pakistan are being censured at all. A cartoon on the editorial page of a national daily asked: “What is nuclear proliferation?” and concluded that, when a non-Muslim country helps another non-Muslim country's nuclear programme, it isn't proliferation; but when Muslim countries help each other, it is (though how North Korea fits the picture is unclear).

But such shoulder-shrugging in Pakistan adds to outsiders' alarm. Never having signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Pakistan has never been bound by its rules forbidding the passing on of weapons know-how. And its export controls are so full of loopholes that it is not even clear if what Mr Khan did was against national law either.

…Publicly, America has so far accepted General Musharraf's claim that no Pakistani government was involved in Mr Khan's nuclear transfers. … After 1998, when he became first army chief, then president, the general says he personally ordered scrutiny to be tightened, and suspicion started to fall on Mr Khan and his close associates (though in fact America had been complaining about their activities for years, to no avail).

General Musharraf may be doing more than covering his own back. Cornered and put on trial, Mr Khan might have implicated more than just his close colleagues. Any hint that Pakistan's government or armed forces was in on the proliferation plot, acknowledges General Musharraf, could lead to UN sanctions on an already rickety economy.

But saving Pakistan's blushes may not help the general much at home. Religious parties have accused him of being America's stooge for swiftly abandoning the Taliban in Afghanistan.

…Most Pakistanis are anyway convinced that, once America has no further need of their help in the war against terror, it will again single out Pakistan as a “rogue” state . A statement by America's secretary of state, Colin Powell, that “General Musharraf is the right man, at the right place, at the right time” is taken as proof of America's short-termism. Much depends on what else is now uncovered. General Musharraf had indicated that Mr Khan's pardon was unconditional, but Pakistan's foreign ministry now says that it covers only his confessions made so far. Pakistan's nuclear file is not about to be closed.

laxmibai · Post by **laxmibai** » 13 Feb 2004 00:18

Ms Nasim GHQ Zehra spelling out the party line:
http://jang.com.pk/thenews/feb2004-daily/12-02-2004/oped/o1.htm

On the nature of proliferation from Pakistan, according to US accounts proliferation from Pakistani sources includes transporting components of old models of centrifuges used earlier by Pakistan and crude bomb designs passed on to Libya are of 1955 vintage. No Pakistani source has exported fissile material, designs of bombs tested by Pakistan, not ready-made bombs and no sophisticated technology. By comparison after the break-up of the Soviet Union US strategists feared transportation of suitcase bombs were passed to non-state actors by Kazakhstan and Ukraine.

The first wave of proliferation gave to the world the five premier nuclear powers. The second wave of the seventies, from which Pakistan too benefited left an expanded nuclear club with India, Israel and Pakistan as nuclear powers. In the second wave too India, Israel and Pakistan benefited from other proliferating nations. How these three nuclear aspirant states benefited from proliferating European and US governments and private companies was documented in Leonard Spector’s book on how the second wave of proliferation unfolded.

Does Leonard Spector mention China, I wonder, because she doesnot, even once.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Feb 2004 00:56

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/12/international/asia/12NUKE.html?th
A Tale of Nuclear Proliferation: How Pakistani Built His Network

----------
The scope and audacity of the illicit network are still not fully known. Nor is it known whether the Pakistani military or government, which had supported Dr. Khan's research, were complicit in his activities.

---------

xKhan:
And in the end he moved on to Libya, his ultimate undoing, selling entire kits, from centrifuges to enrich uranium, to crude weapons designs. Investigators found the weapons blueprints wrapped in bags from an Islamabad dry cleaner.
---

One longtime trading partner of Dr. Khan's was Peter Griffin - "Anything that could be sent to Pakistan, I sent to Pakistan," .

....

"Khan had a complete blank check," said one aide close to General Musharraf. "He could do anything. He could go anywhere. He could buy anything at any price."

------------
"Africa was important because of the materials needed," said a senior Pakistani official involved in the investigation of Dr. Khan. "Europe was crucial for bringing in high-tech machines and components. Dubai was the place for shipments and for payments.
-----------

"We were not the first beneficiaries of this network. But the intensity of Pakistan's nuclear acquisition effort did enlarge the market. Everybody knew that there is a buyer out there, loaded with money and hellbent on getting this ultimate weapon."

-------------
Dr. Khan had three motives
1. He was eager to defy the West and pierce "clouds of the so-called secrecy,"
2. He was equally eager to transfer technology to other Muslim nations
3. "He also said that giving technology to a Muslim country was not a crime,"

--------------I wonder how NK was included being a muslim country!!! the bartering trade made NK more their kind??

--Around 1987, Dr. Khan struck a deal with Iran, which wanted to build 50,000 centrifuges of a type known as P-1, for Pakistan-1, an entry-level model, Western investigators found. If ever completed, a plant that size would let Tehran make fuel for about 30 atom bombs each year.
---
========
"The same network, the same routes, the same people who brought the technology in were also sending it out," said the military official.

====
When investigators went to Libya, they found that Dr. Khan's network had also provided blueprints for a nuclear weapon. For investigators, it was a startling revelation of how audacious and dangerous the black market had become. And it made them recognize that they did not know who else out there was buying and selling.

jrjrao · Post by **jrjrao** » 13 Feb 2004 01:00

Sydney Morning Herald. Editorial in the Friday edition.

Pakistan, a rogue state unpunished

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 13 Feb 2004 01:14

The Niazi fella in PakNation says thus:

And then there is the belief, very common, and persisting even now, that Qadeer made the bomb, even though he carried out only one of the 24 bomb-making steps, and had no role in the design or manufacture of the bomb itself. KRL did come up with a design, but it failed cold tests, and passed on to Libya, has provoked mirth in US and international agencies. Qadeer’s contribution was significant, even vital, but he was hardly the Father of the Bomb.

kgoan · Post by **kgoan** » 13 Feb 2004 02:36

Bingo! New datum points are starting to come in. . .

From the Simon Henderson article posted by Rangudu on the previous page:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/henderson200402121026.asp

The explanation I am waiting for is why a May 2002 test-launch of a nuclear-capable Ghauri missile (technology swapped by North Korea in return for centrifuge secrets) was observed by delegations from North Korea and Libya, as solid sources report. (I am told there was also a Saudi prince there as well.) How does President Musharraf explain that one?

RajeshG · Post by **RajeshG** » 13 Feb 2004 02:37

Iran Accused of Hiding Atomic Plans

One Western diplomat said the discovery of designs for gas centrifuges was not the result of Iranian cooperation but "good inspection work by the IAEA." He said Iran only admitted it had the designs after the IAEA showed evidence it knew it had them.

Gary Samore, head of the International Institute for Strategic Studies and an adviser to former U.S. President Bill Clinton (news - web sites), said the discovery of the designs raises the question of whether Iran has a hidden enrichment facility.

"There's always been a suspicion that Iran got the more advanced (G2) and there's some concern that they might be building an undeclared facility someplace that would utilize both the G1 and G2 for the production of weapons grade uranium," Samore told Reuters.

Samore and several diplomats said they were convinced Khan had used an extensive nuclear black market to offer Iran the same designs for nuclear warheads that Libya bought for $50 million. The diplomats said they believed Iran bought them.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Feb 2004 02:44

Tell me BRF didnt figure this one out:

Qadeer has been ascribed almost supernatural qualities in the public imagination. The most extreme belief that I have heard in the last few weeks was that Qadeer actually gave Zulfikar Ali Bhutto the idea of making an atom bomb, even though the idea had been present earlier, and Bhutto himself had made it a national goal at the 1972 Multan Conference. Then there is the belief that Qadeer gave the idea of the enriched uranium route, even though that route had been decided at the same Conference. And then there is the belief, very common, and persisting even now, that Qadeer made the bomb, even though he carried out only one of the 24 bomb-making steps, and had no role in the design or manufacture of the bomb itself. KRL did come up with a design, but it failed cold tests, and passed on to Libya, has provoked mirth in US and international agencies. Qadeer’s contribution was significant, even vital, but he was hardly the Father of the Bomb.

from M.A. Niazi : Hero to Zero

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 13 Feb 2004 02:50

One of the numerous non-prol think-tanks in DC organized an event with Pervez Hoodbhoy yesterday.

The audio link of Hoodbhoy's speech is here.

Also, here's the audio link for the Q&A

In the Q&A session Hoodbhoy cleverly avoided mention on TSP-China link. But he did say one thing though.

Pervez Musharraf recently mentioned openly that the locations of the Pakistani bomb cores are not known to him but to the Army

Take it FWIW. It's somewhere towards the end of the Q&A session.

Prateek · Post by **Prateek** » 13 Feb 2004 03:07

Why is India silent about A Q Khan?

by
Swapan Dasgupta
February 12, 2004
http://us.rediff.com/news/2004/feb/13swadas.htm
Fashions change with seasons. In the aftermath of a newly-rekindled Indo-Pakistan bonhomie it is no longer fashionable to get all worked up over the peccadilloes of our neighbour. Thus, it took External Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha nearly a week to come up with India's first reaction to one of the most sensational stories of recent times -- the drama surrounding the disclosures of the nuclear supermarket run by Abdul Qadeer Khan from Pakistan. In more normal times, South Block mandarins would have been inundating the media will delicious confirmations of Pakistan's status as a rogue state. Today, there is an appearance of relative disinterest.

Since foreign policy is all about enlightened self-interest, you could well argue that it does not suit India at this point to add its voice to the international outrage in the West over the brazen cover-up in Pakistan. If the US can be more than indulgent towards President Pervez Musharraf and the Pakistani military establishment for the help in fighting Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, we can afford to be similarly blinkered because of the assurances provided in Islamabad last month.

More to the point, if the US State Department and the UN nuclear watchdog agency are busy asking all the awkward questions and George Tenet is happy parading Khan's outing as a success of a CIA and MI6 operation, is there any need for India to add its two-paisa bit? The less India flaunts its obvious satisfaction at Musharraf's grave embarrassment, the more difficult it will for Pakistan to invoke the crass imagery that surrounds the Ghauri and Ghazni missiles.

To put it bluntly, it suits India at this stage to let Colin Powell and Jack Straw answer all the pointed questions about the West's double-standards. If Saddam Hussein can be punished for thinking about Weapons of Mass Destruction, how can Pakistan be let off the hook completely for supplying nuclear know-how to Libya, Iran and North Korea? Last summer, at the height of the Iraq crisis, the French writer Bernard-Henri Levy (author of Who Killed Daniel Pearl?) was mocked for suggesting that the US had invaded the wrong country. Now, I can well envisage a rush for membership of the club that believes that peace in South Asian depends on immobilising Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

Actually, it is more than peace in either South Asia or even the Islamic world that is at stake. From all accounts, it was neither hatred of India nor Islamic pride that prompted Khan to tell all. It was a matter of old-fashioned cash deposited discreetly into offshore accounts. It is inconceivable that all this could have happened without a section of the Pakistan military establishment getting a piece of the action.

Do read: Pakistan's nuclear bazaar

Yet, the problem, as I re-discovered last Friday during the Madhavrao Scindia memorial lecture delivered by the British foreign secretary, is that there are too many Indians, who are still blessed by a Cold War mindset. It is very easy to score instant debating points by rubbishing Anglo-American unilateralism in Iraq. But is that the issue now? Or, shouldn't the focus now be on how India can best take advantage of the growing outrage over Pakistan?

Undeniably, the best course would be for the US and its NATO allies to sponsor an expeditionary force across the Khyber Pass, bomb Kahuta out of existence and ship the deviant metallurgist to Guantanamo Bay or exile him to his luxury hotel in Timbuktu. Another option would be to institute an internationally-sponsored Truth Commission where Khan and his military collaborators can tell all.

'We are walking into America's trap:' An interview with the former ISI chief

Unfortunately, the likelihood of these suggestions being accepted is remote. It does not make sense for either India or the vocal Diaspora lobby to press for visible punitive action against Pakistan. As long as Afghanistan remains troubled and as long as the West harbours ill-founded feelings of guilt over Islamist anger about Israel, there will be no heavy-handed treatment of Pakistan. That should not worry us unduly. It makes much more sense to work quietly with the US and Britain in the slow process of Pakistan's nuclear emasculation.

There are reasons to believe the process has started. Following the Khan disclosures, the US State Department has let it be known that a US Liaison Committee has been working discreetly in Pakistan for more than a year to 'safeguard' more than 40 weapons in Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. Pressured at home, Colin Powell may follow it up with other steps.

I doubt that we will know too many details of this venture but it would be safe to believe that Washington and London's non-reaction to Musharraf's whitewash of Pakistan's roguish conduct is centred on a belief that it won't happen again. This may also mean that it may be a while before we see another Pakistani leader using nuclear blackmail as an instrument of conflict resolution.

The sledgehammer treatment of Saddam was one way of dealing with a monster. In the case of Pakistan, we may be about to witness more subtle ways of handling another criminal enterprise. The Iraqi regime was killed off; the Pakistani problem is being handled with psychiatry.

Sarma · Post by **Sarma** » 13 Feb 2004 03:23

What is to be noted from Simon Henderson's piece is the treachery of the British government, MI6 and CIA in being deliberately blind Peter Griffin's nuclear sales to Pakistan.

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 13 Feb 2004 03:28

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_13-2-2004_pg1_5

Clandestine US mission to Pakistan

Staff Report

ISLAMABAD: Several senior US officials arrived in Islamabad on Wednesday night and departed on Thursday afternoon, sources told Daily Times here. They said Central Intelligence Agency Director George Tenet was believed to be one of the officials. “The team arrived here on Wednesday night, met with Pakistani officials and left for the US in the afternoon,” sources added. They also said the team was briefed by Pakistani officials about Pakistan’s nuclear scandal and the current situation in Afghanistan. However, when Inter-Services Public Relations Director Maj Gen Shaukat Sultan was contacted, he said, “Nothing like this has happened.”

Tim · Post by **Tim** » 13 Feb 2004 03:53

Ramana,

To try to answer your first post on this page of the thread -

And please, no flames. I'm simply trying to express a couple lines of reasoning that do exist.

1. China has no end user restrictions that I'm aware of. That's a peculiar US institution, the result of some problems with hardware sent to Pakistan in the 1960s. A lot of countries don't care, or don't monitor, or both.

2. Western European private firms have carried out a lot of proliferation activities without significant monitoring from their governments. There have been some times when monitoring increased - most notably right after Desert Storm, when the UN revealed the extent of cooperation with Iraq. But at least in some countries, there are far fewer restrictions on private enterprise than others - and, sadly, Germany has been a particular culprit (again - it's not alone).

3. I suspect the statement is not one of neo-colonialism, but rather geo-politics. The argument that some states "require" a nuclear weapon to redress resource and conventional imbalances is pervasive in both academe and policy. It is used to explain the Israeli bomb (look at all those Arabs), the North Korean bomb (look at those dangerous Americans), the Indian bomb (remember General Sundarji's comments after the Gulf War), the South African bomb (they were afraid of some sort of odd, improbable Cuban-African Communist jihad). It's also used to explain Pakistan's bomb, due to it rivalry with India.

You don't have to believe that, obviously. But it's pervasive.

Rangudu,

There's a fairly wide spectrum of perspectives within the US nonproliferation community. They're not all the same, and they don't all hate India specifically.

Personally, I think Krepon is a pretty sharp guy. He's been spending a lot of time calling for US disarmament, so I think his beliefs are genuine and that to a great extent he practices what he preaches - he simply opposes nuclear weapons. He's also much more cognizant of realities in the region, and of Pakistan's abysmal strategic calculations and risky behavior, than most American analysts.

Tim

Ashutosh · Post by **Ashutosh** » 13 Feb 2004 03:58

Originally posted by Tim:
the Indian bomb (remember General Sundarji's comments after the Gulf War),

Tim

That is rather curious why you decide to mention this ... are you perchance or intentionally implying that India decidedly went overtly nuclear due to the USA rather than the widely accepted Chinese threat?

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 13 Feb 2004 04:16

Tim,

I agree with you on Krepon. But I believe a vast majority of the US non-proliferation "experts" like Perkovich, Milhollin, Spector and many more stand discredited.

The ones recently in the government are the most brazen dissemblers IMO.

Jon Wolfsthal was on NPR's Morning Edition today and he blamed the current and past USG for covering for Pakistan. He should know because he was advising the US DoE under Clinton. "Swept under a rug" was the phrase he used.

Even if a Paki involved dirty or more potent device go off in a US city, we might not see soul searching with this bunch.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 13 Feb 2004 04:30

Originally posted by Sarma:
What is to be noted from Simon Henderson's piece is the treachery of the British government, MI6 and CIA in being deliberately blind Peter Griffin's nuclear sales to Pakistan.

European and North American controls on individual dual-use items did not really in place until 1991. There was nothing illegal about exporting those kinds of individual industrial and lab items in the 1970s and 1980s. It was a loophole that many countries exploited; Libya, Iraq, Pakistan, Argentina, Brazil, Israel, South Africa, Syria, etc.

In cases like Libya and Iraq it was more egregious because German scientists and engineers sold their services to actually construct nerve gas factories, solve technical problems in ballistic missile development, etc. That was certainly illegal, and Libya was no friend of the West at the time. There's no suggestion that Pakistan received such help from Western scientists and engineers.

Henderson's question is whether Western intelligence agencies and governments were aware of Pakistani worldwide acquisitions in the 1990s from Dubai front offices on behalf of Libya, North Korea and Libya, given that the fronts continued to be associated with known international buyers and fixers like Griffin.

Raj Singh · Post by **Raj Singh** » 13 Feb 2004 05:25

Tim

3. I suspect the statement is not one of neo-colonialism, but rather geo-politics. The argument that some states "require" a nuclear weapon to redress resource and conventional imbalances is pervasive in both academe and policy. It is used to explain the Israeli bomb (look at all those Arabs), the North Korean bomb (look at those dangerous Americans), the Indian bomb (remember General Sundarji's comments after the Gulf War), the South African bomb (they were afraid of some sort of odd, improbable Cuban-African Communist jihad). It's also used to explain Pakistan's bomb, due to it rivalry with India.

Don't know how the above has been equated with the role of Griffin? All the above mainly relates to idealogy/love for a/the country. Pray what was/has been the role of Griffin other than being another arms merchant/trader who was in this game to make money?

As buyer, you may have attachment/idealogy/love for a country but as a seller, it is unlikely that there could be other motive than money. Prime example of this we see in Dr Qadeer Khan himself. He bought/smuggled/stole technology for Pakistan, the country. Not for himself, at least intially. However, when it came to selling, it was simple and pure greed. He wouldn't have sold the dud/unworking designs/bombs to Iran/Libya, and took money, had there been any idealogy (islam/ummah)involved.

Raj Singh · Post by **Raj Singh** » 13 Feb 2004 05:55

Following can go to number of threads....

Quote:

Mr. Prez's interview on NBC

You mentioned several times how great the intelligence was and how your decision was based on such well-trusted intelligence from CIA and abroad. Now, help me understand this Mr. President, I am hearing from Mr. Tenant that intelligence always had some reservations.

Dear Mr. President,

Please allow me to introduce myself: I am Joe Somebody; an average faceless American who pays his taxes and expects a decent life. Basically the same values that you were insisting in your interview on NBC – Freedom & Prosperity!

I understand that our nation is facing a great new threat of Islamic Terrorists from all over the world. I also understand very clearly your desire to promote democracy around the world and your concerns about Nuclear Weapons falling in wrong hands.

I couldn’t help but notice following sickening discrepancies in – what you say and how you act:

Topic: IRAQ

You mentioned several times how great the intelligence was and how your decision was based on such well-trusted intelligence from CIA and abroad. Now, help me understand this Mr. President, I am hearing from Mr. Tenant that intelligence always had some reservations. How come your inner circle was the only group of people “without doubt”. Now, if the doubts are surfacing now. Just imaging the same line of defense if used by Enron, WorldCom executive that “they did best under the circumstances” – YOU will be all over them in public. So, you tell me, Mr. President, as a CEO aren’t you now accountable?

Topic: Loss of Life in Iraq

You keep mentioning that how this Iraq was for Iraqi people and so on. We know that we lost 500 great lives and had more than 3000 injuries for our boys in Iraq. I feel very sad for such tragic incidences. Now, tell me how many Iraqi’s we have killed so far (rough count goes more than 10,000) and countless injuries. If we cared so much for Iraqi’s why are we not keeping count of how many Iraqi’s are getting killed and injured? BECAUSE SIMPLY WE DO NOT CARE ABOUT THEM AND WILL NEVER CARE that is why Iraqi’s don’t trust us. Thus WE END UP LOOSING OUR BOYS in battlefield. If we show similar respect for Iraqi life as we show to ours then there will be interest in protecting our boys by Iraqi as well (as we are fighting for them and not for the oil they have). What am I missing Mr. President?

Also, I did notice the change of tone on:

“Iraq With WMD” is now changed to “with an ability to make WMD”

“Saddam used weapons against his own people” without any mention that it was US that provided such weapons to Saddam at the first place and Saddam is the total creation of US. Saddam could not do anything after US had stopped backing him. The UN has validated this as well. In fact on March 17th, UN inspectors were reporting that there are no such WMDs in Iraq (which is now proven to be true). It was your strong desire to go to war that has put us in such spot!

Topic: IRAN and North Korea

You mentioned, again, how Iran and North Korea are rough states and worried about their nuclear program and promised that both countries are on radar for next action. Please tell me Mr. President it is now well known, to Joe Somebody like me, that all these nuclear know-how came from Pakistan, our friendly alley in this War on Terror. There was no mention of any punitive action, warning to stop further spread by Pakistan and controlling the source of such great leak. Isn’t it simply like keep cleaning the spilled water without fixing the leak in the plumbing?

If Iran and North Korea are the Axis of evils then what about the epicenter of evil, Pakistan? Why we keep funding our own suicide (by funding Pakistan which in return funds terrorist that attack us). Kindly remember its my hard earned money that you are using to pay to Pakistan.

Topic: Freedom and Democracy

You keep mentioning how greatly you are interested in promoting Freedom and Democracy. We attacked Afghanistan to get rid of Taliban! Great work – but do you talk anything about how we have failed there too? Afghanistan has adopted back the Islamic rules (which are totally against the democratic governance). Women in Afghanistan have again lost their brief freedom – right under our governance! So much in the name of “we won Afghanistan and promoted freedom there”

Pakistan, our alley is still under military power and where the nuclear leak person gets a greatest pardon by his rough leader (who happens to be the invited guest on the ranch!) plus all the money he made making world more dangerous place on earth also gets pardon! Great leadership, Mr. President! I am sure if a person like you finds great difficulties in managing the nation from managing Texas, image managing the world – it’s just way too much for you take on!

Coincidences?

Mr. President, I have been observing that wherever the Democratic Party primaries are happening, you end up on those states within few days. Do you want me to believe that this is just coincidence? Do your schedulers not know what is happening in those states before they schedule you there? Or are you so ignorant on what is happening in our own country that you end up just on the right state at the right time to make statements about your election speeches? Just keep in mind that this faceless Joe Somebody is now counting on the day (just before November) to hear capture of Osama bin Forgotten while Intelligence Finding committee forced to keep moth shut until the election is over and you can take us further down in the world.

As you said – you are right “YOU MAKE GOOD DECISIONS” question is “FOR WHOM?” All your decisions so far are not in favor of me (Joe Somebody; faceless average American)!