US, Pakistan and nuclear security
April 15 : Cynics may not be entirely over the top if they were to see the recent Nuclear Security Summit, organised at US President Barack Obama’s initiative in Washington, as a gigantic photo-op. After all it was the biggest gathering of world leaders since the conference held to found
the United Nations 65 years ago. But the opportunity was squandered to mount a serious international effort to confront nuclear weapons countries that pose a security risk, such as Pakistan and North Korea. The logo issue of the summit was to see how best to stop nuclear weapons and bomb-making materials strewn about in the world from falling into the hands of terrorists and criminals. The question is palpably important. As Mr Obama has noted, the chances of the use of nuclear weapons by state actors has reduced since the end of the Cold War but that by non-state actors significantly increased. It is easy to see why. It is precisely in this period that jihadist terrorism has spread. The centre of gravity of this activity is unquestionably Pakistan. And yet, the United States has treated Islamabad with kid gloves on the matter of nuclear security.
From what was officially said, Mr Obama merely expressed his “disappointment” in his bilateral interaction with Pakistan Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani over the issue of Islamabad blocking progress on international negotiations for a treaty to cut the production of fissile materials in the world. This is because Pakistan is busy increasing the size of its nuclear arsenal. The point is that the more nukes that Pakistan makes, and the greater the quantum of bomb-making materials lying about in that country, the easier for terrorists and nuclear thieves to lay their hands on these as the country has been intrinsically unstable for years and its leaders have given every sign of lack of ideological uprightness on questions relating to international security. The trouble is that Washington believes it must pander to the Pakistan Army in order to serve its interests in a volatile part of the world, made more so — ironically enough — by the Pakistan Army itself. Once a professional soldiery, this army has bred international jihadist terrorism of every range and variety, and under its benign gaze A.Q. Khan, father of the Pakistani bomb, smuggled and artfully sold nuclear materials and secrets to those with nuclear weapon ambitions. So until an international gathering has something more concrete to say about how to finesse countries like Pakistan and North Korea, there will be expression of good intentions but no serious results. British foreign secretary David Miliband was more forthright than Mr Obama when he told the BBC that nuclear nations like Pakistan were “vulnerable”. He also said: “The message from this summit is that any country can be treated as a normal country on nuclear matters if it behaves like a normal country.” This applies as much to Pakistan as Iran, the non-nuclear weapon country the Western powers are focused on while overlooking Pakistan.
While the photo-op aspect of the summit is clear enough, there is no gainsaying that half the countries present announced national plans to further the cause of the summit. India offered to set up a state-of-the-art Global Nuclear Energy Centre to conduct research into the development of design systems that are secure and proliferation-resistant as well as sustainable. When Prime Minister Manmohan Singh announced this, President Obama stepped in to say: “This will be one more tool to establish best practices.” Ukraine offered to scrap its stockpile of highly enriched uranium by 2012. Mexico and Chile made similar commitments. IAEA chief Yukiya Amano hinted at the magnitude of the problem when he noted that every two days on average the IAEA receives “one new information” on an incident involving theft or smuggling of nuclear materials.
the United Nations 65 years ago. But the opportunity was squandered to mount a serious international effort to confront nuclear weapons countries that pose a security risk, such as Pakistan and North Korea. The logo issue of the summit was to see how best to stop nuclear weapons and bomb-making materials strewn about in the world from falling into the hands of terrorists and criminals. The question is palpably important. As Mr Obama has noted, the chances of the use of nuclear weapons by state actors has reduced since the end of the Cold War but that by non-state actors significantly increased. It is easy to see why. It is precisely in this period that jihadist terrorism has spread. The centre of gravity of this activity is unquestionably Pakistan. And yet, the United States has treated Islamabad with kid gloves on the matter of nuclear security.
From what was officially said, Mr Obama merely expressed his “disappointment” in his bilateral interaction with Pakistan Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani over the issue of Islamabad blocking progress on international negotiations for a treaty to cut the production of fissile materials in the world. This is because Pakistan is busy increasing the size of its nuclear arsenal. The point is that the more nukes that Pakistan makes, and the greater the quantum of bomb-making materials lying about in that country, the easier for terrorists and nuclear thieves to lay their hands on these as the country has been intrinsically unstable for years and its leaders have given every sign of lack of ideological uprightness on questions relating to international security. The trouble is that Washington believes it must pander to the Pakistan Army in order to serve its interests in a volatile part of the world, made more so — ironically enough — by the Pakistan Army itself. Once a professional soldiery, this army has bred international jihadist terrorism of every range and variety, and under its benign gaze A.Q. Khan, father of the Pakistani bomb, smuggled and artfully sold nuclear materials and secrets to those with nuclear weapon ambitions. So until an international gathering has something more concrete to say about how to finesse countries like Pakistan and North Korea, there will be expression of good intentions but no serious results. British foreign secretary David Miliband was more forthright than Mr Obama when he told the BBC that nuclear nations like Pakistan were “vulnerable”. He also said: “The message from this summit is that any country can be treated as a normal country on nuclear matters if it behaves like a normal country.” This applies as much to Pakistan as Iran, the non-nuclear weapon country the Western powers are focused on while overlooking Pakistan.
While the photo-op aspect of the summit is clear enough, there is no gainsaying that half the countries present announced national plans to further the cause of the summit. India offered to set up a state-of-the-art Global Nuclear Energy Centre to conduct research into the development of design systems that are secure and proliferation-resistant as well as sustainable. When Prime Minister Manmohan Singh announced this, President Obama stepped in to say: “This will be one more tool to establish best practices.” Ukraine offered to scrap its stockpile of highly enriched uranium by 2012. Mexico and Chile made similar commitments. IAEA chief Yukiya Amano hinted at the magnitude of the problem when he noted that every two days on average the IAEA receives “one new information” on an incident involving theft or smuggling of nuclear materials.
