<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" version="2.0"><channel>
                        <title>The Express Tribune</title>
                        <atom:link href="https://tribune.com.pk/feed/paknukes" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
                        <link>https://tribune.com.pk/feed/paknukes</link>
                        <description>The Express Tribune keeps you up to date with all the latest happenings from Pakistan and across the world!</description>
                        <lastBuildDate>Sun, 31 May 26 19:44:02 +0500</lastBuildDate>
                        <language>en-US</language>
                        <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
                        <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
                        <generator>https://laravel.com/</generator><item>
			<title>Nuke rebuke: US told to keep hands off Pakistan’s nuclear weapons</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/291507/nuke-rebuke-us-told-to-keep-hands-off-pakistan%e2%80%99s-nuclear-weapons</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/291507/nuke-rebuke-us-told-to-keep-hands-off-pakistan%e2%80%99s-nuclear-weapons#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Mon, 14 Nov 11 04:28:39 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[express]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category><category><![CDATA[World]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=291507</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Officials say the issue came up during Gilani-Clinton meeting but the PM’s press secretary denies this was...]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Pakistan sought a firm guarantee from the US that its nuclear arsenal is secure during Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s visit to Islamabad last month, The Express Tribune has learnt.


Officials familiar with Clinton’s meetings with Pakistan’s top civilian and military leaders said that concerns about the safety of the country’s nuclear stockpile was part of discussions at all levels. “They [the Americans] expressed their point of view and we presented ours … what we asked for was that there shouldn’t be any aggression or doubts about our nuclear programme,” one of the officials said.

Though it isn’t known how the US responded to Pakistan’s concerns, officials said Islamabad made it clear to Clinton that its cooperation with Washington in the war on terror, especially to ‘convince’ the Afghan Taliban to join peace talks, was linked to its nuclear demand.

There have always been concerns about the possibility of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons falling into the hands of extremists but Islamabad rejects these fears, saying it has foolproof security and safety mechanisms in place.

Officials said the issue came up during the meeting of Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani and Clinton. The prime minister’s press secretary Akram Shaheedi, however, said the issue wasn’t discussed. “Not at all,” was his terse answer when approached to confirm or deny this. A foreign office spokeswoman refused to offer any comment as well.

But the official insisted that the safety of the nuclear programme was one of the major conditions of Islamabad’s future cooperation with the US. In return, the official added, Pakistan had agreed to ‘neutralise’ the Haqqani network to the extent that it agrees to open negotiations with the US.

The question of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons has been at the forefront recently after an article in US magazine The Atlantic raised fears about the way the weapons are transported and claimed that the US had prepared missions to secure the weapons. The article was dismissed by the foreign ministry as “pure fiction”.

Published in The Express Tribune, November 14th,  2011.

&nbsp;]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Pakistan-India cooperation win-win for region: US</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/290183/pakistan-india-cooperation-win-win-for-region-us</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/290183/pakistan-india-cooperation-win-win-for-region-us#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Fri, 11 Nov 11 09:47:53 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=290183</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[State Dept says Washington backs constructive dialogue between India and Pakistan.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Applauding the constructive approach shown by Pakistan and India at a meeting between their prime ministers in Maldives on Thursday, the United States has said cooperation between the two regional powers would be a win-win for the entire region.

State Department Deputy Spokesman Mark Toner said Washington backs constructive dialogue between the two South Asian nuclear neighbors and cooperative ties between them would benefit the region.

“We’ve said many, many, many times from this podium that we support constructive dialogue between the two countries,” Toner stated, when asked about US reaction to the meeting between Pakistan Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani and his Indian counterpart Manmohan Singh held in the Maldives, where both attended SAARC annual summit.

“It is to the benefit of the region that these two countries cooperate more closely, both in the economic front but as well as on other issues.

And we see this as a win-win for the region,”  the spokesman said of the cooperative potential between the two largest South Asian economies.

The bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation summit emanated a message of peace and cooperation in the region, which, in the past, often witnessed lingering sharp differences on peace and security issues that sometimes spiralled into conflicts.

Ahead of the SAARC summit, Islamabad made a big peace overture by deciding to grant Most Favored Nation (MFN) trade status to India, a move the US has hailed as the most concrete and tangible step yet taken by the two sides towards improvement in their relationship.

The United States and China are attending the meeting of leaders of eight member countries in Addu, Maldives, as observers. Since the start of Afghan conflict in 2001 Washington has maintained a high-stakes engagement in the region, particularly with Pakistan and India.

&nbsp;]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Pakistan to buy two nuclear power plants from China</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/289908/energy-requirement-pakistan-to-buy-two-nuclear-power-plants-from-china</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/289908/energy-requirement-pakistan-to-buy-two-nuclear-power-plants-from-china#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Thu, 10 Nov 11 20:34:24 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[zafar.bhutta]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=289908</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Joint study will be conducted to finalise modifications in plant design.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Pakistan has planned to purchase two nuclear power plants with a combined capacity of 2,000 megawatts from China, which will be utilised for setting up Karachi Nuclear Power Plant-2 (Kanupp-2) and Kanupp-3 and help mitigate the energy crisis.


According to documents available with The Express Tribune, China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) and Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) are likely to enter into an agreement to conduct a joint study to finalise design modifications, which would enable Pakistan to acquire two nuclear power plants, each having power generation capacity of 1,000 megawatts.

After completion of this project, a contract for establishing Kanupp-2 and Kanupp-3 will be negotiated.

The Planning Commission has said CNNC may be asked to grant intellectual property rights for the existing 1,000-megawatt plant and suggest steps which could help Pakistan avoid violation of property rights.

China has three state-owned corporations, which can own and operate nuclear power plants, including China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC), China Guangdong Nuclear Power Holding Company (CGNPC) and China Power Investment Corporation (CPIC).

CGNPC currently operates four nuclear power plants of 3,758 megawatts in China and also involved in 16 other projects having capacity of 25,000 megawatts, which are under construction. The company’s focus has been on three-loop 1,000-megawatt plants.

The Planning Commission also questioned whether PAEC had approached the three nuclear power plant developers in order to ensure fair competition in offering the plants. “Moreover comparison of intellectual property rights of other nuclear power plant vendors may also be brought out,” the commission said.

In an attempt to increase power generation capacity, the government focuses on developing nuclear energy on a relatively bigger scale. Accordingly, the Energy Security Action Plan has envisaged increasing the share of nuclear power by installing 8,800-megawatt nuclear power plants by 2030.

The import of nuclear power plants will lead to electricity generation at cheaper rates compared to the thermal source, contributing to tackling the power crisis. About a month ago, power shortages reached their peak at around 8,000 to 8,500 megawatts, forcing long hours of outages across the country.

The load-shedding has disrupted industrial activity, denting overall economic growth of the country, which stood at 2.4 per cent last fiscal year.

Published in The Express Tribune, November 11th,  2011.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>US 'confident' in Pakistan nuke security</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/289590/us-confident-in-pakistan-nuke-security</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/289590/us-confident-in-pakistan-nuke-security#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Wed, 09 Nov 11 22:01:14 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[afp]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=289590</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[US State department spokesman Mark Toner says Pakistan giving high priority to safety of nuclear weapons effectively.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The United States believes that Pakistan's nuclear weapons are in safe hands, a State Department spokesman said on Wednesday, rebutting an earlier report that Islamabad's deadly atomic arsenal was vulnerable to theft.

Two US publications, The Atlantic and the National Journal, citing unnamed sources, last week said Pakistan had transported nuclear weapons in low-security vans on congested roads to hide them from US spy agencies.

(Read: Pakistan’s nuclear weapons vulnerable to theft, alleges report)

State Department spokesman Mark Toner told reporters in Washington that the United States was not persuaded that safety had been compromised.

"We have confidence that the government of Pakistan is well aware of the range of potential threats to its nuclear arsenal and is accordingly giving very high priority to securing its nuclear weapons and materials effectively," Toner told reporters.

"We continue to have confidence... that they're taking appropriate steps," he said.

Pakistan at the weekend rejected as "pure fiction" the report's assertion that transporting the weapons in such a manner had made them more susceptible to theft by Islamist militants.

(Read: Pakistan rejects reports of nuclear insecurity)]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Pakistan dubs report of nuke vulnerability ‘pure fiction’</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/288806/pakistan-dubs-report-of-nuke-vulnerability-%e2%80%98pure-fiction%e2%80%99</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/288806/pakistan-dubs-report-of-nuke-vulnerability-%e2%80%98pure-fiction%e2%80%99#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Mon, 07 Nov 11 06:07:44 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[azam.khan]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=288806</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Foreign office spokesperson says such reports are ‘baseless and motivated’.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Islamabad squarely dismissed allegations regarding the vulnerability of its nuclear arsenal, saying such reports are ‘pure fiction, baseless and motivated.’


An article published recently in an American journal, The Atlantic, said Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are vulnerable to theft by militants because the country has begun moving them around to hide them from US spy agencies.

Foreign Office Spokesperson Tehmina Janjua dismissed the contents of the article on Sunday and said “it is part of a deliberate propaganda campaign meant to mislead opinion.”

Surfacing of such campaigns is not something new for Islamabad, Janjua said. “It is orchestrated by quarters that are inimical to Pakistan.”

“No one should underestimate Pakistan’s will and capability to defend its sovereignty, territorial integrity and national interests,” she added.

The article labelled Islamabad as “an ally from hell” and said that much of the world is anxious about the security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons because it is “an unstable and violent country located at the epicenter of global jihadism, and … has been the foremost supplier of nuclear technology to such rogue states as Iran and North Korea”.

A senior official in the Strategic Plans Divisions (SPD), the department charged with safeguarding Pakistan’s atomic weapons, said the national nuclear establishment is “very strong.”

Secrecy of the nuclear arsenal is ensured at every level, the official said while speaking to The Express Tribune.

“There is also a Strategic Export Control Division at Pakistan’s Foreign Office and an Oversight Board for this division is functioning,” the official said.

“Yet, all these efforts are sidelines by the international community in their passion for labelling Pakistan a dangerous nuclear state,” he added.

The article concluded: “The United States must, for its own security, keep watch over Pakistan’s nuclear program—and that’s more easily done if we remain engaged with the Pakistani government.”

Published in The Express Tribune, November 7th,  2011.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>‘Nuclear assets to be  secured at all costs’</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/288793/%e2%80%98nuclear-assets-to-be-secured-at-all-costs%e2%80%99</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/288793/%e2%80%98nuclear-assets-to-be-secured-at-all-costs%e2%80%99#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Mon, 07 Nov 11 05:34:24 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[express]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=288793</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[ISPR says a powerful, independent force has been formed to ‘face all threats’.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The Strategic Plans Division has assured that the country’s nuclear installations and assets will be safeguarded at all costs.

Addressing the passing out parade of newly-trained officials of the SPD, its director-general security Major General Muhammad Tahir said that the 700 new officials have completed their training to serve at the division.

According to an Inter-Services Public Relations press statement, he said that a powerful and independent force has been prepared to face all kinds of threats. He said that the newly-inducted members have completed a six-month training programme.

The SPD has already completed a comprehensive plan under which 8,000 people were inducted in the Nuclear Security Force.

Writers Jeffrey Goldberg and Marc Ambinder, for the US magazine The Atlantic, claimed that Pakistan is “an obvious place” for militants to seek nuclear weapons or materials because of a weak government and infiltration of its security forces by militant sympathisers.

Published in The Express Tribune, November 7th,  2011.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Pakistan rejects reports of nuclear insecurity</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/288476/pakistan-rejects-reports-of-nuclear-insecurity</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/288476/pakistan-rejects-reports-of-nuclear-insecurity#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Sun, 06 Nov 11 11:29:46 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[reuters]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=288476</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Earlier report stated that Pakistan is &quot;an obvious place&quot; for militants to seek nuclear weapons.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Pakistan on Sunday dismissed an article in a US magazine that called it an "ally from hell" for Washington and raised questions about the safety of its nuclear arsenal and commitment to fighting militancy. 

A statement from Pakistan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs termed the cover story of The Atlantic's December 2011 issue "pure fiction, baseless and motivated."

"The surfacing of such campaigns is not something new. It is orchestrated by quarters that are inimical to Pakistan," the statement said.

Writers Jeffrey Goldberg and Marc Ambinder wrote that Pakistan is "an obvious place" for militants to seek nuclear weapons or materials because of a weak government and infiltration of its security forces by jihadist sympathisers.

But Pakistan, the article said, is more concerned about American designs on its nuclear arsenal and goes to great lengths to conceal its weapons.

The United States has spent almost $100 million helping secure Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, and appropriated almost $20 billion in civilian and military aid since the Sept 11, 2001 attacks in a bid to secure Pakistan's allegiance in the US-led war in neighbouring Afghanistan .

The article said US officials have grown increasingly disenchanted with Pakistan efforts to root out sympathisers on its territory, particularly after the May 2 raid by American special forces that killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in a town about two hours outside of Islamabad home to the country's premier military academy.

Since then, Pakistan fears that the Pentagon plans similar raids to forcibly "de-nuclearize" it.

The authors, citing unnamed sources, said those fears are valid.

The article details contingency plans involving hundreds of US commandos specially trained in securing weapons of mass destruction who would swoop in and disable or seize Pakistan's nuclear arsenal in the event of the collapse of the state or a jihadist coup.

That fear explains perhaps the most startling allegation: that Pakistani authorities transport assembled nuclear weapons in civilian vans without heavy security, moving in regular traffic to avoid being noticed.

This, the authors said, makes Pakistan's nuclear weapons "vulnerable to theft by jihadists," compromising security in a country where numerous militant organizations of various stripes are believed to be headquartered.

The Pakistani statement rejected these fears. "No one should underestimate Pakistan's will and capability to defend its sovereignty, territorial integrity and national interests."

It is not just Pakistan's weak institutions that worry the US, the article said. Its powerful military and intelligence agency, the directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), actively aid militants. "

The Pakistani government has wilfully misled the US for more than 20 years about its support for terrorist organisations," wrote Goldberg and Ambinder.

The US has increased pressure in recent months on Pakistan to act against militant groups in its territory, especially the Haqqani militant network that has launched brazen attacks against US and other targets in Afghanistan.

Washington says the Haqqani network is based in Pakistan's North Waziristan along the border with Afghanistan. The former chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, admiral Mike Mullen, said in September that the Haqqani group is a "veritable arm" of the ISI.

The tensions have complicated the outlook as the Obama administration pushes ahead with plans to draw down troops and hand security control to Afghan forces by the end of 2014.

______________________________________________

[poll id="555"]]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Pakistan’s nuclear weapons vulnerable to theft, alleges report</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/287867/pakistan-hiding-nuclear-bombs-by-moving-them-in-civilian-vans-on-congested-roads</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/287867/pakistan-hiding-nuclear-bombs-by-moving-them-in-civilian-vans-on-congested-roads#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Sat, 05 Nov 11 04:23:50 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[afp]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=287867</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Claims nuclear parts were transported in delivery vans on congested roads.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Pakistan has begun moving its nuclear weapons in low-security vans on congested roads to hide them from US spy agencies, making the weapons more vulnerable to theft by militants, two US magazines reported on Friday.

The Atlantic and the National Journal, in a joint report citing unnamed sources, wrote that the US raid that killed al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden in May at his compound in Abbottabad reinforced Islamabad’s long-standing fears that Washington could try to dismantle the country’s nuclear arsenal.

As a result, the head of the Strategic Plans Divisions (SPD), which is charged with safeguarding Pakistan’s atomic weapons, was ordered to take action to keep the location of nuclear weapons and components hidden from the US, the report said.

Khalid Kidwai, the retired general who leads the SPD, expanded his agency’s efforts to disperse components and sensitive materials to different facilities, it said.

But instead of transporting the nuclear parts in armored, well-defended convoys, the atomic bombs “capable of destroying entire cities are transported in delivery vans on congested and dangerous roads,” according to the report. The pace of the dispersal movements has increased, raising concerns at the Pentagon, it said.

The article quotes an unnamed official from the Inter-Services Intelligence agency saying: “Of all things in the world to worry about, the issue you should worry about the least is the safety of our nuclear program.”

The Pentagon declined to comment on the article but a senior US military official told reporters in Washington on Friday that the US remains confident Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are secure.

“I believe the Pakistan military arsenal is safe at this time, well guarded, well defended,” said the military official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The article, based on dozens of interviews, said the US military has long had a contingency plan in place to disable Pakistan’s nuclear weapons in the event of a coup or other worst-case scenario.

Published in The Express Tribune, November 5th,  2011.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Pakistan and America: A roller-coaster relationship</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/285122/pakistan-and-america-a-roller-coaster-relationship</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/285122/pakistan-and-america-a-roller-coaster-relationship#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Sun, 30 Oct 11 17:25:07 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[Shahid Javed Burki]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=285122</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[In a series of articles, in the weeks to come, I will provide a brief history of Pakistan’s relations with the US.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[By one count, this is the third time in about 50 years that Pakistan’s relations with the United States are moving through a rough patch. In a series of several articles, one today and more to follow in the weeks to come, I will provide a brief history of Pakistan’s relations with the United States and then go on to examine where the two countries may be heading in the next  several years.

Field Marshal Ayub Khan, Pakistan’s first military president, was the architect of a close relationship with the United States. America then was one of the two superpowers. By concluding two defence agreements with Washington, he distanced his country from the Soviet Union, the other superpower. This was a different line from the one pursued by most other developing nations. India, under Jawaharlal Nehru, had joined other large developing countries to follow what came to be called the ‘non-aligned movement’, or NAM. The NAM countries kept themselves at an equal distance from the two superpowers. Pakistan, along with some nations in the Middle East and Southeast Asia, cast its lot with the United States.

When Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, once Ayub Khan’s foreign minister, questioned this approach, the military leader countered by titling his political autobiography, Friends not Masters. Bhutto had suggested that Pakistan had acquired a ‘master’ by entering into several defence relationships with the United States. The former foreign minister responded by writing his own book under the title of Myth of Independence.  The two books appeared after the United States had already walked out of Pakistan. This happened when Islamabad went to war with India in September 1965. Washington responded by cutting military and economic aid to Pakistan. The close relationship engineered by Ayub Khan thus lasted for just over a decade.

The second close alliance between Pakistan and America was also under a military president, this time under General Ziaul Haq. There was clearer quid pro quo this time around. Pakistan agreed to help the United States throw out the Soviet Union from Afghanistan. Moscow had sent its troops into Afghanistan in 1979 when a series of changes in Kabul seemed to threaten its hold over that country. Occupation of Afghanistan by the rival superpower was not acceptable to the United States. Pakistan was a partner in the proxy war fought by Washington that ultimately expelled the Soviet Union from Afghanistan a decade after its troops had entered the country. America lost interest in Pakistan and the region in which it is located once Moscow pulled out its troops.

Deciding that Pakistan was no longer strategically important for the United States, President George HW Bush invoked the Pressler Amendment, which required that Washington would not provide economic or military assistance to a country that was thought to be developing a nuclear arsenal. However, it took almost a decade for relations between Pakistan and the United States to completely rupture. This happened in 1998 when Pakistan exploded a series of nuclear devices in the hills of Balochistan. Pakistan’s explosions followed those by India. Washington was now under President Bill Clinton who, following the nuclear tests, froze all contacts between the two countries. A year later, the American president reacted very negatively to the coup that brought the military back to power in Islamabad. He snubbed Pakistan after a very successful visit to India. He visited Islamabad briefly but refused to shake hands with General Pervez Musharraf, the new military head of the Pakistani state.

America’s stance towards Pakistan changed dramatically after the country was attacked by a group of Islamic extremists on September 11, 2001. George W Bush, the new American president, gave Pakistan a clear warning. Islamabad was told that “either you are with us or you are against us” in the fight against international terrorism. To the surprise of the American administration, Pakistan quickly agreed to the terms laid out by Washington. Later, after leaving office, President Musharraf revealed that Richard Armitage, the then American deputy secretary of state, told the Pakistanis that if they did not cooperate with the United States as the latter set into motion the plans to attack Afghanistan, their country would be bombed back into the Stone Age. This was essentially the reason why Musharraf agreed to work with the United States, offering Pakistan’s air space for American bombers to reach Afghanistan and the use of the country’s road system to supply US and Nato forces operating there. In return, Pakistan’s relationship with the United States was raised to the level only a notch below what Washington had with Nato countries.

Following 9/11, Musharraf, earlier snubbed by the Clinton administration, became a welcome visitor to Washington. He was offered the real privilege to visit the presidential retreat at Camp David in the mountains of Maryland. Pakistan also received generous amounts of military and economic assistance. The amount provided in the 10-year period since September 11, 2011 is estimated at more than $20 billion. Pakistan thus became the second largest recipient of American aid after Israel. However, this amount, on a yearly basis and in real terms, was not more than that given during the period of Ayub Khan. But there was a difference. Washington indicated that this time around it will follow a different approach. Unlike previous associations, when Washington pulled out of Pakistan and the region whenever its strategic interests for involvement were not paramount, it pledged to place the new relationship on firmer ground. This was to be done by embedding assistance to Pakistan in a bill approved by Congress for a period that would last for at least five years. That way the discretion of the executive branch in dealing with Pakistan would become less subject to the whims of those who occupied the White House. A bill was passed and was signed into law in the summer of 2009 by Barack Obama, the newly elected president. However, as I will discuss later, even this time around the relationship did not get out of the roller coaster it had ridden for over half a century.

Published in The Express Tribune, October 31st,  2011.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Arms race: 24 more missiles to be added to arsenal</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/216804/arms-race-24-more-missiles-to-be-added-to-arsenal</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/216804/arms-race-24-more-missiles-to-be-added-to-arsenal#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Mon, 25 Jul 11 05:19:54 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[express]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=216804</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[The addition would be the highest production in a single year.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Pakistan plans to add at least two dozen nuclear-capable, short-range missiles to its swelling arsenal this year, sources said in a revelation that indicates a growing ‘urge’ in the powerful security establishment to seek ‘strategic parity in the region’.


If the government successfully achieves its target, this would be the highest number of missiles Pakistan had ever produced in a year.

These air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles would be able to hit a target at a distance between 700 to 1,000 kilometres, which would put nearly all major Indian cities within their range.

Sources said the plan was in line with Pakistan’s official policy of having what is rhetorically called ‘maintaining a minimum deterrence’ especially against India.

They added that the Strategic Plans Division (SPD) — a high powered body that oversees Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal — was also supervising the production of new missiles.

The SPD works under the National Commands Authority (NCA) that is headed by the prime minister and has all services chiefs as its members.

Sources said it was in one of the recent NCA meetings that SPD briefed the authority about the plan that envisaged the production of highest number of missiles ever in a year.

The disclosure comes on the heels of reports earlier in the year that Pakistan was rapidly adding to its nuclear arsenal and the number of its warheads might have surpassed France.

Officials in Islamabad have denied those reports but insiders said Pakistan has been ‘watching closely with concern’ India’s increasing nuclear cooperation with the United States and France.

“That is the benchmark… if we see something happening in India on this front, naturally we react and we have to,” said one official.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 25th,  2011.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Pakistan wants to join Nuclear Suppliers Group</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/210107/pakistan-wants-to-join-nuclear-suppliers-group</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/210107/pakistan-wants-to-join-nuclear-suppliers-group#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Fri, 15 Jul 11 04:56:56 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[zia.khan]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=210107</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[National Command Authority volunteers to join the group if country is recognised as nuclear weapons state.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Pakistan has offered to join four nuclear export control regimes, including the Nuclear Suppliers Group, if the international community recognises it as a nuclear weapons state, but remains unwilling to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.


At a meeting in Islamabad on Thursday, the country’s top political and military leadership said Pakistan wished to be part of global non-proliferation efforts but only if it was accepted as a nuclear weapons state.

“The National Command Authority reiterated Pakistan’s desire to constructively contribute to the realisation of a world free of nuclear weapons and to the goals of non-proliferation on the basis of equality and partnership with the international community,” said a statement issued after the meeting.

Chaired by Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani, the meeting was attended by all services chiefs and the head of the Strategic Plans Division (SPD), an institution that manages the nuclear infrastructure and deals with its safety.

The vaguely-drafted statement by the prime minister’s office said Pakistan was “keen to join four export control arrangements” without giving any specific details.

Foreign Office spokeswoman Tehmina Janjua later told The Express Tribune that Pakistan was willing to join four ‘technology cartels’ that control the international trade of nuclear and missile technologies: the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), the Australia and the Wassenaar groups.

The MTCR and the NSG deal with the international trade of missile and nuclear technologies while the Australia and the Wassenaar groups manage trade in conventional small weapons and various materials used in the manufacturing of arms respectively.

Janjua said Pakistan’s ‘principled’ position on Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) was the same. About NPT, she added that Islamabad considered it as a ‘discriminatory’ arrangement and will not sign the CTBT unless the United States and India do the same.

Power generation

As part of the energy security strategy, the NCA reviewed and approved the Nuclear Power Programme 2050, a plan to use nuclear energy to meet the existing electricity shortfalls and to respond to the future requirements of a growing population and economy.

The NCA also approved the Space Programme 2040, the statement added, though it did not specify any further details about the programme.

Nuclear safety

The meeting appeared to be playing down what it referred to as ‘hyped’ international fears about the safety and security of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. However, the prime minister did admit there were ‘concerns’ after a secret American raid inside the country to kill Osama bin Laden and a subsequent militant attack on a Karachi naval facility.

But Gilani said that ‘campaigns’ of foreign entities casting doubts over the safety of the country’s nuclear arsenal would never stop Pakistan from seeking a minimum deterrence and pursuing a strategic programme.

According to the statement, the NCA expressed satisfaction at the security and safety of Pakistan’s strategic programmes and facilities. It also expressed confidence in the operational readiness of Pakistan’s strategic weapons.

 

Published in The Express Tribune, July 15th, 2011.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Al Qaeda and the task before the Pakistan military</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/203710/al-qaeda-and-the-task-before-the-pakistan-military</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/203710/al-qaeda-and-the-task-before-the-pakistan-military#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Wed, 06 Jul 11 16:37:41 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[azam.khan]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=203710</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Does the growing sense of anti-Americanism in Pakistan mean we are playing into the hands of al Qaeda?]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[After the attack on Nagasaki on August 9 1945, the US did not possess nuclear weapons any more since it expended the only two it had built. By 1949, when the Soviets conducted their first test detonation, the US had nearly 200 nukes. The race that thus began reached its zenith in 1969, when the US, at one point, had more than 32,000 nuclear warheads. The senselessness of this process can be gauged by the fact that there were less than 200 cities in the Soviet Union with populations in excess of a hundred thousand, so where were these nuclear warheads intended to be used? Although not all the nuclear weapons built since then have been the size of Hiroshima (12 kilotons), even a 0.1 kiloton warhead used as artillery shell today can produce TNT equivalent to 200,000 pounds; a blast hundred times as powerful as one caused by a large 2,000-pound conventional bomb.

According to a recent report released by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, some 5,000 nuclear weapons are deployed around the world, and both India and Pakistan continue to expand their capacity to produce fissile material for military purposes. “South Asia, where relations between India and Pakistan seem perpetually tense, is the only place in the world where you have a nuclear weapons race,” the director of the institute said recently. A Washington Post op-ed in January this year claimed that “Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal now totals more than 100 deployed weapons.” It further maintained that after years of apparent parity, Pakistan now has an edge over India.

While such developments may be reassuring for nuclear chest thumping, recent events inside the country illustrate some uncomfortable truths. There is no doubt that anti-Americanism has grown as rapidly as the number of ‘militant sympathisers’ who now soak the military’s rank and file. This is substantiated by a report on the interaction between Pakistan’s Ambassador to the US Husain Haqqani and the student officers at the National Defence University in Islamabad in May. When asked which among the three, internal, India or America is the principal national security threat to Pakistan, an overwhelming majority chose the third option. The arrest of Brigadier Ali Khan and admission by senior naval officials before the National Assembly Standing Committee on Defence that terrorists attacking the PNS Mehran base had support from inside are only the recent acknowledgement of these realities.

The armed forces, the country’s strongest institution, are now substituting India for the US as the principal threat. The central theme of al Qaeda’s ideology of takfeer is also founded on anti-Americanism; it denounces any strategic alliance of Muslim majority states with non-Muslim states, particularly the ‘big satan’. While the Arab spring has seen a firm rejection of this ideology in the Middle East, we in Pakistan seem to be inadvertently embracing it. An overwhelming anti-American mindset and personnel with ‘extremist’ proclivity filling the military ranks of a nuclear armed Pakistan is al Qaeda’s dream come true. Are we innocently playing into the hands of al Qaeda and what does this mean for Pakistan’s future?

The moot point is that if the pre-dominant threat to Pakistan is from the US, what is the strategy to fight the enemy who recently refused to vacate the Shamsi airbase? Also, with India now ostensibly relegated low on the threat perception index, why must we continue expanding our nuclear arsenal since enough of ‘minimum credible deterrence’ already exists?

In his magnum opus Inside al Qaeda and the Taliban, the slain journalist Saleem Shahzad, said: “Al Qaeda’s first objective was to win the war against the West in Afghanistan. Its next objective was to move on to have the fighting extended all the way from Central Asia to Bangladesh to exhaust the superpower’s resources before bringing it on to the field in the Middle East for the final battles to revive the Muslim political order under the Caliphate.” It may not be farfetched to state that al Qaeda’s philosophy aimed at ensnaring all Muslim liberation movements worldwide into its fold in pursuit of its global agenda is becoming more probable in this region. The blending of the Taliban, the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan, the militant outfits of southern Punjab and several Kashmiri resistance movements, including Ilyas Kashmiri’s 313 Brigade, with al Qaeda points in this the direction.

Some of Pakistan’s major military and strategic facilities are located in dense urban centres and for good reason these cannot be relocated. With the rise in urban terrorism and al Qaeda’s strategy to overpower Pakistan, the sole de facto nuclear state in the Muslim world, the imperative challenge for the military is to purge its ranks of the adherents of this ideology.

At a crossroads, Pakistan has to address a fundamental question, an answer to which will define the nation’s destiny. Are our armed forces for the defence of Pakistan or are they for the greater glory and protection of Islam? The Pakistan Army has long given up Zia’s gifted emblem of imaan, taqwa, jihad and fisabilillah. More importantly, it has boldly fought and reclaimed areas from militants. The Indian foreign secretary’s recent acknowledgment that “the prism through which Pakistan sees the issue of terrorism has definitely been altered” is an apt conclusion. The trend set in motion during the 80s, one that allowed a professional fighting force to morph into an Islamic army, must be reversed in earnest. Failure to do so is an open invitation to the US and the West to perform what we have long theorised as conspiracy to ‘defang’ us.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 7th, 2011.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>The receding tide of war</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/196722/the-receding-tide-of-war</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/196722/the-receding-tide-of-war#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Sun, 26 Jun 11 18:44:08 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[tanvir.ahmad.khan]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=196722</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[The war that is receding in Afghanistan should not find its new axis in Pakistan.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Millions watch across the world when US President Barack Obama makes one of his keynote policy addresses. These speeches are seldom the place to look for truth but their unrivalled eloquence often reveals a new direction and, on careful examination, the principal reasons underlying the policy shift. Obama’s speech announcing the beginning of the promised drawdown of forces in Afghanistan is likely to evoke memories of Gorbachev in Vladivostok. The historic disclosures made by the beleaguered Soviet leader, who wanted nothing more than an honourable exit from a disastrous war, did not become a major input in a long overdue policy review in the Pakistan foreign office because, foreign minister, Sahibzada Yaqub Khan, did not allow it. Pakistan paid a huge price for that failure. Despite a substantial cost in blood and treasure, the US does not face a disaster but Obama has asserted his leadership well in time and said: “America, it is time to focus on nation building here at home”. Embedded in his speech are messages that Pakistan will miss only at its own peril.

Let us first recapitulate the basic facts. Obama will pull out 10,000 troops by the end of this year. Another 20,000 troops and 3,000 support staff will leave next summer when Washington hosts a major conference of allies in Chicago. There would still be 68,000 troops left, out of which 25,000 may be stationed indefinitely in Afghanistan under an arrangement being negotiated with Afghan President Hamid Karzai. The process should terminate in 2014 unless something dramatically adverse happens to delay it.

The backdrop that Obama presented to his people is a mixture of fact and fiction. He had to say that America is drawing down from a position of strength. He cited the attrition of al Qaeda leaders, the serious losses suffered by the Taliban and, above all, the elimination of Osama bin Laden to substantiate his claim. But he was not in denial of the fact that many important dimensions of the nation-building project, of which the surge was the sword arm, have faltered. He hoped that Afghans would be able to build an alternative to the war economy. America, he said, had spent a trillion dollars on war in the last decade; he has thus implicitly cautioned Kabul about future constraints. Peace, he said, is achievable and the quest for it has to be led by the Afghan government, with those who want to be a part of a peaceful Afghanistan, and break from al Qaeda, abandon violence, and abide by the Afghan Constitution.

Pakistan runs like a subtext in the address even though it is not mentioned frequently. This is where interpretations will flow freely and what Pakistani policymakers must grasp candidly. The permanent US military presence in Afghanistan would be linked in no small measure to the threat from Pakistan. The first stone has predictably been cast by The New York Times’ David Sanger. Islamabad’s angry reaction to the Abbottabad raid, writes Sanger, “makes it more urgent than ever that the United States maintain sites outside the country to launch drone and commando raids against the militant networks that remain in Pakistan and to make sure that Pakistan’s fast growing nuclear arsenal never falls into the wrong hands”. He quotes Bruce Reidel, a retired CIA officer, to the effect that the US needs a base to strike targets in Pakistan. “The geography is simple: You need to do that from Afghanistan.”

As far as one can see, the present Pakistani coalition will return to power in the next election. President Asif Ali Zardari has successfully shifted politics from a process of fulfilling peoples’ aspirations to a back-door calculus of vested interests exploiting national resources together. Nawaz Sharif has failed to show the imagination needed to reassert the national will. The present rulers talk, without a care in the world, of a long war. The ‘base in Afghanistan’ will become the thin edge of the wedge unless Pakistan’s political class understands the fast emerging situation in the region. We refused to read Gorbachev; let us not fail to read Obama. The war that is receding in Afghanistan should not find its new axis in Pakistan.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 27th, 2011.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Nuclear weapons threat not decreasing: Study</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/184026/nuclear-weapons-threat-not-decreasing-study</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/184026/nuclear-weapons-threat-not-decreasing-study#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jun 11 06:29:41 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[afp]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=184026</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[India and Pakistan are &quot;expanding their capacity to produce fissile material for military purposes&quot;.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[More than 5,000 nuclear weapons are deployed around the world and nuclear powers continue investing in new weapon systems, making meaningful disarmament in the near future unlikely, a report published Tuesday said.

"More than 5,000 nuclear weapons are deployed and ready for use, including nearly 2,000 that are kept in a high state of alert," according to a report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

SIPRI's report said the world's eight nuclear powers, Britain, China, France, India, Israel, Pakistan, Russia and the US, possess more than 20,500 warheads.

As of January 2011, Russia had 11,000 nuclear warheads, including 2,427 deployed, while the United States had 8,500 including 2,150 deployed, the report said.

The US and Russia have signed a Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) that calls for a maximum of 1,550 warheads deployed per country.

However SIPRI argued that prospects for meaningful disarmament in the short term are grim as all eight countries seem committed to either improving or maintaining their nuclear programmes.

"The five legally recognised nuclear weapons states, as defined by the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty are either deploying new nuclear weapon systems or have announced their intention to do so," the report said, referring to Britain, China, France, Russia and the US.

India and Pakistan are "expanding their capacity to produce fissile material for military purposes," according to the report.

SIPRI Director Daniel Nord said south Asia, where relations between India and Pakistan seem perpetually tense, is "the only place in the world where you have a nuclear weapons arms race."

While Israel, which has never conclusively declared itself a nuclear weapons state but is almost universally assumed to be one, "appears to be waiting to assess how the situation with Iran's nuclear programme develops," SIPRI said.

Nord argued that because "nuclear weapons states are modernising and are investing in their nuclear weapons establishments (it) seems unlikely that there will be any real nuclear weapon disarmament within the forseeable future."

The report said that North Korea "is believed to have produced enough plutonium to build a small number of nuclear warheads, but there is no public information to verify that it has operational nuclear weapons."

Nord identified Pakistan "losing control of part of its nuclear arsenal" to a terrorist group as a specific concern.

He also voiced worry over the potential consequences if "Israel or the United States decide that they will have to intervene and do something about the programme in Iran."

Iran has repeatedly insisted that its nuclear programme is non-military, but several world powers have demanded closer international inspection of Iran's nuclear sites to verfiy the claim.

SIPRI is an independent institution that receives 50 percent of its funding from the Swedish state.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Evaluating the PNS Mehran attack: Talking heads</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/180914/evaluating-the-pns-mehran-attack-talking-heads</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/180914/evaluating-the-pns-mehran-attack-talking-heads#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Sun, 05 Jun 11 10:50:41 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[hamna.zubair]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=180914</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[The attack on PNS Mehran got everyone talking - whether any questions were answered is another matter.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Following what was said in the media immediately after the attack on PNS Mehran was exhausting if you were looking for a consistent account of the operation. 

The morning after the attack, the English daily Dawn reported that six attackers had entered PNS Mehran and said that four had been killed and two had fled, The Express Tribune said the same; The News differed and said there were only four attackers and all of them had been killed, and Pakistan Today claimed that 10-15 militants had stormed the base. Of course, the matter was further confused a few days later when the FIR filed by navy personnel said there could have been as many as 10-12 attackers. Speculations about who was behind the attack were equally numerous with as many as ten possible backers mentioned in half as many sources — the TTP, Jaish e Mohammad, Baloch Separatists, RAW, the CIA, and ‘elements within the armed forces’ were just some of the names being bandied about.

But what has been most interesting about coverage of the attack on PNS Mehran is the range of opinion it has generated in a short span of time, more so than the May 2 raid on Osama Bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad. Most news sources and media persons stayed firmly in their usual corners — with government-bashing taking a backseat to military-bashing, for the most part – except when it came to talking about the commandoes, navy officers, firemen and security personnel who lost their lives in the attack. The morning of the operation, readers of The News were greeted by the headline “Four terrorists mocked government might for 16 hours.” An editorial in the same paper mocked the establishment’s attempts to secure peace, but praised lower-level officers for giving their lives for their country. In contrast, Dawn’s editorial after the attacks was more tempered, stating that we needed to “face facts once and for all and stop living in denial ... It is unfortunate, but not surprising given the staggeringly delusional outlook of many in this country, that the deadly assault on the PNS Mehran airbase in Karachi has engendered a plethora of conspiracy theories even before the matter has been fully investigated.”

Indeed, conspiracy theories were the order of the day, and there was no better place to air them than the television. The difference being that after this attack, which specifically targeted strategic military assets with cold-blooded precision, even those who usually dismissed conspiracy theories were shaken, and were heard reassessing their positions. At such a time, when Zaid Hamid appeared on Mehr Bokhari’s show on Dunya TV and said the attack was part of a greater Western conspiracy, there can be no doubt that more than a few people watching felt that he had been on the right track all along. “After 9/11, a new war was started to reshape the Middle East ...” Hamid railed. “The US and Nato are looking for a new supply route to Afghanistan, an alternate supply route within Pakistan. Just like they have done in Libya, they want to take over the Gwadar port in Pakistan. That is why it is critical for them to incapacitate the Pakistan Navy ... In the 21st century, whoever controls the Indian Ocean will control the whole world.”

Similar views were repeated in the Urdu press, with Ikram Sehgal writing in Jang, “The US supported us when they needed a buffer against communism, but after that, didn’t consider us important enough to do anything but pay lip service to us... America has never stuck by its policies regarding Pakistan.” In another publication on the same day, Sehgal pointed a finger at Indian Intelligence agency RAW, as well. The Daily Express, in its editorial the day after the attacks, pointed a finger at elements within the country that could be responsible, even saying that “terrorists have infiltrated the media, too.”

During this time, while the nation was either obsessed with self-flagellation or was busy pointing at ‘external’ elements, foreign reactions were equally interesting. While the foreign press came down hard on Pakistan, Western political leadership softened its stance. UK Prime Minister David Cameron and US President Obama solemnly pledged that Pakistan was not alone in the fight against terrorism, and veteran policymakers like Henry Kissinger said, “We should stop beating up on Pakistan.” Even Indian Defence Minister AK Antony’s response was measured, as he said “Our services are taking all precautions and are ready around the clock ... but at the same time we don’t want to overreact.”

It was then left to the foreign press to question the safety of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, and much was made of the massive security lapse at PNS Mehran. An article in the Associated Press by Chris Brummitt said, “A serious breach of the security perimeter could lead to calls for a unilateral American move to secure the Muslim world’s only nuclear weapons ... while that is unlikely, a scenario that includes more attacks on Pakistani security installations, possibly nuclear ones, is not.” Similarly, articles in The Guardian and The Los Angeles Times talked of how the raid had embarrassed the Pakistani Army.

With all this sombre talk dominating the airwaves and the newspapers, one felt that only a look at the blogosphere could help lighten the debate. Pakistani bloggers didn’t disappoint, with KalaKawa announcing: “I will now present a list of excuses that would have flown better than the one actually used by the PAF ... like this — The PAF is acutely aware of the shortage of electricity in our nation. As part of the energy conservation movement we have decided to keep all radars off between 9 pm and 9 am. A replacement plan has been devised though. The Ruet-e-Hilal Committee has been hired all year long now to keep an eye on any intruding vehicles.” The folks at Cafe Pyala threw in their own observations, pointing out that a ‘Colonel
Sahib’ once informed them that the guards posted outside PAF Masroor Base “are not soldiers, just chowkidars ... somebody has just given them some uniforms.”

The funniest jokes that
circulated after the attacks, however, mostly had to do with a certain sci-fi trilogy starring a short man with an abysmally loose grasp on sentence structure — perhaps the best we can hope for, then, is that the force be with us all.

Published in The Express Tribune, Sunday Magazine, June 5th, 2011.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>India concerned over Pakistan’s nuke safety</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/175643/india-concerned-for-safety-of-pakistan-nuclear-weapons</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/175643/india-concerned-for-safety-of-pakistan-nuclear-weapons#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Thu, 26 May 11 04:08:08 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[reuters]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=175643</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[India's defence minister says safety of Pakistan's nuclear assets is a concern for all countries.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[India has voiced concern over the safety of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal following a militant siege at the country’s largest naval airbase PNS Mehran.


“Naturally it is a concern not only for us but for everybody,” Indian Defence Minister AK Antony was quoted as saying by the Press Trust of India.

“Our services are taking all precautions ... but at the same time we don’t want to over react,” he said.

Sunday’s attack on the PNS Mehran base has raised fresh worry about the safety of Pakistan’s 70-100 nuclear weapons, and some analysts see it as a blueprint for a raid on a nuclear base.

 

Published in The Express Tribune, May 26th, 2011.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>NATO ‘concerned’ about Pakistan’s nuclear security</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/174925/pakistan-nuclear-security-of-concern-nato</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/174925/pakistan-nuclear-security-of-concern-nato#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Wed, 25 May 11 02:00:15 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[agencies]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=174925</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Rasmussen says he is confident Pakistan's nuclear weapons were safe, but admitted it was a matter of concern.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The head of Nato said on Tuesday he was confident Pakistan’s nuclear weapons were safe, but admitted it was a matter of concern, the day after the worst assault on Pakistan Navy’s airbase, PNS Mehran, in Karachi.


Anders Fogh Rasmussen was in Afghanistan on a one-day visit and met President Hamid Karzai to discuss the transition of security from Nato -led troops to Afghan security forces, which is due to begin in July.

Rasmussen was asked if NATO was concerned about Pakistan’s nuclear weapons after it took Pakistani forces 17 hours to reclaim control of the naval airbase from the attackers and following the death of Osama bin Laden.

“I feel confident that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is safe and well protected,” said Rasmussen. “But of course it is a matter of concern and we follow the situation closely.”

About the deadly Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan, Rasmussen said that Nato would protect its troops and Afghans from militants based across the border in Pakistan, reiterating pledges by the United States to target insurgents there who have escalated attacks since Bin Laden’s death.

The Western nations blame the North Waziristan-based Haqqani network of Taliban militants for fueling the insurgency in Afghanistan – a charge denied by Islamabad.

“It is well known that there is cross-border activity and it... (is) a problem and a security challenge,” Rasmussen told reporters. “We will take  all necessary measures to protect the Afghan people and our own troops,” he said of the Nato-led International Security Assistance Force (Isaf).

Rasmussen’s words echoed comments by Obama and US Senator John Kerry, a Democrat close to his administration, who have both said the United States would consider all options in hunting out senior militants in Pakistan after killing al Qaeda leader bin Laden in a secret raid on May 2.

President Karzai, on his part, called on Pakistan for help “to cooperate with us seriously and by all means, in order to eliminate terrorism and its training bases”.

Published in The Express Tribune, May 25th, 2011.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Nuclear pre-emption after Geronimo</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/167262/nuclear-pre-emption-after-geronimo</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/167262/nuclear-pre-emption-after-geronimo#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Thu, 12 May 11 19:46:24 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[zahir.kazmi]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=167262</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[The history of Pakistan-India crises shows that India engages in chest-beating in moments of Pakistan’s weakness.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[In 2008, five of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation’s (Nato) top military officers and strategists presented a radical manifesto to the Pentagon. They urged the West to be ready to resort to a pre-emptive nuclear attack to halt the ‘imminent’ spread of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction (WMD), the Guardian reported on January 22, 2008. These officers stressed that the first use of nuclear weapons must remain in the quiver of escalation as the ultimate instrument to prevent the use of WMD. Owing to the sensitivity of the doctrine, nothing credible appeared on the issue afterwards.

Can Operation Geronimo serve as an ominous example and as a precedent for a scenario suggested at the Pentagon in 2008? How plausible are the recent Indian army and air chiefs’ assertions that they could replicate the American raid deep inside Pakistan to kill Osama bin Laden? In the extreme event of a pre-emptive strike, can Pakistan defend itself? These questions may sound paranoid but do arise if the implications of Operation Geronimo are stretched to the limit. The success of the raid may, mistakenly, embolden others to think that they could get away with something similar. That said, Pakistan’s foreign office and the GHQ have warned India of catastrophic consequences if it takes American action as a rule and ‘miscalculates’ Pakistan’s response. America was cautioned not to repeat such unilateralism. Let’s try to unfold the possibility of nuclear first-use and Pakistan’s capability.

We have one historic example which shows that nuclear installations are only destroyed in raids once the targeted country’s programme is in infancy and the aggressor is 100 per cent sure that there will be no credible retaliation. Let’s take the US first. If it had any wish to destroy Pakistan’s nuclear capability, it would have done so in the early 1980s. But Washington could not afford to attack for two reasons. One, it needed Pakistan in the so-called jihad against the erstwhile Soviet Union. Two, it wasn’t sure how many bombs Pakistan had.

America won’t pre-empt for three reasons. First, its relations with Pakistan are on the rocks but have not nose-dived. Second, Pakistan doesn’t constitute a proliferation concern and finally, it remains their major non-Nato ‘ally’.

Let’s assume, against conventional wisdom, that America decides to take advantage of Pakistan’s misperceived vulnerability. In the confusion following a hypothetical American strike on Pakistan’s nuclear assets or command infrastructure, Islamabad may wittingly, or unwittingly, retaliate thus, sparking a nuclear war beyond anyone’s control.

Let’s understand the possibility of Indian pre-emption. Pakistan has not formally declared its nuclear doctrine so we don’t know if it will use the nukes first. Though the nuclear facilities on both sides can generally be pinpointed, locations of actual nuclear weapons are not public. Since nuclear facilities of both India and Pakistan are vulnerable, they have a bilateral agreement not to attack these and Indians don’t bat an eyelid in exchanging the list of installations with Pakistan on January 1 every year.

Some fixed launch-sites of weapons on land can be targeted, but neither can guess the location of mobile delivery systems, which include air launched weapons and sea-based assets. Targeting the decision-makers is problematic too. We know where the nuclear decision-makers live in peacetime but it is anybody’s guess as to where they will reside in times of crisis or war. India is fast moving towards difficult-to-target submarine-based nuclear arsenal and will have assured second strike capability. After the test of slim Hatf-IX (Nasr), Pakistan may soon mutate it to develop a submarine platform. Hence, the threat of destruction will assuredly become mutual.

The history of Pakistan-India crises shows that India engages in chest-beating in moments of Pakistan’s weakness. Its air and army chiefs did so by suggesting that New Delhi retains the capability to copy the American raid in Abbottabad. Even if the capability is possible, can they be sure of starting a war without the risk of it escalating to a nuclear one?

Deterrence, like beauty, lies in the eyes of the aggressor and hubris on nuclear power is the last thing a nuclear state must exercise. No matter how many impregnable lines of defence any technology can break, the risk of a single weapon landing on the aggressors’ soil is too big to be taken. That’s probably why the radical pre-emptive strikes manifesto of Nato’s wizards fell out of favour and no one heard of it again.

Published in The Express Tribune, May 13th, 2011.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Zardari to seek nuclear technology cooperation with Japan</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/121778/zardari-to-seek-nuclear-technology-cooperation-with-japan</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/121778/zardari-to-seek-nuclear-technology-cooperation-with-japan#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Mon, 21 Feb 11 14:57:13 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=121778</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Japan should cooperate on peaceful uses of nuclear energy with Pakistan as it is doing with India, says Zardari.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[President Asif Ali Zardari on Monday said that since Japan is negotiating a deal with India to cooperate on peaceful uses of nuclear energy, similar cooperation should be extended to Pakistan.

"If Japan is willing to cooperate with India in nuclear technology and (is) giving nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, I do not see any reason why we should not deserve the same," Zardari said in an interview with the Japanese media in Islamabad ahead of his departure for a three-day visit to Japan.

"I do not know what questions would be raised during discussions. It depends," he said when asked if he will raise the question of nuclear technology cooperation during the visit.

The president said that he recognized that nuclear power is a sensitive issue for the Japanese people and government.

Neither India nor Pakistan are signatories to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and the talks between Japan and India have triggered an outcry from survivors of the 1945 US atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, who fear such a deal will hamper global efforts to bring about a world without nuclear weapons.

Japanese firms, however, are keen to export nuclear power generation technology and related equipment to India, which plans to build 20 new nuclear power plants by 2020.

Zardari said that Pakistan never wanted to go nuclear but it was forced to do so when arch-rival India detonated a nuclear device in 1974 and again in 1998.

He denied a recent newspaper report that the number of nuclear weapons possessed by Pakistan exceeds that of India, saying "There is always a difference between facts and fantasy."

Asked if Pakistan seeks to expand its nuclear arsenal, the president said his government does not want to see an arms race in the region and advocates a nuclear-free South Asia.

During his visit to Japan, Zardari is scheduled to hold talks with Prime Minister Naoto Kan and meet with Japanese business leaders and companies doing business with Pakistan.

He said he will strive to make the people and government of Japan aware of Pakistan's situation and the challenges it faces.

The President projected Pakistan as a destination for Japanese investment, calling on Japanese investors to make use of proposed economic zones in his country.

He urged leading Japanese automakers with assembly plants in Pakistan, which exclusively cater to the local market, to export locally made vehicles to markets in Asia and Africa.

There is also great potential for bilateral cooperation in theservices industry, he added.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Pakistan may be expanding nuclear site, claims report</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/117295/pakistan-may-be-expanding-nuclear-site-claims-report</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/117295/pakistan-may-be-expanding-nuclear-site-claims-report#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Fri, 11 Feb 11 05:37:52 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[afp]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=117295</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[‘Islamabad is estimated to have somewhere between 60 to 100 weapons’]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Pakistan appears to be increasing its production of nuclear materials with the apparent construction of a fourth reactor at its Khushab nuclear site, according to a US-based think tank.

Releasing satellite images from January 15, the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) said in a report on Wednesday that the pictures showed the early construction of a fourth military nuclear reactor set to be the same size as two of the other buildings.

“Pakistan is determined to produce considerably more plutonium for nuclear weapons,” ISIS said in its report, noting that since the announcement of its first reactor at the Khushab site in 1998, the nuclear power began constructing a second reactor around 2000-2002, and began building a third in 2006.

Pakistan has reportedly doubled its nuclear arsenal over the past several years, increasing its stocks to more than 100 deployed weapons.

Only four years ago the country’s arsenal was estimated at 30 to 60 weapons, but has since stepped up its production of plutonium and highly enriched uranium.

“They have been expanding pretty rapidly,” ISIS president David Albright noted late last month, the Washington Post reported, with Islamabad edging ahead of its nuclear-armed rival India, estimated to have somewhere between 60 to 100 weapons.

Published in The Express Tribune, February 11th, 2011.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Nuclear-arsenal report alarmist: FO</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/112542/pakistan-dismisses-alarmist-reporting-on-nuclear-programme</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/112542/pakistan-dismisses-alarmist-reporting-on-nuclear-programme#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Wed, 02 Feb 11 05:10:36 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[express]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=112542</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Foreign Office says Pakistan will continue to follow a responsible policy of maintaining credible minimum deterrence.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Pakistan has rejected recent western media reports, indicating it has steadily expanded the nuclear arsenal and is on the path to overtake Britain as the world’s fifth largest nuclear weapons power, as “unnecessary alarmist”.

A statement issued by the Foreign Office spokesman, however, did not comment on the analysis by the non-governmental US think-tank which claims Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal now totals more than 100.

The New York Times reported that the new assessment poses a direct challenge to US President Barack Obama’s policy of reducing nuclear stockpiles around the world.

“Unnecessary alarmist reporting about Pakistan’s nuclear programme continues to surface occasionally,” said Abdul Basit.

He said in the nuclearised environment of South Asia, Pakistan continues to follow a responsible policy of maintaining credible minimum deterrence. “Pakistan is mindful of the need to avoid an arms race with India but would never compromise on its national security,” he remarked.

Basit said Pakistan attaches importance to ensuring peace, security and stability in South Asia and is mindful of the adverse implications of “selectivity” and “exceptionalism” in evidence on issues of nuclear non-proliferation.

Pakistan has consistently advocated to India the need to resume the stalled Pakistan-India dialogue, including on issues of peace and security, the spokesman maintained.

“In this context, Pakistan’s proposal for strategic restraint regime in South Asia, including nuclear and conventional forces as well as resolution of all issues and dispute, is of extreme importance,” he said.

Published in The Express Tribune, February 2nd, 2011.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Pakistan's nuclear arsenal edges past India: Report</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/111829/pakistans-nuclear-arsenal-edges-ahead-of-india</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/111829/pakistans-nuclear-arsenal-edges-ahead-of-india#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Tue, 01 Feb 11 04:00:05 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[express]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=111829</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Pakistan fifth-largest nuclear power, says Washington Post.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal now totals over 100 deployed weapons, a doubling of its stockpile over the past several years, The Washington Post reports.

Experts say that after years of approximate weapons parity, Pakistan has now edged ahead of India. India is estimated to have 60 to 100 weapons.

Four years ago, the Pakistani arsenal was estimated at 30 to 60 weapons. “They have been expanding pretty rapidly,” Albright said. Based on recently accelerated production of plutonium and highly enriched uranium, “they could have more than doubled in that period,” with current estimates of up to 110 weapons, he said.

Shaun Gregory, director of the Pakistan Security Research Unit at Britain’s University of Bradford, put the number at between 100 and 110.

Some Pakistani officials have intimated they have even more. But just as the US has a vested interest in publicly playing down the total, Pakistan sees advantage in “playing up the number of weapons they’ve got,” Gregory said. “They’re at a disadvantage with India with conventional forces,” in terms of both weaponry and personnel.

Those figures make Pakistan the world’s fifth-largest nuclear power, ahead of “legal” powers France and Britain.

While Pakistan has produced more nuclear-armed weapons, India is believed to have larger existing stockpiles of such fissile material for future weapons. That long-term Indian advantage, Pakistan has charged, was further enhanced by a 2008 US-India civil nuclear cooperation agreement. The administration has deflected Pakistan’s demands for a similar deal.

Brig. Gen. Nazir Butt, defence attache at the Pakistani Embassy in Washington, said the number of Pakistan’s weapons and the status of its production facilities are confidential. “Pakistan lives in a tough neighbourhood and will never be oblivious to its security needs,” Butt said. “As a nuclear power, we are very confident of our deterrent capabilities.”

An escalation of the arms race in South Asia poses a dilemma for the Obama administration, which has worked to improve its economic, political and defence ties with India while seeking to deepen its relationship with Pakistan as a crucial component of its Afghanistan war strategy. The administration is caught between fears of proliferation or possible terrorist attempts to seize nuclear materials and Pakistani suspicions that the US aims to control or limit its weapons programme and favours India.

The level of US concern was reflected during last month’s White House war review, when Pakistan’s nuclear security was set as one of two long-term strategy objectives there, along with the defeat of al Qaeda, according to a senior administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

“The administration is always trying to keep people from talking about this knowledgeably,” said David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security and a leading analyst on the world’s nuclear forces. “They’re always trying to downplay” the numbers and insisting that “it’s smaller than you think.”

Published in The Express Tribune, February 1st, 2011.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>WikiLeaks: Pakistan dismisses nuclear fears in leaked cables</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/84418/wikileaks-pakistan-dismisses-nuclear-fears-in-leaked-cables</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/84418/wikileaks-pakistan-dismisses-nuclear-fears-in-leaked-cables#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Wed, 01 Dec 10 09:27:43 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[afp]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=84418</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[&quot;Their fears are misplaced and doubtless fall in the realm of condescension,&quot; says Abdul Basit.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Foreign Office Spokesman Abdul Basit on Wednesday dismissed American and British fears that Pakistan's nuclear weapons programme could fall into hands of terrorists as laid bare in leaked American diplomatic cables. 

Memos obtained by whistleblower site WikiLeaks and reported by the Guardian and The New York Times suggested that the United States was more concerned than it let on publicly about Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

"Their fears are misplaced and doubtless fall in the realm of condescension," foreign office spokesman Abdul Basit told AFP.

"There has not been a single incident involving our fissile material, which clearly reflects how strong our controls and mechanisms are," he said.

"It is time they part with their historical biases against Pakistan," Basit said, referring to Britain and the United States.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>New leaks from WikiLeaks: UK, US concerned over Pakistan’s nukes</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/84305/new-leaks-from-wikileaks-uk-us-concerned-over-pakistan%e2%80%99s-nukes</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/84305/new-leaks-from-wikileaks-uk-us-concerned-over-pakistan%e2%80%99s-nukes#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Wed, 01 Dec 10 03:35:22 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[saba.imtiaz]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=84305</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[WikiLe­aks docume­nts raise specul­ation on Indo-Pak ties and Nawaz Sharif.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The latest of documents released by WikiLeaks point to growing concern in the UK and US about Pakistan’s nuclear programme, as well as speculation on Indo-Pak ties and Nawaz Sharif.

The newly-released memo describes a September 2009 meeting between UK and US officials. The meetings were held by US Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Ellen Tauscher in London on the margins of the P5 Conference on Confidence Building Measures towards Nuclear Disarmament with UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband, Simon McDonald, Head of the Foreign and Defence Policy Secretariat at the Cabinet Office, Mariot Leslie, Director-General, Defence and Intelligence, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), and Jon Day, Ministry of Defence Director-General for Security Policy.

Democracy

While the US and the UK have publicly said that they support democracy in Pakistan, Day is quoted as having asked if the US would be “obliged” to cut  relations with Pakistan if the military took over again and said that the last time the military assumed power the UK had maintained military-to-military ties.

Interestingly enough, Day also asked the US for its perspective on Nawaz Sharif, whom he described as “potentially less venal” than other Pakistani leaders.

The nuclear question

The memo also echoes fears shared by other countries with the US and revealed in the leaked documents – about the safety and security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons.

Leslie said in the meeting that the UK has ‘deep concerns’ about the weapons, but also believed ‘China could play a big role in stabilising Pakistan’.

China and Pakistan have had strong relations for many years and President Asif Ali Zardari has visited the country several times since he took over.

Leslie said that Pakistan has accepted nuclear safety help, but under the ‘International Atomic Energy Agency flag (albeit British technicians).’

Leslie is quoted saying that the Pakistanis worry that the US “will drop in and take their nukes.”

According to the memo, Leslie noted that China has “dumped” Pakistan in the Conference on Disarmament (CD), which is a “good sign”.

Under Secretary Tauscher then urged P5 action to get Pakistan to stop blocking progress in the CD on the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty.

Indo-Pak relations

The meeting also elaborated on Indo-Pak relations. Jon Day, the Ministry of Defence Director General for Security Policy, is quoted as having “expressed support for the development of a ‘cold war’-like relationship between India and Pakistan that would ‘introduce a degree of certainty’ between the two countries in their dealings.”

However, Day said that recent intelligence indicated that Pakistan “is not going in a good direction.”

The memo elaborates that “Pakistan sees the debate about Afghanistan in the US and the UK as demonstrating that the allies lack the will to maintain their commitment there. The Pakistanis also believe that their recent successes against extremists in the Swat valley validate their belief that they can deal with their own internal problems without changing their approach toward India.”

The regional arms race

According to the memo, Mariot Leslie the Director General for Defence and Intelligence flagged the “inconvenient truth” that “China is building its nuclear arsenal.” Leslie is also quoted as having said that there was an arms race in the Pacific in light of India’s nuclear programme.

However, the memo shows that UK officials saw China’s role in the region as a positive sign. The memo says that Leslie was optimistic about China’s commitment to multilateral cooperation. She also suggested that the US and the UK should push China for progress “until they say ‘stop it’.”

Published in The Express Tribune, December 1st, 2010.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Pakistan under renewed pressure for nuke freeze</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/76731/pakistan-under-renewed-pressure-for-nuke-freeze</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/76731/pakistan-under-renewed-pressure-for-nuke-freeze#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Sat, 13 Nov 10 05:03:26 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[kamran.yousaf]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=76731</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[World capitals asking Islamabad to sign controversial fissile material cut-off treaty.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Pakistan is under immense pressure from powerful countries led by the US to freeze its nuclear programme by agreeing to a controversial treaty that bans production of fissile materials to make atomic bomb.

Western powers, which are pushing for a deal on the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT), have threatened to take Pakistan’s case to the UN Security Council if it did not sign the longstanding agreement, disclosed a senior official of the country’s nuclear establishment.

“You can’t even imagine what kind of pressures is being exerted on Pakistan,” said the official, who is associated with the Strategic Plans Division (SPD). Headed by Gen Khalid Kidwai, the SPD controls the country’s nuclear arsenal.

In a rare background conversation, the SPD official told The Express Tribune that Western powers particularly the US have been using ‘coercive measures’ for the last several months against Pakistan.

“They have threatened to take our case to the UNSC … they are even threatening us with isolation,” he added.

However, the country’s political and military leadership have so far resisted the pressure as they believe bowing to such demands will seriously undermine the country’s national security, said a top foreign office official. “It’s a Pakistan-specific treaty,” the official added. “The FMCT will not harm big powers because they have surplus nuclear fuel,” he said.

He said Pakistan will have to open its nuclear facilities to international inspections if it signs the FMCT. “This is certainly unacceptable,” he maintained.

The idea of placing a ban on the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons has been discussed for a long time, and the talks broke down in 1995. Since then, there has been very little formal progress.

However, US President Barack Obama is trying to revive the process. At the nuclear summit held in January this year in Washington, President Obama expressed disappointment over Pakistan’s refusal to sign the FMCT. Islamabad has been accused of being a major roadblock in the way of finalising an accord on FMCT, which envisages a ban on the production of highly enriched uranium and plutonium.

One of the key objectives of the FMCT is to prevent terrorists from getting their hands on the fissile material. Western countries fear Pakistan is the most likely country, where this could happen. “This is ridiculous,” said another official.

Pakistan believes FMCT must include existing stocks otherwise the imbalance of power in the world will simply be further enhanced. Its reluctance to sign the treaty is also attributed to the discriminatory policies of the West on civilian nuclear cooperation.

“Some states have been denied the right to peaceful nuclear cooperation while others are supported in promoting unsafe nuclear programmes,” asserted the official in a clear reference to Indo-US nuclear deal.

“With its current form and conditions, Pakistan will never sign the FMCT,” remarked Foreign Office Spokesman Abdul Basit.

Published in The Express Tribune, November 13th, 2010.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Pakistan’s nukes are safe: Indian army chief</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/67288/pakistan%e2%80%99s-nukes-are-safe-indian-army-chief</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/67288/pakistan%e2%80%99s-nukes-are-safe-indian-army-chief#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Mon, 25 Oct 10 04:09:32 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[express]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=67288</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Gen Singh expresses concern over Pakistan's nuclear arsenal being used by terrorists but feels weapons are secure.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Indian Army Chief Gen VK Singh said on Sunday that concern remains over Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal falling into the hands of terrorists, but he feels these weapons are secure.

“Probably Pakistan also has (such concerns) and they are taking extra measures....I don’t think, there is any reason to say things are not secure. Things are secure,” the army chief told the Press Trust of India in an interview.

He, however, added that this will remain a concern given “the way internal dynamics (of Pakistan) are”.

Recently, Gen Singh was criticised in Pakistan for his comments that Pakistan and China are “major irritants” and India was ready to fight a conventional warfare in a nuclear scenario.

Rejecting Pakistan’s contention that his recent comments were “jingoistic”, he said such views were not only his but of the entire world. The army chief said that both Pakistan and China were nuclear armed countries and “who uses (such weapons), we don’t know. As armed forces, we should always keep this in mind that there is somebody who can use it.”

Elaborating on his contention, he pointed out that Pakistan has done “sabre-rattling” on behalf of nuclear weapons and “we, as a force, are prepared to fight anytime.”

Turning to China, he said the borders are calm and confidence building measures are in place and “things are not as bad as we look at the western side (Pakistan).”

He, however, said no one knows “when its intention will change” and “it remains a cause of worry.” Commenting on China’s capability building, Gen Singh said it is engaging a lot of India’s neighbours and it impacts “our overall security scenario”.

Published in The Express Tribune, October 25th, 2010.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Atomic body should address China-Pakistan deal: US</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/53241/atom-body-should-address-china-pakistan-deal-us</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/53241/atom-body-should-address-china-pakistan-deal-us#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Wed, 22 Sep 10 12:11:31 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[reuters]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=53241</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[A senior US offici­al sugges­ted NSG addres­s Chines­e plans to build two new reacto­rs in Pakist­an.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[A senior US official suggested on Wednesday the 46-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) should address Chinese plans to build two new reactors in Pakistan, one of the few countries outside a global anti-nuclear weapons pact. 

The comments by Thomas D'Agostino, US Under Secretary for Nuclear Security, came a day after China indicated it may see no need to seek approval from the NSG, some of whose members have voiced qualms about the plan to build two new reactors at Pakistan's Chasma nuclear energy complex.

China joined the 35-year-old NSG, which seeks to ensure nuclear exports are not diverted for military purposes, in 2004.

On Tuesday, Beijing gave its firmest government confirmation yet of plans to build the two new reactors for nuclear-armed Pakistan, saying it was based on a contract in 2003, shortly before it joined the NSG.

The expansion of China's nuclear ties with Pakistan has ruffled Washington, Delhi and other capitals. To receive nuclear exports, all nations except the five officially recognised atomic weapons states must usually place all nuclear sites under safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN nuclear watchdog, NSG rules say.

Nuclear Safeguards 

When the United States sealed its nuclear supply accord with India in 2008, it won a waiver from such NSG rules after contentious talks in which China and some other group members raised misgivings, since New Delhi is outside the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has a nuclear arsenal.

Pakistan has also shunned the NPT. Washington and other governments have said China should at least seek a similar waiver for the Pakistan deal. Asked about the Pakistani reactor plans, D'Agostino told reporters during an IAEA meeting in Vienna he did not want to comment on specifics, but added: "We look to engage with China on these particular issues... my focus is to use the framework of the mechanisms that we have in the Nuclear Suppliers Group...

"We are going to use the Nuclear Suppliers Group to the best of our abilities and use all of the tools that we have in that forum to address specific nuclear arrangements that are made, whether it is with China, Pakistan or a variety of other countries...," D'Agostino said.

Israel and North Korea are the only other countries outside the 40-year-old Non-Proliferation Treaty. Asked whether the planned reactors should be under the supervision of the IAEA, D'Agostino said: "I believe in the end that all reactors involved in civil uses should be under IAEA safeguards..."

China's Foreign Ministry said on Tuesday Beijing had invited the IAEA to "exercise safeguards and oversight of this project." But a diplomat familiar with IAEA procedures suggested it was up to Pakistan, not China, to ask it to get involved.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>China firm aims to build big nuclear plant for Pakistan</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/52376/china-firm-aims-to-build-big-nuclear-plant-for-pakistan</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/52376/china-firm-aims-to-build-big-nuclear-plant-for-pakistan#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Mon, 20 Sep 10 11:34:36 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[reuters]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=52376</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[China's main nuclear energy corporation considers building a 1-gigawatt atomic power plant in Pakistan.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[China's main nuclear energy corporation is in talks to build a 1-gigawatt atomic power plant in Pakistan, an executive said on Monday, a move that could intensify international unease about their nuclear embrace. 

China has already helped Pakistan build its main nuclear power facility at Chashma in Punjab province, where one reactor is running and another near finished, and it has contracts to build two more there, despite the qualms of other governments.

Qiu Jiangang, vice president of the China National Nuclear Corp (CNNC), told a meeting in Beijing that the company was already looking beyond those deals to an even bigger plant. "Both sides are in discussions over the CNNC exporting a one-gigawatt nuclear plant to Pakistan," he said.

Qiu confirmed the two countries have signed contracts to build the No 3 and No 4 reactors of about 300 megawatts each at Chashma. He did not give details about who was involved in discussions for the bigger plant and how far the talks had progressed.

The proposed expansion of China's nuclear power ties with Pakistan is likely to magnify unease in Washington, Delhi and other capitals worried about Pakistan's role regional security and nuclear proliferation. Pakistan is a long-standing partner of China, and has been suffering chronic power shortages. Beijing is wary of Indian regional dominance and US influence.

In 2008 Washington signed a nuclear energy deal with India that China and other countries questioned but ultimately let through. Critics of that US-India deal say it prompted China to deepen its own nuclear power cooperation with Pakistan, which has been beset by political instability and militant attacks.

Rivals India and Pakistan both possess nuclear arsenals and refuse to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which would oblige them to scrap those arsenals. Critics say Pakistan's domestic instability and its past role spreading nuclear arms technology demand that China's nuclear plans there at least come under stricter international scrutiny.

Showcase

China says safeguards in place at Chashma ensure its role is entirely peaceful. The complex is China's first nuclear energy plant project abroad, and CNNC recently cast it as a launching pad for expanding into the global market.

"We must rely on the Pakistan Chashma nuclear power project to improve our ability to contract for nuclear power projects abroad, and to open up the foreign market for nuclear energy," the company said in an essay recently published in Seeking Truth, a magazine issued by China's ruling Communist Party.

A senior Pakistani government official familiar with discussions between Pakistan and China on nuclear cooperation said, "We are facing acute energy shortages and these nuclear power plants are important for us to overcome these shortages."

"We as well as China have said time and again that all this cooperation is under the safeguards of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) and there should not be any worries or concerns about it," said the official, who demanded anonymity.

Chinese nuclear industry executives said at Monday's seminar that the expanding nuclear power sector abroad offered abundant opportunities. China prides itself in building the Lingao reactor that began fully operating in the country's far southern Guangdong province last week in a record-breaking period of 57 months.

"All these experiences have laid the foundation for the nuclear sector to go overseas," said He Yu, chairman of the Guangdong Nuclear Power Corp. China plans a massive expansion of its nuclear power in the next decade, and has about 28 reactors currently under construction, some 40 per cent of the world's total being built.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>IAEA can inspect Sino-Pak nuclear agreement: FM</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/24960/iaea-can-inspect-sino-pak-nuclear-agreement-fm</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/24960/iaea-can-inspect-sino-pak-nuclear-agreement-fm#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Thu, 01 Jul 10 08:28:13 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[express]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=24960</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi said that IAEA can inspect the Sino-Pak nuclear agreement, if it wants.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi said that International  Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) can inspect the Sino-Pak nuclear agreement, if it  wants. 

Talking to media in Multan, Qureshi said that Pakistan's  nuclear arsenal are completely safe and secure and no one can point fingers at  the security of nuclear assets.

Speaking about the Pak-Iran gas deal, Qureshi  said that the deal struck with Iran is to cope with the energy needs of the country. He  said that poverty alleviation is also on the priority list of the government  after energy. He also said that government is planning to upgrade the railway system in  the country and is also planning to finalise a deal with Turkey for a cargo train.

Qureshi said that  China is an important friend of Pakistan and government is trying to convince  China to enhance investment in Pakistan.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>The benefits of having nuclear weapons</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/21445/the-benefits-of-having-nuclear-weapons</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/21445/the-benefits-of-having-nuclear-weapons#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Tue, 15 Jun 10 20:13:53 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[kamran.shahid]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=21445</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Theorists of both schools of international relations, neo-realist and neo-liberal, agree that the root cause of conflicting relations in the international system is the lack of a ‘central authority’ above nation states. ‘Anarchy’ rules the system and makes cooperation among states impossible. For neo-liberals, ‘anarchy’ can only be overcome and war averted with the establishment of international institutions and ‘recognised regimes’ which constitute the body of laws and norms in order to make defection and breach of agreements less likely and cooperation among states more likely. Realists negate the above argument.

In the political world of realism, states are relatively positioned in accordance with their power and resources, and national security is determined by their ability to defend their citizens and their national sovereignty from external threats. Every state knows that rival states can use their superiority against them. This creates an environment of uncertainty and induces states to go after the ‘relative gains’ even at the cost of peace. Under the rule of ‘anarchy’ due to the lack of a centralised authority, conflicts in international politics remain a pervasive state of affairs whereas cooperation remains a difficult task to achieve.

The above comparison shows that both schools have distinct explanation of wars but both agree that lack of a centralised order, which constitutes the ‘self-help system’ of anarchy, is the root cause of conflicting international relations. One argues that nuclear proliferation is the ‘missing order’ of the international world, which has the potential to overcome anarchy and act as a central unifying force. It functions in two dynamic ways: it secures the borders of a nuclear nation state once and for all and as a consequence of that, discourages wars between, among and against nuclear states. Without spending huge funds on conventional wars this method conveys a sharp message to all small and big monsters that an attack on ‘our’ nuclear security will be punished with such density and speed that it will undermine ‘your’ relative gains. Unlike conventional warfare the speed at which nuclear weapons promise to deliver nuclear destruction has made wars between nuclear states rationally impossible. It raises the stakes too high for war and compels states to resolve their conflicts politically rather than militarily.

If the liberals and realists are in the quest for ‘order’ which can administrate cooperation and peace among states, and prevent the world from conflicts and wars, then one argues that it is this ‘nuclear order’, or nuclear defensive force, which will be the central deterrent authority of the international system. In the presence of this ‘nuclear order’ no state can ‘cheat the international agreements’ (the liberal explanation of wars) nor lust for ‘relative gains’ (realist justification of war). No state will even to think of destroying the security and territorial unity of a nuclear state.

In the short span of 50 years the world has witnessed the gradual but transatlantic spread of nuclear weapons. States like Pakistan and Israel become more desperate to develop nuclear warheads when they have to encounter much stronger enemies in their respective geographical locations. By adopting the nuclear path both states have offset their conventional military weaknesses, made their defences invulnerable and transformed their inferiority to that of nuclear parity with their opponent. States do not acquire nuclear arsenals in order to annihilate their enemies. On the other hand, states are desperate to create a strong nuclear shield in order to avert wars by deterring ‘would-be’ aggressors once and for all.

Published in the Express Tribune, June 16th, 2010.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Is Pakistan like Israel or North Korea?</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/19048/is-pakistan-like-israel-or-north-korea</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/19048/is-pakistan-like-israel-or-north-korea#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Sat, 05 Jun 10 19:03:57 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[ayesha.siddiqa]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=19048</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Pakistan has a love-hate relationship with Israel. While we abhor Tel Aviv, secretly powerful Pakistanis happily claim similarities between the two states starting with the fact that both Israel and Pakistan were created on the basis of a religious identity.  For those who compare a sense of similarity probably makes them feel important and elevated. After all, Islamabad would like to feel as important as America’s best buddy. Some might argue that such comparison itself is a sign of neo-colonial mentality of Pakistani rulers.

But really, there are some queer similarities between the two states. The comparison, however, is more in the strain of a ‘slip of tongue’ because the similarities between the two countries are of a different nature. For instance, both have evolved into national-religious security states mired in a deep sense of insecurity which they cannot get rid of primarily due to the national narrative being frozen in history. Furthermore, the security establishments and governments of Israel and Pakistan are fixated on a military solution to the problem which has undermined alternatives to conflict resolution and influenced the personality of the state and its society as well. In short, due to problems of birth and history, both countries have evolved as highly insecure states where the politically liberal elements seem to be on the back foot. In fact, there is little chance of the liberal elements to regain strength in both Israel and Pakistan. The religious-national discourse in both places has now taken a life of its own and so it almost eliminates the possibility of the development of a more normal worldview. Smaller ethnic groups then get ostracised and brutalised due to absence of their share in formulating the discourse. The national narrative or discourse, it must be pointed out, is not about a set of slogans or some political manifesto, but it is a nation’s DNA. What a nation stands for, what are its values and who has ownership of the state are determined by the design of the narrative.

Another similarity pertains to the options which possession of nuclear weapons provides state functionaries in negotiating with its own population as well as the world outside. Besides security, nuclear weapons were developed to give the respective states greater leverage in terms of their security. A concern both countries share is what if the US abandons them. In that case, nuclear weapons provide a major psychological relief and a political opportunity.

Of course, the similarity ends here. One of the major disparities between the two countries is the health of state institutions. Tel Aviv could boost of sustaining its civilian institutions and allowing parallel institutions to grow. The Israeli state has huge problems but it seems to provide relative better services to those considered its citizens.

It could be possible, as some might suggest, that given the collapse of institutions or the emergence of military as the sole institution, Pakistan resembles North Korea rather than Israel. No one is suggesting that their situations are not different but it is about the personality of the state — a cowboy and a child at the same time. The ruling establishment in Pyongyang holds its weapons, including the nuclear arsenal, close to its heart and refuses to accept alternative means of national development. In fact, one of the other possible similarities between the two states is that their leadership considers nuclear weapons vital for negotiating resources from the international community. Since the world is afraid of North Korea and Pakistan doing anything untoward or collapsing, or imagines that some unsavory elements might take over its military capacity, resources continue to roll in. Most interestingly, the leadership banks on its ability to blackmail the international community. One has sat through television programs listening to official spokespersons pontificating about how the world can just not ignore to not help Pakistan. Helping the country, incidentally always means, giving money in return for not threatening the world.

The saddest part of being North Korea like is that at the end of the day the state dedicates itself to keeping the war machine well-oiled. At best, the ruling elite tends to keep one or two institutions alive at the cost of overall institutional decay. Therefore, whats happening to the Baloch or the Ahmadis might not just be an accident, but a consequence of what our national narrative expects us to be.

Perhaps its time to see where we are going?

Published in the Express Tribune, June 6th, 2010.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Turkey says nuclear powers should disarm</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/17060/turkey-says-nuclear-powers-should-disarm</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/17060/turkey-says-nuclear-powers-should-disarm#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Fri, 28 May 10 21:46:28 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[afp]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=17060</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said on Friday that the US and other nuclear powers should “eliminate” their arsenals to be “convincing” in the standoff over Iran.

Erdogan, speaking at a UN conference on cross-cultural understanding in Rio, made the comment in the context of a deal Brazil and Turkey struck with Iran over its uranium stocks, and a US push for UN sanctions against Tehran over its nuclear program

“When we hear people talking about stopping Iran getting nuclear weapons - who are they to talk against the idea of having nuclear weapons!” Erdogan exclaimed.

“Those who talk like that should eliminate nuclear weapons from their own countries.... That’s the only way to be convincing,” he said.

“We will not manage to have world peace with the proliferation of nuclear arms.”

Meanwhile, at the opening ceremony of the same conference Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva reiterated his insistence that a “negotiated solution” be found with Iran over its nuclear program, as the US and other powers mulled sanctions.

Lula said he “went to Iran in search of a negotiated solution” to the international standoff over the program, which the US claims - over Tehran’s denials - is a cover for building atomic weapons.

The Brazilian president also stated that he saw nuclear arsenals as “obsolete” and highlighted his country’s constitutional ban on possessing such arms.

The comments came a day after US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said “we have very serious disagreements with Brazil’s diplomacy vis-a-vis Iran.”

The US is pushing a UN resolution to punish Iran with a fourth set of sanctions after deeming that it is not doing enough to meet international demands to show its nuclear program is peaceful.

Lula and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan on May 17 extracted an agreement from Iran to deposit around half its stock of low-enriched uranium in Turkey in exchange, later, for nuclear fuel enriched to a level for medical - but not military - use.

They hailed the deal as a diplomatic breakthrough, but Washington subsequently said the accord did not go far enough, and the sanctions resolution was submitted to the UN Security Council, upon which Brazil and Turkey both sit.

Published in the Express Tribune, May 29th, 2010.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Nuclear treaty talks on brink of failure: diplomats</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/17059/nuclear-treaty-talks-on-brink-of-failure-diplomats</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/17059/nuclear-treaty-talks-on-brink-of-failure-diplomats#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Fri, 28 May 10 21:46:15 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[reuters]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=17059</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Talks on shoring up the global anti-nuclear arms treaty were on the edge of failure on Friday.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Talks on shoring up the global anti-nuclear arms treaty were on the edge of failure on Friday as the US and its allies clashed with Egypt over a push to pressure Israel to scrap any atom bombs it may possess.

For a month the 189 signatories of the 1970 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty have been meeting in New York in hopes of agreeing on a plan to shore up the troubled pact, which analysts say has been hit by Iran’s and North Korea’s atomic programs and failure by the nuclear powers to disarm.

The latest draft of a final declaration for the NPT review conference calls for UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to organise a meeting of all Middle Eastern states in 2012 on how to make the region free of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction (WMD) as demanded by a 1995 NPT resolution.

The creation of a WMD-free zone would eventually force Israel to abandon any atomic bombs it has. The Jewish state, which like nuclear-armed India and Pakistan never signed the NPT, is presumed to have a sizable nuclear arsenal but neither confirms nor denies it. Israel is not participating in the NPT meeting.

The document has also asked Pakistan and India to join the NPT and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) as non-nuclear weapon states, “promptly and without conditions,” adding that Pakistan and India should also suspend nuclear testing.

The five permanent UN Security Council members and a group of Arab states led by Egypt are close to a deal that would make the 2012 conference happen, delegates say. But the two sides have reached an impasse on the question of whether Israel should be named in the declaration as a problem state.

The Egyptians insist the declaration must state explicitly that Israel should join the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state, but the Americans are refusing, diplomats said.

Published in the Express Tribune, May 29th, 2010.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>US wants to include Pakistan, India and Israel: Clinton</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/10934/us-wants-to-include-pakistan-india-and-israel-clinton</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/10934/us-wants-to-include-pakistan-india-and-israel-clinton#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Tue, 04 May 10 22:19:30 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[afp]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=10934</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said that the US wants to include Pakistan, India and Israel in the Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT). 

“We strongly believe in this, which is why we are taking steps that have never been taken by any administration before,” she told reporters on Monday, after addressing the NPT review conference at the United Nations (UN). Asked whether she had any proposals to persuade the three countries who had not signed the 1968 nuclear pact, she said that the US wanted every country to be a signatory to the treaty.

“We want universal adherence and we continue to urge all states, every single one of them outside the NPT, to join the treaty and accept the full-scope safeguards by the International Atomic Energy Agency as required under the treaty,” she said. Clinton said that the US was trying to build confidence and show its commitment towards the NPT. “We want to see every nation that is a signatory live up to its obligations and it is important that the US take the steps it is taking.

But we hope that we will see all nations eventually agree that being a signatory to the NPT is in their interest and the interests of global security and safety.” Earlier, speaking in the General Assembly hall, Clinton accused Iran of “flouting the rules” of the NPT with its suspect uranium enrichment programme and said it was “time for strong international response”. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad rejected the allegations, saying that Washington had not offered “a single credible proof”.

The conference will go on for four weeks to deliberate over how to improve the NPT. The treaty is formally reviewed every five years in a meeting of all 189 members. The review conference is meant to produce a final document pointing towards ways of better achieving the NPT’s goals of checking the spread of nuclear weapons while working towards reducing and eventually eliminating them. The conference requires a consensus of all parties, including Iran, which has signed the treaty.

As delegates assess the NPT’s state in UN conference halls, US and European diplomats will be working elsewhere to reach an agreement with sometimes reluctant China and Russia. The US and Europe is seeking imposition of the UN Security Council’s economic penalties on Iran. “I hope we can reach an agreement in the Security Council on tough new sanctions because I believe that is the only way to catch Iran’s attention,” Clinton told reporters. In her address, Clinton proposed that the NPT be strengthened by introducing “automatic penalties” for noncompliance, rather than depend on such drawn-out council negotiations.

Ahmadinejad devoted much of his half-hour speech to the huge US nuclear arsenal, denouncing the Obama administration’s refusal to rule out the use of those weapons. “Regrettably, the US government has not only used nuclear weapons but also continues to threaten to use such weapons against other countries, including Iran,” he said, referring to the new US Nuclear Posture Review’s provision retaining an option to use US atomic arms against countries ‘not in compliance’ with the NPT.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>US says nuclear arsenal includes 5,113 warheads</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/10713/us-says-nuclear-arsenal-includes-5113-warheads</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/10713/us-says-nuclear-arsenal-includes-5113-warheads#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Tue, 04 May 10 06:26:35 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[reuters]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=10713</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The United States disclosed for the first time on Monday the current size of its nuclear arsenal, lifting the veil on once top-secret numbers in an effort to bolster non-proliferation efforts.

The Pentagon said it had a total of 5,113 warheads in its nuclear stockpile at the end of September, down 84 percent from a peak of 31,225 in 1967. The arsenal stood at 22,217 warheads when the Berlin Wall fell in 1989.

The figure includes warheads that are operationally deployed, kept in active reserve and held in inactive storage. But it does not include "several thousand" warheads that are now retired and awaiting dismantlement, the Pentagon said.

"The United States is showing that it is being increasingly transparent," a senior U.S. defense official told reporters at the Pentagon.

"It's part of our commitment ... to set the stage for strength in non-proliferation and for further arms control."

The official declined to offer the Pentagon's estimate for Russia's arsenal and renewed calls for greater transparency by China, saying there was "little visibility" when it came to Beijing's nuclear program.

The United States is also pushing for a new round of sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program.

By releasing the data during the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference, analysts said the United States was trying to show it is cutting its arsenal so as to help persuade other states to tighten the global non-proliferation regime.

"It is hugely important for the United States to be able to say, 'Look we are living up to our obligations under the NPT," said Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists.

COULD IT BACKFIRE?

The disclosure comes less than a month after President Barack Obama unveiled a new policy restricting the US use of nuclear weapons and signed a landmark arms reduction accord with Russia.

Obama, who won a Nobel Peace Prize in part for his vision of a nuclear free world, has also renounced the development of new atomic weapons.

Historically, the overall size of the arsenal has been kept secret to help prevent potential adversaries from using the information to more precisely neutralize U.S. nuclear forces.

Still, analysts warned the disclosure could also negatively impact perceptions of the United States -- possibly dismaying other nations by demonstrating how many nuclear weapons it retains two decades after the Cold War ended.

"I think the states that are most concerned about nuclear disarmament will be more focused on the number that remain rather than the number (reduced)," said George Perkovich, director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

The Pentagon said from fiscal years 1994 through 2009, the United States dismantled 8,748 nuclear warheads.

The Pentagon also declined to disclose the exact number of warheads awaiting dismantlement. It said more analysis needed to be done to make sure it did not impact US national security.

The United States aims to dismantle those warheads by the early part of the next decade, another US official said, also briefing reporters on condition of anonymity.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Ban calls for more nuclear-weapon-free zones</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/10199/ban-calls-for-more-nuclear-weapon-free-zones</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/10199/ban-calls-for-more-nuclear-weapon-free-zones#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Sat, 01 May 10 08:47:40 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=10199</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Secretary-General of the United Nations Ban Ki-moon on Friday called for the number of nuclear-weapon-free zones to multiply and ultimately span the globe. 

"My goal - our goal- is to make the whole world a nuclear-weapon-free zone," the Secretary-General said on the eve of a major non-proliferation conference to be held at United Nations Headquarters in New York.	"Nuclear-weapon-free zones are the success stories of the disarmament movement. You are leading by example."

Representatives from more than 100 countries, including Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, are slated to attend the latest five-yearly review of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), kicking off on Monday.

"The talks will bring almost all the countries in the world together to try to move forward in restricting and dismantling these weapons of mass destruction," Ban told a conference of states, parties and signatories of treaties setting up nuclear-weapon-free zones.

Currently, there are five such zones: Latin America and the Caribbean; the South Pacific; South-East Asia; Central Asia; and Africa.	Earlier this month, the secretary-general visited Semipalatinsk, known as 'Ground Zero', the former nuclear test site in Kazakhstan which was shut down in 1991.

It is now a "beacon of hope for a nuclear-weapon-free world," Ban said.	While some believe that the weapons are vital to their national security and deterrence strategies and that they serve as status symbols, this is not true, he stressed.

Disarmament and security are "mutually reinforcing," the UN chief underscored, adding that nuclear-weapon-free zones exemplify what political will can achieve.	"They add weight to the arguments of governments and people around the world who firmly reject these weapons," he said.	"They have helped to change attitudes. And it is only by changing attitudes that we will change the world."

Ban hoped that nations in these zones will spread their "message of hope and optimism" so that the world can build on their success stories, starting at the review conference beginning on Monday.

The gathering will begin in a much more positive atmosphere than the last one, thanks to recent moves by the United States and Russia to slash their nuclear arsenals, among others, according to Sergio Duarte, UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs.

At the end of the last meeting in 2005, Duarte, who served as President of that review conference, said the event had accomplished "very little" amid widely diverging views on nuclear arms and their spread. It wrapped up without any substantive agreement having been reached by nations.

Under the provisions of the NPT, which forms the foundation of the world’s nuclear non-proliferation regime and which marked the 40th anniversary of its entry into force earlier this month, parties to the pact must meet every five years to discuss how to further its full implementation and its universality.

But the US-Russian accord put a "very positive note not only on the relations between these two possessors of nuclear weapons, but also for the rest of the community in the NPT," Duarte told UN Radio yesterday.

Also contributing to an improved atmosphere is that, unlike the 2005 review conference, the preparatory meetings ahead of this year's gathering have been successful, he noted.	"All these things together certainly made a good difference from the climate that prevailed in 2005," Duarte stressed.

One of the main challenges this year's event faces, he said, is how to make the NPT more effective in the fields of disarmament, non-proliferation and the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, the three main thrusts of the treaty.	It was confirmed last night that Ahmadinejad, the Iranian leader, will be addressing the opening session.

Iran's authorities hold that its work in the nuclear field is for peaceful purposes, while some countries contend it is driven by military ambitions. The programme has been a matter of international concern since the discovery in 2003 that the country had concealed its nuclear activities for 18 years in breach of its obligations under the NPT.

Earlier this week, the Secretary-General told reporters that if Ahmadinejad "brings some good constructive proposal in resolving the Iranian nuclear issue, that would be helpful."

The President-elect of this year's conference, Ambassador Libran Cabactulan of the Philippines, emphasised yesterday that "all the State parties are equally important to bring their views to the table and find ways and means that can provide a safer world for all."

The forum should serve as "a marketplace of ideas," he said. "The best ideas or the right ideas must prevail."]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Obama confident on Pak nuke safety</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/6388/world-safer-after-nuclear-summit-obama</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/6388/world-safer-after-nuclear-summit-obama#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Wed, 14 Apr 10 04:41:33 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[afp]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=6388</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[US President Barack Obama said on Tuesday that he is confident about the safety of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

He said that he has seen progress over the last several years with respect to Pakistan's nuclear security issues. But Obama said that there is room for improvement of the security of nuclear assets by all nations.

Obama declared the world safer on Tuesday after a 47-nation summit agreed to a four-year deadline to lock down loose nuclear materials to prevent them from falling into militant hands.

"Because of the steps we've taken the American people will be safer and the world will be more secure," Obama said at the end of the summit in Washington.

The unprecedented gathering met a challenge laid down by Obama, who said the world was littered with poorly guarded fissile material and that a nuclear-armed militant group could threaten global "catastrophe."

"We welcome and join President Obama's call to secure all vulnerable nuclear material in four years, as we work together to enhance nuclear security," the leaders said in a joint communique.

Hosting the largest summit in the United States in over six decades, Obama also pressed China and other UN Security Council skeptics to back UN sanctions on Iran over its controversial nuclear program. "I am going to push as hard as I can to make sure that we get strong sanctions that have consequences for Iran," Obama said.

Amid mixed signals from Beijing, Chinese President Hu Jintao told the summit that Beijing "firmly" opposes atomic weapons proliferation, while backing civilian uses. Beijing kept the world guessing, though, as to whether it would fully endorse the US-led push for a fourth set of UN sanctions on Iran, although a Chinese official said later on Tuesday it was ready to discuss "new ideas."

In a boost to Obama however, several countries including Ukraine, Mexico and Canada declared their intention to give up highly-enriched uranium at the summit.

And Russia and the United States signed a protocol to get rid of 34 tons of plutonium each, equivalent to 17,000 weapons. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev hailed the summit as a "full success" as Moscow announced plans to shut down its last weapons-grade plutonium reactor. A Russian official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, provided no further details but confirmed to AFP that Medvedev had unveiled the plans at the summit in Washington. Obama welcomed the move, calling the closure of the Soviet-era site in Siberia an "important step" for bolstering nuclear security.

On what are commonly referred to as loose nukes, the US leader pressed his guests "not simply to talk, but to act," the US president said. "Nuclear materials that could be sold or stolen and fashioned into a nuclear weapon exist in dozens of nations." He said Al-Qaeda had tried to obtain a nuclear bomb, and that radioactive material as small as an apple was enough to kill thousands of people.

"It would be a catastrophe for the world -- causing extraordinary loss of life, and striking a major blow at global peace and stability." The summit leaders agreed in their communique to non-binding, only partly defined measures to combat nuclear trafficking, including sharing information and detection, forensics and law enforcement expertise.

The leaders said they "recognise the need for cooperation among states to effectively prevent and respond to incidents of illicit nuclear trafficking." But increased security must "not infringe upon the rights of states to develop and utilise nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and technology," summit participants said.

Experts said afterwards that Obama's goals while lofty were by no means assured. "I think it's ambitious, it's underfunded and it's going to take a lot effort by the United States and other countries to make it work," Ken Luango, president for Partnership for Global Security, told AFP.

Meanwhile, Obama appealed for 10 billion dollars in an initiative with Canada to improve nuclear security worldwide. The US leader also addressed fears about the nuclear arsenal in Pakistan, a major stronghold for Al-Qaeda and militant groups at war with US forces in Afghanistan, saying he felt "confident" about security levels.

"But that doesn't mean that there isn't improvement to make," Obama said.

A manual on securing stocks of separated plutonium and weapons grade uranium, as well as advice on how to dispose of the dangerous materials, was issued at the end of the summit. However, all the steps are voluntary and the plan for accomplishing the four-year plan remains sketchy.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Gilani shoots down nuclear concerns</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/5806/gilani-shoots-down-nuclear-concerns</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/5806/gilani-shoots-down-nuclear-concerns#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Tue, 13 Apr 10 04:55:48 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[afp]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=5806</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani on Monday defended Pakistan as a responsible nuclear power, shooting down concerns at a major security summit that extremists could seize loose weapons. 

Gilani rebuffed calls to halt production of fissile material and insisted that Pakistan needed a deterrent against historic rival India. Instead, Gilani made a new pitch to the United States - which relies on Pakistan in its campaign against Islamic extremists -  to support the blackout-plagued nation in developing civilian nuclear power.

"I assure you that Pakistan, as a responsible nuclear state and an emerging democracy, stands with the international community in its effort to make this world a better place to live in," Gilani told a roundtable with reporters.

Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, who accompanied Gilani, said Pakistan had explained to the United States the three-layer security system it has put in place for its nuclear arsenal. "We are confident that our system is second to none. It's world class," Qureshi said. "Fortunately there has been no incident."

The United States is reported to have quietly set up an elite squad that could fly into Pakistan and attempt to secure its weapons if the government disintegrated. John Brennan, the top anti-terrorism adviser to President Barack Obama, warned on Monday that Al-Qaeda's interest in nuclear weapons was "strong" and said the risk of nuclear terrorism was "real," "serious" and "growing."

A study by Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government said that Pakistan was one of the greatest worries for nuclear safety. Pakistan's arsenal is heavily guarded, but the report said that the Abdul Qadeer Khan case, pervasive corruption and high-profile attacks against military bases showed the risks.

"While Pakistani generals share the US concern over extremist threats to their nuclear stockpiles, their first concern is protecting these stocks from Indian strikes -- or American seizure," said the report led by Harvard professor Matthew Bunn. Lisa Curtis, an expert on South Asia at the Heritage Foundation, said the best way for the United States to ensure the security of the nuclear arsenal was to develop trust with Pakistan.

"While the probability of Taliban militants over-running the country and gaining control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is far-fetched, the real danger lies in potential links between retired officials and nuclear scientists with access to nuclear information to Taliban and Al-Qaeda terrorists," she said.

A Washington research group, the Institute for Science and International Security, last month said satellite imagery showed steam coming from the Khushab site, a sign that Pakistan has started plutonium production from a second reactor. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said he would use the two-day Washington summit to press for an international ban on the production of new fissile material for nuclear weapons.

A 65-nation conference in Geneva last year called for a treaty but Pakistan has been the leading opponent, fearing it would alter its strategic balance with India. India and Pakistan, along with possibly Israel and North Korea, are the only states that continue to produce fissile material for nuclear weapons.

Gilani did not address the fissile material issue directly, saying only that Pakistan has discussed it with the United States. "For a minimum deterrence, we have to have. That is our requirement," he said of nuclear material.

Gilani renewed calls for the United States to work with Pakistan on a civil nuclear agreement similar to one with India, noting that some Pakistanis spend hours each day without electricity in extremely hot weather.

"Pakistan rightfully expects the US to adopt non-discrimination in terms of a civil nuclear deal with Islamabad," Gilani said. Cautious not to offend Pakistan, the Obama administration has not ruled out nuclear cooperation. But few US experts predict a deal anytime soon.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>No civilian nuclear deal for now:US</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/3731/no-civilian-nuclear-deal-for-nowus</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/3731/no-civilian-nuclear-deal-for-nowus#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Thu, 08 Apr 10 07:31:49 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[express]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=3731</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The United States' focus is on Pakistan's growing energy needs, but  it does not include civilian nuclear energy. 

Spokesman for the US State Department, PJ Crowley, while talking to  the media, echoed the Obama Administrations position on Islamabad's quest for a  civlian nuclear deal.

But Crowley did add that US leaders have expressed confidence in the  security of Pakistan's weapons.

The State Department’s comments follow President Barack Obama’s firm  expression of confidence this week in the security of Pakistani nuclear arsenal.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item>	</channel>
                </rss>
