Pakistan

Pakistan under renewed pressure for nuke freeze

World capitals asking Islamabad to sign controversial fissile material cut-off treaty.

Kamran Yousaf November 13, 2010

ISLAMABAD: 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 13^th, 2010.

COMMENTS (20)

Anoop | 14 years ago | Reply @romm, I give it to Pakistan that it has outgrown India in economical terms. But, only in Economic terms. As a result Pakistanis had lower poverty to deal with. But, since 1990 India has grown almost twice as fast as India. In the last ten years alone it has brought roughly the size of Pakistan out of poverty. Our per capita is increasing and number of people below poverty line is decreasing. I can show you WB reports and UN reports which I've read in detail based on which I am basing my opinion. Pakistan in the last 20 years has barely grown, its poverty in some years has stayed constant and in some increased. It spending so much of its budget on non-development stuff that it has become dangerously dependent on Aid. 60% of its budget is spent on Defence and Debt Servicing. It has no money to spend on roads, schools, hospitals and education. Lets say in about 4 years NATO will leave Afghanistan. The aid which is predominantly given by NATO will be promptly withdraw aid under some pretext or will put crippling and humiliating conditions for it. With low Tax base and no foreign investment and lack of funds, Pakistani economy will not come out of this vicious cycle for a long time. Certainly not in 4 years. Things are yet to get worse for Pakistan. Since, 1990 we have closed the gap in many human indicators and in a majority of them have even overtaken it. This is going to continue at a rapid rate. India will overtake China as the fastest growing economy in the world. This decade the kind of transformation will happen like it did in China during the 90s. Pakistani economy grew despite its political and social backwardness and mismanagement. All that started to haunt Pakistan in 1990 onwards. This will not change for decades. Pakistan will be continue to suffer in this vicious cycle. My only wish is it doesn't get consumed by its instability.

Romm | 14 years ago | Reply @Anoop and LP! What detailed answer from ur side. We can now imagine that Indian due to their deprivation and poverty are pakistan Centric. We welcome indians in pakistani WebSites but I have hardly seen any pakistani in Indian sites which Speaks how bothered and pushed are we about Indians. We historically r better and we shall remain better. In calcutta alone, millions of indians, live, Eat, and Die on footpaths. The kind of life Middle class pakistani enjoys is better than Millionaire indie. I think Indians must start thinking about their poor and then suggest Anything for Pakistan. * for pakistanis* don't be bothered about Indians, they are prisoners of their conscious and

VIEW MORE COMMENTS

LP | 14 years ago | Reply Glad to see the pressures being built on the wall mart of nuclear proliferation, Pakistan.

Bhuvanesh | 14 years ago | Reply @ G.Khan saheb, It would be quite ridiculous for any country to disarm unilaterally. It would be just as silly for India to do so as it would be for Pakistan. We must face the truth: Pakistan and India do not trust each other, and on both sides there are justifications for the mistrust. It's not hard to see that Pakistan, being a smaller country, wanted nuclear weapons as a deterrent against India's superiority in conventional weapons. India's nuclear weapons are a deterrent not only against Pakistan, but also against China, which India views with suspicion after the 1962 Sino-Indian war. Here are some things that would help avert an arms race: Indian, Pakistani and Kashmiri officials should sit down, with all sides willing to make compromises in the interests of peace, and resolve the Kashmir issue. Let's be honest, all three sides are suffering because of the conflict. Thank goodness our officials decided to send out advance notification of missile tests! Pakistani and Indian officials should work toward greater transparency on their nuclear policy, including a definition of a "minimum deterrent", and work towards a treaty similar to the ones that were negotiated between the USA and the USSR (and the two countries weren't exactly friends, either). The conventional superiority issue would have to be addressed. By the way, I have some friends in Pakistan. I encourage you to make friends with Indians. Ultimately, we are quite similar. Just imagine what we could do if we stopped demonizing each other and fighting each other.

IZ | 14 years ago | Reply Well I see there are a lot of people here who just hear the words Pakistani nuclear weapons and their brains stop working. The Treaty does not reduce or take away Pakistan's nuclear weapons - it is a Treaty which stops production of fissile nuclear material which means that Pakistan will keep what it has and stop producing more. As I mentioned earlier Pakistan has more than enough nuclear weapons for its defence - it does not need more, and producing more is expensive. Therefore, we do not stand to lose much. Let me just repeat this again since most people here seem to not understand it even after reading it again and again. THIS TREATY IS NOT ABOUT DISARMAMENT. One more time: By signing this treaty PAKISTAN DOES NOT LOSE/REDUCE/GIVE AWAY ITS NUKES. Now moving on, I agree completely with Asad when he says "the core attention must be given to the sovereignty of the beloved country". This is true. Now I ask you, what is better for our sovereignty, being a beggar nation that can only survive on the aid given by other countries and an army which can only function when funded by the USA, or to be economically strong enough to be masters of our own affairs and take care of our own people without anyone's help? I feel that the second one is the correct answer but currently we are in the first situation. If (and this is a big IF) we can get proper incentives and improve our economic standing by signing the treaty, then we should consider it. For the sake of our sovereignty.

Anoop | 14 years ago | Reply @Ali Mahboob, "Pakistan has never said that India is the ONLY threat that it needs it’s nukes for … there have been and will always be other threats … " --> Kayani and the previous Army Chief, Musharaff have repeatedly said that Pakistani defence is India oriented and its nukes are India oriented. Pakistan wanted to develop the nukes to protect against "Indian invasion", forgetting that India has never started a war but only finished it for Pakistan. Who else does Paksitan consider as a threat, then? US? Pakistan doesn't have missiles which can even reach Europe, forget the US @Romm, "Can US afford natural alliance between Pakistan and Iran after such irrational Embargo against pakistan." --> Do you even read the papers? Iran and India's relations are better than with Pakistan. Pakistan supports the Taliban, which Iran despises. "We survived such sanctions under Brown amendments after Soviets withdrawl from afghanistan and have the resilience to withstand such stupid embargos in future" --> What was Pakistan's growth rate during the 90s when US had kept Pakistan under sanctions? 9/11 became a lifeline for Pakistan when more than $10 billion were injected into it and nobody knows whee that money has gone. With 60% of Paksitan's budget spent on defence and debt servicing, Pakistan barely has money left to spend on development, goodluck with your idea of banging India "again". "Americans have learnt lesson from isolating pakistan in past. If still they carry on wid old policies, they will suffer again" --> US is thousands and thousands of miles away. Whatever happens to Pakistan will not have a minutest of impact on the US mainland. And, Pakistan is not China, or India thats it being taken over by the Taliban will affect the US. Stop dreaming. Its Af-Pak,not Indo-Pak for a reason nowadays. @G. Khan, I know God cannot magically increase your IQ, from a dimwit to average, but I will disregard the shame I feel in even replying to such a intellectually lesser being. So, here it goes. "It seems as if you are a supporter of a non-nuclear world." --> Read what I said above carefully. FMCT is NOT asking Pakistan to de-nuclearize. It is asking it to freeze fissile material production. I am hoping against hope that you know what a fissile material is. And, FYI, India has agreed to FMCT. The only country in the world to have a problem with FMCT is Pakistan. Considering it is making those countries which are pumping in huge amounts of cash into Pakistan angry, it is not such a smart move. Pakistan, after NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan, will be,in effect, demoted to the status of North Korea which only has the mighty China as its ally.

G.Khan | 14 years ago | Reply @ Anoop Thank you for your knd analysis and sympathy for Pakstan's Nuclear Industry however, we will thank you and apologize that we can not entertain your advice. It seems as if you are a supporter of a non-nuclear world. I appreciate your stance and will recommendthat yo start this important global challenge by first disarming your own country's nuclear arsenal. When you will succeed in doing that, you can easily convince any nuclear neighbors of yours to eliminate their own nuclear arsenal. They will listen. Until then, Have fun!!

Zahir Kazmi | 14 years ago | Reply FMCT is about numbers game. Let's assume Pakistan agrees to negotiate it as an arms control agreement i.e. lesser nukes instead of no nukes, the result would be that the nuclear asymmetries will freeze at their current levels. Result - as Anup has correctly pointed out - will be that even the younger nuclear arms proliferators will keep the arsenals that can destroy their adversaries many times over. Lets forget about what Pakistan says or not, can we have a show of hands that a highly unstable world should even have a single nuclear weapon? Everyone one with a modicum of sanity will say 'Yes'. If that is true why should we pressurise Pakistan for encouraging the world to negotiate a Fissile Materials Treaty i.e. complete nuclear disarmament, instead of keeping the lethal weapons in small or larger quantities? The old proliferators of nuclear weapons - that happen to be the P-5 too - introduced the Treaty of Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and promised that they will disarm. Even two decades after the Cold War ended we still wait for them to fulfil their part of the grand bargain. Instead, while some of the them are mollycoddling a single state to increase its fissile material stocks - for Gods knows which extra-terrestrial threat - they are apportioning the blame on another to negotiate about controlling the fissile materials production. Let's build the critical will for complete nuclear disarmament instead of making it a pipedream. Multilateral disarmament negotiations offer the only mechanism to address the threats posed to international security an stability by nuclear weapons. It’s a wrong assertion that progress on nuclear disarmament has come to a virtual standstill due to Pakistan - in fact trying to negotiate a fissile materials 'cut-off' treaty is the one of the impediments in stabilising the world. All we have to do is to cut-off the word 'cut-off' from the proposed title of the treaty. We keep arms for use of force or at least a threat of use of force - don't we? Our opponents will not keep arms, if we stop giving the threats. Likewise, UN Charter obligates nations not to use or threaten to use force and this obligation extends to nuclear weapons. In 1960s the states without nuclear weapons sought this security assurance from nuclear weapons states but the powerful states turned a blind eye. Its better to tackle the Casus Belli first. Giddy up, what are we waiting for?

Romm | 14 years ago | Reply @ Anoop. Thanks for ur advice but it speaks ur Frustration over ur inability to have regional Hegemony. Can US afford natural alliance between Pakistan and Iran after such irrational Embargo against pakistan. We survived such sanctions under Brown amendments after Soviets withdrawl from afghanistan and have the resilience to withstand such stupid embargos in future. Let the American leave Afghanistan, we shall bang u once again. Trust me! Americans have learnt lesson from isolating pakistan in past. If still they carry on wid old policies, they will suffer again. US can't afford another Taliban state I ber.

Mike Sullivan | 14 years ago | Reply Rich words coming from the only country that has used nuclear weapons and from others it sold the technology to. One wonders if similar questions have been asked of Israel.

Ali Mahboob | 14 years ago | Reply @Anoop, please keep your suggestions to yourself ... Pakistan has never said that India is the ONLY threat that it needs it's nukes for ... there have been and will always be other threats ... Secondly, we have enough resources that can be used to pull us out of the ICU! If only we'd decide to ... The point is, why just Pakistan in this entire region? Why not China, India and everyone else in here? It's an agenda ... I hate it when the newspapers quote "Obama's" or the US Government's "disappointment" ... What are they? God? I only wish that our government realizes who the actual allies are and where the real benefit lies ... our country was never a threat to another country and it never will be ... we're being pushed down this tunnel and that's WRONG!

Anoop | 14 years ago | Reply Pakistan has enough Nukes to destroy a country the size of India a couple of times. What is Pakistan worried about? US has nukes to destroy the whole world many times over. China has, approximately, 3 times more the nukes than Pakistan or India. which could also destroy the whole Earth a few times. Pakistan claims it needs them against one "threat" - India. But, it certainly has enough nukes to blow up India to smithereens. Why would it want to risk International isolation and cancellation of Civilian and Military aid which desperately depends on? All the powers who have declared themselves nuclear powers,except North Korea and Pakistan, are economically sound and they derive a certain power and respect from these nuclear weapons. For lesser powers like Pakistan and North Korea nukes will lead to International Isolation. When the NATO leaves Afghanistan, who is to guarantee that Pakistan will NOT be isolated? It will come to the same status as North Korea which sees the mighty China as its only ally. Does Pakistan think by stalling talks on ban of fissile material production it is achieving something? I dont think so.. It is only ending up wasting precious resources which can be diverted to the flood victims or its ailing economy which is,literally, in the ICU.

Romm | 14 years ago | Reply I think Pakistan need to put their nukes on warheads to stop this blackmail. Its high time otherwise we shall loose the right to Exist!

Klues | 14 years ago | Reply First US dismantle all their nukes, then we will. Using IMF you can bully corrupt governement but you cannot bully Pakistani people.

Farhan | 14 years ago | Reply Why nobody is trusting Pakistan to give nuclear technology for peaceful purpose should be questions every Pakistani. Our neighbour increasing its capacity of producing nuclear energy along with all renewable types. What we are doing is just non-sense. Even after the known potential of coal and wind energy, we still talking talking ans talking.....

Yousaf | 14 years ago | Reply yeah no one is friend of pakistan in usa and europe

Never Ever | 14 years ago | Reply Pakistan should NEVER sign any nuclear treaty unless the treaty recognizes Pakistan as a "Nuclear Power State". Pakistan should stop compromising it national interest. Any Pakistani President or PM who agrees to restrict Pakistan's nuclear weapons program should be charged with TREASON.

Asad | 14 years ago | Reply Aslamu allakikum, Well, there is a lot more to discuss on this issue but the core attention must be given to the sovereignty of the beloved country. Compromise on nuclear program will result into ultimate fall of the state as it will open the doors to the IAEA and the whole program will finally be shut down. Our nasty leadership is the most inferior leadership of the world's history and if some one is expecting something good from them is not more than building castles in the air. I am pretty sure that this land will never be ruined by any power of the world as this is bestowed to us by the ALLAH almighty and Rasool Allah (MPBUH).LONG LIVE PAKISTAN

IZ | 14 years ago | Reply Before we all fall over ourselves screeching and wailing and gnashing our teeth, maybe we should think about the possibilities. This is where our diplomats can show their worth. Currently we have enough nukes for our requirement as a deterrent. A freeze for a limited time frame (10 or 15 years) may be suggested in return for incentives such as nuclear technology and cooperation as offered to India a few years ago, along with other incentives. “With its current form and conditions, Pakistan will never sign the FMCT,” a FO spokesman has said, well maybe we can suggest alternatives that will make the treaty work for us?

Ahmer Ali | 14 years ago | Reply Assalam-o-Allaikum Warahmatullah.At last now finally Pakistan's turn has come to sign FMCT or may be Pakistan is pressurized to sign CTBT after signing FMCT.Now the Western powers shall put pressure on Pakistan like Iran through any means including through UN Security Council or UN General Assembly and in this condition India is succeeded to get permanent seat in UN Security Council then Pakistan's nuclear program's security shall be definitely on the edge.Now our beggars,corrupt and NRO certified leaders should have to know and see the real face of so-called friends of democratic Pakistan and must consider that who is real friend of democratic Pakistan and who is enemy of democratic Pakistan?And the most importantly above all they should have to wake up from the dreams of carelessness and ignorance if they really want to save the Pakistan's indigenous nuclear program or other wise Pakistan shall face real enmity of USA and other advanced Western countries as Iran is facing now-a-days and this is all as a consequence of begging aid by our beggars leaders.

Replying to X