Pakistan

Wikileaks cables: ‘Dirty’ politicians and enriched uranium

Leaked cables reconfirm the adage that there are no friends or enemies in <br /> international relations, only interests.

Nadir Hassan/saba Imtiaz November 30, 2010

KARACHI: The release of over 200 US State Department cables by whistleblower site WikiLeaks reconfirm what many have long speculated about – the US is overly concerned for Pakistan’s nuclear programme, President Asif Ali Zardari is not popular with heads of states and everyone has their eyes set on the country’s political situation. From Israel’s defence minister describing Pakistan as his “private nightmare” to the United Arab Emirates’ support for Pervez Musharraf and Zardari, the memos reveal doubts shared by a wide range of countries about the security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons and the political future of its leaders.

Diplomatic obstacles

The cables released reconfirm some of the diplomatic obstacles Pakistan faces under the rule of President Zardari, including issues raised by countries it considers to be strong allies.

In a July 2007 meeting, Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed (MbZ) is quoted saying Zardari is “dirty but not dangerous,” and (former) prime minister (Nawaz) Sharif is “dangerous but not dirty - this is Pakistan.”

A cable sent from the US embassy in Riyadh on February 11, 2010 states that the Saudi King Abdullah considers Zardari the biggest obstacle to “the government’s ability to move unequivocally to end terrorist safe havens there.” The king is quoted as saying about Zardari, “When the head is rotten, it affects the whole body.”

Saudi Arabia has been known to be closer to Sharif than Zardari and his widow Benazir Bhutto. Nonetheless, the characterisation of Zardari as the primarily obstacle in the fight against the Taliban is a curious one since the military has always been considered more reluctant to fight militancy than the civilian set-up.

A cable sent by the US Ambassador to the UAE on August 31, 2009 casts Zardari in a better light. Zayed is described as being very supportive of Pakistan and Zardari in particular and is more critical of the US for not providing Pakistan with actionable intelligence with which to take on the Taliban.

A memo dated February 9, 2010 details a briefing given to Admiral Mike Mullen about the UAE-Pakistan relationship: “The Al Nahyan family had a long-standing relationship with former prime minister Benazir Bhutto, and this has transitioned to support for her husband, Asif Ali Zardari, but the UAE stays in touch with all elements on the Pakistani scene, including Musharraf.”

Interestingly enough, Mullen is told, “Zayed will be very interested in your dialogue with General Kayani.”

France also shared its concerns. In a meeting on February 8, 2010, France’s Defence Minister told US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates he had doubts about the willingness of the Pakistan government to fight extremists at home.

Relations with other countries, however, are shown to be strong. A leaked cable from Ankara dated February 25, 2010, reveals that Turkey kept India out of the Afghanistan Neighbours Summit “out of deference to Pakistani sensitivities.” But even this cable reflects poorly on Zardari’s hold over power as one Turkish official is quoted saying that the military was displeased with the president and, while senior army officials did not want to intervene at the moment, may soon run out of patience.

Nuclear concerns

Doubts and security fears about Pakistan’s nuclear weapon programme ran high in diplomatic circles, particularly – as many have suspected – among Americans.

According to the New York Times, US ambassador to Pakistan Anne Patterson reported in 2009 that Pakistan was refusing to schedule a visit by technical experts. The visit was reportedly part of US efforts to remove highly enriched uranium from a research reactor.

Foreign Ministry spokesperson Abdul Basit told Reuters that the nuclear reactor in question had been provided by the US in the 1960s. He said the Americans wanted the fuel back because they said it was their property.

“We said no, because it’s now our property and we will not return it,” Basit said. “This only shows that Pakistan is very sensitive about its nuclear programme and will not allow any direct or indirect foreign intrusion.” Contrary to popular belief, the US was not alone in worrying about the nuclear programme, as Russia, Lebanon and Israel also shared their doubts with visiting Americans.

Former foreign minister Khurshid Kasuri told Express 24/7 that the concerns revealed in the WikiLeaks documents were not new. “They are no surprise. We were always acting on the assumption that we have to be extra careful and we did manage to convince the international community that despite all the precautions that we took our (nuclear) programme was really safe.”

Russia raised the issue of the security of Pakistan’s nuclear facilities in a meeting with the US last year, and asked the US for any additional information about the protection and transportation of nuclear and missile weaponry in Pakistan.

In a 2009 memo, Israel’s Defence Minister Ehud Barak is quoted describing Pakistan “as his ‘private nightmare,’ suggesting the world might wake up one morning ‘with everything changed’ following a potential Islamic extremist takeover.”

In a meeting in 2007, Mossad chief Meir Dagan shared his concerns about Pakistan’s nuclear programme ending up “in the hands of an Islamic regime”.

Lebanon’s caretaker prime minister Fouad Siniora told General David Petraeus in June 2009 that he had “heard a rumour that Pakistan was ready to sell some of its nuclear stock to other countries. General Petraeus responded that this was almost certainly a rumour, but he refused to discount the possibility that Gulf states may ‘start shopping’ if Iran acquired a nuclear weapon capability.”

The Musharraf role

A number of memos detail support for former President Pervez Musharraf from world leaders.

When Zayed (MbZ) was asked by the ambassador to the UAE in 2005 about a meeting with Musharraf, he “chuckled and asked why the US government ‘always’ convinced the Pakistanis to delay news of the capture of senior al Qaeda operatives such as Abu Faraj alLibbi. MbZ went on to congratulate Washington for its decision to allow US firms to bid for contracts to provide F-16s and other defence technology to Pakistan. It was important to support Musharraf as he battled the terrorists, he emphasised. While the Indians had and would continue to balk at the decision, the region needed Musharraf to stay strong. There was no alternative leader in sight, MbZ opined.”

His view resonated in Israel as well. In a memo about a July 12, 2007 meeting, the Mossad chief is quoted saying, “We have to keep (President Pervez) Musharaf in power.”

In the neighbourhood

The leaked documents also reconfirm reports about the relationship Pakistan has with its neighbours. Pakistan’s poor relations with Afghanistan – also alluded to in intelligence reports about the Afghan war released by WikiLeaks earlier this year - are reflected in a cable that reports on a meeting between the US Embassy in Kabul and Ahmed Wali Karzai, the brother of Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Reflecting the official Afghan view of Pakistan, Ahmed Karzai says that Taliban leader Mullah Baradar was only captured by Pakistan because he and other Taliban leaders were “prepared to discuss reintegration with the Karzai government.” Ahmed Karzai added that, “Senior Taliban fighters in Pakistan may be prepared to reintegrate ... but are forced by the Pakistan Government to continue to fight.”

A 2009 report filed from Azerbaijan states that the reason Iran postponed the completion of the rail-link between Pakistan and Iran was due to the violence in Sistan-Balochistan, which is “mirrored and influenced” by similar events in Pakistan’s Balochistan province. A source reported that Iran had asked Pakistan to “establish a new, ‘more secure and modern’ route” in 2008 but it had refused to do so.

Spying on the UN

One of the most notable documents leaked is a memo to US diplomats, asking them to provide intelligence about United Nations (UN) officials, including information on Afghanistan such as “Afghan, Pakistani and Iranian intentions or reluctance to secure and safeguard UN and non-governmental organisation personnel.”

Attacks on UN personnel in Afghanistan have been attributed to the Taliban and the Haqqani network, which is reportedly based in Pakistan.

The memo also asks for reports on discussions about the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) expansion among countries, including “the Uniting for Consensus group (especially Mexico, Italy, and Pakistan) that opposes additional permanent UNSC seats.”

The State Department also asked for personal details such as, “Biographical and biometric information on key Non-Aligned Movement/G-77/Organisation of Islamic Countries Permanent Representatives and information on their relationships with their capitals.” Countries it requested this information about include Pakistan and India.

Pakistan’s permanent representative to the UN Abdullah Hussain Haroon told The Express Tribune, “I don’t know why exactly they would want that. Anyone who applies to the US now already gives their biometric data and for example, I have a machine-readable passport which already has this information.”

Haroon said that the “UN is protected by its own conventions and is in itself a state,” and these conventions “appear to have been breached” by the memo. “Asking for encrypted messages of the Secretary General etc is a violation and a very regrettable matter. The UN works for the entire world and has private correspondents. Breaching their privacy is a very serious matter. I believe it is reprehensible and should not have reached such a stage.”

Up next

There are reportedly over 80 documents pertaining to Pakistan among the hundreds of thousands of cables WikiLeaks will release in the next few months and is described as the biggest leak of confidential documents in history.

Published in The Express Tribune, November 30^th, 2010.

COMMENTS (12)

Mir Agha | 14 years ago | Reply A. It's politics. B. It's from the perspective of individual diplomats from the US. They see and hear things differently, as does everybody else. People are taking this as fact.

Cautious | 14 years ago | Reply Not surprising that many posts imply this is all a conspiracy - you guys have to come up with a new line.

VIEW MORE COMMENTS

everyone is conspiracy | 14 years ago | Reply Actually there is hardly anything about Pakistan in these documents. They are hundreds of thousands of pages of cables, and out of allof that Pakistan is mentioned 90 times. Also,there is alot yet to come out, the main media groups who are publishing commentary on the cables, are publishing pieces over 10 days. When Wikileaks published pieces on the death of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan then everyone believed wikileaks as a credible source. Now its all a conspiracy?

Common man | 14 years ago | Reply All, The leaks are not about blowing the whistle about Muslim countries in particular. The leaks are all about how US played under the cover with even their close allies, how they spied other countries from their embassies, and how they had put even UN and its leaders on its radar. Wikileaks has earlier exposed how US violated even basic human rights in Iraq.

Analyser | 14 years ago | Reply Full marks to Tribune for reporting the correct statement attributed to Saudi king, rather than the manipulated version being reported by the rest of the lazy and callous media outlets. Nothing surprising in these leaks, carefully orchestrated to demonize the perpetual wrong-doers (read Muslims), and create diplomatic troubles for the middle eastern countries and Pakistan. No mention of the Gaza aid flotilla attack that shocked the world earlier this year. Wikileaks appears another stooge of the mass media manipulators IMO.

Satish Kumar Singh | 14 years ago | Reply Dirty Politics--Politics is never dirty because we have made politics dirty for vested interest.It is historical fact that a mighty country and a mighty person justifies all the deeds.Hegomonistic power of U.S.A always interested in self-development at the cost of others.We are blind or cow down before them for pesonal vested interest.In the South Asia tensions are mounted due to norrow interest.U.S.A knows how to make these countries fool because these countries politicians are fool,muddle-headed,without visions.Now,our llife,thinking,and behaviour are like Slave but socalled civilized Slave.We know-we are dancing at the tune of U.S.A,We know--we are just like pawn in the hands of U.S.A.,Now We must stop the blaim game because we eagerly or volantarialy surrender in the lap of U.S.A for repe of a country.U.S.A is not responsible when we open our all doors for Plunderers.It is time of introspections.Thanks,

Asad | 14 years ago | Reply Further, if u look at the statement that are related to Pakistan i.e. Pakistan's nuclear issue and Pervez Musharraf being a darling of Israel. Leak related to the concern of nuclear weapons falling in the hands of extremist means all the western countries are being warned and are being asked to come forward and to push pressure on Pakistan to roll back its programme. On Pervez Musharraf, this doesn't mean that USA and Israel still wants him to come in power, basically they have got another man to do this job effectively and that is our Great Zardari sitting in the palace and doing nothing, so by publishing the document in which Israeli official has stated that he wants Musharraf to remain in power, they have presumeably tried to lower down the growing popularity of Musharraf amongst Pakistanis who in any case wouldnt allow an Israeli ally to come in power. If you ask my opinion that who is the best beneficiary of the three above mentioned leaks. My choice is its none other than USA.

Asad | 14 years ago | Reply It would be really interesting to know who is the real beneficiary of this endevour by Wikileaks. I was surprised to see Hillary Clinton's press conference in which she didn't reject the authenticity of these leaks, implicitly saying that they are all true. What I have at the back of my mind that if 9/11 conspiracy of inside job is true and keeping in view that USA has already admitted it was actually involved in nurturing its own enemy in Vietnam, the same approach could be applied these days. They'd publish secret documents and would let people to verify them. On getting confidence, they'd publish documents which are basically false and only serves USA's objective. I see the statement from King Abdullah for Iran in the same way. He can't let USA attack Iran, giving the later opportunity to block Strait of Harmouz and put all the Saudi'a neighbouring countries export into danger. I think it was more kind of creating rift between Saudia and Iran, the same tectic they have been applying in Lebanon, Iraq and Pakistan. Ahmadinejad's statement of calling it as pre-planned publishing rather than secret leaks is highly commendable and has defused the tension with Saudia even before its rise. Even if the statement from King Abdullah was somehow true, Iran's response will help to cool down confrontation minds in Riyadh.

Ahmer Ali | 14 years ago | Reply Assalam-o-Allaikum Warahmatullah.All these reports perhaps may be the preplanned conspiracies especially against the muslim world's leaders but in the light of these reports all the facts which are mentioned in the Wikileaks' reports are not wrongful and if there is some thing going wrongful and illegal furtively or openly then the accused leaders must have to face the facts by showing patience and courage and correct themselves to free themselves from such these types of allegations in the future.

affie | 14 years ago | Reply Ahmadinejaad is true in his saying, all this is pre-planned by evil USA. A good leader always sees the truth behind conspiracies, another event when mr. Ahmadinejaad has proved himself standing tall among all so-called world leaders.

Jawad Iqbal Jawad | 14 years ago | Reply Whatever Wikileaks has brought into spot light is not new. This is what every sensible reader and analyst thinks and realizes by observing the global scenario. Media, in spite of enjoying freedom of expression to a great extent, is not that free to expose or highlight such things mentioned by wikileaks.

Rizwan T Khan | 14 years ago | Reply I wonder why the leaks are majorly pertaining to Muslim countries? Why majorly countries which are closest countries? I am not saying to completely negate the report but its just a concern which should be kept in mind.

Replying to X