CSIS-MEI event (Part II)
'US turned a blind eye to Pakistan’s nuclear program'

By Rana Fawad

Another audience member Shuja Nawaz said though he could read only a small portion of the book due to the recent events [emergency declaration in Pakistan], he had doubts about the accuracy of certain points mentioned by the authors. He said the book made rather startling claim about Mushrraf teaming up with Usama bin Laden to sort out Shia in Gilgit. He told the authors that Musharraf at that time was a Brigadier in Khaarian (Punjab) and was not posted anywhere in the northern areas and this could be verified even from Musharraf’s own book.

Referring to the book’s claim regarding Hamid Gul’s statement that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and the Americans prevented him from becoming the next Chief of Army Staff and that Nawaz Sharif removed him from the army, Shuja said it was totally inaccurate. He added that Hamid Gul was removed by the then army chief and not by Nawaz Sharif and added, “Nawaz Sharif, in fact, supported him for the post of army chief.”

Shuja Nawaz said he was just concerned that picking up a lot of information from the web and including into the book could undermine the authenticity of the contents. He also commented that the authors could be accused of ‘hoovering’ instead of sifting through the contents and, “that’s the danger we all face when we try to collect so much information and try to make sense of it.”

Adrian responded by saying that the book is based on hundreds of face-to-face interviews while Catherine said that they collected material from many different sources.

To a question by Simon Henderson that since the authors quoted Peter Griffin saying he was always paid with a check from the Pakistan Military, did that include the work he was doing on the Libyan project post-2001, Catherine replied Peter told them he was still getting money through a private bank (Habib Bank) and he believed it was official money and not coming out of Khan’s private accounts.

She added that they did not believe everything what Peter said but in an effort to clear his name he gave them a lot of documents to show his role in the Libyan program.

When asked whether the authors paid Peter any money, because according to his own dealings with Peter, he would not give him anything without money, Catherine said they did not pay any money to Peter for getting information.

Responding to a question by an audience member that the American media hardly reported anything when Musharraf released 24 Taliban last weekend when he declared Martial Law, Catherine said that’s something he should ask the American media.

To a question that the authors are reinforcing a dangerous trend who has the right to posses as well as police nuclear weapons and who should not, Adrian replied that broadly speaking there was a system of nonproliferation in place, though there were exceptions to the standards like Israel which perhaps would be the subject of the next book. He said it was enormously difficult question. “I understand the motivation for the Pakistani program. India began the arms race in 1974 and Pakistan was reacting,” he added.

As for the enforcement, he acknowledged that the double standard was involved in the decisions made but it should also be looked into whether those decisions regarding the nonproliferation made the world safer or not.

A freelance journalist Agarwal commented that he was impressed by the descriptive analysis but in terms of Pakistan’s motivation was its 99 per cent focus on India not the West.

Catherine replied she agreed with the viewpoint that India was and would remain its enemy because in 1971 India with the help of the secessionist movement in East Pakistan, India was able to halve Pakistan’s territory in 16 days and the Pakistan Army, of which people like Musharraf were officers, was made to look absolutely enfeebled. She added that many times in his military career Musharraf had wanted to right that wrong in Kashmir.

Dr Poudel of National Advisory Council for South Asian Affairs asked what single advice the authors would like to offer to the people in the US to prevent Pakistan form doing such things in the future. Adrian commented that China was the key which was ignored so far. He said China was an extraordinary ally of Pakistan and had been providing it with political as well as technical assistance almost for nothing and sometimes no payment were made at all. He believed China could play its role as a broker as it did in the N Korean affair to bring N Korea back to talks.

He also observed that there was a willful ignoring of the philosophy of Pakistan's military. He said it was not Mushrraf or the Islamists but the equation was Musharraf and the Islamists. He said there was a pattern of manipulation of the Islamist factions and commented that Musharraf’s allies were those Islamists (MMA) who never had electoral success in the country.

He stressed for a correct analysis to understand what Pakistan needed to feel secure rather than guessing and misunderstanding the strategy.

To a question by David Isenberg (of the British American Security Information Council) that to what extent the elements of Dr Khan’s network or similar networks are still utilizing those illicit and clandestine channels, Catherine replied that there had been suggestions that some of the key figures of the Khan network were still operating but there was no evidence on that and there had been no prosecutions yet.

Co-host of the event, President MEI and former US ambassador to Pakistan Wendy J Chamberlin commented that she would not support cutting off aid to Pakistan as a result of Musharraf’s declaration of emergency because “our relationship is with the Pakistani people.”

She said the suspension of aid would hurt the fields of education, democratic capacity building, health, and some of the useful assistance along the border. She suggested the aid should be cut off to the big ticket items in the defense category and shifted to strengthen the judiciary and the building of community police force.

She said so far the question discussed was whether the world was safer with Pakistan’s nuclear program and the answer was certainly not. She pointed out that another question ‘was Pakistan safe’ should also be asked because Pakistan has nuclear arsenal which it used as a deterrent against India when India moved its nuclear devices close to the border as a result of an attack on the Indian Parliament in December 2001.

She told the audience that at that time she was ambassador in Islamabad and Musharraf had made it clear that he would use the nuclear bomb in response.

Adrian commented that Pakistan used the same deterrent in the opposite direction at least on three occasions in 1990 and 1999. He said certain experts believed that there was a state of mind building in Pakistan's military in 1999 to use this deterrent for adventurous play against India.

As for allegation that the US military aid was used for the purchase of F-16s, Larry Robinson clarified that the sale contained no aid component and F-16s were bought entirely by Pakistan’s own funds. He added that the military aid was being used for the counter insurgency mode only.

Analyzing the future of the Pak-US partnership, Dr Marvin Weinbaum commented that there was a growing realization here in Washington that Musharraf was no longer a part of any solution. He said Musharraf had become such a lightening rod himself that any stabilization of our relationship would have to be without him.
Concluded.