Author: Nasim Zehra
Publication: The News
Date:
URL: http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=8430
A Q Khan network
Analyst and adjunct professor at SAIS Johns
Hopkins University, Washington DC
If there is a method to this madness it is
not clear. The Bush administration opted not to attend the proceedings of
the Congressional sub-committee on terrorism and nuclear non-proliferation
on May 25. Members of the sub-committee pointedly challenged Islamabad's announcement
that the A Q Khan case was closed. The four-member panel which convened the
hearing was chaired by Congressman Edward Royce of California and it basically
painted Pakistan as a most dangerous country for its proliferation activities.
The experts on the panel included David Albright of the Institute of Science
and International Security.
Throughout the one-hour-long hearing the experts
presented numerous reasons why the investigation could not be closed. Their
arguments implied the following reasons. These were that prosecutions in the
A Q network were essential to ensure that this case serves as a deterrence,
that the US and the International Atomic Energy Agency must demand direct
access to A Q Khan because Pakistani officials, acting as interlocutors between
A Q Khan and American and IAEA officials, are not trustworthy, and that A
Q Khan will be a key source of information on how far Iran has progressed
in its nuclear programme and Washington must have direct access to that information.
Other issues raised through the hearing included
the need for Washington to get information on the extent to which countries
including Saudi Arabia, Syria and Egypt have moved along on their nuclear
programmes and that information can only be accessed through meeting A Q Khan.
In fact while implicating the Pakistan government in sharing nuclear technology
with other Muslim countries the committee chairman claimed that General Ziaul
Haq used to speak with reference to the entire Muslim world when it come to
sharing and acquiring nuclear technology.
The overall thrust at the hearing was that
in fact that the real responsibility for the A Q Khan network lies with the
government of Pakistan including General Musharraf and no step has been taken
by the Bush administration to really gauge the government's involvement. The
infamous pamphlet that was produced by KRL and distributed at the IDEAS 2000
defence exhibition and which offered nuclear technology for sale was produced
as evidence of the government of Pakistan's intentions to freely export nuclear
technology. The pamphlet produced by KRL did have the name of the government
of Pakistan written on it. Another theme that repeatedly came up was that
Pakistan's nuclear weapons are not in secure hands and that the Bush administration
needs to engage with this serious and potentially dangerous situation.
The timing of the hearing has also coincided
with the debate on the Indian-US nuclear deal and more importantly with the
sale of F-16s to Pakistan. In fact issues related to the two were also raised
by the panel members and the witnesses as well. It was argued that because
of Pakistan's track record on proliferation, Pakistan should not have access
to nuclear technology. On the F-16s the charge-sheet against Pakistan was
three-fold: that Islamabad allowed the Chinese to study the F-16's technology,
that it modified the weapons delivery system of the aircraft to allow it to
carry nuclear weapons, and that Pakistan needed resources to rehabilitate
its citizens hit by the earthquake so it should be making such purchases.
The Bush administration was blamed for not
putting enough pressure on Islamabad to provide direct access to A Q Khan.
The members and experts on the panel argued that Pakistan had instead been
rewarded with a multi-billion dollar aid package. They complained that no
one from the A Q Khan ring was prosecuted while he himself has been confined
to his luxurious multi-million dollar residence. The experts also insisted
that the "Pakistani network" was still operating, that Pakistan
continues to smuggle in nuclear technology and equipment needed for its own
nuclear programme. Some of them also argued that the government of Pakistan
still has the export network intact.
The committee members and experts managed
a complete walkover because their positions went completely uncontested. The
non-proliferation experts and the committee members were clear that Pakistan
was an errant and unpunished member of the international community. That it
remains a risky nuclear power, that its nuclear weapons are unsafe and vulnerable
to theft by terrorist groups and that an election can put a "religious
extremist" party in power that will then have unfettered control over
the nuclear weapons.
Many of these allegations were incorrect and
others were dated. Some were simply ways of state craft, not unique to Pakistan.
Clearly the A Q Khan blunder was one of the worst in Pakistan's history and
the state has to take responsibility, and it did to the extent it could have
given the broader considerations of national security. Pakistan's engagement,
in the post A Q Khan discovery period from 2004 onwards, with the Bush administration
and the IAEA in the A Q Khan investigations, in ensuring the security of its
nuclear programme and in tightening its export controls mechanism is now well
known to the Bush administration. In fact most of the steps have been taken
in partnership with the US administration. Why then would the US administration
opt to allow a free hand and not contest those who want to present Pakistan
as an irresponsible nuclear state?
Pakistan should seek an answer to this question.
That would be more effective than making declarations like the one made by
the Pakistan foreign minister on May 19 that "Yes we are under a lot
of pressure on the issue of Dr A Q Khan, but we will not surrender… We
are an ally of the US in the global war on terror, but we will not take dictation
from anybody on our national interests." More importantly than these
declarations we should also hold our friends in Washington accountable for
their actions.
Email: nasimzehra@hotmail.com
The writer is an Islamabad-based security
