General Ashfaq Kayani, Chief of the Pakistani Army, and a delegation of Pakistani ministers are in Washington, D.C. this week to begin a "strategic dialogue" with the U.S. Although he holds no civilian office, Kayani is the head of Pakistan's strongest political institution, its military, and so has the credibility to negotiate on the behalf of the Government of Pakistan. The president, Asif Ali Zardari, has been sidelined, and Pakistan's foreign policy is now blatantly in military hands. The Pakistani delegation brought with it a 56-page document-a wish list that includes demands for new and cool helicopters, drones, and U.S. financial assistance. Considering the fact that Pakistan has spent so much blood and treasure in the fight against the Taliban along its Afghan border, the aid and weaponry are in many respects overdue. Yes, the country has received billions since 9/11, but what is currently at stake-peace and stability in Afghanistan-has required Islamabad to alter its strategic orientation, which was primarily focused on its eastern neighbour, India. And for this, Washington should be grateful and generous.
But Pakistan has more than money on its mind: it is seeking recognition as a legitimate nuclear power and a civilian nuclear energy deal on par with the deal the Bush administration gave to India in 2008. Some have argued that Pakistan deserves such a deal. That suggestion is, however, irresponsible and ignores fundamental realities in Pakistan.
There are three main concerns about the prospects of such a deal. Firstly, as the Washington trip this week demonstrates, Pakistan's civilian government has little to no control over the country's defencse and foreign policies. It was the country's chief general who headed the Pakistani delegation, not its President. Pakistan's political system is also notoriously unstable, swinging from democracy to dictatorship at a whim. Entrusting Pakistan with a nuclear deal would hand over precious fuel and technology to an unstable government, where the possibility of an unfriendly Islamist government coming to power is always plausible.
Secondly, Pakistan's nuclear program makes no distinction between the military and the civilian sector. The military reigns supreme and manages the country's nuclear energy needs. A civilian nuclear agreement would be one only in name. A nuclear deal for Pakistan would mean handing over fuel and technology to the Pakistani military, which would obviously divert away resources towards its nuclear weapons program. Some suggest that oversight over Pakistan's nuclear facilities would allay such concerns. India famously refused American oversight over its nuclear facilities, and Pakistan-far more paranoid of American regional ambitions-would outright deny any access to its facilities.
Pakistan's record of nuclear proliferation offers the most convincing argument against any attempts to recognize the country's legitimacy as a nuclear power. Abdul Qadeer Khan, the former head of Pakistan's nuclear program, admittedly transferred nuclear weapons technology to Iran, Libya, and North Korea. And he did so with few repercussions: he faced no trial and continues to reside in Islamabad, albeit under house arrest.
Pakistan's political instability, its military's enmeshment with the country's politics and civilian institutions, and its record of nuclear proliferation should disqualify it from receiving recognition as a nuclear power and any assistance from the U.S. The Obama administration would be right to scoff at Pakistan's suggestions that it deserves to be legitimate nuclear power.
Cross-posted from Affaires étrangères
Pakistan did a brilliant thing by giving CENTRIFUGE for nuclear power to IRAN.
It is our brothers in LEBANON - the EX-ISMAILIS (now TWELVER shia followers of IRAN) living on the mountains of LEBANON who stopped the NEOCON advance and war in the muslim world.
Do not forget that no muslim leader had the courage to say 911 was inside job. Even if your Agha Khan had the knowledge to do it, he did not have the power to say it.
It was our BROTHER HUGO CHAVEZ who first said it. He is the one who called him the DEVIL in United Nations and said he smelled of SULFUR - a clear reference to SULFUR in THERMATE used by them on 911.
It was our BROTHER IRANIAN President who DEFEATED the ZIONIST President of COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY on his own TURF. He is the one who has proclaimed 911 is inside job. NOT ONE MOSLEM leader had the courage to say 911 was inside job including the agha khanis.
Most Agha Khani khoja guys are running after a pair of white legs.
Pakistan should neither be put up there on a pedestal nor be put down as some sort of evil monster. It's a country of real people with normal aspirations. Sometimes "good", sometimes "bad".
I have highlighted some of the good things which I have observed about Pakistani society. But I have recognized also that some things are far from perfect. The human condition.
I have tried to accentuate the positive with any situation, and sometimes it actually works...
I you THINK good, you GET good...Try it.
Yes, there IS a fair amount of corruption in its bureaucracy, yes, its economy is not currently very strong, and, no, inclusion is not the ONLY thing that makes countries more stable. Yes, better governance is significant in stabilizing countries and populations. Yes, AQ Khan WAS the cause of nuclear proliferation.
But Pakistan has a lot of talented people. Have you ever visited the country? There are such venerable institutions like Punjab University, LUMS (Lahore), Peshawar University, NWFP University of Engineering and Technology. Look them up. In Lahore, there is the Shaukat Khanum Cancer Hospital with world-class medical technology serving 70% of the patients free of charge. I saw it first-hand myself. By USA standards, it is a dream from all points of view: people-friendly, competent care, wonderful facilities. Look it up. There is the "Mother Teresa" of Pakistan, Mr. Sattar Edhi, who has built a humanitarian network of orphanages, emergency ambulance services and foundling care all across the country.
As we say in the USA, Pakistan ain't perfect folks, but it sure is in your face, right there, and it's trying hard...
Here are some websites on a few of the above points which may be of interest:
http://www.shaukatkhanum.org.pk/
http://www.lums.edu.pk/
http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=256194&version=1&template_id=41&parent_id=23
http://www.photius.com/rankings/world2050_rank.html
this is debatable which country deserves which does not ? nuclear energy is good for clean green world...all countries should use it ...if they intent to use it only for civil purpose
article certanily underlines the power struggle/showcase of democracy in pakistan, which surely worries lot of people .... Til last few weeks pakistan was supporting taliban..now they are killing them
not sure why ? I guess there are no more good taliban ...all are bad taliban ..etc ...it seems pakistan was playing double spy ...and now they want reap whatever they can ??
flipflop history/stand of this country does not generate enough confidence to be rewarded for laundary list army have brought to washington...
why army does not let defence minister or national security advisory do their jobs ?
pakistan had tasted this army rule couple of times they must revolt it ...to have free democracy
civil govt is must for stability ...else yesterday it was mushraff...today kayani ..most power ful leader ..tommarow may be osama ...god knows how/why they do what they do ...India is also equally corrupt but a single person cannot fulfil his ego....that is for sure !!!
However, you say that the Pakistani army has changed it's strategy because of us. This is incorrect. They only changed their strategy when the TTP (Pakistani Taliban) challenged the Pakistani government. Their change in strategy does not apply to the Afghan Taliban. Hence in my book, they should be cut off without a cent.
Secondly, the billlions of dollars that we have heaped on them have been misused (in many cases to buy equipment for their navy). In the same way that they are using the Taliban as a foil against possible Indian influence in Afghanistan down the road, they are using the money and military hardware not against the Taliban but against India.
After these many years of terrorist support, I'm of the opinion, we need to ask them to shut them down with the means at their disposal or forfeit the territory and the people and let us do the job for them.
May I ask why has the whole of Afghanistan become a safe haven on the other side has the NATO force has not done one worthwhile thing since 2001?
Pakistan has lost more soldiers and civilians than any other country in the world!! Well you may also be aware that it was USA and its CIA that created the monster of Al-Qaida in 1979 and the mujaheddin also so why blame Pakistan for all evils on earth? Where was USA from 1989 to 2001 when the 3.5 million Afghan refugees completely destroyed the social infrastructure of Pakistan. Where was USA in 2001 when they let the Al_Qaida escape to Pakistan? Where was USA in 2003 when they let their main force transferred to Iraq from Afghanistan, and let the Taliban of the hook?
What are you talking about when you say it should not be "recognized" as a nuclear power? Whether you "recognize" it or not - it's a nuclear power!
You have got to get the cooperation of all the nuclear powers in the world and that means talking with them, getting them to talk with you, and recognizing them. Hopefully, we all will someday have an agreement for the destruction of nuclear weapons (wonder if that will be in my lifetime).
But this idea of exclusion is the very thing which causes people and countries to be unstable.
Inclusion empowers countries and people to contribute to the larger good and creates a higher degree of responsiblity.
This author most likely already knows that hundreds of people die every day in the hospitals of Karachi because of energy blackouts. Hence I find the author's opposition towards a civillian nuclear deal quite despicable
Pakistan should not be "recognized" as a nuclear power because it is not: it cannot build its own weapons without foreign assistance from Iran, North Korea, or China. It has no reputable institutions or universities to think of, and has one of the lowest scientific research outputs in the developing world (see Thompson-Reuters metrics).
Next, consider the statement "idea of exclusion is the very thing which causes people and countries to be unstable." Not really, corruption and bad governance make countries unstable. According to Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index (2009) Pakistan is ranked 139th, one of the worst in South Asia and one of the worst in the world, compared to India (84th) and China (79th). The high rate of corruption is yet another reason why Pakistan should not have nuclear weapons (http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2009/cpi_2009_table). As well, Foreign Policy's Failed States Index for 2009 rates Pakistan as a top "Failing State." As well, AQ Khan is the world's worst nuclear proliferator in modern times. He is also a free Pakistani citizen.
If it was in the hand of Indians Pakistan would be non-existent long ago. Yes to protect against these nefarious designs thank God Pakistan has the 50 atom bombs. On what assumption is the destruction of Pakistan so accurately predicted by this writer is beyond reason?
Well you talk of Bangladesh genocide did you forget the genocide of Innocent minorities in India. The 80,000 innocent Kashmiris since 1990, 2,000 Silks in one day in 1984, killing of innocent Christians in south India and the innocent Muslims in Gujarat. Should India be excluded from the nuclear club or from acquiring civilian technology because it is responsible for atrocities against minorities is a illogical argument..
The reader is expected to analyze that Pakistan has one of the best universities and educational institutions in the world. NUST, Agha Khan University, IBA of Karachi University etc. So better check the records from the net to get updated on this account.
If more democratic countries can better utilize Nuclear power then give this right to Iran and to all other democratic countries. This logic of the writer is also beyond grasp?
India has acquired Nuclear power that has also not signed NPT so why should an Indian argue against any country acquiring civilian Nuclear power?
You have spoken about the standards of corruption. in Pakistan and that of India which are not at 100% accurate and moreover if both countries are corrupt how can you evaluate that this country is so corrupt that it should not be provided civilian nuclear technology while India being at 89 position deserves nuclear technology?
Well may I inform you that the above discussion is for acquiring civilian nuclear technology and Pakistan already has 50 odd atom bombs so USA and the world would have more control over Pakistan and its nuclear technology so what are you real fears?
Pakistan already has the technology and it is just asking for civilian usage that will help USA monitor Pakistani Nuclear activity easily. Does this seem logical?
I ask another question has India already signed the NPT agreement so what is the guarantee that India will not sell its secrets if it gets a huge amount? It is just anti-Muslim/Pakistan bias of the western media nothing else!!!
USA has always played its negative part in supporting Pakistan army generals like Ayub, Zia or Musharraf and actually opposing the secular civilians leadership take for example Z.A. Bhutto and supported Extremist fundamentalist Zia ul--Haq who was the basis that destroyed Pakistan's secular system. Moreover the Pakistan Army is one of the best in the world and has the most responsible in defending the country from the Taliban and Al-Qaida how would nuclear technology would be at risk of being transferred or proliferated if any Pakistan Army General becomes the state head.
May I ask so why is USA afraid of a democratic Iran to get nuclear technology if democracy can save nuclear proliferation alone as per your argument?
first- unstable islamist government? thank god pakistan is not a neighbor of iraq, cuba, vennezula. otherwise you would have a good point right there.
second-name any 1 such country on this planet earth, a civilian democratic government can act alone. Fact is there is none. you may still live in your dillusional world, but atleast face the fact.
third- omg- you are so weak in your memory or maybe just "blantantly" a hypocratic.
except USA, i dont know any such country which have nukes out of thier R&D.
maybe some like india, got it while day dreaming, but i dont think so.
Fact1-russia -china-israel-brits stole from USA.
fact2-india got helped by russia.
fact3-pakistan got helped by china.
fact4- india has more issues with handling nukes than anybody on this planet.
fact5-india do have an active insurgency going on apart from kashmir.
fact6-india do have orthodox/mad religious/political parties who did held govt. BJP.
list go on-
One can feel the pain and understand your emotions you are going through. but hey, its not final.
maybe it willnot happen at all.
aah i guessed it, your point of view was not posted on NYT so here you are, trying to pursue washington. yelling "lion, lion,lion...." gues what??lolz
More Pakistani wing-nut rhetoric. Here are a few quick rebuttals to your points:
1. Your "fact4" about India - Pakistan has more issues with nukes. I suggest you read up about AQ Khan, the world's worst proliferator of nuclear weapons. Yes, other countries have proliferators, but at least they try to prosecute them and arrest them, unlike Pakistan. As well, no other proliferator has sent as much technology to countries like Iran, North Korea, and Iraq.
2. Pakistan is an entire country in a state of emergency - according to Foreign Policy's Failed States Index for 2009, Pakistan is a top failing state, raking 10th between Guinea and the Ivory Coast. While both Pakistan and India have corruption, Pakistan's is far worse with a CPI 2009 ranking of 139th, while India and China fair much better with 84th and 79th respectively.
3. Pakistan is "governed" by a military dictatorship - there are no real political parties in Pakistan, just shades of Islamic Fascism. At least in India they can be voted out of office. Pakistan lacks the "vote" and "office" components that would make this process feasible.
I could also go on and on about Pakistan: the ISI, the genocide of millions in Bangladesh by Pakistan's military, its campaigns against its minorities, etc. I understand the emotions you must be going through being faced with this information, but hey, the CIA predicted Pakistan will collapse in 2015, so just wait a few years and it will all be over!
Yea, you wish, buddy! Pakistan's demise has been predicted for many years. But in the words of Samuel Clemens, "The news of [my] death has been greatly exaggerated".
If you went through the history of any country and looked close enough, you'll find all sorts of terrible things that they did. The USA, Russia, China, India.
So stop being so negative against the brave people of Pakistan just because of your pique and I know "you could also go on and on", as you say. But the hatred shows through...Get over it.