MOTHER JONES BY E-MAIL

Pakistan's Short Fuse

Page 2 of 2


TOOLS

EmailE-mail article
PrintPrint article




BACKTALK

E-mail the editor





Google


RELATED ARTICLES

RE:ACTION

When it became clear that American-led Gulf War forces would defeat Hussein's army, the Pakistani military about-faced, dropping Iraq and approaching Iran. In a meeting with the prime minister, "Beg came straight out with it," a Pakistani official told Levy and Scott-Clark. "‘We should transfer nuclear technology to a friendly state, for the sum of $12 billion.' By friendly state he meant Iran, and with that figure Beg could have underwritten the defense budget for a decade to come."

Later, in the summer of 2003, IAEA inspectors, who had been tracking Iran's nuclear weapons program since the 1990s, would observe the "remarkable similarities between the Iranian centrifuges and those acquired then adapted by Khan." According to Deception, "swipe samples taken from the pilot plant at Nantz revealed particles of highly enriched uranium that could not have been produced inside Iran, as they were enriched well beyond the capabilities of the Iranian rig."

The Iranians eventually admitted they had imported used components, but refused to identify the source. Realizing the jig was up, Iran actually approached the United States, offering what the book calls an incredible deal. "In return for the United States addressing Iran's security concerns, the lifting of economic sanctions and normalization of relations. . .Tehran was offering to cut off support to Hamas and the Islamic Jihad" and rein in Hezbollah in Lebanon. Secretary of State Colin Powell favored the deal, but the Pentagon and White House rejected it, and continued efforts to destabilize this "axis of evil" country. Beyond that, the U.S. took no action related to the obvious Pakistani sales to Iran, and sandbagged an effort by the British to address Pakistan's rampant nuclear proliferation. The road laid at that time may yet lead to war with Iran.

The Pakistanis also appear to have engaged in nuclear dealings with the Saudis, our long-term allies in the Middle East. According to Levy, by the early 1990s, the Saudis already had bought nuclear-capable missiles from China, in a deal brokered by Pakistan. Then "the Saudis requested warheads for the missiles and gave millions to the Pakistani nuclear program by way of a down payment." Officials at the IAEA suspected the deal, and so did German and Israeli intelligence agencies. But, again, no one could get Washington to assist in getting to the bottom of it, Levy says. One U.S. nuclear specialist interviewed for Deception explained, "When the Saudis said there was no Pakistani deal, our side, without any further investigation, accepted the answer. We took an entirely different approach when the guy across the border in Iraq said: ‘I have no WMD.'" The Pakistanis, it turned out, also sold materials to Libya and offered them to Syria.

When George W. Bush first took office, even some of the hawks on his team expressed the desire to address Pakistan's nuclear program, which had continued apace after the coup by General Pervez Musharraf in 1999. But after 9/11, according to Levy and Scott-Clark, "the Bush administration weighed [Pakistan's] value as a potential ally against the harm Pakistan's nuclear program could do, just as Carter and Reagan had done before. Despite overwhelming evidence of a building nuclear crisis, in which a state leaking nuclear technology was also concealing terrorists who were seeking it, the White House decided to do nothing."

The White House again began approving aid to Pakistan, which has totaled $10 billion since September 2001. And when both Libya and Iran made disclosures to the IAEA about the source of their nuclear technologies, Pakistan offered up a convenient fall guy in A. Q. Khan. In February 2004, Khan confessed on national television that he had been involved in "unauthorized proliferation activities." Pakistani nuclear materials spread around the globe, the story went, had all been sold on the black market by Khan, without the knowledge of the military or the government, which professed to be shocked by his confession. Khan was arrested, but never tried, and Musharraf will not allow him to be questioned by Western countries or international agencies—a restriction to which Bush agreed, still loyal to his man in Islamabad.

Just this week, the New York Times broke the story (after holding it back for three years at the request of the White House) that "Over the past six years, the Bush administration has spent almost $100 million on a highly classified program" to help Musharraf "secure his country's nuclear weapons." Nevertheless, the story continues, "with the future of that country's leadership in doubt, debate is intensifying about whether Washington has done enough to help protect the warheads and laboratories, and whether Pakistan's reluctance to reveal critical details about its arsenal has undercut the effectiveness of the continuing security effort." In fact, according to an op-ed in last Sunday's Times, protecting Pakistan's domestic nuclear arsenal may soon become another job for American troops.

I asked Adrian Levy about the crisis that has come to a head in Pakistan in recent months, with the explosive visit of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto in October, followed by Musharraf's November 3 crackdown and imposition of so-called emergency rule. He spoke of the by now widely known behind-the-scenes dealings between Bhutto and Musharraf over a possible power-sharing agreement—dealings that have broken down but may not, Levy believes, be completely dead.

The United States has been involved here as well, seeking a solution that provides at least the veneer of democracy, while still preserving Musharraf's rule; the Pentagon wants to see the military remain in power, even though the State Department has been warning since 2001 that this is a doomed strategy, certain to advance destabilization. Levy and Scott-Clark spoke with Bhutto just before and just after her return to Pakistan in October, and she said that in any power-sharing agreement, she would have to "give up foreign policy, the WMD program, internal and external security, and elements of the financial portfolio as well," Levy reports.

Perhaps Musharaff can save himself by yielding more power to Bhutto, who is growing bolder as the crisis develops. But it is also possible that the military may cut Musharaff out, says Levy, forging an alliance with Bhutto. "I think [the military] will accept slipping out of power for now, and may well in the future evolve into a political force, as the military has in Turkey and Thailand," he says. The military currently owns 12 percent of all the land in Pakistan, and as businessmen probably favors moderation in the long term. "But that is long term, and this evolution depends on the West building and supporting a democratic movement in Pakistan that can resist or stand up to and contain the military."

Such an evolution seems unlikely, given the American government's long and checkered history with Pakistan—of overlooking even nuclear proliferation in the interest of furthering its own flawed foreign-policy agenda.

James Ridgeway is Mother Jones' senior correspondent.



 

Post a Comment

Your Name: 

Your Comment: 
 
Please press "Submit" only once to avoid double-posting.
All HTML formatting is removed from comments.
Read the Mother Jones community rules here.

Comments:

The U.S. government's problem with Pakistan is similar to the one it had with Iran in 1979. The U.S. government placed Iranian Shah Reza Pahlavi in power in 1953, which extinguished the rising flames of democracy. This resulted in a populist Islamic revolution and extreme anti-American sentiment. Now, Pakistan's brutal dictator, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, is facing a populist uprising. The United States has supported Musharraf for years and continues to straddle both sides of the fence. It preaches democracy but has a long history of providing support to dictators. The U.S. government must practice what it preaches and stop enabling dictators. The United States also should have supported former Pakistan prime minister Benazir Bhutto, who recently returned to Pakistan after eight years of exile. She, unlike Musharraf, is pro-democracy, pro-fair election and is against al-Qaeda. Bhutto has stated she would wage immediate war on the al-Qaeda sanctuaries that are ignored and, in some cases, protected by Musharraf.
Posted by:Christian GatsbyNovember 20, 2007 12:18:14 PMRespond ^
The U.S. government's problem with Pakistan is similar to the one it had with Iran in 1979. The U.S. government placed Iranian Shah Reza Pahlavi in power in 1953, which extinguished the rising flames of democracy. This resulted in a populist Islamic revolution and extreme anti-American sentiment. Now, Pakistan's brutal dictator, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, is facing a populist uprising. The United States has supported Musharraf for years and continues to straddle both sides of the fence. It preaches democracy but has a long history of providing support to dictators. The U.S. government must practice what it preaches and stop enabling dictators. The United States also should have supported former Pakistan prime minister Benazir Bhutto, who recently returned to Pakistan after eight years of exile. She, unlike Musharraf, is pro-democracy, pro-fair election and is against al-Qaeda. Bhutto has stated she would wage immediate war on the al-Qaeda sanctuaries that are ignored and, in some cases, protected by Musharraf.
Posted by:Christian GatsbyNovember 20, 2007 12:18:15 PMRespond ^
People can not fix the world they have messed up. You better start praying to [S]omething and you better start soon!
Posted by:BlairNovember 20, 2007 7:55:42 PMRespond ^
The more we learn about U.S. foreign policy the more sinister it appears. We clearly have a demonstrated penchant for militarists with whom we can conduct our fascist business of weapons trade and world domination through bullying and bloodshed. I cannot recall a single insight into the sub rosa foreign policy machinations of this or any other administration that appears even remotely democratic, enlightened or designed for anything other than nefarious, nay, demonic purposes. At what point do we admit that we are, indeed, the great Satan? Can these all be mistakes or are they, more likely, examples of deliberate gambits with vile consequences for humanity for which Chalmers Johnson has unwittingly deigned to be innocent by labeling them "blowback", as in unforseen consequences? Are we that stupid, or are we that evil? This appears to be the choice. There is too much consistency for stupid, it must be the other. After all, the war profiteers who control Washington are doing just fine thank you.
Posted by:FrankNovember 21, 2007 6:32:16 AMRespond ^
How about an article about Israel's nuclear capacity and the zionist threat?
Posted by:LouisNovember 21, 2007 12:24:13 PMRespond ^
From outside the Empire, the perspective looks bleak indeed. The rest of the world view these dealings as incredible examples of recklessness and hipocrisy. Given this record (remember the lies thal led to the current massacres in Iraq too!), who could believe the Bush administration? Oh, right! I was forgetting the American public!
Posted by:Jim GalcasNovember 22, 2007 4:32:09 AMRespond ^
How many more schocking revaliations are out there about our obniable goverment actions? I have decided 'they ' are all the dame,demos.republicans.
Posted by:FayeNovember 24, 2007 3:48:04 AMRespond ^
It seems we have this tendency to ignore nuclear proliferation when it comes to our so-called friends, such as Pakistan and Israel, but threaten war and destruction on our so-called enemies. What's wrong with this picture? xvet
Posted by:xvetNovember 24, 2007 10:09:58 AMRespond ^
As gross and horrible as this appears, it's only one aspect, one facet of US foreign policy. We have an American aristocracy that desires a world controlling empire. These people have run the country since the revolution and now have a strong chance of achieving their goals. At the expense of millions more innocent men, women and children. Perhaps billions. A small price to pay in their eyes. Despite what some people want to believe, the facts remain. It's barbarism. One entity vying to be the alpha taken to the grossest level.
Posted by:NakisNovember 26, 2007 10:03:43 AMRespond ^
Short sighted policies implemented by US and inability to differentiate between friend and foe has already turned them into the most hated governments of the world. Simple, innocent and loving American people are used every 4 years to bring the highly Satanic governments to power. American Governments are only to blame for all the bloodshed of innocent people in the world.
Posted by:Sultan ChaudhriMarch 17, 2008 6:44:34 AMRespond ^

Jail.org - Inmate Search
Criminal records, instant public records & people search & current court records. www.jail.org

U.S. Public Records Search
Search County & State Court Records, Criminal records, Vital and Adoption Records www.PublicRecordsInfo.com

Records.com - People Search
Public Records and Background Checks. Instantly Search Criminal Records, Addresses and Court Records www.Records.com

Court Records & County Records
Find Instant Public Records, Criminal Records as Well as County Property Records Search. www.PublicRecordsIndex.com

Real Viagra, Cialis Levitra Deal
Dare to compare our competitive prices. Free overnight delivery to new patients in the US. No catch 22!

Bob's Red Mill Organic Flaxseed Meal
In addition to its great nutty flavor, our flaxseed meal is high in fiber and packed with essential Omega-3 Fatty Acids.

PEACEFUL HOLIDAY GIFTS
Items featuring the 1958 peace symbol shirts, buttons, hoodys, signs, stickers, pins...more.
union made • detroit peacebuttons.info

End the genocide in Darfur
Every day, Darfuris face rape, murder, and starvation. Be a Voice for Darfur: tell Obama to end the suffering.
















Battery Woes 2....The Empire Strikes Back

Obama's Cabinet

Friday Cat Blogging - 21 November 2008

Big Bonuses


More MoJo voices...



bookIN PRINT

CLICK HERE
for more great reading

headphones IN TUNE
New music every issue

CLICK TO LISTEN

Advertise Liberally

This article has been made possible by the Foundation for National Progress, the Investigative Fund of Mother Jones, and gifts from generous readers like you.

© 2007 The Foundation for National Progress

About Us   Support Us   Advertise   Ad Policy   Privacy Policy   Contact Us   Subscribe   RSS