Current Events January 2008

Here is the first part of an article that appeared in TIME last November.

Nov. 06, 2007 By MARK THOMPSON/WASHINGTON
Whenever the question of the security of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal

comes up, the official U.S. response has been that the weapons are in safe hands. That position is, like the U.S. position on Russian nukes, based on trust -- on high-level, personal contacts between military commanders on both sides. For now, Washington can maintain that line about Pakistan because that country's two highest military leaders have close ties to the U.S. or Britain. General Pervez Musharraf, who is also President, was trained in England, and his likely military successor General Ashfaq Pervez Kiyani was trained in the US. Soon, however, that trust and fellow-feeling will no longer be available.”

The article ends:

Currently, the Pakistani army is conflicted over its orders to battle jihadists, says Husain Haqqani, a former senior Pakistani diplomat and political operative who is now a professor at Boston University.

"These large numbers of troops who are virtually surrendering themselves to the insurgents in Waziristan [a mountainous region of northwest Pakistan, bordering Afghanistan] without putting up a fight would not have done so if they were not conflicted within themselves," he told a congressional panel recently. " That conflict comes from a belief system after years of having been told that the jihadists represent a force for good. And now that they are being told to fight them, some of them are not able to make that transition as quickly as General Musharraf was able to make after 9/11 with a phone call from Washington, D.C."

We now face the very real prospect that Pakistan will be taken over by radical Muslim fundamentalists who are not, like President Musharraf, employees of the United States of America. We might be watching the emergence of the first nuclear-armed jihadist state.

“So what?” some might ask. Israel has nuclear weapons and hasn’t used them. What makes anyone think that Pakistanis of any persuasion would be less responsible?

Two things should be noted here. First, if Pakistan really does fall under the control of radicals who want to topple the “Great Satan,” they cannot be deterred. Second, and more dangerously, the threat itself could inspire a preemptive attack by the US or Israel, which would undoubtedly provoke revenge and escalation.

This article was carried by AFP (Agence France-Presse) on January 17:

JERUSALEM (AFP) — Israel successfully test-fired a long-range ballistic missile on Thursday, a senior official told AFP, days after warning "all options" were open to prevent arch foe Iran from obtaining atomic weapons.

"We successfully test-fired a two-staged ballistic missile system today," a senior defense ministry official told AFP, speaking on condition of anonymity….

Israel is currently thought to be developing the Jericho-3 ground-to-ground missile that can be equipped with a nuclear, chemical or biological warhead and could have a range of up to 4,500 kilometres (2,800 miles).

Widely considered to be the Middle East's only if undeclared nuclear power with an estimated arsenal of 200 warheads, Israel accuses Iran of using its controversial nuclear program as a cover for developing atomic weapons, a charge Tehran denies.

Thursday's test came two days after Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert warned that all options were on the table to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

"We are not ruling out any option," a senior government official quoted him as telling parliament's foreign affairs and defense committee, echoing main ally Washington in ratcheting up the rhetoric against Tehran.

"Anything that can lead to preventing Iran from nuclear capability is part of the legitimate context when dealing with the problem," Olmert said.

The premier's comments came amid US President George W. Bush's Middle East trip that was largely devoted to bolstering his campaign to isolate Iran, which he repeatedly branded a "threat to world peace." Iran figured prominently in Olmert's talks with Bush during his visit to Israel, officials said.

"The Iranians are continuing their ingrained efforts to produce non-conventional capabilities and therefore we should use all the available means to stop it," Olmert told the parliament committee.

"There are many options that should be applied wisely, with determination and consistence," he said. "We should continue international efforts on this issue and we have a strong basis to assume, in view of my talks with the president, that this activity will not stop."

A US intelligence report in December said that Iran halted a nuclear weapons program in 2003, although Washington is still pushing for a new set of UN sanctions against the Islamic republic. 

This article and a recent attack on Syria make it clear that Israel is not above pre-emptive attacks. If Olmert is so determined to keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, would he not be equally determined to keep Pakistan from making nuclear weapons available to jihadists?

Pre-emptive action against a nuclear-armed state would be rather more dangerous than an attack on Iran, but that is not necessarily a reason to feel confident that it won’t happen. Israel, of course, has a lot to lose, but the neocon warmongers now dominating US foreign policy do not. The important thing to remember about them is that they ARE the military-industrial complex. In the entire world, the only serious threat to them is peace. The individuals and the corporations involved are all utterly dependent on enemies, fear and war for their wealth, prestige and power. Thus, facing the increasingly obvious reality that they will find themselves out of power in January 2009, an attack on Iran or Pakistan would be the quickest and easiest way to ensure that no matter who the next US president is, the military-industrial complex will have its endless war and unlimited budget.

A January 16 article by Pervez Hoodboy, chairman of the department of physics at Quaid-e-Azam University in Islamabad, began:

A cacophony of protests in Pakistan greeted a recent statement by the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohammad ElBaradei. "I fear that chaos, or an extremist regime, could take root in that country, which has 30 to 40 warheads," he said. He also expressed fear that "nuclear weapons could fall into the hands of extremist groups in Pakistan or Afghanistan."

The article ends with:

Many vexing questions concern the weapons laboratories and production units. Given the sloppy work culture, it is hard to imagine that accurate records have been maintained over a quarter century of fissile-material production. So, can one be certain that small, but significant, quantities of highly enriched uranium have not made their way out? More ominously, religious fervor in these places has grown enormously over the last 30 years.

One does not know if radical Islamists may soon acquire the technical expertise and the highly enriched uranium needed for a crude nuclear device, which could be built in-situ. But it is quite certain that, having gone to the trouble of getting it, they will use it if they can. One should not assume that London or New York will be the preferred targets because Islamabad and Delhi may be just as good - and certainly much easier. In the twisted logic of the fanatics, there is little or no difference between apostates and those who are the tools of apostates. The suicide bombings inside mosques, and in Pakistan's public places, send exactly this message.

Nevertheless, we Pakistanis live in a state of denial. Even as suicide bombings escalate, criticism of religious extremists remains taboo. The overwhelming majority still attributes recent terrorist events - such as the assassination of Benazir Bhutto - to the Musharraf government. But these delusions will eventually shatter. At some point we will surely see that ElBaradei's warning makes sense.

Will we get rid of nuclear weapons?  Or will we let everyone have one?  Isn’t it time to get serious about this question?