In early February, the father
of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program, Dr Abdul Qadeer
Khan, admitted that he was instrumental in the sale of
nuclear weapons technology to Iran and Libya. America's
top arms control official, John Bolton, outlined that
the Pakistani network sold "technology for enriching
uranium as well as warhead designs to Iran, North Korea
and Libya", according to the San Francisco Chronicle.
And concerns exist that the warhead blueprints may have
gone considerably further.
Notably, the US
Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports that
Pakistani nuclear weapons cooperation with North Korea
"accelerated in the 1990s". But in an amazing example of
Bush administration spin, Bolton described the February
revelations of the Pakistani operation as "a great
intelligence success", arguing that the incident
represented "an enormous victory", the Chronicle
reported. And while the Bush administration has accepted
Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf's
assertions that Khan acted independently, a Washington
coverup is widely understood.
US security and
defense expert John Pike of Global Security observed for
Asia Times Online: "Pakistan has been an extremely good
partner to the US in the war on terrorism, because the
US, to include the president of the US, has been
prepared to lie publicly about their nuclear
proliferation activities ... it was an established
government [of Pakistan] policy."
A CRS report
from March 11 notes that one account of events "states
generals Musharraf, [Jehangir] Karamat and [Abdul ]
Waheed knew of aid to North Korea when they were chiefs
of the army staff". And two former Pakistani prime
ministers' political parties have expressed concerns
that Khan - who was immediately granted a pardon on his
"confession" - is merely a handy scapegoat.
The
CRS notes that Pakistan and North Korea have had a long
cooperation on missile technology. CRS also questions
whether a 1996 Pakistani foreign-currency crisis led the
government to swap nuclear weapons technology, doing so
in lieu of missile payments then allegedly due to
Pyongyang. Moreover, while North Korea has never tested
a nuclear device, the CRS cites "some reports" that in
1998 Pakistan tested a plutonium bomb for them.
Pike also spoke to this issue, noting that the
detonation in question took place far from the site of
Pakistan's first nuclear test, and that "sniffer planes"
detected plutonium traces - the material North Korean
weapons are said to use - and not the uranium with which
Pakistani weapons are built. But cutting to what many
perceive as the heart of such nuclear efforts, Pike
noted: "Historically, states which have felt existential
threats, states which feel they have a well-founded fear
of regime change, have wanted to get the bomb." And the
reasons for this are widely acknowledged.
US
nuclear weapons and policy expert Joseph Cirincione,
director for non-proliferation with the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace, told Asia Times
Online: "Nuclear weapons are the only weapons in the
world that could deter the US." Highlighting the
validity of Cirincione's assertion, nuclear hawk C Paul
Robinson, director of the US nuclear weapons complex of
Sandia National Laboratories, told the National Journal:
"Some people draw the lesson that the United States can
be deterred by nuclear weapons, but not by chemical or
biological ones. I can't argue with that conclusion."
In the same August 2003 National Journal
interview, Robinson also said: "I disagree with people
who infer that the NPT [nuclear non-proliferation
treaty] is a real arms control treaty. It's not." By
contrast, numerous US figures, including former
president Jimmy Carter, are on record as both strongly
endorsing the NPT and expressing strong concern
regarding its future.
Between the US's
"pressures" on one hand, and its treaty abrogation and
avoidance on the other, administration critics believe
the international structures which have limited nuclear
proliferation are effectively being pulled apart.
In a now established pattern highlighting the
Bush administration's commitment to its treaty
obligations, it appears to have rescinded the NPT's
so-called "negative assurance" to non-nuclear states, a
guarantee that they would never face nuclear attack as
long as they continued to renounce nuclear weaponry. And
with Washington's Nuclear Posture Review (NPR)
initiating the pursuit of new nuclear weapons, the US
has clearly violated article six of the accord - its
treaty obligation to continually move towards nuclear
disarmament.
As early as 2001, the Observer from
Britain christened international acts in this genre as
"Big dog diplomacy". But the "big dog" has even been
chewing up things at home.
Notably, in a
reflection of the reasons underpinning the dangerously
destabilizing erosion of US international credibility,
the administration appears to have both substantively
misled Congress and violated domestic legislation, with
a recent CRS update even citing it for this.
But
prior to the CRS findings, a sharply critical January
letter to the agency responsible for nuclear weapons
research and production - the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) - by the chairman and ranking
member of the House of Representatives sub-committee
overseeing their efforts - the sub-committee on energy
and water development - charged that a drive to "charge
forward with unrestricted efforts on advanced nuclear
weapons concepts" is ongoing, despite Congressional
limitations.
The NNSA's "bunker-busting"
mini-nuke project, "RNEP", then spawned subsequent and
very considerable CRS attention, with a April 9 CRS
update highlighting quite wide Congressional concerns.
"For many members [of Congress], the five-year cost of
RNEP as presented in the FY2005 budget document came as
a surprise not only in the amount, but also in what
appeared to be an intent contrary to legislation," the
CRS wrote. Demonstrating the Congress' level of
reservation, in addition to House members, both
Republican and Democratic senators' concerns were quoted
by CRS.
In addressing his reservations with
energy secretary Spencer Abraham, CRS quoted Senator Ted
Kennedy as charging: "... you're rushing ahead with the
nuclear weapons, including mini-nukes and the nuclear
bunker busters. I'll give you a chance to be able to
explain how this program [RNEP], which was $45 million
two years ago is now up to almost $.5 billion." Other
legislators voiced equally strong reservations,
particularly regarding the manner in which the
administration has pursued the nuclear "flexibility"
advocated by the NPR.
As the BBC reported in
August 2003, bunker-busting bombs "would fit well with
President George W Bush's preference for a preemptive
strike capability". But the price of such programs
includes considerably more than dollars.
Numerous international security experts have
warned of the potential for a new and global nuclear
arms race. The Carnegie Endowment's Cirincione warned
that if "the most powerful military nation in the world
says it needs nuclear weapons for its national security,
why don't other countries". He warned that not only
America's "enemies", but its friends would be prompted
to enter the nuclear race.
Emphasizing such
concerns, Brazil recently made international headlines
for refusing International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
inspectors access to a new facility for uranium
enrichment. Notably, during his successful campaign for
office, Brazil's widely respected and much acclaimed
president, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, pointedly noted:
"If someone asks me to disarm and keep a slingshot while
he comes at me with a cannon, what good does that do?"
And while Brazil is not currently suspected of having a
weapons program, the implications of the Bush
administration's nuclear posture appear profound.
As regards Russia, executive director Daryl
Kimball of the Washington-based Arms Control Association
told Asia Times Online that "the US-Russian arms
reduction process has, for all intents and purposes,
halted". And a recent article in Izvestia quoted the
deputy chief of the Russian general staff, Colonel
General Yuri Baluyevsky, as warning: "We will be
compelled to modify the development of our own strategic
nuclear forces depending on Washington's plans."
Cirincione saw the administration's plans in
terms of expanding militarism, saying: "They place their
faith in maximizing US military strength, not in
establishing international law or international norms",
noting this was despite US interests lying in the firm
establishment of both. Spain's new premier, Jose Luis
Rodriguez Zapatero, had previously emphasized the same
point, saying: "Terrorism is combated by the state of
law ... That's what I think Europe and the international
community have to debate." But some experts believe
another kind of debate may be on the administration's
agenda.
On April 6, the Wall Street Journal
editorialized: "If warnings to Tehran from Washington
don't impress them, perhaps some cruise missiles aimed
at the Busheir nuclear site will." Concerns that Iran
may have acquired the plans for a nuclear device appear
to provide the true rationale behind such headlines,
particularly as Iran is building a large uranium
enrichment plant before it has reactors which could
utilize that plant's nuclear fuel.
IAEA
inspectors are reported to have questioned this
sequence. And speculation exists that a US or Israeli
strike on Iranian nuclear-related targets is possible in
an effort to delay Iran's potential acquisition of
sufficient fissile material for a weapon's construction.
But Global Security's Pike noted that the difficulty in
striking the most significant extent of any clandestine
program would make such an effort ill advised. And the
substantive political implications also argue against
such a precipitous move; yet, some analysts have
expressed concern.
Though a number of observers
believe Iran may well be in the process of going
nuclear, the majority believe any Iranian weapon would
be for defensive purposes. "Clearly Iran's motivation is
not to obliterate Israel, but to limit the ability of
the US, or any foreign power, from coercing them,"
nuclear expert Christopher Paine of the Natural
Resources Defense Council told Asia Times Online. But
even defensive weapons could have implications.
Saudi Arabia is said to have helped fund
Pakistan's nuclear program through discounts on its oil
shipments. And according to Pike, "probably every
even-numbered Pakistani bomb has a little sticker on it
saying 'property of Saudi Arabia'," with the less than
jocular implication being that should Iran go nuclear,
the Saudis would do so simultaneously, long-standing
differences between the two states spawning the move.
Pike pointedly mentioned that Egypt would then want to
join "the club", and a deadly regional nuclear arms race
would be on. Pike noted that a similar situation exists
in Asia, with North Korean weapons providing the seeds
for an equally disturbing scenario there.
While
it is widely acknowledged that US "pressures" have
precipitated the current global volatility, many
observers look to the November US elections, hoping for
American "regime change" as the best avenue for renewed
world stability.
Ritt Goldstein is an
American investigative political journalist based in
Stockholm. His work has appeared in broadsheets such as
Australia's Sydney Morning Herald, Spain's El Mundo and
Denmark's Politiken, as well as with the Inter Press
Service (IPS), a global news agency.
(Copyright 2004 Asia Times Online Ltd. All
rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for
information on our sales and syndication policies.)
