fatman17
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 32,563
- Reaction score
- 98
- Country
- Location
Comment: Riedel and the Pakistani Bomb Naeem Salik
A person of Mr Riedels stature should be very careful in gathering and verifying his facts and should also avoid using unsubstantiated stereotypes and sweeping statements
In the past month or so, there has been a concerted media campaign in the United States raising concerns about the security of Pakistans nuclear assets. Alarmist press reports were interspersed with some reassuring statements by responsible officials, including President Obama himself, Admiral Mullen and General Petraeus.
Not to be left behind was Mr Bruce Riedel, a former CIA official who served in the NSC during the Clinton administration and is currently a senior fellow at the Saban Centre for Israel and Middle East at the Brookings Institution at Washington, DC. But more importantly he is one of the senior advisors to President Obama on the so-called Af-Pak policy. For that particular reason, Mr Riedels diatribe against Pakistan and its nuclear security Pakistan and the Bomb: How the US can divert a crisis published in the Wall Street Journal of May 30, 2009 is being viewed in Pakistan as very disturbing.
Mr Riedel has an axe to grind with Pakistan. He came to Pakistan as part of Strobe Talbotts team in an emotionally charged atmosphere after the Indian nuclear tests in May 1998 on an impossible mission to persuade Pakistan from following suit. Unfortunately for him and his team, they were meted out very roughshod treatment by senior Pakistani diplomats and he still carries the scar of that experience. He has written in the past on issues related to Pakistan in terms not very favourable to Pakistan, which is perfectly understandable given the fact that most of these papers were commissioned by the Centre for Advanced Study of India at the University of Pennsylvania.
In his WSJ piece, Mr Riedel has made some very positive points, such as calling upon the US to have constancy and consistency in its policy towards Pakistan and to avoid using double standards when treating India and Pakistan. He has also debunked the idea floated around by some in the US political as well as think tank circles of securing the Pakistani nuclear arsenal by force, calling it unrealistic and counterproductive.
He has also grudgingly acknowledged that there is no evidence to suggest that there has been any proliferation activity involving any Pakistani national since 2004. He has also conceded that Pakistans arsenal is well protected, concealed and dispersed. However, he has added so many qualifiers in the form of ifs and buts that he has more or less nullified the positive side of these comments.
While one does not contest Mr Riedels right to have and express his opinions, he should be mindful of the fact that such utterances would not be viewed in Pakistan as his personal views due to his official position. More importantly, a person of his stature should be very careful in gathering and verifying his facts and should also avoid using unsubstantiated stereotypes and sweeping statements.
For instance, it is surprising that Mr Riedel has named Yaqub Khan as Pakistans military ruler in 1971 instead of Yahya Khan; maybe a quick glance through the country fact file of his old employers would have given him the correct answer.
Similarly, on the issue of whether the assistance given to Pakistan has been utilised to expand Pakistans nuclear capability, Mr Riedel did not have to look very far. The Pakistan Aid Table compiled by Alan Kronstandt of the Congressional Research Service has given the breakdown, which clearly illustrates that $5.7 billion have been disbursed under the head Coalition Support Fund, which essentially means reimbursement of money spent by Pakistan in providing logistical support to US forces and the expenditure incurred by Pakistan in its own counterterrorism operations.
But facts dont seem to be Mr Riedels strength as is evident from his unsubstantiated statements about the shaky security of Pakistans fastest growing nuclear arsenal in the world as a result of the ongoing military operation against the Taliban. He says this without establishing a causal relationship between the two events. He also alleges that Pakistan is constructing several new reactors again without any factual basis.
The funniest comment is about Pakistans efforts to buy more reactors from China to increase its production of fissile material. Mr Riedel should know better: Pakistan has so far purchased two nuclear reactors from China which are under IAEA safeguards, and if it purchases more of the same, those too would be covered by similar safeguards. Secondly, these reactors are light water or boiling water type reactors that are not suited for producing fissile material even if they were not safeguarded.
Mr Riedel has also termed Pakistan a unique nuclear country, which has both obtained and proliferated nuclear technology. Just a brief recap of US nuclear history would tell Mr Riedel that all the scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project were European expatriates none except one had US citizenship who had escaped to the US with their stolen nuclear secrets from Germany, Italy, Austria and the Scandinavian countries.
It is no secret that US later helped Britain and France; Russia helped China; India was assisted by Canada, the US, Britain and France; Germany helped South Africa and Brazil; France virtually built the Israeli nuclear infrastructure; and he only needs to ask Seymour Hersh about the ultimate destination of large quantities of fissile materials stolen from US labs. Then how is Pakistan unique?
There are many more factually incorrect, loaded and deliberately twisted statements that cannot be possibly be addressed given the limitation of space. But one can only hope that responsible people like Bruce Riedel will be more careful with their facts next time around and will be mindful of the fact that unlike journalistic statements, their comments carry serious implications and create doubts in the minds of the Pakistani people about the sincerity of the US commitment to Pakistan.
Finally, with regards to Mr Riedels fears about a jihadist takeover of Pakistan and his overblown concern about Pakistan itself falling into wrong hands, one only needs to look at the results of the national elections of February 2008, which unequivocally dispelled these misplaced fears which were also being expressed on the eve of the elections.
The writer is a retired brigadier and a defence analyst
A person of Mr Riedels stature should be very careful in gathering and verifying his facts and should also avoid using unsubstantiated stereotypes and sweeping statements
In the past month or so, there has been a concerted media campaign in the United States raising concerns about the security of Pakistans nuclear assets. Alarmist press reports were interspersed with some reassuring statements by responsible officials, including President Obama himself, Admiral Mullen and General Petraeus.
Not to be left behind was Mr Bruce Riedel, a former CIA official who served in the NSC during the Clinton administration and is currently a senior fellow at the Saban Centre for Israel and Middle East at the Brookings Institution at Washington, DC. But more importantly he is one of the senior advisors to President Obama on the so-called Af-Pak policy. For that particular reason, Mr Riedels diatribe against Pakistan and its nuclear security Pakistan and the Bomb: How the US can divert a crisis published in the Wall Street Journal of May 30, 2009 is being viewed in Pakistan as very disturbing.
Mr Riedel has an axe to grind with Pakistan. He came to Pakistan as part of Strobe Talbotts team in an emotionally charged atmosphere after the Indian nuclear tests in May 1998 on an impossible mission to persuade Pakistan from following suit. Unfortunately for him and his team, they were meted out very roughshod treatment by senior Pakistani diplomats and he still carries the scar of that experience. He has written in the past on issues related to Pakistan in terms not very favourable to Pakistan, which is perfectly understandable given the fact that most of these papers were commissioned by the Centre for Advanced Study of India at the University of Pennsylvania.
In his WSJ piece, Mr Riedel has made some very positive points, such as calling upon the US to have constancy and consistency in its policy towards Pakistan and to avoid using double standards when treating India and Pakistan. He has also debunked the idea floated around by some in the US political as well as think tank circles of securing the Pakistani nuclear arsenal by force, calling it unrealistic and counterproductive.
He has also grudgingly acknowledged that there is no evidence to suggest that there has been any proliferation activity involving any Pakistani national since 2004. He has also conceded that Pakistans arsenal is well protected, concealed and dispersed. However, he has added so many qualifiers in the form of ifs and buts that he has more or less nullified the positive side of these comments.
While one does not contest Mr Riedels right to have and express his opinions, he should be mindful of the fact that such utterances would not be viewed in Pakistan as his personal views due to his official position. More importantly, a person of his stature should be very careful in gathering and verifying his facts and should also avoid using unsubstantiated stereotypes and sweeping statements.
For instance, it is surprising that Mr Riedel has named Yaqub Khan as Pakistans military ruler in 1971 instead of Yahya Khan; maybe a quick glance through the country fact file of his old employers would have given him the correct answer.
Similarly, on the issue of whether the assistance given to Pakistan has been utilised to expand Pakistans nuclear capability, Mr Riedel did not have to look very far. The Pakistan Aid Table compiled by Alan Kronstandt of the Congressional Research Service has given the breakdown, which clearly illustrates that $5.7 billion have been disbursed under the head Coalition Support Fund, which essentially means reimbursement of money spent by Pakistan in providing logistical support to US forces and the expenditure incurred by Pakistan in its own counterterrorism operations.
But facts dont seem to be Mr Riedels strength as is evident from his unsubstantiated statements about the shaky security of Pakistans fastest growing nuclear arsenal in the world as a result of the ongoing military operation against the Taliban. He says this without establishing a causal relationship between the two events. He also alleges that Pakistan is constructing several new reactors again without any factual basis.
The funniest comment is about Pakistans efforts to buy more reactors from China to increase its production of fissile material. Mr Riedel should know better: Pakistan has so far purchased two nuclear reactors from China which are under IAEA safeguards, and if it purchases more of the same, those too would be covered by similar safeguards. Secondly, these reactors are light water or boiling water type reactors that are not suited for producing fissile material even if they were not safeguarded.
Mr Riedel has also termed Pakistan a unique nuclear country, which has both obtained and proliferated nuclear technology. Just a brief recap of US nuclear history would tell Mr Riedel that all the scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project were European expatriates none except one had US citizenship who had escaped to the US with their stolen nuclear secrets from Germany, Italy, Austria and the Scandinavian countries.
It is no secret that US later helped Britain and France; Russia helped China; India was assisted by Canada, the US, Britain and France; Germany helped South Africa and Brazil; France virtually built the Israeli nuclear infrastructure; and he only needs to ask Seymour Hersh about the ultimate destination of large quantities of fissile materials stolen from US labs. Then how is Pakistan unique?
There are many more factually incorrect, loaded and deliberately twisted statements that cannot be possibly be addressed given the limitation of space. But one can only hope that responsible people like Bruce Riedel will be more careful with their facts next time around and will be mindful of the fact that unlike journalistic statements, their comments carry serious implications and create doubts in the minds of the Pakistani people about the sincerity of the US commitment to Pakistan.
Finally, with regards to Mr Riedels fears about a jihadist takeover of Pakistan and his overblown concern about Pakistan itself falling into wrong hands, one only needs to look at the results of the national elections of February 2008, which unequivocally dispelled these misplaced fears which were also being expressed on the eve of the elections.
The writer is a retired brigadier and a defence analyst
