DAWN.COM | Editorial | Nuclear asset or liability?
THE irony in Dr A.Q. Khans message on the 11th anniversary of the testing of the nuclear device should be lost on no one. The armed forces had no time to celebrate the occasion as they were busy fighting with conventional arms to save the very country he imagines to have made invincible.
Dr Khans sentiment, nevertheless, is shared by many. To illustrate one can do no better than quote a bit from a long editorial in a national daily: Were we not to be blessed with nuclear power our cunning enemy, India, surely would have swallowed us long ago by extending the net of its conspiracies. And thus would have succeeded the satanic plot hatched by the American, Indian and Israeli triumvirate to erase Pakistan from the face of the earth. India still bullies us and after the Mumbai attack even threatened us with surprise missile strikes. But it is because of our nuclear capability that India dare not cast an evil eye now or in the future leave alone penetrate this fortress.
Such indeed is the populist feeling, not wholly unfounded given the backdrop of suspicions and conflicts. But to suggest that America, Israel and India acting alone or in concert were responsible for all of Pakistans woes is to deny our own culpability. Leaving the battlegrounds of Swat and Waziristan aside, it is difficult to see how any of these three countries could have incited the Sunnis and Shias of Kurram to kill each other. Kurram is neither an abode of our own Taliban nor an infiltration route for their Afghan counterparts.
The intention here, however, is not to put the blame on ourselves and the foreign hand but to make the point that nuclear weapons cannot save Pakistan from a collapse triggered by internal strife or from defeat if invaded by India or, much less likely, by Israel. In any case, America will be on the scene as world policeman.
It is hard to understand in what way Prime Minister Gilani considers Pakistans nuclear arsenal a foundation of its national strategy when every scheme and effort is aimed at protecting and not using the bomb. If the bomb is made only to deter an aggressor, as Zubeida Mustafa has justifiably been asking in these pages, why must we go on making more of them? Surely, India will not mount a conventional attack if it knows that Pakistan may retaliate by dropping just one bomb on Delhi. Why have 100?
The correct position convincingly stated by scientist Pervez Hoodbhoy and human rights activists (call them pacifists if you like) is that nuclear weapons, in our situation, are not an asset as is generally said but a liability. Hillary Clintons declaration that a nuclear Pakistan is a mortal threat to international security leaves one wondering whether one day, if the Taliban are not exterminated, America will intervene militarily to save the weapons from falling into their hands. After all the Americans keep firing missiles at the Talibans suspected hideouts in Pakistan but our army cannot, or does not want to, stop them. And our political leaders keep protesting only for the record.
Mr Nawaz Sharif who claims the ultimate credit for making Pakistan nuclear and its defences impregnable goes a step further. He thinks the bomb had given a sense of pride and security not to Pakistan alone but to the entire Islamic world. That is hardly borne out by the realities of life. Most Muslim countries recognise Israel and, arguably, all of them have economic dealings with India more than with Pakistan. An Iranian or an Arab, an Indonesian or a Malaysian, is hardly ever seen on the streets of Pakistan. They all go to India. What pride and what security?
If owning bombs had a purpose in the time of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, or even Nawaz Sharif, there is none any longer. We had then planned and hoped to defeat India in Kashmir while deterring it from attacking Pakistan as in 1965. Now that the Kashmiris for whose rights we were fighting have themselves opted for a negotiated solution and we too want it that way the raison dêtre for going nuclear is lost altogether.
The search for a peaceful solution to Kashmir and other disputes is has only been stalled not abandoned. Now Pakistan need not invade Kashmir to liberate it nor does India have any grounds to attack Pakistan. Once Kashmir is out of the way the two neighbours can look upon each other as potential markets, not battlefields.
Now weigh the liability of possessing and expanding the atomic arsenal. The financial cost is unknown to the legislature and the people but is undoubtedly huge and increasing. If one were to hazard a guess our industry, agriculture and homes would not have been starved of electricity if we were to pursue the nuclear power generation programme that was founded by bureaucrat I.H. Usmani and scientist Abdus Salam in the 1960s and encouraged by Ayub Khan. Diversion to bombs has not made us any safer; in fact, it has made us poorer.
The bigger liability, however, is moral. Pakistan by its own confession has indulged in nuclear proliferation. The only doubt is whether it was A.Q. Khan on his own who ran the nuclear mart or the government too was involved. Regardless, the shame is borne by every Pakistani.
The way out of the nuclear dilemma is easy. Pakistan and India should enter into a no-use-of-the-bomb kind of a pact and put their arsenals under international supervision. Surely, neither side would like to see Delhi and Lahore reduced to rubble and a million killed or crippled for generations.
The army is winning the battle in Swat and will surely do so in Waziristan and elsewhere if called upon. But make no mistake, the
war against the Taliban will not be won unless political parties purge their own ranks of extremists and the statute book of discriminatory laws. And, above all, they must govern justly.
Benazir Bhutto is quoted by The Wall Street Journal as having said before she returned to Pakistan that Al Qaeda would be marching on Islamabad in two years. That time is up. The armys agonising campaign to kill its own people and get killed in turn doesnt sit easy on the conscience has won our politicians reprieve, maybe, for another two years. It is they who have to win or lose the war.
THE irony in Dr A.Q. Khans message on the 11th anniversary of the testing of the nuclear device should be lost on no one. The armed forces had no time to celebrate the occasion as they were busy fighting with conventional arms to save the very country he imagines to have made invincible.
Dr Khans sentiment, nevertheless, is shared by many. To illustrate one can do no better than quote a bit from a long editorial in a national daily: Were we not to be blessed with nuclear power our cunning enemy, India, surely would have swallowed us long ago by extending the net of its conspiracies. And thus would have succeeded the satanic plot hatched by the American, Indian and Israeli triumvirate to erase Pakistan from the face of the earth. India still bullies us and after the Mumbai attack even threatened us with surprise missile strikes. But it is because of our nuclear capability that India dare not cast an evil eye now or in the future leave alone penetrate this fortress.
Such indeed is the populist feeling, not wholly unfounded given the backdrop of suspicions and conflicts. But to suggest that America, Israel and India acting alone or in concert were responsible for all of Pakistans woes is to deny our own culpability. Leaving the battlegrounds of Swat and Waziristan aside, it is difficult to see how any of these three countries could have incited the Sunnis and Shias of Kurram to kill each other. Kurram is neither an abode of our own Taliban nor an infiltration route for their Afghan counterparts.
The intention here, however, is not to put the blame on ourselves and the foreign hand but to make the point that nuclear weapons cannot save Pakistan from a collapse triggered by internal strife or from defeat if invaded by India or, much less likely, by Israel. In any case, America will be on the scene as world policeman.
It is hard to understand in what way Prime Minister Gilani considers Pakistans nuclear arsenal a foundation of its national strategy when every scheme and effort is aimed at protecting and not using the bomb. If the bomb is made only to deter an aggressor, as Zubeida Mustafa has justifiably been asking in these pages, why must we go on making more of them? Surely, India will not mount a conventional attack if it knows that Pakistan may retaliate by dropping just one bomb on Delhi. Why have 100?
The correct position convincingly stated by scientist Pervez Hoodbhoy and human rights activists (call them pacifists if you like) is that nuclear weapons, in our situation, are not an asset as is generally said but a liability. Hillary Clintons declaration that a nuclear Pakistan is a mortal threat to international security leaves one wondering whether one day, if the Taliban are not exterminated, America will intervene militarily to save the weapons from falling into their hands. After all the Americans keep firing missiles at the Talibans suspected hideouts in Pakistan but our army cannot, or does not want to, stop them. And our political leaders keep protesting only for the record.
Mr Nawaz Sharif who claims the ultimate credit for making Pakistan nuclear and its defences impregnable goes a step further. He thinks the bomb had given a sense of pride and security not to Pakistan alone but to the entire Islamic world. That is hardly borne out by the realities of life. Most Muslim countries recognise Israel and, arguably, all of them have economic dealings with India more than with Pakistan. An Iranian or an Arab, an Indonesian or a Malaysian, is hardly ever seen on the streets of Pakistan. They all go to India. What pride and what security?
If owning bombs had a purpose in the time of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, or even Nawaz Sharif, there is none any longer. We had then planned and hoped to defeat India in Kashmir while deterring it from attacking Pakistan as in 1965. Now that the Kashmiris for whose rights we were fighting have themselves opted for a negotiated solution and we too want it that way the raison dêtre for going nuclear is lost altogether.
The search for a peaceful solution to Kashmir and other disputes is has only been stalled not abandoned. Now Pakistan need not invade Kashmir to liberate it nor does India have any grounds to attack Pakistan. Once Kashmir is out of the way the two neighbours can look upon each other as potential markets, not battlefields.
Now weigh the liability of possessing and expanding the atomic arsenal. The financial cost is unknown to the legislature and the people but is undoubtedly huge and increasing. If one were to hazard a guess our industry, agriculture and homes would not have been starved of electricity if we were to pursue the nuclear power generation programme that was founded by bureaucrat I.H. Usmani and scientist Abdus Salam in the 1960s and encouraged by Ayub Khan. Diversion to bombs has not made us any safer; in fact, it has made us poorer.
The bigger liability, however, is moral. Pakistan by its own confession has indulged in nuclear proliferation. The only doubt is whether it was A.Q. Khan on his own who ran the nuclear mart or the government too was involved. Regardless, the shame is borne by every Pakistani.
The way out of the nuclear dilemma is easy. Pakistan and India should enter into a no-use-of-the-bomb kind of a pact and put their arsenals under international supervision. Surely, neither side would like to see Delhi and Lahore reduced to rubble and a million killed or crippled for generations.
The army is winning the battle in Swat and will surely do so in Waziristan and elsewhere if called upon. But make no mistake, the
war against the Taliban will not be won unless political parties purge their own ranks of extremists and the statute book of discriminatory laws. And, above all, they must govern justly.
Benazir Bhutto is quoted by The Wall Street Journal as having said before she returned to Pakistan that Al Qaeda would be marching on Islamabad in two years. That time is up. The armys agonising campaign to kill its own people and get killed in turn doesnt sit easy on the conscience has won our politicians reprieve, maybe, for another two years. It is they who have to win or lose the war.
