www.spearheadresearch.org

[H Khan]

When President Bush visited Pakistan in March of 2006, he in response to a question about offering Pakistan a civil nuclear deal similar to India clearly said that Pakistan had a "different history than India". It was a categorical statement that spelled out the reasons for not sharing the same technology with Pakistan. I remember when Hamid Mir of GEO asked U.S Sectary of Energy, Samuel W. Bodman similar question, Mr. Bodman answered “…different history than India." Hamid Mir completely misunderstood the statement and replied “…both the countries [Pakistan & India] have the same history…’’ This statement is what the stated position is of the US that Pakistan’s nuclear proliferation track record is blemished. On the other hand, the US and other countries have not doubted for a second the operational safety of Pakistan’s nuclear program.

Other US officials have been saying the same thing over and over again, clearly pointing to the proliferation saga resulting from the AQ Khan Network. AQ Khan Network is the main cause or not (which remains to be seen), the US and other countries in the Nuclear Supply Group (NSG) will continue to use this proliferation card against Pakistan in their rhetoric for a long time to come. It is a very easy excuse for them to deny Pakistan fair and equal treatment with India.

It was the same United States that gave Pakistan and many other countries nuclear reactors under the US Atoms for Peace Program. They helped Pakistan build PINSTECH and the Canadians gave KANUPP. The 5 MW Pakistan Research Reactor-1 (PARR 1) with its Highly Enriched Uranium Fuel was also provided by the US. These facilities have been the backbone of nuclear science and technology in Pakistan, without which Pakistan's nuclear program could not have been initiated in the first place. The PAEC was formed to capitalize on the US Atoms for Peace Program in 1956.

Now if U S priorities have changed, it is partly because of Pakistan’s past actions, which cannot be brushed aside because there is no emotional or simplistic explanation to this.

With regard to the Indo-US Nuclear Deal, it seems that history is repeating itself. The West, including the United States, Canada, and other European countries supplied wholesale nuclear technology to India throughout the 1960s, whilst Ayub Khan’s regime was sleeping. The Indians used their Canada India Research U.S (CIRUS) reactor to obtain plutonium for their first test in 1974. More importantly, India got the knowhow and has built a vast nuclear infrastructure.

This what India currently possess:
• 6 nuclear fuel fabrication plants
• 27 nuclear power plants, existing and planned
• 2 Fast Breeder Reactors, one is in place, the other will be operational by 2010
• 4 Reprocessing Plants
• 4 Uranium Enrichment Facilities
• 5 operational Research Reactors
• 9 Heavy Water Production Plants

Now the United States, thru passing IAEA India-specific agreement, has opened its doors for the transfer of technical know
how for India through this civilian nuclear deal. Basically nuclear weapons program is a specialized application of civilian nuclear know how and technology. Even if the advanced US reactors would be under IAEA, it will give India the know how to build other reactors and associated fuel cycle facilities indigenously. Not only this, the Indian nuclear market has the potential of attracting almost $100 billion for U.S companies. The Europeans will not stay behind and want their share. Even China offered India a similar nuclear deal when the Chinese President visited India last time.

India will not only get the knowhow of building and operating advanced reactor designs from the US, the cream of advance nuclear technology, but will be able to build a complete arsenal of nuclear weapons, since with this deal, its scarce uranium reserves shall now be fully committed to its weapons program. India will be able to build its stockpile of fissile material for nuclear weapons substantially. Pakistan will be forced to respond appropriately. While the US will take care of India's civilian nuclear energy needs, India herself will focus all its attention and resources in building its weapons program further. Pakistan will then have two choices, either to maintain its minimum deterrent capability, in which numbers matter a lot, or focus its resources on building both the weapons and the power programs at the same time, which will be a difficult thing to do, given Pakistan's acute resource constraints and, its incompetent and selfish political leadership.

Pakistan won't receive any such deal from the Western countries. The Chinese were the only one's during 1970-2007 who entered into a nuclear cooperation agreement with Pakistan in late 1980s. The result of which is Chashma-I, II and the planned C-III nuclear power plants. They too have not offered any new civilian deal to Pakistan yet.

Some of Pakistanis own actions are partly to blame for this state of affairs, whether Pakistanis like it or not. Such irresponsible acts for personal gain by certain individuals have given the West a very easy excuse not to give Pakistan similar treatment in terms of civilian nuclear cooperation.

Western biases against Pakistani nuclear program which is entirely for deterrence purposes definitely played its part as well in not offering a civilian nuclear agreement as the one given to India, even though any such facility would certainly be under full IAEA safeguards.

Pakistanis have the capability to build and operate their own power reactors. They must allocate the resources to this end with or without any foreign help, for it is vital for maintaining the minimum deterrence level capability for Pakistan.

The world is once again focusing attention to the utility of nuclear power, given the effects of global warming and high cost of energy. U.S Presidential candidate Senator McCain recently said that he would put a plan to build 40 new next-generation nuclear power plants if elected President in November. Nuclear power industry worldwide is likely to expand further and will be a multi-billion dollar affair.

Western duplicity and double standards have once again put South Asia's delicate balance of power in jeopardy for years to come. After all, it was India that illegally diverted spent fuel from the CIRUS reactor. Pakistan despite having the entire infrastructure for complete nuclear fuel cycle ready by 1981-82 including the plutonium reprocessing capability did not divert spent fuel from KANUPP, which would have resulted in the abrogation of IAEA safeguards. Pakistan had even allowed IAEA safeguards on Pakistani nuclear fuel for KANUPP after the Canadians stopped all supply of heavy water and fuel in 1976. KANUPP is a Canada Deuterium Uranium (CANDU) type reactor. It is ideal for plutonium production and the design of the reactor is such that it does not require to be shut down for refueling, thus making it more difficult for observers to accurately tell how much fuel is exactly consumed and if there have been any diversions of spent fuel or not. But Pakistan as a responsible nuclear state, despite having the capability to reprocess the fuel as early as 1981-82 did not violate IAEA safeguards, where as India got away with it in 1974 and instead of being punished for triggering the 1998 tests which forced Pakistan (fortunately for us) to respond in kind, is now being rewarded for triggering a nuclear arms race in South Asia. Commercial interests alone cannot be accounted for this special treatment being bestowed upon India by the US.

Pakistanis shot themselves in the foot by letting one man (Moshin e Pakistan) to sell obsolete nuclear know how to Iran, Libya and North Korea and offering the same to Iraq in the single instance where an individual, rather than a government or an organization, do such a thing with impunity and then pardoning him for doing so.

Unfortunately the world is dictated by Realpolitik rather than morality. While France, Germany, US, Russia, China and other nuclear powers have transferred significant nuclear technology and know how to other states, such as India, Israel, South Africa, and in certain cases to Pakistan as well, but these transfers were always on a state to state basis, or between government entities in one state and private companies in the other, in full knowledge of the selling state.

So that is all considered to be the norm, but private proliferation by any group or individual is not acceptable anywhere or by any one. Therefore Pakistanis need to learn lessons from their mistakes, and do their utmost to restore Pakistan's image as a responsible nuclear state. It seems that Pakistan has been singularly punished through the US-India deal with the ultimate objective of cornering Pakistan's nuclear program and exerting pressure to enter into some sort of Non-Proliferation regime such as FMCT/NPT, while India will continue to enjoy the fruits of next generation nuclear technology.

If the French can offer nuclear technology for power generation to Libya, a Muslim country and one time terrorist country, then it can do the same to Pakistan, provided Pakistanis repair the damage done otherwise impeccable record of nuclear responsibility, save the actions of a few self-worshiping and reckless individuals.

In light of the recent events in Bombay and the subsequent saber rattling by the Indian leadership and its intellects, it is clear that what type of by behavior on can expect from India. By the time Indian-US nuclear deal matures, the US will help India become another unstable and impoverished hegemonic regional power.


Note: I had send this article to several news outlets in Pakistan and other countries but none of them published, therefore, I thought I will post here. Originally, this article was written in May of 2008.

[jaykay]

Mr H Khan's article is well researched and he has all his facts right. There is no doubt that the US used 'past history to bypass Pakistan while making the nuclear deal with India. Neverthe less a precedent for nuclear commerce has been set and thuis can be exploited by setting a new track record that overtakes past history. This will require hard work and patience.
The main thing is that Pakistan has to be seen as an internally secure and viable country and not as an 'epicenter of terrorism' with 'ungovernable areas' and infrastructure that can be used by 'non-state actors. This implies political stability, good governance, economic viability and the ability to defeat extremism and insurgent threats. For this a blue print must be eveolved before it is too late.
Once Pakistan's house is in order it will have options and opportunities.