Author: Chidanand Rajghatta
Publication: The Times of India
Date: May 20, 2009.
URL: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/US-gives-another-free-pass-to-Pak-nuclear-program/articleshow/4552420.cms
The United States has again given what virtually
amounts to a free pass to Pakistan's India-specific nuclear weapons program,
washing its hands off reports by its own military and intelligence that Islamabad
is rapidly expanding its arsenal, while insisting it will ensure US aid is
not spent on the country's nuclear program.
A phalanx of American officials sprang to
the defense of questionable US policy on Pakistan on Monday after reports
over the weekend confirmed that Islamabad was accelerating its fissile material
production, and the consequent concern in sections of the administration and
Congress over whether billions of dollars of US aid would indirectly help
underwrite the expanded program.
Most of the batting for Pakistan was done
at the State Department, but the Director of the CIA, Leon Panetta, and America's
highest ranking general, Admiral Mike Mullen, also stepped up during their
day's engagements to certify the security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons and
the firewall between US aid and the nuclear program, even as Congress tied
up loose ends clear an immediate $ 2 billion aid package this week, the first
of many tranches over the next decade.
"I'm not going to address the issue of
whether or not the Pakistanis are increasing their nuclear capability,"
State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said on Monday, deferring to Admiral
Mullen (who last week confirmed the expansion), while adding, "We're
going to work closely with the Government of Pakistan to make sure that the
money is spent for the specific purposes that the US Congress had in mind."
As reported in this paper last week, US experts
have expressed consternation that Pakistan is being allowed expand its nuclear
weapons program "without as much as a reproach."
Pressed to explain why the administration
thought the aid would not help the expanding program when money was essentially
fungible (exchangeable in the sense of freeing up domestic resources for the
nuclear program), Kelly said he wouldn't link the two issues: the idea of
providing an assistance package and the fact that Pakistan has a nuclear capability.
"We shouldn't make this connection, because
this assistance package is for very specific purposes... I don't see necessarily
a connection between the two...We're going to make sure that the package is
well spent," Kelly said.
"We take our responsibility as custodians
of appropriated funds very seriously. We're going to work closely with the
Government of Pakistan to ensure that this money goes to the purposes to which
they're intended," he added.
((But the questions about Pakistan's accelerating
nuclear weapons program just wouldn't go away at the daily briefing.
Question : So we can - can we just go back
to the Pakistan nuclear arsenal? I wasn't sure in your initial answer whether
you said that the United States opposes Pakistan increasing the size of...
Kelly : No, I didn't say that. I hope I didn't
say that. I simply stated a fact, that Pakistan has a nuclear capability and
that we shouldn't draw any links between the issues of our assistance package
and their nuclear capability.
Question: Does the United States oppose the
idea of Pakistan increasing the size of its nuclear arsenal?
Kelly: I think I referred you back to the
Joint Chiefs of Staff on that.
Question: And what you referred us to the
Joint Chiefs of Staff on was the question of whether or not it is, in fact,
expanding its nuclear arsenal. And the chairman was quite explicit in stating
that Pakistan is, in fact, expanding its arsenal. The question that Charlie's
asking, which I'm seeking to follow up on, is whether or not the US believes
that to be a good thing.
Kelly: I'm not going to comment on that, I'm
afraid.
Question: Why not?
Kelly: It's just - I don't think it's my place
right now to comment on the issue of whether or not it's a good thing if they
expand their nuclear capability.
Question: The Department has been very vocal
in stating what things Pakistan must do in order to contribute to stability,
which you just identified as a key goal of ours. So what should prevent you
from addressing whether or not the expansion of a nuclear arsenal would or
would not contribute to stability?
Kelly: I'll just say that we are working very
closely with the Government of Pakistan - with the elected Government of Pakistan.
We have this joint effort, as I said before, to help them deal with the instability
within their borders, and help them deal with the threat of extremism within
their borders. But, you know, it's - I'm not going to speculate on their intentions,
whether they're increasing it or not increasing. These are intelligence matters
and I'm just not going to make a comment on it.))
Elsewhere in the administration, there were
similar calls to delink the aid package from Pakistan's nuclear program. Avoiding
the fungibility argument, Admiral Mullen told a Washington think-tank on Monday
that he was "not aware of any US aid that has gone toward nuclear weapons,
save that which is very focused... on improving their security. Which is exactly
what we'd like and they've done that."
He was referring to the $ 100 million that
the previous Bush administration gave to enhance Pakistan's nuclear weapons
security, about which some US officials say they have no idea where and how
it was spent.
Across the country on the west coast, CIA
Director Leon Panetta also addressed the Pak nuclear issue, conceding that
Washington did not know the location of all of Pakistan's nuclear weapons,
but offering a hopeful assurance -- without stating the basis for it -- that
they were secure and would not fall into the hands of extremists.
The Obama administration's orchestrated support
for US aid to Pakistan despite its nuclear transgressions followed the same
broad patterns of previous US governments which essentially believed it is
more important to stabilize Pakistan than to call its nuclear program to account,
without linking the two. This line of reasoning has its critics, more so since
Pakistan is seeking to expand its capability at a time when Taliban are at
the gate.
"Squandering precious resources on nuclear
bombs is disgraceful when Pakistan is troubled by economic crisis and facing
an insurgency that threatens its very existence," the New York Times
said in an editorial on the subject on Monday. "Trying to keep up to
100 bombs from extremists is hard enough; expanding the nuclear stockpile
makes the challenge worse."
While the Congress made some feeble attempt
to link the aid to greater transparency and accountability on the nuclear
front, administration officials have stepped in swiftly to nix it, arguing
it will not serve any purpose because Pakistan will not play ball. They fear
Pakistan would rather forsake aid, go bankrupt and self-destruct with horrendous
consequences -- a dread some critics say Islamabad is capitalizing on.
