• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
Since the devastating attacks on New York andWashington, a wide range of actions has been takenby the Bush administration to neutralize the terroristinfrastructure arrayed against the United States. Inaddition, the president singled out Iran, North Korea,and Iraq as an “axis of evil.” Iraq has been broughtunder intense pressure to give up its weapons of massdestruction or face military strikes.One nation that has been overlooked so far isPakistan, which the United States has touted as a“frontline ally” in the anti-terrorism war. ButPakistan’s cooperation has been grudging and spotty.Thousands of al-Qaeda fighters managed to escapeinto Pakistan, where they have been sheltered andhelped to regroup by Pakistani member groups of theInternational Islamic Front. Sections of the Pakistanimilitary and its intelligence agencies continue to aidal-Qaeda and its sister terrorist groups in Pakistan.Many of the gains made during 2001 and 2002 in theU.S.-led war on terrorism in Afghanistan have beensquandered because Pakistan has become al-Qaeda’snew command center.Even worse, Pakistani nuclear experts areunder investigation for links with al-Qaeda.There is legitimate concern that President PervezMusharraf’s regime does not have full controlover Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. Furthermore,Pakistan is reported to have shared its nucleartechnology with North Korea, and possibly withMyanmar and Saudi Arabia, thus contributingto the problem of nuclear proliferation.A nation that is penetrated by Islamic radicalsand that possesses dozens of nuclear weaponsand proliferates them to other dictatorial coun-tries poses a tangible and immediate problem.But U.S. policy toward Pakistan does not reflectthat reality. In the absence of pressure from theUnited States, Pakistan has not found it neces-sary to take serious action against Islamicextremists or to end its proliferation activities.Other unstable nations are likely to look toPakistan as a role model that has achievednuclear status and checkmated the United Statesinto acquiescence. North Korea may be the firstnation to follow the Pakistani path.A reevaluation of U.S. policy toward Pakistan isimperative. Forcing Pakistan to dismantle the ter-rorist infrastructure within its borders and put atight lid on its nuclear proliferation activities ismore likely to fortify short- and long-term U.S.national security interests than is an invasion of Iraq. There is also a need for contingency plans torapidly secure and extract Pakistan’s nuclearweapons in case of a coup by Islamic radicals.
 Extremist, Nuclear Pakistan
 An Emerging Threat?
by Subodh Atal
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Subodh Atal is an independent foreign affairs analyst based in Washington, D.C.
Executive Summary
No. 472March 5, 2003
 
Introduction
The events of September 11, 2001, led toan unprecedented recognition of the dangerposed by anti-Western terrorist groups andnations that act as hosts to such groups.Despite having been routed from its haven inAfghanistan, al-Qaeda remains a seriousthreat to the United States.
1
The recent high-profile attacks in Bali and Yemen and thecontinuing attacks on U.S. targets in Kuwait,Afghanistan, and Pakistan provide furtherevidence of the limited results of the anti-ter-rorism war. The nightmare scenario is thatal-Qaeda and related terrorist groups mightacquire weapons of mass destruction, espe-cially nuclear weapons, and use them againstAmerican targets.In his January 2002 State of the Unionaddress, President George W. Bush cited threenations—Iran, Iraq, and North Korea—as the“axis of evil.”
2
The president specifically notedthe possibility that those nations might pro-vide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.All three nations are in the process of develop-ing, or in the case of North Korea may havedeveloped, nuclear weapons, and Iran isknown to support Hezbollah and othergroups that target Israel.
3
Iraq has had previ-ous and persistent links to pro-Palestinian ter-rorist groups.
4
North Korea has been linkedmainly to terrorist incidents directed againstSouth Korea and Japan.
5
The history andvolatile nature of Iraq, Iran, and North Koreaprovide cause for concern. Iraq has been sin-gled out in recent months by President Bushfor noncompliance with United Nations reso-lutions on disarmament and currently faces astrong threat of a U.S. attack if it defies the lat-est warning from the UN.
6
President Bush has used the bully pulpiteffectively to raise awareness within theUnited States and garner UN support for hishawkish policy against Iraq. However, he hasfailed to identify another threat—one per-haps graver than Iraq. That threat isPakistan, which has become the new com-mand center for al-Qaeda
7
and possessesdozens of nuclear weapons.
8
The anti-terror-ism war has floundered in large part becauseal-Qaeda has collaborated with like-mindedPakistani groups and is now relatively safefrom U.S. anti-terrorism operations. Unlikethose of the nations President Bush cited asthe “axis of evil,” the military, intelligence,and religious bodies of Pakistan are heavilyinfluenced by the Taliban and al-Qaeda.Pakistan is considered one of the most unsta-ble nations in the world,
9
and the country’sdictator, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, faces theconstant threat of a coup by radical Islamicforces.
10
Even in the absence of a coup, thedangers of pro-al-Qaeda groups getting clos-er to the levers of power in the nation havebecome troubling with the strong showingby an alliance of fundamentalist Islamic par-ties in recent parliamentary elections.Furthermore, Pakistan is now known tohave provided nuclear weapons technologyto North Korea in exchange for missiles, thushelping Pyongyang flout an agreement withthe United States.
11
Pakistan may also haveprovided nuclear technology to Myanmarand Saudi Arabia.
12
Such proliferation couldprovide an anti-U.S. nation or nonstate actorwith the means to disrupt the peace and per-haps even attempt to blackmail the UnitedStates. U.S. policymakers need to be con-cerned about the Pakistani nuclear arsenal,the level of threat posed to that arsenal by al-Qaeda and related terrorist groups withinPakistan, the stability of Pakistan’s regime,and the country’s record on nuclear prolifer-ation.
Pakistan’s Nuclear Arsenal
Pakistan’s nuclear program is nearly threedecades old.
13
The country became an overtnuclear power in 1998, when it carried outseveral tests in response to India’s resump-tion of nuclear tests. Estimates of Pakistan’snuclear strength are about 425–800 kilo-grams (kg) of weapons-grade uranium, about600 kg of plutonium,
14
and up to 4 dozennuclear weapons.
15
A recent report suggests
2
Pakistan is nowknown to haveprovided nuclearweapons technol-ogy to NorthKorea inexchange formissiles.
 
that Pakistan possesses up to 48 nuclearweapons and has fissile material for up to 52more.
16
It is commonly believed that the fis-sile cores of Pakistan’s arsenal are stored sep-arately from the nonnuclear components.
17
However, during the 1999 war over Kashmir,Pakistan is believed to have armed itsnuclear-capable missiles in possible prepara-tion for nuclear strikes on India, andIslamabad has hinted at having consideredthe nuclear option during the confrontationin 2002.
18
None of the Pakistani nuclear materials isunder International Atomic Energy Agencysafeguards.
19
The enrichment of weapons-grade material has progressed and the num-ber of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons hasincreased since the initial weapons tests in1998. In 2002, after a year of frequent ten-sions with India, Pakistan was reported tohave accelerated work on its nuclear arsenal,with workers putting in around-the-clock shifts.
20
Thus, one can assume thatPakistan’s nuclear arsenal will continue toexpand at a rapid pace, and the requirementsfor securing it will concomitantly increase.In February 2000 Pakistan established aNational Command Authority to oversee itsnuclear assets.
21
The A. Q. Khan ResearchLaboratory at Kahuta, which manufacturesPakistan’s weapons-grade uranium, and thePakistan Atomic Energy Commission atIslamabad were brought under the control of the NCA. It is generally believed that the mil-itary, as the dominant player in the nation,has full responsibility for command and con-trol of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. However,after the events of September 11, 2001, therewas in international circles considerable con-cern about, and analysis of, the safety of thePakistani arsenal.
22
There were reports thatthe nuclear arsenal had been dispersed tomultiple locations after the September 11attacks.
23
Dispersion could itself result in anincreased internal threat to the arsenal byincreasing the number of locations thatcould be targeted by terrorists. TheMusharraf government was quick to dismissconcerns about the Pakistani arsenal.Musharraf himself claimed that it was safeand that there was no chance of its fallinginto the hands of fundamentalists.
24
However, given Pakistan’s history and itsextensive and persistent links to Islamic radi-cals, such claims need to be viewed with someskepticism.Potential dangers to Pakistan’s nuclearassets include loss of control over nucleartechnology, weapons, weapon components,or fissile materials. The most commonly dis-cussed threat is from terrorists or their sym-pathizers within Pakistan’s military andnuclear establishments. In addition, a coupcould instantly transfer control of Pakistan’snuclear assets to a new regime with unknownintentions. There is also the possibility (albeita relatively remote one) of the Pakistaniestablishment’s knowingly passing some of its nuclear assets to another nation, or to anonstate actor. Under any of those circum-stances, the dangers to U.S. national securitywould increase. Possession of nuclearweapons by terrorists is an especially graveconcern after September 11. Moreover, a cur-rently nonnuclear state that acquires nuclearcapability could indulge in nuclear black-mail, making the international system moreunstable and striking a blow againstWashington’s objective of preventing furthernuclear proliferation.
Pakistan and al-Qaeda
Pakistan’s deep involvement with violent,anti-U.S. Islamist elements, including al-Qaeda, is well documented.
25
Moreover, al-Qaeda does not function by itself but underthe umbrella of the International IslamicFront, other members of which are severalPakistani groups such as Harkat-ul-Mujahideen (HUM), Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET),and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JEM), as well asEgyptian, Uzbek, and Southeast Asiangroups.
26
The groups of the Islamic Front fre-quently collaborate. Support from thePakistani member groups of the front, whohave powerful links to Pakistan’s military
3
Potential dangersto Pakistan’snuclear assetsinclude loss of control overnuclear technolo-gy, weapons,weapon compo-nents, or fissilematerials.
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...