Editorials in Pakistani Media on Nuclear Security Summit: 'It is Significant That None of the 47 Countries Represented... Raised Any Concern over Pakistan's Nukes'; 'Obama Has So Far Achieved None of His Nuclear Disarmament... Goals - And We Need to Ensure that His Only 'Success' Does Not Come at Pakistan's Expense'

In an editorial titled "Gains from Washington," a Pakistani daily observed that President Obama's invitation to Pakistan to attend the NSS accorded legitimacy to the Pakistani nuclear program. It stated:[4]

"Talking to Pakistani journalists at the end of the two-day nuclear security summit in Washington, Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani said that Pakistan's participation... had boosted international confidence in its capability to protect its nuclear arsenal and brought a higher degree of legitimacy to its nuclear program. He said that the negative impressions surrounding Pakistan's nuclear program were effectively quashed when President Obama voiced his administration's firm confidence in the safety of Pakistan's nuclear safeguards.

"Pakistan has achieved several gains from its active and effective participation at the summit. The major one of these is the achievement of recognition as a responsible nuclear state by the U.S., the Western world and other countries present there. It's for the first time after Pakistan tested its nuclear bomb in 1998 that the legitimacy of its nuclear program has been recognized at the international level.

"President Obama defended Pakistan more eloquently than before, making it clear beyond doubt that he trusts the country's capability to protect its nuclear arsenal. He expressed his confidence that no proliferation activities or trafficking are occurring out of Pakistan. His comments that neither India nor Pakistan could be forced to abandon their nukes reflect a new realization in Washington which claims to be trying to lower tensions between the two South Asian countries."

"It is Significant That None of the 47 Countries Represented at the Summit Raised Any Concern over Pakistan's Nukes"

"In Washington, Pakistan got the opportunity to talk about its nuclear program and cleared the world's misconceptions and wrong assumptions about the vulnerability of its nuclear arsenal. Pakistan also surprised the world by offering to provide nuclear fuel cycle services under the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] safeguards to any country that may want it, thus giving the world an impression of its responsible attitude toward its capability, which often comes under criticism whenever the issue of non-proliferation is highlighted.

"It is significant that none of the 47 countries represented at the summit raised any concern over Pakistan's nukes and its objectives. Pakistan effectively communicated to the world that as a nuclear weapons' state, it attaches the highest importance to the security of nuclear materials and facilities. For this purpose it has put in place a multi-layered command and control system. The world also understood that Pakistan had been working for regional stability in South Asia and its objective was to enhance nuclear security, in its holistic sense, and reduce nuclear risks in the region. The expression of confidence in Pakistan's nuclear capability and its security system by the summit leaders is indeed a victory at a time when the country is engaged in a war against terrorism and the terrorists have been targeting its military installations, personnel and civilians with suicide bombings."

"Obama Has So Far Achieved None of His Nuclear Disarmament and Nonproliferation Goals – And We Need to Ensure That His Only 'Success' Does Not Come at Pakistan's Expense"

Following are excerpts from an editorial titled "Targeting Pak at NSS," in The Nation newspaper:[5]

"[T]here has been the whole drama of the White House actually seeking to explain why it invited Pakistan to the NSS, given its so-called proliferation record! Undoubtedly all this is to put Pakistan on the defensive – and we have reacted predictably, with the Foreign Office [of Pakistan] unnecessarily having to declare once again that Pakistan's nuclear assets are 'absolutely safe' when we should have been exposing the expansive Indian and U.S. proliferation records.

"Unfortunately, while all these dramas are being enacted to have a defensive Pakistan at the NSS, the Pakistani leadership cannot see beyond the ridiculous and stale mantra of wanting a civilian nuclear deal with the U.S. – which we neither need nor should seek.

"There is expected to be an effort to get a commitment from all NSS participants to secure their nuclear materials within four years as part of the final document commitment; and the U.S. intends to use this to demand that Pakistan allow it to undertake the security of Pakistan's nukes. One hopes that on this count our leadership will not make any fatal compromise. Obama has achieved none of his nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation goals so far and we need to ensure that his only 'success' does not come at Pakistan's expense."

"President Obama Assured [Gilani] That His Country Has 'No Sinister Designs' on Pakistan's Nuclear Program"

In an editorial titled "A forthright stand," the Peshawar-based newspaper The Post noted the four pillars of Pakistani nuclear program outlined by Prime Minister Gilani, and stated:[6]

"[Gilani's] statement pointed out that Pakistan's nuclear security regime has four pillars;

"1. A well-defined command and control system comprising the National Command Authority, the Strategic Plans Division and the Strategic Forces Commands, exercises strict control over all the aspects of policy, procurement, operations, and, most importantly, nuclear security.

"2. A strict regulatory regime covering all the matters related to nuclear safety and security, include physical protection of materials and facilities, material control and accounting, transport security, prevention of illicit trafficking and border controls. It also covers plans to deal with possible radiological emergencies.

"3. An extensive export control regime.

"4. International cooperation, consistent with our national policies and interests as well as international obligations.

"In a meeting with Prime Minister Gilani, President Obama assured him that his country has 'no sinister designs' on Pakistan's nuclear program. Pakistan also informed the world leaders at the summit that its nuclear program is security-driven with a policy of minimum credible deterrent, but said it was against an open-ended arms race in South Asia.

"Pakistan is in dire straits at the moment due to its energy crisis. In addition to exploring gas avenues, Pakistan needs to look for nuclear energy. This issue was discussed at the recent Pak-U.S. strategic talks. The U.S. has neither expressed any denial nor has it shown any positive sign in this regard. However, it has offered us only $125m to overcome energy crisis.

"Pakistan is, at present, facing serious energy shortage. Our energy resources are depleting fast. There is an acute water shortage and our dams are at dead level because of scanty rainfall. Our gas resources are decreasing. This has resulted in serious decrease in our exports as we could not meet the export targets."

"Pakistan is Operating Nuclear-Power Plants, and Has Highly Trained Manpower and a Well-Established Safety and Security Culture – Therefore, It Fully Qualifies for Equal Participation in Civil Nuclear Cooperation"

"Pakistan has been trying hard to allay the international community's fears over its nukes falling into extremist hands. Pakistan has struggled hard to make sure its weapons and nuclear labs are not vulnerable to attack by terrorists.

"Pakistan has established its credentials as a responsible nuclear power by putting in place proper legislative controls and effective administrative mechanisms on export controls. The nuclear safety, security and non-proliferation measures are also supported by extensive legislative, regulatory and administrative framework guaranteeing the safety and security of nuclear materials and facilities. This fact has now been admitted by President Obama that our nuclear weapons are in safe hands.

"There is no threat to our nuclear assets from within the country or from without. Pakistan has a command-and-control system that is based on international guidelines, including those of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

"Pakistan is operating nuclear-power plants, and has highly trained manpower and a well-established safety and security culture. Therefore, it fully qualifies for equal participation in civil nuclear cooperation at the international level. Now the U.S. is under moral obligation to sign civil nuclear deal with Pakistan like it has signed with India. Civil nuclear power generation is the need of the hour, and the U.S. should give serious thought to our requirement."

"Obama's Over-Stretched Scenario of Nuclear Weapons Being Obtained by Al-Qaeda... Nevertheless Requires Serious Thought"

In an editorial titled "Nuclear summit," the Lahore-based liberal newspaper Daily Times accused the U.S. of maintaining a double standard in its nuclear policy, especially with regard to the civil nuclear partnership with India and move to impose sanctions on Iran. It said:[7]

"With the war on terror still an ongoing and unpleasant fact of life, the gravest global security concern is the threat of nuclear weapons or materials falling into the wrong hands. The Summit is taking place in the immediate aftermath of the Obama administration signing a nuclear weapons reduction agreement with Russia to cut their nuclear arsenals by 30 percent – not really a significant decrease considering that they both still have enough nuclear weapons to wipe out each other and the human race many few times over.

"Ever since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the world awakened to the fact that nuclear weapons are not a military tool, but rather, quite simply weapons of mass massacre. Their limited efficacy therefore lies in their deterrent value at best, and as the currency of power at the worst.

"Obama's over-stretched scenario of nuclear weapons being obtained by Al-Qaeda and unleashed on major metropolises nevertheless requires serious thought to ensure that an agreed standard of security is implemented across the board in all countries possessing nuclear materials, whether for civilian or defence purposes."

"Pakistan, in the Eyes of the World, is Still Not a Safe Bet"

"After the 'successful' strategic dialogue between the U.S. and Pakistan, Prime Minister Gilani has made use of this summit to argue Pakistan's case for a non-discriminatory civilian nuclear deal along the lines of the one offered to India in 2005. Although our energy crisis has reached a new high, it would not come as a surprise if the U.S. denies us this facility because of lingering suspicions about our proliferation record in the past, despite our contention that we have turned a corner since then and implemented safeguards against any such possibility in future through our Control and Command Authority.

"Pakistan in the eyes of the world is still not a safe bet; hence a civilian nuclear deal will probably remain nothing more than our ambition. The U.S.'s blatant double standard in granting India this much coveted advantage – when it clandestinely produced nuclear weapons and set off the Subcontinental nuclear arms race, and will continue to enjoy eight nuclear reactors outside IAEA safeguards – is a bitter pill we may just have to swallow.

"Although civilian nuclear energy has found favor of late because of its alleged 'clean' character, the issue of the safe disposal of nuclear waste remains an unsolved problem.

"Of the list of countries not invited to the Summit, Iran leads the list, with U.S. pressure mounting on Russia and China to help impose stringent sanctions on the Islamic regime through the UN Security Council in an attempt to foil its alleged nuclear weapons aspirations.

"Defiant Iran will continue to dominate the Summit, although some argue that dialogue with Iran has not yet been exhausted. Israel's prime minister has chosen to stay away from the Summit, fearing his country's clandestine nuclear arsenal could become cause for putting Israel on the mat..."

Although Obama "Has Shown Confidence in Safety Measures Taken by Pakistan... It Appears That the Crux of the Policy is to Contain Pakistan"

In an editorial, the Urdu-language newspaper Roznama Nawa-i-Waqt, which identifies itself with the military-led establishment in Pakistan, urged the Pakistani government to maintain maximum nuclear deterrence and to disregard any American advice to keep the nuclear deterrence to minimum. Accusing the U.S. of deceit throughout its history, the daily observed, "Though President Obama has shown confidence in safety measures taken by Pakistan yet it appears that the crux of the policy is to contain Pakistan, the first atomic power of the Muslim world." Following are some excerpts from the editorial:[8]

"The talks that the U.S. has started with our civil and military leadership in the name of strategic dialogue, appears to aim at getting an assurance of minimum use of atomic technology from Pakistan. Whereas the announcement of new U.S. policy that gives the impression that U.S. will stop manufacturing new arsenal, will reduce the existing one while remaining will be used as minimally as possible, also appears to encourage Pakistan to reciprocate.

"Policy concessions for non-proliferating countries have been announced, with the mention that Iran and North Korea will not be benefiting from these concessions. The American indication in the policy that terrorists can capture nuclear weapons is meant to make Pakistan feel that her nuclear weapons are not considered safe. Though President Obama has shown confidence in safety measures taken by Pakistan, yet it appears that the crux of the policy is to contain Pakistan, the first atomic power of the Muslim world..."

"American Intentions can be Judged from the Fact that It is Providing Nuclear Technology and Sophisticated Weaponry to India – While , Proposing Minimal Use of Atomic Weapons

"American intentions can be judged from its provision of nuclear technology and sophisticated weaponry to India, while at the same time it proposes minimal use of atomic weapons. Also at the same time, it pressures us to minimize the use of nukes, saying that terrorists could capture our nuclear arsenals. American sincerity in its strategic partnership with us can also be assessed from the fact that it declares India its natural ally and provides it with nuclear technology and long-range missiles, while India is a permanent threat not only to our existence but is also a challenge to China.

"We, after sacrificing 40,000 citizens and after bearing a burden of $40 billion to our national economy [in supporting the war on terror], have not won confidence to the extent that America will strengthen us against our cunning rival by providing us with civil nuclear technology. Instead, it is fortifying our enemies. If America has decided to repeat its history of deceit and has planned to support our enemy in its efforts to destroy us by handcuffing us, the government must think what we have to gain from this strategic partnership."

"Our Atomic Capabilities Have Saved Us – Otherwise, Our Enemy India or America's Close Friend Israel Would Have Eaten Us Up"

"The last 62-63 years of American history are evidence enough that it has never supported us in hour of need; its strategy has been to keep us on the front line to protect it against military damages, while safeguarding its own interests in the [South Asian] region. On the other hand, we are destroying ourselves in another's war, and are risking our own stability..."

"In this situation our civilian and military leadership should think about defending the nation and state themselves instead of relying on the U.S. and they should keep the maximum nuclear deterrence and should ignore the American advice of keeping it at minimum.

"It will convey a clear message to our enemy that we are not a soft target, and we can break any finger, pointing at us. It is a fact that our atomic capabilities have saved us, or by now our enemy, India or America's close friend Israel would have eaten us up. Prime Minister Gillani should take the parliament and the nation into confidence... and should announce to abandon the role of the U.S.'s front line ally. Our national and state security is the most precious to us."

"With An Israel Sitting in the Region on a Running Weapons Program... This Exclusive Focus by America and its Western Allies on the Iranian Nuclear Pursuit Impresses" Nobody

In an editorial titled "Selectivity problem," the Peshawar-based newspaper The Frontier Post accused the United States of pursuing double standards in its nuclear policy, especially with reference to Iran and Israel.

The editorial accused the Obama administration of pursuing the Bush-era policies on Iran and Israel, stating:[9]

"[Obama] is no different from his predecessor, impairing his credibility as a nonproliferation campaigner as devastatingly as stood George Bush's. Listen to his nuclear discourse and it comes across so strikingly akin to Bush's. He too considers Iran a bull in a china shop. And like his predecessor, he gives the sense that if Iran becomes nuclear, it will be the end of the world. Never mind whether Iran is really working on a weapon program, which America and its Western allies adamantly insist it is while Tehran vehemently asserts it is not. But with an Israel sitting in the region on a running weapons program with scores of nuclear bombs already in the basement, this exclusive focus of America and its Western allies on Iran's nuclear pursuit impresses no objective observer worth his salt; rather, it evokes a negative reaction and doubts about the very intents of a campaigner laying claim to nonproliferation commitments, as indeed is understandably happening in the Muslim world presently.

"For a variety of reasons and compulsions, the Muslim governments may be dittoing and endorsing the Western stance on the Iranian pursuit. But the Muslim fraternity is not, precisely for this selectivity of sparing the Jewish state from even a word of censure while not sparing the Islamic Republic from every punitive measure that the self-styled Western nonproliferation champions could muster up.

"Even the Arab street is reacting so, even though the Arab governments by and large are playing ball, for whatever reasons, with these Western hecklers of Iran. Just recently, a Saudi school girl pooh-poohed visiting U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's rendezvous with Saudi students in a letter in a local daily. She wrote that she had asked Clinton on America's and its Western buddies' silence on the Israeli nuclear pursuits. Instead, she noted scornfully, the American top diplomat delivered a long lecture on Iran.

"Even here, in this region of South Asia, this kind of Western duplicity and doublespeak is in full play. The Bush administration bent over backwards to give a nuclear sale deal to India, and coaxed and coerced the international nuclear community into acquiescing with it, providing all the space to India to run its civilian program on foreign fuel and other input while keeping its own resources diverted exclusively to its bomb-making pursuits.

"But even the Obama administration is as chilly as was Bush's, even to listening to such a sales deal for Pakistan – although this country needs every instrument and tool direly to cope with its devastating energy shortage.

"Nonetheless, Pakistan is no stranger to such selectivity by Uncle Sam and his Western sidekicks. And there is no point here in dwelling on that long painful history when America kept Pakistan prostrated with sanctions, embargoes and what not as it and its Western buddies gave India a long leash to pursue its nuclear weapon program unimpeded, to introduce the nuclear genie to the region."

"So Long as Israel is Left with All Nuclear Possessions Free, Unchecked, Unmonitored and Undisciplined, Nuclear Nonproliferation will Remain a Pipedream in the Middle East"

"The point we are trying to make here is that with selectivity and that too smelling of a religiously-motivated racial profiling will never work to free the world from nuclear arms and weapons pursuits. So long as Israel is left with all nuclear possessions free, unchecked, unmonitored and undisciplined, nuclear nonproliferation will remain a pipedream in the Middle East. While it was Iraq yesteryear, and while it is Iran today, tomorrow it will be some others, as indeed they already exist in the field.

"Fanaticism too is not particular to any religion or faith. Extremism cuts across faiths, geographical boundaries and demographic frontiers. Given this, selectivity in any manner can only be a spectacularly self-defeating enterprise when it comes to the nonproliferation project. President Obama would do well to keep this in mind if he means business.

"Not even hundreds of nuclear security summits would be of avail to him if he doesn't abjure this element of selectivity in his approach and methodology."

"India Needs to Feel the Wind of Realpolitik and Understand that America has Decided, Belatedly, to See Pakistan as Part of the Solution Rather than Part of the Problem"

The mainstream Pakistani daily The News observed in an editorial, titled "Nuclear knots" that the Obama administration is now better prepared to listen to the Pakistani standpoint on regional issues in South Asia. It advised the Pakistani government to tackle the issue of militant groups' search for dirty bombs if Pakistan has to make a gain out of the evolving alliance with the U.S., noting:[10]

"A complex ganglion of threads relating to matters nuclear has emerged in Washington. Forty-seven world leaders (excluding North Korea, Iran and Syria) have gathered to discuss nuclear security. They do so against a backdrop of the recently issued 22,000-word Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) which sets out to redefine America's stance vis-à-vis the use of nuclear weapons and mechanisms of non-proliferation.

"Before the conference is underway India has been busy on the sidelines, talking up its concern over American military support for us [Pakistan] as well as our growing stature in Afghanistan and the ever-present worry of our nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands. President Obama has dealt with the latter by saying that he is satisfied with our security arrangements, and as for the other two issues India needs to feel the wind of realpolitik and understand that America has decided, belatedly, to see Pakistan as part of the solution rather than part of the problem."

"There Are Still Legitimate Concerns About the Determination of Groups Like Lashkar-e-Taiba to Obtain a 'Dirty Bomb'"

"By viewing Pakistan as an ally rather than a grudging collaborator, the level of perceived threat posed by ourselves is reduced and tensions have the potential to abate. The key clause in the NPR that indicates that we may in future see cooperation and support from the U.S. in developing civil nuclear assets reads… 'We support expanding access to the benefits of peaceful nuclear technology, but this must be done in a way that does not promote proliferation of nuclear weapons capabilities.'

"Our opponents – and it is not just India – would not wish us to be recognized as a responsible nuclear state and will fight to ensure we are denied that recognition. Hitherto it has very much suited India for us to be seen as part of the problem and not a part of the solution; and the postural adjustments that are now proposed take us closer to the inner circle and civilian nuclear assistance. It is one thing to proclaim responsibility, another to demonstrate it. America would not have shifted position on a matter as fundamental as nuclear security unless it was satisfied that we were walking the walk and not just talking the talk. American diplomats, post to the recent bilateral strategic talks, commented that for the first time they felt that Pakistan was 'playing it straight' – which is something of a backhanded compliment but welcome nonetheless.

"There are still legitimate concerns about the determination of groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba to obtain a 'dirty bomb' and if we are to foster the emerging sense of alliance then we have to demonstrate that those concerns are being addressed effectively by ourselves. All clubs have a membership fee. The civilian nuclear club that we wish membership of charges a fee we can afford, but will we, in the end, choose to pay it?"

Jihadist Weekly: "It Is Astonishing That World Leaders Agree With the U.S. That It Is Not the American But the Pakistani and Indian Atomic Blasts That Have Upset the Global Power Balance"

Zarb-e-Momin (Assault of the Faithful), an Urdu-language jihadist weekly, warned the U.S. that it cannot fool all the people all the time. Claiming that Al-Qaeda is a ghost organization created by the U.S., the weekly said that America had tricked the world into supporting its attack on Iraq and Afghanistan.

It noted: "It has been evident that for justifying her attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan, for issuing the list of axis of evil or for declaring some states as failed state, what America had was nothing more than unauthentic and falsified circumstantial evidence provided by intelligence agencies."

Following are excerpts from the editorial:[11]

"America has raised an alarm by saying that Al-Qaeda is furtively trying to acquire atomic bomb and that threat of nuclear attack from terrorists is imminent. U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, giving an address at a university in Kentucky, said that the results would be disastrous if terrorists are not stopped from getting hold of atomic weapons. She also said that danger of an atomic strike had increased and that we have to unite to handle this. She stated that in the international summit on nuclear weapons, ways of preventing terrorists' access to atomic weapons will be discussed and that the treaty to reduce atomic weapons between Russia and America will help in obtaining Chinese support for sanctions against Iran.

"Prior to that, U.S. National Security Adviser [James Jones] told journalists in Washington that enriched uranium and plutonium have to be kept safe from non-state actors to minimize the terror threats. America says that in the face of biological or chemical attack it will not hesitate to use atomic weapons, and that there is a threat of Al-Qaeda or other terrorists groups capturing an atomic arsenal. The American secretaries of state and defense affirmed this in their interviews with American media...

"It appears that America is again ready for a self-deceit and for deceiving others through the ghosts like Al-Qaeda that it itself created. It is strange that neither the U.S. nor its allies see the fact of the matter, though both parties have expressed that they were mistaken, time and again. It has been evident that in justifying attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan, for issuing the list of axis of evil or for declaring some countries as failed states, America had nothing more than unauthentic and falsified circumstantial evidence provided by intelligence agencies.

"America and Britain have admitted that their reports were wrong, and have confessed, between the lines, that the decisions were not based on these reports but these were fabricated and colored to justify the decisions. They did not shy away from deceiving their parliaments and the United Nations Organization."'

"Are America and Britain Entitled to Destroy Nations on the Basis of Circumstantial Evidence Only?"

"Today, when the world knows all, and the stains on the American and British character are evident, we were hoping that this unwise strategy would not be used again. Yet it appears that it is being used, and America is frightening the world by saying that Al-Qaeda is trying to acquire atomic weapons on the sly. No one is questioning the authenticity of these reports, or the American sources. America is expressing similar intentions and resolve again, and there is no one to remind it of its last mistake, that took the blood of thousands of innocents.

"It is not only about the golden teachings of Islam, which considers the killing of one innocent as killing the humanity. It is also about the U.N. Human Rights Charter, that recognizes human life as the world's most precious asset. Are America and Britain entitled to destroy nations on the basis of circumstantial evidence only? Are they entitled to cripple generations and to leave orphans and widows vulnerable?

"Iran's comment on the policy is very appropriate: [It said] that it is a threat and that it will raise the issue in the U.N. America's acquiring atomic power and poisoning the world with it is its crime and not its distinction on the basis of which it should be accepted as global leader..."

"It is astonishing that world leaders agree with the U.S. that it is not the American but the Pakistani and Indian atomic blasts that have upset the global power balance, and that safeguarding Pakistan's arsenal, and America's satisfaction with the safety measures, is important. It is also note worthy that for American satisfaction no circumstantial evidence or argument is sufficient. The Pakistani government is continuously presenting arguments, and American answers do not go beyond 'we are thinking and we are not satisfied.' On the other hand, Israel cannot come to the summit due to the anticipated criticism, and it is excused.

"Now, when the declaration after the international summit is about to materialize, and a conference to discuss the progress of the NTP is due next month, it is important that all the civilized countries of the world unite against this blackmailing on the most sensitive issue of the world.

"Every party has a right to self-defense. So either the world should be nuclear-free, or minimum deterrence should be the right of every country. The countries that have acquired nuclear power should be allowed membership in the nuclear club. Pressuring India or Pakistan or threatening Iran is unethical. The U.S. has been ruling the unipolar world for too long, and it is enough..."