Pakistani Security Experts Respond to U.S. State Department's Concern over the Security of Pakistani Nuclear Weapons

Recently, military and international affairs experts in Pakistan criticized Mark C. Toner, the acting spokesman of the U.S. State Department, for his statement expressing concern over likely threats to Pakistani nuclear assets from militant groups. Toner's statement was seen in Pakistan as part of a sustained U.S. campaign to mount pressure on Pakistan.

Religious and political leaders in Pakistan have argued recently that the March 17, 2011 U.S. drone attack in the Datta Khel area of North Waziristan, a Taliban and Al-Qaeda sanctuary, was also part of a U.S. campaign to keep up pressure on Pakistan because the drone attack was carried out just a day after Pakistan made a concession to the U.S. by allowing the release of CIA contractor Raymond Davis.

The Urdu-language Pakistani daily Roznama Ummat interviewed several Pakistani military and foreign affairs commentators to reflect on Mark Toner's statement and the likelihood that the Pakistani nuclear weapons could be targeted by militant groups or India, Israel, and the United States. Among the experts who were interviewed by Roznama Ummat are Hamid Gul, the former chief of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI); Air Chief Marshal (retired) Kaleem Saadat; former Foreign Office Secretary Dr. Tanvir A. Khan; and Shireen Mazari, a strategic affairs commentator, editor, and political leader.

In report titled "America May Take the Issue of Pakistani Nuclear Assets to the UN," the Urdu daily noted: "Commentators are of the opinion that Pakistan has improved the technique of safeguarding its nuclear installations in the past five years so much so that Pakistan's command and control system [of its nuclear weapons] is now better than that of the U.S.. According to these experts, if there has been any lapse in the security arrangements of its nuclear assets, those who wish to take action against it would have done their work. But to do so is not possible for anyone."

An issue related with Pakistani nuclear program is Pakistan's refusal to allow the UN talks to proceed on a treaty to stop production of plutonium and uranium for nuclear bombs. In recent years, Pakistan has consistently blocked the talks on the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT). Pakistan's Permanent Representative to the UN Disarmament Conference in Geneva, Abdullah Hussain Haroon, defended Pakistan's refusal to allow the talks to go ahead, saying that the world powers are engaging in double standards by allowing a nuclear waiver for the India-U.S. nuclear deal.

According to a Pakistani media report, Haroon slammed the "duplicitous current focus" on the FMCT issue, stating: "The present focus on FMCT follows a regular pattern of negotiating only those agreements that do not undermine or compromise the security interests of certain states, especially the major powers. We observe this pattern in the Biological Weapons Convention, Chemical Weapons Convention, and even in the CTBT [Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty]."[1]

Following are excerpts from the Roznama Ummat report:[2]

Hamid Gul: "The U.S.'s Ambitions are Very Clear Regarding Pakistan and Its Nuclear Assets; It Got [General] Ziaul Haq's Aircraft Crashed…; When It Feared that Benazir [Bhutto] Might Rebel, It Got Her Killed as Well"

Question: "What is the reason that the Americans have once again launched a campaign of creating doubts and apprehensions against the Pakistani nuclear assets?"

Hamid Gul: "The U.S.'s ambitions are very clear regarding Pakistan and its nuclear assets. It got [former military ruler General] Ziaul Haq's aircraft crashed; and when it feared that Benazir [Bhutto] might rebel, it got her killed as well. Their aim behind spreading terrorism across the length and breadth of the country is to weaken Pakistan. The U.S. can take this issue in the UN Security Council to fulfill its nefarious designs."

"China is a 'Trump Card' for Us"

Question: "What would be the role of China if any such situation comes?"

Hamid Gul: "China is a 'trump card' for us in this regard. That is why the U.S. would never achieve success even if it takes the issue of Pakistan's nuclear assets to the UN. But it would not be good if the U.S. is successful in procuring or accessing the nuclear assets by its fake agents."

Question: "What could be the reason behind such statements from the U.S. after the release of [CIA contractor] Raymond Davis?"

Hamid Gul: "The U.S. expressed its anger by carrying out the drone attack the next day [in Datta Khel area of North Waziristan on March 17] after the release of Raymond Davis; and now it has come up with this statement [of concern over Pakistani nuclear weapons]."

Question: "What should be the remedy to these moves in your opinion?"

Hamid Gul: "It is imperative that the leadership takes the nation into confidence in this regard. There won't be any dispute if the nation is taken into confidence."

Question: "Terrorism is a problem in India too, but why is the U.S. only targeting Pakistan?"

Hamid Gul: "In India, terrorism is such a big problem that 2,000 out of 14,000 police stations are in [Maoist] rebels' control. Rebels have control over 20% of Indian territories. In total, separatist revolts are continuing in 14 Indian states.

"Similarly, if you look at India with its nuclear installations, you will find that there have been 153 incidents at Indian nuclear installations. But there has come up no such [American] statement regarding India. In fact, Pakistan is their most important target."

Air Chief Marshal (retired) Kaleem Saadat: "Perhaps, It was in 1992 Or 1993 When Such Rumors [that India and Israel Attacked a Pakistani Nuclear Site] Surfaced"

Question: "Why is the U.S. again making such statements regarding Pakistan's nuclear assets?"

Kaleem Saadat: "In my view, it is not a matter to be worried about. In fact, such tactical things come up with the ups and downs in political, diplomatic, and ministerial circles. This is a kind of chess game.

"Let's look at it in the context of the latest example of Lockerbie [bombing of 1988]. The U.S. has already received the compensation of the Lockerbie aircraft and the related people have already been released, but the U.S. is raising this issue again. The current U.S. stand regarding Pakistani nuclear assets is nothing new. It has come up several times earlier as well. But, there is no truth in it [concern about the security of Pakistani nuclear assets]."

Question: "There has been an air strike attempt on the Pakistani nuclear plant at Kahuta by Israel and India?"

Kaleem Saadat: "Perhaps, it was in 1992 or 1993 when such rumors surfaced. If any such thing were possible, then Iran must have come under attack by now because Iran is far behind Pakistan [in its nuclear weapons program]. If it could not be done against Iran, then how could it be possible against Pakistan? Pakistan is an established nuclear power."

Question: "Can anyone dare to carry out an air strike [on aPakistani nuclear site]?

Kaleem Saadat: "Theoretically everything is possible, but not at the practical level. In order to do so, one has to look toward other issues and difficulties. If attacking a nuclear installation were so easy, then [North] Korea would have also been attacked."

"Pakistani Nuclear Installations Should not Be Taken as… [Town Centers]; Our Security Standards are Extraordinary"

Question: "Are Pakistani nuclear installations completely secure from such threats?"

Kaleem Saadat: "Nothing could completely be secured. If someone gets mad, then anything could happen. But strategic military actions are taken with wisdom and not with madness. If any country tries to strike at any country or its nuclear weapons, then it should be ready for a retaliatory action in some form?"

Question: "What would Pakistan's response be if a country strikes at Pakistani nuclear installations?"

Kaleem Saadat: "It would depend on the equation regarding which country is helping whom. But it is difficult to answer this question, as the whole issue is strategic and one cannot divulge one's probable strategy before time. But I must say that Pakistan is not a soft target for anyone. Had it been so, there would have been many incidents [attacks on nuclear sites]."

Question: "Would there be any threat to Pakistani nuclear installations with the presence of Americans like Raymond Davis at various places [in Pakistan]?"

Kaleem Saadat: "A nuclear installation is not … [an open town center] where anyone can do whatever one wants. That is why I would like to say that Pakistani nuclear installations should not be taken as… [town centers]. Our security standards are extraordinary."

Question: "Can Israel and India take any such idiotic action?"

Kaleem Saadat: "No, even if anyone thinks in this direction, then it has to consider the risk involved in it. In my view, we will not have any external threat."

Dr. Tanvir A. Khan: "The Obama Administration Declared that Pakistani Nuclear Assets are Completely Secure"

Question: "What is the reason that the U.S. spokesperson has once again pointed a finger towards Pakistan's nuclear assets?"

Tanvir A. Khan: "In fact, whenever they want to pressure Pakistan, they talk about such things. The U.S. has expressed similar concerns earlier as well, but later the Obama administration declared that Pakistani nuclear assets are completely secure."

Question: "Why is this brouhaha being started, then?"

Tanvir A. Khan: "All are noticing the altered scenario. That is why they have also pushed on that button. One thing is of more importance this time: they were making such revelations through 'leaks' in their media earlier, but this time the acting spokesperson of the U.S. State Department has given the statement. That is why it could be an important signal."

Question: "Would there be any threat to the nuclear assets of Pakistan?"

Tanvir A. Khan: "Our installations are completely safe and secure. But the U.S. would continue with its pressurizing recourses."

Question: "What is the situation in Pakistan now in comparison to the previous security arrangements to the nuclear installations?"

Tanvir A. Khan: "In my view, our assets have become more secure in comparison to those five years ago."

Analyst Shireen Mazari: "At the Least, the [Nuclear] Command and Control System of Pakistan is Better Than That of the U.S."

Question: "The U.S. has once again started its rhetoric about the insecurity of Pakistan's nuclear assets and its falling into the hands of terrorists. After all, what is the reason that the U.S. takes to such campaign from time to time?"

Shireen Mazari: "This is an old propaganda [tactic] by the U.S. It brings Pakistan into its target whenever it wants. The fact is that Pakistan is not ready to compromise or accept the U.S. pressure on its nuclear assets. That is why when the U.S. finds its pressure completely ineffective it takes to such types of campaigns."

Question: "What are those pressures that the U.S. is trying to exert on Pakistan in relation to the nuclear assets?"

Shireen Mazari: "The U.S. is trying to bring Pakistan to agree to a 'cut-off date' as far as preparing its nuclear material is concerned [as part of the proposed FMCT]. The U.S. wants Pakistan to agree to its wishes not to prepare its nuclear program to enhance its nuclear assets after a certain date. But Pakistan is not ready to accept it despite all sorts of U.S. pressure. That is why the U.S. has started this propaganda to exert its pressure."

Question: "What is Pakistan's stand in this regard which is not acceptable to the U.S.?"

Shireen Mazari: "Pakistan's stand in this regard is that those countries should destroy their nuclear materials first, before making any agreement on the ban on the production of nuclear materials. If it is not done so, then this agreement will be biased in its nature and will not be acceptable to Pakistan. That is why the U.S. would continue to play such a type of political drama as long as Pakistan follows its principled stand of… [blocking the FMCT]."

Question: "Pakistan's nuclear assets are completely safe?"

Shireen Mazari: "Absolutely safe and they have no threat. If they have been not so safe, then the situation would have been different."

Question: "How is the command and control system of Pakistan's nuclear assets compared to other countries?"

Shireen Mazari: "At the least, the command and control system of Pakistan is better than that of the U.S. In 2009, an American aircraft B-52 took off with six nuclear bombs and was traceless. It had become a challenge for the concerned U.S/ security institutions and the U.S. Air Force to trace it."

Question: "But it was found later?"

Shireen Mazari: "Yes it was found, but after being traceless for 12 hours. You can guess about the command and control system of a country whose six nuclear bombs including the fighter aircraft remained traceless for 12 hours. In this way, we may say that any such incident never took place in Pakistan at least and that our command and control System is fully active."

Analyst Shireen Mazari: "It is Not Acceptable for… [the U.S.] that a Muslim Country should have Nuclear Capability"

Question: "In your opinion, what could be the motive of the U.S. to raise this [nuclear] issue again, in such a situation?"

Shireen Mazari: "America is doing this just for political game and creating pressure [on Pakistan]. It is not acceptable for them that a Muslim country should have nuclear capability."

Question: "How should Pakistan's response be conveyed to the U.S. in this situation?"

Shireen Mazari: "Our Foreign Office should take notice of it and it should ask the U.S. as to why it is talking about such things."

Question: "Should the talks be done at the Foreign Office level or should they be done at the level of sensitive institutions [the powerful spy agencies like Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI], which hold talks on bilateral strategic affairs?"

Shireen Mazari: "I don't understand as to why our ISI shares [strategic issues] with the CIA when it is the aim and target of the CIA to harm Pakistan."

Question: "Do you think that the U.S. agents like Raymond [Davis] who might reach the nuclear installations are secretly present in Pakistan?"

Shireen Mazari: "If they could reach [the Pakistani nuclear installations], then the U.S. would not talk like this. They are unsuccessful in their aims. That is why they have to take to such talks to increase pressure."