View Full Version : Pakistan: Friend or Foe

02-07-2004, 10:31
New York Times
"There is an elaborate charade under way following the exposure of the barter and sale of Pakistani nuclear weapons technology to North Korea, Iran and Libya. On Thursday, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan's president, pardoned Abdul Qadeer Khan, the country's chief atomic bomb scientist, after a televised "admission" that he, alone, was guilty. Everyone engaged in this piece of theater knows that Dr. Khan was reading from a script. Pakistan's military — and that means General Musharraf — was, without question, aware of and part of this illicit and perilous commerce. Yet the Bush administration's reaction has been grateful acceptance.

We can only hope the explanation is that the administration cut a quiet deal to shut down Pakistan's network of nuclear sales and detain its participants. Punishing or pardoning Dr. Khan is not as important as ending these sales and the production of fissile material in Pakistan, destroying the network, and making sure that the senior officers involved are removed from power.

After Sept. 11, 2001, President Bush said that his top priority was to prevent the proliferation of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons to terrorist groups and rogue nations. There is no escaping the fact that Iraq, which did not sell such arms, has been subject to military conquest, while Pakistan, the biggest violator, has been congratulated.

If this bewildering contradiction means that the United States has accomplished something behind the scenes, fine. Sometimes realpolitik requires allowing a man like General Musharraf, who has been helpful in the war against Al Qaeda and escaped two assassination attempts, to claim to be standing up to foreign pressures.

But there is every reason to be highly skeptical of General Musharraf, who dons a uniform and a defiant manner one day and switches to a business suit and soft tones the next. Whatever deal is being struck should include real efforts to wean the military from power, develop political parties, invest in public education and build civil society. Mr. Musharraf says his country is in a transition to more democracy and transparency. Holding him to his word is one way to make sure that future military leaders are less likely to become merchants of nuclear bomb technology. "

If nuclear secrets have been sold to these countries it is not a stretch of the imagination that AQ now has them. I do not trust Pakistan. But i guess it is saver to back Musharraf than to start pissing on him. What do you think?

02-09-2004, 17:48
No opinions on this? Am I overestimating its significance?

02-09-2004, 18:05
I would hope that there is a lot of behind the scenes action being playedout that we are not privy too:

Hope, being the operative word:


02-09-2004, 23:46
I did a paper on the US - Pakistan relationship between 1947 and 1992 using that exact title. Relations between our country and Pakistan have been on again off again for years.

Francis Gary Powers took off from a base in Pakistan, if I recall correctly.

I'll dig out my research and post some highlights.

02-09-2004, 23:49
I will be looking foward to it.

02-10-2004, 16:54
British India was given independence shortly after WWII. At the same time it was partitioned with Pakistan being made up of the area with a majority Muslim population. One exception was Kashmir which was mostly Muslims so it should have gone with Pakistan. India wanted to show it was founded on secularism and not religion, and it wanted the region too. The two countries started fighting and a UN peacekeeping force was sent in. As far as I know it’s still there 50 odd years later.

The Eisenhower Doctrine was maintain US interests in the Middle East, and give financial and military to ME Countries resisting communism. An “Agreement of Cooperation” was reached between the US and Pakistan in ’59. They got 13 million in direct and indirect aid and we got the use of facilities at Peshwar. A lot of U-2 flights took from there and a lot of them flew over Russia. Since Pakistan had sided with us India aligned itself with Russia which gave credence to the Eisenhower Doctrine.

In ’65 India and Pakistan went at it again and instead of the US helping Pakistan kick India’s ass like they thought, the US withdrew support and the Russians stayed neutral as well. Pakistan didn’t win; they started looking elsewhere for support, and Russia went back to supplying India. And President Johnson placed an embargo on both countries.

Things stayed pretty chilly about ’71 and Nixon who, in my opinion, was a very smart guy. President Ford lifted the embargo in ’75. Along comes Carter in ’79 and cuts off all aid except food because we “found out” Pakistan was trying to build a nuclear weapons program. That was a big fat DUH since Bhutto had said in ’65 that if India built a bomb his country would “eat grass, or leaves—or even go hungry—but we will get one of our own.” What’s more we had sent scientists, equipment and trained them in nuclear reactor technology way back in the ‘50s under the Atoms for Peace program. What did we think? They were going to leave it at efficient means of home heating? Not to mention that alliance with China and in 1966 China tested a nuke like the one Pakistan had blueprints for.

What should happen about 1979 but Russia invades Afghanistan. So here comes Carter (Zbigniew Brzezinski actually) with an offer of a $400 million US aid package. General Zia turned him down flat. Another big DUH! It wasn’t enough to buy any weapons but it was enough to make the Russian look at Pakistan as if it were an active enemy. Plus it would make them look like “stooges” to the rest of the Islamic countries, particularly Iran, who by the way, still had American hostages. On the plane back from the meeting with Zia one of the guys joked and said “we just saved the US Treasury $400 million.” What a buffoon!

When President Reagan took office he made a deal with Pakistan worth $3.2 billion. The restrictions on Pakistan Nuke program were waived for 5 years. Then until 1990 the sitting President certified to Congress each year that Pakistan did not have nuclear capabilities. George Bush certified them in 1989 before the Russians pulled out of Afghanistan but their certification was a no go in 1990.

WE didn’t sell them anymore big weapons after that but we gave them aid. That is until old Slick boy Willie cam along and his whole foreign policy was based on sanctions. It cracks me up to hear about sanctions and how well they work.

Out of the appox 120 times the US slapped economic sanctions on other countries between 1918 and 1998 more than half of them came from the Clinton Admin.