Pakistan’s
Choice: Confrontation or Cooperation
By Dr Ahmad Faruqui
Dansville, CA
Last week, the Washington
Post cited an analysis by the Institute for Science
and International Security (ISIS) suggesting that
Pakistan is building the country’s largest
nuclear reactor. It would be capable of producing
enough plutonium for 40 to 50 nuclear weapons
a year, representing a mammoth 20-fold increase
in the nation’s existing capabilities.
The ISIS, which provided a copy of its study to
the paper, noted that the study had been peer-reviewed
by two independent nuclear experts. At the heart
of the study are satellite photos of the Khushab
nuclear site. David Albright and Paul Brannan,
who wrote the study, are concerned that Pakistan’s
determination to move ahead with such a mega project
may lead to “a nuclear arms race that could
lead to arsenals growing into the hundreds of
nuclear weapons, or at minimum, vastly expanded
stockpiles of military fissile material.”
While the existence of a nuclear reactor creates
the capability for producing nuclear weapons,
it does not necessarily suggest an intent to do
so. However, all doubts were removed when the
paper spoke to a senior Pakistani official. The
official, who wished to remain anonymous, admitted
that a nuclear expansion was under way and went
on to say — presumably with poorly concealed
pride — that Pakistan’s nuclear program
had matured. The new reactor would help consolidate
it with further expansion in nuclear power and
nuclear weapons.
How the times have changed! During Zulfikar Ali
Bhutto’s reign, the US used its diplomatic
muscle to stop France from shipping a nuclear
processing plant to Pakistan. During General Zia’s
reign, it was considered impolitic to admit that
Pakistan had a nuclear weapons program. But now,
in General Musharraf’s reign, the foreign
ministry openly declares that its desire to pursue
the advancement of nuclear weapons.
Given the internationally charged nature of any
such discussion, such statements are unusual in
their boldness. One senses the military’s
mailed fist is behind them. This is not an instance
in which a rogue nuclear scientist is engaging
secretly in proliferation activities without the
military’s knowledge. This is a case where
diplomatic restraint has been shunned.
So why have the generals chosen to broadcast their
nuclear intentions and engage in brazen saber
rattling? Clearly they are signaling to New Delhi
that Pakistan is fully prepared to confront it
militarily. And secondly, they are signaling to
the hawks at home that the military is the best
agent for protecting national security, to ensure
their continued support for military rule.
Does it make sense for Pakistan to build a dual-purpose
1,000 MW reactor? There is no question that power
demand is growing rapidly in Pakistan, as evidenced
by power outages in Karachi and routine load-shedding
activities throughout the country. But building
large, expensive and potentially unsafe nuclear
reactors is only one way of meeting that growing
demand. There is no evidence that the country
has developed a comprehensive energy plan that
factors in “soft path” options such
as energy efficiency, load management and renewable
energy sources such as solar power as well as
“hard” options such as building power
plants.
Admittedly, there is less glamour in building
decentralized options. They don’t come with
the pomp and prestige that emanates from large,
centralized power plants. But this is the 21st
century and it is time to make sustainable choices
that are people friendly. Nuclear power, even
for civilian purposes, remains a debatable proposition.
This was evident at the G-8 summit, where a consensus
position in support of the nuclear option did
not emerge.
Even if it were economically necessary to build
a nuclear power plant, should that plant also
be used to feed the country’s war machine?
Some strategists continue to wax eloquent on the
value of nuclear weapons as a war deterrent while
others continue to argue that they introduce dangerous
instability in bilateral relations. That debate
shows no signs of an early resolution.
But it is very difficult to argue that building
a large reactor that is going to feed a nuclear
weapons program is not an act of confrontation
with India. It would be a different story if it
was accompanied with a similarly large cross-border
trade package. That would help neutralize some
of the acidity in what is otherwise an overtly
hostile gesture. But no such neutralizer is evident.
The bombings in Mumbai, which have led New Delhi
to point the finger at Pakistan, have re-injected
belligerence in Musharraf’s rhetoric. There
is no doubt that India has to share the blame
for the re-emergence of tensions in bilateral
relations. It was not a very smart idea to hold
“Cold Start” exercises near the border.
This childish game of “tit for tat”
hurts both countries but in the end, Pakistan
is the bigger loser. It is six to seven times
smaller than India, depending on whether the count
is based on demographic or economic factors. To
even maintain the semblance of military parity,
Pakistan has to spend proportionately more on
defense than India. Moreover, the bigger cost
is the benefit foregone by not engaging in bilateral
trade.
Another Independence Day will be celebrated this
month. Pakistan’s first 59 years have been
a terrible tribute to the costs of confrontation,
a legacy of military rule. Will the next 59 years
be a tribute to the benefits of cooperation? They
may well be, but only if Pakistan’s thought
leaders, both inside and outside of Parliament,
chose to do so.
There is no contest between cooperation versus
confrontation in the modern world. All that one
has to do is look around the globe. Ancient enemies
are embracing each other in business and trade.
The European Union is the poster child of this.
China and Russia are another case in point. And
China and Taiwan, given the size inequalities
between the two, may be the best case in point.
This is not meant to suggest that literary, culinary,
cultural and historical differences should disappear
between nations. They should be preserved, because
they provide texture and nuance to the fabric
of international cooperation.
But it is time for the fire in the belly to go
out. Ultimately, it is driven by a false sense
of insecurity. Hopefully, this issue will not
dominate next year’s electoral agenda. The
candidates should focus on poverty and illiteracy,
hunger and disease, homelessness and anarchy,
extremism and violence, sectarian and ethnic fissures.
All of these problems are pushed aside in the
rush to confront India. It is time for a change
in political thinking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
