Last week, Mr Strobe Talbott, the US Deputy Secretary of State, proposed a package of confidence-building security measures to India and Pakistan. The US package for South Asia involves (1) a verifiable freeze (called “capping”) of the “dynamic” nuclear enrichment process (uranium in the case of Pakistan and plutonium in the case of India) (2) a halt to the development and deployment of ballistic missiles in the region (3) a 9 nation multilateral conference on arms control, non-proliferation and security-related issues in South Asia.
Mr Talbott left Washington saying that the purpose of the US proposals is to create conditions conducive to a nuclear “roll-back” (dismantling of nuclear weapons) in South Asia. However, by the time he departed from the sub-continent, he was at pains to stress that the US hadn’t raised the issue of a “roll-back” with Pakistan at all. “Benazir Bhutto has said Pakistan will not roll-back its nuclear programme unilaterally”, he explained and went on to clarify that “we’re not asking Pakistan for a roll-back”.
India is reported to have rejected all the American proposals.
However, as in the past, Pakistan has expressed support for “global and regional efforts to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and missiles capable of delivering them”. In this connection, both Pakistan and the US “agreed to pursue the goal of capping, then reducing, and finally eliminating weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles in South Asia”. The US “reaffirmed its recent proposal that Pakistan agree to a verifiable cap on the production of fissile material [enriched uranium] in association with enhanced US cooperation with Pakistan in various fields”.
Pakistan has expressed “support for the objectives underlying the proposal” and the two sides “agreed to proceed with consideration of the US initiative, with a view to developing an approach acceptable to both the US and Pakistan”.
Shorn of diplomatic niceties and verbiage, it isn’t too difficult to try and construct the essence of what was discussed in the talks last week. Here is an imagined dialogue:
Pakistan: “We agree with your views regarding the non-deployment of ballistic missiles as well as those on a proposed 9-nation conference. On the nuclear issue, the position is that we unilaterally stopped producing fissile material for the purposes of making atomic weapons in 1990-91. Statements and assurances to this effect have formally been given by General Aslam Beg, Benazir Bhutto, Nawaz Sharif and Shaharyar Khan. Washington knows, from its own sources, that the Pakistani freeze remains in place to date. Yet US military aid to Pakistan has not been restored, in particular the 38 F-16 fighter aircraft for which we have already paid US$ 658 million. This is most unfair. The Pressler amendment is not only discriminatory, it has allowed India to resist efforts directed at non-proliferation in the region.”
US: “Thank you for conceding our case over the first two issues. We’re also inclined to believe you when you say that you’ve frozen your nuclear enrichment programme. But we have a problem with Congress which insists on a formal verification of your claims before it restores aid to Pakistan. We [the US administration] had hoped that we might be able to pass a Foreign Assistance Act this year which would have got rid of the Pressler amendment and brought India and Pakistan at par, thereby allowing us to restore military assistance to Pakistan. Unfortunately, we have had to defer our plans vis a vis Congress in view of our more pressing social and economic problems in the domestic arena, quite apart from the hullabaloo over Whitewater. That is why we are now seeking from Congress a one-time exemption to the Pressler so that your F-16s can be delivered. However, in order to do that, we would need to inspect your nuclear enrichment facilities and confirm to Congress that you have indeed frozen your programme as you claim.”
Pakistan: “If you think we will allow you to walk into Kahuta and take a look around, then you’ve got another thought coming, F-16s or no F-16s. Such an inspection is out of the question. There is absolutely no way any government in this country can afford to allow that to happen unilaterally.”
US: “OK, OK, we appreciate your problem. But you must understand our constraints. We’ve got to find a way of breaking this deadlock. We’re very keen to restore our relationship with you”.
Pakistan: “So are we. But the ball’s in your court. We say our enrichment programme has been frozen. You know darned well that it’s the truth. At any rate, as a superpower with all the sophisticated gadgetry, satellites and evesdropping resources in the world at your disposal, surely you can find ways and means of confirming our position independently, without physically walking into Kahuta with your inspectors.”
US: “Yes, if it comes to that, we suppose we might be able to do something along those lines. But we would need at least some cooperation on your part.”
Pakistan: “Give us your proposals on a ‘non-intrusive’ verification and we will certainly look into them. But remember that these must be transparently just, equitable and honourable for us to even consider them in the first place. There is a second point. Your package should include not just the 38 F-16s we’ve already paid for but all the 71 F-16s on contract plus all the other equipment on hold. While you’re reformulating your proposals, you might also consider, for starters, writing off some of our international debt, increasing our textile quotas and leaning on India to resolve the conflict over Kashmir. Surely there should be a reasonable quid pro quo for having frozen our nuclear programme?”
US: “That’s a tall order. We don’t want to make any promises but we’ll see what we can do.”
Pakistan: “This is a highly sensitive issue for us. We suggest that neither side should make any irresponsible statements which could muddy the waters. Few people in this country actually understand the complexities involved in your proposals and we don’t want any misunderstandings on the rights and wrongs of this issue because it evokes strong emotions in this country. On this issue, the government, opposition and armed forces of Pakistan speak with one voice”.
US: “Yes, we appreciate that. Quiet diplomacy is called for. We intend to meet with Nawaz Sharif’s representatives to gauge their opinion and inform them of our views. Thank you for giving us a fair hearing and supporting our broad objectives. That’s much, much more than we got in India. In the meanwhile, we’ll go back to the drawing board, knock our heads and see if we can come up with some sort of a non-intrusive modus operandi for verification which satisfies the compulsions and requirements of both our countries.”
What more needs to be said on this issue? The government of Pakistan has reiterated its position firmly and honourably. It has laid its security considerations squarely on the table without appearing to be stubborn, inflexible or unreasonable like India. Mr Talbott now clearly knows what’s what. He has got a commitment from Pakistan on the issue of a multilateral conference and missile proliferation. Once he has done his homework on a non-intrusive verification, we have promised to re-examine it carefully to see if it satisfies our concerns.
On the eve of his departure, Mr Talbott said that he had “just completed a very good day of talks with the Pakistan government as well as several members of the opposition”. Pakistan reciprocates the sentiments.
The government of Benazir Bhutto has not given away anything. Pakistan’s nuclear deterrent remains firmly in place. The United States, however, has been forced to concede two significant points: There will be no unilateral nuclear roll-back in Pakistan; and it is up to the US government to find ways and means of satisfying Congress and restoring military aid to Pakistan without directly impinging on our policy of nuclear ambiguity and secrecy.
Well done, Ms Bhutto and General Waheed!