Nuclear summit
US PRESIDENT Barack Obama came into office with a vision for Global Zero — setting the world onto a path free of nuclear weapons eventually. Lofty as that goal was — or perhaps precisely because it was so lofty — it was quickly and severely tested and soon discarded in all but name. Tellingly, the US Republican party’s likely presidential candidate, Donald Trump, stirred up a nuclear hornet’s nest just as world leaders gathered for the Nuclear Security Summit, a project of President Obama launched in 2010 that seeks to secure the world’s nuclear supplies from terrorist threats and slots into the wider goal of an eventually nuclear weapons-free world. It appears that the narrow, though critical, purpose of the NSS remains an easier subject to address than whether states — and which states — should possess nuclear weapons at all. But even that narrow purpose has been undermined by multiple countries, perhaps most egregiously by Russia, which has the second largest nuclear arsenal in the world and which chose to boycott the summit.
Yet, for all the challenges that the NSS and Global Zero movements face, the NSS at least should not be allowed to disintegrate after President Obama leaves office. While nuclear terrorism remains a remote possibility, the fallout of a possible attack is terrifying enough to demand the focus of the world’s nuclear powers, civilian and military. Surely, as President Obama noted, there are terrorist groups in this world that would be both willing to use and eager to acquire any kind of nuclear material that could be fashioned into a bomb. Even as the threat should not be exaggerated — the nuclear spectre can and has been used in the past to justify grossly wrong decisions, as the Iraq war demonstrated — the need for vigilance should not be downplayed. In four summits over six years, countries with nuclear wherewithal have identified many areas in which cooperation and better security could help further diminish security threats. That process should continue and other world leaders should step up to fill the gap that will be left by President Obama’s departure.
Inevitably, when the issue of nuclear security is debated, the Pakistan-India equation cannot be ignored. The importance that both countries have attached to the NSS initiative can be gauged from the fact that prime ministerial delegations were to have been in attendance. By all accounts, Pakistan has been helpful and cooperative in the NSS process — something that has also been acknowledged by international powers. Yet, technical as the issue of security under discussion may have been, there is another, indirect aspect to the security debate: the larger India’s and Pakistan’s nuclear programmes grow, the more the threats surrounding them will increase. Pakistan has explicitly and consistently maintained that its nuclear programme is India-specific. If India were to rationalise its own military posture and capabilities, surely Pakistan would follow.
Cricket mess
OF late, the ‘gentleman’s game’ of cricket has been in the headlines for all the wrong reasons in Pakistan. As the past week has shown, both players and officials have contributed in no small measure to the crisis that besets the game today. While a probe is surely on the cards and heads set to roll following the national team’s dismal performance at the Asia Cup and ICC World T20, the series of events that unfolded in the aftermath of the defeat have plunged Pakistan cricket into an even deeper quagmire. Leaked reports, allegations, counter-allegations, the unbecoming conduct of the head coach and captain, coupled with the cricket bosses’ many administrative goof-ups, have provided juicy fodder for the rumour mill. It has led to fans and experts clamouring for a change of policy and personnel at the Pakistan Cricket Board. From the outset, the PCB’s in-house fact-finding committee probing the World T20 flop had caused doubts to be raised about its impartiality in outlining the key reasons for the disaster and focusing on the real culprits. For those who know the game, it shouldn’t be difficult to identify those responsible for the results. With Pakistan’s downward spiral in the limited-over games now a good 20 months old, one wouldn’t even need a day to point out the blundering players and officials who failed to deliver during this period.
Skipper Shahid Afridi, head coach Waqar Younis, manager Intikhab Alam, bowling coach Mushtaq Ahmed, batting coach Grant Flower and erratic players such as Ahmed Shehzad, Umer Akmal, Wahab Riaz, Shoaib Malik and a few others have been chiefly responsible for Pakistan’s inglorious performance at the mega events. However, the Pakistan cricket team’s unending woes on the field have been compounded by the glaring management deficiencies of chairman Shaharyar Khan, executive committee head Najam Sethi and chief selector Haroon Rasheed. None of these high-profile men have proved themselves worthy of the challenge. Lacking clarity of vision and decisiveness of action, they have allowed Pakistan cricket to drift into mediocrity, the shameful episodes of the leaking of the manager’s and coach’s reports being the last straw. The continuing unrest in the country is a perfect metaphor for Pakistan cricket. And with a patron completely oblivious to the challenges confronting the game and ad hocism being the order of the day at PCB, it is going to take nothing short of a miracle to retrieve the shambolic situation.
Pak-Iran concerns
THE allegation that Indian spy Kul Bhushan Jadhav was based out of the Iranian port city of Chabahar has put a cloud over the Islamabad-Tehran relationship. In fact, the affair has overshadowed Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s visit to Pakistan last month. However, it is welcome that both governments appear to be handling the affair maturely and without acrimony. On Friday, Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar met the Iranian ambassador in Islamabad as both officials pledged to cooperate on security matters. As reported, the Jadhav affair was discussed and both officials sounded positive about the meeting. Earlier, the Iranian embassy had been critical of media coverage of the spy drama, particularly of what it termed as “undignified comments” in the Pakistani press, which it claimed were hurting bilateral ties.
Whenever sensitive bilateral issues emerge, the best way to handle them is through frank and constructive diplomacy rather than emotional public tirades. In this case, Islamabad and Tehran have handled the matter well. In fact, even the Indo-Pak relationship has shown signs of maturity of late. The Jadhav incident and the Pathankot attack before it have largely been handled in a sober fashion by both sides, apart from a few jingoistic outbursts. This, rather than sabre-rattling, is a much more progressive way to conduct foreign policy. The details that have emerged in the aftermath of the Jadhav affair are very serious and Iranian authorities need to follow up on the leads given by their Pakistani counterparts to ensure their soil is not being used by elements to destabilise this country. Whether it is Tehran’s concerns of militant groups such as Jundullah or Jaishul Adl allegedly finding refuge in Balochistan, or Islamabad’s reservations that RAW may be using Iranian territory for anti-Pakistan operations, both sides must realise that until they satisfy each other’s security concerns, regional connectivity and improved economic ties will remain a pipe dream. Security cooperation between Tehran and Islamabad should continue and any elements — whether non-state actors or third parties — using one country’s soil against the other must be uprooted.
Source: EditorialsPublished in
Dawn, April 3rd, 2016