Nuclear cooperation in South Asia

By Tariq Fatemi

Recently, American think tanks have claimed that Pakistan and China entered into a new understanding in mid-February for the construction of another nuclear reactor in Pakistan, which in their view, would violate Beijing’s commitment to the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG).

While China has strongly denied this, a few facts about proliferation in South Asia need to be recalled. India’s nuclear test in May of 1974 generated huge concern, prompting Pakistan and regional countries to galvanise world opinion in favour of South Asia being declared a nuclear weapons free zone. Over subsequent years, Pakistan made other proposals aimed at keeping the region — which had already seen more than its share of conflicts — safe from this scourge. India, however, chose to ignore these initiatives. Consequently, Pakistan initiated its own programme and succeeded in emulating India when the latter carried out fresh tests in May 1998. And yet, Pakistan did not abandon hopes of managing this “scourge”, offering to India the Strategic Restraint Regime, containing three interlocking elements of nuclear restraint, conventional balance and dispute settlement. To Pakistan’s regret, this comprehensive proposal has failed to evoke any response from its neighbour. While the merits of Indian policy could be debated, the attitude of many major powers continues to puzzle Pakistanis and others interested in restraining proliferation in South Asia.

India’s huge market for nuclear technology beckons many a reactor manufacturer, but surely, governments should take a more measured and responsible view, which is why the Bush Administration’s decision in 2005 to offer a civilian nuclear deal to India was so shocking. It ridiculed not only US domestic laws, but called for exemption from provisions of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the NSG that virtually destroyed the very rationale of these global understandings. This has been followed by bilateral agreements by others for supply of nuclear technology to India that calls into question their commitment to the concept of non-proliferation, as the US-India deal excluded from safeguards eight Indian reactors suitable for weapons-grade plutonium production. Similarly, the 13 breeder reactors have been left out of safeguards and to leave no ambiguity, the Indian prime minister has affirmed that no part of India’s nuclear programme would be placed under safeguards if it was of a strategic nature. The US, however, claims that these concessions to India serve the cause of global non-proliferation.

Notwithstanding, Pakistan’s modest nuclear cooperation with China continues to draw criticism from the US, with Pakistan being accused of engaging in nuclear proliferation and China of violating its commitments to the NSG. Yet, it is well known that Pakistan and China signed a 30-year civil nuclear cooperation agreement in September 1986. Subsequently, additional agreements were entered into prior to China joining the NSG in 2004, under whose provisions it has been engaged in building nuclear reactors in Pakistan. Consequently, China is under no legal bar to assist Pakistan meet its massive energy needs. Nor is Pakistan under any obligation to end its cooperation with China, especially as all of Pakistan’s nuclear reactors for power generation, including those planned for the future, would be under safeguards. As Mark Hibbs of the Carnegie Endowment pointed out in a recent piece, there is nothing in the NSG guidelines that prevents continuing Sino-Pakistan cooperation as “the NSG guidelines are voluntary understandings of governments”. And Mark Krepon, a well-known expert in this field, has emphasised: “The NSG has become less consensual and the NPT weaker”, as a result of the US-India deal.

Pakistan is convinced that if NPT signatory states, such as France, Russia, the UK, Japan and the US, can offer nuclear technology to India, a non-NPT signatory state, the US and its allies have little moral standing to suggest that Pakistan and China refrain from similar cooperation.

Published in The Express Tribune, April 3rd, 2013.

Waqar-un-Nisa

International media and academics are continuously are bent upon writing against nuclear safety and security situation in Pakistan and seems concerned about terrorists getting access to Pakistan’s nuclear arsenals. Propagandists blindly take an unpleasant event or other occurring in Pakistan and relate it to lax security arrangement around Pakistani Nukes without having knowledge or understanding of safety and security mechanism in Pakistan or they don’t want to.

After the incident of 9/11, Pakistan became US ally against war on terror (WoT). And (WoT) became Pakistan’s own war where the theorists threatened the writ of the government by targeting government official, army personnel, law enforcement agencies and civilians. The turmoil and instability in Pakistan provided an opportunity to the critics of Pakistan to propagate negative image of Pakistan in the world. Unfortunately incidents like attack on General Head Quarters (GHQ), Merhran Base and attack on PAF base at Kamra by the extremists added some logic to their propaganda. Even the propagandists went on saying that a few number of nuclear weapons were kept at Minhas base, Kamra. Internally Pakistan is engaged in countering terrorism which is a menace that is not be wiped out in a short span of time rather it requires a long term strategy. On the other hand Pakistan is facing a propaganda campaign about the safety and security of its nuclear arsenals.
Pakistan nuclear establishment is fully aware of the instable security situation, and has taken several measures to ensure nuclear safety and security.

Strategic Plan division (SPD) has established standard procedures to ensure safety and security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. Pakistan has established an effective command and control system. Personnel Reliability Program is in place and individuals entering any strategic organization linked with Pakistan’s nuclear program, are required to be screened out by intelligence agencies, and once they are inducted they are continuously monitored through security clearance after a particular time period. Permissive Action Links (PALs) are also developed by Pakistan, which are launching codes for nuclear weapon, to be authenticated by two or three persons (two / three man rule).

The preposition that terrorists might get access to Pakistan nuclear facilities becomes irrelevant against the measures taken by Pakistan. Secondly Pakistan nuclear weapons are in unmated form. Warheads are kept separated from delivery vehicles it also minimizes the possibility of unauthorized use. Thirdly, managing nuclear is a complex phenomenon which is beyond terrorist capacity. Lastly, secrecy about the location of nuclear weapons mitigates the chances of terrorist’s access to nuclear weapons or material.

Pakistan Nuclear Regulatory Authority has also been established to ensure nuclear safety. It is also collaborating with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Pakistan is working on Nuclear Safety Action Plan (NSAP) in collaboration with IAEA since 2006. Under this project, PNRA has established Nuclear Security Training Centres with the assistance of IAEA. Pakistan has also established Nuclear Security Emergency Coordination Centre (NuSECC).
These are the step forward to and in commitment with nuclear security. In 2011, Deputy Director General and Head of the Department of Nuclear Safety and Security IAEA stated that Pakistan’s nuclear program was safe and secure and appreciated the efforts made by PNRA in this regard.

Pakistan with active progress on export control regime has presented itself as a responsible nuclear weapons state. Dr. AQ Khan episode has become a past, and Pakistan’s ongoing non proliferation efforts are overshadowed by the perceptions. Pakistan’s inclusion in export control regimes will strengthen their cause, as Pakistan is eagerly taking measures to cope with the international export control laws. Pakistan export control measures regime is capable of meeting the criterion set by international export control regimes i.e. Nuclear Supplier Group (NSG), Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), and Australia Group.

On the issue of nuclear safety and security Pakistan has largely been discriminated and negatively portrayed vis-à-vis India by the international community.

India there has been incidents related to safety and security e.g. theft of nuclear materials from facilities, murder of nuclear scientist, many nuclear power plants are not under IAEA inspection/safeguards etc. While in Pakistan there is no example of such incident embarrassing for the nuclear establishment. Despite that India is granted with Civil Nuclear Deal and also the discussions are going on within NSG about the Indian membership in the regime.

Despite the concerns, no incidents of theft of nuclear material any objectionable regarding nuclear safety and security occurred in Pakistan. After the incident of Kamra in August 2012, the State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland stated that U.S. had confidence in the security of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenals. Though, U.S officials sometimes highlight their concerns about nuclear security in Pakistan, led by the doubts created by the propagandists. Pakistan’s nuclear command and control is robust and effective. International media need to look beyond mere propaganda.

(The writer works for Strategic Vision Institute)

http://www.thefrontierpost.com/category/40/

North Korea has been making headlines. In the past few days, it declared that it is in the state of war with South Korea and directed its military in a stand-by position. Historically, the 1950-53 war declared a cease-fire through an armistice. Formally and legally, the war did not end up. The two Koreas have been divided along the 38th Parallel. It cannot be considered as a permanent border between the two. Reunification talks prove this fact too.

Besides the South, US mainland, Hawaii, and Guam could be targeted as was announced in recent Pyongyang declaration. So are over 28000 US troops in Seoul. The declaration has posed a threat to the South. Specific targets such as U.S. military bases in Yokosuka, Misawa, and Okinawa were mentioned in North Korean plan to hit Japan. North Korean Rodong ballistic missiles have the capacity to target these bases.

So far its looks that the North would not be willing to abandon its nuclear programs for aid unlike in the past. The teenage Kim Jong-Un looks more enthusiastic than pragmatist over country’s nuclear program. Some will still argue that the long isolation has been compelling Kim to make an end to its isolation and brings back the country to international fold. It is isolation and frustration that have been driving the North.

In a further move, North Korea vowed to continue its nuclear program at the Yongbyng nuclear reactor side that was closed down in 2007. This has been announced after the third nuclear testing took place in February. So far South Korea, United States, and Japan had shown restraint. Diplomacy was utilized.
United States and South Korea have been unwilling to make any concession. They normally level all of such security maneuverings of North Korea as ‘provocative acts’. US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said that North Korean nuclear ambitions are a ‘growing threat’. One should hope that the North Korean nuclear bomb issue will be discussed when US Secretary of State John Kerry will visit the region (Japan, China, and South Korea) next month.
China condemned the latest nuclear testing and shown its willingness to cooperate with others on the matter. China has shown its anxiety and displeasure over the re-opening of the Yongbyong nuclear facility. The new Chinese leadership might continue friendship with the North. Many would see China to act differently. Time would tell. Chinese Deputy Foreign Minister Zhang Yesui said that ‘we do not want to see war or turmoil break-out on the [Korean] Peninsula, and we oppose provocative words and actions by any side’. This statement also defends the North Korean side. China tries to prefer restraint diplomacy by asking all stakeholders to refrain from any military conflict.

Presumably, United States changed its strategy. It is no more willing to allow the North to use the nuclear bombs and re-opening up of the Yongbyon facility as a political bargaining chip. So the North’s threat has been escalated and bracketed the United States as well. Under this looming crisis, United States has little choice. It looks that China would not stay idle to continue its ties with the North.

Someone should also ask that is the long isolation a good idea? Apart for the bargaining chip strategy, diplomacy and negotiations are considered to be far better options than going into wars and they also end up in negotiations but after destruction. Preventive measures and strategies should be applied.

Economic cooperation between the two Koreas should not be liquidated. Many South Korean companies operate in the North and help in eliminating economic hardships and food-shortage. It is highly commendable gesture of the South. Economic cooperation could end up security and political stalemate and tension among nations. South still remained calm after the threat came from the North. The South Koreans have already learned to live with a nuclear-armed North Koreans. Some say that a nuclear deterrence would ensure real harmony between them.

The escalating tension would affect Japan too. The question arises that would Japan allow South Korea becoming a nuclear power? Japan has already been frustrated over the North Korean first nuclear testing in 2006. The nuclearized Korean Peninsula would significantly jeopardized Japanese security. Would Japan tolerate to live in the shadow of Russian, Chinese, North Korean, and South Korean nuclear bombs?

So the North Korean nuclear bomb and its resulting affect on South Korea should also be seen in the Japanese perspective too. Japan’s calmness over the North Korean threat shows nation’s wisdom. They want North Korea to refrain from provocative acts.

Nonetheless, the changing situation in North East Asia would be compelling Japan to review its post-war restrictions and its self-restraint of 1967 and anti-nuclear principles. A credit must be given to Japan for showing a long restraint from nuclear program, and as it is showing now.

The recurrence of a series of nuclear testing in North East Asia has alarmed Japan. It never had normal relations with them. Former Soviet Union was nuclearized in 1949. China followed the suit in 1964. One should ask: would Japan continue to show restraint even when the whole of North East Asia was nuclearized?

Enough is enough. How Japan would protect itself? Should it be on the mercy of the United States being such an economically powerful nation and with a brilliant history? The world should seriously put its efforts to resolve the Korean Peninsula’s nuclear issue in order to prevent Japan becoming the next nuclear nation with third economic raking in the world. It appears that Japan’s restraint options have been fully exhausted and its becoming of a declared nuclear power has been ‘brightened’.

Together with the growing tension with China over the Island issue (Senkaku/Daioyu) and the North Korean nuclear maneuverings, Japan has been squeezed. Japan’s shifting of pacifism should not be taken as a shock. The nuclear developments in Japan’s neighborhood are making a ‘good case’ for it to go nuclear.

(The writer is Senior Fellow at the Institute of Strategic Studies, Islamabad)

http://www.thefrontierpost.com/category/40/

April 05, 2013



A few days after it warned the US of launching attacks against Hawaii and Guam, North Korea ratcheted up tensions on Thursday by issuing a direct warning of an attack on the US that it said could possibly include the use of nuclear weapons.

What particularly suggests that this threat is not an empty one is the statement of its General Staff of Korean People’s Army that, ‘the moment of explosion is approaching fast’. Where this must give the world jitters about the dangers of a conflict brewing as of now, this represents a challenge to the US supremacy in the globe. North Korea’s enmity with the US is not new; but it was taken to a dangerous level by the Bush regime that demonized it as a part of the ‘axis of evil’. The other ‘evil’ country was Iran. Venezuela under Chavez provides yet another example of a country trying to survive in this unipolar world but not compromising on its principles relating to foreign policy. Collectively the hostility of these nations ought to bring home to the US that it cannot indefinitely go on dictating its terms to the world. There has to be some sense of proportion. By avoiding a knee-jerk reaction to the North Korean sabre-rattling, President Obama, the recipient of the Nobel Prize for peace, could demonstrate that he really deserved the prize.

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-ne...ons/editorials

The war of words has intensified alarmingly among North Korean armed circles after South Korea and its patron, the US, carried out military exercises in the region despite warnings from the nuclear armed communist state to desist from this provocation. While the reaction has been limited thus far to only rhetoric, though frighteningly fiery in content, on the part of Pyongyang, the other side also lost no time in flexing its awesome military muscle by a show of reportedly long range B2 bombers and a couple of the stealth B1s over South Korean skies. Not exactly the wisest steps to take under the circumstances when the North is acting like a disturbed hornet’s nest.

To most people, the North, with its closed and apparently xenophobic mindset and a ruling family dynasty that enjoys a near demi-god status among ordinary Koreans, remains a problem and an enigma. Occasionally, reports filter out from defectors or Pyongyang-watchers of the lavish lifestyle of the ruling elite on the one hand and famines affecting various parts of the country on the other. The recent succession of Kim Jong-un to the presidency and tussles between groupings in the communist party and the military for priority of influence over state policy are also cited as being behind North Korea’s apparently illogical and outlandish behaviour. But now it is a nuclear-armed North Korea with delivery systems and sufficient technical ability to launch rockets into space. So its threats cannot be taken lightly.

Since Pearl Harbour, a ‘day that will live in infamy’ when Japan attacked the huge Pacific naval base in 1941, the US remains extremely sensitive to any attack or threat of attack on its soil. For the sole superpower that would be a bruising dent to its pride and world image of invincibility. The 9/11 no doubt helped ratchet up that perception into a paranoia.

The present confrontational stance will no doubt receive top priority at the UN, whose current secretary general is a former foreign minister of South Korea. But the real player in the Korean game is undoubtedly China, which at times seems unable or unwilling to keep its strange protégé in check, and has so far only issued a mild advice for ‘calm from all sides’. Although it would be the first to be caught up in a Korean conflagration, the demands of geo-politics arising out of the US desire to check China’s rapid rise as the next inheritor of world supremacy, and the American ‘pivot’ to the Pacific from the European-Middle East regions in order to encircle it would no doubt also enter into any Chinese calculations. North Korea with its long range rocketry also checkmates Japan – the US’s other major ally in the region. The volatile situation needs to be defused at once through dialogue instead of launching fifth generation aircraft in the region. As for the North, it should also backpedal from its fiery talk of war and restrict itself to rhetoric alone.

http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/editorials/

North Korea's nuclear programme remains a source of deep concern for the international community.

Since carrying out its third nuclear test in February 2013, North Korea has responded furiously to UN sanctions and joint US-South Korean military drills, culminating in a promise to restart facilities at its main Yongbyon nuclear complex.

The BBC looks at North Korea's nuclear ambitions and multi-national efforts to curtail them.

Has North Korea got the bomb?

Technically yes, but not yet the means to deliver it via a missile.

In 2006, 2009 and again in 2013, North Korea announced that it had conducted successful nuclear tests - they all came after the North was sanctioned by the UN for launching rockets.

Satellite data from P'unggye-ri, also known as P'unggye-yok, in a remote area in the east of the country, appeared to tally with claims that the experiments had been conducted underground.

Analysts believe the first two tests used plutonium as the fissile material. The North is believed to possess enough weapons-grade plutonium for at least six bombs.

Ever since North Korea warned that a third test would be a "high level" one, there has been speculation that it might involve a uranium device. It is so far unclear if this is the case.

Experts had previously said the state had not yet solved the problem of making a nuclear warhead small enough to fit onto a missile, but with the latest test North Korea claimed to have "miniaturised" a nuclear device.

That is yet to be independently verified.

What do we know about the North's nuclear programme?

The Yongbyon site is thought to be its main nuclear facility. The North has pledged several times to halt operations there and even destroyed the cooling tower in 2008 as part of a disarmament-for-aid deal.

But in March 2013, after a war of words with the US and with new UN sanctions for the North's third nuclear test, it vowed to restart all facilities at Yongbyon.

However, the US never believed Pyongyang was fully disclosing all of its nuclear facilities - a suspicion bolstered when North Korea unveiled a uranium enrichment facility at Yongbyon to US scientist Siegfried Hecker in 2010.

Mr Hecker's 2010 visit and subsequent report remains the most recent and reliable account of the complex.

While it appeared to be for electricity generation purposes, Mr Hecker said the facility could be readily converted to produce highly-enriched uranium for bombs. And with 1,000 centrifuges, he professed to be "stunned" by the sophistication of the plant.

Both the US and South Korea have also said that they believed the North had additional sites linked to a uranium-enrichment programme.

In August last year, satellite images of Yongbyon showed a light water reactor - which Pyongyang said was for civilian energy purposes - was nearing completion.

Experts say that reactor could be used to produce plutonium and the plant could be converted to produce highly enriched uranium for weapons.

The latest statement from the North talks about "altering nuclear facilities"- some analysts say this could mean a scenario where North Korea begins openly enriching uranium to weapons-grade levels.

A test based on a uranium device would spell new dangers for monitoring and proliferation because weapons-grade plutonium happens in large facilities that are easier to spot.

Uranium "enrichment" uses many, possibly small, centrifuges that can be hidden away. While North Korea has depleted its stocks of "reactor-grade" plutonium needed to make the weapons-grade variety, the country has plentiful reserves of uranium ore.

What has the international community done about the programme?

Multiple rounds of negotiations have taken place between the North, the US, Russia, China, Japan and South Korea aimed at persuading Pyongyang to give up its nuclear ambitions.

In September 2005, after more than two years of on-off talks, North Korea agreed a landmark deal to give up its nuclear ambitions in return for economic aid and political concessions.

But implementing the deal proved extremely difficult and the talks stalled in April 2009 over the issue of whether North Korea was fully disclosing its nuclear assets.

In July 2011, contact began again between the US and North Korea aimed at restarting the talks.

Less than six months later, North Korea's long-time leader Kim Jong-il died. He was succeeded by his son, the young Kim Jong-un.

In February 2012 North Korea suddenly announced it had agreed to suspend nuclear activities. It also said it was placing a moratorium on nuclear and long-range missile tests. Its reward would be food aid from the US.

But that deal was suspended following Pyongyang's 13 April 2012 unsuccessful rocket launch.

A successful rocket launch in December 2012 and a third nuclear test in February prompted the UN to further tighten sanctions.

What was the significance of the third nuclear test?

The test was a clear statement of North Korea's ongoing defiance of the international community. Pyongyang had warned that a "high-level" test was imminent, calling it a response to UN sanctions.

Its significance is likely to be vastly enhanced if it is confirmed that North Korea has indeed "miniaturised" a device, that is, made a device small enough to fit a nuclear warhead onto a missile.

This is likely to be of grave concern to the US and North Korea's neighbours.

Pyongyang also said the latest test had a much greater yield than the plutonium devices it detonated in 2006 and 2009.

Some analysts have suggested that warnings of a "high-level" test could have been code for the use of highly enriched uranium (HEU) rather than plutonium.

Although both represent roughly the same level of threat, a uranium bomb would signify a huge technological achievement - the process of distilling natural uranium ore to the stuff suitable for bombs is profoundly difficult.

The 2013 test was indeed larger in force than previous ones but monitors failed to detect radioactive isotopes, hampering efforts to fully assess the device. Eight samples had been analysed but nothing found, South Korea's Nuclear Safety and Security Commission said.

Finding certain isotopes - xenon gases in particular - would help experts determine whether a plutonium or uranium-based device was used.

But a well-contained test could yield no radioactive isotopes, experts say. It is still unclear whether the 2013 test used plutonium or uranium.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/

April 07, 2013
Eric S. Margolis


The intensifying war of words between North Korea, the US and ally South Korea could ignite a major conflict. The likely trigger would be a small clash at sea, in the air, or along the Demilitarised Zone (DMZ) dividing the two Koreas.

What would a war in Korea look like?

First, nuclear conflict is unlikely. North Korea is not believed to have any long or medium-ranged nuclear weapons; certainly, none that could hit North America. It might be able to strike South Korea with a nuclear device. But then the US nuclear weapons would wipe North Korea off the map.
North Korea’s military strategy would be to launch a surprise attack on the south to occupy Seoul and Inchon. The vital US Air Force bases at Osan and Kunsan, and eight South Korean air bases, would be primary targets.
North Korea’s elite 88,000 special forces units are tasked to attack and neutralise these air bases as well as headquarters, communication nodes, and munitions depots of the US and Republic of Korea (ROK) forces.

Barrages of North Korean conventional missiles would hit these bases and command hubs, possibly with chemical warheads.

Special North Korean amphibious units would land and strike these targets from the sea. North Korea has 300 old Soviet-era AN-2 biplanes that carry 10 commandos each. Invisible to radar because they are made of fabric and hug the earth, the AN-2’s would air assault suicide squads into US and ROK airbases.

Other North Korean special forces are tasked with attacking US bases in Okinawa, Japan and as far off as Guam, where the US is installing its new Thaad anti-missile system.

North Korea has developed potent electronic warfare capability that would degrade US and South Korean communications and online targets.
Meanwhile, 14,000 North Korean heavy guns and rocket batteries dug into caves behind the DMZ could pour storms of shells or rockets per hour onto US/ROK positions south of the DMZ. North Korea’s 170mm guns and 240mm rockets have a range of 50 and 45km. Large parts of Seoul would be heavily damaged.

North Korea has about 700,000 soldiers within 150km of the DMZ, with another 400,000 in backup echelons further north. These divisions would fight their way south through South Korea’s ‘Maginot Line’, seven parallel lines of anti-tank ditches, minefields, and high earth walls surmounted by tanks (South Korea denies it exists, but I have seen it).

In spite of intense air attacks by the US and ROK, the North Korean offensive could likely reach at least as far south of Seoul, only an hour’s drive from the DMZ.

USA’s retaliation would be ferocious. The US and ROK warplanes would quickly attain air superiority over the entire peninsula. North Korea’s 70 airbases would be obliterated and its obsolescent air force quickly neutralised. The North Korean surface fleets would share a similar fate. The US warplanes would pound North Korea’s command and control, communications, rail lines, bridges and factories not buried underground.

During the 1950-53 Korean War, the US B-29 heavy bombers literally flattened North Korea. That is why North Korea reacted so furiously when US B-52 heavy bombers and B-2 Stealth bombers skirted its borders late last month, triggering off this latest crisis. The B-2 can deliver the fearsome ‘MOAB’ 30,000 lb bomb called “the Mother of All Bombs” designed to destroy deep underground command headquarter’s (read Kim Jon-un’s bunker) and underground nuclear facilities.

Since the 1950s, the North Koreans have buried much of their military-industrial complex and continue to train their ground forces in small unit, off-the-road tactics. The north also has a militia of 1.6 million to defend key targets and factories.

Unless the USA uses tactical nuclear weapons, it will be difficult to defeat North Korea. Doing so means invading North Korea, a risky operation that might invite Chinese intervention, as it did in 1950. Moreover, US ground and air forces are bogged down in Afghanistan and the Mideast, their equipment is run down, and the US treasury out of money. The Pentagon too estimated a full-scale invasion of North Korea could cost 250,000 American casualties.

The writer is an award-winning, internationally syndicated columnist. His articles appear in the New York Times, International Herald Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Times of London, Gulf Times, Khaleej Times and other news sites in Asia. He is a regular contributor to The Huffington Post, Lew Rockwell and Big Eye. He appears as an expert on foreign affairs on CNN, BBC, France 2, France 24, Fox News, CTV and CBC.

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-ne...inions/columns

Few times ago, American think-tanks have claimed that Pakistan and China entered into a new understanding in mid-February for the construction of another nuclear reactor in Pakistan, which is their view, would violate Beijing's commitment to the Nuclear Supplies Group(NSG).

While china has strongly denied this, a few facts about proliferation in South Asia need to be recalled. India's nuclear test in May of 1974 generated huge concern, prompting Pakistan and regional countries to galvanize world opinion in favor of South Asia being declared a nuclear weapons free zone. Over subsequent years, Pakistan made other proposals aimed at keeping the region - which had already seen more than its share of hurdles and conflicts - safe from this scourge. India, however, chose to ignore these initiatives.

Consequently, Pakistan initiated its own program and succeeded in emulating India when the latter carried out fresh tests in May 1998. And yet, Pakistan did not abandon hopes of managing this scourge, offering to India the Strategic Restraint Regime, containing three interlocking elements of nuclear restraints, conventional balance and dispute settlement. To Pakistan's regret, this comprehensive proposal has failed to evoke any response from its neighbor. While the merits of Indian policy could be debated, the attitude of many major powers continues to puzzle Pakistanis and others interested in restraining proliferation in South Asia.

India's huge market for nuclear technology beckons many a reactor manufacture, but surely, governments should take a more measured and responsible view, which is why the Bush Administration's decision 2005 to offer a civilian nuclear deal to India was so shocking. It ridiculed not only US domestic laws, but called for exemption from provisions of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the NSG that virtually destroyed the very rationale of these global understanding. This has been followed by bilateral agreements by others for supply of nuclear technology to India that calls into question their comment to the concept of non - proliferation, as the US - India deal excluded from safe guars eight Indian reactors suitable for weapons - grade plutonium production.

Notwithstanding, Pakistan's modest nuclear cooperation with China continues to draw criticism from the US, with Pakistan being accused of engaging in nuclear proliferation and Chine of violating its commitments to the NSG. Yet, it is well known that Pakistan and China signed a 30-year civil nuclear cooperation agreement in September 1986. Subsequently, additional agreements were entered into prior to China joining the NSG in 2004, under whose provisions it has been engaged in building nuclear reactors in Pakistan.
Pakistan is convinced that if NPT signatory states, such as France, Russia, the UK, Japan and the US, can offer nuclear technology to India, a non - NPT signatory state, the US and its allies have little moral standing to suggest that Pakistan and China refrain from similar cooperation.

http://www.thefrontierpost.com/category/40/

With tensions on the Korean peninsula soaring to include threats of nuclear war, frustration is mounting at what US policy experts see as the failure of all efforts to rein in North Korea.

Decades of threats have waxed and waned despite myriad attempts to reach out for talks or punish the regime, as seen recently in the tightening of UN sanctions.

North Korea watchers see a familiar pattern in which the communist state ramps up threats or takes actions such as missile launches or nuclear tests in a bid to show anger and force concessions from the United States.

Observers saw parallels between the latest crisis and 1994 when Pyongyang took on a bellicose tone as it faced pressure over its nuclear program at a time of political transitions in both North and South Korea.

The 1994 crisis ended when former US president Jimmy Carter flew to Pyongyang, setting the stage for a joint energy project that has been the inspiration for several initiatives since.

“I still don’t find any of the latest North Korean rhetoric that shocking. It’s perfectly predictable,” said Joel Wit, a former State Department official who was in charge of implementing the 1994 energy agreement.

“The difference this time is that they have nuclear weapons,” said Wit, now a scholar at Columbia University.

North Korea has threatened to attack the United States with nuclear weapons, although experts doubt it is able to. The United States, in turn, carried out runs by its nuclear-capable B-2 bomber as part of exercises with South Korea.

Other new factors in the latest crisis include question marks over North Korea’s young leader Kim Jong-Un and growing unhappiness from China over its smaller ally’s insolence.

Bruce Cumings, chairman of the history department at the University of Chicago and the author of several books on North Korea, said the 24-hour news environment had also changed the dynamics behind Pyongyang’s threats.

“You get instant attention on the World Wide Web which is so different than when I used to read their Central News Agency reports in the early ‘90s that would come a week late through Tokyo and you never knew if anyone would pay attention,” he said.

But Cumings said that North Korea’s tactics followed a pattern dating to even before the 1950-53 Korean War, when the communist leadership would threaten to destroy the South’s army.

“It is always the case with North Korea that when its back is put to the wall, it lashes out and it creates problems. It says: ‘If you want to sanction us, this is what you’re going to get’,” he said.

Cumings warned that tensions “are inevitable as long as the United States and South Korea are not willing to engage with North Korea.” “The North Koreans go about things in the worst way — they are their own worst enemy — but they keep saying that they want to talk to the United States in particular,” he said. But President Barack Obama’s administration has ruled out what is widely considered North Korea’s main aim — its symbolic recognition as a nuclear weapons state, seen by the regime as critical to ensure its survival.
The Obama administration, after long hesitation, last year sealed an aid-for-disarmament agreement with North Korea that fell apart in a matter of weeks after Pyongyang attempted to test a rocket.

The previous administration of George W. Bush similarly swung widely in its approach to North Korea. Bush famously grouped North Korea as part of an “axis of evil” and under his watch Pyongyang tested its first nuclear device.
But Bush, like Bill Clinton before him, tried late in his term to seal a historic far-reaching agreement with North Korea.

Some US conservatives criticized the Bush outreach and have called for an entirely new approach. Representative Ed Royce, the Republican chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, has called on the United States to avoid any future deals with North Korea and instead aim at toppling the regime.

Arab News

Historically speaking, the Super Powers have always remained under immense nuclear threats than any other nuclear or non-nuclear state. During the Cold War era in a bipolar world, the Super Powers as well as their allies were very prone to nuclear catastrophe.

The world was once really on the brink of nuclear warfare when both the Super Powers (United States and the Soviet Union) indulged in very ambiguous moves like that of the Cuban Missile Crisis- also well known as the October Crisis of 1962. The Soviet’s Cuban Missile deployment provoked the US side to seek a counter retaliation option. Such steps were very first occurrence of the threat of mutual assured destruction (MAD) in the international realm which could easily lead to the failure of deterrence and consequently a nuclear warfare due to miscalculations and mis-perception.

But thanks to the maintenance of balance of terror that both Super Powers realized the importance of creating a Hot Line amongst heads of states to prevent any ambiguity and misconception that could lead to an accidental nuclear warfare. In the aftermath, Confidence Building Measure (CBMs) were taken to end the 14 days long October Crisis and ultimately, the Kennedy administration also ordered the removal of PGM-19 Jupiter ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads deployed in Turkey and Italy.

Applying the aforementioned discussion in India-Pakistan relations, the South Asian region’s nuclear threshold had also escalated in the reaction of 13th December 2001 attacks on the Indian Parliament. The attack was perceived as a sole threat to the very Indian sovereignty. India blamed Pakistan for sponsoring the terrorist attacks and consequently, in the month of December 2001, both India and Pakistan moved their ballistic missiles with 500,000 and 300,000 troops respectively along with the Line of Control (LOC). That was a major military standoff in the prolonged hostile history of both belligerent countries as both states had already tested their nuclear devices in 1998.

The Indian leadership asked its armed forces to prepare to wage a “decisive battle” against the enemy. The Pakistani President General Pervaiz Musharaf also threatened the Indian side for using all strategic means and Pakistan could launch a nuclear strike on India within eight-seconds even if a single Indian soldier dared to cross the LOC. There was a possibility of an outbreak of a nuclear warfare thus, the global policeman-the US intervened and the President Bill Clinton declared the South Asian region a Nuclear Flashpoint. The avoidance of nuclear war only became possible due to the maintenance of deterrence and pressure from the international community on both the states.

The Sole Superpowers of the World has once again reached on a level of threshold of nuclear confrontation with a newly nuclearized nation led by a young leader Kim Jong-un. Both states have not enjoyed much benign relations. The US and the North Korean relationship further started deteriorating due to the North’s nuclear tests in 2006, 2009 and particularly in February 2013 when the United Nations put stricter sanctions for its nuclear tests. And the US proclaims for isolating the North Korean State in international arena due to the ongoing confrontation. Both the states do not have a good history of benign relations as Sweden works as a protecting power which serves the US interests in the North Korea because both the states also do not have any diplomatic relations.

The North Korea has accused the US of deliberately pushing it towards a situation of nuclear warfare. Smaller or bigger, but all the nuclear weapon states know very well that they have to maintain a certain level of minimum credible nuclear deterrence to avoid any Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD).
The deterrence is a key to nuclear diplomacy where states always have to seek a variety of ways to maintain the balance of terror on either side.

The young leader very clearly conveyed a threat for launching a pre-emptive strike against the US; a doctrine that was set by the Bush administration “to destroy any threat before it destroys you.” The North Korean leadership has made it clear to the West that nuclear weapons "can never be abandoned as long as imperialists and nuclear weapons exist on Earth”, and has ordered its forces to be on standby for a “merciless nuclear attack” on aggressor- the U.S. mainland, its military bases in the Pacific region including Hawaii and Guam, and those in South Korea.” The US has also started its one of the most sophisticated anti- missile defence system of Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) in Guam in order to destroy and retaliate immediately according to the situation.

Believing the fact, the nuclear weapons are not weapons of fighting wars but those are to prevent wars. And achieving a certain position is much easier task than keeping it intact for a long time. And for the US policy makers most fundamental task is to keep maintain that position rather than letting the enemy know about its weaknesses if in case the deterrence fails. To avoid committing any blunder like invading Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq because in the aftermath, all states whether weaker or stronger have become familiar with the tactics how to engage a powerful state in a guerilla warfare.

The US is passing through a critical juncture in its history because it also remains under an immense menace for acquiring of nuclear capability by non-state actors more specially Al-Qaeda, Which means there would be no option for a second strike if the non-state actors after acquiring the strategic nuclear technology can launch a nuclear attack from anywhere using any state’s soil while speaking about nuclear ambitious state Iran that is far more different than the Soviet Union, North Korea and that of India. There is only one sided threat from the US to Iran for launching a pre-emptive strike on its nuclear program sites.

The author is Research Fellow in Strategic Vision Institute Islamabad

http://www.thefrontierpost.com/category/40/