7/30/2019 Shireen Mazari (3)

1/3

http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintWriterName.aspx?URL=Shireen+M+MazariHow many times will we be duped?

Shireen M Mazari

Wednesday, August 19, 2009From Print Edition

New 0 0 0

Holbrooke's latest foray into Pakistan and the glib statements that have come forthreflect an American assumption of Pakistani gullibility. To some extent they arecertainly correct, at least in terms of Pakistani officialdom which continuously seeksto place Pakistan at the alter of US subjugation Just look at a few recent events torealise the dangerous kowtowing by Pakistani decision-makers before the US.Incidentally, if mere size of embassies reflects friendship and good intentionstowards a nation (rather than a subservient government) then one should haveassumed the Soviets had nothing but love for the people of East Germany! But weknow what a few thousand US marines will do here, especially in terms of our

nuclear assets, especially when we see the wider picture in the context of theISAF/NATO base that our leadership has apparently agreed to provide in Pakistan.

We have also had the Pakistani leadership jumping with joy over the apparent US intent tohelp us overcome our energy crisis which some sober analysts have pointed out as beingpartially self-created as a result of bad policies (KESC), vested interests and non-payment tothe IPPs. So what has Holbrooke committed to? Nothing on civil nuclear energy similar to the123 Agreement with India despite the fact that our official energy need projection by 2030,put out by the Planning Commission was over 1,62,000 MWs. Out of this 8,800 MW was to beacquired through nuclear energy, so if the US was serious about helping this nation on thestrategic energy issue, there should have been some civil nuclear deal forthcoming. Instead,all we have seen so far is the demand that we renege on the Iran Pipeline in case we wanted

US energy cooperation. We are being asked to give up something already in hand for a vaguepromise for the future. The arrogance of the blackmail is what stands out, because we are

being told that if we withdraw from the IPI project, only then will the US move towards gettingus the funds promised but not delivered by the so-called Friends of Democratic Pakistan.

Earlier, we were temporarily duped into moving away from our principled position on theFissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT) in the Conference on Disarmament (CD) in Geneva.However, due to a timely awakening from some strategic quarters, the temporary lapse wasrectified. The final shape of an FMCT is absolutely critical for the future sustained credibility ofour nuclear deterrence and therefore this is an issue over which we cannot affordcompromises of the kind we were compelled to make in the IAEA last year on the Indo-USnuclear deal's safeguards' issue.

Nor is our position untenable because it subscribes to the international consensus that wasestablished on how to proceed on the FMCT through the Shannon Mandate. Given how theinternational media incorrectly hurled accusations against Pakistan for seeking to wreck the

FMCT negotiations when all we were doing was reasserting our position, it is important tounderstand the whole issue and the US efforts to derail the international FMCT consensus thatbegan a few years earlier. The most unfortunate part is that some of our media also put forththe distorted perspective without even bothering to verify the facts and the MFA put forward arather pathetically fearful and nonsensical contradiction. Such is the state of servility to theUS!

So what is the real FMCT issue? The arrangements agreed to in terms of the content of afissile material treaty were embodied in the Shannon Report of March 1995. The parameterslaid out for a future FMCT and the mandate provided to the Ad Hoc Committee for this purpose

http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintWriterName.aspx?ID=9&URL=Shireen%20M%20Mazarihttp://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintWriterName.aspx?ID=9&URL=Shireen%20M%20Mazari

7/30/2019 Shireen Mazari (3)

2/3

were reflective of Resolution 48/75L of the UN General Assembly and so the Committee wasdirected to negotiate a "non-discriminatory, multilateral and internationally verifiable treaty"while the issue of existing stockpiles and Prevention of a Race in Outer Space (PAROS) was tobe part of the discussions within the Committee as it evolved an acceptable FMCT.

Under Bush Junior the US sought to fast track its own version of the FMCT. The problem aroseonce again as a result of US efforts to alter the agreed-upon CD parameters regarding the

FMCT by insisting on an in-built discriminatory principle

that of excluding the issue ofreductions and eventual destruction of existing stockpiles of fissile materials within the FMCT.Nor was the US prepared to include international verification procedures something that isan intrinsic part of the Chemical Weapons Convention and of the CTBT (still-born, thanks to

the US Congressional rejection). As for PAROS a major issue for countries like China theUS seemed at best disinterested and at worse actively opposed to the notion, given its effortsto develop Missile Defence which has a space based component.

The US sought to bully the international community by threatening to make the CD redundantif it failed to fast track the US FMCT draft. The draft itself was introduced before the CD in May

2006 in a most arrogant fashion, so reflective of the Bush Administration, in which it wasmade clear that the "challenge to effective multilateralism" was for international bodies likethe CD to accept "US priorities" and focus on these issues which were important to "USsecurity" or else the US would bypass these legitimate organisations and opt for the

"coalitions of the willing" model. So, effectively, the US was holding the CD hostage to itsdemands even though these were in direct contravention to an international consensusalready arrived at on the FMCT negotiations.

Following this arrogant approach, the March 2007 CD Presidential Draft Decision tried to offera poor sop to member states by suggesting the formulation of four coordinators to discussseparately the previously linked issues of disarmament, PAROS, negative security assurancesand an internationally verifiable FMCT. While the Coordinator for the FMCT was given amandate for negotiating, "without any preconditions", an FMCT with no mention ofinternational verification provisions the other Coordinators were merely to preside over"substantive discussions" on the remaining issues! So once again the rest of the world wasbeing duped by the US and its allies.

For Pakistan the form of a FMCT is crucial on two counts: First, if there are no provisions for

reductions in existing stockpiles of fissile material, it will be at a permanent disadvantage interms of its nuclear deterrence vis a vis India especially in the wake of the Indo-US nucleardeal with its not-so-hidden military fallout. Second, without international verificationprovisions who will ensure the provisions of the FMCT are indeed being enforced? Can Pakistanforget how India deceived Pakistan on the issue of chemical weapons in a bilateral agreementwhen it declared it had no such weapons; and only when it became a party to theinternationally verifiable multilateral Chemical Weapons Convention it had to admit topossessing these weapons which were subsequently destroyed! So Pakistan cannot afford tocompromise on the verification issue at all even if it has to go it alone.

So why did our diplomat in the CD have momentary lapse? One, because the ObamaAdministration gave out that it may accept a verification clause so our officialdom was dupedagain. Unfortunately, that was merely a statement and nothing was altered in the delinkedmanner in which the four groups were to work on the FMCT; nor was verifications included in

the US FMCT draft. Two, and more critical, our man in Geneva was probably remembering howabsurd our man at the IAEA was made to look last year when he had to do a complete volteface on the India Safeguards issue, within two days, totally reneging on our principled positionas a result of US pressure.

This time round, a timely awakening in some quarters compelled Ambassador Akram to revertto our original position on the FMCT which then led to the western states' outbursts. But thereality is that we are insisting on sticking to the international consensus reflected in theShannon Mandate while the US and its allies were seeking to circumvent this. Not only are we

7/30/2019 Shireen Mazari (3)

3/3

politically correct in our position, we cannot afford to compromise on the FMCT as a result ofUS duping of the Pakistani ruling elite once again.