بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Question and Answer

Pakistan’s Request to Join the Nuclear Suppliers Group

Question:

The Pakistani Foreign Ministry announced “it has made a formal application to join a club of nuclear trading nations, a move likely to lead to a showdown in the group which has also been facing calls to induct India as a member. (Reuters, 20/05/2016) America objected to the request of Pakistan, which was preceded by the objection from China on several invitations to include India, but America did not object to India’s request… As for China’s objection to accept India, it is understood, but America’s objection to Pakistan’s but not India’s request is questionable, because the regime in India and that in Pakistan are now loyal to America, so how can we explain this double standard in treatment? Also what is the nature of work of this group? I hope you can clarify this issue, and may Allah reward you with goodness.

---

Answer:

We will review these issues as follows:

First, how Kaffir colonial states deal with their agents varies depending on the country of the agent, and the different objective of the treatment is as follows:

1- The different treatment depends on the agent’s country, it depends on the fact that those agent rulers are ruling Muslim countries or ruling non-Muslim countries, because those countries look to the rulers in Muslim countries as rulers that will not last, when entering into any agreement with these rulers, they enter with the view that it will end sooner or later when these rulers are changed, and that Muslims do not accept an agreement with any kaffir colonial, except by pressure and coercion, this does not last. Although the systems in India and in Pakistan are currently pro-America, but America does not forget that people in Pakistan are Muslims who do not accept the American influence … and most of the people in India are Kuffar polytheists, and the religion of the disbelief is one, and so America’s dealings with the system in India is different from those with the regime in Pakistan.

2- Despite the fact that the regime in India is pro-America, as is the regime in Pakistan too, but the American goal for both countries is different, the goal for India is to form the spearhead in the face of China. As for Pakistan’s goal is to stand in the face of Pakistani and Afghan resistance that is anti-America. In other words the aim of arming India is to weaken China, and the aim of arming Pakistan is to weaken the resistance.

3- For these two reasons, the United States supports the regime in India with nuclear power and sophisticated weapons to stand up to China, but they do not support the regime in Pakistan to develop nuclear weapons, but if it supports Pakistan, it will be by traditional light and heavy weapons to stand in the face of resistance.

Secondly: to refrain from making general statements, we will show how the United States dealt with India and Pakistan, since each of them has become a nuclear state:

1- Pakistan’s competition with India peaked in the wars of 1965 and 1971. That was accompanied by India’s efforts to establish its nuclear program, which threatens the security of Pakistan. This prompted Pakistan to start building a secret nuclear program to serve the military purposes. This move was revealed for the first time by the Pakistani Foreign Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, when he stated: “If India builds a nuclear bomb, then we eat grass and die of hunger, we will regress one thousand years back, but we’re going to have one of our own, Christians possess a nuclear bomb, and the Jews have a nuclear bomb, and now Hindus possess a nuclear bomb, why can’t Muslims have the bomb, too?” (Yasin, Rahil (16 January 2009). “War Clouds Hovering Over South Asia” Weekly Blitz (Dhaka)), Pakistan has established an Institute for Nuclear Research, known as PAEC. Pakistan’s quest for nuclear energy was peaceful. In 1965, the first research reactor began its operations, and in 1972, was the opening of the first nuclear power plant of natural uranium, and heavy water plant (Karachi nuclear power plant), they were placed under the complete supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Pakistan’s efforts continued to proceed ordinary in this field until the Indian nuclear explosion in 1974 then the feelings of Muslims in Pakistan exploded which affected the acceleration of Pakistan’s efforts to build its nuclear facilities and get or “produce nuclear fuel,” where it managed to do so by the year 1987.

Given the Indian numerical superiority in conventional weapons, Pakistan had to adopt the policy of use of nuclear weapons to stop the entry of military units inside Pakistani territory. Moreover, Pakistan has embarked on building an ambitious program for a range of ballistic missile (Ghauri, Shaheen, M-11, Tarmuk … etc) that can carry nuclear warheads. (http://www.atomicarchive.com/Reports/India/Missiles.html)

Thus, Pakistan pushed hard during the Cold War and after to expand its nuclear program, to include in addition to the production of nuclear warheads, the production of ballistic missiles systems, and aircraft modification to be capable of carrying nuclear warheads.

2- America during the Cold War and after has supported India’s quest to build its nuclear program, it has supplied it with the heavy water research reactor (CIRUS) to obtain plutonium for the Indian nuclear bombing in 1974. The American attitude was cold after the bombing, when Washington decided to renegotiate a 30-year contract, to provide enriched uranium for the nuclear power plant in Tarapur (outside Bombay).

This negotiating of the contract with the United States gave India a unique opportunity to expand its nuclear capabilities and defensive prospects, and the liberation of nuclear fissile materials, and the development of anti-ballistic missile shields, and submarines to launch missiles loaded with nuclear warheads, which gives India a clear advantage … India has also embarked on the path of war parallel to manufacturing missiles (Agni, Prithvi, etc.) and to develop its military infrastructure. (http://www.atomicarchive.com/Reports/India/Missiles.shtml)

3-Thus India and Pakistan became nuclear states, and with the victory of the pro-America BJP party in April 1998 elections, the atmosphere suddenly changed, and the BJP party carried out five nuclear tests, followed by six nuclear explosions on the Pakistani side, the pro American regime too. The reaction of the Clinton administration was to impose sanctions on the two countries near the end of his term, and it shows the American implicit recognition of the nuclear powers in the Indian sub-continent.

4-Under the Bush administration, America’s relationship with Pakistan and with India changed significantly, America has recognized the tremendous potential of India; it became a candidate to serve as a bulwark against China and have a strategic partnership with it. At the same time, America awarded Pakistan with the “main ally” status outside NATO; it had demanded Pakistan to fight “terrorism” on its behalf in the tribal areas. This policy became known as the (the de-hyphenation of relations) i.e. America adopted a policy towards India, and another towards Pakistan as described above.

5-Based on this American policy: that India becomes America’s front-line against China and Pakistan becomes America’s front-line against the resistance … and because most of the people in Pakistan are Muslims, and people in India are Kuffar polytheists … this is why America did the following:

a- It supplied Pakistan with conventional weapons to fight the resistance, and not with nuclear support… even the economic and military aid to Pakistan, which increased under the Reagan administration was a way to curb the Pakistani nuclear program. The US Undersecretary of State Department Security Aspects of Science and Technology, James Buckley, spoke briefly saying: “rather than carrying out the effective sanctions on Pakistan’s nuclear program imposed by the previous administration, we hope to address through traditional means, to reassure the concerns of a country like Pakistan, so it does not consider building a nuclear capability in the first place.” (Quoted in Akhtar Ali, Pakistan’s Nuclear Dilemma: Energy and Security Dimensions (Karachi: economic Research Unit, 1984), p. 10), and by conventional means it implies economic and military assistance. This American policy of nuclear non-support but of urging it not to develop Pakistan’s nuclear program (… the US President Barack Obama urged Pakistan in October to avoid the development of its weapons program. (Reuters, 20/5/2016)

The United States has repeatedly refused to hold a nuclear deal with Pakistan and refused its entry into the NSG … this objection to Pakistan’s entry into the NSG, so that America forces Islamabad on the cultivation of tactical nuclear weapons through the use of locally produced plutonium. This is because the ratio of plutonium to weight ratio makes it suitable to reduce nuclear warheads. (http://www.dawn.com/news/1248033)

B- However it supports India with conventional and nuclear weapons as well, and to show that we will review some of the events of this support:

-In January 2004, former President Bush and Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee announced a strategic partnership agreement (NSSP), which requires the cooperation of both countries in four controversial areas: civilian nuclear energy, and civil space program, and trade in advanced technology, and missile defense. In 2005-2006, New Delhi got a promise from America of free accessibility to the nuclear fuel for its nuclear energy program on weapons, without being committed to any agreement, such as the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), the FMCT Treaty, and without any restrictions on its missile program. In 2007, India achieved the Agreement123, which allows India and America the peaceful cooperation in nuclear matters. And nuclear deals allow India to enrich uranium domestically for its nuclear program, and this constitutes a flagrant violation of the US commitment to the NPT, which states that it is not to allowed “by any means to help, encourage or urge the manufacture of a nuclear weapon to any country except for states allowed to obtain nuclear weapons.” (See SIPRI, The NPT: The Main Political Barrier to Nuclear Weapon Proliferation (London: Taylor and Francis, 1980), Appendix A, p.43)

The Middle East Newspaper published on its website on 07/05/2016, that the Indian Prime Minister Modi has entered “in a large military agreement with the United States, after 14 years of rejection by Indian successive governments to sign, the agreement authorizes the armies of India and the US to use military bases for both countries in the implementation of reform and renewal of cooperation and joint maritime operations, it is also under the agreement allow the cooperation of naval forces of both countries in anti-submarine warfare, a field of technology and sensitive military tactics that the United States does not share except with its traditional allies. The United States has the largest fleet of submarines in the world, while China excels in the submarine fleet than its Indian counterpart …” and submarines are important to strike back in a nuclear war because of the inability to monitor it by radar. India has recently managed through the facilities of the agreement to carry out a successful ballistic missile test from a submarine called Ariana, and this provoked China and Pakistan, which indicates that India progressed in the achievement of its ability to strike back. (http://missilethreat.com/china-concerned -about-indian-submarine-missile/)

– There has been attempts to bring India to the suppliers group with support from the United States but China objected … The goal of America from the call to bring India to the NSG that this annexation will provide India the needed nuclear material for exceeding the number of nuclear warheads of China (http://www.icanw.org/the-facts/nuclear-arsenals).

Third: The reality of the NSG is as follows:

-This group was formed in the wake of the Indian bombing in May 1974, and the first meeting was in November 1975. It started with seven countries (Canada, West Germany, France, Japan, Soviet Union, United Kingdom, United States), and by 1976-1977 it had 15 members, then increased until now it has 48 members … but the actual influence is controlled by the major nuclear powers in particular the United States of America.

2- This group aims to control the spread of nuclear weapons by controlling the export and re-transfer of materials that could be used to develop nuclear weapons, and to improve safety measures and protection of existing nuclear materials. This group decides which countries are allowed to buy nuclear materials and technologies and the countries that are prohibited to deal with.

3- Controlling the joining this group is not spared from the impact of the major nuclear powers, especially America, according to their interests … As well as the Nuclear Suppliers Group can not constitute a set of policies to be more effective to deal with nuclear proliferation, and control of exports of materials by countries, can not happen without major nuclear powers control led by the United States through export controls and in particular the ranks of dual-use items. This is the area of the exploitation of the interests of the major powers, especially America, by allowing and prohibiting with the pretext of dual-use. …

Therefore, although joining the Nuclear Suppliers Group facilitates access to nuclear materials and accessories which helps in the speed of production and development, etc. but this must be accompanied by awareness and understanding of the schemes of those governing nations, so that joining becomes the way for the joining country to develop its nuclear program and not to be exploited by those countries.

4 Ramadan 1437 AH

9/6/2016 CE