By Duyeon Kim Published by The Nautilus Institute on November 22, 2011 found here. This paper was originally published by the Korea Economic Institute on September 28 2011 and is available here. ——————– CONTENTS I. Introduction II. Report by Duyeon Kim III. References I. Introduction Duyeon Kim, Deputy Director of Non-Proliferation at the Center for […]
Securing insecurity
A joint report on Pakistan by the Atlantic Magazine and the National Journal highlights some important issues in U.S.-Pakistani relations with regards to nuclear weapons. It also offers insight into the geopolitical situation that plagues the region as a whole, such as the conflict in Afghanistan, the rivalry between India and Pakistan, and Iran’s regional and nuclear ambitions. The main aim of the U.S. should be to ensure the security of nuclear weapons and vulnerable nuclear weapons material in the region even though this entails looking at a broader range of issues than the threat posed by terrorism.
In the report, Graham Allison, an expert on nuclear weapons from the Belfer Center at Harvard, argues that there are three big threats with regards to Pakistan and nuclear weapons:
1. A terrorist theft of nuclear weapons (a nuclear 9/11 or Mumbai).
- The transfer of nuclear weapons to a state like Iran.
- The takeover of a nuclear weapon by a military group during a period of state instability.
The American ambition in Pakistan clearly focuses on the elimination of al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Yet it appears as though many in Pakistan fear the U.S. more than al-Qaeda. They seem willing to take inadequate security measures (thereby making their nukes more available to terrorists) in order to more easily hide them from the U.S. Pakistanis furthermore seem to resent what they view as a patronizing U.S. attitude toward Islamabad. This was evident when Secretary Clinton visited the country in October 2011 and was told that the U.S. is like a hard-to-please mother in law.
The relationship between the U.S. and Pakistan is a complex one, riddled with paradoxes, mistrust and suspicion. On the one hand, Pakistan relies on the U.S. for aid. On the other hand, many Pakistanis in high places consider America to be their enemy, especially in light of strong U.S. support for India’s regional ambitions. Similarly, the U.S. needs Pakistan to help in Afghanistan as well as for sharing information on al-Qaeda, yet we know that Pakistan only selectively shares information and that they support certain terrorist organisations.
Where do we go from here?
Perhaps most importantly, a regional focus needs to be applied. The problem of securing vulnerable nuclear materials in Pakistan cannot and should not be viewed in isolation from other security issues in the region, particularly Pakistan’s strategic competition with India. We need to be mindful of the roots of Pakistani insecurity and the underlying problem of Pakistan’s inferiority complex with regards to New Delhi.
As Henry Kissinger phrased it at a Wilson Center event on November 1:
“The problem of Pakistan seems to me a much more long term issue, namely how they can find a national identity not based primarily on fear of India.”
This observation ties into the fear of nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands. One of the terrorist organisations supported by officials in Pakistan is Lashkar-e-Taiba, the group responsible for the 2008 Mumbai attacks.
In a similar vein to what the report in the Atlantic Magazine argued, a functioning U.S. relationship with Pakistan remains vital, though we should not pretend that the two sides share similar goals.
As Georgetown Professor C. Christine Far recently told Congress, “Washington has no choice but to acknowledge that U.S. and Pakistan interests and allies are fundamentally incompatible while also understanding the essential need to stay engaged in spite of this fact.”
We should not be blinded by the elimination of al-Qaeda and the Taliban as our only goal. Instead, making sure that vulnerable nuclear material in Pakistan remains safe should also be an urgent priority.
Key Amendments in the Senate to the Fiscal Year 2012 Defense Authorization Bill
Before the Senate retired for Thanksgiving, Senators submitted over 275 amendments to the defense bill, only a very few of which have been considered. When the Senate returns on November 28, it will resume consideration of the bill. Below is a list of the key amendments related to nuclear weapons policy, as prepared by Center Executive Director John Isaacs:
Iran sanctions: Kirk (R-IL), Manchin (D-WV), Blunt (R-MO), Tester (D-MT) and others amendment No. 1084 to require the President to impose sanctions on foreign institutions that conduct transactions with Iran’s central bank. Menendez (D-NJ) amendment No. 1292 is similar.
Nuclear weapons triad: Sessions (R-AL) amendment No. 1183 to require the maintenance of all three legs of the nuclear weapons triad, those on land, at sea and in the air. Hoeven (R-ND) , Tester (D-MT), Blunt (R-MO, Enzi (R-WY) and Vitter (R-LA) have a similar amendment No. 1279 supporting the triad and endorsing all three legs of the triad.
Missile defense on the East Coast: Sessions (R-AL) amendment No. 1185 to require a report on stationing missile defense on the East Coast.
Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs): Barrasso (R-WY), Enzi (R-WY), Conrad (D-ND), Baucus (D-MT) and Tester (D-MT) amendment No. 1307 requiring the U.S. to maintain all 450 ICBM’s in the force with the New START limit of 800 strategic launchers, including 420 on alert or operationally deployed status, with any reductions to be taken equally from the three ICBM bases.
Sharing missile defense information with Russia: Kirk (R-IL), Kyl (R-AZ), DeMint (R-SC) and Sessions (R-AL) amendment No. 1310 barring sharing classified missile defense technology with Russia.
Defense Authorization Bill to the Senate Floor
After a lot of moving and shaking over the past 48 hours, today the Senate will begin consideration of the FY 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (now S. 1867). The Senate was supposed to consider and hopefully complete action on the FY 2012…
Additional Cuts to the Fiscal Year 2012 Defense Authorization Bill
by Laicie Heeley On November 15, 2011, the Senate Armed Services Committee revised the fiscal year (FY) 2012 defense authorization bill to include $21 billion in additional cuts, as mandated by the Budget Control Act. The bill would continue to shift funding from the base budget to the war funding account, a controversial move also […]
