Musharraf made the move, which has sparked opposition in Pakistan, under intense pressure from Washington. The U.S. armed forces have stationed 10,600 troops in neighboring Afghanistan as part of their expanding presence in south Asia and the Middle East. U.S. Special Forces carry their hunt for “terrorists” into Pakistan itself with Musharraf’s blessing, targeting supporters of al Qaeda and the former Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

Tightening the vice on Musharraf, Washington has also moved to strengthen military and economic ties with India, Islamabad’s longtime adversary.

Despite repeated denials that his government had any knowledge of the alleged weapons trade, Musharraf and other officials face accusations within Pakistan of scapegoating the scientists to deflect probes into the role of the administration and top officers in the trade.

One of the detained men is Gen. Mirza Aslam Beg, the commander of the Pakistani army from 1988 to 1991. He told the New York Times that in 1991 he had considered a proposal to share nuclear secrets with Iran but had not gone ahead with it. He added that at the time he had advocated the adoption of a doctrine of “strategic defiance.” This was an alliance between Islamabad, Tehran, and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. All three governments styled themselves as “Islamic” at the time.

In an attempt to distance his government from the alleged weapons trade, Musharraf stated January 25 that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is “in extremely safe hands. We have ensured rings of security measures around that, especially since I took over in 1999.” That was the year of the military coup that brought Musharraf to power.

“We are carrying out an in-depth investigation and…will sort out everyone who is involved,” said the military ruler.

On January 31 the military brass stated that the “investigation was nearly concluded and appropriate action will be taken against those found guilty.”

So far the probe has led to the jailing of eight scientists and three retired military officers, according to the Los Angeles Times, which reported a January 25 court hearing on the detentions. One of the scientists, Mohammed Farouk, had been held without charges for two months.

Lawyers acting for the prisoners’ families pointed out that authorities are legally barred from holding someone for more than 24 hours without a magistrate’s approval.

The government representative told the judge that those responsible for leaking military secrets “have scandalized the country…they have sold the country.” The previous day Musharraf told a television interviewer, “We will be very harsh with them because they are enemies of the state and they have done something for personal and financial gain.”

One of the scientists under the spotlight is Abdul Qadeer Khan, known as the father of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program. On February 1 a senior government official announced that Khan had signed a confession stating that he and “four others have accepted that they were involved in leaking nuclear know-how outside Pakistan to groups working for Iran, Libya, and north Korea.”

According to the New York Times, an unnamed official of the U.S. government responded, “This is the break we have been waiting for.”

A day before the announcement Khan had been sacked from his position as the prime minister’s scientific adviser.

Citing U.S. officials, the Times claimed January 4 that Pakistan “has emerged as the intellectual and trading hub of a loose network of hidden nuclear proliferators.”

It said that Khan had copied German and Dutch designs for centrifuges that are used in the manufacture of weapons-grade uranium. Having used the technology to manufacture a successful nuclear bomb, the Pakistani scientists provided versions of it to willing customers, the Times stated. Among the latter were allegedly China—which had assisted the Pakistani program—Iran, Libya, and north Korea. Pyongyang supposedly offered missile parts and designs in exchange.

The world is watching a “terrifying race,” claimed the Times in alarmist tones—one that “pits scientists, middlemen and extremists against Western powers trying to intercept, shipload by shipload, the technology as it spreads through the clandestine network.”

The article noted approvingly that since early 2003 the naval forces of “Germany, Italy, Taiwan and Japan have executed seizures” of ships accused of engaging in the trade under a program initiated by the Bush administration—the Proliferation Security Initiative.

U.S. officials have continued to depict Musharraf as an ally. “He’s been a stand-up guy when it comes to dealing with the terrorists,” said U.S. president George Bush January 1, referring to Islamabad’s cooperation with the assault on Afghanistan and with the U.S. military offensive more broadly in the region.

Musharraf’s decision to side with the U.S.-led “war on terrorism” has cost him political support inside the country, sparking protests and two recent assassination attempts that he blames on al Qaeda.

His stand is unpopular among high-up military and political leaders who built alliances with the Taliban and al Qaeda forces that operate camps and schools within Pakistan, near its border with Afghanistan.

Musharraf has denied a report in the Chicago Tribune that he has given the green light to a coming U.S. military offensive inside Pakistan and in the border region that would involve thousands of troops.

Tribune reporter Christine Spolar said that the projected operation has been dubbed the “spring offensive” inside the Pentagon. “As now envisioned,” she wrote, “the offensive would involve Special Operations forces, Army Rangers, and Army ground troops…. A Navy aircraft carrier would be deployed in the Arabian Sea.

“Such an operation almost certainly would demand the cooperation of Musharraf, who previously has allowed only a small number of U.S. Special Operations forces to work alongside Pakistani troops in the semi-autonomous tribal areas,” Spolar said.

A Pakistan armed forces spokesman told Reuters January 28, “No foreign forces will operate from Pakistan’s territory.”  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home