Dialogues with Decision Makers in Islamabad, Pakistan

From 08.-11. of January I had the chance to join 4 IPPNW Dialogues with Decisionmaker - meetings in Islamabad, Pakistan.

Dr. Ali Afridi and Dr. Tipu Sultan from the Pakistanian Doctors for Peace and Development had arranged meetings with 3 high ranking politicians and with nuclear Physicist Prof. Pervez Hoodbhoy. We were welcomed warmly and with interest by each dialogue partner. Every meeting took about 90 to 120 minutes. IPPNW was represented through Dr. Sultan, Dr. Afridi, John Loretz (IPPNW Program director), and me.

All the Pakistanian politicians shared our wish for a world free of nuclear weapons but only Physicist Pervez Hoodbhoy agreed with us that Pakistan should start disarming now. Besides the fear that Pakistan would be „swallowed“ by India if it gave up it’s nuclear weapons, the central argument why Pakistan could not disarm at this point was:

„Disarmament has to be multilateral. This is impossible as long as the UN Security Council is as discriminatory as it is today“ or „We are for multilateral negotiations. The security concerns of each country must be considered honestly and without double-standards“

Nuclear Weapon States do not live up to their disarmament obligations and claim to need Nuclear Weapons for national security. At the same time they do not permit Pakistan to have Nuclear Weapons, for security reasons. A politician at the foreign ministry asked us why we were pointing at Pakistans nuclear weapons when there are alliances in the world which give non – nuclear weapon states access to nuclear weapons. Obviously he was referring to the NATO system of nuclear sharing which violates NPT articles I and II by stationing nuclear weapons in Europe. These arguments were brought up repeatedly in each of the meetings and although I always had considered them to be  most important , I was surprised that it was confirmed so clearly: The failure of disarmament by the official nuclear weapon states renders demands for the disarmament of others futile. The other main argument was the fear of India. For me it was hard to judge if this fear is justified. But what I found characteristic in their argumentation was the claim that peaceful relations have to be established in the first place BEFORE disarmament can begin. This led me to the question if peaceful relations can be established during an on going arms –race.

In preparation of  the meetings I had read about Pakistans purchase of nuclear weapon – capable aircrafts in November 2006 (F16 and F17) from  for about 5 Billion USD. Therefore I wasn’t surprised to hear from Prof.Hoodbhoy that the armsrace was indeed going on at a high level, being recently enlivened by the US – Indo Nuclear deal.

Contrary to that the politicians said that Pakistan was not increasing its nuclear force but only maintaining a minimal deterrent. They said the purchase of the aircrafts had been decided some time ago (November 2006 !) and would not necessarily reflect todays policy anymore.

 A member of the senate emphasized that the situation between India and Pakistan was not at all comparable to the Cold War because there were no ambitions for global dominance. In the foreign ministry we were told that India has global ambitions but not Pakistan. Pakistan would only need its minimum deterrent for national „Security and Survival“. Unfortunately I did not get an answer to my question on how the number of nuclear weapons needed for minimal deterrence is determined.

We raised the question if Pakistan actually could afford Nuclear Weapons, considering the poor health indicators of the country. (< 5 y. Child mortality 100/1000) For example the purchase of fighter aircrafts from last November has cost Pakistan 5.5 Billion USD, about 16 times the amount that Pakistan spends on health in a whole year. The answer we got was that the military is irreplaceably necessary for the survival of the country.

There was strong disagreement on IPPNWs point of view that Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear Energy are intractable linked to each other. The politicians said that economic growth requires nuclear energy and claimed that it is possible to separate the energy from the weapon sector. There was no understanding why India gets supplied with Nuclear technology by the US while Pakistan shall not enlarge its civil nuclear sector. The Indo – Nuclear deal of 2005  provides India not only with sensitive equipment but also permits them to keep some power plants out of the safeguard system which opens the possibility to become a nuclear weapon world-power, comparable to China, in the near future.

This of course increases Pakistans perception of being threatened and creates a feeling of unfairness. Pakistan has the perception that it is a strategic partner for the US in the war on terror. An example is President Musharrafs book: “In the line of fire” in which he describes the heroic bounty hunt that he organized to deliver as many terror- suspicious individuals as possible to the US. Hence it is understandable that the Indo – US Deal creates tensions in the region and presumably enhances the arms race on the sub –continent. It not only makes India  a potential nuclear world power but also instructs them to assure “contingency” of Pakistans nuclear weapons in case of regime change.

These were the main points that we discussed with the politicians. Before reporting from the meeting with Prof. Hoodbhoy, here is one methodical observations that I made during the dialogues. I asked a couple of hypothetical questions, like: If India disarms, will Pakistan follow ? What will the nuclear weapon status of the world be in 100 years? The politicians reacted surprised, it took them time and stumbling to answer and they were unable to give a concrete answer. They either said that the question was too hypothetical to answer or, when estimating the status of worldwide nuclear armament in 100 years, they spoke about the technical possibilities of different countries to develop nuclear weapons. This could be evidence that they never thought about such questions before, never imagined a situation in which Pakistan could actually disarm its nuclear weapons. But what I find most frightening is the equation of the POTENTIAL of countries to develop nuclear weapons with the actual DEVELOPMENT of nuclear weapons without looking at motivations. Following this logic it is comprehensible that Pakistan increases its nuclear forces.

The meeting with Prof. of Physics Pervez Hoodbhoy was very interesting, he has worked against Nuclear Weapons for a long time and is socially engaged in Pakistan. He told us that about 30 - 40 % of the economy in Pakistan is owned by the army,  (the 7th largest army in the world) including bakeries, gas stations etc. In this light, our theory that the army creates tension and fear to assure its own existence was consolidated. If the conflict with India was solved and everybody was feeling safe, what should the 1 Million army people do ? Give up  40% of the national economy? Prof Hoodbhoy provided us with materials on the US-Indo deal and with movies on the Kashmere Conflict and the Pakistanian and Indian Nuclear Weapon program. He had given a talk on the US – Indo Deal the night before our meeting in a school of military officers. Interesting to imagine how their reactions were !

During the meeting I wished that we had had him with us when meeting the politicians because he knew much background information on the NW program and the question of civil energy. Dr Sultan invited him as a speaker to the IPPNW World Congress 2008 in Delhi.

I hope that then we will have a bigger delegation, including Indian doctors, to build up on the experiences and good contacts we made this time, and do dialogues in Pakistan again before the world congress 2008.

Inga Blum