‘Someone’ Has Got Nothing to Do with Panama Papers

By:       Aasef Chauhdry

Whether somebody agrees or not but the fact remains that the Panama Papers leak has put Mian Nawaz Sharif on the back foot; as  the prime minister as well as an individual. It was beyond his farthest imagination that his family’s off-shore companies’ details would be revealed some day. Thanks to his aides and well-wishers and advisers who advised him only to land in further trouble. Then some real sincere suggested him to avoid the public’s demand and instead start touring the strongholds just to divert the attention from the opposition’s demand. Hence, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif decided to address people through public meetings for which he has already kicked off. The public contact campaign started from Kotli Sattiyan, Murree Hills two days back. During this political tour the development projects will also be inaugurated. It was followed by a rally in Mansehra today where he announced different projects also.

According to the analysts, the PM has decided to start the public contact campaign in the wake of increasing pressure from the opposition parties after the Panama leaks. In a related development, Pakhtunkhwa Milli Awami Party head Mehmood Khan Achakzai called on Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif at his office last week. According to reports, Panama leaks, formation of a judicial commission and other national issues came under discussion at the meeting. Although, Prime Minister Sharif announced in a televised address to the nation about writing a letter to the chief justice of Pakistan to constitute a judicial commission for an inquiry into the offshore companies owned by his family and the allegations of money laundering against his family members, however, the opposition has out rightly rejected the forming of any such commission, terming it as a total eye-wash and attention diverting tactics. The Opposition while rejecting the proposed commission alleged that they were not consulted on terms of reference of the commission.

As a PM Nawaz Sharif has a right to tour any part of the country that he is heading as a prime minster, however the timings and the contents of his speeches are raising a big question mark. The last time he visited Kotli Sattiyan was way back when he was Punjab’s chief minister and then during his earlier two tenure as the PM he never thought of visiting this place but now suddenly when there is a big hubbub about Panama Papers, he found it must to visit this forsaken place after 26 years. So would be the case with other places that he would be visiting and announcing projects and grants.

Those who know the PM well might view this latest assault into populism as not much more than an attempt to run interference in response to pressure from opposition parties which are currently champing at the bit in the hope of catching the prime minister or his family up to no good in the foreign property market, courtesy the Panama Papers and they are right to some extent. However, the prime minister playing it quite smartly called the public’s and opposition’s demand to answer the sources of wealth as the attempts of “destabilisation”.

During his address at Mansehra, Prime Minister Muhammad Nawaz Sharif vowed not to let ‘anyone’ sabotage the PML-N government’s agenda of people’s development, and warned his political opponents of the masses’ strong reaction. “I want to tell the leg pullers that if they will create hurdles in the way of Pakistan’s development, the masses will throw them out,” he said while addressing a large public gathering in Dhudhial. The Prime Minister asked his political opponents to fully ponder over before taking any steps, as the masses were not ready to tolerate any hurdle in the way of development. Now this was something worrisome because this was not the first time that he indirectly attacked his so-called unknown opponents. The print and electronic media has openly blamed Nawaz Sharif for alleging the army for what all is happening around him. So there is no mystery if one is seriously interested in identifying that ‘anyone’ or ‘someone’, who is haunting our worthy prime minister.

During both the public meetings, prime minister answered a set of rhetorical questions posed by himself as to the wonders performed by his government over the last three years and some of the crowd shouted “We love you Mr. Prime Minister”. Indeed they may, but when the road show has packed up and left town, mega projects are not going to camouflage the fact that there are hard questions to answer, and the opposition is in no mood to chew the cud in silence. The political analysts are fearing that Nawaz Sharif once again committing a mega blunder thus keeping his past tenures’ tradition up and alive by locking on horns with the establishment. Some are of the view that he is doing this deliberately and purposely while others consider it his ‘ego blunder’. Nevertheless, one thing is for sure that he will have to satisfy the nation about his off-shore companies and the money discreetly transferred abroad; an unpleasant task that he has to perform whether he likes it or not.

Blue Gold: The Probable Reason for Next Sub-continental Conflict?

The beauty of Indian propaganda is that whenever the Indian government is in a tight corner some nonissue is blown out of proportion and suddenly the issues disappear from the scene like everyone must have observed these days that there was a roar about the serving Indian naval officer’s apprehension by the Pakistani intelligence agencies and then there was a hullaballoo about water stealing by the Indians, nevertheless, suddenly all these sensitive issues are no more there. The Indian agencies, government and the media are whole heartedly spending their time and efforts on Mian Nawaz Sharif and his family’s cases. There is so  much to talk that it can’t be cover in just one write up but there is no harm in taking a less discussed topic and that’s the stealing water share of Pakistan by India.

Some connoisseurs believe the only recognized case of a “water war” happened about 4,500 years ago, when the city-states of Lagash and Umma went to war in the Tigris-Euphrates basin. However, Adel Darwish, a journalist and co-author of Water Wars: Coming Conflicts in the Middle East, says modern history has already seen at least two water wars and he quotes former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon confessing on record that the reason for going to war [against Arab armies] in 1967 was for water,” Yet another example is of Senegal and Mauritania also, who fought a war starting in 1989 over grazing rights on the River Senegal. And then Syria and Iraq too, have fought minor skirmishes over the Euphrates River. Mark Twain gave a famous quote that “whisky is for drinking; water is for fighting over”.

No one would have ever given a serious thought to it but unfortunately a series of reports from intelligence agencies and research groups indicate the prospect of a water war is becoming increasingly probable. The seasoned and mature forecasters from the world over are showing lost sleep for wars of the future, those will be fought over blue gold, as thirsty people, opportunistic politicians and powerful corporations, battle for diminishing resources. Nevertheless, here in the Subcontinent, the Indians are least pushed about the hovering conflict clouds and rapidly building dam after the dam. Out of 13 dams or hydroelectric projects, under construction in Indian occupied Kashmir, seven are on River Chenab; one is on Jhelum and one on the Indus.

An Indian environmental scientist Sunita Narain, soon after receiving her 2005 Stockholm Water Prize Award from King Carl Gustaf  XVI of Sweden in Stockholm said, “I am not here as a pessimist saying that India is doomed and that water wars are going to happen, and we are going to destroy ourselves. I am saying very clearly that if India continues on this route, yes there will be water wars…and we will become more and more crippled in our growth,” When Sunita said that, “Water wars are not inevitable. It lies in our hands and in our minds…,” (to obviate them) it was not just to receive a cash award and a crystal sculpture. In fact she said that as an assiduous director of the Centre for Science and Environment in New Delhi and as the publisher of a highly praised environmental magazine Down to Earth. If some political experts hold the view that the world’s future wars will be fought over water and not over oil, they are not wrong in saying so.

The only difference is that while most of the nations will fight to get water, some ill-fated nation like ours will continue to fight not to have water, as is being done these days. Deforestation in hilly areas, the urbanisation of flood plains, the sea level rise due to global warming, increased melting of snow and exceptional rainfall, are not phenomena exclusive to one or the other region. Rather, these are problems faced globally by every country. Water is the sole reason for which almost over 10,000 dams have or are being constructed in the US, and over 300 water storage facilities are being constructed in India and China.

The need to provide food and water has not been relegated to the back burner elsewhere; hence new dams are being planned and constructed throughout Asia. There are presently about 99 dams under construction in China, 100 in Turkey, 81 in Korea, 25 in Iran and around 292 in India. Nearly 3200 major / medium dams and barrages had been constructed in India by the year 2012. As compared to that only 9 dams and that too disputed one, have been planned by Pakistan. Imagine the political instability in these countries if there was half as much disinformation against these dams as is the case against the Kalabagh Dam (KBD). Do we still need to find out what makes all these other dams feasible while ours is a disaster?

The tumult and uproar of those so-called nationalist parties, that don’t even have proper district representation, is totally baseless and purely meant to grab attention. Their sightless efforts are geared towards opposing the KBD at any cost, come what may. There is a famous Pashto saying — and who knows it better than Asfand Yar Wali, the self-acclaimed champions of Pashtun rights — ‘You cannot have a head without a headache.’ When a dam is being built there will always be some drawbacks and negative fallouts. But these are not restricted to KBD only.

The opposition has deliberately refrained from evolving a consensus. Not a single political leader has picked up the courage to come forward and drive some sense into the minds of others except for Imran, who has been dragged into another kind of nuisance.  When they are invited to the table to talk, they refuse to sit across and listen to others’ points of view. If they have some valid trepidations about the flooding of the Peshawar valley or Nowshera town or the adverse effects on Mardan’s SCARP, and dislocation of a large number of people, they should shun prejudices and listen to others’ assessments as well. I am certain that the nation’s water experts have a solution for their ‘headaches’.

Ironically this handful of nationalists appears to have exactly the same objectives as the Indians. In April 1948, India diverted the flow of the Ravi, Sutlej and Beas rivers, an act that threatened to destroy irrigated cultivation in Pakistan. Today, why divert, rivers allocated to Pakistan under the subsequent water accords and construct dams like Baglihar on them unless the intention is equally malafide? It is very unfortunate that all the main opposition parties who claim a national stature seem to have been hijacked by a handful of misguided people. Another tragedy is that the Punjab is irrationally being dragged into the controversy. The moot question is why those who can unite for any specious cause cannot unite for their motherland? It is high time that everyone teams up for this national project and militates against the jingoistic and intolerant attitudes.

Ashraf Ghani: Now and Then

By:      Aasef Chauhdry

It was probably the third week of February 2015 when publically Afghan President Ashraf Ghani saluted Pakistan’s cooperation while Kabul was expecting former to lay the groundwork for peace with Taliban insurgents. His words were, “Afghanistan “appreciates Pakistan’s recent efforts in paving the ground for peace and reconciliation and we welcome the recent position Pakistan has taken in pronouncing Afghanistan’s enemy as Pakistan’s.” he in fact went a little further and cited two major attacks those helped to bring the countries closer together — one in Yahya Khel in Afghanistan in November 2014 that left nearly 50 people dead, and the TTP massacre at the Army Public School in Peshawar in December 2014 that killed 153, mostly children. Just before that Pakistani Interior minister said that relations between the two countries had never been better. He further said, “I think Afghanistan and Pakistan, working in close hands and in close cooperation, it will do wonders for cooperation in the field of counterterrorism”.

Mr. Ghani, who pledged to make peace talks a priority, as well as supportive signals from Pakistan, which has long held significant influence with the Taliban, have however boosted hopes for possible dialogue. He made a historic statement when said, “There are obviously elements opposing the peace process by spreading false information to cause public confusion and anxiety”. May be he didn’t knew then that what consequence this statement will have in future.

In April 2015, during his visit to India while answering Indian journalist Suhasni Haidar’s question in a interview Afghanistan President Ashraf Ghani referring to the possibility of India being included in, or be a beneficiary of the Afghanistan Pakistan Transit and Trade Agreement (APTTA), he said that Regional cooperation requires a legal free-flow of goods and people. We are not asking Pakistan for any exceptional treatment. We are asking Pakistan for “national treatment”. Pakistani trucks come all the way to Attari. Why should Afghan trucks stop at Wagah? It’s a major cost for that distance, to load, unload and re-load. It is an incredible imposition on the cost of business. Sovereign states deal with sovereign equality. If we are not given equal transit access, then we will not provide equal transit access to Central Asia and we are clear. In our talks with the Commerce Minister of Pakistan (Khurram Dastgir) we have made it clear that it needs to be reciprocal. Relations between countries, especially when it comes to business, if there were significant reasons, if we had not accorded national treatment to Pakistani trucks, then we could have understood. This was the first visible change in the Afghan President.

It looks as if the Indian miscreants were on the job and succeeded in doing what they desperately wanted. In June 2015 the desperate and frustrated Ashraf Ghani once again demanded tough action from Pakistan against Taliban militants in a letter seeking greater anti-terrorism cooperation, after facing strong public criticism over a controversial intelligence-sharing deal between the neighbours. Although the spy agencies of both countries in June 2015 agreed to trade intelligence and bolster cooperation in their fight against the Taliban, the latest sign of a thaw in once-frosty ties, however, Ashraf Ghani didn’t look contended and wanted more to do. There is no denying that Pakistan had launched operation against terrorists of all hues and shades including remnants of Haqqani network, but with mounting terror attacks in Afghanistan, Ashraf Ghani was being criticized by members of both side of the divide for having concluded intelligence-sharing agreement with Pakistan.

The Afghan government’s anger at Pakistan over the Taliban spring offensive was hyperbolic — the Afghan National Security Forces have had years to prepare for this first summer of fighting where instead of foreign troops they were front and centre. By making the spring offensive, an issue, the opponents of deal were trying to instigate Afghan side to demand Pakistan to take action against terrorists. The distracters of the deal were trying to misguide Afghan leadership that Pakistan was again playing on both sides but the fact was that situation was quite contrary, Chief of Army Staff Raheel Sharif was quite committed to take action against terrorists of all hues and colors and very much keen to have cordial ties with neighboring country. President Ashraf Ghani had of course taken steps to soothe Pakistani concerns about Indian influence in Afghanistan. Relegating India to the periphery of his foreign policy, he had sent a group of army cadets to an academy in Pakistan as opposed to India, where Afghan soldiers are normally trained, and suspended a request for Indian weapons. Hence, Ashraf Ghani was not expected to hear the distracters.

However, in March this year seeing the changing mood of the afghan government, mainly played and commanded by pro Indian Abdullah Abdullah, the Afghan Taliban also expressed their displeasure and said that they would not take part in peace talks brokered by a four-way group including representatives of Afghanistan, Pakistan, China and the United States. Following a meeting of the Quadrilateral Coordination Group made up of representatives of the four countries in Kabul in February, officials said they expected direct peace talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban to begin in early March. But the Taliban publicly denied they would be participating in any upcoming talks in Islamabad. With the American troops remaining in the country conducting air strikes and special operations raids in support of the Kabul government, the Taliban would not participate in talks, the group said in a statement. Islamic Emirate once again reiterated that unless the occupation of Afghanistan is ended, blacklists eliminated and innocent prisoners freed, such futile misleading negotiations will not bear any results. On the other hand, direct talks between Kabul and the Taliban have been on hold since last year’s announcement of the death of the movement’s founder and long-time leader Mullah Omar some two years earlier. New leader Mullah Akhtar Mansoor has laid down preconditions for taking part in any talks as he struggles to overcome factional infighting, with some breakaway groups opposing any negotiations whatsoever.

And finally the day came when the Afghan President, while addressing a joint session of the Afghan parliament, very bluntly made a shift in his previous pro Pakistan stance and on April 25, 2016 said that Kabul will no longer seek Pakistan’s role in the ongoing peace talks with Taliban. The lame and repeated excuse he rendered was that, “Pakistan had promised to aid peace talks but we no longer expect Islamabad to bring Afghan Taliban to the negotiating table”. The Afghan president’s rare address to the joint session was aired live on state and private TV channels.

When asked for handing over the TTP’s trouble makers in Afghanistan the Afghan President would avoid answering such requests but at the same time very openly demands, “We want Pakistan to honour its commitment and take military action against the Afghan Taliban. We want them to handover the Taliban to the Afghan government so we can try them in Shariah courts”.  He described the Taliban as ‘ignorant’. Ghani’s comments came as the relationship between the two neighbouring countries deteriorates once again following a deadly attack on Afghan security agency headquarters in Kabul on April 19 which is strongly expected to be planned and carried out by the Indian RAW elements. Meanwhile, expressing anger at Ghani’s remarks Taliban described Afghan rulers as “slaves” and said they have been “imposed by John Kerry” on the Afghan people. “The rulers should face the fate like Dr Najeeb,” Taliban spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid said while referring to public hanging of the Communist leader in 1996.

Apparently the Indians have succeeded in creating misunderstanding among two great neighbours, however it won’t last long since at the end of the day the Afghan government would need someone whom the Afghan Taliban listen and that someone is certainly not India. It’s high time for Ashraf Ghani to understand it earliest possible.

Islamic State could steal Pakistan's nuclear weapons and make 'dirty bomb',

The mounting concern of an Islamic State presence in Pakistan has put the spotlight on the security of the country's nuclear arsenal. In February, the director-general of Pakistan's intelligence bureau, Aftab Sultan, said hundreds of fighters from his country were joining IS in Syria, generating concerns about their links and activities when they returned home.

He also said an undisclosed network in Pakistan had been broken up.

More recently, US President Barack Obama declared at a nuclear summit in Washington: "The threat from terrorists trying to launch a nuclear attack is real. It would change the world."

The warnings have triggered debate in Pakistan about the possibility of a "dirty" nuclear bomb.

"There is a possibility of making a dirty bomb if the militants abduct some nuclear scientists, metallurgists with some fissile materials and uranium from Iraq and Syria," said retired Brigadier Said Nazir.

The brigadier, now a defence analyst, spent much of his career in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), bordering Afghanistan.

The FATA are home to 60 militant organisations, some sympathetic to IS, according to Mr Sultan.

Zia Ur Rahman Zia, an international politics professor at Qurtaba University in Peshawar, said he believed IS could make a dirty bomb.

"They have safe havens in Iraq and Syria where it can set up a laboratory to satisfy its nasty plans," he said.

"Pakistan's nuclear weapons might be secure but not safe.

"An ever growing danger persists of the militants putting their hands on the country's nuclear arsenals."

Professor Zia pointed to the attacks in recent years on the army's general headquarters in Rawalpindi and airbases in Mehran, Karachi, Kamra and Peshawar.

"These are not a soft target, keeping in view the track record of militant attacks on the highly secured installations in Pakistan, one can gauge the threat," he said.

Nuclear terror attack 'not possible': analyst

However, according to now retired Lieutenant General Talat Masood, a defence analyst in Islamabad, a terrorist-instigated attack is "technically not possible".

"The nuclear warheads, the safety mechanism and the electronic code words all lie in different hands. How could the militants therefore know how to trigger [a device]?" General Masood asked.

As further evidence of the security of the current arsenal, retired army officer and now social sciences dean at the National University of Science and Technology, Tughral Yameen, pointed to Pakistan's track record.

"Compared to 2000 incidents of leakages around the world, Pakistan has never witnessed a single incident of its nuclear weapons or fissile materials being stolen," Mr Yameen said.

"It's launching techniques are very complicated and hard to be triggered, at least by those with no know-how."

Pakistan's history of nuclear weapons

After Pakistan's defeat in the 1971 war against India, Islamabad formally initiated its nuclear program the following year and now has around 120 warheads.

Pakistan's nuclear security was dealt a devastating blow over a decade ago with the admission by Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of the Pakistani bomb, that he had secretly provided Iran, North Korea and Libya with the technical ability to develop nuclear weapons.

Pakistan's military has long been accused of links with terrorist groups and allowing the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan, which neighbours its lawless and porous FATA.

But some experts dismiss IS as having no viable command and control structure in Pakistan, or Afghanistan.

"How many militants are we talking of [on the ground]. On the other hand we are talking of over 700,000 professionals in the army, well trained and well equipped," said Brigadier Mehmood Shah, a former Secretary of Security for FATA.

Pakistan returns Kirpal Singh's body to family; doctors say organs missing

 

The body of Indian prisoner Kirpal Singh, who died under suspicious circumstances in a Lahore jail last week, arrived in India on Tuesday. His family members alleged that his body bore injury marks and foul play led to his death, but doctors who conducted an autopsy denied this.

Alleging foul play in his death, Kirpal's family members said the body bore injury and blood marks.

Contrary to the claims, the medical board which conducted the post-mortem examination here after his body was brought back to India on Tuesday, said there were no external or internal injury marks on the body.

Ashok Sharma, head of the three-member medical board, however, told the media after the post-mortem examination that the cause of death has not been established yet.

A family member holds up Kirpal Singh's photograph. AFP

The doctor said some organs from his body were missing, as an autopsy has already been done (in Pakistan).

"In the post-mortem examination, it was found that there was no external or internal injury on the body. Post-mortem of this body has already been done (in Pakistan) because stitches were present on the body and the head.

"When we opened the body, we found that some of the organs were missing because when post-mortem is done, some organs are taken to test to find out whether there is any disease or not," Sharma said.

"... rest of the organs which were present, we took out portions of those organs and we sent them for testing (to know) about diseases as well as poisoning. I can say with 100 percent accuracy that the wound marks which are inflicted during life, they cannot be removed. The cause of death has not been established yet," the doctor added.

After being handed over to the Border Security Force at the Attari-Wagah joint check post, Kirpal's body was immediately taken for post-mortem examination in Amritsar after which it was taken to Gurdaspur district for cremation in his native village.

His family members alleged that he was murdered either by fellow prisoners or prison officials in Pakistan.

Close relatives and residents from Kirpal Singh's village were present at Attari, 30 km from here, when the body was brought back to India.

The body, in a coffin, was carried by porters on the Indian side even as family members showered flowers on the coffin.

Close family members were allowed to see the body to identify Kirpal Singh's mortal remains.

Pakistani authorities have attributed his death to heart attack, but his family has alleged he was murdered in prison.

"He has been murdered by the Pakistanis under a conspiracy. He was the sole witness to the murder of Sarabjit Singh in the Lahore prison. We want a thorough inquiry and post-mortem to know the truth of his death," Kirpal's nephew told the media outside the hospital mortuary.

Kirpal Singh, the family has maintained, had inadvertently crossed into Pakistan and was arrested and charged with spying by Pakistani authorities.

His family had met union home minister Rajnath Singh and Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in New Delhi last week to seek immediate repatriation of his body to India.

The Punjab government has offered to extend all help and relief to Kirpal's family on the same lines as given to another Indian prisoner, Sarabjit Singh, who was murdered in the same prison in Lahore in April 2013.

Kirpal Singh, a former serviceman, was lodged in Lahore's Kot Lakhpat prison since 1992. He died on April 11.

Pakistani authorities had labelled him a spy and got him convicted for terror attacks inside Pakistan. He was initially sentenced to death which was later converted to 20 years' imprisonment.

 

India And The NSG

By Dr Adil Sultan

The India-US joint statement of November 2010 stated that the US intends to support India’s ‘full membership’ in the multilateral export control regimes by encouraging the evolution of membership criteria, consistent with maintaining the core principles of these regimes, including the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) – an informal arrangement of 48 countries to regulate the civil nuclear trade.

The US commitment was conditional to India’s “full adoption of the regimes’ export control requirements to reflect its prospective membership.”

The recent report published by the Belfer Center, ‘The Three Overlapping Streams of India’s Nuclear Programs’, highlights that instead of adopting the regimes’ requirements, India is moving on a completely different trajectory that not only negates the core principles of the NSG by misusing its special arrangements with the nuclear cartel, but is also rapidly expanding its nuclear weapons potential, which could contribute to “an arms race in South Asia.”

In 2008, India negotiated a civil nuclear cooperation agreement with the US and submitted its nuclear separation plan to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which was intended to differentiate between India’s civil and military nuclear facilities. The separation plan has, however, evolved into three different streams: civilian safeguarded, civilian unsafeguarded, and the military.

This unprecedented nuclear separation plan and India’s special safeguards agreement with the IAEA allows it to use foreign supplied fuel in its civilian unsafeguarded facilities by putting temporary safeguards in these facilities. There is no formal verification to know if the facilities designated as ‘civilian unsafeguarded’ are contributing nuclear material to India’s nuclear weapons programme.

Taking into consideration the fact that several of India’s Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors (PHWRs) have reportedly been used as sources of weapons-grade plutonium for its military programme, this arrangement is cause for serious concern for countries like Pakistan, as India could use its unsafeguarded PHWRs to produce nuclear weapons in the future.

Another unique feature of India’s safeguards agreement is that it can substitute ‘unsafeguarded’ nuclear material for ‘safeguarded’ material with the IAEA’s consent, and “remove weapons-grade plutonium from safeguards and use it nuclear weapons, provided it places an equal amount of reactor-grade plutonium under safeguards”. It is also important to note that India’s reactor-grade plutonium is not subjected to safeguards and is available for the development of weapons. Combined together, “there is significant potential for India’s unsafeguarded stream to feed into its military stream.”

India has also declared that its Fast Breeder Reactors (FBRs) would be exempt of the IAEA safeguards. These reactors, the prototype of which is expected to be online in the next few months, are capable of producing large quantities of plutonium, which could significantly enhance India’s fissile material capacity. India plans to build six additional FBRs. India’s upcoming Special Material Enrichment Facility (SMEF) has also been kept exempt of the safeguards, which is a cause for serious concern because of its “potential to produce large quantities of enriched uranium for thermonuclear weapons”.

India has a track record of misusing the Canadian-supplied ‘Cirus’ reactor for producing plutonium for its 1974 nuclear weapon test, “despite being under an obligation not to use the reactor or any products resulting from its use for military purposes.” This episode became the basis for the creation of the NSG in 1975. Ironically, the same NSG is now contemplating granting India full membership.

The Belfer Center report, written by two knowledgeable experts, has highlighted serious shortcomings in India’ safeguards and concludes that: “Safeguards should be used to provide meaningful assurance to all states, including Pakistan, that elements of India’s civil nuclear build up, particularly those that are being supported by international suppliers, are not contributing fissile material to India’s growing nuclear arsenal.”

The NSG members must take into consideration the serious implications of granting another discriminatory favour to India, by allowing it to become a formal member of the group, without asking it to rectify the existing anomalies.

Several NSG states that have entered into nuclear cooperation agreements with India, mainly for commercial gains, could possibly be assisting India’s nuclear weapons programme, without a verifiable mechanism of tracking the supplied material. This would not only nullify the very purpose of the NSG, but these countries should also be held accountable for violating their obligations under Article 1 of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which makes it obligatory for member states not to assist (directly or indirectly) the nuclear weapons programme of any other country.

The eagerness of a few major powers to accommodate India within the group, for their short-sighted strategic and commercial interests, without addressing the gaps highlighted in the Belfer Center’s report, would only weaken the NPT-based non-proliferation regime. The responsibility for the eventual demise of the remaining non-proliferation norms will lie with the NSG and the major powers that are supporting India’s entry into the NSG.

Such discriminatory trends do not bode well for strategic stability, as they reduce the incentive for countries like Pakistan, which are directly affected by India’s massive nuclear build-up, to remain meaningfully engaged with the international non-proliferation regime.

The writer is visiting faculty at the NDU.

Email: adilsultan66@hotmail.com

India with the ‘Shanti Mask’

By:       Aasef Chauhdry

Since long the Indians were raising a false alarm about Pakistan’s so-called interference inside India and sponsoring the terrorist acts. There is an old saying that you can make fool some people, some time but not all the people all the time. Same was the case about the Indian cunning strategy vis-à-vis Pakistan. A section of smart world did believe the Indians for some time and fell prey to their notorious propaganda however, soon they realised that it’s the thief who is shouting at the top of his voice, “thief, thief….. catch him”.

The latest drama by the Indians just before the drop scene of a ‘reality show’ in Pakistan was attack on Pathankot. Our neighbour would have again touched the heights of a filthy propaganda had Pakistan’s agencies not nabbed their serving commander red handed while planning and commanding the terrorist activities inside Pakistan and categorically in Balochistan thus making it the most turbulent province of the country. It’s on record that the so called biggest democracy of the world India has never accepted the reality of partition of sub continent and has always sponsoring terrorism in Pakistan through its proxies. Unfortunately her past experience in case of East Pakistan has wrongly encouraged her hence now, to re-alive the 1971 experience, Indian Govt has tasked RAW to support terrorist activities in Balochistan.

Pakistan has been all along making hue and cry to the world to realise the true and hegemonic intentions and designs of aggressor India but world never took the issues seriously. Pakistan, without any doubt is a peace loving country and promoting peace in the neighborhood/region and non interference on bilateralism basis have been the key components of Pakistan’s foreign policy initiatives. However, despite the unprecedented efforts by Pakistan the latter’s sacrifices while fighting against terrorism have never been acknowledged.

Till date, all the allegations that India has placed on Pakistan are totally on hear-say basis and our neighbour has never succeeded in proving Pakistan’s hand in such so-called subversive activities. While contrary to that history quotes about dozens of various instances of Indian involvement in Pakistan like support to Mukti Bahini in creation of Bangladesh, exploitation of sub nationalists in Balochistan and Sindh links with sectarian extremists groups including TTP etc to create unrest in FATA/overall country. Unfortunately this all is happening through the kind courtesy of the India James Bond Ajit Doval, whose offensive-defensive doctrine is enough to make the world understand about the Indian intents vis-à-vis Pakistan.

What world must not forget is that Pakistan itself is a major victim of terrorism waged by state and non state actors, nevertheless, India is mindlessly pursuing the same old obsolete anti Pakistan narratives concerning terrorism. The Indian establishment vis-à-vis Doval have become habitual of organizing false flag operations. They create false alerts, security hype and attract attention of international community etc. Pathankot incident is another attempt of Doval’s mischievous scheming against Pakistan after the shameful failure of terror boat drama last year.

While coming to Doval, it may be noted that  besides planning various terror attacks in Pakistan as part of Indian offensive-defensive doctrine, India’s devilish NSA (National Security Agency) has now started arranging and executing various subversive acts inside India to shift the blame game to Pakistan like orchestrated drama of Gurdaspur episode, boat incident etc. The main aims behind were to defame Pakistan and its security agencies. Those who still have doubts about the false flag operations being conducted itself by the Indian government, they must read the report that carried out by Indian media and which shows that former home ministry officer R.V.S Mani had submitted signed affidavits in court citing member of CBI-SIT team accused incumbent governments of orchestrating the terror attack on Indian Parliament and the 26/11 carnage in Mumbai.

The Indians as they asked for Pakistan’s help, instead of appreciating Pakistan’s gesture about sending the JIT, are creating hurdles in Pak JIT’s investigations that discredited Indian claims. The Pak JIT had asked for handing over swab of four alleged terrorists Nasir Hussain (Punjab), Abu Bakar (Gujranwala) and Umar Farooq and Abdul Qayum (both from Sindh), however, the JIT was provided the DNA reports instead. The Pakistani team found the lights along 24 Kms perimeter wall of Pathankot airbase to be faulty on the eve of the attack, whereas, according to the report the Pak JIT team was only informed about the negligence of Border Security Force (BSF) and Indian forces and the important fact about perimeter blackout was intentionally skipped.

The recent shocking happening in this regard is the murder of NIA Muslim Officer Tanzil Ahmed who was believed to have irrefutable proofs about the Indian agencies involvement in the Pathankot Attack. No one has forgotten about the mysterious murder of the Indian police officer Hemant Karkare who was killed by Hindu extremists after he had exposed their involvement (saffron terror) in the wave of terrorist incidents of 2008 Malegaon in India. Like Hemant, Tanzil Ahmed was also part of the India government team to probe Pathankot terror attack. He was punished for having knowledge about the false flag operation at Pathankot and was suspected of sharing the same thing with the Pak team.

The world must not forget that Pakistan condemns terrorism of all sorts and is committed to stand by its international commitments. The security policy of Pakistan supported by all stake holders including the Government and Security institutions aims at eradicating terrorists from its soil. India’s various mischievous attempts to hyphenate Pakistan with terrorism will definitely remain futile despite the Indian media’s frenzy and volley of allegations against Pakistan which is a true reflection of Indian establishment and Hindu mindset which are intolerant to any improvement in the bilateral relations between both neighboring countries.

Jawaharlal Nehru University Incident Revisited

                                  

 By Sajjad Shaukat

Although apparently, India claims to be the largest democracy, acting upon the principles of liberalism and secularism, yet since the leader of the ruling party BJP Narendra Modi became Prime Minister of India, various extremist developments like unprecedented rise of Hindu extremism, persecution of minorities, forced conversions of other religious minorities into Hindus, ban on beef and cow slaughter, inclusion of Hindu religious books in curriculum, unprovoked firing at the Line of Control in Kashmir and Working Boundary across Pak-Indian border, creation of war-like situation with Pakistan etc. clearly show that encouraged by the Hindu fundamentalist outfits such as BJP, RSS VHP, Bajrang Dal and Shiv Sena including other similar parties have been promoting religious and ethnic chauvinism in India by propagating ideology of Hindutva (Hindu nationalism). Especially, assaults on Christians and Muslims including their places of worships and property have been intensified by the fanatic Hindu mobs.

Indian Constitution which claims India to be a secular state was torn into pieces when on February 9, 2016, a group of students at the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) organised an event to mark the death anniversary of the extra-judicial killing of Afzal Guru and shouted  anti-India and pro-Pakistani slogans, and for liberation of the India-held Kashmir.

JNU Students Union president Kanhaiya Kumar was arrested on sedition charges and a case of sedition against several unknown students was also lodged. The university also initiated action, barring eight students from academic activity pending an enquiry.

On the other side, students of JNU protested, saying that they would not allow classes to be held on the campus till students’ union president Kanhaiya Kumar is released. Meanwhile, teachers of the university also joined the students in boycotting classes and stating that they would take classes on nationalism. Earlier, teachers had rallied behind its protesting students and questioned the administration’s decision to allow the police crackdown on the campus.

In this regard, extremist policy of the Indian government could be judged from a shocking sequel to the incidents of February 15, 2016 in the Patiala House courts complex which witnessed violence, when a mob of the government-backed Indian fundamentalist parties, wearing lawyer’s robe, attacked supporters of Kanhaiya Kumar. The assault began when Kumar was scheduled to appear before metropolitan magistrate Loveleen and continued for about 45 minutes during which whoever ran into the mob, looking young and carrying a mobile was slapped, kicked and chased away from the premises. Journalists and students were also targeted, and the older men and women were intimidated by the mob.

In this respect, even some Indians criticised the BJP rulers. Pointing out the lawlessness in New Delhi in the wake of Patiala House court attacks and the way the government has handled the JNU row, Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi who also visited the JNU campus along with senior leaders and MPs of the party criticised the BJP government, remarking it of “bullying the prestigious institution—every compelling issue the students are facing in India today and place them in its anti-BJP narrative.” The Police of Delhi played the role of a silent spectator as attackers defied the Supreme Court’s order for restricted entry to the trial court complex, smashed Kumar en route to his court hearing.

In fact, these students believed that Afzal Guru did not deserve capital punishment and also have their skepticism about his alleged involvement in connection with the attack on the Indian parliament. Notably, in its judgment of August 5, 2005, Indian Supreme Court admitted that “the evidence against Guru was only circumstantial, and that there was no evidence that he belonged to any terrorist group or organisation.”

However, India champions the slogans of shining India, “Democratic India” and “Secular India” every now and then to hide the dark face of its extremism. Incident is still haunting India and hard earned perception of secular and democratic face is fast eroding. The recent wave, emanating from Jawaharlal Nehru University is, in fact, linked to the consciousness and self-actualisation by few honorable people of India. These are the sane voices which carry the bitterness of reality. Afzal Guru was a Kashmiri youth who was dragged in and convicted by a biased justice system, deeply entrenched in the great India mentality. Hanging of Afzal Guru has entered Indian society in the form of Guru Virus and is expressing at its own. However, the hardliners thoughts are caught in a quagmire of self-accusation. Those who gathered on the commemoration of Afzal Guru’s hanging anniversary were opposed by Hindu youth. Mantra of anti-India slogans is reflective of the guilt carried by the radical India.

It is notable that while in custody and on their appearance before the court the educated youth was subject to torture by the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) activists in presence of police. According to some reports of Indian Media, on March 3, 2016, student leader Kanhaiya Kumar (after he was released on bail on 2 March) gave a speech to a packed auditorium on the JNU campus, in which he said that he was seeking, not FREEDOM FROM INDIA, but FREEDOM WITHIN INDIA. He appealed to his fellow students to free the nation from the clutches of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, which he said was trying to divide the nation. Referring to the right wing student party, ABVP, whose members were instrumental in bringing about his arrest, he called them his “opposition”, not his enemy. He urged his supporters to keep raising the slogans of azadi (freedom).

Nevertheless, Indian Government is silently as well as openly supporting extremism in all its forms and manifestation. All ills of Indian society are being diverted to Pakistan and even the saner voices are not allowed to echo. Cancellation of Pakistan-India Cricket match from Dharam-shala, media publicity on Pathankot incident and blatant denial in case of Kulbhushan Yadav (Indian secret agency RAW agent captured in Pakistan) are a few examples of Indian leadership guilt. The BJP led government has exposed the true face of India, wrapped in the myth of secularism. Indian involvement in state sponsored terrorism and extremism is haunting India, thus forcing the international community to review their links with India.

In this context, there is a divide between enlightened and moderate Indian youth vis-a-vis extremist and radical Indian leadership. Whereas, a segment of youth stands for sanity and freedom of expression, the majority supports radical as well as extremist behaviors prevalent within their society.

Intolerance is eroding the very foundations of so called democratic India. Denying basic rights of expression to the well-educated university students reflects the guilt of Afzal Guru’s killers. Guru Virus is haunting India and the Intolerant India is refusing basic rights to its saner citizens and minorities.

Indian secular structure and the democratic skeleton are no longer able to withstand the burden of its inner weaknesses. It is not the question of Kashmir, Pakistan or Afzal Guru which has become a dreadful dream for the intolerant Indian leadership, but it is the fear of inner implosion that is behind this phenomenon.

If the leadership of New Delhi was saner, there could have been a way out, but with the existing Modi’s rule, no miracles are expected. Reaction by Indian artists, intellectuals and the international community are indicative of the bad times India is likely to face.

While, blaming Pakistan for every folly is no more effective. The episode of Kulbashan Yadav has shaken the Indian stance on terrorism. Now, international community is well aware about the misdeeds of India, but due to commercial gains of the West, it is trying to please the Indian leadership by closing their eyes. Within Indian media, now, opinion makers are raising serious concerns about Indian intentions and state sponsored and state executed terrorism.

If India is to survive it has to stop interference in neighbouring countries, de-radicalize their leadership, grant people freedom within India, otherwise they will have to get freedom from India, as the Jawaharlal Nehru University incident is wake-up call for India.

Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations

Email: sajjad_logic@yahoo.com

Nuclear norms

By Sitara Noor 

The Hiroshima Declaration at the end of a two-day meeting of the foreign ministers of the G7 states earlier this month committed to seek “a safer world for all and to create the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons in a way that promotes international stability”. The statement used many euphemisms to justify states’ security compulsions and, as expected, fell short of guaranteeing a world without nuclear weapons. This, once again, highlights the incessant struggle between the normative approach to the complete elimination of nuclear weapons and the politics of national security. This is largely because norms, as a form of behaviour, fall into an idealistic paradigm, while national security is based on realpolitik considerations, thus creating a dichotomy for the decision-maker. This contradiction is even more visible in the domain of nuclear norms, both existing and developing ones.

The non-use of nuclear weapons, or the so-called ‘nuclear taboo’, has emerged as a longstanding nuclear norm over the years. The horrific impact of nuclear bombs dropped on the Japanese cities, killing thousands of people in an instant, was indeed sufficient reason to initiate a counter thought. It is, however, interesting to note that the non-use of nuclear weapons emerged as a norm only after the Soviet Union had equalised the balance of power and the potential use of nuclear weapons lost its policy value due to the threat of massive retaliation. This established norm managed to give rise to a universal abhorrence towards the idea of nuclear use, but it has not been strong enough to compel any concrete measure towards complete nuclear disarmament, primarily because it has not served the national interests of the weapons-possessing states. It, however, gave rise to subsidiary arrangements, such as non-proliferation, which was later codified into a formal Treaty of Nuclear Non-Proliferation, which included an article with a categorical commitment to nuclear disarmament. Despite the failure of nuclear disarmament to develop as a practiced norm due to the possessing states’ national security concerns, non-proliferation has emerged as a new normative approach. The norm of non-proliferation achieved momentum and successfully managed to constrain the number of weapons-possessing states and reach near universality. Nevertheless, one major challenge to non-proliferation is the selective approach taken by leading states to incorporate so-called ‘outlier states’, without a criteria in the non-proliferation regime. It is, therefore, imperative that efforts should be made to strengthen existing nuclear norms and to avoid making country-specific concessions with detrimental effects on the non-proliferation regime.

With the commencement of the Nuclear Security Summit (NSS) process in 2010, nuclear security had the potential to emerge as a new norm. Notwithstanding the criticism on its exclusive nature, the NSS process has created the opportunity for the adoption of a normative approach towards nuclear security. Nuclear security challenges pose a threat to global security, but this is an area where states are reluctant to enter into legally binding commitments. But the NSS process has laid the groundwork for recognition of the threat and has encouraged states to take voluntary action that, in turn, will ensure global security. As a direct result of commitments made at the last three sessions of the NSS, 12 countries have eliminated high enriched uranium (HEU), or separated plutonium from their territories. Twenty-seven states have removed approximately 3,000 kilogrammes of HEU and separated plutonium. Fourteen countries have opted for using low-enriched uranium in 24 reactors. While many may argue that the NSS process outcomes did not match the hype created around it, it remains a fact that the successful legacy of the NSS process has been the recognition of the challenge and adoption of nuclear security as a desired form of behaviour by the states. This is also manifested in the entry into force of the amendment to the Convention on Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and Facilities.

In the nuclear domain, one major challenge remains: emerging threats are outpacing the counter measures adopted by the states. While it takes longer to establish and agree on legally binding commitments to control nuclear behaviour, the establishment of new nuclear norms and consolidating existing ones may serve as a temporary substitute to deal with the emerging challenges.

Nuclear Security Summit & Pakistan

By: Dr. Zafar Nawaz Jaspal

The fourth and final Nuclear Security Summit was held in Washington D.C. on March 31 and April 1, 2016. Nuclear Security Summit 2016 Communiqué stated: “The threat of nuclear and radiological terrorism remains one of the greatest challenges to international security, and the threat is constantly evolving.” More than 50 world leaders participated in the Summit. They expressed their commitment to advance a central pillar of President Barack Obama’s Prague Agenda, i.e. “preventing terrorists from obtaining and using a nuclear weapon.” The participants in the Summit ensured to the international community to safeguard nuclear and radiological materials from ending up in the hands of terrorists. Indeed, it is a sign of relief in the age of asymmetrical warfare.

Although the issues discussed in the Nuclear Security Summit (NSS) were broad based and not country specific, yet Pakistan received proportionately greater attention in the international media. The encouraging fact is that many international organizations, including International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), reputed American think tanks, in their published reports during the preceding weeks of 2016 NSS acknowledged the practical efforts of Pakistan to ensure the safety and security of its nuclear material and facilities. In addition, the 2016 NSS provided an opportunity to Islamabad to highlight its creditable nuclear material and facility safety and security record and demand for the end of the discriminatory Nuclear Supplier Group restraints on nuclear equipment and technology transfers to Pakistan. Syed Tariq Fatemi, Special Assistant to the Prime Minister of Pakistan on Foreign Affairs categorically stated in the Nuclear Security Summit: “Pakistan has strong credentials to become a member of the Nuclear Suppliers Group and other multilateral export control regimes, on non-discriminatory basis.” It is because, it maintains a safe, secure and effective nuclear program.

The NSS process resulted in the establishment of a nuclear security regime, i.e. patchwork of many treaty commitments, bilateral and multilateral initiatives, and informal rules. The following discussion is an attempt to answer the two interlinked questions. Has NSS process succeeded in constituting a reliable nuclear security regime? What is Pakistan’s approach towards the NSS process?

Significance of Nuclear Security Summit Process

Today, nuclear and radiological terrorism is not a theoretical risk. That the terrorist groups may cause nuclear havoc is a realistic threat. During the last week of March 2016, Belgium media reported alarming news that: “Two of the Brussels suicide bombers secretly filmed the daily routine of the head of Belgium’s nuclear research and development program and considered an attack on a nuclear site in the country.” On March 30, 2016, President Barack Obama wrote in an opinion piece in The Washington Post: “Of all the threats to global security and peace, the most dangerous is the proliferation and potential use of nuclear weapons. That’s why, seven years ago in Prague, I committed the United States to stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and to seeking a world without them.” He added: “Given the continued threat posed by organizations such as the terrorist group we call ISIL, or ISIS, we’ll also join allies and partners in reviewing our counterterrorism efforts, to prevent the world’s most dangerous networks from obtaining the world’s most dangerous weapons.” On April 5, 2009 in a speech at Prague, President Obama while describing nuclear terrorism as “the most immediate and extreme threat to global security,” promised to initiate “a new international effort to secure all vulnerable nuclear material around the world within four years.” In the following year he launched the NSS process.

President Obama’s commitment for the safety and security of nuclear infrastructure and material resulted in the process of nuclear security summits. The NSS provided a forum for high-level meetings during which heads of state/government deliberated for the implementation of restrictions to secure nuclear weapons, fissile material, and nuclear facilities. Precisely, the primary objective of the NSS was to improve nuclear security that prevents terrorists from sabotaging nuclear facility as well as prevent them from making and detonating a nuclear weapon/dirty bomb.

President Obama convened the first NSS in Washington, D.C., on April 12 and 13, 2010, to discuss how better to safeguard weapons-grade plutonium and uranium to prevent nuclear/radiological terrorism. It was reported that: “in the run-up to the 2010 summit, Obama’s team asked summit participants – like dinner party guests – to each bring a “house gift” when they showed up. Instead of bottles of wine or bouquets of flowers, these house gifts were pledges to take concrete action on nuclear security, such as removing HEU or signing on to one of the conventions. While many participants opted to effectively “re-gift” commitments they had already planned to make, others took significant new steps, and almost all fulfilled their pledges.” The second summit held in Seoul, in March 2012 had further strengthened the gift approach by announcing a series of “gift baskets,” or joint commitments by several states, to goals that included preventing nuclear smuggling and improving control of nuclear information. The third NSS held in the Hague in 2014 received a more serious response, i.e. “Two thirds of participants signed the Strengthening Nuclear Security Implementation Initiative. Under it, states agreed to treat IAEA guidelines as minimum standards for domestic law, and to request peer reviews of their nuclear security rules, providing a mechanism by which states could better assure the public and the international community that they were sufficiently protecting materials and facilities.” (The Atomic Science Bulletin, March 2016) The commencement of nuclear security summit had invigorated a serious discourse on the subject of nuclear terrorism. The tangible outcome of the process is that more than a dozen countries were cleared of HEU and signed on to the key international conventions.

The 2016 NSS had experienced constructive as well as distrustful happenings. It included a special session on responding to urban terrorist attacks — and a simulation of how to handle the threat of imminent nuclear terrorism. It created an action plan for nuclear security under the auspices of five international organizations: the IAEA, the United Nations, Interpol, the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, and the Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction. In this context, the primary role was assigned to IAEA. According to the Nuclear Security Summit 2016 Communiqué: “We reaffirm the essential responsibility and the central role of the International Atomic Energy Agency in strengthening the global nuclear security architecture and in developing international guidance, and its leading role in facilitating and coordinating nuclear security activities among international organizations and initiatives and supporting the efforts of states to fulfill their nuclear security responsibilities. We welcome and support the Agency in convening regular high-level international conferences, such as the December 2016 international conference on nuclear security including its ministerial segment, to maintain political momentum and continue to raise awareness of nuclear security among all stakeholders.” Notwithstanding these optimistic conclusions, the pessimistic fact was that the Russian Federation, where some of the largest stockpiles of civilian nuclear material and second largest nuclear arsenal in the world remain, had chosen to boycott the 2016 NSS.

Importantly, the fourth and final NSS brought the process to an end on April 1, 2016. Despite the conclusion of the NSS process, the issue remains debatable, whether all high-risk nuclear and radiological materials and facilities are rigorously protected from theft or sabotage. “The Nuclear Security Summits have had a positive effect, but the strategic goal of developing an effective global nuclear security system remains unachieved,” the Nuclear Threat Initiative, an anti-proliferation watchdog, claimed on March 23, 2016. Perhaps, the four Nuclear Security Summits did not end completely the threat of nuclear and radiological terrorism. Tons of materials that terrorists could use to make dirty bombs even today remain deeply vulnerable to theft. Conversely, the encouraging concrete accomplishment is that these summits have created a realization of the threat at the highest level, which entailed various measures/initiative to prevent the misuse of nuclear material by the terrorist organizations. The nations with nuclear wherewithal have identified many areas in which cooperation and better security could help further diminish nuclear and radiological threats through the participation in NSS process. Precisely, “The Summits have also strengthened the nuclear security architecture at national, regional and global levels, including through broadened ratification and implementation of international legal instruments regarding nuclear security.

Pakistan’s Cognizance to Nuclear Safety and Security
Since 1960s, Pakistan has been endeavoring to utilize nuclear energy for its economic prosperity. Accordingly, today, it is included among a few technologically advanced countries that have been successfully using nuclear energy for power generation, boosting agriculture products – wheat, cotton, etc. – yield and in medical center for curing cancer patients. In addition, Pakistan is also employing nuclear technology for solidifying its defensive fence. Despite serious opposition by international community and destabilizing economic sanctions by United States-led Western nations; Pakistan has been maintaining its advanced nuclear program. 
Pakistan’s advanced nuclear program necessities the establishment of a robust safety and security apparatus to prevent the nuclear and radiological terrorism. It has not only indigenously institutionalized safety and security system but also has continuously been upgrading it with the assistance of neutral international institutions. Today, its export controls are consistent with those being implemented by the Nuclear Suppliers Group, Missile Technology Control Regime, and the Australia Group. Moreover, the international community has acclaimed its Export Control Act of 2004.

Islamabad regularly participates in the international forums to cooperate with the international community to impede the threat of nuclear and radiological terrorism. Consequently, Pakistan’s nuclear installations are very much secure. It was reported that the IAEA has recorded 2,734 nuclear incidents worldwide, including five in India, but “not a single accident or breach happened in Pakistan.” Similarly, the Harvard Kennedy School Report released on March 21, 2016, revealed that: “US officials have reportedly ranked Indian nuclear security measures as weaker than those of Pakistan and Russia.” The report concluded that Pakistan’s nuclear security arrangements were stronger than India’s.

Pakistan assigned great importance to the safety and security of nuclear materials, nuclear facilities and nuclear weapons. Recently, therefore, it ratified an important nuclear security accord – a 2005 amendment to the Convention on Physical Protection of Nuclear Material (CPPNM). It requires states party to provide appropriate physical protection of nuclear materials on their own territory. Islamabad had participated in the four Nuclear Security Summits with a sense of objectivity. During the previous three NSS, the Prime Ministers led its delegations. Premier Nawaz Sharif announced to lead Pakistani delegation to participate in the fourth NSS. Unfortunately, due to terrorist attacks in Lahore on March 27, 2016, he cancelled his planned visit to the United States to attend the NSS. Consequently, Tariq Fatemi, Special Assistant to the Prime Minister of Pakistan, led the delegation to the fourth NSS.
Pakistan’s engagement with the NSS process was guided by four key principles: first, the NSS should not lead to new or parallel mechanisms; rather, it should help strengthen the existing arrangements. Second, the NSS should not put any additional obligations on the participating countries. Third, the NSS should maintain focus on the civil-nuclear fuel cycle, without venturing into weapons programs, which remain the sovereign prerogative of all nuclear weapon states. Fourth, NSS-related commitments, as agreed by participating states in the form of communiques and other outcome documents, would remain voluntary in nature and be guided by the states’ domestic and international obligations.

Conclusion
The critical examination of NSS process reveals the truth that Global Zero movement for the total elimination of nuclear weapons from the face of the earth is not a realistic objective in the prevalent anarchical international society. Conversely, the safety and security of nuclear material, nuclear facilities and nuclear weapons is not only imperative for global security but also a realistic agenda. Therefore, the primary objective of NSS process should not be allowed to degenerate after President Obama leaves office in January 2017.
The international security is a shared responsibility and thereby the global consensus is imperative for an effective enforceable system for securing nuclear materials to protect the world from dangers of nuclear and radiological terrorism. The participants rightly pronounced in Nuclear Security Summit 2016 Communiqué: “Countering nuclear and radiological terrorism demands international cooperation, including sharing of information in accordance with States’ national laws and procedures. International cooperation can contribute to a more inclusive, coordinated, sustainable, and robust global nuclear security architecture for the common benefit and security of all.” Hence, instead of ‘discriminatory approach’ in the nuclear realm, ‘universal approach’ shall be adopted in engaging the sovereign nations to ensure the safety and security of nuclear material and facilities.