Bhuttos, Pakistan N-Programme and Dr. A.Q. Khan
By Wajid Shamsul Hasan - September 29, 2007

 
At a defining moment in Pakistan’s chequered history former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto is to return home to lead the socio-economic and politically deprived masses in what is being described as “mother of all elections” to save Pakistan from being talibanised or be declared a failed state.  

Her long absence from Pakistan and their connivance with the Establishment had provided the obscurantist forces, religious extremists and all other Bhutto haters/ doddering vestiges of the old order-- a golden opportunity to play foul with the fate of the country.  

A Pakistan designed to be secular and democratic by the founding fathers was perforce allowed to be hijacked by the bigoted clerics who had opposed the Quaid’s progressive and modern vision. And the land where its citizens were not to be discriminated on account of their caste, creed or colour was pushed to be fragmented by the theocrats in league with their undemocratic mentors who preferred to lay down their arms before a foreign enemy rather than surrender to the political will of the people and accept them as the sole arbiters of power.  

Now these elements have either camouflaged themselves in the garb of so-called enlightened moderation when they actually are obscurantist wolves in sheep’s clothing. As partners in the pillage of pelf and power in the post 9-11 Pakistan, for the first time the very thought of Benazir Bhutto’s return is causing them sleepless nights.  

Ever since she announced that she would return home, come what may, to lead the country in the transition to democracy through free, fair and transparent elections her political adversaries—both in the corridors of power and outside—have been trying to outdo each other in distorting her image by their vicarious spins to her well-thought out mission to restore the supremacy of the masses.  

There is no strange co-incidence in the similarity of the concerted anti-Bhutto campaign by the regime’s dirty mouth pieces and the MMA mullahs who signed the death warrant for democracy by dancing to the Praetorian bagpipers to merrily incorporate 17^th amendment recently described by the apex court as an extra-constitutional intervention—not by a military ruler but the so-called elected representatives of the people represented by MMA.  

I would not like to refer here in detail to the gall of those who bought their freedom from the Attock jail through foreign intervention after signing an agreement to keep out of politics for ten years. Having done the “mother of all deals” to save their skin and their wealth, they should have some qualm of remorse when they accuse PPP Chairperson of striking a deal with the regime. Indeed, there has been an engagement between the two to seek return of undiluted democracy and not to have the cases concocted by Mian Nawaz Sharif’s notorious right hand man—Senator Saifur Rahman-- quashed. While the “mother of all deals” was directed to gain personal freedom and palatial comforts—PPP’s thrust in the engagement has been to seek free and fair elections through independent election commission under a neutral government with level playing field for all political parties and leaders—including Mian brothers and PML (N). 

There is another orchestrated campaign by both the HMV’s of the regime that wag their tongues and tails with equal ferocity and also the likes of Qazis, Khans, Mians and et all--who accuse PPP Chairperson of being rather pro-American. It is something like pot calling the kettle black. Those currently occupying key positions in the regime—like Ejaul Haq—have conveniently forgotten the fact that it were Pakistan’s military rulers who have rendered Pakistan’s sovereignty and independence into a myth and not Bhuttos.  

Martyred Zulfikar Ali Bhutto had summed it up brilliantly in his historic treatise “The Myth of Independence”—the pathetic plight of his country and its military leader who used to look to the West for its nod of approval for everything that he did since—like those of his uniformed colleagues who succeeded him—he lacked domestic and popular legitimacy. Like all military rulers he did not derive strength from his own people but his hold on power depended on support from outside.  

One would also like to recall here how a Pakistani prime minister had to rush to President Clinton to plead to save Pakistan from the dreadful fall-out consequences of the Kargil misadventure in 1999. Had the Americans not intervened effectively then, a war with India could not be averted. And indeed much earlier to that--in 1971-- had not President Nixon stopped Prime Minister Indira Gandhi from advancing her conquering troops into West Pakistan after having captured 5000 square miles of Pakistani land on the western front, by now we would have become a foot note in history.  

Please also recall how as the opposition leader Benazir Bhutto saved Pakistan from being declared a terrorist rogue state in 1993. Even in General Zia’s time —Benazir Bhutto—considered a ‘security risk’ by him had used her good offices to save Pakistan from American sanctions. India Today (May 15, 1984) reported: “During her whirlwind tour of Washington last month, Benazir Bhutto worked a near political miracle that pulled General Ziaul  Haq’s chestnuts out of the fire. Almost single-handedly, she succeeded in persuading the Senate Foreign Relations Committee—which had adopted a resolution that could have ended all American aid to Pakistan—to change its mind”. 

It is generally perceived that the American administration is very unpopular in Pakistan following 9-11, invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq and its sustained inability to translate into reality its promise of an independent Palestine state. Notwithstanding his own conduct and failure to restore democracy, his supporters claim that much of the flak that General Musharraf receives from within Pakistan is because of his being too pro-American.  

Even his worst critics acknowledge today that ZAB had restored Pakistan’s image of honour and respect in the comity of nations by his pro-active foreign policy, his support to the Arabs and his sincere commitment to the Third World. It was General  Zia who pushed this revived image of respect back to square one by receiving trunk loads of dollars from CIA chief Casey to wage American Jihad in Afghanistan. Now GPM is also accused of sailing in Ziaist boat. 

What has prompted me to write this column is a well-orchestrated media blitzkrieg launched against Ms Bhutto following her speech at the Middle East Institute at Washington DC. Pakistani media seems to have gone berserk on an alleged comment made by Ms Bhutto on the issue of Dr A.Q. Khan. One of my friends instead of telling me what it was about urged me to “tell her all her voters live in Pakistan and not Washington”. Before I could get to know what the whole issue was about there was another long distance phone. This time it was from a retired general. “What is wrong with your leader?”  He described her comment about Dr Qadeer Khan as anti-state—a charge later orchestrated by Minister of State for Information. 

Being a journalist of some experience—I got to the bottom of the matter that caused such a hullabaloo. Those who consider Ms Bhutto as their arch political rival, a challenger to their authority and those who consider her as the main stumbling block between them and power—have armies of spin doctors hired by them with watery mouths and well-lined pockets—sitting like vultures to attack any utterances from her that they could vomit to the media as ‘anti-state’, ‘anti-national interest’ and ‘anti-Pakistan’. 

Since they throw up instantly, they get away by putting words in her mouth before PPP media people come to know of the distortion and their clarification to put the record straight. I am sure her portion of the Middle East Institute speech that “each military dictatorship has undermined the independent judiciary by sacking of judges. In the last twenty years, my government is the only one which has neither removed a Chief Justice nor attacked the premises of the Supreme Court” must have annoyed all those-present as well as of the immediate past—who have played dirty with the highest judiciary. I wish a mention was also made to the sacrifice in blood given by the People’s Party Workers—more than 40 of them—for the restoration of judicial honour and dignity.  

To the crux of the so-called controversial matter. I got the text of her speech at the Middle East Institute in Washington and also the transcript of her answers to the questions raised on the occasion by the audience. No where did she ever say that when she would come into power she would hand over Dr Qadeer Khan to IAEA interrogators. 

During the question and answer session Ms Bhutto was asked the hypothetical question whether a government led by her would cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in investigating charges against Dr. A.Q. Khan. She responded by saying that a PPP government would extend full cooperation to the International Atomic Energy Commission. This position is not very different from what the current government says or any other responsible government in Pakistan would say.  This simple statement of a factual position has been distorted to imply that she promised any unlawful handing over of anyone to foreigners. Not only that PPP spokesman’s reassertion in the clarification that: “The PPP seeks to establish rule of law and there is no question of violating Pakistani or International law in relation to the freedom and personal rights of anyone, including Dr A.Q. Khan” should be reassuring for all and sundry.
 
A little digression on Pakistan’s nuclear programme. No doubt a new book by British authors Adrian Levy and Catherine Scott-Clark  titled “DECEPTION—Pakistan, the United States and the secret trade in nuclear weapons” is loaded with hitherto not known facts and reveals threadbare the extensive role of the uniformed and un-uniformed important Pakistanis in Dr A.Q. Khan’s net work, I would comment about it when I complete reading it.  

I would suffice here to mention briefly that ZAB preferred death than to give up his pursuit for the nuclear glow for Pakistan. As the youngest minister in Ayub Khan’s cabinet he set a nuclear goal for Pakistan’s progress and defence deterrence. ZAB had believed that a self-reliant Pakistan could face an adversary six times bigger than its size. More than the generals, he used to underscore the need for strengthening of the nation’s defence capability supplemented by self-sufficiency and economic development.  

Having started his march on the dream goal much before, it was in 1972 as President of the country he put his major thrust for a nuclear course. He told his nuclear scientists in Multan “we will eat grass and have the bomb”. There was no turning back from then onward. Besides strengthening the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission, he set up yet another institution—the KRL—following the Indian explosion in 1974. He brought in Dr A.Q. Khan in 1976 to be part of his two-pronged pursuit of nuclear bomb. Pakistan would have crash-landed in the exclusive nuclear club as early as late1977 or the beginning of 1978. But then ZAB was made a horrible example by General Ziaul Haq.  

In one of his last meetings ZAB emphasised to his daughter that Pakistan’s nuclear programme should remain deterrent and at no stage transfer of technology be permitted. According to him, those opposed to it might swallow the bitter pill of a Pakistani bomb but they would unleash their wrath on Pakistan if it passes the technology onto other Muslim or friendly countries. They would not let Pakistani bomb become an Islamic bomb. 

In order to secure it ZAB introduced impregnable security procedures that became a permanent fixture and were later strictly followed by General Zia. These security procedures worked smoothly until 1989 when Pakistan had cold tested the nuclear device and its clandestine nuclear programme became a major object of concern for our adversaries.  

As prime minister in late 1988 Ms Bhutto was approached by military high command to use her influence—courtesy her late father-- to get Pakistan assistance in nuclear and missile technology from China and North Korea. The military knew the enormous extent of high esteem that late Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was held by the Chinese and North Korean leadership. She could have had made the Chinese and North Korean assistance conditional to the completion of her tenure in office but instead of getting foreign countries involved in the internal politics, Benazir Bhutto decided to give benefit of the doubt to the generals. 

By this time Pakistan was approached by some Muslim countries for help in their nuclear programmes. In her meetings with her top brass—she underscored Bhutto’s N-Doctrine. She recalled what her father had told her. While taking promise from her to continue his nuclear mission, ZAB had told her that Pakistan was on the threshold of a nuclear breakthrough and she should do her best to protect it with her life Pakistan’s nuclear programme and two of the institutions that he had painstakingly built i.e. KRL and Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission.  

ZAB had also told her to ensure that Pakistan’s nuclear technology is not transferred to any one since its transfer would be of suicidal consequences for Pakistan. “For our adversaries it would be difficult to swallow the fact that we have managed to make a bomb—but the transfer of nuclear technology to any of the Muslim countries would provoke their wrath to obliterate ours as well. That we must not allow to happen” were some of the last words of ZAB who staked his life to provide a nuclear bomb for Pakistan as a deterrent. 

It has been Benazir Bhutto’s mission to protect Pakistan’s nuclear programme. According to her, our nuclear programme was a matter of life and death for Pakistan. No one would be allowed to roll it back nor would be permitted to stop its further development solely as a deterrent. In her nuclear doctrine there is total ban on transfer of nuclear technology for “money or friendship”. Bhutto, it needs to be mentioned, got a consensus agreement on her nuclear doctrine from her top brass and had succeeded in putting a bar on the export of nuclear technology in December 1988.

Like all patriotic Pakistanis Ms Bhutto has always been rightly stressing upon the need for a bipartisan parliamentary investigation into the violation of Pakistan’s nuclear doctrine and its proliferation. Such an inquiry is a must to reassure the international community that Pakistan is a responsible nation and it can secure its nuclear arsenal through an impregnable command and control system under a strong democratic government. This shall have to be done post haste to nip that Western lobby in the bud that believes that in order to attack Iran’s nuclear programme Pakistan’s shall have to be destroyed first to ensure it does not fall in the hands of Taliban and religious extremists. An in-depth inquiry is a must to know whether the powers that be made Dr Khan a scapegoat to save their skins and the huge financial benefits thereof or Dr Kan was the sole beneficiary of the proliferation racket. Pakistani nation also needs to be satisfied that their national hero has not been victimised by those who remain invisible but are actually the sole villain of the piece.