Dilawar Syed May 21, 1998

Tags: Law , Foreign Policy , Policy , Weapons , Nuclear , Government , Military , Kashmir , China , Iraq , India , Pakistan , Bhutto , Jinnah

href="/tag/language">language for the whole of Pakistan. He would not live to see the language issue providing
foundation for a popular sentiment that, quarter of a century later, would transform East Pakistan into Bangladesh. In 1948, our first
Prime Minister Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan would be presented with a set of invitations from both superpowers of the day: the U.S. & USSR. Mr.
Khan’s decision to set-off Washington-bound would throw Pakistan in the U.S. block for decades to come during the Cold War,
impacting the outcome of many conflicts the world would see including that of Afghan invasion by Soviet Union. Years later in 1974, as
our sibling-neighbor would test its first nuclear device, the country’'s first elected Prime Minister, Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, would face a
tremendous challenge to face up to India. Mr. Bhutto’s decision to go nuclear would prove pivotal quarter of a century later when India
would remind the world again of its ambition laden nuclear capability: it would, as we all know by now, test five nuclear devices. Today,
Mr. Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan’'s most powerful Prime Minister to date, also faces a very crucial decision of whether to test a nuclear device
or not. For good or for worse, it is now Mr. Sharif’'s turn to demonstrate statesmanship or choose political expediency instead.

Ironically, statesmanship often mandates taking decisions that may go against the prevailing public opinion. But a true leader must have
solid conviction in his or her vision to go against the popular tide. The biggest challenge for Mr. Sharif is to gather the courage to make
the right decision, not necessarily the one that is the most popular or one that would not invite political backlash. Thinking strategically,
it is not much difficult to realize that ever-belligerent India’s nuclear tests have extended its results beyond just data collection for
further nuclearization or providing a chance for the country’s proclamation as a nuclear power - they have given Pakistan an
opportunity to claim its nuclear capability as well. Had India not carried out these tests, Pakistan would have found it very difficult to
claim its nuclear capability. From Pakistan’s perspective, it has certainly paid off for not being the first one to test a nuclear device. No
one doubts Pakistan’s nuclear capability today and even Clinton administration has publicly acknowledged it. Therefore, what purpose
would it serve to test the nuclear device now. Pakistan must deal a death blow to India’s foreign policy by taking advantage of this
unique situation using which we were afforded the opportunity to claim our own nuclear capability. Its a win-win proposition for us and
it will be unfortunate to waste this opportunity. Furthermore, taking advantage of the recent condemnation of India by the United States,
the government should immediately link Kashmir issue with the present scenario. Surprisingly, Islamabad has not said much on this
subject at a time when the turn of events have presented Pakistan this strategic opportunity for the very first time in the last fifty years.
Making use of the world-wide coverage of Indian nuclear tests and the subsequent condemnation by the international community, we
must highlight India'’s unfair rule in Jammu & Kashmir and demand the implementation of UN resolutions.

It does not take a celebrated economist to predict what impact additional economic sanctions, imposed as a result of a nuclear test, will
have on Pakistan’s economy. The post-nuclear test Pakistan would be isolated and stifled by economic sanctions. True, we are "used to
living with sanctions", to borrow our foreign minister’s words, but a government that has only around a billion dollar in cash reserves to
cover just six weeks of imports for a struggling nation of 140 million people, any enhanced economic sanctions would mean an
exponential trend to an already hyper-inflation. Of course, this may not mean much to most of our ruling elite who have built their
political dynasties and business empires by looting national coffers of a people, most of whom don’t even have clean drinking water and
think twice about buying a second meal in the day from their meager incomes. It would certainly be catastrophic for these ordinary
citizens who will bear the direct burden of any worsening economic situation. Furthermore, economic sanctions may also eliminate or
have a very negative impact on Pakistan’s ability to borrow funds from international financial institutions including the International
Monetary Fund and World Bank. With the economy still plagued by an agonizing recession and business confidence shattered by
worsening law and order situation in the country’s two biggest financial and industrial centers, Pakistan would then only be accelerating
its march towards bankruptcy. This is certainly not a scenario expected of a leadership that makes tall claims of business friendliness
and takes pride in its import of supply-side economic policies from 1980s’ Reagonomics.

Ironically, the impact of such a financial crunch extends beyond economy and ordinary Pakistanis’ daily lives. With an adverse impact
on Pakistan’'s ability to engage in trade with the industrialized world as a result of U.S. led sanctions, our ability to generate enough
income to maintain even conventional military muscle will also become quite a tremendous challenge. Additionally, contesting the
nuclear race itself is a costly proposition for our poverty stricken nation. Finally, it is for the first time since 1990 that the U.S. Congress
and senate have softened their stance on repealing the in-famous Presselar amendment. Pakistan should seize this opportunity and
intensify its diplomatic efforts to pursue the elimination of this amendment. This will enable the country to modernize its weaponry by
making use of the U.S. technologies. Given all the reasons, it would not be surprising at all, if the military establishment itself is
perceived pushing Mr. Nawaz Sharif’'s government to exercise restraint.

Statesmanship at this crucial juncture in our national history, however, is not an expectation from Prime Minister Sharif alone. It is a
collective and bi-partisan responsibility of the entire national leadership. Interestingly, Leader of the Opposition, Ms. Benazir Bhutto,
who traditionally has been perceived "soft" on Pakistan’s nuclear option has asked for Prime Minister’s resignation since, in her
judgment, he has been somewhat delinquent in setting off a nuclear test. It is quite an opportunism on Ms. Bhutto’'s part, certainly not
statesmanship, to make such demands from the convenience of opposition. If Ms. Bhutto has really had a change of heart on the policy
of Pakistan’s nuclear option, then she must demonstrate that by promising a nuclear test in Pakistan People’s Party’'s manifesto! On the
international front, Mr. Clinton must do his part to make a more convincing statement of condemnation for Indian adventurism. While it is
highly questionable that India’'s nuclear tests escaped the ever watchful eye of the CIA, the agency that has always been extremely
creative in inventing mysterious links of Pakistan with China or North Korea or even Iraq with regards to the transfer of nuclear
technology, the U.S. must get its act together to face up to India’s self-proclamation as the world’'s sixth nuclear power. Historians often
credit John F Kennedy with statesmanship for his bold decision of standing up to Soviet threat during the Cuban Missile crisis which
brought the world to the very first real shadow of a nuclear conflict. As the world nervously counts down the advent of a second such
threat led by India’'s gross recklessness, Mr. Clinton must demonstrate statesmanship on his part to unite the world powers’ response in
penalizing India. India’'s nuclear tests pose much greater threat to international security than even Iraq’'s ambitious invasion of Kuwait. If
the U.S. can so religiously lead the holy mission of destroying Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction by uniting the world through the
passage of one UN Security Council resolution after another, why cannot it do so against India’s shameless and arrogant defiance of the
international community.