Rasmussen's cavalier remark

During his visit to Kabul the other day, Nato Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said that he was confident that Pakistan's nuclear weapons were safe, but in the wake of the terrorist attack on the PNS Mehran 'it is matter of concern and we follow the situation closely'. That duplicity clearly underlies his comment is quite understandable, when one has to take into account the Western nations' ongoing move to freeze Pakistan's nuclear programme.
No doubt the ongoing wave of terrorism in Pakistan has come to them as a godsend opportunity to malign Pakistan's nuclear programme. No effort is being spared by the West to project Islamabad as insecure and unsafe and likely to fall in the wrong hands.
Initially, it was at the Conference of Disarmament (CD) that a freeze was being sought on the production of fissile material by Pakistan. But that did not succeed, owing to a variety of plausible reasons. Now it is what the New York Times in a recent editorial called Plan B that the Western governments, led by the United States, are working on by seeking to shift talks on a treaty banning fissile material out of the Conference on Disarmament (CD) to the UN Security Council.
As an effort like this at the CD, where decisions are clichéd on the basis of consensus, has come to a naught, so now efforts are aimed at towards involving the UN Security Council. Earlier, the pro-West UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon had tried to test the ground by convening a high-level meeting on the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT), yet failed. No wonder then that the Nato Secretary General has followed suit.
How and why there is this negative angle to Pakistan's nuclear capability, is indeed intriguing. Only last year, in April, President Obama openly conceded that Pakistan's nuclear assets are absolutely safe and secure. And then it was US Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mullen who acknowledged Pakistan's right to keep nuclear weapons. Speaking at the opening session of the Aspen Security Forum, he had volunteered that "These are the most important weapons in the Pakistani arsenal ... These are the crown jewels" adding the Pakistanis "see a threat in India and [keeping these weapons] is their deterrent. They see this as a huge part of their national security". Not only this, Admiral Mullen also rejected any comparison between Pakistan's nuclear programme and that of North Korea or Iran, insisting that "Pakistan has made extraordinary efforts to protect its nuclear weapons". Why should the Nato officials make such a dubious comment on Pakistan's nuclear programme? Pakistan's nuclear assets are as safe and secure as any other nuclear power's; there should be no doubts about it.
Those who tend to see Pakistan's nuclear assets through the al Qaeda or Taliban prism should not forget that what this country faces today in terms the Mujahideen who later transformed themselves into terrorism, it is their gift. They created the al Qaeda and the Taliban to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. And they forced the Red Army out of Afghanistan triggering Soviet Union's ultimate demise.
Instead of prognosticating a negative scenario for Pakistan, we expect the West to comprehend its difficulties and desist from making hypothetical narratives. There is no denying the fact that it looks like a serious security lapse that a group of terrorists could enter the PNS Mehran and wreck havoc with the Pakistan Navy's surveillance capability. May be the terrorists took advantage of the relatively less guarded surroundings such as marriage halls and a museum (the latter is frequented by a very large number of people particularly on Sundays). Are these commercial facilities meant to augment the finances of the forces at a time when keeping up with updated weaponry is so expensive? Since 1970, the cost of a dollar has gone up from Rs 4.5 to Rs 85 and with POL prices so high and maintaining the preparedness expected of the Pakistani forces is no joke. That clearly and unambiguously explains why to keep minimum credible nuclear deterrence is the best option for Pakistan.
And no effort is being spared to keep it safe from pilferages and an adverse take-over by hostile elements. Since the country is currently passing through a war-like situation, one can imagine that a determined attempt to overrun security arrangements at some nuclear facility - or to establish that Pakistan's nuclear assets are at risk - is made. But that would have an absolutely nil chance of success in the face of the two divisions of the hardcore army troops standing on guard.