Analysis by Helena Cobban*

LONDON, May 8 (IPS) - Last month in Prague, President Barack Obama vowed that he would seek a world without nuclear weapons. On Tuesday, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller spelled out that this policy would apply to Israel, as well.

Speaking at a conference on the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Gottemoeller said that "Universal adherence to the NPT itself, including by India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea ... remains a fundamental objective of the United States."

Israel is judged to have between 100 and 200 advanced nuclear weapons either ready to deploy, or only a few minutes away from being so.

Gottemoeller’s words sparked speculation that this arsenal might re-emerge as an issue in Israel’s relations with Washington. That would end a 40-year period in which Washington colluded with Israel in maintaining the fiction that Israel’s nuclear weapons capabilities were unknown, and anyway should never be openly discussed.

Throughout those years, Washington was also vigorously combating the acquisition by any other Middle Eastern state of "weapons of mass destruction" (WMD), including chemical or biological weapons, as well as the far more lethal nuclear weapons. Many around the world accused Washington of maintaining a damaging "double standard" on nuclear weapons and all other WMD.

Israel has always fended off calls that it join the NPT. Beyond that, most Israeli leaders have gone actively on the offensive against the NPT, arguing that it has not been effective in preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons worldwide. (The NPTs many supporters strongly contest that assertion. One hundred and eighty-nine states are members of the treaty.)

When George W. Bush was U.S. president, he seemed largely persuaded by the Israelis’ view of NPT ineffectiveness. His administration downgraded the support Washington previously gave the NPT. The NPT’s approach stresses the ultimate goal of a nuclear weapons-free world, the need for negotiations among nations as a way to get there, and the universality of this effort.

In place of an active commitment to the NPT approach, Bush pursued the very different policy of "counter-proliferation." That policy stressed U.S. domination of efforts to directly counter the nuclear programmes of countries Washington disapproved of, using a variety of means, including direct military destruction of suspected installations.

Obama’s Prague speech marked a sharp shift back to the NPT approach. And Gottemoeller’s speech then showed that the Obama administration intends to apply it in the Middle East, as well as elsewhere. This will have a strong effect on the administration’s diplomacy regarding both Iran and Israeli-Arab peacemaking.

Regarding Iran, Bruce Riedel, a senior White House official for Middle East and South Asia affairs under both Pres. Bill Clinton and (for one year) Pres. Bush, told the Washington Times this week that, "If you're really serious about a deal with Iran, Israel has to come out of the closet. A policy based on fiction and double standards is bound to fail sooner or later."

Regarding Israeli-Arab peacemaking, the Arab states have long argued that if there is to be a durable peace between Israel and all its Arab neighbours, then Israel’s nuclear arsenal will have to be subject to negotiation along with the military capabilities of everyone else in the region.

Egypt and Saudi Arabia have argued strongly, for many years now, for the establishment in the Middle East of a "Nuclear Weapons-Free Zone", such as already exists in South America. Other states and international bodies like the International Atomic Energy Agency support the wider concept of a Middle East free of all WMD.

Serious advocates of both proposals insist, however, that Israel’s nuclear weapons have to be included in the negotiation.

Now, it looks as if Washington may be preparing to join this movement toward stressing Israeli transparency and accountability. This would take the Obama administration back to the stance adopted by Pres. John F. Kennedy in the early 1960s. Just a few years later, however, in 1969, Pres. Richard Nixon signed off on a policy that Israeli nuclear policy expert Avner Cohen has described as one of "don’t ask, don’t tell."

Back in the Cold War, there were many - including key Nixon adviser Henry Kissinger - who argued that colluding with Israel’s nuclear opacity was in the U.S. interest since, if Israel came out openly as a nuclear power, that could spark Soviet arms sales to pro-Moscow allies in the region and raise tensions in the region.

After the Cold War ended, many in the U.S. strategic-affairs community favoured continuing the policy of "don’t ask, don’t tell." They argued that Israel acted as an extension of U.S. power in the Middle East, so its capabilities should be supported, or that the U.S. was so powerful globally that it had no need to put pressure on or embarrass its Israeli ally.

Both those arguments were based on the judgment that U.S. interests always coincide with those of Israel. Now, as Obama and his top aides have started to hint, that judgment may be starting to change.

We can expect to see the extent of the divergence between the two governments during or shortly after the visit that Israel’s newly installed premier Benjamin Netanyahu makes to Washington, May 18.

Already, serious differences have become evident between him and Obama on the crucial issues of Iran and the Palestine question.

Netanyahu and his aides have said that full U.S. cooperation with Israel on actions to prevent Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is a prerequisite for Israel’s cooperation with Washington on Palestinian peacemaking. Obama’s people have argued, by contrast, that Israel’s cooperation with them in the peacemaking is necessary if joint action on Iran is to be possible.

Regarding Palestine, Obama has argued for the speedy conclusion of a final peace between Israel and Palestine that involves establishing a viable, fully independent Palestinian state. Netanyahu has refused to express support for that goal, arguing that the Palestinians have to meet numerous further preconditions before final peace talks can resume.

How might Gottemoeller’s statement on Israel and the NPT play into this mix? Certainly, it sends another powerful message to Netanyahu that he cannot expect his relationship with Obama to be anywhere near as close as the one his three predecessors - Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert - all enjoyed with the man in the White House.

Many advocates of a more evenhanded U.S. policy to the Middle East welcomed Gottemoeller’s statement, seeing it as chipping away the damaging double standard that Washington has long employed in Israel’s favour.

Other commentators, more focused on the need to achieve real progress in the peacemaking between Israel and its Arab neighbours, welcome the signs of a new evenhandedness toward Israel. But they warn that the focus on nuclear questions should not eclipse the need for speedy U.S. actions to curb Israeli settlement construction and get the final Israeli-Palestinians peace talks back onto a hopeful track.

One Palestinian security-affairs analyst here said, "It doesn’t have to be an ‘either-or’. Obama should continue to pursue his nonproliferation agenda. But our priority is to win a decent future for our people, in our homeland. I don’t see Israel’s nuclear weapons, however many there are, as having a direct impact on that. So let’s keep our focus on the peacemaking."

*Helena Cobban is a veteran Middle East analyst and author.

New Delhi:After the fatal crash in which one pilot was killed, the entire fleet of India’s most advanced fighter jet, the Su 30 MKI, remained on the ground for the second consecutive day while IAF technicians carried out checks on the aircraft.

A senior officer said that while the reliability of the aircraft is not in question, the fighters did not fly on Friday as “precautionary checks” are being carried out to rule out any fault. Confirming that no flights took place at Pune or Bareilly, the two airfields where the fighters are based, the officer said that fighters will stay on the ground till the IAF is fully satisfied that they are fit to fly.

As first reported by this newspaper, the fleet was grounded immediately after Thursday morning’s crash near the Pokharan firing ranges in which one pilot, Wing Commander P S Nara, was killed while the other survived.

While a detailed court of inquiry has been ordered into the accident, the first ever for the MKI version of the Su 30 that was inducted in 2002, fresh details have emerged about the crash that practically rule out pilot error.

Sources familiar with the investigation say that the fighter, which was flying as part of a four-aircraft group at over 20,000 feet, went into an involuntary ‘bunting’ manoeuver that tossed it around at an angle of 270 degrees.

Following the violent manoeuver, the fighter plummeted to the earth in an uncontrollable spin and did not respond to controls, forcing the two pilots to eject. An official said that this could point to either a technical fault or some sort of structural damage to the fighter.

In a highly undiplomatic move, U.S. officials coordinated with Ambassador Haqqani to have the India-Afghan transit trade concession forced on Pakistan. The issue raises once again the perennial question: Does Ambassador Haqqani represent Pakistani interests or is he working for Washington? In March, Mr. Haqqani broke diplomatic norms and national security considerations by arranging a secret, one-to-one meeting between President Zardari and Mr. Holbrooke in Dubai to talk things behind the back of the entire Pakistani government, Foreign Office, and the Pakistani military.

ISLAMABAD, Pakisan—The initial draft of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed between the governments of Pakistan and Afghanistan at the U.S. State Department on May 6 to initiate negotiations for a new transit trade agreement and conclude it by the end of this year came from Washington, according to diplomatic sources.

The first draft of the MoU was sent to the Foreign Office by Pakistan’s Ambassador to the United States Husain Haqqani, who reportedly consulted the Americans on the matter. The draft arrived here around two weeks ahead of President Asif Ali Zardari’s first bilateral visit to the U.S. It was finalized after some back and forth shuttling between Washington and Islamabad with specific inputs from the Foreign Office.

The Americans played a key role in signing of this MoU, which was not high on Pakistan’s priority list at this stage when the country is facing unprecedented internal security challenges. In fact, it was on the U.S. insistence that Pakistan agreed to commit itself to a time frame for concluding and signing the revised transit trade agreement by December 31, 2009. Apparently, the Foreign Office was opposed to the idea of setting a specific timeline but the political leadership decided to go along with it.

The commitment to the time frame is clearly reflected in the second paragraph of the MoU, a copy of which was obtained by The News. It states that the two governments “undertake to conclude and sign a complete Afghanistan-Pakistan Transit Trade Agreement as early as possible, and no later than December 31, 2009.”

Some of the inputs given by the Foreign Office were incorporated into the final draft of the MoU. For instance, the Americans were also keen that Pakistan should commit itself to certain concepts but the Foreign Office’s view was that such details were unnecessary at this stage and should be discussed at the working-level negotiations.

Both sides will begin negotiations on the agreement here this week with top representatives of the two commerce ministries leading the process, sources told The News. In the one-page MoU, the two governments had committed to begin negotiations no later than May 14, 2009, with a first meeting of the Joint Working Group in Islamabad. “That meeting will establish a timetable for future negotiation sessions,” it said.

According to the understanding reached in Washington between the two sides, a joint Afghanistan Pakistan Transit Trade Coordination Committee will be set up by May 14, which in the interim period, pending the conclusion of the transit trade agreement, “will coordinate and resolve all issues relating to cross-border commerce and inland transit trade.”

The undertaking titled ëMemorandum of Understanding Between the government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to Improve Trade and Accession Facilitationí signed by the foreign ministers of the two countries on May 6 in Washington was overseen by the U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who hosted the Afghan and Pakistani presidents for the first round of the second trilateral talks.

While pointing out that the agreement had been in discussion for 43 years without resolution, Hillary termed it a “historic event” and an “important milestone” that the two neighbouring countries had reached in their efforts to generate foreign investment and stronger economic growth and trade opportunities.

But the MoU, which is said to eventually pave the way for India to use the Wagah-Khyber route for trade with Kabul, was not received with such enthusiasm in Pakistan where neither parliament nor the cabinet was taken into confidence before its signing. Hence, it evoked much criticism and has become controversial. Since India, a major trading partner of Afghanistan is seen as the main beneficiary of it, serious reservations have been expressed about it by key political parties, including the PML-N, the PML-Q and the Jamaat-e-Islami. The MoU issue is also likely to be debated in the upcoming session of the National Assembly, which begins Monday (today). PML-Q leader Marvi Memon has submitted an adjournment motion seeking a discussion on this issue of ìurgent public importanceî.

Concerns about the MoU have also been voiced by retired Pakistani diplomats who have warned about its grave and far-reaching ramifications. Former foreign secretary Riaz Khokhar has cautioned that it is fraught with risks and would undermine Pakistanís security as well as strategic interests.

Although, India has not once been mentioned in the MoU, reference to it is implicit in its opening paragraph which underlines the need to improve the conditions of “international and cross-border trade and transit”, recognizing “the advantages of greater regional and global trade linkages and export-oriented business development.”

At the last weekly news briefing on Thursday, Foreign Office Spokesman Abdul Basit had to face a volley of questions echoing concerns about the major unilateral concession that would be given to India by virtue of this MoU. The spokesman tried to downplay it, saying this was just an MoU and nothing was finalized as negotiations on the agreement were yet to begin. While widely perceived as an “agreement to agree”, his contention was that it was not an agreement itself but a MoU on negotiations.

The report was published by The News International.

Army coup possible if Pak govt doesn’t perform: ex-Saudi intelligence chief

LAHORE: The Pakistan Army did not want to intervene in politics, but there could be a coup if the civilian government did not improve its performance, Prince Turki al-Faisal, the former Saudi intelligence chief, said on Monday. He said Pakistan could survive the Taliban threat provided its military remains intact. The former ambassador to Washington also called for the speedy withdrawal of United States and North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces from Afghanistan, saying that they are “not welcome” there. “As long as the armed forces are intact, the state is not going to be at risk,” he told The Washington Times. The prince, who oversaw the funding two decades ago that helped create the Taliban during the fight against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, downplayed concerns about Pakistan’s stability. The former Saudi intelligence chief said the Taliban were not a monolithic organisation and suggested that Islamabad had not found the right way of dealing with them. He added that “one of the biggest stumbling blocks” in his work, as intelligence chief until 2001 was the United States protection of sources coming from other countries. daily times monitor

WASHINGTON: US President Barack Obama on Wednesday said Washington "can make sure that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is secure," even as heexpressed grave concern over the deteriorating situation in the militancy-stricken country.

At a White House press conference to mark his first 100 days in office, Obama expressed confidence about US control over Pakistan's nuclear weapons, perhaps through military-to-military cooperation, in the face of extremist advances in the country. In the process, he also hinted that Washington had contingency plans to handle the situation if it went out of Islamabad's hands.

Asked if he could reassure the American people that, if necessary, America could secure Pakistan's nuclear arsenal and keep it from getting into the Taliban's hands, Obama replied: "I'm confident that we can make sure that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is secure, primarily, initially, because the Pakistani army, I think, recognizes the hazards of those weapons falling into the wrong hands."

The carefully calibrated reply referring to primary security appeared to suggest the US has secondary back-up plans in the event of any exigencies, something the intelligence analysts' community has long considered inevitable.

When the reporter followed up to seek a more precise answer, asking if in the worst case scenario, the US military could secure the nuclear weapons, Obama responded crisply: "I'm not going to engage in hypotheticals of that sort. I feel confident that that nuclear arsenal will remain out of militant hands. Okay?"

The exchange was punctuated by a suo motu expression of concern about the situation in Pakistan by the US President, not because it was about to be overrun by Taliban, he said, but because the civilian government was very fragile and was not delivering basic services and governance, which was providing space for extremists.

It was a surprisingly blunt vote of no-confidence in a civilian government whose leader is about to embark on a visit to Washington next week. There has been speculation in some quarters that Washington is not averse to another military takeover if the civilian government does not assert itself over the extremists.

Blog: Is Pakistan heading for an Islamic Revolution?

Obama also referred to what has now become a mantra for his administration: Pakistan should stop worrying about the non-existent military threat from India and tackle its own home-grown extremism.

"On the military side, you're starting to see some recognition just in the last few days that the obsession with India as the mortal threat to Pakistan has been misguided, and that their biggest threat right now comes internally," Obama said, adding, "we want to continue to encourage Pakistan to move in that direction, and we will provide them all the cooperation that we can."

The President seemed to be referring to the reported movement of some 6000 Pakistani troops from the border with India to its western areas recently, even as he made the case for a large civilian and military aid package for Pakistan that Congress is going to take up in the next few days, ahead of the visit to Washington DC next weekend by President Asif Ali Zardari. The 6000 troops were moved to the Indian border in the aftermath of the Mumbai massacre, so essentially the Pakistan military has returned to the pre-Mumbai configuration.

There is strong pressure on Pakistan from Washington to deploy regular troops rather than its constabulary or para-military in the battles against extremists, but Islamabad is said to be desisting, holding out for greater military aid and equipment to carry out the task.

There is considerable tension between the two sides on this issue, and a perceptible lack of trust in Washington about Pakistan's claims that it is routing the extremists and re-established control in the territories it has lost to them. The suggestion here is that Pakistan is shadow boxing to ensure the U.S aid package gets through and its military is yet to get rid of its India fixation.

In the name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Kind

Dear brothers and sisters,

اسلام علیکم
Peace be upon you.


Now that another bribe is being offered to Pakistan in terms of billions of dollars of aid for next few years, in coming months, we are to witness a rapid increase in US tone and policy as it intends to intensify and rapidly shift its entire campaign and focus from Iraq to Pakistan, basing its actions on the theory of insecurity of Pak Nukes, terming them threat to the USA, India and the world. The USA plans to build onto the threat of taliban and alqaeda on the same lines of Iraq, thereby finding an excuse to neutralize the propagated so called threat.

But US is confused and is hurrying to destabilize and change the Pakistani government once again. But the fact remains that even with cronies like President Mir Jaffer -- US cannot do what it wants, alhamdolillah.

Please brace yourself for fitnas from US, India and Israel, perhaps another 9/11, as so apparent by talks of patareus, gates, obama, holbrooke, clinton and all so suddenly by Mr.Manmohan Singh taking his lead from liars like them. Pakistan needs our prayers and love, lets pray for our motherland, lets stand for her, lets fight for her and if need be die for her too.


US involvement in Pakistan Current Situation: