Nuclear Technology and Pakistan’s energy Needs
Shamsa Ishfaq

Discovery of Khushab Nuclear Reactor (KNR) and a report published by Institute of Science and International Security (ISIS) has been projected in many different ways by various quarters. The report said that Pakistan was building a new nuclear reactor at Khushab that could produce enough plutonium for 40 to 50 nuclear weapons a year, which would be a major expansion of its nuclear programme and could prompt an intensified arms race in South Asia. The report was released in the same week that the US-India nuclear deal was slated for a vote in the House of Representatives and F-16 deal concluded its 30-day notification period.
Some critics highlighted KNR as Pakistan’s reaction to Indo-US nuclear deal. Some used this information to block F-16s sale to Pakistan and some linked it to AQ Khan emphasizing the need to pressurize Pakistan. However, Bush administration has rejected such allegations saying that ‘we are aware of Khushab nuclear reactor. The reactor and its capacity mentioned in the report are grossly exaggerated’.
It needs to be understood that Pakistan’s nuclear programme is neither proliferation nor aggression. It intends to keep the atomic sphere peaceful without disturbing the peace in South Asia. In addition, Pakistan’s energy needs necessitate the acquisition of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. It was pointed out in 1980 by the then President General Zia that, “ the acquisition of nuclear technology is imperative to meet the country’s energy requirements because neither oil nor hydro electric power would be able to meet the country’s requirements in future and alternate source of energy could only be provided by nuclear technology”.
Pakistan is a fast developing country and, therefore, its energy requirements are increasing day by day. Its increasing population and demand for improving economic status and living standard stipulates a substantial increase in the total energy consumption. Almost all of her hydel resources for generating electricity have been utilized and fossil fuel reserves are scarce. Pakistan needs to generate 8,800 MW of nuclear energy by 2020 to cater for growing energy needs. Nuclear power generation is a mature technology and nuclear energy is relatively cheaper, economic and important source of power.
Despite the developments in nuclear field, Pakistan is fully committed to the doctrine of minimum credible deterrence. Her nuclear programme is peaceful and is in safe hands. Pakistan instead of plutonium took the uranium route for its future Light Water Reactor (LWR) for nuclear stabilization and restraint in South Asia.
Plutonium is needed usually for Fast Breeding Reactor (FBR). Pakistan has single facility for separating or recovering plutonium from spent uranium fuel rods at the Karachi Nuclear Power Plant (KANUPP). KANUPP is under the International safeguards and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
No doubt Pakistan’s nuclear programme has helped maintain power balance between India and Pakistan which was disturbed in 1974 and then in 1998 with the explosions of atomic device by India. While the nuclear deterrence is maintained there is a considerable scope to use this technology to promote prosperity, progress, human health and environmental protection.
Pakistan has no choice but to take atomic technology since it is not possible any longer to fulfill the country’s energy needs through conventional methods, which are thrice as much expensive. And as power producers, the reactors run on enriched uranium are graded as cheaper and superior. For the same reason over 90 per cent of the nuclear reactors producing nuclear power in the world are run on enriched uranium.
The tremendous effect of advanced science and technology is felt once transformed into productive force. Thus, Pakistan’s nuclear technology is intended to bring about obvious social and economic benefits and she should be given a way to improve the lot of its people.
 

GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR

The question of a definition of terrorism has haunted the debate among states for decades. A first attempt to arrive at an internationally acceptable definition was made under the League of Nations, but the convention drafted in 1937 never came into existence. The UN Member States still have no agreed-upon definition. The lack of agreement on a definition of terrorism has been a major obstacle to meaningful international countermeasures. One state’s “terrorist” is another state’s “freedom fighter.” Terrorism is construed in many ways. According to a UN resolution of 1999, criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify them. (GA Res. 51/210 Measures to eliminate international terrorism)
Terrorism was almost an unknown phenomenon till the incident of 9/11. Within days of the attacks, President Bush launched a Global War on Terror (GWOT). Afghanistan was occupied in 2001 and Iraq invaded in 2003. Thousands of lives have been lost on both sides all over the world and even after 5 years, the war still rages on.
While the Bush administration remains steadfast in continuing the war, the GWOT has also been subjected to criticism. The reason for invading Iraq had been justified to take out weapons of mass destruction which never existed. The US and Iraqi casualties in Iraq have been rising with many analysts saying that it has strengthened the forces of terror. It is also being said that loss of life in Iraq was far less in the Saddam era than it is today in a democratic Iraq. A sentiment is growing in the US that a timetable must be set for withdrawal. The campaign against the GWOT keeps changing, the present being that Islamic extremism represents the same type of threat as fascism did during the Second World War, and communism during the Cold War. This is a dangerous trend indeed and harms inter faith harmony, also undermining the GWOT. The cost of the war in Iraq is extremely high averaging eight billion dollars a week and a loss of 2600 soldiers. Iraq has become a second Afghanistan, a magnet and incubator for angry Muslim jihadis. With the changing global scenario, the US may have to find a way to extricate itself from this historic faus pax.
The situation in Afghanistan is also not very encouraging. The resurgence of the insurgency is being attributed to the setbacks the US has suffered in Iraq. The Taliban have largely recovered from their initial defeat and are giving a tough time to coalition forces. Taliban fighters have become encouraged by the domestic opposition some NATO nations face as they deploy in former Taliban strongholds previously patrolled by US forces. Moreover, the demand of NATO for additional forces has not been met.
Not all former Taliban members are terrorists. Many heeded a call by President Karzai to disarm and have assumed normal lives as members of Afghan society. Some even won seats in the September 2005 Afghan parliamentary election. More than 50% of the Afghan population is Pushtoon who feel alienated as they have been sidelined. The Karzai government mainly consists of Panjsheris or former Northern Alliance members who consider the Pushtoon their enemy, thereby fuelling violence.
Britain has also not achieved much in the GWOT.
A new poll has indicated that only seven per cent of Britons believe that the United States and Britain, Washington’s key ally in the military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq are winning the conflict against global terrorism. The country suffered its own 9/11-style attack on July 7 last year, when four Britain-raised suicide bombers detonated devices on three London Underground trains and a bus, leaving 56 people dead. British casualties are also increasing in Afghanistan, where British troops are playing a leading role in a NATO force battling Taliban insurgents in the volatile south of the country.
Afghanistan has turned from an anti-Al Qaeda operation into a classic 19th century colonial war against unruly Pushtoon tribesmen costing $2 billion monthly. Washington has totally failed to impose a viable regime in Kabul. Afghanistan is producing 80 per cent of the world’s heroin, and output has surged to unprecedented levels this year. Taliban and its nationalist allies have put foreign occupation forces on the defensive. The American public is not aware of the growing political, economic and military mess in Afghanistan.
Pakistan’s tribal areas bordering Afghanistan have also been focus of violent activity. A military operation had been launched in these areas against Taliban targeting government officials and crossing over to Afghanistan to conduct raids on Coalition Forces and Afghan National Army. The Army operation yielded limited success. Lately, the Pakistan Army brokered an agreement with the tribes which is an important step in cutting off recruits to the Taliban. The deal includes simultaneous military, political, administrative and reconstruction efforts, instead of the simple use of force alone. The deal has also been supported by the US. The military only buys time and provides an opening for a political solution but is never the ultimate answer. The deal will also prevent Taliban sympathizers from crossing the border into Afghanistan.
Militancy in the region is not new. In 1979 the West brought in thousands of mujahideen to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and then left leaving Islamabad alone a decade later to face the armed warriors. Whatever extremism or terrorism is in Pakistan is direct fallout of the 26 years of warfare and militancy around us. Pakistan has paid a big price for being part of the coalition that fought the Soviet Union.
It is time that the West, particularly the US must re-evaluate her strategy for the GWOT. The international community must take steps to eliminate the root causes that generate extremism. Terrorism cannot be eliminated through warfare alone. Military operations are of course necessary to fend off violence in the short term. But long-festering disputes, repeated humiliations, the lack of development, poverty, injustice and a sense of deprivation, all have to be addressed as part of a long-term solution.

Shahid Saleem Afzal