How Pakistan’s ballistic missile programme is a headache for US, Israel and India – Firstpost
Jon Finer, currently US Deputy National Security Advisor, made a stunning disclosure on November 19 about Pakistan’s long-range ballistic missile development programme. He was speaking at a Washington-based think tank after the US had announced sanctions against Pakistan’s state-owned National Development Complex (NDC) and three private entities that assist the NDC in developing ballistic missiles.
On the NDC, the official US note regarding the imposition of sanctions stated that it is “located in Islamabad, Pakistan, has worked to acquire items in furtherance of Pakistan’s long-range ballistic missile programme—including special vehicle chassis intended to be used as launch support equipment for ballistic missiles and missile testing equipment. The United States assesses NDC is responsible for Pakistan’s development of ballistic missiles, including the SHAHEEN-series ballistic missiles”.
Finer’s speech was not specifically on Pakistan but rather on the present and emerging strategic nuclear scenario and the challenges, current and emerging, confronting the US in this area. For the first time, the US named Pakistan as an emerging threat to it and almost directly put it in the same category as China, Russia, and North Korea. This was most significant even if Finer left a little space for Pakistan when he added that the US hoped to address these issues with Pakistan through diplomatic means. Indeed, Finer’s comments are of such basic importance that they merit being quoted in full—even if they are fairly extensive. It is only if they are closely perused in their entirety that their correct current and long-term meaning emerges and conclusions can be drawn.
Finer said, “Recently Pakistan has developed increasingly sophisticated missile technology—from long-range ballistic missile systems to equipment that will enable the testing of significantly larger rocket motors. If these trend lines continue, Pakistan will have the capability to strike targets well beyond South Asia, including in the United States, raising real questions about Pakistan’s intentions.
The list of countries that possess both nuclear weapons and the missile capability to directly reach the US homeland is very small, and they tend to be adversarial towards the US—Russia, North Korea, and China. So, candidly, it is hard for us to see Pakistan’s actions as anything other than as an emerging threat to the US. Now leaders across our administration, myself included, have raised these concerns repeatedly with senior Pakistani officials.
We have been a long-time partner with Pakistan on development, on counter-terrorism and other security issues, including quite sensitive issues. We have provided support to Islamabad during difficult times and we continue to desire a cooperative relationship in these areas of shared interest. That makes us question even more why Pakistan would be motivated to develop capabilities that could be used against us. Unfortunately, it is our sense that Pakistan has failed to take these concerns and frankly the concerns of others in the international community seriously and continues to advance these capabilities.
As a result, the Biden Administration has implemented a series of steps to contend with further development of long-range missile systems. Over the last years we have issued three rounds of sanctions against non-Pakistani entities that have provided support to Pakistan’s ballistic missile programme and yesterday we issued sanctions directly against Pakistan’s state-owned National Development Complex, which the US assesses is involved in the development and production of Pakistan’s long-range ballistic missiles. For the first time we have sanctioned a Pakistani state-owned enterprise, Taj Missile Development.
Simply put, we will keep up the pressure on Pakistan regarding long-range missiles even as we also continue to seek a diplomatic resolution to address our concerns, and we encourage every other nation to do the same.”
The Pakistani response to the sanctions and Finer’s pointed comments was defiant, even if it sought to place Pakistan’s strategic challenges in the regional—meaning Indian—context. Its foreign ministry stated, “Pakistan considers the US decision to impose sanctions on NDC and three commercial entities as unfortunate and biased. Pakistan’s strategic capabilities are meant to defend its sovereignty and preserve peace and stability in South Asia. The latest installment of sanctions defies the objective of peace and security by aiming to accentuate military asymmetries. Such policies have dangerous implications for the strategic stability of our region and beyond.
Pakistan’s strategic programme is a sacred trust bestowed by 240 million people upon its leadership. The sanctity of this trust, held in the highest esteem across the entire political spectrum, cannot be compromised.
We also regret the imposition of sanctions on private commercial entities. Similar listings of commercial entities in the past were based on mere doubts and suspicion without any evidence whatsoever. While claiming strict adherence to non-proliferation norms, licensing requirement for advanced military technology to other countries have been waived off in the past.
Such double standards and discriminatory practices not only undermine the credibility of non-proliferation regimes but also endanger regional and international peace and security.”
There is no doubt that this statement, even though it was issued by the country’s foreign ministry, was the work of the army, which controls Pakistan’s nuclear assets. The assertion that the country’s strategic programme is a “sacred trust” is meant to assure the country that the army—the political class has been added on—will never compromise on the country’s security despite any threat from any quarter, howsoever powerful it may be. It is also to convey a message of strength to the people that Pakistan’s strategic programme is being developed to give the country greater strategic strength and teeth so that even the world’s great powers cannot threaten it.
The international strategic community will closely analyse the imposition of sanctions on the NDC, Finer’s statements, and the Pakistani response. While closing his address, he noted that the US pursued a bipartisan approach on strategic challenges that confront it. This is not true. Former President Barack Obama’s approach towards Iranian nuclear ambitions and that of his successor and now the President-elect, Donald Trump, were different. Indeed, Trump abandoned the US-Iran nuclear deal, which was worked out by Obama and which had the support of the other P5 countries as well as Germany. Despite all his efforts, President Biden could not put the genie back into the bottle. In this background, the question arises if the incoming Trump administration will go along with the stand taken by the Biden people on Pakistan’s long-range ballistic missile programme. It is likely that it would because it would also view Pakistani ambitions both as an emerging direct challenge and also through the prism of the Sino-Pak nexus as well as Pakistan’s relations with North Korea.
The last point is relevant because it is well known that North Korea played a big role in the development of the Pakistani ballistic missile programme in the 1990s. It did so in exchange for the information and guidance given by Pakistan in respect of North Korea’s nuclear weapons programme. It will be recalled that the late Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto had claimed that she had carried some important documents of a nuclear nature on her person while going on a visit to Pyongyang.
Pakistan takes pride in being the only Islamic country to possess nuclear weapons, even though it has always denied that its nuclear weapons and delivery systems are meant for the Islamic ummah. It has emphasised that they are meant to defend itself, against India, even if it has not directly named India at all times. Nevertheless, right from the time of ZA Bhutto, who said that Pakistan will eat grass but develop nuclear weapons, it has asserted that if Christians and Jews and Hindus (for Pakistan, India is Hindu) have nuclear capabilities and weapons, then it is not acceptable that the Islamic world should not have this capability or possess nuclear weapons.
There is little doubt that it will now seek to subtly spread the word that the reach of Pakistani nuclear weapons is growing with the development of its long-range ballistic missile capability and that this is an ‘asset’ for the ummah as a whole; if for nothing else, it shows that Muslims are not lagging behind in frontier areas of knowledge. There is therefore an Islamic angle to Finer’s disclosures that neither the West nor India can afford to ignore.
The original fundamental purpose of Pakistan’s nuclear programme and its delivery systems was to deter India. It therefore developed delivery systems for these weapons that covered India as a whole. These systems included ballistic missiles. In addition to land- and air-based delivery systems against India, Pakistan also wished to develop sea-based delivery systems, thus developing a true triad. Sea-based delivery systems of a true triad require long-range missiles and nuclear-powered submarines. These platforms have the capability of remaining out in the oceans for long stretches of time and not being easily detectable. Pakistan is a long way from possessing the technology or the ability to develop such submarines.
However, India should be concerned, and so should the US—for Pakistan’s nuclear ambitions seem to be growing—that if Pakistan succeeds in developing sea-launched ballistic missile systems, the Chinese may lease nuclear submarines to it. However, for the time being, the US’ focus will remain on Pakistan making land-based long-range ballistic missiles that can reach the US mainland. That would also be an attribute of greater nuclear yearnings.
Israel will take Finer’s comments very seriously. It cannot do otherwise even when it is involved in the Gaza war. Israel is on the target of the Jihadi groups, and these are not only those under the control of Iran. It is likely that there will be, if it is not taking place already, close cooperation between the US and Israel on monitoring Pakistan’s long-range ballistic missile development. India should have no reluctance in gaining insights from the results of US-Israel cooperation in this regard. A special focus for India will have to be on Pakistani and Chinese cooperation on developing Pakistan’s sub-sea delivery capabilities. Israel and the US will not ignore these areas.
It is ironic that the US, which is so worried about Pakistan developing long-range missiles, had looked the other way in the 1980s when Pakistan was developing its nuclear programme. That was the era of the Cold War, and the US needed Pakistan’s assistance to defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan through the Mujahideen. Wise powers seek to see the long-term implications of their actions, but the US has shown a lack of this wisdom time and again. Indeed, the rise of China as an economic power and now a scientific and technological power too is because of US policies towards it when it opened up to the world—but on its own terms—after 1978. It can only be hoped that Finer’s warnings to Pakistan will be followed up through the use of the multitude of pressure points that the US can bring to bear on Pakistan because of its many vulnerabilities, including economic.
The writer is a former Indian diplomat who served as India’s Ambassador to Afghanistan and Myanmar, and as secretary, the Ministry of External Affairs. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.
Post Comment