Remember Shrub in 2000 did not have a clue who Perves Mushariff was."Don't
care if we're hated as long as we're feared."
Fears of "Pakistan next after Iraq"
April 2 2003
US sanctions on Pakistan's top nuclear research facility over alleged
technology-sharing with North Korea are fuelling a popular theory that
Washington plans to deal with Pakistan's weapons of mass destruction once
it has finished with Iraq.
"It's possible these are signals that Pakistan has to fall in line or it
could be the target in the future," A. H. Nayyar, an analyst from the
Sustainable Development Policy Institute, told AFP.
The US announced on Monday it had slapped sanctions on AQ Khan Research
Laboratories (KRL), a uranium enrichment plant near Islamabad, and North
Korea, following months of claims by intelligence officials that Pakistan
had supplied the Stalinist state with uranium enrichment technology for its
controversial nuclear program, in exchange for missiles.
US officials did not publicly link Islamabad and Pyongyang, but one
Washington official said on condition of anonymity the sanctions were
because of their alleged bilateral weapons trade, adding: "You connect the
dots."
In response to the KRL ban, The News daily wrote: "There has already been
much talk of Pakistan becoming a target after Iraq.
"That might be leaping to premature conclusions but Pakistan needs to be
wary of the direction of its relationship with the USA."
The "Pakistan next" theory has been bandied around for months in newspaper
editorials, and politicians have bought into it as anti-US hostility swells
among Pakistanis enraged at perceived US aggression and perceptions of
ingratitude from Washington for Pakistan's pivotal war on terrorism role.
Even President Pervez Musharraf gave it currency when he told businessmen
on January 18 "there were chances" that Pakistan would become a target of
Western forces after Iraq.
"We will have to work on our own to stave off the impending danger,"
General Musharraf said.
"Cynics would say the axis of evil includes Pakistan also," Institute of
Regional Studies researcher Khalid Mahmud told AFP, referring to US
President George Bush's description of Iraq, Iran and North Korea.
"There are many in Pakistan who say that, after Iraq, the US will turn its
attention to other countries and on the hit list are Iran, Syria, North
Korea and maybe Pakistan also.
"So (the KRL sanctions) may be an indicator of things to come."
Mr Mahmud said the main factors feeding the "Pakistan next" theory were the
combination of Pakistan's possession of weapons of mass destruction and the
rise of Islamic fundamentalists.
"From the beginning this nuclear program has been branded an 'Islamic bomb'
which poses a direct threat to Israel," he said.
"The other irritant is the rise of religious extremist forces. These two
irritants could be the basis of the US aggressive posture vis-a-vis Pakistan."
Foreign Minister Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri brushed off concerns that
Washington had Pakistan's nuclear program in its sights.
"We are not the next target, as we are a responsible state," he told reporters.
Proponents of the "Pakistan next" theory point to the policy of pre-emption
embraced by Washington in its attempt to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam
Hussein, and its goal of eliminating weapons of mass destruction.
General Musharraf is embraced by the US as a "tight" ally in its 18-month
campaign against the Taliban and al-Qaeda and the ongoing hunt for
fugitives from the extremist groups.
But the spectre of Pakistan's home-grown extremists or fundamentalist
Islamists getting their hands on its estimated 30 to 50 nuclear warheads is
why the US is paying extra attention to Pakistan's nuclear program and not
India's, analysts say.
Fervently anti-US Islamic parties surged to power in October polls, winning
control of one provincial parliament and almost one-fifth of the national
parliament.
Islamic militant groups continue to operate despite government efforts to
stamp them out. They have executed 11 deadly attacks on Christian and
Western targets in the past 18 months.
http://smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/02/1048962764425.html
