Pakistan Said Most Likely to Give Nuclear Tech to Terrorists

By Jon Fox
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON —Pakistan is the nation most likely to transfer nuclear technology to terrorists in the next three to five years, according to a bipartisan survey of foreign policy experts released yesterday (see GSN, Feb. 14).

In the poll, conducted in late June by the Center for American Progress, 74 percent of the more than 100 respondents picked Pakistan, while 42 percent identified North Korea.  Experts were asked to pick the top two countries mostly likely to conduct such a transfer.

The results are nearly a complete reversal from the findings of a similar survey conducted by the center at the beginning of 2007.  During that poll 73 percent of largely the same group of experts felt North Korea would most likely be behind a nuclear transfer to terrorists and 44 percent selected Pakistan.

Since the January poll, North Korea has entered into a denuclearization agreement as a result of the six-party talks, while the domestic political situation in Pakistan has become more tumultuous.

If the government of Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf were to fall, however, the majority of experts thought it was unlikely that terrorists would be able to gain access to the country’s nuclear arsenal.  About one-third of those polled thought that was a likely scenario (see GSN, Aug. 6).

The seeming contradiction between voting Pakistan most likely to transfer nuclear technology to terrorists and the majority of those responding indicating that nuclear weapons would not go loose in the event of Musharraf falling was not addressed in the survey report.

There were a couple of places where the responses seemed to conflict from one section to another, but it is important to remember that experts considered each question individually, said Caroline Wadhams, a senior policy analyst at the Center for American Progress.

There were a number of instances in the survey where experts expressed a higher degree of optimism about North Korea than last time around, she said.  In general those polled saw U.S. policy toward Pyongyang in a much less negative light during this poll.

Thirty-five percent of respondents, who included foreign policy thinkers from across the political spectrum, also selected Pakistan as the country most likely to become the next stronghold for al-Qaeda.  Just 22 percent selected Iraq.

While experts seemed to agree that Pakistan could pose a potentially thorny problem for the United States, there was little consensus on how to deal with an al-Qaeda buildup in that country.

“This was precisely the difficultly the administration hoped to avoid by forging this close alliance and relationship with Pakistan.  That obviously hasn’t worked in that it may have imprisoned us in not being able to take actions that we might take against other countries,” said Bruce Hoffman, a professor in Georgetown University’s security studies program and one of the experts polled.

Efforts by the United States to hurt al-Qaeda in Pakistan could backfire given the fragility of the Musharraf government, leading to serious questions about the fate of the country’s nuclear weapons, Hoffman said.  “That’s exactly the point:  there aren’t many good options.”

About a quarter of the respondents suggested putting more pressure on Musharraf to crack down on extremist groups, some suggested increasing U.S. aid to the country, some recommended injecting U.S. troops into the western provinces of country, and some said there was simply nothing effective the United States could do.

“We were also struck by the fact that everyone seemed to be pointing to how dire the situation is with Pakistan was and the experts seemed to be pointing for the need for a policy change, but the experts were all over the map about what we do about it,” Wadhams said.  “I think that just highlights the dilemma that U.S. policy-makers are facing.”

Regarding Iran, 68 percent of those polled thought that the current government in Tehran poses a threat to the United States but that the situation could be contained through diplomacy.  Ten percent said Iran was a threat that requires immediate U.S. military action and 8 percent suggested military strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities (see related GSN story today).

Two-thirds of experts polled favored a “grand bargain” that resolved the nuclear standoff, the issue of state-sponsored terrorism, human rights and recognition of Israel all at once.  Nearly 60 percent also supported continuing the current administration policy of pushing U.N. sanctions against Tehran.

Eighty percent said that the sanctions efforts should continue but the United States should also directly engage Iran in bilateral dialogue over the nuclear issue.

A majority, 59 percent, opposed formally designating the Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization, a step that would trigger additional sanctions.  This is a step the Bush administration has decided to pursue, according to reports.

Back to top
About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines © Copyright 2008 by National Journal Group, Inc. The material in this section is produced independently for NTI by National Journal Group, Inc. Any reproduction or retransmission, in whole or in part, is a violation of federal law and is strictly prohibited without the consent of the National Journal Group, Inc. All rights reserved.