Pakistan in spotlight at Washington nuclear summit

ISLAMABAD, April 11 (Reuters) – Pakistan will confront its reputation as a proliferator head-on this week when its prime minister addresses a global summit in Washington aimed at keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists.

Arch-rival India and other critics could however undercut Pakistan by reminding the world of its nuclear smuggling, highlighting the Taliban insurgency and fanning fears of a Muslim country in chaos where militants could seize atomic material.

“India will demand restrictions imposed on Pakistan’s nuclear programme,” said Shahid-ur-Rehman, a Pakistani journalist and author of “Long Road to Chagai”, a book on Pakistan’s nuclear programme.

“Their main stress will be on securing Pakistan’s nuclear assets by the world,” he told Reuters.

“Pakistan’s efforts will be to counter that and convince them that our National Command Authority, which oversees the country’s strategic assets, is very effective and that our nuclear assets are safe and secure.”

Pakistani Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani will speak at the summit after meeting President Barack Obama on Sunday. There are no plans for Gilani and his Indian counterpart, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, to meet, although the leaders of the nuclear-armed rivals may have a brief “encounter”.

Obama called the Nuclear Security Summit to reach a common understanding on the threat posed by nuclear terrorism and an agreement on steps to secure all loose nuclear material within four years to stop it falling into the hands of groups such as al Qaeda.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says the April 12-13 gathering of 47 nations is possibly the largest assembly of world leaders in the United States since 1945.

Two countries not on the guest list are Iran and North Korea, both of which are locked in their own nuclear standoffs with the West. And both countries have allegedly benefited from the smuggling network of Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of Pakistan’s nuclear bomb and a national hero. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (For full coverage of Pakistan click on [ID:nAFPAK] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

PRESSURE

It is this history — and Pakistan’s uncertain future — that has put the country’s nuclear programme in the spotlight this week. Experts say Pakistan’s arsenal and stockpile of weapons-grade material represent the area of greatest risk, because of huge internal security threats from the Taliban and al Qaeda.

“Because of Pakistan’s so-called past, that there was proliferation from Pakistan and that Pakistani scientists had met Osama bin Laden … there will be pressure on Pakistan,” said Rehman, referring to reported meetings involving two retired Pakistani nuclear scientists before the Sept. 11 attacks.

“America and the West’s biggest concern is that weapons of mass destruction should not fall into extremists’ hands and, in this case, they seem to be tacitly pointing at Pakistan. India and the anti-Pakistani lobby have always tried to exploit that and they will try to do it again.”

Pakistan dismisses that concern, calling it “speculative”.

“I do not see any possibility, whatsoever, of Pakistani material, or nuclear technology falling into the wrong hands,” a spokesman for the Foreign Ministry, Abdul Basit, told Reuters.

“India knows full well how secure Pakistan’s strategic assets are.”

Obama says he’s confident in the security of Pakistan’s arsenal, but India isn’t so sure.

The neighbours have fought three wars since being carved out of colonial India in 1947 and engaged in several smaller conflicts, including one in 1999 that threatened to go nuclear.

Both nations conducted nuclear tests in 1998.

Currently, they have an agreement to share prior information about new missile tests they plan to carry out, as well as an agreement to share details about each other’s nuclear facilities and their safety on a periodical basis.

But their armies often exchange fire across the border, and peace talks are held only intermittently.

“There is a lot of mistrust as India keeps on receiving reports of secret (nuclear) installations in Pakistan, and it believes that Islamabad is not sharing all its details,” said Naresh Chandra, India’s former envoy to Pakistan.

India is aware, however, of Pakistan’s importance to U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, so it doesn’t expect much American intervention between the two on nuclear issues, Chandra added.

There is more at stake in Washington than nuclear one-upmanship between old enemies. Pakistan’s economy has been hammered by energy shortfalls and high on its wish-list is a civilian nuclear deal with the United States like the one India received under President George W. Bush.

It has been repeatedly rebuffed by the United States — although lately more gently — and media reports in Pakistan suggested China may step up and help with civilian nuclear technology.

That would likely make India even more suspicious because of its own rivalry with China. The two fought a war in 1962.

Washington also would like Pakistan’s help in curtailing Iran’s nuclear programme, although there appears little chance of that.

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, India has between 60-70 warheads while Pakistan has about 60. Neither India nor Pakistan are party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons that Obama hopes to strengthen. (Additional reporting by Kamran Haider and Augustine Anthony; Editing by Raju Gopalakrishnan) (For more Reuters coverage of Afghanistan and Pakistan, see: here)

Q+A – Obama’s big summit on preventing nuclear terrorism

Nearly 50 world leaders meet in Washington next week for a summit aimed at preventing nuclear terrorism. It will be one of the largest such gatherings on U.S. soil since World War Two.

WHAT IS THE GOAL OF THE SUMMIT?

In a speech in Prague last year, U.S. President Barack Obama warned that nuclear terrorism was the “most immediate and extreme threat to global security.” He wants to use the summit to galvanize countries to take the issue more seriously.

The goal of the summit is to reach a common understanding on the threat posed by nuclear terrorism and to agree on steps to secure all loose nuclear material within four years to stop it falling into the hands of groups like al Qaeda.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says the April 12-13 gathering of 47 nations is possibly the largest assembly of world leaders in the United States since 1945. Two countries not on the guest list are Iran and North Korea, both of which are locked in their own nuclear standoffs with the West.

WHAT ARE COUNTRIES DOING TO SECURE NUCLEAR MATERIAL?

The effort to secure weapons-grade material has focused mainly on Russia and former Soviet republics. The United States has helped fund efforts to better protect such materials.

There is a patchwork of ad hoc international agreements aimed at combating theft, smuggling and non-proliferation, including the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism and the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material. Washington wants more countries to sign up to them.

Non-proliferation experts do not expect the summit to single out countries that are failing to make the grade. For example, Pakistan is due to attend, but no mention is likely of Abdul Qadeer Khan, the disgraced Pakistani scientist who was at the center of the world’s biggest nuclear proliferation scandal.

Experts say the biggest area of risk is Pakistan, which has a heavily guarded stockpile of weapons-grade material but faces huge internal security threats from the Taliban and al Qaeda.

REALISTICALLY, WHAT CAN THE SUMMIT ACHIEVE?

Leaders will pledge to toughen prosecution of traffickers, improve accounting for weapons-grade nuclear material and better protect vulnerable stocks, according to sources with access to a draft communique.

The communique may urge nations to convert nuclear reactors using highly enriched fuel into reactors using low-enriched fuel, which is harder to adapt to produce nuclear weapons. It also calls for strengthening the role of the International Atomic Energy Agency in enforcing nuclear treaties.

Individual countries may also make announcements at the summit about specific steps they are taking to reduce the risk of nuclear terrorism.

WHAT IS ‘LOOSE NUCLEAR MATERIAL’ AND WHERE IS IT KEPT?

Loose nuclear material refers to stockpiles of highly enriched uranium and plutonium that are typically kept in military installations, nuclear reactors, research reactors and defense laboratories.

Non-proliferation experts say it does not appear the summit will address the issue of securing radioactive material that, for example, can be found in diagnostic equipment in hospitals and could be used to make so-called dirty bombs.

There are about 1,600 tons of highly enriched uranium and 500 tons of plutonium worldwide, enough to make 120,000 nuclear bombs, according to non-governmental groups.

HOW CREDIBLE IS THE THREAT OF NUCLEAR TERRORISM?

Experts describe the threat of a crude fissile nuclear bomb, which is technically difficult to manufacture and requires hard-to-obtain bomb-grade uranium or plutonium, as a “low probability, high consequence act.” In other words, unlikely but with the potential to cause massive harm to life and property.

On the other hand, a “dirty bomb”, where conventional explosives are used to disperse radiation from a radioactive source, is a “high probability, low consequence act” with more potential to terrorize than cause large loss of life.

U.S. concerns about nuclear terrorism are not shared by everyone, especially developing countries facing more pressing issues, including rising energy demands that may require greater reliance on nuclear reactors in the future.

WILL IRAN, NORTH KOREA BE DISCUSSED AT THE SUMMIT?

Iran and North Korea are not on the agenda of the summit, but Obama is expected to meet leaders on the sidelines to discuss the way forward in imposing tough new sanctions on Iran over its refusal to stop uranium enrichment and getting North Korea to return to nuclear disarmament talks.

HOW IMMINENT IS THE DANGER?

Nuclear experts say there is no sign that terrorists have got their hands on weapons-grade nuclear material but note there have been at least 18 recorded cases of such material being stolen or going missing since the early 1990s.

“There have been repeated al Qaeda attempts to either get stolen nuclear materials or recruit nuclear expertise,” says Matthew Bunn, a nuclear expert at Harvard University.

Experts say making a crude nuclear bomb is technologically challenging for terrorist groups but not impossible. They would need about 110 pounds (50 kg) of highly enriched uranium and a machine shop to cast it into metal form. One mass of uranium would then be fired at high speed at another mass of uranium in a “gun-type” bomb to cause a nuclear explosion.

(Editing by Mohammad Zargham)

Obama, Medvedev seal deal on nuclear arms pact

U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev sealed a landmark arms-control treaty on Friday to slash their countries’ nuclear arsenals by a third and will sign it on April 8 in Prague.

After months of deadlock and delay, a breakthrough deal on a replacement for the Cold War-era START pact marked Obama’s most significant foreign policy achievement since taking office and also bolsters his effort to “reset” ties with Moscow.

Obama and Medvedev put the finishing touches on the historic accord during a phone call, committing the world’s biggest nuclear powers to deep weapons cuts.

“I’m pleased to announce that after a year of intense negotiations, the United States and Russia have agreed to the most comprehensive arms-control agreement in nearly two decades,” Obama told reporters.

But he could still face an uphill struggle for ratification this year by the U.S. Senate, where support from opposition Republicans will be hard to come by after a bitter fight that ended in congressional approval of his healthcare overhaul.

In Moscow, Medvedev hailed the agreement — which also must be approved by Russian lawmakers — as reflecting a “balance of the interests of both countries.”

Russia made clear, however, that it reserved the right to suspend any strategic arms cuts if it felt threatened by future U.S. deployment of a proposed Europe-based missile defense system that Moscow bitterly opposes.

The agreement replaces a 1991 pact that expired in December. Each side would have seven years after the treaty takes effect to reduce stockpiles of their most dangerous weapons — those already deployed — to 1,550 from the 2,200 now allowed and also cut their numbers of launchers in half.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the new pact sends a message to Iran and North Korea, both locked in nuclear standoffs with the West, of a commitment to thwart nuclear proliferation.

“WE INTEND TO LEAD”

“With this agreement, the United States and Russia — the two largest nuclear powers in the world — also send a clear signal that we intend to lead,” Obama said.

Signaling prospects for cuts by other nuclear powers, British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said: “As soon as it becomes useful to do so, the U.K. stands ready to include our nuclear arsenal in a future multilateral disarmament process.”

German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle called it “a milestone that will promote overall nuclear disarmament,” and European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso congratulated Obama and Medvedev on “this historic agreement.”

The treaty adds another chapter in a quarter century of efforts to make the world safer through nuclear arms control, after a 1986 summit between U.S. President Ronald Reagan and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev laid the groundwork.

Obama and Medvedev will sign the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) in Prague, capital of the Czech Republic, a former Soviet satellite now in NATO.

The April 8 meeting will be close to the anniversary of Obama’s speech in Prague offering his vision for eventually ridding the world of nuclear weapons, and should help build momentum for a nuclear security summit he will host in Washington on April 12-13.

The treaty does not impose limits on U.S. development of a missile defense system in Europe, which had been a major sticking point in negotiations. Washington insists such an anti-missile shield would be aimed at Iran, not at Russia.

“Missile defense is not constrained by this treaty,” U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said.

But Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said either side has the right to stop reducing offensive nuclear weapons if the other beefs up its missile defenses — a warning of consequences if Moscow sees a threat to its security.

“DARKEST DAYS”

Obama said the new treaty would help Washington and Moscow put behind them the “darkest days of the Cold War.”

“It cuts, by about a third, the nuclear weapons that the United States and Russia will deploy,” Obama said. “It significantly reduces missiles and launchers. It puts in place a strong and effective verification regime.

“And it maintains the flexibility that we need to protect and advance our national security, and to guarantee our unwavering commitment to the security of our allies.”

The new pact could strengthen Obama politically, building on the domestic political victory he scored this week when he signed sweeping healthcare reform into law.

Obama still faces a fight to get a two-thirds majority for Senate ratification of the treaty at a time of bipartisan rancor after the bitter fight over healthcare and other parts of his domestic agenda.

Republicans have criticized his national security policies and are in no mood to cooperate, especially ahead of November congressional elections where they hope to score big gains.

Despite that, Clinton insisted the prospects were good for bipartisan support for the treaty.

The final deal also signaled improved relations with Russia that had been badly frayed under Obama’s predecessor George W. Bush. Obama needs Moscow onboard for any further international sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program.

It showed that Moscow and Washington can find a way to work together despite differences over a host of issues from Georgia to missile defense in Europe.

(Additional reporting by Jeff Mason, Ross Colvin, Patricia Zengerle and Susan Cornwell in Washington, Guy Falconbridge and Steve Gutterman in Moscow and Brian Rohan in Berlin; editing by Philip Barbara)