In a badly researched article in the Wall Street Journal, Bret Stephens as presented a proposal that the West buy Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. While the argument he makes is weak, it shows us that the US media is completely uninformed when it comes to the conflicts and challenges in the region.

Mr. Stephens believes that:

A.Q. Khan, father of Pakistan’s nuclear program (and midwife to a few others), likes to point out what a feat it was that a country “where we can’t even make a bicycle chain” could succeed at such an immense technological task. He exaggerates somewhat: Pakistan got its bomb largely through a combination of industrial theft, systematic violation of Western export controls, and a blueprint of a weapon courtesy of Beijing.

Still, give Mr. Khan this: Thanks partly to his efforts, a country that has impoverished the great mass of its own people, corruptly enriched a tiny handful of elites, served as a base of terrorism against its neighbors, lost control of its intelligence services, radicalized untold numbers of Muslims in its madrassas, handed the presidency to a man known as Mr. 10%, and proliferated nuclear technology to Libya and Iran (among others) has, nevertheless, made itself a power to be reckoned with. Congratulations.

But if Pakistanis thought a bomb would be a net national asset, they miscalculated. Yes, Islamabad gained parity with its adversaries in New Delhi, gained prestige in the Muslim world, and gained a day of national pride, celebrated every May 28.

Miscalculated? Are you not suggesting that the US pay Pakistani US$ 100 billion to buy those same nuclear weapons? Additionally, there would have been a war between Pakistan and India on more occasions, if the nuclear card was not in Pakistan’s arsenal.

In 2007, some 1,500 Pakistani civilians were killed in terrorist attacks. None of those attacks were perpetrated by India or any other country against which Pakistan’s warheads could be targeted, unless it aimed at itself. But Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal has made it an inviting target for the jihadists who blew up Islamabad’s Marriott hotel in September and would gladly blow up the rest of the capital as a prelude to taking it over.

Mr. Stephens, prior to Pakistan joining the War of Terror, there were no terrorist attacks inside of Pakistan. Yes, we had our own insurgencies to deal with, but no terrorist attacks against Pakistan. Additionally, if you have the pleasure of being from one of the areas currently at war (I am from Swat), you know that every funeral that has been held for the supposed suicide bombers have been non-Muslim funerals. 

Mr. Stephens, if you had looked into the extremist problem in Pakistan, you would know that they are not Pakistanis, but from Central Asia states like Kazakstan and Uzbekistan, and yes there have been a few Indians. Get your facts right, the Wall Street Journal is supposed to be a respected newspaper.

And here is Stephens’ justification:

The day that happens may not be so very far off. President Asif Ali Zardari was recently in the U.S. asking for $100 billion to stave off economic collapse. So far, the international community has ponied up about $15 billion. That puts Mr. Zardari $85 billion shy of his fund-raising target. Meantime, the average Taliban foot soldier brings home monthly wages that are 30% higher than uniformed Pakistani security personnel.

Remember Zardari’s interview with the Wall Street Journal during the UN General Assembly session? Where he called Kashmiri Freedom Fighter terrorists and that Pakistan had “never considered India an enemy?”

And the deal:

• The government of Pakistan would verifiably eliminate its entire nuclear stockpile and the industrial base that sustains it.
• In exchange, the U.S. and other Western donors would agree to a $100 billion economic package, administered by an independent authority and disbursed over 10 years, on condition that Pakistan remain a democratic and secular state (no military rulers; no Sharia law). 
• It would supplement that package with military aid similar to what the U.S. provides Israel: F-35 fighters, M-1 tanks, Apache helicopters. 
• The U.S. would also extend its nuclear umbrella to Pakistan, just as Hillary Clinton now proposes to do for Israel.

Two words: Pressler Amendment. The US government can’t be trusted to follow foreign policy agreements, as we saw with an F-16 purchase that went into the garbage for almost 15 years because the US government changed the rules for aid to Pakistan.

The justification:

People forget that the world has subtracted more nuclear powers over the past two decades than it has added: Kazakhstan, Belarus, Ukraine and South Africa all voluntarily relinquished their stockpiles in the 1990s. Libya did away with its program in 2003 when Moammar Gadhafi concluded that a bomb would be a net liability, and that he had more to gain by coming to terms with the West.

There’s no compelling reason Mr. Zardari and his military brass shouldn’t reach the same conclusion, assuming excellent terms and desperate circumstances. Sure, a large segment of Pakistanis will never agree. Others, who have subsisted on a diet of leaves and grass so Pakistan could have its bomb, might take a more pragmatic view.

Offer this same deal to India and see what happens. Pakistan has a bomb, because India has a bomb. Just like the US used to build nuclear warheads because the USSR also had them, did America stop the arms race when it applied to them? No, they didn’t. The Americans proved that they could only create a defense weapons industry, while auto manufacturing, electronics and everything else that the American consumer buys comes from outside the United States.

Mr. Stephens closes with this, which I find absolutely hilarious:

The tragedy of Pakistan is that it remains a country that can’t do the basics, like make a bicycle chain. If what its leaders want is prestige, prosperity and lasting security, they could start by creating an economy that can make one — while unlearning how to make the bomb.

What seems to be forgotten is that under the Musharraf government, Pakistan was growing by leaps and bounds. The economy was strong and the nation was building. But the US government felt that Bhutto or Sharif would be more pliable than Musharraf and he was removed. But the chorus “Do More” still comes from the West, now joined by India.

Mr. Stephens, we Pakistanis can do a lot of things right. The tragedy of Pakistan is that the West can’t seem to stop to interfering, and none of us believe that the new Obama government will develop a relationship with the people of Pakistan. Simply said, America has long proven that it can’t be trusted.