The List

Pakistan's Baghdad Bob

Officials in Islamabad are notorious spinmeisters, but military spokesman Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas is fast becoming a prevaricator without peer.

As American tanks rumbled in to Baghdad on April 7, 2003, Iraqi InformationMinister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, who became affectionately known as BaghdadBob, tried mightily to convince Western journalists to ignore the facts infront of their eyes. "I triple guarantee you, there are no American soldiers in Baghdad," he told reporters as American troops gathered a few hundred yardsaway. Later, he stated that American soldiers were "committing suicide by thehundreds on the gates of Baghdad," mere hours before coalition forces securedthe city.

Today,Baghdad Bob might have found a successor in the form of Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas,the director general of Pakistan's Inter-Services Public Relations, which handles media relations for the Pakistani armed forces. In a recent Washington Post column, David Ignatius celebrated Pakistan's new determination in confronting the Taliban, quoting Abbas saying that the ongoing offensive in South Waziristan brings an end to the Pakistani government's thinking that "somehow we'll be able to manage them, co-opt them, bring them on board."

Statementslike that are music to American policymakers' ears. But somehow, it seems like we've heard all of this from General Abbas before. In less than two years, the general has provided the media with a fairly impressive list of promises, assertions, and projections -- none of which have more than a tenuous basis in reality. Here are a few of his greatest hits. But don't worry: We're sure that, this time, he means every word he says.

Sponsorship of the Taliban

Claim: In the recent Frontline documentary aired on Oct. 13, "Obama's War," a perplexed correspondent tried to get a straight answer from Major General Abbas.  Is it true, he asked, that the Pakistani government knows where Taliban leaders such as Mullah Omar and Siraj Haqqaniare located? But Abbas would not budge: "There is no truth in Mullah Omar and Siraj Haqqani remaining in Pakistan side of the border. I refute that.  No one has shown any intelligence to the Pakistanis."

Taliban groups such as these, Abbas said, "operate from Afghanistan.  If somebody claims that everything is happening from this side of the border, I am sorry, this is misplaced, and we refute it."

Reality: In 2008, the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael Mullen traveled to Islamabad topresent the Pakistani government with evidence that elements of Pakistan's Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) were supporting the Taliban. Mullen reportedly provided the Pakistani government with intercepted communications between the ISI and the Taliban to prove his point. "We spoke to, clearly, the ISI's relationship with various militant groups that they've had for some time," said Mullen in the same Frontline documentary. U.S. officials, from Barack Obama on down, have continued to emphasize Pakistan's role as an incubator of terrorist activities. Thepresident stated this past March: "Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that Al Qaida is actively planning attacks on the United States homeland from its safe haven in Pakistan."



Claim: On May 17, 2008, Abbas accompanied journalists to Waziristan to speak of the military's recent offensive in the region. He attempted to reassure reporters about a recent relocation of Pakistani Army troops: "The Army will still have a dominating presence [in Waziristan]. ...Until we are fully sure that the tribal elders and 'jirga' (tribal council) are fully in place, we will stay here."

Reality: On May 23, Taliban commander Qari Hussain -- whom the Pakistani military took credit for killing during another offensive in Waziristan in January -- held a press conference mocking reports of his death. "I am alive, don't you see me?" he said. Baitullah Mehsud, then the most influential Taliban leader in Waziristan, also addressed a news conference at a government school building to announce that the Taliban would continue its war against NATO forces in Afghanistan. For the Pakistani military, this all amounted to something considerably less than a "dominating presence" in Waziristan. In any case, the military presence there soon waned, precipitating the recent offensive into the region.

 Drone strikes

Claim: Abbas has repeatedly criticized the U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan, and emphasized that the Pakistani military had no need for American help in its recent offensive. For that reason, the drone strike in the area of Bajaur on Oct. 24 was particularly inconvenient. Abbas, however, was unfazed: "Our information suggests that explosive material being loaded ata vehicle blew up," he told journalists.

Reality: The "vehicle"detonated near a bunker where Maulana Faqir Muhammad, deputy chief of Hakimullah Mehsud's Tehrik-e-Taliban, happened to be holding a secret meeting. That's either the most fortuitous location for an explosives accident in history, or a strike from a Predator drone. The International News and the Daily Times, both Pakistani newspapers, didn't fall for Abbas's spin -- they reported the explosion as a drone strike.


 Shamsi Airbase


Claim: On Feb. 17, Abbas was handed a bona fide public relations disaster. The Times of London reported that the United States was using Pakistan's Shamsi airfield, which lies about 200 miles away from Mullah Omar's stronghold of Quetta, to launch Predator drone strikes. After spending the past year issuing government condemnations of U.S. drone strikes, Abbas was faced with the inconvenient fact that thePakistani state was quietly complicit in the launching of these attacks. But, like a good soldier, he pressed bravely on. As the Times of London reported: "Major General Athar Abbas, the chief military spokesman, confirmed that US forces were using Shamsi [airfield]. ‘The airfield is being used only for logistics,' he said, without elaborating."

Reality: Abbas's denial would have been more believable if the Google Earth images accompanying the Times's article did not clearly show Predator drones on the ground at Shamsi airbase. The U.S. government also evidently did not believe that Abbas's explanation would pass muster.  Two days later, on Feb. 19, U.S. officials would admit publicly to operating drones from Shamsi, and that the Pakistani government had been providing them with the locations of potential targets inthe tribal areas.

 Swat Valley


Claim: After a year of fighting in thecontested Swat Valley, the New York Times profiled the "terrified" residents caught between the Taliban and the Pakistani army on Jan.24. The article reported that Taliban fighters roam around the region freely,while the military hunkers down in its camps. Abbas, however, took issue withthe accusation that the military lacks the will to fight, calling it "very unfair and unjustified." He also disputed that Mingora, the largest town in Swat, had fallen to the militants. "Just because they come out at night and throw down four or five bodies in the square does not mean that militants control anything," he argued.

Reality:  On Feb. 16, the Pakistani government would sign a treaty in the Swat Valley that allowed for the imposition of sharia law in the region, in exchange for a "permanent cease-fire" with the Taliban. It turns out that the Taliban's ability to "throw down four or five bodies in the square" did, in fact, say something about their ability to control the area - and at the height of their power the militants were able to assert their authority within 60 miles of Islamabad. The Pakistani government would only regain control of the Swat Valley after another offensive, begun in May 2009.


The List

The Future Nuclear Powers You Should Be Worried About

Iran's and North Korea's nuclear programs -- not to mention the risk of loose nukes in Russia or Pakistan -- are worrying enough. But a number of other countries are looking to join the nuclear club, with terrifying potential consequences.



Status: Substantial evidence points toward Burmese collaboration with North Korea in the development of a secret nuclear reactor and plutonium extraction facility. The reactor could be operational as early as 2014.

Why you should worry: Suspicions of a nascent Burmese nuclear weapons program are widespread. In July, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton publicly worried about military cooperation between North Korea and Burma, saying, "It would be destabilizing for the region. It would pose a direct threat to Burma's neighbors." Clinton's worries are validated by the reports of two recent Burmese defectors, one a former business executive involved in Burma's nuclear contracts, and the other an officer in a secret nuclear battalion in the Burmese Army, whose roles in Burma's clandestine nuclear program were described in the Sydney Morning Herald.

Tensions have been rising between Burma and Bangladesh since 2008, with a border dispute and a buildup of military forces along the disputed area. The tension has risen palpably; in the past two weeks, in addition to heavy tanks and artillery, at least five Burmese and four Bangladeshi warships have faced off across the Bay of Bengal. With both countries looking to go nuclear, the prospect of this conflict exploding is only more worrying.

Plus, the Burmese junta has substantial internal instability to contend with. There are reports of a recent "clearance sale" of heroin by ethnic militias, who are rushing to sell off the drugs to finance enormous weapons purchases. The drugs are being sold at bargain-basement prices in preparation for a possible resumption of civil war. These ethnic groups have been fighting the government on and off for more than 60 years. The fighting has largely occurred in Burma's border areas, but a resumption of wide-scale violence also carries the threat of discouraging foreign investments in Burma's energy sector, further weakening and isolating an already dangerous regime.



Status: Cleared by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for nuclear power development Bangladesh is receiving support from Pakistan and recently signed a formal bilateral nuclear cooperation agreement with Russia

Why you should worry: Bangladesh's drive for nuclear power is understandable; years of underinvestment in its energy sector have made severe power outages a frequent occurrence and some estimates predict that the country could go into a total blackout by 2011 if no new plants are built. Despite these concerns and the IAEA imprimatur, domestic critics continue to raise concerns over whether Bangladesh has the infrastructure necessary to safely operate a nuclear plant, particularly because the country's coal- and gas-powered plants are frequently tripped up by poor maintenance.

Bangladesh is also not the most politically stable of countries. Since gaining independence in 1971 in a regional war involving Pakistan and India, two of the country's leaders have been assassinated, there have been a series of military coups (both bloody and bloodless), widespread corruption charges, bomb attacks by Islamist militants, and near-constant strikes that have paralyzed the country. In December 2008 a state of emergency ended and elections this January brought an end to interim rule. The election has hardly brought political calm, however; charges of a rigged election were followed by a mutiny of paramilitary border guards in February.

Despite relative peace between Pakistan and India in recent years, including high-level talks and appeals to the United States to arbitrate the dispute over Kashmir, the regional arms race continues unabated. Pakistan will have a new plutonium production facility operating within a year, while India is working on cruise missiles designed for nuclear warheads and nuclear submarines. Pakistan's recent push to help Bangladesh develop nuclear capabilities only introduces another potentially devastating factor in an already-volatile mix.



Status: With 1.5 million metric tons of uranium deposits, Kazakhstan is the world's third-largest uranium exporter. Although it currently depends on Russia for its uranium enrichment, the country is planning to develop its own enrichment plants and begin constructing a new nuclear power plant in 2011.

 Why you should worry: It's true that there's little risk of Kazakhstan seeking to develop a nuclear weapon. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Kazakhstan voluntarily gave up thousands of nuclear weapons, and the toxic legacy of 456 underground Soviet nuclear tests (test site pictured) has solidified Kazakh nonproliferation sentiment.

The danger, however, is the risk of dangerous materials falling into the wrong hands. Corruption is endemic at all levels of autocratic President Nursultan Nazarbayev's government, and the country's massive and expanding nuclear bureaucracy is no exception.

This May, authorities arrested Mukhtar Dzhakishev, head of the state-run energy firm Kazatomprom, which oversees uranium production and plans to become the world's largest producer by 2010. Dzhakishev was arrested for appropriating nearly two-thirds of the country's uranium deposits and selling them to foreign firms. Some have suggested that such a feat would be impossible and the charges are politically motivated. In any case, the implications are troubling: Either stunningly huge amounts of uranium can be shifted around without oversight, or one of the world's largest uranium producers is becoming an unstable political battleground. The risk of rogue states or terrorist groups taking advantage of this situation is significant and frightening.



Status: Venezuela has a weak science infrastructure, little nuclear expertise, and limited funding. However, President Hugo Chávez's stated goal of developing civilian nuclear power may yet come to fruition with a little help from his friends.

Why you should worry: Despite a distinct lack of material progress, there's reason to worry about Venezuela's nuclear ambitions. Venezuela and Russia have had an increasingly close relationship, signing a number of economic, energy, and military cooperation agreements in recent years. Since 2005, Venezuela has purchased more than $4 billion dollars worth of Russian arms, and last month Russia provided a $2.2 billion loan for additional arms purchases. Venezuela has also become one of Iran's most active supporters; Chávez has taken to the international stage to cheer on Iran's own nuclear development and last month announced he would begin sending the Islamic Republic 20,000 barrels of gasoline a day to undermine sanctions efforts.

Those relationships seem to be paying off for Chávez's nuclear ambitions, which he first announced in 2005. Venezuela has created an atomic energy commission with Russia, designed specifically to jump-start its nuclear program. And Iran is now assisting Venezuela in detecting and testing uranium deposits; Venezuelan officials estimate that there are 50,000 tons of untapped uranium in the country.

"I say it before the world: Venezuela is going to start the process of developing nuclear energy, but we're not going to make an atomic bomb, so don't be bothering us afterward ... [with] something like what they have against Iran," Chávez has said. Given the Venezuelan leader's recent military buying spree and the escalating war of words with neighboring Colombia, such assurances might not carry much weight with his foreign critics or the IAEA. As the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace's Nima Gerami and Sharon Squassoni write, "Those states and companies that would contemplate nuclear cooperation with the Chávez government should consider whether they might help recreate the alarming history of Iran's nuclear program and subsequent international crises."



Status: In January, the United States signed an agreement with the United Arab Emirates (UAE), committing to provide nuclear technology, materials, and expertise. Known as a "123 agreement," it still awaits congressional approval but is expected to go into effect by the end of this month. In the meantime, the UAE has developed a legal framework for regulation and oversight of nuclear industry and has drafted plans for a number of nuclear power plants to meet rapidly rising energy demand.

Why you should worry: On first glance, the UAE's nuclear ambitions seem entirely reasonable. The UAE has incessantly emphasized the peaceful nature of its nuclear plans, and by all accounts the UAE's legal commitment to monitoring nuclear operations should be an effective means of oversight. What's more, the UAE is widely considered one of the most liberal and stable states in the Middle East and has extensive ties to the international community as a center of global business.

So what's to fret about? There is a great deal of fear that bringing nuclear technology could cause the country's less-than-stable neighbors to seek the same, in a region that has, with the exception of Israel, remained nuke-free. Referring to the 123 agreement, U.S. Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) said, "In the Middle East, a nuclear-energy race could be as perilous as a nuclear-arms race." The trend toward nuclear development has already seized the region, with Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Egypt, and even chaotic Yemen announcing intentions to look into nuclear energy.

Regardless of how peacefully the UAE's nuclear program begins, arms-control hawks worry that massive amounts of nuclear technology and expertise are a great foundation for developing a nuclear weapons program. As the UAE is a major trading partner of Iran, critics have raised concerns that nuclear material could fall into Iranian hands.