“Pakistan has begun moving its nuclear weapons in low security vans on congested roads, making the weapons more vulnerable to theft by militants”, so reported the US media the other day. To start with, for one, how to understand whether a van in transit on congested roads has ‘begun’ or ‘done’ the job? ‘Begun’ appears to be by choice as the present tense carries much more justifiable space to play with as compared to mission accomplished. Without any proof agaisnt the ‘insecure vans’, the US media at once availed more than full advantages of the freedom of expression.
The news report also talked about Osama bin Laden, one of our retired generals, some US military officials judging that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons were safe, others refusing to agree with, Pentagon declining to comment on a US media article titled, “The ally from hell”.
How can then we, the other side of the coin, describe the scenario? As usual – our nuclear weapons are not allowed to slip away from the international community’s mind, so somebody has to keep it irregularly regular in sight. In 2005, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon virtually acknowledged the possession of nuclear weapons by Israel when he said, “The Arabs may have oil but we have got the matchbox.” A couple of decades back it completely destroyed the Iraqi nuclear installations and it threatened to destroy the Iranian nuclear installations. The question is do we understand the grammar of the bigger picture?
Z A KAZMI
Karachi
