Keynote Address by Lt Gen Khalid Ahmed Kidwai (Retd) at CISS Conference 8 Dec 21

#1 · 10th December 2021, 4:03 pm

Quote from strafasia on 10th December 2021, 4:03 pm
https://youtu.be/fGOyXU08FJw
Strategic Stability and Nuclear Security – Global and Regional Perspectives
Keynote Address by Lt Gen Khalid Ahmed Kidwai, NI, HI, HI (M) at The Center for
International Strategic Studies (CISS) International Conference Islamabad 08 December
2021
Ladies and gentlemen. Good evening, and good morning, to all of you in your different
time zones. I start with good wishes for everyone and the hope that since I last spoke at the
IISS-CISS Workshop on the 6th of February 2020 at London everyone has remained safe
from the ravages of the Covid-19 Pandemic which started to engulf the world just about the
time as we dispersed that day.
Given the construct of today’s topic the way I see it, there are four clear notions that
need to be addressed in an integrated manner: there is Strategic Stability; there is Nuclear
Security; Global Perspectives and Regional Perspectives on these. And because of the
cooperative nature and context of the IISS-CISS traditional academic focus, when we will
talk of regional perspectives South Asia will take center stage as the relevant context.
Further, since today’s event is in the nature of a continuum, I have considered it appropriate
in my talk to first reconnect with the essence of what I had to say on the 6th of February
2020 as a recap, and from there pick up the threads of international and regional
developments that have taken place during the last two years in as much as these are
relevant to today’s topic.
To recap I am highlighting three main points that I had made in the context of South
Asian Strategic Stability two years ago in London:
a. The first point I made was that in the strategic stability-instability paradigm of South Asia
it has become Pakistan’s responsibility to ensure that strategic stability will not be disturbed
to Pakistan’s disadvantage at any stage despite India’s consistent efforts to swing the
pendulum towards instability. At each stage of the swing of the pendulum towards strategic
instability Pakistan restored the strategic balance through appropriate and effective counter
measures. In the last two years, the upward trend has continued unabated with India
inducting, amongst others, destabilizing systems like the Rafael fighters, the S-400 System,
the Predator Drones and generally upping the ante while pursuing the nuclear triad on land,
air and particularly in the Nuclearization of the Indian Ocean. Pakistan will not let these
destabilizing inductions or even doctrines to create instability; strategic stability will be
maintained or re-established at all cost. Pakistan’s responses should therefore be seen in
that context.
b. The second point I made was with reference to India’s failed air strike against Balakot in
mainland Pakistan on 26th February 2019 consequent to its false flag operation at Pulwama,
as a reckless strategy for domestic electoral purposes. In this regard I had said two things:
(1) One, that Pakistan’s nuclear policy of Full Spectrum Deterrence had prevented the
conflict from escalating to higher dangerous rungs and further therefore, I had cautioned
India not to consider Pakistan’s robust nuclear capability as a bluff as was then evident in
the flawed thinking and statements of most in India’s civil and military higher echelons.
(2) Two, if an irresponsible military adventure were to be undertaken by India, Pakistan will
respond forcefully under its retaliatory doctrine of Quid Pro Quo Plus. And indeed Pakistan
did lay out an effective practical demonstration of the Quid Pro Quo Plus doctrine
successfully the very next day of Balakot on the 27th of February 2019. Pakistan launched
retaliatory air strikes around, not one, but three sensitive Indian military targets, shooting
down two Indian fighters in the process, capturing one of the pilots (and letting him go
home), creating operational paralysis in the IAF system of forces leading to the shooting
down of an Indian helicopter by India’s own air defences, generously sparing the Indian
Army’s very senior military leadership present at one of the ground targets and, at sea,
allowing one Indian Naval submarine which had deliberately entered into Pakistani waters
on an operational mission, to turn around and go home safely with a warning only. These
Pakistani responses on land, air and at sea, I think, were ‘plus’ enough for one Balakot - and
for one day! Let me caution India once again that if challenged Pakistan will do it again. I say
this with emphasis because one hears again the whispers of a possible false flag operation
by India as a signature Modi/BJP electoral strategy prior to the upcoming State Elections in
February 2022 in 5 States including the critical States of Uttar Pradesh and East Punjab.
c. The third point I made was with reference to India’s unfortunate transition from a vibrant
secular democracy to a religious extremist-cum-fascist autocracy. I had said, and I quote,
“…..the gloves are off, the mask is off, and the veneer of secularism is dead. India in 2020 is
now well and truly Hindustan, of the Hindus, by the Hindus and for the Hindus. The
transformation from India to Hindustan, over a period of 72 years, now carries the duly
stamped ownership of the vast multitudes of the Hindu population which voted for the
BJP/RSS heavily,” unquote. Today, at the close of 2021, India’s transition stands
consolidated as reflected in India’s formal state policies inside India, inside occupied Jammu
and Kashmir, all across on the streets of India, in acts, in deeds, in formal legislation, and in
the psycho-social schisms between communities and castes that have been promoted and
encouraged by the State. These trends run contrary to the accepted norms of civilized
societies and civilized behavior, and carry within them the germs of not only internal social
mayhem for India but also from Pakistan’s perspective, the potential to destabilize the
region at large. The hardened extremist mindsets and attitudes prevalent in India today
prevent rational thinking, discourage dialogue and diplomacy as instruments of peace and
security, choose instead ill-considered indirect military and intelligence based strategies as
simplistic solutions to complex regional conflicts. The cumulative effect of India’s
transformation from a vibrant secular democracy to a religious extremist autocracy has put
at serious risk the notions of regional strategic stability and security; it is unsettling for
India’s neighborhood.
Having recapped the three essential points that I had made in my talk two years ago, I
shall now move on to recall some of the major global and regional events that have shaped
geo-politics broadly in the last two years and how these have impacted strategic stability
and security especially in South Asia.
While the world grappled with the pandemic, global and regional competitions and
confrontations did not take a back seat. If at all the contours of the competition and
confrontation have assumed sharper and more defined shapes with fallout effects
everywhere especially, from our perspective, in South Asia. Strategic stability and security of
nations continues to remain under pressure and the four countries directly affected, that is,
the US, China, India and Pakistan continue to make policy adjustments according to their
respective national interests. This is history in motion and in the making even as we enjoy
observing it from our ringside seats. The final outcomes will perhaps be more clearly visible
in the coming years only when the dust has settled and hopefully the strategic competitions
have stabilized into a more manageable pattern.
The US election in November 2020, even though disputed strongly by both sides, resulted
in President Joe Biden replacing President Trump in January 2021. The change of guard
however signified no significant change in what may be labelled as a defining US C3 policy
against China: Containment, Competition and Confrontation, not necessarily in that order.
The threat of a rising, and some think an already risen, China has focused sharply the
undivided attention of the US and its allies. If at all the C3 policy has become only more
strident generating far reaching global and strategic effects in different regions. While the
C3 Policy is likely to vary in intensity and emphasis, on Containment, on Competition, on
Confrontation according to the demands of a particular time, it does somewhat unfairly
compel countries to choose sides reminiscent of the two decades ago syndrome of “you are
either with us or against us”. Many countries find that discomforting.
The world now seems to be on the cusp of a new cold war; groupings interestingly are
being defined in near geometric terms and shapes. While we had long gotten used to the
shape of the Pentagon as an international driving force but then we got the Quadrilateral or
the Quad, and now recently the Triangular AUKUS. Nevertheless, the effects of the rise of
China and the US C3 policy now being articulated through some of these groupings touch
South Asia in different ways.
In this context I would like to mention two recent developments, one political and the
other military, which are open to interpretations in more than one way but whose
immediate effects have been felt but long term implications will take time to emerge.
First, the virtual meeting between President Biden and President Xi Jin Ping. It was
historic, it was timely but above all it was an act of statesmanship. While future results will
take time to emerge, one immediate effect probably should be to bring down by a degree or
two the geo-political global warming – and that undoubtedly is good for global and regional
strategic stability. Pakistan welcomes the dialogue.
Second, the test by China of a nuclear capable missile carrying a hypersonic glide vehicle
including the launch of a separate missile from that vehicle after the vehicle had flown into
space and completed a partial orbit of the earth. To put it mildly, it was impressive, it was
unprecedented, and it was a surprise for most, some of whom quickly termed the event as a
possible Sputnik moment! Whether it was a Sputnik moment or not, the impact of the test
on global and regional strategic stability or instability will be determined in the coming
years. There lurks, however, the danger that the missile test and the reported alarm about
the exposure of a serious technology gap would be used or hyped to secure greater military
budgets under the garb of closing the reported technology gap. This may open another
avenue for an arms race down the strategic chain, a sure recipe for strategic instability
globally and in regions like South Asia.
From global developments of the last two years I shall now move on to some of the key
regional developments that from Pakistan’s perspective have either impacted or have the
potential to impact strategic stability and security in South Asia. Amongst these I shall count
Kashmir, the Indo-China clashes of the summer of 2020, Afghanistan and the consequences
of US withdrawal.
First Kashmir. The strategic effects both political and military of the revocation of
Articles 370 and 35-A of the Indian Constitution on the 5th of August 2019 continue to
reverberate strongly in the region. The Indian action of unilaterally declaring the territory of
Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh as Union Territories has had
politico-military consequences which are not going to go away. Both China and Pakistan
rejected the action instantly as did the under occupation hapless Kashmiris who continue to
suffer immense barbarities at the hands of nearly 900,000 Indian occupation forces as well
as an open ended inhumane lockdown of their lives and society. 7 million human beings
have been locked up in prison. That does not however weaken in any way the well-
recognized fact that the Kashmir conflict remains the fundamental source of strategic
instability in South Asia and an internationally acknowledged nuclear flashpoint.
Second, the Indo-China clashes on the Line of Actual Control (LAC). The un-demarcated
borders between India and China have a long history of being unstable which in the past led
to the Indo-China War of 1962, the routing of India’s Army, loss of territory and in 2017 to
the Doklam standoff. The 1962 War has left indelible scars on India’s politico-military
psyche. Despite this, India’s ill-considered expansion of its road communications network
and infrastructure development in the disputed areas of Ladakh on the Line of Actual
Control with China together with the unilateral announcement of the absorption of Ladakh
as Union Territory in 2019 invited what one might call the self-inflicted disaster in the
summer of 2020. Consequent to China’s reactions to the provocations, India reportedly lost
over a thousand square kilometers of claimed territory without firing a bullet and was
humiliated. Some of the strategic consequences of the clashes were:
a. Political acceptance of the losses by India’s political leadership as fait accompli
when Prime Minister Modi declared with a straight face that “no post has been
lost, no territory has been lost”. It amounted to capitulation indicating neither the
capability nor the intention of recovering the lost territories.
b. The Indian military’s follow-on redeployments on the Chinese border of nearly 3800
kilometers from Ladakh in the west to Arunachal Pradesh in the east following the
major intelligence failure and operational paralysis in mounting a response at
Ladakh may affect its strategic and operational capabilities on its western borders
with Pakistan. These redeployments in the north over time may even become
permanent exacting a cost in men and materials as well as in strategies and
doctrines in the coming years.
c. The emergence of a massive logistical effort in the extreme cold, barren winters of
Ladakh at altitudes close to 14000 feet plus, is many times the size of the logistical
effort required to maintain the Indian military occupation of the disputed Siachen
Glacier.
To begin with, India made an exaggerated choice of strategic overreach in the last two
years, driven by gung-ho political over drive rather than military logic. Resultantly today,
India is riding three tigers simultaneously; the LAC (Line of Actual Control with China), the
LOC (Line of Control with Pakistan) and the Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir.
Now having trapped itself in a strategic quandary, India is propagating and selling the effects
of its ill-considered strategic overreach under the bogus threat of a two-front war scenario
with China and Pakistan. This in order to appeal to its distant allies for more and more
military and advanced technological assistance and play on the concerns of the US C3 Policy
against China; this is typical and reminiscent of what India did post the 1962 Indo-China War
debacle. If India’s allies buy into these clever politico-military ploys of India, which they
seem to, and introduce technologically advanced weaponry in the region, strategic stability
in South Asia would be poorly served. It will create the effects of instability for Pakistan and
will be unacceptable. Pakistan will be compelled therefore to respond as it deems fit and
enhance reliance for its security in cost effective deterrence areas of its choice. History is
witness to Pakistan’s determination.
Third, the developments in Afghanistan. The successful conclusion of talks between the
Trump Administration and the Taliban at Doha culminated in a framework agreement for
withdrawal of US and allied troops from Afghanistan. However, in the implementation stage
under the Biden Administration, the chaotic withdrawal of US and allied troops from
Afghanistan together with the surprisingly rapid collapse of the Afghan National Army and
the Ashraf Ghani Government led to the takeover of Kabul by the Taliban on the 15th of
August this year. This was followed by a relatively short consolidation phase as the Taliban
established their writ across all of Afghanistan including the Panjshir Valley.
The rapidly emerging adverse situation in Afghanistan came as a body blow to India as
its two decades old strategy of bleeding Pakistan on its western borders through blatantly
organized state terrorism collapsed overnight. The Indian contingents found safety in
beating a hasty retreat from Afghanistan and India was in a state of shock over the debacle.
India not only lost its politico-military-intelligence network and influence but also its heavy
monetary and strategic investment in Afghanistan. Pakistan for now breathes easy because
the security situation on the western border has started to improve.
At another level with reference to Afghanistan, however, Pakistan has been
disappointed by the post-withdrawal policies of some in the international community
towards Pakistan. Despite Pakistan’s sincere cooperation and facilitation in the Doha talks
for nearly two years, subsequently in the evacuation of foreign citizens from Afghanistan,
Pakistan has been scapegoated ruthlessly for the failings of others. A strange narrative was
coined whereby Pakistan was held responsible for 20 years of follies. It remains quite
beyond Pakistan’s comprehension. As an important and responsible regional country,
Pakistan nevertheless will exercise strategic patience for the headwinds to blow away and
the dust to settle. Pakistan is a pivotal regional country and cannot be ignored for long.
In the meanwhile, in the immediate aftermath of the rapid power transition in
Afghanistan, Pakistan has a vital role to play in preventing a looming humanitarian disaster
in Afghanistan in the upcoming winter. Pakistan has taken a series of urgent steps in terms
of sending large quantities of wheat, food, medicines and other relief goods to the stricken
people of Afghanistan. Pakistan has also gone the extra mile in making an exception on
humanitarian grounds and allowing the flow of 50000 Metric tons of wheat and medicines
by road from India to Afghanistan. Pakistan stands ready to offer facilitation in this respect;
this has got to be beyond politics.
And finally a few thoughts on the notion of nuclear security. In this context, let me start
with recalling one of the fundamental principles of global perspectives on nuclear security.
The fundamental principle that was agreed upon at the conclusion of the initiative taken by
President Obama in the series of Nuclear Security Summits (NSS) was that nuclear security
was a national responsibility. Let me repeat for emphasis nuclear security was a national
responsibility. These summits were meticulously planned and professionally conducted by
top ranking experts from a large number of countries after much debate. We are grateful to
the experts for making the world a safer place
Pakistan values and follows the NSS conclusions in letter and spirit. Post 9/11, with the
commencement of the War on Terror there were serious concerns the world over about
nuclear materials falling in the hands of terrorists. The spectre of a nuclear Armageddon as a
consequence of such an eventuality happening, or at the very least the possibility of a dirty
bomb exploding in cities, became a catalyst for laying the highest emphasis on securing
nuclear materials and infrastructure the world over - but as a national responsibility. That is
the global perspective. I recommend strongly that the focus on worldwide nuclear security
must remain; however, the focus must be apolitical and not a tool for selective political
intimidation.
As for Pakistan, we took our responsibilities and obligations with the seriousness that
nuclear security demanded not only to address the broader international concerns on the
issue but in Pakistan’s own interest as a responsible nuclear power. Not after the post
Nuclear Security Summit process but 11 years before that since the establishment in April
1999 of Pakistan’s National Command Authority and the Strategic Plans Division as the one
window institution for all matters nuclear in Pakistan, nuclear security of men, materials and
infrastructure became a leading Pakistani priority. A professionally conceived
comprehensive national nuclear security plan was implemented across the country in quick
time. Some of the elements comprised of robust physical security including the raising of a
variety of dedicated, well trained and well equipped security and intelligence forces,
Personal Reliability Programmes (PRP), Material Control and Accounting (MC&A),
establishment of a state of the art Training Academy, later renamed as PCENS or Pakistan
Center of Excellence for Nuclear Security. PCENS has earned the distinction of recognition
by the IAEA as a nuclear security regional training hub and is open to visitors. Similarly, on
the diplomatic side, Pakistan entered the mainstream of a variety of international nuclear
security related regimes. We went to the extent of saying that for nuclear security there
were no upper limits to education. Where we felt necessary, we did not hesitate to
cooperate and learn from the world while retaining our red lines.
I would like to say that like education in nuclear security, we also strongly believed that
there were no upper limits to investment in nuclear security. Nuclear security is a process, a
continuous process, where more and more investments reward you with more and more
professionally satisfying solutions to different threats and instils confidence. Pakistan
invested heavily and today draws the benefits, comfort and confidence of a nuclear
weapons power that has secured its nuclear men, materials, and infrastructure according to
the highest international standards. I would like to mention with satisfaction that in
Pakistan, despite the geographical spread of vast numbers of nuclear facilities, there has not
been a single instance of a nuclear security lapse; this includes the most intense period of
foreign sponsored terrorism inside Pakistan between 2007 and 2014. Now that Pakistan has
won its own war on terror through determined and professionally conducted operations,
the overall internal threat has largely receded, and the security environment has vastly
improved. Having said that, the process of continuous improvements in nuclear security
must go on because there must never be complacency. There are countries that I believe
have strong National Technical Means (NTMs). I am sure they must have made good use of
these because a large number of responsible international personalities whether visiting
Pakistan or not, appreciated and expressed confidence on record in Pakistan’s efforts in the
areas of nuclear security.
Before I end, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to express Pakistan’s disappointment
with the revival lately of uncalled for insinuations about Pakistan’s nuclear security in the
aftermath of the developments in Afghanistan post 15 August. First, in a consistent pattern
of negative media reporting as an extension and veritable arm of pressure policy. Second,
strangely enough, by some senior important personalities who I thought ought to know
better from the vantage points of professional information and their high offices. The
apprehensions expressed in certain otherwise responsible quarters about events in
Afghanistan impacting Pakistan’s nuclear security, are not only misplaced and ill-founded
but, in my opinion, stretch one’s professional imagination beyond reasonable logic.
Nuclear security is too serious a business to be used as a tool of political intimidation,
point scoring or subjected to inadequately deliberated statements. Pakistan would expect
that considered opinions must reflect objectivity, evidence, professionalism, and meet the
high standards of confidentiality lest these become counter-productive. If the canvass of
genuine concern for global and regional nuclear security were to be broadened, politically
and geographically, I can recommend areas in Pakistan’s immediate neighborhood which
need more focused attention and help in order to prevent smuggling of nuclear materials
leading to international catastrophes.
I thank you ladies and gentlemen.

Strategic Stability and Nuclear Security – Global and Regional Perspectives

Keynote Address by Lt Gen Khalid Ahmed Kidwai, NI, HI, HI (M) at The Center for
International Strategic Studies (CISS) International Conference Islamabad 08 December

2021

Ladies and gentlemen. Good evening, and good morning, to all of you in your different
time zones. I start with good wishes for everyone and the hope that since I last spoke at the
IISS-CISS Workshop on the 6th of February 2020 at London everyone has remained safe
from the ravages of the Covid-19 Pandemic which started to engulf the world just about the
time as we dispersed that day.
Given the construct of today’s topic the way I see it, there are four clear notions that
need to be addressed in an integrated manner: there is Strategic Stability; there is Nuclear
Security; Global Perspectives and Regional Perspectives on these. And because of the
cooperative nature and context of the IISS-CISS traditional academic focus, when we will
talk of regional perspectives South Asia will take center stage as the relevant context.
Further, since today’s event is in the nature of a continuum, I have considered it appropriate
in my talk to first reconnect with the essence of what I had to say on the 6th of February
2020 as a recap, and from there pick up the threads of international and regional
developments that have taken place during the last two years in as much as these are
relevant to today’s topic.
To recap I am highlighting three main points that I had made in the context of South
Asian Strategic Stability two years ago in London:
a. The first point I made was that in the strategic stability-instability paradigm of South Asia
it has become Pakistan’s responsibility to ensure that strategic stability will not be disturbed
to Pakistan’s disadvantage at any stage despite India’s consistent efforts to swing the
pendulum towards instability. At each stage of the swing of the pendulum towards strategic
instability Pakistan restored the strategic balance through appropriate and effective counter
measures. In the last two years, the upward trend has continued unabated with India

inducting, amongst others, destabilizing systems like the Rafael fighters, the S-400 System,
the Predator Drones and generally upping the ante while pursuing the nuclear triad on land,
air and particularly in the Nuclearization of the Indian Ocean. Pakistan will not let these
destabilizing inductions or even doctrines to create instability; strategic stability will be
maintained or re-established at all cost. Pakistan’s responses should therefore be seen in
that context.
b. The second point I made was with reference to India’s failed air strike against Balakot in
mainland Pakistan on 26th February 2019 consequent to its false flag operation at Pulwama,
as a reckless strategy for domestic electoral purposes. In this regard I had said two things:
(1) One, that Pakistan’s nuclear policy of Full Spectrum Deterrence had prevented the
conflict from escalating to higher dangerous rungs and further therefore, I had cautioned
India not to consider Pakistan’s robust nuclear capability as a bluff as was then evident in
the flawed thinking and statements of most in India’s civil and military higher echelons.
(2) Two, if an irresponsible military adventure were to be undertaken by India, Pakistan will
respond forcefully under its retaliatory doctrine of Quid Pro Quo Plus. And indeed Pakistan
did lay out an effective practical demonstration of the Quid Pro Quo Plus doctrine
successfully the very next day of Balakot on the 27th of February 2019. Pakistan launched
retaliatory air strikes around, not one, but three sensitive Indian military targets, shooting
down two Indian fighters in the process, capturing one of the pilots (and letting him go
home), creating operational paralysis in the IAF system of forces leading to the shooting
down of an Indian helicopter by India’s own air defences, generously sparing the Indian
Army’s very senior military leadership present at one of the ground targets and, at sea,
allowing one Indian Naval submarine which had deliberately entered into Pakistani waters
on an operational mission, to turn around and go home safely with a warning only. These
Pakistani responses on land, air and at sea, I think, were ‘plus’ enough for one Balakot - and
for one day! Let me caution India once again that if challenged Pakistan will do it again. I say
this with emphasis because one hears again the whispers of a possible false flag operation
by India as a signature Modi/BJP electoral strategy prior to the upcoming State Elections in
February 2022 in 5 States including the critical States of Uttar Pradesh and East Punjab.
c. The third point I made was with reference to India’s unfortunate transition from a vibrant
secular democracy to a religious extremist-cum-fascist autocracy. I had said, and I quote,

“…..the gloves are off, the mask is off, and the veneer of secularism is dead. India in 2020 is
now well and truly Hindustan, of the Hindus, by the Hindus and for the Hindus. The
transformation from India to Hindustan, over a period of 72 years, now carries the duly
stamped ownership of the vast multitudes of the Hindu population which voted for the
BJP/RSS heavily,” unquote. Today, at the close of 2021, India’s transition stands
consolidated as reflected in India’s formal state policies inside India, inside occupied Jammu
and Kashmir, all across on the streets of India, in acts, in deeds, in formal legislation, and in
the psycho-social schisms between communities and castes that have been promoted and
encouraged by the State. These trends run contrary to the accepted norms of civilized
societies and civilized behavior, and carry within them the germs of not only internal social
mayhem for India but also from Pakistan’s perspective, the potential to destabilize the
region at large. The hardened extremist mindsets and attitudes prevalent in India today
prevent rational thinking, discourage dialogue and diplomacy as instruments of peace and
security, choose instead ill-considered indirect military and intelligence based strategies as
simplistic solutions to complex regional conflicts. The cumulative effect of India’s
transformation from a vibrant secular democracy to a religious extremist autocracy has put
at serious risk the notions of regional strategic stability and security; it is unsettling for
India’s neighborhood.

Having recapped the three essential points that I had made in my talk two years ago, I
shall now move on to recall some of the major global and regional events that have shaped
geo-politics broadly in the last two years and how these have impacted strategic stability
and security especially in South Asia.
While the world grappled with the pandemic, global and regional competitions and
confrontations did not take a back seat. If at all the contours of the competition and
confrontation have assumed sharper and more defined shapes with fallout effects
everywhere especially, from our perspective, in South Asia. Strategic stability and security of
nations continues to remain under pressure and the four countries directly affected, that is,
the US, China, India and Pakistan continue to make policy adjustments according to their
respective national interests. This is history in motion and in the making even as we enjoy
observing it from our ringside seats. The final outcomes will perhaps be more clearly visible

in the coming years only when the dust has settled and hopefully the strategic competitions
have stabilized into a more manageable pattern.

The US election in November 2020, even though disputed strongly by both sides, resulted
in President Joe Biden replacing President Trump in January 2021. The change of guard
however signified no significant change in what may be labelled as a defining US C3 policy
against China: Containment, Competition and Confrontation, not necessarily in that order.
The threat of a rising, and some think an already risen, China has focused sharply the
undivided attention of the US and its allies. If at all the C3 policy has become only more
strident generating far reaching global and strategic effects in different regions. While the
C3 Policy is likely to vary in intensity and emphasis, on Containment, on Competition, on
Confrontation according to the demands of a particular time, it does somewhat unfairly
compel countries to choose sides reminiscent of the two decades ago syndrome of “you are
either with us or against us”. Many countries find that discomforting.
The world now seems to be on the cusp of a new cold war; groupings interestingly are
being defined in near geometric terms and shapes. While we had long gotten used to the
shape of the Pentagon as an international driving force but then we got the Quadrilateral or
the Quad, and now recently the Triangular AUKUS. Nevertheless, the effects of the rise of
China and the US C3 policy now being articulated through some of these groupings touch
South Asia in different ways.
In this context I would like to mention two recent developments, one political and the
other military, which are open to interpretations in more than one way but whose
immediate effects have been felt but long term implications will take time to emerge.
First, the virtual meeting between President Biden and President Xi Jin Ping. It was
historic, it was timely but above all it was an act of statesmanship. While future results will
take time to emerge, one immediate effect probably should be to bring down by a degree or
two the geo-political global warming – and that undoubtedly is good for global and regional
strategic stability. Pakistan welcomes the dialogue.
Second, the test by China of a nuclear capable missile carrying a hypersonic glide vehicle
including the launch of a separate missile from that vehicle after the vehicle had flown into
space and completed a partial orbit of the earth. To put it mildly, it was impressive, it was

unprecedented, and it was a surprise for most, some of whom quickly termed the event as a
possible Sputnik moment! Whether it was a Sputnik moment or not, the impact of the test
on global and regional strategic stability or instability will be determined in the coming
years. There lurks, however, the danger that the missile test and the reported alarm about
the exposure of a serious technology gap would be used or hyped to secure greater military
budgets under the garb of closing the reported technology gap. This may open another
avenue for an arms race down the strategic chain, a sure recipe for strategic instability
globally and in regions like South Asia.

From global developments of the last two years I shall now move on to some of the key
regional developments that from Pakistan’s perspective have either impacted or have the
potential to impact strategic stability and security in South Asia. Amongst these I shall count
Kashmir, the Indo-China clashes of the summer of 2020, Afghanistan and the consequences
of US withdrawal.
First Kashmir. The strategic effects both political and military of the revocation of
Articles 370 and 35-A of the Indian Constitution on the 5th of August 2019 continue to
reverberate strongly in the region. The Indian action of unilaterally declaring the territory of
Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh as Union Territories has had
politico-military consequences which are not going to go away. Both China and Pakistan
rejected the action instantly as did the under occupation hapless Kashmiris who continue to
suffer immense barbarities at the hands of nearly 900,000 Indian occupation forces as well
as an open ended inhumane lockdown of their lives and society. 7 million human beings
have been locked up in prison. That does not however weaken in any way the well-
recognized fact that the Kashmir conflict remains the fundamental source of strategic
instability in South Asia and an internationally acknowledged nuclear flashpoint.
Second, the Indo-China clashes on the Line of Actual Control (LAC). The un-demarcated
borders between India and China have a long history of being unstable which in the past led
to the Indo-China War of 1962, the routing of India’s Army, loss of territory and in 2017 to
the Doklam standoff. The 1962 War has left indelible scars on India’s politico-military
psyche. Despite this, India’s ill-considered expansion of its road communications network
and infrastructure development in the disputed areas of Ladakh on the Line of Actual
Control with China together with the unilateral announcement of the absorption of Ladakh

as Union Territory in 2019 invited what one might call the self-inflicted disaster in the
summer of 2020. Consequent to China’s reactions to the provocations, India reportedly lost
over a thousand square kilometers of claimed territory without firing a bullet and was
humiliated. Some of the strategic consequences of the clashes were:
a. Political acceptance of the losses by India’s political leadership as fait accompli
when Prime Minister Modi declared with a straight face that “no post has been
lost, no territory has been lost”. It amounted to capitulation indicating neither the
capability nor the intention of recovering the lost territories.
b. The Indian military’s follow-on redeployments on the Chinese border of nearly 3800
kilometers from Ladakh in the west to Arunachal Pradesh in the east following the
major intelligence failure and operational paralysis in mounting a response at
Ladakh may affect its strategic and operational capabilities on its western borders
with Pakistan. These redeployments in the north over time may even become
permanent exacting a cost in men and materials as well as in strategies and
doctrines in the coming years.
c. The emergence of a massive logistical effort in the extreme cold, barren winters of
Ladakh at altitudes close to 14000 feet plus, is many times the size of the logistical
effort required to maintain the Indian military occupation of the disputed Siachen
Glacier.

To begin with, India made an exaggerated choice of strategic overreach in the last two
years, driven by gung-ho political over drive rather than military logic. Resultantly today,
India is riding three tigers simultaneously; the LAC (Line of Actual Control with China), the
LOC (Line of Control with Pakistan) and the Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir.
Now having trapped itself in a strategic quandary, India is propagating and selling the effects
of its ill-considered strategic overreach under the bogus threat of a two-front war scenario
with China and Pakistan. This in order to appeal to its distant allies for more and more
military and advanced technological assistance and play on the concerns of the US C3 Policy
against China; this is typical and reminiscent of what India did post the 1962 Indo-China War
debacle. If India’s allies buy into these clever politico-military ploys of India, which they
seem to, and introduce technologically advanced weaponry in the region, strategic stability
in South Asia would be poorly served. It will create the effects of instability for Pakistan and

will be unacceptable. Pakistan will be compelled therefore to respond as it deems fit and
enhance reliance for its security in cost effective deterrence areas of its choice. History is
witness to Pakistan’s determination.

Third, the developments in Afghanistan. The successful conclusion of talks between the
Trump Administration and the Taliban at Doha culminated in a framework agreement for
withdrawal of US and allied troops from Afghanistan. However, in the implementation stage
under the Biden Administration, the chaotic withdrawal of US and allied troops from
Afghanistan together with the surprisingly rapid collapse of the Afghan National Army and
the Ashraf Ghani Government led to the takeover of Kabul by the Taliban on the 15th of
August this year. This was followed by a relatively short consolidation phase as the Taliban
established their writ across all of Afghanistan including the Panjshir Valley.
The rapidly emerging adverse situation in Afghanistan came as a body blow to India as
its two decades old strategy of bleeding Pakistan on its western borders through blatantly
organized state terrorism collapsed overnight. The Indian contingents found safety in
beating a hasty retreat from Afghanistan and India was in a state of shock over the debacle.
India not only lost its politico-military-intelligence network and influence but also its heavy
monetary and strategic investment in Afghanistan. Pakistan for now breathes easy because
the security situation on the western border has started to improve.
At another level with reference to Afghanistan, however, Pakistan has been
disappointed by the post-withdrawal policies of some in the international community
towards Pakistan. Despite Pakistan’s sincere cooperation and facilitation in the Doha talks
for nearly two years, subsequently in the evacuation of foreign citizens from Afghanistan,
Pakistan has been scapegoated ruthlessly for the failings of others. A strange narrative was
coined whereby Pakistan was held responsible for 20 years of follies. It remains quite
beyond Pakistan’s comprehension. As an important and responsible regional country,
Pakistan nevertheless will exercise strategic patience for the headwinds to blow away and
the dust to settle. Pakistan is a pivotal regional country and cannot be ignored for long.
In the meanwhile, in the immediate aftermath of the rapid power transition in
Afghanistan, Pakistan has a vital role to play in preventing a looming humanitarian disaster
in Afghanistan in the upcoming winter. Pakistan has taken a series of urgent steps in terms
of sending large quantities of wheat, food, medicines and other relief goods to the stricken

people of Afghanistan. Pakistan has also gone the extra mile in making an exception on
humanitarian grounds and allowing the flow of 50000 Metric tons of wheat and medicines
by road from India to Afghanistan. Pakistan stands ready to offer facilitation in this respect;
this has got to be beyond politics.

And finally a few thoughts on the notion of nuclear security. In this context, let me start
with recalling one of the fundamental principles of global perspectives on nuclear security.
The fundamental principle that was agreed upon at the conclusion of the initiative taken by
President Obama in the series of Nuclear Security Summits (NSS) was that nuclear security
was a national responsibility. Let me repeat for emphasis nuclear security was a national
responsibility. These summits were meticulously planned and professionally conducted by
top ranking experts from a large number of countries after much debate. We are grateful to
the experts for making the world a safer place
Pakistan values and follows the NSS conclusions in letter and spirit. Post 9/11, with the
commencement of the War on Terror there were serious concerns the world over about
nuclear materials falling in the hands of terrorists. The spectre of a nuclear Armageddon as a
consequence of such an eventuality happening, or at the very least the possibility of a dirty
bomb exploding in cities, became a catalyst for laying the highest emphasis on securing
nuclear materials and infrastructure the world over - but as a national responsibility. That is
the global perspective. I recommend strongly that the focus on worldwide nuclear security
must remain; however, the focus must be apolitical and not a tool for selective political
intimidation.
As for Pakistan, we took our responsibilities and obligations with the seriousness that
nuclear security demanded not only to address the broader international concerns on the
issue but in Pakistan’s own interest as a responsible nuclear power. Not after the post
Nuclear Security Summit process but 11 years before that since the establishment in April
1999 of Pakistan’s National Command Authority and the Strategic Plans Division as the one
window institution for all matters nuclear in Pakistan, nuclear security of men, materials and
infrastructure became a leading Pakistani priority. A professionally conceived
comprehensive national nuclear security plan was implemented across the country in quick
time. Some of the elements comprised of robust physical security including the raising of a
variety of dedicated, well trained and well equipped security and intelligence forces,

Personal Reliability Programmes (PRP), Material Control and Accounting (MC&A),
establishment of a state of the art Training Academy, later renamed as PCENS or Pakistan
Center of Excellence for Nuclear Security. PCENS has earned the distinction of recognition
by the IAEA as a nuclear security regional training hub and is open to visitors. Similarly, on
the diplomatic side, Pakistan entered the mainstream of a variety of international nuclear
security related regimes. We went to the extent of saying that for nuclear security there
were no upper limits to education. Where we felt necessary, we did not hesitate to
cooperate and learn from the world while retaining our red lines.

I would like to say that like education in nuclear security, we also strongly believed that
there were no upper limits to investment in nuclear security. Nuclear security is a process, a
continuous process, where more and more investments reward you with more and more
professionally satisfying solutions to different threats and instils confidence. Pakistan
invested heavily and today draws the benefits, comfort and confidence of a nuclear
weapons power that has secured its nuclear men, materials, and infrastructure according to
the highest international standards. I would like to mention with satisfaction that in
Pakistan, despite the geographical spread of vast numbers of nuclear facilities, there has not
been a single instance of a nuclear security lapse; this includes the most intense period of
foreign sponsored terrorism inside Pakistan between 2007 and 2014. Now that Pakistan has
won its own war on terror through determined and professionally conducted operations,
the overall internal threat has largely receded, and the security environment has vastly
improved. Having said that, the process of continuous improvements in nuclear security
must go on because there must never be complacency. There are countries that I believe
have strong National Technical Means (NTMs). I am sure they must have made good use of
these because a large number of responsible international personalities whether visiting
Pakistan or not, appreciated and expressed confidence on record in Pakistan’s efforts in the
areas of nuclear security.
Before I end, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to express Pakistan’s disappointment
with the revival lately of uncalled for insinuations about Pakistan’s nuclear security in the
aftermath of the developments in Afghanistan post 15 August. First, in a consistent pattern
of negative media reporting as an extension and veritable arm of pressure policy. Second,
strangely enough, by some senior important personalities who I thought ought to know

better from the vantage points of professional information and their high offices. The
apprehensions expressed in certain otherwise responsible quarters about events in
Afghanistan impacting Pakistan’s nuclear security, are not only misplaced and ill-founded
but, in my opinion, stretch one’s professional imagination beyond reasonable logic.

Nuclear security is too serious a business to be used as a tool of political intimidation,
point scoring or subjected to inadequately deliberated statements. Pakistan would expect
that considered opinions must reflect objectivity, evidence, professionalism, and meet the
high standards of confidentiality lest these become counter-productive. If the canvass of
genuine concern for global and regional nuclear security were to be broadened, politically
and geographically, I can recommend areas in Pakistan’s immediate neighborhood which
need more focused attention and help in order to prevent smuggling of nuclear materials
leading to international catastrophes.
I thank you ladies and gentlemen.