Middle East Studies

at the Marine Corps University

MES Monographs • No. 4 April 2013

To Join or Not to Join the Nuclear Club:

How Nations Think about Nuclear Weapons:

Two Middle East Case Studies

Målfrid Braut-Hegghammer

Pakistan’s Motivations for Possessing Nuclear Weapons

and Challenges to the “Unitary Rational Actor” Model for

Managing Deterrence

George Perkovich

Relinquished Nuclear Powers: A Case Study of Libya
Middle East Studies

Monograph Series

As part of its mission to broaden U.S. Marine Corps access to

information and analysis through publishing, Middle East Studies at

Marine Corps University (MES) has established different

mechanisms to disseminate relevant publications, including a

Monograph Series. The aim of the MES Monograph Series is to

publish original research papers on a wide variety of subjects

pertaining to the greater Middle East, to include the countries of the

Arab world, Israel, Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. The

focus of the Monograph Series is on timely subjects with strategic

relevance to current and future concerns of the U.S. Professional

Military Education community.

This fourth issue of the MES Monograph Series features two papers

presented by Dr. Målfrid Braut-Hegghammer, Assistant Professor at

the Norwegian Defence University College, and Dr. George

Perkovich, Vice President for Studies and Director of the Nuclear

Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,

as part of a workshop entitled “To Join or Not to Join the Nuclear

Club: How Nations Think about Nuclear Weapons.” The workshop

was sponsored by the Minerva Research Initiative and held at the

Marine Corps University. The workshop and current monograph

could not have been realized without the efforts and vision of Dr.

Norman Cigar, Director of Regional Studies and a Minerva Chair

holder at the Marine Corps University.

The MES Monograph Series will be available both in print and electronically through the MES website at www.mcu.usmc.mil under the

“Middle East” tab as well as on Facebook at middleeaststudies.mcu.

For information on obtaining print copies, please contact Mr. Adam

C. Seitz, Senior Associate at MES, at seitzac@grc.usmcu.edu,

telephone number (703) 432-5260.

We welcome comments from readers on the content of the series as

well as recommendations for future monograph topics.

Amin Tarzi

Director, Middle East Studies

Marine Corps University

DISCLAIMER

The views expressed in this publication are those of the author and do

not reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. Government, the

Department of Defense, the U.S. Marine Corps, or Marine Corps

University.
M

iddleEastStudies

atthe

MarineCorpsUniversity
Contents

• Forward...............................................................................p ii

Norman Cigar and Stephanie Kramer, Marine Corps University

• Relinquished Nuclear Powers: A Case Study of Libya......p 1

Målfrid Braut-Hegghammer, Norwegian Defence University College

• Pakistan’s Motivations for Possessing Nuclear Weapons 

and Challenges to the “Unitary Rational Actor” Model 

for Managing Deterrence...................................................p 12

George Perkovich, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

• About the Authors..................................(Inside Back Cover)
ii

Forward

by Norman Cigar and Stephanie Kramer, Marine Corps University

The two papers in this monograph were presented at a conference entitled “To Join or Not to Join the

Nuclear Club: How Nations Think about Nuclear Weapons.” These two case studies are by Dr. Målfrid

Braut-Hegghammer of the Norwegian Defence University College, “Relinquished Nuclear Powers: A Case

Study of Libya,” and by Dr. George Perkovich of the Nuclear Policy Program, Carnegie Endowment for

International Peace, “Pakistan’s Motivations for Possessing Nuclear Weapons and Challenges to the

‘Unitary Rational Actor’Model for Managing Deterrence.” These two papers were selected for their insights

on differing paths taken by two countries in the greater Middle East region—Libya and Pakistan—with one

having decided to relinquish its nuclear program and the other deciding to acquire a military nuclear

capability.

Our purpose in holding this conference, as part of the Minerva Research Initiative, was to gain a better

understanding of the multidimensional aspects of how regional powers decide whether to acquire and retain

nuclear weapons by using case studies from around the globe. Such factors include threat perceptions, the

interpretation of lessons learned from other countries experiences, the calculus of perceived costs and

benefits for national security, the envisioned modes of employment of nuclear weapons (political and

military), and the legal/ethical considerations—all from the perspective of regional actors. Furthermore, a

country's specific political decisionmaking process and its institutions are also key factors in understanding

how actual and potential regional nuclear powers make decisions on the nuclear issue. As such, an

understanding of the motivations and of the perceived utility of nuclear weapons, from the perspective of

recent and potential nuclear powers, can provide insights that can contribute to the crafting of more

effective U.S. and multilateral nonproliferation, counterproliferation, and deterrence strategies.

The conference was held at the General Gray Research Center, the Marine Corps University, Quantico,

Virginia, on 31 January 2012, and was made possible through the generosity of the Minerva Research

Initiative, the Marine Corps University, and the Marine Corps University Foundation. Special thanks are

extended to Dr. Amin Tarzi and Mr. Joel Westa of the Marine Corps University for their valuable professional

input and advice in the planning of this conference, and to Major General Thomas M. Murray, USMC,

President, Marine Corps University, and Dr. Jerre W. Wilson, Vice President for Academic Affairs, Marine

Corps University, for their support and encouragement at every stage of the process.

----------

The Minerva Initiative is a Department of Defense (DoD)-sponsored, university-based social science

research initiative launched by the Secretary of Defense in 2008 focusing on areas of strategic importance

to U.S. national security policy. The goal is to improve DoD’s basic understanding of the social, cultural,

behavioral, and political forces that shape critical regions of the world. The Minerva

Initiative funds projects at American universities and, since 2010, research chairs at

professional military education institutions.

Minerva Program Site: http://minerva.dtic.mil/

Minerva at MCU: http://minerva.marinecorpsuniversity.org
Relinquished Nuclear Powers: A Case Study of Libya

by Målfrid Braut-Hegghammer, Norwegian Defence University College

Introduction

“Now the security of Libya does not come from the nuclear bomb, quite the contrary, the

nuclear bomb represents a danger to the country ... [...] While in the past no one would

have objected to Libya being attacked, today the whole world will defend Libya.”1

“... [Qadhafi] was encouraged by the West and handed over the facilities like a child, who

is glad to be given a chocolate. Well, the nation [Libya] sees all of this and the heart of the

nation bleeds because of that. We can see this factor in all the countries, where people have

staged rebellions.”2

In late 2003, Libyan officials announced their decision to abandon the pursuit of nuclear weapons, after

seeking to acquire such weapons for nearly three decades. This decision has been described as “one of the

most spectacular cases of successful, peaceful de-proliferation in history.”3 The 2011 Libyan popular uprising

may make it possible to learn more about the causes of Libya’s nuclear rollback; it may also necessitate

revising our understanding of the lessons that other states will draw from this example.

From the outset, the debate on Libya’s decision to abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons was polarized. On

the one hand, scholars argued that the Libyan regime had been persuaded to abandon its pursuit of nuclear

weapons in an expansive trilateral negotiation process with the United States and the United Kingdom. On

the other hand, others claimed that the Libyan leader, Colonel Muammar Qadhafi, was deterred from

acquiring nuclear weapons by the conflict between Iraq and the international community during 2002-2003.

Furthermore, states appeared to draw different policy implications from Libya’s nuclear rollback. While

Washington and London were keen to present Libya as a lesson for other proliferating states, demonstrating that states would stand to gain from abandoning their nuclear weapons programs, other capitals reached

the opposite conclusion. Finally, the status of the Libyan nuclear program has been described in conflicting

terms. Some have argued that the Libyan program was only a few years away from developing nuclear

weapons, while others have characterized this effort as a joke that was doomed to fail. Looking back, what

conclusions can now be drawn about the Libyan nuclear program and 2003 roll-back decision?

This paper examines Libya’s nuclear rollback and how this has been interpreted by other states following

the 2011 popular uprising. The long-term consequences and impact of the so-called Libyan model remain

to be determined. I offer a preliminary analysis of how close Libya had come to a nuclear weapons

capability by late 2003, and how their nuclear rollback may inform proliferation decisions elsewhere. I will

argue that Libya’s nuclear program, as well as the decision to discontinue the pursuit of nuclear weapons as

part of a negotiated settlement, is likely to remain an exceptional case. However, the Libya case offers

important lessons for understanding how illicit nuclear suppliers can affect nuclear proliferation risks, and

how a state can be persuaded to abandon the pursuit of nuclear weapons as part of a broader normalization

process. Furthermore, the Libyan case could be seen as a cautionary tale demonstrating the importance of

rewarding nuclear rollback decisions to enhance the appeal of this option for other states.

1 Case Study of Libya
Qadhafi’s Nuclear Ambition: 1969-2003

When Libya discontinued its nuclear weapons program, the international community was surprised at the

scope of the technical infrastructure that was subsequently uncovered. While other states had long suspected

that the Libyan regime had pursued nuclear weapons, it was widely assumed that Libya lacked the skills and

infrastructure to mount an operational program.

In the years following Libya’s nuclear rollback, assessments of the threat posed by the Libyan program have

varied considerably. After the Libyan decision was announced, U.S. officials stated that the Libyan program

was “much further advanced” than expected and included “all necessary components in making a nuclear

bomb.”4 Similarly, another administration official characterized the Libyan program as “robust” and

“enormous.”5 Only two years later, the U.S. Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States

Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction described Libya as “an inept bungler, the court jester among the

band of nationalists seeking ... nuclear capabilities.”6

What explains such widely divergent interpretations? In the following subsections, I will briefly examine

the emergence of Libya’s nuclear program between 1969 and 2003. I will show that the Libyan nuclear

program was rapidly approaching the operational stage, but that the regime’s ambivalent support for these

efforts rendered the program a hedging strategy rather than a primary objective. While the Libyan regime

may never have been entirely persuaded that nuclear weapons were necessary solutions to key strategic

challenges, the Libyan case demonstrates that changing nuclear supply dynamics can rapidly intensify

nuclear threats.

Qadhafi’s Nuclear Ambitions

Almost immediately after seizing power in September 1969, the incumbent regime began to explore

options for acquiring nuclear weapons. First, Muammar Qadhafi sought to purchase nuclear weapons from

other states. In 1970, Qadhafi’s second-in-command, Abdessalam Jalloud, approached China seeking to buy

nuclear weapons. Similar approaches were reportedly made toward India.

7 At the same time, Qadhafi

approached a number of states (including Egypt) about potential collaboration with a view to develop

nuclear weapons. During the 1980s, the Soviet Union became Libya’s most important supplier state,

providing a 10 megawatt research reactor under International Atomic Energy Aency (IAEA safeguards).

8

Nonetheless, Libya continued to court other states for nuclear technology and know-how. One such

relationship was Libya’s financial support for Pakistan’s nuclear program during the mid-to-late 1970s.

During this period, Libya only appears to have received limited support from the Pakistanis, such as

training of Libyan staff. The oversight committee at Tajoura—the center of Libya’s nuclear program—

reportedly met every week, and Qadhafi promised to provide whatever resources were deemed necessary

to facilitate this effort.

9 However, his ambivalent attitude to the pursuit of such weapons—evident in his

political statements on this issue—was reflected in the seemingly half-hearted nuclear program that emerged

during the 1970s.

Curiously, despite Libya’s pursuit of expensive nuclear technology and its hiring of foreign experts from

states such as Egypt, the Libyan regime did not invest in developing a robust domestic knowledgebase to

support its nuclear program. From the outset, then, the Libyan program relied on external assistance for

manpower and technology. According to Egyptian experts working in Libya’s nuclear research establishment

at Tajoura during the 1970s, the Libyan regime had to be persuaded to send students abroad (notably to the

United States and the United Kingdom) to study nuclear science and technology.

10 These students returned

to form a small, but highly capable, group with a clear understanding of what a nuclear weapons project

would require. However, such a small group would not suffice to run an operational nuclear weapons

program.

During the 1980s, Libyan officials continued to explore different routes to the bomb. Little is still known

about the domestic calculations informing Libya’s priorities and decisions during this period. What is known

Målfrid Braut-Hegghammer 2
is primarily based on information declared by Libyan officials to the IAEA and information from Libya’s

suppliers. This information suggests that the pace and orientation of the Libyan effort was largely

determined by what Libya could obtain from the nuclear marketplace, and the extent to which these offers

were suited for a country with such a limited domestic technical foundation. In 1980, the nascent Libyan

nuclear establishment began to experiment with uranium enrichment using centrifuge technology.

11 The

Libyans reprocessed and separated a small amount of plutonium during this initial exploration, but

ultimately opted to pursue uranium enrichment. Between 1983 and 1989, Libya conducted further uranium

enrichment experiments and unsuccessfully tried to acquire a conversion facility.

12

A combination of controversial foreign policies and tightening regulation of the global nuclear market made

it increasingly difficult for the Libyans to obtain the building blocks for a nuclear weapons program from

foreign suppliers. As a result, the project was, in the words of Libyan officials, “dwindling” during the

1980s. In 1984, Pakistan’s nuclear mastermind A.Q. Khan contacted the Libyans offering enrichment

technology. His offer was turned down as the Libyans decided they were not yet able to utilize what he

offered. Around the same time, Libya recruited a European expert to develop a gas centrifuge in Libya. This

individual left Libya in 1991 or 1992, allegedly having failed to mount a single operational centrifuge.

13 As

other states noted Libya’s fairly indiscrete attempts to acquire sensitive technologies, U.S.-led efforts to

deny Libya sensitive technology intensified.

14

Nuclear Hedging

In the mid-1990s, the Libyan regime made a strategic decision to reinvigorate its efforts to develop a nuclear

weapons option. At the same time, the regime was increasingly torn about the direction of its foreign and

security policies and whether the nuclear weapons project enhanced or detracted from its prospects of

long-term domestic political survival.

15

On the one hand, Libya had found a willing and able supplier of sensitive nuclear technology in Pakistan.

By 1989, the A.Q. Khan network once again approached the Libyans. In early 1991, the two parties agreed

that Khan would supply Libya with a centrifuge plant.

16 The following year, the United Nations imposed

sanctions on Libya after Tripoli refused to extradite two Libyan suspects for trial on the 1988 Pan Am

bombing. These sanctions, which included a total ban on air travel and arms sales to Libya, prevented the

Khan network from delivering the initial order.

17 In 1995, the Qadhafi regime decided to intensify its efforts

to acquire a uranium enrichment capability. Two years later, Matuq Muhammad Matuq, who was then in

charge of the Libyan nuclear weapons project, and his colleague Karim, who was in charge of the gas

centrifuge program, commissioned a gas centrifuge plant from the A.Q. Khan network.

18 The Libyan order

was essentially for a turn-key enrichment facility that would produce sufficient weapons-grade uranium for

several nuclear weapons annually. The Libyans ordered 10,000 centrifuges and the associated equipment,

for a price between $100 to $200 million.

19 The order far outstripped any other deals made by the A.Q. Khan

network, and remains one of the largest transfers of sensitive nuclear technology.

While the Libyan program had found a willing supplier in the A.Q. Khan network, the nuclear program did

not progress in an even manner. During this period, increasingly influential reformist elements in the

Qadhafi regime argued that it was necessary to fundamentally transform Libya’s relations with the West to

secure the regime’s long-term prospects of survival. Towering economic problems had plagued the Libyan

population since the mid-1980s. These problems, combined with the excesses of the regime’s revolutionary

movement both domestically and abroad, had led to widespread dissatisfaction in the population. In the

early 1990s, this was reflected in several challenges to the regime, including military coup attempts, an

Islamist uprising in the east, and an assassination attempt targeting Qadhafi. These developments strengthened the position of the so-called revisionist elements that favored economic liberalization and were

skeptical of the role nuclear weapons could play in solving Libya’s strategic challenges. Libya reached out

to the United States on several occasions during the 1990s, as early as 1992 signaling its willingness to

negotiate on a range of issues including the sensitive weapons programs. Both in 1992 and 1999, however,

the United States refused to negotiate in other areas until the Lockerbie issue had been resolved.

20

3 Case Study of Libya
As Libya sought to improve its international standing while simultaneously pursuing nuclear weapons as a

hedging strategy, its grand strategy appeared increasingly conflicted. For example, in 1997—the same year

that Libya ordered the large centrifuge plant from the A.Q. Khan network—Qadhafi signaled his willingness to strike a deal on the Lockerbie issue with Britain and the United States.

21 In 1998, the Qadhafi regime

started negotiations with the two countries, leading to a trial of the two Libyan suspects in The Hague. These

negotiations established contact among the three governments and laid the foundation for a trilateral dialogue

addressing a range of issues obstructing the normalization of diplomatic relations.

In the framework of these negotiations, Tripoli saw an opportunity to come in from the cold. Since the 1980s,

diplomatic ties between Libya and the United States had been severed. During the Reagan administration,

the United States attacked Libya in retribution for Libyan intelligence’s alleged involvement in the 1986

bombing of the La Belle discotheque in Berlin and defined Libyan regime change as a policy objective. A

nuclear weapons capability would not only elevate the regime’s international standing, regionally and in

relation to Western powers, it could also effectively deter other states from attacking Libya. Toward the late

1990s, however, the United States sent increasingly strong signals that it would revise its longstanding

position on Libyan regime change. This would alleviate a key concern of the Qadhafi regime, as it was clear

that the Libyan military was unable to defend or protect the capital against American air strikes. These

developments led many in the Qadhafi regime to favor continued efforts to improve relations with the United

States. However, hardliners in the regime—the so-called revolutionaries—and military leaders were

skeptical. They feared that compromises with the West, particularly with regards to the nuclear weapons

program, would make the regime more vulnerable in the long term.

The incompatibility of these two policies—pursuing nuclear weapons while simultaneously attempting to

get closer to the Western powers—became evident to Qadhafi following the 11 September 2001 terrorist

attacks. As the international community made its case against Iraq, and war was becoming an increasingly

likely prospect, it became clear to the Libyan regime that it would be necessary to either abandon the nuclear weapons project or prepare to rapidly develop a nuclear weapons capability. According to Saif al-Islam

Qadhafi, the son of the former Libyan leader, Qadhafi feared that abandoning the nuclear weapons project

would make the Libyan regime vulnerable to Western efforts to achieve regime change. Saif al-Islam, along

with elements in the regime who favored improving Libya’s international standing, argued that abandoning

the nuclear weapons program would make the regime safer than it had ever been.

22

In March 2003, shortly before the invasion of Iraq, the Libyan negotiation team once again raised the issue

of the WMD programs to their U.S. and British counterparts. Within six months, the three parties had agreed

on a process for verifiably dismantling Libya’s unconventional weapons programs.

23 Musa Kusa, the former

intelligence chief in the Qadhafi regime, approached British officials when Qadhafi made his rollback

decision in late 2003.

24 In return for this move, the Qadhafi regime would obtain acceptance and a

working relationship with the United States. Crucially, unilateral and multilateral sanctions would be lifted.

This would enable the regime to benefit from oil sales and improve the dismal state of the economy.

The Libyan Nuclear Challenge

How far was Libya from the nuclear weapons threshold when Qadhafi made the decision to abandon the

pursuit of such weapons? Was the program simply a bargaining chip, or did it constitute an intensifying

threat? According to IAEA inspectors, in late 2003, Libya was about three to four years away from starting

the centrifuge enrichment plant.

25 During this time, Libya would also have to obtain the sorely lacking

manpower to operate this plant. The IAEA also verified Libya’s statement that, despite receiving drawings

and manuals for weapons design from A.Q. Khan in 2001 or 2002, it had not started weaponization work.

26

The Libyans also faced challenges in the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle which would have to be addressed

to approach nuclear self-sufficiency. Libya’s nuclear advances were uneven. The country faced a number of

challenges and shortcomings—perhaps most acutely in terms of insufficient domestic expertise and lacking

industrial development—that would have to be overcome in order to be able to become able to produce

nuclear weapons indigenously. The A.Q. Khan network allegedly prepared to assist Libya in coping with

Målfrid Braut-Hegghammer 4
these shortcomings, including work on nuclear weapons designs.

27 While these challenges could be

overcome—with the aid of the Khan network and perhaps North Korea—it would take time. Libya would

have required several years—and much greater investment and commitment on the part of the regime—to

reach nuclear latency.

The case of Libya demonstrates how a country with limited indigenous technical resources could nonetheless—with the help of others—acquire the ability to develop fissile material. This is often characterized as

the main bottleneck facing nuclear aspirants. The fact that Libya was able to assemble infrastructure on this

scale while largely evading the attention of the international community illustrates the severity of the

challenge posed by illicit nuclear transfers.

28

Revisiting Libya’s Nuclear Rollback

One of the key questions that surfaced in the wake of Libya’s nuclear rollback was whether the Libyan

regime would be more secure against domestic and external challenges. In interviews, Saif al-Islam

Qadhafi echoed his father’s public statements that the decision had made the regime safer.

29 Egyptian

oppositional voices argued in December 2003 that the only thing the Libyan people had secured from the

deal “is for the colonel to remain a crown of thorns on their heads.”30 Similarly, in January 2004, former

Jordanian official, Adnan Abu Odeh, argued that the Libyan people were not protected against anything

other than from American influence.

31

Another important question was whether the decision to abandon WMD programs reflected a deeper

transformation or reorientation of the Libyan regime’s policies and relations with the outside world. Recent

analyses have linked Libya’s rollback decision to a broader reorientation of Libya’s foreign and economic

policies.

32 While Libya had come in from the cold, it was unlikely that the Qadhafi regime would transform

itself with regards to issues such as human rights, democratization, and economic reforms.

33 The Libyan

officials who had defined the pragmatic Realpolitik that characterized Libyan foreign policy during the

Lockerbie negotiations and the nuclear rollback deal lost their influence within the regime. In the spring of

2006, the reformist Prime Minister Shukri Ghanem was replaced by hawkish Baghdadi Ali Mahmudi. While

there were many signs suggesting that even Qadhafi no longer believed that he could continue to govern

Libya according to the idiosyncratic ideology he developed in the late 1970s, the regime would not —and

perhaps could not—transform itself.

In the months following the rollback decision, Libyan and American officials presented a “Libyan model”

that other states were encouraged to emulate: through negotiations, a state could be persuaded to abandon

the pursuit of nuclear weapons.

34 Qadhafi described his motives for agreeing to this as a result of a changing global environment and that pursuing nuclear weapons would have been increasingly “dangerous.”35

The Libyan media characterized the decision as “an example that is both an inducement and a method for

working for world peace.”36 Other Libyan commentators denied that Libya was acting out of fear, claiming

that fear of US military force would have led Libya to retain its WMD programs, following North Korea’s

example.

37

Libyan Perspectives

Within a year, however, a different message was coming from Tripoli. Senior officials started to express

disappointment with the way in which the international community—especially the United States and the

United Kingdom—responded to the regime’s decision. In December 2004, Qadhafi made the following

statement:

Actually we were somewhat disappointed by the response from Europe, the United States,

and Japan. They did not really repay Libya for its contribution to international peace. And

5 Case Study of Libya
we are still waiting. If we are not repaid, other countries will not follow our example and

dismantle their programmes in turn. When we spoke with North Korea and Iran, which are

suspected of having nuclear programs, they said: “But what was the recompense in your

case? What did you obtain from the international community? So why do you want us to

dismantle our program?”38

The former Libyan leader cited a number of benefits that Libya could have obtained in return for its

decision. These included a security guarantee, civilian nuclear assistance, assurances that no country would

use nonconventional weapons against his country under any circumstances, and access to conventional

military equipment to bolster national defense.

39 In subsequent interviews, Qadhafi suggested that Libya

had been promised more by the United States and the United Kingdom than the regime had received.

40 Other

voices from the Libyan regime stressed that what Libya had acquired from the 2003 decision was an

opportunity to facilitate development. Foreign Minister Abd al-Rahman Shalqam stated in 2004 that

American weapons were not necessary and that Libya was not in a rush to acquire such weapons but was

focusing its efforts on economic development.

41

Following Libya’s reintegration into the international community, the regime was in a better position to

pursue other suppliers of such goods and services. Libya’s European neighbours—notably Italy and

France—were keen to strengthen mutual ties in terms of energy, trade, and security. In the nuclear arena, the

Libyan program appeared to dwindle following the rollback decision. After late 2003, Libyan officials

defended their investments in nuclear technology by referring to civilian applications of nuclear research that

would continue to benefit the population.

42 In 2007 and 2008, Libya and France agreed to develop a framework for civilian nuclear cooperation. While this agreement did not commit France to specific projects or

investments, it was a sorely needed symbolic victory for Tripoli.

As time passed, Libyan officials voiced mounting disappointment that Libya had not received a prominent

international position following the nuclear rollback. Furthermore, Qadhafi contrasted perceived slights—

such as the way Western states did not permit certain states to acquire nuclear weapons, while quietly accepting Israel’s nuclear arsenal—as further undermining the Libyan model. This led to increasingly vocal

statements and actions intended to signal the regime’s frustration to the international community. For

example, in late 2009, the Libyan regime left 5.2 kg enriched uranium in seven transport casks and refused

landing clearance to a Russian plane scheduled to collect this material. If this uranium was not moved within

three months, it could cause the release of radioactive nuclear material into the atmosphere. This incident

appears to have reflected Qadhafi’s irritation that he had not been permitted to pitch his tent outside the

United Nations headquarters in New York.

43 Similar frustration was expressed by the Libyan leader after the

United States did not invite Libya to the 2010 nuclear security summit. Qadhafi stated that it was a

“blunder” not to invite the country that had most recently abandoned nuclear weapons and that this would

make the Libyan example less attractive to states such as North Korea and Iran.

44

Regional Responses

Libya’s nuclear rollback was met with mixed responses in the Middle East. Initially, most commentators

attributed the Libyan decision to the Bush administration’s harsh policies and Saddam Hussein’s fate

following his capture in Iraq. Libya’s neighbours characterized the rollback decision as a victory for the

Bush doctrine of pre-emption. Arab observers cited a number of factors as having caused this decision,

“including Saddam Hussein’s capture, Iran’s signing of a protocol to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty

... and revelations about the interception in Italy of a shipment of illicit material heading for Libya.”45 Other

commentators noted the pragmatist logic informing Libya’s decision. The editor of Al-Sharq al-Awsat, a

leading pan-Arab newspaper, described the move as a “lesson in sane dealings with the political reality, the

likes of which have been absent from the Arab rationality for long decades.”46

Following the 2003 Libyan announcement, regional commentators pointed to the lack of pressure from

European countries and the United States on Israel to abandon its nuclear weapons arsenal. While Western

Målfrid Braut-Hegghammer 6
analysts debated whether force or diplomacy had persuaded Qadhafi to abandon his pursuit of nuclear

weapons, and whether Iran or North Korea would follow suit, Middle Eastern commentators noted that the

political will of Western states to exert such pressure on Israel seemed non-existent.

47 In other words,

analysts noted the unique overlap of interests that had produced the 2003 rollback agreement and expressed

doubts that such an overlap was likely to emerge between the United States and other suspected proliferators.

Revisiting the Libyan Model

Following the 2011 popular uprising which led to Qadhafi’s overthrow, the contested Libyan model is once

more subject to reinterpretation. Several observers have noted that it would have been much more difficult

to provide the critically important support for the Libyan resistance movement if Qadhafi had been able to

develop nuclear weapons. The consensus, then, is that the Qadhafi regime’s decision to abandon its nuclear

weapons program ultimately contributed to its downfall. This has been taken to suggest that it is now less

likely that other states suspected of pursuing a nuclear weapons option are keen to follow Libya’s example.

48

This would be an unfortunate outcome, as the Libyan model was a rare success story of coercive

diplomacy. It also demonstrated that former adversaries could come to agreement concerning difficult

conflicts and reduce tensions for the benefit of global peace and stability.

49

It is not yet possible to discern the long-term implications of the overthrow of the Qadhafi regime for the

appeal of negotiated nuclear disarmament along the lines of the so-called Libyan model. Meanwhile, even

prior to 2011, it was clear that the Libyan model did not trigger similar acts of negotiated nuclear rollback

elsewhere. In the years following Libya’s rollback decision, the international community struggled to cope

with the challenges posed by North Korea’s nuclear tests and Iran’s nuclear program. While the Libyan

regime lamented that it had not been better compensated by the West, the North Korean regime appeared to

be virtually unassailable. Although the stark contrast between the fate of these two regimes is likely to have

been duly noted by nuclear aspirants elsewhere, the implications for future proliferation challenges are not

necessarily straightforward.

Two important variables are likely to influence how states weigh the appeal of the Libyan model: how

advanced their nuclear capabilities are, and the intensity of their demand for nuclear weapons. It is

plausible that states with advanced nuclear capabilities are unlikely to be persuaded to abandon their

capabilities in return for normalization of their international standing. Many now argue that it is too late to

persuade North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons capability, and a growing number of observers

assess that Iran’s nuclear program is entering a “zone of immunity” from foreign intervention. What has been

the response from these states to the events in Libya in 2011? One notable view, expressed by Iranian leader

Ayatollah Khamenei in March 2011, underlines the costs of compromising with regards to nuclear programs

in terms of domestic politics and regime stability.

50 While this rhetoric is open to challenge on several

grounds, it is a telling indication of the way in which leading Iranian figures characterize the consequences

of Libya’s negotiated nuclear rollback.

In a second example, on 22 March, North Korean media cited Foreign Ministry spokesmen characterizing

lessons from the Libyan popular uprising as follows: “Libya’s nuclear dismantlement much touted by the

U.S. in the past turned out to be a mode of aggression ... It proved once again the truth of history that peace

can be preserved only when one builds up one’s own strength.”51

Elsewhere, the Libyan case has been cited as an example of how nuclear rollback makes states vulnerable

to domestic and foreign enemies. In Pakistan, A.Q. Khan stated: “[d]on’t overlook the fact that no nuclearcapable country has been subjected to aggression or occupied, or had its borders redrawn. Had Iraq and

Libya been nuclear powers, they wouldn’t have been destroyed in the way we have seen recently.”52 His

sentiments echoed those of Indian officials after the 1991 Gulf War, when an Indian general stated that no

country could challenge the United States unless it possessed nuclear weapons. Khan’s statement reflected

growing concerns in Pakistan about the vulnerability of its nuclear assets after American forces killed Osama

bin Laden in Abbottabad two weeks earlier. 53 Khan, of course, had his own axe to grind with the Libyan

7 Case Study of Libya
regime following the disclosure of the assistance provided by his network to the Libyan program.

Alternative Models?

Within a decade of Libya’s negotiated nuclear rollback, the Libyan model appears unlikely to appeal to

states with an advanced nuclear infrastructure and with a strong demand for a nuclear deterrent. Instead, the

strategy of another state—North Korea—which made rather different choices in the nuclear arena

following lengthy negotiations with the United States, may seem more appealing as a model for such states.

If the Libyan model is a case of a negotiated nuclear rollback, the North Korean “model” could be seen as

a strategy to agree to nuclear restraint, subject to the state in question considering the benefits of this arrangement to outweigh the costs. In the North Korean case, the regime agreed to nuclear restraint in return for

substantial assistance from the United States in the 1994 Agreed Framework. In contrast to the Libyan

decision to abandon all nuclear research and development, North Korea secretly expanded its enrichment

program. Once Pyongyang was no longer satisfied with the terms offered by the United States, the regime

withdrew from the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 2003 and carried out nuclear tests two years later.

Following the 2003 war in Iraq, North Korean officials reiterated the point that the possession of nuclear

weapons would have saved the Iraqi regime—a belief that has been bolstered following the 2011 Libyan

uprising.

54 In addition to serving as a deterrent against foreign intervention, nuclear weapons function as a

key lever in relation to the international community. The domestic survival of the Pyongyang regime rests

on the flow of aid from the outside world. Following the acquisition of nuclear weapons, North Korea has

received far more aid than countries of similar size and level of economic development.

55

The contrasts between Libya and North Korea suggest two possible lessons for prospective proliferators.

First, the North Korean “model” seems to underscore the value of maintaining a nuclear option while

engaging in negotiations concerning restraint or rollback. Retaining the option of rapidly resuming the

effort to develop or test nuclear explosives could be interpreted as an increasingly vital component of such

negotiations for isolated regimes. This conclusion is unlikely to be missed by the various factions in Tehran.

Second, the tendency to reach out to the United States offering nuclear restraint or rollback in return for a

grand bargain—as seen in the cases of Iraq, Iran, Libya, and North Korea in the 1990s—could decline in

the foreseeable future. States could turn to other emerging powers—notably China—in making decisions

about nuclear power versus nuclear weapons. Looking to the future, decisionmaking in latent nuclear

weapons states could be informed by more complex, and possibly conflicting, agendas.

Conclusion

Libya’s decision to abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons is likely to remain a unique case of negotiated

nuclear rollback for two reasons: the unique characteristics of the Libyan program and the subsequent fate

of the Qadhafi regime. This appeared to be the case even before the Arab Spring, due to the Qadhafi regime’s

vocal dissatisfaction with the compensation received for abandoning the nuclear weapons program.

For states standing at the threshold of a nuclear weapons option, the Libyan model appears anachronistic.

Unilateral disarmament—abandoning nuclear latency—may seem irrational to regimes that fear foreign

pressure and domestic unrest. For the Iranian regime, for example, the North Korean strategy may seem far

more appealing. However, unlike North Korea, Iran lacks a patron to balance the pressure wielded by the

United States and Israel. While Russian and Chinese influence can to some degree compensate for

American and European efforts to impose strict economic sanctions, the absence of a countervailing patron

confines Iran’s options. While it seems highly unlikely that a state such as Iran will be tempted to adopt the

Libyan model following the 2011 uprising, states with a less advanced nuclear capability could emulate

aspects of the Libyan model if they intend to use this capability as a lever. We may be headed for a world

with a growing number of latent nuclear weapons states reluctant to surrender their nuclear weapons option.

This, ironically, could be the main lesson that states opt to draw from the Libyan case.

----------

Målfrid Braut-Hegghammer 8
Notes:

1 “Libya: Gaddafi Addresses General People’s Congress,” Tripoli Great Jamahiriyah TV (in Arabic), 2 March 2004,

FBIS.

2 Ayatollah Khamenei, Mashhad Nowruz Address 2011. Source: Vision of the Islamic Republic of Iran Khorasan

Provincial TV, Mashhad, 21 March 2011, in BBC Monitoring, 23 March 2011. Accessed from www.iranalmanac.com.

3 Harald Müller, “The exceptional end to the extraordinary Libyan nuclear quest,” in Morten Bremer Mærli and Sverre

Lodgaard (Editors), Nuclear Proliferation and International Security, (London: Routledge, 2007), p. 73.

4 “Bush official: Libya’s nuclear program a surprise,” CNN, 19 December 2003, http://articles.cnn.com/2003-12-

19/world/libya.nuclear_1_british-inspectors-nuclear-program-libya?_s=PM:WORLD.

5 Ibid.

6 The U.S. Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction,

report to the President of the United States, March 31, 2005, quoted in Jacques E. C. Hymans, “Assessing North

Korean Nuclear Intentions and Capacities: A New Approach,” Journal of East Asian Studies, May-August 2008, Vol.

8, No. 2, p. 289.

7 Etel Solingen, Nuclear Logics: Contrasting Paths in East Asia and the Middle East, (Princeton: Princeton

University Press, 2007) p. 213.

8 Ibid.

9 “Libya,”Interview with Muhammad Abd al-Aziz, Al-Majallah, 1-7 February 2004, p. 26—29, FBIS.

10 Ibid.

11 Solingen, Nuclear Logics, p. 217.

12 Müller, “The exceptional end to the extraordinary Libyan nuclear quest,” p. 79.

13 David Albright, Peddling Peril: How the Secret Nuclear Trade Arms America’s Enemies, (New York: Free Press,

2010), p. 116.

14 Dirk J. Vandewalle, Libya Since Independence: Oil and State-Building, (New York: Cornell University Press, 1998)

p. 183.

15 See Målfrid Braut-Hegghammer, “Libya’s Nuclear Turnaround: Perspectives from Tripoli,” The Middle East

Journal, Vol. 62, No. 1, Winter 2008, p. 55-72.

16 Albright, Peddling Peril, p. 117.

17 Ibid., p. 119.

18 Ibid., p. 120.

19 Ibid., p. 122.

20 Martin Indyk, “Iraq did not force Gaddafi’s hand,” Washington Post, 9 March 2004; Müller, “The exceptional end

to the extraordinary Libyan nuclear quest,” p. 77.

21 Albright, Peddling Peril, p. 121.

22 See Braut-Hegghammer, “Libya’s Nuclear Turnaround,” p.71.

9 Case Study of Libya
23 Müller, “The exceptional end to the extraordinary Libyan nuclear quest,” p. 77.

24 Bill Gertz, “Inside the Ring,” The Washington Times, 24 February 2011, p. 7.

25 Albright, Peddling Peril, p. 149.

26 Ibid., p. 149.

27 Ibid, p. 151.

28 See also Chaim Braun and Christopher F. Chyba, “Proliferation rings: New challenges to the nuclear nonproliferation regime,” International Security, Fall 2004, Vol. 29, No. 2, p. 5-49.

29 See Braut-Hegghammer,“Libya’s Nuclear Turnaround,” p.71.

30 Yassir al-Zaatirah, Al-Dustour, 23 December 2003, cited in Peter Valenti, “The Libyan Surprise,” World Press

Review, Middle East/North Africa, Vol. 51, No. 3, March 2004, www.worldpress.org/mideast/1787.cfm#down.

31 Adnan Abu Odeh in Daily Star, 6 January 2004, cited in Valenti, “The Libyan Surprise.”

32 Solingen, Nuclear Logics, 2007; Braut-Hegghammer, “Libya’s Nuclear Turnaround.”

33 Alison Pargeter, “Libya: Reforming the Impossible?” Review of African Political Economy, No. 108, 2006, p. 219—

235.

34 See, for example, “Libya: Al-Qadhafi addresses General People’s Congress,” Tripoli Great Jamahiriyah TV (in

Arabic), 2 March 2004, FBIS.

35 Mouammar Kadhafi, “Que fait l’armée française en Afrique ?” Le Figaro, 24 November 2004, access via

http://www.voltairenet.org/article15599.html; “Kadhafi’s son says world must give NKorea incentives to reach

nuclear deal,” Agence France Presse, 5 April 2005, Lexis-Nexis.

36 Abd al-Hafiz al-Adl, Al-Jamahiriya, Editorial, 22 December 2003, cited in Valenti, “The Libyan Surprise.”

37 Lead editorial in Azzahf al-Akhdar, 1 January 2004, cited in Valenti, “The Libyan Surprise.”

38 “Libyan leader laments no ‘concrete’ reward for giving up WMD,” Rome RAI Tre Television Network (in Italian),

17 December 2004, FBIS.

39 Ibid.

40 Ibid; “Israelis brace for Libya visit. Tripoli envoy here on secret mission, ‘Post’ learns,” The Jerusalem Post, 3

March 2005, Lexis-Nexis.

41 “Libya’s Shalqam Comments on Libyan-US Ties, Upcoming Talks with Powell,” Al-Jazeera, 23 September 2004.

42 Ibid.

43 “Libya’s nuclear scare Gaddafi risked ‘disaster’,” Sunday Herald Sun (Australia), 5 December 2010, p. 44, LexisNexis.

44 Matthew Lee, “Gadhafi: US nuclear snub of Libya hurts peace,” The Associated Press, 26 April 2010.

45 Valenti, “The Libyan Surprise.”

46 Abd al-Rahman al-Rashid, Al-Sharq al-Awsat, editorial, 22 December 2003, cited in Valenti, “The Libyan Surprise.”

47 Ibid; and lead editorial in Al-Quds al-Arabi, 23 December 2003, cited in Valenti, “The Libyan Surprise.”

Målfrid Braut-Hegghammer 10
48 Norman Cigar, “Libya’s Nuclear Disarmament: Lessons and Implications for Nuclear Proliferation,” Middle East

Studies Monographs, No. 2, Marine Corps University, Quantico, January 2012.

49 For further details, see Bruce W. Jentleson and Christopher A. Whytock, “Who ‘Won’Libya? The Force-Diplomacy

Debate and Its Implications for Theory and Policy,” International Security, Vol. 30, No. 3, Winter 2005, p. 47-86;

Braut-Hegghammer, “Libya’s Nuclear Turnaround.”

50 Ayatollah Khamenei, Mashhad Nowruz Address 2011, Vision of the Islamic Republic of Iran Khorasan Provincial

TV, Mashhad, 21 March 2011, BBC Monitoring, 23 March 2011, www.iranalmanac.com.

51 Jonathan Gurwitz, “Libya’s nuclear lesson,” San Antonio Express-News, 3 April 2011, p. 9B, Lexis-Nexis.

52 “Pakistan: Nuclear scientist says bomb saved Pakistan,” Right Vision News, 17 May 2011, Lexis-Nexis.

53 Ibid.

54 Andrei Lankov, “North Korea’s Choice: Collapse or Reform,” Foreign Affairs, 19 December 2011, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/136966/andrei-lankov/north-koreas-choice-collapse-or-reform?page=show.

55 Ibid.

11 Case Study of Libya
Pakistan’s Motivations for Possessing Nuclear Weapons

and Challenges to the “Unitary Rational Actor”

Model for Managing Deterrence

by George Perkovich, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

States’ motivations for acquiring and retaining nuclear weapons change over time. The threats and

interests that lead states to seek nuclear weapons in the first place may subsequently morph. States may then

identify other threats and interests to retain the weapons. For example, the United States began the

Manhattan Project to meet the threat of an assumed Nazi nuclear-weapon program. Germany was defeated

in May 1945, but the U.S. continued the Manhattan Project and three months later dropped two atomic

weapons on Japan. After Japan surrendered, the U.S. cited the emerging threat of the Soviet Union to

justify continuing its build up of nuclear weapons. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, U.S. strategists

and officials have justified retention of a large, sophisticated nuclear arsenal to deter post-Soviet Russia,

China, “rogue states,” and, more vaguely, nuclear terrorism, and to hedge against unforeseen developments.

Pakistan has been relatively constant in defining the threats that require its possession of a growing nuclear

arsenal. Pakistan’s President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto initiated a crash program to produce nuclear weapons in

January 1972, one month after the country’s ignominious defeat in war with India, which resulted in the

eastern half of Pakistan becoming the new independent country of Bangladesh. Nuclear weapons would

ensure Pakistan that it “never again” would be humiliated and defeated by India. Its existence and territorial integrity could be guaranteed regardless of India’s disproportionate size and resource advantages.

1

Bhutto also saw the nuclear weapon program as a means by which he, as a civilian leader, could balance the

internal power of the Pakistan Army. The Army had ruled the country since 1958 and was clearly the

dominant center of power within it. But if Bhutto could preside over a successful nuclear weapon program

and retain authority over the weapons it produced, he could stand on a more equal footing with the Army.

Of course, things change. Bhutto was displaced in a military coup in 1977 and hanged in 1979. The Army

took over the state and the nuclear weapon program and has remained the dominant institution in the

country. In contrast with India, whose nuclear weapon program has been directed and closely managed by

successive prime ministers and a coterie of top civilian scientists, Pakistan’s nuclear program has been

military in its management, purpose, and ambition. Pakistan’s arsenal is dedicated to deterring India from

taking advantage of its greater power and resources to invade Pakistan or dictate its policy choices,

particularly regarding strategic objectives such as Kashmir and, more recently, Afghanistan. To the extent

that India could be tempted to mobilize its superior resources to produce and deploy conventional military

power that conceivably could defeat the Pakistani Army, Air Force and Navy in war, Pakistan’s military has

developed nuclear doctrines and capabilities to wield and use nuclear weapons against India’s conventional

forces, as well as to retain the capacity to hold India’s major population centers at risk. The Pakistani

military projects a multi-variant role for its nuclear deterrent, at the tactical, operational, and strategic

levels.

In addition to deterring India from threatening Pakistan’s territorial integrity and sovereign autonomy,

nuclear weapons also are a symbol of national prowess. Indeed, after the nuclear tests of 1998, it was not

uncommon to meet Pakistani military officers and high-ranking civilians who proclaimed that nuclear

weapons were the country’s one unmistakably great achievement. More speculatively, and ironically, given

Bhutto’s original intention to balance the Army’s power internally, the Army’s control over the nuclear

George Perkovich 12
weapons program means that if civilians ever gain real predominance over the country’s governance and

distribution of resources, the Army will have the upper hand in negotiating the terms by which it would

hand over real control over the nuclear program and arsenal.

With that brief background, I now discuss two related challenges that Pakistan poses to deterrence stability

in South Asia, and to the broader model of deterrence that has predominated international thinking since the

1960s. These challenges are unprecedented and related, and therefore deserve dedicated analysis not only

in Pakistan and India, but also in the U.S. One is the spectrum of violence that occurs between India and

Pakistan and therefore affects their management of nuclear deterrence. The deterrence model that grew up

around the U.S.-Soviet contest concentrated on balancing nuclear doctrines and forces in ways that deterred

initiation of nuclear war, including “bolts from the blue,” and also the escalation of large-scale conventional

war into nuclear war. In South Asia today, by contrast, India and Pakistan must contend with the potential

of subconventional aggression (terrorism) to escalate to conventional war and then nuclear war. This broader

threat spectrum would be inherently more difficult to manage than the Cold War environment. The

difficulty is compounded further by a second challenge, the possibility that Pakistan is not the sort of

“unified rational actor” assumed by deterrence models.

Theories of nuclear deterrence rely on the assumption that nuclear competitors are “unitary rational actors.”

Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and William H. Riker concisely express this assumption: “national decisions of

such magnitude as acquiring a nuclear capability or using such a capability in a war are made by a single,

dominant leader who is an expected utility maximizer.”2 Among other things, this assumption extrapolates

to the nuclear domain the key feature of a modern state as defined by Max Weber, that a state exercises a

monopoly on the legitimate use of force in and from its territory.

To the extent that analysts and policymakers have worried about instances when the unitary rational actor

model might not pertain, they have tended to focus on the problem of non-rationality. Terrorists are presumed

to be undeterrable because they do not conform to the dominant model of rationality. States led by

madmen, religious zealots, or neo-Hitlerites also are deemed to violate the model. More broadly, as

Lawrence Freedman has noted, the unitary rational actor model does not account for “a whole range of

psychological and sociological factors—such as mental quirks, lack of awareness, domestic political

pressures, value-conflicts or sheer errors of judgment.”3 Irrationality is a real problem and it may not be

limited to terrorists and militant states, as historical examples from the Cold War suggest. But, the first

adjective in the “unitary rational actor” model—unitariness—is also highly problematic and less often

considered.

When unity exists—defined as the top state leadership’s clear control over the instruments of violence

emanating from the state—deterrence can operate as it is supposed to. The highest authorities of the state

effectively maintain a monopoly on the instruments of violence and the transmission of signals internally

as well as to competitors. The problem is when unity does not exist in fact or in the perception of

competitors. Disunity produces dangerous confusion and ambiguity that interfere in the management of

deterrence. Who is sending signals through violence that is perceived to be emanating from the state and/or

its territory? What is being signaled? To whom does the victim of aggression address counter-signals and

actions? How does one calculate the interests of the attacker if the putative leaders of the state are not the

authors of the perpetrated violence, or are pretending not to be? If states and their leaders are presumed to

be rational and to highly value the preservation of their state, but disunity exists and other actors who may

not place a high value on preservation of the state are conducting aggression and may be able to gain

control over nuclear assets, how does one manage deterrence and escalation processes in such a situation?

In this latter scenario, disunity erodes the rationality on which deterrence is predicated.

The outcomes of confusion prompted by violence whose authorization is ambiguous could be either

stabilizing or destabilizing. If, for example, authorities in India believe that authority in Pakistan is

splintered, New Delhi may choose to refrain from counter-attack, which could reinforce stability and

escalation control. On the other hand, they could respond with force, risking unintended escalation.

However, because leaders of adversarial states must put any immediate conflict in the context of longer-term

13 Pakistan’s Motivations
relations, they must think how their action or inaction today could raise or lower the risk of inviting more

violence from the adversary in the future. Thus, forbearing counter-attack in one crisis can be seen to

weaken deterrence of future violence. With each additional crisis that is not met with a counter-attack, the

pressure mounts to act more forcefully the next time in order to restore deterrence.

Pakistan illustrates the unity problem. Early in its history, Pakistan’s military leadership saw the potential

value in mobilizing “irregular” forces to augment the regular Army in pursuing the state’s objectives vis-àvis India. These objectives most famously have included wresting the Kashmir Valley from Indian control,

and/or raising the costs of India’s ongoing occupation of the Valley and diverting Indian forces to the

occupation. War initiated by Pakistan in 1947 was said by Pakistani authorities to be carried out by

irregulars outside of state control. In 1971, the Pakistan Army mobilized proxy forces in East Pakistan to

combat the Bengali separatist insurgency, which was backed by India.

4 These proxies, who were mostly

Urdu-speaking Biharis and activists from the Jamaat-e-Islami party, massacred large numbers of Bengalis.

In the 1980s, Pakistan and the United States (with help from Saudi Arabia and others) famously mobilized

irregular “freedom fighters” to drive the Soviet Army from Afghanistan. After that successful mission, the

Pakistani military and intelligence services shifted these forces to Kashmir, exploiting the opening created

by India’s rigging of state elections there in 1989. Pakistan nurtured and abetted the growth of jihadi

organizations to carry on the struggle with India. Over time, these groups proliferated. There is room to

debate the degree to which Pakistani authorities controlled the growth and operations of these groups, but

through the present era these authorities have not stifled them decisively.

By instructive comparison, the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War used proxies in

violent struggles in the Third World but did not extend violence directly into each other’s homeland. There

are several reasons for this, but one of them was recognition of the danger that attacks in the Soviet or U.S.

homeland could escalate to nuclear war. To preserve nuclear deterrence and avoid nuclear war, the two

antagonists eschewed the projection of violence into each other’s territory. Noting this form of restraint does

not imply that the U.S. or the Soviet Union were acting from virtue; their proxy wars killed many more

people than would have been killed if they had held back. Rather, the point is that the projection of violent

actors by Pakistan into India or vice versa poses unprecedented risks of deterrence instability.

The unity problem posed by Pakistan has not eased since it and India made their nuclear deterrence

relationship overt when they tested nuclear weapons in 1998. In early May 1999, the Pakistani military,

directed by Chief of Staff General Pervez Musharraf, instigated infiltration by Army forces dressed as

civilians into high points of the Kargil region of Kashmir which were then under nominal Indian control.

After India belatedly learned of this infiltration, what became known as the Kargil conflict ensued. Pakistan

at first claimed that the insurgents were aggrieved local freedom fighters, not under Army control. As the

conflict gained steam and insurgents were killed, Indian forces discovered identity cards and other evidence

that demonstrated that the fighters were Pakistani servicemen. On 31 May, Pakistani Foreign Secretary

Shamshad Ahmed said that escalation could lead to use of “any weapon” in the Pakistani arsenal. The

Pakistani Senate declared that “the purpose of developing weapons becomes meaningless if they are not used

when they are needed.” The role of nuclear threats and deterrence in the conflict remains subject to

scholarly debate, and it is possible that the nuclear shadow inspired caution and helped prevent escalation

of the conflict. However, this benign effect would be difficult to sustain if similar forms of aggression were

repeated because India would be pressed to seek options to deter such repetition.

That conflict ended in weeks. India reported that 527 of its servicemen had been killed and 1,363 others

wounded. Pakistani sources differ on casualty figures, ranging from 423 killed to 3,000. Pakistan was compelled by international opinion and diplomatic pressure, spearheaded by the United States, to acknowledge

its fault and to accept an end to the conflict without gain. In the following years, Indian military leaders,

strategic analysts, and politicians concluded that Pakistan now dangerously believed that nuclear deterrence

could give it a shield behind which to conduct low-intensity—sub-conventional—war against India,

believing that India would not escalate in retaliation for fear of triggering nuclear war that would not be worth

the loss of small chunks of disputed territory in Kashmir. This is an example of the stability/instability

paradox conceptualized by Jack Snyder decades ago. Out of frustration, and to deter Pakistan from

George Perkovich 14
waging aggression at any level on the threat spectrum, Indian security analysts and military officers

struggled to develop doctrine and capabilities to fight Pakistan at all levels of violence while dominating the

escalatory process. Of course, this is easier said than done.

Two years after the Kargil conflict, on 1 October 2001, terrorists linked to Pakistan attacked the Jammu and

Kashmir legislative assembly complex in Srinigar, killing 38 people. Two months later, on 13 December,

a handful of militants attacked the Indian parliament building in New Delhi. India asserted that the attackers were linked to Pakistan, in particular the Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba organizations which

were known to recruit and train in Pakistan. Pakistani authorities denied any role in the attacks. There was

and is much evidence to indicate that these groups had grown up with the support of Pakistan’s InterService Intelligence (ISI), and even if Pakistani authorities disputed the ISI’s direct control over these groups,

it was clear that the authorities did not act decisively to demobilize them.

Following the two attacks, India mobilized massive forces toward the Indo-Pakistan border. This force

eventually totaled 800,000 troops, backed by naval deployments to potentially conduct a blockade of

Pakistan. A stand-off ensued for more than six months, with real concerns in the region and internationally

that major warfare could erupt. Eventually, with the assistance of concerted behind-the-scenes diplomacy

by the U.S. and others, India stood down.

By 2004, India and Pakistan had undertaken back-channel negotiations with each other to temper their

relationship and seek a framework for ending the Kashmir conflict. However, this promising diplomacy was

not brought to completion due to internal developments in both countries.

In November 2008, another major terrorist attack was conducted by agents of Laskhar-e-Taiba, this time

against the Taj Mahal hotel and other facilities in Mumbai. The attacks killed 164 people and wounded

more than 300. Perhaps mindful of the Kargil and 2001-02 crises, the two states, again pressed by the U.S.,

largely avoided repeating the cycle of recriminations and mobilization of large conventional forces that had

occurred before. Nevertheless, there was at least one “scare” when Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari

received a phone call from a man claiming to be Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee, warning that

India would launch a war on Pakistan the next day. Such a threat would naturally prompt the Pakistani

military to increase its readiness, if not to launch pre-emptive operations. As a recent report by the Henry

L. Stimson Center documents, American officials learned of the alleged call and ascertained that it was

fraudulent, that Mukherjee had not placed it. The U.S. was thus able to calm the situation.

The deterrence implications of subconventional aggression and ambiguous state control over its perpetrators are profound and have not been adequately addressed by Pakistan, by India, nor by international

strategic analysts. The absence of state control over all organized perpetrators of cross-border violence

would shake the morale, identity, and standing of the Pakistani Army if its leaders or the public were to

recognize that this is the reality suggested by the use of force by Pakistani citizens or agents against India

when Pakistani authorities deny that these actors or actions have been ordered by the state. In some ways,

the operation by ostensibly uncontrolled violent groups acting from Pakistani territory is a violation of

Pakistani sovereignty, much like Osama bin Laden’s long presence in Pakistan was. In the latter case, the

Pakistani security establishment chose to focus on the United States’ violation of Pakistani sovereignty in

raiding Osama’s compound, but in subsequent debates increasing numbers of Pakistanis acknowledge that

Bin Laden’s presence also was an embarrassment.

Pakistani security officials naturally are loathe to admit this implication out of pride and fear that the

military’s standing and competence would be called into question. Yet, the risks that subconventional uses

of force could escalate to conventional and perhaps nuclear war deny Pakistanis, Indians, and the

international community the luxury of acting as if the disunity of the chain of command is not a fundamental strategic problem. The lack of coherence of authority in Pakistan—and of the state’s monopoly on the

legitimate use of force—is a fundamental strategic problem.

The disunity problem is more worrisome if in fact Pakistani authorities do exert influence or control over

organizations that have conducted terrorist operations in India—and elsewhere—and are merely denying it

15 Pakistan’s Motivations
for tactical reasons. In this case, Pakistani authorities can be treated fairly as the authors of the signals that

are sent by these actors in the military competition with India. India can then seek to manage pre-conflict

and intra-conflict deterrence according to the traditional model, while still facing severe challenges of

escalation control. The challenge certainly is complicated by the ambiguity that Pakistan would be seeking

to create by denying responsibility for future subconventional operations; deterrence stability would be

weaker than in “normal” scenarios. But if India were correct in acting on the belief that Pakistani

authorities were culpable for such operations, the burden of having stepped first on the escalation ladder

would be on Pakistan, and the defender’s advantage in deterrence would accrue to India.

The graver problem arises if and when Pakistani leaders are not in control of the perpetrators of violence

emanating from Pakistani territory. In that case, when faced with an attack, India would conclude that

deterrence had failed or was inapplicable, but that if India did not retaliate it would encourage further attacks

and do nothing to compel Pakistani leaders to assert control over violent actors. But if India did retaliate,

Pakistani leaders, feeling that they had not authorized aggression against India, would feel that India was

initiating war. It is widely recognized that victims of aggression—defenders—are more highly motivated

to retaliate because they have suffered an injustice. Victims of aggression tend to have a higher commitment

to defend than perpetrators do to escalate, and outside powers tend to side with defenders. The combination of greater commitment and international support gives defenders’ deterrent threats weight. Knowing

this, Pakistani defenders would feel that their threats to escalate in response to an Indian attack would be

more credible than if they had been the initiators of the conflict. Indians, of course, would feel that this logic

rewards Pakistani authorities for not exercising a monopoly on the legitimate use of force emanating from

their territory, precisely the situation they want Pakistan to correct.

Perhaps because the classical model of nuclear deterrence was developed in the context of the bipolar U.S.-

Soviet competition in which neither state deployed proxies to commit terrorist or sub-conventional attacks

on the other’s homeland, the model is relatively silent on how such low-intensity aggression could or should

be deterred. The literature’s silence on this problem, and Pakistan’s self-interested belief that nuclear

deterrence should be applied only to the conventional-nuclear threat spectrum, further distract analysts and

policy-makers from wrestling with the problems that sub-conventional violence poses to deterrence

stability. Yet, as psychologist Steven Pinker has elaborated in his masterly book, The Better Angels of Our

Nature, “the necessity of vengeful punishment as a deterrent...has been demonstrated repeatedly in

mathematical and computer models of the evolution of cooperation.”5 Retaliation “is necessary for

cooperation, for preventing a nice guy from being exploited.” If one does not retaliate, it may invite further

aggression. Of course, if competitors merely engage in a cycle of action and retaliation, both end up losing

over time. Survival and betterment require moves to break the cycle. The victim of aggression may

retaliate and at the same time signal an interest in returning to cooperation in which both sides refrain from

further violence. Psychological experiments and computer modeling indicate that the cycle can be broken

by “random” grants of forgiveness of an aggression and an invitation to cooperate. To make this strategy

work over time, of course, the actor who has been forgiven a transgression should display contrition for the

transgressive act. Otherwise, the forgiver can be perceived embarrassingly as a sucker, which can trigger

powerful emotions of vengefulness.

This dynamic has been on display in the post-Mumbai relationship between India and Pakistan. India

suffered the attack, but Prime Minister Manmohau Singh resisted pressures to retaliate and, in essence,

forgave Pakistan in order to avoid an escalatory cycle of retaliation. Pakistani leaders, half-heartedly and

ambiguously, signaled regret for the terrorist attacks—while denying direct responsibility for them. The

opportunity has been created for cooperation to stabilize the situation. No matter how justified Pakistanis

might feel the acts of jihadis operating in India are, and how much they feel India should “get over it,” they

would be wise to recognize that India’s interests in reinforcing deterrence, in not looking like suckers, and

in satisfying emotional impulses for revenge make the situation quite precarious in the event of another

terrorist attack emanating from Pakistan.

It is beyond the scope of this paper to specify how Pakistan, India and interested outside parties could or

should redress the challenges to deterrence stability discussed above. The safest way to defuse this

George Perkovich 16
unstable competition and reinforce deterrence stability, of course, is for Pakistan to make unambiguous

efforts to restore the monopoly on the legitimate use of force that is central to modern statehood. The onus

for this lies within Pakistan, of course, but India and the U.S. would be wise to concentrate their policy

formulation and execution with this in mind. More broadly, policy-makers and analysts interested in nuclear

deterrence would be wise to recognize that the unitary rational actor model that has for so long shaped

thinking and policy may not always apply. Pakistan is a case that indicates some of the implications of this

observation. Given that deterrence in nuclearized environments will be an ongoing challenge, it behooves

analytical communities in the U.S. and elsewhere to treat the Indo-Pakistan deterrence challenge as a

laboratory for diagnosis and development of potential remediating approaches.

----------

Notes:

1 The fixation on the threat that India could weaken or dismember Pakistan underestimates the reality that the East

Pakistan crisis stemmed from West Pakistan’s maltreatment of East Pakistan. The gravest threats to Pakistani unity

today also are caused by internal injustices and misgovernance, including in Balochistan, which some in Pakistan fear

could go the way of East Pakistan.

2 Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and William H. Riker, “An Assessment of the Merits of Selective Nuclear Proliferation,”

Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 26, No. 2 (June 1982), p. 292.

3 Lawrence Freedman, The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy (Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 3rd edition, 2003), p. 173.

4 Ahmed Rashid, Pakistan on the Brink (New York: Viking, 2012), p. 47.

5 Steven Pinker, The Better Angels of Our Nature (New York: Viking, 2011), p. 532.

17 Pakistan’s Motivations
Målfrid Braut-Hegghammer is an Assistant Professor at the Norwegian Defence

University College. She obtained her PhD, entitled Nuclear Entrepreneurs: Drivers of

Nuclear Proliferation, from the London School of Economics in 2010. The dissertation was

awarded the British International Studies Association Prize for best doctoral thesis in

International Studies in 2010. Braut-Hegghammer has carried out fieldwork in North Africa,

the Middle East, and South Asia.

From 2008-2010 she was a Research Fellow at the Harvard Belfer Center for Science and

International Affairs in Cambridge, Massachusetts. She is currently a Visiting Fellow at the

South Asian Strategic Stability Institute in Islamabad, Pakistan. Braut-Hegghammer has

published her work in The Nonproliferation Review, The Middle East Journal, the RUSI

Journal, and International Security. She has published op-eds in the International Herald

Tribune, Huffington Post, and leading Norwegian newspapers.

Selected publications include “Revisiting Osirak: Preventive Attacks and Nuclear

Proliferation Risks,” in International Security, Vol. 36, No. 1, Summer 2011; “Libya’s Nuclear

Turnaround: Perspectives from Tripoli,” in The Middle East Journal, Winter 2007-2008; and

“Rebel Without A Cause? Explaining Iraq’s Response to Resolution 1441,” in The

Nonproliferation Review, Spring 2006.

George Perkovich is vice president for studies and director of the Nuclear Policy Program

at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. His research focuses on nuclear

strategy and nonproliferation, with a focus on South Asia and Iran, and on the problem of

justice in the international political economy.

He is the author of the award-winning book India’s Nuclear Bomb (University of California

Press, 2001). He is co-author of the Adelphi Paper, Abolishing Nuclear Weapons, published

in September 2008 by the International Institute for Strategic Studies. This paper is the

basis of the book Abolishing Nuclear Weapons: A Debate, which includes 17 critiques by

13 eminent international commentators. An expert on Pakistan and South Asia, he wrote a

report published September 2011, entitled “Stop Enabling Pakistan’s Dangerous

Dysfunction.” Perkovich is also co-author of a major Carnegie report, Universal

Compliance: A Strategy for Nuclear Security, a blueprint for rethinking the international

nuclear nonproliferation regime. The report offers a fresh approach to deal with states and

terrorists, nuclear weapons, and fissile materials to ensure global safety and security.

He served as a speechwriter and foreign policy adviser to Senator Joe Biden from 1989 to

1990. Perkovich is an adviser to the International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation

and Disarmament and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations’ Task Force on U.S.

Nuclear Policy. He earned his B.A. from University of California at Santa Cruz; his M.A.

from Harvard University; and his Ph.D. from the University of Virginia.

About the Authors
Middle East Studies

at the Marine Corps University

To Join or Not to Join the Nuclear Club: How Nation Think

about Nuclear Weapons: Two Middle East Case Studies

MES Monographs • No. 4 April 2013

Relinquished Nuclear Powers: A Case

Study of Libya

Målfrid Braut-Hegghammer

Pakistan’s Motivations for Possessing

Nuclear Weapons and Challenges to

the “Unitary Rational Actor” Model for

Managing Deterrence

George Perkovich

The current debate revolving around Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs highlights the need to

foster a more complete understanding of the multidimensionality of states’ decision-making process on

whether to acquire and retain nuclear weapons. Case studies from the greater Middle East region offer the

opportunity to examine the factors such states take into consideration when determining which path to

follow. Such factors include threat perceptions, the interpretation of lessons learned from the experience

of other countries, the calculus of perceived costs and benefits for national security, the envisioned modes

of employment of nuclear weapons (political and military), and the legal/ethical considerations—all from

the perspective of regional actors. Furthermore, a country's specific political decisionmaking process and

its institutions are also key factors in understanding how actual and potential regional nuclear powers make

decisions on the nuclear issue. As such, an understanding of the motivations and of the perceived utility

of nuclear weapons from the perspective of recent and potential nuclear powers can help senior leaders craft

more effective U.S. and multilateral nonproliferation, counterproliferation, and deterrence strategies. The

two papers included in this Monograph offer insights into the differing paths taken by two countries in the

greater Middle East region—Libya and Pakistan—with the former relinquishing its nuclear program and

the latter acquiring a military nuclear capability.