ABSTRACT
Was there any link, at that time, between Washington’s response to the crisis and its concern over the expanding covert Pakistani nuclear weapons program? Pakistan was, after all, “sanctioned” later in the year when President Bush was unable to certify to Congress, as required by the Pressler Amendment, that Pakistan did not possess a nuclear weapon, and that continued American assistance to Islamabad would be helpful in ensuring that it did not acquire one. But several U.S. officials interviewed for this project deny that such a link existed. While they were concerned about the Pakistani program – indeed, had “certified” Pakistan the year before knowing that Pakistan had probably crossed over some of the “red lines” drawn by earlier administrations – they argued that the crisis had been treated on its merits. Decisive evidence about Pakistan’s nuclear program came only in July, according to senior officials. Yet, one can speculate that Pakistan’s nuclear program influenced attitudes deeper in the bureaucracy. Those familiar with Pakistan’s nuclear program were aware that American officials had “seen no evil, heard no evil, and spoken no evil” for nearly ten years, despite conclusive evidence being available of Pakistan’s burgeoning nuclear program. The CIA, in particular, had been angry at the failure to sanction Pakistan in 1988; it had even prepared a video for senior officials showing how Pakistan had violated not only American law, but its own promises to two U.S. administrations. Its officials had been stressing how serious the South Asian nuclear crisis was, and were among Seymour Hersh’s most important sources, especially Richard Kerr, who characterized the crisis as “the most dangerous nuclear situation we have ever faced . . . far more frightening than the Cuban missile crisis.”45
