Pakistan has strongly dismissed ‘The New Yorker’ magazine’s article over the safety of Pakistan’s nuclear assets. The Pakistan foreign office termed the assertions made in the article utterly misleading and entirely baseless.

The spokesman spokesman Abdul Basit said the article quoted unverifiable sources and it was aimed at tarnishing the image of Pakistan. The Spokesman emphasised that Pakistan’s strategic assets were completely safe and secure. He further reiterated that Islamabad does not require and will not allow any foreign assistance in making the nuclear assets secure.

US Ambassador to Pakistan Anne Patterson has also termed the allegations about the security of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal as completely false. She said the United States has not been negotiating any understandings with the Pakistani military over the nuclear issue. Washington has no intention to seize Pakistani nuclear weapons or material.

The writer Seymour M. Hersh of New Yorker Magazine has sighted the recent attacks by terrorists in Pakistan on Pakistan Army Headquarter and Police centers. He also writes:

…..an Army general was shot dead by gunmen on motorcycles on the streets of Islamabad, the capital. The assassins clearly had advance knowledge of the general’s route, indicating that they had contacts and allies inside the security forces.

He is referring to the assassination of Brigadier Moinuddin Ahmed in Islamabad, Pakistan. His jeep was ambushed about one kilometer away from his residence. Mr. Hersh’s conclusion that it became possible because assassins had contacts and allies inside the security forces is clear indication that his article is based on his own speculations and motives. There is no much to change the route within one kilometer and Brigadier Moinuddin Ahmed had been taking the same route in the area where he was killed. It didn’t need inside contacts. However, the most important fact is that he was leaving back to Sudan to join UN peace force in Sudan after vacations. Who would benefit the most in Sudan with his killing?

The image also show that terrorists entering the nuclear facility with weapons and Pakistan army is not doing anything to stop them. Does it need anything else to clarify the writer’s motive?

Mr. Hersh further writes:

The secrecy surrounding the understandings was important because there is growing antipathy toward America in Pakistan, as well as a history of distrust. Many Pakistanis believe that America’s true goal is not to keep their weapons safe but to diminish or destroy the Pakistani nuclear complex.

He concludes his article writing:

The ongoing consultation on nuclear security between Washington and Islamabad intensified after the announcement in March of President Obama’s so-called Af-Pak policy, which called upon the Pakistan Army to take more aggressive action against Taliban enclaves inside Pakistan. I was told that the understandings on nuclear cooperation benefited from the increasingly close relationship between Admiral Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and General Kayani, his counterpart, although the C.I.A. and the Departments of Defense, State, and Energy have also been involved. (All three departments declined to comment for this article. The national-security council and the C.I.A. denied that there were any agreements in place.)

One can ask the question that if the secrecy surrounding the understanding was important then why and who leaked it intentionally to Mr. Seymour Hersh ensuring that it will be no longer a secret.