Pakistan And India Prepare For War (Daniel 8)

Pakistan Buying Huge Amounts Of Chinese Arms

By Brendan Byrne on February 22, 2016 2:22 pm in Politics

China is now the third largest exporter of arms in the world, with Pakistan its biggest customer, and Saudi Arabia is leading the militarization of the Middle East.

Pakistan is the largest buyer of Chinese weapons, but European nations have dramatically reduced arms purchases in recent years, writes Richard Norton-Taylor for The Guardian.

According to a new report from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Communist China has almost doubled arms exports in the last decade. Beijing has the world’s largest armed forces and now has the capability of producing advanced weapons rather than depending on imports.

China has a 5.9% share of the global arms market, which is significantly less than the U.S. and Russia. However Beijing is making strides, and Pakistan is taking advantage.

“Pakistan was the main recipient of Chinese exports, accounting for 35%, followed by Bangladesh and Myanmar, accounting for 20% and 16% respectively (all three states are neighbors of India, the leading importer of arms in the region),” the report said.

India leads global arms import race

Beijing and Islamabad describe themselves as “all-weather friends,” as testament to their close relationship. Reports claim that China provided help in setting up Pakistan’s nuclear and ballistic missile systems in addition to conventional weapons.

According to SIPRI, India was the largest importer of arms from 2011-2015. “In 2011-15 India’s imports were three times greater than those of either of its regional rivals: China and Pakistan,” it said.

India has struggled to develop its domestic arms industry, whereas China continues to surge ahead. As a result Chinese arms imports fell by 25% 2011-15 compared to 2006-10.

“However, China remains partly dependent on imports for some key weapons and components, including large transport aircraft and helicopters, and engines for aircraft, vehicles and ships,” continued the report.

Beijing bought air defense systems and 24 combat jets from Russia in 2015. However further investment in the domestic arms industry could see Chinese imports reduce even further.

Saudi Arabia leads militarization of the Middle East

The five biggest weapons exporters from 2011-15 were the US, Russia, China, France and Germany, which made up 74% of total exports. The U.S. and Russia dominate the market with 58% of total exports.

“The five biggest importers in 2011-15 were India, Saudi Arabia, China, the UAE and Australia. Together, they received 34% of all arms imports,” the report added.

Over the past five years Saudi Arabia has bought 275% more arms than from 2006-10. The development is part of a wider trend in the Middle East, where arms imports rose by 61%.

British firms sold more arms to Saudi Arabia than any other country, but Riyadh bought more arms from the United States than any other exporter. The weapons are implicated in the controversial bombing campaign in Yemen.

“A coalition of Arab states is putting mainly US- and European-sourced advanced arms into use in Yemen,” said Pieter Wezeman, senior researcher with SIPRI. “Despite low oil prices, large deliveries of arms to the Middle East are scheduled to continue as part of contracts signed in the past five years.”

More than 100 new export licenses have been approved for British arms, even since the coalition started bombing Yemen around 12 months ago.

Another big arms importer is Vietnam, which has been importing mainly Russian weapons in the face of increased tensions in the South China Sea. Arms supplies to the country have shot up by 699% in five years.

Saudi Ambassador Condemns Antichrist (Daniel 7)

Saudi ambassador’s comments on Popular Mobilization Units stir ire of Iraqis

The Saudi ambassador to Baghdad, Thamer Sabhan, who was appointed to this position by Saudi Arabia on June 2, 2015, has become the most infamous ambassador in Baghdad. Iraqis have been talking extensively about him in the past few weeks because of his statements about the Popular Mobilization Units. The State of Law Coalition considered these statements to be “a threat to civil peace,” while another Sunni bloc, the Alliance of Iraqi Forces, described Sabhan’s remarks as “very natural.”
On Jan. 23, Sabhan appeared in his first television interview with Al-Sumariya since he took office on Dec. 31, 2015. However, his statements sparked a wave of condemnation on both the popular and political levels in Iraq, prompting some political blocs to demand his expulsion from the country.
Sabhan said during the interview, “The refusal by the Kurds and [the Sunni province of] Anbar to let the Popular Mobilization Units come to their regions shows that these units are not accepted by Iraqi society.”
He also addressed a question to the Iraqi government, saying, “Would you accept the presence of forces that are as [much] armed as the Popular Mobilization Units in Shiite areas? And why are the Popular Mobilization Units the only ones being armed?”
The Saudi ambassador accused Iran of “blatantly interfering in the Iraqi internal affairs and of forming armed militias,” while stressing the need to “reach a radical solution to [eliminate] the environment that contributed to the emergence of the Islamic State (IS) and terrorism.”
He added, “The groups behind the attacks in Muqdadiyah are no different than IS, which begs the question: Where do the Popular Mobilization Units stand with regard to the Muqdadiyah incidents?”
Regarding the call of Bahraini Foreign Minister Khalid bin Ahmed Al Khalifa for the dissolution of the Popular Mobilization Units, Sabhan asserted that “whoever listens to Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani’s Friday sermons and Muqtada al-Sadr’s statements can feel the threat that Shiite religious authorities pose.”
The Iraqi division on the reopening of the Saudi Embassy in Baghdad — after Saudi Arabia had cut its diplomatic ties with Iraq following the invasion of Kuwait in 1990 — had been present for a while. Before the Saudi ambassador took office, some political parties had certain reservations, while others welcomed him.
However, the ambassador’s statements provided new material for the internal political conflict, which called for an intervention by the Iraqi Foreign Ministry. The ministry’s official spokesman, Ahmad Jamal, said in a press release on the ministry’s website Jan. 24 that the Saudi ambassador to Baghdad had been summoned the day following his statements.
“Ambassador Sabhan criticized the Popular Mobilization Units that are fighting terrorism and defending the country’s sovereignty, while operating under the umbrella of the [Iraqi] state and under the leadership of the commander in chief of the armed forces. The Popular Mobilization Units also have a parliamentary representation that makes them part of the [Iraqi] political system. In addition, [Sabhan] expressed his opinion to the media about the political position of some of the Iraqis. This is not his role as an ambassador to say such things, and this is an unacceptable violation of diplomatic norms,” the press release read.
The Iraqi Foreign Ministry issued another statement on the same day, after Iraqi Foreign Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari met with his Saudi counterpart, Adel al-Jubeir, during which the latter said, “These statements — in reference to Sabhan’s — do not reflect the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s official position toward Iraq.”
The Saudi ambassador’s statements also stirred mixed reactions from Iraq’s political parties: The Union of National Forces, led by former parliament Speaker Osama al-Nujaifi, criticized the Iraqi Foreign Ministry’s response to Sabhan’s statements and described it as “inconsistent.”
Meanwhile, Khalid al-Asadi, member of parliament for the State of Law Coalition headed by former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, expressed his discontent with Sabhan’s statements and told Al-Monitor, “Sabhan violated the diplomatic norms and his functions that he should not overstep; he interfered in Iraqi affairs and spoke about the Popular Mobilization Units, which are fighting terrorist organizations that major countries failed to fight despite all their money and armies.”
He added, “Iraq is going through difficult circumstances that require everyone’s support, instead of attempting to divide [the state’s] ranks and undermine its victories against terrorism. This is why we cannot accept Sabhan’s statements, nor do we accept those who repeat them, because they do not serve the interest of either country; next time we will not remain silent, and we will do more than just hand him a written objection.”
After the wave of denunciations against his statements, Sabhan said on Jan. 25 that his comments were altered, and he did not mean to interfere in the internal affairs of any state. Saudi Arabia does not accept any armed group outside the legitimacy of the state, whether it was Sunni or Shiite.
He had said during the same interview with Al-Sumariya TV, “I felt anger coming from all the Sunni politicians that I met in Iraq against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. They told me, ‘You left us to face our fate all by ourselves.’”
Sabhan wondered “why there is so much anger on the part of Sunnis against us, while Saudi Arabia is getting involved in Iraq’s internal affairs, knowing that the kingdom does not support a party at the expense of another and always stands by governments, not people or sects. The custodian of the Two Holy Mosques told me in a meeting to look at Iraq and Iraqis with one eye, one heart and one mind, as Iraq needs the help of its brethren. But at the same time the solution should be an internal Iraqi one only.”
Likaa Wardi, a member of parliament for the Union of Nationalist Forces, told Al-Monitor, “Each [political] bloc read the statements made by the Saudi ambassador according to their own policies. Some objected [to] them as the statements contradicted their policies, while others believed they were ordinary statements according to their reading of the situation in Iraq.”
She added, “Iraq and Saudi Arabia need their officials to make statements that serve as a new starting point for [building good] relations between them; they want to avoid any political crisis, and we — as the Union of Nationalist Forces — welcome a positive relationship between Iraq and Saudi Arabia.”
During the opening of the conference for the Union of Islamic Parliaments in Baghdad Jan. 24, Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi alluded to Sabhan’s statements, saying, “We welcome all guests in Iraq, and everyone should respect Iraq’s sovereignty and no one should incite to murder.”
In an interview with Al-Monitor, member of the Foreign Relations Committee in the Iraqi parliament Samira al-Moussawi said, “The Saudi ambassador to Baghdad is not qualified to head a diplomatic delegation as he works in the security field, and his statements showed a clear interference in Iraqi affairs.”
She added, “I expected the Iraqi Foreign Ministry to ask its Saudi counterpart to dismiss the ambassador it had recently appointed to Baghdad and replace him with a more diplomatic official who has a [clear] reading of the Iraqi situation. However, the ministry simply summoned [Sabhan] and handed him a written objection.”
Not only was the political class divided over Sabhan’s statements, but the Iraqi street was also divided, as some were even dismissive of his presence in Iraq. A campaign was launched by anonymous activists on social media demanding the expulsion of Sabhan from Baghdad after his controversial statement, in which he also said, “The Kurds and the residents of Anbar province do not accept the Popular Mobilization Units and rejected their entry to their provinces.”
Meanwhile, Mushreq Abbas, head of the Iraqi Media House, told Al-Monitor, “The Iraqi disagreement is not over the ambassador; it is a deep-rooted conflict about foreign relations and the management of the country’s affairs. Any conflict over a certain principle paves the way for any other disagreement, and we have not seen an Iraqi agreement over any issue for the past 10 years.”
He said, “Iraq has a problem with foreign relations, as it lacks an internal agreement on unifying the visions toward certain positions. When Iraqis [finally] find a mechanism to define the situation internally, then everyone will stand against any external [position] that violates the one they had agreed upon.”
The Union for Nationalist Forces exploited the media attack against Sabhan and its member of parliament, Wardi, saying Jan. 25 to those who criticize him, “We are surprised by the attack against the Saudi ambassador; where were you when provocative statements from Iranian officials were being made against Iraq?”
The conflict between those who support the opening of the Saudi Embassy in Baghdad and those who object it is expected to last, which will create a new political conflict in Iraq that could develop into disputes affecting the internal files over which an agreement has yet to be reached.

Why Saudi Arabia Is One Of Ten Nuclear Horns (Daniel 7:7)

Saudi nuclear weapons ‘on order’ from Pakistan

Saudi Arabia has invested in Pakistani nuclear weapons projects, and believes it could obtain atomic bombs at will, a variety of sources have told BBC Newsnight.

While the kingdom’s quest has often been set in the context of countering Iran’s atomic programme, it is now possible that the Saudis might be able to deploy such devices more quickly than the Islamic republic.

Earlier this year, a senior Nato decision maker told me that he had seen intelligence reporting that nuclear weapons made in Pakistan on behalf of Saudi Arabia are now sitting ready for delivery.
Last month Amos Yadlin, a former head of Israeli military intelligence, told a conference in Sweden that if Iran got the bomb, “the Saudis will not wait one month. They already paid for the bomb, they will go to Pakistan and bring what they need to bring.”

Since 2009, when King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia warned visiting US special envoy to the Middle East Dennis Ross that if Iran crossed the threshold, “we will get nuclear weapons”, the kingdom has sent the Americans numerous signals of its intentions.

Gary Samore, until March 2013 President Barack Obama’s counter-proliferation adviser, has told Newsnight:

 

 Gary Samore served as President Barack Obama’s WMD tsar

“I do think that the Saudis believe that they have some understanding with Pakistan that, in extremis, they would have claim to acquire nuclear weapons from Pakistan.”

 

“What did we think the Saudis were giving us all that money for? It wasn’t charity”

The story of Saudi Arabia’s project - including the acquisition of missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads over long ranges – goes back decades.

In the late 1980s they secretly bought dozens of CSS-2 ballistic missiles from China.

These rockets, considered by many experts too inaccurate for use as conventional weapons, were deployed 20 years ago.

This summer experts at defence publishers IHS Jane‘s reported the completion of a new Saudi CSS-2 base with missile launch rails aligned with Israel and Iran.

It has also been clear for many years that Saudi Arabia has given generous financial assistance to Pakistan’s defence sector, including, western experts allege, to its missile and nuclear labs.

Visits by the then Saudi defence minister Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz al Saud to the Pakistani nuclear research centre in 1999 and 2002 underlined the closeness of the defence relationship.

Saudi Missile Silo

 

Defence and security intelligence provider IHS Jane’s revealed the existence of Saudi Arabia’s third and undisclosed intermediate-range ballistic missile site, approximately 200 km southwest of Riyadh

In its quest for a strategic deterrent against India, Pakistan co-operated closely with China which sold them missiles and provided the design for a nuclear warhead.

The Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan was accused by western intelligence agencies of selling atomic know-how and uranium enrichment centrifuges to Libya and North Korea.

AQ Khan is also believed to have passed the Chinese nuclear weapon design to those countries. This blueprint was for a device engineered to fit on the CSS-2 missile, i.e the same type sold to Saudi Arabia.

Because of this circumstantial evidence, allegations of a Saudi-Pakistani nuclear deal started to circulate even in the 1990s, but were denied by Saudi officials.

They noted that their country had signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and called for a nuclear-free Middle East, pointing to Israel’s possession of such weapons.

The fact that handing over atom bombs to a foreign government could create huge political difficulties for Pakistan, not least with the World Bank and other donors, added to scepticism about those early claims.

 

“The Saudis speak about Iran and nuclear matters very seriously. They don’t bluff on this issue”, Simon Henderson Director of Global Gulf and Energy Policy Program, Washington Institute

In Eating the Grass, his semi-official history of the Pakistani nuclear program, Major General Feroz Hassan Khan wrote that Prince Sultan’s visits to Pakistan’s atomic labs were not proof of an agreement between the two countries. But he acknowledged, “Saudi Arabia provided generous financial support to Pakistan that enabled the nuclear program to continue.”

Whatever understandings did or did not exist between the two countries in the 1990s, it was around 2003 that the kingdom started serious strategic thinking about its changing security environment and the prospect of nuclear proliferation.

A paper leaked that year by senior Saudi officials mapped out three possible responses – to acquire their own nuclear weapons, to enter into an arrangement with another nuclear power to protect the kingdom, or to rely on the establishment of a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East.

It was around the same time, following the US invasion of Iraq, that serious strains in the US/Saudi relationship began to show themselves, says Gary Samore.

The Saudis resented the removal of Saddam Hussein, had long been unhappy about US policy on Israel, and were growing increasingly concerned about the Iranian nuclear program.

In the years that followed, diplomatic chatter about Saudi-Pakistani nuclear cooperation began to increase.

In 2007, the US mission in Riyadh noted they were being asked questions by Pakistani diplomats about US knowledge of “Saudi-Pakistani nuclear cooperation”.

The unnamed Pakistanis opined that “it is logical for the Saudis to step in as the physical ‘protector’” of the Arab world by seeking nuclear weapons, according to one of the State Department cables posted by Wikileaks.

By the end of that decade Saudi princes and officials were giving explicit warnings of their intention to acquire nuclear weapons if Iran did.

Having warned the Americans in private for years, last year Saudi officials in Riyadh escalated it to a public warning, telling a journalist from the Times “it would be completely unacceptable to have Iran with a nuclear capability and not the kingdom”.

But were these statements bluster, aimed at forcing a stronger US line on Iran, or were they evidence of a deliberate, long-term plan for a Saudi bomb? Both, is the answer I have received from former key officials.

One senior Pakistani, speaking on background terms, confirmed the broad nature of the deal – probably unwritten – his country had reached with the kingdom and asked rhetorically “what did we think the Saudis were giving us all that money for? It wasn’t charity.”

Another, a one-time intelligence officer from the same country, said he believed “the Pakistanis certainly maintain a certain number of warheads on the basis that if the Saudis were to ask for them at any given time they would immediately be transferred.”

As for the seriousness of the Saudi threat to make good on the deal, Simon Henderson, Director of the Global Gulf and Energy Policy Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told BBC Newsnight “the Saudis speak about Iran and nuclear matters very seriously. They don’t bluff on this issue.”

Talking to many serving and former officials about this over the past few months, the only real debate I have found is about how exactly the Saudi Arabians would redeem the bargain with Pakistan.

Some think it is a cash-and-carry deal for warheads, the first of those options sketched out by the Saudis back in 2003; others that it is the second, an arrangement under which Pakistani nuclear forces could be deployed in the kingdom.

Gary Samore, considering these questions at the centre of the US intelligence and policy web, at the White House until earlier this year, thinks that what he calls, “the Nato model”, is more likely.

However ,”I think just giving Saudi Arabia a handful of nuclear weapons would be a very provocative action”, says Gary Samore.

He adds: “I’ve always thought it was much more likely – the most likely option if Pakistan were to honour any agreement would be for be for Pakistan to send its own forces, its own troops armed with nuclear weapons and with delivery systems to be deployed in Saudi Arabia”.

This would give a big political advantage to Pakistan since it would allow them to deny that they had simply handed over the weapons, but implies a dual key system in which they would need to agree in order for ‘Saudi Arabian’ “nukes” to be launched.

Others I have spoken to think this is not credible, since Saudi Arabia, which regards itself as the leader of the broader Sunni Islamic ‘ummah’ or community, would want complete control of its nuclear deterrent, particularly at this time of worsening sectarian confrontation with Shia Iran.

And it is Israeli information – that Saudi Arabia is now ready to take delivery of finished warheads for its long-range missiles - that informs some recent US and Nato intelligence reporting. Israel of course shares Saudi Arabia’s motive in wanting to worry the US into containing Iran.

Amos Yadlin declined to be interviewed for our BBC Newsnight report, but told me by email that “unlike other potential regional threats, the Saudi one is very credible and imminent.”

Even if this view is accurate there are many good reasons for Saudi Arabia to leave its nuclear warheads in Pakistan for the time being.

Doing so allows the kingdom to deny there are any on its soil. It avoids challenging Iran to cross the nuclear threshold in response, and it insulates Pakistan from the international opprobrium of being seen to operate an atomic cash-and-carry.

These assumptions though may not be safe for much longer. The US diplomatic thaw with Iran has touched deep insecurities in Riyadh, which fears that any deal to constrain the Islamic republic’s nuclear program would be ineffective.

Earlier this month the Saudi intelligence chief and former ambassador to Washington Prince Bandar announced that the kingdom would be distancing itself more from the US.

While investigating this, I have heard rumours on the diplomatic grapevine, that Pakistan has recently actually delivered Shaheen mobile ballistic missiles to Saudi Arabia, minus warheads.

These reports, still unconfirmed, would suggest an ability to deploy nuclear weapons in the kingdom, and mount them on an effective, modern, missile system more quickly than some analysts had previously imagined.

In Egypt, Saudi Arabia showed itself ready to step in with large-scale backing following the military overthrow of President Mohammed Morsi’s government.

There is a message here for Pakistan, of Riyadh being ready to replace US military assistance or World Bank loans, if standing with Saudi Arabia causes a country to lose them.

Newsnight contacted both the Pakistani and Saudi governments. The Pakistan Foreign Ministry has described our story as “speculative, mischievous and baseless”.

It adds: “Pakistan is a responsible nuclear weapon state with robust command and control structures and comprehensive export controls.”

The Saudi embassy in London has also issued a statement pointing out that the Kingdom is a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and has worked for a nuclear free Middle East.

But it also points out that the UN’s “failure to make the Middle East a nuclear free zone is one of the reasons the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia rejected the offer of a seat on the UN Security Council”.

It says the Saudi Foreign Minister has stressed that this lack of international action “has put the region under the threat of a time bomb that cannot easily be defused by manoeuvring around it”.