1893-1976
Eastern Europe
(372) documents
South Asia
North America
-
East Asia
Western Europe
1911- 2004
July 30, 1987
Only a few weeks after Pervez’s arrest, Under Secretary of State Armacost traveled to Pakistan for wide ranging discussions with General Zia, but with a special focus on nuclear procurement and the uranium enrichment program.
August 5, 1987
Zia argued that Washington was trying to “get one Pakistani in order to hang the entire government.”
August 3, 1987
Armacost reported to Secretary Shultz, “I emphasized the need for immediate practical steps to demonstrate to an aroused Congress and a skeptical administration that no further illegal procurement activities would take place and that we had verifiable assurances there would be no further enrichment of weapons-grade uranium.”
July 28, 1987
This telegram included information that US embassies were to share with foreign governments to help them tighten up their export controls of steel tubes.
July 26, 1987
These are the State Department’s talking points for use with Congress. While ACDA officials were fairly certain that a violation of the Solarz amendment had occurred, the State Department did not want to assume anything until it had reviewed the evidence.
The indictment against Pervez and Ul-Haq included charges of conspiracy, bribery, racketeering, export violations, and false statements.
July 24, 1987
A hearing by the House subcommittee on International Economic Policy and Trade on 22 July 1987 made it clear why administration officials worried about the implications of the Pervez case. With Congressman Solarz arguing that the arrest involved “a flagrant and provocative challenge to US nonproliferation objectives.”
July 23, 1983
This memorandum by a senior NSC staffer took the Pervez case seriously as a threat to aid to Pakistan that Islamabad needed to avert by making “reliable assurances on enrichment and on illegal procurement activities.”
July 23, 1987
With Pakistan already violating the “red line” on uranium enrichment, Adelman believed that without a display of resolve “presidential credibility” would be further damaged; that required cutting off aid under the Solarz amendment.
July 20, 1987
The Pervez case immediately raised questions among State Department lawyers about the relevance of the Solarz amendment. A final answer depended on more evidence; the lawyers wanted to see the many documents that Canadian authorities had impounded as well as the tape recordings of Pervez’s conversations with U.S. undercover agents.
