The Pervez case puts Pakistan’s nuclear procurement on trial

Background

The Solarz Amendment, named after Representative Stephen Solarz, required US aid to be cut off if a recipient government or its agents illegally tried to procure from the United States material that could be used in a nuclear-weapons programme¹. Together with the Pressler Amendment, it formed part of the legal framework Congress had built around aid to Pakistan.

What happened

In July 1987 Arshad Pervez, a Pakistani-born Canadian businessman, was arrested in the United States on charges of illegal nuclear procurement^1,2. Prosecutors said he had sought to buy high-strength maraging steel, a material particularly suited to gas-centrifuge enrichment, and beryllium, and had tried to bribe a customs official to obtain an export licence¹. The case was publicised as Congress was considering the follow-on assistance package for Pakistan⁴.

The arrest sharpened divisions within the Reagan administration. Kenneth Adelman, director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, wanted the Solarz Amendment applied; the White House refused to cut aid, judging that the war in Afghanistan outweighed nonproliferation concerns¹. Pervez was convicted, and in January 1988 the administration formally invoked the Solarz Amendment and then waived it on national-security grounds^1,2.

Perspectives

In Washington the episode was cited by critics as evidence that the administration was ignoring Pakistan’s nuclear activities. Documents released later showed how much US officials knew about Pakistan’s programme from 1987 onwards³. Pakistani officials denied that the government was involved in Pervez’s activities, and maintained that their nuclear programme was peaceful².

Why it mattered

The Pervez case foreshadowed the end of the bargain. It made clear that Pakistan’s programme was advancing and that the executive branch would not let nuclear law disrupt the Afghan war. Once Soviet troops had left, the political cover for such waivers disappeared.